Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
A political volte face is always likely to compel attention, especially when performed by a leading politician who thereby seems to reverse his lifelong attitude. So it was in the case of Lord John Russell's hostility to the restoration of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales and his adoption of legislation against it. His actions brought him no profit but rather helped to weaken his position. For the Ecclesiastical Titles bill, while it may have been intended as a hopeful introduction to a firmer political existence, appears instead as the culmination of a long decline. Russell never succeeded in recapturing the fulfilment of the years 1828–32, when he played a central part in carrying great constitutional changes which vindicated his principles of religious and civil liberty. After this he witnessed the great reforms being carried by others; as his latest biographer states, ‘Peel had run off with the credit for the free trade policy, Palmerston for the conduct of foreign affairs, Disraeli for the second Reform Act, and Gladstone for the policy of justice to Ireland…’. Moreover, he removed some of the glory of his liberal attainments by writing the Durham Letter and adopting the Ecclesiastical Titles bill—though Russell disagreed with such an opinion, since he denied that it was illiberal to resist ‘papal aggression’. Behaviour so intriguing as Russell's in 1850–1 has naturally been the subject of a good deal of inquiry and comment, but further examination may help to show the comparative importance of factors which contributed to the Prime Minister's motives.
page 277 note 1 Prest, J., Lord John Russell, London 1972, 420Google Scholar. See the character sketch ibid., 73–81.
page 277 note 2 Conacher, J. B., ‘The Politics of the “Papal Aggression” Crisis, 1850–1’, Canadian Catholic Historical Association Report, 1959, 13–27Google Scholar; Dreyer, F. A., ‘The Administration of Lord John Russell, 1846–52’ (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, St. Andrews university, 1962–), 217 ff.Google Scholar; Southgate, D., The Passing of the Whigs, 1832–86, London 1962, 218–27Google Scholar; Chadwick, O., The Victorian Church, London 1966–1970, I. 278 ff.Google Scholar; Norman, E. R., Anti-Catholicism in Victorian England, London 1968, 52 ff.; Prest, op. cit., 319 ff.Google Scholar
page 277 note 3 Charles Greville to the fourth earl of Clarendon, 20 November 1850: Clarendon Papers, Bodleian Library, c. 522; Stuart, C. H., ‘The Formation of the Coalition Ministry of 1852’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fifth series, IV (1954), 53–4; Southgate, op. cit., 225–6; Prest, op. cit., 419.Google Scholar
page 278 note 1 ibid., 321; Chadwick, op. cit., i. 296; Conacher, J. B., The Peelites and the Party System, 1846–52, Newton Abbot 1972, 76–7; Henry Goulburn to Sir James Graham, 14 November 1850: ‘… I had no reason to anticipate such a missive as Lord John's letter to the Bp. of Durham. He had in the earlier stage of the business sent a very cool answer to the Bp. of London but the sudden outbreak of Protestant feeling … shewed him that continued indifference involved the loss of Popularity …‘: Graham Papers, Bodleian Library, microfilms, 123.Google Scholar
page 278 note 2 Cf. Part. Deb. (all references to third series), cxiv. 657; Conacher, ‘The Politics of the “Papal Aggression” Crisis’, loc. cit., 17–18.
page 278 note 3 Ashley's diary, 7 November 1850: Hodder, E., The Life and Work of the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, London 1886, II. 327. For Russell's religious outlook see Chadwick, i. 232–4.Google Scholar
page 278 note 4 Russell, Earl, Recollections and Suggestions, 1813–73, London 1875, 425 f., also 157–8, 171. The Durham Letter is printed in E. R. Norman, op. cit., 159–61, and in Prest, op. cit., 429–30.Google Scholar
page 278 note 5 F. A. Dreyer, op. cit., 94–7.
page 279 note 1 Parl. Deb., xciv. 651 (speech of 21 July 1847).
page 279 note 2 Walpole, S., The Life of Lord John Russell, London 1889, II. 116–17Google Scholar. Only Thomas Vowler Short, appointed to St. Asaph in 1846, was sympathetic to the Tractarians (D.N.B.). For a general adverse comment on Russell's appointments, see Bishop Samuel Wilberforce to Gladstone, 26 December 1851: Pugh, R. K. (ed.), The Letter-Books of Samuel Wilberforce, Oxfordshire Record Society, XLVII (1969), 221.Google Scholar
page 279 note 3 Churton to A. P. Perceval, 18 November 1847: Churton Papers, Pusey House, Oxford.
page 279 note 4 Phillpotts to Russell, 10 December 1847: Gooch, G. P. (ed.), The Later Correspondence of Lord John Russell, 1840–78, London 1925, I. 184.Google Scholar
page 279 note 5 Robert Wilberforce to Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, 31 December 1847: Wilberforce Papers, Bodleian Library, d. 11, fol. 107.
page 279 note 6 Gladstone to Bishop Blomfield, 31 January 1848: Lathbury, D. C. (ed.), Correspondence on Church and Religion of W. E. Gladstone, London 1910, I. 80–1.Google Scholar Cf. George Moberly to Roundell Palmer, 9 January 1848: Selborne Papers, Lambeth Palace Library, vol. 1861, fols. 170–1; Anon., A Churchman's Notes on Lord John Russell's Reply to the Bishops, London 1847.Google Scholar
page 279 note 7 Mason, B. J., ‘The Rise of Combative Dissent, 1832–59’ (unpubl. M.A. thesis, Southampton University, 1958), 92.Google Scholar
page 280 note 1 Russell's reply to the bishops' remonstrance, 8 December 1847: Anon., What will the Bishops do?, London 1847, 8–9.Google Scholar
page 280 note 2 Maltby to Russell, 22 November 1847: Gooch, op. cit., i. 183–4.
page 280 note 3 Ashley's diary, 13 December 1847: Hodder, op. cit., ii. 232; Sumner to Bishop Wilberforce, 27 November 1847: Wilberforce Papers, d. 47, fols. 8–11; Gladstone to Wilberforce, 29 November 1847: ibid., d. 35.
page 280 note 4 Samuel to Robert Wilberforce, 14 January 1848, copy: ibid., d. 18, 56–7, quoted Newsome, D., The Parting of Friends, London 1966, 347–8. See also Blomfield to Bishop Wilberforce, 24 and 25 December 1847, 13 and 14 January and 8 February 1848: Wilberforce Papers, d. 34.Google Scholar
page 280 note 5 Clarendon to George Cornewall Lewis, 3 January 1848: Clarendon Papers, c. 532.
page 280 note 6 Russell to Clarendon, 31 March 1850: ibid., Irish box 26.
page 280 note 7 Lord John Manners to Disraeli, 19 January, 1 and 2 February 1848: Disraeli Papers, c/o National Trust, Hughenden Manor, B/XX/M/20–2.
page 280 note 8 Blomfield to Earl Nelson, 24 January 1848: ibid., M/23a.
page 281 note 1 Manners to Disraeli, 19 January 1848: ibid., M/20.
page 281 note 2 Manners to Disraeli, 1 February 1848, loc. cit. Cf. Manners to Disraeli, 3 February 1848: ‘… the Foreign Office has determined to act as Bishop, or rather Pope, to all Chaplains abroad’: ibid., M/23.
page 281 note 3 Manners to Disraeli, 1 February 1848: loc. cit.
page 281 note 5 Rev. R. Greswell to Gladstone, 17 July and 10 August 1848: Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MS. 44181, fols. 40–3; Stafford Northcote to Gladstone, 24 July 1848: ibid., Add. MS. 44216, fols. 131–2; Manners to Disraeli, 24 November 1848 and 12 March 1849: Disraeli Papers, B/XX/M/36, 40; Rev. Francis Merewether to Disraeli, 17 January 1850: ibid., M/322.
page 281 note 6 Churton to Rev. W. Gresley, 26 March 1850: Churton Papers.
page 281 note 7 Pusey, E. B., The Royal Supremacy not an arbitrary authority …, Oxford 1950Google Scholar; Keble, J., Church Matters in 1850, Oxford 1850Google Scholar; Gladstone, W. E., Remarks on the Royal Supremacy: a letter to the Bishop of London, London 1850. Cf. Aubrey de Vere to Gladstone, 10 July 1850: Gladstone Papers, Add. MS. 44369, fols. 321–7.Google Scholar
page 282 note 1 Chadwick, Victorian Church, i. 263–5; Blomfield to Archbishop Sumner, 14 March 1850: Blomfield, A., Memoir of C. J. Blomfield, London 1864, ii. 125–6Google Scholar; Keble to Pusey, 26 April 1850: Liddon, H. P., The Life of E. B. Pusey, London 1894–1898, III. 245, 249Google Scholar; Lord Lincoln to Gladstone, 19 May 1850: Martineau, J., Lift of Henry, fifth Duke of Newcastle, London 1908, 91–2.Google Scholar
page 282 note 2 Liddon, op. cit., iii. 274 ff.; Archdeacon Churton to Rev. W. Gresley, 7 October 1850: Churton Papers.
page 282 note 3 Phillpotts to Pusey, 14 May 1850: Pusey Papers, Pusey House, Oxford; Welch, P. J., ‘The Revival of an active Convocation of Canterbury, 1852–51’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, X (1959), 190.Google Scholar
page 282 note 4 Parl. Deb., cxi. 598–675; A. Blomfield, op. cit., ii. 125 ff.
page 282 note 5 Speech in debate on Gorham Judgement, 18 March 1850: Parl. Deb., cix. 1055–6.
page 282 note 6 Lord Wriothesley Russell to Lord John Russell, n.d.: Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22 8G.
page 282 note 7 Parl. Deb., cxi. 620–8.
page 282 note 8 Rev. G. A. Denison to Russell, 12 July 1850: Denison, Louisa (ed.), Fifty Years at East Brent: the Letters of G. A. Denison, London 1902, 15–18; Denison to Gladstone, 19 and 24 June, 5 September and 28 November 1847: Gladstone Papers, Add. MS. 44140, fols. 1–6, 14–15.Google Scholar
page 283 note 1 Clarendon Papers, Irish box 26.
page 283 note 2 Brougham to Russell, 30 September 1850; Russell Papers, 8E.
page 283 note 3 Russell to Brougham, 9 October 1850: Brougham Papers, University College, London, 38196 (quoted Prest, Lord John Russell, 321).
page 283 note 4 Russell to Clarendon, 13 October 1850: Clarendon Papers, Irish box 26.
page 283 note 5 See above, 282.
page 283 note 6 Norman, E. R., Anti-Catholicism in Victorian England, London 1968, 160.Google Scholar
page 283 note 7 ibid.
page 283 note 8 George C. Lewis to Sir James Graham, 27 January 1851: Graham Papers, microfilms, 123.
page 283 note 9 27 November 1850: Clarendon Papers, Irish box 26.
page 284 note 1 See below, 295.
page 284 note 2 Gilley, S., ‘Protestant London, No-Popery and the Irish Poor, 1830–60’, part 1, Recusant History, X (1970), 216, 227 n. 66. Russell referred to this matter in the Durham Letter: Norman, op. cit., 159.Google Scholar
page 284 note 3 Parl. Deb., cxi. 596–8.
page 284 note 4 Ward, B., The Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, 1830–50, London 1915, II. 72–81; Parl. Deb., lxxxii. 279 ff., lxxxvi. 300–28, lxxxviii. 360–6, xci. 753–810, xcvi. 701–57.Google Scholar
page 284 note 5 ibid., lxxxviii. 363.
page 284 note 6 9 July 1845: ibid., lxxxii. 290. Cf. B. Ward, op. cit., ii. 80; Parl. Deb., cxiv. 313.
page 284 note 7 ibid., xcv. 816, cxiv. 233.
page 284 note 8 Parl. Deb., cxiv. 259 (speech of Disraeli). It was held that, while Russell squarely blamed the Tractarians, he himself ‘has … been the most forward in abolishing all the old laws against the Roman Catholics … and … promoting the interests of the Roman Catholic Religion in ways which he has denied to the Church of England’: Gresley, J. M., The real occasion of the ‘papal aggression’, No. 1 of Plain Sermons on present events, London 1850. Cf. Wiseman Papers, Archbishop's House, Westminster, W3/28 (1850), 69.Google Scholar
page 285 note 1 Nowlan, K. B., The Politics of Repeal: a study in the relations between Great Britain and Ireland, 1841–50, London 1965, 115 ff., 130 ff., 161 ff.Google Scholar
page 285 note 2 Charles Greville to Clarendon, 3 May 1848: Clarendon Papers, c. 521.
page 285 note 3 S. Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, i. 397.
page 285 note 4 Greville to Clarendon, 21 February 1849; Clarendon Papers, c. 522; Earl of Minto to Russell, 23 November 1848: Russell Papers, 30/22 7D; Southgate, D., The Passing of the Whigs, London 1962, 189; Prest, op. cit., 290–1.Google Scholar
page 285 note 5 Nowlan, op. cit., 225–6.
page 285 note 6 F. A. Dreyer, ‘The Administration of Lord John Russell’, 94 ff.; Clarendon to G. C. Lewis, 2 November 1848: Clarendon Papers, c. 532.
page 285 note 7 Palmerston to Russell, 19 December 1850: Russell Papers, 30/22 8G, fol. 63.
page 285 note 8 Broderick, J. F., The Holy See and the Irish movement for the repeal of the Union with England, Rome 1951, 165–88.Google Scholar
page 285 note 9 Palmerston to Russell, 21 August 1847: G. P. Gooch, Later Correspondence, i. 308; Ward, W., The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, London 1897, I. 479 ff., 571–7.Google Scholar
page 286 note 1 ‘Notes on Italy and Sicily’, n.d.: Minto Papers, National Library of Scotland, box 130/2.
page 286 note 3 Moody, T. W., ‘The Irish university question in the nineteenth century’, History, XLIII (1958), 97–8. Russell himself would have preferred separate denominational colleges: Prest, op. cit., 319.Google Scholar
page 286 note 4 Palmerston to Minto, 29 October 1847: Ashley, E., The Life and Correspondence of Henry John, Viscount Palmerston, London 1879, I. 39–40; Southgate, op. cit, 190.Google Scholar
page 286 note 5 ‘Notes on our relations with the pope’ in Russell's hand, n.d.: Minto Papers, box 127. Cf. Palmerston to Clarendon, 13 and 18 November 1847: Clarendon Papers, c. 524.
page 286 note 6 Lady Elizabeth Elliot to Lady Mary Abercromby, n.d.: Minto Papers, 128A/3.
page 286 note 7 Lady Charlotte Elliot to Lady Mary Abercromby, 12 November 1847: ibid. Cf. Minto to Russell, 15 November 1847: Gooch, i. 316–17; Russell to Clarendon, 3, 18 and 23 December 1847: Clarendon Papers, Irish box 43.
page 286 note 8 Cf. Southgate, 190.
page 286 note 9 Nowlan, 177–8; O'Reilly, B., John MacHale, Archbishop of Tuam, his Life, Times and Correspondence, New York 1890, I.. 116 ff.; Lansdowne to Minto, 3 February 1848: Minto Papers, 130/1.Google Scholar
page 287 note 1 Parl. Deb., xcv. 105a ff., xcvi. 728–41, xcvii. 1143–4.
page 287 note 2 ibid., xcvi. 169–71, 284–5, 760–801, 867–99.
page 287 note 3 ibid., ci. 615–29; Palmerston to Minto, 10 August 1848: Minto Papers, 130/1.
page 287 note 4 B. Ward, Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, ii. 207–8.
page 287 note 5 ibid., ii. 284–5.
page 287 note 6 W. Ward, Wiseman, i. 544–5.
page 287 note 7 Minto to Russell, 21 November 1850: Gooch, ii. 53–4; Minto to Abbé Hamilton, 14 December 1850, copy: Russell Papers, 30/22 8G, fol. 60. Cf. Parl. Deb., cxiv. 155–6 (speech of Minto).
page 288 note 1 Bishop Ullathorne to Russell, 10 February 1851: Gooch, ii. 59–60.
page 288 note 2 Wiseman said this in a letter to Russell, 4 November 1850: see below, 292. Cf. O'Meara, K., Thomas Grant, First Bishop of Southwark, second ed., London 1886, 75Google Scholar; Fothergill, B., Nicholas Wiseman, London 1963, 146, 166–7.Google Scholar
page 288 note 3 B. Ward, Sequel, i. 122 ff., ii. 212 ff.; Ullathorne, C., History of the Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy in England, London 1871, 35–71.Google Scholar
page 288 note 4 B. Ward, ii. 207–9; parl. Deb., xcv. 816, xcvi. 707, 719, ci. 212, 229.
page 288 note 5 Clarendon to G. C. Lewis, 18 June 1850: Clarendon Papers, c. 532; Clarendon to Graham, 18 December 1850: Graham Papers, microfilms, 123; T. W. Moody, op. cit., 98.
page 288 note 6 Clarendon to Lewis, 18 June 1850: loc. cit.
page 289 note 1 O'Reilly, MacHale, ii. 232–41. Cf. Russell to Clarendon, 5 October 1850: Clarendon Papers, Irish box 26.
page 289 note 2 P. MacSuibhne, Paul Cullen and his Contemporaries, Naas, co. Kildare, 1961–5, ii. 57. Russell condemned the address as clerical interference with State concerns: Parl. Deb., cxiv. 189–92.
page 289 note 3 Palmerston to Clarendon, 25 August and 2 September 1849: Clarendon Papers, c 524.
page 289 note 4 B. Ward, Sequel, ii. 284–5.
page 289 note 5 Wiseman allegedly gathered from his interview with Russell that the Government would not oppose the hierarchy: W. Ward, Wiseman, i. 524–5, ii. 31.
page 289 note 6 Russell to Clarendon, 20 September 1850: Clarendon Papers, Irish box 26.
page 289 note 7 Russell to Clarendon, 1 October 1850: ibid., quoted Prest, op. cit., 320.
page 289 note 8 Minto to Palmerston, 7 October 1850: Minto Papers, 133/1.
page 289 note 9 Clarendon Papers, Irish box 26.
page 289 note 10 See above, 283.
page 290 note 1 Russell described this as an intolerable insult: speech in Commons, 7 February 1851, Parl. Deb., cxiv. 192–3.
page 290 note 2 Palmerston to Hon. W. Temple, 27 January 1851: Ashley, Palmerston, i. 246–7.
page 290 note 3 Ullathorne to Russell, 10 February 1851: Gooch, Later Correspondence, ii. 61.
page 290 note 4 Norman, Anti-Catholicism, 160.
page 290 note 5 ibid.
page 290 note 6 W. Ward, Wiseman, i. 117 ff. and passim; B. Ward, Sequel, i. 203 ff., ii. 84–104.
page 290 note 7 ibid., ii. 22 ff., 100–1, 178–9; Charles, Conrad, ‘The Origins of the Parish Mission in England and the early Passionist apostolate, 1840–50’, in this Journal, XV (1964), 60 ff.Google Scholar
page 291 note 1 W. Ward, Wiseman, i. 519–20.
page 291 note 2 ibid. The sermon produced Henry Drummond's ultra-Protestant reply, Remarks on Dr. Wiseman's sermon on the Gorham Case, London 1850.
page 291 note 3 Greville to Clarendon, 6 December 1847: Clarendon Papers, c. 521.
page 291 note 4 Sir Bowyer, G., The Private History of the Creation of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in England, London 1868, 9.Google Scholar
page 291 note 5 The pastoral is printed in B. Ward, Sequel, ii. 305–8. For hostile reaction to the words see Palmerston to Hon. W. Temple, 27 January 1851: loc. cit.; Parl. Deb., cxiv. 309–10 (speech of Lord Ashley). For a different view see ibid., 1357 (Roundell Palmer).
page 291 note 6 B. Ward., ii. 306.
page 292 note 1 ibid., ii. 287.
page 292 note 2 Norman, Anti-Catholicism, 159–60.
page 292 note 3 Dr. Whitty, Vicar-general of the London district, received the pastoral on 16 or 17 October. He at once perceived its unsuitability for non-Catholic eyes, and was in a dilemma whether to publish it before Wiseman's arrival. But the consideration that Catholics were expecting some word from their new archbishop led him to do so. See W. Ward, Wiseman, i. 540–2.
page 292 note 4 ibid., i. 532–4.
page 292 note 5 Gooch, Later Correspondence, ii. 49–50.
page 292 note 6 E.g., Greville to Clarendon, 20 November 1850: Clarendon Papers, c. 522.
page 293 note 1 Dreyer, F. A., ‘The Administration of Lord John Russell, 1846–52’ (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, St. Andrews university, 1962), 80, 94 ff., 163–4, 171Google Scholar
page 293 note 2 Halévy, É., History of the English People, London 1951, IV.. 180 ff.Google Scholar; Machin, G. I. T., ‘The Maynooth Grant, the Dissenters and Disestablishment, 1845–7’, English Historical Review, lxxxii (1967), 83–4Google Scholar; Gash, N., Reaction and Reconstruction in English Politics, 1833–52, Oxford 1965, 195 ff.Google Scholar
page 293 note 3 Greville to Clarendon, 23 June 1848 (second letter): Clarendon Papers, c. 521.
page 294 note 1 Clarendon to Lewis, 21 November 1850: ‘Ld John's [Durham] letter can only increase his own difficulties ’: Clarendon Papers, c. 532.
page 294 note 2 For examples of anti-catholic and anti-Tractarian opinion at this time see Earl Fortescue to Russell, 21 December 1850: Russell Papers, 30/22 8G, fols. 71–2; Protestant Magazine, XII (November 1850), 168, xiii (February 1851), 64; Chadwick, Victorian Church, i. 292–6; Norman, Anti-Catholicism, 64 ff.Google Scholar
page 294 note 3 Prest, Russell, 322–3.
page 294 note 4 The three successive majorities in the Commons were 332, 343 and 217; the second reading in the Lords obtained a majority of 227 and the third passed without division: Parl. Deb., cxiv. 699–703, cxv. 618–21, cxviii. 240–2, 1301–2, 1672–3.
page 294 note 5 W. Ward, Wiseman, ii. 6–7; Lord John Manners to Disraeli, 23 December 1850 and 7 January 1851: Disraeli Papers, B/XX/M/69, 72; Parl. Deb., cxiv. 256–9 (speech of Disraeli), cxvi. 780–834 (David Urquhart's motion); Quarterly Review, LXXXVIII (1850–1851), 247 ff.Google Scholar
page 294 note 6 For details see Conacher, J. B., The Peelites and the Party System, 1846–52, Newton Abbot 1972, 78, 226–9.Google Scholar
page 295 note 1 Aubrey de Vere to Gladstone, 2 March 1851: Gladstone Papers, Add. MS. 44370, fol. 20. Cf. Part. Deb., cxiv. 1123 ff., cxviii. 1494.
page 295 note 2 G. C. Lewis to Sir Edmund Head, 23 December 1850: Sir Lewis, G. F. (ed.), Letters of Sir George C. Lewis to various friends, London 1870, 232–3; Lewis to Clarendon, 25 December 1850: Clarendon Press, c. 530.Google Scholar
page 295 note 3 Awdry, F., A Country Gentleman of the Nineteenth Century, Winchester 1906, 97–8.Google Scholar Keble also warned against the submission to the State which the bill implied: ibid.
page 295 note 4 Conacher, J. B., “The Politics of the “Papal Aggression” Crisis, 1850–1’, Canadian Catholic Historical Association Report, 1959, 17, 19–20.Google Scholar
