he can to undo what has been done, and will be a constant source of annoyance to the Holy See."[1]
Father Faber wrote in similar strains:—
"If [Dr Errington] returns to Westminster as Archbishop, the Holy See will have to reckon that it will take fifty, if not a hundred, years to restore England to the pitch of Ultramontanism which she has now reached."[2]
On Wiseman's death the older Catholic party made one more struggle for supremacy. The Chapter of Westminster, notwithstanding that Manning presided, longed for a Bishop of the older school. Accordingly, their then selected candidates were Bishop Errington, Bishop Grant, and Bishop Clifford. The insertion of Errington's name was considered by the Pope as a personal insult. In the interests of their own aims it was certainly unwise; for it rendered the Pope disinclined to listen to any of the Chapter's suggestions.[3] As for Bishop Clifford, Manning denounced him in a private letter to Rome as a worldly Catholic, i.e. opposed to the Ultramontanes; and he sided against Infallibility afterwards in the Vatican Council. As for Bishop Grant, Manning wrote:—
"I cannot for a moment even fear that the Holy See would accept any one of these names. I wish," added Manning, conscious of the critical nature of the struggle for the future of Ultramontanism in England, "I wish that the Holy Father would reserve the Archbishopric in perpetuity to the Holy See. For it is perfectly certain that whoever comes, it is a question of a change of policy. It is Tories out and Whigs in, with all the consequences."[4]
