Chapter Eight
VIII

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE

THE RESIGNATION of Prior Fowler had momentous conse-
quences for Belmont, for whereas he had been a supporter
of the old method of governing the Congregation which had
been in force before 1900, and favoured now the continuance
of the Common House, so that he was correspondingly
lukewarm in advancing the claims and ambitions of the
new Belmont Conventus, his successor as Prior took precisely
the opposite view, and from his first day in office was
determined to bring about as soon as possible the end of the
Common House, and of the monastic Newport Chapter
with its diocesan connections, and to press for the establish-
ment of Belmont as an independent monastery, and for its
elevation to the rank of an Abbey. Thus from January 1915
discussions, negotiations and petitions for these ends became
the order of the day, and remained so for the next five years.
This, of course, had long been the policy of Abbot Butler
and Abbot Ford of Downside, the former of whom had now
become Abbot-President of the Congregation (1914) in
succession to Abbot Gasquet. They were keenly interested in
Belmont, and believed on both theoretical and practical
grounds that the Common House should be discontinued,
and therefore that the only feasible future for Belmont was
that it should become an independent monastery on a par
with the other Houses. Abbot Ford had been the leader of
the party which had fought since 1880 for the abolition of the
Provincial System, and Abbot Butler now carried on his
policy of strengthening the monasteries and lessening the
part played by the missions in the life of the E.B.C. And in
all this they had a strong supporter and a willing helper in
the new Cathedral Prior of Belmont.

140

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE I41

Before the end of 1914 Abbot Butler knew, of course, of
the imminent resignation of Prior Fowler, and on the first
day of the new year he had a talk with his own Claustral
Prior, Dom Aelred Kindersley, in the course of which he
asked him whether he would be willing to accept election as
Cathedral Prior of Belmont. For clearly he must naturally
have felt that it would be for the good of Belmont if, in this
critical time, it had a Superior whose views agreed with his
own. Dom Aelred has left it on record that he replied that
he would do so only on condition that this implied headship
in its full sense of a community which could have its full
rights as such, and that the House would be carried on by
the Belmont Community (not, as hitherto, by the resident
Canons from other Houses); but not if the Prior was to be a
mere figure-head, and Belmont simply a Common House.
To this Abbot Butler replied that such were also the views
of himself and of the other Abbots.1 If this were indeed so, it
can only be assumed that they very quickly changed their
minds, for their subsequent words, both at Chapter and in
correspondence, clearly showed that they did not at all
favour the granting of autonomy to Belmont, at least for a
considerable period to come. Thus Abbot Oswald Smith of
Ampleforth thought that it should be deferred until Belmont
should show itself to be self-supporting (which at that date
seemed equivalent to postponing it to the Greek kalends);
Abbot David Hurley of Douai was unwilling to see the end
of the old and well-proved Common House; and Abbot
Oswald Hunter-Blair of Fort Augustus preferred to be
neutral.2

But Abbot Butler refused to be discouraged, and he came
to Belmont and addressed the Community there, saying that
though they had no right of election, yet, by a special
rescript from Rome, they were allowed to submit names

1 Abbot Kinderslys Diary
2 The reply given by Abbot Butler above is thus quoted by both Dr Newlyn
Smith (who wrote an account of the struggle to procure Belmont s independ-
ence) and Dom Gregory Buisseret. But in the account of this incident given
by Dom Roger Hudleston (Downside Review, January 1935) Abbot Butlers
reply is said to have been that 'the views Dom Aelred had expressed[as to the
position of the Prior of Belmont were those held by himself and by the other
Abbots'. The difference is significant. (Italics mine.—B.W.)

142 THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY
together with those selected by the Diocesan Chapter. At the
same time he mentioned Dom Aelred Kindersley to them
and strongly commended him. The only other name men-
tioned was that of Dom Bernard Hayes, who had just ceased
to be novice-master at Belmont, and a large majority of the
Community fell in with Abbot Butler's suggestion and asked
for Dom Aelred Kindersley, though none of those present
had ever seen him, or knew anything about him. For they
were greatly impressed by the Abbot's words, and especially
by his assurance that he would do all that was possible to
establish them as an independent community. The upshot
was that Fr Kindersley was in fact elected on January 81 and
he arrived at Belmont the following day and was formally
installed as Cathedral Prior three days later, on which
occasion both he and Abbot Butler reaffirmed their intention
that the Belmont Conventus should have the first place at St
Michael's (hitherto they had been an appanage of the
Common House). As if to ratify this, when on January 15
Bishop Hedley stated that he required two more resident
Canons, two of the new Community (DD. Gregory Buisseret
and Cuthbert Formby) were chosen; while a little later the
Bishop agreed to support the request that the Community
should have the right of electing their Superior.

George Aelred Kindersley was fifty-four when he became
Cathedral Prior and he ruled Belmont for practically twenty
years. Born in India, he had spent all his life since the age of
eleven at Downside, except for his four years as a novice and
junior at Belmont (1879-1883), and at Downside he filled a
succession of offices, all apparently with marked success.
From 1887 to 1906 he taught in the school, for part of which
time he was Prefect of Discipline, and for almost the whole
of that long period he was also Master of Ceremonies, in
which capacity he was responsible for the organisation and
smooth working of the elaborate functions which marked
the Triduum to celebrate the opening of the Abbey Church

1 He was elected by the Abbot-President and the two Assistant Abbots, in
accordance with the Constitutions. These decreed that the Cathedral Prior
should be elected by the General Chapter, but that if the vacancy occurred
when Chapter was not sitting (as in the present case), the above three should
choose the new Prior from the list presented by the Newport Chapter.

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE 143
in 1905. One year after that. Abbot Butler became Abbot
and he at once appointed Dom Aelred his Claustral Prior.
Two years later, on the setting up of the Downside noviciate
in 1908 the Prior became also Novice Master for a short
time until he was made Procurator, which post he continued
to fill until he left Downside for Belmont.
In his relations with the Community at Belmont, Prior
Kindersley was somewhat hampered by his temperament
and manner. Very tall and gaunt in appearance, with
beetling brows, he was apt to appear formidable, while,
unlike his predecessor, he was not what is called a 'good
mixer', and he lacked Prior Fowler's geniality and personal
charm. For he was an intensely shy and self-conscious man
who hated any display of emotion or sentiment, and this
shyness, as is often the case, made him appear brusque and
uncompanionable. In reality he was sympathetic and under-
standing, but his reserved nature only too often concealed
the fact. In this respect, he was also handicapped by being
very much older than any of the Belmont Community: a
generation older than even the priests, and this gap his
manner and nature prevented him from bridging. Thus it
might be said that for the most part his was a lonely life at
Belmont, for he had no intimates in the house. None the less,
many of the monks could tell of great kindness received at
his hands, and, if not an inspirer of affection, yet the example
set by his personal observance of the Rule, his unfailing
attendance in Choir (he was invariably the first down in
choir at Matins, despite his age), and his strictness with
himself, all made an indelible impression on his young
Community. He was very rarely absent from the monastery,
and he practically never dispensed himself from the smallest
item of the monastic routine.

Under the new regime Dom Lawrence Buggins ofAmple-
forth was appointed Novice Master, while Fr Joseph Colgan,
who had for so very many years been Procurator, now retired
at last and was succeeded by Dom Dunstan Sibley. This was
the first time that a member of the Belmont Community had
been appointed to hold an office in the house. But he did
not keep it long, for he soon volunteered to serve as an Army
14.4 THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY
Chaplain, as did also Frs Wilfrid de Normanville, Anselm
Lightbound, and Ambrose Buisseret, and all four were
drafted to foreign service.1 The Juniors also were themselves
affected by the war, for they found that the traditional sea-
side holiday at Caswell Bay, near Swansea, had to be can-
celled, because the funds for this ten days' holiday were
invested in Austrian securities, which were now, of course,
of no value. For many years the Juniors of the Common
House, under the charge of their Junior Master, had gone
to this secluded spot and taken complete possession of the
small hotel there: a holiday they owed to the generosity of
Mrs Helen Brymer who had supplied the above funds. This
was the first of many traditional customs that disappeared
owing to war-time conditions and were never restored.2
Some, however, were dropped of set purpose by Prior
Kindersley who did not like usages to which he had not been
accustomed at Downside; and in this class fell the feast days
and month-days spent at the Grange, which from now on
were shorn of much of their former glory.

Meantime the Prior had not allowed the grass to grow
under his feet as regards the future of the House. In July
he petitioned for the community to be allowed to elect its
own Superior, and at the same time received a financial
grant to enable two of the Community to pursue higher
studies at Oxford and Rome; and at the Conventual Chapter
in September he again stressed his plans for the future of the
House and asked the Community's support. In view of the
fact that very soon no more novices would be sent from the
other Houses, it was necessary for Belmont to become self-
supporting and to have definite work to do. His plan was
that -

(i) The monks should train themselves to give retreats and
missions, to preach and lecture, and to provide 'supplies' for the
secular clergy.

1 Dom Romuald Leonard, who had been on holiday in Austria from S.
Anselrno at the outbreak of the war, was arrested there as an enemy alien,
and was interned in the Abbey of Seitenstetten from July 1914 to April 1915,
after which he returned to Belmont. 
2 But the war brought one relaxation to the Juniors, for m 1914 a weekly
'long sleep' was inaugurated for them. Before then, there had been a sleep
only on 'month-days'.

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE 145

(a) The standard of philosophical and theological studies
should be such that if other houses had students to send away
for their studies, they could be satisfied that such work would be
competently done at Belmont.

(3) Eventually Belmont should have missions attached to it.

But the question of the independence of the monastery
was necessarily complicated by the existence of the Monastic
Chapter of Newport and the fact that the church was the
Pro-Cathedral. There had already been talk of transferring
the seat of the Bishop from Newport to Cardiff, and of
setting up a Secular Chapter; and it had all along been the
desire of Abbot Butler and of Prior Kindersley to be al-
together free of the diocesan connection which they con-
sidered an incubus.1 They therefore wished the Monastic
Chapter to cease to exist, and for the church to cease to be
the Pro-Cathedral, so that Belmont might become merely
an ordinary monastery. To this, of course, many objected
(notably Prior Cummins), for they treasured the historic
associations of the Cathedral Priory and the prestige that
this brought to Belmont, and felt it would be unforgivable
wantonly to throw these things away. Naturally in all this
matter the Bishop was closely concerned, and on him much
depended. But in May Bishop Hedley had a severe heart
attack and received the Last Sacraments, and although he
recovered, there followed another attack in August which
left him very weak, and on November 11 he died. Thus
fresh complications were added to a situation that was
already over-complicated.

During the vacancy in the See of Newport speculation
was rife, not only as to who would be the new Bishop, but
also on the prospects for the erection of an Archdiocese of
Cardiff, and on the effect this would have on Belmont and on
the Newport Chapter. Prior Kindersley agreed with the
Procurator in Curia (Dom Philip Langdon) that this was the
time to have the whole question of Belmont settled by Rome,
but the Abbot-President (Abbot Butler) strongly dissented,
and said that the matter must await the appointment of a
new Bishop. On December i the Newport Chapter sent in
1 The Prior was already strongly urging that the House should be raised to the
rank of an Abbey. This was part of his aim from the first.
146 THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY
its terna of names for filling the vacant see, and at the same
time the Metropolitan (the Archbishop of Birmingham)
agreed that the Superiors of the E.B.C. should have a share
in the discussions regarding the setting up of an Arch-
bishopric. Meanwhile Abbot Butler made preparations for
convoking an Extraordinary General Chapter as soon as the
new Bishop should be appointed, for the settlement of the
whole problem of Belmont and of its relations with the
diocese. He held that at that Chapter Belmont should
petition for the raising of the house to the dignity of an
Abbey, and that it should be freed from the Cathedral and
the Chapter: this would necessitate having recourse to
Rome to change the Constitutions. And it was at this moment
that Rome sprang a surprise by issuing the Bull Cambria
Celtica on February 7, 1916. Obviously this document must
have been in preparation for a considerable time, but it
came as a complete surprise to Abbot Butler and to Prior
Kindersley, both of whom were much disconcerted, if not
dismayed, by it. There is reason for believing that Cardinal
Gasquet and Dom Philip Langdon in Rome had played a
part in its construction. At all events, this Bull greatly
complicated matters as regards Belmont and the Cathedral
Chapter, and after several years of misunderstanding on the
subject between the E.B.G. and Rome, it had eventually to
be nullified by the Holy See.1
Briefly it had six points, of which it was the fifth that
caused most of the trouble. These were:

i The dioceses of Newport and Menevia were to be separated
from the Province of Birmingham, and be made into a new
Province 

2 The episcopal seat of Newport was transferred to Cardiff,
and the church of St David in that city was made the Cathedral.

3 The See of Menevia was made Suffragan to Cardiff.

4 A Secular Chapter was set up at Cardiff.

5 The Monastic Chapter at Belmont and the Cathedral there,
were to be maintained in their existing state, with such modifica-
tions as the Abbot President should propose within one year.
The Prior of Belmont was to retain the privilege of Pontificalia.

6. There was to be one Episcopal Curia only, established at

Cardiff.

1 The full text of this Bull is on p. 221 sq., infra.

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE 147

Thus there were to be two Cathedrals (and Belmont was
no longer to be a mere Pro-Cathedral), and two Chapters,
the one Secular, the other Regular. So that Abbot Butler and
Prior Kindersley, so far from succeeding in freeing Belmont
from the diocesan connection altogether, now found that
connection more firmly clamped on them than before. Small
wonder they were not pleased by the Bull. Quite apart from
the difficulty of making such a double Chapter work
efficiently, there was also the point that the new arrangement
was an obstacle to the scheme for obtaining complete
independence for Belmont, and for setting up an abbatial
throne here. For this could not be done so long as the
cathedra belonged to the Bishop. It may be said now that it
later transpired that all this had been decided by Rome
because the authorities there had been led to believe that
this was what Belmont and the E.B.C. wanted; and it took
several years to make clear to Rome that it was not what they
wanted. Hence the misunderstandings and frustrations of
the next four years. Abbot Butler was not so disappointed
by the Bull as was the Prior, for he thought it did not
necessarily interfere with Belmont becoming independent,
though it did make its advancement to the rank of an Abbey
impossible; and he also realised that it meant, now that
effective power had passed to a Secular Chapter, that, as he
said, 'the Benedictine Diocese was at an end'.1 But to neither
of these two points did he in reality attach much importance;
it was the Prior who particularly wanted the place to become
an Abbey.

But space forbids any consideration here in detail of the
pros and cons of this matter, or of the voluminous corres-
pondence on the subject that immediately followed. The
letters of the time, in fact, reflect the confusion which was
caused in minds by this ill-fated Bull, the only effect of which
was to delay by several years the final settlement of the
matter, and to cause a vast amount of work and worry to
1 'When that is recognised', he wrote to Prior Kindersley, 'people might
come to acquiesce in a petition for Belmont to be relieved of its new dignity
(the Cathedral); but up to this (time) the (General) Chapter would never
have been got to do so, for it has been to many people the apple of their eye,
and "the great glory of the Congregation"—of course all fudge.'
148  THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY
those concerned. But the Belmont Community had only the
vaguest idea of what was going on, vitally though it would
affect them. There was, indeed, throughout these years
some dissatisfaction in the Community over the fact that the
Prior never consulted them as a whole, or kept them informed
of the negotiations afoot, though he occasionally spoke m a
general way of his aims and hopes during his conferences.
But he took none of them into his confidence, and everything
was arranged over their heads.

But Cambria Celtica was immediately followed by another
surprise from Rome, for on the day after the publication of
the Bull the appointment was announced of Bishop Romanus
Bilsborrow, O.S.B., of Port Louis, Mauritius, to be the first
Archbishop of Cardiff. This was indeed a surprise to all, and
unfortunately the appointment was not a pronounced success,
chiefly perhaps, though not entirely, because his transference
to the bracing winds of the Bristol Channel after spending
twenty years in the tropics was too much for the health of the
new Archbishop, and after five unhappy years of recurring
attacks of malaria he resigned and returned to Mauritius,
where he died in 1931. His departure from Cardiff meant,
as had been expected, the end of the Benedictine episcopate
But to return to 1916: the Belmont Conventual Chapter
on April 5 considered the Benedictine Chapter to be now
moribund and they wanted to give it up altogether rather
than to be merely a kind of 'honorary' Canons with the real
business of the diocese transacted by the Secular Canons at
Cardiff They therefore sent in a petition to the forthcoming
Extraordinary General Chapter asking that (i) Belmont be
made an Abbey; (2) that Belmont Church be allowed to
keep the privilege of being the Monastic Cathedral even
though it become an Abbey Church, and that the Abbot be
allowed to erect his throne in it; and (3) that the honorary
Monastic Canons be chosen by the Abbot President and
the Assistant Abbots not from the Belmont Conventus but
from the head-priests of the Benedictine missions in the
Archdiocese,1 and that Belmont Cathedral be served by the
1 Letter from Prior Kindersley to Abbot Butler.

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE 149

Belmont Conventus who in globo would be the Monastic
Chapter. The Archbishop's attitude to this was favourable
on the whole, though he doubted whether the General
Chapter would endorse it; but he much regretted that the
old arrangement of Belmont being a Common House was
changed, for that had given Belmont its raison d'etre and a
definite status, whereas now it was left to sink or swim and
with no definite purpose. The old Common House had, he
thought, done most useful work in bringing together the
young monks of the whole Congregation; and in particular
he hoped that the Common House of Studies might yet be
kept on. He also desired that Belmont should be able to
open a school, as there was nothing of the kind in the
diocese. From a talk with him the Prior got the impression
that the Archbishop was convinced that Belmont had been
made a Cathedral and given a Monastic Chapter (in Cambria
Celticd) with a view to cutting out of the Archdiocese, at
some future date, a new diocese that would be completely
Benedictine, and that naturally this would come about as
there would be in existence a Cathedral and Chapter
ready made.1

And so the time came for the meeting of the Extra-
ordinary General Chapter at Belmont on May 24, 1916.In a
circular letter issued a few days earlier Abbot Butler pointed
out that Belmont could not be a normal Benedictine
monastery until it had its own corporate family life and the
right of electing its own Superior, and that both these
requirements were prevented by the existence there of the
Common House. But this last element was rapidly dwindling
and it would soon be necessary either to wind up the
Common House altogether, or else to reconstitute it on
vigorous working lines. At present Belmont was neither one
thing nor the other, and only as one or the other could it
flourish. So the Chapter would have to decide 'whether the
time has not now come to release Belmont from the trammels
imposed on it by being the Common House, the Congrega-
tion surrendering the rights and claims it has on Belmont in
this capacity'.
1 Letter from Prior Kindersley to Abbot Butler.
150 THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY

At the Chapter the right of the Belmont delegate (Dom
Placid Smith) to be present was rejected. It will be recalled
that at two previous Chapters the presence of a Belmont
delegate had been objected to, but he had eventually been
allowed to remain as an observer. It may be mentioned here
that when at the next Chapter the same question arose, the
Holy See insisted that the Belmont delegate must be present
with the full rights possessed by other delegates. Then the
afore-mentioned Belmont petition (together with one from
Downside in support of it) was presented, and both were
rejected. The Chapter wanted to rule out all discussion of the
Belmont question as being too previous, and to proceed at
once to the Diocesan question, but it at once found that this
latter could obviously not be dealt with unless the status of
Belmont was first settled, whereupon it unanimously passed
a resolution that
'This Extraordinary General Chapter declares its opinion that the
establishment of Belmont as a fully autonomous community is
the definite ultimate policy of the E.B.G., although circumstances
at the present moment impose a delay in its fulfilment.'
At the same time it set up a Commission consisting of the
Prior of Belmont and DD. Wilfrid Gorney, Wilfrid Darby,
and Romuald Riley to consider and report on four points:
1. The present financial state of Belmont; 2. The possibility
of maintaining the Monastery if it should cease to be the
Common House; 3. The advisability of it continuing as the
Common House of Studies after 1918; 4. The advisability of
handing missions to Belmont.
With commendable speed this Commission met at Belmont
on June 5 and 6, and produced a unanimous Report.
Actually this Report only dealt with the first point (the
finances of Belmont), as the Commissioners said that the
second point was included in their answer to the first, and
that points 3 and 4 were matters for each Familia in the
Congregation, and for Belmont itself, respectively, and did
not concern them. But their answer to the first point is
interesting. Dealing with the three items of capital, income,
and expenditure, they stated that (a) including all Common
Funds and Special Belmont Funds, the investments amounted
to roughly £ 16,000; (6) the income, excluding Pensions and

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE 151
Deficit contributions, was £1,231; (c) the expenditure for the
previous year was £1,871, leaving a deficit of £640. They
estimated that if the Common House ceased to exist, so that
only the Belmontese monks plus a Prior and Sub-Prior were
living at St Michael's, the deficit would be reduced to
£500 per annum, assuming that the grant of £200 per
annum from the Hall and Province Funds continued.
Before dispersing, the General Chapter had decreed that
the Belmont problems were to be discussed at the Con-
ventual Chapters of the other Houses that summer, and at
them each House was to answer the following four questions:
(It will be of convenience to the reader if the answers
eventually received from the other four Houses are given
here and now after each question):

I. Does this Conventus endorse the Resolution of the recent
General Chapter on the policy of the Congregation in regard
to Belmont?
ANSWERS
Downside: This conventus is of opinion that a free and com-
plete autonomy should be enjoyed by the monas-
tery of St Michael's, Hereford.
Ampleforth: It was agreed by Chapter to answer affirma-
tively, but with the words 'for some years' sub-
stituted for 'the present moment' in the resolu-
tion referred to.1
Douai: We endorse the action of General Chapter.
Fort Augustus: This Conventus endorses the Resolution . . . and
trusts that that policy may be carried out with-
out unnecessary delay.
II. Will this Gonventus guarantee a proportionate share of the
£500 per annum which the Committee says will be required
for some years in order to float Belmont as an autonomous
House ?

ANSWERS
Downside: This Conventus guarantees for a period of five
years a proportionate sum of the £500 . . . with
the intention of renewal if necessary.
* This makes the clause read that autonomy is the ultimate policy of the
E.B.C. for Belmont, 'although circumstances/or some years (instead of "at the
present moment") impose a delay in its fulfilment'.
152 THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY
Ampleforth: This Conventus guarantees a proportionate
share of £500 per annum only until Belmont
becomes an autonomous House.1
Douai: We consider it unwise to contribute to the Funds
without exercising control.
Fort Augustus: This Conventus regrets that it is not in a position
at present to guarantee the payment of an
annual sum . . . , but it trusts it may be able to
do so later.
Ill Does this Conventus think it will be desirable for Belmont
' to be a 'Common House of Studies' after 1918, when it
ceases to be a Common Noviciate?

ANSWERS

Downside: Consideration is deferred.
Ampleforth: No direct answer was given.
Douai- As much may happen before 1918 the question
of a Common House of Studies (should) be
deferred.
Fort Augustus: This Conventus thinks it desirable that Belmont
should cease to be the Common House of
Studies.

IV Is this Gonventus willing to hand over to Belmont, when
Belmont can supply priests, one or more missions in the
Archdiocese of Cardiff?
ANSWERS
Downside: This Conventus will be willing to consider the
handing over to Belmont of one or more.2
Ampleforth: This Conventus is willing to consider it.
Douai: The question is premature.
Fort Augustus: This Conventus does not feel called on to pro-
nounce any opinion on this point.
Commenting on these answers in a circular, the Abbot-
President pointed out that if Belmont were not to become
autonomous until it was financially independent, autonomy
would not be practical politics for an indefinite time—if
ever; and that the present transitional stage at Belmont
could not continue 'for some years' (as Ampleforth wished)
1 Thus Ampleforth holds that Belmont should not be autonomous.until it u
self-supporting, whereas the £500 was wanted to enable it to be autonomous.
2 Downside also resolved that General Chapter be told that Downside
considers that the Hall Fund and the proceeds of the sale of the Roman Property
should be used as a further endowment of Belmont.

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE 153
for under the present conditions the hopes and enthusiasms
of the young conventus would be stifled and perish. In view
of the refusal of Ampleforth and Douai to subsidise an
independent Belmont, he said that the only practical way of
financing the place was by handing over to Belmont the
Congregational ('Hall') Fund 0^14,750, as proposed by the
Downside resolution. The only alternative was for Belmont
to continue as a Common House, which meant that the
other monasteries would have to man, staff and finance it,
and the replies from them to the above questions showed
that none of them would agree to do that. Meanwhile he
intended to get an authoritative decision from Rome as to
the canonical status of Belmont and its right to send a dele-
gate to Chapter. It was necessary to be certain on these
points because the next ordinary quadriennial General
Chapter was due to meet in 1917. It will be recalled that the
fate of the Belmont Delegate had varied at recent General
Chapters. At that of 1905 he had been admitted but was not
allowed to vote. No delegate was sent from Belmont to the
1909 Chapter, but one was sent to that of 1913, and though
a protest against his presence was lodged, this was over-ruled
and he was allowed both to sit and vote. So also at the
Extraordinary Chapter of 1914; but at that of 1916 he was
excluded. Hence the desire to know the correct procedure
for the coming 1917 Chapter, especially as it was feared that
the very validity of the Chapter's decisions might depend
on the correctness or otherwise of the Belmont Delegate
being admitted. Actually Abbot Butler thought it would be
best for Belmont to waive the matter and not to send a
delegate, and on his advice the Belmont Community agreed
to this course; but when the reply to the President's Dubia
came from Rome, it was found that the Holy See insisted
that a Belmont Delegate must be present at the General
Chapter.
Meanwhile the meagre results of the Chapter of 1916 had
greatly disappointed the Prior and Community of Belmont,
and immediately after it Abbot Butler wrote a consoling
message to them.
'It is natural', he wrote to the Prior, 'that the Belmont men

154. A THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY
should be disappointed by delays. Tell them that we have been
waiting for things for thirty-five years [i.e. since the beginning ot
Ine movement for Constitutional reform in 1880] most of which
have gradually come, but some not yet. When things are right
and according to sound monastic tradition they are sure to come
if people are patient and stick it.'
Nor was Belmont alone in feeling disappointed, for later in
the year Archbishop Bilsborrow wrote to the Prior (September24 1916
'I have just written to Card. Gasquet telling him that I consider
the present status of Belmont little short of deplorable, and
stating that to me it is very distressing. If nothing is done to
guarantee its permanent prosperity I think I shall interfere. It is
too bad. It is not the slightest use keeping it up merely as a
Chapter and Cathedral. Alas! If our too "cute" Benedictine
ancestors had been a little more wise and pitched their tent at
Newport as good Bishop Brown so earnestly wished, the Bene-
dictine history in this diocese would have been a glorious one.
Missed opportunities are sad things to reflect on.
And that he set himself to consider practical details as to
how he might help Belmont to an assured future is shown by
his letter of December 31 to Prior Kindersley:
Here is an idea!! If the different monasteries will take
Belmont as their House of Studies for Philosophy and Theology
I will take it as my Diocesan Seminary for all my Seminarists. It
would mean a guaranteed future for Belmont and would be
invaluable for the Secular Clergy of my Diocese. What do you
think of it? I have half a mind to propose it to General Chapter
Of course there will be difficulties, but I care nothing about
difficulties, even monetary, if the game is worth it What do you
think of it? It depends upon the Abbots, or rather on General
But the Archbishop's almost schoolboyish enthusiasm for
this plan was hardly likely to be shared by Prior Kindersley
even if it assured the future of the House, for the chief
desideratum in his eyes had all along been the abolition of
the Common House, and, for that matter, of the diocesan
connection. Besides, another, and a much more dazzling,
plan had just been brought to his attention. It will be
1 Perhaps the reader may recall the pungent advice of Bishop Ullathorne
quoted earlier in this volume, when the question of the site of the new
monnastery; was being debated in 1853 'If it is in some out of the way place
it will be a sham. Take hold of Newport, and you take hold of the Diocese;
I would break through stone walls to get at a proper centre from the first.
(p. 8, supra.)

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE 155
remembered that in 1909 Bishop Hedley had alluded un-
favourably to a suggestion that Herefordshire and Mon-
mouthshire should be taken from the Newport diocese to
make a See of their own. When Cambria Celtica was published
it was noticed that that Bull did not lay down the exact
territorial limits of the new Cardiff Arch-diocese, and it
occurred to some that now was the time to cut off the two
English counties from the Welsh Province, and to unite
them to form a Benedictine diocese with the Superior of
Belmont as its Ordinary. The monastery would thus become
an Abbey Nullius. This Scheme received a warm welcome
from the Prior of Belmont to whom it had been mentioned
by his life-long friend, Cardinal Bourne; and Abbot Butler,
though at first cold to it, eventually adopted it. But the
Episcopate as a whole by no means favoured it. Here is the
first mention of the plan in a letter from Prior Kindersley to
Abbot Butler, dated October 6, 1916:

'. . . I think that I ought to tell you that at the time of Cardinal
Bourne's visit to me he pointed out that the only way of
securing a Bishop to the Order was the creation of a Benedictine
diocese; he seemed to think that a division of the Cardiff diocese
was a matter of time and would come about before so very long
as a part of the present policy of the Holy See.1 He felt, too, that it
would solve many difficulties if Hereford could be the Bene-
dictine diocese as it could be worked then by the Order, and it
would give the Order a Bishop on the Bench, and secure the
interests of the Order, and other Orders would be represented by
a Regular Bishop. I really think that you ought to go and see
him soon and talk out the matter with him, and I can assure you
that he would be only too willing to discuss all with you. I hope
that you will do this.
The Archbishop (of Cardiff) wrote to tell me that he had not
the heart to come to Belmont and that he had written to Card.
Gasquet to complain of the way that Belmont was being treated;
so you see we have to move a bit to get things right. You must go
out to Rome yourself, that is clear, and be your own Procurator
in Curia. Try to make an appointment with the Cardinal in
London. He is sure to be asked about the whole matter (by
Rome), especially about the Benedictine Bishop, and it will be
no harm to get his views especially as he took such interest in
Belmont when he visited it, and saw a great future in it and its
work.'
1 Archbishop Bilsborrow thought so too.

156 THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY
But Abbot Butler's response to this eager letter and its
promptings was not at all encouraging. He replied on
October 10:
'I'm afraid I'm not prepared to throw myself into Card. Bourne's
arms in his policy of general subdivision of dioceses. I'm still of
the view that we all were of, this time last year, viz. that a small
Benedictine diocese of Hereford, even with Monmouth, would
be undesirable and unworkable; and I said so in the Memorial to
Rome. If you can be made independent, it would then be no
concern of mine, and I would look on with benevolent neutrality,
while you were working it; but I don't think I'll try to bring it
about, because I don't believe in it.'
And yet within two months Abbot Butler was advocating
this very thing, for in January 1917 he declared that if Rome
established such a diocese and made the Belmont Superior
its Ordinary, it would solve many difficulties;1 and at a
meeting of the Regimen at Liverpool on January 16, 1917, it
was decided to promote this scheme as a settlement of the
Belmont difficulties. But Abbot Butler was not the only person
to change his mind in bewildering fashion over this matter,
for both Archbishop Bilsborrow and Prior Kindersley (both
hitherto in favour of it) now proceeded to do the same. A
year ago the Archbishop had told the Prior that even after
the publication of Cambria Celtica there was still a good chance
of erecting a Benedictine diocese, as his own Bull of Appoint-
ment had seemed to leave the door open for that by not
defining the limits of his see; but when now he was informed
by Abbot Butler of the decision of the Liverpool meeting,
he replied somewhat crudely that the Cardinal's idea of
transferring Hereford to the Birmingham Archdiocese, with
a view to its becoming an independent diocese later, was
'crazy', and was also contrary to the Bull. And on the 29th
of the month he expressed himself more fully, but with equal
outspokenness, to Prior Kindersley on the subject:
'. . . With Card. Bourne's scheme I have no sympathy. The
Abbot President supposes I should accept it; I most certainly
don't. He supposes that it falls in with my ideas, but I have said
nothing to justify the supposition. My idea was to give to the
Belmont Chapter some practical part in the administration of the
1 Prior Kindersley's Diary.

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE l57
Archdiocese. Cardinal Bourne's scheme is to withdraw it from the
Archdiocese altogether.

A dangerous game is being played, and I should not be at
all surprised if the Belmont Chapter was simply suppressed. Its
maintenance was merely a gracious act on the part of Rome.
Card Bourne's idea is an absurdity from every point of view
and there will be time to consider it when the Bull has been
executed. Some people do not seem to be afraid of the ecclesiastical,
penalties against those who oppose the execution of the Bull
as promulgated. I am not one of them. Whatever happens, it will
not be mv fault if the Bull is not carried out. .
As for7 he E.B.C.'s muddling over Belmont, the obvious
conclusion is that having ceased to be a common noviciate and
this of course Card. Bourne's scheme would not make the case
any better, but worse. There is one chance only for Belmont, and
that is to accept the Bull as it stands.

Abbot Butler, passing on the Archbishop's remarks to Abbot
Ford, mentions that Abbot Smith ofAmpleforth had had an
interview with the Archbishop of Birmingham on the subject
(presumably this was the cause of the Liverpool decision)
and tells Ford that Archbishop Bilsborrow does not yet want
the diocesan solution to Belmont's difficulties but that if the
proposed new diocese were suffragan to Cardiff he sees
advantages to himself and would probably acquiesce. He
Sen adds the interesting statement that the whole thing was
Ampleforth's solution of the difficulty, and that Doual
agZs with it. For himself he says: 'We don't want to work
for it, but we don't oppose it'; and in accordance with this
policy he instructed Dom Philip Langdon m Rome not to
oppose the Abbey Nullius scheme. To this Fr Langdon
re^d that it was contrary to the Bull, and that the whole
scheme was Cardinal Bourne's; but Abbot Butler reiterated
ha Te was not to oppose nor to work for the scheme in

Rome, nor to mix up the E.B.C. with the affairs of the
As for Prior Kindersley, that even he had cooled off in his
enthusiasm for the plan is the impression given by a letter
from him to the President dated February 17, 1917
158 THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY
'As regards the division of the diocese, that is a matter that does
not concern me; it is a question between the Archbishop and the
Abbots representing the Congregation. I have no particular wish
to be the Ordinary of a Benedictine diocese just yet, for I think
that my work will be, if I am continued in office, the setting up of
Belmont as a monastery of the Congregation.

With regard to the Community here, they want Belmont to be
recognised as a properly constituted monastery with equal rights
as our other houses. I believe that if this were done, they would
be content to be a Cathedral Priory; and if their Superior were
to be made a titular Abbot, they would feel that to the outside
world their Superior would be of equal rank as the other Superiors
of the Congregation. It could be easily explained why the house
was not an Abbey.1 ... If it is the wish (of the Abbots) to keep
Belmont on as the House of Studies for the E.B.C., then I have
no wish to remain in office here.'
Actually soon after this the whole subject was dropped,
presumably owing to the lack of enthusiasm shown by the
Hierarchy as a whole, and no more was heard of it.

Through the spring of 1917 the preparations for the
coming General Chapter continued, and Abbot Butler was
busy considering the line that Belmont should take regarding
it. Almost daily letters came to him from Prior Kindersley
asking his advice or urging a particular procedure or policy,
and it is curious to find that just as the Prior depended so
absolutely on Abbot Butler's advice and guidance through-
out these years, so Abbot Butler, for his part, to a great extent
looked for guidance at this time to Abbot Ford who was now
in Rome and in touch with Fr Philip Langdon. The problem
for Abbots Ford and Butler was two-fold as regards the
General Chapter, for they had to induce it to make some
real definite progress towards settling (a) the autonomy of
Belmont, and (b) the fate of that white elephant (as they
regarded it) the Monastic Chapter of Cardiff, and these two
things were quite distinct, though behind them both loomed
It seems that the Prior had of late changed his mind as to the necessity of
the house becoming an Abbey, for this is the second time in the last few
months that he had said that it could remain a Priory provided that he became
a titular abbot. Thus, on July 20, 1916, he wrote that 'as the church has been
raised (by Cambria Celtica) to the rank of a Cathedral, Belmont does not ask
to be made into an Abbey, but that the Superior have the rank of an Abbot
with, perhaps, a titular Abbey'.

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE 159

the shadow of Cambria Celtica which had to be always borne
in mind.1 They also felt it to be important that, whereas
normally the Prior would have to resign his office at the
General Chapter (he had been elected in 1915 while the
Chapter was not sitting), they should get the Chapter to
agree that, as part of a compromise, he should, in the event
of Belmont being granted autonomy by the Chapter, not
resign until afterwards, so that the election for the Priorship
would be in the hands, not of Chapter, but of the Com-
munity. The permission of Rome for this course to be adopted
would, naturally, have first to be obtained, and Abbot
Ford was to try to get this.
It was obvious that all was not going to be plain sailing
at the Chapter, and that if the Belmont case were to succeed
it would need very careful handling. For all along both
Ampleforth and Douai, though willing to see Belmont
eventually an autonomous house, considered that it was not
yet ripe for independence and that it should not be granted
this until its financial position was satisfactory, while Douai
also wished the Common House to continue. And indeed
an independent Belmont would be faced with a very
problematical future, for not only was there this serious
question of finance; there was in addition the problem of
occupation. What was to be the work of the house when the
noviciate and the house of studies were no more? How could
it even earn something that would help to meet the cost of
its own upkeep, and how could it be granted autonomy in
such circumstances? Here was a real difficulty which the
sponsors of the scheme would have to face at the Chapter,
and though Abbot Ford, Abbot Butler, and Prior Kindersley
had, each of them, separately produced a list of possible
occupations for the monks, none of them were in the least
convincing. They boiled down to offering classes in ecclesi-
astical studies to other monasteries that might care to use
them, to offering seminary training to students for the secular
priesthood, and to giving retreats, and in the circumstances
1 Prior Kindersley had declared that if the coming Chapter did not make
definite progress and merely postponed the matter again, he would not wish
to remain Prior.
l60 THE HISTORY OF BELMONT ABBEY
(especially in view of the lack of training on the part of the
Community itself) none of these held out much prospect of
success, whether financial or occupational.
Moreover, for very many years past there had been deep-
rooted distrust of both Abbot Ford and Abbot Butler in
many quarters, a feeling which was shared even by some in
their own Community. Indeed throughout his monastic life
Abbot Ford had been a storm-centre owing to his unrelenting
and vigorous campaign for constitutional reform away back
in the eighteen-eighties and nineties even in the teeth of
official disapproval; while Abbot Butler, for his part, had
incurred much hostility and suspicion for his'ultra-monastic'
policy, especially as regards lessening the missionary activity
of the E.B.C. Besides, even some of their own supporters
thought that these two would have gained their ends more
peacefully and easily as regards the Belmont question if they
had been less intransigent and more patient. Thus there was
sure to be strong opposition to them at the Chapter. But
both were extremely able and shrewd men, and bom fighters,
especially Abbot Ford, and it must be allowed that they had
prepared for the occasion most carefully. In fact their staff-
work was excellent, for before the Chapter met they had
succeeded in obtaining from Rome the decisions and per-
missions which they had realised to be necessary if further
legal controversies and postponements and frustrations were
to be avoided when the Chapter began. Thus on July 16, a
fortnight before the Chapter met, Abbot Butler was able to
issue a circular to the Chapter Fathers informing them that
he had procured a Sanatio from Rome covering all doubts
as to the validity of elections and decisions at previous
Chapters due to the presence or absence of a Belmont
Delegate, and that Rome had now decided that a Belmont
Delegate must be present at this Chapter. He had also a
Faculty allowing the Chapter to suspend the Prior's resigna-
tion, if they wished, until the final settlement of the Belmont
question; and lastly his petition had been granted for a post-
ponement until after General Chapter of the proposals which
Rome had ordered regarding the mutual relationship of the
two Diocesan Chapters of Cardiff. The effect of these pre-

TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE 161
liminary arrangements was well summed up by him in this
circular:
'By these provisions the ground has been cleared of all initial
obstacles that might have stood in the way of our holding the
Chapter, and any occasion for historical and legal discussions
seems to be removed, or at any rate greatly curtailed. It is likely
that any setdement of Belmont problems made by Chapter,
which is accepted by the Belmont Conventus and provides for
the Monastic Chapter in Belmont required by the Bull Cambria
Celtica, will be ratified and approved by the Holy See. Conse-
quently we have only to take existing facts and realities, and
determine what we are going to do with them.'
And at the same time Abbot Ford published a masterly
pamphlet called 'The Future of Belmont', which he tactfully
described as having been printed 'to save the time of the
General Chapter'. The gist of it was that 'we cannot unmake
Belmont; we can only regularise its position', and it would be
unthinkable that it be closed down. Whether it be made
autonomous or not the other houses will have to continue to
support it financially, and this burden will be no heavier
than it has always been in the past. He quoted the telling
phrase of Archbishop Bilsborrow regarding Belmont: 'The
Congregation must either give it up, or keep it up', and this
he repeated three times in the course of the pamphlet. The
way to meet the obvious difficulties is to 'establish' a commun-
ity whose interest and life-work it will be to overcome them.
Finally, a report had been received from a Roman Canon
Lawyer, Dom Peter Bastien, giving the results of his careful
examination of the legal position regarding the status of
Belmont and the ownership of the property there. His
conclusions were that (i) by reason of the decree of the
Congregation of Propaganda in 1852 establishing the
Cathedral Chapter, Belmont had been an autonomous
monastic family from the very start in 1859, and this view
he supported by a number of arguments; (2) as such, it had
always had a right of having its own novices; and (3) the
right of sending a delegate to General Chapter. And so,
fortified with this document, and with his carefully thought
out preliminary arrangements complete, Abbot Butler
prepared to meet the Chapter of 1917.