refusal to carry it into personal disgrace and disadvantage.  Still, if these two measures had stood by themselves, they could not have been resisted, and the triumph of the Board would have been a signal one.  But they could not rest.  They must needs attempt to put upon subscription, just when its difficulties were beginning to be felt, not by one party, but by all, an interpretation which set the University and Church in a flame.  The cry, almost the shriek, arose that it was a new test, and a test which took for granted what certainly needed proof, that the sense in which the Articles were first understood and published was exactly the same as that in which the University now received and imposed them.  It was in vain that explanations, assurances, protests, were proffered; no new test, it was said, was thought of—­the Board would never think of such a thing; it was only something to ensure good faith and honesty.  But it was utterly useless to contend against the storm.  A test it was, and a new test no one would have.  It was clear that, if the third proposal was pushed, it would endanger the votes about Mr. Ward.  After some fruitless attempts at justification the Board had, in the course of a month, to recognise that it had made a great mistake.  The condemnation of Mr. Ward was to come on, on the 13th of February; and on the 23d of January the Vice-Chancellor, in giving notice of it, announced that the third proposal was withdrawn.

It might have been thought that this was lesson enough to leave well alone.  The Heads were sure of votes against Mr. Ward, more or less numerous; they were sure of a victory which would be a severe blow, not only to Mr. Ward and his special followers, but to the Tractarian party with which he had been so closely connected.  But those bitter and intemperate spirits which had so long led them wrong were not to be taught prudence even by their last experience.  The mischief makers were at work, flitting about the official lodgings at Wadham and Oriel.  Could not something be done, even at this late hour, to make up for the loss of the test?  Could not something be done to disgrace a greater name than Mr. Ward’s?  Could not the opportunity which was coming of rousing the feeling of the University against the disciple be turned to account to drag forth his supposed master from his retirement and impunity, and brand the author of No. 90 with the public stigma—­no longer this time of a Hebdomadal censure, but of a University condemnation?  The temptation was irresistible to a number of disappointed partisans—­kindly, generous, good-natured men in private life, but implacable in their fierce fanaticism.  In their impetuous vehemence they would not even stop to think what would be said of the conditions and circumstances under which they pressed their point.  On the 23d of January the Vice-Chancellor had withdrawn the test.  On the 25th of January—­those curious in coincidences may observe that it was the date of No.