and he finally succeeded in carrying his point. In the meantime parliament had been dissolved and convocation with it. On its reassembling, Wilberforce, taking advantage of Bishop Phillpotts's point that the prohibition against the transaction of business applied to the alteration of canons and not to discussion, succeeded in prolonging its session for several days [see Phillpotts, Henry]. By keeping the matter away from the public until it was ripe, he contrived to let convocation, in his own words, ‘feel its way to a revival of its functions’ (Life of S. Wilberforce, ii. 170). His action met with no support either from the friendly government of Lord Aberdeen or from the archbishop. But, at length, in 1858, he succeeded in winning over the archbishop (ib. p. 268), who had till then consistently opposed the extension of the sittings, and, with his approval, its discussions became more and more wide until, in 1860, it unanimously addressed the crown for license to alter the twenty-ninth canon on the subject of sponsors in baptism. The license was granted the following year. In this particular case no legislation followed, but due effect was given to a similar license granted in 1865 for the amendment of other canons, and since then the convocations both of Canterbury and York have recovered a portion of their ancient authority as the proper organs for the expression of clerical opinion. In the negotiations which led to this reform Wilberforce was, as appears from the letters published after his death, the ruling spirit, although he gladly availed himself of the historical learning of Bishop Phillpotts and Mr. Henry Hoare.
All Wilberforce's tact, however, was not sufficient to prevent him from falling into great, though temporary, unpopularity. In November 1847 the see of Hereford was offered by the prime minister to Renn Dickson Hampden [q. v.], then regius professor of divinity at Oxford. But Hampden's opinions, as shown in his writings, were distasteful to all high-churchmen. They had been condemned by convocation of the university in 1836, and an attempt in 1842 to repeal the statute of condemnation had failed. On the intended appointment being announced, steps were taken by the bishops to protest against it, the remonstrance to Lord John Russell being signed by thirteen out of twenty-six English prelates. In this remonstrance, of which Bishop Phillpotts was the mainspring, and Bishop Kaye of Lincoln the most active signatory, Wilberforce joined. Petitions followed from clergy and laity, both for and against the appointment, and Wilberforce wrote to Lord John expressing no opinion as to Hampden's orthodoxy, but asking the prime minister on the ground of expediency to require him to disprove the charges against him before his consecration. To this request Lord John did not accede, and articles for a prosecution were drawn up by W. H. Ridley, E. Dean, and H. G. Young, all beneficed clergy in the diocese of Oxford. The matter thus came before Wilberforce officially, the rectory of Ewelme, which was attached to Hampden's professorship, being within his diocese. The first step of the promoters under the Clergy Discipline Act of 1840 was to give notice to the bishop that the articles were about to be filed, in order that he might, if he thought fit, issue letters of request transmitting the case to the court of arches. He privately promised to do so, being under the impression that Hampden was about to ask for trial in a letter to Lord John Russell, which he was reported to be on the point of publishing. On 15 Dec. Hampden's letter appeared without the anticipated request for trial. On the following day the letters of request to the court of arches for Hampden's trial were signed by Wilberforce, who informed Hampden of the fact (ib. i. 454). On the following day (17 Dec. 1847) he again wrote to Hampden. He sent a list of questions on points of doctrine, to which he invited Hampden's affirmation, asking him at the same time to withdraw the inculpated writings, and stating that if he did so the articles against him would be withdrawn. Hampden replied satisfying the tendered test, but gave no answer to the demand for the withdrawal of the writings. Later, it came to Wilberforce's knowledge that that book by Hampden on which the promoters of the writ laid most stress was being sold, if at all, against the author's wish. Meanwhile the archbishop wrote privately to Wilberforce urging him strongly to quash the suit. Finally Wilberforce withdrew the letters of request, and approached Hampden with a view to obtaining from him the expurgation of the offending passages from his writings. In consideration of his assent to this expurgation, he offered to procure the withdrawal of the bishops' remonstrance. Although Hampden did not accede to Wilberforce's wishes, the bishop wrote to him on 28 Dec. 1847 that on the whole he considered his assurances satisfactory, and that he would use his influence to withdraw all opposition to his consecration. There can be little doubt that by his vacillation throughout the proceedings Wilberforce laid himself open at the time to the charge of facing both ways. But from the letters to his brother published in his ‘Life’ (i. 494–7) it is plain that the
