The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-08 00:00:00

STATUTE LAW COMMISSION.

Mr. BOWYER wished to ask Lord J. Russell whether
the Statute Law Consolidation Commission is to cease ;
and, if so, whether the consolidation of the statutes is to be
given up, or any other and what measures are to be taken
to effect the purpose for which the commission was ap-
pointed. _ .

Lord J. RUSSELL said this was a temporary commis-
sion, and the commission had terminated, The result of
the labours of the commissioners had bees placed in the

hands of the Lord Chancellor, but it was not improbable
that a second commission would be appointed.
AUSTRIA AND TURKEY,
Lord D. STUART asked the noble lord the member for
London whether the Austrian Government is not concen-
trating a large army on the frontier of Servia ; and
whether any explanations have been obtained from the
Government as to the object of that proceeding, or gene-
rally as to the intentions of Austria in regard to Turkey.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the statement of the noble lord
was quite true, and Austria had stated her intentions
with regard to Turkey ; but as a correspondence was still
going on with regard to the subject, it would not be right
for him to disclose now what those intentions were.
LIMITED LIABILITY.
In reply to Mr. HINDLEY,
Mr. CARDWELL said the commissioners appointed to
inquire into the subject of limited liability had not yet
made a report, and he therefore could not state what course
the Government proposed to take in the matter.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Sir W. HEATHCOTE wished to explain the vote which
he intended to give in favour of this bill. It would. be
absurd in him if he were to shut his eyes to the necessity
which was generally felt for a bill of this nature. It had
been framed in no unfriendly spirit, and since he did not
dispute the soundness of its principle he should reserve
for the committee on the bill such changes and amend-
ments as he was anxious to see made in its provisions. It
was quite clear from what he had said he must vote for
the second reading; all the objections he had urged
should be reserved for the committee. His objections to
the bill were not to its principle, but to what appeared to
him to be erroneous applications of the principle. The
great question, he observed, was, whether the enactments
should be compulsory or enabling. It was evident that,
with reference to the university, they must be compulsory,
and with regard to certain of the colleges they must like-
wise be compulsory, or they would be nugatory. He then
discussed some of the details of the bill, and objected par-
ticularly to the manner in which the foundations connected
with schools were dealt with, and to the way in which the
property of colleges was to be diverted to the purposes of
the university.
Mr. BYNG believed very few persons either in the
house or country would deny that some alteration was re-
quired in the management of Oxford University. He
believed the university could do no better than by cordially
co-operating with her Majesty in effecting the reforms con-
templated by this bill. (Hear, hear.) While sincerely
devoted to the ritual of the Established Church, he still
felt a hope that reforms might be introduced into the
university, and that some means might be adopted by
which 5,000,000 of his fellow-countrymen, he meant the
Protestant Dissenters, might be admitted to the honours
of the university. (Cheers.) With those feelings he cor-
dially hoped that this bill would speedily pass into a
law. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he had, after mature con-
sideration, determined not to oppose the second reading of
this bill, reserving to himself to propose such amendments
as seemed to him desirable when the bill was in committee.
He did not deny that he was aware there were manygrounds
for reform in some of the halls of Oxford University ; but,
at the same time it was a subject that ought to be ap-
proached by the Government in a spirit of conciliation.
(Hear.) With respect to the members of the commis-
sion, there were two, the Bishop of Ripon and Mr. Jus-
tice Coleridge. (Hear, hear.) The principle of the bill,
instead of being simple and uniform, was complicated and
contradictory. From first to last it proceeded upon an
unmerited, and therefore an unjust, distrust of every uni-
versity authority ; but its worst feature was its violation
of the rights of property, by interfering with the disposi-
tions made by founders of colleges. He wished the bill
had been drawn more in the shape of an enablinc, bill,
without the appointment of a commission armed with
powers so arbitrary, which would override the University
authorities. He objected to the constitution and mode of
election of the new governing body—the Hebdomadal
Council. If the three Constituent elements of this council
were chosen by their respective constituencies—the heads
of houses by their own body, the professors by the pro-
fessors, and the general members of the University by
the Convocation—the change would be, he said, far
more satisfactory to the University. Sir John then
explained in detail his objections to the provisions of the
bill with relation to foundations, fellowships, and emolu-
ments, which he characterised as invasions of the rights of
property and as frustrating the intentions of testators,
although the preamble of this very bill recognised the ex-
pediency of "promoting the main design of founders."
He, moreover, contrasted. the provisions with a speech de-
livered in 1850 by Mr. Gladstone, whose name was on the
back of the bill. In conclusion, he put it to Lord J. Rus-
sell whether it.would not be better to frame the bill in a
spirit of conciliation, that he might carry the University
with him, instead of leading the majority to think that
their feelings wore outraged. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. BLACKETT acknowledged the great service to
academical reform rendered by the appointment of the
Royal Commission. But he complained that the measure
fell lamentably short of the recommendations of that com-
mission. The evils of the University were the absorption
of government by the heads of the college, and the absorp-
tion of education by the tutors, and a larger measure was
required to deal with the subject. The bill had been pre-
pared on a principle very difficult to understand, and what
was given by the right hand was withdrawn by the left.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE congratulated Lord John Rus-
sell upon the general acceptation the measure had met
with, contended that the objections to it were chiefly such
as could be dealt with in committee, and at great length
advocated the bill.
Mr. WARNER approved of the measure, but regretted
that oaths and subscriptions had not been done away.
Lord R. CECIL condemned the bill, and regretted that
it was not to be opposed at that stage. It. was an unjusti-
fiable interference with the wishes of founders, and calcu-
lated td prevent future endowments.
Mr, VERNON supported the bill, and was glad that
the measure materially differed from the recommendation
of the commission. He thought that the tutorial system
ought to be maintained, and that not much would be done
in the way of university extension by means of this mea-
sure, but that the best guarantee for such extension would
be found in the improved character of the university itself.
He desired the abolition of religious tests, and was averse
to these institutions being mere literary forcing beds, but
wished them made available for the promotion of the high-
est form of culture, and for the education of the national
clergy.
Mr. WIGRAM repeated that the proposed congregation
would be so large that it would be broken into factions,
and the result be injurious to the cause of learning. He
also objected that the tendency of the general provisions of
the bill went to depreciate and to break down that colle-
giate system which had hitherto been the characteristic of
English, as opposed to that of foreign universities ; a sys-
tem which he believed to be the very best that could be
devised. And he also objected to the contemplated whole-
sale abolition of preferences, and to the clauses limiting
the tenure of scholarships. Ho considered that the bill
attempted to go into details far more than was desirable,
and a more sweeping measure, giving larger powers to the
colleges, to be worked out under the commission, to have
been much better.

Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER, in answer to objections to
the interference with founders' intentions, showed that
the proposed changes would actually carry out, in many
cases, those intentions, and would conduce to do so in
others, by sweeping away obstructive legal interpretations
and quibbles which had prevailed in courts of law. He
illustrated this argument by various instances of abuses,
and then showed that these could not be remedied by mere
enacting powers. Moreover, the legislature once called in,
it could not decline to deal with the subject in a large
way, and on a public principle. There should be com-
pulsory powers during a limited and definite time ; but
these should be exercised in a conservative manner.
He believed that the bill was framed with a bona fide in-
tention of carrying out its preamble, and he should there-
fore support it. He suggested that the fear lest the con-
gregation should have a parliamentary character, might
be obviated by the debates being carried on in Latin. He
warmly contended for the preservation of the connection
between our great schools and the University, and espe-
cially vindicated the character of the foundation of William
of Wykeham. After adverting to some of the other details
of the bill, he concluded a speech of considerable length by
tendering his thanks to the Government for the spirit in
which they had dealt with the subject.
Mr. HENLEY, in commenting upon the details, ob-
jected that the localities whose preferences were to be taken
away ought to be heard as to their satisfaction with the
change; and he also condemned confiscation for the
establishment of professorships, Ho defended the heads
of houses, against whom an unjustifiable feeling had
been got up, and upon whom the bill sought to cast
a slur. Mr. Palmer's proposal for Latin speeches
would make congregation an alter ego of convoca-
tion. He disliked so much in the measure,kthat it was
only the consideration that legislation ought to take place
at once that prevented his taking a vote on the second
reading. The fate of the bill must, however, depend upon
whether the Government would abstain from resisting rea-
sonable amendments. He complained that Lord J. Rus-
sell and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were directly
opposed to the admission of dissenters to the universities,
and there was no hope of carrying out the objects of the
Government unless the latter were agreed as to what edu-
cation should be given. He concluded with a eulogy on
the old university system, and an expression of apprehen-
sion lest the new system should produce far less satisfac-
tory results.

Mr. GOULBURN intended to give his support to
the second reading of this bill, considering the argument
of Mr. Palmer to be unanswerable ; but there were, he
said, three provisions in the bill which, if they should be
introduced into any measure for regulating the university
he represented, would impair its usefulness—namely, the
establishment of private halls for members not belonging
to any college, the mode in which scholarships and fellow-
ships were to be obtained, and the limitation of the tenure
of fellowships, which was too much abridged. Mr. Goul-
burn examined these provisions, pointing out their ob-
jectionable character with reference to the University of
Cambridge, and expressing a hope that they would not be
enforcei upon that university.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entirely
agreed with his right hon. friend who had just addressed
them, that the legislation which passed through Parlia-
ment with respect to the two universities of Oxford and
Cambridge ought to have a careful regard to tho distinc-
tive characteristics of those universities. Although it had
been stated by his noble friend at the head of tha Govern-
ment, that neither the policy nor the general principle or
outline of legislation which the two universities required
have a close resemblance in the one case or the other, yet
ho thought it was true in respect to minute details, that it
would be desirable that Parliament should pursue a course
somewhat distinct in reference to each. (Hear, hear.) It
was, therefore, quite necessary for him to follow his
right hon. friend in the discussion of the three points to
which he had just adverted ; ho would simply say, how-
ever, that he did not think his right hon. friend had
exactly collected the real purport or provisions of this bill,
even as they stood, while with respect to one point upon
which he had touched, namely, with regard to the abre-
viation of the term during which a fellowship might be
held in conjunction with residence, he would merely re-
mind hia right bon, friend that that waa a point simply as

one of the details of the bill which the house would have
to deal with according to its wisdom and judgment.
(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that, after these seven
or eight hours' debate, Oxford; and those who were inte-
rested in Oxford, had great reason to be satisfied with the
tone and character of this discussion ; for, without a
single exception, he might say the discussion had been
approached by those who had taken part in it with a
feeling of affection, or attachment, or veneration for her
institutions, and with an utter absence of anything like
party spirit. (Hear, hear.) And if, in former times,
Oxford had presented Parliament with illustrious
names, such as Fox, Carmine°, and Peel, it was with
no common gratification that he had listened to-night
to the first efforts of two members of this house—the hou.
member for Tavistock and the noble lord the member for
Stamford—whose first effort in the way of debate, rich as
it was in future promise, showed that there was still going
forth from the maternal bosom of that university men
who, in the earliest days of their career, afford a good
guarantee of what hereafter they were destined to accom-
plish. (Cheers.) Having said thus much he must with
perfect truth and sincerity likewise say that when he lis-
tened to the noble lord it occurred to him that although
the noble lord had learnt much he had yet, he would ven-
ture to assure him, something to unlearn—(hear, hear)—
for when the noble lord spoke of the levity and precipitancy
with which majorities of the house dealt with the great
interests and great institutions of the country—when he
told them that they had in the house at one hour a Mi-
nister belonging to the highest Tories, and at another hour
a Minister professing the lowest point of radicalism—when
he said the majorities of the house were swayed to and fro
like a weathercock, or were moved by every passing breeze
—he must venture to assure him that his future studies of
the constitution, as well as his practical experience of the
conduct of the house of which he hoped the noble lord
would long remain a member, would, before long, give
him a better opinion of the British House of Commons.
(Cheers.) The noble lord would find that Parliament, al-
thmigh it might be liable for the moment to be influenced
by gusts of party or passion, it yet did not deserve the
character of representing no more in its deliberate position
than the fancies of the passing hour. (Hear.) The noble
lord had certainly opposed the principle of this bill,
and, he was afraid, to a considerable extent, the right
hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire had
done the same; but nevertheless, he was bound to say, re-
ferring to the general character and tone of the debate,
that the opinions which had been expressed in it were such
as to satisfy him that there was every hope and reason-
able prospect that, after further discussion and some modi-
fication, the bill would become law during the present ses-
sion. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for
Oxfordshire had referred to one or two points upon which
he must be allowed briefly to touch in the way of reply.
The right hon. gentleman stated that one of the commis-
sioners whom it was proposed to appoint under the bill had
frequently declared opinions with respect to the founda-
tion of professorships which were at variance with this bill;
but he must be allowed to tell the right hon. gentleman
that he (lid not believe there was any contrariety between
the opinions of Sir John Aldridge and the provision of
this bill, while he must also assure the right hon. gentle-
man that the framers of the bill did not intend such a
thing, nor did the bill itself authorise the confiscation of
the property of a college in order to establish professor.
ships. There was no compulsory provisions in the bill re-
quiring the separation of a college from any part of its
foundations, and the character of the gentleman named in
the bill as the commissioner to superintend its execution
was a sufficient guarantee that nothing in the shape of
confiscation would be attempted. As to the question whe-
ther the bill gave sufficient power to the heads of colleges,
or whether it gave them too much power, that was a mat-
ter which would be best discussed when they got into com-
mittee. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman referred to
the subject of the admission of Dissenters, with respect
to which he lamented that there was a contrariety
of opinion between himself and his noble friend the
member for the city of London ' • but in point of fact there
was no such contrariety whatever. (Hear, hear.) His
noble friend had stated his opinion in favour of the admis-
sion of Dissenters into the university, but at the same time
he had also announced his intention to vote against any
proposition, should it be made, for inserting such a provi-
sion in this bill. In following his noble friend on the oc-
casion when that declaration was made, he stated that he
should give a similar vote, and he did not enter into any
discussion then upon the point, and for this plain reason,
that it had already been shown, nay, it had been promised,
that an opportunity would be afforded to both him and the
house for discussing the matter when the bill got into com-
mittee. He had thought it more respectful to his constitu-
ency to defer the expression of his opinion upon the subject
until that opportunity arrived, but when it did arrive the
right hon. gentleman might rest satisfied that ho should be
prepared to state without any reservation whatever, the
reasons which would induce him to vote against such a pro-
posal. (Hear, hear.) The next material objection to the
bill which he must take leave to refer to had been urged ,
by the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich in a
speech which he had the greatest satisfaction in acknow-
ledging was as conspicuous for its candour and fairness
as its ability. The right honourable baronet had de-
clared that the bill was wanting in conciliation.
Wanting in conciliation. Why, only look at the con-
dition of the house, and then the right hon. baronet
would see that Government had conciliated and concili-
ated until they had conciliated all animation out of
this debate. Three fourths of the members who usually
gave them their attendance were absent, but however
unsatisfactory, it might be to those who, like him, rose to
address Mr. Speaker on the subject, to find that the only
response that could meet his sentiments must come from
empty green benches. (A laugh.) It was nevertheless an
emphatic testimony to the spirit of conciliation which had
animated the Government iu framing this bill. (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. baronet, for the sake of opposing
this bill, had fallen back upon a speech which he delivered
acme four years ago, in which the right hon. baronet
said he expressed himself hostile to any Government
interference with the university, but the right hon.
baronet forgot to state that he qualified that opinion by
stating that a state of things might arise which would
ab-
solutely demand the intervention of Parliament. What
he did was to advise the authorities of the university, at
the time they made the new statutes relative to examina-
tions, that they must make the necessary reforms them-
selves, or it would be the duty of the Legislature to inter-
pose. Now, the university authorities, with the disabili-
ties imposed on them, had found it totally impossible to
make the changes which necessity demanded, and this bill
was intended to get rid of the difficulty. This purposed
intervention in the affairs of the university was to bo made
on a large scale, because it was most desirable that this in-
terference of the Legislature should be such an interference
as should serve once and for all ; that it should be an in-
terference effectual for its purpose, and, being an inter-
ference effectual for its purpose, it was hardly likely that
any necessity would again arise for a repetition of the
same process. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet told
them next, that there was great fault to be found with
the bill in respect to the proposition it contained
relating to the extension of the university. The
right hon. baronet thought the plan which was about to be
proposed by the university itself was a much better plan
than that contained in this bill ; but it was only right that
he should understand that there was no rivalry between
the university and the Government in this matter, because
both proposed to carry out an extension of the university
through the means of affiliated balls. Now this was not a
new question, since it had been discussed for the last eight
years at the university, but it had never yet been put in
such a form or reduced to such a plan as to admit of its
being carried into practical operation. It was not, how-
ever, for the Government to finally dispose of this question
without further consideration, because it was a matter
with which the university itself was dealing, and with
which they had every desire to deal extensively. (Hear.)
The extension proposed by the bill was not a mere exten-
sion, but appertained to the most important and vital ob-
jects of the university. The time had come when an en-
deavour should be made to give more freedom and expan-
sion to the instruction in Oxford, and to decide whether
it should depend on the collegiate system alone ; and it was
proposed that it should not depend on any body or execu-
tive officer, but on fixed laws of the university, whether it
should be free to any qualified persons to open their resi-
dences to students. The two plans did not stand in oppo-
sition to each other. He wished the university plan of
extension to succeed, but he also wished to see that insti-
tution unfold and unbend itself, and apply itself to the
wants of this teeming age, which Oxford at present could
not be said to do. It was not intended to set the legisla-
tion of the university, but Parliament was asked to enact
a plan for the extension of the university, a course which
was not new. By interfering with the system of the uni-
versity they only undid by intervention from without
that which had originally been done from within. For
three centuries the action of the crown and its ministers
had placed the university under a restrictive system, and.
what more legitimate act could be done than to undo
thelhand of the State the fetters which the hand
had imposed. That was the principle of the plan
o f The. St ta
wastye
proposed, the details of which could be better discussed in
would give to that
committee, and he hoped the committee
principle its sanction. He would not at thatoeilnaThtteehsbohNvdoohgu.mirenahedraiatl
dis-
cuss the question of the constitutionweorfetph
board, and whether it should be elected by cony.egati.on or
by a section of the university,. those
allon the
parties
would be better to discuss in committee,
m founded
temper o f
scope of the plan as it now.stoaonddwat:
expec-
tation that it was the desire in
Oxford that the business of
of the
should be con-
ducted under the provisions tkse bill,a with a disposition
that every class should meet.with fair claim to respect
from every ether. If the university could not be trusted,
the bill was 3 bad bill, for it proceeded on the principle that
it would go on in that
if you started the university_ fairly
course. But if it was determined that the heads of houses
should always be elected by heads of houses, professors by
professors, and convocation by convocation, you would
stamp, those classes with an appearance of sectional and
rival interests
which, though they
might be now momen-
tarily prominent, he hoped would
soon be lost in the gene-
ral desire to promote the main object of the university.
The right hon. gentleman (Sir J, Pakington) in ono point
must have misunderstood the bill, for he argued as if it
proposed that the emoluments of the university should
be disposed by the sole test of examination. The right
hon. gentleman quoted what had been said by him (Mr
Gladstone) in 1850—that examination would be an
unsafe test if it was used as the sole test of admission
to the emoluments of the university. He was still of that
opinion. He thought it would not be safe, considering the
social character of the colleges, that examination should
be a test of fitness for admission to emoluments. But he
did not say that it was the sole test of fitness ; and in the
2Sth clause of the bill it was provided that " superior fit-
ness, in character or attainments," should be a test for ad-
mission to the emoluments, It was not proposed to make
a snore liberal enlargement of the qualification. But, al-
though he thought it not wise to make examination the
sole test, yet it was a valuable and indispensable criterion.
Ifit was wished to put vigour and permanence into the re-
gulations of the colleges, it was necessary to adopt compe-
tition, and to give examination a chief place among the
tests of fitness. Passing on from the speech of the right
hon. gentleman, he came to that of another member who
spoke from a different quarter of the house, and in a dif-
ferent sense—he meant the hon. member for Newark. Ho
was bound to say that the hon. gentleman, like the right
hon. gentleman, though he spoke in a different sense, spoke
u ith the same feeling for the welfare of Oxford which had
distinguished all her.children in this discussion.- The ob-
jections of the hon. member ran counter to those of the
right Lon, gentleman, and he said he would not notice the

objections of the right hon. gentleman, and he directed h
criticism entirely to the bill itself. The objections of the'
hon. member were four : Firstly, he said that the colleges'
would not reform themselves. It was to be hoped that'-'
they would but if they did not the bill provided machi-.:e:
--'
nery for their reform. The hon. -gentleman must have.
been gratified to see that there was in the bill something*"
beyond enabling powers, and the answer to his objection
is shortly, that if the colleges do not reform themselves,
it is open to others to do it under the provisions of the
bill. He then objected that there had been left a heap
of profane and idle oaths, but those oaths which alone
could bear that title had been abolished absolutely, and as
to the others, though there was no provision for their abo-
lition, yet it was unfair to treat them as profane and idle.
It was open to the colleges to abolish those oaths ; but
there was a great deal of religious feeling and sentiment
connected with this question, violence would be done to
those feelings if those oaths were abolished, and the hon.
member might perhaps think it better to leave it to the
discretion of the parties concerned under the direction of
' the commissioners. The hon. gentleman complained that
the clerical element was the bane and pest of Oxford.
-Would the hon, gentleman have desired the preamble of
the bill to run " Whereas the clerical element is the bane
and pest of Oxford I" and did he think that there was any
chance of passing; a bill with the spirit of such a preamble
through that house? The clerical element in Oxford should
be left to take its chance, but was it desirable by the force
of acts of Parliament to compel an institution to take a
line to which its spirit and genius did not tend; and it was
not in the power of Parliament to throw the clerical influ-
ence out of Oxford, though it might tend to relax it.
There was a clause in the bill by which it would be easy
for those who chose to hold fellowships without adopting
the clerical character, to hold them in spite of the present
usages of the colleges. It was not advisable to go further,
and he doubted whether it was possible largely to separate
the clerical system for the collegiate system; ler whatever
the house night do, the parents of England in the
main preferred that education should be conducted
by those who were in holy orders. (Hear, hear, hear.)
It was not the effect of the statutes of colleges.
Look at the schools throughout the country which
throve and prospered, and which were preferred by
parent, and it would be found that they felt that it was
not merely intellectual culture that they required for their
children, but moral training, and they believed that the
clerical character of the clergy gave no immaterial security
for the principles which they thought a necessary part of
education. For those reasons, the Government did not
propose to interfere with the clerical element of fellow-
ships. But the main objection of the hon. member was
that the bill had been too well received at Oxford. That
was a source of satisfaction to him (Mr. Gladstone) which
alarmed the hon. member. The hon. member thought
.that it was necessary testimonial to the character of the
bill that it should create alarm at Oxford. The right
hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had told the Government
to conciliate, and the hon. member said that there was too
much conciliation in the bill, and that it had been too well
received at Oxford. He (Mr. Gladstone) should not like to
make known to the hon. member the correspondence which
had been carried en between himself and Oxford. He had
received letters which he did not believe to represent the
majority of his I • constituents and the resident body, but
which, at the same time, were couched in vigorous and
racy phraseology as applied to the provisions of the bill,
and if the hon. gentleman would communicate with him
in private, with regard to those letters he thought the ob-
jection that there was no alarm at Oxford would be found
not to be tenable. (Hear, and a laugh.) Then came the
hon. and learned member for Cambridge, who had opened
a most important question. The honourable member's
objection went to the root of the provisions of the bill
which related to colleges. The honourable member
lsid down a very high doctrine, which was loudly
cheered. The honourable member said the plan was
a question not of policy but of honesty ; that
the founders had left certain bequests, and that those it
was proposed to take away. He would point out to his
hon. and learned friend that his doctrine was contradicted
by the existing state of facts. His hon. and learned friend
said we were going to violate bequests and to outrage the
local preferences of the founders. He (Mr. Gladstone) did
not believe that the real object of the localisation of endow-
ments was to limit the spread of learning but in reality to
extend it. To make a certain place noted for learning was
necessary to attract students in times when transit was
difficult. But were the conditions of the founders observed
at present ? were William of Wykeham's conditions, or
Archbishop Chichely's statutes observed ? (Hear, hear.)
The same argument had been used on the abolition of tests
in Scotch Universities, and it was alleged that the house
should not do what was done every day by a senatus acade-
micus in Edinburgh. It was now alleged that the house
should not do what was done every day in All Souls' Col-
lege with respect to Archbishop Chichely's statutes. The
fact was, that the violation of such statutes had become a
matter of necessity, and all the house sought to do was to
legalise the act. If changes were to be made on individual
opinion, who was to be the judge of their propriety ? The
founders did not give control over the foundations to the
visitors of the college. Who, then, did the control pro-
perly belong to ? To the legislature, to bo sure, which
was the foundation of all authority in this country. This
he would say, that if there were one thing more than
another which the founders contemplated, it was that resi-
dence should be the basis and condition of these founda-
tions. The hon. and learned member said it was a ques-
tion of honesty. He (Mr. Gladstone) hoped not, as if it
were, a great many respectable men would be placed in
an awkward predicament. It was no question of honesty,
it was a question of necessity, and all the house sought to
do was to make the general necessity a subject of legal
enactment, and of regular operation. He should not fur-
ther trouble the house, as all the details would bo
thoroughly sifted in committee. He felt gratified at the
general acceptation with which the general scope and in-
teution of the bill had been received. It was an emanci-
patory measure, emancipating the university from extra-
neous influences, and emanicipating the colleges from un-
wholesome restrictions, which they could not themselves
break through. It was not a bill to cripple the university,
but to found its government on the representative princi-
ple, and thereby to increase its influence and extend its
utility. It proposed to make the endowments of Oxford
really available for the purposes intended. At present
many of these endowments were literally dormant. Such
was the case with the New College, whose case had been
so ably advocated by the hon. and learned member for Ply-
mouth. This was not to be said of all the colleges, but
the object of the bill was to make the good general, which
was now only done in particular celle,ges. With regard to
the professorial question, he did not think it would be de•
sirable to appoint gentlemen with large salaries at once.
Professors could not be made in a day; but when provided
and organised he believed that the colleges would be will-
ing to endow them properly. The professorial system was
favourable to the cultivation of deep and.extensive learn-
ing, and therefore he hoped that this portion of the bill
would be left untouched by the house. Ho should only
further say, that the bill was not so much a measure to
cure evils as to create and extend benefits already exist-
ing, and lie felt assured that, if accepted by the house, it
would conduce to the prosperity, the permanence, and the
utility of Oxford.

Mr. WALPOLE could not allow the discussion to close
without pointing out that the principle of the bill was
not of the emancipatory nature represented by the right
, hon. gentleman, but of unnecessary compulsion. By the
chartrs and oaths there were impediments no doubt to be
removed to enable colleges to carry out education in a
satisfactory mariner, but that was no reason why other
, impediments should be imposed on the authority of par-
liament, which was not acquainted with the local needs of
the universities, and which acted upon party spirit and
prejudice, and which impediments would render it impos-
', slide that these establishments could be effective for tho
purposes for which they were established. With regard
to the licensed halls, his right hon. friend said they were
necessary for the extension of the universities, but with-
out them they might not have the same extension as
existed at Cambridge when the students were mellowed to
reside in lodgings. The system his right hon. friend
sought to introduce would break up collegiate discipline,
which was impossible when the students did not meet to-
gether in the same lecture-room, at study, at worship, and
at meals, but were scattered about away from the colleges.
And in reference to the endowments, it ill became that
house to say that the condition on elich endowments
were made should be broken. As far as the next of kin
were concerned he agreed with the bill. He hoped that
the connection between the schools and the endowments
would not be broken, and that the bill in this respect
would be altered. If his right hon. friend proceeded on
the principle that it was for the advantage of the com-
munity that these endowments be diverted from their
original purposes, he would be landed in this diffi-
culty, that there was no corporate property at which
he could stop short, but that all such property would
be liable to be diverted from its original purposes if
it could be shown that such diversion would tend to the
public benefit. Parliament had no right to interfere with
property vested, in corporations, or individuals, except so
far as
was necessary to enable those in whom it was vested
to make such redisposition of it as was most conducive to
the objects for which it was intended. Let that same
principle be applied to these colleges. He considered the
tutorial system preferable to the professorial, which he
contended was opposed to profundity of knowledge. These
advantages would never be obtained by the mere profes-
sorial system, which would only fill the mind with a mass
of undigested materials. He hoped that system would
never be made to supersede the tutorial system, which was
the only one that could properly train men for their duties.
The bill ought simply to recite the expediency of enlarging
the powers of the university and colleges; for extending
and improving their powers : the commissioners should
then be appointed, with simply a guiding and controlling
power, derived from the legislature. It ought then to es-
tablish a hebdomadal board, somewhat different from the
present, but not like the anomalous congregation proposed
by the bill, which would have the power of debating with-
out making amendments. It should then declare in simple
terms the preferences that wore to continuo, and give a
general power to the colleges to alter their statutes, with
ties approbation of the commissioners and the crown. That
would be simply an enabling bill, and they could not satis-
factorily reform the universities in any other way. To do
anything more would be simply to enable the colleges to
act for their own wrong. (Hear, hear.) Of late years
Oxford had done much, Cambridge had done almost every-
thing, to improve their own system. The colleges had not
had the opportunity of doing so, not having the power.
Such a measure would be more conducive to the object in
view than any other course that could be proposed. The
bill was capable even now of being altered so as to make it
a successful measure. If it continued in its present
form when it came out of committee he should oppose its
further progress. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, I did not expect, after the
speech of my right hon. friend, that the debate would be
further prolonged. (Hear, hear.) But as the right hon.
gentleman has thought it necessary not only to comment
on the provisions of the bill, but to protest against its pro-
visions and character altogether, I must endeavour in a
few sentences to vindicate the measure which we have
proposed. Let us recollect what was pointed cut by an
hon. friend whom I Was delighted to hear deliver a speech
of so much ability combined with so much temperance.
(Cheers.) My lion. friend stated that, in the year 1837,
the colleges of Oxford declared, by the mouth of the dis-
tinguished Chancellor whom they had tll9 honour of seeing
at their head, that they were then setting about plans of
reform, and that they expected to make great progress with
those plans. Parliament would, I have no doubt, have
been delighted to hear that the only obstacles which Ox-
ford had in the prosecution of its voluntary plans of
reform were in certain restrictions, which, without the
help of the Legislature, they could not overcome, and
that, therefore, they had determined to apply to Parlia-
ment for the removal of those restrictions, in order that
they might be able to carry out those reforms. I have
no doubt that such powers would have been readily
granted, and that by the year 1850 they would probably
have had time to carry into e&ct all those excellent:

^h .t

plans of improvement and reform which they contem-
plated. But the courae'of the Univirsity'has been totally
different. (Hear, hear.) When it appeared that the at-
tention of the public and of Parliament slumbered, the
zeal for reform grew slack, and we heard little or no-
thing of these great intentions. (Hear.) In the year
1853 a plan was adopted very commendable in its way. I
think it is not likely to prodice such fruits as were ex-
pected from it, but still is showed a wish to improve at
least in one part of that university. At the same time I
thought it advisable that the Crown should issue a com-
mission of inquiry. That commission has produced a vast
deal of information, and has shown that although the heb-
domadal board and the authorities of the colleges were not
stirring, yet that there were a great lumber of men of
most active minds, of accomplished learning, and of very
general information, who had occupied themselves with
the reform of the university. It was said when the com-
mission was first issued that the information would be all
on one side—that none but one party, who were zealous
for reform, would produce their views before the commis-
sion—and that, of course, Parliament would be imperfectly
informed, if not entirely misinformed. However, I trusted
that when that information was produced—when many
persona came forward with voluntary zeal to give their evi-
dence—that those who took a different view, and were
against the plans proposed, would find it incumbent on
them, in order to obtain the aid of public opinion on their
side, to lay before the commissioners the information
which they possessed, and the views which they held, I
was not disappointed in that expectation, and the hebdoma-
dal board has given us a report, and has produced most
valuable evidence on the part of those who took a contrary
view from the view taken by the commission. We have
received information from the tutors' association and other
persons connected with the university. By these means
we have been put in possession of a great deal of informa-
tion of which Parliament was not before aware, and we
have the evidence of enlightened men to which we can refer
in our debates, who can supply any want of knowledge
respecting Oxford which it was said the House of Commons
did not possess. I will not at this late hoar enter into the
various points on which the right hon. gentleman has
touched, but I will say this at once—that, although the
general outline of the plan for Cambridge may agree with
the general plan of the bill for Oxford, yet I certainly should
not think it necessary servilely to copy the provisions of
this bill. (Hear, hear.) For instance, Oxford entirely
differs from Cambridge with reference to the first point he
mentioned—the undergraduates living out of college. We
propose the plan of private halls for Oxford—a plan that I
believe will tend to the extension of the university in a
very safe and gradual manner. The University of Cam-
bridge has adopted the plan of allowing young men to live
in private lodgings with the security of a license from the
college, and such other securities as they think proper to
take, and as no less. than 700 undergraduates are lodged in
that manner, it may not be necessary to propose the plan
of private halls for Cambridge. This, however, I will say,
that if any such plan had been adopted at Cambridge—if
the plan of private halls had existed there, and we had
proposed that young men should live in private lodgings,
I can conceive the indignation which we should have
brought upon ourselves, and we should have been charged
with a want of discipline, and with instigating to immorality
forsanctioning an untried system. The right hon. gentleman
in his denunciation of the plan, has gone very far in his asser-
tions. He denies not the power, but the moral right of Par-
liament to interfere with corporate preperty, and deems its ap-
plication as sacred as that of private property. I should have
thought there was this great distinction between them—
that whereas private property is settled on no other condi-
tions than those of general compliance with the law and
those duties which every loyal subject owes to the State,
there are attached to corporate property certain implied or
express conditions—(hear, hear)—and the Legislature of a
country in whom power is lodged—whether in a despotic
state it is lodged in the monarch—whether in the United
States it is lodged in the Congress--or whether in this
country it is lodged in Lords and Commons—l have always
thought that the supreme authority has a right to see that
the ends of that corporate body are attained. (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. gentleman speaks as if we had not
acted on this principle. Why, sir, what have we been
doing of into years with regard to the property of the
Church ? Much of that property, no doubt, was granted
for the benefit of a particular bishopric, or chapter, or
benefice. But we have said that the great ends of the
Church are to be looked to—that the instruction of the
people in religion and in the doctrines of the Established.
Church was the end for which that Church was main-
tained and that the diversion of property given to
Canterbury or Durham, to Yorkshire or Lancashire,
would better serve those ends if Parliament would
sanction an application of the revenues to other places.
This is nothing but acting on the principle on
which a State always has the power to act.
(Hear, hear.) I was glad to hear from the right hon.
gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge,
the admission of the principle that a change might take
place when circumstances changed. The admission of that
principle would cover a great deal more than this bill pro-
poses. Gentlemen talk of these institutions—of this pro-
perty—as being so sacred that Parliament ought not to
meddle with it. Now, without going into the case of
particular colleges, let us see what was the general pur-
pose, and what has been the general use of these colleges.
As far as I can see, they were generally intended, and
wisely intended, according to the state of society at the
time they were founded, in the first place to a form a pro-
vision for a number of students, generally speaking of poor
students, and persons who could not otherwise pay for their
education, and who would not be able to provide them-
selves with sufficient maintenance. They were intended
to give general instruction in the University of Oxford, in
divinity, moral philosophy, natural philosophy, the canon
law, and logic. In the third place, they were intended
very often to keep up the performance of religious ser-
vices, among which masses for the souls of the dead were
not uncommon. What do we find with respect to these
things ? Is there any of these general conditions which
'is observed. (Hear ?) So far from their being a number
of fellows and students living in the university and devot-
ing themselves to the study of certain sciences and of books
of learning, we find that a great number of the fellows are
not resident in the university at all—that they are
pursuing other studies—qualifying themselves for profes-
sions, or employing themselves in other occcupations
Others, again, were engaged, not in studying for the bene-
fit of their own minds, but as tutors in teaching in the
University. With respect to the saying of masses for the
dead, that has not only been neglected, but has been pro-
hibited by Parliament. Indeed, as to the original con-
ditions imposed by the founder, there is hardly a trace re-
maining of their actual practice or existence. I say, then,
if there has been that change, and a change made by those
of whom the founder was particularly jealous, namely, the
recipierits of his bequests, surely we have a right to say
we will not oblige you to go back to the exact fulfilment
of those original conditions ; but you having entirely de-
parted from those conditions, we, the Parliament, consider
ourselves equally at liberty to depart from them also.
(Hear.) We are doing this because we believe the general
object of the founder was the promotion of religion and
sound learning ; and we believe the cause of religion and
sound learning will be promoted by such a measure as the
one now before the house. With respect to an enabling bill,
such as has been referred to by the right honourable
gentleman (Mr. Walpole), to give the University and
Colleges of Oxford power to reform their own institutions,
I should think such a measure would be inadequate to
such a state of things. I should say there had been no
general disposition shown to induce us to admit the long
delay which would be sure to follow the adoption of any
such plan. I cannot, therefore, join in the recommendation
of such a measure. While the right hon. gentleman has
thus spoken against the bill on the side of its going too far,
some hon. gentlemen, especially the hon. member for New-
castle (Mr. Blackett), have complained that it does not
fulfill all the objects which the royal commissioners had in
view. My belief is, that the measure does, in its main pro-
visions, comply with the objects which thecomm commission
had in view. I stated last year that these objects were,
in the first place, the extension of the University ; in the
°
next, the alteration and improvement of the governing
body ; in the third place the endeavour to apply some of the
revenues to the general instruction in the university ;
and, in the foarth place, the removal of those restric-
tions which gave preference to particular studies. Un-
doubtedly many observations have been addressed to
the house in the course of this debate, which are well
worthy our consideration ; and, without saying that
clauses of the bill may not be defended as they are, I t
the Government is bound to take into consideration all the
suggestions of the commission. To any suggestions with
the view to the improvement of this bill, come from what
quarter they may, the Government will be ready to listen.
I consider this is a question of national importance ; and
if those who pay any attention to the subject will devote
their minds to a calm consideration of the different clauses
of the bill, I believe that instead of destroying, as it is
said we mean to destroy, the real foundations of the Uni-
versity of Oxford, or that excellent collegiate instruction
which has been hitherto given in that university, we shall,
on the contrary, superadd to the present worth of that uni
versity by a more expanded and extended instruction, in
conformity with the science of the age; that we shall be
able to give to a greater number of persons than at present
enjoy it the benefit of that instruction, and that the nation
at large will for a long period derive advantage from this
improvement of one of its greatest educational institutions.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Tuesday.
In reply to Sir J. PAKINGTOY,
Lord J. itTISSELL said ho proposed to take the three
Bribery Bills first on Monday, and, in compliance with a
suggestion which had been made on a previous evening, to
refer them all to a select committee. The President of the
Board of Trade would then proceed with the Railway
Bill, and after that the Colonial Clergy Bill would be
taken.

THEATRE ROYAL DRURY LANE,
Lessee, Mr. E. T. Smith.
THIS EVENING, Aram 8,

Will be performed LEONIE. Principal characters by Mr. Elliot
Galer and Mr. Henri Drayton; Misses Lowe and Featherstone.
- -

- - -
After which, THE FEAST OF THE DRAGON, and Magical
Performances of the Chinese Troupe.
To conclude with THE BARBER OF CADIZ.

THEATRE ROYAL HAYMARKET.

Under the management of Mr. Bnekatone.

THIS EVENING, APRIL 8,

To be followed by THE HOPE OF THE FAMILY. Character
by Messrs• Chippendale, Compton, and Buckstone ; Mrs. Fitzwilliam,
Miss E. Grey, &c.
To be followed by the new comic drama, called RASEGAGSL.
Ch tracters by Messrs. Van'lenhoff, W. Farren, Buckstone, Tilbury,
and Rogers; Miss Reynolds, Mrs. Fitzwilliam, &c.

After which, WILLIKIN'D AND HI'S DINAH. Supported by
Messrs. Buckstone and Corri ; Miss Louisa Howard, Mrs. Fitzwil-
dam, and Mrs. Caulfield.

ROYAL PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD-STREET.
Under the Management of Mr. Cuanza KEAN.

THIS EVENING, APRIL 8,

Will be performed THE MARRIED UNMARRIED. Supported
by Messrs. W. Lacy, Ryder, and Cathcart ; and Misses Heath and
Murray.

To be followed by THE LANCERS; or, The Gentleman's Son.
Principal characters by Messrs. Meadows, Ryder, Everett, H. Mellon,
and D. Fisher; Mrs. Winstanley, Miss Daly, and Miss C. Leclercq.
To conclude with A STORM IN A TEA-CUP. Principal cha-
racters by Mr. and Mrs. W. Lacy.