All Posts page

John Henry Newman becomes a Cardinal. May 1879

WillLeave a comment
Palazzo della Pigna

Cardinal Newman:   On Monday morning [May 12]  Dr. Newman went to the residence of Cardinal Howard in the Palazzo della Pigna to receive there the messenger from the Vatican bearing the biglietto from the Cardinal-Secretary of State, informing him that in a secret Consistory held that morning his Holiness had deigned to raise him to the rank of Cardinal. By eleven o’clock the rooms were crowded with English and American Catholics, ecclesiastics and laymen, as well as many members of the Roman nobility and dignitaries of the Church, assembled to witness the ceremony. Soon after midday the consistorial messenger was announced. He handed the biglietto to Dr. Newman, who, having broken the seal, gave it to Dr. Clifford, Bishop of Clifton, who read the contents. The messenger having then informed the newly-created Cardinal that his Holiness would receive him at the Vatican the next morning at ten o’clock to confer the berretta upon him, and having paid the customary compliments, his Eminence spoke as follows:

“ Vi ringrazio, Monsignore, per la participazione che mi avete fatto dell’ alto onore che it Santo Padre si è degnato conferire sulla mia persona ; and if I ask your permission to continue my address to you, not in your musical language, but in my own dear mother tongue, it is because in the latter I can better express my feelings on this most gracious announcement which you have brought to me than if I attempted what is above me. First of all, then, I am led to speak of the wonder and profound gratitude which came upon me, and which is upon me still, at the condescension and love towards me of the Holy Father in singling me out for so immense an honour. It was a great surprise. Such an elevation had never come into my thoughts, and seemed to be out of keeping with all my antecedents. I had passed through many trials, but they were over, and now the end of all things had almost come to me and I was at peace. And was it possible that, after all, I had lived through so many years for this? Nor is it easy to see how I could have borne so great a shock had not the Holy Father resolved on a second condescension towards me, which tempered it, and was to all who heard of it a touching evidence of his kindly and generous nature. He felt for me, and he told me the reasons why he raised me to this high position. His act, said he, was a recognition of my zeal and good services for so many years in the Catholic cause.

Moreover, he judged it would give pleasure to English Catholics, and even to Protestant England, if I received some mark of his favour. After such gracious words from his Holiness I should have been insensible and heartless if I had had scruples any longer. This is what he had the kindness to say to me, and what could I want more? In a long course of years I have made many mistakes. I have nothing of that high perfection which belongs to the writings of saints—namely, that error cannot be found in them ; but what I trust I may claim throughout all that I have written is this—an honest intention, an absence of private ends, a temper of obedience, a willingness to be corrected, a dread of error, a desire to serve the Holy Church, and through the Divine mercy, a fair measure of success. And, I rejoice to say, to one great mischief I have from the first opposed myself. For 30, 40, 50 years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did the Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas ! it is an error overspreading as a snare the whole earth ; and on this great occasion, when it is natural for one who is in my place to look out upon the world and upon the Holy Church as it is and upon her future, it will not, I hope, be considered out of place if I renew the protest against it which I have so often made.

Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with the recognition of any religion as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, as all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste—not an objective fact, not miraculous ; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant churches and to Catholic, may get good from both, and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feelings without having any views at all of doctrine in common or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you ? It is as impertinent to think about a man’s religion as about the management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society. Hitherto the civil power has been Christian. Even in countries separated from the Church, as in my own, the dictum was in force when I was young that Christianity was the law of the land. Now everywhere that goodly framework of society, which is the creation of Christianity, is throwing off Christianity.

The dictum to which I have referred, with a hundred others which followed upon it, is gone or is going everywhere, and by the end of the century, unless the Almighty interferes, it will be forgotten. Hitherto it has been considered that religion alone, with its supernatural sanctions, was strong enough to secure the submission of the mass of the population to law and order. Now, philosophers and politicians are bent on satisfying this problem without the aid of Christianity. Instead of the Church’s authority and teaching they would substitute, first of all, a universal and a thoroughly secular education, calculated to bring home to every individual that to be orderly, industrious, and sober is his personal interest. Then, for great working principles to take the place of religion for the use of the masses thus carefully educated, they provide the broad, fundamental, ethical truths of justice, benevolence, veracity, and the like, proved experience, arid those natural laws which exist and act spontaneously in society and in social matters, whether physical or psychological—for instance, in government, trade, finance, sanitary experiments, the intercourse of nations. As to religion, it is a private luxury which a man may have if he will, but which, of course, he must pay for, and which he must not obtrude upon others or indulge to their annoyance. The general character of this great apostasy is one and the same everywhere, but in detail and in character it varies in different countries.

For myself, I would rather speak of it in my own country, which I know. There, I think, it threatens to have a formidable success, though it is not easy to see what will be its ultimate issue. At first sight it might be thought that Englishmen are too religious for a movement which on the Continent seems to be founded on infidelity ; but the misfortune with us is that, though it ends in infidelity, as in other places, it does not necessarily arise out of infidelity. It must be recollected that the religious sects which sprang up in England three centuries ago, and which are so powerful now, have ever been fiercely opposed to the union of Church and State, and would advocate the un-christianising the monarchy and all that belongs to it, under the notion that such a catastrophe would make Christianity much more pure and much more powerful.

Next, the liberal principle is forced on us through the necessity of the case. Consider what follows from the very fact of these many sects. They constitute the religion, it is supposed, of half the population ; and recollect, our mode of government is popular. Every dozen men taken at random whom you meet in the streets have a share in political power. When you inquire into their forms of belief, perhaps they represent one or other of as many as seven religions. How can they possibly act together in municipal or in national matters if each insists on the recognition of his own religious denomination? All action would be at a deadlock unless the subject of religion were ignored. We cannot help ourselves. And, thirdly, it must be borne in mind that there is much in the liberalistic theory which is good and true ; for example, not to say more, the precepts of justice, truthfulness, sobriety, self-command, benevolence, which, as I have already noted, are among its avowed principles. It is not till we find that this array of principles is intended to supersede, to block out, religion, that we pronounce it to be evil. There never was a device of the enemy so cleverly framed and with such promise of success. And already it has answered to the expectations which have been formed of it. It is sweeping into its own ranks great numbers of able, earnest, virtuous men—elderly men of approved antecedents, young men with a career before them. Such is the state of things in England, and it is well that it should be realised by all of us ; but it must not be supposed for a moment that I am afraid of it. I lament it deeply, because I foresee that it may be the ruin of many souls ! but I have no fear at all that it really can do aught of serious harm to the work of truth, to the Holy Church, to our Almighty King, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, faithful and true, or to His Vicar on earth. Christianity has been too often in what seemed deadly peril that we should fear for it any new trial now. So far is certain.

On the other hand, what is uncertain, and in these great contests commonly is uncertain, and what is commonly a great surprise when it is witnessed, is the particular mode in the event by which Providence rescues and saves his elect inheritance. Sometimes our enemy is turned into a friend ; sometimes he is despoiled of that special virulence of evil which was so threatening ; sometimes he falls to pieces of himself ; sometimes he does just so much as is beneficial and then is removed. Commonly the Church has nothing more to do than to go on in her own proper duties in confidence and peace, to stand still, and to see the salvation of God. ‘ Mansueti hereditabunt terram et delectabuntur in multitudine pacis’  [But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.] .”

Cardinal Newman by John Everett Millais 1885.

His Eminence spoke in a strong, clear voice, and although he stood the whole time, he showed no signs of fatigue. After taking his seat, those present went up in turn to compliment him, Monsignor Stonor, at the request of Monsignor Cataldi, master of the ceremonies to his Holiness, presenting those with whom his Eminence was unacquainted. Among the many present were Dr. Moran, Bishop of Ossory ; Monsignor Lenti, Vice-gerent of Rome ; Dr. O’Callaghan, Rector of the English College ; Dr. Giles, Vice-rector of the English College ; Monsignor Kirby, Rector of the Irish College ; Dr. Campbell, Rector of the Scotch College; Dr. Smith, of the Propaganda ; Dr. O’Bryen ; Dr. Hostlot, Rector of the American College ; F. Mullooly, Prior of St. Clement’s ; Dr. Maziere Brady, Lady Herbert of Lea, Marchioness Ricci, Baroness Keating, Prince and Princess Giustiniani Bandini, Commendatore de Rossi, Count de Redmond, General Kanzler, Professor Blackie, Sir Hungerford Pollen, Monsignors Folicaldi, Rinaldi, de Stacpoole, and others, and nearly all the English residents now in Rome, both Catholic and Protestant.

The Times correspondent telegraphs the following account of the presentation to his Eminence, on Wednesday, of the gifts and the address of the English, Irish, Scotch, and American residents in Rome :— Wednesday May 14.

At 11 o’clock this morning his Eminence Cardinal Newman, attended by his train-bearer and gentleman of honour in full Pontifical Court dress and sword, and accompanied by the Fathers of the Birmingham Oratory who are with him and Mgr. Cataldi, master of the ceremonies to his Holiness, was received at the door of the English College by the rector, Dr. O’Callaghan, the vice-rector, Dr. Giles, and Mgr. Stonor, and conducted into a large upper chamber, already crowded by ladies and gentlemen, Protestant as well as Catholic. At the further end were exposed the complete set of vestments, rich as becoming the intention, but plain in accordance with the Cardinal’s desire, the cloth of silver cope and jewelled mitre for State occasions, the pectoral cross and chain, and a silver-gilt altar candlestick, for which the English-speaking Catholics at Rome have sub-scribed as a present to his Eminence, together with a richly illuminated address. On each vestment was embroidered his Eminence’s coat-of-arms in proper heraldic colours, with the motto ” Cor ad cor loquitur.” The jewelled mitre is a facsimile of that presented to Leo XIII. Cardinal Newman having taken his seat on the throne, with Mgr. Moran, Bishop of Ossory, Mgr. Woodlock, Bishop elect of Ardagh ; Mgr. Siciliano di Rende, Archbishop of Benevento; and Mgrs. Stonor, Cataldi, and de Stacpoole standing on the steps of the dais on either side, Lady Herbert of Lea read the following address

” My Lord Cardinal,—We, your devoted English, Scotch,. Irish, and American children at present residing in Rome,. earnestly wishing to testify our deep and affectionate veneration for your Eminence’s person and character, together with our hearty joy at your elevation to the Sacred Purple, venture to lay this humble offering at your feet. We feel that in making you a Cardinal the Holy Father has not only given public testimony of his appreciation of your great merits and of the value of your admirable writings in defence of God and His Church, but has also conferred the greatest possible honour on all English-speaking Catholics, who have long looked up to you as their spiritual father and their guide in the paths of holiness. We hope your Eminence will excuse the shortness and simplicity of this address, which is but the expression of the feeling contained in your Eminence’s motto, ‘ Heart speaking to Heart,’ for your Eminence has long won the first place in the hearts of all. That God may greatly prolong the years which have been so devoted to His service in the cause of truth is the earnest prayer of your Eminence’s faithful and loving children.”

His Eminence, having first descended to examine the presents, then replied as follows

“My dear friends,—Your affectionate address, introductory to so beautiful a present, I accept as one of those strange favours, of Divine Providence which are granted to few. Most men if they do any good die without knowing it ; but I call it strange that I should be kept to my present age—an age beyond the age of most men—as if in order that, in this great city, where I am personally almost unknown, I might find kind friends to meet me with an affectionate welcome and to claim me as their spiritual benefactor. The tender condescension to me of the Holy Father has elicited in my behalf, in sympathy with him, a loving acclamation from his faithful children. My dear friends, your present, which while God gives me strength I shall avail myself of in my daily Mass, will be a continual memento in His sight both of your persons and your several intentions. When my strength fails me for that great action, then in turn I know well that I may rely on your taking up the duty and privilege of intercession, and praying for me that, with the aid of the Blessed Virgin and all saints, I may persevere in faith, hope, and charity, and in all that grace which is the life of the soul till the end comes.”

A great improvement was manifested in the Cardinal’s appearance since the day before yesterday, and he may now be considered perfectly re-established in health.

Thursday.

Cardinal Newman attended the Consistory to-day, and received the Cardinal’s hat and his title of S. Giorgio in Velabro a church situated in the lower town of Rome, on the left bank-of the Tiber, near the foot of the Palatine. There was a large attendance of Cardinals.

The above text was found on p.18 – p.19, 17th May 1879 in “The Tablet: The International Catholic News Weekly.” Reproduced with kind permission of the Publisher. The Tablet can be found at http://www.thetablet.co.uk .

The Purssells 1870 – 1890

Will1 Comment

“It is indisputable that while you cannot possibly be genteel and bake, you may be as genteel as never was and brew.” Charles Dickens, Great Expectations, 1861.

As we’ve already seen the decade between 1861 and 1871 seemed to have been  pivotal for the family. Some have definitely succeeded,  others don’t seem to do well; and by the start of the 1870’s there appears to be almost a gulf between the two remaining branches of the family, possibly exacerbated by a split in religions, but more likely by a combination of class, status, and money.

St Anne Limehouse
St Anne Limehouse

As far as we can tell, the whole family were born and christened as members of the Church of England.  Roger and Charlotte were christened, and married at St Anne, Limehouse, in the late C18th, and all the children were christened there.  All seem to have had C of E christenings.  But at some point, there were some conversions to Rome, at least on the part of Charlotte, Frances Jane [Mother St. George], and Alfred. It’s not entirely clear why, or when.

Mother St. George is the easiest to pin down, she was professed a nun, at the age of twenty one, in 1848, the year of revolutions, and, coincidentally, the year the Communist Manifesto was published in London. So, we at least have a date as to when Mother St George was a recognized Catholic.

At the moment, this has to be speculation, but it is logical to assume that Charlotte was the first to convert, probably after the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, and almost certainly as an adult convert. Charlotte was the eldest of the brothers and sisters; sixteen years older than Mother St. George, and twenty years older than Alfred.  Charlotte and Frances were the only two girls, and it’s reasonable to assume that given the amount of instruction, and the sacraments Mother St. George (Frances) would have had to received prior to her profession that she followed her sister, and they were both Catholic by, perhaps, 1844.

Alfred was the youngest of his brothers and sisters; much closer in age to Mother St. George than anyone else. He was at least eight years younger than his nearest brother John Roger, and sixteen years younger than Joe, the eldest. Quite when he converted is rather more difficult.  Alfred married Laura Rose Coles in the spring of 1857 at St George the Martyr, in Southwark, in an apparently  C of E marriage. He was twenty six, and she was two years younger. Laura Rose was born in Blackheath on 19th March 1833, and apparently christened into the Church of England. Alfred then married Ellen Ware in 1865 in Exeter. That marriage also seems to have been Anglican. But by 1871, his eldest daughter,Laura Mary, is being educated by the nuns in Norwood at her aunt’s convent. So it’s a reasonable bet that Alfred had become a Catholic by then.

By 1871,  Alfred had re-married, and had five more children. Mother St George is in the convent in Norwood. Charlotte Purssell Jnr had been dead almost two years,William is dead, and  James, and his family, had been in New York for almost fourteen years, and well established on Broadway.  John Roger Purssell is presumed to be in Australia, and Joe has been in Australia for at least ten years, and possibly as many as nineteen years; and finally, their mother Charlotte Purssell Senior is living in Mile End, at 350 Mile End Road, aged eighty-one, with Mary Isaacs, a sixteen year old servant girl; and her daughter-in-law, Eliza (nee Newman), William’s widow, is living at 2 Satin Road, Lambeth, also with a servant.

So the split is almost complete, possibly it is more of a drift than a split, but there are now only two of Roger and Charlotte’s families remaining in London. Alfred’s living in Finsbury Square, on the northern edge of the City, and John Roger’s in Mile End Old Town in the East End. The remaining households are Eliza Purssell, William’s widow, who is living at 2 Satin Road, in Lambeth with a nineteen year old servant Louisa Cox, and eighty-one year old Charlotte herself, who is living in Mile End Road with her servant Mary Issacs.

John Roger has emigrated to Australia sometime in the 1860’s, most probably after 1866 when his daughter Eliza was born. His wife Eliza (nee Davies) calls herself a widow, in the 1871 census, when she was living at 19 Lincoln Street, Mile End with their five youngest children. She describes herself as a house-owner, though doesn’t give herself a profession, or occupation. The usual descriptions of the well off are “living on own means” or “fundholder”, or possibly “annuitant” so while she may have had some money, but that’s by no means certain. Given JR’s rather checkered history with money, he may have left her with some, he may not. He’d gone bankrupt in 1854, and his restaurant business had failed in 1861 when he had re-invented himself as a photographer. He later re-imagines himself as a builder.

 It’s not quite clear whether John Roger re-marries in Australia, but he wouldn’t be unusual in doing so. His older brother Joe had emigrated in the 1850’s and remarried, quite possibly bigamously. It seems to be quite common, so much so that Australian law seems to have permitted a second marriage if husband and wife had lived apart for seven years. Certainly, there were bigamous Australian marriages in the O’Bryen, and Elworthy families as well.

In terms of status, in 1871, Eliza is to all intents abandoned, so it’s not surprising she calls herself a “widow”, and slightly defensively as a “house owner”. At least the eldest three of her children have already died; John Junior aged two and a half in 1852, Alfred aged nine in 1860, and thirteen year old Edward in 1865. There is no trace of Albert after 1861, so it seems reasonable to assume he is dead by 1871, though he would be seventeen by then, so he could feasibly have left home. But she is living with five children, aged between five and thirteen, and no servants in the East End, quite a step down from ten years earlier when she had two. In 1871,Francis, and Charles are living with their mother, along with Arthur,Augustus, and Eliza.  

All of John Roger and Eliza’s adult sons appear to have gone to Australia. Francis emigrated on the Illawarra, arriving in New South Wales on the 6th Aug 1883.  Charles George seems to have emigrated some time after 1881, and died in Australia. Arthur, also, appears to have emigrated; and Augustus appears to have emigrated, married, and died in Australia as well.

John Roger Purssell returns to London by the end of the century. Crucially, JR’s youngest, and only, daughter remained in London; and it’s with her, and her family, that he lives with on his return. So at least one of the children knew their father was still alive.

By contrast, a couple of miles away on the other side of the City, Alfred is living at 49 Finsbury Square, with Ellen, who he has been married to for almost six years. They’ve had five children in the six years they’ve been married, in addition to Alfred’s daughter Laura; starting with Lucy who was born in the autumn of 1865, the year they got married, followed by Alfred Junior, Frank, Charlotte, and Agnes, none of them more than twenty one months apart, and in the case of the youngest two girls nor more than fifteen months apart. Gertrude, following the same pattern as her youngest sisters, was born fifteen months later in the summer of 1872.

Alfred is now describing himself as a “wine merchant etc employing 65 heads”, rather than a “confectioner”, which is what he called himself ten years earlier. The business is still expanding, he has increased the workforce by 30% in ten years, on top of a 25% increase in the 1850’s. But he is now clearly wanting to cement his place further as a Victorian gent. He was a subscriber to the International Exhibition of 1862 – held ten years later than the Great Exhibition- He subscribed £ 100 [ the modern day equivalent of £ 130,000].  But to quote from “Great Expectations” published ten years earlier, in a remark about Miss Havisham’s father ” Her father…. was a brewer. I don’t know why it should be a crack thing to be a brewer; but it is indisputable that while you cannot possibly be genteel and bake, you may be as genteel as never was and brew. You see it every day.”  I think we can safely assume that gentility, and the wine trade are fine, but baking definitely not. So Alfred is re-inventing himself.

By this point in the century, 1871, the family has transformed itself. In two lifespans- from Roger [1783 – 1861] to the death of Alfred [1831 – 1897] his youngest son,in 1897, and over the course of the nineteenth century, at least one part of the family has done very well for itself. At least in terms of social status, I think it is fair to imagine that Alfred has come to think of himself as “genteel” in the Dickensian sense.

Roger can first be traced in the 1851 census, living in a shared house in Mile End. His neighbours can only really be described as working class, though to use a Booth definition, probably  “Higher class labour”. Roger himself is, in that acutely British way of looking at class, not genteel, but he does seem to be wealthy. Roger dies in 1861, and Charlotte, then living at 1 Saville Place, in Mile End, buys a grave in Bow Cemetery [City of London, and Tower Hamlets Cemetery] where he is buried in 1861, and William Purssell is buried with his father nine years later in September 1870, aged 54.

So back to Alfred, thirty nine years old, the father of six, soon to be seven, children, and living in some splendour in Finsbury Square. In addition to his wife and children, the household contains five servants, a ratio of family to servants that he maintains for the next thirty years. I think it is safe to say this is a prosperous upper middle class Victorian household, and would regard itself as such. There is no attempt to emulate the upper classes with a butler, or footmen, just a mixture of housemaids, nurses, and a cook.

Alfred Purssell has moved a long way in ten years. In 1861 he was a twenty-nine year old widower staying with his eldest brother in Brighton with a two year old daughter. He and Laura, then lived in Blackheath, and continued to do so after Alfred’s second marriage to Ellen Ware in 1865, up to at least 1868 because Lucy, Alfred Joseph, and Frank were born there. Charlotte, Agnes, and Gertrude were all born in Finsbury Square.  

In 1871 Laura Mary Purssell (aged 12) was at school  at the Virgo Fidelis convent in Norwood where Mother St George was, she is shown as Frances Jane Purssell aged 42 on the census return, and listed with the rest of the nuns as “attending on the children”.  Gertrude Purssell, the youngest daughter was born a year later in the summer of 1872. Her mother Ellen was 37, and within a year Ellen was dead. Alfred was forty one years old, a widower twice over, and a father of seven.

In the next snap shot in 1881, Alfred has moved house again. The family are now in Clapham, at 371 Clapham Road; though on the 3rd of April, most of the children are away at school. Lucy, Charlotte, and Agnes are boarding in Folkestone at the Convent of the Faithful Virgin. It’s a daughter house of the convent in Norwood with ” a Community of Nuns, Boarding school, and Orphanage with 17 orphans, and 13 boarders.”  Mother St George is the Lady Superior, and as well as her nieces boarding there, they are being visited by Laura Purssell on the night of the census.

Both the boys are also away at school. Frank is definitely at Downside, and it’s not entirely clear where Alfred Joseph is. Given that there is only a year’s difference between the boys, it would be logical to assume he was there too, but he doesn’t appear on the census return.

At home in Clapham, are Alfred and Gertrude who is eight years old.  He’s employing Annabella Norris as a housekeeper, along with a cook, two housemaids, and a children’s maid. Annabella’s position is a slightly hybrid one, similar in status to a governess. She is firmly not categorised as a servant, and was previously, and subsequently a schoolmistress.  In 1851, the Norris family were living in Stroat House, in Tidenham, Gloucestershire on the edge of the Forest of Dean, where Thomas Norris described himself as a farmer of 46 acres employing two labourers. Annabella’s mother called herself a “landed proprietor”  in 1861 when she and her daughters were living in a cottage in the village, and Annabella was teaching in the house with four boarding pupils. By 1871, she was running a school at 1 Powis Square, in Brighton with her sister Ellen and thirteen boarding pupils. After her stint with the Purssells, she moved to Bristol and resumed life as a schoolmistress, living at 10 Belmont Road in Montpellier, with her sister Margaret. She died in 1909 leaving the modern day equivalent of £ 264,700.

Of the remaining family,  William’s widow Eliza is living in Romford; John Roger’s abandoned wife, another Eliza is nowhere to be found but seems to have died in Dartford five years later. James and his family have been established in New York for nearly twenty years, and his five youngest children were all born in New York City, and Charlotte Purssell still seems to be alive, dying five years later in the winter of 1886 in Romford at the age of ninety-six.

The Battle of Mentana, November 3rd 1867.

WillLeave a comment

The Battle of Mentana was fought on November 3, 1867 near the village of Mentana, just outside Rome, [about three miles]   between French-Papal troops and the Italian volunteers led by Giuseppe Garibaldi, who were attempting to capture Rome, which was not unified to Kingdom of Italy until three years later.. The battle ended in a victory by the French-Papal troops. This is the report from “The Tablet” published on 23rd November 1867. As would be expected, it does take sides. It is still staggering that a Papal army was fighting just under one hundred and fifty years ago.

 

THE BATTLE OF MENTANA.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

ROME, Nov. 8th.

The events of the past week have been so stirring that I preferred waiting till a correct appreciation could be formed of their weight and extent, to sending you a hurried and unsatisfactory account of the great triumph of the Pontifical army. An hour or two after posting my last letter on Saturday afternoon received notice from the ambulance that the muster of the columns which was going to attack Monte Rotondo would take place at three in the morning of Sunday, at the Piazza delle Termine, and that those intending to form part of it must be there a few minutes earlier.

The Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, newly arrived on special duty from Marseilles, the Vicomte de Lupe, M. Keller (fils), De Ozanam and Mgri. Vergneaud, and Benoit D’Azy, under the direction of M. de St. Priest, formed the members of the French volunteer ambulance, and its place was in the centre of the attacking columns, immediately behind the artillery and cavalry. The night was rainy, but in spite of the weather the scene was picturesque beyond description. The troops were formed in line from the Baths of Diocletian to the Piazza Pia, and the red glare of the torches which lighted the march fell on the gigantic ruins of the Thermae, on the facade of the Maria degli Angeli, on the brazen helmets of the dragoons, and the Pontifical standard, which

“Wet with the mists, and smitten by the lights,

Blazed, making all the night a stream of fire,”

and guarded by the entire regiment of Zouaves, went on before us into the darkness, followed by the prayers and blessing of the Vicar of Christ, and the countless holy souls who were watching round the altars and in the cloisters of the Eternal City.

The long line, measuring more than three-quarters of a mile from van to rear, began to wind slowly through the Porta Pia, and the quick rattle of officers on horseback passing our carriage told us that the general and his staff were taking their place at the head of the column. General Kanzler was accompanied by his Royal Highness the Comte de Caserta, MM. de Bourbon, Charles de Maistre, Ungarelli, and a brilliant staff of officers. Colonel Allett, with M. de Charette, and the commandants De Troussures, and De Lambilly, headed the Zouaves. The Swiss under the commandant De Castella, the artillery commanded by M. de Nadin, the dragoons by the Count Von Loiningen, and the Legion by the Comte D’Azy, formed the effective force of the Pontifical column, numbering about six thousand men. The reserve was given to the French, under General Polhes, General Kanzler claiming the honour of the first attack. In spite of the bad weather, the troops were in the highest spirits. Most of the Zouaves had not slept save for an hour or two for twelve nights, from the constant alarm and fatigue duty, but there was no sign of wavering when the bugle sounded, and as the Porta Pia was passed and the column was fairly in the open country, the pace was quickened, and by the time the first dawn broke cold and grey over the Sabine Mountains, the troops had accomplished nearly half their march.

The sun rose at last, and though the weather was chill, damp, and threatening, the rain ceased, to the great satisfaction of every one. At the Ponte Nomentana three companies of Zouaves were detached from the column, and under the conduct of the commandant De Troussures, executed a movement to support the French reserve, and attack the Garibaldians at their flank outposts at Mentana, a village about two miles in advance of Monte Rotondo on the Roman side by the Ponte Manola road.

The Ponta Nomentano was secured and a strong guard of French chasseurs was left in charge of it to guard the retreat.

About five miles beyond Ponte Nomentana a halt was sounded, the hour being nearly ten o’clock, and the troops breakfasted. The pious Dominican chaplain, Pere Lignir, who, with Mgri. de Waelmont, Bastide, and three Jesuit Fathers, accompanied the ambulance, celebrated the Holy Sacrifice in presence of the army in a little wayside chapel attached to the Osteria. For many present it was their last Mass, and the devotion and fervour with which it was assisted at by the Zouaves especially, it is impossible to describe. By eleven we were again on the march, our route lying over the Campagna in a north-easterly direction, the villages of Monticelli, San Francesco, and Palombara lying to our right, and Tivoli in the same direction, bet further down the flank of the Sabine. The march became slower, for the heavy clay clung to the wheels of the carriages, and the artillery was constantly requiring to be lifted out of the mire. This continued across the Campagna for about two miles, and then the soil became lighter, and as we neared the village of Mentana the country became more wooded, and showed signs of enclosure and cultivation, and the road more practicable. Mentana was still invisible, being concealed from us by a circle of woody eminences, all of which we had reason to believe were occupied by the Garibaldians, and we knew that at Mentana itself they maintained a force of 700 men as the advanced post of Monte Rotondo, and General Kanzler had, even from the beginning, prepared for a stout resistance there, and took his measures accordingly.

The road by which Mentana was to be reached runs up a ravine lying between hills covered with light brushwood, and when we reached the first eminence above the champaign country, flanking companies were detached ” en tirailleur,” on either side of our march to prevent a surprise, and the artillery passing to the front, took up a position on a round hill commanding the ravine and the opposite heights, two ranges of hills, about 800 feet high, separating us from the enemy, who, as yet, gave no sign of life.

The bugle sounded from the Zouave ranks far on ahead ; General Kanzler and his staff, with the Count of Caserta, cantered up the line, and we finding that our drivers were not particularly anxious to pro-ceed further, with the prospect of immediate action, got down and proceeded on foot a little in the rear of the troops, to a point where we could observe the attack and where we resolved to establish our first ambulance.

We had not long to wait before the first sharp crack of the rifles broke the silence. From the bill we occupied we could plainly distinguish the scarlet shirts of the Garibaldian skirmishers, through the hazel and alder copsewood, and, in a few seconds, the whole edge of the heights was alive with their troops. Volley after volley rung through the thickets, and our cannon responded gallantly, doing terrible execution on the enemy, and protecting the advance of our column.

The Zouaves had, of course, the post of honour and of danger, the guerdon of their undying chivalry and devotion. Company after company swept by our post, the officers and men saluting the Sisters of St. Vincent of Paul, who, for the first time since their foundation, accompanied an army to the open battle-field ; and the cry of ” Vive la France ! Vive Pie IX. !” went up like a clarion note from the hearts of 2,000 Christian gentlemen, ready, as were even their crusading fathers, to die for God’s cause and the triumph of the Church. Up the ravine they swept, Charette at their head, on his superb chestnut horse, his clear bright eye . gleaming with the light of battle, and his noble features looking prouder and nobler even than their wont in the excitement of the hour. Gallant old Alett, sitting calm and square on his stout charger as he sat at Castelfidardo, when his fugitive regiment of Swiss left him alone on the field to fight side by side with the Zouaves he now commands. De Lambilly, De Saizy, and Le Gouidec, D’Albions, De Fumel and Thormelet, Breton, and Provencal, and Swiss, each at the head of their company, passed on. There were some of English birth too, who shared the honour of the day, George Collingridge, Roland Cary, Wilfrid and Julian Watts Russell, Charles Woodward, were all in the ranks, brave and devoted as any Frenchman there, and longing to rival their comrades for the honour of Catholic England and the expiation of her past coldness in the cause. Past, let us trust and believe, forever!

The five first companies formed ” en tirailleur” and charged rapidly up the pass. The ” 6me du ler,” the compagnie d’elite, of which almost every man is a noble, was the first up the hill, and the shot from each side of the ravine made terrible havoc in its ranks. De Cathelineau was among the first who fell, and as the columns neared the top of the hill; which is crowned by a farm and gateway, called the Villa Santucci, the combat became more dreadful. The Garibaldians had fortified the buildings, and defended by its walls, their sharpshooters kept up a deadly fire on the Zouaves. The Sixieme was mounting to the assault two or three hundred yards below the villa, when its brave captain, the Comte de Vaux, waving his sword and cheering on his men, fell, shot through the heart, and never spoke again. He only lived a few moments, but long enough to receive the last absolution on the field of battle. He had confessed and communicated, as had every man and officer present, the day before he died as a soldier might dream of dying. I saw him a few minutes later, when, the heights being carried, we established a second ambulance in the Villa Santucci. He was lying with his sword still in his hand, his eyes raised to heaven, a smile on his lips, and the cross of Castelfidardo, which had been struck by the fatal bullet, carried into his heart, where it was found imbedded after his autopsy.

The fire now slackened, and the rear companies, which guarded the Papal Standard and were ranged, not ” en tirailleur” but in battle order, suffered severely but never broke their ranks. The sound of the fusillade mingled with the word of command, ” appuyez à droite,” ” appuyez à gauche,” as men fell and their vacant place was filled up. There was a moment of hesitation—and only a moment—and Charette pressing to the front cried “A moi! Zouaves atia bayonette. Chassez moi cette canaille. Vive Pie IX !” and waving the kepi of a Garibaldian chief he had taken in the early part of the charge, he spurred into the hottest of the fire. The balls literally rained, rattling and hissing through the yellowing oak leaves; one struck the sheath of his sabre, and another wounded his horse, which became unmanageable. The Comte Joseph de Pavillon, who had just taken Major Fabrizi’s horse in a single combat, in which the Garibaldian chief was mortally wounded, came up at the moment, and M. de Charette mounting it continued to expose himself with bravery so unthinking that it is a miracle that he escaped with his life.

A moment’s lull in the fire, and a new cry of ” Vive la France” sounded from the heights to the left, and the quick rattle of the Chassepots [a new type of French breech-loading rifle] told us that Polhes’ brigade had engaged the Garibaldian left. Castella and his Swiss regiment of Chasseurs came in sight, the Zouaves gave another and louder cheer, and the enemy falling back pell melt, retreated on the village, leaving the height of Villa Santucci in the hands of the Pontifical troops.

On reaching it, far down the flank of the opposite hills we could see the village of Mentana itself; its every house, its feudal castle, its church and walls, bristling with Garibaldian rifles. The heights above it were still in their possession, but the French were pressing hotly on their outposts, and on the road below the farm up to the gate of the village, which was strongly barricaded with earthworks, the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 7th companies of Zouaves were advancing. The Swiss were moving up in reserve, and we found their brave commandant, whose horse had just been killed under him, severely wounded in the knees and unable to move, but propped up against the wall and still directing the movements by voice and arm, till his regiment had advanced out of sight and earshot. Then alone was M. De Castella persuaded to accept the services of the surgeons, and retire to the farm to have his wounds dressed.

The battle swept down the valley and raged hot and furious round Mentana. The wounded soon became too numerous for the second ambulance, and we were obliged to establish a third nearer the field of battle, in a chapel between Montana and the Villa, where General Kanzler and the staff now took up their head-quarters, as well as a part of the ambulance service. From where I was, at the bottom of the second bill, I could distinguish the attack on the gate of the village and the movement of the troops. The Garibaldians were at least 14,000. The extent of ground they occupied and the arms found at Monte Rotondo, prove that their number was greatly under-stated by the official accounts at first published.

The 1st company was among the foremost in the attack on the gate, and it was here, about four in the afternoon, that our gallant young countryman Julian Russell fell, shot through the head, the second martyr England has given to Rome, and a fitting rival of Louis Guerin in youth, bravery, innocence, and devotion to the Church. Here, too, fell the Sergeant Lairon, a Breton, known and reputed in the entire regiment for his piety and courage. M. De Montbel was close to him when he was struck, and ran up to help him. ” Leave me,” he said, ” I am dying, and I die for Pius the IXth. You are wanted in the front, but tell my mother I did my duty, and give her my watch for the poor.”

Here, too, fell Walerond, Baron D’Erps, chief of a great house of North Brabant ; M. De Boischevalier, and Alfred Laroyse, whose family, one of the most considerable in Lower Canada, sent him to represent that faithful colony in the army of the Church. The two latter gentlemen were only dangerously wounded, but there is little hope of their recovery.

Another act of devotion deserves mention here. M. Jean Moeller, one of the celebrated Catholic Belgian writers of that name, served as Lieutenant of Zouaves at Castelfidardo with great credit, but his extreme youth in proportion to his grade and his want of experience were not in his favour in the regiment. A few childish acts were misinterpreted and very harshly judged, and he was obliged to give up his commission. He returned to Brussels to maintain his family in an honourable financial employment, but at the first outbreak of war he returned, entered as a simple soldier, and, serving under the orders of the very men he had once commanded, was among the first to enter Mentana, and flinging his kepi within the Garibaldian lines, followed rifle in hand, and was shot down severely wounded, but the position was carried by his comrades, and he was removed to the rear. There are many among the older students of the English College who know him and who will be glad to hear of their old Zouave acquaintance distinguishing himself so gallantly.

The twilight was coming on before the battle gave any signs of relenting. The Garibaldians fought every inch of the ground with desperate bravery, and their magnificent position, chosen with care and strategical knowledge, which proved the direction of high military knowledge, gave them every advantage, but the light was waning and a suspension of arms inevitable for the night. Menotti Garibaldi and his father had been seen twice in the early part of the fighting, the former on a white horse and the latter in a carriage, on the Monte Rotondo road, but they did not expose their person much according to the testimony of their followers, who are much dissatisfied at their leaders.They all, however agree that Ricciotti Garibaldi behaved most gallantly and shared every dangerous part with his soldiers, by whom he appears much beloved for his kindness of disposition and superior education. Two Garibaldian officers in the grey uniform of the Guides were all through the day remarkable for their courage and sangfroid, and the Zouaves are unanimous in their testimony to it. The Garibaldian marksmen were remarkably good, and two of them picked off the artillerymen one after the other,, ten loading for them as fast as they discharged the shots.

The superiority of the Chassepot was, however, clearly proved, and the terrible havoc in the enemy’s ranks was only realised when the battle was over and the wounded brought in. The patrols went up and down the ground with torches, and under every hedge, behind the walls, in the outhouses, and under the bracken were lying the unfortunate men ; many dead more dying and desperately wounded, and some able to walk, and too glad to surrender themselves prisoners and receive the best care that could be afforded them, and which was given by Dr. Ozanam and the Sisters to Garibaldians and Zouaves alike.

At five in the evening the firing ceased, and General Kanzler ordered a recall to be sounded and a camp formed round the Casa Santucci, whose elevated position rendered it the strongest post in our possession. The Zouaves soon returned with the Swiss, the chasseurs à pied, and the dragoons, and preparations were made for the bivouac. The French line was picketted in the ravine and the Legion on the open space below the ravine, round the little chapel where the first ambulance had remained under charge of Dr. Ceccarelli and Mgr. De Waelmont. The:night was a dreadful one—a cutting tramontana wind had set in, and four-fifths of the wounded at the lower ambulance could not be got under shelter, the chapel being too small, and they were obliged to be left on the ground, covered, as best we could contrive, with the scanty blankets of the train. Our water, too, ran short, and the wells being in the hands of the enemy, the sufferings of the poor soldiers were dreadful.

With the Sister Superioress and the surgeon and chaplain I spent the greatest part of the night on that terrible battle ground—the faces of the dead lighted up by the red glare of the camp fires, and now and then by a cold watery moon breaking through the storm clouds and rendering the scene ghastly beyond description. The cries of our unfortunate wounded were ringing in our ears, and we had not one pint of water left to give them. One poor Breton Zouave, to whom I was giving the last orange left in the ambulance, whose sufferings were dreadful to witness, from thirst, insisted on dividing it between two of his fellow wounded, both of them Garibaldians. It was his last act of heroic charity, for he went to receive his reward before daybreak.

We returned to the ambulance of Casa Santucci about three in the morning ; all along the road the dead were lying, the immense majority being Garibaldians. The body of one, an officer evidently, was guarded by his dog: the poor faithful creature sat there through the night and all next day, crying piteously, and would not be induced to leave it. When its master was buried the French office of the 59th took it home to their regiment, but for days it refused to eat or to notice any one.

About five in the morning the Comte de Christen arrived from Rome bringing important despatches from General Dumont, requesting the commander-in-chief, General Kanzler, to postpone his attack on Monte Rotondo till nine o’clock, as by that time a reinforcement of two French regiments and a heavy siege train would reach Mentana.

Preparations were, however, made for hostilities, and General Kanzler expected the Garibaldians to attack the Pontifical headquarters, and,by seven all was ready to recommence the battle. Still the Garibaldians remained perfectly inactive, and it would be difficult to imagine the astonishment of all present when, about eight o’clock, a flag of truce was hoisted from Mentana and a ” parlementaire,” on horseback, evidently an officer of some standing, appeared at the end of the avenue leading up to our lines.

Having been conducted to our head-quarters, he offered, on the part of the Mentana garrison, to surrender at discretion, Garibaldi having previously evacuated Monte Rotondo during the night.

The terms were of course accepted, and a few minutes after twelve hundred Garibaldians were marched into the Pontifical lines and sent under escort to Rome. The banner of Pius IX. was hoisted on the bastions, the Battle of Mentana was won, and Castelfidardo avenged !

The General and his staff started about eleven with the greater part of the troops to occupy Monte Rotondo, and the combatants busied themselves in the transport of the wounded. Prince Lancillotti, of whose courage and devotion it is impossible to speak too highly, rode off to Rome with General Kanzler’s despatches, and returned in the afternoon with fifty carriages, the Borghese, Patrizi, and all the great families sending their breaks and open carriages for the use of the ambulance. MM. les Ducs de Luynes and de Lorges, two of the oldest members of the French Peerage, were among the most active assistants, as well as MM. de Luppe, De Vergneaud, Keller, De Benoit d’Azy, under the direction of Dr. Ozanam. Of the services of M. de St. Priest and the Sisters of Charity I need not speak— they were indeed worthy of true children of St. Vincent of Paul.

 

 

A Pen Portrait of the House of Commons, 1854

WillLeave a comment

The main text in this post is Chapter XXX. from ” The American Fugitive in Europe. Sketches of Places and People Abroad. By Wm. Wells Brown.”  published in Boston, Cleveland Ohio, and New York in 1855 which reprinted all of his earlier book “Three Years in Europe” with additional material up to, and including, his return to the United States. It’s an astonishing piece of writing, and all the more extraordinary for the fact that William Wells Brown was born into slavery in Kentucky in 1814, escaping to Ohio aged 20. At the time of writing, he was still potentially at risk of being returned to slavery as a result of the Fugitive Slave Act  of 1850, which ”  required that all escaped slaves were, upon capture, to be returned to their masters. Brown had legally become a free man in 1854  when it had been bought by Ellen Richardson of Newcastle, England. 

The choice of M.P.’s he describes is an interesting mixture. The majority he chooses could all be described as radical, pro-free trade, and in favour of greater Parliamentary reform; though there are sketches of Disraeli, Palmerston, and Gladstone, the great majority represent the newly industrialized cities of the north-west. 

 

 

The House of Commons  –  1854

The Abbey clock was striking nine, as we entered the House of Commons, and, giving up our ticket, were conducted to the strangers’ gallery. We immediately recognized many of the members, whom we had met in private circles or public meetings. Just imagine, reader, that we are now seated in the strangers’ gallery, looking down upon the representatives of the people of the British empire.

There, in the centre of the room, shines the fine, open, glossy brow and speaking face of Alexander Hastie, a Glasgow merchant, a mild and amiable man, of modest deportment, liberal principles, and religious profession. He has been twice elected for the city of Glasgow, in which he resides. He once presided at a meeting for us in his own city.

On the right of the hall, from where we sit, you see that small man, with fair complexion, brown hair, gray eyes, and a most intellectual countenance. It is Layard with whom we spent a pleasant day at Hartwell Park, the princely residence of John Lee, Esq., LL.D. He was employed as consul at Bagdad, in Turkey. While there he explored the ruins of ancient Nineveh, and sent to England the Assyrian relics now in the British Museum. He is member for Aylesbury. He takes a deep interest in the Eastern question, and censures the government for their want of energy in the present war. [ The Crimean War ]

Joseph Hume

Not far from Layard you see the large frame and dusky visage of Joseph Hume. He was the son of a poor woman who sold apples in the streets of London. Mr. Hume spent his younger days in India, where he made a fortune; and then returned to England, and was elected a member of the House of Commons, where he has been ever since, with the exception of five or six years. He began political life as a tory, but soon went over to radicalism. He is a great financial reformer, and has originated many of the best measures of a practical character that have been passed in Parliament during the last thirty years. He is seventy-five years old, but still full of life and activity–capable of great endurance and incessant labor. No man enjoys to an equal extent the respect and confidence of the legislature. Though his opinions are called extreme, he contents himself with realizing, for the present, the good that is attainable. He is emphatically a progressive reformer; and the father of the House of Commons.

Edward Miall M.P.

To the left of Mr. Hume you see a slim, thin-faced man, with spectacles, an anxious countenance, his hat on another seat before him, and in it a large paper rolled up. That is Edward Miall. He was educated for the Baptist ministry, and was called when very young to be a pastor. He relinquished his charge to become the conductor of a paper devoted to the abolition of the state church, and the complete political enfranchisement of the people. He made several unsuccessful attempts to go into Parliament, and at last succeeded Thomas Crawford in the representation of Rochdale, where in 1852 he was elected free of expense. He is one of the most democratic members of the legislature. Miall is an able writer and speaker–a very close and correct reasoner. He stands at the very head of the Nonconformist party in Great Britain; and The Nonconformist, of which he is editor, is the most radical journal in the United Kingdom.

 

William Johnston Fox M.P.

Look at that short, thick-set man, with his hair parted on the crown of his head, a high and expansive forehead, and an uncommon bright eye. That is William Johnson Fox. He was a working weaver at Norwich; then went to Holton College, London, to be educated for the Orthodox Congregational ministry; afterwards embraced Unitarian views. He was invited to Finsbury Chapel, where for many years he lectured weekly upon a wide range of subjects, embracing literature, political science, theology, government and social economy. He is the writer of the articles signed “Publicola,” in the Weekly Dispatch, a democratic newspaper. He has retired from his pulpit occupations, and supports himself exclusively by his pen, in connection with the liberal journals of the metropolis. Mr. Fox is a witty and vigorous writer, an animated and brilliant orator.

Richard Cobden M.P.

Yonder, on the right of us, sits Richard Cobden. Look at his thin, pale face, and spare-made frame. He started as a commercial traveller; was afterwards a calico-printer and merchant in Manchester. He was the expounder, in the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and in the town council, of the principles of free trade. In the council of the Anti-Corn-Law League, he was the leader, and principal agitator of the question in public meetings throughout the kingdom. He was first elected for Stockport. When Sir Robert Peel’s administration abolished the corn-laws, the prime minister avowed in the House of Commons that the great measure was in most part achieved by the unadorned eloquence of Richard Cobden. He is the representative of the non-intervention or political peace party; holding the right and duty of national defence, but opposing all alliances which are calculated to embroil the country in the affairs of other nations. His age is about fifty. He represents the largest constituency in the kingdom–the western division of Yorkshire, which contains thirty-seven thousand voters. Mr. Cobden has a reflective cast of mind; and is severely logical in his style, and very lucid in the treatment of his subjects. He may be termed the leader of the radical party in the House.

Thomas Macaulay M.P.

Three seats from Cobden you see that short, stout person, with his high head, large, round face, good-sized eyes. It is Macaulay, the poet, critic, historian and statesman.  If you have not read his Essay on Milton, you should do so immediately; it is the finest thing of the kind in the language. Then there is his criticism on the Rev. R. Montgomery. Macaulay will never be forgiven by the divine for that onslaught upon his poetical reputation. That review did more to keep the reverend poet’s works on the publisher’s shelves than all other criticisms combined. Macaulay represents the city of Edinburgh.

Joseph Brotherton, M.P.

Look at that tall man, apparently near seventy, with front teeth gone. That is Joseph Brotherton, the member for Salford. He has represented that constituency ever since 1832. He has always been a consistent liberal, and is a man of business. He is no orator, and seldom speaks, unless in favour of the adjournment of the House when the hour of midnight has arrived. At the commencement of every new session of Parliament he prepares a resolution that no business shall be entered upon after the hour of twelve at night, but has never been able to carry it. He is a teetotaller and a vegetarian, a member of the Peace Society, and a preacher in the small religious society to which he belongs.

Morton Peto M.P.

In a seat behind Brotherton you see a young-looking man, with neat figure, white vest, frilled shirt, with gold studs, gold breast-pin, a gold chain round the neck, white kid glove on the right hand, the left bare with the exception of two gold rings. It is Samuel Morton Peto. He is of humble origin–has made a vast fortune as a builder and contractor for docks and railways. He is a Baptist, and contributes very largely to his own and other dissenting denominations. He has built several Baptist chapels in London and elsewhere. His appearance is that of a gentleman; and his style of speaking, though not elegant, yet pleasing.

 

John Bright, M.P

Over on the same side with the liberals sits John Bright, the Quaker statesman, and leader of the Manchester school. He is the son of a Rochdale manufacturer, and first distinguished himself as an agitator in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws. He represents the city of Manchester, and has risen very rapidly. Mr. Cobden and he invariably act together, and will, doubtless, sooner or later, come into power together. Look at his robust and powerful frame, round and pleasing face. He is but little more than forty; an earnest and eloquent speaker, and commands the fixed attention of his audience.

 

 

W.E. Gladstone M.P. by G.F. Watts,1859

See that exceedingly good-looking man just taking his seat. It is William Ewart Gladstone. He is the son of a Liverpool merchant, and represents the University of Oxford. He came into Parliament in 1832, under the auspices of the tory Duke of Newcastle. He was a disciple of the first Sir R. Peel, and was by that statesman introduced into official life. He has been Vice-president and President of the Board of Trade, and is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Gladstone is only forty-four. When not engaged in speaking he is of rather unprepossessing appearance. His forehead appears low, but his eye is bright and penetrating. He is one of the ablest debaters in the House, and is master of a style of eloquence in which he is quite un-approached. As a reasoner he is subtle, and occasionally jesuitical; but, with a good cause and a conviction of the right, he rises to a lofty pitch of oratory, and may be termed the Wendell Phillips of the House of Commons.

Disraeli

There sits Disraeli, amongst the Tories. Look at that Jewish face, those dark ringlets hanging round that marble brow. When on his feet he has a cat-like, stealthy step; always looks on the ground when walking. He is the son of the well-known author of the “Curiosities of Literature.” His ancestors were Venetian Jews. He was himself born a Jew, and was initiated into the Hebrew faith. Subsequently he embraced Christianity. His literary works are numerous, consisting entirely of novels, with the exception of a biography of the late Lord George Bentinck, the leader of the protectionist party, to whose post Mr. Disraeli succeeded on the death of his friend and political chief. Mr. Disraeli has been all round the compass in politics. He is now professedly a conservative, but is believed to be willing to support any measures, however sweeping and democratical, if by so doing he could gratify his ambition–which is for office and power. He was the great thorn in the side of the late Sir R. Peel, and was never so much at home as when he could find a flaw in that distinguished statesman’s political acts. He is an able debater and a finished orator, and in his speeches wrings applause even from his political opponents.

Lord Palmerston, M.P. c.1855

Cast your eyes to the opposite side of the House, and take a good view of that venerable man, full of years, just rising from his seat. See how erect he stands; he is above seventy years of age, and yet he does not seem to be forty. That is Lord Palmerston. Next to Joseph Hume, he is the oldest member in the House. He has been longer in office than any other living man. All parties have, by turns, claimed him, and he has belonged to all kinds of administrations; tory, conservative, whig, and coalition. He is a ready debater, and is a general favorite, as a speaker, for his wit and adroitness, but little trusted by any party as a statesman. His talents have secured him office, as he is useful as a minister, and dangerous as an opponent.

Lord Dudley Coutts Stuart (1803-1854), MP

That is Lord Dudley Coutts Stuart speaking to Mr. Ewart. His lordship represents the populous and wealthy division of the district of Marylebone. He is a radical, the warm friend of the cause of Poland, Hungary and Turkey. He speaks often, but always with a degree of hesitation which makes it painful to listen to him. His solid frame, strongly-marked features, and unmercifully long eye-brows are in strange contrast to the delicate face of Mr. Ewart.The latter is the representative for Dumfries, a Scotch borough. He belongs to a wealthy family, that has made its fortune by commerce. Mr. Ewart is a radical, a staunch advocate of the abolition of capital punishment, and a strenuous supporter of all measures for the intellectual improvement of the people.

 

Lord John Russell, M.P.

Ah! we shall now have a speech. See that little man  rising from his seat; look at his thin black hair, how it seems to stand up; hear that weak, but distinct voice. O, how he repeats the ends of his sentences! It is Lord John Russell, the leader of the present administration. He is now asking for three million pounds sterling to carry on the war. He is a terse and perspicuous speaker, but avoids prolixity. He is much respected on both sides of the House. Though favourable to reform measures generally, he is nevertheless an upholder of aristocracy, and stands at the head and firmly by his order. He is brother to the present Duke of Bedford, and has twice been Premier; and, though on the sunny side of sixty, he has been in office, at different times, more than thirty years. He is a constitutional whig and conservative reformer. See how earnestly he speaks, and keeps his eyes on Disraeli! He is afraid of the Jew. Now he scratches the bald place on his head, and then opens that huge roll of paper, and looks over towards Lord Palmerston.

Sir Joshua Walmsley, M.P. 1794 -1871

 

That full-faced, well-built man, with handsome countenance, just behind him, is Sir Joshua Walmsley. He is about the same age of Lord John; and is the representative for Leicester. He is a native of Liverpool, where for some years he was a poor teacher, but afterwards became wealthy in the corn trade. When mayor of his native town, he was knighted. He is a radical reformer, and always votes on the right side.

 

 

Joseph Hume, M.P.

Lord John Russell has finished and taken his seat. Joseph Hume is up. He goes into figures; he is the arithmetician of the House of Commons. Mr. Hume is in the Commons what James N. Buffum is in our Anti-Slavery meetings, the man of facts. Watch the old man’s eye as he looks over his papers. He is of no religious faith, and said, a short time since, that the world would be better off if all creeds were swept into the Thames. His motto is that of Pope:


“For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight:
His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right.”

Mr. Hume has not been tedious; he is done. Now for Disraeli. He is going to pick Lord John’s speech to pieces, and he can do it better than any other man in the House. See how his ringlets shake as he gesticulates! and that sarcastic smile! He thinks the government has not been vigorous enough in its prosecution of the war. He finds fault with the inactivity of the Baltic fleet; the allied army has made no movement to suit him. The Jew looks over towards Lord John, and then makes a good hit. Lord John shakes his head; Disraeli has touched a tender point, and he smiles as the minister turns on his seat. The Jew is delighted beyond measure. “The Noble Lord shakes his head; am I to understand that he did not say what I have just repeated?” Lord John: “The Right Hon. Gentleman is mistaken; I did not say what he has attributed to me.” Disraeli: “I am glad that the Noble Lord has denied what I thought he had said.” An attack is made on another part of the minister’s speech. Lord John shakes his head again. “Does the Noble Lord deny that, too?” Lord John: “No, I don’t, but your criticism is unjust.”  Disraeli smiles again: he has the minister in his hands, and he shakes him well before he lots him go. What cares he for justice? Criticism is his forte; it was that that made him what he is in the House. The Jew concludes his speech amid considerable applause.

William Ewart Gladstone

All eyes are turned towards the seat of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: a pause of a moment’s duration, and the orator of the House rises to his feet. Those who have been reading The Times lay it down; all whispering stops, and the attention of the members is directed to Gladstone, as he begins. Disraeli rests his chin upon his hat, which lies upon his knee: he too is chained to his seat by the fascinating eloquence of the man of letters. Thunders of applause follow, in which all join but the Jew. Disraeli changes his position on his seat, first one leg crossed, and then the other, but he never smiles while his opponent is speaking. He sits like one of those marble figures in the British Museum. Disraeli has furnished more fun for Punch than any other man in the empire. When it was resolved to have a portrait of the late Sir R. Peel painted for the government, Mr. Gladstone ordered it to be taken from one that appeared in Punch during the lifetime of that great statesman. This was indeed a compliment to the sheet of fun. But now look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is in the midst of his masterly speech, and silence reigns throughout the House.


“His words of learned length and thundering sound
Amazed the gazing rustics ranged around;

And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew
That one small head could carry all he knew.”

 Let us turn for a moment to the gallery in which we are seated. It is now near the hour of twelve at night. The question before the House is an interesting one, and has called together many distinguished persons as visitors. There sits the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel. He is one of the first of the Nonconformist ministers in the kingdom. He is about fifty years of age; very tall, and stands erect; has a fine figure, complexion fair, face long and rather pale, eyes blue and deeply set. He looks every inch the gentleman. Near by Mr. Noel you see the Rev. John Cumming, D.D. We stood more than an hour last Sunday in his chapel in Crown-court to hear him preach; and such a sermon we have seldom ever heard. Dr. Cumming does not look old. He has rather a bronzed complexion, with dark hair, eyes covered with spectacles. He is an eloquent man, and seems to be on good terms with himself. He is the most ultra Protestant we have ever heard, and hates Rome with a perfect vengeance. Few men are more popular in an Exeter Hall meeting than Dr. Cumming. He is a most prolific writer; scarce a month passes by without something from his pen. But they are mostly works of a sectarian character, and cannot be of long or of lasting reputation.

Further along sits a man still more eloquent than Dr. Cumming. He is of dark complexion, black hair, light blue eyes, an intellectual countenance, and when standing looks tall. It is the Rev. Henry Melville. He is considered the finest preacher in the Church of England. There, too, is Washington Wilks, Esq., author of “The Half-century.” His face is so covered with beard that I will not attempt a description; it may, however, be said that he has literally entered into the Beard Movement.

Edward Bulwer Lytton

Come, it is time for us to leave the House of Commons. Stop a moment! Ah! there is one that I have not pointed out to you. Yonder he sits amongst the tories. It is Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, the renowned novelist. Look at his trim, neat figure; his hair done up in the most approved manner; his clothes cut in the latest fashion. He has been in Parliament twenty-five years. Until the abolition of the corn-laws, he was a liberal; but as a land-owner he was opposed to free trade, and joined the protectionists. He has two country-seats, and lives in a style of oriental magnificence that is not equalled by any other man in the kingdom; and often gathers around him the brightest spirits of the age, and presses them into the service of his private theatre, of which he is very fond. In the House of Commons he is seldom heard, but is always listened to with profound attention when he rises to speak. He labors under the disadvantage of partial deafness. He is undoubtedly a man of refined taste, and pays a greater attention to the art of dress than any other public character I have ever seen. He has a splendid fortune, and his income from the labors of his pen is very great. His title was given to him by the queen, and his rank as a baronet he owes to his high literary attainments. Now take a farewell view of this assembly of senators. You may go to other climes, and look upon the representatives of other nations, but you will never see the like again.

The Great Anti-Slavery Demonstration of 1851 in London

WillLeave a comment
William Wells Brown

The main text in this post is from ” Three Years in Europe: or Places I Have Seen And People I Have Met.” by William Wells Brown, published in London in 1852. It’s an astonishing piece of writing, and all the more extraordinary for the fact that William Wells Brown was born into slavery in Kentucky in 1814, escaping to Ohio aged 20. At the time of writing, he was still potentially at risk of being returned to slavery as a result of the Fugitive Slave Act  of 1850, which ”  required that all escaped slaves were, upon capture, to be returned to their masters and that officials and citizens of the free states had to cooperate in this law. ”  Officials who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave, and made them liable to a fine of $1,000. Brown’s freedom was finally secured when it was bought by an English lady in 1854. He was also an abolitionist lecturer, novelist, and historian, and the first published African-American playwright in 1858. Slavery in the United States was partially abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, for 3 million, out of 4 million slaves, and finally completely, by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865.

Fugitive Slaves in England.

The love of freedom is one of those natural impulses of the human breast which cannot be extinguished. Even the brute animals of the creation feel and show sorrow and affection when deprived of their liberty. Therefore is a distinguished writer justified in saying, “Man is free, even were he born in chains.” The Americans boast, and justly too, that Washington was the hero and model patriot of the American Revolution,–the man whose fame, unequalled in his own day and country, will descend to the end of time, the pride and honour of humanity. The American speaks with pride of the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill; and, when standing in Faneuil Hall, he points to the portraits of Otis, Adams, Hancock, Quincy, Warren and Franklin, and tells you that their names will go down to posterity among the world’s most devoted and patriotic friends of human liberty.

It was on the first of August, 1851, that a number of men, fugitives from that boasted land of freedom, assembled at the Hall of Commerce in the city of London, for the purpose of laying their wrongs before the British nation, and, at the same time, to give thanks to the God of freedom for the liberation of their West India brethren on the first of August, 1834. Little notice had been given of the intended meeting, yet it seemed to be known in all parts of the city. At the hour of half-past seven, for which the meeting had been called, the spacious hall was well filled, and the fugitives, followed by some of the most noted English Abolitionists, entered the hall, amid the most deafening applause, and took their seats on the platform. The appearance of the great hall at this juncture was most splendid. Besides the committee of fugitives, on the platform there were a number of the oldest and most devoted of the slaves’ friends. On the left of the chair sat Geo. Thompson, Esq., M.P.; near him was the Rev. Jabez Burns, D.D., and by his side the Rev. John Stevenson, M.A., Wm. Farmer, Esq., R. Smith, Esq.; while on the other side were Joseph Hume, Esq., M.P., John Lee, LL.D., Sir J. Walmsley, M.P., the Rev. Edward Matthews, John Cunliff, Esq., Andrew Paton, Esq., J. P. Edwards, Esq., and a number of colored gentlemen from the West Indies. The body of the hall was not without its distinguished guests. The Chapmans and Westons of Boston, U. S., were there. The Estlins and Tribes had come all the way from Bristol to attend the great meeting. The Patons, of Glasgow, had delayed their departure, so as to be present. The Massies had come in from Upper Clapton. Not far from the platform sat Sir Francis Knowles, Bart.: still further back was Samuel Bowly, Esq., while near the door were to be seen the greatest critic of the age, and England’s best living poet. Macaulay had laid aside the pen, entered the hall, and was standing near the central door, while not far from the historian stood the newly-appointed Poet Laureate. [Alfred Lord Tennyson] The author of “In Memoriam” had been swept in by the crowd, and was standing with his arms folded, and beholding for the first time (and probably the last) so large a number of colored men in one room. In different parts of the hall were men and women from nearly all parts of the kingdom, besides a large number who, drawn to London by the Exhibition, had come in to see and hear these oppressed people plead their own cause.

The writer of this sketch was chosen chairman of the meeting, and commenced its proceedings by delivering the following address, which we cut from the columns of the Morning Advertiser:

        “The chairman, in opening the proceedings, remarked that, although the metropolis had of late been inundated with meetings of various characters, having reference to almost every variety of subjects, yet that the subject they were called upon that evening to discuss differed from them all. Many of those by whom he was surrounded, like himself, had been victims to the inhuman institution of slavery, and were in consequence exiled from the land of their birth. They were fugitives from their native land, but not fugitives from justice; and they had not fled from a monarchical, but from a so-called republican government. They came from amongst a people who declared, as part of their creed, that all men were born free; but who, while they did so, made slaves of every sixth man, woman and child, in the country. (Hear, hear.) He must not, however, forget that one of the purposes for which they were met that night was to commemorate the emancipation of their brothers and sisters in the isles of the sea. That act of the British Parliament, and he might add in this case, with peculiar emphasis, of the British nation, passed on the twelfth day of August, 1833, to take effect on the first day of August, 1834, and which enfranchised eight hundred thousand West Indian slaves, was an event sublime in its nature, comprehensive and mighty in its immediate influences and remote consequences, precious beyond expression to the cause of freedom, and encouraging beyond the measure of any government on earth to the hearts of all enlightened and just men. This act was the result of a long course of philanthropic and Christian efforts on the part of some of the best men that the world ever produced. It was not his intention to go into a discussion or a calculation of the rise and fall of property, or whether sugar was worth more or less by the act of emancipation. But the abolition of slavery in the West Indies was a blow struck in the right direction, at that most inhuman of all traffics, the slave-trade–a trade which would never cease so long as slavery existed; for where there was a market there would be merchandise; where there was demand there would be a supply; where there were carcasses there would be vultures; and they might as well attempt to turn the water, and make it run up the Niagara river, as to change this law.

It was often said by the Americans that England was responsible for the existence of slavery there, because it was introduced into that country while the colonies were under the British crown. If that were the case, they must come to the conclusion that, as England abolished slavery in the West Indies, she would have done the same for the American States if she had had the power to do it; and if that was so, they might safely say that the separation of the United States from the mother country was (to say the least) a great misfortune to one sixth of the population of that land. England had set a noble example to America, and he would to heaven his countrymen would follow the example. The Americans boasted of their superior knowledge; but they needed not to boast of their superior guilt, for that was set upon a hill-top, and that, too, so high, that it required not the lantern of Diogenes to find it out. Every breeze from the western world brought upon its wings the groans and cries of the victims of this guilt. Nearly all countries had fixed the seal of disapprobation on slavery; and when, at some future age, this stain on the page of history shall be pointed at, posterity will blush at the discrepancy between American profession and American practice. What was to be thought of a people boasting of their liberty, their humanity, their Christianity, their love of justice, and at the same time keeping in slavery nearly four millions of God’s children, and shutting out from them the light of the Gospel, by denying the Bible to the slave! (Hear, hear.) No education, no marriage, everything done to keep the mind of the slave in darkness. There was a wish on the part of the people of the Northern States to shield themselves from the charge of slaveholding; but, as they shared in the guilt, he was not satisfied with letting them off without their share in the odium.

And now a word about the Fugitive Slave Bill. That measure was in every respect an unconstitutional measure. It set aside the right formerly enjoyed by the a fugitive of trial by jury; it afforded to him no protection, no opportunity of proving his right to be free; and it placed every free coloured person at the mercy of any unprincipled individual who might wish to lay claim to him. (Hear.) That law is opposed to the principles of Christianity–foreign alike to the laws of God and man. It had converted the whole population of the Free States into a band of slave-catchers, and every rood of territory is but so much hunting-ground, over which they might chase the fugitive. But while they were speaking of slavery in the United States, they must not omit to mention that there was a strong feeling in that land, not only against the Fugitive Slave Law, but also against the existence of slavery in any form. There was a band of fearless men and women in the United States, whose labours for the slave had resulted in good beyond calculation. This noble and heroic class had created an agitation in the whole country, until their principles have taken root in almost every association in the land, and which, with God’s blessing, will, in due time, cause the Americans to put into practice what they have so long professed. (Hear, hear.) He wished it to be continually held up before the country, that the Northern States are as deeply implicated in the guilt of slavery as the South. The North had a population of 13,553,328 freemen; the South had a population of only 6,393,756 freemen; the North has 152 representatives in the House, the South only 81; and it would be seen by this that the balance of power was with the Free States. Looking, therefore, at the question in all its aspects, he was sure that there was no one in this country but who would find out that the slavery of the United States of America was a system the most abandoned and the most tyrannical. (Hear, hear.)”

At the close of this address, the Rev. Edward Matthews, from Bristol, but who had recently returned from the United States, where he had been maltreated on account of his fidelity to the cause of freedom, was introduced, and made a most interesting speech. The next speaker was George Thompson, Esq., M.P.; and we need only say that his eloquence, which has seldom if ever been equalled, and never surpassed, exceeded, on this occasion, the most sanguine expectations of his friends. All who sat under the thundering anathemas which he hurled against slavery seemed instructed, delighted, and animated. Scarcely any one could have remained unmoved by the pensive sympathies that pervaded the entire assembly. There were many in the meeting who had never seen a fugitive slave before, and when any of the speakers would refer to those on the platform the whole audience seemed moved to tears. No meeting of the kind held in London for years created a greater sensation than this gathering of refugees from the ” Land of the free, and the home of the brave.”  The following appeal, which I had written for the occasion, was unanimously adopted at the close of the meeting, and thus ended the great Anti-Slavery demonstration of 1851.

AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE WORLD.

We consider it just, both to the people of the United States and to ourselves, in making an appeal to the inhabitants of other countries, against the laws which have exiled us from our native land, to state the ground upon which we make our appeal, and the causes which impel us to do so. There are in the United States of America, at the present time, between three and four millions of persons, who are held in a state of slavery which has no parallel in any other part of the world; and whose numbers have, within the last fifty years, increased to a fearful extent. These people are not only deprived of the rights to which the laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, but every avenue to knowledge is closed against them. The laws do not recognise the family relation of a slave, and extend to him protection in the enjoyment of domestic endearments. Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives, are torn asunder, and permitted to see each other no more. The shrieks and agonies of the slave are heard in the markets at the seat of government, and within hearing of the American Congress, as well as on the cotton, sugar and rice plantations of the far South.

The history of the negroes in America is but a history of repeated injuries and acts of oppression committed upon them by the whites. It is not for ourselves that we make this appeal, but for those whom we have left behind.

In their Declaration of Independence, the Americans declare that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet one-sixth of the inhabitants of the great Republic are slaves. Thus they give the lie to their own professions. No one forfeits his or her character or standing in society by being engaged in holding, buying or selling a slave; the details of which, in all their horror, can scarcely be told.

Although the holding of slaves is confined to fifteen of the thirty-one States, yet we hold that the non-slave-holding States are equally guilty with the slave-holding. If any proof is needed on this point, it will be found in the passage of the inhuman Fugitive Slave Law, by Congress; a law which could never have been enacted without the votes of a portion of the representatives from the free States, and which is now being enforced, in many of the States, with the utmost alacrity. It was the passing of this law that exiled us from our native land, and it has driven thousands of our brothers and sisters from the free States, and compelled them to seek a refuge in the British possessions in North America. The Fugitive Slave Law has converted the entire country, North and South, into one vast hunting-ground. We would respectfully ask you to expostulate with the Americans, and let them know that you regard their treatment of the coloured people of that country as a violation of every principle of human brotherhood, of natural right, of justice, of humanity, of Christianity, of love to God and love to man. 

It is needless that we should remind you that the religious sects of America, with but few exceptions, are connected with the sin of slavery–the churches North as well as South. We would have you tell the professed Christians of that land, that if they would be respected by you, they must separate themselves from the unholy alliance with men who are daily committing deeds which, if done in England, would cause the perpetrator to be sent to a felon’s doom; that they must refuse the right hand of Christian fellowship, whether individually or collectively, to those implicated, in any way, in the guilt of Slavery.

We do not ask for a forcible interference on your part, but only that you will use all lawful and peaceful means to restore to this much injured race their God-given rights. The moral and religious sentiment of mankind must be arrayed against slave-holding, to make it infamous, ere we can hope to see it abolished. We would ask you to set them the example, by excluding from your pulpits, and from religious communion, the slave-holding and pro-slavery ministers who may happen to visit this country. We would even go further, and ask you to shut your doors against either ministers or laymen, who are at all guilty of upholding and sustaining this monster sin. By the cries of the slave, which come from the fields and swamps of the far South, we ask you to do this! By that spirit of liberty and equality of which you all admire, we would ask you to do this. And by that still nobler, higher, and holier spirit of our beloved Saviour, we would ask you to stamp upon the head of the slave-holder, with a brand deeper than that which marks the victim of his wrongs, the infamy of theft, adultery, man-stealing, piracy, and murder, and, by the force of public opinion, compel him to “unloose the heavy burden, and let the oppressed go free.”

Liverpool Workhouse

WillLeave a comment
Brownlow Hill Workhouse, © University of Liverpool. The site is now the Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King.

The Poor Law Institution, or Work House, on Brownlow Hill had been a shelter for Liverpool’s destitute from 1771 until 1928 when the revision of the Poor Laws brought the property on to the market. In 1800 one thousand inmates had been on its register, in 1900 over four thousand,  over half of whom were Catholics. Many of them were Irish people driven from their own country by famine. In 1930 the Catholic diocesan authorities purchased the nine acre site for £110,000, as the site for the new Roman Catholic cathedral. The workhouse was a tough hard place.

The following is taken from Tom Burke’s ” Catholic History of Liverpool “, 1910. He is not a disinterested party. He was Liverpool born and bred, with Irish parents. He was for many years, a magistrate, councillor, and Alderman on Liverpool City Council where he represented Vauxhall ward as a member of the Irish Nationalist Party.  None of this really detracts from the power of Tom Burke’s writing, or his analysis of politics in the city. The original footnotes from the book are bracketed, and in italics, along with a couple of additional explanations of mine also in bracketed italics.

Another public body came into existence as a consequence of the new Poor Law, [1834]  the Liverpool Board of Guardians, better known by its official title, the Select Vestry. The first elections resulted in the return of a solid phalanx of Tories, due to the extraordinary behaviour of the returning officer. Dr. Bilsborrow, late Bishop of Salford, described the Guardians as ” that awful Protestant body,” [ In a conversation with the writer at St Charles , Aigburth Road,] and good reason he had for so naming it. In 1839, under the old law, Father Parker, of St. Patrick’s, reported that during the month of October, he had heard the master of the workhouse school, addressing the children in the schoolroom, say that ” every Catholic would go to Hell with a Testament in his hand.” Of the hundred children thus addressed a small proportion were Catholics, and in their presence he held up a wafer, with the blasphemous observation, ” this is the God of the Papists. “ An inquiry was held, and the charges sustained, but the Orange party would permit no punishment beyond a mild censure. In 1841, Father John Dawber asked the Vestry to allow him the use of a room in which to say Mass, and in a very modest appeal pointed out that it was a great hardship for old and infirm people to be compelled to rise early in all kinds of weather, and walk half-a-mile to hear Mass outside. The ” Liverpool Courier,” the Conservative organ, opposed this proposal as ” an act of Popish aggrandisement.”

The Vestry held its meetings for the first year with closed doors, the ” Liverpool Mercury,” which took the most active share in bringing about a change in its composition, describing it as ” the secret conclave.” The Liberals and Catholics joined in a cordial union to alter its complexion, and at the Easter of 1845, returned Messrs. Bright, Thorneley and Maynard, to fight for equality and open dealing, against twenty-six of the most illiberal men who ever possessed a share in the government of the town, municipally or parochially.

The Select Vestry had decided, in obedience to Dr. McNeill, that no religious service of any kind for the Roman Catholics should be permitted inside the workhouse. Mr. Bright sought to remove this restriction by a proposition that the use of the dining hall be allowed for the celebration of Mass. The Rector of Liverpool was, ex-officio, the Chairman of the Board, [ This anomaly was removed by Mr. Gladstone’s Parish Council Act, 1894.]  and on this occasion he declared that the law of the realm did not contemplate the performance of any religious ceremony, other than those in conformity with the laws of the Established Church. No doubt this was a perfectly accurate statement, but it did not help to remove an irritating restriction from a Catholic point of view, or prevent gross abuse from the point of view of good administration and discipline, inmates being allowed to go out on Sundays, without supervision, if they declared themselves to be Catholics, whether they were so or no. [ Bedclothes, linen, &c., were stolen by the inmates, who declared themselves Catholics in order to get out and sell the articles thus obtained.]  Mr. Bright’s motion was rejected. At the same meeting it was decided to ask permission from the Bishop of Chester to allow Divine Service to be held for the Protestant inmates of the Kirkdale Schools, in the dining hall of that institution.

Mr. Bright observed that as the Rector had objected to Divine Service for Catholics in a dining hall, he ought surely, on ecclesiastical or rubrical grounds, to object in this instance. Mr. Rector Brooks did not reply, but a Mr. Bremner retorted, “ No ! not at all ; the one is Popery, the other the Established Church.” The language of this gentleman was so offensive that five Conservatives voted for Mr. Bright’s motion. It was urged that, as sixty-one inmates, owing to ill-health, were unable to attend Mass outside, a room might be set apart for the purpose of a private celebration. But to no avail. Mr. Bremner represented the whole trend of Tory Protestantism.

Catholics and Liberals, at the following elections, made one supreme effort to secure further representation, and carried eleven seats out of twenty-one. Three out of four overseerships also fell into their victorious hands. Mr. John Yates, junior, was the first Catholic Poor Law Guardian. The concession of a room was granted, and peace prevailed for a short time. In the Council, Mr. Blackburn, member for Vauxhall Ward, made a last despairing effort to break down the policy of exclusion embarked upon by the Church party, but failed, and never again did Catholics appeal to that Municipal body for any concession.

 

Tory and Catholic relations in Liverpool in the early C19th.

WillLeave a comment

This is taken from Tom Burke’s ” Catholic History of Liverpool “, 1910. He is not a disinterested party. He was Liverpool born and bred, with Irish parents. He was for many years, a magistrate, councillor, and Alderman on Liverpool City Council where he represented Vauxhall ward as a member of the Irish Nationalist Party. Liverpool Scotland constituency, which Vauxhall was part of, returned T.P. O’Connor as an Irish Party M.P. for 44 years between 1885 and 1929, the only constituency outside Ireland ever to return an Irish Nationalist Party MP. None of this really detracts from the power of Tom Burke’s writing, or his analysis of politics in the city. The rest of the post of his with the original footnotes from the book bracketed, and in italics, along with a couple of additional explanations of mine also in bracketed italics.

Princes Dock, Liverpool

It is extremely probable that a great number of Irish labourers found work in the year 1819, in excavating the Prince’s Dock. Most of the docks were constructed by Irish labourers, and other works of a similar character requiring muscle were so carried out by them. The Orangemen of the town appear to have had their political passions inflamed by the presence of a large Catholic and Irish population in their midst, and the development of church buildings as well as the marked tolerance of the Liberal party aggravated the situation. They began a series of attacks both wordy and physical on the Catholic Church and Ireland, which to them as to more enlightened persons were regarded quite erroneously as synonymous terms. Retaliation was inevitable. On the 12th July, 1819, when the Orange body celebrated the famous scrimmage “twixt a Dutchman and a Scot ” [See humorous squib, Dublin Leader, July, 1908.]  they were waylaid at the corner of Dale Street [The exact spot where the Holy Cross procession was attacked on May 9th, 1909.] and Byrom Street by a host of Irish labourers who made a desperate onslaught on them. Stones, sticks and other weapons were freely used, and both sides sustained severe injuries. It was the beginning of that wretched race quarrel on false issues which was assiduously kept alive by one political party in the city for the most unworthy ends, [the Tories] and continued to disturb the harmony of the citizens for half a century.

Caroline of Brunswick, c.1804.

The Irish Catholics of the early years of the nineteenth century were accused by interested politicians of disloyalty, an accusation which has not yet been discontinued. Strangely enough it was their loyalty to the unfortunate Queen Caroline which accounted for their first appearance in the political arena of Liverpool, the prelude to effective interference in much more important matters both of religion and politics. The sympathies of the great bulk of the Liberal party lay with the persecuted consort of a worthless Hanoverian, and when the news reached Liverpool that she had triumphantly vindicated her honour, they organised a huge public demonstration to express their delight, in November 1820. [Support for Queen Caroline meant opposing Lord Liverpool’s Tory administration who were siding with George IV ]. In the public procession which wound up the festivities the Catholic and Irish Societies took no unimportant place. They had at length lifted their heads, and begun to realise the duty they owed to the city of their adoption.

An unfortunate incident occurred in the month of February 1840, which illustrated the delicate relations between the English and Irish Catholics of the town, and the ease with which the susceptibilities of the latter could be touched in a tender spot. The developments of the political situation in Ireland had gradually removed O’Connell from his great and influential position as a purely Catholic leader. Catholic Emancipation was one thing, Repeal of the Union another. The glamour of O’Connell’s personality had captured in any case the support of the Irish in Lancashire, whilst many Englishmen who were still under a deep debt of gratitude to him for his great services to the Catholic cause, had their doubts as to the wisdom of the new movement. Irishmen, on the other hand, failed to recognise the right of an English Catholic to his own views on important imperial political questions, such as the restoration of the Irish Parliament.

St Patrick’s, Park Place, Toxteth.

Friction was inevitable, and unfortunately the parish priest of St. Patrick’s was the central figure if not the actual cause. His strong personality refused to adapt itself to surrounding conditions and as the result he became at once unpopular, if not obnoxious, to his Irish congregation. A petition to Parliament demanding the repeal of the Union was placed outside the doors of St. Patrick’s Church for signature on a certain Sunday morning. Father Parker forbade the promoters to place the petition there on the ground that to act otherwise would be an infringement of the trust deed, and, secondly would cause dissension in his congregation. The more ardent Irish spirits declined to accept his explanation and attributed his action to pro-English prejudices. As a matter of fact this was far from being the truth, and had Father Parker not set up the groundless contention of violation of the trust deed the difficulty might have been smoothed over.

Daniel O’Connell

He then committed the mistake of appealing to O’Connell himself, which only seemed to irritate the Repealers, and the more so as O’Connell’s letter severely censured the opponents of the rector. It was a curious revelation of O’Connell’s views on the legitimacy of Anglo-Irish interference in the Repeal movement, to find Father Parker reminding him that during a previous visit to Liverpool they had both discussed the advisability or otherwise of pushing forward the agitation in Liverpool, and that O’Connell had advised the inexpediency of such a proposal, being of opinion that it would be illegal.

“Since that time,” wrote Father Parker, ” an association of Repealers has been started in a way calculated to do serious injury to the cause of civil and religious liberty.” O’Connell’s reply is not without interest : ” I am deeply shocked at hearing of the conduct of the Repealers in the vicinity of your chapel, and more disgusted than I can express at men using disrespectful language towards any of their respected clergy. The Repealers have no right to bring their petition into the vicinity of your chapel without your permission.”  O’Connell then goes on to say that the rule in Ireland, ” never broken,” was to ask permission from the parish priest, and concludes a vigorously written letter by emphatically declaring that he ” will not accept any support from Liverpool Repealers if they shew any further disrespect to the clergy of the town.”

Instead of following O’Connell’s advice, a Liverpool Repealer, also named O’Connell, entered into a lengthy correspondence with Father Parker, the net result being a widening of the breach, and though the strain was relieved to some extent later on, this painful display of want of confidence in each other s integrity had the effect of severing the Irish and English Catholics of the town from working harmoniously except on rare occasions, and in later generations helped to undo the fine work accomplished heretofore by united effort.

Rickman pedigree from 1480.

WillLeave a comment

This post derives its content from two different  sources. The first was a hand written family tree on lined paper, along with two cuttings from “The Times” from 1961, in a book called “A Hundred Years of Enterprise, – Centenary of the Clay Cross Company Ltd, 1837 -1937”. They had all been in an old tea chest for at least thirty five years. The second source was from “My Ancestors, By Norman Penney, F.S.A,, F.R.Hist.S. Printed For Private Circulation By Headley Brothers, Bishopsgate, Ex., And Ashford, Kent, 1920.” found online back in February 2017.

Initially, I was very impressed that Mme. Rickman had traced the family back to 1512, though because she was doing direct  descendants, it could be frustrating at times, because it would name a great, grandfather, for example, and “4 other sons”. The direct great-grandfathers are in bold.

Richard Rickman Born in Wardleham, Hampshire, England in 1480, and had a son called Richard

Richard Rickman 1512 – ???? Born on 1512 to Richard Rickman. Richard married Isabell – unknown surname and had 3 children. He died in Wardleham, Hampshire, England.

  1. Robert Rickman
  2. John Rickman 1542-1599
  3. William Rickman 1547-1609

William Rickman 1547 -1609 Born in Wardleham, Hampshire, England on 1547 to Richard Rickman and Isabell unknown surname  He died in 1609 in Stanton Prior, Somerset, England. Mme Rickman’s notes continue; ” He removed to Stanton Prior, near Bath where he possessed the manor, advowson [ the right to appoint the priest] , and other appurtenances. “ He had a son, John:

John Rickman  1587 – ???? Born to William Rickman and unknown wife. John married Edythe Bally, and also married Ophelia Marchant and had a child. Mme Rickman’s notes continue; ” He was baptised at Stanton Prior on 25th March 1587.”

  1. John Rickman 1611-1680

John Rickman. Born on 1611 to John Rickman and Ophelia Marchant.Mme Rickman’s notes continue; ” He was baptised at Stanton Prior on 7th July 1611.” John married Alice Dunn Unknown-1680 and had 2 children. He died in 1680 in Selborne, Hampshire, England.

  1. John Rickman 1656-1722
  2. Joseph Rickman 1657-1745

John Rickman Born in Inams, near Great Hamwood, in the parish of Selborne, Hampshire, England on 1656 to John Rickman and Alice Dunn. John married Margaret Knell 1659-1704, [Mme Rickman has her as Margaret Edwards. She is, in fact, both, because it was a second marriage] and had 8 children. John married Abigail Reynolds Unknown-1723 and had a child. He died in 1722 in Hurstmonceux, Sussex, England. Mme Rickman’s notes continue; ” He was the first who joined the ‘Friends’ [Quakers].”

  1. Joseph Rickman 1691-1747
  2. John Rickman 1681-1713
  3. Mary Rickman 1683-Unknown
  4. Gershan Rickman 1688-Unknown
  5. Margaret Rickman 1689-Unknown
  6. Ambrose Rickman 1690-Unknown
  7. Nicholas Rickman 1695-1713
  8. Elizabeth Rickman 1698-Unknown
  9. Benjamin Rickman 1707-1751

Joseph Rickman was born in the village of Gardner Street, near Hurstmonceux, Sussex,  on 1691 to John Rickman and Margaret Knell. Joseph married Ann Baker 1694-1778 and had 4 children. He died on 7 Feb 1747 at Park Farm, in Hellingly, Sussex, and buried in Gardner Street.

  1. Joseph Rickman 1714-1776
  2. John Rickman 1715-1789
  3. Thomas Rickman 1718-1803
  4. Elizabeth Rickman 1722-1757

John Rickman 1715 – 1789  married Elizabeth Peters and had 8 children, according to one account, or 10 according to another. Born in Hurstmonceux, Sussex, England on 1715 to Joseph Rickman and Ann Baker. He died in 1789 in Lewes, Sussex, England.

  1. Elizabeth Rickman 1743-1797
  2. Richard Peters Rickman 1745-1801
  3. Joseph Peters Rickman 1745-1810 married Sarah Neave 1747-1809 died in Dublin. They had three sons: Thomas Rickman 1776-1841, John Rickman 1779-1835 this one appears to have married Sarah Godlee,1798 -1866,  George Peters Rickman 1785-1875.
  4. John Rickman 1747-1764 died aged 17
  5. Samuel Rickman 1755-1799 died aged 44
  6. Ann Rickman 1757-1793
  7. Sarah Rickman 1759-1837
  8. Thomas Clio Rickman 1760-1834

Richard Peters Rickman 1745 – 1801 married Mary Verrall 5th June 1767, and had 9 children, or possibly 16 children, or even 17. All the children were apparently educated at Ackworth school in Yorkshire,He died in 1801 in Lewes, East Sussex, England.  Richard Peters Rickman was the elder of twin brother, and had rather more children than his brother Joseph Peters Rickman who seems to have only had three.

  1. Elizabeth Rickman 1768-1833 married John Hodgkin of Pentonville (1766-1845), , had four sons of whom the first two died in infancy. The third son, Thomas Hodgkin MD (1798-1866), Thomas Hodgkin MD married relatively late and left no children: with Sir Moses Montefiore he travelled to the Holy Land and Morocco to plead for better treatment for Jews in those areas; it was on a journey to the former that he died in 1866, and he is buried in Jaffa.It is from his younger brother, John Hodgkin junior (1800-1875), that the contemporary Hodgkin family descends. John Hodgkin junior’s first wife, Elizabeth Howard Hodgkin (1803-1836), was the daughter of the meteorologist and chemist Luke Howard (1772-1864), perhaps best known for his system of describing clouds.
  2. Lucy Rickman 1772-1804 married her first cousin Thomas Rickman 1776-1841, the son of her father’s twin brother, Joseph Peters Rickman.
  3. John Rickman 1774-1859 had a son also called Richard Peters Rickman (probably) and seems to have left about £120,000 when he died. RP Rickman II died in 1876 leaving £45,000. Seems to have been somewhat miserly, according to the book “The Quakers of Lewes”
  4. Sarah Rickman 1776-1837
  5. Ann Rickman 1780-1830
  6. Samuel Rickman 1782-1836 
  7. Jane Rickman 1785-1846
  8. Susanna Rickman 1787-1859
  9. George Rickman 1791-1835

Samuel Rickman 1782-1836 removed to Liverpool from Lewes in 1809. He married Hannah Cooke 1790 – 1873, in Liverpool, on September 1, 1816, in a joint wedding with his brother-in-law, Isaac Cooke, who married Sarah Robson. Sam and Hannah had two children. Sam was buried in the Friends Burial Ground, in Hunter Street, Liverpool, and Hannah, thirty seven years later in the Friends Burial Ground, in Liscard, Cheshire.

  1. Mary 1814 -1849
  2. Samuel (1815 – 1885)

Samuel Rickman (1815 – 1885) m. Catherine Throp (1820 – 1903) 4th February 1845. They had  8 children

  1. Samuel Rickman 1846 – 1917 m. Emily Rachel Binns 1849 – 1935
  2. Mary  1847 –   Unknown but after 1901
  3. Charles William 1849 –  Unknown
  4. Reginald John 1850 –  Unknown
  5. Frances Amy 1852 –  in 1901 she seems to be either domestic staff or teaching at Eton
  6. Wilfred 1854 –   Unknown .
  7. Kate 1856 –   Unknown, but after 1911 
  8. Josephine 1858 – 1930

There seems to be a curiously small amount of information on what happened to most of the children. Only Sam, and Josephine seem to have married. The 1871 census helps a little in telling us what the children were doing at the time. Both Mary and Frances are teachers, Charles and Reg are both book-keepers, 16 year-old Wilfred is an apprentice to a ship broker and 25 year-old Sam’s a cotton broker. There doesn’t seem to be any further records of the three younger sons.

In 1881, Kate is a nurse at Westminster Hospital aged 24, and then rather curiously staying in St Helens with the Morris family in 1911 Max Morris is 32, and born in Kiev. Mary his wife is 28. Kate is 52. Mary Morris’s retired parents are also living there, so she may well still be nursing

In 1891, Mary is 43 and living with her widowed mother at 14 Slatey Road (1 Cambridge Terrace), Claughton cum Grange, Birkenhead. By 1901 they have moved to Arnside in Westmorland in the Lake District. Catherine Rickman is now 81.

Samuel Rickman 1846 – 1917 m. Emily Rachel Binns 1849 – 1935. They have 3 children

  1. Reginald Binns Rickman (1882 -1940)
  2. Florence  who marries Theo Kimber and has a daughter Nancy
  3. Rachel unm.

The Cardinal of San Gregorio. [Cardinal Manning] The Times, Tuesday, April 6, 1875

WillLeave a comment

This is from The Times; it’s good to see Uncle Henry has settled down in Rome, and quite a major change from being a parish priest in Orrell, near Wigan to participating in a Cardinal’s installation in less than eighteen months.

San Gregorio al Celio, Rome

The Times, Tuesday, April 6, 1875

THE CARDINAL OF SAN GREGORIO.

(from an occasional correspondent)

ROME March 31.

Yesterday Cardinals Manning, Dechamps, Giannelli, and Bartolini were – as Cardinals Mc’Closkey and. Ledochowski are still – only nominally Princes of the Church; today their creation has been completed. The Pope has closed their mouths; they have assisted at a meeting of the Sacred Council, at which having no deliberative voice they were mute spectators; their months, have been opened, and they have taken part in further proceedings of the Council at which they have given their votes with the rest; and, in token of the mystic marriage between the Cardinals and the Churches which form their ” titles” – typical of that between the Saviour and the Universal Church -the Pope placed the sapphire rings upon their fingers, and in future should Cardinal Manning adhere to an ancient custom he will call the Church of St. Gregory  ” Sponsa mea.”

At half-past 10 His Holiness, accompanied by his Court, entered the hall of the Consistory, and having pronounced the customary prayer, “Adsumus, Domine Sancte Spiritus,” 24 members of the Sacred College now in Rome took their seats on each side from the throne, the four new Cardinals standing in the centre. Their hands were bare, no rings upon their fingers, and as they stood uncovered and holding the little red scull caps, the zucchetti, in their hands, the Pope performed the ceremony of closing their mouths, pronouncing the words, ” Clauidimus vobis os, ut nec in Consistoriis neque in Congregationibus aliisque functionibus sententiam vestram dicere valeatis.” The Papal Master of the Ceremonies, the Chamberlains of Honour, and others present then left the Hall, the new Cardinals, covering their heads with the zucchetti, took their seats upon the stools assigned to them, and the Pope remaining alone with the members of the Sacred College, proceeded to the preconization of four Bishops to fill the Sees of Anagni, and of Patara, Samaria and Ptolemais in partibus. As the Pope named each Bishop, he asked the opinions of the Cardinals, saying ” Quid vobis videtur ” to which all replied in the affirmative, with the exception of the new Cardinals, who, having no voice, remained silent. Then His Holiness pulling the rope which hangs by the side of the throne rang the bell, and the Masters of the Ceremonies having re-entered, and closing the door behind them, the four new Cardinals stood again bare headed before the throne, while the Pope performed the ceremony of opening their mouths, repeating the formula, ” Aperimus vobis os, ut tam in Consistoriis quam in Congregationibus aliisque functionibus sententiam vestram dicere valeatis.” Monsignore Cataldi, Papal Master of the Ceremonies and Chamberlain of Honour to His Holiness, then conducted the new Cardinals one by one to the foot of the throne, where, each kneeling in turn, the Pope placed the sapphire rings upon their fingers, and with the customary formula named their “titles,” espousing the Cardinals to their respective Churches  –  Cardinal Manning to the Church of Saints Andrew and Gregory;  Cardinal Dechamps to the Church of Saint Bernard ad Thermas, the little round church at the Baths of Diocletian; Cardinal Giannelli to the Basilica of St. Agnes extra muros; and Cardinal Bartolini to the Church of Saint Nicholas in carcere. This done, each Cardinal first kissed the Pontiff’s foot, then his hand, and rising received the embrace from His Holiness. Tle Pope then retired to the throne room of his apartment to impose the rochet upon two of tlie new Bishops – those of Anagni and of Samaria in partibus, while the Cardinals remaining in the Hall of the Consistory held a Congregation for the confirmation of new officials of the Sacred College, thus affordinag the new Cardinals an opportunity of taking part in its proceedings. A little later His Holiness received the new Cardinals privately. In past times newly-created Cardinals appeared before the Pope on this occasion attired in all the splendour of their scarlet robes ; but this morning, in consequence of the calamitous condition of the times, they wore their black sotanas, bordered with red, red sashes, and scarlet mantles only.

At 4 o’clock his Eminence, the Cardinal of St. Gregory went to take possession of his church. In times gone by this ceremony was performed with great splendour  –  the Cardinal going in his state coach, drawn by black horses caparisoned with red, and three footmen hanging on behind, runners preceding it, and a train of carriages following  –  to-day all was done in private. The church was closed, and entrance was only to be obtained by those honoured with cards bearing the name of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, of which it was understood that only a limited number would be issued. But such was the interest  –  in some cases, perhaps, only curiosity – felt by the English speaking colony in Rome, by Protestants whether Churchmen or Dissenters as well as by Catholics, that the English College was well nigh besieged, and a good half hour before the ceremony commenced the Church of St. Gregory was crowded.

It was to a certain extent addobbata as for a festa and on the pilasters at each side of the apse were hung, according to custom, the great dark crimson velvet portieres of his Eminence, embroidered with gold-coloured silk, and bearing his arms, embroidered in their heraldic colours on the centre, with the motto “Malo mori quam foedari.”  At 4 a bell rang, and the procession, issuing from the Sacristy, passed down the nave to the door, where a rich carpet, with a kneeling cushion upon it, had been spread, and where the ceremony was to commence, for had it been public the Cardinal with his cortége would have come in by the great door. Standing then just within the door, as if he had entered, attired in the cappa magna the full Cardinal’s costume with long train of scarlet silk  – he was received by the community of Camaldolese Monks, who serve the Church of St. Gregory. Then kneeling upon the cushion, the Crucifix was presented to him, which, at the same time uncovering his head reverentially, he kissed, and rising took the aspersoir and, having first made the sign of the Cross with it upon his own forehead, gave the holy water per tactum to those around –  first, to the Bishops and others of his cortége: Monsignore Howard, Bishop of Neo Cesario ; Monsignore Quin, Bishop of Bathurst, in Australia; Monsignore de Senestry, Bishop of Ratisbon; and Monsignor Stonor, who were all in full prelatic costume; next to the Rev. Father Beneassai, – or, as we have the name, Goodenough, – the General, and to the Rev. Fathers Anselmi, Bassi, and Archi,  Abbots of the Camaldolese Order. Lastly, the Cardinal sprinkled the water upon the clergy and people around. This done the incense was presented to his Eminence, aud, having covered the hot coals, the Rev. Leone Clari, Prior of the Monastery of St. Gregory, took the thurible and swung it three times before the Cardinal.

When entering for the first time the door of his church, holy water is presented to the Cardinal, and clouds of incense are spread around him to symbolize that, inasmuch as before the bridegroom enters the bride-chamber he washes and is perfumed, so, the Cardinal having been espoused with the putting on of a ring to the Church of his “Title,”  holy water and incense are offered to him ;at the moment of his entering into possession.

As the choir burst forth with the antiphon ” Ecce Sacerdos Magnus,” the procession proceeded up the nave to the Chapel of the Sacrament, at the end of the left aisle, in the following order :-Students of the English College, carrying the crucifix on an embroidered cushion, the thurible, and the holy water ; the clergy, headed by the cross-bearer; the General, Abbots, and Monks of the Camaldolese Order in their full monastic habits; his Eminence the Cardinal, with the Prior of the Monastery on his left, Monsignor Cataldi Master of Ceremonies to his Holiness, on his right, and accompanied by the Very Rev. Dr. O’Callaghan rector of the English College, the Very Rev. Dr. Kirby, rector of the Irish College, the Rev. Father William Manning, rector of the Catholic Church of St. Charles’s, Bayswater, chaplain to his Eminence, and others. Having adored the Sacrament, the procession passed on to the High Altar, where, all having taken their places according to rank, the Cardinal knelt at the faldstool while the Abbot, standing on the Epistle side of the altar, chanted the versicles prescribed by the Roman Pontifical ” Super Electum Cardinalem.” ,His Eminence then ascended the throne raised upon a high dais on the left, with a background and canopy of dark crimson velvet. When he had taken his seat with a monk on a low stool at each side, who acted as assisting deacons, the Pontifical BulL with the leaden seal was first presented to him by two officers of the Apostolic Dataria, and then read by Monsignore Cataldi, in his capacity of Protonotary Apostolic. The customary official formalities having been observed, the monks, commencing with the General and ending with the youngest lay brother, went up one by one and paid homage to the Cardinal, in response to which he rose and addressed them in Italian. He told them of the deep satisfaction he felt in the “title “ assigned to him being that of St. Gregory; spoke of the ties which had, from the commencement of this Church’s history, connected it with our island; assured them that whenever, in repeating the names of the Apostles, he pronounced that of St. Andrew-to whom St. Gregory originally dedicated the church –  his thoughts would turn to them with affection ; and concluded by recommending himself to their constant prayers.

Cardinal Manning c.1884

He then turned to the crowd of visitors present and spoke, in English, as follows .-

“ It is not my purpose to speak to you at any length, or in any studied words; the occasion is not one when it would be fitting to speak at length or in any detail. I cannot forget that our meeting here to-day is one altogether without precedent; it is an occasion which may never – in all probability will never -occur again. Never has one of my race taken possession of this Church of St. Gregory on the Coelian. It is not likely that any other will, because in the case of any successor of my nation being created Cardinal the title of St. Gregory may not be vacant. There is great fitness in the act of to-day. The church of which I take possession is closely related to our history. It was from this church and hill that St. Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, went forth upon his mission to England. St.. Gregory, in the largeness of his heart, had conceived the purpose of bringing back our fore-fathers to Christianity. We all, therefore, spring from this place. It is the cradle of our spiritual life. In truth, there are many here, whose hearts are animated with feelings like my own, but there are others who may not be like-minded; yet I cannot think that you have come here as to a ceremony, or from any mere curiosity. If so, you will, I fear, be disappointed. All who are here present, if not of one nation, are of one speech; you are English, or, if all are not, you are of the same race and language which spreads throughout our Colonial Empire and in the great continent of Northern America. I am, indeed, invested with an office which separates me from many among you, but most of you are Christians of our English speech, and as such you also sprung from this place; you are the spiritual children of St. Gregory. If you will read the history of the Anglo- Saxon Church, written by the Venerable Bede about a hundred years after St. Augustin’s mission, you will see the outline of all the glorious work which St. Gregory accomplished in England.

Another motive has brought you here – the love of our country. The gift of piety is from the Holy Ghost; the highest object is God and His Kingdom, the second is our kindred, the third our mother country. The children of St. Patrick, of St. Aidan, and of St. Columba will think I pass them over or exaggerate the love we have for England. We are divided, indeed, in much, but in much also we are united. We are united in believing that Christianity is the Revelation of God, that the inspired Scriptures are His Word, that our baptismal creed is a summary of the Christian faith. All this you have from the great Apostle of England in common with us. It is the consciousness of this which draws your hearts to this sanctuary, which was his home. Many hearts are failing because the days are evil and the Church is assailed on every side. But when St. Gregory died, the Christian world seemed vanishing away. The East was overrun by heresies, Constantinople was on the verge of schism, Russia, Germany, and the North of Europe were not as yet in Christendom, Spain was Arian, Lombardy was Arian, England had become heathen again.

But at this day the Church was never so widespread as now; the Episcopate never so united in itself, never so united to its Head; the pastors never so united to their bishops; the people never so united to their pastors. Come what may, there is yet a feature more glorious and more fruitful than the past. We are met here to-day in a multitude gathered from many countries. Some are of my flock, whom I know as a pastor; others are not – I would to God they were;  others, again, I do not know even by name ; but we are all come here with many thoughts.  Shall we ever meet again’? Never till the last day, when the Good Shepherd shall tell His sheep upon the everlasting hills. God grant that in that great day, of all that are here, not one may be wanting in the Vision of Peace.”

The Te Deum was then sung, followed by the antiphons of St. Andrew and St. Gregory, and the Cardinal, descending from his throne to the altar first intoned the Oremus of the two Saints, and then gave the Benediction to all present. The Cardinal then went in procession to pay his devotions in the chapel of St. Gregory, and thence to the Sacristy, where he was followed by a number of the ladies and gentlemen present, desirous of offering their congratulations. Finally, the Rev. Dr. O’Bryen, in the names of a number of the Catholic visitors in Rome, presented three gold embroidered copes to his Eminence, “in token of their respectful homage and affection. “

J. R. Parkington, and Co., Wine Shippers – Who’s Who in Business 1914

Will1 Comment

PARKINGTON, J. R., & CO., Wine Shippers, Merchants, and Agents, 24, Crutched Friars, London, E.C. Hours of Business: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; Saturdays, 9 a.m. to , 2 p.m. Established in 1868 by present senior partner, Colonel Sir. J. Roper Parkington, J.P., D.L., with whom are associated in partnership Messrs. Harry Bennett and Charles Cary-Elwes. Specialities: Champagnes, Brandies, Clarets, Burgundies, Ports, and Sherries, of which the firm are large shippers and exporters, holding important agencies. Connection: United Kingdom, Africa, India, Australasia, Canada, West Indies. Telephone: National No. 1477 Avenue. Telegraphic and Cable Address: “Mambrino, London.” Bankers: Glyn, Mills, Currie & Co.

Parkington’s Guide to Fine Wine Lists: Golden Guinea Sparkling Muscatel. Look out for this series. It gives a brief account of a few outstanding wines of modest price. Discover them with pleasure on good wine lists everywhere. Character: naturally bubbly (methode champenoise) but with more body than a champagne. Grape: muscatel. Colour: pale gold. Bouquet: light but confident. Background: bottled and cased in France, famous for 50 years. The most distinguished, and much the best wine of its class. Use: favoured by seasoned diners-out for celebrations- anniversaries, clients’ birth- days-or as a complement to all good food, simple or pretentious. Sole Importers: J R PARKINGTON & CO LTD (EST. 1868) 161 NEW BOND STREET W1