Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:32:00.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Popular Anti-Catholicism in England, 1850-1851*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

D. G. Paz
Get access

Extract

Traditional religious distinctions gradually eroded in eighteenth-century England under the impact of enlightenment rationalism: reason replaced revelation as the criterion for belief, order ousted enthusiasm in worship, and interdenominationalism blurred sectarian boundaries in philanthropic endeavors. But the French Revolution, economic troubles and radical political activity after 1815, and intellectual Romanticism put an end to co-operation and encouraged the growth of denominational self-consciousness. That rise of denominationalism led to the greatest conflict between the sects and the Establishment since perhaps the mid-seventeenth century. The clash began on the local level in the 1820s when the Church attempted to use its legal powers to collect rates; the events of 1828-1829 ushered in a period of conflict on the national level, as well. The Church turned to the state for support, only to find that Whigs and Liberals, in power for most of the period before 1874, were erastians and latitudinarians. So the Church in its turn became militant; high-churchmen in particular came to distrust Parliament and to emphasize the independent sources of clerical authority in sacerdotalism and the apostolic succession.

The period from roughly 1830 to 1870 was one of heightened religious tension. Nonconformists, having gained civil equality, now attempted to eliminate other symbols of the Anglican hegemony. Roman Catholics, sloughing off anglo-gallicanism for ultramontanism, asserted their spiritual claims and talked of converting England.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , Winter 1979 , pp. 331 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I thank Professor Irby C. Nichols, Jr., North Texas State University, who suggested that the topic was worth enquiry; Professor Josef L. Altholz, University of Minnesota, Ms. Eileen Mitchell, Ms. Susan Wood Paz, and Dr. Richard Rockwell, Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth Development, critiqued drafts of the paper. Computer funds from the University of Nebraska at Omaha assisted research; Mr. Steven L. Strong, University of Nebraska Computer Network, gave advice on programming. I read earlier versions of the paper at the Missouri Valley History Conference, Omaha, March 1978, and at the Graduate Social History Seminar, University of Birmingham, May 1978; I thank Dr. Dorothy Thompson and the members of the seminar for their comments.

References

1 Ward, W. R., Religion and Society in England, 1790-1850 (London, 1972), chs. ii and ivGoogle Scholar; Brose, Olive J., Church and Parliament: The Reshaping of the Church of England, 1828-1860 (Stanford and London, 1959), pp. 7–21.Google Scholar

2 Machin, G. I. T., Politics and the Churches in Great Britain, 1832 to 1867 (Oxford, 1977)Google Scholar, discusses religious tension at the national level.

3 Fraser, Derek, Urban Politics in Victorian England: The Structure of Politics in Victorian Cities (Leicester, 1976), pp. 10–14Google Scholar; and “Edward Baines,” in Hollis, Patricia, ed., Pressure from Without in Early Victorian Britain (New York, 1974), pp. 183–209Google Scholar; Newsome, David, The Parting of Friends: A Study of the Wilberforces and Henry Manning (London, 1966).Google Scholar

4 The creation of the hierarchy is of crucial importance for the English Roman Catholic Church's internal history (Bossy, John, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 [London, 1975], pp. 354–363Google Scholar).

5 The Times, 9, 14, 19 Oct. 1850; Morning Herald, 14 Oct 1850. The phrase “papal aggression” first appears in the national press in a letter from “A London Clergyman” (The Times, 24 Oct. 1850).

6 The Times, 22 Oct. 1850; Standard, 24 Oct. 1850; Record, 24 Oct. 1850; Illustrated London News, 26 Oct. 1850; Newman, J. H., Sermons Preached on Various Occasions, (London, 1898), pp. 121–159.Google Scholar

7 The Times, 29 Oct. 1850; Standard, 29 Oct. 1850; Ward, Wilfrid, The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, 2 vols. (London, 1897), 1: 540–542Google Scholar. The Times commented: “It will be seen that His Eminence the newly-appointed Cardinal has not been slow to exercise the authority of his recently acquired dignity.”

8 G. M. Young and W. D. Handcock, eds., English Historical Documents, 1833-1874, vol. 12, Pt. 1, of English Historical Documents, ed. Douglas, David C., (New York, 1956), pp. 365–366.Google Scholar

9 The Times, 30 Oct., 6, 9 Nov. 1850; Illustrated London News, 2, 9, Nov. 1850; Robert D. Storch, “Guy Fawkes Day and its Modern Fate: Popular Ritual, Conflict, and Social Solidarity on the South Coast, 1800-1900,” (paper read at the American Historical Association, San Francisco, 1978).

10 Russell, to Maltby, Edward, 4 Nov. 1850, Eng. Hist. Doc., pp. 367–369.Google Scholar

11 The Times, 11 Nov. 1850.

12 Ibid., 26, 28, 30 Oct. 1850.

13 The bishops were not united in their protests. J. B. Sumner, Archbishop of Canterbury, opposed the idea of requiring candidates for Parliament to bind themselves to repeal Roman Catholic Emancipation and urged laymen to remain in their parishes even if the priest were a ritualizer. Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter, who hated Whigs as much as Roman Catholics, charged that the Russell ministry's latitudinarian religious policy had encouraged Pius to proceed with his scheme. The Archbishop of Dublin, on the other hand, refused to sign any address that censured the government (The Times, 11, 20 Nov. 14 Dec. 1850; Philipotts to Francis Close, 19 Nov. 1842, Philipotts Papers, Exeter Cathedral Library, D&C Exeter/ED/11/14, by permission of the Dean and Chapter: Phillpotts to H. E. Graves, 11 Nov. 1850, ibid., ED/11/76; Richard Whateley to J. B. Sumner, 18 Dec. 1850, Edward Copleston Correspondence, Devon Record Office, 1149 M/F 185, by permission of Mrs. F. E. Copleston).

14 For announcements and reports of meetings, see The Times for November and December 1850, under the heading “The Papal Aggression.”

15 Ibid., 11, 15, 21, 29, 30 Nov. 1850; Illustrated London News, 30 Nov. 1850.

16 Rev. John Goodacre to the Ven. George Wilkins, 12 Nov. 1850. Archdeaconry of Nottingham Manuscripts, University of Nottingham Library, Misc. 281a.

17 See my “Papal Aggression: Creation of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in England, 1850” (M.A. thesis, North Texas State University, 1969), pp. 61–103.Google Scholar

18 Lemoinne, John, “La crise religieuse en Angleterre,” Revue des Deux Mondes, nouv. per., 6th ser., 1 (1851): 134–165Google Scholar, argues that the Pope is a spiritual leader; Havliĉek, Karel, ed., Slovan (Dec. 1850), pp. 1848–1849Google Scholar, uses Radical attacks on Russell's religious and Irish policies as an indirect censure of Austrian policy toward Bohemia (I owe the reference to Dr. Bruce Garver, University of Nebraska at Omaha); Benjamin Disraeli, Endymion, ch. 99, Nigel Penruddock is a composite of Wiseman, Newman, and Manning; Markus, Julia, “Bishop Blougram and the Literary Men,” Victorian Studies, 21 (1978); 171–196.Google Scholar

19 Hughes, Philip, “The Uproar of 1850: Who Raised the Cry of ‘Papal Aggression?’” Tablet, 196 (30 Sept. 1950): 284–285.Google Scholar

20 P. H. Catcheside, “Father Gentili and the Restoration of the Hierarchy: The Chastening Fruits of Some Recent Researches,” ibid. (23 Sept. 1950): 256-260; Corish, Patrick J., “The Restoration of the English Catholic Hierarchy,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 5th ser., 74 (1950): 289–307Google Scholar; Doran, Patrick, “The Restoration of the Hierarchy,” Clergy Review, new ser., 34 (1950): 161–178Google Scholar; Johnson, Humphrey J. T., “Parliament and the Restored Hierarchy: A Centenary and its Lesson,” Dublin Review, 224 (1950): 1–6Google Scholar; Albion, Gordon, “The Restoration of the Hierarchy, 1850,” in Beck, G. A., ed., The English Catholics, 1850-1950: Essays to Commemorate the Centenary of the Restoration of the Hierarchy of England and Wales (London, 1950), pp. 86–115Google Scholar; Philip Hughes, “The English Catholics in 1850,” ibid., pp. 42-85; Pearsall, Ronald, “The Earl of Shaftesbury and the ‘Papal Aggression,’” New Blackfriars, 52 (1971): 466–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The French Roman Catholic historians Aubert, R. (Le pontificat de Pie IX, 1846-1878 [Paris, 1952], pp. 67–68)Google Scholar and Rouquette, Robert (“Le centenaire de la hiérarchie catholique en Angleterre,” Etudes, 6th ser., 267 [1950]: 253–257)Google Scholar offer more judicious assessments than do their English counterparts.

21 Marriott, J. A. R., England Since Waterloo, (New York and London, 1922), pp. 195–196Google Scholar; Briggs, Asa, The Making of Modern England, 1783-1867: The Age of Improvement (New York, 1965), p. 284Google Scholar; Asa Briggs, 1851, Historical Association Pamphlets, General Series, no. 18 (London, 1972), pp. 10-20; Woodward, Llewellyn, The Age of Reform, 1815-1870, (Oxford, 1962), pp. 521–522Google Scholar; Halèvy, Elie, A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century, 6 vols. (New York, 1961), 4: 366–376.Google Scholar

22 Bruun, Geoffrey, Nineteenth-Century European Civilization, 1815-1914 (New York, 1960), pp. 90–91.Google Scholar

23 Conacher, J. B., “The Politics of the ‘Papal Aggression’ Crisis, 1850-1,” Canadian Catholic Historical Association Report (1959): 13–27Google Scholar; Ralls, Walter A., “The Papal Aggression of 1850: Its Background and Meaning” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1960)Google Scholar; Joyce, Thomas P., “The Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy in England and Wales, 1850: A Study of Certain Public Reactions” (Ph.D. dissertation, Gregorian University, 1966)Google Scholar, with abstract published by the Officium Libri Catholici, Rome, 1966 (for sight of which I thank Father Joyce); Norman, E. R., Anti-Catholicism in Victorian England (New York, 1968), pp. 52–79Google Scholar; Nikol, John, “The Oxford Movement in Decline: Lord John Russell, the Tractarians, and the Church of England, 1846-1852” (Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, 1972)Google Scholar; Klaus, Robert J., “The Pope, the Protestants, and the Irish: Papal Aggression and Anti-Catholicism in Mid-Nineteenth Century England” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1973)Google Scholar; Usherwood, Stephen, “‘No Popery’ Under Queen Victoria,” History Today, 23 (1973): 274–279Google Scholar; Ralls, Walter, “The Papal Aggression of 1850: A Study in Victorian Anti-Catholicism,” Church History, 43 (1974): 242–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Machin, G.I.T., “Lord John Russell and the Prelude to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, 1846-1851,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 25 (1974): 277–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nikol, John, “The Oxford Movement in Decline: Lord John Russell and the Tractarians, 1846-1852,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 43 (1974): 341–358Google Scholar; Walter L. Arnstein, “Mid-Victorian Anti-Catholicism: “A Reappraisal” (unpublished paper) see Albion, 8 (1976): 383Google Scholar; Machin, , Politics and the Churches, pp. 210–228Google Scholar. Mr. Homer H. Blass’ dissertation, “The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill and Popular Anti-Catholicism in England, 1850-1851,” which focuses on the rhetoric of anti-catholicism, should be completed at the University of Missouri by the end of 1979.

24 Redford, Arthur, Labour Migration in England, 1800-1850, ed. Chaloner, W. H., (New York, 1958), pp. 132–164Google Scholar; Curtis, L. P. Jr., Anglo-Saxons and Celts (Bridgeport, Conn., 1968), pp. 1–35Google Scholar; Gilley's, Sheridan essay in Holmes, Colin, ed., Immigrants and Minorities in British Society (London, 1978)Google Scholar, is the best and most recent study of attitudes toward the Irish.

25 Cahill, Gilbert A., “Irish Catholicism and English Toryism,” Review of Politics, 19 (1957): 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 See Altholz, Josef L., The Churches in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1967).Google Scholar

27 Cahill, Gilbert A., “The Protestant Association and the Anti-Maynooth Agitation of 1845,” Catholic Historical Review, 43 (1957): 273–308Google Scholar; Norman, E. R., “The Maynooth Question of 1845,” Irish Historical Studies, 15 (1967): 407–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Machin, G.I.T., “The Maynooth Grant, The Dissenters, and Disestablishment, 1845-1847,” English Historical Review, 81 (1967): 61–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pinnington, J. E., “Bishop Blomfield and St. Barnabas', Pimlico: The Limits of Ecclesiastical Authority,” Church Quarterly Review, 168 (1967): 289–296.Google Scholar

28 Daniels, Emil, “Die Engländer und die Gefahr einer französischen Landung zur Zeit Louis Philips und Napoleons III,” Delbruck-festschrift: Gesammelte Aufsatze, Professor Hans Delbruck zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstage (Berlin, 1905), pp. 257–291Google Scholar; Kamerick, John J., “Great Britain and the Continental Revolutions of 1848” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1950)Google Scholar; Hales, E.E.Y., Pio Nono: A Study in European Politics and Religion in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1954), pp. 142–144.Google Scholar

29 On the roles of Russell and Wiseman see my “Papal Aggression,” pp. 120-129.

30 The memorials are found in “Return of the Number of Addresses which have been presented to Her Majesty on the Subject of the Recent Measures taken by the Pope for the Establishment of a Roman Catholic Hierarchy in this Country,” PP, 1851, 59 (84): 649–739Google Scholar; the petitions are found in Reports of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Petitions (Session 1851).

31 See Fraser, Derek, “Voluntaryism and West Riding Politics in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Northern History, 13 (1977): 199–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the correspondence dealing with efforts to organize the county meeting in the Wharncliffe Muniments, Sheffield City Library, Wh.M. 526(d).

32 No adequate study of the Victorian public meeting exists. Besides specialized studies of specific movements, see Jephson, H. D., The Platform, Its Rise and Progress, (London, 1892)Google Scholar; Keith-Lucas, B., “County Meetings,” Law Quarterly Review, 70 (1954): 109–114Google Scholar; and Fraser, Peter, “Public Petitioning and Parliament Before 1832,” History, 46 (1961): 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 The county meetings for which only the presiding officer signed are randomly distributed and probably do not distort the geographical distribution of signatories to any significant degree. These counties are Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Wilts, Berks, Oxford, Surrey, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hunts, Gloucester, Worcester, Warwick, Staffs, Leicester, Derby, Notts, York, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Cheshire.

34 The only way to judge the proportion of “repeaters” is to be alert to the bodies that produce the petitions. If one finds petitions coming from “the Wesleyan congregation of X,” “the Wesleyan Sunday school of X,” and other variations of the theme, then the odds are that one has “repeaters.” Such a practice apparently was common in the petition drive against Graham's Factory Bill of 1843; see my “Politics of Public Education in Britain, 1833-1848: A Study of Policy and Administration,” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974), p. 274–276.Google Scholar

35 Parliament also received 1481 petitions, bearing 526, 226 signatures, against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Perhaps most of these came from Ireland, but this remains an untapped source for Roman Catholic opinion.

36 “Religious Census, England and Wales: 1851,” PP, 1852–1853, 89 (89).Google Scholar

37 Inglis, K. S., “Patterns of Religious Worship in 1851,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 11 (1960); 74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pickering, W.S.F., “The 1851 Religious Census—A Useless Experiment?” British Journal of Sociology, 18 (1967): 382–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, David M., “The 1851 Religious Census: Problems and Possibilities,” Victorian Studies, 11 (1967): 87–97Google Scholar; Gay, John D., The Geography of Religion in England (London, 1971), pp. 39–49Google Scholar; Dews, D. Colin, “The Ecclesiastical Returns, 1851: A Study of Methodist Attendances in Leeds,” Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society, 39 (1974): 113–116Google Scholar. How Often Do You Go to Church on Sunday? (London, 1857)Google Scholar, hints at the class and denominational patterns of churchgoing.

38 Figures are from “Census of Great Britain, 1851: Population Tables, II,” PP, 1852–1853, 88, Pt. I [1691]: 304–310Google Scholar; geographical distribution of Irish summarized in Darby, H. C., ed., A New Historical Geography of England After 1600 (Cambridge, 1976), p. 171.Google Scholar

39 PP, 1851, 59 (84), mem. 2055.

40 Second-order partial correlation controls for two variables, third-order controls for three variables, and so on.

41 Mueller, John H., Schuessler, Karl F., and Costner, Herbert L., Statistical Reasoning in Sociology, (Boston, 1977), pp. 252-265, 275–289Google Scholar; Blalock, Hubert M. Jr., Social Statistics, (New York, 1972), pp. 376-385, 433–440Google Scholar; Key, V. O. Jr., A Primer of Statistics for Political Scientists (New York, 1966), pp. 105-127, 151–152Google Scholar. Partial correlation is no corrective when independent variables covary. Blalock, however, recommends that procedure rather than multiple regression analysis when independent variables covary, as they do in this instance. That is, church-attendance for any sect tends to behave like church-attendance for all sects.

42 Floud, Roderick, An Introduction to Quantitative Methods for Historians (London, 1973)Google Scholar, is the most succinct introduction to the quantitative analysis of evidence. Blalock, Hubert M. Jr., Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research (New York, 1972)Google Scholar, discusses the limits of that method of analysis.

43 See appendix for the rank-order list.

44 Population figures are from “Census of Great Britain, 1851: Population Tables, I,” PP, 1852–1853, 85 [1631]: 106.Google Scholar

45 Pinnington, J. E., “Bishop Philipotts and the Rubrics,” Church Quarterly Review, 169 (1968): 167–178Google Scholar; Machin, , Politics and the Churches, p. 218.Google Scholar

46 Rev. George Atkinson to John Kaye, 9 and 17 Dec. 1850, John Kaye Deposit, Lincolnshire Record Office, Cor. B/5/4/91/7.

47 Ideally one should calculate anti-catholic rates on the population “at risk” (i.e., memorialists per thousand not Roman Catholic or not Irish population), since Irish or Roman Catholics probably would not be prejudiced against themselves. The state of the evidence, however, does not permit such calculations. This problem should not greatly influence the correlation coefficients as the minorities were minor.

48 The anti-catholic sentiment of Lancashire may also be understated for the same reason: Liverpool's memorial was signed only by the chairman.

49 Old Dissent includes Independents, Baptists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Quakers, and Plymouth Brethren.

50 I distinguish between Wesleyans and other Methodists (i.e., Welsh Calvinists, Lady Huntingdon's Connexion, Primitive Methodists, and the other small secessions from Wesley's conference).

51 Besides the independent congregation that Horace Mann aggregated (the identities of which are unknown), I include Mormons, Sandemanians, the Catholic Apostolic Church, and the foreign protestant congregations in London. I have excluded Jews and the handful of Orthodox congregations from the calculations. (Mann counted synagogue attendances that Sunday; presumably the results in no sense reflect Jewish strength.)

52 Beds, Hunts, arid Northants omitted.

53 Northants omitted in these last three categories.

54 Surrey and Cornwell omitted.

55 Notts omitted.

56 The negative correlation between memorialists and other Methodists (-.23) is due to Northants having scored highest among memorialists and third from the bottom with respect to other Methodist church attendances. With it eliminated, a coefficient of -.16 shows a much weaker relationship.

57 Norfolk, Suffolk, Herts, Berks, Oxford, Dorset, Hereford, and Rutland.

58 Berks, Hereford, Northants, Suffolk, East Riding.

59 Cornwell, Gloucester, and Surrey omitted.

60 Notts, Surrey, Gloucester, Lanes, Kent, Westmoreland, Staffs, and Derby omitted.

61 Cornwell, Durham, and Norfolk omitted; if Kent, Gloucester, and Surrey are also ommitted, r= +.62.

62 Derby, Gloucester, Notts, and Surrey omitted.

63 But Wesleyans generated only nine memorials and less than a quarter of a percent of the signatures. The paradox is resolved by recollecting that nothing prevented Wesleyans from initiating or attending public town or parochial meetings.

64 Houghton, Walter E., The Victorian Frame of Mind (New Haven, 1957)Google Scholar. See also Buckley, Jerome Hamilton, The Victorian Temper (Cambridge, Mass., 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Burn, W. L., The Age of Equipoise (London, 1964).Google Scholar

65 Perkin, Harold, The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780-1880 (London and Toronto, 1969), pp. 134–217.Google Scholar

66 Such a defense mechanism is called “reaction formation” (Arkoff, Abe, Adjustment and Mental Health, [New York, 1968], pp. 138–164Google Scholar; Way, Lewis, Adler's Place in Psychology, [New York, 1950], pp. 65–73).Google Scholar

67 Wiener, Carol Z., “The Beleaguered Isle: A Study of Elizabethan and Early Jacobean Anti-Catholicism,” Past and Present, no. 51 (1971): 27–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robin Clifton, “The Popular Fear of Catholics during the English Revolution,” ibid., no. 52 (1971): 23-55; Norman, , Anti-Catholicism, pp. 13–22.Google Scholar

68 Klaus focuses on anti-Irish prejudice and points to the sexual threat posed by militant Roman Catholicism.

69 The crucial role of Methodism as a source of ongoing, organized anti-catholicism has become clear from the results of recent research. See. Machin, G.I.T., The Catholic Question in English Politics, 1820 to 1830 (Oxford, 1964), pp. 131–156Google Scholar; Machin, , “Maynooth,” pp. 63–67Google Scholar; Cahill, , “Protestant Association,” p. 285Google Scholar; Norman, , “Maynooth,” pp. 407–437Google Scholar; Paz, D. G., “Working-Class Education and the State, 1839-1849: The Sources of Government Policy,” Journal of British Studies, 16 (1976): 143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hempton, David, “Wesleyan Methodism and Anti-Catholic Politics, 1800-46” (Ph.D. dissertation, St. Andrews University, 1977).Google Scholar

70 Study of anti-catholicism must begin with Best's, G.F.A. “Popular Protestantism in Victorian Britain,” in Robson, Robert, ed., Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain (London, 1967), pp. 115–142.Google Scholar

71 The Center for Research on Social Organization, University of Michigan, is pursuing researches, directed by Professor Charles Tilly, on “contentious gatherings” in the United Kingdom between 1828 and 1835, with the aim to record and classify each such event during that period in order to build a model of European-wide “contentious gatherings.”

72 Anson, Peter F., The Catholic Church in Modern Scotland, 1560-1937 (London, 1937), pp. 135–136Google Scholar; Ferguson, William, Scotland: 1689 to the Present, (New York and Washington, 1968), p. 334Google Scholar; McClelland, V. A., “A Hierarchy for Scotland, 1868-1878,” Catholic Historical Review, 56 (1970): 479–500.Google Scholar

73 W. R. Ward, Religion and Society in England, improves on Cowherd, Raymond G., The Politics of English Dissent (New York, 1956)Google Scholar, but a definitive study is still needed. For “political Dissent” in 1843, see Ward, J. T., “A Lost Opportunity in Education: 1843,” Researches and Studies, no. 20 (Oct. 1959): 40–51Google Scholar (for sight of which I thank Dr. Ward); and Ward, J. T. and Treble, J. H., “Religion and Education in 1843: Reaction to the ‘Factory Education Bill,’” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 20 (1969): 79–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar