1. Arrows of the Chase, II, 284. Cited by Curzon, G.N., in “The Conservatism of Young Oxford,” The National Review, 16 (June 1884): 515.Google Scholar

2. Ibid., 523.Google Scholar

3. See, Stone, Lawrence, “The Size and Composition of the Oxford Student Body 1580–1909,” in Stone, L. (ed.), The University in Society (Princeton, 1974), I, p. 74. See also his Table 2: “Social Status of Matriculants 1577–1885,” p. 93 and Table II: “Occupation of Fathers of Matriculants 1870–1910, p. 103. The problem with these statistics, especially Table 2, is that they were based on the medieval social categories of the matriculation register, which were largely outmoded by the 19th century (especially the crucial distinction between “armiger” and “gentleman”). Furthermore, they were based on the students' own evaluation of their own status, surely by no means an infallible guide. It is to be hoped that the History of Oxford University project under Aston, Trevor Mr. will undertake the laborious task of compiling data on social background based on more modern occupational and status categories.Google Scholar

4. Ibid., Table 2, I, p. 93. The matriculation register's category of “clerk” is one of the few to have an unambiguous meaning although, of course, it glosses over the critical status distinctions among the clergy.Google Scholar

5. Exact statistical information on the careers of Oxford students is at present wholly lacking but it is hoped that this lacunae as well will be eliminated by the History of Oxford University project.Google Scholar

6. George Curzon made several of these same points in 1884 when he speculated on the causes of “the Conservatism of Young Oxford.” Although he began by asserting the conservative influence of the historic beauty and tradition of the University itself, he continued, “Whilst the associations of the University are one of the causes of undergraduate Conservatism, home and school influences are, of course, another. The homes of the upper classes are very generally Conservative; the homes of the middle classes are steadily becoming so. The great public schools of England, so far as they can be said to have any political opinions, have always been enthusiastically Tory.” The National Review, 16 (June 1884): 523.Google Scholar

7. See Rothblatt, Sheldon, Tradition and Change in English Liberal Education (London, 1976) for a discussion of the development of this conception of “liberal education.” Google Scholar

8. See Ward, W.R., Georgian Oxford (Oxford, 1958) for the politics of the University in the 18th century. See Stone, Appendix IV, Table 1A, p. 91 for student numbers in the 18th century.Google Scholar

9. For an example of the kind of animosity which these elections could generate, see Macbride, J.D., A Reply to the Provost of Oriels Letter on the Future Representation of the University of Oxford. By the Principal of Magdalene Hall (Oxford, 1853) Oxon, G.A., c. 69(219). The issue here was the attempt by Macbride and the Oxford Tories to unseat Gladstone as M.P. for the University, when he had to undergo re-election on accepting office. Macbride was angered by Gladstone's refusal to fight against the admission of Jews to Parliament and his refusal to sanction measures against the “Papal Aggression” of reviving the Roman ecclesiastical sees in England.Google Scholar

10. See “Appendix: Careers of Oxford Dons,” p. 352 in Engel, Arthur, “Emerging Concepts of the Academic Profession at Oxford 1800–54,” in Stone, L. (ed.), The University in Society (Princeton, 1974), I.Google Scholar

11. “The Fourth School,” Oxon, G.A. c. 65(179). The author also attacked the plan on several other grounds, e.g., that the disciplinal value of modern history was inferior to classical studies (an objection on the basis of the dominant notion of “liberal education” of the period), that the subject of modern history is attractive enough to insure that it would be studied privately without university stimulus, and that the subject was easy and would draw students away from the severer discipline of classical studies.Google Scholar

12. Two Lectures on the Present State and Prospects of Historical Study (Oxford, 1876), pp. 6–7. 223 e. 58(1).Google Scholar

13. Ibid., p. 6.Google Scholar

14. G.A. Oxon. c. 70(170).Google Scholar

15. A Plea for the Historical Teaching of History (Oxford, 1904), p. 17. 263334 d. 7.Google Scholar

16. “Notice Issued by the Examiners, Easter Term, 1857.” Reprinted on p. 8 of Correspondence between the “Protestant Alliance” and the Examiners in Law and Modern History (Oxford and London, 1858). Oxon, G.A. 8 179(13).Google Scholar

17. The Rev. Vines, M.H. wrote on behalf of the “Protestant Alliance” to the Vice-Chancellor, “This Committee regard the fact that a Romish writer is thus publicly perferred and recommended by the authorities of a Protestant University, as one of painful importance. The efforts of Romanists to pervade the literature of the country, and especially historical publications, with their views, have been already too successful. Popular histories have been lately issued in which the Reformation and the promoters of it are entirely misrepresented. For the erroneous views thus circulated, Dr. Lingard is the authority generally appealed to; and when it can be asserted that his History has the sanction of the Public Examiners at Oxford, there is ground for fearing that the attempt to imbue the rising generation with anti-Protestant views and feelings may be greatly strengthened.” Ibid., p. 7.Google Scholar

18. The notice, dated Oct. 26, 1857, was reprinted in a public letter from E.A. Freeman to the Vice-Chancellor, dated Oct. 30, 1857, in G.A. Oxon. b. 29.Google Scholar

19. The letter was dated June 3, 1858. It is reprinted in Correspondence between the “Protestant Alliance” and the Examiners in Law and Modern History (Oxford and London, 1858) G.A. Oxon. 8 179(13).Google Scholar

20. This reconstruction of the controversy ignores several anomalies which are still shrouded in mystery. Vines, M.H.' dating of his letter to the Vice-Chancellor vaguely as “in February last [1858],” at least three months after the issuing of the Hebdomadal Council's rebuke, would indicate that the “Protestant Alliance” could have had no influence on this decision. However, Vines could easily have confused his dates and, in any case, the recommendation of Lingard could have aroused other protests in the University which, though unrecorded, reached the Council. An even greater problem is that it is unclear whether the Examiners were condemned because of Lingard or because they recommended that sources in Latin and French ought to be studied in the original languages. The “clarification” which was issued by the Examiners after consultation with the Council (see notice dated Dec. 18, 1857, in Oxon, G.A. b. 29) would suggest that the latter was the only objection, since it stated only that knowledge of the original languages of sources was desirable but not obligatory. However, the fact that the Council issued their original notice in such vague terms and then refused to explain their objections to the Examiners, as well as the views of the “Protestant Alliance,” would indicate that more was at stake. (See Minutes of the Hebdomadal Council 1854–1866 Univ. Arch. Ms. Oxon. W.P. 24(7), 198, 200, 204, 220, and 222 for all references to this matter. All minute books of the Hebdomadal Council cited by permission of the Keeper of the Archives and the Hebdomadal Council.) Unfortunately, the precedent cited by Dr. Scott, the Master of Balliol, when he brought this matter before the Council, does not clarify this problem. In 1853, the classical examiners were rebuked for “unauthoritative statements” but in this case the Vice-Chancellor's notice makes clear that the objection was to the examiners' insistance that candidates offer certain English works to supplement the classical texts. (see Univ. Arch. Oxon. MS. W.P. 24(7), p. 200 for this precedent. See also Osborne Gordon's protest, G.A. Oxon. c. 69(128), which alerted the Hebdomadal Board to this problem.) It is ironic that in this case as well as in that of the modern history examiners, despite the official rebuke, it was the examiners who ultimately won since their view of the scope of the Lit. Hum. examination became common practice by the 1860s.Google Scholar

21. See, Examination Papers 1874–77: 2nd Public: Group 3. 2626 d. 9.Google Scholar

22. For example, the “Political Economy” paper for the Pass School for Trinity Term 1884 asked such questions as “What various employments of capital are mentioned by Smith, Adam, and what are their respective advantages to a country?” and “State and prove Ricardo's theory of Rent. What objections have been raised to it? Compare it with Adam Smith's.” (See, Examination Papers. 2nd Public. Pass 1884–87, Group B.3, Political Economy I. 2626 d. 9.Google Scholar

23. See, 2626 e. 66, for examples of these papers.Google Scholar

24. Reported as the opinion of the workmen students at Ruskin College by Thomas Case in A Financial Danger to the University (Oxford, May 30, 1913), p. 6. (G.A. Oxon. c. 310 (123)). Admittedly, Case was a hostile witness, but the charge was not denied; in fact, it was obliquely substantiated, by the liberals who favored Ruskin College and the proposed grant of £100 for the extension of tutorial classes for workmen. See Strong, T.B. et. al., Proposed Grant to the Tutorial Classes Committee (Oxford, June 2nd, 1913) Oxon, G.A. c. 310(125), esp. #7.Google Scholar

25. Trinity Term 1883 (XXXVII. A, p. 91) in Oxf. Univ. Examination Papers. 1st Public: Greek and Latin Literature 1883–85 Per. 2626 e. 170.Google Scholar

26. Ibid., p. 91.Google Scholar

27. Michaelmas Term, 1883 (XXXVIII. A), p. 79, in Ibid.Google Scholar

28. The “Political Economy” paper also sometimes contained questions of a similar character. In Trinity Term 1878, for example, the disturbing question was asked, “In England the greater part of the land is the property of a few rich men. How has this come about, and what economic objections have been brought against such a condition of things?” See, Examination Papers 1878–79: 2nd Public: Group B, (Pol. Eco. I). Per. 2626 d. 9.Google Scholar

29. The Study of Ancient History at Oxford (Oxford 1912). 263334. e. 38(8).Google Scholar

30. Ibid., p. 25–26.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., p. 26.Google Scholar

32. Ibid., pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

34. See, Examination Papers 187277: 2nd Public: Modern History. 2626 e. 66.Google Scholar

35. All three questions from “The Great Rebellion II” paper. Ibid.Google Scholar

36. Ibid.Google Scholar

37. Firth, C.H., “Modern History in Oxford 1724–1841,” English Historical Review, v.32, 125 (Jan. 1917): 4.Google Scholar

38. Ibid., 6, citing Bliss, , Reliquiae Hearnianae for the king's official letter offering the chair to the University.Google Scholar

39. The Teaching of Indian History (Oxford, Jan. 20, 1914), pp. 24–25. 2625 d. 55(4).Google Scholar

40. Ibid., p. 27.Google Scholar

41. Ibid., pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

42. The University and the Study of War (Oxford, Nov. 27, 1909), p. 27. 2625 d. 55(6).Google Scholar

43. As Wilkinson noted, “The people of England have gradually come to see that war is a part of the real world …” Ibid., p. 7.Google Scholar

44. Freeman, E.A., “Oxford After 40 Years,” Contemporary Review, LI, p. 882. This sentiment was more delicately expressed by Cramer, J.A., Arnold's successor as Regius Professor, in his inaugural lecture. He suggested that modern history would be of especial value to those “who, not being candidates for distinctions which require greater powers of intellect as well as application, might nonetheless be most usefully employed on subjects within their reach, and yet in every respect well calculated to instruct and improve their minds.” Goldwin Smith, another Regius professor, argued that the school was created “with a view to the better education of the gentry.” All cited in Firth, C.H., Modem History in Oxford 1841 1918 (Oxford. 1920). p. 7.Google Scholar

45. For complaints by examiners, see Report of the Examiners in the School of Modern History, 1905 and Report of the Examiners in the School of Modern History, 1911 (both in Oxon, G.A. b. 138(79)) and Muir, Ramsey, School of Modern History (Oxford, Jan. 1914) Oxon, G.A. b. 141 (87a). C.H. Firth provides the statistics for Thirds and Fourths in Honours in History (Oxford, 1903) Oxon, G.A. 4° 186(5).Google Scholar

46. Cadogan, Edward, “Lament of an Oxford Tory,” The National Review, v.41, 241 (March 1903): 117.Google Scholar

47. Cited in Hollis, Christopher, The Oxford Union (London, 1965), p. 15.Google Scholar

48. Ibid., pp. 26–28.Google Scholar

49. Ibid., p. 40.Google Scholar

50. Ibid., p. 41.Google Scholar

51. Ibid., pp. 41–43. This rather romantic story is corroborated by John Morley, in his majesterial Life of W.E. Gladstone (London, 1903), I, p. 88.Google Scholar

52. See Poulton, E.B., “Memories of the Union in the Seventies,” p. 160 in his Viriamu Jones and other Oxford Memories (London, 1911) for an account of Union ritual.Google Scholar

53. Madan, Falconer, sub-librarian of the Bodleian, wrote in the Bodleian copy of this club's rules, “On this rule [VIII. That the club shall neither employ nor countenance the employment of any means that are not perfectly legal] the Society split up and faded away.” Oxon, G.A. b. 147.Google Scholar

54. Mentioned by Ashley, M.P. and Saunders, C.T., Red Oxford (Oxford, 1933). Oxon, G.A. 8° 1101(11). “… because they regarded themselves as advanced thinkers they took the name of Marx to signify the most advanced line of thought possible.” p. 6.Google Scholar

55. Even at the Union, the blackball was not eliminated until 1848 as the Society aspired to the status of a quasi-recognized University institution. See The Oxford Union, p. 71.Google Scholar

56. As the historian of the Chatham Club remarked, having speakers from London was “a very desirable arrangement for bringing the Oxford Tories into touch with the Parliamentary Party.” L[ockhart], J.G., The History of the Chatham Club, Oxford and List of Members, From 1864 to 1922 (Oxford 1922), p. 55. G.A. Oxon. 8° 1013.Google Scholar

57. For example, the first annual Chatham Club dinner on Dec. 2, 1876 closed with six toasts. The minutes of the club record that after the last toast and the band playing “Sweethearts,” “… the guests present standing on their chairs and with joined hands sang ‘Auld Lang Syne’ the sentiments of which all present must fully have echoed, and the evening was concluded by singing ‘God Save the Queen’ whom may He long preserve.” (History of Chatham Club, pp. 15–16) This spirit of conviviality and drunken sentimentality must have played a large role in all the political clubs at Oxford. These entertainments were also quite expensive: this particular dinner cost 25/ per person, about two weeks wages for an agricultural laborer of the period, more than a week's wages for an Oxford policeman.Google Scholar

58. Of 360 members between 1864 and 1900, by 1922 26 had been a member of the House of Commons. Another 5% had been members of the House of Lords, twelve as peers and six as bishops. See membership lists and capsule biographies in History of the Chatham Club for the source of this information.Google Scholar

59. “The Oxford Knownothings,” June 4, 1864, p. 586.Google Scholar

60. Ibid., pp. 585–86.Google Scholar

61. The Oxford Union, p. 26. The topic was “That religious differences are not a just ground for exclusion from political rights.Google Scholar

62. History of the Chatham Club, p. 47.Google Scholar

63. Red Oxford, p. 5. When the political clubs began to reach out toward active involvement in politics the chances of violence, of course, grew. When the Oxford Carlton Club, for example, held a meeting at the Masonic Hall on Oct. 19, 1920 at which a speech against “Bolshevism” was made, the Bodleian copy of the notice has written on it “Disturbances Expected!” G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

64. The minutes of the Chatham Club in the late 19th century, for example, bristle with expressions of extreme reactionary views. In 1882 the minutes report that one member “casting political morality to the winds … advocated the promotion of a European War and the appropriation of all we could possess ourselves of in the general confusion.” (History of the Chatham Club, p. 29) Although there was certainly some humerous deprecation in the reporting of the speech, (the member was reported as speaking “with all the truculence he could throw into his voice and eyeglass”) it may well have been intended seriously. In any case, the privacy of the club setting made it easy to dismiss such expressions as merely amiable eccentricity and youthful exuberance.Google Scholar

65. The use of the new name “league” for these new organizations was not accidental. As George Brodrick, the Warden of Merton, said at the founding of the Liberal Unionist League, “The name ‘League’ was not chosen at haphazard: it was deliberately adopted, in order to show that we never for a moment intended to found a new club of the same nature as the Palmerston or the Russell, the Canning or the Chatham.” (from speech reported in the Oxford Times, Dec. 8, 1888, clipping in Liberal Unionist League packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

66. See I.F.L. packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

67. Packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

68. Packet in G.A. Oxon. 4° 603.Google Scholar

69. Packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

70. Packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

71. Packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 147.Google Scholar

72. Packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

73. Reported in Oxford Times, June 18, 1887, of meeting June 15th; clipping in I.F.L. packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

74. Reported in Oxford Times, Dec. 8, 1888, clipping in L.U.L. packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

75. Ibid.Google Scholar

76. See above pp.Google Scholar

77. Brodrick had always been a frustrated politician. He had been a leader writer for The Times before his election to the headship of Merton and was an unsuccessful Liberal candidate for Parliament several times afterward. The Oxford Unionists were clearly a vehicle for Brodrick's passionate political committments and ambitions. He also came under some public criticism in the University for his political activities. (See L.U.L. packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146 for memorial, dated Feb. 11, 1889, defending Brodrick against these charges.) Google Scholar

78. Freeman, E.A., the Regius Professor of Modern History, was the Chairman, , Pelham, H.F. of Exeter was the Treasurer, A. Sidgwick of CCC was chairman of the committee. Prominent members included Shadwell, C.L. of Oriel, F. York Powell of Ch.Ch., T.W. Allen of Queens, E.B. Poulton of Jesus, F.H. Peters of Univ., Esson, W. of Merton, L.R. Phelps of Oriel among the college fellows and tutors, and Legge, Rhys, Markby, and Grueber among the professors and readers. (See H.R.L. packet in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.) Google Scholar

79. There is some evidence that the politics of the dons, though not of the undergraduates or of the graduates as a whole, were becoming less solidly Tory in the late 19th century. In contrast to the donnish leadership of the Home Rule League, for example (see above, note #78), the Oxford “Habitation” of the Primrose League, a Conservative Party organization, could boast only two dons (A.T.S. Goodrick of St. John's as “Chaplain” and E.W. Bussell of BNC as an active member) among its leaders. Neither the Ruling Councillor (F.S. Pulling of Exeter) nor the treasurer (G.O. Bellewes of BNC) were college fellows though both were graduates and Oxford residents. (See G.A. Oxon. b. 146 for packet on Primrose League) A few socialists could even be found in the senior common rooms of the late 19th century, for example, Sidney Ball of St. Johns, A.J. Carlyle and G.D.H. Cole of Univ., and A.D. Lindsey of Balliol.Google Scholar

80. Report dated April 30, 1886 in G.A. Oxon. b. 146.Google Scholar

81. Seton, Mr. of New College, April 19, 1886, see Ibid.Google Scholar

82. Report dated April 30, 1886, in Ibid. The Habitation had 140 members in 1886.Google Scholar

83. In Hilary Term 1913 for example, the Fabian Society had 70 full members (52 undergraduates) as well as 52 “associates” (41 undergraduates) who did not fully accept Fabian principles and who, therefore, were allowed to attend meetings but did not have voting rights. See Fabian Society packet in G.A. Oxon. 4° 600.Google Scholar

84. These meetings were held on May 5th and Nov. 11th, respectively. See Ibid.Google Scholar

85. Red Oxford, p. 10. See pp. 9 16 passim. for discussion of Oxford Fabian Society.Google Scholar