UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD BILL. (Hansard, 15 June 1854)

§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, the noble Lord, on a former occasion, promised to give the house some information with reference to the Commissioners named in the Act. It would be recollected that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) proposed that the names of the Commissioners should be postponed till the extent of the powers to be given to them should be agreed upon; but on that occasion the noble Lord urged, and urged succesfully, that it was most important that the names of the Commissioners should be made known to the House before their powers were defined. He (Mr. Denison) then concurred with the noble Lord, and voted with him for the names of the Commissioners as proposed in the Bill; but since that time a very great and important change had been made in the Bill. Instead of being an enacting, it had become in a manner a permissive Bill, and the whole stress and power of the measure now turned on the values of the Commissioners —on those persons who should have the power of carrying into effect the changes 182 that had been made. It seemed to him that the whole force of the Bill rested on two clauses; and that the whole question was—first, who were to be the Commissioners; and next, whether the clause which enabled the colleges to withhold their concurrence on the recommendation of the Commissioners should be supported or not? He asked the Committee, therefore, whether the importance of the Commissioners had not been immeasurably increased by the change that had taken place in the structure of the Bill. The noble Lord the other evening announced that, on account of tile increased power given to the Commissioners, some addition was to be made to their number; and, taking that statement of the noble Lord in conjunction with his other statement as to the importance and necessity of having the names of the Commissioners in the Bill before their powers were granted, he certainly asked with some confidence that, before they proceeded to consider the Bill in its new shape, the names of the Commissioners, who were to have the power of carrying it into execution, should be made known to the House.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that having stated it was their intention to increase the number of Commissioners, he had proceeded immediately to invite two persons whom the Government thought qualified, to allow themselves to be named as Commissioners. With respect to one of these persons, he had not yet received a final answer on the subject, and, therefore, he was not at liberty to propose his name as one of the Commissioners to the House. He did not think it was necessary, however, that the names should be in their hands before the report. With regard to what his hon. Friend had stated, as to the Bill being entirely permissive, the Committee must be aware that there were various clauses, such as the substitution of the Hebdomadal Council for the Hebdomadal Board, the erection of new halls, and other parts of the Bill, which were not of that character. As to the names of the Commissioners, it did not seem necessary that they should be given in the meantime.

§ Mr. HENLEY
said, in the previous discussions upon this Bill, one of the representatives of the University of Oxford had admitted that the main reason for assenting to its principal previsions, was the confidence which he felt in the names of the gentlemen who were to be appointed as Commissioners. It was then stated by the 183 Government that the Commission would consist of five persons, who were named but the noble Lord had now intimated his intention to add two to that number. And there was no security that, after another night or two's debate, the Government might not propose the addition of two or three more. There was, in fact, nothing in the Bill to prevent the Government from adding any number to the Commission that it thought fit. The third clause gave power to Her Majesty to fill up any vacancy occasioned by death, resignation, or incapacity to act; now that, certainly, did not preclude it from adding any number it pleased to the body of the Commissioners. No reason whatever had been assigned for increasing the number from five to seven; nor had it been shown to the Committee that five were not fully competent to do all that seven could do, supposing all to act. But it was quite possible that some might not see fit to act, and that other members of entirely different principles might be appointed in their stead; and thus—and particularly if the number were to be increased without limit — a very different body might eventually come to exercise these powers—powers which were not only new, but of a very questionable character —from that which the Legislature had contemplated at the time of passing the Bill, He wished to ask whether seven was to be considered as a definite number?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the intention of the Legislature was, not only that the number of the Commissioners should be definite, but that their names should be approved by Parliament; and he thought that this was sufficiently provided for by the first clause, in which the Commissioners were named, and by the third, which limited the power of the Crown, with reference to future appointments, to cases where vacancies occurred from death, resignation, or incapacity. The suggestion that the Government might insert a number of names in the Bill of persons who might afterwards decline to act was sufficiently answered by the fact that his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), proposing to increase the number of the Commissioners by two, had refrained from mentioning their names, because he had not yet received a final reply from one of them. And he thought that the Government would be guilty of very great impropriety if they ventured to propose the names of any persons as Commissioners whose willingness to accept the responsibi- 184 lity and discharge the duties of the office they had not first fully ascertained. He was prepared to admit that this clause was a peculiar one, and bore upon the whole Bill, but perhaps the Committee would excuse him if he ventured to point out, before he resumed his seat, that it was thoroughly understood by the Government, and understood, he believed by the whole House, that those clauses which had already been gone through in Committee were not again to be debated.

§ Mr. WALPOLE
said, he would admit this understanding, and at the same time would beg to express his great gratification at many of the amendments which had been introduced into the Bill. It had now assumed much more of that enabling character which he had wished it to do at the first; and although there were some few alterations which he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for the University (Sir W. Heathcote) would still suggest in the clauses, he was glad to say that he now saw every prospect of the Bill passing in a good form during the present Session.

§ MR. HORSMAN
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) had very good reason to congratulate himself upon the changes made in this measure since it was last before the House, inasmuch as the Government had abandoned the Bill which they had themselves introduced, and had adopted that which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. But he did not understand how he could expect the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote) to approve of those changes, because that hon. Baronet had expressed very strongly and emphatically his opinion, that an enabling Bill would be altogether delusive, and that nothing but a compulsory Bill would effect the objects for which this measure had been introduced. It was true, as the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had said, that there were some enabling clauses in the Bill, but they applied only to the University; and the compulsory powers which had been given with respect to the colleges, in the Bill as originally brought in, had been so far altered that they were now enabling clauses morely, although the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Heathcote) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) had declared that there must be compulsory powers, or the Bill would be of no use. It was not open to them now to discuss 185 these earlier clauses, and he had allowed the opportunity to pass of stating, as he had intended, his objections to the Bill as it stood. It was an entirely now Bill, involving a new principle, and an altogether different measure from that of which he had assented to the second reading. The principle enunciated by the Government, with much caution, and after great deliberation, as that which they had decided to adopt, had been abandoned, and they had now only the enabling Bill which had been suggested by the right hon. Member for Midhurst, but which that side of the House, and the principal Members of the Government on that side of the House, had declared would altogether fail of its purposes. He would defer further remarks until he came to the clauses, upon which they could be regularly made; and, With reference to the number of the Commissioners, he would only say that there was a very strong feeling on that side of the House that they ought to be limited to the number originally proposed, which was five. When, therefore, the two new names which were to be proposed came under the consideration of the Committee, an Amendment would be moved to the effect that the names of two of the original Commissioners should be omitted. It would be the same proposal which he had made originally, and upon the same ground—that they ought to have a working Commission, composed of gentlemen who would be able to devote their time and attention to the important duties that would devolve upon them. He should, therefore, propose that two of the gentlemen at present named in the Bill, who had heavy and responsible official duties to perform, should be left out of the Commission.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, that having been personally appealed to by the hon. Member for Stroud, he must state that he was unable to assent to his statement, that the compulsory principle had been excluded from the Bill. There certainly were compulsory powers in the Bill as it at present stood, although it was quite true that under certain circumstances they might be overridden by the subsequent action of the colleges. It was, however, one question whether a college should set itself in motion to make alterations, contrary to its own view of the obligations of an oath; and it was a very different question whether, when these alterations had been made, it should inter- 186 pose, by way of veto, to prevent their taking effect. If the hon. Member for Stroud would look at the paper for the day, he would find that his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst did not take the same view as he (Mr. Horsman) did of the present character of this Bill; for that right hon. Gentleman had given notice of several Amendments, with the view of bringing it much nearer to that which he had from the first consistently advocated—an enabling, and not a compulsory, measure. It was clear, therefore, that his right hon. Friend believed that it still contained the compulsory principle which he (Sir W. Heathcote) had supported, although the alterations which had been made had rendered it more acceptable to the University than it had been before.

§ MR. HORSMAN
said, the Bill would enable the colleges to do what they pleased, with the consent of the Commissioners; but the Commissioners could do nothing to which the colleges might be averse. There was, undoubtedly, no compulsory power to coerce the colleges to measures of reform if they felt disinclined to adopt them.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he had understood that some provision was to be made for fixing the time which should elapse between the promulgation of a Statute by the Congregation and Convocation being called upon to vote upon it. He thought the existing state of things occasioned great inconvenience, and some alteration should be made; but it did not appear that the clause had been in any way modified.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the Government had had no power to alter a single line of any one of those clauses which had already passed through the Committee.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the hurried manner in which the decisions of Convocation had formerly been given had been complained of, and there ought to be some provision that due notice should be given.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, it would clearly be within the power of the University itself to make such a provision by Statute; and he thought hon. Members opposite would agree with him, that it would be better to allow the University to do it.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the Bill secured an interval of seven days to Congregation, and he thought some longer interval should be secured to Convocation. If it was necessary that Parliament should provide for one, why not for the other?

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that the subject should be considered.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the time fixed here for making these Statutes was "before the first day of Michaelmas term, 1855." Now, one of the things which it was proposed to do by Statute was "to aggregate all or any private halls, with the consent of the masters thereof, into one or more great halls of the University." Now it was impossible that any number of these private halls could be established before that time; or that the University could acquire, within so short a period, such experience of their working as would enable it to frame Statutes with respect to their aggregation. As this was a matter in which the University was to act for itself, and to frame its own Statutes, he would suggest that the time should be extended.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the intention of the clause was not that the University should aggregate these halls at once, but that it should have the power to frame regulations under which such "aggregations" might afterwards take place. He had no objection to insert the words "to make provision for aggregation."

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, this would be a great improvement, but would not meet his objection. What he submitted was, that these halls were a great experiment, and that some experience of their working would be necessary before the best mode of aggregation could be determined on.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the 38th Clause gave ample power to the University to alter any Statute which might be made on this subject, if experience should show alteration to be necessary.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
moved the omission of the words "the instruction and," with a view of depriving the University of all power to make regulations for the instruction of students in the private halls. He was anxious to make this Bill as useful as possible, and he thought the best means of 188 doing that would be to leave these students in private halls perfectly at liberty to choose their own teachers, and to prepare themselves for the University examinations in the best way they could. The present system of forcing students to attend particular college tutors was most injurious, and its result was shown by the great number of failures for the degree examinations, which he believed were not less than one-third of all those that went in.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he had heard the Amendment with surprise, and he hoped the hon. Member would not persevere with it. He had thought that, whatever else a University might be, it was, at all events, a place of instruction, and ought to control the instruction given to its own members. But the hon. Gentleman proposed that persons should matriculate, and become members of the University, over whose instruction the University should have no control whatever. The colleges could regulate the studies of their own members, but these institutions could not. Still, the clause gave the University no power with respect to private halls which it did not perfectly possess with respect to colleges already; and the only reason for mentioning the private halls by name was the fact that they were created by the Bill, and it might be thought that the power with regard to them was limited, unless it were conferred in express terms.

MR. J. G. PIIILLIMORE
said, he would vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Lancashire, which he thought likely to aggravate the evils which he had anticipated from the establishment of private halls. He had regarded these institutions as likely to make the teacher dependent on his pupil and anxious for popularity with a great number of boys, rather than the pupil dependent on the teacher, and anxious for his good opinion. He thought the Government would have done better if they had not sanctioned their establishment; but if they were to be established, he thought the provision which this clause proposed to make an important and beneficial one.

§ MR. APSLEY PELLATT
said, he looked at these halls as likely to facilitate the admission of Dissenters to the University, and he objected to the proposed control over the attendance of the pupils on divine worship, as tending to interfere with that object.

§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMER
said, it would be more convenient that the question of admitting Dissenters to the privileges of the University should be discussed in the clauses of which the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) had given notice, and not be broken up into small discussions.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to inquire the meaning of the term "great halls?"

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he apprehended as a technical definition that "great halls" would fall under the general term of "hall;" but it had been suggested that it might be useful to unite together private halls for two purposes—first, that these halls might have distinct and special interests of their own, forming a class in the University; and secondly, there might be features in their case requiring special attention and special guardianship. Now, if they were placed under an officer of the University, charged with their especial patronage, it would be very convenient. On the other hand, it was clear that if these halls should multiply, they would make a considerable addition to the business of the University in the enforcement of discipline, and it would be convenient to have some one person whom the University might look upon as responsible for the discipline of these halls. Of course, when a union took place, they would be under the charge of the person appointed for the great halls.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, he would suggest the omission of the word "great," particularly if "hall" and "great hall" meant the same thing.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the clause clearly showed that "great hall" would be an aggregation of private halls.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought there would be less confusion if the word "great" were omitted. There was one oversight in the clause to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee. Power was given to the University to unite or aggregate these halls together with their own consent, but no power was taken to separate them. Was it intended that the aggregation should be in perpetuity? If it was intended that they should have power to separate, a direct provision should be made for that purpose.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
was understood to say, that the clause gave 190 sufficient power to make alterations or dissolve.

§ MR. HENLEY
thought the insertion of a specific provision to that effect would be more satisfactory.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, he thought the clause required amendment in two respects. He was doubtful whether the words, "to ensure the same being conferred according to personal merits," might not raise some very questionable matters involved in the clauses which had been withdrawn. He thought it would be desirable to leave out those words and insert the words of which he had given notice, "so as to prevent the same from being conferred without reference to merit." It would then be open to the authorities to deal with all preferences, and perhaps to do away with them. It ought not to be made imperative on them to do away with preferences. There was another point in which the clause also required amendment. He thought the provision too vague with reference to right of appeal to the Privy Council, for the Privy Council would hardly know on what principles they were required to act. The improvements were to be made in certain specified subjects, and they ought to be made on certain specified principles in accordance with the designs of the founders, and he proposed to introduce words for the purpose of making the intention more clear. He likewise proposed to make the preamble of the clause more definite. The words now stood thus —" And whereas it is expedient to enable colleges to alter and amend their Statutes," &c. He pry posed to omit the words "it is expedient to enable," and to substitute the words of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 25, to leave out the words "it is expedient to enable," and insert the words "the interests of religion and learning, and the main designs of founders and donors, would in many cases be advanced by enabling," —instead thereof.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University would have the effect of altering the form of the sentence and lead to confusion, because it introduced words at the commencement which were recited subse- 191 quently. He should not object to the insertion, after the word "expedient," of the words "for the interests of religion and learning." The hon. Baronet appeared to think the word "merit" too stringent. It was not intended to make the word "merit" so stringent as the hon. Baronet apprehended. But the Amendment, instead of making a substantive enactment, enacted a negative, the words being, "so as to prevent the same from being conferred without reference to merit." It perhaps might be desirable to combine with the word "merit," which was a comparative standard, the word "fitness," which was a positive standard. The words would then stand, "personal merits and fitness." As the clause at present stood it did not give the power of making rules for the future, and he proposed so to amend the clause as to confer such a power.

§ MR. WIGRAM
said, he did not think that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet in the preamble would at all disorrganise or disarrange the intention of the clause, but, on the contrary, he believed that it would make it more in harmony with the other provisions of the Bill. The words proposed ought to be made the governing principle of this clause as they were of the 33rd clause, and besides this, they were the words contained in the preamble of the Bill. If the words should be omitted, it would appear that the two clauses stood on a different footing.

§ MR. WALPOLE
then proposed the insertion in the clause of words rendering it necessary that any alteration in the Statutes of the colleges should be made "with the consent of the visitors."

THE CHANCELLOR THE EXCHEQUER
said, that he was sorry the Government could not assent to this proposition, which, in addition to the vetoes already included in the Bill, would invest with a distinct veto upon any alterations of the Statute the visitor of each college. It was not intended by the founders of the colleges that the visitors should have the power of remodelling the Statutes, or reconstructing the college system, and it was not therefore required by a respect for the will of the founder that such a veto as this should be given to them. Alterations in the Statutes would be made by men who 192 were responsible and were substantially interested in the colleges, and it would not be rational to submit them to the visitors, whose connection with the college was not at all intimate, and who were perfectly irresponsible. Many of the visitors were persons who might be termed, not in an invidious sense, obstructive, and it was not desirable that the interests of a college should be sacrificed, and the labours of Parliament frustrated, by the will of such a visitor. He thought that the connection between visitors and colleges was good, but it was a connection which had regard to ordinary and secondary matters, and not one of which the intention was that the visitors should have control over the most vital questions affecting the construction of the colleges. He felt it impossible, therefore, for Government to accede to the Amendment.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that it was the duty of the visitors to protect interests other than those of the college, and it was in order to enable them to protect such interests from sustaining injury from any alteration of the Statutes that be proposed to give them this veto. If the Committee supported him he should be disposed to divide, upon the Amendment.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he thought some regard ought to be paid to the intentions of the founders, and he should therefore support the Amendment. Instead of these visitors being only nominally attached to those colleges, they were invested in many cases with very large powers. In some cases they had even power to alter Statutes. In all cases it was the duty of the visitors to see that the interests of the founders were duly carried out. In sonic of the colleges the visitor was absolutely termed the co-fundator. Suppose that an alteration was suggested in the Statutes in some of the colleges, by which the number of the Statutes would be diminished, and the value of those remaining increased, who was the independent officer to represent the intentions of the founder? Why, the visitor; who was at first appointed trustee with large powers, and who so far from being irresponsible, was liable to be brought before the courts of common law if he abused his functions. [Cries of "No, no!"] He heard some hon. Members deny this statement. He, however, believed it to be true. Whether that was the case or not, it could not be denied that the visitor was the natural trustee—the independent party appointed by the founder to see into the 193 fair distribution of the property, and the proper application of the funds.

§ MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE
said, he did not believe that the visitor had any authority to make new Statutes or to alter any of those that were in existence. Although he thought it very undesirable to exclude all mention of the visitor from this clause, at the same time it would be most undesirable to give him such a veto as was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst. He suggested, therefore, the introduction of the words "having taken counsel with the visitors." This would ensure the taking of the advice of the visitors by the colleges, and yet would not give the former the veto.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, he doubted whether the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore) would be satisfactory. It was open to this objection—it would necessarily bring the visitor into action without giving any effect to his interposition. On the other hand, he felt a great difficulty in going the length of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole). He thought that it would be putting the visitor in a position not intended by the founder. He would suggest this as a middle course—that inasmuch as the visitor was in some sense a trustee, he thought he should have a right of appeal to the Privy Council. When they came to the clause of appeal, he would propose an Amendment to carry out this view. He could not see any objection to the visitor being an appellant party to the Privy Council.

§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNON
said, he thought it was most undesirable to give the visitor the arbitrary power proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst. He believed that the visitor had nothing whatever to do with the schools.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had observed that he could not support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Midhurst, because the visitor might be an obstructive, not in an invidious sense. They, on the opposite side of the House, might say that the members of the University might be destructive, not in an invidious sense. So that setting the members against the visitors, there might be a balance between them on this score. The Government proposed in their former Bill to give security to the founder's kin, but the present Bill gave no such security. 194 He thought that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend would give great security to those interests.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, it appeared to him that the appointment of visitors was made, not with a view to such enactments as this, but with the view of maintaining the Statutes which the founder had enacted, and taking care that the principal and fellows of the college did not differ from them. It was obvious that an eminent person, holding an eminent position, and worthy to be Bishop of Winchester, of Lincoln, or of Oxford, might be a very fit person to see that the Statutes were observed; but it was quite another question whether these were fit persons, or would by the founder have been thought fit persons, to judge as to any alterations in these Statutes which Parliament might think desirable, more especially to have an absolute control over these alterations, which they would have according to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote) was of a totally different nature, and when the Committee came to that part of the Bill, there would, on the part of the Government, be no objection to the introduction of some words which would meet the views of the hon. Baronet.

§ MR. PHINN
said, the visitor at present had only an appellate power in these colleges. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was mistaken when he said that the decision of the visitor could be reversed in a court of law so long as he acted within the limits of his jurisdiction. He would suggest to the right hon. Member for Midhurst that he ought to withdraw his proposition and be satisfied with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. If the visitors had kept up with the requirements of the times, there would be no necessity for the intervention of Parliament.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, he wished to propose the alteration of the fourth line of the clause, so that, instead of providing that it was desirable to ensure that college emoluments should be conferred according to personal merits, it might read, "so as to prevent the same from being conferred without reference to" personal merits. His object in proposing this alteration was, to prevent the Clause having the effect, which it seemed to have as it then stood, of 195 concluding the question of preferences, and thus doing more than the Bill, as originally introduced, was intended to do. It, was with that view, and not with regard to the question of moral, as opposed to intellectual, fitness, as seemed to be understood by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he proposed this alteration.

§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he should support the Amendment. Unless it were intended to abolish all preferences, some of which, arising from birthplace, fondly, indigence, or for other reasons, were by the original Bill permitted to be retained, it seemed to him that the alteration proposed by his hon. Friend was absolutely necessary. If the phrase "without reference" were, as it seemed to be by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, considered to be too vague, as admitting the slightest possible reference, he would suggest that there should be substituted for it the words "without due regard." If, however, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that he could suggest anything else which would clearly answer the purpose for which this alteration was proposed, there would be no desire to stand upon words.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that he was afraid he had not clearly conveyed to the Committee what he considered to be involved in the introduction into the clause of the word "fitness" after "personal merits." The words were substantially brought from the preamble of the Bill. When they were about to propose an enabling clause, and to give up certain clauses which they had before, it became necessary to take general words as to the sense to be given to the enabling powers; and the words adopted were words capable of receiving such a construction as would confine the Commissioners to the standard of competition. In the Bill, as it stood at present, there was not a single word against any of the preferences now existing. That was an important change, certainly; and he believed it would be generally admitted that the way to deal with the preferences, if they were to be dealt with at all, must be either to abolish them altogether, or greatly to mitigate or relax them; but there was nothing said in the Bill about that subject, beyond the general powers given for amending the Statutes. Now, although the words "with due regard to merit" were much better than "with reference to merit," still he thought they would not be held to be satisfactory, because under those words some Gentle- 196 men might recognise it to be showing a due regard to merit to treat it as a subordinate matter, and one that was to be taken as subject to the statutes, establishing other conditions than personal merit. The objection, he thought, would be better attained by combining the words "merit" and "fitness." He therefore hoped the expressions "to be conferred according to personal merit" would be retained, as they would distinctly point to competition; but let them confine the clause by the word "fitness," which was in fact the English translation of the very rule now laid down in the Statutes, where personal fitness was combined with the existing preferences, because those Statutes, whilst providing that the persons should come from a particular school, or a particular locality, or be of the founder's kin, yet required that they should be idonei. He, therefore, thought that personal merit and superior fitness in candidates should be the general rule adopted; and he believed that a proper regard to the other conditions was sufficiently provided for.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
did not see the necessity for inserting the word "fitness," and believed that "personal merit" fully met all the requirements of the case.

§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
said, that, as the clause stood there was no reference to preferences; and, as he understood, it was not the object of the Government to abolish them. The words of the clause were very ambiguous, and its intention ought to be more clearly expressed. He understood the view of the Government to be that merit should be the first criterion; but that if two candidates were equal in that respect, then a particular birth-place or connection would confer the preference.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought the words of the clause scarcely bore out the sense of the preamble, and he believed that the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) would be very valuable.

§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he considered that there ought to be no ambiguity in the clause, and he objected to the sweeping away of preferences by a side-wind. His hon. Friend (Sir W. Heathcote) had informed him that he was willing to waive his Amendment, and to substitute, for the words "according to," "with due regard to," in connection with the words, "personal merit and fitness." He (Mr. R. Palmer) would, therefore, move to leave out the word "according," and to introduce "with due regard," in lieu of it.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that if it had been his object to create ambiguity and to throw in a bone of contention, and to leave everything in doubt and difficulty, he would have introduced the very words selected by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. The desire of the Government had been to lay down a rule that would be a certain guide by which the colleges should act, and should have a rational chance of not being driven into the power of the Commissioners; and that object, he thought, the words of the clause would successfully accomplish. It would enable the colleges to retain any school, local, or other preferences, wherever there was a sufficient number of candidates to ensure the bestowal of the emoluments according to merit. These preferences would therefore be preserved as far as it could be done consistently with fair competition; and he trusted that the words of the clause would be retained.

§ MR. WIGRAM
said, there could be no doubt but that under this clause existing preferences might be retained, and he trusted that before the discussion ended, the Solicitor General would state whether the Government understood that the clause gave the power to the colleges to make a rule by which these preferences would be abolished. He was apprehensive that, as the words now stood, however clear and reasonable the preferences might be, and although it might be the case that among the candidates entitled to preference, there were candidates who were perfectly idonei, and fit to be selected, yet the college might make a Statute providing that the best candidate should be taken, without regard to any preference. By way of illustration he would take the Welsh foundation, which was established to give particular preferences to Welsh students. In a case of that sort he apprehended that, as the words stood, "to ensure the same being conferred according to personal merits and fitness," the college might make a rule that the best man should be taken, whether he was a Welshman or not.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Wigram) wished to saddle Oxford with a set of restrictions from which his own University (Cambridge) in almost every case had emancipated itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to enact that there should be no power given to Oxford to liberate itself from the restrictions of the Statutes 198 which direct that there should be preferences given to the natives of given localities, and to certain persons who came up to a specified standard, or who were idoneus. Such a proposal was rather hard on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman, when there was scarcely a college in Cambridge which was not released from these restrictions. The hon. and learned Gentleman went beyond his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer); and his doctrine really cut at the root of the whole Bill in its present form, because when an enabling Bill was before the Committee, he objected to the giving of any power that could possibly be abused. The Committee must either lose itself in a complex mass of details, as to the direction and the mode in which the enabling powers must be exercised—that was one alternative, and then they would embark in a laborious Session of which they could hardly hope to see the end—or they must adopt the other alternative of giving large powers, which of course were capable of a rash, excessive, and indiscreet application; but that abuse was only to be corrected or averted, first, by intrusting the powers to competent persons, and net, by accompanying them with proper checks. If the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that the power of abolishing preferences might be unwisely or indiscriminately exercised in certain cases, in the first place objection might be taken to the course of the Commissioners, and carried it to the Queen in Council; and next the judgment of the House of Lords, and also of the House of Commons, might be appealed to; and he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would rise in his plate, if he could show that these powers were badly exercised, and move an Address to the Crown; and then, if he convinced the Committee of the truth of his view, no doubt the whole of the proposed change would fall to the ground. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought they might abandon the labour of reforming Oxford University altogether, if they enabled the colleges to reform the Statutes, and did not enable them to touch the preferences in any case, where a person came up to the standard of idoneum.

§ SIR W. HEATHCOTE
said, what he desired was, that the colleges, should have power to retain the preferences, and not that they should be precluded from modifying or abolishing them. He wished the 199 colleges not to be compelled to abolish them, but to have the power of considering each upon its own merits.

§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNON
said, it was important that the clause should state as distinctly as possible what the meaning of the Government really was. If the words "with due regard to" were too vague, it appeared to him that the words now standing in the clause narrowed the question a great deal too much. He looked upon the word "personal," for instance, as objectionable. If they could insert some words which would have reference to those school and local preferences, well and good; but he must confess that, for his own part, he would rather omit these words altogether.

§ MR. WIGRAM
said, his apprehension was, that the clause as it stood would oblige a college, wherever the power was exercised, to have reference only to personal merits, as though no other grounds of preference were fit to be retained. He did not object to there being a power, in some cases, to abolish those local preferences; but he feared that personal merit and fitness would be made the only test of qualification, and that regard would not be had to the subject of eligibility.

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL
said, he had understood the Solicitor General to intimate that the Bill left a college at perfect liberty to retain a preference, but only a preference, for the best man—that was to say, that the preference intended by the original founder should not be put in execution. Of course, for such a liberty as that, they had not much reason to be obliged to the Bill. He should vote for the Amendment.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he took it that the object of the Committee was to arrive at some expression which should at the same time ensure election upon personal merits, and have due regard to the main designs of the founders. That was to be found in the preamble, and that, he understood, was the intention of the Government. To meet what was the object of all parties, therefore, he would suggest that the words "to make ordinances for permitting" be left out, and that the following words be inserted in their stead, "and to ensure the same being conferred according to personal merits and fitness, and the main designs of the founders." Thus the clause would provide a security for personal merits, and where the personal merits existed the main designs of the founders would be duly regarded in amending the statutes.

§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conceded the introduction of the word "fitness," as he much preferred the clause as it originally stood. The word idoneus had given rise to one-half the abuses existing in the University, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resist any further addition.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, it appeared that the intention of the Government was much the same as it was on the former Bill. Under the former Bill certificates of merit were required the examiners were to have regard to the student's age, and whether he had made due progress in the required studies, and also to the designs of the founders. And he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say now that he did not wish to exclude preferences to a certain extent from being still retained in colleges, provided there was a sufficient certificate of merit equivalent to that which was required by the former Bill. But was it left open by the clause in its present shape? That depended upon four words, "to ensure" and "according to." They were "to ensure" that the college emoluments and rewards were conferred "according to" personal merits and fitness. Then came the question, what was the meaning of the words "according to?" The definition of Dr. Johnson was that they meant "suitably to" and "agreeably to;" which was the construction put upon them by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in which sense they would effect the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, if they examined Johnson's illustration of the use of the phrase, they would find that "according to" also meant "in proportion to." And, in his opinion, they ought not to confer these emoluments in all cases "in proportion to" personal merits; but should have regard to other matters in connection with personal merits. He hoped the Amendment would be persevered in, for there was an ambiguity about the words "according to," whilst there was none about time words of the Amendment.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he understood the intentions of the Government were to leave, under the term "personal fitness," a latitude so as not to exclude consideration of the designs of the founder. What objection, therefore, could they have to adopt the words proposed, which met the case completely, and placed the question 201 of personal merit upon the same footing as the "main design of the founder?"

MR. FLOVER
said, the clause was a discretionary clause, and the Committee was trying to do what was impossible by its means—namely, to destroy and at the same time to protect. The only way was to leave the matter open to the Commission, and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth met the difficulty in some degree; but it left too much power to the colleges and the Commissioners to destroy all exclusive, limitations to schools and colleges. He should vote for the Amendment, but he thought it an inefficient one, as it would not carry out the object in view.

§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMER
, in reply, said, that he did not think the Amendment was open to the objections that had been made to it, and as some hon. Members thought it would be right to divide, he should press the Amendment to a division.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
said, he wished to propose at line 29, to leave out the words "and to make ordinances for promoting the main designs of the founders," his object being to raise the question whether they should the themselves, as was proposed, to intentions of the college founders. He considered that it was hardly possible to follow out many of the designs of founders who existed 400 or 500 years ago. Some of them wished to have their own souls and the souls of their relations prayed for, and some included the souls of those who died in battle, while one orthodox person in Catholic times had for his object the extirpation of heresy. Many of the designs of these founders were not in accordance with modern requirements—such, for example, as prevented the marriage of fellows of the University, and those which, in some cases, enjoined compulsory ordination. It would be much better if such Statutes as these were altered so as to suit the wants of modern times. The object of Parliament was to bring the colleges into harmony with the institutions of the country at the present day. It was impossible that founders who lived 400 years ago could foresee the circumstances in which their foundations would be placed in the nineteenth century, and there ought to be no difficulty in making them more in accordance with modern usages. He was 202 sorry the Government had made so many concessions as they had made with respect to this Bill; he believed it was not so good as it had been. This, it should be remembered, was a new clause from which he proposed to omit these Words.

§ THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he regretted, with the hon. Gentleman, that certain changes had been made in the Bill; but the changes referred to were made under the pressure of a very severe alternative—namely, to make the alterations or not pass the Bill at all, and were not made from any change or alteration of their views on part of the Government. It was merely intended, by the insertion of the words proposed to be omitted, that the subject, should be one of the objects to be kept in view, and should be one amongst the various elements which the Commissioners were to take into consideration; and, taking them in that sense, it was right to retain them. The preamble to the Statute of Corpus Christi College, for example, spoke of learning and of religion in such a way as not to point, to any description of sacred duties in preference to secular studies; but from the Statutes of Brasenose College, the object of the founder appeared to be altogether theological. Suppose those two colleges should send in schemes to the Commissioners which would have the effect of giving to the endowments of Brasenose a direction more clerical or ecclesiastical than the other, that would not be an unreasonable proceeding. There were certain cases where foundations were created for particular schools; and, though he did not say that, if they were mischievous, they ought to be sanctioned, or that meddling arrangements should be tolerated, he thought the circumstances of the founders ought to be taken into view to guide the judgment of the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman wished to reduce everything to a perfect level, and to start afresh, but that was not the view the Government proceeded on, or the view on which they could induce the Commissioners, the colleges, or that House to proceed.

§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
said, he quite admitted that the promotion of religion and learning had been a leading object with the various founders, but it had not been, by any means, the paramount object in a great many instances. The especial benefit of particular localities, and of particular classes of persons, had been a very leading aim with many founders, and the 203 respect which had been hitherto paid to their wishes had been in numberless instances productive of the greatest public advantage, as in the case of the two Scotts, whose pre-eminent abilities would have been lost to the country had it not been for one of these foundations. He trusted that these great and beneficial institutions would not be sacrificed to the mechanical seiolism of the present day.

§ Mr. MALINS
said, he rose to move another Amendment. He thought it was of the highest importance to keep in view the benevolent objects of the founders of the colleges, and nothing could be more monstrous than to maintain that all the intentions of the founder were to be disregarded, and his bounty devoted to other purposes. To prevent that, he would move the omission of the words which allowed the colleges to wake ordinances for promoting the main designs of the founders. He would give them no power to make ordinances at all, but would provide that the fellows, heads, &c., should be elected according to fitness and to the main designs of the founders.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it appeared to him that this Amendment would defeat its own object. As the clause stood, the main designs of the founders were to be had in view in every ordinance the colleges might make, and in every act they might do. If this Amendment were carried, the colleges would be bound to have regard to the main designs of the founders in the election of fellows only, and in no other matter whatever.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, it was plain, from the terms of the clause, and from the defence set up, that no regard was to be had to the main designs of the founders in the election of fellows or in scholarships. Now he considered that regard ought to be had to the main designs of the founders, not only as respected merit, but as regarded the persons of those who benefited by the bequests. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this object was to range over everything; if so, why disconnect the purposes of the founder with the persons of these who were to benefit by the bequests? If personal merit was to have preponderating weight, why not also say that the parties 204 selected on this ground should also be persons specifically intended to be benefited by the founders? The right hon. Gentleman said, however, that preferences for particular schools or localities manifested by founders should not be henceforward observed, but that the main condition should be personal merit. The right hon. Gentleman wished them to believe that the words of the clause, which appeared to require nothing but personal merit, would also be found to include the intentions of the founders. if so, why not give the same latitude to preferences that were given to personal merit? Why disconnect them, as appeared to be the case? And why was the previous Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) rejected? He confessed he was unable precisely to understand the objects of Government. It appeared to him that the clause was so framed as to give those who were to amend the ordinances the latitude of deciding by personal merit without regarding the intentions of the founders. One word as to the subject of foundations. Hon. Members had spoken of preferences of localities and schools as if they were a complete nuisance. Government at once rushed in, an I appeared disposed to alter the disposition of what was regarded as misapplied property. Misapplied property! Why, what was it but property applied to the education of men who had gained eminence in after life, who had led the Senate and the country? If it was consonant to the feeling of the people to make the proposed change, why did they subscribe for a testimonial to the memory of the late Duke of Welington, not for a Statute, not for an estate to be enjoyed by his descendants, but to take the form of an institution for the education of the children of those who had been his companions in arms. This very act condemned the attempt to give away and ignore the preferences established by former founders. The acts of the Government and public opinion proved that Government were acting in contravention of the common sense of the country in attempting to sweep away these foundations. They would even do worse if they carried their point—they would deprive the poor of one means of obtaining rewards and distinctions. They who were clamouring for extending education throughout the Country were now found deliberately striking down the means which contributed to the eminence and usefulness of existing 205 schools. He hoped the Committee would agree to the proposed Amendment.

§ MR. WIGRAM
said, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just stated that the phrase, "the main designs of the founders," overrode all the other parts of the clause. Now, the fear on his side of the House was, that it did not —that it gave a separate and distinct power to the colleges, which they were not bound to exercise according to the main designs of the founders. Now all these fears would be removed if the Government would consent that at the end of the clause some such phrase should be inserted as this—that all that was before inserted should be done, "due regard being had to the main designs of the founders." He was the more anxious on this point because at present the tenure on which the foundations rested was the will of the respective founders. If any departure was made from these designs, then the foundations would rest not upon the will of the founders, but upon this Act of Parliament; and the question would soon be started whether Parliament had not the power to obviate them altogether. If his suggestion were agreed to, he would be willing, on his part, to leave it entirely open to the colleges to determine what those designs in each case were.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he objected to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as an endeavour to insert at the end of the clause what they had already refused to insert in the preamble, and for the same reason—that it would override the whole clause. His hon. and learned Friend was fond of laying down broad propositions, which were often untenable. For instance, he said that if the will of the founder were departed from, the tenure of the foundation would be disturbed. Now, he world give the hon. and learned Members just one case—one in a thousand—which would show the fallacy of this supposition. The founder of All Souls College had, by every provision which the wit of man could suggest, tied up everybody connected with the college, from the visitor downwards, from doing anything, or saying or prescribing anything that in the slightest degree departed from the letter of the Statutes. Very well. Now, here was an example of how his intentions had been observed— John, by Divine Providence, Archbishop of 206 Canterbury,—whereas there are several rules and ordinances which deprive those of your fellows out of the kingdom, or absent from the college, of divers emoluments of their fellowships, such clauses are to be construed with a tacit exception for those abroad in His Majesty's immediate service, whose attendance upon His Majesty ought not to be to their prejudice, but they ought to be assumed as present in the college. That was the sort of practice which had obtained, and yet with such instances it was argued that there ought not to be any interference.

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL
said, he thought he ought to answer that it was true that the Statutes of Archbishop Chicheley did prohibit non-residence. But if they looked at the charter granted by Henry VI., which empowered Archbishop Chicheley to found the college, they would see that by the terms of that charter every succeeding archbishop had as much power to make Statutes, and that those Statutes were to have exactly the same force as those of Archbishop Chicheley himself. Now the oath the fellow took was to observe the Statutes of the college, which, as he had shown, might be, and had been, modified by succeeding archbishops.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, he could not support the Amendment the hon. and learned Member for Willingford, because he thought the omission of the words would weaken the force of the clause. He should prefer giving his support to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram).

§ MR. HENLEY
said, it was plain to him, if the words stood unaltered, that regard would only be had to personal merit, and nothing else. The intention of the founder would be shut out, except in one way. There never was a greater libel uttered by any one than had been uttered by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) with reference to what he had asserted of those who enjoyed the benefits of these foundations. There was one effect of this clause which appeared to him to have been overlooked. It might be that parties, if they could not carry out their views, would do nothing. Now, provision should be made to meet this, and to prevent the whole affair from thus being brought to a dead lock, and hindering that which, if carried out in a fair spirit, might be desirable. If they meant that the designs of founders should be overridden, then they were consistent in what they were about; if they really wished to have 207 regard to the intentions of founders, then they must alter the clause. He was quite willing to vote for one or both of the Amendments. All he wanted was, while giving to Government free action for amending the Statutes, to take care that this was done consistently with the objects of the founders.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) had made a very bold and courageous answer when he said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had the same right to dispense with actual residence as the original founder. This was not the Opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop did no more than interpret the Statutes; and the noble Lord would perhaps recollect that a distinct oath was taken by every fellow that he would, for no consideration, obey no Statute whatever which varied in any manner or derogated from the Statutes made by Henry Chicheley, the founder.

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL
said, the fellows first swore they would obey the Statutes of the college and no other Statutes, unless they had been or were to be imposed upon them by Henry Chicheley. But this did not imply what the Statutes of the college meant. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury that he had the power to dispense; but Archbishop Stafford, a very few years after the founders' death, asserted that he had the power.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he believed there had never been a single Archbishop of Canterbury who had ever, in any manner, asserted that he had the right to vary the Statutes of Chicheley. If there had been, it certainly was all isolated case.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he could cordially support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge; and he believed the hon. and learned Member could as cordially support his. The two Amendments were perfectly consistent with each other, for one said that amendments made in the Statutes should be in accordance with the main designs of the founders, and the other, that the persons who should derive benefit from the colleges should be elected upon grounds of merit and fitness, and in accordance with the main designs of the founders. After listening to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was un- 208 able to give the Government credit for wishing to preserve the main objects of founders, for the right hon. Gentleman had quoted the departure from the Statutes of All Souls as a precedent that the intentions of all founders were to be departed from if it were convenient. This was a principle which he (Mr. Matins) entirely repudiated. On the same principle, the intentions of the subscribers to the Wellington memorial might fitly years hence be departed from by the House of Commons of that day.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
said, that both at Oxford and Cambridge there were fellows of colleges who obeyed the Statutes of their founders only so far as obedience was convenient or agreeable to themselves.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he found the general feeling of the Committee to be, that the division should be taken upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge, and therefore he would not press his own.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, he would suggest that as the clause was an enabling clause, indicating the intentions of the Legislature, the words "in the case of some of an colleges" should be left out in order that its power might be general. The words would then run thus—"and for rendering portions of their property or income available to purposes for the benefit of the University at large." He saw no advantage in retaining the words he wished to leave out; and he certainly thought that if there were to be charges upon the colleges for the general purposes of the University, they should be imposed, not upon a few of the colleges, but by a percentage upon the whole.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he objected to the suggested change, on the ground that there were many colleges with regard to which it was entirely out of the question to make any demand whatever for the benefit of the University at large.

§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNON
said, he would cite Christ Church as a proof of how unjustly the suggestion of the noble Lord would work: that college alone paid out of its own funds no less than six of the professors.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, he would not press the suggestion.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
proposed to add, after the word "colleges," 209 in line 34, the words "and amending the Statutes of the same from time to time;" but, subsequently, upon the suggestion that the visitor of the college ought to be consulted and have a voice in the matter, it was arranged that the words "with the consent of the visitor" should be inserted.

§ MR. WIGRAM
then moved the introduction of words which provided that the regulations and ordinances to be made by any college should not be inconsistent with the main designs and intentions of the founders or donors.
Amendment proposed, in line 40, after the word "purposes," to insert the words "so always that such regulations and ordinances be not inconsistent with the main designs of the founders or donors."

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to know whether there would be any objection to insert a limit of three months within which the Commissioners should agree to or reject any scheme submitted by the colleges, as there was a limit of two months in the case of the colleges?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the cases were not parallel. The colleges were to exercise, within a definite period, the prerogative to put an end to the whole proceeding. That was totally different from the answer of the Commissioners, because that answer was not final, and there might be a remission to the colleges for further amendments. The proper provision against unnecessary delay was to appoint men as Commissioners and secretaries, with sufficient devotion for carrying on the work. He was afraid it would be even mischievous to lay down a limit of time, which would naturally be large to cover all cases, and might become the uniform rule in simple cases not requiring any such delay. The best way was to trust to the Commissioners.
On the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,

MR. BLACKETT
said, he believed this was the moment to express an opinion on the nature of the clause, which was the first of the new clauses affecting the entire character of the Bill. He agreed with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) as to the extreme inconvenience of introducing these alterations, when they had had no opportunity of discussing them, or doing what they might have done upon 210 the second reading, had the measure then presented its present appearance. He was not going to quarrel with the Government for their decision in withdrawing the original clauses of the Bill, because, considering the determined opposition with which they were met, and the much greater opposition threatened, the Government had no alternative but to do with a good grace what they would otherwise have done upon compulsion. But then came the question which had often and would be repeatedly asked, as long as the Bill was before the House, whose fault was it that so little popular support and enthusiasm had been enlisted in behalf of a measure of educational reform? It could not be said that the country was indifferent, for night after night the table had been crowded with petitions from every great town, and almost every Dissenting congregation, in language of much force and earnestness, praying for great academical reforms. Seeing, however, that no mention was made in the Bill of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, he did not wonder that the middle classes, on whom every Liberal Government could alone permanently rely, had not troubled themselves about its fate; but he did wonder that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) should have dispensed with the support of that class which had stood by him in all his struggles for civil and religious liberty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a former occasion, had boasted that he had conciliated all opposition out of the debate; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to overlook the fact that he had also conciliated away all support. It was to their want of support, and not so much to the opposition which it had met with, that the manifest failure of the Government measure was to be attributed. A glance at the numbers which had appeared in the various divisions on the Bill, and the present deserted state of the benches behind him, ought to be sufficient to make the noble Lord regret that he had not taken a bolder course on this subject. The clauses regarding examination for fellowships, and other such provisions likely to be beneficial, had been eliminated, and in place of them they had there two clauses, the sum of which was, that the colleges were left to reform themselves, subject to the interference of the members of the Commission, who again were to be subject to the veto of two-thirds of the college fellows. As regarded the colleges, this Bill was no- 211 thing more than a simple permissive measure, and he could not conceive on what pretence the colleges of Oxford were allowed a privilege which had never been conceded to any other corporation. When the municipal corporations and the cathedral establishments were reformed, no mention had been made of this permissive principle, nor had he heard that they were to be called on to sanction it in the case of the City of London corporation. The provisions of the Bill which related to the heads of houses were compulsory, and he did not know why the fellows of colleges should be treated more tenderly, more particularly as in many instances these last had declared in the plainest manner their intention of making no use of these permissive powers. It fact, they would remain perfectly nugatory. He objected to the clauses because they had a certain tendency to entail at no distant time the necessity of Parliamentary interference. They had no claim to the attention of the Committee, as they were not recommended by the authority of the Commissioners, but had been hastily knocked together by a Government embarrassed by its difficulties and disheartened by want of support, and they would not attain the object of reforming Oxford once for all. Although he objected to the clause, he would not divide the Committee upon it.

§ SIR THOMAS ACLAND
said, he looked upon this and the succeeding clause as part of a new system, most wisely and beneficially introduced into the Bill. Although he had divided upon every Amendment of the clause against the Government, he had no objection to receive it, feeling convinced that the Committee would add the qualification proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) to the 34th clause, without which the interests of certain parties would be very much compromised.

§ MR. EVELYN DENISON
said, that the hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat stated that he approved the course of the Government, although he had given his vote against them in every division on the preceding clause. Now he (Mr. E. Denison) had supported the Government through all these divisions, and through the somewhat wearisome discussions which had occurred during the evening. The ordinances and regulations made by the Commissioners were to take effect unless 212 two-thirds of the governing body of the college should certify, within two months, that in their opinion such ordinances and regulations would be prejudicial. Now, what were the "governing bodies" of the colleges? Unless he was very much misinformed, they consisted generally of the older members. In Christ Church, for instance, he believed the governing body consisted of the dean and canons, to the exclusion of the fellows and all the younger members of the college; and at Queen's, he believed the governing body would consist of the old close foundation, coming from the schools of Westmoreland and Cumberland, while the Michael foundation would be excluded. He thought that all the labour and time which had been bestowed on the discussion and consideration of this Bill would have been brought to a most lame and impotent conclusion if two-thirds of the "governing body," exclusive of the younger members of the colleges, were to have the power of putting their veto upon all that might be proposed. It must be remembered that the members of these bodies were not only disinclined to reform, but that they considered themselves bound, in many instances, by the conscientious obligation of an oath, to oppose any alteration. He would candidly admit that it would have been difficult to pass the Bill in the form in which his noble Friend had originally introduced it; but if the alternative had been put before him, whether he would pass a bad Bill or no Bill at all, he was not prepared to say that he would not have preferred to pass no Bill, because at this moment there was a strong feeling in the country in favour of some change, and if they passed this measure in its present form, they would be giving a statutory power to the colleges to reject proposed amendments if they thought fit, and enabling them to fall back upon an Act of Parliament in justification of them. His object in appealing to his noble Friend—for he knew it was in vain to propose it as an Amendment without his noble Friend's consent—was to make some concession with respect to that proviso in the clause now before the Committee, which gave the power to the governing bodies of the colleges to stop all proposed changes in the University.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
In answer, Sir, to my hon. Friend I must first say—and I think that the Committee will support me in the declaration—that he is entirely mistaken in supposing that I can 213 in any way take this Bill and dispose of it in the manner that he seems to thick I can do. In fact, the alterations in the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confessed, are, in our opinion, alterations for the worse; but they are alterations which we have thought it necessary to make in consequence of the votes of a majority of this House. I have no hesitation in saying that, if the provisions of the original Bill had been supported by the votes of a majority of the House as we went on, clause by clause, I should not have despaired of carrying that Bill through with all its clauses. It might have taken a considerable time, but I think we should have been able to do it. But when it was obvious that the Bill had been changed in many particulars, and when the Hebdomadal Council had lost in my opinion a good deal of its popular character in consequence of the decision of the House which took from the Congregation the power of electing a considerable portion of that body, and conferred it on the heads of houses—when changes of that kind were made, and every clause took up a considerable time in discussion, it was obvious that the choice lay between giving up the Bill altogether, and proposing, with respect to the colleges, such modifications of its provisions as would be likely to pass through Parliament. On a consideration of that question, we came to the conclusion that it would be better to make the alterations which we now propose, not certainly with the view of improving the Bill, but in order to carry into effect considerable amendments in the constitution of the University of Oxford, and to lay the foundation of still further improvements in the future. Now, Sir, I am not one of those who are disposed to say that they will either carry out a principle to its full extent, and have a measure which shall contain everything they think it desirable to put in it, or they will do nothing at all. I have never acted on that principle, and I certainly have found that, by proposing for the time measures of which the tendency and effect were beneficial, other and more extensive reforms were not obstructed, but facilitated. With respect to the present clause, my hon. Friend asks me whether I will change the latter part of it, by which two-thirds of the governing body of a college are enabled, in the manner that is there specified, to defeat the alterations proposed by the Commissioners. I must 214 say that I think the whole object of our altering the bill would be defeated if we do not retain that clause, in its general tenor, as it now is. I admit that it is a great disadvantage that we cannot settle the whole question of University reform in the present Session, that so a great and important public question might be set at rest. At the same time I must say that if it should turn out, as my hon. Friend anticipates—if we should find, though it is not for me to say that we shall find—that several of the colleges oppose useful reforms, there will then be a reason why Parliament should legislate, and it will be a question for the consideration of Parliament, whether compulsory powers should not be conferred. My hon. Friend has told the Committee that the ordinances and regulations made by the Committee are intended to take effect, unless within the period of two calendar months two-thirds of the governing body shall declare, by writing under their hand and seal, that, in their opinion, such ordinances and regulations will be prejudicial to the college. But my hon. Friend did not read far enough, for the words of the proviso are, "prejudicial to the said college as a place of learning and education." Therefore what the two-thirds of the governing body will be obliged to say will be not only that the proposed changes will be "prejudicial to the college," but that they will be prejudicial to the college "as a place of learning and education." Now, as almost every person out of the colleges will agree that these reforms are beneficial to learning and education, I think it will be extremely difficult within the college to get two-thirds of the governing body to declare in writing their opinion that they will be prejudicial in the sense which this clause contemplates. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Blackett) has referred to a question which must come under consideration at some future time, and of which I should leave the discussion to some future time if he had not totally misunderstood the facts. I have stated, more than once, what the facts were, but, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman does not understand them. In the year 1850 my hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) proposed a Committee of Inquiry into the state of the Universities. It was a question which had been under the consideration of the Government, which I had myself had under my consideration 215 fort two years before; and when the proposition was made by my hon. Friend, I stated that a Commission of Inquiry would be issued, but I stated at the same time that I thought the question of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities ought to be kept as a question apart, and that I did not propose to refer that question in any way to the Commission. It was not, therefore, in consequence of any suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from any disposition to agree with him, that it was omitted from the present Bill, but in consequence of the opinions which I had held in 1850, and had declared in 1850—that that question should be kept entirely distinct. I am as fully convinced now as I was then of the propriety of that decision. I am quite sure that if I had proposed a Bill containing the wisest and the best considered provisions for the improvement of the constitution and the course of study of the University of Oxford, and had introduced into that Bill a clause for the admission of Dissenters—Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics, and persons of all denominations dissenting from the Church of England—the attention of this House and of the other House would have been turned immediately to that provision, and the whole discussion would have turned on that, while the provisions with respect to study would have been neglected for a provision which would have absorbed too much interest. Now, Sir, I have stated to my hon. Friend the reasons why we have thought it right to alter the latter part of this Bill. It was a question, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, whether we should have any Bill at all, or go on with this Bill as it stands; and, in our opinion, it was far better to go on with a measure which will effect very important amendments with respect to the constitution of the University, and which contains within itself the seeds of further improvement. With respect to any arrangement with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) I do not suppose that that right hon. Gentleman knew anything about the alterations we proposed to make until he saw them in print. He has stated to-night that those alterations go far to meet the views which he had himself before expressed; but we have seen in the course of the discussion that we have not gone the length to which he would have desired us to go, in making 216 the Bill entirely optional; and it certainly has not been in consequence of any arrangement, or of any agreement, with the right hon. Gentleman that we have made the Amendments we propose.

§ MR. WALPOLE
Sir, not only does this Bill not go the whole length that I would wish, but it is not in a form in which I would desire to have it, and there are many parts of it which, in my opinion, require material alteration. But when I found that the Government had proposed Amendments which carried into effect the principle upon which I thought the question of University reform could only properly be dealt with, I certainly thought that it would be very wrong on my part, and on the part of those with whom I act, to endeavour to put an end to this Bill because it did not completely carry out our wishes; our desire being to make the University as complete and as efficient as possible as a place of education, and to give the University itself the power to make whatever alterations and improvements might be necessary in order to attain that end. That is the principle which I have always advocated—that is the principle upon which Amendments have been proposed this very evening; and I believe that if that principle had been fully carried into effect, the Bill would not only have been more acceptable, but more beneficial to the University in the end. But then it is said that there are certain words at the end of this clause which give to the colleges greater power of resisting the alterations proposed by the Commissioners than the Commissioners ought to possess; and the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Malton (Mr. Evelyn Denison), has stated that, in his opinion, the Government had better have had no Bill at all than this Bill, because he thinks it is not compulsory enough. Well, but I think the hon. Gentleman has had a pretty strong proof to-night that this House is not prepared to act upon the principle which he recommends, of forcing on the University and colleges a compulsory deviation from the conditions upon which they hold their endowments. I think that it will be wise in the House to adopt the Bill as it is, or with certain Amendments, if they can be carried, which I think they can, so as to make it quite clear that this principle is to be established throughout—namely, that the main designs of founders shall not be interfered with unnecessarily, 217 and that gifts and endowments made for the benefit of indigent persons, for the benefit of particular localities, for the benefit of those who otherwise would not have had the benefit of a University education, shall not be arbitrarily taken away. If you act on any other principle, I am confident that you will strike a great blow at the extension of benevolent and charitable objects, by individual and voluntary efforts, throughout the length and breadth of the land. I am sure that those benevolent and charitable objects will not be carried out in future to the same extent, unless the individuals promoting them have the distinct guarantee of Parliament that they shall not be interfered with. These, Sir, are the reasons which induce me to support the Bill in its present form, so far at least as it recognises the primary principle upon which a reform of the University and of its colleges ought to be carried out—that of enabling them to act for themselves—retaining the objects for which their endowments were made, and not depriving the schools, the localities, or the persons entitled to those endowments, of that which has raised many a man from deep poverty to the highest position and station in this country. I, Sir, for my part, will never be a party to any measure applicable to any seminary of education in this land, unless that principle is fully and effectually carried out.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
What has fallen, Sir, from the right hon. Gentleman makes it necessary for me to say that the account which he has given of the intention of this Bill is hardly a fair representation of it. I do not apprehend that it was ever contemplated that endowments which were intended for the encouragement of learning, and to enable the poor of this country to rise to stations of eminence, should be at all obstructed or interfered with by the passing of this measure into a law. But when the right hon. Gentleman mixes with that consideration the main object and the main designs of founders, I think it is obvious that there is a great disposition to mix up two things which are entirely distinct—namely, the particular form in which those designs were carried into effect in past times and in a different state of society, and the manner in which they can be carried into effect now. I think nothing more can be said than that it was the main design of the founders to promote religion and learn- 218 ing in the colleges and University of Oxford. If we go further than this—if we say the object was to promote a particular religion—it is obvious that before the Reformation the founders intended to promote the Roman Catholic religion, and that the founders since the Reformation intended to promote the Protestant religion as established by law. All, therefore, that we can infer now is, that it was the object of the founders to promote religion. So with respect to learning. All we can say is, that the object of the founder was to enable a particular school to send young men to Oxford, who should be entitled to certain fellowships or scholarships. But if the school had fallen into decay—if, where there used to be 200 boys, there were only twenty or twenty-five—and if the persons who became competitors for the fellowships and scholarships were inferior to the general class of students in the University—could it be said that the designs of the founder were carried into effect? Some alteration is called for; and while I entirely agree in the necessity of the main designs of founders being preserved, I do not think this can be done by adhering—which, in point of fact, is not now done—to the letter of their Statutes.

§ MR. WARNER
said, there could be no doubt that, whatever the merits of this new Bill might be, it was not the measure which passed its second reading some time since. He believed that the clause under discussion would negative the very principle upon which the Bill was originally based. What was the use of having Commissioners, if Parliament gave them nothing to do?

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he objected to the notice proposed in the clause as being too short. The long vacation lasted three months, and occurred at the very period of the year when it was probable the Commissioners would be in action. lf, therefore, the Commissioners chose to give their notice of two months at the commencement of the long vacation, when there was nobody in Oxford, it would be rather au awkward position for the colleges to be placed in. He would suggest that, instead of two months, "during term time," or some expression of that nature, should be inserted in the clause, so as to exclude the possibility of the notice being given in the long vacation.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he did not think there would be any practical difficulty in the matter.

§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMER
, said, he considered that the expression "two-thirds of the governing body" involved some difficulty. Did it mean two-thirds absolutely, including those who were absent as well as those who were present, or two-thirds of a meeting duly convened? it was well known that Christ Church, Brasenose, and some other colleges in Oxford, were governed by very small bodies, who could not properly be intrusted with the important duty of deciding upon the reforms suggested by the Commissioners. He would, therefore, recommend that in the case of Christ Church the governing body should consist of the dean and canons, together with the graduated students, and that in the case of Brasenose and all the other colleges which had fellows, the governing bodies should consist of the heads and all the fellows.

§ MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE
said, he agreed in the spirit of the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, and would like to see the visiting tutors added to the present governing body of Christ Church.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
hoped that the wild proposition which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) had made with respect to Christ Church would not be acceded to by the Government. It would include in the governing body of that college at least seventy graduated students, in addition to the dean and chapter. He would not say that it might not be advisable to add to the dean and chapter, who hitherto had managed the college in a way to place it in a high position in the University, in spite of very small endowments, a small number of the senior students engaged in the tuition and discipline of the college.

§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNON
said, he wished to move the insertion, after "governing bodies," of the words "and tutors."

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he would like some Member of the Government to state what were the "governing bodies." He was not at all certain that the expression had any particular meaning in the University.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
, said, there was considerable difficulty connected with this portion of the clause, and the attempt to define the body to whom the exercise of this important and responsible power should be intrusted. He 220 would not like to adopt the course which had been suggested—namely, that of retaining here the term "governing body," and then introducing another clause to constitute the governing body to perform one act, and to be a governing body for no other purpose whatever. He did not believe that the objections to the phrase as it stood were really insurmountable, because in every case in Oxford, with the exception of the two or three which had been mentioned, there would be no difficulty in construing it. The general meaning of the governing body was in Oxford the head and fellows of the college, probationers not being included. The two most prominent cases of difficulty were Christ Church and Brasenose. With respect to the former, the definition he had given was undoubtedly an unsatisfactory one, because, not only was the number of the governing body extremely limited, but the whole of the governing body, excepting the dean, was cut off from the ordinary administration of the college. He admitted that the governing body in that case would be an imperfect instrument; but he did not think it was absolutely necessary to alter it, though, at the same time, he confessed there was ground for saying that either a portion or the whole of the graduated students ought to be joined with the dean and canons. The same observations applied to Brasenose and one or two other colleges; but the choice was between retaining the phrase "governing body," subject to those defects, and on the other hand discarding the phrase altogether, and adopting some other definition of a more general character. The mode that had occurred to him for getting rid of the difficulty was to make the governing body consist of two-thirds of the members of the foundation, being also members of Convocation in each college. With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) relative to the phrase "two-thirds," of course it would mean two-thirds of the absolute and gross number, and not two-thirds of the persons convened at any particular meeting. The function to be exercised was an important one.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he had heard the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with great satisfaction. Any one who valued the character of the University of Oxford, or the character of a particular college of it, 221 as he did, especially the great college of Christ Church, must have seen with great regret, that the acceptance or rejection of measures of reform was left optional to so few members of the body. He had every respect for the dean and chapter of Christ Church, but at the same time he must say, he did not consider this body would fairly represent the college on such occasions. He would, therefore, recommend to the Government to reconsider the clause, as he did not believe that the point could be amended without some consideration.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he believed that the course most convenient for adoption was, as no one else seemed prepared with a better definition, to withdraw the clause, and, before the Bill came to be reported, the question could be determined.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
said, as the Government was about to reconsider the clause, he would be very glad if they could come to the conclusion that three-fourths instead of two-thirds was a more just proportion of the governing body on whom to devolve the rejection of the Commissioners' ordinances.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, he was struck by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), and which evidently seemed to imply that the dean and chapter of Christ Church was animated by a spirit antagonistic to reform. Now he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would have ever come to such a conclusion if he had read the correspondence which took place between that body and the noble Lord the President of the Council (Lord J. Russell); or had he remembered that the dean and chapter had, of its own accord, voluntarily made that change which the Commissioners and the noble Lord said was the only one required in that magnificent foundation—namely, the private right of nomination to tutorships—and throwing it open to the whole college.

§ MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE
said, he quite agreed that the dean and chapter of Christ Church had shown a spirit of reform, but, at the same time, he thought that the tutors and working staff ought to be admitted to a share in the working of the measure.

§ MR. HORSMAN
said, he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a practical point as to the operation of the proviso. When the discussion took place as to the enabling powers, it was 222 pointed out that, however well disposed to reform, the fellows were precluded by stringent oaths, and if they gave them a power of veto, it was difficult for them, acting under their oaths, to refrain from exercising such veto, and so put an end to the power of the Commissioners. The general feeling of the Committee seemed to be, not to omit the proviso, but to amend it. Objecting, as he did, to the limitation of the governing body, he thought the enlargement, as proposed, a great improvement. He should like to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this part of the subject.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the proposal not only enabled colleges to act, but it also enabled the Commissioners to act in case the colleges were unwilling to do so. However, he was willing to admit, in adopting the clause as it stood, that they had forfeited the completeness of the measure, and he would not shut his eyes to the fact, that in consequence, in the course of two or three years, a contingency might arise which would compel the Government to come again before Parliament and direct its attention to the case of certain colleges; at the same time he did not believe that such an occurrence was likely to come about, for he felt bound to add that nothing could be more satisfactory than the genuine spirit of improvement, amounting to a spirit of emulation and competition, which had sprung up at Oxford since the progress of these discussions. If the veto were a simple veto, it was most probable that a large number under the operation of the oath would exercise that simple veto; but he did not think that any gentleman would feel that, because he had taken an oath to resist all changes that were prejudicial to education, he was thereby justified in coming forward and declaring that certain proposed changes were dangerous to the college as a place of learning. The question for him to determine would be, whether he was able, upon his conscience, to say that the changes in themselves, tried upon their own merits, were such as were likely to damage the college as a place of education.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he rejoiced very much at the course which the discussion had taken, as it tended to show that the heads of colleges were not the opponents of learning and reform which they had once been held to be. Indeed, there 223 was no college which had done so much for reform as Christ Church; and that being so, he must deprecate the attempts of hon. Gentlemen to excite a spirit of jealousy against the governing body of that college—alleging at one time that they were unwilling to reform, and at another that they were bound by their oaths, and could not reform.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he should move that the Chairman report progress. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote) had a most important Amendment to propose, which would occupy a great deal of time in its discussion; and at that late hour (twelve o'clock) it would be impossible properly to enter on its consideration.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, the Amendment in question had been already a great deal considered in the progress of the discussion.

§ MR. HENLEY
Yes, indirectly; but never directly.

§ MR. GRANVILLE VERNON
said, he would not press his Amendment.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, there were some words at the end of the clause which had the effect of putting a limitation to the veto which it was intended to give to the governing body of the colleges beyond what he believed was the intention of the noble Lord to affix. He thought the discretionary power of the governing body was already sufficiently limited. As the clause was framed, it stated that if, within the period of two calendar months, two-thirds of the governing body of the college declared that such ordinances as should be made by the Commissioners would be prejudicial to the said college as a place of learning and education, then the same should not take effect. Now it might so happen that the ordinances and regulations might be prejudicial to the college in other respects than as a place of learning and education. For instance, the preamble of the Bill recognised the colleges as necessary for the advancement of religion, and the ordinances and regulations might be detrimental to them in a theological point of view. The Amendment, therefore, which he would move was, that the words "as a place of learning and education" be omitted from the clause.