Mr. Prymerose to move that an address be presented to his Majesty to issue a Commission to inquire into the state of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the respective colleges therein. It was essential that full inquiry should be made into these institutions, with a view to the removal of those defects which so greatly impeded their utility. A Committee of this description had been appointed during the administration of the right hart. Member for Tamworth in reference to the Scotch universities, and in consequence of the report of that Committee, Several reforms and alterations had taken place in those universities. The grounds on which he now Sought for an inquiry into the two great English Universities was that, having been instituted in days of less civilisation and less knowledge than the present, they were not so much adapted to the knowledge and studies of the present time as they might and ought to be. A Commission to inquire into these universities was no novelty. Commissions had been issued for this purpose in the reigns of Henry 8th, of Edward 6th, of Mary, and 510 of Elizabeth; the result of which Commissions had been alterations in the regulations and proceedings of the colleges constituting both universities. One of the most objectionable features in the government of the universities was the caput, a body composed of six individuals, having each of them a veto upon all measures before they came before the senate for discussion. The consequence was, that the sense of the university could not be taken upon any question if one of these individuals chose to put his veto on it. The non-admission of Dissenters he should touch very lightly on. At Cambridge they allowed much greater latitude than at Oxford. In the course of last year a Jew was second in the examination. He remained at Cambridge, unable to take his degree, and the point to which he would invite the attention of the House was the oaths which prevented him from taking his degree. The members of the universities were obliged to take a number of oaths; and he would appeal to those individuals, many of whom he knew to entertain strong religious feelings, and ask them, was it right that a man should call God to witness he would do an act which he never intended to do, and which he knew would never be done by any of those who were around him? He would ask his hon. Friends behind him, if they had not sworn that they would remain five years at college assisting in presiding in the Schools and teaching there? The Duke of Richmond had brought in a Bill to dispense with many of these oaths; but the heads of the universities were so enamoured of them—they were so in love with these oaths, which though they took they never observed—that they petitioned Parliament not to be exempted from them. There were upwards of one hundred statutes which the members of the college could not have knowledge of, and which, therefore, it was impossible for them to observe. At the end of each term the vice-chancellor pronounced absolution in favour of all those who had violated their oaths. Though he Was not personally acquainted with them, he believed that there existed as great anomalies at Oxford as at Cambridge, of which he had been speaking; and he hoped that some hon. Gentleman who belonged to the University of Oxford would come forward and state what there was requiring reform in that university. Some alterations had been made in the regulations there, and they had been objected to in an article in The dinburgh 511 Review; but he must say he did not agree in opinion with the writer of that article. The fact, however, of the existence of a difference of opinion on so important a subject was, he contended, one reason in favour of the appointment of a Commission of inquiry. The examination for a master of arts' degree was rather a singular one. The candidate appeared in the school; some trifling question was proposed to him—often a pun on the individual's name; he gave a short answer—for instance, his reply would be "Nescio," or something equally witty, and then he went and took his degree of master of arts. Another regulation was that no man should teach grammar (he was speaking of Cambridge) in any of the colleges except Jesus College. Grammar was afterwards extended to Trinity and to King's Colleges; but to what part of King's? Not to the students, only to the chorister boys there. He objected also to the restriction of giving fellowships only to men of particular counties. At St. John's College the restriction had been removed on petition to the King; at Trinity there was no restriction of the kind. A tutor of a college in Oxford, in a communication he had received from him, expressed his belief that there existed three times as many of those restricted fellowships in Oxford as at Cambridge. He stated that at his University they could not make the fellowships available for any good or profitable purpose; a number of Gentlemen were appointed fellows by virtue of their connexion with certain families, towns, or counties, without regard to their talents industry or knowledge. And it was from bodies thus constituted that the heads of colleges, that the public officers of the Universities, that the executive Government were derived. For individuals so qualified were the dignities and emoluments of tutors and examiners reserved. The result of this system was, that one-half of the classical examiners were Gentlemen who had not themselves reached the highest honours. Then he was informed that the lectures were so imperfectly or rather so abstrusely given, that the student was unable to follow them without the assistance of the private tutor. The public tutor played into the hands of the private tutor, and the consequence was, that the student, to enable him to follow the lectures, was obliged to have a private tutor, at an expense of 40l. a-year. The tutors had now formed a division of labour, and the same tutors would not, as they did in his time, teach 512 mathematics, whence it followed that the student was put to an expense of 80l. a-year. If it were asked, was there a demand in the Universities for a change in the present system, he could answer that there was. He was most willing to admit that many improvements had taken place, but still many more were wanting He trusted that as an inquiry had been granted into almost every other body in the kingdom, whether they were charitable institutions or corporations, that one with respect to these Universities would not be refused. Considering the connection that he had the honour to hold with one of those Universities he believed it would not be supposed that he was influenced by any hostility towards them. He had spent, with the exception of four years, his whole life in connexion with an university. He was influenced by the strongest feelings of attachment to the universities, and he brought forward his present motion actuated by an anxious desire to improve them, and to remedy the deficiencies which arose from the arbitrary statute of Elizabeth, and from the foundation being laid in ages less adapted than the present to promote study, and in which the habits of study were different from what they were now. Both at Oxford and at Cambridge there were many, persons, he observed, receiving large salaries, and who did no duty. He concluded by thanking the House for the attention which hon. Members had bestowed on him, and by moving, that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, requesting him to issue a Commission to inquire into the state of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the respective Colleges therein.
§ Mr. Edward Lytton BulwerI will first ask, are our universities national establishments?—and if they are, can we improve them? What is the gist of the motion? If we can answer both questions in the affirmative, I see no possible reason why we are to exempt the universities from that inquiry which has been granted with respect to other corporations in this country. I believe very great misapprehension exists on this question, and I do not consider that my hon. and learned Friend has removed it in his very able speech. My hon. Friend has not sufficiently pointed out the distinction between the universities and the colleges; and all the reforms that are required depend upon that distinction being kept in view. I will not occupy the House more than a minute and a-half in pointing out that distinction. In the first place, 513 the universities existed before there were colleges at all. The pupils residing in the towns and neighbourhood had the advantage of public lectures and degrees of instruction given in the universities. How, then, did the colleges spring up? In the tenth century, when Canute came into the nation, a great passion for letters sprang up; and that passion had increased so much in the twelfth century, that charitable persons provided the means of instruction, and established lodging-houses for the residence of poor scholars. To the advantage of lodgings, board and a small pecuniary allowance were also sometimes added. As the pupils who at that time attended at the universities were much younger than the pupils of the universities in the present day, it was necessary to subject them to discipline and control; and at each of these houses graduates presided. Such of these houses as were endowed were called colleges. At first they were exceedingly few, but as the pupils became more numerous, it was found necessary to have a greater number of other lodging-houses, which were called halls or inns. In the sixteenth century, it was understood that all the pupils lodged at one or other of these houses; and let us mark the distinction that existed between the system at that time and the present. No new colleges can now be created without the consent of the chancellor; and at that time whoever pleased could have a lodging-house, with a graduate at the head of it, and a hall was established. Neither the chancellor nor any other authority could prevent the existence of a hall; and at that time no religious test was imposed, and, owing to the great competition amongst the colleges, they were much less expensive than they are ow. In the sixteenth century, Oxford was a great Catholic college, of which the country boasted. How, then, did the colleges usurp the authority of the universities? There are various causes to be assigned for this result—the civil war,—the Reformation,—the abolition of the monasteries;—all these tended to diminish the resort to the universities, and, as the great halls were in possession of large endowments, an important academic revolution at length took place. Every difficulty was thrown in the way of the establishment of new colleges; and at length there appeared the decree of the Earl of Leicester, who, being chancellor, declared that no new halls should be endowed without the consent of the chancellor. From that time the monopoly 514 of the colleges has existed, and the universities were then turned from the national object for which they were intended. Then it was that the universities established religious tests, and that the national endowments were taken from the people, to be diverted to the purposes of a particular sect. I do not think that my hon. Friend has rested sufficiently upon this distinction. It must also be observed, that originally the universities were governed by an almost democratic constitution. The House of Convocation consisted of all the resident members of the university; but when the colleges assumed the plan of the university, it was thought best to have a college instead of an university legislature. Accordingly, by a decree, the popular House of Covocation was dissolved, and the power they possessed placed in the hands of a miserable oligarchy. Since then, the House of Convocation can entertain no proposition that has not the consent of the college oligarchy. As the colleges usurped the legislative functions of the universities, so, naturally, the universities glided out of view. The colleges possessed the honorary distinctions of an university, while they claimed all the exemptions of private corporations. They perceived, then, that universities were distinct from colleges. The universities stood open as if for all comers, while the colleges were intended only for the better classes. If to-morrow the colleges were all sunk in the Cam and the Isis, we should still leave the universities existing; and we should still, too, have that which has been usurped, and which is the property of all classes and all religions. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out the great abuses which have existed in the colleges. Although, as my hon. and learned Friend has stated, some improvements have been effected, many abuses still remain. At Oxford and Cambridge it is the same; one is as defective as the other. But there is this difference between Oxford and Cambridge: at Oxford the test of subscription to the thirty-nine articles is imposed at matriculation, in Cambridge not until graduation; so that Dissenters can have the benefit of three years' education at Cambridge, but not at Oxford. What evil has arisen from this practice at Cambridge? No complaint has ever been made that Churchmen have sought to make proselytes of Dissenters; no fear is entertained that Dissenters make converts of members of the Church of England. Here, then, is proof that the test could be done 515 away with at Oxford. Why not abolish it then, and all the other superfluous oaths at the same time? This would tend to the advancement of religion; for can anything be worse than to call the Deity to witness that which is never intended to be performed? I suppose it will be contended, that we have no right to interfere with the colleges. I am not certain that the House has a right to interfere with the colleges; but it certainly is competent to interfere with the universities. The reigns of Elizabeth, James 1st, and Charles 1st, have shown examples of that right having been exercised. It has been said, that the admission of Dissenters ought to be refused, because religious tuition is given in the universities. This argument, however, cannot hold good, if, as Blackstone and Mansfield have asserted, and all lawyers still assert—if, as the Parliament of Paris has declared of the college of Paris, the model of all others, the colleges are not ecclesiastical, but secular, corporations, But with respect to the religious instruction, the only religion properly taught is the heathen mythology. Scholarships, fellowships, ay, and bishoprics, are given to those who are best acquainted with this. The loves of Venus and Adonis are the Study in which they are best versed; while of the Christian religion they are persuaded to study the Greek Testament merely, and Paley, that most shallow of theologians] while they are permitted to remain in ignorance of the stately literature of the Protestant Church of England. What reasonable argument can be adduced against the proposition of my hon. and learned friend, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. Can it be contended, that an inquiry into the truth of the alleged existence of such abuses can be injurious? or are hon. Gentlemen desirous of again raising up that spirit of bigotry and intolerance which three centuries ago gave birth to Protestantism? The question before us is simply this—are those institutions which are the ancient seats of learning, the only ones which are to be exempted from the improvement which the present advanced state of civilisation in society demands? Are these the only institutions which are to remain encumbered and weighed down by all these errors and abuses? The time is fast approaching when these institutions will no longer be perverted from the purposes for which they were originally intended. The time will soon arrive when the political advantages of a citizen will no longer 516 be guaged by the measure of his theological opinions; and, believing that the time has arrived in which this improvement should be commenced, I feel great pleasure in seconding the motion of my hon. and learned Friend.
§ Mr. Poulterbelieved, that oaths had been employed solely for the purpose of coercing the illegal and arbitrary acts of the colleges. He did not see that a case had been made out which would warrant the House in addressing the Crown. He would support any Bill for the admission of Dissenters, any Bill which would substitute declarations for oaths; but he did not think a commission necessary. He objected also to the proceeding suggested, as it would be an act of hostility against the Universities, antecedently to proof that they failed in performing their duties. As to the term "indigent persons," it was difficult to point out the individuals designated by that phrase; but he thought that it alluded to persons intended for the ministry, persons who, having acquired the rudiments of knowledge, were without means adequate to enable them to attain perfection. He thought the term "pauperes" signified personally poor; and he thought the class of men he had described were personally poor. An improvement had been going on progressively for many years. He thought that the mode of holding fellowships might be altered to advantage; he thought an alteration with regard to property might be introduced; he thought, also, that the disqualification on account of marriage might safely be changed, as it was in violation of a great natural principle. The proceeding recommended to the House was violent and unfair towards the Universities, which were performing the best national services. When he saw, as he did, the means of education honestly provided for by the two Universities, he could not bring himself to accede to this motion. If they looked to the schools and the exhibitions connected with the Universities, they would find in them the means of raising men of the very humblest rank, totally destitute of friends and property, to the very highest situations. He would relate a circumstance in his own knowledge, which would place this fact in a very striking point of view. About a-year ago he had a man servant, who had considerable taste for classical learning. He himself paid considerable attention to his progress, and procured an exhibition for him at the University, and he had the pleasure of seeing him cease to be his man-servant, and become a com- 517 moner of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, and in the road to honour and improvement, He considered that there was no instrument in this country which could he compared to the two Universities in providing means, where there were minds capable of improvement, for elevating men who were without other resources to situations of profit and honour. He had no objection to permit the Dissenters to establish halls in the Universities; he would vote for a measure which would abolish the taking unnecessary oaths; he would reform any great and recognized abuses; but, looking at the two Universities as seats of national education, he would not consent to injure and insult them by agreeing to this motion.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member who had last spoken. It was but just to his hon. Colleague (Mr. Pryme) to cast aside the supposition that this motion was brought forward out of any hostile feeling to the Universities; The main question was, whether inquiry was necessary, and whether this was the proper mode of prosecuting it? This was the practical question, He considered that the Universities were public institutions of national establishments which it was competent to the House to inquire into It Seemed to him that the whole question turned upon this. He should be sorry to think that any number of sane men should maintain that these were not national establishments, and that if even a proper case Were made out it was not fitting or proper for the House to institute an inquiry. Could it for a moment be maintained that that House had the right to legislate on that subject, and yet that they had not the sight of inquiry? That House had legislated on the subject. One of the most important statutes that had ever been passed, the l8th of Elizabeth, c. 6, had reference to this subject. Surely, it never could be maintained that the Legislature had the power to act, and that they had not the power to inquire into the subject matter of their legislation. It could never be maintained, after the issue of the Scotch com-mission, that that House had not the power to inquire if a case of inquiry were made out, and the necessity of the inquiry proved. The effect of a contrary proposition would be to give that House the power of action without the power of deliberation. He thought that there were certain points in the Universities that called for immediate inquiry. He did not make this assertion 518 in any thing like an adverse spirit. He had always spoken and acted towards the University of which he was a member with the utmost respect and gratitude, and he always would. But, at the same time, because he was a member of the University, because be knew their effects, because he valued their institutions, he was anxious that they should receive that reformed improvement which they required. The whole of the category of oaths demanded immediate inquiry. Could it be said when Parliament was taking steps to relieve all persons from taking unnecessary oaths, even the lowest parochial officers—could it be said or was it consonant with religion and morality, that the Members of the University should alone be precluded from inquiry as to the numerous oaths which they were compelled to take? He protested that if the Universities were open to all classes of Dissenters, he should still think that their original institution was such as to call for inquiry. He knew very well that there were many matters to which the oaths of the Universities referred which had now become obsolete, and were necessarily neglected; and he knew also that those who took these oaths Were not held to the strict observance of those matters to which they so pledged their faith. But was it not a mockery to impose an oath and, at the same time, to give a means of mental reservation whereby to evade it? But this was not all. He did not allude merely to such laws as that forbidding the students to play at marbles at St. Mary's; but, if he was not mistaken, he believed that there were several rules amongst the statutes of these Universities which might be enforced at the present day, but which were still wholly neglected. He believed, but he spoke under correction, that the original intention in the foundation of one of the colleges at Oxford was to pray for the souls of those who fell at Agincourt. It could not be said, that this was a regulation applicable in the slightest degree to the present time. Yet these provisions still existed; and he believed that in many colleges, of which the King himself was visitor, even he had no power to alter or abolish any of them. With respect to the propriety of instituting a commission, into this subject, with the powers proposed to be given to them, he held in his hand a copy of the instructions to the commission instituted into the Scotch Universities, by a Government who certainly had no design for overthrowing the church, or of favouring 519 ultra-liberal opinions, and which empowered them to "make inquiries into the mode of granting degrees of teaching, and to inquire narrowly into the rentals and revenues of universities and colleges, and also as to their mode of taking elections, with further power of framing a code of laws and regulations on the subject." This last was a power which, if this motion for a commission were to be adopted, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not consent to repose in their hands; the remedy for any proved abuses being the province, as he considered, of Parliament alone. The hon. Member for Lincoln in his speech to-night, and particularly in reference to the religious instruction at the Universities, had drawn a picture which might have been true to a certain extent when he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was at college; but in which he was glad to be able to say, from the experience of his subsequent visits to the University to which he belonged, a considerable alteration for the better had manifested itself of late years. The hon. Member had then, in the same breath, condemned Paley as the shallowest of theologians. Now, he would not contest the point with him; he would leave the two statements to go together for as much as they were worth. He knew that certain transcendental philosophers had arisen of late years, but for his own part he confessed he was rather of the English than the German school on these subjects. He should like to refer to Paley, if it were possible, on this very question before the House, and he would venture to predict that if they did so, they would find no man less ready to defend the obsolete statutes of the English Universities than Paley himself. Whilst, however, he came to the same practical conclusion on this matter with his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, he was bound to say that he did not think this motion a necessary step towards the attainment of it. The Crown had already ample power to inquire into the management and affairs of the Universities; in the words of the Scotch Universities' Commission, it had "an undoubted right" to institute a commission on the subject if it thought proper, and an ample and absolute right to direct the course of its inquiries. If, therefore, his hon. Friend would allow him to offer a suggestion, it would be that the Crown should be left to act upon its own sense of public duty, without the interposition of the House. Under these considerations he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his motion to a division; if he did, he (the Chancellor of 520 the Exchequer), agreeing as he did in its objects, should not meet it with a direct negative, but should nevertheless feel it to be his duty to move the previous question as an amendment.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that as the question was to be got rid of, he should not have risen to address the House, had not some points arisen in the course of the debate, which, if left unanswered, might give occasion to a supposition that the imputations which had been thrown upon the Universities, were deserved. His right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had done his duty as a Minister of the Crown and a member of the University, by declaring his determination to resist the motion, and therefore he was not called on to say how far there was such a power in the Crown. The Government would, in these respects, act upon their own responsibility; but he hoped there would be no violation of rights which, granted under charters from the Crown, sanctioned by the authority of Parliament, and confirmed by the decisions of the courts for several hundred years, stood upon a basis not easily to be shaken. He must observe, that when motions of inquiry had been made before, the Gentlemen who brought them forward, or those who supported them, had felt themselves bound to prove, that abuses did exist; but instead of that, it was acknowledged, that the Universities were in a state of progressive improvement, and fulfilling better than at any former period, the duties which they owed to society at large. His right hon. Friend said, that there was no harm meant, no injury intended, by this inquiry. It was said, that the Universities would come out of it with honour. Why, was he to be tried for an offence, because, when he was put on his trial, he was sure of an honourable acquittal? Was he to have his whole life inquired into, upon an imaginary accusation; and would his right hon. Friend console him by saying, "You will be put upon your trial, but then you will have the glorious satisfaction of coming out of the inquiry with an unspotted character, and of publishing to the world that you are as virtuous as you were supposed to be vicious?" Would that be any compensation to him? Great, however, as would be the annoyance which an individual would suffer from this proceeding, the inconvenience in the case of public bodies would be much aggravated. He should like to know, too, how discipline 521 was to be maintained in these collegiate establishments, when parties who were engaged in tuition might be examined ten times a-day, in reference to complaints adduced against them by persons who, knowing nothing of the statutes, would be liable to fall into every kind of misconception. Then, as to the Scotch Commission. Did his right hon. Friend mean to say, that the legal power of the Crown to inquire into the state of the Universities, stood on the same grounds in England as it did in Scotland? Was it not a notorious fact, that the King was the visitor of the Scotch Universities; and that that which in England was the exception, was in Scotland the rule? Moreover, did his right hon. Friend forget what the alleged reason was, for the inquiry instituted into the Scotch Universities? Did he not know, that it was the irregularities, disputes, and deficiencies, which were said to exist therein, and the necessity of applying some remedy to cure them? If his right hon. Friend had any doubt as to that fact, he would remove it by reading an extract from the commission of inquiry itself. It was as follows:—"Our Sovereign Lord the King, considering how necessary it is that Universities and colleges should be provided with good laws, statutes, and ordinances, and being informed that certain irregularities, disputes, and deficiencies have occurred in the Universities of Scotland, calculated to impair the utility of those establishments; and considering, also, that it is his Majesty's undoubted right and prerogative to name visitors and commissioners to inquire into such irregularities, disputes, and deficiencies, and to remedy the same,"—names and appoints certain individuals to institute such inquiry. Having disposed of that point, he would now proceed to another charge which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge, against the Universities. That charge was, that they did not accommodate themselves to the circumstances of the times—and how was it that his hon. and learned Friend proposed to remedy this inconvenience? By going back to the state of things existing in the time of Philip and Mary—that is to say, he who complained of the Universities for adhering too rigidly to the practices of antiquity, would have them go back to a period of still more remote antiquity, to render their rules and regulations more applicable than they were at present, to modern usages, His hon, and learned 522 Friend had next spoken of the necessity of modifying the oaths now taken in the Universities, and had argued that the oaths to observe the statutes, which the change of times and circumstances rendered no longer observable, ought to be altered. His right hon. Friend had also said, that, as we had recently regulated the oath taken by custom-house officers, by parish officers, and by other public functionaries, so ought we to regulate the oaths taken by students and graduates in the Universities. It was true, that for the oath formerly taken by custom-house officers and others, we had recently substituted a declaration; and he recollected that, at the same time, the propriety of substituting a declaration for the oath taken in the Universities was brought under the consideration of Parliament. Parliament then came to this decision, that "it shall be lawful for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and for all other bodies corporate and politic, and for all bodies now by law or statute, or by any valid usage, authorised to administer or receive any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, to make statutes, by-laws, or orders, authorising and directing the substitution of a declaration in lieu of any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, now required to be taken or made. Provided always, that such statutes, by-laws, or orders, be otherwise duly made and passed according to the charter, laws, or regulations of the particular University, other body corporate and politic, or other body so authorised as aforesaid." It was evident, then, that the point raised by his right hon. Friend, had been under the consideration of Parliament, and that Parliament, being of opinion that confidence ought to be reposed in those learned bodies, had given them power, if they pleased, to substitute a declaration in lieu of an oath. But when his right hon. Friend adverted to the impropriety of administering oaths, to observe statutes which were no longer observable, he could not help asking him how he got out of the impropriety by substituting declarations in lieu of oaths? He understood, at the time when that Act of Parliament was passed, that the declaration was to be as binding as the oath; so that, if there was a violation of any declaration on a subject where a violation of the oath would constitute the offence of perjury, there would be little benefit accomplished by making the alteration recommended by his right hon. Friend. In point of fact, his alteration would be good for nothing. 523 He admitted, that if he took a declaration and violated it, he did not fly in the face of the Divine authority so openly as he would do, if he took an oath and broke it; Still, as an honest man, he must say, that the substitution of a declaration in lieu of an oath, would not relieve the Universities from the difficulties in which, according to his right hon. Friend, they were placed. It appeared to him, that great misapprehension, not to. say ignorance, prevailed respecting the paths taken in the Universities; and, though he should not have been purposed at a stranger sharing in that misapprehension or ignorance, he was surprised to find his hon. and learned Friend, who was himself a distinguished member of one of the Universities, participating in the general error. Beyond all question, there were many things in the statutes of the different colleges which had now fallen into desuetude. In construing those statutes, he was, therefore, bound either to depart from their literal construction, or from the details which the founders had laid down to carry their objects into effect. He thought, that he ought to pursue their main objects in the mode best calculated to make them efficient, even though he threw overboard the details which they had laid down for accomplishing them. He would exemplify what he meant by an instance taken from the college to which he himself had the honour to belong. He had with him the statutes of that college in Latin; but, as it might be more convenient to the House to learn their substance from a translation, he would state, in plain English, that the object of its establishment was to fit men for the uses of the State, and to render them in various ways serviceable to it. A solemn prayer was inserted in the Statutes at their end, calling upon God to give the college his blessing, so that it might bring forth the ripe fruits of piety and science. In those statutes, it was made imperative upon the students to read carefully the topics of Aristotle, the inventions of Radulphus Agricola, the intelligibilia of Porphyrius, and the works of the learned John Setoun. With the exception of the first, not one of these productions, once so celebrated, was known—he would not say read—at the present time. The college, in working put the object of the original statutes, had banished those obsolete works from the course of study, and had substituted for them the best productions of modern literature and science. He contended, that in such a deviation from 524 the plan laid down by the founder, the college authorities had been guilty of no violation of their oaths; and in confirmation of his opinion, he quoted the authority of Dr. Paley. That eminent writer on morals had a short chapter on the subject, which illustrated his meaning so well, that he could not refrain from reading it to the House. "Members of colleges in the Universities, and of other ancient foundations," says Dr. Paley, "are required to swear to the observance of their respective statutes, which observance is become in some cases unlawful, in others impracticable, in others useless, in others inconvenient. Unlawful directions are countermanded by the authority which made them unlawful, Impracticable directions are dispensed with by the necessity of the case. The only question is, how far the members of these societies may take upon themselves to judge of the in-conveniency of any particular direction, and make that a reason for laying aside the observation of it. The animus imponentis, which is the measure of the juror's duty, seems to be satisfied, when nothing is omitted, but what, from some change in the circumstances under which it was prescribed, it may fairly be presumed that the founder himself would have dispensed with. To bring a case within this rule, the inconveniency must—I, be manifest, concerning which there is no doubt; 2, it must arise from some change in the circumstances of the institution; for, let the inconveniency be what it will, if it existed at the time of the foundation, it must be presumed that the founder did not deem the avoiding of it of sufficient importance to alter his plan; 3, the direction of the statute must not only be inconvenient in the general, for so may the institution itself be, but prejudicial to the particular end proposed by the institution; for it is this last circumstance alone which proves that the founder would have dispensed with it in pursuance of his own purpose. The statutes of some colleges forbid the speaking of any language but Latin within the walls of the college; direct that a certain number, and not fewer than that number, be allowed the use of an apartment amongst them; that so many hours of each day be employed in public exercises, lectures, or disputations; and some other articles of discipline adapted to the tender years of the students, who, in farmer times, resorted to Universities, Were colleges to retain such rules, nobody now-a-days would come near them. They 525 are laid aside, therefore, though parts of the statutes, and as such included within the oath, not merely because they are inconvenient, but because there is sufficient reason to believe that the founders themselves would have dispensed with them, as subversive of their own designs." He hoped, that it would not be supposed that either he or the University which he had the honour to represent, felt any indisposition to review the statutes of that University, for the purpose of removing any anomalies which might be found therein. On the contrary, the leading authorities of that University were at present engaged in the consideration of its statutes; and he knew that those individuals, anxious as they were to guard themselves against the unjust imputations upon them which had been made in another place, and which, he was sorry to say, had been repeated in that House this evening, were equally anxious to remove those parts of the present system which were inconsistent with the modes and habits of the times, and which in themselves were either inexpedient or impracticable. He would next proceed to notice an objection which had been raised respecting the governing body of the University. It had been said, that the caput, because it was not appointed by popular election, was not fit for the government of a learned body. He denied that the election of the caput was in the exclusive nomination of the Vice-chancellor. If his right hon. Friend would take the trouble of reading the statutes of the university to which they both belonged, he would find that a double list for the caput must be presented by the Vice-chancellor to the senate, and that from those two lists the members of the caput must be appointed. However antiquated his notions might appear, he must confess, that he doubted whether it would be advantageous to the interest of science, even supposing the Crown had power to make the alteration, and to vary the constitution granted to that University by Act of Parliament, to have the time which ought to be given up to the studies of the place occupied in canvassing a large body of seats in the caput. They were wise founders, who, knowing how much the absence of agitation was conducive to contemplation and study, made an arrangement: of this kind which preserved the University from popular disturbance by banishing to a distance the elements of civil confusion and discord. The next charge which he should notice, related to the oath 526 which he and others had taken as masters of arts. It was true that by the statutes every master of arts was to preach once in five years at St. Paul's-cross. He must confess, that although he had been a master of arts for more than twice five years, he had never yet preached his initiatory sermon. He had never felt any obligation to perform that duty, nor should he feel it, if St. Paul's-cross, instead of being demolished, were now in existence. The regulation had been made when none but clergymen were admitted to the degree of master of arts, and ceased as soon as laymen became admissible to it. Another reason which had been urged for instituting this inquiry was the limitation in certain colleges of the number of fellows to be elected from particular counties. It was very singular, that in the whole course of his speech his hon. and learned Friend had scarcely mentioned a single grievance which he did not at some other part of it show to be remedied. This was especially the case in the present instance. His hon. and learned Friend had stated, that limiting the number of fellowships was an evil. Well, the fellowships had been limited in two of the largest colleges in the University of Cambridge—he meant at Trinity and St. John's. Did the governing body of either of those colleges seek to continue the limitation? No, quite the reverse. Having the power in themselves, through the medium of their visitors, those learned bodies had of their own accord relieved the fellowships of their colleges from the shackles which had been imposed upon them, and had opened them to all the world. Indeed, his hon. and learned Friend had mentioned the case of a Swiss gentleman (the late rev. Mr. Tavell, once fellow and tutor of Trinity) who had entered at one of them, had raised himself by his talents and exertions to the highest honours which the University had to bestow. He repeated, that in two of the largest colleges in his University, and he believed in several others, this limitation of numbers had been got rid of by the friendly exertions of the Crown and of the heads of houses. If those friendly exertions were to continue, and if Parliament were to afford every reasonable facility to the heads of houses, the colleges would require no commission to make the necessary alterations, but would make them readily of their own accord. There was another charge to which he must advert, as it affected a large number of gentlemen for 527 whom he entertained the most sincere respect. His hon. and learned Friend had said, that the system of private tuition was a great abuse. He would ask his hon. and learned Friend whether he wished to get rid of that system? Did he wish to restrict the exertions of men who were anxious to gain knowledge as well as those of men who were anxious to communicate it? Would he say to students of high rank in the Universities "You have fortune—you have wealth—but you must not employ it in gaining information from those best calculated to give it you—you must not employ it in obtaining a knowledge of the arts which embellish and dignify human life—you must be kept down to the same level with the poorest man in the University, lest you gain some undue imaginary advantage over him?" For his own part, he would much rather that a young man should be employed with a tutor during the whole of the long vacation, than that he should be spending it, as his hon. and learned Friend proposed, in idleness, which was likely to disqualify him for the resumption of his studies when he returned to the University. [Mr. Pryme: I never said one word of the kind.] He appealed to the House whether his hon. and learned Friend had not stated that the system of private tuition was an abuse. [Mr. Pryme: No.] Whether he had not stated that it was a forced payment of 40l. a-year, and that it gave an undue advantage over those who—[Mr. Pryme had neither said nor meant any thing of the kind.]—"As his hon. and learned Friend said that he had misconceived his meaning upon this point, he would not push his argument on this part of the subject further." He hoped, however, that he had not mistaken his hon. and learned Friend upon another point of his argument. He understood his hon. and learned Friend to say that private tutors were necessary, because the public tutors gave their lectures so abstrusely that it was impossible for a young man to understand them without the assistance of a private tutor. He denied the fact; he asserted that the public lecturers of the different colleges did not give their lectures in so unintelligible a style. In Trinity College especially, the public tutors gave their lectures in a manner which rendered them easy to be understood by every man of ordinary comprehension; and not only did they give them thus clearly in public—they were accessible at all times in private to those students 528 who wished for further explanation. He could mention numerous instances of men who had not had the means of obtaining private tuition, and who had yet acquired the highest honours of the University by their mere attendance on the public lectures. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also made a statement reflecting on the professors of the University. He did not know how far that statement was true, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself been a professor and might know from experience how far it was true that the professors did not teach publicly the sciences which they professed, or, teaching them, how far they were unsuccessful in procuring an audience among the students. Supposing the lecture rooms of some of the professors to be unattended, that might arise from no indisposition on the part of the professors to give lectures, and from no indisposition on the part of the students to profit by them, but from the ardour with which they were led to pursue the ordinary studies of the place under other professors. It had been said, that the cause of divinity suffered whenever a person oppressed by age and infirmity filled the professorship without being able to discharge its duties. He admitted that such an occurrence was unfortunate; but even when the professor of divinity was unable to discharge his functions and give lectures, there was no want of theological instruction in the university. The theological instruction which the students received in their respective colleges comprehended all the important parts of the Christian faith. He could not agree with those hon. Members who had described the subscription to the thirty-nine articles required from all persons who required admittance into the University as a barrier erected by interested parties for the avowed purpose of preventing the general dissemination of that know-ledge which was taught in the Universities. He had opposed the admission of Dissenters into them not upon that ground, but because he felt that, the Universities having been instituted and maintained for the support of the religion of the state, it was incompatible with that object to place the government of them in the hands of those who entertained opinions hostile to that religion. He would not detain the House any longer, especially as it appeared that the Government was not inclined to support this motion. He repeated, the universities were ready to act on their own responsibility, and to male such regula- 529 tions as the change of circumstances required. They must, they ought to do so; for a contrary conduct would withdraw from them the confidence of the House and of the country, and raise up against them a mass of hostility, which he thanked God did not at present exist. The country was well aware of their value as means of extending knowledge. It saw their, value not only in the individuals whom it sent to that House to be its lights and ornaments., but also in those individuals who in other places were the guides, instructors, and servants of the Government. It saw their value in the important fact, which could not be denied, that those who were opposed to them in matters of religion when they had to elect a seminary for the education of their children chose the Universities, the eyes of the land, as the places to which they would send them. There was nothing to justify the commission of inquiry into the state of those bodies, and he claimed for them exemption from any such unnecessary interference.
Mr. Prymein reply, said, that after the speech of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the question had taken a different aspect from what it had at first. His right hon. Friend agreed with him in the principle that some reformation was necessary, but he thought that it would be better to leave to the Crown the power which it had of interfering if it should seem necessary. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) seemed to think that he (Mr. Pryme) had intended to make an attack on the Universities, but he appealed to the recollection of hon. Members whether he had said anything of the kind. He admitted that great improvement had of late been made in the system of both Universities, but he wished to have that improvement on some fixed principle. What he complained of was, that some colleges had so given their instructions as to render a private tutor necessary, which in many cases was a hardship. Having made this explanation, he would now, with the leave of the House withdraw his motion, in the hope that Ministers would take the necessary steps in these matters on their own responsibility.
§ Mr. Estcourtsaid, that after the statement of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn), he should not detain the House by more than one remark, which was, that of late years an improvement had taken place in the Universities, particularly in that of Oxford, which had gone far beyond what 530 the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge had stated.
§ Motion withdrawn.