[312] In the later editions, the poem appears without indication of Froude’s name.
[313] The first draught of this paper appeared under the title ‘The Lives of Whitfield and Froude: Oxford Catholicism,’ in the Edinburgh Review, vol. lxvii., pp. 500-535: the issue for July, 1838. Rogers writes to Newman, on October 4 of that year: ‘I was sorry to hear that your friend Mr. Stephen of the Colonial Office was the author of the article on Froude, though that is better than if it had been a younger man. Doyle talked of it, and spoke of the Remains as having produced the impression of an unamiable character!’ (Letters of Lord Blachford, edited by George Eden Marindin, 1896, p. 51).
[314] Misprinted ‘B.’ in these Essays. ‘P.’ is Prevost, in whose company Hurrell was when this entry was made, Oct. 2, 1826.
[315] ‘Vacant’ in text.
[316] In written prayers.
[317] Arnold to Dr. Hawkins, 1838. Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold, D.D., by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, M.A. London: Fellowes, 1844, ii., 125.
[318] [I say ‘tacitly,’ because their avowed acquiescence first appeared in the Preface to the second part of the Remains, published in the following year.]
[319] Not quite correctly quoted. ‘[The Church] became a ready prey to the rapacious Henry. It had been polluted; it fell: shall it ever rise again?’ State Interference in Matters Spiritual, Remains, part i., 227.
[320] [This general account of the attitude and spirit of the new school is derived, in substance, from private notes of the Dean of S. Paul’s (Dean Church), to which he has kindly given me access. It is corroborated by the writings of Ward, Dalgairns, Oakeley, and others, a few years later, in The British Critic.]
[321] Vol. xliii., pp. 636 et seq., the issue for May, 1883.