sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aberdeen ministry, Bishop of Durham, Bishop of Northampton, Bishop of St Asaph, Charles James Blomfield, Earl of Minto

THE PAPAL AGGRESSION! CREATION OF

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY

IN , 1850

APPROVED!

Major professor ^

J?, ///? Minor Professor

ItfCp&ctor of the Departflfejalf of History

Dean"of the Graduate School THE PAPAL AGGRESSION 8 CREATION OP

THE SOMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY

IN ENGLAND, 1850

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For she Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

By

Denis George Paz, B. A,

Denton, Texas

January, 1969 PREFACE

Pope Plus IX, on September 29» 1850, published the letters apostolic Universalis Sccleslae. creating a terri- torial hierarchy for English Roman Catholics. For the first time since 1559» obedient to ruled over styled after English place names rather than over districts named for points of the compass# and bore titles derived from their sees rather than from extinct Levantine cities« The meant, moreover, that6 in the Vati-

k can s opinionc England had ceased to be a missionary area and was ready to take its place as a full member of the

Roman Catholic communion.

When news of the hierarchy reached in the mid- dle of October, Englishmen protested against it with unexpected zeal. Irate protestants held public meetings to condemn the new prelates» newspapers cried for penal legislation* and the prime minister, hoping to strengthen his position, issued a public letter in which he charac- terized the letters apostolic as an "insolent and insidious"1 attack on the queen's prerogative to appoint bishops„ In 1851» Parliament, despite the determined op- position of a few Catholic and Peellte members, enacted the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which imposed a ilOO fine on any who used an unauthorized territorial title,

ill and permitted oommon informers to sue a prelate alleged to have violated the act. But no bishop ever was found guilty under this law, and it was repealed twenty years later.

Historians generally have neglected this unique mani- festation of bigotry in the middle of the , notwithstanding that the "Papal Aggression," as it came to be called, constitutes an important chapter in the social history of the period. The affair, moreover, involves several problems which have not been satisfactorily resolved* (1) Why did the create the hierarchy?

(2) Why did the English people reaot so vehemently?

(3) Why did Lord John Russell write his Letter?

(4) Why did the government fail to enforce the Ecclesias- tical Titles Act? (5) What light, if any, does this episode shed on the Zeitgeist of the Victorian age? This study attempts to answer these questions.

In preparing this thesis, I have consulted the

Sessional Papers and contemporary newspapers, particularly

The Times, for petitions,, arguments against the hierarchy, and for information about public meetings. For documents concerning the Papal Aggression's political effects, Rus- sell's Later Correspondence. Victoria's Letters, the Cam- den Society's Aberdeen-Li even Correspondence. and, of course, the Parliamentary Debates have been used. Since nineteenth century biographies contain many documents, I

iv have mined extensively from such rich deposits as . Ward's Wiseman, Walpole*s Russell. Monypenny and Buckle's Disraeli, and Morley's Gladstone. Although the general histories of the period deal only briefly with the subject. Woodward®s Age of Reform and Halevy's Age of Peel and Cob- den are useful for background material. Finally, Bernard Ward's Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, a church history, provides useful information about the Vatican negotiations which resulted in the hierarchy's « It should be noted that historians employ the phrase "Papal Aggression1" to refer to this episode as they use "Popish Plot" to designate the Titus Gates Affair of 1678. In neither case does the term indicate religious bias. This study is a much enlarged revision of a paper read before the Southwestern Social Science Association in

Dallas, Texasv on April 11, 1968. For valuable assistance in serving as midwife to my usually stillborn ideas and in proofreading the entire manuscript, I wish to thank Miss Linda Gund*

Denis Go Paz Denton, Texas

December, 1968 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE ...... «v«..«o«««».*».e. iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS «... vii DRAMATIS FERSONAE ...... viii PROLOGUES THE ROMAN , 1559-1850s A TRADITION OF PERSECUTION ...... 1 Chapter I. BIRTH OF THE NEW HIERARCHY,, 18^7-1850 ... 21 II. BRITISH POPULAR REACTION TO THE NEW HIERARCHY1 SPONTANEOUS INDIGNATION OR FOMENTED AGITATION? ...... 35 III. THE BRITISH MINISTERIAL CRISIS OF 1851* POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY OR WHIG FOLLY? * . . 6l IV. THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL IN PARLIAMENT! BIGOTRY, PATRIOTISM, OR EXPEDIENCY? ...... 86 V. THE PAPAL AGGRESSION OF I85O1 A PROBLEM IN HISTORIOGRAPHY ...... 10^ VI. THE PAPAL AGGRESSION OF I85O1 A RETROSPECT ...... 119 EPILOGUES DISESTABLISHMENT AND REPEAL ...... 132 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE . , , 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..a.®. 13^9 LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page 1. This is the Boy who Chalked up "Mo I "--and Then Ban Away!f t ••••«» 88

vii DRAMATIS PERSONAE

Aberdeen, George Hamilton Gordon, Fourth Earl of (1784- i860). Entering public life in 1806 as a Scottish Representative Peer in the interest, Aberdeen attended the Congress of Chatillon and served as ambassador to . In 1814, he became a peer as Vis- count Gordon of Aberdeen. Entering Wellington's cabinet in 1828 as chancellor of Lancaster, he became the same year. In l84l» he returned to the foreign office, but left with Peel in 1846. After Peel's death, Aberdeen be- came the leader of the , and in 1852, became premier of the Whig- coalition.

Arundel and , Edward George Howard, Earl of (1818- I883). The second son of the sixteenth Duke of , his title was honorary. He entered Parliament in 1848 as a Roman Catholic member, and in 1869 was created first Howard of Glossop. Bennett# (1804-1886). Born In Halifax, N .S., Bennett studied at Oxford and held various cures, 1831-43. Becoming vicar of St. Paul's, Knights- 8 bridge, he promoted the building of St. Barnabas ( Pimlico (consecrated, 1850). After riots and disputes with his bishop, he resigned his livings (November, 1850), and in 1852, became vicar of Frome Selwood, Somerset. In i860, Bennett founded the English Church Union, a society for spreading Anglo-Catholic doctrine.

Blomfieldc Charles James, (1786-1857)• Ordained in 1810, Blomfield wrote on classical subjects for both the Edinburgh and Quarterly reviews, and became in 1824, Translated to London in 1828, he gained a repu- tation for good administration and tried to take a moderate position in the Tractarlan dispute. Delane, John Thadeus (1817-1879). After studying at Mag- dalen Hall9 Oxford (1835-39)» Delane wrote for , acting as its editor, 1841-77.

viii Disraeli, Benjamin, First Earl of Beaoonsfleld (180^-188l). The son of Isaac D'Israeli, a Jew, Disraeli was baptized in 1817. enabling him to enter public life. After studying under tutors, he lived the life of a litterateur, publishing Vivian Grey in 1826. Entering Parliament in 1837 as a Tory, he broke with Peel over protection in 184-3* After Lord George Bentlnck's death in 18*4-8, Disraeli became the Tory leader in the Commons, entering his first cabinet in 1852 as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Gladstone, William Ewart (1809-1898). In 1832, a pocket borough returned him to Parliament as a Tory, and in 1834, he entered Peel's administration, first holding a cabinet post in 184-3. When Peel's government fell in 1846, Gladstone foli lowed his leader into opposition, and entered the coalition government in 1852 as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Graham* Sir James Robert George, bart. (1792-1861)» In 1818, Graham entered Parliament as a Whig and first held office in 1830. In 1835, he joined the conservative faction, following Peel in 1846. After Peel®s death, he became the leading Peelite in the Commons. In 1852, he rejoined the Whigs.

Inglis9 Sir Robert Harry, bart. (1786-1855)• Called to the bar In 1818, Inglis entered Parliament as a Tory in 1824# In 1829, he defeated Peel for the representation for Oxford University and contin- ued to represent it until the end of his career in 1854. Inglis, an old-fashioned country Tory who never held offices was a trustee of the British Museum from 1834 to his death# Keoghg William Nicholas (1817-1878), An Irish Catholic, he entered Parliament in 1847 as a Toryi, but later became a Peelite# In 1852, he became Solicitor General for in Aberdeen's Ministry.

King, Peter John Locke (1811-1885) • In 184-7, King entered Parliament as a radical. Although he never held office, he made a reputation as an advocate of radical reform. Maltby, Edward, (1770-1859). An old-line Whig9 he became Bishop of Chlohester In 1831 and

ix was translated to Durham In 1836, as the first bishop not possessing palatine powers, Minto* Gilbert Elliott, Second Earl of (1782-1859)* After studying as Eton and Edinburgh, Mlnto entered the Commons, but in 1814, after succeeding to his title, entered the Lords. From 1832 to 1834, he served as envoy to Berlin, He first entered the government in I835, becoming, in 1836, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal,

Newman, John Henry, Cardinal (18OI-I89O). A graduate of Trinity College, Oxford, Newman was elected a fellow of Oriel in 1822, and received the living of the university church six years later. After visiting the Mediterranean in 1832-33* he joined Keble, Hurrell Froude, and others to write , Religious doubts plagued him "after 1839* and, after publishing the poorly re- ceived Tract Ninety (l84l), resigned his living in 1843, Newman converted to the Roman Catholic Church 6n October 9» 1845, After studying for a year in Rome, he returned to England in 184? to establish the of St, Philip Neri, In 1864 he published his Apologia, and was made a cardinal in 1879 for his services to the church.

Beeve, Henry (1813-1895). Reeve studied and traveled in Europe until 1837» at which time he became clerk of appeal to the Privy Council, Chief leader- writer of The Times for foreign affairs, 1840-55» he became editor of the Edinburgh Review in 1855* Reynolds * John (1794-1868)« An 0"Connellite, he served as M.P. for Dublin (1847-52), alderman, and Lord Mayor (1850).

Roebuck, John Arthur (I8OI-I879), Born in Madras and edu- cated in Canada, he studied at the Inner Temple, London, and was called to the bar in 1831, One year later, he entered Parliament as in inde- pendent radical. In I855, he chaired the "Seb- astopol Commission" to investigate the conduct of the . Hussello John Russell, First Earl (1792-1878). Third son of the Duke of Bedford, Russell studied at Edin- burgh and entered Parliament as a Whig from his family's pocket borough (1813)• He moved the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts (1828) and supported Roman Catholic Emancipation. He entered Grey's government in 1830, moved the first reading of the Reform Bill in 1831, and entered the cabinet the same year. In 1834, he became the recognized Whig leader in the Com- mons, held various cabinet offices under Melbourne, and became prime minister in 1846. Stanley# Edward, Fourteenth (1799-1869). Entering Parliament in 1822, Stanley entered the government in 182?, and in 1833, held his first cabinet post. Created a baron in 1844, he broke with Peel over protection (1846), becoming the leader of the . On his father's death (June 30, 1851), he became the Earl of Derby. Sumner; John Bird, (1780-1862). After studying at Cambridge, Sumner taught at Et6n and held various livings. Appointed Bishop of Chester in 1828, the government translated him to Canterbury in 1848. A moderate evangel- ical, he tried to be fair to all parties within the established church. Thesiger, Sir Frederick (1794-1878). As a boy, Thesiger studied for the navy, but in 1809, he became to his father's West Indian estates. After studying at Grey's Inn, he was called to the bar in 1818. Entering Parliament in 1840 as a Tory, he received the Solicitor Generalship and a knighthood in 1844. In 1858, he became chancel- lor and was created First Baron Chelmsford. Uilathorne, William Bernard, Roman Catholic Bishop of Birm- ingham (1806-1889). Of an Old Catholic family, Ullathorae ran away to sea in 1821. After a con- version experience, he entered the in 1823. After serving in the Australian Mission as (1832), he returned to England in 1840 for his health. Appointed Vicar Apos- tolic of the Western District in 1846, he was translated to the Central District in 1848, and in 1850, became the first Roman Catholic * Walter» John, III (1818-1894). After studying at Eton and Oxford (1840), Walter broke with his father over the Tractarian Question, but the two were recon- ciled shortly before the father's death. In 1847, Walter was called to the bar, entered Pari liament, and became The Times' chief owner. Al- though claiming to be a conservative, he sympa- thized with the Peelltes#

xi Wiseman, Nicholas Patrick, Cardinal Archbishop of West- minster (1802-1865). Bom in Seville and raised in Ireland, Wiseman studied at the English Col- lege of Rome (1818), receiving the D. D. in 1824. In 1827» he published Horae Syrlacae. and the next year, became rector of the college. Ap- pointed coadjutor to the vicar of the Central District (18&0K Wiseman was translated to the London District in 1848, succeeding to the vicarate the next year. In 1850, he became the first metropolitan of the English Roman Catholic Church»

xii PROLOGUE

THE ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1559-185O1

A TRADITION OP PERSECUTION

In 1559» Parliament deposed all the Roman Catholic bishops in England save Anthony Kitchen of Llandaff for their refusal to take the Oath of Supremacy. This deposition, according to papal tradition, marked the end of the *s episcopal jurisdiction in England and of its pre-Reformation hierarchy, although a small minority of Englishmen retained their allegiance to the old church„ This group, a thorn in the state's side for almost 300 years, became both the source of, and tool for, political machinations. An understanding of the Papal Aggression, therefore, requires a knowledge of the many problems faced by this minority.

The Elizabethan Settlement was based on the Acts of

Supremacy and Uniformity, which sought merely to deny papal authority in England, and not to condemn Roman Catholic dogma per se. The Elizabethan Ideal of religious uniformity stemmed from a desire to preserve civil cohesion, and not to propagate the state religion. Thus, persecution under the laws was not harsh 1 dissenters, while made uncomfortable, were not driven to desperation, and were punished only for their political views. As Lord Burghley put it, only the "very traitorus Cslo3, in all men's opinions and con- structions/' would be executed.1

Since this moderate policy was enforced with moderation, the government adopted a lenient attitude toward the deprived bishops. Those remaining in England, while imprisoned, were kept In private homes, treated politely, and given much personal freedom. Equally lenient was the treatment received by other Roman Catholics• So long as they were obscure figures and discreet In the practice of their religion, they 2 went unmolested.

Two factors made this easy-going situation possiblei

England's relative safety from attack by other powers, and confusion among English Catholics as to what course to take respecting their religion. Some, the "Church Papists," con- formed to the rubrics of the but supported catholic ceremonies and doctrine. Others not only conformed, but also kept Roman Catholic priests on their estates or attended mass in the chapels of envoys from Catholic powers, while still others conformed occasionally

The accession of Plus V to the apostolic see In 1566 soon changed the English religious situation. Michele

1Wilbur Kitchener Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England. 4- vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1932-40)» I, 84, 97-99.

2Ibld.. pp. 99, 112.

^Ibld.. p. 112i M. D. R. Leys, Catholics in England, 1559-1829» A Social History (London, 1961), pp. 6-8, Ghislierl, a Dominican, had held the post of Prefect of the

Holy Office immediately before his election. Noted for his devout and austere life, he enforced the Tridentine disci- plinary from the outset of his pontificate, and the li reconversion of England was a tenet of his policy*

The first major problem confronting English Catholics was their lack of leadership. After 1559» no ecclesiastical superiors existed to govern nonconforming priests. The first attempt to provide such leadership occurred in 1563# when , the former Bishop of St. Asaph, left

Rome for England to supervise its Roman Catholics. News of his return preceded him, however, and the government, fore- warned, prevented his crossing the Channel

A more successful effort was that of .

An Oxford scholar, Allen refused to take the Oath of Suprem- acy in 1561, and fled to Louvaln. In 1568, he opened the

English college In Douai with the aid of his fellow Oxonians , Thomas Stapleton, and Owen Lewis. Allen also advised Gregory XIII on the famous English college at Rome.

^Jordan, Religious Toleration in England, I, 117? Henri Daniel-Rops, The Catholic Reformation, translated by John Warrington, 2~vols. (Garden City, N. Y., 196*0, I» 15^-155•

^Goldwell, exiled in Rome from 1535-53» &nd again after 1559» attempted to re-enter England in 1580, but his health failed on the journey, and he died five years later, at eighty. Joseph Gillow, A LIterary and Biographical History, or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics3 from the Break with Rome, in 153^." to the Present Time. 5 vols. (London, 1885-1902), IX, 51^-520 Thereafter cited as English Catholics)• Appointed Prefect of the English Mission in 1581, he super- vised English priests, first from Rheims, and after 1585» from Rome, until his death in 159 Allen's purpose in founding the Douai college was not primarily to provide a place to train priests, but to pro- vide (1) a rallying-point for English Roman Catholics on the Continent, (2) a replacement for the universities, and (3) a place for the education of English Catholic children. Only gradually did it assume the function of a seminary to train English mission priests for the special problems en- countered in their homeland, JL».S*» strengthening the faith of waverers and contradicting Anglican theology.'' Allen's work bore fruit in 157^, when three Douai priests crossed the Channel to England. This was the first of a stream of "seminary priests" which, by 1603, had in- creased to about ^50. Their ranks, moreover, were augmented by monks and friars, and especially by Jesuits. Although Allen's authority extended only over the Douai men, he kept on good terms with Robert Parsons and Edmund Campion, the 3 leaders of the Jesuit mission.

6Ibid., 17-19? Leys, Catholics in England, p. 19» 7 'Jesuits founded other English colleges at Valladolid, Seville, Madrid, Lisbon, and St. Omer in Flanders during the period 1589-93* Ibid.? Pierre Janelle, The Catholic Refor- mation (Milwaukee, 1963), pp. 263-264, 8 As with most early modern , there are variants on the spelling of Parsons, the most common being "Persons." Leys, Catholics in England» pp. 27-28, 30. During the last decade of the sixteenth century* a split developed within the ranks of the Catholic clergy between Jesuits and secular priests, which paralleled the division of the into the Spanish and English parties. The former, led by Parsons and Agazzari (superior of the English college in Rome), sought to secure a Roman Catholic monarchj the latter faction (also known as the "Spirituals") absented themselves from the state church but remained loyal to the civil government. In 1596, two years after Allen's death, the secular priests petitioned Rome for a bishop, but Jesuit influence secured the appointment of as "." His instructions, directing him to seek the advice of the Jesuit superior in England, fanned the flames of antagonism between the secular and . The latter usually were chosen as chaplains by the more powerful recusant families, and thus found themselves in safer and more comfortable circumstances than the former. The seculars saw in Blackwell a Jesuit tool, and appealed to Rome against him in 1598 and l600.9

Thus from the beginning, clerical strife marred his administration, and this situation was exacerbated when the

9Ibid., pp. 52-53J Jordan, Religious Toleration in Eng- land. I, 202; B. J. Kidd, The Counter-Reformation. 15^0-1600 (London, 1933)» P* 213 s John Mush to Christopher Bagshaw and Thomas Bluet, July 13» 1598 E0.S.3, The Archprlest Contro- versy » Documents Relating to the Dlssentlons of the Roman Catholic Clergy. 1597-1602. edited by Thomas Graves Law, Cam- den New Series, Vol. LVI, 2 vols. (London, 1896), I, No. 2, 64-65. state took the seculars' part. On November 5i 1602, Eliz- abeth ordered all Jesuits and secular priests out of the country within a specified time* Those, however, who pre- sented themselves to the privy council, the councils of the north or of , or to any of the bishops, and declared their allegiance, would be permitted to remain® The spirit- uals responded to this by attempting to draft an oath of fealty acceptable to both Rome and London, When James I ascended the throne in 1603» he continued to negotiate with the seculars. On his accession, the seculars petitioned him for the free exercise of their worship, "in private if not 10 in public, by sufferance if not with approbation." In an effort to separate the spiritual from the political Catholics, James, in 1606, issued an oath of allegiance to be taken by all Roman Catholics® It sought to separate the temporal and spiritual authority of the Papacy, and, while permitting recusants to submit to the latter, it required them to reject the former and affirm loyalty to the English crown. Many loyal Roman Catholics feared to take this oath, lest, by denying the pope's right to depose secular rulers, they might 11 also transgress the Catholic faith.

10Cathollcs of England to the King, Apr. C?3, 1603, , Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series, of the Reign of James I. 1603-1610. edited by Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857),"~I, 5'(hereafter cited as CSP Pom. James I)«

110ne typical oath, signed by , reads as follows s Blackwell at first opposed the oath, but later took it. The Jesuits, of course, protested against it, fearing that, if most Catholics took the oath, their plan to reconvert England would collapse® Parsons hastened to Rome and, with the aid of Cardinal Bellarmine, obtained a condemnation of the oath by Paul V on September 22, 1606, Blackwell"s assent to the oath meant that his days as archpriest were numbered. At the beginning of 1608, Paul deposed him and appointed George Birkhead in his stead. Birkhead's experience with the rival factions soon convinced him of the need for a hierarchy, or at least a bishop, to achieve unity among English Cath- olics. To this end, he memorialized Paul, but the latter refused because of Jesuit pressure. Not content with this refusal, some spiritual leaders approached James in March, l6ll, and proposed that he permit the appointment of four or five bishops to administer English Roman Catholic affairs.

We English priests and other Catholics of Eng- land promise, protest and swear . . . that we are and ever will be most humble subjects and servants of Queen Elizabeth our sovereign, ready to render her all due obedience and fidelity, and we do and ever shall acknowledge her for our sovereign and mistress. And we protest and swear likewise that we will hold no intelligence with any prince, po- tentate or other estate or particular person whatsoever in prejudice of the dignity, authority, or person royal of her majesty or her estate. "The Protestation of Allegiance made by Thirteen Mssloners to Queen Elizabeth," Jan. 31, 1603 ST0.S.3, The Archpriest Controversy. II, 2^6-24? (spelling modernized)? Gillow, Eng- lish Catholics, I, 225-229i Jordan, Religious Toleration in England, I, 208-209? ibid.. II, 55, 75-76? William Maziere Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy in England and Scot* land. A.D, 1585-1876 (London, 1883), PP. 56, 60. 8

While the king was agreeable to the plan, the Jesuits were not, and their influence at Rome prevented its further 12 consideration. When Birkhead died in 1614, the petitioned Paul for a bishop. Once again, however, he denied their request, and in 1615 appointed William Harrison archprlest. Harrison, however, not only took the side of the secular clergy in their disputes with the Jesuits, but also supported a restoration of episcopal government. In l6l9» he pe- titioned the pope for a bishop, but to no avail. Undaunted by this rebuff and by Harrison's death in 1621, his party, in the following year, again petitioned Rome for a bishop. This time, they were successful $ Gregory XV granted them one bishop, with a title in partibus lnfidellum.^ The office was filled in 1623, when the pope consecrated William Bishop, aged seventy years, Bishop of and gave him au- thority over England and Scotland (although he never exercised it in the latter country). Bishop Bishop claimed he had the power of an ordinary and proceeded to organize England along -^Jordan, Religious Toleration in England. II, 77-78, 88s Bellarmine to Blackwell, Rome, Sept, 18, 1606 C0.S.3, CSP Dom. James I, XXVIII, 370; Paul V to George Birkett CBirkheadU, Rome, Jan. 22, 1608 C0.S.3, ibid., XXXI, 397? Gillow, English Catholics. 1, 215-216. 1^A bishop with a title in partibus lnfldellum holds the title of a see which once was Christian but now is in the hands of non-Christiansj £..&•, Bishop of Chalcedon. This device is used to fulfill the canonical requirement that bishops must be of some place. diocesan lines. He appointed a with a chapter of twenty- four canons and divided the nation into twenty archdeaconries. 1** He died the next year, however, as the result of his exertions. When Richard Smith succeeded him in 1625, the regular clergy challenged his authority. Smith, continuing Bishop's claims, demanded that members of religious orders obtain their licenses to function as priests from him, rather than from their superiors. In 1627, the pope condemned several of his actions, and the next year the government, attracted by the controversy, ordered his arrest. Smith took refuge in the French embassy until 1.631, at which time he fled the 15 country and resigned his office. In 163^, Urban VIII sent an representative, Dom Leander (succeeded by Gregorio Panzani the next year), to England to secure relaxation of the penal laws and to reunite the two Catholic factions. Panzani proposed an established governor of the English Roman Catholic Church, having semi- official recognition from the crown, who would take the form either of a bishop in partlbus lnfldellum or an English-born cardinal. To avoid abusing the government's moderate reli- gious policy9 he would reorganize the church's missionary activity to eliminate proselytizing Anglicans. While the secular party supported the plan, the Jesuits once again lifLeys, G&thollcs in England, p. 70 j Gillow, English Catholics. I, 220-2211 Ibid., Ill, 150-151.

1 5lbid.l vt 512s Leys, Catholics in England, p. 71. 10 blocked any attempt to reduce their power. With the failure of Panzanl's proposal, English Roman Catholics were set adrift for the next fifty years. Bishop's dean and chapter maintained a shadowy existence, non-existent in curial eyes, yet accepted by Propaganda, "Cardinal Protectors of England" had been appointed since the break with Rome, but these resided in the Vatican, governed the English college there, and advised the pope on English affairs. In the absence of any recognized authority which would bridge the gap between priest and pope, many irregularities in regard to baptism, marriage, and burial crept into the religious practices of English Catholics This situation changed, however, in 1685, when James II, the first Catholic king in 130 years, ascended the throne. At his request, Pope Innocent XI consecrated Bishop of Adrumentum, and appointed him vicar apostolic1"'' for England. In 1688, four districts were established! the

^Jordan, Religious Toleration In England, II, 187-1895 Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy, pp. 80, 92-95» 136- 137. ^^The office of vicar apostolic is a device used to gov- ern the church in missionary areas where the Roman community is too small to support regular diocesan organization. The office is held by a bishop in partlbus lnfldellum sent to a mission field as a personal representative of the pope. The pope is theoretically the bishop of a missionary , and the vicar's task is to administer the sacraments in the capa- city of a suffragan to him. The title was first borne by Katteo de Castro, a Brahmin convert, around 1650. For a his- torical discussion, see Henri Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Eighteenth Century, translated by John Warrington (London and New York, 196^), pp» 8^-85. 11

Northern (Chester, Lancaster, York, , Cumber- land, Westmoreland, Durham, and the Isle of Man), the Western (Wilts, Cornwall, Somerset, Dorset, Gloucester, Hereford, and Wales), the London (Kent, Middlesex, Essex, Sussex, Surrey, Hampton, Berks, Bedford, Bucks, Hertford, and the islands of Wight, Jersey, and Guernsey), and the Midland (encompassing the rest of the country), This organization became the basic 18 structure of the English Roman Catholic Church until 1850. English Catholics not only faced dissent within their own ranks, but also a hostile environment. let this hos- tility was not Inevitablei had the Catholic minority been inconspicuous, and had Catholic powers not been imperial- istic, they might have gone undisturbed. But the conjunction of domestic plots with foreign threats forced the crown into a policy of persecution.1^ The Roman Catholic and Anglican nobles of revolted in November, 1569, in an attempt to regain their feudal power. Pius V, misconstruing the uprising as a religious revolt, Issued the bull Regnans ^-®In 1840, Gregory XVI increased the number of vicars to eight. Gillow, English Catholics, IV, 23^-235? Leys, Catholics In England. pp. 109-110$ Gordon Albion, "The Res- toration of the Hierarchy, 1850," in The English Catholics, 1850-1950: Essays to Commemorate the Centenary of the Res- toration of the Hierarchy of England and Wales, edited by George Andrew Beck (London, 1950), pp. 66-87* Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy, p. Ik6. •^parliament passed only one penal law, providing that anyone maintaining the papal supremacy was guilty of prae- munire. before 1570* Jordan, Religious Toleration in Eng- land. I, 102. 12

In Sxcelsls (1570), which excommunicated Elizabeth and re- leased her subjects from their allegiance. This action, however, merely played into the hands of the radical protes- tants, who now could equate Soman Catholicism with treason. After 1570? moreover, the Catholic supporters of Mary Stuart continued to plot for Elizabeth's deposition through Spanish aid.20 The government reacted calmly to the excommunication crisis. It persecuted Roman Catholics, not for their re- ligious views, but for their politics, and used the crisis to increase the state's power and prestige. During the fifteen year period after the bull, only six penal laws were enacted. These laws banned Jesuits and "seminary priests," and made it treasonable to deny the legality of the queen's title to the throne,, to accuse her of heresy or , and to bring papal documents into England. Since this policy was designed to protect political order and the security of the state, and not to "anglicize" or "decatholiclze" England, these laws did not threaten faithful Roman Catholics with horrible penalties. Recusants who were on trial only for their re- ligion and who were obscure figures were treated leniently and often released. Only those Catholics who were considered

20Daniel-Rops claims that the English Jesuits "refused to have anything to do with policies that fomented absurd plots." The case is, however, that the political Catholics, led by Jesuits such as Parsons and Bellarmine, compromised themselves by subversive activities. Catholic Reformation. II, 132» Leys, Catholics in England, pp. 20-21, 23. 13 dangerous to the state received severe penalties. Unfor- tunately, the masses assumed that Roman Catholics must, of necessity, be subversive. The many plots and threats coming in quick succession during the later years of Elizabeth's reign convinced Englishmen that indigenous Catholics were but willing tools of the international Jesuit conspiracy.

The government, nonetheless, clearly understood that it was 21 rooting out treason, not heresy.

Although Elizabeth's policy of moderate persecution

reduced the number of Roman Catholic adherents to the point where they posed no political threat, Englishmen still feared

them for the early activities of some of their leaders. This

fear increased, moreover, when the government exposed the

Gunpowder Plot. Despite the fact that Blackwell condemned

the conspiracy and urged civil obedience on his flock, the hysteria Incited by the cabal ended any attempts at toleration 22 and added two new penal acts to enforce uniformity.

While unmolested by Cromwell, Catholics who had hoped

for better times after the Restoration were encouraged by This is remarkably like the attitudes of many modern Americans, who think that advocates of civil rights or re- forms of the New Left are ipso facto tools of the "inter- national communist conspiracy." A. A. Seaton, The Theory of Toleration Under the Later Stuarts, Cambridge Historical Es- says, No. XIX (Cambridge, 1911)» pp. 6, 30-311 Robert Cecil, Lord Salisbury, to Sir Henry Wooton, English ambassador at Venice, Mar. 19, 1606 E0.S.3, CSP Pom. James I, XIX, 301i Jordan, Religious Toleration in England, I, 87, 115» n. 2, 119, 167-168, 195, 199.

22Ibid., II, 58-59» 72-731 Blackwell to English Catholic priests, Nov. 7 C?3, 1605 C0.S.3, CSP Pom. James I, XVI, 2^3. Charles II's Declaration of Breda (April 1660), which proolalmed religious toleration for all who did not disturb the state. England, however, was not ready for toleration. In 1663« the House of Commons rejected the king's request for a law permitting him to dispense from the penal acts. Among its arguments against his appeal were two of interest for their reflection of contemporary attitudes toward church- state relations. The Commons argued that grants of not only would expose the royal person to the "restless im- portunities" of dissenters, but also would lead to general 23 toleration and "Popery," which would cause public anarchy. J Ironically, Roman Catholics received de facto tol- eration under the protestant hero, William III. The Act of Toleration of 1689, indeed, did not grant them liberty, but merely excused certain groups from the operation of the penal laws. Unitarians, Jews, and Catholics, however, were explicitly excluded from these privileges. The Roman Cath- olic case after the , moreover, was complicated by the Jacobite movement. The Jesuits Intrigued to support the Stuart pretenders, and once again their re- ligion was identified with the foreign policy of another nation. But popular prejudice notwithstanding, William, who believed religious persecution did more harm than good, used his influence to give Roman Catholics practical toleration, 23seaton, Later Stuarts„ pp. 85-86, 113-115* 15 and. during the eighteenth century, members of that church were relatively unmolested. It was not until 1778, though, 2 II that they received their first legal grant of relief. The enmity which Roman Catholics had faced since 1570 was not wiped away after Catholic Emancipation in 1829. Catholic relations with the state during the first half of the nineteenth century were confused, because the Roman Cath- olic Relief Acts of 1778, 1791. and 1829 did not repeal the Elizabethan penal legislation, but merely made exceptions to it. Thus, many Catholic activities, especially those in- volving papal documents, were legally void. Since the state no longer prosecuted individual Catholics under the penal laws, their position vls-&-vls the state was analogous to that of Dissenterss they were required to affirm the temporal authority of the crowne while being permitted to deny its spiritual authority over them.^ The example of Ireland Illustrates this ambiguous and unrealistic situation, for in a nation where the majority of the population was Roman Catholic, the Anglican Church was richly endowed. Three alternatives existed to correct this inequity, but none was wholly satisfactorys (1) the estab- lishment of the Irish Roman Catholic Church, (2) a general

2**Ibld., pp. 232-233, 277-279, 305. 2^Kennedy F. Roche, "The Relations of the Catholic Church and the State in England and Ireland, 1800-528" His- torical Studies SirelandSB III (1961), 13. 16 religious disestablishment, and (3) & pro rata division of the Anglican endowment between the two churches# The first two would have been ineffective without Anglican disen- dowment, and the third would have disendowed that church, courses unacceptable to both English and Irish protestants. Sir Robert Peel6s answer was the Charitable Bequests Act of 1844, designed to permit the Irish Catholic Church to build its own endowment. In a further step to settle the Irish religious question, Peel, in 184-5, secured the government 26 endowment of Maynooth College, a Roman Catholic seminary. The lack of direct Anglo-Papal diplomatic relations presented another problem. Since Britain had no envoy in Rome, the Hanoverian ambassador to the Holy See served as an intermediary to transact necessary business between the two governments. To rectify this awkward situation, the Russell Ministry, in 18*4-7, introduced in the a bill for establishing diplomatic relations with Rome. Its re- ference to the pope as "the Sovereign of the Roman States," rather than the usual "Supreme Pontiff," and Lord Egllnton's amendment, which required the papal representative at London to be a layman, annoyed Pius IX. These unacceptable points, combined with the Roman Revolution of 1848, postponed the act's implementation. Thus, no direct Anglo-Vatican

7f\ * Elie Halevy, The Age of Peel and Cobdens A History of the English People, 1641-1852, translated by E. I. Watkin, itew York, 1948),pp. 79-80. 17 relations existed as late as 1850, when the pope created the 27 Roman Catholic hierarchy in England. '

Before 1850, the position of the English Roman Catholic

Church as a legal institution was ambiguous. Although the penal laws had fallen into disuse, the church had no legal

existence. British courts of law did not recognize law and !cal decisions, and would not enforce either.

Laymen, moreover, usually held church property. The laws governing the recognition of Roman Catholic prelates also were vague and sometimes contradictory. Penal laws which ordered their exile or imprisonment also called them by title.

The Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 merely enjoined prelates not to take the titles used by Anglicans. The Charitable

Bequests Act, however# recognized the Irish hierarchy, which ?8 used the same titles as the hierarchy.

By mid-century, the Roman Catholic Church in England was emerging from the bondage of penal legislation and social

ostracism. The adherents of that faith, as the religious

census of 1851 revealed, comprised a small minority of the

inhabitants of England and Wales» only 622,619, or 3»k6 per

cent of the total population of almost eighteen million. On

Sunday, March 30, 1851, 7,261,032 Englishmen, of whom 252,783 2^Ibld.. p. 319s James Howard Harris, third Earl Malmes- bury, Memoirs of an Ex-Mlnlstert An Autoblopcraphy, 2 vols. (London, 1884), I, 209» Roche, "Catholic Church-State Re- lations," Historical Studies, pp. 19-20.

28Ibld.» pp. 13-1^. 18 were Catholic, attended religious services. An analysis of the use of pew spaces shows that on that day, about 33 per cent of the seats were occupied in Anglican churches, 36.5 per cent were filled in Nonconformist chapels, but that 29 Roman Catholic worshippers exceeded church capacity* y Nonconformity in mid-nineteenth century England was pre- eminently the religion of the bourgeoisie. The established church drew its support from the aristocracy, the squire- archy, and the proletariat, who were "four-wheel churchmen. Since the 1790's, the English Roman Catholic Church had in- creased its communicant strength through the Immigration of Irish workers seeking factory jobs, and gained public sym- pathy through the presence of refugees from the Reign of Terror. Three distinct groups composed this church in 1850# (1) the Old Catholics, descendants of the sixteenth and seventeenth century recusant families, (2) immigrant Irish proletarians, and (3) converts from the . But friction developed among them because of their differ- ences. The Old Catholics, who represented the rural aristocracy of the north country, resented their church's proletarization by the influx of poor Irish. The introduction

29K. S. Inglis, "Patterns of Religious Worship In 1851," J. Eccl. Hist., XI (i960), 78; Philip Hughes, "The English Catholics in 1850," in The English Catholics, 1850-1950. pp. 42-45> Hal^vy, Peel and Cobden. pp. 3^0-3^1. 10 J A "four-wheel churchman" is one who goes to church only three times during his life 1 in a pram to be baptized, in a taxi to be married, and In a hearse to be buried. 19 of elaborate ceremonial, they feared, would offend their protestant neighbors. The erudition and advancement of the converts reminded them of their own lack of education and incited jealousy. Indeed,, many lukewarm Old Catholics such as the Duke of Norfolk conformed to the established church at the same time fanatical Anglo-Catholics converted to Roman Catholicism. The Anglo-Catholic converts, most of whom were ultramontane, wielded an influence out of proportion to their number, because of their education and notoriety. They were anxious to introduce continental ceremonial, partlc* ularly the service of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Old Catholic party wanted a national hierarchy so that, through bishops with tenure meeting in , it could assert some measure of independence from the pope. By 1850, however, the ultramontane party, led by , espoused the cause. Although Acton, the lone English cardinal had sup- ported in Home the cisalpine faction's opposition to a hierarchy, his voice was silenced by death in 1847. Thus„ by 1850e the time seemed propritious for a diocesan hier- archy. Despite their minority status and lack of wealth,

^Kenneth Scott Latourette, The Nineteenth Century in Europet Background and the Roman Catholic Phase, Vol. I of Christianity in a Revolutionary Aget A History of Christ- ianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (New York, 1958), pp. 454-456J Robert Rouquette, "La centenalre de la hierarchie catholique en Angleterre," Etudes. 6th ser., CCLXVII (Nov., 1950), 254-255? Hallvy, Peel and Cobden. pp. 324, 344; H. Aubert, Le pontlficat de Pie IX. 1846-1878 (Pari s» 1952}» p« "?0 9 20

English Roman Catholics belonged to a resurgent church which* because of Its emancipation from penal legislation and con- stant growth, no longer could be treated as a mission.^

32Ibid., p. 69s Halevy, Peel and Cobden» p. 319* CHAPTER I

BIHTH OF THE NEW HIERARCHY, 18^7-1850

From 1750 to 1850, the status of the Roman Catholic Church In England steadily Improved. Small and persecuted at the beginning of this period, it had achieved legality and respectability by its end. Its administrative structure, however, failed to keep pace with the momentous legal changes of 1778, 1791» and 1829. The vicars apostolic, nominated by the Stuarts until the death of James, the Old Pretender, in 1765» owed their offices to the Congregation for the Propa- gation of the Faith in Rome* Parochial clergy, regulated by Apostolioum Mlnlsterlum, the century-old constitution of Benedict XIV, had no security of tenure, as that bull assumed they would be chaplains to the aristocracy or to the Roman Catholic embassies, and thus could be removed at will» The only change in this arrangement occurred in 1840, when 1 Gregory XVI doubled the number of vicars„ English Roman Catholics had first voiced a desire for a hierarchy in the I830"s, and the Improvement of their church's legal position encouraged many clergy to hope for bishops-in ordinary, since only through normal ecclesiastical government

1Roche, "Catholic Church-State Relations,H Historical Studies,, pp. 12-13#

21 22 could they attain the security enjoyed by their brothers on the continent. Although laymen proposed a hierarchy as early as 1833, "the first major initiative came from the clergy of the Northern District in 1837, when they petitioned Rome for (1) an Increase in the number of bishops, {2) clerical influence in the selection of vicars, and (3) chapters to 2 regulate in each district*

Meeting on January 25, 1837, the vicars decided to formulate a plan for administrative reform and to discuss it at their next annual meeting in Low Week of 1838. Meanwhile» two vicars, Walsh of the Central District and Griffiths of the London, visited Rome in May, 1837, and found Gregory receptive to change. Encouraged by the pope's attitude, the vicars at their next meeting (April 23-May 1838), decided to press for an increase in the vicarates * but agreed that the actual change should be postponed until sufficient funds could be obtained to support them. Gregory, however, became annoyed by the vicars* neglect of correspondence with the

Curia. (They did not submit their plan, for example, until

June 11.) More serious, however, were the vicars' juris- dictional disputes with the regular clergy, a perennial problem in English Roman Catholic history. Vexed by the vicars* position, the pope, a monastic, ignored their

2Cathollc Magazine (Nov., 1833), p. 2^5, cited in Bernard Ward, The Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, 2 vols. (London, 1915)# 1» 9-10. 23 petition for a hierarchy. In 18*K), he merely doubled the 3 number of vicars. Four years later, the vicars appointed , Rector of the English College in Rome, to be their agent for the purpose of obtaining & diocesan hierarchy, but the oppo- sition of the influential Cardinal Acton, who distrusted th® vicars* capabilities, and Gregory's dislike of Griffiths, hampered his work. When the pope died in 18*1-6, Grant urged the vicars to send one of their number to Rome to present their plea to the new pope. Meeting in the spring of 18^7, the vicars took his advice and selected Nicholas Wiseman, Coadjutor of the Central District, and James Sharpies, Co- adjutor of the Lancashire District, to argue their case before the . Wiseman's was a logical choice, for as a former rector of the English College (1828-^0) and author of Horae Syrlaoae. a major study of Syriac manuscripts„ he brought an international scholarly reputation and useful h, Roman contacts to the mission.

^The opinion of Mark Tierney, a priest and historian, is interesting in the light of what eventually happened. He wanted a territorial hierarchy, but urged cautions "However we may calculate on the temper of the Government • . . , the measure should be introduced quietly, not ostentatiously. In fact it should be not so much a change, as a silent and al- most imperceptible transition." Ibid,. pp. 62-63» 123, 127- 131, 13*K ^, The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman. 2 vols. (London, 1897TT I, 5'f^t 88, >&2j Gillow, English Catholics. Ill, 6-71 William Ullathorne, History of the Res- toratlon of the Catholic Hierarchy in England (London. 1871)„ p. 23i Patrick Doran, "The Restoration of the Hierarchy," Clergy Review, new ser., XXXIV (Sept,, 1950), 170-171* Zk

Arriving in Rome on July 9» 18*4-7» the two men conferred with Grant and Msgr. Palma, secretary for English affairs of the Propaganda, and submitted to Pope Plus IX a proposal for revising Benedict's constitution. At this point* Msgr. Bar- nab^, Secretary of the Propaganda, suggested that they ask Pius for a diocesan hierarchy, and promised his support. Wiseman thereupon presented a report to the pope in which he argued that a new constitution would not be as effective a solution to English religious problems as the creation of blshops-in-ordinary. Only the latter alternative could achieve the necessary updating of the English ecclesiastical machinery and remove the inconvenienoe of frequent appeals to Home.-* A dispute between Pius and Metternich at this juncture cut short the negotiations. On July 17» 18^7, dispite the protests of the pope and the cardinal legate in Vienna, the Austrians occupied Ferrara to quell a popular uprising and to discourage papal reforms.^ Charles Albert of Sardinia

^Ullathorae, Restoration, pp. 2k-26 s W. Ward, Wiseman. I, { Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy, p. 351® ^Article CI of the Congress of Vienna gave Austria the right to garrison the "citadels" of Ferrara and Comacchio, The Papacy denied Metternlch's claim that "citadel" meant the cities themselves, and contended that it referred only to the forts, an interpretation based on a promise made to Pope Plus VII by the Emperor Francis I in 1819. , British consul at Rome, to Sir George Hamilton, British minister at Florence, Rome, Aug. 18, 18^7, Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, "Correspondence Re- specting the Affairs of , Pt. I, 1846-18^7•" Sessional Papers. LVII, omd. 1097 (July* 1849), enclosure in No. 1„ 131 Thereafter cited as "Italian Corresp., SP. LVII). 25 placed his army at the pontiff's disposal, but Pius, fearing Sardinian as well as Austrian intervention, asked Wiseman to return to London and approach Viscount Palmerston, the For- eign Secretary, about British aid. Although Wiseman left on August 24, before completing his mission, Sharpies remained in Rome, and the Curia, in October, composed tentative letters apostolic, entitled , which 7 proposed translating the eight vlcarates into dioceses. Upon Wiseman's arrival in London on September 11, he visited the Foreign Office, and two days later, delivered a memorandum to Palmerston, in which he suggested that British diplomatic support would provide the Papaoy with the strength necessary to carry out its reforms in the face of Austriat opposition. This memolre encouraged Palmerston to send a special mission to Italy with the dual purpose of counter- acting the Austrian mission of Count Ficquelmont and 3 encouraging liberal reforms. On September 18, the Earl of Minto, and career diplomat, received orders ?W. Ward, Wiseman, I, 478-479j Hal6vy, Peel and Cobden, p. 1961 Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy, p. 3531 Frederick Nielsen, The in the XlXth Century, translated by Arthur James Mason. 2 vols. (London. 190$, II, 135. Q Wilfrid Ward implies that Wiseman's memorandum was responsible for the Minto mission, but by August 21, Palm- erston already had urged the prime minister to commission the earl. The memorandum of September 13» therefore, played only a minor role in the final decision. Ward, Wiseman. I, 484 s Palmerston to Russell, Aug. 21, 184?, John Russell, First , Later Correspondence. 1840-1878. edited by George P» Goooh, 2 vols. (London, 1925)» I» 308* 26 to visit Berne, Turin, Florence, and Rome. Since an Eliza- bethan statute forbade diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, Minto*s status, while at the Vatican, was that of an unofficial, although authoritative, spokesman for the government. Specifically, he was to encourage reforms based upon the Five Power Memorandum of 1831, which called for mu- nicipal self-government and the admission of laymen to office, and to assure Pius of Britain's opposition to Austrian intervention*7 Arriving in the Eternal City on November 7» Mlnto re- mained until February 3» 1848 (when he left for Naples to mediate the Sicilian uprising), and had numerous audiences with Plo Nono» Three years later, after the pope had created the hierarchy, Roman Catholics such as Wiseman and Antonio Garibaldi, Papal at Paris (who was in Rome at the time of Minto's visit), alleged that Pius had informed the earl of the projected changes and had even shown him the draft of Universalis Ecclesiae. But the Russell Ministry in its public statements categorically denied this claim, asserting that Mlnto had seen nothing* In private corres- pondence, howeverv Minto admitted to Russell that he had

9Wiseman to Palmerston, London, Sept. 13, 1847, W, Ward, Wiseman. I, 481-484, 571-5771 Ralph Abercromby, British minister at Turin, to Palmerston, Turin, July 24, 1847, "Italian Corresp.," SP, LVII, No. 66, 106-107l Palmerston to Minto, Foreign Office, Sept. 18, 1847, ibid., No. 123, pp. 166-1681 Five Power Memorandum of 1831, ibid«. enolosure in No. 122, pp. 165-1660 27 delivered a letter from a member of Lord Shrewsbury's house- hold10 to Pius, which protested Wiseman's elevation to the Archbishopric of Westminster. Pius briefly discussed the promotion with Minto, who dropped the matter, thinking that only one title was inffclved. In public, however, Minto re- fused to concede even this much. When the ministry's opponents questioned him in Parliament in February, 1851, he denied all knowledge of plans to erect a hierarchy, main- tained he saw no documents, and claimed the subject never came up in conversations» Pressed, Minto conceded that the story of his seeing the draft brief might be true, although he oould not remember it. In the Commons, Sir George Grey, the , admitted that Minto knew Wiseman was to be given archiepiscopal rank, but denied Minto had seen the 11 letters apostolic. Minto's correspondence with Russell indicates that he was less than candid in Parliament. This, together with his

10Shrewsbury was a Roman Catholic peer. ^Mlnto to Russell, Rome, Nov. 7» 18^7# Russell Later Corresp., I, 31^-316* Minto to Russell, Rome, Feb. 3» 1848, Ibid.. p. 321J Minto to Russell, Oct. 23, 1850, ibid., II, W^9t Minto to Russell, Nov. 21, 1850, ibid., pp. 53-5^1 Princess Dorothea Lieven to George Gordon, Earl of Aberdeen, Paris, Feb. 10, 1851, George Gordon, Fourth Earl of Aber- deen, The Correspondence of Lord Aberdeen and Princess Lieven. edited by E. Jones Parry, Camden Third Series, Vol. LXII, 2 vols. (London, 1939), II, 5^3-5^t R. W. Grey, secretary to the prime minister, to Thomas Hartley, Downing Street, Oct. 28, 1850, The Standard (London), Nov. 1, I85O1 Great Britain, Hansard * s Parliamentary Debates, edited by T. C, Hansarde 3rd ser., CXIV (1851), 156, 183, 355« 28 lapse of memory about the brief, casts doubt upon the gov- ernment's version of the story. In Minto's defense, it must be remembered that he was In Rome for a specific purpose which had little to do with the hierarchy, and as a Presby- terian, he knew little about episcopal nomenclature® It is probable, therefore, that Minto saw the draft of Universalis ficcleslae. but# preoccupied with other matters, gave It only the most superficial examination and did not realize what he had seen. The question of whether Minto informed his gov- ernment of the papal plan Is more difficult to answer. The diplomat thought that he might have told Palmerston about the conversation, but the opposition never questioned the foreign secretary about it. Evidence suggests, however, that the ministry, indeed, did not learn of it from Minto. Questioned in 1848, during debate on the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill, Russell denied any knowledge of the proposed hierarchy. The evidence of Minto's character is also telling. Since he took such superficial notice of the bull and never completely understood it. It seems unlikely that he would have reported it in his official dispatches to the Foreign Office.1^

Having returned to London, Wiseman, on November 11, 18^7* informed the vicars of recent developments in Rome. After

12 Roman Catholic historiography on this question takes the position that Minto's presence in Rome "ensured that his Government was informed, even at this early stage, of the Pope's intention to restore the hierarchy . . . ." Patrick J. Corish, "The Restoration of the English Catholic Hier- archy," Irish Bocleslastioal Record. 5th ser., LXXIV (Oct., 29 two days' deliberation, they agreed to divide England into twelve dioceses, but expecting a rapid culmination of events, deferred submitting it to the Curia for approval. But sphinxlike, the pope maintained silence on this issue for six months. Frustrated by papal intransigence, the vicars, at their next conference on May 2, 1848, decided to send another delegate to Rome. Since Wiseman's duties as coadjutor to the aged and ill Bishop Walsh, Vicar Apostolic of the Central District, prevented his undertaking this new mission, the conference commissioned William B. Ullathorne, Vicar Apos- tolic of the Western District. Ullathorne had had experience in these matters, for as vicar general of the Australian mis- sion, he had assisted in the creation of its hierarchy.1^

Leaving London shortly after the conference adjourned9 Ullathorne arrived in Home on May 26, and attended a series of preliminary meetings with Grant, Bamabrf, and Cardinal Fransoni, Prefect of the Propaganda. Since the earlier diplomacy of Grant and Wiseman had cleared the way, the Prop- aganda readily approved the plan for a twelve-diocese ill hierarchy, with Walsh the first Archbishop of Westminster.,

1950), 293» Pari. Deb., CI (1848), 220s Mlnto to Russell, Oct. 23, 1850, Russell, Later Corresp.. II, 47-49. 13 ^Ullathorne, Restoration, pp. 32-3^5 Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy, p. 353* 1 k Walsh and Wiseman were translated to the London vicarate, vacant for a year, in August, 1848. Doranv "Res- toration," Clergy Review,, p. 175. 30

On June 5» Plus assured Ullathorne that only technical questions, whloh a special committee of the Propaganda could settle, delayed the promulgation of Universalis Eccleslae. But the choice of titles for the new sees presented a prob- lem, Ullathorne, in a memorial submitted to the Propaganda on June 3, had proposed names which recalled those of the pre-Heformation sees, claiming that they would not violate the prohibitions against the use of Anglican titles In the Catholic Emancipation Act. The cardinals, however, refused to use the titles of existing sees for fear of offending the English. The committee held the last of five meetings on July 17, and the next day informed Ullathorne that the hier- archy would be restored. On the 20th, Pius, in his last audience with the vicar, announced that the bull awaited only a final decision on the titles question. Convinced that the success of his mission now was assured, Ullathorne left Home on the 23rd, but both he and the pope underesti- 16 mated the strength of the revolutionary spirit of 1848.

•^The committee included Cardinals Fransonl, Castracane, Orioli, Mai, Altiere0 Ostinl, and Vizzardelli. *^The Propaganda's ready acceptance of a hierarchy may have stemmed in part from the reports of Luigl Gentlli, a Rosminian missionary, whose letters to Fransonl between May, 18*1-7» and February, 1848, recommended its creation. P. H. Catcheside, "Father Gentlli and the Restoration of the Hier- archy i The Chastening Fruits of some Recent Researches," The Tablet (London), CXCVI (Sept. 23, 1950), 256, 260i Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy, pp. 356-357f Ullathorne to Russell, Birmingham, Feb. 10, 1851, Russell, Later Corresp.. II, 59-61t Ullathorne to Wiseman, Rome, June 3, 1848, B. Ward, Sequel. II, 213-214? Ullathorne to Wiseman, Rome, July 219 31

During the summer and fall, relations between the pontiff and his subjects rapidly deteriorated until violence erupted In November. Following the assassination of Count Bossi, the papal premier, on the 15th, and of Palma the next day, Pius fled to Gaeta, For two more years, English Cath- olics waited while Louis-Napoleon's troops expelled Garibaldi from Rome and restored the papal regime (April 12, 1850), But Pius again postponed publication of Universalis Eccleslae until Msgr. Vespasiani, Palma's successor as secretary for English affairs, had returned from Malta, English Catholics, however, soon had more than vexatious delays to try their patience. Impressed by Wiseman*s ability, Pius resolved to make him a cardinal and use him in the Curia. When Wiseman learned of the papal decision in May, 1850, he felt a deep sense of disappointment at having to leave the scene of so many labors. (Wiseman had succeeded Walsh as vicar in February* 18^9.) Shocked by the news, his London flock petitioned the pope to keep him in England, but on August 16, before Wiseman had reoeived the papal response to this request, he reluctantly obeyed the official summons. 18 He expected never again to see England.

18^8, ibid., pp. 217-219t Ullathorne, Restoration, pp. 35-36# ^7-51 70. 17Ibld.. pp. 77-78s Nielsen, History of the Papacy. II, 159» 162, 181. *%allvy maintains that Wiseman, before his departure, explained to Russell what was in store for English Roman 32

Arriving in Rome on September 5» Wiseman saw Pius pri- vately the same day, and again on the 13th, in formal audience. Moved by the English petitions, the pope relented his earlier decision, but hesitated to oommit himself, for to raise the archbishop of a new see to the cardlnalate was an unusual honor. Wiseman knew only that he might be per- mitted to remain in England, if it were consonant with his new dignity. Not until his last audience with the pope, on the 24-th, did he learn that he was to be the first Cardinal

Archbishop of Westminster.1^

On September 29» the English Roman Catholics8 long struggle for a hierarchy ended in suocess with the official publication of the letters apostolic. Beginning with a historical account of Roman Catholic organization in England since 1623» Pius cited the great increase in the number of

Catholics and the abolition of the penal laws as reasons for erecting the dioceses. The brief translated the eight vicarates into a province of twelve bishoprics and listed by name the counties in each diocese. Finally, Pius nullified

Catholics but does not indicate the evidence for this state- ment. The present writer, indeed, can find none, and he wonders why, if Halevy is right, Wiseman failed to mention it in his letter to Russell of November 3» or in his "Appeal,* Halevy, Peel and Cobden, pp. 319-3201 W. Ward, Wiseman. I, 502i 5211 Butler, The Life and Times of Bishop Ulla- thornet 1806-1889,. 2 vols. (London, 1926), I, T5D2-163 •

^Wiseman to H. R. Bagshawe, Rome, Collegio Inglese, Sept. 13, 1850, W. Ward, Wiseman. I, 526-527* ibid., p. 5261 Butler» Ullathorne. I, 16*fr. 33 all the acts and constitutions of his predecessors and de-

clared that the new divisions would hold, "notwithstanding 20 the rights and privileges of the ancient English sees. . .

The following day, Pius held his first consistory since

returning to Rome, and created fifteen cardinals, including

Wiseman. After the traditional round of receptions for new

princes of the church, Wiseman, on October 7, issued his

first pastoral letter to his new flock. On the 12th, he took

the road to London to assume his duties as metropolitan of

the English Roman Catholic Church.^

English Roman Catholics had actively sought episcopal

supervision since 1596. During the archprlest era, the

secular clergy, aware of the bishop's authority, constantly

petitioned Rome for a prelate who could Impose his will on

the refractory Jesuits. When the Catholics obtained a per-

manent vicar in l685» they began to dream of establishing a

regular hierarchy for their governance. The fifty year period

of quasi-toleratlon between the passage of the first and

third Roman Catholic relief acts (1778-1829) encouraged this

aspiration, and Catholic Emancipation, by removing most of

the religious disabilities, further increased the demand for

a hierarchy. prs ''"Letters apostolic, Universalis Eccleslae of Pius IX, St. Peter's, Rome, Sept. 29. 1850. Annual Register. XCII (1851), 405-^11. 21 W» Ward, Wiseman« I, 5301 R. de Cesare9 The Last Days of Papal Rome. 1850-1870. translated by Helen Zimmem (Boston and New York, 1909)» p. ^0. 34

The English Catholic Church by 184-7 seemed on the threshold of a renaissance. The constant flow of Irish immi- \ grants and the conversions from appeared to presage a time when the church would occupy a prominent position in British society. The vicarial organizations how- ever* was outmoded, inefficient, and unable to with the problems created by the church's growth# The vicars, cogni- zant of this deficiency, made it their chief argument for requesting a diocesan hierarchy of Pio Nono. Since a diocesan structure is the normal form of gov- ernment for any episcopal church, vicars apostolic or missionary bishops are only temporary expedients for areas which cannot support regular prelates. The English vicars believed that their church now needed a hierarchy, and when the Holy See agreed with them, it made the change. Had the Roman Revolution not intervened, Pius would have proclaimed the hierarchy in I848j after his return to Rome, he published Universalis Eccleslae as soon as possible. The negotiations at Rome, moreover, show that the Curia did not wish to antag- onize the English. The Vatican, indeed, could not afford to alienate a potential ally against Austrian aggression. The final decision on the titles' question conformed to English law, and the pope made no attempt to conceal the transaction from Lord Minto. Thus, the change was designed to meet the church's needs alone, and neither Wiseman nor Plus antici- pated more than token British protests. CHAPTER II

BRITISH POPULAR REACTION TO THE NEW HIERARCHYi SPONTANEOUS INDIGNATION OR FOMENTED AGITATION?

Pio Nono*s proclamation of Universalis Eccleslae had tremendous repercussions In England. One-time sponsors of Catholic Emancipation denounced papal perfidy» the public reacted violently to the new hierarchy5 and the press demanded penal legislation. The census of 1851, however, reveals that approximately sixty per cent of the English people were nonreligious. Why* then* the outcry? Did it proceed from sincere religious conviction,, or did religion only mask other motives? Was the reaction a spontaneous expression of public sentiments, or was it manufactured by the press? How did the government react to the paroxysm of protest? Did it seek to subdue popular passions and to use the energy thus generated for constructive ends, or did it attempt to make political capital from the storm? These questions arise when the historian contemplates the bizarre events which occurred at the end of 1850. On October 9» & dispatch from The Times" Roman corres- pondent reached London with the news that Pius IX had created Wiseman cardinal and Archbishop of Westminster. Five days later» The Times attacked the papal , arguing that, since Westminster, as the seat of Parliament, symbolized

35 36

British liberties, Wiseman's use of this title insulted the English church and crown. Notwithstanding that a few "weak minds" had converted, the pope was mistaken in believing the nation ripe for proselytlsm. English laws and public opin- ion would never fall into "Romish bondage." Thus, Pius IX9s 1 unwarranted exercise of power would be of no avail. As knowledge of the hierarchy began to spread, The Times, on the 19th, denounced the pope's attempt to exercise spi- ritual jurisdiction in Britain as a challenge to the authority of the crown and the established church# The re- establishment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy, moreover, would give the pope greater control over his English flock, and would lead to "the wanton interference of a band of foreign 2 priests" in domestic affairs. Several protest letters also appeared, including one urging the English nation to rise up against this "papal aggression"--the first time this phrase# which soon became a household word, appeared in print. The letters apostolic reached London about October 16, and appeared in the newspapers between the 22nd and the 26th* *The Times (London), Oct. 9» 1^» 1850. 2Ibld.. Oct. 19, 1850. ^One correspondent seemed to have taken Palmerston's example to hearts "Sooner than this accursed domination shall prevail, let British canon tsicj tear asunder the gates of Rome, the cross of St. George wave over"the Castle of St. Angelo, and the arrogant priest tremble in his Palace of the Vatican." Brook W. Bridges to the inhabitants of Kent* Goodnestone Park, Nov. 1, 1850, The Standard. Nov. k, I85O1 Letter of "A London Clergyman," Oct. 22, 1850, The Times. Oct. 1850. 37

The Times on the 22nd. again denounced them, alleging that the pope, by dividing England Into dioceses, not only assumed supreme spiritual authority over the nation, but also implied that the old sees were vacant and extinct, thus denying the validity of Anglican orders« The editorial denied the argu- ment that the Catholic Archbishopric of Westminster was comparable to the Anglican Bishopric of Jerusalem, for the latter see had been created with the Porte's permission. Perhaps Pius® resentment against the participation of English agitatbrs in the Italian revolutions of 1848, The Times sug- |l gested, had caused him to publish the bull. The public reacted quickly to the new hierarchy# The Anglican clergy of Westminster on the 25th petitioned the Bishop of London. Replying three days later, he urged them {1} to warn their flocks of the Papal Aggression, (2) to petition the government to prevent it, and (3) to engage in moderate preaching against Roman doctrine. On the 30th, the advertisements and the body of The Times announced that the parishoners of St. George's, Hanover Square, were preparing a protest to their bishop. This was to be the first of numerous protest meetings

^Ibld., Oct. 22, 1850j The Standard. Oct. 24, 1850? -jIllustrate— d London News, Oct. 26„ 1850j W. Ward, Wiseman. 1.

^, Bishop of London, to the clergy of Westminster, , Oct. 28, 1850, The Times„ Oct. 29, 1850? Ibid.. 0ot« 26, 30, 1850. 38

Roman Catholics themselves added fuel to the protestant fire. On October 27, Ullathorne was enthroned as Bishop of Birmingham, and , an unpopular figure in protestant circles since his conversion in 1845, preached the sermon at the . Taking 6s his text the story of Christ walking on the water, Newman termed the new hierarchy a sign of the success with which God had crowned the English Catholics* adversity. That time of tribulation had begun with the Reformations when selfseeking men, led by the devil, abandoned spiritual goals, destroyed the true church, and appropriated its riches for themselves. Although God, moving "as a spirit upon the waters," now leads people back to the true faith, the Church's work has just begun. The world, he declared, grants the supernatural claims of the Catholic Church, but secular man assumes that they stem from the devil, rather than from God. The news media teach this belief to Englishmen, who would rather accept another's opinion than engage in speculation themselves. Despite in- sults and adversity, Roman Catholics should rejoice, because they are doing God's work for its own sake and not for the glory of the hierarchy. Therefore their Church—the true Church—possesses both "divine prerogatives and . • • high destiny."^

^Ibid., Oct. 29, 1850» John Henry Newman, "Christ Upon the Waters," $11 Sermons Preached on Various Occasions, new ed. (London, 1898), pp. 121-124, 130-132, 136, 141, 143, 149. 159. 39

Wiseman's Flaminian Gate pastoral reached London shortly after the 20th, but Robert Whitty, Vicar General of the Lon- don District* hesitated to publish it, fearing that its tone would inflame British sentiment and cause riots» But since he could not reach Wiseman, who was still travelling on the continent, and did not wish to suppress suoh an official document without authorization, he ordered it read in London chapels on Sunday, October 28# The next day it appeared in 7 the newspapers * Wiseman*s pastoral letter discussed briefly the erection of the hierarchy, his appointment as metropolitan of England and promotion to the cardinalate, and the bestowal of the ,, Its focus, however, was the jurisdiction of his province and the importance of the hierarchy. "We govern, and shall continue to govern," the new archbishop affirmed, "the counties of Middlesex, Hertford, and Essex as ordinary thereof, and those of Surrey, Sussex, Kent, , and Hampshire, with the islands annexed, as administrator with 8 ordinary jurisdiction. Turning to the hierarchy's

?The Times for the 29th commented, "It will be seen that His Eminence the newly-appointed Cardinal has not been slow to exercise the authority of his recently acquired dig- nity." W. Ward, Wiseman. I, 5*H-5^2» The Standard. Oct. 29, 1850. ^Nicholas Patrick Cardinal Wiseman, Archbishop of West- minster, "Out of the Flaminian Gate at Rome," Oct. 7, 1850, English Historical Documents. 1833-187**« edited by G. M. Young and W. D» Handoock, Vol. XII, Pt. 1 of English Historical Documents. edited by David C# Douglas, 12 vols. (New York, 1956), No. 120, 365* bo significance, he declared» The great work, then, is complete * . « « Your beloved oountry has received a place amont the fair Churches, which . . . form the splended aggregate of Catholic Communionj Catholic England has been res- tored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament# from which its light had long vanished, and begins now anew its course of regularly adjusted action round the centre of unity, the source of Jurisdiction, of light and vigour * . . » Then truly is this day to us a day of joy and exhaltatlon of spirit, the crowning day of long hopes, and the opening day of bright prospects. How must the Saints of our country, whether Soman or British, Saxon or Norman, look down from their seats of bliss, with beaming glance, upon this new evidence of the faith and Church which led them to glory, sympathising with those who have faithfully adhered to them through centuries of ill repute for the truth's sake, and now reap the fruit of their patience and longsuffering. And all those blessed martyrs of these latter ages, * » . who mourned • . < over the desolate ways of their own Slon, and the departure of England's religious glory? oh! how must they bless God# who hath again visited his people.--how take part in our joy, as they see the lamp of the temple again enkindled and rebrightening, as they behold the silver links of that chain which has connected their country with the see of Peter in its vicarial government changed into burnished gold j not stronger nor more closely knit, g but more beautifully wrought and more brightly arrayed."

The press vigorously attacked the pastoral and sermon# Times, their language seemed arrogant and their appraisal of the English religious situation, unrealistic. Englishmen, of course, must support the principles of re- ligious toleration by protesting these tactless statements# for through these instruments, tbe pope demanded religious supremacy for his ohurch. But the Papal Aggression might yet benefit the established church, if it convinced the

9ibld.„ p. 366. Puseyites that there could be no compromise with Romanism and thus restore unity to the Anglican Communion. The 12.- lustrated London News suggested that the blame lay, not with Pius, a foreigner dependent upon second-hand infor- mation, but with Wiseman, whose advice had misled the pope. The whole affair, however, had done protestantism a service. As the London News explained! "Many a waverer, inclined to go astray in the flowery paths that lead to the pitfalls of Puseyism or to the precipices of Homanism, will stop in his career, and go back in safety to the quiet folds of the Church."10 The events of October, 1850„ gave a special significance to Guy Fawkes Day {November 5)» a traditional holiday in England# Londoners awoke to see slogans such as "No Popery" and "No wafer gods" painted on walls. At noon, a long pro- cession, centered about a large effigy of Wiseman and escorted by men dressed as monks and nuns, formed in the center of the city. Two slogans decorated the cart carrying the effigy« "Cardinal St. Impudence11 going to take posses- sion of his diocese in Westminster," and "Guy Fox cslci going to be canonized in St. George's-fields." The procession crossed the river, traveled through Westminster, and dis- banded at St. George's Fields. Many parishes held services

10The Times. Oct. 30, 1850s Illustrated London News. Nov. 2« 1H5O. ^This name parodied Wiseman's title, "Cardinal Priest of St. Pudentiana." kz commemorating the day, and effigies of Wiseman were often 12 substituted for the usual straw figure of Guy Fawkes.

The government, meanwhile, was not a silent observer of these events# Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary, asked the attorney general to determine if the brief violated any 1 1 laws, though he thought not# D On November Russell wrote his famous letter to , Bishop of Durham. The prime minister attacked the "insolent and insidious" Papal

Aggression, because it challenged the royal supremacy and the established church by implying that Rome held authority over England, Russell did not fear this "outward Attack," for a nation which has enjoyed freedom of speech and religion so long has nothing to fear from a foreign ruler. Roman

Catholics» therefore9 were not nearly as great a threat to England as the Tractarians, who were leading their flocks Ik to Soman "mummeries of superstition." Clergymen of our own Church . . . have been most forward in leading their flocks "step by step to the very verge of the precipice." The honours paid to saints, the claim of infalli- bility for the Church, the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, the muttering of the liturgy so as to disguise the language in which it is written, the recommendation of auricular

12Letter of "Rusticus," Nov* 7» 1850, The Times. Nov. 9# 1850? ibid.„ Nov. 6, I85O1 Illustrated London News. Nov, 9, 1850. 1^Russell to Blomfield, Pembroke Lodge, Oct# 30, 1850, W. Ward, Wiseman. II, 119#

^Russell to Maltby, Downing Street, Nov. 1850, Eng. Hist. Poo.. XII, Pt. 1, No. 121, 367-369. The letter is also found in W. Ward, Wiseman. II, 120-121* ^3

confession, and the administration of penance and absolution, all these things are pointed out by clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of adoption. • . . . What then is the danger to be apprehended from a foreign prince of no great power compared to the danger within the gates from the unworthy sons of the Church of England herself?15

Appearing in the major dailies on November 7» the

Durham Letter received almost universal approvals The Times praised its "clear and uncompromising statement of prin- ciples," and expressed the hope that the English Church could be cleansed of such clergy, and the universities become more than "schools of Popery and mysticism." Another journal declared that its truth was obvious. Not all commentaries, however, were laudatory. , Tory leader in the Commonso argued that the Russell Ministry, by its con- cessions to the Irish Catholic hierarchy, had encouraged the creation of the English. J. A. Roebuck, a radical Whig M.P., declared that the letter, by dignifying an unimportant mat- ter, encouraged intolerance and threatened religious liberty*

Finally, W, E. J. Bennett, Russell's parish priest, accused him of having instigated the disturbances and of opposing the

Puseyites because they wished to see the Church act inde- l6 pendently of the State.

l5Ibid.

^The Times. Nov. 7, I85O1 Illustrated London News, Nov. 9, 1650s The Standard. Nov, 7» 1850> The Globe and Traveller,(London)9 Nov. 7» 1850s Disraeli to Lord Claren- don, Lord-Lieutenant of , Hughenden Manor, Nov# 8, 1850e The Times. Nov. 9» 1850t Eoebuok to Russell, il4

On November 9» Russell and Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chan- cellor, speaking at the Mayor of London's annual Guildhall dinner, defended the ministry's polloy. Cottenham orltlolzed those who departed from Christ's simple worship, and quoted two lines of poetry« "Under our feet we'll stamp thy

Cardinal's hat,/In spite of Pope or dignities of Church."

Russell, who spoke next, reaffirmed his support of religious liberty, declared his readiness to defend the constitution against all comers, and urged members of all denominations to 17

support the queen 0 Such statements on the part of high government offi-

cials merely provoked more protests. The first to object were the Anglican hierarchy# The Bishops of Bath and Wells and of Ripon denounced the new hierarchy for (1) violating

the custom of one bishop for one diocese, (2) implying that

the Church of England was not a true church, and (3) in-

fringing the rights of the crown. Both urged their clergy

to circulate protest petitions. At the beginning of December,,

the English episcopate, save Exeter and St. David's, peti-

tioned the queen, contending that the creation of a rival

hierarchy "unchurched" the Church of England by failing to

recognize it as the only branch of the Holy Catholic Church

Milton, Dec. 2, 1850, ibid.. Dec. 4, l850j W. E. J. Bennett, Vicar of St. Paul's, Knlghtsbridge, and St. Barnabas', Plm- lioo, to Russell, Dec. 2, 1850, W. Ward, Wiseman. II, 10-i*K

^The Times. Nov. 11# 1850. *5 in England, and usurped the royal supremacy by attempting to 18 exercise spiritual authority over the English nation.

The manifesto which received the most publicity was that of » Archbishop of Canterbury, in re- sponse to several laymen who inquiredi (1) Should parishoners continue to attend a ritualizing church, or had they the duty to worship elsewhere? (2) Should pledges be required of candidates for Parliament, binding them to reimpose some of the Roman Catholic disabilities? (3) Should the Prayer Book be revised to meet differences within the church? Sumner answered these questions in a well-reasoned reply. First, since ritual was not essential to salvation, one ought to re- main at his parish unless his objections were seriousj secondly, he rejected the idea of a pledge from candidates* and thirdly, he argued that controversies over the Papal Ag- gression and the Oxford Movement made Prayer Book revision even less likely than before. What the laity ought to do, he concluded, was "to promote the teaching and preaching of the 19 Protestant faith wherever an opening for it appears.

The bishops, however, were disunited in their protests.

Speaking before a meeting of the clergy of the Archdeaconry of Exeter on November 18, , , ^®, , to his dio- cesan clergy, Blithfleld, Staffordshire, Nov. 2, 1850, The Times. Nov. ii, 1850j Charles Thomas Longley, Bishop of Rlpon, to the Rural Dean of Leeds, Ripon, Nov. 7, 1850, ibid.» ibid.. Dec. 5. 1850,

19Ibld.. Deo. 14, 1850. 1*6 blamed the Russell Ministry's religious policy for causing the Papal Aggression. The government, by approving the creation of colonial Roman Catholio hierarchies and by rec- ognizing their honors, and the prime minister, by his state- ments in Parliament (18^5-^6} supporting such a hierarchy in

England, had encouraged the Papacy to proceed with its scheme. The bishop urged his clergy to confine themselves to teaching the Catholic faith, and to attack Roman Catholio 20 doctrine only if missionaries entered their parishes.

During the months of November and December, public meetings of all types met to discuss the Papal Aggression.

Participants usually elected a chairman, moved and debated resolutions, and chose a committee to draft a petition to the queen, the ordinary, or the prime minister. At first, clergy sponsored parish meetings, but by the middle of November, the movement had grown to include borough, town, and county as- semblies, the latter chaired by their Lords-Lieutenant.

Societies and corporations, both municipal and educational, also went on record as protesting the Papal Aggression.

Groups such as the Incorporated Law Society, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, the Lord Mayors and Corpor- ations of London, Liverpool, and Windsor, and the governing bodies of Oxford and Cambridge universities sent addresses to the queen.^

20Ibid., Nov. 20, 1800. 21 For announcements and reports of the meetings, see *7

These protests were not confined to members of the

Church of England. At the beginning of December* four bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Churbh declared their support of the English Church# condemned the Papal Aggres- sion, and denied that their church's position vls-a-vls the state could be construed as a justification for the pope's action. On December 10, the first of a series of protest meetings of Dissenters convened at Surrey Chapel in London#

Indeed, so universal was the outcry, that even a few Old

Catholic peers objected to the new hierarchy as being un- necessary for their spiritual wants and as reflecting the

"unrealistic" view of English religious affairs held at Rome.^

Though most protestants defended their faith at meetings where parliamentary procedure prevailed, some resorted to violence# On November 10, a crowd disturbed the Sunday service at St. Barnabas', Pimlico (one of Bennett's cures and the leading ritualist parish in London), with hisses and cries of MNo popery! " Irate Englishmen burned effigies of the pope, Wiseman, and his twelve suffragans In several towns, and actual riots occurred in Cheltenham, Liverpool and

The Times for November and December, 1850, under the headings "The Papal Aggression."

22Lord Beaumont to the Earl of Zetland, Nov. 20, 1850, Ibid.. Nov. 26, 1850j ibid., Dec. 6, 11, 1850? Victoria to the Duchess of Norfolk, Windsor Castle, Nov. 22, 1850, Al- exandria Victoria, , The Letters of Queen Victoria 1 A Selection of Her Majesty's Correspondence Between the Years T837 and 1861. edited by A. C. Benson and Visoount ^8

Birkenhead. The most serious riot was that of November 28 in Birkenheadf which broke out after Soman Catholics who did not pay the poor rate had been denied admission to a protest assembly. The rioters attacked the police before a detach- ment of troops could disperse them, and one person dled.2^ From the beginning of the controversy, militant Soman Catholics had, of course, spoken out in defense of their church. Sir George Bowyer, a prominent lawyer, friend of Wiseman, and a recent convert, first defended the new hier- archy. In a letter to The Times, he observed that the ap- pointments had established only spiritual authority over Soman Catholics and that the new hierarchy had resulted from a natural desire on the part of English Catholics to see their church on a normal footing. In another letter to the editor, Ullathome disclaimed any attempt to as sum* temporal authority, and argued that the pope, by converting vicarates into dioceses and giving English bishops tenure and synodical powers, had actually lost power. He repeated this argument on October 27» in a sermon at the evening service of his enthronement-day, and , Catholic Bishop of pit , echoed them the next month in his first pastoral.

Esher, 1st ser., 3 vols. (London, 190?), II, 331-332? Pari. Deb.„ 3rd ser., CXIV (1851), 37, 1+0-41. 23lllustrated London News. Nov. 30, 1850? The Times. Nov. 11, 15, 21, 29, 30, 13507 ph, Letter of G. B. CSlr George Bowyer3» CLondon?, The Temple, Oct. 1$, 1850, Ibid.. Oct. 19. I85O1 letter of V. B. 1*9

Roman Catholics also used petitions in self-defense.

On November 18, the Catholics of Birmingham sent to the citizens of that city an address written by Newman and declaring that the new hierarchy was not intended to attack the royal supremacy nor to exercise temporal power. The major demonstration of loyalty, however, came on February 11,

1851» when the Roman Catholic Lords Vaux, Dormer, and Lovat presented to Queen Victoria a petition bearing 255»?66 signatures. It pledged loyalty, affirmed that their hier- archy had strictly spiritual powers, and declared that the royal prerogative was not Infringed.^

The new cardinal archbishop, meanwhile, was unaware of the excitement at home. He left Rome on October 12, 1850, intending to take a leisurely trip through Europe in order to visit friends and rest from his labors. He changed his plans, however, when on November 3» he read The Times * edi- torial of October Ik, Provoked, he wrote to Russell, declaring that the press attacks on "the Papal Aggression"

Ullathome, Bishop's House, Birmingham, Oct. 22, 1850, ibid., Oct, 2^, 1850? ibid.« Oct. 29, 1850j pastoral letter of William Wareing, , Nov. 5» 1850, Ibid.. Nov. 12, 1850.

2$The Roman Catholics of Lincoln also declared their loyalty in a petition to the queen. Ibid.. Nov. 19» I85O1 Ibid.» Feb. l4, l85l> Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Return of addresses to the queen on the Roman Cath- olic hierarchy, Sessional Papers. LIX, No. 8^ (Feb., I851), 738 (hereafter cited as Return of addresses, SP, LIX)1 Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, An address to the queen from her English Catholic subjects, SP, LIX, No, 236 (Apr., 1851), 7^1• 50 were unjustified, for he had been given only spiritual powers. He contended, moreover, that Lord Minto had known about the three years before it was published.

Cutting short his tour, Wiseman arrived in London on Monday morning, November 11, and immediately began work on a defense of the new hierarchy. The statement, published on the 19th as a pamphlet entitled, "An Appeal to the Reason and Good

Peeling of the English People on the Subject of the Catholic 26 Hierarchy," appeared in the London newspapers the next day.

Beginning with a brief history of the vicarial system and the negotiations which culminated in the letters apos- tolic, the essay launched into a defense of the papal action#

Only members of the established church, he observed, accepted the crown's spiritual supremacy. Dissenters and Scottish

Episcopalians did not accept it, and, since 1829, Roman

Catholics, too, had been excused from the Oath of Supremacy.

The Catholic Emancipation Act, by permitting Roman Catholics freedom of religion, also permitted them to have a hierarchy, because episcopacy is of the church's essence, and the best form of that polity is a diocesan hierarchy. Indeed, the only restriction placed upon that church by the act of 1829 was that forbidding Roman bishops to take the titles of

2£>Wiseman Russell, Vienna, Nov. 3» 1850, W» Ward, Wiseman„ I, 53^-536* The letter also appears in Russell, Later Corresp.. II, 49-50. Slight differences in punctuation exist between the two, and Ward deleted a phrase dealing with Wiseman's expectations of never returning to England, but the substance of the two is identical.. Ward, Wiseman. I9 55^r The Times. Nov# 20, 18500 51

Anglican sees. Nor did the new hierarchy infringe the royal

prerogative. Since English Catholics could obtain bishops

only through , the act's gift of religious

liberty implied the right to make such appointments. Thus,

the Catholic Emancipation Act had conceded to the pope a

limited spiritual jurisdiction in England. The government,

moreover, made no objection to the creation of hierarchies

in Australia, North America, and the West Indies, and had

itself erected dioceses in Jerusalem and Gibraltar (with

jurisdiction in Rome), without a thought of tresspassing on

another's rights. Surely the pope had the right to do like-

wise in England. Wiseman's appeal concluded with an

indictment of the Anglican clergy, whom he accused of having

precipitated the crisis. Deploring the irresponsible means

by which they had attacked Roman Catholics, he suggested that

only English good sense and Roman Catholic docility had

averted a disaster similar to the Gordon Riots.

The Times received Wiseman's "Appeal" with approval and

praised its plain English. The editor, nonetheless, re-

gretted that such an explanation had not been substituted

for the Flaminian Gate pastoral, and called attention to

Roman Catholic intolerance as a factor in the affair. Al-

though Charles Greville, the Tory Clerk of the Council in

Ordinary and an astute political observer, commented that

Wiseman had developed an impregnable position and amply

demonstrated the hierarchy's legality, the consensus of 52

British savants was that it had come too late to allay the protestant fury. Indeed, the next day letters appeared in the press attacking its logic.2''

Despite Wiseman's failure to calm public resentment, agitation abated after the middle of December as the voice of reason prevailed. The Bishop of St4 David#s refused to endorse the bishops® address because he considered its language too harsh, and on December 9» Greville published in The Times a letter urging his countrymen to return to sanity# Using the pen name "Carolus»" he argued that Roman bishops were not on a par with those of the English Church, since they could be cited into an ordinary court and had no coer- cive power. The government, he thought, had caused the affair by not objecting in the beginning. Now, nothing ought to be done, for there was no problem to be solved.

Since the protests had reaffirmed protestantism, Englishmen pQ should not turn to penal laws for a remedy. Two events during December illustrate the decline of popular clamor. On the 6th, Wiseman was enthroned at

'''ibid., Nov. 21, 1850 j Letter of Ernest Hawkins, ibid, g Letter of "A Westminster Layman," n.d., ibid., Nov. 22, 1850j Illustrated London News,, Nov. 23, 1850» Annual Register. XCII (1851), 201? Charles C. F. Greville, The Greville Memoirs 1 A Journal of the Reigns of King George IV. King William IV and Queen Victoria, edited by Henry Reeve, 8 vols., new ed. (Lon- don, 1905-1913), VI, 377-378. 2®Ibid», p. 3811 letter of "Carolus" CCharles Greville3» The Times» Dec. 9, 1850? Connop Thirlwall to J. B. Sumner, Abergwill# Carmarthen9 Nov. 26, 1850, Ibid.. Deo. 16, 1850. 53

St, George's Chapel without provoking a disturbance or even drawing a crowd of curious spectators. Two weeks later, a by-eleotion at St. Alban's returned the candidate who had publicly criticized the violent tone of the no-popery move- ment. Although public meetings continued into the next year, they grew less frequent as the opening of Parliament (February, 1851) approached. People now looked to it for the next move.^9

Protestants, of course, did not restrict their denun- ciations to the daily press or to public assemblies? literary and political reviews also provided forums for anti-Catholic sentiment. The Edinburgh Review,, criticizing Wiseman's "un- English honourssuggested that popular reaction had been permissive rather than repressive. Thus, Wiseman's plea for toleration was doubly hypooriticali not only did the cry of persecution not ring true, but his followers demanded for themselves in England what they would not grant to others in Italy. The Quarterly Review also attacked the Papal Aggres- sion, but Tory organ that it was, saw its causes in the Whigs® Irish policy and in their excessive trust of English Roman Catholics. The chief factor, however, was Whig lati- tudinarianism which, sparking the Tractarian movement, en- couraged the pope to think England ripe for conversion.^®

2 9lbld.p Dec. 7, 2^, 25, 1850. 3°"Kings and ," Edinburgh Review. XCIII (Jan., 1851), 181-182? "Ultramontane Doubts," ibid., (Apr., 1851), pp. 572-573i "The Ministers and the Pope," Quarterly Review. 5^

The Eclectlo Review, a Congregationalist periodical, saw the crisis as the latest in a series of struggles be- tween the spiritual, apostolic Christianity of puritanlsm and the unreformed, perverted papism of the Church of Eng- land. There being little difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, the only way to prevent further trouble was to separate church and state and create a spi- ritual, scriptural, nonsacramental religion# Other journals also attacked the new hierarchy, and suggested suoh measures as registration of Roman Catholic priests, repeal of Cath- olic Emancipation, and prohibition of conversions to Roman Catholicism, to prevent further crises.-*1

Newspapers, having a larger reading public than the reviews, were more influential in molding public opinion. Almost without exception, the London press attacked Puseyism and the Papal Aggression alike during the height of the furor, and the most vehement editorials appeared in the pages of The Times* That authoritative newspaper consis- tently discovered Catholic conspiracies to undermine the constitution, praised the premier's protection of

LXXXVIII (Dec., 1850), 2^8-2^9. 260. -^"The Rival Hierarchies and the Duty of Dissenters," Eclectic Review, *fth ser., XXVIII (Dec., 1850), 752-763? "The Papal Controversy," Ibid.. 5th ser., I (Jan., 1851), 105? "The Papal Aggression Bill," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. LXIX (May, 1851), 582j "Royal Supremacy and Papal Aggression," North British Review. XV (May, 1851), 283-2871 "The Recent ," Gentleman's Magazine. new ser*„ XXXIV (Deo., 1850), 623. 55 protestantism, and denounced Disraeli's devious devices to turn the debate to political ends. Only one newspaper.

The Globe and Traveller, adopted a moderate stand by sug- gesting that spiritual threats could best be met by spiritual defences,^

The hostility of The Times was suprlslng, given the high church backgrounds of its leading executives. John

Walter III, its Chief Proprietor, had once thought of taking , and in 1845, his support of Tractar- ianism had estranged him from his father. John T. Delane, his editor, while at Oxford in 1836, had admired both Puseyism and Newman. Finally, the views of the Rev* Thomas

Kozley, the newspaper's leader-writer on ecclesiastical subjects, were so high church that in 18^3, he had almost convertedAlthough Delane and Walter disliked Romanism as much as Dissent, their backgrounds seem to justify the expectation that they would minimize the agitation rather than promote it. The decisive factor appears to have been the influence of Henry Reeve, chief leader-writer for The

Times. His close association with cabinet members fostered

^Illustrated London News, Nov, 2, 9» 1850s ibid.. Dec, ?, 1850? The Standard, Oct. 14, 30, 1850} The Times, Nov. 6, 11, 16, 22, 23, 25, 1850? ibid.. Dec. l37~l850» The Globe and Traveller. Oct, 14, 21, 1850. -^Arthur I. Dasent, John Thadeus Delane, Ed1 tor of "The Times"s His Life and Correspondence. 2 vols, (New York, 19O8)# I, 19-20j Editors of The Times. The Tradition Estab- lished 0 1841-1884. Vol. II of The History of The Times (New York, 1939)# PP. 10-11, 124-125. 56

the popular assumption that the paper's editorial opinion reflected the government's position. Delane, convinced that an editor should insist that his newspaper carry the best description of events, and at the same time, serve as an accurate barometer of national opinion, supported Reeve® Both men, moreover, followed the lead of Lord Clarendon, the President of the Board of Trade, who often supplied ' them with confidential information on ministerial policy.^ Men so dependent upon their government could hardly adopt an independent position, especially at a time when the Papal Aggression monopolized their rivals* pages during the Interval between sessions of Parliament. The debate over the Papal Aggression produced a set of reasons for opposition to the new hierarchy. Speeches ana resolutions emphasized Its infringment of the royal supremacy and the Church of England8s rights. Thus, a typical petition condemned the hierarchy, expressed loyalty to the queen, and requested her to take whatever action necessary to defend English laws and liberties. National pride also was involved. That Plus IX, a foreign ruler kept in power by French bayonets, had dared to "parcel out" English soil to his "peasant proteges." was intolerable to an ethnocentric Englishman embued with Palmerstonianlsm. Finally, a layer of religious bigotry coated the bitter pill

3^1bid.. pp. 58-59i Brian Inglis, "The Influence of The TimesHistorical Studies CIrelandS, III (1961), 32, 357 57 of "Papal Aggression." Speakers cited. Traotarian "inno- vations" such as the white surplice to prove the dangerous laxity within the established church, alleged that a "Popish Jesuit" was in every major school in the country, and exposed the shocking things which went on in the con- fessional—things about which no manly Briton would want his "virgin daughter" to know,35 Although the following quotation from one of these debates is extreme, the fact that a prominent clergyman delivered it and it appeared in a newspaper of The Times' itature without editorial suggests that it expressed a widely held and acceptable opinion. It was a foul shame that the Pope—that worshipper of idols—that miserable dependent upon the power and alms of a beggarly nation—that the Pope, a man of nothings should come and invade these realms by his menials, for all men in the Popish service were menialsf and should say that England had re- turned to its ecclesiastical order, from which it had hitherto been wandering in darkness.3° The most accurate available record of petitions lists a total of 3»1^5 addresses to the queen, bearing 1,006,708 signatures. If these documents give an accurate indication of public opinion, three conclusions appear justified.

35The Times, Nov. 7# 9» 18, 1850» ibid.. Dec. b, 6, 1850? Great Britain, Return of addresses, SP, LIX» 65O1 The Standard. Oct. 23» 1850. -^Speech of the Rev. T. B. Murray, Prebendary of St. Paul•s and Rector of St. 's in the East, to the bene- ficed clergy of the City of London, Slon College» Oct. 31» 1850, The Times. Nov. 1, 1850, 58

First, protestant Anglo-Saxons universally opposed the new hierarchy. (Only two petitions argued against penal legis- lation.) Secondly, public opinion placed the blame for the Papal Aggression squarely on the pope's shoulders.

(Only twenty per cent of the petitions attacked Tractar- ianlsm, and only one per cent blamed government policy toward the Roman Catholic Church.) Thirdly, the majority of protestors came from the middle class.37

If these petitions are classified according to the area of their origin, 12.04 per cent came from the North

Counties,3® 14.72 per cent, from the West Midlands,^ and

72.7? per cent, from the rest of England (excluding

Middlesex). Assuming that they had been evenly distrib- uted among the counties, the North should have produced about seventeen per cent, the West Midlands, eighteen per cent, and the rest of England, sixty-nine per cent. That the first two regions sent less than their share, while the other counties produced more, indicates that the tra- ditional sympathy of the north country for the old religion ko still held true in mid-Victorian England.

37Great Britain, Return of addresses, SP, LIX, 650, 737-738. 3 Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Durham, Yorkshire, and Lancashire.

^^Cheshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire, Warwickshire, Derby, Worcestershire, and Herefordshire. |LA The writer arrived at the figures for distribution 59

The Papal Aggression, of course, had numerous causes, "but the popular reaction against it overlooked this ele- mentary fact. The average Englishman saw the hierarchy as a clear example of "Jesuit intrigue," and rallied to the support of the established church, not because of any religious devotion for it, but because of a sense of loyalty to a symbols Old religious myths pictured the rivalry between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism as a war between light and dark, good and evil, God and the devil. These prejudices were still vital in 18$Q, and the Papal Aggression acted as a catalyst to bring them out, just as the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1778 caused the Gordon Riots. Racial bias also played a part in the protests! Anglo-Saxon supremacists, identifying Roman Catholicism with its Irish and Italian adherents, saw it as a religion for the "weaker races," and reacted accordingly.

Philip Hughes, the noted Tudor historian and Jesuit, rejects this interpretation, and argues that the uproar "was no spontaneous demonstrationj it was not a matter, merely, of the latent bigotry of that particular generation exploding at the touch of the new Cardinal's first Pastoral h, 1 Letter. That is later legend." He contends, on the of petitions in England by using a random sample of twenty pages listing 5^8 addresses, or 17.^2 per cent of the total number. Ibid., pp. 651-657, 670-679, 720-722. ^Philip Hughes, "The Uproar of 1850« Who Raised the Cry of 'Papal Agression?The Tablet. CXCVI (Sect. 10, 1950), 28^. 60 contrary, that III, Bishop Blomfield, and

Russell, convinced that English liberty depended upon the kg spiritual supremacy of the crown, fomented the uproar.

It is difficult* howeverp to accept Hughes® hypothesis. A realistic analysis of this affair indicates that Hughes has over-rated Walter's influence In this instance, and has ignored the peculiar position of The Times vis-li-vls the government. He fails to realize, moreover, that prejudices other than religious operated in the agitation, and that interests other than ecclesiastical provoked anti-Roman

Catholic opposition. His explanation, moreover, does not explain such a violent reaction. The charges hurled, the meetings convened, and the petitions circulated, all re- presented far too great a national feeling to have been the creation of three men. The prejudices from which these stemmed were not manufactured? both the ministers and the presss inspired by opportunism, sought to capitalize on an already-existing sentiment. Thus the Roman Catholic, and later, the Peelite, attempts to support toleration were doomed from the outset. The use of reason to combat ir- rational prejudice is seldom successful. *j, 2Ibid. . p. 285• CHAPTER III

THE BRITISH MINISTERIAL CRISIS OF I85I1

POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY OR WHIG FOLLY?

The thirty-five year period between the First and.

Second Reform Bills was a crucial time in the development

of British constitutionalism. During this era, the prestige

of the British monarch increased, the economy became indus-

trialized, and English society grew more urban and secular.

But certainly one of its most Important developments was

the transformation of the Whigs and Tories into the modern

Liberal and Conservative parties. While the great families

saw their power substantially reduced in 1832, the great

mass of Englishmen still did not participate in the

electoral process. Because of the fluid and unstable

nature of early Victorian party politics, government suf-

fered from recurrent ministerial crises. This situation,

already bad, worsened in 1846, when Sir Robert Peel aban-

doned protection and repealed the Corn Laws. His action

not only split his party and admitted the Whigs to power,

but also divided parliamentary membership among three

parties (Whigs, Protectionists, and Peelites) and the Irish

bloc, none of which had a majority.

Lord John Russell, a Whig, became prime minister on

July 6, 1846, with a minority ministry. From the beginning,

61 62 he realized the need for Peellte support and attempted to form a coalition with them. Rebuffed, he turned to his own supporters to constitute a cabinet which included Palmerston at the Foreign Office* Lansdowne at the Council Office, and Sir Charles Wood as Chancellor of the Exchequer.1 From the commencement of his ministry, Russell found himself in trouble. Private charity could not cope with the Irish Potato Famine which reached its nadir during the winter of 18^6-^7. The government turned to public works and a food dole, but when these measures proved insufficient to alleviate the situation, bread riots erupted in Ireland# Since a lenient Irish policy had contributed to the recent Whig ascendancy, Russell was understandably embarrassed

l-These men were in office in 1851. The full cabinet consisted of the following? First Lord of the Treasury: Lord John Russell : Lord Truro Lord President of the Councils Marquis of Lansdowne Lord Privy Seals Earl of Minto Chancellor of the Exchequer* Sir Charles Wood Home Secretary: Sir George Grey Foreign Secretary: Viscount Palmerston Secretary for War and Coloniest First Lord of the Admiralty: Sir Francis T. Baring President of the Board of Trades Henry Labouchere President of the Board of Controls Sir J. C, Hobhouse Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster» Postmaster-general: Marquis of Clanricarde Sir Llewellyn Woodward, The Age of Reform. 1815-1870. 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1962), p. 6631 Stuart J. Reid, Lord John Russell (New York, 1895)» P« 1^1? Spencer Walpole, A History of England from the Conclusion of the Great War in 1815. 5 vols» (London,T586), IV, 290-291. 63 when his Lords-Lieutenants, Bessborough and Clarendon, re- 9 quested coercive legislation to deal with the disturbances. The same economic problems which, arising from the crop failure, so disturbed the Irish, also hurt the Eng- lish. The financial year 18^7-48 was a disaster for the Whigs. Unexpected expenditures arising from naval pre- paredness and the Kaffir War caused a two million pound difference between estimated and actual expenditures. As if this were not enough, revenue dropped by £700,000, and the year ended with a deficit of more than £2,250,000. Less than two years later, Russell again faced dis- content at home with the Chartist agitation of April 1-10,, 184-8. The Chartists, encouraged by the success of the February Revolution, held a mass meeting in London on April 3» at which several revolutionary speeches were delivered. The frightened government brought troops into the city and enrolled special constables to preserve the peace, but a heavy rainstorm broke up a second rally in Kennington Common on April 10. The Chartists sent their petition to Parliament Sm a cab, and the movement h collapsed. 2 Reid, Russell, pp. 1^6-1538 Woodward, Age of Reform. PP. 35^-355. 3Halevy, Peel and Cobden. p. ZkZ, k . Reid, Russell, p. 165i Woodward, Age of Reform, pp. 1*14-145, 6§

Russell's most serious problems, however, came from his b&te noire. Lord Palmerston. Although Palmerston en- joyed Queen Victoria's confidence after 18*1-6 as a result of his handling of the Spanish Marriages,by 1848 discord had arisen between the prime minister and his foreign sec- retary. At the beginning of the year, Russell had to suppress a less-than-complimentary memorandum concerning Louis-Philippe, but a more serious contretemps occurred that spring. Palmerston ordered William Bulwer, the British minister at Madrid, to urge governmental reform on Queen Isabella II, Charging him with interference, the Spanish government gave Bulwer his passports, and Palmerston incurred the wrath of Victoria and Russell. The Don Paclfico Affair, however, provoked the most serious cabinet dispute.^ The House of Lords censured Palmerston for his role in the affair, and the Russell Ministry survived a vote of 7 confidence by a margain of only forty-six votes.

^The Spanish Marriages Question, over who should marry Isabella II of Spain, is an example of Anglo-French dip- lomatic rivalry during the July Monarchy. The settlement, which provided for the double marriage of the queen to her cousin Don Francisco, and of her sister Louisa to Anthony, Duke of Montpensier, broke the Anglo-French entente in Spain, For a summary of the issue, see Woodward, Age of Reform, pp. 2^2-2^5• ^The Don Paclfico Affair, a classic example of "gun- boat diplomacy," was a dispute between England and France arising from the claims of a British subject whose house an Athenian mob sacked in 18^7* Palmerston, in January, 1850, ordered the British fleet into Piraeus, and Louis- Philippe withdrew his ambassador from London, Ibid., p. 2k6, ^Anglo-Spanish relations were suspended until August, 65

To strengthen his cabinet, thus undermined by dis- sention, Russell continued to seek reconciliation with the Peelites, who, after the issueless general election of 1847, held approximately 117 seats to the Whigs' 336, and the Protectionists* 201 * Since Peel's announced intention never to hold office again made these votes available, both Russell and Lord Edward Stanley, the Protectionists' leader, made overtures to them during the next few years. Peel's death on July 5. 1850, however, dealt a heavy blow to Whig hopes. Russell feared that, bereft of their leader, the Peelites would drift back into the ranks of the country party. To prevent such a merger, he proposed bringing Sir James Graham and George Gordon, Lord Aberdeen, their new leaders, into the government, a step which neither was prepared to take. By the late summer of 1850, however, the future seemed brighter for the Whigs. Britain's stand in the Don Pacifico Affair proved to be popular, and the ministry shared in that popularity. The Peelites, moreover, realized that they must support Russell as the only alter- 8 native to a Protectionist government.

1850, Reid, Russell, pp. 170-171? Philip Guedalla, Pal- mers ton, 1784-1865 (New York, 1927), pp. 288-289, 307, 323, 328-334. ®"We never remember a time when a dissolution gave rise to less parti excitement, and when the public mind was more profoundly indifferent to party success." "Election Returns of 1847," Westminster Review. XIVIII (Oct., 1847), 142} Peel to Goulburn, Dec. 20, 1846, cited by J» B. Conacher, "Peel and the Peelites, 1846-1850," 66

Upon this unstable political situation, the Papal Ag- gression burst like a bombshell in October, 1850. Sinoe constitutional politicians must be responsive to public opinion, Whigs and Tories alike tried to turn the popular outcry against the new hierarchy to their own advantage.

Few party leaders, it appears, could conquer the temptation to gain popularity through prejudice. By December, the

Whigs had decided to introduce legislation banning Catholic titles, a sure means of riding the crest of the popular indignation. Russell, indeed, was almost forced to take this step, for he knew that the protestant reaction he had encouraged would demand satisfaction# and that a Whig failure to introduce some form of penal legislation would result in a loss of public support.^

Stanley and Disraeli, for their part, were no less eager than Russell to capitalize on the situation. Be- lieving that the prime minister would Introduce a bill too moderate to satisfy public opinion, Disraeli argued that, if the Protectionists introduced a stronger measure,

Russell would, perforce, turn to Roman Catholic M.P.'s for support, pleading that the alternative to his government

EHR, LXXIV (July, 1958), lbld.. pp. ^38-*j41 t Donald Southgate# The Passim of the Whigs, 1832-1886 (London, 1962), p. 217? Walpole, History of England. V, 1.

^Russell to Victoria, Downing Street, Dec. 11, 1850, Victoria, Letters. II, 335-336? C# H. Stuart, "The Formation of the Coalition Cabinet of 1852," TRHS. 5th ser.t IV (195^)» 56» 67 would be a protestant cabinet and Parliament, with the consequent repeal of Catholic Emancipation. Although such a Whig-Catholio combination could put together a majority, the Tory party, by having posed as the protector of pro- testantism, would have outmaneuvered Russell® Disraeli believed, however, that a resolution on agricultural dis- tress, on which he had been working since mid-November, would hurt the Whigs more, for it not only would attack free trade, but also would help detach the disaffected Catholics from the Whig coalition.*0 Shortly before Parliament convened, Disraeli sent out feelers to test the possibility of a Tory-Peelite alliance on the religious issue, but, rebuffed, abandoned hope of any aid from this quarter. The Peelites, unlike their opponents, had no definite plans, but during the winter of

1850-51t their leaders (Aberdeen, Graham, Newcastle, William E, Gladstone, and Sidney Herbert) came to reject Russell's solution for the crisis. Both Aberdeen and Graham considered the papal bull impolitic in view of the English religious situation, but they also regarded the reaction against it as too violent. Convinced that Russell

•^Disraeli to Stanley, Hughenden, Nov, 16, 1850, William Flavelle Monypenny and George Earle Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli. Earl of Beaconsfleld. 6 vols. (London, 1910-20), III, 267-270j Disraeli to Stanley, Carlton, Dec. 7» 1850, ibid., pp. 271-2731 Stanley to James Harris, Lord Malmesbury, Lathorn House, Dec, 2, 1850, Malmesbury, Memoirs. I, 2671 Stanley to Malmesbury, St. James Square, Feb. 15, 1851, ibid., p. 271. 68 had written the Durham Letter to gain popularity and to attack Gladstone's Tractarian sympathies, Graham thought that the prime minister now would find it difficult to govern the queen *s Roman Catholic subjects. The conse- quence of this ambivalent consensus was that the Peelites had no positive position on the Issue when it came before Parliament#11 Russell unveiled his pdlicy on February 5» 1851» when Parliament met to hear the Speech from the Throne. Declaring that religious liberty and ihe national Interest must be equally protected, the queen announced that her ministers would soon introduce a suitable bill. Although the speech dealt with other important policies, the debate in both houses focused on the Papal Aggression. Taking the Durham Letter to be an official statement of cabinet policy, the Tories demanded that any legislation on the subject be applicable to Ireland—a sure means of alien- ating the Irish from the Whigs. Leading the attack of the opponents of penal legislation* J. A. Roebuck, an in- dependent radical, charged that Russell had written this

^Disraeli to Lord Londonderry, Grosvenor Gate, Jan. 29, 1851, Charles Stuart Parker, Life and Letters of Sir James Graham, Second Baronet of Netherby. 1792-186l. 2 vols, (London, 1907), II, 121-122} Graham to Londonderry, Netherby, Jan. 31» 1851* ibid.„ pp. 123-124} Graham to Mr. Howard of Greystoke, Netherby, Nov. 23, 1850, Ibid.. pp. 113-11**-} Graham to Sidney Herbert, n.d., ibid.. p. Il4j Aberdeen to Princess Lieven, Haddo House, Nov. 5» 1850, Aberdeen, Aberdeen-Lleven Corresp.. II, No. 3?2» 522-524? Frances Balfour, The Life of George. Fourth Earl of Aber- deen, 2 vols. (London, 1922), II, 160. 69 letter and would introduce a repressive bill for the sole 12 purpose of making political capital.

Replying to his critics, Russell declared that he had written the letter from conviction, not opportunism, The language of the papal bull and Wiseman*s pastoral Indicated an attempt to claim temporal Jurisdiction over English counties, rather than spiritual jurisdiction over people.

Only the vicars apostolic, who wished to gain more power, promoted the new hierarchy, The vast majority of the

Catholic laity, he alleged, did not want a change. Thus, the purpose of his legislation would be to protect both the crown and Roman Catholics from ultramontane encroachment.* ^

On February 7> the government introduced its Eccles- iastical Titles Bill which (1) forbade the unauthorized use of any English place names by any churchman, (2) pro- vided that any property transfers using illegal names would be void with the real estate concerned escheating to the crown, and (3) declared that anyone suspected of bearing such illegal titles might, be required to testify against himself in suits of equity over such property#

The first reading debate fell on February 7» 10, 12, and

Roebuck and the Irish members denounced the bill as unfair

12Parl. Debt, 3rd ser., CXIV (1851 h 25-28, 72, 131.

13ibld.. cols. 121, 123-125- 70 and Illogical and contended that the papal had contemplated only spiritual powers. Supporters of the measure advanced arguments similar to those used in news- papers and petitions to Parliament« The result was & f Jk large majority for Russell on the first reading division. But before the Commons had resolved the issue# Disraeli on the 11th launched his attack on the ministry by introducing the motion on agricultural distress. Although defeated, it lost by a margain of only fourteen votes. Had the maneuver succeeded, the government would have fallen, for protection of agriculture struck at the heart of free trade. Thus, Russell*s narrow margain of victory 1 ^ caused him to worry. J Six days later Sir Charles Wood introduced the new budget# Since he had predicted earlier a surplus of about 192,500,000, the House showed signs of disappointment when it learned the reserve would amount to only £1,800,000. Wood proposed to absorb the surplus, not in reforms, but by reducing import duties in order to stimulate trade. Duties on coffee, timber, and seeds would be reduced for a total revenue loss of about L492,000. One of the taxes which Disraeli wanted repealed was that on windows, levied on houses since the Stuart period. Wood explained, however# •^The Commons divided 395-63• Ibid., cols. 211-216, 279, 451. 629, 6991 The Times. Feb. Wl851. 1 ^Parla peb.. CXIV, 3721-450, 509-604. 71 that since this particular tax produced kl,856,000, it could not be remitted completely due to the tariff re- duction. As an alternative he proposed a tax on new houses. New dwellings renting for £20 or more per annum would pay a tax of Is. per pound evaluation, and houses used as shops would pay a tax of 9d. per pound, resulting in a revenue loss of only L?01,000. This announcement was greeted with protestations from many members to whom & 16 house tax was just as objectionable as a window tax.

On Thursday, February 20» three days after Wood pre-

sented his lackluster budget, Locke King, a Radical M.P., asked permission to introduce a bill to broaden the

suffrage. His bill would have equalized the county and

borough franchises by giving the ballot to county tenants

who paid a rent of £10 or more per annum. Since his was a

perennial request, no one was suprised, but this time

Bussell took a different tack toward the measure• Although

admitting that his objection to King's motion of the year

before—that it had been introduced too late in the ses-

sion—no longer held, and that "no reasonable objection

could be made to the class of people enfranchised by the

Bill," his ensuing arguments advanced similar exceptions.

King's motion, he contended, opposed traditional dis-

tinctions between county and borough representations the

l6Ibld.. cols. 721-727, 738-739» 7^» 762 j Walpole, History of England„ V, 8e 72 former was one of tenure, and the latter, of ownership. Furthermore, the most prosperous rent-paying farmwr could be Intimidated by his landlord, but the poorest freeholder retained his Independence. Since the measure admitted more of the former class into the electorate, it would have the effect of weakening the electoral process. The premier therefore adopted the ambivalent position of opposing King's measure while announcing at the same time his belief that the franchise should be extended and that he planned to introduce a similar bill in.the next session.

Russell ended with an appeal for the House to wait until 1 ? then before taking action. ' Because the hour was late, few members were present, Russell's position, moreover, had annoyed the more liberal Whigs. Much to the prime minister's chagrin, King's motion passed by a division of 100-52. Since it was cus- tomary to wait until the first or second reading to defeat an objectionable bill, rather than to deny permission to introduce it, this defeat was not serious. It came as a suprlse, therefore, when Russell suddenly moved that con- sideration of the budget be postponed until Monday, February 2*f.1 fl Russell apparently had decided to resign because of this series of parliamentary embarrassments. The cabinet

*7lbld.. pp. 10-lls Pari. Deb.,, CX1V9 851, 857-861. l8Ibid.. cols. 869, 887. 73

(save Lansdovme, who was out of town) met late Thursday ( night and agreed to resign on Saturday. Ffciday morning, the 21st, Russell notified Victoria that his ministry "could not last long«"^^ Although no public announcement had been made, Russell's peculiar request concerning the budget led politicians such as Aberdeen, Malmesbury, and others to conclude that the ministry's resignation was a certainty.20 Saturday morning, the 22nd, the prime minister visited the queen and resigned. That afternoon, Victoria summoned Lord Stanley, and asked him to form a government. He declined, observing that he could not form a ministry without dissolution? he could not dissolve without passing the budget and the Mutiny Bill, and could not last until then. He suggested a Whig-Peelite coalition, but promised to try to take office if nothing else worked.2*

^Despite the unofficial nature of the report, Vic- toria treated it as a resignation. Victoria to Leopold, King of the Belgians, Buckingham Palace, Feb. 21, l851» Victoria, Letters. II, Jk6t Russell to Victoria, Chesham Place, Feb. 21, 1851, Ibid., p. 3^5. 20 Princess Dorothea Lieven urged Aberdeen to form a caretaker government with Graham and Gladstone, and, in the fall, unite with the Protectionists. Princess Lleven to Aberdeen, Paris, Feb. 27, 1851, Aberdeen, Aberdeen- Lie ven Corresp.. II, Wo. 399» 552-553? Aberdeen to Lleven, London, Feb. 22, 1851, Ibid.. No. 395» PP. 5^9-550j Malmes- bury, Memoirs. I, 273? Lord Canning to Malmesbury, Gros- venor Square, Feb* 2k9 1851, ibid., pp. 27^-276. 21Disraell questioned Russell's statement in the Commons that Stanley had told Victoria he "was not then prepared" to form a government. Russell maintained his 7k

Late that evening Aberdeen, Graham, and Russell con- ferred with Victoria and agreed to meet the next day to continue the discussions* Sunday afternoon, the 23rd, Russell submitted to the queen and the Peelite leaders a position paper which proposed an eleven-man cabinet com- mitted to a five-point programt (1) preservation of free trade without modification, (2) revision of the budget if the Peelites desired, (3) retention of only the preamble and first clause of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, (*0 in- troduction of a reform bill after Easter, and (5) an investigation of election abuses. When the discussions resumed at 9*^5 p.m., Graham criticized the Russell Min- istry for (1) continuing Palmerston in office, (2) spon- soring the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, (3) suggesting the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenantcy of Ireland, and (4) pro- posing measures for suffrage reform which were too vague

and slow® The two Peelites, however, agreed to study the 22 position paper further and to reply later. On Monday, February 24, Aberdeen and Graham rejected the coalition, citing their objections to the last three correctness, and the incident served to increase Victoria's dislike for Disraeli. Pari, Deb.. CXIV, 887-888, 892-895* 100^-1006j memorandum of Prince Albert, Buckingham Palace, Feb. 22, 1851, Victoria, Letters. II, 3^6-352. ^Memorandum of Prince Albert, Buckingham Palace, Feb. 23, 1851, ibid., pp. 352-356s Pari. Deb.. CXIV, 999- 1000, 1003* Russell to Aberdeen and Graham, Feb. 22, 1851» Spencer Walpole, The Life of Lord 3Tohn Russell. 2 vols. (London, 1889)» II, \WT 75 of Russell's points. Deleting the last three articles of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, they argued, would only anger the protestants without appeasing Roman Catholic re- sentment, They saw, moreover, no need for such legislation. While they supported an eitenstbnlof the franchise, they could not support a reform bill before they knew Its con- tents, nor did they think one could be drafted by Easter. Finally, they contended that the proposed inquiry into election frauds would only delay this reform. Thus they concluded that there was insufficient agreement on basic 23 principles to justify a coalition. J Discouraged by the rejections Russell tried to ex- plain away the differences. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, he maintained, was designed, to be an assertion of Britaintfs national independence, and not penal legislation# He claimed, moreover, that the obligation on suffrage re- form was simply one not to oppose a bill for that purposes Unimpressed by these explanations, Aberdeen and Graham pk declared the negotiations ended. When Russell informed Victoria late Monday afternoon that the proposed coalition had collapsed, she requested Aberdeen to form a government alone. The crisis noto had ^Aberdeen an<* Graham to Russell, Argyle House, Feb. 2kt 1851, Ibid., pp. 12^-126. pk Russell to Aberdeen and Graham, Downing Street, Feb. 1851, ibid., pp. 126-127» Russell to the Cabinet, Feb. 2k, 18519 Ibid.u p. 128. 76 lasted for three days, and the strain began to tell on the queen. As she confessed to her uncle, Leopold I of the

Belgians,

Alas! the hope of forming a strong Coalition Government has failed—for the present . * , • I am calm and courageous, having such support and advice as my dearest Albert's * but it is an anxious time, and the uncertainty and suspense very trying.*5

The Peellte leaders saw the queen late that night, but declined to form a government, fearing defeat on the Papal Pfi Aggression question. As a last resort, she asked Stanley

to form a Protectionist ministry, a step which she disliked

taking.

Stanley heeded the royal summons Tuesday morning,

February 25» and agreed to form a government. For cabinet members he suggested Aberdeen or Viscount Stratford Canning at the Foreign Office, Lord Ellenborough as Privy Seal,

J, C. Herries as Chancellor of the Exchequer* the Duke of

Northumberland at the Admiralty, and Gladstone in any office he chose® He proposed to settle the Papal Aggression question by a parliamentary resolution, reduce the income

tax by one million pounds, allow compounding for the window

tax, and place a moderate tariff on corn. He also requested

^Victoria to Leopold, Buckingham Palace, Feb. 25, 1851, Victoria, Letters. II, 360-361.

^Aberdeen to Princess Lieven, London, Feb, 27» 1851, Aberdeen, Aberdeen-Lieven Corresp.. II, No. ^00, 553-55^1 memorandum of Prinoe Albert, Feb. 2*f, 1851» Victoria, Let- ters. II, 358-3591 first memorandum of Prince Albert* Buck- ingham Palace, Feb. 25» l851» Ibid.. pp. 361-363* 77 the queen*s promise of a dissolution. This she refused, however, and he had to accept her promise not to be deaf to such a future request.2'' Stanley then attempted to persuade the Peelites to enter his cabinet, but Aberdeen would have nothing to do with the Protectionists. On Wednesday, the 26th, he con- ferred with Gladstone, and offered him any post save that of foreign secretary» but if Canning refused it, he could have even that office. The offer was tempting, but Glad- stone, after conferring with Aberdeen, declined it, and

OR the other Peelites soon followed suit, Stanley now fell back on the resources of the Tory party. At IsOO p.m. on the 27th, the party leaders met at his house. Present were Stanley, Disraeli, J. W. Henley, Sir John Pakington, Spencer H. Walpole, Lord Hardwicke, Lord John Manners, Lord Eglinton, Herries, and Malmesbury. All present agreed to take office save Henley, who had been offered the Board of Trade. He raised many objections, refused to enter a government which he did not think could last, and convinced Herries of the futility of the

2?Second memorandum of Prince Albert, Feb. 25, l85l» ibid.. pp. 363-3665 Wilbur Devereux Jones, Lord Derby and Victorian Conservatism (Athens, Ga., 1956), p. 1^8, ^Gladstone declined to serve in a government which proposed a corn tax. John Morley, The Life of . 3 vols. (London, 1903)? 1, 3^9» memoran- dum of Gladstone, Fasque, Apr. 22, 1851, ibid., pp. 406- ^07» Robert Blake, Disraeli (New York, 1967), pp. 303-30*4'. 78 proposal. Frustrated at every turn, Stanley gave up In disgust and resigned his commission that evening. Party leaders such as Malmesbury knew where to place the blame for the Tory failuret "As to Herries, he looked like an old doctor who had just killed a patient, and Henley like the undertaker who was to bury hlm."2^ After six days of fruitless negotiations, Victoria stood precisely where she had started. In her dilemma, she turned to two men who thus far had taken little part in the proceedings! Lord Lansdowne and the Duke of Wel- lington. Each, separately, saw her on Friday, the 28th, but their advice coincided! bring Russell back (though Lansdowne envisaged the possibility of some sort of co- operation between the Radicals, the Irish faction, and the Whigs). Accepting this recommendation, Victoria requested Russell to resume office. On Saturday, March 1, he con- sulted his party leaders and the following afternoon reported to the queen and the prince consort that they wanted neither to make the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill an open question nor to form a coalition either before or after taking office. But growing bolder by Monday, they imposed a new condition! unless the queen released the

^Malmesbury erroneously states that Stanley held the meeting on the 28th. Malmesbury, Memoirs. I, 278-280; Greville, Memoirs. VI, 395 J Blake, Disraeli. pp. 30^-3051 memorandum of Prince Albert, Buckingham Palaoe„ Feb# 27, 1851• Victoria, Letters, II, 369-371* 79

Whigs from the obligation to resign after the passage of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, they would not resume office, a requirement stipulated by Victoria on the 28th. Russell proposed, therefore, the unconditional return of the old cabinet. At noon, March 3» Victoria agreed, and Russell resumed office.^ The ministerial crisis of 1851 indicates that no one party in England could command enough votes to form a gov- ernment without the aid—or at least the good will—of other blocs in the House of Commons.One reason for this parliamentary instability was that the centers of political power during this period were in transition. The Great Reform Bill had ended government by royal pa- tronage, while the large electorate needed for government by majority party did not yet exist. Another reason was the parochial nature of election campaigns. A large number of borough elections were decided either by personal in- fluence or bribery, and a great many seats went

^Albert to the Duke of Wellington, Buckingham Palace, Feb. 28, 1851, ibid., pp. 371-372? memorandum of Prince Albert, Buckingham Palace, Friday, Feb. 28, 1851, ibid., pp. 372-373? memorandum of Prince Albert, Buckingham Pal- ace, Mar. 2, 1851, ibid., pp. 37^-376; memorandum of Rus- sell, Mar. 3, 1851, ibid., pp. 377-379? memorandum of Prince Albert, Buckingham Palace, Mar. 3, 1851, ibid., pp. 376-377? memorandum of Prince Albert, Mar. 1, 1851, Theodore Martin, The Life of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort. 5 vols., 5th ed. ^London, 1880), II, 350-353.

3%o ministry had a stable majority in the Commons during the periods 1846-52, 1858-59, and 1866-68. 80 uncontested in general elections# In such a situation, modern political tactics such as national programs were useless, and parliamentary elections were determined by 32 local issues and personalities. At least five solutions to the problem of weak gov- ernment were advanced between 1846-52» (l) a Whig-Peelite coalition, with the exclusion of either Aberdeen or Pal- mers ton, (2) reunion between Peelites and Tories, (3) return of the Peelites alone to power, (4) a Protectionist al- liance with Palmerston, and (5) a Protectionist alliance with the WhigsIn this particular crisis, the first three suggestions were tried. They failed, however, not only because of the general conditions which vitiated party government, but also because the Papal Aggression presented an insurmountable obstacle to coalition. Since Russell was not as strong a premier as Peel had been, he preferred to govern by committee# His weakness stemmed from two sources» the Whig tradition that power should be shared by the great families, and his own interest in general principles rather than in administrative details. He also tended to launch into actions on the spur of the moment without reflection. An example is his

3^Woodward, Age of Reform, p. l60j Blake, Disraeli. pp. 270-271} Asa Briggs, The Making of Modern England. 1783-l867i The Age of Improvement (New York, 1965)» pp# 4l2-4l4§ "Election Returns of 1847," Westminster Re- view O p. 143. ^Stuart, "Coalition Cabinet of 1852," TRHS. pp. 45- 46, 81 resignation, after a thirty-minute cabinet meeting, which according to The Times, "was less the result of a full and deliberate resolution by his colleagues than of his per- sonal determination. Consequently, he tended to avoid difficult problems of whatever nature. The Whigs drew much of their support, moreover, from the Irish bloc, but

Russell's position on the Papal Aggression and electoral reform had alienated not only them, but also the left-wing

Whigs. Due to this situation, such a weak leader found it difficult to maintain discipline among the back-benchers,

especially as they had been more restive this session than usual# The loss of Irish and back-bencher support meant

the loss of his majority.-^

The Protectionists, on the other hand, were faced with problems of both leadership and ideology. When the Tory party split in 1846, Peel took the leadership with him, and inexperienced men such as Disraeli and Lord George Ben-

tinck moved to the front benches. But the old-line Tories*

ideological commitment to protection prevented the

Peelites8 rejoining their ranks. Stanley also lacked a

popular mandate to take office. He did not have the ap-

proval of the electorate for grain and sugar duties, nor

the support of the Peelites, which he needed to pass the

3^The Times, Feb. Zk, 1851. 35stuart, "Coalition Cabinet of 1852," TRHS, p. 531 Southgate, Passing &£ th£ Whigs, pp. 210-211, 216. 82 money and mutiny bills. He could not, however, obtain their aid while the question of duties was pending, and without their assistance, he could not control the Com- monsa Hence, he was at an impasse# In view of each party's tenets, the mest logical combination would have been a Whig-Peellte coalition. Both shared similar views on free trade and suffrage re- form, and the Whigs were sympathetic toward a rapproche- ment . There were, however, two major obstacles to such a unioni Palmerston's presence in the cabinet, and Russell's commitment to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Because Graham disliked and distrusted Palmerston, he opposed any arrangement which kept the viscount in the Foreign Office® He did not object to a coalition ger se and thought one could be effected when the Whigs, and thus Palmerston, left office.37 The major stumbling block to an alliance was, how- ever, Russell*s strong anti-papal bias. Neither Graham nor Aberdeen approved of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and one of their conditions for coalition was the substi- tution of a parliamentary resolution for it, Aberdeen

3^Jones* Derby and Conservatlsm. pp. 147-1^8ss Gre- ville, Memoirs, VI, 39k» 3?Ibid., pp. 390-391, 399-^00. 38john Russell, First Earl Russell, Recolleotlons and Suggestions» 1813-1873 (Boston,, 1875). P. 211. 83 opposed it for reasons of conscience. I do not very well know what may "be the opinion of othersi but I could not join in such a course of proceeding• Having been all my life the friend of toleration, and of religious liberty, I cannot now act the part of a bigot, and persecutor.39

Graham's opposition to the measure was, on the other hand, more political in nature. He saw in the Papal Aggression crisis a pretext for avoiding a coalition in 1851» which he opposed at that moment.^® Since Russell would not withdraw his bill, no coalition was possible. The consequence of this political deadlock was the return of Russell, an expediency which solved nothing® The basic causes of ministerial instability remained, and only the weaknesses of their enemies allowed the Whigs to resume office. Aware that Russell had won by default, Victoria ruefully observed that, so long as the Whigs and Peelites remained divided, there could be no end to

39writing to Arthur Gordon, Aberdeen commented, "I might have been Prime Minister at this moment, had it not been for my resistance to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill," Balfour, Aberdeen. II, t6k% Aberdeen to Princess Lieven, London, Feb. 17, 1851, Aberdeen, Aberdeen-Lleven Corresp., II, No. 392, 5^5-5^7J see also Aberdeen to Princess Li- even, Feb. 27, 1851, George Gordon, Fourth Earl Aberdeen, "Correspondence of the Earl of Aberdeen, 1850-1853»" Ed- inburgh Review. CLVIII (Oct., 1883), 55^» ^Ooreville, Memoirs. VI, 3921 Clarendon to G. C. Lewis, Dublin Castle, Mar. 7» 1851, Herbert Maxwell, The Life and Letters of George William Frederick. Fourth . 2 vols. (London, 1913)» I# 325-326$ Mary Scarlett Hardcastle, Life of John. Lord Campbell. Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. 2 vols•, 2nd ed« (Lon- don, 1881), XI, 2E7-288* 8k ministerial crises. Indeed, when Russell returned to office, he did so without the support of the Radicals and Roman Catholics. These turned to the Peelites, the smallest party. Until that party could decide whether to support the Whigs or Tories, it remained a stumbling block ii4 to two-party government,, Within the next two years, however, a stable coa- lition government emerged on the British scene. On

December 19* 1851k Russell purged Palmerston from the cabinet when he expressed approval of Louls-Napoleon's first coup, an act which violated the government's tradi- tional policy of neutrality on issues involving the internal affairs of other nations. But Palmerston soon shook the Whig temple to its foundations. On February 20» I852» he had his "tit for tat" by bringing down the Rus- sell government over an amendment to the Militia Bill, During the short interlude of the Protectionist "Who? Who?" ho ministry, the Whigs and Peelites effected a coalition, as Graham had predicted, and returned to office in Decem- ber. Until then, the Whigs maintained a vague existence in a kind of political limbos they neither controlled the ^Victoria to Leopold, Buckingham Palace, Mar. 1851 * Victoria, Letters, II, 380; Stuart, "Coalition Cabinet of 1852," TRHS, p. 58j Hal^vy, Peel and Cobden, p. 271. Ji O The ministry was known by this name because, when Stanley was telling the deaf Wellington the names of the new and unfamiliar ministers, the duke kept asking in a loud voice, "Who? Who?" 85

Commons nor Joined the opposition. This was perhaps a fitting fate for a party which Aberdeen In March, 18§1» had described as "not brillianti but • • . a necessity."*^

The ministerial crisis of 1851 resulted primarily from

Whig folly, especially from Bussell's insistence on the

Ecclesiastical Titles Bill and his postponement of suffrage reform (which alienated his friends and potential allies)t political expediency required his return to office* as his was the least weak of the three parties#

^Aberdeen to Princess Lieven, London, Mar. 8, 1851# Aberdeen? Aberdeen-Lleven CorresPc. II# No« kOk9 56i-5o2» CHAPTER IV

THE ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL IN PARLIAMENTi

BIGOTRY, PATRIOTISM, OR EXPEDIENCY?

Russell's hope for the speedy passage of the Eccles- iastical Titles Bill in February, 1851, was unrealistic.

On February 10, the second day of debate, he had declared his intention not to take up new business until it passed but the protracted ministerial crisis frustrated its quick enactment# After returning to office, he turned again to this measure which had cost him so much during the crisis0 and on March 7» opened the second reading debate. Two factors, however, obstructed its progress through Par- liament for five monthss Russell's insecure political position and resentment at the bill's changed character.

Russell, never blessed with a well-ordered house, re- turned to find even less discipline. One wit greeted the premier's return with the following salutation*

We learn that the old company will have the honour of appearing for the second time this season in "Papal Aggression," a serio-comic drama . . . t after which, the popular panto- mime of the "New Budget," in which the distinguished harlequin, 'who has quite re- covered from his recent fall . . . will . « • jump clean through all the windows 1 to con- clude with an origional, grand, and imposing

i Parl. ggb«# 3rd s®r9, CXIV (1851), 362.

86 87

fairy extravaganza, called the "Crystal Pal- ace," or a "Cure for the Crisis."2 In introducing the bill, Sir George Grey announced that the government would not accept Stanley's proposed joint resolution, for, not having the force of law, it would serve no purpose. Certain amendments, the home secretary explained, had been made. Notwithstanding that the Irish were predominantly Catholic while the English were protestauts an invasion of the royal prerogative could not be forbidden in one place and tolerated in an- other. The government, therefore, had decided to Inolude Ireland in the bill's operation. The second change, de- leting the second, third, and fourth clauses, stemmed from the ministry's discovery that they would interfere with the operation of the Charitable Bequests Act.-^ Disappointed by these deletions, The Times asserted that Russell, by omitting the only effective part of a feeble measure, had failed to redeem his pledge to protect the royal prerogative expressed in the Durham Letter. The pages of Punch. however, carried the most telling comment. The magazine, which earlier had praised the premier's position, now condemned him for cowardice and argued that the revised bill would be ineffective. The government, in

2Ibld.. col. 1155. 3lbld.. cols. 1125, 1127-1128, 1133. For the orlg- ional bill, see above, p. 69, and for the Charitable Be- quests Act, see above, p« 16. 88

fW iWm§ I i t, !i!

nF2G2HEIl ; KC lWi

fei'^iviirESrif! i'i, i'i i.ffi •^g^jtfprnlnK- m- >< P

mm IS THE BOY WHO CHALKED UP "NO POPERYAND THEN RAN AWAY!!!

Fig. 1 short, was impaled on the horns of a dilemmas to insist upon the revised measure would antagonize the Irish, but k to drop it would offend the protestants. Parliamentary dissatisfaction with the bill became more pronounced as the debate progressed.^ Sir R. EL Inglis* a high Tory who had supported the origional version, termed the second draft a "milk and water"

^The Times. Mar. 8, 18511 the Punch cartoon is found In Southgate, Passing of the Whiles. p. 222 j Greville, Mem- oirs, VI, ^01-^02^ $Tbe Commons debated the bill on March 7» 1^» 17-18, 20-21, 2k, and 25. Pari* Deb.. CXIV, 1123-1162, 1323- Ibid.. CXV (1851)7 33-109# 125-188, 233-325. 3^- 422, 428^93® 89 measure, with the milk somehow extracted. George Sydney

Smythe, a "Young England" Tory and son of the Sixth Vis- count Strangford, called it "a sham Bill, of sham pains and sham penalties, against a sham aggression/'^ and com- pared it to the tsar issuing a ukase against magnetism.

John Stuart, a Tory, also attacked Its weakness, adding

that Its source, the Durham Letter, was private corres- pondence which should not influence legislation. In answer

to this criticism, Bussell pleaded that the government had omitted the clauses in order to prevent the assumption of

illegal titles without infringing on the Roman Catholic

Church#s spiritual activities. Although Sir Robert Peel,

son of Peel the Younger, opposed the bill's extension to

Ireland, he contended that it would not Interfere with

religious liberty, since Wiseman's vanity, not "Papal

Aggression,9* was primarily responsible for the ap-

pointments • ^

Russell's measure also came under attack from the

Earl of Arundel and Surrey, a Roman Catholic peer and the

leader of the opposition to any legislation. While moving

that the bill be read again in six months (a parliamentary

device to table measures), he argued that the papal brief

did not damage the royal prerogative since it affected Ro-

man Catholics who were bound by conscience alone to accept

6Ibid.„ col. 441.

7Ibid.. CXIV, 1137-1138, 1141, 1150, 1378-1379. 90 it. Roundell Palmer, a Whig, agreed with Arundel's argument, adding that the bill would indeed restrict re- Q ligious liberty. Much sectarian acrimony marked the debate, the most heated of which was that employed by Henry Drummond, M.P, for Surrey and co-founder of the Catholic Apostolic Church, in a bitter assault on papal practices,^ In the course of his oration, he declared that convents were "either pris-

1,1 ons or brothelse ^ After Arundel had challenged his language, the speaker ruled Drummond in order, but a bit later, he went even furtheri

Whatl do you think that you can bring over here with impunity a cargo of blinking statues, of bleeding pictures of liquefying blood, and of the Virgin Mary's milk?*1

Drummond's last statement provoked an uproar, during which the Irish members 0'Flaherty and O'Connell demanded that Drummond apologize. The speaker again ruled him in order, but urged members to avoid expressions which might offend religious scruples. Not content with the speaker's mild reprimand, the Irish bloc raised the issue on

8Ibld.. cols. 132^, 13^7®

^The Catholic Apostolic Church, founded in 1826 at Drummond's home, Albury Park, Surrey, was a fundamentalist and primitivist sect believing that the second coming was at hand. M. L. Henry, "Catholic Apostolic Church," A New Dictionary of British History, edited by S, H» Steinberg (New York, 1963), p.60.

i0 u Parlo Deb.„ CXV, 266. Ibld.. col. 275* 91

March 21, but after expressions of regret from Russell and 12 Inglls, dropped the question. After a long and antagonistic debate, the bill passed the second reading on the 25th by a vote of 438 to 95* About one-third, of those opposed were Irish and the rest, Peelites. But Russell was again disappointed in securing its quick approval. More than six weeks elapsed before the bill reached the committee of the whole house. By that time» the opposition had organized,^ The committee did not actually take up the measure until May 16, for early on the 9th, David Urquhart, a Tory, had charged that Russell's conduct would prevent a rational solution of the Issue and that the prime minister had no Intention of carrying out the measure, once passed. Consequently, ha proposed an amendment to the motion to go into committee which blamed the government for the Papal Aggression, Although the resolve, designed to bring down the government, lost by a vote of 280-201, men so dispa- rate in their political, views as Arundel, Disraeli, ^Although The Times criticized Drummond's "indis- cretion" in its leader of March 21, it contended that the Irish members' reaction demonstrated their intemperance and fanaticism. Pari. Deb.. CXV, 275-277, 335-340. ^Committee met on May 9, 12, 15-16, 19, 23, 26, 30, June 2, 6, 20, and 23. Ibid., col. 6l8j ibid., CXVI (1851), 780-83*1, 864-930, 993-1039, 1046-106l, 109^1153, 1329- 1395, 1412-1461 ? ibid. CXVI I (1851), 268-324, 365-39*. 574-631, 1009-1065, 1082-1096! Morley. Gladstone. I. 4l4- 415. : 92

Roebuck, and Torrens McCullagh all supported It. Russell, of course, denounced this proceeding as a "paltry and shabby" maneuver to vote against a bill which had just passed its second reading by a large majority and argued that the pope's advisers, known enemies of England, hoped to neutralize British liberal influence on the continent by causing Anglo-Irish dissention. The house finally want Into committee by a division of 116-35# with loyal Whigs and Tories supporting the motion and Roman Catholic mem- t L berse Peelltes, and radical Whigs opposing it. Committee scrutiny was a long and tedious affair. In all, twenty amendments were Introduced which fell into either of two classes« those offered by anti-billites1^ and designed to exclude either Roman Catholic spiritual activities or the Irish Catholic hierarchy from the bill's control, and those moved by ultra-protestants and designed to extend Its scope and penalties. The anti-billltes, reo- ognizing their minority position, drafted amendments for their nuisance value. George Henry Moore, an Irish M.P,

1 ^Although the house officially sat in committee on the l6th, debate on that day and the 19th was limited to the question of postponing consideration of the preamble until after the hearing of amendments to the main clauses. The house did not begin to debate the first clause until the 23rd. Malmesbury, Memoirs. I, 283-284> Pari. Deb., CXVI, 784, 786, 824, 827, 834, 888, 1046-106l, 11457" ^The Irish members and their supporters soon became known as "the pope's brass band" for their strident and unceasing opposition to the bill* 93 for example, proposed that the second clause remain in effect so long as the Church of Ireland was established, hoping thereby to embarrass Hussell by making him commit himself on the delicate subject of Irish disestablishment. Although the Whigs soundly defeated all amendments, they served as delaying devices and forums for anti-government attacks.^ The protestant amendments constituted a more serious threat to the government, for this faction was stronger than the anti-bill!tes. Thus, on eight amendments, the government's majority averaged only twenty votes. Men like Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Sir Frederick Thesiger, and 17 Colonel Charles de Laet Waldo Sibthorp, who earlier had demanded harsher penalties, urged changes which would have increased the punishment for violation of the law, out- lawed all papal documents, or permitted common informers to file charges against violators. The voting pattern on these divisions is especially revealing, because the gov- ernment's majority Included antl-billites as well as loyal Whigs.*® •^On eleven amendments to the first two clauses, the government averaged a majority of 185 to the opposition's forty-eight. Ibid., cols. 1376, 1381, 1391, 1412-1413, 1417, 1424, 1431-1432, 1454, 14-57. l460| ibid., CXVII, 384, 391-39^, 581, 59^, 1010, 1017, 1029, 1056. 17 'Sibthorp's eldest brother, an Anglican priest, con- verted to Roman Catholicism twice, but was buried at his own request according to the Prayer Book rite. l8Ibld.. oola. 596, 604, 607, 609-610, 629. 1017- 9^

The house, after approving on May 30, the ministry's version of the first clause by a vote of 244 to 62, did not finish its work on the second clause until June 20v passing it by a vote of 150 to 35 • This delay resulted from Russell's decision of June 6 to postpone further committee consideration for two weeks in order to give the Whigs time to restore discipline and to calm Irish ardor. When the house resumed its study of the bill, the gov- ernment proposed a third clause exempting the Scottish Episcopal Church from its penalties. But Russell stood firm when William Sharman Crawford, a radical Whig, pro- posed that an exemption be granted to any voluntary epis- copal church which claimed neither legal title nor jurisdiction, and his motion lost by a division of 118 to 33® ^he clause passed without another test vote, and after debating the preamble, the house read out the revised bill on the 23rd,*9

Although the polemics were tiresome, occasional hos- tility enlivened the drudgery of committee work. In the course of a debate on one motion, the speaker reprimanded John Twizell Wawn, a Whig, after he had asked if George Nugent Reynolds, a Chartist and anti-billite, "is to speak truth or falsehood in this House?" Constantly Interrupted by Wawn, Reynolds repaid the compliment a few minutes

1018, 1059-1060, 1063, 1085, 1093, 1096.

^Ibld.* cols. 319. 55*»• 1021-102kt 1027, 1096. 95

later by stating that the heckler "was not perfectly con-

scious of what he was doing." The most serious disturbance,

however, came when Henry Drummond quoted a Roman Catholic

source which declared that a Catholic's first and ultimate

allegiance was to the pope. Cat-calls interrupted his

speech, and the chairman had to call to order an Irish 20 X member kho used improper phrases in the excitement.

On June 27, the shopworn bill at last came up for

consideration as amended. Fearful of its effects in Ire-

land, the ministry did agree to one new clause, Introduced

by William Nicholas Keogh, an Irish Catholic Peelite,

which provided that the measure's operation would not af-

fect the Charitable Bequests Act. Russell, however,

resisted other attempts to soften the legislation, and

three additional clauses proposed by Keogh and Reynolds

lost by an average of 158 votes. A Tory attempt to add

the penalty of banishment for second offenses also lost, 21 but by the close margaln of 14-0-101.

The government thus far had been successful in

averting any major changes in the measure, but then on

June 2? disaster struck when Sir Frederick Theslger pro-

posed several amendments which had been postponed since

May 23. As Theslger moved to amend the preamble to bring 20 Ibid„ CXVI, 1*J45( lW8j ibid., CXVXI, 1037. 21Ibld.. cols. 1315, 1318, 1320-1321, 1326-1328. 96 all papal under the bill's barm, about forty-

Irish M.P.'s left the house, and on the ensuing division, the ministry lost by a vote of 135-100, Thesiger next moved a second amendment making similar changes in the first clause, and once again the government suffered de- feat, 165-109s Finally, Thesiger proposed two amendments to the second clause to make it conform to the preamble and to permit common informers to bring suits for violations of the law. Bussell, seeing the writing on the wall, capitulated, and they passed without divisions* Although the Peelites and a few remaining Irish M,P«*s had voted with the ministry, their support was not enough to defeat 22 the Tories and ultra-protestants.

When Eussell promised to expunge the Thesiger amend- ments, the bill received an unopposed third reading on

July To implement this pledge, he moved to delete the amendment to the second clause which provided penalties for importing any papal document into England„ Once again, however, the Irish members left the house before the division, and the ministry lost by a vote of 208-129#

The prime minister's attempt to remove the second amend- ment to that clause suffered the same fate by a division of 175 to 12^. Ruefully, Eussell accepted the inevitable,

22 Ibld.. CXVI, 13768 ibid«a CXVII, 1328, 1333, 13^91 1351* 1355, 1357-1358. 97 and the bill passed its final hurdle with only forty-six opposing Peelite votes,23 Bussell's defeat at Thesiger's hands resulted from ® change of strategy by the anti-billites. Sir James Gra- ham, who supported the anti-billites, at first thought they would boycott the committee debate, thus permitting the Tories to defeat the government which, perforce, would have to oppose its own bill on the third reading«, As late as April 14, Graham had recommended these tactics, but the anti-billites remained in the house and resorted to Fabian strategy by constantly moving the same amendment in dlf- ph fevent forms.^ Not until the end of June did the "pope's brass band" realize that, by not voting, they could em- barrass the governmentB This tactic was possible because the ministry occupied & middle position between the ultra- protestants and the anti-penal forces, and played each side against the other by using the anti-billites to defeat the Tories, and the Tories to defeat the

23The bill's opponents used the debate over its title as a vehicle for a final attack. Ibid., CXVIII (1851), 210-212, 226, 21*0, 242-2711 Malmesbury, Memoirs. I, 286. 2^That these tactics were not used from the first can *oe partly explained by a lack of communication between the Peelites and the Irish memberss e.g., the latter failed to carry out a demonstration on the final division because they misinterpreted Gladstone's signals. Another reason was the great fear of penal legislation on the part of both Irish and English Catholics, which led them to support the ministry against the ultra-protestants. Grevilla, Memoirs« VI, *H7§ The Times. June 30» 1851. 98 anti-billltes. When the latter group refused to play the 2 *5 game, Russell was hoisted by his own petard. J

Having passed the Oommons, the bill on July 7,re- ceived its first reading in the House of Lords without a divisions in conformity with parliamentary procedure.

Only Lord Monteagle, a Roman Catholic peer, opposed the bill, pointing out that the nobles, by granting it a first reading, did not, thereby, approve its principles. While agreeing that the Papal Aggression should be answered, he considered that the bill had exceeded the bounds of necessity.2^

After the peers had studied the measure for two weeks, the Marquis of Lansdowne on July 21 moved its second reading. Though mindful that he might be accused of opposing religious liberty, he contended that the bill dealt only with th® Papacy as a foreign power. Since eccles- iastical titles represented substance, legislation was necessary. To do nothing would only encourage the Court of Home to make more serious usurpations. Lord Aberdeen rejected this argument, declaring that the public protest might, indeed, serve the useful purpose of reaffirming

English allegiance to protestantism, but it might also

25Ibid.. July 7, I851i Greville. Memoirs. VI. 408. 412* Pari. Deb.. CXVI, I46l.

26Ibld.. CXVXII, 282-284. 99

provoke anti-Catholic prejudice* This, the earl believed, 27 would be an undesireable consequence. ' Lord Beaumont, an Old Catholic peer who already had 28 expressed opposition to his church's hierarchy, sup-

ported the bill. The letters apostolic, he claimed, had

not changed the spiritual powers and functions of the

vicars. The change, therefores must be temporal in nature# The consecration of a bishop, he observed, is a

spiritual act, but his appointment to a specific see is a

temporal act which must be approved by the sovereign of

the state in which the lie. Since the pope

had failed to obtain the necessary approval, his act vio-

lated the queen"s temporal power. The spirit of

ultramontanism, he argued„ had motivated the creation of

the new hierarchy whose purpose was to bring the English

Soman Catholic Church into conformity with the continental

church, where cisalpine liberties had been destroyed.^

By a vote of 265 to 38, the Lords on July 22 approved

the second reading of the bill and on .the 25th, subjected

it briefly to committee scrutiny.-^ As in the Commons

27lbid.„ cols. 282, 2063, 1065, 1067-1068, 1072-1073. 1093* 2®See above, p. ^7* 2%bid., cols. 1096-1098, 1100, 1103, 1109-1110. -^The Archbishop of Canterbury and twenty-five bish- ops, including St. David's, who had refused to sign the Anglican bishops* petition in December« 1850, voted for the bill. Ibid., col. 1300.

1v 100 the government again opposed all changes. Lord honteagle and the Earl of Kinnaird proposed to exempt Ireland from the bill's jurisdiction and to delete the first clause, but both motions lost. So uncompromising was the gov- ernment's resistance to change that when the Duke of Ar- gyll moved to strike out Thesiger's amendment concerning informers, Lansdowne announced that, although the ministry origionally had objected to this addition, it now wished to retain it. Since the amendment would accomplish no- thing and the government also wished to avoid further discussion of the issue, the marquis opposed Argyll's resolve, which thereupon suffered the same fate as the previous two.^

The third reading debate, on July 29. was also a short affair involving no divisions. Monteagle moved a clause which would have remitted the penalties for eccles- iastics who added the qualifying phrase, "Roman Catholic Bishop of--," before their titles, but faced with certain defeat, he later withdrew it. The bill then passed and on August i received the royal assent.

^Tha three amendments lost by votes of 82-17, 77-26, and 61-26. Ibid.. cols, i486, 1513, 1515. 1523-1528. 3^0n August 4, Monteagle introduced his "Removal of Doubts as to Penalties on Assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles Bill," embodying the same clause, but the house vetoed it without a division the next day. Ibid., ools. 1664, 1669, 1675» 1842, 1891-1893. 101

The finished act consisted of a preamble and four clauses. After observing that "divers of Her Majesty's

Roman Cathollo Subjects'' have assumed titles of nonexistent

sees, the preamble announces that the act's purpose is to extend the prohibitions of the Catholic Emancipation Act

to all place names in the United Kingdom. The first two

clauses declare illegal any papal briefs conferring juris- diction within the United Kingdom and provide that any prelate* not authorized by law, who uses such place names,

or who obtains such briefs, shall be subject to a fine of

Li00. The second clause provides further that private

citizens (Thesiger's common informers) may bring suit to

collect the fine from offending ecclesiastics, after first

obtaining permission of the attorney general of England,

Scotland, or Ireland* The last two clauses exempt the

Episcopal Church of Scotland from the act and declare that

it will not affect the operation of the Charitable Be-

quests Act.

The passage of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act marked

the end of almost a year of agitation. But the public

furor notwithstanding, it was a dead letter from the day

33The bill's text can be found in the Annual Regis- ter. XCIII (1852), 457-^59, and in The Times for August 5» 1851. An extract appears in English Historical Documents. XII, Pt. 1, 369-370. M. L. Henry, in his article, "Ecc- lesiastical Titles Act" (Dictionary of Brltlsh History, pp. 117-118), erroneously states that the act forbade to Soman Catholic bishops only those titles used by Anglican prelates. Llewellyn Woodward makes the same mistake in his Age of Reform, p. 522. 102 it became law. Although the Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy virtually made a point of violating its provisions, neither Russell nor his successors ever attempted to en- force it. Only once was a suit brought under the act (when a man named Cobbett prosecuted Cardinal Manning, Wiseman's successor as archbishop), but he lost his case because he had not secured permission to initiate it. Indeed, as Gladstone observed in 1853» the Whigs them- selves suffered most from the provisions of their bill.-' The Ecclesiastical Titles Act stemmed from political expediency on Russell(s part, rather than from bigotry or patriotism. Origionally designed to strengthen the Whig Ministry, the bill alienated the Peelites, radical Whigs, and the Irish. Hoping to conciliate these dissidents, Russell deleted the most objectionable clauses, but the maneuver only angered the ultra-protestants. The house's adoption of Theslger's amendments, moreover, rendered the bill a political liability. Realizing that he could derive no political benefits from the measure, the prime minister resolved to enact it rapidly to minimize its divisive effects. Thus, the ministry refused to attempt the removal of the Theslger amendments in the House of Lords. Russell wanted merely to pass the measure, and then to forget about it.

^Morley, Gladstone. I, kk6. 103

The public, meanwhile, had lost interest in the legislation. Preoccupied, with the Great Exhibition and bored after a year of controversy, most Englishmen had turned to other Issues by the time Parliament enacted the law. That English Catholic prelates, moreover, did not emulate the Irish by flaunting their new titles also helped to appease the outraged public® No ministry en- forced the measure because enforcement would exacerbate the Irish Question, an undesirable result# Thus the act remained a nullity until its repeal in 18?1• CHAPTER V

THE PAPAL AGGRESSION OF 1850s A PROBLEM IN HISTORIOGRAPHY

For ten months, the Papal Aggression convulsed the British Parliament and public, as anti-Roman Catholic agi- tation disturbed the political scene* Whigs abandoned their latitudinarian religious policy, and Englishmen put down their Bentham to re-read Foxevs Martyrs» Occurring between Palmerston*s clvls Romanus sum oration, a landmark of British imperialism, and the Great Exhibition of 1851, a glittering symbol of material progress, the Papal Ag- gression, a retrograde step, requires explanation. Few historians, however, have undertaken the task, and their pronouncements leave many questions unanswered. This neglect probably stems from the very nature of the events® the anachronism of religious persecution in the middle of the nineteenth century did not seem slgnificant. Wood- ward, for example, devoted only two paragraphs to the subject in an otherwise outstanding history of the period. Historians who have Investigated the affair fall into two categories, contemporary and recent. Nineteenth century scholars attempt to answer two questions posed by the Papal Aggressions Why did Plus create the hierarchy? Why did the English reaot so vehemently? Twentieth 105 century historians also approach the subjeot from a politico-religious point of view. Some are Roman Cath- olics , writing to defend their faith, while others are academic historians who give the Papal Aggression only passing notice. Despite their deficiencies, no critical study of the problem would be complete without an eval- uation of their contributions. Wilfrid Ward, the outstanding biographer of the early Roman Catholic leaders, argues that Wiseman considered the year 18^7 to be a propitious moment for a hierarchy. Papal proposals for Australian and Canadian Catholic hier- archies had met with indifference rather than opposition from the British government, and the increasing number of conversions from the ranks of the Oxford Movement boded well for the future of the English Catholic Churbh. Wise- man 6 s love for the trappings of ecclesiastical office, moreover, led him to desire a hierarchy. Spencer Walpole, author of the best political history of the period, also seeks to explain the hierarchy's creation. He agrees with Ward that Tractarlan conversions and ministerial indif- ference to colonial prelates contributed to the bull's promulgation, but adds that the Irish Catholic hierarchy's success in maintaining sees which paralleled those of the established church further encouraged Pius. Finally, he observes that the Charitable Bequests Act, by permitting transfers of real estate to Irish Catholic prelates, 106 implied an official sanction of this technically illegal episcopate.1

Two participants in the public uproar* Charles

Greville and William Ullathorne, were primarily concerned with the causes of the violent reaction# Greville, ever the gentleman, found the agitation too vulgar for his taste, declaring in his Memoirsi

A more disgusting and humiliating manifestation has never been exhibited5 it is founded on pre- judice and gross ignorance. As usual the most empty make the greatest noise, and the declaimers vie with each other in coarseness, violence, and stupidity.2

Greville, however, did not limit the blame to the English masses,, since Russell's Durham Letter, he thought* had inflamed the passions of Roman Catholic "fanatics" as well as of protestant zealots, and Wiseman9s extravagant pas- toral had incensed public opinion. Finally, Greville concluded that Pius* establishment of the hierarchy was impolitic from the beginning. Ullathorne, writing twenty years after Greville, agrees with him that Wiseman*s pas- toral and popular prejudice had accounted for the uproar# but Ullathorne suggests further that the popular miscon- ception that all bishops must have the same legal status as Anglican prelates also affected protestant feelings

^W. Ward, Wiseman., I, 47^-^75f Walpole, History of England. Vf 3,

2Greville, Memoirs- VI, 377* •^Jbld*. p# 375* Ullathorne, Restoration. pp« 82-83, 107

Wilfrid Ward privides the best explanation of the

furor. English Catholics, he asserts, were taken by su~

prise, having overestimated the Traotarlans' influence and

the government's indifference. The violence of the re-

action stemmed from three sources» (1) the conjunction of

Wiseman's promotion to the cardinalate with the promul-

gation of the hierarchy, though either, alone, would have

brought only momentary protests % (2) Russell's Durham

Letter, which appeared to express official policys (1) the

"Papist myth," viz., that Catholicism seeks to destroy

English liberties, which the conversions of 18*1-5 had res-

urrected. Ward aygues, however, that the short duration

of the affair, the passage of a sop Ecclesiastical Titles

Bill, and the limited acts of violence relative to those

of the Gordon Riots, all indicate that the Papal Aggres-

sion agitation did not represent the true feelings of

most Englishmen.**

The most interesting contemporary treatment of the

Papal Aggression is found in Endymlon. Benjamin Disraeli's

penultimate political novel, begun in 1870 but not

finished and published until November, 1880, It deals

with the career of Endymion Perrars, the son of a minor

Tory politician, during the period from 's

death (1827) to the fall of the Aberdeen Ministry

**W# Ward, Wiseman„ II, 30-33, 108

(1855) •-* Nigel Penruddock, one of the characters? Is a composite of Wiseman and Newman. Disraeli suggests that

Russell's policy in this affair was motivated ndt only by a protestant bias, but also by the hope that his stand would be popular and thus revive his declining political fortunes.'

The most perceptive interpretation of the Papal Ag- gression by a contemporary comes from the pen of John

Lemoinne, a Frenchman® Ignoring the reasons for the hier- archy's creation and the causes of the uproarf he focused on the meaning of events. That Plus IX chose to grant dioceses to England when he was powerless to enforce this decision indicated to Lemoinne that the pope exercised only spiritual powers. The sharp reaction of the Church of

England to the "aggression" was understandable, however, for that church had just passed through the Gorham Judg- 8 ment dispute» a battle in the war orthodoxy was losing to

^Robert Blake, "Disraeli's Political Novels," His- tory Today, XVI (July, 1966), 466.

^Philip Guedalla, in his introduction, contends that Penruddock represents Cardinal Manning, but in the novel, the character had converted to the Roman Catholic faith in 18^5* become a cardinal, and Issued a pastoral, "From out of the Appian Gate," to celebrate the creation of the Catholic hierarchy. Since Disraeli's protagonists usually were true to life, Penruddock would seem to represent New- man and Wiseman, rather than Manning. Benjamin Disraeli# Endymlon. Vol. XII, Bradenham Edition, edited by Philip Guedalla (London, 1927), pp. x» 366.

?Ibld.„ pp. 450-451,

®Tha - ~ 109 latitudinarlanism. Thus the creation of a rival hierarchy came at a crucial time for the church# The existence of archprlests and vicars apostolic did not reflect on the nature of the Church of England, since they were merely means of providing spiritual guldanoe for English Roman

Catholics« But the letters apostolic treated the English

Church as if it did not exist. For those who believed that the Church of England was a direct descendant of the apostolic church, Lemoinne concluded, "this simple change of names marks the definite rupture of the Soman Church and the English Church. . . ."^

Twentieth century Catholic historians in general have done little to improve on Wilfrid Ward's analysis of the

Papal Aggression. Bernard Ward, his son, stands alone in contending that Wiseman's Flaminian Gate pastoral, "which records the realization of Ehis3 life-long hopes, and the zenith of his fame, Is nevertheless admitted to have been refusal to present George C. Gorham, Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge, to a living in 184-7 because of the latter8s views on baptismal regeneration. Gorham brought action in the Court of Arches, an , which went against him, but received a favorable judgment on appeal to the Privy Council. The Erastian nature of the decision annoyed the Tractarians and contributed to Manning's conversion to Roman Catholicism.

^"Cette simple mutation de noms consacre la rupture definitive de I'egllse romalne et de l'egllse an- glalse. . . John Lemoinne, "La crlse religleuse en Angleterre," Revue des deux mondes. new per.a 6th ser.» I (Jan., 1851), 13^-135• 153• 110 the greatest practical mistake he ever made."10 The series of essays commemorating the hierarchy's centenary are little more than court histories, retelling the story in a superficial manner, exonerating Wiseman's manifesto, and placing all the blame for the outcry on a small group of people (usually including Russell), the Anglican

prelates, and The Times.11 This situation is perhaps

understandable, since most of these "historians" are clerics,

French Catholic historians, however, show more per-

ception than their English oolleagues in interpreting the

affair. R. Aubert, in his study of Pius IX's pontificate,

accepts Wilfrid Ward's views, but approaches them from a

different historical perspective. Three factors, he con-

tends, were responsible for the erection of the hierarchy*

(1) the Oxford conversions, which raised the level of Eng-

lish Catholic life by bringing highly intellectual and

devout men into the church% (2) Wiseman's revival of the

native clergy's zeal through articles in the Dublin Review

(founded in 1835) through his ceaseless exhortations

to Catholics to welcome converts! and (3) the Influx of

10B. Ward, Sequel. II, 285.

11See, for example, Albion, "Restoration of the Hier- archy," The English Catholics. 1860-1950. p. ^3* Humphrey J. T. Johnson, "Parliament and the Restored Hlerarchys A Centenary and its Lesson," Dublin Review. CCXXIV (Second Quarter, 1950)* 6. Johnson compounds his errors by claiming that Russell, demonstrating a "culpable lack of respon- sibility," published the Durham Letter before Guy Fawkes Day, Ill

Irish immigrants after "< 8*1-5, which raised the total number of Roman Catholics in England, thus setting off a building program of parish churches and an inorease in ordinations. Robert Rouquette sees the Papal Aggression and Wiseman's "Appeal" as one of the two events In the nineteenth cen- tury (the other being the publication of Newman *s Apologia pro vita sua in 186*0 which transformed the English atti- tude toward Roman Catholicism from prejudice and 12 intolerance to acceptance and even approval. Since academic historians have not been as interested as their Catholic colleagues In the Papal Aggression, gen- eral histories of Victorian Britain devote little attention to it. What interest they show, moreover, focuses on the causes of the outburst, J. A. R. Marr&ott, for example, merely states in passing that the primary 13 cause was the "tactlessness" of Wiseman and Pius. J Asa Briggs, in contrast, points the finger of responsibility at the prime minister. Lord John Russell, indeed, was prepared to play on every form of prejudice, Including No-Popery, Within the Church of England. His Ecclesiastical Titles Bill of 1851 . 0 . was rightly described by the Quaker, John Bright, as "little, paltry, and miserable—a mere sham to bolster up Church ascendency." In 1835 the members of the noisy Protestant Association, celebrating the ^Aubert, Pie IX, pp. 67-681 Rouquette, "Le oentenalre de la hi^rarchie," Studes. pp. 255-256. *3j. A, R. Harriott, England Since Waterloo. 5th ed. (New York and London( 1922), pp. 195-196. 112

tercentenary of the . * . Protestant Bible, did their best to harrass the Melbourne Ministry! in 1851 Russell used the same kind of people to thunder against his opponents .I** Llewellyn Woodward, who delves deeper Into the issue, assigns traditional anti-Soman Catholic prejudice, aroused by Tractarianism, as the remote cause of the public out- burst. The immediate causes were (1) the popular feeling incited by the Gorham Judgment, (2) the pope's association with reaction, and (3) Wiseman's "flowery and pompous style of writing . 0 • Unlike Rouquette, Ulie Hal£vy

sees the Papal Aggression as having little significance. In 18*1-8, he contends, the "Catholic reaction" had won a victory over the forces of liberalism and socialism on the continent, but, upon reaching England, found that liberal- ism had won the "revolution of 18^6." The creation of the hierarchy thus was only "a backwash of the widespread movement of Catholic reaction which swept Europe." Be- cause Romanism was not as basic a part of English life as Anglicanism or Dissent, the new papal prelates did not vitally affect English life.16 The historians considered heretofore have dealt with the Papal Aggression either within the context of larger studies or in brief articles? only one monograph, an

Griggs, Age of Improvement„ p. 28*1-. 1^Woodward, Age of Reform, pp. 521-522. •^Halevy, Peel and Cobden. pp. 326, 328. 113 unpublished dissertation by Walter A. Halls, gives exten- sive treatment to the oreation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Ralls sees the Papal Aggression as the result of four converging factors» (1) the English Roman Cath- olics1' belief that their church represented the wave of the future, (2) the hostility engendered by the Oxford

Movement, (3) the insoluable problems which Ireland pres- ented to the United Kingdom, and (k) the personal unpopularity of the pope. The promulgation of Universalis

Eccleslae provided the focal point around which these elements met and exploded,

Ralls holds that Wiseman seriously believed England could be converted by the turn of the century. While in

Rome in 1828, the future cardinal had met George Spencer and Ambrose Philllpps de Lisle, two new, enthusiastic, and romantic converts. They, together with the architect

Augustus Welby Pugin, had convinced him of the possibility of converting England, and had turned him against Old

Catholic and vicarial slowness. The Tractarlan movement had confirmed this beliefi Wiseman and the Italian mis-

sionaries in England saw it as the symptom of the coming

conversions with which they expected to restore England to

the Catholic fold.17

17Walter A. Ralls, "The Papal Aggression of 1850» Its Background and Meaning," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, I960, pp. 63, 65-68, 135-136, 11*

Ralls observes, moreover, that the events between the appearance of Traot Ninety (18*1) and Newman's con- version (18*5) caused muoh bitterness on the part of the thinking public, and men such as Gladstone began to lose their ardor for Tractarianism. The ritualist phase of the

Anglo-Catholic Revival began in the same year as Newman's conversion, thus Increasing popular resentment against the

Oxford reformers. Also in 18*5» Pusey built at his own expense St. Saviour's Church» Leeds, in which midnight and dally masses and regular confessions were introduced.

Five years later, St. Barnabas', Plmllco, "the first thoroughly 'Anglo-Catholic* church in London," opened its doors. During the 18*0's, the controversy over the May- nooth grant and Peel's "godless colleges" further enhanced 1 R protestant suspicion of English Roman Catholics. The year 1850, finally, was an inauspicious moment for the promulgation of the hierarchy, for a reaction against Pio

Nono already had set in, as Englishmen flocked to hear lectures by such Italian revolutionaries as Gavazzi, Or- sini9 and Saff1. "To the public at large," Ralls observes, "there was little difference between ruffling the Austrian, General Haynau, in September and burning the pope in effigy in November."19

l8Ibld.. pp. 122-130, 159-165.

19lbld„. pp. 222-223. 115

The Papal Aggression, the last great no-popery out- burst In England, Halls concludes, reflected real fear on the part of protestants of the growth of Roman Catholic doctrine. This anxiety, combined with the damage done to the established church by the Gorham Judgment, the Hampden

Case, and by German higher criticism, laid the foundation for the outburst. Wiseman's pomposity, the Tablet's agi- tation for Anglo-Irish Catholic political unity, and the inopportune timing of the hierarchy's establishment all contributed to the uproar. Politicians, he adds, fanned

the flames by playing politics with the issue. Russell, disillusioned with papal liberalism and annoyed by the

Tractarians, publicized the Durham Letter as muoh out of bias against "Roman!zers" as out of an attempt to seek popularity.20

The questions posed by nineteenth century historians, and the answers given, reflect the preference of the times

for political history. Thus, Wilfrid Ward and Spencer

Walpole make no attempt to examine the contemporary social and intellectual climate of England, and tend to accept at

face value the participants® explanations 6f their own positions. More serious, however, is their interpretation

of events in religious terms. Thus, Wilfrid Ward con-

siders traditional anti-papal feeling to be at the root of

20 Ibld«. ppe 268-269, 28^-287. 116 the matter, and Lemolnne Interprets the events in purely religious terms. Modern historians also confine their investigations to the religious sphere. Boman Catholic r court historians contribute little to an understanding of the subject because of their biased and shallow treatment^ while the accounts of academic historians suffer from brevity. Balls" study gives the most comprehensive coverage of the Papal Aggression, and his discussion of the role of the Irish Question in creating an anti-Catholic atmosphere adds breadth to the exposition, but he, too, concludes that the fundamental causes were religious. Thus, his dissertation, despite impressive research, is not entirely satisfactory. The Papal Aggression generally has been the province of historians of English history. Only Geoffrey Bruun has sought to Integrate it into nineteenth century European history as a whole. He maintains that after 18^-8 the bourgeoisie, realizing that the best weapon against so- cialism was another ideology, sought the support of religion and the clergy, its "spiritual gendarmes." Ruling classes turned to the Boman Catholic Church in par- ticular, and Bruun cites the re-establishment of the English Roman Catholic hierarchy as an example of the use of religion to preserve the status quo.21

21 Geoffrey Bruun, Nineteenth-Century European Civili- zation. 1815-191** (New York, I960), pp. 90-91. Bruun cites 117

A judicious analysis of the events Indicate, however, that this assertion, far from being an astute Interpre- tation, is in reality a rash historical generalization.

If Bruun is correct, one must believe, perforce, that a prime minister and party, representing business interests, tfho criticized the Roman Catholic Church and secured penal legislation against it, actually welcomed the erection of its hierarhhy. One wonders, too, if a Bishop of Birming- ham could oppose socialism more effectively than a Vicar

Apostolic of the Western Districts Did Irish laborers in

England really constitute potential revolutionaries?

True, they played a prominent part in Chartism, and the most serious Chartist disturbances during 1848 did occur in areas with a large Irish population. But it seems un- likely that the Whigs would have turned to the Roman

Church to desocialize the Irish. On the contrary, the

Tablet, the major Catholic newspaper, supported the conti- nental revolutionary movements and advocated "prudent" armed resistance for Ireland. Though antirevolutionary, the Whigs were not reactionary, and resented Pius" re- action. In any case, Chartism by 1850 had ceased to be a vital, and thus dangerous, movement.22 Most of those who as other examples

22Briggs» Age of Improvement, pp. 302, 3121 John J. Kamerlck, "Great Britain and the Continental Revolutions 118 opposed the Papal Aggression, moreover, clearly thought that It endangered, rather than defended, the British con- stitution. The Bruun Thesis, therefore, must be rejected#

Most of the literature relevant to a study of the

Papal Aggression reveals an overemphasis on its religious overtones and an unwillingness to delve beneath the im- mediate causation of the public oato£y« The reasons for the hierarchy's creation, moreover, probably are not essential to an understanding of the Papal Aggression, for the modern historian is more concerned with the significance of events which stemmed from the hierarchy, not with the question of its legality. of 18^8," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of History, State University of Iowa* Iowa City, 1950, ppfc 325. CHAPTER VI

THE PAPAL AGGRESSION OP I85O1 A RETROSPECT

"Two things must be attended to which require no proof# First, that the British Constitution is the best that ever was since the creation of the world, and it is not possible to make it better®" 1 This sentiment, ex- pressed by Lord Braxfield during a Scottish Jacobin trial at the turn of the nineteenth century, had not lost its hold on British minds by 1850. During the decade of the

18^0"s, patriotic Englishmen, indeed, saw themselves as the acme of political and cultural development, and be- lieved that their institutions were obviously superior to 2 those of any other nation. True freedom, they thought, existed only in Great Britain, whose constitution con- tained exactly the proper proportion of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and guaranteed moderate civil liberty, scriptural religion, and a sound economy.

Three fears, however, affected English politics during the period 18*1-6-52« fear of French aggression, fear of democracy, and fear of aggressive popery. The British

^P. Mackenzie, Life of Thomas Mulr (1831), quoted in Briggs, Age of Improvement, p. 1760

%ameriok, "Continental Revolutions," p* 117«

119 120 had welcomed Louis-Philippe's bourgeois regime in 1830, but Anglo-French relations soon deteriorated under the impact of rivalry over Belgian independence (1830-32)* the

Egyptian Crisis of 18^0» and the Tahiti Affair (l8*f3-4*0.

Palmerston's return to the Foreign Office in 18W and dis- putes over the Spanish Marriages Question prevented concerted action in foreign affairs after that date, and

the Qua! d'0rsay8s Roman diplomacy further increased the

two nations* mutual distrust. In 18^8, the February Revo- lution seriously worsened relations between the two

states• Although the liberal Whigs disliked the July

Monarchy, a democratic republic across the Channel was even more repugnant, and Louis-Napoleon's ascendancy, which opened the possibility of ideological warfare, did little to lessen their anxiety. At home, Chartist agi-

tation for parliamentary reform and a broadening of the

suffrage exacerbated the fear of democracy

In religious affairs, the Whigs pursued a latitudi- narian policy by appointing liberal theologians to office in the church„ sponsoring ecclesiastical reform, and re- laxing restrictions on sectarian dissents Lord John Rusaell,

sell, responsible for repealing the Test and Corporation

Acts in 1828, even proposed liberalizing the anti-Catholic legislation. In 18^5» when out of office, he had declared

%bld,. pp. Stuart, "Coalition Cabinet of l8529" TRHS, pp# 50-511 Bal6vy» Peel and Cobden. p. 19^. 121

in Parliament that there was no reason to retain the

clauses in the Catholic Emancipation Aot which forbade

Homan Catholic bishops to use Anglican titles. The fol-

lowing year he had proposed abolition of the penalties for k bringing papal bulls into the country. While answering an ultra-Tory's question,, Russell, in 1848, had enunciated

the classic Whig religious policy toward Roman Catholi-

cisnu The government could control the pope's spiritual authority in England, he asserted, only by a in

which both parties would receive advantages. Short of

this, Parliament could either leave that authority unfet-

tered or proscribe it by law. The latter alternative, he

believed, was unworkable, for penal legislation would only

strengthen religious allegiances.

The Oxford Movement, which began in 1833» made such

latitudlnarianism difficult. Oxford University professors

such as Keble, Hurrell Froudd, W. B. Pusey, and John Henry

Newman, through sermons, the Tracts for the Times series

of pamphlets, and through new editions of the Church

Fathers, emphasized the divine nature and sacred mission

of the Church of England and its priests and prelates, and

called for an end to doctrinal liberalism. In the public

^Russell explained that in the unlikely event that the pope should exercise authority in England, Homan Cath- olics would not obey him.

5Parl. Deb.. 3rd ser., LXXXII (1845), 290j ibid., LXXXVIlTTlSW, 362j ibid.. CI (1848), 220. 122 mind, however, the Traotarians seemed to be making unwar- ranted claims for sacerdotal authority and to be guilty of

Roman errors. Protestant alarm grew as the movement moved closer to Romanismj the conversions of Newman and several 6 others seemed to confirm the evangelicals' worst fears.

When the future Cardinal Wiseman visited England in l835-36» he discovered that the Tracts had made no impact on his fellow English Catholics. He believed, however, that the Oxford Movement's theology would benefit the Ro- man Catholic Church by increasing the rate of conversions» and declared that from the moment of his visit, the Trao- tarians "took the uppermost place in thisJ thoughts, and became the object of their intensest interest."^ One of

Wiseman's motives for founding the Dublin Review was to provide a prestigious Journal for the Catholic answer to

Puseyism, and as early as 1838, he expressed in its pages the conviction that Anglo-Catholics would eventually be- 8 come Roman Catholics.

Wiseman believed that a territorial hierarchy, al- though desireable, was not essential for the conversion of John Keble's Assize Sermon, "National Apostacy," preached on July 1^, 1833* initiated the Oxford Movement» Woodward, Age of Reform, p. 515 •

^Nicholas Wiseman, Essays on Various Subjects„ 3 volse (London, 1853), II, vli.

8Ibld„. I, vil-vlii1 Dublin Review. IV (Apr., 1838), m 308» quoted In Balls» "Papal Aggression9 p. 136. 123

England and might alienate the very protestant community he wished to reach. After the vicars had failed to obtain diocesan bishops In 18^0, he published an article in the Dublin Review for August, 184-2, outlining the course which should be followed. He cautioned against haste in ob- taining a territorial hierarchy, since English Roman Catholics could improve their existing organization and thereby excellerate the changes they wished within a mis- sionary framework. The most efficient way to achieve this objective was to Introduce the administrative procedure em- ployed by a hierarchical system. It was possible, he contended, to bring normal canon law Into force under a vicarial system, although modifications would have to be made (as are made in all states), to fit the particular circumstancesAfter discussing in detail the changes which might be made, Wiseman concluded by explaining that he valued a territorial hierarchy principally for its psychological value-

We have gathered together the scattered stones of our profaned sanctuary, and have builded them up into a second temple, inferior to the first, but still not without Its glories. The fire has been rekindled upon the ? the priests have sounded again their trumpets, and proselytes have crowded to the solemnity. But the rule of the Holy City is not yet restoredt the republic of God is under temporary provision of government? its priests and rulers have not yet been fully ordered, clas- sified, or made able, with full efficacy, to

^Wiseman, WA Paper on Ecclesiastical Organization," Essays. I, 338, 3^1, 3^3, 3^6-3^8. IZk

display the beauties of their ministry. This is what we notr want.*0

Wiseman's article represented only a temporary expe- dient designed to offset the vicars* failure to obtain a hierarchy two years before* for English Catholics could not be satisfied until they had attained their three- huridred-year-old desire for a regular diocesan system.

Since 15969 English Roman Catholics had wanted episcopal control for their church? when they obtained a vicar in

1621, they demanded territorial prelates. By the mid- l8*M)#s, moreover, the need for such a hierarchy had become pressing. The repeal of most penal legislation in

1829 had permitted Catholics to participate in English political affairs and had encouraged the open practice of thfeir religion. The church's growth through Irish immi- grations moreover, strained the existing administrative structure. The flow of protestant proselytes, which in- creased after Newman's submission to Rome, strengthened

Wiseman's conviction that a general conversion of England was under way. The problems which beset the English Roman

Catholic Church in the 18^0's finally convinced the Curia that the time had come to establish a hierarchy. Its cre- ation in 1850, therefore, was but the culmination of this centuries-old trend.

"ma., PP. 35^-355. 125

The Vatican conferences of 18^7-^8 between Wiseman and Plus IX reveal that they did anticipate objections from the British government over titles and took steps to avert them, but that they did not expect this opposition tb be more than a token protest# The conferees' concerns, moreover, show that they created the hierarchy for legi- timate spiritual and administrative reasons and that later protestant claims about a papal conspiracy to restore the pre-Heformat!on hierarchy have no foundation in fact. The

Vatican negotiations, while unpubliclzed, were not con- fidential, and word of the proposed changes soon reached

England, The Catholic press announced plans for the hier- archy as early as October, 18^7» and by August, 18^8,

English protestants knew enough about it to raise ques- tions in Parliament.*1 Thus, the proclamation of Univer- salis Eccleslae did not take the Whig Ministry by suprlse, although it had not learned of the bull from Lord Minto.

Most Englishmen, upon obtaining complete knowledge of the new hierarchy, reacted with a violence out of propor- tion to the threat. Traditional anti-Roman Catholic prejudice provided the basic cause of the outburst. Brit- ish protestants, schooled to hate Roman Catholicism, reacted to the "Papal Aggression" as their ancestors had reacted to the Popish Plot or the Gordon Riots. Racial

k*Parl. Deba. CI, 212§ Corish, "Restoration,'* Irish Ecclt, Record, pp„ 29^-295 o 126

prejudice and national pride provided secondary stimuli for the violence. The Irish Question had long disturbed the English political scene, and threatened, Anglo-Saxons looked with contempt upon their Irish co-subjects. Since the Latin, as well as Irish, peoples were Roman Catholics, Anglo-Saxon Supremacists assumed that that communion was the religion of the raoially inferior# Finally, the Eng- lish, convinced of the superiority of their institutions, resented the interference of the Holy See, a foreign power, in their domestic affairs. That the Papacy's authority in 1850 depended upon the armed intervention of France, with whom relations had been strained for some time, further increased public resentment.

The bombastic language in Wiseman's Flaminlan Gate pastoral provided the spark which set off the volatile mixture of English prejudices. A particularly adept prac- titioner of florid Victorian ptyle, Wiseman, filled with fervor at the fruition of his dreams, outdid himself in pompous prose, and failed totally to consider what the results of his missive might involve. Newman's "Christ Upon the Waters" sermon, preached only one and one-half weeks after the first Times editorials, and after his own bishop's moderate defense of the papal bull had appeared in print, also incited protestant hostility and demon- strated a lack of good judgment on the convert's parte Neither man's language refleoted religious reality. 127

Protestant protest, once aroused by Catholic pro- nouncements, became self-perpetuating. As the strength of public opposition to the hierarchy became apparent, An- glican prelates and politicians urged on the agitation by denunciations of Roman Catholicism and the Oxford Move- ment, That the bishops reaoted with such violence is understandable! the established church, already th£estened by liberal reform, now found itself under attack by Roman

Catholics8 As Lemoinne has observed, the very terms of Universalis Ecclesiae considered the anoient sees to be extinct. The circumstances surrounding the Durham Letter are more difficult to explain. Why would the prime minister, with his latitudinarian and tolerant background, write a divisive and bigoted letter? Admittedly, the evidence is circumstantial, but it indicates that Russell, in serious political trouble by 1850, wrote the Durham Letter to turn an already existing public controversy to his own advan- tage. He sent the letter without cabinet knowledge, hoping that he could replace his lost Catholic support with the allegiance of the more numerous protestants, and thus give his ministry a new lease on life. When the cabinet learned that the letter had been sent, it was foroed by circumstances to follow through with legislation, for if it did not, the Tory opposition would. Unfor- tunately for the Whigs, Russell's gamble failed 1 His 128 dead-letter bill pleased no one, and his ministry fell the next year.1^

That agitation so strong should produce an act so weak as to be a nullity has puzzled many historians.

Almost twenty-five years later, Russell observed in retro- spect that the bill's purpose was merely to assert the royal supremacy* not to be a penal measure, and explained that he had planned to use It only against Roman Catholic bishops who acted "in glaring or ostentatious defiance of the Queen's title to the Crown.Hal^vy accepts Rus# sell's explanation, arguing that "everybody" knew that the legislation was only a gesture of principle and that no Roman Catholic prelate ever would be prosecuted under 1 it. Russell, however, treated it more seriously in 1851

than he admitted in 1873» At first, the bill was a legitimate piece of legislation. Although the prime min- ister did delete the last three olauses of the origlonal measure, because they would Interfere too much with the

Irish Catholic hierarchy, his insistence during the course

A^Greville, Memoirs,, VI, 378.

^Russell claimed that, once passed, the bill would never have been used. "In fact, I wanted to place the assertion of the Queen's title to appoint bishops on the statute-book, and there leave it. . . .My purpose was fully answered. Those who wished to give the pope the right of appointing bishops in England opposed the bill. When my object had been gained, I had no objection to the repeal of the Act." Russell, Recollections» p» 210«

•^Hal£vy„ Peel and Cobden. p« 322, 129 of negotiations with the Peelites on some form of legis- lation suggests that the bill was, indeed, something more than a mere declaration. Only after the ministerial crisis# when he found that his political gamble had failed because the ultras, dissatisfied with his concessions to the Irish, would not rally to his support, did Russell conclude that the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was a polit- ical liability. Trapped between ultra-protestants and anti-blllltes and seeing no possibility of political ad- vantage, his primary concern became to enact it and forget about it, for he was not so foolish as to enforce such an unpopular law in Ireland.*5

Writing to Princess Lieven, his confidante. more than a year after the religious crisis, Lord Aberdeen commented that he believed England possessed more religious bigots 16 than any other European nation. While this study cannot

*^Ten cabinets headed by six prime ministers held office during the twenty years before the Ecclesiastical Titles Act was repealed. No ministry was prepared to risk Irish wrath by enforcing the legislation.

Russell July, 18^6-February, 1852 Derby February-December, 1852 Aberdeen December, 1852-February, 1855 Palmerston February, 1855-February, 1858 Derby February, 1858-June, 1859 Palmerston June, 1859-October, I865 Russell October, 1865-June, i860 Derby June, 1866-February, 1868 Disraeli February^December, 1868 Gladstone December, 1868-February, I871*

^Aberdeen to Princess Lieven, June 29» 18529 Aberdeen* "Corresp.Edinburgh Review, p. 558. 130 confirm Aberdeen's comparison, it does lend credence to his statement. The conjuncture of traditional religious hatred with modem racial thinking and fear of institu- tional change, both manifest in the opposition to the

Papal Aggression of 1850, are characteristic of the transition then taking place in England. The Victorian age saw the triumph of political liberalism over aristo- cratic oligarchy, and the Crystal Palace of I851 marked

England's material advancement. Yet the reaction to the new Catholic hierarchy reveals the extent to which four- hundred -year-old prejudices still ruled British minds. It also demonstrates the arrival on the scene of the newer forces of racialism and national pride which thereafter convulsed the European world. Clearly, the English felt insecure beneath their complacency, but if the British constitution really were the perfect instrument which most

Englishmen believed it to be, there would be little cause to fear a few Catholic prelates. Neither the Puseyites nor the Catholics, however, were satisfied with English institutions as they then existed. To a people searching for stability in a changing world, even the suggestion that they should abandon traditional forms was anathema#

After the agitation had ended, the Roman Catholic

Church continued its growth and became a normal element in

British life. Penal legislation ceased to be directed toward the Romans and was turned instead against the 131

Ritualists, The creation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England constitutes a watershed in the long struggle of English Catholics to gain toleration, legal status, and respectability. Before 1850, they suffered from the pains and penalties inflicted upon them by the Anglican hegem- ony $ after that date, they won acceptance by a more cosmopolitan and enlightened society» Herein lies the significance of the whole affair of the "Papal Aggression*1 EPILOGUE

DISESTABLISHMENT AND REPEAL

Since the ten governments in office between 1851 and 1871 never attempted to enforce the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, fearing to increase Irish resentment, the measure was

almost forgotten after twenty years. In I870f however, the Gladstone Ministry discovered that, after January i, 1871» newly appointed bishops of the now disestablished Anglican Church of Ireland who used their predecessors' titles would run afoul of the law# To prevent such an eventuality as well as to promote "equal civil rights ir- respectively of religious differences," Gladstone, on February 11, 1870, proposed the repeal of the law,* The press of business» however, postponed aotion until May 19, when the ministry introduced its "Ecclesiastical Titles Act Hepeal Bill" in the House of Lords. The legislation easily passed both houses of Parliament, but amendments in the Commons which conflicted with the origional measure, and the complexity of the common law on the subjeot of

titles prompted the government to withdraw the bill until 2 the next session.

^Morley, Gladstone» II, 517, 2 The bill passed the Lords on July 5 and the Commons

132 133

Gladstone reintroduced the repeal bill in the Commons on February 1^, 1871, the twentieth anniversary of the

Ecclesiastical Titles Act's first reading. To resolve problems arising from legal technicalities, the house re- ferred it to a select committee which included Roundell

Palmer and Locke King, and granted it an unopposed third reading on June 1^« When the bill reached the peers, it found support from unlikely quarters. Earl Russell, who had opposed it the year before# now announced that the origional act had served its purpose and should be re- pealed, Lord Chelmsford-^ also announced his support, com- menting that since the repeal bill also condemned the appointment of prelates to English sees by a foreign power, retention of the old act was unnecessary« The measure passed the peers on July 1J and received the royal assent k eleven days later.

The Ecclesiastical Titles Act, I871, forbade the use of any title derived from an English place name without the crown's permission, but deliberately refrained from im- posing a penalty for bishops who assumed such appellations.

While repealing the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851, the on August 6. Pari. Deb.. 3rd ser., CXCIX (1870), 170-1713 ibid., CC (1870), 19^7 ibid.. CCI (1870), 965? ibid.. CCIIX (1870), 1603-168^.

^Formerly Sir Frederick Thesiger.

^Ibld.. CCI (1871), 1^80-1483» ibid., CCIV (1871), 126*H ibid.. CCVII (1871), 133^. 1399^00. 13** new law, In sum, reasserted the principle that only the sovereign had the power to grant episcopal titles.-* Thus, by this pragmatic formula, the queen retained her rights» protestants, the established churchj and English Roman Catholics, the Archbishop of Westminster.

%reat Britain, Halsbury's Statutes of England. edited by T. Willes Chitty, 22 vols. (London, 1929)» VI, 1141-1142, 34 and 35 Vict., o. 53 (1871), "Ecclesiastical Titles Repeal Act." CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

1559 Parliament deposes all Roman Catholic bishops in England.

1570 The bull Regnans in Excelsls of Pius V excom- municates .

1581 William Allen is appointed Prefeot of the Eng- lish Mission.

1596 George Blackwell is appointed the first aroh- priest f©r England. 1623 William Bishop is given a see Jjn parti bus in- fldellum and authority over England and Scotland.

1631 Bishop Richard Smith resigns his position and flees England. 1685 John Leyburn becomes the first vicar apostolic for England. 1688 The pope divides England into four vioarates. 1?50 Benedict XIV Issues the constitution Apostoli- oum Mlnlsterlum. 1778 Parliament passes the first Roman Catholic Relief Act.

1780 The anti-Catholic Gordon Riots convulse England.

1791 Parliament passes the second Roman Catholic Relief Act. 1829 Parliament passes the Catholic Emancipation Act. 1833 John Keble preaches his Assize Sermon on "National Apostaoy," ushering in the Oxford Movement. 1835 Nicholas Wiseman visits England and founds the DubiM Review^

135 136

18*1-0 Gregory XVI establishes eight vicatates. 1841 The Traotarians Issue Traot Ninety* 1845 John Henry Newman converts to Roman Catholicism. 1846 The Peel Ministry falls over protection* thus splitting the Tory party and permitting Lord John Russell to become prime minister of a Whig Government.

1847 July 9-Aug, 24, Wiseman and Sharpies negotiate for a hierarchy at Rome.

Nov. 7. Lord Minto visits Rome as a British special envoy.

1848 May 26, William Ullathorne arrives in Rome to continue negotiations for a hierarchy. July 23. Ullathorne returns to England. Nov. 15« Count Pellegrino Rossi, the papal premiert is assassinated» Nov. 24. Pius IX flees to Gaeta.

184-9 Feb. 9* Revolutionaries proclaim the Roman Republi c«

Feb. Wiseman succeeds Walsh as Vicar Apostolio of the London District. 1850 Apr. 12, Pius returns to Rome#

Sept. 5» Wiseman arrives in Rome.

Sept, 29• Pius issues the letters apostolio Universalis Eocleslae.

Sept, 30, Pius creates Wiseman a cardinal,

Oct, 7, Wiseman writes his Flaminlan Gate pastoral, Oct, 9* The Times publishes the first news of Wiseman's elevation to cardinal and Archbishop of Westminster. Oot. 12. Wiseman returns to England, 137

Oct. 1*K The Times first editorializes on the hierarchy. Oct. 22, The London press publishes the letters apostolio. Oct. 25. The Anglican clergy of Westminster protest to their bishop. Oct. 27. Newman preaches his "Christ Upon the Waters" sermon. Go Oct. 29. The London press prints Wiseman's pastoral. Nov. 3. Wisemanj in Vienna, reads The Times" editorial of Oct. l*f. Nov. 5* Englishmen celebrate Guy Favrkes Day.

Nov. 7. The London press prints the Durham Letter. Nov. 9. Russell and Cottenham speak at the Guildhall banquet of the Lord Mayor of London.

Nov. 11. Wiseman arrives in London. Nov. 19. Wiseman's "Appeal'' appears in pamphlet form. Dec. 6. Wiseman is enthroned as archbishop. Dec. 11. The Whigs decide to introduce penal legislation into parliament. 1851 Feb. Parliament meets. Feb. 7, Russell introduces the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Feb. 11. DisraeliAs motion on agricultural distress falls by fourteen votes in the Commons, Feb. 1*4-. The Commons gives the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill a first reading. Feb. 17# Sir Charles Wood introduces the budget. Feb. 20. Locke King carries his motion on suf- frage reform against the government. 138

Feb. 21. Russell unofficially resigns. Fab. 22. The cabinet meets In the morning and offiolAlly resigns. The queen sends for Stanley# who declines to form a government. In the evening» Russell, Graham, and Aberdeen confer. Feb. 23. They continue their negotiations. Feb, 2k, Aberdeen declines to form a Peelite ministry. Feb, 25. Stanley, called a second time, agrees to form a government. Feb. 26, Stanley negotiates with the Peelites. Fteb. 27. Rebuffed by the Peelites, and faced with disunity in his own party, Stanley resigns his commission. Feb. 28, Victoria sees Wellington and Lansdowne•

Mar. 3• Russell resumes office. Mar. ?. Second reading debate on the Ecclesias- tical Titles Bill begins. Mar. 25• The Commons gives it a second reading. May 9. The Commons sits in committee on the bill, June 23• Committee reports it out. June 27» Thesiger#s amendments pass the house* July 4. The Qommons passes the bill. July 7« The House of Lords gives the bill & first reading# July 22. It reoeives a second reading. July 25. The Lords meets in committee, July 29» The bill passes the peers. Aug. 1. The bill receives the royal assent, 1871 July 2k, The Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal Bill reoeives the royal assent. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Public Documents and Records

English Historical Documents. 1833-187^. edited by G. M, Young and W. D. Handcock (Vol. XII, Pt. 1 of English Historical Documents, edited by David C. Douglas), New York, Oxford University Press, 1956.

Great Britain, The Complete Statutes of England. Classi- fied and Annotated in Continuation of Halsbur.y's Laws of England. and for Ready Reference Entltied "Hals- bury 's Statutes of England." edited by T. Willes Chitty, 22 vols., London, Butterworth & Company, 1929.

,» Parliament, Parliamentary Debates, third series, edited by T. C. Hansard, Vols. LXXXII (18^5), LXXXVIII (18^6), CI (l8W# CXIV-CXVIII (1851), CXCIX-CCIII (1870), CCIV-CCVII (1871).

House of Commons, "Copy of an Address presented to Her Majesty from Her Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects in England," Sessional Papers. LIX9 No. 236 (April, 1851), 7^1.

, "Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Italy, Part I, 1846-18^7," Sessional Papers. LVII, Cmd» 1097 (July, I8*f9). 29-WTl

, "Return of the Number of Addresses which have been presented to Her Majesty on the Subject of the Recent Measures taken by the Pope for the Estab- lishment of a Roman Catholic Hierarchy in this Country," Sessional Papers. LIX, No. 8^ (Feb., l85l)» 6I+9-737.

Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series, of the Reign of James I_„ 1603-1610. edited by Mary Anne Everett Green, London„ Longmans, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts, 185?.

Correspondencea Diaries, and Memoirs Aberdeen, George Gordon, Fourth Earl of, "Correspondence of the Earl of Aberdeen, 1850-1853»" Edinburgh Review.

139 1^0

CLVXII (October, ^883), 5^7-577. . The Correspondence of Lord Aberdeen and Princess LIeven, edited by E. Jones Parry (Camden Third Series, Vol. LXII), 2 vols., London, Royal Historical Society, 1939. The Archprlest Controversy 1 Documents Relating to the Dis- sent Ion of the Roman Catholic Clergy. 1597-1602, edited by Thomas Graves Law (Camden New Series, Vols LVI), 2 vols., London, Camden Society, 1896. j/'Greville, Charles C. F., The Grevllle Memoirs> A Journal of the Reigns of King George IV, King William IV, and Queen Victoria, edited by Henry Reeve, 8 vols,, new ed.f London, Longmans, Green, and Co, 1905-1913* Malmesbury, James Hosard Harris, Third Earl of, Memoirs o£ an Ex-Mlnlsteri An AAutobiographyi . 2 vols., London, Longmans, Green, anidd Co., 1884. Russell, John Russell, First Earl, Later Correspondence. I84p-l878. edited by George P. Gooch, 2 vols., Lon- don, Longmans, Green, and Company, 1925. K . Reoollectlons and Suggestions. 1813-1873. Boston, Roberts Brothers, 1875. i^Ullathome, William Bernard, From Cabin Boy to Archbishops An Autobiography. London, Burns,& Oates, Ltd., 1891- \/* . History of the Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy in England. London, Burns, Oates, and Company, 1B7I. Victoria, Alexandrlna Victoria, Queen, The Letters of Queen Victorias A Selection from Her Majesty's Cor- respondence Between the Years 1%37 and 18&1, edited by Arthur Christopher Benson and Viscount Esher, first series, 3 vols., London, John Murray, 1907* Contemporary Newspapers The Globe and Traveller (London), October-November, 1850. The Illustrated London News. October-December, 1850. The Standard (London), 0otober-November, 1850. The Times (London), Ootober-Deoember, 185O1 February, 1851. 1H

Contemporary Articles "Election Returns of 18^7," Westminster Review. XLVIII (October, 1847)» 1^2-lkW, "Kings and Popes," Edinburgh Review, XCIII (January, 1851), 13^-155. Eemoinne, John, "La crise religieuse en Angleterre," Revue des deux mondes, new period, sixth series, I (Jan- uary, 1851), 13**-155« "The Ministers and the Pope," Quarterly Review. LXXXVIII (December, 1850), 2^7-269„ "The Papal Aggression Bill," Blackwood1s Edinburgh Magazine. LXIX (May, 1851), 573-587. "The Papal Controversy," Eclectic Review, fifth series, I (January, 1851), 97-11^. "The Recent Papal Bull," Gentleman's Magazine. new series, XXXIV (December, 1850), 622-627. "The Rival Hierarchies and the Duty of Dissenters," Eclectic Review, fourth series, XXVIII (December, W50j, 739-763. / "Royal Supremacy and Papal Aggression," North British Review, XV (May, 1851), 25^-289. 1/"Ultramontane Doubts," Edinburgh Review. XCIII (April, 1851), 535-578. Contemporary Works

Annual Register. Vols. XCII (1851), XCIII (1852).

Disraeli, Benjamin, Endymlon (Vol, XII of The Bradenham Edition). edited by Philip Guedalla, London, Peter Davies, 1927«

!j ' Newman, John Henry, Sermons Preached on Various Occasionsu new ed., London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1898. yWiseman, Nicholas Patrick, Essays on Various Subjects. 3 vols,, London9 Charles Dolman, I853. 1^2

Secondary Accounts Professional Publications Blake, Robert, "Disraeli's Political Novels," History Today, XVI (July, 1966), 459-^66. Catoheslde, P. H,, "Father Gentill and the Restoration of the Hierarchyj The Chastening Fruits of Some Recent Researches," The Tablet (London), CXCVI (September 23# 1950), 256-260. Conacher, J. B., "Peel and the Peelites, 184-6-1850," English Historical Review, LXXIV (July, 1958), ^3i-^52» Corish, Patrick J *, "The Restoration of the English Cath- olic Hierarchy," Irish Ecclesiastical Record, fifth series, LXXIV (October, 1950), 289-30?. Doran, Patrick, "The Restoration of the Hierarchy," Clergy Review, new series, XXXIV (September, 1950), l6l-178« Hughes, Philip, "The Uproar of 1850: Who Raised the Cry of •Papal Aggression?*" The Tablet (London), CXCVI (September 30, 1950), 284-285. Inglis, Brian, "The Influence of The Times," Historical Studies flreland?, III (1961*57"32-44. Inglis, K. S., "Patterns of Religious Worship in 1851," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XI (i960), 7*1—86. Johnson, Humphrey J. T,„ "Parliament and the Restored Hierarchys A Centenary and its Lesson," Dublin Review,, CCXXIV (Second Quarter, 1950), 1-16. \/Roche, Kennedy F. "The Relations of the Catholic Church and the State In England and Ireland, 1800-52," Historical Studies CI re land! , III (j.961), 19-24. Bouquette, Robert, "Le cent^naire de la hilrarchie catho- lique en Angleterre," Etudes, sixth series, CCLXVII (November, 1950), 253-257. Stuart, C. H., "The Formation of the Coalition Cabinet of 1852," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fifth series, IV (195^)71<:5-68. Biographies

Balfourt Frances, The Life of George. Fourth Earl of 1^3

Aberdeen. 2 vols., London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1922. Blake, Robert, Disraeli, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1967.

Butler, Cuthbert, The Life and Times of Blihop Ullathorne. 1806-1889. London, Burns Oates and Washbourne, Ltd., 19269 Dasent, Arthur Irwin, John Thadeus Delane. Editor of "The Times"> His Life and Correspondence. 2 vols., New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1908,

vGuedalla, Philip, Palmerston. 178*1—1865. New York, G« P, Putnam's Sons, 1927.

Hardcastle, Mary Scarlett, Life of John. Lord Campbell. Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. 2 vols., 2nd ed., London, John Murray, 1881.

Martin, Theodore, The Life of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort. 5 vols., 5th ed., London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1880.

Maxwell, Herbert, The Life and Letters of George William Frederick. Fourth Earl of Clarendon. 2 vols., London, Edward Arnold, 1913.

Monypenny, William Flavelle, and George Earle Buckle, The Life of Ben.lamln Disraeli. Earl of Beaconsfleld. 6 vols., London, John Murray, 1910-1920.

{/ Morley, John, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, 3 vols*, J London, Macml'llan and Co., Limited, 1903.

Parker, Charles Stuart, Life and Letters of Sir James Graham. Second Baronet of Netherby. 1792-1861e 2 vols,, London, John Murray, 1907.

^field, Stuart J., Lord John Russell. New York, Harper & Brothers, 1895.

Walpole, Spencer, The Life of Lord John Russell. 2 vols., London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1M9.

^ Ward, Wilfrid, Thg, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, 2 vols., London, Longmans, Green, and Company, 1897, 1^

Speolal References Brady, William Maziere, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy in England and Scotland, A,D. 1585-1876. London. John hozley Stark, 1883. ~* Gillow, Joseph, A Literary and Biographical History, or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics. from the Break with Rome, in 153*K to the Present Time. 5 vols., London, Burns & Oates, 1885-1902. Henry, h. L., "Catholic Apostolic Church," A New Dic- tionary of Brltlsh History, edited by S. H. Steinberg, New York, St. Martin's Press, IncB, 19&3* P* 60. . "Ecclesiastical Titles Act,," A New Dictionary of Brltlsh History, edited by 3, H."Steinberg, New York, St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1963» pp. 117-118. Histories and Monographs Albion, Gordon, "The Restoration of the Hierarchy, 1850," The English Catholics, 1850-1950* Essays to Commem- orate the Centenary of the Restoration of the Hier- archy of England and Wales, edited by George Andrew Becks London, Burns, Oates, 1950, pp. 86—115«• Aubert, R., Le pontlflcat de Pie IX. 18^-6-1878. Paris, Bloud & Gay, 1952» Briggs, Asa, The Making of Modern England. 1783-1867» The Age of Improvement. New York, Harper Torchbooks, 19%$* Bruun, Geoffrey, Nineteenth-Century European Civilization, 1815-191**-. New York, Oxford University Press, I960. Cesare, R. de, The Last Days of Papal Rome. 1850-1870. translated by Helen Zlmmern, Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1909. /Daniel-Rops, Henri, The Catholic Reformation, translated by John Warrington, 2 vols., Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday Image Books, 196^. » The Church in the Eighteenth Century, trans- lated by John Warrington, London and New York, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 196*1-. Halevy,fille, Th e Age of Peel and Cobdeni A History of the English People. I%ffl-l852. translated~*by E, I. Watkln, New York, , 19^8. 1^5

Hughes, Philip, "The English Catholics in 1850," The Eng- lish Catholics. 1850-1950* Essays to Commemorate the Centenary of the Restoration of the Hierarchy of England and Wales, edited by George Andrew Beck, Lon-, don, Burns, Oates, 1950, pp. *1-2-85• Janelle, Pierre, The Catholic Reformation. Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1963* Jones, Wilbur.Devereux, Lord Derby and Victorian Conserv- atism. Athens, Ga0, University of Georgia Press, 1956* y-'"J or dan, Wilbur Kitchener, The Development of Religious Toleration in England. k vols., Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1932-19^0. Kidd, B. J., The Counter-Reformation. 1550-1600. London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1933* Latourette, Kenneth Scott, The Nineteenth Century in Europe t Background and the Roman Catholic Phase (Vol. II of Christianity in a Revolutionary Age.« A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and "" Twentieth Centuries)9 New York, Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1958. V*Leys, M. D. R., Catholics in England. 1559-1829. A Social History. London, Longmans, 1961 „ "* Marriott, J® A. R., England Since Waterloo. 5th ed., New York and London, G. P. Putnam's Sons, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1922. Nielsen, Frederick, The History of the Papacy in the XIXth Century, translated by Arthur James Mason, 2 vols., London, John Murray, 1906. Seaton, A. A., The Theory of Toleration Under the Later Stuarts (Cambridge Historical Essays, No. XIX), Cam- brldge, University Press, 1911* V Southgate, Donald, The Passing of the Whigs. 1832-1886. London, Macmillan & Co., 19&2. The Times, Editors of, The Tradition Established. 18^1- 188*+ (Vol. II of The History of The TlmesTT New York, The Macmillan Company, 1939« Walpole, Spencer, A History of England from the Conclusion of the Great War in 1815<. 5 vols., London, Longmans, Green, and Co., I806, M

^Ward, Bernard, The Sequel to Catholic Emancipation. 2 vols«» London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1915• V Woodward, Llewellyn, The Age of Reform. 1815-1870. 2nd ed., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1962. Unpublished Studies Kameriok, John J., "Great Britain and the Continental Revolutions of 18*4-8," unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, Department of History, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1950. Balls, Walter A., "The Papal Aggression of I85O1 Its Background and Meaning," unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, 1960', 0