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

4T,T3 RD Y EVENING, MARCH 18, 1854,

to attend lecture upon chenistry or mineralogy. It
is, thereforq, uecessary that, is some way or other,
there Should be a junction baleen the teaching of the
colleges and the dutiesof the prowors. I hiavg mentioned
hase matters in order to show heir completely the charac-
of ethe university has changed and oue of the con-
,.„uences of this change is, that tere being eo longer any
of those hall„ 300 of which exist at an earl y period, the
only means of obtaining educatioiat the uni, rersity is by
becoming an inmate of one of theeolleges. The result of
the enjoyment of this monopoly kthe college is, and of the
restrictions which were establishedby the Lau.dian statutes
has been that the cheaper moles of living which were
available in former times, and w.ich enabled numbers of
persons who were comparative), nor to obtain entrance
at the university, have ceasnd to oist, and that the num-
ber of students at the university its very materially di-
minished. It was stated, I think ly the ht tads of houses
in 1846, that one time the numberof nuclei graduates was
1,450, but that the general numberhad beent. about 1,300.
Now, when we consider that therevere at one time at
Trinity College, Cambridge, I,3oGinmates of the college,
besides 700 who lived in lodging and who were held to
belong to that college, we cannot bit be satisfied that 1,300
is a very small and insufficient rember of persons to be
educated at a great national instituton which has 150,0031.
a year of revenue. (Hear, hear.) [sr. Walpo to here made
an observation across the table, butit was entirely inau-
dible in the gallery.] One of the defers, therefo re, for which
we wish to provide a remedy is this—hat there etre no means
of attending the tuition at Oxford oxcept by be 'longing to
the colleges. The next subject tcwhich I shall call the
attention of the house, and which Imentioued last year,
relates to the restrictions placed upn the various emolu-
ments which are the rewards of leaning in the -university.
I must say I cannot but thus, although ancient
statutes are referred to, that, in pciiit of fact„ the fellow-
ships arid scholarships have been me o restricted than they
were intended to be by their orignal founders. At all
events, there can be no doubt—for we have one witness
after another stating the fact—that a consequence of the -
existing restrictions, especially of tie restrictions to the
kindred of the founders and to perseis of particular coun-
ties and localities, the ordinary ma is very often pre-
ferred, while the man of singular tabnt and learning, who
has distinguished himself in the unversity studies, is re-
jected, and thereby, undoubtedly, be field of utility is
narrowed, and the universities do sat produce all the ad-
vantages which they are capable of affording.. Many fel-
lowships are held by persons who donot live at Oxford—
some of them have been held for uany years by persons
who have had no connection with Cxford, and who have
not contributed in any way to the sullies of the univer-
sity ; and thereby again the means cf this great university
are restricted and frittered away b 3 that waste, to which
Dr. Pusey has alluded. The next )pint to which I have
to refer involves a proposal which undoubtedly in.a.v excite
some objection, but it is a-subject of so much importance
that we could not disregard it in a -Aherne for the roform
of the university. It app9:,rs to us that some part, at
leas.t of the reroati4of the richer colleges which are
noir applied to the purposes of learning, or to provide'
teaching in the university, ought to be so applied. We
conceived, therefore, that we could not do better than lay
down certain rules under which the professsors, lecturers,
and others engaged in teaching at the university, may re-
ceive a sufficient income from those sources, so that the
future course of education at the university may be im-
proved. Upon this point I may venture to quote the lan-
guage used by Mr. Burke upon another subject; and, al-
though the views he expressed might not perhaps be very
well applied in speaking of the monasteries in France, yet
the general rules he lays down with regard to the great
revenues which are not devoted to useful purposes are so
wise and just, that I think the house may well guide them-
selves by his maxims. " A politician," says Mr. Burke—
" To do great things, looks for a power, what our workmen
call ` a purchase' ; and if he finds that power, in politics, as
in mechanics, he cannot be at a lose to apply it. In the mo-
nastic institutions, in my opinion, was found a great power
for the mechanism of politic benevolence. These institutions
are the products of enthusiasm ; they are the instruments of
wisdom. Wisdom cannot create materials ; they are the gifts
nature or of chance ! her pride is in the use. The perennial
existence, of bodies corporate, and their fortunes, are things
particularly suited to a man who has long views, who medi-
tates designs that require time in fashioning, and which pro-
pose duration when they arc accomplished. He is not deserv-
ing to rank high, or even to be mentioned in the order of
great statesmen, who having obtained the command and di-
rection of such a power its existed in the wealth, the discipline,
and the habits of such corporations as those which you have
rashly destroyed, cannot find any way of converting it to the
great and lasting benefit of the country."

Now there is, in the present case, no question as to the de-
struction of these collegiate institutions, or as to any at-
tempt to deprive the country of the benefit of their great
resources ; but the question is as to the application of those
resources to the purposes for which, evidently, they were
originally intended, in a manner suited to the wants of our
owu times. I may be told that this is an unhallowed
interference with the disposition of property by will—
that it is a blow at foundations and endowments which
are sanctioned by law, and I find that the Chancellor of
the University of Oxford says that the whole frame and
spirit of the bill I propose to introduce to-night are utterly
subversive of all those privileges of the university which
he is bound to maintain. Of a similar purport have been
other communications which have reached my right hon.
friend the member for the University of Oxford. Now,
this is no doubt a serious question, but I think it is impos-
sible for any man to maintain that we have not the power
—as I think it is our right and our duty—to apply these
great endowments to those purposes of education for which
they were intended. Let us look back to the origin of these
foundations. Has everything been done exactly and lite-
rally according to the statutes of the founders? (Hear.) I
need hardly refer—l do not know whether it is fair to refer
—to sn_th an event as the Reformation, but I may observe
that 14 out of the 19 colleges at Oxford having been esta-
blished before the Reformation, many of the injunctions of
their founders were changed when that event took place by
the orders of the Sovereign who then reigned. That was
a great change, but it was a change for the national benefit
and it may be said that as there was then a change in the
opinion of the whole nation, it was necessary that these
institutions should be made conformable to that change
in the national faith. But that change did not by any
means stop there. That change affected the very gneeiLan
of the kind of teaching that was to be adopted at the
university. We find that, in early times, certain sums
were set apart in many of the colleges for lectures on.
divinity, on the canon law, and on moral and natural
philosophy. What has become of these foundations ?
They were intended evidently for the benefit of the whole
university. Have they been so applied? I will read
to the house on this point the statement of a very vener-
able man—not only venerable for his age, but respected
for the valuable contributions he has made to historical
literature—Dr. Routh, the President of Magdalen College,
in his report to the heads of houses. Dr. Routh, in reply
to the questions put to him, says
" I send, with my respectful compliments, for the informa- I
tion of the Committee of the Hebdomadal Board, 'on what are
the particular circumstances respecting readerships or profes-
sorships in Magdalen College, for the service of the University,'
a copy of the college statute relative to our lectures in divi-
nity, and moral and natural philosophy. As to what is the
actual state of such readership or professorship at the present
time,' I answer that the usage has been, ever since and before
I was a member of the college, for our lecturers to read, each
of them, only one lecture at the cud of every term."
Now Dr. Routh says, and very truly, confining himself to
the fact, that this has been the usage since he was a mem-
ber of the college, and previously, but he does not say that
it is according to the statute, Indeed it is quite clear that
the usage is not according to the statute. It is quite clear
that these lectureships in divinity and moral and natural
philosophy wore intended for the benefit of the university,
and the statute is complied with by reading one lecture at
the end of every term ! Why, here is an abuse ! What
we propose do, to then, is to rectify abuses and not to de-
stroy institutions—to act in the spirit of the founder, and
not contrary to his intentions. (Hear, hear.) Dr. Routh,
however, goes on to say

" But it appears by Bishop Morley, our visitor's injunc-
tions, given in 166 3, that the lectures were directed by him
to be given once in every week, instead of the times men-
tioned in the founder's statutes. This injunction he sends,
they are his own words, ' pro ratione temporis,' referring, I
apprehend, to the change which had taken place in education,
conducted, as it now is, principally by tutors, persons un-
known to the statutes of Magdalen College:,
The President of Magdalen College, then, acknowledges
that these chang,es were made in a manner unknown to the
statutes, by Bishop Morley, pro ratione temporis. Let us
act pro ratione temporis ; for we in 1834 have as good a
right to consider the ratio temporis as Bishop Morley had
in 1663. Let us consider what were the intentions of the
benevolent founders of these great institutions, and act as
we suppose they would have been disposed to act, for the
purpose of promoting knowledge and education. I find also
that Walter de Merton, whose statutes, made at a very re-
mote period, have been followed, I believe, by Trinity and
some other colleges at Cambridge, after declaring—" Cas-
terum, quia, casus manes futuri ab initio aorta, lege includi
non poterant, seu statuto, idcirco volumus,"&c., proceeds
to provide that the heads of the college and eight or ten of
the senior fellows shall make statutes from time to time
which shall be obeyed by all those whom such statutes may
concern, thus showing that his view Was that with the
change of tune changes must be made in the regulations of
the college. If we look, also, to the foundations of William
of Wykeham, William of Waynfleet, and other founders
of colleges at Oxford, we shall find in several cases that
there was an intention to have lectures and professors in
various branches of learning, and that the lectures were
intended for the benefit of the waele university. The
founders acted according to their knowledge at the par-
ticular time of the foundations. When the earliest of
these colleges were founded scholastic learning was held in
great repute. It was a time when Aristotle was held in
such reverence that in many towns of Germany it is said
! J. the clergy
that, instead of reading a chapter in the Goa el
used to read a portion of Aristotle's Ethics
The founders
of colleges established at that time evidently intended to
promote the study of this species of learning. The revival
of learning followed. Greek was introduced at Oxford, as
it was in other universities and schools of learning through-
out Europe, professorships of Greek were founded, and a
new species of learning was adopted with the change of
time. Three centuries and a half have elapsed since that
period. Wo have made great proficiency in many of the
sciences. Those sciences have produced most wonderful
results, and it is desirable that every
man should know
something of the nature of those discoveries and of the
laws which apply to them. I conceive that those who
attend the University
of Oxford—whether they are in-
tended to pursue some profession, or whether they are
persons of such fortune that they are not obliged to earn
their bread by any professional pursuit—ought to receive
at a national university, not only instruction in particular
branches of knowledge, but such general information as
will enable them to go into the world, and mix, without
discredit, with persons who are well informed upon these
subjects. (Hear, hoar.) I cannot think, then, that, in
proposing to make a change of this kind with regard to
part of the revenues of the University of Oxford, we shall
be at all trenching upon the will and intention of the
founders, but I rather think that we shall be acting accord.
ing to the spirit of their intentions. I shall now proceed
to state the general nature of the bill which I propose to in-
troduce. In pointing out the defects which I thought ought
to be amended, I haveexpressed my opinion that the govern-
ment of the university is unsatisfactory. I rely upon the
statement of the commission, that statement, I think,
being corroborated by the testimony of various witnesses.
What we propose first, then, is to substitute for the heb-
domadal board, consisting of the vice-chancellor, the proc-
tors, and 23 heads of houses, a body consisting of 24 or 23
members, to be called the hebdomadal council, and to be
composed in the following manner :—We propose that the
vice-chancellor and the two proctors should always form a
part of that council, and when the vice-chancellor of the
preceding year shall not have been an elected member, that
he also should form part of the board—that would be three
or four members, as might be. With regard to the others,
we begin in the first place by forming a body to be called,
in accordance with the ancient moue, the " canigiegation,"
which would in fact consist, of all the resident teaching staff
of the university. There would belong to that body called
the copgregstion, the heads of houses, the tutors of col-

leges, the professors, the personas bearing certain offices in
the university, and thoss who
.are resident, upon certain
conditions, and complying with certain rules laid down.
That body, which would therefore be numerous, we pro-
pose should elect a certain number of the remaining 21,
who are to form the hebdomadal council. They would elect
six heads of houses, and the seventh head would be named
by the chancellor of the university. To those seven would
be added eight professors, six being chosen by the congre-
gation, one being named by the chancellor, and one being
from the professors of theology of the university. The re-
maining six would be chosen out of the resident members
of the congregation. The veater part would thus be
elected by the congiegatioa under these restrictions and
conditions. There, would be the vice-chancellor and two
proctors, the heads of houses named by the congregation,
the head named by the chancellor, the eight professors,
and the six resident members of the congregation. That
we propose as the governing body of the university.
We propose that of those first chosen a certain number
should go out at the end of three years, but that after the
first election the period for which they would be chosen
should be six years. The next subject which we propose to
insert in the bill has reference to the oaths, and upon that
subject I will observe that it is very clear that we ought
not any longer to permit oaths to be taken by members,
either not to repeal any statutes of the university, or to
obstruct any change of those statutes. Every oath, there-
fore, directly or indirectly binding the juror not to declare
any matter or thing relating to his college, under any in-
quiry appointed by law, to resist or not concur in aly
change in the statutes of the university or college, or to do
or to forbear from doing anything the doing or the not
doing of which would tend to any such concealment, re-
sistance, or non-concurrence, shall be an illegal oath.
The next subject is that of which I have already stated the
effect—namely, the exclusive character of the college edu-
cation. We propose, therefore, that there should be a,
power to open private halls, which may be done by any
master of arts obtaining a license from the vice-chancellor
for that purpose ; and he will obtain that license only
under certain rules and regulations made in a particular
manner. Those members of the house who have attended
to the recommendation of the Oxford Commissioners of
Inquiry will recollect that they propose that the under-
graduates should be allowed to live in lodgings with certain
regulations ; but, upon considering that matter, we have
thought it would be a safer plan that those who are not in
colleges should be in private halls, where they can be sub-
jected to some discipline, but where, at the same time,
they can have a more economical mode of living than is to
be obtained at present. Of course this must be a matter
of experiment. Its success will depend very much upon
the means which persons provide for making that mode of
living more economical than it now is ; but I think that
there is ever prospect that such a measure will succeed.
(Hear, hear.) I will here say a few words—and they shall
be but a few words—with respect to a subject which takes
up much attention and upon which many observations
have been made by all who have written upon this ques-
tion—l moan the habits of expense and extravagance upon
the part of the youcg men attending the university.
(Hear, hear.) I believe, Sir, that this is a very serious
evil, but that it is not to be corrected by a law passed
for the purpose, but rather that it should be corrected
the first place, by inducing better manners and morals,
and, in the second place, by the rules and regulations made
by the rulers of the University themselves. (Hear.) Ido
not think that any law which was passed by Parliament
would be likely to be free from the objection that moans
might be found to evade its strict letter. When parents
send their sons to Oxford with very 'considerable incomes
—they having already had some 2001. or 3001. a-year expend-
ed upon their education at schools—l think that in such a
case it is out of the power of the masters, or the heads of
colleges, or the riding bodies, if they keep such young men
among theirs, to control their habits of expenditure. It
would require a degree of inspection which is very averse
from the habits of English society, and I think that they
are right in not attempting so inquisitorial a system. I
think, however, that it would be right that the heads of
the university should say to the parents of such young men,
" Ours is a place of education. We want young men to
come here that we may instruct them in learning, and at the
same time give them habits of virtue and religion ; but if
you send your sons here to indulge in extravagant expen-
diture, and to set a bad example to other young men whose
parents, perhaps, can very ill afford such an expenditure,
you are not coining within the scope of the university, and
for no single breach of discipline, or offence, but simply
because your sons are extravagant, and give a bad example
to the university, we must request you to withdraw them
from this university." (Hear, hear.) I think that this sort
of discipline ought to be exercised more frequently, and,
perhaps, I may say, more fearlessly than it has been done.
At the same time, of course, these halls, under the conduct
of a man whose character is well-known, and who would
preserve a kind.y but useful discipline over those committed
to his charge, would be a security for those under him
that no extravagant expense would be incurred. I cpme next
to a question into which I do not propose to enter at any
great detail—first, because it would lead me too far, and
next, because I think that the house had better wait for
the bill before they form an opinion upon the proposal
of the Government,--1. come to the question, on which I
have already touched, of preferences granted, owing to sta-
tutes arising out of wills, to those who come under one of
these different denominations—that they are related to the
founder, that they come from a particular place or county,
or, lastly, that they belong to a particular school. Now, I
think the house will agree with me that the first two of
these distinctions are very different in their nature from
the last, and that such distinctions, drawn by the founder,
must continually lead to the obtaining of emoluments by
young mon who are by no means deserving of them, and
who may be wanting, perhaps, in industry or talent—that
restriction to particular counties must very often lead, as
Archbishop Whately says it does, to consequences directly
opposed to the intentions of the founder, and to lower the
standard of education imparted to the University. Upon the
other hand, the restrictions with regard to schools, pro-
vided that there is fair competition to those schools, and
that the authorities at Oxford always have the power of
choosing persons from among the best, may be very useful.
We propose, therefore, to do away with the restrictions—
with rare exceptions—as to founders' kindred and particu-
lar localities ; the only exceptions being with regard to
those founded within the last hundred years, to the lineal
descendants of founders, and in favour of large districts,
eeteeh on account of their property or peculiar circum-
stances may deserve to be exempted. With respect to schools
we only provide that there must be in every case at least
two shrholare from whom the fellows may choose. We go
on to make a further provision with respect to fellowships
—that unless the person holding a fellowship be engaged in
certain employments or occupations, which are stated, he
shall not hold a fellowship for more than one year. The oc-
cupations which we propose that a fellow should hold are,
that he should be habitually engaged in the tuition or dis-
cipline of the said university, or of some co:lege, hall,
or private hall thereof ; or that he should hold some
one of the offices in the university named in the sche-
dule ; or that he should be the incumbent or licensed
curate of a parish situate within three miles of Carfax, in
Oxford ; or should hold a certificate of study under this
act. This relates to resident fellows. With regard to non-
resident fellows we provide that he must be the resident in-
cumbent, or licensed curate of a parish within three miles
of Carfax, in Oxford, or of a parish whereof ate the tune of
the passing of this act the college owned the great tithes,
or wherein at the same period it owned property in land,
such ownership then also continuing ; or, that he shall per-
form some duty requiring his absence from Oxford, the per-
formance of which is now enjoined by statute on the holder
of such fellowship; or perform some duty, the perform-
ance of which may by some future statute to be made in
pursuance of the powers conferred by this act be declared
to confer on the holder of a fellowship at Oxford the pri-
vilege of non-residence. We likewise provide that, after
hol,ling a fellowship for 21 years, and having been in the
performance of one of those duties, a person shall be free
from the conditions and restrictions which I have laid
down. There is likewise, in certain cases, and for the pur-
poses of study, a proposal to give licenses of non-residence
for a period of five years. I come now to state the powers
which we propose to give of applying part of the revenues
of colleges for increasing the funds for the purposes of
education. And this, perhaps, will be a convenient time
for me to state that, as some of these last provisions and
those which I am about to state require a great deal of
consideration in certain cases—that as the rules must be
adapted as far as possible to the statutes existing, and as
each college will have to consider its statutes very care-
fully—we propose that there should be, for a certain
limited time, a commission of five persons, who shall have
the power which I will now explain. They shall have the
power, in the first place, of approving statutes in con-
formity with the provisions of the bill proposed by the
university, if they regard the university, or by the col-
leges, if they regard the colleges. We provide that that
power of approving what the colleges may propose shalllast
until Michaelmas term 1855, and that after that time, if
the university and the colleges shall not have performed
that which is expected of them, which is within the limits
and compass of this bill, the commissioners shall have
power to enact by statute rules in confermity with this act
and that those rules, having been laid before the Queen in
Council, having been approved by her Majesty, and having
been laid upon the table of this house for a certain period,
shall have the force of law, and shall be binding as statutes
upon the university and the colleges. Such being the con-
stitution of the commission, it isproposed that the colleges
should have power to contribute from its annual revenues
any sum not exceeding one-fifth part to the foundation or
better endowment of professorships or lectureships, for
the instruction of the members of the university at large ;
to regulate the tenure of such professorships or lecture-
ships, and provide for the discharge of the duties thereof ;
to diminish the number of fellowships belonging to such
college, or suspend payment of the emoluments of any of
such fellowships, with a view to the foundation of such
professorships or lectureships ; or to the supply of pensions
upon retirement therefrom of the professors or lecturers,
or to the foundation of scholarahips in the college : or to
raising the income of the remaining fellowships to any sum
not exceeding 253/. a-year ; or to the erection of new
buildings for the purpose of accommodating an increased
number of inmates ; or to the establishment of halls, to be
affiliated to such college, and the acquisition of grounds
and buildings for the same. We propose, also, that
they shall have various powers, to which I have already
referred, with respect to the grounds of preferences, and
that they may appropriate any number, not exceeding
one-fourth, of the fellowships belonging to any college to
the encouragement of the special studies of the schools
of mathematics, natural science, or modern history, or of
any other studies recognised or to be recognised by the uni-
versity. These are undoubtedly very large powers, but
they are powers which it is proposed to give entirely for
the benefit and improvement of the university. The re-
maining parts of the bill I think only refer to that to which
I have already alluded—the statutes to be made in future,
and some other provisions which it is not necessary to
trouble the house with at this time. I have now gone
through the statement which I had to make, including the
proposals for a change in the constitution of the governing
body of the uuiversity, the change proposed to be made
with a view to the extension of the benefits of the univer-
sity by the erection and maintenance of private halls, the
abrogation of oaths which are contrary to public policy and
to the public welfare, and the abrogation of those prefer-
ences which now exist by law, and which so much limit
the advantages which are to be derived from the university.
I have also stated, in the last place, the powers which it is
proposed to give with the view either to endow new fel-
lowships or to increase the salaries and endowments of
existing ones. I cannot but believe, if a measure of this
kind should pass into a law, that the University of Oxford
would derive very great advantages from these proposals,
and that the nation at large would also derive very great
advantages, because they would tend to bring a far greater
number of young men to enjoy the opportunity of study-
ing at the university, and to obtain the rewards of learn-
ing. (Hear, hear.) It is obvious, at all events, that the
fellowships and other emoluments which were intended
as a reward and encouragement to learning would thereby
be given to men who have qualified themselves for
them, and that they would not be disposed of in the
present unsatisfactory manner, There remains one ques-
tiou upon which there is no provision in the bill ; but
upon which I shall be ready at any time to give my
opinion, and my vote in conformity with the opinion
which I have always given. (Hear.) I cannot think that

the purposes of the university are advanced while there is
a test at the commencement of entrance into the university
—[The noble lord, at this juncture, turned completely
round to the members behind hint, who sheered so lustily
in the middle of the sentence that the concluding portion
of it was entirely lost.] I never would consent to any
measure by which the discipline of the colleges, or the
conduct of the religious instruction in the colleges, or the
attendance upon Divine worship was in any way inter-
fered with; but I do expect certainly that by the addition
of these new halls facilities will be afforded which induce
Parliament not to interpose the obstacles which have
hitherto been interposed to the enjoyment of the benefits
of those great schools of learning by a far greater portion
of her Majesty's subjects than now enjoy them. (Hear,
hear.) Ido not think that it would be wise, and her Ma-
jesty's Government have decided accordingly, to insert any
provision upon this subject in the present bilL It is a sub-
ject which divides both this and the other house of Parlia-
ment, and it should be, I think, a subject reserved for a
separate measure, and for separate consideration. I cer-
tainly shall be always prepared at any time to give my
vote in the same manner that I gave it 20 years ago. That
vote I gave in company with the present Chancellor of the
University of Oxford. lam afraid that I shall no longer
give it with the sanction and countenance of such autho-
rity; but I shall be quite ready, nevertheless, to give my
vote in favour of the admission of Dissenters. As I have
already said, however, that forms no part of the present
bill. Still, I think no one will deny that this is a large
and comprehensive measure of reform. (Hear, hear, and
a laugh from the Opposition.) No oue will dispute that we
have not undertaken this question in any narrow spirit; no
one will dispute that we have not listened to those objec-
tions which we thought were founded iu prejudice or error,
but I trust all will admit that we have introduced this mea-
sure with the view of rendering those two great universities
of Oxford and Cambridge worthy of the nation, and that,
while we preserve the spirit of the foeeiders of those rich
endowments, we at the same time are determined, as far as
possible, to allow the people of this country to have the
benefit of a sound, a religious, and a liberal education.
Mr. BLACKETT regretted that the bill contained no
provision for the admission of Dissenters.
Mr. MI ALL had heard with deep pain the announcement
that the advantages, emoluments, and honours of the uni-
versities were still to be withheld from the Dissenters. Ac-
cording to the last census, the population of this country
divided, generally speaking, into three classes—the absen-
tees, the Dissenters, and the Church of England people,
each numbering about 5,000,0:)0; yet, according to this
bill, all the advantages of the universities were to be mono-
polised still by one only of these classes. He begged em-
phatically to enter his protest against this one-sided legis-
lation. The noble lord, indeed, said that his inclination
was to abolish the test by which Dissenters were excluded.
If the noble lord was sincere in this declaration, let him in-
sert a clause in the bill to carry it into effect. Should such
a clause procure the destruction of the bill elsewhere, the
responsibility then would lie on those who had resisted the
concession, and not on the noble lord and the Government.
Mr. WALPOLE said the noble lord had characterised
his bill as a large and comprehensive measure of reform.
That it was a large measure no one could deny; whether
it was a comprehensive measure of reform remained to be
seen. In his opinion, the course should have been
to remove by statute those disabilities which, under
various charters and statutes, now prevented the colleges
and universities from effecting those improvements in
their system of education which they were most competent
by their knowledge and experience to introduce and to
carry into effect. The noble lord might be assured that it
wound be far better, by consulting the wishes and feelings
of the university governing belies, to conciliate their wil-
ling .;o-operation in the development of any sound prin-
ciples that might be laid down than arbitrarily to impose
this extreme external force and pressure upon them. The
CODS titution of the university was one of the points which
he seaould especially consider it most expedient to leave to
the university itself rather than to have settled by the
Houeee of Commons—au ever fluctuating body —where the
plan of to-day might be considered quite unwise five years
hone e. There could be no doubt that it was well univer-
sity statutes should bo revised periodically pro rations
temp vris ; the universities taemselves were loud in their
(Amu iciation of this proposition, and all they asked
was that they might be enabled by Parliament to
mak. i the changes which were required rations tent-
poris:. (Hear, hear.) Free them from the disabilities
which statutes and charters imposed upon them,
and they were quite willing, as they had manifested,
to in eke the requisite improvements in their system of odu-
catio cm. With regard to the principle that the universities
shouted be opened to persons not annexed to any particular
collog e, this question was most ably discussed in the Cam-
brid a. 3 University Report. At Oxford, indeed, uudergra-
duet s must reside in the university, but at Cambridge
they might reside in lodgings without the university. There
was no doubt that by such a relaxation geuerally the
aoace int of education at the universities might be enlarged
ludo finitely, but this one guard must be rigidly enforced,
as th .o Cambridge Report pointed out, that, wherever they
redid .od, the student must be under the superintendence
and control of the governing body, or the discipline of the
univ ersity would be at an end. (Hear.) With regard to
the ( extension of the professorial system, as distinguished
from the tutorial system, there were already professors in
almo e t every class of instruction ; the defect was that the
youn i; men had no inducement to attend these professors
by ti to prospect of such prizes and honours as attended the
meri t orious frequenter of the more special courses of uni-
versi l.y study. It should be recollected that the great ob-
ject s:f education at the university was not to oppress the
youn s: mind with indigestive heaps of incongruous matter,
but tc. train and discipline the moral feelings for the after
purp eses of life. It had hitherto been found that, to culti-
vate the intellect, to develops the moral feelings, and to
impr eve the heart, that training had been most effective
whit h relied mainly upon the severe but unerring rules
of n utthematies, and upon the study of those ancient
classi ics in which we possessed the noblest thoughts
cloth ed in the noblest language that ever emanated
from the mind of man. (Hear.) The study of these, he fer-
ventl y trusted, would ever continue, as they had ever been,
pre& 'eminent and pre-eminent at our universities. The pro-
posit ion to extend endowments from limitation of foun-
ders' kin and particular localities, ho entirely approved of,
with one qualification, satisfied as he was that the founders
them selves would be the first to apply that extension to
the a ttered circumstances of the time. (Hear.) He was
afrait it that if they took away endowments made by parti-
cular people for particular purposes, they would put an
end to the inducement to make such endowments--(hear,
hear)--and he trusted that the bill of the noble lord would
be g.tzsbreled in that respect. If he followed the noble
lord's. words rightly, it was not his intention to interfere
with endowments which had been made within the last
100 y ears. Possibly that might prevent the evil he antici-
pated., but he hoped they would never by any legislation
put a. stop in the slightest degree to that charity and that
voluntary benevolence that liberal people showed not
merely for the benefit of the present but succeeding gene-
raticeas, which he trusted might reap the fruits of such
endowments undisturbed by anything that might be done
by t'nat house. But the point on which he entertained
the most serious apprehensions was the compulsory ap-
plication of the college funds. The noble lord gave colleges a
year .a grace to dispose of one-fifth of their annual revenues to
the foundation or better endowment of professorships orlec-
turesh ips for the instruction of the members of the university
at large, whatever might be their demands or wishes or the
objects to be accomplishes!, and if within that year they
did not alienate a fifth part of their revenues, certain com-
missioners were to be appointed who were to take away,
whether the colleges consented or not, that portion and
apply it to the purposes in question. Surely the university
should be consulted on such a matter as that. The radical
defect of the Government measure was that, instead of re-
moving disabilities, they were forcing alterations upon col-
leges and universities, and they could not judge whether
such alterations would be for their benefit, or whether
Parlietinent five years hence, considering them not beneficial,
would not make the greatest alterations at some future
period. Feeling strongly on these points, he could not help
calling the attention of the Government to them, for he
had always been of opinion that the proper way to deal
with the report of this commission would be, as it was an-
nounced in the speech from the Throne in 1852, to pass en
enabling bill defining the points on which universities and
colleges might be empowered to alter their statutes, not
with a view of leaving them unreformed, but of making
them, as national institutions, as largely beneficial as they
could be to the people of this country. (Cheers.)
Sir W. HE A.THCOTE said, he had given every consid-
eration to the question, whether the bill should be made
an enabling bill, or one of a compulsory character—and he
confessed that the more he had considered the point, the
more he was convinced that the passing of merely an
enabling bill would be to do nothing at all. (Hear, hear.)
He should observe that this bill might be divided into two
distinct parts for consideration. The one relating to the
university, and the other to the colleges. With respect to
the university, the question was not whether there should
be an enabling or a compulsory bill—but there was a prior
question which was a grave ono—namely, -whether they
should legislate upon the subject at all. (Hear, hear.)
It was quite clear that the university, with the consent
of the Queen upoh one statute, and without the Royal
consent on others, could legislate already for itself, except
upon some minor points. (Hear.) With 'respect to the
constitution of the university—with the consent of the
Crown, and by previous arrangements, a now constitution
might be framed. And if it had been so framed under
such circumstances, all the questions of form, and all ar-
rangements of the university might be settled without the
necessity of consulting Parliament, He thought that there
had been a most unfair obloquy thrown upon the govern-
ing authorities of Oxford in respect to a plan brought for-
ward for anieluding the constitution of the university. At
the same time, he did not think it was wise for them to
have so long delayed suggesting au arrangement upon
which the whole plan was to hinge. When the plan pro-
jected by the heads of the house was charged with not
being bona fide, he must say that such an assertion was a
hard one to make, and was not justifiable. Now, it was
consistent with all their legislation in that house, that
there should not be a waste of legislative povver, and that
they should not attempt to apply remedies where no evils
existed. But to return to the question whether the act
should be enabling or compulsory. The case of the colleges
was no doubt different to that of the 'adversity. The cor-
respondence which was published on the subject showed
how anxious all the colleges were to improve their own
statutes. There were three or four colleges which had
power to amend their own statutes, and to apply them to
the existing state of things. The rest of the 19 colleges
were all bound by statutes, and about one-half by such
stringent rules, that whatever statutes they possessed in
respect to them they would have no effect. He hoped that
this house would not arrogate to itself the power to declare
oaths void. Even if the house assumed such a power, the
conscientious men connected with the university would
never consent to such an arrangement, but would still feel
themselves bound by their oaths. Well, then, the form of
proceeding in reference to this subject must be compulsory.
As to many of the colleges their proceeding must be by the
influence of external power ; certainly not by any hostile
proceeding. Until the names of the commissioners were
placed upon the biil, this point could not be ascertained
satisfactorily, for it would turn upon the particular names
themselves whether this proceeding should be viewed as
hostile or otherwise. There was one proposition of the
noble lord which he confessed he felt as much difficulty or
doubt about as the the right hon. gentleman the member
for Midhurst. He alluded to the proposal to divert from the
colleges the funds that had been given them by their foun-
ders for certain defined objects, and to apply them to the
purpose of establishing professors. Now he looked upon this
proposition with great suspicion. Surely the colleges were en-
titled to as much protection as any other charitable funds.
If the colleges insisted pertinaciously upon extending the
university beyond its limits, there would, perhaps, be
some justification for adopting some such proposition as
that of the noble lord. If they were going to endow pro-
fessorships to which the appointments were in the hands
of the Crown, or some other authority than that from which
the money was to come, then he considered that such a
course would be nothing but confiscation. (Hear.) He
was not contesting their power. Ho knew that. Parliament
had powers absolute and despotic. He was aware that
they had passed acts of confiscation and attainder, and
they might do so again, but those were acts of uncontrolled
power, not legislation, They were privilegia, not laws,

(Hear, hear.)- He apprehended, however, that this part of
the bill was not to be extended to the length anticipated
by the right hon. gentleman the member for Midhurst.
He (Sir W. Heathcote) thought that the noble lord said',
that it should not exceed one-fifth of the revenue, and not
that one-fifth was in every case to be taken. If, however,
the colleges show that they had important wants of their ,
own, and that the revenues were properly applied to carry
out the intentions of the founders, he did not understand .
the noble lord to say that, nevertheless, they should be
applied in a different manner. (Hear hear; from Lord J.
Russell.) He thought that every friend of the university
should meet and consider the Measure in no obstructive
spirit ; and he hoped, from the remarks of the noble lord,
that there would be every disposition to give effect to any
fair objections that might arise. If that should be the
case he was not without a hope that the result would be
to give increased powers to the university to do good—to
give her expansiveness, and to enable her to keep the youth
of this country, who had escaped to a lamentable extent
from her influence. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER was inclined to think
favourably of the measure on the whole, as conceived with
proper consideration for the independence of the university,
and the principles of self-government.
Mr. HEYWOOD felt grateful to the Government for
having proposed such a measure as this. He regretted
that it did not include a provision for admitting dis-
senters to the full benefits of the universities, and should
feel bound to move a clause to that effect in committee.
Mr. HENLEY thought that the indiscriminate admis-
sion of persons of all religious persuasions to academic
privileges must necessarily lead to confusion of opinion,
indifference and infidelity. The professorial system ap-
peared to him one well calculated to promote rationalism,
and the present English system much better able to resist
it. He looked with considerable doubt at the provisions
for the removal of restrictions in the admission of fellow-
ships, and entertained apprehensions of the whole ckange
proposed as one that must disconnect the Church of Eng-
land from the universities.
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—Sir,
on my own behalf, and, I am quite sure,'on the part of my
noble friend and her Majesty's Government, I venture to
express niy satisfaction and my thankfulness with regard
to the manner in which this important measure has been
received by the house. (Hear, hear.) The tone of the
speeches which have been made to-night satisfies me that
this subject will have the advantage of a dispassionate and
impartial consideration. (Hear, hear.) We have heard
two gentlemen express their sentiments, who occupy pro-
minent positions in what is cal led her Majesty's Opposi-
tion but lam bound to say that neither in the speeches
of those gentlemen, nor in any of the speeches
which have proceeded from any other quarter, can I trace
the slightest disposition to deal with this question as a
question of mere party politics. (Hear, hear.) lam con-
fident, sir, that whatever good can accrue to any one (and
I know of no good that can accrue to any one) from mixing
up the University of Oxford with the struggles and the
contests of party, nothing but unmixed evil can result to
the university from the adoption of such a course. (Hear,
hear.) Sir, various questions of detail have been opened
in the course of this discussion, and especially by the right
hon. gentleman who has just sat down; and I am sure he
will excuse me if I do not eudeavour to follow upon those
questions of detail, because this is eminently a subject on
which I think it is desirable that the house should suspend
its judgment with retard to all those matters, until each
member holds a copy of the bill in his hands. The struc-
ture of the ancient universities of this country is
so curious and comprehensive, they have so much
of history and tradition within themselves, and such
infinite variety and diversity attached to them, that it is
impossible to deal with all the interests justly and con-
siderately, and at the same time to do it in a few- general
and sweeping clauses. It was, therefore, necessary, in
framing this bill, to endeavour to adapt it in some degree
to this extraordinary diversity—thus rendering unavoid-
able a deviation from that simplicity of form and paucity
of provisions in which it is abstractedly desirable that
every measure should appear before this house. On this
account, and on account of the bearings which the differ-
ent provisions have upon one another, that I hope hon.
gentlemen will consent to wait, for the few hours that
must elapse before the bill will be in their hands, with re-
garl to questions of detail. But several questions have
been touched upon that are questions of principle, and to
those I wish to advert for a few moments. I will refer to
the first of them merely to say why I prefer to postpone
its discussion for my own part. I mean the important ques-
tion raised by the hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall),
which has since been discussed with great ability by the
hon and learned member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer),
and to which the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Hen-
ley) just adverted with a serious earnestness and a concern
for the interests of the universities which everybody must
respect; I mean the important subject of the admission of
dissenters. The hon. member for North Lancashire (Mr.
Heywood) has given notice in the course of this debate that
he will take an opportunity, when the bill goes into com-
mittee, of moving a clause on this subject. Well, sir, 1
shall, with the permission of the house, reserve myself till
the hon. member proposes his clause, when I shall be pre-
pared to state, I Hope clearly, the reasons which induce me
to meet his intended clause with a negative. For the present,
then, I pass on to other questions of great importance. One
of these questions is the interference with the independence
of the universities, and another is the interference with
the property of the colleges. Now, as regards the question •
of interference with the independence of the universities
and of the colleges, by inviting Parliament to enter upon the
t isk of what may be called compulsory or coercive legislation,
I am free to admit that it would be most desirable if the
constitutions of the universities and the colleges had pos-
sessed in themselves such elasticity and such facility of
adaptation to the various wants of the active age in which
we live as would render it unnecessary to come to Parlia-
ment in order to meet this exigency. (Hear, hear.) Her
Majesty's Government, however, after long consideration
—after exhibiting, I hope, no want of patience—have come
to the conclusion that the constitutions which the uni-
versities have inherent in themselves do not afford those
facilities, and have therefore thought it to be their impera-
tive duty to make a proposal to Parliament on the sub-
ject. But here we are met by the right hon. gentleman
the member for Middleshurst (Mr. Walpole), and by other
hon. gentlemen, with the doctrine, broadly laid down,
that the right course would be to confine ourselves simply
to the removal of disabilities and to leave everything in
the hands of the universities and the colleges. Now,
in the first place, I must demur to any doctrine of this
kind laid down upon abstract grounds. I cannot admit
that there is any right whatever in those who are the
life tenants of any corporation whatever to set up a title
to the absolute and exclusive management of that corpora-
tion's affairs as against the supreme authority of the legis-
lature. (Cheers.) I grant as fully as any man—and I le
have often asserted it in this house, and am ready to
maintain it again—that it is most desirable that the legis-
lature should practise great reserve, and great self-control
iu the exercise of its interference ; but that is a matter of
prudence and consideration—a question, supposing the in-
terference to be authorised, whether the occasion for its
exercise is an adequate and imperative one. As to the ;
right, I hold that there can be no doctrine so inconvenient ea
—none of such dangerous consequence--none more certain
gill
to produce violent reaction—than to attempt to set up a r
multitude of divided and independent authorities, each to
contending for supremacy in the conduct of institutions
and the management of property, which owe, if not their .er
being, at any rate their safety and prosperity, to the guar- ,ti.,
diauship of the general law of the land. But this
.; v
case does not stand merely upon general prudence 1
—it is a case for the interference of Parliament, ss
clearly and conclusively, on grounds altogether special and
peculiar. The hon. baronet the member for the university J
(Sir W. Heathcote) has himself stated the case as regards a:
the colleges, and I venture to say that that case does not :its
admit of an answer. I am not surprised at hearing my ;:e"!
lion. friend who comes from Cambridge (Mr. Wigram), aoi
where they are so free —for in that university there is f,
only the case of a single college which is entangled in the
meshes of the oath which attaches to as many as eight of
the most important colleges of Oxford, viz., the oath by
which the whole of the governing body of the college
directly, or by inevitable implication, are bound to make
no change, and to permit no change or alteration,
in the statutes. Why, what would be the use of giving
the colleges enabling powers ? We should be entangled with
questions as to whether Parliament can make au oath void
and the like; and supposing some member of the college
should think that Parliament possessed no such right, are
you ready to enter into questions of conscience, and to tell
him that his scruples are idle, and that he must do what
you require, whether he thinks so or not; and this too, 10
forsooth, under the notion of preserving their freedom and
independence ? W ell, this is the position in which you
place these groat colleges ; I will not mention them all,
but there are amongst them several of the wealthiest and
greatest colleges of Oxford, including Magdalen, New Col
lege, Brasenose, Corpus, All Souls, Lincoln, and one or
two more. Aro we to say, when we know that the
governing bodies of these colleges are restrained by per- ,
sonal anti common oaths from devising any scheme of do
change, that we will simply pass an act enabling them to ire
devise such schemes of change, and then think we have done
all our duty in the matter ? But then my honourable
friend and -colleague (Sir W. Heathcote), who himself put ,
i
this argument, which I believe admits of no answer with
respect to the colleges, stated that as regards the uni-
versities the case is altogether different, because. e
the
university, he said, is under no such disability, al!ci
university, with the license of the Crown, is perfectly
.free
to proceed to make any changes which it
maythink
fit in its own constitution, and as respects other matters is
free to make changes, generally speaking, in the gnvenl*
ment and internal condition, without any license from the zit
Crown. That is perfectly correct, but the hon. and learned .1
member for Plymouth said, and said west truly—when you :AV
speak of a university, who and what do you mean ? Look
at the present constitution of the universities. Have the .
universities power to appoint their own representatives, ' ,
with power to deal with you as their representatives, and em
express their views uon
their own interests, wants, and ,sr
necessities ? They havep no such power at all—they have no eat
power whatever, through the convocation, except that of -al;
saying a bare "aye" or a bare "no" to such questions as may ,
to say that I wish to speak of, Ls
be propounded to the convocation by the governors of
II
every pOmible respect ;_ there is no ~rf
the University at Oxford. That is the simple view of the
case. It is unnecessary
the governors with
man among them who is nut respectable in his sphere—a -ace
eminent, and even distin-
gre.a,t md
guisae y speaking, and
almost without exception, by the different colleges to ma. art;
—anYbuotfththeyemarearaepPaetllieled, generana
nage the affairs each of their particular college ; and the :ese;
prominent idea in the minds of those who have the chops-
.
s that ofchoosing
ing of them the managers of a college, cis
and not of choosing governors for the university. The con-
stitution
of a college is so
Peculiar that almost exclusive
power is in the hands of a board of this description, the
:11.
members of which are almost all chosen for such purp
peak oses, a
it is with great limitation and reserve that you can s
of them as representing the opinions of the university,
which opinions they have no means of bringing before Par-
liament. I was endeavouring to count them up during
ass
the statement of say noble friend (Lord John Russell),
and I think we have had six different constitutions sent
up from the universities all of them recommended on
very respectable authority. There are two constitu-
ea
tions recommended by the committee of the board of
heads of houses and two constitutions recommended
by the tutors, making four. Then there is a fifth
constitution, which was recommended reeeritly by a
large body of residents ' • anti there is also a sixth constitu-
tion, recommended by the hebdomadalboard, and for which
convocation presented its petition. You may say-perhaps
that you regard that as the petition of the university.
Then look at the difficulty under which this constitution
works. When we speak of the constitution of the Uni-
versity of Oxford, although it is perfectly true that all the
members of the convocation have gone through a certain
term of residence, and passed certain degrees, and keep
their names on the books, although it is perfectly true that
they are invested with theparliamentary franchise, yet this
does not enable every country clergyman, or every London
lawyer or member of parliament, to exercise practically a,
judgment upon the affairs of the university, with which he
is never conversant, like those who reside in the university
and carry on its work. Now, look for a moment at the
working of the present constitution. The constitution re-
commended by the board of heads of bowleg to cony oostioa