the outcry against it at Oxford, when it came, was so instantaneous, so strong, and so unusual, that it might have warned Lord Melbourne that he had been led into a mistake, out of which it would be wise to seek at least a way of escape.  Doubtless it was a strong measure for the University to protest as it did; but it was also a strong measure, at least in those days, for a Minister of the Crown to force so extremely unacceptable a Regius Professor of Divinity on a great University.  Dr. Hampden offered to resign; and there would have been plenty of opportunities to compensate him for his sacrifice of a post which could only be a painful one.  But the temper of both sides was up.  The remonstrances from Oxford were treated with something like contempt, and the affair was hurried through till there was no retreating; and Dr. Hampden became Regius Professor.

Mr. Palmer has recorded how various efforts were made to neutralise the effect of the appointment.  But the Heads of Houses, though angry, were cautious.  They evaded the responsibility of stating Dr. Hampden’s unsound positions; but to mark their distrust, brought in a proposal to deprive him of his vote in the choice of Select Preachers till the University should otherwise determine.  It was defeated in Convocation by the veto of the two Proctors (March 1836), who exercised their right with the full approval of Dr. Hampden’s friends, and the indignation of the large majority of the University.  But it was not unfairly used:  it could have only a suspending effect, of which no one had a right to complain; and when new Proctors came into office, the proposal was introduced again, and carried (May 1836) by 474 to 94.  The Liberal minority had increased since the vote on subscription, and Dr. Hampden went on with his work as if nothing had happened.  The attempt was twice made to rescind the vote:  first, after the outcry about the Ninetieth Tract and the contest about the Poetry Professorship, by a simple repeal, which was rejected by 334 to 219 (June 1842); and next, indirectly by a statute enlarging the Professor’s powers over Divinity degrees, which was also rejected by 341 to 21 (May 1844).  From first to last, these things and others were the unfortunate incidents of an unfortunate appointment.

The “persecution of Dr. Hampden” has been an unfailing subject of reproach to the party of the Oxford movement, since the days when the Edinburgh Review held them up to public scorn and hatred in an article of strange violence.  They certainly had their full share in the opposition to him, and in the measures by which that opposition was carried out.  But it would be the greatest mistake to suppose that in this matter they stood alone.  All in the University at this time, except a small minority, were of one mind, Heads of Houses and country parsons, Evangelicals and High Churchmen—­all who felt that the grounds of a definite belief were seriously threatened by Dr. Hampden’s speculations.