Catholic Opinion on the

Eastern (Question, 1876-1878

JOHN

P. Rossi

In the middle 1870s British society experienced the greatest debate over
foreign policy since the early days of the French Revolution: the dispute
known as the Eastern question. For two years the British political world was
divided by this issue as the country took sides between the Ottoman Empire,
the oppressor of the Christian Slavic peoples of the Balkans, and Czarist
Russia, the Slavs' protectors. What began as a diplomatic dispute became
through its religious dimension a moral, even ideological, issue. Responsibility for this transformation belonged to a strange coalition made up of English
radicals, a major portion of the Nonconformist community, and a considerable number of High Church Anglicans. They were joined later by the
greatest Victorian exponent of moral force in politics, William Ewart
Gladstone. Inexorably the Catholic community in Britain was drawn into
this dispute.
The major effect of the Eastern question on the Catholics was to deepen
their political relationship with the Conservative party, furthering a trend
that had been apparent for about a decade. In the past, British Catholics had
tended to be sympathetic to the Liberals on most issues, largely out of
gratitude for their help in securing civil and religious liberty for Catholics in
Britain and Ireland. This sympathy began to wane in the 1860s over complex
questions such as Italian unification, the territorial integrity of the papal
states, and the papal condemnation of liberalism in the Syllabus of Errors. In
the early 1870s the thorny question of denominational education, which was
supported by the Conservatives and vigorously opposed by the Nonconformist
wing of the Liberal party, drew the Catholics away from the Liberals. The
Catholics' dilemma of the late 1860s and early 1870s was a difficult one: they
had lost their enthusiasm for the Liberals and yet were not comfortable with
the Conservatives, a party that had a tradition of anti-Catholicism. This drift
of the Catholics away from the Liberals was intensified by Gladstone's
attacks on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in 1874 and 1875. The debates
on the Eastern question, which lasted from 1876 to 1878, profoundly added to
this process of alienation from the Liberals.
The Catholic community generally spoke with one voice on the Eastern
question. This had the effect of insulating it from the bitter controversy which
swept Britain for two years. A small group usually labeled "old Catholics,"
Mr. Rossi is professor of history in LaSalle College, Philadelphia,
vania.
54

Pennsyl-

CATHOLIC OPINION ON T H E EASTERN QUESTION

55

drawn mostly from a few aristocratic families, showed some sympathy for the
anti-Turkish protest movement. Although they were prestigious and not
without social significance, these "old Catholics" could not carry the Catholic
church in Britain with them.1 In one sense the Catholic reaction to the
Eastern issue was another step the in the long struggle for the soul of the
Catholic church in Britain. In this dispute the ultramontanesled by the
Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminister, Henry Edward Manningwould
take a decisive step along the road to victory. Thus the Eastern question, in a
small yet significant way, is inextricably linked with the history of the
Catholic community in Britain.
The Eastern issue first surfaced in the summer of 1876 when reports
filtered into Britain that terrible atrocities had been perpetrated against the
Bulgarians by irregular Turkish troops. At first these reports were dismissed
as exaggerated. The Conservative government in the person of Prime
Minister Benjamin Disraeli, for example, labeled them as "coffee house
babble." But it soon became clear that a massacre of between 12,000 and
25,000 people had occurred. Though this figure seems insignificant in an age
used to the many holocausts of the twentieth century, it shocked the tender
conscience of Victorian England and launched one of the greatest protest
movements in British history.
Catholic opinion quickly formed as the first outlines of the public dispute
over the agitation movement emerged. The Catholics' course was set for them
by the Vatican, which made it clear that its sympathies lay with the Ottoman
authorities, who had treated Catholics in the empire with some consideration.2 Russia, protector of the Orthodox Slavs, had been anathema to the
Vatican for a long time. Russia's brutal suppression of the Polish revolt of
1863 had intensified the Vatican's hostility. This anti-Russian theme was
never far from Catholic minds at any time in the dispute. For British
Catholics, Russia's sincerity as a protector of persecuted people never had any
validity.
Manning took his lead from the Vatican in the early stages of the Eastern
question, and most of the Catholic press acted accordingly. Though Catholics
expressed sympathy for the sufferings of the Bulgarians, it was clear that they
opposed any action which would jeopardize the rights of their coreligionists in
the Ottoman Empire. Some of their initial reactions were sharply antagonistic to Russia and to those English who sympathized with the Slavs. The
Weekly Register and Catholic Standard of London took a violently proTurkish line in the summer of 1876 from which it never deviated. The author
of its lead article for 22 July argued that the Bulgarians had brought the
atrocities on themselves by the "burnings, butcheries, ravagings, and other
1. Robert Blake, Disraeli (London, 1969), p. 603.
2. See R. T. Shannon, Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation of 1876 (London, 1963), p. 80,
n. 2, quoting Voice Delia Veritas.

56

CHURCH

HISTORY

abominations perpetrated by the emissaries of the Revolutionary Committees. . . . " T h u s , the Turkish reaction was one of understandable retaliation
and rage. 3
A similar view was expressed in a more restrained manner in the
Westminster Gazette. T h a t paper's restraint is not surprising, since its editor,
E. S. Purcell, had firm contacts among the "old Catholics" and was no
admirer of Manning. In his editorials Purcell argued that since "Eastern
Christianity is a dubious commodity and sharp government is necessary for
Eastern races, these things must not be gauged by Western tests." H e also
expressed the belief that British interests in this case were aligned with those
of the Catholics and required the maintenance of the Turkish empire. 4
Those who blamed the atrocities on the actions of secret societies, a point
which initially appealed to Disraeli, found a sympathetic reception in certain
Catholic circles. This view was endorsed by even so circumspect ajournai as
the Jesuit-controlled The Month, then edited by H e n r y J . Coleridge, brother
of the Lord Chief Justice. The Month was one of the few Catholic journals, if
not the only one, that was not under Manning's direct or indirect influence. 5
T h e author of an article that appeared in August, "Catholic Aspects of the
Eastern Question," wrote sarcastically about the press's sympathy for the
Bulgarian Christians and made a comparison with the situation in Italy in
the 1860s where contented populations had been stirred u p by secret societies
and cheered on by the British to overthrow their legitimate government. 6
Shortly thereafter, M a n n i n g picked u p the idea that secret societies were at
work in Bulgaria. In his capacity as Cardinal-Archbishop he preached a
sermon at Kensington Cathedral in which be blamed the trouble in the
Ottoman Empire on the work of agitators and secret societies. They have
been responsible, he said, for much of Europe's troubles since 1848. 7 This
was a sentiment that could have come just as easily from the prime minister or
any self-respecting European conservative.
At least The Month was more moderate in its attitude toward Russia than
most Catholic journals. Its editors believed that there was some hope for
better behavior from Russia. And it differed from most Catholic journals in
that its editors supported the creation of an Orthodox Christian state in the
Balkans. 8
T h e formation of a distinctive Catholic line on the Eastern question
pro-Turkish, anti-Russian, suspicious of the agitation movement and of the
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Weekly Register and Catholic Standard, 22 July 1876.

Westminster Gazette, 29 July 1876.
Merial Trevor, Newman: Light in Winter, 2 vols. (London, 1963), 2: 391-392.
"Catholic Aspects of the Eastern Question," The Month, August 1876, p. 394.
The Catholic Times, 6 October 1876. Also see his letter to Ambrose Phillips de Lisle, in E. S.
Purcell, The Life of Cardinal Manning: Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, 2 vols.
(London, 1896), 2: 157.
8. "Catholic Aspects," p. 405.

CATHOLIC OPINION ON T H E EASTERN QUESTION

57

cause of Orthodox Christianscaused concern in those circles that took a

negative view of the T u r k s and wanted to press reforms on them. Gladstone,
who by late summer was beginning to think seriously about entering the fray
with another one of his famous pamphlets, believed that he saw through the
Catholic reaction. H e told Canon Malcolm MacColl, a leading H i g h Church
Anglican foe of Turkey, that the Catholic position was a power play on the
part of the Vatican to get full control of the Armenian Catholic church and to
ingratiate Catholics with the Ottoman authorities. 9 MacColl agreed that the
Catholic role was an obvious attempt to secure good treatment for Catholics,
and this led him to brand the conduct of the pope "as almost as bad as that of
the T u r k i s h government, in some respects worse, for he violates the most
sacred principle of his own religion in not condemning those crimes. . . ." 10
In early September 1876 Gladstone wrote the first, and most famous, of his
two pamphlets on the Eastern question, " T h e Bulgarian Horrors and the
Question of the East." T h i s long and impassioned denunciation of T u r k i s h
misrule gave renewed impetus to the atrocities agitation which had been
building support since early summer. Once again the reaction of the Catholic
community was uniform. Gladstone's reputation as a friend and benefactor of
Catholics had disappeared two years before when he had launched his public
attack on the Vatican decrees. 11 T h e Catholics' reaction had been sharp then,
and their suspicions of Gladstone had not diminished in the intervening years.
In the past, M a n n i n g had cooperated closely with Gladstone for Irish reforms
despite their personality differences. N o w he began moving closer to the
Conservatives. T h i s process was made palatable to him by the growing
similarity of views between the Conservatives and the Catholic hierarchy over
educational matters and fear of European revolution. 12 T h e emergence of the
Eastern issue helped to complete Manning's alienation from the Liberals and
from Gladstone in particular. W h e n M a n n i n g heard that Gladstone had
expressed a hope that someone would save the pope from his "wretchedly
false position" with regard to the Ottoman Empire, he reacted violently. H e
told Ambrose de Lisle, who had used this expression:
I am not aware of any position 'wretched' or otherwise taken up by the Pope. It is
clear to me as day that to light a fire by declamation against atrocities is the way to
make smoke. I can neither help Russian intrigue nor international revolution by
which the poor Bulgarians and Servians have been outraged and slaughtered
already.13
9. Gladstone to MacColl, 22 August 1876, in G. W. E. Russell, Malcolm MacColl: Memoirs
and Correspondence (London, 1914), p. 248.
10. MacColl to Gladstone, 23 August 1876, Gladstone Papers, additional manuscript 44243,
British Museum, London.
11. The most recent analysis of Gladstone's pamphlets on Vaticanism is by Josef Altholz, "The
Vatican Decrees Controversy, 1874-1880," Catholic Historical Review 57 (January 1971):
593-605.
12. Purcell, Manning, 2: 524.
13. Shane Leslie, Henry Edward Manning: His Life and Labours (New York, 1921), p. 250.

58

C H U R C H HISTORY

Following Manning's lead, the Catholic press fiercely denounced Gladstone's intervention in the Eastern issue, or, as one Catholic paper put it, his
substitution of pro-Russianism for anti-Vaticanism.14 Bishop Vaughan of
Salford, in The Tablet, which he had purchased in 1868, conceded the
formidable nature of Gladstone's charges but wondered why Gladstone had
not recognized the equally terrible injustices done to Poland by Russia. He
claimed that the Turks "never, of late years at least, massacred people for
their religious practices or beliefs," in contrast to the Russians who did.15
These points formed a constant refrain in the Catholic reaction to the
whole of the agitation movement over the Eastern question. Why was Russia
not seen as the oppressor of a large Christian population, the Poles? It was
difficult for Catholics to view the Russians, who had brutally crushed past
Polish revolts, as the friends of liberty anywhere.
Some members of the Catholic press were also suspicious about Gladstone's role in the agitation movement. The pamphlet on Bulgarian horrors
completed the destruction of his reputation in ultramontane circles that had
begun with his anti-Vatican writings. W. G. Ward, a long-time foe of
Gladstone and editor of the Dublin Review, challenged Gladstone's arguments over how to treat the Turks, especially his fiery condemnations of
Turkish immorality. Contrasting British policy in Ireland since Cromwell
with Turkish treatment of the Slavs, he noted, "A little more sack cloth and
ashes would, in truth, be becoming when Mr. Gladstone next expostulates
with foreign nations on the score of humanity toward insurgents."16 To
Ward, Gladstone was simply guilty of reckless ambition. Similarly, the editor
of another Irish Catholic paper, The Examiner and Northern Star of Belfast,
poked fun at Gladstone's suggestion of a federal solution for the Christian
provinces of the Ottoman Empire. "Now that he had become a Home Ruler
for Bosnia, Bulgaria, and Herzegovina who knows but that he may end by
seeing self-government is also good for Ireland."17
Gladstone's intervention plus the growing role of Russia on the side of the
Bulgarians combined to make the Catholic community in Britain suspicious
of any overt involvement in the Eastern question. During the fall of 1876, as
the protest movement against Turkey mounted in intensity, Catholic involvement was minimal. R. T. Shannon, in his detailed study of the agitation
movement in 1876, reports that of 455 petitions received by the British
government between September and December 1876 none came from a
specifically Catholic source.18 Catholic negativism on the Eastern issue went
14. Weekly Register and Catholic Standard, 30 September 1876.
15. The Tablet, 9 September 1876. Vaughan, an ultramontane like Manning, had passed on the
editorship of The Tablet to his assistant, George Elliot Ranken, in 1872.
16. "The Impending War," The Dublin Review, n.s. 28 (October 1876):503.
17. Ulster Examiner and Northern Star, 9 September 1876.
18. Shannon, Gladstone, p. 150.

CATHOLIC OPINION ON T H E EASTERN QUESTION

59

beyond the protest movement. In general, Catholics either showed no support

for the rights of the Slavic Christian population of the Ottoman Empire or
took a very moderate line in criticizing the Turks. Manning told the Marquis
of Ripon, one of the most influential lay Catholics, that he could support
limited autonomy for the Christian subjects of the Porte. This view had been
espoused initially by William E. Forster, a moderate Liberal who journeyed
to the Ottoman Empire in the early fall of 1876. Manning's support of
Forster's plan was seen as a ploy to undercut the strength of the agitation
movement, which demanded total withdrawal of Ottoman control from the
Christian provinces. Forster's plan certainly angered Gladstone, who considered it to be typical of everything Forster did, well-intentioned but mischievous.19 Manning still feared Russia and wanted Russian influence barred
from any area liberated from Ottoman rule. Ripon in essence agreed with the
Manning-Forster line, but he was reluctant to involve himself in the
dispute.20
What also worried the Catholic press was the partisanship that they saw
creeping into the atrocities agitation since the summer. In their view, the
agitation was becoming a vehicle for attacking the Conservative government.
It was attracting radicals and extreme Liberals whose positions on most social
and political issues were anathema to Catholics. This view not only colored
the Catholics' response to Gladstone's pamphlets, but it also influenced their
reactions to various ideas on how to deal with the Eastern question that were
put forth in the fall and winter of 1876. For instance, Bishop Herbert
Vaughan of Salford, an ultramontane like Manning, opposed the call for a
special session of parliament because he believed it was intended to embarrass
the government. "No foreign policy of a practical kind superior to that which
is substantially pursued by the Government has been presented to us by the
gentlemen whose speeches have recently set this country in a blaze, he said."21
Disraeli could not have put it better.
It was precisely the question of why the country was being aroused that
brought out the conservative tendencies of the Catholics. All the attempts to
involve the most famous Catholic, John Henry Newman, failed. He too
rejected the idea of using meetings that inflamed the people. But he lacked a
clear alternative to put forth.22
A series of articles on the Eastern question that clearly reflected Manning's
19. Gladstone to Granville, 18 October 1876, in Agatha Ramm, ed., The Political Correspondence of William Gladstone and Lord Granville, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1962), 1: 14-15.
20. Manning to Ripon, 4 October 1876, Marquis of Ripon Papers, additional manuscript
43545, British Museum, London. Ripon to Manning, 6 October 1876, ibid.
21. Manchester Guardian, 1 October 1876.
22. Newman to R. W. Church, 5 October 1876, in John Henry Newman, The Letters and
Diaries of John Henry Newman, ed. Charles S. Dessain and Thomas Gornall, 31 vols.
(Oxford, 1975-), 28: 123.

60

CHURCH

HISTORY

thinking were published in The Tablet. T h e authors of the articles acknowledged that a counter-policy, autonomy for the Christian provinces of the
Ottoman Empire, had emerged since Gladstone's intervention. But they were
not impressed by his other recommendations. They did not believe, for
example, that the agitation movement had convinced the government to
change its policy on the Eastern question. Moreover, they argued that the
agitation movement, and Gladstone in particular, was responsible for
undermining the possibility of any successful intervention of the British
government.
Gladstone and his friends did their best to persuade Russia and the panslavist
party that they need take no account of the British Government or its schemes,
and that as far as England was concerned they would have a clear field to carry
out their designs in their own way. . . . They [Gladstone's friends] are doing all
they can to convince Russia that she may safely take the whole settlement of the
Eastern Question into her own hands.23
T h i s is a succinct summary of the argument made by moderate Conservatives
in defense of the government's foreign policy. Catholic opinion was running
in a groove that threw it into the arms of the Disraeli government.
In late autumn the agitation movement began planning an anti-Turkish
conference to be held at Saint J a m e s H a l l in London on 8 December. T h e
purpose of the conference was to dramatize the wrongs done to the Slavic
people by the T u r k s , to pressure the government to reverse its pro-Turkish
line, as well as to call for the creation of some form of self-government for the
Christian people of the Ottoman Empire. 2 4
An attempt was made by the conveners of the conference to enlist the
support of various influential religious groups in Britain. In so far as
Catholics were concerned, this attempt failed. One of the organizers was A. J .
Mundella, a Liberal member of Parliament from Sheffield. H e consulted
Gladstone, who recommended a number of prominent Catholics who might
be willing to endorse the conference. H e was told by Gladstone to contact a
select group of " R o m a n Catholics of station and character," including Lord
Acton, Lord Camoys, Panizzi (former chief librarian of the British
M u s e u m ) , Ambrose de Lisle, and Lord Kenmare. 2 5 Gladstone personally
undertook to ask N e w m a n , who was probably the best-known Catholic in
Britain, to serve as convener of the conference. N e w m a n refused in a letter
that caused Gladstone considerable pain. While rejoicing "at so powerful a
demonstration in behalf of so great a cause," N e w m a n said that certain

23. The Tablet, 1 October 1876.

24. A good brief survey of the conference can be found in Robert Seton-Watson, Disraeli,
Gladstone, and the Eastern Question (London, 1935), pp. 110-115.
25. Gladstone to Mundella, 6 November 1876, A. J. Mundella Papers, fol. 3, University of
Sheffield Library, Sheffield.

CATHOLIC OPINION ON T H E EASTERN QUESTION

61

circumstances made it impossible for him to serve. H e specifically mentioned

that some of the conveners such as George Holyoake, the prominent atheist,
were obnoxious to Catholics. H e also noted the general oppositon of the
Catholic hierarchy to the agitation movement. 26 Gladstone was deeply
disturbed by this example of what he described as the way Catholicism could
destroy the will of a powerful conscience like Newman's. 2 7
T h e M a r q u i s of Ripon, the best-known lay Catholic convert, similarly
refused to involve himself in the conference. H e gave as his reason his desire
to preserve his freedom of action should the Eastern issue come before
parliament. 2 8 In fact, Ripon was still angry at Gladstone for his pamphlets on
Vaticanism, in particular for a reference to converts surrendering their
mental and moral freedom when they joined the Catholic church. Ripon
believed that this reference was aimed at him and found it difficult to forgive
Gladstone's slight. 29
A handful of Catholics, most prominently Acton, de Lisle, and Lord
Camoys, did serve as conveners, but the overwhelming voice of the Catholic
church was negative. T h e Catholic press came down very harshly against the
Saint J a m e s Hall Conference. Purcell was saddened by the conference. In a
lead article in his Westminster Gazette, which was in many ways the most
politically moderate Catholic journal, he called the conference a simple
"party move." T h i s view was shared by most other Catholic journals. T h e
lack of Catholic conveners showed good common sense, according to Purcell,
and arose from two factors: a feeling of confidence in the foreign policy of the
government, "and the extensive impressions among Catholics to the effect
that so far as they are concerned, they would gain but little from a substitute
of Russian for Turkish domination." 3 0
While the assessment of the conference in The Westminster Gazette was
relatively mild, the reactions in the other Catholic papers were positively
violent. T h e kindest thing said about the conference in The Weekly Register
and Catholic Standard was that it was " a n egregious mistake," attributed to
Gladstone's "bad example." In that paper it also was described as being "in
open defiance of all those obvious dictates of common sense, of good taste, of
patriotism, and of loyalty." 31
T h e most extensive critical analysis of the conference came from the
influential Catholic Times. Its editors labeled the conference an example of
"selfish, immoral, and unpatriotic tactics by the Liberal Party." W h a t was
26. Shannon, Gladstone, p. 196.
27. Ibid.
28. See his letter to the pro-Turkish sympathizer Lord Denbigh, 2 January 1877, Ripon
Papers, additional manuscript 43626.
29. See John Rossi, "Lord Ripon's Resumption of Political Activity, 1878-1880," Recusant
History, Spring 1971, p. 63.
30. Westminster Gazette, 16 December 1876.
31. Weekly Register and Catholic Standard, 9 December 1876.

62

C H U R C H HISTORY

worse, they argued, was that the conference undermined the government at a
crucial moment in negotiations with Russia and the Ottoman Empire. They
characterized the organizers of the conference, and Gladstone in particular,
as "discomforted politicians" whose hope for a Russian victory over Turkey
was an example of "stupid imbecility." They went even further to specifically
criticize prominent Anglicans for the role they played in the conference. They
charged that the Anglicans' motive was "perfectly intelligible. They know
that Russians, like themselves, are deadly enemies of Christian unity, the
Holy See, and the Catholic Church, and have substituted the pagan doctrine
of national communities so dear to their own hearts, for the universal
kingdom of Christ. Therefore, let Russia prevail. Schism has no more
formidable champion."32
With these views dominating the Catholic press, it is no wonder that Lord
Derby, the foreign secretary, could half jokingly refer to them as "good
Turks." As he told Lord Carnavon, the colonial secretary, the Catholics
behaved well over the Eastern question because "they love Mohammedon
better than a heretic. . . ,"33 Strangely enough this labored witticism contained a germ of truth. Lord Granville, Liberal leader in the House of Lords
and no sympathizer with the agitation movement, heard essentially the same
thing from his sister, Lady Georgiana Fullerton. Cardinal Franchi told her
that while the Vatican "hated and detested the Turks, for all their abomination," the question was one of a choice of evils, Turkey or Russia. In this case
the lesser evil was Turkey. 34 To Gladstone, all this talk of lesser evils was an
abomination. He told Sir Arthur Gordon, his long time confidant, that he was
disgusted with the conduct of the Vatican and had "with difficulty, restrained
myself from giving tongue about it in public."35
In the concluding phase of the Eastern question, from approximately early
1877 until the issue died out in the late summer of 1878, Catholic opinion
remained resolutely opposed to British intervention in favor of the Orthodox
Christian population of the Ottoman Empire. During these eighteen months,
the Catholic church, unofficially and with varying degrees of enthusiasm,
supported the anti-Russian, pro-Turkish policy followed by Disraeli's
government. Manning, who on many social questions was something of a
radical, believed in an aggressive foreign policy. Because of his sympathy for
the government's hard line against Russia, he even went so far as to tell the
32. Catholic Times, 15 December 1876.
33. Derby to Carnavon, [late 1876], in Arthur Hardinge, The Life of Henry Edward Molyneux
Herbert, Fourth Earl of Carnarvon, 1831-1890, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1925), 2: 340, n. 1.
34. Fullerton to Granville, 26 December 1876, Second Earl Granville Papers, file 30/29/26B,
Public Record Office, London.
35. Gladstone to Gordon, 9 January 1877, in Paul Knaplund, ed., "The Gladstone-Gordon
Correspondence, 1851-1896," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 51,
no. 4, p. 71.

CATHOLIC OPINION ON T H E EASTERN QUESTION

63

Conservatives how they might best secure the Catholic vote in future
elections. His ideas about the election were put before the cabinet by the
colonial secretary, Lord Carnavon.36 Manning was motivated not only by his
distrust of Russia but also by his growing hostility toward the Liberals, from
whom he had been alienated since the controversy over the issue of papal
infallibility. By the middle 1870s he was drifting toward an unofficial
alliance between the Catholics and the Conservatives, with whom he agreed
on many issues. His personal antipathy to Gladstone also played an
important part in this shift of alliance.
Catholic sympathy for the government's foreign policy was reinforced by
Gladstone's emergence as spokesman for the more advanced Liberals after
1876. It was Gladstone, for example, who tried to keep the agitation issue
alive within Liberal circles after the Saint James Hall Conference. His
prominence in the agitation movement virtually ensured a negative reaction
from influential Catholics.
Early in the 1877 session of Parliament Gladstone became discouraged
with the timidity of the Liberal leadership's attacks on the government's
foreign policy. He decided to try to galvanize Parliament and opinion outside
Westminster by offering a series of dramatic resolutions that would express a
lack of confidence in the government's Eastern policy. In the most important
of these resolutions he declared that the Ottoman Empire, by its policy of
coercion of the Orthodox Christian populations, had forfeited the support of
Britain. He called for some form of autonomy "without the imposition of
foreign domination."37 This action unleashed the bitter feelings engendered
by the Eastern issue, feelings that had lain dormant since December.
Once again, Catholic opinion was largely negative concerning Gladstone's
call for action against Turkey. Catholics rejected especially the implication
behind the resolutions that some form of coercion would be necessary. At the
same time there was considerable feeling that the debate over these resolutions would have the beneficial effect of clearing the air on the possibility of
Britain being drawn into a war against Russia on behalf of the Ottoman
Empire.38 Probably the sharpest Catholic attack on Gladstone and the
Liberal critics of the government came in the pages of The Tablet. Its editors
found nothing to praise in the entire debate that was developing over the
resolutions. In fact they described the resolutions themselves as "insane," "a
program of froth and wind." What especially worried them was their
36. Purcell, Manning, 2: 525.
37. Seton-Watson, The Eastern Question, p. 182.
38. The normally anti-Liberal Ulster Examiner and Northern Star was complimentary to
Gladstone, for once, over his resolutions. "The country was drifting, and most probably into
War. The country ought to be thankful that Mr. Gladstone saved her from another Crimea"
{Ulster Examiner and Northern Star, 10 May 1877). See also "Review of Current Events,"
The Month, March 1877, pp. 390-394.

64

CHURCH HISTORY

conviction that the impact of the resolutions would be to strengthen Russia,

precisely the charge made by Conservative opponents of the resolutions. T h e
editors of The Tablet characterized Gladstone's main speech in support of his
resolutions and his call for dramatic action as one long "laboured apology for
Russia." 3 9
T h e only group of Catholics of any consequence in Parliament, the Irish
H o m e Rule supporters, were thrown into disarray over what course to follow
in the parliamentary debate itself.40 Most Irish Catholics were suspicious of
anything connected with Gladstone, an attitude that had deepened since the
Vaticanism controversy. T h e y also doubted his sincerity on the Eastern issue.
Moreover, they were concerned that British intervention might involve
Ireland in a w a r that meant nothing to them and, what is worse, ally Ireland
on the side of Russia with its miserable record toward Catholics. T h e Polish
issue remained the key one for the Irish, who saw in it a parallel with their
own sufferings at the hands of the English. H . Owen Lewis, a H o m e Rule
member of Parliament for the Carlow Boroughs, summed u p Irish feelings
over the Russian role in the Eastern question in a long correspondence with
PurcelPs Westminster
Gazette.
As an Irishman, the memory of the penal laws compels me to sympathize with the
Poles, who are suffering for conscience sake, not with their oppressors, even
though the latter are engaged in a bloody and wanton destruction of Mohammedan life, in the name of humantiy. . . . Once more my sympathies as a Catholic are
with the country [Turkey] where our faith is free and its professors unmolested; as
a Legitimist with a sovereign who represents the principle of authority; as an
honest man with a people who are gallantly fighting against overwhelming
numbers.41
Although Lewis was more conservative than most of his fellow Irish
members of Parliament, he undoubtedly spoke for many of them who were
critical of consistent Liberal opposition to the government's policy in the East.
Sir Charles Dilke, a leading Liberal expert on foreign policy matters, had
believed all along that the Liberal party would not be able to count upon the
H o m e Rulers to pressure T u r k e y to grant any concessions to their Orthodox
Christian subjects. 42 Gladstone was also aware of this reluctance of the Irish
to act against T u r k e y and attributed it to their slavish desire to follow the
Vatican. H e characterized them as acting "in deference to the trumpet
39. The Tablet, 5 and 12 May 1877. They were supported in this view by the Weekly Register
and Catholic Standard, 5 May 1877.
40. In the 1874-1880 Parliament there were 52 Catholic members: 50 Home Rulers and two
Liberals. See The Catholic Directory, Ecclesiastical Register, and Almanac (London, 1880),
p. 78.
41. Westminster Gazette, 2 February 1878.
42. Dilke to Mrs. Mark Pattison, 11 February 1877, Sir Charles Dilke Papers, additional
manuscript 43903, British Museum, London, summarizes an analysis of the situation made
by Sir William Harcourt.

CATHOLIC OPINION ON T H E EASTERN QUESTION

65

sounded from Rome." 4 3 In the debate that had taken place in M a y 1877 over
Gladstone's resolutions, the Liberals had mounted a feeble attack on the
government's foreign policy. In the process they lost the support of the H o m e
Rulers. T h e Irish ministers of Parliament split badly: 19 voted with the
government, 11 with Gladstone, while 20 (including Charles Parnell, Isaac
Butt, and Joseph Biggar) abstained. 44
T h e failure of the Irish to see the justice of the case against T u r k i s h
oppression in the East profoundly disturbed Gladstone. In the long concluding section of his study of Gladstone's relationship to the agitation movement,
R. T . Shannon argues that Irish negativism had the effect of galvanizing
Gladstone's thinking about further moves in the direction of Irish selfgovernment. In the late 1870s, according to Shannon, Gladstone began to see
the parallel between Ireland's demands for autonomy and Bulgaria's revolt
from Turkish rule. If Shannon is correct, then the impact of the Eastern issue
went beyond the realm of foreign policy and into the essence of Britain's
relationship with Ireland, an issue that dominated the next decade. 45
In the last year of the Eastern crisis, roughly from M a y 1877 until the
Congress of Berlin ended the issue in the summer of 1878, opinion in Britain
hardened against Russia. In fact the British attitude turned increasingly
anti-Russian in proportion to Russia's successes in the war that had broken
out with Turkey. T h e Disraeli government skillfully nurtured this Russophobia and used it against those who opposed British Eastern policy. It was
in late February and early M a r c h of 1878, during this heyday of jingoism
(the very word was coined at this time), that a London mob broke the
windows of Gladstone's home and dispersed pro-peace rallies. Catholic
opinion during this period showed restraint. Strong sentiment in favor of the
Ottoman Empire continued to be expressed in various Catholic circles.
However, the Catholics who spoke out on the issue tended to favor neutrality,
even if it was a neutrality that had a strong pro-Turkish bias to it. N o
Catholic journal spoke out in favor of joining T u r k e y in the war.
Catholic confusion over the proper course to follow surfaced very clearly in
February 1878 when Disraeli requested supplementary funds in the face of
extensive Russian military gains in the war. M a n y people in England feared
that this was a preliminary step to a declaration of war. Probably the most
anti-Russian stance in a Catholic source was taken by the editors of the
Weekly Registerand Catholic Standard, reflecting no doubt the jingoism that
was strongest in London and the south of England. In J a n u a r y 1878, the
editors had stated that on grounds of interest as well as simple justice
Catholics should range themselves on the side of T u r k e y in the struggle with
43. Gladstone to Madame Novikov, 6 February 1877, in Shannon, Gladstone, p. 276, n. 4.
44. Irish Times, 15 May 1877.
45. See Shannon, Gladstone, pp. 274-281.

66

CHURCH

HISTORY

Russia. T h e y warned that to substitute Russia for T u r k e y in the East would

mean disaster for true Christianity. From the beginning Russia had "persecuted the Catholics in communion with Rome, and the extension of her rule
was synonymous with the extension of the area of persecution." 46 Still, they
did not call for a declaration of war.
Later the Weekly Register and Catholic Standard endorsed the vote for
supplementary funds on the gounds that it would demonstrate to Russia that
the government had the full support of the English people and Parliament. 4 7
T h i s aggressive view was shared in very harsh terms by the editors of The
Tablet, also in London. Taking a new tack, they argued that the responsibility would rest with those "in this country who have encouraged [Russia] to
believe that we shall resist nothing." 4 8 At approximately the same time that
these strong views were being expressed in the Catholic press which was
under Manning's influence, Sir Charles Dilke feared that England was being
drawn into the war. After talking with M a n n i n g , he made an entry in his
diary stating that the cardinal was a "ferocious Jingo." 4 9
T h e only Catholic journal to stand apart from this trend of aggressive
opinion and to question the benefits of endorsing the government's request for
additional funds was Purcell's Westminster Gazette. Purcell's relationship
with Ambrose de Lisle put him in touch with prominent Liberals, including
Gladstone. Perhaps as a result of this contact, Purcell was willing to support
the vote for extra funds but only if it was clear that the money would be used
to liberate the Eastern Christians from Turkish rule. 50 This was hardly the
sense in which Disraeli had requested the money.
An interesting side of this issue was the role played by the Irish members of
Parliament. Once again the H o m e Rulers were divided between a moderate
wing that looked to Butt for leadership and a more radical faction which
preferred to act with neither major party. Butt in general supported the
government's conduct of foreign affairs and tried to lead his followers to back
the government. This created great strains in the party. T h e Irish Catholic
press as well as the nonsectarian Irish Times took exception to the general
support of the government on the grounds that it did not suit Irish interests.
O n the vote of credit for supplementary funds, the editors of the Ulster
Examiner counseled a policy of neutrality. They argued that the wisest
course for the H o m e Rulers was to avoid committing themselves, since
Ireland would not benefit in any way. They also believed that this would be a
good opportunity to punish the Liberals for their lack of support of H o m e
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

Weekly Register and Catholic Standard, 26 January 1878.

Ibid., 2 February 1878.
The Tablet, 2 February 1878.
Roy Jenkins, Sir Charles Dilke (London, 1958), p. 109.
Westminster Gazette, 26 January 1878.

CATHOLIC OPINION ON T H E EASTERN QUESTION

67

Rule. It clearly would demonstrate Irish political independence.51 This

attitude was endorsed by the Universe. The author of a lead article argued
that the Irish members of Parliament should use this issue to prove to the two
English parties that Irish needs must be attended to. He urged them not to
support either major party as long as the parties refused justice for Ireland.52
Just how the Irish were to bargain so creatively neither The Ulster
Examiner's nor The Universe's editors were able to spell out. The Irish votes
were not needed by the government, and they would not make much of an
addition to the critics of the government's foreign policy.
Recommendations such as those made by these two papers convinced Lord
Hartington, Liberal leader in the House of Commons, to end the formal
connection between the Home Rulers and the Liberals. The Irish were too
unstable, he said, even if they tenuously accepted the Liberal whip.53 The
chief Liberal whip, W. P. Adam, disagreed with Hartington on this point and
argued that the Irish could be nurtured cheaply with a few minor concessions.
Hartington's answer was simple: he did not want to alienate them, he just
preferred not leading them.54
In the final vote on the supplementary credits, the Home Rulers generally
followed the advice of the Irish press and abstained.55 The tragedy for the
Liberal opposition on this vote is that there was considerable Irish sentiment
for voting against the government on the gounds that it would be a good way
to embarrass the government and demonstrate that Ireland should not be
taken for granted by either party.56 But Hartington's views had won out, and
no attempt was made to coordinate Liberal opposition to the vote with the
Irish party.
In the last months of the Eastern crisis Catholic opinion as reflected in
Catholic newspapers and journals remained essentially unchanged from the
stance adopted in the fall of 1876. The Catholics profoundly shared the
Russophobia of the Disraeli government while avoiding the worst cases of
Turkophilism that became an obsession with some Conservatives. Few
Catholics showed any sympathy for opposing the government's foreign policy
in the last months of the Eastern dispute. Manning remained very jingoistic
throughout the period, and he both directly and indirectly influenced Catholic
views. Early in 1878 war on behalf of Turkey, a grim repetition of the
Crimean war, was a real possibility and one that few Catholic journals looked
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.

Ulster Examiner and Northern Star, 2 February 1878.

Universe, 9 February 1878.
Hartington to Granville, 31 December 1877, Granville Papers, file 30/29/26A.
Hartington to Granville, 9 January 1878, Granville Papers.
The Home Rulers were deeply divided on the proper course to follow. The decision to
abstain was made by a vote of 17 to 3; ten members of Parliament walked out of the meeting
without expressing an opinion. Times (London), 1 February 1878, p. 8.
56. Irish Nation, 2 February 1878.

68

CHURCH

HISTORY

forward to. In the words of The Universe, a w a r for the defense of the
Ottoman empire, whatever the offenses of Russia, would be a wanton act. N o
real British interest was at stake, and war was unjustified until such was the
case. 57 One of the few journals to argue that British interests were involved in
this issue was the Weekly Register and Catholic Standard. Its editors had
consistently followed a violently pro-Turkish line. They believed that
England had never been in a better position for war, while Russia was never
more poorly prepared. 5 8 Developing this point at greater length, they said
that insurrection was breaking out in Russian-occupied Roumelia while the
main Russian army was wracked by disease. N o w was the time for England
to throw its weight into the balance.
The weakness of Russia is so plain that all can see it. Such is the position, indeed,
that, even without fighting, a mere refusal to negotiate on our part is enough to do
all but ruin her. If we fight, her ruin is certain, and certain within a few weeks of
the declaration of war.59
In the end w a r was avoided by skillful diplomacy, although for a time in
the spring of 1878 it appeared that a conflict would break out. Disraeli and
Lord Salisbury, the foreign secretary, negotiated a settlement of the Eastern
question with the Russians which was ratified at the Congress of Berlin that
met in J u n e and J u l y 1878. It proved to be the last coup the Conservatives
would have; the political tide which had run in their favor since before the
general election of 1874 began to turn against them in the fall of 1878
following the outbreak of wars in Afghanistan and South Africa.
T h e Catholic community was niggardly in their praise of the Berlin
settlement. At the same time they found the Liberal attacks on the treaty
petty. W h e n Lord Hartington, with some reluctance, decided to offer a series
of motions attacking the treaty, they were overwhelmingly rejected 338 to
195. 60 Only nine H o m e Rulers voted with the Liberals, by far the poorest
performance the opposition had had in attracting Irish support'against the
government's foreign policy. 61
57. Universe, 27 April 1878. A week later the author of one of its harshest lead articles declared,
"We have no love for the Russians, neither have we for the Turk. If the one massacred the
Bulgarians, the other tyrannized over Poland. As compared they are six of one and half
dozen of the other. Between them there is little choice, and if any there be, we freely admit
that it is in favour of the Turk, for he perpetrates his brutalities without the hypocritical
pretence of Christianity. But that is no reason that we should attack and [sic] evil and
formidable Russia without due and direct provocation; and all for the sake of propping up an
evil and incapable Turkey" (Universe, 4 May 1878).
58. Weekly Register and Catholic Standard, 27 April 1878.
59. Ibid., 4 May 1878.
60. On Hartington's lack of enthusiasm for offering these resolutions, see Esher's journal,
31 July 1878, Viscount Esher Papers, Churchill College, Cambridge University, Cambridge.
61. The Nation, 10 August 1878. Sixteen Home Rulers voted with the government, while the
remaining members of the party abstained. David Thornley, in his life of Isaac Butt, makes
the point that Butt's endorsement of the government at this point helped to destroy his hold

CATHOLIC OPINION ON T H E EASTERN QUESTION

69

After the Berlin conference, the Eastern issue disappeared as quickly as

it had surfaced in 1876. While British society had been bitterly divided by this
issue for two years, the Catholic community remained relatively insulated
from the controversy. T h e Catholic hierarchy, the Catholic press, and most
Catholic political figures took a unified stand on the Eastern dispute. T h e
tone was first set as early as the summer of 1876 by the Vatican when it
expressed sympathy for the Ottoman authorities in the face of the Bulgarian
revolt while at the same time remaining hostile to Russia for past persecutions
of Catholics. T h e ultramontane wing of the Catholic church in Britain took
its lead from the Vatican and, through the influence of Cardinal M a n n i n g ,
carried most the Catholic community with it. T h e r e were a few exceptions to
this rule, mainly "old Catholics" who had never trusted M a n n i n g or who
looked to N e w m a n for leadership. But these groups were small in number
and without leadership once N e w m a n refused to involve himself in the
matter. As a result the Catholic community in Britain spoke in one voice on
the Eastern questiona voice bitterly hostile of Russia, suspicious of Eastern
Christianity, and scornful of the agitation movement's pose of moral superiority.
In a sense the Eastern issue was another step on the path that carried the
Catholic church in Britain away from its former friendly relationship with
the Liberals and into a strained working relationship with the Conservatives.
M a n n i n g often said he trusted neither party, but the effect of Catholic actions
over the Eastern question was to bring him in line with Conservative policy. 62
For the next few years Catholics, especially the English Catholics, were
drawn into a deepening relationship with the Conservatives. T h e signs of this
phenomenon mounted throughout the late 1870s. T h e D u k e of Norfolk, a
Catholic and the premier peer of the realm, had been disenchanted with the
Liberals for some time, and in 1879 he openly threw his support to the
Conservatives. 63 D u r i n g the next year, in the general election of 1880, his
brother-in-law, Lord Edmond Talbot, was named as the Conservative
candidate for Burnley. H e was the only Catholic to stand for Parliament
outside of Ireland,,a fact that Conservatives made much of during the election
campaign. During that campaign it was clear that the Conservatives were
cultivating the Catholic vote, at least in England. M a n n i n g was supposed to
have made a deal with Disraeli to swing the Catholic vote of England to the
Conservativesa point he vigorously denied, but one that nevertheless was
widely believed. 64 T h e outcome of the election was confused. T h e Irish

over Irish public opinion. David Thornley, Isaac Butt and Home Rule (London, 1964),
p. 362.
62. Purcell, Manning, 2: 609.
63. Donald Southgate, The Passing of the Whigs (London, 1962), pp. 332-333.
64. Lord Sefton to Granville, 18 March 1880, Granville Papers, file 30/29/27A. A. Chapeau,
who for years worked on Cardinal Manning's career, reported to me in a letter of 24

70

CHURCH HISTORY

Catholics stayed with the Home Rulers, while their English coreligionists
swung to the Conservatives.65 This process culminated six years later with the
naming of Henry Matthews as the first Catholic member of Salisbury's
Conservative cabinet. This trend had predated the Eastern question, but that
emotional issue speeded up the process.
January 1972 that his examination of the remaining Manning papers convinced him that
the cardinal made no effort to help the Conservatives in the general election of 1880.
65. "Home and Foreign Affairs," Fortnightly Review 27 (May 1880):727.

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.