Memoirs of James Robert Hope-Scott, Volume 2 by Robert Ornsby

This page contains affiliate links. As Amazon Associates we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • 1884
Buy it on Amazon FREE Audible 30 days

Charles Aldarondo, Tiffany Vergon, Jerry Fairbanks, Charles Franks, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.











CHAPTER XVIII. 1841, 1842.

Mr. Hope’s Pamphlet on the Jerusalem Bishopric–His Value for the Canon Law–Continued Correspondence of Mr. Hope and Mr. Newman on the Jerusalem Bishopric–Mr. Newman’s Idea of a Monastery–Mr. Newman writes from Littlemore, April 22,1842–Dr. Pusey consults Mr. Hope on his Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury–Dr. Pusey and the Jerusalem Bishopric–Letters of Archdeacon Manning, Mr. W. Palmer, Sir John T. Coleridge, Sir F. Palgrave, Bishop Philpotts, and Count Senfft, on Mr. Hope’s Pamphlet

CHAPTER XIX. 1842, 1843.

Oxford Commotions of 1842-43–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

CHAPTER XX. 1844, 1845.

Mr. Hope’s Tour on the Continent in 1844–Visit to Munich–Dr. Pusey’s ‘Library of Roman Catholic Works’–Dr. Pusey and the Spiritual Exercises– His Opinion of the Discipline–Mr. Hope’s Visit to Tetschen in 1844–Count Leo Thun and his Friends–Mr. Hope’s Interview with Prince Metternich–The Hon. Sir R. Gordon, Ambassador at Vienna–Visit to Prince Palffy and to Prince Liechtenstein–The Hungarian Diet at Presburg–Letter of Manzoni to J. R. Hope–Visit to Rome–Bishop Grant and Mr. Hope–Mr. Hope resigns Chancellorship of Salisbury–Dr. Pusey and the Stone Altar Case–Mr. Oakeley and Mr. Hope–Scottish Episcopalian Church and its Office–Mr. Gladstone endeavours to hold Mr. Hope back–Proposes Tour in Ireland– Conversion of Mr. Newman–Mr. Hope on the Essay on Development–Letter of Mr. Newman to J. R. Hope from Rome–Reopening of Correspondence with Mr. Newman

CHAPTER XXI. 1845-1851.

Mr. Hope’s Doubts of Anglicanism–Correspondence with Mr. Gladstone– Correspondence of J. R. Hope and Mr. Gladstone continued–Mr. Gladstone advises Active Works of Charity–Bishop Philpotts advises Mr. Hope to go into Parliament–Mr. Hope and Mr. Gladstone in Society–Mr. Hope on the Church Affairs of Canada–Dr. Hampden, Bishop of Hereford–The Troubles at Leeds–Mr. Hope on the Jewish Question, &c.–The Gorham Case–The Curzon Street Resolutions–The ‘Papal Aggression’ Commotion–Correspondence of Mr. Hope and Mr. Manning–Their Conversion–Opinions of Friends on Mr. Hope’s Conversion–Mr. Gladstone–Father Roothaan, F.G. Soc. Jes., to Count Senfft–Dr. Dollinger–Mr. Hope to Mr. Badeley–Conversion of Mr. W. Palmer

CHAPTER XXII. 1839-1869.

Review of Mr. Hope’s Professional Career–His View of Secular Pursuits– Advice from Archdeacon Manning against Overwork–Early Professional Services to Government–J. R. Hope adopts the Parliamentary Bar–His Elements of Success–Is made Q.C.–Difficulty about Supremacy Oath–Mr. Venables on Mr. Hope-Scott as a Pleader–Recollections of Mr. Cameron–Mr. Hope-Scott on his own Profession–Mr. Hope-Scott’s Professional Day– Regular History of Practice not Feasible–Specimens of Cases: 1. The Caledonian Railway interposing a Tunnel. 2. Award by Mr. Hope-Scott and R, Stephenson. 3. Mersey Conservancy and Docks Bill, ‘Parliamentary Hunting- day,’ Liverpool and Manchester compared. 4. London, Brighton, and South Coast and the Beckenham Line. 5. Scottish Railways–an Amalgamation Case– Mr. Hope-Scott and Mr. Denison; Honourable Conduct of Mr. Hope-Scott as a Pleader. 6. Dublin Trunk Connecting Railway. 7. Professional Services of Mr. Hope-Scott to Eton–Claims of Clients on Time–Value of Ten Minutes– Conscientiousness–Professional Income–Extra Occupations–Affection of Mr. Hope-Scott for Father Newman–Spirit in which he laboured

CHAPTER XXIII. 1847-1858.

Mr. Hope’s Engagement to Charlotte Lockhart–Memorial of Charlotte Lockhart–Their Marriage–Mr. Lockhart’s Letter to Mr. J. R. Hope on his Conversion–Filial Piety of Mr. Hope–Conversion of Lord and Lady Henry Kerr–Domestic Life at Abbotsford–Visit of Dr. Newman to Abbotsford in 1852–Birth of Mary Monica Hope-Scott–Bishop Grant on Early Education–Mr. Lockhart’s Home Correspondence–Death of Walter Lockhart Scott–Mr. Hope takes the Name of Hope-Scott–Last Illness and Death of Mr. Lockhart– Death of Lady Hope–Letter of Lord Dalhousie–Mr. Hope-Scott purchases a Highland Estate–Death of Mrs. Hope-Scott and her Two Infants–Letters of Mr. Hope-Scott, in his Affliction, to Dr. Newman and Mr. Gladstone–Verses in 1858–Letter of Dr. Newman on receiving them

CHAPTER XXIV. 1859-1870.

Mr. Hope-Scott’s Return to his Profession–Second Marriage–Lady Victoria Howard–Mr. Hope-Scott at Hyeres–Portraits of Mr. Hope-Scott– Miscellaneous Recollections–Mr. Hope-Scott in the Highlands–Ways of Building–Story of Second-sight at Lochshiel

CHAPTER XXV. 1867-1869.

Visit of Queen Victoria to Abbotsford in 1867–Mr. Hope-Scott’s Improvements at Abbotsford–Mr. Hope-Scott’s Polities–Toryism in Early Life–Constitutional Conservatism–Mr. Hope-Scott as an Irish and a Highland Proprietor–Correspondence on Politics with Mr. Gladstone, and with Lord Henry Kerr in 1868–Speech at Arundel in 1869

CHAPTER XXVI. 1851-1873.

Religious Life of Mr. Hope-Scott–Motives of Conversion–Acceptance of the Dogma of Infallibility–The ‘Angelus’ on the Committee-room Stairs–Faith in the Real Presence–Books of Devotion–The Society of Jesus–Letter of Mrs. Bellasis–Mr. Hope-Scott’s Manners–His Generosity–Courage in admonishing–Habits of Prayer–Services to Catholicity–Remark of Lord Blachford–The Catholic University of Ireland–Cardinal Newman’s Dedication of his ‘University Sketches’ to Mr. Hope-Scott–Aid in the Achilli Trial– Mr. Badeley’s Speech–Charitable Bequests–Westminster Missions–Repeal of Titles Act–Statement of Mr. Hope-Scott–Letter to Right Hon. S. Walpole– Correspondence with the Duke of Norfolk–Scottish Education Bill, 1869– Parliamentary Committee on Convents–Services of Mr. Hope-Scott to Catholicity in Legal Advice to Priests and Convents–Other Charities in Advice, &c.–Private Charities, their General Character–Probable Amount of them–Missions on the Border–Galashiels–Abbotsford–Letter of Pere de Ravignan, S.J.–Kelso–Letter of Father Taggart–Burning of the Church at Kelso–Charge of the Lord Justice-Clerk–Article from the ‘Scotsman ‘– Missions in the Western Highlands–Moidart–Mr. Hope-Scott’s Purchase of Lochshiel–‘Road-making’–Dr. Newman’s ‘Grammar of Assent’–Mr. Hope- Scott’s Kindness to his Highland Tenants–Builds School and Church at Mingarry–Church at Glenuig–Sells Dorlin to Lord Howard of Glossop–Other Scottish Missions aided by Mr. Hope-Scott–His Irish Tenantry–His Charities at Hyeres

CHAPTER XXVII. 1868-1873.

Mr. Hope-Scott’s Speech on Termination of Guardianship to the Duke of Norfolk–Failure in Mr. Hope-Scott’s Health–Exhaustion after a Day’s Pleading–His Neglect of Exercise–Death of Mr. Badeley–Letter of Dr. Newman–Last Correspondence of Mr. Hope and the Bishop of Salisbury (Hamilton)–Dr. Newman’s Friendship for Mr. Hope-Scott and Serjeant Bellasis–Mr. Hope-Scott proposes to retire–Birth of James Fitzalan Hope– Death of Lady Victoria Hope-Scott–Mr. Hope-Scott retires from his Profession–Edits Abridgment of Lockhart, which he dedicates to Mr. Gladstone–Dr. Newman on Sir Walter Scott–Visit of Dr. Newman to Abbotsford in 1872–Mr. Hope-Scott’s Last Illness–His Faith and Resignation–His Death–Benediction of the Holy Father–Requiem Mass for Mr. Hope-Scott at the Jesuit Church, Farm Street–Funeral Ceremonies at St. Margaret’s, Edinburgh–Cardinal Newman and Mr. Gladstone on Mr. Hope-Scott


Funeral Sermon by his Eminence Cardinal Newman, preached at the Requiem Mass for Mr. Hope-Scott, at the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Farm Street, May 5, 1873


Words spoken in the Chapel of the Ursulines of Jesus, St. Margaret’s Convent, Edinburgh, on the 7th day of May, 1873, at the Funeral of James Robert Hope-Scott, Q.C. By the Rev. William J. Amherst, S.J.


The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P., to Miss Hope-Scott [now the Hon. Mrs. Maxwell Scott]


Verses by J. R. Hope-Scott


* * * * *




* * * * *



Mr. Hope’s Pamphlet on the Jerusalem Bishopric–His Value for the Canon Law–Continued Correspondence of Mr. Hope and Mr. Newman on the Jerusalem Bishopric–Mr. Newman’s Idea of a Monastery–Mr. Newman writes from Littlemore, April 22, 1842–Dr. Pusey consults Mr. Hope on his Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury–Dr. Pusey and the Jerusalem Bishopric– Letters of Archdeacon Manning, Mr. W. Palmer, Sir John T. Coleridge, Sir F. Palgrave, Bishop Philpotts, and Count Senfft, on Mr. Hope’s Pamphlet.

Two days after the date of the letter to Lady Henry Kerr, given in the preceding chapter (Dec. 20, 1841), took place the publication of Mr. Hope’s pamphlet on the Anglo-Prussian Bishopric of Jerusalem. It may be described as a learned and very closely reasoned argument against the measure; and a dry (even if correct) analysis of it would be of little biographical interest, especially as Mr. Hope’s views on the question have already been abundantly illustrated from unpublished materials. I therefore refer those of my readers who wish for more extended information to the pamphlet itself, but shall quote from the Postscript to the second edition [Footnote: _The Bishopric of the United Church of England and Ireland at Jerusalem_, considered in a Letter to a Friend, by James R. Hope, B.C.L., Scholar of Merton, and Chancellor of the Diocese of Salisbury. Second edition, revised, with a Postscript. London: C.J. Stewart. 1842.] an eloquent passage on Canon Law, which is as characteristic of the writer as anything I have yet been able to produce, and exhibits, I think, in a striking manner how singularly this austere subject constituted at the time the poetry of his life, and how largely the conflict between the principles of Catholic jurisprudence and Anglicanism must have influenced the reflections which ended in his conversion. Mr. Hope here refers to some remarks on his pamphlet which had appeared in one by the Rev. Frederick Denison Maurice, entitled ‘Three Letters to the Rev. W. Palmer, &c.’ (Rivington: 1842).

_Value of the Science of Canon Law._

[Mr. Maurice] sets all lawyers at nought, and canonists he utterly despises. Hastily, indeed, I think, and for the purpose of the moment only, can he have given way to such feelings, for he needs not that I should tell him that the Church of Christ rests not upon speculative truth alone, but upon the positive institutions of our Lord and His Apostles. Surely, then, to trace those institutions from the lowest point at which they come into contact with human existence, up to the highest to which our eye can follow them, the point of union with the unseen world in which they take their rise, and from which they are the channels of grace and truth and authority to the souls of men–to trace, I say, the outward and the visible signs of sacraments, of polity, of discipline, up to the inward spiritual realities upon which they depend, which they impart and represent to faith, or shelter from profanation; to study the workings of the hidden life of the Church by those developments which, in all ages and countries, have been its necessary modes of access to human feeling and apprehension; to systematise the end gained; to learn what is universal, what partial, what temporary, what eternal, what presently obligatory, and wherefore; surely a science such as this, so noble in its object, so important in its practical bearings upon the unity and purity of the Church, and upon her relations to the temporal power, is not one of which Mr. Maurice would deliberately speak evil. Yet this is the science of the canonist. [Footnote: Mr. Hope’s pamphlet on the _Jerusalem Bishopric_, 2nd ed., p. 55.]

There are still portions of his correspondence with Mr. Newman, belonging to the same period and subject, which must not be withheld:–

_J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman._

6 Stone Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn: December 21, 1841.

Dear Newman,–Your speedy reply and return of my proofs was very kind. The _hard_ passages I did not know how to make easy, as they are pure law, so have left them…. I hear that the Bishop of London refused a man orders last week on three points–Eucharistic sacrifice in _any sense_, real presence in elements, grace in orders. The second point (being also the Bishop of Winchester’s) I have illustrated in a note to my pamphlet (very briefly) by reference to Augsburg Confession.

You see the young Prince is to have a R. Catholic sponsor on one hand, and the King of Prussia on the other. This is a good balance, though the Canon tolerates neither….

Ever yours,


_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq._

My dear Hope,–… You take the canons of 1603 as _legal authority_, I see. This has been a bone in my throat. I _wish_ them to show the animus of our Church, but directly you make them authority, the unhappy Ward is _ipso facto_ excommunicate for having been to Oscott, until he repent of his wicked error. But there is no resisting law.

Palmer’s ‘Aids to Reflection’ contain some very valuable documents.

What the Bishops are doing is most serious, as well as unjustifiable, as I think. Really one does not know but they may meet in council and bring out some tests which will have the effect forthwith of precipitating us, and leaving the Church clean Protestant. Pray, does a _majority_ bind in such a council? I mean in the way of canons. Can a majority determine the doctrine of the Church? If so, we had need look out for cheap lodgings….

Ever yours,

John H. Newman.

Oriel College: December 23, 1841.

_J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman._

Palace, Salisbury: December 31, 1841.

Dear Newman,–I am again settled here for ten days or so…. As to the Bishops meeting and making tests, they can _in law_ do nothing, except in Convocation, with the Presbyters and under licence of the Crown. They may, however, as heads of dioceses, agree to enforce particular things, but there is not, I think, sufficient unity amongst them at present to allow of this. The Jerusalem business I hope is yet to be of good service to us, by rallying men of various shades against it, and by making the Bishops stand up against what cannot be called otherwise than usurpation of their rights by the Archbishop and the Bishop of London. The Bishop of Exeter, in acknowledging (to Badeley) the receipt of my pamphlet, says:–

‘Would that those who direct proceedings of this hazardous and most questionable character may take warning from the effects of their inconsiderateness on this occasion! I doubt whether any three Bishops were consulted, or even informed, before the measure was completed.’ This looks, I think, like action….

When I publish again, I should like to bring out more fully the bearing of the Augsburg Confession on the Thirty-nine Articles. I perhaps overrate the importance of this point, but it seems to me to put Tract 90 in great measure under the sanction of the Archbishop and Bishop of London. If you think of doing anything more about Tract 90, perhaps (which would be far better) you would take this up. If not, do you think you could get any one to collect for me the sense of Luther, Melanchthon, &c., as to the meaning of the chief articles of the Aug. Conf. I have always understood consubstantiation to be properly held under that document, and, if so, the admission of it with our Articles will appear to many people very awkward. You must not think me unreasonable for thinking that you can get this done for me (as you did the search about canons) at Oxford. Were our colleges what they ought to be, there would be in each a concurrence of labour whenever required, and I believe that you have men about you who have the feeling from which this (if ever it does) must spring.

I am not without hope that some public move may be made about the bishopric. What say you to an address to the Crown, praying it to license the discussion of it in Convocation? I think some Bishops and many clergy would join in this, and it would, I suppose, be very ‘constitutional.’ I have not, however, looked up the formal part yet. Tell me what you think of the thing, and I will consider it further….

(Signed) J. R. Hope.

_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq._

January 3, 1842.

My dear Hope,–A happy new year to you and all of us–and, what is even more needed, to the English Church. I am afraid of moving about Convocation. Not that we should not be in safer hands than in those of the Bishops, but, though it restrained their acts, it would abridge our liberty. Or it might formally recognise our Protestantism. What can we hope from a body, the best members of which, as Hook and Palmer [of Worcester Coll.], defend and subscribe to the Jerusalem Fund…? Therefore I do not like to be _responsible_ for helping to call into existence a body which may embarrass us more than we are at present.

I think your [Greek: topos] about the Augsburg Confession a very important one, and directly more men come back will set a friend to work upon it.

I am almost in despair of keeping men together. The only possible way is a monastery. Men want an outlet for their devotional and penitential feelings, and if we do not grant it, to a dead certainty they will go where they can find it. This is the beginning and the end of the matter. Yet the clamour is so great, and will be so much greater, that if I persist, I expect (though I am not speaking from anything that has _occurred_) that I shall be stopped. Not that I have any intention of doing more at present than laying the foundation of what may be.

… Are we really to be beaten in this election [for the Poetry Professorship]? I will tell you a secret (if you care to know it) which not above three or four persons know. We have 480 promises. Is it then hopeless? … I don’t think our enemies would beat 600; at least, it would be no triumph….

The Bishop of Exeter has for these eight years, ever since the commencement of the Ecclesiastical Commission, been biding his time, and the Duke of Wellington last spring disgusted him much. This both makes it likely that he will now move, and also diminishes the force of the very words you quote, for peradventure they are ordinary with him. I have good hopes that he will.

Ever yours,

John H. Newman.

The experiment of offering to minds which had lost all sympathy with Protestantism, yet were unable to close with Rome, an imitation of the monastic life by way of shelter from the rude checks which their aspirations sustained in the world without, seems to have answered for a time, and possibly retarded for about three years that rush of conversion which made 1845 such an epoch in the history even of the Church. This may be inferred from the next letter, written shortly after Mr. Newman and his disciples were regularly settled at Littlemore. I am not aware what the report was which he so emphatically denies.

_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq._

April 22, 1842. _Dabam e Domo S. M. V. apud Littlemore._

My dear Hope,–Does not this portentous date promise to outweigh any negative I can give to your question in the mind of the inquirer? for any one who could ask such a question would think such a dating equivalent to the answer. However, if I must answer in form, I believe it to be one great absurdity and untruth from beginning to end, though it is hard I must answer for _every_ hundred men in the _whole_ kingdom. Negatives are dangerous: all I can say, however, is that I don’t believe, or suspect, or fear any such occurrence, and look upon it as neither probable nor improbable, but simply untrue.

We are all much quieter and more resigned than we were, and are remarkably desirous of building up a position, and proving that the English theory is tenable, or rather, the English state of things. If the Bishops let us alone, the fever will subside.

[After a few words on business] I wish you would say how you are.

Ever yours,


Early in 1842 came out Dr. Pusey’s ‘Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on some Circumstances connected with the Present Crisis in the Church.’ In the preparation of this important pamphlet Dr. Pusey sought the advice of Mr. Hope, and the letter in which he asked it must be placed before the reader as an evidence of the value attached to Mr. Hope’s opinion in the counsels of the party.

_The Rev. Dr. Pusey to J. E. Hope, Esq._

My dear Hope,–You will be surprised that I should consult you as a layman and a younger man as to a work on the religious state of things, but I do it on N.’s suggestion, as seeing and being able to judge of men’s minds; and ye question is not as to _what_ is said, but whether it is expedient to say it, and for me; what will be its probable effect.

The origin of it was my visit to Addington last autumn: after my return Harrison wrote me some long letters, recommending that one shd take occasion of ye Bishops’ charges, under wh people writhed so much, to make one’s defence, show that one was not so unsound as one seemed, and plead for sympathy. [Footnote: This fondness for the use of the indefinite pronoun very much characterised the Puseyite dialect, as I have somewhere read that it did the Jansenist. The _phase_ which it marked may he seen fully developed in the tract ‘On Reserve,’ by Isaac Williams.] I was unwilling to leave what I was doing and put myself forward; but as H. told me that he had spoken on ye subject with ye Abp, it seemed to come with his authority, so I set myself to it. It has been delayed until now, waiting in part for unpublished charges, and for ye documents about ye Jerus. Bpric. It is now about finished, and wd occupy about ten sheets; what I send is, then, not half. The object of ye analysis of the Bishops’ charges is to show that some do not object to our main principles, but to matters of detail; that others (as the Bps of Chester, Winchester, Calcutta) do not object to our principles at all, but to certain principles which they conceive to be ours. The effect of both, I hoped, wd be that our friends, who were fretted by these charges, wd see that neither we nor (wh alone signifies) Catholic truth is condemned, that others mt be better disposed towards us, and that the hint mt be taken in some charges this year. Anyhow, that there wd seem less of a consent of Bishops agst us, I was rather sanguine about this part. Then there follows something about the Jerusalem Bishopric and the East and Lutheranism, my object being to say that things are safe so long as the Bishops do not make any organic changes in our Church, or she be committed to any wrong principle. I conclude with some pages meant incidentally to reassure persons about ourselves, and of our good hopes and confidence and love for our Church. This I have been urged to do in some way or other by several, _e.g._ E. Churton, confidence having been terribly shaken by Golightly’s wild sayings, and by the version put upon my own visits to ye convents. This I could do by implication without any formal profession.

[Illustration: Private]

Newman was against it from the first; he thought H. wanted to commit me to say things which N. thought I could not say; in a word, to express H.’s own views. About this I did not feel any difficulty, for having put forth doctrinal statements in my two last letters, I did not feel called upon to do it again, and so I went on. N. now likes it much in itself; indeed, he tells me he likes it the best of anything which I have written, but does not feel his former opinion removed; but he wished me to take another opinion. People seem to like the notion. The only part about which I have any misgiving is in these first slips, lest the picture of the temptations to Romanism should seem too strong; and yet, unless our Bishops realise that this tendency has some deeper foundation than any writings of ours, what they will do will be in a wrong direction.

For myself, of course, I do not care what people think of me; and, on the other hand, one does not like to waste what one has employed time upon; but I am quite willing to give it up and be still, if it seems best; of course, one should be very sorry to add to our confusions.

No one has suggested the mere omission of ye Romanist part. Jelf only (who had seen that part only without some additions which I have since made, that I might not seem gratuitously to exalt Rome to the disparagement of our own Church) suggested that it be printed only to send to ye Bishops. N. thinks this of no use. I have no other opinions. But I am entangling you with the opinions of others, when I meant to ask you yours simply. I know you will not mind ye trouble.

Yours affectionately, E. B. PUSEY.

Christ Church: September 27.

The Romanist part, of course, has not ye Abp’s sanction, and it must be so expressed.

In the date of the above letter ‘September’ is struck out; ‘January’ substituted, and ’42’ added in Mr. Hope-Scott’s hand, I think. How this is to be explained I do not know, but Dr. Pusey can hardly have made such a clerical error. Mr. Hope-Scott has endorsed the letter: ‘I recommended publication, with some alterations and additions.–J. R. H.’

Whatever influence Dr. Pusey may at an earlier period have exercised on the religious views of Mr. Hope must have been a good deal shaken by his inclination in the first instance to favour the Jerusalem Bishopric, followed, indeed, by a disapproval, but one far short of the energy with which Mr. Hope himself combated the measure.

_The Rev. E.B. Pusey to J.R. Hope, Esq._

My dear Hope,–I thank you much for your ‘letter,’ which I had been looking for anxiously, but which by some mistake was not forwarded to me, so that I only saw it two days ago. It is very satisfactory to me; it seems quite to settle the point as to the duty of Bp A. I was also very much cheered to see yr own more hopeful view of things in our Church.

I am a good deal discomforted by this visit of ye Kg. of Pr. It seems so natural for persons to wish that Episcopacy shd be bestowed upon those who desire to receive; and people for ye most part have very little or no notion as to ye unsoundness even of the sounder part of ye G. Divines. As far as I have heard of ye progress of truth there, the restoration of Xty in some shape has been far more rapid than I anticipated or dared hope, the soundness of the restoration far less.

Yours affectionately,


116 Marine Parade, Brighton: January 7, 1842.

In another letter, dated Sexagesima Sunday [January 30], 1842, Dr. Pusey says:–

I do not know your [Greek: topos] about ye Augsburg Conf. I have very little, next to nothing, about it. Do not leave anything for me. Each can do best what he feels most. I should be very sorry to take anything out of your hands; and altogether I can say ye less about this because, wretched as it would be that we should appear in ye E. connected with Lutherans, I do not feel that it would introduce any organic change in us, and so cannot anticipate that it would.

I see that the Conf. of Augs. does not express consubstantiation. Art. X. may express Catholic doctrine.

I subjoin a few more letters from Mr. Hope’s correspondence relating to his pamphlet on the Jerusalem Bishopric question, interesting as it is in itself, and forming so great a crisis in his religious history.

_The Ven. Archdeacon Manning [since Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster] to J. R. Hope, Esq._

December 30, 1841.

My dear Hope,–I have this moment ended your pamphlet, and will not wait for a cooler moment to thank you. I do so heartily. God grant we may be true and manly in affirming the broad rule of Catholic order. I add my thanks to you in another shape. In your last three or four pages you and I were nearing each other’s thoughts. It is refreshing to find an answer at a distance. Forgive my long neglect of the enclosed paper, which after all bears only my name, and probably too late for use.

Ever yours, dear Hope, most sincerely,


_The Rev. William Palmer (of Magdalen College, Oxford) to J. R. Hope, Esq._

Mixbury, near Brackley: December 29, 1841.

Dear Hope,–I am much obliged to you for sending me a copy of your letter, which I have read with the greatest pleasure…. I see that in the statement just published by authority, _no Prussian_ documents are given. I think your letter will be a puzzling one; but the spirit of practical Protestantism is subtle and versatile, and able to set aside everything–laws, principles, rubrics, and canons. Else I do not see how the mischief which I apprehend could be realised.

Ever yours sincerely,

W. Palmer

P.S.–I am glad you think my pamphlet may be useful. We have taken entirely different sides of the same subject; I the theoretical (as it seemed to me), and you the practical view of the question.

_Sir John Taylor Coleridge to J. R. Hope, Esq._

My dear Hope,–Many thanks for your letter, which I have read through with, I may say, a painful interest. Of course, in a matter so difficult in itself, and so new, I must confess, to me, I do not take on me at once to pronounce that you are right, but I cannot at present find out where you are wrong; and I am the more inclined to think that you may be right because I see in the Act just words enough to satisfy people rather precipitate that the Prussian scheme might be carried through safely on them. ‘Spiritual jurisdiction,’ ‘over other Protestant congregations,’ would seem to ordinary minds enough–till it was further considered _how_ the English Bishop was to work out the scheme by virtue of these words, and yet be consistent with his own engagements.

I shall not be sorry, however, to find that you are answered; not that I wish to accomplish, or seem rather to accomplish _any_ end by a disorderly and indigested attempt at union; nor do I think _this_ thing of itself so important as many do: still it is one which very much arrests the imagination, and excites strong devotional feeling; and I rather looked on it as leading to more important matters with Prussia itself. I cannot, too, help a little more personal feeling for the Bishop than it fell within our plan to express–a good and pious man, I believe, but not by intellect or previous habits fitted to meet such emergencies as you place before him.

Very truly yours,

J. T. Coleridge.

December 30,1841.

Montague Place.

_Sir Francis Palgrave, K.H. to J. R. Hope, Esq._

Rolls House: January 4, 1842.

My dear Sir,–I ought before this to have thanked you for your kindness in sending me your most able letter, but I did not like to do so until I had read it with that attention which it deserves.

It is difficult to understand how your arguments can possibly be shaken. The statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21 evidently relates only to such dispensations upon the suit or for the benefit of individuals as had been theretofore usually issued by the Roman Chancery, and to wrest it into the power of establishing an _uncanonical_ see appears a most bold attempt.

Nothing would more clearly show the true relation of the Church of England to ‘other Protestant churches’ than a reprint of the _whole_ proceedings of the Convocations from William and Mary to their extinction– adding proper notes.

Yours ever truly,

Francis Palgrave.

_The Right Rev. Dr. Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter, to J. R. Hope, Esq._

Bishopstowe, Torquay: November 10, 1842.

My dear Sir,–Permit me to ask you whether you can receive and answer a case of ecclesiastical law? That you can answer it better than any other man I have no doubt; but can you receive the case _professionally_, so as to enable a Bishop to show your opinion as his authority for action?

I have never thanked you for your kindness in sending me a copy of the second edition of ‘The Bishopric of the U. C., &c., at Jerusalem,’ for I am ashamed to own I have never, till this day, read the new matter which it gives to us. Accept now my hearty thanks for your kindness to me in sending to me a copy, and my still heartier acknowledgments of your invaluable service to the Church in furnishing it with such a lesson.

You have, of course, seen the ‘Alterius orbis Papa’s’ letter of June 18 to the King of Prussia, and have, with me, wondered at the mixture of temerity and cowardice (which latter quality, by the way, is the rashest of all feelings) indicated in such a mode of escaping from the difficulties by which he was pressed.

I grieve for this marvellous indiscretion. But I am amused by the bolder defiance of all consistency which is exhibited by his prime Adviser, who, while he prompts his Chief to trample Rubrics, Canons, Statutes, under his feet, commands His own Clergy to observe them ‘with Chinese exactness.’

I went to your second edition, in order that I might find your promised remarks on the need in which the Church stands of a Church Legislature. I have read them with great gratification, and implore your close attention to the subject. My Clergy are, I believe, about to meet and to address me to urge on the Archbishop their earnest desire of leave from the Crown for Convocation to consider the best means of altering its own constitution, or otherwise devising a new Body empowered and fitted to act synodically.

This is, at present, somewhat of a secret, but it will in a few days, I believe, transpire.

From other quarters, I hear, similar proceedings may be expected. The Bishop of Llandaff tells me that he makes the necessity of a Church Legislature one topic in his Charge.

Yours, my dear Sir,

Most faithfully,


[P.S.] Pray tell me whether you think the argument in my Charge on Escott _v_. Mastin is now tolerably effective?

What ‘oath of obedience’ is the ordained German to take to the Bishop? Not Canonical–that is plain. What oath can it be? Of course, it will hardly be an absolute promise on oath to obey all commands. All _lawful_ commands would involve a question–what are lawful commands? Who is to judge? What law is to be the rule?

Somebody named by the King is to attest for the Candidates their qualification for the _Pastoral Office_; but the Bishop is ‘to convince himself of their qualifications for the _especial_ duties of their office, of the purity of their faith, and of their _desire to receive ordination_ at his hands!’

What is meant by the Clergyman’s preparing Candidates for Confirmation in the _usual_ manner? Usual _where_? in Prussia or in England?

Have they baptised Godfathers in Prussia? If they have not, how can they be confirmed according to the Liturgy of the U. C. of E. and I.?

To these letters from such distinguished co-religionists of Mr. Hope’s, all belonging, with various shades of difference, to his own religious party, I add a portion of one, bearing on the same subject, from a Catholic and foreign friend of his who has been mentioned in a previous chapter,[Footnote: Vol. i. chap. xiii. p. 246.] Count Senfft-Pilsach. The contrast will be interesting; and it is also interesting to record a specimen of an influence, no doubt beginning to be more and more felt, though years had to pass before the result was visible in action. Count Senfft, though an active diplomatist, a friend of Metternich’s, and quite in the great European world, was an example of the union, so often found in the lives of the saints, of deep retirement and devotion in the very thick of affairs; and we may be sure that his prayers for Mr. Hope were faithfully applied to assist his arguments.

_Count Senfft-Pilsach to J. R. Hope, Esq_.

La Haye: 21 Janvier, 1842

Mon cher Hope,– … J’ai lu avec un vif interet vos reflexions sur ce nouvel Eveche de Jerusalem, dont on parait vouloir faire un lien entre l’Eglise anglicane et le Protestantisme Evangelique de Prusse, en cherchant a vivifier les ossemens arides de celui-ci par une sorte de greffe de votre Episcopat auquel nous contestons encore, comme question, la continuite de la succession Apostolique. Si on reussiroit dans ce projet, une partie de vos objections pourroient se resoudre. Mais M. Bunsen, l’artisan de la complication de Cologne, n’a pas la main heureuse, et la fecondite de son genie, secondant son ardeur de courtisan, pourroit bien, en pretendant servir les tendances vagues de piete de son maitre, embarquer celui-ci dans les plus graves difficultes en provoquant l’opposition des vieux protestans reunis aux rationalistes allemands. ‘Quid foditis vobis cisternas dissipatas?’ O mon ami! Comment s’arreter a quelques abus plus apparens peut-etre que reels, que l’Eglise supporte ca et la sans les autoriser, et ne pas reconnoitre cette admirable unite de doctrine, cette continuite de la Tradition, qui caracterise la cite batie sure la montagne, figure de la veritable Eglise selon l’Evangile. Certes ce n’est pas sous la domination de Cesar qu’on pourroit aller chercher l’Epouse legitime de J. C. Mais doit-on esperer la trouver dans la creation combinee de la volonte tyrannique de Henri VIII. et de la politique d’Elisabeth, tandis que la Doctrine comme la Discipline du Concile de Trente ne vous laisse rien a desirer, et conquiert deja vos suffrages?…

J’ose compter partant sur votre interet amical, et vous connoissez les sentimens sinceres d’attachement et de respect avec lesquels je suis a jamais

Tout a vous, SENFFT.



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,


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,


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,


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,


_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,


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,


_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,


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,


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,


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,


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.



Mr. Hope’s Tour on the Continent in 1844–Visit to Munich–Dr. Pusey’s ‘Library of Roman Catholic Works’–Dr. Pusey and the Spiritual Exercises– His Opinion of the Discipline–Mr. Hope’s Visit to Tetschen in 1844–Count Leo Thun and his Friends–Mr. Hope’s Interview with Prince Metternich–The Hon. Sir R. Gordon, Ambassador at Vienna–Visit to Prince Palffy and to Prince Lichtenstein–The Hungarian Diet at Presburg–Letter of Manzoni to J. R. Hope–Visit to Rome–Bishop Grant and Mr. Hope–Mr. Hope resigns Chancellorship of Salisbury–Dr. Pusey and the Stone Altar Case–Mr. Oakeley and Mr. Hope–Scottish Episcopalian Church and its Office–Mr. Gladstone endeavours to hold Mr. Hope back–Proposes Tour in Ireland– Conversion of Mr. Newman–Mr. Hope on the Essay on Development–Letter of Mr. Newman to J. R. Hope from Rome–Reopening of Correspondence with Mr. Newman.

At the end of August or beginning of September 1844 Mr. Hope set out for a tour on the Continent, accompanied by Mr. Badeley. Of the earlier days of it I have no information, but they parted at Heidelberg about September 12, Mr. Badeley for the Rhine country and Belgium, Mr. Hope for Munich. By this time, as has already been evident, he was deeply engaged in professional pursuits, and his health had begun to suffer from his unremitting labours. Several passages might be quoted from the letters of his intimate friends, showing the anxiety they felt on the subject. Some real relaxation, however, had at last become necessary; and it would appear that he rather wished to leave the turmoil of the movement, as well as business, behind him. In a letter of Mr. Badeley’s to him, dated Brussels, September 22, the following sentence occurs:–‘If you like to see what is going on in this [the affair of opposing Dr. Symonds’ election as Vice-Chancellor at Oxford] and in Church matters, I will send you the “English Churchman;” but as you said “No,” when we parted, I forbear to forward any papers till further orders.’ Afterwards, however, ‘after all,’ he asks Mr. Badeley to send it. On his way to Munich, Mr. Hope stopped at Augsburg, where ‘of course he visited Butsch the bookseller,’ buys a copy of the ‘Summa Divi Thomae Aquinatis,’ and sees _some_ good books which he did not want. At Munich, where he arrived on September 14, rooms were provided for him at the Austrian Legation by the kindness of his friend Count Senfft. These particulars I take from a letter of his to Mr. Badeley, dated Munich, September 22, and subjoin some further details in full:–

D[oellinger] is, I think, remarkably well, and I am more struck with him than ever. I found him already deep in Ward’s book, with which he is much struck. I have already had some interesting conversation with him, and anticipate more. He is rector elect of the University, and highly spoken of by all I see. My new acquaintances consist of the Papal Nuntius Viale, a very striking person, Professor Walther, the canonist, and some intelligent Bavarians. I am to visit Goerres this evening…. There is an English service here very decently and nicely performed by Mr. de Coetlogon, a man in Scotch orders, and the chapel is a modest but respectable room…. I ask hard questions upon marriage, and receive very doubtful answers; but I am resolved, if possible, to get some definite information from the best sources in Germany.

The following letter, connected with this tour of Mr. Hope’s, is also very instructive as to a particular phase of the movement:–

_The Rev. Dr. Pusey to J. R. Hope, Esq._

My dear Hope,–I have no news as yet to communicate to you, except that some few are taking up ye matter of ye V. C. in rt earnest, and so I suppose it will be a pitched battle, and we shall win at last, even if but a handful as yet.

I have 2 or 3 commissions for you, wh will not occupy your time, and wh will, I hope, be a subject of interest to you. It is for my little library of R. C. works. The perplexity is to find out ye best books upon difft subjects, for I cannot read all. The general class is, as you know, ascetic books, books of guidance, wh shall give people knowledge of self, enable us to guide consciences, build people up in ye higher life, force them to mental prayer, or give them subjects of meditation in it, the spiritual life, Xtian perfection, holy performance of ordinary actions, love of God, or any Xtian graces in detail, devotions, books on holy seasons–in a word, anything in practical theology in its widest range, or, again, cases of conscience.

I have learnt more or less as to French & Spanish, & some Latin works, but of Italian I know those only of Scupoli, and of German absolutely nothing. The only books I have seen are some sermons by Sailer, wh, altho’ clear and energetic, contain nothing wh one did not know before; they have nothing to build people up with.

I shd be glad also of any information on a subject wh I know drew yr thoughts when you were last abroad–the system as to retreats. I saw a book,’ Manuale dell’ Esercitatori,’ but I shd be very glad of any information or any guidance.

If it wd not occupy you too much, I shd be much obliged to you to procure on my account any practical works wh mt be recommended.

Perhaps also Dr. Doellinger could give you some information as to S. Ignatius Loyola, ‘Exercitia Spiritualia,’ for they seem to have been so often re-moulded, that there is some difficulty to ascertain (1) what is ye genuine form, or at least to obtain a copy, (2) whether any other re- casting of it be found easier to use.

I trust these inquiries will not be so much an encumbrance to you, as lead you to happy subjects and more acquaintance with happy-making books. God bless you ever.

Yrs affectionately,


Christ Church: September 9, 1844.

[P.S.] There is yet a subject on wh I shd like to know more, if you fall in with persons who have ye guidance of consciences,–what penances they employ for persons whose temptations are almost entirely spiritual, of delicate frames often, and who wish to be led on to perfection. I see in a spiritual writer that even for such, corporal severities are not to be neglected, but so many of them are unsafe. I suspect ye ‘discipline’ to be one of ye safest, and with internal humiliation the best…. Cd you procure and send me one by B.? What was described to me was of a very sacred character; 5 cords, each with 5 knots, in memory of ye 5 wounds of our Lord…. I shd be glad to know also whether there were any cases in wh it is unsafe, e.g. in a nervous person.

On October 1 Mr. Hope left Munich to pay a visit at Tetschen, the seat of his friends the Thun family (described vol. i. p. 42), taking Ratisbon and other places in his way. At Tetschen, where he stayed from October 5 to 12, he found a sad blank in the recent death of the Countess Thun. From an interesting letter to Lady Hope (dated Vienna, October 26, 1844) which furnishes these dates, I transcribe also the following particulars:–

Countess Anna is still in very uncertain health…. The Count himself seems to have rallied lately, but it will be long before he gets over his loss. The second daughter, Countess Inza, seems to be now the stay of the family. Of the sons, only Francis, the eldest, was at home. He is devoted to art, and has besides abundance of business in the management of the estates which his father has made over to him, and with various charitable societies at Prague, in which he and his family are interested. From Tetschen I went to Prague, with Count Joseph Thun, a cousin, with his wife and two sons. At Prague I spent Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, in constant admiration of the town, to which I did not do justice when I was last there. It is really beautiful, and, out of Italy, I think Edinburgh alone equal to it, of all the towns which I have seen. With Tetschen for summer, and Prague for winter, I think the Thuns have two as charming residences as could be found.

On Tuesday evening [Oct. 15] I left for Koenigsgraetz, a provincial town, where Leo Thun, the youngest, is officially employed. He is a noble fellow, and has devoted himself for years to the details of business, with a view to becoming useful to Bohemia, to which he is very much attached. He is also prominent among the revivers of the Bohemian language and literature, which is Sclavonic, and has thus become well known in Germany, as well as in Hungary and other countries where there are Sclavonic tribes. The movement is in a political sense important, as well as influential upon manners and modes of thinking, and it has already excited a good deal of discussion and some animosity. It would take too much time, however, to explain what I have learnt of its bearings. With Leo I spent two very agreeable days, and have had much to talk about, as I had not seen him since I was last in Bohemia. I was introduced to the _notables_ of the place, his _chef_ and the commander of the garrison (an old Irish officer of the name of Fitzgerald), and saw his mode of life, which to a man with plenty of employment must be convenient, though not very amusing.

From Koenigsgraetz I started on Thursday night, and arrived here [Vienna] on Saturday week, the 19th [Oct.], and took up my abode at the same inn with Fritz Thun, the diplomat, who was here on his way from Turin, which he has now left for Prague. You will remember how pleasant a person he is, and will be glad to hear that his professional prospects are excellent, as he is in high favour with Prince Metternich, to whom he was strongly recommended by Schwartzenberg, his last _chef_. One of my first acts was to call on Sir R. Gordon [the British Ambassador], who has been _most_ kind, giving me dinner as often as I can go to him, and assisting me in everything. On the evening of my arrival he took me to Prince Metternich, when I had the honour of a conversation with the great man. George was remembered by him and his daughter, and by the Countess Zichy, the Princess’s mother, and I was very kindly received by them all. Palmerston was expected here, and the Prince told Sir R. Gordon that, if he came, I should be invited to meet him at dinner; but unluckily he has changed his plans, so that I shall not see him and Metternich together, which would have been a great sight. I gave Sir Robert your good account of Lady Alicia,[Footnote: Sister of the Earl of Aberdeen and of Sir R. Gordon, died 1847.] and beg that you will in return tell her that Sir R. is very flourishing, and that in my opinion he is a very magnificent ambassador, and, what is better, a very kind one. His establishment is admirably _monte_, and I found in Francois a friend of the Hope family in general. George’s letters of introduction I duly received. Schwartzenberg is not here, but I have seen Esterhazy, who has asked me to his country place, about three hours’ drive from Vienna…. Besides the people I have named, I have seen others, to whom I get access through Count Senfft, among whom is the Dowager Duchess of Anhalt-Coethen, a natural sister of the King of Prussia, and a clever woman….

Your affect. Son,


Mr. Hope was unable to accept the invitation of Prince Esterhazy, in consequence of an engagement to visit another Hungarian magnate, Prince Palffy. The latter visit, with various other interesting details, is recorded in the following letter:–

_J. R. Hope, Esq., to Edward L. Badeley, Esq._ Vienna: Nov. 7, 1844.

Dear Badeley,–[After giving some account of his visit at Tetschen, Mr. Hope goes on to mention his interview with Prince Metternich.] Prince Metternich honoured me with a conversation of some ten minutes or so, and which would probably have been both longer and more interesting but for the intrusion of a German who chose to thrust himself upon us. He spoke of some points of commercial and manufacturing interest, and pleased me very much by the simplicity of his manner. By means of letters which Count Senfft gave me I have also become acquainted with several of the persons who are known as active friends of the R. C. _High_ Church party; but I do not know very much of them, and of the Vienna clergy nothing at all….

On Sunday, the 28th [Oct.], I started for my promised visit to Prince Palffy at Malatzka, and arrived there in a few hours. The house resembles most of those one sees abroad, built round a court, with long passages, white exterior, &c., and, as the country round it is very flat and sandy, it cannot be called a very interesting place. It was, however, my first resting-place in Hungary, and as such, an object of curiosity to me. Besides which, I found in it a hearty welcome, and a large family party, which gave me a good idea of the society of the upper class. The Prince is an extensive landowner, holding it all in his own hands (as is generally if not universally the case, both in Bohemia and Hungary), and working it by the tributary labour of the peasants, who, besides a small money payment, contribute labour for a certain number of days in each year. With the obligation of this quittance, the latter class hold in fee the cottages and plots of land which they occupy, and appear to be a thriving and comfortable race. They are, however, exclusively the tax-payers, as the nobles are still free from all imposts. An effort has indeed been made lately, which has partially succeeded, to tax the nobles; and it is probable that amid the numerous reforms of the Hungarian Diet, this will eventually be fully carried out. Our mode of life at Malatzka was to rise when we chose, breakfast in our own rooms, to meet at half-past twelve for luncheon, then to go out, and to dine at six, and to spend the evening in the drawing-room. Coursing, a badger-hunt, and an expedition to a property of the Prince’s at the foot of the Carpathians, constituted my out-of-door amusements; and of these, the last at least was very interesting. I saw an immense tract of wood and pasture, a herd of wild oxen, sheep innumerable, a curious stalactite grotto, and an Hungarian farmhouse.

From Malatzka I went, furnished with letters, to the seat of Prince Liechtenstein in Moravia–Eisgrueb. He is one of the richest men in the Austrian dominions, having possessions in Moravia, Bohemia, and Hungary, and several houses in Vienna. A great sportsman, and in this point, at least, a great imitator of English manners. The house at which I was is a summer residence, with very fine pleasure-grounds, park, &c.; but he has an autumn chateau not far off, which I also visited, and which is a fine specimen of foreign country architecture. Everything about him seemed to teem with expense and luxury, which, although probably not greater than what is to be found in the residences of English noblemen, appears greater from its contrast with the rudeness and simplicity of the general condition of the country. These great nobles seem, in fact, to combine the most striking points of barbarism and civilisation, and to turn them both to their enjoyment. I stayed only one day at Eisgrueb, though I had pressing invitations to remain longer; but I was anxious to go to Presburg to see the Diet, and so returned to Malatzka, which I left again the next morning, Saturday, 2nd Nov., for the seat of the Hungarian Parliament.

At Presburg I spent four days. The place itself is uninteresting, though there are points of beauty about it; but it contains at this moment some of the most turbulent politicians in the world; and their movements are of considerable importance as well to the twelve million souls who constitute the population of Hungary, as to the integrity of the Austrian Empire.

I should write a book were I to tell you all I have heard from different quarters upon this question; but this much seems certain–that Hungary is in a state of violent transition, and that in a few years its internal condition and perhaps its relations to the Austrian monarchy will have undergone a complete revolution. Sir R. Gordon gave me a letter to an Englishman who is employed by the British Embassy to attend the sittings of the Diet; and by his kindness I was enabled to make acquaintance with many of the most distinguished men. I was also present at several debates in the two Chambers of the Diet, and though (the language being Hungarian) I could not understand a word, yet it was most interesting to watch the proceedings of this Magyar Parliament, in which freedom of speech exists as fully as in any assembly in the world. The members all attend in Hungarian costume, which, on common occasions, consists of a laced surtout coat, a cap, and a sword. They speak from their places and without notes. Each member may speak as often as he pleases, and some take advantage of the privilege to a somewhat formidable extent. There seemed to be much fluency and not a little action; but the management of the voice was bad, and energy seemed to pass at once into violence. Though party runs high, organisation is very little understood, and business is transacted both slowly and with very uncertain results. They have the misfortune of all foreign constitutional states, that of desiring to imitate England, i.e. to do in a few years, and designedly, what the accidents of centuries have produced with us. There is, however, no lack either of talent or courage, and one governing mind might make Hungary a nation. It is immensely rich in natural productions, and wants only a market to have a great trade. This they are well disposed to establish with England, and I hope they may succeed; but Austria has interests which I fear may render this difficult. In both Chambers the clergy are represented: in that of the magnates by the Bishops; in the Lower House by deputies of the chapters. To the Primate I was introduced at one of his public entertainments. He is said to have 40 or 60,000_l_. per ann., and his personal carriage as well as his establishment are quite becoming his station. I made acquaintance also with the Archbishop of Erlau, a poet and a man of taste and learning, but victim to the tic douloureux. Lastly, with the Bishop of Csanad (Mgr. Lonowics), who has charmed me. He is well read, in English as well as other literature and history, and is as kind-hearted and Christian a man as I ever met with. Indeed, I shall be tempted to visit Hungary again, if it is only to spend a day or two with him. In the meantime we have established a mutual book- relation. He is to send me works on Hungarian Ecclesiastical Law, addressed to Stewart, and I have promised to send him some things which I beg you will at once see to. [Mr. Hope mentions Winkle’s ‘Cathedrals;’ Ward’s ‘Ideal;’ Newman’s last vol. of ‘Sermons;’ the ‘Life of St. Stephen;’ Oakeley’s ‘Life of St. Austin;’ and his own pamphlet ‘On the Jerusalem Bishopric.’]

Yours ever truly,

James R. Hope.

On November 25 we find Mr. Hope at Milan, where he mentions having seen his old acquaintances, Manzoni and Vitali. The following letter will show how much he had impressed the former, brief as their communications had been:–

_Alessandro Manzoni to J. R. Hope, Esq._

Milan: 8 Mai, 1845.

Monsieur et respectable ami,–Je profite de l’occasion que me presente mon ancien et intime ami, M. le Baron Trechi, pour me rappeler a votre bon souvenir….

Agreez mes remerciments bien vifs et bien sinceres pour les _Scripture Prints_ que Mr. Lewis Gruner a bien voulu me remettre de votre part. Si le nom du peintre n’y etait pas, je suis sur qu’en les voyant, je me serais ecrie: Ah! Raphael. C’est tout ce qu’un homme n’ayant, malheureusement, aucune connaissance de l’art, peut vous dire pour vous rendre compte de l’impression que lui a faite la copie. Je ne vous charge de rien pour M. Gladstone, parce que je me donne la satisfaction de lui ecrire par cette meme occasion. J’espere que nous le reverrons bientot au ministere. N’allez pas me demander si je suis anglais pour dire: nous; car je vous repondrais que _homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto_; et qu’il n’y a rien d’_humanius_ que d’aimer a voir le pouvoir uni a la confiance; je ne dis pas: a de hautes facultes; car, malheureusement, le cas est moins rare. [After giving his friend an account of a great family affliction he had sustained in the loss of a beloved daughter, the writer goes on to say:]

Je ne crains pas de vous importuner en vous parlant ainsi de ce qui me touche si profondement: je sais la part que vous prenez a tout ce qui est douleur et confiance en Dieu, par Jesus Christ. Je n’ai pas craint non plus de vous choquer en vous ecrivant avec un ton si familier, et comme il conviendrait a une ancienne connaissance; car il me semble que nous le sommes; l’affection et l’estime de ma part et une grande bonte de la votre, ont bien pu suppleer le temps. Permettez-moi d’esperer que le bonheur que j’ai de vous connaitre n’aura pas ete un accident dans une vie, et que des causes plus heureuses que d’autrefois vous rameneront bientot encore dans ce pays; et, en attendant, veuillez me garder une petite place dans votre faveur, comme vous etes toujours vivant dans le mien. Je suis, avec la plus affectueuse consideration,

Votre devoue serviteur et ami,


Mr. Hope proceeded from Milan to Florence and Rome. Almost the only letter referring to this visit to Rome that has come before me is one written to Mr. Badeley on December 19. It contains very little of importance. Much of it is taken up with an account of Sir William Follett, then at Rome, and verging towards his end, of whom Mr. Hope had seen a great deal. Other friends named are Mr. and Mrs. Vivian, and Mr. Waterton. From the latter, Mr. Hope had ‘an interesting account of Tickell’s reception into the Church of Rome at Bruges. He was himself present, and very much struck by T.’s devout and humble behaviour.’

‘Of the Roman clergy,’ Mr. Hope remarks, ‘I have seen little, and have indeed almost given up my inquiries among them.’ He mentions in the same letter that he intended leaving Rome on January 1 or 2, ‘and to speed homewards _via_ Leghorn, Genoa, Marseilles, and Paris.’ Amidst all this apparent coldness, and in spite of all the expressions of disappointment with Rome that have appeared thus far, [Footnote: On the cause of this dissatisfaction an intimate friend of his has observed: ‘For myself I think the real and sufficient reason of his disappointment with Rome was, that the Roman authorities naturally and reasonably would not open to a Protestant. They would fear their information would be used against them. They could not know his honesty of purpose.’] it is clear that the secret influence and spirit of the place were working their effect on his mind. A great proof of this will be given further on, in a letter of the Pere Roothaan’s to a friend relative to Mr. Hope’s conversion.

A sentence from a letter of Mr. Hope’s about two years afterwards is here