VALUABLE MANUSCRIPTS—MR. MACPHERSON’S RETURN TO SCOTLAND— KIND LETTER OF CARDINAL GERDIL—PASTORAL LETTER ON LOYALTY— BISHOP GEDDES’ LAST LETTER—REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES SECRETLY SPREADING IN SCOTLAND—PROPERTY OF THE SCOTCH COLLEGE, ROME—ST. PETER’S AND THE JEWS—SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY IN BEHALF OF MISSION FUNDS— PUBLIC MEN FAVOURABLE—GOVERNMENT GRANT—LETTER OF MR. DUNDAS—THE FRENCH TEMPORARILY DRIVEN OUT OF ROME, BUT TOO SOON AS YET TO RESTORE ANYTHING—HOME SEMINARIES—LAST ILLNESS AND DEATH OF BISHOP GEDDES—HIS WRITINGS—PROPAGANDA ROBBED—AIDED BY A LIBERAL SPANIARD—AUSTRIANS AND RUSSIANS BEAT THE FRENCH— SUWARROW UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE COMMISSION TO DELIVER THE POPE— PIUS VI. CONVEYED TO VALENCE—DIES THERE.

Mr. McPherson brought from Paris, four valuable manuscripts, the property of the Scotch College there. He lent them to Mr. George Chalmers, the eminent antiquary, who, in return, gave the agent a carefully written receipt. It contains the titles of the manuscripts which had belonged to the Archbishop of Glasgow. They are also enumerated as follows 1st, Of the Char­tulary of that See (Glasgow) marked A; 2nd, The Chartulary of the same, marked B; 3rd, An Original Register in paper of the Lands and other Temporal Rights of that See; 4th, Another Register in paper, marked on the outside, 1499, 1510, also concerning the Temporal Rights of the same See. Then follows a promise to return the manuscripts on demand, and a most polite acknowledgment of Mr. McPherson’s kindness. It happened unfortunately when Mr. Chalmers died, that the Chartulary marked A, and the Register of the Lands of the See of Glasgow, notwithstanding the receipt, were considered as his private property. The other two manuscripts are now at Preshome together with other historical treasures.

Mr. McPherson now returned to Scotland, where, as may be well conceived, he met with a cordial welcome. Bishop Hay had need of this consolation, for he was overwhelmed with grief when he heard that Rome was in the hands of the French Revolutionists and the Holy Father their prisoner.

The agent was the bearer of a most kind and consoling letter from Cardinal Gerdil to the Scotch Bishops.

Bishop Hay, after visiting the building operations in progress at Aquorties, set about preparing a pastoral letter on the Duty of Loyalty to the Government. As usual, he took counsel on the subject with his invalid coadjutor, requesting him to give a sketch off the general plan of the letter. Bishop Geddes replied by an amanuensis, at great length, notwithstanding the severity of his ailments. It was the last letter that he ever composed. From this date, the afflicted Bishop no longer took any part in public affairs, but turning his face away from the world, thought only of preparing for the final change, which, he believed, was near at hand.

The pastoral letter on Loyalty was speedily issued from the Edinburgh Press; and was well calculated to meet a want of the time; for there is no denying that the dangerous principles of the French Revolution were secretly spreading even among the cool and wary population of Scotland.

All the moveable property of the Scotch College at Rome was sold, and the College itself, together with the Church was let. Mr. Sloane bought from the Jews the pictures that were in the Church and the pietra sacra (altar stone) of the high altar. These objects it was his intention to restore in more happy days. Meanwhile he was proud to have them, as he stated in a letter to Mr. McPherson, particularly his “friend St. Andrew,” which art judges pronounced a good picture, and also “St. Margaret,” a work which he intended to have repaired. It was not to be supposed that at such a time even the great Church of Rome and the Catholic world should escape being desecrated. St. Peter’s was to be closed and delivered during four months to the Jews to be ungilded; and then it was to be given to the Capuchins. The Church, however, was partially saved by the parsimony of the Jews. They would not pay the price demanded for the gilding, and so the vandalic operation of removing it was not performed.

The robberies in Italy and France had so much reduced the funds of the Scotch mission that there was only a very inadequate allowance to the priests for maintenance. This was a great hardship, especially in the poorer missions. The very friendly and indefatigable Sir John Hippisley was much moved by the statements made to him by the Bishops, and resolved to use his great influ­ence with His Majesty’s Ministers in order to obtain a grant from the Government in aid of the clergy. All his diplomacy was put in requisition, and it needed it all. The Ministers were friendly and inclined to bestow the desired grant; but they dreaded lest by so doing they should raise a storm of fanatical intolerance, for they well knew that this kind of demon was not dead, but only slept. Mr. Dundas, indeed, distinctly expressed his fear in a conversation with Sir J. Hippisley; whilst, at the same time, he admitted that a good case had been made out for relieving the Scotch clergy. Sir John was not to be defeated. He drew up an amended statement, in which it was suggested that some private persons in Scotland might be named to whom Government might hand over a sum of money for the relief of the Catholic clergy; and that the persons so entrusted should pay this money to the Bishops for the benefit of their clergy. The proposal was pleasing to Mr. Dundas; and the papers relating to it were left with him. There was still much negotiation. The Lord Advocate wrote to Bishop Hay, in his own hand, although it was his custom to dictate to a clerk, stating that he was directed to ask the Bishop’s opinion of the following scheme of relief, and to invite any amendments, or alterations that might occur to him. Government proposed to give each of the two Bishops £100 a year; each of the two coadjutors £60; and to each of the fifty clergy £20 a year. Bishop Hay was asked whether he would wish a distinction to be made between the Bishops and their coadjutors, whether the Bishop first in rank should have more than his colleague, say £120, and the second £90 or £100; and the coadjutors in a similar proportion; and whether the £1000 which the Government designed for the clergy of the second order should be divided equally among them all. As to the “schools” the Bishop’s letter of February 26th, on which this scheme was based, did not state, explicitly, what amount of aid was necessary to preserve them in the same state, as before their continual losses. Their funds were stated to be thirty shares of bank stock and £800 capital, equally divided between the two “schools.” The Bishop was now asked to say whether more than this was required for their effi­ciency, and how much more. As to the two Colleges which were then in progress of erection, the same inquiry applied. “Your own good sense and discretion,” the Lord Advocate concluded, “will, I am sure, dictate to you the delicacy of this last topic and the unavoidable necessity of these two establishments being kept on as private and limited a footing as is consistent with the object of the undertaking.” When the Bishop’s answer should arrive, the Advocate trusted to be able, ere long, to inform him that a class of persons whose virtue and loyalty I so much respect, as I do that of the Catholic clergy and laity of Scotland, are relieved by the liberality of the British Government from the distresses under which they have been so unfortunately subjected.” The business was finally settled at an interview held by both the Scotch Bishops with the Lord Advocate at Edinburgh (June 17). Each of the Bishops was to receive £100 a year, and his coadjutor £50. It was also settled that the Government allowance to the clergy should be at such a rate, as, when combined with the income of their common fund, should give each priest £20 a year. The new Colleges were to receive, each of them £50 a year, and each of them also, a grant of £600 towards their erection.

The Bishops could not but be grateful to the Ministers of the day, and particularly to. Sir John Hippisley, who, after three years of persevering and tedious negotiation, had reached so happy a conclusion. They expressed their gratitude, accordingly, in an appropriate letter to Sir John, dated at Edinburgh, June 19th, 1799. Bishop Hay, at the suggestion of Sir John Hippisley, also wrote a letter of thanks, in his own and his colleague’s name. to Mr. Secretary Dundas. It was favoured with a prompt and highly complimentary reply:

29th July, 1799
“REVEREND SIRS—It is with much pleasure, that I acknowledge the receipt of your letter, particularly as I find by it that the aid which his Majesty’s Government has been enabled to extend to you and the rest of the Roman Catholic Clergy under your authority, promises to afford so much comfort and relief to such a pious, loyal and respectable body of men as the Roman Catholic Clergy of Scotland have constantly shown themselves, and which I can have no doubt they will ever continue to be, while they have the benefit of such an example as you have invariably given them. With every good wish for your future health and happiness, I remain with much respect and regard,
“Reverend Sirs,
Your very faithful, humble servant,
“HENRY DUNDAS.”

Another proof of the liberality of our statesmen in the closing days of last century, and which shows also the general decline of bigotry, was presented by an order of the Adjutant-General to the effect that noncommissioned officers and men should be permitted to attend divine worship in the churches, chapels, or meeting houses to which they belong, when an opportunity for their doing so should offer. The Government, to their credit, let it be recorded, lost no opportunity of moderating the wrath of persecuting lairds. A tyrannical proprietor had lodged a groundless accusation against a priest. The Lord Advocate declined to entertain it, and only took occasion to request Bishop Hay to assist him in promoting better feelings between the priest and Laird of Barra.

Now that the French were away from Rome, an army of twenty thousand Neapolitans having driven them from the city, a few months after they had seized it, Mr. Sloane, the devoted friend, as we have seen, of the Scotch College, thought that the time had come for the restoration of the College and its estates. He accordingly addressed Sir William Hamilton at Naples, asking him to use his influence for the recovery of so much British property. It was too soon. But neither Mr. Sloane nor any one else could foresee, at the time, that the French had not yet done with Rome. The Bishops, meanwhile, were making amends for the loss of the Colleges abroad by establishing seminaries at home. The Ministers of the Crown looked with favour on this work of the Bishops. They, as well as all other public men, were, agreed as to the importance of encouraging the education of Catholic priests at home, conceiving it to be an essential part of a good education to be made acquainted with the principles of the British Constitution. It was with a view to this great advantage that so much was done in more happy times, especially by Sir John Hippisley, in order to obtain national Superiors for the British Colleges. Sir John now held the opinion that if Bishop Hay could procure an adequate establishment for ecclesiastical educa­tion in Scotland, he would never have cause to regret the loss of the Roman College.

The severe and prolonged sufferings of the invalid Bishop at Aberdeen were now drawing to a close. In the earlier half of January there was an aggravation of his ailments. His back was laid open in two places, by bed sores, which, as he was obliged to lay in one-position in bed, were of the worst description. Mortification supervened. Meanwhile the sufferer was a pattern of patience. He never complained of pain. It was frosty weather and the attending physician, Sir Alexander Bannerman, expressed the opinion that, as soon as a thaw set in, the final change would come; and accordingly it came, slowly and surely, like the maladies by which it was preceded. It began on Saturday, February 9th, and was complete, all suffering at an end the following Monday at five o’clock in the afternoon. The snow churchyard (Sta. Maria ad Nives) was chosen for the place of his funeral. There was a large gathering of mourners, including the more notable people of the city. The Professors of King’s College University, proprietors of the beautiful cemetery, declined to accept the usual fees. They desired no more than the signal honour that the bones of so great and so good a man were laid at rest within their ground.

Almost all the learned Bishop’s printed works including his tract, “Watch and Pray,” a second edition of which was issued shortly before his death, have been already herein alluded to. He left, besides several manuscripts which are accessible to all who desire seriously to consult them; and will long be held to be a treasure of no ordinary value to the student of history. They are, as follows: 1st, A Catalogue of the Scotch Missionaries; 2nd, A short account of Mr. Ballan­tyne, first Prefect of the Mission; 3rd, An Account of the Bishop’s journey to Paris in 1791, on the affairs of the Scotch College; 4th, A Letter to the Scotch Agent in Rome on his duties; 5th, Observations relating to the Catholic Missions in Scotland; 6th, A Short Account of the state of Religion in Scotland in 1745-46; 7th, Observations on the duties of a Catholic missionary. It is also said, and on competent authority, that Bishop Geddes was the author of a Life of Cardinal Innes, which appeared in the Antiquarian Transactions, about 1794; and was republished in the Edinburgh Monthly Register, June, 1810.

When the Bishops of Scotland were incurring so much expense providing seminaries at home in place of the colleges abroad of which they were deprived, a new calamity came to aggravate their difficulties. They had been in the habit of receiving, hitherto, substantial aid from the Congregation of Propaganda. This great institution which did so much to maintain the Christian faith in many countries and establish it in others, was now robbed of its properties by the Revo­lutionists and reduced to poverty. The usual remittance to the Scotch mission could no longer be looked for. This evil, however, was soon repaired through the generosity of a pious and wealthy person in Spain who contributed, yearly, a sum equal to what was expended by Propa­ganda for the support of the missions and colleges that were confided to its care. The benefactor chose to remain unknown. The news of this liberality gave the greatest joy and consolation to Pius VI., and he thanked God who thus extended protection to His afflicted Church.

The shameful conduct of the French towards the Church and its venerable chief brought no blessings with it. Not only were they driven from Rome. In Upper Italy their army, under Scherer, was beaten by the Austrians and Russians, commanded by Suvarof (Suwarrow). They took Milan and threatened Piedmont. It was soon learned that they had advanced as far as Susa, and it was announced in the Paris Gazette that Suwarrof, Commander of the Imperial armies, had orders to use his utmost efforts for the deliverance of the Pope. The dread of the Holy Father being rescued caused him to be conveyed to Valence, where he died. General Scherer was succeeded in the command of the army of Italy by the celebrated Moreau. Under Scherer began, under Moreau was completed the loss of Bonaparte’s conquests. The latter fell back before Suvarof to the foot of the Alps. He then resigned and was replaced by General Joubert, who fell by a bullet wound at the commencement of the battle in which the French were defeated. The Russians penetrated into the French departments of Mount Blanc and the higher Alps (Hautes Alpes). But they were beaten at Zurich by Massena. Thus were the danger and disquietude of the French Republic diminished, but far from ended.