The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-05 00:00:00

r

composed of 10 or 1,000, there would still be two factions,
who would be brought into continual collision? It seemed
to him that far more important than the ques'ion of teach- I
ing was that of the moral discipline of those who were s3nt
to the university. And for this purpose boapro-
posed by the Government, was far more likely
to be
cient than if the non-residents who could not devote their
time to the subject formed part of it. (Hear.)
ewmerbeerpserfofeocotlynvooorfica.-
:idol of discipline ; and,
sai doant allO
questions
tri:Mtne,roht ICatvYfnWogr Dmb been educated
judgmentATE
as most of them had sons to be educated, they were not
• -
likely to be in favour of a lax discipline. It was not merely
that a veto was given by the clause—the resident body
were to decide whether or not convocation should express
an opinion on any subject. There was nothing in the pre-
vious history of the university to justify such a provision.
Its history showed that the residents were liable to great
party bias and strong sectarian feeling, and that the
remedy for that was to be looked for in convocation.
Lord R. CECIL said, as convocation existed at present,
and as it would exist if the amendment were carded, the
effect was to leave all matters of minor detail and all ques-
tions of scholastic discipline to those who were best able
to deal with them, namely, the residents, and there was
no reason to fear that clergymen would come from Corn-.
wall or NOrthumberland to take such matters out of their
hands. (Hear.) He might appeal to experience in support
of this view. Two months ago, when the important question
of the reform, or, as some called it, the destruction of the
university, was mooted, only 200 members assembled; and
at the late election for the university, out of 3,000 members,
barely 2,000 could be induced to vote. It was not on ques-
tions of detail that he wished to see convocation have the
power of interference ; but surely on such a question
as that of the introduction of the study of the physical
sciences, noblemen and judges were as well qualified to
pronounce an opinion as the resident members of the
university. It was a mistake to suppose that the tutors
were the most talented men belonging to the university.
There were many men of great talent among them, but the
hotly did not include the highest talent of the university
at large. He should certainly support the amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it seem-
ed to him that the house was in danger of forgetting what
was essential to a right apprehension of the point to be dis-
cussed. The hon. member for North Warwickshire (Mr.
Newdegate) had spoken as if they were now discussing
proposal to put into the hands of the congregation the full
powers projected and designed by the bill. That, however,
was not the case. The principal part of the electoral power
had, by a vote of the committee, which he much regretted,
been taken from the congregation ; and the question now
was, whether a small portion of that power should not be
placed in the hands of the congregation. The speech of the
noble lord (Lord R. Cecil) was also calculated to create mis-
apprehension. The whole tone of that speech, as well as its
language, was adapted to produce an impression that a pro-
posal had been made by the government to deprive the con-
vocation of powers which it at present possessed. Convoca-
tion was to be deprived of no power whatever which it pos-
sessed. He might be told that it was to be subject to a veto
—that the 'congregation was to determine whether any
question should come before it or not. That was perfectly
true. But was there anything new in that propose],? The
Hebdomadal Board had hitherto exercised precisely the
same power. What was the difference between the exercise
of this power by the Hebdomadal Board and its exercise by
the congregation ? Which was the most favourable for the
university, to have an absolute veto placed in the hands of
the irresponsible heads of private societies, who did not
carry on the discipline of the university, or to have it vested
in an assembly which included every working man in the
university ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the
member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had complained of
the animadversionsof the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) upon
his speech ; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must
say that he thought they were deserved. (Hear, hear.) He
had never heard from any gentleman in that house a speech
so disparagine to the university; and he must add so un-
worthy of one of her sons. (Cheers.) It was true the right
hon. gentleman spoke, not of the convocation, but of the
resident body. For every working purpose, however, the
resident body was the university. (Hear.) Who were to
educate their children? Who were to exercise discipline
over them ? On whom were their children to be depen-
dent ? Was it on the bishops on the bench, or on the jutlgee
in the courts? No, the working university was the resi-
dent university. (Hear, hear.) It was the resident uni-
versity that was engaged in the work of tuition. And how
did the right hon. gentleman describe it ? Ho said, that
among that body every question was carried according to
party, by religious hate and animosity ; it was always in
one dangerous extreme or another. He said that for the
last fifteen years it had been in the Tractarian extreme,
and he supposed that for the next fifteen years it would be
in the Rationalist extreme.
Mr. HENLEY said he would not be misrepresented in
that way. What lie said was, that it had been in the Trac-
taiian extreme, and that the right hon. gentleman knew
better than he (lid. (Opposition cheers.) He also s aid
that the hon member for Stroud ha 1 stated that it was
now in the Rationalist extreme, but that he (Mr. Henley)
did not believe it. That was what he sail, and the right
hon. gentleman might misrepresent him as much as he
pleased. (Opposition cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
right hon. gentleman had no right to say that he wilfully
misrepresented him. He apprehended that he had a right
to appeal to the Speaker'for protection against the angry
taunts of the right hon. gentleman. - (Laughter from the
Opposition.) The right hon. gentleman had no right to
tell any member of that house that he might misrepresent
him if he pleased. It was the first time in his experience
in that house that he had heard any member, especially a
member o the right hon. gentleman's age and gravity, im-
pute to another member wilful misrepresentation. That
was what -the right hon. gentleman had choseti to impute
to him. He trusted he did not require to defend himself
against such an imputation. (Ministerial cheers.) He main-
tained that he had not misrepresented and not misappre-
hended the right non. gentleman. His statement was that
for the last fifteen years the resident university had' al;
ways been in one, extreme or other, and that if this power
were granted the same state of things would exist. That
was the whole pith of his speech, and if that were not its
meaning it had no meaning at all. Having had seven
years' acquaintance with the members of the university,
he ventured to say that the right honourable gentle-
man knew nothing of their character, or he would
never have made such a statement respecting them.
The spirit of party which unfortunately prevailed to so
great an extent in the Church of England did not prevail
with half so much virulence in the University of Oxford
as it prevailed out of it. The reason of this it was not
very difficult to divine. These gentlemen at Oxford had
something else to think about than party disputes. A
more laborious and hard-working body could not be found
in any part of the country. Surely also something was to
be ascribed to the humanising and alleviating influences
of their literary and civilising pursuits. For these reasons
he did not hesitate to say that the spirit of party, whether
political or religious, was less strong at that moment in
the University than out of it. They had just been told
that the tutors of Oxford were not a very distinguished
body, and that they did not fairly represent the members
of the congregation in point of ability:- He admitted that
the tutors were at the present moment not equal to what
they would be ten years hence if the house passed this bill.
(Laughter from the Opposition, and cheers from the Mini-
sterial side.) There were certain colleges in Oxford which
were called close colleges, and when these were made open
the tutors would represent the very elite of the university.
As the noble lord had made these remarks, he felt bound
to say that he received the other day a statement—from
whom it came he knew not—which gave in detail a
result which_ was rather curious. It gave in three classes
the heads of houses at Oxford, the tutors and the pro-
fessors. Of the heads of houses there was a certain
portion of distinguished men who were never examined
in schools, having passed through the university course be-
fore the examination was instituted. It appeared, how-
ever, that out of seventeen heads of houses who were ex-
amined, six took first-class honours ; out of sixteen pro-
fessors who were examined, twelve took first-class honours;
and out of twenty-one tutors who were examined, fourteen
took first-class honours. Under these circumstances, he
' thought the noble lord ought not to have made any state-
ment disparaging to this body of men. The noble lord
(R Cecil) seemed to think that the leaving of the choice of
the members of convocation who were to fill up the num-
ber of the Hebdomadal Council to a body necessarily resi-
dent-would lead to party feelings and factious doings
(hear)—and he almost intimated that Government had
taken no step whatever for securing the University from
those evils. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged
to point out that the proposed meaunre left out two classes
of persons, on the very ground of their liability to be in-
fluenced by local considerations The noble lord would
rind that the Government bill extended neither to the pa-
rochial clergy nor to the chaplains of colleges. (Hear.) He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) dissented strongly from
those who said that the decision of Convocation would
be better than that of Congregation ; he could not but
recollect that all the reforming movement in the univer-
sity had been on the part of the younger branches of the
university. There were many, very many, able men and
honest reformers in the ranks of the university; but they
were amongst the junior, not the senior branches. There
had been a very recent instance of the resident and non-
resident feelings in the university. There was no need to
go back to 183 t to test the matter. Upon two occasions
during the present year appeals had been made to convoca-
tion. In the first place, an appeal was made in order to
get up an address to the Crown on behalf of a new consti-
tution, projected by certain parties, for Oxford—a consti-
tution which had found no one in that house hardy enough
to bring it forward. That address would most surely have
been thrown over had the matter depended upon the resi-
dents at Oxford. So also would the petition which had
been presented to that house against the present
petition by the way adopted by the majority of two only.
(Hear, hear.) He should much like to know whether,
upon the occasions which called men to Oxford, it was the
quiet and temperate, those unbiassed by party feeling, who
went there? Certainly not -They would -be found to be
the men of the strongest political and religious party feel-
ings. He ventured to say that an appeal to the facts upon
the two occasions only to which he had adverted, would
fully testify the truth of this statement. There was one
more point which he thought conclusive on this gees-
tion. The house in its wisdom had decided upon
adopting a representation by classes ; it had said the heads
of houses shall select the heads of houses, the professors
the professors, who are to form part of the Hebdomadal
Board. Surely. it was only just and fit to carry out the
same principle in this instance, and leave these members of
the board to be chosen by congregation. Common justice
and fair principle required that some portion of power
should be given to that class who did the work of the uni-
versity.
Had an opposite course been pursued by the
house
t :e
uthsome
ba
asehtfohowui
nnogdfa :Beet
07todenftemhvoierguehrt.a madeebeeHmee
(hi
edao ftomor
netnehtaiisiena aned mgle end-
ment,
be-
fore, and rape ttel now, that it was the resident body in
Oxord who hada been most favourable to the commission
measure. It were now most favourable to the present
were a body standee
of 1850, who wet.
bristling with standing
thought by some that the tutors
alone--a sort of Macedonian pha-
lanx,amongst those who were
actually bill, a large number wieretpersThoniss Inl'yotentghaegefdactin;
the
spears,
inclined to the Government
business of'tuition.
consent to the amendment
trusted that the house would not
Lord R. CECIL explained that he
disparage the tutors. All that he hadhad no intention to
was that when the various ranks of societyintended to say
it would be found that the proportionof were looked to,
sity men not tutors was greater than thoseallcae"fni "iv"-
pied that position. who had occu-
-1 Mr. lIORSMAN was sorry to find that what he hada aa
on a former occasion had conveyed to some the idea thatt
ho thought the university in a rationalistic state. He did
not say or believe that such was the case. (Hear.) Hs,
statement was, that the manner in which things were at
present going on was tending to Germanise the university.
Such be still thought to be the case, and in proof of the
soundness of that opinion, ht reminded the committee
that the classics in use at Oxford were those edited by Ger.
man professors, and the theology was the theology of that.,
country also. With regard to the particular amendment
wig; couacleatioU lie did uot, tilio bill Loy toad,