•

M

DIFFICULTIES IN THE MATTERS PUBLISHED IN CONGREGATION
THIS DAY.
1. Whether Convocation proceeds in a Judicial or in its Legislative character ?
If in the former, there must be at least the semblance of a trial ; to constitute which three
persons are necessary : Reus, Actor, Judex.
Mr. Ward is clearly the accused : Convocation is the judge. Who and where is the accuser ?
Suppose Mr. Ward declined to appear, — can Convocation compel his presence ? by what
process ? Is it any function of Convocation to issue summons ? It has no Bedels nor Man
datary — can it proceed in his absence, when he has no legal citation? Can it pro
nounce the penalty of Degradation, without proving the offence, and in the absence of the
accused ? How can the offence be proved when there is no accuser, no witness ? Or can
a Judge be a witness and accuser — all three conditions at once ?
The offence is said to be "having published such passages so inconsistent." Are the
passages inconsistent ? has the Ecclesiastical Judge pronounced them so ? The offence is
" publishing," that was committed in London, out of the jurisdiction of Oxford, and within
that of the Bishop of London. Is Convocation about to encroach on the rights of the See
of^London ?
Mr. Ward is arraigned for " publishing," yet not a word of that in the sentence ; that
speaks of a certain book whose contents are inconsistent ..." with the Declaration" of
Mr. Ward : they may be inconsistent with the Declaration of the Vice-Chancellor, of all
and every Head of a House ; but is that any reason for putting the name of any of these in
the sentence ? There is nothing in the sentence to connect Mr. Ward with the " Ideal." All
that appears before Convocation is certain passages from a certain book published in London,
and then a proposition, " That the passages, &c." Why should Mr. Ward be singled out ?
The passages may be inconsistent with his Subscription ; but has he written the book ? He
has, no doubt ; but it does not appear in the sentence : for which reason the sentence is
null. The Delegates of the Press are, upon the principle of this proposition, liable to the
penalty of Degradation for publishing Plotinus and the Sylloge Confessionum. It is null,
too, for that it alleges no one Article which is contravened. The passages recited are not
inconsistent with the first Article, nor with the last ; with which then of the remaining ?
The second Proposition, " That Mr. Ward has disentitled himself to the rights and privileges
conveyed" by his Degrees : this is more than Convocation can tell. Many of these rights

2
are civil ; can Convocation disfranchise ? Many of these privileges are from the Queen's
grace ; Convocation is travelling out of its jurisdiction — it interferes with the Royal preroga
tive — perhaps goes nigh to the commission of treason.
If Convocation is a court of justice, where are the precedents ? Mr. Ward will appear with
his friends, and will, as far as he can, resist numbers by numbers. Is Convocation prepared in
that case to put in force the Statute relating to such proceeding? Tit. xxi. § 14. It cannot.
Has Convocation any judicial functions at all, then ? As a sentence, the first proposition is
null, because it does not connect Mr. Ward with the book ; the second proposition is beyond
the jurisdiction of the University, which can only punish for offences against itself, and
Mr. Ward's offence is, if any, against the laws ecclesiastical, which the University cannot
administer. 2. If Convocation proceeds in its legislative character, it creates a new offence, or
declares an old one ; if the latter, it must be on the authority of the Church, which here it
cannot allege ; if the former, it passes a new Statute, which means this, that Certain passages
are ,• but for any thing contained in this Decree or Statute, the same opinions in different
words may be always honestly maintained and published. Nothing is said of the opinions.
Now if Convocation is here making a new law, the Degradation cannot be submitted to it
in the same day — the Degradation rests on the strength of the first proposition, which has
no strength for thirty days. Corp. Stat, Tit. x., sect. ii. § 2.
If Mr. Ward has broken the University Statutes, the Vice-Chancellor ought to proceed
against him either ad sectam partis, or ex officio, mero vel promoto, in his own court. If he
has gone against the Statutes of his College, the Archbishop of Canterbury with his
colleagues may visit. If he has offended against the laws of Church or State, the courts of
either, or both, are open. So far as it appears at present, it would be as reasonable to try
Mr. Ward for offences against the laws of France or Turkey, as for those which the Uni
versity attempts to punish.
The third proposition is the Test in another form, and doubtless illegal ; harmless if it
passes, for it does not condemn the Tract itself, nor deny the truth of the interpretation it
contains ; it also proceeds on an assumption not founded in fact about " the declared purpose
of this University." However, the Statutes certainly do speak of the " Catholic Faith."
But as no penalty is, or can be inflicted upon anyone who holds the disliked interpretations,
no person need be uneasy about the Censure, but may hold his principles according to the
Epinomis subjoined to the Statutes.

Oxford, Feb. 10th, 1845.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 0698