1842-3.
Oxford Commotions of 1842-3--Mr. Newman's Retractation--Correspondence of
Mr. Newman and J. R. Hope on the Subject--Mr. Hope pleads for Mr.
Macmullen--Dr. Pusey suspended for his Sermon on the Holy Eucharist--Seeks
Advice from Mr. Hope--Mr. Newman resigns St. Mary's--Correspondence of Mr.
Newman and Mr. Hope on the 'Lives of the English Saints'--Mr. Ward's
Condemnation--Mr. Hope sees the 'Shadow of the Cross' through the Press--
Engaged with 'Scripture Prints,' 'Pupilla Oculi,' &c.--Lady G. Fullerton's
Recollections of J. R. Hope--He proposes to make a Retreat at Littlemore.
It results in general from the documents furnished in the preceding
chapter, that Mr. Hope's confidence in the Anglican Church had sustained a
severe shock by the Jerusalem Bishopric movement; and from about the year
1842 he seems to have thrown himself with increasing energy into his
professional occupations, not certainly as becoming less religious (for his
was a mind never tempted to the loss of faith), but as being deprived of
that scope which his convictions had formerly presented to him in the
pursuit of ecclesiastical objects. It seems probable, also, that the same
cause was not unconnected with his entering, some years later, into the
married life; the news of which step is known to have fallen like a knell
on the minds of those who looked up to him and shared his religious
feelings, as it appeared a sign that he no longer thought the ideal
perfection presented by the celibate life--which he certainly contemplated
in 1840-1--was congenial with the spirit of the Church of England. That
communion was now losing her hold upon him, though he still could not make
up his mind to leave her, and might conceivably never have done so but for
events which forced the change upon him at last. His professional career
and his habits in domestic life will require to be separately described;
for, though of course they proceeded simultaneously with a large part of
that phase of his existence which is now before us, it would only confuse
the reader to pass continually from one to the other. I propose, therefore,
without any interruption that can be avoided, to go on with the history of
his religious development up to the period of his conversion.
The year 1842, commencing, as we have seen, with the storms of the
Jerusalem Bishopric movement and the Poetry Professorship contest, agitated
also, towards the end of May, by a movement for the repeal of the Statute
of Censure against Dr. Hampden, passed off, for the rest, quietly enough--
at least, Mr. Hope's correspondence shows little to the contrary; but 1843
was marked by much disturbance, commencing early with Mr. Newman's
'Retractation,' which the great leader announced to Mr. Hope in the
following letter a few days before that document appeared in the
'Conservative Journal:'--
_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq._
Littlemore: In fest. Conv. S. Pauli, 1843.
My dear Hope,--In return for your announcement of some change of purpose, I
must tell you of one of my own, in a matter where I told you I was going to
be very quiet.
My conscience goaded me some two months since to an act which comes into
effect, I believe, in the _Conservative Journal_ next Saturday, viz.
to eat a few dirty words of mine. I had intended it for a time of peace,
the beginning of December, but against my will and power the operation has
been delayed, and now, unluckily, falls upon the state of irritation and
suspicion in good Anglicans, which Bernard Smith's step [Footnote: The
conversion of the Rev. Bernard Smith, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.]
has occasioned. I had committed myself when all was quiet. The meeting of
Parliament will, I hope, divert attention.
Ever yrs,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.
P.S.--I am publishing my Univ. Sermons. You got a headache for _one_--
it would be an act of gratitude to send you _all_. Shall I do so?
_J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman._
6 Stone Buildings, Linc. Inn: Feast of Purification [Feb. 2], '43.
Dear Newman,--You will think me ungracious for having so long delayed my
answer to your last, but I did not get hold of the _Conservative
Journal_ till Monday, and have been very busy since.
Perhaps you will like to know what effect your article has produced on me.
Simply this: it has convinced me that you are clearing your position of
some popular protections which still surrounded it. Beyond this I do not
see. I mean it does not show me that, esoterically, you have made any great
move, nor yet that, to the world at large, you are disposed to do more than
say, 'Do not cry me up as a champion against Popery; for the rest, you may
judge of me as you please.' People whom I have heard speak of it (few,
perhaps, but fair samples) are rather puzzled than anything else.
I give you this merely as gossip, and not as asking whether my construction
is right, though if you think it material or useful to tell me, of course I
shall be glad.
I need not say that I shall be very thankful for a copy of your sermons--
that is, if you will write my name in it yourself; otherwise I will buy the
book, for Rivington's 'from the author' does not fix the stamp which I
chiefly value.
Do you observe in the papers that Sir R. P. is designing _great_
things for the Church? It gives me some hopes that they will also be
_good_, to see that Gladstone is in his councils. We shall have much
ado about the Eccl. Courts Bill, which, I believe, is certainly to come on.
I am in some hopes we may make it an instrument for drawing a line between
us and the Dissenters, but must not be sanguine.
Believe me, dear Newman, ever yrs truly,
JAMES R. HOPE.
Rev. J. H. Newman.
Mr. Newman wrote in explanation as follows:--
_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq._
Littlemore: February 3, 1843.
My dear Hope,--It is amusing in me to talk of being tired of giving
explanations, when I have neither given nor mean to give any; but so it is,
whether my hand aches, or I am sick of the subject, I feel as if I have
given a hundred. Since you ask me, I will say, as far as I can collect my
thoughts on an instant, that my reason for writing and publishing that
notice was (but first I will observe that I do not wish it talked about,
though it is not worth while going into the reasons why I did it in the way
I have. I did it thus after a good deal of thought and fidget, and not
seeing any better way, _i.e._ clearer of objections)--but my reason
for the _thing_ was my long-continued feeling of the great
inconsistency I was in of letting things stand in print against me which I
did not hold, and which I could not but be contradicting by my acting every
day of my life. And more especially (_i.e._ it came home to me most
vividly in that particular way) I felt that I was _taking people_ in;
that they thought me what I was not, and were trusting me when they should
not, and this has been at times a very painful feeling indeed. I don't want
to be trusted (perhaps you may think my fear, even before this affair,
somewhat amusing); but so it was and is; people _won't_ believe I go
as far as I do--they will cling to their hopes. And then, again, intimate
friends have almost reproached me with 'paltering with them in a double
sense, keeping the word of promise to their ear, to break it to their
hope.' They have said that my words against Rome often, when narrowly
examined, were only what _I_ meant, but that the effect of them was
what _others_ meant. I am not aware that I have any great motive for
this paper beyond this--setting myself right, and wishing to be seen in my
proper colours, and not unwilling to do such penance for wrong words as
lies in the necessary criticism which such a retractation will involve on
the part of friends and enemies; though, since nothing one does is without
a meaning [that is, higher than one's own], things may come from it beyond
my own meaning.
Thanks for ... the information from newspapers, which you give me, of our
hopes from Sir R. P., which I had not seen in them.
By-the-bye, in the paper, for 'person's respect' near the end, read
'persons I respect;' and 'to the editor' is fudge.
Ever yours,
J. H. NEWMAN.
P.S.--Thanks for your flattering answers about my book. It must go,
however, from Rivington's with 'from the author,' and I will add my own
writing when we meet. Since you have had a specimen of the book (dose?), I
may add, in opposition to you, that it will be the best, not the most
perfect, book I have done. I mean there is more to develop in it, though it
is _im_perfect. [Footnote: A week later (February 10, 1843) he writes
to Mr. Hope: 'My University Sermons are the least theological book I have
published.']
The famous case of Macmullen _versus_ Hampden was disturbing the
University for most of the latter half of the same year 1843. I can only
give a mere chronological outline of it, which may assist such readers as
wish to pursue the subject in consulting other sources of information. The
Regius Professor of Divinity, Dr. Hampden, had refused to act as Moderator
in the Schools, to enable the Rev. E. G. Macmullen, Fellow of Corpus
Christi College, to make his exercises for the degree of B.D. [Mr.
Macmullen, it should be remarked, was a strong opponent of the project at
that time before the University, mentioned a few pages back, to reverse the
condemnation which had been passed on Dr. Hampden when he was first
appointed Regius Professor of Divinity.] Mr. Macmullen, on this refusal,
brought an action into the Vice-Chancellor's Court on May 26, 1843, where,
on June 2, Dr. Kenyon of All Souls' presiding, Mr. Hope appeared for Mr.
Macmullen, Dr. Twiss on the other side. Dr. Kenyon pronounced in his favour
on certain amended articles. Dr. Twiss appealed to the Delegates of
Congregation (none of them lawyers), who heard the appeal on November 29,
sitting from ten in the morning till seven at night. Mr. Erle and Dr. Twiss
both spoke against the articles, and were replied to by Mr. Hope. The Court
ultimately gave judgment against the articles, reversing Dr. Kenyon's
decision, and gave costs against Mr. Macmullen. [Footnote: For this outline
of the proceedings in Macmullen _v_. Hampden, I am indebted to
accurate memoranda kindly furnished me by Mr. David Lewis, late Fellow of
Jesus College, Oxford.] Mr. Badeley's bitter comment will amuse the reader:
'Mischievous idiots! and so all the conclusive arguments you put before
them, are set at nought, and the battle is to be fought again!' [Footnote:
Mr. Badeley to Mr. Hope, January 6, 1844] However, there was no further
litigation, and in the end Mr. Macmullen succeeded in obtaining his degree,
the old form of disputations for that purpose being restored, which has
ever since been in force. It should be added that Mr. Hope's services in
this case, undertaken amidst all the pressure of his ordinary legal work,
were gratuitous.
In the summer of 1843 took place another critical moment of the strife in
Dr. Pusey's suspension from preaching, by sentence of the Vice-Chancellor's
Court, for his sermon 'On the Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent.' In
the question of his appeal against this, which was matter of anxiety for
more than a twelvemonth, it is almost needless to say that he sought the
advice of Mr. Hope. The Everett affair, on Commemoration Day (June 28),
will have its place in every chronicle of the movement. This was a protest
on the part of members of the Tractarian party against an honorary degree
conferred in the teeth of a demand for scrutiny (which, however, it was
asserted had not been heard in the din), on the American Envoy, Mr.
Everett, who was a Unitarian. Mr. Hope, however, was not present; and I
mention this only as one of the many signs of the times which were then
rapidly accumulating. Nor did he take any part in the opposition made in
the following year to Dr. Symonds' election as Vice-Chancellor, though he
was consulted, in the law of the case, with Mr. Badeley and Dr. Bayford. It
ended in a crushing defeat of the Tractarians, who were beaten by a
majority of 882 against 183.
In September 1843 Mr. Newman resigned the vicarage of St. Mary's. On this
step Mr. Hope, writing to him on September 28, says that he had not
differed from him about it, but, 'as to the general tendency of which you
described the increase [Mr. Newman's expression (September 5) was: 'The
movement is going on so fast that some of the wheels are catching fire'],
all I can do is to sit still and wait the issue.'
The 'Lives of the English Saints' were at this time in preparation, the
importance of which in the history of the movement is too well known from
Cardinal Newman's 'Apologia' and from other sources to require me to
enlarge upon it. At length there was no disguise or reservation, but
sympathy was openly avowed by members of the Anglican Church for the whole
spirit hitherto associated with the idea of 'the corruptions of Popery'--as
monasticism, the continued exercise of miraculous power in the Church,
finally, the supremacy of the Holy See. From a copious correspondence which
followed between the two friends, I extract, as usual, such portions as
will throw most light on the progressive change in Mr. Hope's religious
convictions. His sense of prudence, and the bias derived from his
particular legal studies, restrain, rather curiously, the inclination which
his feelings in other directions show; but it is best to let him speak for
himself:--_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq_.
Littlemore: Nov. 2, '43.
My dear Hope,--[After stating the perplexity he felt on the question of
stopping the 'Lives,' which appeared to present itself in consequence of an
objection expressed by Dr. Pusey, in conversation with Mr. Hope, against
the Roman tone which had been manifested, Mr. Newman continues:] I did not
explain to you sufficiently the state of mind of those who are in danger. I
only spoke of those who are convinced that our Church was external to the
Church Catholic, though they felt it unsafe to trust their own private
convictions. And you seemed to put the dilemma, 'Either men are in doubt or
not: if in doubt, they ought to be quiet; if not in doubt, how is it that
they stay with us?' But there are two other states of mind which might be
mentioned. 1. Those who are unconsciously near Rome, and whose
_despair_ about our Church, if anyhow caused, would at once develop
into a state of conscious approximation and _quasi_-resolution to go
over. 2. Those who feel they can with a safe conscience remain with us,
_while_ they are allowed to testify in behalf of Catholicism, and to
promote its interests; _i.e_. as if by such acts they were putting our
Church, or at least a portion of it, in which they are included, in the
position of catechumens. They think they may stay, while they are moving
themselves, others, nay, say the whole Church, towards Rome. Is not this an
intelligible ground? I should like your opinion of it....
Ever yours sincerely,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.
_J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman_.
6 Stone Buildings, Linc. Inn: Nov. 4, '43.
Dear Newman,--... As to the Roman leaning, no doubt your 'Lives,' at least
many of them, must evince it; no doubt also that, unless carefully managed,
it will give offence. But may not caution obviate the latter? Is it not
possible to _commence_ by lives which will not at once bring the whole
set into popular disrepute? the less palatable ones being kept for a more
advanced stage. May it not also be provided that in an historical work, a
purely historical character shall be given to what as matter of fact cannot
be denied, and which can only be objected to when it is adopted by the
writers as a matter of principle in which they themselves concur? To the
asceticism, devotion, and anti-secular spirit of the English saints we are,
under every point of view, entitled to refer; and if any part of these
virtues was displayed in necessary relation to Rome, or to Roman
institutions, this in a portraiture of their lives cannot be omitted, but
certainly need not be canonised as amongst their merits. It seems to me
possible simply to take the Church of their times as _the_ Church,
without entering into the question whether any of the conditions under
which it then existed are necessary for its existence now. And so their
acts done in relation to the Church of their day may be dwelt upon, while
the further question whether the Church of our day is capable of eliciting
such acts may be left to the judgment of the reader.
I am not sure that I have made myself intelligible in this, and still less
whether it is worth your reading, but I fancied that you wished an opinion,
and I give it, _valeat quantum_....
Yrs ever truly,
JAMES R. HOPE.
Rev. J. H. Newman.
_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq._
Littlemore: Nov. 6, 1843.
My dear Hope,-- ... You have not gone to the bottom of the difficulty. It
is very easy to say, Give facts without comment; but in the first place,
what can be so dry as mere facts? the book won't sell, nor deserve to sell.
It must be ethical; but to be ethical is merely to colour a narrative with
one's own mind, and to give a _tone_ to it. Now this is the
difficulty, altering this or that passage, leaving out this or that
expression, will not alter the case. I will not answer for being aware of
the tone in myself. Pusey put his finger on passages which I had not
thought about. Is he to be ever marking passages? if so, he has the real
trouble of being editor, not I.
_Naturam expellas furca_, &c. Is the Pope's supremacy the only point
on which no opinion is to be expressed? if so, why? It is not more against
the Articles to _desire_ it than to desire monachism. Will it offend
more than others? I will not limit certainly the degree of disgust which
some people will feel towards it, but do they feel less towards the notion
of monks, or, again, of miracles? Now Church history is made up of these
three elements--miracles, monkery, Popery. If any sympathetic feeling is
expressed on behalf of the persons and events of Church history, it is a
feeling in favour of miracles, or monkery, or Popery, one or all. It is
quite a theory to talk of being ethical, yet not concur in these elements
of the narrative--unless, indeed, one adopts Milner's or Neander's device
of dropping part of the history, praising what one has a fancy for, and
thus putting a theory and dream in the place of facts. But it is bad enough
to be eclectic in _doctrine._
Next it must be recollected how very much depends on the disposition,
relative prominence, &c., of facts; it is quite impossible that a leaning
to Rome, a strong offensive leaning, should be hidden.
And then still more it must be recollected that a _vast_ number of
questions, and most important ones, are decided this way or that on
antecedent probabilities, according to a person's views, _e.g._ the
question between St. Augustine and the British Bishops--of Easter--of King
Lucius, &c. &c. Opinion comes in at every step of the history.
From what I have said you will see that I consider it impossible to choose
_easy_ 'Lives' for the first of the series; there are none such, or if
there be a few, when can I promise to have them ready? I suppose Bede must
be pretty easy. Keble has it. I do not expect him to send it to me for
several years, with his engagements. Take missions, take Bishops, the Pope
comes in everywhere. Go to Aldhelm and his schools; you have most strange
miracles. Try to retire into the country, you do but meet with hermits. No;
miracles, monkery, Popery, are too much for you, if you have any
stomach....
The life P. looked at, St. Stephen's, was taken as having hardly, if at
all, any miracle in it. If he thinks it will give offence, doubtless the
others will still more.
You see, in saying all this I am not deciding the question whether the work
is to be done _at all._ On that point I have had great doubt since
P.'s objection. Only to do it without offence is impossible, and the more
so because, in parts at least, it is likely to be a very taking work....
And then so many 'Lives' are in progress or preparation, that it is most
unlikely the work will be stopped; others will conduct it instead of me who
will go further; and though this is a bad reason for doing oneself what one
feels a misgiving in doing, it is a good reason when one feels none at
all....
If the plan is abandoned, this significant question will be, nay, is
already asked--'What, then, cannot the Anglican Church bear the Lives of
her Saints?'
Ever yrs,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.
_J.R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J.H. Newman._
6 Stone Bdgs, Linc. Inn: Nov. 8, '43.
Dear Newman,--Your last shows me plainly what I had not before understood,
that the question of the 'Lives' depends immediately upon that larger one
which your previous letter had mooted, and that to solve it one must know
more than I do of the conclusions at which you have arrived as to the
claims of Rome, and as to the mode, time, and circumstances in and under
which those claims ought to be recognised. I feel therefore very
incompetent to offer any further suggestion. When I last wrote I thought
the questions separable, and meant that the Roman parts of your histories
should be treated dramatically (if I may so say), being represented really
and faithfully, but only as the scenery in which the actors stood. Your
letter shows me that this cannot be, unless your writers have more self-
command, and more disposition to exercise it than men in earnest can be
expected to have. I must therefore ask, what is your general view as to
Rome? Is union with it immediately _necessary_? or is it only
_desirable_--under new circumstances and at some distant period? If
the former, then one would think that the question should be openly and
professedly discussed, the arguments given and the authorities stated. If
the latter, I should imagine that much remains to be done, in the way of
raising the general tone of our Church in matters of faith and practice,
before it can be fit to deal with such a question; and though you think
monachism, miracles, and Popery inseparably allied, yet I feel convinced
that there are many minds prepared to consider the two former
which have no disposition to the latter.
On either view, then, I think that a work which is addressed only or
principally to men's feelings would be mistimed--it would not convince of
the necessity, and it would find but a small number of men disposed at
present to give it their sympathy.
There are, indeed, those other considerations which you mention respecting
the minds which would find relief in being allowed to dwell upon the
subject, and so might be the better persuaded to remain within our
communion; but, on the other hand, there is the risk of provoking such
conduct on the part of the Bishops and others as would drive some out, and
render the position of those who remained more difficult than ever. And
surely it would be most unfair to take the measure of what the Church of
England allows on this or any other difficult point in theology from what
might happen to be the view of men such as our present rulers, upon whom
the whole question has come unawares, and whose prejudices upon this point
in particular, backed by the secular policy of the State for 300 years,
would be pretty sure to lead them to some active, and probably united
censure. I wish therefore, much, that minds of this class could be
persuaded that it is not the Church of England which they are testing, but
a disorderly body which ten years ago did not know what it was, and is now
only gradually becoming conscious; and that if they can satisfy themselves
that the views they entertain are compatible with what they deem the true
theory of the Church of England, they would be content to hold them quietly
for the present, and not risk themselves and others upon so doubtful a
venture.
This, I think, is all that I can say--being confessedly in the dark upon
the most material points; but if you should think it useful either to
myself or to others to give me a full statement you shall have my best
judgment. Your confidence I have no other claim upon than that which arises
from my disposition to put confidence in you--to think that you know better
than any one else the real difficulties of our present position, and that
you can look at the remedy, however painful, firmly and practically.
Whatever, therefore, approves itself to you, I am anxious to know, as
furnishing for myself, if not the best conclusion, yet the best hope of a
conclusion--the best track into which to let my thoughts run. But beyond
what you may think good for me in these respects I have no right to ask,
and I do not ask for your thoughts. They probably would be above and beyond
me, and the responsibility of knowing them would outweigh the use which I
should be able to make of them. [Footnote: To this letter of Mr. Hope's I
do not find a reply of Mr. Newman's until November 26, when he apologises
for having kept him in suspense, adding: 'So far from your not having
written to the purpose, you laid down one proposition in which I quite
acquiesce; that the subject of the supremacy of Rome should be moved
_argumentatively_, if at all. I felt I had gained something here, and
rested upon it, and gave up answering you, as it turns out, selfishly.' At
the end of the letter he says: 'As to myself, I don't like talking; when we
meet we shall see how we feel about it.' His reserve may, I think, be
safely accounted for by his great unwillingness that such a man as Mr. Hope
should be swayed by him to an act to which, as yet, he himself did not feel
himself called.]
Yrs ever truly,
JAMES R. HOPE.
Rev. J. H. Newman.
In a letter to Mr. Newman dated the following day, November 9, Mr. Hope
criticises, on the side of caution, various passages in the 'Life of St.
Stephen Harding' (by Mr. J. D. Dalgairns, afterwards so well known as
Father Dalgairns, of the London Oratory), the first and most celebrated of
the series, proofs of which Mr. Newman had sent to him for his opinion.
These criticisms chiefly relate to expressions which might offend ordinary
Anglican readers, and which Mr. Hope proposed to soften. Mr. Newman in the
end noted against almost all these expressions _stet_. He remarks to
Mr. Hope (December 11): 'It seemed to me that, considering the _tone_
of the whole composition, an alteration of the word (_e.g._) "merit"
was like giving milk and water for a fit of the gout, while it destroyed
its integrity, vigour--in a word, its go.' Again: 'I am convinced that
those passages are _not_ flying in people's faces, but are parts of a
whole, and express ideas which cannot _otherwise_ be expressed.'
These points were rather matter of prudence as viewed by Mr. Hope; on two
others, touching the questions of 'exemptions' and 'impropriations,' Mr.
Hope appears to have been himself unable to go along with the view of the
writer of the 'Life of St. Stephen,' whom he considered to defend the
_principles_ of exemption too far. Mr. Newman here conceded some
alterations, which, however, I am unable to state, not having the proof
before me, which Mr. Hope does not quote, but, as finally given, the
passages referred to may be found in the 'Life of St. Stephen Harding,' pp.
47-49 and 65.
In the same letter of December 11 Mr. Newman informs Mr. Hope that he had
resolved on giving up the 'Lives' as a series, and publishing such as were
in type, or were written, as separate works. His comment on the motives
which had led him to this decision is of great interest:--
I assure you, to find that the English Church cannot bear the Lives of her
Saints (for so I will maintain, in spite of Gladstone, is the fact) does
not tend to increase my faith and confidence in her. Nor am I abandoning
_publication_ because I abandon this particular measure. Rather, I
consider I have been silent now for several years on subjects of the day,
and need not fear now to speak.... If these ['Lives,' as separate works]
gradually mount up to the fulness of such an idea as the 'Lives of the
Saints' contemplated in process of time, well and good.
He had said in a letter to Mr. Hope of December 5: 'G.'s remarks have shown
me the _hopelessness_, by delay or any other means, of escaping the
disapprobation of a number of persons whom I very much respect.' This was
in reply to a letter of Mr. Hope's of the same day, which I found it
difficult to introduce in its chronological order, and which may
conveniently be placed here, as Mr. Hope in it clearly shows that his
sympathies, notwithstanding his difficulties, went with the 'Lives,' and,
like himself, backs his moral support with open-handed liberality:--
_J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman._
Dec. 5, '43.
Dear Newman,--I enclose the proofs and Gladstone's remarks. The great point
made by him here, as elsewhere, at present, is non-estrangement from the
existing Ch. of E.; and in this many who are disposed to quarrel with the
Reformation are yet heartily disposed to join. In fact, I suppose it will
shortly become, if it be not already, the symbol of a party. To that party
I do not feel myself at all strongly drawn, and therefore do not sympathise
in G.'s views about the _Life_; but if his views be a fair
representative of the best class of opinions such as I allude to, you may
conclude that the high Anglicans will be against you. Of the middle and low
there never, I suppose, was a doubt.
For my own part, I read the sheets greedily, and felt that they took me
back to subjects which were once much in my thoughts, and ought never to
have got so far out of them as they have. Nor was I at all put out by the
general tone which seems to me inseparable from the subject; but here and
there are passages which I think needlessly direct and pointed, so much so
indeed as to appear, merely in point of composition, abrupt and wilful.
These I think I could point out. G., you see, thinks his objections
separable from the main design, which seems to me hardly possible--perhaps
you will think the same of mine, but they relate only to isolated passages,
and rather to giving them obliqueness than to changing them altogether.
However, I do not mean to say that I could suggest anything which would
obviate G[ladstone]'s difficulties, and these are, after all, your main
subjects for consideration. What effect they will have upon you I cannot
certainly conclude, but in case they should incline you either to delay or
to total giving up, I have only to say that I shall be glad to contribute
one or two hundred pounds towards defraying the expenses.... In fact, if
upon any public eccl. grounds the work is to be delayed or not to go on, I
cannot see that my money could be more fitly bestowed than in facilitating
the arrangement.
Yours ever truly,
JAMES R. HOPE.
Rev. J. H. Newman.
No need was eventually found for the liberal offer with which the above
letter concludes. The following letter, though rather a long one, is
certainly not likely to fatigue the reader, and seems almost necessary to
be given, in order to complete this part of my subject:--
_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq._
Oriel College: Dec. 16, 1843.
My dear Hope,--You have not understood me about Gladstone, doubtless
through my own fault. The truth is, I am making a great concession--not to
him, but to my respectful feelings towards him. I thought you could see it,
and only feared you would think it greater than it really was. So I tried
to put you on your guard.
1. I withdraw _my name_ from _any plan_. This is no slight thing.
I have frequent letters from people I do not know on the subject of the
Lives of the Saints, and doubt not it is raising much talk and interest. A
name always gives point to an undertaking--considering my connection with
the Tracts of the Times, it would especially to this. You yourself and
Badeley (whom, please, thank for some kind trouble he has been at about a
book for me) said, 'Delay the plan, _for_ you will be putting
_yourself_ at the head of the extreme party--the B[ritish] C[ritic]
having stopped:' now, I am more than _delaying_, I am withdrawing my
name. I am sure this is a great thing, even though my initials occurred to
this or that life.
2. I have given up continuity, and that certain and promised. 128 pp. were
to come out every month, and the work was to go on to the end, except as
unforeseen accidents interfered (as they have). Now we know how difficult
it is to keep people up to their work. The work is now left to the
unpledged zeal of individuals. And there will be nothing methodical or
periodical in it to force itself upon people.
I do consider, then, I have given up a very great deal. But what I have not
given up is the _wish_ that the work should be done; only I have put
it under great disadvantages--so great that I do not think it ever will be
done--at the utmost fragments will be done--and that without method,
precision, unity, and a name.
And why have I done this? 1. Sincerely because I thought both by heading it
and by giving it system I should be administering a continual blister to
the kind feelings towards me, and the conscientious views of persons I
respect as I do G. I assure you it is no pleasant thing to me to lose their
good opinion, tho' I can't expect much to keep it. 2. I fear to put up
something the Bishops may aim at. I may be charged at, as the Tracts have
been. Then J. should be in a very false position. I must move forward or
backward, and I dread compulsory moves. 3. What is the most immediate and
practical point, I don't think I could get a publisher to take on him the
_expense_ of a _series_, but few people would dread the risk of a
single life of one or two hundred pages. Accordingly, I think I shall
publish the one of which you saw a bit at once, to see whether it sells.
That I shall to a certain extent be connected with it, and that I shall aim
at making it a series, is certain; and this, as I said, was my reason for
warning you that I was not giving way to G. so fully as I appeared to be.
Ever yrs affly,
J. H. NEWMAN.
P.S.--... What set me most urgently on my present notice was that _I
could not help it_. Though I gave up my series, which I wished to do,
_Lives remained_, written or printed, or promised, _which would
appear anyhow_, or scarcely could not.
The great event connected with the movement in 1844 was the publication of
Ward's 'Ideal of a Christian Church,' which at first caused less excitement
than might have been expected, at least in London. Thus Mr. Badeley writes
to Mr. Hope (October 26), 'Ward's book passes very quietly here at
present;' and again (November 8), 'The book here makes very little noise.'
But meanwhile the heads of Houses were moving at Oxford, and on February
13, 1845, a memorable day, the book was condemned, and its author deprived
of his degrees by the House of Convocation. Mr. Hope was absent on the
Continent at the beginning of the strife, to which his letters do not
contain much allusion. Perhaps the same motives of caution upon which he
objected to the 'strong meat' of the 'Lives of the English Saints' would
have led him to similar views as to the extreme unreserve of the 'Ideal.'
When, however, the question of Mr. Ward's condemnation came on, he voted
against it, as he was sure to have done if he voted at all. It is hardly
necessary to remind the reader that on the same occasion it was proposed to
pass a censure on No. 90; but this was vetoed by the proctors, and
consequently never came to the vote. I find the following draft of an
address of thanks to the proctors in Mr. Gladstone's hand, and with the
subjoined signatures and date in Mr. Hope's, among the Hope-Scott papers:--
We the u.s. M. of C., understanding that you have resolved to put your
negative upon the Proposal relating to the Ninetieth Tract in Convocation
on Thursday, the 13th instant, beg leave to tender to you our cordial
thanks for a determination which we consider to have been demanded by the
principles of our Academical Constit^n.
W. E. G.
Manning and self. Feby. 11, '45. J. R. H.
As far as regards Mr. Gladstone, this ought to be compared with a
correspondence in the Oakeley case, which will be found cited _infra_,
p. 58.
To the earlier part of the period now before us belongs some very kind
service rendered by Mr. Hope to his dear friend the Rev. W. Adams, Fellow
of Merton, and Perpetual Curate of St. Peter's-in-the-East, Oxford, in
seeing through the press his celebrated allegory, 'The Shadow of the
Cross,' on which there is a rather full correspondence extant (1842-43),
but of more special interest as connected with Mr. Adams' biography than
his own, except so far as it proves the affectionate intimacy which
subsisted between them. One letter of later date (December 15, 1846)
is endorsed in Mr. Hope-Scott's handwriting:--'William Adams, R. I. P.
sub 'umbra crucis.' J. R. H. S. 1871.' The work was published for the
Christian Knowledge Society, of the committee of which Mr. Hope at the
time was still a member. In connection with the same society Mr. Hope
undertook a serial work, already alluded to (which was in course of
publication in 1844), consisting of engravings from Scripture subjects,
in a high style of art, from the cartoons of Raphael in the Loggia of the
Vatican. Mr. Hope was strongly impressed with the utility of such a work
for directing and elevating the taste of the humbler classes and of
schools generally, and he expended large sums of money in bringing this
out. It was published in numbers containing six plates each, under the
superintendence of Professor Gruner, afterwards Director of the Department
of Engravings at the Royal Museum at Dresden, and prepared by Signor
Corsini, a distinguished Roman draughtsman. Mr. Hope-Scott, indeed,
did not carry on the work after the first five numbers (a large and
costly business, however), and it was completed by Mr. Gruner alone,
who published it under the title of 'Scripture Prints from the Frescoes
of Raphael in the Vatican,' edited by Louis Gruner, &c. (London:
Houlston and Wright, 1866). Mr. Hope-Scott continued his benefactions
to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel for several years later
than the time now before us. I find a donation of 210_l_. under his
name in the year 1847. He had given 200_l_. in November 1846 to the
College Chapel at Harrow Weald.
Another undertaking of some importance in which he took great interest in
those days, relating both to literature and religion, was the 'Anglia
Christiana,' a series of the monuments of English history, which was
publishing in 1844-45. Only three volumes of it came out--'Chronicon
Monasterii de Bello' (Battle Abbey), Giraldus Cambrensis 'de Institutione
Principis,' and 'Liber Eliensis.' Mr. Hope much wished to have had included
in the list the work called 'Pupilla Oculi,' a treatise on moral theology
by John de Burgh, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge about the year
1385, which was much in use among the clergy before the Reformation. Mr.
David Lewis, of Jesus College (as a Catholic so well known for his
admirable translations of the works of St. John of the Cross and of St.
Teresa), collated the text for him, but I believe it was never published. I
find in the Badeley correspondence a very interesting letter of Mr. Hope's
dated February 28, 1843, about the 'Pupilla Oculi,' its history and
authority. The book had been cited by Mr. Badeley in the Court of Queen's
Bench, and by others in the House of Lords, in the case of the Queen v.
Willis. Lord Lyndhurst and some of the judges objected to its value as
evidence on the ground of its contradicting the common law on the question
of legitimation by subsequent marriage. Mr. Hope discusses the subject in a
masterly style: I must refrain from quoting such merely antiquarian or
legal matter for its own sake, yet will subjoin some paragraphs of the
letter which illustrate the line taken by him as a lawyer at that time on
the important point of the relations of Church and State:--
There can be, I think, little doubt that in old times the distinction
between Church and State was one of jurisdictions rather than of laws. I
mean that each was supposed to have its proper subject-matter of
legislation as well as of judicial inquiry. Where the subject-matter was
conceded to the Church altogether, there the Church law prevailed
absolutely; where the subject-matter was of mixed cognizance, there the
Church law was modified by the common or the statute law; where the subject
was altogether lay, there both the laws and the tribunals of the Church
were silenced. When, therefore, we would ascertain whether the law of the
Church is to govern a given subject, we must first ascertain how far it was
of the exclusive cognizance of the Church; and, if we find that it was
principally but not exclusively of ecclesiastical cognizance, how far the
common law interfered to modify the ecclesiastical laws by which it was to
be determined.
Now, in the case before us, this much, I think, must be admitted, viz. that
marriage, as a sacrament, was exclusively subject to the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction; and, therefore, that whatever view the common law might
entertain as to the consequence to be attached to this or that form of it,
the essence of the sacrament itself was determinable by the doctrine of the
Church, and by that alone.
But if this was so, then whatever was accepted by the Church of England as
to the essence of marriage must necessarily be allowed to have been the
common law upon that point, i.e. there could be no other law by which it
could be decided.
Granting, therefore, that J. de Burgh, or any other ecclesiastical writer,
has laid down rules upon subjects of mixed jurisdiction which the common
law disallows, it by no means follows that his authority is to be slighted
where he speaks of matters that were exclusively ecclesiastical. Indeed,
the opposition of the common law upon given points, e.g. the legitimation
by subsequent marriage, gives a pregnant meaning to its silence upon
others.
I find that in the autumn of that year (1843) Mr. Hope spent some time in
making researches into the records at York connected with the law of
marriage. In a letter to Mr. Badeley (September 28) he says, 'At York I was
successful in finding a variety of matrimonial causes, from A.D. 1301
downwards, which I think illustrate the right view of the question. The
records there abound in well-preserved forms of proceeding, and it was with
regret that I gave up further investigations. The labour, however, of
reading and transcribing extracts was occasionally harder than suits
holiday work.' In the same letter he speaks with much pleasure of a day
spent at Burton Agnes with Archdeacons E. Wilberforce, Manning, &c., and as
particularly indebted to the Archbishop of York and his family for the
reception they gave him. The correspondence, indeed, affords a gracious
epistle from the Archbishop himself (then nearly eighty-six years of age)
to Mr. Hope, dated Trentham, September 30, 1843, in which, after expressing
his high satisfaction at some legal advice which he had received from him,
he goes on to say:--
I have only to add that nothing could gratify us more than your having
occasion--and the sooner the better--to refer again to the York archives
for any purpose whatever; 'provided always, and be it hereby enacted, that
such reference be had during the period of the Archbishop's annual
residence at Bishopthorpe.'
Ever truly yrs,
E. EBOR.
It may here be permitted me to quote a few lines from memoranda about Mr.
Hope, kindly written at the request of one of his nearest relatives by a
lady whose genius as well as catholic feeling especially fitted her to
preserve those traces which I am sure no reader would wish should be
allowed to fade away. They afford at once a proof that when doubts as to
his religious position were approaching their most painful stage, he never
allowed them to interfere with those duties of religion which are binding
on all intellectual states alike, and they present a glimpse both of his
appearance and manner at that date which will greatly assist the reader in
forming an idea of him.
I think it was in 1843 that I first saw your dear brother in Margaret
Street Chapel, the favourite place of worship of the Puseyites in those
days, and noticed him and his friend Mr. Badeley walking away together, and
was more struck with his appearance than with that of any other person I
have ever seen before or since.... It is only in pictures that I have ever
seen anything equalling, and never anything surpassing, what was, at the
time I am speaking of, the ideal beauty of his face and figure.
During the next two years I used often to see him at Margaret Street
Chapel, and I may say that his recollection in prayer and unaffected
devotion made a strong impression upon me. Having been very little in
England since my childhood, it was quite a new thing to me to see a layman
in the Anglican Church so devout, but without a tinge of fanaticism or
apparent excitement. In 1844 I made acquaintance with Mr. Hope, and met him
occasionally in society. He was all that his appearance would have led one
to expect; the charm of his manner enhanced the effect of his
conversational powers. [Footnote: Lady Georgiana Fullerton to Lady Henry
Kerr, May 5 [1881].]
I have not found any record of Mr. Hope's personal religious state about
that time, like the diaries of his earlier manhood. He writes, however, to
Mr. Newman on March 1, 1844 (from Lincoln's Inn): 'If I can manage it, I
should much like to spend Passion Week at or near Oxford. Could you let me
into the guest-chamber at Littlemore?' Mr. Newman (March 14) writes in
reply that the guest-chamber was quite at his service, but adds: 'Pray do
not fancy us in such a state that we can profess a retreat, or any one here
able to conduct one.' In another letter Mr. Newman acknowledges 'a splendid
benefaction' of Mr. Hope's to the house of Littlemore.