Vaughan Mh£5& 185+ V4- POSTSCRIPT TO "OXFORD REFORM AND OXFORD PROFESSORS:" A CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DR. PUSEY AND THE AUTHOR CONCERNING A PASSAGE IN THAT- PUBLICATION. C/M, fa toft 4* -j LONDON: JOHN W. PARKER AND SON, WEST STRAND. mdcccliv. POSTSCRIPT OXFORD REFORM AND OXFORD PROFESSORS. A Correspondence between Br. Pusey and the Author concerning a passage in that publication. /~\N the 11 tli of this month, I received a letter from Dr. ^ Pusey, of the same date, complaining of a misquotation and misconstruction of his words by me in my recent publica tion upon ' Oxford Reform and Oxford Professors.' The sup posed misquotation and misconstruction consisted in my having construed his mention of one improper appointment to a Profes sorship by the Crown, as an allusion to Dr. Hampden's appoint ment to the Professorship of Divinity, and in my having per mitted the words, ' as a Professor of Divinity,' to be printed between inverted commas, as part of a quotation from his ' Evidence,' when it was not so.* I am not at liberty to quote the words, or mention more particularly the contents of his letter, because it concluded thus — ' However I cannot give you authority to publish this note ; but I must ask you to withdraw the statement, because vou have misquoted me.' To this communication I replied by a letter, of which the following is a copy, so far as relates to any part of the subject now in question. ' See O.i/ord Rvfirm ami Oxfortl l'rqfes\i'rx. note. p. 75. r 114 Postscript No. I. Professor Vaughan to Professor Pusey. Feb. 12, 1854 My dear Professor, T '(r •)£ "Jf: s|f *R The typographical error of including in the inverted com mas of quotation, words which did not belong to the passage quoted, had been corrected publicly one day before you heard of my strictures, and two days, at least, before you addressed me on the subject. On discovering the misprint, within three days of the general publication, and before my own bookseller in Oxford had received a single copy, I lost not one minute in preparing and sending to press, and having affixed to the face of the first printed page in the pamphlet (where it could not escape the reader's eye), a printed correction of the error made. I am, of course, quite convinced by your statement now made, that you did not intend to allude to Dr. Hampden. I object, however, on general principles, to impose the seal of a sacred privacy on communications which justify or explain acts and words which are public ; and, therefore, I will not now enter further into the history either of the typographical error, which had the temporary effect of misquoting your evidence, or of the substantial misunderstanding which attended the use of words which you actually employed. I will willingly and candidly do "both, if you will write me a letter, of which either of us can be permitted to make public use, if either of us think fit. Your present letter is, of course, exempt from this liability, as you so wish it. I am not in the least averse to entering more particularly into the. matter; but I am averse, on general principles of convenience and justice, to the condition of privacy. I have, as you will now see, quite apart from, and before your application, or any application on your behalf, corrected the misprint of the passage ; and I cannot withdraw the general construction put upon your words actually used, without a publishable communication between us, to explain the reason, and meaning, and circumstances of such an act. Postscript. 115 My motives, you would find, have been, and are, and will be, amongst others, those of preventing, so far as possible, any ill feeling so likely to attend misconstruction. Yours very faithfully, H. H. Vaughan. To Dr. Pusey. P.S. — Inasmuch as corrections seldom answer so abso lutely as might be desired, the purpose of preventing all error, I, of course, regret truly that any mistake in the printing escaped me till after publication ; although I do not know that this occurred by any oversight of mine, and although I do not think that it could be of any real prejudice to yourself. Have the kindness to accept a copy from me of my pamphlet as corrected. No, II. Professor Pusey to Professor Vaughan. Christ Church, Feb. 11. My dear Professor, I thank you for sending me the copy of your pamphlet, with the errata. But your statement still entirely misleads a reader as to my meaning. You have put a gloss on my words, which is not my meaning. Your statement corrected would stand thus, ' Dr. Pusey says, in plain terms, Convocation ' would have unquestionably chosen a man with higher talents, ' and more scientific knowledge,' as a professor of divinity, ' than the Prime Minister did' (in the case of Dr. Hampden), Evid. p. 117. And then you proceed to say, that those who have been supposed to think like Dr. Pusey, have commonly. professed to estimate at a very humble rate the talents and knowledge of their adversary. I am not aware of this. But whether true or no, there is no foundation for the observation, since my words were, 'In ' another case in wliich no one doubts that the Prime Minister 116 Postscript. ' made a mistake, Convocation would unquestionably have ' chosen one with higher talents and more scientific knowledge.' I had not been speaking of divinity, nor was I thinking of Dr. Hampden. I could not even guess whence your mistake arose. I made no allusion to the past in my evidence, except on the defensive. There was no question about ' adversaries' or party. I value the individual who was appointed, although I have no doubt that you would agree with me, that one who was passed over had higher talents and more scientific know ledge, and would have met more your idea of a Professor. I must, then, still ask you to correct the statement, even by cancelling the page, because it is still a mis-statement. I have now read through that part of your pamphlet which relates to myself. You have entirely mis-stated my argument. I stated in the outset of my evidence, what I meant by the Professorial and Collegiate Systems. You answer me as if I had simply been writing against Professors, and deprecating the existence, or endowment, or increase of Professors; or again, had been doubting that knowledge may be advanced by persons devoting themselves to it, or that it is good to enable people to devote themselves to it, if it is good. Again, I think that the way in which you contrast what I wrote on Rationalism twenty-five years ago, and what I say now, exceedingly unfair. There is no real inconsistency between them. Yours faithfully, E. B. Pusey. To Professor Vaughan. This letter (marked No. II.) was accompanied by another letter from Professor Pusey to Professor Vaughan, marked ' private,' of which for that reason I do not give a copy. Postscript. 117 No. IV. Professor Vaughan to Professor Pusey. Feb. 15, 1854. My dear Professor, I am glad that you have received a copy of my Pamphlet, showing that the typographical error, had been altered by a printed and conspicuous erratum, before you applied to me on the subject. You now ask me 'to correct my statement even by can- ' ceiling the page' (on which it is printed), ' because it is still ' a misstatement.' I accept, of course, your present positive statement that, in saying, with regard to one case, that ' no one ' doubted the Prime Minister made a mistake,' and ' that Con- ' vocation would unquestionably have chosen a man with 'higher talents and more scientific knowledge,' you did not refer to the appointment of Dr. Hampden. But I must observe, that my mistake in supposing Dr. Hampden's case to be the one intended, is attributable rather to your own mode of reference than to any fault of mine. Only six Regius Pro fessors have been appointed within my recollection. Three of these — Dr. Arnold, Dr. Cramer, and myself — were appointed Professors of History, and on that account could not at all answer the description given by the expression, ' scientific knowledge :' and I felt sure, on other grounds, that none of these cases was referred to. Three Professors, therefore, re mained to whom your observations were applicable — Dr. Hamp den and Dr. Jacobson, Professors of Divinity ; and Dr. Ogle, Professor of Medicine. I thought that certainly you were not referring to Dr. Jacobson,. partly because it had never been stated that Convocation disapproved of his appointment, and partly because he is still a brother Regius Professor, living now in the same town, and on terms of friendship, with yourself. I could not think that it was Dr. Ogle, partly for the same reasons, and partly because he had been already twice elected Professor of Medicine 'by that very Convocation which would, in your language, ' unquestionably have chosen one • with higher talents and more scientific knowledge.' 118 Postscript. On the other hand, Dr. Hampden's appointment was not only protested against at the time by very many members of Convocation, but his removal was, I believe, demanded ; and on the Crown's refusal to cancel his appointment, Convocation deprived him at once, and with great deliberation, of the common privileges of his office. On this occasion, it was a t general observation in the world, that a 'mistake' had been made. Moreover, all this painful agitation was kindled, and mainly, though not wholly, conducted, by those reputed to think like yourself. Considering, therefore, the act of Convocation, the lan guage of the world, and the part played by what was called your party, I was, it seems to- me, most reasonable in assuming that you referred to Dr. Hampden ; and I should have been even unreasonable in assuming that you alluded either to Dr. Jacobson or Dr. Ogle. I mentioned Dr. Hampden's name for the very purpose of inoffensively quoting a passage which, if not limited to its one proper object, might give pain to others :* and I spoke in simple and sincere conviction, that I spoke correctly. If, then, there is any culpability in this mistake, you are, as it seems to me, the culpable author of it. You pointed to a small knot of Professors in the most open and marked manner, and that by language which might apply to one, and could not reasonably be applied to the two others. I must, therefore, distinctly decline acceding to your request in which you ask me ' to correct my statement, even by cancelling ' the page,' where I expressed, in the form of statements, those rational and most sincere, if not necessary inferences, into which your language misled me. You do not now mention the appointment. to which you did actually allude ; and I must be permitted to observe, that the Regius Professors, as a body, would be more justified in calling * I may be permitted perhaps to say, that I could not, without affectation pretend to feel such a delicacy with regard to Dr. Hampden, whose case had been so publicly and painfully canvassed for months on two distinct and distant occasions. Postscript. 119 upon you to explain and .prove or to cancel your statement, than you are in challenging me to cancel mine. With regard to the propriety and. justice of my particular replies to your reasonings and statements, it is of course open to you to show in detail that they are fallacious, incorrect, or inapplicable. But no general, and summary, and unproved assertions in your own favour can, I think, convince impartial judges that they are so. Unless I hear from you on Friday morning, I shall consider the correspondence to be closed, and shall take steps towards its publication. — Yours faithfully, H. H. Vaughan. To Dr. Pusey. No. V. Dr. Pusey to Professor Vaughan.* My dear Professor, I must decline giving you leave to publish my letters, for the reason which I mentioned in my private letter. — Yours faithfully, E. B. Pusey. To Professor Vaughan. No. VI. Professor Vaughan to Professor Pusey. Feb. 17th, 1854. My dear Professor, I have been even astonished by your answer received last night. It was distinctly, and I, might say, superfluously, conveyed to you that if I entered into the subject by correspondence at all, it must be only on the under standing that the letters might be published by either of us. * Without date, received on the 16th February, at night. 120 Postscript. You prosecuted the matter after this, and you accompanied the letter which I have proposed to make public by one marked ' private,' containing a particular piece of information; which you desired should remain private, for reasons therein given. But neither your injunctions of privacy, nor your reasons, extended to anything beside that private communication; and both confirmed, if it were possible to confirm what was already so clear, the understanding that oui- correspondence in general was at the disposal of either of us for public purposes. I must insist, therefore, that your permission to me to publish has already been given, as the very condition on which I consented to communicate with you on the matter. Yours faithfully, H. H. Vaughan. I have considered it right to publish this correspondence, as serving to correct my misconstruction of a passage in Dr. Pusey's evidence, and at the same time to show (I trust satisfactorily) the grounds on which it rested. It will also explain the reasons why I could not accede to the exorbitant demand, that I should cancel the page in which it occurs — a course of proceeding which would virtually suppress my pub lication. It must be permitted to me to say, that I cannot commend the manner in which, after the correspondence was closed, Dr. Pusey has attempted to withdraw his permission to publish it. Savill & Edwaidi, Printers, i, Chandoe-Btrcet, Covent-garden.