Newman Reader - Mozley's Letters & Correspondence of Newman 2-6

Oriel: January 3, 1836.
Happy new year to you and all of yours. What do you think of my getting into odium in this place as the advocate and agitator for self-supporting dispensaries? It is not in my line, but straws show how things are. I happened to be in the chair as Rural Dean in the absence of the Archdeacon, and among the townsmen I figure in consequence as worrying people with another crotchet. But it has opened a new view to me. I suspect the Dissenters here are hating me with a perfect hatred. I hear there is a large party of people who abominate me, others speaking more favourably. I have been told that I am a 'marked man; there is no question of it.' I am getting callous. I believe all this would have made me quite sick at one time, but somehow I wag on sluggishly ... Rose has written to me, but please keep everything about Rose quite secret (he would not like me to make free with his name), protesting bitterly against Hampden's Moral Philosophy Lectures. He says they are worse than the Bamptons, and says the University will surely rue its indulgence some day. He is pressing me to go to London. I am so perplexed for time that it quite fidgets me.

The Heads of Houses are much annoyed at our Theological Society, and I have cold looks even from Wynter, Burton, Jenkyns and Brydges.

P.S.—Mozley [T.] cannot come to you. He is obliged to leave Morton Pinkney. His brother is going to marry my younger sister. {134}

Oriel College: January 10, 1836.
Since I wrote I have had so encouraging a letter from Rivington about the sale of the first volume of tracts that I almost determine to go on with them. The only question is, the chance of doing something with the 'British Critic,' which is a subject I will talk more about when I see you in London.

Did you see the description of a High Church clergyman in the 'Standard' the other day? My thoughts at once went to Pusey, as answering every point of it, especially the corpulence (!) It is a sign we are somewhat growing when a talk is made between 'Times' and 'Standard.' I am told the 'Record' in its summary of the year's events laments the growth of High Church principles among those who might have known (or who did know) better things. Does this allude to such men as Mr. Dodsworth?

Many thanks for your kind congratulations about my sister, received yesterday, which I trust and fully believe have good grounds … Of course those who have wives must be as though they had none, and we know not what is to be. But, even though trouble were to come on the nation, friendships and affections are realities, and no worldly vicissitudes can sweep them away, not even death itself.

January 12, 1836.
I hope [sungnome] may be granted to Rogers and me, [hos anthropois], if a sense of the [geloion] did for a moment overcome us as to the Dispensary case.

The Wellington Testimonial affair is really abominable, especially as you cried out against it from the first as doctrinaire. I have much less to say for myself, though I believe I took it up solely out of compliment to Keble. But it is too bad that the real culprits should have slipt their heads out of the noose, and got snugly off to Hursley [Keble] and Duloe [Ogilvie]. Keble and Ogilvie are certainly the persons whose names ought to be put forward. As for Ogilvie, it is just consistent with his other views; and Keble, in his capacity of poet, could bear the imputation of a little {135} doctrinaireism more gracefully than most of his contemporaries. Rogers leaves us on Thursday, having been the greatest of acquisitions in the eyes of every one. What do you mean to do with your Erskine and Jacob Abbott?

January 14, 1836.
I suppose Christie has told you that I am ready to be on the committee [of the Theological Society?], and as soon as I have done the preface I shall try and set to work at a paper.

We have begun daily service with as little attendance as possible, but do not at all repent it, but quite the contrary, and already I think I see a disposition in some of the people to come into the idea.

I have heard from Froude, who seems to me to write in pretty good spirits; but I am sorry to find they think it necessary to confine him so. His being able to write is an excellent sign. What have you set him on now?

Thank you for sending me Wilson's letter. It shows him in a most amiable light, as only a little too mistrustful of himself; and it shows me that I must get a little more skill to rule my tongue. You have all of you made much more than I meant of that little word of mine of his being softish. I only meant that he was not as disposed to hang all Whigs, Puritans, &c., as some might be; but this we charitably attribute to the bad company he has kept in London. I have no doubt of our suiting extremely well if he can be comfortable here.

About the Psalms we can talk when I come up. Good night, or morning rather; I could prose on with much satisfaction to myself; but it is really too late.
Your ever loving,
J. K.

[January or February] 1836.
I see poor Burton is gone; he came to town for advice some four or five weeks since, and those who knew him well, though they said but little, looked very despairingly on his {136} case. One could wish one could nominate his successor; but what a dream everything seems.

You will pronounce me more useless than ever, for I have done little more than collect, and I shall not be ready.

Oriel: January 16, 1836.
Thanks for the sight of your most instructive paper. [This I think was the Preface to his Hooker.—J. H. N.] Give me this essay as a tract and it would set up the tracts at once.

I think I am going on with them. On Monday I go to town and shall decide. The 'Standard' is calling us 'third part Papist and third Socinian,' and Mr. Stanley [afterwards Bishop of Norwich] calls us an active and important party. Rivington has sent down for reprints for some of the first volume, which he says is steadily selling, and the 'Edinburgh' is preparing an attack. Now since many of these notices are made under the impression that we are crypto-papists, here is an additional reason for tracts on the Popish question.

Bridehead: January 16, 1836.
I have left Froude, who professes to remain much as he has been, rather weaker than when you were with him from never being in the open air, but not worse than he has been from the beginning of his confinement ... I am afraid, too, he is not quite in such good spirits as he used to be. You ought to send Harrison down to him to take lessons on the subject of the Reformers; for certainly he has a way of speaking which carries conviction in a very extraordinary way, over and above the arguments he uses [Note 1].

Did Froude tell you that some good lady who has read you wonders how it is that you and Arnold should have any difference between you, your sentiments and general tone so perfectly agreeing? {137}

Oriel: January 17, 1836.
You will say I surfeit you with letters. Please send up by your brother Anthony all spare copies of Pusey No. 1 on Baptism—also any of No. 2.

The 'Edinburgh Review' is going to attack us in form; on which Bowden observes that he desires it as much as Crœsus that the islanders would attack Sardis [Note 2]. Not in the next number—it is to be very mild, candid, respectful, a review of the 'Arians'—I suspect, from Merivale.

January 22.—I am at Bowden's, Richmond. What do you think, entre nous, of the Evangelicals having raised 150,000l., and offered it to the Bishop of London for building churches, if he will join with them and bestow them on men of their own kidney?

January 28.—Rose, who, like a high-bred horse, is more scared and agitated at shadows than any one of his calibre should be, sees nothing but misery in it; which is increased by the same party having (unless it be two reports of the same story) the intention of buying and then selling again to proper persons the municipal advowsons, which will amount to about 95,000l. Now I say, we must not think of opposing them directly, except so far as may secure principles, if there be any left. Let them fill the churches with their people; our {138} game is to convert these latter; and that I think in the long run we shall do.

Now for the 'British Critic.' I was to have met Rose at Joshua Watson's last Monday and again missed him. Time then having got on, I determined to open the subject to Joshua Watson, and most fortunately I did, for it turned out on the one hand that he was intimately acquainted with the affairs of the Review; had long supported it in a pecuniary way, and was the very person, therefore, to be consulted; and on the other hand Rose had had somewhat of a difference with Boone [the Editor] and would have been the very worst person to talk to—Boone having taken against and Rose having been seduced to take part with, Mr. Mortimer O'Sullivan, which, by-the-bye, may account for the latter's slowness as to the 'Home Thoughts,' which I offered yesterday to withdraw and put into the tracts; but he would not allow me.

Now I have a great deal to tell you about Mr. Stephen [Sir James Stephen]. I took the chance, after some hesitation, of calling upon him; he received me most exceedingly well, and made me fix my day for dining with him. I wish I could give you all his conversation, which was instructive. It is so hard to do so without seeming to bepraise myself; but, since I am conscious I have got all my best things from Keble and you, I feel ever something of an awkward guilt when I am lauded for my discoveries. He did not like my 'Arians'; which (if I understood him) jumped about from one subject to another, and was hastily written, though thought out carefully. My two volumes of Sermons he looked on as a condescension—every one writing sermons—as longish essays written off (which is not true), but important, as showing we had something in us which would be of essential service in the present state of philosophy and religion. He seemed to treat with utter scorn the notion that we were favouring Popery. This age of Mammon and this shrewd-minded nation were in no danger of it. The sermons had struck upon a new vein; it would be a great benefit done to the country if Quietism could be shown to be consistent with good sense and activity. Quietists and Mystics were commonly weak and eccentric; if repose and good sense could be married together, a service would be done to the age. Again, the philosophy of 'little things' was a most important ground. Further, the most subtle enemy which Christianity had ever had was Benthamism. He had had a dream of attacking it in his latter years himself. {139} He saw every one infected with it. Now he thought our views had in them that which could grapple with it; and he wanted me to throw myself out of active business and think and write: that was my function; the more I wrote the better.

He wanted from me a new philosophy. He wanted Christianity developed to meet the age—he thought that the Gospel had a kingly sway, and of right might appropriate all truth everywhere, new and old.

There was much truth in Benthamism; that was its danger. Legislation and political economy were new sciences; they involved facts: Christianity might claim and rule them, but it could not annihilate them. What he feared was the religious men of the day opposing them en masse. There must be an eclectic process, &c.

I could not in my first talk with him make out to my satisfaction that he was not too much of a philosopher, looking (in Coleridge's way) at the Church, sacraments, doctrines, &c. rather as symbols of a philosophy than as truths—as the mere accidental types of principles. But when I dined with him (tête-à-tête) I found he was far from this. He is perplexed; wishes for an infallible guide; made the most impressive remarks on life not being long enough for controversy; said he would be a papist if he could, and listened with great interest, though not clearly taking me in when I brought forward the argument of Tradition. Indeed, go where I will, 'the fields are ready for harvest,' and none to reap them. If I might choose my place in the Church, I would (as far as I can see) be Master of the Temple. I am sure from what little I have seen of the young lawyers I could do something with them. You and Keble are the philosophers, and I the rhetorician.

P.S. I am pleased at your good account of yourself. You will soon be able to get out. Your weakness is nothing considering the confinement. I have not time to read over this scrawl.

January 25, 1836.
Will you have the kindness to send the papers I last forwarded to you [N.B. qu. Preface to Hooker] in the next parcel from the press? I am very desirous to revise them {140} carefully since you are so encouraging about them in some respects; but you a little alarm me by talking as if I were breaking up such very new ground by it. Pray make any more observations that occur to you. It is a sad hindrance to be kept from one's books in the way one is, and will necessarily add to the many imperfections of the concern. But one comfort is, any good that is done is [toson kai eti], more than one had any right to calculate upon. Since I wrote to you last I have been looking a good deal at Jewel, and he confirms all my impressions.

I have been grieved and alarmed exceedingly at the loss of poor Burton. The least mischief one expects is the appointment of such a person as Shuttleworth, or one nearer Oriel. But Deus providebit Ecclesiæ suæ.

I am rejoiced at your account of the prospect of the tracts, and more especially at your going on with them.

Oriel: January 27, 1836.
The Provost's memory is certainly gone, or lost among his bits of paper, like a Sibyl's oracle committed to the leaves and blown about by the winds. I told you that he pretended that the mention of Ottley's name was quite new to him [qu. to succeed T. M. at Morton Pinkney]. Well, the only result of my conversation with him on December 31 is that he told the Dean [Copleston] that I had made up my mind to stay in the living of Morton Pinkney; and that he speaks as if I had originated, or at least authenticated, the objection against Blencowe on the ground of his unsound religious principles [N.B.—Blencowe was a mild, amiable Evangelical]. The first error he happily corrected himself, on re-consideration, remembering that we had talked of Ottley. Copleston now talks of taking Morton Pinkney, and is going there with James on Friday to inspect the place.

I delivered your message to Pusey. He laments that this Divinity Chair is the only appointment against which there is not even any regular way of protesting, as the Professor comes down with his Royal Mandate, and there is the end of it. However, he says that if, as he hears, he [Hampden] is to be appointed, he will write a letter to Lord Melbourne, protesting against it.

[N.B. June 22, 1862.—Pusey did write one of his most {141} earnest, weightiest, crushing letters to Lord Melbourne, who answered him cleverly and sharply, and did not conceal the great antipathy he felt in consequence towards Pusey.]

Harrison is talking much of an extensive scheme for building churches on right principles. [Vide Mr. Dodsworth's letter—J. H. N.] The Bishop of Llandaff [Copleston] writes to his nephew [Fellow of Oriel] that he has no fear of Ministers making an improper appointment. Pusey says this is became he does not expect they will appoint you, as he knows of nobody else in the kingdom whose appointment the Bishop would view with uneasiness.

In the above letter is an allusion to what issued in the great Church-building scheme carried out under Bishop Blomfield. The following is the letter referred to. Its subject and the start of this Church-building effort still have an historical interest.

York Terrace, London: January 29, 1836.
We are very anxious here to make an extensive effort in Church-building for the metropolis. We have been for some time in communication with the Bishop on the subject. The matter of patronage seems to be the great difficulty.

I have learned that some friends in Oxford, with whom you stand immediately connected [i.e. Pusey.—J. H. N.] have had their minds directed to the same subject, and have felt the same difficulty as to patronage. Now, for my own part, I feel, as I am sure you do and others at Oxford, that if we had any security for the Government being a Church Government, who would appoint sound Churchmen to be Bishops, we could not do better than leave the patronage with the spiritual Fathers of the diocese in which the churches are to be built. But suppose the case of a Whig-Radical being put over the diocese of London, having forty or fifty new churches in his sole patronage!

My object then in writing is humbly to beg you and other friends in Oxford to consider this point, and to ask advice whether we ought not to concede, so far as principle will allow, measures which are adapted to the painful situation of our National establishment, though not abstractedly such as we {142} should most approve. Suppose out of a certain number of persons nominated by the Bishop, say 100, three or five trustees should be elected by the subscribers to be the patrons of each church. The same trustees not to have the patronage of more than two or three churches.

January 27, 1836.
You may perhaps have seen in the papers that my grandmother died the 14th of this month. She retained her faculties to the last, and seems to have undergone the minimum of suffering which death requires. She was within a month or two of eighty-nine ...

… You may have all the rest, so 'spend away, my boy, and make a great fuss, as if your money flowed in from a variety of sources.

It is very encouraging about the Oxford Tracts; but I wish I could prevail on you when the second edition comes out to cancel or materially alter several. The other day accident put in my way the tract on 'The Apostolical Succession in the English Church.'

[This tract was in its matter Palmer's, and I think in some parts of its writing.—J. H. N.]

… Christie tells me you have had a letter from poor Blanco White. Pleased rather than otherwise with the review [which was by Froude] and mistaking it for yours, and sending you a copy of the book. Poor fellow! I should much like to know in what tone he wrote; it must have been a painful thing answering him. Poor Palmer! what a sad loss his mother will be to him; but I hope yet to hear a better account.

As to propitiating Rose, he is much in our debt and ought to make propitiation himself. I am quite out of patience waiting month after month for 'Home Thoughts Abroad.'

I don't gain flesh in spite of all the milk. Indeed, I suspect that in the last six weeks I have lost a good deal, but the symptoms remain the same.

[N.B.—This was the last letter he wrote to me, perhaps the last letter he wrote at all. He died a month and a day after its date, February 28. The following letters [Note 3] of mine, {143} written from Oxford and London, and at odd times, though in part at earlier dates than the foregoing, did not get to him till the beginning of February.—J. H. N.]

London: January 30, 1836 (King Charles's Day).
The following subject presses, and of course is confidential. You have some (I do not say much) chance of having the Divinity Chair offered to you, and I write in anxiety lest you should at once decline it because of the quarter from which the offer comes. I know one is apt to take oneself in; but please let me say a word or two. Some years since, in Robert Wilberforce's case, I certainly thought he ought not to have taken a living from Lord Brougham, yet I recollect insisting again and again that the question was not whether a Tory in the abstract should in the abstract receive a favour from a Whig, but whether R. W. should receive one from H. B.

First, it is not a favour done to you. I know the world will think it is, but it is not, and you will not really feel it as such. R. W.'s was nothing but a favour. He could not say 'duty compels me,' 'here is a sphere of influence,' &c. But in the present case a definite office, sui generis, of immense importance in the Church, is offered to you (if offered) and the simple question is, What is God's will? The many, indeed, look at the emolument, &c.: but put that aside, and there remains a great gift and talent put into your hands.

Consider, on the other hand, what the alternative would be: perhaps the throwing it into the hands of H. or of others like him. Can a man be justified in risking this? Is there any such clear reason for not accepting it from Lord Melbourne as for not suffering possibly H. to be Professor? Is it not a low and little-minded view to think of the offer of such an office as a favour done to oneself, or to be jealous of being suspected of regarding it as so much pounds, shillings and pence, rather than to consider oneself as a soldier at the bidding of his superiors going on any service? This is a king's office—as a lawful subject can you abandon him to H.? Further, cannot you or I, or any one we at all feel with, sincerely and earnestly pray beforehand that it may not be offered, from the very difficulty of choosing what we ought to do? Cannot we be sure (so to speak) that, if we had it in our power to decide whether the offer should be made by saying {144} the words 'yes' or 'no,' we should, whatever shooting thoughts from other motives might take place, yet deliberately say 'no'? And if we can be sure of this, have we any right to take into account what people may say?

Lastly, let it be considered that you are committed in your line of religious profession already. If the minister asks you to take a post, he is asking one who has already promised what line he will take, and who can be accused of no ingratitude or double-dealing if he differs from him and opposes him.

I say all this partly on my own account, for I have been named to the minister as well as you, and I wish to deal fairly with myself as well as with your case, and to have your advice. Six have been named to him, of whom we are two and Pusey a third. On the other hand, Whately, who is serviceable to the Whigs at this moment, presses for Hinds and lauds Hampden. Copleston, though of no influence, favours Hampden.

Do not let me make you think you have a greater chance than you have, but you may like to be prepared. For myself, I think you the only man among us who can take it without odium. Pusey would incur the suspicion of his brother's influence; I, of semi-popery.

Richmond: January, 31, 1836.
I write to you in some anxiety. Keble has a chance of being offered the Divinity Professorship [Note 4] [N.B.—I have reason {145} to think I heard this from Rose by word of mouth], and I dread lest he should decline it. I write to you, that if you agree with me, you may write to him at once. For myself, I should go by your judgment, if such a thing occurred to me ...

Then follow the arguments the reader will find in his letter to Keble. The letter continues:

Keble has long declared and acted on his opinion. As well might O'Connell be accused of ratting when he condescends to a Whig government as Keble might. For myself, carissime, I think I may say with a clear conscience I have no desire for it, and had I my choice would decide that the offer should not be made to me. I am too indolent and like my own way too well to wish it. I should be entangled in routine business, which I abhor. I should be obliged to economise and play the humbug in a way I should detest, and I have no love for the nuisance of house and furniture, adding up bills, settling accounts, hiring servants, and getting up the price of butcher's meat. I have the unpopularity, the fame of being a Party man ... the care of tracts and the engagements of agitation. I am more useful as I am; but Keble is a light too spiritual and subtle to be seen unless put upon a candlestick ...

Whately is pressing for Hinds. Copleston [Bishop of {146} Llandaff] writes down to his nephew that we may rest secure, no inexpedient man will be given us, and in town advocates Hampden. I can only reconcile him with himself by supposing, as I do, that, by 'inexpedient man' he hints at Arnold and me. [N.B. i.e. who are opposite extremes.] Dr. Goddard has been talked of in high quarters; also Bull, Denison [next year Bishop of Salisbury], Jenkyns and Short [since Bishop of St. Asaph]. Moreover Tyler, whom I should not wonder, after all, if they fall upon as a moderate man whom no one speaks ill of.

Wood—who has grown apostolicissimus, reveres King Charles and almost takes up Laud—has kept your MS. for his instruction, so I hope to get the said letter franked.

I have had a long letter on the stocks for you for the last fortnight, which was to have gone in a parcel with your MS. from Rose.

Oriel: February 2, 1836.
I have bargained to supply Boone with four sheets quarterly for the 'British Critic.' Le Bas is publishing a 'Life of Laud,' and a review of it is wanted. The review of it should get into good hands. I know no one who could do it but you and Froude.

Mr. Dodsworth, to whom I have been introduced, is desirous to have a series of lectures this spring on some week day, on the Apostolical Succession by preachers from Oxford. I am going to attempt Hook, Woodgate, S. Wilberforce, Copeland, Oakeley, &c. Wilson will give you an account of this and all our other proceedings.

The Bishop of London and Pusey are in correspondence about new churches in London [Note 5].

Oriel: the Purification, 1836.
I shall flood you with letters, but yours which I found on my table on my return yesterday requires an answer; and before I finish, perchance I may have news. I am charmed with Wood; I so wish you could see and talk with him. He goes, or is ready to go, as far as any one. {147}

As to my economies in my first tracts, I have much to say about them, were not writing a bore. First, I will willingly alter all revilings; again, all serious charges about which I may have changed my mind. But, so far, I have not changed my mind, namely, in thinking that Transubstantiation as held by Rome, involves in matter of fact profane ideas. If the union of the exalted nature of Christ with the qualities of bread be the doctrine of antiquity, I yield; else, it does seem to me a substitution of something earthly for a heavenly mystery. If I am wrong, I wish to be set right, but till then I cannot but say what I say, though I admit I ought to say it temperately.

Christie has hallucinated considerably about Blanco White. No letters have passed between us, only he has sent me his book ...

[Tharsei, philon etor] You could not but get weaker this weather so confined [N.B.—This ended my correspondence with him; I add his father's account of him.]

February 4, 1836.
… I will leave all below for your regular correspondent to fill. I am afraid he will not give you so satisfactory an account of himself as we had hoped.

P.S.—Hurrell wishes me to say that he has nothing particular to say just now, but that you shall hear from him in three or four days. He has received your two letters.

And now, as he will not ask to see what I may write, I will tell you in a few words that my fears for him have increased considerably within the last week. There can be now no doubt that he has been losing ground, that he is much thinner than when Mr. Rogers left us, and as evidently weaker ... He is generally cheerful, sleeps well, and takes a sufficient quantity of food.

Hursley [Note 6]: February 8, 1836.
… I am rather amused with the account of Golightly's tilt at St. Mary's [he preached against Pusey's view of Baptism.—J. H. N.], because Golightly has always held up Pusey as {148} quite coming up to his views in his cautiousness, &c., while you, though you may be orthodox enough, do not express yourself so as to keep out of the reach of flippant criticism.

He (Keble) had only been here a week before he was summoned away to Cirencester [his mother-in-law's illness (?)]. He set up daily service, however, in that week, which has gone on, and which answers better than one would have expected [Note 7].

Today I had only the clerk and one of the servants in the afternoon, and in the morning only one other woman besides, who dropped in before the Psalms; but commonly I have five or six or seven, and in the evening several children from the schools.

I was not ungrateful for your long letter. A man in the country values long letters, especially from Oxford friends. I am sorry your affair with H. has not ended more satisfactorily, at least more graciously. It is a sad pity, because he is such a very good fellow, and also so very industrious. You could get something out of him. Now Mozley [T. M., his great friend] and the rest of us are such idle dogs that nothing is to be done with us.

February 9.—I wrote this last night, and have since got Wilson's letter. As to Hampden, all that can be said is that he is better than Arnold, who would have made friends and become a centre, which Hampden will not.

February 15.—The last letter from Oxford, that from Wilson, gave me no notion of any opposition to Hampden's appointment, and I was quite taken by surprise by the glorious news you had to give me. It is a great bore for you to have to live such a salamander sort of life.

To Mr. Newman's urgent appeal of January 30, Mr. Keble—allowing some days to pass—answers with characteristic brevity, leaving what might have been his decision, had the choice been offered him, entirely in the dark; and turning at once to the subject of the actual appointment: {149}

Cirencester: February 10, 1836.
I am very much obliged by your two letters. The first would have alarmed me more than it did if I had not somehow made up my mind to believe that it was quite impossible the thing should be so [N.B. the report that he, Keble, was to be Professor of Divinity], and how I privately made up my mind matters not, as I make no question what we hear this morning from Miss Harrison will prove correct, and that the H. of last year's renown [N.B. I suspect this means Hampden] will be the worthy successor of Sanderson, &c. What can be done? I should think a sort of respectful memorial to the Archbishop and Bishops might be got up, stating facts merely as to what Hampden has taught, and as to what influence he would have, and leaving them to judge whether something should not be done to remove candidates for Orders out of his reach.

Oriel College: Ash Wednesday, February 17, 1836.
I had hoped by this post to have sent you some definite intelligence about our affairs here, but after all nothing is yet decided, though the Archbishop expected it would be; and the most discordant rumours prevail. Rose seems to fear we shall be unsuccessful; and, if so, on the ground that Hampden was made Moral Philosophy Professor after his Bampton Lectures. Now I am malicious enough to feel some amusement at this; for Gaisford and the Vice-Chancellor [Rowley of University] were afraid of me as being ultra, and thought Hampden the safer man.

By-the-bye Wood, perhaps, has told you, else you will be amused to hear of the following speech of Lord Melbourne's [the Premier] to his (Wood's) brother. 'How is it that in your sluggish University, a college should be found which has produced so many men of unusual views? There are Whately and Arnold; now again Dr. Hampden; and then again neologians too, though in a different way, Keble and Newman.

The Archbishop fears to present our petition as being on the verge of constitutional precedent; and I believe it is certain that, if Hampden is not appointed, some moderate man, such as Denison, will be Professor. Our friends have no {150} chance. Another friend in London tells me that we are pretty safe from Hampden, and that the affair will lie over for some time.

I know not what to wish; we gain and lose in both alternatives. If he is not appointed, we have gained a victory; and besides we are safe from the extreme annoyance and mischief which must attend the appointment. And whoever succeeds will be virtually curbed in any liberalistic propensities by our present proceedings in their success. On the other hand, if Hampden is appointed, a headship of a hall and a professorship will both, I suppose, be let loose. O that Keble might have a chance of the former! Again, the Ministry will be at open war with the Church; the Archbishop will be roused; and a large number of waverers in this place will be thrown into our hands. Our Theological Society will increase in consequence at once. What a lucky thing it is just set up! My scope in devising it was to restrain the vagaries of Hampden and such as he; but I little thought it would be so soon needed. Moreover, were Hampden appointed, we should be enabled to push a formal investigation into his opinions before the Vice-Chancellor, and nothing would do us more good in these times than the precedent of a judicial investigation and sentence. It is said that Arnold had the offer of the professorship before Hampden, and declined it.

… I suppose I shall soon hear of something from him (Hampden) in answer to my pamphlet ['Elucidations'] [Note 8]—though that must be in other words an answer to himself, since I do but quote him.

[At the meeting at Corpus, February 10, 1836, a petition was drawn up—I suppose to the Archbishop (the King?)—and sent off next night to him through Rose at Lambeth, with seventy-six names, including Routh. On the morning of the 19th I had two letters from Rose, one a private one, the other official, as from the Archbishop. I am not certain they came together; nothing depends on it.—J. H. N.] {151}

Lambeth: February 18, 1836.
[PRIVATE.]
You will have learned, I doubt not, ere this that Dr. Hampden's appointment is confirmed—that intelligence has just reached this place. I lose no time in assuring you (although such an assurance may be considered as superfluous) that every step which would have rescued your University from this evil was not only taken, but was taken without the least delay. But the determination of the Ministers has prevailed against every effort.

It is always a source of comfort to those who are to be the sufferers under any evil to know that they have left nothing undone, which could be done, to ward it off; more especially in a case where such momentous interests are at stake is such a remembrance satisfactory.

I need not say to you how deeply and sincerely I condole with you; nor shall I attempt to give expression on this occasion to the feelings which you will be well assured I entertain.

Lambeth: February 16, 1836.
[PUBLIC AND OFFICIAL]
I am directed by the Archbishop to say, that from the consideration which is due to his Majesty it is desirable to avoid so strong a step as the presenting the petition transmitted to his Grace through me; but that he will, if those gentlemen who signed it should be satisfied with that course, retain it, and act to the best of his judgment according to circumstances.

Extract from 'Chronological Notes':
February 8, 1836.—News of Hampden's appointment to Burton's place.
February 10.—Meeting about it in C. C. Common-Room.
Sat up all night at my pamphlet against Hampden. ['Elucidations']
February 13.—My pamphlet out.
March 22.—Convocation about Dr. Hampden. {152}

The following letter shows the writer impressed with a work to do, which ever since his illness in Sicily had possessed his mind, and would especially occupy it on his birthday.

February 21, 1836.
Many thanks for the news contained in your letter ... Thank also my Mother and Harriett for their congratulations upon this day. They will be deserved if God gives me grace to fulfil the purposes for which He has led me on hitherto in a wonderful way. I think I am conscious to myself that, whatever are my faults, I wish to live and die to His glory—to surrender wholly to Him as His instrument, to whatever work and at whatever personal sacrifice, though I cannot duly realize my own words when I say so. He is teaching me, it would seem, to depend on Him only; for, as perhaps Rogers told you, I am soon to lose dear Froude—which, looking forward to the next twenty-five years of my life, and its probable occupations, is the greatest loss I could have. I shall be truly widowed, yet I hope to bear it lightly.

February 18, 1836.
My dear Hurrell desires me to account to you for his long silence, but ... I am sure you must have attributed it to the real cause, and be prepared for a confirmation of the fears I then expressed ... All hope of his recovery is gone; but we have the comfort of seeing him quite free from pain, and in sure trust that the change will be a happy one whenever it shall please God to take him.

His thoughts continually turn to Oxford, to yourself, and to Mr. Keble; but my heart is too full to add more than his instructions to thank you for all you have written to him, and to say how much he was interested in Mr. Rogers's most amusing account of the late proceedings in the University.

Your friend is still alive. The morning after I wrote my last he awoke with a fluttering about the heart and a pulsation {153} at the wrist I could not count. Our apothecary thought he could not live out the day [There was a rally due to a sudden abatement of pulse], but our doctor holds out no hope of any change having taken place that should raise our expectations beyond that of a short respite.

As he continues free from pain or any very uncomfortable sensation except that of extreme weakness ... I am thankful that he is permitted to remain with us even for a few clays. On no account, my dear Mr. Newman, would I have you come down. No good could come of it. You shall hear again from me in a few days, sooner if anything occurs that should call for an earlier communication.

Hurrell desires me to thank you, and also to say that he is 'sorry that he has given you any trouble about those stupid accounts,' to use his own words, and that he cannot scrape up ideas and strength enough to write to you himself. Should he, contrary to all reasonable grounds for hope, get a little about again, do tell Mr. Williams his paying us a short visit will give us great pleasure indeed.

Dartington Parsonage: February 28, 1836.
My dear son died this day. Since my last he has been gradually but quietly sinking. After a rather more than usually restless night, he spoke of himself as being quite comfortable this morning, and appeared to hear the service of the day and a sermon read to him with so much attention that I did not think the sad event so near as it has been. About two o'clock, as I was recommending him to take some egg and wine, I observed a difficulty in his breathing ... He attempted to speak, and then after a few slight struggles his sufferings were at an end.

Will you, my dear Mr. Newman, select anything you please as a token of remembrance from your departed friend.

The Editor's family correspondence brings in interesting notices of Froude. Thus there is a touching postscript to a letter of Harriett Newman's, in the last stage of his illness. 'Who can refrain from tears at the thought of that bright and beautiful Froude? He is not expected to last long.' A passage in a letter from T. Mozley to his sister Maria tells of the first reception of the news of his death in Oxford: {154}

Newman had arranged to go to Dartington from London if he found a letter there. It was, however, purposely directed to Oxford, and it was sad news for Newman on returning to Oxford to find it so near. He opened the letter in my room, and could only put it into my hand, with no remark. He afterwards, Henry Wilberforce told me, lamented with tears (not a common thing for him) that he could not see Froude just to tell him how much he felt that he had owed to him in the clearing and strengthening of his views.

I dare say there is no one who has said more severe and cutting things to me, yet the constant impression Froude has always left on my mind is that of kindness and sweetness.

… Froude's death seems not a gloom, but a calm sadness over the College. Newman showed me his father's letter written the same day—perfectly quiet and manly—making various arrangements; and telling Newman and his friends to make selections from Froude's scanty collection of books, to keep for his sake. I suppose Froude never got a book or anything else in his life merely for the sake of having it. His absolute indifference to possession was something marvellous. Did I ever tell you that he has for two years at least given his fellowship to Newman to go towards the tracts? Yet he was by no means careless about money matters; for he with great pains put the accounts of Junior Treasurer—which I find troublesome enough even now—on an entirely new and simpler plan to the great convenience of his successor.

March 7, 1836.
If your last had reached me a day sooner, dear Hurrell would have been gratified with hearing that part of it which was addressed to himself. His affection for all those friends whom you named was great, and the things engaging their thoughts were seldom out of his mind.

When I wrote just after our separation I could not trust myself, nor can I now, to touch on my own sorrows. May God in His mercy turn them to my profit!

Hurrell Froude passed away so early in the work of the Movement, and could work so little for it, that his actual share {155} in it needs to be sought out through contemporary records. Little as his pen did, short as his life was, those who can recall the time feel the influence of his mere presence to have been essential to the original impulse which set all going. They cannot imagine the start without his forwarding, impelling look and voice. His presence impressed persons as a spiritual, though living, influence. He stands distinct, apart in the memory of those who can recall it, the more that years did not dim the brightness and fire which became him so well in his office as inspirer.

The reviewer of Froude's 'Remains' thus dwelt on the singular charm of his presence and companionship:—'The strength of his religious impressions, the boldness and clearness of his views, his long habits of self-denial, and his unconquerable energy of mind, triumphed over weakness and decay, till men with all their health and strength about them might gaze upon his attenuated form, struck with a certain awe of wonderment at the brightness of his wit, the intenseness of his mental vision, and the iron strength of his argument.' [Note 9]

Oriel College: March 2, 1836.
Yesterday morning brought me the news of Froude's death; and if I could collect my thoughts at this moment, I would say something to you about him, but I scarcely can. He has been so very dear to me, that it is an effort to me to reflect on my own thoughts about him. I can never have a greater loss, looking on for the whole of my life; for he was to me, and he was likely to be ever, in the same degree of continual familiarity which I enjoyed with yourself in our under-graduate days; so much so that I was from time to time confusing him with you, and only calling him by his right name and recollecting what belonged to him, what to you, by an act of memory.

It would have been a great satisfaction to me had you known him. You once saw him indeed, but it was when his health was gone, and when you could have no idea of him. {156} It is very mysterious that any one so remarkably and variously gifted, and with talents so fitted for these times, should be removed. I never, on the whole, fell in with so gifted a person. In variety and perfection of gifts I think he far exceeded even Keble [Note 10]. For myself, I cannot describe what I owe to him as regards the intellectual principles [i.e., philosophy] of religion and morals. It is useless to go on to speak of him, yet it has pleased God to take him, in mercy to him, but by a very heavy visitation to all who were intimate with him. Yet everything was so bright and beautiful about him, that to think of him must always be a comfort. The sad feeling I have is, that one cannot retain in one's memory all one wishes to keep there, and that, as year passes after year, the image of him will be fainter and fainter.

The strict chronological order of the last few letters has not been observed for obvious reasons. Mr. Newman at Oxford had to carry on his ordinary correspondence on the great public interests of the time, while his thoughts were dwelling on the scene passing at Dartington. Thus the following few lines to Mr. Keble were written when the heart of both writer and receiver would be dwelling on the friend whose life was passing away.

Oriel: February 28, 1836.
I have received this morning a note from Rose, of which at once I send you an extract.

'I wish to tell you in strict confidence that the Archbishop went at once about Keble to the Duke of Wellington, but it was too late. The person's name who is to be Head [St. Mary Hall] when Dr. Hampden resigns, I must not mention; he will do neither harm nor good. You may say this to Keble, but to no one else.'

The following letter is noteworthy on two accounts: as another illustration of the freedom with which Mr. Newman's friends volunteered their advice on what may be considered delicate points, and again as showing the estimate in which {157} sermons merely as such were held by the literary public of that day.

Temple: Monday, February 28, 1836,
I am sending today in a cover to Rogers my account of Bunsen's Hymns. Really the Bunsen has taken me a good deal of time; but I am quite sensible that I have brought out what I had to say in a very dull and clumsy way, and I am annoyed at not being able to mend it. So I am quite prepared to be plucked if so be [for the 'B.C.'?].

Rivington has sent me the transcription of your paper on Tradition. You did not tell me whether I am to take it to the Frenchman or not, or what I am to say about it.

I have looked over the two University Sermons, both of which were old acquaintances. Unless you thought of giving us a whole volume of such sermons, I do think the two would appear much better in the form of essays. They would only want a new beginning and end each; and you have no idea how the very name of sermons restricts a book's circulation, while essays are eagerly caught at, and many are surprised into the consideration of subjects which would otherwise never be presented to them.

Should this find you in Devonshire, though I hardly dare utter any hopes or fears [Froude at this time lay dying], lest they should be importunate, I cannot help offering my affectionate regards.

1836.
I do earnestly hope that you will continue by means of the press to enable those who cannot enjoy the privilege of hearing you in the pulpit to profit by your labours.

The necessity of pointing out, in an unflinching manner, the anti-Christian tendency of our modern literary and scientific pursuits, but MOST particularly the latter, increases every hour. The harlotry of philosophy perverts thousands who are proof against the grosser seductions of the senses. It would be well if some means could be found of giving more public warning of the tendency of the works produced by the class {158} of decent infidels; they have a great currency. The circulation of the 'Tracts for the Times' is far too limited to produce much effect.

Most of the popular scientific works, especially those intended for youth and for females, are tainted to the core with neology and infidelity. Of this, I could, if you liked, give you one or two remarkable examples.

Attached to a packet of letters, the following words, signed J. H. N., usher in the March of 1836:—

March 1836 is a cardinal point of time. It gathers about it, more or less closely, the following events :—

1. Froude's death.
2. My Mother's death and my Sister's marriage.
3. My knowing and using the Breviary.
4. First connexion with the 'British Critic.'
5. The tracts becoming treatises.
6. Start of the 'Library of the Fathers.'
7. Theological Society.
8. My writing against the Church of Rome.
9. Littlemore Chapel.

A new
scene
gradually
opened.

The last entry in this list—'Littlemore Chapel'—has successive notices in the correspondence of the period. It may be said here that the connexion of Mr. Newman and the ladies of his family with Littlemore was what may be called ideal: men, women and children all of one mind in their devotion to them, and whatever work they had in hand [Note 11].

March 3, 1836.
That I had not the happiness of knowing Froude as you did is a subject of my regret; though, knowing as much of {159} him as I did by description beforehand, and feeling consequently a conviction of the accordance in so many points of his views and principles with my own, I knew him much better during the two or three days of our acquaintance than I could under other probable circumstances have done.

A day or two before, I remarked in the paper the death of one whom I never saw, Menzies of Trinity: but I knew him by name, as one of the Oxford tract writers, and I was thinking of him as the first of your immediate party who had passed within the veil. [N.B.—Three men died three days running; Menzies February 27, Froude February 28, Anstice February 29.—J. H. N.]

Hursley: March 5.
I very much wish, if I may be allowed, to drop some hint at Winton that the Archbishop himself wishes for such addresses as we are waiting to forward. Barter at first, as well as Moberly, entered warmly into our wishes, and began sounding people; but first the Dean declared he would not sign, and cause why? He would not sign anything except an address to the King for Convocation. Then Mr. Charles Baring, who is one of the Bishop's men, said he thought it wrong to interfere with the prerogative, &c. &c. And now Archdeacon Bayley writes earnestly deprecating any interference, and wants us to believe, on his authority—for he gives no reason—that in a month's time we shall be of the same opinion.

I have written to propose to him summoning his college and addressing either the King or Archbishop, or at least the Bishop of Winton, as Visitor, which I conceive would be strictly in accordance with the Founder's views; but he has not answered this suggestion, and I suspect is cooling fast. However, the Bishop is coming on Tuesday, and I am to be instituted Wednesday at Winton, when I suppose I shall see some clergymen.

Mr. Howe, a clergyman of Southampton, writes me word that they all seem well disposed there, but are apt to wait till they see what Winchester does.

Forgive me for not doing anything for the Theological Society this term again. You know how I have been hindered; but you don't know how ill I am prepared.

Oriel: March 6, 1836.
The Archbishop would like large bodies to move, as Archdeaconries, but deprecates bodies of thirty or forty clergy. However, in a short time small bodies may move also. Anyhow, Winchester is not such. A capital address from the Archdeaconry of Bath. Bristol has sent up an address signed by nearly fifty clergy. Archdeacon Barnes is moving in Devonshire.

I shall be for printing some useful documents; one will be dear Froude's article on the Præmunire, and his Hooker paper. We have collected a number of historical passages, showing how Premiers, in the matter of patronage, have encroached on Archbishops. There is a splendid à propos passage in Bishop Newton's life.

There was a talk of Gladstone making a speech on the subject in the Commons, and we have been waiting to use it ...

We have indeed had an irreparable loss, but I have for years expected it. I would fain be his heir. When I was with him in October, I so wished to drink out his thoughts; but found they would not flow, except in orderly course, as all God's gifts. It was an idea of Bowden's the other day that, as time goes on, and more and more saints are gathered in, fewer are needed on earth. The City of God has surer and deeper foundations day by day. The few, the one or two, and they, however weak, fight at a great advantage.

The following letter bears on the influence of Hurrell Froude—the sense at the time that it was personal influence—as in a degree vanishing with his presence:

East Farleigh: March 9, 1836.
How can I begin a letter to you without thinking of the incomparable friend whom we have lost! It grieves me not to have seen him these last three years, yet perhaps, if I had, {161} my grief would be greater, because I should more feel his loss. If you see any of his family, would you ask them to let me have some one book of his as a memorial? There is something inexpressibly melancholy in the passing away of such a spirit without sign or memorial; yet perhaps it is a sign not uninstructive to beings so prone to fix their thoughts on things of this world. Yet it would be a great consolation to me to contribute to something which would perpetuate the judgment we have formed of our invaluable friend. If any monument can be put up for him at St. Mary's, I should like to give towards it 20l. I think it should not be a plain one, but accompanied with some figure, or something of that kind. I do not know what others feel, but think there is much reason in such expenditure for those we have loved. It is the best form of selfishness, and I think it may often call forth the feeling of kindred spirits to those who are gone.

Dartington Parsonage: March 9, 1836.
This morning I have been strongly pressed to get up an address to the King. Dr. Hampden's appointment is the immediate cause, and there is a feeling among the clergy in the neighbourhood that some public expression of our sentiments should be recorded, though we have little hope of doing good ... As these matters come easy to you, will you allow me to ask your advice, and such assistance in framing a short petition as you can favour me with? My notion is, that Dr. Hampden's name need not be mentioned, though the allusion cannot be misunderstood; and that our prayer should be confined to asking some security against the nomination of improper persons to high stations in the Church—meaning, of course, the Archbishop's sanction ... [N.B. June 24, 1862 … The point of the whole Movement, I think, was the addressing the King, not the Minister. This frightened, apparently, the Archbishop ... vide Rose's official letter above; and it nettled Lord Melbourne considerably, who wrote, in his answer to Pusey's private letter to him, that another time it would be wise in Pusey, if he wanted a thing done, to go to those who could do it—meaning, not the King, but the Minister.] {162}

March 18, 1836.
Thank you, my dear friend, for your letter, which (like all yours) is a comfort to me, and a great proof of your regard, to be written amidst such outward and inward pressure.

… About Convocation ... will your dispensing analogy hold? Is there no difference between the Church in her Canons directing such alterations (as in sprinkling) and the violence of brute force without, compelling alterations? ... But take your own ground of expediency. Can it be expedient, or is it not tempting Providence, to abandon interests without remonstrance, the only safeguards to the endowments of the Church which the constitution both of Church and State has provided? As to angry discussion [N.B. in Convocation], remember they can discuss nothing but what is submitted to them, and can originate no new matters. But I will not harass you with arguments which you have no doubt already fully considered.

Does it not seem to you that, however desirable in Catholic times the equal vote of the Presbyter with the Bishop in spiritual matters may have been (in temporal ones it is expressly enjoined), yet that, in our circumstances, with regard to the appointment of Bishops, the only reasonable hope of maintaining sound doctrine, if alterations are to be proposed, which they will soon be, would be in the Presbyters, who are independent of the State comparatively? ... And then you will wish in vain for the Convocation which is now to be surrendered for ever. We may then have the melancholy satisfaction of following the steps of the Non-jurors. [N.B. June 15, 1862.—In the extracts of letters of 1833-1836, there are letters of Perceval's on this subject. I had written papers 'On the Convocation' in the 'British Magazine' in 1834, not, however, giving any opinion.—J. H. N.]

The following letter relates to the recent meeting of Convocation at Oxford to oppose the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the Regius Divinity Professorship. This protest was carried by an immense majority, but vetoed by the Proctors. {163}

London: March 29, 1836.
I do not think that the world here is at all aware that the Proceedings of this day week were not a complete end of the whole business. You must not let the continuation of your labours appear like a renewal of them. Besides, you ought to let the non-residents see what they have pledged themselves to. As yet, the 'Chronicle' et id genus omne remain without any particular contradiction, while asserting 'There is now in Oxford but one feeling of disgust and regret, &c.,' meaning the doings of your Committee.

I hope you were not the worse for the labours of the eventful day. I found myself on the day after my return, 'pretty considerably tired,' to borrow a phrase from our American friends [Note 12].

Notes

1. Do not these words, as a definition of personal influence, throw a desired light on the weight and power attributed by all his friends to Froude's utterances? Apart from the language of eye, and smile, and voice, the reader feels and knows himself to be at a disadvantage.
Return to text

2. Herod. i. 27: 'When then the Greeks in Asia had been made tributary, it came into his mind that he would build ships and attack the islanders. And when all his preparations were made for shipbuilding, there came to Sardis, some say Bias of Priene, others Pittacus of Mitylene; and when Crœsus asked him if there was anything stirring in Greece, he spoke as follows, and so stopped the shipbuilding: "O king, the islanders are purchasing ten thousand horses, and intend to attack Sardis and thee." Then Crœsus, supposing that he was in earnest, said, "Would that the gods would put it into the mind of the islanders to come against the children of the Lydians with horses." But the other answering, said: "O king, you seem to wish heartily that you could meet the islanders on horseback on the mainland, and you judge rightly. But do you suppose that the islanders, as soon as they heard that you were building a fleet against them, had any other prayer than that they might catch the Lydians at sea, in order to take vengeance on thee on behalf of the mainland people, whom thou keepest in slavery?" Crœsus, they say, was highly pleased with the retort, and, as his adviser seemed to speak good sense, ceased from shipbuilding.'
Return to text

4. On this subject the following extract from C. Greville's Memoirs may be given:—
'This morning I got a letter from the Duke of Bedford, enclosing one from William Cowper to him, informing him of what took place when Hampden was made Regius Professor … "The Archbishop of Canterbury came to Lord Melbourne to announce the death of Dr. Burton. In the conversation that ensued my uncle requested the Archbishop to send him the names of the persons that occurred to him as best qualified for the situation, and begged him not to confine the list to a small number. The Archbishop sent a list including Pusey, Newman, and Keble; and if it was, as I believe, the list of the Archbishop which is now before me, it contained nine names; but it is possible he may have sent only six, and that the other three were added from another quarter. Lord Melbourne sent the nine names to the Archbishop of Dublin (Whately) without mentioning who had recommended them, and he justified the confidence reposed in him by giving a full and impartial statement of what he conceived to be the qualifications of each. But previous to this he had been consulted by Lord Melbourne and asked whom he would recommend, and had written, on January 22, 1836, a long letter, in which he said:—'The best fitted for a theological Professorship that I have any knowledge of are Dr. Hampden and Dr. Hinds, afterwards Principal of Alban Hall; the qualifications I allude to, and which they both possess in a higher degree than any others I could name, are, first, sound learning; secondly, vigour of mind to wield that learning, without which the other is undigested food; and, thirdly, the moral and intellectual character adapted for conveying instruction. Both Hinds and Hampden are what are considered of liberal sentiments, but agree with me in keeping aloof from parties political and ecclesiastical.' ... Lord Melbourne doubted for some time between Arnold and Hampden, but, thinking the former rather too rash and unsettled in his opinions for so responsible a post, decided in favour of the latter; and it was not till after he had made up his mind that Hampden was the fittest person that he asked Dr. Copleston to give him his opinion of him, which opinion was so favourable that it confirmed him in his choice; he did not send any list to Copleston. You may rely on the accuracy of this statement as far as it goes.'"
Return to text

7. 'Keble's marriage took place at Bisley, on October 10, 1835, and the newly-married couple went to Southampton, where they remained, I believe, till they took possession of the parsonage at Hursley.'—Life of Keble. Mr. Christie must have undertaken duty there during his absence.
Return to text

8. See a contemporary report of the feeling in Oxford on Hampden's appointment.—Letters of J. B. Mozley, pp. 50, 51.
Return to text

11. A letter of this date shows the interest felt in the building of Littlemore Chapel. ' ... The church is externally finished, except perhaps the pointing and washing of some parts, and they began yesterday to lay the floor or pavement. Our school-children bring us continual anecdotes with the greatest glee. They told us yesterday that the workmen individually are so anxious to have the pleasure of each ringing the bell to call the rest, before the others, which falls to the lot of the earliest, that there is almost a race among them to be on the ground before the time.'
Return to text

12. See on the subject of this meeting in opposition to Hampden's appointment, Letters of Rev. J. B. Mozley, D.D., p. 54.
Return to text

[Letters and Correspondence—1836]

Notes