Memoirs of James Robert Hope Scott, Volume 2 by Robert Ornsby

R >> Robert Ornsby >> Memoirs of James Robert Hope Scott, Volume 2

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

E. J. B.

The services rendered by Mr. Hope-Scott to the cause of Catholicity may be
grouped in three great divisions:--1. The giving advice, at no small cost
of time and trouble, either on great questions affecting the interests of
the Church, or on those of a more local and personal description. 2.
Pecuniary charities. 3. The foundation of churches and missions. I will
endeavour to give some idea of each of these, though of course the very
nature of charity, but still more that of counsel, involves so much of
secrecy, that particulars which remain on record, and can be given to the
world, we may safely assume to be only specimens of many more which must
remain untold.

1. The first division includes, as we shall see, many of the great
questions affecting the Catholic Church in these countries during his
active career as a Catholic. But his services were chiefly those of a wise
and trusted adviser behind the scenes, for he never entered Parliament, and
rarely took part in public meetings. That he thus kept at a distance from a
sphere of action for which his powers so eminently fitted him, was a
subject of regret even outside of Catholic society, as will appear from a
letter of Lord Blachford's to Mr. E. S. Hope, already cited, in which his
lordship remarks:--

I have sometimes been disappointed that in joining the Church of Rome [Mr.
Hope-Scott] was not led by circumstances to adopt in England the task so
brilliantly, but so differently performed in France by M. de Montalembert--
that of asserting for English R. Catholics that political and Parliamentary
status to which their education and importance entitle them. It would have
been an advantage for all parties.

And, earlier in the same letter:--

Given a constituency, he united almost every qualification for public life.
He seized instantly the point of a matter in hand, and was equally capable
of giving it words at a moment's notice, or of working it out thoroughly
and at leisure, and that either by himself or, what is as important,
through others. He would have made no enemies, and multitudes of friends;
and his quiet tact and flexible persuasiveness, grafted on a clear grasp of
leading principles, would have made him invaluable in council.

It would be useless to speculate on the motives of this abstinence, or on
the part which he might have played in Parliamentary life in the years when
the too brief career of Mr. Lucas was drawing to its close, and a great
opportunity seemed to offer itself for a leader to step forward who should
unite, in a degree equal to his, faith and devotedness with eloquence, and
a rare talent for the conduct and marshalling of affairs. However, among
the transactions affecting Catholic interests in which Mr. Hope-Scott's
knowledge and experience were turned to account, may be named the
following:--

(1) _The Catholic University of Ireland_, which has since shown such
struggling yet persistent vitality, had been in contemplation as far back
as 1847. Serious steps were being taken towards its foundation in 1851,
when Mr. Hope's advice was immediately sought by Archbishop (afterwards
Cardinal) Cullen: he said, 'Get Newman for your Rector;' and from him the
Archbishop came straight to Birmingham. There is a letter of Archbishop
Cullen's to Mr. Hope (dated Drogheda, October 28, 1851), in which, after
thanking him for valuable advice regarding the University, his Grace says:
'I think we shall be guided by what you have suggested. For my part, I
adopt your views altogether.... If we once had Dr. Newman engaged as
President, I would fear for nothing; and I trust that this point will soon
be gained. After that, every thing else will be easy.' From a letter of Mr.
Allies to Mr. Hope (August 19, 1851) it appears that Dr. Newman regarded it
as of the highest importance for those charged with the construction of the
new University to obtain information from Mr. Hope as to the course of
studies pursued in the Catholic universities abroad; and in another letter
(August 30) Mr. Allies proposes to Mr. Hope a long string of questions as
to university legislation. What Mr. Hope looked upon as of the most
consequence may be gathered from a postscript to that letter, marked
'private:' 'J. H. N. showed me your letter, with which he entirely agrees;
and I need not say that I feel myself all the force of what you say. All
paper rules and constitutions are nothing in comparison to there being a
good selection of men, and a perfect unity and subordination in the
governing and teaching body. If this is to succeed, my belief is that the
only way is to appoint J. H. N. head, with the _fullest powers_, both
for the selection of coadjutors and the working into shape.' Mr. Allies
(with the Very Rev. Dr. Leahy, afterwards Archbishop of Cashel, and Mr.
Myles O'Reilly) was, at the time, engaged with Dr. Newman in drawing up a
report on the organisation of the University, after consulting a certain
number of persons, among whom was Mr. Hope.

In 1855 Mr. Hope-Scott presented to the new institution one of his splendid
gifts--a library of books on civil and canon law. 'Your books' (writes Dr.
Newman to him, August 1) 'will be the cream of our library.' In the
difficulties of later years, when Dr. Newman felt his duty as Rector of the
University and that as Father-Superior of the Oratory pulling him in
different directions, the congregation, not from any one's fault, but from
the nature of the case, being unable to get on without him, it was to the
same faithful counsellor he turned. I may here mention that Mr. Hope-Scott
warmly took up the idea of founding an oratory at Oxford (January 1867),
and gave 1,000_l_. towards this object, which he refused to take back
when the design was laid aside. In a conversation on the subject of this
memoir, which Cardinal Newman condescended to hold with me, his Eminence
said, 'Hope-Scott was a truly good friend--no more effectual friend--from
his character and power of advice.' He had stood by him all through as a
good friend and adviser in the difficulties of the Oratory connected with
his rectorship, and so in another critical moment relating to other
affairs. I venture to transcribe the eloquent words in which the Cardinal
has placed on record the value he had for his friendship, in the dedication
to his 'University Sketches:'--

'To James R. Hope-Scott, Esq., Q.C., &c. &c., a name ever to be had in
honour when universities are mentioned, for the zeal of his early
researches, and the munificence of his later deeds, this volume is
inscribed, a tardy and unworthy memorial, on the part of its author, of the
love and admiration of many eventful years.--Dublin, October 28, 1856.'

(2) The assistance rendered by Mr. Hope-Scott to Dr. Newman under the
anxieties of the _Achilli Trial_ has already been briefly alluded to
(p.141). The first meeting of Dr. Newman's friends to hold consultation in
the affair was a scene, as I have heard it described, which brought out in
a striking manner Mr. Hope-Scott's talents for ruling and advising those in
perplexity. At first all was confusion, but order began to appear the
moment that he entered the room; he seemed to have a just claim to take the
lead, and placed everything in the right point of view. I find him writing
to Mr. Badeley (from Abbotsford, November 15, 1852), to ask whether it
would be _professionally_ correct for him to appear at Dr. Newman's
side on the day of sentence, adding: 'I need hardly say that I should much
like to show him any signs of respect and affection. There are, indeed, few
towards whom I feel more warmly.' This, it seems, would not have been
etiquette if he had appeared in wig and gown; and Mr. Badeley (who was one
of Dr. Newman's counsel) suggested his sitting with Sir A. Cockburn, to
assist, if not to speak. However, a motion for a new trial was made, and on
January 31, 1853, judgment was given, discharging the rule on technical
grounds, and imposing a nominal fine. There is a very interesting account
of this in the Badeley correspondence, part of which I am tempted to
subjoin. So important an event affecting Newman can scarcely be considered
foreign to Hope-Scott, and it affords also a specimen of Mr. Badeley's
familiar letters to his friend, which entered into the daily life I have
endeavoured to describe.

_Edward Badeley, Esq., Q.C. to J. R. Hope-Scott, Esq., Q.C._

Temple: Feb. 1, 1853.

My dear Hope,--... Newman has been here, and seems well satisfied with the
result, and I think he has reason to be so. The judges paid him great
respect, and though Coleridge preached him an immensely long Puseyite
sermon, much of which he might as well have spared, full credit was given
for Newman's belief of the truth of his charges, and for proper motives.
You will see a tolerably correct report of it in the 'Times,' but the best
report of _the judgment_ is in the 'Morning Post.' The speeches of
counsel are _execrably_ given both in that and in the other papers. My
speech is _very incorrect_, but I have been gratified by very kind
expressions about it, particularly from my legal brethren: it was not long,
but it seemed to produce some sensation, particularly as I started by
avowing my friendship for Newman. My conclusion, as well as I remember it,
was as follows:--

'There may be some, my Lords, who seek in Dr. Newman's conviction a
malignant triumph, and who would gladly avail themselves of the sentence of
this Court, to crush the man whose writings have been their dread, as his
life has been their shame. The cry of party prejudice and of religious
bigotry may be raised in other places, and its echo may perhaps be heard
even within these walls; but your Lordships, I am confident, will disregard
it, and in the exercise of your sacred functions you will be guided only by
the dictates of wisdom and of justice; you will respect the high character
of Dr. Newman, his genius, his learning, his piety, his zeal, the purity of
his motives, the sanctity of his life; you will remember the anxiety he has
undergone, the expense which he has incurred, _the facts which he has
proved_; and bearing these in mind, you cannot pass upon him any
sentence of severity, you can but inflict a nominal punishment. 'Vestrum
est hoc, Judices, vestrae dignitatis, vestrae dementias: recte hoc repetitur
a vobis, ut virum optimum atque innocentissimum, plurimisque mortalibus
carum atque jucundissimum, his aliquando calamitatibus liberetis, ut omnes
intelligant in concionibus esse invidiae locum, in judiciis veritati.'
[Footnote: Cic. 'Pro Cluent. '71.]

There was some applause when I sat down, and all seemed highly delighted
with my quotation.... The small amount of the fine is regarded by the
_Myrmidons_ (Achilli's followers) as a heavy blow to them, and all
regard it as a triumph for us. One of the most satisfactory things,
however, is the declaration of the Court that they are not satisfied with
the finding of the jury upon the facts, and that if the question as to a
new trial had rested solely on that finding, they would have felt
themselves bound to send the case to another jury. And so ends this
important case. I think we may congratulate ourselves. Newman is gone home
to-day, and means to write to you tomorrow or next day. He was very tired
yesterday, but seems quite alive again now, and in excellent spirits. The
crowd in and about the Court was immense;... Newman was well attended by a
numerous party of friends, and cheered as he left the Court.

Ever believe me

Yours most affectionately,

E. BADELEY.

(3) _Charitable Bequests_, &c.--In a letter of the Very Rev. Dr.
(since Cardinal) Manning to Mr. Hope-Scott, dated 'Rome, March 3, 1854,'
and marked 'private and confidential,' occurs the following passage: 'I am
rejoiced to hear that you have been invited to communicate with the
Government on the charitable bequests. And I think you will be glad to know
that this fact has given, as I hear, great satisfaction to the Cardinal. In
conversation he has often named you to me, and I feel sure that he would
have selected you on his own part for such a purpose.'

I quote the following lines from a long and interesting letter of Dr.
Manning's to Mr. Hope-Scott, dated '78 S[outh] A[udley] St., January 28,
1856:' 'Do you remember a conversation, the summer of 1854, one Sunday
evening, at 22 Charles St., on the good which might be done by four or five
men living together and preaching statedly at different places, on courses
of solid subjects? The thought has long been in my mind both before and
since our conversation, and it has been coming to a point under an
increased sense of the need.'

Correspondence of this kind, which I can merely notice, would, of course,
illustrate Mr. Hope-Scott's position as a leading Catholic layman of his
time, in the confidence of the heads of the Church.

(4) _The Repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act_ is an event too
familiar in recent Church history to require much comment. The Government
in 1851, having, in compliance with popular clamour, passed a bill by which
Catholic prelates were prohibited, under many penalties, from assuming
territorial titles of sees, found itself, from the very first, obliged to
treat this enactment as a dead letter, in consequence of the legal
difficulties and complications which arose from it. Common sense suggested
its removal from the statute-book. This was not effected without
considerable effort to escape from that necessity by some less humiliating
alternative. Mr. Hope-Scott gave evidence, lasting for two days (July 9 and
16), before the Select Committee appointed in 1867 to report on the
operation of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act; and to that evidence, showing
all the luminous clearness and completeness which was so characteristic of
him, but especially to an admirable _Statement_ on the whole case
which he submitted to the committee [see _infra_, p. 208], there can,
I think, be no doubt that the final adoption (in 1871) of the only
satisfactory remedy--a total repeal of the Act--was mainly due.

A letter of the London correspondent of a Dublin newspaper of the day,
relating to Mr. Hope-Scott's examination before the Select Committee above
mentioned, contains, in the lively manner of a journalist, some particulars
worth preserving:--

It used to be said of Mr. Hope-Scott in the great days of railway
committees, ere the London, Chatham, and Dover had made its _scandalum
magnatum_, that his briefs were worth 15,000_l_. a year; but that
if he could forget some slight knowledge of the common law that he had
acquired in his youth, there was no reason why they might not mount up to
25,000_l_. The story is only worth relating as an instance of the
professional lawyer's ingrained contempt for such a tribunal as a committee
composed of five or more ordinary members of the House of Commons. But to-
day [July 16, 1867] it so happened that when Mr. Hope-Scott for the first
time in his life had to sit in a chair and be examined and cross-examined
before such a committee, his Common Law stood him in good stead. There is
something extremely impressive in the complete simplicity of this eminent
lawyer's appearance. A great natural superiority of intellect, an apt and
complete study of his subject, ample readiness and subtlety of statement,
these you expect; but not a certain direct and cogent candour, which
appears to be, and which indeed is, utterly unaffected. The success of Mr.
Hope-Scott with Parliamentary committees is, I have always thought, due to
the fact that he unites the qualities of a great lawyer with the qualities
that make a man a great member of Parliament.... His evidence was limited
to the substantiation and illustration of the legal positions laid down in
the document drawn up by him [see page 208], and of the whole case he was
evidently master to its most minute points. Mr. Walpole and Mr. Chatterton
both essayed what we may call cross-examination--it cannot be said
successfully.[Footnote: _Irish Times_, July 18, 1867.]

The following letters on this subject appear to merit preservation; it will
be seen that not all Catholic politicians of the day had so clear a view of
the case as Mr. Hope-Scott:--

_J. R. Hope-Scott, Esq., Q.C. to the Right Hon. Spencer H. Walpole, M.P._

[Draft Copy.] Norfolk House, St. James's Square:
_Confidential._ June 15, '67.

Dear Walpole,--I wrote to Mr. M'Evoy from Arundel to request that he would
make an appointment with you on the subject of the Eccl. Titles Act, but,
as I have received no reply, I presume that he is still out of town.

My object, however, may be as well, perhaps better, attained if you will
read the memorandum which I enclose, and in which I have endeavoured to
state the case against the Act, in the manner in which it _must_ be
stated to the Commons' committee, should the proposed inquiry take place.

You will gather from the memorandum that R. Catholics owe a great deal to
the forbearance of the Government and the judges, and I can assure you that
they are far from desirous to requite such treatment by pointing out the
infractions of the law by which it has been accompanied.

Moreover, in the event of the Act not being repealed, it is evident that
they would greatly endanger their present immunity by showing how easily it
might be destroyed.

Under these circumstances, if I had to choose between acquiescence in the
retention of this Act, and a Parliamentary inquiry of certain inconvenience
and of doubtful result, I should naturally prefer the former; but the
question has apparently advanced too far to be now set aside, and I
therefore venture to suggest to you, and through you to the Government,
that the most just, and to all concerned the most convenient course, would
be, that the Ministry should supersede further inquiry by an avowal that
the action of the Public Departments is impeded by the Act, and should
introduce a Government bill to repeal it.

I have marked this letter and the memorandum 'Confidential' for reasons
which you will understand; but I do not mean to limit the use of them in
any case where you think they may assist the consideration of my
suggestion.

Believe me, &c. &c., J. R. H.-S.

The Right Honorable Spencer H. Walpole, &c. &c. &c.

_His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, E.M. to J. R. Hope-Scott, Esq., Q.C._

House of Lords: July 28, 1870.

My dear Mr. Hope,--Monsell, into whose hands I put the affair of the Ecc.
Titles Bill, and to whom I gave your papers on the subject, says that both
O'Hagan and Sherlock see no objection in the bill. He says that he will try
and get some one to protest against the language of the preamble, but he
does not feel sure that anybody will even do that. I believe O'Hagan now
says that, though Papal instruments are declared void, in a court of law
such instruments are not called for to prove such facts as divisions of
dioceses, &c. What had we better do?

Yours affectionately,

NORFOLK.

_J. R. Hope-Scott, Esq., Q.C. to his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, E.M._

Bedford Hotel, Brighton: March 6, '71.

Dear Henry,--[After mentioning the enclosure of a rough draft of memorandum
made in 1870, and of the clause he had proposed to Mr. Gladstone (Footnote:
In 1870 Mr. Hope-Scott had proposed to Mr. Gladstone the following
_clause_ with reference to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act:--

'Before all courts, in all questions affecting the rights or property of
any religious body not established by law, or of the members of the same as
such, it shall be sufficient to prove the existence 'de facto' of any
ecclesiastical arrangement material to the inquiry, and no evidence shall
be required of the manner in which, or of the persons by whom, such
arrangement may have been originally made.') with reference to the Eccl.
Titles Bill:--]

These I now send you, and, with them, a letter which you wrote to me last
July showing how the matter then stood. In connection with this letter, I
send you likewise a print of my statement made and circulated before the
committee met in 1867, and given in evidence by me before that committee. A
reference to it will show that the view which your letter attributes to
Lord O'Hagan is certainly not correct as regards England, though there are
some circumstances in Ireland which make it more applicable there. As the
bill is now to go to a Select Committee of the Commons, there seems a fair
chance of getting a favourable alteration, and it is certainly well worth
the attempt. As I wrote to you last summer, the _clause_ I proposed
would be of the greatest practical value, and might save some amount of
feeling among Protestants by letting them fire away at the Papal authority;
but if it cannot be got, the words 'and all assumption, &c., is wholly
void' should either go out, or the whole of that recital be qualified so as
to mean _legal and coercive_, not merely spiritual, jurisdiction, &c.

I am sorry to add to the number of your labours for the Church, but at
present I am not able to take the field myself; and as you are at any rate
to be in London this week, you may take the opportunity of moving in the
matter.

Yrs affly,

James R. Hope-Scott

Remember J. V. Harting in case of need.

His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, E.M.

The whole subject has belonged to the domain of history since the Repeal
passed under Mr. Gladstone's administration in 1871. Still, I am unwilling
to dismiss it without quoting the wise and powerful words with which Mr.
Hope-Scott concludes the 'Statement' of 1867, several times referred to:--

No Act of Parliament can cause direct hardship to the subject while the
Ministers of the Crown, the judges, the magistrates, and the public concur
in disregarding it; but it is one thing to be secure by the law, and
another to be secure only by a general contempt of the law. In the latter
case a gust of popular excitement, such as occurred in 1850-1, or the
interest or prejudice of an individual, or the scruples of a single
official, or of a single judge, might at any time turn this dormant Act
into a real instrument of oppression; and therefore the grievance of the
Roman Catholics is this, and it is essentially a practical one, that,
whatever their present immunity may be, they are not, and, as the law
stands, they never can be, secure of its continuance. From this it follows,
that in all matters to which the Act may be applied, Roman Catholics find
it necessary to take the same precautions, and resort to the same
expedients, as if its application were certain. In short, they are under
the constant sense that a penal statute is at the door, and that it depends
upon little more than accident whether it shall come in or not: and thus,
if the apprehension of evil be, as it certainly is, an evil in itself, the
mere existence of the Act is a practical hardship, and there can be no
remedy short of its repeal. [Footnote: _Minutes of Evidence_ (J. R
Hope-Scott, Esq., Q.O.), p. 26.]

(5) It appears from Mr. Hope-Scott's papers that, in May 1869, he was
giving his weight to the opposition against the _Scottish Education
Bill_, as a measure, in its original form, based on the principle of
Presbyterian ascendency, and was advocating a denominational system in the
interests of Catholicity.

(6) The Parliamentary committee on _Conventual and Monastic
Institutions_ (originally designed by its mover, Mr. Newdegate, to
inquire into the '_existence, characters, and increase_' of those
institutions, but restricted, on a motion of Mr. Gladstone's, to inquire
into '_the state of the law_' respecting them) held its sittings May
17 to July 25, 1870, and Mr. Hope-Scott's attention seems to have been much
occupied with the subject. During the earlier stages of the affair he was
at Hyeres, but his correspondence shows how carefully he was kept informed
of what passed. A letter to him from the Duke of Norfolk (dated Norfolk
House, April 21, 1870) gives an idea of the line Mr. Hope-Scott had taken:
'I was very glad to receive your letter' (the Duke writes). 'It had great
weight with our committee to-day, and we decided to ask Government for
nothing, but to resist inquiry in any form.'

(7) To services like these, in which he was the trusted counsellor of those
who were acting for Catholicity in general, might be added illustrations of
the many instances in which Mr. Hope-Scott's legal knowledge and experience
were applied to the business affairs of priests on the missions, or of
convents, if such cases were not, from their own nature, uninteresting
except to those immediately concerned, and implying also the same
confidence that belongs to other privileged communications. The words of a
valuable letter, from which I have more than once quoted, are here in
point: [Footnote: Lady Georgiana Fullerton to Lady H. K.] 'What I always
admired in him was his patient charity--not so much the alms he gave,
considerable as they were, but the manner in which, busy as he was, and
often exhausted by his professional labours, he gave time and attention to
all sorts of cases of distress and perplexity, or of importance to
religion. "Consult Mr. Hope," was the advice given to numberless persons
who had no claim whatever upon him but that of needing what no one else
could so well give. One of the titles of our Blessed Lady, "Auxilium
Christianorum," might in one sense have been applied to him.' Under this
head of charity may well be included his undertaking, at the cost of time
so precious to himself, the guardianships of bereaved families, of which a
list has been given in a former chapter (p. 130).

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22