THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
ENGLISH BENEDICTINE CONGREGATION

Dom Stephen Marron
Douai Magazine 2:4 (1923) 228-240

In a previous article we saw how in the beginning of the reign of James I (1603) four Englishmen from the monasteries of Italy and Spain came over to England to continue herein the long succession of the Benedictine apostolate, which still survived in the person of Father Sigebert Buckley, a monk of Westminster. The fact that the four monks belonged to two independent foreign congregations was from one point of view a drawback and a danger. In it lay possibilities of mutual rivalry and even serious dissension. The scant records do not enable one at present to trace with any completeness the movements and interrelationship of the monks during the first two years preceding the Gunpowder Plot (1605), but it is clear that it was in London they first and chiefly came into contact. Of the two from Spain, Father Roberts certainly went straight to London, which was henceforth the centre of his missionary activities. His companion, Father Bradshaw, apparently paid a visit to his native Worcestershire, but we shortly find him on intimate terms with the Spanish Ambassador in the English capital. [1] As for the Cassinese, Father Beech records that he landed at Yarmouth and remained in those parts until he had found old Father Buckley, whom he and Father Preston looked after until the time of the old monk's death. From Father Baker's references to his own personal dealings with the Cassinese and with Father Buckley in London, it is clear that they also at an early date made London their headquarters. [2] Father Beech does not state whether Father Preston landed with him at Yarmouth, but from the fact that he was shortly after accused by rivals of undue intimacy with the Bishop of London, it appears that he too was operating in the capital. [3]

The arrival of the monks was not welcomed by the Jesuit fathers who doubtless saw in it a move to counter their influence in Catholic affairs. In a short time some hostility arose. Rumours against the monks were spread abroad by unfriendly rivals and repeated in Rome by Father Parsons, S.J., and notably that of dissension between the monks themselves. [4] The assertion was indignantly denied by the Benedictines. Although the records are silent, one feels there must have been some sort of foundation for this rumour, some individual cases of friction, exaggerated into an accusation of common dissension. [5] When subsequently Father Parsons, in presenting to the Roman Curia his objections to the Benedictine Mission, reiterated this point of two rival congregations, Father Leander Jones in his reply would allow of no dissension between the two bodies and refers only to a difficulty among the Spanish concerning a change of Superior made by their General. [6] The following letter, written from London in June, 1605, apparently by one of the Cassinese party to a confrere in Italy, will give us some notion of the atmosphere in which they lived. [7] He writes :—

'The times have never been harder for Catholics than they are at present, and worse is feared. So far it has not come to blood, but against liberty and property violence of every kind prevails. In spite of this, praised be God, the number of Catholics increases daily, and many even of the wolves of Puritans become sheep of Christ; many who formerly, seeing our cause masqueraded under the guise and title of treason, were our enemies, now, perceiving this to be from mere malice and envy against the Catholic religion, open their eyes and look more attentively to their own salvation. And we also, although but few and poor workmen, assist in our measure in augmenting the flock of Christ : one thing only we desire and it is that these our labours for God's service and the salvation of souls be not hindered and distracted by the trouble necessary for defending our good name'against the injuries and calumnies inflicted on us by the Jesuit fathers, whereof I will recount to you one or two instances, not judging of their intentions, but merely in the desire that a. remedy may be applied to their proceedings by the authority of superiors.

'After Don Thomas' departure for Italy, a person of quality who was then in a state of damnation, much afflicted in conscience and in grave peril of eternal reprobation, was directed to a Jesuit father, but after a long conference with him, God not then co-operating, he came away much more confused and downcast than ever, and with the intention of having recourse to some heretical minister. However, God who wills not the death of a sinner, inspired him with the purpose of conferring once more with some other Catholic, and he was directed to that same person who saw you for the first and last time at Monte Cavallo. [8] and whose beard was at that time shorter than his teeth. Through his means, God concurring by His grace, the gentleman was quite comforted and brought back to the true way of salvation, in which I hope he will ever continue. No sooner had this come to be known than one of those good fathers employed every effort and means to remove this gentleman from the care of him who had brought about his happy state, and to introduce himself or some associate instead. Had the convert perceived this, it would have been to him not only a cause of scandal but maybe would also have undone all that God had worked in him. However, the matter coming to the timely notice of your friend he complained of it and one of the fathers coming to make excuses assured him that their intention had been good and that the abuse was only material and not formal. How hateful and harmful are such methods of procedure anyone knows who considers the way by which a priest must acquire reputation or convenience in England, especially when the agents for the fathers insinuate everywhere that no one, whatever be his condition, so long as he is not of that Society (to use their own words) is apt for dealing with persons of quality or position.

On another occasion this same friend of yours, and first known by you at Monte Cavallo, having been asked by certain friends of high standing to stay at their house, when he was about to celebrate, a follower of the fathers refused at first to be present, thinking it was Fr. Roberts the Benedictine, and said that Fr. Roberts was excommunicated, as an instrument had come from Rome, under hand of a public notary and authorised by Cardinal Borghese, which proved false what Fr. Roberts had said about Fr. Parsons, how he had been driven and banished from Rome; whereas the truth is that Fr. Roberts had never said any such thing, nor anything else about Fr. Parsons save that he had had a good wigging and been humbled at Rome for having spread there indiscreet rumours of a fictitious dissension among the Benedictines in England, and how they were in communication with the pseudo-bishop of London. But of these and many similar calumnies the Jesuit fathers can never give any justification. It is not for this that I write to you, but merely to make the matter known to those only who are able to apply a remedy for the future, that in unity and charity we may all attend to the salvation of our own souls and those of others, and hence I beg that these facts may be kept secret from all others.'

The danger of mutual rivalry among themselves and the use made thereof by unfriendly rivals, soon brought home to the monks the pressing need of their joining together in one organised body. It is the purpose of this essay to outline the steps that led to corporate union between them, and to the re-establishment of the venerable English Benedictine Congregation. I propose to take the account given in the Apostolatus [9] as a general basis, interpreting and supplementing it from other sources. These sources are chiefly some original notes on the subject by Father Edward Maihew, which have happily survived the centuries, [10] some contemporary papers preserved in Weldon's Memorials, and other original materials gathered by Cardinal Gasquet, Father Mackey, Doctor Guilday and other searchers in archives at home and abroad.

Various schemes of union were considered during the dozen or so years that were required for bringing the matter to a successful issue. Briefly, from the Apostolatus they are as follows: a preliminary 'modus vivendi' agreed upon at a date not given; a first scheme of corporate union agreed upon in England, following upon a meeting at Rheims, date likewise not given; a second scheme in 1610; the 'Union of the Four Articles' in 1613; what has been called the 'Anselmian Union' in 1614 ; and finally the union concluded by the definitory in Paris in 1617.

The Apostolatus describes the preliminary step thus :—-

'After [the monks of the two Congregations] had for some time faithfully laboured in the mission, they saw from various happenings that it was almost necessary for the happy course of their mission that some union or hierarchy be established among them, lest if they continued the work of preaching independently of each other, 'as being monks of two distinct congregations, their labour should be less fruitful, and perchance they might fall into occasions of strife and dissension. For this reason there was formed between them a certain alliance in which it was decreed, under certain rules, that they should render one another mutual assistance, and undertake nothing of importance save by common counsel and in the name of and with the united assent of both superiors.' [11]

That is all that the Apostolatus gives, and I have been unable to find any further details of the affair or to fix its date which we shall see, however, cannot have been later than 1607.

The writer of the Apostolatus at once proceeds to recount a subsequent agreement which was the first scheme of corporate union, thus :—

'Some time after, when Fr. Augustine the first Vicar-General of the Spanish mission, after laying the foundation of two monasteries, at Douai in Belgium and Dieulouard in Lorraine, went to the city of Rheims, there to consult Fr. Gabriel (now Archbishop of Rheims, but then a monk of ours and rector of the academy of Rheims) and also Fr. Leander who was then living in the monastery of S. Remi, concerning the affairs of our Mission and the beginning of the two monasteries, it happened that they discussed union and agreed that nothing would be more useful for our affairs than that the English monks of both congregations, to wit of Spain and Italy, should form one body politic, under the same laws, ceremonies and Superiors. As they were thus conversing, there came in upon them unexpectedly Fr. Thomas Preston, the superior of the monks of the Italian congregation, and his coming was such that as one was saying 'If only Fr. Preston were here that we might treat of these matters with him at that very moment he, being exiled from England, knocked at the door of the room in which the council was proceeding, and asked for them. His arrival, unexpected indeed but so opportune, was taken as a sign of God's will and as a proof that our design of entering upon a union was pleasing to His divine providence. Before the meeting ended some few articles were proposed such as seemed suitable for the purpose, and the result was that within a very few weeks, at another meeting of our brethren in England, a formula of union was drawn up, which will be found in the Appendix,' [12]

Unfortunately, however, the scheme is not to be found in the Appendix. Likewise, as already said, the writer omits to give us the date of the agreement, but proceeds at once to retail events that led up to the next scheme, which he dates 1610.

From other sources, however, we can, I think, get further light on the agreement and also fix its date. Father Maihew in his notes, written in the years 1614-16, while union was still being discussed, mentions the various schemes till then attempted, and previous to that of 1610 he refers to one of 1607. He says 'it was decreed by Father Augustine and others in the year 1607' that 'all the English Benedictines should unite into one English Congregation'; and in another place he says that a 'union agreed in England in 1607' decided that 'the same English Congregation should be independent of every other as regards regimen and the election of Superiors. [13] One is at once led to identify this agreement between Father Augustine and others and the union in England with the Rheims agreement and subsequent union in England recounted to us by the Apostolatus as the first scheme of corporate union. The date would consequently be 1607, and there are other evidences for this year. It is not without significance that the writer in the Apostolatus after giving the Rheims conference, goes on at once to recount the aggregation of Sadler and Maihew, which occurred in November, 1607, as a step which soon altered the state of affairs by bringing in a third party, and so, later, induced the necessity of a new scheme. In a letter written by Father Leander to Abbot Cavarel in 1615, he says that when they treated with the Cassinese about union 'eight years ago,' therefore in 1607, abstinence was one of the points agreed upon. [14] In September, 1607, Father Leander wrote from Rheims his reply to Father Parsons' accusations, and therein is an indication that there was a movement for union afoot at that time. To the accusation of dissension between the two Benedictine congregations he replies that though of independent congregations they had hitherto lived of one mind, and adds, 'deinceps major unio melius hanc conservabit unitatem' and 'Unio aderit, uti speramus.' [15] This from Rheims in 1607 is to my mind significant. Again there is the petition, discovered by Dr. Guilday in the Vatican archives (and assigned by him to 1607), [16] addressed by the English monks to Cardinal Borghese, begging his Eminence to forward their endeavour for corporate union. This petition in its matter and wording reminds one forcibly of the Apostolatus account of the Rheims meeting. It relates that the chief members of both bodies, chancing to meet together, discussed the best means for forming of both parties 'one single body'; that they agreed it was most necessary to have one superior from among them over all the rest, and that he should be elected by the members of the mission 'who are at present fifteen or sixteen.'

Here then we have the year and the main lines of the first scheme, but a consideration of the current of events in that year will, I think, give us yet further light and corroboration. The year 1607 was a very critical one in our history. Father Bradshaw had just made the beginning of a monastery at Douai and had secured a site for another at Dieulouard. This only caused those who wished to see the Benedictine mission crushed to redouble their efforts against the movement. While Father Parsons was busy in Rome, Dr. Worthington, president of the secular college in Douai, was also using every effort to secure the suppression of the Douai monastery. [17] Their efforts so far succeeded that in March, 1607, Caraffa, the Apostolic Nuncio at Brussels, on instructions from Rome, sent for Father Bradshaw to urge him to quit Douai. This danger, however, was tided over. [18] Caraffa was just about to leave Flanders and in May Bentivoglio, the new Nuncio, set out from Rome. He proceeded leisurely on his way and did not reach Flanders until about the beginning of August, making his official entry into Brussels on the ninth of that month. [19] Meanwhile instructions had been sent to him from Rome (July 5th, 1607) which were, in brief, that he was to take measures to remove the English Benedictines from Douai. [20] Evidently our interests were not strongly represented in Rome. Already in March, after receiving Caraffa's summons, Father Bradshaw had written to Father Anselm Beech (or some other?) explaining the great need there was of help in the Roman Court. Father Raphael, an English Cassinese monk, was procurator at the time, but he was apparently in failing health and the work seems to have fallen gradually on to Mr. Nicholas Fitzherbert. [21] It is to him that Father Bradshaw writes on August 7th, and after acknowledging the receipt of letters which he had anxiously awaited, promises to write to him about 'our affairs' next week from Brussels. [22] Evidently he was to interview the newly arrived Nuncio, and we know very well what he had to expect. It was at this critical juncture, I think, that Father Bradshaw went to Rheims to consult Dr. Gifford and Father Leander, and also that one of the results of the conference was that Father Anselm Beech went to Rome to conduct there the affairs of all the English monks. He certainly went to Rome in that capacity in 1607 as we know from several sources. [23] Moreover, on his way he interviewed Fathers Bradshaw and Leander at Rheims, and Abbot Cavarel at Arras, that he might have a full understanding of how matters stood. [24] It was the main idea of Father Beech and the Cassinese that in setting up an English Congregation, valid succession with the old Congregation should be secured by means of Father Buckley. The question of aggregating some monks to Westminster was proposed at this time, and no doubt in intimate connection with the scheme of union. Canon Pitts [25] says that Father Bradshaw mentioned the matter to him, and that he directed a letter through Father Beech to Father Preston urging the aggregation of Sadler and Maihew. [26] The aggregation was effected, as we know, in November of that year. It is clear also that Father Beech, from his interview with Cavarel and the others, understood that the monastery to be erected at Douai (and I suppose also that of Dieulouard) was to be common to all the English monks. This appears from the letter of Cardinal Montalto to Cavarel of May 10th, 1608, written no doubt under Father Beech's inspiration, [27] and also from Father Beech's own letters. I mention these things not only because they indicate the atmosphere of the first scheme of union, but also because they show us the understanding on which Father Beech went to Rome, and help to explain his subsequent attitude on matters of union. And so in the autumn of 1607 (as I read the records) he proceeded to Rome in the capacity of procurator for all, both Cassinese and Spanish. [28] Three years later when the difficulties about the foundation had been successfully met, he reminded Abbot Cavarel that on his arrival in the Eternal City, he found there only one agent, a layman (Nicholas Fitzherbert, of course), and that our affairs were desperate, the Nuncio being under instructions to eject the monks from Douai. [29] Father Beech probably it was who presented to Cardinal Borghese the petition before mentioned, and no doubt he lost no time in gaining influence in other quarters. Bentivoglio, the Nuncio, says that he had proceeded from more gentle methods of persuasion to more rigorous ones in order to drive the monks from Douai, when he suddenly received new orders from Rome bidding him to withhold his hand. We know that on October 27th, the Holy See decreed that no force was to be used in the matter, and on November 3rd Cardinal Barberini wrote to the Nuncio that the monks were busily bringing more and more influence to bear, and that in order to settle the matter it would be well at once to find out whether the Archduke thought it expedient for the Benedictines to stay. [30]

One may ask, why did not the monks put their scheme of union into operation at once? It was not in their power; they required the sanction of their superiors and the matter had to come before the general chapters of Italy and Spain. The Cassinese chapter took place in May, 1608, [31] but the Spanish chapter was not until 1610. There was much to be done in the interval. They fought and won their cause in Rome, although the last items of the struggle lasted into 1609. They established the two monasteries and greatly increased the number of their members, and the Cassinese gradually secured with all legal precaution the succession of the old English congregation, with all rights and privileges. Moreover the parties had time for the more mature consideration of their ideas concerning the nature and terms of union. Father Beech's conception is evident from his notes and the outline which he submitted to the Cardinal Protector and to the Cassinese chapter. [32] It was that the older monks who had been professed in Italy and Spain should remain as they were but should unite their efforts to build up the old English congregation. This was to be done by the aggregation to Westminster of all the monks who had since received the habit outside Italy and Spain, whether in England or at Douai and Dieulouard. These were to form the English Congregation and were to have equal rights with the rest in all the goods belonging to the mission. Until the said congregation was firmly established it was to be governed by a triennial superior or president, to be chosen alternately from the monks of the Spanish and Italian parties, to whom all the monks of the mission were to be subject. In this way would gradually be brought into being an independent English Congregation, the direct lawful successor of the old congregation. With this object in view Father Beech obtained from the Pope in September, 1609, a verbal ratification of the aggregation which had already taken place, and in December, old Father Buckley (two months before his death) handed over to Father Preston the government of the small English congregation. At the same time Father Beech took steps to secure an acknowledgment of the rights of the Cassinese and English in the monasteries of Douai and Dieulouard. Whether he applied to Cavarel or took Douai for granted, I do not know. He applied however to the Chapter at Nancy concerning Dieulouard, who in turn applied to Pitts on behalf of Father Beech. Pitts felt the delicacy of the situation. In a letter to Father Bradshaw he explained that at the date of the donation (December, 1606) he had no knowledge of the Cassinese or of the English Congregation, and consequently he had dealt with Bradshaw alone, as Vicar of the monks of Spain. [33] He agreed to the arrangements of 1607, as we have seen, but that was subsequent to the act of donation.

In May 1610 was held the General Chapter in Spain. The Cassinese Chapter had already agreed to the scheme of union as presented to it by Father Beech, and now the Spanish Chapter was clearly not opposed to the idea of union. Father Maihew states that Father Leander and his confreres earnestly begged that leave might be granted them to pass into the English Congregation as it then existed. He also states that by decree of this Chapter 'permission was given to all monks of the Spanish Congregation working in the mission to pass completely into the English congregation, without any dependance on that of Spain.' And again he says that the Chapter seems to have agreed that the said English Congregation should be perfectly independent in its ruling and in the election of its superiors. [34] At any rate, after the Spanish chapter all were busy in arranging and bringing union into effect. In June the Nancy chapter gave a declaration that Dieulouard was for all the English monks, and in July the Bishop of Verdun in giving a like declaration urged the union into one English Congregation. Apparently it was at this time that Pitts gave his final declaration to the same effect. Consequently in August Father Preston sent him from London a procuration to take formal possession of Dieulouard in his name. Meanwhile (in June) Father Leander, after correspondence with the Cassinese and the brethren in England, expressed to Cavarel his agreement with the idea of union and that the new monastery of Douai (then being built) should be given to all as an English congregation. In like strain Father Beech from Rome wrote to Cavarel that the monastery be given to the English congregation pure and simple and that it might act as a mere diversorium for the Cassinese and the Spanish. Hence when Father Gifford, who along with two others had been appointed by the General to enquire into the need of union and the question of support, wrote to Cavarel to ask him for whom he intended the monastery at Douai, the Abbot replied that the building was of course primarily for his own, monks of St. Vaast, but that he proposed to devote one third of it to all the English monks, urging them to unite and form an English congregation, as they proposed, with a superior immediately subject to the Pope. [35]

There was then apparently a wondrous unanimity among those chiefly interested, that all unite into an independent English congregation. A new scheme of union resulted. The Apostolatus briefly states that 'another meeting between the superiors of the three congregations was held in England, in which was conceived a formula of union, which the reader will find in the appendix.' The scheme is there dated Februaiy 13th, 1610, but should be 1611. The current of events shows this. Moreover, an ancient copy preserved by Weldon (in English—probably the original language) is dated and also endorsed February 13th, 1611. [36] Father Maihew speaks of 'the union agreed at Dieulouard in 1610 and the other in England in 1611 between superiors and deputies of all three congregations, which unions were highly authentic'; and in another place he refers to the union at Dieulouard in 1610 and 'that which followed in England.' [37] The meeting at Dieulouard will then have been towards the end of 1610. The Apostolatus tells us that Father Bradshaw went over to England for the meeting there, and certainly he was in England early in 1611. [38] The agreement in England then was of February 13th, 1611, and was signed by Bradshaw, Preston, Sadler, Maihew, and Fr. Nicolas Fitzjames. [39] It was in substance as follows :—They should be called 'Monks of the English Mission'; under one superior to be chosen by six electors, the three oldest of Spain, and the other three from the Cassinese and English; the electors should first of all draw up constitutions for the Mission; the Spanish superiors should renounce any right to property that had been acquired by their English subjects in the Mission; in all future monasteries, members to be professed for the English Congregation; Father Bradshaw was to secure an agreement from his superiors in Spain that all members received in future at Douai and Dieulouard be likewise professed for the English Congregation.

When Father Bradshaw returned to his brethren in Flanders, they refused to admit these terms of union, because, says the Apostolatus, they thought it would be difficult to obtain the assent of the Superiors in Spain. In the light of all that had gone before this seems to me a very surprising turn of events. I find no record of objections in detail, or of objectors, or of the leader of the opposition. One cannot imagine that it came from the older men. The Spanish General had assigned to Father Bradshaw, to assist him in the government of the mission, a council or 'junta,' consisting of Fathers Joseph Prater, Gabriel Gifford, Leander Jones and Gregory Grange. [40] Of these Father Prater was in England; Father Grange was at Dieulouard in the summer of 1610, and I presume that he along with Fathers Gifford and Jones took part in the Dieulouard meeting already mentioned and hence one would not expect any of these to now lead an opposition. In the light of what followed I suspect that the opposition came from new arrivals from Spain and especially from Father Rudisind Barlow, who arrived just about this time. He was a young man of twenty-six, who had just taken his doctorate at Salamanca, and who lost no time in assuming a leading part in the matter of union.

At this point there came under consideration Father Beech's scheme of union, which the Cassinese Chapter had approved some years previously. It was, however, not accepted. In July, Father Preston delegated to Father Sadler his powers as president of the English congregation. At this period the Spanish party were forced, at the instance of benefactors, to yield to the English congregation a half share in Dieulouard. Pitts, in May, 1612, formally took possession on behalf of the English Congregation. It is evident that a split took place in the Spanish party, some siding with Father Bradshaw, others with Father Barlow, under whose inspiration feeling increased to such an extent against Father Bradshaw that the General was induced to depose him from office and recall him to Spain. Accordingly, on September 20th, Father Bradshaw assisted at the installation of Father Leander as his successor at Douai and on October 8th set out for Spain. [41] In December Father Beech in Rome further secured the position of the English Congregation by obtaining from Pope Paul V a Bull solemnly ratifying the aggregation. With Father Bradshaw out of the way, Father Barlow and Father Leander pushed forward a new scheme of union, which has been called the 'Union of the Four Articles.' It arranged for union between the Spanish and the English, and was made necessary, says the Apostolatus, by their common possession of Dieulouard. As for the Cassinese, they might join if they cared to accept its terms. Happily Weldon has preserved to us an ancient copy of the scheme together with the lengthy glosses which were subsequently added before the English Congregation could be brought to accept the union. [42] Briefly it is as follows:— The two parties were to unite in an English Mission under obedience to the Spanish Congregation. They were to be called simply 'Monks of the English Mission,' but were to be really all monks of the Spanish congregation, retaining however the rights and privileges of the old English Congregation by reason of those who had actually been aggregated thereto. Hence there should be no difference among them whatever as regards rights, privileges and offices in the mission. Should the Spanish Congregation ever decide to recall its mission, all those monks professed out of Spain might remain in the English congregation, quite independent of Spain, and retaining all the monasteries and other property of the mission.

This scheme was presented to the Spanish Chapter in May, 1613, by whom it was approved and sanctioned. Father Maihew says that although Father Barlow presented these terms as acceptable to the English Congregation, 'scarcely one of the English Congregation had consented to them.' [43] On returning from Chapter, Father Barlow and Father Leander sought to obtain the signatures of the English congregation, but the English refused to sign the articles as they stood. Father Maihew came over to Douai this year and after much discussion lengthy glosses were added to the articles which altered them very materially. Therein it was clearly stated that the English, although acting under the obedience of the Spanish congregation, remained, as before, an English congregation. Moreover their number was to be at once increased to twelve by the addition of some other members of the mission, and that number was to be always maintained. A special set of 'Statutes of the English Mission' was to be drawn up, suitable for the mission, although based on the Spanish constitutions. The members were to sign themselves simply 'Monk of the English Mission,' and all future professions were to be made for a specified monastery 'under the obedience of the English Mission.' In case the Spanish Congregation ever withdrew its mission, all those professed out of Spain and remaining in the English mission were to join with the English monks as members of an independent English congregation. Finally, at the first election of officials some of the English Congregation must be elected to the vicariate of the mission in England and other offices, and in future elections there must be no partiality.

In October, 1613, Fathers Sadler, Maihew and Baker signed the agreement, and later also Sigebert Bagshaw and Clement Reyner. [44] It was signed for the other party by Father Leander the Spanish vicar, and Father John Barnes and Father Rudisind Barlow as his assistants. Subsequently Father Francis Foster, of the English Congregation, was appointed Prior of Dieulouard although he had not yet signed the union and was destined never to sign it. The Apostolatus says that the Spanish Chapter appointed Father Sadler as Vicar in England, and Father Maihew to be one of Father Leander's assistants. On Candlemas Day, 1614, the monks of the English and Spanish congregations assembled in chapter at Dieulouard, where Father Paulinus Appleby, till then prior of that monastery, was present, but Father Maihew, by commission of the Vicar, presided. The official appointment by the Spanish General of Father Foster as prior of Dieulouard, was formally promulgated, and as Father Foster was still in England, Father Maihew was declared president of the monastery during the prior's absence. [45] The union however was destined to come to nothing. Father Maihew says that when the General, who had not been informed about the glosses to the articles, was told of them by some Spanish fathers who disagreed with the union, he refused to admit the glosses and consequently annulled the union; also, that Fathers Leander and Rudisind by public edict declared the union void. [46] This may have been at a later period. Meanwhile, however, a greater blow to the union came from Rome, where Father Beech, who in July, 1613, had succeeded Father Preston as president of the English Congregation, secured the sanction of his own scheme which completely turned the tables and practically subjected the Spanish party to the English Congregation. The scheme of the 'Four Articles' and the manner in which it had been brought about was, as we can well understand, very unacceptable to Father Beech. He resolved to make an effort to preserve the independence of the English Congregation which he had done so much to preserve in being. He at once put his own scheme into form and secured the signatures of the procurators (foreign) of the Cassinese and Spanish Congregations. As Father Maihew says, it was then 'confirmed by the Holy Inquisition and confirmed and commanded to be observed by the Pope's Holiness and the Cardinal Protector.' This 'Anselmian Union' was issued on February 3rd, 1614, and orders were sent to the Nuncios to see that it was carried into effect. Needless to say, Father Barlow did not accept in silence this unexpected turn of events; but of this and the final agreement, more anon.