Letters and Correspondence

{1} IN carrying on the correspondence of Mr. Newman and his friends to a second volume, it may be well to remind the reader of the progress the Movement had already made by a few dates.

July 9, 1833, Mr. Newman arrived at his Mother's house at Iffley, after his illness in Sicily.

July 14, Mr. Keble preached his celebrated Assize sermom on National Apostasy, which Mr. Newman 'ever considered the beginning of the Movement.'

July 25, meeting of Churchmen at Mr. Rose's, at Hadleigh.

Early in September the first tracts were published. The reader will see that by the middle of December the number of tracts and records of the Church had together reached in all to twenty-eight.

A letter of James Mozley, dated September 3, 1833, says, 'With this letter you will receive a considerable number of tracts, the first production of the Society established for the dissemination of High Church principles ... Newman is the writer of all the tracts I send you—Keble has written two, but they are not printed.'


December 15, 1833.
[Whether this was sent I know not. Most probably; at least in substance. It is transcribed here as recording the {2} feelings, &c., of the writer at the time. As to Rose's letters, after his death I was asked for them all, that John Miller might have them, as he was to draw up a memoir of Rose, which, as far as I know, never appeared. I was most unwilling to give them up. Pusey forcibly persuaded me. I ought to have asked for my own addressed to him instead.—J. H. N.]

Your letter cheered me very much; for, as Froude is away, I have no one on the spot whom I can get advice from, in spite of the many good friends I have around, for which I ought to be very grateful. Indeed I trust the right cause is making progress here [Oxford]. Thank you for the kind things you have said of me both in your Magazine and by letter.

I now write to you, after some talk with Keble, to acquaint you how we stand, and to enable you to keep our movements clear of your own. Turrill [Smith] wants us to form our tracts into a periodical. I am against anything like a tract-magazine on a ground which I think you have pointed out yourself. It is highly desirable that each tract should be separate; we do not want regular troops, but sharpshooters. However, to make the issue periodically, e.g. monthly, might be a good thing, as leading persons to look for them.

The 'Record' and (I am told) the 'Christian Observer' have advertised them for us in their own way, and we are going to advertise them in consequence for ourselves ... The trouble of making up parcels is already very great. Our only fear is that of involving ourselves in expenses which we cannot estimate. Smith says we must have 2,500 copies struck off of each tract, which would be, I suppose, 12l. a sheet, and it is a speculation how long this outlay would be going on before the sale would be equal to it. This is one cause of hesitation.

Another is lest we should be engaging in an employment which would take up all our time. But this is, perhaps, a needless alarm; we do not pledge ourselves to continue it.

A more serious difficulty with us is the chance of interfering with the 'British Magazine'—yet I cannot fancy we should. What we publish would be stray remarks, passages from standard works, translations from the Fathers, &c. Nor should we be withdrawing writers, even ourselves, from the Magazine, as is evident. The style of writing would be quite different. Accordingly we fancy we might sail out in our little boat without the chance of your running us down. However, we wish to be guided in this matter entirely by you. The Church owes so much to the 'British Magazine,' as the first {3} publication which set up her standard when others shrank from doing so, that you have a right to this deference.

If you think we may proceed, the question follows, should the publication be weekly or monthly?  If it were weekly, we might bring out a tract against any immediate atrocious measure of the Legislature against the Church, and thus have an advantage over the 'British Magazine.' I have already been taking measures to secure some lay assistance in that way in contemplation of the English Bill. Hitherto we have confined ourselves almost entirely to doctrinal and ecclesiastical points, with one or two objects, to stimulate and inform the clergy, to inform the higher classes, the poor population, &c. (of course we have hardly done anything yet, in any one of these lines, but made beginnings). But when the proper moment comes, perhaps you would find you could make use of us for purposes of a more immediate practical kind—for getting up a resistance to State interference, for the repeal of the Præmunire, for the appointment of suffragans, &c.

On the other hand, would once a week be too frequent to excite an interest? Could matters be so arranged that they should be published at odd times during the month and circulated through the country once a month?

We are sending a parcel of tracts to Dr. Spry at Canterbury, and shall consult him on the practicability of the scheme. He is a good man of business, I am told.

The following paper was written by Mr. Newman in the autumn of 1833:

[Draft of instructions written by me (J. H. N.) in the autumn of 1833 for the use of our Propagandists.]

Objects of your Journey

To form local associations.
To instruct the corresponding member.
To sound men on certain questions.

Our object is to get together immediately as large a body as we can, in defence of the substance of our spiritual rights, privileges, our Creeds, &c.; but we wish to avoid technicalities and minutenesses as much as possible.

The posture of affairs will not allow of delay.

We wish to unite the clergy and create channels of correspondence between them. {4}

We have it in view to get up petitions on a sudden, through the country, should any bold measure of the country against the Church be contemplated, or other event require it.

We are of no party nor interfere with party questions.

We have no concern with politics.

We have nothing to do with maintaining the temporalities of the Church, much as we deprecate any undue interference with them by external authority.

Queries in Prospect

1. Petitions against lax men about to be appointed bishops, &c.

2. Alterations in Burial Service and in Baptismal.

3. On the competent authority to alter Liturgy.

4. On protests.

Beware of any intemperance of language. You may mention facts illustrative of the present tyranny exercised over the Church as much as you please, according to your discretion.

If men are afraid of Apostolical ground, then be cautions of saying much about it. If desirous, then recommend prudence and silence upon it at present.

Everything depends on calmness and temperance. Recollect that we are supporting the Bishops; enlarge on the unfairness of leaving them to bear the brunt of the battle.

The following letter is an example of the inquiries that reached the first movers in the agitation:


[Near Bristol:] December 1833.
One of our clergy has today brought me a printed letter sent him from London by the Rev. Mr. Norris recommending the formation of Church of England Societies for the protection of the doctrines and Liturgy, &c., of our Church, and purporting to have originated in Oxford. It has struck me that you must know something about it. There are many more competent than I to bring the thing forward here; but owing to my having originated the address last session against the Irish Church Reform, many have wished me to come forward again on the subject. These are indeed troublesome and stirring times. {5}


I have been applied to this morning by Mr. Combo, of Leicester, for a set of the tracts lately printed and circulated by a Society of clergymen of which, I believe, you are an active member. Mr. Combe states that they are for a clergyman who is anxious to aid and abet the views of the Society so far as he is able.


December 1833.
I really think it is quite necessary something should be settled about the manner in which the address is to be presented to the Archbishop and the signatures conveyed to him. Should not two or three Archdeacons wait on him to know his pleasure?

I have heard this morning for certain that our Bishop approves of it.

Go on and prosper, and let the 'Record' dry in its own ink.

REV. J. H. NEWMAN TO REV. R. H. FROUDE [at Barbadoes]

December 15, 1833.
Everything is going on most prosperously; the address is signed everywhere, being understood as a rallying round the Archbishop. Oxford is turning; Symons, who was one of the most vehement opponents, has subscribed it. Burton is on the turn of the tide; the Bishop of London has determined that to do so is 'the lesser of two evils,' and has instructed his Archdeacons to get signatures through his diocese, and this after having sneered at us as 'Solemn League and Covenant men,' and exerted his influence against the address. He has gone so far as publicly to deny 'he has anything to do with a ministerial liturgical reform.' Meanwhile the reports of some sweeping Government measure, certainly ecclesiastical if not liturgical, wax stronger and stronger. The lay address is in preparation, Sir R. Inglis and Sir W. Heathcote being the leaders in it.

Now as to the tracts, if you knew the trouble I had had with Palmer, you would pity me. He is the best-tempered, {6} kindest fellow in the world, but we wellnigh quarrelled for a while. He made a most vehement set at them, and not once alone [at our proceedings], and even now, I regret to say, has not got over it. The fact is, he promised Mr. Norris 'there should be no tracts'; and, as you know, Mr. Norris wrote about saying so. Then he came to persuade me, who was unpersuadable. But I was so fiery about it, that afterwards, in a fit of weakness, I wrote to him to say that, though I would not give up my tracts, I would waive my objections to an Association, strong as they were. In a short time Harrison and others bothered me to keep to my promise of disclaiming an Association. On the other hand,—and others were so far advanced in the formation of one that I did not like to damp them, so I excogitated a paper condemning one great Association, but advocating small local ones, which I thought would reconcile all parties, and went to Palmer about it.

I found Palmer in a taking, having received furious letters from Mr. Norris, who declared he would have nothing to do with the address because it was so weak; he (nota bene and the Z's in London) having made it so. I advised Palmer to keep with the Z's as long as he could, and when they sank to leap into our little boat, and he consented. Keble, Williams, Copeland, Christie, and I drew up the proposed paper, when at the moment down came Edward Churton from London, as a sort of ambassador from Norris about the address (I cannot go into all the fuss of the address; it is not worth it). [N.B.—I was dining at Trinity when Edward Churton was announced. Keble was there, and (I suppose) Williams and Copeland. It must have been on Wednesday (this is confirmed by Fragmentary Diary], November 21. I recollect Keble could hardly help laughing, and did laugh, and enjoy excessively afterwards, the diplomatic look and bearing of Churton as he entered the room, greeted us, and sat down.]

Accordingly, when the said paper was presented to Palmer, he was more earnest and tragic against it than ever I could have fancied. It seems he considered that mentioning tracts at all with associations was interfering with his pledge to Norris; and he charged we with my (weak) agreement to join his Association. I replied, which was the case, that Norris himself was now more urgent against an Association than I was. He was full of fears, even to be seriously annoyed. We have not been right since.

Soon after I had a letter from Rose, who told me he had {7} not only rated at Palmer for the imbecility of the address, but had remonstrated with him for thwarting the tracts, which he said was the only good part of the scheme. However, Palmer is stilt dreaming of some grand union of Churchmen against the Government.

I had sent five letters to the 'Record', and they were well received. My sixth stuck. At length appeared a most ominous leading article about the Society, the address, and the tracts, with quotations of the Transubstantiation passages (which have brought us into all sorts of trouble. Rickards has bullied me [oson amechanon]), but no opinion. Then came a private letter to me declining No. 6, and sighing over the tracts. I sent a civil answer and an anonymous letter through Ryder, quoting to them Acts v. 38, 39. They evidently had been puzzled how to act, but this letter came too late to prevent an explosion, in which we were called heretics, papists, &c., and to-be apostates, &e. Next paper they softened, and said they bad spoken under excited feelings. Next paper still, the cause appeared. Two letters from Evangelical correspondents were inserted, defending our doctrine, though they abused our tracts; and an article from the Editor accompanied it, expostulating with the imprudence of his 'friends at Oxford,' begging us to be more practical, and resolving magnanimously to shut up the question and not admit 'the apple of discord which had rolled into their columns from Oxford.' So these people have just managed to give us a most flaming advertisement. Upon this I sent up to Turrill to advertise the tracts in our own way in the 'Record' and 'St. James's Chronicle,' also in the 'British Magazine,' and it is probable we shall soon put them on the footing of a periodical without giving up the tract shape.

Our demand increases; we have had new editions of several. T. Keble, Harrison, Menzies, Perceval, and a more important friend, who at present is nameless [N.B.—this meant Pusey], have written for us; J. Miller, Copeland, and Williams are also writing. I have coaxed Palmer into writing one. Several Ch. Ch. men [N.B.—Liddell, Thornton, Scott of Balliol?] have been translating 'Ignatius.' We have twelve numbers out of 'Records of the Church,' and sixteen tracts besides already. I have lately heard that the 'Christian Observer' has a furious attack on us, nay, upon Oriel, in this last month. Can we have more favourable signs? Men do not cry out till they are frightened. {8}

The following is the advertisement of the tracts:—Tracts for the Times, published at Oxford. 'If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?'


December 15, 1833.
 … I have often told Hurrell he was going too fast; he alarms people by his speculations, and is incautious in talking to persons who cannot enter into the purity of his motives. I dare say he laid himself completely open on his visit to Archdeacon Lyell.


Oriel College: December 19, 1833.
Your diplomatic powers are as admirable as my negligence was great in not detecting Turrill's hand. My parcel of tracts must have passed his letters on the road ... In a short time we shall probably publish them monthly, at present we do not wish to commit ourselves so far. We hear more and more of abuse directed against them, but the only thing we have to fear is disregard. To abuse is next best, or rather the necessary shadow of praise ... I have a most admirable tract from Pusey, but his name must not yet be mentioned, nor Harrison's. The second part of 'Richard Nelson' is arrived, and Palmer's tract is out. The Bishop of London is strongly agitating through his Archdeacons for the address. They say the tracts retard its success in some places; but this is but temporary, doubtless.

As to Messrs. Rivington and your diplomacy, to which I return, on consideration I think I return to the octavo form [Note]; the duodecimo form is used, I believe, for the sake of reading in the pulpit. Now I have no wish to be spouted over the kingdom. That 1,000 (octave) is equivalent to buying the copyright, antecedently speaking, I grant; but so with these very sermons, perhaps, in the first edition 12mo. I suspect no volume of sermons (generally speaking) goes beyond the first edition. If they used to do, yet Tyler's series have created a glut in the market now. I do not expect mine will, {9} and therefore think it more respectable, as it is also more lucrative, to publish in octavo. If unexpectedly my sermons take, as something out of the way, then there would be a second edition, whether of octavo or duodecimo; the only difference will be one of time. I may not have expressed my meaning clearly, yet I think I have a meaning.


Oriel College: December 22, 1833.
I was much pleased and encouraged by your letter, being in the midst of worry and fidget. A person like myself hears of nothing but his failures, or what others consider such. Men do not flatter each other, and one's best friends act as one's best friends ought—tell one of one's mistakes and absurdities. I know it is a good thing thus to be dealt with; nor do I wish it otherwise. All things one tries to do must be mixed with great imperfection, and it is part of one's trial to be obliged to attempt things which involve incidental error and give cause for blame. This is all very humbling, particularly when a person has foretold to himself his own difficulties and scrapes, and then is treated as if he was quite unconscious of them, and thought himself a very fine fellow. But it is a good discipline, and I will gladly accept it. Nevertheless it is very pleasant to have accidentally such letters as yours to encourage me, though I know well that it goes far beyond the occasion, owing to your great kindness.

Mr. Terrington called on me yesterday. He was very kind, and said he intended to sign the Address to the Archbishop, and did not call me a Papist to my face, as some other persons have. I really believe that, if Ridley or Hooker could be published without their names, their works would be called Papistical.

The following letters show the progress of affairs in London, after five months' active work, of the movers in the Movement:


Clapham Common: Christmas Day, 1833.
I had a long conversation yesterday with Dr. Dealtry respecting the tracts, address, &c. The result of it was that {10} I fear the hope which we had in Oxford respecting the Bishop of London and the London clergy, rests upon very slight foundation. I forget what Pusey's letter exactly stated, but I know the impression under which I left Oxford on Monday was, that the Bishop of London's clergy now felt themselves at liberty and were taking up the address. This, I fear, is not the case. Dr. Dealtry tells me that when he came up from Winchester he heard the same account, and immediately set himself to ascertain whether it was the case. He found it was not, and as late as this day week he was with lending men among them, and heard that the address was not signing at all. Dr. Dealtry is very anxious about it, very anxious that it should be as generally signed as possible, and be a source of union among the clergy. But he finds the diocesan objection everything, especially among the Bishop of London's clergy.

He had just received a letter from a clergyman at Pontefract, asking him with much anxiety what he ought to do about it. The letter struck me very much, as it seized strongly the main object of remonstrance against the interference of Parliament in spirituals, expressing a very strong opinion upon the stand which at all hazards the clergy must make against such an interference, and also as to the duty of not waiting till Ministers of Parliament did something illegal, but preparing against it and showing a bold front of opposition. The hesitation seemed all to arise from the diocesan difficulty. He had heard it said in several quarters that there was much objection to passing over their own Bishop.

I told Dr. Dealtry that at Oxford there was a hope that in London, as well as in other dioceses, the address might be transmitted through diocesans; he seemed to catch at it as a thing highly desirable, and the only mode now remaining of getting rid of a serious objection. He thought it would give the address every signature.

I heard from a very particular friend of the Bishop of London [Blomfield], that he strongly disclaims having ever had any intentions about the Liturgy, beyond an explanation to be prefixed to the Athanasian Creed. Dr. Dealtry tells me the same report had reached him from the Bishop of Chester [J. B. Sumner], Lichfield [Ryder], and Winchester [C. Sumner]. He tells me that, if Ministers designed anything, it has certainly been without the knowledge of these Bishops. Thus, then, the Bishops are all on our side; at least they ought to be regarded {11} so; but will they not continue to feel jealous of the address appearing to pass them by (the letter from Pontefract mentions the Bishop of Chester as reported to be unfavourable to the address)? Is not, then, your hope of getting the several Bishops to present the address to be followed up by all means?

How, I leave to your full consideration; but would it not be most effectual and most utterly destructive of all jealousy and suspicion if you in Oxford would now suggest this, as the proper mode of presenting it when it is signed? I believe it would give a fresh impetus, and add a great number of signatures. The clergy will then feel that they cannot be casting a slur upon their own, perhaps wavering, Bishops, while they express their admiration of the Archbishop's line of conduct; that they are really supporting the whole Bench in addressing the Primate. If not, I fear it will be the address of a minority, or at least only a part of the clergy, who are the Archbishop's party, whose numbers will be compared with another party, the Bishop of London's; and not only the clergy, but the Bench will be divided. And a feeling of regard and respect and obedience to their own diocesan, will in several dioceses have been weakened if they sign; or if too strong to yield, they will give an unhappy handle to the opposite cause.

I know not, though, why I am saying all this to you, who will feel more anxious about it, and look at it in more of its bearings than myself. I meant to have told you that I fear your hopes will not be realised about London, &c., except by active exertion.

[In consequence of this letter, I think, Palmer went to London at once.—J. H. N.]


Bath Hotel, Piccadilly: December 28, 1833.
I write a line to say that, after much deliberation, it is finally settled that we shall write to all our friends requesting them to make application to the Bishops, through the Archdeacons, to present the addresses from their respective dioceses; and adding that this is the particular wish and desire of those who originated and promoted the address.

I will send you down a circular to this effect, which, if you approve, you will perhaps get printed and send me a lot.

The Ministry, I hear, are astonished at the activity and success of our movement. The Bishop of London is appeased {12} and wishes to present the address. I saw it lying at Rivington's today with Archdeacon Cambridge's signature at the head.

I believe it will go on well here after all.


Oriel: December 28, 1833.

No great news, except that the Bishop of London is said not to be for the address. I can hardly believe he has gone back. The 'Record' has ratted round, advocates the Oxford Society, and announces that the objectionable tracts are withdrawn and others substituted. There is a hitch in the lay address. The Duke of Wellington is against it at the moment. Difficult, I suppose, in London to separate from politics. I almost think Sir Robert Inglis is inclined to agree with him.

Writing from London, Mr. Bowden, at the close of 1833, sends cautious anticipations of what the coming meeting of Parliament will be engaged on.


 … Everybody thinks the Government will do something when Parliament meets, which will make these points party questions, and then you will find many ears deafened to all you can teach.

I have not touched [in his paper] on Church property, for that is unhappily a party question already. Tempus fugit.

An entry in the 'Chronological Notes' at the opening of 1834 shows it to have been a busy year.

[In the following year my Journal is full of our meetings, gatherings, dinners, soirées, correspondence day by day and term by term, which a simple transcript would alone do justice to.—J. H. N.]

A few notes may be taken from it as landmarks:—

January 1.—First proof of Sermons from Rivington's.
January 15.—Set out for Derby (Mozleys).
January 16.—Breakfasted at Birmingham [the first time I saw Birmingham]. {13}
March 11.—My first volume of Sermons out.
March 24.—At this time I was lecturing at Littlemore every Monday.
April 23.—Began for first time weekly lectures in Adam de Brome's Chapel.
June 10.—First day of Installation; Duke's levee; Archbishop's levee.
June 13.—Rose, Sewell, Palmer of Magdalen, Wordsworth at breakfast.
June 16.—First day in Bodleian [collated MSS. of fragments of Dionysius Alex.].
June 30.—Began daily service in the chancel.
July 1.—Declined marrying a couple; the lady being unbaptized [a row followed].
August 13.—Last lecture in Adam de Brome's Chapel.
August 16.—Went to Bisley, leaving Copeland in charge of my church.
September 26.—To Woodbridge, Tunbridge Wells, through London [there it was that I had my first and last sight of our Queen Victoria].
November 5.—did not read the special Gunpowder Plot Service.
December 19.—All these days busy in writing sermons for my second volume.


Top | Contents | Biographies | Home


For his sermons, of which Mr. Newman was about to publish the first volume.
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.