{379} FROM the long illness, fever, and consequent weakness in Sicily, the solitude of the sea, and the hurried journey, there followed at once the plunge into the Movement. On July 14 Mr. Keble preached his assize sermon, 'which,' Dr. Newman says in his 'Apologia,' 'I have ever thought the beginning of the Movement.'

The Editor is allowed to open what may be regarded as a history of the Movement, through the correspondence of its movers, with the following sentences from the pen best fitted to write upon it:—

'Mr. Newman landed in England at a critical moment. It was the moment when the fears for the Church, which had long been growing, and which arose, not merely from the designs, avowed or surmised, of her enemies, but from the helplessness of her friends, had led at length to the resolution in a few brave and zealous men to speak out and to act. Ten Irish bishoprics had been at a sweep suppressed, and Church people were told to be thankful that things were not worse. It was time to move if there was to be any moving at all. The month of July 1833 saw several things. The resolution was taken, Mr. Palmer has told us, in meetings chiefly in Oriel Common-Room, by himself, Mr. Froude, and Mr. Keble, "to unite and associate in defence of the Church." On July 14 Mr. Keble preached his famous sermon on National Apostasy. Between July 25 and 29 a meeting was held at Mr. Rose's rectory at Hadleigh, at which were present Mr. Palmer, Mr. Froude, Mr. Perceval, and Mr. Rose. Mr. Keble was to have been there, but there is evidence that he was not. Mr. Newman was not there. There appears to have been some division of opinion at the meeting, but two points were agreed on: fight for the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession and for the integrity of the Prayer Book. And two things followed from {380} it the plan of associating for defence of the Church, and the "Tracts for the Times." Mr. Newman was not at the meeting, but he had already suggested the plan of association to Froude and Keble, with whom he was in close correspondence; and, as soon as the determination was taken to move, he, with Mr. Palmer, took the labouring oars in the effort which followed it.'

It may be well to anticipate the rapid course of events in the last half of 1833 by giving here a fragmentary diary, written by Mr. Newman, the final words of which bear the date December 29, 1833. This manuscript seems to give the first suggestion of what issued in so memorable a stir and effort. Who the 'suggester' was, whom the writer 'will not name,' is not known to the Editor.

It was the habit of Mr. Newman in transcribing letters and records (as in this diary) to interpolate short notes, embodying them within brackets, in the narrative. This system will be retained. Whatever explanatory comment enclosed in brackets stands in the page itself, must be understood to be from the pen of J. H. N.—the only title which no change can put out of date.


Oriel, December 6, 1833.—Keble preached his assize sermon July 14, and the Advertisement [Note 1] prefixed to it was the first intimation of what was to follow on our part.

I was low-spirited about the state of things, and thought nothing could be done, when one, whom I will not name, suggested whether something could not be done in the way of a society, association, &c., for Church purposes, or at least so pressed me to do something that I thought of it. I forget which.

I wrote to Froude, I think, who was in Essex, and to Keble, urging on the latter the gift we had committed to us in being in Oxford, which was a kind of centre and traditionary source of good principles. On his doubting about it, I wrote him word he might join it or not, but the league was in existence. It was a fact, not a project. Froude and I were the only two members at that moment. I also wrote to {381} Palmer or spoke, and he liked the notion much. Rose, too, was written to, and he came into it. This was at the end of July.

I wrote to various friends in August, but cannot tell what was actually accomplished towards our object in that month. I thought I brought out the first Tract in the course of it, but the printer's bill dates it September 9.

Shortly after the first sheet and a half of tracts were out, Palmer went into Warwickshire, and excited a great interest there by the notion of an Association. By-the-bye, I should have said that in August Keble wrote his 'Declaration of Principles and Objects,' which we are now at length publishing. Palmer took it down to Coventry. It was thought not businesslike enough, and 'Suggestions for an Association' was written by Palmer, which on his return I re-wrote, and Ogilvie corrected. This paper was largely circulated; the tracts stopping which Palmer thought too violent.

By this time my views had much cleared on the whole subject of our proceedings. I was strongly against an association, i.e. any body in which a majority bound a minority, and liked Keble's way of putting it, 'we pledge ourselves one to another in our several stations, reserving our canonical obedience.' I found a great many people agree with me. Palmer went up to town at the end of October to Archdeacon Bailey, Mr. Norris, &c. I wrote out for him clearly my views, and he came into them.

Then I began reprinting my tracts most earnestly, and distributing them. I had before this written to Rose how we had best start agitating. He recommended an address to the Archbishop. When Palmer went to town the draught of the address from Keble ought to have gone with him. But there was a delay between Keble and Froude, who was going down on his way to Barbadoes, and I was obliged to send up to Palmer a draught of my own. This, in itself too moderate, since I wrote under the fear of Palmer's thinking me ultra, was further weakened by Palmer in London, who struck out all mention of 'extra-ecclesiastical interference,' and was still further diluted by our friends in London. Thus it came down to us, and written in a most wretched style. We polished it, struck out some offensive passages, and sent it back. It came down again as uncouth, and almost as offensive, as before We amended it, and printed it; then circulated it far and wide. {382}

Meanwhile the friends of the Church who in any sense listened to us split into two views of the subject—one party for a society, the other for Tracts. The associationists abominated, or at least were offended at, the tracts; the distributors of the tracts dreaded an association as being anti-episcopal, productive of party spirit, and open to secret influences, &c. In Oxford the unpopularity of the tracts was made a reason for denouncing the Association. Mr. Norris and his friends in London made Palmer abjure the Tract system. Rose was for the tracts. Pusey and Harrison of Christchurch took them up. Archdeacon Froude wanted a monthly supply of them—an idea of which I hope to take advantage, and get friends everywhere to let me send them to them periodically. Dr. Spry warmly approved the tracts. The Bishop of Winchester expressed approval. At Bowden's suggestion we made Turrill's our depot.

At the end of November the questions became frequent, 'How are we to act?' and to myself, 'Do you approve an association or not?' So I wished to bring out Keble's original paper above alluded to. On going to Palmer I found Mr. Norris had almost cast off address, Association, and all, being frightened at the laxity of the address. Palmer seemed to assent to the proposal I came to him about. [This is expressed in P.'s letter without a date.—J. H. N.]

Wednesday, November 27.—E. Churton came down from London with the considerate desire of setting matters right between Mr. Norris and Palmer. He wanted the address altered, but found that impossible.

When I spoke to Palmer again about Keble's paper, he was most earnestly opposed to the notion of printing it [this is expressed in P.'s letter of November 29], but I determined to do so. He was to see it in proof. Accidents delayed the publication of it. Christie and Copeland had a talk with him, and his indisposition to it was lessened. Palmer seems to have thought that our joining the tracts to a project of Association in one paper interfered with his promise to Mr. Norris.

Tuesday, December 3.—Perceval called and made my acquaintance. Thinks the address weak; assists the tracts. The 'Record' took notice of and quoted the tracts. Before this Rickards had written to me, strongly disapproving of parts of them. R. Wilberforce also.

December 5.—Letter from the editor of the 'Record,' {383} declining (or something like it) to receive any more communications from me, and expostulating about the tracts. I had sent him some letters on Church discipline.

December 6.—An attack upon us in the 'Record.' The 'Standard' began attacks on Dissenters in a series of letters. Letter from Rose approving of the tracts, urging their continuance, and mentioning his intention to insert them in the magazine; from Turrill, saying they were approved, sold well, and that he wanted more; and from the Librarian of the British Museum requesting copies.

December 15.—Since the last date the 'Record' has retracted the violence of its attack, apparently having been expostulated with by correspondents, who defended the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession while they gave us up. Thus it has, in fact, advertised us. I hear, too, that the 'Christian Observer' has attacked us—nay, Oriel by name. The Bishop of London has turned round, and advocates the signing of the address in his diocese, on the ground that it is the least of two evils. He has denied, moreover, that he had anything to do with a Ministerial Liturgical Reform. Stronger and stronger reports of the intention of ministers to introduce some sweeping measure, certainly ecclesiastical, if not liturgical.

December 29.—The 'Record' has taken up 'the Movement begun at Oxford' and the association, but has declared the tracts have been recalled and others substituted! I have seen the 'Christian Observer,' which does not mention Oriel by name, but is very vehement. The Bishop of London is said to have retracted his approval of the address, and again recalled his retractation. The ministers are said to be surprised and annoyed at our Movement.

[This diary did not get further than this.—J. H. N.]

The earliest correspondence connected with, but preceding, the start of the Movement relates to the little gathering of high Churchmen at Hadleigh, Mr. Rose's living in Suffolk. As Editor of the 'British Magazine' Mr. Rose had for some time been in communication with Mr. Newman and his friends. The previous July, 1832, he had visited Oxford as Mr. Palmer of Worcester's guest, and his impressions of Oxford and of the men to whom his host introduced him are given in a letter which the reader has already read in the order of its date. {384}

The correspondence of 1833 must now be continued chronologically from page 362.


July 1833.
I mean to send you on the other page some names of persons to whom I wish Parker and Rivington to send copies of my sermon [on National Apostasy—J. H. N.], otherwise, like many of its betters, it will surely pass away as a dream.

As you say [alluding to the 'Arians'] one's Opuscula do indeed seem miserable when one comes to look coolly over them; but I suppose one must put up with that, as with other unpleasant seemings or realities, for a chance of doing a half-pennyworth of good. I am much disposed to agree with you that very few of our brethren are yet in the right posture of mind for looking at this question; but I depend much on the illuminating power of a little wholesome persecution. Nothing in the world that we can write about is more likely to do good gradually than bringing forward such examples as St. Ambrose, &c. [allusion to my projected 'Church of the Fathers']. Pray do it with all your might … I am very anxious that, whatever one does publicly, whether alone or in concert with others, should be somehow sanctioned episcopally; and I do hope Froude will bring us some facts or good opinions as to what their Lordships (of course I do not mean your Whatelys, &c.) would have us do.

Hurrell Froude, as has been said, was one of the party at Hadleigh. The following letter to Mr. Newman gives his report of proceedings and his impressions:


Hadleigh: July 30, 1833.
I send you a line or two to say what we have been about. I don't think Rose likes the notion of putting 'Lyra' into the correspondence. [N.B.—i.e. that the 'British Magazine' should not be answerable for the 'Lyra Apostolica.'] I told him our notion of starting a separate concern, but he seemed to think that it would be a failure, though he did not say so. My own notion is that, with the assistance of Miller and others, we might start a purely religious periodical of prose as {385} well as verse, with Keble's name, Excubiæ Apostolicæ, exactly on the plan of our present 'Lyra,' i.e. generally of personal religion and now and then ecclesiastical. I think, as in its nature it must exclude facts, it would take very little trouble, and I should not despair of a very great sale if we made a proper use of Keble's good fame among the Evangelicals. Let us start the first number about Advent ...

They [N.B.—i.e. the meeting at Hadleigh] think that no one will attend at present to anything one says about the appointment of bishops. I see that Rose has not abandoned Conservative hopes himself, and is in suspense … His notion is, that the most important subject to which you can direct your reading at present is the meaning of Canonical Obedience, which we have all sworn to our bishops; for that this is likely to be the only support of Church government when the State refuses to support it. I myself have a most indistinct idea of what I am bound to; yet the oath must certainly contemplate something definite, and sufficient to preserve practical subordination.

Rose has many good notions, and I like him much, but he is not yet an Apostolical.

Perceval is a very delightful fellow in [ethos]—a regular thoroughgoing Apostolical; but I think Keble should warn him against putting himself in the way of excitement. Some of the things he says and does make me feel rather odd. I am sure he should be set to work on something dull that would keep his thoughts from matters of present interest. I never saw a fellow that seemed more entirely absorbed heart and soul in the cause of the Church, and without the remotest approach to self-sufficiency, which his writing so often with his name made one suspect.

I have not heard from Rickards; so I have not ventured to go uninvited. I go to Round tomorrow, and shall pay Archdeacon Lyall a visit afterwards. He is a most agreeable man, and clever, and I should think not a mere Conservative at heart, though no Apostolical.

Rose has just been throwing out a notion that might be made something of; that is, that we should proceed to elect a Lay Synod, as [diadochos] of the Church of England ... {386}


Oriel College; August 5, 1833.
 … Palmer has returned from Rose, and I have heard from Froude, as you probably have. Froude wishes to break with Rose, which must not be, I think. Let us wait the course of events. Rose is hoping for a reaction: till we clearly see it [reaction] to be impossible, there is no reason we should talk of the repeal of the Præmunire—to say nothing of people not being prepared for it—and yet we may protest against measures we think unchristian. Rose has a notion of a Synod, lay and clerical, and to get it as an exchange for the Church rate being put on us, which he thinks inevitable. Is it lawful to compound in this way?

Do you not think we should act in concert, as nearly in the way of a Society as possible? i.e. to take measures for the circulation of tracts, pamphlets, &c., and to write systematically to stir up our friends. Would it be acceptable to the Archbishop (Howley) to know the feelings of people as to his speech on the second reading? Do not you think we could get many signatures under the heading of 'We, the undersigned members of the University of Oxford'? Does not the Duke's letter [Note 2] show that public men do not hear of the approbation which quiet men give to their measures? And might not the Archbishop be cheered by it?

Do you know enough of the ecclesiastical law to decide what the clergy of Waterford should do? If you can show that they ought not to obey a Bishop of Cashel, ought we not to do our part in stirring them up, or in stirring up the bishops to consecrate a Bishop of Waterford?

A friend of mine is eager on this point, and has been writing to a clergyman in Ireland on the subject. Palmer, I hope, is preparing for Rose a digest of the Primitive Canons. I am anxious to see a paper in the Magazine from you on the subject of virtual excommunication, such as you gave us reason to look for. Really it would be of great use.

I have written one or two papers on St. Ambrose, but am diffident about them till Froude casts his eye over them. The subject is his dispute about the Churches. Perhaps I shall take his conduct towards Theodosius next. As to your proposal about the Discipline question, unless it turns out to be very {387} formidable, I should like to do it. I do not know Bishop Jebb's arguments, but it seems so open to common sense that a Church must have discipline (else, might a figure exist without outline) that it seems as if our business, was rather to accustom the imagination of men to the notion than to convince their reason.

I fear they did not get on very well at Hadleigh. Froude wants you to give your friend Arthur Perceval a bit of advice, which I think Froude himself partly requires. We shall lose all our influence when times are worse, if we are prematurely violent. I heartily wish things may keep quiet for a year or two, that we may ascertain our position, get up precedents, and know our duty. Palmer thinks both Froude and Perceval very deficient in learning, and therefore rash.

I do not think we have yet made as much as we ought of our situation at Oxford, and of the deference paid to it through the country. Are not many eyes looking towards us everywhere, not as 'masters and scholars,' but as residents; so that all our acts, as coming from the University, might have the authority of a vote of Convocation almost, in such cases as when Convocation cannot be expected to speak out? Now no party is likely to be active in Oxford but ourselves, so the field is before us. Do let us agree on some plan as to writing letters to our friends, just as if we were canvassing. Now, if I could say that other persons agreed with me in thinking it desirable to say and do all in our power to stir up the Church, and if I knew the points of agreement—i.e. if we were to settle on some uniform plan of talking as to principles, &c.—then I would not mind writing, as in an election, canvassing, to men I knew very little of. Pray think of this, and send me a sketch of principles—e.g. that by the Irish Bill the Church's liberties are invaded, &c. And should we not aim at getting up petitions next year to the King? ... What do you think of preaching about the state of things? Of course no one should do so who is not conscious to himself that he is free from excitement, nay sick of all the nasty bustle ... If we leave our flocks in ignorance ... will they not be surprised at a call to follow us from the Establishment, should it come to that? {388}


[Few of his letters are dated, which has been a source of great trouble.—J. H. N.]

August 8, 1833.
Many thanks, my dear N., for your kind long letter. If I could answer half the questions in it I should be a much wiser man than I am. As concerning Mater Ecclesia, think if the Hadleighans could not agree [referring to the High Church Meeting at this time at Rose's living.—J. H. N.], where inter quatuor muros will you find six men to agree together? But I quite agree with you that Rose's Magazine must be supported—unless he actually rats, which I never will believe till I see it. As for Hurrell, he is so annoyed just now at his project not being accepted that I count his dissatisfaction for very little.

Now as to what shall be done, first and foremost will no bishop of them all give us a hint? It would be so very much better and more satisfactory to be acting under them, even though one might not always think they gave the wisest orders in the world. This I mentioned to Rose when I wrote to him last, and I hope he will be able to give us a hint. He need not name any names, as their Lordships are so very coy. Next as to my own feelings, I think my mind is made up thus far, that I cannot take the Oath of Supremacy in the sense which the Legislature clearly now puts upon it. I cannot accept any curacy or office in the Church of England; but I have not made up my mind that I am bound to resign what I have. Indeed, I rather think not, now that I have given public notice in what respect I differ from their construction. Also, I am convinced of the propriety of preaching and otherwise preparing one's flock for some trial of their Church principles. Indeed, I have already begun to do so; and I am meditating something of the kind in print. If for no other reason, it should be done to obtain the prayers of the well-disposed. Also, I am sure the thing can be made plain to them and interesting, too, without any kind of high political seasoning. I don't say without making them indignant; but if we are calm, that will not be our fault.

Then comes the question what line we should take in the 'British Magazine,' &c., and this is where I want, if possible, {389} authority; and if not, very good advice. I feel myself terribly unlearned; but, with all deference to Palmer, is it so much a matter of learning? ... Saving, therefore, errors through ignorance, this is my feeling of what ought to be done. If there is any chance of such a reaction as shall lead the State to mend what has been done, re-establish the ten bishops in Ireland, and make the nation pay the church rates, by all means let us wait for it (I confess it seems to me as unlikely as the Duke of Bedford's restoring Tavistock Abbey); but if the reaction do not amount to a retractation of the anti-Church principle, I think we ought to be prepared to sacrifice any or all of our endowments sooner than sanction it. 'Take every pound, shilling, and penny, and the curse of sacrilege along with it; only let us make our own bishops, and be governed by our own laws.' This is the length I am prepared to go; but of course if we could get our liberty at an easier price, so much the better. Only I don't see what you gain by having a Synod, as long as the ruling members of that Synod are nominated by an infidel Government. This would make me hesitate about Rose's compromise; but perhaps a greater sacrifice of property, in addition to the rates, would purchase the bishops' nomination for us; and then the Synod would be worth having. I see old Whately and the 'Times' have both been broaching something of the sort (par nobile), and this you will say ought to make me suspect it; but, however, it seems as if the thing were feasible. This may give you a rough notion of what I should like to be driving at in letters and the Magazine, &c., and perhaps in tracts and pamphlets. Your question about the bishopric of Waterford seems to me to involve it all; but I fancied that Palmer had long ago thrown cold water on any notion of resistance there at present. The whole matter appears to me newly modified, and made infinitely more simple, and more within everybody's reach, by the notorious anti-Christianity of the House of Commons. That makes it a stronger case than St. Ambrose against Valentinian or Theodosius; and I think should be dinned into people's ears in every safe way.

I like the notion of addresses to the Archbishop, but have had such ill-luck with the many which I have before now tried to get up, that I have little heart to originate one. When I have done my Pastoral Letter, perhaps I may try an appeal from the new to the old Churchmen, or some such thing, dwelling especially on the point of supremacy and the Coronation {390} oath. I should like, too, to try the Excommunicables; but fear I ought to know my books better.

Perhaps I may run up to Oxford Monday evening, or Tuesday morning. How I should like to meet Palmer and you!


August 20, 1833.
Your packet is most acceptable. I shall begin your series ['Church of the Fathers'?] in October, and hope and trust that you may be able and willing to continue it very long. I deeply regret that I could not have the pleasure of seeing you at Hadleigh. I am, as you may well suppose, a good deal shattered and perplexed by the suspense and uncertainty which hang around my future movements. Rest is the only thing which I now crave, and for which I am fit; but there seems no prospect of that.

I fervently hope that I may myself be spared from going to Durham, which under circumstances of health I should have coveted, as the duties of the Professor will so much lie in the formation of clergy. Pray forgive all this egotism. I am hardly equal to anything else.


August 22.
 … As to my preaching I have, on the whole, been successful ... I have written a sermon on the duty of contemplating a time when the law of the land shall cease to be the law of the Church; and I hope to get it preached by a friend of mine at the Bishop's visitation. My father thinks it most temperate and satisfactory. If I had strong lungs I should go about the country holding forth.

It has lately come into my head that the present state of things in England makes an opening for reviving the monastic system. Colleges of unmarried priests would be the cheapest possible way of providing effectually for the spiritual wants of a large population.


August 22, 1833.
Read the enclosed nonsense ['Home Thoughts Abroad'] and send it back forthwith. I do not wish you to say it is nonsense, {391} for I know it; but whether it is flippant, by which I mean what Keble blames in Arnold's writings, conversational. You will see there are few enough facts. If I go on there will be a chapter on the Gregorian Chants, if possible and on painting, &c., in which Froude loquitur. Perhaps in another I may have a dialogue and bring in some good sentiments à propos of the Telegraph Bill or the Solfatara; and I want you to write a chapter on France, or at least to supply an account of Lamennais' system.

A friend of Mr. Newman's, admitted to the knowledge of the task imposed on the Editor, thus speaks of the papers published under the title of 'Home Thoughts Abroad.' Writing in 1885, he says:—

You should see some papers in the 'British Magazine,' 1835-6 (I should think), entitled (I also think) 'Home Thoughts Abroad,' which were the first to turn people's minds from the classical antiquities and fine arts of Rome to its Christian associations. It was a new idea to me when I read the paper, and I really think to everybody else. Now any one would say it never was otherwise; the fact was, however, that no one then thought of Rome in connexion with St. Peter and St. Paul, much less St. Leo and St. Gregory, or of sumptuous worship as anything but a kind of theatrical sight. So that the paper had an originality then 'which is now eclipsed by satellites of his satellites [Note 3].


Penshurst: August 22, 1833.
You might safely have assumed that I would most gladly join your society—what do you call it? A Conservative Church Society?—and urge others to do the same. Of my neighbours, the Rev. G. B., a sharp intelligent little man, {392} has professed his readiness to become a member of it; and the Rev. W. G. to circulate its publications. One of your principles I own I do not like: you protest 'against doing anything directly to separate Church and State.' I would do the same perhaps in ordinary times but, when the State takes upon herself to decide, and that without consulting the Church, how many bishops are necessary for the superintendence of the clergy, and the clergy are cowardly or ignorant enough to submit to her decisions, it appears to me that the time for separation is come. Again I am surprised that, among other views, you have not for your object the revival of Convocation. Further, I cannot but think that something may yet be done to rouse the Irish clergy. There are only 2,000 of them. I have had a letter from my Irish correspondent. 'If the clergy,' he says, 'will not now make a decided stand, the Church is gone, both in England and Ireland. I fear the bishops never will do so; and if not, we can do nothing. Though there is a noble spirit in the Church of Ireland, yet it is not easy to bring a body of men to act in a way that might interfere with their temporal interests. The step you mention would subject those engaged in it to a Præmunire; the whole body of bishops and clergy ought to brave it, and then let Government take their remedy!'


August 23, 1833.
 … I have got a most audacious scheme in my mind about myself, which will not bear to be put on paper; the ink would turn red. Perhaps before we meet I shall have forgotten it. [N.B.—This was to stand for the Moral Philosophy professorship.—J. H. N.]


August 26, 1833.
The intelligence you give me about your book [the 'Arians'] surprised me not a little [that it was rejected as one of the Theological Library Series.—J. H. N.], as Mr. Rose told me, when I met with him accidentally nine months ago, how highly he thought of it, how high an opinion it gave him of yourself, and that the public were not worthy of it. Your letter from Naples I received and was much interested in. I am glad the introductions were of use. {393}

I do not deny I look upon you as an ultra ... I will not for a moment conceal that I look upon you as very extreme in your opinions ... and I should say that I share the opinions, generally speaking, of those Evangelicals of whom you ask me whether 'I do not think there is great hope ... ' Golightly, I believe, has told you that my opinions are not quite 'satisfactory.'


August 31, 1833.
I received a letter from Rose today, which has given me great pleasure, as I am sure it will you. But I will copy a bit of it, written in reply to my letter to him about the Society. 'I have only just received your letter, and in reply can have no difficulty in saying that I enter warmly into your plan and feel that, as far as your description goes, no Churchman can entertain any objection to a Society the object of which is to disseminate right views as to the Church and the ministry among our less informed brethren. But I want more distinct accounts of your plans, and, if I had them, should not despair of getting sanction for them.'

I have written in reply to this, stating again our two objects of maintaining the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, and the orthodoxy of the Prayer Book against Socinian innovations, and have informed him that our plans are to publish tracts, &c., on these subjects, and make use of the press, and that we should have a committee to revise, and pay great attention to the bishops, &c. But that on the details of our plans we wanted advice, and should be happy to take it. I also mentioned that we had many friends and supporters, and that branches could be formed, and begged him to speak to his friends, and especially to the bishops. I had a letter from Perceval a day or two ago in reply to one which I wrote, explaining the principles of the Association. He desires to be a member—so pray, Mr. Secretary, have the goodness to put him on your list of candidates.


Oriel College: August 31, 1833.
Most probably I shall be in London the second week in October. It would give me real pleasure to find myself with {394} you; and these are times when one's feelings and principles are tried so at every turn, that it is particularly needful to see one's friends often, to be sure how one is going on. I really often feel frightened at meeting friends after an interval, lest I should find they differ from myself about passing events—a judgment about which is no longer a matter of indifference. Your letter delighted me much; there is not a word in it in which I do not quite agree with you, and this I do think rather wonderful and happy; since in all political subjects there is such great room for variation of sentiment. But I suppose the time is coming when the bulk of serious persons will be on one side; and this is a consolation among many annoyances.

As to the state of the Church, I suppose it was in a far worse condition in Arian times, except in the one point you mention—that there was the possibility of true-minded men becoming bishops, which is now almost out of the question. If we had one Athanasius or Basil, we could bear with twenty Eusebius's, though Eusebius was not at all the worst of the bad. The scandals of Arian times are far worse than any now. I wish the Archbishop had somewhat of the boldness of the old Catholic prelates; no one can doubt he is a man of the highest principle, and would willingly die a martyr, but if he had but the little finger of Athanasius, he would do us all the good in the world. Things have come to a pretty pass when one must not speak as a Christian minister, for fear of pulling down the house over our heads. At the same time, I daresay, were I in high station, I should suddenly get very cautious from the feeling of responsibility. Well, it is a lucky thing to be able to talk; and I think we who can should make the most of it.

Under this feeling, we are just setting up here Societies for the defence of the Church. We do not like our names known, but we hope the plan will succeed. We have already got assistants in five or six counties. Our objects are 'to rouse the clergy, to inculcate the Apostolical Succession, and to defend the Liturgy.' We hope to publish tracts, &c.

I shall take great interest in seeing your Tract about Duelling. Do you ever see the 'British Magazine'? It is edited by Rose of Cambridge, and on the whole advocates good principles. Rose writes very cleverly, and there is a knot of persons here who support him,—Keble, Miller, Palmer of Worcester, and others. I have constituted myself editor (with {395} another man) [Note 4] of a poetical series which comes out in the Magazine, and which always contains some good things, though perhaps you may consider the September number somewhat violent.

But one gains nothing by sitting still. I am sure the Apostles did not sit still: and agitation is the order of the day. I do not at all fear for the result, were we thrown on the people, though for a while many of us would be distressed in re pecuniaria—not that I would advocate a separation of Church and State unless the nation does more tyrannical things against us; but I do feel I should be glad if it were done and over, much as the nation would lose by it; for I fear the Church is being corrupted by the union.

As to poor Whately, it is melancholy. Of course, to know him now is quite impossible, yet he has so many good qualities that it is impossible also not to feel for him. I fear his love of applause, popularity, &c., has been his snare; for a man more void of, what are commonly called, selfish ends does not exist.

My Mother and sisters desire me to send you their very kind remembrances. I found them quite well, after having almost despaired of ever seeing them again. I fell ill at Lyons again for two days, which frightened me, and made me travel fast (since I found I could) lest I should be laid up a second time in a foreign land. I am, thank God, remarkably well now.


Oriel College: August 31, 1833.
 … Thanks for the two letters, and the song, which will be the more acceptable because the present time is evil. A strange notion yours! as if we were not disposed more to cling to what was, on the ground of its being 'fuit.' Do you understand? Charles I. and his line are the more dear on account of the apostasy of others. Yet, I confess, Tory as I still am, theoretically and historically, I begin to be a Radical practically. Do not let me misrepresent myself. I, of course, think that the most natural and becoming state of things is for the aristocratical power to be the upholder of the Church; yet I cannot deny the plain fact that in most ages the latter has been based on a popular power. It was so in its rise, in the {396} days of Ambrose and in the days of Becket, and it will be so again. I am preparing myself for such a state of things, and for this simple reason, because the State has deserted us and we cannot help ourselves. You must not think, however, that I myself meant to hasten the downfall of the Monarchy by word or deed. I trust the Whigs and Radicals will reap their proper glory, and we but enjoy their fruit without committing ourselves. On this ground, I am against all measures on our part tending to the separation of Church and State, such as putting the bishops out of Parliament, &c., though, I confess, if the destructives go much further in their persecution of us—e.g. if they made Arnold a bishop—I might consider it wrong to maintain that position longer, much as I should wish to do so. Entre nous, we have set up Societies over the kingdom in defence of the Church. Certainly this is, you will say, a singular confidential communication, being shared by so many; but the entre nous relates to we. We do not like our names known. You may say as much as you will to any one about the fact of the Societies and their object. They are already started (in germ) in Oxfordshire, Devonshire, Gloucestershire, Berks, Suffolk and Kent—the object being 'to make the clergy alive to their situation, to enforce the Apostolical Succession, and to defend the Liturgy.' We mean to publish and circulate tracts. I have started with four. We think of a quarterly magazine. I wish I had more money (a respectable wish), but I have squandered mine in Sicily. All this plan of publication will not interfere with Rose's Magazine. Everything as yet promises well—but we are merely talking about it as yet, and have got no rules even. My work is passing through the press. Do you recollect how I was fussed about it this time two years, when I had not written a word? It has now been done the better part of a year and a half! I am somewhat in a stew with all sorts of indefinite fears—yet I hope I have committed no blunders.

We are bringing out a stinging 'Lyra' this September—moderate, well-judging men will be shocked at it. I am pleased to find we are called enthusiasts—pleased, for when did a cause which could be so designated fail of success? I have been writing a series of papers for Rose, called the 'Church of the Fathers,' which commences in October; I began another work besides, which is not known yet. You will be amused at this account about myself, but at present I have nothing else to talk or think about. Everyone is from Oxford, and nothing {397} going on; and your letter certainly did not contain materials for much comment or development. One would think that a man who uses his eyes and pen but seldom would abound in deep sayings when he put pen to paper. Every sentence ought to be a view.

I am surprisingly well, except that my hair has all deserted me, as is usual after fevers. It seems so astonishing to be in England after so many sad forebodings: i.e. I could not reconcile my imagination, only my reason, to the notion I should ever get back. The way seemed so very long. Yet now I am beginning to get very dissatisfied with not having done more in Sicily. It was most unlucky to be detained three weeks in Palermo, when I might have been roving over the island. How glad I shall be to see you as a Fellow. Everything went so against me in Sicily that I made up my mind you were unsuccessful. I am particularly obliged to you for your kind attentions to my Mother, according to my request. You have no notion how useful your Tillemont already is. The 'Church of the Fathers' is in great measure drawn up from it.


September 2, 1833.
 … As to your criticism on the doctrine [N.B. of 'Home Thoughts,' viz., as against the Church of Rome, which I have said was possessed with the local spirit of Pagan Rome] absisto totus. I never will cease to maintain that idolatry is wrong.

I have had most favourable answers hitherto, so much so that I have been obliged to print some tracts in self-defence: i.e. to save continual letter-writing. I send you two of them. Keble thinks them pompous, which I do not deny. I have not heard from Rickards, but hope to establish something in Suffolk through another. There is a clerical meeting in Berkshire on the 12th, which Cotton and John Marriott attend. The latter has taken it up warmly and will introduce the subject. Palmer, who was to have written to Cotton, is so ill as to have set off to Hastings. I fear Cotton thinks me hot something. Trower calls me an ultra and you an enthusiast. Marriott hopes through his uncle to set up a Society in Shropshire. Davison has sent his approval to Keble, but is silent as to his adhesion. Ogilvie approves also! I walked to the consecration of Summers Town Chapel the other day with {398} Field [now Bishop of Newfoundland]. It is astonishing how we coalesce. He admitted that he feared the ministry, and I that bishops were no good in Parliament, though I would have nothing to do with removing them, in which he acquiesced.

James Mozley is circulating my tracts in Linconshire by post. I do hold a great deal may be made of this mode of circulation in the way of agitation. We hope to have a meeting here of Golightly, Blencowe, Marriott, and Mozley in a fortnight. Bramston was converted, i.e. is at present, by Keble's sermon. I have written to Rogers.


September 1833.
I send you such as I can [his first tract 'Adherence,' [Note 5] &c.] rudis indigestaque moles it has proved; but if it, or any part of it, is worthy of our friend King's press, you are hereby authorised to do what you will with it. The more I study your papers [the first tracts] the better I like them. I see Rose has taken Durham. Of course the Magazine must change hands.

I quite forgot when I saw you to speak to you about your kind thought of mentioning me at the beginning of your book [the 'Arians']. I really and truly think it had better not be done, as far as it goes, in respect of the cause. We have seen how ridiculous the Archbishop of Dublin and his set have become by their continual puffing and repuffing each other. It concerns us to avoid the appearance of anything of the sort. If we were not acting in a kind of set together, the objection would not be near so strong. Pray consider, and I really think you will agree with me. At all events, I thank you with all my heart, and hope by degrees to become more worthy of the intended compliment.


September 6, 1833.
It vexes me I have not been able to tell you how cordially I enter into the measure you propose for maintaining our proper position as Christ's ministers in these evil days. Everything ought to be done by us that can be done to show that {399} we at least are in earnest when all around us seem in sport. The point to be maintained as to the Liturgy seems to me to be to admit of no changes, but such only as are made and sanctioned by the authority of the Church; they who are no Christians themselves must not legislate on matters of religion for those who are Christians. I would not stand forth and protest against alterations which were directed and approved by what might properly be called the same authority by which the same things have been done before among us.

As far as my opinion goes for anything, I disapprove of the concealment of names. 'I am small and of no reputation' is an old plea for shrinking, which the best servants of God have never liked, and I like it not any better than they did. The sooner the tracts are begun the better. Be so good as to advance a subscription for me, according as you may see fit.


Oriel College: September 8, 1833.
 … Your fears about my health are, I trust, as groundless as they are kind. True it is I had a fearful illness in Sicily and escaped as by fire, yet I have quite recovered, except weakness in my joints, and am now better than I have ever been these seventeen years—that is, through my whole Oxford life. Whether the blessing will last is another question, but there can be no harm in boasting of what is a fact, and what is a present, though it may be a transient, good ...

If we look into history, whether in the age of the Apostles, St. Ambrose's, or St. Becket's, still the people were the fulcrum of the Church's power. So they may be again. Therefore, expect on your return to England to see us all cautious, long-headed, unfeeling, unflinching Radicals. We have set up Church Societies all over the kingdom, or at least mean to do so. Already the seeds of revolution are planted in Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Devonshire, Gloucestershire, Kent, and Suffolk. Our object is to maintain the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession and save the Liturgy from illegal alterations. Hitherto we have had great success; Rose and Davison, to say nothing of others, approve of our plan. And we have begun to print tracts. We intend to have nothing to do with party politics; Tros Tyriusque mihi, &c., and self-preservation, as Polignac said, is the first law of nature ... If we {400} succeed, you will see the consequences; if we fail, we shall at least have the satisfaction of transmitting the sparks of truth, still living, to a happier age. It is no slight thing to be made the instrument of handing down the principles of Laud till the time comes ...

I was three weeks laid up at Castro Juan (the ancient Enna) without any proper advice ... I certainly roughed it; not a bad seasoning for the life of a pilgrim at home, if times become bad, except that I was treated with vast respect as being an Englishman. The people are most kind; the little experience I have had of them makes me quite love them. I would I could recompense the attentions I had as I lay by the roadside in a miserable hut. Those I received at Castro Juan I can acknowledge now I have got safe back; but the poor peasants are quite unknown to me by name, though I shall try to get my friends at Castro Juan to find them out. Sicily is a superb country. It is not right to put life against any stake, but, as to my pain and anxiety, it is more than recompensed by what I saw there.


September 8, 1833.
 … I like your tracts much. My father thinks the generality of parsons here would not enter into the [ethos] of 'I am a Presbyter,' &c. I am astonished to see how much impression the march of events has made upon him. He says they [the Evangelicals] would all be pulling different ways with mare's-nests of their own. The High Church, he thinks, generally speaking, too apathetic to be worked upon. If we could get any good addresses to the poor written ... he says he is sure he could circulate them among all the clergy of his archdeaconry, and that he could get the Archdeacon of Exeter to do the same. He has to preach a sermon for the National Schools at the Cathedral, and intends to speak in very plain terms about the apostasy, moral as well as religious, of the higher orders; and the necessity of all serious people stirring themselves, especially with a view to instructing the lower orders in true Church principles, for that we must look to them, the poor, for our support.

What would be the effect of Phillpotts [Bishop of Exeter] bringing forward the Præmunire? My father thinks it might take. {401}

Why should not the Archbishop have Ignatius and Clement printed, and recommend the clergy to distribute? Ogilvie ought to be touched up about this. Without high authority the country clergy will never give a thought to the Fathers. They have got it in their heads that such matters are either out of date or Romish.


September 9, 1833.
Our Conciliabulum [Golightly, Marriott, &c.] meets next Monday, and I want, if possible, the above ['An Association' and 'Considering, &c.'] printed by that time. No. 2 ['Considering that the only way, &c.'] is Keble's. No. 1 ['An Association has been formed by the friends of the Church, &c.'] mine. Keble has not seen No. 1. Criticise the whole very accurately in matter and style, and send it back by return of post.

You see I call the Association 'Friends of the Church,' i.e. by implication. Next about the Committee [Keble, Palmer, Newman, Froude, Williams (I.), Perceval, Prevost, Blencowe, Marriott, T. Keble]. As the meetings must be in Oxford, it is no matter what names we put in, yet I can find none but Oriel men. Nay I, without leave, printed Williams' name. Copeland I cannot put down without leave. Can you get any Devonshire names on the Committee? Keble has made Palmer and me secretaries. I am going to London in October, and hope to glean there; a most intimate friend of mine, a layman. [N.B.—J. W. Bowden], has taken it up warmly, i.e. as far as the plan has been laid before him. I shall have a try at Benson [Preacher of Lincoln's Inn, Master of the Temple] and Hull [a barrister, W. W. Hull]. Rickards has written a most warm answer and begs to subscribe. A neighbour of his, an old contemporary of mine at Trinity, has done the same ... You must at once write a tract on 'the project of shortening Services.' Your knowledge of the breviary, &c., points you out as the man. Give a succinct view of the origin of our Services.

Keble is writing two tracts. I have written to Perceval for another. I have written four. I have proposed to Rickards to digest the opinions of Sanderson, Hammond, &c, on the Apostolical Succession.

I think I told you Rose joins; and, if we turn out well, {402} will get us high patronage. I am very anxious lest we should enlarge our basis. Not to get in bishops must we make any material alteration.


September 15, 1833.
When I got home last night I found your letter. I should have had little to offer in the way of criticism … Why don't you get Rose and Ogilvie to put their names on the Committee? M. H. ought to be on, if it was only to give the thing an unintellectual character. We must not enlarge our basis even for Bishops. In short, I object to anyone whose ear we have not secured, so that our opinions may be the creed of the Association. I am quite surprised to find how easily I get on with people, now that one throws overboard the points about which prejudices are encrusted.

As to any conflict between ——'s views and ours, I apprehend no evil from him, however painful it may be. Anything that sets people agog is on our side. I deprecate a calm.


September 18, 1833.
I doubt whether you will like the way we are going on. I myself am disappointed, and wish for your presence here. I will say a few words.

A difficulty has arisen about tracts. Your father's criticism on mine has been verified in the case of Cotton, who is offended at it. Then came the question: 'Do the tracts commit the Society?' No; mine, for example, are designedly in the first person. Then Palmer says, 'No tracts must be issued without the Committee's approval, and we must have on it men of different tastes, &c. (always supposing they adopt our principles), that we may hit on the right thing for a sickly clergy, for such is the present generation.'

At present, then, I have agreed with Palmer on the following basis, which, however, perhaps will be modified: 'That the Society should put into its Committee men of the highest rank it can get; that till it is more settled in its shape it should publish no tracts at all; but that any individuals in it (of course) may publish what tracts they please.'

If, on the other hand, the higher powers will not join us, {403} we then may without immodesty take a bolder course. I am not satisfied with all this myself, but I do not see what else I could have done. I cannot but hope, on the whole, that this Society will be the first step towards bringing men of like minds together. We must not be impatient. Never mind, though our creed is not stamped on the body; we may single out from them those who agree with us, and form a second society out of the first.

I have many misgivings about the fate of 'Newman on Arianism.' The adventure with Cotton makes me think I shall offend and hurt men I would fain be straight with. Yet what can one do? Men are made of glass: the sooner we break them and get it over the better.

Is not Rose bold in this last number? I quote him against Palmer, when the latter preaches about moderation, since he has an especial notion of Rose's prudence.

Your father's question is quite out of my depth at present. Of late months the idea has broken on me, as it did a little before on yourself, that the Church is essentially a popular institution, and the past English union of it with the State has been a happy anomaly. It is odd this should be a discovery; for Gibbon, to go no further, is ever saying so. The Fathers seem to keep up as a constant principle the community of goods mentioned in the Acts—that is, a community as far as food and raiment, &c., go; the Church being the mere dispenser.

We have had our conference here—Golightly, Marriott, Stevens, Copeland, and Palmer—and it has been satisfactory ... Palmer is about to make a journey to Hook and others, and has sounded the Evangelicals of Liverpool.


Oriel College: September 23, 1833.
Our plan of a Society goes on hitherto very well, though of course we hear of objections; nor do I suppose any project was ever started against which real objections were not producible. As to your question of laymen belonging to it, we hail any co-operation as the greatest benefit to it. I send you one or two tracts which are not authorised by the Committee, but are written by individuals belonging to it. Indeed, our views are quite undecided as yet in what way, and with what degree of responsibility in the Society, we shall circulate {404} them. Davison, Miller, Rose, Ogilvie, the Archbishop's Chaplain, Keble, Rickards, and others are more or less connected with us; all have given their approbation and names at least.

In the following letter Mr. Newman's publisher writes of the difficulty of getting tracts, as such, into circulation. This, as will be seen, was a lasting difficulty.


October 2, 1833.
 … It is very difficult to obtain an extensive circulation for tracts without incurring a very considerable outlay, and, from the moderate price at which they must be sold, they rarely repay the capital invested. The best plan to get them into circulation would be to bring them out as weekly numbers, under some such title as 'The Churchman's Weekly Tract Magazine.'


Oriel College: October 2, 1833.
 … We are getting on famously with our Society, and are so prudent and temperate that Froude writes up to me we have made a hash of it, which I account to be praise. As to Gladstone, perhaps it would be wrong to ask a young man so to commit himself, but make a fuss we will sooner or later …

My work is nearly finished, and I begin to get disgusted with it. I was out of sorts with it on taking it up on my return.


October 2, 1833.
I have been considering the subject of the weekly Sacrament, as you desired, and thinking over what objections there might be to it ... Likewise I want to say a word about our Society [N.B.—Association, which was to have accompanied the tracts]. We thought that it would be very desirable, as you say, to have a meeting, and some test, as soon as we conveniently could; and that in the meantime, very desirable as it {405} would be to set the matter before people, and to win their favourable hearing and concurrence, yet to be slow in increasing the number of our Society, as we very likely might have the adherence of some who would not like the tests we might think requisite. For instance, one, which I suppose would be most necessary, a concurrence with all the doctrines implied in our Prayer Book, in the most plain and obvious meaning. A subscription again, would, I suppose, be a great test of people's real heartiness in the cause ... Baptismal Regeneration seems a doctrine of such great importance, and the many practical consequences arising from the different ways of considering it so great, that it seems to me that in the Evangelicals we may find great impediments to that union which we must so much desire. But, however, hard times may do much; and, nil desperandum.

I am very sorry to hear that you give but a poor account of Froude. If you hear of a few acres of land to be let at Littlemore, which would do to let out in small portions to the poor, I should be glad to rent them for that purpose.


October 3, 1833.
With the general purport of your letter I entirely agree. It must be beneficial that the attention of members of our national institutions should be more directly called to the authority on which the Church is established, and that combined effort should be made to preserve in its present form our truly scriptural Liturgy.

Whether the existence of an Association for the ends which you propose be desirable, without further information, I am not able to judge.

With those who sincerely love our Church I should be most happy to unite in resisting any and every alteration in the doctrinal and devotional parts of her Services. If we err, it is not in these respects, but in the want of discipline into which our National Establishment has fallen. The people have ceased to feel the value of our institutions, and therefore estimate no longer their importance. Will your Association do anything towards the renewal of a more efficient discipline?

Pardon me, my dear sir, if I entreat you not to identify me in any exclusive manner with the class usually called Evangelical. {406} The duties of a parish containing nearly 5,000 souls leave me little time and less inclination to seek any association beyond its limits. I do indeed think that class to which I refer have been much and undeservedly misconceived. If a time of trial were to come on the Church of England, the last who would desert Episcopal order, and the last who would be faithless to her truly scriptural ordinances, would be the Evangelical clergy. But, being no Calvinist, I differ from those among them whose sentiments are extreme; and I think that those who are generally termed the High Church, on the other hand, err in their interpretation of the doctrine of the Sacraments, and therefore in their use of those effectual ordinances.


Thursday, October 16, 1833.
I did write to you from Leghorn immediately after the Oriel election. I was sure, for many reasons, you would be rapturously pleased with the old classic countries; and I think your age (though it may seem a paradox) is the true one for going abroad. Many lose much pleasure by going too young.

I would willingly pass over what you say on the subject of the Church, because I think it almost presumptuous in me to deliver an opinion on the subject. But, as one is driven, as it were, by an external force, to think and judge about it, I will just say that I believe I differ with you a good deal as to the need the English Church has to be reformed; and also that I think it neither has the power nor the inclination to reform itself. And, therefore, though the spirit with which some men press on legislative interference is a very wicked one, I shall still rejoice that a furnace has been prepared, even in part by an enemy's hand, in passing through which the dross may be purged off. So far as the Society you allude to is a means of organising the friends of the Church to repel the organised assaults of her adversaries, I rejoice at its existence; so far as it may obstruct the plans of her friends, either from principle or custom, I am grieved at it.

In October 1833 Mr. Newman paid a six days' visit to Mr. Bowden. In the following letter his old friend remarks how soon his presence became a customary thing—an indirect testimony to the charm and ease of his society. {407}


October, 1833.
It is absurd, considering the very short time you were with us, what hold the idea took of both our minds that your presence with us was a settled customary thing. Yesterday [Sunday], for instance, it seemed quite odd to go to Mr. B.'s chapel in the morning, or to Belgrave [Chapel] in the evening without you. And we felt both some difficulty in admitting the undeniable fact that you only passed one Sunday with us. [N.B.—This passage is so characteristic of dear B.'s feelings towards me.—J. H. N.]


Oriel: October 18, 1833.
Your tract on time Church has been revised by Keble and myself—that is, we have altered half a dozen words. It meets with great approbation, and we hail you as fellow-labourer with great satisfaction, especially as being a layman ... Rose has sent me two splendid letters since I saw you. He goes all our lengths. We talk of getting up at once a Declaration or address from the clergy to the Archbishop, against material alterations in doctrine and discipline, and against extra-ecclesiastical interference; at the same time granting improvements, if such, and the completion of our system. We have also instituted a bureau for newspaper influence. We have about twelve country newspapers already in our eye, which are open to our friends, and we hope to introduce tracts into them by their means. If you can do anything for us in the North in this way, it will be a service. Our papers are to appear in the 'British Magazine,' with a notice that all who please may reprint them cheaply, or have them from us. I have had a most interesting letter from Mr. Snow, who entirely agrees with the tracts, and gives some useful hints. We know Mr. Randolph only by name, but if you find him apt, we will find means to enter into correspondence with him: indeed, you can introduce us.


Between August 5 and November 5, 1833.
 … I had a swarm of intruders last week, Mozley, Golightly, Blencowe, Marriott and Stevens. We are getting {408} on very well, but are anxious on the subject of tracts. Those hitherto published are not yet acknowledged as 'the Society's.' For myself, I doubt whether the Society ought to pledge itself to more than a general approval of the principles of any tracts. One thing strikes one reader, another another. If you correct them according to the wishes of a board, you will have nothing but tame, dull compositions, which will take no one; there will be no rhetoric in them, which is necessarily [pros tina]. But it is a subject of much difficulty. However, in giving away either yours or mine you must be cautious (please) not to involve the Committee. I say this especially about my own, because Cotton has signified his dissatisfaction with it. Not that I agree with his criticisms, but still let us make up our minds before we proceed. Palmer is gone off to exert himself in Staffordshire, &c.

I fear that Calvert, whom you may recollect here, and a physician now, has pronounced about Froude (not to him) a judgment so unfavourable that I cannot bear to dwell upon it, or to tell it. Pray exert your influence to get him sent to the West Indies. I know he has a great prejudice against it, but still what other place is hopeful? They say Madeira is not. He might take a cargo of books with him. N.B.—Could you not manage to send Isaac Williams too?


October, 1833.
I like the new [Suggestions?] paper very well, and do not remember enough of my own to say whether I should have liked it better. The objection to this is, its being somewhat vague: nobody, I think, will know what it drives at without first inquiring the names of those who put it round. But on that very account I presume it is thought likely to attract signatures. At any rate, I am quite ready to sign it.

'The successive admission of Dissenters and Roman Catholics to the power of legislating for the Church' is mentioned in a way not unlikely to exclude people who, like Davison, are Churchmen on principle, yet concurred in these measures. And on the first of the three 'objects' I should like the word 'Prerogatives' to be somewhere introduced, as well as the words 'Order' and 'Succession.' Also, our friend [Palmer] must correct the Irishism on 'the objects of the {409} Association shall be,' &c., unless he wishes everybody to detect him ...

I am grieved to the heart with your account of him [Froude], and shall try all I can to send him off—perhaps Brazil might suit him.

[Froude came to Oxford October 5, and remained there till October 26, 1833. During these weeks the following letters passed between me and Palmer.—J. H. N.]


Top | Contents | Biographies | Home


1. That is, when published.
Return to text

2. See p. 335.
Return to text

3. The paper enclosed to Froude did not really appear till 1836, afterwards reprinted in 'Discussions and Arguments' published by Dr. Newman in 1872. The opening advertisement says of the six portions of which it (the volume) consists:—' The first appeared in the British Magazine in the spring of 1836 under the title of "Home Thoughts Abroad."' As that title was intended for a series of papers which were never written, and is unsuitable for a single instalment of them another heading has been selected for it answering more exactly to the particular subject of which it treats. The present title is, 'How to Accomplish it.'—ED.
Return to text

4. [N.B. This was Richard Hurrell Froude.]
Return to text

5. 'Adherence to Apostolical Succession the safest course.'
Return to text

6. [Mild Evangelical.—J. H. N.]
Return to text

Top | Contents | Biographies | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2004 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.