The Press.
London, England, 1854-04-29 00:00:00

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

The first night's sitting of the Commons after the
Easter recess (Thursday) was occupied with a debate
upon the bill for reforming the University of Ox •
ford. The discussion sprung up upon the motion
for going into committee on the bill, to which an
amendment was moved by Mr. Heywood, who pro-
posed to refer the measure to a select committee.
The following debate assumed a rather cursory
character, arising from the indirectness of the
amendment placed before the house to the objects
which were kept in view by its supporters on dif-
ferent sides. The proposers and many other
speakers from the Ministerial section of the mem•
hers wished the bill to pass before a select com-
mittee for the purpose of invigorating it, and
especially in the hope that some provision would be
introduced for the admission of dissenters and the
abrogation of all religious tests. On the other hand,
the amendment found many advocates who avowedly
designed to delay, and, if possible, frustrate, the bill
altogether.
in introducing his amendment, Mr. HEYWOOD
contended that the existing university system con-
tained a multiplicity of evils, some of long standing,
others of gradual growth, and arising from the
changes in the social and educational condition of
the country, which demanded a much more exten-
sive reform than was contemplated in the present
measure.
Mr. NEwrEoATE expressed his willingness to sup-
port the amendment, because he believed that the
bill required reconsideration, in order to modify its
harsher features, and prevent it from interfering
unjustly and inexpediently with the self-action of the
university authorities.
Mr. EWA.RT would not consent to embarrass the
progress of the Government measure, of whose
general tendency he expressed a warm approval,
although he regretted that it did not offer any con-
cession of equal rights to the dissenting body.
Mr. HORSHAM dilated upon the vast importance
of the question at stake, and insisted on the neces-
sity of giving it a deliberate consideration. At
present he feared that neither the house nor the
country sufficiently understood the university sys-
tem; and that the measure before them had been
framed without a due appreciation of all its evils
or capabilities. These he exhibited by tracing the
career of an university student, and argued that the
results showed how deplorably the opportunities
afforded by those institutions were misused or left
unimproved. The knowledge obtained therein,
whether relating to classical, philosophical, or theo-
logical subjects, was of the most inefficient descrip
tion, insomuch that England produced no text books
upon any one of those branches of study, but was
forced to derive them from Germany. Nevertheless,
he admitted that the bill promised to do much good,
even though it left much more undone. If it had
been possible to save the bill for the session, and yet
subject it to revision by a select committee, he should
have preferred that course, but would not vote for
amendment of it, which seemed likely to throw over
the measure for another year.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended the
universities, whose shortcomings, he argued, had
been much exaggerated, while the erudition of their
members was equally undervalued. The practical
defects of the system were of a far less aggravated
character than had been alleged, and, as he con-
tended with considerable detail, were to be dealt with
by the bill in a manner that promised to provide
practical remedies for each of them, Altogether, he
submitted that the principle of the measure was
sound, and that no reason had been shown for delay-
ing its progress into committee. The inevitable con-
sequences of the amendment must be to suspend the
bill altogether for the present session.
Mr. HADFIELD thought the denial of justice to the
dissenters a fatal defect in the bill.
Lord JoaN RUSSELL, replying to Mr. Hadfield, ex-
postulated with him upon the illiberal spirit in which
he had denounced the alleged illiberality of the
Church and the Government. He repeated his
individual conviction that the dissenting body had a
just claim to admission into the universities, but
pointed out the prudential considerations which had
prevented his including that provision in the bill.
The concession was, however, in all probability, only

delayed.
Mr. HENLEY concurred in recommending that
the bill should be sent before a select committee.
Mr. MIALL condemned the measure of the Govern-
ment, urging that it evinced a narrow and timid sub;
servience to the prejudices of the episcopal bench,
and the upper branch of the Legislature. Parlia-
ment was asked to legislate for national institutions
in a sectarian spirit. If the bill were sent before a
select committee, the just claims of the dissenters
would obtain a hearing.
Mr. DISRAELI did not think that the amendment
was irrational merely because it delayed the progress
of the bill. If the house and the Government could
afford to delay the measure for Parliamentary Re-
form, there was no reason why the Oxford University

SATURDAY,

Bill should not be sent to the select committee. That
proceeding would not necessarily involve its sacrifice,
and promised to improve its texture. As it stood the
bill threatened to destroy the freedom and self-
governing power of the university. Contending that
the measure was unnecessary, and that the modifica-
tions it would effect must prove far less effective than
was anticipated, Mr. Disraeli proceeded to denounce
the prevalent fashion of tampering with great insti-
tutions, proposing change merely for the sake of
change, or iu order to remove a few blemishes. It
was far more dangerous to outrage the principle of
prescription than to retain a few anomalies. The
bill, he argued, contained an " appropriation clause,"
and, if successful, it might be drawn into a precedent
for much more stringent measures. In a select
committee such a danger may be guarded against.
This was an attack of the same kind as that which
was attempted upon the ecclesiastical revenues years
ago, and which tailed through the good sense of the
people. It was of the same class as the attempt to
reconstruct the parliamentary constitution of the
country. He defied the efforts of the German theolo-
gians to overturn the Christian religion. If they
made the attempt, the fate which overtook the like
effort in France would infallibly be theirs.
Mr. BRIGHT condemned the bill as a compromise
effected between two principles advocated by two
separate sections of the Administration. The result
had been to frame a very incomplete measure, in
which whatever good was proposed by one clause was
neutralised by another. Characterising the reform
which it would finally produce as a " tinkering amend.
ment," he urged that if the bill now passed the dis-
senters would lose all prospect of justice. It would
be assumed that the university question was settled,
and all further reform must stand over for an inde-
finite period. If the measure were postponed until
next year the dissenting community would have a
better chance. He denounced the pusillanimity of
the Government in refusing to challenge a direct
vote upon a question which involved, according to
their own admission the rights of eight or nine mil-
lions of English subjects.
Mr. VERNON SMITH declined to treat the alterna-
tive placed before the house as if it decided whether
dissenters should or should not be admitted to the
university. He should always advocate their admis-
sion ; but would not on that account adopt an
amendment which practically threw over the proposi-
tion for university reform. The bill might be im-
proved in committee, or so changed as to become not
worth adopting; but it should not be defeated by a

sidewind.
Mr. BLACKETT complained that the bill very ina-
dequately carried out the report of the Oxford Com-
mission. Especially were its shortcomings percep-
tible with regard to the provision for scientific educa-
tion and the non concession of equal rights to
dissenters. He intended to vote for the amendment.
Mr. W. J. Fox contended that the university re-
venues were designed for the benefit of the whole
nation, and ought not be diverted to the purposes of
a sect. Amendments removing the sectarian cha-
racterfrom those institutions were, however, proposed
for discussion in committee, and he should therefore
vote against referring the bill to a select committee.
After a few words of explanation from Mr. GLAD-
STONE, in reference to a passage in Mr. Bright's
speech,
The house divided—
For going into committee 172
For the amendment
The question " that the Speaker should leave the
chair" standing next in order, Mr. HENLEY inter-
posed with an expostulation against hurrying the
bill into committee, at a time when few members
knew precisely what were its exact provisions, or the
tendency of the numerous amendments proposed
upon its various clauses. The bill had undergone
innumerable modifications at the hands of the Go-
vernment themselves, and the last edition had only
been placed in the hands of hon. members that
morning. He thought that the delay of a week for
consideration and consultation would be only fair
and right.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that the great majority of the alterations alluded to
were merely verbal. Many nights of discussion
would be required before the bill got through com-
mittee, and there was no reason why more time
should be lost in commencing the work.
Sir J. PAXINGTON enforced the plea for delay, to
which Lord J. RUSSELL briefly replied, refusing to
yield.
Further appeals for time were made by Mr. New
degate, Mr. Wigram, Sir H. Willoughby, and Mr.
Disraeli. The Government, however, insisted on
going on at once, and, without any reply from the
Ministerial bench, a division was taken, and the reso•
lution that the Speaker should leave the chair was
passed by a majority of 160 to 101. The house
then went into committee on the bill, but only pro
formd. A brief conversation resulted in the chair-
man reporting progress, with leave to sit again on
Monday next.

1

I

APRIL 29, 1854,

SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL OF TIIE POOR.

On the motion of Mr. Batnatt, a select committee has been
appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act Nth and 9th
Vict., c. 117, relating to the removal from England of chargeable
poor persons born in Scotland, Ireland, the Isles of Man, Scilly,
Jersey, or Guernsey ; and also into the operation of the Act eth
and 9th Vict, c. 83, relating to the removal from Scotland of
chargeable poor persons born in England, Ireland, or the Isle of
Man.