Skip to main content

Full text of "The dawn of the Catholic revival in England, 1781-1803;"

See other formats 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL 
IN  ENGLAND,   1781-1803 


UNIFORM    WITH   THESE  VOLUMES. 

THE   LIFE   AND   TIMES   OF 

BISHOP   CHALLONER 

(1691-1781). 

BY 

EDWIN  H.  BURTON,  D.D.,  F.R.Hist.S., 

VICE  PRESIDENT   OF   ST.    EDMUND'S   COLLEGE. 

IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 
(/«  the  Press.) 


(.Aiy/il   . (  Arc.  h/n //■/<.>'({  <ilmc.s/,u 
@$i*hop  af9teuna 

c(  ""/--    //><<■;/<■/,,  ,,/  ill, ■'<(  ,■.,!,, -,,  < I  i.Un.t  rj6A  ~'7<)1 

■  n-om  ,1  pointing  a  I  J  ulii\>rlh  (StUytle. 


THE   DAWN   OF 
THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL 

IN   ENGLAND 

1781-1803 


BERNARD   WARD,   F.R.HIST.S. 

PRESIDENT  OF  ST.    EDMUNDS   COLLEGE 


IN   TWO   VOLUMES 
Vol.  I. 


LONGMANS,    GREEN,    AND    CO. 

39  PATERNOSTER  ROW,  LONDON 

NEW  YORK,  BOMBAY,  AND  CALCUTTA 

1909 


TUbtl  ©bstat. 

F.  Thomas  Bergh,  O.S.B., 

Censor  Deputatus^ 

imprimatur. 

•J*    GULIELMUS    ARINDELENSIS, 

Vicarius  Generalise 


Westmonasterii,  die  15  Januarii,  1909. 


V,  I 


TO 

THE  MEMBERS,  PAST  AND  PRESENT,  OF  OUR  OLD 
ENGLISH  CATHOLIC  FAMILIES, 

WHOSE   CONSTANCY    IN    PENAL    TIMES    MADE    A   CATHOLIC    REVIVAL 

POSSIBLE, 

WHOSE    LIVES    WERE   CONSPICUOUS    FOR   THEIR    SINGLE-MINDED 

UNWORLDLINESS, 

THEIR    ZEAL    FOR    RELIGION,    THEIR    UNBOUNDED    CHARITY, 

WHOSE  LOYAL  REVERENCE  FOR  THEIR  CLERGY  AND  BISHOPS  SURVIVED 

THE    HEAT   AND   TURMOIL    OF   AN   ANXIOUS    CRISIS 

THIS  BOOK,  AS  A  SLENDER  TRIBUTE  FROM  ONE  WHO  HAS  MADE  CLOSE 

STUDY    OF   THEIR    LIVES, 

IS    RESPECTFULLY    DEDICATED. 


20681 88 


PREFACE. 

In  Newman's  sermon  on  "the  Second  Spring"  there  is 
a  well-known  passage  in  which  he  depicts  what  he  con- 
ceives would  have  been  Bishop  Milner's  emotions  had 
he  seen  in  vision  the  solemn  inauguration  of  the  first 
Synod  of  the  restored  Hierarchy  held  in  the  year  1852. 
A  similar  contrast  is  alluded  to  by  Charles  Butler,  the 
celebrated  lawyer,  who  was  Milner's  contemporary,  be- 
tween the  time  when  he  was  writing  and  the  days  of  his 
youth,  half  a  century  earlier.  In  the  Catholic  Spectator 
for  1824  he  says,1  "the  writer  can  in  his  turn  affirm  to 
the  youth  of  the  present  day  that  they  can  form  no  idea 
of  the  state  of  depression  of  the  English  Catholics  at  the 
time  of  the  accession  of  George  III.,  and  during  the  ten 
years  which  followed  it ".  Milner  did  not,  indeed,  live 
even  to  see  Catholic  Emancipation,  but  during  his  epis- 
copate Mass  was  openly  celebrated,  Catholic  "chapels" 
had  been  set  up  in  many  of  the  chief  towns,  Catholic 
schools  and  colleges  had  been  established  in  England, 
and  communities  of  monks  and  nuns  were  wearing  the 
habits  of  their  respective  orders,  and  keeping  their  rule 
in  its  entirety  :  the  very  idea  of  which  fifty  years  before 
would  have  appeared  an  idle  dream. 

During  the  past  year  we,  in  our  turn,  have  witnessed 
in  London  a  Catholic  celebration  on  a  scale  as  much 
beyond  that  of  the  functions  of  the  Oscott  Synod  as 
these  were  beyond  that  of  the  unpretending  ceremonies 
of  Milner's  time  ;  or  again  as  those  were  beyond  the 
Masses  privately  celebrated  in  rooms  and  garrets  during 

^.315. 


viii  PREFACE. 

the  later  days  of  the  Penal  Laws.  At  the  High  Mass 
in  the  Westminster  Cathedral,  in  place  of  the  Cardinal 
Archbishop  and  twelve  Suffragans  described  by  New- 
man, we  saw  seven  Cardinals,  one  of  them  the  Legate 
of  the  Holy  Father  himself,  and  not  only  the  Bishops  of 
the  English  province,  but  some  seventy  or  eighty  others 
from  all  parts  alike  of  the  old  world  and  the  new,  a  great 
proportion  of  them  from  the  British  Colonies,  together 
with  Abbots,  Prelates  and  other  dignitaries  innumerable  ; 
and  the  whole  was  carried  out  in  presence  of  a  congre- 
gation that  filled  to  overflowing  a  Cathedral  the  vastness 
of  which  must  far  exceed  the  most  sanguine  hopes  which 
could  have  been  in  the  mind  of  Cardinal  Wiseman  at 
Oscott. 

There  is,  however,  this  essential  difference  between 
the  Synod  of  Oscott  and  the  recent  Eucharistic  Congress 
that  the  latter  did  not  mark  any  special  epoch  in  the 
history  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  England.  The  Con- 
gress came  together  as  a  matter  of  routine — for  it  meets 
somewhere  every  year— and  when  the  Archbishop  in- 
vited it  to  meet  in  London,  the  members  assembled  to 
hold  their  sessions  and  perform  their  religious  ceremonies 
in  London  as  in  other  years  they  performed  them  else- 
where. There  is  at  the  present  time  no  unusual  move- 
ment in  the  way  of  conversions  to  Catholicism  in  this 
country,  nor  anything  to  disturb  the  ordinary  serenity 
of  the  religious  atmosphere.  This  is  therefore  a  time 
favourable  for  the  calm  discussion  of  our  past  history. 
And  the  unfortunate  incident  which  marred  the  conclud- 
ing ceremony  of  the  Congress  naturally  directs  our  atten- 
tion towards  the  history  of  the  gradual  abolition  of  the 
Penal  Laws,  of  which  the  last  surviving  remnant  was 
then  called  into  operation.  The  present  volumes  are 
intended  as  a  small  contribution  to  such  history,  relating 
a  period  of  undoubted  importance,  but  one  which  has 
hitherto  never  received  the  full  treatment  which  it  de- 
serves. 


PREFACE.  IX 

The  selection  of  this  precise  period  may  perhaps  call 
for  a  word  of  explanation.  For  this  purpose  it  becomes 
necessary  to  premise  a  few  particulars.  The  Vice-Presi- 
dent of  this  College,  the  Rev.  Edwin  Burton,  D.D.,  has 
for  some  time  past  been  engaged  in  writing  a  life  of 
Bishop  Challoner.  Such  a  work  is  a  great  desideratum 
for  Catholic  literature.  The  debt  which  we  owe  to  the 
venerable  Bishop  can  hardly  be  overestimated,  and  the 
existing  biographies  of  him  are  wholly  inadequate. 
When  that  work,  already  in  the  press,  is  published,  it 
will  give  us  a  fairly  complete  picture  of  Catholic  life  in 
England  in  later  penal  times.  Again,  from  the  re-estab- 
lishment of  the  Hierarchy  in  1850,  and  indeed  for  some 
years  before  that,  records  are  abundant.  But  it  seems 
generally  recognised  that  the  times  of  the  later  Vicars 
Apostolic  are  shrouded  in  some  obscurity.  It  was  accord- 
ingly determined  to  begin  the  present  work  with  the  years 
which  followed  the  death  of  Bishop  Challoner  in  1781, 
and  to  continue  it  if  possible  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Hierarchy.  It  is  much  to  be  hoped  that  if  this  proves 
beyond  the  power  of  the  present  writer,  some  one  else 
may  be  found  to  complete  the  undertaking.  There  re- 
mains all  the  later  history  leading  up  to  Catholic  Eman- 
cipation, including  the  whole  of  what  is  known  as  the 
"Veto  Question,"  about  which  there  is  much  that  is  new 
awaiting  publication  ;  and  then  the  comparatively  quiet 
period  which  preceded  the  sudden  development  of  ac- 
tivity identified  with  the  Oxford  Movement,  and  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  Hierarchy. 

But  the  period  of  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  dealt 
with  in  the  present  volumes  may  be  considered  the  most 
important  of  all,  for  it  was  during  this  time  that  it  may 
fairly  be  said  that  the  tide  turned  ;  when  the  gradual 
shrinkage  of  the  Catholic  body  which  had  been  proceed- 
ing steadily  for  over  two  centuries  ceased,  and  a  future 
began  to  open  out  before  the  Catholics  of  England  in  a 
manner  to  which  their  forefathers  had  been  strangers. 


x  PREFACE. 

This  period  may  therefore  be  appropriately  called  the 
Dawn  of  that  Catholic  Revival  which  has  been  proceed- 
ing ever  since.  The  number  and  variety  of  influences 
at  work,  the  abolition  of  the  Penal  Laws,  the  influx  of 
the  French  Refugee  Clergy,  the  return  of  our  Colleges 
and  Convents  to  English  soil,  and  other  influences  as 
well,  combine  to  fill  it  with  instructive  historical  lessons. 
It  has  been  endeavoured  to  present  a  history  of  the  Eng- 
lish Catholic  body  in  general,  together  with  a  detailed 
account  of  their  development  in  London  and  the  home 
counties, — the  old  "  London  District,"  as  it  was  called. 
For  obvious  reasons  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  de- 
scribe the  Catholic  missions  throughout  the  country.  In 
many  cases  this  has  been  done  by  books  published 
locally  by  the  priests  of  the  missions  they  concern  :  in 
at  least  one  instance  a  whole  county  has  been  covered  in 
a  single  book.  The  work  of  the  Catholic  Record  Society 
has  in  many  cases  rendered  valuable  assistance  towards 
research  of  this  kind,  and  it  is  much  to  be  hoped  that 
histories  of  other  missions  or  districts  may  continue  to 
be  written. 

The  dearth  of  modern  books  relating  to  the  times  of 
the  Vicars  Apostolic  may  be  traced  to  various  causes. 
One  seems  to  have  been  that  the  enthusiasm  which 
accompanied  the  restoration  of  the  Hierarchy  tended  for 
a  time  to  overshadow  the  work  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic 
in  the  past.  The  fact  that  this  restoration  took  place 
soon  after  the  reception  of  so  many  Oxford  converts, 
caused  the  latter  themselves  to  look  upon  it  as  the  cul- 
mination of  their  hopes,  and  as  it  were  the  re-founding 
of  the  Church  in  England  after  a  period  of  stagnation,  or 
even  of  virtual  death.  Newman,  in  his  sermon  already 
alluded  to,  describes  the  Church  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic 
as  "  no  longer  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  country,  nay 
no  longer,  I  may  say,  a  Catholic  community,  but  a  few 
adherents  of  the  Old  Religion,"  and  he  speaks  of  the 
Oscott   Synod   as    "the    Resurrection  of  the  Church". 


PREFACE.  XI 

Cardinal  Manning  always  wrote  and  spoke  in  a  similar 
sense.  "After  three  hundred  years,"  he  writes,  "not 
of  suspended  animation  only,  but  of  organic  dissolution, 
the  Church  in  England  was  once  more  knit  together  in 
the  perfect  symmetry  of  its  Divine  structure.  At  once, 
as  if  by  a  resurrection,  all  its  vital  operations  resumed 
their  activity."1  Now,  however,  when  the  restoration 
of  the  Hierarchy  is  beginning  to  fade  into  the  twilight 
of  history,  we  have  ceased  to  be  so  dazzled  by  its  great- 
ness, and  are  becoming  qualified  to  estimate  it  in  its 
due  proportion.  Very  different,  therefore,  was  the  note 
sounded  by  the  Bishop  of  Clifton  in  his  sermon  on  the 
occasion  of  the  re-interment  of  Cardinal  Wiseman  in  the 
Cathedral  of  Westminster,  when  he  depicted  the  latter's 
achievement  as  the  legitimate  development  of  the  long 
labours  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic,  and  this  is  in  reality  a 
far  more  accurate  estimate.  Whether  Wiseman  be  called 
Bishop  of  Melipotamus,  or  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  Lon- 
don District,  or  Archbishop  of  Westminster,  each  of 
which  titles  he  successively  bore  during  his  residence  in 
London,  is  in  reality  hardly  more  than  a  technical  detail ; 
the  fact  that  an  Archbishop's  "Faculties"  are  "ordi- 
nary," while  those  of  a  Vicar  Apostolic  are  "delegated," 
is  probably  unknown  except  to  theologians.  The  im- 
portant matter  was  that  the  ecclesiastical  organisation 
should  keep  pace  with  the  needs  of  the  Church  in  the 
rapid  expansion  which  was  taking  place.  The  develop- 
ment of  organisation  had  always  been  proceeding.  The 
early  Vicars  Apostolic  were  the  guests  of  the  Catholic 
families,  and  their  powers  for  governing  the  Church 
were  limited.  As  time  went  on,  the  Penal  Laws  were 
allowed  gradually  to  lapse,  and  eventually  were  re- 
pealed, and  the  Bishops  began  by  degrees  to  take  their 
normal  position.  They  held  meetings  and  informal 
synods  for  regulating  the  affairs  of  the  mission,  based 
on  the  new  "  Regula  Missionis  "  drawn  up  by  Benedict 

1  Pastoral  Office,  p.  224. 


xn  PREFACE. 

XIV.  in  1753,  and  gradually  they  obtained  a  clergy  whom 
they  could  call  their  own.  There  had  been  originally  a 
single  Vicar  Apostolic  for  all  England.  In  the  reign  of 
James  II.  the  number  was  increased  to  two,  and  then  to 
four;  and  in  1840  it  was  doubled  again.  The  change 
in  1850  from  eight  Vicars  Apostolic  to  thirteen  Bishops 
with  regular  dioceses,  and  the  holding  of  Canonical 
Synods  in  place  of  Bishops'  meetings  was  a  step  forward 
in  this  general  development — an  important  step  indeed, 
but  still  only  a  step— and  it  came  as  a  crowning  achieve- 
ment on  long  centuries  of  labour. 

In  our  own  day  this  is  becoming  generally  recognised. 
The  striking  personalities  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic,  and 
their  steady  and  persevering  work  in  difficult  times  are 
becoming  better  known  and  more  appreciated.  Writing 
so  early  as  the  year  1788  Milner  remarks  of  the  two 
centuries  then  elapsed:  "The  writer  is  bold  to  say  that 
no  Christian  Kingdom  could  during  the  same  period 
boast  a  list  of  prelates  more  worthy  to  succeed  to  the 
chairs  of  the  Apostles  than  Bishops  Smith,  Bishop,  Gif- 
fard,  Petre  and  Challoner".  We  can  now  speak  in  a 
similar  strain  of  those  since  that  time — the  saintly  Bishop 
Talbot  and  his  successor,  Bishop  Douglass,  of  whom 
the  following  pages  testify  ;  the  later  Vicars  Apostolic, 
Bishops  Poynter,  Bramston,  Griffiths  and  Walsh  ;  and 
not  least,  we  may  mention  Milner  himself,  who  though 
never  Bishop  over  the  London  District,  nevertheless 
frequently  visited  the  metropolis,  and  exerted  influence 
on  Catholic  affairs,  not  only  in  his  quality  of  Vicar 
Apostolic,  but  also  more  importantly,  as  the  authorised 
agent  of  the  Bishops  of  Ireland. 

Returning  now  to  the  period  before  us,  it  may  be 
conjectured  that  another  reason  why  so  little  has  been 
written  on  it  was  the  reasonable  apprehension  of  re- 
kindling animosities  which  showed  themselves  so  unfor- 
tunately in  the  disputes  of  that  day  between  the  Bishops 
and  the  laity.     Charles  Butler  in  his  Historical  Memoirs 


PREFACE.  xiii  . 

of  English  Catholics  avowedly  passes  over  those  years 
as  lightly  as  may  be,  though  he  gives  the  story  of  them  a 
colouring  from  his  own  point  of  view.  Milner  answered 
with  his  Supplementary  Memoirs,  which  appeared  in 
1820;  and  he  also  wrote  a  book  a  quarter  of  a  century 
earlier  under  the  curious  title  of  Ecclesiastical  Democracy 
Detected,  and  many  other  smaller  works  and  pamphlets 
bearing  on  those  times.  In  all  of  these  he  uses  no  reti- 
cence, and  much  can  be  learnt  from  what  he  says.  His 
writings,  however,  are  really  not  history,  but  controversy, 
so  that  while  magnifying  the  prominence  of  disputes 
unduly,1  he  gives  only  a  one-sided  idea  of  the  times. 
However  much  that  side  may  command  our  sympathy, 
the  picture  is  necessarily  left  incomplete. 

There  are  practically  only  two  books  written  in  later 
times  dealing  with  this  period — Husenbeth's  Life  of 
Milner,  and  Amherst's  History  of  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion: both  are  written  from  Milner's  point  of  view. 
Husenbeth  passes  over  these  years  in  three  chapters 
out  of  thirty-four.  Father  Amherst's  account  is  more 
complete,  and  though  limited  to  the  political  aspect  of 
Catholic  history,  is  nevertheless  full  of  interest.  But  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  had  access  to  much  in  the  nature  of 
original  sources  :  his  matter  is  taken  almost  entirely  from 
the  printed  books  and  pamphlets  of  the  day.  Hence  he 
naturally  falls  into  errors,  sometimes  in  matters  of  im- 
portance, as  will  appear  in  the  sequel.  Now  that  the 
original  sources  are  available  in  such  abundance,  it  be- 
comes possible  to  test  the  often  opposite  conclusions 
come  to  by  Milner  and  Charles  Butler,  which  Father 
Amherst  in  his  preface2  confesses  that  he  often  finds 
difficulty  in  doing  ;  while  sufficient  time  has  passed  away 

1  Writing  in  1815,  Dr.  Poynter  laments  that  Dr.  Milner  in  his  writings  "un- 
ceasingly revives  ancient  and  dormant  disputes,"  and  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that 
the  tide  "  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters"  which  was  proposed  in  July,  1790,  and 
rejected  eight  months  later,  "  has  scarcely  existed  anywhere  since  that  date  except 
in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Milner  "  (Apologctical  Epistle,  §§  45  and  46). 

2  P.  ix. 


XIV  PREFACE. 

to  enable  us  to  view  the  whole  history  dispassionately, 
and  without  party  bias.  In  cases  where  controversy  of 
this  character  is  concerned,  so  far  as  possible  the  docu- 
ments have  been  given  in  full,  and  left  to  speak  for 
themselves — a  course  which  seemed  advisable,  even  at 
the  expense  of  rendering  some  of  the  chapters  somewhat 
heavy  reading. 

Some  apology,  or  at  least  some  explanation,  must 
be  offered  for  attempting  so  considerable  a  work  in  the 
midst  of  pressing  occupations  such  as  are  inseparable 
from  the  position  of  President  over  a  large  College. 
A  partial  explanation  is  that  the  Bishop  of  Clifton  was 
kind  enough  to  urge  me  to  undertake  it.  He  had 
recently  discovered,  on  his  appointment  to  his  See,  that 
he  was  the  possessor  of  an  invaluable  collection  of  let- 
ters, papers  and  other  Archives,  bound  in  twenty-nine 
large  volumes,  formerly  the  property  of  the  Vicars  of  the 
"  Western  District,"  now  that  of  the  Bishops  of  Clifton  ; 
and  he  was  most  anxious  that  some  use  should  be  made  of 
so  unique  a  collection.  In  like  manner  also  the  Archbishop 
gave  me  every  encouragement  to  use  the  Westminster 
Archives,  which  are  of  course  those  of  the  former 
"  London  District ".  These  papers  were  arranged  a 
good  many  years  ago  by  the  Fathers  of  the  London 
Oratory  ;  they  are  now  kept  at  Archbishop's  House. 
Though  less  homogeneous  than  the  Clifton  Archives, 
they  are  nevertheless  a  most  valuable  collection. 
Similar  facilities  were  also  afforded  me  by  the  Bishop 
of  Hexham  and  Newcastle,  President  of  Ushaw,  and  by 
the  Bishop  of  Birmingham,  who  possess  the  Archives  of 
the  old  Northern  and  Midland  Districts  respectively  ; 
by  the  Rector  of  Oscott ;  the  Abbot  of  Downside ; 
Canon   Brown  of  Durham  ;   and  others  as  well.1 

With   so  much  material  at  hand,  the  greater  part 

1  The  Rector  of  Stonyhurst  also  expressed  his  willingness  to  help  in  this  way  ; 
but  of  the  many  valuable  papers  and  Archives  in  possession  of  that  College, 
hardly  any  relate  to  the  period  treated  in  these  volumes. 


PREFACE.  xv 

hitherto  unpublished,  it  can  only  be  left  to  the  kind 
indulgence  of  the  reader  to  overlook  shortcomings,  such 
as  want  of  due  arrangement  or  proportion,  which  must 
be  the  result  of  writing  under  pressure  of  daily  work 
itself  of  a  somewhat  exacting  character.  And  perhaps 
I  may  be  forgiven  if  I  further  plead  that  there  is  hardly 
any  place  in  the  kingdom  where  such  a  work  could  be 
more  appropriately  written  than  at  this  College,  the  crea- 
tion of  which  was  one  of  the  chief  works  of  the  later 
Vicars  Apostolic,  and  within  the  precincts  of  which  so 
many  of  them  lie  buried.1 

It  remains  to  offer  my  best  thanks  to  those  who  have 
helped  me  in  various  ways.  The  owners  of  the  chief 
collections  of  Archives  have  already  been  mentioned. 
Others  have  helped  by  allowing  valuable  family  and  other 
pictures  to  be  copied  for  use  in  this  work.  The  late  Judge 
Stonor  not  only  allowed  the  picture  of  his  grandfather, 
Mr.  Charles  Butler,  as  a  boy  at  Douay,  to  be  reproduced, 
but  also  was  kind  enough  only  a  few  months  before  his 
death  to  give  me  many  personal  details  about  his  grand- 
father, in  whose  house  he  was  brought  up  till  the  age  of 
fourteen.  Personal  traditions  of  Milner  still  exist  in  the 
Benedictine  community  at  Oulton,  formerly  at  Cavers- 
wall  Castle.  This  was  his  favourite  retreat  in  his  later 
years  when  he  sought  rest  from  the  turmoil  of  public 
affairs  :  it  used  to  be  said  that  to  see  Milner  unbend,  one 
should  see  him  at  Oscott  or  Caverswall.  It  is  not  many 
years  since  there  were  nuns  living  at  Oulton  who  re- 
membered him.  Several  of  the  present  representatives 
of  the  old  Catholic  families  have  been  very  kind  in 
allowing  pictures  of  their  forefathers  to  be  reproduced. 
Special  thanks  are  due  to  the  late  Lord  Petre,  Mr. 
Weld  Blundell,  who  now  lives  at  Lulworth,  Sir  William 

iThe  following  Vicars  Apostolic  of  the  London  District  are  buried  at  St. 
Edmund's  College  : — 

Bonaventure  Giffard  (1703-1734) ;  Benjamin  Petre  (1734-1758) ;  James  Tal- 
bot (1781-1790);  John  Douglass  (1791-1812) ;  William  Poynter  (1812-1827); 
James  Yorke  Bramston  (1827-1836) ;  and  Thomas  Griffiths  (1836-1847). 


XVI  PREFACE. 

Throckmorton,  and  others.  The  authorities  at  Ushaw, 
Oscott,  Blairs  College,  Aberdeen,  and  St.  Wilfrid's, 
Cotton,  as  well  as  at  the  English  Colleges  at  Rome  and 
Valladolid,  afforded  me  similar  facilities,  as  also  the 
Benedictine  communities  at  East  Bergholt  and  Teign- 
mouth,  and  others  as  well.  It  is  hoped  that  a  valuable 
collection  has  resulted.  My  best  thanks  are  also  due  to 
the  Bishop  of  Clifton,  to  the  Rev.  Edwin  Burton,  D.  D., 
and  to  Mr.  Alfred  Herbert,  M.A.,  who  have  helped  in 
the  work  of  looking  through  the  chapters,  first  in  manu- 
script, then  in  proof,  and  have  made  many  valuable 
suggestions.  Lastly,  my  special  obligations  are  due  to 
Abbot  Bergh,  who  has  kindly  consented  to  act  as 
Censor  with  respect  to  the  various  theological  state- 
ments which  occur  incidentally  through  the  book. 

St.  Edmund's  College, 
January,   1909. 


*e 


CONTENTS  OF  THE   FIRST   VOLUME. 


PAGE 


Introductory  Chapter,  on  the  Ecclesiastical 
Government  of  English  Catholics  since  the 
Reformation xxi 

CHAP. 

I.  Last  Years  of  the  Penal  Laws  (1781-1790)        .         1 

II.  Catholic   London   under   Bishop  James   Talbot 

(1781-1790) 18 

III.  Catholicity  in  the  Home  Counties  (1 781-1790)  .       34 

IV.  Catholic  England  beyond  the  Seas  (1 781-1790)       53 
V.  The  Catholic  Committee  (1782- 1787)  ...       87 

VI.  Election  of  a  New  Committee  (1 787-1788)  .     108 

VII.  The  Protestation  (1788- 1789)      .         .         .         .126 

VIII.  Preparation  of  Catholic  Relief  Bill.     The  New 

Oath  (1789) 152 

IX.  First  Condemnation  of  the  Oath  (1789)     .         .     172 

X.  Last  Years  and  Death  of  Bishop  James  Talbot 

(1787-1790) 186 

XL  The  London  Vicariate  Vacant  (1790)  .         .     201 

XII.  Election   of   Dr.   Douglass  as  Vicar   Apostolic 

(1790)      ........     218 

XIII.  Second  Condemnation  of  the  Oath  (1791).         .     240 

XIV.  The    Catholic    Relief    Bill    in    the    House    of 

Commons  (1791)      ......     262 

vol.  1.  xvii  b 


xviii  CONTENTS  OF  THE  FIRST  VOLUME. 


CHAP. 


XV.  The    Catholic    Relief    Bill    in    the    House    of 

Lords  (1791) 283 

XVI.  Catholics  Free  from  the  Penal  Laws  (1791)     •  297 

XVII.  Continuation  of  the  Controversy  (1791-1792)  •  3l6 

XVIII.  The  Mediation  (1792) 339 

Index 3 


LIST  OF   ILLUSTRATIONS   OF 
THE   FIRST   VOLUME. 

Right  Rev.    Charles  Walmesley,  Bishop  of  Rama, 

Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  Western  District,  1764- 1797  Frontispiece 
From  a  painting  by  Keenan  at  Lulworth  Castle. 


FACING    PAGE 


Rev.  James  Archer    ........       28 

From  a  mezzotint  engraving  in  possession  of  Mr.  J.  B.  Milburn.  The 
original  painting  is  at  Archbishop's  House,  Westminster. 

Thorndon  Hall,  Essex     .         .         .         .         .         .         -A2 

Rev.  John  Milner  {aetat  c.  25) .         .         .         .         .         .48 

From  a  miniature  at  Oscott  College. 

English  College  at  Douay       .         .         .         .         .         -54 

The  original  water-colour  painting  is  preserved  at  St.  Edmund's  Col- 
lege. It  was  painted  by  George  Leo  Haydock,  and  was  recovered 
after  the  Revolution  in  four  pieces,  which  have  been  carefully 
joined  together  in  recent  years.  The  mark  where  they  join  can 
be  detected  on  the  plate. 

Charles  Butler  as  a  Boy  at  Douay        ....       58 

From  a  painting  formerly  in  possession  of  his  grandson  the  late  Judge 
Stonor.     The  garden  of  the  College  appears  in  the  background. 

Monsignor  Christopher  Stonor,  Roman  Agent  of  the  Vicars 

Apostolic,  1748-1790  .......       62 

From  a  painting  at  the  English  College,  Rome. 

English  College  at  St.  Omer  ......       66 

From  a  print  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Paris. 

English  College  at  Valladolid       .         .         .         .         -7° 
English  Convent  and  Chapel,  Dunkirk  ...       84 

The  view  of  the  market  place,  showing  the  Convent  of  English  Bene- 
dictines, is  taken  from  a  print  in  L'Abbaye  des  Nobles  Benedic- 
tines Anglaises,  by  M.  A.  Bonvarlet,  in  possession  of  the  Lady 
Abbess  of  St.  Scholastica's  Abbey,  Teignmouth. 

xix  0 


xx  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE  FIRST  VOLUME. 

PACING    PAGE 

Charles  Butler 90 

Copied,  by  kind  permission  of  the  Masters  of  the  Bench  of  Lincoln's 
Inn,  from  a  bust  presented  by  the  late  Judge  Stonor. 

Robert  Edward,  ninth  Lord  Petre         .         .         .         .154 

Taken  from  an  engraving  of  a  picture  at  Thorndon  Hall,  painted  by 
Romney. 

Old  Hall  Green  Academy 188 

The  central  building  is  the  "Old  Hall,'"  rented  by  Bishop  James 
Talbot  in  1769  and  afterwards  bought  by  him.  The  additions 
which  he  made  about  the  year  1788  can  be  seen  in  part  on  each 
side. 

Right   Rev.    William    Gibson,    Bishop  of  Acanthos,   Vicar 

Apostolic  of  the  Northern  District,  1 790-182 1        .  .226 

From  a  painting  in  the  Refectory  at  Ushaw  College. 

Catholic  Chapel,  Lulworth 236 

The  House  of  Commons  in  1793      .....     262 

Karl  Anton  Hickel's  celebrated  picture  in  the  National  Portrait  Gal- 
lery. Pitt  is  in  the  act  of  speaking,  Fox  being  on  the  opposite 
side,  on  the  front  Opposition  bench.  Sir  John  Mitford,  who 
brought  in  the  Catholic  Relief  Bill,  had  by  1793  become  Solicitor- 
General,  and  is  on  the  front  Treasury  bench,  the  last  but  one 
visible  behind  Pitt. 

Mr.  Thomas  Weld  of  Lulworth 266 

From  a  painting  at  Lulworth. 

Dr.  Samuel  Horsley,  Bishop  of  St.  David's        .         .         .288 
From  a  miniature  by   W.  J.  Lethbridge  in  the  National  Portrait 
Gallery. 

Catholic  Chapel,  Newport,  Isle  of  Wight     .         .         .     308 

This  is  given  as  a  typical  Catholic  church  of  the  period,  in  the  square 
shape,  with  galleries  on  three  sides.  It  is  still  standing,  its 
appearance  having  hardly  changed  since  it  was  built  in  1791. 

Catholic  Chapel,  Winchester  .         .         .         .         .         -310 

Reproduced  from  an  engraving  in  the  third  edition  of  Milner's  His- 
tory of  Winchester. 

Sir  Henry  Englefield,  Bart. 340 

From  a  picture  painted  by  George  Dance  in  1794,  now  in  the  National 
Portrait  Gallery. 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER 

ON    THE 

Ecclesiastical  Government  of  English  Catholics 
since  the  Reformation. 

For  the  sake  of  those  who  are  unfamiliar  with  the  history  of 
English  Catholics  it  may  be  well  to  recall  in  brief  the  chief 
phases  through  which  the  Church  government  passed  after 
England  ceased  to  be  Catholic,  before  acquiring  the  form  in 
which  we  find  it  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  so 
as  to  trace  the  connection  between  the  ecclesiastical  organisa- 
tion with  which  we  shall  be  in  touch  in  the  following  pages 
with  that  of  Catholic  times. 

The  ancient  English  Hierarchy  practically  came  to  an  end 
when  the  fourteen  Bishops  were  imprisoned  or  exiled  soon 
after  the  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  From  that  time  the 
sacrament  of  Confirmation  was  no  longer  administered,  and  the 
clergy  and  laity  were  without  a  proper  superior.  One  Bishop, 
Dr.  Goldwell,  still  survived  in  exile,  and  for  a  time  he  con- 
templated returning  to  England  as  a  missionary ;  but  his  age 
and  infirmities  prevented  him  from  carrying  out  his  desire. 
The  priests  of  the  old  order — for  the  most  part  "  Marian " 
priests — continued  to  work  on  the  mission,  and  from  the  time 
when  the  English  College  at  Douay  was  founded  by  Dr.  Allen, 
they  were  reinforced  by  a  constant  stream  of  "  Seminary 
priests,"  who  in  virtue  of  a  privilege  conferred  by  Pope  Pius  V. 
were  able  to  obtain  their  faculties  from  Allen  before  leaving 
Douay.  Gradually  by  his  own  personal  influence,  and  without 
any  formal  appointment,  Allen  became  the  recognised  superior 
of  the  English  missionary  clergy.     But  no  one  saw  more  plainly 


xxil  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

than  he  did  the  need  of  some  permanent  organisation,  and  he 
drew  up  a  memorial  which  was  presented  to  the  Pope  in  1580, 
urging  the  appointment  of  a  Bishop.  Nothing,  however,  was 
done  at  that  time,  and  the  following  year  Pope  Gregory  XIII. 
formally  appointed  him  as  Prefect  of  the  English  mission. 

Cardinal  Allen  died  in  I  594,  and  the  state  of  affairs  which 
had  been  apprehended  quickly  came  about.  There  was  no 
head  of  the  clergy,  and  the  clergy  themselves  were  divided  into 
two  separate  bodies,  under  different  and  even  opposite  influences. 
There  is  no  need  here  to  follow  in  detail  the  lamentable  dis- 
putes between  the  seculars  and  regulars  which  had  so  unfor- 
tunate an  effect  on  the  Catholic  Church  in  England.  Father 
Parsons,  whose  influence  in  Rome  at  that  time  was  supreme, 
at  first  favoured  a  scheme  for  the  appointment  of  two  Bishops, 
one  to  live  in  England,  the  other  at  Brussels,  so  that  the  latter 
might  exercise  his  faculties  in  the  event  of  his  colleague  being 
imprisoned.  Afterwards,  however,  he  altered  his  views,  and  by 
his  influence  in  1  599  an  "  Archpriest,"  not  in  Bishop's  orders, 
was  appointed  as  superior  of  the  English  mission,  the  first  to 
hold  the  office  being  Rev.  George  Blackwell.  It  was  believed 
that  the  English  Government  would  be  less  inclined  to  take 
offence,  or  to  renew  the  persecution  under  these  circumstances, 
than  if  a  regular  Bishop  was  appointed.  A  large  section  of  the 
clergy,  however,  were  opposed  to  the  measure,  and  more  than 
once  they  appealed  to  Rome  against  it,  though  without  effect. 
The  party  became  known  as  the  "  Appellants,"  and  it  is  said 
that  they  were  actively  assisted  by  Elizabeth,  who  saw  in  this 
feud  between  them  and  the  Jesuits  an  additional  means  of 
weakening  the  Catholic  cause. 

It  was  probably  with  a  similar  object  in  view  that  in  1606 
James  I.  had  an  "  Oath  of  Allegiance "  drawn  up,  which  he 
called  upon  all  Catholics  to  take.  This  Oath  has  a  direct 
bearing  on  the  question  of  the  Committee's  Oath  at  the  end  of 
the  Eighteenth  Century,  and  should  be  carefully  examined.1  It 
was  intended  as  a  formal  disclaimer  of  the  power  of  the  Pope 
to  interfere  with  the  allegiance  of  the  subject  by  excommuni- 
cating the  Sovereign,  and  characterises  the  "  Deposing  Power," 
which  it  couples  with  the  right  to  murder  an  excommunicated 

1The  text  of  the  Oath  will  be  found  in  Appendix  E. 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xxiii 

king,  as  "  impious,"  "  heretical  "  and  "  damnable  ".  The  effect 
was  much  what  had  been  anticipated.  Some  of  the  Appellant 
party  were  willing  to  take  the  Oath  and  did  take  it ;  while 
the  great  majority,  including  the  Jesuits  and  their  followers, 
refused  to  do  so.  Rome  decided  in  favour  of  the  latter ;  but 
the  Archpriest,  who  had  taken  the  Oath,  refused  to  retract, 
though  personally  appealed  to  by  Cardinal  Bellarmine.  He 
was  accordingly  deposed  from  his  office  in  1608,  but  remained 
in  prison,  where  he  died  five  years  later.  The  Oath  continued 
for  many  years  the  subject  of  controversy,  the  question  being 
first  raised  whether  the  condemnation  was  formal ;  and  later  on 
whether  it  had  been  virtually  abrogated  in  consequence  of  sub- 
sequent events,  such  as  the  interpretation  officially  given,  or 
the  like ;  but  Rome  never  receded  from  the  position  she  had 
first  taken  up. 

Two  other  Archpriests  were  appointed,  George  Birkhead 
(1608-1614)  and  William  Harrison  (161 5-162 1):  but  in  the 
end,  the  constant  wish  of  the  secular  clergy  and  many  of  the 
laity  prevailed,  and  in  1623  William  Bishop,  who  had  been  the 
leader  of  the  Appellants  at  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  was 
constituted  titular  Bishop  of  Chalcedon  and  Vicar  Apostolic  of 
England.  He  soon  set  to  work,  and  established  a  regular  sys- 
tem of  government  by  Archdeacons,  Rural  Deans  and  Vicars, 
which  formed  the  basis  of  English  ecclesiastical  government 
for  long  afterwards.  He  also  set  up  a  Chapter  of  twenty-four 
Canons,  with  a  Dean,  who  were  to  rule  in  the  event  of  any 
temporary  vacancy  in  the  Vicariate. 

Unfortunately,  when  all  looked  so  promising,  Dr.  Bishop's 
life  was  cut  short.  He  died  on  April  16,  1624.  His  succes- 
sor, Dr.  Richard  Smith,  was  somewhat  wanting  in  discretion, 
and  after  three  years,  he  found  it  necessary  to  retire  abroad. 
He  spent  the  last  thirteen  years  of  his  life  at  the  Convent 
of  English  Austin  nuns  at  Paris,  where  he  died  in  1655. 
After  his  death,  no  one  was  appointed  in  his  place,  and  for 
thirty  years  the  Chapter  ruled  the  English  mission. 

During  all  this  time  it  was  hoped  that  a  Catholic  King 
might  some  day  come  to  the  throne,  who  would  restore  the 
ancient  faith  to  the  country.  These  expectations  appeared  on 
the  point  of  being  realised  when  James  II.  succeeded  his 
brother,   and  the  hopes   of  Catholics   ran  high.      During  his 


xxiv  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

short  reign  episcopal  government  was  re-introduced,  which 
has  continued  without  further  intermission  until  the  present 
day.  The  first  bishop  to  be  appointed  was  Dr.  John  Ley- 
burn,  who  was  created  Vicar  Apostolic  of  England  in  1685. 
Two  years  later  the  country  was  divided  into  two,  and  the 
following  year  again  into  four  Districts  or  Vicariates,  with  a 
Bishop  over  each.  These  were  the  Northern,  Midland,  Western 
and  London  Districts  respectively.  Each  Bishop  or  Vicar 
Apostolic  was  given  a  pension  of  £1,000  a  year.  This  of 
course  came  to  an  end  at  the  Revolution ;  but  the  Vicars 
Apostolic  continued  to  rule  the  Church  after  the  dethronement  of 
the  Stuarts,  and  a  constant  succession  was  kept  up  from  that  time. 

The  life  of  a  Catholic  Bishop  during  the  first  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  was  not  an  enviable  one.  The  new  Penal 
Laws  which  were  brought  into  force  were  designed  to  stamp 
out  the  Catholic  religion  without  having  recourse  to  the 
barbarous  methods  of  former  times.  Priests  were  subject  to 
fines  and  imprisonment,  but  were  no  longer  to  be  put  to  death. 
In  order  to  make  the  laws  operate  more  surely,  a  reward  of 
£100  was  offered,  which  could  be  claimed  by  any  "  Informer" 
on  obtaining  the  conviction  of  a  priest.  There  was  therefore 
every  inducement  to  a  renegade  Catholic  who  knew  the  manner 
of  concealment  commonly  practised,  to  turn  "  Informer "  and 
claim  the  reward.  During  the  first  part  of  the  eighteenth 
century  the  penal  laws  were  frequently  carried  into  execution, 
and  although  after  a  time  they  began  to  fall  into  disuse,  the 
Stuart  rising  of  1745  was  the  signal  for  their  revival,  and  it 
was  not  until  some  time  after  this  that  they  began  to  fall 
finally  into  abeyance. 

Bishop  Leyburn  died  in  1702,  when  Bishop  Bonaventure 
Giffard  was  transferred  from  the  Midland  to  the  London  Dis- 
trict. He  found  it  impossible  to  have  any  fixed  residence, 
and  had  continually  to  move  from  place  to  place  to  avoid  the 
Informers.  The  safest  shelters  were  the  country  houses  of  the 
Catholic  gentry ;  but  even  these  were  not  always  secure.  On 
at  least  three  occasions  Bishop  Giffard  was  apprehended  and 
cast  into  prison.  Notwithstanding  these  hardships  and  trials, 
he  lived  to  the  patriarchal  age  of  ninety-two,  dying  at  Ham- 
mersmith in  1734.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  Coadjutor, 
Bishop  Benjamin  Petre,  who  in  turn  obtained  the  appointment 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xxv 

of  Dr.  Challoner,  familiarly  styled  "  the  Venerable,"  to  whom 
English  Catholics  of  the  eighteenth  century  owed  almost  every- 
thing. He  was  a  man  of  retiring  character,  but  of  extreme 
holiness  of  life,  of  considerable  learning,  and  of  untiring  industry. 
His  literary  works  form  almost  a  library  in  themselves.  From 
the  time  he  became  Coadjutor  in  1741  he  practically  ruled  the 
District,  for  Bishop  Petre  retired  into  the  country ;  but  it  was 
not  until  the  latter's  death  in  1758  that  Challoner  could  assume 
the  full  title  of  Vicar  Apostolic.  The  following  year,  on  his 
recovery  from  a  dangerous  illness,  he  obtained  the  appointment 
of  James  Talbot,  brother  of  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury,  as  his 
Coadjutor.  He  lived  however  for  many  years  after  this,  until 
the  year  1781,  when  he  died  at  the  age  of  ninety,  his  death 
having,  it  is  said,  been  accelerated  by  the  anxieties  he  had  gone 
through  in  escaping  from  the  violence  of  the  mob  at  the  time 
of  the  Gordon  riots. 

During  the  greater  part  of  his  episcopate  Bishop  Challoner 
was  able  to  live  peaceably  in  his  hired  lodgings.  At  this 
period,  according  to  Berington,1  there  were  less  than  sixty 
priests  in  the  London  District,  which  comprised  the  counties  of 
Middlesex,  Surrey,  Kent,  Sussex,  Hants,  Bedfordshire,  Bucking- 
hamshire, Herts  and  Essex.  Including  London  itself,  it  con- 
tained about  25,000  Catholics,  four-fifths  of  whom  lived  in  the 
metropolis. 

In  the  Midland  District  there  were  said  to  be  ninety  priests, 
serving  about  8,500  Catholics.  The  Vicar  Apostolic  was  Dr. 
Thomas  Talbot,  brother  of  James  Talbot.  He  had  been 
Coadjutor  to  Bishop  Hornyold,  and  succeeded  on  the  latter's 
death  in  1778.  The  episcopal  residence  was  at  Longbirch, 
some  seven  miles  north  of  Wolverhampton. 

The  Bishop  of  the  Western  district,  Dr.  Walmesley,  lived 
at  Bath,  which,  after  London,  suffered  most  at  the  time  of  the 
Gordon  Riots.  The  house  in  Bell  Tree  Lane  where  Dr.  Wal- 
mesley lived  was  burnt,  and  he  lost  all  his  books  and  papers. 
Afterwards  he  had  lodgings  of  his  own  in  Chapel  Row.  The 
District,  which  included  all  the  Western  and  South-Western 
counties,  as  well  as  Wales,  contained  about  3,000  Catholics, 
served  by  less  than  fifty  priests. 

In  the  Northern  District  we  find,  as  we  should  have  ex- 

1  State  and  Behaviour  of  English  Catholics,  p.  158  seq. 


xxvi  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

pected,  that  Catholics  were  far  more  numerous  and  the 
mission  in  a  more  flourishing  condition.  Berington  says  that 
there  were  167  priests,  and  it  was  estimated  that  there 
were  over  20,000  Catholics.  Lancashire  was  then,  as  now,  by- 
far  the  most  Catholic  county  in  England ;  but  in  most  places 
in  the  North  there  were  to  be  found  numerous  families  who  had 
never  lost  the  faith.  There  were  practically  two  large  centres 
of  Catholicity,  one  being  in  and  around  the  county  of  Lancas- 
ter, the  other  the  Northern  counties,  including  Northumber- 
land, Durham  and  part  of  Yorkshire.  At  one  time  the  Vicar 
Apostolic  lived  at  York  ;  but  Bishop  Matthew  Gibson,  who 
was  consecrated  in  1780,  took  up  his  residence  at  Headlam, 
near  Darlington,  the  seat  of  a  branch  of  the  Maire  family.  On 
the  death  of  Mr.  Maire,  in  about  1785,  he  removed  to  Stella 
Hall,  near  Gateshead,  the  seat  of  the  Eyres,  where  he  resided 
for  the  few  remaining  years  of  his  life. 

In  order  to  complete  our  survey,  we  must  now  go  further 
afield.  It  sounds  strange  to  speak  of  the  British  colonies  in 
America  as  belonging  to  the  London  District ;  but  such  was 
technically  the  case.  In  Canada,  indeed,  a  bishopric  had  been 
set  up  at  Quebec,  at  that  time  a  French  colony,  so  early  as  the 
year  1674,  and  this  was  continued  after  it  was  taken  by  the 
English  three-quarters  of  a  century  later,  for  full  liberty  of 
worship  was  given  to  the  Catholics.  But  all  the  other  British 
possessions  belonged  to  the  London  District  at  the  time  when 
James  Talbot  was  consecrated  bishop.  When  what  is  now  the 
United  States  ceased  to  be  a  British  colony,  it  was  of  course 
evident  that  this  would  have  to  be  changed.  The  Declaration 
of  American  Independence  was  made  in  1776;  but  it  can 
hardly  be  said  to  have  become  an  accomplished  fact  until  the 
Peace  of  Versailles  in  1783.  In  the  following  year  we  find 
Dr.  Carroll  appointed  prefect  apostolic,  and  the  Catholics  of 
the  thirteen  States,  as  they  were  then,  became  ecclesiastically, 
as  politically  independent  of  England.  Six  years  after  this 
Dr.  Carroll  was  raised  to  the  episcopal  dignity  as  Bishop  of 
Baltimore.  He  received  consecration  at  the  hands  of  Bishop 
Walmesley,  at  Lulworth  Castle,  in  England,  on  August  15, 
1 790,  thus  becoming  the  first  member  of  the  great  American 
Hierarchy,  which  to-day  numbers  fourteen  archbishops  and 
eighty-nine  bishops. 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER.  xxvii 

About  the  same  time  further  arrangements  were  made  by- 
Propaganda  with  respect  to  other  American  colonies,  which 
had  not  joined  with  the  States,  and  were  still  under  British 
rule.  In  January,  1784,  the  Catholics  of  Newfoundland  peti- 
tioned to  have  as  their  superior  the  Rev.  Francis  MacDonnell, 
a  Franciscan  of  Waterford,  pleading  that  seven-eighths  of  the 
population  of  St.  John's  were  emigrants  from  that  town,  and  that 
it  was  essential  that  their  superior  should  be  able  to  preach  in 
Irish  as  well  as  English.  They  sent  their  petition  to  Dr.  Egan, 
Bishop  of  Waterford,  who  forwarded  it  to  Bishop  Talbot,  the 
actual  superior  of  the  mission.  He  readily  gave  his  consent, 
and  the  arrangement  was  ratified  by  Propaganda  on  July  2, 
1786.  From  that  time,  therefore,  Newfoundland  ceased  its  con- 
nection with  the  London  District. 

The  arrangements  with  respect  to  the  West  Indian  Islands 
were  complicated  by  the  war  between  England  and  France,  in 
the  course  of  which  some  of  the  islands  changed  hands  more 
than  once.  Trinidad  did  not  come  into  possession  of  the 
English  until  1797.  The  smaller  islands  under  British  rule 
were  governed  by  Bishop  Challoner  through  a  French  ex- 
Capuchin,  Father  Benjamin  Duhamel,  who  lived  at  Grenada, 
and  acted  as  vicar  general.  He  died  in  1777.  Already,  the 
year  before  this,  Propaganda  had  given  faculties  over  some  of 
the  British  islands  to  one  Rev.  Christopher  McEvoy,  an  Irish 
priest,  who  had  come  to  the  Danish  island  of  Santa  Cruz,  in 
the  first  instance,  as  chaplain  in  a  merchant  vessel.  He  was 
nominated  Prefect  of  the  Danish  Islands  in  1 77 1 ,  and  now  his 
authority  was  extended  to  Barbadoes,  St.  Kitts,  Antigua  and 
the  adjacent  islands.  Apparently  he  worked  in  subordination 
to  Bishop  Challoner,  and  it  was  not  until  after  the  death  of  the 
latter  that  a  difficulty  showed  itself.  Bishop  Talbot,  who  suc- 
ceeded Challoner  in  1781,  received  that  year  an  explicit  con- 
firmation of  his  faculties  over  the  West  Indian  Islands ;  yet, 
when  McEvoy  visited  London  in  1784,  and  showed  his  own 
faculties,  it  appeared  that  no  dependence  on  the  London  vicar 
apostolic  was  mentioned.  There  was,  therefore,  a  conflict  of 
jurisdiction.  Bishop  Talbot  wrote  to  Propaganda  to  remon- 
strate ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  he  stated  that  the  difficulty  of 
ruling  at  such  a  distance  was  so  great  that  he  would  be  only 
too  pleased  if  Mr.  McEvoy  could  be  permanently  appointed, 


xxvm  INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER. 

and  made  independent  of  him.  After  some  correspondence, 
and  consequent  delay,  Propaganda  assented  to  this  proposition, 
and  drew  up  a  formal  brief  of  appointment.  The  islands 
named  were  Santa  Cruz,  St.  Thomas,  St.  John,  St.  Eusta- 
chius,  Barbadoes,  St.  Kitts  and  Antigua,  the  three  first  named 
being  Danish,  and  the  remainder  English.  Here,  however, 
an  unlooked  for  difficulty  presented  itself  in  the  refusal  of 
McEvoy  to  accept  the  post.  He  gave  his  reasons  through 
Bishop  Talbot  in  August,  1786,  and  a  year  later  he  still  per- 
sisted in  his  refusal.  As  he  died  soon  after  this,  it  would 
appear  probable  that  he  never  returned  to  the  West  Indies. 
After  this  the  islands  seem  to  have  remained  subject  to 
the  bishop  of  the  London  District  until  18 19,  when  a  vicar 
apostolic  in  bishop's  orders  was  appointed,  who  lived  at 
Trinidad,  and  exercised  jurisdiction  over  all  the  islands  under 
British  rule. 


THE  DAWN  OF  THE 
CATHOLIC  REVIVAL  IN  ENGLAND. 

CHAPTER  I. 

LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  PENAL  LAWS. 
I78I-I79O. 

THE  period  which  followed  the  death  of  the  venerable  Bishop 
Challoner  may  be  considered  the  low-water  mark  of  English 
Catholicity.  The  hopes  of  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  faith 
which  had  been  so  long  attached  to  the  Jacobite  cause  had 
evidently  vanished  for  ever,  and  the  possibility  of  a  Catholic 
revival  in  the  future  seemed  entirely  remote  and  unlikely,  if 
indeed  such  a  thought  ever  even  occurred  to  any  one's  mind. 
The  excitement  of  the  days  of  persecution  had  faded  away 
before  a  dull  apathetic  hopelessness.  Perhaps  nowhere  in  the 
world  were  these  years  of  spiritual  activity  and  development : 
they  were  so  in  England  even  less  than  elsewhere.  The 
most  that  Catholics  of  that  day  aimed  at  was  to  secure  for 
themselves  toleration,  and  to  be  relieved  from  the  oppression 
of  the  Penal  Laws.  The  first  step  in  this  direction  had  been 
achieved  by  the  passing  of  the  Act  of  1778,  which  mitigated 
several  of  the  punishments  and  penalties  :  the  highest  ambition 
that  Catholics  now  had  was  to  follow  this  up  by  a  more  com- 
plete Act  or  Acts,  leading  up  to  what  has  always  been  termed 
"  Catholic  Emancipation  ". 

The  chief  advantage  of  the  Act  of  1778  was  the  abolition 
of  the  reward  of  £100  to  any  "  Informer".1  So  long  as  this 
existed,  however  much  the  Government  of  the  day  might  wish 
to  leave  Catholics  unmolested,  it  might  at  any  time  be  forced 

1  That  is,  to  Informers  against  Catholic  priests  or  schoolmasters.    An  Informer 
against  a  parent  for  sending  his  children  to  be  educated  beyond  the  seas  could 
still   claim  the  reward  of  £100  on  a  conviction   being   obtained  (see  Amherst, 
History  0/  Catholic  Emancipation,  i.,  p.  107). 
VOL.    I.  I 


2  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

to  institute  prosecutions  on  the  "  Information  "  of  these  men, 
so  that  Catholics  could  never  feel  secure.  Henceforth  there 
were  no  such  rewards  to  gain  ;  consequently  the  "  Informers  " 
ceased  to  do  their  work.  At  the  same  time  also  the  punish- 
ment of  perpetual  imprisonment  to  which  priests  or  school- 
masters were  liable  was  abolished.1  Catholics  were  rendered 
capable  of  acquiring  real  property,  whether  by  inheritance  or 
purchase  ;  and  the  concession  was  accompanied  by  other  small 
measures  of  relief.  But  in  reality  the  most  important  change 
had  been  the  gradual  revulsion  of  public  sentiment,  which  was 
beginning  to  be  opposed  to  the  inflicting  of  penalties  for  re- 
ligious opinions  or  practices,  in  consequence  of  which  after  the 
disappearance  of  the  "  Informers,"  the  laws  which  could  strictly 
be  termed  penal  became  for  the  most  part  almost  a  dead  letter. 

There  were  still,  however,  occasional  isolated  instances  of 
the  laws  being  put  into  force,  which  fact  was  sufficient  to  pro- 
duce a  continual  feeling  of  insecurity.  An  instance  was  often 
quoted  of  a  prosecution  for  refusing  to  "  conform,"  which  took 
place  in  Yorkshire  so  lately  as  the  year  1782.  It  is  described 
in  the  Third  Blue  Book 2  as  follows  : — 

"In  the  year  1782  two  very  poor  Catholic  dissenting 
labourers,  and  their  Wives,  were  summoned  by  one  of  his 
Majesty's  Justices  of  the  Peace,  and  fined  one  shilling  each  for 
not  repairing  to  church,  and  the  Constable  raised  it  by  distrain- 
ing in  the  house  of  one  of  them  an  oak  Table,  a  fir  Table,  and  a 
plate  shelf;  in  the  house  of  the  other  a  shelf,  and  two  dozen  of 
delft  plates,  one  pewter  dish  and  four  pewter  plates,  one  oak 
table  and  one  arm  chair.  The  sale  was  publicly  called  at  the 
Market  day,  and  the  goods  were  sold  by  auction  at  their  re- 
spective houses.     The  Constable's  bill  was  in  these  words  : — 

S.         D. 

"  To  not  attending  Church        .  .  .20 

To  a  Warrant         .  .  .  .  .10 

To  Constable's  expenses         .         .         .20 

s^     o" 

JThe  Act  of  1778  in  fact  repealed  the  provisions  of  11  and  12  William  III., 
"  An  Act  for  the  further  preventing  the  growth  of  Popery,"  under  which  Catholic 
priests  and  schoolmasters  were  subjected  to  perpetual  imprisonment;  but  the  old 
Act  of  1581  under  which  saying  or  hearing  Mass  was  punishable  by  imprison- 
ment for  a  year  was  left  unrepealed. 

2  P-  35-  The  Blue  Books  were  the  official  publications  of  the  Catholic  Com- 
mittee, to  be  described  in  detail  later  on. 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  3 

But  although  such  an  incident  as  this  was  rare,  and  the 
penalties  for  not  conforming  were  hardly  ever  enforced,  there 
remained  a  large  class  of  disabilities  to  which  Catholics  were 
subject.  These  were  enumerated  in  a  memorial  presented  to 
Mr.  Pitt  by  the  Catholic  Committee  in  the  year  1788.  The 
list  does  not  profess  to  be  complete  so  far  as  the  letter  of  the 
law  was  concerned,  for  the  memorialists  expressly  state  that 
for  some  time  past  many  of  the  laws  had  been  practically  al- 
lowed to  lapse.1  The  disabilities  mentioned  may  therefore  be 
taken  as  those  by  which  Catholics  were  actually  harassed  at 
that  time.     They  were  enumerated  in  the  following  words  : —  2 

"  [Catholics  ]  are  prohibited  under  the  most  severe  penalties 
exercising  any  act  of  religion  according  to  their  own  mode  of 
worship. 

"  They  are  subject  to  heavy  punishments  for  keeping  schools, 
for  educating  their  children  in  their  own  religious  principles  at 
home,  and  they  are  also  subject  to  heavy  punishments  for  send- 
ing their  children  for  education  abroad  : 

"  They  are  made  incapable  of  serving  in  his  majesty's  Armies 
and  Navies  : 

"  They  are  restrained  from  practising  the  Law  as  Barristers, 
Advocates,  Solicitors,  Attorneys  or  Proctors : 

"  They  are  obliged  on  every  occasion  to  expose  the  most 
secret  transactions  of  their  families,  by  reason  of  the  expensive 
and  perplexing  obligation  of  enrolling  their  deeds : 

"  They  are  subject  by  annual  acts  of  the  legislature  to  the 
ignominious  fine  of  the  double  land-tax  : 

"  They  are  deprived  of  that  constitutional  right  of  English 
freeholders,  voting  for  County  Members  :  they  are  not  allowed 
to  vote  at  the  election  of  any  other  member  :  they  are  therefore 
absolutely  unrepresented  in  Parliament. 

"  They  are  excluded  from  all  places,  civil  and  military : 

"  They  are  disqualified  from  being  chosen  for  a  seat  in  the 
House  of  Commons  : 

"  Their  peers  are  deprived  of  their  hereditary  seat  in  Parlia- 
ment.    And  their  clergy  for  exercising  their  functions  are  ex- 

:A  full  enumeration  of  the  laws  actually  existing  against  Catholics  was 
prepared  by  Charles  Butler  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  at  the  same  time  (see 
Appendix). 

2  Third  Blue  Book,  Appendix  a* ;  Butler's  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  7. 

I  * 


4  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

posed  to  the  heaviest  penalties  and  punishments,  and,  in  some 
cases,  to  death." 

The  effect  which  these  laws  produced  on  the  general  outlook 
of  Catholics  on  life  may  again  be  also  given  in  the  words  of 
Charles  Butler : — 

"  It  depressed  them"  (he  says)  "  so  much  below  their  legi- 
timate rank  in  society  that  they  hardly  entered  with  the  look 
or  attitude  of  free  men  into  the  meetings  of  their  Protestant 
neighbours.  '  Such  was  their  situation,'  to  avail  myself  of  Mr. 
Burke's  strong  but  just  expressions,  '  that  they  not  only  shrank 
from  the  frowns  of  a  stern  magistrate,  but  were  obliged  to  fly 
from  their  very  species ;  a  kind  of  universal  subserviency  that 
made  the  very  servant  behind  their  chair  the  arbiter  of  their 
lives  and  fortunes. '  "  1 

The  most  prominent  figure  among  Catholic  ecclesiastics  of 
that  day  was  the  venerable  Bishop  Walmesley,  of  the  Western 
District,  the  senior  vicar  apostolic.  He  had  been  bishop 
since  1756,  when  he  became  coadjutor  to  Dr.  York,  and  had 
ruled  the  Western  District  since  the  retirement  of  the  latter  in 
1764.  He  was  a  member  of  a  well-known  Lancashire  family 
— the  eleventh  of  twelve  children — and  from  early  years  had 
been  educated  by  the  Benedictines,  first  at  St.  Gregory's, 
Douay,  afterwards  at  St.  Edmund's,  Paris,  in  which  house  he 
joined  the  Order.  As  a  mathematician,  quite  in  early  life  he 
gained  a  European  reputation.  His  treatise  on  "  The  Motion 
of  Comets,"  read  before  the  Academie  des  Sciences  in  1747, 
when  he  was  only  twenty-five  years  old,  attracted  great  atten- 
tion, and  a  paper  on  "  The  Precessions  and  Nutations  of  the 
Moon,"  printed  in  the  Philosophical  Transactions  of  1756,  was 
much  admired  for  the  originality  of  the  methods  used.  The 
Government  is  said  to  have  consulted  him  on  the  calculations 
rendered  necessary  by  the  adoption  of  the  Gregorian  Calendar, 
or  "  New  Style,"  as  it  was  called,  in  1752.  He  was  a  Fellow 
of  the  Royal  Society,  and  likewise  belonged  to  similar  philo- 
sophical societies,  in  Berlin,  Paris  and  Bologna.  Yet  notwith- 
standing all  this,  he  had  no  ambition  to  pursue  a  career  in 
which  he  might  have  attained  to  real  eminence.  The  seclusion 
of  the  Benedictine  house  at  Paris  was  more  congenial  to  his 
tastes.     After  residing  there  for  more  than  fourteen  years,  dur- 

1  Catholic  Magazine,  January,  1832,  p.  715. 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  5 

ing  the  last  four  of  which  he  was  Prior,  he  was  summoned  to 
Rome  in  1753  as  "Procurator  General".  It  was  during  his 
stay  in  the  Eternal  City  that  he  was  chosen  as  coadjutor  to  the 
Western  District,  receiving  consecration  as  Bishop  of  Rama 
"  in  partibus  Infidelimn"  at  the  hands  of  Cardinal  Lanti,  in  the 
Chapel  of  the  English  College.  He  is  described  as  being  of 
good  presence  and  agreeable  manners  ;  but  his  speech,  like  his 
writings,  was  blunt  to  the  verge  of  roughness,  a  defect  which 
was  emphasised  by  a  partial  deafness  with  which  he  became 
afflicted,  and  which  helped  to  isolate  him  from  those  with  whom 
he  lived.  He  entirely  gave  up  the  study  of  mathematics,  a 
determination  to  which  he  came,  according  to  Charles  Butler,1 
in  consequence  of  a  distraction  he  once  had  during  Mass,  when 
he  found  himself  drawing  diagrams  on  the  corporal  with  the 
paten.  The  celebrated  mathematician  D'Alembert  is  said  to 
have  expressed  great  concern  at  this  determination  ;  but  the 
bishop  was  inexorable,  though  Butler  adds  that  to  the  end  of 
his  life  he  retained  his  taste  for  the  study,  and  was  seen  to 
brighten  visibly  whenever  a  mathematical  subject  was  mentioned 
in  his  presence.  During  his  later  years,  he  devoted  his  spare 
time  to  the  study  of  Scripture :  his  commentary  on  the 
Apocalypse,  which  appeared  under  the  name  of  Pastorini  in 
1 77 1,  became  well  known.  Seven  years  later  he  published  a 
similar  book  on  the  Prophet  Ezechiel. 

As  a  bishop,  Dr.  Walmesley  lived  a  retired  life  at  Bath, 
where  his  experiences  during  the  Gordon  Riots,  when  his  house 
and  all  his  books  and  papers  were  burnt  by  the  mob,  seem  only 
to  have  confirmed  his  spirit  of  retirement  and  reserve.  All  he 
asked  for  was  to  be  allowed  to  practise  his  religion  undisturbed, 
to  be  able  to  administer  the  sacraments  to  the  scattered  groups 
of  Catholics  in  his  district,  and  to  provide  priests  to  minister  to 
the  various  congregations  at  the  country  seats  of  the  gentry 
and  other  centres  where  Mass  was  celebrated.  Beyond  this 
point  his  hopes  did  not  travel.  He  even  sympathised  with 
those  who  shrank  from  any  agitation  for  the  repeal  of  the  Penal 
Laws,  for  fear  of  being  drawn  into  publicity,  and  from  the  vague 
apprehension  of  something  worse  happening  to  them.  The 
following  letter  written  by  him  to  the  Catholic  Committee  in 
1788  is  a  frank  avowal  of  what  many  Catholics  of  that  day  felt: — 

1  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  434. 


6  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

"  If  Parliament  be  petitioned  to  repeal  the  old  Penal  Laws 
against  the  Catholics  "  (he  writes),  "  probably  such  petition  will 
be  granted  ;  but  I  fear  not  without  substituting  some  laws  of 
restriction  which  may  be  very  difficult  and  grievous  to  be  put 
in  practice.  Most  of  the  old  Penal  Laws  carry  with  them  such 
an  appearance  of  inhumanity  and  cruelty  that  no  judge  or  jury 
in  these  times  would  chuse  for  their  own  credit  to  have  them 
put  in  execution.  We  have  not  therefore  much  to  fear  from 
them  ;  they  may  be  almost  considered  as  non-existing.  But  it 
is  well  known  that  a  great  share  of  prepossessions  and  pre- 
judices remain  still  in  the  breasts  of  Protestants  against  the 
Catholic  Religion,  not  confined  among  the  common  people, 
but  prevail  even  with  those  of  higher  class  and  more  improved 
state  of  knowledge.  These  prepossessions  and  prejudices  are 
imbibed  in  their  youth,  and  make  a  common  part  of  their  early 
education,  nor  do  they  afterwards  examine  into  the  grounds  of 
them,  but  implicitly  retain  them  as  genuine  truth.  Such  un- 
doubtedly is  the  case  of  a  great  number  of  members  of  Parlia- 
ment in  both  Houses.  These  members  in  consequence  of  such 
principles  would  certainly  move,  in  repealing  the  old  laws,  some 
odious  restrictions  that  would  be  very  oppressive  to  us.  We 
have  lately  seen  an  instance  of  this  kind  in  the  Act  given  by  the 
Irish  Parliament  in  favour  of  the  Catholics  of  that  country.  I 
wish  therefore  it  may  be  duly  considered  whether  it  would  be 
expedient  to  ask  for  the  repeal  of  the  old  Penal  Laws,  or  rather 
perhaps  to  let  them  remain  unnoticed."  * 

Even  on  the  question  of  the  removal  of  disabilities,  Bishop 
Walmesley  held  much  the  same  view  : — 

"With  respect  to  the  liberty  to  be  allowed  to  Catholics 
to  obtain  places  in  the  Army  and  Navy,  I  shall  beg  leave  to 
remark  the  consequence  that  will  probably  follow  with  regard 
to  Religion.  When  so  very  few  Catholics  become  mixed  with 
such  a  multitude  of  Protestants,  what  religious  duties  can  we 
suppose  will  they  observe?  May  we  not,  on  the  contrary, 
have  all  reason  to  fear  that  it  will  be  the  occasion  of  the  loss 
both  of  their  faith  and  morality?  Then,  what  may  further 
ensue,  these  same  young  gentlemen  may  happen  to  succeed 
to  estates,  and  become  the  heads  of  families,  which  will  con- 
sequently be  lost  to  the  Catholic  religion."  2 

1  Cli/toii  Archives,  vol.  ii.  2Ibid. 


i7go]  LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  7 

This  last  remark  gives  a  further  indication  of  the  bent  of 
mind  so  common  with  that  generation  of  Catholics.  What- 
ever hope  they  had  of  the  continuation  of  Catholicity  in 
England  was  centred  around  the  old  Catholic  families,  who 
had  kept  the  faith  alive,  and  supported  chapel  and  chaplain. 
Except  in  London,  where  the  ambassadors  of  the  Catholic 
Powers  had  in  like  manner  kept  chaplains  for  the  service  of 
the  public,  the  centres  of  the  Catholic  religion  in  England 
consisted  almost  exclusively  of  those  on  the  estates  of  the 
Catholic  aristocracy.  During  recent  years,  indeed,  chapels 
had  been  established  more  or  less  permanently  in  some  of  the 
provincial  towns  ;  but  even  these  depended  for  their  support 
almost  entirely  on  the  sums  subscribed  by  the  members  of 
the  old  Catholic  families.  They  had  been  for  the  most  part 
simply  rooms  in  the  houses  of  the  priests,  and  their  existence 
was  hardly  known  outside  the  Catholic  body.  In  a  few  cases, 
even  before  the  Act  of  1791,  a  small  chapel  was  built  in  some 
retired  situation  —  the  Trenchard  Street  Chapel  at  Bristol, 
opened  in  June,  1790,  and  St.  Peter's,  Birmingham,  which  dates 
back  a  year  or  two  earlier,  are  instances  ;  but  no  one  for  a 
moment  supposed  that  these  would  be  able  to  support  them- 
selves without  either  a  fixed  endowment,  or  some  help  from 
outside.  The  idea  that  they  might  become  the  nucleus  of  a 
revival  of  Catholicity  such  as  was  witnessed  in  the  nineteenth 
century  would  have  appeared  entirely  chimerical. 

In  support  of  these  statements,  we  may  quote  one  of  the 
best-known  Catholic  writers  of  that  day,  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Berington,  at  that  time  Chaplain  to  Mr.  Thomas  Stapleton, 
of  Carlton,  Yorkshire,  where  he  found  sufficient  leisure  to  give 
himself  to  literary  pursuits.  He  had  been  educated  at  Douay, 
where  he  had  shown  great  talent,  and  after  his  ordination,  he 
was  elected  to  the  Professorship  of  Philosophy  in  the  Univer- 
sity. He  did  not  hold  this  position  very  long,  however.  When 
he  prepared  his  theses,  according  to  the  usual  custom,  for  his 
pupils  to  defend,  to  use  his  own  words,  "  on  the  day  of  public 
exhibition,  [the  philosophy  of  these  Theses]  raised  a  consider- 
able uproar,  and  this  uproar  was  followed  by  rumours  from 
England  and  other  quarters  ".  The  Bishop  of  Arras  deputed 
a  canon  to  investigate  the  matter,  and  although  no  definite 
charge  could  be  established  against  Berington,  it  was  considered 


8  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

advisable  that  he  should  leave  Douay  and  go  on  the  English 
mission.  The  same  tendency  to  new  and  "  liberal "  opinions 
showed  itself  in  his  conduct  and  writings  throughout  life.  No 
one  will  deny  the  power  of  style  shown  in  his  works,  or  the 
learning  and  ability  they  displayed,  though  the  cynical  tone 
prevalent  throughout  renders  them  not  altogether  pleasant 
reading.  His  first  book  of  importance  was  published  anony- 
mously, under  the  title  of  The  State  and  Behaviour  of  Eng- 
lish Catholics  from  the  Revolution  to  the  Year  ij8o.  It 
contains  a  full  description  of  English  Catholicism  just  at  the 
time  on  which  we  are  now  engaged,  and  although  we  must 
make  some  allowance  for  his  inclination  to  be  continually 
pessimistic,  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  the  substantial 
accuracy  of  the  picture  he  draws. 

Berington  estimates  the  number  of  Catholics  in  all  England 
at  60,000  (out  of  a  total  population  of  six  millions),  or  about 
one  per  cent.,  and  says  that  they  were  steadily  declining. 
With  respect  to  their  distribution  and  prospects,  it  may  be  well 
to  quote  his  words  in  full : —  1 

"  The  few  Catholics  I  have  mentioned  are  also  dispersed 
in  the  different  counties.  In  many,  particularly  in  the  West, 
in  South  Wales,  and  in  some  of  the  Midland  counties,  there 
is  scarcely  a  Catholic  to  be  found.  This  is  easily  known  from 
the  residence  of  priests.  After  London,  by  far  the  greatest 
number  is  in  Lancashire.  In  Staffordshire  are  a  good  many, 
as  also  in  the  northern  counties  of  York,  Durham  and  Nor- 
thumberland. Some  of  the  manufacturing  and  trading  towns, 
such  as  Norwich,  Manchester,  Liverpool,  Wolverhampton, 
and  Newcastle-upon-Tyne,  have  chapels  which  are  rather 
crowded.  .  .  .  Excepting  in  the  towns,  and  out  of  Lanca- 
shire, the  chief  situation  of  Catholics  is  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  the  old  families  of  that  persuasion.  They  are  the  servants,  or 
the  children  of  servants  who  have  married  from  those  families, 
and  who  choose  to  remain  round  the  old  mansion  for  the  con- 
veniency  of  prayers,2  and  because  they  hope  to  receive  favour 
and  assistance  from  their  former  masters.  .  .  .  The  truth  is, 
within  the  present  century   we  have  most  rapidly  decreased. 

1P.  114. 

"I.e.  Mass.  Catholics  were  still  accustomed  to  this  method  of  writing — a 
relic  of  days  when  it  was  not  safe  to  use  the  word  "  Mass  "  publicly. 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  9 

Many  congregations  have  entirely  disappeared  in  different 
parts  ;  and  in  one  district  alone  in  which  I  am  acquainted, 
eight  out  of  thirteen  are  come  to  nothing ;  nor  have  any  new 
ones  risen  to  make  up  in  any  proportion  their  loss.  ...  In  the 
nature  of  things  it  could  not  possibly  be  otherwise.  Where 
one  cause  can  be  discovered  tending  to  their  increase,  there 
will  be  twenty  found  to  work  their  diminution.  Among  the 
principal  are  the  loss  of  families  by  death,  or  by  conforming 
to  the  Established  Church ;  the  marrying  with  Protestants, 
and  that  general  indifference1  about  religion  which  gains  so 
perceptibly  among  all  ranks  of  Christians.  When  a  family 
of  distinction  fails,  as  there  seldom  continues  any  conveniency 
either  for  prayers  [Mass]  or  instruction,  the  neighbouring 
Catholics  soon  fall  away  :  and  when  a  priest  is  still  maintained, 
the  example  of  the  Lord  is  wanting  to  encourage  the  lower 
class  particularly  to  the  practice  of  their  religion.  I  recollect 
the  names  of  at  least  ten  noble  fam  ilies 1  that  within  these 
sixty  years  have  either  conformed  or  are  extinct,  besides  many 
Commoners  of  distinction  and  fortune." 

A  little  further  on,  Berington  enumerates  the  chief  Catholic 
families  still  left : — 

"  We  have  at  this  day  but  eight  Peers,  nineteen  Baronets, 
and  about  a  hundred  and  fifty  gentlemen  of  landed  property. 
Among  the  first,  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury 
and  the  Lords  Arundel  and  Petre  are  in  possession  of  consider- 
able estates.  But  the  Earl  of  Surrey,  the  eldest  and  only  son 
to  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  having  lately  conformed,  the  large  pos- 
sessions of  that  noble  and  ancient  family  will  soon  fall  into 
Protestant  hands.  The  eldest  son  of  Lord  Teynham  has  also 
left  the  religion  of  his  father.  Among  the  Baronets  are  not 
more  than  three  great  estates  :  Sir  Thomas  Gascoigne  has  also 
this  year  taken  the  oaths.  Of  the  remaining  Commoners,  with 
an  exception  of  four  or  five,  the  greatest  part  have  not  on  an 

1  No  list  is  given  by  Berington  of  those  who  left  the  Church  at  this  time 
but  Milner  enumerates  the  following:  "  The  Lords  Gage,  Fauconberg,  Teynham 
Montague,  Nugent,  Kingsland,  Dunsanny,  their  Graces  of  Gordon,  Norfolk,  &c. 
the  Baronets  Tancred,  Gascoigne,  Swinburn,  Blake,  &c,  the  priests  Billings 
Warton,  Hawkins,  Lewis,  Doran,  &c."  (Sup.  Mem.,  p.  44).  The  Duke  of  Nor 
folk  here  spoken  of  is  the  same  as  alluded  to  immediately  afterwards  by  Berington 
as  at  that  time  the  Earl  of  Surrey.  He  succeeded  his  father  as  Duke  of  Norfolk 
in  17S6,  and  lived  till  1815,  when  as  he  died  without  issue,  the  title  returned  to 
Catholic  hands. 


io  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

average  more  than  one  thousand  pounds  per  annum  in  landed 
property.  Within  this  year  alone,  we  have  lost  more  by  the 
defection  of  the  two  mentioned  gentlemen  than  we  have  gained 
by  Proselytes  since  the  Revolution." 

Having  been  introduced  here  to  the  important  and  influen- 
tial class  of  the  old  Catholic  gentry,  to  whom  under  God  the 
preservation  of  the  Catholic  religion  in  England  is  mainly  due, 
a  few  words  about  their  lives  and  characters  will  be  in  place. 
The  description  given  by  Macaulay  of  the  typical  Catholic  squire 
of  the  reign  of  James  II.  is  well  known  ;  but  it  will  bear  quot- 
ing, at  least  in  part,  once  more : — 

"  He  was  neither  a  fanatic  nor  a  hypocrite.  He  was  a 
Roman  Catholic  because  his  father  and  grandfather  had  been 
so ;  and  he  held  his  hereditary  faith,  sincerely  but  with  little 
enthusiasm.  In  all  other  points  he  was  a  mere  English  squire, 
and  if  he  differed  from  the  neighbouring  squires,  differed  from 
them  by  being  somewhat  more  simple  and  clownish  than  they. 
The  disabilities  under  which  he  lay  had  prevented  his  mind 
from  expanding  to  the  standard,  moderate  as  that  standard 
was,  which  the  minds  of  the  Protestant  country  gentlemen  then 
ordinarily  attained.  Excluded  when  a  boy  from  Eton  and 
Winchester,  when  a  youth  from  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  when 
a  man  from  Parliament  or  the  bench  of  justice,  he  generally 
vegetated  as  quietly  as  the  elms  of  the  avenue  which  led  to  his 
ancestral  grange.  His  cornfields,  his  dairy  and  his  cider-press, 
his  greyhounds,  his  fishing-rod  and  his  gun,  his  ale  and  his 
tobacco  occupied  almost  all  his  thoughts."  l 

Such  is  the  picture  of  a  Catholic  squire  of  the  time  of  James 
II.  as  seen  from  outside.  There  seems  no  reason  to  think  that 
any  substantial  change  had  taken  place  by  the  time  of  the 
Georges,  except  only  in  this,  that  politically  Catholics  had 
formerly  been  closely  bound  up  with  the  Jacobite  party ;  while 
shortly  after  the  unsuccessful  rebellion  of  1745,  by  what  Ber- 
ington  calls  "  one  of  those  singular  revolutions,  for  which  no 
cause  can  be  assigned,"  this  attachment  died  away,  and  when 
an  Oath  of  Allegiance  to  the  reigning  house  of  Brunswick  was 
made  a  condition  for  obtaining  relief  under  the  Act  of  1778,  few 
if  any  Catholics  felt  any  hesitation  in  taking  it. 

In  order  to  complete  the  picture,  however,  we  must  add  the 

1  History  of  England,  Ed.  Longmans,  1895,  i.,  p.  91. 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  II 

testimony  of  those  who  knew  the  Catholic  body  from  within. 
For  their  faith,  which  according  to  Macaulay  they  held  "  sin- 
cerely but  with  little  enthusiasm,"  in  reality  formed  a  far  more 
important  and  all-pervading  factor  of  their  lives  than  would 
have  been  visible  to  an  outsider.  One  of  the  chief  features  in 
in  their  well-defined  stamp  of  piety  was  a  certain  outward  re- 
serve, so  characteristic  of  the  English.  Their  feeling  was  that 
to  speak  about  their  spiritual  life  would  savour  of  hypocrisy, 
and  was  out  of  keeping  with  the  obliteration  of  self  at  which 
they  systematically  aimed.  They  did  not  themselves  explicitly 
reflect  on  their  own  attitude  of  mind,  which  had  become  almost 
a  second  nature.  The  result  was  that  it  was  only  those  who 
knew  them  intimately  who  could  realise  either  their  attachment 
to  their  religion,  or  the  all-important  part  it  played  in  their 
lives.  A  careful  examination  of  the  records  of  their  various 
works  of  charity  and  piety  will  furnish  evidence  of  the  reality  of 
their  devotion,  and  this  becomes  the  more  remarkable  when  we 
remember  that  they  were  carried  on  in  the  face  of  continual 
fines  and  impoverishments  which  were  inflicted  on  the  Catholics 
under  the  Penal  Laws  until  comparatively  late.  And  if  we  wish 
for  evidence  of  the  purity  and  sanctity  of  their  homes,  we  may 
find  it  in  the  remarkable  number  of  their  daughters  who  re- 
ceived the  grace  of  a  vocation  to  the  religious  life.  The 
numerous  English  convents  abroad  were  recruited  almost  ex- 
clusively from  the  old  Catholic  families. 

In  testimony  of  their  virtues,  we  may  quote  the  words  of 
one  who  was  the  close  friend  of  many  of  them,  and  ever  con- 
stant in  his  appreciation  of  their  characters — the  revered  Bishop 
Poynter.  In  his  "  Apologetical  Epistle,"  written  in  1815,  he 
writes  of  them  as  follows  : —  1 

"  With  what  patience  the  English  Catholics  have  suffered  pri- 
vation of  their  civil  rights  on  account  of  professing  the  Catholic 
religion  ;  with  what  piety  they  have  adhered,  and  do  still  adhere, 
in  the  midst  of  the  greatest  grievances,  to  the  ancient  faith 
and  the  holy  Apostolic  See ;  with  what  liberality  have  they 
contributed  out  of  their  private  property  to  the  support  of  the 
public  burthens  of  religion  and  charity !  Let  [any  one]  look 
into  a  list  of  the  principal  Catholics  .  .  .  and  into  the  number 
of  those  who  residing  neither  in  London  nor  in  any  principal 

1  Hist.   Mem.,  iv.,   p.  503. 


12  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

town  support  at  their  own  charge,  either  wholly  or  partially, 
Catholic  clergymen  and  the  expenses  of  their  chapels  and  thus 
procure  the  comforts  of  religion  to  be  administered  not  only  to 
themselves  and  their  families,  but  to  numerous  Catholic  congre- 
gations in  the  country  residing  in  the  neighbourhood  of  their 
mansions ;  let  any  one,  I  say,  consider  and  reflect  on  this,  and 
then  declare  whether  the  English  Catholics  do  not  deserve  the 
praises  which  I  and  the  other  vicars  Apostolic  have  with  a 
common  voice  given  them  in  our  pastoral  instructions." 

With  respect  to  their  intercourse  with  their  non-Catholic 
neighbours,  we  can  again  quote  Berington  : —  1 

"  Their  foreign  education "  (he  writes),  "  it  is  sometimes 
thought,  gives  them  at  first  a  peculiar  caste ;  but  a  free  inter- 
course with  the  world  soon  rubs  off  those  acute  angles,  unless 
when  inveterate  habits  have  been  formed,  or  the  mind  has  been 
peculiarly  narrowed.  Some  years  back,  when  the  Penal  Laws 
were  more  strictly  executed,  and  when  weak  men  feared  some 
noxious  contagion  from  the  breath  of  Catholics,  they  associated 
very  little  with  the  world.  A  certain  sternness  of  temper  was 
the  natural  effect  of  this  retirement ;  and  if,  in  their  turn,  they 
felt  a  strong  dislike  to  Protestants,  it  was  what  the  conduct  of 
the  latter  deserved.  Some  good,  however,  and  that  of  no 
trifling  consideration,  was  from  thence  derived.  The  estates 
of  Catholics  were  in  better  condition  ;  they  supported  with 
more  becoming  liberality  their  indigent  and  oppressed  neigh- 
bours ;  and  in  the  duties  of  religion  they  were  greatly  more 
sincere.  .  .  .  Many  Protestants,  though  they  daily  converse 
with  Catholics  on  the  easy  footing  of  private  friendship,  still 
retain  the  same  general  prejudices  against  them,  which  the 
lowest  ignorance  should  now  blush  at.  They  can  think  well 
enough  of  individuals,  but  nothing,  they  tell  you,  can  be  more 
shocking  and  absurd  than  the  principles  of  the  body,  and 
nothing  more  vicious  and  inimical  to  the  duties  of  society  than 
their  general  conduct  and  habits  of  mind." 

Speaking  of  the  Catholics  among  the  lower  orders,  Bering- 
ton  continues  : — 

"  The  characters  of  the  common  people  are  hardly  dis- 
tinguishable from  those  of  their  neighbours.  If  there  be  any 
difference,  the  balance  should  rather  ponderate    in   favour  of 

1  P.  124. 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  13 

Catholics,  because  I  know  they  are  more  carefully  instructed 
in  their  youth  and  are  afterwards  much  attended  to." 

And  summing  up  as  to  the  whole  body  in  general,  he  says  : — 
"  The  lives  of  Catholics  in  general  are  observed  to  be 
regular :  and  without  panegyrising  their  virtues,  to  which  I  am 
not  inclined,  I  only  beg  Protestants  themselves  to  declare  their 
sentiments.  Do  they  know  in  the  whole  extent  of  his  Majesty's 
dominions,  better  men,  better  citizens  or  better  subjects  ;  people 
more  amenable  to  the  laws,  more  observant  of  all  the  duties  of 
civil  life  ?  Their  charities  as  far  as  their  powers  of  doing  good 
extend,  are  great.  Every  object  in  distress  is  a  fellow-creature 
who  calls  for  relief;  nor  do  I  know  that  Catholics  ever  make 
any  distinction  of  persons,  unless  (which  has  sometimes 
happened)  when  Protestants  have  first  refused  assistance  to 
those  of  the  Popish  persuasion." 

The  Catholic  centres  outside  London,  whether  at  the  seats 
of  the  aristocracy,  or  in  the  towns,  or  elsewhere,  were  real 
missions  ;  that  is,  they  were  centres  from  which  the  people  from 
the  surrounding  district  could  be  ministered  to.  They  were 
not  in  any  sense  parishes  or  quasi-parishes,  as  now.  The 
Catholic  population  was  very  scattered  and  in  most  cases  no 
boundaries  or  limitations  had  been  fixed  between  the  adjacent 
missions.  In  the  majority  of  instances  the  priest  had  to  keep 
a  horse,  so  as  to  be  able  to  visit  the  outlying  country.  Not 
infrequently  he  would  serve  two  or  more  Mass-centres  many 
miles  apart,  necessitating  a  long  ride,  fasting,  every  Sunday. 
Formerly  English  priests  were  allowed  the  very  unusual  privi- 
lege of  saying  three  Masses  on  a  Sunday  ;  but  the  state  of  affairs 
which  rendered  that  necessary  had  passed  away  long  before 
the  time  which  we  are  now  considering.  Even  "  duplicating  " 
had  become  exceptional.     "  It  is  not  so  common  a  thing  now" 

— Dr.  Kirk  writes  in  1786 — "  to  say  two  or  three  m s  a  day, 

as  in  some  years  past.     When  there  is  a  riding  mission  the 

P 1  goes  one  Sunday  to  one,  and  another  to  another,  tho' 

some  still  say  two  once  a  month,  or  once  every  indul ce."  l 

1  The  "  Eight  Indulgences"  were  the  occasions  when  devout  Catholics  would 
ordinarily  approach  the  sacraments.  Though  these  are  still  read  out  in  the 
churches,  and  are  enumerated  in  the  Directory,  they  have  long  ceased  to  have 
their  old  significance.  The  following  is  a  list  of  them  :  I.  Christmas  ;  II.  The 
First  Week  of  Lent ;  III.  Easter;  IV.  Whitsuntide;  V.  Sts.  Peter  and  Paul ;  VI. 
The  Assumption ;  VII.  Michaelmas;  VIII.  All  Saints. 


14  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

Dr.  Kirk  was  at  that  time  at  Sedgley  Park,  which  was  not  or- 
dinarily a  "  riding  mission  "  ;  nevertheless  he  was  at  that  time 
supplying  at  Lichfield  every  Sunday,  which  involved  riding 
sixteen  miles  before  his  second  Mass. 

The  clergy  lived  in  a  state  of  great  poverty.  A  gentleman's 
chaplain  would  receive  £20  a  year  as  his  personal  salary ;  a 
missioner  who  had  to  support  himself  and  his  servant,  and 
sometimes  to  keep  a  horse,  would  think  himself  fortunate  if  he 
had  an  additional  ^"20.  Even  allowing  for  the  difference  in 
the  value  of  money  between  then  and  now,  these  figures  in- 
dicate a  very  small  sum  to  live  on.  They  are  given  on  the 
authority  of  Berington,  who  continues  : — 

"  Our  priests  in  their  general  character  are  upright  and 
sincere :  but  narrowed  by  a  bad  education,  they  contract  early 
prejudices  which  they  very  seldom  afterwards  deposit.  The 
theological  lumber  of  the  schools  supplies  in  their  minds  the 
place  of  more  useful  furniture.  Moderately  skilled  in  the  Latin 
and  Greek  languages,  they  know  nothing  of  their  own,  nor  do 
they  become  sensible  of  their  manifold  deficiencies  till  it  be  too 
late  to  attempt  improvement.  They  are  bred  up  in  the  per- 
suasion that  on  coming  to  England  they  are  to  meet  with  racks 
and  persecution  :  they  land  therefore  as  in  an  enemy's  country, 
cautious,  diffident  and  respectful.  ...  A  priest  is  seldom  seen 
in  the  society  of  Protestants.  The  Catholics  he  is  told  to  herd 
with  either  are  unable  to  improve  him,  or  if  able,  are  seldom 
willing.  Contracted  in  his  circumstances,  he  has  not  the  means 
of  drawing  information  from  books  ;  and  unfashioned  in  the 
forms  of  elegant  life,  his  company  is  not  asked  for.  Thus  denied 
all  occasion  of  improvement,  if  his  native  dispositions  will  allow 
him,  he  soon  sits  down  sullenly  contented  and  looks  no  further. 
If  he  ever  had  ambitions,  disuse  will  in  a  short  time  lay  them 
asleep  ;  and  at  sixty  he  will  be  found  the  same  man  he  was  at 
twenty-five."  l 

Berington  does  not  consider,  however,  that  the  clergy  are 
solely  to  blame.  "  It  is  the  complaint  of  our  gentry  "  (he  writes) 
"  that  Priests  are  rough  and  unsociable  :  they  would  be  less  so, 
perhaps,  if  their  patrons  were  less  proud,  less  ignorant  and  less 
imperious.    On  both  sides  are  faults  which  should  be  corrected." 

The  above  description  was  probably  meant  to  apply  not 

1  State  and  Behaviour,  p.  162. 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  15 

only  to  the  secular  clergy,  but  also  to  Benedictines,  Franciscans, 
and  members  of  others  of  the  older  Orders  who  in  England 
became  to  all  intents  and  purposes  ordinary  missionary  priests. 
For  they  had  no  monasteries,  and  could  not  keep  their  rule,  or 
wear  the  habits  of  their  order :  they  were  fairly  numerous,  and 
were  either  chaplains  to  the  gentry,  or  served  missions  similarly 
circumstanced  to  those  of  the  secular  clergy.  There  was  how- 
ever a  considerable  class  of  the  clergy  who  were  nominally 
secular,  but  practically  still  formed  a  body  of  their  own — the 
ex-Jesuits.  After  the  suppression  of  the  Society  in  1773,  they 
were  in  a  somewhat  difficult  position,  and  were  treated  in  con- 
sequence by  Bishop  Challoner  and  the  other  vicars  apostolic  with 
great  consideration.  Their  former  provincial,  Rev.  T.  More,  was 
allowed  to  act  as  vicar  general  over  them,  so  that  he  might  re- 
main their  immediate  superior.  Nominally  they  were  subject 
to  the  bishops,  and  they  lived  externally  as  secular  priests  ;  but 
they  had  different  antecedents  and  traditions  from  the  rest  of 
the  clergy,  and  practically  formed  a  body  apart.1  During  the 
days  of  their  suppression,  they  still  maintained,  or  nearly  main- 
tained, their  numbers,  by  a  constant  supply  from  those  educated 
at  the  "  Academy  "  at  Liege,  and  at  the  time  we  are  now  con- 
cerned with,  they  formed  almost  a  third  of  the  clergy  of  Eng- 
land. According  to  Berington,  in  1780  there  were  360  priests 
in  England,  of  whom  1 10  were  ex-Jesuits. 

Assuming  Berington's  description  of  the  condition  of  Eng- 
lish Catholics  to  have  been  fairly  accurate,  we  can  well 
understand  how  they  would  have  spoken  of  "  the  Dreary 
Eighteenth  Century,"  as  a  time  of  persistent  and  dispiriting 
losses  to  their  body,  with  very  few  signs  of  hope  to  counter- 
balance them.  The  outlook  throughout  all  Europe  was  almost 
equally  dispiriting.  As  an  example  of  the  tone  of  mind  which 
this  engendered,  the  following  quotations  from  a  letter  from 
Bishop  Walmesley  to  Mr.  Weld  of  Lulworth  are  worth  giv- 
ing in  full.  The  letter  was  dated  January  6,  1782:  its 
immediate    occasion   being    the    intended    suppression   of  the 

1  They  did  not,  however,  act  in  any  way  in  concert  in  what  may  be  termed 
"  Catholic  politics  ".  It  will  be  seen  in  the  following  pages  that  some,  like  Dr. 
Strickland  and  Rev.  J.  Reeve,  sided  with  the  Committee  party  as  far  as  they 
could  consistently  with  avoiding  unorthodoxy  ;  while  others,  like  Fathers  Charles 
and  Robert  Plowden,  went  to  extreme  lengths  in  the  opposite  direction. 


1 6  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

religious  orders  in  Austria  and  the  Netherlands.  He  writes  as 
follows  : —  x 

"  You  ask  comfort  from  me  in  these  calamitous  times,  and  I 
am  afraid  I  can  administer  but  little.  The  times  with  respect 
to  irreligion,  though  so  bad  at  present,  will  I  apprehend  grow 
gradually  worse  and  worse,  till  we  come  to  the  period  intimated 
by  our  Saviour :  '  When  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come,  do  you 
think  He  will  find  faith  upon  earth  ? '  We  must  strive  against 
the  torrent,  but  nothing  will  be  effectual  enough  to  stop  it. 

"  With  regard  to  Religious  Orders,  while  in  former  ages 
Princes  and  rich  persons  were  zealous  in  instituting  and  raising 
them  up,  now  the  spirit  of  abolition  prevails  (that  spirit  of 
Abaddon  which  rules  the  Reformation,  and  which  has  insinu- 
ated itself  into  Catholics)  and  in  progress  of  time  I  suppose 
there  will  not  be  one  Religious  order  remaining.  The  Pope  and 
the  whole  clergy  will  probably  be  unmercifully  stript  of  all  or 
greatest  part  of  their  temporalities  and  the  Church  reduced  to 
its  primitive  poverty,  as  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  The 
picture  here  described  is  certainly  not  pleasing  ;  but  such  seems 
to  be  the  state  of  things  as  insinuated  by  the  Scriptures,  by  the 
tenour  of  the  times,  and  the  explications  of  Pastorini  for  which 
you  seem  to  show  some  regard." 

After  stating  that  the  rumours  of  the  wholesale  confiscation 
of  convents  are  probably  premature,  Bishop  Walmesley  con- 
tinues : — 

"But  the  ways  of  Almighty  God  are  unfathomable,  and 
for  whatever  He  permits  to  happen,  we  must  say  with  the 
Royal  Psalmist,  '  Justa  sunt  judicia  tua,  Domine '  ;  and  then 
add,  with  the  same,  '  Oculi  Domini  super  justos,  et  aures  ejus 
ad  preces  eorum '.  He  will  always  keep  a  careful  eye  over 
His  servants,  and  will  afford  them  some  special  protection, 
though  in  what  way  we  know  not.  Besides,  by  His  assistance 
they  will  merit  of  all  tribulations  and  turn  evils  into  Blessings. 
In  fine,  our  ultimate  refuge  must  be  to  God,  the  ruler  of  all 
things,  '  Deus  refugium  nostrum  et  virtus ' :  and  our  best 
comfort  must  be  an  unlimited  resignation  to  the  Divine  ap- 
pointments." 

A  few  years  later,  when  the  first  scenes  of  the  French 
Revolution  were  being  enacted,  Bishop  Walmesley  saw  in  the 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  i. 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  17 

horrors,  which  were  of  daily  occurrence,  the  fulfilments  of  his 
forebodings.  He  writes  to  the  same  Mr.  Weld  towards  the 
end  of  the  year  1789  in  this  strain  : —  * 

"  How  alarming,  and  even  dreadful,  appear  at  present  the 
judgments  of  God  upon  almost  all  the  nations  of  Europe ! 
'  Ulciscens  Dominus  in  hostes  suos '  (says  the  Prophet  Nahum), 
'et  irascens  ipse  inimicis  suis.' 

"  What  a  scene  in  France,  in  Flanders,  Germany,  etc. !  The 
two-edged  sword  of  the  Son  of  Man  which  proceeds  from  His 
month  to  strike  the  nations  is  sent  forth  for  the  destruction 
of  the  wicked.  Famine  appears,  stalking  forward  and  coming 
to  share  in  the  consumption  of  the  human  race,  and  perhaps  for 
the  accumulation  of  misery,  drawing  after  him  the  plague. 
This  kingdom  has  already  felt  a  share  of  calamities,  by  our  late 
American  war,  and  other  disasters ;  bad  seasons  in  particular, 
and  sickness  have  prevailed.  Some  other  countries  have  been 
torn  to  pieces  by  earthquakes.  '  Aggravata  est  manus  Domini.' 
Certainly  such  distresses  and  calamities  cannot  come  but  from 
an  irritated  God,  irritated  with  the  flowing  stream  of  irreligion  and 
immorality.  Such  a  spirit  of  licentious  Liberty  and  Independ- 
ence has  of  late  years  risen  up  and  rapidly  increased  and  spread, 
not  suffering  any  restraint  from  either  Divine  or  human  law 
and  therefore  breaking  through  every  tie  of  justice,  of  respect 
to  God  or  man,  giving  aloose  to  every  passion  to  the  indulging 
of  nature  without  control,  and  levelling  everything  that  opposes 
it.  .  .  .  On  a  retrospect  of  all  past  ages  from  the  first  existence 
of  the  world,  we  see  that  the  bulk  of  mankind  having  once  im- 
bibed the  full  spirit  of  wickedness,  have  never  reformed,  but 
sunk  deeper  into  it ;  by  which  they  drew  upon  their  heads  the 
severest  punishments  from  an  angry  God.  In  like  manner  it 
seems  to  follow  from  the  predictions  of  St.  John  in  the  Apo- 
calypse, and  Prophetical  admonitions  of  St.  Paul,  that  such  will 
be  the  case  of  the  present  and  succeeding  generations  of  man- 
kind, that  is  that  they  will  not  submit  to  put  a  stop  to  their 
iniquities  and  return  to  their  God  ;  that  consequently  it  must 
be  expected  that  the  present  scourges  which  afflict  them  so 
heavily  will  gradually  increase  till  they  come  to  a  pitch  beyond 
our  conception.  What  then  is  our  prospect  ?  Is  it  not  truly 
frightful  ?  " 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 
VOL.  I.  2 


CHAPTER  II. 

CATHOLIC  LONDON  UNDER  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT. 

I78I-I79O. 

DURING  the  years  from  1781  to  1790  the  Vicar  Apostolic  of 
the  London  District  was  Bishop  James  Talbot,  while  his  younger 
brother,  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot,  was  in  charge  of  the  Midland 
District.  They  were  brothers  of  the  fourteenth  Earl' of  Shrews- 
bury, and  had  been  brought  up  in  all  the  seclusion  and  isolation 
characteristic  of  the  homes  of  the  Catholic  aristocracy  of  the 
period.  It  is  no  disrespect  to  the  memory  of  the  saintly  Bishop 
Talbot  to  say  that  the  whole  tone  of  his  mind  was  coloured  by 
the  epoch  in  which  he  lived.  He  was  unable  to  face  with  suc- 
cess the  difficulties  which  preceded  the  passing  of  the  Catholic 
Relief  Act  of  1791,  and  would  have  been  still  more  unable  to 
lead  during  the  rapid  expansion  of  the  Church  in  England  which 
has  been  taking  place  ever  since.  The  greater  part  of  his  life 
was  cast  in  days  when  the  Penal  Laws  asserted  their  full  force, 
and  his  spirit  breathes  of  those  times.  He  will  always  be 
specially  reverenced  by  Catholics  as  having  been  the  last  priest 
to  be  brought  before  the  courts  under  those  laws,  for  he  was 
tried  at  the  Old  Bailey  at  least  twice  in  the  years  1769  and 
1 77 1  for  the  sole  offence  of  having  exercised  his  ecclesiastical 
functions,  and  was  only  acquitted  for  want  of  evidence. 

"  Let  us  not  forget,"  said  Dr.  Milner  in  his  obituary  sermon, 
"  since  Heaven  will  not  forget,  since  the  Church  will  enroll  it 
in  her  most  precious  records,  and  preserve  the  memory  of  it  as 
long  as  she  herself  shall  exist,  that  is  to  the  end  of  time,  let 
us  not  forget  the  glorious  title  of  Confessor  of  the  Faith  which 
our  dear  deceased  Father  has  merited  by  his  constancy  in  the 
cause  of  God,  and  his  zeal  for  our  spiritual  welfare.  Let  us 
call  to  mind  with  gratitude  and  exultation  that,  despising  the 
prejudices  of  the  world,  our  Prelate,  noble  by  birth,  venerable 


1781-90]   CATHOLIC  LONDON  UNDER  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT     19 

for  his  manners  and  character,  did  not  blush  but  rather  gloried 
in  imitation  of  his  Divine  Master,  to  appear  at  a  bar  of  justice 
for  the  discharge  of  his  duty  in  regard  to  our  salvation,  with 
thieves  and  assassins  as  if  he  were  one  of  that  number,  and 
deserving  of  a  capital  punishment.  In  this  point,  at  least,  our 
Prelate  in  the  eye  of  faith  had  the  advantage  over  his  saint- 
like predecessor  [Dr.  Challoner],  though  the  latter  had  been  so 
long  the  champion  of  the  Catholic  cause,  and  had  experienced 
so  much  more  tempestuous  times.  If  our  late  Pastor  had  not 
the  happiness,  as  undoubtedly  he  wished,  of  laying  down  his 
life  for  Christ  on  the  spot,  it  was  because  he  was  reserved  to 
suffer  a  more  lingering  and  severe  martyrdom  during  a  time  of 
exterior  peace  in  the  same  cause,  the  effect  of  the  same  pure 
zeal  that  made  him  the  object  of  the  persecutor's  fury.  It  is 
the  opinion  of  those  who  were  best  acquainted  of  late  with  our 
lamented  pastor  that  he  fell  a  victim  to  his  anxiety  and  solici- 
tude for  the  welfare  of  the  Church  at  a  time  and  in  circum- 
stances that  seem  to  require  a  more  than  human  portion  of 
zeal  and  abilities  to  manage  the  helm  of  ecclesiastical  affairs 
aright."  l 

James  Talbot's  early  history  can  be  briefly  told.  He  was 
born  at  Shrewsbury  House,  belonging  to  his  family,  at  Isle- 
worth,  in  1726,  the  fourth  of  five  sons,  and  after  his  baptism 
he  was  confirmed  in  infancy  by  Bishop  Bonaventure  Giffard, 
according  to  a  custom  then  not  uncommon.  He  and  his 
brothers  were  sent  as  boys  to  Twyford,  near  Winchester,  where 
a  Catholic  preparatory  school  of  some  note  was  carried  on, 
illegally  indeed,  but  yet  usually  without  interruption  on  the 
part  of  the  Government.  At  this  school  the  poet,  Alexander 
Pope,  had  spent  his  early  days,  and  had  left  a  record  in  the 
shape  of  a  lampoon  on  one  of  his  masters  scratched  on  a 
window  pane. 

At  the  age  of  twelve  years,  James  Talbot  and  his  younger 
brother  Thomas  were  sent  "  beyond  the  seas "  to  complete 
their  education.  Although  their  uncle,  Gilbert  Talbot,  had 
been  a  well-known  Jesuit,  the  younger  generation  were  not 
sent  to  St.  Omer's ;  for  there  had  been  a  law-suit  between  the 

1  This  sermon  was  preached  by  Dr.  Milner  at  Winchester  the  Sunday  after 
Bishop  Talbot's  death.  The  original  MS.  is  preserved  in  the  Westminster 
Archives. 

n,    * 


20  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

Jesuits  and  the  Talbots  about  the  property  of  this  same  Gilbert 
Talbot  after  his  death,  which  produced  an  estrangement  be- 
tween his  family  and  the  society.  James  and  Thomas  Talbot 
were  accordingly  sent  to  Douay,  where  they  went  through  the 
whole  course.  At  the  end  of  their  "  Philosophy,"  l  the  two 
brothers  were  given  the  advantage  of  making  the  "  Grand 
Tour,"  in  company  with  the  Rev.  Alban  Butler,  the  learned 
author  of  The  Lives  of  the  Saints,  who  subsequently  wrote  an 
account  of  the  tour,  which  was  published  after  his  death  by 
his  nephew,  Charles  Butler.  They  were  absent  over  a  year. 
Returning  to  Douay  in  1748,  the  two  brothers  entered  together 
on  the  study  of  theology,  and  on  December  19,  1750,  James 
Talbot  was  ordained  priest.  Immediately  afterwards  he  was 
appointed  Professor  of  Philosophy,  and  two  years  later  of 
Theology.  In  the  year  1753  he  made  his  Alma  Mater  a  most 
valuable  gift,  of  a  country  house  situated  near  a  little  village 
called  Equerchin,  some  three  miles  from  Douay,  at  a  cost  of 
over  ^"1,000.  It  was  used  primarily  as  a  preparatory  school 
over  which  he  presided  for  a  time  ;  but  it  served  also  as  a  resort 
for  all  the  students  in  vacation  and  other  times. 

In  1755  James  Talbot  returned  to  England.  The  following 
year  we  find  his  name  formally  proposed  for  a  bishopric,  as 
coadjutor  to  Dr.  York,  of  the  Western  District ;  but  that  dis- 
trict had  always  been  governed  by  Regulars,  and  Dr.  Walmes- 
ley,  O.S.B.,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  appointed.  Three  years 
later,  Bishop  Hornyold  of  the  Midland  District  petitioned  for 
James  Talbot  in  the  same  capacity ;  and  as  he  was  unwilling 
to  accept  the  office,  Bishop  Hornyold  begged  his  Holiness  to 
command  him  by  the  virtue  of  obedience  not  to  refuse.  He 
likewise  wrote  to  Prince  Charles  Edward,  then  living  in  Rome, 
to  beg  him  to  use  his  influence  in  favour  of  the  appointment. 
The  negotiations,  however,  were  not  successful :  Bishop  Hor- 
nyold did  not  obtain  a  coadjutor  until  the  year  1766,  by  which 
time  James  Talbot  was  already  established  in  London.  His 
brother,  Thomas  Talbot,  was  then  nominated.  He  also  made 
great  difficulty  about  accepting  the  post,  and  only  did  so  in  the 
end  under  the  absolute  command  of  the  Holy  See. 

1  For  the  sake  of  those  not  familiar  with  our  Catholic  colleges,  it  may  be 
explained  that  philosophy  is  studied  at  the  conclusion  of  the  classical  or  school 
course,  usually  for  two  years,  before  entering  on  the  study  of  theology. 


1790]   CATHOLIC  LONDON  UNDER  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.     21 

James  Talbot  was  permanently  attached  to  the  London 
District  as  coadjutor  to  Bishop  Challoner,  at  the  latter's  re- 
quest, in  1759.  He  was  consecrated  at  Hammersmith  on 
August  24  of  that  year.  During  the  succeeding  twenty-one 
years,  Dr.  Talbot  acted  as  a  most  loyal  assistant,  being  only 
too  glad  to  occupy  a  subordinate  position,  and  to  devote  him- 
self to  works  of  charity.  This  was  in  truth  the  ruling  passion 
of  his  life.  While  Bishop  Challoner  was  popularly  styled  the 
"  Venerable,"  his  coadjutor  was  known  as  "  the  Good  Bishop 
Talbot ". 

Bishop  Challoner  died  in  his  ninetieth  year,  on  January  12, 
1 78 1,  when  Bishop  Talbot  became  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the 
London  District.  He  announced  the  fact  formally  to  his  clergy 
in  a  characteristic  circular  letter  in  Latin,  of  which  the  original 
is  preserved  in  the  Westminster  Archives.  The  following  is  a 
translation  : — 

"  There  is  no  necessity,  Beloved  Brethren,  for  us  to  make 
known  to  you  the  death  of  the  Venerable  and  most  truly 
Reverend  Bishop  of  Debra,  our  Predecessor,  for  that  death,  so 
mourned  in  the  District,  is  only  too  well  known.  You  have 
already  bewailed  it,  but  never  can  you  bewail  it  enough  ;  for 
we  have  lost  one  who  manifestly  led  the  life  of  an  angel.  And 
who  are  we,  that  we  should  succeed  so  distinguished  a  Prelate  ? 
Yet  by  his  death  we  are  called  to  the  care  and  government  of 
this  District.  A  burden  is  imposed  upon  us  which  would 
weigh  down  the  shoulders  even  of  an  angel,  which  we  feel  our- 
selves to  be  wholly  incapable  of  bearing.  To  you,  therefore, 
Beloved  Brethren,  we  have  recourse ;  we  beg  your  aid  and  the 
help  of  your  prayers,  that  we  may  be  able  to  fulfil  as  far  as 
may  be  our  numerous  and  weighty  obligations." 

Sad  and  dispiriting  indeed  was  the  state  of  Catholic  London 
when  Bishop  James  Talbot  succeeded  to  the  Vicariate.  The 
results  of  the  Gordon  Riots  were  everywhere  visible.  The 
spirit  of  Catholics  seemed  crushed.  They  were  ready  to  peti- 
tion Parliament  to  have  the  Penal  Laws  re-enacted  rather  than 
face  the  possibility  of  a  repetition  of  the  experiences  of  the 
past  year.  Their  places  of  worship,  poor  and  unpretending  as 
they  were,  had  been  destroyed,  the  Catholic  body  was  im- 
poverished, and  little  hope  seemed  visible  for  the  future. 

With  commendable  spirit,  they  set  about  making  good  their 


22  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

losses.  In  some  cases  they  received  the  benefit  of  the  law  in 
the  shape  of  compensation  money  ;  but  such  compensation  was 
far  from  covering  the  damage,  and  they  knew  the  state  of 
public  feeling  only  too  well  to  think  of  pressing  their  claims. 
They  far  preferred  to  forego  their  rights  rather  than  to  attract 
even  the  smallest  attention. 

Under  these  circumstances  Bishop  Talbot  had  recourse  to 
assistance  from  the  kingdom  of  Spain,  which  had  always  been 
the  friend  of  English  Catholics,  and  with  the  Government  of 
which  he  had  been  already  in  communication  during  the  recent 
negotiations  as  to  the  college  at  Valladolid.  The  following 
letters  explain  themselves.  They  show  us  on  the  one  hand 
the  generosity  of  the  Spanish  Catholics  towards  us,  and,  on 
the  other,  give  an  interesting  little  insight  into  the  state  into 
which  the  London  chapels  had  been  reduced  and  the  work 
done  in  restoring  them.1 

"Bishop  James  Talbot  to  Count  Campomanes. 

"Your  Excellency, 

"  We  have  recently  heard  that  our  petition  with  re- 
gard to  the  Catholic  Chapels  in  this  city  destroyed  in  the 
furious  Riots  of  the  people  has  been  commended  by  the 
'  Concilium  Supremum '  to  the  distinguished  Chapters  of  the 
Churches.  And  since  we  have  already  in  the  past  commended 
this  work  to  your  Excellency,  and  as  from  other  sources  we 
are  not  ignorant  of  your  zeal  in  such  cases,  we  do  not  hesitate 
to  attribute  this  decree  of  the  '  Concilium  Supremum '  to  your 
kind  interposition.  But  while  with  gratitude  of  soul  we  recall 
these  things  to  mind,  we  at  the  same  time  trust  that  a  like  zeal 
for  religion  to  that  which  induced  your  Excellency  to  take  up 
this  our  cause,  will  also  induce  you  to  follow  it  out,  and  bring  it 
to  a  happy  issue. 

"  For  the  Chapels  which  were  destroyed  have  now  for  the 
most  part  been  rebuilt,  and  nothing  remains  but  to  settle  the 
claims  of  the  Architects,  who  being  themselves  Catholics,  are 
willing  to  have  patience  until  we  can  pay  them  all. 

"  One  thing  which  we  most  earnestly  beg  is  that  any  alms 

1  The  originals,  which  are  in  Latin,  are  preserved  among  the  Westminster 
Archives.     They  are  translated  here  for  convenience. 


1790]   CATHOLIC  LONDON  UNDER  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.     23 

which  can  be  given  for  this  holy  work  should  be  sent  to  us 
with  the  least  possible  delay.  For  the  state  of  religion  at  this 
time  is  more  than  usually  tranquil,  so  that  it  is  more  favourable 
for  establishing  Catholic  worship,  for  which  purpose  large  alms 
are  above  all  things  necessary.  And  while  we  await  this  from 
your  piety  and  zeal  for  the  Catholic  religion,  we  shall  at  the 
same  time  endeavour  to  deserve  it  by  offering  up  prayer  to  God 
for  his  Majesty  the  King,  for  the  Royal  Family,  and  for  the 
ministers  of  the    '  Concilium  Supremum  '. 

"  In  the  meantime,  with  all  veneration,  we  subscribe  our- 
selves 

"  Your  Excellency's  most  humble  and  obedient  servant, 

"JAMES,  Bishop  of Birtha,  V.A.L. 
"  London,  May  25,  1784." 

"Bishop  James  Talbot  to  Don  Alonso  Camachio. 

"Very  Reverend  Sir, 

"  Not  without  a  lively  sense  of  gratitude,  we  received 
the  announcement  a  few  days  ago  that  the  alms  collected  in 

Spain  for  the  Chapels  in  this  city  had  been  consigned  to 

the  Bankers,   in  order  to  be   forwarded  by  them   to  Messrs. 

merchants,  which  we  acknowledge  to    have    been  done 

by  them  by  means  of  bills  payable  this  coming  month  of 
April.  We  shall  then  be  able  to  pay  the  Architects,  who  as 
they  say,  and  I  in  truth  believe,  have  been  satisfied  with  less 
profit  than  is  customary.  There  will  then  be  nothing  wanting 
for  the  complete  restoration  of  the  chapels.  But  we  shall  still 
require  money  for  the  support  of  the  priests,  and  there  are 
many  things  that  must  be  supplied  for  the  chapels  which  re- 
quired the  collection  of  large  alms  annually  from  the  rich 
residents.  But  one  of  these  chapels,  which  is  situated  in  the 
sailors'  part  of  the  city,  and  is  frequented  by  sailors  from 
every  nation,  has  hardly  any,  I  will  not  say  rich,  but  even  people 
who  are  able  to  give  anything  except  from  their  necessaries.  I 
mention  this,  so  that  if  any  further  alms  could  be  obtained,  they 
should  be.  And  the  memory  of  such  benefits  will  not  be 
effaced  from  the  minds  of  our  people  by  any  lapse  of  time.  It 
only  remains  for  us  to  beg  your  Reverence  to  carry  our  grati- 
tude to  the  illustrious  Count  de  Campomanes,  who  with  re- 


24  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

spect  to  religion,  can  with  all  truth  be  called  '  Nostrarum  decus 
columenque  rerum '. 

"  Praying  from  my  heart  for  all  blessings  for  you, 
"  We  subscribe  ourselves, 

"  Your  most  humble  and  obliged  servant, 

"James  Talbot." 

In  order  to  obtain  an  idea  of  Catholic  London  of  those  days, 
it  will  be  worth  while  to  say  a  few  words  about  each  of  the 
"  Chapels,"  and  other  Catholic  centres.  For  this  purpose  we 
can  again  avail  ourselves  of  a  letter  written  by  Bishop  Talbot, 
this  time  addressed  to  Propaganda,  the  date  being  February, 
1782.  The  occasion  which  caused  it  is  not  without  interest, 
illustrating  as  it  does  the  comparatively  subordinate  place  which 
the  vicar  apostolic  still  occupied  in  arranging  for  the  work  to 
be  undertaken  by  the  different  priests. 

It  appears  that  the  Polish  Ambassador,  Signor  Bukati,  ap- 
plied to  Propaganda  for  leave  to  establish  an  embassy  chapel 
at  his  own  expense,  having  selected  one  Rev.  Mr.  Doran  as  his 
head  chaplain.  Propaganda  assented  to  his  application,  and 
sent  him  the  desired  authorisation,  requesting  him  to  show  it  to 
Bishop  Talbot.  This  accordingly  he  did.  The  bishop,  how- 
ever, had  a  low  opinion  of  Mr.  Doran,  and  had  already  refused 
to  renew  his  faculties  ;  he  felt  bound  therefore  to  appeal  to 
Rome  against  the  appointment,  alleging  the  double  reason  that 
Mr.  Doran  was  not  a  suitable  person,  and  that  there  was  no 
need  for  an  additional  chapel  at  all.1  In  order  to  make  good 
this  second  point,  he  explained  the  state  of  the  London  mission, 
and  enumerated  the  existing  chapels.  This  enumeration  will 
furnish  us  with  the  material  which  we  want. 

Bishop  Talbot  mentions  in  all  seven  chapels,  four  of  which 
he  says  were  in  "  the  fashionable  part  of  the  town,"  or  as  we 
should  now  say,  in  the  West  End,  and  were  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  ambassadors  of  the  various  Catholic  Powers — the 
Portuguese,  Neapolitan,  Bavarian  and  Sardinian  respectively — 
and  supported  at  their  expense.  The  other  three — Moorfields, 
Virginia  Street,  and  Bermondsey — depended  for  their  support 
on  the  bishop. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Embassy  Chapels  were  the  chief 

1  Mr.  Doran  afterwards  apostatised  and  eventually  ended  his  life  by  suicide. 


I79Q]   CATHOLIC  LONDON  UNDER  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.     25 

centres  of  London  Catholicity  in  Penal  times.  Profiting  by 
international  privilege,  every  ambassador  of  a  Catholic  nation 
used  to  exercise  the  right  of  keeping  his  chaplain,  who  would 
celebrate  Mass.  To  this  the  neighbouring  Catholics  were  com- 
monly admitted,  and  the  ambassador's  house  became  a  quasi- 
mission.  In  some  cases  there  was  a  regular  public  chapel  an- 
nexed, in  which  every  exercise  of  religion  was  tolerated,  except 
preaching  in  English ;  for  the  chapel  was  theoretically  for 
foreigners.  Even  this  restriction  was  often  allowed  to  fall  into 
abeyance  for  long  periods  of  time.  In  other  cases,  there  was 
nothing  but  a  room  in  the  ambassador's  house,  and  it  would 
not  infrequently  happen  that  he  would  change  his  residence,  thus 
putting  the  neighbouring  Catholics  to  grave  inconvenience. 
These  are  not  always  easy  to  trace  at  a  given  time,  and  we 
shall  only  speak  here  of  the  four  embassies  where  there  were 
permanent  chapels  in  the  early  years  of  Bishop  Talbot's  episco- 
pate, and  of  a  fifth — the  Spanish — which  was  established  before 
his  death. 

We  will  take  them  in  the  order  in  which  Bishop  Talbot 
mentions  them,  and  begin  with  the  Portuguese  chapel.  This 
had  originally  been  at  Warwick  Street,  and  the  ambassador 
lived  in  Golden  Square  ;  but  about  the  middle  of  the  century, 
he  moved  his  residence  to  South  Street,  South  Audley  Street. 
He  kept  eight  chaplains,  and  had  all  the  services  carried  out 
in  what  was  for  those  days  a  very  elaborate  fashion.  The 
chapel  itself  was  on  the  first  floor,  over  the  stables.  In  later 
times,  when  Vincent  Novello  was  organist,  the  Portuguese 
Chapel  acquired  a  reputation  for  its  music,  and  was  attended 
regularly  by  many  Protestants  as  well  as  Catholics.  It  lasted 
on  till  the  political  troubles  in  Portugal  in  1826,  soon  after 
which  it  was  closed ;  and  it  is  now  completely  forgotten. 

The  next  Embassy  Chapel  to  be  mentioned  was  the  Nea- 
politan, in  Bird  Street.  This  was  removed  in  1787  to  Seymour 
Mews,  Portman  Square,  and  four  years  later  it  migrated  again, 
this  time  to  Bond  Street ;  but  after  that  it  only  survived  a 
single  year,  and  was  finally  closed  as  a  public  chapel  in  1792. 
During  the  time  we  are  now  concerned  with,  there  were  six 
chaplains. 

The  third  Embassy  Chapel  was  the  Bavarian,  the  am- 
bassador had  taken  the  old  house  of  the  Portuguese  Embassy 


26  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

in  Golden  Square,  and  supported  the  old  Warwick  Street 
Chapel,  which  opened  into  the  stable-yard  at  the  back  of  his 
residence.  On  the  ceiling  of  the  sanctuary  the  arms  of  the 
King  of  Portugal  were  still  visible.  During  the  Gordon  Riots 
the  inside  of  the  chapel  was  completely  destroyed  ;  but  it  was 
temporarily  repaired,  and  lasted  another  ten  years  before  it  was 
rebuilt.       There  were  five  chaplains  attached  to  the  Embassy. 

We  come  lastly  to  perhaps  the  best-known  Embassy 
Chapel  in  London,  that  of  the  Sardinian  ambassador  in  Duke 
Street,  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields.  Here  there  were  seven  chaplains. 
This  is  the  only  chapel  of  Dr.  Talbot's  period  the  appearance 
of  which  is  familiar  to  the  present  generation.  As  it  now 
stands  it  dates  practically  from  the  time  of  the  Gordon  Riots, 
for  so  far  as  the  interior  was  concerned  its  destruction  then 
was  complete.  When  it  was  restored,  it  was  doubled  in  size, 
the  new  part  being  built  on  the  ground  formerly  occupied  by 
the  stables. 

The  position  of  a  chaplain  was  an  anomalous  one.  He 
was  nominally  in  the  employment  of  the  ambassador,  who 
gave  him  his  appointment,  and  paid  him  his  salary.  Practically, 
however,  most  of  the  chaplains  were  mission  priests,  for  the 
ambassador  kept  many  more  than  were  necessary  for  the 
requirements  of  the  Embassy,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  them 
to  minister  to  the  wants  of  the  people.  They  lived  in  lodgings, 
in  different  parts  of  the  mission,  whenever  they  found  rooms 
convenient  for  their  work. 

Bishop  Talbot  next  proceeds  to  enumerate  the  three  chapels 
under  his  direct  control,  and  supported  by  subscription, — one 
in  the  business  part  of  the  city  (Moorfields),  with  three  priests  ; 
one — Virginia  Road  (as  it  was  then) — in  the  sailors'  part ;  and 
one  with  a  single  priest  on  the  south  side  of  the  river.  This 
latter  was  situated  in  East  Lane,  Bermondsey ;  and  was  the 
oldest  mission  in  South  London,  having  been  founded  by  Rev. 
Gerald  Shaw  in  1773.  It  was  the  first  to  be  rebuilt  after  the 
Riots,  and  was  solemnly  blessed  by  the  bishop,  and  opened 
once  more,  on  Thursday,  February  21,  1782.1 

1  For  some  years  after  1791  this  chapel  appears  in  the  Catholic  Directory  as 
"  Salisbury  Lane,  Rotherhithe  ".  If  Salisbury  Lane  was  where  Salisbury  Street 
now  is,  it  was  two  or  three  hundred  yards  from  East  Lane,  and  in  Bermondsey,  not 
in  Rotherhithe.  In  the  Directory  for  1810,  the  chapel  resumes  its  old  designation 
of  East  Lane,  Bermondsey. 


1790]  CATHOLIC  LONDON  UNDER  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.    27 

The  chapel  or  Mass  house  in  Ropemakers'  Alley,  Moor- 
fields,  was  never  rebuilt,  but  a  new  chapel  and  house  were  set 
up  in  White  Street,  hard  by.  This  was  begun  in  1783,  and  it 
is  interesting  to  note  that  in  the  builder's  contract,  which  is 
still  preserved,  it  is  styled  a  "warehouse,"  no  doubt  from 
reasons  of  prudence,  as  Catholic  chapels  were  still  illegal. 
The  chapel  in  Virginia  Road  was  also  put  into  repair  at  that 
time ;  but  it  was  not  until  some  twenty  years  later  that  it  was 
enlarged  and  assumed  the  shape  that  some  still  remember. 

Writing  in  1786,  Bishop  Talbot  said  that  all  the  chapels, 
including  those  in  connection  with  the  embassies,  had  been 
rebuilt,  and  were  in  a  better  state  than  before  the  Riots.  He 
added  that  another  chapel  was  being  put  up,  which  it  was 
hoped  that  the  Spanish  Ambassador  would  rent.  This  was  the 
chapel  in  York  Street,  St.  James's.  The  work  was  under  the 
direction  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Hussey,  afterwards  first  President 
of  Maynooth  and  Bishop  of  Waterford,  who  had  for  many 
years  been  connected  with  the  Spanish  Embassy,  and  had  been 
senior  chaplain  since  1784.  He  was,  to  use  Butler's  well- 
known  words,  "a  man  of  great  genius,  of  enlightened  piety, 
with  manners  at  once  imposing  and  elegant,  and  of  enchanting 
conversation".1  His  acquaintance  was  very  large.  Boswell 
mentions  him  as  the  friend  of  Johnson,  and  the  fact  that  he  was 
elected  a  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society  shows  that  he  was  known 
to  many  outside  the  Catholic  body.  By  nature  a  diplomat,  he 
was  engaged  at  least  once  by  the  British  Government  on  a 
secret  mission  to  Madrid,  in  which,  though  unsuccessful,  he 
gained  credit  for  his  endeavours.  As  Spanish  chaplain,  he 
worked  hard  and  successfully,  and  saw  the  chapels  at  York 
Street  and  Spanish  Place  successively  opened,  soon  after  which 
he  was  recalled  to  Ireland. 

In  the  chapels  of  the  ambassadors  High  Mass  was  already 
customary  every  Sunday.  Samuel  Webbe,  whom  Charles 
Butler  calls  the  father  of  Catholic  Church  music  in  England, 
was  organist  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields, 'and  John  Danby,  his  pupil, 
held  a  similar  position  in  the  Spanish  Chapel.  Although  both 
were  excellent  musicians,  Butler  is  forced  to  admit  that,  whether 
from  want  of  means,  or  for  whatever  other  reason,  the  choirs 
were  not  on  a  high  level. 

1  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  438. 


28  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

In  other  chapels,  both  in  London  and  in  the  country,  there 
would  be  a  Low  Mass,  with  some  English  prayers  before  or  after. 
It  was  exceptional  to  have  music  of  any  kind.  With  respect 
to  the  sermons,  the  following  extract  from  a  letter  written  by 
the  celebrated  Dr.  Kirk,  then  a  young  priest,  to  a  former  fellow- 
student,  at  the  English  College  at  Rome,  gives  an  interesting 
little  insight  into  what  was  customary.  The  last  part,  though 
not  directly  concerning  the  London  District,  is  of  interest,  as 
the  Rev.  J.  Carter,  to  whom  it  refers,  was  a  priest  of  great  in- 
fluence in  the  Midlands,  who  will  figure  somewhat  prominently 
in  a  later  chapter,  as  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  "  Staffordshire 
Clergy".  Dr.  Kirk  was  at  this  time  an  assistant  master  at 
Sedgley  Park  School,1  from  which  place  the  letter  is  dated,  on 
May  24,  1784.      He  writes  as  follows: — 

"  Preaching  is  not  so  much  practised  as  formerly.  Even 
in  London,  there  is  only  Warwick  Street  Chapel  among  the 
Ambassadors'  where  there  is  a  sermon.  There  is  another,  I 
believe,  mostly  at  Moorfields,  and  at  an  Inn  near  Lincoln's  Inn 
Fields.  However,  we  have  some  very  capital  preachers.  Mr. 
Archer,  from  Douay,  is  looked  upon  as  the  best  in  London.  He 
is  naturally  very  fluent,  and  has  acquired  a  very  good  delivery 
and  utterance,  by  dint  of  study,  and  by  assisting  at  the  plead- 
ings at  the  Courts  of  Justice,  which  and  the  stage  are  the  best 
schools.  And  without  this  latter  qualification  in  an  eminent 
degree  a  person  will  be  looked  upon  as  a  mean  fellow,  that 
has  no  education  at  all,  so  nice  are  the  English  now  on  that 
point.  Now  they  tell  me  Mr.  Archer  excels  in  that — for  I 
never  had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  him — and  therefore,  and 
because  what  he  says  is  sound  and  solid,  he  is  much  esteemed 
everywhere  in  England.  He  is  also  a  person  that  bears  an 
exceeding  good  character.  He  has  been  induced  to  publish 
some  of  his  sermons,  the  third  volume  of  which  will  soon  come 
out.  They  are  four  volumes  in  all,  price  12s.  to  subscribers, 
and  contain  sermons  for  all  ye  Sundays  and  feasts  in  the  year. 
They  are  universally  esteemed.     Mr.  Appleton 2  is  now  publish- 

1  Sedgley  Park  near  Wolverhampton  was  a  well-known  preparatory  school 
founded  by  Bishop  Challoner  in  1763.  There  were  usually  about  100  boys, 
many  of  whom  afterwards  went  to  Douay  or  elsewhere  on  the  Continent,  and 
became  priests.  The  school  continued  on  its  original  site  until  1873,  when  it 
was  removed  to  Cotton  Hall,  near  Alton,  in  Staffordshire. 

2  Rev.  James  Appleton,  at  this  time  chaplain  to  the  Blounts  at  Maple  Durham. 


Rev.  James  Archer,  D.D. 


1790]   CATHOLIC  LONDON  UNDER  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.     29 

ing  his  likewise  in  four  volumes,  12s.  He  is  not  esteemed  so 
much  as  Mr.  Archer.  Mr.  Hussey  is  much  esteemed  also,  and 
his  cousin  Mr.  Robinson.  I  heard  the  latter  in  London,  and  a 
very  good  sermon  it  was,  but  Mr.  Robinson  had  little  or  no 
action.  But  of  all  the  preachers  I  ever  heard,  no  one  ever 
pleased  me  so  much  as  Mr.  Carter  does.  He  is  the  town 
priest  at  Hampton,1  and  has  the  place  yt  Mr.  Taylor  had.  He 
is  about  thirty-five  years  old,  and  a  very  sensible  and  able  man. 
He  has  a  very  good  voice,  and  the  best  utterance  and  delivery 
I  ever  knew  any  one  to  have.  He  has  paid  particular  attention 
to  the  study  of  his  own  language  and  to  what  we  call  action, 
and  has  succeeded  amazingly  well.  The  Chapel  at  Hampton 
is  a  very  large  one,  besides  the  large  gallery,  and  yet  so  re- 
nowned is  his  name  yt  it  cannot  contain  ye  Catholics  and 
Protestants  yt  flock  to  hear  him.  Protestants  of  ye  first 
quality  in  Hampton  send  to  know  when  he  preaches,  and 
crowd  to  hear  him.  Happily  for  us,  he  is  no  bigot,  but  void 
of  common  prejudices.  He  was  Mr.  Jos.  Berington's  favourite 
scholar  at  Douay.  We  have  also  others  yt  are  excellent 
catechists,  and  some  other  preachers,  but  these  are  the  chief." 

Dr.  Kirk  adds  that  when  there  was  no  sermon,  the  usual 
order  was  to  have  some  English  prayers  before  Mass,  and  then 
the  priest  would  read  from  a  spiritual  book.  He  specifies  as 
instances  Gother's  Instructions,  a  very  well-known  book  in  those 
days,  Baker's  Sundays  Kept  Holy,  and  Archer's  Sermons. 

The  inn  near  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  to  which  Dr.  Kirk 
alludes  was  the  "  Ship,"  in  Little  Turnstile,  which  is  still  stand- 
ing. The  custom  of  preaching  there  was  a  relic  of  the  time 
when  English  sermons  were  prohibited  at  the  embassy  chapels. 
The  congregation  of  the  Sardinian  Chapel  would  adjourn  after 
Mass  to  the  "  Ship,"  where  one  of  the  chaplains  would  preach 
to  them.  The  custom  still  continued  until  the  abolition  of  the 
Penal  Laws  in  1791.  Bishop  Challoner  used  frequently  to 
preach  at  the  "  Ship,"  and  his  vicar  general,  Rev.  Joseph  Bolton 
— who  was  also  vicar  general  to  Bishop  Talbot — preached 
there    regularly    until    his    death    in    1783.2      It    was    an    in- 

1I.c.  Wolverhampton,  then  a  much  larger  town  than  Birmingham. 

2  In  the  Diaries  of  Mr.  Mawhood,  a  well-known  London  merchant,  the 
sermons  at  the  "  Ship "  are  regularly  alluded  to  until  the  year  1791.  The 
Diaries  are  in  the  possession  of  his  descendant,  Mr.  John  F.  Corney. 


30  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

direct  result  of  the  sermons  at  the  "  Ship "  that  Mr.  Archer 
became  a  priest ;  for  he  was  a  servant  boy  there,  and  it  was 
owing  to  his  appearance  of  piety  on  those  occasions  that  Dr. 
Challoner  observed  him,  and  sent  him  to  Douay.  He  arrived 
back  in  England  as  a  priest  just  after  the  Gordon  Riots. 

We  can  arrive  at  a  fairly  close  estimate  of  the  number  of 
Catholics  in  London  during  the  episcopate  of  Bishop  Talbot. 
In  1773  Dr.  Challoner  sent  his  last  report  to  the  Holy  See. 
In  this  he  put  down  the  number  of  London  Catholics  at  20,000. 
The  total  population  of  London  at  that  time  was  considerably 
under  a  million,  so  that  this  would  come  to  a  little  more  than 
two  per  cent.  There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  number 
was  increasing  during  the  years  that  intervened  before  his, death, 
and  most  probably  during  the  time  that  Bishop  Talbot  was 
vicar  apostolic,  it  would  have  been  slowly  diminishing.1 

With  respect  to  the  number  of  clergy  it  is  more  difficult  to 
arrive  at  a  trustworthy  estimate,  since  it  was  affected  by  the 
suppression  of  the  Jesuits,  which  took  place  the  same  year  in 
which  Dr.  Challoner  sent  his  report.  Those  Jesuits  who  were 
already  on  the  mission  for  the  most  part  continued  as  secular 
priests,  and  as  soon  as  the  Academy  at  Liege  was  in  full  work- 
ing order,  a  certain  number  of  new  priests  came  over  annually 
to  replace  the  losses  by  death  or  other  causes  ;  but  for  some 
years  the  supply  was  uncertain  and  intermittent.  In  1 773> 
Bishop  Challoner  said  that  there  were  120  priests,  of  whom 
fifty-five  belonged  to  the  secular  clergy.  Bishop  Talbot,  who 
sent  a  report  in  1786,  estimated  the  number  of  priests  at  100, 
though  he  added  that  a  good  many  of  these  were  not  doing 
regular  mission  work  but  living  as  chaplains  to  private  families. 
There  is  reason  to  think  that  his  estimate  was  in  any  case  too 
high.  Berington,  writing  in  1780,  says  definitely  that  there 
were  fifty-eight  priests  in  the  London  District :  and  at  the 
meeting  just  after  Bishop  Talbot's  death  there  were  sixty 
either  present  or  represented  by  proxy,  and  probably  most  if 
not  all  the  priests  of  the  district  were  included.  If  this  figure 
be  accepted,  there  would  have  been  about  forty  priests  living 

1  In  his  report  to  Rome  in  1786  Bishop  Talbot  estimates  the  number  of 
Catholics  in  London  at  the  impossible  figure  of  100,000,  which  has  been  quoted 
several  times,  especially  in  Roman  documents.  It  must  have  been  a  slip  of  the 
pen,  for  we  cannot  imagine  the  Catholic  population  having  increased  fivefold  in 
thirteen  years. 


i7go]   CATHOLIC  LONDON  UNDER  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.    31 

in  London,  which  number  agrees  roughly  with  what  we  should 
expect  from  the  lists  of  the  embassy  and  other  chapels  and 
elsewhere,  already  given. 

It  sounds  at  first  strange  that  Bishop  Talbot  should  have 
been  unable  to  give  more  exact  information  on  this  matter ; 
but  we  must  again  remember  how  much  less  close  was  the 
dependence  of  the  clergy  on  their  bishops  then  than  now.  The 
support  of  the  majority  of  the  priests  depended  directly  on  the 
country  gentlemen,  and  the  bishops  were  not  always  in  close 
touch  with  them,  and  sometimes  not  even  cognisant  of  changes 
made,  unless  such  changes  involved  the  issue  of  new  faculties. 
Moreover,  a  priest  could  move  from  district  to  district,  accord- 
ing to  the  appointment  which  he  was  able  to  obtain ;  for  the 
oath  they  took  at  Douay  did  not  limit  them  to  any  particular 
district.  But  over  and  above  the  difficulties  which  necessarily 
occurred,  we  must  add  that  Bishop  Talbot  had  evidently  no 
mind  for  statistics,  or  even  for  any  kind  of  accuracy  of  state- 
ment :  in  all  his  reports  mistakes  abound.1 

In  accordance  with  the  curious  arrangement  which  then 
obtained,  Bishop  Talbot  was  a  member  of  the  Chapter,  but  did 
not  preside  at  the  meetings.  The  Dean  was  the  Rev.  John 
Shepherd,  chaplain  to  the  Hammersmith  Convent.  On  his 
death  in  1789  he  was  succeeded  by  the  Rev.  Peter  Brown  of 
Lincoln's  Inn  Fields.  The  members  of  the  chapter  lived  in 
all  parts  of  England :  they  met  twice  a  year,  in  London. 
Although  their  canonical  position  had  become  doubtful  since 
the  division  of  England  into  four  vicariates  under  James  II., 
they  had  kept  their  body  together,  filling  the  vacancies  as  they 
occurred  by  co-option,  hoping  for  better  times.  In  the  event, 
when  the  hierarchy  was  established  in  1850  their  functions 
finally  ceased ;  but  being  unwilling  to  dissolve,  they  changed 
their  name  to  "  The  Old  Brotherhood  of  the  English  Secular 
Clergy,"  and  as  such  they  exist  to-day. 

Considering  their  small  numbers,  the  Catholics  of  London 
were  very  active  in  the  support  of  charities.     The  Aged  Poor 

JDr.  Challoner's  report  in  1773  does  not  even  agree  with  itself.  Although  he 
says  in  the  summary  that  the  priests  numbered  120,  those  in  the  detailed  list  add 
up  to  145.  These  include  ninety  said  to  be  in  London,  which  is  evidently  only  a 
rough  estimate,  and  probably  much  too  high.  See  Maziere  Brady,  Annals  of  the 
Catholic  Hierarchy,  p.  169.  In  a  matter  of  this  kind,  Berington  is  a  more  trust- 
worthy authority. 


32  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

Society,  founded  in  1708,  was  suspended  for  a  time  after  the 
Gordon  Riots,  but  was  afterwards  revived  and  still  flourishes. 
The  Benevolent  Society,  with  like  aims,  was  founded  in  1761 
and  has  had  a  continuous  existence  ever  since.  Another 
society  somewhat  resembling  the  latter  in  name — the  Beneficent 
— had  as  its  object  to  start  young  Catholics  in  life,  by  supply- 
ing money  to  put  them  out  as  apprentices  to  some  trade.  This 
society  was  established  during  the  episcopate  of  Bishop  Talbot. 
There  was  also  a  "  Society  of  the  Education  of  Children  of 
Indigent  Parents,"   founded  so  far  back  as  the  year   1764. 

Quite  a  feature  in  the  lives  of  English  Catholics  of  those 
days  was  the  strictness  with  which  they  kept  the  laws  of  fasting 
and  abstinence.  In  this  respect  Dr.  Talbot's  sympathies  were 
in  accordance  with  his  family  traditions.  Yet  curiously  enough, 
it  was  during  the  years  when  he  was  vicar  apostolic  that  im- 
portant relaxations  had  to  be  made  in  the  ecclesiastical  laws. 
Up  to  this  time  a  custom  had  existed  of  keeping  every  Friday 
of  the  year  (except  during  Paschal  time)  a  fast  day,  as  an  act 
of  intercession  for  the  conversion  of  England.  This  was 
beginning  to  be  felt  as  a  serious  hardship,  and  one  of  Dr. 
Talbot's  first  acts  on  becoming  vicar  apostolic  was  to  peti- 
tion for  the  abrogation  of  the  law.  His  petition  was  suc- 
cessful, and  from  1 78 1  Friday  became  a  day  of  abstinence  only, 
as  in  other  countries.1  With  respect  to  Lent,  however,  he  made 
a  great  effort  to  preserve  the  strict  discipline.  The  law  still 
held  good  prohibiting  meat  from  Ash  Wednesday  until  Easter. 
A  dispensation  had  been  granted  for  several  years,  allowing  it 
three  times  a  week  except  in  Passiontide  ;  but  in  1782  Bishop 
Talbot  made  an  effort  to  prevent  this  from  becoming  a  fixed 
and  regular  arrangement,  by  withholding  the  dispensation.  He 
explained  his  reasons  in  his  Lenten  Pastoral  in  a  few  words  : — 

"  As  after  mature  deliberation  "  (he  wrote)  "  we  can  see  no 
special  reason  this  year  for  a  general  dispensation,  for  eating 
flesh  meat  on  certain  days,  and  lest  the  too  frequent  repetition 
of  such  dispensations  should  enervate  the  discipline  of  the 
Church  in  this  regard,  we  think  ourselves  obliged  to  confine 
them  to  the  following  articles." 

He  proceeds  to  give  a  dispensation  for  eggs  and  cheese, 

1  At  that  date  Saturday  also  was  a  day  of  abstinence  in  England,  as  in  other 
countries. 


1790]   CATHOLIC  LONDON  UNDER  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.     33 

except  on  Ash  Wednesday  and  the  last  four  days  of  Holy 
Week  ;  and  ends  as  follows  : — 

"  As  to  those  whose  health  or  other  circumstances  seem  to 
require  more  indulgence,  we  exhort  them  to  be  careful  not  to 
deceive  their  pastors  by  false  allegations,  as  this  would  be 
only  deceiving  themselves  by  rendering  the  dispensations 
void." 

Seven  years  after  this,  however,  in  1789,  Bishop  Talbot 
once  more  granted  a  dispensation  for  meat,  and  though  he 
was  careful  to  guard  against  the  supposition  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  make  this  an  annual  arrangement,  in  point  of  fact  it 
proved  to  be  so ;  for  this  was  his  last  Lent,  and  his  successors 
always  granted  the  dispensation. 

The  reasons  which  induced  Bishop  Talbot  to  grant  the 
leave  in  1789  are  given  by  him  in  his  Lenten  Pastoral  as 
follows  : — 

"There  never  was,  perhaps,  a  time"  (he  writes)  "when 
the  necessities  of  the  poor  were  greater.  And  as  the  last  frost, 
in  which  many  poor  persons  perished  through  distress,  has 
destroyed  almost  all  the  vegetables,  on  this  account  and  others 
the  following  leave  is  granted  in  the  London  District,  but  so 
as  not  to  be  made  a  precedent  for  other  years. 

"  As  these  indulgences  are  granted  merely  for  necessity, 
we  hope  they  will  not  be  abused  for  the  indulging  of  sensuality. 
And  as  it  has  become  so  often  of  late  years  necessary  to  give 
leave  for  meat,  we  have  thought  it  better  to  restrain  the  leave 
for  eggs,  that  as  we  cannot  keep  all,  we  may  keep  at  least  as 
much  as  we  can.  And  we  think  it  cannot  be  deemed  a  hard- 
ship to  refrain  from  eggs,  when  meat  is  allowed.  It  may 
indeed  be  some  inconvenience  in  great  entertainments,  but 
these  it  is  our  desire,  as  it  is  our  duty,  to  discourage  in  Lent." 


vol.  1. 


CHAPTER  III. 

CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES. 

1781-I79O. 

BISHOP  TALBOT,  during  the  nine  years  of  his  jurisdiction, 
sent  to  Rome  only  one  report.  This  gave  an  account  of  his 
vicariate  to  the  year  1786.  It  has  already  been  mentioned, 
and  its  curious  want  of  completeness  or  accuracy  has  been 
noticed.  Nevertheless  it  will  form  the  most  convenient  basis 
for  a  survey  in  detail  of  the  condition  of  the  London  District 
at  that  period.  Comparing  this  document  with  the  earlier  re- 
ports sent  by  Bishop  Challoner,  we  find  only  too  much  evidence 
to  bear  out  Berington's  statement  that  the  number  of  missions 
was  steadily  growing  less.  Wherever  we  turn,  we  find  the  same 
story :  places  where  a  priest  used  to  live,  and  where  Mass  had 
been  said,  now  no  longer  mentioned ;  the  reason,  the  date  and 
the  cause  of  the  disappearance  being  at  this  distance  of  time 
usually  impossible  to  ascertain.  At  the  seats  of  the  gentry, 
the  chapels  continued  unless  the  squire  fell  away  from  his 
religion  ;  but  the  country  centres,  at  one  time  numerous,  where 
groups  of  Catholics  had  formed  themselves  into  little  congrega- 
tions, were  one  by  one  steadily  disappearing,  while  at  those 
which  still  survived,  the  estimated  number  of  Catholics  nearly 
always  showed  a  diminution  as  time  went  on.  Even  since  the 
last  report,  drawn  out  by  Bishop  Talbot  as  Coadjutor  to  Bishop 
Challoner,  in  1773,  the  change  is  noticeable.  In  Hampshire, 
for  example,  out  often  missions  in  1773,  four  had  disappeared 
by  1786.1 

Bishop  Talbot,  in  his  report,  begins  with  Hammersmith, 
which  he  describes  as  a  hamlet  three  miles  from  London.  It 
was  then  an  important  Catholic  centre.  We  find  there  several 
houses  of  Catholic  education.      One  was  a  preparatory  school 

1  These  were  Shelfield,  Idsworth  and  Lyholt,  Sopeley,  and  Petersfield. 

34 


1781-90]  CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES.  35 

or  Academy  for  boys,  where  Charles  Butler  received  his  early 
education.  Another  was  a  school  on  Brook  Green,  intended  as 
Milner  tells  us  "  for  indigent  females,  which  should  serve  the 
double  purpose  of  a  boarding  school  and  an  asylum  ".1  This 
had  been  established  about  the  year  1760,  under  Bishop 
Challoner's  patronage,  by  a  Mrs.  Carpue.  She  carried  it  on 
herself  for  some  fifteen  years,  assisted  latterly  by  Mrs.  Bayly, 
by  whom  it  was  afterwards  continued.  But  more  important 
than  these,  at  least  historically,  was  the  convent,  with  its 
school  for  girls  of  the  upper  classes :  this  calls  for  a  somewhat 
longer  account. 

There  were  at  that  date  only  two  convents  in  England, 
the  other  being  the  well-known  Bar  Convent  at  York,  still 
existing  in  the  same  place  to-day.  Both  were  indirectly  con- 
nected with  the  so-called  "  Jesuitesses  "  founded  by  Mary  Ward 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  though  the  precise  relation  in  which 
they  stood  to  the  original  foundation  was  very  complicated, 
and  is  even  now  not  generally  understood. 

At  the  beginning  of  her  religious  life,  in  the  year  1606, 
Mary  Ward  was  a  lay  sister  in  a  Flemish  Convent  of  Colletines 
at  St.  Omer.  She  left  this  community  in  order  to  found  a 
purely  English  house  of  Poor  Clares,  the  first  of  the  kind,  at 
Gravelines.  Having  previously  been  only  a  lay  sister,  she 
insisted  on  going  through  her  noviceship  afresh ;  and  in  fact 
she  never  completed  it,  for  she  left  the  order,  and  devoted 
herself  this  time  to  the  foundation  of  a  new  community  of  nuns 
who  should  lead  a  life  in  several  respects  different  from  that  of 
the  religious  orders  hitherto  existing.  They  were  to  take  only 
simple  vows,  to  keep  no  kind  of  dausura,  and  to  give  them- 
selves to  active  work  in  the  world.  They  modelled  their  rule 
on  that  of  St.  Ignatius,  and  in  consequence  became  popularly 
styled  "  Jesuitesses  ".2  The  first  house  was  opened  at  St.  Omer  ; 
a  few  years  afterwards  a  filiation  was  established  in  London, 
in    the    neighbourhood    of   Spitalfields.       Other    houses   were 

1  Life  of  Ckalloner,  p.  34. 

2  This  title,  "  Mulieres  Jesuitissae,"  is  officially  used  in  the  bull  of  Benedict 
XIV.  (1749)  in  which  he  forbids  the  members  of  the  Institute  of  Mary  to  consider 
themselves  as  a  revival  of  that  congregation,  or  to  look  upon  Mary  Ward  as  their 
foundress.  It  is  said  however  that  there  is  now  a  reaction  in  Rome  in  Mary 
Ward's  favour,  and  a  tendency  to  allow  the  prohibition  to  fall  into  abeyance. 


36  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

opened  at  Liege,  Cologne,  Treves  and  Munich  ;  and  later  on 
one  also  at  Vienna. 

The  new  institute  at  first  met  with  great  opposition.  At 
the  present  day  we  are  so  accustomed  to  this  class  of  convent 
that  there  appears  to  us  nothing  strange  in  nuns  going  out 
into  the  world  to  seek  works  of  charity.  In  the  seventeenth 
century  it  was  otherwise.  The  whole  mode  of  life  seemed 
against  the  spirit,  if  not  against  the  actual  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Trent.  It  was  freely  said  that  the  life  led  by  the 
nuns  was  improper,  that  they  were  trying  to  do  the  work  of 
priests,  to  instruct  and  catechise  the  people  and  to  minister  to 
their  spiritual  needs  in  a  manner  never  before  permitted  to  the 
female  sex.  Even  Mary  Ward's  personal  life  was  not  left  free 
from  criticism  of  the  most  acrimonious  type.  She  and  her 
community  had  in  fact  to  endure  the  usual  fate  of  pioneers  in 
any  great  work  :  they  were  misunderstood  and  calumniated. 
In  England  there  was  a  further  reason  for  this  opposition,  in 
consequence  of  the  regrettable  state  of  party  feeling  between 
the  Jesuits  and  secular  clergy.  The  fact  that  Mary  Ward's 
institute  was  closely  allied  to  the  former,  even  though  there 
was  no  official  connection  between  them,  created  for  it  many 
enemies  who  spoke  with  vehemence  and  asperity. 

In  the  end  the  opposition  prevailed :  the  institute  was 
suppressed  by  the  celebrated  bull  of  Urban  VIII.  in  1631. 
One  house  alone  survived  the  general  destruction — that  at 
Munich,  where  by  the  special  pleading  of  Maximilian  I., 
Elector  of  Bavaria,  the  community  were  permitted  to  continue 
their  common  life,  under  certain  modifications  of  rule. 

The  suppression  of  Mary  Ward's  institute  did  not  prove 
final.  Within  a  short  time  we  find  her  in  Rome  with  some 
others,  living  under  the  eye  of  the  Holy  Father  himself. 
About  the  year  1638  or  1639  she  was  back  in  England, 
re-establishing  her  institute  in  a  somewhat  modified  form.  She 
established  two  communities,  one  in  London,  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  Strand,  the  other  at  Hewarth  Hall  in  Yorkshire. 
In  this  latter  house  her  death  took  place  in  1645.  At  the 
present  day  her  gravestone  may  be  seen  in  the  churchyard  of 
the  little  village  of  Osbaldwick,  a  mile  or  two  outside  York. 

The  house  at  Hewarth  did  not  long  survive  the  death  of  its 
foundress  ;  but  the  London  community  continued,  though  with 


1790]  CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES.  37 

very  attenuated  numbers,  until  about  1689,  when  they  united 
themselves  with  a  colony  which  had  been  sent  some  years 
before  from  Munich.  This  colony  had  come  at  the  instance  of 
Queen  Catharine  of  Braganza,  and  had  been  under  her  protec- 
tion. After  a  short  sojourn  in  St.  Martin's  Lane,  they  settled 
at  Hammersmith,  where  Mrs.  Bedingfield,  their  superioress,  at 
first  rented,  then  bought,  a  fair-sized  building  adjacent  to  Cupola 
House,  which  was  the  country  residence  of  the  Portuguese  Am- 
bassador. This  was  probably  one  of  the  reasons  for  selecting 
that  house,  so  that  in  the  event  of  a  popular  outcry  against  the 
nuns,  they  might  secure  the  protection  of  the  ambassador. 

It  had  been  hoped  that  the  foundation  in  the  north  might  be 
revived  as  well  as  that  in  London.  This  hope  was  realised  in 
1677  when  Sir  Thomas  Gascoigne  provided  them  with  a  house 
at  Dolebank,  near  Fountains  Abbey.  Mrs.  Bedingfield  super- 
intended this  new  foundation,  but  was  unable  to  go  there  at 
first,  as  she  could  not  be  spared  from  Hammersmith.  The 
original  five  nuns  were  all  English,  but  they  seem  to  have 
come  over  direct  from  Munich,  the  acting  superioress  being  Mrs. 
Lascelles.  They  retained  as  their  official  name  the  Institute 
of  Mary  ;  but  they  were  frequently  spoken  of  as  the  "  English 
Virgins  ". 

Sir  Thomas  Gascoigne  soon  suffered  for  his  zeal  in  founding 
the  convent.  In  1 679  he  was  apprehended,  and  together  with  his 
nephew,  Rev.  Thomas  Thwing,  was  arraigned  at  the  Court  of 
King's  Bench  for  an  alleged  plot  to  murder  the  King.  He  was, 
however,  acquitted  ;  after  which  he  withdrew  from  England,  and 
spent  the  remainder  of  his  life — for  he  was  already  over  eighty — 
in  the  monastery  of  Lamspring,  where  his  brother  was  abbot. 
The  Rev.  Thomas  Thwing  was  less  fortunate  then  his  uncle ; 
he  was  condemned  to  death,  and  suffered  at  York  on  October 
23,  1680,  being  the  last  of  the  Douay  martyrs. 

Soon  after  this,  the  house  at  Dolebank  proving  unsuitable, 
the  community  went  back  to  the  old  house  at  Hewarth ;  but 
this  also  proving  inconvenient,  they  moved  again,  this  time 
settling  at  York,  in  a  house  near  Castlegate.  At  the  beginning 
they  had  to  face  persecution,  and  in  1682  we  find  them  im- 
prisoned in  York  Castle,  where  they  were  subjected  to  great 
hardships.  Early  in  the  reign  of  James  II.  they  obtained  their 
release,  and  in  1686  Mrs.  Bedingfield  joined  them  permanently 


38  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

as  superioress.  In  the  November  of  that  year,  she  purchased 
a  house  outside  Micklegate  Bar,  on  the  site  where  the  convent 
now  stands.  A  few  years  later  she  also  was  called  upon  to 
confess  the  faith,  being  thrown  into  the  Ousebank  Prison,  from 
which  she  eventually  obtained  her  release  through  the  media- 
tion of  friends  in  York.  In  the  year  1695  agam>  tne  convent 
seemed  to  be  on  the  point  of  destruction  by  an  angry  mob  ; 
but  by  a  remarkable  providence  it  escaped  harm.  Four  years 
after  this,  Mrs.  Bedingfield  was  recalled  to  Munich,  where  she 
died  in  1704,  having  just  lived  to  see  the  formal  approbation 
of  the  institute  by  Pope  Clement  XI.  the  previous  year. 

At  Hammersmith  the  nuns  for  the  most  part  remained 
unmolested.  They  did  not  indeed  wear  their  religious  habit, 
but  in  other  respects  they  kept  the  rule  in  its  entirety.  They 
carried  on  a  school,  and  this  also  was  commonly  not  interfered 
with.  The  only  exception  of  importance  was  during  the 
persecution  which  followed  the  scare  caused  by  Titus  Oates's 
Plot.  At  that  time  all  Catholics  were  banished  to  at  least 
ten  miles  from  London,  and  ,the  Hammersmith  community, 
together  with  their  chaplain,  a  Carmelite,  took  refuge  in  "  a 
very  retired  place,"  the  direction  of  which  is  not  specified. 
They  soon  fell  under  suspicion,  and  one  day  their  house  was 
surrounded  by  soldiers  while  a  "  search  "  was  conducted  within. 
Their  chaplain,  Rev.  Father  Lucian,  succeeded  in  concealing 
himself,  and  nothing  was  found  to  incriminate  the  nuns. 
After  this  they  thought  it  wise  to  move  farther  into  the 
country ;  but  being  disturbed  a  second  time,  they  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  useless  to  seclude  themselves,  and  they 
returned  in  the  night  to  Hammersmith,  where  they  lived  as 
secretly  as  possible  until  times  grew  quieter. 

The  convent  never  prospered  very  greatly.  A  few  years 
after  the  departure  of  Mrs.  Bedingfield,  her  successor,  Mrs. 
Cornwallis — who  had  formerly  been  at  York — placed  the 
community  under  the  bishop  of  the  London  District,  which 
had  of  course  the  effect  of  separating  them  from  their  sisters  in 
the  North,  and  likewise  from  the  Munich  house.  She  was 
induced  to  take  this  step  partly  on  account  of  the  recall  of 
Mrs.  Bedingfield  to  Munich,  but  partly  also  by  the  advice  of 
Bishop  Giffard,  who  succeeded  to  the  London  District  in  1703, 
and   who  considered   that  their  position   as  dependent  on  a 


1790]  CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES.  39 

foreign  convent  was  not  only  inadvisable,  but  also  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Bull  of  Suppression.  He  himself  drew  out  a  set  of 
rules,  looking  upon  the  nuns  merely  as  a  community  of  pious 
women  voluntarily  living  together.  Many  people,  however, 
contended  that  the  Bull  of  Suppression  had  been  virtually 
abrogated  by  Rome's  subsequent  action,  and  when  the  Institute 
of  Mary  obtained  the  formal  approbation,  Mrs.  Cornwallis 
wished  to  re-unite  the  Hammersmith  convent  with  that  at 
Munich.  On  this  point  there  was  not  unanimity  among  the 
nuns,  and  a  state  of  tension  ensued,  which  ended  in  Mrs.  Corn- 
wallis herself  withdrawing  in  171 5  and  rejoining  the  commu- 
nity at  York.1 

The  other  nuns  were  too  attached  to  Bishop  Giffard  to 
follow  their  superioress.  He  too  was  devoted  to  the  convent. 
After  his  long  life  of  toil  and  hardship,  and  his  experience  of 
prisons  and  persecution,  he  ended  his  days  peacefully  in  the 
chaplain's  house,  which  formed  part  of  the  convent  buildings. 
He  said  his  last  Mass  in  their  chapel  on  the  feast  of  Corpus 
Christi,  in  the  year  1733;  nine  months  later  he  died  a  holy 
death  in  their  midst,  at  the  patriarchal  age  of  ninety-two. 

The  history  of  the  Hammersmith  community  during  the 
succeeding  half  century  is  one  of  continuous  decline.  At  one 
time  there  were  fourteen  nuns  ;  but  this  number  steadily  di- 
minished until  more  than  once  the  community  was  on  the  verge 
of  extinction.  Their  school,  however,  acquired  a  good  reputa- 
tion, and  was  well  patronised,  the  number  of  pupils  averaging 
nearly  fifty.  The  nuns  eventually  became  too  few  to  keep  it 
up  by  themselves,  and  they  had  to  call  in  the  aid  of  secular 
teachers.  A  set  of  rules  drawn  up  by  Bishop  Petre,  and  con- 
firmed by  Bishop  Challoner  in  1763,  is  preserved  in  the  West- 
minster Archives ;  these  give  a  very  detailed  account  of  the 
manner  of  life,  both  in  the  school,  and  among  the  few  boarders 
at  the  convent. 

When  Dr.  Challoner  died,  the  community  was  already  in 
debt,  the  expense  of  paying  their  school  teachers  having  been 
more  than  they  were  able  to  afford  out  of  the  moderate  pen- 
sions of  the  scholars,  and  the  school  had  to  be  closed.     At  this 

xBy  a  rescript  of  Pope  Pius  VII.  in  1816,  the  Convent  of  York  was  released 
from  its  dependence  on  Munich,  and  placed  under  the  vicar  apostolic  of  the 
Northern  District. 


40  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

juncture,  Bishop  James  Talbot  came  to  their  assistance,  and 
made  an  arrangement  with  them,  the  details  of  which  have 
only  partially  come  down  to  us.  So  far  as  can  be  ascertained, 
he  bought  the  whole  property,  on  condition  that  the  amount 
of  the  purchase  money,  after  discharging  their  liabilities,  should 
be  devoted  towards  the  work  in  the  chapel  which  he  wished  to 
be  carried  out,  and  to  which  he  contributed  half  of  the  expense  ; 
for  in  that  chapel  he  had  received  his  episcopal  consecration  at 
the  hands  of  Bishop  Challoner  in  1759.  After  this,  he  took  up 
his  residence  in  the  chaplain's  house,  where  he  continued  during 
the  closing  period  of  his  life,  though  he  was  often  absent  visit- 
ing his  district  during  the  greater  part  of  the  year. 

We  can  now  proceed  with  our  short  survey  of  the  country 
parts  of  the  London  District,  returning  once  more  to  Bishop 
Talbot's  report.  We  find  that  he  omits  all  mention  of  Isleworth, 
where  his  own  family  had  a  residence,  with  a  chapel  in  the 
house,  and  where  he  himself  had  been  born.  At  this  time 
Shrewsbury  House  was  let  to  a  Mr.  Bayley,  who  carried  on  a 
small  preparatory  school  there. 

After  saying  that  there  is  nothing  further  to  note  about 
Middlesex,  Bishop  Talbot  takes  us  next  through  Hertfordshire 
and  Bedfordshire.  In  these  two  counties  there  were  very  few 
Catholics,  and  only  one  mission  in  each — Shefford  in  Bedford- 
shire, and  Old  Hall  Green  in  Hertfordshire.  The  former  had 
recently  been  endowed  by  a  local  tradesman,  a  Catholic,  who 
lived  with  his  two  sisters  :  at  their  death  the  whole  property 
reverted  to  the  mission.  At  Old  Hall  Green,  in  addition  to 
the  congregation,  there  was  also  a  school  to  provide  for.  This 
was  the  personal  property  of  Bishop  Talbot,  who  established  it 
to  replace  Bishop  Challoner's  school  at  Standon  Lordship  when 
that  came  to  an  end.  Standon  Lordship  was  the  seat  of  the 
Lords  Aston,  the  last  of  whom  left  at  his  death  two  co-heiresses 
both  infants  in  law.  It  was  during  their  minority  that  Bishop 
Challoner  rented  the  house,  and  had  the  school  carried  on  there  ; 
but  as  soon  as  they  came  of  age,  they  sold  it.  This  was  in 
1767.  Two  years  later,  Bishop  Talbot  came  to  the  rescue,  and 
during  the  rest  of  his  life  the  school  was  carried  on  at  Old 
Hall  Green,  some  two  miles  away,  under  his  supervision.  The 
chief  master  was  Rev.  James  Willacy,  who  at  first  attended  to 
the  wants  of  the  mission  as  well  as  to  the  boys  of  the  school ; 


1790]  CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES.  4* 

but  this  became  too  much  for  his  strength  single-handed,  and 
in  1785  the  Rev.  John  Potier,  who  had  recently  been  ordained, 
came  from  Douay  to  assist  him.  There  were  also  two  lay 
masters.  The  boys  numbered  only  twenty-five ;  Bishop 
Talbot  would  not  accept  any  more — and  they  were  all  under 
twelve  years  of  age.  Bishop  Talbot's  family  connections  suc- 
ceeded in  attracting  representatives  of  all  the  leading  Catholic 
families,  both  Northern  and  Southern,  amongst  the  names  of 
the  early  pupils  being  those  of  Arundel,  Bedingfield,  Blount, 
Charlton,  Clifford,  Dormer,  Giffard,  Heneage,  Howard,  Jerning- 
ham,  Langdale,  Riddell,  Petre,  Salvin,  Stapleton,  Strickland, 
Stonor,  Talbot,  etc.1 

The  adjacent  county  of  Essex  next  claims  our  attention, 
and  there  we  find  considerably  more  Catholic  activity.  The 
chief  Catholic  in  the  county  was  Lord  Petre,  who  owned  large 
estates,  and  those  were  days  when  owners  of  the  soil  were  men 
of  power  in  the  country.  He  had  come  into  the  title  as  ninth 
lord  on  the  death  of  his  father  in  1742,  being  then  only  a 
child.  He  grew  up  with  large  ambitions,  and  lived  in  great 
state  at  the  family  seat  at  Thorndon,  near  Brentwood.  He 
rebuilt  the  mansion,  laying  out  the  grounds  after  the  Italian 
style,  on  an  extensive  scale.  In  private  life,  he  was  devout 
and  charitable,  and  attached  to  his  religion.  One  of  the  griefs 
of  his  life  was  the  marriage  of  his  daughter  to  a  Protestant — 
a  marriage  to  which  he  long  refused  his  consent.  Owing  to 
his  religion,  he  was  never  able  to  take  his  seat  in  the  House 
of  Lords  ;  he  was  unable  to  present  to  advowsons  ;  he  had  to 
pay  double  land-tax ;  all  his  deeds  had  to  be  "  enrolled  "  ;  and 
in  numerous  other  ways  he  felt  the  hardship  of  the  Penal 
Laws  ;  yet  this  did  not  lessen  his  feelings  of  patriotism,  or  of 
loyalty  to  his  sovereign.  He  had  the  honour  of  entertaining 
George  III.  who  visited  Thorndon  in  1778,  this  being  probably 
the  first  instance  of  a  king  of  the  line  of  Brunswick  staying 
at  a  Catholic  house.  A  striking,  instance  of  Lord  Petre's 
patriotism  is  recorded  in  the  year  1798,  during  the  progress 
of  the  Napoleonic  Wars,  when  he  equipped  and  supported  at 
his  own  expense  a  corps  of  250  men.     He  did  this  with  the 

^he  Old  Hall  is  still  standing,  at  the  back  of  St.  Edmund's  College,  and  is 
used  as  a  laundry.  It  is  one  of  the  very  few  buildings  connected  with  Dr.  Talbot's 
life  now  in  existence. 


42  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

full  'approbation  and  concurrence  of  the  Government,  and  in 
these  circumstances  he  begged  that  his  son,  although  a  Catholic, 
might  be  allowed  to  take  command  over  them  ;  but — on  the 
advice,  it  was  said,  of  the  Crown  lawyers — his  petition  was 
refused,  and  his  son  served  in  the  ranks  under  another  officer. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  his  own  exclusion  from  the 
House  of  Lords,  and  the  other  disabilities  which  pressed  on 
him,  were  among  the  chief  motives  which  induced  Lord  Petre 
to  join  himself  with  the  party  which  gained  unenviable  notoriety 
as  the  Catholic  Committee ;  and  it  was  probably  due  to  the 
influence  of  those  who  surrounded  him  that  he  went  to  lengths 
which  at  one  time  he  would  not  have  thought  possible ;  while 
being  a  man  of  strong  character,  and  having  a  position  which 
gave  him  influence,  when  once  he  had  adopted  these  opinions, 
he  acted  as  a  leader  in  propagating  them. 

Lord  Petre's  patronage  of  Dr.  Alexander  Geddes  was  also 
unfortunate,  both  in  itself  and  in  its  results.  Dr.  Geddes  was 
a  Scotch  priest,  who  having  quarrelled  with  his  bishop,  came 
to  London,  about  the  year  1782,  and  for  a  time  acted  as  a 
chaplain  at  the  Sardinian  Embassy  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields. 
Soon,  however,  he  ceased  altogether  to  do  active  work,  and 
devoted  himself  to  preparing  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible, 
which  was  accompanied  with  critical  notes  of  an  "  advanced  " 
type.  Professor  Cheyne  reckons  him  among  the  precursors  of 
modern  "  Higher  Criticism,"  and  at  that  date  his  opinions 
were  considered  not  a  little  startling,  and  in  some  cases  were 
absolutely  unsound. 

The  unorthodoxy  of  Dr.  Geddes  extended  far  beyond 
questions  of  Scriptural  interpretation,  his  whole  attitude  was 
one  of  rebellion  against  authority,  and  some  of  his  letters  which 
have  been  preserved  are  far  from  edifying  reading.  He  was 
formally  suspended  by  Dr.  Douglass,  and  laughed  at  the  sus- 
pension. Charles  Butler  admits  that  his  creed  was  "  scanty,"  and 
though  he  continued  to  call  himself  a  Catholic,  he  was  generally 
considered  to  have  left  the  Church. 

Yet  all  this  time  he  was  allowed  by  Lord  Petre  a  pension 
of  ^200  a  year,  to  enable  him  to  continue  his  work.  Un- 
doubtedly much  of  his  patron's  action  during  that  period  of  his 
life  must  be  ascribed  to  his  influence.  Of  this  we  shall  have 
to  write  in  detail  later  on  ;  it  is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  if 


W^^S^    -   €-- 


1790]  CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES.  43 

Lord  Petre  was  drawn  into  an  extreme  position  during  the  few 
years  when  the  Committee  were  active,  he  was  afterwards  con- 
scious that  he  had  gone  too  far,  and  made  ample  satisfaction 
to  his  bishop  during  his  last  years. 

In  all  works  for  the  good  of  religion  we  find  Lord  Petre 
mentioned  as  one  of  the  chief  subscribers.  Confining  our 
attention  for  the  moment  to  the  county  of  Essex,  we  find  that 
he  supported  four  priests,  two  of  whom  were  ex-Jesuits,  the 
centres  of  their  activity  being  the  four  family  mansions  belong- 
ing to  him — Ingatestone  Hall,  Writtle  Park1  (near  Chelmsford), 
Condron  Park,  and  Thorndon  itself.  The  first  two  of  these 
were  usually  occupied  by  a  junior  branch  of  the  Petre  family. 
The  third,  Condron  Park,  had  been  leased  to  the  family  of 
Mason  for  over  two  centuries. 

Bishop  Talbot  adds  that  there  were  three  or  four  other 
Catholic  gentlemen  in  this  county  who  kept  chaplains,  naming 
especially  Lord  Stourton,  who  had,  however,  recently  moved 
elsewhere,  and  let  his  house  to  others.  The  house  in  question 
was  at  Witham,  and  was  formerly  the  seat  of  the  ancient  family 
of  Southcote.  We  can  also  identify  Bromley  Hall,  near  Col- 
chester, the  seat  of  the  Mammocks,  and  Kelvedon  Hall,  be- 
longing to  the  well-known  family  of  Wright.  There  was  also 
a  mission  at  Stratford,  which  was  the  property  of  the  Francis- 
cans, and  for  a  time  one  at  Walthamstow.  Bishop  Talbot 
estimates  that  there  were  in  all  some  600  Catholics  in  Essex. 

He  next  turns  to  Surrey,  which  he  dismisses  in  two  lines, 
as  containing  not  more  than  three  or  four  priests,  and  hardly  a 
hundred  Catholics.  Yet  we  find  some  interesting  Catholic 
associations  in  this  county,  notably  at  Woburn  Park,  near 
Weybridge,  which  belonged  to  the  Southcotes  ;  Cheam,  near 
Sutton,  which  belonged  to  the  Stourtons  ;  Sutton  Place,  near 
Guildford,  and  Roughey,  near  Horsham,  both  of  which  were 
the  property  of  the  Weston  family ;  and  Col  man  Place,  near 
Dorking,  one  of  the  various  centres  supported  by  the  Duke 
of  Norfolk. 

The  next  county  to  consider  is  Berkshire,  and  here  we 
encounter  a  little  difficulty  in  identifying  some  of  the  missions, 
as  Dr.  Talbot  does  not  always  give  the  names.     We  naturally 

1  From  this  place  Lord  Petre  derives  his  title  of  Baron  of  Writtle.  It  is 
now  a  farmhouse. 


44  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

begin  with  Reading,  just  outside  which  was  the  park  of  White 
Knights,  belonging  to  the  family  of  Englefield,  from  whom  the 
well-known  Berkshire  village  of  that  name  is  derived.  Sir 
Henry  Englefield,  who  succeeded  to  the  baronetcy  on  the  death 
of  his  father  in  1780,  was  perhaps  the  most  learned  all-round 
scholar  that  the  Catholic  body  possessed.  Charles  Fox,  who 
was  a  friend  of  his,  is  reputed  to  have  said  that  he  never  listened 
to  his  conversation  without  learning  much.  The  versatility  of 
his  genius  was  no  less  remarkable  than  the  extent  of  his  read- 
ing. He  could  speak  as  a  first-rate  authority  on  almost  every 
branch  of  learning — as  the  list  of  his  writings  shows,  for  they 
include  works  on  such  different  subjects  as  astronomy  and 
geology  on  the  one  hand,  architecture  and  antiquities  on  the 
other.  He  was  a  first-rate  classical  scholar,  and  he  was  also 
competent  to  write  on  a  practical  question,  such  as  "  The  Prob- 
able Result  of  the  Destruction  of  London  Bridge"  (1821).  In 
1778  he  was  elected  a  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society,  and  the 
following  year  he  became  a  Fellow  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries. 
He  was  elected  President  of  this  latter  society,  but  at  that  time 
the  idea  of  a  Catholic  occupying  such  a  position  was  so  unusual 
that  he  found  it  necessary  to  resign  after  a  very  short  term  of 
office.  He  also  belonged  to  the  Linnaean  Society,  the  Society 
of  Arts,  and  other  similar  associations. 

In  the  midst  of  all  his  avocations,  Sir  Henry  Englefield 
found  time  to  be  a  regular  attendant  at  the  frequent  meetings 
of  the  Catholic  Committee,  and  for  a  while  he  took  a  leading 
part  in  directing  their  counsels  ;  but  after  the  acute  stage  of  the 
crisis  was  over,  he  returned  to  his  studies,  which  were  more 
congenial  to  his  tastes.  He  had  spent  his  early  years  at  White 
Knights,  but  after  he  had  inherited  all  the  property  of  the 
family,  he  appears  to  have  lived  for  the  most  part  at  Wootton 
Basset,  Wilts,  which  was  the  principal  family  seat.  He  lived 
to  an  old  age,  but  in  his  last  years  he  was  afflicted  with  almost 
total  blindness,  which  to  one  of  his  studious  disposition  must 
have  been  a  severe  trial.  He  never  married,  so  that  as  his 
brothers  had  died  without  issue,  on  his  own  death  in  1822,  the 
baronetcy  became  extinct. 

It  would  seem  that  Sir  Henry  Englefield  on  leaving  White 
Knights  in  1780  founded  an  endowment  for  a  permanent  chapel, 
either  there  or  in  the  town,  and  the  Reading  mission  is  dated 


1790]  CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES.  45 

from  that  year.  Soon  afterwards,  Mr.  Wheble,  a  well-known 
Catholic,  who  had  made  money  in  trade,1  built  himself  a  house 
at  Bulmarsh,  a  short  distance  out  of  Reading,  where  he  had  a 
domestic  chapel,  and  often  had  a  priest  to  say  Mass  on  Sundays. 
We  learn  from  a  letter  written  by  Mrs.  Wheble  in  1781  2  that 
at  that  date  there  was  Mass  at  Reading  every  alternate  Sunday  ; 
but  later  on,  when  Mr.  Wheble  established  a  regular  mission 
at  Bulmarsh,  the  Reading  Catholics  went  to  Mass  there  instead.3 

One  of  the  oldest  missions  in  the  country  may  next  occupy 
our  attention,  namely  that  at  Woolhampton  where  "Douai 
Abbey "  now  is.  The  mission  was  the  property  of  the  Earls 
of  Fingall  and  was  alluded  to  by  Bishop  Talbot  as  belonging 
to  a  noble  family,  who  had  recently  ceased  to  live  there,  and 
sold  their  property.  He  says  that  although  they  had  built 
a  house  for  the  priest  and  founded  a  small  endowment,  yet 
he  fears  that  the  same  will  happen  there  as  in  the  past  had 
been  experienced  elsewhere,  that  as  soon  as  the  influence  and 
example  of  the  Catholic  squire  is  removed,  the  congregation 
will  gradually  fall  away.  In  this  case,  however,  his  fears  have 
not  been  realised,  for  the  mission  has  had  a  continuous  ex- 
istence right  down  to  the  present  day. 

A  few  miles  south  of  Woolhampton  was  Ufton  Court,  the 
seat  of  the  ancient  family  of  Perkins  ;  but  they  had  died  out 
some  years  before,  and  although  the  chapel  was  kept  up,  very 
few  Catholics  remained. 

From  Woolhampton  and  Ufton  we  naturally  proceed  north- 
wards to  East  Hendred,  near  Steventon,  which  though  one  of 
the  most  interesting  Catholic  seats  in  the  country,  by  some 
strange  oversight,  was  overlooked  by  Bishop  Talbot  in  his  re- 
port. The  Eyston  family,  who  were  the  owners,  had  kept  the 
faith  in  an  unbroken  line  since  England  was  Catholic,  and  are 
to-day  still  represented  by  their  direct  descendants.  Their 
domestic  chapel,  dedicated  to  St.  Amand,  dates  back  not  only 
to  the  Reformation,  but  to  very  much  earlier,  at  least  to  the 

1  Mr.  Wheble  was  the  founder  of  the  firm  now  known  as  Francis  Tucker  & 
Co. 

2Ushaw  MS.,  vol.  ii. 

3 The  seat  of  the  Blount  family  at  Maple  Durham — one  of  the  best-known 
Catholic  seats  in  the  country — though  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Reading,  is  in 
Oxfordshire,  and  therefore  in  the  Midland  District.  For  this  reason  it  is  not 
mentioned  in  James  Talbot's  list. 


46  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

thirteenth  century,  though  the  architectural  style  shows  .the 
actual  building  to  belong  to  a  somewhat  later  date  than  this. 
For  many  years  after  the  Reformation,  as  it  could  not  be  used 
as  a  chapel,  it  is  said  to  have  been  converted  into  a  wood- 
house,  in  order  to  save  it  from  destruction.  When  James  II. 
came  to  the  throne,  the  chapel  was  once  more  put  into  order, 
and  Mass  was  celebrated  there.  But  this  state  of  things  was 
not  allowed  to  continue  long:  on  December  11,  1688,  we 
read  that  the  Prince  of  Orange  with  his  army  were  passing 
through  the  neighbourhood,  and  his  soldiers  pillaged  the 
church,  some  of  them  departing  clad  in  priest's  vestments. 
The  following  year,  however,  when  the  state  of  the  country 
became  quieter,  the  chapel  was  once  more  re-opened,  and  has 
been  in  use  ever  since. 

The  Eyston  family  also  owns  the  Lady  Chapel  of  the  Parish 
Church,  which  they  keep  railed  off  from  the  rest  of  the  build- 
ing, using  it  as  a  burial-place  for  the  family.  By  marriage 
they  are  connected  with  the  descendants  of  Blessed  Thomas 
More,  and  they  possess  some  valuable  pictures  and  other 
articles  connected  with  his  memory. 

About  four  miles  from  East  Hendred  is  the  little  village 
of  Milton,  where  the  chief  landed  proprietor,  Mr.  Barrett,  was 
a  convert  to  the  Catholic  faith,  having  been  received  into  the 
Church  by  Bishop  Challoner,  who  frequently  stayed  at  his 
house.  He  was  able  to  repay  his  debt  of  gratitude  to  the 
bishop  after  death,  by  affording  him  a  burial-place  of  suitable 
dignity,  in  his  own  vault  under  the  Parish  Church.  There 
the  body  still  lies  to-day.  The  approach  is  from  outside,  so 
that  the  vault  can  be  entered  without  passing  through  the 
church. 

We  can  next  proceed  to  Buckland,  near  Farringdon,  where 
we  find  one  of  the  best-known  Catholic  seats.  The  owner, 
Sir  Robert  Throckmorton,  had  been  in  possession  since  1720, 
and  was  by  then  an  old  man.1  His  family  had  always  been 
Catholics,  one  of  the  most  interesting  relics  in  his  possession 
being  a  large  manuscript  book,  still  preserved  there,  containing 
a  list  of  fines  levied  on  him  and  his  ancestors  in  penal  days — 
a  long  record  of  their  constancy  in  adhering  to  their  religion. 

JThe  Throckmortons  had  inherited  Buckland  by  marriage  with  the  Yates 
family.     The  chief  seat  of  their  own  family  was  Coughton,  in  Warwickshire. 


1790]  CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES.  47 

The  heir  to  the  baronetcy  was  his  grandson,  Mr.  John  Throck- 
morton, who  lived  at  Weston  Underwood,  another  family- 
seat,  near  Olney,  in  Buckinghamshire,  and  the  only  Catholic 
centre  in  that  county.  Mr.  John  Throckmorton  was  one  of 
the  most  prominent  men  in  Catholic  affairs,  and  the  chief  leader 
of  what  may  be  described  as  the  "  advanced "  party  among 
the  laity.  Of  his  action  in  public  matters,  the  reader  will  have 
ample  opportunity  of  forming  a  judgment.  Here  it  is  proper 
rather  to  record  his  private  virtues,  which  were  many  ;  for  he 
was  devout  and  charitable,  and  sufficiently  well  off  to  devote 
large  sums  to  the  good  of  religion,  and  the  relief  of  distress. 
He  was  a  man  of  wide  reading,  and  was  ever  anxious  to  use 
that  enlargement  of  outlook  with  which  his  studies  furnished 
him  for  the  benefit  of  his  co-religionists.  This  anxiety  un- 
fortunately led  him  to  a  course  of  action  which  we  cannot  but 
regard  as  worse  than  ill-judged,  and  gave  him  the  appearance 
of  being  a  disaffected  Catholic.  Yet  even  when  at  his  worst, 
he  was  susceptible  to  good  influences.  The  manner  in  which 
he  responded  to  that  of  the  Papal  Envoy,  Mgr.  Erskine,  and 
afterwards  to  the  unremitting  kindness  of  Dr.  Poynter,  shows  a 
side  of  his  character  which  stands  in  pleasant  contrast  to  that 
which  he  exhibited  during  the  unfortunate  Committee  disputes, 
which  we  shall  come  across  presently. 

There  remain  now  three  counties  to  consider — Kent,  Sus- 
sex and  Hants.  In  the  first-named  of  these,  there  were  only 
three  priests,  one  being  an  ex-Jesuit.  The  chief  missions  were 
at  Hales  Place,  the  seat  of  Sir  Edward  Hales ;  Nash  Court, 
the  seat  of  the  Hawkins  family,  both  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Canterbury ;  and  Cale  Hill,  near  Ashford,  the  residence  of  the 
Darrells,  where  the  old  chapel  is  still  in  use. 

In  Sussex  and  Hants  several  well-known  missions  are 
enumerated.  Chief  among  these  may  be  mentioned  that  at 
Winchester,  one  of  the  oldest  town  missions  in  the  South  of 
England.  Here  the  Rev.  John  Milner  had  already  been  in- 
stalled before  the  death  of  Bishop  Challoner,  and  he  was 
destined  to  become  the  most  prominent  Catholic  of  his  day. 
Already  during  Dr.  Talbot's  lifetime,  he  had  gained  a  reputation 
as  a  vigorous  writer  and  a  learned  theologian ;  and  when  later 
on  he  was  constantly  called  upon  to  give  advice  to  the  bishops, 
or  to  write  on  their  behalf,  the  opinions  which  he  expressed  were 


48  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

always  inclined  to  the  stricter  side.  As  Amherst  points  out,1 
he  had  what  may  be  called  a  naturally  orthodox  mind,  by  which 
he  means  to  express  his  possession  of  a  keen  instinct  leading  him 
to  recognise  any  tendency  leading  away  from  that  absolute 
loyalty  to  the  Church's  teaching  which  was  to  him  as  the  breath 
of  his  nostrils.  His  strong  grasp  of  principles,  however,  brought 
this  natural  penalty  along  with  it,  that  he  was  unable  to  enter 
into  the  minds  of  those  who  saw  less  clearly  than  himself. 
Milner  was  essentially  a  partizan.  In  this  he  was  not  singular. 
All  controversialists  of  that  day  seemed  to  think  that  unless  they 
spoke  slightingly  of  their  opponents,  they  would  lay  themselves 
open  to  the  charge  of  lukewarmness  to  their  own  principles, 
and  they  considered  it  their  first  duty  not  to  admit  anything 
that  might  weaken  or  even  appear  to  weaken  their  own  side. 
Special  pleading  was  the  order  of  the  day,  and  a  mis-statement 
of  one's  adversary's  position  almost  an  invariable  accompani- 
ment. Milner,  however,  went  further  than  this.  Not  only  did 
he  put  his  arguments  into  harsh  or  even  offensive  language, 
but,  to  use  Father  Amherst's  expression,  one  of  his  chief  meth- 
ods consisted  in  what  is  known  among  lawyers  as  "  damag- 
ing the  character  of  the  witness  ".  This  led  him  to  say  things 
about  those  with  whom  he  was  arguing  which  many  regretted, 
and  did  more  to  damage  his  own  influence  and  reputation  than 
he  was  aware  of.  His  intimate  friend  and  assistant,  Bishop 
Walsh,  bore  testimony  to  this  failing  of  his,  telling  Milner  to 
his  face  that  he  was  "violent  and  severe".2  The  fault  was 
particularly  regrettable  in  some  of  his  battles  for  orthodoxy 
with  the  "  Cisalpines ".  They,  too,  could  say  hard  things  at 
times  ;  but  taking  the  controversy  as  a  whole,  we  are  con- 
strained to  admit  that  the  balance  of  heated  language  was  not 
always  on  the  side  that  we  should  wish  it  to  have  been.  In 
later  life,  Milner  was  at  one  time  definitely  prohibited  by  Rome 
from  writing  at  all  in  the  Orthodox  Journal,  in  consequence  of 
the  offensive  style  of  many  of  his  writings. 

In  his  conversation,  also,  bluntness  of  speech  was  part  of 
Milner's  nature,  and  the  things  which  he  said  could  not  fail  to 
make  him  many  enemies.  Dr.  Weedall's  oft-quoted  epigram 
that  Milner  "  undervalued  the  little  etiquettes  of  society  "  was 
by  far  an  understatement  of  the  truth.     Without  seeking  to 

1  See  i.,  p.  157,  and  ii.,  pp.  135  seq. 

2  Life  of  Milner,  p.  550. 


Rev.  John  Milner  (aetat  c.  25). 


1790]  CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES.  49 

justify  some  of  the  calumnies  uttered  of  him  by  his  enemies,  it 
must  be  admitted — as  Amherst  indeed  admits — that  Milner 
gave  them  an  excuse  by  the  things  which  he  said  of  them. 

We  are  of  course  speaking  now  of  Milner  as  a  controver- 
sial writer  and  theologian.  His  work  as  a  man  of  action  will 
appear  as  we  proceed.  His  extraordinary  vigour  and  activity, 
added  to  a  strong  constitution,  and  an  almost  boundless  power 
of  work,  caused  him  to  be  a  prominent  figure  in  Catholic  life 
for  nearly  half  a  century.  He  is  described  by  Provost  Husen- 
beth,  his  biographer,  as  of  about  middle  stature,  with  a  strong 
frame  and  broad  shoulders,  and  having  a  florid  complexion, 
dark  expressive  eyebrows,  and  black  hair,  though  its  colour 
was  rarely  seen,  as  he  was  accustomed  to  powder  it.  When  he 
first  came  to  Winchester,  he  still  looked  very  young,  and  the 
people  complained  that  the  bishop  had  sent  them  a  boy  for 
their  pastor.  They  soon,  however,  grew  to  be  attached  to  him, 
and  others  besides  Catholics  became  proud  of  him  as  a  scholar 
and  antiquary,  and  an  ornament  to  their  city.  His  History 
of  Winchester,  published  in  1 798-1801,  became  well  known. 
Some  years  before  that  he  had  already  become  sufficiently 
famous  to  be  elected  a  Fellow  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries — 
an  unusual  honour  for  a  Catholic  priest  in  the  eighteenth 
century. 

The  chapel  then  as  now  was  situated  in  St.  Peter's  Street 
(the  ancient  Fleshmonger's  Street)  and  the  priest's  house  was 
known  as  St.  Peter's.  The  mission  dated  back  probably  from 
the  time  of  James  II.  Originally  Mass  had  been  celebrated  in 
a  room  of  St.  Peter's  House;  but  somewhere  between  1730 
and  1740  a  small  chapel  was  built  in  the  garden,  at  the  expense 
of  two  priests,  Messrs.  Hyde  and  Shaw,  who  lived  there. 
Though  small  and  unpretending,  this  little  chapel  was  adequate 
for  the  wants  of  the  Catholics  of  that  day.1 

Among  the  congregation  at  Winchester  in  1780  was  John 
Lingard,  then  a  boy  of  nine.  It  was  greatly  through  Milner's 
influence  that  he  was  sent  to  Douay  as  a  Church  student  in 
September,  1782 — a  curiously  noteworthy  fact,  in  view  of  the 

1  These  details  are  taken  from  a  letter  of  Dr.  Milner.  The  name  Hyde  was 
an  alias.  The  real  name  of  the  priest  was  Rev.  Robert  Hills  :  he  was  the  son  of 
Henry  Hills,  a  well-known  printer  of  Blackfriars,  who  became  a  Catholic  in  the 
reign  of  James  II. 

VOL.    I.  4 


50  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

strong  opinions  against  Lingard's  writings  which  he  evinced 
later  in  life.  Writing  to  Bishop  Sharrock  many  years  later 
about  one  of  Lingard's  works,  Milner  says : — 

"The  author  [Lingard]  is  acquainted  with  some  of  my 
objections,  and  behaves  with  a  haughtiness  on  the  occasion 
unbecoming  his  situation  and  his  great  obligations  to  me."  J 

Another  very  old  mission  was  that  at  Gosport,  where 
Bishop  James  Talbot  had  built  the  chapel  out  of  his  own  in- 
come. He  describes  it  as  "  most  useful  to  sailors,  especially 
during  the  time  of  war".  He  also  mentions  Brockhampton, 
near  Havant,  where  there  was  an  old  mission  founded  and 
endowed  by  the  Carylls  in  1733  ;  Tichborne,  near  Alresford, 
the  seat  of  the  family  of  that  name  ;  and  Southend,  or  Sober- 
ton,  near  Bishop's  Waltham,  where  an  ex-Jesuit  resided,  though 
he  places  it,  by  error,  in  Sussex.  Lastly,  among  the  Sussex 
missions  he  also  mentions  Brambridge,  which  was  in  reality  in 
Hampshire,  not  many  miles  from  Winchester.  This  was  the 
ancient  seat  of  the  Wells  family  ;  but  at  this  time  was  occupied 
by  a  junior  branch  of  the  Smythes,  of  Acton  Burnell,  Shrop- 
shire. Here  it  was  that  Mrs.  Fitzherbert  who  was  a  daughter 
of  Mr.  Walter  Smythe,  spent  the  greater  part  of  her  early  years. 

In  Sussex,  we  come  first  to  a  mission  at  Easebourne  near 
Midhurst,  which  is  bound  up  with  sad  reminiscences  :  for  the 
reason  of  its  existence  was  the  apostasy  of  Lord  Montague, 
whose  seat  at  Cowdray  Park,  just  outside  the  town,  was  one  of 
the  few  places  in  the  South  of  England  where  Mass  had  been 
said  without  break  since  Catholic  days.  The  Lord  Montague 
of  that  time  had  come  into  the  title  as  a  boy,  on  the  death  of 
his  father,  in  1 7 1 7  ;  and  he  lived  to  hold  it  for  the  unusual 
period  of  seventy  years.  Although  he  had  been  brought  up 
at  Douay,  and  was  as  a  youth  much  respected  as  a  pious 
Catholic,  when  he  reached  middle  life  he  "  took  the  Oaths," 
and  became  outwardly  a  Protestant.  He  closed  the  chapel  in 
his  mansion  ;  but  he  preserved  sufficient  respect  for  the  faith 
of  his  ancestors  to  establish  and  endow  a  mission  house,  in 
the  neighbouring  village  of  Easebourne,  to  replace  it,  and 
serve  for  the  needs  of  the  Catholic  congregation.  He  con- 
tinued to  some  extent  in  touch  with  Catholics,  for  there  were 
funds  at  Douay  founded  by  the  generosity  of  his  ancestors,  and 

1  Clifton  Archives,  Supplementary  volume. 


iygo]  CATHOLICITY  IN  THE  HOME  COUNTIES.  5 1 

he  would  arrange  for  those  whom  he  considered  deserving  to 
receive  the  benefit  of  them.  He  lived  to  extreme  old  age,  and 
received  the  grace  of  repentance  at  the  end.  "  In  his  last  ill- 
ness," we  learn,  "  [he]  called  up  all  his  people,  and  told  them  he 
had  never  been  convinced  of  ye  truth  of  ye  Protestant  religion, 
but  he  had  changed  it  out  of  pride,  avarice  and  ambition.  He 
received  all  ye  sacraments,  and  gave  great  signs  of  sorrow."  l 

On  the  death  of  Lord  Montague,  the  title  passed  to  his 
only  son,  who  six  years  afterwards  died  without  issue,  being 
drowned  in  the  Rhine,  near  Schaffhausen,  while  almost  at  the 
same  time  the  family  mansion  at  Cowdray  was  burnt  to  the 
ground,  and  the  historic  Catholic  associations  which  clung 
around  it  perished.2 

Some  ten  miles  from  Midhurst,  in  the  direction  of  Petworth, 
was  Burton  Park,  another  Catholic  seat,  which  had  originally 
belonged  to  the  Gorings.  That  family  became  extinct  in  1724, 
when  the  property  passed  to  the  Biddulphs,  in  whose  hands  it 
remained  for  over  a  century.  At  the  time  when  Bishop  Talbot 
wrote,  the  owner  was  living  in  Italy ;  but  he  supported  a  priest 

1  Letter  from  Rev.  William  Gibson,  in  Westminster  Archives. 

2 It  has  often  been  stated  that  the  Montague  Peerage  died  out  at  this  time: 
such,  however,  is  not  the  case.  The  Lord  Montague  who  was  drowned  was  the 
seventh  viscount.  Burke,  in  the  Extinct  Peerages  (p.  84),  passes  over  the  eighth, 
and  mentions  a  ninth  viscount,  Mark  Anthony  Browne,  Esq.,  who  died  in  1797, 
apparently  without  having  assumed  the  title.  In  view  of  the  uncertainty  sur- 
rounding the  question  the  following  extract  from  a  letter  from  Milner  to  Bishop 
Douglass,  preserved  in  the  Westminster  Archives,  dated  November  4,  1796,  is 
of  special  interest : — 

"  Your  Lordship  knows  that  we  have  once  more  a  Catholic  Lord  Montague, 
who  is  nephew  to  my  friend  Mr.  More,  and  to  Sir  Thomas  More.  This  Lord, 
though  gifted  with  very  few,  and  these  very  small  talents,  yet  appears  to  make 
the  very  best  use  of  those  which  he  actually  possesses.  In  short,  he  is  exceedingly 
pious,  and  well  instructed  in  his  religion  which  is  described  to  be  the  ordinary  sub- 
ject of  his  conversation.  Being  now  at  full  liberty  to  practise  his  religion,  the 
benefits  of  which  he  has  been  so  long  deprived  of  in  France,  he  is  very  assiduous 
in  frequenting  the  sacraments,  and  a  doubt  having  been  started  whether  he  was 
ever  confirmed  or  not,  he  is  perfectly  wretched  until  the  same  is  cleared  up,  which 
can  only  be  done  by  consulting  Bishop  Challoner's  Register  of  Confirmation  in 
your  Lordship's  possession,  as  it  appears  certain  that  if  he  was  ever  confirmed,  it 
must  have  been  before  he  was  of  the  age  of  eleven  years,  when  he  lived  with  his 
parents  at  Easebourne  near  Cowdray.  His  name  is  Mark  Anthony  Browne,  the 
son  of  Mark  Browne,  Esq.,  and  Anastasia,  his  wife,  and  his  name  will  be  found 
somewhere  between  the  years  1745  and  1756.  It  is  not  yet  known,  in  case  he  is 
not  confirmed,  whether  he  will  come  hither  to  meet  your  Lordship  at  your 
approaching  visit,  to  receive  that  rite  at  your  hand,  or  apply  to  Bishop  Walmesley, 
in  whose  District  he  is.  I  must  premise  that  he  is  engaged  to  pay  a  visit  here 
soon." 

4* 


52  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781-90 

in  his  absence,  to  minister  to  the  Catholics  around  Burton. 
The  house  was  burnt  down  in  1826,  but  rebuilt  immediately 
afterwards,  and  a  new  chapel  was  then  put  up,  adjoining  the 
house.  The  mission  still  exists,  the  present  church,  which  is 
some  little  distance  from  the  house,  having  been  built  in  1869. 
The  property  now  belongs  to  the  Jesuits,  it  having  formed  part 
of  the  munificent  legacy  left  by  Mr.  Dawes,  to  be  divided 
between  the  Southwark  Diocese  and  the  Society. 

There  was  also  a  mission  belonging  to  the  Franciscans,  at 
West  Grinstead,  where  the  faith  had  lasted  continuously  from 
Catholic  times  ;  and  one  at  Slindon,  near  Arundel,  which  had 
been  endowed  by  the  Kempe  family — but  before  this  time  it 
had  passed  by  marriage  to  the  family  of  the  Earls  of  New- 
burgh. 

Lastly  we  come  to  Arundel  Castle,  the  seat  of  the  Duke  of 
Norfolk,  at  that  time  in  a  state  of  dilapidation,  and  the  Duke 
lived  chiefly  at  Worksop  in  Nottinghamshire.  He  kept  a 
chaplain,  however,  at  Arundel.  At  this  time  the  post  was 
held  by  the  Rev.  Philip  Wyndham,  who  continued  until  his 
death  in  1823,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  Rev.  Mark  Tierney, 
the  historian,  who  lived  until  1862,  and  is  still  remembered. 
The  mission  was  continued  throughout  the  time  when  the 
Duke  of  Norfolk  was  a  Protestant  (1786-18 15),  and  he  was 
reconciled  to  the  Church  at  the  end.  On  his  death  in  181 5 
he  was  succeeded  by  his  cousin,  Bernard  Edward  Howard, 
who  had  been  educated  at  Bishop  Talbot's  school  at  Old 
Hall  Green,  and  was  a  pious  Catholic. 

Bishop  Talbot  sums  up  his  report  characteristically  as 
follows : — 

"From  all  this,  I  conjecture  that  the  number  of  Catholics 
is  no  greater  than  in  former  years.  For  although  the  times 
are  much  more  favourable  than  formerly,  and  more  especially 
so  since  the  abortive  attempt  to  revoke  what  had  already  been 
conceded  to  us,  nevertheless  we  hear  of  hardly  more  conversions 
than  before.  But  this "  (he  adds)  "  may  be  due  to  my  own 
incapacity,  for  I  am  really  not  good  for  anything,  and  for  this 
reason,  as  soon  as  opportunity  shall  arise,  it  is  my  intention  to 
beg  for  a  Co-adjutor,  a  request  which  you  have  already  granted 
to  my  younger  brother." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS. 

1781-I79O. 

No  account  of  the  English  Catholics  of  the  eighteenth  century 
would  be  complete  without  some  space  being  devoted  to  their 
various  religious  houses  scattered  over  the  Continent.  There 
were  not  indeed  any  belonging  specially  to  the  London 
District,  for  there  was  no  distinction  of  the  four  districts  within 
their  walls ;  but  in  every  case  a  fair  proportion  of  the  inmates 
came  from  the  South  of  England,  while  from  the  fact  that 
London  was  the  metropolis  there  was  more  intercourse  with 
that  district  than  with  the  others. 

The  fact  that  so  small  a  body  as  the  English  Catholics  of 
that  day — assuming  them  to  have  numbered  not  much  over 
60,000 — should  have  had  over  forty  houses  on  the  Continent 
is  an  extraordinary  testimony  to  their  piety  and  earnestness. 
It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  most  of  these  houses 
had  been  founded  many  years  before,  when  the  number  of 
Catholics  was  larger,  and  the  majority  of  them  had  some 
endowment  inherited  from  those  times.  The  houses  which 
were  dependent  for  support  on  the  number  of  their  actual 
inmates  had  difficulty  in  continuing  through  the  decay  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  Few  of  them  indeed  found  it  necessary 
to  close,  but  the  number  of  their  subjects  had  in  most  cases 
become  much  reduced  when  the  French  Revolution  broke 
out,  and  the  communities,  one  after  another,  arrived  back  in 
England  in  a  state  of  destitution.  One  great  cause  of  the 
remarkable  change  in  the  state  of  the  Church  in  England  in 
the  early  nineteenth  century  from  what  it  had  been  in  the 
eighteenth  was  that  nearly  all  these  houses  had  been  at  that 
time  in  some  shape  or  form  refounded  in  England. 

It  was  humanly  speaking  a  coincidence  that  the  abolition 

53 


54  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

of  the  Penal  Laws  against  Catholics  in  England  took  place 
just  at  the  time  when  the  communities  were  driven  forth  from 
France  and  Flanders  by  the  Revolution,  and  consequently  the 
last  years  of  the  Penal  Laws  were  also  the  last  years  of  most 
of  the  English  Catholic  establishments  "beyond  the  seas". 
Throughout  Bishop  Talbot's  episcopate  they  were  in  full 
working  order,  without  any  prospect  of  coming  to  an  end,  and 
they  formed  an  integral  part  of  the  English  Catholic  Church. 
Several  of  the  convents  and  colleges  were  wholly  or  partially 
rebuilt  during  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the  highest  hopes  of 
English  Catholics  were  often  centred  in  the  prosperity  of  their 
foreign  establishments.  We  proceed  accordingly  to  an  enumer- 
ation of  them  with  a  short  description  of  the  principal  ones, 
and  their  actual  state  at  the  time  with  which  we  are  concerned. 

DOUAY. 

We  almost  of  necessity  go  first  to  Douay.  If  in  our  own 
day  Brighton  can  be  called  "  London-on-the-Sea,"  certainly, 
with  at  least  equal  justice,  could  Douay,  at  that  date,  have  been 
called  "  Catholic  England  beyond  the  seas  ".  The  celebrated 
English  college  founded  by  Cardinal  Allen  would  alone  have 
been  sufficient  to  give  it  that  title ;  in  addition  to  which  there 
was  an  Anglo-Benedictine  monastery  and  school,  an  English 
Franciscan  monastery  as  well  as  colleges  belonging  to  the  Scots 
and  the  Irish.  The  Anglo-Benedictine  house  was  dedicated 
to  St.  Gregory ;  it  was  the  lineal  ancestor  of  the  present  St. 
Gregory's,  Downside.1  Besides  these  religious  houses,  there 
were  numerous  Catholic  families  living  at  Douay,  some  of 
whom  had  been  there  for  generations  and  most  of  whom  had 
originally  sought  Douay  as  a  place  of  refuge  from  the  Penal 
Laws  enforced  in  England.  But  by  far  the  most  important  as 
well  as  the  oldest  establishment  was  that  known  simply  as 
"The  English  College,"  founded  by  Allen  in  1568,  the  Alma 
Mater  of  the  great  majority  of  the  Martyrs.  A  few  words 
about  its  actual  state  will  be  in  place. 

The  Rev.  William  Gibson  became  President  of  Douay  in  the 

1  After  the  Restoration  in  France  the  monastery  and  school  at  Douay  were 
occupied  by  the  Community  of  St.  Edmund,  formerly  at  Paris.  It  was  this  com- 
munity who  were  expelled  a  few  years  ago  by  M.  Combes,  under  the  Associa- 
tions Law,  and  are  now  at  Woolhampton,  Berks. 


1790]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  55 

same  year  in  which  Bishop  James  Talbot  became  vicar  apostolic. 
He  was  a  member  of  a  well-known  North-country  family. 
Like  his  elder  brother,  Dr.  Matthew  Gibson,  Bishop  of  the 
Northern  District,  he  had  more  than  his  share  of  roughness  of 
manner  and  bluntness  of  speech,  and  this,  added  to  a  tendency 
to  autocratic  action,  created  for  him  enemies  throughout  his 
life.  But  he  was  undoubtedly  a  capable  man,  with  considerable 
powers  of  organisation,  as  his  subsequent  work  in  England 
showed.  The  scheme  he  conceived  to  himself  of  the  work 
before  him  on  his  appointment  as  president  was  thought  out 
with  care  and  completeness.  He  wished,  in  short,  to  bring 
the  college  up  to  date,  both  materially  and  intellectually.  If 
the  material  improvements  occupied  his  first  attention,  this 
may  be  put  down  as  the  result  of  circumstances.  He  had 
indeed  become  president  at  a  somewhat  difficult  time.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  college  had  been 
in  financial  difficulties,  but  it  had  been  rescued  by  Dr.  Witham, 
who  was  president  from  171  5  to  1738,  and  was  justly  regarded 
almost  as  a  second  founder.  Not  only  had  he  paid  all  the 
debts,  but  he  rebuilt  a  great  part  of  the  college  on  a  large  and 
substantial  scale.  The  main  block  of  buildings  which  he  put 
up  is  standing  to-day,  and  shows  little  sign  of  wear.  But  he 
did  not  complete  his  work,  and  his  three  successors  did  little 
or  nothing  to  continue  it.  The  Rev.  Tichbourne  Blount,  who 
preceded  Mr.  Gibson,  is  one  of  the  few  presidents  who  resigned. 
William  Gibson,  on  his  installation,  set  himself  to  work  to  com- 
plete the  rebuilding  of  the  college  ;  but  in  so  doing,  although  he 
was  able  to  draw  upon  money  which  had  already  been  collected 
in  England,  he  nevertheless  had  to  incur  considerable  debt. 
Moreover,  his  whole  manner  of  government  was  said  to  be  ex- 
travagant, and  out  of  proportion  to  the  means  and  resources 
of  the  college.  The  procurator 1  was  Rev.  Gregory  Stapleton, 
who  had  held  that  office  since  1773,  and  consequently  had  at 
least  the  advantage  of  experience.  He  expostulated  with  the 
president,  but  in  vain  ;  and  eventually  he  resigned.  When  he 
left  in  1785  there  were  many  who  sympathised  with  him 
rather  than  with  the  president.  The  new  procurator,  Rev. 
Ralph   Piatt,  a    young  priest,  recently    ordained,  found    diffi- 

1  The  office  of  "  procurator  "  is  more  or  less  equivalent  to  that  of  a  "  bursar  " 
in  most  schools  ;  but  it  was  commonly  held  by  a  priest. 


56  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

culty  at  the  outset  in  meeting  the  demands  of  the  college 
creditors.  An  appeal  for  help  was  made  to  Propaganda,  as 
had  been  done  more  than  once  in  former  times,  for  Douay  was 
a  "  Pontifical  College,"  and  already  in  receipt  of  a  regular 
pension  from  the  Pope.  The  appeal  was  not  made  in  vain, 
the  only  stipulation  laid  down  by  Cardinal  Antonelli,  the 
Prefect  of  Propaganda,  being  that  a  yearly  account  should  be 
rendered  of  the  financial  state  of  the  college. 

In  this  way  the  immediate  difficulties  were  tided  over ;  but 
stories  continued  to  reach  England  of  imprudent  expenditure, 
especially  as  to  the  amount  of  entertaining  which  President 
Gibson  was  said  to  consider  necessary  to  keep  up  the  position 
of  the  college,  so  that  Bishop  Talbot  could  not  but  feel  anxious 
at  the  direction  in  which  affairs  were  tending.  As  a  former 
student  and  professor,  and  a  large  benefactor,  he  was  always  in 
close  sympathy  with  the  work  of  the  college  ;  but  his  letters 
show  that  at  this  time  he  was  far  from  happy  about  its  state, 
either  material  or  moral.  He  had  known  Mr.  Gibson  as  a  boy 
at  the  college :  profiting  by  his  long  friendship,  he  wrote  to 
him  a  plain  warning  of  his  apprehensions  ;  and  he  also  wrote 
to  Mgr.  Stonor,  the  agent  of  the  bishops  in  Rome,  to  ask  his 
advice.     The  latter  answered  in  the  March  of  1787  : — 

"  Your  way  of  proceeding  with  regard  to  Mr.  President 
Gibson  was,  I  think,  altogether  the  most  prudent  one  that 
could  be  adopted.  If  my  information  is  good,  since  his  return 
to  Flanders  his  conduct  is  much  altered  for  the  better.  I  hope 
he  will  continue  still  mending,  and  free  you  from  the  necessity 
of  taking  any  steps  that  might  be  equally  disagreeable  to  him 
and  to  you." 

Three  months  later  he  wrote  again : — 
"  I  sincerely  wish  and  hope  your  paternal  admonitions  to 
Mr.  President  will  be  attended  with  the  desired  effect,  and  pro- 
duce a  thorough    reformation,  particularly  in  ye  economical 
government." 

With  regard  to  the  moral  and  religious  tone  of  the  house 
under  Rev.  W.  Gibson,  we  have  less  means  of  forming  a  trust- 
worthy opinion.  If  we  may  judge  by  current  report,  there 
must  have  been  a  considerable  feeling  of  irritation  among  the 
students,  as  well  as  want  of  harmony  among  the  professors. 
We  may  quote  a  single  sentence  out  of  a  letter  written  by  Rev. 


1790]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  57 

William  Hurst,  the  agent  of  the  English  bishops  at  Paris,  to 
Bishop  Talbot,  which  is  typical  of  many  others.  "  My  concerns 
for  Alma  are  very  great,"  he  writes.  "  You  must  be  better  in- 
formed of  its  poverty,  discontent  and  discord  than  I  am  ;  but 
can  no  remedy  be  found  ?  Some  say  not  under  present  Govern- 
ment." *  Mr.  Gibson  himself  admits  in  his  letters  that  he  has 
had  a  good  deal  of  trouble,  but  says  that  it  came  chiefly  from  the 
London  boys,  who  he  evidently  considered  had  been  brought 
up  amidst  surroundings  of  dissipation  which  did  not  obtain  in 
the  North.  Some  lay  boys,  too,  from  Bishop  Talbot's  own 
school  at  Old  Hall  Green  appear  to  have  been  refractory,  and 
he  compares  them  unfavourably  with  boys  of  the  same  age 
arriving  from  Sedgley  Park.  He  pleads  further  against  Bishop 
Talbot's  readiness  to  believe  unfavourable  rumours,  saying  that 
he  has  often  heard  similar  bad  accounts  of  Old  Hall  Green,  but 
took  no  notice  of  them.  "  I  was  forewarned,"  he  says,2  "  that 
I  ought  to  take  care  how  I  allowed  my  boys  to  communicate 
with  yours,  and  that  I  ought  to  suppose  that  these  fine  accounts 
are  given  of  boys  to  please  ye  world,  and  yt  is  ye  policy  of  Old 
Hall  Green.  Notwithstanding  all  this,"  he  adds,  "  I  find  some 
of  them  are  fine  boys  that  come  from  thence." 

In  another  letter  he  reverts  to  the  same  subject: — 
"  If  you  give  ear  to  all  you  hear  against  this  place,  and  I  do 
ye  same  in  regard  of  Old  Hall  Green,  we  shall  reciprocally  have 
a  very  indifferent  opinion  of  them  both." 

But,  finally,  he  attributes  many  of  his  difficulties  of  internal 
administration  to  the  want  of  that  cordial  co-operation  among 
the  superiors  which  (he  considers)  he  might  reasonably  have 
looked  for. 

In  favour  of  the  president's  contentions,  we  are  able  to  call 
one  important  witness  in  Dr.  Poynter,  who  was  in  the  college 
either  as  student  or  professor  during  the  whole  time  of  Dr. 
Gibson's  administration,  and  was  prefect  of  studies  during  the 
last  years  before  the  Revolution.  His  evidence  is  the  more 
weighty,  as  he  was  not  himself  from  the  North — he  came  from 
Petersfield  in  Hampshire — so  he  would  not  have  been  prejudiced 
in  Mr.  Gibson's  favour.     In  view  of  the  long  and  important 

1  Westminster  Archives.  "  Alma  "  was  a  name  commonly  used  by  former 
Douay  students  for  their  college. 

2  Ibid. 


5§  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

part  he  afterwards  played  in  Catholic  affairs,  this,  the  first  letter 
of  his  preserved  in  the  Westminster  Archives,  is  of  consider- 
able interest.  He  pleads  for  a  better  relation  between  the 
president  and  the  bishop,  contending  that  all  the  misunder- 
standings have  been  due  to  irresponsible  rumours  to  which  he 
evidently  thinks  that  Bishop  Talbot  has  been  too  prone  to 
listen.  In  consequence  of  this  he  says  that  President  Gibson 
has  more  than  once  been  on  the  point  of  resigning,  which,  in 
his  opinion,  would  be  a  calamity  to  the  college. 

We  can  form  some  idea  of  the  daily  life  at  Douay  from  an 
acquaintance  with  the  two  English  colleges,  which  claim  descent 
from  Cardinal  Allen's  foundation — Ushaw  in  the  North,  and 
Old  Hall  in  the  South.  There  were  indeed  some  differences 
introduced  in  England,  one  being  that,  in  accordance  with 
English  custom,  no  general  uniform  has  ever  been  worn.1  In 
this  respect  Douay  resembled  a  French  seminary,  for  all  the 
students,  lay  as  well  as  church,  wore  the  cassock.  In  some 
other  accidental  ways,  such,  for  example,  as  the  names  for  the 
classes — "  Rhetoric,"  "  Poetry,"  "  Syntax,"  etc. — the  college 
was  affected  by  French  influences.  But  in  spirit  and  tone  it 
was  absolutely  English.  Charles  Butler,  who  was  himself 
educated  there,  bears  witness  to  this  fact : — 

"  It  should  not  be  forgotten "  (he  writes)  "  that  notwith- 
standing their  exile  and  persecutions,  the  hearts  of  these  foreign 
scholars  remained  truly  English.  This  was  ever  observed  by 
those  among  whom  they  were  domiciliated.  During  the  war, 
which  was  closed  by  the  Peace  of  Paris,  every  victory  which 
the  English  gained  over  the  French  was  a  triumph  to  the 
English  boys  in  their  foreign  schools.  Their  superiors  were 
more  than  once  admonished  by  the  magistrates  and  their  friends 
not  to  make  their  joy  on  these  occasions  too  noisy."  2 

And  he  concludes  by  saying  that  what  he  calls  "  The  salu- 
tary and  incontrovertible  truth  that  one  Englishman  can  any 
day  beat  two  Frenchmen,"  was  "  as  firmly  believed  and  as  ably 
demonstrated  at  Douay  and  St.  Omer's  as  it  could  be  at  Eton 
and  Winchester". 

The  Rev.  Joseph  Berington  gives  similar  testimony  : — 

1  At  St.  Edmund's  since  1817  it  has  been  customary  for  "  Church  boys  "  (i.e. 
those  intending  to  become  priests)  to  wear  the  cassock. 

2  Reminiscences,  p.  9. 


Charles  Butler  as  a  Boy  at  Douav  College. 


i79o]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  59 

"  It  is  observable,"  he  writes,  "  that  our  English  boys  never 
lose  that  antipathy  to  Frenchmen  and  French  manners  which 
I  trust  is  constitutionally  innate."  1 

There  were  lay  students  as  well  as  Church  students  ;  but 
the  latter  formed  the  large  majority.  Out  of  a  total,  including 
divinity  students,  of  about  IOO,  or  sometimes  rather  more,  at 
least  seventy  or  eighty  were  preparing  for  the  priesthood ;  and 
their  education  was  the  primary  object  of  the  college.  We 
may  again  quote  Charles  Butler's  Reminiscences : —  2 

"  Their  design  was  to  educate  for  the  ecclesiastical  state  a 
succession  of  youths  who  might  afterwards  be  sent  on  the 
English  mission.  The  Catholic  gentry  availed  themselves  of 
them  for  the  education  of  their  children.  They  were  excellently 
instructed  in  their  religion  ;  the  classics  were  well  taught,  but 
the  main  object  of  them  being  to  form  members  for  the  Church 
they  were  not  calculated  to  qualify  the  scholars  either  for 
business,  the  learned  professions  or  the  higher  scenes  of  life. 
Writing,  arithmetic,  and  geography  were  little  regarded  in 
them ;  modern  history  was  scarcely  mentioned,  and  little 
attention  paid  to  manners.  .  .  .  On  two  accounts — cheapness 
and  universal  equality  of  treatment — the  foreign  education  of 
which  we  are  speaking  was  entitled  to  the  highest  praise. 
The  instruction,  the  dress,  the  board,  the  pocket  money,  the 
ornamental  accomplishments  of  music,  dancing  and  fencing ; 
everything  except  physic  was  defrayed  for  the  moderate  yearly 
sum  of  £30.  There  was  no  distinction  of  rank.  When  the 
late  Duke  of  Norfolk  was  at  Douay  College,  he  rose  at  the 
same  hour,  studied  and  said  his  lessons  in  the  same  classes,  ate 
at  the  same  table,  and  wore  the  same  uniform  as  the  other 
boys." 

As  time  went  on,  and  Catholics  mixed  more  in  the  world, 
they  began  to  question,  whether  the  seclusion  of  the  foreign 
colleges  was  not  a  grave  evil.  Charles  Butler  indeed  in  later 
life  on  the  whole  defended  it ;  but  his  Reminiscences  were  not 
written  till  1822:  in  the  days  of  the  Committee  he  was  as 
active  as  anybody  in  declaiming  against  the  system.  More- 
over there  was  latterly  no  direct  connection  between  the  Eng- 
lish College  and  the  University  of  Douay,  so  that  one  of  the 
chief  advantages  of  having  the  college  there  at  all  was  thrown 

1  State  and  Behaviour,  p.  179.  2  P.  5. 


60  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

away.  This  added  to  the  sense  of  isolation  and  helped  to 
produce  a  certain  narrowness  of  mind  which  has  often  been 
criticised.  The  effect  was  more  pronounced  in  the  case  of  the 
clergy  whose  isolation  continued  in  after  life  to  a  greater  extent 
than  that  of  the  laity.  Berington  alludes  to  this  in  his  usual 
blunt  manner  as  follows  : —  l 

"The  Priests  from  this  house  are  the  most  numerous. 
.  .  .  They  are  open,  disinterested,  religious  and  laborious ; 
steady  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties  ;  fond  of  their  profession 
and  emulous  of  supporting  the  character  of  primitive  church- 
men ;  but  they  are  austere  in  their  principles,  confined  in  their 
ideas,  ignorant  of  the  world,  and  unpleasant  in  their  man- 
ners." 

Although,  however,  the  English  collegians  did  not  mix 
much  with  the  French  at  Douay,  there  was  no  lack  of  mutual 
intercourse  between  the  various  British  establishments  there, 
and  with  the  English  residents  in  the  town.  An  English 
Catholic  would  be  less  isolated  at  Douay  than  at  any  of  the 
other  Catholic  centres  on  the  Continent.  Indirectly  also  the 
University  exercised  considerable  influence  on  the  college,  by 
bringing  the  professors  in  contact  with  the  thought  of  the  day  in 
a  manner  in  which  they  have  not  been  since  it  came  to  an 
end. 

Rome. 

The  next  institution  to  consider  is  one  which,  as  a  college, 
ranked  as  the  first  daughter  of  Douay,  but  as  a  British  Catholic 
centre  dated  back  long  before  the  Reformation — the  English 
College  in  Rome.  Owing  to  the  city  being  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment of  the  whole  Church  there  were  always  English  Catholics 
in  Rome,  some  visiting  the  city  on  business  or  pleasure,  others 
residing  there.  There  was  likewise  an  English  priest  in  resi- 
dence to  act  as  official  agent  for  the  vicars  apostolic.  At  this 
time  Mgr.  Christopher  Stonor  held  that  office  so  far  as  three 
out  of  the  four  vicars  apostolic  were  concerned.2 

The  English  College  in  Rome,  known  then,  as  now,  by  the 
title  of  the   Venerabile,  was  passing  through  a  critical  phase  of 

1  State  and  Behaviour,  p.  174. 

2  The  exception  was  Bishop  Walmesley,  who  being  a  Benedictine,  usually 
transacted  most  of  his  business  through  Rev.  J.  Waters,  O.S.B.,  the  official 
"  Procurator  in  Curia  "  for  the  Benedictines. 


1790]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  61 

its  history.  Up  to  the  year  1773  the  superiors  had  been  Je- 
suits. At  the  suppression  of  the  Society  in  that  year  the  col- 
lege was  handed  over  to  the  secular  clergy ;  but  unfortunately 
the  authorities  failed  to  realise,  as  the  Jesuits  had  done,  the 
necessity  of  providing  English  superiors  for  English  students. 
The  college  was  not  then,  as  it  is  now,  limited  to  students  in 
philosophy  and  theology ;  it  resembled  more  our  present  col- 
leges at  Lisbon  or  Valladolid ;  for  it  included  boys  passing 
through  the  ordinary  classes  as  well  as  "  divines  ".  The  system 
of  discipline  introduced  was  thoroughly  Italian,  and  though  the 
superior,  Mgr.  Foggini,  was  a  capable  and  zealous  man,  the 
methods  he  pursued  were  unsuited  to  English  ideas  and  could 
not  but  lead  to  bad  feeling.  We  have  a  full  account  of  the 
state  of  things  in  a  letter  written  by  Rev.  John  Kirk,  a  student 
at  the  college  at  the  time,  that  is,  shortly  after  Bishop  James 
Talbot  became  vicar  apostolic.  The  original  is  preserved  in 
the  Westminster  Archives.  It  is  too  long  to  give  in  full ;  but 
the  following  details  are  all  taken  from  it,  and  allowing  per- 
haps for  some  slight  exaggeration  in  the  youthful  mind  they 
may  be  taken  as  substantially  authentic. 

During  nearly  two  centuries  in  which  the  college  was 
under  the  direction  of  the  Jesuits,  the  rector  had  almost 
always  been  English.  Everything  was  done  to  preserve  the 
English  character  of  the  house.  Morning  and  night  prayers 
and  points  of  meditation  were  all  in  English  ;  the  students  read 
in  the  refectory  in  English ;  and  English  practice  sermons 
were  preached  by  the  divines.  Now  all  was  changed  ;  every- 
thing was  in  Italian — even  the  practice  sermons — so  that  Kirk 
says  the  students  began  to  forget  the  little  English  they  had 
brought  out  with  them.  Even  the  confessions  had  to  be  made 
in  Italian.  Those  who  could  not  speak  that  language  were 
allowed  access  to  an  English  priest ;  but  he  was  not  allowed 
to  absolve  them.  His  function  was  simply  to  translate  the 
confession  into  Italian  and  teach  it  to  the  penitent,  who  had 
then  to  seek  an  Italian  priest  and  repeat  to  him  what  he  had 
learnt. 

The  system  of  general  discipline  was  equally  injudicious. 
Bolts  were  put  on  the  doors  of  all  the  rooms,  and  the  students 
were  locked  in,  not  only  every  night,  but  even  during  the 
afternoon  siesta  in  summer.     The  prisons  which    were    thus 


62  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

constructed  were  used  freely  for  punishments.  Students  who 
were  disaffected,  or  who  misbehaved,  were  often  kept  in  solitary 
confinement  for  periods  varying  from  three  to  fifteen  days. 
Sometimes  they  would  be  sent  across  to  the  Scots'  College  for 
weeks  or  even  months,  as  happened  to  Kirk  himself;  and  in 
more  than  one  case,  a  student  was  removed  to  an  Italian  semi- 
nary thirty  miles  off,  to  be  "  reformed  ".  Methods  like  these 
were  not  likely  to  win  the  confidence  of  the  students,  or  to 
wear  down  disaffection  ;  and  it  is  with  no  surprise  that  we 
read  of  the  daring  adventure  of  two  youths  who  determined  on 
a  supreme  effort  to  run  away.  A  journey  of  a  night  and  a 
day  brought  them  safely  to  Civita  Vecchia,  whence  they  hoped 
to  work  their  passage  home.  Our  sympathies  go  out  to  these 
adventurous  youths  rather  than  to  their  masters,  who  succeeded 
in  having  them  apprehended  when  on  the  point  of  embarking, 
and  brought  them  back  to  Rome.  They  imprisoned  one  in 
his  room  for  four  weeks,  while  they  sent  the  other  to  an  Italian 
seminary  at  Rieti  for  three  months.  Many  others  were 
similarly  treated.  They  were  never  allowed  to  speak  to  any 
of  the  English  residents  :  frequent  use  was  made  of  corporal 
punishment  for  every  slight  offence.  But  in  the  end,  Mgr. 
Foggini  was  constrained  to  admit  that  he  could  not  manage 
the  students. 

Mgr.  Foggini  was  not,  as  is  generally  supposed,  the  rector. 
He  was,  indeed,  supreme  over  everything,  and  lived  in  the 
college,  but  he  had  a  rector  under  him  who  had  charge  of  the 
details  of  government,  for  Foggini  himself,  being  a  Canon  of 
St.  Peter's,  was  often  absent.  The  funds  of  the  college  were 
then  in  a  low  state,  this  being  traceable  partly  to  losses  in 
connection  with  the  Duchy  of  Parma,  but  partly  also  to  the 
expenses  of  a  very  elaborate  Requiem  celebration,  provided  by 
the  college,  had  at  the  death  of  the  "  Old  Pretender," — or  "  James 
III."  as  he  was  always  styled  in  Rome — which  expenses  the 
Cardinal  Duke  of  York,  at  whose  request  it  was  held,  promised 
to  repay — a  promise  which  he  never  kept.  These  two  causes  ac- 
counted for  the  number  of  students  being  low,  for  the  number  of 
"alumni"  depended  on  the  income,  and  there  were  hardly  any 
"  convictors,"  as  those  were  called  who  paid  their  own  pensions. 
When  Kirk  first  arrived  in  1773,  there  were  only  seven  others. 
At  the  date  of  this  letter  (1783)  there  were  twelve,  of  whom  two 


Monsignor  Christopher  Stonor, 
Roman  Agent  oi  the  Vicars  Apostolic,  1748-1790. 


i7go]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  63 

were  little  boys ;  and  only  one  was  studying  divinity.  By 
this  time  the  Parma  money  had  been  recovered,  and  it  was 
said  that  the  endowments  of  the  college  were  sufficient  for  a 
total  of  thirty  or  thirty-five — a  number  which  had  been  reached 
in  past  times.  But  no  great  anxiety  was  shown  by  the  vicars 
apostolic  to  fill  up  the  vacant  places,  and  so  long  as  the  college 
was  governed  by  Italians,  no  one  was  likely  to  be  attracted 
there  who  had  it  in  his  power  to  go  elsewhere. 

Bishop  James  Talbot  did  not  fail  to  see  the  hopelessness  of 
the  state  of  affairs  which  then  obtained,  and  was  continually 
trying  to  bring  about  a  change.  He  rarely  wrote  a  letter  to 
Rome  about  any  business  without  accompanying  it  by  a 
declaration  that  the  college  was  now  useless  for  the  English 
mission,  and  that  the  only  hope  of  amelioration  was  to  be 
sought  in  a  change  of  system. 

The  "  Protector  "  of  the  college  was  Cardinal  Corsini,  and 
it  is  only  just  to  his  memory  to  record  that  he  took  a  lively 
interest  in  its  welfare  and  exerted  himself  to  devise  plans  to 
remedy  some  of  its  defects.  But  the  idea  of  having  English 
superiors  did  not  appeal  to  him.  The  other  was  the  Roman 
tradition,  and  was  in  force  in  the  colleges  belonging  to  other 
nationalities — Germans,  Greeks,  Maronites,  etc.  According  to 
Mgr.  Stonor,  two  reasons  were  commonly  adduced  in  favour  of 
the  system.  One  was  the  saving  of  the  travelling  expenses 
whenever  a  rector  was  changed — for  the  cost  of  a  journey  to 
England  in  those  days  was  considerable.  The  other  was  that 
an  Italian  was  supposed  to  be  capable  of  carrying  on  the 
college  more  economically,  owing  to  his  greater  familiarity  with 
the  country  and  language.  Both  reasons,  therefore,  were 
financial.  Mgr.  Stonor,  however,  hints  at  a  further  reason, 
which  in  reality  was  more  operative,  though  not  openly 
acknowledged.  This  was  that  if  the  rector  was  an  Englishman 
he  would  practically  have  to  be  chosen  in  England,  and  not 
only  would  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Cardinal  Protector  over  the 
college  be  diminished,  but  his  influence  in  Rome  would  suffer, 
as  he  would  no  longer  have  posts  at  his  disposal — such  as  the 
places  of  superiors,  masters  and  prefects — to  hold  in  prospect 
to  his  dependants. 

Bishop  Talbot  continued  to  press  for  a  complete  change 
and  the  appointment  of  English  superiors.     A  similar  applica- 


64  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

tion  was  being  made  at  this  time  by  the  Scotch  bishops  on 
behalf  of  their  own  college.  In  order  to  press  this  forward, 
Bishop  Hay  himself  journeyed  to  Rome,  and  he  writes  from 
there  on  November  21,  178 1,  begging  Bishop  Talbot  to  send 
a  simultaneous,  though  independent  petition,  on  behalf  of  the 
English  vicars  apostolic.  Bishop  Talbot  acted  on  his  advice,  the 
petition  taking  the  form  of  an  appeal  from  Propaganda  to  the 
Holy  Father  himself.  It  was  signed  by  three  out  of  the  four 
vicars  apostolic,1  and  was  sent  through  the  nuncio  at  Brussels, 
who  often  acted  for  the  English  Catholics. 

We  have  it  on  the  authority  of  Bishop  Hay  that  the  appeal 
had  a  great  effect  on  the  Pope,  who  referred  it  to  Propaganda 
for  report.  The  question  was  debated  at  several  sittings, 
Cardinal  Corsini  absenting  himself  from  the  congregation  in 
order  to  leave  them  free  to  discuss  the  question  independently. 
They  came,  however,  to  the  same  conclusion  as  before,  and  re- 
ported against  the  petition  on  the  main  question.  Nor  was 
Bishop  Hay  himself  any  more  successful  in  the  matter  of  the 
Scots'  College,  and  he  left  Rome  in  April  without  having 
achieved  any  result. 

The  appeal  of  the  English  bishops,  however,  was  not  entirely 
without  effect.  Several  suggestions  were  made  in  order  to 
meet  the  points  raised  by  the  vicars  apostolic.  One  was  that 
at  least  one  of  the  priests  should  be  an  Englishman,  who  had 
studied  his  theology  in  Rome ;  the  name  of  Dr.  Kirk,  who 
was  soon  to  be  ordained,  was  mentioned.  Mgr.  Stonor  thought, 
at  first,  that  this  might  be  useful  and  be  the  first  step  towards 
his  becoming  rector ;  but  on  consideration  it  was  considered 
that  his  position  among  superiors,  all  of  whom  were  Italian, 
might  be  a  difficult  one,  and  instead  the  Rev.  Mr.  Green,  an 
English  priest  residing  in  Rome,  was  engaged  "  to  assist  the 
young  men  in  the  study  of  English  controversy,  and  in  the 
composition  of  moral  and  catechetical  discourses ".  Another 
reform  of  a  different  character  was  the  provision  of  journey 
money  to  and  from  England,  so  that  the  vicars  apostolic 
should  no  longer  be  able  to  plead  want  of  means  as  a  reason 
for  not  filling  up  the  vacant  places. 

Mgr.  Foggini  died  in  1784  and  no  one  was  elected  in  his 

1  The  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  Western  District  being  a  Benedictine,  took  no 
part  in  these  negotiations. 


i7goJ  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  65 

place.  After  his  death,  Cardinal  Corsini  communicated  directly 
with  the  rector,  and  was  consequently  more  often  in  the  college 
than  formerly.  Three  years  later,  a  further  change  was  made, 
which  had  better  be  recorded  in  Mgr.  Stonor's  own  words  : —  l 

"  A  little  Revolution,"  he  writes,  "has  lately  happened  in 
ye  English  College.  The  rector,  Abbate  Magnani,  has  been 
dismissed  in  a  very  sudden,  extraordinary  manner.  I  saw 
him  the  very  morning,  and  then  he  had  neither  knowledge  or 
even  suspicion  of  any  such  impending  change.  Nay,  what  is 
odd  enough,  Corsini  had  put  his  successor  in  actual  possession 
before  he  acquainted  him  of  his  demission.  The  present  Rector 
was  before  in  ye  Maronite  College  in  ye  same  capacity,  has  a 
good  character  for  prudence,  sweetness  of  temper  and  piety, 
but  has  no  great  stock  of  learning,  as  I  am  told.  The  cause 
of  his  predecessor's  misfortune,  Corsini  told  me,  was  negligence 
in  the  government  of  the  house." 

Whatever  we  may  think  of  this  manner  of  effecting  the 
change,  the  result  seems  to  have  been  good.  Mgr.  Stonor 
wrote  shortly  afterwards  very  favourably  of  the  capacity  of  the 
new  rector.  A  year  or  two  later,  the  vicars  apostolic  had  filled 
up  the  vacancies,  and  the  college  was  almost  full.  The  vicars 
apostolic  continued  to  press  for  national  superiors ;  but  it  was 
not  until  nearly  fifteen  years  later  that  this  was  at  length  con- 
ceded, under  circumstances  which  we  shall  afterwards  describe. 

St.  Omer. 

The  Jesuit  College  at  St.  Omer,  which  is  now  represented 
by  Stonyhurst,  is  well  known  by  reputation,  and  its  original 
situation  is  perpetuated  by  the  name  Blandyke,  still  given  to 
certain  recreation  days,  that  being  the  name  of  the  country 
house  a  few  miles  from  St.  Omer,  whither  the  students  used  to 
repair  on  these  occasions.  The  college  was  founded  by  Father 
Parsons  in  1592,  and  it  flourished  for  170  years. 

But  at  the  time  which  we  are  considering  there  was  no 
Jesuit  College  at  St.  Omer.  It  came  to  an  end,  so  far  as  its 
original  site  was  concerned,  in  1762,  when  the  Jesuits  were  ex- 
pelled from  France.  The  story  has  often  been  told,  how  they 
all  escaped  secretly — both  priests  and  scholars — so  that  when 

1  Westminster  Archives. 
VOL.     I.  5 


66  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

the  French  took  possession  of  the  college  they  acquired 
indeed  the  fabric  and  ground,  but  the  inmates  had  gone. 
These  found  a  safe  refuge  at  Bruges,  where  they  continued  the 
institution  until  the  dissolution  of  the  society  throughout  the 
world  in  1773.  Of  the  fortunes  of  the  school  after  that  date 
we  shall  speak  presently. 

In  the  meantime,  the  College  at  St.  Omer  was  offered  to 
the  secular  clergy  of  Douay,  who  were  at  first  unwilling  to 
accept  it,  especially  as  they  considered  that  an  additional 
English  College  on  the  Continent  was  not  wanted,  and  that 
there  would  be  a  difficulty  about  finding  boys  to  fill  it.  It  was 
represented  to  them,  however,  that  if  they  refused,  the  college 
would  be  permanently  lost  to  the  English  mission  ;  whereas  if 
they  undertook  its  management,  then  should  events  take  a  more 
favourable  turn  in  the  future,  they  would  be  able  to  restore  the 
college  to  its  rightful  owners.  In  the  circumstances  they  con- 
sented, and  the  Hon.  Thomas  Talbot  was  nominated  president. 
As,  however,  there  was  some  delay  before  he  was  able  to  come 
— for  he  was  then  in  England,  and  the  country  was  at  war  with 
France — a  temporary  arrangement  was  made  by  which  the  Rev. 
Henry  Tichbourne  Blount,  who  was  the  head  of  the  preparatory 
school  at  Equerchin,  should  act  as  president  until  Mr.  Talbot's 
arrival.  This  arrangement  was  made  because  it  was  intended 
to  remove  the  boys  from  Equerchin  to  St.  Omer,  where  they 
were  to  form  the  nucleus  of  the  new  college.  This  plan  was 
duly  carried  out,  and  the  following  year  Mr.  Thomas  Talbot 
arrived  and  undertook  the  charge  of  the  establishment. 

Unfortunately,  owing  to  a  variety  of  circumstances,  the 
action  of  the  secular  clergy  was  misunderstood  by  the  Jesuits, 
and  much  ill-feeling  resulted,  which  lasted  for  many  years. 
The  whole  incident,  however,  belongs  to  a  period  earlier  than 
that  with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  and  it  will  not  be 
necessary  to  pursue  the  matter  further.  The  question  was 
argued  out  in  Rome,  and  although  no  formal  pronouncement 
was  made,  it  was  understood  that  the  conduct  of  the  secular 
clergy  was  absolved  from  any  blame  or  censure. 

The  constitutions  of  the  college  in  its  new  state  as  a 
"  Royal  College "  were  signed  by  the  King  of  France  on 
March  14,  1764.  They  were  somewhat  modified  in  1789  by  a 
new  constitution  which  seems  to  have  been  issued  in  response 


mm 


:  \ 


i  :> 


t  i  1   i  l 


English  College,  St.  Omer. 


i7go]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  67 

to  an  appeal  signed  by  Bishop  James  Talbot,  as  Bishop  of 
the  London  District ;  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot,  who  had  been 
first  president,  and  Rev.  William  Wilkinson,  who  is  spoken  of 
as  actual  president.1  According  to  this  document,  although  the 
college  was  primarily  for  the  English,  boys  of  other  nation- 
alities were  not  to  be  excluded ;  and  in  point  of  fact  there 
were  always  some  French  boys  there.  Moreover,  the  govern- 
ment was  not  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  English.  There 
was  indeed  a  Council  of  Superiors,  consisting  of  the  vice- 
president,  general  prefect  of  discipline  and  the  professors  of 
rhetoric  and  of  the  second  class  ;  and  they  were  all  English. 
But  the  election  of  the  president  was  not  entirely  in  their 
hands.  They  had  to  submit  three  names,  out  of  which  the 
Bishop  of  St.  Omer — who  was  of  course  a  Frenchman — chose 
one,  and  apparently  with  the  consent  of  the  Bishop  of  the 
London  District,  presented  him  to  the  King  of  France,  to  whom 
the  final  appointment  was  reserved.  Moreover,  it  was  a 
"  Royal  College,"  in  receipt  of  a  regular  pension  from  the 
King  of  France. 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Talbot  had  only  been  president  three 
years  when  he  was  called  away  to  be  consecrated  bishop 
auxiliary  to  Dr.  Hornyold,  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  Midland 
District,  whom  he  succeeded  in  1778.  The  second  President 
of  St.  Omer  was  the  well-known  Alban  Butler,  the  learned 
author  of  the  Saints  Lives,  who  ended  his  days  there  and 
died  in  1773.  He  was  in  turn  succeeded  by  Rev.  William 
Wilkinson,  and  finally,  on  the  latter's  resignation  in  1787, 
Dr.  Gregory  Stapleton  was  chosen  to  succeed  him  ;  and  he 
continued  in  office  until  the  college  came  to  an  end  during 
the  Reign  of  Terror. 

It  has  been  customary  to  look  upon  the  secular  college  at 
St.  Omer  as  rather  a  burden  than  a  help  to  the  English 
mission  ;  but  this  is  not  borne  out  by  the  records  of  the  time. 
A  writer  in  the  Gentleman 's  Magazine,  who  signs  himself  "  An 
English  Gentleman  on  his  Travels,"  writing  in  May,  1766 — 
that  is  less  than  four  years  after  the  college  had  changed 
hands — says  that  there  were  already    over    fifty    boys    there. 

1  Rev.  W.  Wilkinson  ceased  to  be  president  in  1787 ;  therefore  the  appeal 
which  resulted  in  the  new  Constitution  must  have  been  drawn  up  before  that 
date. 

5* 


68  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

Twenty  years  later,  Rev.  W.  Hurst  writes  : 1  "  The  reputation 
of  [St.  Omer's]  increases  daily.  They  have  1 14  scholars,  their 
revenues  increasing  every  year."  About  the  same  time,  Mgr. 
Stonor,  writing  to  Bishop  James  Talbot,  about  obtaining  re- 
cruits for  the  English  college  at  Rome,  says  : — ■ 2 

"  St.  Omer  is  now  so  full  that  I  should  think  it  no  hard 
matter  to  find  some  proper  ones  among  the  students  of  Poetry 
and  Rhetoric  there,  and  if  none  be  found  now,  at  least  for  the 
future  to  give  such  a  turn  to  ,your  education  as  to  produce 
that  effect.  It  would  be  effectually  answering  the  end,  or  at 
least  what  was  said  to  be  the  end  of  the  foundation.  It  is 
what  Father  Parsons  declares  over  and  over  again." 

Several  distinguished  Catholics  owed  their  education  to 
the  secular  college  at  St.  Omer.  Conspicuous  among  these 
may  be  named  Daniel  O'Connell.  He  was  there  in  the  time 
of  Dr.  Gregory  Stapleton,  who  formed  a  high  opinion  of  his 
ability  and  prospects.  "  I  was  never  so  much  mistaken  in  my 
life,"  he  wrote,  to  Maurice  O'Connell,  Daniel's  uncle,  "  as  I 
shall  be  unless  he  be  destined  to  make  a  remarkable  figure  in 
society."  3 

Amongst  the  superiors  at  the  college  during  its  last  years 
we  may  mention  one  who  afterwards  held  a  prominent  position 
in  ecclesiastical  affairs — the  Rev.  Francis  Tuite,  the  procurator, 
who  came  from  a  well-known  North  of  Ireland  family.  Among 
the  students,  Thomas  Walsh,  afterwards  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the 
Midland  and  for  a  short  time  of  the  London  District,  may  be 
mentioned.  It  was  owing  to  his  friendship  with  Dr.  Stapleton, 
formed  at  St.  Omer  and  afterwards  at  Old  Hall,  that  he 
accompanied  the  latter  to  the  Midland  District  as  his  secretary. 
He  ultimately  stayed  there  and  became  intimate  with  Bishop 
Milner,  who  made  him  his  coadjutor. 

Paris. 

At  least  five  British  houses  can  be  enumerated  in  Paris, 
besides  the  Irish  college.  Of  these,  three  were  convents. 
One  of  the  communities  belonged  to  the  Benedictine  group, 
which  we  shall  be  speaking   of  later.       Another  community 

1  Westminster  Archives.  -  Ibid. 

4J  Life,  by  John  O'Connell,  i.,  p.  8. 


1790]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  69 

were  "  Conceptionists,"  a  branch  of  the  Franciscans  who  had 
one  of  the  best-known  English  convent  schools  on  the  Con- 
tinent, frequented  by  many  of  the  best  families  of  the  French 
aristocracy.  They  were  known  as  the  "  Blue  Nuns,"  and  had 
been  settled  at  Paris  since  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury. The  third  community  were  Augustinianesses,  and  lived 
in  the  Fosse  St.  Victor.  It  was  in  this  house  that  the  second 
vicar  apostolic,  Dr.  Richard  Smith,  ended  his  days.  He  died 
in  1655. 

There  were  two  houses  of  men  ;  one  was  a  Benedictine 
monastery,  dedicated  to  St.  Edmund,  the  King.  This  is  the 
community  already  alluded  to  as  afterwards  at  Douay,  and 
now  at  Woolhampton,  Berks. 

The  other  house  of  men  was  the  Seminary  of  St.  Gregory, 
which  was  under  the  direction  of  the  secular  clergy,  having 
been  established  in  1701,  though  the  College  d'Arras,  on  which 
it  was  engrafted,  dated  nearly  a  century  earlier.  The  seminary 
seems  to  have  been  badly  mismanaged,  and  finally  the  number 
of  students  was  reduced  to  a  single  one— John  Bew,  afterwards 
President  of  Oscott.  Dr.  Howard,  the  president,  left  in  1782, 
when  Dr.  John  Rigby  was  temporarily  appointed.  He  left 
in  1784,  after  which  time  Dr.  Bew  acted  as  procurator,  and 
for  a  time  no  students  were  taken,  so  that  the  college  might 
recover  its  financial  position.  In  1786  Dr.  Bew  was  formally 
appointed  president,  by  the  Archbishop  of  Paris  on  the  re- 
commendation of  Bishop  James  Talbot,  and  students  were 
once  more  received.  The  institution  continued  for  the  few  years 
which  intervened  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution. 

VALLADOLID. 

The  College  of  St.  Alban  at  Valladolid  ranks  in  respect  to 
antiquity  next  after  the  Venerabile  at  Rome.  It  was  founded 
by  Father  Parsons,  S.J.,  under  the  protection  of  King  Philip 
II.  of  Spain,  in  1589.  Pope  Clement  VIII.  confirmed  the 
establishment  by  a  bull  dated  April  25,  1592,  and  entrusted 
the  direction  of  it  to  the  Jesuits  of  the  Province  of  Castile. 
In  its  early  days  the  college  prospered,  the  number  of  students 
at  times  amounting  to  fifty  or  sixty  or  even  more.  The  greater 
part  of  the  money  was  supplied  by  subscriptions  among  the 


70  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

Spanish,  whose  good-will  towards  the  English  Catholics  at 
that  epoch  is  well  known.  Two  other  foundations  were  made 
in  Spain,  one  by  Father  Parsons,  in  Seville,  in  1592,  dedicated 
to  St.  Gregory,  the  other  the  College  of  St.  George  at  Madrid, 
founded  in  16 12  by  Father  Cresswell,  also  an  English  Jesuit. 
These  were  both,  however,  on  a  smaller  scale,  and  neither  of 
them  had  a  prolonged  existence.  The  income  of  the  former 
was  barely  sufficient  for  the  support  of  one  or  two  students,  who 
were  eventually  sent  to  Valladolid,  and  when  the  Jesuits  were 
expelled  from  Spain  in  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century 
the  whole  property  was  lost.  The  house  at  Madrid  was  rather 
more  fortunate.  Soon  after  the  foundation  there  were  twelve 
students  in  residence  ;  but  the  number  dwindled,  and  there  were 
no  students  there  after  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century.1 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  enter  into  the  difficulties  which 
showed  themselves  in  the  administration  of  the  college  at 
Valladolid  during  the  first  century  of  its  existence.  The  fact 
that  England  and  Spain  were  at  war  during  a  large  part  of  that 
time  made  the  position  of  the  Spanish  superiors  necessarily 
one  of  great  delicacy,  and  the  fact  that  signs  of  friction 
showed  themselves  from  time  to  time  need  not  occasion  sur- 
prise. Nevertheless,  some  excellent  work  was  done  on  behalf 
of  the  English  mission.  The  college  reckons  among  its  alumni 
twenty-one  martyrs,  and  six  more  who  died  in  prison  for  the 
faith.  The  pictures  of  the  martyrs,  hanging  on  the  walls  of 
the  cloisters  at  the  present  day,  are  a  continual  reminder  of  the 
work  done  by  the  college  in  the  past. 

It  is  also  of  interest,  though  of  a  different  kind,  to  know 
that  the  college  counts  among  its  students  the  notorious 
Titus  Oates.  The  following  entry  written  in  the  year  1684 
in  the  "  Liber  Alumnorum  "  kept  in  their  archives  records  his 
brief  stay  thus  : — 

"Titus  Ambrose,  vere  Oates,  venit  cum  praedictis,  et  ob 
pessimos  mores  post  4  menses  ejectus  factus  est.  Infamis 
apostata,  nimis  notus,  et  auctor  persecutionis  plusquam  Nero- 
nicae ;  sed  iniqui  foverunt  foveam,  et  inciderunt  in  earn." 

1  There  was  also  a  residential  establishment  at  San  Lucar,  near  Seville, 
independent  of  the  Spanish.  It  appears  to  have  been  founded  by  some  English 
merchants  early  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  was  handed  over  to  the  English 
clergy  in  1591.  Not  very  much  is  known  about  it,  and  it  was  never  of  any  great 
importance. 


1790]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  71 

At  the  present  day  nothing  is  left  of  the  original  college 
except  the  kitchen  buildings.  The  chapel  was  rebuilt  on  a 
substantial  scale,  with  a  large  central  dome,  in  1679,  Father 
Manuel  Cutayad,  S.J.,  being  at  the  time  the  rector.  The  college 
itself  was  rebuilt  some  three-quarters  of  a  century  later  (1749- 
56)  on  much  the  same  scale.  Together  with  the  chapel,  it 
forms  a  quadrangle,  with  a  cloister  all  round,  and  includes  a 
spacious  refectory,  a  library  of  some  ten  thousand  volumes, 
and  other  scholastic  accommodation  in  a  convenient  form. 

The  Jesuit  fathers  were  not  long  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their 
labours,  for  in  1767  the  Society  was  expelled  from  Spain. 
The  number  of  students  at  the  college  had  for  many  years 
been  diminishing,  and  when  the  Jesuits  left,  there  were  only 
two  remaining.  It  became  a  question  whether  the  college 
could  be  continued.  Its  salvation  was  due  to  the  work  and 
initiative  of  Bishop  Challoner,  who  petitioned  the  King  of  Spain, 
Charles  III.,  to  allow  him  to  place  it  under  the  care  of  the 
English  secular  clergy ;  and  likewise  begged  that  the  college 
at  Madrid  might  be  sold,  and  the  proceeds  applied  to  the 
endowment  of  Valladolid.  His  petition  being  granted,  the 
college  started  on  a  new  period  of  existence.  The  first  secular 
rector  was  Rev.  Philip  Perry,  D.D.,  a  man  of  considerable 
literary  ability,  and  of  nearly  twenty  years'  experience  on  the 
English  mission,  in  the  Midland  District.  This  latter  qualifi- 
cation Dr.  Challoner  looked  upon  as  of  great  importance,  as 
tending  to  produce  a  closer  union  than  hitherto  between  the 
college  and  the  mission  for  which  the  students  were  preparing. 
The  Chair  of  Theology  was  occupied  by  Rev.  Joseph  Shepherd, 
who  was  also  vice-rector,,  while  Rev.  John  Douglass — the  future 
bishop — came  from  Douay,  bringing  with  him  a  colony  of 
eight  students,  and  he  became  prefect.  During  the  next  two 
decades  an  average  of  from  twelve  to  fifteen  students  was 
maintained. 

In  the  year  1774,  Dr.  Perry  died,  at  the  early  age  of  fifty- 
four.  He  was  succeeded  as  rector  by  Rev.  Joseph  Shepherd, 
who  ruled  the  college  during  all  the  time  that  Bishop  Talbot 
was  vicar  apostolic. 

A  chief  feature  in  the  life  of  the  college  has  always  been  a 
great  devotion  to  an  ancient  miraculous  statue  known  as  the 
"  Vulnerata  ".     Its  history  is  interesting.     Originally  it  stood 


72  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

in  the  Cathedral  at  Cadiz.  When  that  town  was  sacked  by 
the  English  under  the  Earl  of  Essex  in  1 596,  the  soldiers 
dragged  the  statue  out  into  the  public  market-place,  where 
they  defaced  and  publicly  insulted  it.  The  statue  in  its  dam- 
aged condition  was  afterwards  recovered,  and  taken  to  the 
residence  of  the  Count  of  Castile,  who  honoured  it  with  great 
devotion,  and  made  continual  acts  of  reparation  for  the  im- 
piety of  the  English  soldiers.  It  appeared  to  the  collegians  of 
Valladolid  that  it  would  be  specially  appropriate  if,  as  the  re- 
presentatives of  the  Catholics  of  the  same  nation  which  had 
committed  the  injury,  they  could  undertake  a  permanent  work 
of  reparation.  The  consent  of  the  Count  and  Countess  of 
Castile  having  been  with  difficulty  obtained,  the  statue  was 
solemnly  carried  in  procession  to  the  English  college,  in  the 
month  of  September,  1600,  the  Queen  of  Spain  herself  assisting 
at  the  ceremony,  and  the  name  of  the  "  Vulnerata  "  was  given 
to  it.  The  statue  was  placed  over  the  high  altar,  and  the 
devotion  of  reparation  has  continued  without  intermission  to 
the  present  day.  Every  Saturday  throughout  the  year  Mass 
is  sung  in  honour  of  the  "  Vulnerata,"  and  a  special  feast  is 
kept  on  the  Sunday  within  the  octave  of  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception.1 

During  the  period  with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  a 
second  British  establishment  had  recently  been  founded  at 
Valladolid.  This  was  the  Scots'  College,  originally  established 
at  Madrid  under  the  Spanish  Jesuits  in  1634.  On  the  expul- 
sion of  the  Society  it  had  been  closed  ;  but  it  was  revived  three 
years  later,  when  the  Scotch  bishops  obtained  possession  of  the 
ancient  Jesuit  house  at  Valladolid,  hallowed  by  the  memories 
of  Suarez,  De  Puente,  Rodriguez,  and  other  celebrated  Jesuit 
writers.  This  was  effected  through  the  good  offices  of  Dr. 
Perry,  and  the  first  secular  rector,  Dr.  John  Geddes  (after- 
wards bishop),  received  special  assistance  from  Bishops  Chal- 
loner  and  Talbot,  which  led  to  the  cordial  relations  between 
the  Scotch  and  English  colleges  which  have  subsisted  ever 
since. 

1  Originally  the  feast  was  kept  on  the  Sunday  within  the  Octave  of  the 
Nativity  of  our  Lady  in  September,  which  was  the  anniversary  of  the  arrival  of 
the  statue ;  but  as  it  is  now  customary  for  the  students  to  be  away  at  the  country 
house  at  that  time  of  year,  the  date  of  the  feast  has  been  changed. 


1790j  catholic  england  beyond  the  seas.  73 

Lisbon. 

The  idea  of  establishing  an  English  college  at  Lisbon  was 
due  in  the  first  instance  to  Rev.  Nicholas  Ashton,  an  English 
priest  residing  in  that  city,  where  early  in  the  seventeenth 
century  he  held  a  "chaplaincy"  which  had  been  established 
for  the  benefit  of  his  countrymen  living  there.  On  his  death, 
he  bequeathed  a  house  for  the  foundation  of  a  college  or  semin- 
ary. The  design  was  carried  into  execution  by  his  successor, 
Rev.  Ralph  Sliefield  (alias  Newman),  in  conjunction  with  Don 
Pedro  Continho,  a  Portuguese  nobleman,  who  gave  the  site  on 
which  the  present  college  stands,  together  with  an  endowment 
of  £150  a  year.  The  only  condition  insisted  on  was  that  the 
college  should  be  under  the  direction  of  the  English  secular 
clergy.  The  project  was  approved  by  Pope  Gregory  XV.,  in 
a  brief  dated  1622.  The  college  was  dedicated  to  Sts.  Peter 
and  Paul,  and  placed  under  the  protectorate  of  the  Bishop 
Inquisitor  General ;  but  for  matters  of  internal  discipline,  in- 
cluding the  appointment  of  the  president,  it  was  made  directly 
subject  to  the  newly  appointed  Vicar  Apostolic  of  England,  and 
later  on,  when  the  four  vicariates  were  created,  it  was  placed 
under  the  Bishop  of  the  London  District.  In  this  respect  it 
differed  from  all  the  other  English  establishments  abroad.1 
The  first  president,  Rev.  Joseph  Harvey  {alias  Hynes),  ap- 
pointed by  Bishop  Smith,  arrived  with  the  ten  original  students 
from  Douay  in  1628  ;  but  he  died  the  following  February  on 
the  very  day  on  which  it  had  been  intended  to  make  a  formal 
commencement  of  the  studies.  The  college  was  formally 
opened  a  few  weeks  later,  and  the  following  year  Rev.  Thomas 
Blacklow  {alias  White)  arrived  as  second  president. 

The  original  intention  was  to  limit  the  studies  to  philo- 
sophy and  theology ;  but  the  cost  of  travelling  in  those  days, 
added  to  other  difficulties,  made  this  impracticable,  and  a 
course  of  "  humanities  "  was  soon  added,  as  in  other  English 
colleges  on  the  Continent. 

The  early  history  of  the  college  was  happily  uneventful, 
while  good  work  was  done  in  preparing  priests  for  the  English 

1  The  two  offices  (vicar  apostolic  and  inquisitor  general)  having  both  lapsed 
a  re-arrangement  was  made  in  1854  by  which  the  apostolic  nuncio  at  Lisbon 
became  protector,  and  the  appointment  of  the  president  was  reserved  directly  to 
the  Holy  See,  after  consultation  with  the  English  bishops. 


74  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

mission.  One  of  the  best  known  of  these  was  Rev.  John 
Gother,  the  learned  controversialist,  and  father-in-God  of  the 
venerable  Bishop  Challoner.  He  came  to  the  college  as  a 
student  in  the  year  1668,  and  left  as  a  priest  in  1682.  After 
twenty-two  years'  work  on  the  English  mission,  he  started  on 
a  voyage  to  Lisbon,  apparently  on  business  connected  with 
the  college,  and  falling  ill  on  the  way,  he  died  on  board  the 
ship  before  reaching  his  destination.  He  was  buried  in  the 
chapel  of  the  English  college,  where  his  tomb  may  still  be  seen. 
Another  well-known  controversialist,  Rev.  John  Sergeant,  was 
also  an  alumnus  of  Lisbon,  where  he  was  one  of  the  first  to 
profit  by  the  faculty  which  the  Portuguese  Government  gave 
to  the  college  of  conferring  degrees. 

The  original  college  buildings  were  in  harmony  with  the 
humble  nature  of  its  beginnings  ;  but  in  the  first  quarter  of 
the  eighteenth  century  the  college  was  almost  entirely  rebuilt. 
This  was  followed,  however,  by  a  great  catastrophe.  In  the 
year  1755  Lisbon  was  visited  by  a  terrible  earthquake,  which 
destroyed  a  great  part  of  the  city.  The  English  college  was 
among  the  buildings  which  suffered.  It  was  the  morning  of 
All  Saints.  The  students  were  in  different  parts  of  the  house 
preparing  for  High  Mass  when  the  first  shock  was  felt.  A 
panic  ensued.  Many  of  them  hurried  into  the  street — perhaps 
the  most  dangerous  place  under  the  circumstance ;  others 
rushed  about  the  house,  wherever  the  building  seemed  for  the 
moment  most  secure.  Further  shocks  took  place  in  rapid 
succession,  and  the  ground  is  said  to  have  "  undulated  in  the 
most  terrific  manner".  One  wall  of  the  church  fell,  and  with 
it  the  roof  collapsed.  An  old  tower,  which  was  the  only  part 
left  of  the  old  building,  likewise  fell,  and  the  president,  Rev. 
John  Manley,  who  was  standing  outside  under  the  arcading, 
close  to  the  sacristy  door,  making  his  preparation  for  singing 
High  Mass,  was  buried  beneath  its  ruin,  and  killed  on  the 
spot.  Fortunately  no  other  lives  were  lost.  The  greater  part 
of  the  new  building  proved  strong  enough  to  withstand  the 
shock,  and  those  who  remained  in  the  college  received  no 
injury  beyond  a  severe  fright.  The  others,  who  had  taken 
refuge  in  the  street,  fled  to  the  sea-shore,  and  succeeded  in 
rowing  out  to  an  English  ship  in  the  harbour. 

Other  troubles  followed  after   the   earthquake    was    over. 


1790]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  75 

The  city  fell  into  a  state  of  anarchy,  and  the  rougher  portion 
of  the  people  used  the  opportunity  to  take  to  looting  on  a 
large  scale.  In  order  to  prevent  their  escape,  the  authorities 
issued  a  proclamation  forbidding  any  one  to  leave  the  city, 
and  the  military  were  ordered  to  fire  on  any  boats  seen  cross- 
ing the  river.  This  proclamation  seems  not  to  have  reached 
the  English  college,  for  as  soon  as  the  first  panic  was  over, 
the  superiors  held  a  discussion  and  determined  to  repair  to 
their  country  house,  which  was  on  the  other  side  of  the  river, 
leaving  two  of  their  number  in  charge  of  the  college.  They 
all  crossed  in  a  single  boat.  It  was  seen  from  the  land,  and 
orders  were  given  to  fire  upon  it.  All  the  way  across,  there- 
fore, the  collegians  were  in  the  most  imminent  danger. 
Fortunately  none  of  the  shots  hit  their  boat,  and  they  safely 
reached  their  country  house,  where  they  were  joined  by  the 
other  portion  of  the  community. 

Those  who  remained  in  charge  of  the  college  did  not 
venture  to  enter  into  it  until  the  building  had  been  thoroughly 
examined,  and  its  safety  assured.  They  erected  several  large 
tents,  in  which  after  the  return  of  the  students  the  work  of 
the  college  was  carried  on  for  some  months,  while  the  necessary 
repairs  and  rebuildings  were  effected.  Only  such  work  was 
carried  out  as  was  absolutely  necessary  to  render  the  building 
habitable  and  safe,  but  even  this  involved  borrowing  a  large 
sum  of  money,  and  many  years  passed  away  before  the  college 
recovered  its  prosperity. 

At  the  time  when  James  Talbot  became  bishop,  the  presi- 
dent was  Rev.  James  Barnard.  He  had  been  chosen  by  Bishop 
Challoner  on  account  of  his  business  capacity,  in  the  hope  that 
he  might  restore  the  college  to  a  state  of  prosperity.  In  this, 
however,  he  was  not  successful,  and  after  five  years  of  office  he 
returned  to  England,  and  in  his  place  Dr.  Talbot  appointed 
Rev.  William  Fryer,  a  former  Douay  student,  who  for  the  last 
twelve  years  had  been  'at  Valladolid.  On  his  appointment  as 
president,  Mr.  Fryer  put  his  heart  and  soul  into  his  work,  and  to 
him  the  gradual  restoration  of  the  college  was  mainly  due. 

In  the  town  of  Lisbon  there  was  also  another  English 
foundation,  that  of  the  Bridgettine  nuns,  formerly  of  Sion 
House,  Isleworth.  This  was  the  sole  convent  that  had  survived 
from    pre-Reformation    days,  having    been  founded    by  King 


76  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

Henry  V.  in  141 3.  They  had  indeed  had  a  chequered  history, 
having  been  expelled  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  a 
second  time — for  they  had  returned — under  Queen  Elizabeth. 
After  a  sojourn  of  some  twenty  years  in  different  parts  of  Bel- 
gium, and  nearly  fifteen  years  at  Rouen,  in  1  594  they  settled 
at  Lisbon,  where  they  built  themselves  a  convent.  Thus 
they  had  lived  at  Lisbon  undisturbed  for  nearly  two  centuries. 
At  the  time  of  their  arrival  there  were  sixteen  nuns,  which 
number  continued  to  be  more  or  less  maintained,  though  it 
was  rarely  exceeded. 

In  the  summer  of  the  year  165 1,  the  convent  was  burnt 
down,  and  the  nuns  took  refuge  for  a  time  with  the  Franciscans, 
while  it  was  rebuilding.  They  re-entered  their  convent  in  1656, 
from  which  date  their  daily  life  had  continued  without  inter- 
ruption. In  the  quarter  of  the  city  where  they  lived,  the 
earthquake  was  less  felt,  and  their  chief  concern  with  it  was 
devoting  themselves  to  the  aid  of  the  sufferers. 

The  community  all  remained  at  Lisbon  until  the  year 
1 8 10,  when,  owing  to  the  threatening  political  outlook,  half  the 
community  came  back  to  England.  They  settled  first  at  Peck- 
ham  ;  but  in  the  course  of  various  migrations  their  numbers 
gradually  dwindled,  and  within  about  thirty  years  they  had  died 
out.  The  Lisbon  convent,  however,  continued  for  many  years 
after  that.  The  nuns  eventually  came  to  England,  and  in  1887 
they  settled  at  Chudleigh,  in  Devonshire,  on  the  estate  of  Lord 
Clifford. 

LlEGE. 

There  were  two  large  English  centres  at  Liege.  One  was 
a  convent  of  canonesses  of  the  Order  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre, 
which  had  been  founded  as  an  offshoot  of  a  Belgian  convent 
of  the  same  order  in  the  year  1642.  In  Dr.  Talbot's  time  the 
community  was  numerous,  and  there  was  a  large  and  flourish- 
ing school,  including  not  only  English  girls  but  also  a  fair 
number  of  Belgians. 

But  as  a  factor  of  Catholic  history,  far  more  important  was 
the  "Academy"  of  the  ex-Jesuits,  which  forms  a  connecting  link 
between  the  Society  before  its  suppression  and  the  restored 
Jesuits  at  Stonyhurst.  The  exact  status  of  the  academy  is 
not  quite  easy  to  understand,  or,  at  least,  it  demands  some 


1790]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  77 

little  explanation.  It  had  been  founded  in  1616,  by  Father 
John  Gerard,  as  a  house  of  studies  for  those  entering  the  Jesuit 
Order,  similar  to  St.  Beuno's  in  North  Wales  at  the  present 
day.  The  students  were  mainly,  but  not  exclusively,  members 
of  the  English  Province.  When  the  suppression  of  the  Society 
took  place  in  1773,  owing  to  the  peculiar  political  condition 
of  Liege — that  there  was  a  "  Prince-Bishop,"  who  was  master 
in  temporals  as  well  as  in  spirituals — this  house  was  saved. 
It  was  not  indeed  continued  ostensibly  as  a  Jesuit  house,  but 
students  pursued  their  studies  for  the  priesthood  there,  and 
those  who  did  so,  voluntarily  observed  as  much  of  the  Jesuit 
rule  as  was  feasible  under  the  circumstances,  with  the  intention 
of  taking  their  vows,  if  their  hopes  should  be  realised,  and  the 
Society  be  restored.  The  institution  in  its  new  state  was  styled 
an  "  academy,"  and  the  rector  became  "  president  ". 

A  further  change  took  place  almost  immediately  afterwards, 
on  the  dissolution  of  the  Jesuits'  school  at  Bruges.  This  took 
place  as  a  natural  consequence  of  the  suppression  of  the  Society 
throughout  the  world,  but  it  was  carried  out  in  a  needlessly 
high-handed  and  offensive  manner  by  the  Austrian  Govern- 
ment, who  then  ruled  in  Flanders,  their  object  being  if  possible 
to  secure  the  continuance  of  the  school  under  new  superiors. 
With  this  end  in  view,  without  any  notice,  they  forcibly  re- 
moved the  Jesuits,  and  put  them  in  prison,  replacing  them  in 
the  school  by  the  English  Dominicans  from  Bornheim,  in 
Flanders,  where  they  carried  on  a  school  and  novitiate  for  their 
own  order.  It  is  fair  to  say  that  these  latter  undertook  the 
task  imposed  on  them  with  great  reluctance ;  but  the  matter 
was  settled  by  the  students  themselves,  who  refused  to  accept 
their  new  superiors,  and  broke  out  into  open  rebellion.  Even- 
tually they  all  quitted  the  college,  and  a  certain  number  of 
them  hearing  that  the  Liege  house  was  still  continuing,  with 
remarkable  enterprise  made  their  own  way  across  Belgium, 
and  sought  an  asylum  there.  They  were  cordially  welcomed 
by  the  superiors,  and  classes  were  formed  for  them,  in  some 
cases  under  their  old  masters,  who  on  being  set  free  had 
followed  them  there.  Very  soon  the  "  academy  "  acquired  a 
reputation  in  England,  and  was  patronised  by  most  of  the 
families  who  had  formerly  sent  their  sons  to  St.  Omer  and 
Bruges. 


78  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

The  first  president  of  the  academy  was  Rev.  John  Holmes 
{alias  Howard),  who  was  not  altogether  successful.  In  1783 
he  was  succeeded  by  Rev.  William  Strickland,  a  member  of  an 
old  Westmoreland  family,  and  heir  to  large  estates,  which 
he  had  given  up  in  order  to  join  the  Society.  He  was  a  man 
of  energy  and  initiative.  During  the  years  that  he  was 
president  he  spent  a  great  part  of  his  time  in  England,  visiting 
the  parents  of  present  and  prospective  pupils,  and  in  other 
ways  forwarding  the  interest  of  the  academy.  In  this' manner 
he  was  brought  into  contact  with  Catholic  public  affairs  at  a 
very  critical  period,  to  be  described  in  subsequent  chapters. 
With  respect  to  his  work  for  the  academy  at  Liege,  the  Jesuit 
chronicler  Foley  says  that  it  was  chiefly  due  to  his  efforts  that 
the  academy  was  restored  to  a  state  of  efficiency,  and  under 
his  rule  the  number  of  pupils  reached  three  figures. 

The  ecclesiastical  status  of  the  priests  ordained  at  Liege 
was  somewhat  anomalous.  They  were,  of  course,  intended  to 
serve  the  missions  of  the  ex-Jesuits  in  England,  but  there  was 
no  definite  guarantee  that  this  arrangement  would  be  adhered 
to.  The  authorities  at  Liege  were  naturally  anxious  to  obtain 
some  fixed  arrangement  of  the  kind,  so  as  to  facilitate  the 
future  restoration  of  the  Society,  for  which  they  hoped.  With 
this  end  in  view,  Dr.  Strickland  made  a  somewhat  bold  sugges- 
tion to  the  bishops  which  we  can  give  in  his  own  words.  The 
following  letter  was  addressed  to  Bishop  James  Talbot ;  others 
exactly  similar  were  sent  by  him  to  the  other  vicars 
apostolic : —  l 

"My  Lord, 

"  From  your  Lordship's  known  character  of  zeal  and 
integrity,  I  cannot  entertain  a  doubt  but  your  Lordship  will  be 
willing  to  give  every  kind  of  encouragement  which  is  consistent 
with  the  obligations  of  the  high  station  in  which  Divine 
Providence  has  placed  you,  to  any  design  or  enterprise,  which 
upon  mature  deliberation,  may  appear  to  you  to  promise  a 
real  and  permanent  advantage  to  religion  in  these  kingdoms. 
Firmly  relying  on  this  persuasion,  I  beg  leave  to  lay  before 
your  Lordship  the  following  considerations. 

"  On  the  suppression  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  an  academy 

1  Westminster  Archives. 


1790]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  79 

was  instituted  at  Liege  for  the  education  of  youth,  which 
considering  the  number  and  greatness  of  the  difficulties  it  had 
to  encounter,  has  for  ten  years  flourished  with  unexpected 
success.  To  render  that  establishment  still  more  useful  to 
the  general  interests  of  religion,  it  is  to  be  wished  that  it  could 
be  made  a  seminary  of  young  ecclesiastics  for  the  service  of 
the  mission,  as  well  as  for  the  continuation  of  the  establishment 
itself.  I  will  not  say  absolutely  that  this  can  be  effected  by 
any  endeavours  of  mine,  or  by  any  means  which  I  can  suggest : 
but  if  the  object  itself  is  a  desirable  one,  and  of  this  I  flatter 
myself  that  your  Lordship  will  not  entertain  a  doubt,  I  shall 
hope  for  your  Lordship's  concurrence  in  removing  what  ex- 
perience has  taught  to  be  the  chief  obstacle  which  has  hitherto 
prevented  the  young  Gentlemen  of  that  establishment  from 
embracing  an  ecclesiastical  state  of  life. 

"  The  superiors  and  masters  of  that  house  from  whom  they 
receive  their  education  must,  according  to  the  course  of  nature, 
be  soon  extinct,  as  must  also  all  those  missioners  in  England 
who  have  formerly  been  educated  there,  and  from  whom  they 
might  hope  to  receive  such  friendly  assistance  as  they  might 
stand  in  need  of:  in  this  case  they  will  be  mixed  with  the 
common  mass  of  clergy  educated  at  Doway  or  elsewhere  :  but 
as  they  apprehended  they  will  not  stand  on  terms  equally 
advantageous.  For,  as  it  appears  to  them,  the  Gentlemen 
educated  at  Doway  or  under  the  care  of  the  Gentlemen  from 
Doway,  will  from  the  connections  inseparable  from  a  course  of 
education,  be  considered  in  a  more  favourable  light  than  the 
Academicians  from  Liege. 

"  I  do  not  mean  to  insinuate  that  your  Lordship's  conduct 
either  is  or  will  be  influenced  by  motives  of  that  kind.  They 
do,  and  will  judge  of  others  by  their  own  feelings :  and  they 
strongly  feel  a  predilection  in  favour  of  those  with  whom  they 
have  been  educated,  and  with  whom  they  have  lived  for  a  long 
series  of  years  in  the  closest  habits  of  friendship  and  unreserved 
confidence.  They  suppose,  and  as  it  appears  to  me  upon  very 
good  foundation,  that  others  in  like  circumstances,  and  educated 
at  Doway  or  elsewhere,  must  experience  similar  effects  of  edu- 
cation, and  consequently  that  their  conduct  will  in  many  in- 
stances be  influenced  by  such  predilection.  This  consideration, 
I  have  been  well  informed,  has  already  prevented  several  young 


8o  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

men  of  virtue  and  abilities  from  entering  an  ecclesiastical  state 
of  life  :  one  young  Gentleman,  with  whom  I  am  personally 
acquainted,  and  whose  abilities  and  dispositions  would  have 
done  honour  to  any  station  in  any  line  of  life,  was  prevented 
solely  by  this  consideration  from  the  prosecution  of  his  studies 
and  taking  Holy  Orders.  To  remove  the  impediment,  therefore, 
I  beg  leave  to  make  the  following  proposal  to  your  Lordship  : 

"  1st.  That  the  young  Ecclesiastics  from  Liege  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  the  Vicars  Apostolic  in  all  spiritual  concerns,  as  all  others 
of  the  clergy  are. 

"  2ly.  That  for  their  immediate  government  in  England,  they 
shall  be  subject  to  the  G.  Vicars  appointed  for  the  government 
of  the  late  Jesuits,  and  after  their  extinction,  to  G.  Vicars 
appointed  from  amongst  their  own  body. 

"  I  shall  be  glad  to  know  your  Lordship's  sentiments  upon 
this  subject  after  mature  consideration.  Your  Lordship  will 
please  observe  that  this  proposal  is  only  made  to  remove  one 
of  the  principal  obstacles  to  the  success  of  the  establishment  in 
this  line.  There  are  many  others  of  a  serious  nature,  which 
without  the  special  assistance  of  Divine  Providence,  I  cannot 
flatter  myself  to  be  ever  able  to  overcome  :  but  as  they  have 
thought  proper  to  chuse  me  for  their  President,  it  is  a  duty  I 
owe  to  their  virtuous  and  assiduous  labours  and  to  the  confi- 
dence they  have  put  in  me  to  do  all  in  my  power  to  assist  them, 
and  to  render  the  establishment  as  useful  as  I  can.  I  have  the 
honour  to  be,  My  Lord, 

"  Your  Lordship's  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

"W.  Strickland. 

"  No.  10  Queen  Street,  Bloomsbury  Square, 
"London,  Mar.  9,  1784." 

Bishop  Talbot  answered  as  follows  : — 

"  SIR, 

"  I  have  maturely  considered  your  memorial,  and 
taken  advice  upon  it,  which  has  determined  me  to  give  the 
following  answer. 

"  Your  first  proposal  cannot  be  objected  to ;  but  I  cannot 
agree  to  the  second,  for  many  reasons. 

"  1  st.  Because  I  don't  know  how  far  it  will  be  agreeable  to 
our  Superiors  at  Rome. 


iygo]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  81 

"  2.  Because  I  cannot  presume  to  bind  my  successors  to  any 
mode  of  government  to  be  followed  after  my  death. 

"  3.  Because  the  system  proposed  seems  only  to  tend  to  per- 
petuate a  Division  amongst  us,  which  long  experience  has 
shown  to  be  hurtful  to  the  mission. 

"  4.  Because  I  wish  the  subjects  of  Liege  who  will  be  for  the 
future  clergymen,  to  be  on  the  same  footing  as  those  of  the 
other  clergy  Colleges,  that  they  may  be  upon  the  mission  all 
unius  moris  in  Domino. 

"  5.  Because  whatever  prejudices  may  subsist  at  present,  I 
am  persuaded  that  if  not  thus  studiously  kept  up,  they  will 
die  away  with  time,  and  perfect  harmony  be  restored. 

"  These,  Dear  Sir,  are  the  chief  reasons  why  I  cannot  agree 
to   your  second  proposal,  but  protest  I  have  no  view  in  re- 
jecting  it  except  what  I  think  is  founded    upon  the  future 
prosperity  of  the  mission. 
"  I  remain, 

"  Your  obedient  humble  servant, 

"  J  as.  Talbot. 

"March  27,  1784." 

The  first  question  mentioned  was  referred  by  Bishop  Talbot 
to  Mgr.  Stonor,  who  replied  that  Propaganda  would  never 
sanction  such  an  arrangement.  He  had  indeed  already  ex- 
pressed his  opinion  against  even  the  amount  of  separate  treat- 
ment which  was  already  accorded  to  the  ex-Jesuits.  Two 
years  earlier,  he  wrote  in  the  following  terms  : — 

"  Your  observation  on  ye  inconvenience  arising  from  ye 
system  introduced  among  you  in  regard  to  the  members  of  the 
dissolved  society  is  very  just.  I  foresaw  them  immediately 
and  am  persuaded  they  will  soon  increase  greatly  on  the  death 
of  Mr.  More,1  when  there  will  be  question  of  appointing  him 
a  successor.  There  may  be  no  great  difficulty  in  leaving  them 
the  management  of  what  they  call  their  temporalities  during 
their  lifetime,  but  then  methinks  care  should  be  taken  to  have 
them  preserved  for  the  great  end  of  their  institute,  viz.,  the 
assistance  of  the  Catholics  in  their  respective  districts." 

In    the   event,    although    no   definite    promise  was  made, 

1  Rev.  T.  More,  who  was  Provincial  of  the  Jesuits  in  England  at  the  time  of 
the  suppression  and  had  acted  as  their  informal  superior  since  :  see  p.  15. 
VOL.    I.  6 


82  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

practically  the  concessions  asked  for  continued  to  be  given  by 
the  vicars  apostolic.  The  Liege  priests  always  ranked  as  the 
same  body  of  men  with  the  ex-Jesuits,  and  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  a  separate  body  from  the  rest  of  the  clergy.  The 
Catholics  in  general  had  from  the  first  looked  upon  them  in 
this  light,  and  the  bishops  never  withdrew  their  privileges  until 
at  last,  some  years  later,  the  time  came  for  the  restoration  of 
the  Society.     But  this  will  be  described  in  its  proper  place. 

Other  Centres. 

In  addition  to  the  monasteries  of  the  Benedictines  and 
Franciscans  already  alluded  to,  in  order  to  complete  the  list 
we  must  add  that  the  Benedictines  had  monasteries  at  Lam- 
spring  in  Hanover  and  Dieulouard  in  Lorraine,  the  latter 
represented  to-day  by  Ampleforth  Abbey  in  Yorkshire,  while 
the  English  Dominicans  had  a  college  at  Bornheim,  in  Flanders, 
and  a  house  of  higher  studies  at  Louvain.  The  Carmelites  who 
had  been  scattered  on  the  English  mission,  were  assembled  to 
form  a  new  foundation  at  Tongres  in  1770,  while  a  community 
of  Carthusians,  which  had  had  a  continuous  existence  since 
the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,  after  several  migrations,  settled 
eventually,  in  162 1,  at  Nieupoort,  where  they  continued  until  the 
suppression  of  monasteries  by  the  Emperor  Joseph  II.  in  1783, 
at  which  time,  however,  they  had  dwindled  to  a  total  of  five — 
three  choir  monks  and  two  lay  brothers. 

Turning  to  the  convents,  we  find  them  so  numerous  that 
little  more  than  a  bare  enumeration  will  be  possible.  They 
had  been  founded  at  various  times  since  the  Reformation,  and 
most  of  them  had  had  periods  of  fluctuation.  At  one  time  a 
community  would  become  so  numerous  that  new  offshoots 
were  found  necessary ;  at  another  it  would  languish  for  want 
of  subjects  ;  and  in  at  least  one  case  two  separate  communities 
had  to  amalgamate  to  save  themselves  from  extinction. 

Each  convent  was  an  English  centre.  There  was  usually 
an  English  chaplain,  and  some  English  families  living  in  the 
town.  In  many  cases  there  was  a  convent  school,  attended 
partly  by  the  children  of  English  parents  who  had  permanently 
settled  their  residence  in  the  town,  but  partly  also  by  children 
who  were  sent  all  the  way  from  England  for  their  education. 


1790]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  83 

A  fair  proportion  of  these  latter  never  returned  to  their  country, 
but  at  the  conclusion  of  their  school  course  remained  and  took 
the  veil. 

During  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  nearly  all 
the  convents  languished  in  numbers,  a  result  of  the  numerous 
defections  in  the  Catholic  body  at  that  time,  and  its  general 
stagnation.  We  can  now  recognise  this  as  providential,  for  in 
that  way  they  were  prepared  for  the  upheaval  which  brought 
them  back  to  England  before  the  end  of  the  century. 

We  begin  our  enumeration  with  the  large  family  of  Bene- 
dictine houses  all  sprung  from  the  original  foundation  of  Lady 
Mary  Percy,  daughter  of  Thomas,  the  martyred  Earl  of  Northum- 
berland, at  Brussels.  This  community  is  now  at  East  Bergholt, 
in  Suffolk.  Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  fact  about  the  numer- 
ous branches  from  this  parent  convent  is  that  all  (with  one 
single  exception)  have  survived  with  a  continuous  existence  to 
the  present  day.  They  are  set  out  in  the  following  scheme, 
reprinted  from  the  Annals  of  the  English  Benedictines  of 
Ghent : — 

Brussels,  1598. 

I 
(Now  Bergholt,  Co.  Suffolk.) 


Cambray,  1623.  Ghent,  1624. 

(Now  Stanbrook,  (Now  Oulton, 

Co.  Worcester.)  Co.  Stafford.) 


Paris,  1650.  Pontoise,  1652.         Dunkerque,  1662.         Ypres,  1665. 

I  I  I 

(Now  Colwich,  (Closed  1784.)         (Now  Teignmouth, 

Co.  Stafford.)  Co.  Devon.) 

All  these  convents  were  of  course  in  their  original  situations 
during  the  episcopate  of  Bishop  Talbot.  They  differed  consider- 
ably in  their  circumstances  and  surroundings.  The  Cambray 
community,  as  well  as  their  filiation  at  Paris,  were  under  the 
government  of  the  President  of  the  Anglo-Benedictines ;  the 
others  were  under  their  local  bishops  respectively.  The  parent 
community  at  Brussels,  as  well  as  that  at  Ghent,  were  under 
the  guidance  of  the  English  Jesuits,  who  had  a  house  in  the 
latter  city  close  to  the  convent.     One  of  their  number  acted 

6* 


84  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1781- 

in  each  case  as  Confessor  "  Extraordinary  "  and  Director.  The 
well-known  Sir  Toby  Mathews,  the  convert  son  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  during  the  last  years  of  his  life,  resided  at  the 
Jesuit  house  at  Ghent,  and  became  intimate  with  the  Benedic- 
tine community:  whether  or  not  he  was  himself  a  Jesuit,  and 
consequently  whether  he  acted  as  their  Confessor,  has  been 
much  disputed.  The  same  convent  was  also  a  favourite  place 
for  the  exiled  Stuarts  to  visit.  Charles  II.  and  the  Duke  of 
York  (afterwards  James  II.)  were  frequently  there.  The  latter 
indeed  was  received  into  the  Church  at  Ghent.  Soon  after  the 
accession  of  Charles  II.,  the  abbess,  by  leave  of  the  bishop, 
visited  England,  and  waited  on  the  king.  He  received  her 
graciously,  and  gave  a  present  of  ^"3,000  which  was  to  go 
towards  the  new  filiation  about  to  be  established  at  Dunkirk. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  Dunkirk  was  at  that  time  in  the 
hands  of  the  English,  and  one  of  the  objects  of  the  abbess's 
visit  to  the  king  was  to  obtain  leave  to  make  the  foundation. 
This  is  the  only  instance  of  a  convent  being  founded  abroad  on 
British  territory ;  but  within  a  few  years  Dunkirk  passed  back 
into  the  hands  of  the  French. 

The  community  at  Ypres  developed  into  a  predominantly 
Irish  one.  Indeed,  in  the  reign  of  James  II.,  they  actually 
removed  to  Dublin  ;  but  they  returned  to  Ypres  almost  imme- 
diately, and  have  been  there  ever  since.  They  are  the  only 
Benedictine  community  which  survived  the  Revolution  without 
having  to  move. 

Notwithstanding  the  difference  of  external  surroundings, 
both  in  their  dress  and  in  their  daily  life,  there  was  a  very  close 
resemblance  between  all  the  English  Benedictine  communities. 
All  agreed  in  the  daily  recitation  of  office  in  choir,  in  their  seclu- 
sion from  the  world — for  the  "  grille  "  was  universally  in  use — in 
their  work  for  the  education  of  the  young,  and  generally  in  that 
spirit  which  is  denoted  by  the  Benedictine  motto  of  "  Pax  ". 
The  habit  worn  was  specially  characteristic,  being  typically 
Flemish,  and  including  a  stiff  black  head-dress  not  seen  else- 
where.1 

1  This  head-dress  is  still  worn  by  the  nuns  at  Oulton,  Stanbrook,  and  Col- 
wich,  and  of  course  at  Ypres.  It  has  been  discarded  in  recent  years  at  East 
Bergholt  and  Teignmouth,  in  favour  of  that  used  by  the  Benedictines  of 
Solesmes. 


-•" 


C'2 


-  ;j|g 


- 


i=^fe 


l  L/f 


L_U; 


PQ 


i79o]  CATHOLIC  ENGLAND  BEYOND  THE  SEAS.  85 

Besides  the  convent  at  Ypres,  there  are  two  other  English 
convents  abroad  which  exist  to-day  on  their  original  sites — 
those  at  Paris  and  Bruges,  both  belonging  to  the  Augustini- 
anesses.  The  existence  of  the  latter,  however,  has  not  been 
continuous  :  the  nuns  had  to  leave  during  the  Revolution, 
and  when  they  returned,  fourteen  years  later,  they  had  to  re- 
purchase their  own  house.  There  was  also  an  Augustinian 
foundation  at  Louvain  (now  at  Newton  Abbot,  in  Devonshire) 
which  had  been  founded  in  1609,  and  was  in  fact  the  earliest 
of  the  three. 

The  Franciscans  fall  naturally  into  two  groups,  those  of 
the  Second  and  Third  Order  respectively.  The  former  are 
perhaps  better  known  under  the  name  of  the  "  Poor  Clares  ". 
Their  original  house  at  Gravelines  has  already  been  alluded  to 
as  founded  by  Mary  Ward  in  1609.  The  community  prospered 
and  increased  so  rapidly  that  in  1624  they  numbered  in  all 
sixty-five  members.  Three  offshoots  were  made  from  this 
mother  house.  One  of  these  was  founded  by  Margaret  Rad- 
cliffe,  at  Aire,  in  Artois,  in  1629.  Another  was  set  up  in  1648 
at  Rouen.  This  community  numbered  many  members  of  the 
best  Catholic  families  among  its  inmates  at  different  times,  one 
of  whom — sister  Mary  Howard  of  the  Holy  Cross — died  in  1735 
in  the  odour  of  sanctity.  Her  life  was  written  by  Alban  Butler. 
Lastly,  a  convent  of  Poor  Clares  was  founded  at  Dunkirk  in 
1654,  by  the  niece  of  Lord  Montague.  These  communities  are 
to-day  represented  by  the  single  one  at  Clare  Abbey,  Darlington. 

The  original  house  of  the  Third  Order  of  St.  Francis  was 
begun  at  Brussels  in  1621,  through  the  exertions  of  Father 
John  Gennings,  brother  of  Ven.  Edmund  Gennings  the  martyr. 
Sixteen  years  afterwards  they  moved  to  Nieupoort  in  Flanders, 
and  again  in  1662  to  Bruges,  where  they  established  themselves 
in  the  "  Princenhof,"  an  ancient  royal  palace.  Their  habit 
was  blue  in  colour,  and  they  were  commonly  spoken  of  as 
the  "  Blue  Nuns,"  in  contrast  to  the  Benedictines,  who  were 
the  "  Black  Nuns  ".  The  Conceptionists  at  Paris,  who  wore  a 
still  more  pronounced  blue,  were  an  offshoot  from  them.  To- 
day the  Franciscans  of  the  Princenhof  are  established  at 
Taunton,  and  are  one  of  the  best-known  communities  ;  but 
since  they  have  been  in  England  they  have  exchanged  their 
blue  habit  for  a  black  one. 


86  THE   DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL,  [ifii-gO 

There  were  three  convents  of  English  Carmelites,  or 
"  Theresians,"  as  they  were  sometimes  called.  The  oldest  of 
these,  that  formerly  at  Antwerp,  dated  back  to  the  year  1619, 
when  it  was  founded  by  a  daughter  of  Lord  Teynham,  now 
represented  by  the  well-known  convent  at  Lanherne,  in  Corn- 
wall. From  this  community  went  forth  an  offshoot  in  1628, 
under  the  initiative  of  two  sisters  of  the  Mostyn  family  ;  they 
established  themselves  at  Lierre.  Lastly,  by  the  charity  of  a 
Belgian  lady,  the  Countess  of  Hoogstraet,  a  foundation  was 
made  in  that  city.  These  last  two  communities  are  to-day 
represented  by  the  Carmelite  house  at  Darlington. 

One  convent  only  of  English  Dominicans  existed,  which 
had  been  founded  by  Cardinal  Howard  at  Brussels.  They  had 
rebuilt  their  convent  so  lately  as  the  year  1777.  Five  years 
after  this  they  opened  a  small  school,  this  being  their  only 
method  of  avoiding  suppression  under  the  decree  of  the  Aus- 
trian Emperor  Joseph  II. ;  but  they  only  undertook  the  work 
out  of  necessity.  At  the  present  day  they  are  settled  at 
Carisbrooke,  in  the   Isle  of  Wight,  and  have  no  school. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE. 

1782-1787. 

We  have  now  to  enter  on  the  story  of  the  long  and  bitter 
disputes  between  the  bishops  and  some  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Catholic  laity  which  form  so  unpleasant  a  feature  of  this  period 
of  our  history.  It  is  difficult  to  define  the  causes  of  the  rising 
at  this  time  of  an  anti-clerical  spirit  in  the  Catholic  body,  or  to 
analyse  the  feelings  which  in  their  ultimate  issue  resulted  in 
actions  which  seem  now  almost  incredible.  We  cannot  believe 
that  such  good  and  devout  members  of  the  Catholic  laity  could 
have  been  at  heart  disloyal.  Yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
there  had  grown  up  amongst  them  an  undefined  sense  of  dis- 
trust of  their  spiritual  rulers,  and  a  suspicion  that  the  bishops 
were  taking  too  strict  a  view  of  the  position  of  Catholics 
There  was  undoubtedly  a  feeling  that  the  accepted  attitude  of 
dependence  on  the  Holy  See  was  incompatible  with  the  national 
aspirations  and  duties  of  an  Englishman ;  and  it  was  even 
questioned  whether  the  Penal  Laws  themselves  had  not  been, 
at  least  to  some  extent,  due  to  the  unreasonable  attitude  assumed 
by  the  Catholics  of  former  days. 

In  trying  to  trace  this  state  of  feeling  to  its  origin,  we  must 
begin  by  reminding  ourselves  of  the  relative  position  of  the 
vicars  apostolic  and  the  laity  in  those  days.  The  existence  of 
the  Church  in  England  was  due  almost  entirely  to  the  latter, 
who  supported  the  priests  and  the  missions.  The  only  secure 
centres  of  Catholicity  were  the  country  seats  of  the  aristocracy. 
There  priests,  and  often  bishops,  had  found  refuge  and  shelter ; 
and  the  little  community  grouped  around,  consisting  for  the 
most  part  of  dependants  of  the  squire,  created  almost  the 
atmosphere  of  a  Catholic  country.  It  was  perhaps  a  natural 
consequence  that  the  Catholic    gentry  obtained  the  practical 

87 


88  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

impression  that  they  had  a  right  to  direct  at  least  the  external 
affairs  of  the  Church.  When,  as  the  century  wore  on,  and  times 
became  easier,  the  vicars  apostolic  began  to  exercise  their  juris- 
diction, the  jealousy  evoked  in  the  minds  of  the  laity,  if  not 
excusable,  was  at  least  intelligible.  They  had  long  assumed 
as  their  obvious  right  that  they  could  appoint  or  dismiss  their 
own  chaplains,  including  those  who  served  the  missions  en- 
dowed by  them.  They  had  asserted  this  in  so  many  words 
during  the  differences  between  the  bishops  and  regulars  in  the 
first  half  of  the  century,  and  had  not  been  contradicted.1  When 
therefore  the  vicars  apostolic  began  to  interfere  with  the  nomi- 
nations, even  to  the  extent  of  requiring  to  be  informed  of  any 
changes,  and  refusing  faculties  to  those  whom  they  deemed 
unworthy,  the  laymen  resented  it  as  an  unwarrantable  inter- 
ference. Moreover,  as  in  the  course  of  time  the  barriers  of  the 
penal  days  were  gradually  broken  down,  so  that  the  Catholics 
became  able  to  mix  more  with  their  fellow-countrymen,  they 
began  to  realise  in  a  way  which  had  not  before  appealed  to 
them  with  such  force,  that  they  were  as  foreigners  in  their  own 
country.  They  asked  themselves  whether  this  position  was  a 
necessary  consequence  of  their  principles  ;  whether  a  foreign 
education  was  in  reality  an  unavoidable  accompaniment  to  the 
profession  of  their  faith,  and  whether  the  instinct  of  hostility  to 
the  executive  government  begotten  of  long  persecution,  was 
either  necessary  or  even  justifiable  in  their  own  day.  They 
carried  this  reaction  to  extreme  lengths,  adopting  an  exagger- 
ated attitude  of  respect  towards  the  civil  power. 

It  is  probable  also  that  the  fact  of  that  generation  of  Catho- 
lics having  grown  up  just  at  the  time  when  adherence  to  the 
cause  of  the  Stuarts  was  on  the  wane,  and  gave  place  to  avowed 
loyalty  to  the  existing  Royal  Family,  had  an  appreciable  effect 
in  developing  this  frame  of  mind.  Their  loyalty  to  the  House 
of  Hanover  had  been  confirmed  by  the  oath  enacted  as  an  ac- 
companiment to  the  Relief  Act  of  1778,  which  oath  all  of  them 
had  taken.  Moreover,  a  committee  of  laymen  had  taken  a 
leading  part  in  the  negotiations  which  led  to  the  passing  of 
that  Act,  though  owing   to  the  rapidity  with  which  it  went 

JDr.  Walmesley  writing  to  Dr.  Gibson  on  January  12,  1796,  expressly  lays 
down  that  the  laymen  should  be  allowed  to  nominate  the  priests  to  serve  the 
missions  supported  by  them. 


1787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  89 

through  the  two  Houses  and  other  reasons,  they  did  not  come 
into  prominence.  But  they  were  not  blamed  or  warned  by  the 
vicars  apostolic,  and  it  was  natural  that  when  the  political 
situation  held  out  a  prospect  of  further  relief,  the  laymen 
should  expect  again  to  take  the  lead.  They  did  so  again  by 
appointing  a  Committee  from  their  number,  who  set  to  work 
with  their  minds  full  of  their  new  and  "enlightened"  opinions, 
as  they  considered  them. 

The  reaction  from  the  Jacobitism  of  their  forefathers  soon 
led  the  committee  to  greater  lengths  than  would  easily  be  be- 
lieved. In  their  anxiety  to  be  loyal  to  the  constitution,  some 
of  them  adopted  an  attitude  of  subserviency  towards  the  Estab- 
lished Church  which  appeared  strange  indeed  in  professed 
Catholics.  Coupled  with  this,  and  closely  allied  in  tendency, 
was  their  leaning  towards  the  principles  commonly  known 
under  the  name  of  "  Cisalpine  " — a  name  which  a  little  later  they 
were  proud  to  adopt  for  themselves.  In  their  desire  to  disclaim 
sympathy  with  "  Ultramontanism,"  they  often  proceeded  to  ex- 
tremes, and  used  words  of  disrespect  towards  the  Holy  Father 
himself,  and  towards  what  they  styled  "  Papal  Pretensions," 
which  would  have  been  looked  for  rather  in  Protestants  than 
in  Catholics.  The  chief  question  in  their  minds  was  of  course 
the  action  of  the  Popes  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth  and  after — 
the  famous  bull,  "  Regnans  in  excelsis,"  by  which  St.  Pius  V. 
released  Englishmen  from  their  allegiance  to  the  Queen,  the 
subsequent  history  of  the  Armada,  and  other  attempts  to  bring 
about  the  re-establishment  of  the  Catholic  religion  in  England 
by  political  means ;  and  bound  up  closely  in  their  minds  with 
such  events  was  the  consideration  of  the  generally  intolerant 
attitude  of  the  Church  in  the  middle  ages,  and  of  the  reaction 
of  the  eighteenth  century  against  what  is  sometimes  still  desig- 
nated under  the  vague  term  of"  the  Methods  of  the  Inquisition," 
a  reaction  which  found  expression  in  Italy  in  the  well-known 
Synod  of  Pistoia  in  1787  which  was  condemned  by  Rome  in 

1794- 

Yet  the  appointment  of  the  Committee  did  not  wear  any  ob- 
jectionable appearance.  Many  of  the  most  loyal  of  the  clergy 
shared  the  opinion  that  the  existence  of  a  committee  of  lay 
Catholics  was  desirable,  perhaps  even  necessary,  to  guide  the 
counsels  of  "the  body,"  as  they  commonly  termed  the  English 


90  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

Catholics,  in  their  struggles  for  emancipation,  and  the  personnel 
of  the  Committee  seemed  all  that  could  be  desired  :  all  were 
members  of  the  old  Catholic  families,  and  were  well  known 
for  their  excellence  in  private  life,  and  their  zeal  for  religion. 
This  fact  often  earned  for  them  sympathy  in  quarters  where 
we  should  not  have  expected  to  find  it.  In  justice  to  them, 
we  must  believe  that  their  intentions  were  in  the  main  good, 
and  that  they  did  not  realise  how  far  their  opinions  would  de- 
velop, or  where  they  would  lead  them.  They  were,  of  course, 
conscious  of  a  want  of  agreement  between  themselves  and 
the  vicars  apostolic,  and  they  must  have  foreseen  that  there 
would  be  difficulties  in  front  of  them  before  they  could  fully 
assert  themselves,  as  they  evidently  hoped  to  do.  But  they 
thought  that  the  fault  was  not  entirely  on  their  side,  and 
they  were  confident  that  their  method  of  action  was  the  only 
one  that  would  win  for  Catholics  that  further  toleration  which 
they  sought  for. 

Moreover,  the  active  members  of  the  Committee  were  few — 
three  or  four  at  most.  The  others  followed  them,  as  did  their 
supporters  among  "  the  body  "  outside  their  number,  trusting 
to  the  opinions  and  methods  of  their  leaders,  but  having  only 
a  partial  knowledge  of  the  details  of  the  case.  The  leaders 
among  the  laity  were  Lord  Petre  and  Mr.  Throckmorton,  and 
in  a  lesser  degree  Sir  Henry  Englefield.  Later  on,  at  least 
one  of  the  three  clerics  who  were  afterwards  added  took  an 
active  part  in  their  councils. 

But  the  man  who  had  the  most  influence  of  any  one  in 
their  proceedings  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  a  member  of  the 
Committee  at  all,  but  their  secretary,  Mr.  Charles  Butler,  the 
distinguished  lawyer  of  Lincoln's  Inn.  We  shall  meet  with 
his  name  so  continually  in  the  following  pages  that  the  reader 
will  have  a  full  opportunity  of  making  acquaintance  with  his 
remarkable  mind.  And  a  full  acquaintance  is  needed  in  order 
to  understand  such  apparent  contradictions  as  we  find  in  him. 
A  more  learned  man,  and  a  more  persistently  industrious  man, 
has  rarely  lived,  and  the  volumes  of  his  writings  are  a  per- 
manent testimony  to  his  unremitting  application.  He  himself 
tells  us  how  he  managed  to  find  time — for  he  asserts  that  he 
never  once  neglected  his  professional  duties  for  the  sake  of  his 
studies.     "  Very  early  rising,"  he  says,  speaking  of  himself  in 


Charles  Butler. 


1787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  91 

the  third  person,  "  a  systematic  division  of  his  time,  abstinence 
from  all  company  and  from  all  diversions  not  likely  to  amuse 
him  highly — from  reading,  writing  and  even  thinking  on  modern 
politics — and  above  all,  never  permitting  a  bit  or  scrap  of 
time  to  be  unemployed, — have  supplied  him  with  an  abundance 
of  literary  hours."  He  further  adds  his  chief  rules  of  life, 
which  were  :  "  To  direct  his  attention  to  one  literary  object 
only  at  a  time ;  to  read  the  best  book  upon  it,  consulting 
others  as  little  as  possible  ;  when  the  subject  was  contentious 
to  read  the  best  book  on  each  side ;  to  find  out  men  of  infor- 
mation, and  when  in  their  society,  to  listen,  not  to  talk  ".l 

In  private  life  Charles  Butler  was  religious  and  devout  : 
even  Dr.  Milner,  his  unrelenting  opponent,  admitted  that  he 
might  with  truth  be  called  an  ascetic.  He  was  married  to  a 
daughter  of  Mr.  Eyston,  of  Hendred,  by  whom  he  had  a  small 
family.  His  only  son  died  young  ;  his  two  daughters  survived 
him.  He  rarely  entertained  visitors,  leading  a  life  of  seclusion 
and  study,  within  his  house  in  Red  Lion  Square.2  With  a 
great  taste  for  the  liturgy,  he  was  a  regular  attendant  at  the 
London  churches,  and  only  regretted  that  the  circumstances  of 
Catholics  at  that  time  prevented  the  proper  celebration  of 
church  functions.  Every  day  of  his  life  he  recited  the  Office 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  and  he  was  at  all  times  ready  to  throw 
himself  heart  and  soul  into  any  work  for  the  good  of  religion. 
Yet  with  all  this,  he  identified  himself  with  the  action  of  those 
who  held  views  which  can  hardly  be  described  as  less  than  un- 
orthodox. While  ever  professing  the  greatest  respect  for  his 
episcopal  superiors  he  often  acted  in  opposition  to  their  wishes  ; 
and  although  his  extensive  learning  usually  enabled  him  to 
persuade  himself  that  he  understood  the  true  issue  better  than 
they,  and  that  his  action  was  justified,  nevertheless  at  times  he 
went  to  somewhat  extreme  lengths. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  will  be  seen  what  a  valuable 
ally  Butler  was  to  the  Committee.  He  was  then  in  the  full 
vigour  of  manhood,  thirty-five  years  of  age,  and  already  a 
lawyer  of  repute.  His  extensive  learning,  both  ecclesiastical 
and  secular,  was  placed  at  their  disposal,  and  his  acquaintance 

1  Reminiscences,  p.  3. 

2  In  later  life,  Butler  moved  to  Great  Ormond  Street,  and  his  house  there  is 
still  standing. 


92  THE  DAWN  OE  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

with  the  first  lawyers  of  the  day  enabled  him  to  obtain  legal  ad- 
vice and  assistance  of  the  highest  authority,  while  his  personal 
influence  helped  to  secure  for  his  party  a  hearing  from  men  of 
standing.  He  kept  all  the  minutes  of  the  meetings  through- 
out with  strict  formality,  and  whenever  clerical  assistance  was 
wanted,  he  was  able  to  supply  it  at  his  own  office. 

It  has  often  been  asked  why  the  vicars  apostolic  allowed 
the  Committee  to  proceed  so  far  as  they  did  before  interfering 
— for  their  first  united  action  in  definite  opposition  to  it  was 
not  until  October,  1789,  when  the  Committee  had  been  in 
existence  over  seven  years.  To  this  two  answers  may  be 
given.  In  the  first  place,  the  main  object  of  the  Committee 
was  one  with  which  they  were  in  sympathy.  Bishop  James 
Talbot  used  frequently  to  urge  the  desirability  of  having  a 
committee  of  laymen  to  represent  officially  the  interests  of 
Catholics,  and  more  than  once  he  restrained  those  who  would 
have  written  in  strong  opposition  to  them,  lest  the  Committee 
should  cease  to  act  and  should  dissolve.  In  the  second  place, 
those  who  were  the  leading  spirits  of  the  movement  were  in 
private  life,  as  has  been  said,  most  edifying  and  self-denying 
men.  The  prosperity  of  Catholic  works,  such  as  the  establish- 
ment of  missions  or  the  building  of  chapels,  which  were  at  this 
time  beginning  to  rise  throughout  the  country,  depended  almost 
entirely  upon  these  very  men.  Most  of  them  had  chapels  of  their 
own,  with  missions  attached,  which  they  supported  with  their 
own  money.  They  were  not  afraid  to  threaten  the  withdrawal  of 
such  support,  which  would  have  caused  many  innocent  persons 
to  suffer.  It  is  natural  to  find  the  vicars  apostolic  hesitating 
to  precipitate  such  action. 

It  must  also  be  admitted  that  the  bishops  were  not  all  of 
one  mind.  Two  of  them,  Dr.  Walmesley  and  Dr.  Matthew 
Gibson,  became  at  an  early  stage  strongly  opposed  to  the 
Committee ;  but  the  two  Bishops  Talbot  were  for  a  long  time 
undecided,  being  afraid  of  injuring  the  general  peace  of  the 
Catholic  body,  and  trusting  to  their  personal  influence  as  a 
sufficient  restraining  power  on  the  Committee,  though  more 
than  once  they  had  to  protest  against  their  action.  Another 
consideration  to  be  remembered  is  that  the  bishops  lived  far 
off  from  each  other,  and  means  of  communication  were  slow 
and  expensive,  so  that  to  other  difficulties  we  must  add  that 


1787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  93 

of  isolation.  Two  or  more  of  them  would  occasionally  meet 
when  staying  at  the  same  country  house ;  but  in  arranging 
for  a  regular  conference  of  the  four  vicars  apostolic  in  1789, 
they  took  a  step  which  had  never  before  been  taken,  and  we 
can  understand  how  it  was  some  little  time  before  they  realised 
the  necessity  of  so  extreme  a  measure  as  this  would  have 
appeared  to  them. 

But,  in  truth,  the  bishops  were  too  charitable,  as  the  event 
showed.  They  could  not  believe  that  men  so  excellent  in 
private  life  would  ever  go  to  such  lengths  as  the  members  of 
the  Committee  in  fact  did.  Had  they  seen  at  the  beginning 
how  far  they  were  likely  to  drift,  they  would  certainly  have 
interfered  earlier.  The  best  key  to  their  action  is  to  be  found 
in  following  the  details  of  the  Committee's  work,  which  we 
shall  now  proceed  to  place  before  the  reader.  These  pre- 
liminary observations,  though  far  from  being  a  complete  account 
of  the  state  of  affairs,  may  at  least  help  us  to  understand  the 
mutual  relations  between  the  bishops  and  the  laity  at  this 
time,  without  which  it  would  be  impossible  to  estimate  the 
significance  of  much  of  the  action  on  both  sides. 

The  meeting  at  which  the  Catholic  Committee  were  elected, 
called  by  Butler  a  "general  meeting  of  English  Catholics,"  was 
held  on  June  3,  1782,1  at  the  chambers  of  Mr.  William  Shel- 
don, a  well-known  Catholic  lawyer,  in  Gray's  Inn  Square. 
He  had  been  secretary  to  the  previous  committee,  appointed 
in  April,  1778,  which  had  long  ceased  to  act  and  had  indeed 
only  acted  for  a  few  weeks,  but  had  never  been  formally  dis- 
solved. The  first  motion  was  therefore  to  dissolve  it,  after 
which  the  meeting  erected  a  new  committee  in  its  place,  the 
term  of  its  existence  being  limited  this  time  to  five  years.  It 
was  likewise  arranged  that  a  general  meeting  of  English  Cath- 
olics should  be  held  annually,  on  the  first  Thursday  in  May. 

Five  members  of  the  new  Committee  were  elected  at  the 
meeting".  Lord  Petre,  Mr.  Hornyold  and  Mr.  Stapleton 
obtained  a  majority  of  votes  ;  three  others — Lord  Stourton, 
Mr.   Throckmorton    and    Sir  Edward    Swinburn — came   next 

1  In  the  Supplementary  Memoirs  (p.  46)  Milner  seems  to  give  the  date  of  the 
formation  of  the  Committee  as  17S3,  and  Husenbeth  follows  him;  but  this  is  a 
mistake.  Even  if  we  had  no  direct  record,  it  would  follow  from  the  fact  of  the 
Committee  dissolving  in  1787  that  it  was  formed  in  1782  ;  for  it  was  appointed  for 
a  term  of  five  years. 


94  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

with  an  equal  number  each,  and  on  a  second  ballot  being 
taken  the  first  two  of  these  were  chosen.  The  Committee  was 
subsequently  completed  by  representatives  chosen  from  each 
ecclesiastical  "  District "  respectively,  the  Northern,  which  was 
practically  two  districts,  having  double  representation.  The 
following  representatives  were  chosen  : — 

London  District        .         .  .     Sir  Henry  Englefield. 

Midland  District        .  .  .      Mr.  William  Fermor. 

Western  District       .         .         .     Lord  Clifford. 

Northern  District      .  .  .Sir  Carnaby  Haggerston. 

Ditto,  Lancashire  and  Cheshire    Mr.  John  Townley. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  general  meeting,  the  Committee 
held  their  own  first  meeting,  and  elected  Mr.  Charles  Butler 
as  secretary.  We  read  in  the  minutes  that  "  Mr.  Butler 
accepted  the  office  with  thanks,  and  requested  the  favor  of 
being  permitted  to  decline  the  salary  which  was  offered  to  him, 
to  which  the  Committee  agreed  unanimously  ". 

An  interesting  paper,  in  the  handwriting  of  Milner,  is  pre- 
served among  the  Westminster  Archives,  being  a  draft  of  a 
proposed  protest  of  the  clergy  against  the  Committee.  For  we 
learn  that  a  further  proposition  was  put  forward  at  the  meet- 
ing that  the  Committee  should  include  some  representatives  of 
the  clergy,  to  be  chosen  by  their  own  body,  and  that  it  was 
"  tumultuously  rejected  ".  The  clergy  in  consequence  say  that 
"  [they]  will  oppose  the  Committee  to  the  utmost  of  their  power, 
and  will  impress  on  the  minds  of  their  respective  congregations 
that  they  are  not  obliged  to  attend  to  men  who  reject  the  ad- 
vice of  their  clergy  in  matters  that  immediately  concern  them  ". 
This  threat  would  no  doubt  have  had  effect  had  the  circular 
been  signed  by  many  priests  in  charge  of  congregations.  In 
fact,  however,  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  sent  round  for 
signature  at  all.  The  reasons  of  this  are  not  definitely  known. 
It  is  possible  that  Bishop  Talbot  requested  Milner  to  withhold 
it,  as  he  did  five  years  later  in  the  case  of  a  similar  circular, 
though  much  more  mildly  worded.  However  that  may  be,  it 
is  interesting  to  note  that  Milner  was  ready  to  oppose  the 
Committee  from  the  outset,  and  had  he  had  his  own  way,  he 
would  have  declared  open  war  with  them.  Writing  in  1820, 
he  dates  from  this  time  the  beginning  of  "  that  system  of  lay 
interference  and  domination  in  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  Eng- 


1787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  95 

lish  Catholics  which  .  .  .  has  perpetuated  disorder,  divisions 
and  irreligion  among  too  many  of  them  for  near  the  last  forty 
years  "} 

It  has  been  customary  among  those  who  wish  to  discredit 
the  authority  of  the  Committee,  to  question  the  representative 
character  of  the  meeting  at  which  they  were  originally  chosen. 
The  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  says  that  "  [they]  were  elected  only  by 
a  part  of  the  Catholic  gentry  and  clergy,  and  of  course  can  be  said 
to  represent  only  them  ".2  Husenbeth,  in  calling  it  "a  meeting 
of  certain  Catholics,"  no  doubt  had  the  same  idea  before  him. 
In  this  he  is  probably  representing  Milner's  mind,  for  in  the 
document  already  alluded  to,  the  latter  asks  the  question,  and 
answers  it  in  the  same  sense.  "  We  wish  to  know  "  (he  writes) 
"  in  what  light  the  Committee  considers  itself,  whether  as  the 
representatives  of  the  Catholics  at  large,  or  only  as  represent- 
ing the  few  individuals  by  whom  they  were  nominated.  The 
first  they  are  not,  because  the  body  has  not  been  consulted,  and 
because  the  clergy,  who  are  not  the  least  part  of  that  body,  do 
not  accede  to  their  nomination.  The  representatives  of  a  few 
have  no  concern  but  with  their  constituents."  Amherst,  in 
discussing  this  question,  says  simply  that  it  "  can  only  be 
determined  by  looking  at  a  list  of  the  names  of  those  gentle- 
men who  attended  it ;  this  list  I  have  never  seen  ".  The  omis- 
sion can  now  be  supplied,  from  the  official  minute  book  of  the 
Committee,  which  is  preserved  in  the  British  Museum.3  We 
find  that  the  meeting  consisted  of  thirty  persons,  each  belong- 
ing to  a  family  of  distinction.  It  undoubtedly  represented  a 
large  section  of  Catholics  ;  but  so  small  a  number  could  hardly 
be  considered  the  representatives  of  the  whole  Catholic  body. 
In  a  sense  this  position  was  accepted  by  the  Committee  them- 
selves, for  we  find  that  Lord  Petre  objected  to  Mr.  W^eld  of 
Lulworth  finding  fault  with  their  action  on  the  plea  that,  as  he 
did  not  concur  in  electing  them,  he  had  no  concern  in  what 
they  did. 

Nevertheless,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the 
Catholic  meetings  were  in  any  way  limited  to  those  who  held 

1  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  47. 

2  Observations  on  the  Oath,  p.  1. 

3  Add.  MS.  7961.  It  was  presented  to  the  British  Museum  by  Charles  Butler 
a  few  years  before  he  died. 


96  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

views  in  accordance  with  those  of  the  promoters.  Notices  were 
sent  out  far  and  wide,  and  as  time  went  on  the  meetings  be- 
came more  and  more  numerously  attended.  Mr.  Butler  hon- 
estly believed  that  the  Catholics  of  the  strict  type  of  Mr.  Weld 
were  a  small  minority ;  a  more  probable  explanation  is  that 
those  who  were  not  in  general  sympathy  with  the  Committee 
for  the  most  part  stayed  away  from  the  meetings. 

Turning  now  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Committee,  we  find 
that  at  first  they  came  to  very  little.  "A  variety  of  circum- 
stances," says  Butler,1  "prevented  their  making  any  particular 
exertions  in  the  cause  entrusted  to  them  :  the  only  measure  of 
this  description  which  engaged  their  attention  was  a  plan  for 
procuring  the  Catholic  ecclesiastics  in  this  country  to  be 
formed  into  a  regular  hierarchy  by  the  appointment  of  Bishops 
in  ordinary  instead  of  Vicars  Apostolic.  The  preceding  pages," 
he  adds,  "  show  this  to  have  long  been  the  general  wish  of  the 
secular  clergy,  and  the  steps  which  they  had  taken  to  accomplish 
this  object."  After  enumerating  some  of  the  reasons  why  the 
change  was  considered  desirable,  he  continues  :  "  The  first  step 
of  the  Committee  was  to  ascertain  the  expediency  and  practic- 
ability of  the  measure.  So  far  as  it  was  a  spiritual  concern,  it 
belonged  to  the  cognisance  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic.  The  Com- 
mittee therefore  addressed  a  letter  to  each  of  the  four  Vicars 
Apostolic  most  respectfully  stating  their  own  views,  and  re- 
questing his  opinion  on  the  subject." 

In  view  of  the  importance  of  this,  the  first  encounter  be- 
tween the  Committee  and  the  bishops,  it  may  be  well  to  give 
the  full  text  of  their  letter,  in  which  they  state  the  reasons  by 
which  they  were  actuated  in  calling  for  the  restoration  of  the 
hierarchy.      It  ran  as  follows  : —  2 

"  The  Committee  appointed  to  manage  the  public  affairs  of 
the  Catholics  of  this  kingdom,  having  observed  that  in  their 
application  for  a  further  repeal  of  some  of  the  penal  laws  against 
them,  one  of  the  causes  urged  against  their  obtaining  such  relief  is 
the  absolute  and  unlimited  dependence  of  their  Superior  Clergy 
upon  the  Court  of  Rome,  under  the  denomination  of  Apos- 
tolical Vicars,  a  dependence  which  Government  supposes  to 
pervade  in  an  improper  manner  the  whole  body  of  Catholics  in 

1  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  2. 

2  This  document  and  the  extracts  from  the  letters  of  the  vicars  apostolic  which 
follow,  are  taken  from  the  Clifton  Archives. 


1787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  97 

this  country,  and  which  by  being  more  extensive  and  avowed 
than  is  usual  in  other  countries  that  are  in  perfect  unity  with 
that  see,  thereby  renders  them  more  unpopular  and  obnoxious 
to  the  nation,  and  defeats  the  endeavour  of  such  men  as  are 
disposed  to  contribute  towards  obtaining  for  them  that  further 
Religious  or  Political  Relief  so  justly  solicited. 

"  The  Committee  are  therefore  of  opinion  that  the  most 
effectual  method  to  remove  the  apprehensions  that  might 
otherwise  impede  the  obtaining  such  further  relief  from  those 
laws  would  be  to  constitute  the  present  Apostolic  Vicars 
with  the  full  powers  of  Ordinaries,  as  far  as  might  be  exercised 
consistently  with  their  circumstances  in  this  country ;  and 
that  the  same  should  be  inherent  in  those  chosen  to  succeed 
them. 

"  The  Committee  offer  their  aid  and  support  in  taking  such 
measures  as  may  be  effectually  conducive  to  this  end. 

"  The  Committee  are  well  aware  that  the  apprehensions 
formed  against  the  present  mode  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  of 
Catholics  are  founded  upon  popular  prejudices ;  but  as  it  has 
been  often  experienced  that  such  prejudices  have  been  a  source 
of  reviving  the  penal  laws  on  different  occasions  ;  and  as  they 
presume  that  the  desired  alteration  can  be  attended  with  no 
inconvenience  to  the  Catholic  faith  or  morals,  they  think  it  in- 
cumbent on  them  to  endeavour  to  remove  even  the  pretext  for 
popular  alarms  which  have  been  so  detrimental  to  the  general 
good  of  religion. 

"The  Committee  do  not  pretend  to  point  out  the  many 
advantages  of  an  Ecclesiastical  nature  which  might  result  from 
such  a  change.  They  willingly  submit  this  consideration  to 
the  decision  of  those  whose  profession  it  is  to  judge  in  these 
matters.  But  they  are  sufficiently  informed  to  declare  that  the 
frequent  recurrences  to  Rome  for  dispensations  and  in  other 
ecclesiastical  matters  (which  would  in  a  great  measure  cease 
from  the  Apostolical  Vicars  being  appointed  with  the  full 
power  of  Ordinaries)  have  been  notified  by  the  Govern- 
ment, and  are  likely,  if  continued,  to  be  an  obstacle  against 
any  further  relief  which  Catholics  might  be  encouraged  to 
hope  for  from  the  Indulgence  and  Wisdom  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. 

"  The  Committee  submit  this  matter  to  your  consideration, 
vol.  1.  7 


98  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

and  request  you  will  communicate  to  them  your  opinion  there- 
upon. 

" Stourton. 

"  Petre. 

"  Clifford. 

"  Henry  C.  Englefield. 

"  Carn.  Haggerston. 

"John  Courtenay  Throckmorton. 

"Thos.  Stapleton. 

"William  Fermor. 

"John  Towneley. 

"  Thos.  Hornyold. 

"Lincoln's  Inn,  May  24,  1783." 

Dr.  Milner  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  whole  of  the 
above  proceeding  was  most  improper,  and  that  the  circular 
"  contains  a  series  of  assertions  highly  derogatory  to  the  spiritual 
government  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic,"  and  even  says  that  the 
members  of  the  Committee  can  only  "  be  excused  from  the 
intention  of  schism  by  their  ignorance  of  theological  matters  ",1 
He  does  not,  however,  give  the  text  of  the  document,  which 
is  now  published  for  the  first  time. 

From  the  tone  of  some  of  the  letters  of  the  bishops  to  each 
other  which  have  been  preserved,  it  would  appear  that  they  too 
thought  the  action  of  the  Committee  improper  though  they  did 
not  go  so  far  as  Dr.  Milner.  On  the  main  question  they  were  not 
agreed.  Bishop  James  Talbot  wrote  to  Bishop  Walmesley  :  "  Ye 
proposed  application  seems  evidently  superfluous,  if  it  does  not 
defeat  its  own  end.  For,"  he  explains,  "  if  'tis  ordinary  powers 
they  would  apply  for,  we  have  it  already.  If  ye  Titles,  English 
ones  would  displease  Government  more  than  our  old  Asiatic 
ones  ; "  and  he  answered  the  Committee,  "  My  opinion  is  that 
you  had  much  better  drop  the  scheme  entirely".  His  brother, 
Bishop  Thomas  Talbot,  took  a  somewhat  different  view,  re- 
garding the  proposal  as  "  very  useless,  but  free  from  reasonable 
objection".  He  even  wrote  to  the  Committee  that  he  con- 
sidered it  would  be  "  rather  a  desirable  thing  ".  Bishop  Wal- 
mesley expressed  his  strong  opinion  against  any  change ;  but 
Bishop  Matthew  Gibson  was  frankly  in  favour  of  the  proposal. 
"  Though  we  certainly  enjoy  more  extensive  and  ample  powers 

*Sup.  Mem.,  p.  47. 


i787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  99 

than  Ordinaries,"  he  writes,  "yet  they  are  delegated  and  re- 
strained as  to  their  direction,  and  if  Government  be  desirous  of 
our  being  appointed  Ordinaries,  and  the  measure  should  succeed, 
it  will  give  a  sort  of  legal  sanction  or  establishment  to  us  and 
to  our  inferiors." 

Butler  sums  up  the  outcome  of  the  correspondence  by 
saying  that  "  it  appeared  from  their  [i.e.  the  Bishops']  answers 
that  their  opinions  differed  ;  the  Committee  upon  this  account 
dropped  the  measure." 

Here  we  may  pause.  When  seventy  years  later  the  restora- 
tion of  the  English  hierarchy  was  at  last  effected,  the  avowed 
object  was  the  very  opposite  of  that  which  the  Committee  had 
in  view.  Wiseman  wished  to  bring  the  Roman  spirit  to  Eng- 
land, and  to  unite  English  Catholics  more  closely  with  the 
centre  of  unity.  The  Committee,  on  the  other  hand,  wished  to 
weaken  the  influence  of  Rome,  and  to  emphasise  the  national 
characteristics  of  the  Church  in  England.  Milner  says  that  the 
chief  point  to  which  they  took  exception  was  the  recurrence 
to  Rome  whenever  a  new  bishop  had  to  be  appointed.  This, 
however,  would  not  have  been  changed  by  the  bishops  becom- 
ing Ordinaries ;  and  the  very  few  who  went  to  such  lengths  as 
to  object  to  the  appointments  being  made  by  Rome,  would 
have  considered  themselves  competent  to  establish  their  own 
hierarchy  without  petitioning  the  Holy  See  at  all.1 

The  more  moderate  members  of  the  party  had  various  ob- 
jections to  the  system  of  government  by  vicars  apostolic,  some 
of  them  being  matters  of  sentiment.  They  did  not  like  being 
ruled  by  those  who  were  nominally  bishops  of  foreign  sees  ; 
and  the  idea  of  English  Catholics  being  immediately  subject  to 
direct  representatives  of  the  Pope  was  distasteful  to  them. 
They  felt,  even  if  they  did  not  openly  say,  that  an  apostolical 
vicar  must  be  to  some  extent  foreign  in  his  ideas  and  methods. 
The  remedy  seemed  to  be  to  nationalise  them  in  name  as  a 
step  towards  nationalising  them  in  fact,  and  so  to  make  their 
intercourse  with  Rome  less  close. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  ^measure  they  proposed 
would  in  fact  have  had  this  effect.     From  their  answers  quoted 

1  See,  for  example,  Sir  John  Throckmorton's  pamphlet  on  the  appointment  of 
bishops,  in  which  he  calls  upon  the  vicars  apostolic  to  constitute  themselves  bishops 
in  ordinary. 

7* 


ioo  THE  DAWN  GF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

above,  we  see  that  the  vicars  apostolic  themselves  were  not  of 
this  opinion  ;  nor  was  Mgr.  Stonor,  who  quoted  the  experience 
in  the  case  of  Ireland  as  proof  to  the  contrary  ;  for  although 
the  Irish  had  a  regular  hierarchy,  their  affairs  were  carried  to 
Rome  quite  as  much  as  those  of  the  English.  Both  Mgr. 
Stonor  and  the  vicars  apostolic  were  far  better  qualified  to 
judge  on  such  a  matter  than  the  Committee,  for  they  were 
familiar  with  the  actual  working  of  ecclesiastical  affairs.  We 
wonder  indeed  at  the  assurance  of  the  laymen  who  took  it 
upon  themselves  to  form  a  judgment  on  a  question  of  purely 
ecclesiastical  government,  and  we  can  only  attribute  it  to  long 
custom  which  had  engrained  in  them  the  habit  of  looking  upon 
themselves  as  practically  the  directors  of  Catholic  affairs. 

Although  the  first  definite  proposal  of  the  Committee  came 
to  nothing,  they  were  far  from  reconciling  themselves  to  in- 
action. The  annual  general  meeting  of  Catholics  gave  them 
the  opportunity  of  taking  counsel  together,  and  plans  were 
gradually  matured  for  future  action,  in  the  direction  of  the 
views  they  held.  The  following  letter  from  Bishop  Walmesley 
to  Bishop  James  Talbot,  written  on  December  15,  1785,  shows 
how  far  they  had  already  advanced  by  that  date.  Although 
he  carefully  avoids  pledging  himself  to  the  full  accuracy  of 
his  information,  subsequent  events  show  that  it  was  not  far  off 
the  truth  so  far  as  the  views  of  one  or  two  of  the  extreme  mem- 
bers of  the  party  were  concerned. 

"  I  am  informed,"  he  writes,  "  but  I  cannot  say  with  full 
authenticity,  that  at  a  meeting  soon  to  be  held  by  the  Catholic 
Committee  a  new  Oath  is  to  be  proposed,  formed  and  so 
worded  as  to  exclude  the  Pope's  spiritual  jurisdiction  in  this 
kingdom.  They  want,  as  I  am  told,  to  change  Vicars  Apostolic 
into  Ordinaries,  in  order  to  diminish  our  dependence  in  spirituals 
on  the  see  of  Rome,  and  by  degrees  to  shake  it  off  entirely ; 
likewise  to  take  off  the  abstinence  of  Saturday,  to  reduce  Lent 
to  a  fortnight  before  Easter,  and  to  have  the  Liturgy  in  Eng- 
lish. Probably  this  intelligence  is  exaggerated,  though  some 
little  share  of  it  I  have  heard  myself  from  the  mouth  of  one  of 
that  Committee.  However,  nothing  will  be,  I  suppose,  ab- 
solutely attempted  without  the  concurrence  of  the  Vicars 
Apostolic,  for  so  they  promised  publicly,  as  I  was  told,  at  the 
last  general  Meeting.      It  is  proper  for  us  to  be  on  our  guard."  l 

1  Westminster  Archives. 


1787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  101 

The  bare  suggestion  of  such  a  scheme  as  is  here  outlined 
seems  astounding  from  any  one  professing  to  be  a  Catholic. 
No  doubt  those  who  went  at  all  within  measurable  distance  of 
these  proposals  were  few  in  number;  and  the  Committee  re- 
ceived the  support  of  many  who  would  never  have  thought  of 
going  to  such  extremes. 

However,  for  a  year  or  two  the  Committee  continued  to 
do  very  little.  One  reason  which  deterred  them  from  taking 
any  steps  to  bring  the  Catholic  question  before  the  notice  of 
Parliament  was  the  unsettled  state  of  political  parties.  The 
long  and  sleepy  Ministry  of  Lord  North,  which  had  passed  the 
first  Catholic  Relief  Act,  came  to  an  end  early  in  1782,  and 
was  followed  in  quick  succession  by  those  of  Lord  Rocking- 
ham, Lord  Shelburne  and  the  Duke  of  Portland,  none  of  which 
proved  long-lived.  During  the  time  when  Lord  Rockingham 
was  in  power,  attempts  were  made  by  Lord  George  Gordon  and 
the  Protestant  Association  to  revive  the  Penal  Laws.  This  led 
the  Committee  to  draw  up  two  memorials  on  behalf  of  the 
Catholics,  to  Lord  Rockingham  and  Lord  Shelburne  respec- 
tively.1 The  former  received  a  deputation  from  the  Committee 
on  1 3th  June ;  but  his  death  took  place  within  three  weeks 
of  that  date.  Lord  Shelburne,  who  succeeded  him,  resigned 
the  following  February.  Before  the  end  of  the  year  1783, 
the  Duke  of  Portland's  Ministry  also  came  to  an  end,  and 
William  Pitt  became  Prime  Minister  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
four.  It  was  not,  however,  until  after  the  general  elections 
of  1784  that  Pitt  found  himself  supported  by  a  majority  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  and  at  the  head  of  a  Ministry 
which  lasted  almost  unbroken  for  over  seventeen  years.  This 
Ministry  was  destined  to  pass  the  next  measure  for  Catholic 
Relief. 

Before  the  Committee  had  time  to  communicate  with  the 
Government,  however,  a  reason  of  a  different  nature  arose, 
which  induced  them  further  to  postpone  their  action.  This 
was  the  marriage  between  the  Prince  of  Wales  and  Mrs.  Fitz- 
herbert,  which  took  place  privately  at  the  end  of  the  year  1785- 
This  gave  rise  to  a  delicate  situation  which  made  it  undesirable 
to  raise  the  Catholic  question  for  the  time  being.  For  both 
by  birth  and  by  her  previous  marriages  Mrs.  Fitzherbert  was 

1  The  memorials  will  be  found  printed  in  full  in  Appendix  A. 


102  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

closely  connected  with  the  old  Catholic  families.  She  was  a 
daughter  of  Sir  Edward  Smythe,  of  Acton  Burnell,  in  Shrop- 
shire, and  her  early  years  were  spent  at  his  seat  at  Brambridge, 
near  Winchester,  where  the  family  then  resided.  While  still 
young  she  was  sent  "  beyond  the  seas  "  to  the  school  of  the 
"Blue  Nuns"  at  Paris,  where  she  remained  for  several  years. 
On  the  completion  of  her  education,  she  returned  to  her  home 
at  Brambridge,  where  there  was  a  chapel  in  the  house,  and  she 
continued  to  live  as  a  strict  Catholic,  after  the  somewhat  rigid 
pattern  then  in  vogue. 

At  the  age  of  seventeen,  Miss  Maria  Smythe  was  intro- 
duced into  society,  or  as  we  should  say,  "  came  out ".  The 
numerous  pictures  of  her  by  eminent  artists  show  that  she  was 
a  girl  of  unusual  beauty  and  attractiveness  ;  and  her  subsequent 
history  proves  her  to  have  been  a  person  of  remarkable  strength 
of  character.  She  quickly  attracted  general  attention,  and 
before  the  year  was  out,  she  was  already  engaged  to  Mr. 
Edward  Weld,  of  Lulworth  Castle,  a  widower  of  forty-four 
years  of  age,  whose  first  wife,  a  daughter  of  Lord  Petre,  had 
died  three  years  before.  The  marriage  was  celebrated  early  in 
1775  :  within  the  year  he  died,  and  three  years  later  his  widow 
was  married  a  second  time  to  Mr.  Thomas  Fitzherbert  of 
Swynnerton,  in  Staffordshire.  On  his  death  in  1 78 1,  she 
found  herself  a  widow  for  the  second  time  at  the  early  age  of 
twenty-five.  After  this  for  a  time  she  lived  in  retirement  at 
Richmond;  but  in  the  season  of  1784  she  opened  her  house 
in  Park  Street,  which  she  had  inherited  from  Mr.  Fitzherbert, 
to  general  society ;  and  it  soon  became  a  well-known  fashion- 
able resort.  The  following  paragraph  appeared  in  the  Morning 
Herald  of  July  27,  1 784  : —  x 

"  A  new  Constellation  has  lately  made  an  appearance,  in 
the  fashionable  hemisphere,  that  engages  the  attention  of  those 
whose  hearts  are  susceptible  to  the  power  of  beauty.  The 
Widow  of  the  late  Mr.  F — h — t  has  in  her  train  half  of  our 
young  Nobility ;  as  the  Lady  has  not,  as  yet,  discovered  a 
partiality  for  any  of  her  admirers,  they  are  all  animated  with 
hopes  of  success." 

They  were  all,  however,  doomed  to  disappointment,  due  to 
the  strange  combination  of  circumstances  which  brought  Mrs. 

1  See  Life  of  Mrs.  Fitzherbert,  by  W.  H.  Wilkins,  i.,  p.  24. 


1787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  103 

Fitzherbert,  most  unfortunately  for  her  own  happiness,  under 
the  influence  of  the  selfish  and  profligate  Prince  of  Wales. 
It  has  been  said  that  his  devotion  to  her  was  the  one  redeem- 
ing feature  of  the  prince's  character,  and  it  required  a  real 
devotion  to  overcome  all  the  difficulties  which  stood  in  the 
way  of  the  union  on  which  he  soon  set  his  heart.  At  first 
Mrs.  Fitzherbert  resolutely  refused  her  consent.  She  refused 
even  to  see  him,  and  determined  to  go  abroad,  in  order  to 
escape  his  importunities.  Before  she  started,  the  prince  tried 
an  artifice,  feigning  attempted  suicide  by  stabbing  himself,  and 
sending  emissaries  to  say  that  nothing  but  her  immediate 
presence  would  save  his  life.  She  came,  and  a  kind  of  pre- 
tended marriage  ceremony  was  gone  through,  the  prince  placing 
a  ring  on  her  finger ;  but  on  her  return  home,  she  saw  that 
no  real  marriage  had  taken  place,  if  for  no  other  reason,  be- 
cause she  was  not  a  free  agent  at  the  time,  and  immediately 
afterwards  she  started  for  the  Continent.  She  went  in  turn 
to  Aix-la-Chapelle,  the  Hague,  Paris,  Switzerland  and  Lorraine. 
The  prince  however  discovered  her  whereabouts,  and  sent  con- 
tinual letters  to  her  by  special  couriers.  Gradually  her  op- 
position was  worn  down  and  she  began  to  relent ;  and  in  the 
end,  she  returned  to  London  to  be  married  privately  as  already 
stated,  at  her  house  in  Park  Street.  The  ceremony  took  place 
on  December  15,  1785,  before  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of 
England.  It  would  seem  at  first  sight  that  in  agreeing  to  this, 
Mrs.  Fitzherbert  was  sacrificing  her  religious  principles.  It 
must  be  remembered,  however,  that  at  that  time  all  marriages, 
even  those  between  two  Catholics,  had  to  take  place  before 
a  minister  of  the  Established  Church.  Mrs.  Fitzherbert  herself 
had  already  on  two  separate  occasions  gone  through  the 
marriage  ceremony  before  a  Protestant  minister.  It  is  true 
that  on  each  occasion  the  marriage  had  also  taken  place  in  a 
Catholic  chapel,  and  that  Catholics  looked  upon  this  as  the 
essential  part  in  conscience,  and  the  service  at  the  Protestant 
church  as  merely  a  civil  ceremony  necessary  to  legalise  the 
marriage.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  one  in  Mrs.  Fitzher- 
bert's  position  would  have  fully  realised  this.  Certainly  she 
would  have  found  no  reason  to  object  to  presenting  herself  be- 
fore the  Protestant  minister,  and  it  is  at  least  conceivable  that 
she  might  not  have  realised,   in  the  extraordinary  position  in 


104  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

which  she  found  herself,  the  obligation  of  going  through  the 
ceremony  also  before  a  priest.1 

Of  course  the  marriage  was  not  legal.  Had  it  become 
publicly  known,  the  position  of  the  prince  would  have  been 
made  very  difficult.  Its  truth  was  officially  denied  more  than 
once  in  the  House  of  Commons — on  one  occasion  solemnly 
and  categorically  by  Fox  himself,  the  prince's  close  friend. 
But  it  was  well  known  among  Catholics.  They  did  not 
indeed  know  all  the  details  of  what  had  taken  place :  these 
were  shrouded  in  mystery  till  long  afterwards.  But  Mrs. 
Fitzherbert  was  living  a  life  of  unimpeachable  uprightness ; 
she  went  regularly  to  her  duties,  and  all  Catholics  felt  assured 
of  her  virtue.  Hence  although  they  did  not  know  exactly 
what  had  occurred,  they  universally  believed  that  a  marriage  had 
taken  place,  which  though  not  legal  was  nevertheless  valid  in 
conscience.  Consideration  both  for  her  and  for  their  own  in- 
terests withheld  the  Committee  from  bringing  the  Catholic 
question  prominently  before  the  public  at  this  juncture. 

The  Committee  had  now  nearly  run  its  course,  and,  so  far, 
they  had  done  little  which  definitely  showed  the  nature  and 
tendency  of  their  opinions.  During  the  last  six  months  before 
their  dissolution,  however,  a  question  arose  which  brought  them 
into  prominence  in  a  disagreeable  manner. 

The  question  alluded  to  concerned  the  property  of  the  ex- 
Jesuits.  It  appears  that  these  had  sold  a  mission  in  the  North 
of  England,  with  some  houses  and  land  attached,  to  the  Bene- 
dictines. Bishop  Matthew  Gibson  contended  that  the  ex-Jesuits 
being  now  secular  priests,  had  no  power  to  part  with  one  of  their 
missions,  and  he  reserved  the  right  to  place  a  secular  priest 
there  later  on,  should  it  happen  that  no  ex- Jesuit  was  available. 
His  contention  was  corroborated  by  a  decree  of  Propaganda, 
dated  July  15,  1786,  in  which  it  was  expressly  laid  down 
that  the  property  formerly  belonging  to  the  Jesuits  was  not 
to  be  alienated  ;  and  the  Vicars  Apostolic  were  called  upon  to 
see  that  the  prohibition  was  observed.     The  fact  that  Bishop 

1  According  to  Catholic  theology,  the  marriage  of  Mrs.  Fitzherbert  was  valid 
even  though  it  was  never  celebrated  before  a  priest.  This  was  so,  because  the 
laws  of  the  Church  invalidating  such  marriages  form  part  of  the  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  which  has  never  been  promulgated  in  England.  In  Ireland 
or  in  Catholic  countries  on  the  Continent  this  would  have  been  otherwise  ;  and 
since  the  recent  legislation  by  Pius  X.  the  law  has  been  altered  in   England  also. 


1787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  105 

Gibson  quoted  this  brief  was  made  the  subject  of  attack  on  him, 
and  it  was  even  said  by  the  sympathisers  of  the  ex-Jesuits 
that  in  allowing  Rome  to  interfere  in  temporal  matters  he  was 
violating  the  oath  which  he  had  taken  under  the  Act  of  1778. 
The  matter  was  taken  up  by  the  Rev.  William  Strickland,  Presi- 
dent of  the  Liege  Academy.  The  following  extract  from  his 
letter  to  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot,  dated  February  8,  1787,  will 
give  an  idea  of  what  he  thought  on  the  subject : —  x 

"  I  am  sorry  to  observe,"  he  writes,  "  that  recourse  has 
been  had  to  the  Congregation  de  Propaganda  Fide  on  the 
subject.  By  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  we  have  declared  in  the 
clearest  terms  that  we  do  not  admit  in  this  kingdom  any 
foreign  jurisdiction  in  temporal  concerns  ;  it  is  therefore  with 
great  surprise  that  I  now  find  the  authority  of  that  tribunal 
brought  to  limit  us  in  the  disposal  of  our  temporals. 

"  I  have  taken  the  opinion  of  a  lawyer,  on  whose  integrity 
and  prudence  I  can  rely,  and  he  assures  me  that  if  any  person 
should  have  been  convicted  of  applying  to  the  tribunal,  or 
executing  any  decree  issued  from  thence  on  a  subject  of  this 
nature,  even  when  Catholicity  was  the  established  religion  of 
this  country,  such  person  would  have  been  liable  to  the  severest 
censure  of  our  laws,  and  to  the  penalties  of  Praemunire." 

The  lawyer  to  whom  Dr.  Strickland  alludes  was  Charles 
Butler :  hence  the  next  stage  of  the  proceedings  followed  only 
too  naturally.  As  he  did  not  succeed  in  obtaining  satisfaction 
from  the  bishops,  Dr.  Strickland  appealed  to  the  Committee  to 
help  him.  They  were  not  slow  in  taking  the  matter  up,  and 
forthwith  wrote  a  letter  to  each  of  the  vicars  apostolic,  in 
the  following  terms  : — 2 

"  My  Lord, 

"We,  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Catholic  Committee, 
having  heard  a  report  of  a  decree  having  been  obtained  from 
the  Propaganda  relative  to  the  disposal  of  the  temporalities  of 
the  late  body  of  Jesuits  in  England,  think  it  our  duty  to  lose 
no  time  in  requesting  your  Lordship  to  inform  us  of  the  truth 
of  such  a  report.  We  hold  ourselves  fully  justified  in  making 
full  inquiry  into  this  business,  as  it  immediately  and  most 
seriously  affects  the  honour  and  very  existence  of  the  Catholic 

1  Kirk  Papers  (Oscott),  vol.  i.  2  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  ii. 


106  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1782- 

body  at  large  in  this  country,  the  receiving  any  bull  or  decree 
from  the  Court  of  Rome  on  matters  of  temporal  property 
being  not  only  in  direct  violation  of  the  Oath  we  have  all  lately 
taken,  but  in  breach  of  the  statutes  of  Praemunire  and 
Provisors,  both  passed  in  Catholic  times,  for  the  security  of  the 
Liberties  of  the  English  Catholic  Church.  We  most  earnestly 
hope  that  from  your  Lordship's  answer  we  shall  happily  find 
the  present  alarm  we  feel  to  be  ill  founded. 

"We  have  the  honour  to  be, 

"  Your  Lordship's  most  obedient  humble  servants, 

"  Petre. 

"  Henry  C.  Englefield. 

"John  Throckmorton. 

"Wm.  Fermor. 

"Will.  Jones. 

"  Thos.  Hornyold. 

"John  Towneley. 

"  London,  Feb.  20, 1787." 

To  this  letter  Bishop  Walmesley  answered  that  he  had  not 
heard  of  any  decree  such  as  that  mentioned.  When  he  received 
a  copy,  however,  he  appears  to  have  been  somewhat  alarmed, 
and  to  have  regretted  the  action  of  Propaganda,  which  he 
attributed  to  their  not  understanding  the  state  of  things  in 
England.  In  this  he  appears  to  us  somewhat  over-sensitive ; 
for  the  question  was  really  purely  an  ecclesiastical  one.  There 
was  no  intention  of  disposing  of  Church  property ;  the  only 
question  was,  who  were  the  representatives  of  the  dissolved 
Society,  to  whom  the  administration  of  their  former  property 
would  belong  ;  and  this  no  one  could  answer  better  than  the 
power  which  dissolved  them,  that  is  the  Holy  See.  The  two 
Bishops  Talbot  returned  civil  answers,  evidently  wishing  to 
avoid  being  involved  in  a  matter  which  did  not  concern  their 
districts.  Bishop  Gibson,  for  whom  the  letter  was  primarily 
intended,  at  first  took  no  notice  of  it ;  but  eventually  at  the 
urgent  request  of  Bishop  James  Talbot,  he  sent  the  Committee 
an  explanation  of  what  had  occurred.  He  based  his  action 
on  the  general  ecclesiastical  law,  quoting  the  instructions  of 
Bishop  Challoner  in  the  London  District,  and  Bishops  Petre 
and  Walton  in  the  North,  at  the  time  of  the  suppression  of  the 


1787]  THE  CATHOLIC  COMMITTEE.  107 

Society.     He  added  that  the  Decree  of  Propaganda  was  indeed 
opportune,  for  it  officially  confirmed  his  action. 

On  receipt  of  this  letter,  the  Committee  wrote  in  a  satisfied 
strain,  and  even  with  some  cordiality.  The  following  is  the 
text  of  their  letter  to  Bishop  Walmesley  : —  l 

"  London,  March  28,  1787. 

"  My  Lord, 

"  We,  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Catholic  Committee,  re- 
quest your  Lordship  to  accept  our  thanks  for  the  favour  of  your 
answer  to  our  letter,  and  be  assured  that  our  sole  intention  is 
to  promote  the  interests  of  the  body  at  large,  and  our  constant 
wish  is  to  show  every  mark  of  respect  to  your  Lordship. 

"  With  regard  to  the  matter  on  which  we  lately  addressed 
you,  we  are  truly  happy  to  find  our  alarms  relieved ;  and  hope 
that  on  every  occasion  the  same  friendly  confidence  we  have 
lately  experienced  may  subsist  between  us,  as  by  that  alone 
we  can  hope  for  relief  from  our  present  burthens. 

"  We  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  the  greatest  respect, 

"  Your  Lordship's  most  obedient  humble  servants, 

" Stourton. 

"  Petre. 

"  Henry  C.  Englefield. 

"  Will.  Jones. 

"  John  Towneley. 

"Thos.  Hornyold. 

"Willm.  Fermor." 

Notwithstanding  this,  however,  the  matter  continued  to  be 
discussed.  Bishop  Gibson  complains  that  it  was  loudly  said  in 
London  that  he  had  broken  his  oath,  and  the  general  ques- 
tion came  to  the  fore  again  in  the  printed  address  to  the 
English  Catholics  issued  by  the  Committee  before  their  disso- 
lution. In  it  they  returned  to  the  charge,  and  even  contended 
that  government  by  vicars  apostolic  at  all  was  an  infringement 
of  the  statutes  of  Praemunire  and  Provisors.  The  address  was 
much  criticised  and  it  will  be  convenient  to  take  its  consider- 
ation in  a  new  chapter. 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  ii. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE. 

1787-1788. 

THE  address  issued  by  the  Committee  calls  for  careful  con- 
sideration,1 as  being  the  first  public  proclamation  of  their 
opinions  and  methods,  and  the  precursor  of  a  stamp  of  docu- 
ment which  became  too  well  known  afterwards  in  their  official 
publications,  the  "  Blue  Books  ".  Its  issue  also  marks  the  time 
from  which  Catholics  began  to  be  definitely  divided  into  two 
parties,  those  who  supported  the  Committee,  and  those  who  were 
opposed  to  their  whole  attitude.  It  was,  in  short,  the  beginning 
of  the  long  and  tedious  struggle  between  the  Committee  and 
the  Bishops. 

The  main  object  which  the  Committee  had  in  view  was  to 
secure  their  own  re-election.  Although  their  efforts  had  so 
far  led  to  very  little  result,  they  were  hopeful  as  to  the  future, 
and  wished  therefore  to  lay  before  the  Catholic  public  an 
account  of  the  aims  which  they  had  in  view,  and  of  the 
measures  which  they  had  taken  in  the  past,  and  which  they 
thought  should  be  taken  in  the  future,  in  order  to  achieve 
them. 

With  respect  to  the  results  already  accomplished,  the  record 
was  so  small  that  some  apology  seemed  to  be  called  for,  and 
the  first  part  of  the  address  is  accordingly  given  to  an  enumera- 
tion of  the  reasons  why  it  had  been  found  impossible  to  do 
more.  The  Committee  then  proceed  to  discuss  the  actual 
situation,  and  to  indicate  the  measures  which  they  wished  to 
recommend.  The  first  of  them  was,  as  before,  to  procure  the 
restoration  of  the  hierarchy.  The  reasons  they  gave  for  con- 
sidering   this    of   urgent    importance    were  severely  criticised 

1  The  text  of  the  Address  will  be  found  in  Appendix  B. 
108 


1787-88]  ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE.  109 

by  Milner  and  others :  it  will  be  well  therefore  to  give  this 
part  verbatim : — 

"  At  present,"  they  write,  "  we  are  governed  by  four  Bishops 
who  are  appointed  under  the  denomination  of  Vicars  Apostolic, 
from  which  quality  they  derive  their  sole  authority.  They  are 
appointed  by  the  Court  of  Rome,  without  any  election  either 
by  the  Clergy  or  Laity ;  their  power  is  curtailed  or  enlarged  at 
the  will  of  the  Court  of  Rome,  and  revocable  by  the  same 
Court.  This  necessarily  creates  an  appearance  of  dependence 
on  the  Court  of  Rome,  which  is  generally  represented  to  be 
much  greater  than  it  really  is.  But  we  beg  leave  to  observe 
that  the  Ecclesiastical  government  by  Vicars  Apostolic  is  by  no 
means  essential  to  our  religion,  and  that  it  is  not  only  contrary 
to  the  primitive  practices  of  the  Church,  but  is  in  direct  op- 
position to  the  statutes  of  Praemunire  and  Provisors,  enacted 
in  times  when  the  Catholic  was  the  established  religion 
of  this  country ;  and  when  you  reflect  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
Christians  to  make  the  discipline  of  their  Church  to  conform 
as  near  as  may  be  to  the  laws  of  their  country,  your  Com- 
mittee doubt  not  but  you  will  concur  with  them  in  think- 
ing that  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  use  our  endeavours  to 
procure  the  nomination  of  Bishops  in  ordinary.  Your  Com- 
mittee think  it  would  be  needless  to  point  out  to  you  the  ad- 
vantages which  would  result  from  having  pastors  thus  chosen 
by  the  flock  they  are  to  teach  and  direct,  and  in  conjunction 
with  which  they  would  be  competent  to  regulate  every  part  of 
the  national  Church  discipline.  .  .  .  Your  Committee  trust 
that  you  will  concur  with  them  in  thinking  it  necessary  to 
appoint  a  certain  number  of  your  body  who  may  be  entrusted 
to  co-operate  with  your  Clergy  in  taking  the  most  effectual 
means  to  free  them  and  us  from  our  present  defective  system, 
and  establish  the  Church  government  in  a  manner  more  con- 
formable to  the  general  practice  of  the  Christian  religion." 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  Committee  here  take  up 
a  very  extraordinary  position,  and  although  we  may  find  it 
difficult  quite  to  follow  Dr.  Milner  when  writing  thirty  years 
later  he  says  that  the  address  might  pass  for  a  speech  of 
Mirabeau  in  the  French  National  Assembly,  we  nevertheless 
cannot  fail  to  see  the  schismatical  tendency  of  the  measures 
advocated.  The  suggestion  of  the  people  electing  their  bishops, 
and  then  acting  "  in  conjunction  "  to  regulate  the  ecclesiastical 


no  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

affairs  of  the  diocese,  sounds  to  modern  ears  strange  enough  ; 
but  the  idea  that  the  matter  was  one  for  the  Committee  to 
settle  at  all  seems  still  more  strange.  Moreover,  in  appealing 
to  the  anti-papal  statutes  of  Praemunire  and  Provisors}  they 
fairly  laid  themselves  open  to  a  charge  of  Erastianism. 

The  other  measure  advocated  by  the  Committee  was  "  the 
settling  of  a  school  which  shall  afford  a  system  of  education 
proper  for  those  who  are  destined  for  civil  or  commercial  life". 
This  brought  them  on  to  safer  ground,  and  although  opinions 
might  differ  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  scheme,  there  was  no  reason 
to  find  fault  with  it  on  ecclesiastical  grounds.  They  disclaim 
any  wish  that  it  should  interfere  with  Douay  or  any  other  of 
the  English  colleges  abroad,  "  unless  by  rising,  as  circumstances 
will  permit,  from  its  infant  state  to  that  degree  of  eminence  as 
shall  in  future  times  become  adequate  to  all  purposes,  more 
advantageous  to  religion  and  to  the  body  of  Catholics,  than 
the  present  foreign  school  establishments  ". 

In  fine,  they  beg  all  Catholics  to  attend  the  coming  general 
meeting,  and  plead  with  all  their  strength  that  "  some  form  of 
deputation  or  Committee  should  be  appointed,  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  universal  benevolence  which  seems  to  be  spreading 
in  all  parts  of  Europe,  during  a  profound  and  universal  peace, 
when  all  nations  seem  to  be  laying  aside  ancient  prejudices, 
and  by  treaties  of  amity,  increasing  the  intercourse  between 
men  of  different  religions  ". 

At  the  foot  of  the  address  was  printed  a  statement  of  the 
accounts  of  the  Committee,  from  which  it  appeared  that  there 
was  a  balance  in  hand  of  £$60  I  is.  2d.,  as  well  as  arrears  due 
to  the  extent  of  £870  9s.  These  seem  large  figures,  and  up 
to  that  time  the  expenses  of  the  Committee  had  been  very 
light — just  over  ,£100  in  all.  But  there  was  every  reason  to 
believe  that  a  bill  would  soon  be  brought  into  Parliament,  in 
which  case  the  efficiency  of  the  Committee's  work  would  depend 
in  great  measure  on  their  not  being  stinted  for  money ;  and  in 
fact,  as  we  shall  find,  when  the  time  came  they  regulated  their 
expenses  on  a  large  and  liberal  scale. 

1  The  statute  of  Provisors  was  intended  to  limit  the  Pope's  power  of  nominat- 
ing to  English  benefices ;  Praemunire  (so  named  from  the  first  word  of  the  writ) 
concerned  Papal  jurisdiction.  Both  statutes  were  passed  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
III.  (1351  and  1353)  and  re-enacted  under  Richard  II.  (1390  and  1393). 


1788]  ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE.  ill 

The  general  meeting  was  held  on  May  3,  1787,  and  the 
Committee  were  duly  re-elected  for  a  further  term  of  five  years. 
As  before,  five  were  chosen  at  the  meeting,  and  representatives 
of  the  districts  were  afterwards  added.  When  completed,  the 
composition  of  the  Committee  was  as  follows  : — 

Elected  at  the  meeting — Lord  Petre,  Lord  Stourton,  Mr. 
John  Throckmorton,  Sir  Henry  Englefield  and  Mr.  William 
Fermor. 
Representative  of  London  District  .     Mr.  Thomas  Hornyold. 

Ditto,  Midland  District        .  .     Sir  William  Jerningham. 

Ditto,  Western  District        .         .     Lord  Clifford. 

Ditto,  Northern  District      .  .     Sir  John  Lawson. 

Ditto,  Lancashire  and  Cheshire  .  Mr.  John  Towneley. 
Comparing  this  list  with  that  of  the  former  Committee,  we 
find  that  Sir  John  Lawson  and  Sir  William  Jerningham  had 
replaced  Mr.  Thomas  Stapleton  and  Mr.  William  Jones.1  The 
other  members  remained  the  same,  though  there  was  some  in- 
terchange as  to  which  districts  each  represented.  Mr.  Charles 
Butler  was  re-appointed  secretary. 

The  address  of  the  Committee  was  not  allowed  to  rest  un- 
answered. Dr.  Milner  prepared  a  rejoinder,  to  be  circulated 
before  the  general  meeting  ;  but  Bishop  James  Talbot  induced 
him  to  refrain  from  publishing  it,  as  he  considered  that  it  was 
important  to  have  a  committee,  and  was  afraid  that  a  too  un- 
compromising opposition  might  have  the  effect  of  bringing  it 
to  an  end.  As  time  went  on,  however,  his  views  seem  to  have 
gradually  modified,  and  he  himself  prepared  a  long  paper 
against  the  Committee  which  is  preserved  in  the  Westminster 
Archives.  Apparently  he  never  completed  or  delivered  it. 
The  document  is,  however,  of  considerable  interest  as  showing 
his  frame  of  mind  at  the  time,  and  the  gradual  growth  of  his 
feeling  against  the  Committee.  He  speaks  of  the  address  as 
showing  marks  of  "  a  growing  contempt  for  our  Church  estab- 
lishment," and  adds,  "  When  I  consider  this,  and  ye  determined 
exclusion  of  ye  Clergy  from  ye  Committee  voted  some  years 
ago,  I  own  it  alarms  me".  His  brother,  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot, 
had  also  written  apparently  to  Charles  Butler  himself  in  much 
the  same  sense,  and  more  strongly  than  was  his  wont : — 2 

1  Mr.  William  Jones  had  been  elected  in  place  of  Sir  Carnaby  Haggerston  a 
year  or  two  before. 

2 Birmingham  Archives. 


U2  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

"  Now  Mr.  Talbot,  cum  bona  venia,  cannot  forbear  to  add 
that  he  did  not  know  that  the  Catholic  Committee  was  estab- 
lished to  sit  as  a  Court  of  Judicature,  to  take  cognisance  of 
high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  to  arraign  Bishops  before  their 
tribunal,  and  perhaps  to  permit  them  to  exercise  their  functions 
only  quamdiu  se  bene  gesserinty 

Bishop  Walmesley's  letters  have  already  been  quoted. 
Bishop  Matthew  Gibson's  feelings  were  much  the  same.  Lord 
Petre  therefore  thought  it  necessary  to  make  a  formal  declara- 
tion that  there  should  be  no  interference  with  spiritual  matters 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  bishops,  and  he  did  so  at  the 
meeting  on  February  19,  1788.  His  words  are  recorded  in  the 
minutes.      He  said  : — 

"  That  an  idea  had  prevailed  that  the  Committee  had  under- 
taken to  interfere  in  matters  of  a  nature  merely  spiritual. 
That  the  only  instance  in  which  the  Committee  could  be 
thought  to  have  done  this  was  in  their  deliberations  whether 
it  would  be  for  the  benefit  of  religion  that  the  Vicars  Apostolic 
should  be  ordinaries ;  that  the  first  step  they  had  taken  in  this 
concern  was  to  write  to  the  Vicars  Apostolic  themselves  upon 
it.  That  the  affair  rested  there,  and  that  they  had  interfered 
in  no  other  matter  of  a  spiritual  nature." 

Bishop  Gibson  was  not  satisfied  with  this  bald  statement : 
at  any  rate,  he  thought  a  definite  promise  ought  to  be  put  into 
writing  and  signed  by  the  members  of  the  Committee  while 
they  were  still  of  the  same  mind ;  but  his  colleagues  seem  to 
have  been  afraid  of  raising  the  question  further,  for  fear  of 
causing  irritation.  In  Bishop  Gibson's  own  district  the  feeling 
against  the  Committee  was  growing  daily.  This  feeling  was 
not  lessened  by  the  random  talk  which  some  of  them  indulged 
in  when  propounding  their  own  views.  Amongst  other  things 
Mr.  Throckmorton  put  forward  the  extraordinary  proposition 
that  Catholics  might  lawfully  take  the  oath  of  supremacy.  He 
said  in  effect  that  the  Catholic  authorities  had  interpreted  the 
meaning  of  the  oath  too  rigidly,  and  that  it  was  capable  of 
being  understood  in  a  sense  that  was  not  inconsistent  with 
Catholic  doctrine.  He  did  not  indeed  get  many  to  accept 
this  view  ;  but  some  few  did,  and  its  bare  statement  caused 
considerable  stir,  so  that  it  seems  worth  while  to  give  his  own 
explanation,  which  he  afterwards  published  : — 


1788]  ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE.  113 

"  The  Oath  requiring  us  to  deny  in  a  foreign  person  any 
jurisdiction  of  power,  ecclesiastical  or  spiritual,  within  this 
realm  it  becomes  essentially  necessary  to  know  what  the 
precise  meaning  of  these  words  is.  If  by  the  word  spiritual 
is  meant  any  part  of  that  Divine  commission  which  is  acknow- 
ledged to  be  given  by  Christ  to  His  Church,  it  is  evident  that 
we  cannot  take  the  Oath.  But  as  the  same  word  has  often 
been  used  in  a  sense  of  much  greater  latitude,  so  as  to  extend 
to  persons  vested  with  an  ecclesiastical  character,  and  to  tribunals 
which  are  really  civil  as  well  in  their  authority  as  in  the  nature 
of  the  causes  on  which  they  decide  ;  if  the  meaning  be  only  to 
deny  to  any  foreign  person  such  authority  or  pre-eminence  it 
is  evident  there  can  be  no  religious  ground  of  refusing  the 
Oath."  1 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Mr.  Throckmorton,  or  any  one 
else,  ever  went  so  far  as  seriously  to  think  of  acting  upon 
this  extraordinary  opinion ;  but  it  was  much  spoken  about. 
Father  O'Leary,  the  well-known  Irish  Franciscan,  who  had 
lately  come  to  London,  was  boldly  accused  of  having  taken  the 
Oath  himself,  and  having  also  induced  many  of  the  Irish  in 
London  to  follow  his  example.  In  a  letter  preserved  in  the 
Westminster  Archives,  he  stigmatises  the  assertion  as  a  base 
calumny.  Yet  the  question  was  undoubtedly  moved  by  some 
members  of  the  Committee,  who  succeeded  in  disturbing  the 
minds  of  many.  Sir  John  Lawson  writes  again  saying  that 
the  matter  is  one  for  the  bishops,  not  for  laymen,  to  discuss, 
but  giving  his  own  opinion  that  the  words  of  the  Oath  of 
Supremacy  are  wholly  incompatible  with  Catholic  principles. 

"We  have  already,"  he  adds,  "taken  an  Oath  that  any 
kingdom  ought  to  be  satisfied  with.  We  have  sworn  as  much 
as  ye  Oath  of  Supremacy  contains,  except  as  to  ye  Ecclesiastical 
and  Spiritual  authority.  If  our  principles  are  to  be  frittered 
away  piecemeal,  let  those  look  to  it  who  propose  this  scheme." 

In  the  meantime,  the  Committee  began  to  press  on  the  two 
measures  which  they  had  put  in  the  forefront  of  their  pro- 
gramme— the  appointment  of  diocesan  bishops  in  place  of 
vicars  apostolic,  and  the  establishment  of  a  good  school 
on  this  side  of  the  Channel.     On  the  first  of  these  the  bishops 

1  Additions  to  First  Letter  (ed.  1792),  p.  85. 
VOL.    I.  8 


H4  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

had  indeed  already  given  their  opinions  some  four  years  before, 
and  we  have  seen  that  they  were  not  all  of  one  mind.  The 
Committee  hoped  that  with  further  time  and  consideration,  the 
bishops  might  gradually  come  round  to  their  own  views,  which 
they  believed  to  be  shared  by  the  general  body  of  the  clergy. 
They  therefore  wrote  to  each  of  the  bishops  in  the  following 
terms  : —  ! 
"  My  Lord, 

"  Having  been  instructed  at  the  general  meeting  held 
on  the  3rd  of  May  last  to  consult  with  you  and  the  clergy  at 
large  on  the  propriety  of  obtaining  the  regular  appointment  of 
Bishops  instead  of  Vicars  Apostolic,  we  beg  leave,  in  com- 
pliance with  the  above  direction,  to  call  your  attention  to  that 
subject.  We  are  not  desirous  of  pressing  you  to  form  a  hasty 
judgment  on  the  point  in  question,  but  should  be  obliged  to 
you  if  you  would  consult  upon  it  with  the  clergy  of  your 
acquaintance. 

"  We  shall  be  happy  to  receive  your  opinion  on  or  before 
the  2nd  day  of  April  next,  by  a  letter  directed  to  Mr.  Butler  at 
his  chambers  in  Lincoln's  Inn.     Your  presence  there  on  that 
day  will  give  additional  pleasure  to, 
"  My  Lord, 

"  Your  Lordship's  obedient  humble  servants, 

" Stourton. 

"  Petre. 

"  Henry  Englefield. 

"  J.  Throckmorton. 

"Wm.  Fermor." 

It  was  in  reference  to  this  circular  that  Bishop  Talbot  wrote 
the  following  letter  to  Bishop  Walmesley : — 

"  Hammersmith,  October  9,  1787. 

"Dear  Sir, 

"  I  am  but  lately  returned  from  a  long  jaunt,  which 
was  made  longer  by  ye  desire  and  expectation  of  you  at  Lord 
ArundelPs  of  Wardour,  as  his  Lordship  himself  had  made  me 
hope.  But  I  soon  found  my  mistake,  and  that  you  would  not 
be  there  till  the  21st  inst,  i.e.  next  Sunday  se'ennight.  .  .  . 

1  The  letter  is  undated  ;  but  the  copy  in  the  Clifton  Archives  bears  the  post- 
mark July  6,  1787. 


1788]  ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE.  115 

"  If  I  had  met  you,  as  I  had  expected,  we  could  have  talked 
over  at  leisure  ye  other  matters  you  now  enquire  about,  as  I 
had  just  done  ye  same  with  our  other  two  Brethren.  But  to 
satisfy  you,  I  will  notice  ye  substance  of  what  we  concluded. 
And  first,  as  to  ye  Committee's  letter,  we  thought  it  necessary 
to  be  as  civil  as  possible,  though  at  ye  same  time,  as  ye  main 
question  regarded  ourselves  and  our  own  powers,  we  thought 
we  might  decline  taking  any  active  part  therein.  And  if  it's 
true,  as  I  have  understood  as  well  as  you,  that  there  has  been 
a  petition  presented  to  Hilton1  on  their  parts,  we  may  reasonably 
desire  to  know  what  answer  has  been  received,  and  if  it's  found 
their  plan  has  not  been  approved,  it  can't,  I  think,  be  expected 
of  us  to  urge  it  any  further,  but  we  should  be  content  to  go  on 
in  ye  old  track  which  has  succeeded  so  well  for  ye  last  hundred 
years.  And  as  to  any  objections  raised  on  ye  part  of  Govern- 
ment, I  am  persuaded  they  may  be  all  answered  to  their 
satisfaction,  by  showing  we  have  less  connection  with  Hilton 
as  Apostolic  Vicars  than  our  Irish  neighbours  as  Ordinaries  ; 
and  some  connection  there  must  be  as  long  as  we  are  allowed  to 
profess  ye  old  faith  for  which  so  many  of  our  ancestors  have 
bled  and  died.  And  as  to  taking  ye  confirmation  of  Bishops 
out  of  ye  hands  of  Hilton  and  putting  it  in  our  Government,  I 
wonder  such  a  vagary  could  ever  enter  a  head  that  pretends 
to  be  Catholic.  I  need  only  add  that  it  appeared  to  us  ye 
greater  part  of  ye  Country  Gentlemen  were  adverse  to  ye  very 
existence  of  a  Committee,  and  a  still  greater  part  to  their 
meddling  with  Church  affairs,  and  therefore  we  concluded 
ye  whole  business  would  drop  before  ye  time  appointed  for 
sending  in  answers,  and  as  we  did  send  our  answers  (which 
were  also  read  at  last  meeting)  to  ye  question  about  Ordin- 
aries, I  think  we  need  not  be  in  a  hurry  to  answer  ye  last 
letter.  ..." 

We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  second  measure  urged  by 
the  Committee,  namely  the  opening  of  a  high-class  school  in  Eng- 
land, to  obviate  the  necessity  of  Catholics  seeking  their  educa- 
tion abroad.  Originally  they  had  contented  themselves  with 
a  request  for  certain  changes  in  the  course  of  studies  at  Douay, 

1 "  Hilton  "  was  the  name  for  "  Rome  "  used  in  penal  times  when  it  was  not 
safe  to  write  openly,  and  it  continued  in  use  long  after  any  real  need  for  such 
secrecy  had  passed  away. 


Il6  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

in  which  the  president  (Rev.  William  Gibson)  had  shown 
readiness,  and  even  anxiety,  to  meet  their  wishes.  Their  new 
proposal  was  much  more  drastic ;  yet  they  had  evidently  made 
up  their  minds  to  carry  it  out.  For  this  purpose  a  second 
general  meeting  of  Catholics  was  held  four  days  after  the  former 
one,  and  a  committee  of  seven  were  appointed  to  take  action 
in  the  matter.  Six  of  these  were  members  of  the  Catholic 
Committee — viz.  Lord  Petre,  Lord  Stourton,  Sir  Henry  Engle- 
field,  Mr.  John  Throckmorton  and  Mr.  William  Fermor.  The 
seventh  was  Dr.  Strickland,  President  of  the  Liege  Academy, 
who  had  openly  sided  with  the  movement.  His  inclusion  in 
the  committee,  however,  placed  him  in  a  somewhat  difficult 
position,  and  though  he  did  not  refuse  to  lend  his  name,  he 
did  not  in  fact  attend  any  of  their  meetings. 

The  following  circular  issued  by  the  School  Committee  to 
English  Catholics  will  give  a  complete  idea  of  their  aims  and 
methods  : — 

"  Sir, 

"  Above  you  have  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  held 
the  7th  of  May,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  on  a  method  of 
establishing  a  school. 

"Your  concurrence  in  the  plan,  and  the  favour  of  your 
signatures  in  addition  to  the  list  now  laid  before  you,  is 
earnestly  requested  by  the  Committee,  who  beg  leave  to  notice 
to  you,  that  by  your  present  signature  you  are  not,  by  any 
means,  bound  to  subscribe  to  the  school  unless  the  plan  agreed 
on  meets  your  future  approbation.  All  now  intended  is  to 
obtain  as  general  an  assent  as  possible  to  the  scheme  of  a 
school  at  large. 

"As  the  Resolutions  of  the  meeting  do  not  express  the 
particular  intention  of  the  Plan,  we  beg  leave  to  state  to  you, 
that  our  wish  is  to  pursue  an  extended  plan  of  education,  in 
which  the  study  of  the  Dead  Languages  will  not  exclude  an 
attention  to  the  modern  ones,  particularly  our  own.  Mathe- 
matics, such  part  of  them  particularly  as  are  necessary  to  the 
man  of  business,  and  always  useful  to  every  situation  in  life, 
will  be  attended  to  with  peculiar  care ;  and  the  Bodily  exer- 
cises will  be  taught  to  such  as  are  wished  by  their  parents  to 
learn  them.     This  is  merely  a  general  Idea,  but  which  we  think 


1788]  ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE.  117 

it  right  to  state,  as  it  was  the  tenor  of  the  conversation  of  the 
meeting,  though  not  stated  in  the  Resolution. 

"  Your  answer  directed  to  Mr.  Butler  in  Lincoln's  Inn,  will 
be  a  favour  conferred  on,  Sir, 

"  Your  most  obedient  humble  servants, 

" STOURTON. 

"  Petre. 

"  Clifford. 

"Henry  C.  Englefield. 

"John  Courtenay  Throckmorton. 

"Wm.  Fermor." 

The  Committee's  proposal  was  viewed  with  apprehension 
by  many,  especially  among  the  clergy.  The  school  would  of 
course  have  been  illegal ;  but  the  experience  of  Old  Hall  Green 
and  Sedgley  Park  and  a  few  other  such-like  establishments  gave 
reason  to  hope  that  the  law  on  this  matter  would  not  be  en- 
forced ;  and  the  opposition  was  based  on  other  grounds.  Many 
of  those  who  had  been  educated  at  Douay  and  at  others  of  the 
foreign  colleges,  were  much  attached  to  these,  and  apprehen- 
sive of  anything  that  might  impair  their  efficiency.  Thus 
Bishop  Walmesley  writes  : — 

"The  new  School  upon  the  extensive  plan  of  the  Com- 
mittee, I  suspect,  will  prove  prejudicial  both  to  the  Colleges 
abroad  and  to  the  mission  here." 

In  the  same  sense,  but  in  more  forcible,  even  rough  lan- 
guage, the  Rev.  Thomas  Eyre,  who  was  afterwards  President  of 
Crook  Hall  and  Ushaw,  wrote  from  Hassop  on  1 3th  June  : — 

"  I  hate  the  very  idea  of  it.  It  is  evident  to  me  that  a 
secret  blow  is  aimed  at  Douay  College,  and  as  I  am  fully  con- 
vinced that  the  preservation  of  religion  in  this  Kingdom  has 
been  hitherto  chiefly  owing  to  that  house,  whatever  hurts  it 
must  prejudice  the  other ;  and  even  was  that  not  to  be  the 
case,  I  can  never  approve  of  a  scheme  which  would  prevent  a 
great  number  of  our  young  people  from  ever  acquiring  a 
practical  (if  I  may  so  call  it),  and  ocular  information,  conviction 
and  demonstration  of  the  universality,  respectability  and  pre- 
valence of  their  religion  over  the  several  new-fangled,  pied, 
patched  and  piebald  sects  and  sections,  which  under  the  general 
name  of  Protestants  (a  glove  which  fits  every  hand  from  the 


Il8  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

claws  of  Lucifer  to  the  rat  that  eats  a  hole  in  your  wainscote) 
are  spreading  desolation  over,  or  more  properly  speaking  are 
tearing  up  Christianity,  root  and  branch."  l 

Finally,  we  may  also  quote  Bishop  James  Talbot's  views 
on  this  question,  taken  from  the  unpublished  document  already 
alluded  to.  As  on  former  occasions,  he  was  less  ready  to  take 
a  definite  side  against  the  Committee  than  we  should  naturally 
have  expected,  and  although  we  can  see  that  at  heart  he  was 
distrustful  of  the  whole  scheme,  he  showed  himself  anxious 
not  to  oppose  it  too  openly.     He  writes  as  follows : — 

"  The  second  measure  you  advert  to  is  the  establishment 
of  a  school  upon  a  better  footing  than  any  yet  established,  and 
I  most  heartily  wish  you  good  success,  though  with  this  cau- 
tion, that  while  you  improve,  perhaps,  ye  other  parts  of  educa- 
tion, ye  religious  part  be  not  forgot,  as  too  often  happens  when 
ye  laity  alone  set  about  ye  work.  And  I  mean  by  religion 
ye  bringing  children  up  so  as  to  be  versed  in  ye  substantial 
precepts  of  it,  such  for  instance  as  ye  Apostolical  fast  of  Lent. 
Could  you  believe  that  notwithstanding  ye  leaves  granted  last 
Lent  for  four  whole  weeks,'2  I  was  applied  to  by  a  certain 
schoolmaster  near  town  for  meat  also  ye  first  week,  and  even 
ye  last,  alledging  no  other  reason  than  ye  expectation  of 
Parents.  Now  what  can  be  expected  of  children  brought  up 
in  notions  that  it  is  death  to  abstain  a  whole  week  together? 
Would  they  ever  keep  Lent  ?  But  I  only  mention  this  to  show 
what  is  to  be  expected  in  religious  way  from  such  Masters. 
This  we  know,  no  such  liberties  are  taken  at  Old  Hall  Green 
or  Sedgley  Park  ;  and  why  may  not  one  of  these  be  made  to 
answer  every  end  of  education  ?  or  if  deficient,  why  can't  they 
be  improved?  But  I  have  so  little  wish  to  continue  ye  former, 
though  my  own  property,  that  I  shall  be  highly  pleased  when- 
ever a  better  is  produced.  As  to  ye  latter,  I  think  it  ye  best 
of  ye  kind  ever  since  ye  Reformation.  And  how  much  better 
it  might  be  made  with  your  encouragement.  And  this  might 
be  effected  at  a  much  less  expense  than  by  making  a  new 
erection,    supported    and    managed    by   ye  Committee    alone, 

1  Ushaw  Magazine,  March,  1894,  p.  7. 

2  Even  when  a  dispensation  was  granted  for  meat  on  certain  days  in  Lent,  it 
was  never  allowed  in  Passiontide ;  so  that  the  dispensation  only  applied  to  the 
first  four  weeks. 


1788]  ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE.  119 

whose   other   engagements    and    avocations    must   necessarily 
interfere. 

"  But  if  you  say,  nihil  tentare  nocebit,  I  have  no  objection." 
This  view  of  Dr.  Talbot's  was  not,  however,  generally  held, 
except  by  the  avowed  supporters  of  the  Committee.  Among 
the  laity  in  the  North — and  of  course  still  more  among  the 
clergy — the  feeling  against  the  project  of  a  new  school,  and 
therefore  indirectly  against  the  Committee,  soon  became  very 
strong,  and  eventually  led  to  a  formal  protest  against  their 
action.  This  was  organised  chiefly  by  Sir  John  Lawson,  of 
Brough  Hall,  Yorkshire :  as  he  had  been  recently  elected  a 
member  of  the  Committee,  the  significance  of  his  action  was 
very  remarkable.  The  protest  is  so  important  as  a  testimony 
to  the  solid  orthodoxy  of  the  Catholics  of  the  North,  that  it  is 
worth  while  giving  it  in  full,  especially  as  it  has  never  before 
been  printed  : —  1 

"To  the  Committee  of  English  Catholics. 

"  My  Lords  and  Gentlemen, 

"In  answer  to  your  circular  letters  of  1787,  we  wish 
to  state  to  you  that  we  are  satisfied  with  your  resolution  con- 
cerning our  Church  government  so  far  as  it  has  been  agreed 
1  to  instruct  a  Committee  to  consult  with  our  Vicars  Apostolic, 
and  in  case  of  their  thinking  it  proper,  to  co-operate  with  them '. 
We  are  of  opinion  that  the  laity  ought  not  to  be  judges  in  such 
business,  and  we  shall  be  dissentient  from  any  step  to  forward 
ye  proposed  alteration  that  has  not  received  ye  full  sanction  of 
our  present  Bishops. 

"  With  respect  to  ye  Resolution  of  ye  meeting  of  May  ye  3d, 
that  it  would  be  beneficial  to  ye  Catholics  at  large  to  establish 
a  school  for  ye  education  of  youth  intended  for  civil  or  com- 
mercial life,  we  find  ourselves  under  the  necessity  of  withhold- 
ing our  consent  to  that  measure,  and  we  esteem  our  present 
schools  in  England  and  our  Establishments  abroad  amply  and 
fully  sufficient  and  adequate  to  ye  education  of  our  Catholic 
youth.  We  are  far  from  being  convinced  of  ye  supposed  de- 
ficiency in  our  present  system  of  education.  Frequent  applica- 
tions are  made  to  our  foreign  Colleges  to  receive  youths  of 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  ii.     The  document  is  not  dated. 


120  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

persuasions  different  from  our  own,  intended  for  civil  and 
commercial  life  in  this  country,  who  would  be  numerous  there, 
were  the  heads  of  our  Houses  inclined  to  receive  them.  It  is 
hence  fair  to  suppose  that  our  Protestant  countrymen  entertain 
a  more  favourable  opinion  of  our  foreign  education,  even  with 
a  view  to  civil  and  commercial  life,  than  some  of  our  own  body 
are  willing  to  allow  it.  We  cannot  help  remarking  that  our 
foreign  Colleges  are,  now,  placed  on  a  more  enlarged  system, 
in  hopes  of  meeting  ye  ideas  and  wishes  of  ye  Catholic  laity. 
Accounts  and  Writing  and  the  English  and  French  languages 
are  there  made  a  more  considerable  part  than  formerly  of  edu- 
cation, and  we  cannot  entertain  an  idea  that  the  rising  genera- 
tion educated  in  this  country  will  be  more  respectable  than  by 
a  continuation  of  ye  present  improved  plan. 

"We  apprehend  a  new  school  in  this  country,  such  as  is 
proposed  in  your  letters  may  be  a  means  of  preventing  several 
of  our  young  men  from  embracing  ye  Ecclesiastical  state  of  life, 
so  essentially  necessary  to  ye  Catholic  religion,  and  we  fear 
any  impediment  thrown  in  ye  way  of  our  present  Colleges,  so 
as  to  deprive  them  in  ye  whole  or  in  part  of  their  youth,  will 
be  a  step  very  prejudicial  and  must  in  time  tend  to  increase 
much  our  want  of  Churchmen.  We  are  grounded  in  our 
apprehensions  that  our  foreign  Colleges  may  suffer  much  from 
ye  success  of  ye  proposed  new  school,  by  that  part  of  your 
letter  of  ye  10th  of  April  in  which  you  say  you  are  not  without 
hopes  that  ye  school  'by  rising  as  circumstances  will  permit 
from  its  infant  state  to  a  degree  of  Eminence,  shall  in  future 
times  become  adequate  to  all  purposes,  more  advantageous  to 
religion,  and  to  ye  body  of  Catholics,  than  ye  present  foreign 
school  establishments '. 

"  The  idea  of  our  present  foreign  places  of  education  being 
rendered  unnecessary  and  given  up,  seems  to  us  big  with  fatal 
consequences,  for  should  any  commotions  on  religious  matters  at 
a  future  day  take  place  in  this  country,  which  is  within  the  line 
of  possibility  to  happen,  our  school  establishments  here  might 
probably  be  the  first  sacrifice  of  contending  parties,  and  in  such 
a  situation  we  should  then  be  destitute  of  the  asylums  we  are 
at  present  in  possession  of  abroad,  and  having  this  apprehension 
in  view,  we  shall  ever  deem  it  highly  imprudent  to  part  with 
them. 


1788]  ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE.  121 

"We  think  our  young  men,  whose  inclinations  may  lead 
them  to  embrace  a  clerical  state  of  life,  will  certainly  be  debarred 
from  being  educated  in  this  country,  from  the  advantage  which 
every  College  abroad  affords  of  seeing  the  full  and  publick 
exercise  of  our  religion,  without  which  the  education  of  our 
Ecclesiasticks  would  in  that  respect  be  confined,  and  this  ad- 
vantage we  cannot  allow  to  be  uninteresting  to  ye  laity. 

"  We  may  add  that  the  students  in  our  foreign  Colleges  are 
placed  at  a  distance  from  objects  of  dissipation  and  bad  ex- 
ample, so  much  complained  of  in  the  public  schools  of  this 
country,  and  we  deem  it  a  matter  of  extreme  difficulty  to 
guard  against  this  objection  in  any  extensive  plan  of  education 
proposed  to  be  set  on  foot  in  England. 

"  We  have  only  further  to  state,  that  we  cannot  con- 
sider the  Penal  Laws  remaining  in  force  against  us  as  a  dead 
letter.  Prosecutions  upon  the  unrepealed  statutes  have  taken 
place  in  ye  County  of  York  since  ye  Act  of  Parliament  passed  in 
favour  of  ye  Catholics,  and  as  long  as  we  are  loaded  with  such 
shackles,  we  cannot  subscribe  to  ye  idea  of  viewing  such  laws 
with  indifference.  We  are  willing  to  hope  that  an  erasure  of 
them  from  ye  statute  books  is  ye  great  object  to  which  the 
Committee  intend  to  direct  their  endeavours." 

Fifty-one  signatures  follow,  including  representatives  of  all 
the  chief  Catholic  families  in  the  North  of  England — Hagger- 
ston,  Maire,  Silvertop,  Clavering,  Witham,  De  Trafford,  Stanley, 
Blundell,  Riddell,  Charlton,  Selby,  Bedingfield,  Gage,  Constable, 
Gibson,  Strickland,  Vavasour,  Eyre,  Tempest,  Stapleton,  etc. 

This  protest  was  read  at  the  general  meeting  of  Catholics 
at  the  Freemasons'  Hall  on  May  15,  1788,  when  the  chairman, 
Mr.  Throckmorton,  gave  what  he  considered  as  the  Committee's 
answer,  point  by  point.  Nevertheless,  the  protest  seems  to 
have  had  considerable  effect,  for  we  hear  nothing  more  of  the 
proposed  school  for  several  years  afterwards. 

It  was  now  becoming  evident  that  if  the  Committee  con- 
tinued along  the  path  they  had  laid  out  for  themselves,  they 
would  soon  cease  to  carry  even  the  nominal  confidence  of 
the  Catholic  body.  This  was  probably  their  motive  for  so 
far  changing  their  tactics  as  to  admit  a  limited  number  of  priests 
into  their  body.  They  succeeded  in  persuading  Dr.  James  Tal- 
bot to  join  the  Committee :  he  consented  under  the  impression 


122  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

that  he  could  exercise  a  restraining  influence  in  this  way  better 
than  by  active  opposition,  and  still  believing  that  the  continued 
existence  of  the  Committee  was  desirable.  Two  more  eccle- 
siastical members  were  added,  Bishop  Charles  Berington,  the  new 
coadjutor  of  the  Midland  District,  and  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes,  a 
Benedictine  monk.  These  were  all  elected  by  a  ballot  at  a 
meeting  on  May  15,  1788,  and  that  fact  itself  contributed  to 
compromise  Bishop  Talbot's  position  ;  for  to  accept  an  appoint- 
ment in  this  manner  was  a  tacit  acknowledgment  that  the 
laymen  were  able  by  their  vote  to  give  some  fresh  authority 
to  their  bishop.  His  position  became  a  difficult  one.  The 
inclusion  of  his  name  could  not  but  give  additional  weight  to 
the  doings  of  the  Committee,  while  he  had  not  the  strength  of 
character  required  to  influence  their  action.  Many  blamed  him 
for  allowing  himself  to  be  placed  in  such  a  position.  Bishop 
Matthew  Gibson  wrote  to  him  :  "  I  shall  congratulate  both  you 
and  the  public  on  your  late  promotion,  when  I  see  you  pre- 
vent any  mischief  in  that  station.  I  don't  controvert  your  in- 
clination, but  power."  l  Sir  John  Lawson  raised  a  further  point. 
"  It  gave  me  pleasure  to  read  ye  names  of  three  such  respectable 
characters  were  added  to  ye  Committee,"  he  said  ;  "  I  only  wish 
a  clergyman  of  ye  Northern  District  had  been  at  the  same  time 
put  in."  2  It  may  be  noted,  however,  that  the  clergy  were  not 
allowed  to  choose  their  own  representatives  at  all ;  these  were 
nominated  by  the  lay  members  of  the  Committee,  who  naturally 
chose  such  as  they  knew  to  be  favourable  to  their  own  way  of 
thinking. 

Dr.  Talbot  does  not  seem  to  have  attended  many  meetings, 
if  any  at  all.  The  only  documents  to  which  his  signature  is 
appended  are  the  circulars  informing  members  of  his  election, 
and  the  petition  to  Parliament  based  on  the  Protestation,  to 
be  spoken  of  in  the  next  chapter,  which  was  signed  by  the 
whole  Committee.  The  signatures  of  the  other  two  clerical 
members  are  found  on  all  the  chief  documents  subsequent  to 
their  election.  Both  were  in  sympathy  with  the  general  aims 
of  the  Committee,  and  as  both  played  important  parts  in  the 
subsequent  events,  a  few  words  about  each  will  be  in  place 
here. 

Bishop  Charles   Berington   was  a  man  whose  career  dis- 

1  Westminster  Archives.  ^Ibid. 


1788]  ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE.  123 

appointed  his  early  promise.  As  a  student  at  Douay  he  was 
much  thought  of,  as  also  when  he  afterwards  went  to  the  Eng- 
lish Seminary  at  Paris,  though  he  never  exerted  himself  at 
either  place  sufficiently  to  allow  his  abilities  fully  to  develop. 
He  was  a  native  of  Essex — born  at  Stock  Hall — and  after 
his  return  to  England  he  led  a  retired  life  as  chaplain  at 
Ingatestone  Hall,  within  a  few  miles  of  his  birth-place.  In 
1784  he  again  left  England,  this  time  making  the  "grand 
tour"  as  tutor  to  the  son  of  Mr.  Giffard  of  Chillington.  He 
was  absent  nearly  two  years,  and  it  was  on  his  return  that  he 
was  chosen  as  coadjutor  to  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot,  of  the 
Midland  District,  at  the  early  age  of  thirty-eight.  Milner 
describes  him  as  "  an  unambitious,  sweet-tempered  prelate,  of 
strong  natural  parts,  and  qualified  for  the  highest  station  in 
the  Church,  had  he  been  resolved  to  support  her  necessary 
authority  against  the  prevailing  encroachments  and  aberrations 
of  powerful  laymen".1  Milner  is,  of  course,  alluding  to  the 
bishop's  connection  with  the  leading  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee, who  exerted  great  influence  over  him.  His  aim  was 
always  to  make  peace  between  the  two  contending  parties  ; 
but  it  was  the  natural  result  of  the  weakness  which  induced 
him  to  allow  himself  to  be  led  by  the  laymen  to  whom  Milner 
alludes  that  his  efforts  for  peace  were  rarely  successful. 

Bishop  Charles  Berington  lived  with  his  cousin,  the  Rev. 
Joseph  Berington,  at  Oscott,2  then  a  country  mission,  with  a 
fair-sized  house,  which  Bishop  Hornyold  had  intended  for  the 
episcopal  residence.  There  was  considerable  similarity  between 
the  minds  of  the  two  cousins  :  the  same  tendency  to  cynicism, 
not  always  unmixed  with  heterodoxy,  shows  itself  in  the  letters 
of  both  of  them.  From  this  cynical  spirit  even  their  strictures 
on  each  other  were  not  altogether  free.  The  following  words 
written  by  Joseph  Berington  after  his  cousin's  death  in  1798 
are  so  characteristic  of  the  writer  and  also  of  the  person  de- 
scribed that  they  are  worth  quoting  : —  3 

"  I  never  had  a  thought  of  drawing  up  any  biographical 
sketch  of  our  late  friend's  life,  whatever  you  Gentlemen  might 

1  Sup.  Mem.,  i.,  p.  72. 

2  That  is,  of  course,  old  Oscott,  now  known  as  Maryvale.  Joseph  Berington 
was  appointed  there  on  his  return  from  his  tour,  which  he  made  with  Mr.  Miles 
Stapleton,  in  1785.     Charles  Berington  joined  him  the  following  year. 

3  The  original  is  among  the  Archives  at  Oscott. 


124  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

suppose ;  and  had  you  reflected,  I  suspect  the  thought  would 
never  have  entered  into  your  heads.  What  could  with  truth 
be  said  more  than  the  little  I  did  say?  His  moral  character 
was  great,  and  his  natural  talents  excellent ;  but  to  the  latter 
he  had  given  no  cultivation.  Would  you  say  that  he  went  to 
Douay  young,  where  he  applied  little ;  that  he  removed  to 
Paris,  where  he  applied  less ;  that  he  returned  to  England, 
where  he  did  nothing  ;  that  he  went  abroad  and  came  back  ; 
that  he  was  made  Bishop,  lived  a  few  years  and  died  ?  The 
part  he  acted  as  a  member  of  the  Catholic  Committee  could 
not  be  mentioned,  which  was  the  only  conspicuous  part  of  his 
life,  without  giving  offence,  and  perhaps  provoking  discussion." 

The  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes  was  a  Benedictine,  a  member  of 
the  community  of  St.  Edmund,  Paris.  He  was  chaplain  for 
some  time  to  Mr.  Fitzherbert  at  Swynnerton,  Staffordshire,  and 
was  well  known  to  Bishop  Berington  and  the  Midland  clergy 
generally.  Dr.  Kirk,  in  a  letter  written  in  1786,  gives  the 
following  description  of  him  and  Joseph  Berington  : —  1 

"  I  met  with  Mr.  Jos.  Berington,  the  author  [at  Chillington], 
for  the  second  time,  and  a  very  pleasant  and  conversant  gentle- 
man he  is.  He  is  allowed  to  be  the  ablest  man  we  have  in  the 
clergy,  though  we  have  many  very  capital  ones.  Another  there 
is,  but  a  monk,  at  Swinnerton,  Dr.  Wilkes.  You  will  hardly  find 
his  equal  in  learning.  He  is  really  universal,  and  so  pleasant 
in  conversing  that  every  one  is  enchanted  that  hears  him.  His 
abilities  are  universally  acknowledged.  I  thought  myself 
happy  in  becoming  acquainted  with  him  at  Douay,  and  in  be- 
ing his  companion  in  the  Stage  from  London.  All  the  passengers 
were  enamoured  with  him,  and  when  upon  enquiring  they  heard 
from  me  who  he  was,  they  all  stood  astonished." 

Very  shortly  after  this  was  written,  Mr.  Wilkes  was  moved 
to  Bath,  where  there  was  a  Benedictine  mission  in  the  town. 
The  Catholics  of  Bath  seem  to  have  become  greatly  attached 
to  him.  He  was  living  there  in  1788  when  he  was  chosen  a 
member  of  the  Committee.  From  the  time  of  his  election  his 
abilities,  added  to  his  attractive  manners,  caused  him  to  become 
one  of  the  leaders  of  that  body,  and  the  other  members  always 
looked  to  his  theological  knowledge  to  guide  and  direct  them 

1  Westminster  Archives. 


1788]  ELECTION  OF  A  NEW  COMMITTEE.  125 

in  their  action  as  to  the  protestation  and  oath.  Milner  in  his 
letters,  no  less  than  in  print,  always  speaks  harshly  of  Mr.  Wilkes, 
looking  upon  him  as  the  chief  author  of  the  misdeeds  of  the 
others  ;  and  also  as  less  excusable  on  account  of  his  ecclesiastical 
knowledge  and  position.  The  daily  life  which  Mr.  Wilkes  led 
at  Bath  was  also  the  subject  of  criticism.  It  was  said  that  he 
was  living  extravagantly,  and  that  his  house  was  continually 
open  to  visitors  in  a  manner  unbecoming  in  a  monk.  When 
he  ultimately  left  Bath,  too,  he  left  behind  him  some  large 
debts,  which,  in  order  to  avoid  scandal,  the  Order  discharged. 

Nevertheless,  there  is  some  excuse  to  be  made  even  for 
Mr.  Wilkes.  The  amount  of  respect,  even  of  adulation,  which 
he  received  from  some  of  the  most  prominent  Catholics  might 
have  turned  stronger  heads  than  his.  Even  in  the  very  midst 
of  his  disputes  with  his  superiors,  we  see  signs  of  true  piety 
and  self-denial  which  are  redeeming  features  in  his  character ; 
and  at  the  times  when  he  appeared  most  refractory,  his  conduct 
was  often  due  to  a  feeling  of  duty — however  mistaken — not 
to  recede  from  positions  which  he  had  advised  others  to  take 
up,  and  a  chivalrous  determination  not  to  shirk  the  brunt  of 
the  battle.  We  shall  have  to  admit  that  he  was  sometimes 
placed  in  a  difficult  position,  and  the  staunch  manner  in  which 
his  confreres  defended  his  cause  so  far  as  reason  and  obedience 
to  authority  would  permit,  shows  that  there  was  another  side 
to  his  character  which  appealed  to  those  who  knew  him  in- 
timately. In  later  years,  when  he  went  back  to  his  monastery, 
he  was  a  source  of  edification  to  many,  and  showed  that  he 
had  never  entirely  lost  the  monastic  spirit. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  PROTESTATION. 

1788-1789. 

The  newly-formed  Committee  were  not  long  before  getting 
into  communication  with  the  Government.  Pitt  was  by  this 
time  all-powerful  and  the  state  of  public  business  seemed 
favourable  for  hastening  on  the  application  which  they  had  in 
view.  Accordingly  a  memorial  was  prepared  to  present  to  him 
as  Prime  Minister,  and  was  formally  approved  at  a  general 
meeting  of  Catholics  on  February  19,  1788.1 

The  purport  of  the  memorial  may  be  summarised  in  a  few 
words.  After  reciting  the  chief  penal  laws  and  disabilities 
under  which  Catholics  laboured,  the  memorialists  acknowledge 
that  the  former  have  for  some  time  past  fallen  almost  into 
abeyance ;  but  they  contend  that  the  disabilities  which  still 
exist  "cramp  their  industry,  prevent  their  providing  for  their 
families,  drive  them  from  their  own  country  for  education, 
obtrude  them  on  foreigners  for  subsistence,  and  make  them  as 
it  were  aliens  among  their  fellow  subjects ".  In  favour  of 
mending  this  state  of  things,  they  plead  "  That  the  doctrine  of 
general  toleration  universally  prevails :  and  that  no  plea  can 
be  urged  for  tolerating  in  foreign  countries  the  dissenters  from 
the  mode  of  worship  established  there  which  may  not  with  as 
great  propriety  be  urged  for  tolerating  in  England  those  of 
the  Catholic  persuasion  ". 

The  memorial  was  in  the  first  instance  taken  to  Pitt  by 
Mr.  Fermor,  to  whom  he  was  personally  known  ;  and  who 
requested  that  he  might  come  on  a  formal  deputation,  together 
with  the  Catholic  peers,  according  to    the    resolution    passed 

1  The  Memorial  is  given  in  full  by  Butler:  see  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  6.  See 
also  part  of  the  Memorial  quoted  in  chapter  i. 

126 


1788-89]  THE  PROTESTATION.  1 27 

at  the  meeting.  Pitt  was,  however,  evidently  anxious  to  avoid 
receiving  any  regular  deputation,  as  we  learn  from  the  account 
given  by  Mr.  Fermor  as  recorded  in  the  Minute  Book  of  the 
Committee.     We  read  that — 

"  [Mr.  Pitt]  replied  that  he  thought  himself  much  honoured 
by  such  a  resolution,  but  that  he  could  not  think  of  giving 
the  Catholic  Peers  that  unnecessary  trouble,  as  it  had  already 
been  communicated  to  him  through  the  medium  of  a  private 
negotiation.  Mr.  Fermor  then  asked  him  if  he  would  give  him 
leave  to  report  his  answer  to  the  general  adjourned  meeting  of 
the  English  Catholics.  He  replied  that  Mr.  Fermor  had  his 
full  liberty  to  do  so.  Mr.  Fermor  then  begged  to  know  at  what 
period  of  time  he  thought  he  would  have  it  in  his  power  to 
give  the  English  Catholics  an  answer  to  their  Memorial.  He 
said  that  it  was  impossible  he  could  then  give  an  answer  to 
that  question,  but  that  as  soon  as  any  resolutions  had  been 
taken  on  the  subject,  he  would  take  care  to  acquaint  Mr. 
Fermor  with  such  particulars." 

This  report  was  accordingly  given  by  Mr.  Fermor  at  the 
adjourned  meeting  on  February  28.  It  was  resolved  in  conse- 
quence : — 

"That  Mr.  Fermor  be  directed  by  the  Committee  of 
English  Catholics  at  any  time  that  they  shall  consider  as  the 
most  proper,  to  write  to  Mr.  Pitt  to  request  of  him  to  know  his 
sentiments  on  their  memorial,  and  which  of  the  constitutional 
modes  he  would  recommend  them  to  pursue  in  order  to  obtain 
a  redress  of  grievances  ;  being  apprehensive  of  losing  the  present 
session,  as  well  as  the  favourable  opportunity  of  availing  them- 
selves of  the  very  tolerating  spirit  which  seems  to  have  extended 
its  benign  and  salutary  influence  over  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world." 

The  three  constitutional  modes  here  alluded  to  had  been 
discussed  by  Mr.  Fermor  in  a  preliminary  interview  with  Mr. 
Pitt  some  weeks  before.  They  were,  (1)  by  an  address  to  the 
King  ;  (2)  by  a  petition  to  Parliament ;  (3)  by  a  motion  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  It  was  now  resolved  that  Pitt  should  be 
pressed  to  say  which  of  the  three  he  would  consider  preferable. 

At  length,  after  a  delay  of  nearly  three  months,  Pitt  con- 
sented to  receive  Mr.  Fermor,  with  any  others  who  might  come 
as  a  formal  deputation  from  the  Catholic  body.     It  was  arranged 


128  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

that  Lord  Petre  and  Sir  Henry  Englefield  should  accompany 
him.  The  following  headings  were  drawn  out  by  the  Com- 
mittee, as  a  guide  to  the  deputation  in  their  interview  with  the 
Prime  Minister: — 

"  To  endeavour  not  to  lose  the  present  session.  If  asked 
what  our  present  wishes  are,  to  press  our  wishes  for  the  Army, 
Navy  and  Bar.  Rather  to  hear  what  Administration  may  chuse 
to  give  than  to  make  proposals  of  our  own.  If  the  Test  is 
objected  which  excludes  from  the  Army  and  Navy,  then  to 
express  our  wishes  for  those  advantages  which  the  Dissenters 
now  enjoy,  and  from  which  we  are  excluded." 

Mr.  Butler  also  prepared  a  series  of  observations  on  the 
legal  questions  raised,  which  will  be  found  printed  in  the 
Appendix. 

The  deputation  was  received  by  Pitt  on  Wednesday,  May  9. 
The  substance  of  his  answer  can  be  given  in  the  words  in  which 
the  members  of  the  deputation  reported  it  to  the  Committee 
the  same  afternoon  : — 

"  [He  said]  that  Government  will  make  no  objection  to  the 
business  relating  to  the  relief  of  the  English  Roman  Catholics 
being  brought  before  Parliament  early  next  sessions  : 

"  But,  he  observed,  if  moved  this  session,  it  will  be  im- 
possible to  carry  the  measure  to  a  conclusion,  and  of  course  it 
must  lie  over  till  next  year. 

"  This,  Mr.  Pitt  is  of  opinion,  will  not  be  a  favourable  cir- 
cumstance to  the  Catholic  cause,  as  it  will  prevent  Government 
from  preparing  the  minds  of  some  of  the  leading  interests  in 
this  country  previous  to  the  bringing  on  of  a  measure  of  such 
importance. 

"  He  also  desired  Catholics  to  furnish  him  with  authentic 
evidence  of  the  opinion  of  Catholic  clergy  and  Catholic  Uni- 
versities with  respect  to  the  existence  or  extent  of  the  Pope's 
dispensing  power. 

"  That  though  the  relief  prayed  for  appeared  simple  and 
clear,  yet  many  parts  of  it  involved  great  and  weighty  con- 
siderations for  Government  to  determine  upon. 

"  He  observed  that  whatever  was  conceded  to  the  Roman 
Catholics,  the  Protestant  Dissenters  must  also  enjoy. 

"  He  concluded  by  saying  that  although  Government 
strongly  wished  that   the  subject  might  not   be    moved    this 


17S9]  THE  PROTESTATION.  129 

session,  yet  it  was  left  to  the  Catholics  to  consider  whether 
they  should  run  the  risk  of  the  consequences  attending  its 
lying  over  until  next  year. 

"  Mr.  Pitt  repeated  several  times  that  he  hoped  the  Roman 
Catholics  would  be  assured  that  the  present  adjournment  of 
their  business  to  next  session  did  not  arise  merely  from  motives 
of  delay,  but  Government  seriously  intended  to  consider  their 
situation,  and  wished  to  grant  them  that  relief  which  in 
prudence  they  could  adopt."  J 

It  is  probable  that  Mr.  Pitt  also  gave  some  indication  to 
the  members  of  the  deputation  as  to  how  far  the  Government 
would  be  prepared  to  go,  for  immediately  afterwards  the  Com- 
mittee issued  an  invitation  to  "  such  of  the  Catholic  Gentlemen 
who  were  then  in  town  "  to  meet  at  Mr.  Butler's  chambers  on 
Tuesday,  May  20,  to  discuss  the  provisions  for  the  proposed 
Catholic  Relief  Bill,  which  they  had  already  commissioned  him 
to  draw  up.  Fifteen  attended  the  meeting,  among  their  number 
being  Bishop  James  Talbot  and  Bishop  Berington.  The  de- 
cisions they  came  to  are  recorded  in  the  minutes  as  follows  : —  2 

"  It  was  agreed  that  the  chief  object  of  the  application  now 
intended  to  be  made  by  the  English  Catholics  for  relief  is : 

"  To  obtain  the  repeal  of  all  the  statutes  of  recusancy,  of  all 
the  statutes  which  disable  them  from  serving  in  the  Navy  and 
Army,  or  from  practising  the  Law  or  Physic  ;  and  of  all  the 
statutes  which  prevent  their  enjoying  their  property,  with  all 
its  rights  and  privileges,  equally  and  in  the  same  manner  as 
Protestant  Dissenters  from  the  Established  Church. 

"But  that  it  is  not  intended  that  the  present  application 
should  extend  to  procure  for  the  English  Catholics  admission 
into  any  Civil  Offices  or  employments." 

Mr.  Butler  accordingly  proceeded  to  draft  the  bill  on  these 
lines. 

Returning  now  to  the  interview  between  the  deputation 
and  Mr.  Pitt,  we  hardly  know  what  to  think  of  the  request 
of  the  latter  for  "  authentic  evidence "  of  Catholic  belief  as 
to  the  Pope's  "Dispensing  Power".  The  idea  seems  one  that 
would  have  been  more  likely  to  originate  with  the  Committee 

^Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  11. 

2  A  copy  of  the  minutes  of  this  informal  meeting  is  in  each  of  the  three 
Archivia — Westminster,  Clifton  and  Birmingham. 
VOL.  I.  9 


130  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

than  with  him.  However,  whether  it  was  his  own  spontaneous 
thought,  or  whether  it  was  suggested  to  him,  in  either  case, 
once  he  had  expressed  the  wish,  the  Committee  were  justified 
in  taking  steps  to  carry  it  into  effect.  They  accordingly  sent 
some  formal  questions  to  the  Universities  of  Sorbonne,  Louvain, 
Douay,  Alcala,  Valladolid  and  Salamanca,  as  six  typical  Cath- 
olic faculties.  The  questions  asked  and  the  answers  received 
are  summarised  by  Butler  as  follows  : —  l 

"  1.  Has  the  Pope  or  Cardinals  or  any  body  of  men  or  any 
individual  of  the  Church  of  Rome  any  civil  authority,  power, 
jurisdiction  or  pre-eminence  whatsoever  within  the  realm  of 
England? 

"  2.  Can  the  Pope  or  Cardinals  or  any  body  of  men,  or 
any  individual  of  the  Church  of  Rome  absolve  or  dispense 
with  his  Majesty's  subjects  from  their  Oath  of  Allegiance 
upon  any  pretext  whatever? 

"  3.  Is  there  any  principle  in  the  tenets  of  the  Catholic 
Faith  by  which  Catholics  are  justified  in  not  keeping  faith 
with  heretics  or  other  persons  differing  from  them  in  religious 
opinions,  in  any  transaction  either  of  a  public  or  a  private 
nature?" 

The  Universities  answered  unanimously  : — 

"  1.  That  the  Pope,  or  Cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  or 
any  individual  of  the  Church  of  Rome  has  not  nor  have  any 
civil  authority,  power,  jurisdiction  or  pre-eminence  whatsoever 
within  the  realm  of  England. 

"  2.  That  the  Pope,  or  Cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  or 
any  individual  of  the  Church  of  Rome  can  not  absolve  or 
dispense  with  his  Majesty's  subjects  from  their  Oath  of 
Allegiance,  upon  any  pretext  whatsoever. 

"  3.  That  there  is  no  principle  in  the  tenets  of  the  Catholic 
Faith  by  which  Catholics  are  justified  in  not  keeping  faith  with 
heretics  or  other  persons  differing  from  them  in  religious 
opinions,  in  any  transaction  either  of  a  public  or  of  a  private 
nature." 

The  tenour  of  the  above  answers  will  not  surprise  the 
reader,  but  he  will  probably  agree  with  Bishop  Walmesley  who 
writes  to  Charles  Butler :  "  the  answers  returned  from  abroad  to 
the  queries  you  sent  if  satisfactory  to  Mr.  Pitt,  that  is  well. 

1  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  13.     See  also  Appendix  D. 


1789]  THE  PROTESTATION.  13 1 

I  don't  see  what  further  service  they  can  be ;  our  answers  to 
them  were  given  in  the  Oath  of  1778." 

The  next  stage  of  the  proceedings  takes  us  to  the  month  of 
November,  1788,  when  we  are  told  that  Lord  Stanhope  pro- 
posed that  a  solemn  Protestation  should  be  made  by  Catholics, 
disclaiming  the  various  objectionable  tenets  popularly  ascribed 
to  them,  and  he  himself  drew  up  such  a  document  and  placed 
it  before  the  Committee. 

Some  explanation  is  called  for  as  to  how  Lord  Stanhope, 
who  was  a  staunch  member  of  the  Established  Church,  came 
on  to  the  scene.  The  answer  is  best  given  by  quoting  Butler's 
account  of  what  happened.      He  writes  : —  1 

"  At  the  time  to  which  our  subject  has  now  led  us,  a  general 
attempt  was  making  to  procure  a  modification  of  the  statutes 
of  Uniformity. 

"They  operate,  but  in  a  very  different  degree,  on  three 
distinct  denominations  of  Christians,  Roman  Catholics,  Pro- 
testant Dissenters  and  Members  of  the  Established  Church. 

"  All  were  then  applying  to  the  legislature  for  relief.  At 
the  head  of  the  first  was  the  Catholic  Committee ;  at  the  head 
of  the  second,  Mr.  Beaufroy ;  at  the  head  of  the  third,  Lord 
Stanhope. 

"  The  Dissenters  had  recently  published  a  pamphlet  intituled 
'  The  Right  of  Protestant  Dissenters  to  Complete  Toleration ' 
— a  standard  work  among  them.  They  expressed  in  it  the 
warmest  wishes  for  the  success  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  and 
called  on  them  to  publish  their  creed. 

"  One  express  object  of  Lord  Stanhope's  bill  was  to  give 
relief  to  the  non-conformists  of  the  Established  Church ;  but 
the  medium  through  which  he  proposed  to  effect  this  was — by 
liberating  persons  of  every  description  from  the  penalties  of 
non-conformity.  The  effect  of  this  bill  would  therefore  have 
extended  equally  to  Catholics,  to  Protestant  Dissenters,  and  to 
members  of  the  Established  Church ;  but  it  would  not  have 
been  beneficial  to  all  in  an  equal  degree — as  it  would  have 
been  much  more  beneficial  in  its  consequences  to  the  Catholics 
than  it  would  have  been  either  to  the  Protestant  Dissenters 
or  to  the  members  of  the  Established  Church,  inasmuch  as  the 

1  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  16. 
9* 


132  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

penalties  for  non-conformity  to  which  a  Catholic  is  subject  are 
heavier  than  the  penalties  to  which  a  Protestant  Dissenter,  or 
a  member  of  the  Established  Church  is  subject. 

"  As  there  was  a  prejudice  against  the  Catholics  which  did 
not  exist,  at  least  in  the  same  degree,  against  any  other  Dis- 
senters, his  Lordship  thought  that  in  their  regard  it  would  be 
advisable  to  use  a  method  of  recommendation  to  the  public 
which  the  others  did  not  appear  to  him  to  want. 

"  This  was — that  the  Roman  Catholics  should  solemnly 
disclaim  some  of  the  tenets  falsely  imputed  to  them. 

"  For  this  reason,  with  long  consideration,  and  after  perus- 
ing the  works  of  some  of  the  best  Catholic  writers  and  confer- 
ring with  the  ministers  of  other  Churches,  and  some  of  the 
leading  men  of  all  other  parties, — but  without  the  slightest 
communication  with  any  Roman  Catholic, — his  Lordship  framed 
the  Protestation,  transmitted  it  to  Lord  Petre,  and  recommended 
that  it  should  be  generally  signed.  On  the  receipt  of  it,  Lord 
Petre  instantly  forwarded  it  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Committee, 
with  directions  to  send  copies  of  it  immediately  to  the  four 
Vicars  Apostolic." 

Such  is  Charles  Butler's  description  of  the  origin  of  the 
celebrated  Protestation.  But  he  is  hardly  straightforward  in 
giving  it  without  comment.  For  the  idea  was  not  a  new  one : 
something  similar  had  been  proposed  more  than  two  years  be- 
fore, as  he  must  have  been  aware.  The  first  that  we  hear  of 
the  idea  takes  us  back  to  January,  1786,  when  Mr.  Throck- 
morton wrote  to  each  of  the  vicars  apostolic  in  the  following 
terms : — 1 

"  January  15,  1786. 

"  Sir, 

"  It  having  been  the  opinion  of  most  of  the  gentle- 
men of  our  persuasion,  as  well  as  of  myself,  that  previous  to, 
or  upon,  application  being  made  to  Parliament  for  a  further 
redress  of  our  grievances  it  would  be  expedient  to  give  to  the 
public  a  genuine  Exposition  of  our  Principles,  both  as  to  Faith 
and  allegiance,  with  the  signatures  of  the  Bishops  to  give  a 
proper  sanction  to  it,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  short  Exposi- 

1  Kirk  Papers  (Oscott),  vol.  i.  The  letters  in  answer  are  also  among  the 
Kirk  Papers  at  Oscott. 


i78g]  THE  PROTESTATION.  133 

tion  as  printed  at  the  end  of  a  pamphlet  lately  published  by 
Mr.  J.  Berington  would  answer  that  purpose  better  than  any 
other  I  have  seen  ;  it  has  the  advantage  of  being  framed  above 
a  century  past,  and  seems  drawn  with  a  precision  which  is 
necessary  in  such  works.  I  have  spoken  to  Mr.  T.  Talbot 
about  it,  who  has  given  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  it,  and 
approves  much  of  it.  I  should  be  much  obliged  to  you  if  you 
would  peruse  it,  and  let  me  know  as  soon  as  convenient  if  you 
have  any  objection  to  signing  it." 

He  then  proceeds  to  suggest  a  few  changes,  some  of  them 
of  considerable  importance,  and  suggests  that  the  title  should 
be  "  Principles  of  English  Catholics  in  reference  to  God  and 
their  Country  ".  He  concludes  with  a  request  for  an  immedi- 
ate answer,  as  he  wishes  it  to  be  published  the  following  month. 

In  this  letter  Mr.  Throckmorton  wrote,  of  course,  in  his 
own  name,  not  in  that  of  the  Committee ;  but  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  the  application  did  not  emanate  solely  from  him.  Those 
who  sympathised  with  the  official  views  of  the  Committee 
naturally  approved  of  this  pamphlet,  the  trend  of  which  was  in 
general  harmony  with  their  thoughts.  Dr.  Milner  indeed  al- 
ways regarded  it  as  unorthodox,  and  in  later  years  as  bishop 
he  spoke  authoritatively  in  that  sense.1  The  three  vicars 
apostolic  to  whom  Mr.  Throckmorton  wrote  do  not  appear  to 
have  definitely  questioned  the  orthodoxy  of  the  work,  though 
they  were  manifestly  averse  to  signing  it,  or  allowing  it  to  be 
put  forward  in  their  names.  Bishop  James  Talbot  wrote  say- 
ing that  he  was  well  acquainted  with  the  "  Exposition,"  and 
had  "no  great  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  it,"  but  added,  "as  to 
making  it  our  standard  at  this  time,  I  am  not  yet  convinced  of 
the  propriety  of  it  ".2  He  then  proceeds  to  take  exception  to 
some  of  the  proposed  alterations,  and  sums  up  by  saying  that 
he  is  "  for  adopting  ye  whole  or  none ".  He  suggests  as  an 
alternative  a  shorter  pamphlet  by  Bishop  Challoner,  entitled 
The  True  Principles  of  a  Catholic. 

The  other  two  vicars  apostolic  were  both  opposed  to  using 

1  The  Pastoral  in  which  Milner  expresses  his  opinion  was  issued  in  18 19.  See 
Sup.  Mem.,  Appendix  A. 

2  He  adds  that  his  own  copy  is  marked  with  the  author's  initials,  "J.  C". 
He  surmises  that  it  was  written  by  Rev.  John  Cross,  O.S.F.,  afterwards  Chaplain 
to  James  II. 


134  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

the  pamphlet  suggested  by  Mr.  Throckmorton,  and  suggested 
many  other  amendments  besides  those  he  had  written  down. 
Bishop  Thomas  Talbot  was  the  only  vicar  apostolic  who  was 
willing  to  accept  the  pamphlet,  and  he  was  apparently  dis- 
suaded from  giving  his  approval  by  a  letter  from  Bishop  Hay.1 

Mr.  Throckmorton  on  his  side  refused  to  accept  Bishop 
Challoner's  pamphlet,  and  after  some  further  correspondence, 
the  project  of  issuing  an  officially  authorised  edition  of  the 
"  Principles "  was  abandoned,  though  Mr.  Throckmorton  and 
others  continued  to  distribute  copies  from  time  to  time  as 
occasion  offered. 

The  matter  rested  thus  for  over  two  years,  until  Lord 
Stanhope's  proposal  was  suddenly  put  forward.  In  view  of  its 
close  similarity  to  Mr.  Throckmorton's,  it  is  not  unnatural 
to  conclude,  as  Milner  evidently  does,2  that  the  one  suggested 
the  other. 

Milner  also  takes  exception  to  Butler's  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  Protestation,  saying  that  he  "  is  satisfied  that  his 
Lordship  patronised  the  Protestation  ;  but  that  he  composed 
it,  he  can  no  more  believe  than  that  he  wrote  the  Summa 
Theologiae  of  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  ".  Charles  Butler's  state- 
ment however  is  quite  definite,  and  he  strengthens  it  by  a 
footnote,  in  which  he  says  :  "  This  was  most  explicitly  declared 
at  the  time,  both  by  Lord  Stanhope  and  by  the  Committee, 
and  then  never  contradicted :  the  contrary  has  since  been 
asserted,  but  without  the  slightest  proof".  We  should  hesitate 
before  questioning  so  definite  an  assertion  ;  and  indeed  Dr. 
Milner's  perennial  complaint  that  the  theological  language  of 
the  Protestation  was  inaccurate  seems  to  point  to  the  author 
not  being  a  Catholic.  We  must  also  remember  that  Milner 
only  knew  the  Instrument  in  its  final  state,  after  various 
amendments  had  been  made  to  meet  the  criticisms  of  the 
bishops. 

The  question  is  in  itself  of  no  great  moment ;  nevertheless, 
in  view  of  the  controversy  which  has  been  carried  on  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  Protestation,  the  following  unpublished  letter 
from  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes  to  Bishop  Sharrock,  which  throws 

1  The  authority  for  this  statement  is  Dr.  Kirk,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  preserved 
in  the  Westminster  Archives. 
-Sup.  Mem.,  p.  52. 


1789]  THE  PROTESTATION.  135 

considerable    new    light   on    it,    is    sufficiently    interesting    to 
cite : —  x 

"London,  December  17,  1788. 

"  My  Lord, 

"  In  the  Committee  this  morning,  Lord  Petre  read 
two  letters  which  he  had  received  from  a  nobleman  of  the  first 
connections  in  this  kingdom,  and  with  whom  he  had  no 
acquaintance  till  the  present  opportunity  offered  of  serving 
the  Catholics.  His  Lordship  says  that  he  had  been  brought 
up  in  violent  prejudices  against  us,  but  reading  and  reflexion 
have  convinced  him  of  his  early  errors,  and  he  thinks  he  can- 
not better  atone  for  the  mistakes  of  his  youth  than  by  exerting 
his  endeavours  to  relieve  an  oppressed  and  calumniated  part  of 
his  fellow  subjects.  Two  principles  he  lays  down  as  guiding 
ones  in  the  present  business.  First,  that  toleration  ought  to 
be  extended  to  all  conscientious  Christians  of  every  Denom- 
ination. The  second,  that  where  a  body  of  men  is  suspected, 
though  unjustly,  of  maintaining  erroneous  and  dangerous 
doctrines,  the  members  of  that  body  ought  in  prudence  to  take 
every  opportunity  of  removing  suspicions.  Upon  the  strength 
of  the  second  principle,  he  thinks  it  advisable  that  the  Catholics 
of  England  should  disclaim  in  the  most  authentic  manner  every 
dangerous  doctrine  imputed  to  them.  For  this  purpose  he 
drew  up  the  Declaration  which  you  have  seen,  and  in  which  he 
believes  he  has  mentioned  all  the  prejudices  that  Protestants 
entertain  against  Catholics  as  members  of  the  political  com- 
munity. This  Declaration  is  his  own  deed  entirely,  and  the 
original  is  accompanied  with  notes  and  extracts,  particularly 
from  O'Leary's  writings.  I  must  observe  that  the  words  of  the 
Declaration  are  almost  entirely  taken  from  O'Leary.  How- 
ever, as  Mr.  Walmesley  had  expressed  objections,  some  changes 
have  been  admitted  in  hopes  of  obtaining  his  approbation. 
The  Noble  Lord  will  to-morrow  morning  see  the  corrections, 
and  the  amended  copy  will  be  sent  down  to  Mr.  Walmesley. 
Mr.  Gibson  has  sent  no  answer.  The  two  Mr.  Talbots  only 
objected  against  'any  Oath,  etc.,  whatever,'  and  the  hint 
that  there  might  be  Catholics  who  held  the  doctrines  we  are 
called  upon  to  condemn.  In  the  present  form  these  difficulties 
are  removed.     As  the  present  unhappy  situation  of  the  king- 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  ii. 


136  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

dom  l  could  not  be  foreseen  when  the  Noble  Lord  first  under- 
took to  support  our  cause,  his  intention  was  to  have  proposed 
his  measure  during  the  present  session.  It  may  not  perhaps 
be  now  advisable.  However,  he  wishes  we  may  be  prepared 
on  our  side  for  any  favourable  opportunity  that  may  offer ; 
and  this  more  especially  because  he  thinks  that  sufficient  care 
had  not  been  taken  when  the  last  indulgence  vvas  granted  to 
prepare  the  minds  of  prejudiced  Protestants.  He  hopes  there- 
fore we  will  not  be  backward  in  exertions  to  enlighten  effi- 
caciously the  prejudiced  part  of  the  Kingdom.  An  answer 
extremely  satisfactory  has  been  sent  from  the  University  of 
Louvain,  and  other  answers  are  daily  expected  from  different 
Universities  to  queries  put  in  compliance  with  Mr.  Pitt's 
desires.  It  is  not,  however,  proposed  that  these,  or  the  De- 
claration drawn  up  by  the  Noble  Lord  should  be  published 
till  the  time  comes  on  to  apply  to  Parliament.  If  the  Dis- 
senters apply  again  this  session,  it  is  thought  we  ought  not  to 
neglect  availing  ourselves  of  the  same  opportunity.  .  .  ." 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  this  letter  Mr.  Wilkes  says  almost  in 
so  many  words  that  the  bishops  made  definite  objections  to  the 
Protestation  in  its  original  form,  and  that  these  were  removed 
in  the  revised  form.  A  similar  inference  would  naturally  be 
drawn  from  the  account  given  by  Butler  in  his  Historical 
Memoirs?  and  it  was  more  than  once  asserted  in  controversial 
pamphlets  and  elsewhere.  This  is  not,  however,  either  a  com- 
plete or  an  accurate  statement  of  what  occurred,  and  as  the 
question  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  subsequent  con- 
troversy, we  may  perhaps  be  excused  for  devoting  some  space 
for  quoting  their  letters  written  at  the  time,  which  have  come 
down  to  us.3  The  fact  is  that  the  Committee  were  well  aware 
that  the  vicars  apostolic  were  averse  to  issuing  any  Protes- 
tation or  Declaration  at  all,  and  their  anxiety  to  put  the  re- 
sponsibility for  its  composition  on  to  Lord  Stanhope's  shoulders 
was  due  to  their  belief  that  this  was  the  best  method  of  over- 
coming the  difficulties  of  the  bishops.  If  in  addition  they  could 
point  to  any  modification  made  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Wal- 

1  This  of  course  refers  to  the  "  illness  "  of  the  King. 

2  iv.,  p.  18. 

3  They  are  in  the  Clifton  Archives.  Bishop  Walmesley's  own  is  taken  here 
from  his  rough  copy ;  the  others  are  from  the  originals. 


i78g]  THE  PROTESTATION.  137 

mesley  or  his  colleagues,  this  would  further  tend  to  disarm 
their  opposition,  and  to  persuade  Catholics  that  they  had  in 
some  measure  approved  of  it.  With  the  following  letters  before 
us,  we  shall  be  able  to  form  a  judgment  of  their  action. 

"  Bishop  Walmesley  to  Mr.  Charles  Butler. 

"Agreeably  to  Lord  Petre's  desire,  I  here  send  you 
my  opinion  on  the  Declaration  you  communicated  to  me. 
Some  articles  of  it  in  my  judgment  are  vague,  too  restrictive, 
even  false  and  consequently  censurable,  much  less  admissible. 
Some  other  expressions  are  in  a  more  or  less  degree  reprehen- 
sible. Hence  any  further  detail  becomes  unnecessary.  Such 
essential  defects  therefore  attending  that  Declaration  forbid  me 
ever  putting  my  hand  of  sanction  to  it.  I  am  further  pretty 
confident  that  it  would  be  disapproved  by  many  clergy  and  laity. 
"  I  shall  beg  leave  also  to  observe  that  any  new  Declaration 
would,  I  am  convinced,  prove  offensive  to  the  general  body  of 
Catholics,  as  it  would  probably  contain  some  extraordinary 
concessions  or  restrictions  which  could  not  be  acceded  to. 
The  Oath  of  Allegiance  which  we  took  is  itself  a  full  Declara- 
tion of  the  Catholic  principles,  and  if  it  was  printed  apart  and 
distributed  where  proper,  it  ought  to  satisfy  every  rational 
reader.  Even  the  great  body  of  Legislature  a  few  years  ago 
judged  it  a  sufficient  test,  why  then  should  it  not  be  sufficient 
at  present? 

"  Bath,  December  15,  1788." 

"  Bishop  Matthew  Gibson  to  Bishop  Walmesley. 

"  Stella  Hall,  21st  Dec.,  1788. 

"  Hond.  Sir, 

"  By  yesterday's  post  I  received  with  pleasure  your 
favour  of  the  15th  inst.  On  the  16th  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Butler 
informing  him  that  I  could  not  subscribe  to  the  new  Declara- 
tion in  its  present  form ;  that  I  was  much  averse  to  such 
measures  unless  Govt,  called  for  them,  in  which  supposition 
any  new  formula  ought  to  be  discussed  and  finally  agreed 
upon  by  the  Bishops  amongst  themselves.  Any  other  mode 
of  proceeding  was  pregnant  with  dissensions,  etc.  I  think  it 
very  improper  for  us  to  send  up,  either  individually  or  col- 
lectively, our  objections  to  any  particular  parts,  to  be  weighed 


138  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

and  debated  by  incompetent  judges.  The  Oath  l  is  certainly 
sufficient.  The  idea  of  adding  strength  and  force  to  it  by  our 
signatures  is  an  absurdity.  Your  reflections  appear  very  just. 
[They]  had  occurred  to  me,  as  also  some  others,  which  it  is 
unnecessary  to  specify  at  present,  as  I  am  determined  not  to 
adopt  it  without  considerable  alterations,  nor  with  them,  unless 
deemed  necessary  for  the  general  welfare.  You  see  our  notions 
nearly,  if  not  entirely,  coincide.  ...  I  am,  with  best  Compts. 
of  the  season,  Yrs.  Sincerely, 

"  M.  Gibson." 

"  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot  to  Bishop  Walmesley. 

"  Dr.  Sir, 

"  It  affords  me  singular  satisfaction  to  find  that  your 
sentiments  concerning  the  articles  lately  transmitted  to  us 
exactly  coincide  with  mine.  Before  I  received  your  favour  of 
the  15th,  I  had  signified  my  disapprobation  of  them.  Mr. 
Berington  perfectly  agrees  in  our  opinion  ;  being  a  Committee 
man,  he  is  gone  to  London  upon  the  occasion,  and  I  shall  be 
very  glad  if  we  can  prevail  to  make  them  lay  aside  the  notion 
of  offering  any  more  tests.  What  we  have  already  done,  as 
you  justly  observe,  appears  abundantly  sufficient,  if  anything 
can  give  them  satisfaction.  With  a  return  of  sincere  wishes 
of  many  happy  years, 

"  Yr.  Obedt.  hble.  servt. 

"  T.  Talbot. 

"LONGBIRCH,  Dec.  22,    I788." 

Bishop  James  Talbot,  being  in  London,  gave  his  views  to 
Mr.  Charles  Butler  by  word  of  mouth,  and  we  have  no  definite 
record  of  what  they  were,  beyond  the  statement  of  Mr.  Wilkes's 
letter. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  that  Bishop  Walmesley's 
objections  were  quite  general.  He  disliked  the  whole  Instru- 
ment, and  although  the  Committee  made  some  slight  altera- 
tions in  order  to  put  it  into  a  form  which  they  hoped  would 
be  less  objectionable  to  him,  these  changes  were  not  in  response 
to  any  definite  criticism  of  his. 

It  is  now  time  to  give  the  text  of  the  Protestation,  and  to 

1  I.e.,  the  Oath  required  by  the  Act  of  1778. 


1789]  THE  PROTESTATION.  139 

offer  a  few  comments  on  its  contents.  The  legal  setting  of  the 
document  must  not  be  allowed  to  disguise  its  extreme  interest. 
The  bold  and  unflinching  statements  underlying  the  dry  legal 
formularies  must  be  carefully  examined  in  order  to  understand 
the  minds  of  those  who  framed  it,  and  those  who  objected  to 
it  respectively.  As  will  be  pointed  out  in  its  place,1  there  are 
some  slight  discrepancies  between  the  various  printed  editions. 
The  following  is  taken  from  the  copies  circulated  for  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  signatures :  and  differs  in  some  slight  parti- 
culars from  the  original  Instrument  engrossed  on  parchment, 
and  now  in  the  British  Museum.  There  was  no  title  or  head- 
ing, and  it  began  at  once  as  follows  : — 

"We  whose  names  are  hereunto  subscribed,  Catholics  of 
England,  do  freely,  voluntarily  and  of  our  own  accord  make 
the  following  solemn  Declaration  and  Protestation. 

"  Whereas  sentiments  unfavourable  to  us  as  Citizens  and 
Subjects  have  been  entertained  by  English  Protestants,  on 
account  of  principles  which  are  asserted  to  be  maintained  by 
us  and  other  Catholics,  and  which  principles  are  dangerous  to 
Society  and  totally  repugnant  to  Political  and  Civil  Liberty,  it 
is  a  duty  that  we,  the  English  Catholics,  owe  to  our  Country  as 
well  as  to  ourselves  to  protest  in  a  formal  and  solemn  manner 
against  doctrines  that  we  condemn,  and  that  constitute  no  part 
whatever  of  our  Principles,  Religion  or  Belief. 

"  We  are  the  more  anxious  to  free  ourselves  from  such  im- 
putations because  divers  Protestants  who  profess  themselves 
to  be  real  friends  to  Liberty  of  Conscience,  have  nevertheless 
avowed  themselves  hostile  to  us  on  account  of  certain  opinions 
which  we  are  supposed  to  hold.  And  we  do  not  blame  those 
Protestants  for  their  hostility  if  it  proceeds  (as  we  hope  it  does) 
not  from  an  intolerant  spirit  in  matters  of  Religion,  but  from 
their  being  misinformed  as  to  matters  of  Fact. 

"  If  it  were  true  that  we,  the  English  Catholics,  had  adopted 
the  Maxims  that  are  erroneously  imputed  to  us,  we  acknow- 
ledge that  we  should  merit  the  reproach  of  being  dangerous 
Enemies  to  the  State ;  but  we  detest  those  unchristianlike  and 
execrable  Maxims  and  we  do  severally  claim,  in  common  with 
men  of  all  other  religions  as  a  matter  of  Natural  Justice,  that 
we,  the  English  Catholics,  ought  not  to  suffer  for  or  on  any 

1  See  chapter  xxii. 


140  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

account  of  any  wicked  or  erroneous  Doctrines  that  may  be  held 
by  any  other  Catholics,  which  Doctrines  we  publicly  disclaim  ; 
any  more  than  British  Protestants  ought  to  be  rendered  re- 
sponsible for  any  dangerous  Doctrines  that  may  be  held  by  any 
other  Protestants,  which  Doctrines  they,  the  British  Protes- 
tants, disavow. 

"  I.  We  have  been  accused  of  holding  as  a  principle  of  our 
Religion  that  Princes  excommunicated  by  the  Pope  and  Council 
or  by  authority  of  the  See  of  Rome  may  be  deposed  or 
murdered  by  their  Subjects  or  other  persons. 

"  But  so  far  is  the  above-mentioned  unchristianlike  and 
abominable  Position  from  being  a  Principle  that  we  hold,  that 
we  reject,  abhor  and  detest  it,  and  every  part  thereof  as  exe- 
crable and  impious ;  and  we  do  solemnly  declare  that  neither 
the  Pope  either  with  or  without  a  General  Council,  nor  any  Pre- 
late, nor  any  Priest,  nor  any  Assembly  of  Prelates  or  Priests,  nor 
any  Ecclesiastical  power  whatever  can  absolve  the  subjects  of 
this  Realm  or  any  of  them  from  their  allegiance  to  his  Majesty, 
King  George  the  Third,  who  is  by  authority  of  Parliament  the 
lawful  king  of  this  Realm,  and  of  all  the  Dominions  thereunto 
belonging. 

"  II.  We  have  also  been  accused  of  holding  as  a  principle 
of  our  Religion  that  implicit  Obedience  is  due  from  us  to  the 
Orders  and  Decrees  of  Popes  and  General  Councils  and  that 
therefore  if  the  Pope  or  any  General  Council  should  for  the 
good  of  the  Church  command  us  to  take  up  Arms  against 
Government,  or  by  any  means  to  subvert  the  Laws  and  Liberties 
of  this  country,  or  to  exterminate  persons  of  a  different  Religion 
from  us,  we  (it  is  asserted  by  our  accusers)  hold  ourselves 
bound  to  obey  such  Orders  or  Decrees,  on  pain  of  eternal  fire. 

"  Whereas  we  positively  deny  that  we  owe  any  such  obedi- 
ence to  the  Pope  and  General  Council,  or  to  either  of  them  ; 
and  we  believe  that  no  act  that  is  m  itself  immoral  or  dishonest 
can  ever  be  justified  by  or  under  colour  that  it  is  done  either 
for  the  good  of  the  Church,  or  obedience  to  any  Ecclesias- 
tical Power  whatever.  We  acknowledge  no  infallibility  in  the 
Pope,  and  we  neither  apprehend  nor  believe  that  our  disobedi- 
ence to  any  such  orders  or  decrees  (should  any  such  be  given 
or  made)  could  subject  us  to  any  punishment  whatever.  And 
we  hold  and  insist  that    the  Catholic   Church  has  no  power 


i78g]  THE  PROTESTATION.  141 

that  can  directly  or  indirectly  prejudice  the  rights  of  Pro- 
testants, inasmuch  as  it  is  strictly  confined  to  the  refusing  to 
them  a  participation  in  her  Sacraments  and  other  religious 
privileges  of  her  Communion,  which  no  Church  (as  we  conceive) 
can  be  expected  to  give  to  those  out  of  her  pale,  and  which  no 
person  out  of  her  pale  will,  we  suppose,  ever  require. 

"  And  we  do  solemnly  declare  that  no  Church  or  any  Pre- 
late nor  any  Priest,  nor  any  assembly  of  Prelates  or  Priests  nor 
any  Ecclesiastical  power  v/hatever  hath,  have,  or  ought  to  have 
any  jurisdiction  or  authority  whatsoever  within  this  Realm,  that 
can  directly  or  indirectly  affect  or  interfere  with  the  Independ- 
ence, Sovereignty,  Laws,  Constitution  or  Government  thereof; 
or  the  rights,  liberties,  persons  or  properties  of  the  people  of 
the  said  Realm  or  of  any  of  them,  save  only  and  except  by  the 
authority  of  Parliament ;  and  that  any  such  assumption  of 
power  would  be  an  usurpation. 

"  III.  We  have  likewise  been  accused  of  holding  as  a  prin- 
ciple of  our  religion  that  the  Pope,  by  virtue  of  his  spiritual 
power,  can  dispense  with  the  obligations  of  any  compact  or 
oath  taken  or  entered  into  by  a  Catholic :  that  therefore  no 
Oath  of  Allegiance  or  other  Oath  can  bind  us ;  and  conse- 
quently that  we  can  give  no  security  for  our  allegiance  to  any 
Government. 

"  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  this  conclusion  would  be 
just  if  the  original  proposition  upon  which  it  is  founded  were 
true ;  but  we  positively  deny  that  we  do  hold  any  such  princi- 
ple. And  we  do  solemnly  declare  that  neither  the  Pope  nor  any 
Prelate  nor  any  Priest,  nor  any  assembly  of  Prelates  or  Priests 
nor  any  Ecclesiastical  power  whatever  can  absolve  us  or  any  of 
us  from,  or  dispense  with  the  obligation  of  any  compact  or  oath 
whatsoever. 

"  IV.  We  have  also  been  accused  of  holding  as  a  principle 
of  our  religion  that  not  only  the  Pope,  but  even  a  Catholic 
priest  has  power  to  pardon  the  sins  of  Catholics  at  his  will  and 
pleasure,  and  therefore  that  no  Catholic  can  possibly  give  any 
security  for  his  allegiance  to  any  Government,  inasmuch  as 
the  Pope  or  a  priest  can  pardon  perjury,  rebellion,  and  high 
treason. 

"  We  acknowledge  also  the  justness  of  this  conclusion,  if  the 
proposition  upon  which  it  is  founded  were  not  totally  false  ; 


142  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

but  we  do  solemnly  declare  that  on  the  contrary  we  believe 
that  no  sin  whatever  can  be  forgiven  at  the  will  of  any  Pope 
or  of  any  priest  or  of  any  person  whomsoever  ;  but  that  a 
sincere  sorrow  for  past  sin,  a  firm  resolution  to  avoid  future 
guilt,  and  every  possible  atonement  to  God  and  the  injured 
neighbour  are  the  previous  and  indispensable  requisites  to 
establish  a  well-founded  expectation  of  forgiveness. 

"  V.  And  we  have  also  been  accused  of  holding  as  a  prin- 
ciple of  our  religion  that  '  faith  is  not  to  be  kept  with  heretics  '  ; 
so  that  no  Government  which  is  not  Catholic  can  have  any 
security  from  us  for  our  allegiance  and  peaceable  behaviour. 

"  This  doctrine  that  '  faith  is  not  to  be  kept  with  heretics ' 
we  reject,  reprobate  and  abhor,  as  being  contrary  to  religion, 
morality  and  common  honesty  ;  and  we  do  hold  and  solemnly 
declare  that  no  breach  of  faith  with  any  person  whomsoever 
can  ever  be  justified  by  reason  of,  or  under  pretence  that  such 
person  is  an  heretic,  or  an  infidel. 

"And  we  further  solemnly  declare  that  we  do  make  this 
Declaration  and  Protestation  and  every  part  thereof  in  the  plain 
and  ordinary  sense  of  the  words  of  the  same,  without  any 
evasion,  equivocation  or  mental  reservation  whatsoever. 

"  And  we  appeal  to  the  justice  and  candour  of  our  fellow 
citizens,  whether  we,  the  English  Catholics,  who  thus  solemnly 
disclaim  and  from  our  hearts  abhor  the  above  mentioned 
abominable  unchristianlike  principles,  ought  to  be  put  upon  a 
level  with  any  other  men  who  may  hold  and  profess  those 
principles." 

Such  is  the  remarkable  document  which  was  the  cause  of 
so  much  heat  and  discussion  among  Catholics  then  and  for 
long  years  afterwards.  To  the  modern  reader  the  tone  is  not 
a  little  startling,  revealing  as  it  does  an  all-pervading  influence 
of  what  is  commonly  known  as  Cisalpinism.  The  Oath  of 
1778  had  already  shown  a  tendency  in  that  direction  on  the 
part  of  the  English  Catholics.  But  although  Charles  Butler 
implies  in  his  letters  that  the  Protestation  covers  almost  the 
same  ground  as  the  Oath,1  a  very  cursory  examination  will 

1  Thus,  writing  to  Bishop  Walmesley  on  March  6,  1789,  he  says:  "Almost 
everything  [the  Protestation]  contains  is  included  in  the  Oath  [of  1778]:  if  we 
refuse  to  sign  it,  it  will  subject  us  to  the  imputation  of  thinking  it  lawful  to  swear 
that  which  as  men  of  honour  we  think  it  unlawful  to  affirm  ". 


1789]  THE  PROTESTATION.  143 

show  that  it  contains  matter  which  the  Oath  does  not,  and  the 
part  which  is  common  to  both  is  expressed  in  much  stronger 
language  in  the  Protestation.  Thus,  for  example,  the  Oath 
of  1778  contains  nothing  about  Papal  Infallibility,  while  in 
the  Protestation  the  doctrine  is  repudiated  in  strong  and  almost 
offensive  terms.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  infallibility  of  the 
Pope  had  not  been  defined,  and  was  consequently  not  an  article 
of  faith ;  but  it  was  commonly  held  in  Rome,  and  in  ultra- 
montane countries  generally,  so  that  the  vehemence  with  which 
it  was  denied  was,  to  say  the  least,  unseemly.  In  England 
itself  there  were  some  who  held  the  dogma,  as  for  example 
Charles  Plowden,  who  wrote  a  book  in  defence  of  it.1  They 
had  no  scruple,  however,  in  disclaiming  it  as  an  article  of  faith. 
The  bishops  themselves  in  their  own  oath  subsequently  drawn 
out,  went  as  far  as  this ;  but  it  is  something  further  to  protest 
"  that  we  acknowledge  no  Infallibility  in  the  Pope  ".  In  our 
own  times,  when  even  before  the  Vatican  definition  the  doctrine 
was  becoming  generally  held,  the  words  of  the  Protestation 
were  quoted  against  us  by  Mr.  Gladstone,  in  his  pamphlet  on 
"  Vaticanism,"  to  show  that  the  dogma  was  a  novel  one  amongst 
English  Catholics.  Speaking  of  the  Protestation,  he  says : 
"  In  this  very  important  document,  which  brought  about  the 
passing  of  the  great  English  Relief  Act  of  179 1,  besides  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  assurances  generally,  which  had  been  theretofore 
conveyed,  there  are  contained  statements  of  the  greatest  signifi- 
cance ; "  and  he  instances  as  the  first  of  these  "  That  the  sub- 
scribers to  it  acknowlege  no  Infallibility  in  the  Pope  ".2  This  at 
least  shows  how  the  language  of  the  Protestation  on  this  subject 
was  calculated  to  arrest  the  attention  of  the  ordinary  reader. 

The  two  other  instances  given  by  Mr.  Gladstone  both  concern 
the  Temporal  Power  of  the  Pope,  using  the  term  in  its  old  sense,3 
as  contrasted  with  the  Spiritual  Power,  and  including  the  right 
which  the  Popes  have  at  different  times  claimed  of  interfering 
with  such  temporal  matters  of  a  Catholic  state  as  might  have 
a  direct  or  indirect  bearing  on  religion.     This  part  is  among 

1  Considerations  on  the  Modem  Doctrine  of  the  Fallibility  of  the  Holy  See 
in  the  Decision  of  Dogmatical  Questions  (1790). 

2  Vaticanism,  p.  45. 

3  The  use  of  the  term  "  Temporal  Power  "  as  denoting  the  Pope's  civil  sove- 
reignty is  quite  modern,  and  probably  arose  in  the  first  instance  from  a  confusion 
of  ideas. 


144  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

th  ose  common  to  the  Protestation  and  the  Oath  of  1778, 
special  stress  in  each  case  being  laid  on  the  so-called  "Depos- 
ing Power"  of  the  Pope.  In  the  old  Oath  this  is  stated  to  be 
no  part  of  the  Catholic  faith  :  in  the  Protestation  the  language 
used  is  much  stronger,  and  those  subscribing  are  committed  to 
the  statement  that  they  "  reject,  abhor,  and  detest  it,  and  every 
part  of  it,  as  execrable  and  impious".  It  is  true  that  the 
proposition  which  they  so  stigmatise  includes  also  the  assertion 
that  excommunicated  princes  may  be  murdered  as  well  as  de- 
posed, to  which  statement  those  epithets  would  properly  apply. 
But  that  they  did  not  mean  to  limit  them  to  that  part  of  the 
clause  is  evident  from  the  words,  "  and  every  part  of  it ".  The 
rest  of  the  paragraph  is  devoted  to  declaring  the  inability  of 
the  Pope  or  any  ecclesiastical  power  to  dispense  from  the  duty 
of  allegiance  to  the  King,  and  the  next  paragraph  is  similarly 
devoted  to  a  vehement  protest  against  the  existence  of  any 
authority  of  the  Pope  which  could  interfere  directly  or  indirectly 
with  the  government  of  the  realm.  In  view  of  the  action  of 
Popes  at  different  times,  and  of  the  opinions  still  held  on  the 
subject  in  Rome,  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  the  language 
used  was  wanting  in  respect  to  the  Holy  See.1 

It  was  not,  however,  to  the  tone  of  such  statements  as 
these  that  those  who  objected  to  the  Protestation  commonly 
took  exception.  The  inclination  to  Cisalpinism  was  indeed 
not  limited  to  the  laity.  Most  English  theologians 2  at  that 
time  held  opinions  which  would  now  be  considered  Cisalpine 
in  tendency,  though  they  would  not  of  course  have  expressed 
them  either  so  positively  or  so  disrespectfully  as  they  were  ex- 
pressed in  the  Protestation.  Nevertheless,  in  the  criticisms  on 
that  Instrument,  we  find  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  only 
points  raised  were  concerning  the  theological  accuracy  or  other- 
wise of  the  wording  of  various  passages.     Thus,  for  example, 

1  There  can,  of  course,  be  no  doubt  that  the  "  Deposing  Doctrine  "  had  been 
held  in  some  form,  and  was  still  held  by  many  Roman  theologians,  though  there 
was  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  the  right  claimed — whether  by 
Divine  or  Ecclesiastical  law,  or  simply  by  the  tacit  consent  of  the  Catholic  powers. 
All  admitted  that  it  could  only  be  used  where  the  nation  in  question  was  Catholic, 
and  that  the  time  for  its  use  had  passed  away.  See  Letters  of  Cardinal  Allen, 
Hist.  Introd.,  p.  xxxvi. 

2  But  not  all :  for  example,  the  Rev.  C.  Plowden  in  his  various  works  defended 
many  doctrines  at  that  time  considered  as  "  Ultramontane". 


1789]  THE  PROTESTATION.  145 

one  bishop  finds  fault  with  the  universality  of  the  declaration 
that  no  sin  whatever  can  be  forgiven  by  a  priest  without  the 
penitent  making  an  act  of  sorrow ;  for  he  points  out  that  in 
the  case  of  infant  baptism,  the  priest  by  his  ministration  remits 
original  sin  without  any  such  act  on  the  part  of  the  child. 
Again,  in  rebutting  the  calumny  that  the  Pope  can  dispense 
from  the  Oath  of  Allegiance,  the  Protestation  declares  that 
neither  the  Pope  nor  any  priest  can  dispense  from  any  Oath 
or  compact  whatsoever  ;  against  which  Milner  argues  that  "  the 
Pope  and  other  Prelates  can  dispense  with  the  obligation  of  a 
rash  Oath,  which  is  merely  of  a  religious  nature  (such  as  that 
of  immoderate  fasting  or  prayer),  and  every  priest,  as  well  as 
every  other  man,  can  dispense  with  a  compact  (such  as  that 
of  giving  him  a  sum  of  money)  which  is  merely  in  his  own 
favour".1  Such  objections  as  these  might  appeal  to  a  trained 
theologian  ;  but  to  Lord  Stanhope  they  seemed  little  more 
than  verbal  evasions,  and  Charles  Butler  can  perhaps  be  ex- 
cused for  thinking  that  they  could  be  answered  by  taking  the 
Protestation  in  what  he  considered  to  be  its  natural  sense  when 
read  by  a  layman. 

It  now  remained  for  the  Committee  to  obtain  the  signatures 
of  the  Catholic  body  to  the  Protestation.  For  this  purpose, 
it  was  important  to  persuade  a  few  influential  persons  to  sign 
at  the  outset,  so  that  others  might  be  led  on  by  their  example. 
They  naturally  began  with  the  clergy.  The  majority  of  the 
priests  in  London  were  favourable  to  the  Protestation ;  but  by 
no  means  all.  One  of  those  who  at  first  showed  unwillingness 
to  sign  was  the  Rev.  James  Barnard,  the  vicar  general.  On 
account  of  his  position,  his  signature  was  considered  of  great 
importance,  and  considerable  trouble  was  taken  to  secure  it. 
He  has  left  us  a  written  account2  of  how  the  Committee 
effected  their  object.  It  appears  that  the  Protestation  was 
first  shown  to  him  on  February  24,  1789,  when  he  was  un- 
favourably impressed  by  it.  That  day,  however,  he  was  called 
to  the  country  on  business.  On  his  return  the  next  day,  he 
received  the  following  note  : — 

1  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  57. 

2  This  account,  in  the  Rev.  J.  Barnard's  own  writing,  is  preserved  among  the 
Westminster  Archives. 

VOL.    I.  IO 


146  the  dawn  of  the  catholic  revival.  [1788- 

"Dr.  Sir, 

"  Mr.  Charles  Berington  and  I  request  as  a  very- 
particular  favor  you  will  do  us  the  honour  to  meet  us  to- 
morrow at  Dinner,  at  Grey's  Coffee  House,  in  Portland  Street. 
Reasons  of  a  very  important  nature  occasion  our  requesting 
this  favor.  We  therefore  very  earnestly  request  you  will  not 
permit  any  other  engagement  to  prevent  your  meeting  us. 

"  I  am,  &c. 

"  Charles  Butler. 

"  Lincoln's  Inn,  25  Feby.  1789." 

Mr.  Barnard  accepted  the  invitation,  and  found  a  gathering 
of  clergy  to  meet  him.  After  dinner  the  Protestation  was 
produced,  and  he  was  asked  to  sign  it.  He  demurred,  taking 
his  stand  on  the  words  denying  that  an  Ecclesiastical  power 
had  any  authority  that  could  directly  or  indirectly  affect  the 
persons  of  Catholics,  for  that  appeared  to  him  to  deny  the 
power  of  the  Pope  to  give  or  withhold  "  faculties "  for  Con- 
fession, or  to  inflict  any  ecclesiastical  censures  on  an  English- 
man. The  priests  present,  who  had  all  signed  the  Protestation 
earlier  in  the  evening,  declared  that  this  was  not  what  was 
meant,  and  that  Lord  Stanhope  had  definitely  declared  that 
there  was  no  intention  to  disclaim  belief  in  the  Pope's  spiritual 
power.  At  Mr.  Barnard's  request,  this  was  put  into  writing, 
in  the  following  words  : — 

"  I  do  hereby  most  solemnly  and  unequivocally  declare  that 
Earl  Stanhope  himself  told  me,  and  that  Lord  Petre  and  Mr. 
Wilkes  both  repeatedly  inform  me  that  he  told  them  that  it 
is  not  intended,  either  by  the  whole  context  of  the  Declara- 
tion, or  by  any  article  contained  in  it,  that  Catholics  should 
deny  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Church  or  its  Pastor. 

"  (Signed)         Charles  Butler. 

"  I  have  heard  the  same  from  Lord  Petre  and  Mr.  Wilkes. 

"  (Signed)        Charles  Berington. 

"  We  do  hereby  signify  that  Mr.  Barnard  previously  to  his 
signing  the  Declaration  testified  that  he  does  not  intend  by  it 
to  disavow  the  right  of  the  Church  or  its  Pastors  in  Spiritual 


i78g]  THE  PROTESTATION.  147 

concerns,  and  that  if  such  disavowal  was  intended,  he  would 
not  have  signed  it. 

"  [Signed  by  all  the  eleven  priests  who  were  present.] " 

The  Committee  next  proceeded  to  approach  the  vicars 
apostolic.  Mr.  Butler  wrote  a  letter  to  each  of  them,  urging 
the  importance  of  the  Protestation  and  adding  the  names  of 
the  priests  who  had  already  signed  it.  He  also  offered  to  visit 
the  bishops  in  company  with  Bishop  Berington,  if  they  so 
wished,  in  order  to  explain  matters  personally. 

On  the  same  day,  Mr.  Butler  called  on  Bishop  James  Talbot 
in  London.     He  reported  the  result  in  the  following  terms  : — 1 

"  I  saw  Bishop  James  Talbot  yesterday.  He  does  not  ob- 
ject to  the  doctrine  [the  Protestation]  contains ;  he  says  his 
chief,  if  not  his  only  objection,  to  it  was  the  manner  in  which 
it  originated,  and  apparently  was  attempted  to  be  imposed  on 
the  Vicars  Apostolic.  I  hope 'I  have  explained  that  to  his  satis- 
faction." 

Apparently  Mr.  Butler  was  as  successful  as  he  believed,  for 
Bishop  James  Talbot  not  only  signed  the  Protestation  himself, 
but  also  took  a  prominent  part  in  inducing  others  to  do  so.  For 
this  purpose,  he  called  a  meeting  of  all  his  clergy  at  Old  Slaugh- 
ter's Coffee  House  on  March  16.  The  meeting  appears  to  have 
been  somewhat  noisy.  At  the  beginning,  the  opinions  of  the 
foreign  Universities  were  read,  after  which  Bishop  Berington 
made  a  speech  urging  every  one  present  to  sign.  On  this  there 
appeared  to  be  no  unanimity,  and  a  heated  discussion  ensued,  till 
the  meeting  was  twice  called  to  order  by  Bishop  Talbot,  who 
said  that  they  had  come  together  to  sign  or  to  refuse  to  sign,  but 
not  to  discuss  ;  and  eventually,  notwithstanding  that  many  had 
spoken  against  it,  in  fact  every  one  present  did  sign.2  Four  days 
later  a  meeting  of  the  laity  was  held  at  the  Crown  and  Anchor, 
and  all  there  present  also  affixed  their  signatures.! 

Bishop  Thomas  Talbot,  together  with  his  clergy,  made  no 
difficulty  about  subscribing  to  the  Protestation.  The  other 
two  vicars  apostolic,  Bishops  Walmesley  and  Gibson,  were 
known  to  be  averse  to  the  whole  proceeding :  yet  they  also 
eventually  agreed  to  have  their  names  attached,  as  likewise  did 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 

2  These  details  are  from  a  letter  written  a  few  days  later  by  Rev.  W.  Pilling, 
O.S.F.,  of  the  Portuguese  Chapel,  preserved  in  the  Clifton  Archives. 

IO  * 


148  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

Bishop  Sharrock,  the  coadjutor  of  Dr.  Walmesley.  Milner 
says  that  their  signatures  were  obtained  "  under  cover  of 
glosses  and  salvos,"  and  adds  that  "  The  Catholic  Clergy 
throughout  England  in  general  felt  the  same  repugnance  to 
sign  the  Protestation  as  their  Superiors  did  ;  but  what  with 
explanations,  assurances  and  promises  of  the  different  agents 
of  the  Committee,  clerical  as  well  as  laical,  who  were  employed 
in  the  metropolis  and  sent  through  the  country  for  this  pur- 
pose, at  a  great  expense,  they  themselves  as  well  as  their  flocks 
were  mostly  induced  to  subscribe  it  ".1 

The  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  uses  similar  language  : —  • 

"Emissaries,"  he  says,  "employed  every  possible  argument 
to  hush  scruples  and  to  palliate  glaring  defects.  .  .  .  They  ad- 
mitted that  the  Instrument  was  incorrectly  worded.  They 
surprised  signatures  from  many  who  too  easily  believed  their 
assertions,  that  no  Oath  was  to  ensue." 

The  "  agents  "  and  "  emissaries  "  alluded  to  were  Rev.  Joseph 
Wilkes  and  Mr.  Henry  Clifford  the  lawyer.  The  latter  took 
the  credit  of  having  himself  secured  over  1 ,300  signatures.  A 
few  typical  accounts,  taken  from  letters  written  at  the  time, 
will  give  the  best  idea  of  the  methods  used  by  them.  We  can 
begin  with  Bishop  Walmesley,  who,  as  senior  vicar  apostolic, 
was  perhaps  the  most  important  person  of  all.  He  describes 
how  his  signature  was  obtained  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Matthew 
Gibson,  dated  March  29,  1789: — 3 

"...  Before  I  received  the  first  of  your  three  letters,  I  was 
surprised  with  the  sudden  appearance  of  Mr.  Henry  Clifford 
on  the  1 8th  inst.  presenting  to  me  the  new  Declaration  to  be 
signed,  and  bringing  me  a  letter  from  Bishop  James  Talbot, 
acquainting  me  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  clergy  in  London,  he 
and  they  had  all  unanimously  signed  it,  and  hoped  I  should 
make  no  difficulty  to  do  the  same.  I  objected  first  that  I  had 
not  totally  made  up  my  mind  upon  it ;  that  I  had  by  letter 
consulted  the  other  Vicars  Apostolic  upon  it ;  but  had  not  yet 
received  your  answer.  Bishop  Thos.  Talbot's  answer  to  me 
was  he  thought  he  should  make  no  difficulty  to  sign  it. 
I  then  made  some  objections,  but  particularly  about  the 
expression  any  Oath  whatsoever,  as  too  general.       Mr.  Clif- 

1  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  55. 

2  Answer  to  the  Second  Blue  Book,  p.  10. 

3  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


1789]  THE  PROTESTATION.  149 

ford,  and  Mr.  Wilkes  who  accompanied  him,  endeavoured  to 
clear  it  up  by  showing  me  that  the  Oaths  there  meant  were 
only  oaths  made  to  Government,  or  between  man  and  man, 
that  the  Protestants  had  no  notion  of  any  other  sort  of  Oaths, 
and  that  such  was  the  plain  drift  of  the  whole  Declaration,  as 
it  appeared  from  the  Prelude  of  it,  beginning  with  saying  that 
the  Declaration  relates  to  us  as  citizens  and  subjects.  At  last, 
after  a  good  deal  of  discussion,  I  thought  I  might  reconcile  my- 
self to  it ;  upon  which  I  signed  it,  and  also  Mr.  Sharrock,  my 
Coadjutor,  at  the  end  of  63  previous  signatures  of  Clergymen." 

The  next  instance  shall  be  Bishop  Matthew  Gibson,  who 
was  at  first  strongly  opposed  to  signing.  He  wrote  on  March 
20 :  "I  send  you  my  principal  reasons  against  signing  the 
Declaration.  ...  It  is  reprobated  by  all  in  these  parts,  and  by 
Bishop  Geddes.  You  may  rest  assured  I  never  shall  sign  it  in 
its  present  form."  1 

Dr.  Geddes  was  one  of  the  Scotch  bishops,  the  elder 
brother  of  Dr.  Alexander  Geddes,  the  Scripture  scholar.  The 
other  two,  Dr.  Hay  and  Dr.  Macdonald,  felt  equally  strongly 
against  the  Protestation,  but  they  were  not  asked  to  sign,  since 
Scotland  was  not  to  be  included  in  the  Relief  Bill.  Dr.  Gibson 
in  writing  to  the  Committee,  definitely  refused  to  sign,  or  to 
give  any  reason  for  his  refusal,  except  to  his  brother  bishops. 
It  was  not  until  three  weeks  after  this  that  he  partially  gave 
way,  as  the  following  letter,  addressed  to  Bishop  James  Talbot 
will  show  : —  2 

"  Dear  Sir, 

"  If  the  Declaration  and  Protestation  of  English 
Catholics  be  generally  and  impartially  understood  to  refer 
only  to  temporals,  as  you  assured  me  in  a  former  letter,  and 
to  mean  no  more  than  what  is  expressed  in  the  printed  copy 
signed  by  me  and  delivered  to  Mr.  Clifford,  you  may,  if  judged 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  common  cause,  and  to  avoid  con- 
fusion, not  otherwise,  add  my  name  to  the  list  of  signatures  to 
the  said  Declaration  and  Protestation  of  English  Catholics. 

"  I  remain,  Sir,  Your  obedient  servant, 

"  M.  Gibson. 

"  Stella  Hall.  12th  Apl.  1789. 

1  Westminster  Archives.  2 Ibid. 


150  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1788- 

"  If  the  Declaration  is  given  to  the  public,  let  it  be  made 
less  ambiguous  and  equivocal  if  possible." 

The  sequel  can  be  given  in  a  letter  written  by  Rev.  W. 
Pilling  a  short  time  afterwards  : —  * 

"  Bishop  Gibson  certainly  authorised  Bishop  Talbot  to  put 
his  name  to  the  Declaration  if  he  thought  it  necessary  ;  and 
accordingly  his  name  was  inserted,  and  remained  for  two  or 
three  days ;  but  Mr.  Talbot,  reflecting  upon  the  condition,  and 
not  judging  it  necessary,  erased  his  name,  with  the  consent  and 
approbation  of  some  others,  who  perhaps  would  not  give  him 
himself  an  occasion  to  think  himself  a  necessary  man." 

Dr.  Matthew  Gibson's  name  accordingly  does  not  appear  in 
the  printed  list  of  signatures,  and  as  his  brother,  Dr.  William 
Gibson,  then  President  of  Douay,  lived  out  of  England,  his 
name  also  is  absent. 

The  next  instance  we  will  take  is  that  of  Mr.  Weld,  who 
was  not  only  one  of  the  wealthiest  and  most  influential  of  the 
English  Catholics,  but  was  also  one  of  a  very  considerable  class 
who  distrusted  the  Committee  throughout.  He  writes  to 
Bishop  Walmesley  on  April  20,  1789,  evidently  already  anxious 
about  the  effect  of  what  he  had  done,  in  the  following 
terms  : —  2 

"  I  was  equally  surprised  with  a  sudden  visit  from  Mr.  H. 
Clifford,  on  his  leaving  Bath.  He  brought  with  him  the 
Declaration,  which  upon  seeing  your  Lordship's  and  Mr. 
Sharrock's  signature  and  at  Mr.  Clinton's  solicitation,  I  sub- 
mitted my  humble  opinion  and  signed,  though  with  much 
hesitation.  Indeed,  I  had  no  time  to  consider  of  the  matter, 
and  was  it  to  do  again,  I  believe  I  should  not  sign  ;  for  I  find 
though  these  Declarations  are  certainly  susceptible  of  the 
meaning  you  and  I  signed  them  in,  and  that  they  were  tendered 
to  us  in,  yet  they  are  certainly  liable  to  a  very  opposite  inter- 
pretation in  which  no  Catholic  could  sign  them." 

Mr.  Clinton  here  alluded  to  was  an  aged  ex-Jesuit,  who 
lived  in  a  small  house  in  the  village  and  ministered  to  the 
Lulworth  congregation.  Although,  however,  he  advised  Mr. 
Weld — and  likewise  Lord  Arundell  of  Wardour,  who  was  then 
staying  there — to  sign  the  Protestation,  he  refused  to  do  so 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii.  "Ibid. 


1789]  THE  PROTESTATION.  151 

himself,  and  in  this  he  was  followed  by  the  two  other  priests 
then  at  Lulworth,  also  ex-Jesuits — Rev.  T.  Stanley,  the  uncle 
of  Mrs.  Weld,  and  Rev.  Charles  Plowden,  who  was  tutor  to 
Mr.  Weld's  sons.  Nevertheless,  two  out  of  the  three  immedi- 
ately afterwards  wrote  to  the  Rev.  James  Archer,  authorising 
him  to  affix  their  signatures,  the  Rev.  C.  Plowden  alone  re- 
maining firm  in  his  refusal. 

Lastly,  it  will  not  be  without  interest  to  quote  Dr.  Milner's 
account  of  how  he  and  his  congregation  were  induced  to  sign. 
After  describing  a  long  argument  which  he  had  with  the 
Rev.  J.  Wilkes  on  the  matter,  he  proceeds  : — 

"  In  the  end  (I  shall  never  forget  his  words),  on  my  urging 
the  necessity  of  accuracy  in  instruments  of  this  nature,  he 
answered  with  some  warmth  :  '  We  all  know  the  Instrument 
is  inaccurate,  but  what  would  you  have  from  Protestants  and 
laymen  who  do  not  enter  into  our  religious  difficulties  ? '  He 
added  that  he  himself  had  procured  several  amendments  to  be 
admitted  into  the  Instrument  by  the  noble  framers  of  it,  one  of 
which  he  mentioned ;  and  that  they  would  not  be  teazed  any 
further  about  it.  In  short,  I  saw  the  absolute  necessity  there 
was  of  either  sitting  down  under  those  horrid  charges  rehearsed 
in  the  Protestation,  or  of  denying  them  in  a  set  form  of  words, 
which,  though  inaccurate,  1  judged  was  not  liable  to  deceive  my 
countrymen,  to  whom  my  declaration  was  uttered  ;  and  it  was 
my  conviction  on  this  head  that  determined  me  to  add  my 
name  to  that  of  so  many  respectable  and  conscientious  person- 
ages who,  like  myself,  had  been  either  dazzled  by  assurances, 
confounded  by  quibbles,  or  seduced  by  example."  l 

The  Protestation  was  eventually  signed  by  over  1,500 
Catholics,"2  of  whom  240  were  priests.3 

1  Ecclesiastical  Democracy  Detected,  p.  2g6. 

2  The  list  of  signatures  printed  for  the  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  in 
1791  numbers  over  1,770  :  but  it  appears  that  many  of  these  had  been  obtained  at 
a  later  date,  after  the  Protestation  had  been  received  back  from  Pitt.  Those  who 
wrote  in  1789  or  1790  (Milner,  Rev.  C.  Plowden,  and  Lord  Petre)  always  gave 
the  number  as  1,500. 

3  It  was  commonly  stated  by  the  Committee  party  that  the  total  number  of 
priests  in  England  did  not  exceed  260,  so  that  it  was  contended  that  almost  all 
the  clergy  had  signed  the  Protestation.  According  to  Joseph  Berington's  esti- 
mate, however,  quoted  in  a  former  chapter,  the  total  number  was  nearer  350. 
This  estimate  is  confirmed  from  other  sources.  Hence  we  may  conclude  that  the 
proportion  of  those  who  signed  did  not  much  exceed  two-thirds. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

PREPARATION  OF  CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL.     THE  NEW  OATH. 

1789. 

The  preparation  of  a  bill  for  Parliament  on  so  comprehensive 
a  subject  as  Catholic  Relief  was  a  work  which  required  grave 
consideration,  and  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  Mr.  Butler 
took  nearly  four  months  to  complete  his  first  draft.  He  sub- 
mitted this  to  Mr.  Hargrave,  the  distinguished  Parliamentary 
lawyer,  who  took  even  longer  to  revise  it.  His  first  revision 
was  completed  in  December,  1788  ;  but  he  requested,  if  possible, 
to  be  allowed  to  go  over  it  a  second  time,  and  he  did  not 
complete  his  final  revision  until  March  24,  1789. 

Although  the  bill  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  Mr.  Butler 
and  Mr.  Hargrave  was  never  introduced  into  the  House,  it 
was  afterwards  printed  by  order  of  the  Committee,1  who  in 
subsequent  stages  of  their  controversy  with  the  bishops  laid 
stress  on  this  draft,  as  the  only  one  that  could  be  properly 
called  their  bill ;  and  not  without  reason,  for  it  was  free  from 
most  of  the  objections  which  disfigured  the  bill  which  after- 
wards replaced  it.  Mr.  Butler  designated  his  co-religionists 
as  the  "  English  Catholics,"  and  the  only  oath  which  he  pro- 
posed for  Parliament  to  enact  as  a  condition  of  profiting  by 
the  relief  was  practically  the  same  as  that  required  by  the  Act 
of  1778,  which  had  been  taken  by  Catholics  without  scruple 
ever  since  that  date.  It  is  true  that  the  title  "  Popish  Religion  " 
occurs ;  but  only  in  reciting  the  former  Act  in  which  that  term 
had  been  used. 

It  was  hoped  that  the  bill  might  have  been  passed  in  the 
session  of  1789;  but  the  arrangements  for  its  introduction 
were  delayed  by  the  "  illness  "  of  the  King,  which  began  in  the 

1See  Third  Blue  Book,  Appendix  II. 
152 


1789]  PREPARATION  OF  CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL.  153 

Autumn  of  1788.  Mr.  Butler,  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Walmesley, 
says  plainly  that  when  it  became  known  that  George  III.  was 
out  of  his  mind,  and  that  Parliament  was  about  to  appoint  his 
son  as  Regent,  it  was  considered  that  the  introduction  of  a  bill 
on  a  purely  domestic  question  would  be  out  of  taste.  But 
there  was  in  fact  a  further  and  more  important  reason  for  delay, 
for  it  was  well  known  that  in  the  event  of  the  Prince  of  Wales 
becoming  Regent,  Pitt's  ministry  would  have  come  to  an  end. 
On  the  first  news  of  the  King's  malady,  Fox  hurried  home 
from  Italy,  where  he  was  enjoying  a  holiday,  and  while  the 
Regency  Bill  was  passing  through  Parliament,  he  occupied  him- 
self in  allocating  the  different  posts  of  the  ministry  which  he 
confidently  expected  to  be  called  upon  to  form. 

As  to  what  would  have  been  the  effect  on  the  Catholic 
cause  of  a  Fox  ministry  at  that  time,  we  can  only  conjecture. 
Fox  indeed  was  pledged  to  the  principle  of  religious  toleration, 
and  whenever  the  question  was  raised,  whether  in  or  out  of 
Parliament,  he  was  always  on  the  side  of  the  Catholics.  He 
was  however  a  personal  friend  of  several  of  the  members  of  the 
Committee,  notably  of  Sir  Henry  Englefield  and  Mr.  Throck- 
morton, so  that  had  he  found  himself  in  a  position  to  bring  in 
a  Catholic  Relief  Bill  he  might  easily  have  fallen  entirely  into 
the  hands  of  that  party.  But  he  never  found  himself  in  that 
position,  for  while  the  Regency  Bill  was  going  through  its  final 
stages,  news  came  that  the  King  was  convalescent,  and  with 
his  recovery,  Fox's  hopes  were  dashed  to  the  ground. 

Prayers  in  thanksgiving  for  the  King's  recovery  were  ordered 
by  the  vicars  apostolic,  each  in  his  own  district.  An  interest- 
ing light  is  thrown  on  the  state  of  Catholic  affairs  at  that  time 
by  the  fact  that  the  official  addresses  of  congratulation  to  the 
King  and  Queen  were  drawn  out  not  in  the  names  of  the  bishops, 
but  in  those  of  the  laymen.  They  were  passed  at  a  general  meet- 
ing of  Catholics  at  the  Thatched  House,  on  March  21,  1789,  and 
signed  by  Lord  Petre  as  chairman.  Bishop  James  Talbot  com- 
plained that  they  would  not  even  allow  him  to  attend  the  meet- 
ing. "  The  Church  is  excluded,"  he  writes,  "  and  therefore  I  have 
never  been  summoned,  though  I  had  some  title  as  a  gentleman, 
and  could  have  given  them  some  useful  information  relative 
to  an  application  lately  made   by  us." 1     There   was  also   a 

1Snp.  Mem.,  p.  52. 


154  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

solemn  High  Mass  of  thanksgiving,  which  was  likewise  ar- 
ranged by  Lord  Petre  and  others,  though  they  did  in  this  case 
consult  with  Bishop  Talbot — a  fact  which  they  afterwards 
brought  forward  more  than  once  as  evidence  of  their  anxiety 
to  show  respect  to  their  ecclesiastical  superiors.  The  Mass  was 
celebrated  by  Rev.  Thomas  Hussey,  at  the  Spanish  Chapel  in 
York  Street.  The  following  is  the  text  of  the  two  addresses, 
to  the  King  and  Queen  respectively : — 

"  To  the  King's  Most  Excellent  Majesty. 

"  SlRE,  We,  your  Majesty's  most  dutiful  and  loyal  subjects, 
the  English  Catholics,  beg  leave  to  approach  your  Majesty  with 
the  warmest  congratulations  on  the  happy  event  of  your 
Majesty's  restoration  to  health,  and  the  personal  exercise  of  the 
Government  of  your  Kingdoms. 

"  Sensible  of  the  many  blessings  we  have  enjoyed  during 
your  Majesty's  reign,  and  unalterably  attached  to  your  Royal 
Person  and  Government,  we  acknowledge  with  the  liveliest 
gratitude  the  goodness  of  Divine  Providence  in  thus  restoring 
your  Majesty,  the  common  Father  of  all  our  People,  to  their 
united  wishes  and  prayers.  And  we  shall  never  cease  to  sup- 
plicate the  Almighty  that  your  Majesty  may  long  rule  these 
realms  in  uninterrupted  health,  prosperity  and  peace. 

"  By  order  of  the  General  Meeting, 

"  (Signed)     Petre,  Chairman" 

"  To  the  Queen's  Most  Excellent  Majesty. 

"  Madam,  We,  the  English  Catholics,  humbly  beg  leave  to 
present  to  your  Majesty  our  sincerest  congratulations  on  the 
recovery  of  your  Royal  Consort. 

"  We  have  long  respected  your  Majesty's  many  and  exalted 
virtues.  The  distress  which  your  Majesty  experienced  during 
the  illness  of  our  most  gracious  Sovereign  added  to  our  concern 
during  that  melancholy  period,  and  the  joy  your  Majesty  must 
feel  on  his  being  restored  to  you,  and  to  the  wishes  of  his 
affectionate  and  loyal  subjects,  highly  increases  the  satisfaction 
we  feel  on  this  happy  event. 

"  That  your  Majesty  may  long  live  to  continue  a  Blessing 


• 

v^8 

W  J@fcJmr'  .^tr 

S  $ 1 

33     Hi 

•  -  __ 

JM 

l 

11  ^SP 

" 

m          f 

•S^               m 

^v**^^ 

Robert  Edward,  ninth  Lord  Petre. 


1789]  PREPARATION  OF  CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL.  155 

to  your  Royal  Consort,  and  an  example  of  virtue  to  his  people, 
will  ever  be  our  constant  and  earnest  prayer. 
"  By  order  of  the  General  Meeting, 

"(Signed)     Petre,  Chairman!' 

The  recovery  of  the  King  gave  Mr.  Pitt  a  new  lease  of 
office,  and  there  seemed  after  all  a  possibility  of  the  Catholic 
bill  being  taken  through  Parliament  that  year.  The  prepara- 
tions were  accordingly  pushed  forward.  Mr.  Butler  obtained 
the  assistance  of  his  fellow  lawyer,  Mr.  John  Mitford  (after- 
wards Lord  Redesdale),  who  kindly  undertook  to  propose  the 
bill  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Though  new  to  Parliamentary 
life,  he  had  gained  distinction  at  the  bar,  and  was  already  a 
man  of  considerable  influence.  Mr.  Windham,  member  for 
Norwich,  who  promised  to  second  him,  had  been  somewhat 
longer  time  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  afterwards  held 
important  posts  in  the  Cabinet.  In  the  House  of  Lords,  Lord 
Rawdon  undertook  the  care  of  the  bill. 

The  negotiations  which  followed  are  shrouded  in  some 
obscurity.  The  Committee  led  Catholics  to  understand  that  at 
this  stage  the  Protestation  was  presented  to  Parliament,1  with 
the  names  of  the  signatories  attached.  It  afterwards  appeared, 
however,  that  although  Pitt  had  it  in  his  possession  for  a  time, 
before  being  formally  presented,  it  had  been  re-cast  in  the  form 
of  a  petition,  which  involved  changing  of  the  setting  of  all  the 
sentences,  so  that  it  now  ran  "  Your  petitioners  have  been 
accused  of  holding  etc."  ;  and  it  was  signed  by  all  thirteen 
members  of  the  Committee,  including  Bishop  James  Talbot, 
but  by  no  one  else.  A  still  more  important  change  was  that 
the  petitioners  were  described  as  the  "  Catholic  Dissenters  of 
England  " — a  name  which,  as  soon  as  it  became  known,  gave 
great  offence.  Dr.  Kirk  explains  the  manner  in  which  it  came 
to  be  used  thus  : — 

"  The  appellation  was  first  adopted  by  the  Lord  Chancellor 

Lord  Thurlow],"  he  writes,  "  in  consequence  of  Lord  Radnor's 

Resolution  not  to  admit  a  petition  from  us  as  English  Catholics. 

The  name  Papist  was  odious,  and  ye  grant  of  toleration  under 

1,1  The  Protestation  was  a  solemn  instrument,  signed  (with  few  exceptions 
indeed)  by  all  the  clergy  and  all  the  laity.  To  the  Minister,  to  the  Houses  of 
Parliament,  to  the  Nation,  your  Committee  had  solemnly  presented  it." — Third 
Blue  Book,  p.  8. 


156  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

ye  name  was  dangerous  after  1780.  The  other  was  then 
adopted  as  perfectly  synonymous  with  that  of  Catholic,  when 
explained,  and  was  not  likely  to  raise  any  noise  among  ye 
lower  classes  of  ye  people."  * 

We  shall  return  to  this  question  presently.  The  petition 
was  presented  to  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament  simultaneously 
on  May  9.  On  May  18  Lord  Stanhope  brought  his  own  bill 
into  the  House  of  Lords,  and  it  was  thrown  out.  The  similar 
bill  in  favour  of  Protestant  Dissenters  introduced  into  the  House 
of  Commons  by  Mr.  Beaufroy  had  shared  a  similar  fate  ten 
days  earlier,  though  by  a  narrow  majority.  Neither  of  these 
had  been  taken  up  by  the  Government,  and  their  rejection  did 
not  dishearten  the  Catholics.  They  still  hoped  to  pass  their 
own  bill  that  year. 

Shortly  after  this,  however,  affairs  took  a  new  turn,  the 
exact  cause  of  which  we  are  without  evidence  to  determine. 
The  Committee  seem  to  have  been  in  communication  with  Mr. 
Pitt,  and  were  more  than  once  referred  back  to  the  Lord  Chan- 
cellor ;  and  there  was  some  communication  with  other  members 
of  the  Government.  Of  the  nature  of  the  negotiations,  and 
the  arguments  used,  we  are  not  informed.  Various  rumours 
of  a  more  or  less  sensational  nature  were  in  the  air.  We  may 
take  as  an  example  a  letter  from  Mr.  Weld  to  Bishop  Walmes- 
ley  dated  April  30,  1789,  in  which  he  speaks  as  follows  : —  2 

"  I  am  now  informed  by  a  letter  from  London,  and  also  by 
Mr.  Archer  (who  is  here)  that  there  is  a  new  Oath  forming  for 
us  by  which  we  renounce  popery,  for  having  signed  the  Declara- 
tion we  are  no  longer  Papists,  and  therefore  the  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment which  is  to  pass  to  relieve  us  from  grievances,  will  be 
entitled  'An  Act  to  relieve  Protestant  Dissenters,  and  to  pre- 
vent the  Growth  of  Popery'.  So  your  Lordship  sees  that  this 
unfortunate  Declaration  is  not  to  end  yet,  in  its  consequences, 
and  a  distinction  now  is  to  be  made  between  Popery  and 
Catholicity." 

These  rumours,  startling  as  they  appear,  were  not  far  from 
the  truth.  The  Committee  did  not  disclose  the  details  of  what 
had  occurred.     Charles  Butler,  who  was  in  the  middle  of  the 

1  This  is  a  marginal  note  in  a  pamphlet  belonging  to  Dr.  Kirk,  now  in  the 
library  at  Oscott. 

-Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


1789]  THE  NEW  OATH.  157 

negotiations,  and  would  have  known  better  than  any  man 
exactly  what  took  place,  gives  a  short  summary  in  his  His- 
torical Memoirs : — 

"  Soon  after  the  Protestation  and  its  signature  by  the 
English  Catholics  became  generally  known,  the  proposal  of  a 
new  Oath  was  made  to  the  Committee.  Far  from  promoting, 
they  were  at  first  backward  in  acceding  to  the  proposal.  But 
it  was  strongly  represented  to  them  that  '  new  benefits  called 
for  new  assurances  of  fidelity ' ;  that  '  a  more  ample  extension 
of  privileges  demanded  from  them  a  more  ample  declaration  of 
their  principles';  that  'the  nation  at  large  expected  it,'  and 
that  '  in  the  opinion  of  their  best  friends  they  ought  to  make  it '. 
For  these  reasons,  the  Committee  at  length  consented  to  the 
measure,  as  conducive  to  the  end  they  had  in  view, — the 
success  of  their  intended  bill  in  Parliament.  An  Oath  was  ac- 
cordingly framed  which  in  its  original  form  was  an  exact 
transcript  of  the  Protestation,  and  consequently  contained 
nothing  more  than  what  the  Bishops,  with  the  whole  body  of 
English  Catholics,  had  already  signed  and  approved." 

But  the  question  was  not  settled  yet.  Butler  tells  us  that 
when  the  new  Oath  was  communicated  to  the  Ministry,  "  the 
two  great  leaders  of  administration  in  the  law  and  civil  depart- 
ments thought  fit  to  make  alterations  in  it.  These  alterations 
the  Committee  referred  to  their  three  clerical  members,  and  by 
their  advice,  accepted  them."  One  of  the  clerical  members  was 
of  course  Bishop  James  Talbot.  As  he  was  bishop  of  the 
District,  they  naturally  laid  stress  afterwards  on  having  ob- 
tained his  approbation,  and  as  it  was  only  given  verbally,  they 
subsequently  passed  a  special  resolution  to  record  their  testi- 
mony to  the  fact  of  his  having  given  it.1 

It  was  probably  by  no  accident  that  Bishop  James  Talbot 
refrained  from  committing  himself  to  any  written  approbation 
of  the  Oath ;  for  it  is  clear  that  he  never  approved  of  it  in  his 
own  mind.  Still,  we  may  reasonably  ask  why  he  allowed  the 
opportunity  to  pass  without  making  any  formal  protest  against 
it. 

To  this  we  cannot  give  any  certain  answer.  There  is,  how- 
ever, reason  to  suppose  that  he  hoped  and  thought  that  the 

1Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  26. 


158  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

Oath  was  likely  to  fall  to  the  ground  without  any  interference 
on  his  part,  and  if  this  was  so,  his  own  peaceable  disposition 
and  his  personal  sympathy  with  the  members  of  the  Committee 
might  have  induced  him  to  refrain  from  any  action  which  he 
thought  would  prove  unnecessary.  This  supposition  gains 
some  support  from  the  following  extract  from  a  letter  written 
by  Mr.  Weld  to  Bishop  Walmesley,  dated  June  21,  1789. 
He  writes  : —  l 

"  I  received  a  letter  on  Friday  last  from  Mr.  Talbot  in  Lon- 
don, in  which  he  tells  me  that  Bishop  Berington  informs  him 
that  we  shall  hear  no  more  of  this  new  Oath,  or  of  the  Act  of 
Parliament ;  that  it  was  the  composition  of  two  or  three  lawyers 
who  showed  it  to  some  of  ye  Committee,  non-Divines,  and 
from  thence  it  came  to  Wardour,  where  your  Lordship  had  a 
sight  of  it.  Bishop  Berington  says  it  meets  with  no  approba- 
tion, and  will  drop  of  course.  The  Petition  that  was  to  be 
presented  to  Parliament  will  also  drop  for  this  session :  such  is 
said  to  be  the  advice  of  Mr.  Pitt,  to  go  against  which  would  be 
political  folly  in  the  extreme.  Thus  I  hope  we  shall  remain 
quiet  for  some  time." 

The  tone  as  well  as  the  substance  of  this  letter  raises  dis- 
agreeable suspicions  of  some  secret  negotiations  between  the 
Committee  and  the  Government  which  Bishop  Berington  ap- 
parently wished  to  shroud.  The  Minute  book,  so  far  as  it  goes, 
tends  to  strengthen  these  suspicions,  for  it  simply  states  that  at 
this  time  the  Committee  were  meeting  almost  daily,  but  gives 
no  word  of  what  took  place  at  the  meetings.  Butler  sums 
up  what  occurred  in  a  few  words : — 2 

"About  this  time  some  leading  persons  in  the  country 
thought  that  it  would  be  more  prudent  to  effect  the  object  of 
the  bill  by  a  general  enactment.  In  consequence  of  these 
suggestions,  it  was  found  necessary  (but  much  in  opposition 
to  the  opinion  of  the  secretary)  to  new-model  the  bill  into 
another  form." 

This  was  accordingly  done,  without  any  consultation  with 
the  bishops,  or  any  one  else  outside  the  Committee.  The  Oath, 
far  from  being  dropped,  was  made  an  integral  part  of  the  bill, 
and  was  officially  published  by  the  Committee,  in  a  periodical 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii.  2  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  27. 


1789]  THE  NEW  OATH.  159 

called  WoodfaWs  Register,  for  June  26,  1789.  A  copy 
was  sent  to  Bishop  Walmesley,  as  senior  vicar  apostolic,  this 
being  the  only  official  announcement  received  by  any  of  the 
bishops.  Three  days  later,  Charles  Butler  wrote  to  Bishop 
Walmesley  an  account  of  the  progress  of  events,  in  the  follow- 
ing words  : — 

"The  Oath  being  thus  settled,  we  had  great  hopes  that 
we  should  get  the  bill  through  the  House  this  year ;  but  on 
Sunday  se'ennight  Mr.  Pitt  intimated  to  us  that  it  was  so  very 
late  in  the  sessions  and  that  the  Bishops  *  considered  it  a 
business  of  so  much  importance  that  it  must  stand  over  till 
the  next  year.  After  some  negotiations  upon  the  subject,  it 
was  found  impracticable  to  proceed ;  the  delay  was  therefore 
acquiesced  in. 

"  Mr.  Pitt,  however,  declared  in  the  strongest  terms  that 
his  wishing  to  put  us  off  till  the  following  year  was  not  done 
with  any  intentions  of  hostility  to  us,  but  from  necessity ;  the 
lateness  of  the  season  making  it  impossible  that  it  should  go 
through  the  House  in  the  regular  course  of  business,  and 
because  any  appearance  of  hurry  might  make  an  alarm  that 
would  be  very  prejudicial  to  us.  Many  of  our  friends  were  of 
the  same  opinion.  Besides  which,  there  appeared  great  reason 
to  think  some  of  the  Bishops  had  not  come  to  any  resolution 
upon  the  subject. 

"  The  only  thing  which  then  remained  was  to  determine 
whether  the  bill  should  be  brought  in,  or  whether  Mr.  Mitford 
should  only  signify  his  intention  of  bringing  it  in  next  year. 
The  latter  mode  was  preferred ;  accordingly  he  gave  this  in- 
formation to  the  House.  He  spoke  for  about  ten  minutes, 
stating  generally  the  outlines  and  grounds  of  the  bill.  This, 
strictly  speaking,  was  not  regular,  for  as  he  did  not  make  any 
motion,  he  was  not  at  liberty  to  make  a  speech.  The  conse- 
quence was  that  after  he  had  spoke  for  about  ten  minutes,  he 
was  called  to  order  by  Sir  Joseph  Mawbey.  But  in  this  Sir 
Joseph  Mawbey  did  not  mean  to  be  hostile  to  the  bill.  He 
happened  himself  to  be  much  interested  in  a  bill,  the  second 
reading  of  which  was  to  take  place  that  day ;  and  he  was 
afraid   if  Mr.    Mitford  took  up  too  much  of  the  time  of  the 

1  I.e.,  the  Anglican  bishops,  in  the  House  of  Lords. 


160  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

House,  he  should  lose  his  own  bill.  Mr.  Mitford's  speech 
was  very  favourably  received  by  the  House,  and  upon  the 
whole,  I  have  very  great  hopes  of  our  succeeding  next  year."  x 

We  can  now  pause  to  review  the  situation.  The  negotia- 
tions just  described  occupied  but  a  few  weeks — two  months  at 
the  most.  During  that  short  space  of  time,  a  completely  new 
bill  had  been  drafted,  and  a  new  Oath  also  ;  and  no  consulta- 
tion whatever  had  taken  place  with  any  of  the  vicars  apostolic, 
beyond  such  slight  communication  with  Bishop  Talbot  as  was 
incidental  to  his  position  as  a  member  of  the  Committee.  Very 
naturally  therefore  the  bishops  closely  scanned  the  new  bill 
and  Oath — so  soon  as  they  could  procure  copies  of  them — and 
the  examination  revealed  a  serious  state  of  affairs,  which  we 
must  now  proceed  to  consider. 

In  the  first  place,  the  form  into  which  the  bill  had  now 
been  cast  was  an  unfortunate  one.  For  it  began  by  removing 
certain  disabilities  in  an  absolute  manner,  and  then  enumerated 
exceptional  cases  in  which  the  restrictions  were  to  be  retained. 
These  were  put  at  the  end  of  the  bill,  in  the  form  of  provisoes, 
in  which  several  of  the  disabilities  of  Catholics  were  re-enacted  : 
it  was  made  illegal  to  "  found,  establish  or  endow  any  Religious 
Order  or  Society  of  persons  bound  by  religious  or  monastic 
vows  "  ;  and  it  was  laid  down  that  "  all  Uses,  trusts  and  Dispo- 
sitions, whether  of  real  or  of  personal  property  which  immedi- 
ately before  the  passing  of  the  Act  shall  have  been  deemed  to 
be  superstitious,  shall  continue  to  be  so  deemed  and  taken ". 
This  had  the  effect  of  making  the  Catholics  who  put  forward 
the  bill,  appear  to  be  striving  to  re-enact  penal  statutes  against 
their  own  body.  Many  people  took  exception  to  this,  and 
although  the  Committee's  answer  was  sound  in  logic — that 
they  were  not  the  authors  of  the  bill,  but  accepted  it  subject  to 
such  restrictions  as  those  who  were  the  authors  imposed — 
nevertheless,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  position  in  which 
they  found  themselves  was  an  unfortunate  one. 

A  far  more  serious  objection,  however,  and  one  which 
seemed  to  forebode  disastrous  consequences,  was  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  definite  classification  among  Catholics,  by  which  all 
those  who  had  signed  the  Protestation — or  rather,  had  taken 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


i789]  THE  NEW  OATH.  161 

the  new  Oath  which  replaced  it — were  henceforth  to  be  known 
by  the  extraordinary  name  of  "  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters," 
while  those  who  should  refuse  to  take  it  were  to  be  designated 
as  "  Papists,"  and  to  receive  no  benefit  under  the  Act.  To 
educate  a  child  as  a  "  Papist,"  was  to  remain  penal ;  but  it 
was  to  become  lawful  to  educate  him  as  a  "  Protesting  Catholic 
Dissenter,"  unless  his  parents  were  Protestants. 

Some  preliminary  account  is  necessary  in  order  to  enable 
us  to  understand  the  meaning  and  origin  of  this  strange  and 
incongruous  new  title.  Amherst  says  :  "  We  hardly  know  how 
to  characterise  it ;  whether  to  call  it  horrible  and  monstrous  ; 
or  ridiculous  and  absurd  ".l  A  few  comments  on  the  manner 
in  which  it  arose  may  perhaps  help  to  place  the  matter  in  a 
clearer  light. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  at  the  time  when  the  question  of 
relief  was  first  mooted,  it  was  pointed  out  that  there  were  two 
classes  of  persons  outside  the  Established  Church  who  claimed 
relief:  they  were  somewhat  naturally  described  as  Protestant 
and  Catholic  Dissenters  respectively.  Many  Catholics  objected 
at  once  to  the  title,  for  they  claimed — strictly  speaking,  with 
reason — that  according  to  Catholic  principles  it  was  the  Protes- 
tants who  dissented  from  them,  not  they  from  the  Protestants. 
Others,  however,  argued  that  Catholics  were  not  giving  them- 
selves this  name,  but  only  accepting  it  when  used  by  others  ; 
that  Protestants  naturally  looked  at  things  from  their  own 
point  of  view,  from  which  the  name  was  a  natural  one ;  that 
it  was  given  without  any  intention  of  raising  questions  of 
principle,  still  less  in  any  opprobrious  sense,  but  simply  as  the 
easiest  way  of  designating  the  Catholic  body ;  and  that  in  any 
case  it  was  preferable  to  the  name  "  Papists  or  persons  pro- 
fessing the  Popish  religion  "  which  had  been  used  in  the  Act 
of  1778. 

If  matters  had  stopped  there,  perhaps  we  might  have  con- 
sidered that  the  Committee  had  made  out  some  kind  of  case 
for  themselves.  When,  however,  the  word  "  Protesting  "  was 
prefixed  to  the  title,  the  position  was  changed  ;  and  it  is  hard 
to  escape  the  conclusion  that  they  expressly  wished  to  pose  as 
people  who  had  much  in  sentiment   that  was  common  with 

M.,  p.  166. 

VOL.    I.  II 


1 62  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

Protestants.  It  is  true,  as  Father  Gerard  pointed  out  some  time 
since,1  that  the  real  origin  of  the  word  Protestant  was  that  its 
first  inventors  protested  not  against  Catholic  tenets,  but  against 
religious  toleration.  The  name  was  first  given  at  the  Diet  of 
Spires  in  1529.  But  whatever  the  true  origin  of  the  name,  it 
is  certain  that  popular  belief  identified  the  term  then,  as  it 
does  now,  with  a  protest  against  Catholic  doctrine  and  practice. 
It  was  in  this  sense  that  the  Committee  found  the  name  con- 
genial to  their  own  opinions,  and  thought  that  it  would  mark 
them  off  in  the  popular  mind  as  abjuring  many  of  the  doctrines 
of  "  popery  "  which  were  considered  specially  obnoxious. 

Nor  could  they  with  any  justice  put  forward  the  plea  that 
the  name  was  forced  upon  them  ;  for  whatever  the  history  of 
its  first  devising,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Committee 
adopted  the  name  willingly  and  defended  it.  A  great  part  of 
the  manifesto  which  they  issued  to  the  Catholics  of  England 
in  the  November  of  that  year  is  occupied  with  a  quotation 
from  Butler's  Red  Book  in  defence  of  the  title. 

"  The  description  we  submit  to  you  "  (they  say)  "  must  be 
proper,  if  the  persons  whom  it  is  intended  to  characterise  be 
described  by  it  accurately  and  pointedly,  and  if  those  persons 
have  a  real  existence.  Now  that  the  description  is  both  ac- 
curate and  pointed,  and  that  by  far  the  greatest  part,  if  not  the 
whole  of  the  English  Catholics  fall  under  it,  seems  unquestion- 
able. The  description  is  contained  in  the  Preamble  of  the  Act. 
It  recites  '  That  by  divers  laws  now  in  force  concerning  Papists, 
or  persons  professing  the  Popish  religion,  divers  penalties  and 
disabilities  have  been  imposed  on  such  persons,  on  account  of 
certain  pernicious  doctrines,  imputed  to  them,  and  that  divers 
persons,  who  according  to  the  laws  now  in  being,  are  within 
the  description  of  Papists,  or  persons  professing  the  Popish 
religion,  do  not  hold,  and  have  protested  against  such  per- 
nicious doctrines,  although  they  continue  to  dissent  in  certain 
points  of  Faith  from  the  Church  of  England,  and  are  therefore 
called  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters,  and  that  such  persons 
are  willing  solemnly  to  protest  against  and  to  declare  that 
they  do  not  hold  such  pernicious  doctrines  .  .  .'  The  precise 
meaning  to  be    affixed  to  each  of  these  words  is  so  clearly 

1  See  The  Month,  August,  1903,  "  Flotsam  and  Jetsam,"  the  authority  quoted 
being  Jannsen,  Geschichte  des  Deutscher  Volkcs,  iii.,  p.  126. 


i78g]  THE  NEW  OATH.  163 

expressed  in  the  second  of  the  two  sentences  we  have  cited 
from  the  Act  as  not  to  admit  of  any  doubt.  From  this  part 
of  the  Act  it  clearly  appears  that  the  persons  in  question  are 
termed  Dissenters,  because  they  dissent  in  certain  points  of 
Faith  from  the  Church  of  England  ;  that  they  are  termed 
Catholic,  because  they  profess  to  be  members  of  the  Catholic 
Church  ;  and  that  they  are  termed  Protesting  because  they  have 
protested,  and  are  willing  to  protest  against,  and  to  declare 
that  they  do  not  hold  the  doctrines  attributed  to  them."  * 

We  do  not  wish,  however,  to  take  exception  only  as  to  a 
name.  The  fact  is  that  the  above  words  teach  us  more  than 
those  who  wrote  them  intended.  The  Committee  were  well 
aware  that  the  bishops  had  only  signed  the  Protestation  with 
reluctance,  and  that  a  large  number  in  the  North,  and  indeed 
throughout  the  country,  had  been  opposed  to  its  language  and 
tone.  The  present  aim  of  the  Committee  was  to  try  and  force 
their  opinions  on  all  Catholics,  under  penalty  of  leaving  those 
who  refused  to  accept  them  still  liable  to  the  old  Penal  Laws. 
And  their  object  in  so  doing  was  that  in  this  way  they  considered 
that  they  stood  a  better  chance  of  obtaining  the  repeal  of  the 
Penal  Laws.     On  this,  we  may  again  quote  their  own  words  : — 

"  As  to  the  probable  efficacy  of  the  plan  adopted,  by  the 
Committee  for  conciliating  the  minds  of  the  public,  the  defa- 
mation of  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  under  which  the  Catho- 
lics have  laboured,  has  raised  a  prejudice  against  them  which 
is  not  yet  eradicated.  .  .  .  They  therefore  adopt  the  form 
of  an  Oath  in  which  the  Catholics  renounce  such  of  the 
doctrines  imputed  to  them  as  are  supposed  to  be  morally  or 
politically  evil.  Neither  do  they  claim  an  exemption  from 
the  Penal  Laws  for  all  the  body ;  they  claim  it  for  those  only 
who  make  the  renunciation  in  question.  To  them  the  adver- 
saries of  the  Catholics  (if  they  are  consistent  with  their  own 
principles  or  even  with  their  own  prejudices)  must  admit  Tol- 
eration ought  to  be  extended.  The  operation  therefore  of  the 
bill  is  to  leave  those  ideal  numbers  of  Catholics  who  persist  to 
hold  the  tenets  in  question  (mere  non-entities,  we  hope,)  to 
continue  victims  to  the  laws  enacted  against  all  communicants 
with  the  see  of  Rome  indiscriminately,  and  to  the  animosities 

1  See  First  Bine  Book,  p.  2. 
II* 


1 64  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

which  gave  rise  to  them,  but  at  the  same  time  to  make  an 
opening  through  which  such  of  the  communicants  with  that  See 
as  protest  against  the  doctrines  in  question  (that  is,  we  hope, 
the  whole  body  of  English  Catholics)  may  slip  from  under  the 
operation  of  the  laws  in  question  unheeded  and  unobserved."  l 

Milner  in  his  usual  blunt  language  stigmatises  the  Com- 
mittee's plan  as  "  a  double  deceit ".  "  Attempts  are  made,"  he 
says,  "  to  deceive  a  Protestant  legislature  into  concessions 
which  it  did  not  intend  to  make,  and  the  Catholic  body  to 
profess  tenets  which  they  do  not  hold."  2  He  has  no  right, 
however,  to  accuse  the  authors,  as  he  frequently  does,  of  using 
the  term  "  Protestant  Catholics," 3  which  would  have  been 
obviously  self-contradictory ;  for  the  word  Protestant  has  a 
definite  technical  meaning  in  avowed  opposition  to  Catholicity. 
Charles  Plowden  also  wrote  similarly,4  and  this  gave  a  handle 
to  the  party  which  Alexander  Geddes  used  with  effect.5  Nor  did 
the  Committee  either  suppose  or  wish  that  the  title  should  come 
into  popular  use  among  Catholics,  as  Milner  in  his  writings 
always  seems  to  assume.  "  As  to  the  notion,"  writes  Butler, 
"  that  if  the  Oath  formed  on  the  Protestation  had  been  adopted 
we  should  have  lost  our  venerable  appellation  of  '  Catholics ' 
and  thenceforth  been  called  '  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters,'  the 
writer  begs  to  say  that  it  is  altogether  groundless  :  we  should 
no  more  have  lost  the  appellation  of  '  Catholics '  in  consequence 
of  the  new  law's  calling  us  '  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters,' 
than  we  lost  the  appellation  of  '  Catholics '  in  consequence  of 
the  old  law's  calling  us  '  Papists '."  6 

When  we  turn  to  the  considerations  of  the  Oath  in  detail, 
we  also  find  much  to  object  to.  As  it  formed  so  central  a 
feature  in  the  discussions  which  followed,  we  must  give  the 
text  of  it  in  full.  The  following  is  the  form  in  which  it 
appeared  in    Wood/all's  Register: — 

"  I,  A.B.,  do  sincerely  promise  and  swear,  that  I  will  be 
faithful  and  bear  true  allegiance  to  Majesty  , 

and  I  do  truly  and  sincerely  acknowledge,  profess,  testify  and 
declare  in  my  conscience  before  God  and  the  world,  that  our 

1  First  Blue  Book,  p.  4.  2  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  63. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  61,  84,  102,  etc.  4  Observations  on  the  Oath,  p.  17. 

5  Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Centuriae,  p.  4. 

6  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  61. 


1789]  THE  NEW  OATH.  165 

Sovereign  is  lawful  and  rightful  of  this  realm, 

and  all  other  Majesty's  dominions  thereunto  belong- 

ing :  and  I  do  solemnly  and  sincerely  declare  that  I  do  believe 
in  my  conscience  that  not  any  of  the  descendants  of  the  person 
who  pretended  to  be  Prince  of  Wales,  during  the  life  of  the 
late  King  James  the  second,  and  after  his  decease,  pretended 
to  be,  and  took  upon  himself  the  style  and  title  of  King  of 
England  by  the  name  of  James  the  Third,  or  of  Scotland  by 
the  name  of  James  the  Eighth,  or  the  style  and  title  of  King 
of  Great  Britain,  hath  any  right  or  title  whatsoever  to  the 
crown  of  this  Realm,  or  any  dominions  thereunto  belonging  ; 
and  I  renounce,  refuse  and  abjure,  any  allegiance  or  obedience 
to  any  of  them  ;  and  I  do  swear  that  I  will  bear  Faith  and 
true   Allegiance  to  Majesty,  and  will   defend  , 

to  the  utmost  of  my  power  against  all  traitorous  conspiracies 
and  attempts  whatsoever  which  shall  be  made  against 
Person,  Crown  or  Dignity  ;  and  I  will  do  my  utmost  endeavour 
to  disclose  and  make  known  to  Majesty  and 

successors  all  Treasons  and  traitorous  Conspiracies  which  I  shall 
know  to  be  against  :   and   I   do  faithfully  and  fully 

promise  to  the  utmost  of  my  power,  to  support,  maintain  and 
defend  the  succession  of  the  Crown  against  the  descendants  of 
the  said  James,  and  against  all  other  persons  whatsoever ; 
which  succession  by  an  Act  intituled  '  An  Act  for  the  further 
Limitation  of  the  Crown,  and  better  securing  the  Rights  and 
Liberties  of  the  Subject'  is  and  stands  limited  to  the  Princess 
Sophia,  Electress  and  Duchess  Dowager  of  Hanover,  and  the 
Heirs  of  her  Body,  being  Protestants ;  and  I  do  swear  that 
I  do  from  my  heart  abhor,  detest  and  abjure  as  impious  and 
heretical,  that  damnable  Doctrine  and  Position  that  Princes 
excommunicated  by  the  Pope  or  by  Authority  of  the  see  of 
Rome,  may  be  deposed  or  murdered  by  their  subjects  or 
any  other  persons  whomsoever ;  and  I  do  protest  and  declare, 
and  do  solemnly  swear  it  to  be  my  most  firm  and  sincere 
Opinion,  Belief  and  Persuasion,  that  neither  the  Pope  nor  any 
General  Council  nor  any  priest,  nor  any  Ecclesiastical  power 
whatsoever  can  absolve  the  subjects  of  this  realm,  or  any  of 
them,  from  their  allegiance  to  said  Majesty,  and  that 

no  foreign  Prince,  Person,  Prelate,  State  or  Potentate  hath,  or 
ought  to  have,  any  civil  Jurisdiction  or  Authority  whatsoever 


1 66  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

within  this  Realm,  or  any  spiritual  Authority,  Power  or  jurisdic- 
tion whatsoever  within  this  Realm  that  can  directly  or  indirectly 
affect  or  interfere  with  the  Independence,  Sovereignty,  Laws  or 
Constitution  of  this  Kingdom,  or  with  the  civil  or  ecclesiastical 
Government  thereof  as  by  Law  established,  or  with  the  Rights, 
Liberties,  Persons  or  Properties  of  the  subjects  thereof;  and  that 
no  person  can  be  absolved  from  any  Sin,  nor  any  Sin  whatever 
be  forgiven  at  the  Pleasure  of  any  Pope  or  any  priest  or  of  any 
person  whomsoever.  And  that  no  Breach  of  Faith  with  or  Injury 
to,  or  Hostility  against  any  Person  whomsoever  can  ever  be 
justified  by  reason  or  under  pretence  that  such  person  is  an 
Heretic  or  an  Infidel ;  and  that  neither  the  Pope,  nor  any 
Prelate,  nor  any  Priest,  nor  any  assembly  of  Prelates  or  Priests, 
nor  any  ecclesiastical  power  whatever  can  at  any  time  dispense 
with  or  absolve  me  from  the  Obligations  of  this  Oath,  or  of 
any  other  Oath,  or  of  any  Compact  whatsoever  ;  and  I  do  also 
in  my  Conscience  declare  and  solemnly  swear  that  I  acknow- 
ledge no  Infallibility  in  the  Pope ;  and  all  those  things  I  do 
plainly  and  sincerely  declare,  acknowledge  and  swear  according 
to  these  express  Words  by  me  spoken,  and  according  to  the 
plain  and  ordinary  sense  of  the  same  Words,  without  any 
Equivocation,  mental  Evasion,  or  secret  Reservation  whatsoever; 
and  I  do  make  the  aforesaid  Protestation,  Declaration,  Recog- 
nition, Acknowledgment,  Abjuration,  Renunciation,  Promise 
and  Oath  heartily,  willingly  and  truly,  upon  the  true  faith  of 
a  Christian.     So  help  me  God." 

The  above  Oath  was  repeatedly  stated  by  Mr.  Butler  and 
others  to  be  substantially  the  same  as  the  Protestation.  On 
examining  it,  however,  we  find  important  differences.  We 
shall  here  allude  specially  to  three  of  these,  which  formed  the 
chief  subjects  of  discussion  at  the  time,  though  they  were  by 
no  means  the  only  passages  objected  to. 

In  the  first  place,  of  course,  the  initial  declaration  of  loyalty 
to  the  house  of  Brunswick  had  no  counterpart  in  the  Protesta- 
tion. There  was,  however,  a  similar  clause  in  the  Oath  of 
1778,  and  also  in  the  Irish  Oath  of  1774.  Nevertheless  in 
the  Oath  before  us,  the  whole  clause  is  strengthened,  and  made 
to  accord  with  the  wording  of  the  ordinary  Oath  of  Abjuration 
as  enacted  in  the  sixth  year  of  King  George  III.  The  new 
form  raised  a  fresh  difficulty,  by  the  inclusion  of  the  limiting 


1789]  THE  NEW  OATH.  167 

words  "  being  Protestants  ".  This  gave  rise  to  much  discussion. 
Some  raised  objections  to  Catholics  swearing  allegiance  in 
that  form  at  all ;  but  most  people  held  that  the  words  might 
be  interpreted  simply  as  narrative,  stating  to  what  religion  the 
Royal  Family  in  fact  belonged.  Others  went  further,  and 
made  a  positive  defence  of  such  a  declaration.  The  following 
letter  from  the  Rev.  W.  Strickland  gives  the  line  of  argument 
adopted  by  those  who  wished  to  defend  the  clause : —  l 

"  The  nation  who  made  the  settlement,"  he  writes,  "  had 
ample  power  to  make  it  under  any  limitations  which  it  judged 
to  be  for  the  good  of  the  nation,  and  the  nation  judged  that 
the  limitation  '  being  Protestant '  was  for  the  good  of  the 
nation,  and  therefore  made  it.  Reason  and  experience  had 
convinced  the  nation  that  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
nation  required  that  the  King  should  be  of  the  same  religious 
persuasion  as  the  nation ;  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  the 
nation  therefore  required  that  the  limitation  '  being  Protestant ' 
should  be  made.  I  will  readily  allow  that  it  is  unfortunate  that 
the  circumstances  of  the  nation  were  such  as  to  require  that 
limitation.  But  the  unfortunate  circumstances  of  the  nation 
will  not  render  that  limitation  either  invalid  or  unlawful,  or 
dispense  with  any  good  subject  from  obeying  and  swearing  to 
obey  it,  in  its  full  extent.  In  one  word,  the  settlement  of  the 
Crown  and  its  succession  is  a  business  purely  political.  The 
highest  political  authority  we  know  has  made  that  settlement ; 
it  is  therefore  the  duty  of  every  good  subject  not  only  to  obey, 
but  to  support  it" 

The  next  clause  to  allude  to  concerns  the  Pope's  so-called 
"Deposing  Power".  Again  the  word  "deposed"  is  coupled 
with  "  murdered,"  as  though  the  two  things  stood  on  the  same 
footing.  Not  content  with  the  former  repudiation,  "  that  we 
reject,  abhor  and  detest  it  and  every  part  thereof  as  impious 
and  execrable,"  this  was  now  strengthened  with  new  epithets, 
so  that  it  read  "  I  do  from  my  heart  abhor,  detest  and  abjure 
as  impious  and  heretical,  that  damnable  doctrine  and  position  ". 
The  change  was  again  primarily  designed  to  make  the  new 
Oath  accord  more  nearly  with  an  existing  one,  this  time  the 
Oath    of   Supremacy.     It  also    made   this  part  agree  almost 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


1 68  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

exactly  with  the  celebrated  Oath  of  Allegiance  tendered  to  the 
Catholics  in  the  reign  of  James  I.,  which  had  been  repeatedly 
condemned  by  the  Holy  See  on  account  of  this  very  clause. 
So  long  as  these  words  remained  part  of  the  new  Oath,  it  was 
certain  that  it  would  be  condemned  by  Rome.  The  introduc- 
tion of  the  word  "  heretical "  was  in  itself  sufficient  to  bring 
this  about,  for  it  would  involve  the  implication  that  some  of 
the  Popes  themselves  had  been  at  least  material  heretics. 

Nevertheless,  the  clause  which  produced  most  discussion 
was  that  which  concerned  the  Temporal  Power  of  the  Pope  in 
general,  without  reference  to  the  Deposing  Doctrine.  In  this 
clause  very  considerable  variation  from  the  words  of  the  Pro- 
testation had  been  introduced,  and  the  heat  of  controversy 
raged  around  it.  In  order  to  be  fair  to  the  Committee,  we  will 
give  Charles  Butler's  own  explanation  of  the  change.  Writing 
to  Bishop  Walmesley  on  June  29,  1789,  he  sets  it  forth  as 
follows  : — l 

"  I  believe  you  will  not  find  any  essential  difference  between 
the  Oath  and  the  Protestation.  The  most  material  difference 
is  the  following.  In  the  Protestation  it  is  said  '  that  no  Church 
nor  any  Prelate  nor  any  Priest,  nor  any  Assembly  of  Prelates 
or  Priests  nor  any  Ecclesiastical  power  whatever  hath,  have  or 
ought  to  have  any  jurisdiction  or  authority  whatsoever  within 
this  realm  that  can  directly  or  indirectly  affect  or  interfere  with 
the  independence,  sovereignty,  laws,  constitution  or  govern- 
ment thereof,  or  the  rights,  liberties,  persons  or  properties  of 
the  people  of  the  said  realm '.  In  the  Oath  it  is  said  that 
'  no  foreign  Prince,  Person,  Prelate,  State  or  Potentate,  hath 
or  ought  to  have  any  civil  jurisdiction  or  authority  what- 
soever within  this  Realm,  or  any  Spiritual  power,  or  jurisdic- 
tion, or  authority  whatsoever  within  this  Realm  that  can 
directly  or  indirectly  affect  or  interfere  with  the  Independence, 
Sovereignty,  Laws  or  Constitution  of  this  Kingdom,  or  with 
the  civil  or  Ecclesiastical  government  thereof  as  by  law 
established,  or  with  the  rights,  liberties,  persons  or  properties 
of  the  subjects  thereof.  The  cause  of  this  difference  was  as 
follows.  In  the  Oath  of  1778  we  swear  that  we  'do  not  believe 
that  the  Pope  &c.  hath  or  ought  to  have  any  civil  or  temporal 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  Hi. 


1789]  THE  NEW  OATH.  169 

jurisdiction  &c.  indirectly  or  directly  within  this  Realm,'  with- 
out the  additional  words  '  that  can  affect  or  interfere  with  the 
Independency  &c.  of  this  Kingdom  '.     Upon  this  it  was  observed 
to  us  by  Mr.  Pitt,  and  some  other  gentlemen,  that  the  qualifying 
words  '  that  can  affect  &c.'  made  the  Protestation  more  confined 
than    the  Oath  of  1778.     To  this  it  was  answered  that  the 
Oath  of  1778   did  not  say  anything  of  the  Pope's    spiritual 
power,  and  therefore  no  such  qualifying  words  were  called  for ; 
but  that  as  the  Protestation  referred    to  the  Pope's  spiritual 
power,  it  was  necessary  in  that  to  insert  some  qualifying  words  ; 
that  some  Ultramontane  Divines,  particularly  Bellarmine,  had 
maintained  that  the  Pope's  spiritual  power  authorised  him  to 
interfere  indirectly  with  the  temporal  rights  of  sovereigns  and 
their  subjects  ;  that  it  had  been  intimated  to  us  that  we  were 
called   upon   to  disclaim  that  doctrine.     To  this  we  had  no 
objection.     It  was  true  that  our  belief  of  the  supremacy  of  the 
Pope  did  not  permit  us  to  take  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  in  its 
present  form,  but  believing,  as  we  did,  the  Pope's  supremacy 
to  be  merely  spiritual,  we  conceived  it  perfectly  safe  for  us  to 
declare  that  we  believed  that  the  Pope  had  no  supremacy  which 
could  affect  the  rights  either  of  the  sovereign,  the  subjects,  or 
of  the  Government   of  these   realms.     This  explanation  was 
accepted.       It  was  therefore  proposed  that  the  negation  of  the 
Pope's  civil  power  should  stand  unlimited  and  unqualified  ;  but 
the  negation  of  his  spiritual  powers  should  stand  qualified  with 
the  words  '  that  can  interfere   with  the  Independency  of  this 
Realm  or  the  rights,  persons  or  properties  of  the   subjects '. 
These  words  therefore  were  inserted,    not  as  a  denial  of  the 
Pope's  spiritual  supremacy,  but  as  a  denial  of  his  having  any 
supremacy  that  authorised  him  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of 
Government,  or  the  rights  of  individuals.     Some  objections,  I 
have  been  informed,  have  been  taken  to  the  word  Persons,  as 
if   it    denied   the   Pope's    supremacy    over   individuals  of  this 
kingdom  ;  but  this  is  not  the  same  sense  in  which  any  one  of 
the  Propounders  of  the  Oath  understand  it.      It  is  used  only 
to  deny  the  right  of  the  Pope  or  the  Church  to  use  personal 
coercion,  as  murder,  incarceration,  &c.  to  enforce  the  doctrines 
of  the  Catholic  Church.     It  is  certain  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
and    every   other   Society   must  necessarily  be  considered  by 
those   who    belong    to   her,  as    having  a  right  to  refuse  the 


170  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

participation  of  her  communion  to  those  of  her  own  body 
whom  she  considers  as  offenders  against  her  laws.  But  this 
extends  only  to  a  refusal  of  a  participation  of  the  privileges 
of  her  own  communion.  She  cannot  have  any  right  to 
compel  those  who  do  not  belong  to  her  by  personal  chastise- 
ments, or  any  other  mode  of  personal  coercion,  to  comply 
with  her  regulations,  or  to  punish  them  with  death,  or  any 
other  mode  of  personal  violence  for  offending  against  her  laws. 
It  is  this  right  over  persons  to  which  the  Oath  adverts,  and  in 
this  sense  it  is  understood  by  every  person,  laic  or  ecclesiastic, 
who  has  been  advised  with  respecting  the  Oath.  This,  I 
conceive,  is  the  only  material  variation  in  the  Oath  from  the 
Protestation." 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  pursue  the  correspondence  which 
followed  this  letter :  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  in  Bishop 
Walmesley's  opinion,  Mr.  Butler  failed  to  justify  the  language 
and  substance  of  the  Oath,  and  though  it  found  a  few  de- 
fenders among  the  clergy,  the  majority  recognised  with 
Bishop  Walmesley  that  as  it  then  stood,  it  was  not  such  as  a 
Catholic  could  take.  They  had  for  the  most  part  signed  the 
Protestation,  though  in  many  cases  not  without  some  mis- 
givings ;  but  to  follow  this  up  by  an  Oath,  even  if  it  had  been 
to  the  same  effect,  was  a  much  more  serious  step,  and  one 
which  many  were  unwilling  to  take.  This  was  made  a 
continual  subject  of  reproach  to  them  by  the  Committee  party. 
In  answer  to  the  charge,  we  may  quote  Dr.  Milner's  words  on 
this  subject.  We  have  already  given  his  explanation  of  how  he 
was  induced  to  sign  the  Protestation,  and  of  his  belief  that  even 
though  expressed  inaccurately,  it  would  not  mislead  his  fellow 
countrymen,  to  whom  it  was  addressed.      He  continues  : — 

"  But  when,  Sir,  contrary  to  the  express  assurances  we  had 
received  at  the  time  of  our  subscribing,  this  Instrument  was 
worked  up  into  an  Oath,  in  taking  which  we  were  to  assume  a 
new  name,1  when  the  preambles  were  omitted,  and  new  objec- 

1  Dr.  Milner  seems  here  to  imply  that  the  new  name  "  Protesting  Catholic 
Dissenters  "  was  given  to  Catholics  in  the  Oath,  and  this  has  sometimes  been 
stated  on  his  authority ;  see,  for  example,  Amherst,  i.,  p.  167.  In  reality,  how- 
ever, the  name  was  given  only  in  the  Bill,  though  the  condition  of  qualifying  for 
that  name  was  to  be  the  swearing  of  this  Oath.  Milner  also  states  elsewhere 
(Sup.  Mem.,  p.  62)  that  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  swear  and  in  so  many 


1789]  THE  NEW  OATH.  171 

tionable  matter  inserted ;  when  above  all,  the  question  was  no 
longer  whether  we  deceived  our  neighbour  in  what  we  declared, 
but  whether  we  spoke  the  exact  truth  before  the  Deity  whom 
we  invoked,  you  must  allow,  sir,  that  the  state  of  the  business 
was  greatly  changed,  and  I  trust  you  will  henceforward  give  up 
that  eternal  reproach  which  you  have  made  to  me,  for  our  hav- 
ing signed  the  Protestation  and  yet  having  refused  to  take  the 
Oath."  1 

words  "  I,  A.B.,  do  hereby  declare  myself  to  be  a  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenter," 
but  this  also  is  inaccurate.  The  Bill  provided  that  any  one  who  had  taken  the 
new  Oath  should  "  be  deemed  and  taken  in  law  to  be  a  Protesting  Catholic 
Dissenter ".     See  Third  Blue  Book,  p.  10. 

1  Ecclesiastical  Democracy  Detected,  p.  297. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

FIRST  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH. 

1789. 

The  delay  in  introducing  the  bill  had  a  very  fortunate  effect, 
for  it  gave  the  bishops  an  opportunity  of  examining  the  pro- 
posed Oath,  and  promulgating  a  definite  and  authoritative  de- 
cision in  regard  to  it.  Bishop  Walmesley  wrote  to  his  brother 
bishops  on  July  10,  1789,  pressing  for  a  meeting  to  discuss 
the  whole  situation,  while  Bishop  Sharrock  went  to  London  to 
consult  with  Bishop  James  Talbot  on  the  matter.  A  meeting 
was  accordingly  arranged  to  take  place  at  the  house  of  Bishop 
Thomas  Talbot  at  Longbirch,  near  Wolverhampton,  which  was 
considered  the  most  central  situation,  on  September  24.  Be- 
fore that  date  arrived,  Bishop  James  Talbot  fell  ill,  and  accord- 
ing to  a  letter  from  Bishop  Sharrock,  his  life  was  considered 
in  danger.  A  little  later,  however,  his  health  improved,  and 
the  meeting,  which  had  been  postponed  in  consequence  of  his 
illness,  was  fixed  for  October  19.  The  place  of  meeting  was 
also  changed,  to  his  house  at  Hammersmith,  partly  in  order 
that  he  might  take  part  in  it,  for  he  was  not  yet  able  to  travel 
far,  but  partly  also  because  his  brother,  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot, 
had  expressed  a  wish  that  the  meeting  should  be  held  outside 
his  district. 

In  the  meantime,  the  promulgation  of  the  proposed  Oath 
had  given  rise  to  much  heat  and  controversy,  and  threatened 
to  create  a  downright  schism  among  Catholics.  The  sup- 
porters of  the  Oath  were  the  more  noisy  party,  consisting  of  all 
those  who  were  favourably  disposed  towards  the  Committee, 
and  including  a  certain  number  of  the  clergy  in  London  and 
in  the  Midlands.  In  the  Northern  and  Western  Districts 
almost  all  the  clergy  and  the  majority  of  the  laity  were  on 

172 


1789]  FIRST  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  173 

the  opposite  side.  A  meeting  of  thirty  priests  was  held  in 
Lancashire,  who  unanimously  condemned  the  Oath,  and  Bishop 
Gibson  issued  a  circular  prohibiting  any  one  in  his  District 
from  taking  it.  The  greater  part  of  the  odium  fell  on  the 
shoulders  of  Charles  Butler,  who  increased  the  irritation  by 
offering  to  make  a  tour  in  the  North  to  explain  how  matters 
stood,  promising  to  "  do  away  with  the  squeamishness  of  the 
clergy,  influenced  by  a  scrupulous  Bishop".  This  language 
naturally  gave  great  offence,  especially  as  Mr.  Butler  had  not 
consulted  the  Bishop  as  to  his  intended  visit.  A  strange 
anonymous  fly-sheet  was  circulated,  as  a  kind  of  reply.  All 
the  chief  priests  and  laymen  in  the  North  received  copies 
through  the  post.  At  the  time  no  one  knew  who  was  the 
author;  but  Milner  seems  to  say  that  it  was  written  by  no 
other  than  Bishop  Gibson  himself.1 

The  following  is  the  text : — 

"  To  all  whom  it  may  concern. 

"Whereas  Mr.  C B hath  formally  made  known 

his    intention    to    visit    the    N n  counties  of  England    in 

the  month  of  September ;  you  are  humbly  requested  to  re- 
ceive him  with  the  honours  due  to  a  Lay  Vicar  General :  A 

frightful  Sight !  says  B p  G — w — n  (sic).     This  dignity  was 

conferred  upon  Thorn.  Cromwell,  by  Henry  VIII.,  with  ample 
powers,  as  set  forth  in  the  Royal  Patent,  to  prompt  and  in- 
struct the  Archbishops,  B ps  ;  to  preside  over  their  Synods, 

&c.  &c.     Mr.  B ,  without  the  idle    formality  of  a   Royal 

Patent,   very   decently  in  an  Encyclical    Letter,   arraigns    the 

Scrupulosity  of  certain  B ps,  and  with  becoming  modesty, 

requests  that  Ecclesiastical  Assemblies  in  the  North  will  not 
come  to  any  Resolutions,  'til  he  shall  have  the  honour  of  at- 
tending them,  i.e.  if  the  words  have  any  meaning,  of  directing 
their  councils  on  a  subject  of  which    he    hardly  ventures  to 

form  an  opinion.2 — Scrupulous  as  a   B p  !     Res    miranda 

Gentibus ! " 

Notwithstanding  the  apparent  impropriety  of  his  conduct, 
Mr.  Butler  seems  to  have  meant  well  in  offering  his  services 

1  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  66.  There  is  also  other  evidence  of  the  authorship  in  letters 
from  the  North,  among  the  Clifton  Archives. 

2This  refers  to  Mr.  Butler's  repeated  statement  made  in  his  letters  and  also 
in  his  speeches. 


174  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

as  mediator  between  the  northern  clergy  and  the  Commit- 
tee. There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  his  repeated 
declarations  to  this  effect.  "  I  hope "  (he  writes  to  Bishop 
Walmesley)  "  that  your  Lordship  does  me  the  justice  to  think 
that  with  the  slenderest  abilities  imaginable,  no  one  exceeds  me 
in  good  wishes  to  promote  the  cause  of  religion  and  virtue." 
And  again,  writing  to  the  bishops  before  the  meeting,  he  says  : 
"  I  may  venture  to  appeal  to  all  your  Lordships,  that  from  the 
beginning  of  this  business  to  the  present  I  have  sedulously 
strove  to  promote  peace  and  good  harmony  between  the  clergy 
and  the  Laity.  My  respect  for  the  former  cannot  be  exceeded." 
He  was  working  at  this  time  in  the  face  of  domestic  troubles, 
having  just  lost  his  only  son ;  but  he  never  allowed  his  private 
misfortunes  to  interfere  with  what  he  considered  to  be  his 
public  duty. 

In  view  of  the  approaching  meeting,  Mr.  Butler  sent  to 
each  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic  what  he  described  as  a  "  Manu- 
script Book,"  which  being  bound  in  a  red  cover,  became 
popularly  known  as  the  "  Red  Book  ".  It  consisted  of  copies 
in  full  of  the  answers  of  the  different  foreign  Universities  to 
the  questions  put  to  them  by  the  Committee  the  previous 
year ;  to  which  was  prefixed  a  long  letter  written  by  Charles 
Butler  himself,  under  date  September  1,  1789.  In  this  letter 
he  gave  an  account,  from  the  Committee's  point  of  view,  of 
the  whole  situation,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  considered  it 
had  arisen.  With  respect  to  the  Oath,  he  says  definitely  that 
"  if  [it]  contains  anything  contrary  to  faith  or  the  word  of 
God,  there  cannot  be  a  question  but  that  it  must  be  altered  in 
every  particular  in  which  upon  this  account  it  is  objection- 
able V 

With  respect  to  the  Committee's  own  plan  of  action,  we 
can  obtain  information  from  a  letter  written  by  Rev.  W. 
Pilling,  O.S.F.,  to  Bishop  Sharrock  on  October  2  : — 2 

"Bishop  Berington  informs  me,"  he  writes,  "that  the  Com- 
mittee meant  to  ask  the  Bishops  if  the  Oath  contained  any- 
thing contrary  to  faith  ;  if  not,  they  were  determined  to  proceed, 

1  A  good  deal  of  the  substance  of  the  Red  Book  re-appears  in  the  First  Blue 
Book,  and  some  of  it  in  the  Historical  Memoirs. 
-Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


1789]  FIRST  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  175 

even  without  the  Bishops  and  Clergy ;  and  added  that  he 
thought  them  perfectly  right  in  so  doing,  tho'  he  would  not 
tell  them  so." 

The  opportunity  for  acting  thus,  however,  was  not  given 
to  them.  When  the  vicars  apostolic  met,  they  went  straight 
to  the  business  about  which  they  had  assembled,  and  did  not 
consult  with  the  Committee  at  all.  Six  bishops  were  present, 
the  four  vicars  apostolic  and  the  coadjutors  of  two  of  them  ; 
the  other  two,  having  no  coadjutors,  were  each  allowed  to 
bring  with  them  a  theological  adviser.  Dr.  Gibson  brought 
Rev.  Robert  Banister,  a  well-known  priest  in  the  North,  while 
Dr.  James  Talbot  brought  Milner.  The  meeting  lasted  four 
days.  Perfect  unanimity  prevailed,  and  the  following  resolu- 
tions were  passed  by  the  bishops  without  a  dissentient 
voice : — 

"  1.  That  they  do  condemn  the  new  Oath  lately  printed, 
and  declare  it  unlawful  to  be  taken. 

"2.  That  they  judge  the  Oath  of  1778  sufficient,  and  that 
it  contains  in  substance  all  that  can  be  desired  to  ascertain  our 
civil  allegiance. 

"  3.  That  they  condemn  the  Oath  as  unlawful,  without 
adding  specific  qualifications. 

"  4.  That  they  resolve  to  send  an  Encyclical  letter  to  the 
faithful  notifying  to  them  the  condemnation  of  the  Oath,  and 
signifying  that  they  ought  not  to  take  any  new  Oath,  or  sign 
any  new  Declaration  in  doctrinal  matters,  or  subscribe  any 
new  Instrument  wherein  the  interests  of  religion  are  con- 
cerned, without  the  previous  approbation  of  their  respective 
Bishop. 

"  5.  That  they  declare  the  new  appellation  or  denomina- 
tion '  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters '  to  be  highly  objection- 
able. 

"  6.  That  the  clause  in  the  bill  not  to  educate  any  child  a 
Papist  is  pronounced  not  admissible. 

"  7.  The  clause  in  the  same  bill  not  to  educate  any  child  of 
Protestant  Parents  a  'Protesting  Catholic  Dissenter'  is  also 
declared  to  be  inadmissible. 

"  8.  The  clause  '  that  all  uses,  trusts  and  dispositions, 
whether  of  real  or  personal  property,  which  immediately  before 
the  passing  of  the  Act  shall  have  been  deemed  superstitious,  or 


176  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

unlawful,  shall  continue  to  be  so  deemed  and  taken,'  the  four 
Vicars  Apostolic  wish  to  be  suppressed. 

"  Charles  Ramaten,  V.A. 

"James  Birthan,  V.A. 

"  Thomas  Aconen,  V.A. 

"  Matthew  Comanen,  V.A." l 

The  following  is  the  text  of  the  Encyclical,  which  was 
signed  two  days  later  : — 

"Encyclical  Letter 

"  Addressed  to  all  the  Faithful,  both  Clergy  and  Laity,  in 
the  four  Districts  of  England,  by  the  four  Vicars  Apostolic, 
Charles  Ramaten,  James  Birthan,  Thomas  Aeon,  and  Matthew 
Comanen.1 

"  Dearly  Beloved  Brethren  and  Children  in  Christ, 
we  think  it  necessary  to  notify  to  you,  that  having  held  a 
Meeting  on  the  19th  of  October,  1789,  after  mature  delibera- 
tion, and  previous  discussions,  we  unanimously  condemned 
the  new  form  of  an  Oath,  intended  for  the  Catholics,  published 
in  Woodfall's  Register,  June  26,  1789,  and  declared  it  unlawful 
to  be  taken.  We  also  declared  that  none  of  the  Faithful  Clergy 
or  Laity  under  our  care  ought  to  take  any  Oath,  or  sign 
any  new  Declaration  in  doctrinal  matters,  or  subscribe  any 
new  Instrument  wherein  the  interests  of  religion  are  concerned, 
without  the  previous  approbation  of  their  respective  Bishop. 

"  These  determinations  we  judged  necessary  to  the  promot- 
ing of  your  spiritual  welfare,  to  fix  an  anchor  for  you  to  hold 
to,  and  to  restore  peace  to  your  minds.  To  these  determina- 
tions, therefore,  we  require  your  submission. 

"  Charles  Ramaten,  V.A. 

"  James  Birthan,  V.A. 

"  Thomas  Aconen,  V.A. 

"  Matthew  Comanen,  V.A. 

"  Hammersmith,  Oct.  21,  1789." 

Two  days  later  again  Bishop  Walmesley,  as  senior  vicar 
apostolic,  wrote   a   letter    to   the    four   chief   members  of  the 

1  Bishops  Walmesley,  James  Talbot,  Thomas  Talbot,  and  Matthew  Gibson, 
respectively. 


1789]  FIRST  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  177 

Committee,  that  is,  to  Lord  Petre,  Sir  Henry  Englefield,  Mr. 
Throckmorton  and  Mr.  Fermor,  formally  acquainting  them 
with  the  resolutions  come  to.  The  letter  to  Lord  Petre  is 
given  here,  that  to  the  others  being  exactly  similar,  except  for 
the  change  of  names  : —  l 

"  My  Lord, 

"  This  comes  to  inform  your  Lordship  that  at  our 
meeting  on  the  19th  instant,  we,  the  four  Vicars  Apostolic, 
unanimously  condemned  the  new  Oath  lately  printed.  This 
we  did  without  the  least  intention  of  giving  offence,  either  to 
your  Lordship  or  to  the  other  members  of  the  Committee,  and 
we  hope  that  your  Lordship  will  take  it  in  that  light.  Our 
duty  and  the  call  of  our  people  necessarily  induced  us  to 
pronounce  our  judgment  upon  it. 

"  And  now  we  beg  leave  to  offer  to  you  a  few  observations. 

"  First  as  things  stand,  may  it  not  be  more  prudent  to 
drop  at  present  any  further  pursuit  of  the  measures  which  have 
been  begun  ?  Such  a  step  seems  almost  necessary  in  order  to 
allay  that  ferment  which  has  risen  among  our  people,  to  put  a 
stop  to  disputes,  and  re-establish  concord  and  union  which 
before  subsisted  among  us. 

"  Secondly,  But  if  the  measure  of  petitioning  Government 
must  at  present,  upon  urgent  reasons,  be  pursued,  let  it  be 
grounded  on  the  Oath  of  1778.  That  Oath  is  a  very  sufficient 
test  of  our  allegiance  to  the  King  and  Fidelity  to  Government, 
and  was  admitted  as  such  at  that  time  by  the  whole  legislative 
power,  and  therefore  ought  to  satisfy  at  present.  Besides,  it 
was  adopted,  as  we  understand,  by  the  Committee  last  year, 
as  a  groundwork  of  a  bill  formed  for  the  same  purposes. 
Then  the  bill  itself,  before  it  be  presented  in  Parliament,  we 
think  should  be  accurately  revised,  that  no  clauses  be  inserted 
in  it  clashing  with  religion,  or  shocking  the  minds  of  the 
Catholics.  The  appellation  of  '  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters ' 
should  be  exploded ;  it  is  highly  disapproved,  and  would  raise 
in  all  foreign  countries  a  bad  notion  of  the  English  Catholics. 
Let  us  be  named,  as  heretofore,  either  Catholics  or  Roman 
Catholics.  Such  clauses  also  as  '  not  to  educate  any  child  a 
Papist'  is  inadmissible,  for  similar  reasons.     Again,  the  clause 

1  This  letter  was  afterwards  printed  in  the  Third  Blue  Book,  p.  43. 
VOL.    I.  12 


178  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

of  '  not  educating  any  Child  of  Protestant  Parents  a  Protesting 
Catholic  Dissenter'  is  likewise  inadmissible.  Lastly,  we  wish 
to  be  suppressed  the  clause  '  that  all  uses,  trusts  and  disposi- 
tions whether  of  real  or  personal  property,  which  immediately 
before  passing  the  Act  shall  have  been  deemed  superstitious,  or 
unlawful,  shall  continue  to  be  so  deemed  and  taken '.  But  if 
even  in  the  original  bill  no  such  clauses  be  inserted,  we  have 
still  very  great  reason  to  fear  that  such  will  be  suggested  when 
the  bill  comes  to  be  debated  in  the  two  Houses,  and  probably 
will  pass,  as  many  of  the  members  are  ignorant  of  the  real 
tenets  of  our  religion,  and  likewise  by  reason  of  their  prejudices, 
our  enemies.  Such  new  statutes  would  be  more  grievous  to 
us  than  all  the  old  cruel  laws  which  no  one  in  these  days  chuses 
to  hear  mentioned. 

"Thirdly,  to  form  a  new  Oath  would  be  a  vain  attempt. 
For  in  the  first  place,  our  people,  having  taken  the  Oath  of 
1778  are  averse  to  take  another,  and  cry  out  against  having  a 
second  forced  upon  them.  Then  it  would  be  in  all  appearance 
impossible  to  frame  such  an  Oath  as  would  satisfy  all  parties, 
such  an  Oath  as  our  Catholics  would  take,  and  at  the  same 
time  such  as  would  satisfy  the  Ministers  &c. 

"  Lastly,  as  any  bill  which  may  be  offered  to  Parliament 
for  our  relief  relates  to  the  whole  body  of  the  Catholics,  their 
previous  consent  ought  to  be  had,  not  only  a  very  few,  but 
the  general  part,  both  of  our  Clergy  and  Laity,  ought  to  be 
previously  consulted.  If  this  be  not  done,  the  Bill  will  be 
liable  to  be  disapproved,  opposed  and  brought  to  nothing. 

"These  observations,  we,  the  four  Vicars  Apostolic,  ear- 
nestly recommend  to  your  consideration. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  be,  my  Lord, 

"  Your  Lordship's  very  humble  servant, 
"  Cha.  Walmesley, 
"  Senior  Bishop,  Vicar  Apostolic. 

"London,  Oct.  23,  1789. 

"  The  same  is  written  to  Sir  Henry  Englefield,  Mr.  Throck- 
morton, and  Mr.  Fermor  of  Tusmore.  I  am  returning  to 
Chapel  Row,  Bath." 

It  should  be  noted  that  Bishop  Berington  was  present 
throughout  the  meeting  at  Hammersmith.     He  did  not  take 


1789]  FIRST  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  179 

any  part  in  the  discussions,  and  being  only  a  coadjutor,  was 
not  asked  to  sign  the  resolutions.  He  did  indeed  raise  the 
question  whether  it  would  not  be  well  to  give  reasons  for  the 
condemnation  of  the  Oath,  but  Bishop  James  Talbot  negatived 
the  suggestion,  and  he  said  no  more.1 

On  his  return  to  Bath,  Bishop  Walmesley  immediately 
promulgated  the  joint  Encyclical,  following  it  up  with  a 
pastoral  letter  dated  November  2,  1789,  in  which  he  gave 
some  account  of  the  reasons  for  condemning  the  Oath.  He 
likewise  wrote  to  the  Committee,  "  requesting  and  requiring  " 
that  his  name  should  be  removed  from  the  Protestation,  which 
he  said  that  on  maturer  deliberation,  he  found  himself  unable 
to  accept.  In  this  latter  action  he  was  followed  by  Rev. 
Robert  Banister,  who  also  withdrew  his  name. 

A  few  days  later,  Bishops  Gibson  and  Thomas  Talbot  also 
left  town,  but  not  before  important  further  developments  had 
shown  themselves. 

The  members  of  the  Committee  were  not  slow  to  observe 
that  the  action  of  the  bishops  was  a  new  departure.  In  the 
case  of  the  Protestation,  they  had  at  least  discussed  it  with 
them,  but  in  the  present  instance  they  had  met,  discussed  and 
condemned  the  Oath  and  other  parts  of  the  proposed  bill, 
and  separated  without  having  had  any  communication  what- 
ever with  the  Committee.  Moreover,  they  had  expressed  their 
determinations  in  peremptory  language,  ending  with  the  com- 
mand, "  to  these  determinations  we  require  your  submis- 
sion ".  This  was  equivalent  to  a  declaration  on  the  part  of  the 
bishops  that  they  were  the  leaders  in  ecclesiastical  matters, 
and  that  the  time  had  now  come  for  them  once  for  all  to  assert 
their  position.  At  this  the  Committee  were  partly  angry  and 
partly  alarmed.  They  could  not  afford  to  have  an  open  rupture 
with  the  vicars  apostolic :  their  only  chance  of  avoiding  a 
contest  was  to  temporise,  in  order  to  pacify  the  bishops  from 
day  to  day  while  the  business  proceeded.     This  led  them  to  a 


1  This  appears  from  a  letter  written  by  one  of  the  Bishops  who  was  present. 
Milner,  who  was  also  present,  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  Bishop  Berington 
approved  of  the  Resolutions  at  the  time,  but  afterwards  changed  his  mind. 
Bishop  Berington's  own  account  is  that  from  the  first  he  felt  that  he  was  looked 
upon  as  an  intruder  and  was  not  to  be  listened  to  ;  so  he  thought  it  better  to  keep 
silence. 


i8o  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

course  of  action  which  made  the  situation  continually  grow 
more  difficult  and  complicated. 

Their  first  act  was  to  try  to  induce  the  vicars  apostolic 
to  postpone  the  publication  of  the  Encyclical,  in  order  to  allow 
an  opportunity  for  the  difficulties  between  them  to  be  adjusted. 
Mr.  Thomas  Hornyold  undertook  to  communicate  with  the 
bishops.  As  Dr.  Walmesley  had  already  left  town,  a  letter 
was  despatched  to  him  at  Bath ;  but  it  arrived  too  late,  the 
Encyclical  having  already  been  promulgated  by  him.  The 
other  three  vicars  apostolic  were  still  in  London,  and  Mr. 
Hornyold  called  upon  each  of  them.  Both  the  Bishops  Talbot 
consented  to  a  delay,  in  the  hope  that  the  Committee  would  set 
themselves  to  amend  the  Oath,  and  put  it  in  a  form  in  which 
they  could  accept  it.  Bishop  Gibson  also  agreed  to  a  delay, 
under  the  impression  that  all  his  colleagues  had  done  so :  on 
discovering  his  mistake,  he  at  once  published  the  Encyclical 
which  was  read  in  the  churches  in  the  North  before  the  end  of 
November. 

In  the  London  and  Midland  Districts  the  Encyclical  was 
never  published.  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot  wrote  to  Bishop  Wal- 
mesley on  November  14,  explaining  his  reasons  for  giving 
way : —  l 

"  You  were  hardly  got  out  of  town  "  (he  writes)  "  but  the 
alarm  was  given,  and  as  a  suspension  of  the  publication  was 
strongly  urged,  it  did  not  appear  to  my  brother  and  me  that 
this  could  well  be  refused  ;  and  if  matters  can  be  so  managed 
that  difficulties  may  be  removed,  all  will  be  well,  and  I  shall  be 
glad  if  what  has  been  done  may  be  attended  with  such  an 
Issue." 

The  effect  of  this  hesitation  on  the  part  of  two  out  of  the 
four  vicars  apostolic  was  to  destroy  the  appearance  of  strong 
or  united  action.  "  I  think  it  will  have  a  worse  effect  than 
anything  that  is  done" — such  is  Rev.  W.  Pilling's  comment. 
"  Those  who  are  so  ready  to  catch  at  anything  "  (he  adds)  "  will 
say  that  the  whole  of  the  business  was  carried  out  by  Bishops 
Walmesley  and  Gibson,  contrary  to  the  real  opinions  of  the 
other  two,  who  therefore  dare  not  publish  their  proceedings." 
Bishop  Walmesley  felt  this,  and  wrote  to  James  Talbot  begging 
him  not  to  delay  longer :  but  without  effect. 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


1789]  FIRST  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  181 

On  November  19  and  following  days,  the  Committee  met  to 
consider  the  situation.  The  first  business  was  Dr.  Walmesley's 
request  to  have  his  signature  withdrawn  from  the  Protestation. 
This  they  considered  impossible,  as  the  Protestation  had  al- 
ready been  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Pitt  and  others,  and  must  be 
accounted,  they  thought,  as  a  public  document.  They  how- 
ever directed  the  secretary  to  enter  Dr.  Walmesley's  wish  in  the 
minute  book,  so  that  it  might  be  permanently  recorded.  They 
then  proceeded  to  the  chief  business  of  the  meeting,  which  was 
the  drafting  of  a  reply  to  the  Encyclical  of  the  vicars  apostolic, 
and  to  Dr.  Walmesley's  letter.  This  occupied  several  sittings. 
Eventually  they  drew  out  a  long  letter,  which  was  dated  Novem- 
ber 25,  a  copy  of  which  was  despatched  to  each  of  the  bishops 
on  that  day.  It  was  composed  by  Charles  Butler,  a  great 
part  being  taken  from  the  letter  in  his  Red  Book. 

The  tone  of  the  letter  is  not  otherwise  than  respectful. 
The  opening  sentences  especially  are  couched  in  terms  which 
seem  to  indicate  the  wish  of  the  writers  to  come  to  a  proper 
understanding  with  the  bishops,  and  from  that  point  of  view 
are  worth  giving  in  full : — 

"  My  Lords, 

"At  a  meeting  of  the  Catholic  Committee,  held  on 
the  19th  of  November,  1789,  we  took  into  consideration  an 
Encyclical  Letter  which  you  have  been  pleased  to  address  to 
us,  and  to  all  the  Faithful  in  your  Districts,  and  we  now  offer, 
with  the  greatest  deference,  to  your  Lordships,  the  result  of 
our  deliberations. 

"Conscious  that  we  never  had  any  other  object  in 
view  than  to  procure  for  the  English  Catholics  who  have 
honoured  us  with  their  trust,  a  release  from  the  numberless 
grievances  under  which  they  have  so  long  and  so  unjustly 
laboured,  we  cannot  but  lament  our  misfortune  in  having 
incurred  the  disapprobation  of  them  who  from  their  station 
in  this  country,  are  the  natural  Guardians  of  the  Catholic 
Religion. 

"  Some  misconception,  we  apprehend,  must  have  taken 
place  ;  and  this  misconception  once  rectified,  we  still  entertain 
the  flattering  hope  that  your  Lordships,  far  from  raising  any 
impediments  to  obstruct,  will  heartily  grant  us  your  concurrence 


182  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

to  accelerate  the  success  of  our  well-meant*endeavours  in  serv- 
ing the  common  interests  of  the  Catholic  body." 

The  hope  held  out  by  the  tone  of  these  introductory  para- 
graphs, is  not  realised  in  the  body  of  the  letter.  Briefly,  the 
Committee  simply  defend  their  action  throughout.  They 
regret  that  the  bishops  should  have  condemned  the  Oath  with- 
out first  consulting  with  some  of  them  ;  they  plead  that  it  had 
been  definitely  sanctioned  by  Bishop  James  Talbot ;  and  they 
also  regret  that  in  condemning  it  the  bishops  should  have 
given  no  indication  of  what  particular  passages  they  objected 
to.  They  argue  that  the  Oath  was  grounded  upon  the  Pro- 
testation, which  the  bishops  themselves  had  all  signed.  As  to 
the  necessity  of  having  a  new  Oath  at  all,  they  only  say  : — 

"That  the  Oath  of  1778  is  a  very  sufficient  test  of  our 
Allegiance  to  the  King  and  Fidelity  to  Government,  we 
entirely  agree  with  your  Lordships  ;  but  that  it  will  satisfy  at 
present,  when  a  more  ample  toleration  is  applied  for,  we  have 
not  the  slightest  reason  to  expect." 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  follow  the  rest  of  the  letter  in 
detail.  The  Committee  cover  the  whole  ground  from  the  time 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  to  the  date  at  which  they  write  ;  they 
give  their  usual  version  of  the  condemnation  of  the  Oath  of 
Allegiance  by  Paul  V.  in  1606,  which'they  stigmatise  as  "ex- 
travagance," adding  that,  "by  some  unaccountable  blunder, 
the  illustrious  Bellarmine  .  .  .  confounded  an  Oath  of  political 
allegiance  with  the  Oath  against  acknowledging  any  spiritual 
primacy  in  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  ".  A  result  of  that  con- 
demnation, they  say,  is  that  "  it  has  left  an  almost  indelible 
impression  on  the  minds  of  Protestants  that  it  is  a  meritorious 
and  necessary  part  of  a  Catholic's  submission  to  be  guided 
implicitly  by  his  ecclesiastical  superiors,  even  in  concerns 
avowedly  of  a  temporal  nature  ".  They  contend  that  the  Pro- 
testation and  Oath  are  indispensably  requisite  to  undo  this 
impression.  They  defend  the  title  "  Protesting  Catholic 
Dissenters"  as  vigorously  as  before.  Finally,  they  answer 
the  suggestion  of  the  bishops  that  they  should  desist  from  the 
further  pursuit  of  their  object  with  a  direct  negative.  "  For 
numberless  reasons,  my  Lords  "  (they  say)  "  that  pursuit  can- 
not be  dropped.  Our  business  has  proceeded  too  far,  it  has 
been  laid  before  the  Public,  it  has  engaged  the  attention  of  the 


1789]  FIRST  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  183 

Legislature,  every  circumstance  seems  to  promise  it  success, 
and  if  the  Catholics  of  England  lose  the  opportunity  of  recov- 
ering their  civil  and  religious  rights,  it  is  probable  they  will 
ever  after  look  in  vain  for  their  emancipation." 
The  letter  concludes  as  follows : — 

"  My  LORDS,  we  have  laid  with  respect  our  views  and  pro- 
ceedings before  you.  The  Protestation,  the  Petition,  the  State 
of  the  Case,1  the  Bill  uniformly  rest  on  a  single  principle,  that 
the  English  Catholics  reject  any  pernicious  doctrine  imputed 
to  them,  and  while  they  claim  their  right  of  following  their 
conscience  in  religious  matters,  can  give  to  Government  and 
the  Nation  every  security  of  being  honest  men  and  peaceable 
subjects.  Upon  this  single  principle,  we  look  with  well 
grounded  hopes  for  relief,  and  have  a  firm  reliance  that  your 
Lordships  will  co-operate  with  us  in  effectuating  so  desirable  a 
purpose. 

"  We  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  the  greatest  respect, 

"  Your  Lordships'  most  obedient,  humble  servants, 

"  Chas.  Berington. 
"  Joseph  Wilkes. 
"  Petre. 

"  John  Throckmorton. 
"  William  Fermor. 
"  John  Towneley. 
"  Thomas  Hornyold. 

"  London,  25  Nov.  1789." 

Besides  being  sent  to  all  the  vicars  apostolic,  this  letter 
was  also  printed  and  circulated,  and  with  it  a  manifesto  of  the 
Committee  addressed  to  the  Catholics  of  England,  giving  their 
account  of  the  whole  history  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the 
negotiations  as  to  the  Protestation  and  the  Oath  ;  and  a  dis- 
sertation in  answer  to  the  objections  that  had  been  raised 
against  them  and  against  the  bill  which  it  was  hoped  to  in- 
troduce the  following  session.  The  Heads  of  the  Bill  were 
likewise  printed.    The  pamphlet  ran  to  fifteen  very  closely  printed 

1  This  was  a  handbill  circulated  by  the  Committee.  It  was  afterwards 
reprinted  in  the  Third  Blue  Book,  p.  34. 


1 84  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1789 

quarto  pages,  and  being  bound  in  a  dark  blue  or  purple 
wrapper,  acquired  the  designation  of  "  the  Blue  Book  ".  It  was 
not  published,  but  copies  were  freely  distributed. 

Bishop  Walmesley  considered  the  issue  of  the  Blue  Book  as 
an  act  of  defiance,  calling  attention  also  to  the  fact  that  only 
seven  out  of  the  thirteen  members  of  the  Committee  had  signed 
it.  He  attributed  its  publication  mainly  to  the  indecision  of 
the  two  Bishops  Talbot,  and  wrote  once  more  begging  them 
to  publish  the  Encyclical  as  they  had  agreed  to  at  the  Hammer- 
smith meeting  :  but  without  result.  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot's 
answer  shows  that  he  was  becoming  disquieted,  he  wrote  as 
follows  : —  x 

"  Longbirch,  December  14,  1789. 

"  Dear  Sir, 

"  Notwithstanding  our  joint  concurrence  in  condemn- 
ing the  Oath,  &c,  the  business,  as  appears,  will  certainly  be 
prosecuted  in  as  vigorous  a  manner  as  if  we  had  not  inter- 
fered at  all ;  the  consequence  of  which  will  in  all  appearances 
be  as  dreadful  a  schism  as  happened  many  years  ago  upon  a 
like  occasion.2  The  explication  that  has  lately  been  given,  and 
the  declaration  from  some  persons  high  in  power,  stagger  many 
people  in  these  parts,  and  make  them  think  the  Oath  not  so 
objectionable  as  they  at  first  conceived  it  to  be.  Whilst  we 
ought  not  most  certainly  to  give  up  any  Tittle  of  our  Faith,  or 
for  human  considerations  make  a  sacrifice  of  our  religion,  we 
ought  not  to  put  any  unreasonable  obstacles  to  a  measure  that 
is  deemed  greatly  to  conduce  to  the  public  good.  What  I  say 
here  is  not  suggested  by  any  person  whatever ;  but  if  a  schism 
and  division  amongst  ourselves  could  be  avoided,  it  would  be  a 
most  desirable  thing  ;  and  I  have  my  doubts  whether  hereafter 
we  shall  not  be  thought  to  have  been  over  scrupulous  and  nice. 
For  the  present  I  will  content  myself  with  having  thrown  out 
these  hints,  to  which  no  one  is  privy  but  your  Lordship.  The 
desire  of  suspending  for  a  time  the  publication  of  our  Resolu- 
tions seemed  to  my  Brother  and  me  so  reasonable  a  request 
that  we    thought    it    ought    not  to    be   refused.      I    take  this 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 

2  This  of  course  refers  to  the  effect  of  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  in  1606  and  the 
sad  disputes  between  Seculars  and  Regulars. 


x78g]  FIRST  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  185 

opportunity  to  pray  you  to  accept  the  most  cordial  wishes  of 
the  approaching  season  from 

"  Your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

"Thomas  Talbot." 

Writing  a  few  months  later,  he  explains  more  in  detail : — x 
"  I  before  acquainted  you  with  the  reasons  why  my  brother 
and  myself  never  published  our  condemnation  of  the  Oath. 
They  appeared  to  me  then  satisfactory,  and  as  the  Committee 
Gentlemen  then  declared,  and  have  since  frequently  declared, 
that  they  are  willing  to  use  their  endeavours  to  procure  an 
alteration  of  any  exceptionable  clauses,  I  could  see  no  sufficient 
reason  for  any  future  publication  ;  but  I  have  ever  maintained 
that  we  did  right  in  condemning  the  Oath  as  we  did.  My  aim 
and  desire  is  to  promote  peace  and  concord  as  much  as  possible, 
but  this  no  more  than  yourself  at  the  expense  of  truth  and 
religion." 

So  far  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot.  What  his  brother's  views 
were  we  shall  never  know  for  certain  ;  for  although  during  the 
Autumn  he  had  been  better  in  health,  early  in  the  new  year 
his  illness  returned  on  him,  and  ended  fatally.  The  fact  was 
often  laid  hold  of  by  the  defenders  of  the  new  Oath,  as  ex- 
plaining his  having  signed  the  condemnation  contained  in  the 
Encyclical  of  the  vicars  apostolic,  which  they  said  was  in 
itself  evidence  that  his  powers  were  failing.  Those  who  knew 
him  more  intimately,  saw  in  this  line  of  action  his  better  judg- 
ment at  length  asserting  itself  over  the  manifold  difficulties 
with  which  he  was  surrounded.  Here,  however,  we  must  leave 
the  Committee  and  their  disputes,  while  we  turn  to  other 
matters  connected  with  the  bishop's  last  years. 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


CHAPTER  X. 

LAST  YEARS  AND  DEATH  OF  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT. 

I787-I79O. 

It  is  a  relief  to  turn  from  the  atmosphere  of  strife  and  conten- 
tion with  which  the  last  years  of  the  public  life  of  Bishop 
Talbot  were  surrounded,  which  was  so  uncongenial  to  his 
nature,  and  which  his  indecision  of  character  rendered  him  so 
unfit  to  cope  with,  to  his  ordinary  daily  life,  and  his  administra- 
tion of  his  district,  where  his  saintliness  shone  forth,  and  his 
passion  for  works  of  charity  found  full  scope  for  its  exercise. 
In  illustration  of  the  reverence  for  "  the  Good  Bishop  Talbot " 
which  was  felt  by  all  classes  alike,  we  can  quote  another  passage 
from  Milner's  Obituary  Sermon,  which  pictures  him  as  he  was 
known  to  his  own  flock.  In  reading  Milner's  words  we  must 
not  omit  to  bear  in  mind  the  much  more  dignified  position  of 
the  aristocracy,  and  the  greater  gulf  between  them  and  the 
common  people  in  those  days  compared  with  our  own.  To 
accuse  a  man  of  being  "  tainted  with  democratic  sentiments " 
was  considered  one  of  the  most  serious  charges  that  could  be 
levied  against  him.  The  respect  for  anything  of  the  nature  of 
a  title  would  seem  to  us  more  than  exaggerated.  Bishop 
Talbot's  position,  as  the  close  relative  of  a  peer,  and  especially 
one  of  such  distinguished  lineage  as  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury, 
would  naturally  have  marked  him  out  as  one  of  the  most 
exalted  members  of  the  Catholic  body,  and  it  is  this  which 
gives  Milner's  comment  its  force. 

"  You  have  all  seen  him,"  he  said  ;  "  you  have  most  of  you 
conversed  with  him  :  I  appeal  to  your  own  experience.  When 
have  you  observed  in  him  the  least  symptom  of  vanity  or  self- 
importance  on  the  score  of  his  high  descent  and  illustrious 
connections?      When  have  you  heard  a  word  escape  him  to 

186 


1787-90]         LAST  YEARS  OF  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.  187 

remind  you  that  you  were  speaking  to  the  brother  of  the  first 
Earl  of  the  land  ?  What  appearance  did  he  wear  of  his  rank  of 
life  in  his  address,  equipage,  company  or  employments  ?  You 
know  well  that  while  his  heart  and  his  hands  were  inexhaustibly 
open  to  every  call  of  charity  and  piety,  hardly  would  he  allow 
himself  the  decencies  and  necessaries  of  life,  which  on  many 
occasions,  particularly  on  his  journeys,  he  exposed  to  the  most 
imminent  dangers  both  of  accident  and  of  sickness,  because  he 
refused  to  expend  on  himself  what  he  lavished  upon  others. 
At  no  time  did  he  affect  to  pass  for  anything  beyond  a  poor 
ecclesiastic.  Every  one  knows  that  his  delight  was  to  be 
surrounded  by  his  clergy  and  the  poor,  and  that  he  more 
readily  and  more  frequently  would  stoop  into  the  sordid  dwell- 
ings of  the  necessitous  to  administer  to  them  comfort  and 
assistance,  corporal  and  spiritual,  than  enter  into  the  palaces 
of  the  great  to  taste  their  dainties  and  participate  of  their 
distinctions.  With  shame  to  myself  must  I  add  that  on  different 
occasions  of  my  attending  him  on  his  journeys  and  elsewhere, 
I  have  seen  him  cheerfully  and  without  complaint  put  up  with 
inconveniences  that  to  me  appeared  intolerable." 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  notwithstanding  the  holiness 
of  his  private  life,  Dr.  Talbot  was  never  qualified  either  by 
temperament  or  by  natural  gifts  to  hold  a  position  which 
involved  taking  the  lead  in  public  action,  still  less  so  at  a  time 
of  difficulty,  when  vigorous  measures  were  called  for.  This 
he  would  have  been  himself  the  first  to  admit.  His  naturally 
retiring  disposition  had  been  emphasised  by  his  own  personal 
history,  as  well  as  by  the  spirit  of  the  times  in  which  his  youth 
and  middle  life  had  been  cast.  The  position  in  which  he  was 
placed  during  the  last  nine  years  of  his  life  was  a  constant 
trial  to  him.  He  was  convinced  that  he  had  been  appointed 
vicar  apostolic  only  for  the  two  reasons  that  he  was  highly 
connected,  and  had  a  certain  private  income,  and  that  his 
unfitness  for  the  position  was  evident  to  all.  In  the  course  of 
his  difficulties  with  the  Committee  he  became  so  dispirited  that 
more  than  once  he  was  on  the  point  of  resigning.  The  follow- 
ing extract  from  an  undated  letter  written  by  Rev.  William 
Gibson  at  Douay  refers  to  one  of  these  occasions  : —  1 

"  I  should  be  sorry  to  hear  you  had  any  thoughts  of  resign- 

1  Westminster  Archives. 


1 88  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

ing,"  he  writes,  "  particularly  during  ye  present  troubles  that 
seem  to  be  raised  amongst  some  of  our  Catholic  Gentlemen. 
I  fear ;  but  heartily  wish  they  may  end  well.  Nor  shall  I  ever 
think  you  were  placed  in  ye  situation  you  are  on  account  of 
ye  two  reasons  you  mention.  Those  alone  would  have  been 
worldly  motives,  and  I  am  well  persuaded  your  most  holy 
Predecessor  was  not  influenced  by  such,  but  he  knew  your  real 
merit,  and  ye  good  use  you  would  make  of  those  advantages ; 
and  I  think  religion  is  much  indebted  to  you,  and  has  gained 
many  advantages,  and  has  made  and  is  in  ye  way.  to  make 
great  progress  under  you,  particularly  if  present  troubles  do 
not  undo  many  things." 

During  the  first  four  years  that  he  ruled  the  London 
District,  Bishop  Talbot  continued  to  live  in  his  lodgings  in 
Little  James  Street,  Bedford  Square.  In  1785  he  moved  to 
Hammersmith,  as  stated  in  a  former  chapter,  and  lived  in  the 
house  of  the  convent  chaplain.  He  was,  however,  frequently 
absent  for  long  periods,  as  he  visited  the  whole  of  his  district 
every  year,  and  travelling  in  those  days  took  up  much  time. 
Latterly,  his  health  was  visibly  failing.  His  memory  had 
become  defective,  and  he  had  lost  so  many  teeth  that  his 
utterance  was  noticeably  affected.  The  steady  increase  of  his 
infirmities,  while  it  did  not  incapacitate  him,  was  sufficiently 
continuous  to  warn  him  that  the  end  could  not  be  far  off. 

In  the  year  1787  Bishop  Talbot's  eldest  brother,  the  Earl 
of  Shrewsbury,  died,  without  issue,  and  was  succeeded  by  his 
nephew.  Bishop  James  Talbot  received  some  benefit  under 
his  brother's  will,  and  as  was  to  be  expected,  devoted  it  all  to 
charitable  works.  It  was  indeed  well  understood  that  he  was 
certain  to  do  so.  In  his  letter  of  condolence,  Mgr.  Stonor 
wrote  frankly  to  him  :  "  As  to  your  increase  of  property  on 
this  occasion,  it  is  with  the  public  that  I  am  chiefly  to  rejoice, 
persuaded  as  I  am  that  they  will  be  the  principal  gainers  by  it ". 
James  Talbot  survived  his  brother  less  than  three  years  ;  but 
that  period  was  sufficient  for  him  to  put  in  hand  various  good 
works  with  the  money  he  had  inherited.  He  completed  the 
purchase  of  the  property  at  Old  Hall  Green,  and  enlarged  the 
school,  building  additions  at  the  north  and  south  ends.  He 
also  allocated  further  sums  to  the  support  of  missions  and  other 
good  works.     The  money  was  quickly  used  up,  and  we  find 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.  189 

him  begging  as  before  on  behalf  of  the  various  charities  in 
which  he  was  interested.  One  special  object  of  his  anxiety- 
was  the  provision  of  spiritual  consolations  to  Catholic  prisoners. 
Of  late  greater  facilities  had  been  allowed  to  priests  for  visiting 
the  prisons,  of  which  he  wished  to  be  in  a  position  to  take 
advantage.  Lord  Petre,  with  his  accustomed  generosity,  came 
forward  and  subscribed  £50  a  year,  and  a  few  others  gave 
smaller  sums  ;  but  the  work  was  only  supported  by  means  of 
continuous  effort  on  the  part  of  the  bishop. 

Turning  his  thoughts  to  the  London  churches,  Bishop 
Talbot  was  anxious  to  see  one  or  more  permanently  established 
in  the  West  end,  under  the  direct  control  of  the  bishop,  so  as 
to  be  free  from  the  uncertainty  which  was  always  attached  to 
an  Embassy  Chapel.  The  following  letter  of  Dr.  Hussey,  the 
head  chaplain  to  the  Spanish  ambassador,  dated  February  3, 
probably  in  the  year  1787,  explains  Bishop  Talbot's  wishes  in 
the  matter : — 

"  Titchfield  Street,  February  3. 

"  My  Lord, 

"  I  have  turned  over  in  my  mind  what  you  observed 
relative  to  the  Chapel  in  York  Street,1  '  that  it  would  be  more 
likely  to  continue  a  permanent  Chapel  for  the  use  of  the  public 
by  establishing  it  by  subscription  than  by  making  it  a  Spanish 
Chapel,  which  in  case  of  a  rupture  between  this  country  and 
Spain  must  be  immediately  shut,  and  the  public  deprived  of 
the  benefit  of  it,  perhaps  for  ever'.  This  observation  of  yours, 
My  Lord,  did  not  at  that  moment  make  as  much  impression 
on  my  mind  as  it  has  since,  by  reflecting  more  upon  it.  As  it 
would  be  proper  that  the  Chapel  be  under  your  own  immediate 
direction,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Chapels  at  Moorfields 
and  Wapping  2  are,  the  lease  &c.  ought  to  stand  in  your  name, 
and  I  shall  assign  it  to  you  whenever  you  order  me.  Many 
persons  in  the  neighbourhood  of  St.  James  have  offered  their 
subscriptions,  but  I  told  them  that  none  could  be  admitted 
until  everything  was  vested  in  your  name,  and  everything 
done  by  your  authority  only.  That  then  you  would  appoint 
a  Committee  to  raise  and  settle  the  subscriptions,  and  that  I 
should  do  everything  to  procure  them. 

1  I.e.  York  Street,  St.  James's.  2  Better  known  as  Virginia  Street. 


190  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

"  I  request  your  Lordship's  answer,  and  that  you  will  re- 
main assured  that  your  commands  shall  be  cheerfully  and 
sincerely  obeyed  by 

"  Your  ever  dutiful  and  humble  servant, 

"T.   HUSSEY." 

For  some  reason,  this  scheme  was  never  carried  out.  The 
chapel  at  York  Street  was  conducted  as  a  Spanish  Embassy 
Chapel  until  1791 ,  when  the  ambassador  removed  to  Man- 
chester Square,  then  in  the  outskirts  of  London,  and  the 
Chapel  of  St.  James,  Spanish  Place,  so  well  known  to  Lon- 
doners for  close  upon  a  century,  was  planned  out.  When 
finished,  it  was  supported  for  a  long  time  entirely  by  the 
Spanish  ambassador. 

Although,  however,  Bishop  Talbot's  scheme  with  respect  to 
the  Spanish  Chapel  came  to  nothing,  a  similar  project  with 
regard  to  the  Bavarian  Chapel  was  carried  into  effect.  The 
Elector  of  Bavaria  gave  his  consent  in  a  letter  dated  May  2, 
1788.  It  was  arranged  that  he  should  continue  to  patronise 
the  chapel,  and  should  pay  an  endowment  of  £400  a  year ; 
but  "  that  the  Spiritual  Conduct  of  the  Chapel  should  to  all 
Intents  and  Purposes  be  under  the  sole  guidance  of  the  Bishop 
of  the  London  District ". 

A  committee  was  formed  under  Bishop  Talbot  as  pre- 
sident, and  a  circular  was  issued  on  July  31,  1787,  inviting 
subscriptions.  The  active  co-operation  of  a  committee  consist- 
ing chiefly  of  laymen  was  at  that  time  considered  necessary  for 
carrying  on  any  chapel  which  was  not  regularly  provided  for. 
The  idea  of  supporting  a  mission  out  of  the  ordinary  collec- 
tions, without  any  endowment  or  other  help,  as  is  now  nearly 
always  done,  was  then  unknown.  There  was,  indeed,  usually  a 
collection  at  each  of  the  services,  but  it  was  by  no  means 
always  applied  to  the  support  of  the  mission  :  more  usually  the 
proceeds  were  distributed  among  the  poor.  This  was,  of  course, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  most  of  the  missions  had  fixed  endow- 
ments, either  accruing  from  funded  property,  or  paid  annually, 
in  either  case  due  to  the  generosity  of  some  nobleman  or  gentle- 
man of  position,  who  would  not  wish  to  call  upon  the  local  laity 
to  help  in  the  endowment.     Even  if  all  the  collections  had  been 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.  191 

applied  to  the  support  of  the  chapel,  however,  owing  to  the 
small  size  and  poverty  of  the  congregations,  the  amount  would 
have  been  wholly  insufficient  to  meet  the  ordinary  current  ex- 
penses, and  the  natural  method  seemed  to  be  to  ask  a  certain 
number  of  laymen  to  guarantee  all  that  was  necessary,  and  to 
take  steps  to  obtain  it  by  subscriptions  among  themselves  and 
others.  In  days  when  nearly  all  the  existing  chapels  were 
under  the  indirect  control  of  the  lay  patrons  who  supported 
them,  the  idea  of  a  lay  committee  of  management  would  no 
doubt  have  appeared  more  natural  than  it  would  to  us  to-day. 
The  system,  however,  never  worked  well,  and  it  did  not  last 
many  years.  Difficulties  between  the  committee  and  the  chap- 
lains were  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  often  led  to  disagree- 
able incidents  which  were  difficult  of  adjustment.  However, 
it  was  at  that  time  the  only  method  of  conducting  an  unen- 
dowed mission,  and  it  relieved  the  missioner  of  those  days  of 
much  of  the  anxiety  which  his  modern  successor  has  to  face. 

The  Warwick  Street  committee  numbered  twenty-two  mem- 
bers, made  up  of  three  chaplains  and  nineteen  laymen,  all 
members  of  the  "  parish  ".  It  had  been  intended  to  appoint  as 
head  chaplain  the  well-known  Irish  patriot,  Rev.  Arthur  O'Leary, 
a  Capuchin  friar,  who  had  recently  taken  up  his  residence  in 
London.  The  reasons  for  his  doing  so  are  shrouded  in  some 
obscurity.  He  had  admittedly  been  of  great  service  to  the 
Government  in  Ireland,  in  helping  them  to  maintain  order, 
which  he  did  by  means  of  the  extraordinary  power  of  his  in- 
fluence over  the  Irish  peasantry.  In  consideration  for  his 
services,  he  was  rewarded  by  a  pension,  though  there  is  some 
doubt  as  to  when  this  dates  from,  and  it  appears  certain  that  it 
was  not  paid  regularly  until  O'Leary  brought  pressure  to  bear 
at  a  later  date.  Whether  or  not  this  was  connected  with  his 
determination  to  abandon  all  connection  with  Irish  politics  and 
leave  the  country  is  still  a  matter  of  dispute,  and  need  not 
concern  us  here.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  that  he  came 
to  spend  the  remainder  of  his  life  in  London.  He  had  no  idea 
of  passing  his  last  years  in  a  state  of  inactivity,  and  he  gladly 
accepted  the  offer  made  to  him.  Very  soon,  however,  it  ap- 
peared that  the  appointment  was  unpopular,  not,  as  he  supposed, 
on  account  of  his  nationality,  but  rather  from  the  prominent 
part  which  he  had  played  in  political  strife.     As  soon  therefore 


192  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

as  he  learnt  that  he  would  not  be  welcome,  he  wisely  resigned. 
Afterwards  he  found  a  more  congenial  sphere  of  work  in  estab- 
lishing a  chapel  for  the  Irish  in  London,  the  well-known  St. 
Patrick's,  Soho,  which  has  lasted  until  the  present  day.  In  the 
meantime,  in  order  to  smooth  over  all  party  feeling,  Bishop 
Talbot  himself  became  nominally  head  chaplain  of  Warwick 
Street,  with  the  Revv.  John  Lindow  and  John  Earle  as  his 
assistants. 

The  first  trustees  of  Warwick  Street  Chapel  under  its  new 
conditions  were  Bishop  James  Talbot,  his  nephew  the  new 
Earl  of  Shrewsbury,  Lord  Petre  and  Mr.  John  Throckmorton. 
Three  out  of  the  four  were  thus  members  of  the  Catholic  Com- 
mittee, while  the  fourth,  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury,  was  in  close 
sympathy  with  it — a  fact  not  without  significance  as  indicating 
the  real  devotion  to  religion  which  characterised  the  members 
of  that  body.  Yet  the  "  Regulations  "  for  their  procedure  seem 
drawn  out  with  especial  view  to  avoiding  the  mistakes  into 
which  the  Catholic  Committee  had  fallen,  for  the  absolute 
supremacy  of  the  bishop  in  all  matters,  both  spiritual  and 
temporal,  is  repeatedly  insisted  upon.  For  this  and  other 
reasons,  these  Regulations  seem  of  sufficient  interest  to  warrant 
quoting  them  in  full : — 

"  I.  That  the  lease  of  the  Premises  shall  be  held  in  trust 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  subscribers,  and  Catholics  in 
general ;  and  that  the  Honourable  James  Talbot,  the  Bishop 
of  this  District,  the  Right  Honourable  Earl  of  Shrewsbury, 
the  Right  Honourable  Lord  Petre,  and  John  Throckmorton 
Esq.,  be  vested  with  the  said  trust. 

"  II.  That  the  present  Committee  be  empowered  to  conduct, 
manage,  and  superintend  every  thing  relative  to  the  applying 
for  Subscriptions,  taking  down  and  re-building  the  Chapel,  &c. 
unless  it  should  be  found  to  be  the  wish  and  opinion  of  the 
Subscribers  that  a  General  Meeting  be  called  and  a  new 
Committee  balloted  for  who  should  be  vested  with  the  same 
Power. 

"  III.  That  a  General  Meeting  be  called  annually,  in  order 
to  choose  and  appoint  a  Committee,  to  consist  of  the  Bishop  of 
this  District,  who  should  always  be  one,  and  have  the  Privilege 
of  appointing  a  Deputy  to  act  for  him  whenever  it  should 
be   inconvenient  to   attend    in    Person ;    two  of  the    Clergy, 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.  193 

together  with  ten  Lay  Subscribers  ;  which  Committee  so  formed 
and  chosen  to  have  the  entire  Management  and  Direction  of 
every  Thing  concerning  the  Chapel :  the  Bishop  reserving  to 
himself  the  absolute  power  of  rejecting  every  measure  which 
he  should  declare  to  be  contrary  to  the  faith  and  discipline  of 
the  Catholic  Church. 

"  IV.  The  Committee  to  have  the  privilege  of  recommend- 
ing the  Chaplains,  but  that  their  appointment  or  rejection  should 
rest  entirely  with  the  Bishop. 

"  V.  That  in  order  to  raise  a  revenue  sufficient  to  support 
the  annual  expense  of  the  Chapel,  the  Committee  be  empowered 
to  rate  and  let  the  Seats,  at  such  price  per  Annum  as  should 
raise  the  Sum  wanted ;  allowing  the  Subscribers  the  choice  of 
seats  in  rotation  according  to  the  sum  they  have  subscribed ; 
but  should  there  be  more  than  one  who  have  subscribed  the 
same  sum,  the  Preference  to  be  given  to  the  Earliest  Subscriber  ; 
and  so  long  as  they  and  their  Heirs  &c.  shall  continue  to  pay 
the  said  Annual  Rent,  the  same  to  be  secured  to  them. 

"VI.  The  spiritual  Regulations  of  the  Chapel  to  be  left 
entirely  to  the  Bishop. 

"  (Signed)        James  Talbot." 

The  first  appeal  for  subscriptions  was  printed  and  issued  on 
July  31,  1788,  when  the  committee  was  formed.  They  held 
frequent  meetings,  and  subscriptions  came  in  freely,  headed  by 
one  of  ^300  from  Lord  Petre.  Sufficient  money  was  obtained 
to  enable  the  committee  to  begin  building  in  the  spring  of 
1789.  The  building  put  up  at  that  date  is  still  in  use,  and 
on  the  closing  of  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  it  will  become  the 
oldest  Catholic  Church  in  London.  The  interior  has  been  a 
good  deal  altered  in  succeeding  years  ;  but  the  exterior  remains 
much  as  it  was  when  first  built.  Without  having  any  pretence 
to  architecture,  it  is  nevertheless  of  the  greatest  interest  as  an 
example  of  the  aims  and  aspirations  of  those  days,  for  it  was 
considered  by  those  who  built  it  to  be  a  great  advance  on  any- 
thing which  the  Catholics  had  previously  done. 

Another  important  church  which  was  building  during  the 

last  years  of  Bishop  Talbot's  life  was  the  original  one  near  St. 

George's  Fields,  the  precursor  of  Pugin's  well-known  church 

which  is  now  the  cathedral  of  the  diocese  of  Southwark.     The 

vol.  1.  13 


194  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

old  church  was  in  the  London  Road,  on  the  spot  now  occupied 
by  the  South  London  Music  Hall.  It  was  often  spoken  of  as 
the  Borough  Chapel,  for  the  mission  had  been  founded  in  1787 
in  a  house  in  Little  Bandy  Leg  Walk,  where  now  Guildford 
Street  stands,  close  to  the  Borough.  The  story  of  its  begin- 
ning and  early  development  can  be  given  in  the  words  of  the 
printed  address  which  was  circulated  by  Rev.  John  Griffiths, 
the  head  priest  there,  appealing  for  funds,  in  1790.  It  was 
signed  by  three  priests  and  twelve  laymen  who  formed  a  com- 
mittee under  Rev.  John  Lindow.  The  following  is  the  text 
of  the  opening  part : —  l 

"  To  the  Catholic  Nobility,  Gentry  and  others. 

"We  the  Committee,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  for 
building  the  Chapel  in  the  Borough,  humbly  beg  leave  to  lay 
our  present  necessities  before  you,  hoping  our  petition  will 
meet  with  your  hearty  support. 

"  It  has  been  the  decided  opinion  for  many  years  past  of 
many  respectable  Catholics  who  have  turned  their  minds  to 
the  subject,  that  a  Chapel  was  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
inhabitants  in  the  Borough,  South wark,  Lambeth,  Newington, 
Walworth  and  other  villages  adjacent,  since  it  evidently  ap- 
peared that  ignorance,  impiety  and  irreligion,  a  neglect  of  the 
sacraments,  and  every  lamentable  species  of  spiritual  distress 
pervaded  the  whole  body  of  the  lower  class  of  Catholics  in 
those  parts.  Hence  about  three  years  ago,  a  house  was  taken 
and  a  room  opened,  which  by  some  was  judged  sufficiently 
large  for  the  purpose.  But  it  was  soon  found  that  it  would 
not  contain  one  half  of  the  congregation,  and  in  other  respects 
[it  was]  very  unfit  both  on  account  of  its  situation  and  ruinous 
condition.  Notwithstanding  these  disadvantages,  the  great 
good  that  visibly  appeared  from  the  first  feeble  essay,  convinced 
all  who  were  witnesses  of  it  that  it  was  a  duty  they  owed  to 
God  and  their  neighbour  to  use  their  utmost  endeavours  to 
carry,  if  possible,  a  plan  of  erecting  a  Chapel  into  immediate 
execution.  Hence  earnest  application  was  made  to  the  late 
Bishop  Talbot,  who  approved  of  their  zeal,  and  gave  his  hearty 
approbation  to  the  undertaking.       He  thereupon  appointed  a 

1  Kirk  Papers  (Oscott),  vol.  i. 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.  195 

Committee  to  procure  a  proper  place  and  to  raise  subscriptions, 
both  for  the  erecting  a  Chapel  and  house  for  the  priests  to 
live  in  contiguous  to  it.  A  place  was  procured  on  the  London 
Road,  in  St.  George's  Fields,  very  centrical  to  all  the  above 
mentioned  places,  and  the  most  economical  plan  was  drawn 
for  the  Chapel  and  house  that  could  be  devised,  and  agreed  to 
unanimously. 

"After  the  Committee  had  each  of  them  liberally  sub- 
scribed in  proportion  to  their  abilities,  they  began  to  solicit 
the  subscriptions  of  other  well-disposed  Catholics,  and  proceeded 
till  they  had  collected  about  five  hundred  pounds,  when  they 
were  desired  by  some  of  the  Catholic  Committee  to  desist,  till 
the  Bill  for  the  relief  of  Catholics  had  passed  the  House,  which 
they  hoped  would  be  that  sessions." 

The  date  here  alluded  to  was  the  spring  of  the  year  1789, 
as  the  Protestation  was  being  signed,  and  when  the  king's 
recovery  kept  Pitt  in  power,  and  had  given  rise  to  hopes  of  an 
immediate  Catholic  Relief  Bill.  The  Committee  appear  to 
have  been  apprehensive  lest  at  this  juncture  the  report  that 
Catholics  were  building  a  chapel  on  a  large  scale  in  South 
London  might  irritate  the  public  mind,  and  prejudice  their 
case  in  Parliament.  We  have  seen,  however,  that  before  the 
end  of  June  the  introduction  of  the  proposed  bill  had  been 
definitely  postponed  for  at  least  a  year,  and  all  reasons  for 
suspending  the  operations  at  St.  George's  Fields,  if  ever  well 
founded,  had  now  vanished ;  so  the  work  of  collecting  money 
was  resumed.  The  delay  had,  however,  acted  prejudicially 
on  the  minds  of  the  Catholic  public,  as  we  learn  from  the 
printed  appeal,  which  continues  as  follows : — 

"  [The  Chapel  Committee]  therefore  waited  with  patience 
till  June,  1789,  when  they  were  given  to  understand  by  some 
of  the  Catholic  Committee  that  they  might  proceed.  Now 
they  began  to  be  extremely  embarrassed,  for  when  they  solicited 
for  subscriptions,  they  were  answered,  '  let  us  see  you  begin  to 
build  first,  and  then  we  will  subscribe.  What  have  you  done 
with  all  the  money  you  have  collected  ? '  And  others  who  had 
subscribed,  began  to  call  aloud  for  their  money  being  returned 
again,  as  nothing  was  done.  The  Committee  finding  themselves 
in  this  difficult  situation,  consulted  what  was  best  to  be  done. 
They  perceived  the  impracticability  at  present  of  raising  more 

13  * 


196  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

money,  and  to  return  the  money  they  had  received  seemed 
entirely  to  abandon  the  charitable  work.  For  whoever  has 
experienced  the  fatigue  and  mortification  that  unavoidably 
attends  a  business  of  this  nature,  must  be  convinced  that  it 
would  be  next  to  an  impossibility  either  to  prevail  with  them- 
selves or  others  to  reassume  the  arduous  and  disagreeable  task 
which  had  recently  miscarried,  after  such  zealous  and  laborious 
efforts.  Yet  they  still  ardently  wished  that  a  charity  which 
promised  so  much  good  might  if  possible  be  carried  into  exe- 
cution. But  to  begin  to  erect  with  only  five  hundred  pounds 
buildings  which  were  estimated  would  cost  two  thousand 
pounds,  seemed  not  to  be  conformable  with  the  Gospel  rules. 
However,  they  were  encouraged  from  all  quarters  to  begin 
the  work,  and  to  rely  on  Divine  Providence  for  the  comple- 
tion of  it.  Hence  the  Committee  judged  it  best  to  comply 
with  the  ardent  wishes  of  their  numerous  friends  and  well 
wishers  to  the  cause,  and  therefore  gave  orders  to  the  trades- 
men immediately  that  the  buildings  might  be  commenced 
before  the  severe  Winter  season  commenced.  Some  of  the 
principal  tradesmen  employed,  notwithstanding  our  want  of 
money,  have  nevertheless,  to  their  honour  be  it  spoken,  carried 
on  the  work  with  amazing  activity  and  spirit :  insomuch  that 
although  neither  the  house  nor  chapel  are  finished,  yet  the 
chapel  was  opened  for  Divine  Service  on  Passion  Sunday,  and 
the  vast  crowds  that  thronged  to  it  both  on  that  day  and  ever 
since,  clearly  evinces  not  only  the  great  utility,  but  the  pressing 
necessity  there  was  for  such  an  establishment." 

In  quoting  these  last  words,  we  are  rather  anticipating 
the  order  of  events,  for  neither  the  opening  of  Warwick  Street, 
nor  that  of  St.  George's  Fields  took  place  in  Bishop  Talbot's 
lifetime.  So  far  back  as  the  year  1786  his  health  had  shown 
signs  of  failing,  and  at  the  end  of  the  report  on  the  Status 
Missionis,  which  he  sent  to  Rome  in  that  year,  he  hinted  that 
he  might  soon  have  to  apply  for  a  coadjutor,  and  the  follow- 
ing year  he  wrote  to  Mgr.  Stonor  as  to  whether  he  could 
reasonably  make  his  application.  The  latter  answered  on  June 
13,  l7%7,  as  follows  : —  x 

1This  letter,  and  those  in  the  following  chapter,  were  copied  by  Mgr.  Stonor 
in  his  "Agency  Book,"  which  is  now  among  the  Southwark  Archives  at  St. 
George's  Cathedral.  In  most  cases  (but  not  in  all)  the  originals  are  preserved 
among  the  Westminster  Archives. 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.  197 

"  Your  reasons  for  asking  for  a  Coadjutor  are  too  reason- 
able to  meet  with  opposition  here,  particularly  having  granted 
the  like  favour  to  your  younger  brother ;  and  such  is  the  es- 
tablished opinion  of  your  prudence  that  I  don't  imagine  any 
objection  will  be  made  here  against  the  person  you  may  think 
proper  to  propose.  It  may  prove  a  more  difficult  task  to  meet 
with  the  approbation  of  people  with  you :  of  that  you  will  be 
best  able  to  judge." 

On  the  strength  of  this  letter,  Bishop  Talbot  began  to 
look  around  for  a  suitable  person  for  the  post.  Apparently 
he  at  first  thought  of  the  Rev.  Richard  Southworth,  the  priest 
at  Brockhampton,  near  Havant,  and  in  his  will,  made  about  this 
time,  he  expresses  his  wish  that  in  the  event  of  his  dying 
without  a  coadjutor,  the  name  of  Mr.  Southworth  may  be 
presented  to  Rome  as  a  suitable  man  to  succeed  him.  But  he 
appears  to  have  changed  his  mind  shortly  afterwards  in  favour 
of  Rev.  John  Douglass,  of  York,  a  well-known  and  highly  re- 
spected priest.  As  Mr.  Douglass  did  in  fact  succeed  to  the 
vicariate,  we  may  give  here  a  few  details  of  his  past  career. 

As  would  be  supposed  from  the  name,  the  family  of 
Douglass  l  was  Scotch  by  origin ;  but  the  father  of  the  future 
bishop  had  quitted  Scotland  in  1740,  the  Stuart  cause  being 
then  still  under  a  cloud,  and  settled  at  Yarum,  in  Yorkshire, 
where  John  Douglass  was  born  three  years  later.  At  the 
age  of  thirteen  the  latter  was  sent  "  beyond  the  seas,"  to  the 
English  College  at  Douay,  where  he  went  through  his  whole 
course  with  credit,  and  earned  a  considerable  reputation  as  a 
scholar.  Towards  the  end  of  his  "Divinity,"  however,  his 
health  showed  signs  of  giving  way,  and  a  change  to  a  warmer 
climate  was  considered  advisable.  Accordingly,  after  his 
ordination  he  went  to  the  English  College  at  Valladolid, 
where  he  acted  as  prefect,  and  at  first  taught  classics,  later  on 
philosophy.  He  retained  this  post  until  the  year  1773,  when, 
his  health  being  restored,  he  returned  to  England,  and  after 
visiting  his  family  at  Yarum,  he  went  on  the  mission  at  Linton, 
in  the  same  county.  Three  years  later,  in  1776,  he  was  trans- 
ferred to  York.     There  we  find  him  when  he  received  the  un- 

1  The  very  natural  mistake  of  spelling  the  name  "  Douglas  "  seems  to  have 
been  equally  common  a  century  ago  as  it  is  to-day.  Charles  Butler  and  Milner 
both  spell  it  so,  and  in  our  own  times  Amherst  has  followed  them.  The  family 
themselves,  however,  have  always  spelt  it  "  Douglass". 


198  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

expected  request  from  Bishop  James  Talbot  that  he  should 
come  to  London  and  become  his  coadjutor,  with  the  right  of 
succession.  The  request  came  as  a  surprise  to  him,  and  he 
determined  to  seek  the  advice  of  his  bishop.  In  reply  to  his 
letter,  Dr.  Gibson  wrote  on  December  21,  1788,  as  follows: — 

"  Having  very  maturely  considered  the  affair  betwixt  you 
and  Bishop  Talbot,  I  resign  you  entirely  to  his  disposal  in 
that  regard.  If  he  continues  to  press  you,  as  I  presume 
he  will,  I  think  you  may  consider  it  as  a  proof  of  the  will  of 
God ;  consequently  ought  to  submit,  whatever  fears  or  ap- 
prehensions you  may  have.  If  God  lays  a  burden  upon  your 
shoulders,  He  will  support  you,  if  you  render  not  yourself 
unworthy." 

For  some  reason,  the  matter  did  not  proceed  any  further 
at  the  time.  Probably  the  public  affairs  of  the  next  few 
months  absorbed  all  Dr.  Talbot's  attention ;  and  very  soon 
after  this,  his  last  illness  was  upon  him.  Dr.  Milner  gives 
it  as  his  opinion  that  the  end  was  hastened  by  the  anxieties 
connected  with  the  disputes  between  the  bishops  and  the 
Committee,  which  his  meek  and  gentle  disposition  was  ill 
fitted  to  cope  with.  At  any  rate,  in  the  early  part  of  the 
month  of  January,  1790,  his  illness  had  so  increased  that  it 
became  evident  that  he  had  not  much  longer  to  live.  During 
those  days,  when  he  was  no  longer  able  to  take  part  in  what 
was  going  on  around  him,  the  events  of  the  last  few  years 
came  vividly  before  his  mind,  and  he  reproached  himself  for 
not  having  taken  a  more  active  course  in  opposing  the  doings 
of  the  Committee.  He  told  his  confessor,  Rev.  John  Lindow, 
that  if  it  pleased  God  to  restore  him  to  health,  the  first  use  he 
would  make  of  it  would  be  to  take  stronger  measures  against 
the  laymen  who  were  trying  to  usurp  the  functions  of  bishops ; 
but  it  did  not  please  God  to  restore  him.  He  became  gradu- 
ally worse,  and  after  receiving  the  last  rites  from  Rev.  John 
Lindow,  calmly  awaited  his  end.  His  deathbed  was  peaceful 
and  saintlike.  Dr.  Milner  was  present,  and  preaching  to  his 
people  the  following  Sunday,  described  the  scene : — 

"We  beheld  him  five  days  ago,"  he  said,  "with  mixed 
emotions  of  grief  and  admiration.  In  the  very  pangs  of  death, 
with  an  open  brow  and  a  placid  countenance,  waiting  for  the 
happy  moment  that  was  to  consign  him  to  his  reward,  after 


1790]  LAST  YEARS  OF  BISHOP  JAMES  TALBOT.  199 

having  fought  the  good  fight,  run  his  destined  race,  and  pre- 
served the  faith.  Who  that  contemplated  this  scene  could 
have  avoided  crying  out  with  him  who  had  the  happiness  of 
being  witness  to  it,  '  Let  my  soul  die  the  death  of  the  just  man, 
and  let  my  latter  end  be  like  unto  his '." 

Bishop  James  Talbot  died  at  Hammersmith  on  Tuesday, 
January  26,  1790.  He  was  buried  in  the  Baynard  vault,  in 
the  parish  churchyard.  As  no  public  Catholic  funeral  was  at 
that  time  possible,  it  was  customary  to  read  the  Catholic  burial 
service  before  the  body  was  removed.  The  only  prayers  at 
the  burial  itself  consisted  of  the  Protestant  service,  which  was 
read  by  the  clergyman.  In  many  cases  a  Requiem  Mass  was 
offered  for  the  deceased  ;  but  it  was  always  entirely  separate 
from  the  funeral,  usually  not  even  on  the  same  day.  In  the 
case  of  Bishop  Talbot,  as  in  that  of  his  predecessor,  Bishop 
Challoner,  a  high  Mass  of  Requiem  was  sung  at  each  of  the 
four  chief  embassy  chapels  in  turn,  at  which  the  clergy  and 
laity  were  invited  to  attend.  The  first  was  on  February  1 1,  at 
the  Portuguese  Chapel ;  the  second  at  the  Sardinian  Chapel  on 
February  1 8  ;  the  third  at  the  York  Street  Chapel  of  the 
Spanish  Ambassador  on  February  26  ;  and  the  fourth  at  the 
Neapolitan  Chapel  on  March  10.  We  also  read  of  a  solemn 
Mass  of  Requiem  for  Bishop  Talbot  in  the  Chapel  of  the  Eng- 
lish College  at  Rome,  on  Tuesday,  February  23,  which  Rev.  R. 
Smelt  describes.  "  An  elegant  lofty  catafalco  was  erected  for 
the  occasion,"  he  writes  ;  "  on  the  top  a  mitre  &c.  were  placed. 
It  was  illuminated  with  near  fifty  wax  candles.  Mr.  Green 
officiated.  Lady  Blount  and  the  rest  of  the  family  attended. 
Chevalier  Jerningham  1  and  others  of  our  country  were  pre- 
sent." 2 

In  taking  final  leave  of  this  glorious  confessor  of  the  Faith, 
it  is  proper  to  record  that  more  than  a  century  later  his  remains 
were  translated  from  Hammersmith,  and  placed  in  their  present 
resting-place  in  the  chapel  cloister  at  St.  Edmund's  College. 
No  more  suitable  spot  could  have  been  found  than  the  college 
which  was  engrafted  on  his  own  humble  school  at  Old  Hall 
Green.     His  name  now  lives  once  more  in  the  place  formerly 

1  I.e.  Mr.  Charles  Jerningham,  brother  of  Sir  William  Jerningham  of  Costessey 
Park,  Norfolk,  and  an  officer  in  the  Austrian  army. 

2  Birmingham  Archives. 


200  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1787- 

his  own.  The  second  funeral  took  place  on  April  25,  1901, 
and  the  ceremonies  and  circumstance  could  not  but  bring 
to  mind  the  progress  the  Church  has  made  in  this  country 
during  the  last  century.  The  public  procession  up  the 
college  drive,  the  Requiem  and  other  rites  in  the  beauti- 
ful Gothic  chapel  of  the  college,  were  surroundings  which 
would  not  have  been  thought  within  the  bounds  of  possibility 
could  any  one  have  looked  forward  at  the  time  when  Bishop 
Talbot  ruled  the  London  District.  In  presence  of  the  pro- 
fessors and  students  of  the  college,  and  of  several  representa- 
tives of  his  own  family,  his  body  was  placed  in  its  last  resting- 
place  :  a  modern  brass  now  marks  the  tomb  of  the  last  confessor 
of  the  Faith  in  Penal  England. 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  we  are  unable  to  learn  more 
of  the  inner  life  of  one  whom  we  cannot  but  regard  as  a  really 
remarkable  man,  who  through  his  very  retirement  and  humility 
exercised  a  widespread  and  lasting  influence  on  Catholic  affairs. 
So  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  he  never  sat  for  his  portrait,  as 
any  one  else  in  his  position  would  have  done,  and  we  are 
ignorant  of  his  personal  appearance.  His  whole  aim  in  life 
seemed  to  be  self-effacement.  But  the  few  letters  of  his  which 
remain,  reveal  a  man  of  large-hearted  charity,  of  boundless 
sympathy  with  the  fallen  and  the  unfortunate,  and  of  the  most 
tender  personal  piety.  With  all  his  weakness  of  character,  and 
even  timidity  where  public  action  was  concerned,  James  Talbot 
has  left  us  an  example  of  heroic  charity  and  patience  in  the 
darkest  days  of  English  Catholics  when  hope  for  the  future 
was  unknown  among  them,  which  those  of  later  and  more 
hopeful  times  should  never  forget. 


CHAPTER   XI. 

THE  LONDON  VICARIATE  VACANT. 
I790. 

On  the  death  of  Bishop  James  Talbot,  London  was,  for  the 
first  time  for  nearly  a  century,  without  a  bishop.  Hitherto 
there  had  nearly  always  been  a  coadjutor  ready  to  succeed 
without  any  interval.  This  time,  to  use  Milner's  words, 
"  whether  it  is  in  punishment  for  our  sins,  and  to  give  course 
to  those  evils  with  which  we  seemed  to  be  threatened,  or  for 
whatever  other  cause  that  pleases  the  Almighty,  we  are  now, 
alas !  left  a  flock  without  a  shepherd,  at  the  most  critical  and 
momentous  period  that  has  perhaps  occurred  in  the  history  of 
our  Church  for  two  centuries  "} 

For  while  Bishop  Talbot  lay  dying,  Catholic  England  was 
working  itself  up  into  a  ferment  over  the  question  of  the  Oath, 
nor  was  even  a  temporary  cessation  deemed  necessary  out 
of  respect  for  his  memory  when  he  died.  Meetings  continued 
to  be  held  and  pamphlets  to  be  printed  without  intermission. 
The  first  document  to  claim  our  attention  is  a  printed  petition 
addressed  to  Bishop  Gibson  by  the  clergy  of  Lancashire,  in  the 
following  terms : — 

"  To  the  Vic.  Ap.  of  the  Northern  District. 

"  My  Lord, 

"  Induced  by  no  other  motive  than  that  the  Catholic 
religion  may  be  preserved  in  all  its  purity,  and  the  minds  of 
the  faithful  kept  free  from  all  doubts  in  matters  of  Faith,  we, 
whose  names  are  hereunto  subscribed,  earnestly  request  your 
Lordship  to  use  all  your  influence  that  a  new  form  of  Oath, 
if  required  by  the  Legislature,  as  comprehensive  as  possible  in 

1  Obituary  Sermon  (Westminster  Archives). 


202  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

what  relates  to  civil  government,  be  presented  to  Parliament, 
that  our  allegiance  as  subjects  may  be  firmly  established,  and 
our  religious  rights  preserved  inviolate.  Would  not  the  Oath 
taken  by  the  Catholics  of  Ireland  in  the  year  1774,  and  ap- 
proved, as  we  believe,  by  the  see  of  Rome,  answer  this  salutary 
purpose,  being  deemed  sufficient  by  the  Parliament  of  that 
Kingdom  ? 

"  We  are  fully  convinced  that  a  schism  amongst  the  Catho- 
lics of  England  would  give  you  the  greatest  concern,  scandalise 
the  Christian  world,  and  produce  the  worst  of  consequences,  not 
only  to  the  souls  of  those  who  break  the  bonds  of  unity,  but 
to  the  property  and  persons  of  those  amongst  us  who,  from 
motives  of  conscience,  should  refuse  to  take  the  Oath  now  be- 
fore Parliament ;  and  that  a  Schism  will  be  the  consequence  if 
the  Oath  be  tendered  in  its  present  form  is  beyond  all  doubt. 

"  The  '  Address  to  the  Catholics  of  England '  has  come  to 
our  hands,  but  it  does  not  satisfy  the  minds  either  of  the 
Ecclesiastics  or  laity  of  this  County  of  Lancaster ;  few  indeed 
of  either  will  take  the  Oath  in  its  present  form  :  a  large  and 
respectable  body  of  people  may  consequently  be  exposed  to  the 
rigour  of  those  laws  which  yet  stand  unrepealed  against  us. 

"We  therefore,  in  the  name  of  the  Almighty,  humbly 
entreat  your  Lordship  in  conjunction  with  the  other  Bishops, 
to  strike  out  some  other  line  by  which  peace  and  union  may  be 
preserved  amongst  us ;  prejudices  of  education,  ignorance  or 
malevolence  be  removed  from  our  Protestant  fellow-subjects ; 
and  our  fidelity  to  our  King  and  country  fully  ascertained. 

"  We  have  the  honour  to  be,  my  Lord,  with  the  greatest 
respect, 

"  Your  Lordship's  humble  servants, 

[Here  follow  the  signatures  of  fifty-five  Lancashire  priests.] 

"  Blackbrook,  Jan.  1,  1790." ] 

This  petition,  coming  from  the  most  Catholic  county  in 
England,  was  very  significant.  Bishop  Gibson,  however,  re- 
quired no  additional  motive  to  induce  him  to  work  against  the 
Committee,  as  he  had  done  throughout.  He  issued  a  vigorous 
pastoral  against  them  dated  January  1  5,  less  than  a  fortnight 

1  The  date  is  strangely  misprinted  1789,  but  is  corrected  by  pen  in  some 
copies. 


iygo]  THE  LONDON  VICARIATE  VACANT.  203 

after  he  had  received  the  clergy's  petition.  Bishop  Walmesley 
had  issued  a  similar  one  before  Christmas,  as  an  answer  to  the 
Committee's  letter  published  in  the  First  Blue  Book.  Both 
pastorals  were  written  in  strong  partizan  language,  such  ex- 
pressions as  "glaring  misrepresentations,"  "glossed  over  with 
remote  interpretations,"  "  a  groundless  pretence,  a  far-fetched 
shift,"  "delusive  but  no  new  artifice"  and  the  like  occurring 
freely  throughout.  The  Committee  did  not  answer  as  a  cor- 
porate body,  but  several  of  them  individually  wrote  letters 
of  remonstrance.  They  fastened  on  two  expressions,  one  in 
each  pastoral,  which  they  frequently  alluded  to  afterwards. 
Dr.  Walmesley  had  said  that  they  were  "  Attempting  to  injure 
the  cause  of  religion,"  while  Dr.  Gibson  had  spoken  of  their 
"  Infernal  Stratagems ".  In  both  cases  they  considered  that 
the  limits  of  charity  and  courtesy  had  not  been  observed. 

The  same  was  felt  by  others  who  sympathised  in  general 
with  the  Committee.  One  of  the  most  important  of  these  was 
Dr.  Strickland,  the  ex-Jesuit.  Even  after  the  Hammersmith 
meeting  he  still  hoped  that  peace  might  be  brought  about  be- 
tween the  bishops  and  the  Committee,  and  was  working  for 
that  end.  The  following  from  him  to  Bishop  Sharrock  in- 
dicates the  lines  on  which  he  thought  that  a  solution  might 
be  possible  : —  l 

"  I  had  some  discourse  with  several  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee when  in  town,  Lord  Petre,  Mr.  Fermor,  Bishop  Berington 
and  Mr.  Wilkes.  They  all  seemed  willing  to  make  such  altera- 
tions as  were  necessary  to  make  [the  Oath]  agreeable  to  the 
bulk  of  that  body  of  men  in  whose  name  they  negotiated  the 
business,  provided  it  could  be  ascertained  what  changes  would 
produce  that  effect,  and  those  changes  did  not  materially 
alter  the  sense  intended  by  the  minister.  I  have  reason  to 
believe  that  they  spoke  their  real  sentiments,  and  in  particular 
Mr.  Fermor  assured  me  that  he  wished  some  things  were 
more  clearly  expressed.  In  these  circumstances,  I  rather 
think  that  when  the  Committee  say  that  they  are  too  far  advanced 
to  recede,  they  only  mean  that  they  cannot  entirely  withdraw 
their  petition  with  propriety.  But  this  will  not  hinder  them 
making  the  alterations  which  may  be  necessary.  To  me  there- 
fore, it  appears  extremely  proper  (if  I  may  make  use  of  that 

1  This  and  the  following  letter  are  both  in  the  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


204  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

expression)  that  the  Bishops  should  draw  up  a  letter  in  answer 
to  that  of  the  Committee,  particularising  those  passages  of  the 
Oath  which  they  judge  it  would  be  sinful  in  a  Catholic  to  take. 
I  say  sinful,  because  there  are  many  passages  in  the  Oath  which 
are  not  pleasing  and  which  I  could  wish  were  expunged.  But 
the  question  is  not  concerning  these  passages.  It  may  be  un- 
pleasant to  take  them  ;  but  it  is  still  more  unpleasant,  and  in 
my  opinion,  much  more  detrimental  to  religion,  to  have  all  the 
Penal  Laws  remain  in  force  against  us,  which  must  be  the  case 
unless  we  submit  to  the  conditions  required  of  us." 

When,  however,  the  two  bishops  wrote  so  strongly,  Dr. 
Strickland  confessed  that  he  was  pained  : — 

"  Mr.  Walmesley's  letter  to  the  Committee,  which  I  have 
just  read,"  he  writes,  "seems  to  preclude  all  hope  of  reconcilia- 
tion between  him  and  the  Committee.  I  must  own  it  gave  me 
infinite  pain ;  I  could  hardly  read  it  without  tears.  Who  can 
believe  that  Bishop  Berington,  Mr.  Wilkes,  Mr.  J.  Towneley,  Mr. 
Fermor  and  the  other  Gents  of  the  Committee  are  endeavour- 
ing to  injure  the  cause  of  religion  ?  They  have  been  at  much 
pain  and  expense  to  serve  that  cause,  and  are  men  of  the  most 
edifying  conduct.  The  imputation  is  of  a  grievous  nature,  and 
will  not  without  good  proof  find  credit  with  those  who  know 
their  character." 

Proceeding  to  consider  what  the  probable  outcome  will  be, 
he  continues  : — 

"  If  I  may  be  permitted  to  judge  from  what  I  hear,  the 
Committee  will  proceed  with  the  bill,  after  making  such  altera- 
tions in  it  as  will  give  satisfaction  to  the  greatest  part  both  of 
clergy  and  laity ;  and  if  the  Bill  passes  in  that  state,  I  have 
little  doubt  but  that  nine  in  ten  of  all  descriptions  will  adhere 
to  them  and  take  the  Oath,  which  they  will  then  consider  as  a 
mere  Oath  of  Allegiance,  declaring  their  religious  principles, 
and  in  particular  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  to  be 
in  no  case  irreconcileable  with  that  allegiance.  With  an  Oath 
of  that  import  only,  they  will  think  that  the  Episcopal  or 
spiritual  jurisdiction  can  have  no  concern,  and  if  a  schism 
should  ensue,  it  must  be  attributed  wholly  and  entirely  to  those 
who  refuse  to  give  that  pledge  of  their  allegiance  which  the 
Gospel  commands,  our  circumstances  require,  and  common 
prudence  dictates,  and  who  endeavour  to  hinder  others  from 


1790]  THE  LONDON  VICARIATE  VACANT.  205 

giving  that  pledge  by  an  irregular  and  unjustifiable  exten- 
sion of  spiritual  jurisdiction  to  an  object  of  a  nature  purely 
civil." 

There  were  several  other  protests  against  the  Oath  and 
against  the  Committee's  action  similar  to  that  of  the  Lanca- 
shire clergy.  One  which  was  printed,  is  endorsed  by  Bishop 
Walmesley  with  the  name  "  Barnard,"  from  which  we  may 
surmise  that  the  latter  was  the  author.  Another,  more  strongly 
worded,  he  endorses  "  Lay  Paper  ".  It  is  dated  January  2,  1 790, 
and  there  is  reason  to  surmise  that  it  was  the  joint  work  of 
Mr.  Weld  and  Lord  Arundell  of  Wardour.  But  there  is  no 
record  of  either  this  one  or  Mr.  Barnard's  having  ever  been 
signed  or  presented.  There  was  also  an  anonymous  fly-sheet 
entitled  "  An  Apology  for  not  subscribing  to  the  Oath,"  dated 
February  1,  1790,  and  freely  circulated  before  the  meeting  of 
Catholics  on  the  3rd  of  that  month. 

On  the  Committee's  side,  Bishop  Berington  wrote  a  long 
and  careful  answer  to  the  Lancashire  clergy.  It  was  never 
printed  ;  but  several  copies  were  made  in  manuscript,  and  it 
was  widely  read.  The  most  important  printed  paper  on  their 
side,  besides  their  own  letter  in  the  Blue  Book,  was  an  address 
sent  by  the  priests  of  the  county  of  Stafford  to  their  bishop, 
Dr.  Thomas  Talbot.  This  was  the  first  corporate  act  of  a 
group  of  the  clergy  who  later  on  acquired  unpleasant  notoriety 
under  the  title  of  "  the  Staffordshire  Clergy  ".  Yet  although 
their  conduct  in  several  instances  laid  them  open  to  criticism, 
they  were  nevertheless  men  of  exemplary  life.  Their  action  in 
the  present  instance  was  prompted  by  loyalty  to  their  two 
bishops,  Dr.  Talbot  and  his  coadjutor,  who  they  considered 
were  being  hardly  treated  by  their  brother  bishops.  The 
address  was  organised  by  the  vicar  general,  Rev.  Anthony 
Clough,  who  was  stationed  at  Chillington,1  in  consultation 
with  Rev.  Thomas  Southworth,  the  president  of  Sedgley  Park 
School,  and  Rev.  John  Kirk,  then  chaplain  at  Pipe  Hall,  near 
Lichfield.  It  was  signed  by  fifteen  priests,  including  the  above 
named,  and  also  Rev.  Joseph  Berington,  the  writer.  The 
following  is  the  text  of  the  address : — 2 

1  Near  Wolverhampton,  the  seat  of  the  Giffard  family. 

2  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


206  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

"  To  the  Honourable  Thomas  Talbot. 

"My  Lord, 

"  We,  the  undersigned  Catholic  Clergy  residing  in 
the  County  of  Stafford,  at  a  moment  when  the  minds  of  many 
seem  agitated,  deem  it  our  duty  thus  to  address  your  Lordship, 
that  the  motives  that  already  have  influenced  our  judgments, 
and  hereafter  may  direct  our  conduct,  be  made  known  to  you. 
But  our  conduct  at  all  times  shall  be  regulated  by  your 
prudent  control. 

"  When  the  Oath,  the  present  subject  of  controversy,  first 
appeared,  some  difficulties,  we  own,  arose  in  our  minds. 

"  But  the  liberty  we  have  enjoyed  under  your  gentle  and 
judicious  direction  permitted  us  to  discuss  those  difficulties, 
with  cool  and  temperate  minds,  uninfluenced  by  any  views 
but  such  as  the  love  of  truth  and  order  presented  to  us. 

"We  had  taken  the  Oath  of  1778,  and  a  few  months  ago, 
in  concurrence  with  your  Lordship,  we  had  signed  our  names 
to  the  Protestation,  a  solemn  Instrument  which  lies  before  both 
Houses  of  Parliament.  It  seemed  to  us  that  the  new  Oath 
did  not  materially  differ  from  them. 

"Deliberately  we  compared  them  together,  and  the  result 
was  a  conviction  on  our  minds  that  we  who  could  take  the 
Oath  of  1778  and  sign  the  Protestation,  might  admit  the  few 
explanatory  words  introduced  into  the  new  Oath ;  for  the 
principle  and  obvious  tendency  of  the  three  Instruments,  in  our 
judgments,  were  the  same.  We  wish,  however,  for  the  peace  of 
others  that  the  Protestation  had  not  in  the  slightest  degree 
been  departed  from. 

"  At  this  time,  an  Address  to  the  Catholics  of  England  from 
the  Gentlemen  of  our  Committee  was  presented  to  us.  We 
read  it ;  and  if  any  doubts  had  remained  in  our  minds,  they  were 
now  completely  removed.  It  told  us  in  what  sense  the  Oath 
was  understood  by  the  framers  of  it,  and  what  sense  it  would 
be  proposed  to  us  by  the  legislature  of  the  country,  that  a  test 
of  civil  and  social  principles  was  alone  demanded  from  us. 

"  The  names  of  Gentlemen  were  signed  to  this  Address  of 
great  and  high  character,  whose  views  to  promote  our  good 
we  know  had  been  most  upright,  and  to  whose  exertions  we 
felt  ourselves  much  indebted.     On  the  sincerity  of  their  declara- 


1790]  THE  LONDON  VICARIATE  VACANT.  207 

tions  we  could  rely.  But  among  them,  my  Lord,  were  the 
names  of  two  Gentlemen,  whose  opinions  to  us  must  ever  carry 
great  weight.  One  for  his  moderate  and  manly  character,  your 
Lordship  has  chosen  to  be  our  future  Superior ; l  and  the  other 
by  his  manifold  endowments,  commanded  universal  respect.2 
Could  we  now  for  a  moment  suspect  that  anything  adverse 
to  the  real  interests  of  religion  was  designed  by  such  men? 

"  In  the  Oath,  then,  we  see  nothing  demanded  from  us  but 
a  renunciation  of  tenets  which  have  been  falsely  imputed  to  our 
Church,  and  which  its  members  have  uniformly  rejected.  This, 
surely,  every  state  has  a  right  to  demand  from  its  citizens  ;  and 
it  may  do  it  in  any  form  of  words,  provided  their  legal  accepta- 
tion be  duly  ascertained.  This,  we  are  assured,  is  done  on  the 
present  occasion. 

"  When  the  Oath  declares  that  the  Church  or  Bishop  of  Rome 
neither  has  nor  ought  to  have  any  spiritual  authority  that  can 
affect  or  interfere  with  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  this 
realm  as  by  law  established  (which  we  conceive  to  be  the  only 
verbal  deviation  from  the  words  of  the  Protestation),  we  are 
told  that  it  is  only  meant  to  repeat  more  explicitly  the  proposi- 
tion which  precedes  it,  and  which  all  reject ;  and  that  by  the 
Ecclesiastical  Government  as  by  law  established,  is  understood 
a  branch  of  the  temporal  government  of  the  country.  But 
with  this  temporal  government  no  spiritual  authority  can  have 
a  right  to  interfere.  They  are  things  of  different  orders,  the 
respective  spheres  of  which  should  never  be  confounded.  The 
Catholic  tenet  which  admits  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Pope, 
and  which  restrains  it,  as  such,  to  things  of  a  spiritual  nature, 
is  not  meant  to  be  affected.  That  power  does  not  reach  to 
civil  concerns ;  nor  can  the  Church  enforce  her  laws  by  tem- 
poral coercion. 

"  With  regard  to  the  new  appellation,  '  Protesting  Catholic 
Dissenters '  which  has  offended  some,  we  know  that  the  statutes 
always  adopt  a  discriminating  language :  and  we  are  disposed 
to  surrender,  for  a  more  just  and  appropriate  name,  the  odious 
appellation  of  Papist. 

"  As  to  the  provisoes  of  the  bill,  we  think  we  cannot  dictate 
to  the  Legislature  how  far  their  indulgence  shall  extend,  and 
that  still  we  must  submit  to  restrictions. 

1  Bishop  Berington.  2  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes,  O.S.B. 


208  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

"  Such,  my  Lord,  is  the  candid  statement  of  what  has 
passed  in  our  minds,  and  of  our  present  conviction,  which 
motives,  free  from  every  party  view  (and  which  reason,  we 
trust,  and  conscience  must  applaud),  have  contributed  to  pro- 
duce. Under  this  conviction,  we  judge  the  Oath  not  only  to 
be  lawful,  but  that  we  ourselves  should  merit  reprehension  if, 
when  called  on  by  Government  to  give  a  test  of  our  civil  and 
social  principles,  we  should  refuse  to  take  it. 

"And  now,  my  Lord,  we  will  express  a  hope  that  our 
example  may  conciliate  the  minds  of  others,  and  tend  to  give 
us  back  the  blessings  of  concord. 

"  With  the  greatest  respect,  we  have  the  honour  to  be 

"  Your  Lordship's  most  obedient  and  dutiful  servants, 

"  Anthony  Clough.  John  Carter. 

"  Thomas  Flynn.  John  Corne. 

"  George  Beeston.  Tho.  Southworth. 

"  George  Maire.  Edward  Eyre. 

"  William  Hartley.  John  Wright. 

"  Joseph  Berington.  John  Roe. 

"  Thomas  Stone.  John  Kirk. 
"  John  Perry. 

"  Jan.  25,  1790." 

In  the  meantime  the  Committee  had  already  begun  to 
realise  that  their  only  real  chance  of  success  lay  in  arranging 
some  sort  of  compromise  with  the  bishops.  Their  attitude  is 
described  in  a  letter  from  Rev.  W.  Pilling  to  Bishop  Sharrock 
in  the  following  words  : —  1 

"  I  had  a  long  debate  with  Bishop  Berington  on  Thursday. 
He  speaks  of  the  Committee  as  resolute  and  determined  in 
their  intention  of  bringing  in  the  bill  early  in  the  session.  It 
is,  however,  agreed  that  the  Oath  must  be  altered.  I  have  by 
me  some  corrections  by  Mr.  Butler,  which  though  perhaps  in 
some  instances  not  quite  accurate,  yet  show  their  willingness 
to  treat  upon  the  business.  ...  I  asked  Bishop  Berington  if 
any  alteration  would  be  allowed.  He  answered,  '  Let  them 
come  forward  with  the  alterations  which  they  demand,  and  we 
shall  see  what  can  be  done'.  .  .  .  Some  of,  I  may  say,  the 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


1790]  THE  LONDON  VICARIATE  VACANT.  209 

most  learned  in  London  have  called  on  me  to  see  the  altera- 
tions of  Mr.  Butler;  and  although  they  do  not  approve  of 
some,  and  think  others  defective,  they  seem  to  think  that  all 
real  difficulties  would  be  removed." 

The  alterations  proposed  by  Mr.  Butler  became  accordingly 
the  basis  of  negotiation.  The  chief  of  these  concerned  the 
clause  to  which,  as  we  have  seen,  most  exception  had  been 
taken,  limiting  the  power  of  the  Pope  to  interfere  in  matters 
which  might  directly  or  indirectly  concern  the  civil  govern- 
ment. This  he  proposed  to  restore  practically  to  the  form  in 
which  it  stood  in  the  Protestation  : — 

"  That  neither  the  Pope,  nor  any  Prelate  or  Priest,  nor  any 
Assembly  of  Prelates  or  Priests  nor  any  Ecclesiastical  power 
whatsoever  can  absolve  the  subjects  of  this  Realm,  or  any  of 
them,  from  their  allegiance  to  his  said  Majesty ;  and  that  no 
foreign  Church,  Prelate  or  Priest,  or  Assembly  of  Prelates  or 
Priests,  or  Ecclesiastical  power  whatsoever  hath  or  ought  to  have 
any  jurisdiction  or  authority  whatsoever  within  this  Realm  that 
can  directly  or  indirectly  affect  or  interfere  with  the  independ- 
ence, sovereignty,  Laws,  Constitution  or  Government  thereof, 
or  with  the  Rights,  Liberties,  Persons  or  Properties  of  the 
People  of  the  said  Realm  or  any  of  them." 

In  order  to  arrive  at  an  understanding  with  the  bishops, 
the  Committee  invited  them  to  a  conference.  Dr.  Gibson,  how- 
ever, bluntly  declined  all  further  dealings  with  them.  He 
was  laid  up  with  gout,  and  therefore  unable  to  come  himself, 
and  he  refused  to  send  a  deputy.  Dr.  Walmesley  was  more 
obliging,  and  came  to  town,  together  with  his  coadjutor,  Dr. 
Sharrock.  Dr.  Thomas  Talbot  was  already  there,  engaged  in 
winding  up  his  brother's  affairs ;  and  Dr.  Berington,  being 
a  member  of  the  Committee,  came  as  a  matter  of  course.  The 
meeting  was  fixed  for  Wednesday,  February  3.  It  was  to  be 
an  "Open  Committee  Meeting,"  and  any  of  the  chief  Catholics 
then  in  town  were  to  be  free  to  attend.  Great  anxiety  was 
felt  as  to  the  result  of  the  meeting,  as  it  was  the  first  time 
that  the  vicars  apostolic  had  ever  been  face  to  face  with  the 
Committee. 

The  day  before  the  "  open  meeting,"  an  important  gather- 
ing of  clergy  took  place  at  Castle  Street,  to  discuss  the  whole 
question,  the  minutes  of  which  form  the  celebrated  Appendix 

vol.  1.  14 


2IO  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

IX.  of  the  Third  Blue  Book.  Bishop  Berington  was  present, 
and  the  names  of  ten  other  priests  are  given  as  having  taken 
part  in  the  meeting,  eight  of  whom  belonged  to  the  London 
District.* 

The  method  followed  at  the  meeting  was  an  unusual  one. 
Questions  were  put  by  Bishop  Berington  to  each  respectively, 
while  Mr.  Archer  sat  at  the  table  and  minuted  their  answers. 
The  first  five  questions  referred  to  the  Protestation,  which  all 
adhered  to  unanimously.  The  next  was  whether  in  framing 
the  Oath,  any  essential  change  had  been  made.  On  this  there 
was  a  difference  of  opinion,  more  than  half  of  those  present 
professing  to  see  no  difference,  while  the  others  considered 
that  the  changes  were  of  importance.  Then  the  following 
words  were  proposed  as  an  addition  to  the  clause  as  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Church  : — 

"  Inasmuch  as  the  only  spiritual  authority  which  I  acknow- 
ledge is  that  which  I  conscientiously  believe  to  have  been 
transmitted  by  Jesus  Christ  to  His  Church,  not  to  regulate  by 
any  outward  coaction  civil  and  temporal  concerns  of  subjects 
and  citizens,  but  to  direct  souls  by  persuasion  in  the  concerns 
of  everlasting  salvation." 

This  was  accepted  unanimously,  as  removing  all  difficulties 
in  the  Oath.  Some  years  later,  when  these  priests  were  found 
fault  with  for  subscribing  to  this  clause,  they  explained  that 
the  word  "  persuasion  "  was  not  intended  to  exclude  canonical 
censures,  or  the  like,  but  to  be  a  protest  against  physical 
coercion.  We  need  not  dwell  further  on  the  matter  at  present, 
however,  as  the  proposed  amendment  was  not  taken  up,  and 
forms  no  part  of  the  remaining  stages  of  the  controversy  about 
the  Oath.     We  shall  have  to  return  to  it  later  on. 

The  following  day  the  Committee  held  their  "  open  meeting  " 
at  the  Crown  and  Anchor  in  the  Strand.  The  minutes  can  be 
found  in  Butler,  and  a  short  account  is  given  in  the  Second 
Blue.  Book.      We  cannot  but  remark  on  the  absence  of  any 

1They  were  Revv.  P.  Browne,  W.  Strickland,  J.  Wilkes,  J.  Barnard,  A. 
O'Leary,  T.  Meynell,  T.  Rigby,  C.  Bellasyse,  T.  Hussey  and  J.  Archer.  Of 
these,  however,  Mr.  Barnard  took  no  part  in  the  proceedings  beyond  avowing  his 
signature  to  the  Protestation,  and  Mr.  Hussey  was  not  present  at  all.  The  latter 
appears  to  have  expressed  the  same  evening  his  general  adherence  to  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  meeting  ;  but  there  was  some  misunderstanding  about  the  most 
important  one,  for  he  afterwards  declared  that  he  had  never  seen  it. 


1790]  THE  LONDON  VICARIATE  VACANT.  21 1 

allusion  to  Bishop  James  Talbot,  who  had  been  dead  only 
just  over  a  week.  His  brother,  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot,  was 
present,  and  the  other  bishops  already  specified.  The  follow- 
ing members  of  the  Committee  attended  :  Bishop  Berington 
and  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes ;  Lord  Petre,  Sir  John  Lawson, 
Sir  Henry  Englefield,  Mr.  Throckmorton,  Mr.  Fermor,  Mr. 
Towneley,  and  Mr.  Hornyold.  Most  of  the  prominent  London 
clergy  also  attended,  including  Rev.  James  Barnard,  the  vicar 
general ;  Rev.  Thomas  Hussey,  the  Spanish  chaplain  ;  the  well- 
known  Irish  patriot,  Rev.  Arthur  O'Leary,  who  was  then  also 
one  of  the  Spanish  chaplains ;  Rev.  James  Willacy,  "  Chief 
Master"  of  Old  Hall  Green  Academy;  Rev.  Peter  Browne, 
Dean  of  the  Chapter  ;  Rev.  James  Archer,  the  preacher ;  Rev. 
Thomas  Meynell,  afterwards  well  known  for  his  charitable 
work  on  behalf  of  the  French  exiled  clergy  ;  and  Rev.  William 
Strickland,  the  ex-Jesuit,  late  President  of  Liege  Academy. 
Among  the  laymen  who  were  in  town  and  attended  were  Lord 
Arundell  of  Wardour ;  Sir  Thomas  Fleetwood ;  Sir  John 
Nicholson ;  Messrs.  William  Sheldon  and  Francis  Eyre,  the 
future  "  Mediators  "  ;  Mr.  Thomas  Stapleton,  of  Carlton,  York- 
shire, who  was  a  member  of  the  former  Committee  ;  Mr.  Henry 
Clifford,  the  lawyer  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  etc. 

As  soon  as  the  meeting  opened,  it  was  evident  that  the 
two  vicars  apostolic  who  were  present  were  not  of  the  same 
mind.  The  account  in  the  Blue  Book  says  that  "Bishop 
Walmesley  .  .  .  being  urged  over  and  over  again  to  point 
out  the  objectionable  passages  [in  the  Oath],  he  declined  it, 
and  contented  himself  with  denying  to  the  Assembly  any  right 
to  require  him  to  inform  them  of  the  parts  of  the  Oath  he 
thought  censurable  or  his  reasons  for  thinking  them  such. 
The  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  Middle  District  held  a  conduct 
totally  opposite.  He  declared  his  only  objection  to  the  Oath 
was  the  alteration  from  the  Protestation  in  that  clause  that 
relates  to  the  right  of  the  Pope  or  the  Church  to  interfere  with 
the  temporal  or  ecclesiastical  government  of  the  country,  as 
by  law  established.  That  being  restored,  he  declared  he  should 
no  longer  have  any  objection  to  the  Oath  as  it  then  stood." 

This  was  of  course  the  same  as  Charles  Butler's  chief  amend- 
ment ;  and  it  was  accordingly  adopted.  A  small  further  change 
was  introduced,  by  the  addition  of  a  few  words  to  the  clause 

14* 


212  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

which  disclaims  any  belief  in  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  priest 
to  forgive  sins,  the  addition  being  an  insistence  of  the  necessity 
of  sorrow  for  sin  and  a  determination  to  avoid  it  in  future. 

The  Oath  thus  amended  was  then  put  to  the  meeting,  and 
agreed  to  almost  unanimously,  the  only  actual  dissentient  be- 
ing Bishop  Walmesley ,  while  Bishop  Sharrock,  out  of  loyalty 
to  his  chief,  refrained  from  voting.  Lord  Petre  undertook  to 
induce  Mr.  Mitford  to  accept  the  changes  voted,  and  thus  the 
meeting  ended.  As  Bishop  Walmesley  returned  to  Bath  the 
following  day,  he  must  have  felt  the  gravity  of  the  state  of 
affairs,  as  well  as  his  own  helplessness  to  remedy  it.  Yet  he 
never  lost  hope.  "  I  have  asked  my  Master  that  this  bad  Oath 
may  not  pass,"  he  would  say,  "  and  He  will  grant  my  prayer." 

In  reality,  however,  even  in  the  South  the  opinion  of 
Catholics  was  less  unanimous  than  might  have  been  inferred 
from  the  result  of  the  meeting,  for  many  who  would  have 
voted  against  the  Oath  were  not  present :  in  the  majority  of 
cases  they  had  not  even  heard  of  the  meeting,  for  no  invitations 
were  issued.  Some  of  those  who  were  present,  also,  appear  to 
have  hesitated  to  express  their  opinions,  through  anxiety  lest 
the  meeting  should  become  clamorous.  Thus,  for  example, 
Rev.  James  Barnard,  who  as  temporary  ruler  of  the  London 
District  held  a  prominent  ecclesiastical  position,  immediately 
afterwards  declared  against  the  Oath.  And  this  opinion  gained 
ground  almost  daily  as  time  went  on.  In  the  North  both 
clergy  and  laity  were  almost  unanimous  on  that  side.  The 
great  danger  which  now  seemed  imminent,  therefore,  was  a 
division  of  Catholics  into  two  parties  or  factions.  The  follow- 
ing extract  from  a  letter  written  by  Bishop  Sharrock  to  Charles 
Butler  about  a  month  after  the  meeting,  gives  an  interesting 
estimate  of  the  strength  of  the  party  opposing  the  Oath  : —  l 

"  Though  I  know  not,"  he  writes,  "  whether  the  Committee 
of  the  Catholics  intend  to  bring  their  bill  into  Parliament  this 
session  or  not,  I  take  the  liberty  to  trouble  you,  actuated  by 
the  concern  which  the  melancholy  situation  of  our  affairs  gives 
me.  It  appears  to  me  that  we  are  much  divided,  and  indeed 
more  so  than  many  are  aware  of.  .  .  .  The  Vicars  Apostolic 
of  the  Western  and  Northern  Districts  disapprove  of  the  Oath, 
even  after  the  alterations  of  the  3rd  of  February.     I  believe  I 

1  Clifton  Archives,  Supplementary  Volume. 


1790]  THE  LONDON  VICARIATE  VACANT.  213 

may  safely  say  that  a  great  majority  of  their  clergy  will  adhere 
to  them.  The  person  vested  at  present  with  the  chief  eccle- 
siastical authority  in  the  London  District 1  unites  in  sentiment 
with  the  above  named  Vicars  Apostolic.  Several  distinguished 
clergymen  of  the  London  and  Midland  Districts  within  the 
very  narrow  circle  of  my  acquaintance  reject  the  Oath  likewise, 
and  this  gives  me  room  to  presume  that  others  in  these 
Districts  will  also  reject  it.  I  have  not  heard  what  is  said  of 
it  at  Liege,  but  in  France  and  the  Low  Countries,  as  well  as  at 
Rome,  I  hear  that  our  clergy  in  general  condemn  it,  perhaps  I 
might  say  unanimously.  This  weight  of  authority  will  un- 
doubtedly have  its  influence  among  the  lay  Gentlemen,  and 
will  be  strengthened  by  the  opinion  of  the  Bishops  in  Scotland, 
if  I  mistake  not ;  by  the  positive  declaration  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Cashel  that  he  never  did  nor  could  approve  of  the  Pro- 
testation, that  it  is  dissonant  to  our  religious  creed,  and  that 
he  has  not  heard  that  any  Prelate  in  Ireland  has  approved 
of  it.  .  .  ." 

During  all  this  time,  a  war  of  pamphlets  was  proceeding, 
and  they  followed  one  another  in  quick  succession.  The  Rev. 
W.  Pilling,  O.S.F.,  began  with  A  Dialogue  between  a  Protest- 
ing Catholic  Dissenter  and  a  Catholic,  the  nature  of  which  is 
evident  from  the  title.  The  contents  were  expressed  in  his 
usual  strong  language.  He  was  answered  by  Rev.  Joseph 
Reeve,  an  ex-Jesuit,  chaplain  to  Lord  Clifford  at  Ugbrooke. 
He  espoused  the  side  of  the  Committee  throughout  their 
transactions.  He  says  in  his  preface  that  he  has  had  access  to 
the  original  documents,  and,  indeed,  his  pamphlet  betrays  the 
fact  that  it  was  practically  the  work  of  Charles  Butler.  Several 
long  passages  are  almost  identical  with  the  corresponding 
passages  in  the  Red  Book,  the  same  passages  being  afterwards 
transferred  to  the  Historical  Memoirs  published  by  Butler 
thirty  years  later.  In  describing  the  meeting  of  February  3, 
he  asserts  that  the  Oath  was  "  unanimously  agreed  to,  with  the 
sole  exception  of  one  dissentient  voice" — a  strange  want  of 
candour  betraying  him  to  omit  the  circumstance  that  the 
dissentient  voice  was  that  of  Bishop  Walmesley,  the  senior 
vicar  apostolic,  and  his  own  bishop.  Later  on,  also,  he  shows 
remarkable  confusion  of  thought,  being  apparently  unable  to 

1  Rev.  James  Barnard. 


214  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

distinguish  between  Infallibility  and  Impeccability.  The  fol- 
lowing are  his  words  : — 

"We  acknowledge  in  the  Pope  no  Infallibility  whatever. 
In  his  words,  in  his  actions,  in  his  writings,  in  his  mandates,  in 
his  public  and  private  transactions  with  men,  we  believe  him 
fallible  like  other  Princes,  liable  to  passion,  to  error  and  mistake. 
Catholics  are  not  such  idiots  as  to  think  any  man  whatever 
impeccable  on  earth,  nor  yet  such  bigots  as  to  fancy  that  an 
order  from  the  Pope  to  do  an  immoral  or  dishonest  action  can 
be  binding  in  any  case  whatever,  not  even  under  the  colour  of 
its  being  done  for  the  good  of  the  Church.  Far  from  obeying, 
in  that  case  they  would  think  themselves  bound  to  resist  the 
Order,  nor  do  they  apprehend  that  their  resistance  could  sub- 
ject them  to  any  punishment  whatever."  : 

The  author  of  the  dialogue  promptly  answered  with  A 
Letter  Addressed  to  the  Reverend  Mr.  Joseph  Reeve,  in  which 
he  argues  once  more  in  a  tone  more  harsh  than  convincing. 
He  expresses  his  conviction  that  all  the  opinions  of  a  world  of 
laymen  "  should  not  weigh  a  grain  of  sand  in  your  mind  against 
the  dissent  of  your  Bishop"  2 — an  argument  which  might  easily 
have  been  retorted  against  the  author  himself  had  he  found 
himself  then,  as  he  did  afterwards,  a  resident  in  the  Midland 
District,  where  both  bishops  were  in  favour  of  the  Oath.  The 
pamphlet  of  the  Rev.  C.  Plowden  is  better  reasoned,  though 
quite  as  harsh  in  tone.  A  pamphlet  called  A  Second  Apology 
for  Disapproving  of  the  Oath,  published  in  April,  1790,  was  the 
work  of  Rev.  Joseph  Strickland,  a  relative  of  the  ex-Jesuit. 

Bishop  Walmesley  thought  that  notice  ought  to  be  taken 
of  the  pamphlet  of  the  Rev.  Joseph  Reeve,  in  view  of  his  posi- 
tion as  a  priest  of  the  Western  District ;  for  he  was  defending 
an  Oath  which  had  been  condemned  by  authority,  of  which  con- 
demnation the  Holy  See  had  recently  definitely  approved.  He 
communicated  with  the  Rev.  Thomas  More,  the  Jesuit  ex-Pro- 
vincial, who  in  turn  communicated  with  Mr.  Reeve.  The  latter 
contended  that  the  Oath  which  he  defended  was  an  amended 
oath,  and  not  the  same  that  had  been  condemned  ;  but  as 
Bishop  Walmesley  refused  to  accept  this  explanation,  consider- 
ing that  the  changes  made  were  not  substantial,  Mr.  Reeve  finally 

1  A  View  of  the  Oath,  p.  46. 
^Letter  to  Rev.  Joseph  Reeve,  p.  15. 


1790]  THE  LONDON  VICARIATE  VACANT.  215 

retracted  his  pamphlet,  and  authorised  Mr.  More  to  make  this 
known. 

In  the  meantime,  public  affairs  had  taken  a  new  and  unex- 
pected turn.  Notwithstanding  the  continued  efforts  of  the 
Committee,  the  Catholic  question  was  postponed,  a  result  which 
may  well  be  looked  upon  as  a  special  providence  ;  for  had  the 
bill  run  its  course  that  year,  there  would  have  been  no  one  to 
organise  any  opposition  to  the  Oath  as  it  then  stood,  and  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  a  very  critical  state  of  Catholic  affairs 
would  have  been  brought  about. 

It  is  not  entirely  easy  to  say  what  came  in  the  way  of  the 
bill.  Charles  Butler  and  Milner  both  observe  a  complete 
silence  and  there  is  no  allusion  to  it  in  Hansard.  The  only 
account  we  have  is  in  the  Third  Blue  Book,  in  the  following 
words : — 

"  [The  Bill]  was  received  by  the  House  in  the  most  favour- 
able manner.  That  the  Catholics  were  deserving  of  relief ;  that 
relief  ought  to  be  granted  to  them  ;  that  it  should  then  be 
granted  to  them, — was  most  emphatically  and  most  eloquently 
declared  from  every  quarter  of  the  House.  In  two  points  only 
there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  ; — whether  the  form  of  the  bill 
was  proper — and  whether  the  Oath  it  contained  should  be  con- 
tinued or  altered  or  entirely  rejected  and  another  substituted  in 
its  stead  ?  That  the  form  of  the  bill  should  be  altered  seemed 
the  general  opinion.  To  this,  besides  other  objections,  there 
was  that  of  the  delay  which  it  would  necessarily  occasion  :  but 
the  opinion  for  an  alteration  prevailed.  The  bill  was  therefore 
altered,  and  in  this  its  altered  state,  it  approached  very  nearly 
to  the  form  in  which  we  had  first  drawn  it."  1 

This  explanation  of  course  accounts  for  the  bill  not  having 
been  introduced  so  early  as  had  been  expected  ;  but  its  final 
postponement  to  the  following  session  was  probably  due 
to  another  cause,  namely  the  fate  of  Fox's  motion  in  favour  of 
the  Protestant  Dissenters.  This  question  had  been  brought 
forward  the  previous  year,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Mr.  Beaufroy, 
and  the  fact  that  his  motion  had  been  defeated  by  only  a  small 
majority  made  the  Dissenters  hopeful.  Fox  undertook  to  bring 
their  case  forward.  His  motion  was  simple  and  drastic — for 
the  full  repeal    of  the    Corporation  and    Test    Acts — and  he 

1  Third  Blue  Book,  p.  7. 


216  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

proposed  it  in  the  name  of  religious  liberty.  Butler  points 
out  as  a  significant  fact  that  the  petition  of  the  Dissenters 
had  been  so  drawn  out  as  to  include  the  Catholics  in  the 
benefits  they  asked  for,  and  of  course  Fox's  motion  would 
have  benefited  them  equally  with  the  Dissenters.  The  date 
fixed  for  the  motion  was  March  2.  Charles  Butler  says  that 
it  attracted  the  fullest  house  for  some  time  past.  We  are  told 
that  Fox  made  one  of  his  best  speeches,  and  he  was  seconded 
by  Sir  Henry  Houghton ;  but  both  Pitt  and  Edmund  Burke 
opposed  him,  and  after  an  animated  debate,  the  motion  was 
lost  by  204  to   105. 

After  this,  it  was  naturally  considered  advisable  to  post- 
pone the  bill  in  favour  of  Catholics  to  the  following  year, 
before  which  time  there  had  been  a  general  election.  Dr. 
Walmesley  attributed  this  postponement  to  the  prayers  which 
he  had  caused  to  be  offered  up.  He  wrote  to  Mr.  Fermor  and 
Sir  Henry  Englefield  in  that  sense,  as  follows  : — 1 

"  Sir, 

"  The  proceedings  of  the  Committee,  you  see,  have 
not  met  with  the  expected  success.  The  Divine  founder  and 
Governor  of  his  Church  has  interposed,  and  stopt  the  Oath 
and  bill,  which  would  have  proved  injurious  to  his  honour  and 
His  Church,  and  been  productive  here  of  a  schism.  He  told 
His  Apostles  here,  If  you  shall  ask  me  anything,  in  my  name, 
I  will  do  it.  (John  xiv.  14.)  Grounding  my  confidence  on 
that  promise,  I  entreated  Him  very  earnestly  (and  others  joined 
with  me)  to  take  the  affair  into  his  own  hands,  and  to  direct 
it ;  and  indeed  he  seems  to  have  heard  our  prayers.  His  hand 
is  all  powerful,  and  indeed  it  came  to  our  assistance. 

"  Your  obedient  humble  servant, 

"  Charles  Walmesley. 

"May  13,  1790." 

At  the  annual  general  meeting  of  English  Catholics,  held  on 
May  6,  there  was  therefore  little  business  to  transact.  Bishop 
Thomas  Talbot  was  elected  a  member  of  the  Committee  in 
place  of  his  deceased  brother,  this  being  no  doubt  intended 
as  a  compliment,  in  recognition  of  his  kind  attitude  towards 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 


1790]  THE  LONDON  VICARIATE  VACANT.  217 

the  Committee ;  for  it  was  not  likely  that  he  would  ever  attend 
the  meetings.  The  meeting  passed  a  vote  of  thanks  to  Mr. 
Mitford,  for  what  he  had  already  done  to  serve  the  Catholics, 
and  the  Committee  were  formally  instructed  "to  go  on  with 
the  Bill  in  its  present  state  ". 

Parliament  was  dissolved  on  June  20.  As  a  result  of  the 
general  election  in  the  autumn,  Pitt  continued  in  power,  with 
an  increased  majority,  and  in  the  session  of  1791  the  Catholic 
Relief  Bill  was  introduced  into  the  House ;  but  by  that  time 
a  new  bishop  had  been  elected,  and  the  Catholic  body  were  in 
a  position  to  make  their  voice  heard  independently  of  the 
Committee. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC. 

I790. 

It  may  at  first  cause  surprise  to  hear  that  there  was  no  re- 
cognised method  of  procedure  for  electing  a  new  vicar  apostolic. 
For  many  years  the  Stuart  claimant  to  the  throne  continued  to 
exercise  his  privilege  of  nomination.  This  claim  was  recog- 
nised until  the  death  of  the  "Old  Pretender"  in  1765,  by 
which  time  the  restoration  of  the  Stuart  family  was  no  longer 
a  factor  of  practical  politics.  From  that  time  the  election  of 
the  English  bishops  was  left  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  Con- 
gregation of  Propaganda.  Its  members  had  of  course  to  take 
some  steps  to  inform  themselves  as  to  the  suitability  of  the 
various  candidates  ;  but  it  rested  entirely  with  them  to  decide 
what  measures  they  should  adopt.  In  the  great  majority  of 
instances  the  reigning  vicar  apostolic  applied  during  his  life- 
time for  a  coadjutor,  who  succeeded  immediately  after  his  death. 
Thus,  in  the  London  District  there  had  been  no  election  during 
a  vacancy  within  living  memory :  the  last  one  had  been  in 
1703.  Hence  there  was  some  doubt  how  to  proceed.  By 
the  Constitution  of  Benedict  XIV.  then  in  force,  the  vicar 
general  of  the  deceased  bishop  became  administrator  during 
the  vacancy,  and  accordingly  that  position  was  assumed  by 
Rev.  James  Barnard,  upon  whom  it  thus  devolved  to  inform 
Propaganda  formally  of  the  decease  of  Bishop  Talbot,  and  to 
take  whatever  other  steps  were  required  for  presenting  names 
from  which  to  choose  his  successor. 

The  situation  became  complicated  by  the  action  of  the  Com- 
mittee. Immediately  on  the  death  of  Bishop  Talbot,  they  saw 
their  opportunity.  If  only  they  could  succeed  in  obtaining  the 
transfer  of  Bishop  Berington  to  London  as  the  new  vicar  apos- 

218 


1790]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.      2  19 

tolic,  the  influence  and  power  of  their  party  would  be  per- 
manently established.  To  this  end,  therefore,  they  directed 
all  their  endeavours  during  the  next  few  months.  For  several 
reasons,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  it  would  have  seemed 
a  very  proper  appointment.  Being  an  Essex  man  by  birth, 
Bishop  Berington  naturally  belonged  to  the  London  District. 
He  had  been  chaplain  at  Ingatestone  Hall,  and  was  well  known 
to  the  majority  of  the  London  clergy.  Many  of  them  were 
tavourably  disposed  towards  him,  and  wished  to  have  him  for 
their  new  bishop,  not  only  for  personal  reasons,  but  also  be- 
cause they  believed  that  such  an  appointment  would  be  for  the 
good  of  religion.  In  some  cases  this  was  a  sign  of  their  being 
in  sympathy  with  the  Committee  ;  but  in  others  it  was  because 
Bishop  Berington  was  believed  to  be  a  mild,  peace-loving  pre- 
late, who  would  be  more  likely  than  any  other  to  re-unite 
the  two  parties,  and  restore  peace  to  the  Catholic  body.  A 
certain  number,  however,  saw  further  into  the  future,  and 
realised  that  the  election  of  Bishop  Berington  would  mean  the 
triumph  of  a  party,  with  results  which  they  hardly  dared  to 
contemplate.  To  them  it  was  clear  that  the  proposed  nom- 
ination must  be  opposed  at  all  costs. 

It  was  evident,  therefore,  that  if  the  question  came  before 
the  clergy,  there  would  be  a  contest.  But  further  than  that : 
many  of  the  priests  had  imbibed  the  notions  put  before  them 
by  Mr.  Throckmorton  and  others,  that  they  had  a  right  to 
some  voice  at  least  in  the  nomination,  and  they  proposed  to 
hold  a  meeting  to  discuss  the  question.  Mr.  Barnard,  there- 
fore, in  his  letter  to  Rome,  asked  for  guidance,  in  case  the 
clergy  should  wish  to  make  any  recommendation.  Mgr. 
Stonor's  answer,  dated  February  24,  1790,1  shows  the  method 
of  procedure  naturally  expected  : — 

"  In  regard  to  providing  a  successor  to  Mr.  Talbot,"  he 
writes,  "  I  am  persuaded  the  Congregation  will  proceed  with 
its  usual  caution  and  mature  judgment,  and  proceed  to  no 
nomination  till  they  know  what  is  the  sense  of  the  Apostolical 
Vicars  and  heads  of  the  clergy  on  the  subject.  I  am  sorry 
you  are  not  like  to  be  unanimous.  In  case  of  a  scissure,  the 
sentiment  of  the  Apostolical  Vicars  will  doubtless  be  of  the 
greatest  weight :  and   that   the   Congregation   may  easily   be 

1  See  note,  p.  196. 


220  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

made  sensible  of.  But  as  for  a  right  of  election,  or  even  formal 
presentation,  it  is  what  we  cannot  pretend  to.  A  recommenda- 
tion of  three  or  four  proper  subjects  is  what  has  always  been 
sent  hitherto.  I  hope  those  worthy  prelates  will  proceed  in 
the  same  way  in  the  present  case,  and  make  no  doubt  but  that 
due  regard  will  be  had  to  authority  of  so  much  weight." 

Before  the  above  letter  arrived,  the  clergy  had  already  held 
a  meeting.  On  Thursday,  February  18,  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  Requiem  for  Bishop  Talbot  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  they 
adjourned  to  4  Castle  Street  for  that  purpose.  Thirty-nine 
priests  were  present,  and  twenty-one  others  voted  by  proxy, 
making  a  total  of  sixty  priests  represented — almost,  if  not  quite, 
all  the  priests  in  the  district. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  meeting,  the  Rev.  James  Barnard 
announced  that  in  his  last  will,  written  with  his  own  hand,  and 
signed  on  August  2,  1788,  Bishop  Talbot  had  requested  that 
Rev.  Richard  Southworth,  of  Brockhampton,  near  Havant, 
should  be  recommended  to  Rome  for  his  successor.  This  was 
evidently  unpopular  with  the  clergy,  and  a  resolution  was 
passed  requesting  Mr.  Barnard,  when  acquainting  Propaganda 
with  this  fact,  to  add  also  that  at  a  later  date  Bishop  Talbot 
had  communicated  with  the  Rev.  John  Douglass,  with  a  view  to 
obtaining  his  appointment  as  coadjutor  with  right  of  succession. 
They  then  proceeded  to  their  "election,"  and  chose  Bishop 
Berington  by  thirty-nine  votes  out  of  sixty.  Two  other  names 
were  added,  as  the  result  of  further  voting — Revv.  John  Doug- 
lass and  Peter  Browne.  The  clergy  did  not  go  so  far  as  to 
claim  any  right  of  final  choice,  but  contented  themselves  by 
sending  these  three  names  as  recommended  by  them,  for  the 
favourable  consideration  of  Propaganda.  They  felt  so  confident 
of  success,  however,  that  they  sent  a  deputation  of  their  own 
body  to  inform  Bishop  Berington  of  what  had  taken  place, 
and  also  to  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot,  whom  the  proposed 
measure  would  much  concern.  He  was  at  that  time  still  in 
London.  Though  naturally  averse  to  losing  his  coadjutor, 
he  was  still  more  so  to  taking  any  part  in  the  dispute :  he 
contented  himself  therefore  with  sending  the  account  of  the 
"  election  "  by  the  clergy,  and  a  certificate  that  "  the  account 
and  statement  of  the  late  general  meeting  is  a  very  impartial 
and  true  one,  and  may  be  entirely  depended  upon  ". 


1790]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.      221 

The  whole  proceeding  just  recorded,  from  first  to  last, 
appears  to  us  strange ;  but  in  the  absence  of  any  fixed  method 
for  recommending  candidates,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
generally  viewed  askance.  The  main  object  aimed  at,  the 
election  of  Bishop  Berington,  was  afterwards  all  but  attained, 
and  the  recommendation  of  the  clergy  was  in  fact  an  important 
factor  in  the  decision  ultimately  arrived  at. 

Important  steps  were  also  taken  by  the  laity  to  secure  the 
same  end.  Immediately  after  the  clergy  meeting,  the  Com- 
mittee prepared  a  letter  to  Cardinal  Antonelli,  Prefect  of  Pro- 
paganda, which  they  were  fortunate  enough  to  be  able  to 
forward  that  very  evening,  for  it  was  the  day  for  the  foreign 
mail,  which  then  went  only  once  a  week.  Mr.  Barnard's  report 
did  not  go  till  the  following  week,  and  the  Committee  had  every 
hope  that  being  first  in  the  field  they  would  secure  their  wishes 
before  there  was  time  for  any  effective  opposition  on  the  part 
of  any  of  the  bishops.  The  Catholic  peers  addressed  a  me- 
morial to  the  Holy  Father  himself.  Mr.  Thomas  Clifford  of 
Tixall  (afterwards  Sir  Thomas  Clifford  Constable),  who  was 
then  in  Rome,  undertook  to  deliver  it ;  but  acting  on  advice, 
he  waited  instead  on  Cardinal  Antonelli.  The  latter  was  very 
affable,  and  gave  many  assurances,  though  incidentally  he 
criticised  the  action  of  Bishop  Berington  with  respect  to  the 
Protestation  and  the  Oath. 

In  the  meantime,  the  report  of  the  "  election  "  of  the  Lon- 
don clergy  was  transmitted  to  Rome,  and  brought  before 
Cardinal  Antonelli.  Apparently  he  was  at  first  undecided  as 
to  what  view  to  take  of  their  action,  but  gradually  became 
converted  in  their  favour,  as  the  following  correspondence  will 
show.  In  his  first  answer  to  Mr.  Barnard,  Mgr.  Stonor  reported 
that  he  had  informed  Propaganda  of  what  had  taken  place, 
when  "  Antonelli  replied  that  this  pretension  to  an  election  was 
a  novelty,  and  that  the  congregation  proceeded  chiefly  on  the 
recommendation  of  the  Apostolical  Vicars,  and  therefore  ex- 
pressed a  strong  desire  that  those  Prelates  would  without 
loss  of  time  send  to  the  Congregation  a  recommendation  of  three 
or  four  subjects  that  they  think  proper  for  the  important  charge  ; 
on  which  occasion  it  is  usual  to  mention  in  a  few  words  the  age 
and  qualities  of  the  person  proposed.  I  hope  you  will  be  so 
good  as  to  signify  this  to  our  Bishops,  and  beg  their  speedy 


222  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

concurrence  in  an  affair  of  so  much  importance  to  the  public 
good.  Mr.  [Thomas]  Talbot's  District  being  the  nearest  to 
that  of  London,  his  opinion  will  probably  be  of  greatest  weight. 
.  .  .  If  you  think  proper  to  write  also  in  your  name  and  that 
of  your  London  brethren,  I  make  no  doubt  but  that  proper 
regard  will  be  had  for  your  opinion."  l 

In  another  letter,  dated  March  30,  1790,  addressed  to 
Bishop  Gibson,  Mgr.  Stonor  speaks  more  definitely : — 

"  I  answered  [Mr.  Barnard]  a  fortnight  ago  that  this  was 
not  the  proper  method  of  proceeding  in  the  present  case ;  but 
what  the  Congregation  principally,  if  not  solely  regarded,  was 
the  recommendation  of  the  Apostolical  Vicars.  ...  A  letter 
from  Mr.  Barnard  in  ye  name  of  his  London  Brethren  would 
be  also  of  weight,  but  then  he  must  be  careful  to  avoid  the 
word  '  election ' :  those  of  Petition  and  Recommendation  give 
no  offence."  2 

This  was  almost  the  last  official  letter  written  by  Mgr. 
Stonor.  His  health  had  been  breaking  for  some  time  past,  and 
after  more  than  forty  years  of  active  service  in  his  capacity  as 
agent  to  the  English  bishops,  he  naturally  felt  that  he  had 
earned  his  retirement.  When  Dr.  Gregory  Stapleton  came  to 
Rome  in  1787,  in  charge  of  Mgr.  Stonor's  two  great-nephews, 
he  was  asked  whether  he  would  like  to  accept  the  position  of 
English  agent,  and  seemed  inclined  to  agree ;  but  the  scheme 
was  prevented  by  his  appointment  as  President  of  St.  Omer 
that  same  year.  After  some  correspondence,  the  Rev.  Robert 
Smelt,  a  priest  from  the  Midland  District  who  had  been  edu- 
cated in  Rome,  was  chosen  for  the  post.  He  arrived  in  the 
spring  of  1 790.  The  report  he  gives  of  his  first  interview  with 
Cardinal  Antonelli  is  interesting  as  showing  how  the  latter 
viewed  the  state  of  our  affairs  at  that  time.  Mr.  Smelt  writes 
on  April  8,  1790,  as  follows  : — 

"  I  informed  Cardinal  Antonelli  of  the  method  used  at  the 
meeting  in  London  ;  he  said  it  was  novel ;  nevertheless  he  ap- 
proved of  it,  not  seeing  any  other  in  the  present  circumstances. 
I  told  him  the  names  of  the  candidates,  &c.  and  the  reason  why 
they  were  not  formally  presented.  He  enquired  how  long  Mr. 
Talbot's  will  was  made  prior  to  his  death.  On  hearing  two 
years,  he  instantly  rejected  Mr.  Southworth,  saying  there  was 

1  Ushaw  Collections,  ii.  2Ibid. 


1790]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.     223 

time  more  than  sufficient  to  publish  his  intention  and  send  a 
postulation  hither.  To  Bishop  Berington  he  had  some  objec- 
tions. Being  already  fixed,  why  should  he  be  removed?  Be- 
sides, his  name  was  among  the  Committee,  whose  proceedings 
he  had  procured  from  England,  and  had  them  translated  into 
Italian.  It  is  true  upon  enquiry  Mr.  Berington  was  not  the 
author.  Mr.  Berington,  he  said,  must  be  much  beloved  by  his 
brethren  to  have  two-thirds  of  their  suffrages.  To  the  other 
two  he  said  nothing ;  but  when  the  Postulation  came  to  proper 
form,  it  would  be  laid  before  the  Congregation  of  Propaganda."  1 

Cardinal  Antonelli  himself  wrote  to  each  of  the  three  vicars 
apostolic  on  March  20,  asking  for  their  views.  Thus  the  busi- 
ness was  then  in  the  same  stage  as  immediately  after  Bishop 
Talbot's  death,  and  the  efforts  to  secure  Bishop  Berington  had 
apparently  only  resulted  in  the  delay  of  two  months  in  the 
election.  But  in  reality,  more  progress  had  been  made  than 
appeared  on  the  surface.  An  impression  had  undoubtedly  been 
created  in  favour  of  Bishop  Berington,  and  although  the  part 
that  he  had  taken  in  the  Committee's  action  stood  in  his  way, 
this  was  not  considered  an  insuperable  objection. 

In  reply  to  Cardinal  Antonelli's  letter,  Bishop  Thomas 
Talbot  contented  himself  with  a  few  words  on  the  three  candi- 
dates selected  by  the  London  clergy.  He  wrote  as  follows  to 
Bishop  Gibson  : — 

"  If  this  election  should  be  set  aside,  it  would  be  very 
agreeable  to  me,  but  will  not  be  so  to  the  Gentln.  of  the 
London  District,  who  seem  to  have  set  their  minds  much  upon 
Mr.  Berington,  and  in  my  mind,  where  clergy  and  laity  agree 
upon  ye  same  person,  and  who  are  well  acquainted  with  him 
and  his  sentiments,  I  can  see  nothing  ridiculous  in  consenting 
to  his  nomination.  I  have  nothing  at  all  to  say  against  Mr. 
Douglass,  and  have  signified  to  Propaganda  that  I  think  all 
three  are  men  of  merit  and  virtue."  2 

Bishop  Walmesley  sent  an  independent  terna?  Rev.  Gregory 
Stapleton,  Rev.  John  Douglass  and  Rev.  Richard  Southworth,4 

1  Ushaw  Collections,  ii.  2Ibid. 

3  This  is  a  technical  term  indicating  a  list  of  three  names  from  which  one 
was  to  be  chosen. 

4  These  three  names  are  taken  from  Bishop  Walmesley's  own  copy  of  his 
letter  to  Cardinal  Antonelli.  The  report  current  in  Rome  that  he  had  recom- 
mended Rev.  James  Barnard  in  the  first  place  must  have  been  inaccurate. 


224  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

the  last-named  being  of  course  the  priest  mentioned  in  Bishop 
Talbot's  will.  Considerable  further  correspondence  passed  with 
Cardinal  Antonelli  on  the  subject  of  the  Oath  and  the  late 
events  connected  with  the  Committee,  and  Bishop  Walmesley 
learnt  with  great  satisfaction  that  the  question  having  been 
carefully  examined,  his  own  conduct  had  met  with  approval, 
and  a  formal  condemnation  of  the  Oath  had  been  decided  upon 
by  Propaganda,  and  confirmed  by  the  Pope  himself. 

In  the  meantime  the  Catholic  laymen  continued  to  press 
the  claims  of  Bishop  Berington.  A  second  memorial,  signed 
by  the  baronets  as  well  as  the  peers,  was  forwarded  by  the 
nuncio  at  Paris,  who  had  received  it  from  the  Spanish  Ambas- 
sador in  that  city.  This  suggests  that  it  may  have  been  ar- 
ranged by  Dr.  Hussey,  the  Spanish  chaplain  in  London,  who 
was  in  close  sympathy  with  the  Committee.  However  this 
may  have  been,  certain  it  is  that  the  Spanish  support  introduced 
a  new  and  very  powerful  factor  into  the  petitions  for  Berington's 
appointment,  which  for  a  time  seemed  on  the  point  of  success. 
Rev.  Robert  Smelt  wrote  in  this  sense  on  April  8.  "  How  the 
first  Memorial  will  succeed,"  he  wrote,  "  I  cannot  pretend  to 
say ;  but  if  the  other  is  effectually  supported  by  the  Spanish 
interest  (of  which  I  have  some  doubt),  the  memorialists  will 
probably  obtain  the  prayer  of  their  petition.  .  .  .  Spanish  in- 
terest is  very  powerful  here,  indeed  the  only  one  that  prevails. 
It  is  the  only  country  except  Portugal  that  is  not,  at  least  in 
some  degree,  at  variance  with  this  court ;  for  this  reason,  great 
attention  is  paid  to  the  Spanish  minister,  who  is  said  almost  to 
command  what  he  pleases."  l 

Lord  Petre  was  particularly  active  in  Bishop  Berington's 
favour  at  this  time.  Early  in  May  he  induced  Bishop  Thomas 
Talbot  to  write  to  Bishop  Walmesley  begging  him  to  petition 
Rome  for  the  appointment  of  Berington,  and  he  followed  this 
up  by  writing  himself  to  the  same  effect.  No  doubt  he  thought, 
and  probably  with  truth,  that  at  the  stage  at  which  the  negotia- 
tions had  arrived  in  Rome,  a  letter  from  Bishop  Walmesley 
would  be  decisive.  He  therefore  wrote  as  urgently  as  he  was 
able,  using  language  which  appears,  to  say  the  least,  unseemly. 

"  The  minds  of  men,"  he  writes,  "  are  not  in  these  times 
disposed  to  submit  to  any  unnecessary  punctilios  of  the  Court 

1  Ushaw  Collections,  ii. 


1790]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.     225 

of  Rome.  If  that  Court  is  not  sufficiently  sensible  of  the  delicacy 
of  her  situation,  and  makes  difficulties  with  regard  to  the  pro- 
priety of  the  clergy  recommending  that  person  whom  they 
judge  most  proper  to  be  their  Bishop,  and  apply  to  another 
channel  for  their  information  and  recommendation,  prudence 
and  wisdom  would  most  certainly  dictate  the  second  recom- 
mendation to  be  conformable  to  the  first ;  and  agreeable  to 
the  wishes  of  those  most  immediately  concerned." 

Further  on  in  the  letter,  he  became  still  more  threatening  : — 

"  My  Lord,  I  am  not  a  new  man  in  the  ways  of  business, 
and  some  experience  has  enabled  me  to  see  and  foresee.  My 
time  and  purse  have  always  been  ready  to  come  forwards  in  the 
support  of  Catholicity ;  but  if  they  are  to  become  the  sport  of 
Romish  punctilios  and  lust  of  power,  they  must  be  directed  to 
some  other  line,  where  I  trust  in  God  they  will  not  be  improperly 
employed,  though  not  directly  in  support  of  the  unreasonable 
interference  of  the  Court  of  Rome  in  this  country."  x 

Bishop  Walmesley  was  not  the  man  to  be  intimidated  by 
language  of  this  kind,  even  though  Lord  Petre  should  carry 
out  his  threats — which  in  fact  he  did  a  little  later,  by  with- 
holding the  annual  pension  of  £50  which  he  was  accustomed 
to  give  to  the  vicar  apostolic  of  the  Western  District.  How- 
ever, Bishop  Walmesley  replied  simply  that  he  had  already 
sent  his  recommendations  to  Rome,  and  it  only  remained  to 
pray  that  Propaganda  might  make  a  wise  choice,  which  should 
prove  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  religion. 

It  now  remains  to  speak  of  Bishop  Gibson's  answer  to 
Cardinal  Antonelli,  which  was  a  request  to  be  allowed  a  little 
time  for  consideration.  The  time  he  asked  for  was  given  him, 
but  was  never  used  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  asked ; 
for  immediately  afterwards  Bishop  Gibson's  gout  returned  to 
him  in  an  aggravated  form,  and  after  a  short  illness  he  died 
at  Stella  Hall,  on  May  19,  1790. 

The  state  of  the  English  Catholics  was  now  critical  indeed. 
There  were  only  two  vicars  apostolic  left,  and  Bishop  Wal- 
mesley was  practically  alone  on  the  orthodox  side.  Dr. 
Sharrock,  his  coadjutor,  was  inclined  to  be  on  the  side  of 
the  Committee,  Bishop  Berington  being  of  course  openly  so. 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iii. 
VOL.    I.  15 


226  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

It  became  a  matter  of  the  most  urgent  importance  that  the 
nominations  to  the  two  vacant  districts  should  be  hastened 
forward  with  all  possible  speed. 

Bishop  Matthew  Gibson  had  partially  foreseen  the  danger, 
and  had  left  a  sealed  letter  containing,  it  was  understood,  a 
recommendation  as  to  his  successor.  His  instructions  were 
that  it  was  to  be  forwarded  to  Bishop  James  Talbot,  or,  in  the 
case  of  his  decease,  to  his  brother  Thomas  Talbot,  who  was 
to  open  it  and  send  his  recommendation  to  Rome.  The  names 
recommended  turned  out  to  be  Rev.  Robert  Banister  and  Rev. 
Thomas  Eyre ;  but  it  soon  transpired  that  the  person  whom 
the  late  bishop  really  wished  to  recommend  was  his  brother, 
Rev.  William  Gibson,  the  President  of  Douay.  In  fact,  it  ap- 
peared that  he  had  already  asked  his  brother  to  become  his 
coadjutor,  and  the  latter  had  consented  to  accept  the  post  as 
soon  as  affairs  at  Douay  became  sufficiently  settled  to  allow  of 
a  change  of  president.  Bishop  Matthew  Gibson  had  thought 
that  a  request  for  his  brother  would  come  with  a  better  grace 
from  some  one  else,  and  the  Bishops  Talbot  had  jointly  under- 
taken to  propose  the  measure  to  Rome  in  the  event  of  his 
death. 

Bishop  Thomas  Talbot  accordingly  sent  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  late  bishop  to  Rome  ;  but  when  asked  by  Antonelli 
for  his  own  recommendation,  he  betrayed  the  fact  of  having 
fallen  under  the  influence  of  some  of  the  Committee  party,  for 
he  exhorted  the  Northern  clergy  to  emulate  the  example  of 
their  London  brethren,  by  making  a  recommendation  of  their 
own.  The  Rev.  John  Chadwick,  the  vicar  general,  had  ap- 
parently formed  a  similar  scheme  independently.  In  view  of 
the  clergy  living  so  far  apart  as  to  make  a  meeting  very 
difficult  of  arrangement,  he  wrote,  requesting  each  to  send 
the  name  of  the  person  whom  he  wished  to  vote  for,  to  Bishop 
Talbot  in  a  sealed  packet  which  no  one  but  the  bishop  would 
open.  The  Northern  clergy  in  general,  however,  were  not 
much  influenced  by  the  new  opinions,  and  very  few  of  them 
complied  with  his  request.  Rome  did  not  hesitate  long  before 
arriving  at  a  decision.  The  recommendations  of  the  late  bishop 
were  received  by  the  end  of  June,  and  as  Bishop  Walmesley 
had  also  put  Rev.  William  Gibson  in  the  first  place,  his  election 
was  decided  upon  by  Propaganda  at  their  meeting  on  July  19. 


Bishop  William  Gibson, 
Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  Northern  District,  1790-1821. 


I79Q]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC-     227 

The  contest  about  the  London  District,  however,  continued. 
A  pamphlet  had  been  recently  published  entitled  A  Letter 
Addressed  to  the  Catholic  Clergy  of  England  on  the  Appointment 
of  Bishops,  by  a  Layman.  The  authorship  was  afterwards 
acknowledged  by  Mr.  Throckmorton,  and  indeed  no  one  else 
could  have  written  such  a  pamphlet.  To  us,  indeed,  the  effect 
is  only  amusing,  but  in  the  existing  state  of  Catholic  feeling 
there  was  a  serious  side  to  it.  The  writer  contends  that  all 
Papal  nomination  to  bishoprics  is  grounded  on  abuse,  and  up- 
braids the  London  clergy,  who  after  holding  a  meeting  and 
electing  their  candidate,  added  two  other  names,  and  remitted 
all  three  to  Rome,  for  the  Holy  See  to  choose  from.  In  this 
he  trusts  that  the  Northern  clergy  will  not  imitate  them,  and 
he  calls  upon  the  priests,  both  of  North  and  South,  forthwith 
to  meet  and  make  a  final  "  election  ".  More  than  this,  having 
conceived  the  idea  that  the  election  of  bishops  is  not  valid  un- 
less acclaimed  by  the  voice  of  the  people,  he  concludes  that  Dr. 
Thomas  Talbot  and  Dr.  Walmesley  are  bishops  without  the 
power  of  the  keys,  and  suggests  as  a  remedy  that  the  clergy 
should  now  proceed  to  elect  them,  not  as  vicars  apostolic,  but 
as  Bishops  of  the  Midland  and  Western  Districts  respectively. 

"Do  you"  (he  writes),  "in  conjunction  with  the  laity  of 
your  respective  Districts  assemble,  and  choose  for  your  Bishops 
the  persons  who  now,  by  a  lamentable  abuse,  preside  over  you, 
in  virtue  of  an  authority  delegated  to  them  by  a  foreign  Prelate, 
who  has  no  pretensions  to  exercise  such  an  act  of  power.  They 
are  Bishops  of  Sees  where  they  have  no  faithful,  you  are  bodies 
of  Faithful  without  Bishops.  By  the  laws  of  the  Church  they 
may  be  elected  by  you  for  [your] x  Pastors  ;  they  will  not  fail  to 
accept  of  the  office.  They  are  now  aliens,  you  will  make  them 
Englishmen ;  they  are  dependent,  you  will  make  them  free ; 
they  are  foreign  emissaries,  you  will  transform  them  into 
English  Bishops :  they  must  rejoice  in  the  change." 2 

The  remainder  of  the  thirty-nine  pages  to  which  the  pam- 
phlet runs  is  in  much  the  same  strain.  The  writer  contends 
that  it  was  not  until  Rome  claimed  the  right  of  nominating 
bishops  that  the  oath  which  they  now  take  at  their  consecra- 

1  This  is  apparently  what  is  intended,  though  the  word  "  your  "  is  misprinted 
*'  their,"  which  makes  no  sense. 

2  A  Letter,  etc.,  second  edition,  p.  22. 

15* 


228  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

tion  was  required  of  them,  and  he  denounces  it  as  incompatible 
with  their  duty  to  their  country.      He  concludes  as  follows  : — 

"  If  after  this  examen,  you  are  convinced  that  the  election 
of  Bishops  by  Clergy  and  Laity  is  a  rule  of  the  Church,  that  the 
existence  of  titular  Bishops  is  an  abuse  which  ought  to  be  re- 
moved, and  that  the  Oath  taken  by  Bishops  at  their  consecra- 
tion is  a  violation  of  the  freedom  of  the  Church  and  of  the  duty 
that  we  owe  to  society  ;  I  trust  you  will  not  permit  human 
motives,  the  fear  of  thwarting  the  prejudices  of  individuals,  nor 
an  indolent  acquiescence  in  established  abuses,  to  prevent  your 
compliance  with  so  indispensable  a  part  of  your  duty,  as  is  that 
of  preserving  your  religion  free  and  untainted."  l 

This  remarkable  pamphlet  brought  forth  at  least  three  replies, 
Dr.  Milner  wrote  The  Clergyman 's  Answer  to  the  Layman's 
Letter  on  the  Appointment  of  Bishops,  in  which  he  contends 
that  the  most  that  the  Church  has  ever  allowed  has  been  a  nega- 
tive or  restrictive  voice  on  behalf  of  the  clergy  or  people.  Dr. 
Strickland  wrote  a  pamphlet,  which  he  published  anonymously, 
entitled  Remarks  upon  a  Letter  on  the  Appointment  of  Bishops, 
by  a  Clergyman.  Lastly,  the  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  wrote 
a  special  appendix,  which  he  inserted  at  the  end  of  his  work 
entitled  Considerations  on  the  Modern  Opinion  of  the  Fallibility 
of  the  Holy  See,  which  was  just  coming  out  as  one  of  the  fruits 
of  the  controversy  about  the  Oath. 

Mr.  Throckmorton  issued  a  second  pamphlet  five  months 
after  the  first,  dealing  with  those  who  had  answered  him.  The 
second  produced  only  one  reply,  by  Dr.  Milner,  the  full  title  of 
which  was  The  Divine  Right  of  the  Episcopacy  Addressed  to  the 
Catholic  Laity  of  England,  in  Answer  to  the  Layman's  Second 
Letter  to  the  Catholic  Clergy,  with  Remarks  on  the  Oaths  of 
Supremacy  and  Allegiance. 

But  in  truth,  his  opponents  were  taking  Mr.  Throckmorton 
too  seriously.  The  lengths  to  which  he  went  in  his  pamphlet 
effectually  precluded  him  from  having  many  followers,  and  the 
English  Catholics  were  far  too  orthodox  to  be  led  astray  by 
such  opinions.  It  has  often  been  remarked  that  when  other 
methods  fail,  a  powerful  weapon  may  be  found  in  ridicule. 
This  was  tried  in  the  present  case.  A  circular  was  published 
professing  to  be  an  appeal  to  the  Committee  from  "  the  Ladies, 

1  A  Letter,  etc.,  p.  38. 


1790]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.     229 

Widows,  Wives  and  Spinsters,  House-keepers,  Cooks,  House- 
maids and  other  Female  Persons  professing  the  Roman  Catholic 
Religion,"  claiming  that  they  too  should  have  a  voice  in  the 
election  of  bishops.  They  plead  that  they  "  constitute  one 
half  of  that  flock,  and  have  given  birth  to  the  whole,"  so  that  it 
is  a  manifest  injustice  to  exclude  them  from  any  share  in  the 
government  thereof,  while  up  to  the  present  they  have  been 
"  excluded  from  every  duty  of  the  sanctuary  except  that  of 
sweeping  it ".  And  they  trust  that  "  when  Bishops  shall  be 
chosen  dependently  on  their  sex,  their  Lordships  will  make 
rules  for  the  Lenten  season  more  suitable  to  domestic  economy  " 
than  those  which  then  obtained.  Finally,  their  conclusion  is 
worded  similarly  to  Mr.  Throckmorton's  : — 

"  They  trust  that  you  will  not  permit  human  motives,  the 
fear  of  thwarting  the  prejudices  of  individuals,  nor  an  indolent 
acquiescence  in  prevalent  abuses  to  prevent  your  compliance 
with  so  indispensable  a  part  of  your  duty  as  that  of  preserving 
the  rights  of  one  half  of  the  Catholic  body  free  and  untainted."  1 

Mr.  Throckmorton's  pamphlet  was  read  in  Rome,  and, 
needless  to  say,  caused  a  very  unfavourable  impression.  The 
following  letter  of  Rev.  R.  Smelt  not  only  describes  the  state 
of  feeling  in  the  Eternal  City,  but  gives  a  curious  insight  into 
the  kind  of  summary  action  which  was  then  possible  : — 

"The  proceedings  of  our  people  in  England  have  given 
great  offence  here,"  he  writes.  "  Most  of  the  pamphlets  lately 
published  found  their  way  to  Rome.  Cardinal  Antonelli  got 
them  translated  into  Italian.  The  Pope  has  seen  them,  and  is 
much  displeased,  in  particular  with  the  '  Layman's  Letter,'  where 
he  is  called  '  a  foreign  Prelate  '.  An  accident  lately  happened 
which  gave  him  an  opportunity  of  showing  his  displeasure  to 
our  nation.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  scholastic  year  in  the 
University,  a  gold  medal  is  given  as  a  premium  for  the  best 
Theological  Disputation  on  a  particular  subject — this  year  it 
was  '  Utrum  Concilia  Generalia  sunt  simpliciter  et  in  re  neces- 
saria '.  Four  of  the  English  College,  who  had  finished  the  first 
year's  Divinity,  concurred 2  with  the  others.  The  persons  who 
decide  on  the  merits  of  the  Compositions  objected  against  some 
of  the  expressions  in  two  of  the  English  ;  one  contained  the 

1  This  circular  is  printed  in  full  in  Appendix  F,  and  will  well  repay  perusal. 

2  I.e.,  competed.     The  exercise  is  known  in  Rome  as  a  Concursus. 


230  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

following  : — '  Theologi  Scholae  Gallicanae  dicunt  &c.'  The 
other,  '  Episcopus  in  sua  Dioecesi  est  judex  de  controversiis 
fidei '.  The  words  '  Curia  Romana '  were  deemed  insulting,  and 
'  Episcopus  &c. '  too  near  allied  with  the  doctrine  of  the  present 
Bishop  of  Pistoia  in  Tuscany,  whose  synod  is  under  condem- 
nation here.  These  two  dissertations  were  carried  to  Cardinal 
Zelada,  the  Secretary  of  State  who  presides  over  the  University. 
He  showed  them  to  the  Pope,  who  already  out  of  humour  with 
the  English,  was  easily  persuaded  by  some  officious  people 
about  him  that  they  were  propagating  their  new  doctrine  under 
his  very  nose :  in  consequence  the  Secretary  of  State  sent  an 
order  to  turn  them  out  of  the  College  immediately.  Cardinal 
Corsini,  the  Protector,  endeavoured  to  compromise  the  affair, 
offering  to  send  them  to  finish  their  studies  at  Perugia,  a 
hundred  miles  distant,  at  the  expense  of  the  College,  but  the 
[Pope]  answered,  '  No,  no.  Out  of  my  dominions,  out  of  my 
dominions ! '  So  they  were  dismissed  after  thirty-six  hours' 
notice.  However,  Corsini  behaved  genteelly  and  ordered  them 
credit  at  Leghorn  for  money,  clothes  and  whatever  else  they 
wanted.  This  proceeding  is  universally  condemned  as  unjust 
and  cruel.  It  affected  Mr.  Stonor  so  much  that  he  was  con- 
siderably worse  than  usual  for  some  days."  1 

We  can  now  conclude  the  narrative  of  events  connected 
with  the  election  of  a  bishop  for  the  London  District.  For  a 
time  it  appeared  almost  certain  that  the  Committee  would  ob- 
tain their  desire,  and  that  Bishop  Berington  would  be  appointed. 
Mgr.  Stonor  wrote  a  ten-page  memorial  in  his  behalf,  and  Rev. 
Robert  Smelt  spoke  in  the  same  sense.  It  was  urged  in  favour 
of  the  appointment  that  Bishop  Berington  was  a  persona  grata 
to  both  clergy  and  laity,  and  that  his  presence  would  be  likely 
to  heal  the  dissensions  then  prevalent ;  while  Rev.  John 
Douglass  was  comparatively  little  known  in  London.  Matters 
were  hanging  in  the  balance,  when  Cardinal  Antonelli  wrote 
to  Bishop  Walmesley,  as  senior  vicar  apostolic,  to  ask  his  ad- 
vice. He  answered  on  July  21,  pleading  once  more  against 
Bishop  Berington,  giving  as  his  reason  the  whole  history  of  late 
events  connected  with  the  Committee  and  the  Oath,  of  which  he 
reminded  Antonelli.  A  further  letter  followed,  under  the  joint 
signatures  of  Dr.  Walmesley  and  Rev.  William  Gibson,  the 

1  Westminster  Archives. 


1790]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.     231 

bishop-elect,  dated  September  9.  In  this  the  suggestion  was 
put  forward  that  in  the  event  of  the  Rev.  John  Douglass  find- 
ing really  serious  difficulties  on  his  arrival  in  London,  Mr. 
Gibson  would  not  be  afraid  to  change  districts,  and  himself 
face  such  difficulties.1  A  decision  was  come  to  by  Propaganda 
before  the  arrival  of  the  last  letter.  Dr.  Douglass  was  in  fact 
appointed  on  August  22  ;  but  the  appointment  was  held  back 
for  a  time,  and  not  finally  confirmed  until  September  1  5. 

As  soon  as  the  news  of  the  nomination  of  Dr.  Douglass 
reached  London,  the  indignation  of  the  Committee  party  was 
extreme.  The  peers  had  never  had  either  answer  or  ac- 
knowledgment of  their  own  memorial,  and  at  this  very  time 
Lord  Petre  was  urging  Mr.  Barnard  to  call  another  meeting  of 
the  clergy,  with  a  view  to  sending  a  further  memorial,  when 
the  unwelcome  news  arrived.  The  first  intention  of  the  Com- 
mittee was  to  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  new  bishop.  A 
deputation  to  Rome  was  arranged.  The  Rev.  Thomas  Hussey 
undertook  to  go,  and  full  instructions  were  drawn  out  for  his 
guidance.  Dr.  Milner,  writing  with  a  manuscript  copy  of  these 
instructions  before  him,  says  that  Mr.  Hussey  was  "  to  protest 
against  the  appointment  which  (they  apprehend)  may  have 
taken  place,  and  which,  they  add,  is  as  easily  revoked  as  made". 
He  also  says  that  in  this  document  "  the  subscribers  claim  an 
absolute  right,  on  behalf  of  the  clergy,  to  choose  their  prelates  ; 
and  declare  those  appointed  to  be  '  obnoxious  and  improper,' 
threaten  to  withdraw  pecuniary  supplies  of  the  mission,  and 
pronounce  the  object  of  their  choice  to  be  a  paragon  of  all  the 
virtues  they  number  up,  '  beloved  of  God  and  man  '  ".2  Lord 
Clifford,  who  was  then  in  Rome,  assured  the  authorities  that 
if  the  election  of  Dr.  Douglass  were  persisted  in,  none  of  the 

1  Bishop  Waltnesley's  copies  of  these  two  letters  are  among  the  Clifton 
Archives,  vol.  iii. 

2  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  71.  Milner  assumes  that  these  instructions  refer  to  the  same 
occasion  as  those  printed  by  Butler  (Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  40),  and  accuses  the 
latter  of  falsifying  the  minutes  on  this  and  other  occasions.  It  will  be  seen  from 
what  follows  that  the  instructions  printed  by  Butler  were  those  passed  at  a  sub- 
sequent meeting,  when  the  first  ones  were  revised  and  altered.  The  original  of 
the  instructions  as  finally  passed,  with  the  actual  signatures  of  the  members  of 
the  Committee  attached,  is  preserved  at  the  British  Museum,  bound  in  the  same 
volume  with  the  Minutes  of  the  Catholic  Committee.  Both  were  presented  to  the 
Museum  by  Charles  Butler  a  few  years  before  his  death.  The  instructions  agree 
in  every  respect  with  those  printed  in  the  Historical  Memoirs. 


232  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

Catholics  of  London  would  hold  any  communication  with  him. 
Mr.  Henry  Clifford  wrote  a  pamphlet  which  he  entitled  "  Re- 
flections on  the  Appointment  of  a  Catholic  Bishop  to  the 
London  District,"  in  which  he  declared  his  determination  to 
move  at  the  next  general  meeting  that  "  No  other  person  but 
Dr.  Berington  should  be  acknowledged  as  bishop  of  the 
London  District ".  "  Reject  the  nomination  of  Mr.  D., "  he 
wrote,  "  refuse  to  acknowledge  him  as  your  Bishop ;  name  Mr. 
Berington  for  your  pastor ;  claim  him  as  your  own ;  deny 
obedience  to  the  mandates  of  any  other,  and  protest  against 
his  proceedings."  In  the  course  of  his  argument,  he  takes 
notice  of  the  petition  of  the  cooks  and  house-maids,  and  with 
a  curious  want  of  humour,  inveighs  in  bitter  language  against 
those  whom  he  calls  the  "  Bishop-making  Ladies  "  : — 

"  The  lower  part  of  the  female  sex  was  very  instrumental 
in  accomplishing  the  French  Revolution.  Women  procured 
the  Royal  sanction  to  the  Decrees  of  the  National  Assembly, 
and  had  a  considerable  share  in  promoting  their  ecclesiastical 
reform,  and  in  bringing  about  the  changes  which  were  made 
in  the  religion  of  the  State.  But  is  this  example  to  become 
a  precedent  ?  Are  we  to  be  guided  in  our  religious  concerns 
by  a  few  despicable  females,  who  by  a  lame  imitation  of  the 
fishwomen  of  Paris,  are  become  the  opprobrium  of  their  sex 
and  the  disgrace  of  their  religion  ?  "  l — with  a  good  deal  more 
of  the  same  quality. 

The  opposition  to  Dr.  Douglass  seemed  at  first  likely  to 
spread.  Just,  however,  when  it  was  beginning  to  assume 
serious  proportions,  the  whole  movement  suddenly  collapsed, 
owing  to  the  unexpected  action  of  Bishop  Berington,  who  with 
straightforward  common  sense  repudiated  all  pretension  to  the 
post  of  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  London  District.  He  had  the 
following  circular  printed  and  distributed  : — 

"  Gentlemen, 

"  The  dissensions  which  have  lately  prevailed  amongst 
us  have,  from  the  first  commencement,  given  me  real  concern. 
The  desire  of  putting  a  final  period  to  such  disedifying  contests, 
and  the  approbation  of  my  general  conduct  at  your  late  election 
of  a    Bishop,  induced    me,  much  against  my  inclinations,  to 

1  Reflections,  etc.,  p.  63. 


1790]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.     233 

submit  to  the  weighty  charge  if  canonically  imposed  upon  me. 
The  affair  has  terminated,  I  believe,  contrary  to  your  wishes, 
but  much  to  my  satisfaction.  The  supreme  Pastor  of  the 
Catholic  Church  has  imposed  the  burden  upon  a  person  who 
was  honoured  with  a  considerable  number  of  votes  at  your  late 
election,  whose  merits,  of  course,  are  not  unknown  to  you. 
Mr.  Douglass  is  a  clergyman  endowed  with  considerable  abili- 
ties, much  piety,  of  an  universal  good  character,  good  sense 
and  prudence,  whose  views  will  be  solely  directed  to  promote 
the  good  of  religion,  and  merit  your  warmest  approbation.  I 
must  therefore  beg  leave  to  intreat  you,  by  all  that  is  dear  to 
you,  by  your  well-known  zeal  for  religion,  by  your  desire  of 
promoting  peace  and  concord  &c.  &c.  &c.  to  grant  him  that 
same  hearty  concurrence  and  generous  support  which  you  so 
liberally  promised  to, 

"  Gentlemen, 
"  Your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

"  Charles  Berington." 

This  letter  produced  the  effect  hoped  for.  It  became 
obviously  useless  to  fight  for  the  election  of  one  who  himself 
disclaimed  any  right  or  title  to  it.  Accordingly  we  learn  from 
a  letter  of  Mr.  Barnard  that  the  scope  of  Mr.  Hussey's  mission 
to  Rome  was  changed,  and  he  was  deputed  to  lay  the  whole 
question  of  the  present  discipline  of  the  Church  in  England 
before  the  Holy  See.  The  written  instructions  of  the  Committee 
were  revised,  and  changed  accordingly  to  the  altered  circum- 
stances, and  were  passed  in  their  final  form  on  December  1. 
The  full  text  of  them  is  given  by  Butler ; :  but  they  are  of  no 
practical  importance,  as  the  mission  of  Dr.  Hussey  was  never 
carried  out.  Butler  gives  as  the  reason  that  the  Spanish  am- 
bassador refused  to  give  his  chaplain  leave  of  absence.  Milner, 
speaking  from  personal  knowledge,  says  that  Mr.  Hussey  de- 
clined to  go  for  conscientious  reasons.  The  two  statements 
are  not  incompatible.  In  any  case  there  must  have  been  some 
difficulty  in  obtaining  the  ambassador's  leave  for  what  was 
really  a  diplomatic  mission  to  be  undertaken  by  his  chaplain, 
and  as  soon  as  Mr.  Hussey  realised  the  false  position  in  which 
he  would  be  putting  himself,  and  determined  in  consequence 

1  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  40. 


234  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

not  to  go,  he  would  naturally  fall  back  on  the  ambassador's  un- 
willingness to  explain  his  change  of  determination. 

The  Committee  now,  having  abandoned  their  intention  of 
endeavouring  to  get  the  election  of  the  new  bishop  cancelled, 
at  their  meeting  on  December  2 — the  next  day  after  they  had 
passed  their  revised  instructions  to  Mr.  Hussey — passed  the 
following  resolution  : — 

"  That  Mr.  Butler  should  be  directed  to  wait  on  Mr. 
Douglass  in  the  name  of  the  Committee,  and  to  assure  him  of 
their  respect,  and  esteem  ;  and  to  express  their  hopes  of  re- 
ceiving his  assistance  in  their  endeavours  to  serve  the  Catholic 
cause,  and  to  testify  their  willingness  to  co-operate  with  him, 
and  render  him  every  service  in  their  power,  to  contribute  to 
the  general  good." 

This  resolution  did  not  reach  Dr.  Douglass  for  more  than 
a  week.  In  the  meantime,  affairs  still  appearing  threatening, 
as  there  was  some  delay  before  the  arrival  of  the  new  bishop 
— due,  it  afterwards  appeared,  to  a  difficulty  in  finding  a  substi- 
tute for  the  mission  at  York — the  Rev.  James  Barnard  thought 
it  advisable  to  prepare  a  pastoral  or  circular  letter,  in  his  quality 
of  administrator  of  the  district  during  the  vacancy.  In  this 
pastoral,  he  recites  the  condemnation  of  the  Oath  by  the  vicars 
apostolic,  and  then  "  in  [his]  own  name,  and  as  Vicar  General 
of  the  London  District,  and  Delegate  of  the  Apostolic  See,  and 
in  the  name  of  the  chief  Pastor  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in 
earth  and  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  himself,"  he  forbids  the 
Committee  and  all  the  Catholics  to  take  any  further  steps 
whatever  with  respect  to  the  Oath  until  it  has  been  approved 
by  the  bishops. 

It  does  not  appear  that  Mr.  Barnard  ever  published  his 
pastoral,  for  a  few  days  later  Dr.  Douglass  secured  a  substitute 
for  York,  and  came  southwards.  A  technical  difficulty  arose 
as  to  his  consecration.  The  natural  arrangement  would  have 
been  for  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot  as  vicar  apostolic  of  the  neigh- 
bouring district,  and  a  secular,  to  have  performed  the  rite  ;  but 
apparently  neither  he,  nor  any  other  bishop  could  lawfully 
exercise  episcopal  jurisdiction  in  the  London  District  without 
a  permission  which  the  vicar  general  was  not  competent  to 
give.  There  were  reasons  making  it  undesirable  that  it  should 
take  place  in  Bishop  Talbot's  own  district.     The  only  alter- 


1790]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.     235 

native  seemed  to  be  to  ask  Bishop  Walmesley  to  consecrate. 
He  had  recently  gone  to  Lulworth  Castle  in  order  to  consecrate 
Bishop  William  Gibson,  for  a  similar  reason.  Dr.  Douglass 
therefore  also  proceeded  thither. 

No  country  house  in  England  was  better  known  as  a 
centre  of  Catholic  devotion  and  zeal  for  religion  than  Lulworth 
Castle,  near  Wareham,  the  seat  of  the  Weld  family.  Both 
park  and  mansion  stand  to-day,  hardly  changed  in  their  condi- 
tion during  the  century  and  more  which  has  elapsed  since  the 
time  we  are  speaking  of,  and  they  form  a  striking  relic  of 
English  Catholicity  of  former  times.  The  park  covers  over 
five  hundred  acres  of  ground,  well  wooded,  and  with  pic- 
turesque views  of  the  inland  country,  as  well  as  of  the  Dorset- 
shire Downs,  with  the  sea  a  few  miles  away  in  the  background. 
The  castle  itself  is  Elizabethan  in  character,  having  been  built 
during  the  last  years  of  the  sixteenth  century  ;  but  it  was  still 
in  an  unfinished  state  when  Sir  Humphrey  Weld  bought  the 
property  in  164 1.  In  close  proximity  to  the  castle  is  the  parish 
church,  once  indeed  Catholic,  though  except  for  the  tower,  the 
present  building  is  of  no  great  antiquity.  On  the  other  side  of 
the  mansion,  is  a  strange-looking  round  building  with  a  large 
dome,  having  the  appearance  of  a  family  mausoleum  ;  and  such 
indeed  it  is,  for  many  generations  of  the  Weld  family  lie  buried 
in  the  vaults  beneath  it.  On  entering,  however,  we  find  our- 
selves in  a  curious  round-shaped  chapel,  which  serves  for  the 
needs  of  the  Catholic  congregation  living  in  the  neighbourhood. 
Its  history  furnishes  us  with  an  explanation  of  the  form  and 
architecture.  Mr.  Thomas  Weld,  who  succeeded  to  the  property 
at  the  death  of  his  elder  brother  in  1775,  was  a  personal  friend 
of  King  George  III.,  who  visited  Lulworth  more  than  once.1 
At  that  time  the  only  place  where  Mass  was  said  was  in  the 
castle  itself,  in  what  is  now  the  dining-room.  The  alcove 
can  still  be  seen  in  the  wall,  where  vestments  and  sacred  vessels 
could  be  rapidly  stowed  away,  in  case  of  the  intrusion  of  "  in- 
formers ".  The  danger  of  this  happening  had  of  course  passed 
away  long  ago,  and  Mr.  Weld  was  beginning  to  think  that  the 
time  had  come  when  a  regular  Catholic  chapel  might  be  built. 
Could  he  but  obtain  the  permission  of  the  king,  he  thought 
it  would  be  safe  to  build  one.     He  therefore  put  the  project 

1  The  "royal  bedroom  "  in  the  castle  is  still  shown. 


236  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

before  his  majesty.  It  is  said  that  the  king  hesitated,  being  un- 
willing to  give  a  formal  sanction  inconsistent  with  the  law  of 
the  land.  Eventually  he  put  forward  the  suggestion  that  Mr. 
Weld  should  build  a  family  mausoleum,  which  would  attract 
no  particular  attention,  and  that  he  could  fit  up  the  interior  as 
a  Catholic  chapel.  This  strange  scheme  was  actually  carried 
out.  The  building  was  begun  in  1786,  and  opened  the  follow- 
ing year,  the  bodies  of  the  former  generations  of  Welds  being 
removed  from  the  parish  church,1  and  buried  in  the  vaults  un- 
derneath the  new  building.  To  this  day  the  mausoleum-chapel 
remains  one  of  the  features  of  Lulworth. 

The  daily  life  at  Lulworth  was  entirely  typical  of  that  of 
the  old  Catholics  of  the  day.  Mr.  Weld  was  a  rich  man  ;  he 
owned  no  less  than  five  other  estates 2  besides  that  at  Lulworth, 
and  he  had  a  large  family  of  fifteen  children.  His  only  ambi- 
tion was  to  bring  them  up  devoted  to  their  religion,  and  to 
see  them  all  well  settled  in  life.  In  this  he  was  well  rewarded. 
Two  of  his  daughters  became  nuns,  and  one  son  a  priest :  and 
his  other  children  became  connected  by  marriage  with  pro- 
minent Catholic  families — Clifford,  Petre,  Stourton,  Bodenham 
of  Rotherwas,  Searle  and  Vaughan  of  Courtfield.3  Finally 
his  eldest  son,  who  had  married  a  daughter  of  Mr.  Thomas 
Clifford  of  Tixall,  after  her  death  became  a  priest,  and,  later,  a 
bishop  and  a  cardinal,  though  his  father  did  not  live  to  see 
this. 

Mr.  Weld's  own  daily  life  was  almost  as  regular  as  that  of 
a  religious.  Besides  hearing  Mass  daily,  he  recited  the  office 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin  at  fixed  hours,  and  devoted  a  definite 
amount  of  time  to  meditation,  spiritual  reading,  and  other 
devout  exercises.  Yet  he  united  all  this  with  the  ordinary 
avocations  of  a  country  gentleman,  for  he  was  a  keen  sports- 
man, fond  of  shooting  and  hunting.  He  had  a  regular  fixed 
arrangement  of  hours  on  days  when  he  went  out  with  the 
hounds,  so  as  not  to  allow  that  to  be  an  excuse  for  omitting 

xThe  hatchments  still  remain  hanging  on  the  walls  of  the  parish  church. 

2  These  were  Leagram,  Chidiock,  Pylewell,  Hodder  (Stonyhurst)  and  Brit- 
well.  It  was  said  that  Mr.  Weld  was  the  largest  landowner,  with  one  exception, 
in  England. 

3  Miss  Theresa  Weld,  who  became  Mrs.  Vaughan  of  Courtfield,  was  the 
mother  of  the  late  Bishop  of  Plymouth,  and  the  grandmother  of  Cardinal 
Vaughan. 


1790]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.     237 

his  devotional  exercises.  His  wife — a  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas 
Stanley,  Bart. — was  no  less  edifying,  and  his  whole  family 
were  thus  brought  up  in  the  midst  of  all  the  influences  that 
the  Catholic  religion  is  capable  of  exerting  over  the  mind  and 
character  of  her  children. 

The  Welds  had  not  always  been  Catholics.  According  to 
Oliver,1  Sir  Humphrey  Weld,  the  purchaser  of  Lul worth,  was  the 
first  Catholic  of  the  family.  During  the  century  and  a  half 
that  the  castle  had  been  in  their  possession,  many  interest- 
ing Catholic  associations  had  gathered  around  it,  not  the  least 
interesting  having  been  in  the  summer  of  the  year  with  which 
we  are  now  concerned,  when  Dr.  Carroll  had  been  consecrated 
by  Dr.  Walmesley  as  first  Bishop  of  Baltimore — which  diocese 
at  that  time  included  the  whole  of  the  United  States.  This 
had  been  arranged  by  the  special  invitation  of  Mr.  Weld,  who 
was  ever  the  staunch  friend  of  Bishop  Walmesley,  and  the 
loyal  supporter  of  episcopal  authority  in  those  troubled  times. 
By  his  invitation,  Bishops  William  Gibson  and  Douglass  were 
now  to  receive  consecration  under  his  hospitable  roof. 

We  can  picture  to  ourselves  the  scene  at  the  two  cere- 
monies. The  small  round  chapel  would  have  been  well 
filled,  with  a  congregation  of  perhaps  two  hundred  neighbour- 
ing Catholics,  consisting  for  the  most  part  of  farmers  on  the 
Weld  estate  and  their  families,  and  other  dependants,  including 
of  course  the  domestic  servants.  The  gallery  at  the  back  was 
reserved  for  Mrs.  Weld  and  her  children,  together  with  the 
few  visitors  staying  at  the  castle ;  in  the  gallery  on  the  gospel 
side  the  singers  were  grouped  around  the  same  organ  which  is 
still  there,  and  led  by  Mr.  Weld  himself;  and  in  the  small  sanctu- 
ary were  the  consecrating  bishop  and  the  elect,  and  five  priests 
who  assisted  at  the  ceremony,  while  among  the  serving  boys 
were  Mr.  Weld's  four  sons,  one  of  whom  was  the  future 
cardinal. 

Speaking  of  the  consecration  of  Bishop  Gibson,  on  Decem- 
ber 5,  Milner  describes  the  scene  as  follows  : — 

"  This  elegant  Grecian  structure,"  he  says,  "  the  beauty  of 
which  has  just  been  heightened  by  some  new  pictures  brought 
from  Italy,  etc.,  shone  in  all  the  splendour  of  the  costly  treasury 
belonging  to  it.     Its  rich  sacerdotal  habits  received  an  addition 

1  Collections,  p.  46. 


238  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1790 

from  the  princely  sacristy  of  Wardour  Castle,  and  the  har- 
monious organ  and  choir  was  tuned  to  inspire  suitable  senti- 
ments of  reverence  and  devotion." 

He  also  describes,  in  words  which  now  sound  somewhat 
quaint,  the  ceremony,  at  that  time  unfamiliar  to  English 
Catholics : — 

"The  awful  examen  made  with  a  dignity  and  piety 
perfectly  according  with  the  character  of  the  venerable 
consecrator  [Dr.  Walmesley],  the  humble  prostrations,  the 
all-important  imposition  of  hands,  the  mysterious  unctions, 
multiplied  benedictions,  joint  reception  of  the  adorable  species, 
the  speaking  investiture  of  episcopal  insignia,  majestic  in- 
thronation  and  dignified  solemn  blessing,  all  this  being 
accompanied  with  the  most  sublime  and  moving  prayers 
adapted  to  the  occasion,  and  combined  with  the  liturgy  of  the 
tremendous  sacrifice  performed  in  all  its  pomp,  could  not  but 
constitute  a  solemnity  truly  affecting  and  elevating,  which 
produced  the  most  sensible  effects  on  the  persons  present,  no 
less  than  on  the  elect  himself." 

Milner  himself  preached  on  the  occasion,  and  he  did  not 
fail  to  improve  the  opportunity,  by  dealing  with  the  institution 
of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  and  the  duty  of  the  faithful  to 
reverence  and  obey  their  bishops.  The  sermon  was  afterwards 
published,  together  with  the  account  of  the  ceremony  from 
which  we  have  just  quoted.  Among  the  visitors  he  enumerates 
"the  Right  Hon.  Lord  Arundell,  the  Hon.  Mr.  Clifford  and 
Lady,1  Mr.  Raymund  Arundell,  Major  O'Brien  2  and  Lady,  the 
Right  Rev.  John  Douglass,  Bishop-elect  who  arrived  too  late 
to  acquire  the  necessary  hability  for  bearing  a  part  in  the 
august  ceremony  ". 

Dr.  Douglass's  own  consecration  took  place  on  Decem- 
ber 19.  Bishop  Walmesley  being  unable  to  remain,  Bishop 
William  Gibson  undertook  the  office  of  consecrating  prelate. 
The  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  preached,  and  his  sermon  also  was 
afterwards  printed.  Like  Milner' s,  it  breathes  of  the  difficulties 
of  the  time,  for  it  is  principally  a  defence  of  the  episcopal  posi- 

1  That  is  probably  Mr.  Charles  Clifford,  who  a  few  years  later  succeeded  to 
the  title  as  Lord  Clifford.    His  wife  was  the  daughter  of  Lord  Arundell  of  Wardour. 

2  A  former  officer  of  the  "  Irish  Brigade,"  who  was  married  to  a  sister  of  Mrs. 
Weld. 


i7go]      ELECTION  OF  DR.  DOUGLASS  AS  VICAR  APOSTOLIC.     239 

tion,  with  an  exhortation  to  the  faithful  to  look  to  their  pastors 
for  direction  and  guidance. 

During  the  fortnight  which  elapsed  between  the  two  cere- 
monies, much  important  discussion  took  place.  For  the 
greater  part  of  the  time,  three  of  the  four  vicars  apostolic  were 
together,  and  in  the  quiet  and  seclusion  of  the  Catholic  centre 
of  the  West,  in  conferences  in  the  castle  and  perhaps  in  walks 
through  the  well-wooded  parks,  or  on  the  Dorsetshire  downs 
overlooking  the  sea,  they  formulated  their  plans  and  deter- 
minations which  were  to  be  put  into  execution  in  the  new 
year,  when  the  battle  would  be  resumed.  The  two  new 
bishops  spent  their  Christmas  at  Lulworth,  and  had  leisure  to 
think  over  the  difficulties  before  them.  The  outlook  was 
still  dark  and  ominous  enough ;  but  now  once  more  there 
were  bishops  at  their  post,  ready  to  defend  the  interests  of 
religion,  and  when,  early  in  January,  Dr.  Gibson  and  Dr. 
Douglass  set  out  on  their  journey  to  London,  they  did  so  in 
calm  of  mind  and  hopefulness  as  to  the  future. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH. 

1791. 

DURING  the  spring  and  summer  of  the  year  1791,  the  crisis 
to  which  the  events  recorded  in  the  preceding  chapters  had 
been  leading,  was  experienced  in  all  its  force,  and  was  perhaps 
the  most  anxious  one  that  Catholics  have  been  through  in 
this  country  since  England  became  Protestant.  We  shall 
have  to  follow  the  events  during  these  months  in  close  detail, 
and  almost  day  by  day,  for  fresh  developments  often  followed 
each  other  in  rapid  succession. 

The  first  point  which  attracts  our  attention  during  the 
opening  weeks  of  the  year  is  the  complete  ignorance  of  the 
vicars  apostolic  as  to  what  was  taking  place.  Parliament  was 
to  meet  at  the  beginning  of  February,  and  they  knew  that 
some  communications  were  passing  between  members  of  the 
Committee  and  the  Government,  and  that  a  Catholic  Relief 
Bill  was  confidently  hoped  for  early  in  the  session.  But 
similar  hopes  had  been  expressed  in  the  previous  year,  and 
nothing  had  taken  place.  They  might  naturally  wish  to  know 
whether  there  was  any  reason  to  suppose  that  the  hopes  stood 
a  better  chance  of  being  realised  during  the  session  about  to 
begin,  and  what  exact  shape  the  bill  and  Oath  were  expected 
to  take.  No  information,  however,  was  given  them.  Mr. 
Butler  wrote  on  December  31,  1790,  saying  that  the  members 
of  the  Committee  would  not  be  coming  to  town  until  the 
opening  of  Parliament,  and  that  no  business  would  be  trans- 
acted until  then.  Lord  Petre  and  Lord  Stourton  wrote  in 
the  same  sense ;  but  none  of  them  gave  any  indication  as  to 
the  course  which  the  business  was  likely  to  take  when  they 
did  meet,  or  what  prospects  there  was  of  the  introduction  of 
the  bill.     This  can  hardly  have  been    accidental.      The    ex- 

240 


i7gi]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  241 

planation  presumably  is  that  the  Committee  did  not  wish  to 
be  shackled  by  the  interference  of  the  bishops  in  their  dealings 
with  ministers,  and  preferred  to  let  the  plans  of  the  Govern- 
ment reach  a  stage  when  interference  of  any  kind  would  be 
difficult,  if  not  impossible.  The  bishops  therefore  had  no 
alternative  but  to  act  independently  of  them.  Dr.  Walmesley's 
age  and  infirmities  rendered  it  difficult  for  him  to  take  an  active 
part  in  the  contest,  and  he  remained  at  Bath,  leaving  the  two 
new  vicars  apostolic  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  battle  in  London, 
though  he  continued  to  assist  them  with  his  advice  by  corre- 
spondence. 

Bishops  Gibson  and  Douglass,  therefore,  on  their  arrival  in 
town  about  the  middle  of  January,  forthwith  promulgated  the 
second  condemnation  of  the  Oath,  in  the  terms  upon  which 
they  had  agreed,  in  consultation  with  Bishop  Walmesley, 
during  their  stay  at  Lulworth.  Apparently  the  Committee 
obtained  some  idea  that  the  condemnation  was  imminent,  for  on 
Saturday,  January  23,  Mr.  Butler  wrote  to  Dr.  Douglass  that 
a  sufficient  number  of  the  members  were  in  London  for  them 
to  hold  a  committee  meeting  the  following  Monday  (January 
25),  and  they  were  ready  to  arrange  for  a  conference  with  the 
bishops  for  the  next  day :  adding  that  he  hoped  that  nothing- 
would  be  done  until  the  conference  had  been  held.  Before 
these  dates  arrived,  however,  the  "  Encyclical "  of  the  bishops 
had  already  been  officially  promulgated.  Most  probably  Mr. 
Butler  had  seen  it,  for  it  is  dated  January  21,  and  his  aim  was. 
to  obtain  its  withdrawal  before  it  had  been  publicly  read  in  the 
churches.  For  this,  however,  he  was  too  late.1  We  learn  from 
the  Second  Blue  Book  that  the  Encyclical  was  read  on  Sunday, 
January  24,  at  Moorfields,  and  likewise  in  the  chapel  of  the 
school  at  Brook  Green,  Hammersmith.  At  Virginia  Street, 
Bermondsey,  and  the  Borough  it  was  not  read,  and  the  Em- 
bassy Chapels  claimed  exemption.  It  was  read  of  course  in 
many  chapels  outside  London,  but  not  till  a  later  date.     From 

1  The  exact  dates  should  be  noted,  as  they  are  of  importance.  The 
"  Encyclical "  letter  was  dated  January  21,  which  was  a  Thursday.  In  the 
Committee's  letter  to  Bishop  Douglass  (Second  Blue  Book,  p.  9)  it  is  stated  that 
Mr.  Butler  wrote  to  him  on  Friday,  January  22,  announcing  the  arrival  of  the 
members  of  the  Committee  in  town ;  but  in  a  footnote  the  date  is  corrected  to 
Saturday  the  23rd,  and  it  is  admitted  that  before  the  letter  was  delivered,  the 
Encyclical  had  already  been  promulgated. 
VOL.   I.  16 


242  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

the  fact  of  its  having  been  read  at  even  one  chapel,  however, 
it  became  from  that  day  a  public  document.  The  following 
is  the  text : — 

"Encyclical  Letter. 

"  Charles,  Bishop  of  Rama,  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  West- 
ern District ;  William,  Bishop  of  Acanthos,  Vicar  Apostolic 
of  the  Northern  District ;  and  John,  Bishop  of  Centuria,  Vicar 
Apostolic  of  the  Southern  District. 

"  To  all  the  Faithful,  Clergy  and  Laity,  of  those 
Respective  Districts. 

"  We  think  it  necessary  to  lay  before  you  the  following 
Articles  and  Determinations. 

"  1st.  We  are  informed  that  the  Catholic  Committee  have 
given  in,  or  intends  (sic)  to  give  in,  a  Bill  containing  an  Oath 
to  be  presented  to  Parliament,  in  order  to  be  sanctioned  by 
the  Legislature,  and  the  Oath  to  be  tendered  to  the  Catholics 
of  this  Kingdom. 

"  2ndly.  The  four  Apostolical  Vicars,  by  an  Encyclical 
Letter  dated  October  21,  1789,  condemned  an  Oath  proposed 
at  that  time  to  be  presented  to  Parliament,  and  which  Oath 
they  also  declared  unlawful  to  be  taken.  Their  condemnation 
of  that  Oath  was  confirmed  by  the  Apostolic  See,  and  sanc- 
tioned also  by  the  Bishops  of  Ireland  and  Scotland. 

"  3dly.  Some  alteration  has  been  made  by  the  Catholic 
Committee  in  that  condemned  Oath  ;  but  as  far  as  we  have 
learned,  of  no  moment ;  consequently  the  altered  Oath  remains 
liable  to  the  censure  fixed  on  the  former  Oath. 

"  4thly.  The  four  Apostolical  Vicars,  in  the  above  men- 
tioned Encyclical  Letter  declared  that  none  of  the  faithful 
Clergy  or  Laity  ought  to  take  any  new  Oath,  or  sign  any  new 
Declaration  in  Doctrinal  matters,  or  subscribe  any  new  Instru- 
ment wherein  the  interests  of  Religion  are  concerned  without 
the  previous  approbation  of  their  respective  Bishop,  and  they 
required  submission  to  these  Determinations.  The  altered 
form  of  Oath  has  not  been  approved  by  us,  and  therefore  can- 
not be  lawfully  or  conscientiously  taken  by  any  of  the  Faith- 
ful of  our  Districts. 

"  5thly.     We  further  declare  that  the  assembly  of  the  Cath- 


1791]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  243 

olic  Committee  has  no  right  or  authority  to  determine  on  the 
lawfulness  of  Oaths,  Declarations  or  other  Instruments  whatso- 
ever containing  Doctrinal  matters,  but  that  this  authority 
resides  in  the  Bishops,  they  being,  by  Divine  institution,  the 
spiritual  Governors  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  the  Guardians 
of  Religion. 

"  In  consequence,  likewise,  of  the  preceding  observations, 
we  condemn  in  the  fullest  manner  the  attempt  of  offering  to 
Parliament  an  Oath  including  doctrinal  matters,  to  be  there 
sanctioned,  which  has  not  been  approved  by  us :  and  if  such 
attempt  be  made,  we  earnestly  exhort  the  Catholics  of  our 
respective  Districts  to  oppose  it,  and  hinder  its  being  carried 
into  execution  ;  and  for  that  purpose  to  present  a  Protestation 
or  counter-petition,  or  to  adopt  whatever  other  legal  and  pru- 
dent measure  may  be  judged  best. 

"Finally,  we  also  declare  that  conformably  to  the  letter 
written  to  the  Catholic  Committee  by  the  four  Apostolical 
Vicars,  October  21,  1789,  we  totally  disapprove  of  the  Appel- 
lation of  '  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters '  given  us  in  the  bill, 
and  of  three  Provisoes  therein  contained,  and  expressed  in  the 
said  letter  of  the  four  Apostolical  Vicars. 

"  We  shall  here  conclude  with  expressing  to  you  our  hopes 
that  you  have  rejected  with  detestation  some  late  publications, 
and  that  you  will  beware  of  others  which  may  appear  here- 
after. Of  those  that  have  been  published,  some  are  schismatical, 
scandalous,  inflammatory  and  insulting  to  the  Supreme  Head 
of  the  Church,  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ. 

"  Charles  Ramaten.1 
"  William  Acanthen.2 
"  John  Centurien.3 

"  London,  Jan.  19,  1791." 

It  will  be  noticed  at  once  that  the  name  of  Bishop  Thomas 
Talbot  is  absent  from  the  Encyclical,  a  fact  which  the  Com- 
mittee were  not  slow  to  comment  on.  His  probable  reasons 
for  withholding  his  signature  have  been  the  subject  of  much  dis- 
cussion :  his  own  explanation  being  among  the  Clifton  Archives, 
we  can  settle  the  question.  Bishop  Gibson  had  written  to  him, 
formally  asking  him  to  sign,  and  the  following  is  his  answer  : — 

1  Bishop  Walmesley.  2  Bishop  Gibson.  3  Bishop  Douglass. 

16* 


244  the  dawn  of  the  catholic  revival.  [1791 

"  My  Lord, 

"...  The  steps  you  seem  disposed  to  take  do  not 
appear  to  me  to  be  conciliatory  ones,  either  likely  to  assuage 
contentions  and  animosities,  or  to  stop  ye  progress  of  the  Bill ; 
the  Oath  which  it  holds  forth  I  have  already  condemned  once, 
I  cannot  see  any  good  end  it  can  answer  to  condemn  it  a 
second  time.  If  you  are  declaring  your  adhesion  to  ye  former 
condemnation,  in  this  you  are  to  act  according  to  your 
judgment  and  prudence.  At  present  I  do  not  know  what  ye 
tenour  of  ye  Oath  is,  how  can  I  therefore  reasonably  condemn 
it  ?  It  was  not  originally  framed,  as  I  have  always  been  given 
to  understand,  by  ye  Catholics  or  by  ye  Committee  (as  indeed 
ye  tendency  and  ye  words  of  it  easily  convince),  but  by  per- 
sons in  administration  who  required  that  form  of  words,  which 
perhaps  our  condemnation  will  not  compel  them  to  alter ;  and 
if  they  will  annex  certain  Provisoes  when  they  grant  a  boon, 
they  will  be  ye  judges  how  far  it  will  be  shackled.  For  these 
reasons  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  expedient  at  present,  or 
even  justifiable,  that  my  name  should  be  tacked  to  a  new  con- 
demnation. I  desire  therefore  and  wish  it  may  not,  nor  any 
copies  drawn  on  my  account.  Propose  a  conciliatory  scheme, 
and  your  Lordship  will  find  a  joint  concurrent  in, 
"  Your  obedient  humble  servant, 

"  Thomas  Talbot. 

"  January  17,  1791." 

In  reading  this  letter,  we  are  struck  by  Bishop  Talbot's 
apparent  inconsistency  with  himself.  He  first  says  that  he  has 
already  condemned  the  Oath  and  that  nothing  would  be  gained 
by  condemning  it  a  second  time ;  then  he  says  that  he  has 
not  seen  it,  and  is  consequently  unable  to  pronounce  upon  it. 
He  apparently  meant  that  he  had  not  seen  the  amended  form  : 
in  this  he  was  not  alone,  for  it  had  never  been  officially  pub- 
lished in  the  shape  it  assumed  after  the  meeting  of  February 
3,  1790.  From  the  wording  of  the  Encyclical  it  would  appear 
that  the  other  three  vicars  apostolic  themselves  had  not  seen 
it,  though  they  had  a  general  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  amend- 
ments, and  knew,  as  Bishop  Talbot  also  must  have  known,  that 
they  concerned  chiefly  one  particular  clause.  A  little  later 
Bishop  Talbot  seems  to  have  seen  a  revised  copy,  and  although 


1791]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  245 

he  was,  as  usual,  slow  to  commit  himself  to  an  opinion  in  writ- 
ing, in  conversation  he  freely  expressed  his  approval  of  it.  In 
order  to  obtain  a  trustworthy  and  permanent  record  of  this 
approval,  a  small  deputation  of  the  "Staffordshire  Clergy" 
waited  on  him  at  Longbirch  on  February  14,  and  the  following 
day  they  wrote  down  the  substance  of  what  he  had  said.  Bear- 
ing in  mind  that  he  had  expressly  refused  to  give  a  written 
opinion,  their  right  to  act  in  this  manner  might  well  have  been 
questioned.  Their  report  has  been  several  times  published  : 1 
we  give  it  here  in  full,  as  it  throws  important  light  on  the 
general  situation.  The  letter  was  addressed  to  Bishop  Bering- 
ton,  who  was  then  in  London. 

"  Dear  Sir, 

"  You  request  to  know  our  opinion  of  what  passed  in 
the  public  conversation  at  Longbirch  yesterday.  We  can  have 
but  one  opinion. 

"  Mr.  T.  Talbot  repeatedly,  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner, 
declared  that  he  approved  of  the  Oath  in  its  present  form,  which 
form  agreeably  to  his  own  requisition  had  been  accepted  in  a 
public  meeting  on  the  3rd  of  February,  1790;  that  from  that 
approbation  he  should  not  recede.  That  when  in  a  letter  he 
addressed  lately  to  Mr.  Gibson  in  London  he  spoke  of  having 
condemned  the  Oath,  he  meant  the  Oath  as  it  was  originally 
worded,  for  that  he  could  not  mean  to  say  that  he  had  con- 
demned what  he  had  publicly  approved.  That  he  even  lamented 
the  measures  in  the  condemnation  of  the  first  Oath  had  been 
so  precipitately  conducted.  That  he  thought  it  unnecessary 
at  this  time  to  give  any  new  formal  approbation  to  the  present 
Oath,  because  his  former  declaration,  he  knew,  was  on  the 
minutes  of  the  Committee,  and  must  be  publicly  known.  That 
he  apprehended  besides,  should  he  (as  we  requested  he  would) 
give  you  a  written  approbation  of  the  Oath,  that  it  might  still 
more  irritate  the  minds  of  some  men,  and  tend  to  widen  the 
unhappy  breach.  Finally,  that  he  admired  the  temper  and 
great  moderation  of  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  whose 
views  he  thought  were  most  upright,  and  whose  zeal  to  promote 
the  cause  of  religion,  and  the  interest  of  their  Catholic  brethren, 
merited  the  warmest  commendation. 

1  See  Second  Blue  Book,  p.  18 ;  and  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  32. 


246  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

"  Such  were  Mr.  Talbot's  sentiments,  often  expressed  before 
us  in  the  course  of  the  day.  And  with  regard  to  ourselves, 
give  us  leave,  Sir,  on  this  occasion  to  repeat  to  you  our  deliberate 
acquiescence  in  the  words  of  the  Oath  ;  to  lament  the  continu- 
ance of  the  opposition  which  is  made  to  it ;  and  to  testify  how 
much  we  applaud  the  general  measures  which  have  hitherto 
been  pursued  by  you  and  the  other  Gentlemen  of  our  Committee 
to  obtain  from  Parliament  a  further  redress  of  grievances. 

"  With  sincere  regard,  we  remain,  Dear  Sir, 

"  Your  affectionate  and  humble  servants, 

"Anthony  Clough.  Joseph  Berington. 

"Thomas  Flyn.  Edward  Eyre. 

"George  Beeston. 

"  Longbirch,  February  15,  1791." 

In  the  meantime,  the  Committee  had  recognised  that  the 
Encyclical  of  the  bishops  was  a  direct  attack  on  them,  and 
they  set  themselves  to  work  to  answer  it.  Time  pressed. 
The  introduction  of  the  bill  was  expected  within  two  or  three 
weeks,  and  it  was  important,  they  thought,  to  counterbalance 
the  effect  of  the  Encyclical  before  its  introduction.  Such 
circumstances  were  not  favourable  for  producing  that  calmness 
of  judgment  which  the  occasion  demanded,  and  during  the 
next  few  weeks  a  high  pitch  of  excitement  was  reached,  lead- 
ing to  language  and  action  ever  to  be  regretted. 

The  first  answer  of  the  Committee  took  the  form  of  a 
letter  to  Bishop  Douglass,  bearing  date  February  2,  1791. 
As  before,  the  Committee  begin  more  or  less  respectfully  : — 

"  My  Lord, 

"We  have  seen  an  Encyclical  Letter  of  the  19th 
day  of  last  month  signed  by  your  Lordship  and  the  Apostolic 
Vicars  of  the  Western  and  Northern  Districts  of  England  ; 
we  understand  it  was  publicly  read  from  the  Altar  in  the 
Catholic  Chapels  in  Moorfields  and  the  Borough ; l  and  that 
applications  were  made  to  have  it  read  in  the  same  public 
manner  in  the  Chapels  of  some  of  the  Foreign  Ministers. 

1  A  footnote  is  added  to  the  effect  that  the  Committee  had  since  ascertained 
that  the  Encyclical  had  not  been  read  in  the  chapel  in  the  Borough ;  but  it  had 
been  read  in  the  chapel  of  the  school  at  Brook  Green,  Hammersmith. 


i79i]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  247 

"  It  contains  a  censure  of  the  Oath  published  in  the  heads 
of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters,  even 
with  the  alterations  supposed  by  your  Lordships  to  have 
been  made  in  it  since  that  censure  was  passed — and  a  censure 
of  our  proceedings  respecting  it. 

"  Permit  us,  my  Lord,  with  the  greatest  deference  and 
respect,  to  assure  your  Lordship  that  your  Encyclical  Letter 
makes  it  evident  to  us  that  your  Lordships  totally  mistake 
the  nature  and  operation  of  the  bill  in  question,  and  have  been 
totally  misinformed  of  our  proceedings. 

"  Your  Lordships  seem  to  suppose  the  Oath  originated 
with  the  Committee :  that  the  appellation  Protesting  Catholic 
Dissenters  is  solicited  by  us :  and  that  the  three  Provisoes 
referred  to  by  your  Lordships'  letter  have  the  force  of  new 
Laws,  imposing  penalties  on  Catholics  to  which  they  are  not 
now  subject ;  and  that  those  Provisoes  were  inserted  by  our 
requisition.  Your  Lordships  also  seem  to  insinuate  that  we 
assume  a  right  to  determine  on  the  lawfulness  of  Oaths,  De- 
clarations and  other  Instruments  containing  doctrinal  matters. 

We  beg  leave  to  assure  your  Lordship  that  nothing  of  this  is 
true.  We  hoped  our  former  letters  to  the  English  Catholics 
and  the  Vicars  Apostolic  had  removed  all  misconceptions  on 
these  heads.  But  as  we  find  by  your  Lordships'  Encyclical 
Letter  that  this  has  not  been  the  case,  we  shall  now  trouble 
your  Lordship  with  a  further  explanation  of  our  conduct." 

They  then  proceed  to  consider  the  above  statements  seria- 
tim. In  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  new  Oath  did  not  originate 
with  them,  they  appeal  to  the  first  draft  of  the  bill  by  Mr. 
Butler,  of  which  they  sent  a  copy,  and  which  alone  they  re- 
cognise as  in  any  sense  their  bill :  and  this  contained  no  new 
Oath.  They  contend  that  the  Protestation  had  been  altered 
in  consequence  of  the  criticisms  of  the  bishops,  and  in  its  final 
form  it  had  been  accepted  and  signed  by  them  ;  that  the 
original  Oath  had  been  based  on  the  Protestation,  but  that  the 
ministers  insisted  on  the  importance  of  uniformity  in  the 
wording  of  Oaths,  and  that  they  accordingly  retained  such  parts 
of  the  ordinary  Oaths  of  allegiance,  abjuration  and  supremacy  as 
were  not  contrary  to  the  Catholic  faith,  and  that  the  theological 
point  of  what  was  or  what  was  not  contrary  to  the  Catholic 
faith,  was  settled  by  the  ecclesiastical  members  of  the  Committee, 


248  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

two  of  whom  were  bishops,  one  (Dr.  James  Talbot)  being  Vicar 
Apostolic  of  the  London  District.  And  they  complain  that  this 
was  all  that  they  had  done  when  the  condemnation  of  the  four 
vicars  apostolic  was  suddenly  issued ;  when  Bishop  Walmesley 
accused  them  of  an  attempt  to  "  injure  religion  "  ;  and  Bishop 
Matthew  Gibson  talked  of  their  "infernal  stratagems". 

They  next  describe  their  answer  to  the  bishops,  and  their 
Appeal  to  the  Catholics  of  England,  both  printed  in  the  First 
Blue  Book,  and  give  an  account  of  their  subsequent  negotiations, 
which  we  have  already  described.  They  also  add  a  few  words 
on  the  provisoes  in  the  bill,  defending  their  own  action,  and 
pointing  out  that  in  each  of  the  previous  acts  for  the  relief  of 
Catholics,  in  England  and  Ireland  respectively,  some  similar 
provisoes  had  been  insisted  on.  They  repudiate  any  idea  of 
their  having  interfered  with  the  authority  of  the  vicars  apostolic 
in  spiritual  matters,  in  language  which  becomes  more  and 
more  heated  as  they  proceed  : — 

"  My  Lord,  to  accuse  is  not  to  prove.  On  our  parts  we 
have  produced  to  your  Lordship  a  most  unequivocal  instance 
of  our  forbearance  from  interfering  in  spiritual  concerns  ; l  and 
we  know  it  to  be  impossible  for  your  Lordships  to  adduce  one 
single  instance  in  proof  to  support  the  charge  in  question,  though 
perhaps  the  most  invidious  that  could  have  been  devised. 

"  It  is  painful  for  us  to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  this  nature 
with  your  Lordships.  At  all  times  we  have  been  ready  to 
meet  the  Apostolical  Vicars  ;  to  inform  them  of  our  proceedings  ; 
to  confer  and  co-operate  with  them  for  the  public  good.  Why 
then,  my  Lord,  precipitate  matters?  Why  circulate  this  de- 
famatory mandate?  Have  the  Faithful  been  edified  by  it? 
Has  it  served  the  cause  of  religion?  Has  it  recommended 
Catholics  to  the  favour  of  the  Nation  ?  To  those  very  Chapels 
from  the  altars  of  which  your  last  Encyclical  Letter  was  pro- 
mulgated, more  than  one  of  us  have  largely  contributed." 

The  remaining  part  of  the  letter  was  devoted  to  pointing 
out  that  the  Oath  had  been  in  the  hands  of  the  ministry  since 
the  previous  year,  and  that  Parliament  was  meeting  that  very 
day,  so  that  there  was  no  time  to  lose  should  the  bishops  wish 
for  a  conference  for  the  purpose  of  any  further  explanations. 

xSee  p.  154. 


1791]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  249 

The  letter  was  composed  by  Mr.  Butler,  and  by  him,  at 
the  request  of  the  Committee,  was  personally  delivered  to 
Bishop  Douglass.  As  a  result  of  their  conversation  together, 
it  was  arranged  that  the  two  Vicars  Apostolic — Bishops  Gibson 
and  Douglass — should  meet  the  Committee  in  conference  on 
February  8.  This  conference  led  to  consequences  of  a  last- 
ing nature,  so  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  give  a  detailed  de- 
scription of  what  took  place.  The  minutes  of  the  Committee 
give  information  from  their  own  point  of  view,  and  from  the 
various  episcopal  archives  we  can  learn  the  bishops'  view  of 
what  occurred.  The  details  given  below  are  collected  from 
both  these  sources,  and  also  from  one  or  two  other  contempor- 
ary letters  and  documents. 

It  appears  that  at  first  Bishop  Douglass  wished  to  bring 
with  him  several  of  his  clergy,  as  "  theological  advisers  "  ;  but 
the  Committee  refused  to  agree  to  this,  saying  that  in  that 
case  they  would  call  a  public  meeting,  so  as  to  have  more  lay- 
men present  also.  They  consented,  however,  to  receive  Rev. 
J.  Barnard  along  with  the  two  bishops,  and  these  three  accord- 
ingly attended  at  Mr.  Butler's  chambers,  where  the  conference 
was  to  be  held.  As  soon  as  they  arrived  it  became  evident 
that  they  were  not  to  be  received  in  any  spirit  of  conciliation. 
The  members  of  the  Committee  were  already  assembled,  and 
they  at  once  began  putting  a  series  of  questions  to  the  bishops, 
with  the  avowed  object  of  criticising  their  action,  while  Mr. 
Butler  wrote  down  their  answers.  Some  of  the  questions  were 
captious,  and  the  scene  was  as  though  the  bishops  were  under- 
going cross-examination  at  a  court  of  law.  The  following 
were  among  the  questions  asked,  "  Was  the  original  condemna- 
tion published  in  the  Midland  or  London  Districts  ?  Had  the 
Bishops  seen  the  amended  Oath  when  they  condemned  it? 
Was  the  alleged  condemnation  of  the  Irish  and  Scotch  Bishops 
made  in  their  judicial  capacity  or  only  by  private  letters? 
Had  such  private  letters  any  authority?"  and  so  forth.  A 
copy  of  Bishop  Thomas  Talbot's  recent  letter,  in  which  he 
had  refused  to  condemn  the  amended  Oath,  was  produced, 
and  read.  In  the  course  of  argument,  the  question  arose  as 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  persons  "  in  the  clause  to  which 
Mr.  Barnard  had  originally  objected  in  the  Protestation,  and 
whether  the  statement  in  the  Oath  that  the  Pope  had  no  power 


250  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

over  the  "  persons  "  of  Catholics  denoted  any  restriction  as  to 
the  inflicting  of  censures.  The  Committee  offered  to  submit 
this  to  two  civil  lawyers,  two  common  lawyers,  and  two  Ca- 
tholic lawyers  for  a  joint  report.  This  offer  the  bishops  re- 
fused, on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  a  matter  for  laymen  to 
decide.  The  Committee,  however,  argued  that  no  question  was 
raised  as  to  the  nature  of  censures,  but  only  on  the  legal 
acceptation  of  certain  words,  and  whether  they  were  to  be 
understood  as  including  censures  in  their  meaning.  A  long 
argument  followed  between  Sir  Henry  Englefield  and  Mr. 
Barnard,  to  which  the  others  listened,  the  vicar  general  show- 
ing exemplary  patience,  and  expounding  the  theological  ob- 
jections to  the  Oath  as  it  stood. 

The  meeting  had  already  lasted  over  two  hours,  when  Dr. 
Gibson  thought  it  was  time  to  bring  matters  to  a  head.  Ris- 
ing up  from  his  seat,  he  declared  that  all  this  argument  was  of 
no  importance :  the  question  was,  Would  the  Committee,  or 
would  they  not,  submit  ?  Being  asked  to  put  his  requisition 
into  writing,  he  did  so — Dr.  Douglass  concurring — in  the  fol- 
lowing terms : — 

"  Whether  the  Committee  intend  to  submit  not  to  proceed 
further  in  the  business  of  the  bill  without  the  approbation  of 
the  Bishops." 

At  this  the  members  of  the  Committee  withdrew  to  another 
room,  and  after  a  long  absence  they  returned  the  following 
answer  in  writing  signed  by  all  of  them  : — 

"  We  have  the  greatest  respect  for  the  episcopal  authority, 
and  are  always  disposed  to  obey  its  decisions  when  applied  to 
proper  objects,  and  confined  within  proper  limitations.  But 
we  say  with  St.  Leo,  '  Manet  Petri  privilegium  ubicunque  ex 
ipsius  aequitate  fertur  judicium  '.  The  requisition  of  submission 
made  by  the  two  Vicars  Apostolic  appears  in  the  present 
instance  not  grounded  in  equity.  No  proof  of  the  proposed 
Oath's  containing  anything  contrary  to  faith  or  morals  has  been 
produced.  And  we  cannot  acquiesce  in  the  requisition  without 
continuing,  increasing  and  confirming  the  prejudice  against  the 
faith  and  moral  character  of  the  Catholics,  and  the  scandal  and 
oppression  under  which  they  labour  in  this  kingdom. 

"  We  therefore  refuse  to  submit  to  the  above  requisition, 
and  we  give  your  Lordships  notice  that  we  shall  appeal  from  it 


1791]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  251 

to  all  the  Catholic  Churches  in  the  universe,  and  especially  to  the 
first  of  Catholic  Churches,  the  Apostolical  See,  rightly  informed. 

"Cha.  Berington.  H.  C.  Englefield. 

"  Jos.  Wilkes.  John  Throckmorton. 

"  Stourton.  John  Towneley. 

"  Petre.  Thomas  Hornyold. 

"  Notwithstanding  this  declaration,  we  still  request  your 
Lordships  to  say  whether  you  will  suggest  any  addition  or 
qualifying  explanation  which  can  be  admitted  consistently 
with  the  Instrument  of  Protestation  signed  by  the  Vicars 
Apostolic  and  more  than  200  of  the  Clergy  and  almost  every 
respectable  Catholic  in  England,  and  we  will  exert  our  best 
endeavours  in  negotiating  the  admission  of  such  an  addition 
or  qualifying  expression." 

The  last  part  of  the  above  was  brought  in  unsigned,  but  at 
the  request  of  Dr.  Douglass,  the  Committee  affixed  their  signa- 
tures. 

At  this  stage  some  of  the  Committee  resumed  their  cross- 
examination  of  the  bishops.  Mr.  Throckmorton  asked,  "  Is  it 
lawful  for  subjects  to  rebel  against  or  murder  the  king?" 
"  After  a  king  has  been  excommunicated  and  his  subjects  ab- 
solved from  their  allegiance,  does  he  remain  a  king  as  before?  " 
and  more  of  the  same  quality.  After  a  time,  Dr.  Douglass 
refused  to  answer  further,  and  a  little  later,  he  said  that  he  had 
understood  that  the  conference  was  to  be  a  friendly  one,  and 
as  such  was  not  the  case,  he  moved  "  that  question  and  answer 
be  thrown  into  the  fire  ".  The  Committee  retorted  by  asking 
the  bishops  to  withdraw  their  requisition.  As  they  refused  to 
do  this,  the  Committee  unanimously  negatived  Dr.  Douglass's 
motion.  A  further  proposal  to  adjourn  for  a  week,  and  in  the 
meantime  to  convene  a  meeting  of  all  the  bishops,  was  also 
negatived  on  the  ground  that  the  time  could  not  be  spared. 
The  conference  therefore  broke  up,  without  having  achieved 
any  definite  result. 

On  returning  home,  the  bishops  decided  to  summon  a  cer- 
tain number  of  the  most  prominent  clergy  to  discuss  what  had 
taken  place.  Dr.  Douglass  also  wrote  to  all  the  priests  of  his 
district,  asking  their  opinion  on  the  theological  aspect  of  the 
Oath.     Many  of  their  answers  are  still  preserved.     The  great 


252  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

majority  were  against  the  lawfulness  of  taking  the  Oath.  The 
priests  who  assembled  at  Castle  Street  numbered  fifteen,  in- 
cluding three  ex-Jesuits,  a  Benedictine,  two  Franciscans,  and 
the  rest  secular  priests.1  They  all  showed  themselves  anxious 
to  stand  by  the  bishops,  and  expressed  their  loyalty  to  Rome 
in  an  emphatic  manner.  They  considered  that  the  Oath  in  its 
present  form  was  unlawful  for  a  Catholic  to  take,  and  that  the 
Committee's  last  appeal  was  nugatory  until  they  had  complied 
with  the  requisition  of  the  bishops. 

In  the  middle  of  the  meeting,  a  new  gleam  of  hope  appeared. 
Bishop  Berington  called,  and  being  anxious,  as  ever,  to  make 
peace,  he  begged  the  bishops  and  clergy  to  propose  any  definite 
alterations  which  in  their  opinion  would  render  the  Oath  un- 
objectionable, holding  out  hopes  that  the  Committee  might 
agree  to  them.  He  was  probably  speaking  for  them  in  good 
faith  ;  but  he  had  mistaken  their  temper.  The  bishops  im- 
mediately sent  a  deputation  consisting  of  Revv.  J.  Barnard  and 
P.  Donelan,  for  the  Committee  too  were  sitting  that  morning. 
Their  message  was  not  couched  in  very  conciliatory  terms  : — 

"  Are  the  Committee  disposed  to  accept  of  such  alterations 
as  the  Bishops  shall  think  necessary  to  render  the  Oath  perfectly 
consistent  with  Catholic  principles  ?  Provided,  however,  that 
this  accommodation  be  not  understood  to  derogate  from  the 
Encyclical  Letter  or  the  authority  of  the  Bishops."  The 
answer  was  in  much  the  same  strain  :  "  That  Bishop  Berington 
had  not  gone  at  their  request,  and  that  while  they  were  and 
always  had  been  ready  to  negotiate  any  addition  or  qualifying 
explanation  of  the  Oath  which  can  be  admitted  consistently 
with  the  Protestation,  and  are  and  always  have  been  willing  to 
reject  everything  which  can  be  proved  to  be  contrary  to  the 
Catholic  Faith,  they  must  refer  to  the  answer  delivered  by 
them  to  the  requisition  of  the  two  Vicars  Apostolic  at  the 
meeting  on    the  8th   inst,  from  which    they  cannot  recede." 

The  above  history  is  sad  reading.  From  first  to  last  it 
must  have  been  evident  that  the  two  parties  were  hopelessly 
unable  to  understand  each  other,  and  that  the  uncompromising 

1  They  were  Rev.  J.  Barnard,  P.  Browne,  T.  More,  R.  Chapman,  T.  Law- 
son,  T.  Talbot,  D.  Gaffey,  J.  Lindow,  W.  Pilling,  P.  Donelan,  J.  Greenham,  T. 
Smyth,  T.  Horrabin,  T.  Bennet,  and  T.  Varley.  Comparing  this  list  with  the 
names  of  those  who  attended  the  meeting  on  February  2,  1790,  we  find  that  Rew. 
J.  Barnard  and  P.  Browne  were  the  only  priests  who  were  at  both. 


i7gi]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  253 

attitudes  assumed  by  both  effectually  precluded  any  prospect 
of  a  settlement.  Naturally  our  sympathies  go  with  the  side 
of  authority,  and  we  feel  indignant  at  the  insults  offered  to 
the  divinely  constituted  rulers  of  the  Church.  But  there  was 
a  large  class  of  Catholics,  of  which  perhaps  Dr.  Strickland  may 
be  taken  as  the  typical  exponent,  who  admitted  indeed  that  the 
Committee  showed  disrespect  or  worse  to  the  episcopal  char- 
acter, and  even  that  their  methods  in  order  to  gain  their  own 
ends  were  not  always  straightforward,  and  yet  resented  the 
conclusion  that  they  were  men  devoid  of  principle  or  religion, 
as  their  enemies  were  fond  of  asserting.  They  contended  that 
on  this  occasion  at  least  the  Committee  men  were  driven  into 
a  very  difficult  position.  The  requisition  made  by  the  bishops 
might  have  been  within  their  competence — though  seeing  that 
Bishop  Thomas  Talbot,  who  was  of  equal  authority  with  any 
of  the  others,  had  dissented  from  the  action  taken,  they  did  not 
regard  even  this  as  certain.  But  granting  that  the  three  bishops 
had  a  strict  right  to  enjoin  obedience,  and  to  require  the 
Committee  to  abandon  the  whole  position  they  had  taken  up, 
this  seemed  to  them  an  extreme  demand  on  their  loyalty. 
The  Committee  always  showed  themselves  very  sensible  of  any 
courteous  treatment  when  they  received  it,  and  many  regretted 
that  some  attempt  was  not  made  to  come  to  a  mutual  under- 
standing, rather  than  that  resort  should  be  had  to  a  definite 
trial  of  strength  between  the  two  parties.  For  in  this  case, 
although  the  loyalty  of  the  main  body  to  their  ecclesiastical 
rulers  was  such  as  probably  to  ensure  the  ultimate  victory  of 
the  bishops,  there  was  too  much  reason  to  fear  that  it  might 
be,  as  one  of  them  expressed  it,  "  a  victory  full  of  sadness  ". 
However,  the  worst  had  now  come,  and  had  to  be  faced.  There 
was  open  war  between  the  Committee  and  the  bishops  just  at 
the  moment  when  the  Catholic  question  was  about  to  come  on 
in  Parliament :  and  the  anti-episcopal  party  had  the  ear  of  the 
Government. 

The  narrative  of  the  progress  of  the  bill  in  Parliament 
must  be  left  till  the  next  chapter.  Before  proceeding  to  it, 
we  must  speak  of  two  results  of  the  late  conference,  which  had 
serious  and  lasting  effects.  These  were  the  issue  of  the  Com- 
mittee's "  Manifesto  and  Appeal,"  and  the  suspension  of  Rev. 
Joseph  Wilkes,  who  was  understood  to  be  its  author. 


254  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

The  "  Manifesto  and  Appeal "  was  addressed  to  the  Vicars 
Apostolic  of  the  Northern,  Western  and  London  Districts 
jointly.  For  strength  of  language  it  exceeded  all  the  previous 
letters  of  the  Committee.  Even  after  making  all  allowance 
for  the  haste  in  which  it  was  put  together,  and  the  moment  of 
irritation  at  which  it  was  written,  it  still  remains  a  record  of 
the  scandalous  lengths  to  which  the  party  allowed  themselves 
to  be  driven  during  the  heat  of  contest.  In  order  to  form 
an  idea  of  the  state  of  affairs,  it  is  necessary  to  quote  extracts 
at  considerable  length. 

The  Committee  begin  by  a  profession  of  faith  in  unequi- 
vocal terms :  — 

"  If  the  Oath  contained  an  avowal  of  any  point  of  doctrine 
or  morals  contrary  to  the  belief  of  the  Catholic  Church,  we 
should  think  it  criminal  in  us  either  to  contend  for  its  admis- 
sibility in  the  present  stage  of  the  business,  or  to  take  it  at  a 
future  time,  if  it  should  pass  into  law.  For  born  and  educated 
in  the  Catholic  Church,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  bound  by 
her  decrees,  and  whatever  is  of  faith,  by  the  express  word  of 
Christ,  or  the  tradition  of  His  Church,  we  acknowledge  it  our 
duty  to  believe.  In  common  with  every  Church  in  communion 
with  the  see  of  Rome,  we  acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  the 
Pope." » 

So  far  then,  the  Committee  show  themselves  avowedly 
Catholics.  After  a  certain  amount  of  further  explanation, 
however,  they  proceed  to  criticise  the  action  of  the  vicars 
apostolic  and  defend  their  own,  and  here  their  Catholic  sense 
seems  to  desert  them  ;  for  the  language  they  use  in  addressing 
their  bishops  becomes  more  than  unseemly : — 

"  My  Lords,  if  Christ  enjoins  submission,  he  enjoins  it  when 
submission  is  reasonable :  and  submission  must  ever  be  un- 
reasonable when  it  is  not  preceded  by  instruction  and  reason. 
Following  the  precept  of  her  Divine  Master,  the  Church  of  God, 
in  tender  regard  to  the  weakness  of  her  children,  has  generally 
condescended  to  conciliate,  has  always  thought  herself  bound 
to  instruct.  It  is  a  rule  with  her  that  the  lowest  of  her  chil- 
dren should  know  of  what  he  is  accused  before  he  is  judged ; 
and  be  permitted  to  defend  himself  before  he  is  condemned. 
Such,  My  Lords,  is  the  spirit  of  our  Divine  Master,  and  such 

1  Second  Blue  Book,  p.  13. 


1791]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  255 

conformably  to  his  precepts,  is  the  practice  of  his  Church. 
How  widely  different  have  been  the  proceedings  of  your 
Lordships  !  ...  In  our  regard,  no  preliminaries,  either  of  form 
or  of  right,  were  attended  to ;  no  measure  of  conciliation  was 
used,  no  instruction  was  vouchsafed.  In  which  of  the  articles 
of  the  Oath  the  error  attributed  to  it  lay  was  not  pointed  out 
to  us ;  we  were  not  permitted  to  explain  it ;  no  opportunity 
was  given  us  to  defend  our  conduct.  Is  it  possible  to  suppose 
your  Heavenly  Master  inspired  a  conduct  so  opposite  to  his 
own  spirit  of  prudence,  meekness,  conciliation  and  justice ;  or 
that  your  Lordships  spoke  the  language  of  the  Church  when 
you  acted  in  a  manner  so  little  conformable  to  its  practice? 
.  .  .  Surely,  my  Lords,  when  your  Lordships  act  with  so  much 
precipitancy,  when  you  show  such  little  attention  to  the  forms 
or  substance  of  justice,  when  you  show  yourselves  so  uncon- 
versant  with  the  subjects  on  which  you  pronounce  your  deter- 
minations so  decisively ;  when  there  is  so  much  contradiction 
in  your  opinions  and  so  much  disagreement  among  yourselves  ; 
it  is  possible  to  call  in  question  the  irrefragability  of  your 
articles  and  determinations  without  incurring  the  guilt  of 
heresy,  schism  or  disobedience."  * 

The  above  remarkable  passage  will  be  enough  to  convince 
the  reader  of  the  frame  of  mind  of  those  who  drew  it  up.  It 
will  not  be  necessary  to  follow  the  disquisition  to  which  they 
proceed  with  the  view  of  proving  from  history  that  no  one  has 
a  right  to  demand  obedience  but  the  Church  as  a  whole — 
neither  priest  nor  bishop,  that  is,  nor  even  a  General  Council 
unless  it  be  accepted  by  the  body  of  the  faithful ;  nor  need  we 
give  their  version  of  the  misfortunes  of  English  Catholics 
during  the  previous  centuries,  which  are  attributed  in  great 
part  to  their  "  Ultramontane  "  principles  ;  nor  their  account  of 
recent  events,  from  which  indeed  we  have  already  largely 
quoted.  We  must,  however,  give  the  concluding  paragraphs  of 
the  manifesto,  which  are  even  more  scandalous — if  such  be 
possible — than  those  given  above  : —  2 

"  Therefore,  my  Lord  Bishop  of  Rama,  Vicar  Apostolic  of 
the  Western  District ;  my  Lord  Bishop  of  Acanthos,  Vicar 
Apostolic  of  the  Northern  District ;  my  Lord  Bishop  of 
Centuria,  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  Southern  District, 

1  Second  Blue  Book,  p.  15.  -  Ibid.,  p.  30. 


256  the  dawn  of  the  catholic  revival.  [1791 

"  Your  Lordships  Having  Brought  Matters  to  This 
Point, 

Convinced  that  we  have  not  been  misled  by  our  clergy,  con- 
vinced that  we  have  not  departed  from  the  principles  of  our 
ancestors,  convinced  that  we  have  not  violated  any  article  of 
Catholic  Faith  or  Communion,  We,  the  Catholic  Committee, 
whose  names  are  hereunder  written,  for  ourselves  and  for  those 
in  whose  trusts  we  have  acted,  do  hereby  before  God  solemnly 
protest  and  call  upon  God  to  witness  our  protest  against  your 
Lordships'  Encyclical  Letters  of  the  19th  day  of  October,  1789, 
and  the  21st  day  of  January  last,  and  every  clause,  article,  de- 
termination, matter  and  thing  therein  respectively  contained  ;  as 
imprudent,  arbitrary  and  unjust ;  as  a  total  misrepresentation  of 
the  nature  of  the  Bills  to  which  they  respectively  refer,  and 
the  Oaths  therein  respectively  contained ;  and  our  conduct  re- 
lating thereto  respectively ; — as  encroaching  on  our  natural, 
civil  and  religious  rights,  inculcating  principles  hostile  to 
society  and  government,  and  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
British  empire :  as  derogatory  from  the  allegiance  we  owe  to 
the  state,  and  the  settlement  of  the  crown  :  and  as  tending  to 
continue,  increase  and  confirm  the  prejudices  against  the  faith 
and  moral  character  of  the  Catholics,  and  the  scandal  and 
oppression  under  which  they  labour  in  this  kingdom.  In  the 
same  manner,  we  do  hereby  solemnly  protest  and  call  upon 
God  to  witness  this  our  solemn  protest  against  all  proceedings 
had  or  hereafter  to  be  had,  in  consequence  of  or  grounded  upon 
your  Lordships'  said  Encyclical  Letters,  or  either  of  them,  or 
any  representation  of  the  Bills  or  Oaths  therein  respectively 
referred  to,  given  or  to  be  given  by  your  Lordships  or  any  of 
you. 

"  And  from  your  Lordships'  said  Encyclical  Letters  and  all 
proceedings,  had  or  hereafter  to  be  had,  in  consequence  of  or 
grounded  upon  the  same,  or  either  of  them,  or  in  consequence 
of  or  grounded  upon  any  representations  of  the  said  Bills 
or  Oaths  or  either  of  them,  given  or  to  be  given  by  your 
Lordships  or  any  of  you  ;  we  do  hereby  appeal  and  call  on  God 
to  witness  our  appeal,  for  the  purity  and  integrity  of  our  re- 
ligious principles,  to  all  the  Catholic  Churches  in  the  universe, 


1791]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  257 

and  especially  to  the  first  of  Catholic  Churches,  the  Apostolical 
See,  rightly  informed. 

"Charles  Berington.  John  Lawson. 

"  Joseph  Wilkes.  John  Throckmorton. 

"  Stourton.  William  Fermor. 

"  Petre.  John  Towneley. 

"  Henry  Charles  Englefield.  Thomas  Hornvold." 

The  "  Manifesto  and  Appeal  "  was  delivered  to  Dr.  Douglass 
by  Bishop  Berington  and  Lord  Stourton  on  February  17. 
As  the  letter  from  the  five  Staffordshire  priests  which  we  have 
already  given,  dated  February  15,  is  included,  it  seems  that 
they  waited  for  that  in  order  to  quote  it.  The  Manifesto  and 
Appeal  was  shortly  afterwards  printed,  together  with  the  Com- 
mittee's letter  to  Bishop  Douglass,  these  forming  the  greater 
part  of  the  Second  Blue  Book.  The  other  contents  included 
a  copy  of  the  Oath  as  amended  on  February  3,  1790;  and  in 
a  footnote,  the  legal  opinion  of  Serjeant  Hill,  the  eminent 
lawyer,  with  respect  to  the  clause  alluded  to  a  few  pages  back, 
in  which  he  gave  his  opinion  that  it  could  not  be  construed 
into  a  denial  of  the  Pope's  authority  in  spiritual  matters. 

The  Manifesto  and  Appeal  is  described  by  Milner  as  a 
"  stunning  complication  of  profaneness,  calumny,  schism  and 
blasphemy  " — strong  language,  but  for  once  hardly  too  strong. 
The  whole  document  was  in  fact  so  bad  that  it  did  more  good 
than  harm  to  the  bishops'  cause,  by  alienating  public  sympathy 
from  the  side  of  the  Committee.  At  least  two  of  the  Stafford- 
shire clergy,  Revv.  George  Maire  and  John  Perry,  were  driven 
to  the  other  side,  and  many  laymen  and  priests  were  scan- 
dalised by  it.  Yet,  strange  to  say,  it  was  more  largely  signed 
than  almost  any  other  document  issued  by  the  Committee,  the 
signatures  including  two  ecclesiastics  and  eight  laymen.1 

Here  we  leave  the  Manifesto  for  the  present,  and  turn  our 
attention  to  the  dispute  between  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes  and 
Bishop  Walmesley,  which  continued  for  several  years  to  agitate 
the  English  Catholic  world,  and  was  one  of  the  chief  causes 

1  The  only  signatures  absent  were  those  of  Sir  William  Jerningham  and 
Lord  Clifford.  The  latter  was  still  abroad,  in  declining  health,  and  he  had  in  fact 
resigned  his  seat  on  the  Committee.  Lord  Arundell  of  Wardour  was  elected  in  his 
place,  but  he  refused  to  serve. 

VOL.  I.  17 


258  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

which  contributed  to  the  bitterness  of  feeling  between  the  laity 
and  the  bishops  for  more  than  the  period  of  a  generation. 
Milner  always  looked  upon  Mr.  Wilkes  as  the  chief  author  of 
the  theological  errors  of  the  Committee,  and  in  view  of  his 
being  a  priest  and  a  monk,  he  considered  him  the  most  blame- 
worthy of  all.  Bishop  Walmesley  shared  this  opinion,  and 
was  ready,  should  opportunity  offer,  to  enforce  it  by  his  epis- 
copal authority.  Mr.  Wilkes  lived  in  the  same  city,  and  re- 
ceived faculties  from  Bishop  Walmesley ;  but  he  was  so  well 
versed  in  the  duties  and  limitations  of  his  position,  that  he 
contrived  for  a  long  time  to  avoid  coming  into  definite  collision 
with  his  bishop.  But  at  last  the  inevitable  occasion  came.  At 
the  conference  on  February  8,  the  Committee  had  received  a 
requisition  from  two  vicars  apostolic,  who  acted,  it  was  under- 
stood, also  on  behalf  of  Bishop  Walmesley.  They  had  de- 
finitely refused  to  comply  with  it,  and  had  notified  their  intention 
of  appealing  to  Rome,  and  throughout  Mr.  Wilkes  acted  with 
the  rest.  This  was  regarded  by  Dr.  Walmesley  as  contumacy, 
and  he  wrote  in  the  following  terms  : — 

"  To  the  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes. 

"Bath,  Saturday,  February  19,  1791. 

"  As  you  have  evidently  refused  submission  to  the 
ordinances  of  the  Apostolic  Vicars,  if  before  or  on  Saturday 
next,  the  26th  instant,  you  do  not  make  to  me  satisfactory  sub- 
mission, I  declare  you  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  all  mission- 
ary faculties,  and  all  Ecclesiastical  functions  in  my  District. 
"  Let  this  one  admonition  suffice  for  all. 

"CAROLUS  Ramaten,  Vicar  Apostolic? 

It  should  perhaps  be  explained,  that  although  Bishop  Wal- 
mesley happened  to  be  a  Benedictine,  he  held  no  position  of 
authority  in  the  order.  Mr.  Wilkes's  immediate  superior  was 
Rev.  John  Warmoll,  the  Southern  Provincial,  who  together  with 
Rev.  Rowland  Lacon,  the  Northern  Provincial,  were  both  sub- 
ject to  Rev.  George  Walker,  the  President  General.  All  the 
Benedictines  who  acted  as  chaplains,  or  missionaries,  however, 
— that  is  all  those  residing  in  England — had  to  obtain  their 
missionary  "  faculties  "  from  the  bishop  in  whose  district  they 
exercised  them.      In  this  manner,  therefore,  Bishop  Walmesley 


i7gi]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  259 

was  enabled  to  threaten  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes  with  suspension. 
At  the  same  time,  he  wrote  to  the  Provincial  notifying  what  he 
had  done,  and  Rev.  John  Warmoll  seems  to  have  approved 
throughout  of  the  line  he  was  taking. 

Mr.  Wilkes's  answer  to  the  above  letter  was  in  much  the 
same  style  as  the  letters  of  the  Committee  in  the  Blue  Books. 
With  all  deference  he  protested  that  he  had  never  refused  sub- 
mission to  his  superiors  in  his  pastoral  work  ;  but  as  a  member 
of  the  Committee,  he  considered  that  he  was  acting  in  a  public 
capacity,  and  that  he  was  responsible  only  to  those  who  de- 
puted him  so  to  act.  In  any  case,  he  pleaded,  it  was  always 
lawful  to  "  appeal  from  the  determinations  of  Apostolic  Vicars 
to  the  judgment  and  decisions  of  other  Catholic  Churches, 
especially  of  the  Apostolic  See".  This  form,  which  was  also 
used  in  the  Protest  and  Appeal,  shows  some  little  ingenuity ; 
for  the  opinions  which  Mr.  Wilkes  and  his  friends  were  putting 
forward  were  totally  opposed  to  any  right  of  the  Holy  See  to 
settle  disputes  among  English  Catholics ;  this  curious  form  of 
wording,  representing  his  appeal  to  be  primarily  addressed  to 
all  Christendom,  saved  him  from  absolute  inconsistency. 

With  respect  to  the  main  question  of  the  lawfulness  of  the 
Oath,  Mr.  Wilkes  again  insisted  that  the  wish  of  the  Committee 
was  for  a  bill  "without  either  Protestation  or  Provisoes"  ;  but 
that  the  Government  would  not  admit  this.  However,  he  said, 
he  was  personally  determined  to  refuse  to  take  any  Oath  which 
was  not  sanctioned  by  the  bishops.  He  concluded  once  more 
in  terms  of  respect :  "  My  Lord,  though  judged  by  your  Lord- 
ship unworthy  to  perform  the  duties  of  a  Pastor,  I  still  humbly 
and  earnestly  beg  your  blessing  and  your  prayers  ". 

This  letter  was  of  course  a  direct  refusal  to  submit,  and 
accordingly  Mr.  Wilkes  became  suspended  on  Saturday,  Feb- 
ruary 26.  The  following  day,  in  the  chapel  at  Bath,  Mass 
was  said  and  all  the  functions  were  conducted  by  another  Bene- 
dictine ;  and  a  few  weeks  later,  Rev.  M.  Pembridge  arrived  to 
take  temporary  charge  of  the  mission.  It  is  due  to  Mr.  Wilkes 
to  add  that  he  submitted  to  his  suspension  with  obedience,  and 
made  no  effort  to  evade  it.  He  continued  to  go  to  Mass,  but 
ceased  to  approach  the  Sacraments. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  measure  taken  by  Bishop 
Walmesley  was  a  bold  one,  which  could  only  be  justified  by 

17* 


260  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

circumstances  of  an  extreme  nature.  Mr.  Wilkes  had  done 
neither  more  nor  less  than  the  other  members  of  the  Committee. 
Most  of  these  were  laymen,  so  that  no  such  sentence  could  af- 
fect them.  One,  Dr.  Berington,  was  a  bishop,  and  therefore 
could  not  be  suspended.  Mr.  Wilkes  alone  was  in  a  position 
in  which  such  a  censure  could  take  effect,  and  therefore  he 
alone  suffered.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  should  feel  in  honour  bound  to  identify 
themselves  with  him  in  the  matter,  and  should  consider  that 
his  suspension  reflected  indirectly  upon  themselves. 

Many  others  also  sided  with  Mr.  Wilkes.  His  own  con- 
gregation, who  were  much  attached  to  him,  took  his  side ;  a 
certain  section  of  both  clergy  and  laity  throughout  the  country 
looked  upon  this  as  an  additional  instance  of  episcopal 
"  tyranny  "  ;  and  perhaps  worst  of  all,  the  embers  of  the  old 
quarrel  between  bishops  and  regulars  were  re-kindled,  for  we 
find  some  of  the  latter  siding  with  Mr.  Wilkes  on  the  ground 
that  in  suspending  him  without  a  proper  citation  or  trial,  the 
bishop  had  infringed  the  rights  of  the  regulars. 

A  formal  petition  was  presented  to  Bishop  Walmesley  by 
the  congregation  of  Bath,  praying  for  the  re-instatement  of 
Mr.  Wilkes,  and  offering  to  act  as  intermediaries,  and  to  give 
explanations  of  what  had  occurred.  Dr.  Walmesley  answered 
by  laying  down  the  following  conditions  which  he  considered 
essential  for  Mr.  Wilkes's  reconciliation  : — 

"  1.  That  he  should  acknowledge  himself  sincerely  repentant 
for  having  acted  in  opposition  to  the  apostolical  vicars. 

"  2.  That  he  should  withdraw  his  signature  from  the  answer 
given  to  the  two  apostolical  vicars  on  the  8th  of  last  February. 

"  3.  That  he  should  inform  the  Committee  that  he  has  with- 
drawn his  signature. 

"  4.  That  he  should  engage  himself  by  promise  never  to  com- 
mit such  indiscretions  for  the  future." 

To  these  conditions  Mr.  Wilkes  refused  to  accede.  His 
position  continued  to  excite  much  notice,  and  one  suggestion 
after  another  was  made  by  his  friends,  in  order  to  bring  pres- 
sure to  bear  on  Bishop  Walmesley.  One  of  the  most  extra- 
ordinary was  put  before  him  in  writing  by  Dr.  Strickland,  who 
revived  the  old  cry  that  Bishop  Walmesley  had  broken  his 
Oath  which,  withuother  Catholics,  he  had  taken  under  the  Act 


1791]  SECOND  CONDEMNATION  OF  THE  OATH.  261 

of  1778,  and  he  informed  him  that  some  of  the  Committee 
would  certainly  prosecute  him  if  he  did  not  show  mercy  to 
Mr.  Wilkes.  He  contended  that  the  Oath  which  the  vicars 
apostolic  had  condemned  was  a  civil  Oath  of  Allegiance  ;  they 
had  specified  no  particular  objection  of  a  spiritual  nature,  but 
condemned  the  Oath  as  a  whole  ;  and  they  had  done  so  by  the 
authority  which  they  possessed  as  vicars  of  the  Pope  :  there- 
fore they  had  co-operated  with  the  Pope  in  claiming  civil  juris- 
diction in  England.  The  condemnation  had  been  promulgated 
by  two  only  of  the  vicars  apostolic,  of  whom  one  was  dead  ; 
therefore  Dr.  Walmesley  alone  was  liable.1 

It  can  hardly  have  been  expected  that  such  a  threat  should 
produce  much  effect.  The  sight  of  the  senior  vicar  apostolic 
standing  before  a  Protestant  judge  to  answer  the  accusation 
of  Catholic  laymen,  which  Dr.  Strickland  had  painted  in  glow- 
ing colours,  would  only  have  intimidated  one  who  believed 
it  to  be  at  all  possible,  which  Dr.  Walmesley  evidently  did  not. 

Another  more  important  movement  was  set  on  foot  by  the 
Staffordshire  clergy,  who  prepared  a  written  protest,  to  be 
signed,  as  they  hoped,  by  all  the  priests  of  England.  The  col- 
lections of  signatures,  however,  took  a  long  time,  and  in  the 
meanwhile  exciting  events  were  taking  place  in  Parliament, 
which  for  a  time  diverted  people's  minds.  Mr.  Wilkes  was 
in  London,  attending  the  frequent  meetings  of  the  Committee, 
and  the  eyes  of  all  Catholics  were  directed  to  the  action  of  the 
Legislature.  It  was  not  until  the  question  of  the  Catholic  Re- 
lief Bill  was  settled  that  the  Wilkes  case  came  prominently  to 
the  fore  ;  here  therefore  we  may  leave  it  until  we  have  followed 
the  course  of  the  bill  through  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament. 

1  See  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv.  The  letter  is  not  dated,  but  was  written  some- 
time before  May  12,  when  he  wrote  apologising  for  it. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 

1791. 

THE  celebrated  picture  by  Karl  Anton  Hickel  in  the  National 
Portrait  Gallery  has  left  a  vivid  record  of  the  appearance 
of  the  House  of  Commons  which  was  elected  in  the  latter  part 
of  1790.1  No  more  interesting  period  could  be  found  in  all 
the  long  history  of  the  House.  Pitt  and  Fox,  as  leaders  of 
the  Government  and  Opposition  respectively,  were  at  their  best. 
The  Speaker  was  Mr.  Addington,  who  afterwards  succeeded 
Pitt  as  Prime  Minister ;  and  among  the  statesmen  whom  we 
meet  in  connection  with  the  Catholic  Bill  we  find  such  familiar 
names  as  Edmund  Burke,  always  the  staunch  friend  of  Catholics, 
Windham,  Dundas,  Sir  Archibald  MacDonald,  John  Mitford, 
Wilberforce,  etc.  The  old  House  of  Commons  was  indeed 
smaller  than  the  one  to  which  we  are  accustomed,  and  the 
architecture  was  sufficiently  plain  to  have  qualified  it  to  appear 
among  Pugin's  Contrasts,  side  by  side  with  the  present  House, 
the  construction  of  which  is  now  generally  admitted  to  have 
been  in  great  measure  the  work  of  his  genius.2  But  although 
the  material  structure  v/as  so  different,  the  main  features  of  the 
assembly  were  much  the  same  then  as  now — the  relative  posi- 
tion of  the  Speaker,  the  clerks,  the  table  of  the  House,  and  the 
supporters  of  the  Government  on  the  right  hand,  and  of  the 
Opposition  on  the  left.  We  have  only  to  imagine  the  members 
dressed  in  the  elaborate  costumes  of  the  period,  with  their  faces 
close  shaven,  and  in  many  cases  wigs  on  their  heads,  in  order 
to  transform  the  present  House  of  Commons  into  that  of  the 
time  of  Pitt. 

1  The  actual  date  represented  is  February,  1793. 

2  The  architect  was  Sir  Charles  Barry.     Pugin   was  a  clerk  in  his  office, 
aged  then  less  than  twenty-five  years. 

262 


&0, 


x  Z 


1791]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.       263 

The  date  with  which  we  are  now  concerned  was  Monday, 
February  21,  1791 ,  when  among  the  orders  of  the  day  appeared 
a  motion  for  leave  to  introduce  "  A  Bill  to  relieve,  upon  condi- 
tions and  under  restrictions,  persons  called  Protesting  Catholic 
Dissenters,  from  certain  penalties  and  disabilities  to  which 
Papists,  or  persons  professing  the  Popish  religion,  are  subject ". 
The  motion  stood  in  the  name  of  Mr.  Mitford,  and  at  the 
proper  time  he  rose  from  his  place  on  the  front  ministerial 
bench,  to  propose  it.  His  speech  may  be  quoted  in  full,  as 
given  in  Hansard  : — 

"  He  lamented  that  it  had  fallen  to  the  lot  of  a  person  so 
incapable  of  doing  the  subject  justice  as  he  confessed  himself 
to  be,  to  bring  before  the  House  a  motion  of  such  import- 
ance :  but  as  the  duty  had  been  pressed  upon  him,  he  would 
endeavour  to  discharge  it  as  well  as  his  abilities  would  allow, 
and  he  trusted  he  should  be  favoured  with  the  indulgence  of 
the  House. 

"  Having  thus  bespoke  their  favourable  attention,  Mr. 
Mitford  proceeded  to  open  the  grounds  on  which  he  rested 
his  motion.  He  said  it  was  well  known  that  there  was  great 
severity  in  the  laws  now  subsisting  against  persons  professing 
the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  but  the  extent  of  that  severity 
was  not  equally  known.  In  a  book  which  was  in  almost  every 
gentleman's  hands,  he  meant  Burn's  Ecclesiastical  Law,  no  less 
than  seventy  pages  were  occupied  with  an  enumeration  of  the 
Penal  Statutes  still  in  force  against  Roman  Catholics,  and  ex- 
tracts from  most  of  those  statutes  were  also  to  be  seen  in  Burn's 
Justice.  The  present  reign  was,  Mr.  Mitford  said,  the  only 
one  (the  short  reign  of  James  II.  excepted)  since  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  in  which  some  additional  severity  against  Roman 
Catholics  had  not  been  put  upon  the  statute  book,  and  many 
of  the  most  severe  of  these  acts  were  in  an  especial  manner 
directed  against  the  Roman  Catholic  Clergy.  He  enumerated 
a  variety  of  these  statutes  to  show  that  Papist  priests  were 
guilty  of  High  Treason  and  would  suffer  death  for  their  offences 
in  their  nature  trivial,  such  as  persuading  others  to  be  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  religion,  etc.,  etc.  After  going  through  a  list 
of  these  sanguinary  laws  against  the  Roman  Catholic  Clergy, 
he  observed  upon  the  cruelty  and  inhumanity  of  persecuting 
men  for  acting  according  to  their  consciences,  and  professing 


264  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

a  religion  which  they  had  received  from  their  ancestors.  He 
next  stated  the  hardships  under  which  the  Roman  Catholic 
laity  were  placed,  declaring  that  although  the  18th  of  the  pre- 
sent King  had  given  them  some  relief,  it  by  no  means  went  far 
enough.  He  recited  the  penalties  to  which  the  lay  Catholics 
were  liable  for  hearing  mass,  and  for  not  going  to  church,  and 
for  various  other  offences,  and  after  a  circumstantial  detail  on 
this  part  of  his  subject,  reminded  the  House  that  at  the  time 
these  very  severe  laws  were  commenced,  Queen  Elizabeth  had 
been  excommunicated  by  the  Pope,  and  her  subjects  absolved 
from  their  allegiance ;  that  therefore  the  laws  against  Roman 
Catholics  were  dictated  with  a  spirit  of  resentment  to  which 
their  severity  was  chiefly  to  be  ascribed.  He  descanted  on  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope,  which  had,  he  said,  originally  been  held 
to  be  merely  spiritual,  but  that  it  had  afterwards  enabled  the 
Pope  to  interfere  in  temporal  affairs  ;  that  Henry  VIII.  took 
away  this  spiritual  crown  from  the  head  of  the  Pope  and  placed 
it  on  his  own.  After  commenting  on  this  and  other  relative 
facts,  and  stating  the  various  oaths  of  supremacy  that  had 
from  time  to  time  been  devised,  Mr.  Mitford  said  that  the 
relief  that  he  should  propose  for  the  Protesting  Roman  Catholics 
would  be  a  bill  similar  to  that  which  had  passed  in  Ireland 
for  the  relief  of  the  Roman  Catholics  there  some  years  since ; 
and  as  no  ill  consequences  had  been  found  to  result  from  it,  in 
a  country  where  the  Roman  Catholics  were  so  much  more 
numerous  than  they  were  in  this,  he  should  hope  the  House 
would  see  no  impropriety  in  the  proposition.  He  reminded 
the  House  of  the  indulgence  that  had  of  late  years  been  shown 
to  Protestants  in  Roman  Catholic  countries,  and  particularly 
in  France  by  an  edict  of  the  present  king,  long  before  the  late 
revolution ;  he  could  not  therefore  imagine  that  the  House 
would  be  less  liberal  to  those  who  were  known  and  acknow- 
ledged to  be  as  loyal  subjects,  and  as  faithfully  attached  to  the 
sovereign  on  the  throne  and  the  government  of  the  country 
as  subjects  of  any  other  description  whatever.  He  concluded 
with  moving  that  leave  be  given  to  bring  in  the  bill." 

On  Mr.  Mitford  resuming  his  seat,  the  Speaker  (Mr.  Adding- 
ton)  pointed  out  that  as  the  question  before  the  House  con- 
cerned the  religion  of  the  country,  in  accordance  with  a  standing 
order  passed  in  1772  the  bill  would  have  to  be  referred  to  a 


1791]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.      265 

committee  of  the  whole  House  before  it  could  be  introduced. 
This  fact,  which  had  apparently  been  overlooked,  rendered  that 
evening's  debate  of  less  importance  ;  nevertheless  Mr.  Windham 
proceeded  to  second  the  motion  as  had  been  arranged.  After 
a  preliminary  apology  similar  to  that  with  which  Mr.  Mitford 
had  opened,  he  proceeded  to  say  that  there  were  only  two  prin- 
ciples to  justify  the  State  in  penalising  a  man  for  his  religious 
opinions.  One  was  for  his  own  supposed  good  ;  this  he  char- 
acterised as  persecution.  The  other  was  that  such  opinions 
might  be  injurious  to  society  at  large,  and  inconsistent  with 
good  citizenship ;  but  in  the  case  of  the  Roman  Catholics, 
however  much  people  might  speak  against  them,  he  asserted 
that  their  history  would  not  bear  out  any  such  allegation.  He 
did  not  indeed  go  so  far  as  Mr.  Fox  in  thinking  that  the  State 
had  no  right  to  take  cognisance  of  opinions,  but  only  of  actions  ; 
nevertheless  he  thought  that  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  it  would 
be  practically  safe  to  act  on  this  principle.  With  respect  to 
the  prevalent  idea  that  the  oath  of  a  Roman  Catholic  was  of 
less  value  than  that  of  a  Protestant,  he  pointed  for  proof  to  the 
contrary  to  the  very  fact  that  no  Catholic  had  ever  taken  his 
seat  in  the  House  of  Lords,  for  the  sole  reason  that  they  could 
not  conscientiously  take  the  required  oath. 

After  a  few  words  from  Mr.  Stanley,  member  for  Lancashire, 
in  which  county  Catholics  were  numerous,  bearing  witness  to 
the  general  excellence  of  their  conduct,  Pitt  summed  up.  He 
said  that  the  House  seemed  to  be  unanimously  in  favour  of 
the  introduction  of  the  bill ;  but  as  it  had  to  go  before  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House,  he  would  defer  his  own  remarks 
on  it  until  then.  This,  however,  immediately  brought  Fox 
to  his  feet,  to  protest  that  there  was  not  the  unanimity  in  the 
matter  which  the  Prime  Minister  supposed.  For  his  own  part, 
he  was  dissatisfied  with  the  bill,  not  for  what  it  did,  but  for 
what  it  did  not  do  ;  for  it  did  not  go  far  enough.  He  would  be 
for  repealing  the  statutes  against  all  Roman  Catholics,  whether 
"  Protesting  "  or  not.  He  said  that  toleration  now  prevailed  in 
all  the  countries  of  Europe,  instancing  Prussia,  France  and  the 
United  States  of  Holland.  He  gave  notice,  therefore,  that 
he  should  move  the  omission  of  the  word  "  Protesting "  and 
other  amendments  in  committee. 

In  reply  to  this    unexpected   criticism,  Pitt   spoke   a  few 


266  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

words  to  the  effect  that  although  some  of  the  speakers  were  at 
variance  as  to  their  reasons,  they  seemed  unanimously  in  favour 
of  the  bill  being  brought  in  ;  and  therefore  he  repeated  his 
opinion  that  further  discussion  would  be  more  in  place  at  a  later 
stage.  The  motion  for  the  introduction  of  the  bill  was  there- 
fore referred  to  a  committee  of  the  whole  House,  the  date  fixed 
being  March  1. 

We  have  it  on  Milner's  authority  that  the  above  debate 
and  the  motion  for  the  introduction  of  the  bill  took  the  bishops 
by  surprise.  Until  a  few  days  before,  they  were  ignorant  as  to 
how  soon  any  bill  was  likely  to  be  introduced,  and  to  the  last 
moment  they  hoped  that  the  Committee  would  obtain  a  modi- 
fied form  of  oath.  At  the  end  of  the  first  evening's  debate, 
though  they  had  not  seen  the  text  of  the  bill,  its  nature  became 
known,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  it  included  the  Oath  in  the  form 
in  which  it  had  been  passed  at  the  meeting  of  February,  1 790. 
Indeed,  the  very  title  of  the  bill — "  to  relieve  .  .  .  persons 
called  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters  " — was  enough  to  confirm 
their  worst  fears.  It  was  their  duty  as  guardians  of  the  Cath- 
olic religion  in  England  to  do  their  utmost  to  secure  such 
changes  and  amendments  as  they  considered  absolutely  ne- 
cessary for  the  integrity  of  religion.  Only  a  week  remained  :  if 
any  measures  were  to  be  effective,  there  was  no  time  to  lose. 

The  bishops  had  indeed  already  taken  their  first  step.  As 
soon  as  a  notice  appeared  in  the  newspapers  that  the  bill  was 
to  be  introduced,  Bishop  Walmesley  wrote  in  their  names  to 
Mr.  Weld,  begging  him  to  use  his  influence  with  Mr.  Pitt,  who 
was  his  personal  friend,  to  inform  him  of  the  actual  state  ot 
affairs,  and  to  induce  him  to  amend  the  bill.  This  Mr.  Weld 
readily  consented  to  do,  and  he  wrote  the  following  letter  to 
Mr.  Pitt :—  l 

"  Lulworth  Castle,  February  18,  1791. 

"  Sir, 

"  I  have  learned  from  the  public  news  that  a  motion 
will  soon  be  made  in  Parliament  for  the  relief  of  Roman 
Catholics.  However  respectable  the  persons  who  are  called 
a  Catholic  Committee  may  be,  yet  as  I  never  did  approve  of 

1  Mr.  Weld's  own  copy  of  his  letter,  which  he  sent  to  Dr.  Walmesley,  is  in 
vol.  iv.  of  the  Clifton  Archives.  There  is  also  a  copy  in  a  strange  handwriting 
among  the  Westminster  Archives. 


Mr.  Thomas  Weld,  of  Lulworth. 


1791]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.       267 

any  Committee  to  represent  me,  or  ever  would  entrust  those 
who  had  been  chosen  by  others  to  transact  business  with  you 
or  any  other  person  in  administration  in  my  name  or  for  me, 
I  take  the  liberty  to  address  you  in  my- own  name,  and  on 
the  part  of  many  others  who  are  circumstanced  with  respect 
to  the  Committee  as  I  myself  am. 

"  I- think  it  a  duty  owing  to  my  religion  and  to  the  gov- 
ernment I  live  under  to  inform  you  that  the  Oath  as  now 
proposed  to  be  enacted  for  ye  Roman  Catholics  is  solemnly 
disapproved  of  by  the  heads  of  our  clergy,  and  it  is  at  the 
request  of  our  Bishops  and  of  the  most  respectable  part  of  the 
Clergy  that  I  presume  to  mention  this  to  you  before  the 
business  is  carried  any  further. 

"  I  am  also  desired  by  them  to  say  that  we  are  all  ready 
to  give  every  possible  proof  of  our  allegiance  to  Government 
and  attachment  to  our  Sovereign  which  does  not  touch  on 
the  spiritual  power  of  the  head  of  the  Catholic  Church  or  that 
of  its  Pastors,  but  that  the  Oath  in  its  present  form,  containing 
things  contrary  to  Catholic  faith,  and  involving  Theological 
questions  foreign  to  civil  allegiance,  cannot  lawfully  be  taken 
by  members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

"  In  stating  these  sentiments  of  most  of  our  clergy,  I 
venture  to  say  that  I  express  those  of  a  considerable  part 
of  my  Catholic  fellow-subjects,  whose  signatures  the  sudden 
notice  of  the  intended  motion  in  Parliament  hinders  at  present 
from  being  collected. 

"  As  the  enacting  of  the  proposed  Oath  would  grieve  and 
distress  a  numerous  part  of  his  Majesty's  Catholic  subjects, 
may  I  not  presume,  Sir,  to  express  a  wish  that  you  would 
either  drop  ye  present  benevolent  intention  of  relieving  us 
Catholics  by  the  present  intended  Oath,  or  permit  it  to  be  so 
altered  that  all  may  be  enabled  to  take  it  conscientiously  and 
enjoy  ye  benefit  of  ye  intended  act. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  be,  etc.,  etc., 
"  Thomas  Weld." 

Mr.  Weld  followed  up  this  letter  by  coming  to  London, 
where  he  had  a  personal  interview  with  Mr.  Pitt,  who  received 
him  very  favourably,  and  promised  that  nothing  should  be 
done  in  a  hurry.      Nevertheless,  the  suggestion  which  he  then 


268  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

made,  that  there  should  be  two  bills,  one  for  the  protesting 
Catholics  and  the  other  for  non-protesting,  was  open  to  obvious 
objections :  for  the  Catholics  would  thus  have  found  them- 
selves divided  into  two  groups,  with  the  apparent  insinuation 
that  those  of  one  were  better  and  more  loyal  subjects  of  the 
King,  but  less  loyal  to  the  Pope,  than  those  of  the  other :  and 
the  relief  given  to  the  "  Protesters  "  would  certainly  have  been 
more  complete  than  that  given  to  the  "  Papist "  party,  as  they 
would  have  been  called. 

Several  other  prominent  Catholics  gave  their  active  as- 
sistance to  the  bishops  during  the  crisis.  Chief  among  these 
must  be  mentioned  Rev.  John  Milner  and  Rev.  Charles  Plow- 
den,  who  both  came  to  London  at  the  time,  and  Mr.  Maire  of 
Lartington,  Yorkshire,  who  acted  on  behalf  of  many  Catholic 
laymen  in  the  North.  The  latter  organised  a  formal  petition 
to  Pitt,  which  was  signed  by  many  men  of  influence  in  that 
part  of  the  country.  He  also  had  interviews  with  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Lee,  whom  he  induced  to  write  to  Fox,  on  the  strength 
of  his  personal  friendship  with  him. 

The  work  done  in  London  is  reported  by  Charles  Plow- 
den,  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Walmesley,  dated  4  Castle  Street, 
February  28.  "  Applications  have  been  made  by  your  Lord- 
ships' colleagues,"  he  writes,  "  to  most  men  in  power  by 
letter,  and  to  many  leading  men  in  the  House  of  Commons 
by  personal  interviews.  The  main  object  of  these  all  is  to 
obtain  either  the  Oath  of  1778,  or  the  Irish  Oath  of  1774. 
Every  friend  of  the  cause  is  making  every  possible  effort." 
Bishop  Gibson  records  letters  signed  by  himself  and  Bishop 
Douglass,  and  by  proxy  for  Bishop  Walmesley,  which  they 
addressed  to  Lord  Thurlow  (the  Lord  Chancellor),  Mr.  Pitt, 
Lord  Grenville  (leader  of  the  House  of  Lords),  and  Mr.  Wind- 
ham, "  the  purport  of  which,"  he  says,  "  was  to  assure  them  in 
the  strongest  terms  of  our  allegiance,  to  convince  them  that 
our  reluctance  to  take  the  Oath  arises  merely  from  conscience, 
and  to  beg  that  the  Oath  of  1 778  or  the  Irish  Oath  of  1 774  may 
be  substituted  instead  of  the  present  form,  which  by  offending 
the  consciences  of  many,  must  frustrate  the  very  intentions 
of  Government  by  excluding  them  from  the  act  of  Grace  ".1 

Milner  has  himself  recorded  his  own  share  in  the  work  of 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv. 


1791]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.       269 

those  days.  Called  up  from  Winchester  on  Thursday,  Febru- 
ary 24,  to  come  to  the  assistance  of  the  bishops,  he  arrived  in 
London  the  same  evening,  and  used  the  following  four  days 
in  visiting  and  conferring  with  some  of  the  chief  men  in  power. 
Speaking  of  himself  in  the  third  person,  he  says  : —  l 

"  He  was  already  known  by  character  to  Mr.  Burke,  who 
introduced  him  to  Mr.  Fox  and  Mr.  Windham.  By  his  advice 
he  also  waited  on  Mr.  Dundas,  and  held  a  conference  with 
him  in  presence  of  Mr.  Pitt.  He  had  likewise  an  introduction 
to  three  of  the  established  Bishops,  to  Mr.  Wilberforce,  Mr. 
William  Smith  and  other  members  of  the  Legislature,  all  of 
whom  listened  to  his  arguments  with  the  utmost  kindness." 

At  first,  with  the  diffidence  shared  by  all  Catholics  of  penal 
times,  Milner  awaited  a  formal  introduction  before  venturing 
to  call  on  a  minister.  Very  soon,  however,  he  became  more 
bold,  and  acting  on  Burke's  advice,  if  he  wanted  to  see  a 
minister,  he  simply  rang  the  door  bell  and  sent  up  his  card  : 
and  he  testifies  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Douglass,  that  he  always 
found  them  ready  to  receive  him  and  hear  what  he  had  to  say. 

Milner  also  had  a  tract  printed,  the  substance  of  which  he 
had  composed — as  he  himself  tells  us2 — during  his  journey 
from  Winchester.  The  title  was,  Facts  Relating  to  the  Present 
Contests  among  the  Roman  Catholics  of  this  Kingdom,  Concern- 
ing the  Bill  to  be  Introduced  into  Parliament  for  Their  Relief 
Its  purport  was  to  explain  the  objections  to  the  proposed  Oath 
on  the  part  of  the  bishops,  who  were  the  rightful  leaders  of 
the  Catholic  body,  and  who  were  (he  contended)  in  fact  fol- 
lowed by  the  great  majority  of  the  laity.  "  Abandoned  as  the 
majority  of  Roman  Catholics  are  by  those  Gentlemen  who 
professed  to  serve  them,"  he  wrote,  "taken  by  surprise  as  they 
now  are  on  the  present  occasion,  and  inferior  to  those  with 
whom  they  have  to  contend  in  everything  except  their  num- 
bers and  their  loyalty,  they  still  entertain  a  hope  that  if  there 
be  anything  worthy  of  the  enquiry  of  the  Legislature  in  the 
above  statement,  the  enquiry  will  take  place." 

In  the  course  of  the  conferences  alluded  to,  several  import- 
ant persons — including  such  men  as  Edmund  Burke  and  Sir 
Archibald  MacDonald  (the  Attorney-General),  and  Mr.  Mitford 
himself — did  not  cease  to  urge  the  importance  of  avoiding  all 

1  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  77.  2Ibid.,  p.  79. 


270  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

sign  of  disunion  among  the  Catholic  body.  The  bishops  there- 
fore determined  to  make  a  final  effort  to  bring  about  harmony 
with  the  Committee.  On  the  eve  of  the  introduction  of  the 
bill,  Bishops  Douglass  and  Gibson  addressed  a  joint  letter  to 
them,  in  which  they  invited  the  Committee  to  co-operate 
with  them  to  obtain  the  consent  of  Government  to  substitute 
one  of  the  two  Oaths  (that  of  the  Act  of  1778  or  the  Irish 
Oath  of  1774)  in  place  of  that  in  the  bill ;  failing  which,  they 
sent  a  form  of  Oath  which  they  were  ready  to  subscribe  to, 
"  if  (as  the  last  resource)  it  is  prescribed  by  Parliament  "}  Mr. 
Butler  hastily  summoned  the  Committee  to  discuss  the  pro- 
position, and  it  is  due  to  them  to  say  that  they  met  the  bishops 
in  a  cordial  spirit,  and  seemed  ready  to  agree  to  what  was 
proposed.  Thus  the  attempt  at  least  served  the  purpose  of 
bringing  the  Committee  and  the  bishops  together.  It  served 
no  other,  however,  for  the  vicars  apostolic  became  dissatisfied 
with  their  own  Oath,  sending  some  suggested  amendments  ; 
till  finally  Mr.  Mitford  refused  to  bring  in  the  bill  unless  the 
old  Oath  remained  unaltered,  and  wrote  a  strongly  worded 
protest  to  Bishop  Douglass  to  that  effect.  During  the  remain- 
ing stages  while  the  bill  was  passing  through  Parliament,  the 
bishops  and  the  Committee  acted  independently,  but  they 
managed  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  open  opposition. 

Tuesday,  March  I — the  "day  of  trial,"  as  Milner  calls  it — 
arrived.  Though  the  bill  was  theoretically  in  its  preliminary 
stage,  practically  this  was  to  be  like  an  ordinary  second  read- 
ing debate,  deciding  on  its  principle.  On  the  morning  of  that 
day,  Charles  Plowden  wrote  in  good  spirits,  confident  that 
the  numerous  representations  that  had  been  made  must  have 
had  some  effect.  He  said  that  he  understood  almost  all  the 
members  to  be  against  the  title  "  Protesting  Catholic  Dis- 
senters," and  that  most  were  anxious  to  amend  the  Oath.  As 
a  consequence  of  their  discussion  with  the  Committee,  the 
bishops  had  again  withdrawn  their  Oath,  and  substituted 
another,  which  Charles  Plowden  describes  as  "  full  of  big  and 
sounding  words  to  satisfy  the  public,  but  truly  and  rightly 
applied".  Milner  tells  us  that  he  was  personally  acquainted 
with  one  of  the  officers  of  the  House  of  Commons,  by  whose 
assistance  he  succeeded  in  having  copies  of  his  handbill,  "  Facts 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv. 


1 791]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.      271 

relating  to  the  Contest,  etc.,"  distributed  among  the  members. 
He  himself  attended  that  evening,  as  also  did  other  prominent 
Catholics  belonging  to  both  parties,  so  that  the  Strangers' 
Gallery  was  crowded. 

When  Mr.  Mitford  once  more  stood  up  to  propose  the  in- 
troduction of  the  bill,  the  work  which  had  been  accomplished 
during  the  last  few  days  was  at  once  manifest,  for  his  speech 
was  mainly  devoted  to  explaining  the  difference  between  Protest- 
ing and  non-Protesting  Catholics,  and  recommending  the  former 
in  preference  to  the  latter.  He  said  that  popular  prejudices 
must  be  attended  to,  and  he  did  not  ask  that  Catholics  should 
be  appointed  to  positions  of  power  and  trust,  but  only  that 
they  should  be  allowed  to  practise  their  religion  in  peace.  He 
did  not  believe  that  any  more  loyal  subjects  existed  than  those 
on  whose  behalf  he  spoke.  At  various  periods  of  our  history, 
some  Roman  Catholics  had  protested  against  the  power  of  the 
Pope  to  absolve  from  the  Oath  of  Allegiance,  etc.  In  the 
reign  of  Charles  II.  they  were  called  Remonstrants  ;  now  they 
designated  themselves  Protesting  Catholics,  to  show  that  they 
protested  against  the  doctrines  popularly  imputed  to  them. 

Fox  spoke  next,  and  in  accordance  with  his  notice,  in 
order  to  abolish  all  distinctions  between  Catholic  and  Catholic, 
he  moved  as  an  amendment  to  insert  the  words  "  and  others  " 
in  the  title  of  the  bill,  promising  further  proposals  for  amend- 
ments in  committee.  Toleration  in  religion  was,  he  said,  the 
right  of  all ;  and  with  respect  to  the  alleged  reasons  for  the 
Penal  Laws — the  dangerous  opinions  of  Catholics — he  did  not 
believe  in  their  existence.  The  real  origin  of  the  laws  was 
fear  of  the  Pope's  power.  In  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  they 
had  been  actuated  by  a  fear  of  getting  a  Popish  king.  These 
fears  were  legitimate  in  their  day,  but  all  ground  for  them 
had  now  vanished.  The  Pope  had  no  power ;  the  idea  of  a 
Popish  King  was  out  of  the  question ;  and  for  a  Popish  Pre- 
tender, if  there  were  Jacobites  enough  left  to  go  and  look  for 
one,  where  would  they  find  him  ?  In  proof  of  the  peaceable 
behaviour  of  Catholics,  he  pointed  to  the  result  of  the  Act  of 
1778,  and  to  the  state  of  Ireland  since  their  similar  Act  in 
1774.  To  plead  the  Gordon  Riots  as  a  reason  against  this 
bill,  would  be  equivalent  to  condemning  Catholics  to  Penal 
Laws  in  perpetuity.      He  asked  also,  what  right  the  House  of 


272  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

Commons  had  to  decide  in  matters  of  religion.  Some  thought 
that  the  Pope  was  infallible  ;  some  that  a  General  Council 
was ;  but  who  ever  thought  that  the  House  of  Commons  was 
infallible?  He  was  glad  to  learn  that  the  Dissenters  were 
in  favour  of  this  bill.  Personally  he  objected  to  Methodist 
doctrines  more  than  to  Roman  Catholic  ;  but  there  were  many- 
good  men  who  held  one  or  the  other.  The  tyranny  of  a 
majority  was  the  hardest  form  of  tyranny,  and  in  moving  his 
amendment,  he  pleaded  for  universal  toleration. 

Edmund  Burke,  who  spoke  next,  enlivened  the  debate 
with  the  bright  humour  characteristic  of  his  nationality,  and 
ridiculed  any  fear  of  the  danger  of  Popery.  In  any  case,  he 
asked,  why  was  the  Oath  under  the  Act  of  1778,  which  the 
Catholics  had  all  cheerfully  taken,  now  deemed  insufficient? 
Why  heap  up  oath  upon  oath  ?  He  affirmed  that  the  Cath- 
olics who  did  not  protest  were  as  good  and  loyal  as  those 
who  did.  He  had  not  heard  lately  that  the  Pope  was  going 
to  invade  us,  or  that  he  was  active  in  rebellions  or  revolutions. 
Had  the  rebellion  in  America  been  due  to  the  Pope  sending 
bulls  or  absolutions  there?  Proceeding  in  the  same  vein,  he 
admitted  that  in  the  past  England  had  suffered  at  the  hands 
of  Popes.  Pope  Julius  Caesar  had  conquered  the  whole  land  ; 
Pope  Claudius  had  been  less  successful ;  Popes  Domitian  and 
Nero  had  visited  us  by  their  legates,  and  in  the  reign  of  John, 
Legate  Pandulphus  had  come  and  done  as  much  mischief  as 
the  rest.  As  to  the  supposed  power  of  the  Pope  to  dispense 
with  allegiance,  his  experience  of  rebels  was  that  they  did  not 
trouble  his  Holiness,  but  took  the  power  into  their  own  hands. 
It  was  the  duty  of  the  State  to  make  its  subjects  happy ;  how 
could  a  Catholic  be  happy,  if  every  magistrate  was  an  inqui- 
sitor, and  if  he  was  liable  to  be  hanged,  drawn  and  quartered 
merely  for  his  religious  opinions? 

Pitt  then  proceeded  to  speak  on  behalf  of  the  Govern- 
ment. He  appealed  to  Fox  to  withdraw  his  amendment,  at 
least  for  the  present,  as  it  would  interfere  with  the  passing  of 
the  bill.  He  was  willing  that  both  classes  of  Catholics — 
protesting  and  non-protesting — should  be  relieved,  but  had 
not  yet  decided  whether  this  had  better  be  done  by  one  bill 
or  by  two  separate  bills ;  for  to  relieve  one  party  and  to  let 
the  laws  remain  against  the  other  party  would  be  equivalent 


1791]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.       273 

to  re-enacting  them,  which  nobody  wished  to  do :  indeed, 
many  of  the  laws  were  practically  obsolete.  Fox  expressed 
his  satisfaction  at  what  had  fallen  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Prime  Minister,  and  agreed  to  withdraw  his  amendment,  pro- 
vided it  was  understood  that  he  did  so  from  motives  of  expedi- 
ency, and  not  on  account  of  any  change  of  opinion  on  his  part. 

The  Attorney-General  (Sir  Archibald  MacDonald),  who  fol- 
lowed, emphasised  his  opinion  that  those  who  did  not  protest 
were  as  good  subjects  as  those  who  did,  and  had  as  much 
right  to  relief.  A  paper  professing  to  prove  this  had,  he  said, 
been  handed  to  him  as  he  entered  the  House,  and  it  seemed 
well  reasoned.  This  was  of  course  Milner's  handbill,  of  which 
we  have  already  spoken.  The  Attorney-General's  words  there- 
fore put  Mr.  Mitford  on  his  defence,  and  he  explained  that  as 
he  had  held  out  hopes  of  introducing  the  bill  now  for  two 
years  past,  the  only  form  in  which  he  could  have  consistently 
introduced  it  was  in  the  form  in  which  it  relieved  Protesting 
Catholics. 

Mr.  William  Smith,  on  behalf  of  the  Dissenters,  added  a 
few  words  expressing  sympathy  with  the  Catholics.  He  said 
that  the  Dissenters  were  seldom  unanimous  on  any  point,  but 
the  wish  that  Catholics  should  be  relieved  was  a  point  that 
did  unite  them.  He  hoped  to  see  all  Catholics  relieved,  but 
whether  by  one  bill  or  by  two  was  indifferent  to  him. 

Leave  was  then  given,  without  a  division,  for  the  intro- 
duction of  the  bill. 

The  result  of  the  evening's  debate  was  often  afterwards 
spoken  of  by  Milner  as  a  triumph  for  the  bishops,  for  they 
had  clearly  made  their  influence  felt  by  the  Government. 
Writing  thirty  years  later,  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  "  From 
this  time  forward,  the  fate  of  the  bill  .  .  .  may  be  said  to 
have  been  in  the  hands  of  the  [Vicars  Apostolic]  ".*  This  view, 
however,  is  not  borne  out  by  the  knowledge  we  now  possess> 
for  it  was  not  the  opinion  of  those  who  were  in  the  best  posi- 
tion to  know,  namely,  the  vicars  apostolic  themselves:  this  we 
can  see  from  their  letters  to  each  other.  Moreover,  at  the 
time  it  was  not  Milner's  own  view  :  had  it  been,  he  would 
have  abstained  from  his   next  step    as  unnecessary,  and  we 

3  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  80. 
VOL.  I.  18 


274  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

should  have  been  spared  the  long  and  tedious  dispute  which  fol- 
lowed between  him  and  the  Committee.  This  dispute  was  the 
beginning  of  a  life-long  disagreement  between  Milner  and  Charles 
Butler,  so  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  follow  it  in  detail. 

It  is  clear  that  Milner  was  apprehensive  as  to  what  might 
occur  at  the  first  reading  of  the  bill,  which  was  expected 
to  be  on  March  8.  Writing  on  May  21,  1792,  he  explains 
what  was  in  his  mind.1  "  About  the  time  the  bill  was  stopped 
at  the  motion  of  the  Attorney-General,"  he  writes,  "  to  allow 
time  for  further  enquiries,  I  perceived  a  compromising  disposi- 
tion in  some  of  the  legislators,  who  were  evidently  divided  be- 
tween their  humanity  on  the  one  hand,  and  their  political 
connections  on  the  other.  Every  idea  of  any  part  of  the 
Catholics  remaining  subject  to  the  Penal  Laws  was  abandoned  ; 
but  the  prevailing  opinion  then  was  that  there  would  be  two 
bills,  and  that  the  Protesting  Catholics,  as  they  were  then 
called  (for  they  themselves  had  at  that  period  sunk  the  title 
of  dissenters),  would  be  the  favoured  party."  With  this  danger 
threatening,  therefore,  and  encouraged  by  the  effect  produced 
by  his  first  handbill,  Milner  prepared  a  second  one,  which  he 
entitled,  "  Certain  Considerations  on  behalf  of  the  Roman 
Catholics  who  have  conscientious  objections  to  changing  their 
name,  and  to  the  form  of  words  in  which  certain  passages 
appear  in  the  Oath  contained  in  Mr.  Mitford's  bill,  modestly 
submitted  to  the  Honourable  Committee  of  the  House  of 
Commons".  In  this  handbill,  he  criticised  the  Oath  more  in 
detail,  and  openly  attacked  the  Catholic  Committee.  He 
signed  it,  "  John  Milner,  in  behalf  of  three  out  of  four  of  the 
chief  Roman  Catholic  Ecclesiastics  in  this  kingdom,  and  of 
many  thousands  of  His  Majesty's  other  loyal  Roman  Catholic 
Subjects  ".  Together  with  this,  he  also  prepared  another  hand- 
bill, on  which  were  printed  three  forms  of  Oath — that  of  1778, 
the  Irish  Oath,  and  the  last  Oath  sanctioned  by  the  bishops — 
signed  by  Bishops  Gibson  and  Douglass,  and  by  proxy  for 
Bishop  Walmesley.  He  had  both  of  these  distributed  among 
the  members  of  the  House  in  the  same  manner  as  before,  on 
the  day  of  the  expected  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

The  effect  produced  on  the  Committee  and  their  sympa- 

1  Ecclesiastical  Democracy  Detected,  p.  275. 


1791]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.       275 

thisers  may  be  judged  from  the  following  letter  written  to  Dr. 
Douglass  the  same  afternoon  : —  1 

'  Parliament  Street  Coffee  House, 

"4  o'clock,  Tuesday,  8th  March,  1791. 

"  My  Lord, 

"  To  our  great  astonishment,  we  have  this  moment 
found  that  Mr.  Milner  had  delivered  at  the  door  of  the  House 
of  Commons  another  handbill,  the  purport  of  which  tends  to 
disturb  that  unanimity  which  at  present  prevails  in  Parliament 
in  favour  of  Catholics  ;  and  which  handbill  we  cannot  but  look 
upon  as  the  act  of  an  unauthorised  individual,  and  as  highly 
impertinent  and  personally  injurious  to  ourselves. 

"  It  was  with  equal  astonishment  we  saw  the  name  of  yout 
Lordship  and  two  other  Vicars  Apostolic  in  the  paper  which 
accompanied  it.  But  as  by  your  own  account  this  liberty 
was  taken  with  your  Lordship's  name  on  a  former  occasion, 
we  hope  that  it  is  no  more  than  an  exertion  of  the  same  un- 
authorised assurance  on  the  present. 

"  We  cannot  but  observe  that  these  are  the  production  of 
a  Clergyman  of  your  Lordship's  District,  over  whom  you  have 
consequently  an  authority. 

"  We  therefore  expect  you  will  exert  that  authority  in 
putting  an  end  to  publications  so  disgraceful  to  religion,  and 
injurious  to  the  Character  of  the  English  Catholics. 

"  We  have  the  greater  confidence  in  your  complying  with 
this  request  as  we  have  been  informed  that  you  have  already 
promised  to  exert  yourself  to  prevent  all  such  inflammatory 
productions. 

"  The  whole  Committee  are  not  present,  but  we  cannot 
delay  a  moment  expressing  our  feeling  on  the  subject. 

" Stourton. 

"  Petre. 

"J.  Lawson. 

"J.  Throckmorton." 

On  the  following  day,  a  meeting  of  the  partisans  of  the 

1  The  original  of  this  letter  is  preserved  among  the  Westminster  Archives. 

18* 


276  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.        •       [1791 

Committee  was  held  at  Norfolk  House,  and  the  following  letter 
was  written  to  Milner  : —  1 

"  London,  9  March,  1791. 

"  Sir, 

"  We  have  seen  two  printed  papers  which  were  dis- 
tributed to  the  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  signed  by 
you,  in  which  it  is  asserted  that  you  act  in  the  name  of  many 
thousand  of  the  English  Catholics,  and  of  three  of  the  four  of 
the  chief  of  the  clergy. 

"  Not  being  apprised  of  any  meeting  having  taken  place  to 
appoint  you  to  act  in  the  name  of  any  number  of  the  English 
Catholics ;  anxious  lest  the  public  should  imagine  we  had 
sanctioned  those  printed  papers,  and  not  conceiving  it  possible 
that  a  private  individual  should  be  so  imprudent  as  to  obtrude 
his  sentiments  unauthorised  on  a  subject  on  which  so  many 
Catholics  are  perfectly  unanimous,  we  call  on  you  to  produce 
the  names  of  those  under  whose  sanction  you  have  made  such 
an  assertion. 

"  We  are,  Sir,  your  most  obedient  humble  servants  ..." 

[Here  follow  the  twenty-six  signatures,  all  of  non-members 
of  the  Committee.  They  include  one  peer  (the  Earl  of  Shrews- 
bury), two  baronets,  thirteen  other  laymen,  and  ten  priests. 
The  laymen  include  Sir  Thomas  Fleetwood,  Messrs.  Howard 
of  Corby,  William  Cruise,  Henry  Clifford,  William  Maxwell, 
M.D.,  Charles  Blundell,  Henry  Witham,  and  N.  T.  Selby.  The 
priests  include  Revv.  William  Strickland,  James  Archer,  Thomas 
Meynell,  Charles  Bellasyse,  etc.] 

For  some  reason  Milner  did  not  receive  the  above  letter 
until  late  at  night,  and  a  verbal  message  had  been  left  requesting 
an  answer  by  ten  o'clock  the  following  morning.  Before  that 
hour  arrived,  a  deputation  of  two  waited  on  him,  requesting 
him  to  come  to  Norfolk  House,  where  the  party  were  assembled, 
and  give  his  answer  in  person.  To  this,  however,  he  demurred, 
pleading  the  danger  of  his  words  being  afterwards  misrepre- 
sented. He  offered  to  prepare  his  answer  in  writing,  and  have 
it  ready  in  an  hour's  time.     Eventually,  as  a  compromise,  he 

1  This  letter,  but  without  the  signatures,  was  printed  by  Milner  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  Democracy  Detected,  p.  280.  The  original,  with  the  signatures 
attached,  is  preserved  at  Oscott. 


1791]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.      277 

consented  to  come  to  Norfolk  House  with  his  written  answer 
at  five  o'clock  that  afternoon.  He  kept  his  word,  and  drew 
out  a  document  in  which,  according  to  his  own  account,  "  he 
proved  that  the  great  body  of  Catholics  throughout  England 
looked  up  to  their  Bishops  to  procure  for  them  in  the  existing 
juncture  an  unobjectionable  and  proper  form  of  an  Oath,  that 
two  parts  in  three  of  the  London  clergy  had  signified  this  to 
them  in  a  formal  manner  but  a  few  days  before,  that  fifty-three 
in  Lancashire  had  called  upon  them  in  a  printed  paper  ...  to 
this  effect,  testifying  at  the  same  time  that  very  few  of  their 
laity  would  take  the  Committee's  Oath.  Lastly,  he  produced 
a  formal  deputation  to  him  from  the  Bishops  to  act  as  their 
agent  in  the  present  business."  *  The  certificate  of  the  bishops 
was  in  the  following  terms  : — 2 

"  We  the  undersigned  testify  that  Mr.  John  Milner  has  acted 
as  our  agent,  and  on  behalf  of  us,  and  of  those  persons  who 
confide  in  us,  for  our  endeavours  to  obtain  of  the  Legislature  a 
correct  form  of  Oath.  If,  however,  either  by  speech  or  writing 
he  has  advanced  anything  improper  (we  have  confided  in  him) 
he  alone  is  accountable,  and  professes  himself  ready  to  answer 
for  it. 

"  William  Gibson. 

"  And  by  proxy  for  CHARLES  WALMESLEY. 

"John  Douglass." 

On  being  questioned,  Milner  admitted  that  this  certificate 
had  been  given  to  him  only  after  he  had  already  circulated  his 
handbills.  It  must  indeed  have  been  drawn  out  and  signed 
that  very  day,  for  the  bishops  would  naturally  have  seen  no 
reason  to  give  him  a  commission  in  writing  before  that.  This 
fact  was  taken  hold  of  by  the  Committee,  and  made  much  of 
in  their  printed  reply.  That  reply  marked  the  climax  of  the 
dispute,  and  only  the  extreme  heat  of  controversy  can  furnish 
any  explanation  of  the  extraordinary  character  of  the  document. 
It  was  entitled  "  State  of  Facts  by  the  Committee  of  English 
Catholics  respecting  the  Oath  contained  in  the  Bill  for  their 
relief  now  before  the  Hon.  House  of  Commons — 1791  ".  After 
giving  a  short  account  of  their  own  appointment  by  the  Catholic 

1  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  81.     The  whole  of  this  long  letter  is  printed  in  Ecclesiastical 
Democracy  Detected,  pp.  285-go. 
2Eccl.  Dem.  Det.,  p.  290. 


278  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

body,  and  of  the  origin  and  history  of  the  Protestation  and  Oath, 
they  come  to  the  main  subject  of  the  paper,  in  a  paragraph  of 
so  incredible  a  nature,  that  it  will  be  well  to  give  it  in  full : — 

"  In  a  publication  called  '  Facts  relating  to  the  Present  Con- 
test among  Roman  Catholics  of  this  Kingdom  concerning  the 
Bill  to  be  introduced  into  Parliament  for  their  Relief,'  signed  by 
John  Milner,-  it  is  asserted  that  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Com- 
mittee had  abandoned  the  majority  of  the  Roman  Catholics, 
and  taken  them  by  surprise.  But  the  Committee  have  uni- 
formly acted  by  the  Instructions  and  have  uniformly  received 
the  Thanks  and  Support  of  their  Body.  In  this  paper,  John 
Milner  assumes  to  act  in  the  name  of  thousands ;  but  when 
called  upon  to  specify  the  names  of  these  Persons,  in  whose 
trust  he  acted,  he  could  only  produce  three  names,  and  confessed 
he  had  obtained  the  appointment  of  those  three  persons  after 
the  publication  of  this  paper.  Of  those  three  names,  two  had 
been  signed  to  the  Protestation,  and  we  have  never  heard  that 
those  three  persons  were  ever  chosen  by  the  Catholic  body  to 
transact  business  in  their  names.  No  meeting  was  ever  called 
for  that  purpose,  and  although  attempts  have  been  made  by 
them  to  procure  a  counter  Protestation,  never  could  they 
obtain  any  one  respectable  name  to  it.  .  .  .  It  remains  with 
the  Wisdom  and  Condescension  of  Parliament  to  determine 
whether  it  will  accommodate  itself  to  the  scruples  of  a  few 
individuals." 

The  whole  tenour  of  the  above  passage  may  well  fill  the 
reader  with  amazement.  The  "  three  persons  "  whom  Milner 
claimed  to  represent  were  three  vicars  apostolic — the  natural 
rulers  of  the  Church.  We  can  well  wonder  how  persons  call- 
ing themselves  Catholics  could  question  their  right  to  interfere 
on  the  plea  that  no  public  meeting  had  been  held  to  invest 
their  bishops  with  power.  Nor  is  this  paragraph  the  only  part 
of  the  document  to  which  exception  can  be  taken.  Their  state- 
ment near  the  beginning  that  "  Scruples  are  now  said  to  be 


1  Third  Blue  Book,  p.  41. 

2  Amherst  states  (i.,  p.  176)  that  in  this  circular  the  Committee  describe  him 
as  "  one  John  Milner  ".  If  the  extract  on  which  he  is  probably  relying  (Sup.  Mem., 
p.  310)  be  carefully  examined,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  expression  is  Milner's  own 
wording  of  what  he  considered  the  Committee's  meaning.  The  State  of  Facts 
was  printed  in  full  in  the  Third  Blue  Book,  Appendix  VII. 


i7yi]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.       279 

raised  "  concerning  the  Oath  is  to  say  the  least  misleading,  for 
it  implies  that  those  "scruples"  were  something  new  and  un- 
expected. They  also  repeat  their  usual  assertion  that  except 
for  the  initial  declaration  of  loyalty  to  the  Sovereign,  the  Oath 
contains  nothing  more  than  was  in  the  Protestation. 

The  bill,  after  having  been  more  than  once  postponed,  was 
eventually  read  the  first  time  on  March  10,  and  the  second 
time  on  March  21,  in  each  case  without  debate;  but  the  Com- 
mittee stage  was  put  off  some  days,  in  order  to  allow  time  for 
the  preparation  of  amendments,  and  it  was  understood  that 
the  debate  would  be  an  important  one.  In  view  of  this,  the 
Committee  imitated  Milner's  former  action,  and  circulated  their 
State  of  Facts  among  the  members  on  that  day.  Together 
with  it,  they  also  distributed  a  new  edition  of  the  Protestation 
with  the  list  of  signatures  appended.  From  this  list  some 
three  hundred  of  the  actual  signatures  were  wanting,  the  omis- 
sions including  the  names  of  Milner  and  all  his  congrega- 
tion. This  Milner  maintained  to  have  been  done  on  purpose, 
in  order  to  represent  him  and  his  three  nameless  friends  as 
standing  in  isolation  against  the  whole  Catholic  body.1  Butler, 
however,  protested  that  it  was  a  pure  accident.  When  Milner 
called  on  him  to  ask  for  an  explanation,  he  said  at  first  that 
some  of  the  skins  on  which  the  signatures  were  written  had 
slipped  aside  in  the  printing ;  but  afterwards  he  confessed  him- 
self unable  to  say  by  what  accident  it  had  occurred.  There 
was  evidently  some  heat  at  the  interview,  for  Butler  closed  it 
abruptly  by  saying  to  Milner,  "  I  wish  you  well,  but  I  desire 
never  more  to  see  your  face  ".  This  incident,  however,  did  not 
take  place  till  a  year  later.  The  omission  of  the  signatures 
was  discovered  at  the  time,  and  the  whole  Protestation  was 
reprinted,  with  the  missing  signatures  inserted,  though  Milner 
complained  that  this  was  done  with  such  dilatoriness  as  to  be 
of  little  service,  for  the  mischief  had  already  been  effected. 

Before  pursuing  the  fate  of  the  bill  in  committee,  we  may 
pause  for  a  moment.  From  the  first  of  the  letters  quoted 
above,  we  may  gather  that  the  bishops  had  not  been  entirely 
pleased  with  Milner's  action  in  circulating  his  original  handbill. 
On  the  occasion  of  his  second  handbill  we  learn  from  one  of 

1  Reply  to  Report  of  the  Cisalpine  Club,  p.  7  ;  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  311,  and  else- 
where. 


280  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

Milner's  own  letters  that  some  of  them  regretted  the  course 
he  had  taken  as  likely  to  foment  quarrels  which  it  was  their 
wish  to  allay.  Their  certificate  in  his  favour  expressed  ac- 
curately their  feelings :  he  had  acted  as  their  agent,  but  he 
alone  was  responsible  for  the  measures  which  he  had  taken 
to  further  their  cause ;  and  indeed  Milner  was  the  last  man  in 
the  world  to  shrink  from  the  responsibility  of  his  own  actions. 
They  considered,  however,  that  his  continued  presence  would 
aggravate  the  situation,  and  we  learn  from  one  of  his  own 
letters  that  he  resigned  his  agency  to  Mr.  Francis  Plowden, 
the  lawyer — brother  of  the  Rev.  Charles  Plowden — and  re- 
turned to  Winchester.  The  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  had  already 
gone  back  to  Lulworth.  He  writes  from  there  on  March  21, 
testifying  to  the  value  of  the  work  which  Milner  had  done. 
"  I  hear  our  friend  Mr.  Milner  is  retired,"  he  writes ;  "  and 
however  much  he  is  abused,  he  has  certainly  the  merit  and 
comfort  of  having  yielded  essential  service.  He  has  frightened 
the  Committee  from  their  first  plan,  and  he  has  spread  in- 
formation through  the  Parliament.  I  hope  his  active  services 
may  be  properly  represented  at  Rome."  * 

In  the  same  letter  Charles  Plowden  speaks  of  Dr.  Gibson : 
"  I  fear  the  mitre  of  your  respected  colleague  is  doubly  lined 
with  thorns.  Letters  from  the  North  say  that  the  opposition 
against  him  is  again  revived,  at  a  time  when  I  thought  it  ap- 
peased. His  presence  may  perhaps  be  necessary  there,  and 
while  the  Committee  are  so  exasperated  against  him,  per- 
haps your  Lordship  might  think  it  advisable  for  him  to  imi- 
tate St.  Athanasius  by  a  retreat  from  London,  where  he  has 
hitherto  stayed  in  sorrow  and  tribulation  to  promote  the  com- 
mon cause."  The  hint  here  thrown  out  was  shortly  afterwards 
acted  upon,  and  Bishop  Gibson  started  for  the  North  on  April  2. 

Bishop  Douglass  was  now  left  almost  alone  to  deal  with 
the  questions  which  might  arise,  though  he  was  in  constant 
communication  with  his  brother  bishops  and  Milner  and  others 
by  letter.  He  must  have  felt  the  difficulty  of  his  isolation ; 
but  there  were  some  advantages  to  counterbalance  this.  He 
was  on  better  terms  with  the  members  of  the  Committee  than 
the  other  bishops  were,  and  by  his  prudence  and  moderation 
he  was  creating  a  favourable  impression.     Even  Joseph  Ber- 

1  Westminster  Archives. 


1791]     CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS.      281 

ington  admits  that  Dr.  Douglass  was  "  less  reprehensible  "  than 
his  colleagues.  Mr.  Charles  Butler  was  a  frequent  caller  at  his 
house.  According  to  an  old  tradition,  he  used  to  come  there 
in  Holy  Week,  to  join  in  the  recitation  of  Tenebrae,  as  well 
as  at  other  times,  whether  to  join  in  similar  devotions  or  on 
business. 

We  can  now  follow  the  bill  through  the  committee  stage, 
which  after  being  put  off  several  times  took  place  on  April  1. 
Dr.  Douglass  writes  at  that  time  : l  "  The  reports  are  much  in  our 
favour,  and  I  am  credibly  informed  that  the  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  with  their  abettors,  talk  now  with  great  moderation 
on  the  bill  and  Oath,  that  they  are  sensible  we  are  in  favour 
with  Ministry,  etc."  At  the  opening  of  the  committee  stage, 
Lord  Beauchamp  being  in  the  chair,  Mr.  Mitford  moved  that 
the  title  "  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters "  should  be  omitted 
throughout,  and  in  its  place  should  be  substituted  "  persons 
professing  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion".  He  said  that  he 
did  so  at  the  wish  of  the  persons  whom  he  represented,  that  is, 
of  course,  of  the  Catholic  Committee.  They  appear  to  have 
realised  that  the  name  was  doing  them  harm,  and  naturally 
they  preferred  to  be  described  as  "  Roman  Catholics".  Hence 
the  name  which  has  become  famous  only  as  a  reproach  to 
their  party,  now  disappeared  for  ever.  The  title  became  "  A 
bill  to  relieve  .  .  .  persons  therein  described,  etc." 

It  was,  however,  of  little  use  for  the  name  to  disappear, 
unless  the  fact  also  which  was  denoted  by  it  was  changed : 
everything  therefore  now  depended  upon  what  amendments 
might  be  made  in  the  Oath,  and  whether  it  could  be  rendered 
such  that  all  Catholics  would  take  it.  The  answer  can  be 
given  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Douglass,  who  writing  to  Bishop 
Walmesley,  sums  up  the  evening's  work  by  saying,  "  The  altera- 
tions in  the  bill  are  many,  in  the  Oath  few  ".  He  enumerates 
the  amended  passages:  "(1)  I  do  abjure  as  unchristian  and 
impious 2  that  damnable  doctrine  and  position  that  princes,  &c. 
may  be  deposed  or  murdered,  &c.  (2)  And  that  no  person 
can  be  absolved  from  any  sin,  nor  any  sin  whatever  be  for- 
given without  sorrow  for  past  offences  and  resolution  to  avoid 
future    guilt.      (3)  That   neither   the    Pope    &c.    can  dispense 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv. 

2  The  epithet  "  heretical  "  was  thus  deleted  as  applied  to  the  deposing  power, 
— from  the  point  of  view  of  accurate  theology,  a  not  unimportant  change. 


282  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

with  or  absolve  me  from  the  Obligation  of  this  Oath  or  of 
any  other  Oath,  Contract,  Promise,  Engagement  or  Compact 
whatsoever  made  to  or  with  any  person  or  persons  whom- 
soever. (4)  And  I  do  &c.  that  I  acknowledge  no  right,  power 
or  authority  either  in  the  Pope  or  in  any  General  Council  of 
the  Church  upon  any  pretence  whatsoever  to  authorise,  enjoin, 
order  or  command  any  person  or  persons  to  do  or  commit 
any  dishonest,  unlawful  or  immoral  act ; "  this  clause  being 
substituted  for  that  about  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope.  In 
addition  to  these  changes  a  new  clause  was  prefixed  to  the 
Oath,  "  I,  A.B.,  do  hereby  declare  that  I  profess  the  Roman 
Catholic  Religion  ".  In  brief,  it  may  be  said  that  the  Oath  was 
distinctly  improved,  though  it  remained  to  be  seen  whether, 
even  in  its  new  form,  it  could  be  accepted  by  the  bishops  and 
the  Catholic  body.  The  changes  in  the  bill  were  of  course  of 
less  importance,  and  there  were  afterwards  so  many  further 
amendments,  that  it  will  be  easier  to  consider  it  as  a  whole 
in  its  final  shape. 

The  report  stage,  which  was  taken  on  April  8,  was  al- 
most wholly  devoted  to  a  debate  on  whether  Catholics  could 
be  allowed  to  present  to  livings  in  the  Established  Church,  in 
cases  where  their  property  would  ordinarily  give  them  this 
right :  this  was  eventually  negatived  by  a  large  majority.  To 
the  greater  number  of  Catholics,  it  was  of  course  a  matter  of 
no  importance.  The  few  who  agitated  for  it  did  so  apparently 
feeling  aggrieved  that  Dissenters  were  allowed  to  present  while 
Catholics  were  not,  but  it  may  be  questioned  whether  they 
could  have  conscientiously  used  that  right  even  had  Govern- 
ment given  it  to  them. 

A  further  improvement  of  the  Oath  was  made,  this  time 
at  the  instigation  of  the  Committee,  re-introducing  the  clause 
bearing  on  Papal  Infallibility,  and  jurisdiction,  but  restricting  the 
sense  in  clear  terms.     The  amended  wording  was  as  follows  : — 

"  And  I  do  also  in  my  conscience  declare  and  solemnly 
swear  that  I  acknowledge  no  Infallibility,  right,  power  or 
authority  in  the  Pope,  or  in  any  particular  or  in  any  general 
council  of  the  Church,  save  in  matters  of  Ecclesiastical  doctrine 
and  discipline  only ;  and  that  no  foreign  church  "  etc. 

The  bill  was  read  the  third  time  on  April  20,  and  then 
sent  up  to  the  House  of  Lords. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 
1791. 

WHEN  the  bill  left  the  House  of  Commons,  it  was  in  some 
respects  more  mischievous  than  on  its  introduction  there.  In 
its  original  form,  its  natural  effect  would  have  been  to  divide 
Catholics  into  two  parties,  those  who  followed  their  bishops, 
and  would  have  refused  the  Oath,  and  those  who  followed 
the  Committee,  and  would  have  taken  it.  In  its  final  state, 
however,  it  succeeded  in  dividing  the  bishops  among  them- 
selves. Dr.  Walmesley  considered  that  the  Oath  was  still  such 
that  a  Catholic  could  not  lawfully  take,  and  accordingly  he 
prepared  a  Pastoral,  which  he  proposed  to  send  out,  should 
the  bill  become  law,  warning  all  the  faithful  of  his  district 
against  taking  the  Oath.  In  this  he  received  the  strong  sup- 
port of  Revv.  W.  Combes  and  Charles  Plowden,  who  were  his 
chief  theological  advisers.  Bishop  Gibson  wrote  in  much  the 
same  sense.  He  said  that  he  should  refuse  to  take  the  Oath 
as  it  then  stood,  and  that  Bishop  Hay  had  advised  him  in 
this  sense,  though  counselling  him  not  to  inflict  any  censure 
on  those  who  thought  differently.  A  little  later  on,  Bishop 
Geddes  also  wrote  on  the  stricter  side.  Bishop  Douglass, 
however,  took  an  opposite  view.  "  My  opinion,"  he  writes, 
"  is  that  the  Oath  is  now  so  far  amended  that  it  may  be  taken 
without  injuring  faith  or  truth,  though  the  several  clauses  of 
it  be  expressed  in  terms  very  inaccurate  and  untheological. 
I  think  those  same  clauses  may  be  understood  and  taken  in 
an  orthodox  sense,  and  that  the  speeches  of  the  several  mem- 
bers who  spoke  on  the  bill  in  the  House  of  Commons  and 
declaration  of  men  in  power  bearing  witness  to  the  intention 
of  the  legislature  clearly  encourage  us  to  give  that  sense  to 

283 


284  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

them  as  the  plain  and  ordinary  sense  of  the  terms."  It  may 
be  assumed  also  that  Dr.  Thomas  Talbot  would  have  approved 
of  the  amended  Oath,  since  he  had  approved  of  it  in  its 
original  form  as  introduced  into  the  House.  The  view  favour- 
ing the  Oath  was  also  expressed  by  the  Irish  bishops,  who  at 
the  invitation  of  Dr.  Troy,  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  had  met 
and  discussed  the  matter.  Thus  on  the  one  side  were  two 
English  vicars  apostolic  backed  by  the  Scotch  bishops,  and  on 
the  other  were  the  other  two  English  vicars  apostolic,  backed 
by  the  Irish  bishops.  The  latter  view,  favouring  liberty, 
would  probably  have  prevailed,  but  a  certain  number,  especially 
in  the  North,  would  have  held  out  against  it. 

Happily,  however,  this  did  not  come  about.  The  bill  had 
still  to  pass  through  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the  peers  proved 
friends  of  the  vicars  apostolic.  The  first  reading  took  place 
on  May  3,  without  debate.  In  anticipation  of  the  debate  on 
the  second  reading,  Bishop  Walmesley  wrote  to  Lord  Grenville, 
the  leader  of  the  Government  in  the  Upper  House,  begging  him 
to  do  all  in  his  power  to  prevent  the  bill  from  passing  in  any 
shape  that  would  offend  the  consciences  of  those  whom  it  was 
intended  to  relieve.  Dr.  Douglass  also  wrote  in  the  same 
sense,  and  it  was  probably  due  to  these  two  letters  that  the 
second  reading  was  postponed  several  times,  and  did  not 
eventually  come  on  till  May  31.  The  delay  was  all  in  the 
bishops'  favour ;  for  it  was  now  becoming  a  question  whether 
the  bill  would  pass  through  the  House  of  Lords  in  time  to  be 
returned  to  the  Commons  and  passed  by  them  before  the  end 
of  the  session,  and  the  vicars  apostolic  would  have  preferred  to 
see  the  bill  drop  rather  than  that  it  should  pass  in  an  unac- 
ceptable form. 

Communication  was  also  opened  up  with  the  Anglican 
bishops,  whose  influence  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  a  question 
which  was  chiefly  religious  might  be  expected  to  be  decisive. 
Milner  wrote  a  very  carefully  reasoned  letter,  containing  a 
precise  explanation  of  the  parts  of  the  Oath  objected  to,  and 
sent  copies  to  the  Bishops  of  Hereford  and  Salisbury,1  with 
both  of  whom  he  had  a  slight  acquaintance.  At  the  last 
moment,  Dr.  Walmesley  summoned  up  courage  and  wrote  to 
Dr.  Moore,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  begged  Dr.  Douglass 

1  The  original  of  this  letter  is  in  the  Westminster  Archives. 


1791]         CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  LORDS.  285 

to  do  the  same.  Dr.  Moore  is  said  to  have  been  the  son  of  a 
tradesman  of  Gloucester,  and  he  had  made  his  way  through 
the  university  by  obtaining  a  scholarship  at  Pembroke  College, 
Oxford.  Though  he  subsequently  obtained  high  preferment, 
he  does  not  seem  to  have  ever  risen  above  the  anti-Catholic 
prejudices  of  his  early  education.  Nor  were  the  Anglican 
bishops  as  a  body  likely  to  be  much  more  favourably  disposed. 
Their  position  and  antecedents  had  necessarily  brought  them 
face  to  face  with  the  Catholic  position  at  one  time  or  another, 
and  in  deciding  against  it,  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  they 
should  have  imbibed  prejudices  in  a  greater  degree  than  others. 
Thus,  for  example,  when  Dr.  Moore  in  his  speech  had  to  deal 
with  the  question  of  Papal  Infallibility,  he  put  forward  the 
remarkable  plea  that  it  was  not  enough  that  Catholics  should 
limit  their  belief  in  such  a  "  pretension "  (as  he  called  it)  to 
questions  of  doctrine,  for  an  infallible  Pope  could  himself  de- 
fine infallibly  what  was  and  what  was  not  "doctrine".  The 
fact  that  this  plea  was  apparently  based  on  a  somewhat  similar 
one  put  forward  by  the  Catholic  Committee  in  the  Third  Blue 
Book  does  not  make  it  the  less  unreasonable.  The  Bishop  of 
Peterborough,  in  his  speech,  showed  a  morbid  fear  of  the  sup- 
posed proselytising  propensities  of  Catholics.  It  was  indeed 
freely  said  that  the  Anglican  bishops  were  making  a  party  to 
defeat  the  bill,  and  this  impression  was  strengthened  by  the 
known  fact  that  the  Catholic  vicars  apostolic  looked  upon 
this  as  the  easiest  way  out  of  the  existing  difficulties.  Dr. 
Walmesley  wrote  in  this  sense  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, the  day  before  the  second  reading  was  to  be  moved. 
The  following  is  the  text  of  his  letter : —  * 

"  My  Lord, 

"  The  Senior  of  the  Superiors  of  the  English  Roman 
Catholic  Clergy  takes  the  liberty  to  address  your  Grace  on 
the  present  interesting  occasion.  A  few  persons  of  our  Com- 
munion, called  the  Catholic  Committee,  lately  presented  a 
Bill  to  Parliament,  now  pending  in  the  House  of  Lords,  con- 
taining an  Oath  which  three  of  us  (of  four  Superiors)  disap- 
proved as  ambiguous  in  some  expressions,  and  as  clashing  in 
some  articles  with    our   religious    principles.      This,    as   your 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv. 


286  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

Grace  sees,  does  not  affect  our  allegiance  to  Government, 
which  is  truly  constant  and  sincere,  and  we  fully  pledged  it 
by  the  Oath  we  took  in  1778.  The  Oath  in  question,  my 
Lord,  relates  to  conscience,  in  which  I  am  persuaded  your 
Grace  would  not  restrain  us.  Probably  the  refractory  and  in- 
decent protests  of  the  Catholic  Committee  made  lately  and 
printed  against  us  have  reached  your  Grace's  knowledge,  and 
which  I  presume  you  freely  condemn.  The  spirit  of  unbounded 
liberty  prevailing  in  this  philosophic  age  cannot  certainly  be 
agreeable  to  your  Grace.  Some  amendments  have  indeed 
been  made  and  admitted  in  the  above  mentioned  oath,  but 
still  it  is  not  such  as  to  meet  with  our  approbation,  nor  have 
we  any  apparent  hopes  of  its  being  made  religiously  unex- 
ceptionable. I  therefore  intreat  your  Grace  to  procure  the 
suppression  of  the  present  bill,  which  favour  will  remove  my 
pressing  anxiety,  and  will  be  at  the  same  time  a  signal  proof 
of  your  Grace's  readiness  to  vindicate  the  rights  of  Episcopacy. 
"  I  am,  with  confidence  in  your  Grace's  protection, 
"  Your  Grace's  very  humble  servant, 

"  Charles  Walmesley. 

"  Woolershill,1  May  30,  1791." 

The  above  letter  then  represents  apparently  the  highest 
hope  of  the  vicars  apostolic  at  that  moment.  They  despaired 
of  being  able  to  procure  the  amendment  of  the  bill,  and  de- 
finitely wished  to  see  its  rejection.  When,  however,  their 
prospects  seemed  hopeless,  help  came  from  an  unexpected 
quarter,  from  one  of  the  Anglican  bishops  themselves.  This  was 
Dr.  Samuel  Horsley,  then  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  a  man  of  some 
distinction,  not  only  as  a  mathematical  scholar  and  Fellow  of 
the  Royal  Society,  but  also  as  a  learned  and  influential  divine. 
Although  he  had  only  been  a  bishop  some  three  years,  he  was 
already  one  of  the  most  prominent  members  of  the  bench. 
There  was  indeed  little  reason  to  hope  that  he  would  use  his 
influence  in  favour  of  Catholics.  Though  a  friend  to  religious 
liberty,  when  he  wrote  a  pamphlet  the  previous  year  on  the 
case    of    the    Protestant    Dissenters,    he   expressly   excepted 

xThe  seat  of  the  Hanford  family,  just  within  the  borders  of  Worcestershire. 
Bishop  Walmesley  was  "supplying"  there  temporarily  for  Rev.  J.  Warmoll, 
O.S.B.,  the  Southern  Provincial  of  the  Benedictines. 


1791]         CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  LORDS.  287 

Catholics  from  his  remarks,  considering  that  their  exclusion 
from  Parliament  and  the  services  was  due  to  deeper  causes 
than  the  necessity  of  taking  Oaths  to  which  they  objected  ; 
"for"  (he  argues)  "if  it  be  supposed  that  Papists  during  all 
this  time  have  been  governed  by  their  old  principles,  no  Oaths 
or  Declarations  made  to  Government,  which  their  Church  hath 
deemed  heretical,  can  have  bound  their  consciences  ".  He  gives 
as  what  he  considers  the  true  barriers,  "  the  notoriety  of 
their  Popery,  and  the  dread  and  abhorrence  of  the  principles 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,"  while  with  respect  to  the  House  of 
Lords  he  also  adds,  that  "  the  sentiments  inseparable  from 
hereditary  nobility "  were  in  themselves  a  sufficient  reason 
for  their  exclusion. 

Dr.  Horsley's  pamphlet  elicited  two  answers,  both  from 
members  of  the  Catholic  Committee — Lord  Petre  and  Sir 
Henry  Englefield.  They  had  a  straightforward  argument 
ready  to  their  hand  :  let  the  Government  repeal  the  law  re- 
quiring the  Oath  of  Supremacy  as  a  condition  of  entering 
Parliament,  and  see  whether  the  reasons  given  by  Dr.  Horsley 
would  have  any  effect  in  preventing  the  Catholic  peers  from 
taking  their  seats  in  the  House  of  Lords.  Lord  Petre's 
pamphlet  as  a  whole,  however,  gave  an  exposition  of  Cath- 
olicity which  would  not  have  been  accepted  by  the  majority 
of  the  body.  In  glancing  over  the  pages,  such  expressions  as 
"  the  most  madly  aspiring  Popes,"  "  the  extravagant  preten- 
sions [of  the  Papacy] "  and  the  like  cannot  fail  to  attract  our 
notice.  King  Philip's  expedition  against  England  is  spoken  of 
as  "  supported  with  benedictions,  prayers,  indulgences  and  ab- 
solutions on  his  side,  with  anathemas  and  excommunications 
against  his  enemies,"  and  so  forth. 

Unfortunately  no  record  seems  to  exist  to  tell  us  what 
was  the  effect  of  these  pamphlets  on  Dr.  Horsley's  mind  ;  but 
from  the  little  we  have  quoted  from  his  own  words,  we  can 
well  understand  that  the  Catholic  vicars  apostolic  would  not 
naturally  have  looked  to  him  as  their  champion.  The  fact 
that  they  communicated  with  him  was  curiously  enough  due 
to  no  other  than  Joseph  Berington,  who  was  a  strong  sympa- 
thiser with  the  Committee.  Being,  however,  a  personal  friend 
of  Dr.  Douglass,  and  also  of  Dr.  Horsley,  and  being  sincerely 
desirous,  as  the  Staffordshire  clergy  as  a  body  always  were, 


288  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

that  the  bill  should  be  cast  into  a  form  acceptable  to  both 
parties  in  the  dispute,  he  drafted  a  letter  for  Dr.  Douglass  to 
sign,  and  himself  had  it  conveyed  to  Dr.  Horsley.  The  letter 
simply  contained  a  request  for  assistance  in  the  crisis  :  this 
assistance  Dr.  Horsley  gave  with  an  effect  which  exceeded 
the  most  sanguine  hopes  of  the  vicars  apostolic.  His  speech 
in  the  House  of  Lords  was  long  afterwards  spoken  of  by 
Catholics  as  having  turned  the  scale  in  their  favour.  It  was 
printed  in  extenso,  and  published  in  pamphlet  form :  some 
space  must  therefore  be  devoted  to  an  account  of  it. 

The  motion  for  the  second  reading  of  the  bill  was  made 
by  Lord  Rawdon,  in  a  long  if  somewhat  ordinary  speech.  The 
only  part  which  calls  for  notice  is  his  frank  admission  to- 
wards the  end  that  the  bill  was  imperfect  as  it  stood,  for  it 
would  be  partial  in  its  operation,  so  that  he  considered  that 
some  amendments  ought  to  be  proposed  in  committee.  This 
came  as  a  surprise  to  those  who  looked  upon  him  as  the 
representative  of  the  Catholic  Committee.  Charles  Butler, 
writing  a  few  days  later,  says  that  he  was  "  thunderstruck " 
by  it.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  followed,  and  in  his 
short  speech  made  little  attempt  to  conceal  his  prejudices. 
He  did  not  openly  oppose  the  bill,  but  he  expressed  his  doubts 
whether  it  would  be  found  practicable  to  amend  it  suitably  in 
committee  without  interfering  with  some  very  wholesome 
laws  which  existed  in  favour  of  the  Protestant  religion. 

It  was  at  this  point  that  Dr.  Horsley  rose  to  speak.  He  is 
described  as  a  small  man,  of  very  dark  complexion,  with  a  de- 
termined expression,  and  a  deep  sonorous  voice,  and  his  words 
were  listened  to  attentively. 

"  My  Lords,"  he  began,1 "  with  great  charity  for  the  Roman 
Catholics,  with  a  perfect  abhorrence  of  the  Penal  Laws,  I  have 
my  doubts  whether  the  bill  for  their  relief  that  has  been  sent 
up  to  us  from  the  Lower  House  comes  in  a  shape  fit  to  be  sent 
to  a  Committee.  My  Lords,  it  is  not  my  intention  to  make  any 
express  motion  to  obstruct  the  commitment  of  it,  if  I  should 
perceive  that  measure  to  be  the  sense  and  inclination  of  the 
House ;  but  I  have  my  doubts,  which  I  think  it  my  duty  to 
submit  to  your  Lordships'  consideration. 

1  The  report  of  this  speech,  taken  from  Hansard,  was  also  published  at  the 
time  as  a  separate  pamphlet. 


Photo:  Emery  Walker. 
Dr.  Samuel  Horslev, 
Bishop  of  St.  David's. 


1791]         CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  LORDS.  289 

"  Fixed  as  I  am  in  the  persuasion  that  religion  is  the  only 
solid  foundation  of  civil  society,  and  by  consequence  that  an 
establishment  of  religion  is  an  essential  branch  of  every  well 
constructed  polity,  I  am  equally  fixed  in  another  principle  that 
it  is  a  duty  which  the  great  law  of  Christian  charity  imposes 
on  the  Christian  magistrate  to  tolerate  Christians  of  every  de- 
n  nination  separated  from  the  Established  Church  by  con- 
scientious scruples  ;  with  the  exception  of  such  sects  only,  if 
such  there  be,  which  hold  principles  so  subversive  of  civil 
government  in  general,  or  so  hostile  to  the  particular  constitu- 
tion under  which  they  live,  as  to  render  the  extermination  of 
such  sects  an  object  of  just  policy.  My  Lords,  I  have  no  scruple 
to  say  that  the  opinions  which  separate  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  the  present  day  from  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land are  not  of  that  dangerous  complexion." 

Having  thus  clearly  declared  his  opinions  as  to  the  present 
time,  Dr.  Horsley  proceeded  to  admit,  as  a  Protestant  of  that 
day  naturally  would,  that  there  had  been  times  when  he  said 
that  "  the  towering  ambition  of  the  Roman  clergy,  and  the 
tame  superstition  of  the  people,  rendered  the  hierarchy  the 
rival  of  the  civil  Government,  the  triple  mitre  the  terror  of  the 
Crown,  in  every  state  in  Christendom  ".  He  said  that  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  the  breach  with  Rome  had  excited  a 
spirit  of  intrigue  among  the  adherents  of  the  Papacy  against  the 
internal  Government,  which  rendered  every  Roman  Catholic, 
in  proportion  as  he  was  conscientiously  attached  to  the  interests 
of  his  Church,  a  disaffected,  or  at  best  a  suspected  subject. 
But  those  times  were  now  long  past.  "  The  ambition  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff,"  he  said,  "  by  the  reduction  of  his  power  and 
his  fortunes,  is  become  contemptible  and  ridiculous  in  the  eyes 
of  his  own  party,  and  the  extinction  of  the  Stuart  family  leaves 
the  Roman  Catholics  of  this  country  no  choice  but  the  alter- 
native of  continuing  in  the  condition  of  aliens  in  their  native 
land,  or  of  bringing  themselves  under  the  protection  of  her  laws 
by  peaceable  submission  and  loyal  attachment  to  the  existing 
Government." 

From  all  this  the  bishop  concluded  that  any  bill  to  give 
general  relief  would  receive  his  support,  but  he  said  that  the 
present  bill  did  not  do  so.  In  order  to  explain  its  essential 
faultiness,  he  proceeded  to  allude  to  the  disputes  among  Cath- 

vol.  1.  19 


290  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

olics,  with  a  clearness  with  which  they  had  not  before  been 
spoken  of  in  Parliament.  As  this  brings  out  the  main  argument 
of  his  speech,  it  will  be  well  to  cite  his  words  : — 

"  My  Lords,  this  bill  is  to  relieve  the  Roman  Catholics  from 
the  Penal  Laws,  under  the  condition  that  they  take  an  Oath 
of  Allegiance,  Abjuration  and  Declaration,  the  terms  of  which 
Oath  the  bill  prescribes.  The  bill  will  therefore  relieve  such 
Roman  Catholics  as  take  this  Oath,  and  none  else.  Now,  my 
Lords,  it  is,  I  believe,  a  well  known  fact  that  a  very  great 
number — I  believe  I  should  be  correct  if  I  were  to  say  a  very 
great  majority — of  the  Roman  Catholics  scruple  the  terms  in 
which  this  Oath  is  unfortunately  drawn,  and  declare  they  can- 
not bring  themselves  to  take  it.  .  .  .  The  majority  of  Roman 
Catholics  who  scruple  this  Oath  are  not  Papists  in  the  op- 
probrious sense  of  the  word :  they  are  not  the  Pope's  courtiers 
more  than  the  gentlemen  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Committee, 
who  are  ready  to  accept  the  Oath.  My  Lords,  the  more 
scrupulous  Roman  Catholics,  who  object  to  the  terms  of  this 
Oath,  are  ready  to  swear  allegiance  to  the  king,  they  are  ready 
to  abjure  the  Pretender — to  renounce  the  Pope's  authority  in 
civil  and  temporal  matters — they  are  ready  to  renounce  the 
doctrine  that  faith  is  not  to  be  kept  with  heretics,  and  that 
persons  may  be  murdered  under  the  pretence  that  they  are 
heretics  as  impious  and  unchristian,  they  are  ready  to  renounce 
the  doctrine  that  Princes  excommunicated  by  the  See  of  Rome 
may  be  deposed  by  their  subjects  ;  but  to  this  deposing  doctrine 
they  scruple  to  apply  the  epithets  of  impious,  unchristian  and 
damnable.  My  Lords,  they  think  that  this  doctrine  is  rather 
to  be  called  false  than  impious,  traitorous  than  unchristian ; 
they  say  that  the  language  of  an  oath  should  not  be  adorned, 
figured,  and  amplified ;  but  plain,  simple  and  precise." 

He  then  further  explained  why  the  word  damnable  was  ob- 
jected to  :  for  it  was  taken  to  indicate  that  those  who  held  those 
opinions  must  therefore  be  eternally  condemned.  For  his  part 
he  would  hesitate  to  pronounce  such  a  sentence  even  of  virtu- 
ous heathens,  as,  for  example,  Socrates,  Plato,  Tully,  Seneca 
and  Marcus  Antoninus :  what  wonder  if  Catholics  objected  to 
say  it  of  Bellarmine  or  Erasmus  ? 

Dr.  Horsley  next  proceeded  to  discuss  the  clause  in  which 
it  was  said  that  the  fulness  of  even  the  spiritual  authority  of 


1791]         CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  LORDS.  291 

the  Pope  was  denied.  We  have  already  considered  this  clause 
at  some  length,  but  for  clearness  we  may  set  it  out  in  full  once 
more : — 

"  I  do  protest  and  declare  and  do  solemnly  swear  .  .  . 
that  no  foreign  church,  prelate  or  priest  or  assembly  of  priests 
or  ecclesiastical  power  whatsoever  hath  or  ought  to  have  any 
jurisdiction  or  authority  whatsoever  within  this  realm,  that 
can  directly  or  indirectly  affect  or  interfere  with  the  independ- 
ence, sovereignty,  laws,  constitution  or  government  thereof;  or 
the  rights,  liberties,  persons  or  properties  of  the  people  of  the 
said  realm  or  any  of  them." 

Dr.  Horsley  pointed  out  that  if  the  Pope's  supreme  spiritual 
authority  were  allowed,  some  indirect  interference  with  the  civil 
government  would  in  certain  cases  inevitably  follow :  for  ex- 
ample, such  authority  was  incompatible  with  the  English  law 
which  constituted  the  King  as  head  of  the  Church,  and  even 
with  the  validity  of  Anglican  Ordinations,1  so  that  a  Catholic 
looked  upon  him  (Dr.  Horsley)  as  no  bishop.  These  principles 
they  could  not  abjure ;  the  most  that  they  should  be  asked  to 
swear  should  be  that  they  would  never  act  upon  them  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  State,  and  never  do  anything  that  would  be 
construed  as  hostile  to  the  Government  or  Constitution. 
This  they  had  already  done  in  taking  the  Oath  of  1778,  and 
were  willing  to  do  again. 

It  was  true,  he  added,  that  the  Catholic  Committee  did  not 
admit  that  the  Oath  bore  the  meaning  which  was  objected  to. 
That  he  would  not  argue  beyond  saying  that  it  contained 
things  which  he  himself,  as  a  Protestant,  would  refuse 
to  swear.  The  Catholic  Committee,  however,  in  denying  that 
meaning,  avowedly  accepted  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the 
Pope  just  as  fully  as  the  others  did,  contending  that  the  Oath 
as  it  stood  was  not  incompatible  with  such  acceptance.  Thus 
the  contest  was  one  of  words.  Both  parties  were  equally 
loyal.  Whatever  could  be  alleged  against  the  bishops  could 
with  equal  truth  be  alleged  against  the  Committee.     There 

1  This  is  of  course  an  error :  the  question  of  Anglican  Orders  stands  on  a 
totally  different  footing  from  that  of  Papal  claims.  It  is  well  known  that 
Catholics  commonly  believe  in  the  validity  of  the  Orders  of  the  priests  of  the  Greek 
Church  and  even  of  the  Coptic  Church  of  Abyssinia  although  their  Church  is  not 
in  communion  with  the  Pope. 

19  * 


292  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

was  absolutely  no  reason  to  favour  one  party  rather  than  the 
other.  He  said  that  the  dispute  between  them  had  been 
carried  on  at  first  in  terms  of  moderation ;  but  as  time  went 
on,  the  two  parties  had  grown  warmer,  and  hard  words  had 
been  used  on  both  sides.  "  The  Scrupulous  Catholics  "  (he  said) 
"  speak  of  the  writings  on  the  other  side  as  schismatical,  scanda- 
lous and  inflammatory ;  the  Catholic  Committee  charge  the 
[Bishops]  with  inculcating  principles  hostile  to  society  and 
government,  and  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  British. 
My  Lords,  these  reproaches  are  unmerited,  I  think,  on  either 
side ;  but  they  are  for  that  reason  stronger  symptoms  of  in- 
temperate heat  on  both  sides."  He  pointed  out  that  this  bill, 
if  passed,  could  not  but  inflame  the  quarrel,  for  the  leaders 
of  the  Committee  would  have  the  others  at  their  mercy.  "  My 
Lords,  I  shudder  at  the  scene  of  terror  and  confusion  which 
my  imagination  sets  before  me,  when  under  the  operation  of 
this  partial  law,  should  it  unfortunately  receive  your  Lordships' 
sanction,  miscreants  of  base  informers  may  be  enriched  with 
the  fortunes,  our  gaols  may  be  crowded  with  the  persons,  and 
our  streets  may  stream  with  the  blood,  of  conscientious  men 
and  of  good  subjects." 

As  to  the  possibility  of  mending  the  Oath,  Dr.  Horsley 
considered  that  the  House  of  Lords  was  not  competent  to  do  it. 
The  Catholic  bishops  had  condemned  the  Oath  ;  the  Committee 
were  enraged — unreasonably,  in  his  opinion — and  a  paper  had 
been  put  into  his  hands  which  had  the  appearance  of  an  appeal 
to  the  Pope.1  What,  he  asked,  was  to  be  thought  of  offering 
relief  to  Catholics  on  condition  of  their  taking  an  oath,  when 
they  were  divided  into  two  parties,  of  whom  one  said  that 
they  could  not  take  it,  and  the  other  were  going  to  write  to 
the  Pope  to  know  whether  they  could  take  it  or  not  ? 

In  conclusion,  Dr.  Horsley  expressed  his  regret  that  the 
legislature  was  not  content  with  the  Oath  of  1778;  but  as  it 
appeared  that  they  were  not,  he  was  afraid  that  the  bill  was  in- 
curable. Nevertheless,  rather  than  that  the  Catholics  should 
suffer,  in  the  event  of  this  bill  being  rejected,  he  would  pledge 
himself  to  bring  in  another  the  following  year,  which  should 
be  so  drafted  as  to  relieve,  not  one  party  or  the  other,  but  the 
whole  Roman  Catholic  body. 

1  This  was  of  course  the  "  Protest  and  Appeal  "  in  the  Second  Blue  Book. 


1791]         CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  LORDS.  293 

The  speech  of  Dr.  Horsley  produced  a  great  effect  on  the 
House  of  Lords,  on  account  of  his  evident  sincerity  and  earnest- 
ness. But  it  likewise  caused  a  feeling  bordering  on  dismay 
among  Catholics  throughout  the  country.  The  sight  of  a  Pro- 
testant bishop  openly  proclaiming  the  disputes  between  two 
sections  of  the  Catholic  body  could  not  but  fill  them  with 
shame.  The  Committee  themselves,  perhaps  realising  that 
they  were  in  some  measure  answerable  for  this  state  of  affairs, 
tried  to  throw  the  blame  on  Milner.  They  contended  that 
the  handbills,  which  he  had  circulated  among  the  members  of 
Parliament,  had  provided  the  matter  for  Dr.  Horsley's  speech, 
which  was,  they  said,  practically  a  repetition,  "  with  very  little 
variation,"  of  his  last  publication.1  This  is,  however,  unfair  to 
Milner,  who  could  certainly  have  produced  arguments  more 
convincing  than  Dr.  Horsley's.  No  doubt  the  handbills  were 
among  the  latter's  sources  of  information,  but  they  were  not 
the  only  ones.  Milner  himself  tells  us  that  his  letter  to  the 
Bishops  of  Hereford  and  Salisbury  supplied  Dr.  Horsley  with 
one  of  his  main  arguments.  Indeed,  a  very  cursory  examina- 
tion of  Milner's  handbills  and  Dr.  Horsley's  speech  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  there  is  really  not  very  much  resemblance  be- 
tween them. 

The  remainder  of  the  debate  calls  for  little  comment. 
All  the  speakers  were  more  or  less  favourable  to  the  bill, 
though  some  thought  that  it  might  be  wiser  to  leave  it  over 
till  the  following  session,  and  to  amend  it  before  its  re-intro- 
duction. Lord  Stanhope  took  the  opportunity  to  proclaim 
himself  the  staunch  friend  of  the  Catholics,  and  the  Duke  of 
Leeds  declared  that  in  his  opinion,  during  the  late  disputes, 
the  vicars  apostolic  had  been  right  and  the  Committee  wrong. 
Lord  Fauconberg,  who  owed  his  presence  in  the  House  to  the 
apostasy  of  his  father,  spoke  in  favour  of  those  who  had  been 
his  father's  co-religionists.  Lord  Abingdon  thought  that  the 
amendment  of  the  Oath  should  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the 
(Anglican)  bishops,  who  alone  were  capable  of  understanding 
the  theological  questions  involved.  The  Bishops  of  Salisbury 
and  Peterborough  also  spoke,  the  latter  being  less  favourably 
inclined  to  the  principle  of  the  bill  than  any  other  speaker  in 
either  House.     Finally,  Lord  Grenville  said  that  having  listened 

1  Stip.  Mem.,  p.  S6. 


294  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

to  the  debate,  he  was  convinced  that  the  bill  could  be  suitably 
amended  in  committee,  and  at  his  request  the  second  reading 
was  accordingly  voted  without  a  division. 

The  committee  stage  was  taken  on  the  Friday  of  the  same 
week  ;  but  during  the  three  days  which  intervened  a  good 
deal  of  private  negotiation  took  place.  The  acute  crisis  was 
over.  The  idea  of  two  bills  had  been  abandoned,  and  since 
Bishop  Horsley's  speech,  the  Lords  had  been  practically 
unanimous  that  the  Oath  must  either  be  amended  so  as  to 
be  acceptable  to  all  Catholics,  or  be  set  aside  and  another 
substituted.  After  some  correspondence,  on  Thursday,  June  2, 
Dr.  Douglass  sent  what  Butler  calls  his  "  ultimatum,"  which 
was  to  be  shown  to  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York, 
as  well  as  to  Dr.  Horsley  and  others.  In  this,  after  specifying 
four  changes  which  he  considered  essential  if  the  old  Oath  was 
to  remain,  he  concluded,  "  It  is  only  on  the  admission  of  these 
amendments  which  I  have  distinctly  specified  into  the  present 
Oath  that  I  think  it  can  be  rendered  generally  agreeable  to 
those  who  hitherto  have  objected  to  it.  But  the  Irish  Oath  I 
know,  could  it  be  admitted  in  lieu  of  this,  would  give  universal 
satisfaction."  1  Dr.  Douglass  also  obtained  an  interview  with 
Lord  Rawdon,  who  promised  to  plead  for  the  Irish  Oath. 

As  soon  as  the  House  went  into  committee,  the  sense  of 
the  Lords  was  evident.  Bishop  Horsley  boldly  proposed  the 
substitution  of  the  Irish  Oath,  and  it  was  forthwith  accepted, 
subject  only  to  a  few  modifications  of  form.  The  words 
commonly  used  in  Ireland,  to  "  call  God  to  witness  and  His 
only  Son,  Jesus  Christ,"  being  unusual  in  English  oaths,  were 
omitted,  the  initial  declaration  as  passed  by  the  House  of 
Commons,  "I,  A.B.,  do  hereby  declare  that  I  do  profess  the 
Roman  Catholic  Religion,"  being  retained.  The  few  other 
changes  in  the  bill  were  for  the  most  part  unimportant.  There 
was,  however,  one  which  gave  rise  to  anxiety :  this  was  the 
modification  of  the  succession  clause,  limiting  it  to  the  Pro- 
testant line.  The  new  clause  was  moved  by  the  Earl  of 
Guilford,  better  known  by  his  former  name  of  Lord  North, 
who  had  entered  the  House  of  Lords  on  the  death  of  his  father 
a  few  months  before.  He  said  that  it  was  the  only  circum- 
stance which  could  render  the  submission  of  Catholics  to  the 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv. 


1791]         CATHOLIC  RELIEF  BILL  IN  HOUSE  OF  LORDS.  295 

present  Royal  Family  constitutional.  He  added  that,  "  No 
Catholic  could  be  so  weak  as  to  suppose  that  if  Parliament 
should  at  any  future  time  call  a  Catholic  family  to  the  throne, 
they  would  ever  be  obliged  in  consequence  of  their  Oath  to 
oppose  it ".  Lord  Stanhope,  who  followed,  went  so  far  as  to 
say  that  the  words  of  the  Irish  Oath  in  this  article  were  little 
less  than  treason,  as  they  seemed  to  imply  that  Parliament 
could  not  alter  the  succession.  Bishop  Horsley  on  behalf  of 
the  vicars  apostolic  opposed  the  clause,  but  said  that  in  view 
of  Lord  Guilford's  explanation  of  the  sense  in  which  the 
words  were  meant,  he  would  not  press  his  opposition.  Lord 
Grenville,  in  summing  up  for  the  Government,  said  that  after 
what  had  passed  he  hoped  that  the  most  scrupulous  conscience 
could  have  no  further  difficulty,  as  they  had  heard  from  the 
authority  of  that  House  in  what  sense  they  were  to  support  the 
succession,  nothing  being  meant  as  bearing  on  religion.  The 
clause  was  accordingly  passed. 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  Earl  of  Guilford,  then  Lord  North, 
had  been  Prime  Minister  in  1778,  when  the  former  Catholic 
Relief  Act  was  passed,  and  as  the  Oath  in  that  Act  contained 
no  similar  clause,  we  naturally  look  for  some  reason  for  his 
insistence  now  on  its  necessity.  Milner  does  not  hesitate  to 
attribute  it  to  the  influence  of  the  Committee,  and  he  hints 1  in 
no  uncertain  language  that  they  had  sinister  motives  for  their 
action.  These  he  explains  at  length  in  a  letter  to  Bishop 
Douglass,  now  in  the  Westminster  Archives.  He  says  that 
most  of  the  clause,  including  the  essential  phrase  "  being 
Protestant "  is  taken  from  the  Oath  of  Supremacy,  and  those 
of  the  Committee  who  were  Peers  intended  to  take  that  Oath, 
in  order  to  take  their  seats  in  the  House  of  Lords ;  and  they 
wished  to  bring  the  body  of  Catholics  as  far  as  possible  along 
with  them,  so  as  to  facilitate  their  own  course.  In  this,  however, 
he  really  does  them  injustice.  Many  of  them  were  willing  to 
join  with  Mr.  Throckmorton  in  irresponsible  argument  in  that 
sense,  and  we  have  already  seen  how  they  discussed  the 
possibility  of  an  interpretation  to  the  Oath  of  Supremacy 
which  Catholics  might  accept :  but  there  is  no  sign,  either  then 
or  at  any  other  time,  of  their  having  acted  on  what  they  said. 

As  soon  as  the  Oath  was  disposed  of,  the  Lords  proceeded 

1  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  86  note. 


296  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

to  the  body  of  the  bill.  Here  their  task  was  easier,  as  there 
was  little  or  no  controversial  matter  to  deal  with.  The  Lord 
Chancellor  (Lord  Thurlow)  indeed  proposed  an  amendment 
to  omit  the  words  allowing  Catholics  to  practise  the  law,  which 
showed  that  there  was  still  a  large  amount  of  anti-Catholic 
prejudice  remaining.  This  would  of  course  have  defeated  one 
special  object  for  which  Charles  Butler  had  worked  so  long 
and  perseveringly.  Notwithstanding  the  quarter  from  which 
it  was  moved,  however,  the  amendment  was  negatived  by  a 
large  majority. 

No  other  changes  of  importance  were  introduced.  The 
bill  was  read  the  third  time  on  Tuesday,  June  7,  and  returned 
to  the  Commons,  who  probably  had  not  enough  interest  in  it 
to  discuss  it  further.  They  simply  accepted  it  as  it  stood, 
with  all  the  Lords'  amendments.  On  Friday,  June  10,  the 
Royal  Assent  was  given,  and  the  bill  became  law,  and  came 
into  operation  a  fortnight  later. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS. 

1791. 

On  Friday,  June  24,  1791,  the  day  on  which  the  new  Act 
came  into  force,  it  at  length  became  possible  to  celebrate  Mass 
publicly  in  England  under  the  sanction  of  the  law.  By  a  re- 
markable coincidence,  this  was  the  actual  anniversary  of  the  day 
on  which  two  hundred  and  thirty-two  years  before  the  celebra- 
tion of  Mass  had  been  prohibited  by  Queen  Elizabeth.  Charles 
Butler  has  described  to  us  the  smile  of  congratulation  with 
which  Catholics  would  be  greeted  by  their  non-Catholic  friends 
after  the  passing  of  the  Relief  Act  of  1778,  small  and  partial 
as  the  relief  was :  much  more  can  we  imagine  the  mutual  con- 
gratulations on  the  passing  of  the  Act  of  1791  which  finally 
buried  all  the  Penal  Laws,  strictly  so-called. 

Pastoral  letters  on  the  occasion  were  written  by  each  of 
the  vicars  apostolic  in  their  respective  districts.  The  following 
is  the  text  of  that  issued  by  Dr.  Douglass  : — 

"To  all  the  Faithful,  Clergy  and  Laity,  of  the 
London  District. 

"  Dear  Brethren, 

"  At  length  the  day  is  arrived  when  I  may  congratu- 
late with  you  on  the  greatest  of  blessings — the  free  exercise 
of  our  holy  Religion. 

"  A  humane  and  generous  legislature  has  seen  the  oppres- 
sion under  which  we  have  laboured,  and  by  an  act  worthy  of 
its  enlightened  wisdom,  has  redressed  the  grievances  of  which 
we  complained. 

"  As  our  emancipation  from  the  pressure  of  penal  laws 
must  awaken  every  feeling  of  a  grateful  mind,  hasten  to  cor- 
respond on  your   part    with   the    benignity    of  Government. 

297 


298  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

Hasten  to  give  to  our  gracious  Sovereign  that  test  of  loyalty 
which  the  legislature  calls  for,  and  to  disclaim  every  principle 
dangerous  to  society  and  civil  liberty  which  has  been  errone- 
ously imputed  to  you. 

"Continue  to  pursue  a  uniform  virtuous  line  of  conduct: 
'  giving  no  offence  to  any  man,  that  our  ministry  be  not 
blamed '.  '  Provide  things  good  not  only  in  the  sight  of  God, 
but  also  in  the  sight  of  all  men,'  and  let  an  universal  benevo- 
lence ever  characterise  you  in  the  eyes  of  your  fellow  citizens. 

"  Though  you  be  not  admitted  to  an  equal  participation 
of  rights,  continue  to  show  yourselves  deserving  of  that  favour  : 
and  continue  to  implore  the  Divine  Blessing  on  your  King 
and  Country.  '  For  the  rest,  Brethren,  rejoice,  be  perfect, 
take  exhortation,  be  of  one  mind,  have  peace ;  and  the  God  of 
peace  and  of  love  shall  be  with  you.' 

"  John,  Centurien,  V.A. 

"  London,  June  14,  1791." 

We  can  now  proceed  to  summarise  the  benefits  which 
Catholics  received  under  the  new  Act.  These  were  of  two 
kinds :  first,  they  became  at  liberty  to  practise  their  religion, 
under  certain  conditions,  without  incurring  the  penalties  which 
had  till  then  been  in  force  ;  and  secondly,  they  were  freed  from 
some  at  least  of  the  disabilities  under  which  they  had  laboured. 

Perhaps  the  best  way  to  study  these  effects  will  be  to  take 
a  short  survey  of  the  state  of  Catholic  life  and  work  during 
the  years  which  succeeded  the  passing  of  the  Act.  The 
numerous  activities  which  were  in  evidence  at  that  time,  such 
as  the  building  of  churches  and  the  like,  were  not  indeed  all 
due  to  the  Act,  for  some  of  them  date  from  several  years  be- 
fore it  was  passed.  They  were  in  many  cases  the  signs  of  the 
times,  which  made  the  Act  a  necessity  for  the  well-being  of 
the  nation :  and  rather  its  cause  than  its  consequence.  The 
Catholic  Church  in  England  had  in  fact  now  passed  its  low- 
water  mark  and  was  beginning  to  expand.  Such  expansion, 
however,  received  a  great  stimulus  when  the  Relief  Bill  became 
law,  for  many  of  the  causes  which  had  kept  it  back  from  that 
time  ceased  to  operate. 

According  to  the  new  Act,  then,  before  the  existing  chapels 
could  be  rendered  legal  and  the  celebration  of  Mass  in  them 
permissible,  two  formalities  were  necessary :  the  chapels  had 


I79i]  CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  299 

to  be  registered  and  the  clergy  to  take  the  Oath  about  which 
there  had  been  so  much  discussion.  At  many  of  our  older 
churches  in  the  country  the  certificate  of  registration  under  the 
Act  of  1 791  is  still  preserved  among  the  archives.  The  Oath 
could  be  taken  either  at  Westminster  or  at  any  of  the  Quarter 
Sessions.  The  majority  of  the  London  clergy  took  it  on  the 
same  day,  early  in  July.  They  went  to  Westminster  in  a  body, 
numbering  over  forty,  headed  by  Dr.  Douglass  himself.  To 
us  it  appears  a  simple  formality  to  have  gone  through  ;  yet  for 
those  times  it  was  not  a  little  remarkable  for  a  company  of 
forty  or  more  to  profess  themselves  publicly  as  Roman  Catholics 
and  priests. 

With  respect  to  the  chapels,  there  was  a  curious  proviso  in 
the  Act  forbidding  the  celebration  of  Mass  in  any  building 
with  a  steeple  or  bell.  It  is  not  at  first  sight  easy  to  see  the 
object  of  this  restriction.  Possibly  it  may  have  been  intended 
to  guard  against  any  chance  of  confusion  between  a  Catholic 
place  of  worship  and  a  church  belonging  to  the  Establishment. 
The  further  restriction  that  the  doors  of  the  Catholic  chapels 
were  not  to  be  "  locked,  barred  or  bolted  "  is  more  intelligible, 
though  it  shows  a  strange  suspiciousness  still  surviving  that 
they  might  be  used  for  treasonable  meetings.  Catholics  had 
been  so  accustomed  to  keep  the  doors  locked  during  Mass,  to 
guard  against  the  intrusion  of  "  Informers,"  that  on  more  than 
one  occasion  they  fell  into  serious  trouble  by  infringing  this 
regulation. 

Subject  to  the  above  restrictions,  Mass  could  now  be  openly 
celebrated  in  a  registered  chapel,  and  was  legally  protected  in 
a  special  manner :  any  one  who  disturbed  the  service  could  be 
bound  over  to  find  two  sureties  of  ^50  each  to  keep  the  peace, 
or  in  default,  had  to  pay  a  fine  of  ^20.  Mass  could  also 
be  celebrated  in  a  private  house,  provided  that  not  more  than 
five  outsiders  were  admitted.  A  "  Roman  Catholic  Ecclesia- 
stick "  would  forfeit  all  benefit  under  the  Act,  if  he  should 
"  exercise  any  of  the  rites  or  ceremonies  of  his  religion,  or 
wear  the  habits  of  his  order  "  in  any  other  place.  The  exact 
meaning  of  these  words  has  been  the  subject  of  discussion, 
since  it  was  under  the  corresponding  clause  of  the  Emancipa- 
tion Act  of  1829,  that  the  Eucharistic  procession  was  prohibited 
by  the  Government  in  September,  1908.     The  context  in  which 


300  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

it  stands  in  the  Act  before  us  indicates  that  it  was  desired  to 
inhibit  any  display  of  Catholic  rites  outside  the  places  licensed 
by  the  Act.  It  conveys  the  impression  also  that  the  clause 
was  designed  to  prevent  a  priest  from  appearing  in  the  streets 
in  his  cassock.  This  was,  however,  not  likely  to  occur,  for 
at  that  time  the  cassock  was  looked  upon  as  a  purely  ecclesi- 
astical vestment,  and  no  one  ever  wore  it  off  the  sanctuary. 
Dr.  Douglass  was  bolder  than  his  predecessors,  and  at  his  own 
house  he  wore  his  pectoral  cross  openly,  but  he  did  not  think 
of  wearing  his  cassock.  He  had  also  pontificated  in  the 
chapels  of  the  ambassadors  ever  since  his  arrival  in  London 
at  the  beginning  of  1791,  which  had  never  been  done  before. 
From  the  time  of  the  passing  of  the  Act,  High  Mass,  and  even 
Pontifical  Mass,  became  rapidly  more  common.  Public  ser- 
mons were  definitely  permitted  in  all  registered  chapels,  as 
well  as  at  those  of  the  embassies,1  and  from  this  time  we  hear 
nothing  more  of  the  Sunday  sermons  at  the  "  Ship  ".  In  the 
report  of  his  district  which  Dr.  Douglass  sent  to  Rome  in  1796 
we  find  a  distinctly  more  hopeful  tone  than  that  of  the  previous 
one  sent  by  Bishop  Talbot  nine  years  earlier.  "  In  the  first 
place,"  he  begins,  "  the  Church  is  beginning  to  flourish  in  our 
metropolis,  and  the  number  of  Catholics  is  daily  increasing. 
From  the  fact  that  the  open  profession  of  the  Catholic  religion 
is  now  lawful  in  England,  and  that  public  sermons  take  place 
in  our  Chapels,  many  non-Catholics  are  converted  to  the 
Faith."  One  of  the  most  prominent  of  these  converts  was 
Mr.  James  Yorke  Bramston,  a  lawyer  in  middle  life,  who  was 
received  into  the  Church  about  the  year  1792,  and  went  to 
Lisbon  to  study  for  the  priesthood.  Another  was  the  Rev. 
Henry  Digby  Beste,  Fellow  of  Magdalen,  Oxford,  whose  sermon 
on  "  Priestly  Absolution,"  preached  before  the  University  in 
1793,  caused  something  of  a  sensation.  His  reception  into  the 
Church  five  years  later  followed  almost  as  a  natural  sequence.2 
Every  member  of  the  congregation  was  also  theoretically 
bound  to  take  the  Oath  in  order  to  share  in  the  privileges  of 
the  Act.  The  legal  obligation  of  going  to  church  was  not 
abolished,  and  it  was  only  such  Catholics  as  had  taken  the 

1  At  the  Portuguese  Chapel  there  were  no  sermons  except  in  Lent :  but  this 
was  not  due  to  any  restriction  on  the  part  of  the  British  Government. 

2  Lee,  Priestly  Absolution  at  Oxford  (Ed.  Longmans,  1874). 


1791]  CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  301 

Oath  who  could  fulfil  that  obligation  by  going  to  Mass  at  a 
registered  chapel.  In  practice,  however,  very  few  laymen 
went  through  that  formality.  According  to  Sir  J.  Cox  Hip- 
pisley,  in  all  England  not  more  than  5,000  did  so,  and  this 
number  included  the  clergy.  The  chief  reason  no  doubt  that 
so  few  took  the  Oath  was  that  there  was  a  fee  of  two  shillings 
attached  to  the  taking  of  it,  and  practically  speaking,  as  Mass 
was  publicly  celebrated,  there  was  no  likelihood  of  any  ques- 
tion being  asked.  By  an  interpretation  of  the  law,  many 
Catholics  who  drove  to  Mass  considered  that  they  were  justi- 
fied in  availing  themselves  of  the  legal  privilege  by  which 
those  who  were  "  driving  to  church  "  on  a  Sunday  were  ex- 
cused from  paying  toll  at  the  turnpikes :  an  exemption  which 
some  continued  to  claim  even  within  the  memory  of  the  present 
writer,  that  is,  probably  till  the  abolition  of  the  turnpikes. 

We  can  now  take  a  short  survey  of  the  new  chapels  or 
churches  built  during  these  years.  We  can  take  for  our 
basis  the  bishop's  report  to  the  Holy  See,  in  1796,  already 
alluded  to.  From  this,  and  other  sources,  we  learn  that  at  the 
time  the  Act  was  passed  a  large  amount  of  work  was  proceed- 
ing. In  almost  every  quarter  of  London  new  development 
was  in  progress.  In  the  West  end,  the  Spanish  ambassador 
was  building  a  church  adjacent  to  the  new  embassy  in  Man- 
chester Square,  and  the  street  in  which  it  stood  took  the  name 
of  "Spanish  Place".  The  architect  was  one  Signor  Bonomi, 
and  the  style  was  Italian.  There  was  a  nave  and  two  aisles, 
with  a  gallery  over  each,  besides  one  at  the  back,  so  that  the 
seating  capacity  of  the  church  was  considerable.  Its  general 
appearance  is  still  remembered,  for  it  continued  in  use  until  it 
was  replaced  by  the  present  Gothic  church  less  than  twenty 
years  ago.  In  later  years,  however,  the  proportions  of  the 
building  were  marred  by  the  addition  of  a  third  aisle,  and  the 
consequent  removal  of  the  side  galleries.  Even  so,  the  rows 
of  columns  of  imitation  marble  on  each  side  gave  the  idea  of 
spaciousness,  and  we  can  imagine  that  at  the  time  the  church 
was  opened  its  appearance  would  have  been  quite  imposing, 
and  for  the  time  when  it  was  built,  it  may  well  have  been 
regarded  as  an  achievement.  It  was  solemnly  opened  on 
Thursday,  December  8,  1791,  Dr.  Hussey  preaching  on  the 
occasion  a  sermon  which  was  afterwards  printed. 


302  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

At  Warwick  Street  the  new  chapel  had  been  opened  on 
March  12,  1790,  shortly  after  the  death  of  Bishop  Talbot,  but 
the  marble  altar  was  not  completed  till  the  summer  of  1791, 
and  was  consecrated  by  Bishop  Douglass  on  August  10  of 
that  year.  The  same  church  still  exists,  though  it  has  since 
been  enlarged  by  a  new  sanctuary.  On  the  demolition  of  the 
old  Sardinian  Chapel  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  Warwick  Street 
will  become  the  oldest  Catholic  church  in  London,  and  the 
only  one  which  dates  back  to  before  the  Act  of  1791.  It  was 
at  that  time  still  under  the  protection  of  the  Bavarian  ambas- 
sador, so  that  neither  this  nor  the  Spanish  Chapel  had  to 
be  registered. 

A  few  months  afterwards,  a  new  mission  was  planned  out 
for  the  sake  of  the  poor  Irish  in  London,  who  congregated  in 
large  numbers  in  the  parish  of  St.  Giles,  and  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Seven  Dials,  which  was  popularly  known  as  "  Little 
Ireland  ".  The  scheme  was  set  on  foot  by  a  Mr.  Olivier,  in 
company  with  Mr.  George  Keating,  the  son  of  the  well-known 
Catholic  publisher.  A  committee  was  formed  who  bought  a 
large  entertainment  hall  close  to  Soho  Square,  in  which  the 
notorious  Mrs.  Cornelys  used  to  hold  her  parties  and  mas- 
querades, which  were  much  frequented  by  the  fashionable 
world.  The  interior  was  converted  to  its  new  use  by  removing 
the  greater  portion  of  the  first  floor,  the  part  which  remained 
forming  a  gallery.  The  exterior  was  left  untouched  and  had 
a  totally  unecclesiastical  appearance,  which  was  considered  a 
positive  advantage,  for  by  that  means  it  escaped  all  public 
attention.  Besides  the  Irish,  and  a  few  of  the  English  poor, 
there  were  also  a  considerable  number  of  well-to-do  Catholics 
who  lived  in  that  neighbourhood,  which  was  then  not  far  from 
the  fashionable  quarter  of  London. 

The  first  head  chaplain  at  Soho  was  Father  O'Leary. 
After  resigning  the  post  offered  him  at  Warwick  Street,  he 
spent  some  time  as  junior  chaplain  at  the  Spanish  embassy 
under  Dr.  Hussey.  This  arrangement,  however,  was  not  a  suc- 
cess. Both  were  distinguished  men ;  but  they  were  of  very 
different  temperament,  and  it  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that 
one  would  be  able  to  serve  under  the  other.  The  climax 
came  on  Good  Friday  in  the  year  1790,  when  Mr.  Hussey 
abruptly  stopped  Father  O'Leary  in  the  middle  of  his  sermon, 


1791]  CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  303 

on  the  plea  that  the  long  service  made  it  imperative  that  the 
preacher  should  not  continue  beyond  a  certain  limited  time. 
Father  O'Leary  left  the  York  Street  Chapel,  and  afterwards 
printed  an  account  of  his  various  complaints  against  Mr.  Hussey. 
A  cousin  of  the  latter,  the  Rev.  G.  Robinson,  who  was  also  a 
junior  chaplain  at  York  Street,  wrote  an  answer,  and  after- 
wards at  a  meeting  held  at  the  house  of  Bishop  Douglass,  the 
two  priests  came  to  an  agreement ;  but  it  was  considered 
advisable  that  Father  O'Leary  should  seek  work  elsewhere. 
He  accordingly  accepted  the  position  of  head  priest  at  the 
new  chapel  at  Soho,  which  he  retained  for  the  remainder  of 
his  life.  The  chapel  was  solemnly  opened  on  September  29, 
1792,  when  Dr.  Douglass  sang  the  Mass,  and  Father  O'Leary 
preached. 

The  sermons  of  Father  O'Leary  soon]became  famous,  and 
they  were  considered  an  integral  part  of  London  Catholicity. 
He  was  usually  particularly  eloquent  on  any  special  occasion, 
such  as  a  day  of  national  thanksgiving,  in  which  Catholics 
joined  within  their  own  churches.  There  was  also  from  time 
to  time  a  "Day  of  Fasting  and  Humiliation"  ordered  when 
the  country  was  faced  with  serious  dangers.  In  these  also 
Catholics  would  join,  and  though  no  ecclesiastical  fast  was 
observed,  there  would  be  a  public  high  Mass  and  sermon  at 
each  of  the  chief  churches. 

About  the  time  of  which  we  are  speaking,  an  effort  was 
made  to  establish  a  chapel  at  Westminster :  a  house  was  hired 
in  York  Street,  Queen  Square,  and  a  room  was  fitted  up  for 
the  celebration  of  Mass.  It  continued  in  use  for  several  years, 
but  did  not  prove  permanent. 

Across  the  river,  in  South  London,  work  was  proceeding 
at  the  chapel  in  London  Road,  St.  George's  Fields,  which  has 
already  been  alluded  to.  Although  used  for  Mass  from  the 
spring  of  1 790,  it  was  still  far  from  finished.  The  Rev.  J. 
Griffiths  continued  to  collect  money  during  the  next  two  or 
three  years,  and  on  the  completion  of  the  church1  in  1793, 

1 A  picture  of  the  London  Road  Chapel,  painted  in  1825,  is  preserved  in  the 
Guildhall  Library,  and  was  reproduced  in  Catholic  London  a  Century  Ago 
(p.  112).  The  Gothic  window  and  arches  there  shown,  however,  belong  to  a 
later  date  than  that  with  which  we  are  now  concerned.  The  chapel  was  originally 
built  in  the  ordinary  square  style  of  the  day,  with  sash  windows. 


304  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

there  was  a  solemn  opening  on  Passion  Sunday,  which  that 
year  fell  on  the  feast  of  St.  Patrick,  March  17,  and  was  con- 
sequently the  third  anniversary  of  the  original  opening  of  the 
church. 

The  ordinary  London  chapel  of  those  times  would  appear 
to  us  now  plain  and  even  bare.  On  the  walls  there  would  be 
perhaps  one  or  two  pictures  of  sacred  subjects,  but  the  only 
decoration  was  centred  around  the  high  altar,  which  was  then 
the  only  altar.  The  taste  of  the  day  did  not  lend  itself  to 
ecclesiastical  art,  and  much  of  the  ornamentation  was  of  a 
trumpery  character,  and  worthy  of  the  satire  which  Pugin 
afterwards  bestowed  upon  it.  Nevertheless  there  was  a  sim- 
plicity which  inspired  devotion,  and  in  later  times  caused 
Cardinal  Manning — in  whose  mind  everything  Gothic  was 
bound  up  with  Protestantism — to  assert  that  there  was  no 
place  where  he  could  say  his  prayers  so  devoutly  as  in  one  of 
the  old  Catholic  Chapels  of  England. 

The  arrangement  of  the  benches  was  also  very  different 
from  that  which  obtains  to-day.  It  was  regarded  as  an  axiom 
that  any  one  who  required  a  seat  must  pay  for  it.  In  the 
space  known  as  the  "  body  of  the  church  "  there  were  no  seats 
of  any  kind  till  well  on  into  the  nineteenth  century,  and  then 
only  the  roughest  possible  forms,  without  backs.  Those  who 
could  afford  to  pay  went  either  into  the  "  enclosure  "  in  front, 
or  in  one  of  the  galleries,  in  all  of  which  places  seats  and 
kneelers  were  provided.  In  some  churches  there  was  also  a 
"  tribune,"  or  raised  platform,  on  one  side  of  the  sanctuary, 
for  the  regular  supporters  of  the  mission. 

There  was  no  font ;  the  baptismal  water  was  kept  in  the 
priest's  lodgings — for  it  was  only  gradually  that  regular  pres- 
byteries, or  "  clergy  houses,"  as  they  then  called  them,  came 
into  existence.  After  the  passing  of  the  Relief  Act,  confes- 
sionals were  erected  in  several  churches,  but  the  priests  had 
become  so  accustomed  to  hearing  confessions  in  their  rooms 
that  many  of  them  continued  to  do  so,  and  it  was  a  long  time 
before  the  use  of  confessionals  became  at  all  general. 

Soon  after  the  passing  of  the  Act,  Dr.  Douglass  took  up 
his  residence  at  No.  4  Castle  Street,  Holborn — popularly 
styled  "  the  Castle  " — which  became  henceforward  the  official 
residence  of  the  vicar  apostolic.     When  at  home,  he  would 


i79i]  CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  305 

wear  his  pectoral  cross  openly,  which  was  considered  a  great 
advance  on  previous  custom  ;  but  no  one  ever  thought  of 
wearing  a  cassock,  except  in  church,  for  long  after  this.  When 
assisting  at  High  Mass,  he  used  his  full  pontificals,  including 
mitre  and  crozier,  which  again  was  a  great  advance  on  previous 
practice. 

Outside  London  we  find  already  the  beginning  of  a  move- 
ment to  establish  additional  missions  in  towns.  The  more  far- 
seeing  amongst  the  Catholic  body  were  beginning  to  realise 
that  if  Catholicity  was  to  have  any  real  future  in  England,  the 
missions  at  the  country  seats,  which  had  done  such  important 
work  in  the  days  of  persecution  and  Penal  Laws,  must  be 
supplanted  by  chapels  in  the  actual  centres  of  population. 
Now  that  the  Penal  Laws  were  abolished  the  Catholics  could 
not  be  expected  to  continue  to  go  out  into  the  country  to  hear 
Mass :  it  was  time  to  bring  their  religion  out  into  the  light  of 
day,  and  to  live  down  prejudice  by  actual  contact  with  Pro- 
testants. The  following  letter  from  Lord  Petre  to  Bishop 
Sharrock  is  instructive  as  showing  how  this  idea  was  already 
making  itself  definitely  felt,  though  it  will  be  noticed  that  he 
still  assumes  that  the  laity  are  to  be  responsible  for  the  pro- 
perty of  the  missions  : —  * 

"Buckingham  House,  November  28,  1791. 

"  Sir, 

"  I  received  your  proposal  relative  to  the  building  of 
a  Chapel  at  Monmouth.  The  collecting  of  the  Catholics  into 
towns  in  place  of  straggling  missions  has  always  been  a  meas- 
ure much  recommended  by  me.  On  those,  now  legal  estab- 
lishments, the  Catholic  religion  must  ultimately  depend.  The 
middling  classes  will  find  themselves  more  independent,  and 
the  Gentlemen  will  feel  themselves  at  liberty  to  consult  their 
own  convenience  in  the  expense  attending  chaplains.  I  shall 
therefore  willingly  subscribe  fifty  pounds,  and  shall  be  ready 
to  pay  it  whenever  the  trustees  for  the  Chapel  think  it  is  wanted. 
I  recommend  a  considerable  number  of  Trustees,  as  in  these 
cases  the  property  should  not  be  exposed  to  drop  into  a  single 
trustee. 

"  I  am,  Sir,  Your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

"  Petre." 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv. 
VOL.  I.  20 


306  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

A  similar  mission  was  established  at  this  time  at  Glouces- 
ter ;  while  at  Bristol  and  Birmingham  regular  churches  had 
already  been  built.1 

Confining  ourselves  to  the  London  District,  we  find  during 
the  next  few  years  missions  established  at  Portsmouth,  South- 
ampton, Newport  (Isle  of  Wight),  Cowes,  and  also  nearer 
London,  at  Richmond,  Greenwich  and  Chatham.  The  first 
of  these,  at  Portsmouth,  was  established  for  the  sake  of  a  fairly 
numerous  body  of  Catholics  who  had  hitherto  been  under  the 
necessity  of  crossing  the  harbour  on  a  Sunday,  in  order  to  hear 
Mass  at  Gosport,  where,  as  we  have  seen,  there  was  a  chapel 
which  had  been  built  by  Bishop  James  Talbot.  The  priest  at 
that  time  was  Rev.  Mr.  Marsland,  and  he  was  not  pleased  with 
the  establishment  of  another  mission  so  close  to  his  own,  fear- 
ing that  some  of  the  subscriptions  on  which  he  depended  would 
be  diverted  to  the  new  foundation.  In  particular,  Mr.  Conway, 
a  rich  layman  who  lived  in  Portsmouth,  and  who  had  been 
chiefly  instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  establishment  of 
the  mission  there,  had  before  been  accustomed  to  pay  a  small 
annuity  to  Gosport :  it  was  understood  that  this  would  hence- 
forth be  paid  to  Mr.  Cahill,  the  Portsmouth  priest,  instead. 
Mr.  Marsland  accordingly  appealed  to  Bishop  Douglass,  who 
deputed  Rev.  Richard  Southworth,  of  Brockhampton,  to  in- 
quire into  the  state  of  affairs.  The  latter  sent  two  letters  by 
way  of  report,  both  of  which  are  preserved  in  the  Westminster 
Archives.  The  second  of  them  gives  an  interesting  little 
insight  into  the  methods  and  difficulties  connected  with  the 
establishment  of  a  new  mission  at  that  date,  and  from  that 
point  of  view  is  worth  quoting  : —  2 

"  Brockhampton,  February  28,  1792. 

"  My  Lord, 

"  Since  I  wrote  last,  I  have  been  enabled  to  give  your 
Lordship  further  information  relative  to  the  new  chapel  opened 
at  Portsmouth,  presuming  you  would  like  to  know  how,  with 
the  blessing  of  God,  it  goes  on  and  thrives.     I  will  set  down 

1  St.  Peter's,  Birmingham,  was  opened  somewhere  about  1789  or  1790.  At 
Bristol  the  chapel  in  Trenchard  Street,  built  by  Rev.  Robert  Plowden,  a  brother  of 
Rev.  Charles  Plowden,  was  opened  in  June,  1790. 

2 This  and  the  following  letters  are  from  the  Westminster  Archives. 


1791]  CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  307 

some  particulars  as  they  occur  to  me,  without  observing  any 
particular  form  in  the  manner  of  relating  them. 

"  I  have  before  me  a  list  of  the  names  of  1 30  Catholics,  who 
either  come  to  their  duty  or  to  Catechism  and  instruction  to 
Mr.  Cahill.  Now  out  of  these  130  mentioned,  only  27  went 
over  to  Gosport  to  prayers.  Mr.  Conway  remembers  the  time 
when  only  one  came  to  Gosport  from  the  Portsmouth  side. 
Mr.  Cahill  has  had  many  with  him  besides  those  above 
mentioned  whom  he  does  not  know.  There  are  others  whom 
hitherto  he  has  not  been  able  to  prevail  upon  to  come,  but 
hopes  in  time  to  bring  them  to  their  duty.  In  fine,  he  doubts 
not  but  the  number  of  Catholics  in  Portsmouth  Common  and 
its  environs  amounts  to  several  hundreds.  I  have  promised 
to  give  Mr.  Cahill  out  of  my  salary  £5  per  annum  for  three 
years,  if  the  establishment  continues  ;  chiefly  for  assisting  the 
convicts  at  Cumberland  Fort.  Mr.  Cahill  is  on  good  terms  with 
the  Captains  and  Officers  there,  who  allow  him  to  assemble 
any  time  he  pleases  on  notice  given,  the  Catholic  convicts, 
in  a  separate  apartment,  on  land,  in  one  of  the  little  houses 
or  sheds  built  for  the  convenience  of  the  workmen  and  their 
overseers :  so  that  he  is  never  obliged  to  attend  in  the  hulks, 
except  in  case  of  sickness,  which  seldom  happens.  The  facility 
and  convenience  of  doing  duty  hereby  procured,  comparatively 
to  what  it  formerly  was,  can  only  be  rightly  understood  by 
those  who  have  been  in  the  occasion  of  such  attendance.  The 
number  of  the  Catholics  {sic)  Convicts  at  present  is  somewhat 
more  than  20. 

"  Some  little  time  ago  the  principal  members  of  the  new 
congregation  had  a  meeting  in  which  each  agreed  to  contribute 
annually  a  certain  sum  towards  the  support  of  the  Chapel  and 
their  Pastor ;  which  including  my  mite,  I  find  amounts  to 
£27  2  o.  Mr.  Conway  for  his  share  finds  board  and  lodging 
for  Mr.  Cahill.  A  collection  is  also  made  every  Sunday  on  a 
plate,  as  is  customary  at  Gosport ;  but  with  this  difference,  that 
at  Gosport  the  collection  is  designed  for  the  Pastor,  whereas 
the  intention  of  this  at  Portsmouth  is  for  the  relief  of  the 
poor  ;  and  I  am  told  that  several  Protestants  give  in  something 
occasionally.  ...  I  am,  with  esteem  and  duty,  my  Lord, 

"  Your  Lordship's  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

"  RlCD.    SOUTHWORTH." 
20  * 


308  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

The  opposition  of  Mr.  Marsland  stood  seriously  in  the  way 
of  the  success  of  the  Portsmouth  work.  "  Nothing  as  I  can 
find,  discourages  Mr.  Cahill,"  writes  Mr.  Southworth,  "  but  the 
differences  between  Mr.  Marsland  and  Mr.  Conway,  and  the 
continual  outcry  of  the  former  that  Gosport  will  be  ruined. 
Being  of  a  meek  disposition  it  hurts  him  to  think  that  he 
should  be  co-operating  to  raise  one  establishment  in  order  to 
pull  down  another."  After  a  few  months  of  friction,  however, 
the  differences  were  happily  adjusted.  Mr.  Southworth  writes 
on  August  18,  1792  : — 

"  Mr.  Marsland  and  Mr.  Conway  were  some  weeks  ago 
happily  reconciled  at  a  meeting  in  this  neighbourhood,  with 
Mr.  Couche,  Mr.  Knight  and  self.  The  former  drank  success 
to  Portsmouth,  the  latter  to  Gosport,  and  the  rest  of  the 
company  success  to  both.  Also  as  a  pledge  of  good  will, 
Mr.  Marsland  gave  down  on  the  spot  the  5  guineas  he  had 
promised  to  the  new  Chapel ;  and  Mr.  Conway  on  his  side 
gave  Mr.  Marsland  the  £8.  I  am  happy  to  find  that  a  good 
understanding  continues  between  them." 

Crossing  now  to  the  Isle  of  Wight,  we  find  two  missions 
established  within  a  few  years  of  each  other,  at  Newport  and 
Cowes  respectively.  The  benefactress  was  Mrs.  Heneage,  a 
native  of  the  island,  being  a  daughter  of  Mr.  Brown  of  Gatcomb. 
Though  her  parents  were  Protestants,  they  sent  her  to  the 
convent  school  at  Hammersmith,  and  she  was  afterwards 
received  into  the  Church  by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Talbot  at  Brock- 
hampton.1  In  1761  she  was  married  to  Mr.  Winsor  Heneage 
of  Hainton,  in  Lincolnshire,  who  died  in  1786.  In  her  widow- 
hood, Mrs.  Heneage  devoted  herself  to  works  of  charity,  and 
spent  all  her  substance  on  the  support  of  missions  and  other 
pious  objects.  She  resided  at  Newport,  and  the  mission  there 
is  several  years  older  than  that  at  Cowes,  having  been  estab- 
lished in  1 79 1.  The  chapel  of  that  date  is  still  in  use,  and  is 
an  interesting  survival  of  former  times.  It  is  of  the  conven- 
tional square  shape,  with  a  gallery  round  three  sides.  The 
house  which  Mrs.  Heneage  built  for  herself  is  close  at  hand, 
separated  only  by  a  small  garden.  The  wall  screening  the 
whole  of  this  from   the  street,   with   its   row  of  trees  close 

1  A  local  tradition  says  that  Mass  used  to  be  said  in  a  garret  at  Sheat  Manor, 
near  Gatcomb,  the  house  of  the  Urry  family,  to  which  her  mother  belonged. 


1791]  CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  309 

behind,  speaks  of  days  when  Catholics  had  to  aim  at  extreme 
privacy  in  their  daily  life.  She  died  in  1800,  and  her  house 
has  since  been  united  to  the  clergy  house  adjoining.  The 
Covves  chapel  was  built  four  or  five  years  later,  and  is  also  a 
square  building  with  a  gallery.  The  tabernacle  on  the  high 
altar  is  a  replica  of  that  formerly  in  the  chapel  of  the  English 
College  at  Douay,  where  the  Rev.  T.  Gabb,  who  was  the  first 
priest  at  Cowes  and  superintended  the  building,  had  been 
educated. 

Returning  to  the  mainland,  we  naturally  expect  to  find 
Milner  to  the  fore  at  Winchester,  and  we  are  not  disappointed. 
In  place  of  the  small,  inconvenient  church  which  has  already 
been  described,  by  means  of  money  which  he  collected,  he  set 
up  what  was  for  those  times  a  good-sized  building,  which  has 
lasted  down  to  the  present  day.  The  cost  was  something  over 
.£1,000.  Moreover,  he  had  enough  independence  of  mind  to 
build  it  in  some  attempt  at  the  Gothic  style,  which  was  at 
that  date  little  understood  or  appreciated.  In  the  matter  of 
ecclesiastical  art,  indeed,  Milner  was  ahead  of  his  time.  Besides 
devoting  a  considerable  space  in  his  History  of  Winchester 
to  a  consideration  of  the  subject,  he  wrote  two  short  works  on 
architecture,  one  being  a  criticism  of  the  so-called  "  restoration  " 
of  Salisbury  Cathedral  by  Mr.  James  Wyatt,  on  which  Pugin 
afterwards  commented  so  severely,  the  other  on  mediaeval 
architecture  generally.  By  a  curious  coincidence  Milner  be- 
came acquainted  with  Mr.  John  Carter,  who  was  the  only 
architect  of  his  day  who  professed  to  have  made  a  study  of 
Gothic,  and  who  may  be  almost  looked  upon  as  the  precursor 
of  Pugin.  Milner  first  met  him  almost  by  chance  in  Win- 
chester Cathedral,  they  became  friends,  and  eventually  he 
received  him  into  the  Church. 

The  plans  for  the  new  chapel  seem  to  have  been  the  joint 
production  of  these  two,  and  Mr.  Carter  superintended  the 
carrying  of  them  out.  Milner  has  left  us  his  own  description 
of  the  work  in  an  appendix  to  the  second  edition  of  his 
History  of  Winchester!  Speaking  in  the  first  instance  of 
the  old  chapel,  he  says  : — 

"  Considerable  sums  had  been  expended  in  altering  this 
building  in  order  to  render  it  more  commodious  for  the  pur- 

1  Second  edition,  ii.,  p.  241. 


310  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

pose  of  a  Chapel,  particularly  in  the  years  1759  and  1784; 
nevertheless  it  was  still  so  inconvenient  and  at  the  same  time 
so  insecure,  that  it  became  necessary  in  1 792  to  take  it  down 
to  the  foundation  and  rebuild  it.  This  measure  being  resolved 
upon,  instead  of  following  the  modern  style  of  building  churches 
and  chapels,  which  are  in  general  square  chambers  with  small 
sashed  windows  and  fashionable  decorations,  hardly  to  be  dis- 
tinguished, when  the  altars  and  benches  are  removed,  from 
common  assembly  rooms  ;  it  was  concluded  upon  to  imitate 
the  models  of  this  kind  which  have  been  left  us  by  our  re- 
ligious ancestors,  who  applied  themselves  with  such  ardour 
and  unrivalled  success  to  the  cultivation  and  perfection  of 
ecclesiastical  architecture.  If  the  present  chapel  of  St.  Peter 
really  has  the  effect  of  producing  a  certain  degree  of  those 
pleasing  and  awful  sensations  which  many  persons  say  they 
feel  in  entering  into  it,  the  merit  is  entirely  due  to  the  in- 
ventors of  the  Gothic  style  of  building,  and  of  its  correspond- 
ing decorations  in  the  middle  ages,  which  have  been  as  closely 
followed  in  the  present  oratory  as  the  limited  finances  of  the 
persons  concerned  in  it  would  permit." 

The  new  chapel  being  free  from  debt,  Dr.  Douglass  was 
able  to  consecrate  it,  which  he  did  on  the  Feast  of  St.  Birinus, 
December  5,  1792.  Milner  also  established  a  poor  school,  the 
building  being  erected  at  the  expense  of  Mrs.  Heneage. 

Coming  now  nearer  to  the  metropolis,  we  find  a  chapel 
opened  by  Dr.  Douglass  at  Clark's  Buildings,  Greenwich,  in 
November,  1793,  intended  chiefly  for  the  use  of  the  pensioners, 
among  whom  it  was  said  that  over  500  were  Catholics.  A  new 
chapel  at  Richmond  was  due  to  a  member  of  the  Wheble 
family.  A  chapel  was  also  opened  a  few  years  later  at  Bromp- 
ton,  near  Chatham,  for  the  use  of  the  Marines.  The  following 
entry  in  the  diary  of  Dr.  Douglass  is  interesting  as  showing 
the  feeling  still  existing  against  Catholic  places  of  worship : — 

"  1798.  October  25.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Plunkett  having  ob- 
tained from  the  Admiralty  Board  of  Ordinance  &c.  the  grant 
of  a  piece  of  ground  at  Brompton,  near  Chatham,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  building  a  chapel  for  the  marines  &c.  the  Chapel  is  be- 
gun to  be  built.  The  Methodists  and  their  friends  oppose  the 
building,  and  pull  down  at  night  what  was  built  in  the  day. 
The  mischief  was    done    twice.     Mr.    Plunkett  complains   to 


1791]  CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  311 

Colonel  Nepean  of  it.  A  guard  is  placed  at  the  building  and 
no  further  mischief  is  done  by  the  malevolent.  The  building 
goes  on  well,  and  a  subscription  is  set  on  foot  for  defraying  the 
expenses  of  it." 

On  the  north  side  of  London  we  find  a  chapel  building  at 
Shefford,  in  Bedfordshire,  in  1791,  and  another  the  following 
year  at  Old  Hall  Green  in  Herts.  The  property  there  had 
been  left  by  Bishop  Talbot  to  his  successor  on  the  sole  condi- 
tion that  he  was  a  secular,  and  Dr.  Douglass  accordingly  in- 
herited it.  The  school  had  been  hitherto  carried  on  at  a  loss, 
the  annual  deficit  being  made  good  by  Bishop  Talbot  himself. 
Dr.  Douglass  determined  to  develop  the  school,  hoping  to 
make  it  self-supporting.  The  Rev.  James  Willacy,  who  had 
acted  as  head-master  since  1769,  retired  in  favour  of  Rev. 
John  Potier,  who  had  been  an  assistant  master  since  his  arrival 
from  Douay  in  1785.  The  new  chapel  was  blessed  and  opened 
by  Bishop  Douglass  on  Sunday,  December  9,  1792,  and  was 
to  serve  both  for  the  school  and  for  the  people  of  the  mission. 

The  reader  may  naturally  wish  to  know  whether  any  provi- 
sion for  legalising  Catholic  schools  formed  part  of  the  Act : 
curious  to  say,  no  definite  answer  can  be  given.  The  Act  is 
not  quite  consistent  with  itself  on  this  head.  On  the  one  hand, 
Clause  XII.  enacts  that  no  Catholic  who  has  taken  the  Oath 
shall  henceforth  be  prosecuted  "  for  teaching  and  instructing 
youth  as  a  Tutor  or  Schoolmaster,"  with  a  restriction  specified 
in  Clause  XIV.  that  he  must  not  "  receive  into  his  school  for 
education  the  child  of  any  Protestant  father,"  which  seems  to 
imply  that  a  private  school  such  as  Old  Hall  would  hence- 
forth be  legal.  The  next  clause  is  even  more  definite,  re- 
quiring that  the  head  master  or  mistress  of  every  such  school 
must  be  registered  at  the  quarter  sessions  by  the  Clerk  of  the 
Peace.  Notwithstanding  this,  however,  the  following  clause 
enacts  :  "  that  nothing  in  this  Act  contained  shall  make  it  lawful 
to  found,  endow  or  establish  any  religious  order  or  society  of 
persons  bound  by  monastic  or  religious  vows,  or  to  found,  en- 
dow or  establish  any  School,  Academy,  or  College  by  persons 
professing  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion ".  This  was  under- 
stood to  prevent  the  establishment  in  England  of  any  perman- 
ent college  or  school  similar  to  Douay  or  St.  Omer ;  and  until 
matters  were  precipitated  by  the  progress  of  the  Revolution, 


312  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

the  authorities  showed  no  inclination  to  move  the  colleges 
from  their  continental  homes. 

The  new  Act  renewed  all  former  laws  as  to  the  disposal  of 
money  for  what  was  considered  "  superstitious  purposes,"  so 
that  it  continued  to  be  fraught  with  grave  risk  to  leave  legacies 
for  any  Catholic  charities,  and  in  some  cases  these  were  posi- 
tively illegal.  Catholics  therefore  continued  for  long  after  this 
to  leave  such  moneys  to  personal  friends  whom  they  would 
privately  instruct  as  to  their  application. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  Act  the  various  penalties  and  re- 
strictions to  which  Catholics  had  hitherto  been  subject  are  recited 
and  repealed  in  favour  of  those  who  took  the  Oath  prescribed. 
Peers  were  once  more  allowed  to  come  into  the  presence  of 
the  King ;  but  the  law  forbidding  this  had  practically  fallen 
into  disuse  long  since.  Lord  Petre  had  entertained  the  King 
at  his  house  more  than  ten  years  before ;  Mr.  Weld  had  done 
the  same,  and  had  also  publicly  been  to  court  in  London.  The 
chapels  at  the  country  seats  of  the  peers  and  other  landed  gen- 
try had  long  been  tolerated,  and  even  the  penalty  for  sending 
their  children  "  across  the  seas"  to  be  educated  had  not  been 
enforced  in  recent  times.  Thus  the  passing  of  the  Relief  Act 
did  not  affect  them  very  personally.  The  levying  of  the 
double  land-tax  was  not  affected  ;  for  this  formed  part  of  the 
ordinary  Land  Tax  Act,  and  could  only  be  remitted  by  omit- 
ting the  clause  in  future. 

In  the  case  of  the  professional  classes,  the  advantages  gained 
were  very  real.  This  was  especially  the  case  with  those  in  the 
legal  profession,  who  were  henceforth  allowed  to  practise  as 
"  Counsellor-at-law,  Barrister,  Attorney,  Sollicitor,  Clerk  or 
Notary".  Hitherto  Catholic  lawyers  had  exclusively  practised 
as  conveyancers.  Charles  Butler,  in  his  account  of  his  own 
career,  alludes  to  this  fact.  He  was  trained  by  the  eminent 
Catholic  conveyancers  Mr.  Duane  and  Mr.  Maire,  and  after  the 
passing  of  the  new  Act,  he  was  the  first  Catholic  to  be  called 
to  the  Bar.  In  enumerating  other  Catholics  belonging  to  the 
legal  profession,  we  can  take  the  list  of  the  "Gentlemen  of  the 
Law,"  who  formed  a  sub-committee  aftenvards  in  the  Cisalpine 
Club  ;  besides  Mr.  Charles  Butler,  we  find  the  names  of  Messrs. 
Henry  Clifford,  William  Throckmorton  and  William  Cruise. 
We  mav  likewise  mention  Mr.  Francis  Plowden,  the  author  of 


i79i]  CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  313 

the  Jura  Anglorum,  whom  we  have  come  across  as  assisting 
the  bishops  during  the  later  stages  of  the  Relief  Act  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  He  afterwards  however  sided  with  the 
Cisal pines  against  his  two  brothers,  Fathers  Charles  and  Robert 
Plowden,  so  that  Dr.  Douglass  openly  regretted  having  em- 
ployed him. 

In  the  professional  classes  in  general,  however,  the  Catholics 
were  very  sparsely  represented.  Even  in  professions  to  which 
their  religion  was  not  an  absolute  obstacle,  it  was  always  so 
serious  a  drawback  to  success  that  few  of  them  were  inclined 
to  take  the  risk.  There  were  a  few  Catholic  doctors,  who  ob- 
tained their  medical  degrees  abroad  ;  but  their  number  was  al- 
ways exceedingly  small.  Those  whose  circumstances  required 
them  to  earn  money  preferred  to  take  to  trade,  where  their 
religion  would  be  less  in  evidence,  perhaps  not  even  known. 

If,  however,  Catholics  were  sparsely  represented  in  the 
professions,  in  the  sciences  and  literature  generally,  where  the 
Penal  Laws  had  no  more  than  an  indirect  effect,  they  more 
than  held  their  own.  We  have  often  heard  Challoner  and 
Alban  Butler  alluded  to  as  almost  the  only  scholars  of  note 
among  the  eighteenth  century  Catholics  ;  but  this  cannot  refer 
to  more  than  the  first  half  of  the  century.  During  the  last  two 
decades,  with  which  period  we  are  now  concerned,  there  were 
quite  a  number  of  Catholics  of  eminence  in  the  literary  or 
scientific  world,  whose  names  we  have  already  come  across 
individually.  Thus,  for  example,  we  have  in  general  literature 
Charles  Butler,  Rev.  John  Milner,  F.S.A.,  Rev.  Joseph  Bering- 
ton,  Rev.  Charles  Plowden,  Mr.  Francis  Plowden  and  others ; 
as  Mathematicians  and  Scientists,  Bishop  Walmesley,  F.R.S., 
Sir  Henry  Englefield,  F.R.S.,  F.S.A.,  etc.,  and  one  perhaps 
more  generally  known  than  either  of  these,  Rev.  John  Turber- 
ville  Needham,  F.R.S.,  who  died  at  Brussels  in  1787.  And 
we  may  perhaps  add  the  name  of  the  Biblical  critic.  Rev. 
Alexander  Geddes,  who  even  after  his  suspension  continued 
to  regard  himself  as  a  Catholic.  It  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  any  body  of  men  of  so  small  numbers  as  the  Catholics 
of  that  day  could  have  produced  a  list  of  writers  comparable  to 
this.  Yet  much  of  this  work  was  done  under  the  harassing 
effect  of  the  Penal  Laws,  before  the  passing  of  the  Act. 

For  the  lower  classes,  living  in  towns,  the  benefit  under 


314  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791 

the  Act  was  very  substantial,  not  only  because  it  enabled  them 
to  frequent  the  churches  publicly,  but  also  because  a  final  term 
was  put  to  prosecutions  against  them,  for  henceforth  the  only 
effect  of  instituting  such  proceedings  would  have  been  to  give 
them  the  trouble  of  taking  the  Oath,  which  would  immediately 
render  them  immune. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  in  conclusion  a  few 
things  which  the  Act  did  not  do,  in  consequence  of  which  it 
could  never  be  considered  as  an  Act  for  Emancipation.  It 
remained  unlawful  for  a  Catholic  peer  to  take  his  seat  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  or  for  a  commoner  to  sit  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  to  which  indeed  he  was  never  likely  to  be  elected, 
for  Catholics  were  not  even  allowed  to  vote  at  a  Parliamentary 
election.  No  Catholic  could  be  a  judge,  or  a  king's  counsel, 
nor  hold  any  office  of  trust  under  the  Crown.  Catholics  could 
not  hold  commissions  in  his  Majesty's  army  or  navy  ;  those  who 
wished  for  a  military  life  were  accustomed  to  seek  it  by  going 
abroad  and  joining  the  Austrian  army.  All  marriages  between 
Catholics  had  to  be  celebrated  in  a  Protestant  church.  This 
had  been  the  case  ever  since  the  Marriage  Act  of  1753,  which 
had  been  passed  without  any  references  to  Catholics,  with  a 
view  to  preventing  runaway  marriages.  In  order  to  conform 
to  it,  Catholics  would  first  go  through  the  ceremony  in  their 
own  chapel,  which  would  be  valid  according  to  their  consciences 
and  would  confer  the  sacrament ;  and  then  they  would  go  to 
the  Protestant  church  merely  as  a  civil  act,  to  render  their 
marriage  legal.  Milner  never  ceased  to  complain  of  the  nu- 
merous irregularities  to  which  this  gave  rise  ;  for  partly  through 
ignorance,  and  partly  through  timidity,  Catholics  often  went 
to  the  Protestant  church  first,  and  sometimes  even  omitted 
the  Catholic  marriage  altogether.  Indeed,  if  the  proper  order 
were  adhered  to,  the  priest  who  performed  the  ceremony 
incurred  some  risk,  being  legally  liable  to  severe  penalties, 
though  there  is  no  record  of  these  having  ever  been  enforced. 
The  practice  at  funerals  was  much  the  same,  the  Catholic 
service  being  usually  read  by  the  priest  at  the  house  of  the 
deceased.  A  special  clause  in  the  new  Act  forbade  a  priest 
to  officiate  in  any  cemetery,  and  the  Protestant  service 
would  be  read  there  by  a  clergyman  of  the  Established 
Church. 


1791]  CATHOLICS  FREE  FROM  THE  PENAL  LAWS.  315 

So  long  as  these  disabilities  remained,  the  Catholic  question 
could  not  be  considered  as  solved,  and  soon  afterwards  fresh 
agitation  arose.  But  for  the  moment  the  surviving  disabilities 
were  forgotten,  in  the  satisfaction  of  the  substantial  relief 
afforded  by  the  new  Act. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY. 
1791-1792. 

As  soon  as  the  Relief  Act  had  passed,  many  hoped  that  the 
contest  between  the  bishops  and  the  Committee  might  have 
been  laid  aside  and  buried  in  the  past.  Those  on  both  sides 
proclaimed  such  to  be  their  wish  ;  but  unfortunately  neither 
party  proved  willing  to  make  the  necessary  sacrifices  for  this 
end,  and  we  shall  have  to  pursue  the  dreary  story  of  mutual 
misunderstanding  and  recrimination  through  another  two  chap- 
ters before  we  can  record  even  a  temporary  peace. 

There  were  causes  of  dispute  still  outstanding  on  both  sides. 
On  the  side  of  the  Committee,  the  continued  suspension  of  Mr. 
Wilkes  was  regarded  as  a  grievance,  and  it  was  bound  up  with 
the  larger  question  of  the  status  of  mission  priests  in  England, 
and  the  possibility  of  the  re-establishment  of  normal  Church 
government,  with  bishops  in  ordinary,  and  parish  priests.  On 
the  part  of  the  bishops  the  scandal  caused  by  the  Committee's 
"  Protest  and  Appeal "  was  strongly  felt,  and  they  thought  it 
their  duty  either  officially  to  condemn  it,  or  at  least  to  notice 
it  in  some  way,  so  as  to  neutralise  its  effect. 

The  first  of  these  questions  came  to  the  fore  at  the  annual 
general  meeting  of  Catholics,  which  was  held  at  the  Crown  and 
Anchor,  in  the  Strand,  on  Thursday,  June  9.  The  vicars 
apostolic  were  only  invited  at  the  last  moment :  apparently 
it  had  been  intended  to  hold  the  meeting  without  them.  In 
the  end  however  wiser  counsels  prevailed,  and  four  days  be- 
fore the  date  fixed,  an  apologetic  invitation  was  sent  by  Mr. 
Butler  to  each  of  them.  Bishop  Douglass  attended,  and  Bishop 
Walmesley  deputed  Rev.  William  Coombes  to  act  as  his  re- 
presentative. Bishop  Berington,  who  came  primarily  as  a 
member  of  the  Committee,  may  be  considered  as  the  repre- 

316 


1791-92]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  317 

sentative  of  the  Midland  District ;  but  Dr.  Gibson  and  the 
Northern  District  were  unrepresented.  Nearly  two  hundred 
Catholics  were  present.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  meeting 
took  place  only  two  days  after  the  last  debate  in  the  Lords,  at 
a  time  when  those  on  both  sides  were  wound  up  to  a  high 
pitch  of  excitement,  we  cannot  be  altogether  surprised  that  it 
was  not  harmonious.  The  official  minutes  were  afterwards 
printed,  and  separate  accounts  are  still  extant  from  such  opposite 
sources  as  Rev.  Joseph  Berington  and  Charles  Butler  on  the 
side  of  the  Committee,  and  the  Rev.  William  Coombes  and  Dr. 
Douglass  on  that  of  the  bishops,  and  others  as  well,  so  that 
we  can  form  a  fairly  trustworthy  estimate  of  what  occurred ; 
while  in  the  chief  division,  which  Berington  calls  a  "  trial  of 
strength,"  a  poll  was  demanded,  and  the  names  can  be  com- 
pared of  those  who  voted  on  either  side. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  meeting,  Lord  Petre  was  voted 
into  the  chair,  and  he  at  once  moved  the  chief  resolution  on 
behalf  of  the  Committee  in  the  following  terms  : — 

"  That  as  the  Oath  contained  in  the  Bill  for  the  relief  of 
English  Catholics  is  not  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  Protesta- 
tion, the  English  Catholics  take  this  occasion  to  repeat  their 
adherence  to  the  Protestation,  as  an  explicit  declaration  of  their 
civil  and  social  principles,  and  direct  the  Committee  to  use 
their  endeavours  to  have  it  deposited  in  the  Museum,  or  some 
other  place  of  public  institution,  that  it  may  be  preserved  there 
as  a  lasting  memorial  of  their  political  and  moral  integrity." 

This  motion  let  loose  the  flood-gates  of  controversy,  and 
many  spoke  in  unmeasured  terms.  Dr.  Douglass  in  his  de- 
scription says :  "  It  is  hardly  to  be  conceived  what  heaps  of 
abuse  the  Committee  and  their  abettors  cast  upon  us  Bishops  ". 
Joseph  Berington  writes  that  "  some  plain  truths  were  spoken 
about  the  Bishops,"  which  probably  indicates  much  the  same. 
Eventually,  after  a  long  discussion,  a  division  was  taken,  and  the 
motion  was  carried  by  104  against  72, — a  majority  of  32.1 

1  Among  the  majority  appear  the  names  of  all  the  members  of  the  Committee 
who  were  present :  also,  Rew.  R.  Lacon,  Northern  Provincial  of  the  Bene- 
dictines, J.  Berington,  J.  Archer,  T.  Hussey,  P.  Browne,  T.  Rigby  and  John 
Bew  :  also,  Rev.  Charles  Bellasyse,  who  afterwards  became  Lord  Fauconberg, 
and  Alexander  Geddes,  who  still  considered  himself  as  a  Catholic.  The  laymen 
include — besides  the  members  of  the  Committee — one  peer  (Lord  Shrewsbury), 
three  baronets,  and  a  number  of  laymen  of  distinction,  including  Mr.  Thomas 
Clifford  of  Tixall,  Mr.  Henry  Clifford  the  lawyer,  Mr.  William  Throckmorton,  Mr. 


318  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791- 

This  result  was  often  afterwards  spoken  of  by  the  Commit- 
tee and  their  party  as  a  triumph  :  yet  it  showed  considerable 
falling  off  from  that  of  a  year  and  a  half  previously,  when  the 
voting  was  almost  unanimous  on  their  side.  Moreover,  this  time, 
although  every  one  knew  on  which  side  the  sympathy  of  the 
bishops  lay,  there  was  no  question  of  strict  principle  involved, 
and  we  find  among  the  majority  the  names  of  some  at  least 
who  would  not  have  wished  to  oppose  the  vicars  apostolic  on 
any  vital  question.  The  votes  of  the  clergy  present  showed 
an  absolute  majority  (30  against  21)  on  their  side.  The  name 
of  Dr.  Douglass  appears  simply  as  that  of  a  single  voter,  neither 
more  or  less  prominent  than  the  others. 

As  soon  as  the  voting  was  over,  the  meeting  proceeded 
to  the  next  motion,  which  consisted  of  a  formal  resolution  of 
thanks  to  Mr.  Mitford,  Mr.  Windham  and  Lord  Rawdon,  for 
their  work  in  Parliament  on  behalf  of  the  Catholics.  This 
concluded  the  ordinary  business,  and  Lord  Petre  vacated  the 
chair.  He  was  replaced  by  Mr.  Thomas  Clifford  of  Tixall,  in 
order  that  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  Committee  might  be  passed. 
This  was  proposed  by  Mr.  Charles  Dormer,  seconded  by  Mr. 
Henry  Errington,  in  the  following  terms : — 

"  That  the  thanks  of  this  meeting,  in  the  names  of  the 
Catholics  of  England,  be  given  to  the  Noblemen  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Catholic  Committee  for  their  attentive,  judicious  and 
unremitting  conduct  whereby  the  Bill  for  the  further  relief  of 
Roman  Catholics  has  been  brought  to  so  fortunate  an  issue." 

The  proposal  of  this  resolution  had  been  anticipated,  and 
Dr.  Douglass  had  called  a  kw  priests  to  his  house  the  previous 
evening  in  order  to  take  counsel  upon  it  Milner  tells  us  1  that 
at  his  own  suggestion  they  agreed  to  vote  for  the  resolution, 
provided  that  it  be  so  amended  as  to  include  also  thanks  to 
the  vicars  apostolic  for  their  vigilant  zeal  in  obtaining  an 
orthodox  oath.  When  the  time  came,  therefore,  the  Rev. 
James  Barnard  proposed  this  amendment,  and  Milner  himself 
seconded  it :  but  to  use  Milner's  words,  it  was  "  silenced  by 

Cruise,  Dr.  Maxwell,  and  of  course,  Charles  Butler.  In  the  minority  were 
Rev.  Arthur  O'Leary,  Rev.  W.  Coombes,  Rev.  J.  Barnard,  Rev.  J.  Lindow,  Rev. 
J.  Willacy,  the  head  of  the  Old  Hall  Green  School,  and  the  Rev.  J.  Milner.  Sir 
Henry  Tichborne  and  Mr.  Francis  Plovvden  should  also  be  mentioned;  but  most 
of  the  laymen  in  the  minority  were  not  members  of  the  ancient  families. 
1  Sup.  Mem.,  p.  87. 


i792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  319 

unrestrained  clamour  ".  He  adds  that  he  "  continued  to  remind 
the  chair  and  the  company  of  the  established  rule  of  delibera- 
tive assemblies,  which  requires  that  a  proposed  amendment  of 
a  motion  must  be  discussed  before  the  original  motion  itself. 
But  this  was  all  in  vain  :  certain  gentlemen  who  surrounded 
the  chair  insisted  upon  it  that  the  amendment  should  not  be 
put  to  the  votes,  and  it  was  not  put  to  them."  The  scene 
appears  to  have  been  very  stormy,  and  the  laymen  did  not 
hesitate  to  speak  against  the  "  Gentlemen  of  the  Mitre,"  as 
they  sometimes  called  them,  in  unmeasured  language.  Dr. 
Douglass  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Gibson  describes  it  as  follows  : —  l 

"  The  abuse  thrown  upon  us  at  the  meeting  last  Thursday 
cannot  be  repeated  in  a  letter.  It  was  thrown  out  in  violent 
declamations.  The  ground  the  declaimers  took  was  the  En- 
cyclical Letter  of  1789,  and  the  repetition  of  that  letter  by  us 
in  last  January ;  that  had  the  injunctions  of  those  letters  been 
adhered  to,  the  relief  now  gained  would  not  have  been  obtained 
either  in  this  Parliament  or  at  any  future  period  ;  that  those 
letters  were  dictated  by  tyranny ;  that  the  Bishops  had  ex- 
ceeded their  powers  ;  that  they  had  done  everything  in  their 
power  to  have  the  bill  thrown  out  of  Parliament ;  that  Mr. 
Walmesley  had  a  few  days  ago  written  to  the  Protestant 
Bishops,  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York  to  that 
purpose,  and  prayed  their  protection  against  a  turbulent  laity  ; 
that  he  had  before  suspended  Mr.  W[ilkes],  and  if  Mr.  W.  was 
guilty,  they  must  all  be  guilty,  and  two  Bishops  were  members 
of  the  Committee,  &c.  &c.  &c.  I  had  prepared  my  mind  to 
bear  it,  and  it  was  well  I  did  expect  it :  not  a  word  escaped 
me  by  way  of  retaliation." 

The  original  motion  was  then  declared  carried :  but  it 
would  seem  that  the  members  of  the  Committee  felt  that  they 
had  been  somewhat  high  handed,  for  immediately  afterwards 
a  vote  of  thanks  was  moved  to  Bishop  Douglass,  for  approving 
of  the  Oath,  and  for  his  exertions  in  the  Catholic  cause.  This 
was  proposed  by  Rev.  James  Archer,  seconded  by  Mr.  John 
Webb  Weston,  and  carried  unanimously.  The  fact  was  that 
the  bishops  whom  they  were  unwilling  to  thank  were  Dr.  Gibson 
and  still  more  Dr.  Walmesley,  who  had  suspended  Rev.  Joseph 

1  Durham  Archives. 


320  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791- 

Wilkes :  the  consideration  of  the  case  of  the  latter  occupied 
most  of  the  remainder  of  the  meeting. 

The  matter  was  introduced  by  Rev.  Joseph  Berington,  who 
requested  that  a  letter  drawn  out  by  the  Staffordshire  clergy 
might  be  read.  The  letter  had  in  fact  been  composed  by  him- 
self. The  first  part  consisted  of  an  elaborate  vote  of  thanks 
to  the  Committee.  The  last  part,  concerning  Rev.  Joseph 
Wilkes,  calls  for  our  consideration.      It  ran  as  follows : —  l 

"  There  is  one  event  which  has  given  us  real  pain,  and 
which  we  must  yet  mention.  Mr.  Wilkes,  we  understand, 
who  at  a  public  meeting  was  chosen  a  member  of  your  Com- 
mittee, and  whom  we  viewed  in  a  special  manner  as  the  dele- 
gate of  the  Clergy,  has  been  suspended  from  his  functions,  for 
the  discharge  of  those  duties,  to  which  a  public  vote  had 
named  him.  We  beg  leave  to  recommend  his  case  to  the 
general  meeting  now  assembled,  and  entreat  that  some  measure 
may  be  adopted  by  them,  the  nature  and  tendency  of  which 
their  own  prudence  and  sense  of  justice  will  best  suggest.  But 
should  that  measure  fail  of  success,  the  Clergy  of  Staffordshire 
pledge  themselves  to  make  his  cause  their  own,  and  doubt 
not  but  they  shall  receive  such  co-operation  from  all  the  clergy 
of  England  as  shall  ensure  success  to  their  endeavours  in  re- 
storing to  their  Delegate  the  good  will  of  his  Bishop  and  the 
exercise  of  his  ecclesiastical  functions." 

The  letter  was  dated  May  2,  1791,  and  was  signed  by 
fourteen  priests,  that  is,  all  those  included  in  the  original  list 
of  the  Staffordshire  clergy  except  Revv.  George  Maire  and  John 
Perry,  who  had  withdrawn  for  reasons  already  stated. 

Milner's  comment  on  the  presentation  of  this  letter  is,  that 
"  Never  was  there  an  ecclesiastical  proceeding  more  irregular 
and  disedifying  ".  This  judgment  seems  a  little  hard,  especially 
bearing  in  mind  that  among  their  number  were  several  priests 
well  known  for  their  piety  and  zeal  as  missioners.  Before 
accepting  so  unqualified  a  condemnation,  two  considerations 
at  least  should  be  borne  in  mind.  In  the  first  place,  Rev. 
Joseph  Wilkes  was  not  a  stranger  in  Staffordshire.  He  had 
been  on  the  mission  in  that  county  for  some  years,  and  had 
left  comparatively  recently.  He  was  therefore  well  known  to 
the  clergy  in  those  parts,  who  may  well  have  considered  him 

1  See  printed  Minutes,  copies  of  which  are  still  fairly  common. 


i792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  321 

as  almost  one  of  themselves.  If  they  thought  he  had  been 
hardly  used,  they  were  justified  in  espousing  his  cause,  and 
endeavouring  "  to  restore  him  to  the  good  will  of  his  Bishop," 
provided  that  they  did  so  by  lawful  means.  It  may  indeed  be 
urged  that  in  the  measures  actually  taken  they  overstepped 
limits  of  action  which  should  have  been  observed ;  but  that  is 
a  less  sweeping  accusation  to  make.  Even  this,  however,  can 
only  be  admitted  subject  to  some  qualification.  They  were 
unfortunate  in  having  as  their  spokesman  one  who  could  write 
with  asperity,  and  often  fell  into  unguarded  statements. 
Joseph  Berington  was  his  own  enemy,  for  his  mind  was  less 
bitter  than  his  writings,  and  when  he  had  overstepped  the 
limits  of  orthodoxy,  he  was  usually  ready  to  explain  what  he 
had  said,  or  even,  if  necessary,  to  retract.  The  tone  of  his 
writings  was  often  more  objectionable  than  the  substance,  and 
the  Staffordshire  clergy  suffered  for  his  imprudences,  of  which 
the  tone  of  the  above  letter  is  only  one  instance. 

The  other  consideration  to  bear  in  mind  is  the  fact,  al- 
ready pointed  out — that  the  group  of  the  Staffordshire  clergy 
did  not  come  together  for  the  first  time  over  the  Wilkes  case, 
but  more  than  a  year  earlier,  in  connection  with  the  bill  and 
Oath  as  originally  proposed.  The  motive  which  bound  them 
together  was  respect  and  attachment  to  their  bishop  and  his 
coadjutor,  whose  characters,  they  considered,  were  being  in- 
directly attacked.  This  fact  is  a  most  material  one.  We 
may  indeed  at  this  distance  of  time  venture  to  look  on  Bishop 
Talbot's  action  as  weak,  and  as  wanting  in  that  courage  and 
vigour  demanded  by  the  difficulties  of  the  times,  and  we  may 
form  an  unfavourable  estimate  of  Bishop  Berington.  But  all 
this  was  far  less  clear  at  the  time,  and  the  course  pursued 
by  the  other  side  was  quite  sufficient  to  justify  Bishop  Tal- 
bot's own  priests  in  thinking  he  was  ill-used.  And  after 
all,  loyalty  to  one's  bishop,  even  though  a  mistaken  loyalty, 
is  not  a  motive  which  can  be  justly  characterised  as  irregular 
and  disedifying. 

Returning  now  to  the  meeting,  after  the  reading  of  the 
Staffordshire  letter,  a  long  discussion  ensued,  in  the  course  of 
which  Rev.  William  Coombes  was  appealed  to,  as  the  represen- 
tative of  Bishop  Walmesley,  to  declare  the  fault  for  which  Mr. 
Wilkes  had  been  suspended.  He  answered  by  citing  Bishop 
vol.  1.  21 


322  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791- 

Walmesley's  own  words,  in  a  letter  to  him,  "  Because  Mr. 
Wilkes  has  rebelled  and  protested  against  the  divine  estab- 
lished government  of  the  Church  by  Bishops  and  their  au- 
thority ;  a  crime  not  less  than  schism  ". 

In  using  this  strong  language,  Bishop  Walmesley  must 
have  been  judging  of  Mr.  Wilkes's  state  of  mind  as  a  whole : 
he  could  hardly  have  meant  to  apply  this  judgment  to  the  one 
act  of  appealing  to  Rome  from  the  orders  of  the  two  vicars 
apostolic  on  February  8,  from  which  in  fact  his  suspension 
had  arisen.  Many  regretted  that  the  bishop  had  written  so 
strongly,  thinking  that  it  would  give  a  handle  to  those  on  the 
anti-episcopal  side.  Another  stormy  scene  followed,  which 
can  again  be  described  from  a  letter  of  Dr.  Douglass  : —  1 

"  Lord  Petre,"  he  writes,  "  moved  that  Mr.  Walmesley  and 
Mr.  Coombes  were  calumniators  of  Mr.  Wilkes.  I  immediately 
rose,  and  begged  his  Lordship  to  withdraw  the  motion.  People 
thickened  about  us.  I  entreated  Mr.  Fitzherbert,  Mr.  Clifford 
and  others  to  interpose.  After  a  while,  Lord  Petre  turned  to 
Sir  Henry  Englefield  and  others ;  then  returned  to  the  table 
and  gave  notice  that  he  withdrew  the  motion.  Mr.  Wilkes 
spoke  in  his  own  defence,  and  very  ably." 

After  this  the  Committee  became  the  more  anxious  not  to 
overstep  their  province,  and  they  decided  not  to  pass  any 
protest,  but  simply  to  send  a  petition  to  Bishop  Walmesley 
for  the  re-instatement  of  Mr.  Wilkes. 

The  meeting  concluded  by  voting  ^"1,000  to  Mr.  Charles 
Butler  as  a  recognition  of  his  services,  and  £100  to  Mr.  Hope, 
his  head  clerk ;  and  they  then  appealed  for  a  subscription 
to  meet  a  deficit  of  £1,560 — an  amount  which  speaks  elo- 
quently of  the  lavish  manner  in  which  they  had  spent  money 
in  connection  with  the  signing  of  the  Protestation,  and  other 
matters.  The  amount  was  all  but  made  up  in  the  room,  Lord 
Petre,  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury  and  Sir  Robert  Throckmorton 
each  subscribing  £100  and  eighteen  others  £50,  the  remainder 
being  composed  of  smaller  sums.  Dr.  Douglass's  name  is  put 
down  for  £20.  This  deficit,  however,  did  not  include  the 
extra  £1,100  voted  to  Mr.  Butler  and  his  clerk,  which  amount 
remained  to  be  made  good  after  the  meeting  was  over. 

In  accordance  with  the  resolution  passed  at  the  meeting 

1  Durham  Archives. 


i792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  323 

Mr.  Thomas  Clifford,  as  chairman,  wrote  to  Bishop  Walmesley 
in  the  following  terms  : — 

"  My  Lord, 

"  As  Chairman  of  the  General  Meeting  of  Catholics 
this  day  assembled,  agreeably  to  the  above  resolution,  I  write 
to  your  Lordship  humbly  in  the  name  of  that  meeting,  to  peti- 
tion that  the  Revd.  Joseph  Wilkes,  whom  your  Lordship  has 
suspended  from  the  exercise  of  his  missionary  faculties  and 
ecclesiastical  functions  in  the  city  of  Bath,  be  restored  to  the 
same,  and  this  act  of  attention  on  the  side  of  your  Lordship 
to  the  earnest  solicitation  of  the  General  Meeting,  will  be 
gratefully  acknowledged  by  them. 

"  I  am,  my  Lord, 

"  Your  Lordship's  most  respectful  and  obedient  servant, 

"  Thos.  Clifford." 

Other  petitions  to  the  like  effect  reached  Bishop  Walmesley. 
This  time  even  Dr.  Coombes  pleaded  for  lenient  treatment. 
The  Rev.  R.  Lacon,  the  Northern  Provincial  of  the  Bene- 
dictines, together  with  his  colleague,  Rev.  J.  B.  Brewer,  visited 
Dr.  Gibson,  and  induced  him  also  to  intercede.  Mr.  Wilkes 
himself  waited  on  Bishop  Douglass,  and  as  the  result  of  a  long 
morning's  conference,  he  signed  the  following  declaration : x 
"  That  it  never  entered  into  his  mind  or  heart  to  rebel  or  pro- 
test against  the  Divine  established  government  of  the  Church 
by  Bishops  and  their  authority,  but  on  the  contrary,  he  ever 
has  revered  the  Divine  established  government  of  the  Church 
by  Bishops,  and  if  he  has  ever  protested  against  any  act  of 
authority  by  Bishops,  it  was  because  he  conceived  such  par- 
ticular act  to  have  been  of  a  civil  and  not  of  a  spiritual  nature". 
Bishop  Douglass  forwarded  this,  with  an  urgent  petition  for 
mercy,  in  which  Revv.  James  Barnard  and  John  Lindow  joined. 
"  Now  that  we  have  gained  our  point,"  he  wrote,1  "  and  have 
an  Oath  which  (I  think)  is  orthodox,  peace  among  ourselves  is 
the  sole  object  which  is  wanting,  and  in  order  to  secure  this 
blessing  ...  I  do  entreat  that  Mr.  Wilkes's  suspension  may 
be  withdrawn.  Mr.  Barnard,  Mr.  Lindow  and  many  of  my 
best  clergy  join  with  me  in  this  entreaty,  for  the  sake  of  pre- 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv. 
21  * 


324  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791- 

serving  union  among  ourselves.  .  .  .  For  the  sake  of  peace, 
my  Lord,  I  am  willing  to  overlook  Mr.  Wilkes's  past  conduct, 
in  which  Bishop  Berington  is  no  less  guilty  (I  will  not  say 
anything  of  Bishop  Talbot).  I  am  told  the  venerable  Bishop 
Challoner  once  withdrew  a  suspension  for  the  same  reason, 
and  I  hope  your  Lordship  may  find  out  some  means  of  relaxing 
authority  because  of  the  times,  without  suffering  any  real  in- 
fringement of  jurisdiction  or  lowering  its  authority  in  the 
public  esteem." 

Bishop  Walmesley,  however,  was  inexorable.  He  answered 
Bishop  Douglass  on  June  18,  in  his  usual  blunt  style: — l 

"  Mr.  Wilkes's  declaration,  as  conveyed  to  me  in  your  letter, 
of  the  15th  inst,  is  not  satisfactory.  He  does  not  there  ac- 
knowledge his  fault,  but  rather  pleads  to  make  himself  excus- 
able for  his  shameful  protest,  and  sets  himself  up  as  a  judge 
over  his  Bishop,  by  presuming  to  hold  the  case  to  be  of  a  civil 
nature,  while  his  Bishop  held  it  to  be  a  spiritual  object,  and 
pronounced  upon  it  as  such." 

And  to  Mr.  Clifford  he  wrote  :— 

"  Sir, 

"In  answer  to  your  favour  of  the  10th,  I  shall  be 
tfery  willing  to  withdraw  the  censure  of  suspension  laid  on  Mr. 
Wilkes,  when  he  has  professed  to  me  that  submission  the  terms 
of  which  he  is  acquainted  with. 

"  I  am,  Sir,  Your  humble  servant, 

"  C.  W'ALMESLEY. 
"June  16,  1791.' 

Here  then  matters  rested  for  a  time.  Public  opinion, 
however,  began  to  be  on  the  side  of  Mr.  Wilkes.  The  regular 
clergy  in  particular  considered  that  their  rights  had  been  in- 
fringed, contending  that  a  bishop  had  no  power  to  suspend  a 
regular  without  first  communicating  with  his  monastic  superior, 
stating  the  nature  of  the  offence  charged  against  him,  and 
giving  him  the  opportunity  of  defending  himself.  Some  even 
said  that  the  bishop  had  no  right  to  suspend  Mr.  Wilkes  him- 
self; that  the  most  he  could  do  was  to  request  Rev.  John 
Warmoll,  the  Southern  Provincial,  to  suspend  him.  Many  of 
the  Benedictines  sided  with  their  confrere  against  Mr.  Warmoll, 

1  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv. 


1792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  325 

and  at  the  Chapter  held  at  Bruges  in  July — postponed  from 
the  previous  year — the  Rev.  G.  Walker,  the  President  General, 
found  the  feeling  so  strong  that  he  did  not  venture  to  bring  the 
matter  forward  for  discussion.  Dr.  Strickland  wrote  in  the 
same  sense  to  Bishop  Walmesley,  who  deputed  Rev.  Charles 
Plowden,  also  an  ex-Jesuit,  to  answer,  which  he  did  in  his  usual 
strong  language.  Dr.  Strickland  therefore  next  wrote  to  Rev. 
R.  Chapman,  the  Franciscan  Provincial,  begging  him  to  join 
in  taking  up  a  matter  in  which  he  considered  the  rights  of  all 
regulars  were  bound  up.  Had  Mr.  Chapman  agreed,  he  was 
willing  to  make  a  formal  appeal  to  Rome  against  Dr.  Wal- 
mesley's  action. 

Mr.  Wilkes  spent  the  summer  in  a  tour  in  North  Wales, 
in  company  with  Mr.  Thomas  Clifford.  On  his  return  in 
August,  negotiations  were  opened  up  with  Bishop  Talbot  to 
receive  him  into  his  district,  and  Mr.  Wilkes  was  advised  that 
the  sentence  of  suspension  could  only  affect  Dr.  Walmesley's 
own  district.  A  week  or  two  later,  however,  the  whole  diffi- 
culty unexpectedly  came  to  an  end,  by  the  difference  between 
Mr.  Wilkes  and  Bishop  Walmesley  being  adjusted,  under  the 
following  circumstances.  Several  Benedictines  being  together 
at  Bath  on  business  connected  with  the  administration  of  their 
funds,  advantage  was  taken  to  hold  a  conference  with  Mr. 
Wilkes,  who  came  from  London  for  the  purpose,  when  they 
induced  him  to  sign  the  following  declaration  : —  1 

"  The  intention  of  Mr.  Wilkes  and  of  the  other  members 
of  the  Catholic  Committee  in  making  their  Protestation  and 
Appeal  on  the  17th  of  February,  1791,  was  not  to  encroach  on 
any  spiritual  authority  of  the  Apostolic  Vicars ;  but  merely  to 
obtain  from  the  Apostolic  See  and  other  Catholic  Churches  a 
decision  whether  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  proposed  form 
of  Oath  were  consistent  with  the  Catholic  Faith,  and  whether 
in  requiring  the  Catholics  of  England  not  to  proceed  any  farther 
in  the  bill  then  pending  before  Parliament  without  their  previous 
approbation,  the  Apostolic  Vicars  did  not  exceed  the  limits  of 
their  authority.  If  in  wording  the  Protestation  any  words  were 
employed  of  an  unguarded  nature,  or  of  an  offensive  tendency, 
Mr.  Wilkes  sincerely  regrets  that  imprudence,  and  is  persuaded 

1  The  following  documents,  either  the  originals  or  copies  made  by  Dr. 
Walmesley,  are  in  the  Clifton  Archives,  vol.  iv. 


326  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791- 

that  every  Gentleman  of  the  Committee  would  join  with  him 
in  expressing  the  same  regret. 

"Present — John  Warmoll.        Thomas  Bennet. 

William  Cowley.      Michael  Pembridge." 

This  declaration  was  not  accepted  as  sufficient  by  Bishop 
Walmesley.  As,  however,  he  was  himself  equally  anxious  to 
have  the  business  settled,  he  took  the  opportunity  of  putting 
into  writing  the  conditions  required  by  him.  These  were  as 
follows : — 

"  I  require  that  Mr.  Wilkes  testify  to  me  sincere  repentance 
for  having  acted  contrary  to  my  ordinances,  and  in  particular 
I  require  also  that  he  retract  his  signature  put  to  the  last  Pro- 
test in  the  Second  Blue  Book  ;  and  let  Mr.  Wilkes  signify  this 
to  the  Committee.  I  require  moreover  that  he  promise  not  to 
approve  of  any  future  proceedings  contrary  to  the  Ordinances 
of  his  Vicar  Apostolic." 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  these  two  documents,  the  "  Protest 
and  Appeal,"  which  formed  the  conclusion  of  the  Committee's 
letter  to  the  vicars  apostolic  published  in  the  Second  Blue 
Book,  appears  for  the  first  time  in  place  of  the  Protest  at  the 
meeting  of  February  8.1  In  thus  changing  his  ground,  Bishop 
Walmesley  was  in  one  sense  well  advised,  for  the  language  used 
in  the  "  Protest  and  Appeal "  was  far  more  scandalous  than  in 
the  other  document.  Moreover,  the  requisition  of  the  vicars 
apostolic  on  February  8  was  expressed  in  somewhat  loose 
language  :  it  had  been  written  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  and 
many  considered  that  as  the  wording  stood  it  was  a  requisition 
to  desist  not  only  from  religious,  but  from  political  action. 
The  weak  point  was  that  the  "  Protest  and  Appeal "  had  not 
in  fact  been  the  cause  of  Mr.  Wilkes's  suspension,  and  he  was 
able  to  show  that  it  could  not  have  been  ;  for  it  was  not  de- 
livered to  Dr.  Douglass  until  the  evening  of  Thursday,  Febru- 
ary 17,  and  Dr.  Douglass  having  gone  out  of  town  on  the 
Friday,  had  not  written  to  Bishop  Walmesley  about  it  for 
several  days ;  while  the  letter  threatening  Mr.  Wilkes  with 
suspension  was  dated  February  19. 

At  first  Mr.  Wilkes  refused  to  accept  Dr.  Walmesley's  con- 

1  For  the  "  Protest  and  Appeal,"  see  p.  254.  The  Protest  of  February  8  is 
given  on  p.  250.    It  was  quoted  earlier  in  the  same  letter  in  the  Second  Blue  Book. 


i792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  327 

ditions,  considering  that  he  was  pledged  to  the  members  of  the 
Committee  not  to  dissociate  himself  from  their  action  ;  and 
Mr.  Warmoll  returned  to  Woollershill  under  the  belief  that  the 
negotiations  had  failed.  Two  days  later,  however,  Mr.  Wilkes 
drew  out  and  signed  a  declaration  which  though  not  entirely 
satisfactory,  proved  sufficient  for  Bishop  Walmesley  to  accept. 
The  original,  in  Mr.  Wilkes's  handwriting,  and  signed  by  him, 
is  among  the  Clifton  Archives.     It  runs  as  follows: — 

"Bath,  September  10,  1791. 

"  Mr.  Wilkes  will  renew  with  equal  pleasure  and  sincerity 
to  the  Right  Rev.  Mr.  Walmesley  the  promise  of  canonical 
obedience  which  he  made  to  the  Bishop  at  his  Ordination  ;  and 
if  in  his  late  public  conduct,  he  has  in  any  respect  deviated 
from  the  duties  of  that  obedience,  he  is  extremely  sorry  for  it. 
With  regard  to  the  Protest  delivered  on  the  17th  of  February 
last  by  the  Right  Rev.  Charles  Berington  and  the  Right  Hon- 
ourable Lord  Stourton  to  the  Bishop  of  Centuria  in  the  name 
of  the  Catholic  Committee,  Mr.  Wilkes  never  considered  it  in 
any  other  light  than  as  a  solemn  appeal  to  the  highest  au- 
thority in  the  Church,  and  now  willingly  withdraws  that  Pro- 
test and  gives  up  the  Appeal.  In  his  future  conduct,  Mr. 
Wilkes  will  study  to  conform  on  every  occasion  to  those  duties 
which  canonical  obedience  prescribes  to  priests  relatively  to 
their  Bishops. 

"  Joseph  Wilkes. 


"  Witness 


f  Michael  Pembridge. 
(Willi am  Cowley." 


In  accepting  this  declaration,  Bishop  Walmesley  withdrew 
Mr.  Wilkes's  suspension ;  but  after  what  had  occurred,  he 
thought  it  would  be  wiser  if  he  could  be  removed  from  Bath. 
Accordingly,  he  wrote  the  same  day  to  that  effect  to  his  Pro- 
vincial. Mr.  Warmoll  in  this  case,  however,  demurred,  partly 
on  account  of  the  scandal  which  such  a  course  would  produce, 
and  partly  because  there  was  no  one  just  then  free  to  replace 
him  permanently  at  Bath.  And  immediately  afterwards  further 
complications  arose. 

The  Committee  party  were  far  from  pleased  at  what  was 
currently  spoken  of  as  Mr.  Wilkes's  retractation.     Mr.  Butler  at 


328  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791- 

first  refused  to  believe  that  the  rumour  was  true.  A  meeting 
took  place  at  Mr.  Throckmorton's  house  at  Weston  Under- 
wood, which  Mr.  Wilkes  attended,  the  others  being  Bishop 
Berington,  Rev.  Anthony  Clough,  Rev.  Joseph  Berington,  Lord 
Petre  and  Mr.  Fermor.  They  all  subsequently  went  to  London. 
As  a  result  of  their  deliberations,  Mr.  Wilkes  issued  a  printed 
manifesto,  giving  his  own  version  of  his  conduct.  It  took  the 
form  of  a  letter  to  Mr.  Thomas  Clifford,  as  chairman  of  the 
late  meeting,  and  was  dated  Weston,  September  28,  1 791 . 
As  this  letter  led  to  the  re-opening  of  the  whole  question  we 
shall  have  to  consider  at  least  the  last  part  of  it  in  detail.  After 
giving  an  account  of  the  proceedings  up  to  the  time  when 
Bishop  Walmesley  sent  him  a  list  of  his  conditions  for  taking 
off  the  censure,  Mr.  Wilkes  proceeds  : — 

"  To  all  and  every  one  of  these  conditions  I  had  in- 
superable objections,  and  in  particular  I  could  not  express 
repentance  for  only  having  discharged  what  I  seriously  thought 
the  duties  of  our  trust  required.  The  negotiation  was  of  course 
broke  off.  I  then  declared  my  intention  of  having  this  business 
carried  in  proper  form  before  the  highest  tribunal  of  the  Church, 
and  my  undeniable  right  of  carrying  it  before  that  tribunal  the 
Right  Rev.  Mr.  Walmesley  did  not  contest,  but  informed  me 
that  he  should  put  in  his  answer. 

"  On  the  following  day,  the  Right  Rev.  Mr.  Walmesley 
commissioned  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pembridge  ...  to  inquire  whether 
I  would  testify  my  repentance  if  I  had  been  guilty  of  acting 
contrary  to  HIS  ORDINANCES ;  and  whether  without  signi- 
fying to  the  Committee  that  I  had  withdrawn  my  signature 
from  the  Protest  in  the  Second  Blue  Book,  I  would  declare 
that  I  renounced  the  Protest.  Conceiving  my  duty  of  canonical 
obedience  to  arise  from  the  promise  which  I  made  at  my 
Ordination,  I  expressed  myself  willing  to  repeat  that  promise, 
and  testify  my  sorrow  if  in  my  late  conduct  I  had  deviated 
from  the  rules  of  THAT  obedience.  As  to  renouncing  the 
protest,  I  could  not  justify  myself  to  the  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  if  I  made  use  of  such  a  term  ;  because  it  would 
certainly  be  construed  to  imply  a  renunciation  of  the  principle 
of  protesting  against  and  appealing  from  measures  and  deci- 
sions, which  are  conscientiously  believed  erroneous  and  aggriev- 
ing ;  but  as  a  new  turn  in  the  Catholic  business  had  removed 


1792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  329 

every  subject  of  litigation  between  the  Catholic  Committee 
and  the  Apostolical  Vicars,  except  as  far  as  I  was  personally 
affected,  I  would  willingly  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  a  re- 
conciliation withdraw  the  protest,  and  give  up  the  appeal." 
Bishop  Walmesley  regarded  this  statement  as  an  endeavour 
to  explain  away  Mr.  Wilkes's  submission,  and  he  felt  bound 
therefore  to  take  notice  of  it.  This  time,  he  did  not  suspend 
him  from  saying  Mass,  but  withdrew  his  faculties,  which  of 
course  involved  his  ceasing  to  have  charge  of  the  Bath  mission. 
He  wrote  to  him  as  follows : — 

"  Rev.  Mr.  Joseph  Wilkes, 

"  As  in  your  printed  letter  of  the  28th  of  September 
last  to  Thomas  Clifford  Esq.  you  maintain  principles  of  which 
I  disapprove,  therefore  I  declare  your  missionary  faculties  to 
cease  with  the  twelfth  day  of  this  next  November,  in  my 
District. 

"  Charles  Walmesley,  Vicar  Apostolic. 

"  Bath,  October  29,  1791." 

Dr.  Walmesley  was  now  convinced  that  so  long  as  Mr. 
Wilkes  remained  in  England,  it  would  be  impossible  to  restore 
peace  to  the  Catholic  body.  He  therefore  took  the  strong 
course  of  writing  to  Rev.  G.  Walker,  the  President  General, 
requesting  him  to  recall  Mr.  Wilkes  to  his  monastery  at  Paris. 
After  some  demur,  Mr.  Walker  acceded  to  the  request,  sending 
his  order  through  the  Rev.  John  Warmoll.  Even  Mr.  Warmoll, 
however,  felt  that  this  was  putting  Mr.  Wilkes's  obedience  to 
a  severe  test.  The  news  of  his  second  suspension  had  revived 
all  the  excitement  of  which  he  was  the  centre,  and  his  abrupt 
departure  from  the  country  would  certainly  have  conveyed 
the  idea  that  he  was  being  punished  severely  for  a  serious 
canonical  fault,  whereas  the  only  offence  specified  was  hold- 
ing opinions  of  which  Dr.  Walmesley  disapproved.  The  Bath 
congregation  once  more  sent  a  petition  in  his  favour,  dated 
November  12,  in  which  they  dwelt  especially  on  the  publicity 
of  the  punishment,  for  an  offence  that  was  hardly  even  specified. 
Dr.  Walmesley  indeed  argued  that  on  this  occasion  no  censure 
was  inflicted  ;  that  Mr.  Wilkes  had  no  right  to  faculties  in 
his  district,  and  the  bishop  was  at  liberty  to  refuse  them  to 


33°  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791- 

any  priest  without  assigning  a  reason.  This  view  of  the  case, 
however,  did  not  commend  itself  to  Mr.  Wilkes  or  his  sup- 
porters, who  maintained  that  the  sudden  withdrawal  of  faculties 
of  which  he  had  till  lately  been  possessed  was  in  110  way 
parallel  to  a  case  in  which  faculties  were  refused  in  the  first 
instance,  and  that  what  had  occurred  must  necessarily  cast  a 
slur  on  his  character.  And  indeed  the  other  bishops  in 
practice  took  this  view,  for  when  by  Mr.  Warmoll's  advice, 
Mr.  Wilkes  applied  through  the  Northern  Provincial  to  be  al- 
lowed to  go  on  the  mission  in  that  district,  Dr.  Gibson  replied 
that  he  could  not  be  admitted  until  he  had  been  "  reconciled  " 
with  Dr.  Walmesley. 

In  order  to  arrive  at  a  settlement,  Mr.  Wilkes  suggested 
that  a  commission  should  be  appointed,  consisting  of  two 
secular  priests  from  each  District  and  two  Benedictines,  to 
report  to  the  Vicars  Apostolic,  whose  decision  should  be  final. 
This,  Dr.  Walmesley  considered,  was  unduly  magnifying  the 
importance  of  the  case,  and  he  refused  to  agree.  Dr.  Douglass 
on  being  appealed  to  suggested  that  the  Rev.  T.  Talbot,  the 
ex-Jesuit,  might  act  as  mediator :  but  this  also  came  to 
nothing,  and  the  suspension  on  Mr.  Wilkes  took  its  course.1 

Before  finally  leaving  Bath,  Mr.  Wilkes  wrote  a  long  letter 
to  Bishop  Walmesley,  dated  November  20,  in  which  he  ex- 
plained the  view  which  he  held  of  his  position,  and  quoting 
the  directions  given  by  canonists  for  cases  of  urgency,  he  ex- 
pressed his  intention  of  making  a  formal  "  reclamation  "  before 
witnesses.  In  due  course,  the  following  day  he  presented 
himself  at  Dr.  Walmesley's  house,  with  his  "  reclamation  "  a 
written  on  parchment,  accompanied  by  six  of  the  leading 
laymen  of  his  mission — Messrs.  Henry  Dillon,  Philip  Howard, 
Henry  Fermor,  David  Nagle,  Pierce  Walsh  and  Thomas 
Canning.  In  their  presence,  standing  before  the  bishop,  he 
solemnly  read  the  document,  then  handed  it  to  Dr.  Walmesley 
and  retired.  The  laymen  themselves  then  produced  a  written 
protest,  signed  and  sealed  with  all  formality,  and  declared 
their  intention  of  withholding  their  usual  subscriptions  to  the 
Bath  Mission  for  the  future,  and  paying  the  amount  to  Mr. 
Wilkes  instead.     Bishop  Walmesley  replied  by  excommunicat- 

X-These  facts  are  taken  from  letters  in  the  Downside  Archives. 
2  See  Appendix  G. 


1792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  331 

ing  them,  and  a  further  dispute  arose,  for  the  laymen  appealed 
to  Rome,  and  nearly  two  years  passed  before  a  decision  was 
given,  this  time  unfavourable  to  Bishop  Walmesley. 

Mr.  Wilkes  left  Bath  the  same  day,  and  never  returned. 
He  retired  first  to  his  home  at  Coughton,  in  Warwickshire, 
while  Rev.  R.  Lacon  continued  his  endeavours  to  procure  his 
admission  into  the  Northern  District,  undertaking  to  hold 
himself  responsible  to  the  President  General  for  his  remaining 
in  England  until  the  results  of  these  endeavours  were  known. 
Eventually  Mr.  Lacon  failed  to  achieve  his  object,  and  on 
Monday,  January  10,  1792,  Mr.  Walker  wrote  a  second  letter 
requiring  Mr.  Wilkes  to  return  to  his  monastery  within  thirty 
days  ;  but  this  requisition  also  remained  unheeded. 

It  was  now  the  turn  of  the  Staffordshire  clergy  to  take 
the  matter  up  once  more,  and  they  issued  a  printed  Address 
to  the  Catholic  Clergy  of  England,  dated  January  26,  1792. 
In  this  they  explain  that  their  original  remonstrance,  to  which 
we  have  already  alluded,  was  still  circulating  for  signature 
when  they  learnt  that  a  reconciliation  had  taken  place  between 
Mr.  Wilkes  and  his  bishop ;  but  as  a  further  quarrel  had  since 
arisen,  they  once  more  returned  to  the  question.  They  con- 
tend that  the  suspension  of  Mr.  Wilkes  is  null  for  three 
reasons:  (1)  there  had  been  no  proper  citation;  (2)  no  suffi- 
cient cause  for  suspension  had  been  given ;  (3)  no  "  grievous 
crime"  had  been  committed. 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  Address  was  not  signed  by  Rev. 
Anthony  Clough,  the  Midland  Vicar  General.  He  was  no 
longer  residing  in  Staffordshire,  having  left  Chillington  in 
consequence  of  a  disagreement  with  Mr.  Giffard,  who  had 
recently  married  a  Protestant,  and  gone  to  Heythrop,  a  small 
country  mission  in  Oxfordshire,  under  the  patronage  of  the 
Earl  of  Shrewsbury.  He  consented  to  sign  the  Appeal  to 
the  Catholics  of  England  of  which  we  shall  be  speaking 
presently,  which  was  issued  almost  at  the  same  time,  con- 
sidering that  it  was  necessary  in  their  own  defence,  but  he 
doubted  of  the  prudence  of  the  "  Address,"  and  wished  ap- 
parently gradually  to  sever  his  connection  with  the  Stafford- 
shire clergy. 

The  Address  brought  forth  two  answers.  One  was  Milner's 
Audi  alteram  partem, — a  short  composition   on   a   fly-sheet. 


332  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791- 

dated  May  1,  1792  ;  the  other  was  a  pamphlet  signed  by  most 
of  the  clergy  in  the  Western  District,  who  wished  to  show  their 
love  and  respect  for  their  venerable  bishop.  The  author  was 
the  Rev.  Charles  Plowden.  He  begins  by  questioning  the  right 
of  the  Staffordshire  clergy  to  consider  themselves  as  a  corpor- 
ate body  at  all,  as  they  had  no  canonical  existence  as  such, 
and  declares  that  the  pamphlet  is  addressed  to  the  priests  as 
individuals.  He  then  goes  on  to  a  close  argument  of  the  case 
on  the  principles  of  Canon  Law,  and  at  the  end  is  printed  a 
letter  from  Cardinal  Antonelli  approving  of  Bishop  Walmesley's 
conduct  up  to  October  18,  1 791 ,  the  date  of  the  last  informa- 
tion he  had  at  that  time  received. 

Here  we  may  leave  the  question  of  the  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes 
for  the  present.  His  refusal  to  obey  the  order  of  his  canonical 
superior  who  called  him  back  to  his  monastery  introduced  a 
new  element  into  the  case,  and  put  him  in  a  much  worse  posi- 
tion. A  few  months  later,  however,  he  found  an  opportunity 
of  taking  a  prolonged  holiday.  Sir  Robert  Throckmorton  died 
on  December  8,  and  his  grandson,  who  became  Sir  John 
Throckmorton,  removed  from  Weston  Underwood  to  Buck- 
land.  Soon  afterwards  he  planned  out  a  tour  on  the  Conti- 
nent, to  Italy  and  Rome,  and  invited  Mr.  Wilkes  to  accompany 
him — an  invitation  which  the  latter  readily  accepted.  They 
did  not  actually  start  for  some  months,  and  we  shall  find  that 
they  were  both  still  in  London  during  the  progress  of  the 
negotiations  of  the  "  mediators,"  to  be  described  in  the  next 
chapter.  The  following  winter  was  spent  by  Sir  John 
Throckmorton  in  Rome,  and  Mr.  Wilkes  was  with  him  at  least 
part  of  the  time. 

Although  Mr.  Wilkes  had  now  left  Bath,  his  case  was  by 
no  means  forgotten.  It  was  considered  by  many  as  an  object- 
lesson,  showing  the  need  of  reformation  in  the  method  of 
Church  government,  and  was  used  as  an  argument  in  favour 
of  the  establishment  of  ordinary  Canon  Law  in  England,  with 
a  regular  hierarchy  of  bishops,  and  parish  priests,  who  should 
have  all  their  canonical  rights  and  privileges. 

It  now  remains  to  say  a  few  words  about  the  other  cause 
of  dispute  between  the  bishops  and  the  Committee,  for  which 
purpose  we  must  retrace  our  steps  again  for  a  few  months. 
From  the  time  that  the  "  Protest  and  Appeal "  had  appeared 


1792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  ^33 

in  the  Second  Blue  Book,  the  vicars  apostolic  had  always  felt 
that  some  answer  should  be  made  to  it,  to  prevent  the  scandal 
which  must  ensue  if  it  was  allowed  to  pass  without  notice. 
They  therefore  commissioned  the  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  to 
write  an  answer.  This  was  a  most  unfortunate  choice.  Mr. 
Plowden  was  of  course  loyal  enough,  and  wrote  with  the  best 
intention  ;  but  his  unrestrained  violence  of  language  was  un- 
seemly in  one  who  wrote  as  the  deputy  of  the  bishops,  and 
caused  a  degree  of  ill-feeling  which  took  long  to  die  down. 
Even  Milner  considered  his  language  needlessly  offensive. 
Mr.  Plowden's  object  was  to  discredit  the  Committee  in  every 
way  he  could,  and  any  language  which  in  his  opinion  would 
serve  that  end  was  pressed  into  use.  No  matter  what  his 
strictures  concerned,  his  condemnations  were  always  equally 
unqualified.  Even  the  grammar  and  composition  of  the  docu- 
ments connected  with  the  Committee  came  in  for  his  condem- 
nation. Speaking  of  the  bill  originally  drafted  by  Mr.  Butler, 
he  says1  that  "it  would  have  disgraced  a  junior  clerk  in  a 
solicitor's  office  ".  "  The  choice  of  the  matter  in  the  Protesta- 
tion which  preceded  it "  (he  adds)  "  would  dishonour  the 
youngest  student  in  theology,  and  the  arrangement,  the  diction 
and  the  grammar  of  the  whole  instrument  would  discredit  an 
usher  in  a  village  school." 

With  respect  to  the  style  of  writing  used  throughout  the 
pamphlet,  it  would  be  tedious  to  do  more  than  quote  a  few 
typical  passages.  He  calls  the  members  of  the  Committee 
"  contrivers  of  mischief  [who]  began  by  deceit,  .  .  .  and  would 
first  have  deceived  the  body  of  English  Catholics,  then  in- 
sulted them,  for  being  overreached,  and  to  rivet  them  down 
in  error,  would  have  displayed  all  the  terrors  of  outrageous 
persecution  ".2  He  alludes  to  their  letter  as  "  a  masterpiece  of 
dissimulation,  duplicity  and  falsehood  ".3  Speaking  of  a  clause 
in  the  original  bill  empowering  magistrates  to  tender  the  Oath 
to  any  one  who  attended  a  Catholic  chapel,  he  writes  as 
follows : — 4 

"  The  Committee  in  the  excess  of  their  extravagance  had 
even  the  hardiness  to  hope  that  the  present  bench  of  Bishops 
would  concur  by  their  votes  to  drag  Catholic  priests  and  lay- 
men from  the  foot  of  their  altars  to  the  receptacles  of  murderers 

'P.  10,  note.  2P.  65.  3  P.  118.  4P.  127. 


334  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791- 

and  robbers.  The  detestable  penal  clause  far  exceeds  the  bit- 
terness of  laical  malevolence ;  it  could  only  be  conceived  or 
ripened  in  the  breast  of  corrupted  priests.  Indeed  we  do  not 
impute  the  invention  of  it  to  the  lay  gentlemen  of  the 
Committee ;  their  guilt  in  admitting  and  defending  it  is  suf- 
ficiently enormous,  but  still  it  leaves  room  for  compassion. 
We  can  pity  sinners,  but  we  have  not  language  strong  enough 
for  the  demon  who  seduces  them.  O,  let  them  sink  into 
darkness,  let  them  hide  their  heads  confounded  and  abashed." 

Speaking  again  of  the  clergy  who  had,  in  his  opinion,  misled 
the  Committee,  he  says  : —  1 

"  We  have  the  sorrow  to  behold  even  the  sons  of  the 
sanctuary  rising  against  the  High  Priest ;  we  see  them  siding 
into  parties,  in  order  to  wrest  from  their  Prelates  that  Pastoral 
Staff,  the  control  of  which  is   so  loathed  by  their  seducers." 

These  passages  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  The 
Staffordshire  clergy,  perhaps  not  unnaturally,  supposed  that 
in  many  of  them  allusion  was  intended  to  themselves.  It 
appears  that  they  were  mistaken,  and  that  Mr.  Plowden  had 
chiefly  in  mind  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes,  and  in  a  lesser  degree, 
Bishop  Berington.  There  was  nothing,  however,  to  show  this, 
at  least  in  many  of  the  passages,  and  it  was  natural  that  the 
Staffordshire  clergy  should  think  that  they  had  a  right  to  some 
reparation.  They  therefore  wrote  a  collective  letter  to  Mr. 
Plowden  on  September  28,  demanding  satisfaction,  and  sent  a 
copy  to  Bishop  Walmesley,  as  his  ecclesiastical  superior.  As 
Mr.  Plowden  took  no  notice  of  their  letter,  they  wrote  a  second 
time,  on  November  2,  demanding  an  answer  within  fifteen  days. 
That  period  having  elapsed,  they  drew  up  and  sent  to  Bishop 
Walmesley  a  solemn  denunciation  of  the  Rev.  Charles  Plowden, 
"  as  a  calumniator,  charging  him  with  having  published  against 
us  accusations  defamatory  and  false,"  and  demanding  that  he 
should  be  cited  before  his  bishop  in  the  manner  prescribed  by 
Canon  Law.  Bishop  Walmesley  did  not  answer  this  directly, 
but  wrote  to  Bishop  Talbot  informing  him  of  the  letter  he  had 
received,  adding,  "  Do  me  the  favour  to  inform  them  that  I 
don't  admit  any  such  appeal,  nor  will  I  have  anything  to  do 
with  such  business  ". 

Having  failed  to  secure  satisfaction  from  the  bishop,  the 

*P.  151. 


1792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  335 

Staffordshire  clergy  issued  their  famous  "  Appeal  to  the  Catho- 
lics of  England,"  in  which  they  put  forward  a  list  of  defamatory 
passages  from  Mr.  Plowden's  pamphlet,  with  their  answers  to 
each ;  and  in  an  appendix  they  printed  a  long  statement  in 
Charles  Butler's  name,  in  the  form  of  answers  given  by  him  to 
their  questions,  to  the  effect  that  the  Committee  had  received 
no  assistance  of  any  kind  from  the  Staffordshire  clergy  in 
drawing  out  the  various  documents  in  the  Blue  Books. 

The  Appeal  was  of  course  the  composition  of  Joseph  Ber- 
ington,  and  like  most  of  his  works  was  much  canvassed  for  its 
alleged  theological  inaccuracy.  In  particular,  one  passage  in 
the  Appeal  gained  for  itself  notoriety,  and  was  commonly 
spoken  of  as  the  "  Staffordshire  Creed ".  The  passage  in 
question  forms  part  of  a  protest  against  the  accusation  of  un- 
orthodoxy.      It  runs  as  follows  : — 

"  We  know  as  others  do  what  our  faith  is,  and  in  that 
knowledge  we  have  learnt  to  distinguish  what  is  human  from 
what  is  Divine.  We  believe  our  Church  to  be  an  infallible 
guide  in  all  that  appertains  to  salvation.  Of  this  Church  we 
believe  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  be  the  head,  supreme  in 
spirituals  by  Divine  appointment,  supreme  in  discipline  by  ec- 
clesiastical institution  ;  but  in  the  concerns  of  state  or  civil  life 
we  believe  him  to  be  no  governor,  no  master,  no  guide.  We 
believe  that  the  jurisdiction  of  Bishops  is  of  Divine  origin  ;  bu 
that  that  jurisdiction  is  distinctly  denned,  that  its  limits  are  all 
known,  that  is,  that  its  exercise  must  be  circumscribed  within 
the  sphere,  and  be  conformable  to  the  rules  of  established  order. 
We  believe  that  the  priesthood  is  from  Christ,  the  rights  of 
which  are  as  sacred  as  those  of  the  pontifical  and  of  the  episcopal 
order,  and  that  the  forms  of  ancient  practice  which  must  ever 
be  revered,  have  sanctioned  the  exercises  of  those  rights  and 
marked  their  limits." 

The  part  of  the  above  chiefly  traversed  was  that  in  which 
it  is  stated  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  supreme  in  discipline 
"  by  ecclesiastical  institution  ".  Berington  admitted  that  this 
passage  was  "  loosely  worded,"  though  he  contended  that  it  was 
capable  of  an  orthodox  interpretation.  We  shall  return  to  this 
point  in  a  later  chapter. 

The  next  development  of  the  situation  was  that  the  Com- 
mittee determined  to  take  action  as  to  Mr.  Plowden's  pamphlet. 


336  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  1791- 

At  their  meeting  in  February,  1792,  they  drafted  a  letter  to 
each  of  the  four  vicars  apostolic,  in  which  they  complained 
of  Mr.  Plowden's  language,  and  begged  to  know  whether  the 
bishops  confirmed  his  statement,  that  he  was  their  spokesman.1 
The  letter  concluded  with  the  following  vehement  appeal : — 

"  My  Lord, 

"  We  apply  in  the  most  solemn  manner  to  you.  We 
are  charged  with  crimes  of  a  very  serious  nature ;  you  owe  it 
to  us  as  Christians  either  to  undeceive  the  public  with  regard 
to  the  opinion  they  must  conceive  your  Lordship  forms  of  us, 
and  leave  to  Mr.  Plowden  the  shame  of  having  thus  abused 
your  Lordship's  respectable  authority,  or  candidly  to  say  that 
such  are  your  sentiments  in  our  regard.  We  shall  then  en- 
deavour to  vindicate  ourselves  from  the  accusations  brought 
by  your  Lordship  against  our  moral  as  well  as  civil  character. 

"  We  are,  my  Lord, 

"  Your  most  obedient  humble  servants, 

"  Petre.  John  Throckmorton. 

"  Henry  C.  Englefield.    Thomas  Hornyold. 

"  Lincoln's  Inn,  2nd  February,  1792." 

To  this  letter  the  three  bishops  who  were  acting  together 
returned  the  following  unceremonious  reply : — 

"  My  Lord  and  Gentlemen, 

"  In  answer  to  your  favour  of  the  2nd  instant,  we  beg 
leave  to  say : 

"  That  we  do  not  conceive  ourselves  under  any  obligation 
to  give  any  declaration  whatever  concerning  Mr.  Charles 
Plowden's  pamphlet. 

"  Charles  Walmesley,  V.A. 
"  William  Gibson,  V.A. 
"  John  Douglass,  V.A. 

"  London,  February  1,  1792." 

It  is  due  to    Bishop    Douglass  to  add  that,  although  he 

1  The  correspondence  on  this  matter  was  printed  in  the  Third  Blue  Book. 


i792]  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  337 

signed  the  above  letter,  he  did  so  unwillingly :  had  he  been 
left  to  his  own  judgment,  he  would  have  written  less  curtly. 

Bishop  Thomas  Talbot's  answer  to  the  Committee  was,  as 
would  be  expected,  in  complete  contrast  with  the  above.  It 
ran  as  [follows  : —  x 

"  Longbirch,  Feb.  6,  1792. 

"  Dear  Sir, 

"  My  most  sincere  and  hearty  wish  and  desire  has 
constantly  been  to  promote  and  preserve  concord  and  harmony, 
peace  and  charity  among  ourselves ;  and  I  think  I  can  truly 
say  with  the  Apostle,  1  Cor.  xi.  16,  'If  any  man  seem  to  be 
contentious,  we  have  no  such  custom,  nor  the  church  of  God '. 
You  may  therefore  assure  the  very  respectable  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee  that  I  never  employed,  commissioned  or  de- 
sired Mr.  Plowden  or  any  one  else,  to  utter  or  express  any- 
thing derogatory  to  them,  or  any  of  their  connections,  either 
individually  or  collectively.  Could  any  conciliating  measure 
be  devised,  an  end  be  put  to  all  feuds,  contentions  and  animos- 
ities, and  everything  contrary  to  peace,  charity  and  brotherly 
love  be  buried  in  entire  oblivion,  I  should  very  much  rejoice, 
and  would  most  willingly  concur  in  any  scheme  that  could 
effectuate  this  most  desirable  end,  and  that  could  make  us 
with  one  mind  and  with  one  mouth  glorify  God  and  the 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

"  Why  should  the  small  body  of  Catholics  now  in  England, 
who  by  your  endeavours  and  the  liberality  and  indulgence  of 
an  enlightened  and  beneficent  legislature  have  obtained  a  more 
free  exercise  of  their  religion,  why  should  they  become  more 
disunited  than  ever  and  more  addicted  to  quarrels  and  disputes  ? 
As  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  of  peace,  I  have  a  right  to  put 
these  questions,  and  to  use  my  utmost  endeavours  to  bring 
about  peace  and  reconciliation  with  all  discordant  members 
of  our  holy  Faith  and  Communion.  I  firmly  believe  that 
all  that  are  at  variance  most  sincerely  wish  to  be  united  again 
in  the  bands  of  friendship,  cordiality  and  brotherly  love. 
Shall  then  some  punctilios,  or  some  overweaning  attachment 
to  an  over-hasty  resolution  or  step,  obstruct  a  measure  which 
would  be  attended  with  the  most  happy  consequences  ?    Though 

1  Third  Blue  Book,  p.  21. 
VOL.    I.  2  2 


338  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1791-92 

this  letter  is  not  much  to  the  purport  of  your  letter,  and  I 
much  fear  not  to  any  purpose  at  all,  yet  being  so  full  of  what 
I  so  much  wish,  I  could  not  refrain  from  committing  my  hasty 
thoughts  to  writing. 

"  With  respectful  compliments  to  all  the  Members  of  the 
Committee,  I  am  their  and 

"  Your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

"  Thomas  Talbot. 

"  Charles  Butler  Esq." 

During  the  next  two  months,  nothing  further  took  place  ; 
but  it  was  known  that  the  Committee  were  engaged  in  pre- 
paring a  Third  Blue  Book,  to  be  issued  before  they  dissolved, 
for  their  term  of  office  would  end  at  the  General  Meeting  in 
May.  There  seemed  too  much  reason  to  apprehend  that  the 
meeting  would  be  the  reverse  of  peaceful. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  MEDIATION. 

1792. 

Having  explained  the  nature  of  the  principal  questions  which 
were  agitating  the  Catholic  body  at  this  time,  our  task  in  the 
present  chapter  is  the  more  grateful  one  of  recording  how  the 
better  feelings  of  those  concerned  eventually  asserted  them- 
selves, and  the  evils  anticipated  were  avoided.  This  result  was 
in  chief  part  due  to  the  work  and  self-sacrifice  of  three 
Catholic  laymen,  who  became  known  as  the  "Gentlemen  Me- 
diators ".  These  were  Mr.  John  Webb  Weston,  of  Sutton  Place, 
Guildford  ;  Mr.  Francis  Eyre,  of  Warkworth,  in  Northampton- 
shire ;  and  Mr.  William  Sheldon,  of  Brailes,  Warwickshire. 
They  undertook  their  office  at  the  request  of  a  few  Catholics 
who  met  at  Mr.  Weston's  lodgings,  127  New  Bond  Street, 
on  April  28,  1792. 

In  order  to  understand  the  exact  bearing  of  the  mission 
which  the  Mediators  undertook,  we  must  recall  to  mind  a  few 
details  of  the  situation.  The  annual  general  meeting  of  Eng- 
lish Catholics  was  to  take  place  on  May  3,  and  grave  apprehen- 
sions were  expressed  on  all  sides  lest  the  various  controversies 
which  we  have  been  considering  should  lead  to  serious  dissen- 
sions. Sir  Henry  Englefield  had  given  notice  of  a  motion 
"  expressive  of  the  disapprobation  of  the  body  at  large  both  of 
Mr.  Plowden's  book  and  the  conduct  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic 
when  called  upon  by  us  to  disavow  the  calumnies  contained  in 
it  ".l  Milner  says  that  he  had  been  engaged  in  preparing  his 
speech  for  over  two  months,  and  was  determined  to  press  his 
motion  to  extremes.  On  the  other  side,  Mr.  Francis  Plowden 
intended  to  move  a  resolution  pledging  the  Catholics  of  England 

1  Buff  Book,  p.  14. 

339  22  * 


34°  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1792 

to  acknowledge  no  other  bishops  than  the  vicars  apostolic 
appointed  by  the  Holy  See.  It  seemed  also  almost  certain 
that  the  third  question,  the  case  of  Mr.  Wilkes,  would  be  raised, 
though  it  was  not  known  in  what  precise  manner,  or  by  whom. 
Another  more  practically  urgent  matter  to  be  discussed  was 
the  future  of  the  Committee  itself;  for  it  was  about  to  dissolve, 
and  the  question  would  arise  whether  it  should  be  reappointed. 
Mr.  Weld  of  Lulworth  collected  a  certain  number  of  influential 
signatures  to  a  paper  declaring  against  the  reappointment  of 
any  Committee  whatever.  The  question,  however,  practically 
settled  itself,  for  the  members  of  the  Committee  decided  not 
to  seek  re-election.  In  order  to  perpetuate  their  principles, 
however,  they  formed  themselves  into  a  society  to  which  they 
gave  the  ominous  name  of  the  "  Cisalpine  Club,"  which  held  its 
first  meeting  on  April  12,  just  three  weeks  before  the  general 
meeting.     Of  this  we  shall  be  speaking  presently. 

The  other  questions  which  were  likely  to  be  raised  were 
argued  at  length  in  three  publications  issued  at  this  time.  One 
was  a  new  edition  of  Sir  John  Throckmorton's  former  pam- 
phlets on  the  appointment  of  bishops,  in  which  he  avowed  the 
authorship  of  the  original  one,  at  the  same  time  adding  some 
additional  matter.  Another  was  the  Address  of  the  Stafford- 
shire Clergy  to  the  Catholic  Clergy  of  England,  which  was 
republished  by  the  Committee,  in  which  the  case  of  Rev. 
Joseph  Wilkes  was  presented  from  his  own  point  of  view. 
The  third  was  their  own  manifesto,  the  Third  Blue  Book,  to 
which  we  must  devote  a  little  more  space. 

It  consisted  of  a  "  Letter  to  the  Catholics  of  England,"  in 
six  parts  or  sections,  amounting  in  all  to  twenty-eight  quarto, 
pages.  In  the  first  section  they  give  a  short  sketch  of  the 
history  of  English  Catholics  since  the  Reformation,  ending  with 
the  circumstances  of  their  own  appointment  in  recent  times. 
In  the  second  section,  they  trace  the  fortunes  of  the  late  bill, 
beginning  with  the  memorial  to  Mr.  Pitt,  followed  by  the  ap- 
peal to  the  foreign  Universities,  and  then  by  the  issue  of  the 
Protestation,  the  drafting  of  the  bill  and  Oath,  and  its  recep- 
tion in  Parliament,  continuing  the  narrative  to  the  point  when 
the  bill  received  the  Royal  Assent.  From  this  account  we  have 
already  had  occasion  to  quote  several  times.  In  the  third 
section,  they  boldly  "  offer  some  observations  on  [their]  contest 


Sik  Henry  Englefield,  Bakt.,  F.R.S. 


1792]  THE  MEDIATION.  341 

with  the  Apostolical  Vicars  ".  They  begin  by  citing  the  example 
of  Robert  Grosseteste,  as  showing  that  there  are  possible  cir- 
cumstances in  which  resistance  to  ecclesiastical  authority  may 
be  even  a  duty.  They  then  pass  to  a  short  apologetical  para- 
graph, defending  their  own  action,  in  the  following  words : — 

"  We  have  invariably  professed,  that  we  never  conceived 
an  idea  of  departing  in  any  one  single  instance  from  the  belief 
or  the  acknowledged  rules  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  and  con- 
sequently we  have  uniformly  disclaimed  the  most  distant  in- 
tention of  encroaching  upon  any  one  privilege  belonging  to 
the  Episcopal  dignity. 

"  In  matters  of  fact,  we  were  convinced  that  the  Apostolical 
Vicars  were  mistaken. 

"  We  knew  that  they  had  misconceived  the  nature  of  the 
business  which  we  were  conducting,  and  had  misstated  our 
proceedings  in  it. 

"We  conceived,  besides,  that  they  had  extended  their 
authority  to  objects  which  came  not  within  their  competency. 
An  implicit  deference  to  orders,  which  equally  at  first  sight  and 
upon  reflection,  struck  us  as  unwarrantable,  would  in  our  judg- 
ment have  greatly  prejudiced  the  most  essential  interests  of 
the  body  of  English  Catholics,  and  have  justly  subjected  our- 
selves to  an  accusation  of  relinquishing  the  duties  of  a  public 
trust." 

After  this,  the  Committee  devote  several  pages  to  once 
more  discussing  the  Protestation  and  the  Oath  as  originally 
worded  ;  not  omitting  to  call  attention  to  some  little  difference 
of  opinion  even  after  the  late  Act  had  become  law,  which  pre- 
vented some  of  the  bishops  from  expressing  a  formal  approba- 
tion of  the  new  Oath  for  at  least  several  weeks.  They  defend 
their  opposition  to  the  requests  of  the  two  vicars  apostolic  on 
February  8,  1 791,  as  follows: — 

"  Did  we  refuse  to  submit  to  a  requisition  made  by  Mr. 
Douglass  and  Mr.  Gibson  not  to  proceed  in  the  business  of  a 
bill  before  Parliament  without  their  approbation?  It  was 
because  we  could  not  but  deem  that  requisition  an  undue 
exertion  of  authority.  It  encroached  upon  our  rights  as 
Englishmen,  for  we  acknowledge  no  power  that  can  restrain 
the  subjects  of  these  realms  from  applying  to  the  legislature 
in  a  constitutional  manner. 


342  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1792 

"  Consider,  we  entreat  you,  my  Lords  and  Gentlemen,  what 
must  have  been  the  effects  of  our  compliance.  Your  bill  was 
lost.  Every  penal  and  disabling  statute,  which  the  wisdom 
and  humanity  of  Parliament  have  lately  repealed,  would  still 
have  continued  in  full  force  against  you.  Your  disgrace  too 
would  have  been  complete." 

The  fourth  section  is  devoted  to  the  correspondence  that 
had  passed  between  the  Committee  and  the  bishops  as  to  the 
Rev.  Charles  Plowden's  pamphlet  in  answer  to  the  Second  Blue 
Book.     The  subject  is  introduced  in  the  following  terms : — 

"  You  have  probably  heard  of  some  defamatory  pamphlets 
in  which  your  Committee  has  been  treated  with  little  regard, 
and  you  approve,  no  doubt,  of  our  inattention  to  their  con- 
tents. 

"  One  alone  we  think  it  may  now  be  necessary  to  notice. 
The  ravings  of  enthusiasm  we  can  easily  overlook,  and  the 
calumnies  of  unauthorised  individuals  we  know  how  to  de- 
spise ;  but  the  writer  of  this  libel  assumes  an  authority  which 
claims  attention  and  respect.  He  tells  the  public  that  he 
'  writes  at  the  request  of  three  Apostolical  Vicars  and  conceives 
himself  to  be  speaking  their  language '.  He  certainly  does  not 
peak  the  language  of  lenity,  of  conciliation  or  of  truth. 

"  His  misrepresentations  are  neither  few  nor  unimportant. 

"  He  dashes  the  foam  of  his  declamation  on  all  those 
English  Catholics  who  have  approved  or  co-operated  in  the 
measures  of  your  Committee,  and  your  very  votes  of  thanks 
he  cavalierly  treats  as  futile  compliments  for  lost  reputation." 

In  the  remainder  of  this  section,  the  Committee  proceed  to 
recite  their  correspondence  with  the  vicars  apostolic  on  the 
subject,  which  we  gave  in  the  last  chapter.  In  the  fifth  section, 
they  answer  some  of  Mr.  Plowden's  accusations.  They  then 
conclude  with  a  short  sixth  section,  containing  a  formal  leave- 
taking  : — 

"  It  remains  for  us  to  present  you,  my  Lords  and  Gentle- 
men, our  most  sincere  thanks  for  the  obliging  and  kind  sup- 
port we  have  received  from  you  on  every  occasion  during  our 
five  years'  appointment,  and  our  grateful  acknowledgments  of 
the  many  honourable  testimonies  of  approbation  which  our 
conduct  has  received  from  you.  These  will  never  escape  our 
memory  or  our  gratitude. 


1792]  THE  MEDIATION.  343 

"  As  individuals  our  services  are  at  the  command  of  all 
and  every  of  you.  As  a  Committee  we  shall  meet  no  more. 
We  therefore  surrender  our  trust  into  your  hands ;  happy  in 
our  consciousness  of  having  on  every  occasion  endeavoured  to 
discharge  it  well,  and  in  the  approbation  you  have  constantly 
and  uniformly  been  pleased  to  bestow  on  our  endeavours. 

"  My  Lords  and  Gentlemen, 

"  We  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  the  greatest  respect, 

"  Your  most  obedient  humble  servants, 

"  Charles  Berington.  John  Throckmorton. 

"  Stourton.  John  Lawson. 

"  Joseph  Wilkes.  William  Fermor. 

"  Petre.  John  Towneley. 

"  Henry  Charles  Englefield.  Thomas  Hornyold. 

"  Lincoln's  Inn,  April  21,  1792." 

The  letter  was  followed  by  ten  appendices,  as  the  official 
documents  of  the  dissolving  Committee,  most  of  which  we 
have  met  with  in  the  preceding  pages.1  They  make  the  Third 
and  last  Blue  Book  larger  than  either  of  the  predecessors. 

Matters  were  in  this  state  when  the  private  meeting  to 
which  allusion  was  made  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  took 
place.  Its  nature  and  scope  can  be  summarised  in  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  Bishop  Douglass's  diary  : — 

"  1792.  A  certain  number  of  pious  gentlemen,  alarmed  at 
the  danger  of  schism  which  appeared  on  all  sides,  assembled 
at  Mr.  Weston's  lodgings,  No.  1 27  New  Bond  Street,  on  Satur- 
day, April  28,  and  came  to  the  following  resolution  : — 

"  That  John  Webb  Weston,  Francis  Eyre  and  Wm.  Shel- 
don Esquires  should  wait  on  the  Vicars  Apostolic  and  the 
Committee  and  endeavour  to  prevent  any  speeches,  discussions, 
&c.  on  the  3rd  of  May,  at  the  general  meeting  of  the  Catholics 

1  The  following  is  a  list: — 

(a)  Memorial  to  Mr.  Pitt  in  1778.  I.  Address  of  Catholic  Peers  and  Com- 
mons to  the  King  in  1778.  II.  Draft  of  original  bill  by  Mr.  Butler,  revised  by 
Mr.  Hargrave  (1788-89).  III.  The  Protestation,  with  list  of  signatures.  IV. 
Petition  based  on  Protestation.  V.  The  Case  of  the  English  Catholic  Dissenters. 
VI.  Laws  respecting  the  presentation  of  Roman  Catholics  to  Ecclesiastical  Bene- 
fices. VII.  "State  of  Facts,"  in  answer  to  Milner's  handbill.  VIII.  Letter  of 
Bishop  Walmesley  after  the  Hammersmith  Meeting,  October,  1789;  IX.  Minutes 
of  the  Meeting  of  Clergy  at  Castle  Street  on  February  2,  1790. 


344  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1792 

of  England  held  at  the  Crown  and  Anchor  Tavern   in    the 
Strand,  and  to  promote  peace  in  the  body  Catholic. 

"  They  waited  previously  on  the  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the 
London  District  and  also  on  the  Committee,  and  settled  pre- 
liminaries." 

From  another  source  we  learn  the  names  of  those  who 
took  part  in  the  meeting  at  Mr.  Weston's  lodgings.  They 
numbered  nineteen — six  priests  and  thirteen  laymen, — includ- 
ing Revv.  William  Strickland  and  Thomas  Meynell,  the  ex- 
Jesuits  ;  Rev.  William  Cowley  the  Benedictine ;  Rev.  Thomas 
Rigby,  afterwards  well  known  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields ;  Mr. 
William  Jones,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  first  Committee  ; 
as  well  as  the  three  above-named  mediators  themselves.  They 
classed  themselves  together  on  the  plea  that  "  From  not  hav- 
ing taken  a  decided  part  in  the  present  unhappy  contest,  they 
may  be  considered  as  unprejudiced  on  either  side".  They 
soon  became  the  nucleus  of  a  third  party  among  the  Catholics, 
who  professed  to  be  independent  of  the  disputants,  though 
Milner  testifies  that  as  time  went  on  they  approached  steadily 
closer  to  the  bishops,  and  away  from  the  Committee. 

The  mediators  went  to  work  without  delay.  It  was  ar- 
ranged that  the  bishops  and  the  Committee  should  each  send 
them  a  written  statement  of  their  respective  grievances,  so  that 
they  might  see  whether  any  steps  could  be  taken  to  accom- 
modate them  ;  and  in  the  meantime,  both  parties  undertook  to 
refrain  from  any  act  that  could  be  considered  hostile,  especially 
from  making  speeches  of  a  controversial  nature  at  the  coming 
general  meeting.  They  kept  their  word,  and  the  meeting 
passed  off  quietly.  Dr.  Douglass  in  his  diary  describes  it  in 
the  following  words  : — 

"  On  the  day  of  the  meeting,  Lord  Petre  moved  that  John 
Webb  Weston  Esq.  take  the  chair.  Bishop  Douglass  seconded 
the  motion. 

"  Chairman  made  a  short  speech  on  his  inability  to  acquit 
himself  well,  and  praying  the  indulgence  of  the  meeting. 

"  The  state  of  accounts  considered. 

"  Second  motion,  for  a  piece  of  plate  {viz.  a  cup  valued  at 
^500)  be  presented  to  Mr.  Mitford.     Passed  nem.  con. 

"  Third  motion,  Vote  of  thanks  to  the  Committee,  couched 
in  the  following  words :  '  That  the  thanks  of  this  meeting,  in 


1792]  THE  MEDIATION.  345 

the  name  of  the  Catholics  of  England,  be  given  to  the  Noble- 
men and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  for  their  constant  at- 
tention and  unremittent  exertions  in  the  execution  of  the 
trust  committed  to  them,  and  which  is  now  brought  to  a  happy- 
conclusion  '.     Passed  unanimously." 

As  soon  as  the  meeting  was  over,  the  mediators  returned  to 
the  work  which  they  had  in  hand.  The  Committee  had  already 
written,  on  April  30,  stating  their  grievances  as  follows: —  l 

"  Gentlemen, 

"  According  to  your  desire,  we  take  the  liberty  of 
stating  the  following  grievances  which  we  think  ourselves  au- 
thorised to  complain  of. 

"  First,  the  depriving  Mr.  Wilkes  of  his  faculties,  which  we 
consider  as  an  attack  made  upon  our  characters  and  conduct. 

"  Secondly,  the  publishing  of  the  answer  to  the  Second  Blue 
Book,  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Plowden ;  in  which  the  author  as- 
serts that  he  wrote  it  at  the  request  of  three  of  the  Apostolic 
Vicars ;  and  that  he  conceives  himself  to  be  speaking  their 
language.  As  we  consider  this  work  as  a  libel  upon  us,  and 
many  other  respectable  gentlemen  professing  the  Catholic 
Religion,  we  think  ourselves  justified  in  requiring  from  the 
Apostolical  Vicars  a  disavowal  of  it. 

"  Although  the  gentlemen  who  have  united  themselves  for 
the  laudable  purpose  of  promoting  union  amongst  the  Catholics 
should  fail  in  obtaining  the  two  points  above  mentioned,  we 
beg  leave  to  express  our  hopes  that  they  will  exert  their  en- 
deavours to  procure  that  in  future  the  ecclesiastical  government 
exercised  by  Catholic  Bishops  in  this  country  may  be  settled 
according  to  the  known  rules  and  canons  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
by  which  the  clergy  may  possess  the  rights  of  parochial  clergy. 

"  With  great  respect,  we  have  the  honour  to  be,  Gentlemen, 

"Your  most  obedient  humble  servants, 

"  Petre.  John  Towneley. 

"  John  Throckmorton.        Thomas  Hornyold. 
"  Henry-C.  Englefield. 

"  Lincoln's  Inn,  April  30,  1792. 

"  N.B.  Mr.  Wilkes  was  present." 

1  The  following  letters  are  taken  from  the  Buff  Book. 


346  THE  DAWN  OF   THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1792 

The  mediators  next  applied  to  the  vicars  apostolic  for 
their  corresponding  statement,  which  they  gave,  we  are  told, 
with  great  reluctance,  and  only  on  condition  that  it  should 
not  be  shown  to  others.  They  appended  the  following 
note : — 

"  The  Bishops  influenced  by  sentiments  of  peace  and 
paternal  affection  for  the  several  individuals  of  their  respective 
flocks,  were  and  are  willing  to  waive  these  and  other  grievances, 
as  far  as  they  are  personally  concerned,  provided  they  are 
left  to  exercise  unmolested  that  spiritual  jurisdiction  which 
they  have  received  from  the  Church,  and  which  no  worldly 
inducement  can  prevail  upon  them  to  part  with  or  com- 
promise." 

In  consequence  of  their  request,  the  grievances  of  the 
bishops  were  never  made  known,  and  all  the  discussion  was 
based  upon  those  of  the  Committee  cited  above. 

The  question  as  to  Mr.  Wilkes  was  the  first  to  be  con- 
sidered. Bishops  Gibson  and  Thomas  Talbot  had  come  to 
town  early  in  May,  and  together  with  Bishop  Douglass  held 
a  conference  with  the  mediators  on  the  12th.  The  bishops 
considered  that  Mr.  Wilkes  ought  first  to  obey  the  orders  of 
his  superiors  and  to  retire  to  his  monastery :  as  soon  as  he 
had  done  this,  they  promised  to  unite  with  the  mediators  in 
a  letter  to  Bishop  Walmesley  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation. 
They  proposed  the  following  as  the  easiest  form  of  retractation 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Wilkes,  which  they  could  hope  to  induce 
Bishop  Walmesley  to  accept : — 

"  I  thought  I  did  right  in  the  part  I  have  taken  as  a 
member  of  the  Catholic  Committee,  and  that  I  acted  accord- 
ing to  conscience ;  but  since  my  Bishop  and  my  religious 
superior  say  that  I  have  erred,  I  submit  to  their  determina- 
tion." 

When  this  form  of  retractation  was  read  to  the  Committee 
the  following  day,  it  was  "  unanimously  and  decidedly  re- 
jected," and  so  it  appeared  that  the  matter  was  at  an  end.  In 
order  to  complete  the  account  of  this  part  of  the  business,  the 
following  two  letters  must  be  added.  The  first  was  under- 
stood to  be  the  substance  of  what  was  agreed  upon  between 
the  Committee  and  the  mediators  at  the  conference  ;  the  second 
is  Bishop  Walmesley's  answer. 


1792]  the  mediation.  347 

The  Mediators  to  Bishop  Walmesley. 

"  My  Lord, 

"  In  the  progress  of  our  earnest  and  humble  endeavours 
to  promote  the  restoration  of  peace  and  union  in  the  Catholic 
body,  which  your  Lordship  has  been  so  obliging  as  to  approve 
and  applaud,  and  for  the  attainment  of  which  you  have  so 
charitably  offered  your  co-operation,  we  beg  leave  to  inform 
you  that  we  find  the  situation  in  which  you  have  thought 
proper  to  place  Mr.  Wilkes  proves  at  this  moment,  and  we 
fear  will  for  ever  prove,  an  insurmountable  barrier  to  the  great 
and  important  object  we  have  in  view.  It  is  therefore  with 
inexpressible  grief  that  we  are  forced  to  give  you  this  infor- 
mation, and  we  beg  leave  to  add  that  we  can  expect  no  ex- 
tenuation of  it,  but  from  the  moderation  and  prudence  of  your 
Lordship.  Far  be  it  from  us  even  to  presume  to  suggest 
measures  which  necessity  may  require  to  be  taken  at  this 
critical  moment.  We  only  beg  leave  to  say  that  the  Gentle- 
men of  the  late  Committee  seem  to  make  Mr.  Wilkes'  cause 
their  own.  They  conceive  him  to  be  a  martyr  to  it,  and 
therefore  appear  resolved  to  support  and  have  his  character 
vindicated  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  which  they  do  suppose 
has  suffered  and  still  does  suffer  from  the  insertion  of  some 
words  made  use  of  in  your  last  suspension  of  that  gentleman. 
This  (as  we  have  remarked)  they  grievously  complain  of;  and 
in  order  to  counteract  those  bad  impressions  which  they  fear 
may  be  prejudicial  to  his  character,  they  ardently  hope,  with 
us,  that  your  Lordship  will  use  your  good  offices  to  get  him 
admitted  into  some  other  diocese  at  a  future  period,  when 
presented  by  his  superior  as  is  customary.  We  have  nothing 
more  to  add  at  this  moment  than  to  say  that  when  this  diffi- 
culty is  removed,  no  other  obstacle,  we  flatter  ourselves,  will 
obstruct  peace  and  union  in  the  whole  body.  With  grateful 
thanks  for  the  honour  of  your  obliging  letter,  we  beg  leave  to 
subscribe  ourselves, 

"  My  Lord,  &c. 

"  John  Webbe  Weston. 
"  Francis  Eyre. 
"  William  Sheldon. 

"  London,  May  14,  1792." 


348  the  dawn  of  the  catholic  revival.  [1792 

Bishop  Walmesley  to  Mr.  Francis  Eyre. 

"  Sir, 

Not  only  myself,  but  the  whole  Catholic  body  are 
certainly  obliged  to  you  gentlemen  for  your  generous  exertions 
to  restore  peace  and  union  among  us.  As  far  as  is  consistent 
with  my  duty,  I  am  ready  to  concur  in  promoting  that  desir- 
able end ;  and  on  that  ground  I  must  beg  leave  to  observe, 
1st  that  when  I  had  taken  off  Mr.  Wilkes'  censure  of  sus- 
pension, I  supposed  that  in  what  related  to  him,  peace  was 
restored,  and  it  might  have  been  so,  had  he  not  renewed  in 
his  letter  to  Mr.  Thomas  Clifford  the  same  reasons  of  com- 
plaint which  he  had  given  before.  2ndly  that  the  withdrawing 
of  Mr.  Wilkes'  faculties  in  my  District  was  a  spiritual  affair 
between  him  and  me ;  not  belonging  to  any  other  persons. 
3rdly  Mr.  Wilkes'  maintaining  certain  principles  which  I  dis- 
approved, I  expressed  as  the  reason  of  my  withdrawing  his 
faculties,  and  that  was  done  in  order  to  satisfy  him  and  all 
others,  though  I  was  not  bound  to  give  any  reason  at  all, 
either  by  ecclesiastical  law  or  by  practice  of  the  mission. 
Moreover,  I  allowed  him  fourteen  days  for  reflection,  during 
which  interval  in  a  conference  with  him,  I  explained  to  him 
specifically  the  principles  I  found  fault  with  ;  but  Mr.  Wilkes 
offered  no  submission,  and  chose  to  let  the  sentence  take 
place.  Now  let  us  also  take  notice  that  Mr.  Wilkes  has  been 
some  time  under  absolute  re-iterated  orders  from  his  Regular 
Superior  to  retire  abroad  ;  his  conscientious  duty  was  to  obey 
those  orders,  and  while  he  remains  in  that  predicament,  I 
refuse  all  interference  with  him.  But  if  at  a  future  period  his 
Superior  should  judge  it  proper  to  send  him  on  the  mission,  I 
shall  make  no  objection  to  his  being  admitted  into  another 
District. 

"  This  statement,  I  hope,  will  be  deemed  satisfactory,  and 
am  with  much  regard  and  esteem,  Sir, 

"  Your  very  humble  servant, 

"  C.  Walmesley. 

"Bath,  May  17,  1792. 

"  Francis  Eyre  Esq." 


i792]  THE  MEDIATION.  349 

We  can  now  proceed  to  the  second  question  raised  by  the 
Committee,  respecting  the  authority  of  Rev.  Charles  Plowden's 
pamphlet.  This  led  to  a  certain  amount  of  divergence  of 
opinion  among  the  vicars  apostolic ;  but  eventually  the  three 
who  were  concerned  agreed  to  the  following  answer : — 

"  Although  we  did  request  the  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  to 
answer  the  Second  Blue  Book,  we  left  the  method  and  manner 
to  him,  and  therefore  without  difficulty  disavow  any  language 
contained  therein  which  appears  to  derogate  in  the  least  from 
the  character  and  reputations  of  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Com- 
mittee, or  any  other  Gentlemen  of  the  Catholic  Body. 

"  Charles  Walmesley. 
"  William  Gibson. 
"  John  Douglass." 

The  third  point  raised  by  the  Committee,  though  not  put 
into  the  form  of  a  grievance,  was  really  intended  as  such. 
This  was  the  question  as  to  the  Ecclesiastical  government  of 
the  country.  It  was  no  doubt  raised  with  special  reference  to 
the  case  of  Mr.  Wilkes,  which,  as  has  been  said,  they  consid- 
ered a  striking  example  of  insecurity  of  tenure,  and  a  difficulty 
which  would  have  been  avoided,  they  thought,  had  the  vicars 
apostolic  and  missionaries  been  bishops  in  ordinary  and  parish 
priests  respectively.  The  former  of  these  reforms  might  have 
been  possible  enough,  for  as  Cardinal  Manning  has  pointed 
out,  it  would  have  been  "  as  possible  to  have  four  or  eight 
dioceses  as  to  have  four  or  eight  Vicariates  ".1  But  the  crea- 
tion of  parish  priests  would  have  involved  first  the  erection 
of  parishes,  and  in  the  state  in  which  England  then  was,  this 
would  have  been  a  much  more  difficult  thing  than  the  Com- 
mittee supposed.  A  "  Parish  Priest "  could  not  have  been  a 
"  Chaplain "  at  a  country  seat,  which  at  that  time  was  the 
position  of  the  majority  of  the  priests  of  England.  The  divi- 
sion of  the  country  even  into  definite  missionary  districts  was 
still  far  off  in  the  future,  and  the  establishment  of  regular 
parishes  has  not  even  yet  been  accomplished.  Milner  indeed 
speaks  contemptuously  of  the  whole  proposal.  "  These  laymen  " 
(he  says)  "  did  not  understand  the  ecclesiastical  business  they 

1  Pastoral  Office,  p.  224. 


35°  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1792 

had  embarked  in.  They  wished  our  scattered  missionaries  to 
be  changed  into  Parish  Priests,  before  there  were  any  parishes 
founded  for  them  to  govern  !  They  were  all  of  them  to  be 
alike  Rectors  without  any  Vicars ;  like  an  army  of  Officers 
without  any  soldiers."  ! 

The  Bishops  were  anxious,  however,  not  to  appear  unwill- 
ing to  listen  to  the  Committee's  proposals,  and  three  out  of 
the  four  finally  agreed  to  the  following  joint  answer,  Dr. 
Walmesley  alone  dissenting  : — 2 

"  The  Vicars  Apostolic  conceive  that  as  this  subject  re- 
quires the  most  mature  deliberation,  it  is  impossible  to  give 
any  other  answer  in  the  moment,  than  that  they  will  give  it 
their  very  serious  attention,  and  report  their  opinions  thereon 
to  Messrs.  John  Webb  Weston,  Francis  Eyre  and  William 
Sheldon  in  the  course  of  three  months,  though  they  fear  that 
such  a  measure  is  not  practicable  under  the  present  circum- 
stances. 

"  Thomas  Talbot. 

"  William  Gibson. 

"  John  Douglass." 

The  above  answers  were  presented  by  the  mediators  to 
the  Committee  at  a  conference  on  May  23.  They  afterwards 
described  the  Committee's  attitude  and  manner  of  speaking 
as  moderate  and  reasonable,  notwithstanding  the  forebodings 
which  many  had  indulged  in  ;  nevertheless,  the  Committee 
found  great  difficulty  in  agreeing  as  to  an  answer.  In  the  end 
the  conference  broke  up  without  any  decision  having  been 
come  to,  but  late  in  the  evening  the  Committee  sent  the  fol- 
lowing letter  to  the  mediators  : — 

"  Gentlemen, 

"  In  answer  to  the  communication  with  which  you 
favoured  us  from  the  Vicars  Apostolic,  we  beg  leave  to  say 
that  their  disavowal  respecting  Mr.  Charles  Plowden's  pamphlet 
is  quite  satisfactory.  It  must  now  be  considered  as  merely 
the  production  of  Mr.  Charles  Plowden  and  (as  we  have  de- 

1Sttp.  Mem.,  p.  98. 

2  Dr.  Walmesley  sent  his  own  answer  independently,  to  the  effect  that  such 
a  measure  was  not  practicable. 


1792]  THE  MEDIATION.  351 

clared  in  our  last  letter)  it  has  been  our  constant  resolution 
not  to  notice  the  production  of  any  individual. 

"  With  respect  to  the  affair  of  Mr.  Wilkes,  we  must  beg 
leave  to  state  that  we  must  still  consider  him  as  suffering  for 
his  adherence  to  the  Committee.  We  do  not  pretend  to  say 
that  we  have  any  right  to  interfere  with  Mr.  Walmesley  in 
granting  faculties  to  or  withdrawing  them  from  his  clergy ;  it 
such  acts  are  done  by  superiors  contrary  to  justice  in  the  pre- 
sent state  of  the  mission,  it  is  not  for  us  to  point  out  a  remedy  ; 
but  as  we  cannot  view  the  suspension  of  Mr.  Wilkes  in  any 
other  light  than  as  a  mark  of  Mr.  Walmesley's  disapprobation 
of  the  Committee  ;  and  as  we  are  sure  that  imputations  on  his 
moral  character  have  been  propagated  in  consequence  of  his 
suspension,  we  must  deny  the  justice  and  propriety  of  the 
measure,  though  we  do  not  at  all  contest  the  right.  And  we 
conceive  ourselves  justified  in  requesting  of  the  other  Vicars 
Apostolic  a  full  vindication  of  Mr.  Wilkes'  moral  character  from 
any  aspersions  cast  on  it  in  consequence  of  Mr.  Walmesley's 
censures,  and  a  declaration  of  their  disapprobation  of  Mr.  Wal- 
mesley's conduct,  if  it  shall  be  found  to  have  been  in  violation 
of  the  established  rules  of  the  mission. 

"  If  the  Vicars  Apostolic  will  not  in  these,  or  some  other 
equivalent  terms,  vindicate  Mr.  Wilkes,  his  business  must  be 
considered  by  us  as  standing  precisely  where  it  formerly  did, 
and  we  must  feel  ourselves  now,  as  before,  bound  to  support 
an  injured  and  oppressed  man. 

"  We  are  happy  to  learn  that  the  Vicars  Apostolic  of  the 
Midland,  London  and  Northern  Districts  have  taken  the  future 
ecclesiastical  government  of  the  country  into  consideration,  and 
will  report  their  opinion  of  it  to  you. 

"  It  only  remains  for  us  to  repeat  (what  we  have  often  de- 
clared) that  we  never  interfered,  or  intended  to  interfere,  with 
the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Church  or  her  ministers. 

"  We  are  much  obliged  by  your  communications  and  ex- 
ertions on  this  occasion.  We  return  you  many  thanks  for  them, 
and  we  assure  you  that  (except  in  what  we  have  stated  respect- 
ing Mr.  Wilkes)  we  are  not  conscious  of  any  cause  of  difference 
between  any  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic  and  us  ;  and  we  shall  be 
at  all  times  happy  to  co-operate  with  them  in  any  measure  of 


352  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1792 

general  utility,  or   which  may  be  thought  likely  to  produce 
general  harmony  among  Catholics. 

"  With  great  respect,  we  are, 

"  Your  most  humble  servants, 

"  Petre.  William  Fermor. 

"  Henry  C.  Englefield.        John  Towneley. 
"John  Throckmorton.  Thomas  Hornyold. 

"  Lincoln's  Inn,  May  23,  1792." 

On  the  receipt  of  the  above  letter,  the  mediators  may  well 
have  congratulated  themselves  on  the  result  of  their  labours. 
There  was  not  indeed  a  complete  understanding  between  the 
bishops  and  the  Committee,  for  the  Wilkes  case  still  remained 
unsettled ;  but  in  all  other  respects  the  points  raised  had  been 
fairly  met,  as  the  Committee  had  admitted  in  their  formal  letter. 
They  were  also  able  to  add  two  additional  results  which  they 
had  effected,  which  they  stated  at  the  conclusion  of  their  report, 
which  had  best  be  given  in  their  own  words.  The  first  related 
to  the  origin  of  the  Oath,  about  which  the  mediators  write  as 
follows  : — 

"  In  the  course  of  this  negotiation  we  had  an  opportunity 
of  seeing  and  laying  before  three  of  the  Vicars  Apostolic  the 
original  bill  prepared  by  order  of  the  late  Committee,  and  also 
the  second  bill  with  the  several  alterations,  and  particularly  the 
variations  in  the  Oath  which  have  been  the  unfortunate  cause 
of  so  much  difference  of  opinion.  These  were  produced,  with 
such  incontrovertible  evidence  that  those  alterations,  and  partic- 
ularly the  variations  in  the  Oath,  were  not  framed  or  proposed 
by  the  Gentlemen  of  the  late  Committee,  that  we  feel  ourselves 
called  on,  both  by  candour  and  impartiality  to  declare,  that  we 
were  perfectly  convinced  that  the  Vicars  Apostolic  seemed  to 
us  satisfied  and  that  we  really  hope  no  doubts  will  any  longer 
be  entertained  on  that  subject." 

The  other  point  alluded  to  concerned  a  rumour  that  Mr. 
Butler  contemplated  writing  a  history  of  the  late  disputes,  which 
could  not  but  revive  feelings  of  irritation  on  both  sides.  The 
mediators  applied  to  Mr.  Butler,  who  answered  :  "  That  he  has 
no  such  intention,  and  that  he  entirely  coincides  with  us  in 
opinion  that  this  or  any  other  publication  that  has  the  remotest 


i792]  THE  MEDIATION.  353 

relation  to  the  controversies  now  happily  terminated,  would  be 
exceedingly  improper".  And  perhaps  more  important  than 
either,  the  Rev.  Joseph  Wilkes  had  at  length  left  town,  in 
order,  as  they  believed,  to  obey  his  superior,  and  retire  to  his 
monastery.  On  Wednesday,  May  29,  the  mediators  gave  a 
dinner  party  at  Blenheim's  Coffee  House,  to  celebrate  "  the 
day  of  peace  ". 

Their  rejoicings,  however,  turned  out  to  be  premature ; 
for  when  they  circulated  their  printed  report,  the  Committee 
took  grave  exception  to  some  of  their  statements,  and  the  con- 
cluding negotiations  were  unhappily  marked  by  an  unpleasant 
tone  which  had  hitherto  been  absent.  We  must  follow  them 
out,  at  least  in  brief,  to  their  conclusion. 

The  first  letter  showing  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  Committee 
was  written  by  Sir  John  Throckmorton,  on  May  31.  He  com- 
plained that  in  their  report  the  mediators  had  omitted  any 
account  of  such  negotiations  as  had  proved  abortive,  and  there- 
fore, for  example,  the  form  of  submission  proposed  for  Mr. 
Wilkes  and  its  rejection  by  the  Committee  had  not  been 
mentioned. 

In  order  if  possible  to  meet  their  views,  the  mediators  at 
once  stopped  the  issue  of  their  printed  report,  and  called  in 
all  copies  that  they  were  able  to.  The  same  afternoon  they 
held  a  conference  with  the  Committee  at  Mr.  Weston's  lodg- 
ings ;  but  the  further  they  proceeded  the  more  difficult  the 
members  of  the  Committee  became.  The  following  day,  the 
latter  sent  a  formal  letter,  in  which  they  adopted  a  threatening 
tone,  expressing  their  intention  to  issue  a  public  answer  to 
the  mediators'  report,  unless  it  was  altered  suitably  to  their 
demands.  They  complained  bitterly  that  no  reparation  had 
been  offered  to  Mr.  Wilkes's  character,  and  that  no  word  of 
acknowledgment  had  been  made  by  the  vicars  apostolic  of  all 
the  work  done  by  the  Committee  on  behalf  of  the  Catholic 
cause.  They  called  for  the  publication  of  all  documents  re- 
lating to  the  late  negotiations,  and  accused  the  mediators  of 
writing  to  Bishop  Walmesley  a  letter  "essentially  different" 
from  that  drawn  up  at  the  meeting. 

This  last  insinuation  gave  offence  to  the  mediators,  who 
refused  to  have  any  further  dealings  with  the  Committee  as 
a  corporate  body.  Letters  of  civility  were  interchanged  with 
vol.  1.  23 


354  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1792 

Lord  Petre  and  other  individual  members,  but  no  further  con- 
ferences took  place  between  them. 

Nevertheless,  in  order  to  leave  no  stone  unturned,  the 
mediators  wrote  further  to  the  vicars  apostolic,  saying  that 
in  their  opinion  the  cause  of  peace  would  be  greatly  forwarded 
if,  as  they  had  previously  suggested,  the  bishops  could  see 
their  way  to  write  an  answer  to  the  Committee's  former  letter 
of  May  23,  expressing  good  wishes  for  the  future  in  general 
terms.  They  even  took  it  upon  themselves  to  ask  Mr.  Francis 
Plowden  to  draw  up  such  a  letter  for  consideration.  Bishop 
Walmesley  at  first  persisted  in  his  refusal  to  take  any  further 
action,  but  after  a  time,  he  consented  to  sign  a  letter  drawn 
up  by  Bishop  Douglass,  which  ran  as  follows  : — 

"Gentlemen, 

"  We  are  happy  to  find  from  the  letter  with  which 
you  favoured  us,  that  the  Noblemen  and  Gentlemen  of  the  late 
Committee  continue  to  declare  that  they  never  intended  to 
interfere  with  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Church  or  her 
ministers.  This,  their  repeated  declaration,  appears  to  us  an 
earnest  of  future  peace,  and  we  are  encouraged  by  it  to  hope 
that  they  will  re-consider  their  protest  against  and  appeal  from 
our  Encyclical  Letters,  and  recall  an  instrument  the  spirit  and 
language  of  which  have  so  grievously  wounded  that  spiritual 
authority,  and  given  so  much  scandal  to  the  faithful. 

"  We,  on  our  parts,  shall  at  all  times  be  happy  to  co-operate 
with  any  member  of  the  Catholic  body  in  such  measures  as 
may  be  thought  of  general  utility,  and  likely  to  promote  peace 
and  harmony  amongst  us. 

"  To  you,  Gentlemen,  we  feel  the  greatest  obligations. 
Your  candour  and  zeal  throughout  the  whole  of  your  Media- 
tion have  impressed  on  our  minds  the  highest  idea  of  your 
virtue:  and  we  beg  leave  to  assure  you,  that  we  remain,  with 
the  truest  esteem,  Gentlemen, 

"  Your  much  obliged  and  very  humble  servants, 

"  Charles  Walmesley. 
"  William  Gibson. 
"  John  Douglass. 

"  June  16,  1792." 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  this  letter  the  bishops  return  to  the 


1792]  THE  MEDIATION.  355 

<(  Protest  and  Appeal  ".  It  may  be  doubted  whether  they  were 
prudent  in  raising  a  fresh  question  at  so  late  a  stage,  or  even 
whether  they  were  justified  in  so  doing,  for  although  the  Pro- 
test and  Appeal  had  been  mentioned  in  the  original  list  of 
their  "  grievances,"  these  had  never  been  published,  and  the 
bishops  were  commonly  supposed  to  have  accepted  terms  of 
peace  without  reference  to  it.  It  appears  that  Dr.  Douglass 
hoped  that,  by  merely  putting  it  forward  as  desirable  that  there 
should  be  some  retractation,  without  making  any  definite  re- 
quisition, he  would  succeed  in  inducing  the  Committee  to 
comply.  Dr.  Walmesley  expressed  his  doubts  on  this,  which 
unfortunately  proved  well  founded.  The  mediators,  who  still 
refused  to  hold  any  further  conference  with  the  Committee, 
forwarded  them  the  letter  of  the  vicars  apostolic.  They 
answered  within  forty-eight  hours,  in  a  letter — the  last  they 
ever  issued  as  a  corporate  body — which  for  strength  of  lan- 
guage and  bitterness  of  tone  recalls  the  Blue  Books  and  other 
documents  of  the  past.  We  shall  give  one  extract  to  serve 
as  a  specimen  of  the  style  they  thought  fit  to  adopt : — 

"With  respect  to  the  recall  of  the  Protest  and  Appeal 
desired  by  the  Vicars  Apostolic "  (they  write),  "  we  continue 
in  our  former  sentiments  of  the  measures  against  which  we 
protested,  and  from  which  we  appealed. 

"  As  to  the  Appeal,  the  Oath  which  was  the  subject  of  it 
being  dropt,  and  another  substituted  in  its  stead,  we  did  not 
of  course  pursue  the  appeal.  But  we  continued,  and  we  still 
continue,  in  asserting  our  right  to  appeal  from  any  ecclesiastical 
sentence  which  we  conscientiously  believe  erroneous,  informal 
or  unjust. 

"  The  Protest  we  cannot  recall  while  the  Encyclical  Letters 
remain  unrecalled.  We  conceive  the  Vicars  Apostolic  in  those 
letters,  as  also  in  their  requisition  to  us  at  our  meeting,  pro- 
ceeded on  an  opinion  that  they  have  a  right  to  condemn  an 
Oath  or  any  other  measure  which  they  take  upon  them  to  say 
is  of  a  spiritual  nature,  without  even  a  specification  of  the  par- 
ticular matter  objected  to,  or  showing  the  grounds  of  their 
censure  ;  and  that  an  Oath  containing  doctrinal  matters  though 
perfectly  orthodox,  and  though  the  taking  of  it  would  be  highly 
beneficial  to  individuals  or  to  the  body  at  large,  cannot  be  law- 
fully taken  without  their  previous  approbation. 

23  * 


356  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1792 

"  Intrusted  as  we  were  by  the  Catholics  with  an  important 
concern,  we  find  it  impossible  for  us  to  submit  to  these  deter- 
minations of  the  Vicars  Apostolic  without  betraying  that 
trust.  We  therefore  protested  and  declared  our  intention  of 
appealing  from  the  exercise  of  any  act  of  authority  that  should 
enforce  such  principles." 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  letter,  the  Committee  show  a 
tendency  to  go  back  upon  what  they  had  formerly  accepted, 
and  they  express  themselves  as  dissatisfied  with  the  answer  of 
the  vicars  apostolic  as  to  Mr.  Plowden's  pamphlet,  and  call 
upon  the  mediators  to  vindicate  their  reputations.  The  letter 
was  signed  by  the  same  five  as  before  and  with  this  the  nego- 
tiations came  to  an  end,  except  only  that  the  vicars  apostolic 
had  yet  to  send  their  final  answers  as  to  the  possibility  of  the 
restoration  of  a  hierarchy  in  England.  In  view  of  the  attitude 
now  adopted  by  the  members  of  the  Committee,  however,  there 
was  now  less  reason  to  make  so  great  an  effort  to  meet  them, 
and  the  answers  of  the  bishops,  when  they  came  in,  were  short, 
and  to  the  effect  that  the  measure  was  not  at  present  practicable. 

Before  finally  winding  up  their  business,  the  mediators 
amended  their  printed  letter  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of 
the  Committee,  and  prefixed  an  account  of  the  correspondence 
which  led  them  to  do  so.  Their  publication  became  known 
as  the  Buff  Book,  from  the  colour  of  the  wrapper  used. 

Although  the  later  correspondence  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  the  peace  that  at  one  time  seemed  to  have  been  arrived  at 
had  receded  further  than  ever,  it  would  appear  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  did  not  view  it  altogether  in  that  light. 
Charles  Butler  wrote  a  short  account  of  it  thirty  years  afterwards, 
for  the  third  edition  of  his  Historical  Memoirs,  and  he  sums  up 
the  result  as  follows  : —  l 

"  Thus  by  the  interference  of  these  respectable  mediators 
and  the  gentlemanly  and  Christian  disposition  of  the  parties 
principally  engaged  in  the  discussion,  the  contention  was 
happily  terminated ;  on  each  side  the  word  of  peace  was 
spoken,  and  silence  promised.  The  peace  thus  spoken  and  the 
silence  thus  promised  have  been  observed  inviolate,  both  by  the 
Committee  and  their  adherents,  and  by  the  three  objecting 
Prelates." 

1  Hist.  Mem.,  iv.,  p.  59. 


1792]  THE  MEDIATION.  357 

A  further,  though  indirect,  result  of  the  mediators'  work 
remains  to  be  mentioned.  Through  their  influence,  an  under- 
standing was  come  to  between  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  and  Rev. 
Joseph  Berington,  representing  the  Staffordshire  clergy.  A 
conference  took  place  at  Castle  Street  on  May  9,  1792,  in  the 
presence  of  Rev.  John  Milner,  Rev.  Charles  Bellasyse,  Rev. 
Richard  Southworth  and  Mr.  Charles  Dormer.  Both  Mr. 
Plowden  and  Mr.  Berington  thought  it  necessary  to  explain  at 
different  times  that  they  did  not  read  each  other's  writings.1 
At  the  conference,  Mr.  Plowden  declared  that  in  writing  against 
Mr.  Berington  he  had  not  been  actuated  by  personal  resent- 
ment, but  solely  by  a  sense  of  duty.  With  respect  to  his 
Answer  to  the  Second  Blue  Book,  he  signed  the  following  de- 
claration : — 2 

"  In  the  seventeen  propositions  or  passages  from  the  An- 
swer to  the  Second  Blue  Book,  I  declare  upon  my  honour,  that 
I  did  not  mean  to  allude  to  the  gentlemen  who  have  signed 
the  Appeal  to  the  Catholics  of  England. 

"  I  declare,  moreover,  that  in  declining  to  answer  the  letters 
of  the  said  Gentlemen,  I  was  influenced  by  motives  which  I 
deemed  prudential,  and  that  I  was  therein  guided  by  the  ad- 
vice of  persons  of  great  respectability.  I  declare  that  my  re- 
fusal to  answer  their  letters  did  not  originate  in  any  motive  of 
disrespect,  resentment,  contempt,  slight  or  ill  will. 

"  Ita  est.        Charles  Plowden. 

"  Castle  Street,  May  9,  1792." 

On  the  following  day  Mr.  Plowden  had  a  conference  with 
Bishop  Talbot,  who  had  come  to  town  to  meet  the  mediators, 
and  assured  him  that  he  had  never  had  any  intention  to  "  blis- 
ter" his  character;  at  his  request,  Bishop  Talbot  signed  a 
declaration  that  he  accepted  his  statement.  Mr.  Plowden  then 
wrote  to  Joseph  Berington  asking    for  a  similar  declaration. 

1  "  Excepting  two  tracts  which  I  had  once  hastily  perused  at  their  first  ap- 
pearance many  years  ago,  I  had  never  read  a  page  in  any  of  his  works  "  (Remarks 
on  the  Writings  of  Rev.  Joseph  Berington,  by  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  :  Introduc- 
tion, p.  ix). 

"  [Rev.  C.  Plowden]  assailed  me  in  a  pamphlet  of  some  length,  denouncing 
all  my  errors.  I  have  never  read  it,  nor  ever  shall  "  (Memoirs  of  Panzani,  by 
Rev.  Joseph  Berington  :  Preface,  p.  xxxix). 

2  Kirk  Papers  (Oscott),  vol.  ii. 


358  THE  DAWN  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  REVIVAL.  [1792 

The  following  was  drawn  out  by  Berington  and  afterwards 
signed  by  all  the  Staffordshire  clergy  : —  1 

"As  you  solemnly  declare  that,  in  your  Answer  to  the 
Second  Blue  Book,  you  had  no  intention  to  injure  the  character 
of  Bishop  Talbot,  We,  with  a  readiness  equal  to  that  with 
which  you  signed  your  declaration  in  Castle  Street,  are  disposed 
to  admit  that  you  had  no  such  intention.  You  have  declared 
that  you  did  not  mean  to  bring  any  accusation  against  us, 
and  as  we  conceived  that  through  us  the  blow  was  aimed  at 
Bishop  Talbot,  the  whole  business  is  thus  brought  to  a  con- 
clusion." 

It  remains  to  add  the  Rev.  Charles  Plowden  was  not  will- 
ing to  accept  this  statement  in  its  entirety,  and  three  months 
later,  on  August  8,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Joseph  Berington  in 
which  he  admitted  that  although  he  had  not  meant  to  blame 
the  Staffordshire  clergy  in  connection  with  the  composition  of 
the  Blue  Books,  he  had  intended  to  blame  their  action  in 
taking  the  side  of  Mr.  Wilkes  against  his  bishop.  He  printed 
and  circulated  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Catholics  of  England, 
defending  himself  against  the  charge  of  libelling  the  Catholic 
Committee  and  the  Staffordshire  clergy.  The  letter  was 
dated  September  6,  1792,  when  he  was  on  the  eve  of  leaving 
England  for  Liege.  It  ended  with  the  following  paragraph, 
which  were  the  last  words  of  the  controversy : — 2 

"  I  end  with  observing  that  the  crimination  which  has 
most  feelingly  affected  me  is  contained  in  the  Appeal  of  the 
RR.  Gentlemen  of  Staffordshire,  where  they  say,  p.  21,  that 
my  principal  aim  was  to  blister  the  character  of  their  Right 
Reverend  Prelate.  I  mention  this  merely  for  the  sake  of 
adding  that  His  Lordship  has  graciously  and  readily  signed  a 
declaration  that  he  does  not  believe  that  I  had  any  such  design  ; 
and  that  the  RR.  Gentlemen  of  Staffordshire  have  since  very 
obligingly  signed  a  similar  acknowledgment  by  which  they 
acquit  me  of  such  a  malignant  intention.  I  take  this  oppor- 
tunity to  express  my  sincere  thanks  to  them  for  having  done 
me  this  justice ;  and  in  taking  leave  of  this  controversy,  I 
willingly  intrust  to  my  brethren  the  Catholic  Clergy,  nobility 
and  gentry,  the  decision  of  a  question  highly  interesting  to  me, 

1  Kirk  Papers.  2  Westminster  Archives. 


i792]  THE  MEDIATION.  359 

whether  upon  the  evidence  produced  in  the  Third  Blue  Book 
my  name  ought  to  be  delivered  to  posterity  as  that  of  a 
calumniator  and  libeller  of  the  late  Committee. 

"  I  am,  my  Lords  and  Gentlemen, 

"  Your  most  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

"  Charles  Plowden. 

"  September  6,  1792." 


END   OF   VOL.    I. 


INDEX. 


Note. 


-In  order  to  facilitate  reference,    the  full   index  is  bound   up  with  each 
volume. 


Act  of  Union,  the,  ii.,  215,  217. 

Acton  Burnell,  ii.,  105. 

Addington,  Henry,  i.,  262,  264. 

Aged  Poor  Society,  i.,  31,  32. 

Aire,  English  nuns  at,  ii.,  82,  83,  168. 

Amesbury,  ii.,  115,  125. 

Ampleforth,  i.,  82  ;  ii.,  96,  105. 

Antonelli,  Cardinal  Prefect  of  Propa- 
ganda, i.,  221,  seq. ;  ii.,  39,  46,  48,  70, 
I3ii  155,  177.  !79,  238. 

Antwerp,  Carmelites  at,  ii.,  93. 

"  Apologetical  Epistle  "  of  Bishop  Poyn- 
ter,  i.,  11. 

Archer,  Rev.  James,  i.,  28,  29,  210,  211, 
319;  ii.,  139. 

Arundel,  i.,  14,  52. 

Arundell  of  Wardour,  Lord,  i.,  238  ;  ii., 

125- 

"  Auctorem  Fidei,"  the  Bull,  ii.,  146, 152. 
Augustinianesses  of  Paris,  i.,   6g,   85  ; 
ii.,  81. 

Bruges,  i.,  85;  ii.,  93,  117,  125. 

Louvain,    i.,    85;    ii.,    118;    at 

Hammersmith,  125 ;  Amesbury, 
125  ;  Newton  Abbott,  125. 
Avranches,  Bishop  of,  ii.,  11. 

Baddesley  Clinton,  ii.,  55. 

Banister,  Rev.  Robert,  i.,  175. 

Bar    Convent,    York,    i.,   35   seq.;    ii., 

126,  129. 
Barnard,    Rev.  James,  i.,  75  ;  signs  the 

Protestation,     145,     146,    210,    211  ; 

against  the  amended  Oath,  212,  213, 

218,  219,  220,  221,  223,  231,  233,  234, 

249,  250,  252,  318,  323. 
Barratts  of  Milton,  the,  ii.,  182. 
Barruel,  Abbe,  ii,  9,  10,  11,  20. 
Bavarian  Chapel,  i.,  25,  igo. 
Beaumont,  Rev.  Edward,  ii.,  154. 
Beauregard,  Pere,  ii.,  15,  26. 
Bedingfield,  Mrs.,  i.,  37,  38. 
Beeston,  Rev.  George,  i.,  154. 
Bellasyse,   Rev.    Charles,   ii.,   52,    239, 

247. 


Benedictine  Monks,  English,  i.,  15,  54, 
68,  82. 

at  Douay,  ii.,  75  ;  expulsion,  77  ; 

imprisoned  with  English  Colle- 
gians at  Doullens,  78,  80. 

at  Paris,  i.,  69,  329  ;  ii.,  81,  128. 

Benedictine  Nuns,  Brussels,  i.,  83  ;  ii., 
92,  98,  118,  122;  Winchester, 
123,  204,  209. 
Cambray,  i.,  83  ;  ii.,  83  ;  pri- 
soners at  Compiegne,  84 ; 
martyrdom  of  Carmelite  nuns, 
85  ;  their  relics,  86 ;  Stanbrook, 
86. 
Dunkirk,  i.,  84  ;  ii.,  83  ;  Ham- 
mersmith, 128 ;  Teignmouth, 
128. 

Ghent,  i.,  83,   84;    ii.,  92,  93, 

117,  118  ;  Oulton,  i.,  83,  84. 

Paris,  i.,  83  ;   ii.,  81,   82,    128 ; 

Colwich,  i.,  83,  84. 

Ypres,  i.,  84,  85  ;  ii.,  93. 

Benedictine  nuns,  French,  from    Mon- 

targis,  ii.,  32. 
Benevolent  Society,  the,  i.,  32. 
Berington,  Bishop  Charles,  Vicar 
Apostolic,  Midland  District,  early 
career,  i.,  122  seq.  ;  elected  on  Com- 
mittee, 122;  the  Protestation,  146; 
first  condemnation  of  Oath,  179  ;  re- 
ply to  Lancashire  Clergy  protest, 
205  ;  at  clergy  meeting  (Feb.  2,  1790), 
210  ;  Committee's  candidate  for  Lon- 
don Vicariate,  218  ;  "  elected  "  by 
clergy,  220 ;  repudiates  pretension  to 
London  Vicariate,  232,  252,  321,  324, 
328;  ii.,  45,  in,  130;  becomes  Vicar 
Apostolic  of  Midland  District,  131  ; 
retractation  to  Blue  Books  demanded, 
133 ;  memorial  to  Cardinal  Gerdil, 
134  seq. ;  formula  modified  and 
signed,  140  seq. ;  advice  to  Stafford- 
shire Clergy,  152  ;  sudden  death,  153. 
Berington,  Rev.  Joseph,  early  career, 
i.,  7  ;  State  and  Behaviour  of  English 


361 


362 


INDEX. 


Catholics,  8,  9,  12,  13,  14,  60,  287 ; 
on  the  meeting  after  the  Act,  317  ;  pre- 
sents "  Staffordshire  Clergy's  "  letter 
to  Committee,  320 ;  writes  their  "  Ap- 
peal," 335  ;  Memoirs  of  Panzani,  ii., 
44 ;  refused  faculties,  ii.,  45,  148 ; 
Exposition  of  Our  Sentiments,  ii.,  149, 
152 ;  peace  with  Bishop  Douglass, 
161  ;  Examination  of  Events  termed 
Miraculous,  181 ;  letter  in  Gentleman's 
Magazine,  212  ;  suspended,  213  ;  "  re- 
tractation," 213 ;  submission  and 
declaration,  214  ;  advice  to  Stafford- 
shire Clergy,  240. 

Berkeley  of  Spetchley,  Mr.,  ii.,  125, 128. 

Beste,  Henry  Digby,  i.,  300. 

Bew,  Rev.  John,  D.D.,  President  of 
Seminary  at  Paris,  i.,  69  ;  chosen  by 
Cisalpines  as  head  of  proposed  school, 
ii.,  55  seq. ;  President  of  Oscott,  103, 
142,  143  ;  asks  votes  for  new  Vicar 
Apostolic,  Midland  District,  154 ; 
claims  to  be  Administrator,  155  ;  is- 
sues circular,  156,  240,  241,  251. 

Birmingham,  St.  Peter's,  i.,  7,  306. 

Blanchardists,  ii.,  234. 

"  Blue  Books,"  the,  i.,  2 ;  ii.,  47,  132, 
138,  139,  145,  210,  238. 
First  Blue  Book,  i.,  74,  183,  248. 
Second  Blue  Book,  i.,  241,  254,  257, 

326,  333,  349  ;  ii.,  158. 
Third  Blue  Book,  i.,  2,  170,  177,  183, 
215,  278,  285,  338,  340    seq.  ;     ii., 
62,  145,  151,  158,  198. 

"  Blue  Nuns,"  the,  i.,  69  ;  ii.,  81,  128. 

Borgia,  Cardinal,  ii.,  156,  192,  236,  253, 
254. 

Bornheim,  Dominican  house  at,  ii.,  167. 

Borough  Chapel,  the,  i.,  193,  196. 

Bourret,  Abb6,  ii.,  172. 

Brambridge,  i.,  50. 

Bramston,  James  Yorke,  i.,  300. 

Braschi,  Cardinal,  ii.,  177. 

Brewer,  Rev.  J.  B.,  President  General, 
O.S.B.,  ii.,  159,  237,  251. 

Bridgettine  nuns,  i.,  75,  76. 

Bristol,  Trenchard  Street  Chapel,  i.,  7, 
306  ;  ii.,  130,  150. 

Brockhampton,  i.,  50. 

Bromley  Hall,  i.,  43. 

Bruges,  i.,  85  ;  ii.,  93,  117. 

Bruning,  Rev.  George,  ii.,  181,  182. 

Brussels,  Benedictine  nuns  of,  i.,  83 ;  ii., 
92,  93,  98,  118,  122  seq. 

Buckingham,  Marchioness  of,  ii.,  27,  28, 
129,  164. 

Buckingham,  Marquis  of,  ii.,  19,  28,  49, 
116,  234. 

Buckland  (Berks.),  i.,  46;  ii.,  45,  214, 
215. 

"  Buff  Book,"  the,  i.,  356  seq. 


Bulmarsh,  i.,  45. 

Burke,  Edmund,  i.,  4,  262,  272 ;  ii.,  2, 
12,  19,  165,  166,  200. 

Burton  Park,  i.,  51. 

Butler,  Rev.  Alban,  i.,  67. 

Butler,  Charles,  i.,  4,  58,  59  ;  Secretary 
to  Committee,  go  ;  private  life,  91,  93 
seq.,  99,  in,  12S  seq.;  persuades  Rev. 
J.  Barnard  to  sign  Protestation,  146 ; 
also  Bishop  James  Talbot,  147  ;  drafts 
Catholic  Relief  Bill,  152 ;  account  of 
New  Oath,  157;  defence  of"  Protest- 
ing Catholic  Dissenters,"  161  seq.  ; 
no  essential  difference  between  Oath 
and  Protestation,  168  ;  suggested  visit 
to  the  north,  173  ;  his  "  Red  Book," 
174 ;  his  amendment  of  Oath,  208  ; 
adopted  by  "Open  Committee  Meet- 
ing," 211,  212,  213,  231,  234,  240,  241, 
249  ;  Butler  and  Milner,  274,  279 ;  ii., 
207,  210;  receives  £1,000  from  Com- 
mittee, i.,  322  ;  disclaims  writing  his- 
tory of  disputes,  352 ;  on  result  of 
"  Mediation,"  356  ;  French  Refugees, 
ii.,  16,  24,  25, 124  ;  on  genuineness  of 
Museum  Protestation,  ii.,  58  seq.,  152, 
161 ;  appreciation  of  Burke,  ii.,  166  ; 
on  "  Monastic  Institutions  Bill,"  ii., 
205,  211  ;  on  Dr.  Geddes,  248. 

Cale  Hill,  i.,  47. 

Cambray,  Benedictine  nuns  at,  ii.,  83 

seq.,  128. 
Campanelli,    Cardinal,  ii.,    37  seq.,  50, 

177. 
Carisbrooke,  i.,  86  ;  ii.,  125. 
Carmelite  Martyrs   of  Compiegne,   ii., 

85,  86. 
Carmelites,  i.,  82,    86  ;  ii.,  86  seq.,  93, 

118,  125. 
Carron,   Abbe,    ii.,    24,    173   seq.,   233, 

255- 

Carter,  Rev.  John,  i.,  28,  29  ;  ii.,  56, 
149  «.,  240,  243  seq. 

Catholic  Emancipation,  i.,  1,  314;  ii. 
215  seq. 

Catholic  families,  old,  the  main  sup- 
port of  Catholicism,  i.,  7. 

Catholic  Relief  Act  of  1778,  i.,  1  seq. 

Catholic  Relief  Act  of  1791,  i.,  159  ;  in- 
troduced in  House  of  Commons:  an- 
nounced beforehand,  263  ;  referred  to 
Committee  of  House,  266 ;  in  pre- 
liminary Committee,  271 ;  first  and 
second  readings,  279 ;  Committee 
stage,  Oath  modified,  281 ;  Report 
stage,  281  ;  third  reading,  282 ;  in 
House  of  Lords,  first  reading,  284 ; 
second  reading,  288  ;  speech  by  Bishop 
Horsley,  288  seq. ;  Committee  stage, 
substitution  of  Irish  Oath,  294;  third 


INDEX. 


363 


reading,  296 ;  accepted  by  Com- 
mons and  Royal  assent,  296  ;  bene- 
fits conferred,  298  seq. ;  leaves  double 
land-tax,  312 ;  effect  on  Catholic 
schools,  311  ;  ii.,  70;  effect  on  pro- 
fessional classes,  i.,  312;  on  the  lower 
classes,   313;    what   it  did   not   do, 

314- 
Catholic  Relief  Bill,  proposed,  discussed 

by  the  Committee,  i.,  129  ;  draft  by 

Butler  and  Hargrave,  152. 
Challoner,  Bishop,  i.,  1, 15,  19,  21,  28  «., 

29  «.,  31  «.,  34,  39,  40,  46,  71,  133, 

304.  324. 

Chapter,  the,  i.,  31. 

Chatham,  i.,  306,  310. 

Cheam,  i.,  42. 

Chelsea,  ii.,  171,  233. 

Cheverus,  Abb£,  ii.,  171. 

Chichester,  ii.,  125. 

Cisalpine  Club,  the,  origin,  i.,  340;  ii., 
51;  relation  to  Committee,  ii.,  51; 
Catholics  suspicious  of,  52-54 ;  pro- 
poses new  Catholic  school,  54  seq. ; 
dispute  as  to  authenticity  of  Protesta- 
tion in  Museum,  59  ;  resolutions,  62  ; 
rise  and  failure  of  rival  "  Roman 
Catholic  Meeting,"  63  seq. ;  Rev.  J. 
Wilkes  resigns  membership,  66  ;  pro- 
posal to  change  name  of  club,  62 
seq. ;  later  history  of,  67 ;  minute 
book,  51-68. 

Civic  Oath,  the,  ii.,  2,  3,  6. 

Civil  Constitution  of  Clergy,  ii.,  2,  70. 

Clare  Abbey,  Darlington,  i.,  85. 

Cleghorn,  Thomas,  ii.,  167,  168,  170. 

Clifford,  Henry,  i.,  148,  149,  232,  250 ; 
ii.,  51  seq. 

Clifford,  sixth  Lord,  i.,  94,  in,  117,  231, 

257  !  •>•>  52»  IOO>  IOI>  I26. 

Clifford,  seventh  Lord,  ii.,  238. 

Clifford,  Lewis  and  Arthur,  ii.,  75,  7g. 

Clifford,  Thomas  (afterwards  Sir 
Thomas  Clifford  Constable),  i.,  221, 
318,  323,  325,  328;  ii.,  158. 

Clinton,  Rev.  A.,  i.,  150. 

Clough,  Rev.  Anthony,  i.,  331. 

Collingridge,  Rev.  P.,  O.S.F.,  ii.,  76. 

Colman  Place,  i.,  43. 

Colwich,  i.,  83,  84. 

Committee,  the  Catholic,  memorial  to 
Pitt  quoted,  i.,  3 ;  letter  from  Bishop 
Walmesley,  5,  6,  42,  44 ;  origin,  88 ; 
Cisalpine  principles,  89 ;  active  mem- 
bers, 90;  tardy  Episcopal  opposition 
to,  92  ;  date  of  formation,  93  ;  repre- 
sentative character,  95  ;  Minute  Book, 
95 '■>  suggests  establishment  of  Hier- 
archy, 96  ;  appealed  to  by  Dr.  Strick- 
land, 105  ;  Address  seeking  re-election, 
108  ;   re-election  at   general  meeting 


(May  3, 1787),  in;  repudiate  interfer- 
ence in  spiritual  matters,  112  ;  further 
letter  on  Hierarchy,  114;  suggest 
opening  a  school  in  England,  113,115; 
checked  by  Northern  Protest,  119, 121 ; 
clergy  elected  on,  121 ;  memorial  to 
Pitt,  126  ;  deputation  to  Pitt,  127,  129  ; 
proposed  Bill  drafted  by  Butler,  129, 
152  ;  secret  negotiations  with  Govern- 
ment, 158;  publication  of  new  Oath, 
158, 164  seq. ;  outcome  of  negotiations, 
160 ;  accept  term  "  Protesting  Catholic 
Dissenters,"  161  ;  Oath  and  Protesta- 
tion, 168-70;  first  condemnation  of 
Oath,  175  ;  reply,  181  ;  issue  of  First 
Blue  Book,  184;  Lancashire  Clergy 
petition,  201 ;  Bishop  M.  Gibson's  pas- 
toral, 202 ;  Bishop  Walmesley's  pas- 
toral, 203  ;  other  protests,  205  ;  Address 
of  Staffordshire  Clergy,  205  seq. ;  sug- 
gested negotiations  with  Bishops,  209 ; 
"Open  Committee  Meeting,"  zioseq.; 
why  the  Bill  was  not  introduced,  215  ; 
endeavour  to  get  Charles  Berington 
transferred  to  London,  218  ;  their  pro- 
ceedings translated  into  Italian  in 
Rome,  223  ;  Appeal  of  Ladies,  etc., 
229 ;  indignation  at  appointment  of 
Bishop  Douglass,  231  ;  deputation  to 
Rome  arranged,  231  seq. ;  Bishop 
Berington  having  repudiated  claim, 
resolution  welcoming  Bishop  Doug- 
lass, 234 ;  second  condemnation  of 
Oath,  241 ;  answer  to  Bishop  Doug- 
lass, 246 ;  conlerence  with  Bishops 
Douglass  and  W.  Gibson,  249  seq. ; 
clerical  deputation,  252  ;  Committee's 
defiant  attitude,  252 ;  Second  Blue 
Book,  with  "  Manifesto  and  Appeal," 
254,  257 ;  Bishops  invite  their  co- 
operation, 270 ;  they  act  independ- 
ently, 2go;  protest  against  Milner's 
handbill,  275 ;  publish  "  State  of 
Facts,"  277 ;  resolution  at  annual 
meeting,  317  ;  vote  of  thanks  to,  318  ; 
take  up  case  of  Rev.  J.  Wilkes,  316, 
319  seq.;  petition  on  his  behalf,  322  ; 
Bishop  Walmesley's  reply,  324  :  "  Pro- 
test and  Appeal "  answered  by  Rev.  C. 
Plowden,  333  ;  they  complain  to  the 
W.AA.  of  his  language,  336 ;  reply  of 
Bishops,  336  ;  Third  Blue  Book,  340; 
decision  not  to  risk  re-election,  340 ; 
their  grievances  stated  to  "  Mediators," 
345  ;  on  ecclesiastical  government  of 
England,  349 ;  attitude  of  Bishops, 
350  ;  the  Wilkes  case  again,  351 ;  dis- 
satisfaction with  "  Mediators,"  353  ; 
letter  from  the  Bishops,  354 ;  their 
reply,  355  ;  the  Buff  Book,  356 ;  ii., 
39,  47,  48  ;  Bishop  Berington  defends 


364 


INDEX. 


his  co-operation  with,  134  seq.,  147, 
158. 

Concordat,  the,  negotiated,  ii.,  230; 
signed,  231  ;  results,  232. 

Condron  Park,  i.,  43. 

"  Constitutional  Priests,"  ii.,  3. 

Conway  Street  Chapel,  ii.,  174. 

Coombes,  Rev.  William,  i.,  317,  321, 
seq. ;  ii.,  78,  99,  150. 

Coombes,  Rev.  William  H.,jun.,  ii.,  78, 
99,  165,  235. 

Cornwallis,  Mrs.,  i.,  38,  39. 

Corsini,  Cardinal,  Protector  of  English 
College,  Rome,  i.,  63-65  ;  ii.,  177. 

Costessey,  ii.,  128. 

Cowdray  Park,  i.,  50. 

Cowes,  i.,  308,  309. 

Cowley,  Rev.  William,  Pres.  Gen., 
O.S.B.,  ii.,  159. 

Crook  Hall,  College  established  by 
Bishop  Gibson,  ii.,  104 ;  students  re- 
called from  Old  Hall,  105  ;  tradition 
that  Rev.  John  Daniel  was  nominally 
installed  as  President,  107;  students 
for  North  go  there,  111  ;  College 
proved  permanent,  112. 

D'Ancel,  Abb6,  ii.,  3,  169. 

Daniel,  Rev.  John,  ii.,  72,  78,  107  seq., 
167,  169,  249,  250. 

D'Arcy,  Rev.  Morgan,  ii.,  246. 

Darlington,  Poor  Clares  at,  ii.,  85 ; 
Carmelites  at,  ii.,  86,  129. 

De  la  Marche,  see  St.  Pol  de  L£on, 
Bishop  of. 

Deposing  Power,  the,  i.,  144,  167,  168. 

Devereux,  Rev.  John,  ii.,  165. 

Dispensing  Power,  the,  i.,  128,  130. 

Dissenters,  favourable  to  Catholic  Re- 
lief Bill,  i.,  272,  273. 

Dolebank,  i.,  37. 

Dominicans,  i.,  77,  82;  ii.,  167;  Nuns, 
i.,  86  ;  ii.,  93,  118,  125. 

Dormer,  Charles,  i.,  318. 

Douai  Abbey,  i.,  45,  54,  69. 

Douay,  English  College,  i.,  54;  English 
spirit  at,  58;  effects  of  isolation,  60; 
suggestions  of  Committee,  115  ;  Dis- 
solution, ii.,  70  seq. ;  question  of  re- 
placing it  after  Revolution,  96  seq. ; 
attempts  to  recover,  167  seq.,  249 ; 
decision  not  to  re-establish,  250. 

Douglass,  Bishop,  V.A.  of  London 
District,  early  career,  i.,  71,  197,  220; 
asked  by  Bishop  James  Talbot  to  be- 
come his  Coadjutor,  197 ;  consults 
Bishop  M.  Gibson,  198 ;  voted  for  in 
second  place  by  clergy,  220  ;  elected 
Vicar  Apostolic,  231;  consecrated, 
238 ;  with  Bishop  W.  Gibson  con- 
demns  Oath,   241  ;    conference   with 


Committee,  249 ;  invites  co-operation 
of  Committee,  270,  280,  281,  282,  283, 
284 ;  Pastoral  on  Relief  Act,  297, 300, 
304 ;  at  Meeting  after  Act,  317  seq. ; 
appeals  to  Bishop  Walmesley  on 
behalf  of  Wilkes,  323 ;  reply  to  Com- 
mittee's complaint  against  C.  Plow- 
den,  336,  355 ;  care  for  French  Re- 
fugees, ii.,  13  seq.,  26 ;  refuses  iaculties 
to  Joseph  Berington,  45  ;  interview 
with  Mgr.  Erskine,  46  seq.,  74 ; 
negotiations  as  to  Colleges,  96  seq.  ; 
care  for  refugee  nuns,  122  seq. ;  case 
of  Bishop  Berington,  133,  139  seq.; 
denies  approval  of  Midland  "election," 
155  ;  letter  to  Joseph  Berington,  180 ; 
appreciation  of  Burke,  166,  179,  194, 
195  ;  case  of  Bishop  Hussey,  199  seq. ; 
Mildmay's  Bill,  204  seq. ;  case  of 
Joseph  Berington,  212  seq. 

Douglass  Diary  quoted,  ii.,  30,  32,  37, 
47,  48,  98,  Q9,  115,  116,  117,  129, 
139,  140,  150,  153,  154,  155,  167,  169, 
170,  171,  175,  194,  200,  201,  204,  205 
206,  208,  209,  216,  217,  218,  219,  222, 
223,  227,  246,  249,  250,  251,  253,  254. 

Doullens,  ii.,  78  seq. 

Downside  Abbey,  i.,  54 ;  ii.,  80,  96,  105, 
130,  150. 

Dunkirk,  religious  communities  at,  i., 
83  seq. ;  ii.,  83,  128. 

Easebourne,  i.,  50. 

East  Bergholt  Abbey,  i.,  83. 

East  Hendred,  i.,  45  ;  ii.,  45. 

Edgbaston,  ii.,  55. 

"  Eight  Indulgences,"  the,  i.,  13. 

Emancipation  Club,  the,  ii.,  51. 

Encyclical  Letter  of  Bishops  condemn- 
ing the  Oath,  first,  i.,  176  seq.;  second, 
241  seq. 

Englefield,  Sir  Henry,  i.,  44,  go,  94,  98, 
106,  107,  in,  114,  116,  117,  128,  153, 
177,  212,  250,  251,  257,  287,  336,  339, 
343,  345.  352 ;  ii.,  42,  43,  52,  62,  67. 

Errington,  Henry,  i.,  318. 

Erskine,  Mgr.  Charles,  i.,  47  ;  his  career, 
ii.,  37 ;  origin  of  his  mission,  38 ; 
personal  aims,  39 ;  arrives  in  Eng- 
land, 46  ;  influence  on  politics  slight, 
48  ;  failure  of  diplomatic  mission,  49  ; 
cause  of  long  stay,  49,  50,  107,  108, 
126,  131,  133,  138,  177,  179,  195,  196, 
199,  227,  229,  230,  231,  232,  239,  253, 
254. 

Eucharistic  Procession  (1908),  i.,  299, 
300. 

Eyre,  Francis,  i.,  339;  ii.,  115. 

Eyre,  Lady  Mary,  ii.,  219,  220,  224. 

Eyre,  Rev.  Thomas,  i.,  117;  ii.,  72,  155; 
President  of  Crook  Hall,  ii.,  104. 


INDEX. 


365 


Fagan,  Mr.,  secures  English  College 
property  in  Rome,  ii.,  221,  222,  228. 

Fermor,  William,  i.,  94,  98,  106,  107, 
in,  114,  116,  117,  126,  127,  177,  183, 
203,  204,  212,  257,  343,  352. 

Filaire,  Abb£,  ii.,  171. 

Filonneau,  M.,  ii.,  172. 

Fitzherbert,  Mrs.,  i.,  50  ;  early  lite,  101 ; 
previous  marriages,  102  ;  secret  mar- 
riage with  Prince  of  Wales,  103  ;  case 
referred  to  Rome,  ii.,  226  seq. 

Fleury,  Abb6,  ii.,  202,  203,  205. 

Foggini,  Mgr.,  i.,  61  seq. 

Fox,  Charles,  and  Catholic  Relief,  i., 
153  ;  gives  notice  of  amendment  to 
Bill,  265  ;  speech,  271. 

Franciscans,  i.,  15,  43,  52,  54,  69,  85  ; 
ii.,  77,  118,  125,  204. 

French  Chapels  in  London,  ii.,  171 ; 
closed,  233. 

French  Refugee  Clergy,  generosity  of 
English  people  to,  ii.,  1,  8  seq. ;  relief 
organised,  19  seq.,  29  ;  rules  of  con- 
duct for,  21  seq. ;  spiritual  retreats 
for,  25,  26,  28 ;  life  at  Winchester, 
26  seq. ;  relief  voted  by  Parliament, 
30;  their  numbers,  31,  127,  163; 
second  stream  arrives,  127 ;  King's 
House,  Winchester,  withdrawn,  163  ; 
Edmund  Burke's  kindness  to,  165 ; 
permanent  chapels  opened  by  them  in 
London,  171 ;  refugees  sent  to  Eng- 
land from  Jersey,  174 ;  French 
Bishops  and  the  Concordat,  231 ; 
general  return  to  France,  232  ;  some 
remain  in  England,  233. 

Gage,  Sir  Thomas,  ii.,  125. 

Geddes,  Bishop,  i.,  149. 

Geddes,  Alexander,  i.,  42,  164,  313;  ii., 
211,  212,  246  seq. 

George  III.,  Catholic  address  to  (1789), 
i.,  154 ;  ditto  (1793),  ii.,  153  ;  advice 
to  Mr.  Weld  about  new  chapel  at 
Lulworth,  i.,  235  ;  letter  on  behalf  of 
French  refugee  priests,  ii.,  29 ;  re- 
ceives Papal  envoy,  49  ;  favourable  to 
English  refugee  nuns,  116;  orders 
vessels  to  convey  French  refugees 
from  Holland,  127;  refuses  Catholic 
Emancipation,  216,  217. 

Gerard,  Sir  William,  ii.,  126. 

Gerdil,  Cardinal,  Prefect  of  Propaganda, 
ii.,  131  seq.,  150,  152,  153,  155,  177, 
seq.,  192,  238,  239. 

Ghent,  Benedictines  of,  ii.,  92,  93,  117. 

Gibson,  Bishop  Matthew,  V.A.  of  North- 
ern District,  early  opposition  to  Com- 
mittee, i.,  92,  98,  99  ;  in  conflict  with 
ex-Jesuits,  104 ;  disregards  Com- 
mittee's letter,  106  ;  sends  explanation, 


106, 107,  112,  122, 137  ;  agrees  to  sign 
Protestation  if  necessary,  147  ;  signa- 
ture erased,  150  ;  prohibits  Oath,  173  ; 
Pastoral  against  Committee,  202  ;  re- 
fuses to  attend  meeting,  209  ;  death, 
225. 
Gibson,  Bishop  William,  V.A.  of  North- 
-  ern  District,  President  of  Douay,  i.,  54 
seq. ;  appointed  Vicar  Apostolic,  226, 
230,  231  ;  consecrated,  237  ;  confer- 
ence with  Committee,  249  seq.  ;  in- 
vites their  co-operation,  270  ;  returns 
to  the  North,  280,  283,  319  ;  plans  for 
College  in  North,  ii.,  97,  99,  101,  104, 
108,  no  seq.,  142,  143,  144,  150,  152, 
153  ;  claims  jurisdiction  during  Mid- 
land vacancy,  156 ;  confirmed  by 
Cardinal  Borgia,  156,  169 ;  takes 
action  against  Wilkes,  236 ;  and 
against  Staffordshire  Clergy,  239 ; 
claims  jurisdiction  again  on  Bishop 
Stapleton's  death,  252  ;  at  consecra- 
tion of  Bishops  Milner  and  Poynter, 

.255- 
Giffard,  Bishop  Bonaventure,  i.,  19,  38, 

39- 

Gloucester,  i.,  306. 

Gordon  Riots,  i.,  21. 

Gosport,  i.,  50,  306  seq. ;  ii.,  13. 

Gother,  Rev.  John,  i.,  74. 

Gravelines,  Poor  Clares  at,  i.,  55,  85 ; 
ii.,  83;  at  Gosfield  Hall,  128;  Dar- 
lington, 129. 

Greenwich,  i.,  306,  310. 

Griffiths,  Rev.  John,  i.,  194. 

Haggerston,  Sir  Carnaby,   i„  94 ;  ii., 

129 
Hales  Place,  i.,  47. 

Hammersmith,  i.,  21,34  se1-!  u-.I24>  I28. 
Hampstead,  ii.,  171,  233. 
Hartpury  Court,  ii.,  125. 
Hengrave  Hall,  ii.,  125. 
Heythrop,  ii.,  157. 
Higginson,  Rev.  James,  ii.,  83,  84. 
Hippisley,  Sir  John  Cox,  ii.,  37,  38,  177, 

178,  201. 
Hoadly,  Dr.,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  ii., 

202. 
Hodgson,  Rev.  Joseph,  ii.,  73,  109,  250, 

252. 
Holme  Hall,  ii.,  126. 
Hoogstraet,  ii.,  86-90,  93,  125. 
Hornyold,  Thomas,  i.,  93,  9S,  106,  107, 

in,  180,  183,  212,  251,  257,  336,  343, 

345,  352. 

Horrabin,  Rev.  Thomas,  ii.,  180,  182. 

Horsley,  Dr.  Samuel,  Bishop  of  St. 
David's  (afterwards  of  Rochester  ;  then 
of  St.  Asaph),  i.,  286  seq. ;  speech  on 
Relief  Bill,  288-93  ;  proposes  the  Irish 


366 


INDEX. 


Oath,  294 ;  speaks  in  defence  of  the 
Convents,  ii.,  208,  209. 

Howard,  Bernard,  ii.,  42. 

Hurst,  Re</.  William,  i.,  57. 

Hussey,  Bishop  Thomas,  first  President 
of  Maynooth,  Bishop  of  Waterford, 
i.,  27,  29, 154,  189,  190,  224,  231,  233, 
301,  302,  303  ;  ii.,  146,  197,  198,  199, 
200. 

Infallibility,   Papal,  and  "the   Pro- 
testation," i.,  143. 
Ingatestone  Hall,  i.,  43. 

Jacobite  party  abandoned  by  Catholics, 
i.,  10,  88,  89. 

Jerningham,  Sir  William,  i.,  in  ;  ii.  128. 

Jersey,  ii.,  173,  174. 

Jesuits,  after  the  Suppression,  i.,  15,  77  ; 
Dr.  Strickland's  suggestion  to  Bp. 
Talbot,  78-80  ;  question  of  disposition 
of  their  property,  104  seq. ;  College 
at  St.  Omer,  65  ;  at  Bruges,  66,  77 ; 
at  Liege,  76 ;  ii.  90,  166 ;  at  Stony- 
hurst,  ii.,  103. 

Jones,  Sir  William,  i.,  in. 

Kelvedon  Hall,  i.,  43. 

King  Street  Chapel,  ii.,  233. 

Kirk,  Rev.  John,  i.,  13,  14,  28,  29,  61, 

124,  155  ;  ii.,  142,   148,  153,  154,  241, 

242,  243. 
Kitchen,  Rev.  Edward,  ii.  72. 

Ladies'  Appeal  to  Committee,  i.,  228, 

229,  232. 
Lancashire  Clergy  petition  against  Oath, 

i.,  201,  202. 
Lanherne,  i.,  86  ;  ii.,  125. 
Lawson,  Sir  John,  i.,  in,  113,  119  seq., 

257.  275,  343;  ii.,  125,237. 
Liege  Academy,  i.,  76 ;  ii.,  go,  100,  103, 

167. 
Liege,  Canonesses  of  Holy  Sepulchre, 

i.,  76  ;  ii.,  90  seq. ;  at  New  Hall,  126. 
Lierre,  ii.,  93. 
Lincoln's    Inn    Fields   Chapel,   i.,    26, 

199,  220;  ii.,  195. 
Lindow,  Rev.  John,  ii.,  iog. 
Lingard,  Rev.  John,  i.,  4g,  50;  ii.,  75, 

104,  106  seq.,  255. 
Lisbon,    English    College    at.    i.,    73 ; 

earthquake,  74,  75  ;  Convent  of  Brid- 

gettines,  75,  76. 
Little  George  Street  Chapel,  ii.,  171, 233. 
Louvain,    Augustinian  Canonesses,    i., 

85;  ii.,  93. 
Lulworth  Castle,  i.,  235  seq. 

Macaulay,  sketch  of  Catholic  squire. 
i.,  10. 


MacPherson,    Rev.    P.,    ii.,    153,    190, 
222. 

Magnani,  Abbate,  i.,  65. 

Main,  Rev.  George,  i.,  257,  268,  320. 

Matthew,  Sir  Toby,  i.,  84. 

Mawhood's  Diaries,  i.,  29. 

Maynooth  College,  ii.,  71,  195,  197. 

Mediation,  the,  i.,  339  seq. ;  ii.,  40,  42, 
147. 

Meynell,  Rev.  Thomas,  ii.,  6. 

Middlesex  Hospital,  ii.,  172. 

Mildmay,  Sir  Henry,  ii.,  201,  202,  204, 
206. 

Milner,  Rev.  John,  at  Winchester,  i., 
47 ;  as  a  controversialist,  48,  51,  gi, 
93 ;  drafts  Clergy  Protest  against 
Committee,  94,  95,  98,  9g ;  on  the 
Committee's  Address,  iog  ;  prepares 
rejoinder,  111 ;  opinion  of  Wilkes, 
125  ;  on  Throckmorton's  "  Exposi- 
tion," 133,  134,  145  ;  on  Episcopal 
signatures  to  Protestation,  148 ;  on 
"  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters,"  164, 
170;  signs  Protestation,  151;  on  re- 
fusal of  Oath  by  signers  of  Protesta- 
tion, 170 ;  attends  meeting  of  Bishops, 
175 ;  obituary  sermon  on  Bishop 
James  Talbot,  18,  ig,  186,  187,  198, 
igg,  201,  228,  231,  237,  238  ;  on  the 
"  Manifesto  and  Appeal,"  257,  258  ;  on 
the  surprise  of  Bishops  at  introduction 
of  Relief  Bill,  266 ;  his  activity  in 
opposing  it,  268  seq. ;  circulates  first 
handbill  in  House  of  Commons,  270  ; 
second  ditto,  274;  meeting  at  Norfolk 
House,  277 ;  certificate  of  Bishops, 
277,  278,  27g  ;  resigns  agency  of  W. 
A.  A.,  280  ;  writes  to  Bishops  of  Salis- 
bury and  Hereford,  284,  2g5,  314;  at 
meeting  after  the  Act,  318  ;  on  Stafford- 
shire Clergy,  320 ;  answers  Address, 
331  ;  on  C.  Plowden's  reply  to  "  Pro- 
test and  Appeal,"  333  ;  on  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Government,  34g;  his  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Democracy  Detected,  ii.,  40 ;  writes 
Pastoral  for  Bishops  condemning 
Throckmorton's  book,  40 ;  letter  to 
Bishop  Douglass,  4g  ;  dispute  with 
Cisalpine  Club  about  Museum  Pro- 
testation, 57  seq.  ;  on  the  failure  of 
"  Roman  Catholic  Meeting,"  65,  66  ; 
on  question  of  a  school,  106  ;  receives 
Brussels  Benedictine  nuns  at  Win- 
chester, 123  ;  suggested  as  Coadjutor 
to  Bishop  Berington,  139  ;  anxiety  to 
exclude  him,  155, 161,  182  ;  history  of 
Winchester,  201,  211  ;  controversy 
with  Dr.  Sturges,  202  seq. ;  End  of 
Controversy  withheld,  210 ;  recom- 
mended by  Propaganda  as  Vicar 
Apostolic,  228  ;  election  cancelled  by 


INDEX. 


367 


Pope,  228,  232 ;  suggested  again  as 
Bishop,  252  seq. ;  consecrated  at 
Winchester,  255  ;  preaches  at  conse- 
cration of  Bishop  Poynter,  256. 

Milton  (Berks.),  i.,  46  ;  ii.,  182. 

Miraculous  Madonnas,  ii.,  100. 

Mitford,  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir  John,  later 
Lord  Redesdale),  i.,  155, 159,  263,  270, 
318,  344;  ii.,  133,  205. 

Monastic  Institutions  Bill,  ii.,  200  seq. ; 
occasion  of,  201;  nature  of,  204;  in 
Committee  of  House,  205  ;  passage 
through  Commons,  206 ;  in  Lords,  208  ; 
thrown  out  by  the  Lords,  209. 

Monmouth,  i.,  306. 

Montague,  Lord,  i.,  50,  51. 

Montpellier,  Bishop  of,  ii.,  30. 

Moore,  Dr.,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
i.,  284. 

Moorfields,  i.,  26,  189. 

More,  Rev.  Thomas,  Provincial,  S.J., 
before  suppression,  i.,  15,  214. 

Morel,  Abb£,  ii.,  171,  233. 

Moylan,  Dr.,  Bishop  of  Cork,  ii.,  194, 
216. 


Nash  Court,  i.,  47. 

Nassau,  Rev.  John,  mission    to  Rome, 

ii.,  225  seq. 
Needham,  Rev.  J.  Turberville,  i.,  313. 
Nelson,  Lord,  ii.,  218,  219,  220. 
Newburgh,  Lord,  ii.,  15. 
New  Hall,  ii.,  126. 
Newport  (Isle  of  Wight),  i.,  306. 
Newport  (Shropshire),  ii.,  157. 
Newton  Abbott,  i.,  85  ;  ii.,  125. 
Norfolk,  Duke  of,  i.,  9,  43,  52. 

Oates,  Titus,  i.,  70. 

Oath  of  Abjuration,  i.,  166. 

Oath  of  Allegiance,  i.,  105  seq.,  168. 

Oath  of  1774  (Irish),  i.,  166,  268,  294. 

Oath  of  1778  (English),  i.,  142,  166,  175, 
177,  208,  261. 

Oath  of  Supremacy,  i.,  in,  112,  167, 
295  ;  ii.,  44- 

Oath,  proposed  in  1789,  i.,  156  seq. ; 
text,  164  ;  controversy  concerning,  166 
seq. ;  first  condemnation  by,  W.AA., 
176 ;  opposition  to  Butler's  amended 
Oath,  212 ;  condemnation  by  Propa- 
ganda, 224 ;  second  condemnation  by 
W.AA.,  241  ;  theological  opinions 
concerning,  251  ;  amended  in  House 
of  Commons,  281 ;  thrown  out  by 
Lords  in  favour  of  Irish  Oath,  294  ; 
subsequent    controversies,    317,    319, 

352,  355  ;  »•.  47,  l6°.  l6l« 
O'Connell,  Daniel,  i.,  68,  75. 
Odeschalschi,  Mgr.,  ii.,  199. 


Old  Brotherhood  of  English  Secular 
Clergy,  the,  i.,  31. 

Old  Hall  Green,  school  at,  i.,  40,  41,  57, 
58,  117,  118,  188,  199,  311  ;  ii.,  55  n. ; 
proposed  for  seminary  in  place  of 
Douay,  97 ;  becomes  St.  Edmund's 
College,  98 ;  departure  of  Northern 
students,  105  ;  further  change  of 
plans,  106  ;  legacy  of  Mr.  Sone,  108  ; 
final  settlement  and  building  begun, 
109,  165  ;  building  opened,  194,  195. 

O'Leary,  Rev.  Arthur,  i.,  113,  191,  302  ; 
ii.,  195,  208,  245,  246. 

Oscott,  i.,  123  ;  ii.,  103,  no  seq. 

Oulton  Abbey,  i.,  83,  84. 

Oxford  University  and  the  Refugees,  ii., 
20. 

Paddington  Green,  ii.,  164,  172. 

Paris,  Communities  at,  i.,  68,  69 ;  English 
Seminary,  ii.,  166,  249  ;  Benedictines 
during  Revolution,  ii.,  81,  128. 

Parker,  Rev.  H.,  O.S.B.,  ii.,  81,  82. 

"  Pastorini,"  see  Bishop  Walmesley. 

Penn,  school  for  children  of  emigres  at, 
ii.,  165,  166. 

Penswick,  Rev.  John,  ii.,  72. 

Perry,  Rev.  John,  i.,  257,  320 ;  ii.,  255. 

Perry,  Rev.  Philip,  i.,  71. 

"Persuasive  Resolution,"  the,  i.,  210; 
ii.,  151,  158,  161,  198;  statement  of 
VV.AA.  regarding,  151. 

Peterborough,  Bishop  of,  i.,  285. 

"  Petite  Eglise,"  the,  ii.,  232,  234. 

Petre,  ninth  Lord,  i.,  41,  42,  43,  90,  93, 
95,  98,  106,  107,  in,  112,  114,  116, 
117,  128,  132,  137,  153,  154.  I55.  in> 
183,  189,  192,  193,  203,  212,  224,  231, 
251,  257,  275.  305.  317.  336,  343.  345, 
352  ;  ii.,  32,  33,  42,  43,  46,  52,  60,  61, 
63,  67,  139,  201,  205,  207,  246. 

Pilling,  Rev.  W.,  O.S.F.,  i.,  147.  x74, 
208,  213,  214;  ii.,  77,  78. 

Pistoia,  Synod  of,  i.,  89;  ii.,  146. 

Pitt,  William  (Prime  Minister),  i.,  101, 
126,  127,  151,  155,  156,  158,  169,  195, 
262,  266,  267,  272;  ii.,  19,  3°.  I07» 
204,  205,  207,  216,  217. 

Pius  V.,  Pope  St.,  i.,  89. 

Pius  VI.,  Pope,  ii.,  3,  38,  146,   178,  192, 

193.  195,  199- 

Pius  VII.,  Pope,  ii.,  218,  222,  223. 

Plowden,  Rev.  Charles,  i.,  143, 144,  148, 
151,  164,  214,  268,  270,  280,  325, 332 
seq.;  ii.,  45,  57,  58,  59,  161. 

Plowden,  Francis,  i.,  339;  ii.,  42,  44. 

Plowden,  Rev.  Robert,  ii.,  130,  161. 

Pontoise,  Benedictines  of,  i.,  83  ;  ii.,  83. 

Poor  Clares,  at  Dunkirk,  i.,  85 ;  Grave- 
lines,  i.,  35,  85 ;  ii.,  83 ;  in  England, 
128,  129. 


368 


INDEX. 


Portland,  Duke  of,  ii.,  133,  163. 

Portsmouth,  L,  306,  307,  308;  ii.,  13. 

Portuguese  Chapel,  i.,  25  ;  ii.,  195. 

Potier,  Rev.  John,  i.,  311 ;  ii.,  97,  109. 

Potts,  Rev.  Thomas,  ii.,  103. 

Poynter,  Bishop,  i.,  47,  57;  ii.,  72,  73, 
74,  109,  167,  235,  249,  250 ;  appointed 
Coadjutor  to  Bishop  Douglass,  ii.,  255  ; 
on  the  Cisalpine  Club,  i.,  67. 

Princethorpe,  ii.,  33. 

"  Protest  and  Appeal,"  the  Committee's, 
i.,  254,  326,327;  ii.,  47,  145,  147,  148, 
x58,  159 ;  C.  Plowden's  reply,  333 ; 
Bishops  request  retractation  of,  355. 

"  Protestant,"  origin  of  term,  i.,  162. 

"  Protesting  Catholic  Dissenters,"  origin 
of  term,  i.,  155,  161  seq. ;  defended  by 
Committee,  182  ;  rejected  by  VV.AA., 
175  seq.,  263  seq.,  281. 

Protestation,  the,  Butler's  account  of  its 
origin,  i.,  131 ;  Throckmorton's  earlier 
suggestion,  132 ;  further  light  on  origin, 
134  seq. ;  text  of,  139  seq. ;  quoted  in 
Gladstone's  Vaticanism,  143 ;  char- 
acter of  objections  raised,  144,  145  ; 
signatures  obtained,  145  seq.,  278, 
279 ;  voted  to  be  deposited  in  British 
Museum,  317 ;  authenticity  of  Museum 
document  disputed,  ii.,  57  seq.,  133, 
138,  160,  161. 

Reading,  i,  44,  45  ;  ii.,  164. 

"  Red  Book,"  Butler's,  i.,  108,  162,  174, 
181,  213. 

Reeve,  Rev.  Joseph,  i.,  213  seq. 

Richmond  (Surrey),  i.,  300,  310. 

Roe,  Rev.  John,  ii.,  241  seq. 

"  Roman  Catholic  Meeting,"  the,  rival 
of  the  Cisalpine  Club,  ii.,  63 ;  its 
failure,  65,  66. 

Rome,  English  College  at,  i.,  60  seq.; 
English  superiors  obtained  at  ditto, 
ii.,  177;  miraculous  Madonnas,  180 
seq.;  Revolution,  183  seq.;  fate  of 
College,  190;  property  reclaimed,  221, 
228  ;  Scots  College,  222. 

Romilly,  Sir  Samuel,  ii.,  12. 

Rouen,  Poor  Clares  at,  i.,  85  ;  ii.,  83  ; 
in  England,  129. 

Roughey,  i.,  43. 

St.  Omer,  Jesuit  College,  i.,  65  ;  ac- 
cepted by  secular  clergy,  66 ;  im- 
prisonment of  students  during  the 
Terror,  ii.,  80  seq. ;  they  arrive  in 
England,  105,  128;  attempts  to  re- 
cover College,  167,  170,  249. 

St.  Pol  de  L£on,  Bishop  of,  ii.,  4,  6,  20, 
21,  26,  196,  203  seq.,  231,  234. 

Sedgley  Park  School,  i.,  14,  28,  117, 
118;  ii.,  55,  143,  148,  153. 


Sharrock,  Bishop  Gregory,  i.,  149,  212; 

ii.,    7,    78,    150,    151,   152,    157,    235, 

250,  255. 
Sharrock,  Prior  Jerome,  ii.,  j6  seq.,  169, 

243- 

Sheftord,  i.,  40,  311. 
Sheldon,  William,  i.,  93,  339. 
"  Ship"  Inn,  the,  i.,  29,  300. 
Shrewsbury,   fifteenth  Earl  of,  i.,  188 ; 

ii.,  42,  43,  205,  207. 
Silburn,  Mrs.  Dorothy,  ii.,  6,  20,  25,  30, 

234- 
Slindon,  i.,  52;  ii.,  15. 
Smelt,  Rev.  Robert,  Roman  agent  for 

the  Vicars  Apostolic,  i.,  222,  224,  239  ; 

»•,  37,  39.  70,  134,  137,  142,  155,  173, 
176  seq.,  219  seq.,  241. 

Smith,  Rev.  Thomas,  ii.,  75,  no,  250, 
252. 

Smythe,  Sir  Edward,  i.,  102 ;  ii.,  105. 

Somers  Town,  ii.,  174,  233. 

Sone,  John,  ii.,  108,  194. 

Southampton,  i.,  306. 

Southend  (or  Soberton),  i.,  50. 

Southworth,  Rev.  Richard,  i.,  197,  220, 
222,  306  ;  ii.,  13,  14. 

Southworth,  Rev.  Thomas,  ii.,  152,  241 
seq. 

Spanish  Place  Chapel,  i.,  190,  301. 

Staffordshire  Clergy,  the,  Address  to 
Bishop  T.  Talbot,  i.,  205,  245,  261, 
287 ;  letter  to  Committee  in  Wilkes' 
case,  320 ;  resert  C.  Plowden's  reply  to 
"  Protest  and  Appeal,"  34 ;  appeal  to 
Bishop  Walmesley,  334  ;  Appeal  to  the 
Catholics  of  England,  335  ;  Address  to 
Catholic  Clergy  of  England,  340 ;  ac- 
cept C.  Plowden's  explanation,  357 ; 
sign  declaration,  358 ;  C.  Plowden's 
final  letter  to,  358,  359 ;  ii.,  56,  145 
seq. ;  meeting  at  Sedgley  Park,  ii.,  148 ; 
issue  Exposition  of  our  Sentiments, 
149;  Statement  of  Facts,  157;  sum- 
moned by  Bishop  Gibson  to  retract, 
239 ;  their  letter  to  Dr.  Bew,  240 ; 
difficulty  ended  by  Bishop  Stapleton, 
241  seq. 

"  Staffordshire  Creed,"  the,  i.,  335  ;  ii., 
147,  241. 

Stanbrook  Abbey,  i.,  83,  84  ;  ii.,  86. 

Standon  Lordship  School,  i.,  40. 

Stanhope,  Lord,  i.,  131,  134,  145,  146, 
156,  293,  295  ;  ii.,  60,  61. 

Stapleton,  Bishop  Gregory,  Vicar  Apos- 
tolic of  Midland  District,  resigns  post 
at  Douay,  i.,  55 ;  President  of  St.  Omer, 
67,  222 ;  estimate  of  O'Connell  as  a 
boy,  68 ;  action  on  behalf  of  the 
Colleges  during  Revolution,  ii.,  70 ; 
imprisoned  with  the  Collegians  at 
Doullens,  80  ;  appointed  head  of  pro- 


INDEX. 


369 


posed  foundation  at  Old  Hall,  106  ; 
President  of  St.  Edmund's  College, 
iog,  155,  169,  179,  180 ;  mission  to 
Rome,  225  seq. ;  appointed  Vicar 
Apostolic  of  Midland  District,  228  ; 
consecrated,  235  ;  reconciles  Stafford- 
shire Clergy,  241  seq. ;  goes  to  St. 
Omer,  251 ;  death  there,  251. 

Stone,  Rev.  Marmaduke,  ii.,  100,  101, 
103. 

Stonor,  Mgr.  Christopher,  Roman  Agent 
for  Vicars  Apostolic,  i.,  60,  81,  197, 
219,  221,  222  ;  ii.,  177,  178. 

Stonyhurst  College,  ii.,  65,  76,  96,  100, 
103,  104,  106. 

Storey,  Rev.  Arthur,  ii.,  100,  101,  102. 

Stourton,  Lord,  i.,  93,  98,  107,  in,  114, 
116,  117,  251,  257,  275,  343  ;  ii.,  126, 
205. 

Stratford,  i.,  43. 

Strickland,  Rev.  Joseph,  i.,  214. 

Strickland,  Rev.  William,  7S  seq. ;  105, 
167,  203,  228,  253,  260,  261,  325,  344  ; 
ii.,  100. 

Sturges,  Dr.,  ii.,  201 ;  his  Reflections, 
etc.,  202 ;  controversy  with  Milner, 
209  seq.,  228  ;  commended  by  Joseph 
Berington,  212. 

Sutton,  i.,  43. 

Sutton  Place,  i.,  43. 

Swinburn,  Sir  Edward,  i.,  93. 

Synod  at  Winchester  and  Old  Hall,  ii., 
256. 

Talbot,  Bishop  James,  V.A.  London 
District,  early  history,  i.,  19  ;  Coadjutor 
to  Challoner,  21 ;  Report  to  Rome, 
35 ;  correspondence  with  President 
Gibson,  56  seq. ;  on  the  ex-Jesuits, 
80 ;  deprecates  opposition  to  Com- 
mittee, 92  ;  opinion  of  their  letter,  98  ; 
changes  his  views  on  Committee,  in  ; 
favourable  on  school  question,  118  ; 
elected  on  Committee,  121 ;  on 
Throckmorton's  "Exposition,"  133; 
signs  Protestation,  147 ;  urges  clergy 
to  sign,  147;  verbally  approves  of 
Oath,  157  ;  illness  and  recovery,  172 ; 
attends  meeting  of  W.AA.,  and 
joins  in  condemnation  of  Oath,  175 ; 
difficulties  of  his  position,  187 ;  death, 
199. 

Talbot,  Bishop  Thomas,  V.A.  Midland 
District,  early  history,  i.,  18  ;  President 
of  St.  Omer,  66  ;  Coadjutor  to  Bishop 
Hornyold,  67,  98,  in,  138;  signs 
Protestation,  147  ;  attends  meeting  of 
W.AA.,  and  joins  in  condemnation 
of  Oath,  175 ;  refrains  from  pro- 
mulgating condemnation,  184 ;  assists 
at  "Open  Committee  Meeting,"  211; 


elected  on  Committee,  216,  220,  223, 
226  ;  reasons  for  not  signing  second 
condemnation  of  Oath,  244,  253,  321, 
324.337;  declines  to  censure  Joseph 
Berington,  ii.,  44  ;  declines  to  censure 
Throckmorton's  book,  40,  56,  57 ; 
death,  130. 

Tasker,  Rev.  James,  ii.,  241  seq. 

Taunton,  i.,  85. 

Teignmouth  Abbey,  i.,  83,  84  ;  ii.,  128. 

Temporal  Power,  the,  i.,  143,  168. 

Thame,  ii.,  104. 

Thorndon  Hall,  i.,  43. 

Throckmorton,  Sir  John,  i.,  47,  90.  93, 
98,  99,  106,  in  ;  on  Oath  of  Supre- 
macy, 112,  114,  116,  117,  121  ;  and 
the  "  Exposition,"  132  seq.,  153,  177, 
J83,  192,  212,  219  ;  pamphlet  on  ap- 
pointment of  Bishops,  227,  251 ;  suc- 
ceeds to  Baronetcy,  332,  336,  340, 
343,  345.  352,  353 ;  his  book  con- 
demned by  W.AA.,  ii.,  40 ;  stay  in 
Rome,  39,  40 ;  difficulty  about  Buck- 
land  chaplaincy,  45,  46,  48,  52,  63, 
139,  214. 

Throckmorton,  Sir  Robert,  i.,  46. 

Thwing,  Rev.  Thomas,  last  Douay 
martyr,  i.,  37. 

Tichborne,  i.,  50. 

Tierney,  Rev.  Mark,  ii.,  47. 

Tottenham,  ii.,  171. 

Towneley,  John,  i.,  94,  111. 

Trappists,  the,  at  Lulworth,  ii.,335^., 
115. 

Tudhoe,  school  at,  ii.,  100  seq. 

Tuite,  Rev.  Francis,  ii.,  167  seq. 

Twyford  School,  i.,  19. 

Ufton  Court,  i.,  45. 

Ushaw  College,  i.,  58 ;  ii.,  96,  104. 

Valladolid,  English  College  founded 
by  Parsons,  i.,  69;  passes  to  Secular 
Clergy,  71  ;  Scots  College,  72. 

Veto  question,  the,  ii.,  215,  217. 

Virginia  Street  Chapel,  i.,  26,  189. 

Voyaux  de  Franous,  Abbe,  ii.,  171,  233. 

Walker,  Rev.  G.  Augustine,  President 
General,  O.S.B.,  i.,  325, 329,  331  ;  ii., 

83. 
Walmesley,  Bishop,  V.A.  Western 
District,  early  career,  i.,  4;  writes  as 
"  Pastorini,"  on  Apocalypse,  5  ;  views 
on  state  of  Catholics,  5  seq.;  early 
opposition  to  Committee,  92 ;  views 
on  school  question,  117,  130,  137 ; 
signs  Protestation,  147  ;  disapproves 
of  Oath,  170  ;  joins  in  condemnation 
of  Oath,  175  ;  letter  announcing  it, 
177  ;  pastoral,  179;  withdraws  signa- 


37° 


INDEX. 


ture  to  Protestation,  179, 181 ;  pastoral 
against  Committee,  203  ;  present  at 
"Open  Committee  Meeting,"  211; 
only  dissentient,  212  ;  on  non-intro- 
duction of  Bill,  216,  223  ;  writes  to 
Rome  against  Bishop  Berington,  230 ; 
joins  in  second  condemnation  of  Oath, 
241  seq.;  suspends  Rev.  J.  Wilkes, 
259,  261,  266,  283,  284 ;  letter  to 
Archhishop  of  Canterbury,  285,  319, 
321 ;  Wilkes'  case,  322  seq. ;  reinstates 
Wilkes,  327 ;  suspends  him  again, 
329;  excommunicates  his  lay  sup- 
porters at  Bath,  330  ;  reply  to  Medi- 
ators, 348  ;  ii.,  14,  44  ;  on  proposed 
public  school,  56 ;  refuses  leave  to 
Dr.  Bew  to  be  President,  57 ;  on 
College  to  succeed  Douay,  114;  dis- 
pute with  Mgr.  Erskine,  126;  re- 
opens controversies,  145  seq.  ;  death, 
150;  character  and  life-work,  151. 

Walsh,  Rev.  Thomas,  i.,  68 ;  ii.,  241. 

Walthamstow,  i.,  43. 

Ward,  Mary,  i.,  35,  36. 

Warmoll,  Rev.  John,  Southern  Pro- 
vincial, O.S.B.,  i.,  258,  259,  324,  325, 
327,329,  330  ;  ii.,  78,  159,  236,  238. 

Warwick  Street  Chapel,  i.,  25,  191  seq., 
302. 

Waterford  and  Lismore,  Bishop  of,  see 
Hussey,  Bishop. 

Webbe,  Sir  John,  ii.,  125. 

Webbe,  Samuel,  i.,  27. 

Weld,  Thomas  of  Lulworth,  i.,  15,  17 ; 
against  Committee,  95 ;  signs  Pro- 
testation with  anxiety,  150,  156,  158, 

235  \  grandfather  of  Cardinal  Vaughan, 

236  n. ;  letter  to  Pitt,  266 ;  against 
reappointment  of  Committee,  340 ; 
receives  Trappist  monks,  ii.,  33  seq. ; 
Cisalpine  Club,  53  ;  offers  Stonyhurst 
to  ex-Jesuits,  100;  College  founded 
there,  103,  115,  125. 

West  Grinstead,  i.,  52. 

Weston,  John  Webbe,  i.,  339  seq. 

Wilds,  Rev.  William,  ii.,  73. 

Wilkes,  Rev.  Joseph,  O.S.B.,  elected  on 
Committee,  i.,  122 ;  his  previous 
career,  124,  135,  148 ;  suspended  by 
Bishop    Walmesley,   257  seq.;    case 


taken  up  by  Committee,  316,  319; 
signs  declaration,  323  ;  Regulars  sym- 
pathise, 324 ;  signs  further  declara- 
tion, 325 ;  final  declaration  and  re- 
instatement, 327 ;  letter  to  Thomas 
Clifford  explaining  away  his  submis- 
sion, 328  ;  faculties  again  taken  away, 
329;  leaves  Bath,  330;  Staffordshire 
Clergy  take  up  case,  331,  340  ;  Medi- 
ators intervene,  346 ;  goes  abroad, 
353  ;  with  Sir  John  Throckmorton  in 
Rome,  332 ;  on  his  return  settles  at 
Heythrop  in  Midland  District,  66 ; 
elected  Vice-President  of  Benedictines, 
66 ;  withdraws  from  Cisalpine  Club, 
66,  143,  145,  147,  157 ;  Declaration  at 
Benedictine  Chapter,  158  ;  suspended 
by  Rev.  J.  Warmoll,  Provincial, 
O.S.B.,  159;  appeals  to  Rev.  W. 
Cowley,  President  General  and  on 
his  death  to  Rev.  J.  Brewer,  who 
decides  in  his  favour,  159 ;  faculties 
withdrawn  by  Bishop  Gibson,  236  ; 
removed  from  mission  by  Rev.  J. 
Brewer,  237 ;  abroad  for  his  health, 
but  ready  to  retract  on  his  return,  236  ; 
subsequent  history,  239  n. 

Willacy,  Rev.  James,  i.,  40,  311. 

Wilmot,  John,  ii.,  19,  20,  28. 

Winchester,  i.,  47,  49,  309,  310;  re- 
fugees at,  ii.,  15,  26,  27,  31,  163  ; 
convents  at,  98  n.,  123,  203,  204, 
209. 

Windham,  Mr.,  i.,  265,  318  ;  ii.,  205, 
206. 

Witham,  i.,  43. 

Woburn  Park,  i.,  43. 

Wolverhampton,  i.,  8. 

WoodfalVs  Register,  Oath  published 
in,  i.,  159,  164,  176. 

Woolhampton,  i.,  45. 

Writtle  Park,  i.,  43. 

Wyndham,  Rev.  Philip,  ii.,  14. 

Wyndham,  Mr.,  ii.,  219. 

York,  Bar  Convent,  i.,  35  seq. ;  ii.,  126, 

129. 
York  Street  Chapel,  i.,  27,  154,  303. 
Ypres,  Benedictine  nuns  at,  i.,  83  ;  ii., 
93- 


ABERDEEN  \    THE    UNIVERSITY    PRESS. 


A    SELECT    LIST    OF    BOOKS. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    LIBRARY. 

A  Series  of  Manuals  for  Catholic  Priests  and  Students. 

Edited  by  the  Right  Rev.  Mgr.  Bernard  Ward,  President  of  St.  Edmund's  College, 
and  the  Rev.  Herbert  Thurston,  S.J. 

THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE:  its  Origin,  Authority  and  Interpretation. 
By  the  Very  Rev.  William  Barry,  D  D. ,  Canon  of  St.  Chad's  Birmingham. 
Crown  8vo.     3s.  6d.  net. 

THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  By  the  Right  Rtv.  John  Cuthbert  Hedley, 
Bishop  of  Newport.     Crown  8vo.     3s   6d.  net. 

THE  LEGENDS  OF  THE  SAINTS:  An  Introduction  to  Hagiography. 
From  the  French  of  Pere  H.  Delehaye,  S.J.,  Bollandist.  Translated  by  Mrs. 
V.  M.  Crawford.     Crown  8vo.     3s.  6d.  net. 

THE  PRIEST'S  STUDIES.  By  the  Very  Rev.  Thomas  Scannell,  D.D., 
Canon  of  Southwark  Cathedral,  Editor  of  The  Catholic  Dictionary.  Crown  8vo. 
3s.  6d.  net. 

The  following  Volumes  are  also  in  Preparation  : — 

THE  CHRISTIAN  CALENDAR.  By  THE  BREVIARY.  By  the  Rev.  Edward 
the  Rev.  Herbert  Thurston,  S.J.  Myers,  M.A. 

THE  STUDY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  |  THE  INSTRUCTION  OF  CONVERTS. 
By  the  Rev.  Dom  John  Chapman,  O.S.B.  |  By  {he  Rev  SvDNEY  F.  SmitH)  sj 

THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    GOSPELS. 

By  the  Right  Rev.  Mgr.  A.  S.  Barnes,    THE     MASS.        By    the    Rev.    ADRIAN 
M.A.  Fortescue,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 


LETTERS  AND  CORRESPON HENCE  OF  JOHN  HENRY  NEWMAN 
DURING  HIS  LIFE  IN  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH.  With  a  brief  Auto- 
biography. Edited,  at  Cardinal  Newman's  request,  by  Anne  Mozley.  2  vols. 
Crown  8vo.     7s. 

THE  LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CARDINAL  WISEMAN.  By  Wilfrid 
Ward.     With  3  Portraits.     2  vols.      Crown  8vo.     10s.  net. 

AUBREY  DE  VERE  :  a  Memoir  based  on  his  unpublished  Diaries  and  Corre- 
spondence. By  Wilfrid  Ward.  With  s  Photogravure  Portraits  and  2  other 
Illustrations.     8vo.     14s.  net. 

TEN  PERSONAL  STUDIES.  By  Wilfrid  Ward.  With  10  Portraits. 
8vo.     10s.  6d.  net. 

Contents.  —  Arthur  James  Balfour,  I  Ignatius  Ryder,  Sir  M.  E.  Grant  DufFs 
Three  Notable  Editors  (Delane,  Hutton,  |  Diaries,  Leo  XIII.,  The  Genius  of  Cardinal 
Knowles),  Some  Characteristics  of  Henry  I  Wiseman,  John  Henry  '  ewman,  Newman 
Sidgwick,  Robert,  Earl  of  Lytton,  Father  I  and  Manning,  Appendix. 

HISTORICAL  LETTERS  AND  MEMOIRS  OF  SCOTTISH  CATHOLICS. 
By  the  Rev.  W.  Forbes  Leith,  S.J.     2  vols.     Medium  8vo. 

HENRY  STUART,  CARDINAL  OF  YORK,  AND  HIS  TIMES.  By  Alice 
Shield,  Joint-Author  of  "  The  King  over  the  Water".  With  an  Introduction  by 
Andrew  Lang.  With  Photogravure  Frontispiece  and  13  other  Illustrations. 
8vo.     12s.  (  d.  net. 

ASPECTS  OF  ANGLICANISM;  or,  Some  Comments  on  Certain  Incidents  in 

the  'Nineties.     By  Mgr.  James  Moyes,  D.  D.,  Canon  of  Westminster  Cathedral. 

Crown  8vo.     6s.  6d.  net. 

*#*  This  book  is  a  free  comment  from  a  Roman  Catholic  standpoint  upon  certain  incidents  in 

the  religious  life  of  Anglicanism  in  the  'Nineties.      It  deals  incidentally  with  the  Lambeth 

Judgment,  and  with  the  question  of  continuity.    It  represents  the  criticism  which,  from  the  point 

of  view  of  history  and  theology,  some  of  the  later  developments  of  Anglicanism  would  suggest  to  a 

Roman  Catholic  mind. 


A   SELECT   LIST   OF   BOOKS— continued. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  ST.  DOMINIC,  FOUNDER  OF  THE  FRIAR 
PREACHERS.  By  Augusta  Theodosia  Drane.  With  32  Illustrations. 
8vo.      15s. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  ST.  CATHERINE  OF  SIENA  AND  HER  COM- 
PANIONS. With  a  Translation  of  her  Treatise  on  Consummate  Perfection. 
By  the  same  Author.     With  10  Illustrations.     2  vols.     8vo.     15s. 

A  MEMOIR  OF  MOTHER  FRANCIS  RAPHAEL,  O.S.D.  (AUGUSTA 
THEODOSIA  DRANE),  some  time  Prioress  Provincial  of  the  Congregation  of 
Dominican  Sisters  of  St.  Catherine  of  Siena,  Stone.  With  Portrait.  Crown  8vo. 
7s.  6d. 

LIFE  OF  ST.  ELIZABETH  OF  HUNGARY,  DUCHESS  OF  THURIN- 
GIA.  By  the  Count  de  Montalembert,  Peer  of  France,  Member  of  the 
French  Academy.  Translated  by  Francis  Deming  Hoyt.  Large  Crown  8vo. 
10s.  6d.  net. 

HISTORY  OF  ST.  VINCENT  DE  PAUL,  Founder  of  the  Congregation  of 
the  Mission  (Vincentians),  and  of  the  Sisters  of  Charity.  By  Monseigneur 
Bougaud,  Bishop  of  Laval.  Translated  from  the  Second  French  Edition  by  the 
Rev.  Joseph  Brady,  CM.  With  an  Introduction  by  His  Eminence  Cardinal 
Vaughan,  late  Archbishop  of  Westminster.     Crown  8vo.     4s.  6d.  net. 

HISTORY    OF    THE    SOCIETY    OF    JESUS    IN    NORTH    AMERICA: 

Colonial  and  Federal.     By  Thomas  Hughes,  of  the  same  Society.     Royal  8vo. 

Text.     Volume  I.     From  the  First  Colonisation,  1580,  till  1645.     With  3  Maps  and 

3  Facsimiles.     15s.  net. 
Documents.     Volume  I.     Part  I.     Nos.  1-140  (1605-1838).     21s.  net. 

THE  INQUISITION:  a  Critical  and  Historical  Study  of  the  Coersive  Power  of 
the  Church.  By  the  Abb£  E.  Vacandard.  Translated  from  the  French  by  the 
Rev.  Bertrand  L.  Conway,  C.S.P.     Crown  8vo.    6s.  net. 

THE  KEY  TO  THE  WORLD'S  PROGRESS  :   being  some  account  of  the 

Historical  Significance  of  the  Catholic  Church.     By  Charles  Stanton  Devas, 
M.A.     Crown  8vo.     5s.  net. 
Popular  Edition.     Paper  Covers.     6d. 

***  The  object  of  this  book  is  to  give  to  the  logic  and  history  of  Newman  an  economic  or 
sociological  setting,  and  thus  to  show  that  "for  the  explanation  of  World-history  we  must  first 
have  the  true  theory  of  the  Christian  Church  and  her  life  through  eighteen  centuries  ".  Part  I. 
states  briefly  the  problems  which  the  philosophy  of  history  seeks  to  resolve.  Part  II.  presents  the 
solution  offered  by  Christianity  and  takes  the  form  of  an  historical  analysis  of  the  principles  by 
which  the  Church  has  been  guided  in  her  relations  with  the  world. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

A  Series  of  Histories  of  the  First  Century. 

By  the  Abb^  Constant  Fouard,  Honorary  Cathedral  Canon,  Professor  of  the  Faculty 
of  Theology  at  Rouen,  etc.,  etc.     Translated  by  George  F.  X.  Griffith. 

THE  CHRIST,  THE  SON  OF  GOD.     A  Life  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ.     With  an  Introduction  by  Cardinal  Manning.     With  3  Maps.     2  vols. 
Crown  8vo.      14s. 
Popular  Edition.     8vo.     is.  net.     Paper  Covers.     6d.  net. 

ST.  PETER   AND   THE   FIRST   YEARS   OF   CHRISTIANITY.      With  3 
Maps.     Crown  8vo.     9s. 

ST.  PAUL  AND  HIS  MISSIONS.     With  2  Maps.     Crown  8vo.     9s. 

THE  LAST  YEARS  OF  ST.  PAUL.     With  5  Maps  and  Plans.     Crown  8vo. 
os. 

ST.  JOHN  AND  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.     Crown  8vo. 
7s.  6d. 

LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  CO.,  39  Paternoster  Row,  London,  E.C., 
New  York,  Bombay,  and  Calcutta. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


NOV 


Form  L9-Series4939 


mum 
3  1 


58  01021  9664 


BX 

1^92 
Wi95d 
v.l 


I 


PLEACS  DO   NOT    REMOVE 
THIS    BOOK  CARD 


^UIBR,\3Y0/r 


£  i 


< 

m 
so 


University  Research  Library 


IC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRAJ"j.[J SJjfjJfn 

AA    000  856  878    4 


ml       ,|