Wooipte

I

1836 WS

A LETTER

VISCOUNT MELBOURNE,

RECENT APPOINTMENT

TO THE OFFICE OF

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY,

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

HENRY ARTHUR WOODGATE, B.D.
FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR J. G. & F. RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD,
AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL.
1836.

LONDON :
GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,
ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.

LETTER,
8fc.

My Lord,
I should be the last person in the world to address
your Lordship on a subject like the present, if I
thought that, by so doing, I was contributing need
lessly to keep up the excitement at present created
by it, which every true friend to the University and
the Church, — I may add, the country at large, —
whatever be his personal feelings on the subject,
must deeply deplore. It is solely with the hope that
I may be able to lead others to view the subject in its
proper light, that I have been induced to obtrude
myself on the notice of your Lordship and the public
in the following pages.
The question recently proposed to the Members of
Convocation having been suspended, for a few weeks,
by the revival of what has, till now, been considered
a 2

an all but obsolete, though still existing power vested in
the Proctors, an opportunity is afforded to both, parties
of considering during the interval, how, in the revival
of the question the following term, their respective
measures may be so arranged, as to allow the least
possible room for the party vehemence, which, in all
such discussions, must more or less be engendered
where numbers are interested, and when the question
at stake involves, in the estimation of either side, an
important and vital principle. For that it will be re
vived, either in the present or some other shape, the
pledge given to that effect, together with the cha
racter of its proposers, admits of no doubt. Hard
expressions, not warranted by the circumstances of
the case or the high character of the principals on
either side, have been allowed to escape ; and as
your Lordship must feel that such reflections are un
deserved by yourself, and" that you cannot recognise,
in your own share of the transaction, any motive to
entitle you to such imputations, so, I presume, you
will be disposed to judge of others, without reference
to external clamour, and to give them credit for the
like honesty of purpose.
In this view, and with the feeling that I am ad
dressing an English gentleman, who, I would fain
hope, has been, and still is, desirous to do what is
really right in such a case, am I induced to address
your Lordship ; and, in doing this, I admit that there
exist difficulties in the case, — difficulties, however,
which are chargeable, in the first instance, not so

much on persons, as on an unfortunate and untoward
concurrence of circumstances.
Like others, I have my opinions respecting the pro
priety, as well as the policy, of the late appointment
— and those opinions may be strong; — but if I enter
tain strong feelings on the public part of the question,
I have also private feelings of the sincerest regard for
the individual who is the subject of it, which must
render any measure, calculated to distress his feel
ings, productive of no less pain to myself.
Now I am by no means disposed to join in the
censure which some have passed upon your Lordship
for making this appointment in the first instance, and
can fully enter into the circumstances in which you
were placed. When the office of Regius Professor
became vacant by the death of my lamented friend,
Dr. Burton, I am free to admit, that of those who, in
public esteem, were supposed to have pretensions to
such an office, Dr. Hampden was decidedly one ; nor
were there any circumstances of which your Lordship
could reasonably be assumed, at that time, to be
aware, which could disqualify him for receiving the
appointment ; while there was, on the other hand,
extensive reading and scholarship, and more than
an ordinary share of academical distinction, together
with a personal character, not only untainted, but
one exemplary for the fulfilment of every duty in the
various relations of life. Moreover, although, as an
academical question, Dr. Hampden had advocated
the admission of Dissenters, he had never taken any

step calculated to display any particular political
bias. I admit, then, that of the number from whom the
selection might be expected to be made, Dr. Hamp
den was confessedly one. But my agreement with
your Lordship will proceed farther. It has been
generally said, that previous to making the appoint
ment, your Lordship consulted one, who, from his
long official connexion with the University, his high
station, long experience, and distinguished career,
might reasonably be supposed to be well qualified to
direct the choice of the government in a matter so
immediately affecting the University ; while his long
and intimate acquaintance with Dr. Hampden, as a
member of his own college, must have afforded op
portunities of knowledge on essential points of cha
racter, which every upright minister would be de
sirous to obtain. I allude, of course, to the Bishop
of Llandaff; and if, in the present instance, the
advice or approval of his Lordship has innocently
contributed to the present untoward state of things,
it is because his Lordship, justice requires us to
presume, had not read Dr. Hampden's works, but
recommended him in reliance on his previous know
ledge of him. While, therefore, I give to your
Lordship the full benefit of Dr. Copleston's authority,
I have felt it necessary to say thus much in respect
of that authority, to remove from the first appoint
ment an undue weight. Up to this period, then, I
can attach no blame to your Lordship ; and, in the

absence of other knowledge, and had nothing oc
curred subsequently, should be compelled, in common
justice, to give you credit for having been desirous
to give satisfaction in the selection you had made.
From this point, however, the case assumes a dif
ferent character ; and it now remains for the future
to show to what extent your Lordship is entitled to
the credit of this intention. No sooner was Dr.
Hampden's appointment spoken of as a probable
measure, than a numerous body of men, intimately
connected with the management of the University,
and deeply interested in its welfare, took alarm, and,
without delay, drew up a memorial, to be presented
to the Crown, deprecating the appointment, on
grounds which, if true, ought effectually to disqua
lify the individual to whom they applied, from being
appointed to such a : responsible office. With the
existence of this memorial your Lordship was made
acquainted. And though from some cause, hitherto unex
plained, nor now necessary to be explained, the
appointment received his Majesty's sanction before
the memorial was presented, yet I must here dis
claim, peremptorily, my belief in the story which
has gone the round of the newspapers, respecting
the cause of that delay, for the same reason, proba
bly, that your Lordship has not deemed it worthy
of contradiction ; simply because no gentleman could
be reasonably supposed to have so acted.
Now after the known wishes of so large and im-

8
portant a body, thus unequivocally expressed, allow
me to say, that the memorialists had a right to expect,
if not a full concurrence in the prayer of the petition,
at least a delay and suspension of the proceedings,
till such time as an inquiry could be made into the
truth of the allegations therein contained. This
was due to the character and station of the memo
rialists, and to their deep concern in the office about
to be filled up — due, I say, from any government:
how much more then from a government whose
avowed policy and practice have been (I say not
whether right or wrong), from the moment they
assumed the reins of office, to pay the utmost
deference to petitions, memorials, and remonstrances,
not only from persons deeply interested in the question
at issue for the time being, but from those who had
no connexion, beyond that of political or social
sympathy. To this subject, however, I will allude again here
after. Let me first call your Lordship's attention to
the real state of the case as regards the objections of
the University to Dr. Hampden's appointment. Your
Lordship will of course admit that both sides have a
right to claim credit for purity of intention, and that
neither party can be fairly held responsible for the
violence of language, or the conduct of injudicious,
irresponsible advocates on either side. The anony
mous writers of articles inserted in public journals,
are not to be taken as representing the opinions and
feelings of the chief parties concerned : with these,

therefore, we have now no concern. Of specific
statements, professing to emanate, though anony
mous, from members of the University, I believe
there has appeared, on the part of Dr. Hampden's
friends, but one production of an objectionable cha
racter, a violent pamphlet, in the form of a letter
to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, in
which the author entirely sinks the real question at
issue in personal invective, and a most illiberal and
unwarranted imputation of motives to the opponents.
This has called forth, in reply, another, the tone
of which is not to be defended, though possessing
the excuse of being on the defensive. With the
exception of these two, the productions which have
been elicited on either side are temperate and for
bearing, and such as would be expected from the
high character of their respective authors. At the
same time, though free from violence of language, or
undue asperity of spirit, Dr. Hampden and his friends
will lose sight of the real question, and make it a
personal matter, to be decided by personal qualities
and personal belief, and leave the consideration of
the tendency of his opinions on the nature and im
portance of doctrinal points, for his own belief in the
same, of which there is no question with many of the
objectors, and need be with none as regards the
present question. We must therefore confine the
question to its proper grounds. It may sound very
well for anonymous writers to deal in charges
of Socinianism and the like. We as little bring

10
such charges, as regard them when brought by
others. I need scarcely add, they are quite un
authorised by those who are chiefly concerned in
the opposition to the appointment. From them no
personal reflection has been uttered against Dr.
Hampden : his strongest official opponents have
never attempted to breathe such. Many of his per
sonal friends are to be found amongst them, whose
public opposition has fenced their feelings of private
regard with more, if possible, than usual delicacy
and circumspection. The objection is made solely
to the appointment; nor does it necessarily imply
any attack on his opinions as such, or in reference to
certain other situations which he might fill, and has
filled, with credit to himself and benefit to others ;
but in reference to this particular office, and certain
others to which this has generally been supposed to
lead, for the right discharge of the duties of which,
his opinions on the nature and importance of the
doctrines of the church not only disqualify him, but
are diametrically opposed. The question lies in this
small compass, as regards the real objections alleged.
There has been, and still is, every wish to waive all
objection on the score of his personal belief in the
doctrines in question, however the obscurity and
contradiction which exist in his written publica
tions might seem to many to warrant doubts of
his own orthodoxy. I here transcribe the official
declaration : —
" We abstain from imputing to the author a

11
personal disbelief of those doctrines which have been
so seriously endangered by his publications ; but we
hold, that the frame of mind which could produce
and send forth statements so dangerous and un
guarded, is, in itself, a complete disqualification for
the grave and responsible office of presiding over our
academical studies in divinity, and, consequently, of
guiding the religious instruction of one half of the
country." Again: "We cannot allow any expla
nation of insulated passages or particular words to
be valid in excuse against the positive language, the
systematic reasoning, and the depreciating tone,
with which, in Dr. Hampden's works, the articles
of our church are described as mere human specu
lations, the relics of a false and exploded philosophy,
full at once of error and mischief."
Now these grounds of objection, which are quite
independent of any charge of personal disbelief, have
never been replied to, nor can they, save by a formal
recantation of each and all such sentiments conveyed
in the works referred to. They are not expressions
which have escaped in some unguarded warmth of
debate, in a work with which they have no necessary
connexion ; but they are the points to maintain which
is the express object of the works in which they are
found. True, a defence has been put forward, both
by the Professor himself, in the form of an Inaugural
Lecture, and by his friends, in the form of numerous
(and for any other purpose valuable) extracts from his
various works. But what, in the name of common

12
sense, has this to do with the real question, which
does not, as I have before stated, involve, of necessity,
any attack on his personal belief? He must be logician
enough to know that such a defence is a complete
ignoratio elenchi. And even if the question were his
own personal belief, can men in their sober senses
really think such a reply valid or satisfactory ? It
might do in a court of justice, for a counsel with a
bad case, who wished to throw dust in the eyes of a
jury, taking his chance of being detected by his
opponent ; but do they really think it a defence of
any weight ? It reminds me of the well-known story
of the trial of a negro in the West Indies, for stealing
a spade, where, two witnesses for the prosecution
having deposed that they saw him take it, the prisoner,
with an air of great triumph and of confidence of
acquittal from superior evidence in his favour, called
six witnesses to swear they did not see him take it.
Archbishop Whately has well exposed the fallacy
of this kind of argument : " This arithmetical mode
(as it may be called) of ascertaining a writer's sen
timents, by counting the passages on opposite sides,
is one which had never occurred to me ; nor do I
think it is likely to be generally adopted. If, for
instance, an author were to write ten volumes in
defence of Christianity, and two or three times to
express his suspicion that the whole is a tissue of
fables, I believe few of his readers would feel any
doubts as to his real sentiments. When a writer is
at variance with himself, it is usual to judge from the

13
nature of the subject, and the circumstances of the
case, which is likely to be his real persuasion, and
which the one he may think it politically expedient
or decorous to profess 1."
In judicial trials, testimony to personal character,
when the question is not mitigation of punishment,
but conviction, is only available against presumptive
and circumstantial, not positive evidence. And these
recent declarations of Dr. Hampden's personal belief
in some, though the most important articles, cannot
be allowed, as the Oxford declaration sets forth, "to
be valid in excuse against the positive language, the
systematic reasonings, and the depreciating tone
with which, in Dr. Hampden's work, the articles of
our church are described as mere human specula
tions, the relics of a false and exploded philosophy,
full, at once, of error and mischief." It is not Dr.
Hampden's personal creed on which his fitness for his
present office is made to depend ; but it is the little
importance he professes to attach to the necessity of
the like creed in others ; and with those views he is
called upon to superintend, if not the formation
at least the establishment, as far as theological
instruction can effect it, of the creed of half the
future clergy of the country! Apply the principle,
my Lord, to any other parallel case. What should
you think of a man who would entrust the education
and care of his daughters to one who, though per
fectly pure herself, did not fully admit the necessity
1 Scripture Revelations on a Future State : note (a) to lecture i.

14
of personal purity in others ? or, if she did, still was
disposed to regard, not only as useless, but as ob
jectionable, the maxims, forms, and proprieties, which
society, guided by experience, has, in every period
of its existence, been accustomed to throw around
female character, deeming it essential to the pre
servation of its purity ? Or one who, in a spirit of
short-sighted charity, was disposed to regard the
exclusion of persons of doubtful character as illiberal,
unkind, and calculated to foster a spirit of animosity
and ill-will ? Some wanderers might perchance be
reclaimed by being thus brought into contact with
purity and innocence ; but, methinks, the utmost
latitudinarian in theory would shrink in practice
from the far greater probability of endangering the
purity of his own children by the adoption of such a
principle. Or, to take a parallel case nearer to our
selves, if your Lordship should be called upon to
appoint to the office of Regius Professor of Medicine,
would you, knowing that the duty of the Professor, as
such, is not to practise medicine, but to teach it, feel
justified in appointing one whose principle it was to
teach that the most deleterious processes might be
safely resorted to, though, from some happy incon
sistency of character, he uniformly adopted, in his
own professional practice, the measures which com
mon experience had sanctioned and recommended 1
And because the knowledge communicated by the
great Physician of the Soul is, if I may so say, the
subject of moral, not of physical science; and be-

15
cause its principles are, therefore, less easily deve
loped, less easily capable of demonstration, though,
in themselves, as fixed and unchangeable as the laws
which their common Maker has given to the natural
world, — would you, for this reason, entrust its admi
nistration to one who, whatever may be his personal
belief, has maintained that such divine knowledge
has in itself, except in a few points, no inherent
reality, apart from that which exists but in the fitful
moral vision of every speculative empiric ? It is not
a question of his own personal belief, or his personal
practice ; but it is the opinion he entertains on the
subject of doctrines as such; — their origin, — their
nature, — their object, — their relative importance. On
these his views are radically and fundamentally erro
neous ; and yet this, it is his peculiar province, in his
present situation, to teach and enforce, rather than,
as he would seem to think from his Inaugural Lecture,
that which more properly falls within the province of
the Parochial Minister. His very errors arise from a
benevolent spirit of charity, leading him to remove or
relax those barriers of Christian truth which the
Christian Church has, for eighteen centuries, held to
be essential to its existence and purity ; but which
Dr. Hampden would remove, not from any motive
necessarily involving a moral defect, or disbelief of
their truth, but from one which forms the main
ground of his unfitness for an office in which his duty
is to teach and enforce them; viz., that he does not see
their necessity or their value in others. I am aware

16
that, in some passages, he alleges what is meant to
be a denial of this ; but he has stated it too clearly
in other passages to render this denial, at this time,
entitled to any weight ; and he has stated it, not as
a detached insulated sentiment, but as embodying the
very principle of his work. At the same time, I
should be unwilling to give to the confusion and
contradiction which pervades his writings on this
point, their full weight against him ; for the
fact is, he has got out of his province ; and, in
his endeavours to extricate himself, has bewildered
himself in greater intricacies and contradictions.
Having given him full credit for his character
and attainments, of which I would not unsay one
iota, I shall not be considered as in any way dispa
raging his recommendations or detracting from his
reputation, if I say, that his province lies elsewhere
than in grappling with the difficulties necessarily
involved in the discussion of important principles,
and in pursuing them to their remote results. This
he has attempted to do; — in this he has failed; and
in this is to be found the main cause of the con
tradiction and confusion in which he has involved
himself. I have no doubt that his own piety and
purity of character have saved him personally from
the evil results of his own mischievous speculations ;
but what is to save others, who are not thus protected,
from being tainted, and that irrevocably, by this
fatal spirit of Rationalism ?
His own speculations are continually leading even
1

17
himself into error, from which he is only called back
and righted, as it were, by his own piety and reli
gious principle. To this is mainly to be attributed
the contradiction of his writings, and not from any
wish, I am persuaded, to set himself right with the
world because his interests may seem to require it.
But is this the man to superintend the theological
instruction of the clergy ? Is this the man to teach
and enforce the sacred character and value of these
essential doctrines ? To direct the studies and form the
opinions of those young men, whose duty it will be
to make these doctrines the foundation of all their
future teaching, and to tell those committed to their
charge, that the reception of Christian doctrine is a
question not of the intellect, but of the moral prepa
ration of the heart? Forbid it every principle of
justice, consistency, and truth.
It is painful, my Lord, to be obliged to speak thus
of one so truly estimable ; and had he not been placed
where he now is, both he and we had been spared
much that is distressing, and the Church and the
University had been saved from a state of things, of
which, I must confess, I do not see the termination.
The future presents a painful and fearful prospect.
If the character of the individual, if his zeal, his
industry, his earnest wish to do what he believes to
be right, could afford a guarantee to the University
and the Church that the office should be made the
instrument of good, it would be found in the present
instance. But that it should be so, is I fear impossible,

18
or, if possible, is only to be effected by means of a
change of opinion too extensive to be expected of any
man, and which, if avowed at this period of the
business, would to many persons carry a presumption
of insincerity, effectually destructive of that moral
influence, without which no human instructor, how
ever learned in things, can have any weight. Dr.
Hampden's whole view of the origin and nature of
the doctrines of the Christian Church, and of the
relation in which they stand to the holy Scriptures,
is radically wrong, and opposed to the opinion and
practice of the Church in every age. With him they
offer no higher pretension to acceptance, than as
deductions of human reason, a pretension to which
every new form of Neologism, or the wildest heresy,
may lay equal claim. He thus strikes a fatal blow
at the primary claims on our attention, which the
doctrines, as stated by our Reformers, possess, not as
being human deductions from Scripture, but as being
the primitive doctrines delivered by the holy Spirit
to the Apostles — an identity for which the Refor
mers zealously contended against those who charged -
them with heresy and Neologism — an identity, the
necessity of which they freely admitted in support of
their own pretensions to be heard; but for the proof
of which they rested, first on the fact that from the
Apostolic days to their own, the Church had never
ceased to hold them, however ' overlaid and neutra
lised by error ; and secondly, (without which the other
were nothing,) on their accordance with that inspired

19
volume, which had been written by the same Apostolic
teachers, under the guidance of the same Spirit, that
the Church in every age might thus, as one of them
expresses it, " know the certainty of those things in
which they had been instructed," and without the
full testimony of which, " unless it could be read
therein and proved thereby," they held " that it
should not be required of any man that it should be
believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite
or necessary to salvation." — [Art. vi.J
Dr. Hampden is sadly in error if he supposes that
his principle is that of Protestantism in the original
sense, or that on which our Reformers acted. In
assuming as the distinction and specific character of
their own faith, that nothing was to be " believed as an
article of faith which could not be read in Holy Scrip
ture, or be proved thereby," they made it an essential
point that its general grounds of pretension to accept
ance was, that the Church of Christ had always held it.
They held, and the Church has ever held, that in the
order of Christian teaching, theScripture follows rather
than leads; i.e. that it proves rather than teaches ; and
with authority delegated by her divine Founder and
Head, she proposes to her children her articles, not
as those which, unless found in Scripture expressed
" totidem verbis," are to be regarded as mere deduc
tions of human reason, but as truths which, though
not expressed " totidem verbis," are held to be " the
faith once delivered to the saints," because the
b2

20
Church in every age has never ceased to hold them,
and because they are in accordance with, and may be
proved by Holy Scripture, the only ultimate standard
and rule of faith1. This, my Lord, is the principle
on which Christianity was ever taught in the Church
of Christ. This is the principle which Dr. Hampden
is bound, by virtue of his office, to uphold and enforce
to those who are themselves to be the teachers of
others. This is the principle which Dr. Hampden
deems not only unimportant, but objectionable. I
need hardly add, that on this ground alone, without
being reduced to the painful necessity of questioning
his personal belief, the University does think she is
called upon to express her opinion of the impropriety
of such an appointment.
I will not, however, take up your Lordship's time
by entering into any further theological discussion. I
have said enough, if not to condemn the appointment
of Dr. Hampden, at least to show the ground on
which, as members of Convocation, and thereby re
sponsible, as far as in us lies, for the soundness and
1 This principle is well stated in a dissertation upon " the Use
and Importance of Unauthoritative Tradition," by the Rev. E. Haw
kins, now Provost of Oriel, a most valuable work, and one which it
is much to be wished the author would publish in a more expanded
form, more accessible to the capacity of the generality of readers,
than its present condensed form admits of. The principle requires
to be more generally understood, especially in these times. Dr.
Hawkins's book is in itself a complete refutation of Dr. Hampden's
theological errors on this point.

21
purity of the faith of those committed to our care, we
protest against that appointment. And if these
grounds are not sufficiently obvious to your Lordship,
(and by laymen they are in general little understood)
I trust I may at least claim from your Lordship's
candour, some deference to our arguments, on the
ground of the adage, the force and value of which
your Lordship must often have acknowledged in the
conflict of human passions and prejudices, as evolved
in the turmoil of a political life, " Cuilibet credendum
sua in arte." It may sound very plausible to say
that, in the seclusion of colleges, we imbibe and foster
prejudices, and that we cannot possibly be competent
judges of measures rendered necessary by the political
changes of the constitution, or the progressive advance
of human society. In many cases I admit the full
force of this argument ; and in the man)' years during
which I have been a member of Convocation, I have
protested, and always will protest, against our taking
a part as a body, in measures not immediately affect
ing our own privileges, or the discharge of our high
and sacred functions. But here, my Lord, the case
is widely different : we have yet to learn that a
fuller intercourse with the world will enlarge our
vision of divine truth ; we have yet to learn that the
political changes which sweep over the face of human
society can change that Divine Polity which He alone
can annul, from whom alone it proceeded — we have
yet to learn that the advance of physical and political
science can enlarge or change the boundaries of

22
heavenly truth, re-open " the seal of vision and pro
phecy," change that " word which liveth and abideth
for ever," or add one tittle to " that law which will
not pass but with heaven and earth itself."
As to the allegation that the University has already
set its seal to Dr. Hampden's fitness, by giving him
the offices of Moral Philosophy Professor, Principal of
St. Mary Hall, and Bampton Lecturer, and that it is
therefore bound to observe silence in regard to the
present appointment, it is almost too puerile to require
notice. With the appointment to the two first of these,
the University have no more to do than your Lord
ship. And as to the Bampton Lectures, it was in the
discharge of this office, and consequently after his
appointment to it, that the series of offences now
alleged against him was commenced. I admit that
the University is open to great censure, in allowing
these lectures, after having been publicly delivered,
to receive the Imprimatur of the University press ;
though to those who remember how few comparatively
were present when they were preached, and the long
interval that elapsed between their delivery and the
publication, this will create little surprise. Neither
is it true that they were not noticed till now. Very
soon after they appeared in print, they were noticed
severely both in reviews and pamphlets, and public
attention was forcibly called to their Socinian ten
dency. Still, allowing this argument its full weight, what
does it amount to ? That we have been guilty of
12

23
neglect and dereliction of duty : Be it so. Are we
therefore to be so utterly devoid of principle, such
slaves of moral cowardice, that we are to screen one
error, committed through (I admit culpable) inadver
tence, by another, which, to its own intrinsic guilt,
would add that of being committed against light, and
knowledge, and warning?
The question may, however, be asked, what is now
to be done ? The appointmeut has taken place, and
cannot be cancelled : What is therefore now to be
done ? It is not for me to suggest a remedy, though
allow me to add, it is incumbent on your Lordship
to provide one ; and the more so, since, had your
Lordship listened to our remonstrance at an earlier
stage, you would not have been placed in the present
dilemma. I would, however, say thus much ; that
seeing how much of this unfortunate state of things
is the result, as I stated at first, of an untoward
concurrence of circumstances, rather than design,
any measure on your Lordship's part which would
indicate a desire to remedy the evil, would be met in
a friendly spirit, and be gratefully received ; the only
limitation of which we feel we have any right to ex
press a wish, consistently with our principle of sub
mission to the prerogative of the Crown, is that Dr.
Hampden be not placed in any situation where his
office is to superintend the clergy, or to direct their
theological education. And surely he would be only
too glad to resign a post, where he must now be
convinced he ought never to have been, his conti-

24
nuance in which will only subject him to a series of
mortifications, alike deplored by himself and his op
ponents, and in which his exertions must be effectually
checked and neutralised. For it is a mistake to
imagine that the question will rest where it now does.
It is not the " whisper of a faction" — it is not, as has
been ungenerously charged, a question of personal
feeling, which the interval of a few weeks or months
may tend to allay. It lies far deeper than this. It is
a question of principle, which no time or change of
circumstances can affect. It will not be abandoned
for the sake of present peace. The living are trus
tees for posterity ; we have to consider the effects upon
them, and the awful responsibility which will devolve
upon us, if through any neglect or compromise of ours,
our sacred heritage should descend to them corrupted
and impaired. It cannot escape your Lordship's
notice that every week adds to the feeling with which,
throughout the country, Churchmen, whatever be
their political views, regard this question : and with
justice. For (to pass over other instances) has it
not been said with triumph by our adversaries,
" Was not Hoadley a Bishop of your Church, and
did not he and Middleton die in its communion,
though one was a Socinian, the other a Sceptic?" We
are not yet so blind as not to gather wisdom from
experience, and to learn even from an enemy. No,
my Lord, by God's help, and the legitimate use of
the means with which He has entrusted us, we must
resist this first instalment to the genius of Rationalism

25
and Neology, " which, after corrupting all sound
ness of Christianity in other countries, has at length
appeared among us, and, for the first time, been in
vested with authority in the University of Oxford."
They tell us, indeed, that the late measure was in
itself unimportant ; that it could do no good, would
prevent no real mischief, and was therefore only
calculated to create fruitless annoyance. On this
point I must be allowed to say a few words. I
admit that the measure might be in itself unimpor
tant. Owing to an alteration in the mode of nominating
select preachers, made some time since, originating
with myself, and carried into effect by a friend now
no more, the system of individual nomination was
abolished, and the several nominations made the act
and deed of the whole board. Unless this plan has
since been again exchanged for that which it was in
tended to supersede, the Professor could, in ordinary
cases, do little mischief in that department of his
office. I grant, therefore, that the measure might be
in itself unimportant, and, did it contemplate no ulte
rior results, needlessly vexatious. But it was not
thus regarded. It was the only legitimate ground on
which the University could record their sense of Dr.
Hampden's unfitness for his office, without bringing
themselves into collision with the prerogative of the
Crown. Whatever our enemies may say, my Lord,
there always has been, on the part of the University,
a delicacy and a respect towards the Crown and its
official advisers ; a desire at all times to obey it,

26
when it is possible, and to avoid even the semblance
of opposition, save when peremptorily called upon to
do so in the discharge of a higher and more sacred
duty. Were it not for this, we might have protested
in other ways against this unfortunate appointment :
we might have passed our formal act of censure on
this exercise of the Royal Prerogative : but such is
not our principle or our practice. The effervescence
of youthful feeling in the gallery of our theatre on a
few public occasions, is not to be regarded as speaking
the sentiments or indicating the temper of our Aca
demic Body. The authorities of the University always
endeavour to repress, both by public warnings and
private influence, this yearly expression of opinion ;
but with comparatively little success, from the reluc
tance to adopt severe measures against what is fancied
by many to have an excuse in long usage, and a sort
of prescriptive right, analogous to the Saturnalia
winked at in political elections, and which leads us to
view (I think, erroneously) with comparative lenience
those outrages which, under other circumstances,
would argue a disregard for the security of life and
property. It is exercised as much against ourselves
as their Governors, Proctors, or Examiners, as against
Public and Political characters. Our official acts
speak otherwise. There we ever respect the rights
and prerogatives of the Crown, and, if possible, its
official advisers and representatives. How many
bodies, under like circumstances, would have adopted
that pernicious practice of carrying their complaints to

27
the Legislature, and of asking for their interference,
in a question strictly Executive. Neither from our
noble Chancellor in the one House of Parliament,
nor our Representatives in the other, has one syllable
hitherto escaped on the subject ; and the spirit of our
system, which inculcates obedience to the majesty of
the law, has sealed in like manner the lips of those
numerous members in either House, who have im
bibed here their tone of mind and thought, and whose
zeal in defence of their University is only equalled by
their discretion and sound constitutional principle in
the exercise of it.
Our own Convocation-house is, in our estimation,
the proper arena in which to exercise our legitimate
weapons of defence; and even there, were it possible,
we should abstain from any thing which, however
indirectly, would imply a censure on his Majesty or
his official advisers. That this should be so, in the pre
sent instance, is an accidental, not an essential part of
the question. We do not interfere with the Crown as
such ; but as trustees for posterity, as guardians of our
own reputation, as responsible to a far higher tribunal
than that of public opinion, we do feel called upon to
withhold our sanction from the late appointment, and
to record our distrust of the individual, by recalling
from the office, during his tenure of it, a trust which
ourselves had hitherto confided to it, in full, and till
now never misplaced, confidence in the discretion of
the King's ministers. We deplore the necessity
which compels us to this ; but after the rejection of

28
the first memorial, no other course remained open to
us. These, my Lord, are the motives which actuate
our body. I know it is the fashion in popular lan
guage to give to Dissenters alone the credit of con
scientious motives ; that they have tender consciences ;
Churchmen none : every grievance, real or imaginary,
is hunted carefully up, on the part of Dissenters, and
for conscience-sake must be removed, however great
the outrage which their removal may inflict on the
consciences of others. But when the Church or the
University speak of their conscientious scruples, when
they protest against arbitrary measures as violating
their conscience, the very men who have been hitherto
the loudest to declaim on liberty and the rights of
conscience, forthwith cry out against such bigotry and
prejudice, and begin to speak of coercion, and the
necessity of Parliamentary interference.
Do not imagine, my Lord, that it is because these
things are unfelt or unnoticed, that churchmen are
passive thus far. It is because they feel that more is
both expected and due from them of forbearance under
injury and insult. They feel that more has been
given to them, and that more will be required. But
there is a point at which, even with them, forbearance
becomes a sin. And allow me to put it to your
Lordship's candour, whether there are not in the pre
sent case peculiar circumstances, which render neces
sary on the part of the government a more than usual
degree of delicacy and circumspection. It is a matter
of history, that since your Lordship and your colleagues

29
first became his Majesty's advisers, petitions and me
morials on every question of any interest that could
agitate the public mind, or a section of it, have been
transmitted in greater numbers than can be produced
in a long course of years under former administra
tions ; and that in most cases the prayer of the peti
tion, either in whole or in part, either at the time
or at a later period, has been granted, and at all
events courteously received ; and shall history also
relate, that one of the very few that have been re
jected, and that, not after a careful and diligent in
quiry into the circumstances, but without being
listened to for one moment, as though the petitioners
had not even the right to profess an interest in the
question, is that of a large portion of the Uni
versity !
And observe, my Lord, this was not the petition of
a political union in favour of a convicted incendiary
— it was not the remonstrance of a self-constituted
committee for the recal of transported convicts —it was
not the petition of a dissenting congregation for the
removal of some imaginary grievance ; but it was the
remonstrance of men connected by the closest ties with
the interests of the University, personally engaged
in conducting its education, petitioning the Crown
against the appointment to a high and influential
office, of an individual whose duty it would be to
instruct their own pupils, and who, if he acted con
sistently with his recorded opinions, was bound as an
honest man, which they believed him to be, to teach

30
opinions which they in their hearts believed to be
most prejudicial to the interests of religion, and de
cidedly at variance with what themselves had been
accustomed as a duty to enforce. And the leaders, if
you will so call them, of this large body of dissen
tients, men second to none in the British empire,
and to few in Europe, either in theological renown or
in the possession of the various requisites necessary
to enable men to be competent judges of the more
difficult parts of the question. I for one should be
slow to judge harshly of any government which, in a
nicely-balanced state of political parties, accepted the
support of a large though heterogeneous body like
the Dissenters, voluntarily offered to them as being
deemed likely to promote their views ; but surely,
my Lord, not only the University, not only the
Church, but all those who value public principle
and the political consistency of public men, have
reason to complain, that while the petitions of secta
rians and schismatics of every kind have been respect
fully received, and generally acceded to ; while on
the part of Dissenters, every petty grievance, real or
imaginary, has received the attention of the Govern
ment, and been deemed fit to be made the subject of
legislative interference, the remonstrance of the Uni
versity and the Church alone, and that, too, in
questions affecting all they hold most dear and sacred,
should be summarily and contumeliously rejected.
Surely, my Lord, after all the deductions to be
made on the score of political heat, from which the

31
best men are not free, this is not the part of wise
statesmen, nor the offspring of a comprehensive
policy. Surely, it were more prudent, as well as
more just and more patriotic, to endeavour to lighten,
rather than aggravate, those causes of irritation which,
after great political changes and transfer of political
power, arise from the jealousy, or, if you will have it,
the prejudices, with which men view the actions of
those to whom has fallen the administration of the
new order of things. It is alike the character of a
narrow policy, for the sake of producing peace, to sur
render an important principle, and to refuse to concede
a point which involves none. To your Lordship this
cannot be altogether unworthy of attention. It is
not my province to advise your Lordship ; yet as one
who regards the honour and consistency of public
men as a question of far higher importance than the
ascendancy of this or that party, permit me to say,
that the present question is one of no little moment,
as involving the character of all the previous domestic
policy of that government of which your Lordship has
now been for more than five years a member. This
measure has a reflective power ; it is a retrospective
commentary on the character of that policy from the
beginning. It yet remains to be seen whether the
concessions hitherto made to public remonstrance
have been extorted from political cowardice, or, which
is far worse, have been paid as the price of political
support; or whether they have resulted from the
admission of a principle, which all wise states-

32
men will admit as a principle, however they may
differ as to the degree or more fitting time for its ap
plication — that Public Opinion is to be listened to
when there is a reasonable ground to presume that
it has been formed aright, and that the concession
may be made without compromising the Dignity of
the Executive or the Majesty of the Law.
I have the honour to be,
Your Lordship's most obedient servant,
H. A. WOODGATE.

March 31, 1836.

Gilbert and Rivington, Printers, St. John's-Square.