The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-16 00:00:00

,/z/Y/tt ///'

//11"

/f

, .
. ''''•.:..:
:.._.,,,...4.:::
~.:._.,,-...::,-.-
i • .
_...,,
~
, ‘
J V.,.1:.• -.4... 1.7..: ."
.... .ft: „ .., . •.....„......_•...,,..„..„.•.1.....„............,-.:.. ~ .. .
. ..
. . , • J''' ' •..
. . „.... •
, - .. ......... ~ ,
„, ~.
,
k- - .'*.t.' . "I 7„ ---r---.-azl ''
'. ‘, • . - \-,::"-‘':‘,''f.;t'....:•: ,
. All I
..I'!' •,n,-.,
4
..,;. ..„
, ~21..• ,• ~..* 4,19., tr -'77 '--- ''.-
.„.•,,...5......4P.,....:1%:13 k°24.* 1 :4..1 7,..._ r,... -i' (:.,....?..1% 4'. : .f•'')
• ,^l. '
.....:.,,,,., ' • .., ~--',
'7::,:•,: •:,, \ ',
'qt,..'
T.-...„... 4,51' It I .
.
.....' ~...
ri—
L--:,7-* ..:.4.. •tr,l,/ C,,,,,, , -.".":-.:p---::'''''' 8' : 4 . '''''',-4, -IP ik-- ic_, *, , i ,„: _s, ~ . • .......0
.3Kgi'it ~ ,
.i„,,,wwk ..,,, ___, ..:..- .. . .
'''' "7:44,- -t%), I.- 4: s"' -7, ti 'b,*;:./f P. 2,
~11' A,. It, 14 014 '. ZoTe' 'ffl„ - ).'* blililikii 4i4. tl,-
./•;‘, "' -17:•• \-1,,
~.14
~,,, I<4 )-4
4,8 ',./ ' ; to ..
,•, ~:.- " 2 -'•-•,$),V
-L.-- N, ''''''' • 4.,:•!•;;‘P,Dit '..4,-A,49= 41 'l'-", . „..,,.61,-,e.,,- ... A IT"0 '
'

7q.

e---z
-47 -y

subject; iseeing.that for several nights in succession the table
was crowded with petitions from almost all the great towns
and all the dissenting congregations, praying for academical
reforms. The reason was that no mention was made in•av
clause of the admission of Dissenters to the university. He -
did not wonder that the mass of the people had troubled
themselves very little about the fate of a measure which-
overlooked that great middle class on whom liberal govatie:
merits had been accustomed to rely. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had boasted of the success of his conciliation ;
but he must have discovered that he bad conciliated away
all the support behind his back , [referring to the seats
usually occupied by Dissenting members] on which he
might otherwise have depended. The failure of the Go:
--...-...........-easee---.
veil:l2oa
was
man
ifestly attributable, not so much to the
meaning of the Government to be conveyed in this clause presence of opposition as to the absence of support. Every '
should be rendered as clear and distinct as possible. enactment making an improvement or abolishing an enact-
Mr. L. WIGRAM had referencerehended that the words as ment had been got rid of ; and the result was that the col-
they stood would bind the colleges to have only loges were to be left to reform themselves; He would not
to personal merit and fitness ; now, what he wanted to do waste the-time of the house by showing that this was a
was to give them power to retain or abolish local prefer- permissive measure. What earthly pretence was there for
ences. conceding to these colleges that which never bad been, and
. Lord R. CECIL said if he rightly understood the ex- never ought to be, conceded to any corporation in England ?
planation of the Solicitor-General, local preferences would And yet they had had some experience of corporation re.
still go for nothing. form. In 1835 they passed a bill to reform municipal coie.
Mr. MALINS insisted, then, that if these collateral porations; and he should like to know what the noble lord
qualifications were to be abolished, some words ought to would have said if Sir Charles Wetherell had proposed that
be inserted in the clause to convey that meaning, such as Bristol, or Liverpool, or Hull, should reform themselves?
these, " according to personal merit and fitness, and the One reason why this particular corporation should not be
main designs of the founders," indulged with this extravagant confidence was that the '
Mr. E. DENISON entreated the Government to abide authorities of the various colleges had informed them its '
by the clause as it stood in the bill. the most pointed terms that they intended to make no use
Mr. WALPOLE criticised the words "according to," of it. At the close of last year the noble lord "(Lord Pal-
which he contended meant "in proportion to," and that merston) addressed a letter to the college authorities re-
being so, he did not think local preferences would be suf- questing to know what stepi they were prepared to take
ficiently respected. • • in furtherance of this reform, and he believed, with the
After a conversation, a division was called for, and the exception of four, they declared their determination to
members were summoned" in the usual way. Crowds have nothing to do with this measure. And yet to these
poured into the house, and they were much amused by same college authorities they were going to entrust this
hearing Mr. Bouverie announce as the subject of the din- permissive reform. His main reason for objecting to this
sion about to take place, that it was proposed to omit the clause was` its certain tendency to entail at no distant time
word " according," in order to substitute the words " with the necessity of further parliamentary intefference.
die regard." Sir T. D. ACLAND said though he haddivided on every
The committee then divided— amendment against the Government; he saw no objection
For the amendment 4l to this clause if it were taken in connexion with some that
Against it 63-42 followed it. - -
Mr. HEY WOOD then moved another amendment on the The clause was then agreed to.
same disuse, to leave out the words for promoting the :On clause 32,
main designs of the founders.", It would be difficult to Mr. E. DENISON said he would:make an appeal to the
state in law what were the designs of the founders of the mercy of Lord John Russell, who had made arrangements
nineteen colleges; some of them wished to have their
souls with
alteration
prayed for, and others denounced Protestant doctrines as a him to make some alters • in
this clause, which•proeided
heresy. (Laughter.) The strict definition of a college was_ that two-thirds of the geverning body of thepolleges Should ,
a monastery for secular priests ; and the fellows were still have the power of stopping all reform.
prohibited from marrying. It would be much better if
into Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought the hen. member
them
the colleges altered their steautes, so as to bring ..
~ was mistaken in assuming that he could in any way take
harmony with- modern ideas; at all events, he hoped use the bill and dispose of it in the way which his hon friend
oommissionera to be appointed under this act would do so. assumed that_. ha could. In fact the alterations,. as the
The XifIANCEVLOR. of the EXCHEQUER said ihe Charieellor of the Exchequer stated, were in their -opinion
main designs of , tfes founders, in their largest sense, were ;or the worse, and they were alterations which they had
the promotion of religion and learning; but when they thought it necessary to make in consequence of the votes
came to inquire what were their specific or principal ob•.. of the majority of the house. He had no hesitation in say.
jags, they. were involifed in great difficulty. On this ground ing that if the provisions of the original bill had been sup.
he had resisted a formed amendment of his hon. colleague ; ported by a majority in this house as they went on clause
but he thought, retaining this meaning of the words, that by clause, that he should not have despaired of carrying
their main design was to promote religion and learning, the original bill with all its clauses; but when it was obvi.
the commissioners would not have much difficulty in their ens that the bill was changed in many particulars, and that
construction. In Corpus Christi College the design of the in consequence the Hebdomadal Council, and the congrega-
founder evidently contemplated all kinds of learning ; in tion could not have the peculiar character and powers they
Brazenose, the statutes contemplated chiefly theological had proposed to give them, they considered whether they
learning, But when the commissioners had these statutes
should give up the bill altogether, or whether they should
before them they would be able to reconcile them in a
make it such a measure as would be likely to pass through
general scheme. Therefore, upon the whole, it might be
e clause which the Parliament. Upon consideration they came to the conclu-
advantageous to retain the words in th sion that it was better to make the alterations, with a vie"
hon. member proposed to omit. His object seemed to be
not certainly of improving the bill, but of making very
to create a kind of dead level upon which any kind of study
might be raised ; but neither the colleges, the commis- considerable amendments in the constitution, of the Erni.
viersity of Oxford. He certainly was not one of those who
sioners, nor the house would consent to such a measure. would say, " Either carry out your principles to their full .
- Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE advocated the system of pre- extent, have 'a measure that shall contain everything-that
ferences to districts, and quoted instances, amongst them you think desirable to bedone, or else have nothing." He
that of the two Scotts, Lord Eldon, and Lord Stowell, had never acted upon that principle, and he certainly had
of its advantages. Were these preferences abolished, pee- found that by proposing measures from time tolime,-of
plc would hesitate before leaving their property for cha- which the 4.
. ..ondency and effects were benefiiial, More itct• '
ritable and learned uses. If the house was led away by tensive reforms were accelerated,
present clause, his hon. and not restricted by
the mechanical sciolists of the present day, they would do that course. With regard to the
infinite damage to the universities and society at large. ourable friend asked him whether he would change the
After a few words from Mr. HEYWOOD, latter end of it, by which two-thirds of the governing
The committee divided— body were enabled in a manner that was specified to
For the amendment . ...„...., ...... 15 defeat the alterations proposed by the commissioners, .
Against
Mr. MALINS said it was of the greatest importance to of the bill would be entirely defeated if they did not leave
keep in view the main designs of the founders so that the the clause in that respect as it was. It allowed two-
foundations which they instituted should not be applied to thirds of the governing body to prevent, not the action
objects different from what they intended. He did not of Parliament, i;ait the action of the commission. He
understand that the Government had any other object, thoueeht it a disadvantage if, instead' of settling the whole
but as there was great difficulty iu understanding what question of university reform in the present session, and
they did mean he proposed to omit from the clause the thereby allowing the question of the University of Oxford
words, "to make ordinances for promoting," so that the to be set at rest, they should find that several of the col-
clause would thee run thus, "to ensure the same being loges opposed useful reform. It would then be again a
conferred according to personal merit and the main designs
question for Parliament whetherby compulsory ena, -
1
of the founders,"
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER said that Inuit they should übt enforce those useful reforms. His
hon. friend iu reading the passage left out some material
the amendment of the hon and learned gentleman cut at words. The words were that "if two-thirds of the go.
the object he professed to have in view, because it provided verning body of the said colleges shall, by writing under
that the main object of the founders was to be kept in their hand and seal, declare that in their opinion the ordi-
view with regard to personal fitness, and make no provision minces and regulations will be prejudicial to the said col-
Air that purpose with regard to any other matters. The loge as a place for learning and for education." Therefore
clause as it stood ranged over all matters. two-thirds of the governing body of the colleges were ob-
Mr. NEWDEGATE asked why the sanie latitude should liged to say that in their opinion the ordinances were pre.
not be given with regard to particular schools and local
judicial to the college as a place for learning and for edit.
preferences which was given in the case of personal merit. cation. NoW, he thought if they were ordinances making
Mr. WIGRAM said the fear on his side of the house was reforms that were obviously useful—for learning and edu-
that the clause would have the effect of giving separate and cation, it would be difficult to find two-thirds of the go.
distinct powers to the colleges, and that they would not be verning body to declare in writing that they were not use.:
bound to carry out -the main design of the founders. If ful for this purpose. The hon. member for Newcastle re-
words were introduced at the end of the clause, declaring ferred to another question on which they should have a
that the ordinances were to be consistent with the main debate at some future time, and he should leave it until
designs of the founder, it would meet the view on his then • but be thought the hon. member totally misunder•
side of the house. If these foundations were made to de- stood. He had stated the facts several times, bat the hon.
pond on an act of Parliament, and not on the wills of the gentleman did not understand. (A laugh.) In 1850 his
founders, it would be asked afterwards why might not ,hon. friend the member for North Lancashire (Mr. Hey-
Parliament devote them to other PurpOses. (Hear.) wood) proposed a commission of inquiry into the Univer- -
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the sity. It was then a question which was under the
effect of such words would be to negative the vote to consideration of the cabinet, and had been under the' eon.
which the committee had just come, and to override the sideration of some of its members two years previously. '
whole construction of the clause. The hon. and learned ,When the matter was then - proposed by his hon. friend,
gentleman laid down" broad puios on this subject he (Lord J. Russell) stated that a commission would be
which were-wholly ttntenable:--- hon. and learned gen- issued, but he stated at the same time that be thought the
tleman said that the whole property of these foundations question of the admission of Dissenters to the University
was enjoyed under the sanction of the founders' bequests. should be kept a question apart, and that that questien
Here was a case with regard to.
.the foundation of All would not be submitted to the consideration of the com•
Souls, the founder of which endeavoured, by every pro- mission. Therefore, it was in consequence of no proposal
vision that. the wit of man could suggest, to tie up the of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
hands of all officers, from the' visitor downwards, from nor of any desire to fall in with his views, but in cones
doing or prescribin anything varying from the letter of queries of an opinion formed previously to and declared in
g
the statutes ; yet he found an Archbishop of Canterbury 1850, that ho (Lord J. Russell) thought that the two clues.
ordering that whereas certain members of the college who tions ought to be kept entirely distinct. (Hear, hear.)
were abroad with the king were deprived of their emolu- He was at this moment-as convinced as he was in 1850 of
ments by reason of certain ordinances, these ordinances of the propriety of that decision. He was quite sure that
should be so construed that those who were abroad in the if the Government had proposed a bill with the most ma-
kings immediate service should not be prejudiced thereby, tured and well considered provisions for the improvement'
but were to be taken as present in the college. (Laugh- of the course of study at Oxford, and had put into that
ter.) He could find-a hundred of such andproceedinga, bill a clause for the admission of Protestant and Roman
yet the hon. and learned
gentleman says that they should Catholic Dissenters, and also other persons differing from
not interfere. (Hear, hear.) the ChUrch of England, that the attention of the house
Lord CECIL begged to observe, as a member of
and of the country- would have been turned to that A. ll
pro-
Souls, thatif the right hon. gentleman, instead of looking vision, and that the whole discussion would have turned
to the text of the college statutes, had looked to the charter upon that question, the provisions with regard to study
issued by llenry IV., he would Bee that the regulations being entirely neglected in a matter of so much greater in-
issued by every succeeding archbishop were to have the terest. (Hear.) It seemed to him that the two questions
same power as if they were issued by Archbishop Chichely were entirely distinct, and that the question of internal
himself, the founder of the college. (Hear, hear.) reform would be more calmly and therefore better discussed
Mr. MOWBRAY thought that the alteration proposed if taken alone. He had already stated the reasons why
by the hon.' and learned gentleman near him (Mr. the Government had thought it proper to alter the latter
Malins) might have the effect of weakening the clause, but part of the bill. It was indeed a question whether the
he would support the insertion of the words proposed bill should be abandoned, or whether it should be put into
by the, hon. and learned member for Cambridge (Mr. the form in which it at present stood. (Hear, hear.) The
Wigram.) Government thought it better to go on with the bill, as it
Mr. HENLEY thought that due force had not been contained very considerable amendments upon the present
given to the distinction between the Words "to amend constitution of the University of Oxford. With regard to
statues" and "to make ordinances." Keeping this die- any arrangement as to the frame of the bill, he could assure
tinction in view, it was plain that the power of altering the committee that he believed the right hon.. gentleman
the statutes with regard to eligibility to headships, fellow- the member for Mielhurst (Mr. Walpole) was totally unime-
ships, and other college emoluments had reference to per- quainted with the provisions which the Government ins
sonal merit and nothing else. It seemed to him that as the tended to propose until he saw them in print. -The right
clause stood regard would not be had to the main designs hon. gentleman had said that they went far to meet his
of the founders with respect to headships and fellowships, views, but the committee had seen in the discussion and
but that the authorities would be constrained to pay at- divisions which had taken place that the Government bad
tention to the main designs of the founders as regarded
ordinances. not gone the length which the right hon. gentleman would
have wished in making the bill entirely optional upon the
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer University of Oxford.
to Lord Cecil, denied that the subsequent Archbishops of Mr. WALPOLE was quite ready to admit that the bill
Canterbury had ever claimed the exercise anything like al:1 was not what he could have wished in all points, but the
equal right to make statutes with Chichely, and the fellows Government having taken the counts it had ho thought it
moreover swore that. they would obey Chichely's statutes would have been wrong if those with whom he acted had
and none other. . endeavoured to put. an cud to the bill because it did not in
Lord CECIL replied that what the fellows swore to every particular fall in with their views. It was his wish
maintain were the statutes of the college. to see the University in all respects as complete as it could
Mr. MALINS was more at a loss than ever. He had be, and so long as power were given to the University to
to
given the right hon. gentleman credit for a fixed desieffect necessary amendments and reforms, he did not feel
re
respect the "main designs of the founders," but now he
justified in doing more than opposing the minor details
(the right hon. gentleman)quoted previous departures from
of the bill, where he thought them objectionable with.
ti OA endeavouring to throw the measure out entirely.
tencoura d the statutes in order to justify further departures. He
thought that it was a most serious
. thing_
.. encouraged Upon that principle he had acted, and should continue
to act. He was decidedly of opinion that the house
any precedent of disregarding the wishes ofthose benevo-
lent persons who had founded institutions for the advance- had given strong proof that it was not prepared to act on
ment of religion or learning.. the principle of forcing upon the university and colleges of
Mr. HEY WOOD would state whence he had derived Oxford a compulsory deviation from the designs of the
his impression as to- the respect in which founders were founders. (Hear.) He believed that the object of the
held. He had been three years at Trinity College, Cam- house was that the main designs of the founders should
bridge, but except when a clergyman prayed for the royal not bo interfered with unnecessarily, and that gifts and
and religions founder of that college (Henry VIII.), and endowments made for particular districts and for indigen
except at an annual "commendation" service, when the
names of all the benefactors of the college were read from persons should not be put an end to by mere comenlwsr.
a pulpit, he never observed that any notice was taken of those views, however much it might be varied
from
Believing that the bill in its present shape fell in
then
th
them. Bat to give a more general illustration of the great on its first introduction to the house, he gave it his
cordial
object of the founders of colleges pp
was to secure residence ; suort. (Cheers.)
and yet at Cambridge in 1618, an interpretation of the Lord J. RUSSELL thought it his duty to state that it
statutes was passed by which all persons who had taken was never contemplated by
the
the poor of this the Government that d enow•
s country
their bachelors' degree were exempt from residing. wants for the purpose of enabling
Mr. MALINS said ho would take another opportunity of to rise to stations of eminence should be at all obstructed
raising the question, and withdrew his present amend or interfered with by this bill. (Hear, hear.) When, h
ever, the right hon. gentleman mixed that question up with
Lord ment.ho following out the designs of the founders, be (Lord J Rus-
Lord SEYMOUR moved to omit the words,
more could be surely
1 ferent. He thought nothing lags which
were
-en'
ease of some of the colleges" from line 30. lie "Inllougtht sell) thought he was mixing up two eh. J.
that if money was to be raised for the general improve- r y
ment of the university, it had better be done by a fair saidtie
than that the main design of the founders was to pro-
and this main`- d • he
eour
sthtehaptatrhtiecyulcaorudasnigontsheofcatrhr
mote religion and learning,
oontribution from all the colleges. that it thought ought to be of course carried
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
. out. lithe boner -
NwVooll2'eldtobecoonbaNi,(ll.
was entirely out of the question to think of making such
a demand upon many
.of the colleges.
of Christchurch. letter. Some foundations of spread-
Mr. G. VERNON, instanced the case were for the purposes
brit lalready ing the
nts,i Roman Catholic • •Protestant.
It had no doubt a great many emoluments, religion, others the
To obtain learningthe
carried founder,
outtthite
supplied six of the profess.ors., a founder might have instituten a
d without a division. right for a certain school to send be to liege • but
The proposal was negative.,
amen lment after the 78 a°° '
Mr. L. WIGRAM propose( an . ( , that school having decayed, the object of the founder
very
the 40th line, to insert the following would beonly of his (Urea-
word " purposes," in
such regulations and ordinances ti actually overlooked if the letter t
it was the
words :--" So always that
main designs of the founders on were regarded. Hence he thought that
rather than
be not inconsistent with the mainduty of Parliament to keep in view the spirit
ii,
_and
Exchequer
The Chancellor of the had, he ob-
or donors." the bill that the letter of the direction of founders—(hear, Lear)—'rid
d.stated that it was a principle of theframed.
main , with that view the present measure was
not be • -
founders or donors should die- of
-the Government
main designs of the Mr. HENLE I called the attention
turbed ; and it was in order that that
might beclearly change was
to the fact that only two months' notice of any
understood that he (Mr. Wigram) moved the amendment. to be given by the commissioners. If that notice were
On a division, the numbers were—of the long vacation, when there
given at the beginning
For the amendment . B7 was no one at Oxford, it would be very inconvenient.
aceonld be
Against it
Majority 5 taken to guard against the difficulty in practice.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he proposed, after Mr. R. PALMER remarked that this statute refused a
the word " purposes," to insert " further alteration and right of veto to any alteration in two.thirds of the govern•
it would be hotter
University. He thought
amendment, of such regulations and ordinances." ing body in' the
f the governing body present at
Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether the Chancellor to alter this to two-thirds 0 .
the said alterations.
of the Exchequer would consent to fix some limited period a meeting to consider
introduce
within which the commissioners should
either approve or Mr G. VERNON proposed to the words
, ' ~ " after " governing body." He thought -that
reject schemes submitted by the colleges. He did not see ' and tutor., .
why they should. not do so in three months. tutors ought to this ofveto.
why be parties right
s• • J PAKINGTON thought that the committee ought
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the i' J.
have some
information as to what the words "
, - govern.
colleges were to exercise within a definite period the prero- to
gative which was to be final ; whereas the answer of the body really meant. He wished to ask the Cho ce
jug "
whetherhe couldstate what n ' 1144
of the Exchequer
commissioners might not be final, but a remission of the
ing bodies were.
_.
statutes for further amendment. It Was impossible to
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER • t said i was
provide for every case in an act of Parliament. fur difficult to define the body to which this
Mr. BLACKETT thought that was the proper time
This wag was committed.
He did not agree i n the suggestion that
discussing the principle involved in the clause.
of the words "governing body" should beretained i the
the first of the new clauses affecting the entire character
and that another clause should be Government for clause,
the bill. He did not quarrel with the
withdrawing some of the original clauses • .
a
,
for he thought what such body was. In most cases in Oxford, except i
that, considering the determined opposition which they met two or three colleges, there was no difficulty in defining the
with, they bad no alternative bat to do with a
good grace governing body which was the Head and Fellows. The
what they must otherwise have done on compulsion. Why two most prominent cases where that definition was Rot
lar enthusiasme
had been satisfactory were Christ Church and Brazenose, the go-
was it, however, that so little popu
educational reform ? verning body in Christ. Church being the dean and Canoes,
elicited on behalf of this measure of .
lifferent to the all but the former practically - t off from -any 'Parti
were out o . .
It could not be said that the country was indifferent

[PRICE SD.