FOOTNOTES:
CHAPTER XVII.
OXFORD STUDIES AND EXAMINATIONS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
Examination Statute of 1800 and later amendments
‘The studies of the University were first raised from their abject state by a statute passed in 1800.’ Such is the testimony of the Oxford University Commissioners appointed in 1850, and it is amply confirmed by University records. The Laudian system was doomed to failure from the first, inasmuch as it provided no security for the capacity of examiners or against their collusion with the candidates, while these were animated by little fear of rejection and no hope whatever of distinction. The statute of 1800, for which the credit is mainly due to Dr. Eveleigh, then Provost of Oriel, was directed to cure these defects. That it was regarded as a vigorous attempt to raise the standard of degree examinations is proved by the fact that in 1801, the last year of the ‘old system,’ the number of B.A. degrees suddenly rose to 250, largely exceeding the average of degrees and even of matriculations in several preceding years. The new statute was deliberately based on the Laudian system, in so far as it presupposed an inherent supremacy in the faculty of Arts, and it was unconsciously based on the old mediæval curriculum of Trivials and Quadrivials, in so far as it specified grammar, rhetoric, logic, moral philosophy, and the elements of mathematics—with the important addition of Latin and Greek literature—as the essential subjects of examination. But it effected a grand reform in the method of examination. Candidates were to offer themselves either for what has since been known as a ‘pass,’ or for Honours, and the Honour-list was to be divided into two classes, in which the names were to be arranged in order of merit. There was also to be a further examination for the M.A. degree, comprising higher mathematical subjects, history, and Hebrew; while candidates for the B.C.L. degree were to be examined in history and jurisprudence, besides the subjects required for the B.A. degree. Moreover, the examiners were thenceforth to be paid by salary, and chosen by responsible officers to serve for considerable periods. They were solemnly charged to deliberate maturely and secretly on the merits of the candidates, sepositis omnino amicitiâ et odio, timore ac spe. Material changes were introduced into this system by statutes of 1807, modified again in 1809, 1825, 1826, and 1830. The general effect of these changes was to substitute, in the main, written papers for oral questions, to establish two stated times in the year for examination, to subdivide the list of honours into three classes, to relegate mathematics to a ‘School’ by itself, to abrogate the examination for the M.A. degree, and to make the Greek and Latin languages, philosophy, and history, the staple of examination in what now came to be called the Literæ Humaniores School, though permission was given to illustrate the ancient by modern authors. Meanwhile, the old scholastic exercise of Responsions in Parviso was replaced by an elementary examination, bearing the same name, to be passed in the second year.
Examination Statute of 1850 and later amendments
Such was the Oxford examination-system when it was transformed afresh in 1850, by a statute which has been amended and extended by many supplementary measures. A ‘First Public Examination,’ popularly known as ‘Moderations,’ was interposed between Responsions and the final examination for the B.A. degree, thenceforth officially designated the ‘Second Public Examination.’ This intermediate examination, in which honours are awarded, was specially designed to encourage and test a scholarlike knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, ancient history, philosophy, and logic being mainly reserved for the Final Classical, or Literæ Humaniores, School. The Honour School of Mathematics was retained, and two new Schools were established, the one for Natural Science, the other for Law and Modern History. This last School was afterwards divided into two schools, of Jurisprudence and of Modern History, respectively, while a sixth Honour School was added for Theology. Until the year 1883, two examinations were held annually in each of the six Honour Schools, but in and since that year one only has been held, and that in Trinity Term. Two examinations, however, continued to be held annually for candidates seeking an ordinary degree, and these ‘pass examinations’ were subdivided into several branches, for the purpose of securing a tolerable degree of proficiency in more than one subject of study.
University Commission of 1850
The important examination statutes of 1850 were in contemplation, but not yet in operation, when a Royal Commission was issued, on August 31, in that year, ‘for the purpose of inquiring into the state, discipline, studies, and revenues’ of the University and colleges. The report of this Commission is the most comprehensive review of the whole University system which has ever been published. It recommended various important reforms, of which some were effected by an Act of Parliament enacted in 1854, and others through Ordinances framed by executive commissioners, therein appointed, for the several colleges. In 1850, the sole initiative power in University legislation, and by far the largest share of University administration, was still vested in the ‘Hebdomadal Board,’ consisting solely of heads of colleges with the two proctors, and described by no unfriendly critic of Oxford institutions as ‘an organised torpor.’ The assembly of resident and ‘regent’ Masters of Arts, known as the ‘House of Congregation,’ still existed for the purpose of granting degrees, but its other business had dwindled to mere formalities. The University Convocation included, as ever, all Masters of Arts, resident or non-resident, and had the right of debating, but this right was virtually annulled by the necessity of speaking in Latin—all but a lost art—and Convocation could only accept or reject without amendment measures proposed by the Hebdomadal Board. No student could be a member of the University without belonging to a college or hall, while every member of a college or hall was compelled to sleep within its walls, until after his third year of residence. Persons unable to sign the Thirty-nine Articles were absolutely excluded, not merely from degrees, but from all access to the University, inasmuch as the test of subscription was enforced at matriculation. Nevertheless, college fellowships were further protected against the intrusion of dissenters by the declaration of conformity to the liturgy required to be made under the Act of Uniformity. If professorial lectures were not at so low an ebb as in the days of Gibbon, they were lamentably scarce and ineffective. The educational function of the University had, in fact, been almost wholly merged in college tuition, but the scholarships, as well as the fellowships, of the colleges were fettered by all manner of restrictions, which marred their value as incentives to industry. The great majority of fellows were bound to take Holy Orders, and the whole University was dominated by a clerical spirit, which directly tended to make it, as it had so long been, a focus of theological controversy.
Act of 1854 and new College Ordinances
Though several of the wise and liberal measures recommended by the Commission of 1850 were postponed to a more convenient season, a profound and most beneficial reform was wrought in the whole spirit and working of the University system by the Act of 1854, and the College Ordinances framed under its provisions. The Hebdomadal Board was replaced by an elective Council, on which Heads of colleges, professors, and resident Masters of Arts were equally represented. A new ‘Congregation’ was created, embracing all resident members of Convocation, and soon became a vigorous deliberative assembly, with the right of speaking in English. The monopoly of colleges was broken down, and an opening made for ulterior extension by the revival of private halls. The professoriate was considerably increased, reorganised, and re-endowed, by means of contributions from colleges. The colleges were emancipated from their mediæval statutes, were invested with new constitutions, and acquired new legislative powers. The fellowships were almost universally thrown open to merit, and the effect of this was not merely to provide ample rewards for the highest academical attainments, but to place the governing power within colleges in the hands of able men, likely to promote further improvements. The number and value of scholarships was largely augmented, and many, though not all, of the restrictions upon them were abolished. The great mass of vexatious and obsolete oaths was swept away, and though candidates for the M.A. degree and persons elected to fellowships were still required to make the old subscriptions and declarations, it was enacted that no religious test should be imposed at matriculation, or on taking a bachelor’s degree. The University itself had supplemented the extension of its curriculum and examination system by the foundation of a new museum specially consecrated to natural science. The permanence of this extension was, however, additionally secured by a clause introduced into the College Ordinances, whereby it was directed that fellowships should be appropriated, from time to time, for the encouragement of all the studies recognised by the University.
Effect of these reforms
Other salutary changes naturally grew out of this comprehensive reform, and far greater progress was made by the University during the thirty years immediately following it than in any previous century of its history. The impulse given to education reacted upon learning and research; Oxford science began once more to command the respect of Europe; the professoriate received an accession of illustrious names; and college tuition, instead of being the mere temporary vocation of fellows waiting for livings, gradually placed itself on the footing of a regular profession. Instead of drying up the bounty of founders, as had been confidently predicted, the reforms of 1854 apparently caused the stream of benefactions to flow with renewed abundance. Nearly all the older colleges have extended their buildings, mostly by the aid of private munificence, a new college has been erected, bearing the name of the Rev. John Keble, and Magdalen Hall has been refounded, under its original name of Hertford College, with a large new endowment, provided by Mr. C. Baring. Meanwhile, a new class of ‘unattached’ or ‘non-collegiate’ students has been created, the number of which rose to 284 in the year 1880, though it has since manifested a tendency to fall. The aggregate strength of the University has been doubled within the same period of thirty-two years, and the net total of undergraduates in residence has been swelled from about 1,300 to upwards of 2,500, and the annual matriculations have increased in a like proportion.
Abolition of University Tests
The relaxation of the ‘classical monopoly’ and the opening of scholarships was supplemented, in 1871, by a still more important reform—the complete abolition of University Tests, already reduced by the Act of 1854. This great concession to religious liberty was brought about by a persistent movement chiefly emanating from the Universities themselves. In the year 1862 a petition was presented from 74 resident fellows of colleges at Cambridge, praying for a repeal of the clause applicable to fellowships in the Act of Uniformity. In the year 1863, a petition was presented from 106 Heads, professors, fellows, ex-fellows, and college tutors at Oxford, praying for the removal of all theological restrictions on degrees. In the year 1868, a petition against all religious tests, except for degrees in theology, was signed by 80 Heads, professors, lecturers, and resident fellows at Oxford, while a similar petition was signed by 123 non-resident fellows and ex-fellows. In the same year a petition to the same effect was signed by 227 heads and present or former office-holders and fellows of Cambridge. Separate petitions, specially directed against the declaration of conformity, were presented by Trinity and Christ’s Colleges at Cambridge. Supported by the whole Nonconformist body and by the Liberal party in Parliament, these efforts were ultimately successful. The contest in Parliament lasted no less than nine years, and one Bill after another was defeated or withdrawn, but in 1871 the abolition of University Tests was adopted as a government measure and accepted by the House of Lords. Experience has not justified the fears of its opponents, and neither the religious character nor the social peace of the University has been in the slightest degree impaired by the admission of Nonconformists to its degrees and endowments.
Local examinations, and board for examination of public schools
But the impulse given to academical education by the legislation of 1854 is not to be measured solely by the internal growth of the University, now accessible to every class in the nation. Since that period it has initiated and carried out two educational movements of national importance, the one in concert, the other in friendly rivalry, with the University of Cambridge. The first of these was the scheme of local examinations for pupils of middle-class schools, established by a statute passed at Oxford in 1857, afterwards adopted by Cambridge, and now exercising a regulative influence on middle-class education throughout England. The examination of public schools by a joint-board representing the two Universities was originated in 1873, and was doubtless facilitated by the fear, then prevalent, of State-inspection being applied to endowed schools. At these examinations certificates are granted, which, under certain limitations, carry with them an exemption from Responsions at Oxford, as well as from a part of the ‘previous examinations’ at Cambridge, and of the military examinations. Such certificates may be regarded as supplying the rudiments of a missing link not only between secondary and University education, but also between secondary and professional education.
Commission of inquiry (1872) and Act of 1876
In the meantime, a new wave of democratic sentiment in Parliament impelled Mr. Gladstone to issue, in January 1872, a commission to inquire into academical property and revenues, as a preliminary step to further legislation. The functions of this commission were strictly limited to investigation and to matters of finance, no power being entrusted to it either of passing judgment on the actual application of University and college funds, or of suggesting a better application of them—much less of entering on general questions of University reform. These questions were destined to be reopened, and a fresh appropriation of academical endowments to be made, by the Conservative Government which came into office in the spring of 1874. At this period the system established by the Oxford Reform Act of 1854, and the executive commission thereby appointed, had barely taken root, but a vigorous agitation was already in progress against it, mainly on the ground that it had done too much for educational competition and too little for learning or research. The principle upon which a fresh commission was now demanded was not so much the expediency of redistributing college revenues for the benefit of the colleges themselves, as the expediency of diverting them from the colleges to the University, especially in the interests of Natural Science. The Marquis of Salisbury, as Chancellor of the University and an important member of the government, heartily espoused these claims, and introduced a Bill expressly designed to enrich the University at the expense of the colleges.
Commission of 1877
This Bill was passed, with some amendments, in 1877. Its preamble recited the expediency of making larger provision out of college revenues for University purposes. It proceeded to institute an executive commission, armed with sweeping powers of revision and legislation; but, as a safeguard for the interests of colleges, it gave each college, not indeed a veto upon the statutes to be framed, but a share in framing them, by means of elected representatives, associated pro tempore with the commissioners. It further enjoined that in assessing contributions on colleges, regard should first be had to the educational wants of the college itself. Accordingly, the commissioners sat for several years, and elaborated an entirely new code both for the University and for the colleges, repealing all previous college statutes or ordinances, but leaving the legislative constitution of the University untouched. They charged the colleges with an aggregate subsidy of 20,000l. and upwards for the endowment of professorships and readerships or lectureships, the contributions of wealthy colleges being fixed on a higher scale than those of poorer colleges. By the same process they set free a certain amount of University income for such objects as the maintenance of buildings and libraries. They regulated the payment, duties, and appointment of professors and readers, as well as the nomination of University examiners, which had been subjected to much criticism. They made some approach towards an organisation of University teaching, by grouping studies roughly under Faculties, and giving ‘Boards of Faculties’ a certain limited control over the distribution of lectures. They formulated extremely minute rules for the publication of University and college accounts. They remodelled the whole system of college fellowships, attaching the greater number of them to University or college offices, but retaining about one hundred sinecure fellowships, terminable in seven years, with an uniform stipend of 200l. a year, and subject to no obligations of residence or celibacy. With certain exceptions, they abolished all clerical restrictions on fellowships or headships, but regulated various details of college management and tuition which the former commissioners had left in the discretion of each governing body. They established an uniform standard of age and value for college scholarships, requiring, as a rule, that no candidate should have exceeded nineteen, and that no scholarship should be worth more than 80l. annually. They also provided for the appropriation of any surplus revenues which should accrue, to college or University purposes.
Character of last reforms
It is too soon to pronounce a judgment on the effect of these reforms, some of which have not yet come into full operation, and which have been supplemented by incessant changes in the examination statutes, made by the University itself. Indeed, notwithstanding the bold amendments which it has undergone, the constitution and educational system of the University must be regarded as still in a state of transition. It has ceased to be a mere aggregate of colleges, but it has not ceased to be essentially collegiate in many parts of its organisation, and the dualism of the professorial and tutorial systems has been perpetuated. Professorships have been freely created, but attendance on their lectures has not been made obligatory, and it has been found easier to provide them with salaries out of college revenues than to provide them with audiences at the expense of college lecturers. The number of necessary examinations has been increased, and many obstacles have been thrown in the way of persistent idleness; but the door of the University has not been closed against complete ignorance by an effective entrance examination, and a dunce ignorant of his letters may still matriculate and reside, if he can find a college to admit him. The student is free to choose his Final School, and, unless he chooses the Classical School, he may abandon Latin and Greek, in any case, after Moderations. But a minimum proficiency in these languages is still necessary for Responsions as well as for Moderations, several alternatives for which have been offered with an utter disregard of symmetry or equality between studies. Women have been admitted to certain University examinations, but not to all, nor on the same terms as men; and the names of those who obtain honours are published in a class-list, but not the ordinary class-list. Religious equality has been established for most purposes, but not for all, and the Faculty of Theology maintains its exclusive connection not only with the Anglican Church but with the Anglican clergy. Such are some of the anomalies which have been left to adjust themselves by successive commissions and successive groups of University legislators. They have not proved inconsistent with a vigorous internal life, but while they exist and continue to be multiplied, the University cannot be said to have attained a state of stable equilibrium, nor can a poetical unity be imparted to an historical narrative of recent University reforms.
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE NEO-CATHOLIC REVIVAL, KNOWN AS THE ‘OXFORD MOVEMENT.’
Character of the ‘Oxford Movement’
The great Neo-Catholic Revival of the nineteenth century is so intimately identified with Oxford that it came to be widely known as the ‘Oxford Movement.’ It was less important than Methodism in its purely moral aspect, since it was far less popular and practical, leaving no such profound impression upon the religious life of the nation. On the other hand, it exercised a more powerful influence on Anglican theology, since it wore a more scholarlike garb, was more attractive to cultivated and imaginative minds, allied itself with the speculative and historical spirit of the age, and purported to be essentially constructive or reconstructive. It had from the first a centre, and solid base of operations, in the University, with branches stretching far and wide, wherever zealous Churchmen were found. The assaults of Methodism upon religious apathy in high places had been more in the nature of guerilla warfare; those of ‘Tractarianism,’ as it came to be called, assumed the character of a well-organised campaign.
A reaction against the rising tide of Liberalism
Whatever may have been the aims of its leaders, the Oxford Movement was in truth a reaction, and its real origin must be sought in political rather than in ecclesiastical causes. The question of Catholic Emancipation, which had been stifled at the Union, was revived in 1812 and fiercely debated for the next seventeen years. The measure was equally opposed by the High and Low Church parties in the Church, but carried in 1829 by a Tory Government in deference to political exigencies. It was followed by the Reform Act, and in 1832 the reformed Parliament assembled, with a large majority, not merely Erastian, but hostile to the National Church. The vote of the bishops on the Reform Bill had exposed them to popular obloquy; Lord Grey himself had openly threatened them, and the press was full of attacks on Episcopacy and the Establishment. Lord Grey’s Act for suppressing ten Irish bishoprics was regarded as the first outburst of the gathering storm; timid Churchmen trembled for the very existence of their Church, and the Oxford Movement was set on foot with the deliberate purpose of defending the Church and the Christianity of England against the anti-Catholic aggressions of the dominant Liberalism.
Oriel the centre of the Movement
The University of Oxford was the natural centre for such a reaction. The constitution of the University and colleges was semi-ecclesiastical; the Heads were clerical dignitaries; nearly all the fellows were bound to be in Holy Orders. Among the colleges, Oriel then held the first rank, both as a place of education, and as the home of a speculative and learned society among the fellows. Copleston, its last Provost, had been a man of remarkable capacity, and he was ably seconded by such colleagues as Davison and Whately. The system of tuition at Oriel was the best in Oxford, and as it was the first college to throw open its fellowships, it was able to attract the ablest of the young graduates. It was known that Oriel fellows were selected not merely on the evidence of the class-list, or by the results of competitive examination, but also by a discriminating, though arbitrary, estimate of their social qualities and probable intellectual development. They were, therefore, a select body, somewhat inclined to mutual admiration, producing little, but freely criticising everything. The result was an Oriel school of thought, commonly known as the Noetics, who applied an unsparing logic to received opinions, especially those concerning religious faith, but whose strength lay rather in drawing inferences and refuting fallacies than in examining and settling the premisses from which their syllogisms were deduced. Still, Oriel fostered a bright and independent intellectual life of its own; the Oriel school was a standing protest against the prevailing orthodoxy of mere conformity, and it became the congenial head-quarters of the Oxford Movement.
John Henry Newman
Pusey and Keble were among the fellows of Oriel, when John Henry Newman was elected to a fellowship in 1823, and later, in 1826, became tutor in succession to Jelf. Newman’s early life at Oxford was a solitary one. He did not seek friends, and in the Oriel common-room his shy and retiring nature sometimes concealed his real power. As Wesley’s sympathies were originally with High Church doctrines, so Newman’s were originally with Evangelical doctrines; he was connected with the Evangelical set at St. Edmund Hall; he was for a time secretary to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and he actually helped to start the ‘Record’ newspaper. In the early development of his ideas he owed much to the robust intellect of Whately and the accurate criticism of Hawkins, who succeeded Copleston as Provost in 1827. But his reverence was reserved for Keble, whose ‘Christian Year’ appeared in the same year and gave the first secret impulse to the Movement, of which Newman became the head. In the following year, Pusey, then little known to Newman, returned to Oxford as Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christchurch, unconsciously destined to give his own name to Newman’s followers.
Origin of ‘Tracts for the Times’
At this period Newman had no intention of heading the Oxford Movement, still less of founding a new party in the Church. His Evangelical principles were gradually falling away from him, and he was girding himself up for a great struggle with Secularism as represented by a Liberal Government, but the first steps in the Tractarian agitation were not taken by him. In 1832 he travelled in Italy with his friend and pupil, Richard Hurrell Froude; and it was from him that Newman imbibed his veneration for the Virgin and the Saints, his antipathy to the Reformation, and his respectful toleration of the Roman Catholic Church. They went so far as to inquire upon what conditions they would be allowed to communicate in that Church, but were repelled on hearing that a subscription to the decisions of the Council of Trent would be required. It was during Newman’s absence abroad, in July 1833, that Keble preached his Assize Sermon on ‘National Apostasy,’ which may be said to have struck the first note of the Movement, and in the same year Peter Maurice sounded the alarm against ‘Popery in Oxford.’ A series of ‘Tracts for the Times’ was projected at a conference, also held during Newman’s absence, by a small body of his friends, but the plan was matured at subsequent conferences in Oriel, where Newman was present, and Keble warmly supported it in letters of advice to which the utmost deference was paid. The proposed aim of these Tracts was expository rather than controversial; they purported to enlighten the prevailing ignorance on Church principles and Church history. They were to appear anonymously, and each writer was to be responsible only for his own production. The difficulty of maintaining this principle of limited liability was foreseen from the first, and prudent friends of the Movement were in favour of a judicious censorship, but Newman was inflexible, and his will prevailed.
Association formed
The immediate outcome of these Oriel conferences was the formation of an association designed to rally all friends of the Church against the common enemy. This was the signal for which zealous Churchmen had been waiting, and it met with an enthusiastic response in all parts of the country. An address to the Archbishop of Canterbury was drawn up and signed by eight thousand of the clergy, insisting upon the necessity of restoring Church discipline, maintaining Church principles, and resisting the growth of latitudinarianism. A large section of the laity ranged themselves on the side of the revival. Meetings were held throughout England, and the King himself volunteered a declaration of his strong affection for the National Church, now roused from its apathy, and prepared to defend itself vigorously, not merely as a true branch of the Catholic Church, but as a co-ordinate power with the State.
Newman assumes the lead
Newman had returned from Italy deeply imbued with the conviction that he had a definite mission to fulfil. He was no less firmly assured of the need for individual action at this juncture than impelled to it by his own self-reliant nature. While others, therefore, were urging combinations and committees as the best methods of working, Newman’s strong individuality revolted from joint control, especially in the form of a ‘Committee of Revision,’ and pressed him forward to strike the first blow for himself. He took counsel with Froude alone, when, in the autumn of 1833, he suddenly brought out the first of that series of Tracts from which his party derived its familiar name of Tractarians. In so doing he took his own colleagues by surprise, and precipitated the crisis destined to result from the publication of the Tracts. From that day forth he was the recognised leader of the Tractarians. No one among them was equally fitted for that position. Keble was too modest and studious by disposition, Pusey was not an original pioneer of the movement, Froude was disqualified by delicate health. Newman stepped naturally into the place. The influence which he gained in his own college as a tutor, and in the University as a preacher from the pulpit of St. Mary’s, had drawn round him a band of followers; his sympathetic character won the confidence of young minds; his confessions of speculative doubt added weight to his acceptance of dogmatic authority. Yet the secret of his personal ascendency was never fully revealed to himself, nor did he ever fully realise the impression produced by his sermons. To him the Tractarian Movement was ‘no movement, but the spirit of the times.’ He felt himself, not the leader of a new party, but a loyal son of the old Church; now awakened from her lethargy. He claimed no allegiance and issued no commands. It was through friends and disciples, as we learn from himself, that his principles were spread, and, as in the case of Socrates, their reports of his conversations were perhaps the main source of the spell which he exercised over the University and the Church.
Spread and objects of the movement. Publication of Tract XC.
The adhesion of Pusey in 1835 was a great accession of strength to the Tractarians. He had contributed a Tract to the series in December 1833, but he did not formally join the Movement until a year and a half later. His learning, social connections, and official position gave it a certain dignity and solidity in which it had been lacking. Recruits now offered themselves in abundance, and gifted young men spent their days and nights in poring over materials for the Library of the Fathers originated by Pusey, or in journeying from place to place, in the spirit of the Methodist Revivalists, though in the pursuit of a very different ideal. But the influence of Tractarianism over Oxford thought must not be exaggerated. While it fascinated many subtle and imaginative minds of a high order, and gathered into itself much of the spiritual and even of the intellectual life of the University, there were many robust intellects and earnest hearts which it not only failed to reach but stirred into hostility. If it would be easy to draw up an imposing list of eminent Oxford men who became Tractarians, it would not be less easy to enumerate an equal number of equally eminent men who consistently opposed Tractarianism, and predicted that it must lead to Romanism. Nothing was further from the original intentions and expectations of Newman himself. His object was to revive the usages and doctrines of the primitive Church; to co-operate, indeed, with the Church of Rome, so far as possible, but to keep aloof from its pernicious corruptions; to establish the catholicity of the Anglican Church, but, above all, to hold the via media laid down by its founders. His faith in Anglicanism was first disturbed in the Long Vacation of 1839 by his supposed discovery of a decisive analogy between the position of the Monophysite heretics and that of the Anglican communion. Still, though he was gradually assimilating the doctrines, he rebelled against the abuses and excesses, of the Roman Church. Anglicanism as a distinctive creed had become untenable to him, but he clung to a hope that its title might be lineally deduced from the primitive Church, instead of being founded on a secession from the Church of Rome. It was in this frame of mind that he published Tract XC. in the year 1841, for the purpose of showing that the Articles of the English Church were directed, not against the doctrines of the Church of Rome as interpreted by the Council of Trent, but against earlier heresies disavowed by that Council.
Collapse of Tractarianism, and secession of Newman
This Tract brought the Movement to a climax. It was received with a storm of indignation throughout the country. The bishops delivered charges against it, the great mass of Churchmen regarded it as an attack on the Protestant Establishment, and a direct invitation to Romanism. The Bishop of Oxford intervened, and the farther issue of Tracts was stopped. Henceforth the real tendency of Tractarianism was disclosed, and its promoters were hopelessly discredited. Newman found, to his own great surprise, that his power was shattered. He retired, during Lent 1840, to his parish at Littlemore, entrusting St. Mary’s to a curate, in view of his possible resignation. His loyalty to the English Church wavered more and more as he renewed his study of the Arian controversy, and his misgivings were intensified by the hostile attitude of the bishops, as well as by an incident which to a secular mind would have appeared trivial—the institution of the Jerusalem bishopric on a semi-Anglican and semi-Lutheran basis. His resignation of St. Mary’s in the autumn of 1843, two years after the publication of Tract XC., was due to an impulse of despondency on failing to dissuade a young friend from conversion to Romanism. After preaching his last sermon there he retired into lay-communion, giving up all idea of acting upon others, and turning all his thoughts inwards. Two years later, on October 8, 1845, his remaining difficulties being removed, he was himself received into the Church of Rome, and finally left Oxford early in the following year. Though his defection had long been foreseen, it caused a profound shock throughout the English Church. The first panic was succeeded by a reaction; some devoted adherents followed him to Rome; others relapsed into lifeless conformity; and the University soon resumed its wonted tranquillity.
The ‘Hampden Controversy’
The ‘Hampden Controversy,’ in 1836, may be regarded as an episode of the Tractarian revival, already in full course of development. This controversy arose out of Dr. Hampden’s Bampton Lectures on Scholastic Philosophy, delivered in 1882, which, however, had attracted little attention until he was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity four years later. No sooner was this appointment known, than an anti-Hampden Committee was formed, of which Pusey and Newman were members. The Crown was actually petitioned to recall its nomination, but this petition was coldly rejected by Lord Melbourne, and a vote of censure on Dr. Hampden, proposed by the Hebdomadal Board, was defeated in Convocation by the Proctors’ joint-veto—a very unusual, but perfectly constitutional, exercise of the Proctorial authority. A war of pamphlets ensued, and the vote of censure being reintroduced, after a change of Proctors, was carried by an overwhelming majority. According to the opinion of eminent counsel, the proceeding was illegal, as transgressing the jurisdiction of the University under the Charter of 1636, but the sentence was never reversed, and Dr. Hampden remained under the ban of the University, excluded from various privileges of his office, until his elevation to the See of Hereford in 1847. The opposition to him then broke out afresh, and the Dean of Hereford, in a letter to Lord John Russell, held out a threat of resistance to the Royal congé d’élire. The answer of Lord John Russell was such as might be expected, but thirteen bishops supported the Dean’s protest by a remonstrance, which Lord John Russell met by a peremptory refusal to make the prerogative of the Crown dependent on the caprice of a chance majority at one University, largely composed of persons who had since joined the Church of Rome. Nevertheless, a final attempt was made to negative the ‘confirmation’ of Dr. Hampden’s appointment at Bow Church. An argument on this point in the Court of Queen’s Bench ended in a dismissal of the case, owing to differences of opinion among the judges, and on March 25, 1848, Dr. Hampden was duly consecrated Bishop.
Proceedings against Pusey and Ward
On the other hand, while Newman was in retirement at Littlemore, Pusey was suspended from preaching in the University pulpit for two years, on a report from a board appointed to examine a sermon delivered by him at Christ Church, in which he was alleged to have affirmed the Real Presence in a sense inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church. Soon afterwards, Dr. Hampden, as Regius Professor of Divinity, inhibited from his B.D. degree a candidate who had declined to be examined by him on Tradition and Transubstantiation. The right of examination was challenged by the candidate, but upheld by the Delegates of Appeals, to whom the question was referred. On November 20, 1844, Mr. Ward, a fellow of Balliol, was summoned before the Vice-Chancellor, and questioned respecting the authorship of a book entitled ‘The Ideal of a Christian Church.’ A war of pamphlets ensued, but in the end, on February 13, 1845, a proposition was submitted to Convocation, densely crowded with non-residents, condemning Ward’s doctrines as inconsistent with the Articles, with his subscription thereto, and with his own good faith in subscribing. This resolution was carried by a large majority, and a further resolution, for the degradation of Ward, was carried by a smaller majority. A third resolution, condemning Tract XC., had been appended, but was negatived by the joint veto of the Proctors. It had actually been intended to subjoin to the first resolution a declaration annexing a new sense to subscription, and thus creating a new test, but this addition was ultimately withdrawn in deference to a legal opinion, which also denied the validity of Ward’s deprivation.
Effect of the ‘Oxford Movement’
With these proceedings the academical history of the Tractarian Movement may properly be closed, though many distinguished members of the University joined the Church of Rome at a later period, especially after the celebrated judgment in the ‘Gorham Case,’ establishing liberty of opinion on Baptismal Regeneration. For several years after Newman’s conversion, the progress of the Neo-Catholic Revival was arrested, and when it took a new departure under the name of Ritualism, it ceased to draw its inspiration from the University of Oxford. Nevertheless, the work of Newman and his fellows left its mark on the University as well as on the English Church. The effect of his speculative teaching was infinitely weakened by his own conversion to Rome, but the effect of his practical teaching could not be dissipated. In the widespread restoration of churches, in the improvement of church-services, and in the greater energy of religious life within the Anglican communion, we may still recognise the influence for good which emanated from the Oriel common-room.
Controversy on the Endowment of the Greek Professorship. Defeat of Mr. Gladstone in 1865
Thirty years after his own suspension, Dr. Pusey, now regarded as a champion of orthodoxy, came forward with certain other Doctors of Divinity, to bring a charge of heresy against Mr. Jowett, of Balliol, the Regius Professor of Greek, who had contributed to the volume called ‘Essays and Reviews.’ A suit was instituted in the Chancellor’s Court, and on February 6, 1863, a judgment was delivered by Mr. Mountague Bernard, as assessor. This judgment disallowed the defendant’s protest against the jurisdiction of the Court in spiritual matters, or over a Regius Professor; but, in effect, arrested the proceedings without deciding the case on its merits. A somewhat undignified controversy followed, and greatly disturbed the peace of the University, on the question of increasing the very meagre endowment of the Greek Professorship—a measure which Dr. Pusey opposed on the sole ground that it would strengthen the position of the existing Professor. The partisanship engendered by the long struggle on this question divided the senior members of the University into hostile camps, and often determined their votes on matters which had no connection with the subject. At last, on February 18, 1865, a compromise was effected, by accepting the offer of Christchurch to endow the Professorship. The University, in truth, was heartily sick of the controversy, and even the High Church residents were unwilling to please the non-resident clergy by perpetuating an apparent injustice which damaged their own credit with the abler students. In the following summer, Mr. Gladstone, who had been elected Member of Parliament for the University in 1847, and whose seat had been contested at every subsequent election, was defeated by Mr. Gathorne Hardy. This event established the supremacy of the Conservative party in the constituency, and, though a contest took place in 1878, the result was never doubtful, and the fierce passions incident to constant trials of political strength have sensibly died away. Thus, two fruitful sources of academical discord were removed within a few months of each other. The last twenty-one years have witnessed many warm discussions and close divisions in the University legislature, but they have been mainly on academical issues, and have seldom been embittered by the odium theologicum. Since 1865, a tacit concordat has prevailed between the two great schools of thought in Oxford, and a philosophical toleration of opinion has superseded the intolerant dogmatism, not confined to one party in the Church, which had its origin in the Neo-Catholic Revival.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE UNIVERSITY IN 1886
Reign of Queen Victoria
The last chapter of University history covers a period within living memory, and practically coextensive with the reign of Queen Victoria. Its main interest consists in the rapid succession of theological controversies which have agitated the academical mind, and in the series of internal reforms dating from 1850. Both of these subjects have been separately considered, but it still remains to review briefly the strange transformation wrought in the various aspects of University life within the lifetime of the present generation, not so much by external interference as by the natural growth of new social conditions.
State of the University on the Queen’s accession
On the accession of Queen Victoria the college-system was already established on its present basis, and effective University examinations had put an end to the licensed idleness of the eighteenth century. But the University and the colleges were still governed respectively by antiquated codes of statutes, which it would have been no less disastrous than impossible to enforce strictly, but from which, as we have seen, it required the intervention of the Legislature to release them. Though a considerable number of able students destined for the Bar were attracted by scholarships and the prospect of fellowships, Oxford was still mainly a clerical and aristocratic seminary, exercising a very slight influence on the scientific or commercial world, and little affected by their fashions. Until it was connected with the metropolis by railway, it retained the distinctive character of a provincial town, and many eccentric recluses of a type now obsolete were still to be found in college rooms, who had never entered a London club or drawing-room. The whole authority of the University was, in fact, exerted to keep the railway at a distance, and the Oxford branch was not opened before June 12, 1844. Though Oxford was much frequented by visitors in the summer term, not without injury to continuity of study, its atmosphere was still essentially academical, if not scholastic, and the conversation as well as the social tone of its residents, both graduates and undergraduates, differed sensibly from those of their contemporaries in the metropolis and elsewhere. Oxford Dons had not altogether lost the traditional characteristics of their class; the model Oxford first-class man, assuming to have mastered classical literature, Greek philosophy, and ancient history, which he regarded as the staple of human knowledge, was accused of exhibiting the pride of intellect in its purest form; young priests of the new ‘Oxford School’ assuredly carried sacerdotal presumption to its logical extreme; and the chartered libertinism of ‘fast men’ in one or two Oxford colleges sometimes brought scandal on the whole University. No doubt the habits of Oxford ‘collegians’ fifty years ago would have compared favourably with those of their grandfathers, still more with those of the squalid but industrious students who begged their way to the University in the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, hard drinking and its concomitant vices were by no means obsolete, even in common-rooms, and though undergraduates cultivated the manners of young gentlemen, their ordinary moral code was probably but little above that which then prevailed in the army and the navy. Side by side, however, with the self-indulgent circles of undergraduate society, there was a limited set deeply impressed by the ascetic teaching of the Neo-Catholic school, whose practical influence on its disciples resembled in many respects that of the Evangelical school at Cambridge, however different in its theological basis. The prevailing narrowness and intensity of theological opinion was perhaps favoured by the narrowness of the University curriculum. Classics and mathematics retained a monopoly of studies; few wasted time on modern languages, history, or natural science; while music and art in all its aspects were regarded by most as feminine accomplishments. Since professors were very scarce, and tutors (being fellows) were unable to marry, family life and social intercourse with ladies had no place in an University career. The members of each college associated comparatively little with ‘out-college men,’ in the absence of clubs, debating societies, and other bonds of non-collegiate union. Rowing and cricket were vigorously cultivated by young men from the great public schools, and hunting was carried on, especially by noblemen and gentlemen-commoners, with a lordly disregard of economy; but for the mass of students there was no great choice of games and recreations, at least in the winter. Those who did not aspire to Honours, being the great majority, had no occasion to read hard, and often lived for amusement only, since there was an interval of full two years between Responsions and ‘the Schools,’ unbroken by any examination. Those who read for Honours generally read with a steadiness and singleness of purpose incompatible with much attention to any other pursuit. Various as these elements were, they were readily assimilated by the University, which seldom failed to leave a distinctive stamp upon one who had passed through it, and Oxford culture retained a peculiar flavour of its own.
Influence of recent changes
In the course of the last fifty years, a profound though almost unseen change has gradually passed over the face of the old University. The introduction of representative government into the academical constitution has not only cleared away many abuses, but has at once popularised and centralised University administration. The recognition of Unattached Students has broken down the monopoly of colleges; the abolition of close fellowships has infused new blood and new ideas into the more backward collegiate bodies; the spontaneous development of numerous clubs and associations—athletic, literary, or political—has created many new ties among undergraduates, and weakened the old exclusive spirit of college partisanship. The ‘Combined Lecture System,’ under which the inmates of one college may receive instruction in another, has also favoured a division of labour among tutors which is directly conducive to specialism in teaching. The great extension of the professoriate, including the new order of University Readers, and still more the liberal encouragement of new studies, has infinitely expanded the intellectual interests both of teachers and of students; the admission of Nonconformists and the progress of free thought have powerfully modified theological bigotry; the multiplication of feminine influences has undermined the ideal of semi-monastic seclusion, and greatly increased the innocent æsthetic distractions which are the most formidable rivals of the austerer Muses. The gulf between Oxford society and the great world outside, never very impassable, has been effectually bridged over in every direction. A very large proportion of professors and college tutors have travelled widely; many are well known in London as contributors to scientific and literary periodicals or otherwise; while Oxford itself is constantly thronged with visitors from the metropolis. In ceasing to be clerical and aristocratic, the University has become far more cosmopolitan; all religions are there mingled harmoniously, nor is it uncommon to meet in the streets young men of Oriental race and complexion wearing academical costume.
Present character of the University
In the meantime, a marked and widespread reformation has been wrought in the morals of the University, and notwithstanding the influx of a large plebeian element, the manners of undergraduates have become gentler as their tastes have become more refined. The ostentation of wealth has been visibly diminished, and, notwithstanding the increase of amusements, there is probably more of plain living and high thinking in modern Oxford than in the Oxford of Charles II. or Elizabeth. The University, it is true, has yet to harmonise many conflicting elements, which mar the symmetry of its constitution; but it is becoming more and more identified with the highest intellectual aspirations of the nation as a whole. In ceasing to be the intellectual stronghold of the mediæval Church, or the instrument of Tudor statecraft, or the chosen training-school for the Anglican clergy, it may have lost something of its ancient supremacy, but it has asserted its national character; and it has perhaps never exercised a more widespread control over the national mind than it possesses in these latter years of the nineteenth century.