Project Canterbury

Correspondence relative to the Professorship of Poetry in the University of Oxford.

Oxford: J. Vincent, 1841.


Christ Church, Nov. 17, 1841.


Understanding that a circular is being sent round to all the Members of Convocation, soliciting their votes for the Rev. J. Garbett, late Fellow of Brasenose, and now Rector of Clayton, Sussex, in the approaching election for the Professorship of Poetry, I take the liberty of mentioning some circumstances which may influence your decision, and with which you are possibly unacquainted.

The Rev. Isaac Williams, M. A. Fellow of Trinity, was, before our recent unhappy divisions, generally thought by resident members of the University to be marked out by his poetic talents to fill that chair, whenever it should become vacant. In 1823 he gained the prize for Latin verse: his subsequent larger works, “The Cathedral" and "Thoughts in Past Years," speak for themselves, both bearing the rich character of our early English poetry.

To those unacquainted with his character, or who know him only through the medium of newspaper controversy, it may be necessary to state, that the uniform tendency of his writing and influence has been to calm men's minds amid our unhappy divisions, and to form them in dutiful allegiance to that Church of which he is himself a reverential son and minister.

He is also a resident; whereas employments which involved non-residence were considered a sufficient reason to prevent a member of a leading college from being put forward by its head.

On the other hand, it is a known fact, that Mr. [3/4] Garbett would not even now have been brought forward, except to prevent the election of Mr. Williams.

Under these circumstances, it is earnestly hoped that the University will not, by the rejection of such a candidate as Mr. Williams, commit itself to the principle of making all its elections matters of party strife, or declaring ineligible to any of its offices (however qualified) persons whose earnest desire and aim it has, for many years, been to promote the sound principles of our Church, according to the teaching of her Liturgy.

I have the honour to be Your humble Servant,



Brasenose College, Nov. 19, 1831.


Unfeignedly do I regret that any thing should have occurred to place us in opposition to each other; but I am compelled to notice some statements in your printed circular, dated 17th instant, of which I did not see a copy until late last night.

I must beg leave to deny altogether, that the object of this college, in bringing forward Mr. Garbett, was to prevent the election of Mr. Williams.

Mr. Garbett's talents are admitted by all who know him. His acquirements in every department of literature are extensive. He is intimately acquainted with the poetry of most countries and ages. He has a singular power of retaining and combining all that he has ever read, and of developing his own systematized views to the apprehensions of others.

What I have already said almost implies, but I will [4/5] distinctly add, that his feeling for the beauties of poetry is true, and his criticism manly, just, and comprehensive.

With this conviction of his fitness for the office, we needed no other inducement to bring him forward for the Professorship of Poetry.

How far Mr. Williams "had been generally thought by resident members of the University to be marked out by his poetic talents to fill that chair," it is not for me to say. I can only state, that I never heard Mr. Williams mentioned for that post, until after our own resolution had been taken. You have received from one of the Fellows a similar assurance concerning himself; and I find that many others of our body were equally destitute of information upon this point.

With respect to the non-residence of Mr. Garbett, you will yourself admit that his case is decidedly distinguished from that of the gentleman to whom you allude. It is, however, precisely similar to that of the present Professor, whose example we have in support of our conclusion, that the duties of the office may be ably discharged notwithstanding.

After all, it may unfortunately be true, that what was begun in generous rivalry may be assuming, more or less, the character of religious division. But we deny that we are responsible for this, either generally, or now in particular. We have not sought such an issue; we have encouraged no step towards it. We only advocate the just pretensions of a gentleman well qualified for the office which he is seeking; who has ably served his College as Tutor; the University as Public Examiner; who has been selected to fill on the next occasion the important office of Bampton Lecturer; and of whom we assert, as you of his competitor, "that it is his earnest desire and aim to promote the sound [5/6] principles of our Church according to the teaching of her Liturgy." Believe me,

Dear Dr. Pusey,

Truly yours,


Rev. Dr. Pusey, Canon of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Hebrew.

Considering that you have printed and circulated your letter, you will not be surprised at my giving equal publicity to the above.



I feel thankful that the state of affairs at Oxford is beginning to attract public notice through the medium of your columns. The approaching election for a Professor of Poetry is a NATIONAL question—a question in which the country is vitally concerned; for the question, essentially, is this—whether " Puseyism" is to prevail, or not? Whether that system, hostile to God's truth, and to all those religious and political privileges (purchased by the life-blood of so many faithful Christians and true patriots,) which, through Divine mercy, were conveyed to us by the blessed REFORMATION in the sixteenth century, and confirmed (as we had hoped) by the glorious REVOLUTION of 1688,—the question (I say) now is, whether that system, gradually stealing on us as a flood, is to push forward another advancing wave, or is here to receive a check?

The candidates for the chair are the Rev. J. Garbett, late Fellow of Brasenose, and the Rev. I. Williams, Fellow of Trinity. Mr. Williams is one of the chief resident "Puseyites." He is the author of the celebrated Tract on "Reserve in Religious Teaching," [6/7] and others of the " Oxford" series; and his published poems (mentioned in Dr. Pusey's letter) are strongly tinctured with the peculiar views of his theological school. Dr. Pusey, with singular propriety indeed, but with very questionable delicacy and prudence, has come forward as Mr. Williams's principal , champion, in a letter recommendatory, which has been widely circulated.

On the subject of this letter I beg to offer a few remarks. I am equally ignorant as the Principal of Brasenose of the state of affairs "before our recent unhappy divisions." But as matters now stand, it cannot be denied that the events of this year have given increased alarm to those who from the first viewed “Puseyism" with suspicion, and have staggered some who once viewed it with indifference, or even approval. It cannot be denied, that a considerable advance towards ROME has latterly manifested itself in the feelings of the party. The publication of Tract No. 90, drawn up with most elaborate sophistry to strain the Articles of our Church to a Popish interpretation, (pointedly condemned at almost every Episcopal visitation in the year,) and the sad apostacy of Mr. Sibthorp, (whom all must admire for his honesty, while deeply lamenting the loss of so amiable and excellent a man,)—these FRUITS spew the real nature of that tree, which has too long been suffered to grow, and bud, and blossom undisturbed.

In addition, however, to these, permit me to draw your attention to two very remarkable extracts from the documents of the party itself: viz. from a letter of Mr. Keble to Justice Coleridge, which appeared in print last summer, and, although not published, got into wider circulation than was intended, or perhaps wished: the second, from the British Critic, which is now (as you are aware) the chief public organ of the party. These [7/8] extracts have been laid before the Members of Convocation, and are as follows:

"Considerate Catholics well know, that there is practically no separating the high and comprehensive views which that name imports from any of the moral branches of education. Silence them as you may on directly theological questions, how are they to deal with ethics, or poetry, or history, so as not to guide their disciples by the light which the Church system reflects on all?"—Letter to Judge Coleridge; p. 17.

"Give us this divine auxiliary (i.e. poetry) on our side, and we will let you dictate, denounce, proscribe, and even persecute, as you please. Providence has placed in our hands powers that laugh to scorn your petty dominion."—British Critic, October 1841.

Here we have an avowal of the ENDS to which, in their hands, “the moral branches of education" are to be made subservient, POETRY being specially mentioned.

The party (forgetful of their wonted caution) have here prematurely developed their ulterior purpose of making the Poetry chair a chair of Theology, whereby to disseminate stealthily the doctrines of their own school. Indeed we now begin to perceive and feel, that the elegant and popular production of the out-going Professor, “The Christian Year," (which many who cannot understand pretend to admire,) was nothing less than the first letting-out of those bitter waters, (disguised in honeyed rhyme,) which now, at the end of fourteen years, threaten to poison and to drown us.

Deeply, then, as it is to be lamented, that any academical and literary elections should be made "matters of party strife," it would be an absolute dereliction of duty in those Members of Convocation who know the pernicious tendency of "Puseyism," if they did not strain every nerve to hinder its again usurping the [8/9] Poetry chair of Oxford, Those who reside at a distance from the University are not sufficiently aware of the real state and tendency of things. But unless they will open their eyes and bestir themselves, and act in concert, and make a decided stand for the exclusion of "Puseyism," on this and all similar occasions, they will have, ere long, to mourn over ruins which can never be repaired.

As I do hope, Mr. Editor, that the deadly enterprise of " un-Protestantising" England, (which the British Critic does not scruple to recommend as "a consummation devoutly to be wished,") has not yet been attended with sufficient success to give a real majority to the party, I would call on all non-resident Members of Convocation to fulfil their duty to their University, their Church, and their country, by attending, at whatever sacrifice, to record their votes in this momentous contest,

"Nec enim levia aut ludrica petuntur
Praemia, sed PATRIAE de vita et sanguine certant."

I am, Sir, yours,



Sherburn House, Nov. 22, 1841.


In the Standard for Saturday, November 13, I observe a letter signed " A Master of Arts." It is of no ordinary importance; but the information conveyed in it ought not, upon any equitable principle, to remain in its present form.

The writer, whom you state to have sent his name, so far from only insinuating, directly asserts, that "there is good ground for supposing, that there are [9/10] about ten members of the University of Oxford, who, instead of fighting under their proper banner, have hoisted the flag of Anglicanism; and, under these false colours, are taking advantage of their respective positions, as fellows of colleges and clergymen of the Established Church, to propagate Romanism and oppose primitive views."

He further informs us, that "the Rev. Mr. W ———, Fellow of Balliol College, has been a visitor at Oscott College, the residence of Dr. Wiseman, during the last long vacation." And he additionally intimates, that "previous to his visit at Oscott, Mr. W ——— had expressed opinions which induced the Master of Balliol to deprive him of his Mathematical Lectureship, and the Bishop of London to forbid his officiating in his diocese."

Finally, he informs us, that "the individual who introduced Mr. Sibthorp to Dr. Wiseman, is the Rev. Mr. J———-, Fellow of Magdalen College."

Your correspondent very properly subjoins—"If duly called upon to do so, I am ready to produce strong grounds for my opposition in another letter."

Whether my own invitation will be admitted as "a due call," I know not. But I certainly think, that allegations of such a nature ought not to be made anonymously, or at least that the veil of anonymousness ought not to be retained.

Under this impression, I request the "Master of Arts" to specify nomination the ten gentlemen to whom he alludes. Also, I beg him to say, what Fellow of Balliol College he means by the designation of the Rev. Mr. W ; I beg him, yet additionally, to state what individual we are to understand by the Rev. Mr. J—— , Fellow of Magdalen College. And, finally, with such information, I request him to give publicly his own name.

[11] By the adoption of this fair and equitable plan, the gentlemen alluded to will have an opportunity afforded them, either to explain, or to defend, or to deny, the matters asserted against them, as their several cases may require: and I must needs say, that since in Oxford various guesses may be made as to the persons hinted at, though we in the country may be altogether in the dark, to refuse them such an opportunity of public self justification would, as I am sure your correspondent himself will admit, be the height of unfairness. To expect any of the gentlemen themselves to demand an explanation from the "Master of Arts," would be most unreasonable, because a demand of this description would plainly imply a consciousness of guilt on the part of him who made it. Hence I have ventured to step forward on their behalf. This, I think, I may do with as little impropriety as most persons. I am myself no admirer of modern Tractarianism and, indeed, so mischievous do I deem it, that I have felt it my duty to write and publish in the Churchman a series of provincial letters, which are still in progress. This statement of any own sentiments will show, that, without in the least being their advocate or a member of their party, I am simply asking for justice to the gentlemen who are at present anonymously impeached. Perhaps also, when I sign my name to this communication, as I have regularly signed it to every one of my provincial letters, your correspondent may admit that he has received “a due call," to throw off the anonymous, and in his own proper person distinctly to substantiate the charges which he has publicly hazarded.

Master of Sherburn Hospital, and a Bachelor of Divinity of the University of Oxford.


Oxford, Nov. 22, 1841.


It was only on the morning of Saturday last that I saw for the first time your printed Circular, dated the 17th inst. in the Oxford Herald; and on the evening of the same day my attention was directed to the manly, spirited, and able reply to it by the Principal of Brasenose. Forgive my requesting your candid reconsideration of one or two points in your own composition, not adverted to in that of the Principal.

You protest against the principle of "making all our elections matters of party strife." Allow me to ask, what other result could be expected, as far as the Poetry Professorship is concerned, from the perusal of the following passages in the writings of your own friends, viz. the Letter addressed to Judge Coleridge by the present Professor of Poetry, Mr. Keble; and the British Critic for last October, a periodical of which Mr. Newman's brother-in-law is the ostensible Editor, but which is actually under the superintendence of Mr. Newman himself. The two passages have reference, the one to the condemnation of Tract No. 90 by the Board of Heads of Houses; the other to the censures more recently pronounced upon the same publication by the Bishops of Durham, Winchester, Chester, Gloucester, and Ripon.

"Considerate Catholics well know that there is practically no separating the high and comprehensive views which that name imports from any one of the moral branches of education. Silence them as you may on directly theological questions, how are they to deal with ethics, or poetry, or history, so as not to guide their [12/13] disciples by the light which the Church system reflects on all."—Letter to Judge Coleridge, p. 17.

"Give us this divine auxiliary (i. e. poetry) on our side, and we will let you dictate, denounce, proscribe, and even persecute, as you please. Providence has placed in our hands powers that laugh to scorn your petty dominion."—British Critic, Oct. 1841.

You say of Mr. Williams, that the uniform tendency of his writings has been to form men's minds in dutiful allegiance to that Church of which he is himself a reverential son and minister;" and you assert this for the information of those who " know him only through the medium of newspaper controversy." Excuse me if I say, that this is one of many instances of the peculiar controversial tactics, complained of by the Bishop of Chester, as pursued by yourself and your friends, viz. of passing over sub silentio the publications of your opponents, and " treating them as if they had never been written." Let me remind you, that Mr. Williams's Tract on Reserve is known less through the " medium of newspapers," than of the Charges of three Bishops, who have expressed their objections to the Tract in the following words:

"I lament, and more than lament, the tendency at least, if not the direct import, of some of their views ‘On Reserve in communicating Religious Knowledge,' especially their venturing to recommend to us to keep back, from any who are baptized, the explicit and full declaration of the doctrine of the Atonement. I know not how such reserve can be made consistent, not only with the general duty of the Christian Minister, to be able at all times to say with St. Paul, that he 'has not shunned to declare all the counsel of God;'—but also with the special and distinct requirement of our own Church, that every child be taught the Catechism: for [13/14] I need not remind you that, in the Catechism, this great article of our Faith holds a most prominent place; that it is there taught, both by plain implication, in saying that God the Son path redeemed us; again, in the inward grace of each Sacrament; and more explicitly and expressly in the reason 'why the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ordained,' namely, 'for the continual remembrance of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.' How is the meaning of these passages to be taught, without also teaching the doctrine of the Atonement?"—Bishop of Exeter's Charge, 1839.

"I cannot help regretting that any members of our Church should have recommended Reserve in declaring to the people any part of the doctrines of Scripture; I regard it as contrary to the Apostolic practice, to refuse to ' declare all the counsel of God,'—and as tending to rob us of one of the greatest blessings which flow from a pure religion, whereby the Book of Life is freely and unreservedly laid open to mankind."—Bishop of Gloucester's Charge, 1841.

"Many subjects present themselves, towards which I might be tempted to direct your thoughts. One more especially concerns the Church at present, because it is daily assuming a more serious and alarming aspect, and threatens a revival of the worst errors of the Romish system. Under the specious pretence of deference to antiquity and respect for primitive models, the foundations of our Protestant Church are undermined by men who dwell within her walls, and those who sit in the Reformers' seat are traducing the Reformation. It is again becoming matter of question, whether the Bible is -sufficient to make men wise unto salvation: the main article of our national confession, Justification by Faith, is both openly and covertly assailed: and the stewards [14/15] of the mysteries of God are instructed to reserve the truths which they have been ordained to dispense, and to hide under a bushel those doctrines, which the Apostles were commanded to preach to every creature."—Bishop of Chester's Charge, 1838.

I have the honour to be,

Rev. Sir,

Your obedient servant,




I have been longer than I could have wished in replying to your Letter. Your own statement I, of course, fully and at once, accept, and am glad of the publicity thus given to the fact, that the first intention of bringing forward Mr. Garbett had no reference to Mr. Williams, as also of your incidental expression of regret at the "character of religious division" which this Election, you too think, has been "assuming."

My statement however related, not to the period to which you refer, but to the present Term; and although a different explanation has been given to the fact, to which I in words referred, I regret to say, that, after carefully weighing all which has come to my knowledge, I cannot but feel that what I meant to convey, is still substantially correct;—that the chief interest felt on the one side in this Election, has been founded not on the merits of the respective Candidates, but on opposition to certain theological views.

As you allude to the publicity given to my Letter, you will permit me to say in explanation, that I was only induced to write it in consequence of your own [15/16] Circulars, sent, as I was informed, to all the Members of my own College, and subsequently extended (I believe without precedent in any such Elections) to the whole of the non-resident body. Its object was to prevent, if possible, some of our non-resident Members from being involved in our divisions unawares. It was written to bring home to them the true nature of what, they were being called upon to do, and its responsibility. I did not in it ask for any vote for Mr. Williams; I only asked people to weigh well what they would be doing, by voting against him. I wished to remind them, that while by voting on the ground of qualification for the office, they in no way pledged themselves to the opinions with which Mr. Williams is commonly identified, they would, by voting against him, run great risk of appearing to involve themselves and the University in the assertion, that those opinions are an actual disqualification for any of her offices of instruction.

I beg, in conclusion, to thank you very much for the kind tone of your Letter towards myself, and for feeling regret that we should be placed in opposition to each other. Believe me,

My dear Mr. Principal,

Yours very faithfully,


Christ Church, Nov. 25, 1841.


Holywell, Oxford, Nov. 26, 1841.


I should be ashamed of myself if I hesitated one moment to respond to the appeals addressed to me through the medium of the Standard of Wednesday last by the Rev. G. S. Faber, and a "D. D. of the University of Oxford." I am equally obliged to both those writers and to yourself for the opportunity thus afforded me, deeply painful as the task is, of vindicating the statements made in my letter dated Nov. 12, and I beg to acknowledge the kind and handsome manner in which you have referred to that letter.

My statement, in allusion to a paragraph which had appeared in the Morning Post, was as follows:

"I do not insinuate, but I assert, that there is good ground for supposing that there are about ten members of this University, who, instead of fighting ‘under their proper banner,' have hoisted the flag of Anglicanism, and, under those false colours, are taking advantage of their respective positions, as fellows of colleges and clergymen of the Established Church, to propagate Romanism,' and oppose ‘primitive views,' "

I likewise made a statement respecting the conduct of a Fellow of Balliol, and a Fellow of Magdalen, which I shall repeat in the course of my letter.

I shall, then, assign my reasons—1st , for supposing that there are "about ten members of this University" holding Romanist opinions; and, 2nd, that they are availing themselves of their respective positions to propagate those opinions. As a clergyman of the Church of England, I must of course think that to "propagate Romanism" is to "oppose primitive views."

[18] The first witness that I shall cite is the Rev. W. Ward, Fellow of Balliol College, and an intimate friend of Mr. Newman's, who, in the course of the present month, told a friend of mine, opposed to him in opinions, and not in confidential conversation, that a certain party in this place might now be considered to be divided into disciples of Mr. Newman and disciples of Dr. Pusey  the latter opposed, THE FORMER NO LONGER OPPOSED TO ROME.

Very much alarmed at this information, I wrote down the names of those whom I had been in the habit of considering the foremost of that party, and called upon an individual in high station in the University to communicate what I had heard.

In the course, however, of some preliminary conversation, he informed me that Mr. Sibthorp, when lately in Oxford, had observed to a friend that there were "about ten persons" holding his own opinions. I immediately drew from my pocket the piece of paper upon which I had made my own calculation, and ten was the precise number of the names which I had set down, and all of them, with one exception, either fellows of colleges or clergymen of the Established Church. Shortly after this I was informed by a third party, that a member of the University, of great ability and of high character, not himself considered hostile to the party in question, but in habits of friendly communication with them, had expressed his surprise and concern, upon returning to the University after a few months' absence, to find that a great change had taken place in the opinions of certain of his friends; that the via media was deserted, that Rome was no longer regarded as a schismatical community, and that there was a strong desire for re-union with her.

I now repeat the assertion in my former letter, (begging [18/19] that you will not again substitute asterisks for the names of the parties,) that the Rev. W. Ward, Fellow of Balliol, was a visitor of Dr. Wiseman's, at Oscott, during the last long vacation, (I do not determine the length of his visit,) and that the Rev. J. Bloxam, Fellow of Magdalen, was the individual who introduced Mr. Sibthorp to Dr. Wiseman. Previously to his visit to Oscott, Mr. Ward had expressed opinions which induced the Master of Balliol to deprive him of his mathematical lectureship, and the Bishop of London to forbid his officiating in his diocese.

I have also to inform the public, that a Roman Catholic bishop has been staying at the Mitre Inn, at Oxford, and receiving visits from several members of the University. Upon communicating this fact to an individual in authority, I found that he had already learned, from other sources of information, that one certainly, perhaps two, Romish bishops had been returning the visits of their friend or friends.

I think, sir, that by this time you will be satisfied with my reasons for thinking that there are "about ten members" of this University holding Romanist opinions. Mr. Faber requests me to name them. I do not think this either necessary or desirable, and it is not what I pledged myself to do. But I think that I have "good ground for supposing," that the Rev. T. Mozley, Rector of Cholderton, and late Fellow of Oriel College, the present Editor of the British Critic, is one of them. An eminent Protestant prelate, recently in Oxford, remarked openly in conversation, that it was impossible to read the last two or three numbers of that periodical without seeing that the writers in it were in heart and spirit Roman Catholics. I shall again adduce the authority of Mr. Ward for stating, that Mr. Newman, though no longer editor, still exercises a general [19/20] superintendence over the work; and there is no doubt that the article on Dr. Faussett, Margaret Professor of Divinity, which is much more worthy of Maynooth than Oxford, is from the pen of Mr. Mozley.

Allow me, Sir, to present your readers with the three following very suspicious extracts from the British Critic for last July, begging them to bear in mind that insinuation is one of the favourite methods with this party of advocating their views:

"We talk of the blessings of emancipation from the Papal yoke, and use other expressions of a like bold and undutiful tenor."—P. 2.

"We trust, (sic,) of course, that active and visible union with the See of Rome is not of the essence of a church."—P. 3.

"The Roman claim to the orbis terrarum at this day, in opposition to England and Greece, is a nice question."—P. 133.

The first two passages occur in an article on Bishop Jewell, attributed to the Rev. F. Oakeley, Fellow of Balliol College, and Minister of Margaret Chapel, St. Marylebone; the third in an article on Private Judgment, attributed to the Rev. J. H. Newman, Fellow of Oriel College, and Vicar of St. Mary's, in Oxford. In the last two or three pages of the latter article the balance is so evenly trimmed between the Churches of England and Rome, that it would seem to be a very "nice question" indeed which of the two is the preferable community.

In another column will be found advertised a little pamphlet, which T. published a few months ago, containing many other strange and alarming extracts from the writings of Mr. Newman and his friends.

After what I have written, your readers will not he surprised at the following sayings and doings of some of [20/21] the more extravagant of the party. A Fellow of Exeter has expressed his belief, that seven years hence the Churches of England and Rome will be re-united; some cross themselves in public worship, others make genuflections, others openly praise the Jesuits, talk of Saint Ignatius Loyola, have plans for taming refractory bishops, and talk over what they shall do in their day of triumph with the clergy who reject their views.

II. It is almost needless to shew that those who adopt these principles use every endeavour to propagate them. I shall only cite the following extracts from the letter of a friend, occupying a high station in the Church:

"What a vast battery of publications the Tractarians are substituting for their withdrawn tracts—the Times, the Morning Post, the Church Intelligencer, the Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette, the British Critic, the British Magazine, the Anglo-Catholic Library, the Quarterly, &c."

To which the writer might have added other periodicals, which either openly take the side of the party, or admit articles strongly favouring their views.

And now, sir, I trust that I have performed my task, and am fully justified in repeating my assertion, that "there is good ground for supposing that there are about ten members of this University, who, instead of 'fighting under their proper banner,' have hoisted the flag of Anglicanism, and under those false colours are taking advantage of their respective positions, as fellows of colleges and clergymen of the Established Church, to propagate 'Romanism,' and oppose 'primitive views.'"

If it be asked why I come forward upon this occasion, my answer is, because others do not; and I have only to refer to, the litera scripta of Tract 90," to [21/22] shew that, where so much subtlety is exercised so unscrupulously, it is extremely difficult for the authorities either of the Church or University to interfere. Indeed, there is something so utterly at variance with the simplicity and uprightness of the national character in the attempt to retain Protestant preferment together with Popish opinions, that for a time, at all events, every honest Englishman must be at a loss to know how to proceed. I am a Master of Arts of eleven years standing, and for the last six years have been a constant resident in the University, without tutorial, I might almost say without parochial responsibilities, to divert my attention from this very painful subject. I am also deeply attached to the University, and to the existing system of the Church of England. It is very disagreeable to say more of myself, but lest I should be suspected of personal or party motives, I will add that I belong to no party whatever, and have never received any injury from Mr. Newman or his friends, nor had an approach to a quarrel with them; and that my religious opinions are, I believe, as nearly as may be those of the Rev. C. A. Ogilvie, Rector of Ross, of whom the Archbishop of Canterbury is reported to have said, that he is the "soundest divine in England."

I have the honour to be,


Your obedient Servant,


P. S. The following extract from the letter of a Clergyman in Warwickshire will be read with painful interest:—”I have a young man in my parish, who is become a Papist from the reading of the Oxford. Tracts, and has given up going into our Church, as he had probably designed, and will become a Romish priest. It is a sad blow to his family. His poor mother has talked to me about him, bathed in tears."

Project Canterbury