Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

which has given occasion to these remarks, if wrong at all, it is wrong throughout; it cannot be now right, and now wrong, and now right again. Yet I protest that the criticisms I have seen or heard upon it have in no slight degree fluctuated according to the successive issues which it has exhibited to the public eye.

I wish, too, persons had also considered that, though a hazardous action may turn out one way, it may also turn out the opposite way, and that imminent danger is the very condition of glorious results. I also wish it had been remembered that, because certain actions issue in temporary mischief, it does not therefore follow that they may not issue in ulterior good. And again, that there is, on the whole, considerably more reason, in faith, for hoping good from every conscientious and disinterested action, than for determining against such actions, (however depressing, and however alarming their immediate, and even their continuous issue,) on the score of their effects. No one, I suppose, would say that martyrdom, or confessorship, however gloomy their consequences, can ever be otherwise than blessings for the church; and what is true of the higher degrees, is surely true, in a measure, of the lower; and if so be that a certain proceeding which has been the subject of free comment, belong, at all events, to that class of actions (unless, indeed, its motives were perverse,) and to no other, I cannot see why it is to be estimated upon different principles from the rest of its family. We hear, I think, too much of these words" impolitic" and " injudicious.' But, at any rate, my own proceeding at Oxford having caused scandal, for that reason, and for that reason only, I come forward to explain it, even more than I have already done in a recent pamphlet.*

And first, as to the motives of that act. You must really permit me to observe, Sir, that those who say or insinuate that an object of that act was to clear the way for myself at the expense of the church of England, should bethink themselves what they are doing. It is difficult, certainly, to get at the bottom of our motives. And yet I would humbly trust that the shock which that imputation has given to my feelings, may be taken as some considerable evidence to my own conscience that the motives of the action were not of that unspeakably selfish and heartless kind which this account of it presumes.

Nor is it an adequate, though a far more honourable, view of the proceeding, that generosity towards Mr. Ward was its sole, or its leading, motive. That this feeling entered into the disposition under which I acted, I do not at all deny; and I consider it as, on the whole, discreditable to professing churchmen, that they have not more apparent sympathy with such impulses. I am sorry to find that it is not considered, at least, a very powerful excuse for an action, that it was dictated (if so be) by a sentiment of generosity. Chivalry is not the highest of principles, but it is a high one, and I should have supposed that the desire of standing by a friend from whose conversation and example the very greatest benefits in the way of comfort and instruction are felt to have been derived, might be accounted no very un

* A Letter to the Lord Bishop of London. Toovey, Piccadilly.

worthy reason for a bold step, even though it could be shewn to have proceeded upon a serious miscalculation.

But, in truth, I should have deemed it, not, indeed, inexcusable, but certainly not right, to have acted merely under the impulse of any such chivalrous feeling. The appearance of my Letter to the ViceChancellor in such quick succession upon the event of the great convocation, would naturally give the idea of the step having been taken on the spur of the moment. Such a supposition, however, is, as I need hardly observe, purely gratuitous, and the reverse of the fact.

That particular moment seemed to me, I confess, the proper opportunity for an attempt to gain a great object. It may be very true that, legally, the university has no power of determining the sense of Subscription; but I cannot at all deny that there is a certain moral effect in the decision of the 13th on the former of the two propositions, until that effect is cleared away. I cannot feel that the moral effect is wholly counteracted by the legal informality, if such it be. Moreover, the illegality of the attempt has to be established, and I am not aware that it is in any way to be established. The argument on Mr. Ward's degradation, if we may judge from the published opinion of counsel, is not likely to turn upon the question of the right of the university with respect to the sense of subscription. It proceeds, on the contrary, on the ground that subscription is not a continuing act : and even though the question of the sense of the articles should arise incidentally in the course of that discussion, yet it is surely not the Court of Queen's Bench, but the Ecclesiastical Court which is alone capable of determining the point, who is the imponens for the university. Four years ago, Mr. Keble considered convocation that imponens, now he disputes it, but solely on the ground of Mr. Bethell's and Sir John Dodson's published opinion, which is, indeed, a certain presumption, but not legal proof,

This, to a certain extent, meets the common argument against my step, that it was premature. Now, those who call it premature, admit therein its necessity. After the [final] decision of Mr. Ward's case, they say, it would have been timely, as well as necessary. On the contrary, I must consider that the vote of convocation was the time for it. What would have been the effect, or the meaning, of publishing it upon the decision of the degradation question? That decision must either have confirmed the act of convocation, or reversed it. If the former, a challenge to the university would then have been almost an insolent bravado; if the latter, a merely harmless manifesto. The point surely was, to publish it when the question was as yet undetermined. This course appears to me the more respectful towards the academical authorities, and the more serviceable towards the object in view.

As far as the university is concerned, the result of the letter does not appear, to myself, in any way to throw doubt upon the policy of the action. If anything at all be won, (even in public opinion,) a great deal is won inclusively with it; while the loss will be either that of a single person, or (as is more probable,) none at all. It turns out that non-residence is an exemption; but I suppose it also true,

and, if true, important to be exhibited, that the university will not pass a second act of degradation under any circumstances. Thus the whole hebdomadal movement resolves itself into a simple privilegium against Mr. Ward, not for anything he shares with others, but for what is peculiar to himself. Moreover, I think that anything which served at the moment to draw off the fire from Number 90, should be estimated as a gain. I may take this opportunity of saying, that I, have received a very kind note from the Vice-Chancellor, which while in no way committing the board, satisfies me that my letter has not been taken as an act of disrespect by the authorities. If the step result in harm elsewhere than in the university, that no doubt would prove it to have been imminently hazardous and critical. That might have been a reason for pausing before it was taken. But surely it is quite endless to regret, and rake up the past. What is done for the best, at the moment, ought to be no subject of regret or upbraiding. Such acts always right themselves sooner or later. It does seem a most gratuitous, if not even sinful, aggravation of great troubles and trials, to speculate upon the conditions under which they might have been anticipated or averted. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, FREDERICK OAKELEY.

London, 26th February.

MR. F. OAKELEY AND MARGARET CHAPEL.

SEVERAL misstatements having gone abroad on the subject of the recent discussions relative to Margaret Chapel, we are authorized by Mr. Oakeley to say, 1. That he neither is, nor ever has been," suspended" from his clerical ministrations. Mr. Oakeley abstained from duty for a few days, out of respect to his diocesan's wishes, and by his own spontaneous offer; but in no other sense is it true that any suspension of his ministerial functions has taken place, even for a time. The bishop has no power of "suspending," except by revocation of a licence, and Mr. Oakeley's licence was never revoked. It was through a mere understanding, proposed by himself, that he dared to officiate at all, and then for five days only. 2. Mr. Oakeley did not "refuse to resign his licence," matters having been satisfactorily adjusted before the arrival of the time when Mr. Oakeley was required to give in his formal answer on that subject. 3. Mr. Oakeley's continuance at Margaret Chapel is subject to no other condition than that which he has long expressed himself ready and willing to submit to; neither is it dependent upon any other legal or ecclesiastical decision than such as Mr. Oakeley has declared himself desirous, not merely to abide by, but, if required, even to promote. 4. The steps contemplated against Mr. Oakeley, but which were never carried into effect, are understood to have been relinquished in consequence of the opinion of an eminent civilian that they could not be vindicated in ecclesiastical law, and in consequence of his diocesan's forbearing to proceed, under these circumstances, in any summary way. Moreover, though Mr. Oakeley could have been removed from Margaret Chapel by the mere revocation of his licence, he would have continued to hold his prebendal stall at Lichfield, except through the effect of an adverse decision in the ecclesiastical court.

We are also requested by Mr. Oakeley to state, that whatever kind efforts were made by members of his flock, or by others, (as in truth many such were made,) originated and were carried on quite independently of himself. Mr. Oakeley purposely abstained from taking any part in these proceedings, both as feel

ing it inconsistent with his actual position at the time towards the Bishop, and as knowing that such demonstrations could be valuable only in proportion as they were spontaneous.-Oxford Paper.

The following letter has been addressed to the editor of The Standard :London, Friday, Feb. 28, Eleven o'clock. Sir, I have just seen, on my return from the country, a statement in The Standard of yesterday, to the effect that I have been "suspended" by the Bishop of London from the ministrations of Margaret Chapel. I request you to insert this my explicit contradiction of the fact. No change whatever has been made with respect to the ministrations of the chapel.-I am, sir, your humble servant, FREDERICK OAKELEY.

(From The Morning Herald.)

We perceive that Mr. Oakeley has taken the trouble to write to The Standard, to contradict the report of his suspension. We shall, therefore, put the whole matter into a more accurate form, and invite Mr. Oakeley, if he wishes the public to understand the matter fully, to tell us

1. Whether he did not, several days since, receive a letter from the Bishop of London, calling for, or suggesting, a resignation of his licence?

2. Whether, upon this, he or his friends did not remonstrate with the Bishop, on the subject of this summary exercise of power-and call for a fair trial, such as would have been adopted in the case of the incumbent of a parish? And,

3. Whether he is not aware, or has not reason to believe, that in abandoning his first idea, of recalling the licence, the Bishop only does so in compliance with his own requisition, and in order to bring the matter, by regular accusation, before the ecclesiastical courts?

The Rev. F. Oakeley has addressed the following letter to the Morning Chronicle.

London, March 1.

SIR,-If I feel it best to set right one or two points in your notice of me in a leading article of this day, it is rather with the view of guarding the public generally against the habit of treating unauthorized statements, upon matters of which none but the parties directly concerned can be cognizant, than because I feel the particular misstatements in your paper of much consequence, or because I desire to establish for myself any precedent as to the conduct to be pursued by me for the future.

Yet I wish to say, that if a paper, so remarkable for fairness and moderation of tone on ecclesiastical subjects as The Morning Chronicle, falls (though in mere inadvertency and under a prudent qualification) into errors of this kind, it should be plain how little reliance is to be placed upon information hazarded by other papers, whose powers of discrimination on certain subjects are evidently suspended for the time, under the influence of strong party feelings. Thus, in The Morning Herald of to-day, questions are addressed to me which in some considerable degree carry with them their own answer, but with which, of course, I shall not directly deal, lest I should even appear to recognise some sort of accountability to an absolutely unauthoritative and obviously prejudiced tribunal. Let me observe, also, that I entertain no doubt of any questions on the recent matters affecting myself, in which the public may do me the favour of taking interest, righting themselves as time goes on. many reasons will occur to indicate the propriety of silence on my part. At any rate, I wish it to be understood that I am prepared to suffer under any amount of (temporary) misconstruction, rather than to promote a discussion

But

which will, I am confident, issue in results far more favourable to myself than to any one else, but which would, in the meantime, most miserably disturb the peace of the Church of England.

Let me say, then, sir, under this protest, and with these explanations, that your account of the recent question between the Bishop of London and myself is inaccurate in the following particulars :-1. I have never been "suspended" by the Bishop of London, in the technical sense of the word. I abstained for five days from officiating, by my own offer, to which the bishop acceded. 2. The bishop asked me to resign before his lordship had received any "letter" whatever from me. 3. I never "declined the bishop's suggestion," but took time to consider, and never sent in my formal answer. 4. I have never been "formally" suspended, since I have never been suspended in any sense, except by my own voluntary proposal, which the bishop adopted. 5. The bishop could not "recal" what his lordship never issued.

And so the matter remains, subject, no doubt, to material conditions, and dependent upon future (hypothetical) legal determinations. Whether the objectors to my present position will serve their cause by pressing forward these determinations, it is not, of course, for me to suggest, though I have a private opinion upon the subject.

I am, sir, your obliged servant,

FREDERICK OAKELEY.

To the Editor of the Morning Chronicle.

SIR,-As your article on the subject of myself still gives rise, inadvertently, and through a want of clearness in my own letter, to an erroneous impression of some consequence respecting me, allow me to say that even when I wrote to you on Saturday, the question of my resignation was entirely at an end, by the Bishop of London having, under actual circumstances, and as farther advised, ceased to require it of me.

With this explanation, and with others which appear elsewhere, I close, as far as I myself am concerned, the whole question with the public papers, and leave any future misconceptions respecting me to correct or adjust themselves. Thanking you for your kind attention to my communication,

I am, sir, your humble servant,

To the Editor of the Times.

FREDERICK OAKELEY.

Sir, I am directed by the Bishop of London to send you the enclosed paragraph for insertion in The Times newspaper.

London-house, March 3, 1845.

I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant.
CHARLES B. DALTON.

Various accounts having appeared in the public papers as to the steps taken by the Bishop of London with reference to the Rev. Frederick Oakeley, we are authorzied to state, that Mr. Oakeley has been allowed to continue his ministrations in Margaret-street chapel ad interim only, till the bishop shall have obtained the opinion of his legal advisers as to the proper course of proceeding in so grave a case.

We are also able to state, that there is no foundation for the report, that the bishop has received a communication from the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford on the subject of the letter addressed to the Vice-Chancellor by Mr. Oakeley.

(From the Morning Post.)

So much misconception has arisen out of the circumstances with which the name of Mr. Oakeley has lately been associated, that we think it may be

« AnteriorContinuar »