OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

HC Deb 17 March 1854 vol 131 cc892-915

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Sir, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the good government and extension of the University of Oxford and of the colleges therein, I consider that I am about to bring under the consideration of the House a most grave and important subject, and I think under these circumstances that I have peculiar need of your indulgence. I have peculiar need of your indulgence, in the first place, because not having had the honour of studying there, I have not any personal acquaintance with the institutions of the University of Oxford, in regard to which I propose to bring in a Bill; and in the second place, because, labouring under the effects of bodily indisposition, I fear I shall not be able to convey amply and fully to the House the views which the Government entertain with regard to this very important question. On the other hand, Sir, I shall have had the advantage of having had under my consideration a very elaborate and copious Report from the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the state of the studies, discipline, and revenues of the University of Oxford. I have had the advantage likewise of the Report which has been submitted by a Committee to the heads of houses on the questions raised by the Report of the Commissioners, and the able evidence submitted to them upon the questions which have been raised. I have likewise had the very great advantage of the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for the University of Oxford, in the preparation of the Bill which I am about to ask the House to give me leave to introduce. I therefore, Sir, proceed at once to the question whether or not it is advisable to propose to Parliament great changes with respect to that University. I will not, at the present moment, enter into the objections which have been made against any interference by Parliament with the constitution of that University. But after having stated the views which we take, I will endeavour to meet those arguments which have been used in order to prevent the interference of Parliament. The Commissioners, Sir, have pointed out at great length the defects which they conceive to exist in the University of Oxford, and the remedies which they think are required. But it is not the Commissioners only who have stated that the University of Oxford does not at present fulfil all the purposes for which she is designed as a national institution. I find a statement to the same effect in that very able evidence which was laid before the heads of houses by Dr. Pusey. Dr. Pusey said:— There is much need of every exertion to extend the old Universities. They have means for sound education, and a traditional feeling which no new institution can possess; means (as our fellowships) which are now often comparatively wasted, because no adequate employment is found for them within the University. But now, instead of extending our influence, we have been gradually losing the preliminary education, not only in some degree of other learned professions (as the bar and the higher medical profession), but even of the very clergy. The population of England increases day and night; increase of clergy is not only needed, but demanded. There cannot be stronger testimony to the fact that some reforms are needed, when so able an opponent as Dr. Pusey says not only is the University of Oxford not adequate, in extent at least, for the education required for the bar and the medical profession, but even for the clergy, whose education, it is supposed, the University of Oxford is fully competent to impart. In considering this matter, I propose to take in their order the different subjects which I stated in a speech last year upon national education, and which subjects were again pointed out in a letter to the Chancellor of the University of Oxford from my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Borne Department. In the first place, I will consider the alterations to be made in the constitution with a view to the public welfare and to the extension of the useful influences of the Universities. The Commissioners have stated that they are general defects in the constitution of the governing body. They have stated that the heads of houses who now constitute it are generally elected for very different reasons; some, because they are supposed to be conciliatory in their manners, or that they will exercise a wise superintendence over the administration of the revenues of the college, or, lastly, from their connection with those who sympathise in the doctrinal or political opinions of the majority, but in no case because they show that they are peculiarly qualified to take the superintendence of the studies of the University. That this is the case I think has been admitted by several of those who have given their opinion to the Committee of heads of houses. Without now stating what it is proposed to do upon this subject, I proceed to the next question, upon which there is a great deal of evidence in the Report of the Commissioners—I mean the extension of the University. We are to consider that this is a national institution—that it is one which ought to supply education for as many as can be supposed to require at that place a large and liberal system of education. In looking at the history of the University, we find that in ancient times, the University, and not the colleges, was the principal ruling body—that the Congregation of the leading resident tutors, and professors, summoned by bell, formed the ruling body of that University—that at one time there were no less than 300 halls, to which scholars resorted to obtain the benefit of the education of the University. But in progress of time the whole of this system was subverted, and the Commissioners state that for 150 years—it appears, however, for a considerable longer period—the halls have entirely disappeared, and become altogether extinct, and no instruction has been given except under the modern system, through the medium of the tutors of the different colleges. I find that this is stated, not only by those who are in favour of the Report of the Commisioners, but by those who are against it. There is, then, quite a different system from that which was originally established; and the consequence of that different system is, that the education has become far more confined—that young men are obliged to enter themselves of a college, and that, belonging to that college, they are obliged to receive the education given in that college, and they look only to that education as the means of obtaining, whether degrees or honours, or whether fellowships and the more substantial rewards of the University.

Now, Sir, there is in the evidence of Dr. Posey, to which I have referred, a great deal of very acute discussion on the question which he puts as the alternative —education in colleges or education by professors? I own it appears to me, in the first place, that these are not antagonistic questions. It appears to me that nothing can be more wholesome, nothing more advantageous, than the existence of a college the head of which and the fellows of which exercise a certain amount of discipline on the young men, who are sent to that University, who afford them the benefit of their society, and both by their authority and their manners can put some check on those excesses into which youth is apt to fall, both in point of extravagance and in the indulgence of the passions. It is, I say, a very great advantage that this country should possess such colleges as these at Oxford, and that education should be going on within them. But, Sir, if education is entirely to be confined to those colleges, it is obvious that the tendency will be this—that the teachers and tutors of those colleges will confine themselves to certain branches of learning, and not only confine themselves to certain branches of learning, but in those branches of learning confine themselves to certain books, and a particular class of views on those subjects with which they will of course become thoroughly acquainted, and find, therefore, greater facility in teaching from them than upon a larger and more comprehensive system. On the other hand, the professorial system merely considered alone, as it is said by one whose authority is worthy of respect—"the professorial system taken alone has a tendency to afford a loose and somewhat superficial kind of education." The student, though he hears the lectures, has not the advantage of a vivâ voce examination by a tutor in whose room he is sitting, and from whom he is receiving immediate instruction, and therefore goes away with but scant information. But, Sir, on the other hand, it is not to be expected that the college tutor, with that tendency which I have said to confine himself to certain branches of studies—it is not to be expected that he should attain that large and comprehensive view of different sciences which would be obtained by any person who is in the situation of a professor, whose faculties, as is generally the case, have not been so much trammelled, and who has been devoted more minutely to a branch of study, and who is also able to point out all the various branches of learning which belong to that particular branch, Dr. Posey has drawn, in this comparison between the tutorial and professorial sys- tems, a picture of the German Universities, and he has said the choice lies between the tutorial system of Oxford and that system of German rationalism which is taught by the professors in the Universities of that country. But, Sir, logical truth is entirely wanting. The system of German rationalism does not belong to the professorial system; and if, instead of going to Germany, Dr. Pusey had gone to Scotland, he would have found professors of divinity, such as Dr. Chalmers, as far removed as possible in their views from the views of those German rationalists which it is the dread of Dr. Pusey lest they should be admitted into this country.

I own it appears to me, Sir, that we have an opportunity, and an opportunity which we ought not to lose, to combine the advantage of tutorial college tuition with that of professorial teaching. I should as little listen to a person who said, because the tutorial system is excellent, and our colleges are of the greatest value, we ought not likewise to have professors, as I should listen to a lesson on agriculture, in which the teacher said, "It is of the utmost importance to prepare the land, to break, to plough, and to harrow it; to enrich it with manure, and to make it ready for culture; but with respect to sowing seed, that is a matter of little consequence, to which we need pay little attention." That seems to me to be the argument employed by Dr. Pusey. The argument apparently is, that you ought to do all in your power to strengthen the mind, and only to convey bare information. If the young men of Oxford stayed there only until they were fifteen or sixteen years of age, I could well understand such an argument; but as they stay there until they are one or two and twenty, it is advisable that, besides this college tuition, they should have information with regard to those great branches of learning and science which of late years, and not of late years only, but during the last century, have formed the riches of modern times. The science of Newton, the literature of modern days, of England, Italy, and France, should be included in the scheme of a liberal education. It appears to me that there are two classes of persons for whom a University education is desirable. The one class are those who study for some profession, or at all events expect to derive great advantages from study in after life. I do not think you give those young men sufficient education, unless you point out to them the road by which such eminence may be obtained. I admit, Sir, that in the scheme of studies, proposed in 1850, a great advance was made in this respect; but I think that if the Statute of 1850 is examined, it will be found that even there there is not sufficient scope—not sufficient means—for a young man to obtain that knowledge of the science and learning of modern times which it is desirable he should have an opportunity of acquiring. Now, I find that at Cambridge every person who endeavours to obtain honours is obliged to have some acquaintance with the Principia of Newton; but I find no such obligation at Oxford; and yet it appears to me that, whether considered with a view to forming the mind—whether with a view to strengthening the intellect for other species of reasoning—whether with a view to watching the progress of discovery as continued in successive ages, by one eminent man after another, or whether as giving the most sublime views of Divine Providence and Divine Intelligence—from any of these points of view it appears to be that to follow out the geometrical propositions from the commencement of Euclid to the third book of the Principia would be as good and as useful a study as a young man could possibly pursue. But it would appear as if the modern date of Newton's discoveries was in some way an objection to the book being used in the University of Oxford. I observe that Dr. Pusey takes great credit for the instruction given in Butler's Analogy. I admit that Butler's Analogy is a book as fit to be put into the hands of men whose minds are to be exercised and taught the process of reasoning as any that can well be pointed out; but I find that it has only been within the last few years that that book has been used at the University.

I have here a statement of the number of pupils who have attended the lectures of the several University professors, and I will take the liberty of reading it to the House. Those numbers have varied, from time to time, during the last two years, having sometimes been, in the case of the Regius Professor of Divinity, 43, 3, 6, 26, 16, 14. The attendance at the lectures of the Regius Professor of Medicine was, in former times, rarely more than 10, and often not above 4 or 5. At the lectures of Savile's Professor of Geometry the average attendance was not above 3, the numbers having varied from 18 to none. The average number attending Savile's Professor of Astronomy was about 3; White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, between 40 and 50; and Camden's Professor of Ancient History, for the popular lectures, about 50, for the others, 10. The lectures of the Regius Professor of Modern History having been a great attraction on their establishment, the attendance for the first year was 160 on the average, and for the second year 57. The attendance at the lectures of the Earl of Lichfield's Clinical Professor was, on the average of the last three years, 5; and at those of the Lord Almoner's Reader in Arabic, 3, 4, or 1. The attendance at the lectures of Aldrich's Professor of Chemistry averaged, from the years 1822 to 1830, 31 per annum; from 1831 to 1838, 16 per annum; and from 1838 to the present time, 12 per annum. The average attendance upon Lee's Prælector of Anatomy varied from 12 to 20, upon the Reader in Experimental Philosophy it was 30, upon the Reader in Mineralogy and Geology it was 107 on the average for four years, and upon Boden's Professor of Sanskrit it was 10. Thus it will be perceived, in regard to all these professorships, that they do not form, in fact, a part of the education of the University; and, therefore, when it is stated, as it in some of the works that have been issued against the Report of the Commissioners, that there are at present professors, the obvious answer is, that no doubt there are at present professors, but that attendance on their lectures does not form any part of the road to honours or emoluments in the University, and that the consequence is, as might naturally be expected, that the studies of the colleges are preferred, and that the young man who has given an hour to a Greek play, an hour to Thucydides, and an hour to Aristotle's logic, is not much disposed to attend a lecture on chemistry, mineralogy, or modern history. It is clear, therefore, that the time has come when there ought to be a junction between the system of teaching in the colleges and the duties of the University professors.

Sir, I have stated these matters in order to show how completely the University has changed; and it is a fact of that change, that, instead of there being any of these halls of which, as I told you just now, as many as 300 existed at an earlier period of our history, the only means of obtaining education is by becoming an inmate of one of the colleges. The consequence, then, of the colleges having this monopoly, and of the restrictions established in consequence of the Laudian Statutes, has been that those cheaper modes of living which were in use at former times, and by which great numbers of persons, otherwise poor, could obtain entrance into the University, all those avenues are shut up, and the numbers at the University have been very much reduced. It was stated by the heads of houses, in the year 1846, that at that time the number of undergraduates was 1,450, and that the general number had been about 1,300. Now, when it is considered that there was at one time at Trinity College, Cambridge, alone, 1,300 inmates of the college, besides 700 who lived in lodgings, but were considered as belonging to it, we must think that 1,300 students for a great national institution, with a revenue of 150,000l. a year, is a very insufficient number. This, therefore, is one of the defects for which we wish to provide a remedy—that there is no means of obtaining education at Oxford except by belonging to one of the colleges. The next point to which I wish to refer, and which I mentioned last year, is the restrictions which are placed upon the various emoluments, which are the rewards of learning in the University. And here, again, I cannot help thinking that, although the ancient Statutes are referred to, these scholarships and fellowships are far more restricted than was ever intended by the original founders. As to the results, at all events there can be no doubt. With one witness after another saying that, in consequence of those restrictions, and especially of restrictions to the kindred of the founder and to particular localities, the ordinary man is very often preferred, while the man of singular talent and learning—the man who has distinguished himself in University studies—is rejected. Thereby, undoubtedly, the field of utility is narrowed, and the University does not produce all the advantages which it otherwise might, and which they certainly are capable of affording. It is part of the same subject that many of these fellowships are held by those who for many years have had no connection with Oxford, nor contributed in any way to the studies of the place, and thereby the means of this great University are restricted and frittered away by that waste to which Dr. Pusey has referred.

The next subject to which I have to allude touches a question with respect to which, undoubtedly, objections may be raised, but the object to be gained is one of so much importance that we could not omit it out of our scheme of necessary reform of the University. It appears to me that some part at least of the revenues of the richer colleges—that some parts of those revenues which are not now applied to the purposes of learning and the purposes of teaching in the Universities, ought to be so applied; and that we could not do better than lay down certain rules by which professors and lecturers, and others engaged in teaching in the University, might receive a sufficient income and be made available for the future purposes of University education. On this subject I will venture to quote what has been said by Burke upon another subject, and which, although I think he did not probably apply it well—speaking, as he then was, of the monasteries in France—yet, as a general rule, regarding great revenues which are not now applied to useful purposes, lays down maxims so admirable, that I think the House may well be guided by the wisdom which they display. He says:— A politician, to do great things, looks for a power, what our workmen call 'a purchase;' and if he finds that power, in politics as in mechanics, he cannot be at a loss to apply it. In the monastic institutions, in my opinion, was found a great power for the mechanism of politic benevolence. These institutions are the products of enthusiasm; they are the instruments of wisdom. Wisdom cannot create materials; they are the gifts of nature or of chance; her pride is in the use. The perennial existence of bodies corporate, and their fortunes, are things particularly suited to a man who has long views, who meditates designs that require time in fashioning, and which propose duration when they are accomplished. He is not deserving to rank high, or even to be mentioned in the order of great statesmen, who, having obtained the command and direction of such a power as existed in the wealth, the discipline, and the habits of such corporations as those which you have rashly destroyed, cannot find any way of converting it to the great and lasting benefit of his country. Now, Sir, there is no question in the present case of destroying any institutions, or of disposing by sale of their great resources; but there is a question of applying them to purposes for which it is evident they were originally intended, and of applying them in a way suited to the wants of our own times. I may be told—and that I shall now come to—I may be told that this is an unhallowed interference with the disposing of property by will—that it is breaking into foundations and endowments surely laid, and by antiquity. I find, indeed, that the Chancellor of the University of Oxford—blasting this measure in its very birth—says, that the whole effect and spirit of the Bill which I propose to introduce to-night is utterly subversive of all those privileges of the University which he is bound to maintain. To the same purport have been other communications received by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now no doubt it is a serious question, but it is a question with respect to which I should think it impossible for any man to deny—not only that we have the power, for I should think very lightly of that—but that we have the right and the duty to apply these great endowments to the purposes of education in the manner which the necessities of the times require. Let us look back, in the first place, to the origin of these foundations. Has everything been kept exactly and literally according to the Statutes of the founders? I need hardly refer—I do not know that it would be fair to refer—to such an event as the Reformation, but I may observe that, fourteen out of the nineteen colleges at Oxford having been founded before the Reformation, many of the injunctions of their founders were changed, at that event, by the Statutes of Parliament and by the orders of the Sovereign who reigned at the time. That was one great change; it was a great change for the national benefit, and it may be said that, as the whole nation had changed, it was necessary that these great institutions should be made conformable to the alteration which had taken place in the national belief and faith. But the change did not by any means stop here. Changes have been made affecting the very question itself of the kind of teaching that was to be adopted at the University. I believe I have stated—or if I have not, I must do it now—that in early times, in many of these colleges, there were certain sums of money set apart for lectures in divinity and in the canon law, and on moral and natural philosophy. What has become of these foundations? They were intended, evidently, for the benefit of the whole University. Have they been so applied? I will read you the account of a very venerable man—a man not only venerable from his age, but respected for the contributions he has made to the historical literature of the country—I mean Dr. Routh, the President of Magdalen College. Dr. Routh says, in reply to the questions:— I send, with my respectful compliments, for the information of the Committee of the Hebdomadal Board, 'on what are the particular circumstances respecting readerships or professorships in Magdalen College, for the service of the University,' a copy of the college Statute relative to our lectures in divinity and moral and natural philosophy. As to what is the actual state of such readership or professorship at the present time,' I answer that the usage has been, ever since and before I was a member of the college, for our lecturers to read, each of them, only one lecture at the end of every term, Now, Sir, Dr. Routh says, and very truly—confining himself to the fact—that this has been the usage since he was a member of the college, and previously to his time, and before. He does not say it was according to the Statute; indeed, it was quite clear that it was not. It is quite clear that these lectureships were intended for the benefit of the University, as means of advancing the study of divinity and moral and natural philosophy; and that the Statutes, in this respect, have been complied with by reading one lecture at the end of every term. Now this is an abuse which we propose to remedy. We propose to rectify abuses, and not to destroy institutions—to act, as we believe, in accordance with the spirit of the founders, and not contrary to their intentions. Dr. Routh, however, says further:— But it appears by Bishop Morley, our visitor's injunctions given in 1663, that the lectures were directed by him to be given once in every week, instead of the times mentioned in the founder's Statutes. This injunction he sends, they are his own words, 'pro ratione temporis,' referring, I apprehend, to the change which had taken place in education, conducted as it now is, principally by tutors, persons unknown to the Statutes of Magdalen College. So that, according to this statement of the President of Magdalen College, these changes were made by Bishop Morley, in the year 1663, pro ratione temporis. Well, then, let us also act pro ratione temporis. Why should we not have as good a right to consider the ratio temporis in the year 1854 as Bishop Morley had in the year 1663? Let us look at the intention of the benevolent founders of these institutions, and let us act, as far as we are able, in the spirit in which we believe they would have been disposed to act for the promotion of education and the encouragement of learning. Sir, there is a Statute of one of the most ancient of the founders of colleges at Oxford—Walter de Merton—whose regulations were, in many respects, copied by other colleges, not only at Oxford, but at Trinity and some other colleges at Cam- bridge, of which I will take the liberty of reading an extract to the House:— Cæterum quia casus omnes futuri ab initio certâ lege includi non poterant, seu statuto, ideo volumus," &c. He ordained, therefore, that the head of the college and eight or ten of the senior fellows should make Statutes from time to time, which should be obeyed by those who were subject to them—thus showing clearly that his view was that, according to the claims and circumstances of the times, innovations might be introduced in the regulations of the college. If we look also to the foundations of William of Wykeham, of William of Waynfiete, and of other founders of colleges at Oxford, we shall find in several of them that there was an intention to have lecturers and professors on these subjects of the learning of the times, and that they intended these lectures to be for the benefit of the whole University. They acted according to their knowledge at that particular time, and when the first of these colleges were founded, scholastic learning was held in great repute, for it was a time when Aristotle was held in such reverence that in many of the towns of Germany it was said that, instead of reading a chapter of the Bible, the clergy used to read a portion of Aristotle's Ethics. The colleges founded at that time bear mark of the founders' intention to promote that kind of study. After that came the revival of learning; the literature of Greece became an object of attraction at Oxford, as elsewhere; professorships of Greek were founded, and the new learning was adapted to the new times. Well, Sir, three centuries and a half have elapsed since that time; we have made great advances in many sciences, and those sciences have produced wonders of which it is desirable that every man should know something with respect to their discovery and of the laws which apply to them. And with regard to those who attend the University of Oxford, whether they intend to pursue some profession, or whether they are persons whose circumstances are affluent, and whose position does not oblige them to earn their bread professionally, still, I say, they ought to receive at a national University either such learning as may enable them to pursue such branches of study as they may wish particularly to follow, or such general information as that they may be able, on going out into the world, to meet on equal terms with those who are generally well informed on these subjects. Sir, I cannot think that, in proposing to make a change of this kind with respect to a part of the revenues of the University of Oxford, we shall be at all trenching in any way upon the will or the intention of the founders. On the contrary, I think we should be rather acting in the spirit of these founders; and if there is any question between antiquity and modern times, I say that antiquity is with us, and that it is only modern times that can be quoted in favour of an education exclusively in colleges.

I will now state the general nature of the Bill which I propose to introduce. I have pointed out the defects of the University at present, relying on the statements of the Commissioners, corroborated and brought home as they have been by the testimony given by various witnesses to the heads of houses. What we propose in the first place then is, that instead of the Hebdomadal Board, consisting of the vice chancellor, the proctors, and twenty-three heads of houses, there shall be a body composed of twenty-four or twenty-five members, to be called the Hebdomadal Council, and to be composed in the following manner. We propose that the vice chancellor and the two proctors shall always form part of this Council, and that when the vice chancellor for the preceding year shall not be an elected member, he also shall form part of the board. That will give three or four persons who will be members ex officio. With respect to the others, we begin by forming a body, to be called, according to the ancient name, a "Congregation," and which will, in fact, consist of all the resident teaching staff of the University. There will belong to that body called a Congregation all the heads of houses, the tutors of colleges, the professors, persons bearing certain offices in the University, and others who are resident, upon certain conditions, and fulfilling certain rules which will be laid down. This body will, therefore, be numerous, and we propose that of the remaining twenty-one members of the Hebdomadal Council seven shall be heads of houses, of whom six shall be chosen by the Congregation and one nominated by the Chancellor of the University. To these seven there will be added eight professors, of whom the Congregation will choose six, the Chancellor will nominate one, and the eighth will be one of the divinity professors of the University. There will then remain six, who will be chosen out of the resident members of Congregation by the Congregation. The greater part of the governing body will thus be elected by the Congregation, but under these restrictions and conditions; and it will consist of the vice chancellor, of the vice chancellor for the preceding year when not an elected member, of the two proctors, of one head of a house and one professor, nominated by the Chancellor, of six other heads of houses, seven other professors, and six resident members of Congregation. This we propose as the governing body of the University. We propose that a certain number of those first chosen shall go out at the expiration of three years, but that, after the first election, the period for which they shall be chosen shall be six years.

The next subject which we propose to insert in the Bill has reference to the oaths, and upon this subject it is very clear that we ought not any longer to permit any oath to be taken binding the party, either not to repeal any of the Statutes of the University, or to obstruct any change of the Statutes. Upon this subject, therefore, we propose to make the following provision:— Every oath, therefore, directly or indirectly binding the juror not to declare any matter or thing relating to his college under any inquiry appointed by law, to resist or not concur in any change in the Statutes of the University or college, or to do or forbear from doing anything the doing or the not doing of which would tend to any such concealment, resistance, or non-concurrence, shall be an illegal oath. The next subject is one of which I have already stated to you the effect—I mean the exclusive character of college education. I propose that there should be a power to open private halls, which may be opened by any master of arts obtaining a licence from the vice chancellor for that purpose. He will obtain that licence only under certain rules and regulations, made in a manner to be hereafter explained. Those Members of the House who have attended to the recommendations of the Oxford University Commissioners will recollect that they propose that undergraduates should be permitted to live in lodgings under certain restrictions; but, upon considering the matter, we think it a safer plan that those who are not in colleges shall be in private halls, where they will be subject to some discipline, but where at the same time they will have a more economical mode of living than is to be obtained at present. Of course this must be matter of experiment, and its success will very much depend upon the means which persons may find of making it more economical than it is now; but there is every prospect that such a measure will succeed. I will here say a few words—and only a few words—upon a subject which attracts a good deal of attention, and which has been very much alluded to by all who have written upon the subject—I mean the habits of expense and extravagance upon the part of the young men attending the University. I believe, Sir, that this is a very serious evil, but that it is not to be corrected by a law passed by Parliament, but rather, in the first place, by inducing better manners and better morals; and, in the second place, by rules and orders made by the members of the University themselves. I do not think that any law passed by Parliament would be likely to cure the evil, for I cannot but anticipate that means would be found to evade its strict letter. I cannot but think, also, that there is much in what is said, that when parents send their sons to Oxford with very considerable incomes—they having had, as is often stated, as much as 200l. or 300l. a year spent on their education at school—it is utterly out of the power of masters and professors, or of the ruling body of the University, if they keep such young men among them, to control their habits of expenditure. It would require a degree of inspection which would be foreign to English habits and to English feelings, and I think it right not to attempt so inquisitorial a system. But I think, however, that the ruling body should have a right to say to the parents of such young men, "Ours is a place for education; we want young men to come here that we may instruct them in learning, and at the same time teach them habits of virtue and religion. If you send your son here to indulge in habits of extravagant expenditure, and to set a bad example to the sons of parents who can probably but very ill afford such expenditure, you are not within the scope of the University; and for that reason alone, not on account of any vice or crime, or of any dishonourable conduct, but simply because of your son's extravagance, and of his setting a bad example to the University, we shall request you to withdraw him from our society, in which we cannot allow him to remain." I think that sort of check would have a very salutary effect, and that it ought to be exer- cised more frequently, and perhaps I may say more fearlessly, than it has been hitherto done. At the same time, of course, these halls will be under the conduct of men whose character is well known, and; who will keep a kindly and at the same time a useful discipline over those under their charge; and this will in itself be some security that no extravagant expenses should be incurred.

I come next to a question on which I do not propose to go into detail—first, because it would lead me too far; and next, because I think the House had better wait for the Bill before forming an opinion on the proposal of the Government. I come to the question, on which I have already touched, of preferences granted, owing to Statutes arising out of wills, to those who come under one of these different denominations—that they are related to the founder, that they come from a particular place or county, or, lastly, that they have belonged to a particular school. I think the first two of these restrictions stand upon a different footing from the last; for while the distinction in favour of the kindred of a founder must constantly lead to the emoluments of learning being taken by young men who are not entitled to receive them either by their industry, or application, or probably by their talent; and while the restriction to particular counties must often I lead, as Archbishop Whately says it does, to results at variance with the intention of the founder, and tend to lower the standard of education imparted at the University; upon the other hand, restrictions to particular schools, provided there is a fair competition at the schools, and that the authorities at the University have an opportunity of selecting the best men, may be, practically, very useful. Now we propose to do away with the restrictions with respect to founders kindred and to particular localities—except with respect to those which have been founded within 100 years, and with respect to the lineal descendants of the founder; and except also with respect to certain districts which are of considerable extent, and the circumstances of which are such as to justify, in our opinion, a departure from the general rule. With respect to schools, we only provide in the cases of their claims to fellowships that there must in every instance be at least two scholars from whom to choose. We go on to make a further provision with regard to fellowships. We propose that unless a person holding a fel- lowship is engaged in certain employments and occupations which I shall state, he shall not hold his fellowship more than one year. The occupations which we propose a fellow should hold are—that he should be habitually engaged in tuition, in the discipline of some college hall or private hall of the University, or that he should hold some one of the offices of the University which will be found named in the schedule. He may also retain his fellowship if he is either incumbent or licensed curate of a parish situate within three miles of Carfax, in Oxford; or should hold a certificate of study under this Act. This relates to resident fellows. With regard to non-resident fellows, we provide that he must be the resident incumbent or licensed curate of a parish within three miles of Carfax, in Oxford, or of a parish whereof at the time of the passing of this Act the college owned the great tithes, or wherein at the same period it owned property in land, such ownership then also continuing; or that he shall perform some duty requiring his absence from Oxford, the performance of which is now enjoined by Statute on the holder of such fellowship; or perform some duty, the performance of which may, by some future Statute to be made in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Act, be declared to confer on the holder of a fellowship at Oxford the privilege of non-residence. We likewise provide that after a person has held a fellowship for twenty years, and been engaged in the task of education at Oxford, or in the performance of any of the duties required, he shall then be free from these conditions and restrictions which I have I been enumerating. In certain cases also, and for the purposes either of study or of pursuing certain professions, there is in this measure a power conferred upon the colleges of giving a licence of non-residence for a period of five years.

I come now to state the powers which we propose to give of applying part of the revenues of the colleges for the purpose of increasing the funds for education in the University; and this, perhaps, will be a convenient time that I should state that as some of these last provisions and those which I am about to mention require a great deal of consideration in certain cases, and in order that each college may have time to consider its Statute very carefully, we propose that there should be for a certain limited time a Commission of five persons, who shall have the power I now pro- pose to state. In the first place, we propose that they should have the power of approving of Statutes in conformity with the proposals of this Bill—those Statutes to emanate from the University if they regard the University, and from the colleges if they regard the colleges. We propose that the power of this Commission to approve what the colleges and University propose shall last till Michaelmas Term, 1855, and that after Michaelmas Term, 1855, if the University and colleges are held not to have performed that which is expected of them—that which is within the compass, within the limits of this Bill—that then the Commissioners shall have power to enact by Statute rules in accordance with this Act, which rules, when they have been laid before the Privy Council, have been approved by Her Majesty, and have for a certain period been placed on the table of this House, shall have the force of law and be binding, as Statutes, on the University and the colleges. Such being the constitution of the Commission, it is proposed that each of the colleges shall have the power of contributing from its annual revenue any sum not exceeding one-fifth part towards the foundation or better endowment of professorships and lectureships for the instruction of the Members of the University at large; to regulate the tenure of such professorships or lectureships; to provide for the discharge of the duties thereof; to diminish the number of fellowships belonging to such college, or suspend payment of the emoluments of any of such fellowships, with a view to the foundation of such professorships or lectureships; or to the supply of pensions upon retirement there from of the professors or lecturers; or to the foundation of scholarships in the college; or to raising the income of the remaining fellowships to any sum not exceeding 250l. a year; or to the erection of new buildings for the purpose of accommodating an increased number of inmates; or to the establishment of halls, to be affiliated to such college, and the acquisition of grounds and buildings for the same. We propose, also, that they Shall have various powers, to which I have already referred, with respect to the grounds of preferences, and that they may appropriate any number, not exceeding one-fourth, of the fellowships belonging to any college to the encouragement of the special studies of the schools of mathematics, natural science, or modern history, or of any other studies recognised or to be recognised by the University. These are undoubtedly very large powers, but they are powers which it is proposed to give entirely for the benefit and improvement of the University.

The remaining parts of the Bill, I think, only refer to that which I have already mentioned—the Statutes to be made by the Commissioners, and some other provisions which it is not necessary to trouble the House with at this time. I have thus gone over the proposals I have thought fit to make to the House, for a change in the constitution of the governing body of the University. That change is proposed to be made with a view to the extension of the University by the erection and maintenance of private halls, the abrogation of those oaths which are contrary to public policy and public virtue, and the abrogation of those preferences which now exist by law, and which so much limit the advantages which are to be derived from the University. I have also stated the powers we propose to give for the endowment of new professorships and the increase of the salaries and endowments of existing ones, and I cannot but believe that if a measure of this kind could pass into law, the University of Oxford would gain great advantages—I cannot but believe that the nation at large would gain great advantages from a change which would tend to bring a far larger number of young men there to share in the studies of the University, and to reap the rewards of their assiduity and learning. It is obvious, at all events, that these fellowships and the other emoluments which were intended as a reward and encouragement to learning will thereby be given to men who have qualified themselves for them, and that they will not be disposed of by abuses which it needed some measure of this kind to cure. Sir, there remains one question on which there is no provision in the Bill, but on which I shall at any time be prepared to give my vote in conformity with the opinion I have always held. I cannot think the whole purposes of the University are fulfilled while there is a test at the entrance of the University which hinders so many persons from entering it at all. I never, Sir, would consent to any measure by which the discipline of the colleges—nay, more, the conduct of religious instruction in the colleges, and the attendance of Divine worship, was in any way interfered with. But I do expect certainly that by the addition of those new halls there will be facilities which may induce Parliament not much longer to interpose the obstructions which hitherto have been interposed to the enjoyment of the benefits of those great schools by a far larger portion of Her Majesty's subjects than at present enjoy them. But though this is my opinion, I do not think it would have been wise in Her Majesty's Government to have decided on placing any proposition of the kind in the present Bill. The subject is one which divides this House; it is one which divides the other House. It is a subject that I think should be reserved for a separate measure and for a separate consideration. I certainly shall always and at any time be prepared to give my vote as I gave it twenty years ago. Then I did so in company with the present Chancellor of the University of Oxford; I fear I shall no longer give it with the sanction and countenance of such authority now. But I shall, nevertheless, still give my vote for the admission of Dissenters; but, as I have already said, that is no part of the question now before us. This measure, I think nobody will deny, is a large and comprehensive measure of reform. No one will dispute that we have not undertaken this in a narrow spirit—no one will say that we have listened to objections that we thought founded in prejudice or error. Sir, it is with the view of making these great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge worthy of the nation that we are determined, at the same time that we preserve the spirit of their generous founders, to allow the people of this country as far as possible to have the benefit intended for theft, and to enjoy the advantages of a sound, religious, and liberal education.

MR. BLACKETT

said, he begged to tender his sincere thanks for the Bill generally. The noble Lord had evidently bestowed a great deal of care on his scheme for the reformation of the University of Oxford. He agreed most heartily with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord on one part of the subject, and he deeply regretted that the noble Lord had not taken the present opportunity of giving effect to those sentiments; he alluded to the observations which had been made by the noble Lord as to the admission of Dissenters to the Universities. He (Mr. Blackett) of course had no right to speak in behalf of the Dissenting body, whose claims would no doubt be urged by advocates more immediately interested and more able to do them justice; yet, as an Oxford man, he felt bound to declare his opinion that the removal of the prohibition against Dissenters would have a most beneficial effect upon the University itself. He believed that no one could have attentively considered the causes of those evils, which had afflicted and impaired the usefulness of the University of Oxford, without feeling convinced that they were mainly attributable to the narrow, sectarian, and clerical spirit which ruled the institutions of that University. He believed that one of the most effectual plans of reforming the University would be to introduce a clause into this Bill of the noble Lord's, declaring that that splendid institution was henceforth to be the inheritance of the whole nation, and not the monopoly of a sect. With regard to the general scope of the noble Lord's Bill, so far as he could catch its provisions, he was inclined to regret that the measure proposed would not reproduce that ancient University of Oxford to which the noble Lord said we ought to recur as a model The noble Lord's proposition to establish private halls would, of course, afford great opportunity for improvement and for cheapening the expense of education at Oxford; but he (Mr. Blackett) was convinced that those ends would never be attained unless they adopted the principle which was recommended by the Royal Commissioners, namely, that of giving permission to any person to go and reside at Oxford, and annex himself to the University, without entering into any smaller society. The only two other topics which he should touch upon were the constitution of the governing body of the University, and the provisions which the noble Lord had introduced with regard to fellowships. There could be no doubt that the alteration proposed by the noble Lord with regard to the governing body would be an immense improvement upon the close corporation which at present administers the affairs of the University; but he thought that the private tutors of Oxford, Who had more influence on the youthful mind than any other class of men connected with the University, ought to have a voice in the administration of its affairs. He confessed he did not understand the provisions proposed by the noble Lord for the regulation of fellowships. Unless he had strangely misconceived the noble Lord, the restriction with regard to fellowships would not work well.

MR. MIALL

said, he had no intention, when the noble Lord commenced his speech, to say one word to the House on this subject, but he confesssed that he had seldom passed an hour of deeper mortification, and had seldom felt more acutely a sense of humiliation, than he had felt during the speech of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had, no doubt, from its announcement, brought forward a wise Bill for the regulation of education in the great national institutions. According to the late census as to religious worship in England, it would appear that this country, religiously speaking, might be divided into three parts. There were above 5,000,000 absenters, about 5,000,000 dissenters, and above 5,000,000 members of the Establishment, three tolerably equal divisions. The national institutions of Oxford and Cambridge, he found, however, were to be improved and continued for the special and exclusive advantage of the one-third part of the people of these realms. He was not about to argue that point at the present moment, but he simply rose to enter his protest against this one-sided legislation. Whenever that House passed measures of taxation, he, as well as those 5,000,000 of people who were not connected with the Church of England, were considered as a part of the nation; but, when a measure for extending the advantages of education were discussed, he and those 5,000,000 with whom he was associated, were not considered as a part of the nation. They were not permitted to participate in those advantages. All the emoluments, honours, and benefits connected with the Universities were to be entirely kept from the 5,000,000 of Dissenters. The noble Lord had said, and, no doubt, with a sincerity of which he had given proof, that he would willingly vote for a Bill which would permit Dissenters to participate in the advantages of the Universities. Now he (Mr. Miall) conceived that no more proper time could be selected for conferring that privilege upon the Dissenting bodies than when we were passing a measure for the express purpose of improving and extending education. He hoped, however, that the Government would think better of the matter, and permit the insertion, in Committee, of a clause which would open the Universities to Dissenters. If such a clause should endanger the Bill in another place, let the responsibility of throwing out the Bill, in consequence of its containing such a clause, rest upon the Members of that other place. He did not think that such a responsibility ought to rest upon Her Majesty's Government, unless, indeed, they concurred in the exclusion of Dissenters from the national institutions of Oxford and Cambridge.

MR. WALPOLE

Sir, it is not my intention, on the present occasion, to express any positive opinions as to the provisions of the measure just introduced to our notice by the noble Lord the Member for London, except in so far as it appears to me that there are certain principles so important in themselves as well as in their consequences that they ought not to be altogether passed over in silence. The noble Lord said towards the conclusion of his speech that at any rate he had brought in a large and comprehensive measure of reform. Sir, large and comprehensive the measure undoubtedly is—large and comprehensive in the alterations which it introduces into the University and the colleges; but whether these alterations are of a reformatory character—whether these measures are to have an improving influence, remains as yet to be disclosed. Now I think, as far as I can follow the noble Lord, that there is a radical defect in the scheme of the Government with respect to their plan for the extension of education in the University of Oxford. It shows no confidence, but much distrust. I hope such a scheme will not be applied to the sister University, of which I have the honour to be a member. I conceive that, with reference to both Universities, the plan upon which the Government ought to have proceeded after receiving the Report of the Royal Commissioners would have been to have removed any inabilities existing in the Universities or in the colleges, whereby they were prevented from carrying into full execution and effect that system of education which was best for the whole country, rather than to act as they have done here by bringing to bear an external pressure and force, without consulting those who must necessarily, from their position, character, and occupations, be better acquainted than we can be with the immediate necessities and with the requisite reforms of the Universities themselves by which they may be improved. And I am all the more anxious to press this point upon the noble Lord, because the Commissioners for the University of Cambridge have, in a marked and pointed manner, drawn in their Report the attention of the Crown, and therefore of the Minister advising the Crown, to that particular subject. They say:— If Parliament should entertain the question of reforming the Universities and colleges, it seems to us it would be convenient to lay down in the Act of the Legislature the principle upon which such reforms shall be conducted, and to entrust the Board with temporary powers for carrying them into effect. By this means it would be possible to consider carefully the various individual and corporate interests affected, and to consult the feelings and wishes of those whose active and willing cooperation for the successful accomplishment of any such measure, however urgently demanded, were necessary to any well-matured scheme.