UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL— [BILL 113.] (Hansard, 30 April 1877)

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
moved, in page 3, after line 23, insert— “Provided, That the name of every person so appointed shall be laid before the Houses of Parliament within ten days after the appointment, if Parliament is then sitting, or, if not, then ten days after the next meeting of Parliament, and if within forty days after any such name has been laid before them either House by Resolution disallows the appointment, it shall be of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done there under.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
could not accept the Amendment, because the appointment would be an executive act of the Crown, and the proper mode was to 112 move an Address to the Crown. He could not consent to establish a precedent to appeal to the House of Commons against an executive act of the Crown.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
pointed out that if a Commissioner should die or resign, the balance of the Commission might be disturbed by the fresh appointment, and Parliament would lose the small amount of control they had got at the present moment. He would recommend that no new appointments should be made until the number of Commissioners was reduced to six or five.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he had no objection to lay the names of the Commissioners before Parliament whenever new appointments were made.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
suggested that the object of the noble Lord would be met if he omitted the latter part of his Amendment.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he would accept that modification.

§ MR. HAYTER
moved, in page 3, line 32, to leave out from beginning of clause to "meeting," in line 36, with the object of giving the Commissioners the power of electing their own Chairman.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he could not accept the Amendment. He preferred that there should be a permanent Chairman, otherwise there would be a fresh election to the office every week. It was desirable that there should be one Chairman as head of the Commissioners with whom communication could be held; but, of course, at any meeting when the Chairman was absent the Commissioners would elect the Chairman for the day.

§ MR. MONK
suggested that the Commissioners should have the power to elect at their first meeting a Chairman who should preside at all subsequent meetings.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
moved, in page 4, after line 20, to add the following proviso:— “That the Commissioners shall not approve the statute so made by a College until they have published, in such form as to them may seem fit, a statement with respect to the main purposes relative to the University for which, in their opinion, provision should be made under this Act, the sources from which funds for those purposes should be obtained, and the principles on which contributions from the Colleges for those purposes should be assessed. Under the clause it was reserved to every College to send in a scheme of reform, and the University itself was also to be allowed to send in a scheme of reform to the Commissioners. One of the main objects of the Bill was that the Colleges should contribute from their surplus revenues to the requirements of the University. What appeared to him the first step which the Commissioners, acting on behalf of the University, would have to take would be to arrive at some kind of plan as to what the total requirements of the University would be, and then, when they had arrived at such plan, to assess the Colleges in proportion to their revenues. The clause, as it stood, was almost nugatory, as practically the Commission would not be able to give its assent until it had the claims of all the Colleges before it, and it was merely in appearance that this invitation was issued to the Colleges. The Universities ought to know the total requirements for which provision would have to be made, and then the College revenues ought to be examined to ascertain the contribution required from each. There ought to be a financial scheme in the first instance. He wished that the principles of the reform should be stated. He struck at no principle of the Bill; it was a mere matter of convenience. There ought to be some uniformity in dealing with the Colleges.

MR. BALFOUR
said, that the Amendment of which he had given Notice was in the form of an additional clause; the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite should have enabled the Commissioners to have settled some form of action at the commencement of their labours. One thing was in his (Mr. Balfour's) Amendment, but not in that 114 of the right hon. Gentleman. If the clause that ho had proposed was carried the Commissioners of each University would have to consult those of the other; if not, there might arise a general difference in the result of their action, especially with reference to the prize Fellowships.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, that one great fault of the Bill was, that it contained no guiding principle for the Commissioners at all, and the Amendment supplied one. How could the Commissioners know what was to be paid by one without knowing the revenues of the rest?

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, that, as he had explained last year, his object was to deal with the Universities and Colleges as a whole, and not individually; and he thought the concluding words of the clause carried out that condition, so that virtually the clause embodied the principle of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. There were many Amendments, and they could hardly tell how they would come out, and he would be obliged, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman would postpone this discussion. In the meantime, he would consider the question with the draftsman, and endeavour to put the matter in such a shape as would be acceptable to the Committee. If, when the Bill passed through Committee, there should appear any doubt upon the point, he would on the Report, be ready to propose another clause in the spirit of the Amendment, which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now withdraw, as the agreeing to it at the present moment might create some embarrassment when they came to deal with the 17th clause.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, that the principle upon which he proceeded was confidence in the Commissioners appointed. If the Amendment were carried, it would tie the hands of the Commissioners; he desired to leave them as far as possible unfettered.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, that this clause gave permission to the Colleges to propose their schemes up to the end of 1878, which would be less than a year and a-half, according to the probabilities of the Royal Assent; and if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were carried, it would cause great delay. The Commissioners might dawdle over 115 the improvements as the Judges did over the Judicature Act alterations.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
disclaimed any wish to tie the hands of the Commissioners. He was sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had so little confidence in the Commissioners. He was willing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment if its principle were embodied in the Bill.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
observed that some Colleges had schemes waiting for sanction, and it would be undesirable that through any provision in that Bill those schemes should be indefinitely adjourned.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
(in the absence of Mr. COURTNEY) moved in page 4, line 40, to leave out "unless" and insert "when." He said: I prefer my own proposal, to leave this clause out altogether, but for the moment I will confine myself to supporting the proposal that is before the House to modify it. It is generally believed among those who have not looked very deeply into the question, that this 50 years' limitation clause is intended only to exempt Keble College and Hertford College from the operation of the Bill. The real facts are very different. Keble College does not come under the Bill in any way, and this clause applies to a great number of emoluments which have nothing to do with those two Colleges, and most of which were not founded by private founders, but by the Colleges or Universities themselves. In other words, as the clause stands, the limitation affects not only the pious founder who is dead, but also the University and the College which are alive, and which in many cases have discovered the need for those changes which the clause forbids the Commissioners to make. The excuse of respect for the founder's intentions does not apply. The clause, for instance, exempts from the operations of the Commission most of the Regius Professorships in the University of Cam- 116 bridge, for the conditions of the tenure of these ancient offices have been completely changed by modern instruments. I need hardly point out to the House that the clause also applies, directly and without any kind of doubt, to Professorships that are altogether modern—such, for instance, as that held by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt.) There are a great many new Professorships, founded since 1854, which, as I read this clause, are most improperly exempted from the operation of the Commission. In the University of Oxford I am told that the clause would withdraw from the ken of the Commissioners those All Souls' Professorships which many think a great abuse. Why should these Professorships be exempted, not only from the operation of any reforms which may be introduced, but from the very supervision of the Bodies which by the Bill we create? One of the All Souls' Professors, the Chichele Professor, Mr. Montague Burrows, who was elected to this reformed Chair of History over the heads of Mr. Froude and Mr. Freeman for no reason that anyone could discover, except that he was the leading Conservative agent in the management of the University, gets, I understand, £1,500 a-year under a deed sufficiently modern to be exempted by this clause from the provisions of the Bill. It would seem wise that the Commissioners should at least possess the power to examine into the conditions of tenure of such modern emoluments as these. I cannot conceive that the clause can be left as it now stands. It is a most mischievous clause. It makes impossible consistent and comprehensive action by the Commissioners, and will probably lead the Commissioners to leave a large side of the University system altogether untouched, rather than deal with it so lightly as this clause compels. The clause exempts from the powers of the Commission in the University of Cambridge many Scholarships, all the minor Scholarships and Exhibitions, and 11 Professorships. If the Commissioners wished to alter the mode of election to Professorships, the old method of election would have to be retained for the 11 Professorships which have been founded within 50 years. This matter is one of practical and of pressing importance. It is now being discussed at Cambridge 117 by a Syndicate, which has reported in favour of Electoral Boards; and the reform which has been proposed cannot be carried out by the Commission because of the obstacle which this clause imposes. The effect of it will be, that the Commissioners, finding themselves unable to deal with all the Professorships, will decline to deal with any. If we leave Professorships for a moment and consider minor Scholarships or Exhibitions, we must remember that most people, both at Cambridge and at the larger schools, are dissatisfied with the Minor Scholarship system, which drives schoolmasters to adopt a hot-bed process of training. It is, perhaps, impossible to altogether rid the Universities and the schools of the present system of buying scholars with Exhibitions; but it would at least appear to be a pity to tie the hands of the Commissioners; and it must be borne in mind that the clause will tie the hands of the College authorities, as well as of the Commissioners, since, by Clause 11, the Colleges have only "the like powers as are conferred on the Commissioners." To leave modern emoluments created by the Universities and the Colleges, and to come for a moment to those comparatively rare cases in which there is a private founder, it is a poor compliment to the pious founder to say that he would not wish the University and the Commissioners to make the best possible use of his gift. To maintain this clause as it stands, is not only to contend that the founder knew better what was best for posterity than posterity itself, but also to contend that the University 40 years ago knew better what would be best for the University now than does the University of the present day, and than do the Commissioners whom by this Bill we appoint. Why should you limit and tie up the Commissioners by this restriction? It has been said that it was introduced in deference to the wishes of a deputation of Cambridge Liberals, but that is a monstrous misstatement. They suggested 50 years as preferable to 100 years—that is all. The 100 years, limitation, which had been proposed by Lord Salisbury, would have withdrawn Downing College from the ken of the Commission: the clause as it stands would withdraw Hertford College, Oxford from its ken, and I have authority to say that the Cambridge Liberals who 118 objected to Downing College being thus withdrawn from the inquiry, object equally to Hertford College being withdrawn from it as is still proposed. The clause, moreover, is full of legal difficulties, upon which I hope that we may have the opinion of the ablest lawyers in the House. Almost all College property at Oxford, including both corporate property and trust property, was dealt with by ordinances made under the Act of 1854. Old Fellowships, Scholarships, and Exhibitions were suppresed, and new ones were founded and endowed out of the proceeds of that suppression. In many of these cases it would be difficult to contend that the ordinance itself was not "the instrument of foundation or endowment." But, if so, the "emolument" would be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. The Bill contains no definition of "instrument of endowment," though it does contain a definition of "instrument of foundation." As I read the clause, the Commissioners not only cannot touch the object or purpose of the emolument, but cannot even reform the conditions of tenure, or the mode of appointment or election. The distinct prohibition of this clause must override all the enabling provisions of the Bill. If the clause is retained, the Commissioners will run the risk at every minute that they sit of acting ultra vires, and will be hampered by every kind of legal difficulty. The Act of 1854 contained no such limitation with respect to College endowments; although it did with respect to University endowments. I would ask the Conservative Members of this House, whether they may not with safety negative this clause, and trust to the Conservative instincts of Lord Sel-borne, Lord Redesdale, and Dr. Bellamy; of the Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Lightfoot, and Professor Stokes?

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he did not accept the hon. Baronet's interpretation of the clause. In order to prevent ambiguity, however, he would, if it appeared legally necessary, so word the clause as to make it refer only to University or College emoluments under 50 years, standing; not to new emoluments derived from old foundations, though they had been diverted to other than their original uses.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN
thought it was undesirable to fetter the 119 discretion of the Commissioners with respect to the date of the endowments with which they might deal. He pointed out that as the clause stood, an endowment which had been given long before the limit of 50 years, but which had been recently increased, would be put out of the power of the Commissioners.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
considered that the Commissioners, if restricted from dealing with the funds of Colleges as far as recent endowments were concerned, would not be able to touch their real financial condition.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
hoped it would be made very clear that endowments established within the last 50 years should not be touched by the Commissioners.

MR. SPENCER STANHOPE
hoped that the hon. Member for Chelsea would withdraw the Amendment.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
thought they might trust the Conservative instincts of the Commissioners without tying up their hands.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, what he wished was that the clause should be left in the Bill, but on the Report, if needful, he would make it quite clear what was meant by it.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
pointed out that the words used were "instrument of endowment," and that this might apply to arrangements made under the Act of 1854. He urged that the clause should be postponed until the Government Amendments should be put on the Paper.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he was glad that the term "endowment" was used instead of "foundation" in the Bill.

§ MR. COURTNEY
was disposed to respect the limit of 50 years where money had been actually brought into the University. He was ready to withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. LOWE
put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to postpone the clause.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he must take a vote upon the principle of the clause; he would settle the details, if it should be deemed necessary, on the Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
120 On Question, “That the clause stand part of the Bill?"

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,
on moving the omission of the clause, said, it was somewhat hard to discover the exact meaning of the clause, and what would be its exact effect, if passed; but if his view of it was correct, the clause proposed to effect an act of flagrant injustice, by permitting newly-made corporations, which had obtained full University privileges, and which had been allowed to stand upon an equal footing with older foundations, to escape the burdens imposed by this Bill on the older foundations, whilst retaining all the advantages which accrued to them as States of the University Federation. The clause also appeared to him to allow action on the part of the Commissioners in direct contravention of the principles laid down in the Preamble of the Bill, which stated that the object of the Bill was to enrich the Universities from the overplus of College revenues; for this clause, taken in connection with the rest of the Bill, allowed the Commissioners to apply the revenues of the older foundations to the increase of the emoluments attached to those more recently created. This intention was clearly indicated by the three last lines of the clause. It should be distinctly understood that under them there was power, and power which he had reason to fear would be exercised, to take money from the older foundations and to give it to Ecclesiastical Seminaries.

§ LORD FRANCIS HERVEY
said, he did not see on what ground of justice or expediency the clause could be legitimately resisted. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
Question put, “That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 234; Noes 134: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 97.)
Clause 14 (Regard to main design of founder).

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
moved to omit the clause altogether, taking exception to some of the phrases contained in it, which he thought would make the fortune of lawyers. What, for instance, was meant by "the main intention of the Founder," and how 121 could that intention be carried out in the case of a pre-Reformation Founder? Then, again, what meaning would a lawyer attach to such a phrase as "alteration in substance?" He remembered a Vice Chancellor saying that the word "substantial" was the most costly word in the language; and he took it for granted that the object of the Bill was to give the Commissioners power to remove restrictions. That was a power which, with regard to the intentions of the Founders, he could not agree to. The clause would either be a dead letter or would very much tie the hands of the Commissioners, and he thought he had made out a good ground for omitting it.

§ MR. WALPOLE
supported the clause, and urged that it ought to be retained, as it could not have the effect which the hon. Member stated, but would have a very useful operation in practice, as a guide for the Commissioners. The clause embodied no new principle, as there was one containing similar words in the Endowed Schools Act.

§ MR. CLIFFORD
regarded the words of the clause as too vague, and said he should support his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire if he went to a division.

MOWBRAY
was astonished that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Denbigh was not acquainted with the Act of 1854, which was passed under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, and which contained clauses similar to that now proposed.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray) had not entirely appreciated the effect of the clauses he had referred to in the Act of 1854. The point of the present clause was prohibitive, because it actually forbade the Commissioners to do anything contrary to the main designs of the founders. He disapproved of the insertion of this clause.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
supported the clause.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he thought the Committee would not do very wrong if it rejected the clause, as it contained sonic lax and doubtful morality. He thought they might fairly trust the Commissioners to deal properly with the endowments in question. The directions laid down in the clause would not, 122 in his opinion, in any way strengthen their hands.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, the difficulty raised in this discussion was one which was always encountered in endeavours to reform ancient institutions. They wanted to prevent the reformers from going too far, and yet they were apprehensive for themselves lest they should pull up too soon. Although the Commissioners might appreciate the fact that certain endowments had, for a great length of time, been diverted from the main design of the founder, they were not bound to constitute themselves an antiquarian committee, and simply to rummage out old title-deeds and documents going back 600 years; the clause was simply a direction to them as to the lines on which they should travel. If, however, the practical working of any foundation was found to be consistent with the main design of the founder, there ought, he contended, to be a prejudice in its favour, so that a Professorship of law, for instance, should not be turned into a Professorship of medicine, or a Professorship of music into one of comparative anatomy.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN
would be sorry to show any disrespect for endowments, or to see the Commissioners altogether set aside what might be the excellent intentions of founders; but he thought his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge had furnished a strong argument against the clause. He could very well understand that there might be a Professorship of anatomy or other Professorship, the lectures on which experience might have shown that nobody would attend, which might be very advantageously supplanted by another Professorship of which numbers would avail themselves. It would be unwise, therefore, he maintained, to tie the hands of the Commissioners, and so prevent them from acting in the manner that they might deem to be most beneficial for the interests of the University. In fact, the question was entirely one of placing confidence in the Commissioners, who, he thought, might be depended on not to go against the design of a founder unless it was impossible to give it effect. The Government had carried their own Commissioners, and could surely have confidence in them. The best thing to do would be to strike out the clause altogether.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
was of opinion that certain great principles ought to be laid down by Parliament for the guidance of the Commissioners.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
said, the clause was, in point of fact, obligatory, and therefore prohibitive against doing that which was the subject of the obligation, as the Commissioners were not to do anything without having regard to the main design of the founder. If the Committee intended to accept the words in that sense well and good, but they ought clearly to understand what they were voting for.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, that in this clause the words were "shall have regard," while in the Act of 1854 the words were "it shall be lawful" for every College for the purpose of effecting the main design of the founder to do certain things, and he contended that the words in that Act were far more obligatory than in the clause now under consideration.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
considered that the hon. and learned Member had just proved that there was really no obligation under the Act of 1854, and he must have convinced the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) that the words "it shall be lawful" were more elastic than the words "shall have regard."

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he was quite satisfied with the form of the words in the clause. The clause only meant that full consideration should be given to the main design of the founder, and did not impose an imperative obligation as to any particular form of action.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
did not clearly understand whether or not the Government concurred in the view of the clause expressed by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), which was, that if a chair of anatomy, for example, had been founded, the subject of study could not 50 years afterwards be changed.

§ MR. DALRYMPLE
said, he did not think that a foundation even within the past 50 years was covered by this clause. If the clause were read in the light of the clause preceding it, the objection to it would be removed.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
said, the words "shall have regard to" were imperative, unless certain things had occurred.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, if the word "main" did not precede "design," the clause would be open to the criticisms made, but the word "main" showed that the Commissioners were not to be over minute.

MR. GRANT DUFF
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill accepted the interpretation of the last speaker?

§ MR. HERSCHELL
asked whether the clause carried out the intention of the right hon. Gentleman? He should like to know, if the Commissioners were merely to take into consideration the main design of the founder when making a statute, or whether they were not to make a statute in furtherance of that main design? He submitted that the latter was what they would have to do, especially when the use of the same words of the next clause was considered.

§ MR. MARTEN
said, it would not be imperative to carry the main designs of the founder into effect.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, hon. Members seemed to overlook the difference between an enabling and an obligatory clause. Three different interpretations of this clause had been given, and it was likely as many different interpretations would be given by Courts of Law. If the main design of the founder was to have regard to education, religion, learning, and research, the matter might be left to the 15th clause.
Question put, “That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 94: Majority 40. — (Div. List, No. 98.)
Clause 15 (Provision for education, religion, &c.).

§ LORD FRANCIS HERVEY
moved, in page 5, line 13, to insert the word "and," in order afterwards to omit the word "research." He wished to know why, if research was a good thing, it should not be covered by the word "learning" or "religion." The fact was that it was originally inserted to conciliate a small and enthusiastic clique whose opinions were now at a discount. Some one said that the endowment of research really meant the research of endowment; but, for his part, he wished to get the word "research" out of the clause, and thus retain the English character of our Universities.
125 Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 13, after the word "religion," to insert the word "and."—(Lord Francis Hervey.)

§ MR. BRISTOWE
supported the Amendment. He should like to have an explanation from the Government of what was really meant by the term "research." He considered that no University funds should be devoted to the founding or endowing of Professorships where the duties of the Professors did not directly tend to supply the educational requirements of the Universities, however desirable or useful the scientific investigations to be pursued might be.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the apprehension that if research were brought into the University, education would be driven out. On the contrary, he held that no teaching could be successful that was not founded on the most minute research. He was convinced that it was of advantage to introduce the word into the Bill; but it was not intended to enable persons to prosecute research on an extensive scale without teaching. There were, no doubt, many subjects of research which by their nature were not lucrative to those who prosecuted them, but the prosecution of which was of great importance to education throughout the country, and especially to the University in which they were carried on. There was, however, no intention to carry research to the extravagant lengths which some speakers and writers feared would be the case, and which would utterly pervert the purposes of the University. So far from diminishing the educational power of the University, that which was proposed would give to education a more solid basis than it now possessed.

§ MR. TREVELYAN,
in opposing the Amendment, observed that the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had just given was in all respects satisfactory. They could not have a University where education was proceeding without research proceeding at the same time. It was most important that men who had a taste and strong desire for prosecuting inquiries on abstruse subjects should receive due encouragement.

§ MR. BARING
said, he was in favour of the Amendment. If the Universities were to make specific grants for specific work, there should be University supervision with a view to secure that no part of the money was thrown away.

MR. GRANT DUFF
agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs in considering the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War satisfactory. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, those who were responsible for the measure simply meant that Oxford and Cambridge should not be placed in a worse position with regard to scientific investigation than were the other great Universities of the world—nothing more and nothing less.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL- HUGESSEN
had hoped the Committee would have been unanimous after the speech of the Secretary at War. No doubt a great deal of nonsense had been written and spoken about "research;" but because a word had been abused, that was no reason for excluding its use. The present clause merely allowed provision to be made for research generally; and, if necessary, a closer definition of what was intended might be inserted in a subsequent clause.
Question put, “That the word 'and' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 172: Majority 160.—(Div. List, No. 99.)

§ MR. GREGORY
moved, in page 5, line 15, the omission of the words, “that those interests of the college," and the insertion in their place of the words "to the maintenance of such college as a place of education, and of the emoluments of the same," the interests referred to being education, religion, and learning. The effect of the Amendment, therefore, was that the Commissioners in making a statute for a College should have regard, in the first instance, to the maintenance and purposes of that College.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he would accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
127 Clause 16 (Objects of statutes for University).

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
moved, in page 5, line 23, that after the word "purposes" the following words be inserted:— “With power to the Colleges, with the consent of the Commissioners, to commute any annual payments for a capital sum.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
thought the Amendment was not an unreasonable one.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
hoped it was clearly understood that the commutation would be for the present annual payments. Care should be taken that the Colleges should not be exempted by that Amendment from any future annual payment which might be put upon them.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, it would refer only to the annual payments made at the time of the commutation.

§ MR. COURTNEY
was rather surprised that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had made that proposal. For himself, as a Member of one of the Colleges, he should be slow to assent to that commutation.
Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
moved the insertion in the first sub-section, after "regard being first had," of the words "in the case of all Colleges serving any educational purpose." The insertion of those words would secure the educational wants of a College being satisfied in the first instance before it should be called upon to contribute to the University, and where the educational wants of a College were none, or very small, then the prior claims of the University should be satisfied in preference to those of the College. If his Amendment were adopted it would leave the Commissioners free to deal with All Souls', and if found advantageous to apply its surplus to the benefit of the University. Why, for instance, should not its law library be added to the Bodleian, and then instead of belonging to one College only, it would be available for the whole University.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
was unwilling to accept that Amendment, which he did not think would effect its object, and which would tend to cast a slur on All Souls' that was not altogether deserved. The words proposed would not exclude All Souls', because All 128 Souls' did serve educational purposes. It was the means of endowing Professorships, and it also much encouraged the study of law and history. When the educational purposes of All Souls', such as keeping up its magnificent library, which was the finest in Europe, had been supplied, the surplus could be got at by the means provided in the 17th section. He was not inclined to declare in the Bill that any College did not serve educational purposes.

§ MR. DODSON
thought the arguments of the Secretary of State for War told in favour rather than against the Amendment. The Amendment was directed against a hypothetical College not named which did not serve educational purposes. If All Souls' did not come under that description, the clauses would not affect it.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
opposed the Amendment, as being directed ad invidiam against a particular College. Their legislation should be directed against actual and not mere hypothetical cases.

§ MR. JAMES
remarked that All Souls', which enjoyed £15,000 a-year, could only be said to fulfil educational purposes in a very qualified sense. The Fellowships of All Souls' were really idle Fellowships in the strictest sense. They always appeared to him as a kind of Oxford aldermen—excellent fellows who gave sumptuous dinners.

§ MR. MARTEN
objected to the Amendment, because it cast a grave imputation on the College. He thought that if All Souls' were to be attacked, it should be by a separate clause in the Bill.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
thought the words of the clause sufficient as they stood. All Souls' might be made much more educational than it was; but it was au important College, and had done good service. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, that the broad principle was that in such a case as that of All Souls' the University ought to take precedence of the College. The Amendment was not to cast any blame on all Souls,; but as the clause was drawn the "Collegiate purposes" of All Souls, were to take precedence of University requirements. What were these Collegiate purposes? He had thought that it was a pleasanter way of raising the question than to point at All Souls' 129 in an Act of Parliament. If these words were not inserted he should consider whether, either in a separate clause or on Report, the case of All Souls' ought not to be dealt with. He would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that years ago All Souls' was a College in which gentlemanly manners were best taught, but good manners seemed to be considered a superfluity in the present day. He, however, rose to ask two questions—If there were to be in this Bill any assignment of the funds of the Colleges to the Universities; and if there were to be any means by which Colleges could commute by capital sums the payments required from them by the Commissioners?

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, that the last question was already answered by an Amendment carried in Committee, and with regard to the other there was a Motion not yet come on of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) which he was not yet prepared to accept, because it would not be fair to some Colleges.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
explained that he had not said that he was in favour of any particular scheme; he only wished that power should be given to the Commissioners.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. DODSON
asked what was the meaning of "other collegiate purposes?" To put himself in Order he would move to omit the words "and other collegiate."

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, they were the management of the estate, the maintenance of the buildings, the keeping up of the library, and the support of a society for effecting these purposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. GREGORY
moved, in page 5, line 25, after "purposes," to insert “and provided that such contribution shall not exceed five pounds per centum of the net revenues of any college, unless with the consent of two-thirds of the governing body of such college present and voting at a meeting of such body specially called for the purpose. He calculated that the £5 per cent on the net income of the Colleges would amount to £15,000 per annum, or £20 per cent of the present revenue of the University of Oxford, and in the case 130 of Cambridge University to £12,000, or 5[...] per cent on the revenue of the University. He thought it quite unnecessary for University purposes to go beyond the limits prescribed, and without the necessity it would be injustice to the Colleges to alienate their revenues to any greater amount.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
thought it would be impossible for the Commissioners to act under such a proviso as that. If the principle of the Bill, which was to compel Colleges to make contributions out of their funds to the University, was not a good one let them say so; if it was good, why should they stop at 5 per cent?

MR. BALFOUR
opposed the Amendment.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said, that the speech of the hon. Member for East Sussex was not so much a speech in favour of the Amendment as one which ought to have been made on the second reading of the Bill. The Amendment was really an attempt to drag a herring across the scent and to take its vitality from the Bill.

§ MR. FORSYTH
said, that having appointed Commissioners under the Bill, it would not be right now to tie down their hands, as would be done by the Amendment.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
opposed the Amendment on the ground that a uniform rate of 5 per cent would not be suitable.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the whole scope of the Bill was to give the Commissioners power to inquire into the wants of the Universities and Colleges, and a discretion to act accordingly. Ho hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
Amendment negatived.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
moved, in page 5, line 25, after subsection 1, to insert— “2. For the creation, by means of contribution from the colleges or otherwise, of a common University Fund, to be administered under the supervision of the University in accordance with statutes made under this Act. 3. For making payments, under the supervision of the University, out of said common fund for the giving of instruction, the doing of work, or the conducting of investigations in any branch of learning or inquiry connected. with the studies of the University.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he was rather reluctant to adopt the prin- 131 ciple laid down in the Amendment, that there should be a Common University fund. He would rather leave it to the Commissioners to say how the contributions should be made, and what should be done with them when made, than lay down exactly the plan which the Commissioners should follow. He was willing to accept the third of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals omitting the words "out of the said common fund."

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, he proposed that a common fund should exist for all purposes, and not simply for certain purposes that might be specified. He did not wish that the contributions of the Colleges should be ear-marked for particular purposes. If funds were asked for from the Colleges to found certain Professorships, it might be that, after a certain time, those Professorships would be unnecessary. What he meant by a common University fund already existed to a certain extent at Oxford in the "University chest," but there was nothing of the kind at Cambridge. The arrangement he proposed would be purely financial, and would enable the Commissioners to deal in a more satisfactory way with the Colleges.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
supported the Amendment.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
expressed his regret that at present he could not accept the proposal to create a common University fund. The Oxford University chest had a limited and not a general application.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
having consulted with high authorities at Oxford, was enabled to say that they approved of his proposal.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, that in the meantime he would accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman; but, at the same time, he should think himself at liberty to re-consider the matter upon Report.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. STAVELEY HILL, a subsection was agreed to, enabling the Commissioners to draw up statutes for the abolishing and disendowing Professorships or Lectureships.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
moved, in page 5, line 34, the omission of sub-section (6), which related to providing retiring pensions for Professors and Public Readers.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the sub-section merely gave power to the Commissioners to grant pensions in certain special cases. Retiring pensions would be very rarely given. As the operation of this sub-section of the clause would be more prospective than retrospective, he hoped the Committee would agree to pass it. Without some such provision Professors might retain their appointments long after they became useless for teaching purposes.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
was in favour of the clause as it stood, and was sorry it did not also apply to Heads of Colleges. The retiring allowance was fixed on such a low scale as to preclude the possibility of jobbery.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
considered the clause in question the best part of the Bill.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
would like to see the clause go further, and provide for the retirement of Heads of Houses.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
thought it was necessary that pensions should be occasionally granted. He hoped, however, the Commissioners would not think that the Committee were in favour of a large scheme of retiring pensions, as that would lead to notorious jobs and abuses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. JAMES
moved, in page 5, after line 40, that power should be given to the Commissioners— “For providing instruction for any members of the University during any University vacation.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the Amendment was an attempt to place upon the Universities a task which they never undertook. It was not the University which arranged for the teaching of Undergraduates, but the Colleges and the censors of unattached students. The Universities could not arrange that the Colleges should be kept open. But these were, after all, things which could be best settled by the Universities and Colleges among themselves. So far as he was aware, anyone who now wished to study during the Long Vacation was not prevented from doing so.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
protested against the assumption that there was no systematic study in the Long Vacation at the University of Cambridge, at least. 133 At Cambridge the old practice of reading parties at a distance, had been practically found to be not unfrequently a system of organized pleasuring, and so the habit had grown up of allowing reading men to stop up during the Long Vacation. This brought back the private tutors, and enough men remained to encourage each other in their studies, and fill up the time of those tutors. The Long Vacation was generally regarded as a fourth term for reading men.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, that this Bill was to provide for the future University teaching, and not teaching by the Colleges alone. He thought it a scandal to the great endowments both of the Colleges and the Universities that they should strike work for so many months in the year; for he differed from his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge as to there being teaching at the University which he represented during the Long Vacation. He had remained at Cambridge during the Long Vacation, but neither University nor College did anything in the way of teaching. The private tutors no doubt were there, but they were the luxury of the rich. The question was whether the Universities were to be places of teaching for the masses of the nation or not. Nominally they gave instruction during three years, but practically it extended only over two years; one-third of the time was lost in vacations. There ought, he contended, to be instruction supplied throughout the year, so that young men who could not afford to spend three years at a University might be enabled after the lapse of two years, and at the age of 20 instead of 23, to enter on the active pursuits of life.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
pointed out that the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was a much wider question than that raised by the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to force his views as to the abolition of the Long Vacation on the Profession of which he was such a distinguished ornament, and the only result of the Judicature Act was that the Judges commenced the Long Vacation earlier than before. He hoped they would not be led away by the discussion of the limited subject raised by the Amendment to that of the 134 much-wider issue raised by the speech of the hon and learned Gentleman.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
thought it would be impossible in a Bill such as that under discussion to draw an exact line as to the course which the Commissioners should pursue in the matter. These were matters which should be left to the Universities and Colleges themselves.

§ MR. FORSYTH
confirmed what had been stated by the hon. and learned Member (Sir William Harcourt) as to no instruction being given at Cambridge during the Long Vacation.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN
argued in favour of trusting to the Commissioners as to the expediency of devising means for providing instructions at the Universities out of Term. For his own part, he thought the Amendment was founded on common-sense, and that it was most desirable that University instruction should not be entirely closed to students during the long periods of vacation.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
was of opinion that a good deal of time was wasted in the vacations. He did not, however, think the difficulty would be met by the Amendment, and would prefer that an -Undergraduate should be enabled to take the ordinary degree in two instead of three years.

§ MR. LOWE
said, that the intention of the clause was a good one, but the means proposed for carrying it were not good. He did not see how the Universities could with any propriety make rules for teaching out of Term time. It was a monstrous abuse that the Universities should teach only half the year, as the other half was wasted in vacations. That which could be done in two years was spread over a longer period. Many men were taught at the Universities in the vacations. He had had some experience in that matter, for he had taught many, and he did not require an Act of Parliament to tell him what to do. The Universities should do a fair quantity of work, but they did not do that at present.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn for the present, in order to see whether something might not be done in a later part of the clause towards lengthening the studies and shortening the vacations.

§ MR. JAMES
accepted the suggestion, and offered to withdraw the Amendment.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
remarked that the University bad already sanctioned unattached students, and something ought to be done to enable the University out of its funds to provide the means for enabling poor men to continue their studies during the Long Vacation at Oxford.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. HANBURY
moved the omission of the words of sub-section 8 which enable the Commissioners to "found" scholarships or otherwise to assist "poor and meritorious students." It would be sufficient he said to treat this class as unattached students, not members of any College or Hall.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 40, to leave out the words "diminishing the expense of University education by."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, the clause had been introduced at the instance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and was supported by a memorial of the working classes, in whose interest especially it was put forward, and he did not see that there was anything invidious in it. They might, he thought, use those words in order to harmonize with the intention of the clause. The Universities were strongly in favour of it as it now stood.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,
in supporting the Amendment, said, that that sub-section would have the effect of giving special scholarships to a body of men to whom the ordinary exhibitions of the Colleges were already open, and by the best of whom they were obtained. The result would be, of course, an artificially low standard. The sub-section was not in the Bills as originally introduced last year, and the words were put in without sufficient consideration in the House of Lords. They should by all means allow men to come and reside at the Universities, however little they might know; but they got into every kind of difficulty so soon as they began paying them to come. Plenty of scholarships were open to the unattached students, and those who were not only "poor," but also "meritorious," could obtain them. At Cambridge, for instance, all the scholar- 136 ships at Trinity, all the scholarships at King's, all the University scholarships, and many more were open to the unattached students.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, that poor and meritorious students ought to be assisted in their University career; but it should be by their friends in the country or by exhibitions from the grammar schools, rather than by the University—the one body which ought not to know them in their social relations. He trusted that the House would adopt the Amendment.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
entirely concurred in the views expressed by his hon Friend the Member for Chelsea. The principle upon which these rewards should be distributed should be the plain one detur digniori. The clause would have the effect of turning Oxford and Cambridge into eleemosynary institutions. He hoped the hon. Member would press his Motion to a division.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
saw the gravest objections to the clause as it stood. It would place the College funds in a position to be drawn upon in a most unfair manner. Poverty and merit combined were already met by the scholarships existing in connection with the public schools. He had known instances of the association of poor men with rich men at the University proving almost ruinous to the poor men, from the style of living to which it accustomed them, and which they were not thereafter able to keep pace with. The proposed change ought not to be made, more particularly at a time when the expenses of University education were so much complained of.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
observed that the result of the working of the sub-section would be that funds would be taken from Colleges which had done excellent educational work to found unattached scholarships. He had no objection to unattached students; but the former was a policy which, in his view, was utterly to be deprecated.

§ MR. FAWCETT
could not agree with those who held that a discretionary power on the subject should not be placed in the hands of the Commissioners. It was, in his view, most unlikely that the scholarship funds should be diminished; in fact, the Commissioners would very probably find a strong current of opinion that they might be advantageously augmented. The ques- 137 tion before the Committee was, what was to be done with the superfluous funds of the Colleges, and of all the purposes which had been suggested to which the College funds might be applied, none seemed to be more worthy of careful consideration by the Commissioners than that they should devote some portion of any funds to be given by the Colleges to the establishment of unattached scholarships. He objected to the scholarships of his own College being diminished; but if there were £500, or £600, or £700, surplus funds of his College, he should not object to a portion of it being handed over to the University and a portion devoted to reward unattached students by giving them scholarships. This class of students was one that ought to be particularly encouraged, and it was a special one, composed largely of men who had their own reasons for not entering Colleges. Some of them were men who wished to take a degree comparatively late in life. The Commissioners would, of course, deal permissively with only surplus funds, and he did not think they could be better employed than for the benefit of the unattached students.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, it appeared to him there were two questions of importance before them. The one was whether they should have any Colleges at all specially for poor students. All that ho heard on the subject tended to show that it was neither advantageous to the students nor to the Universities to have such Colleges. The other was whether the power should be given to Colleges to award scholarships to unattached students. It appeared to him that it would be of great advantage to the Universities to give them the power of applying a portion of their funds to teach such unattached students and fit them for scholarships. Both the objects he had named could be attained by leaving out the words objected to by the hon. Member for Tamworth.

§ MR. LOWE
said, the objection entertained with regard to poverty applied to a great extent to these unattached students by making them a privileged class, and giving them the means of obtaining money easier. The unattached students were not on a par with others, because the condition of obtaining a scholarship in a College was, that a stu- 138 dent must go into residence, and an unattached student, although he might be able to live frugally in his lodgings, might be equally able to do so in College with the assistance of scholarships and then be able to compete. The way to meet the difficulty would be by founding a number of scholarships capable of being held by persons belonging to Colleges and unattached students, in which case they would be placed on a level with others, and they would not be deprived by poverty of obtaining that which was open to other persons.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, it was quite true that this clause was not in the Bill when it was originally introduced into the other House by his noble Friend. In adopting the clause it would be necessary that the Commission should have power to pay salaries from the University funds to the teachers of unattached students. There were men who lived in some of the Halls at Oxford who did it as cheaply and as penuriously as unattached students, and he would instance the case of Keble College. On the whole, he would rather that the words "poor and meritorious" should be struck out, and then the Committee might adopt the clause, which would then leave it open to all—both to resident and unattached students—provision being made for the payment of teachers for the unattached students. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be withdrawn and the clause agreed to, with the omission of the words "poor and meritorious."

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, that it would be necessary to leave out the words "in need of assistance," and "diminishing the expense."

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, that the words "diminishing the expense" were important. Very often the scholarships answered the purpose of diminishing the expense of a University career.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he could hardly accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. They were really asked to agree to the establishment of a large number of new Colleges like Keble College, and he did not think that the effect of this clause would be to diminish the cost of University education. He had no objection to the last part of the clause, but would take a division against the former part.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
pointed out that as his right hon. Friend had gone so far in the way of concession it was not worth while to divide on the point now in dispute, because it was only a forecast of what appeared in a more lengthened form in Clause 9.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
thought that as the object was really to found Scholarships for " poor and meritorious" students there would be no harm in using these words; he could never see the objection to calling things by their right names, but he believed that even in the amended form the clause would give great satisfaction.

§ MR. COURTNEY
was understood to suggest that the clause, as the Secretary of State for War now proposed to amend it, would not do what the right hon. Gentleman intended — namely, benefit unattached students; but might result in the creation of a certain number of new University Scholarships like the Craven and the Bell Scholarships.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the words "diminishing the expense of University education." It would be better to cut down the cost of University education than to create a number of Scholarships and Fellowships to be scrambled for.

§ MR. FAWCETT
observed that the object of the clause was to give some assistance to unattached students; but if the present proposal of the Secretary of State for War was carried out, not the smallest assistance would practically be given to unattached students. It only added to the Scholarships which were open to everybody, and those who obtained the Craven and other Scholarships would also carry off the new ones. The object of the Act of Parliament passed some years ago was to put the unattached scholars on the same footing as the others, but this clause would have a contrary effect.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
maintained that the clause was not open to the objections which had been taken by the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) and the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney).

§ MR. HANBURY
expressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
140 The Committee divided:—Ayes 269; Noes 82: Majority 187.—(Div. List, No. 100.)

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
moved, in page 5, line 41, after the word "by" to insert "reducing the fees payable to the University, and."

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, it would be better to leave the Universities to settle the fees upon which students should be admitted.

MR. BALFOUR
supported the Amendment. He did not see why there should be any University fees at all.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 188: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 101.)
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.