ERRATA.

Page 14, line 7 from top, for " intellectual" read "intellect." ,, 38, line 7 from top, for "agricultural" read "commercial."

A PLEA

FOR

THE ABOLITION OF TESTS.

A PETITION from members of the University of Oxford for the abolition of tests of religious opinion on admission to academical degrees was presented to both Houses of Parliament last Session. It was signed by 106 persons, two of whom were Heads of Colleges, while the rest were or had been connected, as Professors, Tutors, or Fellows, with University or College government and education. The petition was presented in the House of Lords by Earl Russell, in the House of Commons by Mr. Dodson. Its prayer was supported in the Upper House by Earl Granville and the Bishop of London, and in the Lower House by Mr. Buxton, Mr. Grant Duff, and Mr. Goschen. Mr. Gladstone, without actually supporting the prayer of the petition, commended the question, as one requiring attention, to the consideration of the University, and went so far as to intimate his own opinion that the stringency of the present tests was in the case of laymen, at least, open to reasonable objection.

B

The opponents of the petition directed their arguments more against the manner in which it had been got up, than against its actual prayer, or the reasons by which its prayer was supported. It will scarcely be thought presumptuous to claim for the persons whose names were appended to it credit for not having intentionally done anything insidious or unfair towards their opponents*. Those of them especially who are clergymen, and who know well what obloquy they incur in their own profession, and how their professional prospects may be affected, by a declaration in favour of liberty of conscience, have, in signing the petition, given a sufficient guarantee at least for their integrity and courage. The changes which the document underwent were not intended to mislead opponents, but were such as documents intended to be signed by a large number of persons, who, though agreed as to their main object, may differ in details, are very apt to undergo. An anxiety to make the petition as little open to misconstruction as possible, especially on religious grounds, will scarcely be imputed as a fault to the framers. And it was certainly not by any contrivance or in accordance with any wish of the petitioners that the presentation was postponed till very near the end of the Session of Parliament, when it was scarcely possible that a question of any importance should be

* I believe I am justified in stating that the Vice-Chancellor wrote to Lord Derby assuring him that though the time when the petition was presented might be thought inconvenient to its opponents, no suspicion of any insidious intention on the part of the petitioners could be entertained. Mr. Henley's misstatements, couched in language indicative of their levity, may safely be allowed to find their own level.