BISHOP GEDDES AT EDINBURGH—“SOCIETY” UNFRIENDLY TO BISHOP HAY— BISHOP GEDDES CONCILIATORY—THE CLERGY IN THE NORTH SUFFERING FROM SCARCITY—RELIEF BY BISHOP HAY—THE HOLY OILS—POCKET MONEY TO STUDENTS FAVOURED BY BISHOP GEDDES WHO OVERCOMES BISHOP HAY’S OPPOSITION—DISPENSATIONS—RESERVED CASES—BISHOP GEDDES AND THE ANTIQUARIES—AN EXECUTION ATTENDED—GROWING LIBERALITY—“CAUSE CELEBRE”—MISS GORDON OF ACHANACHY—UNANIMOUS DECISION—BISHOP HAY DECLINES DEALING WITH A NEW BANK—LORD PETRE EFFACING A CALUMNY.

The arrangement, by which it was agreed that Bishop Geddes should reside at Edinburgh, was singularly opportune and beneficial. No man could have been better qualified to second the movement in favour of Catholics that had been in progress ever since the riots of 1774. It is a sad fact, but, nevertheless true, that people who inflict injury hate the injured party. Hence the populace of the capital who had so grievously wronged Bishop Hay, necessarily had an aversion to him. In consequence it would not have been safe for him to appear publicly for a considerable time. Latterly this unfavourable state of feeling had, in great measure, died out, and the Bishop, as has been shown, could discharge, without fear of molestation, both episcopal and parochial duties. This was far, however, from being an object of popular favour. Nor was the Bishop calculated to court such favour, any more than he cared to do so. Notwithstanding his sternness of manner, he gained the good will of all the eminent persons with whom he came in contact in the course of his negotiations. But those men of high education and ability judged not as “society” is apt to judge, by mere manners and forms of speech. “Society,” however, is a power, and a very great power in every community. To conciliate this power was an important object with the friends of those people who were still more or less under persecution. To carry out this policy, if policy it may be called, of conciliation, a man of the gentle character and urbane manners of Bishop Geddes was eminently suited. It might be supposed that since the union of the crowns, and still more since the union of the Parliaments of the United Kingdoms, “society” had emigrated to the British metropolis. But this was far from being the case. Many heads of ancient families, together with scions of Scotland’s nobility, had their abode, at the time of which there is question, in the Scottish capital. It was of no slight importance, when the transi­tion from hostile to more kindly feelings was taking place, to cultivate the acquaintance of such parties. Many of them, though strongly Protestant, following the fashion of the time, could not fail to remember that their forefathers were Catholics, and they held it to be an honour as well as a pleasure to converse with such a representative Catholic as Bishop Geddes, whose dignity, demeanour and accomplishments entitled him to associate with them. The Bishop loved his reli­gion and his flock too well to allow such opportunities to pass unimproved; and, thus, although at the cost of much valuable time, lessening the prevailing prejudices. It does not appear that either his episcopal duties or the cares of his procuratorship suffered any serious loss or incon­venience. Bishop Hay, who relied more on his theological learning and inexorable logic, thought, at one time, and so represented to his friend Bishop Geddes, that it was a loss of time to attend so much to social amenities.

Nevertheless, there never was such neglect of either episcopal or financial duties as to induce him to appoint another Procurator, or seek a more attentive and helpful coadjutor. There was not even the slightest breach of the long standing friendship that had subsisted between the two prel­ates.

It is a melancholy fact in connection with the national famine to which allusion has been made, that several priests in the North were suffering from scarcity of food, whilst others were consti­tutionally delicate and little able to bear the hardships of their position. The Bishop, in conse­quence, wrote from Aberdeen to his coadjutor, asking him to procure at Edinburgh some supplies and send them to him at his (Bishop Hay’s) expense, and to some of the clergy, through a merchant at Aberdeen.

An additional proof of the difficulties of this time is presented by the fact that it was impossible to bring together at Aberdeen a sufficient number of priests for the consecration of the holy oils. This rite, must, therefore, be performed at Edinburgh, where the difficulty was scarcely less considerable. The Bishop made a suggestion by informing his coadjutor how he himself had been accustomed to discharge this necessary duty. He sometimes began at an early hour in the morning, and thus allowed the assistant priests to attend to their congregations at the usual hour; sometimes the function was deferred until the public services were all concluded.

Bishop Geddes who, for so many years, had been the successful principal of an important educa­tional institution, held the opinion that it was advisable to allow students at college the use of a little pocket money. Bishop Hay, insisting on stricter discipline, held the opposite view. He was, however, so far convinced by the arguments of his learned and experienced coadjutor, that he was induced to say: “Whether the giving money to the boys in college be an expedient measure is a point on which we seem to differ in our opinion; whether it were advisable for me to take any steps to hinder it is another point in which I yield entirely to your reasons.”

As regarded certain dispensations the Bishops were of the same opinion. They disapproved of publishing a general dispensation from the strict law of fasting during Lent. But power was given by the chief Bishop to the priests of the mission to grant special dispensations to private parties, whenever they should in conscience, consider them necessary. These dispensations extended to the law of abstinence so as to admit of using flesh meat on three days of the week, till Palm Sunday, but not in Ember week. Some good work was always required in place of fasting. The Bishop did not wish to be thought to hold the proclamation of banns before marriage indispensable, as the Church does not require that there should be no exceptions. He insisted very much on these proclamations at the commencement of his career at Edinburgh, the neglect of them being calculated to favour abuses. He now gave to his coadjutor full authority to grant dispensation from the said proclamations, whenever he should, conscientiously, consider it advisable.

Mr. Menzies, who has already been mentioned as pastor of the Highland congregation of Edin­burgh, applied for faculties in a reserved case, to the Bishop, through the coadjutor. The latter could himself have imparted the necessary faculties; and this the Bishop showed him by refer­ring to the original Statuta, which were recently confirmed by the Holy See. The words are: “In quibus omnibus casibus Presbyteri, praeterquam in articulo mortis, consilium a nobis et facul­tatem absolvendi petituri recurrant.” The Bishop adds: “Ubi verba a nobis tum Vicarios ipsos, tum etiam deputatos includant, necesse est, quoniam ad nos, vel illos recurrere judicentur. Et hoc concilio tibi coadjutori meo, omnes facultates, quoad forum internum, quas ipse possideo, jam ab initio concessi, iterumque concedo.”

This year, 1783, was founded at Edinburgh the Antiquarian Society of Scotland. Many gentlemen of the country took an interest in this new institution. Bishop Geddes did not fail to avail himself of so good an opportunity of extending his acquaintance, whilst, at the same time, promoting an object to which it was so pleasing to him to give his countenance and support. At a meeting of the society he presented to the library a copy of Leslie’s History of Scotland, when it was suggested to him by Lord Buchan, that he should present the world with a biography of the good Bishop of Ross.

A less agreeable duty now fell to the Bishop’s lot,—that of preparing a prisoner for execution. It marks the growing liberality of the time that the magistrates afforded him every facility for visiting his penitent. The unfortunate man gave proof of all the dispositions becoming his situ­ation. To use the Bishop’s own words: “He went decently to death and gave great edification to all.”

Bishop Geddes was always ready to assist his fellow Catholics in whatever circumstances of difficulty they might be placed. This year a case occurred which awakened his zeal and gave exercise to his ability as a negotiator or diplomatist. The case was that of Miss Gordon of Acha­nachy,—Achanachy, whose ancient castle had so long afforded a home and protection to the clergy in times of trial and persecution, a large room therein being set apart for the celebration of the Holy Mysteries. It must be noted here that John Gordon of Achanachy, the uncle and predecessor of the said Miss Gordon, had sold the estate to the Duke of Gordon and received from him a long lease on condition of paying to his Grace a moderate rent. This lease was the object of dispute between Miss Gordon, who claimed, as the daughter of George Gordon, next brother of John Gordon, and Rose of Pluscardine, who claimed as the nearest Protestant heir. It being possible that, according to the penal laws, the latter was entitled to succeed, Bishop Geddes considered it necessary to use influence in high quarters. Accordingly he obtained a letter of introduction from Bishop Hay to the Lord advocate. He also requested Principal Robertson to favour him with a personal introduction. One morning, the Principal having cheer­fully consented, he breakfasted with this worthy gentleman and then proceeded with him to wait upon the Lord Advocate. He was well received, and a promise given that His Lordship would do everything in his power in the case of Miss Gordon. The Bishop, moreover, was kindly invited to renew his visit. This he soon did in order still more strongly to urge his suit. He was received with even greater cordiality than at his first visit, and the promise was repeated that no effort would be spared. Men of the state seldom forget politics, and the Lord Advocate took occasion to enquire how he stood with the Bishop’s people. The latter replied that he was in high favour and not without cause. The case came first before Lord Eskgrove, who, remarking that it was one of great nicety, referred it to the inner court, or whole bench of Judges. Mr. Aber­crombie, Miss Gordon’s counsel, drew up an able pleading, which was shown to Bishop Geddes for his revision, before it was printed for the use of the judges. The services of the Lord Advo­cate were also retained. When the case came for hearing before the court, there were ten judges present. They were unanimous in their decision that a Catholic could succeed to and enjoy a lease of land in Scotland, on equal terms with a Protestant. The framers of the penal laws must have forgot to have it enacted that land held by lease should be subject to the same disability as that which is actually owned. Another great difficulty in Miss Gordon’s case had been got over. In early youth, she had been sent for her education to a convent at Paris. Somehow on leaving the convent she had become governess in a family which she accompanied to Ireland. It was, for a long time unknown to her family what had become of her. A cousin made diligent search, and at last found her at Dublin, in a state of great destitution. During the time that she was missing, Adam Gordon, a younger brother of her father and of John Gordon, who had been an officer in the Neapolitan army, enjoyed, for about ten years, the lease of Achanachy. It would have been difficult, if at all possible, to prove Miss Gordon’s identity, but for the fortunate circumstance of a lady who had been educated in the convent at Paris with her, meeting her in London, and, at once, recognizing her as her former school companion, Betsy Gordon.

There was question, at this time, of placing some mission funds in a new bank of Aberdeen. Bishop Hay, however, declined, chiefly on the ground that he already had relations with the Bank of Scotland. It is interesting to note that on occasion of the discussion which took place on this matter, the Bishop gave a statement of his own financial affair. In one of his letters on the subject of the new bank, he says, “You know I have not twopence of personal property; my yearly income dies with myself; and though there be several sums paid out in my name, yet, I am only trustee for others, to whom they belong.”

In speaking of our Bishops and other good Catholics, it is almost out of place to introduce the name of Lord George Gordon, the degenerate scion of an illustrious and Catholic house. But the narrative would not be complete without showing that it so happened, when this hopeful personage was engaged preparing a vindication of his conduct during the riots which he had excited, that Lord Petre, a Catholic, in a conversation with Lord George, had spoken to him of Bishop Hay, as a rash, meddling and turbulent person. Lord George published the substance of his conversation in a London paper. The Catholic peer, who, it must be supposed, had only been talking to a fool in the language of his folly, was grievously ashamed to see his remarks laid before the public, and accordingly, he bought up the whole impression of the paper containing them, and used every means of hushing up the matter before it reached the Bishop’s ears. There are officious people, however, who take care that no good thing shall be lost. Some such person imparted the unsavoury remarks to Bishop Hay, but could not send him a copy of the paper, which was not to be found. The Bishop was under the impression that the ill-natured words had originated with Dr. A. Geddes, as they were much in the style of his attacks. Bishop Geddes, however, assured him that this was a mistake, and that Dr. A. Geddes was certainly not the authority from which proceeded the conversation published by Lord George Gordon.