^> 
 
 
 -:-^ 
 
 ^^■^ 
 
 '-,>-' 
 
 .r 
 
 i.-Zi 
 
 
 
 t^?1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 5;^^
 
 tggjfj>yj[j| ^-asjia»»ig!!awy^
 
 CLERICAL TENURE OF FELLOWSHIPS. 
 
 LETTEK 
 
 SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE, Bart. D.C.L. 
 
 M.P. FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. 
 
 KEV. FREDERICK MEYRICK, M.A. 
 
 FIXLOW, DEAN, AND ASSISTANT-TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER. 
 • 1854.
 
 Sir, 
 
 It is with the greatest satisfaction that not a few 
 of your Constituents have seen the declaration by 
 which you have bound yourself to oppose many of 
 the clauses of the University Bill in Committee. I 
 trust that the Amendments which you may move 
 may be considerable, and that your watchfulness 
 will not pass proposals, small or great, which may 
 be fraught, either immediately or in their conse- 
 quences, with evil to our ancient University. 
 
 In venturing to address a few remarks to you on 
 the subject of the Clerical tenure of Fellowships, I will 
 not occupy your time with a formal argument to 
 prove that it is right and desirable that University 
 Education should in the main be in the hands of the 
 Clergy of the Church. This has been already done, 
 amply and incontrovertibly, in more than one pub- 
 lication which the present crisis has brought forth ^ 
 I will therefore take that for granted, and confine 
 myself to the minor point, of attempting to shew the 
 disastrous effects of some of the Clauses of the pre- 
 sent Bill, supposing that the assumption in question 
 is true. My excuse for writing must be, that this 
 point has been httle dwelt upon either in Parhament 
 
 * Evidence of the Eegius Professor of Hebrew, p. 123. 
 Evidence of the Eegius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, 
 p. 237. Report of tlie Tutors' Association, No. IV.
 
 or elsewhere ; and there is risk, lest amidst fears for 
 our Independence^ fears lest the National Faith 
 pledged to our Founders be violated'; fears for the 
 rights of poverty, of schools, and of loccilities^, the 
 subject of the interference with the Clerical tenure 
 of Fellowships, which is yet one of paranaount im- 
 portance, may be overlooked. 
 
 The 35th clause of the Bill stands as follows : 
 " No person, elected after the date of the passing 
 of this Act to any Fellowship in any College in 
 Oxford, shall be liable to vacate the same by reason 
 only of his not having taken Holy Orders, if, at the 
 time of his attaining the standing at which Holy 
 Orders are or may be required by the Statutes 
 thereof, not less than three-fourths of the entire 
 number of the Fellows of such College who may 
 have attained the said standing shall have actually 
 entered into the same." I would respectfully call 
 your attention to the enormous change in our 
 position which this apparently moderate enactment 
 will cause. 
 
 The reason why Fellows take Holy Orders at 
 present is, that the Fellowships to which they 
 have been elected were founded for clerical holders, 
 and consequently Fellowships are held by Clergy- 
 men, just as certain medical appointments are held 
 
 •> Objections to the Government Scheme for the present sub- 
 jection and future management of the Universily of Oxford, by- 
 Charles Neate, M.A. Senior Fellow of Oriel College. 
 
 <= National Faith considered in reference to Endowments, by 
 Henry Arthur Woodgate, B.D, late Fellow and Tutor of St. 
 John's College. 
 
 ^ New College Memorial, &c. y*"* ., 
 
 \ J
 
 by physicians, and certain military posts by soldiers. 
 But pass this Bill, and why will future Fellows take 
 Holy Orders ? Not because their Founders willed 
 it; not because it is implied by their being Members 
 of the Foundation, just as much as it is implied that 
 men are lawyers who go to Lincoln's Inn ; but because 
 the Houses of Parhament in the 17th year of Queen 
 Victoria have declared it to be in their judgment 
 expedient, that a certain arbitrary number of the 
 Teachers within the University of Oxford should be 
 clerical. What security is there in such a tenure 
 as this ? Suppose that the House changes its mind, 
 (and what is more likely?); that it declares in a few 
 years' time, that one half or one third is a sufficient 
 proportion of clerical Fellows. Suppose a Bill intro- 
 duced wholly removing the " clerical restriction." 
 How could it be opposed? On no ground, except 
 that of inexpediency. Every thing else is cut away. 
 Not on the ground of principle, for the principle is 
 here given up : not on the ground of Founders' 
 Wills, for Founders' Wills are here violated: not on 
 the ground of right, for the right is here yielded : but 
 simply upon the ground of inexpediency, on which 
 I regret to see, that the battle is already being 
 fought. Ptight and Justice are immutable, and 
 remain the same yesterday, to-day, and to-morrow. 
 Views of expediency shift with shifting majorities, 
 and depend upon the temper of mind of those who 
 have to judge. If we deprive ourselves of the power 
 of appealing to the former, by throwing ourselves 
 for our support on the latter, we shall find too late 
 that the reed has broken beneath our weight.
 
 6 
 
 But it may be objected, that it is altogether a 
 matter of expediency, that there is no right to be 
 violated. This depends upon the view which we 
 take of the light in which Holy Orders were regarded 
 by our Founders. If they were simply regarded by 
 them as a?2 accidental condition, under which it 
 might be desirable for those whom they benefited 
 to hold their Fellowships, then I allow that no 
 wrong is done by the supreme Trustee, the State, 
 stepping in and saying, that the provisions which en- 
 force that condition shall be altered ; but if the 
 Fellowships were founded, with such exceptions as 
 are made by the Founders themselves, for those who 
 took Holy Orders, then a grievous injustice is done, 
 by State interference, both to the Founders and to 
 the Church''. Which of these alternatives is true, 
 cannot, I think, be doubted. " It should be borne 
 in mind," says the Report of the Cambridge Com- 
 mission, " that in the case of several of the Col- 
 leges it was manifestly the intention of the Founders 
 to appropriate their endowments to the maintenance 
 of a succession of men, who should devote themselves 
 to the service of God in the ministry of the Church'^." 
 
 e There is a medium between denying that Founders' 
 Wills may be altered at all, and saying that they may be altered 
 on all points. There are paramount objects and provisions, 
 and there are subordinate objects and provisions. The latter 
 may be rightfully altered by the will of the supreme Trustee, 
 the State: the former may not, at least in equity, unless it can 
 be said that they are not only relatively but absolutely harmful. 
 
 f P. 171. There is one view of which I would wish to speak 
 with all respect, both from regard to the writer, and the temper 
 of mind from which it arises, which yet I cannot acquiesce in.
 
 But suppose that a principle is yielded, yet, it 
 is said, we shall practically go on much the same. 
 People are lulled to sleep by the small change, 
 which they say will be effected. Small change ! 
 Have we not learnt the effect of giving up a prin- 
 ciple, on which alone a stand can be made ? Do we 
 not know how premises are pushed to their logical 
 conclusions ? Pass this clause, and the ascendancy 
 of the clerical element (though not acknowledged 
 "in the preamble" to be *^the pest and bane of 
 Oxford") will be gradually but inevitably ousted 
 from the University. 
 
 And if it is a small change, why should it be made 
 at all ? On account of the cry from without ? But 
 there is no cry. Because the Commissioners have 
 recommended the removal of the " restriction ?" But 
 this is precisely the point on which, owing to the 
 special constitution of the Oxford Commission, 
 their proposals should be regarded with suspicion. 
 
 Sir J. Awclry argues, that the object of Founders in general 
 was to " influence through the Church the active mind of the 
 nation," and consequently, that we should be now eifecting their 
 purpose, by associating in the Colleges laymen in the active jiro- 
 fessions. Surely the best method conceivable even in the present 
 day of " influencing through the Church the active mind of the 
 nation," is that of placing the Clergy of the Church in a position 
 where they may educate themselves and others, not only in their 
 own peculiar studies, but in those professions which engage the 
 thought and care of men in active life. It is the best means of 
 bringing the mind of the Church to bear on the mind of the 
 world. Thei-e is great risk, that the new studies introduced into 
 the University should be " appropriated" to laymen. There is 
 an ominous identity of numbers between lay-Fellowships, and 
 Fellowships which may be appropriated to special studies in 
 each College. Such an appropriation would be a great evil.
 
 8 
 
 The Cambridge Commissioners, on the other hand, 
 argue against such removal, on the ground both of 
 right and expediency, and " recommend only such a 
 relaxation in the law of some of the Colleges, as 
 would allow of a reasonable interval of time before 
 a newly-elected Fellow should be required to enter 
 into Holy Orders, or vacate his Fellowship-." 
 
 And what purpose is it supposed to effect ? To 
 remove a temptation to take Holy Orders on im- 
 proper motives ? This temptation scarcely works at 
 all at present, and with equal propriety, Livings 
 might be done away with on the same grounds. 
 Nor would this temptation be removed by the 
 present enactment. On the contrary, scandals would, 
 as I shall presently shew, be more likely to arise in 
 future than at present. Is it to retain some few 
 individuals whom we may otherwise lose, owing to 
 their not having a call to take Holy Orders ? But 
 first, this is not a necessary, however desirable, 
 thing ; next, it is not, except accidentally, effected 
 by the Clause; and thirdly, it may be much more 
 perfectly effected, by a permission being given to 
 the Visitor of each College to grant dispensations to 
 a limited extent, at the request of the College ; and 
 by such permission no principle is violated, or para- 
 mount object overridden. This is the proposal of 
 the Report of the Tutors' Association, which em- 
 phatically condemns by anticipation the Government 
 Clause in these words : " We do not think uniformity 
 in this respect a thing necessary or desirable : and 
 
 8 Eeport of the Cambridge Commission, p. 171.
 
 except in such cases of dispensation as are above 
 specified, we see no reason for interferirig with the 
 regulations laid down b}' different Founders on the 
 subject \" 
 
 h It has been frequently said, and has been re-echoed from 
 many quarters, that the Bill has had great regard to the 
 i'ecommendations of the Tutors' Association. It can do no 
 good either to ourselves or to our friends in Parliament that 
 this should be believed to be the case more than it is. I will 
 therefore point out some of the provisions of the Bill, in which 
 it is opposed to the suggestions of the Association. 
 
 Clause 1. The Association recommended, that on the Com- 
 mission should sit the Chancellor of the University or his 
 deputy, and the Visitor of the College under consideration or 
 his deputy. Neither the Chancellor nor the Visitor, in person 
 or in deputy, sit on the Commission. Keport No. iv. p. 146. 
 
 Clause VI. Half of the Association was opposed to the recog- 
 nition of Professors, as such, in the Hebdomadal Council ; 
 Professors, as such, are recognised. The other half recognising 
 Professors, as such, as one of the three constituent divisions of 
 the Council, yet checked their influence in their own division, 
 by an equal or almost equal number of M.A.'s, not Professors. 
 This check is not retained. Pteport No. ii. p. 48. 
 
 Clause XVIII. The Association argued at length against such 
 a body as Congregation. There is Congregation. Pieport 
 No. ii. p. 43. 
 
 Clause XVIII. The Association protested against Assistant 
 or Deputy Professors. Assistant or Deputy Professors are 
 recognised. Eeport No. iii. p. 85. 
 
 Clause XXXV. The Association argued against interfering 
 with the regulations laid down by different Founders with 
 regard to Holy Orders. The regulations laid down by Founders 
 are interfered with. Eeport No. Iv. p. 122. 
 
 Clauses XLII. XLVI. L. LI. The Association protested 
 against suppressing College Fellowships for University purposes. 
 The Bill gives the Commissioners power of demanding from 
 Colleges revenues for University purposes, the loss of which 
 will necessarily cause the suppression of Fellowships. Report 
 No. iv. p. 128.
 
 10 
 
 But are there any present evils which it is neces- 
 sary to remedy ? Is there such a great overplus of 
 clerical influence at this moment ? Are the lay-Fellows 
 so enormously outweighed by Clergymen, as to make 
 it necessary thus to interfere with the primary de- 
 signs of Founders ? The total number of Fellowships 
 in Oxford is 546; of these, 15 happen to be vacant, 
 and 48 are held by Undergraduates. These being 
 excluded from the calculation, there remain 483. 
 Of these, 305 are held by clergymen, 178 by laymen. 
 If the Clause which I deprecate passes into law, the 
 new lay-Fellows and expectants of lay-Fellowships 
 produced by it will be so many, that the preponde- 
 rance will be on the side of the laymen. 
 
 But we are told that Colleges may decrease their 
 present numbers of laymen, by fixing the time at 
 which their Fellows shall take Holy Orders at an 
 earlier period than that which is fixed by the 
 
 The Association speaks strongly against the diminution of 
 the number of Fellowships, in any but certain exceptional cases. 
 The Bill allows the diminution of the number of Fellowships, 
 for the sake of raising the income of the existing FelloAvs, of 
 erecting new buildings, of establishing affiliated Halls, besides 
 founding Scholarships, and paying and pensioning off Professors. 
 Eeport No. iv. p. 111. 
 
 Clause LVI. The Association protested against the increase 
 of Crown influence. The Bill makes the Visitors, when so 
 required, send in Reports of all connected with the Colleges to 
 the Queen in Council — " an introduction," in the words of the 
 Quarterly Reviewer, " which is likely to lead to a further 
 acquaintance." Report No. iii. p. 72. 
 
 I have not mentioned those points of difference, (such as the 
 method of the election of the Hebdomadal Council,) in which 
 I think that the Bill has improved upon the recommendations 
 of the Association.
 
 11 
 
 Statutes. This is easily said, and easily answered. 
 Every one who is acquainted with Oxford knozvs, 
 that if Colleges act upon such a licence at all, they 
 will put back, not forward, the period at which 
 Holy Orders are made necessary. This then instead 
 of decreasing, will still further increase, the lay 
 element in Oxford. And if I read the Bill right, 
 while Colleges must allow one-fourth of their Fellows 
 to be lay, they may practically by this provision, 
 with the assent of the Commissioners, permit all 
 their Fellows to be so, for it appears that no period 
 is fixed at which they must require their Fellows to 
 be in Orders. They may fix it then at 20 years, or 
 any other nominal period. 
 
 And I would venture to call your attention to 
 the scandals which will necessarily arise from the 
 working of this Clause even as it stands in its 
 amended form. Let us suppose, that in a College 
 of sixteen Fellows, there are twelve of sufficient 
 standing to be bound to take Holy Orders by their 
 Statutes, and that, in accordance with this provision, 
 three-fourths have done so, and three remain as lay- 
 men. It will be seen that there are four Fellows 
 of not yet sufficient standing as to be necessarily in 
 Holy Orders. These juniors will never be able to 
 know till the very day of their Ordination arrives, 
 whether they will be able to retain their Fellowships 
 as laymen or no. There is too much reason to fear 
 that this will lead to a loose irresolute frame of 
 mind, and that cases will occur, (to the great scandal 
 of religion,) when men who have been counting on a 
 lay-fellowship will take Holy Orders for the sake of
 
 12 
 
 preserving their income. At present men know what 
 they are about, when they offer themselves as candi- 
 dates for Fellowships. 
 
 Nor is this the only instance in which Mr. Blackett's 
 anti-clerical principle seems to have been acted upon. 
 Look at the constitution of the Congregation. It has 
 been a matter of great surprise, tliat in place of the 
 simple words, " all Residents," a long list of officers 
 and quasi-officers have been enumerated, who amount, 
 with few exceptions, to the whole of the Residents. 
 This surprise vanishes, if we adopt the hypothesis, 
 that the Bill has been more or less drawn on Mr. 
 Blackett's principle. For the two classes who are 
 thus excluded from the Congregation, are the Paro- 
 chial Clergy and the College Chaplains, together with 
 a few Vice-Presidents, College Lecturers, and Bursars. 
 It would perhaps have been simpler to enact in down- 
 right terms that the Congregation should consist of all 
 Ptesidents, except these two bodies of Clergymen ; 
 but in that case, people's attention would have been 
 more generally called to the exclusion, and Mr. 
 Blackett's principle must have been avowed. Why 
 should the Parochial Clergy be excluded ? They 
 are Masters of Arts, and most of them Fellows of 
 Colleges, and equal in every respect to their brother- 
 Fellows. Why should the College Chaplains be 
 excluded ? To perpetuate an abuse, the existence of 
 which is already a shame to Oxford. The Oxford 
 University Commissioners, after having carried on 
 their investigation with lynx-eyed zeal, have brought 
 nothing to light which has to bring up a blush upon 
 the cheek of the accused. But there is an abuse
 
 13 
 
 which they hghtly regarded : and that is the way in 
 which Chaplains are looked upon. They are our 
 equals in the bond of Holy Orders; they are our 
 equals as Gentlemen ; they are our equals as men of 
 ordinary intelligence, and in most cases our equals 
 in knowledge. Why then are they looked down 
 upon, as (to our disgrace be it spoken) they fre- 
 quently are ? Because they have not been chosen 
 to their posts by examination, and may not have an 
 equal acquaintance with Thucydides. And this will 
 be more and more the test of excellence after this 
 Bill is passed. The exclusion of Chaplains from 
 among the constituents of Congregation will serve 
 still further to stamp a lower position upon them, 
 and to impose the same character, so far as can be 
 done, on those Members of Convocation who hold 
 parochial cures in Oxford. 
 
 There are two other Clauses in the Bill which 
 seem to have a tendency the same way. The first 
 is Clause VI. which enacts, that one of the Professors 
 to be elected on the Hebdomadal Council shall be 
 chosen from among the Theological Professors ; for 
 the effect of this Clause will surely be rather to 
 diminish than increase the number of such Professors 
 elected. The other is Clause XLH. Sect. 7. which 
 recognises the appropriation of certain Fellowships 
 to certain studies. These Fellowships are one-fourth 
 of the whole number, as though they had some refer- 
 rence to the number of laymen to be allowed in the 
 College. And yet perhaps few things would be more 
 mischievous than to remove the study of" Mathematics, 
 Natural Science, Modern History, and other studies
 
 14 
 
 recognised or to be recognised by the University" 
 from the hands of the Clergy. It would be a very 
 grave evil, that the Clergy should be debarred from 
 becoming the instructors of the nation in those studies 
 which will more and more become substantive parts 
 of English Education. Such a course would neither 
 tend to a strengthening and broadening of their own 
 minds, nor to their acting upon the mind of the nation 
 by contact with it in its intellectual pursuits. 
 
 I scarcely venture to propose a substitute for the 
 Clause which I have been chiefly deprecating, but 
 all appearance of presumption is removed by my 
 suggestion being in fact nothing more than a com- 
 bination of the recommendations of the Cambridge 
 Commissioners, and the Oxford Tutors' Association. 
 If, in the words of the former, " such relaxations 
 in the law of some of the Colleges should be made, 
 as would allow of a reasonable interval of time before 
 a newly-elected Fellow should be required to take 
 Holy Orders or vacate his Fellowship ;" — if that 
 interval were fixed at a maximum of eight years 
 from election, so falling in with Clause XXXVI, 
 which gives permission of eight years' non-residence ; 
 — and if, in addition, a limited power of Dispensation, 
 as described above, were granted to the Visitor of 
 each College ; I cannot but think that every advantage 
 of the present Clause would be gained, and many 
 very great disadvantages would be escaped. 
 
 I will not detain you longer, except by expressing 
 my hope, that not only these provisions to which 
 I have here referred, but also Clauses XXIX. 
 XXXIII. XLII. XLIV. L. LI. and LVI. may be
 
 15 
 
 considerably modified, and in the last case removed. 
 And I trust, that the spirit with which our friends 
 in Parliament will approach the Bill will be this ; 
 that alterations, even if slightly for the better, will 
 be dearly purchased by a betrayal of principles, 
 on which Oxford and her noble institutions have so 
 long flourished, the nurse at once of the manliness 
 of the English character, and of the learning and 
 piety of the Enghsh Church. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 Frederick Meyrick. 
 
 Trinity College, 
 April 20, 1854. 
 
 BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.
 

 
 ^,.^ .„.,.,,..,.,... ,„....„,.„. ^ .,. .:-:Wy:WI^^ 
 
 4- ''•■'•':. .'rf's: •"■'':.':'>.'''':,.!'■'• -■'■',"■ .■■'•■ ■/■■'■; ■ '''■' '•■■..:-.'■'' '.,%V-,^';, Ai'ii'^S 
 
 siM^'i
 
 i 
 
 W>' 
 
 '^f( 
 
 \% 
 
 
 Ai 
 
 t-^J- : 
 
 V ■.-1 
 
 .--- 
 
 '-i'A 
 
 k-^ :4 
 
 f^ 
 
 i-^^