The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-28 00:00:00

Bence of the preparation which a bill like the present re-
quires, and I may venture to say something as to this. I
will not undertake to say the length of time such a com-
mittee may last, but I do not think that the hon. gentleman
would find that after a lapse of six weeks or two months
he would be enabled to bring back the bill in a shape
!satisfactory to the house. The question, therefore, comes
as to whether it is desirable tha bill should be rejectedfor a
year, and secondly, whether it is desirable that it should
be rejected after the second reading has been affirmed by
the house, without a division. Ido not think that it is
desirable that it should be rejected, but if it is thought that
it is desirable that it should be so, then I think it ought to
be rejected in a plain and an intelligible manner, by a mo-
tion directly made as to its merits, so that we might know
the motives and reasons of those who rejected it. But the
bill should not be got rid of by a chance combination,
formed under the words of a motion honestly intended,
but which are used for the purpose and convenience of
others who have no sympathy with the mover of that
motion. (Hear, hear.) The bill ought not to be rejected,
and I think I may found this opinion on that of the
university itself, summoned from every part of England to
discuss this measure ; it is shown that the numbers as-
sembled at Oxford were equally divided on it ; and if
hpn. members were not content with the numbers, let
them analyse the composition of those numbers, and it
will be found that the great number of those men who did
the work of the university—men who were never men-
tioned in this house without respect and hon.spuT—ap.
proved of the principles of this bill. (Cheers.) 1 do not
believe the House of Commons will reject or refuse to con-
sider a bill framed by the Government with all the care
and skill it could bring to bear upon the task, and which
has been hailed by the university itself, so far as regards
the majority of its working body, as likely to relieve
them from restraint and give greater efficiency to their
labours, make the endowments more available for the
pur-
poses for which (they were intended, and immensely
to in-
crease the benefits which the university has conferred upon
the country. (Hear, hear.)
I do not think the house will
reject a bill so framed and so received, and which, after
le discussion and time for preparation,. was allowed,
ample • e the sanction of this house on the
without a vote, to receive
second reading. (Hear, hear.) When we have gone into
committee and
grappled with the difficulties which I freely
admit to exist, and ascertained how near we can come to
one another—where we agree and where we differ—l can
quite understand how, after that, it might be a ra-
tional as it would be a perfectly competent course for any
honourable member to say—" I feel myself incompetent
to the full consideration of this measure, and there-
fore I should wish to see it referred to a committee
up stairs." But this is clearly not the occasion on
which such a course ought to be taken, and I repeat
that, if in the circumstances I have spoken of this bill
should be consigned to a sommittee for the consideration
of its details, the effect will be the postponement of the
bill for the present session. (Hear, hear.) There is one
other topic which it is necessary to mention, and it is this
—the hon. member for Dumfries, who followed and sup-
ported the hon. gentleman who has made this motion, gave
ns to understand that they wished to refer this bill to a
select committee in consequence of its not containing any
provision for the settlement of the question which has been
raised respecting the admission of Dissenters to the uni-
versity. I thought we were to have had a fair discussion
and debate, both on the whole merits of that important
question and upon the expediency of mixing the considera-
tion of that with the consideration of the present measure
when we got into committee on the bill. We tesk you now
to pass this bill which will give to Oxford a representative
government that will e. able them to consider that impor-
tant subject, and thereby advance the question to that
point that will lead to its final solution. (Hear.) On these
grounds I venture to express the hope that the hon. gentle-
man will not persist in a course of action that is liable
to the imputation of indirectly preventing the im-
p avementof the bill in committee. (Hear.) At all events,
the course of the Government is clear. As the effect of
this motion would be the utter ruin and destruction of the
bill for the present year, the Government have no option
but to meet it with a most emphatic negative. (Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN wished, in one word, to explain that he
spoke of the present system being " the bane of the univer-
sity," and that be did not mean to apply that, term to a
body of men for whom individually and collectively it wag
impossible not to have the highest respect. (Hear.) He
should have wished the bill to go to a select committee,
as there were corrections which he was anxious to see made
in it; but, on the other hand, he was unwilling to run the
risk of the bill not coming back to the house in time, and
therefore he could not support the motion of the hon. mem-
ber for North Lancashire.
Mr. HADFIELD hoped the hon. member forNorthLan-
eashire would go to a division. What was this bill to him,
or to those who for I=o years and more, had been excluded
from the universities? (Hear, hear.) He would have
been better satisfied if he had received an assurance from
the Government that it was their intention to admit
Dissenters to the advantages of the universities ; but no
such assurance had been given, and the inference was drawn
by him and all his friends that it was not intended they
should be admitted. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the country
would take notice of the speech which had that night been
delivered by the hon. member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman.)
The exposure which he had made of the university system
could not be passed over very long. (Hear.) He thought
it might be fairly understood that there was a division
among Ministers on the subject—(hear, hear)—and that
there had been a compromise between them, the effect of
which was that they brought in a bill which excluded Dis-
senters from the universities. (Hear.) He had no sym-
pathy whatever with the measure before the house, which
excluded a decided majority of the people, and he hoped
it would be defeated. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I did not intend to take any part
in this discussion, and would not have done so but for the
speech of the hon. member for Sheffield. I must confess
that I cannot agree with him, and I protest against the
spirit in which he has addressed the house. (Hear, hear.)
If there is illiberality in any party—if there is any illibe-
rality on the part of the Church—if thereisilliberality
on the part of our laws and institutions, or in any depart-
ment of the State—the illiberality of the hon. gentleman
completely distances any illiberality of which he can com-
plain. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman asks, " What is
this bill to me, and what good will it do to us who are ex-
cluded from the universities ?" I may be permitted to
mention that I have always been a member of the Church,
but I belong to a society the principle of which is that
schools shall be established without reference to the cate-
chism or the Church, and thereby Protestant Dissenters
are enabled to obtain the benefit of education for their
children. Bat what if I were to say, "Of what use is this
to me ? Of what use is it to me that Dissenters should have
the benefit of this education, and not Churchmen ; there-
for I will not support such schools." (Hear, hear.) Pro-
testant dissenters ever since the commencement of the
reign of the house of Hanover have always professed
liberality on these subjects, and this is the first time I have
heard it urged, with reference to a case of reform, that it is
one that does no good to the Dissenters, and will only suit
some 5,000,000 Churchmen, who will be the only persons
benefitted in the matter. (lear.) I ask, are not these
Churchmen the fellow-subjects of the hon. gentleman ? Are
they not inhabitants of the same country as himself ? If
their education can be improved—if poorer members of the
Church are to be better rewarded for their learning, can
the hon. gentleman not support such claims—has he no
fellowship, no sympathy but for those who belong to his
own communion ? (Hear.) I really think the members
of the communion to which the hon. gentleman belongs
will hardly approve or sympathise with such sentiments.
Then the hon. gentleman says this bill is a compromise be-
tween the members of the Government. He is equally un-
unfounded in that imputation as ho is in his sentiments.
(Hoar.) When I aseented to the proposal for a commission
-- when the hon. member for North Lancashire—who has
been most earnest and zealous in this question—proposed
a reform of the universities, and when I stated that the
then Government had advised her Majesty to issue a com-
mission, I stated expressly that I thought the improvement
of the universities should be made a subject of itself, and

that the admission of Dissenters should be reserved for

separate consideration. (Hear.) My right hon. friend who
sits near me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not
connected with me in a political party at that time. , We
had no political connexion whatever. (Hear, hear.) I said
at the time that I thought such a course was the best that
could' be followed for both branches of the subject—that it
would be of advantage for the cause of university reform,
on the one hand, and that it would-be an advantage to the
cause of the admission of Dissenters on the other. (Hear,
hear.) I have always been—as the hon. gentleman well
knows, having at no time disguised my sentiments—l have
always been in favour of, and given my vote for, the ad-
mission of dissenters to the universities, whenever that
question was brought forward. (Hear, hear.) Twenty
years ago I voted in favour of their admission : but there
have always been presented by the universities great ob-
stacles to the granting of that prayer. It was stated, for
example, that it would interfere with the discipline and
the organisation of the colleges now existing in Oxford.
By this bill it seems to me that those who might bring
forward a measure on that subject will stand on a far
better ground than before. (Hear, hear.) The hon mem-
ber for North Warwickshire says that is an objection to
the bill. I can understand how the heads of houses who
oppose a formidable obstacle, that is not successful in this
honse, whatever it might be in the other house of Perlis-
Meat, should oppose the admission of dissenters. But I
can understand. all:,, when a master of arts has opened a
Private hall in the University of Oxford, if this bill passes,
that he should say all dissenters ought to be admitted to
the universities, universities, because he, in his private hall, could
11af-')rssuch rules as would not render it obligatory on dis-
*!!lite to attend that kind of religious instruction which
did not accord with their own conscientious views. I say,
then, that
in promoting this bill I am promoting the cause
which gentlemenon this side have at heart; but I feel
quite sure of this
our objects , that if because we cannot obtain all
aOcen, we will take care that the Church of
England obtains
himself by that a poor boy who dis-
tinguishesphilosophy, Ju mathematics, or a knowledge of na-
tural
not gain the advantage he might
otherwise obtain, because there is another boy who is not
admitted—if we act
maxim so unfair, so illiberal,
I say the reform we sePeZnwilia•
indefi-
nite period. , (Hear, hear.) Ibe. postponed for an
1: therefore, in the cause
of practical reform, that the"o house
41 will not allow an
otVection of that kind to
) 4itritisre with regard to
this measare. (near, hear.
to the hon.
gentleman who has made this motion, itseemedforce to me
Committee,mit belong
that his objections,
questions specially for the
to them, were
that they arc ql_iestions that can be freely discusaednand
com-
mittee alone. With respect to many of the suggestionstha
he has made, it may appear on discussion that ray hon.
friend is right, and at all events he will have a fair bearin.,
for those Bugg's:li tione.
My right hon. friend has truly
that, if he persists in his motion for a select committee,we
said
may expect that that motion will be decisive of the fall of
the bilL (Hear.) What my hon. friend can least of all ex-
pect is, that this house will name a committee favourable
to his views. (Hear, hear.) It is evident that if heproposed
15 gentlemen , with niue or ten of them holding his views,
his seconder would get up and propose that seven of these
should be left out—(a laugh)—and thus the majority of the
committee would be favourable to maintaining the Univer-
sity of Oxford as it is, or with a minimums of reform that
the heads of ht,uses themselves might approve of. (Hear.)
Therefore, as a practical object, my hon. friend would gain
nothing by this motion, and I hope that, seeing the turn i
this discussion has taken, he will not persist in pressing t
upon the honse, (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLIY thought that the reference to a select
committee was the best course which could be adopted.
Mr.. MULL assailed the measure as evincing a cowardly
subservience to episcopal authority, and as legislation in a
sectarian spirit for a national object, and he thought that
the dissenters would obtain a hearing before the committee.
Mr- _HEYWOOD regretted that he could. not consent to
withdraw his amendment, and expressed his determination
to divide upon it.
Mr. DISRAELL—Sir, if the hon. Member for North
Lancashire had consented to withdraw his amendment to
the motion now before the house, I should have remained
silent ; but, inasmuch as he has deterinined to divide the
I feel it my duty to express the
louse upon the subject,
opinions which I entertain relative to it. It appears to me
that the amendment made by the hon. member is not, in
fact, an irrational one ; because the question which we are