THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

HC Deb 16 June 1854 vol 134 cc264-304

Order for Committee read. House in Committee.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he proposed to insert, after the words "it shall be lawful for any College, and for the Trustees, Governors, and Patrons of any University or College emolument," "and for any other person or persons." He also had next an Amendment to propose in line 17. The clause declared that every petition against any objectionable ordinances or regulations on the part of any college, &c., should he referred "for the consideration and advice of five Members of Her Majesty's Privy Council," to be named in the order of reference. Now he proposed to insert after "Members" the words "of the Judicial Committee," and add at the end of the clause, "and may make such orders with respect to the payment of the costs thereof as they shall deem just." Now the object of his second Amendment was, to give the tribunal which would have to decide upon the allegations contained in such petitions something of a judicial character, for, as organised according to the five members of the Privy Council might be selected merely on account of their political bias, and with the view of determinating the point at issue in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the day.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was very sorry he could not assent to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, but he must regard it as embodying a material bearing on the clause for the worse. It was quite a mistake to imagine that Government desired to have all such questions tried according to the rules and principles enforced in a court of equity. The intention was to invest the tribunal with a much larger scope than that of the Court of Chancery.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, his object was to ensure in all cases the selection of five persons of judicial habits.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, he hoped the hon. Baronet would press his Amendment. It was most monstrous that the rights and privileges of so large a por- tion of the University should be placed so entirely in the power of the Crown. It was most essential that the persons to adjudicate on such matters should be persons habituated to consider questions of jurisprudence.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must defend the proposed arrangement as being no innovation; but, on the contrary, as being quite in accordance with the constitutional practice.

MR. WIGRAM

said, the question before the Committee was, whether it was not desirable to have a guarantee that the five members to be selected should not be chosen from mere party considerations. He contended that at least three, if not four, members, should be selected from the Judicial Committee, if not the whole five.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, the effect of the Amendment would be to exclude from the possibility of being members of the tribunal such members of the Privy Council as the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, as well as the Bishop of London, the very persons of all others whom it was most desirable to see presiding as judges on such occasions. And he would also remind the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) that the clause did not exclude the members of the Judicial Committee from being selected; it only enlarged the sphere of election.

MR. HENLEY

said, when he had to decide between a question of convenience and inconvenience, his choice was determined by a reference to the public interests. Now he confessed he was one of those who had very great confidence in a certain number of those from whom these five gentlemen were appointed to be selected. But as their appointment devolved on the Minister of the day—no matter what might be their fitness—no matter what the justice of their decision, it could never, under such circumstances, have that weight with the public to which an impartial tribunal was entitled; and it should be remembered that the nature of the tribunal from which it emanated would enter as a very large element into the consideration how far weight was to be attached to the decision. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to remember that they were now appointing a tribunal to deal, not with mere accidental questions, but were constituting one, under an Act of Parliament, which would have large and important matters to decide on.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he was sensible of the great advantage to be derived from an infusion of the lay as well as judicial element in such a tribunal; but perhaps he could meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen by consenting, on the part of the Government, that two out of the five members should be members of the Judicial Committee.

MR. G. BUTT

Let there be three.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he was unable to determine what the hon. Baronet the Member for the University (Sir W. Heathcote) thought of the suggestion just announced; but for himself he must say it was not altogether to his satisfaction, and his first objection was, that although they had in this right of appeal a check upon the powers of altering the Statutes of the college, yet they had no guarantee that the tribunal to which the appeal was to be made would be all impartial one. Now, he thought that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had no right to quarrel with them if they on that side of the House were a little jealous with regard to the alterations in the Bill. For the noble Lord could not forget the circumstances under which some of these alterations bad been brought forward. He could not forget that the Bill contained important provisions, to the extent of destroying, in many cases, the intentions of founders, and doing away with the preferences to which particular localities were entitled—provisions with respect to which a large party in that House entertained most serious objections. And so objectionable were those provisions held to be, that it was quite clear, by the decision since come to by Her Majesty's Government, that they anticipated the possibility of an adverse vote with respect to at least some of them. Apprehending such results, they had withdrawn some objectionable clauses, and had substituted for a compulsory enactment an authority leaving it open to the colleges to make certain changes for themselves. Still those clauses had been drawn with a degree of ambiguity which seemed most open to their intentions being suspected. Last night they had had a great deal of discussion as to the 31st clause, and the Government rejected a most moderate Amendment brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), still insisting upon a form of words which rendered it a matter of surmise that they intended to effort indirectly what was adjudged by hon. Gentlemen to be so objectionable. Two inquiries were also addressed to the Go- vernment, first, as to whether two-thirds of the whole governing body, or whether only two-thirds of that proportion of it which was present, should be required to reject an ordinance of the Commissioners; and the second was, what was to be the constitution of the governing body? The answer to the first question was, that it was to be two-thirds of the whole body, thereby reducing the number to nearly three-fourths of those present, and proportionately diminishing the value of the check. They were now, however, on the subject of those checks or securities, and it seemed to him that as the Bill stood, it might be completely frittered away if it was open to the Government to appoint men merely from political considerations. If even two members of the Committee were members of the Judicial Committee, that would still leave the appointment of the majority of them in the hands of the Government, which was what was to be avoided. As for the argument that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be excluded from the Committee, it would surely be open to the Government to appoint him as one of the two members whom it would be in their power to appoint.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, he trusted the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) would accept the offer of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It would be most unwise to exclude from the possibility of sitting on the Committee sonic of those parties who would be best able to decide the questions which would arise, and, above all, it would be most unwise to exclude the President of the Council for the time being.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, he was of opinion that the tribunal should consist of three members of the Judicial Committee at least.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the clause gave power to the tribunal to alter all the trusts under which property was held. He could not conceive any question more strictly within the province of a judicial tribunal, and was decidedly of opinion that the majority should consist of judicial members.

MR. WIGRAM

said, considering the nature of the questions likely to arise, he thought it most desirable that the tribunal should contain three members of the Judicial Committee, in order to ensure the attendance of two of the Judges.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he was willing to have the clause altered, so that the tribunal might contain two members of the Judicial Committee, of whom the Lord President should not be one. This would leave it open to Her Majesty to appoint the Lord President, if she thought proper, so that he might act with two members of the Judicial Committee.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he understood that the noble Lord was willing to consent to this arrangement—that of the five members of the tribunal two should be of the Judicial Committee exclusive of the Lord President of the Council; and that of the remaining three the Lord President might or might not be a member according to the convenience of the Government. Should the Lord President serve, there would then be three members of the Judicial Committee. With that arrangement he was content. There was, however, another point that he wished to bring before the Committee. In order to provide against any inconvenience which might arise from letting in persons as appellants, he would propose at the end of the clause to insert the following words—"and may make such orders with respect to the payment of the costs thereof as they shall deem just."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the words proposed by the hon. Baronet would raise the question as to whether the Commissioners had the power of decreeing costs out of the estates of the colleges. The whole question of costs would be reserved for the present, and he therefore wished the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, the power he had in view was one to be exercised chiefly against the appellants that had been let in. It seemed reasonable, if persons were allowed to raise questions before the Privy Council on a mere allegation of interest, that some penalty by way of costs should be created if they raised those questions without sufficient ground. As, however, the whole question of costs was to stand over, he had no objection to withdraw the Amendment.

Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 35 and 36.

Clause 37 (Commissioners, in exercising said powers, to have regard to reasonable design of College).

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he wished to propose the insertion of words to prevent the Commissioners appropriating any portion of the durable revenues of any college to the establishment of the professoriate of the University (as contemplated by the clause), unless the same was in accordance with the main objects of the foundation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would submit that the limitations imposed by this clause were sufficient as they stood, it distinctly directing that the funds of the college should be applied in the first instance to the full satisfaction of its wants, and after that they might be applied to purposes in the benefits of which the University should have a share; and it was unnecessary to say, "in cases where they shall be in accordance with the objects of the foundation," inasmuch as there could be no doubt that lectureships and professorships were in accordance with the foundation, unless it necessitated an abstraction from that sum which the college required for its exclusive purposes.

Amendment withdrawn.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was of opinion that the security referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was insufficient. At the same time he wished to call attention to the fact that this clause contained the words, "science and letters," instead of "religion and learning," which, though at first omitted from the Bill, had, with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, been inserted in a previous clause.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the words "science and letters" were introduced into that clause in reference to the word "professoriate" in the same clause; but, if it would give satisfaction, there could be no objection to introduce the words suggested by the right hon. Member.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

suggested, after the words "science and letters," there should be introduced, "and for the advancement of religion and learning."

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he must protest against the unlimited power given to the Commissioners by this clause as amounting to one of confiscation.

Clause, as amended, agreed to; as was also Clause 38.

Clause 39 (Statutes made by Commissioners subject to repeal or alteration by University or College).

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he begged to propose the insertion of the word "proceedings," in order to extend this power of alteration not only to the Statutes affecting the power and consti- tution of the Hebdomadal Council and the Congregation, but also to such as affected their proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he would now move, that after the word "Congregation," the words "and respecting great halls and private halls" should be inserted. He conceived that the clause, as it stood, would prevent the Queen in Council from interposing with respect to the constitution of private halls, although the constitution of the Hebdomadal Council and the Congregation would be under Her Majesty's control. The system of private halls was a mere experiment, and he did not see why it should not be subject to alteration at the discretion of the University, with the approval of the Queen in Council.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must object to this proposition. A power was given to repeal or alter all Statutes in regard to private halls, which might be passed by the University, but it would be undesirable to give to the University a power of repealing or altering the clause under which such halls were constituted.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he thought that, as the private halls were an experiment, the University ought to have the power to discontinue them.

SIR. WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, that though he had voted in favour of establishing private halls, he entirely concurred in the view which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) took of the question, namely, that, being introduced as an experiment, he should make that experiment with more satisfaction if he saw there was an opening for reconsidering the matter in case of a failure. An hon. Member had stated that, if Government were to abandon those private halls, they had better abandon the Bill itself. Now, the Government had not been asked to do anything of the sort; but only to preserve to the Universities, subject to the check of the Queen's approval, that power of dealing, with those halls which they would have had before the Act was passed. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) were adopted, it would be impossible for any rash measures taken by the Universities to meet the approbation of the Queen in Council. Should the apprehensions of hon. Members on that side of the House turn out to be Well founded after a series of years, surely it would be conceded that the whole matter ought then to be reconsidered and revised.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he thought that even if it should at any time be necessary to reconsider the subject of private halls, it was desirable that they should not be done away with without the consent of Parliament. This clause gave to the University and the colleges extensive powers to alter, with the consent of Her Majesty, what had been proposed in this Bill; but he thought it would be highly undesirable to insert in it such a provision that the whole of the Act might be set aside by the political Administration of the day in concert with the University.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the experience of five or six years might show that a different set of rules was necessary, and he objected to leaving the power of framing these rules entirely in the hands of the Commissioners. If some provision were not introduced for amending the rules, great difficulty might be experienced hereafter.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that ample provision was made for permitting the amendment of the Statutes. The powers contained in the 30th clause of the Bill, if exercised at all, might be exercised either by the Commissioners or the University; if by the University, they would make Statutes in pursuance of these powers, and these powers would be liable to alterations under Clause 38; if exercised by the Commissioners, and not by the University, then the scheme of the Commissioners, subsequently taking effect as a Statute, would be liable to alteration under the 39th clause, subject to the approval of the Queen in Council.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, it would be unwise to tie down the University irrevocably to this great experiment, which was, in fact, a revolution of the whole system, from which it could not escape without invoking the aid of Parliament. Let them fix what limit they pleased. Let the University be told that it should not act for twenty or thirty years, or until a new generation had grown up, and all prejudices and feelings connected with the Bill had passed away. But do, after a certain time, restore to the University the power of free action on this most important matter, subject, of course, to the control of the Queen in Council, and not force it to come to Parliament, if it were found that these private halls had operated pre- judicially to the moral or intellectual cul- ture of the youth of the country. He trusted the Government would take the subject into their serious consideration, and if they did not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that they would fix some limited period or other.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

said, he regarded the question of private halls as the main feature of the measure. It was the principle of an extension of the Universities, and not a question of mere detail.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, he was of opinion that what was enacted by Parliament ought only to be amended by Parliament.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the beginning of the clause, he would see that every Statute made by the Commissioners in pursuance of the provisions of the Bill was to be subject to revision and alteration by the University authorities. The importance of the experiment of private halls was greatly increased by the fact that a very considerable proportion of those who were most competent to form an opinion upon the subject, looked upon it with the gravest doubt, and, indeed, apprehension and alarm. Those who advocated private halls must not rely too implicitly upon the opinion of Mr. Merivale; because that gentleman was opposed to these as proposed to be established by the Bill. And when they found men like Mr. Merivale, and other high authorities at Oxford, regarding the experiment with alarm, surely prudence required that they should provide for the possibility of failure. He would willingly give his assent to any qualifying words that would make it necessary that some specified time should intervene for trying the experiment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there were two clauses which related to private halls. One, the 27th, was the fundamental clause, which constituted the right, on the part of qualified members of Convocation, to obtain a licence from the Vice Chancellor. The other, the 30th, enabled the University, or, failing the University, the Commissioners, to make regulations for determining who should be qualified, and how they should conduct themselves in the government of these private halls. Provisions were already included in the Bill for revising the law, whatever might be done under the 30th clause. The largest liberty was intended, and he believed was given, by the Bill with respect to improving and amending anything that the University or Commissioners might do in defining the qualifications of members of private halls. But there was no power in the Bill that would enable the University, even with the consent of the Crown, to defeat the 27th clause.

MR. WIGRAM

said, he thought the Government showed a needless amount of jealousy of the University authorities. He did not believe that there was any reason to apprehend that the University would ever think of abolishing the private halls.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that according to the 36th clause, unless they were considered perfect by the Commissioners, the Commissioners had power to set aside the rules established by the University altogether, and to frame new rules for the government of the private halls. Now, with all respect for the Commissioners, he did not think their experience of Oxford was greater than that which the University authorities themselves possessed. Why, he asked, should they retain this clause at all, giving power to alter everything the Bill did besides, but refusing to give the same power to Her Majesty in Council with regard to private halls? By the 36th clause a large and an exceptional power was conferred in constituting these halls, and yet the Government seemed to be jealous even of the Queen in Council, that they would not allow the possibility of her reviewing, not the absolute enactment of Parliament itself, but that which might be done by the Commissioners. For the life of him he could not understand what the reason was which prevented them from giving the same power of alteration to the Queen in Council with reference to these private halls, that they gave by all the other provisions of the Bill to the Commissioners.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, every Statute which might be framed under the 36th clause would be subject to alteration under the 39th clause. Consequently it was not the fact that any Statute for a private hall would be exempt from alteration by the Queen in Council.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he still must contend that there should be the same power with regard to private halls, and their constitution and regulations, whether framed by the University or the Commissioners, that they proposed to extend by this clause to the whole University. He only asked that private halls should be placed on the same footing as the Congregation and the Hebdomadal Council.

Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.

Clause 40 (The Cathedral or House of Christ Church to be deemed a College).

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he begged to ask whether the clause would not enable the Commissioners to dispose of the revenues of the canons of Christ Church?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he presumed that existing appropriations could not be disturbed. As to such of the canonries as had never been appropriated, he apprehended that these formed part of the property of the college, and might be dealt with by the canons or Commissioners. subject to the general revision and the checks provided by the Bill.

MR. HENLEY

said, he knew that there was a particular provision with respect to some of the canonries.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

said, he was not in favour of abolishing cathedral endowments; but Christ Church was less cathedral than it was conventual. He would prefer to retain a large number of small emoluments for students to a few larger ones. He did not think the dean and canons, who were the governing body at Christ Church, would agree to any reduction—not in their own emoluments, because of that there was no question, but in the emoluments of their successors. Now, looking at the Report of the Commissioners, in which it was stated that an average of something like 2,000l. a year (he would not pledge himself to the exact amount) was enjoyed by the canons, he was certainly of opinion that something might fairly be taken from them for the purposes of the college.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Newark, that at present Christ Church was not satisfactorily dealt with by this Act, and he hoped this would be one of the amendments introduced into the measure. He thought that for the purposes of this Act, a certain portion, at least, of the senior students and censors might have been incorporated into the governing body of Christ Church.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 41 (Persons becoming. Members after the passing of this Act not to possess vested interests).

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he was afraid this clause might have a retrospective effect, and operate to the exclusion, for instance, of a scholar elected last November to his own (Lord R. Cecil's) college.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the clause included within the category of vested interests the interests of all persons who at the passing of the Act were either elected or eligible to collegiate emoluments. If the individual was personam designatum, although his inchoate fellowship or scholarship had in that case to be rendered complete, he would still come within the class of those eligible to be elected at the time of the passing of the Act, and his expectant interests would be reserved.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he wished to ask whether the Government ought not to have preserved certain inchoate rights which might exist with reference to particular persons in certain localities, who had brought up their children with the expectation that they would have the benefit of some of the emoluments attaching to particular colleges in regard to those localities? He understood there were a great many cases of this description, and it was rather hard, by that which would operate in their instance as a retrospective law, to take away the rights of such persons. He was not exactly prepared to say how these rights might be guarded. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: We don't take them away.] No, but Government enabled the colleges and Commissioners to take them away. He should have wished, either by a proviso or by words inserted in the clause, to have said that, with reference to the cases he had alluded to, these particular rights should not be taken away for a period of three years from the passing of the Act.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) would further consider the question, he would see that that mode of proceeding was unsatisfactory. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it was utterly impossible and beyond their power to invent any one set of terms that would apply a strict measure of justice to cases so infinitely varied as all the forms of inchoate and expectant rights and interests as might be thought to subsist with respect to the enjoyment of emoluments in those colleges. They should protect certain interests absolutely, which was done by the 31st clause, and they had next to preclude the absolute title to protection on behalf of persons who should not be in possession of that title at the passing of the Act; but they did not prevent the colleges and Commissioners from extending an equitable consideration to every such case as they might wish to consider. The Bill was an enabling Bill without limit, except the checks on the exercise of the powers that were conferred by it, which checks would either ensure the rational and considerate use of those powers in the first instance, or the correction of the misuse of those powers, if such misuse should unfortunately take place. With regard to the proposition in reference to the three years, such was the difference in the nature and character of those rights that while the three years would be in some cases too much, it would in other cases be too little. The way was, to trust in the first instance to the discretion of the colleges and the Commissioners; and next to the means of protection provided for the purpose through the Privy Council; and finally to the sense of justice which always prevailed in Parliament.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he trusted that the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman would afford an indication to the colleges and to time Commissioners that they were to have regard to those equitable principles in making their arrangements.

In answer to Lord ROBERT CECIL,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that a scholar with inchoate rights to be elected to a fellowship would not be deprived of the expectancy of the fellowship by the operations of the Act; but he did not understand that that fellowship to which that scholar was to be elected was to be exempted from the operations of the Act with regard to certain provisions that might be imposed upon the holding of it.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, he thought that this was a confiscating clause, and that the Committee should divide upon it. It was a clause to meet the views of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood), and when that was the case the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman could be of no consequence whatever.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

said, he was inclined to place considerable faith in the justice of the Commissioners, and the checks that would be imposed upon them. He begged to call the attention of the Committee to the case of a boy who en- tered Westminster School, of course with the hope of being entered subsequently either as a scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, or the greater hope of being entered as a student in Christ Church; when that boy entered the College of Westminster, was he to be considered as one of those who had an inchoate right? He apprehended that under the Act he would have no right, but only the hope to pass a sufficiently good examination to enable him to become a student of one of those colleges, and if he had not that expectancy in prospect he would probably not enter the Westminster College at all.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he considered that the clause had the double vice of being very indistinct in its meaning, and of employing technical terms on the assumption that they were used in the Act which were not used in the Act at all.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, in explanation of the use of the clause, said, he must beg to remind the Committee that hereafter it might be necessary for Parliament to turn to the subject again, and it would not be right that any college or colleges should have the power of bringing up against them a whole crop of existing and vested interests which had grown up in the interval.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he considered the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman to afford the most cogent reason for voting against the clause. Whatever powers they gave by this Act of assent or dissent, they should allow the election of the college to go on; and the status of those elected in the meantime should not be uncertain, and if it were the object of the clause to make them uncertain, he for one would divide against it.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 39: Majority 47.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 42 (The Stamp Duties payable on Matriculations and Degrees to be abolished so soon as provision shall be made by the University to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, in lieu of the moneys heretofore voted annually by Parliament).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he proposed that, instead of the word "Commissioners," the words "Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury," should be inserted.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

asked if it. would not be desirable to abolish at once the stamp duties.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that a Vote was now annually proposed to Parliament for the maintenance of certain professors, and it was thought strange on the part of a wealthy body like the University to apply for a sum of money for such a purpose to the Commons of England; but the answer of the University was, that a greater sum was taken front it by the tax on degrees than it received from Parliament, and in the opinion of the Government it was thought not desirable to levy the tax. It was accordingly to be got rid of when a provision should be made in lieu of it, and they would thus be enabled to get rid of an invidious subject of annual discussion.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43.

MR. BLACKETT

said, as this was the last clause, he would beg to call attention to the difficulty that must arise under the new Act from the exercise of the veto possessed by the Vice Chancellor on the acts of Convocation. Hitherto no measure could be introduced into Convocation that had not passed the Hebdomadal Board, made up of heads of houses and proctors, over which the Vice Chancellor exercised a commanding influence. All the persons composing it had the same interest, and therefore there never was any inducement to the Vice Chancellor to extend his veto to a measure when introduced into Convocation after it had passed the Hebdomadal Board. But the Hebdomadal Council, according to the new constitution, would stand in the place of the Hebdomadal Board. The new body would be entirely different in constitution and character from its predecessor, and would be composed of elements which might possibly put the Vice Chancellor and the heads of houses in a minority on that Board. Now it was conceivable that a measure might be passed in the Hebdomadal Council by the votes of professors and masters of arts, and when it came into Convocation, the Vice Chancellor might use his veto to cancel it. It could never be contemplated to leave in the hands of the Vice Chancellor the power to neutralise all the effective legislation that might be introduced by the Hebdomadal Council, and it was very desirable that that power should be taken away from the Vice Chancellor.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he did not agree in the construction put upon the clause to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. It did not appear to him that the veto of the Vice Chancellor could be exercised in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It was expressly enacted by the 19th clause, that every Statute accepted by Congregation should afterwards be submitted to Convocation for final adoption or rejection, and consequently the decision of the Hebdomadal Council could not be interfered with by any veto of the Vice Chancellor. Supposing the veto of the Vice Chancellor to exist, it would not be in the smallest degree confirmed or strengthened by anything contained in the 43rd clause, but in his opinion the veto would no longer exist.

MR. BLACKETT

said, he had never stated that the 43rd clause had reference to his objection, but merely availed himself of the opportunity presented by its being proposed to call attention to this defect in the Bill.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he was of opinion, that any Statute which it was agreed should be submitted to Congregation, could not be withdrawn by any veto of the Vice Chancellor.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule A was brought up, containing the names of the following persons, who were proposed to form part of Congregation, the names of the other Members having been set forth in the 17th clause of the Bill:—The Deputy Steward, the Public Orator, the Keeper of the Archives, the Assessor of the Vice Chancellor's Court, Registrar of the University, Counsel of the University, Bodley's Librarian, Librarian and Sub-librarian of University Libraries, and Keepers of University Museums and Repositories of Art or Science, if authorised for the purposes of the Schedule by the Statute of the University. It was proposed to insert "Radcliffe Librarian, and Radcliffe Observer" after "Bodley's Librarian."

The proposition agreed to, and the Schedule, as amended, was adopted.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

said, he begged to move, after Clause 24, to insert clauses to the effect that a register of the names of members of Convocation should be kept by a Bedel or some other officer of the University, and should be freely accessible; and that graduates of the University who should have made all necessary payments previously to their having taken such a degree as should entitle them to be members of Convocation should not be required to make further payment of any sum or sums of money for collegiate or other than University purposes, as a condition of their qualification to be members of and to vote in Convocation; and that all such graduates as had ceased to be members of the University by reason of their names having ceased to be upon the books of a particular college or hall, might, if not otherwise disqualified, claim to be registered as members of Convocation, and, upon payment by them of any arrears of University fees or dues accruing; since such graduates should have ceased to be members of the University, or upon payment by them of such composition as the University might sanction, their names should be inserted upon the register. Everybody knew that now each member of a college or hall, in order to keep his name on the books, must pay certain fees for that purpose, but he considered that every member of the University who had taken the degree of Doctor, or of Master of Arts, although he might have ceased to have his name on the books of his college, ought to be considered so far a part of the University, independently of his college, as not to be deprived of his rights in connection with the University in contradistinction to his collegiate right. He thought, also, the University would do well to allow some means of composition to doctors and masters of arts relative to all University payments on future occasions; and it ought not, certainly, to be a sine quâ non, that, because a man ceased to be a member of his college, therefore he should be looked upon as no longer a member of the University, or entitled to his right of voting in Convocation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was ready to admit that the clauses might be very proper in themselves, but he thought his hon. Friend would do better to send them down for discussion to the Hebdomadal Council, where he thought they would meet with a favourable reception; but he did not think that the subjects to which they referred were matters with which the Committee would do well to interfere. If the Committee were to go into matters of small detail, there were more flagrant anomalies than the present with which they might deal; but he thought it would be much better, that after they had provided a good government for the University, they should leave that government to deal with all questions of detail. He was the more anxious on this point, as he observed that the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) had given notice of a whole host of clauses relating to details, but he hoped that that House would at once take its stand upon this principle, that, having provided a government for the University, they would not interfere with the free working of that government.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOFE

thought the matters referred to in the clause well worthy of consideration.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

said, that, though he denied that this was a question of detail, he would not press his clauses.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he would now beg to move the following clause— If', in the execution of the powers of this Act, it shall be proposed by any College, or by the Commissioners, to make any regulation or ordinance for the abolition of any privilege, or right of preference in elections to any emolument within any College, now lawfully belonging to any School or other place of education beyond the precincts of the University, notice thereof shall be given in writing to the Governing Body of such School or place of education, and also to the Commissions appointed under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, at least two calendar months before any final resolution for that purpose shall be adopted by such College, or by the Commissioners; and no such regulation or ordinance shall be made, if, within two calendar months after receiving such notice, two-thirds of the said Governing Body, or the said Commissioners appointed under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, shall, by writing, under their hands and scals, declare their opinion that such regulation or ordinance would be prejudicial to such school or place of education: Provided always, nevertheless, That every such privilege or right of preference, when retained, shall be subject to all such regulations and ordinances as may be made by any College, or by the Commissioners, under the powers given by this Act, for the purpose of making such emolument more conducive to the mutual benefit of such College and such School or place of education as aforesaid. The powers which this Bill gave the Commissioners referred to all sorts of endowments and emoluments of an educational character, whether they were paid out of the revenues and provisions belonging to the colleges themselves, or whether they belonged to institutions external to the colleges and connected with the different schools throughout the country; the consequence was that there were two distinct classes of endowments which were interfered with in the Bill—the endowments which were provided out of the college re- venues, and next, the scholarships and exhibitions paid out of revenues provided by other institutions. Hence, the Commissioners had power not only to deprive the schools of the exhibitions which were provided for them out of funds which the colleges provided, but they had power also to confiscate revenues which the colleges had not provided at all. It was true this power was guarded in the case of the Commissioners by being subject to the dissent of two-thirds of the governing body of the colleges. But, notwithstanding this provision, it was most objectionable, and he was sure all would concur in that view, and in the desirableness of altering the law so as to prevent the Commissioners front making regulations in the case of schools which might destroy their value. Now, he proposed by his clause to give to all those external bodies to whom was now confided the care of these endowments, the same liberty of dissent on cause shown which was proposed to be given to the colleges themselves. Now, what he proposed was to provide that the colleges and the Commissioners, before taking away the existing endowments, should give the Charity Commissioners, who were appointed, by the Bill passed last year, the guardians of all these endowments, two months' notice of their intention to alter the existing arrangements; and if they thought that that alteration would be prejudicial, then they should have the same power of dissent as the present Bill allowed to the governing body of the colleges. He might be asked why lie did not go further, and allow the Commissioners and the colleges to make regulations and ordinances for the mutual benefit of the schools? It was necessary such a power should reside somewhere. It did not, however, appear necessary to extend what he would term the consultation principle inconveniently. He did not think that consultation should be resorted to on every small question of regulation or modification of privileges of students. The clause had been considered carefully, and he was not afraid of criticism. He would, in explanation, say he conceived it was the duty of the Committee to pay regard to the different schools throughout the country connected with the Universities. They were all educational branches, and the small schools in their place and degree were not less important than the larger schools. He demurred to the principle which appeared to be laid down in this measure, that the importance of a school was to be measured by the accident of the particular numbers that were attending it at any given time. It was in the knowledge of most Members that all their great schools had fluctuations at different times. The Charter House, Rugby, Harrow, and other schools had at different times been as low in point of numbers as to be near the limits, if they did not pass the limits, fixed by this Bill; but it seemed to him most unreasonable that, when a school was in a low or declining state, they were to take away what was its great stimulus to improvement—its connection with one or other of the colleges. It might be said that it was of no importance to keep up a particular school, for if the scholars were not at the Charter House they would be at Rugby, or if not at Winchester they would be at Harrow. He totally dissented from that mode of reasoning. It was of great importance, in his opinion, that they should have good schools in different parts of the country, that they should keep them in a high degree of efficiency, and that they should make them better if possible. Besides, he thought it was not at all unworthy of them to indulge feeling, or even imagination, in this case. The monuments of great men were universally respected, and there was no monument that more deserved respect than those foundations of their ancestors of which every year taught them more and more the value. The question, then, was, did these exhibitions tend to the prosperity of the schools? Manifestly they did. Merchant Taylors' School had thirty-seven fellowships in St. John's College, Oxford, to which they had a right, and six more in which they had a contingent interest, and these fellowships were the real endowment of the school. He quoted the opinion of Dr. Plessey, the head master of Merchant Taylors' School, who stated that the school had many disadvantages from its position in the heart of London and otherwise, which were only counterbalanced in the minds of parents by the knowledge that a buy of abilities and diligence might obtain a fellowship at Oxford. A similar opinion had been given by Mr. Collis, head master of Bromsgrove School, Worcestershire, of the connection between his school and Worcester College. The largest and most important case of the kind was Winchester School, in connection with New College, Oxford. The connection between that school and the college had been made to bear the whole brunt of the controversy, and on the same principle that people became tired of hearing Aristides called the Just, he had even seen attacks made in the newspapers upon the memory of William of Wykeham. That great man had founded the two institutions to be in mutual connection with each other—he had made the governors of each take an oath to observe the Statutes of the other, as it was his wish that Winchester should become the nursery of wholesome roots for New College. The number of scholars at Winchester had never been great—its greatest limit he believed was 200. Now if they destroyed the connection between the school and the college, he could not doubt that the result would be the destruction of Winchester School altogether, and he thought they might as well confiscate the revenues of New College in order to found some new school in the neighbourhood of London, as take away the privileges which the Winchester students enjoyed in that college. The exhibitions of Tiverton School and the Snell exhibitions, both connected with Balliol College, were examples of a different sort. These were not college funds at all, but they were trust funds, altogether external to the college. Mr. Blundell, the founder of the Tiverton School, gave 2,000l. for the establishment of scholarships. By a deed of composition between his trustees and the college, the latter received the money, and undertook to receive the scholars. Was it fair now to say that Balliol College might keep the money and refuse the scholars with the consent of the trustees? Another case was that of the Snell bequest, and the connection it established between Glasgow University and Oxford. After some litigation as to the terms of the bequest, it was decided by the Court of Chancery that the University of Glasgow was entitled to the benefit of the endowment, and exhibitions accordingly had been established at Oxford with the most beneficial effect. The doctrine now was that the exhibitions were college emoluments, and that the college might alter or abolish them. The importance to West-minster School of its connection with Christ Church was so well known to many present that he need not dwell upon it. To show what gross injustice might be done if they passed this Bill without some safeguard for protecting the designs of founders, he would refer them to the case of the Free Grammar School at Abingdon, in connection with Pembroke College. Abingdon School was the fountain head of Pembroke College; Pembroke College existed on account of Abingdon School, and not Abingdon School on account of Pembroke College. The college was founded for the purpose of supplying fellowships which the founder of Abingdon School desired to establish. It was possible, perhaps, to give better effect to the existing regulations by introducing others; but to say that a power should be created to alienate the fellowships from the school, foundations which had existed from the beginning, so long as any person interested remained, appeared to him subversive of every principle of justice. Abingdon School was another example of the impropriety of the numerical qualification contained in the Bill as originally introduced. He had, however, by no means exhausted the instances which might be produced; he had only mentioned some of the most prominent examples, and having heard them, he hoped the Committee would accede to the principle of his clause, and see the justice of giving to the governing bodies of these different places of education the right of being consulted, and of a veto, if the interests of their schools should be prejudicially affected by any proposal, either from the colleges or from the Commissioners, for their destruction. If such a clause were not adopted, the Committee would be legislating on this part of the subject wholly without inquiry. The House of Commons had made no inquiry whether the interests of the schools would be affected, nor had the University Commissioners entered into the question. No doubt the Commissioners stated that a connection existed between different colleges and schools; but how such interests might be affected by the alteration or removal of existing rights the Commissioners had not inquired, for they had not the power, and they had given no information on the subject. The clause remitted the parties to those who were acquainted with the subject, for the governing bodies must know how their schools would be affected by any proposed change, while they were a more disinterested and impartial body than the colleges themselves. He had also provided in the clause that the Charity Commissioners should be consulted before any final resolution was adopted by any college or by the Commissioners, because to them had been committed the general care of all charities, and it would be inex- pedient not to consult them, even if the governing bodies and trustees of local schools were not negligent.

Clause brought up, and read 1°.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must draw a distinction between the speech and the clause of his hon. and learned Friend. As far as regarded the speech, it contained much very well worthy the consideration of the Hebdomadal Council, when that body came to deal with the matters which this Bill proposed to confide to their discretion; and as far as regarded the clause, it was unnecessary, because the Bill already provided means which would accomplish the main object in view. The observations of his hon. and learned Friend might very well be addressed to the body appointed under the Bill to consider the class of cases to which allusion had been made; and provision was already made that the persons interested in any endowment proposed to be dealt with might have a full and impartial hearing before a tribunal of great authority and responsibility—namely, the Committee, of Privy Council, which must in every case comprise at least two judicial persons. It was provided in the 34th clause that when the Commissioners should have laid any of their ordinances or schemes before Her Majesty in Council, they should be published in the London Gazette; that no Order in Council should be made until after the expiration of one calendar month from the date of the application; and that, in that interval, it should be lawful for any trustee, governor, or patron of any University or college emolument, or for any other person directly affected, to petition Her Majesty in Council to be heard, and to be heard by counsel learned in the law at such hearing. The House had made this provision for the protection of this class of interests, and he submitted it was a satisfactory protection; first, because the parties who had such interests would be the best judges whether they were unjustly dealt with by any proposed scheme of the Commissioners, and next, whether the interests of the school or place of education that might be affected were such as ought to be defended before the Privy Council. It seemed to him, further, that his hon. and learned Friend's clause would involve the whole operation of the Bill, so far as concerned colleges connected with schools, in inextricable confusion and absurdity; so much so that he could hardly think his hon. and learned Friend had considered the scope and tendency of the alterations he proposed, either as regarded their principle or their practicability. As regarded the practicability of the proposal, without having regard to the Charitable Trust Commissioners, and taking only the main part of the clause into view, he thought it would lead to confusion. The main part of the clause required this—that in the case of any school or place of education which had any privilege or right of preference in the University, when the Commissioners proposed any scheme or ordinance that would abolish any right or preference, it should be their duty to give two months' notice in writing; and that the governing body of such school or place of education should be invested with an absolute veto upon the scheme or ordinance, when they thought such scheme or ordinance would be prejudicial to the school as a place of learning and education. In his opinion the Committee had very justifiably gone great lengths in giving an absolute power of dissent to the governing bodies of colleges; but why? Because, when we Spoke of colleges, we knew with whom we were dealing; we knew they were bodies who had a deep and real interest in the welfare of the colleges; that they were made the subjects of Parliamentary cognisance and regulation, and that, if they refused to allow the intervention of the Commissioners, they might be again made the subjects of Parliamentary intervention. But not one of these considerations applied to the governing bodies of these schools. What were they? Were they corporations known to the law, consisting of a fixed number of members, acting in the face of day, and responsible to the opinions of society? On the contrary, they were private individuals, they were often self-elected, and they were bodies that might be packed, if need be, for the purpose of obtaining a majority of two-thirds, for instance, if such were necessary. On the other hand, when we spoke of a college in which a majority of two-thirds was necessary to carry a measure, we knew that no additions could be made to the governing body. But in the case of these schools, where there were twenty-one trustees, and eleven were for a particular plan and ten were not, the eleven might appoint ten others, and so make the number of trustees thirty-one, and do what they pleased. [Mr. R. PALMER said, that trustees had no such power.] He must beg to say that trustees of schools with which he was acquainted had such a power, and that trustees continued to be self-elected from time to time. [Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER: I dissent entirely from that statement.] That might be; but he begged to repeat distinctly that the number of trustees of grammar schools, in the instances that he was acquainted with, was not limited. The trustees had the power of appointing themselves, and of adding to their number without limitation. He happened himself to be a trustee of one grammar school where this was the case. But he wished the Committee to consider upon what principle they should give the veto to the trustees of these schools. Why was this particular of interests to have protection over and above that which was granted to other interests? Was it less easy for them to defend themselves? With the exception of that interest which was affected by the Attorney's Certificate Duty, he knew no interest which rallied so easily and appealed so powerfully to so great a mass of laudable but strong prepossessions as the interest with which this clause dealt. He knew of no interest which would be so able to avail themselves of the protection which the Bill afforded them of a full hearing before the Privy Council, as the school interest. In the case of the people of Guernsey and Jersey who had endowments in Oxford, how did the Bill proceed? They were not protected by saying that the Governors and Councils of Guernsey and Jersey should have two months' notice before anything was proposed which might affect their emoluments, that they should have the power of putting an end to the scheme. They were left subject to the general operation of the Bill, which gave them the right of an appeal to the Privy Council should they think fit. The case was the same, if not stronger, with regard to the people of Wales. Wales, at present, had the absolute and exclusive right to the entire emoluments of a particular college. But, if they asked how they were to be protected, the answer was, that means had been provided them of becoming acquainted with the schemes in which they might be interested by their being published in the London Gazette, and they could then petition the Queen in Council, and obtain a fair hearing in reference to those schemes. The case was exactly the same with regard to founders' kin and the sons of the clergy; and he contended that the protection which was deemed sufficient in all these cases was quite adequate in regard to schools. But he wished to know how the clause was to operate, because on this point he conceived it would lead to confusion, not to say absurdity. Take Worcester College— The fellows were to be elected from the scholars; the scholars from the schools of Bromsgrove or Feckenham, or, in delimit of fit and able candidates (apti, habilcs et idoncei), from the Cathedral School of Worcester, from the schools of Hartlebury or Kidderminister, or, these failing, from any school in Worcestershire. Now he put it to the Committee whether it would not be absurd to require to send and discover the governing bodies of every endowed school. Many of these schools might be endowed with only 10l. a year, and had sunk out of notice; yet the Committee were asked to enact that, unless the Commissioners found out these schools, their schemes should be liable to be declared illegal. Then there was the case of St. John's College, particularly with respect to Merchant Taylors' School— Of the fifty fellowships, constituted by the founder, seven were allotted to the schools of Bristol, Coventry, Reading, and Tonbridge. The three first-named schools were to send two scholars to the college, and Tonbridge one. The scholars sent from these schools arc chosen, in the first instance, by the municipal authorities of the respective towns; except in the case of Tonbridge, where, there being no corporation, the vicar and principal inhabitants appoint. The remaining forty-three fellows were to be chosen from the boys educated in the City of London, but with a strong preference to those educated at Merchant Taylors School. If no duly qualified persons are found in Merchant Taylors' School, the electors are to look for scholars from Christ's Hospital; if none can be found there, they are then to elect from any school in London or its suburbs; and if none can be found within these limits, then scholars may be chosen from any part of England. He hoped the Committee would decline to adopt a clause which would involve them in such confusion and absurdity, and besides, he did not think it would be right or just in principle to commit to each of the little schools which came within the scope of the clause the decision of questions of great public interest. The governors of those schools were only bound to look to the narrowest view of the interests of their own seminaries, and he would remind them that, in proportion as the schools were bad, the withdrawal of the preferences they enjoyed would be prejudicial to them, and, therefore, the protection they were called upon to give was not to good, but to bad schools. It would be futile, he thought, to endeavour to apply to schools the same rules as they had applied to the governing bodies of colleges, and, considering the immense scope of these founders' wills in many instances, and the way in which they had endeavoured to provide for wide and scattered districts, the effect of the hon. and learned Member's clause would be to reduce the Bill to a state of impotence, and to disappoint very much the expectations of those who had been labouring for the improvement of Oxford institutions.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had objected to the clause; but a great deal of what he had said against it might be dismissed as mere verbal criticism. It must be clear to the Committee that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer) had no intention whatever, from the language of the clause, of reserving the distant and remote rights of schools. He had merely spoken of the schools themselves in the first instance, and had no intention whatever of going into remote cases. With regard to the main point, why indulgence should be given to schools rather than to any other form of protection, the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked two circumstances to which it was necessary to recall the Committee. He had first forgotten that the language of the clause related especially to total abolition, and not to regulations that might be made to meet many of the objections to the clause, and put the emoluments upon a very different footing from that which they now occupied. The question was one of complete abrogation, and not whether they were to shut out the advantageous operation of the powers which the Commissioners might possess. The next point he wished the Committee to remember was, that this was a question relating to another branch than the colleges of the educational establishments of the country. It was not merely as to local preferences, but whether the keeping up of these endowments of colleges was not a cheap and efficacious manner of keeping up in all parts of the country schools which there was no power of preserving without such extraneous aid. Merchant Taylors' School was a remarkable instance. It was a school which could not long exist without the association with St. John's; and in the more remote parts of the country it would be continually found that schools existed only upon the strength of those very emoluments which the Committee was asked to take away with so rigorous a hand. These schools appeared to him to be the best mode of assisting local preferences. Two or three scholarships in a county produced nothing sensibly, but if those two or three scholarships kept up a school of 100 boys, they promoted education throughout a much larger sphere than the scholarships themselves. Such considerations as these he thought should induce the Committee to put aside the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman against the clause.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, that it was with the most unfeigned reluctance that he found himself compelled to differ from the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this point, and to give his vote for the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford (Sir W. Neathcote) in thinking that the important matter to be considered was not the particular scholarships, but the general advantages which these schools derived from their exhibitions. All the great schools in London had immense difficulties to struggle with, and to do away with these exhibitions would be to sign their death-warrants. It was not correct to say that these exhibitions had been the means of fostering a bad system of education. Out of 166 students sent from Westminster School to Oxford since 1807, no fewer than ninety had obtained honours; and he trusted that nothing would be done to injure an educational institution which had produced three such distinguished members of the Cabinet as the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and the noble Lord the President of the Council. For his own part, if he gave his sanction to any such proposal he would be guilty of parricide, and would deserve to be tied in a sack and thrown into the Thames.

MR. W. LOCKHART

said, that he had drawn the attention of the Committee on a former occasion to the unjust manner in which this Bill might affect certain exhibitions from Glasgow College to the University of Oxford. The subject had been referred to in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer), and the Chancellor of the Exchequer well knew that it had caused great excitement in Scotland, yet he had studiously evaded all notice of it. Neither had any answer been given to a memorial from the Senate of the University of Glasgow, which brought the case under the consideration of Government. He must, therefore, ask leave of the Committee to explain it. Upwards of two hundred years ago an accomplished gentleman (Mr. Snell), who had commenced his studies at the University of Glasgow, removed to Oxford, where he completed them. He experienced eventually so much benefit from this combined course of education, that he formed the benevolent design of providing the same advantages for a certain number of distinguished students of the Scotch universities, who were not in affluent circumstances. With this view he devised an estate to trustees, the rents of which he directed to be applied to the establishment of exhibitions to Oxford, the conditions being that the candidate should have studied a certain number of years at a Scotch university, one, at the least, of which he must have spent at Glasgow College—and the nomination was vested in the Principal and Professors thereof. It is not pretended that this patronage has been abused, or that the right of Baliol College to reject unqualified students has in any one instance been exercised. On the contrary, but for these exhibitions many great and distinguished men—Adam Smith amongst others—might have lived and died unhonoured and unknown. Nothing could have been more praiseworthy or patriotic than such a bequest, and it is manifest that its advantages have not been confined to Scotland. It has been, however, unfortunately the cause of much litigation. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, in his able speech, quoted a remarkable decision which was pronounced by the Court of Chancery a century and a half ago; but he did not mention that the question had been again brought before the courts of law so lately as 1848. An attempt was then made to wrest these exhibitions from the ancient Universities, and to transfer them to a recently established Episcopalian College in Scotland. This was no proceeding of the Episcopalian body in that part of the kingdom. It was not sanctioned by their bishops, and it was not only disapproved of, but denounced by many of its most influential members. The action was raised by a few private individuals, but an unhesitating decision was pronounced by the House of Lords in favour of Glasgow College, with costs against their opponents. It is to be regretted that a report should have gained currency in Scotland that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a trustee of the institution in question, had identified himself with proceedings which have thus been declared to be contrary to law and justice. He has distinctly denied that he had any connection with them, or that he had assisted by a subscription to defray the costs; but this has really nothing to do with the question. The simple fact is, that this Bill may effect the object they aimed at. As originally framed, and even as now altered, it leaves it to a Board of Commissioners in England to deal with these exhibitions without the consent of Glasgow College, or perhaps even without their knowledge. Thereby it violates the treaty of Union, which distinctly guaranteed to the people of Scotland, "that their private rights should not be interfered with, except for their evident utility." It has, indeed, been too much the custom of late to disregard ancient treaties, but the day, it is to be hoped, is distant when private rights shall be so dealt with. One of these Glasgow exhibitioners has just gained the Arnold Prize for a historical essay on the advantages of the Union, but he would have had some difficulty in proving this to be one of them. The people of Scotland were filled with indignation when they discovered that, in a Bill for the better government of an English University, clauses were introduced to rob Scottish students of rights which have existed for nearly two centuries. This clause will save the Snell bequest from confiscation, and it is to be hoped hon. Members connected with Scotland will, on that account, give it their warmest support.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that the argument addressed to the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth did not convey a correct idea of the question before them. One might suppose that it was proposed by the Bill that the privileges and preferences of the various schools, such as Westminster, Merchant Taylors', and the Snell exhibitions, should be abolished by this Bill. But that was not the question, and there was not the slightest possibility that any really good school, which promoted the interest of learning by sending scholars to the University, would be at all affected by the Bill. In the first place, it was not at all likely that any Statute would be framed, either by the Commissioners or by the University, affecting or abolishing the privileges of such schools. But if any such proposals were made, before such privileges were taken away the matter would come under the decision of five members of the Privy Council, two of whom must be legal members of the Judicial Com- mittee. If the proposed alterations were approved by them, and if they were also agreed to by Her Majesty in Council, then they would be laid before Parliament; but either House of Parliament might present an Address to Her Majesty, the effect of which would be to render the proposed Statutes null and void. The question was, whether by a clause of this kind Parliament would preserve the privileges of very bad and inferior schools, which, by the founders' wills, had obtained these privileges. There was a school of this kind in the University of Cambridge, which had gone to decay, which was attended by very few pupils, and by which the interests of learning were very little promoted. The effect of this clause was to preserve from improvement all these bad schools which, originally founded for the benefit of learning, now no longer promoted that object. If further securities besides those he had mentioned were wanted to prevent ill-considered alterations in the management of these schools, and to protect them against a wanton abuse of power, let such securities be considered, but he could not agree to a clause the effect of which would be to preserve all the privileges of the inferior, the bad, and the decayed schools.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he could not allow tins discussion to pass without entering his solemn and earnest protest against the principle announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the President of the Council. Two arguments had been urged on the part of the Government against the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth—one a matter of form, and the other a matter of principle. The hon. and learned Member was not anxious about the matter of form, if the House supported the principle. Now, what was that principle? It was that of preserving the rights of others, which were to be taken away by those who were not entitled to interfere. The noble Lord the President of the Council said that the effect of the clause would be to keep on foot bad schools and prevent improvement. But, under the plea of improving the colleges, the promoters of the Bill were subverting rights which were independent of those colleges. Many of these schools were founded, not for the benefit of the colleges, but in most instances the colleges were founded for the benefit of the schools. What right had they, then, under the plea of reforming the colleges, to take away the rights of the schools? Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the President of the Council had mentioned a single bad school, while, on the other hand, many good schools had been brought forward which had produced distinguished and useful members of society, and conferred the blessings of a sound education upon thousands of persons. His hon. and learned Friend had said, and nobody had answered him, that they should look at this question partly as a matter of reason and partly as a matter of feeling. Nations were, in truth, as much governed by feelings and even by prejudices as they were by reason; and he would respectfully advise the Government to act upon that consideration in the present instance. But it was said that the promoters of the Bill had a general object in view—the promotion of University education—and some appeared to imagine that a special object was inconsistent with the general one. The fact was not so; it was possible to have both a general and a special intention, and it was for that reason that we had local institutions in this country. Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Council had proceeded upon the assumption that they had given by a clause in the Bill the power of rectifying a wrong if the colleges or the Commissioners should do that wrong. None of their legislation ought to proceed upon that principle. Where there was a particular right it was their duty to preserve it, even although the right in some respects be contrary to or inconsistent with the general provisions of their measure; and the argument urged from the Treasury bench amounted to this, that they were at liberty to give to particular individuals the power of assailing the rights of others, trusting to some tribunal to maintain and defend them. He apprehended, however, that the proper principle to proceed upon was, not to allow those rights to be assailed by others in the first instance. If the Government had agreed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heatheote), that the main designs of the founders and donors should be preserved, there would have been a ground for the Judicial Committee to determine whether those designs were preserved or not; but by refusing to insert that clause they left the whole matter ambiguous, and merely addressed to the Committee the plausible argument that equitable considerations would be taken into account when the question came to be decided before the Judicial Committee, when they knew that there could be no such thing as equitable considerations to be interpreted by law, unless those considerations were to be decided with reference to certain principles which would enable the Court to act upon them. The tribunal of appeal would have no means by which it could be guided, and it would therefore be apt to usurp the place of the Legislature, and determine, not what ought to be done, but what it considered might with propriety be done. He thought this Bill ought not to be parted with before they knew distinctly from the Government whether, for the first time in the history of this country, the main designs and intentions of the benevolent founders were to be deliberately set aside, not by a case made against them—for case they bad made none—but because they wished by some latitudinarian privilege to give power to a Court which would have no means of guiding its judgment to regulate the colleges of Oxford in such a manner as would take away the rights of schools, though those schools had never abused their trust, but, on the contrary, had exercised it in a way to confer great and inestimable benefits upon the country.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he should be sorry if the address of his right hon. Friend who had last addressed the Committee was merited by the provisions of the Bill. He begged of the Committee to understand that nothing could be more incorrect, nothing more unjust, than the representation just given with such warmth and ability of the principles of the Bill. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that it would not be in the power of any one, acting either upon the wording or according to the spirit of the Bill, to touch any of those institutions that really did advance the interests of learning and religion. The first power given by the Bill was a power to ensure the emoluments enjoyed by the colleges being conferred according to personal merit. If young men were to be sent up to the University to attain its emoluments and benefits, care ought to be taken that they were selected upon grounds that would enable them to be a credit to the place from whence they came, and that a spirit of competition was preserved at time institution that sent them up. He regretted very much, however, to see such great talent and ability applied to the substituting before the Committee something else in lieu of the real question, which appealed to their feelings, their prejudices, and their passions, and which was capable of being accepted by those who were led away from the real point at issue. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had clearly shown that the clause now proposed would give to those who were interested in preventing improvement power to obstruct beneficial arrangements recommended by the Commissioners. The reason why the Government objected to the introduction of the words, "the main designs of the founders," when they were proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford was, that their introduction would have hampered the Commissioners in carrying out the principle of the measure, which was the advancement of the interests of learning, religion, and education, by making the enjoyment of all emoluments and rewards dependent on personal merit. If the principle of the right hon. Gentleman was carried into effect, instead of a spirit of competition being introduced into these foundations, they would remain a prey to the same state of inactivity to which many of them were now reduced. The designs of the donors of these charities could not be expressed in words more proper for the occasion, or in words more conclusively directed to the enunciation of what ought to be the rules under which they should exist, than the words that bad been employed—namely, "in the interests of religion and learning, and for the advancement of education;" for to promote such was the main design of the Bill. The fact was, that in the case of many of these grammar schools the particular localities for which they were founded not being able of themselves to supply a sufficient number of scholars, individuals from other places were received into them, and they became mere proprietary schools. It resulted from this state of things that instead of there being competition amongst those that were sent up to the University, only one or two came up to contend for the emoluments attached to the foundation. Now, that was an evil which would be repressed by the Bill. Of course in the case of Westminster School and Merchant Taylors' School, there would be no interference whatever, for there the evil was not felt.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, he wished to make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It might be perfectly true that the great object of the Bill was to promote the interests of religion and learning to the greatest possible extent which the resources of the University could attain; but he would say, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that in this particular instance, at all events, Ministers were endeavouring to bring about that object at the cost of parties who did not deserve such treatment at their hands—of parties who had not been heard in their defence. There were three classes of persons affected by the Bill: first, there was that portion of the public that desired the improvement of the University, and to share more largely in the emoluments of the University—those incentives to diligence and study—than they had hitherto done, for fame was not the only inducement to men to lead laborious days. But if to do this they would interfere with these charitable institutions, he would warn them such charities must be dealt with with the utmost tenderness, and that they could not be touched rashly or with impunity. They might depend upon it that the principles which had influenced the establishment of those foundations were principles adapted to all times; that they were deeply rooted in the affections of the people, and they could never be put out of sight even upon such grounds as had been that night proclaimed. The next party affected by the Bill were the colleges of the University; but their interests had been amply provided for, and they obtained a strong voice in the administration of their affairs, and every inducement to improve the system. Why, then, should not these foundations also be placed in a position to meet the Commissioners upon equal terms? But what did they propose to do for the third party—namely, for those persons whose money they were about to take and apply to other purposes? Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the Committee, forsooth, that they were provided with an appeal to the Privy Council. That was to say, after the colleges and Commissioners had agreed, in consultation, upon some means of applying the resources of these parties, whose all was at stake, some half-dozen trustees were told they might go before the Privy Council and argue their case on appeal. They would have him believe that the interests of these schools would be taken care of. He believed that the interests of the colleges, and the interests of those whom the Commissioners wished to advance, would be taken care of; but he very much doubted that there would be any identity between their interests and the interests of the schools. He would tell them that the interests of the schools would be set aside, because their money was wanted. He contended, therefore, that not only should the representatives of these foundations be allowed a hearing before their interests were disposed of, but that they should be allowed to share in all consultations between the colleges and the Commissioners where arrangements affecting them were to be concerted. Holding such views, then, he could not do otherwise than give his strongest support to the clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth.

MR. JOHN MACGREGOR

said, that, speaking on behalf of the University of Glasgow, he was ready to reject this clause. The object of the Bill was to adapt the purposes of these institutions to the circumstances of the times. Many of the designs of the founders, owing to the change of time and circumstances, had become great nuisances, as witness the case of Dulwich College, and hence the necessity for legislative interference. The clause of the hon. and learned Member contained much that was ingenious, but it went much further than he could consent to, and he should therefore vote against it.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

, in reply, said, he would not detain the Committee with any lengthened observations, for in reality there was little or nothing to reply to. There had been a good deal of vehement, and, as was always the case with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ingenious and effective criticism on some defect which his quick eyes discovered in the wording of this clause, and that defect he had great satisfaction in saying he would certainly remove, should the clause be adopted by the Committee. Nothing was easier than to insert the words of qualification—specially naming the foundations and endowments, and thus there was an end of the argument about all those undiscovered schools in Worcestershire and in London, supported nobody knew how, and situated no one knew where, which his right hon. Friend threw in their faces. There would be no difficulty in carrying the clause into effect clearly and intelligibly, and it was not by that sort of criticism that either himself, or, he trusted, the Committee would be deterred from doing so. It showed how little the Government really knew how they were proceeding in this matter, when they heard right hon. Gentlemen stating that the trustees might increase their number ad libitum, for the sake of creating a fictitious majority. Now, as a general rule, the governing bodies of those schools were either corporations—as in the case of Winchester—or trustees appointed in a definite manner and number, under deeds of charter. All that could happen was, that they might proceed to fill up any existing vacancies before they exercised their functions. But they knew what cases they were dealing with, and, after all, it was really nothing to the purpose and had no bearing whatever on the question. But what was to the purpose was that they were told, "To supply the place of this protection you can appeal to the Privy Council." What was the Privy Council to which they were to appeal? Was it a judicial body at all? No. It was true they had added two judicial members, but it was clearly no effective appeal for purposes of protection. It might be a good body to exercise a political judgment. No doubt, they might be found good men to exercise a judgment in the spirit of the Act, but they would exercise it, not as a judicial, but a political function. If people were to have confidence in the exercise of that political function, on what principle must they act? The Bill was to make further provision for the good government and extension of the University of Oxford and the colleges thereof. There was not a word about schools. They had not to think of the interests of schools, except so far as they could view them through the medium of the University of Oxford and its colleges. The Act furnished them with no principle or locus standi to frame a scheme for any school whatever. His object, which he did not wish to disguise, was to preserve the schools—to make it a general rule that they should be preserved, and that means should be given to effect that object. In so far, therefore, as a scheme was beneficial to a school, the trustees would consent to it, but in every other case he hoped they would reject it. He, therefore, took his stand upon the principle, that they should not and ought not to be deprived of their present rights, without the intervention of their natural protectors and in the absence of all inquiry.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUER

said he wished to know how the clause would work with regard to the right of preference? He would refer to one particular case, that of Worcester College, founded by Sir Thomas Coolies, in which there was a right of preference to the schools of Bromsgrove, Feckenham, Worcester, Hartlebury, and Kidderminster, in succession. He wished to know this:—Suppose the Commissioners sent down a scheme to do away with the rights of preference of these five schools, and the first four agree to make the sacrifice, but fifth—Kidderminster, for instance—refused to do so—what would be the effect of that refusal with respect to the scheme itself?

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that in that case the Commissioners might do what they pleased with the four assenting schools, leaving the school which dissented in the same position as before—that was to say, the rights of the four schools might be modified or consolidated in any way the Commissioners might think fit, and the other school would have no right to come in until the other four schools were provided for. However, the question of the right hon. Gentleman did not at all touch the principle of the clause.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he also wished to know whether the effect of the fifth school dissenting from the scheme of the Commissioners would not be to intercept entirely the plan of the Commissioners, although the other four schools, having prior rights, were willing to sacrifice their rights of preference?

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he could really give no other answer than what he had just stated. There would be no power to place the school dissenting from the scheme in a worse situation than before, but anything might be done by the Commissioners which would not place that school in a worse situation. If, however, it was thought there would be any difficulty in this respect, the clause might be hereafter amended.

MR. WIGRAM

said, if the principle of the clause should be adopted, he would propose an Amendment to meet the difficulty which had been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by inserting in the clause the words "or two-thirds of the aggregate body, composed of the several governing bodies of such schools."

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

observed, that being deeply attached to Winchester Col- lege from many associations, and perfectly conversant with its history, he could not do otherwise than lament any measures likely to impair its efficiency. He had left to others the honourable task of vindicating its union with New College, Oxford, and its eminence as a school for learned men. For his own part, he could not but remember that many of the most distinguished officers in the sister services had been reared within its walls. To the Army it had given Generals Sir Charles Dalbiac, Sir William Myers, Sir Alexander Woodford, Sir Robert Wilson, Sir Andrew Barnard, and Lord Seaton; to that profession of which he was proud to be a member, it gave Admirals Raper, Sir Thomas Laire, Sir John Borlase Warren, and Sir Richard Keates. He should be failing in justice, also, if he did not add that many other illustrious officers had been brought up in the great public schools; a circumstance, the honour of which was due to Wykeham, who had formed their model, when he built the College at Winchester. St. Paul's had produced the Duke of Marlborough; Merchant Taylors', Lord Clive; Rugby, Sir Ralph Abercombie; Newcastle, Lord Collingwood; Norwich, Lord Nelson; Harrow can boast Lord Rodney; Westminster, Lord Koppel, Lord Harris, the Marquess of Anglesea, the Duke of Richmond, and Lord Raglan; and Eton, Lord Howe, the Marquess Cornwallis, and the Duke of Wellington. In every public school the boys retain in unfading memory those who, once members of the same community, have in the past distinguished themselves, wherever raised by ability or urged by lawful ambition, in professional life, in this House, or the highest business of the State. True as the needle—round which the compass card traverses, ever points to the pole, and ensures the safety of the ship—on their old common home the eyes of the public schoolboy are ever fixed, and his heart rallies round those inspiring recollections; thence he draws incentives of action, and examples of success which he desires to emulate, as at once honourable to himself and of service to his country. Need he add, then, how heartily he supported this Amendment?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had a question to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Wigram), who proposed an Amendment to meet the difficulty he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had just stated. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that the governing bodies of the several schools should be consolidated for the purpose of expressing their assent to, or dissent from, any scheme that might be proposed by the Commissioner. Now, he would mention the case of St. John's College. The founder gave a preference, in the first instance, to the Merchant Taylors' school, which was under the control of the Merchant Taylors' Company. That was a corporation. The next preference was given to Christ's Hospital, which was also a corporation. Consequently, the Amendment intended to be proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would require that two-thirds of these two corporations should give their assent to, or dissent from, any scheme that might affect the rights of those schools. The question he had to put was, how would the hon. and learned Gentleman arrive at a knowledge of the two-thirds and one-third of these two corporations?

Motion made, and Qustion put, "That the Clause be now read a Second Time." The Committee divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 103: Majority 52.

MR. WIGRAM

said, he would now propose as an Amendment to insert in the clause words providing that in cases in which several schools are interested in a privilege or preference, two-thirds of the aggregate body, composed of the governing bodies of such schools, should, for the purposes of this clause, stand in the place of the single governing body referred to in it.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he wished to propose to substitute the word "and" for the word "or" in one portion of the clause, in order that it might read— And no such regulation or ordinance shall be made if, within two calendar months after receiving such notice, two-thirds of the said governing body, and (instead of or) the said Commissioners appointed under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, shall, by uniting under their hands and seals, declare their opinion that such regulation or ordinance would be prejudicial to such school or place of education. That would give the concurrence of the governing body and the Commissioners to prevent the making of such an ordinance, and would prevent evil arising from the act of any governing body who might be disposed to hold out too much for the rights of their school.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he entirely objected to this Amendment, and he hoped that those who constituted the majority on the last division would support him in doing so. The effect of the Amendment would be to accede to the principle that the presumption was in favour of the abolition of the right of preference. His view was that the presumption was against it. He thought that the governing body of a school would know much better than the Charity Commissioners what would and what would not be prejudicial to the interests of the school, and he should not consider that the opinion of those Commissioners in favour of a change was a sufficient reason for adopting it, if the local governors or trustees of a school thought that the change would be prejudicial to it.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WIGRAM

said, he wished to move to add at the end of the clause the words— Provided always that where the governing body aforesaid shall be a corporate body, the governing body of the corporation shall be the governing body of the school. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

The House resumed; Committee report progress.