The (almost really) Complete Works of Lewis Carroll

To the Editor of Pall Mall Gazette

Sir,—The Times of June 2 contains a letter, signed “A Fox that has not lost his Tail,” on the subject of the Oxford memorial for the retention of clerical fellowhsips, and calling attention to the fact that more than 70 per cent. of those who signed it were themselves in holy orders, but that this was kept out of sight by printing the names without the title of “reverend.” (“A Fox,” by the way, has not chosen his nom de plume very happily: he evidently thinks that the maimed fox represents the clergyman, whereas the analogy is really on the other side; it is certainly more easy, in these days, for a clergyman to become a layman than for a layman to become a clergyman. A stern critic might add that “a fox” has no “tail” to lose, but only a “brush”—but let that pass.) Now, without going so far as to assume that “A Fox” means to impute dishonest motives to 70 per cent. of those who signed the memorial, whether in affixing their names or in not affixing the title “Reverend,” I may at least assume him to mean that the fact of their being in holy orders ought to lessen the value of their signatures on that side of the question. May I appeal to any readers interested in this matter to show an Englishman’s love of justice, by applying the argument impartially, and thus lessening in the same degree the value of the lay signatures (more than 80 per cent. of the whole number) on the opposite side? “A Fox” may reply that the cases are not parallel—that the other memorialists do not seek to restrict fellowhsips to laymen, but would throw them open to all alike. This has a very plausible sound, and at first suggests the idea that, supposing intellectual qualifications equal, any vacant fellowhsip is as likely to be filled by a clergyman as by a layman; but a moment’s thought will detect the fallacy: the practical effect of all being thrown open would necessarily be to produce the same ratio between the clerical and lay element in the class of college fellows as exists in that section of society from which they are drawn, where the clerical element can hardly be 5 per cent. of the whole. Thus the advocates of open competition are really advocating the principle that about 95 per cent. of our fellowhsips should be held by laymen. But surely there is no principle of natural justice in this particular proportion; its existence in society arises from causes unconnected with education, and it can hardly be thought unreasonable that those who think Christian principles an important element in education (representing, as they do, the feelings of many parents who send their sons to the universities) should wish to secure, in our educational body, a larger proportion of the clerical element. But this can only be done by restricting a certain number of Fellowships to clerical holders. At present the educational body of Oxford contains about four lay teachers to three clerical.—Your obedient servant,