A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

Memoirs of James Robert Hope Scott, Volume 2

R >> Robert Ornsby >> Memoirs of James Robert Hope Scott, Volume 2




In September 1843 Mr. Newman resigned the vicarage of St. Mary's. On this
step Mr. Hope, writing to him on September 28, says that he had not
differed from him about it, but, 'as to the general tendency of which you
described the increase [Mr. Newman's expression (September 5) was: 'The
movement is going on so fast that some of the wheels are catching fire'],
all I can do is to sit still and wait the issue.'

The 'Lives of the English Saints' were at this time in preparation, the
importance of which in the history of the movement is too well known from
Cardinal Newman's 'Apologia' and from other sources to require me to
enlarge upon it. At length there was no disguise or reservation, but
sympathy was openly avowed by members of the Anglican Church for the whole
spirit hitherto associated with the idea of 'the corruptions of Popery'--as
monasticism, the continued exercise of miraculous power in the Church,
finally, the supremacy of the Holy See. From a copious correspondence which
followed between the two friends, I extract, as usual, such portions as
will throw most light on the progressive change in Mr. Hope's religious
convictions. His sense of prudence, and the bias derived from his
particular legal studies, restrain, rather curiously, the inclination which
his feelings in other directions show; but it is best to let him speak for
himself:--_The Rev. J. H. Newman to J. R. Hope, Esq_.

Littlemore: Nov. 2, '43.

My dear Hope,--[After stating the perplexity he felt on the question of
stopping the 'Lives,' which appeared to present itself in consequence of an
objection expressed by Dr. Pusey, in conversation with Mr. Hope, against
the Roman tone which had been manifested, Mr. Newman continues:] I did not
explain to you sufficiently the state of mind of those who are in danger. I
only spoke of those who are convinced that our Church was external to the
Church Catholic, though they felt it unsafe to trust their own private
convictions. And you seemed to put the dilemma, 'Either men are in doubt or
not: if in doubt, they ought to be quiet; if not in doubt, how is it that
they stay with us?' But there are two other states of mind which might be
mentioned. 1. Those who are unconsciously near Rome, and whose
_despair_ about our Church, if anyhow caused, would at once develop
into a state of conscious approximation and _quasi_-resolution to go
over. 2. Those who feel they can with a safe conscience remain with us,
_while_ they are allowed to testify in behalf of Catholicism, and to
promote its interests; _i.e_. as if by such acts they were putting our
Church, or at least a portion of it, in which they are included, in the
position of catechumens. They think they may stay, while they are moving
themselves, others, nay, say the whole Church, towards Rome. Is not this an
intelligible ground? I should like your opinion of it....

Ever yours sincerely,

JOHN H. NEWMAN.

_J. R. Hope, Esq. to the Rev. J. H. Newman_.

6 Stone Buildings, Linc. Inn: Nov. 4, '43.

Dear Newman,--... As to the Roman leaning, no doubt your 'Lives,' at least
many of them, must evince it; no doubt also that, unless carefully managed,
it will give offence. But may not caution obviate the latter? Is it not
possible to _commence_ by lives which will not at once bring the whole
set into popular disrepute? the less palatable ones being kept for a more
advanced stage. May it not also be provided that in an historical work, a
purely historical character shall be given to what as matter of fact cannot
be denied, and which can only be objected to when it is adopted by the
writers as a matter of principle in which they themselves concur? To the
asceticism, devotion, and anti-secular spirit of the English saints we are,
under every point of view, entitled to refer; and if any part of these
virtues was displayed in necessary relation to Rome, or to Roman
institutions, this in a portraiture of their lives cannot be omitted, but
certainly need not be canonised as amongst their merits. It seems to me
possible simply to take the Church of their times as _the_ Church,
without entering into the question whether any of the conditions under
which it then existed are necessary for its existence now. And so their
acts done in relation to the Church of their day may be dwelt upon, while
the further question whether the Church of our day is capable of eliciting
such acts may be left to the judgment of the reader.

I am not sure that I have made myself intelligible in this, and still less
whether it is worth your reading, but I fancied that you wished an opinion,
and I give it, _valeat quantum_....

Yrs ever truly,

JAMES R. HOPE.

Rev. J. H. Newman.

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

Littlemore: Nov. 6, 1843.

My dear Hope,-- ... You have not gone to the bottom of the difficulty. It
is very easy to say, Give facts without comment; but in the first place,
what can be so dry as mere facts? the book won't sell, nor deserve to sell.
It must be ethical; but to be ethical is merely to colour a narrative with
one's own mind, and to give a _tone_ to it. Now this is the
difficulty, altering this or that passage, leaving out this or that
expression, will not alter the case. I will not answer for being aware of
the tone in myself. Pusey put his finger on passages which I had not
thought about. Is he to be ever marking passages? if so, he has the real
trouble of being editor, not I.

_Naturam expellas furca_, &c. Is the Pope's supremacy the only point
on which no opinion is to be expressed? if so, why? It is not more against
the Articles to _desire_ it than to desire monachism. Will it offend
more than others? I will not limit certainly the degree of disgust which
some people will feel towards it, but do they feel less towards the notion
of monks, or, again, of miracles? Now Church history is made up of these
three elements--miracles, monkery, Popery. If any sympathetic feeling is
expressed on behalf of the persons and events of Church history, it is a
feeling in favour of miracles, or monkery, or Popery, one or all. It is
quite a theory to talk of being ethical, yet not concur in these elements
of the narrative--unless, indeed, one adopts Milner's or Neander's device
of dropping part of the history, praising what one has a fancy for, and
thus putting a theory and dream in the place of facts. But it is bad enough
to be eclectic in _doctrine._

Next it must be recollected how very much depends on the disposition,
relative prominence, &c., of facts; it is quite impossible that a leaning
to Rome, a strong offensive leaning, should be hidden.

And then still more it must be recollected that a _vast_ number of
questions, and most important ones, are decided this way or that on
antecedent probabilities, according to a person's views, _e.g._ the
question between St. Augustine and the British Bishops--of Easter--of King
Lucius, &c. &c. Opinion comes in at every step of the history.

From what I have said you will see that I consider it impossible to choose
_easy_ 'Lives' for the first of the series; there are none such, or if
there be a few, when can I promise to have them ready? I suppose Bede must
be pretty easy. Keble has it. I do not expect him to send it to me for
several years, with his engagements. Take missions, take Bishops, the Pope
comes in everywhere. Go to Aldhelm and his schools; you have most strange
miracles. Try to retire into the country, you do but meet with hermits. No;
miracles, monkery, Popery, are too much for you, if you have any
stomach....

The life P. looked at, St. Stephen's, was taken as having hardly, if at
all, any miracle in it. If he thinks it will give offence, doubtless the
others will still more.

You see, in saying all this I am not deciding the question whether the work
is to be done _at all._ On that point I have had great doubt since
P.'s objection. Only to do it without offence is impossible, and the more
so because, in parts at least, it is likely to be a very taking work....

And then so many 'Lives' are in progress or preparation, that it is most
unlikely the work will be stopped; others will conduct it instead of me who
will go further; and though this is a bad reason for doing oneself what one
feels a misgiving in doing, it is a good reason when one feels none at
all....

If the plan is abandoned, this significant question will be, nay, is
already asked--'What, then, cannot the Anglican Church bear the Lives of
her Saints?'

Ever yrs,

JOHN H. NEWMAN.

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

6 Stone Bdgs, Linc. Inn: Nov. 8, '43.

Dear Newman,--Your last shows me plainly what I had not before understood,
that the question of the 'Lives' depends immediately upon that larger one
which your previous letter had mooted, and that to solve it one must know
more than I do of the conclusions at which you have arrived as to the
claims of Rome, and as to the mode, time, and circumstances in and under
which those claims ought to be recognised. I feel therefore very
incompetent to offer any further suggestion. When I last wrote I thought
the questions separable, and meant that the Roman parts of your histories
should be treated dramatically (if I may so say), being represented really
and faithfully, but only as the scenery in which the actors stood. Your
letter shows me that this cannot be, unless your writers have more self-
command, and more disposition to exercise it than men in earnest can be
expected to have. I must therefore ask, what is your general view as to
Rome? Is union with it immediately _necessary_? or is it only
_desirable_--under new circumstances and at some distant period? If
the former, then one would think that the question should be openly and
professedly discussed, the arguments given and the authorities stated. If
the latter, I should imagine that much remains to be done, in the way of
raising the general tone of our Church in matters of faith and practice,
before it can be fit to deal with such a question; and though you think
monachism, miracles, and Popery inseparably allied, yet I feel convinced
that there are many minds prepared to consider the two former
which have no disposition to the latter.

On either view, then, I think that a work which is addressed only or
principally to men's feelings would be mistimed--it would not convince of
the necessity, and it would find but a small number of men disposed at
present to give it their sympathy.

There are, indeed, those other considerations which you mention respecting
the minds which would find relief in being allowed to dwell upon the
subject, and so might be the better persuaded to remain within our
communion; but, on the other hand, there is the risk of provoking such
conduct on the part of the Bishops and others as would drive some out, and
render the position of those who remained more difficult than ever. And
surely it would be most unfair to take the measure of what the Church of
England allows on this or any other difficult point in theology from what
might happen to be the view of men such as our present rulers, upon whom
the whole question has come unawares, and whose prejudices upon this point
in particular, backed by the secular policy of the State for 300 years,
would be pretty sure to lead them to some active, and probably united
censure. I wish therefore, much, that minds of this class could be
persuaded that it is not the Church of England which they are testing, but
a disorderly body which ten years ago did not know what it was, and is now
only gradually becoming conscious; and that if they can satisfy themselves
that the views they entertain are compatible with what they deem the true
theory of the Church of England, they would be content to hold them quietly
for the present, and not risk themselves and others upon so doubtful a
venture.

This, I think, is all that I can say--being confessedly in the dark upon
the most material points; but if you should think it useful either to
myself or to others to give me a full statement you shall have my best
judgment. Your confidence I have no other claim upon than that which arises
from my disposition to put confidence in you--to think that you know better
than any one else the real difficulties of our present position, and that
you can look at the remedy, however painful, firmly and practically.
Whatever, therefore, approves itself to you, I am anxious to know, as
furnishing for myself, if not the best conclusion, yet the best hope of a
conclusion--the best track into which to let my thoughts run. But beyond
what you may think good for me in these respects I have no right to ask,
and I do not ask for your thoughts. They probably would be above and beyond
me, and the responsibility of knowing them would outweigh the use which I
should be able to make of them. [Footnote: To this letter of Mr. Hope's I
do not find a reply of Mr. Newman's until November 26, when he apologises
for having kept him in suspense, adding: 'So far from your not having
written to the purpose, you laid down one proposition in which I quite
acquiesce; that the subject of the supremacy of Rome should be moved
_argumentatively_, if at all. I felt I had gained something here, and
rested upon it, and gave up answering you, as it turns out, selfishly.' At
the end of the letter he says: 'As to myself, I don't like talking; when we
meet we shall see how we feel about it.' His reserve may, I think, be
safely accounted for by his great unwillingness that such a man as Mr. Hope
should be swayed by him to an act to which, as yet, he himself did not feel
himself called.]

Yrs ever truly,

JAMES R. HOPE.

Rev. J. H. Newman.

In a letter to Mr. Newman dated the following day, November 9, Mr. Hope
criticises, on the side of caution, various passages in the 'Life of St.
Stephen Harding' (by Mr. J. D. Dalgairns, afterwards so well known as
Father Dalgairns, of the London Oratory), the first and most celebrated of
the series, proofs of which Mr. Newman had sent to him for his opinion.
These criticisms chiefly relate to expressions which might offend ordinary
Anglican readers, and which Mr. Hope proposed to soften. Mr. Newman in the
end noted against almost all these expressions _stet_. He remarks to
Mr. Hope (December 11): 'It seemed to me that, considering the _tone_
of the whole composition, an alteration of the word (_e.g._) "merit"
was like giving milk and water for a fit of the gout, while it destroyed
its integrity, vigour--in a word, its go.' Again: 'I am convinced that
those passages are _not_ flying in people's faces, but are parts of a
whole, and express ideas which cannot _otherwise_ be expressed.'

These points were rather matter of prudence as viewed by Mr. Hope; on two
others, touching the questions of 'exemptions' and 'impropriations,' Mr.
Hope appears to have been himself unable to go along with the view of the
writer of the 'Life of St. Stephen,' whom he considered to defend the
_principles_ of exemption too far. Mr. Newman here conceded some
alterations, which, however, I am unable to state, not having the proof
before me, which Mr. Hope does not quote, but, as finally given, the
passages referred to may be found in the 'Life of St. Stephen Harding,' pp.
47-49 and 65.

In the same letter of December 11 Mr. Newman informs Mr. Hope that he had
resolved on giving up the 'Lives' as a series, and publishing such as were
in type, or were written, as separate works. His comment on the motives
which had led him to this decision is of great interest:--

I assure you, to find that the English Church cannot bear the Lives of her
Saints (for so I will maintain, in spite of Gladstone, is the fact) does
not tend to increase my faith and confidence in her. Nor am I abandoning
_publication_ because I abandon this particular measure. Rather, I
consider I have been silent now for several years on subjects of the day,
and need not fear now to speak.... If these ['Lives,' as separate works]
gradually mount up to the fulness of such an idea as the 'Lives of the
Saints' contemplated in process of time, well and good.

He had said in a letter to Mr. Hope of December 5: 'G.'s remarks have shown
me the _hopelessness_, by delay or any other means, of escaping the
disapprobation of a number of persons whom I very much respect.' This was
in reply to a letter of Mr. Hope's of the same day, which I found it
difficult to introduce in its chronological order, and which may
conveniently be placed here, as Mr. Hope in it clearly shows that his
sympathies, notwithstanding his difficulties, went with the 'Lives,' and,
like himself, backs his moral support with open-handed liberality:--

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

Dec. 5, '43.

Dear Newman,--I enclose the proofs and Gladstone's remarks. The great point
made by him here, as elsewhere, at present, is non-estrangement from the
existing Ch. of E.; and in this many who are disposed to quarrel with the
Reformation are yet heartily disposed to join. In fact, I suppose it will
shortly become, if it be not already, the symbol of a party. To that party
I do not feel myself at all strongly drawn, and therefore do not sympathise
in G.'s views about the _Life_; but if his views be a fair
representative of the best class of opinions such as I allude to, you may
conclude that the high Anglicans will be against you. Of the middle and low
there never, I suppose, was a doubt.

For my own part, I read the sheets greedily, and felt that they took me
back to subjects which were once much in my thoughts, and ought never to
have got so far out of them as they have. Nor was I at all put out by the
general tone which seems to me inseparable from the subject; but here and
there are passages which I think needlessly direct and pointed, so much so
indeed as to appear, merely in point of composition, abrupt and wilful.
These I think I could point out. G., you see, thinks his objections
separable from the main design, which seems to me hardly possible--perhaps
you will think the same of mine, but they relate only to isolated passages,
and rather to giving them obliqueness than to changing them altogether.

However, I do not mean to say that I could suggest anything which would
obviate G[ladstone]'s difficulties, and these are, after all, your main
subjects for consideration. What effect they will have upon you I cannot
certainly conclude, but in case they should incline you either to delay or
to total giving up, I have only to say that I shall be glad to contribute
one or two hundred pounds towards defraying the expenses.... In fact, if
upon any public eccl. grounds the work is to be delayed or not to go on, I
cannot see that my money could be more fitly bestowed than in facilitating
the arrangement.

Yours ever truly,

JAMES R. HOPE.

Rev. J. H. Newman.


No need was eventually found for the liberal offer with which the above
letter concludes. The following letter, though rather a long one, is
certainly not likely to fatigue the reader, and seems almost necessary to
be given, in order to complete this part of my subject:--

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

Oriel College: Dec. 16, 1843.

My dear Hope,--You have not understood me about Gladstone, doubtless
through my own fault. The truth is, I am making a great concession--not to
him, but to my respectful feelings towards him. I thought you could see it,
and only feared you would think it greater than it really was. So I tried
to put you on your guard.

1. I withdraw _my name_ from _any plan_. This is no slight thing.
I have frequent letters from people I do not know on the subject of the
Lives of the Saints, and doubt not it is raising much talk and interest. A
name always gives point to an undertaking--considering my connection with
the Tracts of the Times, it would especially to this. You yourself and
Badeley (whom, please, thank for some kind trouble he has been at about a
book for me) said, 'Delay the plan, _for_ you will be putting
_yourself_ at the head of the extreme party--the B[ritish] C[ritic]
having stopped:' now, I am more than _delaying_, I am withdrawing my
name. I am sure this is a great thing, even though my initials occurred to
this or that life.

2. I have given up continuity, and that certain and promised. 128 pp. were
to come out every month, and the work was to go on to the end, except as
unforeseen accidents interfered (as they have). Now we know how difficult
it is to keep people up to their work. The work is now left to the
unpledged zeal of individuals. And there will be nothing methodical or
periodical in it to force itself upon people.

I do consider, then, I have given up a very great deal. But what I have not
given up is the _wish_ that the work should be done; only I have put
it under great disadvantages--so great that I do not think it ever will be
done--at the utmost fragments will be done--and that without method,
precision, unity, and a name.

And why have I done this? 1. Sincerely because I thought both by heading it
and by giving it system I should be administering a continual blister to
the kind feelings towards me, and the conscientious views of persons I
respect as I do G. I assure you it is no pleasant thing to me to lose their
good opinion, tho' I can't expect much to keep it. 2. I fear to put up
something the Bishops may aim at. I may be charged at, as the Tracts have
been. Then J. should be in a very false position. I must move forward or
backward, and I dread compulsory moves. 3. What is the most immediate and
practical point, I don't think I could get a publisher to take on him the
_expense_ of a _series_, but few people would dread the risk of a
single life of one or two hundred pages. Accordingly, I think I shall
publish the one of which you saw a bit at once, to see whether it sells.
That I shall to a certain extent be connected with it, and that I shall aim
at making it a series, is certain; and this, as I said, was my reason for
warning you that I was not giving way to G. so fully as I appeared to be.

Ever yrs affly,

J. H. NEWMAN.

P.S.--... What set me most urgently on my present notice was that _I
could not help it_. Though I gave up my series, which I wished to do,
_Lives remained_, written or printed, or promised, _which would
appear anyhow_, or scarcely could not.

The great event connected with the movement in 1844 was the publication of
Ward's 'Ideal of a Christian Church,' which at first caused less excitement
than might have been expected, at least in London. Thus Mr. Badeley writes
to Mr. Hope (October 26), 'Ward's book passes very quietly here at
present;' and again (November 8), 'The book here makes very little noise.'
But meanwhile the heads of Houses were moving at Oxford, and on February
13, 1845, a memorable day, the book was condemned, and its author deprived
of his degrees by the House of Convocation. Mr. Hope was absent on the
Continent at the beginning of the strife, to which his letters do not
contain much allusion. Perhaps the same motives of caution upon which he
objected to the 'strong meat' of the 'Lives of the English Saints' would
have led him to similar views as to the extreme unreserve of the 'Ideal.'
When, however, the question of Mr. Ward's condemnation came on, he voted
against it, as he was sure to have done if he voted at all. It is hardly
necessary to remind the reader that on the same occasion it was proposed to
pass a censure on No. 90; but this was vetoed by the proctors, and
consequently never came to the vote. I find the following draft of an
address of thanks to the proctors in Mr. Gladstone's hand, and with the
subjoined signatures and date in Mr. Hope's, among the Hope-Scott papers:--

We the u.s. M. of C., understanding that you have resolved to put your
negative upon the Proposal relating to the Ninetieth Tract in Convocation
on Thursday, the 13th instant, beg leave to tender to you our cordial
thanks for a determination which we consider to have been demanded by the
principles of our Academical Constit^n.

W. E. G.

Manning and self. Feby. 11, '45. J. R. H.

As far as regards Mr. Gladstone, this ought to be compared with a
correspondence in the Oakeley case, which will be found cited _infra_,
p. 58.

To the earlier part of the period now before us belongs some very kind
service rendered by Mr. Hope to his dear friend the Rev. W. Adams, Fellow
of Merton, and Perpetual Curate of St. Peter's-in-the-East, Oxford, in
seeing through the press his celebrated allegory, 'The Shadow of the
Cross,' on which there is a rather full correspondence extant (1842-43),
but of more special interest as connected with Mr. Adams' biography than
his own, except so far as it proves the affectionate intimacy which
subsisted between them. One letter of later date (December 15, 1846)
is endorsed in Mr. Hope-Scott's handwriting:--'William Adams, R. I. P.
sub 'umbra crucis.' J. R. H. S. 1871.' The work was published for the
Christian Knowledge Society, of the committee of which Mr. Hope at the
time was still a member. In connection with the same society Mr. Hope
undertook a serial work, already alluded to (which was in course of
publication in 1844), consisting of engravings from Scripture subjects,
in a high style of art, from the cartoons of Raphael in the Loggia of the
Vatican. Mr. Hope was strongly impressed with the utility of such a work
for directing and elevating the taste of the humbler classes and of
schools generally, and he expended large sums of money in bringing this
out. It was published in numbers containing six plates each, under the
superintendence of Professor Gruner, afterwards Director of the Department
of Engravings at the Royal Museum at Dresden, and prepared by Signor
Corsini, a distinguished Roman draughtsman. Mr. Hope-Scott, indeed,
did not carry on the work after the first five numbers (a large and
costly business, however), and it was completed by Mr. Gruner alone,
who published it under the title of 'Scripture Prints from the Frescoes
of Raphael in the Vatican,' edited by Louis Gruner, &c. (London:
Houlston and Wright, 1866). Mr. Hope-Scott continued his benefactions
to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel for several years later
than the time now before us. I find a donation of 210_l_. under his
name in the year 1847. He had given 200_l_. in November 1846 to the
College Chapel at Harrow Weald.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.