portion to the weight of his character and station. It is impossible not to remember, in writing these lines, the august Lady who is now seeking health in Madeira. May her visit there be a blessing, as has been the case wherever she has sojourned, to herself and those among whom she is dwelling! We doubt not that it will be so; that the Churchmen of Madeira will have cause to remember her visit with gratitude, and that the reports of visitors will no longer be treated with contempt, even by the Foreign Office, when the Queen Dowager of England has been numbered among them. 213 ART. VI.-1. The University Censure on Dr. Hampden. London: Fellowes. 1847. 2. The Third Hampden Agitation. London: Fellowes. 1847. 3. A Letter to Lord John Russell, &c. on the bearing which the Proposed Admission of Jews to Parliament, the Nomination of Dr. Hampden, &c., have on the Revival of Convocation, &c. By the Rev. W. J. TROWER. London: Rivingtons. 1847. 4. Are not the Clergy arraying themselves against Church and Queen? A Question. By M. A. London: Ridgway. 1847. 5. Letter by the Rev. F. D. Maurice, on the attempt to defeat the Nomination of Dr. Hampden. London: Pickering. 1847. 6. A Few Words on the Hampden Controversy. By the HON. AND REV. ORLANDO FORESTER, M.A. London: Seeleys. 1847. 7. A Reply to Lord John Russell's Letter to the Remonstrance of the Bishops, against the Appointment of the Rev. Dr. Hampden to the See of Hereford. By the RIGHT REV. HENRY, LORD BISHOP OF EXETER. London: Murray. 1847. 8. Remarks on the Protest of the Bishops against Dr. Hampden's Appointment and Lord John Russell's Reply. London: Straker. 1847. 9. A Letter to the Right Hon. Lord John Russell, &c. By the REV. R. D. HAMPDEN, D.D., &c. London: Fellowes. 1847. 10. A Churchman's Notes on Lord John Russell's Reply to the Bishops. London: Rivingtons. 1847. 11. The Royalty of the Crown in Episcopal Promotions, according to the judgment of Divines, Canonists, and others, of the Church of England. London: Rivingtons. 1848. 12. A Letter to the Right Hon. Lord John Russell, on the Nomination of Dr. Hampden. By AN ENGLISHMAN. London: Cleaver. 1847. 13. A Letter to the Right Hon. Lord John Russell, in reply to his Lordship's Answer to the Remonstrant Bishops; with a Postscript on Dr. Hampden's Letter. By the REV. W. B. FLOWER, B.A., &c. &c. London: Masters. 1847. 14. An Address to the People of England on the Present Mode of Appointing Bishops. London: Masters. 1847. 15. Dr. Hampden's Theology other than the Catholic Faith; A Letter to the Archdeacon of Wilts, &c. By MAYOW W. MAYOW, M.A., Vicar of Market Lavington. London: T. B. Sharpe. 1847. 16. Religious Liberty, and the Church in Chains, &c. &c. By JAMES B. SWEET, Perpetual Curate of Woodville. London: Cleaver. 1847. 17. Church Emancipation and Church Reform; in a Series of Letters. By ECCLESIASTES. London; Hatchard. 1847. 18. Convocation: What is it? A Letter to the Bishop of Exeter, in Reply to his Lordship's Perversions of the Hampden Case. By a CHURCHMAN. London: Longmans. 1847. 19. A Letter to the Very Rev. the Dean of Chichester, on the agitation excited by the Appointment of Dr. Hampden to the See of Hereford. By JULIUS C. HARE, M.A., Archdeacon of Lewes. London: J. W. Parker. 1847. IT has been our lot, under the character in which we are now speaking, in many instances, to vindicate or to explain certain subjects connected with the University of Oxford. What a surge and rush of subjects presents itself in this connexion: the Six Doctors-the Vice-chancellorship-the last Oxford ElectionNo.90-the Ward business-the Macmullen case-the new Theological Statute-the defeated Test,-all these, topics of the day, began, and, in the main, seemed to end in Oxford. The older question of the admission of Dissenters took, in some respects, a wider range; but still Oxford has seemed to the world a sort of volcano of its own. It has smoked or flashed on its own account: igneous elements were connected with it, which perhaps were underlying the whole empire; but the actual Campi Phlegrai were of no great extent. Oxford is in eruption: lava has been heard of in Broad-street. This was all: it is only Oxford again. It is its way it will begin and end in Oxford. The world's ame damnée the plague-spot on the fair body of on the fair body of progress-the impracticable rock stretching out just where the liberal plough was going so nicely and fairly, all these Oxford is, as a matter of course, to the politician of such days as our own: but the consolation was that it was only Oxford-a nest of bigots, it was true, but nothing more: a disagreeable and impracticable fact, but still only a fact-a single fact-a strong fact in itself, perhaps, but standing very isolated: a Gibraltar, it must be admitted, just insolently wrested from a large and showy kingdom; an obstinate mile of rough mountain bristling with ugly defences: but this was all. Its feuds were intestine and domestic. It attracted few sympathies except from Oxford men. It did not tell entirely even upon the Church: its complaints or triumphs awakened but broken echoes, except from the vanquished or victors of its own somewhat contracted battle-field. Its factions and seditions told as little on society at large as those of Coreyra upon Rome or Carthage. And yet it has been a curious phenomenon the way in which such a place as Oxford, separate and solitary, does occasionally affect the world's history. The last really great event in the history of this country is more than closely connected with Oxford. If King James had not been unhappily advised to attack the liberties of the Church in the case of Magdalene College, the Revolution had probably not been; at any rate it had not taken its actual course. So that when Oxford matters, as a fact, do amount to something of more general importance than an academical struggle, it behoves all classes to watch a process which is not of every-day occurrence, or of light interest. When Oxford does shake the country, it does it thoroughly. It is not for nothing that it is, as now, in everybody's thoughts. At this moment the whole Church of Christ is feeling the vast importance of some tedious sermons preached to an unwilling audience fifteen years ago in the University pulpit. Now, even to repeat the various proceedings of the last few years at Oxford makes quite a catalogue. They have already been chronicled in the pages of the Christian Remembrancer' (vol. ix. p. 519). Suffice it to say, that from the question of the admission of Dissenters in 1834, down to the attempted condemnation of No. 90 in 1845, a common element may be observed in them all. It is a remarkable fact, that all these academical struggles, differences, trials of strength, new statutes, new tests, new boards, decrees, condemnations, and the rest, seem to centre and cluster round one individual. Dr. Hampden is the common measure of Oxford strife: since Dr. Burton's death he is the logical presence of University rebuke and disunion-ens unum in multis, the point around which every element of contest and controversy has successively ranged itself. The discussion on the admission of Dissenters received its chief acrimony from Dr. Hampden, whose pamphlet on the subject, 'Observations on Religious Dissent,' perhaps his most offensive publication, first necessitated system and order in the desultory and tumultuary strategics of the movement in Oxford. The same year, 1834-it is a remarkable coincidence-witnessed the completion of the first volume of the Tracts for the Times,' and this pamphlet on Dissent. From that day to this, for fourteen years, we have been witnessing only combinations of the same strain, nothing more than variations on a single theme: the one cardinal fact pervades every phase of the contest. tionalism on the one side as a principle, and Dr. Hampden as its exponent. Dogmatism as a principle, and the whole movement party, as a body, including its various degrees and modifications, on the other. This is as it should be; but, waiving for the present the moral importance and significance of the fact, we would have it and its importance clearly brought out and seen. If history could be always thus simplified-if the one pervading, persisting, obstinate element in all great struggles were marked at each stage of contest, and at every evolution of contro Ra versial tactics, if its reference to the original conception were pointed out, such would be the truest and most comprehensive historical philosophy. In 1836 Dr. Hampden was censured by the Convocation. For some years nothing of great academical importance occurred. Dr. Godfrey Faussett, in 1838, was stirred up to deliver a sermon against Froude's Remains; but the interval between 1836 and 1841 was decidedly favourable to Catholic principles. From No. 1 to No. 90 the Tracts, with kindred writings, had won their steady way. Of course there was to be expected, and there was, a solid parallel growth of opposition, which, however, did not acquire sufficient body to make itself felt, till 1841, when its first achievement was to procure the Hebdomadal Board to express an opinion-miscalled, in some quarters, à judgment—on the Tract No. 90. Miscalled a judgment, we say, for the Hebdomadal Board possesses no legal function to express an academical judgment on any theological subject. But to connect this expression of opinion with Dr. Hampden-All boards and committees must have a leading mind; it is of the essence of these bodies to be swayed by individual power;the active mind of the Hebdomadal Board, it is well known, was Dr. Hawkins, the Provost of Oriel, a pledged partizan of Dr. Hampden. The old judicium against Dr. Hampden, scarcely wrested from the reluctant consent of the heads, and resisted to the very last by Dr. Hawkins, now, and for the first time, had a chance of a reprisal. The tide had begun to turn against the Tracts; they had affronted too many cherished elements of selfindulgence and laxity to maintain, what they never sought, popularity; and, as soon as they were felt to be unpopular, an opportunity of retaliation presented itself. Drs. Faussett, Hawkins, and Hampden, had now a common cause, and they made the most of it. The author of Tract No. 90 had been forward, it was thought, in censuring Dr. Hampden; it was now his own turn to be censured;—and, in this way, it is easy to discover the connexion of the so-called censure of Mr. Newman with the Hampden case. It was only the common-may we add vulgar?-motive of turning the tables. Dr. Hampden had all along thought proper to make a personal matter of itdocuments are in existence which will prove that the Regius Professor, by pointed allusions to the sacred profession' of one whom he chose to consider his enemy, was only withheld by such a consideration from adopting what, among laymen, would be deemed personal threats. The Hebdomadal Board was doubtless sufficiently hostile to the principles and theology of No. 90 itself; still its author was also considered in the light of a personal foe; and the champion and sponsor of Dr. Hampden, |