90 in 1841—­a circular was issued inviting signatures for a requisition to the Board, asking them to propose, in the approaching Convocation of the 13th of February, a formal censure of the principles of No. 90.  The invitation to sign was issued in the names of Dr. Faussett and Dr. Ellerton of Magdalen.  It received between four and five hundred signatures, as far as was known; but it was withheld by the Vice-Chancellor from the inspection of those who officially had a right to have it before them.  On the 4th of February its prayer came before the Hebdomadal Board.  The objection of haste—­that not ten days intervened between this new and momentous proposal and the day of voting—­was brushed aside.  The members of the Board were mad enough not to see, not merely the odiousness of the course, but the aggravated odiousness of hurry.  The proposal was voted by the majority, sans phrase. And they ventured, amid all the excitement and irritation of the moment, to offer for the sanction of the University a decree framed in the words of their own censure.

The interval before the Convocation was short, but it was long enough for decisive opinions on the proposal of the Board to be formed and expressed.  Leading men in London, Mr. Gladstone among them, were clear that it was an occasion for the exercise of the joint veto with which the Proctors were invested.  The veto was intended, if for anything, to save the University from inconsiderate and hasty measures; and seldom, except in revolutionary times, had so momentous and so unexpected a measure been urged on with such unseemly haste.  The feeling of the younger Liberals, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Donkin, Mr. Jowett, Dr. Greenhill, was in the same direction.  On the 10th of February the Proctors announced to the Board their intention to veto the third proposal.  But of course the thing went forward.  The Proctors were friends of Mr. Newman, and the Heads believed that this would counterbalance any effect from their act of authority.  It is possible that the announcement may have been regarded as a mere menace, too audacious to be fulfilled.  On the 13th of February, amid slush and snow, Convocation met in the Theatre.  Mr. Ward asked leave to defend himself in English, and occupied one of the rostra, usually devoted to the recital of prize poems and essays.  He spoke with vigour and ability, dividing his speech, and resting in the interval between the two portions in the rostrum.[122] There was no other address, and the voting began.  The first vote, the condemnation of the book, was carried by 777 to 386.  The second, by a more evenly balanced division, 569 to 511.  When the Vice-Chancellor put the third, the Proctors rose, and the senior Proctor, Mr. Guillemard of Trinity, stopped it in the words, Nobis procuratoribus non placet.  Such a step, of course, only suspended the vote, and the year of office of these Proctors was nearly run.  But they had expressed the feeling of those whom they represented.