^{page 47 note 1} Cf. Church, R. W., The Oxford Movement—Twelve Years—1833–1845, London 1891, 90–5Google Scholar; Ollard, S. C., A Short History of the Oxford Movement, 1915, 7Google Scholar; also Ollard's essay on the O.M. in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; Ryan, A., ‘The Development of Newman's Political Thought’, Review of Politics, 1945Google Scholar; Battiscombe, G., John Keble: a Study in Limitations, 1960Google Scholar; Kenny, T., The Political Thought of John Henry Newman, 1957.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} E.g. Battiscombe, op. cit., 134; Woodward, , The Age of Reform, 2nd ed.Oxford 1963, 515–16Google Scholar; Hearder, H., Europe in the Nineteenth Century (1969), 419Google Scholar; ‘… A Common-Room disturbance’; O'Connel, M., The Oxford Conspirators (1969), 437Google Scholar; Peck, W. L., The Social Implications of the Oxford Movement (1933), 15.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, ed. Mosley, Anne, London 1891, i. 276Google Scholar, 450 (hereafter referred to as LC); also The Remains of R. H. Froude, Oxford 1838–1839, i. 308Google Scholar: “When I come home I mean to read and write all sorts of things, for now that one is a Radical there is no use in being nice’.

^{page 48 note 2} For a more detailed exposition of the Keble correspondence, see Griffin, J. R., ‘John Keble: Radical’, Anglican Theological Review, liii (1971), 167 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 3} Cf. MS. letter to B. Holmes, 10 July, in Keble College Library, no. 57a, quoted in Griffin, art. cit., 172.

^{page 48 note 4} LC, i. 441–2.

^{page 48 note 5} LC, ii, 215; also Remains, iv. 262: ‘The Bishops, every one of them, are, as a matter of fact, appointed by the Prime Minister for the time being, who, since the repeal of the Test Act, may be an avowed Socinian, or even Atheist’.

^{page 48 note 6} Cf. Remains, iv. 189 ff.

^{page 48 note 7} MS. letter to John T. Coleridge, 31 March 1833, vol. i of Taylor Collection, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

^{page 49 note 1} LC, i. 450.

^{page 49 note 2} MS. letter of 8 May 1832 in Bodleian Taylor Collection, vol. i: ‘I am more and more inclined to think, that the sooner we come to an open separation from these people, the better for ourselves and our flocks: and this is some comfort as one watches the progress of Revolution, in wch [which] the said separation will, I expect, be a very early step’.

^{page 49 note 3} Cf. Remains, iv. 190 ff.

^{page 49 note 4} lc, ii. 4; Tracts for the Times, No. 2 (1833), 1Google Scholar; Sermons on Subjects of the Day, in passim; Plain and Parochial Sermons, iii, especially Sermon 11, ‘Wilfullness oflsrael in Rejecting Samuel’. It should be noted that Newman and his friends strongly advocated protest’ against secular intrusions into spiritual matters, but not for the sake of worldly things like revenues, livings, or other material benefits. The one time when he took a political theme in the Parochial Sermons it was to preach against the conservatives and in particular Palmer's group the ‘Friends of the Church’. Newman briefly stated in that sermon: ‘It is a very painful subject, but it is not right to shut our eyes to the fact, that friends of the Church are far more disposed to look out for secular and unauthorized ways of defending her than to proceed quietly in their ordinary duties, and trust to God to save her’. 39; for more on Newman's politics, see Griffin, J. R., ‘The Anglican Politics of Cardinal Newman’, ATR, (1973).Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 5} LC, ii. 4.

^{page 49 note 6} See above, n.2.

^{page 49 note 7} Kitson-Clark, G., Peel and the Conservative Party, 2nd. ed., 1964, 154.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 8} Cf. Fairweather, E. R., ‘National Apostasy: a Contemporary View of the Irish Church's Duty’, Canadian Journal of Theology, vii (1962), 50–4.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 9} Cf. The Remains, i, 323: ‘My subject is the duty of contemplating the contingency of a Separation between Church and State, and of providing against it, i.e. by studying the principles of ecclesiastical subordination, so that when the law of the land ceases to enforce this, we may have a law within ourselves to supply its place …’; ibid.: ‘We cannot make too much fuss about if—Pauperes Christi … come down in our notion about the clergy being gentlemen’.

^{page 50 note 1} LC, i. 276.

^{page 50 note 2} Remains, i, 250: ‘If it was not for a personal hatred of the Whigs, I should care comparatively little for the Reform Bill. For the Church can never right itself without a blowup’; ibid., 323: Spoliation on a grand scale is our only chance.

^{page 50 note 3} MS. letter Newman to Froude, 1 August 1833, in Correspondence Public, Birmingham Oratory (Newman's italics).

^{page 50 note 4} Arians of the Fourth Century, 1968 ed., 259.

^{page 50 note 5} ‘Affairs de Rome’, British Critic, xxii (1837), 283Google Scholar: ‘… conviction of this makes one tremble lest the same spirit which would lead him to throw off civil authority, may urge him under disappointment to deny the authority of religion itself.

^{page 50 note 6} LC, i. 276.

^{page 50 note 7} MS. letter Newman to Perceval, 6 September 1833, in Correspondence Public of Newman, ii, No. B. 11. 8. at Birmingham Oratory.

^{page 50 note 8} LC, i. 450-

^{page 51 note 1} Cf. ‘John Keble: Radical–1.

^{page 51 note 2} Remains, i, 374: ‘I have left off writing radicalism [e.g. the political essays in vol. 4 of Remains], which did myself harm, and no one else any good; for I see neither N. nor—will take any of it’.

^{page 51 note 3} MS. letter Newman to Froude, 18 September 1833: ‘Then Palmer says, “No Tracts must be issued without the Committee's approval…” ‘in Correspondence Public, loc. cit.; also LC., i. 476.

^{page 51 note 4} MS. letter Newman to Froude, 17 November 1833: Correspondence Public, loc. cit., ‘If old Palmer is determined to be carried away by Z disseminations, we must cut him loose’.

^{page 51 note 5} LC, i. 484.

^{page 51 note 6} Cf. Tract One (Fairweather ed., 1968), 58 ff.; also LC, ii, 7: ‘I advised Palmer to keep with the “Zs” as long as he could, and when they sank to leap into our little boat, and he consented’.

^{page 51 note 7} LC, ii, 36.

^{page 51 note 8} MS. letter to Rev. A. P. Perceval, 4 March, 1836, in ‘Rev. H.J. Rose to Rev. A. P. Perceval’ (1832–1836), Pusey House, Oxford.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} Narrative of Events Connected with the Oxford Movement (1843), 7.

^{page 52 note 2} Cf. Francis Newman, The Early History of Cardinal Nexuman (1892), 37: ‘Whenin 1833 we met to start the Tract for the Times, we thought it only prudent to be frank to one another, and we all submitted to free questioning on every subject: among them, the Union of Church and State. To our astonishment we found that, one and all, we desired separation. The book on Scotch Episcopalianism (ascribed to Archbishop Whately) had converted us! “Is this a secret?” asked I. “Not at all,” was his [Newman's] reply, “tell it as widely as you choose” ’.

^{page 52 note 3} Remains, iv, 386.

^{page 52 note 4} Remains, iv, 224.

^{page 52 note 5} MS. letter Newman to Pusey. 30 July 1841: ‘I suppose in my heart I dislike the Reformers as much as any one—but I do not see the need of saying so except so far as the purpose of self-justification goes and the duty of honesty …” in Pusey 1841, Birmingham Oratory Archives vol. 104. For a study on Pusey's role in the O.M., see Griffin, J. R., ‘Dr. Pusey and the Oxford Movement’, Historical Magazine xlii (1973).Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} LC, ii, 242.

^{page 53 note 2} MS. Correspondence, H. J. Rose, 1836–1839, vol. 112: ‘Hitherto she has been supported by the State—but if it fails her, what is she to do. This is the very problem laid down in our Tract No. 1. The advertisement to Vol. I + Tract 20 aims at the same. I wish to encourage Churchmen to look boldly at the possibility of the Church's being made to dwell in the affections of the people at large. At present it is too much a Church for the Aristocracy + the poor through the Aristocracy’.

^{page 53 note 3} LC, ii. 35; Froude and Keble were also (in 1833) inclined to speak of the ‘Church’ and the ‘Establishment’, e.g. The Remains, iii. 31; Keble, , National Apostasy (Fairweather ed. 1968) 46 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 4} LC., i. 441.

^{page 53 note 5} Remains, i. 374.

^{page 53 note 6} See above, n. 41.

^{page 53 note 7} Remains, i, 308 ff., esp. 323, 374.

^{page 53 note 8} Remains, i. 374.

^{page 54 note 1} LC, i, 458.

^{page 54 note 2} LC, i, 454.

^{page 54 note 3} Remains, iii, 30 ff.

^{page 54 note 4} Tract 10 (1833), 5.

^{page 54 note 5} LC, ii, 59.

^{page 55 note 1} LC, i, 458.

^{page 55 note 2} MS. correspondence, Pusey 1841, Birmingham Oratory: ‘What I was thinking of … about the Reformers being disingenuous was this … in the Homilies, when they would attack some tenet or practice of Rome, they attacked something which R.C.'s could and do condemn as much as their opponents do … And I think without perversions and misrepresentations of this kind the Reformers would not have succeeded’.

^{page 55 note 3} Cf. Remains, i, 433: ‘I don't feel widi you [Keble] on the question of Tithes. They cannot be a legal debt and a religious offering at the same time. When the payment began to be enforced by civil authority the desecration took place. I don't take ——'s [Rose?] want of candour about the voluntary system’. For a fuller commentary on social implications, see J. R. Griffin (forthcoming) ‘The Social Implications of the Oxford Movement’, HMPEC.

^{page 55 note 4} Newman to Froude in Correspondence Public, Birmingham Oratory: ‘I have never till the last month or two thought Keble would go lengths: but I now hope he will. I think he is unchained’. (July 1833).

^{page 55 note 5} LC, ii, 26.

^{page 55 note 6} Cf. Griffin, J. R., ‘The Anglican Politics of Cardinal Newman’, ATR (1973) 441 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} Cf. ‘John Keble: Radical’, 173 and Keble, , Sermons, Academical and Occasional (and ed. London 1848), 167 ff.Google Scholar; also Griffin, , “Tractarian Politics’ (unpublished Ph.D thesis, Trinity College, 1972), chs. ii and vi.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} LC, II, 37.

^{page 56 note 3} Cf. Griffin, J. R., ‘Dr. Pusey and the Oxford Movement’, HMPEC (1973); also Tractarian Politics, vi.Google Scholar