No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
In an earlier article I discussed the general status of Anglican chaplaincies in continental Europe after the defeat of Napoleon and attempted to show how feeble this aspect of the pax britannica really was. Peter Hinchliff s expression ‘The One-Sided Reciprocity’ indeed fits perfectly the position of the Anglican Church abroad in those years. Despite the Royal Patents obtained by bishop Edmund Gibson of London in 1727 and 1728, the authority of the bishop of London was far from being strengthened by the Royal Supremacy: if anything, the Royal Supremacy neutralised episcopal authority. In a situation where some chaplains were appointed by the Foreign Office and others engaged by private bodies (the most notable at this time being the Colonial and Continental Church Society), the bishop of London, as nominal ordinary of Anglican congregations in Europe, could only exercise authority over those clergy who had received their appointments directly from Government, the operation of Government patronage having emasculated all independent episcopal initiative; and these clergy often refused to defer to the bishop unless specifically directed to do so by the Foreign Secretary. ‘As I have no jurisdiction at Ostend’, wrote bishop Charles James Blomfield of a priest who owed his appointment to a private body, ‘my licence holds good only so long as the Congregation, who pay their chaplain, think fit to respect it’.
page 277 note 1 ‘Anglican Chaplaincies in Post-Napoleonic Europe: A Strange Variant on the Pax Britannica’, Church History 39 (1970), 327–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 277 note 2 Cf. Hinchliff, Peter, The One-Sided Reciprocity: A Study in the Modification of the Establishment, London 1966Google Scholar.
page 277 note 3 Blomfield to the Rev. Clifton, C. J., 8 March 1836Google Scholar: Fulham Papers (Lambeth Palace), 345
page 278 note 1 See my article on Luscombe in The Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, XXXVIII (1969), 381–92.Google Scholar
page 278 note 2 Even though the bishop's letters patent conferred on him in theory exactly the same powers as were possessed by an English diocesan—to appoint diocesan officers, institute and license clergy and visit ‘with all manner of jurisdiction, power and coercion ecclesiastical’.
page 278 note 3 Knight, H. J. C., The Diocese of Gibraltar: a Sketch of its History, Work and Tasks, London 1917Google Scholar. 42, 56.
page 278 note 4 Cf. The Case of the Congregation of the Church of England at Rome with regard to Episcopal Jurisdiction, Malta 1852Google Scholar, citing Lord Aberdeen's circular.
page 279 note 1 Knight, op. cit., 45n.
page 279 note 2 ‘Observations for the Consideration of the Bishop of London’, dated 5 December 1857Google Scholar: Fulham Papers, 330, Cont. Chap.
page 279 note 3 Wilson, M. Talbot, History of Che English Church in Rome, Rome 1916Google Scholar, 52–3, 57.
page 280 note 1 Ibid., 84–8.
page 280 note 2 Woodward to Blomfield, 18 July 1857Google Scholar, 12 and 18 August 1858: Fulham Papers, 330, Cont. Chap.
page 280 note 3 Blomfield to P. Burnet, 12 May 1843Google Scholar: Fulham Papers, 370, fol. 4; Blomfield to Tomlinson? April 1850: Ibid., 397, fol. 412.
page 280 note 4 Cf. Consular Regulations for 1839, Sect. XIII.
page 281 note 1 Blomfield to the Rev. Loughlin, H. (Nice), 23 April 1836Google Scholar: Fulham Papers, 345; Blomfield to P. Burnet, 30 August 1836: Ibid., 347.
page 281 note 2 Newell, H. A., The English Church at Madeira, Oxford 1931Google Scholar, 18ff.
page 281 note 3 Blomfield to Lewis, M., 18 August 1845Google Scholar: Fulham Papers (Lambeth) 377, fols. 41–2.
page 281 note 4 Blomfield to Rev. Lowe, R. T., 29 May 1843Google Scholar: Fulham Papers 370, fol. 6; Blomfield to Lewis, 18 August 1845: op. cit.
page 282 note 1 Blomfield to Lowe, 29 May 1843; op. cit.Google Scholar
page 282 note 2 Blomfield to Lowe, 28 February 1845Google Scholar, Fulham Papers 376, fol. 141.
page 282 note 3 Newell, op. cit., 23; Blomfield to Lowe, 21 September 1847Google Scholar: Fulham Papers 380, fol. 75. For previous expressions of Government concern for good relations with the Portuguese, see Lord Wellesley to Rev. Miller, Robert Marriott, 31 August 1811Google Scholar and Castlereagh to Rev. Pennell, Richard, 13 December 1813Google Scholar (copies): F.O. 83/159.
page 282 note 4 Blomfleld to Lowe, 21 July 1847 and to the Earl of Powis, 21 October 1847Google Scholar: Fulham Papers 379, fol. 314; 397, fols. 1–3.
page 282 note 5 Blomlield to Lowe, 14 June 1847 and 21 July 1847Google Scholar: Fulham Papers fols. 262, 313–14. The latter letter cited Palmerston's letter to Blomfield of 30 June 1847.
page 283 note 1 Cf. memorandum dated 20June 1871: F.O. S3/462; Blomfield to Lowe, 19 February 1848Google Scholar: Fulham Papers 380, fol. 385.
page 283 note 2 Blomfield to Joseph Baylee, 11 November 1848Google Scholar: Fulham Papers 397, fols. 187v–88; Blomfield to Mr. Beswicke, 22 November 1848: Ibid., fol. 211v; Blomfield to Lowe, 15 December 1848: Ibid., fol. 237v; Blomfield to Earl Nelson, 29 September 1851: Ibid., 396, fols. 222–3.
page 284 note 2 Nelson to Palmerston, 14 December 1849: Ibid.
page 284 note 3 Malmesbury to Blomfield, 14 July 1852: Ibid.
page 284 note 4 For a critical examination of the near-disastrous effect of Palmerston's policy on Anglican ecumenical relations, see my article ‘Lord Palmerston and Zionism: the impact of foreign policy on Anglican-Orthodox relations’ in Historical and Political Studies: University of Otago, 1 (1971), 111–21.Google Scholar