321

CHAPTER XXVII

ROMAN LITIGATION

THE Cardinal returned from Ireland refreshed in mind and body. On November 3rd he delivered before an audience of between two and three thousand persons, in the Hanover Square Rooms, a lecture on the tour in Ireland. His Recollections of the Last Four Popes' originally delivered as lectures-were revised and completed, and involved him in considerable correspondence. A course of lectures on modern. infidelity was begun. It was at this time that the liberalistic tendency of some of the writers in the 'Rambler' was laid before the Bishops; and the education question once more pressed for consideration.

But such subjects of interest were not allowed to monopolise his mind. The painful divergence from his Coadjutor and Chapter, the first stages of which have been described, continued. This contest was, in England, the turning point in the controversy between the conservative policy and that of the new Ultramontanism. The personal divergences it involved are such as I should not, in ordinary circumstances, have dwelt upon further. But, as they have been publicly spoken of at some length by a writer

who apparently had not access to the contemporary documents in which the case is recorded, and as his account has been seriously inaccurate, I have thought it best to print in full what is necessary to place the outline of the case beyond dispute. And I the less regret this necessity as the letters and other documents illustrate vividly the personality of Cardinal Wiseman himself. Moreover, if they show that his judgment had been seriously at fault in choosing for Coadjutor a man whose views were in some respects so incompatible with his own, they appear to me also to show that Dr. Errington himself was actuated, in his opposition to Provost Manning and to the Cardinal, by no other motives than a sense of duty and a desire for the welfare of the diocese.

The resolution of the Chapter (already referred to) was presented to Cardinal Wiseman immediately on his return from Ireland, together with a congratulatory address. The Cardinal's answer, annulling its proceedings, was given on December 1. As we have already seen, Mr. Patterson forthwith went to Rome, as Wiseman's agent, to state the case to the authorities. He was directed to lay before the Pope privately the impossibility of working in harmony with Dr. Errington, who directly espoused the cause of the Chapter. To Mgr. Talbot Wiseman also wrote, making no mention of the Coadjutor; but Talbot knew enough of the facts to guess who was at the

1 In Appendix F I have pointed out in detail the most important particulars in which the writer of The Life of Cardinal Manning has apparently been misled. It will be seen that he has entirely misconceived Manning's position in the controversy.

root of the determined opposition to the Cardinal, in the matter of his support of Manning and of the Oblates.1

The following correspondence, shortly before the departure of Mr. Patterson for Rome, shows the very different views held respectively by the Cardinal and Dr. Errington on the action of Chapter and Coadjutor:

'Leyton Dec. 9, 1858.

MY DEAR ARCHBISHOP, --I am sorry to disturb you in your labour, but I am obliged to do so by asking for a short reply on one or two important questions. In truth, one single word will suffice.

It is of great importance for me to know if you have assisted my Chapter (by means of any of its members) with your advice in the course which that body has maintained with regard to me.

'But more specially, if you have in any way advised or assisted in preparing any document whatsoever to be sent by them to the Holy See in matters pending between them and me.

'You will readily understand how important it is for me, in treating such matters both at Rome and here, to be assured of this point on the best authority.

Ist. I shall be able immediately to silence rumours and conjectures which are becoming most unpleasant, and which may lead to animosity and harshness, if I fail to deny them authoritatively.

2nd. In drawing up my reply, and the other documents for the Holy See, I should treat the matter very differently, according to my certainty on this point. The Chapter has appointed an Agent at Rome to advance its petitions, and it would be a base stroke against me if he came to insinuate that you had taken part, in whatsoever way, in preparing them.

3rd. If the matter should be protracted, or become complicated, I should naturally turn to you for assistance in vindicating my episcopal rights, which I regard as invaded, and for vigorous and hearty cooperation in defending my cause.

'But if you have already embraced an opposite view, and still more if you have conscientiously aided in presenting it before the Holy See, I must then perforce abandon all idea of any such active assistance from you, and rest content with your neutrality in any further dispute.

'I need not tell you that I would not trouble you to give yourself the labour of contradicting reports, fleeting and vague rumours, but the question is of relations and observations which are prima facie capable

The Cardinal urged that the whole movement of the Chapter was hostile to himself and anti-Roman

of causing me anxiety and uneasiness. I should be glad of a prompt reply, since I am engaged on my work for Rome.

'I hope that you are always in the best of health, &c.

Yours, &c.

'(Signed) N. CARD. WISEMAN.'

Reply of the Archbishop of Trebizond.

Liverpool: December 14, 1858.

DEAR CARDINAL, I have received your letter of December 9. While I am sorry that by its form and tone I am prevented from giving a formal reply, I will only say a few words on two points, about which, I conclude, it is your desire that I should speak.

First. It seems to me that there must be some misunderstanding in your mind as to the proceedings of the Chapter. Since I am convinced that there has been no intentional want of respect towards you, or of deference, or of anything that the best of Chapters could feel towards its own Bishop.

The personal composition of the Chapter, and its uniform past and present relations with you, are a sufficient guarantee of this.

Nor is there anything in their latest acts, so far as I know, to give the lie to, or throw any material doubt on, such an opinion. It certainly shows no contempt towards a Bishop, for a Chapter to address petitions to him asking for rights given them, apparently at least, by law; and, in case their Bishop does not agree with them as to the interpretation of such rights or as to the expediency of granting them, for the Chapter to have recourse, and refer the controversy, to Rome. If this were disrespect, the same would be said if the question were one of property, instead of rights.

The addition, which they make to the same petition, of the reasons which induce them to present it now, is by no means an assumption on their part of the right to decide the question as entrusted with the matters there referred, but simply the expression of their opinion, with desire that the subject may be treated with the diligence prescribed by the Council of Trent, which gives them the right to intervene, by means of deputies, in the relative deliberations.

Nor, again, can there be opposition, in the bad sense of the word, for a Chapter to ask of the Holy See an interpretation of the capitular statutes, or of other regulations establishing their procedure, when it happens that their own Bishop thinks differently from them on

If, as Errington professed, only an adjustment of the respective rights of Archbishop and Chapter was asked for, why could not a friendly and joint petition have been sent to Rome? The whole movement had been throughout kept secret from the Cardinal in its details. Opposition to the Oblates was at the root of it and this meant opposition to the Roman spirit which he and Manning were endeavouring to instil into the secular clergy. The triumph of the Chapter would be the death-blow-so Wiseman maintained and his agent was to urge to all hope of a thoroughly loyal priesthood, Roman in spirit and devotion.

such interpretation.

On the contrary, we go far indeed when in the Synod we bid the Canons study their own rights and obligations.

If the views of the Chapter are wrong, or if it should not be expedient to give effect to them at present, the Holy See will not grant their request, nor reply to them in the sense which they expect; but it seems to me a very hard measure to accuse them, either here or in Rome, of a spirit of opposition in the course which they have taken.

Secondly, I should have no difficulty in advising the Canons, or others, not officially, with regard to what I supposed to be their respective rights, so long as I believed that they sought only the truth, and to know their legitimate rights.

If some ecclesiastics had actually to contend against some opinion of mine at Rome, I should certainly see no reason for not assisting them to set forth their ideas in a convenient form, if ever they should trust me to do this, since I think that this would tend to the elucidation of the truth, which it is to be supposed we are all seeking. Nor should I desire in any way to have on my side any equivocal advantage of knowing the forms of procedure better, or of being better able to use them so as to sway the balance of the decision.

Wishing that all may be finally settled to your satisfaction, and trusting that you will appreciate rightly the motives of my reply to your letter,

I am,

Your Eminence's most humble and devoted

To his Eminence Cardinal Wiseman.

G. E.