Chapter 29: Storm and Calm After Tract 90
CHAPTER 29
STORM AND CALM
AFTER TRACT 90
THE crisis precipitated by the publication of Tract 90 in January of 1841 never subsided as Newman had expected or wished. In 1842, the reaction became a storm which pushed him further into semi-retirement at Littlemore. The storm became continuous: Many of the Anglican bishops preached charges in their triennial diocesan visits in which they strongly condemned, not only Tract 90, but the entire Tractarian Movement, questioning the High Church Principles that the Movement was trying to restore. The charges were relentless, like rain storms one after another. Many bishops voiced great indignation against the Tractarians’ criticism of Protestant principles and the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers.
The charge by R. Mant, Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore, began with civility by the acknowledgment of the good intentions of the authors of the Tracts for the Times. Soon it turned to criticize the Tractarian adoption of the Roman notion of Tradition.1 Mant, who pitted Scripture against Tradition, criticized the Tractarians for reviving prayers for the dead, which he thought had no scriptural foundation.
Bishop Mant asserted that the Articles should be understood in their literal grammatical sense. He argued that the points on which latitude of interpretation was sought were the very points on which the national church was at variance. The bishop objected twice to Newman’s description in Tract 90 of the Church teaching “with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies.”2 Mant also objected to the Tractarians’ praise of the Roman liturgy, and in particular its Breviary.3 Newman and his friends, on the contrary, were keenly aware of the liturgical ignorance and lack of authority in the Anglican Church.
The charge that struck Newman most deeply came from his own bishop, Richard Bagot, who delivered his verdict in May 1842, at Newman’s church, St. Mary’s, with Newman in attendance. Bagot noted that the Tractarians “had been exposed to a storm of abuse as violent as it has been unceasing—to calumnies and misrepresentations of the most wanton and cruel description …”4 He praised the Tractarians for their Christian moderation and forbearance under such insults. Next, Bagot proceeded to condemn the doctrines promulgated by the Tractarians as erroneous and heretical.
Bagot remarked that the Articles had been drawn with a view of including rather than excluding men of various opinions and that Calvinists had stretched the interpretation of the Articles more than Tract 90. He thought, however, that by the subtle interpretation put forth by Tract 90 “the Articles may be made to mean anything or nothing.”5 Newman was naturally very hurt by these words. Although Bagot admitted that there should be license in interpreting the Articles, he found fault with the careless language of the younger members of the Movement.6 Bagot expressed his concern that students without clear minds who opposed Puritanism or Calvinism would easily go to the opposite extreme of Romanism.7 In making his case, Bagot accused the Roman Catholic Church of being subtle, deceptive, schismatic, and even anti-Christian. Ingeniously Bagot called for a renewal of sacramental practice, fasting, and adherence to the Book of Common Prayer while criticizing those who were bringing it about. He spoke of a gradual renewal brought about by an “expansive principle” which was in fact no other than the Catholic principles revived by the Movement.8
Newman told his friend Keble: “You will be glad to hear that the Bishop’s charge delivered yesterday was very favourable to us, rather to our cause—for some of us suffered.”9 Indeed, Newman suffered, but he hardly showed it in his writing. He was in part stunned by his own bishop’s remarks, but expected the bishop would modify the published text. A few months later, when the bishop published the charge, Newman commented: “Ours put a note to his charge which took off whatever was severe in his text.”10
Although Newman was able to restrain ill feelings, he thought the bishops had things backwards. It was not the Tractarians who were acquiescing to heresy, but the bishops. Newman felt that the educated laity, in particular barristers, had to stem the tide of doctrinal error.11 During 1842, he had frequent correspondence with Edward Badeley, Edward Bellasis, and James R. Hope, lawyer friends in London about the events of the time. Bellasis suggested that a hundred barristers sign a declaration in support of Tract 90. Newman liked the idea, but in the end it did not materialize.
During all these attacks, Newman’s patient forbearance was conveyed in his numerous letters. It is surprising, for he expressed no anger, neither did he make disparaging remarks. Newman even went as far as to counsel calm obedience to Tom Mozley, after Mozley’s bishop had criticized the British Critic for espousing Catholic principles. Even in the case of his own bishop’s criticism, Newman’s reaction was self-controlled and charitable, though his sentiments were bruised.
UNIVERSITY EVENTS
On May 24, the very next day after Bishop Bagot’s Visitation and Charge, the Heads of Houses passed a motion to repeal the censure against Renn Hampden. This censure was due partly to Newman, who, in 1836, had actively campaigned against Hampden for his Latitudinarian approach to doctrine. This time Newman decided not to take an active part in forming a committee at Oxford against Hampden, but encouraged friends to do so. On the appointed day, a large number of non-resident Fellows came up to Oxford for the vote. The proposal to rescind the censure was defeated by 334 Non-placets to 219 Placets. The Heads of Houses had no doubt been emboldened by Bishop Bagot’s strictures. However, despite the Episcopal Charges against the Tractarians, a sufficient number of Oxford graduates opposed Hampden’s theological opinions.
Notwithstanding this vote against Hampden, endorsed by a few bishops, five years later in 1847, the Whig Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, nominated Hampden to be Bishop of Hereford. Hampden was consecrated bishop for that See in the following year. The same type of political influence that had obtained Hampden’s appointment as Regius Professor of Theology at Oxford in 1836 now obtained for him an Episcopal See.
Although Hampden had been defeated twice, opposition against the Tractarians was increasing at Oxford. Edward Hawkins, Provost of Oriel and friend of Hampden, did not like R. W. Church’s friendship with Newman and his support of Tract 90. In 1841, following the publication of the Tract, Church offered to resign his Tutorship at Oriel. After some hesitation, Hawkins accepted the resignation and was left with only one Tutor at Oriel since two others had resigned to marry.
Other Tractarians felt the side effects of the struggle against Hampden. Shortly after the Hampden vote, the Bishop of Oxford refused to accept Albany James Christie as a candidate for Deacon’s Orders. Christie lacked the necessary testimonial letters. Hawkins refused the College Testimonials on account of Christie’s association with the Tractarian Movement. Christie eventually became a physician and entered the Roman Catholic Church. In 1842, the same year of Church’s resignation, Isaac Williams, Tutor at Trinity College, who had lost the contest for the Poetry Professorship, married and left the university.
The criticism of the British Critic continued, and in September 1842, Edward Denison, Bishop of Salisbury, took the journal to task for its favorable opinion of Roman Catholicism and its exaggeration of the ills of the principles of the Protestant Reformation. Newman was upset that the bishop singled out one publication, leaving radical Evangelical papers untouched.12 He asked Mozley to write the bishop. Since Mozley, who lived in Denison’s jurisdiction, thought this might make matters worse, Newman insisted that they should follow St. Ignatius of Antioch’s rule: “Do nothing without the Bishop.” He urged Mozley to write his bishop. Instead Mozley wrote an article titled “Episcopal Charges of the Past Year” which appeared in the January issue of the British Critic for 1843.
Bishop Denison was not the only one annoyed by the articles of the British Critic. Another was Pusey, who had a different idea of the Protestant Reformers and was upset with Newman’s review of The Remains and Publications of the Late Rev. John Davison, a Fellow and Tutor at Oriel College in 1810. In The Remains, Davison, an admirer of Bishop Jewel as the great exponent of the English Reformation, claimed that during the Dark Ages the secluded virtue of monks had been exalted as the perfection of Christian spirit. Newman ably refuted this alleged injustice; he argued that the monks were those who best lived both the spirit and the letter of the law in the Gospels. For Newman, monks were the set of men nearest to Christian perfection.13 But monks did even more—they shut themselves to pray and do penance for the sake of the world and to intercede for God on its behalf. Newman knew this not only from his reading, but from personal experience. The subject matter of this defense could not have been any closer to his heart since he was living like a monk in Littlemore.
LITTLEMORE
Newman had read St. Athanasius’s Life of St. Anthony and written about it in a series of articles titled “Church of the Fathers” which appeared in 1833, in the British Critic. St. Anthony, who had lived in the third century, led an ascetic life of frequent prayer and penance, devotion to Christ and love of neighbor.14 St. Anthony’s penance consisted primarily in fasting in imitation of Jesus Christ in the desert.15
Since 1839, while at Littlemore, Newman had observed a rigorous Lent fast, and he recorded the details in notes titled “Personal and most private.”16 On Wednesdays and Fridays he abstained from food until 5 p.m. During Holy Week the rigorous Lent fasting which he had begun in 1839 increased. In a diary entry he wrote, “I have this Lent abstained from fish, fowl, all meat but bacon at dinner; from butter, vegetables of all sorts, fruit, pastry, sugar, tea, wine, and beer and toast. I have never dined out. I have not worn gloves.”17 Newman lived on bacon, eggs, milk, barley-water, and water. He missed tea and he felt weak in his limbs, but he was able to read and write as usual.18 On Sundays, he did not abstain or fast.
In 1841 and 1842, Newman kept similar abstinence and fasting during Lent and in addition abstained from milk. Instead of milk he drank tea, a stimulant which he had missed in the former two Lents.19 However, by the end of Lent 1842, he felt weak and began to have milk and bread, which made him feel stronger again. He also added butter to the bread and on some occasions had wine, but he felt exhausted and in consequence sometimes did not pray the Breviary. On a few occasions, he had to take Sulfate Quinine pills as an analgesic for pain in his face. During Lent, Newman also did not read the newspaper. He tried sleeping on the floor, but it was too cold for him to get to sleep, so he desisted.20
At Littlemore, Newman established a schedule for daily prayer of the Breviary and house rules.21 The day began at five with Matins, followed by Lauds and Prime. At eleven, he and his companions went to the Church for Morning Prayer and again at three for Evensong. The simple main meal was supper at six. There was silence before two and after eight to facilitate prayer and study. The day ended with Vespers at seven and Compline at nine. Compline was prayed in Latin unless someone was present who did not understand, in which case it was prayed in English. Each person had various jobs and cared for his own room, while a servant took care of the fires, set up for breakfast, and cleaned.
For all the fasting and prayer, Littlemore was not a dull place. Sometimes after dinner Newman played sonatas on the violin in the library. Soon he had the stable company of some men with good humor and laughter. The first to move in was John Dobrée Dalgairns, a young graduate of twenty-three who had lost a Fellowship to Jesus College by one vote because of his Catholic ideas. Dalgairns wished to be ordained a deacon, in part to relieve the disappointment of his parents.22 Newman helped support him because his father gave him a very small and insufficient allowance.23
After Dalgairns, the next to move in was William Lock-hart, a twenty-two-year-old connected with Sir Walter Scott. Lockhart’s family sent William to Newman to keep him from going over to the Roman Catholic Church. Before allowing him to move in, Newman made Lockhart sign an agreement that for three years he would put aside the question of becoming Roman Catholic.24 By August of 1842, five men were living with Newman at Littlemore. And in December, they were joined by Frederick Bowles, a nervous young man whose brother had been at Oriel and died at a young age. Bowles was ordained a deacon on December 18, and the following day, he became Newman’s curate at Littlemore.
The men who went to Littlemore were all much younger than Newman. This led to gossip at Oxford that Newman surrounded himself with “inferior men” and “junior admirers” over whom he could have complete sway. The reality is that they were bright men and good students who had given up academic advancement to be with Newman. Some sought him out for advice and others were referred to him by friends or family members. Lockhart later recorded that Newman refused to be treated as a superior and wanted to be called simply Newman.25 This was too much for his companions, who instead addressed him omitting his name.
Other young men came and went from Newman’s place. One such visitor gave rise to a humorous incident. This visitor walked to Littlemore with great enthusiasm and stayed two nights, but the Spartan arrangement frightened him. Newman wrote: “I could not conceive what ailed him—for he looked at me as if I had been a ghost or wizard—spoke in his most solemn voice—would not laugh—was sick all night and did not get a wink of sleep—and next day looked thin and yellow.”26 Upon his returning to Oxford, he was at once restored to “his beaming looks and lovely spirits.”
Almost as humorous was the spying carried out by a pugnacious Evangelical, Mr. McGhee, which occurred at the festive dedication of the church at Littlemore. On this occasion, Newman arranged for a procession with children and clergymen singing Psalm 24.27 Between sixty and seventy persons received Holy Communion. The spy, who during the service cried out that it was “popish,” wrote a letter, published by The Record, complaining of the procession with children and bells, and of Newman kneeling before a wooden cross.28 The spy was corrected in a letter to the Plymouth Herald indicating that the children had worn smocks, the “wooden cross” was a “stone cross” and the procession was about twenty paces, from the school-house to the church.29
The accusations caused Bishop Bagot to inquire from Newman about the activities at Littlemore. Newman was able to allay the bishop’s fears and convince him that at Littlemore, he sought greater prayer, quiet, and study in private. During Advent of 1842, Newman and his companions lived an even stricter lifestyle, waking up at three for Matins and then going to bed until six in the morning. After breakfast at eight, they fasted until five in the evening. While living at Littlemore, Newman continued to assist others in many ways. He looked for employment for the son of a college servant, he sought a nursery maid for Jemima, and taught Latin to a boy in the village. Newman continued his letter writing, including to Anglicans thinking of becoming Roman Catholics.
ADVICE TO POTENTIAL CONVERTS
One of his correspondents was Miss Holmes, who had first written to him in 1840. Newman had managed to keep her from becoming Roman Catholic. Even though Miss Holmes asked for his advice, she was headstrong and rarely followed it.30 Instead she involved Newman in helping her to find employment and in publishing a book on church architecture. In 1842, Miss Holmes begged to be allowed to meet Newman on her way through Oxford to a new job as a governess. When they met in Oxford, she expected to find a venerable sage and rudely expressed her childish disappointment. Newman wrote to her a few days later to excuse himself and added: “As for myself, you are not the first person who has been disappointed in me. Romantic people always will be. I am, in all ways of going on, a very ordinary person.”31 With his good humor, Newman reported to his sister Harriet that the young lady “was almost disgusted to find me so young. She said she had thought my hair was grey—so you see I must like Pythagoras shut myself up in a cave and never be seen by anyone.”32
For some years, Newman continued to help Miss Holmes, a difficult young woman who was very impatient with her imperfections. He wrote her: “Our very work here is to overcome ourselves—and to be sensible of our hourly infirmities, to feel them keenly, is but the necessary step to overcoming them.”33 And he advised her to spend time in daily prayer: “giving half an hour every morning to the steady contemplation of some one sacred subject.”34 He also suggested that she picture Christ standing over her.
During 1842, some Anglicans who were not from Newman’s circle became Roman Catholics. Newman was informed about them and some of them contacted him. One of the converts was Isabella Young, a wealthy twenty-six-year-old woman whom Pusey had been advising to remain Anglican. Upon his request Newman also wrote to her. She was a perplexed and emotionally unstable woman. Acting against Pusey’s advice she was received into the Roman Catholic Church by Dr. Wiseman, and soon entered the novitiate of a religious order.35 As much as this gave pain to Pusey, it could not compare with William E. Gladstone’s pain at the news of the conversion to Rome of his sister Helen. Dr. Wiseman had also been involved in the reception of this young woman.36
Another convert to Roman Catholicism was Bernard Smith, a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. In 1839, Smith had been appointed rector of a church in the diocese of Lincoln. In the course of beautifying his church, J. R. Bloxam introduced him to the church architect August W. Pugin, who in turn introduced him to St. Mary’s College Oscott and to Bishop Wiseman. On a visit to a dying person with a Catholic priest, Smith was greatly moved by the effect of the Last Sacraments on the dying person.37 Not long after that, in December of 1842, Smith attended a retreat preached by Wiseman and asked to be received into the Catholic Church.
Earlier John Kaye, the Bishop of Lincoln, had complained to Smith for introducing objectionable liturgical practices that had existed in earlier times, such as having candlesticks and a cross on the altar, turning toward the altar in prayers, and crossing himself in the service. Newman had written a letter to Smith attempting to keep him from joining the Roman Church. Smith, however, saw other difficulties in the Anglican Church besides liturgical abuse. When writing to a friend about Smith’s decision Newman explained: “one idea got possession of him that the English Church, as being out of communion with the whole Catholic world, Greek and Roman, was in schism, and therefore unsafe to live and die in, according to the judgment of antiquity …”38
Although Newman tried to dissuade Anglicans such as Isabella Young and Bernard Smith from going over to Rome, his own contacts with Roman Catholics gradually increased, as did their prayers for the conversion of Newman and his friends.
In November 1842, Fr. Charles W. Russell wrote to Newman from St. Patrick’s College, in Maynooth, Ireland, thanking Newman for the gift of Volume V of his Parochial Sermons. Russell asked Newman if he in turn would accept a volume of sermons by St. Alphonse Liguori. Russell closed the letter by telling Newman that he never went to the “Holy Altar” without praying that Newman would be brought into the “external membership of the one true fold.”39 Newman, who was at the time preaching the Samaritan Sermons, replied to Russell: “There is a divine life among us, clearly manifested, in spite of all our disorders, which is as great a note of the Church, as any can be. Why should we seek Our Lord’s presence elsewhere, when He vouchsafes it to us where we are? What call have we to change our communion?”40 Still Newman was thankful to Russell and invited him to visit if he should be passing by Oxford. In August of the following year, Russell was able to visit Newman at Oxford.
Despite these sermons and his correspondence with Russell, Newman wrote a retraction to his extreme anti-Catholic statements made in the 1830s. Newman felt he had to publish this retraction to relieve his conscience. In a letter to the editor of the Oxford Conservative Journal he explained that he had been following the language of Anglican Divines, but he also admitted that with his language he had hoped to find approval among those whom he respected and to repel the charge of Romanism.41 For some years prior to the retraction, Newman had ceased to make inflammatory remarks about the Roman Catholic Church and commented in letters that to make these comments was uncharitable. He intended this retraction to be published at Christmas, hoping that during this season of conciliation, his statement would be less starthng to Anglicans. Newman considered the possibility of publishing the retraction in a newspaper in the United States instead of England, but in the end it was published in the January 1843 issue of the Oxford Conservative Journal.
Meanwhile, many Roman Catholics continued to pray for Newman’s conversion. One Roman Catholic priest who was fervently praying was Fr. Dominic Barbieri, a priest of the Passionist Order. Barbieri had read an article that Dalgairns had published the previous year in L’Univers, a French newspaper, on the obstacles to reunion between the Anglican and the Roman Catholic churches. Barbieri wrote a letter of introduction to Dalgairns in which he expressed his love for England.42 Although he appealed more to the heart rather than to reason, Barbieri pointed out that contrary to Tract 90, some of the Thirty-Nine Articles could not be reconciled with Catholic teaching and the decrees of Trent.
Dalgairns replied to Barbieri that although the English Church was sick, it was still a living member of the Church with signs of life, such as succession, sanctity, orthodoxy, and persecution. With this exchange, a frequent and affectionate correspondence ensued between these two men, one which was shared with the community at Littlemore. Dominic Barbieri perceived that his vocation was the conversion of Englishmen and bringing the English Church back to the common fold. Newman appreciated Fr. Dominic’s ardent love and saw in it the action of Providence.43
In 1842, Barbieri wished to visit Littlemore, but Dalgairns wrote with regret that it would not be advisable.44 Instead of the proposed visit, Barbieri sent a copy of the Passionist Rule to the men at Littlemore, who read it with interest. Eventually, with Newman’s approval, Dalgairns invited Barbieri to visit Littlemore; his first visit would take place on June 24, 1844.
In October 1842, Ambrose Phillipps visited Oxford to meet Newman and to introduce him to Fr. Luigi Gentili, who admired Newman’s preface to a translation of Fleury’s Ecclesiastical History. Born in Italy the same year as Newman, Gentili was a lawyer, a brilliant linguist, and a gifted musician. He had been suitor to an English Catholic heiress, but when her family refused his suit, the course of his life changed. Instead he joined the Institute of Charity, founded by philosopher priest Antonio Rosmini. Gentili came to England to work among Catholics in industrial towns. Phillipps thought that Fr. Gentili was the person who could convert Newman. Phillipps reported that both he and Gentili had been enchanted by Newman, “whose amiable manners are only equaled by his gigantic learning and talents.”45
Although Newman had tried to keep Anglicans from becoming Roman Catholic, often he had not succeeded. His correspondence and friendship with Catholics had also increased. This and his public retraction of anti-Catholic statements made in the 1830s were an indication of his changing views of the Catholic Church. The sharp criticism leveled by numerous Episcopal Charges against Newman and the Tractarians, especially by his own bishop, had been painful, yet his semi-monastic life at Littlemore enabled him to have peace and react with charity.
Newman no longer defended the Anglican Church as a Via Media between Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church, or as a branch of the Catholic Church. He urged his fellow Anglicans, however, to remain in the Anglican Church because he believed that they should remain where God had placed them and that despite its many weaknesses, God still was present in the Anglican Church. Newman did not know what would follow for him or for his friends and for the English Church. He only knew that he had to pray and fast, and this he did. He was seeking God in prayer and as a result had greater strength and a certain inner peace in the midst of the uncertainty.
In the meantime, the unity of the Oxford Movement had begun to fracture with Oakeley and Ward, who, representing the younger generation, had certain control over Tom Mozley and the British Critic. Newman sided with Oakeley and Ward’s views of the English Reformers and the logical conclusions reached by his friends, but he was not ready to make the statements that they made or to do so in the manner in which they did.
________
1LD, Vol. IX, R. Mant, “A Charge Intended For Delivery at the Visitation of the Clergy of Down and Connor, by their Bishop, June 1842,” 613-21, 614-15.
2Ibid., 618-19.
3Ibid., 620-21.
4LD, Vol. VIII, Richard Bagot, A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford by Richard Bagot, D.D., Bishop of Oxford, and Chancellor of the Most Noble Order of the Garter; at his Fourth Visitation, May 1842; Appendix 2; 605-12; 606.
5Ibid., 608.
6Ibid., 609.
7Ibid., 610.
8Ibid., 611.
9LD, Vol. VIII, JHN to John Keble (May 24, 1842), 14-15; 14.
10LD, Vol. VIII, JHN to Thomas Mozley (September 17, 1842), 97-98; 97.
11LD, Vol. VIII, JHN to Charles Crawley (January 2, 1842), 404.
12LD, Vol. IX, JHN to Thomas Mozley (September 14, 1842), 89-90; 89.
13Ibid., 218.
14John Henry Newman, Historical Sketches, Vol. II, The Church of the Fathers, “Anthony in Conflict,” 101.
15Ibid., 111.
16John Henry Newman, AW, 215-22.
17Ibid., 217.
18Ibid., 218.
19Ibid., 219.
20Ibid., 221.
21LD, Vol. IX, Memorandum: Order of the Day at Littlemore, 81.
22LD, Vol. IX, JHN to J. L. Richards (October 10, 1842), 122-23; 122.
23Trevor, Newman, The Pillar of the Cloud, 273.
24LD, Vol. IX, JHN to E. B. Pusey (August 20, 1842), 67-68.
25Trevor, Newman, The Pillar of the Cloud, 273.
26LD, Vol. IX, JHN to Charles Marriot (September 6, 1842), 83.
27LD, Vol. IX, JHN to Miss M. R. Giberne (September 25, 1842), 112-13.
28LD, Vol. IX, Clericus to the Editor of the Record (September, 29, 1842), 113-15.
29LD, Vol. IX, JHN to the Editor of the Plymouth Herald (December 3, 1842).
30Trevor, Newman, the Pillar of the Cloud, 277-78.
31LD, Vol. IX, JHN to Miss Holmes (November 20, 1842), 153.
32LD, Vol. IX, JHN to Mrs. T. Mozley (November 16, 1842), 149-50; 149.
33LD, Vol. IX, JHN to Miss Holmes (December 27, 1842), 184-85.
34Ibid.
35LD, Vol. IX, E. B. Pusey to JHN (October 28, 1842), 135-36.
36LD, Vol. IX, JHN to E. B. Pusey (July 24, 1842), 48 and footnote n. 2.
37Wilfrid Ward, The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, London 1897, Vol. I, 409-12.
38LD, Vol. IX, JHN to J. W. Bowden (December 29, 1842), 188-89.
39LD, Vol. IX, Charles William Russell to JHN (October 31, 1842), 154- 55; 155.
40LD, Vol. IX, JHN to Charles William Russell (November 22, 1842), 155- 56; 156.
41LD, Vol. IX, JHN to the Editor of the Oxford Conservative Journal (December 12, 1842), 167-72; 171.
42Alfred Wilson, Blessed Dominic Barbieri, Supernaturalized Briton, Sands & Co Ltd., London, 1967, 289-90.
43Ibid., 295.
44Ibid., 294.
45Purcell, Vol. I, 257-58. JHN to Lord Shrewsbury from Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, cited in LD, Vol. IX, 129.