GOVERNMENT GRANT—DELAY—SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY SUCCESSFUL—COLLEGE PROPERTY AT ROME—MR. ANDREW SCOTT AT HUNTLEY—THE LIVES OF THE SAINTS—DEMAND FOR RELIGIOUS BOOKS—NEED OF A LARGE CHURCH AT EDINBURGH—DIFFICULTIES—ELECTION OF PIUS VII.—THE BISHOPS OFFI­CIALLY INFORMED—CONGRATULATIONS—SCOTCH PROPERTY AT ROME— CLAIMED FROM THE NEAPOLITAN GENERAL—ITS DESPERATE CONDITION— APPEAL TO BRITISH GOVERNMENT—LETTERS TO ROME—THE CLERGY PETI­TION FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME.

There was difficulty and delay in obtaining payment of the money granted by Government for the benefit of the Catholic clergy in Scotland. Sir John Hippisley was, on application, informed that the Secretary of the Treasury had received orders to intimate to the Lord Advocate that the money would be paid in three weeks from the date of Sir John’s letter (August 27th, 1799). Nine weeks elapsed when Sir John went to the Treasury and was told that there was a difficulty, the Scotch Catholic clergy having no representative in London. On hearing this, Sir John immedi­ately wrote to Bishop Hay requesting that he would lose no time in sending a power of attorney in his own name and that of Bishop Chisholm, authorizing him (Sir John) and Mr. Spalding, M.P. for the Galloway Burghs, to receive the money granted to the Scotch clergy. There was only a weekly mail to the nearest town from Moydart, where Bishop Chisholm was staying at his seminary. This remoteness of the Highland Bishop was the cause of further delay, but not the end of it. Sir John on presenting the power of attorney, was informed that there was so great a run on the treasury that the payment he desired could not be made sooner than shortly before Christmas. It proved however to be a good deal later. Only on the 21st January, 1800, was the Procurator able to acquaint Bishop Hay that the money for the mission was paid. Much it may be said, all, in this matter, was due to the determined perseverance of Sir John Hippisley.

There was now some hope of recovering the College property in Rome, and it was decided that Mr. McPherson should resume his duties as agent. This re-appointment to his former office at Rome was much to his liking; and a commission was prepared, in the name of both the Bishops, empowering him to act for them in recovering the property of the mission in Italy. He was replaced in the mission of Huntly by Mr. Andrew Scott, who was afterwards so highly distin­guished. Mr. Moir, a British resident in Rome, was empowered to act in the interest of the mission till the arrival of the agent.
The reprinting of the Lives of the Saints now commenced was quite an undertaking. There appears to have been, at the time, a demand for religious publications. Bishop Hay’s three best known works were out of print.

The Catholics of Edinburgh conceived the idea of having one large church, in which both congregations could meet, instead of the two small chapels in Blackfriar’s Wynd. Mr. C. Maxwell, their pastor, was at the head of the movement; and proposed to purchase a house in the Canongate, which, according to his description, was very eligible for the priest’s residence, while the garden attached to it, a quarter of an acre in extent, presented a suitable site for the new church. It had been the city mansion of the Earl of Wemyss, by whom it was built. The price demanded was 1,000 guineas. The Bishop could not see any reason for encouraging the scheme. He told Mr. Maxwell that no dependence could be placed on subscriptions from the Catholics in the north. They had already aided in building chapels all over the country and were quite unprepared for any new call on their charity. As to the Bishop himself owing to the many demands upon him, he was unable to give any assistance. All that he could do was to authorize the sale of the two old chapels in aid of the new building.

This, however, could not be done until the proposed chapel was ready for use. Mr. Maxwell could have no assurance that the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of the intended site would not object to and oppose the erection of a Catholic chapel after the Catholics were committed to it by the purchase of the house. There was powerful opposition to have St. Margaret’s chapel in the house that was purchased for it. The Bishop was met with a lawsuit, which, however, was decided, fortunately in his favour. If the project continued to be entertained, the Bishop would have Mr. Maxwell break the matter to the Lord Advocate and the Lord Provost, in order to learn their opinion. He desired, moreover, to hear what was said against the scheme, and particularly by the Rev. Mr. Rattray, on whose judgment he placed great reliance. Mr. Rattray vigorously opposed the measure; and, first of all because a chapel in the Canongate would not be conven­ient for the congregation. In the second place, the house was too small for the residence of the clergy. It was only a wing of the house built by Lord Wemyss about 1735. The actual proprietor, a bookseller, had bought it a few years previously, for £350, and the value of houses in that part of the town had been falling ever since, the proprietors generally being glad to sell them at any price, and remove to the more fashionable new town. Notwithstanding all this, the wily book­seller had deceived Mr. Maxwell and persuaded him to offer £1,000 for the remaining part of Lord Wemyss’ residence. Mr. Maxwell was indignant at Mr. Rattray’s interference; and it was not without difficulty that the latter succeeded in preventing a bargain from being concluded until the Bishop could be heard from. The Bishop, with his usual caution, declined to give a decision until he had learned everything connected with the proposed scheme. He accordingly authorized Mr. Rattray to obtain from the committee that was entrusted with the care of promoting the plan of the new chapel, an exact description of the building which it was proposed to purchase, signed by every member of the committee, together with all other particulars that were calculated to throw light on the subject. Financial difficulties were also taken into consid­eration; and finally, the idea of purchasing for £1,000 a house for which the proprietor had paid only £350, was abandoned. It was reserved for Bishop Hay’s distinguished successor to erect a large and more handsome church in a suitable part of the city. While the discussion regarding the proposed new chapel was proceeding, the Bishop received official information from Cardinal Erskine of the election of Pope Pius VII. He immediately imparted the same to Bishop Chisholm, as well as to the clergy of his own district. It now became the duty of the Bishop to compliment the Holy Father on his accession to the Chair of Peter. He had never failed to fulfil this duty on former occasions; and he now only waited for the concurrence of his colleague, Bishop Chisholm. It was decided, accordingly, that when the Bishops met in July they should send to Rome a joint letter of congratulation. In the meantime, Bishop Hay acquainted Cardinal Erskine with the wise intention.

The Neapolitans having taken Rome, it was now thought that something might be done towards the recovery of the Scotch property there. Mr. Moir, who held a letter of procuration authorizing him to deal with this property, found that he was anticipated by a Mr. Fagan. This person, as soon as the city was occupied by the army of Naples, claimed restitution of all British property from the Neapolitan General. Mr. Moir, on this account, found it necessary to use his letter of procuration, but declined doing anything until the arrival of Mr. McPherson.

This gentleman reached the city in July, 1800. He found the Scotch College and its property in a deplorable condition. “The house,” he says, writing to Bishop Hay, “is going fast to ruin. It is let out to almost as many different families as there are rooms in it, all wretchedly poor crea­tures, unable to pay the rent, or keep the house in repair. I wished Mr. Fagan to turn them out. He attempted to do so, and could have done it at pleasure, a month or two back. But, ever since Cardinal Albani returned to Rome, they have got protectors enough among his creatures, and laugh at Fagan. I have seen the Cardinal. He says till Fagan resigns all his assumed power, he will do nothing. His minions do enough. In the meantime, I am obliged to take up my quarters elsewhere, and if ever I get into the College it will now be with difficulty and not on the terms you and I expected. The old rector is returned and has by far more interest in Albani’s court than I. The vineyards, already in a wretched state, will be in a worse one before we have anything to do with them. They have been let by Mr. Fagan till the end of this year, for one hundred and a few odd crowns. Hence, till autumn of 1801, though I get possession the College, I cannot touch a half-penny of the revenues. But, to me it appears very improbable I will get possession of it.” (11th July, 1800).

In the same letter Mr. McPherson suggested that application should be made, through Mr. George Chalmers, who had always shown himself very friendly, to the British Ministry, asking them to use their influence with the Neapolitan Government, for complete restoration to its rightful owners of the Scotch College and the property attached to it.

Bishop Chisholm came in July to meet his colleague at Aquorties; and there the two Bishops prepared their annual letters,—one in Latin to the new Pope, and another in Italian, to Cardinal Borgia, Pro Prefect of Propaganda. These they enclosed in a complimentary letter to Monsignor Erskine. The routine of the annual meeting was diversified by the presentation of a petition to Bishop Hay by some of the clergy of his district, which could only be justified by the difficulties to which they were subjected in consequence of the scantiness of their incomes. It requested that the Bishop would both urgently and speedily use his influence with their congregations to induce them to raise their annual allowance to £50. This does not appear to be an extravagant request, unless, indeed, the purchasing power of money was much greater at that time than it is now. The petition was adopted at a meeting of the clergy held at Preshome, the preceding month of May. It was presented by Messrs. Stuart and Scott on the part of their brethren. There was nothing unreasonable in the petition, as may be judged from the names that were appended to it, such as Mr. Paterson, afterwards Bishop at Edinburgh, Mr. Mathieson, Mr. John Reid, Mr. George Gordon (late of Dufftown), Mr. James Carruthers and Mr. James Sharp. These cler­gymen were all highly esteemed by the Bishop. Their petition was, however, considered unrea­sonable since it was necessary to obtain a Government grant in order to provide for existing charges, and when the people were in a distressed condition, from the scarcity of provisions. Bishop Hay received it respectfully, but, finally, could not see grounds for entertaining it. In stating his reasons for declining, the Bishop incidentally mentioned that thirty years before. the mission funds in the whole of Scotland, did not exceed £60 a year. The accounts of 1769 show a home revenue of only £48 belonging to the mission. Its foreign income was £200, with twenty-four missionaries to share it, while, owing to the exertions of the Bishop (which was chiefly Bishop Hay’s), they produced at the date of the meeting of  1800, a yearly income of £466, which was equal to a capital of more than £8,000.