UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD—PETITION. (Hansard, 13 August 1855)

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
presented a petition from Sir Culling Eardly, that persons may have the benefit of the University without being forced to state that they are not members of the Established Church. The petitioner slates he had been a member of Oriel College, Oxford; that although he was a member of the Church of England, he entertained conscientious scruples with regard to the Thirty-nine Articles, and refused to sign them. He was, in consequence, not allowed to proceed to his degree, and his name struck off the college books. After the passing of the Oxford University Bill of last year, he applied to the Provost of Oriel to have his name replaced on the books and to be allowed to proceed to his degree. He was informed, in reply, that there were certain old statutes relating to heresy and schism 2140 which would prevent him; but that the statutes were in course of revision, and that the new statutes might not throw any obstacle in his way. After the new statutes were prepared, he was informed that he would be allowed to proceed to his degree, provided he declared himself to be extra ecclesiam Anglicanam; but that he could not be admitted as one intra ecclesiam Anglicanam unless he signed the Thirty-nine Articles. He declined to make any such declaration, as he did not consider himself a dissenter from the Church of England; and he now petitioned the House not to allow the college authorities at Oxford to impose a new test, in contravention of the Act of last Session. He would beg to call the attention of the noble Earl the head of the Oxford Commission (the Earl of Harrowby) to these circumstances.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
felt some difficulty in speaking upon the subject, upon account of his personal knowledge of the parties, but justice required him to state that from his intimate knowledge of the petitioner, it would be the greatest hardship in the world to require that gentleman to describe himself as extra ecclesiam Anglicanam. Certainly, if not signing the Thirty-nine Articles placed a person extra ecclesiam Anglicanam, then Sir C. Eardley was in that position; but their Lordships had had it from the highest authority—from the episcopal bench during the present Session—that such signature was not requisite. If to attend the service of the Church of England oftener than any other—to communicate according to the rites of that Church constituted a person intra ecclesiam Anglicanam, then he (the Lord Chancellor) could say, from his personal knowledge, that the petitioner was intra and not extra ecclesiam. The Act of last year would be a dead letter if all those who entertained conscientious doubts as to the propriety of some of the doctrines to be deduced from the Articles were to be excluded from the University. He had heard with much pain of the obstacles which had been thrown in the way of the petitioner, and thought it was like compelling a man to wear a cockade in his hat when the object of the law was to abolish the use of cockades altogether.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
was rather embarrassed in speaking upon a subject which might come before him judicially as 2141 a member of the Oxford University Commission, but had no hesitation in saying, that on the first blush of the case, the required declaration was, at any rate, against the policy of the law. Whether it was against the letter of the law he would not then say. He feared, however, that the authorities at Oxford were inclined to take narrow rather than broad views of the law, and to wish to bind those who desired to adhere to the Church by their documents, while those who dissented were left to do as they pleased; that was against the policy of the law. There was a very large and important body of persons in this country who felt doubts upon some of the points set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles, but who had great scruples to calling themselves dissenters from the Church when they were not so, and whom it would be most injurious to the interests of the Church to compel to declare themselves to be dissenters.

LORD CAMPBELL
had no difficulty in saying the refusal of the Provost of Oriel was contrary to the letter, to the spirit, and to the policy of the Act of Parliament. He had no right to say the applicant was without the Anglican Church because at one period of his life he had expressed doubts as to some of the Thirty-nine Articles. Their Lordships were aware that one of the Articles declared that judicial oaths might be taken and were consistent with Scripture. Some members of the Church of England applied to be relieved from taking them, and on that occasion, that most distinguished prelate, the Bishop of London, said a man might be bonâ fide and truly a member of the Church of England, and yet dissent from some of the Thirty-nine Articles. In his opinion, the Provost was in every way mistaken.