The Liberal Catholic Movement in England: The "Rambler" and Its Contributors, 1848-1864 byJosef L. AltholzReview by: Emmet LarkinThe American Historical Review, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Oct., 1964), pp. 126-127Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1842128 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 10:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.238.114.41 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:01:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I 26 Reviews of Books

tion really exist even at the height of the Reform Bill agitation. Melbourne, closest to these events in the Home Office, and other Whig leaders saw the bill as preventing a distant revolution by leading the disaffected middle classes to "iden- tify with the political order." After considering the evidence, the author in general concludes that it "cannot sustain the historical interpretation that sees revolution beneath the surface of events in I83I," much less I832. As in reading some Neo- Namierite studies, the reader may be left with the question: "Then what was all the fuss about?"

There will be those who will not entirely agree with the answers given here. This is, nonetheless, an important book that demands (in the best Namierite sense) fresh consideration of a familiar subject.

Syracuse University A. R. SCHOYEN

THE LIBERAL CATHOLIC MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND: THE "RAM- BLER" AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS, I848-1864. By Josef L. Altholz. (Montreal: Palm Publishers. I962. Pp. X, 25I. $5.00.)

FROM the historian's point of view, the liberal Catholic movement in England in the nineteenth century is an ideal movement. For all practical purposes, it con- sisted of just two members, Sir John, later Lord, Acton and Richard Simpson, his assistant editor on the Rambler. There was also a peripheral group, best repre- sented by Newman, who were only guilty by association.

Professor Altholz begins by defining, or rather describing, liberal Catholicism. He argues that "it was an intellectual liberalism, characterized by an emphasis upon the legitimacy and value of intellectual sources independent of the authority of the Church." The dynamic, therefore, of liberal Catholicism in the nineteenth century, whether in England or on the Continent, was to be found in the dialogue between politics and theology, and not in either the purely liberal political or theological views of Catholics. One might almost go so far as to say the categories of St. Thomas-cum-Aristotle had finally to settle with the challenge presented by the Hegelian dialectic. "Roman Triumph," the epilogue to this volume, leaves no doubt as to what the response was to be for Catholics, at least in this philosophical confrontation. It is now easier to understand how Leo XIII was able to make his Thomistic revolution, and why Newman received his red hat.

For over ten years Acton and Simpson struggled to keep the Rambler alive in the face of clerical intimidation. When it finally succumbed as The Home and Foreign Review to the celebrated "Munich Brief" early in I864, the good fight, though well fought, had been completely lost. In this contest with Rome and its agents, Acton and Simpson emerge as men of character, courage, and integrity. Such is not the case, however, with Newman. Whatever may be numbered among the great gifts of this remarkable man, moral courage in this struggle was not one of them. He was timid, he trimmed, he equivocated, and it was in these years he seems to have learned his theological trade as a minimalist. When one

This content downloaded from 91.238.114.41 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:01:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Grenville: Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy I 27

reads here how he dealt with ecclesiastical authority in general, his later emascula- tion of the dogmatic decrees concerning papal infallibility appears much less startling, and the continuing image of his having been a champion of liberal Catholicism is hardly understandable except as myth.

This volume is more than a genuine contribution to knowledge; it is a bonus to the understanding heart. The position of men like Acton and Simpson was cruel and sad, and their reaction to their situation not only tells us much about them, but about the Church of which they were members. Their Church had been at war since the Reformation. The continuing crisis resulted in tolerance and liberty being sacrificed to obedience and authority. Unable to submit in conscience and yet unwilling to oppose the Church's authority, Acton and Simpson had recourse to silence. The Church was, indeed, all things to some men.

Aassachusetts Institute of Technology EMMET LARKIN

LORD SALISBURY AND FOREIGN POLICY AT THE CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. By 1. A. S. Grenville. [University of London Historical Studies, Number 14.] (London: University of London, the Athlone Press; distrib. by Oxford University Press, New York. I964. PP. x, 451. $8.oo.)

THE focus of this important study is the momentous readjustment that took place in British foreign policy between i895 and 1902. Exploiting a rich assortment of private and official papers, Grenville sets out to assess the struggle between Lord Salisbury, who identified himself with the Victorian tradition in foreign policy, and colleagues like Joseph Chamberlain and Lord Lansdowne, who wished to set Britain on a new course of "partial commitment." His sympathies are clearly with Salisbury and the techniques of avoiding alliances in time of peace, refusing prior commitments to go to war, and retaining a "free hand" for British diplomacy. Lansdowne's program after I900, on the other hand, he finds seriously wanting. He argues that unlike Salisbury's, it was not based on settled principles, reflected the growing influence of the Admiralty on matters of policy, and, above all, was less predictable than in the past. The "ill-defined" commitments stemming from this new course he views as fraught with danger and, in the event, ineffective to arrest those developments which eventually led to two world wars. The reader's assumption follows, though, to be fair, Grenville nowhere states the position ex- plicitly, that the author believes Salisbury's more conservative approach might have been more successful in achieving such an end.

To make his argument, Grenville presents a detailed account of foreign policy after I895. Salisbury's handling of the Eastern Question and disengagement in Turkey, of Anglo-American tensions and expansion in Africa are examined as illustrations of his more or less traditional approach to major issues. Gradually, however, the crucial struggle within the cabinet begins to emerge, and the central part of the book is devoted to the struggle for control of policy between Salisbury and Chamberlain. Here, of course, the China crisis and the Cuban war, Fashoda

This content downloaded from 91.238.114.41 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:01:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions