nity, that the same principles of interpretation should be applied to wills, deeds, and written contracts in general? Still it is a comfort to know, that, unless in those cases in which a long process of fallacious ingenuity has been employed on minds already inclined towards popery, the common sense and common honesty of the nation will reject with abhorrence such detestable duplicity.

We have noticed, before referring to the proceedings of convocation, the principal arguments employed in this case, with the exception of Mr. Ward's own defence, to which we shall presently advert, as these publications before the trial constituted in fact the only discussion of the question. The House of Convocation admits of no new proposition, no amendment, no altering of a resolution proposed; every one must, therefore, come prepared to decide on the case from a previous consideration of its merits.

As the time of convocation drew near, the abandonment of the third proposition by the Hebdomadal Board was announced. A strong opinion, it was ascertained, prevailed against its adoption among men of almost all parties; the liberal were averse to more stringent measures, and therefore objected to a new test. Mr. Ward's friends denounced it as an act of usurpation and tyranny; while many judged that no declaration could bind men who could apply such principles of interpretation, as the tractarians had adopted. Indeed Mr. Oakeley subsequently declared, that he should find no difficulty in signing the proposed test. The proposition was withdrawn by the board. A requisition numerously signed, was subsequently presented to the authorities, requesting that measures might be taken, for submitting to the convocation about to assemble on the 13th of February next, a resolution conveying the formal censure of the university upon the principles inculcated in the 90th number of the Tracts for the Times,' and a solemn repudiation of the modes of interpreting the Thirty-nine Articles therein suggested.' In consequence, it was announced, by a resolution of the Hebdomadal Board, signed February 4, 1835, that, as in Tract 90, 'entitled, 'Remarks on certain Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles,' modes of interpretation were suggested, and have since been advocated in other publications purporting to be written by members of the university, by which, subscription to the said Articles might be reconciled with the adoption of Roman Catholic errors,' the following decree would be proposed to the House of Convocation, 'That modes of interpretation, such as are suggested in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty-nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the adoption of errors, which

they were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the above-mentioned statutes,' (mentioned in the preamble).

On the publication of this resolution, the battle of words was renewed again with fresh vigour; one publication followed another in rapid succession, and preparations were made on both sides for a desperate struggle. Men of high station, it is said, endeavoured in vain to prevail with the authorities to withdraw this last proposition; and when they failed, recourse was had to the proctors, both of tractarian principles, and one of whom so far gone in their mysteries that his college testimonials had been refused. Rumours were afloat respecting the intention of the proctors to take on themselves the heavy responsibility of placing their veto on the proceedings of convocation in relation to this last proposition; but it was scarcely believed that two men, of comparatively inferior standing in the university, would have the temerity of availing themselves of the power of their short lived office, to prevent the judgment of the university from being taken on a most important question. But it was soon known that, on Monday evening, scarcely three days preceding the convocation, the proctors had actually informed the Vice Chancellor that such was their intention.

At length the memorable 13th of February arrived, special trains by the Great Western, to and from Oxford, had been announced, and all was anticipation. Intense was the cold, and fast fell the snow; but the number of non-resident members who kept pouring in, and who were seen, despite of the inclemency of the weather, moving about in various directions, with earnestness depicted on their countenances, indicated that something of deep and unusual interest was about to happen. And seldom, if ever, had business of a university kind taken so deep a hold on the minds of the citizens. All seemed to feel, that events were pending, intimately connected with their civil and religious liberties, and anxious was the expectation as to the result. At twelve o'clock a congregation was held, in order that those Masters of Arts who had not yet taken their regencies, might be qualified according to statute for voting in the convocation. In the mean time, the great body of members had begun to assemble in the theatre, and to take their appropriate places. Measures had been adopted to prevent strangers and undergraduates from entering the quadrangle contiguous to the theatre. About one o'clock, the Vice Chancellor, the Heads of Houses, the Doctors, and the Proctors, in solemn procession approach, and enter the theatre. On the north side of this elegant and ample structure, is a raised platform or gallery, sloping forwards about eight or ten feet from the ground, in the centre the Vice Chancellor takes his place as president, on either

side of him is a chair, one for the high steward, another for the Regius professor of Divinity; and farther in front, and somewhat lower, sit the two proctors. The whole of this gallery or platform occupying the segment of a circle, is appropriated to the Doctors. Projecting somewhat from either side, and still further in front of the Doctors, appears a rostrum or pulpit. The whole area, the ladies gallery, and part of the undergraduates gallery, are now occupied by the Masters, all in university costume. As non-resident members, there are seen now in convocation, the Bishops of Chichester and Llandaff, the Earl of Eldon, Viscount Sandon, Lord Ashley, Lord Romney, Lord Haverdale, Sir J. Mordaunt, Sir T. D. Acland, Sir W. Heathcote, Sir R. Comyn, Sir S. Glynn, Mr.W. E. Gladstone, M.P., Mr. Henley, M.P., Mr. Mackinnon, M.P., Archdeacon Manning, Dr. Tait, Dr. Phillimore, Dr. Mereweather, Dr. Moberley, Dr. Russell, &c. Silence is obtained, all is breathless attention. All eyes are turned in succession from the Vice Chancellor and the other authorities, to the rostrum on the eastern side, where Mr. Ward is seen, accompanied by Mr. Oakeley, and other friends. The proceedings commence. The Vice Chancellor, speaking in Latin, states the object of the convocation, and directs the Registrar of the University, Dr. Bliss, to read these passages from Mr. Ward's, 'Ideal of a Christian Church considered,' which had previously been announced as the ground of the proceedings by the Hebdomadal Board. One or two members attempt to address the House, but are prevented, as not being in order at this stage of the proceedings. At Mr. Ward's request, to be allowed to speak in his vernacular tongue, the statute is, pro tempore, dispensed with, which requires the use of Latin only. Mr. Ward then enters on his defence with considerable address, in a speech which, with two pauses of a few minutes to recover his exhaustion, occupied from an hour to an hour and a half in the delivery, following pretty nearly the same line of argument as that he had pursued in his pamphlet previously published. He was heard with the deepest attention throughout. He first protested in a strong, but respectful manner, against the competency of the tribunal, and the legality of the proceedings; he then endeavoured to impress on the minds of members the great difficulty, and yet the necessity of deciding on his case with impartiality. As the defence has been published in so many forms, it is unnecessary here to enter into it at length; it may suffice to observe, that the drift of the whole argument was this: no man can subscribe all the formulas of the church in a natural sense; others, liberals, high churchmen, and evangelicals, have all been obliged to put a force on some parts of the Articles or Prayer-Book, though they differ as to the particular wording which they find it necessary to evade; it would be

unjust therefore to condemn him for what others have done, and are still doing, with impunity. During the delivery of his speech, expressions of approbation frequently burst forth, which were uniformly checked by Mr. Ward, who entreated the members of convocation to act with the calm deliberation of judges, and the seriousness of Christians. A protest in Latin is tendered by Mr. Ward. After two or three short addresses in Latin from some of the members, the Vice-Chancellor puts the question respecting the condemnation of the extracts from Mr. Ward's book, and immediately the walls of the theatre resound with the loud vociferation of 'placet,' of 'non placet,' mingling in confused hubbub. A scrutiny is demanded. The proctors take their station at the eastern and western doors to receive the votes as the members pass out, who return by the great door in front of the Vice-Chancellor. The senior proctor rises, and all is expectation. The case is decided; majori parti placet,' disposes of the first proposition. The numbers appear to have been

The second proposition was then announced, respecting Mr. Ward's degradation. Mr. Ward alleges in his defence his willingness to serve the Church of England, if allowed, and therefore declares it harsh and severe, if while others who have joined the church of Rome are allowed to retain their degrees, he should be deprived of them. The question is again put. Mr. Ellison of Balliol College addresses the convocation in Latin. Votes are taken by the proctors, and again the placets have it, though with a much smaller majority. The numbers

Before the last question was decided, Mr. Ward left the theatre, and in Broad Street was loudly cheered by a large body of undergraduates.

The third proposition, for condemning the principles of interpretation advocated in Tract 90, was then put; on which the senior proctor rose, and at once stopped the proceedings of the whole convocation by pronouncing authoritatively, 'Nobis procuratoribus non placet.' This was succeeded by loud demonstrations of approbation and dissatisfaction, testified by cheers

and hisses; and here the proceedings of the convocation terminated. Besides the protest, however, which Mr. Ward presented in due form, in a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, dated the 13th of Feb., he states his reasons why he holds that his 'position in the university is morally unaffected by what had passed,' which are briefly these. The convocation, or the university in any of its functions, is incompetent to determine authoritatively the sense in which the Articles are to be subscribed by its members. Legal authorities have determined that the university is not the 'imponens' in the matter of subscription, 'that the articles are imposed, and the sense of subscription determined by the law of the land; and that the judges of the ecclesiastical courts alone have the power authoritatively to declare that sense, while the supreme legislature alone has the power of altering or adding to it.' If, in Mr. Ward's view, convocation were the true 'imponens,' he would, without feeling 'disposed to inquire how far subscription is necessarily to be considered a continuing act,' at once relinquish his position in the university; but, concluding his letter, he says, 'I cannot feel that any obligation is laid upon me, in consequence of the events of this day, to act for the future upon any different view of subscription to the Articles, from that on which I have hitherto acted, and which is expressed in my work and pamphlet.' Mr. Oakeley, also, without delay, writes to the Vice-Chancellor, calls his attention to a declaration which he has made in his pamphlet on Tract 90, and which he had repeated in a tract published during the previous fortnight, in these words, 'I have no wish to remain a member of the University, or a minister of the Church of England, under false colours. I claim the right which has already been asserted in another quarter, of holding (as distinct from teaching) all Roman doctrine, and that notwithstanding my subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles.' 'These words,' Mr. Oakeley says, 'with the same deliberation and distinctness, I again appropriate and repeat.' With, what appears to us, a disingenuous quibbling, capable of frittering away the sense and meaning of any declaration or act, he declares that he does not view the decree of convocation as touching his case as to his mode of subscribing the Articles. But disdaining any shelter to himself on this account, he challenges the university to deal with him as it had with Mr. Ward. But if, on the other hand,' he continues, 'I am allowed, after this plain and public declaration of my sentiments, to retain my place in the university, I shall regard such acquiescence as equivalent to an admission on the part of the academical authorities, that my own subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles is not at variance with 'good faith.'' Before the non-resident members of convoca