he
"Times,"' was Doyle's answer, 'but not in _Punch_. For the "Times" is a
monarchy [I believe, these were his very words], whereas _Punch_ is a
republic.' So when a week or so later an article, attributed to Jerrold
himself, jeeringly advised the Pope to 'feed his flock on the wafer of
the Vatican,' it was too much for Doyle.... So he wrote to resign his
connection with _Punch_, stating his reasons plainly and simply."

But when Doyle resigned, for reasons which earned him the respect of all
who heard of them, it was not realised how strong was the undercurrent
of feeling within the _Punch_ office. It is true that at the bottom of
what I may call the "_Punch_ Aggression" were Jerrold and the
Proprietors; and that the onslaught of the one, with the encouragement
of the others, so profoundly wounded Doyle as to force him into
sacrificing lucrative employment, and condemning him in the result to a
life of toil. But for once in his career Doyle was guilty of behaviour
which, if not inexcusable in the circumstances, was certainly
indefensible. He left the paper in the lurch. His letter of resignation
was sent in on November 27th, he having allowed the Editor to think that
the blocks for the Almanac, already overdue, had all been completed; and
when it was discovered that they had not been done, and that nothing
was forthcoming, consternation reigned in the office. No doubt the
revenge was sweet, but it was ill-judged; for while no Catholic member
of the Staff has ever raised his voice in its justification, Doyle's
conduct served but to increase the bitterness of the anti-Catholic
feeling in _Punch's_ Cabinet, and perhaps to produce attacks more
intemperate than any that had gone before. And, moreover, it rendered
more difficult the position of others of the same faith who became
members of the Staff.

So Doyle quitted the paper at the close of 1850, yet his hand was seen
in its pages in 1857, 1862 (four cuts), and 1864. This was a question of
"old stock"--a matter which often crops up in _Punch_: it is not a
unique circumstance to see a sketch appear many years after it was
drawn, and even when the hand that has drawn it has turned to dust. In
1883 there appeared a cut by Mr. Sambourne which was made fifteen years
before; and in 1894 there was published a sketch by R. B. Wallace (of
the late Lord Beaconsfield) a year after the artist died and fourteen
years after he had ceased to draw for the paper.

But when Doyle left