The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-13 00:00:00

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.

OxronD, May 12.
In a Congregation held this dr.y at 2 p.m., the amended
"Local Examination" statute was read cnd promulgated.
Professor H. Slurrit rose to propose an amendment. He
-thanked the Council for the omission of the clause CO7l-

scienticc cause,' but could not approve the proposed arrange-
ment of the religious examination. He would omit the
whole of the third paragraph of the statute, and modify the
opening clause of the second in such a way as to make the
history of the Bible alone requisite, and that he would re-
quire of all. He commented with some severity on the cir-
culation of a document by a member of Convocation asking
signatures to a declaration which he thought ambiguous.
Mr. GRIFFITH (of Wadham, secretary to the delegacy)
opposed the statute, pointing out the extreme difficulty of
carrying some of its provisions into effect, and criticising
the looseness of the wording.
Dr. rUSEY defended the statute. He characterised the
objections taken to it as contradictory to each other, de-
fended his circulation of the document alluded to, and no-
ticed as important facts that it had obtained 95 signatures,
and that among them were those of all but three of the Ox-
ford parochial clergy. With regard to the alleged difficulties
in the way of working the statute, they were forced on the
framers of the statute by the delegates, who urged that the
case of those persons who should decline the religious exa-
mination altogether required to be met and provided for.
He concluded a long speech by entering into various sta-
tistics, by which he endeavoured to show that the working
of the Oxford scheme, as respected the religious examina-
tion, had not hitherto been satisfactory.
Professor RAWLINSON replied to Dr. Pusey. It had been
often said that statistics might be made to prove anything,
and he believed that a careful study of the delegates' re-
ports would show Dr. Pusey's to be fallacious. He con-
oeived that the difficulties in the way of working the statute
which Dr. Pusey could not see, had been underrated rather
than overrated. It was said that the delegates had forced
these difficulties on the framers of the statue; but this was
not the case. The delegates had asked for no change in the
system actually at work. They had merely (as doubts had
arisen as to the wording of the old statute) asked that the
system at work—with which they were satisfied—should be
legalized. He hoped the present statute would be rejected,
and that the Council would then understand that what Con-
gregation wanted was the plan of the delegates.
The MASTER of Blamer'. agreed with Professor Rawlin-
son and Mr. Griffith as to the difficulty of working the
statute. He argued that the making the religious examina-
tion a "plucking subject" would induce numbers to decline
it, and that it was undesirable to make boys at such an early
age declare themselves Dissenters. The Cambridge system
had been spoken of in favourable terms by the supporters
of the statutes, but they forgot to mention that by that
system no one was " plucked" for failure in religious know-
ledge. He thought the experience of the delegates had been
unduly slighted, and mentioned that Dr. HOWOOII, of Liver-
pool, and Mr. Giffard (late of Birmingham school) were
strongly against the proposed compulsion.
Professor BERNARD opposed the statuteon three grounds
—its extreme complication, the difficulty in working it, and
the contradiction between the compulsion now sought to be
introduced and the principle of opening the examination to
all which had been originally adopted.
Professor SHIRLEY regretted that the statute was not in
English. It might then have been intelligible. lie did not
regard it as embodying the principle which he had wished
to support in signing the document circulated by Dr. Pusey,
He disliked the double doctrinal standard—Scripture and
the Prayer Book—which it was proposed to set up in a sort
of contrast one with the other. If the statute was again
brought forward in its present shape, he hoped the ?at_
clause of the third paragraph would be made the subjec 01
a separate vote.
Professor BURROW'S thought that coin
necessary feature of a statute on such a subject::
as very kn.
the house. He regarded Dr. Pusey's statit
be generally
portant, and believed that the statute wouPlicattih°ant bweafsorae
thoui-,hithtehesr:swteolluildwbaes
acceptable to British parents.
diffi-
tthe delegates, the
The WARDEN of NEW COLLEGE
igtirrecaatddyitfivecluyltcyou
linpricoartkeir tnhde,m,yeenessursein.
the statute would
an
culty
examiners,very gredattlteinscercsroaisae:dyt.heut roe hopede of
be rejected.
ORIEL was in favnur of the statute,
The l'uovosT of
of the difficulties which had been spoken of.
and made light
He thought the only proper mode of dealing with the case
was to assimilate the examination to that already estab-
lished in the University itself, This was what the statute
proposed.
Mr. KING, of Merton, as one of the three parochial
clergymen who had not signed Dr. Pasey's document, gave
his reasons for dissent from it. He suctiorted the amend-
ment of Professor Smith. The Congregati‘in was dissolved
at 4 p.m.
The Vice-Chancellor has announced that tin;) Deriycr
prize will not be awarded this year.