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

--................---......._~
s,ur'n ,1 i C3:l,
' (Hear, hear.) ITo aperehendell, however, that this part 0 - sltes._
the bill was not to be extended to the length antiata . e)gentlemaniei.V. •
by the right hon. gentleman the member fen Mldhnrst
. e s 'sele Vasa ,
He (Sir W. Heatiecotee thought that the neibledord said. ku• - 4,,,,7,
that it should not exceed one fifth of the re vnereien,4iicl etofeV, ' !t, ':,—
that one-fifth was in every case to he taken. 1, Wessiseaelear. ...-
~...,eapeet:
the colleges show that they had important tse;sf .th .L.:"`''', 4411.7
Nup
own, and that the revenues were properly app ied
out the intentions of the founders, he did not Undea:e A. e A,'
the noble lord to say that, nevertheless, they should bel ' 8
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 bo
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. Ho looked with considerable doubt at the provisions
for the removal of restrictions in the admission of fellow-
ships, and entertained apprehensions of the whole change
proposed as one that must disconnect the Church of Eng-
land from the universities.
The 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 my 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 i
pro-
minent positions in what is called her Majesty's Opposi-
tion ; but I am 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 more 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 endeavour 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 regard 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, ill
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-
gard to questions of detail. But several questions have
been touched upon that are questions of principle, and to
these 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 au 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
task of what may be called compulsory or coercive legislation,
I am free to admit that it would bo 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 bo 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 lay 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 sot 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
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
in 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
—none of such dangerous consequence—none more certain
to produce violent reaction—than to attempt to set up a
multitude of divided and independent authorities, each
contending for supremacy in the conduct of institutions
and the management of property, which owe, if not their
being, at any rate their safety and prosperity, to the guar-
dianship of the general law of the land. But this
case does not stand merely upon general prudence
—it is a case for the interference of Parliament,
clearly and conclusively, on grounds altogether special and
peculiar. The hon. baronet the member for the university
(Sir W. Heathcote) has himself stated the case as regards
the colleges, and I venture to say that that case does not
admit of an answer. I am not surprised at hearing my
hon. friend who comes from Cambridge (Mr. Wigram),
where they are so free —for in that university there is
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 ? Wo should be entangled with
questions as to whether Parliament can make an oath void
and the like ; and supposing some member of the college
should think that Parliament possessed no such eight, 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,
forsooth, under the notion of preserving their freedom and
independence? Well, this is the position iu which you
place these great 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, Brasennee, Corpus, All Souls, Lincoln, and one or
two snore. Are we to say, when we know that the
governing bodies of those colleges are restrained by per-
sonal and common oaths from devising any scheme of
change, that we will simply pass an act enabling them to
devise such schemes of change, and then think eve have done
all our duty in the matter ? But then my honourable
friend and colleague (Sir W. Heathcote), who himself put
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 the
university, ho said, is under no such disability, and the
university, with the license of the Crown, is perfectly free
to proceed to snake any changes which it may think
fit in its own constitution, and as respects other matters is
free to snake changes, generally speakinge.in the governs
meat and internal condition, without any license from the
Crown. That is perfectly correct, but the hon. and learned
member for Plymouth said, and said most truly—when you
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,
express their views upon their own interests, wants, and
necessities ? They have no such power at all—they have no
power whatever, 'through the convocation, except that of
saying a bare "aye" or a bare no to such questions as may
be propounded to the convocation. by
simple view of the
the governors of
thease U.
I wish to speak of
unnecessaryOxrd.
toThsaatyisththate
the governors with every possible respect ; there is no
n ii Ire lissi ty at
man among them who is not respectable in his sphere—a
great many of thorn are able, eminent, and. even distin-
guished— but they are appointed, generally speaking, and
almost without exception, by the different colleges to ma-
nage the affairs each of their particular college; and the
prominent idea in the minds of those who have the choos-
ing of them is that of choosing the managers of a college,
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
members of which are almost all chosen for such purposes,
it is with great limitation and reserve that you can speak
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
the st •tement 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 aro two constitu-
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 recently by a
'
which was recommended
large body of residents • and there is also a sixth constitu-
tion, recommended by the hehdomadalboard, 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 the parliamentary 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 houses to con vocation