^1. “The Last Days of the Penal Laws,” Dolman's Magasine, VI (07–12., 1847), 212.Google Scholar

^2. Burton, Edwin H., The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner, 2 Vols. (London, 1909)Google Scholar; Ward, Bernard, The Dawn of the Catholic Revival in England, 2 Vols. (London, 1909).Google Scholar

^3. All citations in this paragraph were drawn from, Hemphul, Dom Basil, The Early Vicars Apostolic in England, 1685–1750 (London, 1954), PP. 46–47.Google Scholar

^4. Blundell's Diary and Letter Book, 1702–1728, ed. Margaret Blundell (Liverpool, 1952), pp. 73–74.Google Scholar

^5. Ibid., p. 188, p. 28, pp. 73–74. In 1716, such journeys recommended themse1ves as a possible expedient for circumventing the statutes requiring the registration of recusant estates pp. 156–157.

^6. Ibid., p. 40, pp. 125–129.

^7. Hughes, Edward, North Country Life in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1952), p. 77, n. 1.Google Scholar

^8. For this affair, see Blundell, Dom F. O., O.S.B., Old Catholic Lancashire (1550–1850), Vol III (London, 1941), pp. 70–71.Google Scholar

^9. See Newman, John Henry, Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England, ed. O'Connell, D. M., S. J. (New York, 1942)Google Scholar. In this period of the Papal Aggression, popular hostility toward Catholics appeared to flatter Newman's sense of individuality. At any rate, his descriptions of Protestant “malevolenee” inspired the most extraordinary exaltation.

^10. Charlton, Barbara, The Recollections of a Northumbrian Lady 1815–1866, ed. Chariton, L. E. O. (London, 1949), pp. 124–125.Google Scholar

^11. Sir Namier, Lewis and Brooke, John, The History of Parliament, The House of Commons 1754–1790, Vol. III (New York, 1964), PP. 136–137.Google Scholar

^12. Charlton, op. cit., p. 125.

^13. Quoted in Namier and Brooke, op. cit., III, p. 137.

^14. Hughes, op. cit., pp. 24–25.

^15. For this incident, see Catholic Record Society Publications, IV, 248.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as C.R.S.

^16. Quoted in Hughes, op. cit., p. 269.

^17. Fr. Lawrence made no mention of Mr. Penswick's having suffered the slightest inconvenience.

^18. From a letter, quoted in Hughes, op. cit., pp. 24–25.

^19. Charlton, op. cit., p. 126–27.

^20. C.R.S., IV, 250Google Scholar; XIV, 340. The Rev. Monox Hervey bore such aliases as John Rivett and John Maxon.

^21. Blundell, Dom F. O., O.S.B., Old Catholic Lancashire, Vol I (London, 1925), P. 127.Google Scholar Fr. John Talbot, alias Mansell, served the Clifton family at Lytham after 1743. “Mr. Mansell left the reputation of being a first-class rider and horseman. At that time Mr. Thomas Clifton kept a pack of hornids and a good stud of hunters.”

^22. C.R.S., XIV, 340.Google Scholar

^23. Hughes, op. cit., xvi-xviii.

^24. C.R.S., VII, 161.Google Scholar Many modern Oatholic writers have continued to assert a perverse sort of Jacobitism, as if, at all times, loyalty to the House of Hanover implied a betrayal of the faith. Hence, the editor of the Bedingfeld Papers took pains to apologize for Sir Henry's affections: “…it is impossible to doubt [his] sympathy with the family which lost the throne, not indeed without some fault on their side, but mainly because of their adherence to the Catholic religion.” See Kern phill, pp. 105–111, where Bishops Stonor and Strickland two “Hanoverians” who favored the Oath of Abjuration, fare very badly indeed. For a rare, contrasting point of view, see Butler, Charles, Historical Memoirs, Vol. III (London, 1822), pp. 169–178.Google Scholar

^25. C.R.S., VII, 163–165.Google Scholar

^26. Ibid., IV, 250. For the Scropes of Danby, see Gillow, Joseph, Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics, Vol. V (New York, n.d.), p. 487.Google Scholar

^27. Charlton, op. cit., p. 128.

^28. Brown, James Baldwin, Laws Enacted Againgt the Catholics (London, 1813), p. 177.Google Scholar This study reflected the partisanship of an impassioned proponent of Emancipation. For a similarly literal rendering of the Penal Laws, see Martin, Clarence E., “The Legal Aspects of the English Penal Laws,” Am. Cath. Hist. Soc. Records, XLI (1930), 129–161.Google Scholar

^29. C.R.S., IV, 253.Google Scholar

^30. Payne, John Orlebar, Records of the English Catholics of 1715 (London, 1889), p. 50.Google Scholar

^31. Blundell, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 20–25. Fr. Blundell naturally expressed his sympathies for the Towneleys in their hour of affliction.

^32. D.N.B. (Dictionary of National Biography), XIX, 1024–1025.Google Scholar

^33. Blundell, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 71; D.N.B., II, 727–728.Google Scholar

^34. MrsStapleton, Bryan, A History of the Post-Reformation Catholic Missions in Oxford- shire (London, 1906), pp. 134–135.Google Scholar

^35. Payne, op. cit., p. 22.

^36. C.R.S., VII, 193.Google Scholar

^37. Stapleton, pp. 144–145.

^38. Humphreys, Arthur L., East Hendred (London, 1923), pp. 92–94.Google Scholar

^39. Gillow, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 548–549.

^40. C.R.S., XXXII, 363–364.Google Scholar

^41. Ibid., 366–367.

^42. Ibid., 365–366.

^43. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Carlisle MSS, 124. Hereafter cited as H.M.C.

^44. Lord Faueonberg subsequently denied any such intention to petition the King. C.R.S., XXXII, 383–388.Google Scholar

^45. H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, 159–160.Google Scholar

^46. Ibid.

^47. The Blecheley Diary of fhe Rev. William Cole 1765–1767, ed. Francis Griffin Stokes (London, 1931), p. 245.Google Scholar

^48. G.E.C., Complete Peerage, Vol. IX, p. 102–103.Google Scholar Mark Anthony Browne, ninth Viscount Montague of Cawdray.

^49. C.B.S., VII, 198, 207.Google Scholar Sir Richard had married the Hon. Mary Browne, daughter of the sixth Viscount Montague. His retirement to Oxburgh, except for annual visits to Cawdray, allegedly reflected his ineonsolability at his wife's death in childbirth. Her fortune perhaps contributed to the reconstruction of Oxburgh at this time.

^50. Pyle, Edmund, Memoirs of a Royal Chaplain, 1758–1763, ed. Hartshorne, Albert (London, 1905), pp. 227–228.Google Scholar

^51. Gentleman's Magazine, XXV (1755), 138.Google Scholar

^52. G.E.C., Complete Peerage, Vol. V. pp. 266–267.Google Scholar Rowland Bellasyse, sixth Viscount Faueonberg (1745–1810); Charles Bellasyse, seventh Viscount Fauconberg (1750–1815), known as the “Abbé Bellasis.”

^53. Henry Charles Howard, thirteenth Duke of Norfolk, as Earl of Arundel and Surrey, became the first Roman Catholic to sit in the House of Commons after 1829. Richard Bingham succeeded his father as second Earl of Lucan in 1799.

^54. Gentleman's Magazine, LXIV (1794), 272.Google Scholar

^55. Butler, Charles, The Philological and Biographical Works, 2nd. ed., Vol. III (London, 1817), pp. 491–492.Google Scholar

^56. Butler, , Historical Memoirs, Vol. III, pp. 173–178Google Scholar; Hemphill, pp. 110–111. Ironicafly enough, Charles Howard's father had dissuaded the eighth Duke of Norfolk from supporting the Stonor-Strickland proposals.

^57. Brenan, Gerald and Stotham, Edward Phillips, The House of Howard, Vol. II (London, 1907), pp. 621–625Google Scholar; Butler, , Historical Memoirs, Vol. III, pp. 281–283.Google Scholar

^58. Parl. Hist., XXI, pp. 678–679.Google Scholar

^59. Brenan and Stotham, pp. 268–269.

^60. For a fugitive glance at Charles Howard's political activities in Cumberland, see Bonsall, Brian, Sir James Lowther and Cumberland and Westmorland Elections 1754–1775 (Manchester, 1960), p. 96Google Scholar, n. 1.

^61. See H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, 277Google Scholar: letter from George Selwyn to the Earl of Carlisle, explaining how Charles Howard “takes so much pains to recommend himself to my corporation…”

^62. Lonsdale, Henry, The Worthies of Cuinberland, Vol. III (London, 1872), pp. 57–62Google Scholar; Namier and Brooke, Vol. III, pp. 56–60.

^63. D.N.B., XII, 218.Google Scholar

^64. Quoted in Namier and Brooke, Vol. II, p. 644.

^65. Lord Surrey had not only signed the Catholic petition of 1778, but he had numbered. among those who had presented it to the King.

^66. Quoted in Namie and Brooke, Vol. II, p. 644.

^67. See Creevey, ed. John Gore (London, 1949), p. 103Google Scholar and passim. For an indication of the eleventh Duke's borough-mongering, see Namier and Brooke, Vol. II, p. 645.

^68. Quoted by Lonsdale, p. 63. For brief references to the political activities of the Howards of Corby, see Bonsall, , Lowther; Lonsdale, pp. 65–124.Google Scholar The “Protestant” Duke had made several vain efforts to acquire a commission in the army for Henry Howard of Corby.

^69. The Torrington Diaries, ed. C. Bruyn Andrews (London, 1954), pp. 165–166.Google Scholar For an indication of the Duke's popularity, see Lonsdale, p. 64.

^70. The mixed marriage, like the Protestant connetion, frequently redounded to the advantage of a Catholic family. See C.R.S., VII, 193Google Scholar, where the Duke of Deovnshire served as intermediary for his “brother-in-law,” Sir Henry Bedingfeld. The Duchess of Devonshire and Lady Bedingfeld were sisters.

^71. See, e.g., Sir Throckmorton, John, Considerations Arising from the Debates in Parliament on the Petition of the Irish Cathoies, 2nd. ed. (London, 1806), p. 2Google Scholar, where Sir John proudly raised the point of the Roman Catholics' having laid the very foundations of the English Constitution. On pp. 18–20, he referred to Oxford as “this celebrated academy.”

^72. E.g., Lord Petre wrote to Sir John Throckmorton on the subject of Oscott College: “The objections made to the taking of Irish into the College is a difficult thing to manage, not that I think too many Irish would be a good thing for the School.… Two or three young Irish Boys would not signify & if they increased it would easily be said… That the governors thought it prudent to take as few Irish Scotch or foreigners as possible, least [sic]it would affect the pronunciation of their own language or be disagreeable to the parents of the children as the school professed to be established for english [sic] Boys. …“ Throclcmorton MSS, Coughton Court, Lord Petre to Sir John Throckmorton, June 25, 1794.

^73. E.g., George Eyston anticipated his sister-in-law's objections to the school at Sedgeley Park: “You may perhaps have a mean opinion of that Place because many Poor Catholic boys are sent there & the Pension is low.” Eyston MSS, Hendred House, George Eyston to Mrs. Eyston, January. 1805.

^74. Quoted in Hughes, xvi. For a laudatory sketch of Pigott's career, see Gillow, Vol. V, pp. 311–312.

^75. Butler, , Works, Vol. III, pp. 491–492.Google Scholar

^76. Edward Jerningbam (1774–1822) actively participated in the struggle for Emancipation. He served as Secretary of the Catholic Board after 1808. His mother generally referred to him as “Edward (the Dear).” For a sketch of his career, see Gillow, Vol. III, pp. 627–628.

^77. Charles, twelfth Viscount Dillon (1745–1813) had conformed to the Established Church in 1767. The Jerningham Letters, ed. Egerton Castle, Vol. II (London, 1896), p. 106.Google Scholar

^78. Lady Jerningham referred to the Catholics as “Cats” and to the apostates as “brutes.” Jernirgham Letters, Vol. I, p. 213.Google Scholar

^79. Ibid., pp. 179, 180–182, 186–187. Lord Mulgrn'e was Lord Dillon's father-in-law: he agreed that William Jerningham should join his own 31st Regiment of foot as aide- do-camp, with the rank of Lieutenant.

^80. Ibid., p. 106.

^81. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 106.

^82. Berington, Joseph, A View of English Catholics (London, 1781), p. 117.Google Scholar

^83. Butler, Historical Memoirs, Vol. III, pp. 276–278.Google Scholar

^84. Rarnard, James, The Life of the Venerable and Right Reverend Richard Challoner (London, 1784), Chapter XXII.Google Scholar

^85. See Denvir, John, The Irish in Britain (London, 1892), pp. 102–103.Google Scholar Catholic chapels, founded by the Irish in the 18th century, existed in Leeds, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Carlisle, Bristol, Whitehaven, Norwich, Newcastle-on-Tyne, etc.

^86. See C.R.S., XLIX., 2Google Scholar, where the priests of Gosport had some difficulty in spelling Irish names; Ibid., III, 182–186, for the similar problems of the Clergy at Bristol.

^87. The Times, January. 23, 1792.

^88. Petre, M. D., The Ninth Lord Petre (London, 1928), pp. 39–48.Google Scholar

^89. Creevey, p. 102.

^90. Hayley, William, The Life and Letters of William Cowper (London, 1835), p. 191.Google Scholar For the haughtiness of the Throckmortons, see pp. 192, 327. “Some men,” wrote Cowper, “may be estimated at first interview, but the Throekmortons must be seen often and known long before one can understand all their value.”

^91. Butler, Charles, Reminiscences, Vols. I-II (London, 1824–1827)Google Scholar, Passim.

^92. Eyston MSS, Hendred House, Letter from Charles Butler to the Eyston Family, dated March 14, 1814. Charles Butler had married Mary Eyston, the granddaughter of the celebrated antiquarian.

^93. Here we have a preview of that curious attitude revealed by Cardinal Newman in his Present State: Supra, p. 5, n. 12. Virtually every Catholic writer has followed Fr. Barnard's account of the “persecutions” of the 1760's.

^94. Part. Hist., XIX, 1145.Google Scholar

^95. Ibid., XXI pp. 703–705, 709–710.

^96. Sir Joseph Mawbey, M.P. for Surrey, was subjected to considerable ridicule as a parvenu. See Namier and Brooke, Vol. III, pp. 121–123.

^97. Part. Hist., XXI, 712, 716.Google Scholar

^98. Throckmorton MES, Coughton Court, Letter by Charles Butler, dated June 14, 1780. See Burton, , Challoner, p. 232Google Scholar, where it is stated that Butler's “diary” had disappeared. Earlier, in 1847, the editor of Dolman's Magazine had drawn upon the “diary,” but unfortunately its significance had entirely eluded him. Moreover, although the letter ran to almost ten full pages, he cited no more than one or two of its passages. See “The Last Days of the Penal Laws,” Dotman's Magazine, VI (07–12. 1847), p. 169.Google Scholar

^99. C.R.S., L, 146–155.

^100. See de Castro, J. Paul, The Gordon Riots (London, 1926), pp. 62–63.Google Scholar Butler had kept himself well informed about the Protestant Association and perhaps had advanced warning of the riots. See C.R.S., L, 142–143, where, in Sept. 1779, he had advised Mr. Mawhood “to have aliways two Hundred rounds by me does not like the times by any means. …“ See State Trials, XXI, 511–520, 548–552Google Scholar, where Wiffiam Hay testified that he had attended meetings of the Protestant Association, as an agent of Charles Butler.

^101. He did so by implication, either by offering few details of the riots or by referring his readers to Fr. Barnard's Life of Challoner. See Historical Memoirs, Vol. III, pp. 298–312Google Scholar; Butler, Charles, “Biographic Account of the Right Reverend Doctor Challoner,” The Catholic Magazine, I (01, 1832), 719.Google Scholar

^102. C.R.S., VII, 204.Google Scholar

^103. De Castro, pp. 49–50, 59.

^104. Throckmorton MSS, Coughton Court, Letter by Charles Butler, dated June 14, 1780.

^105. See Rudé, George, “The Gordon Riots: A Study of the Rioters and Their Victims,” Trans. Royal Hist. Soc., 5th. ser., VI (1956), 109.Google Scholar If the mob did indeed show a “distinct class bias” in its attack upon the Catholics, how was it that Butler and his intimates, perhaps the most prominent of Catholic laymen, escaped all injury? Who were the gentlemen of substance, aside from Mr. Langdale, whom the rioters had vietimized? The list of claimants for damages, submitted in evidence (p. 109), merely adds to our confusion. Were these anonymous persons all Roman Catholics–even the three Magistrates and five schoolteachers? If so, permissiveness under the Penal Laws had surely proceeded further in the capital than elsewere, since Catholics were barred from both offices.

^106. Cited by De Castro, p. 104. See Leys, M.D.R., Catholics in England (London, 1961), p. 134.Google Scholar Here it is flatly asserted that Lord Petre's house not only suffered damage by fire, but that Sir George Mannock, S. J., actually witnessed the conflagration. Yet Charles Butler, one of Petre's intimates, made no mention whatever of this startling “fact.” See Dolman's Magasine, 168, where the editor, having drawn upon a manuscript narrative of the riots, placed Maniiock nowhere near the Petre residence: “It happened that while the mob were enjoying themselves in making a bon-fire of one of our chapels, Sir George was passing by⃜”

^107. See Burton, Vol. I, p. 66, where it is asserted that a Catholic “was incapable of holding any office in the army or navy; or practising as barrister, doctor, or schoolmaster.”

^108. Kelly, Bernard W., ‘“Bishop Hay (1729–1811), A Memoir,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 5th 8cr., XXVI (07–12, 1925), 564.Google Scholar

^109. Charlton, p. 124.

^110. C.R.B., L., 140, 141, 143, 147, 171, 173. Mr. Mawhood first approached Charles Butler on Aug. 6, 1779: “…he promised to speak to the Earl of Chesterfield to get him to recommend my Son to Sir Henry Clinton.” Lt. William John Mawhood followed his regiment to New York, where he evidently fell a prisoner at Stoney Point. His father subsequently learned of his detention at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and not only strained every nerve to arrange an exchange, but simultaneously pressed for William's promotion! See Western, J. F., “Roman Catholics Holding Military Commissions in 1798,” E.H.R., LXX (07, 1955), 430CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “It seems then…that in 1798, the only bar to holding a military commission was to be known as a Roman Catholic to King George III.”

^111. Campbell, John Lord, The Lives of the Chief Justices of England, Vol. II (Philadelphia, 1851), pp. 268–269.Google Scholar For Booth, James, see D.N.B., II, 846Google Scholar; Gillow, Vol. I, p. 269.

^112. Twiss, Horace, The Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor Eldon, Vol. I (London, 1846), p. 71.Google Scholar Eldon expressed gratitude for Duane's having taken him as a pupil without fee: “That was a great kindness to me. The knowledge I acquired of conveyancing was of infinite service to me during a long life in the Court of Chancery.” Charles Butler had aiso served as one of Duane's pupils. See D.N.B., VI, 76Google Scholar; Gillow, Vol. II, pp. 132–133.

^113. C.R.S., IV, 368.Google Scholar

^114. Hughes, p. 260, n. 3.

^115. Jerningham Letters, Vol. I, pp. 218–219.Google Scholar

^116. Quoted by Lonsdale, p. 73.