THE BEGINNING OF DOUAY CONVENT

Dom Stephen Marron
Douai Magazine 2:2 (1922) 72-83

In the hopes of restoring to our chronicler, Dom Weldon, something of his former credit, I discussed in a former article some of the ways in which he has been unjustly treated by recent critics. I now propose to examine in detail the passage which Mr. Bishop selects as 'typical of Weldon's work throughout.' [1] This passage which deals with the beginnings of St. Gregory's monastery in Douai, [2] is needless to say, not Weldon's best bit of work, and, indeed, to present any passage in Weldon as typical of the rest is to ignore and mis-represent the character and make-up of Weldon's compilations, as, in fact, the critics have done. At the beginning of his Memorials he himself tells us the precise purpose and nature of his work, when, after disclaiming any intention of composing a complete or formal history of the Congregation he says: 'Hence I took ye resolution of gathering faithfully together all that seemed to me able to help a better head and pen than mine whensoever any such would have ye heart to compose in forme ye history of our Congregation.' [3] His modest purpose then, was to compile and preserve materials to be used and digested by a more capable historian, to whom he also suggests other works which should be used 'with these papers.' A collection of this sort, consisting as it does of original documents, copies and notes from various sources, must contain materials of very varying values, so that Mr. Bishop's ''typical method' [4] of discrediting the whole work is, on the face of it, much too curt and destructive. In fact, in Weldon's collections I would distinguish three classes of material: first, his collection of original papers with which his own manuscript is interleaved; secondly his collection of copies made by himself; and finally the thread of narrative by means of which he links together and gives some sort of unity to his collections.

1. Downside Review, March. 18971 p. 29.
2. Transferred after the French Revolution to Downside.
3. Memorials, Preface, p. v.
4. A recent writer in the Irish Eccl. Record (Jan., 1922, p. 73) seems to apply the 'typical' method to Mr. Bishop when, after exposing his teaching concerning the origin of the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin he says: 'We can now appreciate the value of Mr. Bishop's originsfancy revelling in the void.' This is very like Mr. Bishop's remark of Weldon's misguided fancy. Mr. Bishop had a predilection for origins.' The obscurity of 'origins' has a singular fascination,' he once wrote. (D. R. July, 1900, p. 134). He showed singular skill and discernment in this difficult and delicate work but occasionally lacked the requisite impartiality. It was for a better head and pen,' like his that Weldon preserved and copied records.

In the first two classes the historian will find a mass of most helpful material, with a value quite independent of any question of Weldon's historical powers. The third class, which I have called narrative, is rather a succession of chronological notes, composed for the most part from other sources. [5] In compiling them Weldon is still a copyist, following for each item in turn, some account to hand, now Ellis, now Townson, or Sadler or some other author, or accounts forwarded to him from the monasteries. Very often he merely copies his note word for word from his author; at other times he presents he summary or substance of his authors' accounts. His notes on the Beginning of Douay Convent are mostly of this nature.

5. Broadly speaking, Weldon's smaller work, the Chronological Notes represents the narrative portion of his Memorials.

In summarising his author it is true that Weldon is not always happy. He slips into occasional errors, obscurities and disarrangements. The extent of these faults however has been vastly exaggerated by his critics, chiefly with the aid of mistaken errors of their own, and thence they have proceeded in summary fashion to a general verdict which is wholly indefensible. It must always be borne in mind that Weldon's sources are invariably good, that even in the summarised portions of his notes he is still in the main a copyist, depending on the author at the moment before him. Whatever faults, inadvertent on his part, may result from the process of abridgement, are generally quite patent to the student, and may, as often as not, be checked and corrected from the context, from the accurate dates and references which he zealously copies, or from the accompanying documents. [6] In fact, Weldon's notes, even in his weakest moments, will be found reliable and most useful to the historian, much more so indeed than the works of a certain class of writers whom the critics have used, who give what Mr. Bishop approvingly calls an 'intelligible' account, but do so by prudently avoiding dates and by artfully 'arranging' materials got from untrustworthy sources. Lewis Owen's 'intelligible' account for example has led Father Taunton, Father Camm and Mr. Bishop to very varying conclusions concerning the doings of Father John Roberts and the foundation of St. Gregory's; and indeed by using such sources and neglecting Weldon, the critics have fallen into a variety of errors.

6. Even Mr. Bishop admits of Weldon that 'even in his most daring or fanciful mood he preserves a name, an expression, which is evidence that there is a real element of fact lying behind his narratives'!!

With these remarks we may now proceed to examine Weldon's notes on the Beginning of the Douay Convent! That they are somewhat loosely put together I readily admit, but our main question is the value and usefulness of the material which they contain. Mr. Bishop has chosen to abuse them rather than to use them. To begin with, they contain documents and verbatim copies of materials up to the Bull of Foundation, which is given in extenso. The value of these cannot be questioned. The value of the notes in general will depend in great measure on the nature of the source whence they were drawn. On this point Mr. Bishop remarks in characteristic style: 'It is to be observed that Weldon for six weeks of his queer life lived at St. Gregory's, and gathered notices for his book there; also that the monastery of St. Gregory's was the general archivium of the Congregation.' [7] This is incorrect, for the visit took place several years before Weldon had any notion of composing 'his book'; indeed he expressly regrets the fact that he had not the 'conveniency' of the Douai Archives in compiling his materials. He had to do the work at home and rely for help on the generosity of others elsewhere. He had to hand, however, a source in many ways more practical for his purpose than a hasty rummaging through archives on the occasion of a brief visit. This was a manuscript Chronological History of the Congregation, [8] composed at leisure from the Gregorian archives by Bishop Ellis when, as a simple monk, he was in residence at St. Gregory's. Weldon was, moreover, in correspondence with the monks of St. Gregory's while composing his work, and consequently some weight attaches to his statements on matters of Gregorian history. With these facts in mind we will consider the notes, item by item.

7. l.c. p. 23.
8. 2Now, unfortunately, lost.

Weldon states that the first beginning of St. Gregory's in Douai was made during the persecution which followed the Gunpowder Plot. The Benedictine Missioners felt more keenly than ever the need of a house on the Continent, nearer than Spain, which should serve both as a refuge for the said missioners in times of stress, and as a seminary for training young monks for the mission. Consequently, Father Augustine Bradshaw (alias White), who was vicar of the English monks from Spain, secured a lodging in Anchin College, Douai, and called thither some of the fathers who were 'designed immediately for England,' and ordered those already in England to send over some fitting subjects. Thus was begun St. Gregory's in Douai.

The printed edition of the Notes here adds in brackets the date End of November, 1605, which Mr. Bishop takes to be Weldon's, and criticises much to the chronicler's discredit. I have already shown in a previous article that it is not Weldon's at all. [9] He merely states that the beginning was made on occasion of the persecution that followed the Plot, and indeed surviving documents show that the first steps were taken in 1606. The twofold purpose of the foundation given by Weldon is similarly expressed by the Douai monks themselves in their petition to Paul V, June 9, 1607. [10] That Father Bradshaw was founder and first Superior is likewise attested by independent documents, but, for all that, Mr. Bishop here rejects Weldon's statement and names Ven. John Roberts as founder and first Prior of St. Gregory's. [11] This is an interesting point and must be considered at length.

9. 3It is not in any of the manuscripts, original or copies.
10. GuiIday's English Catholic Refugees, p. 4378
11. Downside Review, Easter, 1906.

It is to be noted that at the date of the Gunpowder Plot (November 5th, 1605) Father Bradshaw was in Brussels, whither he had recently gone as chaplain to the English Regiment in those parts. Father Roberts, who was in England, was at once taken and imprisoned in the Gatehouse. Shortly after, more missioner monks were sent from Spain. Father Leander Jones was one of these (his missionary letters are dated. Dec. 8, 1605), [12] and with him, apparently, came also Father William Johnson. According to the tenor of the letters, these fathers would have to present themselves to the Vicar (Father Bradshaw), who was in Flanders before proceeding to their missionary work. It was by him thought prudent that they should not proceed to England for the present. An authority (presumably Ellis) copied by Weldon, states that Father Leander at this time spent some months at the monastery of St. Remigius, Rheims, whence he was afterwards called 'ad Academiam Duacensem' to aid his brethren there. [13] We can guess then who were the fathers 'designed' immediately for England whom Weldon says Father Bradshaw called to assist him in the beginning of St. Gregory's, Douai. On this point we may also note what Father Beech (acting in Rome for the Douai monks) stated in 1608, concerning the beginning of St. Gregory's. 'Of these English monks of our Congregation of Spain,' he says, 'some stopped in Flanders before entering England to await a better opportunity . . . and the Abbot of Arras has given them the monastery of Douai.' [14] What steps towards a foundation were taken in the spring of 1606, we have no records to show, but Mr. Bishop apparently had evidence that Father Bradshaw when freed from chaplain work in May applied to the Court of Brussels for leave to make a foundation in Louvain, but was refused. [15] From a letter of Father Leander we can gather that Father Bradshaw's choice would be a University town. [16] About September we find him in charge of some monks at Douai, but we have no record of the precise date of his going hither.

12. Memorials I, 609.
13. Memorials I, 2478.
14. Tierney's Dodd, Vol. iv., p. ccxv.
15. Downside Review, Easter, 1906, p. 57.
16. Dom B. Mackey's Notes from Arras Archives.

As for Father Roberts he remained a prisoner in the Gatehouse until the end of July, when he was freed and banished. After this he himself tells us, he 'was at Douay, Paris, Valadolid, Salamanca, St. James in Galicia, and returned through France and staid in Paris and Douay whence he came again into England about the beginning of October (1607).' [17] Mr. Bishop's theory is that he founded the monastery at Douai immediately after his banishment, viz., AugustSeptember, 1606 ; that Father Bradshaw had no hand in the work, but in September, 'just fell back on the little Douay settlement, which, as if providentially, had been prepared for him by Father Roberts.' [18] This theory, apart from inherent improbability, is opposed to the surviving evidence and also to the constant tradition of St. Gregory's. In support of his contention Mr. Bishop adduces one witness, Lewis Owen's Running Register. This Register is a somewhat sordid authority; [19] even so it does not support Mr. Bishop's thesis. It must be noted that, according to Mr. Bishop's own showing, two things are essential for the validity of his contention. Father Roberts must have made the foundation August to September, 1606, for after that period Father Bradshaw appears already in charge at Douai; and, moreover, Father Bradshaw must not have been present at the foundation otherwise as Vicar and Superior of the monks he was undoubtedly the prime mover. Now Lewis Owen knows nothing of Father Roberts's first call at Douai immediately after his banishment, but places the foundation after the Spanish tour and this, I imagine, is too late for Mr. Bishop's purpose. Moreover, he places the foundation in the house near the church of St. Jacques, obviously the house hired from the Trinitarians; but this, according to Weldon, was the second residence of the monks, into which, Mr. Bishop himself assures us, they did not enter until the year 1607. [20} Finally, Owen expressly states that Father Bradshaw was present at the foundation. [21]

17. Dom Camm l.c. p. 298
18. l.c, Easter, 1906, p. 59
19. Dom Birt in his Downside School says of this Register: 'Such a source of information, vitiated by all manner of lies, must be looked upon with considerable suspicion and distrust; and, indeed most of Lewis Owen's lucubrations impugn their own veracity.' (l.c., p. 58).
20. l.c, March, 1897, p. 23.
21. Dom Camm, I.e., p. 192.

I am inclined to conclude from the whole evidence that Father Bradshaw sent Father Roberts to Spain to obtain influential letters for furthering the foundation at Douai, while he himself remained on the spot. After his experience at Louvain the need of such influence from Spain was evident, for Douai, like Louvain, was in Spanish dominions. Such letters were certainly got and Weldon gives us some details about them. Father Roberts tells us himself that he went round the Spanish monasteries at that time. Lewis Owen appears to have been in Spain about that time, [22] and consequently viewing matters from that point of view, presents Father Roberts to us as the prime mover, founder and first prior of the new establishment. It is but one case of many, however, in which he elevates Father Roberts to undue positions. He makes him likewise 'Provincial' in England; [23] he has him sending Father Bradshaw, his superior, on an errand to Spain to inform the Abbots how he (Father Roberts) was getting on with the foundation at Douai; [24] and various other incongruities. Indeed, considering the character of Owen and the nature of his work one wonders that Mr. Bishop relies on him alone for any point. Mr. Bishop excuses himself, however, on the plea that Owen was related to Father Roberts by marriage. Were this relationship a fact, it would indeed help to explain why Owen makes so much of Father Roberts, but it is no guarantee of his accuracy, as the narrative shows. The monk would certainly hide his doings from this government spy, as far as possible. The argument for the relationship, however, is a tissue of conjectures, [25] and an obvious reason for singling out Father Roberts would be the fact that when Owen was writing, Father Roberts was a noted martyr who had been much in the public eye, whereas Father Bradshaw through being abroad had been little known and certainly Owen had little knowledge of him.

22. Dom Camm. l.c. p. 154
23. Dom Camm, p. 169.
24. Dom Camm, p. 199.
25. Briefly: Roberts on first coming to England was betrayed by a relative. Was this Lewis Owen? Mr. Bishop finds in Dwnn's Visitations a John Roberts (from the same part of Wales as our own martyr), having a sister named Blanche married to a parson named Cadwallador Owen. This John may have been our Father Roberts, and Lewis Owen may have been related to Cadwallador. Father Camm prudently concludes that the names are too common in Wales 'to make the connexion any more than a conjecture.' (l.c., p. 155) Mr. Bishop states blankly, Lewis Owen 'was a relative of the martyr by marriage' and refers us to Father Camm (Downside Review, Easter, 1906, p. 58.) Father Taunton goes a step further. Lewis Owen 'became brother-in-law to John Roberts by marrying his sister Blanche' (Vol. 2, p n.) But what about Cadwallador?

Leaving Owen aside, then, we find in surviving contemporary documents Father Bradshaw continually connected with the beginning of St. Gregory's, as the prime mover, whereas Father Roberts is never mentioned. The President of the English College opposed the foundation from the very outset, and in his first petition to the Nuncio [26] he mentions Father Bradshaw as in charge of the monks. Likewise Edmondes writing from Brussels, Jan. 22, 1607, says: 'The President . . . hath been lately to sue unto the Archduke that one White (Bradshaw) a Benedictine friar, may not be suffered to proceed to the erecting of a college of English students of the Order at Douay, as he has in hand to do.' [27] Mr. Collier writing from Douai to Doctor Bagshaw, says: 'Ye Benedictines coming hither to place themselves here, have found great opposition, both private and public: private by whispering false rumours abroad that Father White (Bradshaw) was sent as a spye from ye Counsel of England to raise a faction in these parts, etc.' [28] Surviving letters of Father Leander [29] give us Father Bradshaw as prime mover in those beginnings but make no mention of Father Roberts and his foundation. Likewise Father Beech, in a letter, mentions that when passing through Flanders (on his way to Rome in the Spring of 1607) he consulted with Father Bradshaw and Father Leander (at Rheims) about a union, but he has no word about Father Roberts. [30] Likewise in the Douai Diaries Father Bradshaw comes in for early mention as Superior of the monks there.

26. Downside Review, March, 1897, p. 32.
27. Guilday, l.c., p. 232.
28. Memorials I, 201.
29. Dom Mackey's Notes from Arras Archives.
30. Dom Mackey's Notes.

The Apostolatus may also be regarded as contemporary evidence for it was worked upon by contemporaries of Fathers Bradshaw and Roberts (notably by Father Leander), it emanated from St. Gregory's itself and was printed in Douai in 1626, by order of General Chapter. Therein we read: 'A short time after, when R. F. Augustine of St. John, a monk of memorable industry, constancy and zeal, and first Vicar-General of the Spanish Mission, having laid the foundation of two monasteries, at Douai in Belgium and Dieulouard in Lorraine, [31] came to the city of Rheims, there to confer with the venerable Father Gabriel of St. Mary . . . concerning the affairs of our mission and the beginnings of the said two monasteries, etc.' [32] In the same work also occurs mention of Father Roberts' relations with early St. Gregory's. The passage deals with the English Benedictine martyrs of those times and singles out three as having special relations with St. Gregory's. They are Fathers George Gervase, John Roberts, and William Scott. We read then: 'The three just mentioned either took the habit in our monastery of St. Gregory's, as did the first (i.e. Father Gervase), or after banishment lived some time among the conventuals, while awaiting a convenient opportunity for returning to the mission, as did the other two (i.e. Fathers Roberts and Scott) [33] This is the extent of Father Roberts' connexion with St. Gregory's according to his contemporaries. Had they known him as the founder or first Prior of their monastery, it seems to me that in this context they would inevitably have noted and gloried in the fact.

31. The Latin original has here an ablative absolute of which, according to the context, the above is the correct translation.
32. Tractatus 2, p. 16.
33. Tractatus 1, p. 2478.

A small work on the English martyrs, published in Douai in 1630, by Canon Raissius, may also be mentioned. The author obtained materials for his accounts of the Benedictines from Fathers Leander and Rudesind. Here, too, mention is made of the fact that Father Roberts stayed for a time at St. Gregory's, and this was, no doubt, inserted at the prompting of the monks; but as to his having been founder or prior there is no word. There is similar silence on the point in the life of Father Roberts, published in Douai in 1611, shortly after his martyrdom.

My conclusion is that Bishop Ellis, whose work Weldon had before him, gave the Gregorian tradition, which Weldon in turn records. The body of Ven. John Roberts was taken over to St. Gregory's soon after his martyrdom and placed, as their most precious relic, under their monastic altar. [34] His memory was ever living among them. Had the monks regarded him as founder or first prior, the tradition would never have died out. When Weldon recorded Father Bradshaw as founder of St. Gregory's the Gregorians, far from raising objections, zealously copied his work. [35] Hence I conclude that Weldon's account is here in accord with the Gregorian tradition (as recorded in Bishop Ellis), and that Mr. Bishop in rejecting Weldon on this point has departed from that tradition and from the surviving historical evidence.

34. Cardinal Gasquet's The Makers of St. Gregory's, p. 5.
35. The two copies of Chronological Notes preserved at Downside are presumably of Gregorian origin ; the copy preserved at Ampleforth certainly came originally from St. Gregory's.

Weldon next tells us that the monks lived 'some years' in hard circumstances before they became known to Abbot Cavarel, who was destined to be their chief benefactor. The first to bring them to the Abbot's notice was a Father Ithell, a Welshman and Canon at Arras, who was one day viewing the College which the Abbot was building for the Jesuits in that town, when Cavarel approached him and asked what he thought of it. Father Ithell made a suitable reply, but added that he thought the Abbot 'would do better to begin his charity' towards some English Benedictines, his brethren, at Douai, who were in great need. The recommendation, however, had little effect.

That this incident really happened I have no doubt. The 'some years' is a vague approximation and exaggerated, but we can check it and place the period of the incident more accurately from Weldon himself who tells us definitely, and on good authority, that the Archduke commended the monks to Cavarel in 1606. Ithell's commendation preceded the Archdukes', and must have been earlier in the same year; Mr. Bishop who at one time smiles at the story and at another is inclined to believe it, was seemingly unaware of the fact that there was a Father Ithell at Arras at that period. A spy reports of him: 'Arras: Mr. Ithell, about 50, who sometimes was favoured of the Jesuits, is now hated, only because he will not be as fastidious as they are.' [36] The building of Cavarel's grand college for the Jesuits went on from 1602 until 1609 at least. [37] From what we know of Father Ithell's history [38] (he was at Wisbeach), one is not surprised that he, like Gifford, Bagshaw and others favoured the Benedictine foundation. We can be sure that Weldon got his account from a good source, apart from which he probably knew nothing about Father Ithell, and little more about the building of the college at Arras. He records the incident to contrast its ill success with the success of other commendations, which he proceeds to give as follows.

36. Foley's Records, Vol. vi., p. 740.
37. The Douai Magazine, Vol. vii., p. 121.
38. The Ithell, ' probably a nephew ' of th s Father Ithell, whom Mr. Bishop had some recollection of having come across, must be Father Leander Ithell, mentioned in Weldon's Memorials. He took the habit in 1615 at Clairmont (S. Malo), but was professed among the Cluniacs at Longueville where he died December 4th, 1637 and was buried there beside Father Augustine Bradshaw. (Memorials I, 86).

The Spanish Congregation was informed (in 1606) of the needs of the monks at Douai, and obtained letters in their behalf from the King of Spain to the Archduke Albert, Governor of the Low Countries. They also sent two commendatory letters, one signed by their own general, Perez, the other signed by the English monks then in Spain. The Archduke before the end of that same year wrote to commend them to Cavarel. These 'are extant,' says Weldon, 'in our archives of Douay.' He mentions also a commendatory letter of the Nuncio Caraffa, a certificate of the Douai Magistrates of 1607, and a certificate of the Rector of the University, signed 'Marontus Comes.'

These, no doubt, are some of the collection of papers which were preserved at St. Gregory's and which had formerly been useful to the monks in their struggle for establishment at Douai. Mr. Bishop says little about them. He has, however, to hand a copy of a certificate of the Echevins of Douai dated 1607, October 12, which verifies the fact that in 1606 the Archduke recommended the monks for it states that the monks had come to reside in the town, about a year ago, recommended by their Serene Highnesses.

Weldon next informs us that 'a year or two' after their establishment in Anchin College, the monks moved thence into a house near and belonging to the Convent of the Trinitarians, which they 'rented of those Fathers.'

The exact date of this removal, says Mr. Bishop, was May 12th, 1607, but he gives us no clue to his source of information. If however, this be so, and it cannot be far wrong, Weldon's 'a year, or two' is a stretch. It is after all but a rough approximation of one who did not find in his sources exact dates either for the first arrival at Douai or for the removal into the new house; the one he knew was somewhere after the Gunpowder Plot, the other somewhere in 1607, so that 'a year or two' is passable as a rough estimate. We, with more exact information on the point, can define the time more precisely.

In this house, Weldon continues, Father Bradshaw assembled sufficient men to commence conventual duties; they kept choir and took novices. The first six residents were Father Bradshaw, Torquatus Latham, John Barnes, A. Johnson, Columban Malone and Brother Peter.

Mr. Bishop is very annoyed at all this. It is, he says, an instance of 'Weldon's method of building up history on the sole foundation of his own misguided fancy.' However, Mr. Bishop gives us no satisfaction for his accusation. There is certainly no trace of novices being received, before the entry into the Trinitarians' house. Indeed some months previous to that event, when seven students of the English College offered themselves to Father Bradshaw as candidates for the habit, he had to put them off. [39] What conveniences for taking novices had Father Bradshaw in his lodgings at the Anchin College, or what community had he for the purposes of choir and conventual duties ? He himself was certainly too much engaged in other urgent work. Father Leander was free, but he gives us to understand that to his expressed wish for regular observance from the outset Father Bradshaw replied that they must first get houses; consequently Father Leander left him and sought regular observance among the Lorraine monks, where, as far as I can make out, he remained, save for an occasional visit to Douai or Dieulouard, until he came to succeed Father Bradshaw at St. Gregory's some years later. Other possible residents at Anchin College were Fathers W. Johnson and T. Green, but I find no evidence for them. Father Roberts returned to Douai after his Spanish tour, but at what date I know not. From the evidence such as it is, there seems to me little likelihood of formal conventual duties and choir observed by the English monks as a small community in the Anchin College, and Weldon no doubt just lifted his statement as usual from some good authority, probably Ellis, that the monks began formal community life only when they got an independent house of their own.

39. Douai Diaries under May, 25th, 1607.

As for Weldon's list of the first residents at the new house, it comprises besides Father Bradshaw, two juniors and three postulants. It may be remarked that in the case of St. Edmund's and S. Malo, Weldon likewise records the first six members in residence. For St. Lawrence's and Lambspring he does not do so. Now we know that for the account of the beginnings of these latter monasteries he did not follow Ellis, but accounts given by Father Gregson and Father Townson respectively. I suspect that for all the other three he does follow Bishop Ellis, and that it was Bishop Ellis' custom to name the first six members who came into residence in a newly founded house; not that they were aU necessarily together at the start, indeed Weldon does not say that these six in question were all present at the entrance into the Trinitarian house. That no missionary fathers are included in the number in not altogether surprising. The fact that they had faculties for the mission in England gave them some sort of independence from joining in community life. [40] We will consider the list singly.

40. it seems likely that Father Bradshaw preferred to employ the means and space at his disposal for educating new men. Those already priests could fend for themselves without burdening him.

Of Father Bradshaw nothing need be saidnor of John Barnes as I have already elsewhere noticed Mr. Bishop's objection concerning him. Of Torquatus Latham Mr. Bishop merely objects that 'he appears to have gone to St. Gregory's not before 1608' He gives no reason for his statement and, in lack of evidence either way, Weldon's statement stands. Malone did not leave the English College until May 26, 1607, continues Mr. Bishop, and did not receive the habit as a novice until September, 1608. Weldon himself tells us this, and nevertheless asserts that he was one of the first six residents in the Trinitarian house. He may well have been there as a postulant and the probabilities are that he was. He was one of the seven students who left the English College at this time to become monks. Father Bradshaw's position was very difficult. There was first of all the difficulty of housing and supporting newcomers. Moreover, the unsettled state of affairs, the uncertainty of his stay at Douai owing to the strenuous opposition of the English College and the Jesuits, made it a delicate matter for him to receive young men to the habit. Apparently at this period he clothed only such as were already priests and so could live independently and without burden to him. Thus he clothed Father Fitzjames and Father Gervase. Father Gervase at once went to England where he was shortly afterwards martyred while still a novice. [41] Where Father Fitzjames spent his noviciate, I cannot say. As for aspirants who were not priests Father Bradshaw could only accept them as postulants, prudently deferring their clothing as novices until prospects should be safer. Some, at least, bound themselves by vow to take the habit in due course: thus certainly did Joseph Haworth and A. Johnson. The seven students who left the English College to become monks were Haworth, Matthews, Malone, Godfrey, Fyld, Spencer and Pearson. Fyld I cannot trace. Godfrey became a monk at Monte Cassino. Malone stayed with Father Bradshaw, and the rest went to Lorraine monasteries partly for Father Bradshaw, partly for the Lorraine Congregation (but still for the English mission). [42] Later on Malone also went there for his noviciate and thence he and Haworth passed to Dieulouard. In November, 1609, Spencer was forced through ill-health to give up the habit, at which time there were still two in the Lorraine monasteries, [43] viz.: Pearson and Matthews. Pearson, in later years, was granted active and passive voice in the English Congregation [44], and Matthews suddenly appears as a monk of Dieulouard. We can understand better these transactions if we keep in mind that very cordial relations existed from the first between the Lorraine and the English monks. Father Leander was entrusted with the charge, at the monastery of S. Remigius in Rheims, of forming the young Lorraine monks in piety, and, as Weldon informs us, he was allowed 'to bring up English youths with theirs for his own Congregation.' [45]

41. The Obit Book suggests that he was clothed in 1606. This is surely an error. Weldon says he received the habit privately from Father Bradshaw in the Trinitarian house, just as he was leaving the English College to return to the mission; i.e. about September, 1607. Mem. I, (583). In the previous September when exiled he had passed through Douai on his way to Rome, but he could hardly have received the habit then, for when in Rome later, he tried to become a Jesuit (Conf. Challoner's Memoirs, Vol. 2.). On his return to Douai in 1607 he stayed some months at the English College, which he would scarcely have ventured to do had he been then an English Benedictine (Conf. Douai Diaries, 1607, July 23 and September 21.)
42. Conf. Apostolatus, appendix p. 7, reason 8.
43. Dieulouard Diary in Memorials I, 22. It is not there stated that the two mentioned were Pearson and Matthews, but I think my surmise is correct.
44. Memorials I, 716.
45. Chronological Notes, p. 70.

Now Mr.Bishop's difficulty about Malone, Johnson and Brother Peter, whom Weldon names among the first six residents at the Trinitarian house, seems to be the fact that they were not clothed as novices until a later date. My answer is that they were postulants, and that Father Bradshaw could not see his way to giving them the habit as novices, so long as his prospects at Douai were so uncertain, owing to the continued opposition of the English College supported by the Jesuits. Johnson, we know, did not in fact receive the habit until the year 1623, in England, but Weldon elsewhere tells us that he had vowed to become a monk of the Spanish Congregation " sixteen years before he actually became one " [46] – therefore in 1607, the very year of which we are treating.

45. Memorials I, 269.

Mr. Bishop seems to think that Father Fitzjames must have spent his noviciate in the Trinitarian house and should be reckoned among the first residents, but after all Father Gervase, who was also clothed there, passed over to England for his noviciate. He also asserts that Father Leander was " already a member of the Community," but the evidence shows rather that Father Leander was at the monastery of S. Remigius at this time, and was not a member of the Community at the Trinitarian house. As regards Father Leander's whereabouts in those early years, I gather the following from various sources. Stopping in Flanders on his way to England in the Spring of 1606, he went and stayed for several months at the monastery of S. Remigius in Rheims. Thence he was called to Douai by Father Bradshaw whom he left shortly after, and returned to Lorraine, apparently to S. Remigius. There Father Anselm Beech saw him in the Spring of 1607. For several reasons it seems clear to me that to this period also must be assigned the incident at Rheims mentioned in the Apostolatus (Tract. 2, p. 16.), where it is said that Father Leander " was then living in the archmonastery of S. Remigius." From there it was that in September, 1607, he wrote to Rome his Rationes in answer to the accusations made by opponents of the English Benedictines. In August, 1608, he left S. Remigius, and for one year was at the monastery of S. Michel (Verdun ?). In August, 1609, he called at Dieulouard and took some young men thence to Douai, about the end of that month. He seems, however, to have returned to Lorraine later, for the Apostolatus (Tract. 3, p. 196) says that " from Lorraine (where, among the most religious fathers of S. Vito and Hidulphus, he had obtained a place most suiting his desires), he was drawn (pertractus) much against his will, to undertake the Vicarship of the Mission," that is in 1612.

I think, then, that Weldon's account should stand until we are given more definite evidence for rejecting it than Mr. Bishop has given. Other items in Weldon's notes, the opposition met with from the English College and the Jesuits, the relations of St. Gregory's with Marchiennes College, the building of the new monastery, etc., must be left for another occasion, but what has been said already may serve to show how cavalierly Mr. Bishop has treated Weldon and his account of the 'Beginning of Douay Convent'.