§ On the sum of 5,418l. having been proposed to defray the expenses of the University of London.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, the salaries given to the examiners at this University were 200l. a year each, while the examiners at Oxford and Cambridge received only 20l. with the exception of a few, such as the examiners on political economy, who received 30l. He doubted the expediency of allowing such large salaries to the examiners of the London University.
§ Mr. Laboucherethought it necessary to advert to the difference of circumstances between the examiners at Oxford and Cambridge, and these at the London University, to show that what was sufficient for the former could by no means be 1320 sufficient for the latter. Let him ask the hon. Gentleman who were those examiners at Oxford and Cambridge? They were persons, who, as the tutors of their colleges, were receiving considerable incomes from the young men whom they were attending, who derived a large interest from their fellowships, and who moreover enjoyed their share of all the emoluments and advantages attaching to those ancient and well-endowed universities. It was, therefore, unfair to say that the examiners of the London University should receive no greater salary than those of Oxford or Cambridge, when they derived no other emolument from their connexion with that institution.
§ Mr. Goulburnwould not deny that there were certain circumstances connected with the former universities which gave the examiners there considerable advantage over those of the London University, but he must at the same time say that the tutors were not always examiners. The tutors gave instructions, and at the examinations, young men, eminent in their several departments, were chosen to judge the merits and progress of the students, so that there should be no collusion between the examiners and tutors. Even if they added the emoluments of the fellowships to the sum they received for the examinations, they would not make up 200l. a-year. It should not be forgotten that the examiners in surgery, medicine, and anatomy in the London University, enjoyed a large hospital practice, and derived far greater emoluments from their connection with that university than the examiners in Oxford or Cambridge did from their fellowships. There were also in London many men who for the mere honour of a connection with that university would be willing to accept the office of examiners. In many respects this university had advantages which did not belong to those of Oxford or Cambridge.
Mr. Prymeobserved, that the examiners in Oxford and Cambridge had only to walk from their residences and their colleges to the senate house, to earn their 20l, while those of the London University had to go from, perhaps, the remotest part of the metropolis, and to interrupt for days, the ordinary course of their business.
§ Mr. Warburtonsaid, that as far as regarded the total amount, he thought it ought to be considered there was a claim 1321 on the Government of supporting an additional establishment in London, which ought not to be lost sight of. A large college was founded by Sir Thomas Gresham, on the plan of Oxford and Cambridge; but, by most scandalous jobbing between the City and the Government of that day, the college was disposed of, and on the scite was built an Excise-office. The professors received a pittance of 200l. a-year, which had since become a sinecure, and all the great property was abandoned. It would be unjust that they should complain of the amount, but when they came to canvass the details it was right that they should see that the sums were well founded. He thought some of the sums were too large. He thought so in the case of the medical examiner, who had 250l. a-year. It arose from the professors having nominated themselves. He had no doubt whatever, that 100l. a-year would really be considered an ample allowance to give to a medical examiner of this university.
Mr. S. O'Briensaid, that he should be the last person in the House to cavil at a grant for the purposes of education. He must say, however, that it would be easy to obtain gentlemen who, for the sake of the honour of being connected with the University, would, for a nominal consideration, give their services.
§ Mr. Godsonobserved, that taking the fees which were exacted as a criterion for the number of pupils, it was almost 50l. a-head. 3,340l. was paid for examining pupils, the whole number of whom, according to the amount of fees paid by them, could not be 100. It would appear that there were twenty-five examiners.
§ Mr. Wakleyshould be glad to know how to characterise the conduct of the university, and the proposal of the vote in terms which could not give offence to any parties connected with the University, but he was compelled to state that the entire proceeding had given offence to a large number of persons. He considered the university to be objectionable in principle and most obnoxious in practice. The university was in the hands of the minister. Was that the way to encourage talent? Was that consistent with the liberal times in which we lived? He said fearlessly that Oxford and Cambridge were republics of letters compared with this institution in London. He said that it was not right to vote away money to support a 1322 particular college in London. The fees for a bachelor of medicine were 125l. The amount of fees showed the estimation in which this new shop was held. They had no honour to dispose of they could not confer a single right. A person who paid the fee was liable to a penalty of 20l, if he mixed in a mortar the drugs which he prescribed for a patient; yet the Mouse was called upon to vote 6,000l. for the maintenance of that university. He did not like to say it was a humbug. Should he say it was a fraud? In point of fact many people believed it was both one and the other: and he must say that his opinions were in accordance with the opinions which they entertained. Men had been appointed to this institution whom the public did not prize. Ministers lent an ear to their Friends, whilst they turned a deaf ear on those who did not support them in politics. If they were men whose signatures were of importance to a diploma there would not be such a miserable account of receipts as was exhibited in this paper. These persons first selected themselves to be examiners, and then named the sums they should receive for their services. He believed that they voted themselves more than the public would receive in return. He asserted that the university ought to be made available for the public generally, and that particular schools ought not to be selected. A friend of his, who wished to have his pupils matriculated, was ill-used by the minister, and his application almost torn up before his face, or something of that sort. It was a monstrous and most iniquitous injustice.
§ Mr. Warburtonhoped that this institution might be open to candidates where-ever they were educated, and trusted that such would be the case before this time next year. The senate of the university had applied to Government to know, whether, if certain changes were made, Government would be favourable to them. One of the proposed changes was, that the institution should be open to candidates wherever they were educated. At present the schools from which candidates were admitted were determined by the Secretary of State—the senate had no discretion. The friend of the hon. Member for Finsbury had only to read the charter to see that his application must be made to the Secretary of State. His hon. Friend remarked on the small number of 1323 the medical students; but this arose from the course of examination, which was much more difficult than the ' curriculum' laid down in other universities. What was the consequence? As long as there were places where medical degrees could be obtained on easier terms, those places would have the priority. The novelty of the institution, and the difficulty of the examination, was sufficient to account for the small number of students. In the university of Durham, the electoral body as at Oxford and Cambridge, were all graduates of the university. As soon as there should be a sufficient body of graduates in whom to repose the power now exercised by the Government, that power would be transferred to the electoral body.
§ Mr. Humemaintained that the House was not sufficiently informed of the proceedings of the university to agree to so large a vote. Every public establishment receiving the public money, ought to give a regular account of their proceedings during the whole year. If the House agreed to the vote now, he hoped that there would be some inquiry before the report was brought up. He was of opinion that the salaries were a great deal too high. He hoped, before the House disposed of this vote, they would have a report from the senate, in vindication of these charges, and of the necessity of having twenty-five examiners.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no objection to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, and to postpone the vote; because he trusted that, from the high character of the university, further examination would only tend to remove an unfavourable impression. He was not disposed to say that the Salaries were, in any way, unreasonable, when he recollected that the examiners were deprived of the means of carrying on their business for three months. When it was considered that revising barristers received five guineas a-day, 3l. a-day did not appear to him to be too large a sum.
§ Mr. Goulburnsuggested, that the information should comprise such particulars as would enable the House to see how many professors and officers in the establishment held two or three different lectureships and situations.
§ Mr. Wakleywas surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, being an experienced and practical man, should not in- 1324 sist upon the production of the whole of the minutes of the proceedings of the senate. It would be useless to attempt to detect abuses or mismanagement by requiring the members of the college to make a report on their own condition, which would, of course, if made by them, be favourable to the management of those who made it a pretext to apply in this way for a portion of the public money. To postpone the vote would be of no possible advantage, unless it were for the purpose of procuring, through the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, information which he seemed not inclined to give.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, all he could consent to give in the way of details, would be the names of the parties employed in offices, the offices or posts in which they were so employed in the university, and the parties examining the students.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that to refuse to produce the proceedings of the senate, would be such a sinister concealment of the course pursued, in respect to education in this seminary, as must excessively prejudice, and possibly ruin, at its commencement, this great national institution. He was given to understand, that the proceedings were already in print, and could be furnished to the House, if the right hon. Gentleman consented, without any delay or trouble.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not see any material advantage to be derived by hon. Members from the printing of such a voluminous work as the whole details of the minutes of the senate during the past year.
§ Vote postponed.