proper to disapprove of them.  I believe it will be admitted that, if a clergyman who published certain opinions, not being orthodox, thought proper to come forward and explain those opinions, at least they who were opposed to such opinions had some justification, on their being repeated, for the course they had taken in disapproving of them.  This is all I wish to say respecting the opinions and explanation of Dr. Hampden.  His appointment having been made, notwithstanding the petition of a vast number of the clergy of Oxford, and the general opinion expressed there that it should not be made, a request was preferred to the heads of houses that they would propose some measure to the convocation which would have the effect of marking the disapprobation on the part of that body of the opinions and appointment of Dr. Hampden.  The noble earl has alluded to the act of convocation excluding Dr. Hampden from being one of those to appoint the select preachers, and also from sitting at the board of heresy.  I am not disposed to say anything against Dr. Hampden; but this I must say, that, considering the whole transaction, my opinion is, the convocation did as little upon that occasion as it was possible to do, consistently with the necessity which existed of taking some notice of that gentleman, his opinions and conduct.  Since that period, I really believe that the university, and the bishops of the church of England, and all the persons who have any influence on this question, have done everything in their power to put it down, and prevent it becoming a subject of discussion, even in the university or elsewhere.  For myself, I can say, I have invariably pursued that course, it being my object to prevent any discussion on the matter; and I never should have mentioned it, here or elsewhere, publicly, if the noble earl had not forced it upon me on the present occasion.  I certainly lament the transaction, principally because I consider it is likely to produce a schism in the church; and I have been as anxious as any man can be in my situation, to prevent the university from proceeding on the subject in such a manner as may, by possibility, lead to that result.

The noble earl adverted to the conduct of a gentleman who is now vice-chancellor of the university, and who has, in his capacity of head of a house, prohibited the attendance of the students in divinity upon the lectures of the Regius Professor.  I do not at all pretend to be competent to mark the difference between the private and public lectures of the Regius Professor; but I certainly do not approve of the course taken by that gentleman.  In my opinion, the question is not one to be considered by the head of a house; for, in fact, no ordination can be conferred by him or the Regius Professor of Divinity.  Ordination can only be conferred by the bishops of the church; and whether the students attend the lectures of the Regius Professor of Divinity, or those of the Margaret Professor, or of any other professor, I will say, it