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

now called upon to consider is one of
great
importance. (Hear.) It was admitted b y magnitude
the n obl e aild
lord,
gentleman the member for the mil
when he introduced this measuro,,,ertshiatyt, twhohorsieghnetoiheonis.
agreed upon what appears
sghinttohothne.
on the hack of this bill, antlothheenoonbeleoflotrhdeholim,sielf had
nsubnot
agreed upon what appears to be one of the mLin subjects
of discussion—namely,
university. (Hear.) The nDdissthenetenr.
the
naodhmleisslinoordoef
gentleman haelopinions'
ince expressed opinions' on this subject
quite contrary to, and the reverse of, each other, and
therefore it was certainly not very absurd in the hon.
'
member for North Warwickshire to think that some other
arguments might be used and some other reasons suggested
relativetnents used by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of to the scope and application of this measure. The
arguments
the Exchequer to-night have most assuredly not been
very satisfactory, and I cannot in any way lend myself to
the belief that, by acceding to the amendment of the hon.
member for North Lancashire, we should necessarily be
creating unlimited delay, or, at any rate, be subjecting the
measure to useless procrastination. Surely this is not a
class of argument to which the Government ought to have
recourse, especially this session—when we have seen re-
forms of much greater importance than even those of the
University of Oxford postponed. (Cheers and laughter.)
Surely, sir, if we can afford to delay a reform of the Eng.
lish constitution, it is not a very unreasonable thing that an
hon. member should suggest the propriety of deferring for
some time, or until proper inquiries should be made and
satisfactory evidence obtained, the consideration of these
university reforms. (Hear.) But I deny the assertion
which has been made, that a reference of this measure to a
select committee is necessarily a postponement of it. (Hear.)
If this bill were sent before a select committee it would be
possible to produce a bill from it for the consideration of
the House, which might accomplish great advantages, and
which would still be from the objections which, I think,
are obvious on the face of the Government project. What
I object to in this bill is, not that it attempts to reform
and reconstruct an ancient institution of the country—it is
not that it may lead to very great changes, not in the con-
struction but in the administration of the university—but
that it strikes a blow—a fatal blow, in my opinion—at the
self-government, the freedom, and the independence of the
university. That blow I think, is an unnecessary one,
and I am sure that if this bill were referred to a select com-
mittee, all the results might be obtained which are required,
without dealing the blow which, I am sure, every gentle-
man on both sides of the house must greatly reprobate and
disapprove. That is my great objection to this measure.
You propose to form a new constitution for the University
of Oxford. Grant that a necessity is now admitted to
exist for the establishment of a new constitution—why do
you attempt also, at the same time, to realise what should
properly be the results of the action of that new constitu-
tion? What you propose is not only to establish a new
constitution for the university, but also to enterinto minute
details into all those subjects the ordering and management
of which are the proper office of the new constitution
which you are about to establish. If the House of Commons
is to settle how students are to be lodged—if it is to adjudi-
cate upon a scheme so important as the education to be
given by the university—if it is to be decided what portion
of tho revenues of a college are to be devoted to the main-
tenance of the particular objects for which the college was
founded, and what portion is to be dedicated to the more
general purposes ofthe university—if the House of Commons
is to decide on all these subjects where, I ask, is the necessity
for creating a new constitution for the university at all ? If
you establish a new constitution for the university, and if you
left to it to decide upon all these questions of detail, which
are comprised in the sections of this bill, you would not be
attacking the power of self-government in the university
—you would rather be increasing it, and you would be
giving strength and expansion to its freedom and indepen-
dence. I may be asked, however, how it was that, enter-
taining these objections to the bill, I allowed it to go to a
second reading without opposition ? Perhaps, sir, if I had
altogether followed my own inclination, I should have
opposed the second reading, and it certainly was not I may
say, without great anxiety and consideration that I acceeded
to that stage of the bill ; but I thought the motion of the
hon. gentleman the member for North Lancashire gave me
an opportunity for expressing my sentiments with regard
to the measure. The result at which the house has at
present arrived is, that there must loe some change in the
present constitution of Oxford ; but if the Government
project is referred to a select committee, it may make alte-
rations in the proposed new form of Government, or it may
omit all those clauses which refer to what I think ought to
be the natural results of the action of that constitution of
the university. Take, for instance, the question of private
halls—establishments which, perhaps, I may say, are
rather hostile to the colleges than not. Surely this ques-
tion, if the university has an adequate constitution pro-
vided for it, is one which will be much more proitably
decided by the university than by the House of Commons.
But, sir, I doubt very much whether this bill in any one
of its proposals will effect any great and considerable change
in the aspect and general character of the university. I
do not believe that if you consent to pass this bill, that if
you do actually provide for the entertainment of the stu-
dent at what are called private halls, you will at all provide
for that class of indigentes of whom we have heard so
much. The extension of the university in this manner
is one of the great objects which you have in view, but I
doubt verymuch whether this bill, if passed into law as it
stands, will effect it. Look, too, to another point—the
professional system, of which we have heard so much. I
doubt very much whether by this bill you will be able to
accomplish that great change in the system of Oxford
which has been so much talked of, and which by many is
so much feared. A professor—at least, such a one as is
expected by the supporters of this bill—is not a man that
can be suddenly created, even if you increase his income to
a considerable extent. We have heard much to-night
from the hon. member for Stroud of the results of the pro-
fessorial system in English universities, as compared with
its results in foreign universities. Sir, I believe there is a
great fallacy in that argument. (Hear, hear.) Take Ger-
many, far instance. What sphere is there for the genius,
the intellect, and the energy of Germany but in the pro-
fessorial chair? (Hear, hear.) Give Germany a House of
Commons, and do you think that she would then produce
those men of profound erudition, of commanding eloquence
men who can bury themselves in speculative abstractions,
and produce those results of erudition which, we are told,
shake the world more than territorial institutions? (Hear,
hear.) The fact is, that in Germany, with a gifted popu-
lation double the extent of ours, there is no avenue for
any man by which he can make the world conscious of his
powers but the chair of the professor. In this country
you may increase the salaries as much as you please, but
to suppose that you can ever produce a class of men like
the German professors is one of the most vain conclusions
at which you can arrive. Look at the events of 1848,
when you had popular chambers springing up in all direc-
tions all over Germany. Who were then the members of
Parliament? Who were the Presidents and Vice-Presi-
dents of National Conventions? Who were Secretaries
of State, and even Prime Ministers, but these very pro-
fessors? I should like to know what was the condition
of the German universities when half their chairs were
engaged in public affairs? The eloquence that had
formerly adorned the professorial chair now attempted
to influence a division; the man who had been the orna-
ment and glory of a university was now lost in
the depth of - a Cabinet, acting with the respon-
sibility of the fortunes of his country and of Europe on
his conduct. Why, sir, you had the whole ability of the
country devoted to politics ; and if we have not these pro-
found professors in England, it is because the character of
this country is different—(hear, hear)—the character of our
life is contrary to it. We are a nation of action, and you
may depend upon it that, however you may increase the
rewards of professors—yon may give them 2,0001. year in-
stead of 2001.—ambition in England will look to public
life —men will look to the House of Commons, and not to
professors' chairs. (Hear.) I believe, therefore, that there
is another great point in which you will not find any ma-
terial change effected by what you contemplate with regard
to this revolution—this great revival of the professorial
system. Yon will not be able, however you think you
may, to lay your hand upon 25 or 30 professors suddenly,
capable of effecting a great influence on the youth of Eng-
land. You cannot get these men all at once; it will be
slowly, by degrees, with great difficulty—by fostering and
cultivating your resources, that you will be able to produce
one of these great professors—a man able to influence the
public opinion of the university. Whether, then, you look
to the great change which you propose with respect to
these private halls—which is, in fact, a revolution of the
codegiate system--or whether you look to the great alte-
ration you contemplate by the revival of the professorial
instead of the tutorial system—on both points you will
meet, I think with great disappointment. With regard
to that part of the bill which deals with the property of
the colleges, I think it is neither more nor less than an
appropriation clause. It may not at first assume the
hideous aspect of such a proposition, but if you analyze
it—if you calmly reflect upon it—it is neither more
nor less than an appropriation clause. (Hear, hear.)
But if you find, on the other hand, that the university
is not ex tended by your private halls, and, on tho other,
that this new system of education by professors instead
of tutors is one which works very slowly—(hear)
and which does not, even with the long sequence
of time, effect the changes which you anticipate, you may
say that the property of the colleges will not be consider-
ably assaulted or diminished. Grant all this. But you
grant at the same time that the bill before us is a harmless
hill; because, in fact, it will affect little or nothing.
Upon subjects of so great importance I cannot say that I
ion in favour of supporting a bill simply because I think
it may do no harin—aaccording, of course, to my view of
moral and social injury ; the very fact that you are dealing
with great subjects and great interests, although you may
ultimately accomplish little, is iu itself a very great evil.
But I do not rest my objection on this, whit may be con-
sidered, limited ground. Admitting that this bill is not
an effective measure—admitting that it does not produce
any considerable change—admitting that it does not mate-
rially affect the character and condition of the university
—will there not, I ask, be a feeling of great disappoint.
ment excited by it ? The real university reformers will
naturally rise and say, " This bill of yours which we sup-
ported turns out just as we suspected from the first--it
does no good at all ; Oxford is open to all those objections
which we have always urged against it ; it is characterized
by all those evils which we have so often denounced it re-
mains ; somewhat modified, perhaps, in form, but in spirit
in the same, and, therefore, what we require now is a
thorough and real reform." But will not these real re

formers find some advantage in the bill before us, although
it may not have produced any results ? Will they not
take advantage of the clause in this bill which appropriates
a portion of the revenues of the colleges, studiously and
subtlely as the application of that clause may at present
be guarded, and will they not come forward with re-
doubled force, appealing to your failure as a fatal pre-
cedent for a stronger measure ? I see in a moment what
must be the consequences of the legislation now recom-
mended ; if this bill be successful according to its
avowed objects
general chara:enry you do not meet the difficulties
with which you have to contend, and if it fails
a standing ground to produce absolute and actual change in the
of those whose 1
.condition of the university, it gives
*tense advantage for the future as-
saultse
shall
select committee, shallls e;
But if this bill be referred to a
whom I
wish.
to 0 se designs I cannot sytnpatise with, and
not have means to counteract
framing the constitution of then
this difficulty? 'Vir
have the opportunity of
the university in that manner
which we may think roost likely to accomplish. all that is
necessary, and we can invest it with all the power which
changes—if it deals the (Ines-
isfhit (teals
is necessary to produce the desired re
universities ever effect:3 chan Then, if the
tioe of increased accommodation for etude
with the question which system of education should encouraged by the university—if it deals eves
hthe
the appropriation of college property—it will be from its
own action, with entire independence, with entire free-
dom, with entire self-government, which, in my opinion, it
is of the utmost importance for us to encourage in those
great seats of learning whose fortunes are now under our
consideration. I know it may be an observation distaste-
ful to many, th.mgch I wake it with every respect—bat I
cannot help feeling that if we do that which is somewhat
difficult, if we free ourselves fur the moment from that
heated political atmosphere in which we all of us move,
and if we take a general glance at our conduct for the last
20 years, say, we must observe that there has been what
may bo called a morbid desire on the part of the Legisla- .

ture of this country to effect changes in the institutions of
the country. (Hear.) I say, on the part of the Legisla-
ture, because I am bound to say, that I do not see that
,ieeire and intention on the part of the people of this
country. On a point like this there is nothing like refer-
ence to facts. About 20 years ago, or less, there was on the
part of the Legislature an assault on the estates of the
church. Then it was said that the ecclesiastical revenues of
a considerable portion of the church were not directed
and devoted in the manner most advantageous to the
State • there were anomalies and imperfections which
ought to be removed, and an appropriation clause was pro-
posed in this house with respect to those revenues. It
was not the will of Parliament or the authority of the
Sovereign that prevented that appropriation, but it was
the good sense and the good feeling of the great body of
the community. (Hear, hear.) Twenty years have now
elapsed, and I should like a question of that condition to
be brought before the House of Commons at present. I
have no doubt that the verdict of the House of Commons
would sanction the good sense and the good feeling of the
great body of the people. There is no one at the present
moment but recognises that that was a proposition on the
part of the Legislature of a revolutionary character, which
was not justified by circumstances, and which futurity has
not sealed with its approbation. (Hear, hear.) Well,
sir, there is another great question in which I see the same
morbid desire evinced by the Legislature to deal with the
institutions of the country, which, in my opinion, is not
shown by the people of the country, and that is the re-
construction of Parliament. During the last 20 years there
has been no scheme, however wild or however matured,
which has not been brought forward by statesmen and by
gentlemen opposite upon this subject. From the charter
down to the last scheme of the noble lord you have had
propositions brought forward in their turn to effect great
changes in one of the most important institutions of the
country—the House of Common& (Hear, hear.) But I
say that the morbid desire evinced by the Legislature to
deal with the institutions of the country in that respect has
not been shared by the people, because, certainly, with re-
gard to Parliamentary reform,- as well as with respect to
the attack upon the ecclesiastical revenues, it has not been
the Opposition that has prevented the measure passing,
but it has been the good sense of the people of the
country. (Cheers.) In these changes we have had
the estate of the church attacked, and we have had
the construction of the House of Commons assailed by
the Legislature. The unhallowed hand is now laid upon
the ark of the universities, and the same plea is urged on
the same fallacy. And what is that plea ? The plea is, that
there are anomalies and imperfections that ought to be
removed; the fallacy is, that in removing these anomalies
and imperfections we never calculate and we never consider
that much greater injury is done to a country like the pre-
sent by outraging the principles upon which our institu-
tions thus depend than by removing a few anomalies and
imperfections. I have had occasion to say before, and lam
not ashamed to say it now, that this country is ruled by
traditionary influences. You might have a stronger Go-
vernment than you have at present, by getting Yid of these
traditionary influences—you might have a standing army
—you might have a logical, inexorable, and vigorous sys-
tem of centralised administration—you may have State
education or secular education ; you may have a stronger
Government, but you will have a weaker people. And, sir,
among these traditionary influences the influence of the
universities of the country has not been the least consider-
able. Its direct action has been great ; its indirect action
has been greater. If I were asked, " Would you have
Oxford with its self-government, freedom, and indepen-
dence, but yet with its anomalies and imperfections, or
would you have the university under the control of the
Government ?" I would say, " Give me Oxford, free and
independent, with all its anomalies and imperfections."
(Cheers.) But, sir, the painful alternative is not placed
before us. We have a propitious occasion at present before
us in which we are invited, as it were, by the universities to
increase their powers—to give them an enlarged sphere of
action. Why do we not take advantage of that opportunity ?
Why do we not come forward and say, " We will construct
for you a constitution (which,-indeed, under this bill you are
professing to construct) adequate to the occasion. We will
leave it to this new constitution, with all its independence
and freedom preserved and respected, to make all those
alterations, and to effect all those changes which the course
of time and the altered circumstances of the country, of the
age, and of the university require ?" So far you could
advance with truth, with justice, and, I believe, you
would advance with success. But the moment you quit
that line you are degrading the university, and you are
destroying one of those influences which, in the aggregate,
forms one of the elements by which you govern this coun-
try. Remember what is at stake. It is the national cha-
racter of the weary that depends upon your respecting
the institutions of the country. (Cheers) I know well
the objection may be made, and it has been made by an
hon. gentleman opposite, that the university has had the
opportunity to make the necessary changes, and that the
university has been found wanting. But is that true?
It is very true that in 1847 the University of Oxford ac-
knowledged that considerable changes should be effected,
and that in 1850 all the changes deemed necessary had not
been accomplished. But was the task easy ? It is not true
that in the interval nothing was done. Groh was done,
but it was not an easy task for a university which had existed
for 800 years to accomplish in a short time all that was re-
quired. I have said before, you will have much to answer
for if you place the universities of this country under the
control of the State. I believe that is the great point in
the question, and I cannot understand how gentlemen oppo-
site, though they may be university reformers, and though
they may be extremely anxious to see great changes, espe-
cially in the University of Oxford, for reasons that may in-
fluence them, I cannot understand how they can consent to
obtain such results at so costly a price as to place a univer-
sity, which, of all institutions, should be independent and
free, under the control and management of the State.
(Hear, hear.) There is one point upon which, though I
touch upon it with reluctance, I cannot allow the debate of
this night to pass entirely in silence. It is that strange
appeal which has been made to the house to-sight in sup-
port, as I believe, of this policy of interference in the
management of the universities of the State by the hon.
member for Stroud. I say I believe it, because lam totally
at this moment at a loss to understand what course the
hon. gentleman is about to take. [Ms. HoßsmaN made a
remark which was inaudible in the gallery.] I am told that
the hon. gentleman has said at a moment I had not the
pleasure of listening to him that he intends to oppose the
amendment of the hon. member for North Lancashire, be-
cause until he had heard the statement of Government, he
had not been exactly aware what the object of that
amendment was. lam surprised that an hon. gentleman
who goes so far into futurity—
Mr. HORSMAN said he had been misunderstood. He
had not stated what the right hon. gentleman had repre-
sented him to have said, but what he really had stated was
this, that if the bill were sent to a select committee and
would come back to the house this year in time to pass the
Legislature, he would have supported the amendment of
the hon. member for North Lancashire, but that, as he
believed, if an amendment were carried, the bill would be
rejected for a year, he preferred giving his support to the
proposition of the Government.
Mr. DISRAELI—That is an objection which I have al-
ready noticed. Ido not think upon the subject of the
university that delay can be more fatal than upon the sub-
ject of the British constitution. (Cheers.) And, if we can
postpone the reform of parliament, not for a year, but for
even an indefinite period, I am disposed to think we shall
not incur too grave a hazard in voting for the amendment
of the hon. member for North Lancashire. (Laughter and
cheers.) But the point upon which I wish to touch, and
which I touch upon in this house always with great regret
and concern, is the appeal made to the House of Com-
mons to support a measure which I believe in itself
would be ineffective for the purpose it asserts and al-
leges, and which I think would lead to most dangerous
consequences, upon the strange and startling grounds
alleged by the hon. member for Stroud. We are to
pass this bill because Christianity is in danger, because we
have a prospect before us of the religion in which we all
believe finding a solitary refuge in the British isles. Such
is the statement of the hon. gentleman, and such is his
opinion of Divine revelation, that that is a contingency
more than probable, and it is a result we must arm against
by the immediate institution of professors at Oxford.
(Hear, hear.) But I must presume to remind the hon.
gentleman that, whatever he may think of the erudition
and the philosophy of Germany, there was a period when a
country not less enlightened, not less civilised, not less
qualified by human accomplishment, under Divine favour,
to influence the fortunes and the opinions of mankind—l
must remind the hon. gentleman that there was a time
when such a country produced men who, in genius, in
acquirement, in brilliancy of conception, and in splendour
of diction would not yield even to German professors.
That country was France—a country enlightened by Vol-
taire and inflamed by Rosseau. That was the country
where all the philosophers of Europe assembled, it was a
country where they devoted themselves to the destruction
of that system which the lion. gentleman thinks now in
danger—which he thinks can only be preserved by uni-
versity reform. But that was a country, and that was an
age in which the highest genius directed to an end was
eminently successful. There was not a sacred image in that
country that was not desecrated. Every holy tradition,
every divine thought in the inspired literature of the
Hebrew people, in whatever language it was written, was
treated with contumely and contempt. You had the.
triumph of philosophy (I know not who were the pro-
fessors of philosophy at Oxford at that moment)—yon
witnessed the fatal success of that insurrectionary at-
tempt which now appals the honourable gentleman.
Long years have passed since that catastrophe.. I and
all of us have probably visited that land. I have seen
the churches in that country supported by no State
endowment, but upheld by the sympathy of be-
lieving millions. I and all of use who have been
in that country have seen devoted ,to the Christianity
which the hon. gentleman thinks in danger all the re
sources of art and all the divine attributes of genius, and
I cannot forget that at this moment, when, after a peace of
nearly half a century, England is again embarked in war—
when England has entered upon a contest the fortune of
which may alarm the boldest and make the most sanguine
timorous—l cannot forget that the ruler of the nation to
which I have referred is our most trusty, and I believe
most trustworthy ally. (Cheers.) When I remember this,
I defy the efforts of the German professors ; let them shut
up churches, let them tear down sacred images, and what
will happen in Germacy ie that which has happened before
in France—the altars will again be adorned, and the cause
of truth will be upheld by an influence more powerful
than university reform. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT felt himself incompetent to discuss the
details of the bill, but it appeared to him to be, like other
recent measures, a compromise of a doubtful character. A
clause that was good seemed immediately counteracted by
a clause of another description. He did not think that
the Government, not being agreed as to the measure, ought
to press it on their supporters. He was invited to co-ope-
rate in a tinkering amendment of a bill said to be of a na-
tional character; and then he, and five millions who
thought like him as to the Establishment, were told that
they had no sympathy and no part in the matter. He re-
marked that the boasted university system had not pro-
duced union even in the Church itself. The Dissenters
would, if this bill were passed, find themselves forgotten.
If Government could not carry the measures which ought
to ba car-ied, they ought not to meddle with them at all,
and ho caliee on Lord John Russell to make a stand for
the Dissenters, and take the opinion of the house upon it,
and he would obtain a majority.
90 The house,
the numberse,afterfive honrsand a half of discussion,
divided,
were—
For the amendment
For going into committee 172
Majority for Government --82
Mr. HENLEY then moved that the committee should
be postponed
these
eere amltaefuroarritiatioinNvseek. The bill,
The
riot been in the hands of members until that morning, and
tthhea:teas last amended, had
CHANCELLOR alterationsvor were
nt
oh
not material.
fromE ct
ah eE EXCHEQUER
Eld bßill.explained
come discussion followed, and Mr. HENLEY pressing his
motion, the house divided, and the numbers were—
For going into committee
For the week's postponement lOl
Majority for Government —59
The house then went into committee on the bill. The
chairman then reported progress, and the other orders of
the day having been disposed of, the house adjourned.