Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:43:30.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finding an Archbishop: The Whigs and Richard Whately in 1831

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

David de Giustino
David de Giustino
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in Modern History at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When they regained power at Westminster in November 1830, the Whigs were dedicated to reform without knowing exactly where to begin. For decades they had committed themselves to financial “retrenchment” and parliamentary reform and now they hoped to pacify an angry country by dealing with those two great issues. Indeed, their main objective was to restore public confidence in the constitution and to prevent a French-style revolution. But their approach to reform in 1830 was uncertain and unpromising. Their vague intentions can be partly explained by their lack of party organization and cohesion; in Parliament, Whigs served as individual opponents of Tory policies rather than as supporters of an alternative government. Factionalism among the Whigs had kept them out of office for more than a generation. Some Whigs were considered unpatriotic because they persisted in defending the ideals of the French Revolution. Still others were hostile to the notion of reform because they suspected that the Tories had already given the country as much reform as it could digest. For many Whigs, the extension of civil liberties to Dissenters (in 1828) and then to Roman Catholics (in 1829) was momentous enough. What the country now wanted was a sensible and flexible government which accommodated the spirit of the age by heeding public opinion. It is not surprising, therefore, that the new government in 1830 was really a coalition of liberals and moderates, and as Peter Mandler has remarked, it was a while before their potential was realized.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 218 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Newbould, Ian, Whiggery and Reform, 1830–1841: The Politics of Government (Stanford, Calif., 1990), pp. 56–59.Google Scholar

2. Mitchell, Austin, The Whigs in Opposition, 1815–1830 (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar, esp. chapters 1 and 2; Bentley, Michael, Politics without Democracy: Great Britain, 1815–1914 (Oxford, 1985), p. 27.Google Scholar See also Milton-Smith, John, “Earl Grey's Cabinet and the Objects of Parliamentary Reform,” The Historical Journal 15 (1972): 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Bentley, , Politics Without Democracy, p. 73.Google Scholar

4. Mandler, Peter, Aristocratic Government in the Age of Reform: Whigs and Liberals, 1830–1852 (Oxford, 1990), p. 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Butler, J. R. M., The Passing of the Great Reform Bill (London, 1964), pp. 285–86.Google Scholar Butler confidently states that “if the twenty-one bishops who voted in the majority had listened to Grey's solemn appeals, the result would have been different.” R. A. Soloway reminds us, however, that the bishops were more divided than either the government or the public realized and that several were ready to change their votes. See his Prelates and People: Ecclesiastical Social Thought in England, 1783–1852 (London, 1969), pp. 243–47.Google Scholar Besides, if the twenty-one bishops voting against had joined their two colleagues voting for the bill, the result would have been 179 peers for the bill and 178 against. The practical value of a majority of one is questionable in either house.

6. Norman Gash refers to Whig attitudes toward Ireland during the reform bill struggle in Politics in the Age of Peel (London, 1953), pp. 61–63.Google Scholar See also McDowell, R. B., Public Opinion and Government Policy in Ireland, 1801–1845 (London, 1952), pp. 142–144, 147–150.Google Scholar

7. There are three major biographies of Whately. The first to appear was Fitzpatrick's, William JohnMemoirs of Richard Whately, 2 vols. (London, 1864).Google Scholar Whately's daughter Jane, Elizabeth published the Life and Correspondence of Richard Whately, 2 vols. (London, 1866).Google Scholar The most recent biography is Donald Harman Akenson's A Protestant in Purgatory, Archbishop Whately of Dublin, The Conference on British Studies biography series (new series) 2 (Hamden, Conn., 1981). Most monographs dealing with nineteenth-century church history mention Whately; the most succinct account of his career is to be found in the Dictionary of National Biography 20:1334–1340.Google Scholar The article identifies Whately as “an independent liberal,” enthusiastic teacher, pioneer of social science, a reformer of tertiary education and seminary training, an anti-evangelical, and a strong supporter of civil rights for Dissenters and Jews.

8. Akenson, , Protestant in Purgatory, p. 63.Google Scholar

9. The Elements of Logic, Comprising the Substance of the Article in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana (London, 1826)Google Scholar saw a dozen more editions in Whately's lifetime; Elements of Rhetoric, 5th ed. (London, 1836)Google Scholar; 7th ed. (London, 1846).

10. Hamilton, T., “Richard Whately,” in Champions of Truth: Short Lives of Christian Leaders in Thought and Action, ed. Buckland, A. R. (London, 1904), p. 425;Google Scholar see also, “Le Marchant's Diary,” March 1831, in Three Early Nineteenth Century Diaries, ed. Aspinall, A. (London, 1952), p. 16.Google Scholar

11. Richard Whately to Mary Shepherd, 25 September 1831, quoted in E. J. Whately, Life and Correspondence, 1:110.

12. Fitzpatrick, , Memoirs, 1:72.Google Scholar

13. Ibid., 1:73.

14. Soloway, , Prelates, p. 12.Google Scholar

15. [Wade, John], The Black Book; or, Corruption Unmasked. Being an Account of Places, Pensions and Sinecures, the Revenues of the Clergy and Landed Aristocracy (London, 1820).Google Scholar There were two more anonymous editions, “enlarged and revised,” in 1831 and 1832.

16. D'Alton, John, The Memoirs of the Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1838), p. 355.Google Scholar

17. The eighth edition was entitled, The Archbishop of Dublin's Charge, delivered to the Clergy of his Archdiocese, on the 24th of October, 1822…to which is added a Letter to His Grace, in consequence of unjust Animadversions against the Roman Catholic Religion…

18. Bowen, Desmond, The Protestant Crusade in Ireland, 1800–1870 (Montreal, 1978), pp. 89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Fitzpatrick, , Memoirs, 1:201.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., 1:76.

21. Stanley, Arthur P., Essays Chiefly on Questions of Church and State from 1850 to 1870 (London, 1870), p. 441.Google Scholar

22. Soloway, , Prelates, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

23. Fitzpatrick, , Memoirs, 1:76.Google Scholar

24. Mathieson, W. L., English Church Reform, 1815–1840 (London, 1923), p. 47.Google Scholar

25. Soloway, , Prelates, pp. 203–204, 370.Google Scholar

26. Stanley, Arthur P., Memoirs of Edward and Catherine Stanley, edited by their Son… (London, 1879), p. 33.Google Scholar Unfortunately there is but one biography of the “tolerant bishop”: see Thistlethwayte, T., Memoirs and Correspondence of Dr. Henry Bathurst, Bishop of Norwich… (London, 1853).Google Scholar

27. But Grey was unable to refuse his own brother a bishopric. Edward Grey badgered the prime minister long enough to win appointment to the see of Hereford in 1832. Earl Grey was very reluctant to accede to the demands of his ineffectual brother and was later distressed to see the new bishop vote frequently with the Tories in the Lords.

28. Bowen, Desmond, The Idea of the Victorian Church: A Study of the Church of England, 1833–1889 (Montreal, 1968), p. 15.Google Scholar

29. Whately, Richard, Introductory Lectures on Political Economy, Delivered at Oxford in Easter Term, 1831 (London and Dublin, 1831–1832).Google Scholar

30. Akenson, , Protestant in Purgatory, p. 70.Google Scholar

31. “Le Marchant's Diary,” March 1831, p. 16.

32. Briggs, Asa, The Age of Improvement 1783–1867 (London, 1959), p. 237.Google Scholar

33. The Evidence of His Grace, the Archbishop of Dublin before the Select Committee of the House Lords, on the Stale of Ireland (Dublin, 1825), p. 31.Google Scholar

34. Thompson, Kenneth, Bureaucracy and Church Reform (Oxford, 1970), p. xvii.Google ScholarBrose, Olive comments that “utilitarianism, whether Bentham's or Paley's, was to be the basis of the Church's adaptation as an establishment to the Reform Era,” in Church and Parliament: The Reshaping of the Church of England, 1828–1860 (Stanford, 1959), p. 39.Google Scholar Whately's utilitarianism was essentially that of his admired Bishop Paley.

35. Whately, Richard, Charge to the Clergy (Dublin and London, 1834).Google Scholar

36. Mandler, , Aristocratic Government, p. 163.Google Scholar

37. Brent, Richard, Liberal Anglican Politics: Whiggery, Religion and Reform 1830–1841 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 139–140.Google Scholar

38. Akenson, , Protestant in Purgatory, p. 133.Google Scholar

39. Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee of the House of Lords appointed to inquire into the Collection and Payment of Tithes in Ireland…1831–1832, 22:101 (1832).Google Scholar

40. Report from the Select Committee on the Plan of Education in Ireland; together with the Minutes of Evidence…1837, 9:450 (1837).Google Scholar

41. Fitzpatrick, , Memoirs, 1:86Google Scholar, quoting from Brougham's letter of 2 November 1863.

42. Brougham thought the book was the edition of Whately's, Bampton Lectures on the Use and Abuse of Party Feeling in Matters of Religion (Oxford, 1822).Google Scholar Another account suggests that the book was the Errors of Romanism Traced to Their Origin in Human Nature (London, 1830).Google Scholar

43. Grey to Whately, 17 September 1831, Grey Papers, Durham University Library [GPDUL].

44. Whately, E. J., Life and Correspondence, 1:97.Google Scholar

45. Whately to Grey, 16 September 1831, GPDUL.

46. Whately to Copleston, 28 September 1831. Quoted in Whately, E. J., Life and Correspondence, 1:112.Google Scholar

47. Whately to Hawkins, 25 July 1837. Quoted in Whately, E. J., Life and Correspondence, 1:378.Google Scholar

48. Grey to Whately, 17 September 1831, GPDUL.

49. Brose, , Church and Parliament, p. 38.Google Scholar

50. Whately, E. J., Life and Correspondence, 2:122Google Scholar, quoting Mrs. Arnold's letter, 9 March 1847.

51. Mandler, , Aristocratic Government, p. 162.Google Scholar

52. Whately to Hawkins, 18 March 1832. Whately Papers, Box 2, p. 188, Oriel College Oxford [WPOCO].

53. Fitzpatrick, , Memoirs, 1:88.Google Scholar

54. Tuckwell, W., Pre-Tractarian Oxford: A Reminiscence of the Oriel “Noetics” (London, 1909), pp. 71–72.Google Scholar

55. Hansard, vol. 11 (3rd ser.), p. 607, 22 03 1832.Google Scholar

56. Ibid., p. 621.

57. Copleston to Hawkins, 7 October 1831, WPOCO, 4:386.

58. White, Blanco, repeating Whately's opinion in a letter to Hawkins, 22 September 1832, WPOCO, 4:564.Google Scholar

59. Copleston to Hawkins, 7 October 1831, WPOCO, 4:386.

60. Address of the Clergy of the Archdiocese of Dublin, to His Grace the Archbishop, on the Subject of Spiritual Education, with His Grace's Reply (Dublin, 1832), p. 8.Google Scholar

61. Ibid., p. 7.

62. Meacham, Standish, Lord Bishop: The Life of Samuel Wilberforce (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63. Fitzpatrick, , Memoir, 1:123.Google Scholar

64. Ibid., pp. 92–94.

65. Whately to Hawkins, 18 March 1832, WPOCO, 2:188.

66. Memorials of the Dean and Chapter of St. Patrick's, Dublin, and of the Clergy of the Diocese of Derry to His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, with His Grace's Replies… (London, 1832), p. 6.Google Scholar In the same message, Whately assured them that he would “never give in to Rome.”

67. Soloway, , Prelates, pp. 116–117.Google Scholar

68. Akenson, , Protestant in Purgatory, p. 115.Google Scholar

69. Thompson, , Bureaucracy and Church Reform, p. xvii.Google Scholar

70. Mill, J. S. to Gustave d'Eichthal, 6 December 1831, in the Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. Mineka, Francis E. (Toronto, Ont., 1963), 22:92.Google Scholar

71. Newman always claimed to respect Whately's influence in his education. But their friendship came to an end when Whately demonstrated his support of the government's plan to reduce the number of Anglican bishropics in Ireland as a timely reform.

72. Newbould, , Whiggery and Reform, p. 134.Google Scholar

73. Stephenson, Alan, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism (London, 1984), p. 41.Google Scholar

74. Letters on the Church by an Episcopalian (London, 1826), pp. 89–90, 190.Google Scholar

75. Akenson, , Protestant in Purgatory, p. 94.Google Scholar

76. Newman, Bertram, Lord Melbourne (London, 1930), p. 194.Google Scholar

77. Brent, , Liberal Anglican Politics, p. 180.Google Scholar