The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-18 00:00:00

wasproposed to convocation. Of the whole number of mem-
bers of convocation only about one-tenth part voted for this
constitution. But that is not all. While the majority of
the- parliamentary constituency, so to call it, voted one
wiy, the immense majority of the working body voted
the other way. Of the teaching body of the University of
Oxford- there were two to one against the petition which
was recommended by the university. (Hear, hear.) I
ask, therefore, whether, under such circumstances—l say
nothing now of the supremacy of Parliament—it would be
rational that we should be such slaves of form, because
one-tenth of the whole body met, and there were two to
one who voted against a particular measure, as to regard
that particular measure as being invested with the plenary
authority of the university? But this is not all. I con-
tend that the Government in making this proposal to Par-
liament are standing strictly upon historical and constitu-
tional ground, with reference to the universities, and to
take the opposite course, as my right hon. friend suggests,
would be standing on ground altogether the reverse. What
is the statute that is now in question ? It is one of three in
the university which are called the Caroline statutes. Now,
the-University of Oxford under the governance of the Lau-
dian code, framed that statute by delegacy of the convoca-
tion, and, therefore, I take it as being the work of the uni-
versity itself. So ramed, it received the sanction of the
Crown. Well, if that was the case with this statute, no
doubt you might fairly say that the precedent should be
to let the university frame a statute, and the Crown give
to it its sanction. Now, in the case of the Caroline statute,
upon which the constitution exists, that was framed under
the authority of the Crown, and accepted by the university;
it was afterwards inserted in the Laudian code, but it owed
its origin to the Government of the country. That is. the
point on which I stand ; and therefore I say it was the busi-
ness of the Government of the country not to consider them-
selves precluded from dealing with the formation of such a
statute. The other question to which I wish to advert, is a
question which relates to what may be called the sanctity
of property—the diversion of certain property connected
with the colleges for the purposes of the university. The
right honourable gentleman who has just sat down has
applied to that operation the strong name of confiscation ;
for he says he does not know another. But, however, he
went on to limit the application of this term by saying that
he did not mean to apply it to any case where you could
trace any such purpose in the will of the founder. That
would be quite a sufficient justification for the principle
of this arrangement, because undoubtedly the most marked
and specific cases which this bill has in view for the appli-
cation of college property to university purposes are cases
where the founder has left most distinct indications of his
intentions. These indications are very remarkable. In the
case of Magdalene College the founder provided that there
should be three lectureships established and paid, and that
the lectures should be delivered for the benefit of the whole
university; and that bequest remains, after 400 years, un-
fulfilled. In the case of Corpus the founder did exactly the
same thing, and provided for the establishment of three lec-
tureships for the benefit of the whole university but that be-
quest has remained until within the last few years unnoticed.
Atpresent thegoverning body of that college, animated by the
strongest desire for the reformation of the institution, al-
though entangled by the oath to which I have referred,
yet, acting in conformity with the spirit of their statutes,
have offered a munificent endowment for Latin professor-
ships. Bat there are other cases proceeding upon the same
principle. There were applications from Christ Church to
devote a portion of its funds for the establishment of chairs
of divinity, which applications were based upon exactly
the same principle. When the House of Commons had
before it the Ecclesiastical Tithes and Revenues Bill, you
exempted the chapters of Christ Church on the ground
that it was not to be considered as a chapter, but as a por-
tion of the college. It was a portion of the college, but
you proceeded afterwards by Act of Parliament to appro-
priate certain of the canonries of that college for the sup-
port of chairs of theology. Why, sir, that is the very thing
which this bill asks the house to do. There was no provision
in that act for statutes, because statutes they had none, but
therewere college offices and canonries independently of any
such obligations. That is the precedent and the principle
upon which, on due cause shown, the Government ought to
proceed. I do not say that anything rash or violent ought to
be done upon this or any other ground, but it is vain to
speak of confiscation as applicable to such a subject as the
reasonable application of college property not for its exclu-
sive benefit, but for the benefit of the entire university,
along with the college. There is a union of interest be-
tween the university and the college—an intimacy of rela-
tion and a mutual dependency between them, and therefore
to use language of this kind in such a case is nothing but a
perversion. It was prescribed by the founder of Corpus
Christi in the sixteenth century that one chair should be
founded for the Latin and another for the Greek language.
That was, sir, because the study of Greek had just then
emerged. And is it not fair to presume that the other
founders—that William of Wykeham fur instance, who
lived a century and a half earlier—that if he had lived
then, he would not have made equal provision for that
study ? Is it fair that the dead letter of the statute
should in this way be allowed to hold good against the
common sense both of the Parliaments and the colleges of
future ages? The right hon. gentleman has said that he
is not aware whether the bill provides for the appointment
of professors in the same way as is recommended in the
report of the commissioners. Sir, the right hon. gentle-
man will so soon have the bill in his hands that I prefer
leaving him then to discover wherein the bill and the re-
port differ, and wherein they agree, rather than that I
should enter into any details upon that subject at present.
Sir, the report of the commissioners is a document that has
been drawn up with the greatest ability, and it has been
of the greatest service to Government by a thorough and
searching discussion of all those questions that are interest-
ing to the university. But, undoubtedly, in considering
the recommendations of that report, her Majesty's Govern-
ment felt it their duty to deal with the subject on their own
authority and their own responsibility, and not upon the
authority of that report. The right hon. gentleman appears
to suppose that there is to be on the part of each of the
colleges a fixed contribution of a fifth part of their revs-
Imes, to be followed perhaps afterwards by &further contri-
bution of a fourth part. Sir, what is really proposed is as
follows. Power is given to the different colleges to make
of their own accord a contribution for university purposes,
such as for endowing the chairs of professors, to an amount
not exceeding a fifth part of their revenues. Therefore, it
is not in the first instance at least a fifth part of their re-
venues, but such a sum as they may themselves deem re-
quisite. But if the colleges do not exercise these enabling
powers to the satisfaction of the commissioners within a
certain time, then the commissioners are empowered to
act, but not without limitations. They are not to act at
all in the case of those colleges which have less than
twenty fellowships. They are not to interfere in the
case of all the poorer foundations, because it is thought it
would be hardly fair to deal with them. When they do act,
then they are to send under seal their reasons for imposing
the burdens which they lay upon the colleges, and the
grounds on which they are satisfied that these colleges can
make a just provision without prejudice to the purposes
contemplated by the founders of each college. Having done
that, they then declare the amount of the fund which they
require from each college, subject to the limitation referred
to; but even then they leave to the different colleges the
node in which they shall supply that fund ; and, lastly,
in the purposes for which these funds are to be assigned,
it is distinctly provided that the commissioners shall not
do so without assigning to each college a reasonable con-
trol over the regulation and management of the appoint-
ment. I think the right hon. gentleman will therefore
admit that the regulation is not so unreasonable as he is
now inclined to suppose. Certainly no one at Oxford has
said that it is unreasonable that the wealthy colleges should
make reasonable contribution to the nee is of the univer-
sity. They complain that the contribution required by
the Royal Commissioners is too much, as in the case of
All Souls, where it was proposed that, out of forty fel-
lowships, twenty should be swallowed up for the founding
of four professorships. To the unreasonable amount ob-
jection has been taken. But we do not propose so much
the abstraction of property from the colleges, as that cer-
tain college officers should be appointed to discharge cer-
tain duties by means of the funds of the college, the
benefits of which will be equally open to them with that
of the whole university. Our purpose is quite consistent
with the precedents that have been followed within the
last few years in the case of the theological professorships ;
it is recommended by the reason of the case, and I cannot
doubt it will be favourably received by the house. (Hear,
hear.( Sir, having said much upon the independence of
the university, and upon the abstraction of property from
the colleges, I think it best to postpone any further re-
marks upon the bill itself till the second reading, and I
shall only say further, that when the bill comes into the
hands of hon. members they will perceive that in the
first clause, which appoints the Parliamentary commis-
sioners, the names of those commissioners who are left
blank, as the Government thought that was the most
roper form in which to bring the matter before the house
an the first instance ; but if the bill should be read a second
time, the names will be stated to the house before going
into committee, and they will be inserted in committee.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORB denounced the principles on
which the bill was founded, especially as regarded the in-
vasion of the rights of property, as borrowed from the
days—
" When England's monarch once uncovered sat,
And Bradshaw bullied in a broad brimmed hat."

After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE, leave was
;IV= to bring in tho bill, v hich was subsequently brought
in, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time
On Monday fortnight.