His faculty for languages was very great, and when in the south of France, rambling daily over the pretty property he possessed at Hyeres, I used to be amazed at the fluent way in which he talked with the workmen; whether it was the carpenter, the plasterer, mason, or gardener, he talked with each in the terms of their respective occupations and trades, quite unhesitatingly. Provencal talk is certainly puzzling, but he seemed as if born to it; and the French gentlemen told me he spoke exactly all the niceties of their language, whether in repartee or in ill.u.s.tration.
How profoundly Catholic he was those near and dear to him must know far better than outsiders. No consideration ever closed the purse or the lips where the interests or the honour of Holy Church were concerned. There was no parade of piety in him; and yet, if he thought he could say the word in season, he spoke _unreservedly_. I recollect on one occasion a very distinguished member of the Parliamentary bar, who was, in common parlance, a man of the world--long gone to his rest--met my husband and your father walking together in Piccadilly. Mr. X. stopped them, exclaiming, "Well, you two black Papists, how are you?" "Come, come," replied Mr. Hope-Scott, "don"t you think it is time _you_ should be looking into your accounts?" "Oh, I"m all right _now_," was the reply, half jocularly.
"Well," said Mr. Hope-Scott, "but how about those _past_ pages--eh?"
Mr. X., taking no offence, drew himself up and said, with great gravity, "I tell you what it is, Hope: I am thoroughly, intellectually convinced; but"
(he added, striking his breast) "my heart is not touched!" and thereupon the three parted. Had he been a Catholic, he would have used, I suppose, the term "will" for "heart." [Footnote: This courage in giving religious admonition where he saw it was needed, is a trait which I have occasionally observed appearing in his correspondence, and quite in keeping with his favourite expression, _"Liberavi animam meam."_--R. O.]
All that Mr. Hope-Scott did in religious observances was done so naturally, so simply--whether it was in going down to the committees with my husband, he would pull out his rosary in the cab, and so occupy his thoughts through the busy streets; or when, in mounting the stairs at Westminster to reach the committee-rooms, he would repeat, _sotto voce_, with my husband, some slight invocatory prayers, or verse of a Psalm--such things were only known to the extreme intimacy of long friendship. Such was the hidden, deeply pious life of one who, for many years at least, though certainly in the world, was yet not of it. I might say he was _above_ it; for who, more than our dear friend, saw through, and so thoroughly despised its shams, its allurements, its ambition, and modes of thought? There is one other remembrance which is a very bright one: I allude to his ever-ready wit. When he was in good health, and well, before he was threatened with the coming malady, how amusing he was--such a cheery companion! I have often thought, when we left his company, that I would put down his clever, witty rejoinders--they were legion! and never a spark of ill-nature. I never remember his saying an unkind word of any one.
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 a.s.sume 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 circ.u.mstances to adopt in England the task so brilliantly, but so differently performed in France by M. de Montalembert-- that of a.s.serting for English R. Catholics that political and Parliamentary status to which their education and importance ent.i.tle them. It would have been an advantage for all parties.
And, earlier in the same letter:--
Given a const.i.tuency, 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 mult.i.tudes 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 const.i.tutions 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 inst.i.tution 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 a.s.sistance 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. c.o.c.kburn, to a.s.sist, 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 sanct.i.ty 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 pa.s.s upon him any sentence of severity, you can but inflict a nominal punishment. "Vestrum est hoc, Judices, vestrae dignitatis, vestrae dementias: recte hoc repet.i.tur a vobis, ut virum optimum atque innocentissimum, plurimisque mortalibus carum atque jucundissimum, his aliquando calamitatibus liberetis, ut omnes intelligant in concionibus esse invidiae loc.u.m, 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 pa.s.sage: "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, ill.u.s.trate 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 t.i.tles Act_ is an event too familiar in recent Church history to require much comment. The Government in 1851, having, in compliance with popular clamour, pa.s.sed a bill by which Catholic prelates were prohibited, under many penalties, from a.s.suming territorial t.i.tles 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 t.i.tles 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 ill.u.s.tration of the legal positions laid down in the doc.u.ment 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. t.i.tles 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 a.s.sure 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 a.s.sist 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.
t.i.tles 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?