OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL. (Hansard, 19 June 1854)

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, that he had promised on a former occasion to state the names of the Commissioners, in addition to those included in the Bill, together with the names of the secretaries. The additional Commissioners were to be, the Earl of Harrowby and Mr. George Cornewall Lewis. The secretaries would be, the assistant secretary employed in the late Commission, Mr. Goldwin Smith, and the Rev. Mr. Wayte.
340 On the Motion of Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE, clause ordered to be inserted after Clause 30— And whereas the College of St. Mary of Winchester near Winchester shall for the purposes of this Act be subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to Colleges, and shall have the same or the like powers as are hereby given to the Colleges of the University, and he subject to the authorities hereby conferred on the Commissioners for the Alteration and Amendment of Statutes, in like manner as is hereby provided with respect to the Colleges of the University, but without prejudice to the powers and authorities, if any, of the Commissioners under 'The Charitable Trusts Act, 1853.'

§ MR. PHINN
moved the following clause— And whereas it is expedient to prevent credit being given to persons studying at the University of Oxford, who have not attained the age of twenty-one years, Be it Enacted, That, from and after the passing of this Act, no action or suit shall be commenced or maintained in any Court of Law or Equity for the recovery of any debt or demand contracted or incurred by any person under the age of twenty-one years, who at the time of the contracting or incurring such debt or demand shall be a student in the University, nor upon any deed, bond, or obligation given as a security for any such debt or demand so incurred by such pupil while under the age of twenty-one as afore-said. The hon. and learned Gentleman said his original intention had been to make the clause more extensive, and to apply to all Universities and schools; but on receiving an intimation from the Chairman, that that would be beyond the scope of the Bill, he had altered the clause so as to limit its operation to debts contracted within the University of Oxford. The subject of restraining the expenditure and extravagance of young men at Oxford had engaged the attention of all persons anxious for University reform; but he was convinced that the only mode of effectually doing it was by providing against any possibility of the law assisting those persons who gave credit to students recovering their claims. At present the plea of infancy was often set up to actions of this sort, and it might defeat all claims for articles which were not necessaries; but lately juries had ruled that masonic ornaments, gold-headed hunting-whips, and such things, were necessaries, and even that champagne and wild ducks for a supper were necessaries. If this clause should pass, if a tradesman allowed a young man to have goods, he would have to trust entirely to his honour for payment. It might be said that there ought not to be any specific legislation 341 with regard to Oxford, but unless that feeling should be very strong, he thought it would be desirable to apply the principle to Oxford in the first instance, and afterwards to introduce it into kindred institutions. He trusted that even if his clause were rejected the discussion would elicit such an expression of opinion as to induce the Government to frame a general measure for the purpose of protecting young gentlemen from the evils to which they were now subjected.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a Second Time."

§ MR. HENLEY
felt disposed to argue the question rather on general than on special grounds, seeing that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend his clause to be directed more against Oxford than any other place similarly circumstanced. It might be inconvenient and wrong for young people at the University to obtain goods from tradesmen; but the temptations held out to young men at Oxford were by no means of a special character, but applied equally to the young men in the Army and Navy, and all attempt to deal with the question would open a very wide field. It was a mistake to attempt to deal with the matter in this piecemeal sort of way. A greater curse could not be inflicted on either the young men or their parents, than by such an enactment as the one now under consideration. Parents, if they saw fit, could now refuse payment, and the law supported him unless tradesmen could prove that the goods supplied were necessary for the condition in life of the young man, and the matter was very properly left to the decision of a jury. Supposing the clause to pass, and the debt to be made a debt of honour, tradesmen would take care to put an enhanced value on every article supplied, as a kind of insurance, and that enhanced value would act as a kind of penalty on every person obtaining credit. He believed that such a provision would prove inoperative, and that the only security for tradesmen was in the good feelings of the young men, who would not contract debts without a prospect of paying them. He believed that a great deal that was said respecting the extravagance of the students at the University was wholly untrue and unwarranted, and he knew that a very large number of per- 342 sons passed through the University without any of the failings which had been referred to. He certainly should say "no" to the introduction of the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
thought it must be felt by all, that the question was one of very great difficulty. The temptations of the under-graduates were somewhat peculiar; but at the same time there was very great force in the objection which had been taken to exceptional legislation upon the subject. The principle of the present law, if he understood it rightly, was a sound principle—namely, that credit ought not to be given to persons under age, except for necessaries. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had so far proved his case, that it was a matter of notoriety that the working of that law with regard to the Universities had not been altogether satisfactory. Whether this was owing to the manner in which juries were composed, or to other circumstances, did not appear; but the construction given to the term "necessaries" was certainly such as to defeat, to a considerable degree, the intention, meaning, and spirit of the law. He confessed that he could not refuse to go so far as to admit that a serious evil existed; but when the matter came to be considered, the question arose whether they ought to attempt to remedy the evil in the University of Oxford alone; and, in the next place, whether a clause of the nature submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Bath would be an appropriate and adequate remedy. He did not think it would be safe for the Committee to adopt the clause before them; and, looking to the character of the clause itself, and the extremely invidious aspect which attached to all exceptional legislation, unless it were most carefully guarded, he could not recommend it for adoption. An examination of the clause would show at once that a great difficulty would be found in its operation in places out of Oxford. Owing to the facilities of communication between one town and another, matters stood in a very different state now to what they did twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. Before railway communication became established, it might be assumed that what articles an undergraduate purchased he procured in Oxford; but it would be most unsafe to assume that now. The taste for ornaments and 343 luxuries at Oxford was steadily diminishing; but even when they were obtained they might be purchased in London of a tradesman who, in the first place, might be reasonably supposed to be unaware that the purchaser was an undergraduate of Oxford, and who, even if he was cognisant of that fact, was not likely to know of the existence of an exceptional law of this nature. Although he was far from going the length of saying that Parliament ought not to attempt to apply any remedy to this peculiar evil, yet he thought it quite plain that they were not at present sufficiently ripe for the adoption of this remedy.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
suggested that it might he possible, in the case of a debt incurred by a student of Oxford or Cambridge, to give jurisdiction in the matter to the Vice Chancellor's Court of the particular University concerned. These Courts possessed extensive powers, and were presided over by lawyers of eminence, and would be far better able to judge of what were proper necessaries than a jury composed of tradesmen themselves.

§ MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE
supported the clause. He must condemn the temptations which were held out by tradesmen in Oxford and Cambridge to young men just entering the University. He also thought it improper that juries, generally composed of tradesmen, should be allowed to find that champagne and cigars were "necessaries of life" for young men of sixteen and seventeen.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that whatever I differences of opinion might exist upon this subject, the House seemed to be unanimous in a desire to throw obstacles in the way of extravagance on the part of young men, whether at the Universities or elsewhere, and in an opinion that this clause was not a proper one to be inserted in the Bill before the House. The truth was, that according to the law these matters were decided by a judge and jury, and it was not unfrequently objected that a jury did not afford equal protection to both sides. If that were so, the remedy ought to be sought in an improvement of the constitution of the tribunal before which such cases were to be tried. As things at present stood, a young man having no parents, and with limited resources, by husbanding his means and obtaining a little credit, was enabled to pass through the University honourably, and to obtain an education which might be the 344 means of procuring him a fortune in after life. If this clause were agreed to, such an individual would have the door of the University closed against him, inasmuch as he did not possess the means of obtaining an University education without the assistance of a small amount of credit.

COLONEL NORTH
objected to the clause, on the ground that it would be a step most fatal to the honour of the rising men of England, if they should be allowed to suppose for a moment, that because they were under age they might be dishonest.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
supported the clause, and hoped the hon. and learned Member for Bath would divide the House upon it. He believed the agitation for the reform of the Universities would never cease nor be put down until the difficulty of the extravagance of the students at college was met.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he thought the Committee would agree that some power was required to protect young men from running a career of extravagance and wanton profligacy when at the University. He was, therefore, fully sensible of the importance of the object which the hon. and learned Member for Bath had in view; but he thought that there were serious objections to the clause by which he sought to obtain it. He did not apprehend any injury to the morals of the young men themselves from the introduction of a clause to that effect, and he believed it would give very great protection to the parents and friends of the students. The student at college was, in reality, resident under the roof of a quasi guardian, and every encouragement was given by the colleges at Oxford to young men to deal only with such tradesmen as adopted the practice of giving no credit at all. The great obstacle to the effectual utility of the clause seemed to be, that, though it would prevent a resident student under twenty-one years of age obtaining credit in Oxford, he might obtain it in London or elsewhere from tradesmen who were ignorant of his position. A difficulty which had occurred to his mind was this—whether this clause could not be qualified by taking away from tradesmen the power of recovering after they had received notice that any young man dealing with them was a student of the University. He should recommend his hon. and learned Friend to postpone the clause, and to confer with the Attorney General and himself, so that they might see whether a 345 clause could not be framed which should meet the difficulty better than this one did.

§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
thought his hon. and learned Friend would be justified in withdrawing the clause after the suggestion just made by the Solicitor General. At the same time, so strongly did he feel on this subject, that if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Phinn) went to a division, he should vote for him.

§ MR. PHINN
said, that his purpose had been served by bringing this matter under the attention of the Government, and eliciting the opinion of the House upon it. He thought the Committee would agree with him that an Oxford University Bill which did not make some provision in regard to this matter would be an exceedingly defective one. His object was, not to relieve the parent of a student from any of his present liability, but to protect the young, man in order that he might not be tempted to conceal from his father the extent of his extravagance, and might not, at the end of his University career, find himself indebted to an amount which would embarrass him during Ids whole life. The father would still remain liable for the son's necessary debts, and if he did not supply him with money to meet ordinary expenses suited to his station in life, and if the son obtained clothes and books which he wore and used, a jury would enforce the claim against the father. He would, in consequence of what had passed, withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he was fully aware of the extent of the evil and the necessity of finding a remedy; he only protested against exceptional legislation on this subject; but if the hon. and learned Member for Bath, instead of carrying his object by a clause in a Bill, would bring in a general measure, he would co-operate with him in repressing extravagance.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
thought that the authorities of the Universities would be able to meet the evil complained of by making such regulations, with regard to the tradesmen who were under their control, as should discountenance the giving of credit to persons who were in statu pupillarum. At Cambridge he believed great encouragement was given to high charges and a system of long credit by the practice of sending in accounts to tutors. The result was, that the accounts which were longest unpaid, and on which, therefore, an addi- 346 tional charge was made by way of interest, were those which were sent in through the tutors.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, that at Oxford there was no such practice as for the tutors to interfere in the payment or regulation of tradesmen's accounts. He suggested that the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath would only be to transfer debts from the Oxford tradesmen to those in London. It was a fear of causing this which led to much of the tenderness exhibited by the University authorities to tradesmen.

§ MR. GOULBURN
said, that the statement of the hon. and learned Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Craufurd) would not apply to the University of Cambridge any more than to that of Oxford. At Cambridge the tradesmen were bound, at the end of each term, to send in to each tutor the accounts of the young men under his charge, to be by him examined; and to his (Mr. Goulburn's) knowledge the tutors frequently called the attention of the parents of a young man to anything which they thought to be extravagance on his part. These accounts were regularly paid by the tutors when they received the money from the parents of the students, and any delay which might occur in particular cases must arise from the neglect of the parents to remit the money to the tutor.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, that he had spoken of facts which had come within his own knowledge during a six years' residence at the University of Cambridge. A tutor of Trinity College, of which he was an undergraduate, left the college without paying any of the bills, for which he had received the money.

§ MR. GOULBURN
said, that the hon. and learned Member had founded a general statement upon an exceptional case. Many years ago a tutor of Trinity College did misapply the funds; but he defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to prove that at the present moment such a practice prevailed in regard to any tutor of any college.

§ MR. PHINN
said, that, acting on the understanding which had been come to, he would, with the permission of the House, postpone the consideration of this clause, and also of some subsequent ones providing for the regulation of the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor's Court by the rules of common law, until Thursday next. But so strongly did he feel the necessity of apply- 347 ing some remedy to this evil, that unless he had then come to some arrangement with the Solicitor General, he should be disposed to press this clause as it now stood.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
, in reference to the remarks of Mr. Goulburn, said, that he had not drawn his inference from one case, but from his knowledge of cases of the description to which he had referred having occurred, and from the fact that men of his own standing at college, who wished to obtain goods economically, never allowed the accounts to be sent to the tutor, by which course they got the goods five per cent cheaper than they would otherwise have done.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BLACKETT
moved the following clause— It shall henceforward be unlawful to administer any oath on admission to any office or emolument in the said University or the colleges thereof. The hon. Member said, that it had been suggested to him that he should make an exception in favour of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and while he thought such a course would be unnecessary, as he believed that these oaths were administered only on the taking of a degree, he should not object to make such an exception. He would not repeat the extracts which he read to the House on the previous evening, but would only remind it that the oaths to which he objected were such as referred either to matters of trifling importance and minute observance, such as that the heads of the fellows should be washed and shaved by the college porter, and others; and to such as referred to matters which were positively illegal, as the celebration of mass and the performance of the offices of the Church of Rome. There was another class of oaths of which he was not aware when he last brought this subject before the House. The professors swore that they would sing psalms in the High Street of Oxford, the words of the oath being "tu cantabis in publicis processionibus." The argument with which he was met by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he last brought this subject before the House, amounted to this, that it was a serious thing to declare that in future none of these oaths should be administered. In reply to this he would remind the right hen. Gentleman that this was a course which had been contemplated 348 and accepted by, he believed, every authority upon the subject. The Dean of Ely had given in his adhesion to it. Dr. Tyler had said that he was not aware of a single oath at Oxford which might not be advantageously abolished, and the Reports of the Commissions to inquire into the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin had all laid it down that it would be highly expedient, indeed that for purposes of efficiency it was absolutely imperative, to prohibit for the future the administration of any of these oaths. As fas as Cambridge was concerned, the Commission upon that University did in this only adopt the recommendation of the Syndicate of that University itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the reform of these oaths should be left to the authorities of the colleges. He (Mr. Blackett) had no doubt that he used that argument in perfect good faith, but he would remind him that the Oxford University Commission had declared in their Report that it would be nugatory to give to the authorities such a power of reform. On every ground expediency and academic discipline, therefore, he submitted that it would be well to make a clean sweep at once of these oaths, which they could do without travelling beyond the scope of the Bill, and in which they would only be following out the recommendations of the Oxford Commissioners. He should certainly take the sense of the house upon this point, and give those hon. Members who agreed with hint the opportunity of recording their votes in opposition to the continuance of what he considered idle, mischievous, and blasphemous profanity.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."

THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that this question divided itself into two parts, which ought to be kept more separate from each other than had been done by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman had quoted, with great truth and justice, and much force, various Statutes of the different colleges of the University of Oxford, amid said it was highly improper (he had even gone the length of saying it was very profane) to bind persons to obey Statutes which it was either impossible or irrational to observe, and which, in point of fact, were not ob- 349 served. So far as that part of the ease went, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) certainly entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman; but the hon Member would, at the same time, admit that almost all the cases he had quoted were the cases of Statutes that were in existence under cover of that extraordinary oath invented by William of Wykeham, and which bound those who took it not only to the observance of the Statutes, but also to the resistance of any change in them, and forbade them to obey any other Statutes which varied or departed from their tenor. Now, so far as that particular oath was concerned, it would be rendered entirely and absolutely illegal by the Bill now passing through the House; and it was not too much to assume that, by the act of the Commissioners who would be appointed to work this Bill, those Statutes and all such clauses in them as the hon. Gentleman had referred to, would very shortly cease to figure on the roll of the Statutes of these colleges. But then there Were other oaths which were administered in the University on the admission, particularly, to fellowships. Now these oaths, generally speaking, so far as they did not fall within the sweep of the prohibitory clause of this Bill, were oaths of a simple promissory character (omitting now all reference to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, which were not included in this Motion), and therefore he could not see that hon. Member's observation, or his censure of irreverence or profanity, was at all applicable to them. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) confessed that this was not a matter on which he had not very strong opinion; but this Bill had been framed, with regard to this particular subject, in the mode that was most conformable to its general principle. It was a Bill that trusted to the operation of enabling powers; and the Government had therefore endeavoured, by the measure as it now stood, to avoid the peremptory ruling and solving of any questions, excepting those which it was absolutely and imperatively necessary for Parliament itself to solve. They proceeded upon the principle that, within certain limits at any rate, confidence might be reposed in the authorities appointed to carry out this Bill, and also to a great extent that confidence might be likewise placed in the members of the colleges themselves; and he himself. had a strong conviction that that confidence would be found to have been fully 350 justified. With regard to the oaths now in question—the promissory oaths—there was some difference of opinion in the University. By many members of the University he believed it was thought that the entrance to a fellowship or a college living was an act of great significance and importance; that the relations which persons who so entered contracted with one another were very close and intimate; and that, therefore, these occasions were occasions which it was most fit and becoming to invest with solemnity by the administration of an oath. Other gentlemen at the University of Oxford took a different view, and were of opinion with time hon. Member that it would be better to withdraw the oath, and trust, first, to the principles and the good feeling of those who were elected, and, in the second place, to the efficiency of their laws. Now what was proposed by time Bill was, that they should leave this question to be decided in the University and by the Commissioners, and he confessed that he thought it would be much better so to leave it, than to attempt to do something which would no doubt be regarded by many as an act violating the freedom of the colleges in the conduct of their own concerns, and for which he thought they could not allege any ground of necessity. He fully granted that there was a ground of necessity for interposing with regard to the oath against any change; and the Government had recognised that necessity by a clause directed against that oath; but in cases where the members of the colleges were simply bound to the observance of Statutes of their college which might be enacted by the lawful authorities from time to time, he thought that nothing should be done to restrain or tie their hands, or to prevent their giving the freest and fairest attention to this question. He certainly hoped that it might be the view of the Committee that they should leave the colleges perfectly at liberty to deal with this matter, subject to the control of the Commissioners, as they had done on many other questions of immense importance, in which it would be impossible to demonstrate that changes ought not to be made; but they were proceeding on the principle that such matters could be dealt with by others much more satisfactorily and more effectually than by Parliament.

MR. GOULBOURN
concurred with the right hon. Gentleman, in thinking that a task of this nature would be better per- 351 formed by the Commissioners than by that House. In the University of Cambridge, where the power of dealing with this question was vested in the college authorities, alterations had been made in the Statutes, and now there were no oaths administered there that could give reasonable offence.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
supported the clause.

§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
would vote for the clause, believing that these oaths were unnecessary, and that every unnecessary oath was in itself an evil.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
confessed he thought it would be very desirable to leave this matter to the authorities to deal with, inasmuch as some persons unquestionably desired some kind of acknowledgment in the form of an oath on entrance, and the propriety of retaining the oaths would differ according to the circumstances of each college, who would carefully consider the form of every individual oath; he should, therefore, be prepared to support the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ MR. EWART
thought that this was a question of public morality, and that, as such, it should be dealt with by the House.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
advised the Committee to leave the matter to the discretion of the colleges and the Commissioners.

MR. BLACKETT
, in reply, said, he did not mean to charge any gentleman who had taken those oaths with profanity, but he thought, public attention having now been called to them, they would forfeit a great opportunity of abolishing a breach of morality and a great scandal if they did not do away with those oaths, which could confer no benefit either on the University or the country.
On Question, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time," the Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 109: Majority 38.

§ MR. G. PHILLIMORE
moved the following clause— That from and after the 1st day of December next ensuing, no person shall on account of his rank be permitted to pass his examination or to take a degree sooner than any other undergraduate. The reasons for moving this clause were so Yen" clear and simple, that he did not feel it necessary to enter into any detail or any statement whatever. His argument was this—if it was a good thing, everybody ought. to share in it; if it was a bad thing, nobody should be subject to it.
352 Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."

COLONEL NORTH
asked if the clause was intended to interfere with the present members of the University?

§ MR. PHILLIMORE
said it was not.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he should endeavour to imitate the brevity of the hon. Mover of this clause. The hon. Gentleman said the only question was whether the thing was a good thing or a bad thing; but he would tell the hon. Gentleman that there was another question, namely, whether it was a right thing for the Committee to do. He thought this matter also was a matter of detail which ought to be left to the University.

§ MR. EWART
should support the clause, wishing to see absurd and obsolete distinctions abolished.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
thought it desirable that the residence required from ordinary graduates at the University should be shortened, and he wished to see commoners allowed to take their degrees with as little delay as degrees could be taken by noblemen. He could not concur in the suggestion that the University should be left to deal with this subject, for he feared the University might entertain so much reverence for rank that no alteration would be made in the existing regulations. He would, therefore, feel it his duty to vote for the clause.

§ MR. PHILLIMORE
said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not told them whether he was in favour of the propositions or not. Here was a prominent evil affecting the civil rights of English subjects, and he now sought to remedy it.
On Question, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time," the Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 67: Majority 1.

§ MR. BOWYER
moved the following clause— And whereas it is desirable to restore the study of the Civil Law and Jurisprudence in the University of Oxford, Be it Enacted, That no degree of B.C.L. shall be granted or conferred by the University of Oxford, unless the candidate for such degree shall have been duly examined for the same in the elements of Jurisprudence and Justinian's Institutes of Civil Law; and no degree of D.C.L. shall be granted or conferred by the University (except honorary degrees), unless the candidate for such degree shall have been duly examined for the same in International or Public Law, and the Pandects or Digest of Roman Civil Law; and it shall be lawful for the Heb- 353 domadal Council of the University to make from time to time such regulations for and regarding such examinations as they may think fit. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, the object of this clause was to restore to the University of Oxford the faculty of law, which he conceived was one of the most important faculties necessary to constitute a University. At present the degrees in civil law were acquired by a mere form. The degree of D.C.L. was granted after what was called a "wall lecture." The candidate for the degree was shut up with nothing but a wall to look at, and it was supposed that he was ready to dispute with any person who came to him. Nobody, however, did come; but, if anybody did present himself with the view of disputation, he (Mr. Bowyer) believed that in most cases the learned doctor would be very much puzzled as to the manner in which he should deal with his opponent. In many cases the candidate had not gone through any book on civil law, or learnt anything of the science in which he was allowed by the University to take the highest degree. He considered that Parliament should lay down some rules to prevent one of the most important faculties of the University from falling into decay and desuetude. He found a very strong recommendation for the revival of the study of the law in the University of Oxford in page 71 of the Report of the Commissioners. At page 72 the Commissioners stated that the study of the civil law ought not to be allowed to fall into complete desuetude, and the evidence given before the Commissioners fully justified the opinion they had given. The Commissioners had also recommended the institution of the study of international lacy; and he need scarcely remind his learned Friends around him that it was absolutely impossible for any one to obtain a competent knowledge of international law, unless he had made himself to some extent perfectly master of the civil law. They knew how important it was to have persons adequately trained for the office of Queen's Advocate, whose duty it was to advise the Crown on matters regarding the relations of the country with other nations. There were now measures before Parliament haying for their object the reform of the Courts of Doctors' Commons, and one of the effects of those measures, whatever might be their merits or demerits, would be to cause the extinction of a body of persons conversant with a 354 science which was of great importance to the public service, and though he was not then going to enter into that matter, he referred to it as an additional reason why they should take measures to revive the academic study of that science. All persons engaged in the diplomatic service should be acquainted with international law, but many of them had never had an opportunity of learning even the rudiments of it. Therefore they were unable, when they came to argue questions with the Ministers of foreign States, to meet them in argument, or to understand the full force or bearing of the State papers, or of the authorities cited in those State papers. That was another reason why they should not neglect the academic study of this science, which was so necessary for the public service. He thought the University of Oxford would be rendered nil engine of very great advantage to the country compared with what it had been, if, in addition to the study belonging to scholarship and belonging to antiquity, they added also other studies, such as that of the law, which would be practically useful to persons when they came into that or the other House, or were employed in the public service. If the revival of the faculty of law in the University actually took place it would be found valuable and important for practicable purposes, and Dot only would those who were intended for the legal profession go through that course of study which the University would lay down, but a certain amount of study in the civil law would be made a portion of the regular curriculum, of University education. The hon. and learned Member quoted Archbishop Chicheley and Lynwode in support of his view as to the great expediency of these studies at the University, and contended that, in effect, the granting degrees in civil law, as practised at the University now, was in fraud of the intentions of the founders, who had left directions that those degrees should be made conditions on their benefactions; for it was manifest that these founders contemplated that the degrees should be bon° fide degrees and real tests of proficiency.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he appreciated fully all that had been said by the hon. and learned 355 Gentleman as to the importance of the study of the civil law, and the great benefit to be derived from it, but at the same time he must say that the clause which he had proposed was out of place on the present occasion, because it presumed altogether a different idea of the functions of the House, and of the task then before it, from the true one, and seemed to rest upon the suggestion that they were engaged in constructing a system of study for the University of Oxford. The main objection he bad to the adoption of the clause was, that it would be entirely inconsistent with the general framework of the Bill, which was to put the University of Oxford into a position to do its own business for itself, but not to undertake to do its business in its stead; and until they should see how they acted, Parliament would not be in a position to judge how far it was necessary to interfere by a positive provision of this kind. The same argument as that which had been used by the hon. and learned Gentleman would apply to the study of theology and of other faculties, and they would be involved in the performance of a labour for which they were entirely unfit, but for the performance of which the University of Oxford was not unfit. He should be sorry, at the same time, to see a clause of this kind negatived, because it contained important matter, and an adverse vote, would do injustice to the clause; but he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not prematurely press upon them a proposition of this kind. He would suggest to him to withdraw the clause, and begged he would accept his thanks for the able and friendly interest, the highly intelligent interest, he had displayed in the University by the speech he had made.

§ MR. HENLEY
also trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the clause as having nothing to do with the purpose of the Bill.

§ MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE
agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, that any attempt to teach international jurisprudence without laying down as the basis for it an acquaintance with the civil law, would result in knowledge of the most inadequate description; but lately at Oxford, those who took degrees in civil law had been subjected to real or bonâ fide examination in some of the authors to whom the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman had reference. He thought it would be very unwise on the part of the hon. and learned 356 Gentleman to press this question to a division; but he very much rejoiced the discussion had taken place, because it was important that the University of Oxford should be impressed with the notion that Parliament was not indifferent to the study, and did not wish that the sums of money left for the purpose should be diverted from that object.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
was quite sure the Committee would concur with him in high appreciation of the hon. and learned Gentleman's motives for bringing forward a subject upon which he was so distinguished an authority. The proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made, could not but have its full weight with those who would have the further development of the resources of the University in their hands; and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would, therefore, not feel it necessary to press his clause upon the Committee. The general principles involved in the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman were already embodied in the Bill, but had reference not to the subject of law only, but to all the subjects contained in the University examination. It was unnecessary, therefore, to lay down these principles with regard to the faculty of law, unless they went on to repeat them with regard to divinity, medicine, and any other branch of instruction which either was or might be hereafter included in the curriculum of University education. He thought his hon. and learned Friend might very safely leave it to the superintending authorities in the University under this Bill so to perfect the course of studies there as to give the students that full, that comprehensive education which would enable them, with credit to themselves, and benefit to the community, to fulfil their moral and social duties and perform their political obligations. He would call to his hon. and learned Friend's recollection, that there was a subject now engaging the attention of the Law Commission that would have an important bearing on the subject in which he was so interested—the question, namely, of effecting, on the part of the Inns of Court, the complete fulfilment of the great and important mission with which they had been originally charged—to provide effectually for the legal education of the country. The course recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman might, possibly, be most in; convenient with reference to that question, and, if embodied in an Act of Parliament, 357 it could not hereafter be modified. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion upon the House.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
said, he did not see the advantage of reviving the ancient system of the study of civil law in the Universities, as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. The system was dying away, and he saw no sufficient reason why they should endeavour to revive it to any great extent. It ought, at any rate, to be put on quite a different footing. He was aware that, on the Continent, the study of the civil law was regarded as an excellent mode of improving and strengthening the intellect; but he thought there were many modern works, the study of which was likely to be as helpful to the intellect as the Pandects of Justinian.

§ MR. EWART
said, the Statutes of 1830 had in fact revived the study of the civil law at Oxford. He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised the question of diplomacy, even in passing, in relation to this subject. He did not see where diplomatists could receive a preliminary education so well as in the Universities, and he hoped, therefore, that the attention of those learned bodies, which were the natural feeders of the diplomatic profession, would turn their attention to the study of the civil law, and especially of international law.

§ MR. NAPIER
said, the great excellence of this Bill was, that it untied the hands of the University, that it was simply an enabling measure, and that it left free action to the heads of the University in the regulation of the curriculum of studies. That principle would be invaded if the House agreed to the present clause, and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member would withdraw it. In saying this, he did not at all undervalue the importance of the study of the civil law, which he believed to he indispensable to a thorough knowledge of law. At the same time, he thought the province of the University was rather to promote the general education of the students than to impart instruction in particular studies, with the exception, indeed, of theology—a knowledge of which should, he thought, be acquired there.

§ MR. BOWYER
, said, that, after what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General, he would not hesitate for a moment to withdraw his Motion; but he thanked the right hon. 358 Gentleman and the other Members who had taken part in the conversation for the favourable manner in which they bad received his proposal, and he hoped that what had passed would have the effect of directing the attention of the University authorities to the subject.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
said, that he had given notice of a clause which he feared would be liable to the same objections which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made to the clause of the hon. and learned Member. Its object was to provide that, during the last year of the academical course, all students shall be left free to devote themselves to some special branch or branches of study, and to select their own tutor or professor. He should not, however, press the clause, but should assent to its being negatived.
Clause (During the last year of the academical course, all students shall be left free to devote themselves to some special branch or branches of study, and to select their own tutor or professor), brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be new read a second time," put, and negatived.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
then proposed clauses, enacting that the Commissioners shall, within one year from the passing of this Act, prepare balance-sheets of the present state of the revenues of the University, and of all the colleges and halls of Oxford, and shall forward the same to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, with a view to their being presented to Her Majesty and to both Houses of Parliament; that the Commissioners shall be authorised to examine the unpublished copies of Royal Commissions and of academical Statutes belonging to the University and colleges of Oxford, and to suggest alterations in the college Statutes, more especially tending to an improvement in the system of succession to college endowments; and that the Commissioners shall revise the table of fees exacted by the University, so as to equalise all fees demanded for the same purpose, and to abolish all those which are exacted for no service, or which are unnecessary, due regard being paid to vested interests. He thought these clauses were rendered necessary by what took place when the late Commission issued. That body, one of the objects of which was to examine into the revenues of the 359 University, having required accounts of their receipts from all the colleges, some of them, amongst which he might mention Brasenose, refused to give any information with respect to money matters; although he believed they had in reality no reason to shun inquiry. Others, however, had brought forward their balance-sheets in a plain, straightforward manner. He thought it was of importance that this Motion should be agreed to, as it would be a recognition of these colleges being public institutions. On public principle he thought they ought to ask that a copy of the accounts of all the colleges should be laid before Parliament. This would be a proof that they recognised them as public institutions, and it was on that ground that he asked the House to assent to the Motion.
Clause (The Commissioners shall, within one year from the passing of this Act, prepare balance sheets of the present state of the revenues of the University, and of all the Colleges and Halls of Oxford, and shall forward the same to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, with a view to their being presented to Her Majesty and to both Houses of Parliament,) brought up, and read the first time.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that after the admirable example which the hon. Member had set with respect to the first clause, he felt the less hesitation in advising him also to withdraw those then under the consideration of the House. There was not, perhaps, one word in the clauses of which the hon. Gentleman had given notice, to which he could object on the merits. He was sure, however, that clauses of this kind would be likely to create dislike and alarm at the University, although, perhaps, these feelings might not be perfectly justified. At the same time, he would not have urged this alone as a reason for the withdrawal of these clauses. The first, however, was entirely unnecessary, as the 4th clause of the Bill gave the Commissioners who were to be appointed under it power to call upon the University and the colleges for the production of documents and accounts, and it would no doubt be their duty to exercise that power. The accounts so obtained would in due course be transmitted to the Crown, and would then, according to the usual practice, be presented to Parliament. lie must observe that what had taken place under the former Commission was no guide as to what was likely to occur under the new one. The first being merely 360 issued under the authority of the Crown, many fellows and heads of houses thought themselves precluded by their oaths from divulging any information which might result in prejudice to their colleges; their only duty, however, would clearly be to obey a Commission appointed under the authority of Parliament. The next clause was perfect surplusage, inasmuch as it only set forth in detail part of what was fully contained in the 4th clause. No doubt, the Commissioners would, quite independently of anything contained in this Bill, make suggestions to the University authorities; but to empower thorn to make suggestions conferred upon them no real authority, and he could not help thinking that it was not compatible with the dignity of Parliament to give the Commissioners power to make recommendations if they did not also give them power to carry those recommendations into effect. He thought also that it would be unwise to insert a table of fees in this, which was simply an enabling measure; for it was clear that, if the University was not competent to revise its own table of fees, it was riot competent to deal with the much more important matters committed to its discretion. He thought it was not desirable at present to interfere in detail with the regulations of the University, but to allow a reasonable time to elapse during which it might be seen what was the working of the constitution that had been given to that body.

§ MR. HEYWOOD
thought there were several matters on which the Commissioners might make excellent suggestions. The rules with reference to compulsory celibacy and compulsory ordination were, for example, very bad rules, and to these the attention of the Commissioners might well be directed. He thought, also, that Parliament should know what the suggestions of the Commissioners were. After what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not wish to press these clauses to a division.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put. and negatived.
On the preamble being put,

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
proposed to omit the following words— And for ensuring. the enjoyment of fellowships and other collegiate endowments according to personal merit, and for promoting the main designs of the founders both as respects the appointment to the said endowments and the continued tenure thereof; and for charging portions of the 361 endowments or income of colleges in certain eases with duties to be performed for the benefit of members of the University at large. It was not proposed to part with any portion of the substance of the preamble, but the fact was, that when the latter portion of the Bill was rendered merely enabling, it had been thought better that this passage, relating to the college endowments, should be prefixed to such merely enabling portion of the Bill, and it had accordingly been inserted in the 31st clause.
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday.