^{page 320 note 1} British Magazine, xxvii, (1845), 398.

^{page 320 note 2} ‘The Oxford Malignants,’ Edinburgh Review, LXIII (1836), 225-39Google Scholar.

^{page 320 note 3} Correspondence of Henry Crabb Robinson with the Wordsworth circle, ed. E. J. Morley, 1927, II, 704.

^{page 321 note 1} Prothero, R. E., Life and Correspondence of Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, 1893, 1, 95 Google Scholar; Rugby MS to his sister, Mary Stanley, September 1837.

^{page 321 note 2} He had already declined, a year previously, Lord John Russell’s offer of the projected bishopric of Manchester. See Memoirs of Edward and Catharine Stanley, ed. A. P. Stanley, 1879, 26-7; British Magazine, x (1836), 633.

^{page 321 note 3} Stanley, A. P., The Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold, 2 vols., London, 1844 Google Scholar. Subsequent references are to the edition of 1892. Liddon suggests that the popularity of the work largely accounted for Lord John Russell’s subsequent elevation of Arnoldian sympathisers, notably Hampden, and James Prince Lee ( Liddon, H. P., Life of E. B. Pusey, 1893, 111, 160 Google Scholar).

^{page 321 note 4} Frances J. Woodward, The Doctor’s Disciples, 1954; David Newsome, Godliness and Good Learning, 1961. Most studies of Arnold’s influence hve tended to concentrate— correctly, if over-exclusively—upon the linear succession rather than the lateral impact of his ideas. See, for example, the excellent studies by Edward C. Mack, Public Schools and British Opinion, 1780-1860, 1938, esp. 236-338, and Public Schools and British Opinion since 1860, 1941, passim.

^{page 321 note 5} For evidence of this, see Thomas Arnold (Jr.) Passages in a Wandering Life, 1900, 52. My conclusions rest heavily upon letters—now at Rugby, in the Bodleian (MS Eng. Lett, d.103), and in the possession of Mrs Mary Moorman, omitted by Arthur Stanley from the Life. Some of these are marked ‘not to be copied’ in the latter’s handwriting. As well as letters to the Stanleys, they consist mainly of the letters to J. T. Coleridge which contain Arnold’s most violently abusive attacks on Newman and Keble. Dr Mack’s assertion regarding Stanley’s Life, that ‘the disciple’s independence prevented any omission of the unpleasant’ is therefore incorrect. See Mack, Public Schools and British Opinion, 1780-1860, 309.

^{page 322 note 1} Preface to Stanley, A. P., Life, 1, vi Google Scholar.

^{page 322 note 2} Stanley, Memoirs, 25-6. For the Englishman’s Register see Stanley, A. P., Life, 1, 244-5Google Scholar.

^{page 322 note 3} ‘... I cannot but fear that he (Rose) is what is called a High Church Man;—and if so, the only way he can save himself and what he most values, is by keeping quiet—his exertions, like those of a drowning man who cannot swim may only cripple the exertions of those who can swim . . .’ (Rugby, MS, Arnold to Edward Stanley, 13 Jan. 1832).

^{page 322 note 4} Stanley, Memoirs, 294.

^{page 323 note 1} Noel Annan, ‘The Intellectual Aristocracy’ in Studies in Social History, presented to G. M. Trevelyan, ed. J. H. Plumb, 1955, 244. Liberal enthusiasm was based largely upon knowledge of the high number of vacancies on the Bench, a vague sense of justice to Arnold’s reputation, and a growing view of his appointment as representing the logical high-water mark in Whig recognition of their own churchmen.

^{page 323 note 2} E. J. Stanley (1802-69), Under Secretary to the Colonies 1833-4, Home Dept. 1834, Secretary to the Treasury 1835-41. He is vividly portrayed through his letters in The Ladies of Alderley, 1841-50, ed. Nancy Mitford, 1938, passim.

^{page 323 note 3} Arnold’s Principles of Church Reform (1833) did not entirely debar him, as is often assumed, from serious consideration for preferment, although his ultimate selection was clearly prejudiced. In December 1835 Melbourne specifically consulted the Egertons, relatives of the Stanleys’ Cheshire neighbours, about the possibility of Arnold’s elevation, ‘but Arnold, however, shocks the High Churchmen; and Melbourne said it would make great uproar to put him on the Bench’ ( Greville, , Memoirs, 1814-60, ed. Strachey and Fulford, 19, 111, 267 Google Scholar). Six weeks later, faced with Howley’s hostility to his provisional appointment of Hampden to the Regius Professorship, Melbourne again had serious thoughts about Arnold, and sounded Whately as to whether after all ‘Arnold is open to any reasonable objection on the ground of any heterodoxy in his words.’ Whately, whom Grey had earlier preferred to Arnold for the Dublin archbishopric, replied that technically there was none, but, citing his own differences with Arnold on the terms of communion, firmly implied that such an appointment would go even beyond Hampden in straining clerical loyalties (Lord Melbourne’s Papers, ed. Lloyd, C. Sanders, 1889, 506-7). Melbourne’s careful consultation here makes nonsense of Sydney Smith’s remark to Holland that ‘Lord Melbourne always thinks that man best qualified for any office whom he had seen and known the least’ (Letters of Sydney Smith, ed. H. C. Smith, 1953, 511).

^{page 323 note 4} Melbourne to Whately, 8 July 1836; Sanders, op. cit. 506. As early as October 1831 Arnold was urging Hawkins to make Hampden an Oriel Tutor (Rugby MS, Arnold to Hawkins, 12 October 1831).

^{page 323 note 5} Torrens, W. M., Memoirs of Lord Melbourne, 18? ?, 11, 225 Google Scholar.

^{page 324 note 1} Torrens, op. cit. 227.

^{page 324 note 2} Smith, op. cit. 11, 653. For a parallel account of the circumstances of Stanley’s appointment, see J. C.Thirlwall, Connop Thirlwall, 1936, 134-9.

^{page 324 note 3} Rugby MS, Arnold to Arthur Stanley, 28 July 1837. The Evangelical Tory Carr was bishop of Worcester. He had been appointed Clerk in 1824. The bishop was completely surprised by the clerkship appointment; but Melbourne ‘particularly wished me not to decline it.’ MS in the possession of the late Dowager Lady Stanley of Alderley. Edward Stanley to his sister-in-law, Maria Josepha, Lady Stanley, 17 July 1837 the day on, which he formally accepted the Clerkship.

^{page 324 note 4} Prodiero, , Life and Letters, 1, 180 Google Scholar; letter dated 14 April 1837. Cf. Arthur Stanley’s reaction to Hampden’s appointment to Hereford ten years later—’Oh that it had been an Arnold’ (Prodiero, op. cit. 1, 347).

^{page 324 note 5} Stanley, , Memoirs, 28, 80-1Google Scholar. He was consecrated on 11 June.

^{page 325 note 1} Stanley, op. cit. 81. Rather than consecrate, Howley was prepared ‘to sacrifice fortune, office and even life’ ( Churton, E., Memoir of Joshua Watson, 1861,11, 262 Google Scholar). For Arnold’s earlier relations with Howley, see Stanley, , Life, 11, 118-21Google ScholarPubMed; Stanley rightly emphasises the contrast between the primate’s natural courage of opinion, as exemplified in his reception of Arnold’s doubts on the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and his ‘public caution’ (Stanley, Memoirs, 81-2). For Howley, the main concern was always ‘whether we are to have a Church Establishment or not... we ought to put ourselves on the defensive,’ he told Peel, ‘and resist any encroachment.’ To Peel 30 January 1837; Peel Papers, British Museum Add. MS 40423, ff. 21, 83.

^{page 325 note 2} ‘If you can suggest any subject fit for the occasion on which my whole view might be in unison with that of my hearers, I would preach upon it with great pleasure.’ Moorman MS, Arnold to Edward Stanley, 19 April 1837.

^{page 325 note 3} Arnold and Stanley were to encounter D’Oyly on the London University Senate. At Oxford it was rumoured that Rose would preach instead of Arnold. See Newman to Bowden 6 June 1837, in Letters and Correspondence of J. H. Newman, ed. A. Mozley, 1891,11, 236. Rose was also an archiEpiscopal chaplain.

^{page 325 note 4} T. W. Bamford, Thomas Arnold, 1960, 145-6, and Morning Chronicle, 23 October 1839. For Arnold’s presentation at Court see ibid. 4 May 1840.

^{page 326 note 1} Frances, Bunsen, Baroness, A Memoir of Baron Bunsen, 2 vols, 1868, I, 544-6Google Scholar. In September 1837 Musgrave of Hereford, consulted by Melbourne over Arnold’s possible elevation, while denying any personal acquaintance with him, added that the Doctor had a reputation for rashness, even among the more moderate men.

^{page 326 note 2} Stanley, , Life, 11, 186-7Google ScholarPubMed.

^{page 326 note 3} ‘I own that my longing to get a direct hold upon Oxford is very great—not that I desire or should expect to live in Feuds or Controversies there, but because I should hope to live without quarrelling as I certainly should live without being afraid of anybody—and I think that I have some advantages towards gaining an influence in Oxford, owing to my numerous pupils, which no other man of my opinions would have.’ Moorman MS, Arnold to Edward Stanley, 21 August 1840.

^{page 326 note 4} Sanders, op. cit. 507. Stanley had forwarded Arnold’s letter to Melbourne.

Melbourne. Melbourne’s reply, dated 24 August 1840, shows clearly how his attitude to Arnold’s appointment had hardened since his post-Hampden misgivings of the previous year. On 29 August Maltby of Durham was to suggest to Melbourne—without avail— that Waddington be made bishop of Chichester and Arnold be given his deanery of Durham.

^{page 327 note 1} Rugby MS, Dr Arnold to Edward Stanley 26 August 1840. Arnold regarded the letter as ‘containing an express Declaration that I am unfit to take any part in the theological instruction of my own University. ... as to lowering my influence with the Clergy I am sure that in these matters there is a great delusion—Whately has all his life tried to be as cautious as honesty would let him be—yet I do not think that at this moment his reputation with the mass of the clergy is better than mine—nor do I think Thirlwall’s is either. ... If I am unfit to be professor of any science connected with theology, what does Lord Melbourne think of Pusey’s Professorship of Hebrew ? . . . There would be something ridiculous to my actions in maintaining one’s fitness for a Bishopric, or questioning the right of any Government, Whig or Tory, to judge me unfit for such a station. But the Professorship is quite another thing ... as he (Lord Melbourne) has not scrupled to make Thirlwall a Bishop, who gave offence enough theologically by translating Schleiermacher on St. Luke, people will be apt to suppose that if he objects to me as a Professor, my opinion must be very heretical indeed. . . .’

^{page 327 note 2} Although it is more likely that Melbourne, literally in the last week of office, and faced with Nares’s sudden death, felt that Arnold’s appointment could not shorten the life of the administration further and therefore acted on his own initiative. I am grateful to Dr W. R. Ward of Manchester for this suggestion. Arnold, although he could write to Arthur Stanley in March 1841 ( Stanley, , Life, 11, 214 Google ScholarPubMed) that ‘my own desire of going to Oxford ... is quenched now,’ accepted Melbourne’s offer—of August 1841—with alacrity.

^{page 328 note 1} Stanley, Memoirs, 80.

^{page 328 note 2} ‘I have no man likeminded with me—none with whom I can cordially sympathise; there are many good men to be found, and many clever men, some too who are both good and clever; but yet there is a want of some greatness of mind or singleness of purpose, or delicacy of feeling, which makes them grate against the edge of one’s inner man.’ To Whately, undated (1831 ?); Stanley, , Life, 1, 245 Google Scholar.

^{page 328 note 3} For details of his early life, see Stanley, Memoirs, 3-6.

^{page 328 note 4} Stanley, Memoirs, 58.

^{page 328 note 5} Arnold, Miscellaneous Works, 1845, 495-6; cf. Stanley’s Sermon ... preached at his Installation, Norwich 1837, 16, n.9.

^{page 329 note 1} Prothero, op. cit. 141.

^{page 329 note 2} Bodleian MS, Arnold to Hawkins, 28 May 1837, ‘and I think the Bishop of Chichester thinks as I do’ (op. cit. Arnold to Hawkins, 20 December 1837). Edward Stanley’s wife’s uncle, Ralph Leycester, M.P. for Shaftesbury 1821-30, was a founding shareholder of the London University; see Appendix 4 to A Statement by the Council of the University of London explanatory of the nature and objects of the Institution, London 1827. This may explain the bishop’s initial interest in the project.

^{page 329 note 3} In 1838 Stanley had subscribed with Maltby to a volume of sermons by the Newcastle Unitarian Minister, William Turner; Stanley, Memoirs, 66-7.

^{page 329 note 4} See Stanley, Memoirs, 18; Stanley, , Life, 1, 142 Google Scholar.

^{page 329 note 5} ‘I always wish to reserve the term Education for that training which forms the man in his highest part, namely his intellectual—moral part—of which, of course must include religion. Knowledge in physical science, natural history, etc, I should highly value—and of course this involves no religious or moral principles at all—but then I could only call this giving information and not educating’ (Rugby MS, Arnold to Arthur Stanley, 20 September 1837). He was specifically referring to Stanley’s widely criticised assertion in his installation sermon that ‘Education ... may be viewed under a twofold medium—the one to a certain degree unconnected with religion, the other directly and altogether embodied with it’ (Installation Sermon, 1837, op. cit. 16).

^{page 330 note 1} Quarterly Review, Lxxiv (1844), 493.

^{page 330 note 2} Bodleian MS, Arnold to J. T. Coleridge, 9 May 1830.

^{page 330 note 3} Rugby MS, Arnold to Arthur Stanley, 17 January 1836. Cf. Arnold’s son Thomas’s description of Edward Stanley as ‘a convinced and resolute Whig, and hence in thorough political sympathy with my father’ (Arnold, op. cit. 23).

^{page 330 note 4} Norman Wymer, Dr Arnold of Rugby, 1953, 36; cf. with Before and After Waterloo, ed. J. Adeane and M. Grenfell, 1902, 36.

^{page 330 note 5} Cf. Wymer, op. cit. 51 and Adeane and Grenfell op. cit. 77.

^{page 330 note 6} ‘I thought it was a dreadful occurrence, but I hoped there were grounds for it’ (Three Accounts of Peterloo, ed. F. A. Bruton, 1921, 37).

^{page 330 note 7} Norwich Mercury, 24 August 1839; cf.Stanley, , Life, 11,115-16Google ScholarPubMed.

^{page 330 note 8} Stanley, Memoirs, 20.

^{page 330 note 9} Stanley, , Life, 1, 335 Google Scholar.

^{page 331 note 1} Stanley, Memoirs, 278.

^{page 331 note 2} Stanley does not appear to have adopted any decided view of Church-State relations, beyond the traditional Whig formulations. At the same time he fully endorsed —despite its anti-sacerdotal overtones—Arnold’s view of the Church as a living society of all Christians. See his strong appeals for comprehending the laity in Primary Charge, 1838, and Septennial Charge, 1845, in Addresses and Charges, 60-1, 133-4, respectively.

^{page 331 note 3} Stanley, , Life, 1, 342 Google Scholar.

^{page 331 note 4} Stanley, Memoirs, 57-8.

^{page 331 note 5} Cf. for example his views of Dissent in A Country Rector’s Address to his Parishioners, 1831, with his Primary Charge, in Addresses and Charges, op. cit. 23, 67-71.

^{page 331 note 6} Stanley, Memoirs, 57.

^{page 331 note 7} He denounced them from the pulpit of Paul’s, St as ‘false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into (however far from it in reality) apostles of Christ’ (Sermon preached before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, London, 1843, 4)Google Scholar.

^{page 332 note 1} A Few words in favour of our Roman Catholic brethren, London 1829, and A Few observations on Religion and Education in Ireland, London 1836; cf. Arnold’s The Christian Duty of conceding to Roman Catholic Claims, London 1829.

^{page 332 note 2} Arnold, Christian Duty, op. cit. 62; cf. Stanley, A Few Words, op. cit. 6.

^{page 332 note 3} Stanley, A Few Observations, 7; cf. Arnold, op. cit. 33-5.

^{page 332 note 4} Stanley, op. cit. 15-17; cf. Arnold, op. cit. 43-6.

^{page 332 note 5} Arnold, op. cit. 19-20; cf. Stanley, op. cit. 34. In their mutual respect for the force of Irish nationalism Whately’s influence is perhaps discernible. Arnold’s pamphlet is lengthier and more technical than either of Stanley’s. Although their arguments run parallel, there is no indication that Stanley drew directly on Arnold. His Few Observations are based mainly upon data collected in Ireland in 1835 (see MS notebook, Cheshire Record Office). Clough described the pamphlet as ‘very good, though not particularly powerful, but true and sensible’ (Correspondence of Arthur Hugh Clough, ed. F. Mulhauser, 1957, 1, 37). For a valuable exposition and analysis of liberal opinion on the Catholic question, see U. Henriques, Religious Toleration in England, 1787-1833, 1961, 136-74.

^{page 332 note 6} For the role of the Subscription issue—so often undervalued—among the Broad Churchmen, see C. R. Sanders, Coleridge and the Broad Church Movement, 1942, esp. 100-20, for Arnold.

^{page 333 note 1} Hansard, Third series, 1840, LIV, 552. The petition was presented by Whately, but largely initiated by Canon Charles Wodehouse of Norwich Cathedral. See also Stanley, Memoirs, 70-1.

^{page 333 note 2} Hansard, vol. cit. 556-9. The speech was later published with notes drafted by Arthur Stanley (see Prothero, op. cit. 1, 248-9), emphasising, with evidence from the English divines, the intentionally conciliatory, non-literal character of the Articles. Reference here is to the reprint in Addresses and Charges, 81-122.

^{page 333 note 3} Addresses and Charges, 83.

^{page 333 note 4} Addresses and Charges, 87. The speech was vigorously attacked by Blomfield (Hansard, vol. cit. 559-63. Stanley’s subsequent criticism of rigid formularies, notably the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed (see Charge of 1845 in Addresses and Charges, 38-9) indicates that his Lords’ speech was based upon personal convictions as much as any pressure from the Broad Churchmen. For Arthur Stanley’s position at this time see Prothero, op. cit. 1, 224-30).

^{page 333 note 5} Rugby MS, Arnold to Edward Stanley, 5 December 1833. Arthur Stanley was a living rebuff to ‘those who wish the school ill for my sake . . . ready to say that the boys were taught politics and not taught to be scholars.’

^{page 334 note 1} Letters to the Sheffield Courant, no. n, 1832; Miscellaneous Works, 213. Arnold had a tenuous connection with the aristocracy through his sister’s marriage with the seventh earl of Cavan in 1814.

^{page 334 note 2} My italics. Bodleian MS, Arnold to Coleridge, 4 November 1829. Arnold adds, ‘you will understand that in saying all this I do not wish it to go beyond yourself.’ Cf. to J. T. Coleridge, 3 November 1831, ‘I never disguise or suppress my opinions, but I have been and am most religiously careful not to influence my boys with them’ ( Stanley, , Life, 1, 249 Google Scholar).

^{page 334 note 3} ‘Arthur was a running commentary upon Arnold’s Church Reform—knowing so well what he meant by this, what led him to that.. .’ (Stanley, Memoirs, 300). See also Arthur Stanley’s insertion of an Arnoldian passage on schism in his father’s installation sermon (Sermon . . . preached at his Installation, Norwich 1837, 11-13). Arnold was ignorant of the insertion. See Rugby MS to Arthur Stanley, 20 September 1837, ‘I thank you ... for the copy of your father’s sermon. With what he says about schism I quite concur.’ For Edward Stanley’s admiration for his son’s intellect, see Hare, Biographical Sketches, 1895, 49.

^{page 334 note 4} Thomas Arnold (Jr.), op. cit. 23.

^{page 334 note 5} For details of these see mainly Prothero, passim; Stanley, Memoirs, passim; Augustus J. C Hare, op. cit. 21-54. Arnold heard Arthur Stanley’s first sermon at Bergh Apton, Norfolk, in January 1840 (Hare, op. cit. 41).

^{page 335 note 1} Edward Stanley’s sister-in-law, Maria Leycester, married Augustus Hare in 1829. For the Stanley/Hare relationship see Augustus J. C Hare’s The Story of my Life, 1896, 1, passim and Memorials of a Quiet Life, 1884, passim.

^{page 335 note 2} See, for example, Bunsen, op. cit. 1,504,11, 35; Whately, op, cit. I, 415; Robinson, op. cit. 569 (for Wordsworth also); Mulhauser, op. cit. 1, 60.

^{page 335 note 3} Whately to Stanley, 19 July 1842, Whately, op. cit. 11, 6-7.

^{page 335 note 4} From Clough’s Epilogue to Dispychus, quoted in J. I. Osborne, Arthur Hugh Clough, 1920, 35.

^{page 335 note 5} Stanley, Memoirs, 295. In this respect, and in his regard for their ‘manly simplicity’(op. cit. 300), Stanley seems to be a transitional figure in the progress towards muscular Christianity. As Jowett remarked to Dean Lake following a visit to Norwich in 1840, ‘The old Bishop, like Lee, is very undonnish’ (Memorials of W. C. Lake, ed. K. Lake, 1901,166).

^{page 336 note 1} Sermons on Christian Life and Doctrine, 1835, Preface, xi.

^{page 336 note 2} Stanley, Memoirs, 23.

^{page 336 note 3} Stanley, , Life, 1, 347 Google Scholar; entry in his Scottish journal, April 1831.

^{page 336 note 4} Stanley, Memoirs, 81-2.

^{page 336 note 5} Stanley, op. cit. 39.

^{page 336 note 6} I am at present examining this more exhaustively in a doctoral thesis entitled ‘The Diocese of Norwich 1780-1850’.

^{page 336 note 7} Cf. Stanley, Memoirs, 45-6, and Principles of Church Reform, ed. Jackson and Rogan, 1962, 65-6.

^{page 336 note 8} Rev. Alexander, J., A Brief Memoir of Edward Stanley, D.D., 1850,44-5Google Scholar. Alexander was the Dissenting minister involved. Cf. Principles, 137-8.

^{page 336 note 9} Arnold, Miscellaneous Works, 483-4.

^{page 337 note 1} Stanley, , Life, 1, 243 Google Scholar.