DOI Heft:
March 16, 1861
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16867#0118
110
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
[March 16, 1861.
CLERICAL REFORM AND ECONOMY.
In an article recommending an increase of the English Episcopate, a
contemporary asks :—•
“ Whether it is desirable to improve the tone and powers as well as increase the
numbers of these working clergy?”
As there exists a society for providing the clerical poor with cast-off
clothes, the labour-market of the Church must, one would think, be
rather overstocked. Apparently there is a sad want of employment for
Curates, who might chant, “We’ve got no work to do;” and the fat
pluralisms might re-echo the burden of their song by way of antiphon,
in a major key. It seems hardly, therefore, desirable to increase the
numbers of the Working Clergy, unless by setting idle Deans and
Cathedral Canons to work.
The powers of the Working Clergy might be advantageously increased
by the supply of the necessitous portion of them with sufficient food
and drink, which could perhaps be derived from the larders and cellars
of those round and reverend gentlemen who hold what Sidney Smith
used to call the prizes of the Church—a sort of prize which the
aspirant to a shovel hat, of course, regards as the prize of his high
calling.
The tone of too many of the Working Clergy, in preaching and
reading, is so objectionable that its improvement is very much to be
desired indeed. It is not to be distinguished from that of the lower
order of Methodist parsons—a melancholy mouthing and moaning,
aggravated sometimes by a snuffle. If this tone could be exchanged
for the natural and unaffected accents of serious thought and earnest
argument, therein would be effected a great ecclesiastical reform.
In the following remarks, from the same pen as the foregoing, an
undeniable truth is stated:—
“The question of funds is no doubt difficult. But it is not necessary that the new
bishops should have £5,000 a year until they are called to the House of Lords. Half
that income would amply suffice as long as the bishop was out of Parliament.”
It is certainly by no means necessary that a simple bishop should
have £5000 a year. There is much doubt whether the primitive bishops
had so much in the world.—that is. this world: their wealth being
supposed to have been chiefly invested in the other. A bishop not 1
obliged to maintain the dignity of a peerage, could, doubtless, very j
well contrive to rough it on £2500 a year. Enjoying such an income,
indeed, a prelate of moderate hunger, thirst, and other wants, might j
be very well imagined to be a jolly bishop. Half of that sum, as the c
stipend of a bishopric, would perhaps be sufficient to make many a !
poor and meritorious clergyman, with his wife and family, happy.
EINE OLD GIRLS.
The moralising wet blankets who try to make young persons of both
sexes uncomfortable by continual lamentation on the fugitive character
of feminine charms, will find a refutation of their melancholy philosophy
in the subjoined extract from the “Eashions for March” in LeFollet:—
“ Velvet, though very effective, is only deemed suitable for elderly ladies.”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating; the proof of the velvet
must lie in the wearing. As velvet is only deemed suitable for
elderly ladies, the presumption is, that velvet, is worn by elderly
ladies only. Then the appearance which elderly ladies present in
velvet is the only proof of its effectiveness. But velvet is very <
effective. Here, then, are elderly ladies wearing dresses which \
are very effective, notwithstanding the wearers’ time of life. Effec-
tive, in the serious language of milliners, means having the power
of attracting admiration, and not that of exciting mirth. We are
to understand that elderly ladies in velvet create the same sort of
sensation as that which their juniors dress with a view to creating.
In short, according to the Follet, elderly ladies in velvet look pretty, or
at least handsome. This consideration may encourage the younger
portion of the softer sex to dismiss all unpleasant suggestions as to the
ravages of time, and indulge the pleasing confidence that Loveliness,
in future, will outgrow muslin only to bloom perennially in velvet.
Which of our servants is most likely to steal the eggs?—The
cook, who (cuckoo) is notorious for that sDecies of larcenv !
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
[March 16, 1861.
CLERICAL REFORM AND ECONOMY.
In an article recommending an increase of the English Episcopate, a
contemporary asks :—•
“ Whether it is desirable to improve the tone and powers as well as increase the
numbers of these working clergy?”
As there exists a society for providing the clerical poor with cast-off
clothes, the labour-market of the Church must, one would think, be
rather overstocked. Apparently there is a sad want of employment for
Curates, who might chant, “We’ve got no work to do;” and the fat
pluralisms might re-echo the burden of their song by way of antiphon,
in a major key. It seems hardly, therefore, desirable to increase the
numbers of the Working Clergy, unless by setting idle Deans and
Cathedral Canons to work.
The powers of the Working Clergy might be advantageously increased
by the supply of the necessitous portion of them with sufficient food
and drink, which could perhaps be derived from the larders and cellars
of those round and reverend gentlemen who hold what Sidney Smith
used to call the prizes of the Church—a sort of prize which the
aspirant to a shovel hat, of course, regards as the prize of his high
calling.
The tone of too many of the Working Clergy, in preaching and
reading, is so objectionable that its improvement is very much to be
desired indeed. It is not to be distinguished from that of the lower
order of Methodist parsons—a melancholy mouthing and moaning,
aggravated sometimes by a snuffle. If this tone could be exchanged
for the natural and unaffected accents of serious thought and earnest
argument, therein would be effected a great ecclesiastical reform.
In the following remarks, from the same pen as the foregoing, an
undeniable truth is stated:—
“The question of funds is no doubt difficult. But it is not necessary that the new
bishops should have £5,000 a year until they are called to the House of Lords. Half
that income would amply suffice as long as the bishop was out of Parliament.”
It is certainly by no means necessary that a simple bishop should
have £5000 a year. There is much doubt whether the primitive bishops
had so much in the world.—that is. this world: their wealth being
supposed to have been chiefly invested in the other. A bishop not 1
obliged to maintain the dignity of a peerage, could, doubtless, very j
well contrive to rough it on £2500 a year. Enjoying such an income,
indeed, a prelate of moderate hunger, thirst, and other wants, might j
be very well imagined to be a jolly bishop. Half of that sum, as the c
stipend of a bishopric, would perhaps be sufficient to make many a !
poor and meritorious clergyman, with his wife and family, happy.
EINE OLD GIRLS.
The moralising wet blankets who try to make young persons of both
sexes uncomfortable by continual lamentation on the fugitive character
of feminine charms, will find a refutation of their melancholy philosophy
in the subjoined extract from the “Eashions for March” in LeFollet:—
“ Velvet, though very effective, is only deemed suitable for elderly ladies.”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating; the proof of the velvet
must lie in the wearing. As velvet is only deemed suitable for
elderly ladies, the presumption is, that velvet, is worn by elderly
ladies only. Then the appearance which elderly ladies present in
velvet is the only proof of its effectiveness. But velvet is very <
effective. Here, then, are elderly ladies wearing dresses which \
are very effective, notwithstanding the wearers’ time of life. Effec-
tive, in the serious language of milliners, means having the power
of attracting admiration, and not that of exciting mirth. We are
to understand that elderly ladies in velvet create the same sort of
sensation as that which their juniors dress with a view to creating.
In short, according to the Follet, elderly ladies in velvet look pretty, or
at least handsome. This consideration may encourage the younger
portion of the softer sex to dismiss all unpleasant suggestions as to the
ravages of time, and indulge the pleasing confidence that Loveliness,
in future, will outgrow muslin only to bloom perennially in velvet.
Which of our servants is most likely to steal the eggs?—The
cook, who (cuckoo) is notorious for that sDecies of larcenv !