The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-28 00:00:00

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. R. PALMER moved that it be an instruction to
the committee that they have power to provide for th•
case of Winchester College in connection with New Col-

lege.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assented
to the motion.
After a few words from Mr. WALroLE, the motion
was agreed to.
Mr. HEYWOOD moved as an amendment that the
bill be committed to a select committee, as the bill em-
braced matters which could not be so well disposed
of in a committee of the whole house as in
select committee consisting of a few members who
were thoroughly conversant with the whole subject.
There was no provision in the bill for recognising pri-
vate tutors, which was a great omission, but which
could be easily remedied by a select committee. The
university of Oxford, from its eminence and import-
ance, ought to be able to command all the talent
in the country ; but. owing to the system which
prevailed there it certainly did not ; and the effect
of this bill, if it passed as it now stood, would
be to perpetuate its bad features instead of re-
forming the system. A much larger measure of reform
was required by the coun than this, and he was con-
vinced the question woultrd y not be satisfactorily settled
until the colleges of the university ceased to be institu-
tions simply of et monastic character. The question
of fellowships was one which required a great deal of
consideration—it was not a proper one to be dealt
with in a committee of the whole house, but should be
rather
ogfr
eathtee
greater,
referred
university
totyhaa select
nth comm.
required
e billay trhiotopt
reooes
ue dg
"Tale and
dh
change--much
gwe aI m constitutionvuecri,i
much on that ground that he wished it to be committed
to a select committee, where its provisions could be ex-
tended and improved.
Mr. MIALL seconded the amendment.
Mr. NE\VDEGATE should support the amendment,
but from a very different motive to that of the hon.
member who proposed it. He did not believe the house
could, in its collective capacity, understand the merits
of this question, or the constitution of this
ancient university. Besides, the bill was un-
just in its provisions ; it most unwarrantably
proposed to disfranchise the corporation of the Univer-
sity, while it also legislated in a spirit and on a principle
which would ultimately lead to the separation of the
University from the Church of England. He was there-
fore most anxious to have the bill referred to a select
committee that should he competent to deal fairly with
the subject, and who should feel disposed to approach
the question with a very different feeling to that which
necessarily must animate a committee of the whole

house.
Mr. EWART cordially supported many of the enact'
ments contained in this bill, which, to his vow,
tdi.d
not go far enough. lie rejoiced to find tha.
proposed to abolish the privileges of the
sity ; there was always something very suspicions
in an institution that enjoyed what
e a
er b
privileges, and in his opinion the Universiiwtyweooluitli calledion dde.
rive great benefit rather than suffer from thi of
ae vd er s I n
of dissenters to the university
oat
the seai s t i g
It w,s
; when the
withthisbill rfeot
h;oped
he avr no provision thoew,
m
_
bill was committed, that omission would be supplied.
Mr. HORSMAN thought the Government had
introduced this bill at the
_right time, and
had framed it in a right it spirit ; and he was
therefore rather surprised that should have received
so much opposition. At the same time, he did not think
the subject was sufficiently understood to admit of its
being dealt with in a committee of the whole house; it could
be much better disposed of in a select committee. It
was not a mere question of detail that had to be con-
sidered, but it was the whole question of Univer-
sity reform, and he felt the subject was not yet
sufficiently ventilated to render it prudent for them to
frame the provisions of the bill in a committee of the
whole house. He compared the condition of the Ger-
man and the English universities, showing the inferiority
of the latter as regarded various' branches of learning,
and observing that there was no modern theology in the