OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

HC Deb 01 May 1854 vol 132 cc1105-67

Order for Committee read; House in Committee, Mr. Bouverie in the chair.

Clause 1 (Appointment of Commissioners).

MR. HORSMAN

said, he hoped the Government would agree to the suggestion he was about to make, and postpone for the present the appointment of the Commissioners. It was obvious that the duties that were to be imposed by the Bill upon the Commissioners were very arduous, and they were also giving to them very large powers. He had no objection to give such powers to a Commission in which he had perfect confidence, not only as to their capacity for the duties they had undertaken, but also as to their having time to discharge them. If any person looked to the end of the Bill he would see the duties the Commissioners had to discharge. These Commissioners had to examine into the wills of founders and the Statutes of all the colleges. They had to go into a history of all those colleges, and to go into and examine their actual state at this moment, and their present and prospective revenues. They had to look through the new Statutes that were proposed by the colleges themselves in connection with all those circumstances that were presumed to refer to the intentions of the founders, and were to look into the schemes for the new professorships. Those were things that required a great deal of time and attendance, and not a little personal residence at Oxford; and the question the House had to consider was this, whether they did not feel that they should have an active practical working Commission, composed of men who were not only capable of undertaking those duties, but who, having once undertaken them, would be able to give all the time and attention necessary for their due discharge? It was proposed to place upon the Commission the names of persons of high character and standing, both in the law and in the Church; but their experience, unfortunately, of late years of such Commissions had been this, that when they appointed a Commission containing principally the names of high dignitaries in Church and State, the result invariably was, that they could not or did not attend to the business of the Commission, and it fell into the hands of the secretary. Three of the Commissioners formed a Board; all the Commissioners were never there together; the secretary was always there, and thus he practically became a Commissioner. While he was prepared to give the powers that were given by the Bill, large and extensive as they were, to a Commission, he was not prepared to place those powers in the hands of any secretary. A great deal of the business must consist of negotiations between different colleges, the appointment of new professors, the diverting of the college funds from one college to another; and if those things were left to a secretary only they would create a great deal of irritation and bad blood. The Commission should be composed of men who were really able to devote their time and attention to the business, and not leave it to the secretary. The first name on the Commission was that of the Earl of Ellesmere, whose character and attainments, as well as the interest taken by him in the University, everybody knew, and if the Government had a promise that he would be a working member, no person was more capable of adorning that Commission than Lord Ellesmere. But the question was, whether he could practically become a working man on what was likely to be a laborious Commis- sion? The second name was also one of high rank, that of one of the highest dignitaries of the Church, the Bishop of Ripon; and he asked, what was the object of employing that right rev. Prelate in the secular labours of this Commission, which should be to a great extent performed at Oxford, and of taking him away from his duties as a bishop of the Established Church? Had he not sufficiently onerous and responsible duties in his own diocese? The proper sphere of a bishop was to be engaged in the good government of his own diocese, and he (Mr. Horsman) did not see what he had to do in altering or modifying the Statutes of the University of Oxford. It appeared from a charge of the Bishop of Ripon that when he had been ten years bishop of that diocese, 25,000l. had been subscribed for churches alone, independent of schools. What a history that was of active and useful exertion on his part! Why remove him from that sphere of usefulness, and take him away from his clergy and spiritual duties? In the first place, it was quite evident that if they made a bishop of the Church, who had laborious and multifarious duties to perform, a Commissioner, and took him away to Oxford to perform duties of another character, he must neglect one set of duties or the other. He (Mr. Horsman) would say what he had before asserted in that House, that it ought to be their duty to separate the Bishops as much as possible from secular duties, and raise their character by confining them as much as possible to their spiritual duties. He could hardly, without incurring an imputation of exaggeration, state the number of letters he had received from poor clergymen, stating the disadvantages they laboured under from not having present their bishops in their dioceses. There was not a diocese in England from which the absence of the bishop was not a matter of constant disadvantage and frequent complaint. Would they cause it to be supposed that bishops were not sufficiently taken up with their own spiritual duties, and that they must place upon them those secular duties? The third name on the proposed Commission was the name of a high dignitary in the law, Mr. Justice Coleridge, and he would ask, were not his duties as a Judge sufficiently responsible and onerous to take up his time and attention? They were generally thought sufficient for the strength of a young man, and they had been always thought quite enough to take up the time of one so venerable as the individual now proposed as a Commissioner. If it were necessary to have a man conversant with the law on the Commission, were there not able lawyers perfectly eligible who would be able to give up their whole time to the duties of the Commission? There was another Commissioner against whom an objection was to be urged of a different character. He had not the advantage of the acquaintance of Sir John Awdry, though he knew that he was spoken of highly; but he, unfortunately, had strong opinions, and of a nature which disqualified him, in his opinion, for being a Commissioner. One of the provisions of the Bill was to found new professorships by diverting a certain portion of the college funds for University purposes, and what was the opinion expressed by Sir John Awdry on that subject? He said, in a pamphlet he had published, that he would be distinctly opposed to any large increase of patronage to the Crown, and that to take college funds in order to endow professorships in the gift of the Crown was sheer robbery and confiscation. Those were very intelligible opinions, which he entertained very conscientiously, and set forth most ably; but was he to be called upon to carry into effect the provisions of a Bill which he said beforehand would effect sheer robbery and confiscation? The Government had a large class of men to select from, and he thought the choice of Sir John Awdry was not a wise nor judicious one. He did not wish to do anything so ungracious as to propose the substitution of any other names for those inserted in the Bill. What he proposed was, that the consideration of the names should be postponed until the Committee had gone through the other clauses of the Bill; Government would thus have time to consider whether they could not appoint other gentlemen whose nomination would be equally agreeable to them, and would be more generally acceptable to the public at large.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'the Right honourable Francis Earl of Ellesmere, the Right Reverend Father in God Charles Thomas Lord Bishop of Ripon, the Honourable Sir John Taylor Coleridge, one of the Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Very Reverend the Dean of Wells, and Sir John Wither Awdry, late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Bombay.'

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that it appeared to the Government that the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud was one which it would be very inexpedient to follow. This was a Bill which gave large powers, the exercise of which was in many cases discretionary with the Commissioners. Powers, for example, were given to the Commissioners to vary to a certain extent the execution of the wills of the founders of colleges, and of the trusts attached thereto; and he did not think that the House would like to give these extensive powers to any Commission unless they had first made up their minds as to the members of whom it should be composed, and to whom such powers should be entrusted. He believed that although the hon. Member (Mr. Horsman) had fair ground for saying that it would not be wise to appoint men whose time was fully occupied, yet that, on the other hand, if the Government had proposed to appoint persons whose lives had not been before the public, of whose reputation and character the House had little knowledge—although the Government might have full confidence in them—objections would have been fairly raised, and it would have been said that these were appointments to be made not by the Crown, but by Parliament, and that, therefore, it was necessary to name persons in whom Parliament had full confidence. Now, he believed that the persons whom it was proposed to place on the Commission were such that the University of Oxford and the public generally could safely confide in their duly executing the large powers entrusted to them. The hon. Gentleman, however, had said that the time of most of these persons was fully occupied. But if that were so, still, although they might leave to secretaries and others the preparation of materials connected with the ordinary business of the Commission, he was sure that when there was any question of principle, or that was of great interest to the University, before them, every one of the Commissioners would find time to attend to it, and would feel bound in conscience to look into it, and decide it according to the best of his judgment. He did not believe that the time either of a bishop of the Church of England or of a Judge was so fully occupied that he could give no consideration to a measure of this kind. He believed that the Bishop of Norwich had competently discharged his duty as one of the members of the late Commission of Inquiry into the University of Oxford, which had a task at least as difficult as that which would be committed to the body whom they were about to nominate. He (Lord John Russell) was, at all events, sure that that right rev. Prelate had given a great deal of time to the labours of the Commission, and had been present at nearly every one of its meetings. Nor did he believe that it was impossible for him to do this without, at the same time, neglecting his diocese. With regard to the Earl of Ellesmere, he was a person whose acquaintance with literature and whose general cultivation of mind were such, that he thought they might fairly place confidence in his capability of discharging the duties of a Commissioner. Although the noble Earl's health was not what could be wished, yet he believed that he would be able to fulfil his duties; and he was sure that, unless his Lordship felt that he could do so, he would not have accepted the office of Commissioner. With regard, again, to Mr. Justice Coleridge, he did not believe that his duties as a Judge would be incompatible with his duties as a Commissioner. The hon. Gentleman stated an objection which might be worth a good deal with respect to Sir John Awdry; but then he omitted to notice the answer which the other names on the Committee furnished to his argument. Although Sir John Awdry might in his pamphlet have stated opinions adverse to one of the purposes for which the Commission was appointed, still there were other parts of his pamphlet which might not be considered unfavourable to the general objects of the Bill. And even if he were, it must be recollected, on the other hand, that the Dean of Wells was a member of a Commission which had proposed much more extensive measures of change than were embraced in this Bill, and that if the opinions that a person held on this subject were to incapacitate him from being a member of the Commission, this very reverend dignitary would be liable to objection as well as Sir John Awdry. It was desirable to appoint persons in whom the public at large would feel confidence, and whose names would, on the other hand, give to the University of Oxford some security that those institutions which its members regarded as so hallowed and so venerable should not be recklessly or precipitately interfered with. He believed that there were many persons who thought that Parliament should not interfere at all with the University, but who had been reconciled to the present Bill by the names of the Commissioners, being satisfied that from them none but temperate and well-considered reforms might be expected. He hoped, therefore, that the House would at once proceed to the appointment of the Commissioners, and that they would agree to the names of the eminent persons mentioned in the clause.

MR. HORSMAN

said, he must remind the noble Lord that, with respect to the two names of Sir John Awdry and the Dean of Wells, there was a great deal of difference between appointing a person to carry out the provisions of a Bill of which he approved, although he might think it did not go so far as he wished, and appointing a person who was wholly adverse to the measure. If it was true, as stated by the noble Lord, that the Bishop of Norwich had attended almost every sitting of the Commissioners for inquiry into the University of Oxford, he thought it was most discreditable to him, because he must in that case have very much neglected the duties which he owed to his diocese. He thought, therefore, that this was a very bad precedent to place before the Bishop of Ripon. He believed that the secular duties which this Bill would impose upon him were quite incompatible with the spiritual duties of a bishop. And unless that House wished to declare that the Episcopate was a form, that they attached no importance to its spiritual duties, and that they did not object to our prelates leaving their dioceses and travelling 200 miles to discharge duties which had no connection with them, they were committing a great mistake in giving, by this Bill, a handle to those who said that the Church was a more form, and that its members attached no importance to the functions of those who should be the central point of the spiritual life of their dioceses.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that he considered it a very extraordinary statement on the part of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), that persons originally opposed to the Bill had been reconciled to it by seeing the names of the Commissioners who were to carry out its provisions. He dissented altogether from the main argument on which the noble Lord rested his resistance to the proposal of the hon. Member for Stroud. They were going to intrust large powers to the Commissioners; it was, therefore, important to know who were to be the Commissioners. He thought it would be better to go through the Bill, and ascertain what were to be the functions of the Commissioners before they de- termined who should be the persons to perform those functions. He entertained the most unaffected respect for the persons appointed by the clause; but the question was, whether they could give their time and attention to the duties of the Commission. He was quite sure that, in the present state of the Established Church, any bishop who was anxious to discharge his duty would have his time amply occupied in his diocese, and he thought he might say that, with regard to the Bishop of Ripon and to Mr. Justice Coleridge, it would be scarcely possible for them to discharge their duty faithfully as Commissioners. Under these circumstances, he would appeal to the noble Lord whether the House would not be in a better position, when the Committee had gone through its several clauses and had ascertained what were the duties to be discharged, to decide who were the most competent to discharge those duties, than they were at the present moment.

MR. SOTHERON

said, he considered that the whole merit of the present measure consisted in the character of the persons who should be appointed to carry out its provisions. He for one, should extremely object to the Bill if he had not the fullest confidence in the individuals who were nominated as Commissioners to enforce its enactments. With regard to one of the Commissioners, Sir John Awdry, he had the honour of being personally acquainted with him, and he was sure that Sir John Awdry would not accept the appointment of a Commissioner unless he were of opinion that the provisions of the Bill were such as ought to be fully carried out, and also unless he were determined to discharge his duty as a Commissioner in the enforcement of those provisions. He (Mr. Sotheron) had originally entertained considerable objections to the Bill, but he had been reconciled to it by seeing who were the persons nominated to carry it out, believing them, as he did, to be most honourable, excellent, worthy, and competent persons, and fit to be intrusted with the enforcement of such a measure.

MR. HEYWOOD

said, that there was not a single man of science on the Commission. He thought that they ought not to agree to its appointment until this omission was supplied.

MR. BLACKETT

said, that two of the five persons who were proposed to be appointed to be Commissioners were of strong Conservative opinions, and those two were likely to exercise great influence over the Commission. The Earl of Ellesmere, although known as having a sincere attachment to the University of Oxford, had never kept up any connection with it. The same might be said with regard to the Bishop of Ripon. It was twenty-six years since he was a student at Christ Church, and since that time he had never been at the University. Of the Dean of Wells he wished to speak with the greatest possible respect, but, without any discourtesy, he thought he might say that, from an amiability of disposition, he was the least likely, from his peculiar turn of mind, to stand up against an adverse majority. Then there were the two remaining Commissioners—Mr. Justice Coleridge and Sir John Awdry. Those two gentlemen were closely identified with what was called the Tractarian party in the University. They were persons of the highest respect, and their influence must necessarily be very great, but he certainly would never give a vote to strengthen that party in the University of Oxford.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, it was his opinion that the great merit of the Commission was that the appointment of its members was not one-sided, but that it comprised men of all parties; and that for that very reason it would give satisfaction to all sober-minded men throughout the country. With respect to the objections that had been raised to the appointment of the Bishop of Ripon, he must remind the house that that Prelate was for many years senior tutor of Christ Church, and although, as a general rule, he believed it was the case that a bishop was fully occupied with the care of his diocese, still he thought it would be a most unadvisable thing to declare that all the bishops should be excluded from a Commission of so much importance as this, and which had to deal with questions so closely connected with the interests of the Church. The presence of a Judge in the Commission was also of great importance, because it would assure the country that the powers of the Board would not be perverted to any purpose of a purely party or exclusive character. He believed that the names of the persons nominated in the clause were a sufficient guarantee that they would exercise the powers intrusted to them in the manner that would best promote the interests of the University.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, he hoped that the noble Lord would consent to post- pone the clause, in order that ultimately some arrangement might be made which could be assented to without the necessity of having a division on the subject. It was always a somewhat invidious task to divide upon the question of names. No doubt could be entertained as to the fitness of the Earl of Ellesmere to be at the head of the Commission, to which his position, genius, and literary attainments would add grace. As regarded the Bishop and the Judge, however, without meaning the slightest disrespect towards either of the eminent persons in question, and altogether disregarding the reference which had been made to their religious opinions, he must declare his conviction that neither of those functionaries was well placed on such a Commission. It would be impossible for them to attend the Commission without neglecting their other duties, and, from the nature of their ordinary occupations, they would frequently be unable to attend the meetings of the Board. Under these circumstances, it was probable that the whole power of the Commission, as had already been observed, would fall into the hands of the secretary. Having had experience of the working of many Commissions, he could declare that he never knew one which did not eventually fall into the hands of the secretary. At present the House did not know who the secretary was to be; but that was, in his opinion, the most important point of the whole arrangement. If the appointment of the secretary should be left to the Commissioners, the mainspring of the machine would be withdrawn from the control of Parliament. Objection was taken to one of the proposed Commissioners, Sir John Awdry, on the ground that he had written a pamphlet adverse to the Bill, and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) met the objection by saying, that if that gentleman's views fell short of the provisions of the Bill, the views of another member of the Commission, the Dean of Wells, were in advance of the measure, and that, therefore, the Commission being a coalition one, they would have an opportunity of quarrelling with each other. It appeared to him that the appointment of the Commission should be postponed until after the clauses were agreed to, and then the Government would have an opportunity of naming persons to whom no objection could be taken. If forced to divide, he must vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud.

MR. WIGRAM

said, he fully concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron), with respect to the importance of knowing the names of the Commissioners who were to be appointed to carry out the Bill. He thought that with respect to three of the gentlemen named, no effective objection to their appointment had been raised; but with respect to the Bishop of Ripon—although personally he was one of the fittest persons in the country to be appointed—yet he (Mr. Wigram) felt so strongly the importance of confining a bishop to the discharge of the spiritual duties of his diocese, that he could not help hoping that the Government would reconsider the propriety of appointing him on a Commission the duties of which must necessarily be arduous. As to Mr. Justice Coleridge, although the duties of a Judge were no doubt arduous, still when they saw that the Master of the Rolls was able to attend on various Commissions—he was at this time a member of the Indian Commission—besides discharging his duties in Court, he thought it could not be said that a Judge of one of the Superior Courts was unable to discharge the duties of a Commissioner under this Bill.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he understood the discussion before the Committee to be of a twofold character: in the first place, the Committee were discussing the objections taken to the names of the Commissioners; and secondly, the more general question of whether the names of the Commissioners should be settled at the close or at the commencement of the discussion of the Bill in Committee. Of course, by agreeing to the names of the Commissioners at this stage, no hon. Member would be precluded from moving alterations in those names at a future stage, if he saw cause to do so, after seeing the shape which the Bill assumed in Committee. He thought, however, that the observations of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron) were perfectly conclusive in favour of the course which the Government had adopted. They had found it necessary, in order to meet the exigencies of the University of Oxford, to intrust discretionary powers of almost unexampled extent to the Commissioners; as they had only the option between taking this course or adopting sweeping propositions in the rudest and most sweeping form, which must necessarily have led to the destruction of much that it was desirable to retain in connection with the University. But being obliged to give these discretionary powers to the Commissioners, it was the duty of the Government towards the University—towards those meritorious men whose whole lives' labours and the every thought of whose hearts was bound up with her—to state to Parliament the names of the persons to whom they proposed that it should delegate its authority, before they called upon it to give any opinion upon the powers which they proposed to confer upon the Commissioners. The duty of the Government was so plain on the subject that it did not admit of a doubt, and he could not help thinking that the Committee would coincide in that view of their duty. Objections had been taken by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Blackett) to two gentlemen proposed for this Commission, on account of what he presumed to be their religious opinions. He thought those objections had been very properly disposed of by his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. V. Smith), that these were hardly matters which it was desirable for the Committee to entertain; at the same time, he thought that the Government would have been in fault if the proposition of the hon. Member had been true. The objection had been taken more particularly to Sir John Awdry, on the ground that he was supposed to have expressed dissent from some of the provisions of the Bill in a pamphlet published by him. His right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) had appositely enough remarked, that whatever the opinions of Sir John Awdry might be, they would be neutralised by those of another gentleman, who went as much beyond the Bill as he fell short of it. He wished the hon. Member for Stroud had read through the evidence of Sir John Awdry, and the opinions expressed by him regarding University reform. Having himself read it with care, his opinion was, that the general tenor of that evidence, and the sentiments it expressed, were entirely conceived in the spirit of the Bill. Sir John Awdry said, the colleges ought no longer to maintain the monopoly of teaching, and that it was doubtful whether the restrictions on fellowships ought not to be relaxed. Having read what Sir John Awdry said on the subject of professors, and the application of the college resources to their support, he did not admit that it was at variance with the spirit of the Bill; what he desired was, that Parliament should deal with the colleges by plans adapted to each case, those plans being framed and carried into effect by the authority of persons acting judicially. The hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) said he wished to have a scientific man on the Commission; if they would search the roll of names eminent at the Universities for a gentleman of the highest classical and scientific attainments, he did not think it possible that any one would be found whose claims could be considered superior to those of the Dean of Wells. The rev. Gentleman was Dean Ireland's scholar in 1827, double first class in 1828, mathematical scholar in 1832, F.R.S. and Savilian professor of astronomy in 1839, and professor of moral philosophy in 1842. Again, it was objected that it would be impossible for persons filling high situations to give proper attention to the important and onerous duties imposed by the Bill. He entreated hon. Gentlemen to reflect that the framing of a Commission to carry into effect such a Bill as this was no slight matter. If they wished to apply any measure of reform to any institution in this country, they must not trust to brute force—if he might use the expression—or mere acts of power, but they must look to carrying with them the confidence of those for whom they were to legislate. That was true generally, and he was confident it was more especially true in respect to the Universities of this country. They must also name men who had the confidence of Parliament. It might have been perfectly possible for the Government, by searching among their own friends or by private inquiry, to discover men more fit, perhaps, to discharge the duties of the Commission, and at the same time to fulfil the other calls on their time and attention to which they were liable. But if they wanted men of great experience and of a certain age, of known and tried abilities, and of great wisdom and prudence, he wanted to know where such men were to be found, and with evidence of there being such men patent to the world, if they were to be precluded from making choice of men of high standing? It was but just to the Bishop of Ripon to mention that when he was requested, on the part of the Government, to allow his name to be placed on the Commission, the first thing he did was to write and say that his diocese had the strongest claims upon his atttention, and that before he could take any step to intimate assent to his appointment, he must have such a description of the nature of the duties to be required of him as would satisfy him that he could conscientiously discharge them. The Bishop of Ripon was informed that they required much experience, but not the art of mastering a great mass of details. It would not surprise him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to find that it would be necessary to appoint two secretaries, by whom the details of business would be transacted; while the Commissioners would be able to direct their attention to the general working of the University system, and to see that the rules they might frame for that object were carried into effect. It was necessary to have for the members of the Commission men of active abilities, and who would give their full time to the transaction of the business to come before them. They must have a large amount of legal knowledge, as well as of general information—such legal knowledge as would enable them to frame the rules on which their proceedings should be conducted, and such weight and standing as would enable them to give effect to those rules. The Bishop of Ripon was not a person new to the subject; he was educated at Oxford University, and spent a great portion of his life in authority there, carrying on the system of tuition at Christ Church. His knowledge of practice, therefore, would be almost as perfect as when he left the University twenty-three years ago; and with that intimate acquaintance, derived, not from books merely, but from the practice of his life, his undertaking the duties of this Commission would not necessitate his abstraction from other cares. He, therefore, trusted the Committee would approve the proposal as to the principle on which the Commission was to be framed.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he must protest against the doctrine broached by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron) that the Committee, in deciding upon this measure, was to be governed not by the nature of its provisions, but by the character of the persons appointed to carry those provisions into effect. If the House should act upon that principle, it would lead to dangerous consequences. For his part, he thought the Committee should particularly avoid the course it was recommended to pursue. Now, he did not think there was any principle more dangerous for them to entertain, or any course that could lead to results which they would all of them more deprecate. In affairs of the world not so interesting as those of their great Universities, in those joint-stock companies which they heard so much of in that metropolis, what was the cause of the depreciation and ruin which so generally prevailed, but that they had great names brought forward in order to attract the attention and command the confidence of the public, and persons were thus led to embark in transactions which they afterwards found had very little in common with the éclat and repute of those names on the faith of which they had ventured? We ought to give our opinions upon the measure without being bewildered by the names which had been brought forward as the trustees for its fulfilment. We had no security whatever that these individuals would ever be the permanent administrators of the Bill. He would not stop to inquire whether or not the Sovereign would have the power under this Bill of revoking the appointments when they had once been made; that appeared to be doubtful, but the course of nature might deprive us of the guarantee of the reputation and character of the individuals who were to administer the measure. He would not enter into any criticism with regard to the eminent persons whose names had been brought forward, but he most decidedly objected to the principle which had been laid down by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, and which seemed to have been adopted by the Government, that our opinion of the measure was to be influenced, not by its own merits, but by the character and station of those who were to administer it. He should support the Amendment upon this ground alone, even if he did not object to the Commission; but, with the opinion at which he had arrived, he should feel it his duty to support any Amendment which had a tendency to resist the appointment of the Commission altogether. The principal ground, however, on which he now supported the Amendment was, that he could not in any way agree in the dangerous principle which had been brought forward this evening under the sanction of such high authority, that we were not to decide upon this measure upon its merits, but mainly upon the character of those to whom its administration was to be intrusted. This appeared to him to be a principle of such a dangerous character that he hardly believed it would be sanctioned, upon reflection, by the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued the case as if—if we agreed with the proposition of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) —we should have no opportunity of sanctioning the appointment of the individuals who were to be intrusted with the administration of the Bill. What we were contending for was, that you should first of all definitively settle what you intended to do, and that you should afterwards consider who were the most competent persons to fill the offices you had decided to create. This was the most logical course, and the Bishop of Ripon certainly seemed to be of the same opinion, because he had said that he could not undertake the office which he was desired to occupy, unless a clear and definite idea were given him of what were the duties which he would have to fulfil. They were about to appoint the Bishop of Ripon to fill this office, but they had not yet settled what duties he would have to perform. There was an immense variety of Amendments upon the paper, and suppose one of them to the effect that the University should be thrown open to Dissenters should be carried. It might be successful, especially if it should be supported, as he supposed it would be, by the noble Lord the chief Minister of the Crown in that House. Then he would ask, would the Bishop of Ripon be equally ready to undertake the administration of the Bill? It was not at all clear, from the character which had been given of the Bishop of Ripon, that he might not turn round and say, "You were premature in proposing my name to the House of Commons; I told you that I would not undertake the office unless I had a clear description of the duties I had to perform, and I am not prepared to carry into effect the provisions which have been passed by the House of Commons." The most logical course, therefore, would be first to define the duties which were to be performed, and then to fix on the trustees to whom the administration of those duties was to be confided. There was another point to be considered. The Minister who had just addressed the Committee had argued the whole case on the assumption that the Crown and Her Majesty's advisers would, of course, make a most violent and imprudent appointment; that if the House assented to the measure without fixing the names of the Commissioners, the Sovereign, as a matter of course, would appoint the most improper persons to fill these offices. He took an exactly contrary assumption. He assumed that if we were not called upon to fix the names, but only to agree that certain duties should be dele- gated to five Commissioners, the appointments by Her Majesty would be wise, discreet, and proper ones. But, supposing that the Ministers were so indiscreet as to recommend improper persons to fulfil the duties of this Bill, surely it would be in the power of Parliament to address the Crown and to express their opinion on the subject. There were constitutional remedies at our command, and surely it was much better to trust to those remedies in case any grievance should occur, or any inconvenience or injury to the public service should happen, than to adopt so dangerous a principle, or to follow so perilous a course, as absolutely to lay down that that House should consent to a measure of which they did not approve because its management was to be intrusted to persons of whom all approved; and, because the Government might intrust the management of the Bill to persons not worthy of the confidence of the country, that they should forego a constitutional remedy which was always in their power, and assume that Her Majesty would be advised to take an unwise and unconstitutional course, and that Her Majesty's Ministers would fail to fulfil the trust confided to them and take a course that must meet with the disapprobation of Parliament.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he wished to be informed whether the secretary to the Commission was to be appointed by the Government or by the Commission, and whether, if he was to be appointed by the Government, the individual had yet been fixed upon?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, the individual who was to be secretary to the Commission had not yet been fixed upon, but he should have no objection to introduce his name into the Bill at a later period.

MR. HORSMAN

, in reply, said he would explain why he had taken the course of moving this Amendment. His first impression had been to move the postponement of the clause, but he had been instructed by the Chairman that this could only be done by the authors of the Bill, and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom he had applied, had declined to accede to his request. His next impression had been to propose some names in opposition to those which had been inserted in the Bill, but he was sure the Committee would feel that there were objections to that course, as no gentlemen holding high positions would have wished to be placed in opposition to the Bishop of Ripon and Mr. Justice Coleridge, and he had therefore taken the only course which remained by moving the present Amendment. The Government had now heard the opinion of the Committee, and he thought he was justified in what he had done by the general opinion which had been expressed.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 141: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.
Adderley, C. B.	Ferguson, Sir R.
Alcock, T.	Filmer, Sir E.
Annesley, Earl of	Fitzgerald, J. D.
Atherton, W.	Fitzgerald, W. R. S.
Baillie, H. J.	Fitzroy, hon. H.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Foley, J. H. H.
Ball, E.	Forster, J.
Baring, H. B.	Fortescue, C. S.
Bothell, Sir R.	Freestun, Col.
Biggs, W.	French, F.
Bland, L. H.	Geach, C.
Blandford, Marq. of.	Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Gladstone, Capt.
Bowyer, G.	Glyn, G. C.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Goodman, Sir G.
Bramston, T. W.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Brand, hon. H.	Gregson, S.
Brockman, E. D.	Grenfell, C. W.
Brotherton, J.	Grey, R. W.
Brown, W.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Bruce, Lord E.	Grosvenor, Earl
Buckley, Gen.	Hale, R. B.
Butler, C. S.	Hankey, T.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Castlerosse, Visct.	Harcourt, Col.
Cavendish, hon. G.	Heard, J. I.
Cecil, Lord R.	Heathcote, Sir G. J.
Chambers, M.	Heathcote, G. H.
Cheetham, J.	Heathcote, Sir W.
Christy, S.	Heneage, G. F.
Clay, Sir W.	Herbert, H. A.
Clinton, Lord R.	Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Cobbett, J. M.	Hervey, Lord A.
Collier, R. P.	Hogg, Sir J. W.
Colvile, C. R.	Hutchins, E. J.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Ingham, R.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Jackson, W.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Jermyn, Earl
Davies, D. A. S.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Denison, E.	Keogh, W.
Denison, J. E.	Laing, S.
Divett, E.	Langston, J. H.
Drumlanrig, Visct.	Lemon, Sir C.
Drummond, H.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Duncan, G.	Loveden, P.
Duncombe, T.	Lowe, R.
East, Sir J. B.	Mackie, J.
Egerton, W. T.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Egerton, E. C.	MacGregor, J.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	M'Gregor, J.
Elmley, Visct.	McTaggart, Sir J.
Emlyn, Visct.	Mangles, R. D.
Esmonde, J.	Massey, W. N.
Euston, Earl of	Masterman, J.
Ewart, W.	Milligan, R.
Feilden, M. J.	Mills, T.

Milner, W. M. E.	Sadleir, John
Moffatt, G.	Sawle, C. B. G.
Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.	Scholefield, W.
Monck, Visct.	Scully, F.
Moncrieff, J.	Seymer, H. K.
Monsell, W.	Shafto, R. D.
Morris, D.	Shelburne, Earl of
Mowbray, J. R.	Shirley, E. P.
Mulgrave, Earl of	Smith, W. M.
Mundy, W.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Muntz, G. F.	Stafford, Marq. of
Norreys, Lord	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Oakes, J. H. P.	Traill, G.
O'Connell, D.	Vane, Lord A.
Osborne, R.	Vernon, G. E. H.
Palmer, R.	Vivian, H. H.
Palmerston, Visct.	Watkins, Col. L.
Patten, J. W.	Whitbread, S.
Pennant, hon. Col.	Wickham, H. W.
Philipps, J. H.	Wigram, L. T.
Phillimore, R. J.	Willcox, B. M.
Pinney, W.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Pritchard, J.	Woodd, B. T.
Rice, E. R.	Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Rich, H.	Wyvill, M.
Richardson, J. J.	Young, rt. hon. Sir J.
Rolt, P.	TELLERS.
Russell, Lord J.	Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Sadleir, Jas.	Berkeley, C. L. G.

List of the NOES.
Alexander, J.	Fox, W. J.
Arubuthnott, hon. Gen.	Frewen, C. H.
Arkwright, G.	Fuller, A. E.
Baird, J.	Galway, Visct.
Baldock, E. H.	Gardner, R.
Bankes, rt. hon. G.	Gaskell, J. M.
Barnes, T.	George, J.
Barrington, Visct.	Graham, Lord M. W.
Beach, Sir M. H. H.	Greene, J.
Bell, J.	Gwyn, H.
Bennet, P.	Hadfield, G.
Beresford, rt. hon. W.	Halford, Sir H.
Blair, Col.	Hall, Sir B.
Blake, M. J.	Hamilton, G. A.
Boldero, Col.	Hastie, A.
Booker, T. W.	Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Herbert, Sir T.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Heywood, J.
Butt, G. M.	Hildyard, R. C.
Carnac, Sir J. R.	Hindley, C.
Challis, Mr. Ald.	Hotham, Lord
Chambers, T.	Hudson, G.
Chandos, Marq. of	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Cholmondeley, Lord H.	Jones, Capt.
Clinton, Lord C. P.	Keating, H. S.
Coles, H. B.	Kelly, Sir F.
Compton, H. C.	Kendall, N.
Crook, J.	Kershaw, J.
Crossley, F.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Cubitt, Mr. Ald.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Currie, R.	Knatchbull, W. F.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Knightley, R.
Dod, J. W.	Knox, Col.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Laffan, R. M.
Dunlop, A. M.	Langton, H. G.
Dunne, Col.	Laslett, W.
Egerton, Sir P.	Layard, A. H.
Farrer, J.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.
Ferguson, J.	Liddell, H. G.
Floyer, J.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Forster, Sir G.	Lindsay, W. S.

Lisburne, Earl of	Sibthorp, Col.
Lowther, hon. Col.	Smijth, Sir W.
Macartney, G.	Smith, J. A.
Maddock, Sir H.	Smith, J. B.
Marshall, W.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Meux, Sir H.	Somerset, Capt.
Miall, E.	Stafford, A.
Michell, W.	Stanhope, J. B.
Moody, C. A.	Stanley, Lord
Mullings, J. R.	Starkie, Le G. N.
Naas, Lord	Stuart, H.
Neeld, J.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Newdegate, C. N.	Thornely, T.
North, Col.	Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Ossulston, Lord	Vance, J.
Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.	Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Parker, R. T.	Vyse, Col.
Pellatt, A.	Waddington, H. S.
Percy, hon. J. W.	Walcott, Adm.
Peto, S. M.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Phillimore, J. G.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Phinn, T.	Whitmore, H.
Pilkington, J.	Wilkinson, W. A.
Pollard-Urquhart, W.	Williams, W.
Price, W. P.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Ramsden, Sir J. W.	Wise, A.
Repton, G. W. J.	Wyndham, Gen.
Ricardo, O.	Wyndham, H.
Robertson, P. F.	TELLERS.
Scobell, Capt.	Blackett, J. F. B.
Sheridan, R. B.	Horsman, E.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 2.

Clause 3 (If any vacancy occurs in the number of such Commissioners by means of death, resignation, or otherwise, Her Majesty may fill up such vacancy).

MR. WALPOLE

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact, that by this clause they would give the enormous powers conferred by the Bill to some unknown person appointed by whoever might be the Ministers between this year and 1858. He only consented to the Commission with the view of giving it the power of consenting to Acts being done, but not that of compelling them to be done, as he wished this to be made an emancipatory measure in the strongest sense of the word. He particularly called the attention of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to this clause.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, that as they were then engaged in considering the last of the clauses which related to the appointment of the Commissioners, he wished to know how the votes of those Commissioners were to be given. Whether it was necessary that their decision should in all cases be unanimous, how many would constitute a quorum, and in what manner their power was to be exercised?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, there was no necessity of inserting any special clause with regard to the manner in which the Commissioners were to come to a decision in the event of their being of different opinions, as it had already been prescribed by the law. The Bill contained the provisions requisite to enable a majority of the Commissioners to decide any questions that might arise.

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to know what was meant by the words "or otherwise" in the clause? Was it intended to reserve the right of the Crown to remove these Commissioners?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

, in reply, said, that the Crown would not ex mero motu have power to remove any of the Commissioners. What it might do upon an Address from that House was another question.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that there should be a clear understanding upon the point. He would therefore move that the words "or otherwise" be omitted.

MR. SPOONER

said, he should support the Amendment, believing that as the clause stood it gave the Crown power to remove or appoint Commissioners at will.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the clause was intended to provide for the supplying of accidental or contingent vacancies. It only specified death or resignation; but there were other modes—such as lunacy, for example—by which a contingent vacancy might occur, and it was to meet these cases that the words had been introduced. The clause did not give the Crown the power of removal, but of supplying contingent vacancies, by whatever mode they might arise.

MR. MALINS

said, he would suggest, as a way of meeting both the objection of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) and the views of the Government, that the words "or otherwise" should be omitted, and the clause stand thus:—"If any vacancy occurs in the number of such Commissioners by means of death, resignation, or incapacity to act, Her Majesty may fill up such vacancy."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he would consent to that alteration of the clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Commissioners empowered to require the production of documents, &c.).

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

proposed to strike out all the words after the words, "respectively and," in order to insert the words, "It shall be the duty of such officer to produce and furnish the same, any prohibition or impediment now existing or arising in or by reason of any of the Statutes thereof respectively notwithstanding," instead thereof. "Pleadable at the bar" was rather a cumbrous and unmeaning phrase, and he believed that the clause as worded gave a great deal of offence where none was intended. Though he did not so understand it, he knew that many persons looked upon it as if Parliament were arrogating to itself the power to dispense with the obligations of an oath.

Amendment proposed,— In line 26, to leave out from the words "respectively and" to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "it shall be the duty of such officer to produce and furnish the same, any prohibition or impediment now existing or arising in or by reason of any of the Statutes thereof respectively notwithstanding," instead thereof.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that the clause was intended to provide that persons who had taken an oath under the college Statutes should not be excused from producing their papers by virtue of that oath. If the hon. Baronet would insert the word "oath" as well as "any prohibition or impediment now existing or arising," he should have no objection to accept the Amendment.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to ask what the bearing of the clause would be upon an officer who had taken an oath to regard the muniments of his college, and to give up no documents whatever? Surely Parliament could not relieve that man from the moral obligation of his oath, and he had no doubt that such persons would refuse to produce their documents.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he thought that this was a point of very great importance, and it was one to which he had devoted considerable attention, because oaths of a very stringent character were imposed in his own college, and the members of that college had done him the honour to ask his mature opinion of the obligations under which they were placed by those oaths. The opinion which he had given he now begged to repeat to the Committee. He thought that every such oath as was contemplated in the clause stopped in point of obligation under the authority of the law. It never could compel or oblige, and it never had been intended to compel or oblige any member of a subordinate institution of the State, constituted by law, to set himself up in rebellion against the law by virtue of having taken that oath. Without any doctrinal casuistry whatever, it was clear that every such oath was taken salvo jure superioris; and if that were the understanding, there would be no necessity to insert the word "oath" in the Act; but the legal obligation, as well as the moral, would be altogether the same if they adopted the language of the hon. Baronet near him (Sir W. Heathcote) instead of that which had been suggested by the framers of the Bill.

MR. HENLEY

said, he infinitely preferred the Government scheme to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (the Member for the University), because it was the most honest. They said that a man, having taken an oath, was to break it; but the hon. Baronet only spoke of "impediments." Why, what was meant by a college impediment but an oath? If they meant that men were to break their oaths, let them say so. That was at least a plain and intelligible proposition, with which most men would know how to deal. It did not appear to him that an Act of Parliament could relieve men of their oaths, because there were higher obligations than oaths; but he thought that they were doing violence to the consciences of people very unnecessarily. Why not have provided that if the oaths which people had taken prevented them giving information, the Commissioners might lay violent hands upon their books, and thus treat them as the Quakers were treated in the matter of church rates? He looked upon this as the most serious clause in the Bill; and, whatever the fate of the hon. Baronet's Amendment might be, he should divide the Committee against the clause.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that if it were intended that these persons, in spite of any oath which they might have taken, were to produce the papers in their custody, the word "oath" ought to be inserted in preference to "impediment." He could not agree with him, however, as to the sacredness of the oath which had been taken. The right hon. Gentleman's argument would go the length of saying that any person, upon any subject, might direct an oath to be taken—not absolutely forbidden—and that then Parliament, and all persons acting under the law, would be precluded from ever obtaining any information from them. He could imagine even a person taking an oath by which he had bound himself to send supplies to the Emperor of Russia, and then saying that he could not refuse to send those supplies because he had taken an oath to do so. So long as these oaths did not interfere with the public policy of the realm, they might be regarded; but when the public welfare was concerned, it was impossible to say that Parliament would refrain from obtaining all the information which it desired because an oath had been taken not to furnish it. It appeared to him that persons who had taken these oaths in consequence of private Statutes were bound, when the public good required the production of their documents, to produce them—any private undertaking to the contrary notwithstanding. If they did not admit that doctrine, they admitted that all private persons throughout the realm might impose private obligations which might be directly contrary to the public welfare.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the clause abrogated the oaths imposed by law as it then stood. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said these were not oaths taken by law, but as a voluntary obligation; but, if so, what was the character of the obligation? He (Mr. Walpole) thought the distinction between the abrogation of such an oath and the imposing of another was broad and plain. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to this Amendment. The words now in the clause were not in the original Bill, but had been introduced since the Bill was committed pro formâ. He had stated that his opinion was in favour of a permissive and enabling clause, and not a compulsory one. He thought a compulsory measure was not a measure which ought to be imposed upon the Universities and colleges; and he felt convinced that compelling the Universities and colleges to do something which they did not wish to do, was a proceeding in itself not just and proper towards them. If the words sought to be included by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heathcote) in this clause were to have the effect which he said they ought to have, there was, he thought, an end to all argument. He (Mr. Walpole) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman beside him (Mr. Henley), that Parliament never could relieve persons from the obligations by which they had bound themselves, and when, in point of fact, those obligations had been taken by and rested upon the minds of conscientious men.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Bill had been framed in the manner now before the Committee with a desire upon the one hand to attain the objects which were absolutely essential for the purposes of the Bill, and on the other, to avoid saying anything which should injure people's consciences and people's doings. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heath-cote) said the words which were in the clause appeared to have reference to a suit; but those words had been selected because they kept far away from the domain of conscience. The first question was this:—Was it necessary for Parliament to take the power which the clause gave them? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it was necessary to take the power, for at present the public and Parliament were in entire ignorance of many of the most essential facts connected with the Universities. At present neither the public nor Parliament knew anything respecting the revenues of the Universities, except a little knowledge gained from a private source. The late Commissioners had no authority to obtain such information against the will of the University authorities, and many of the authorities had refused, on the ground that they had taken oaths which prevented them, and which they considered bound them. Now, there could be no doubt that Parliament had a right to procure knowledge respecting the revenues of the Universities. With regard to private corporations, it had been admitted that there was a supreme power in the Legislature of the State for that purpose, and the same right surely existed as regarded the Universities. The words, as they stood in the clause, expressed that right in the simplest form, and it was clear that an oath was no legal justification to any parties to withhold information when requested to obey the summons of the State. The oaths which had been taken were purely voluntary, and he said with the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) that such oaths were necessarily and essentially limited by the authority of the State. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) that they ought not to invade the domain of conscience at all; and the words proposed, as they appeared to him, kept that in view. If the Committee adopted the words proposed they would be evading the question, and provide a matter for discussion and argument, as to whether parties were bound to give information or not. It was absolutely necessary to constitute a legal obligation, and that had been done in the terms of the clause. The obligation under which parties were bound was not an obligation of a kind which could for a moment be put in competition with the supreme authority of the State.

MR. DISRAELI

said, in case his hon. Friend (Sir W. Heathcote) pressed the clause to a division, he should feel it his duty to support him, but he agreed that the modification proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) should be adopted, and that the clause should end at the word "respectively," and thereby leave out the words now under discussion. He certainly thought that the introduction of the words proposed would lead to difficulties.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) that the clause should end at the word "respectively." He was also of opinion that the obligation imposed was subject to certain conditions, one being that it should not violate the higher duty of Parliament. The insertion of the words proposed would lead to equivocal determination, and no object would be gained by adopting them.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he also thought that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire should be adopted. But he rose for the purpose of clearing himself from a strange misapprehension of his views and feelings into which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), who he certainly thought would be the last man in that House to be guilty of an intentional misrepresentation, had fallen. The right hon. Gentleman imagined that he had said that the clauses of this Bill would repeal or dispense with the University oaths. Now, that was just the thing which he thought such a Bill could not possibly do. By introducing a compulsory clause, such as that under consideration, the Government did not dispense with the oaths, but created a new obligation having a higher sanction, and, as nothing could rise higher than its source—for he did not agree with the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that the University oaths were not enforced by the law of the land—it was idle to say that the duty of obedience to the supreme authority of the State could be limited by the oaths taken in the University and colleges of Oxford. No person could be permitted to say that he was exempted from the general autho- rity of the Government of the land, and had made a law for himself. The supreme authority of the State was incapable of being controlled in that way. It was impossible not to see the momentous consequences which depended upon the assertion of that principle. Great alarm would be created in the University if the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) should be accepted to any extent there. If it should be thought that, by consenting to the requirements of the clause under discussion, the officers of the University would be guilty of a violation of their oaths, it was manifest that great and serious alarm would be created by the passing of this Bill. The House, therefore, should not legislate in any such way as the Bill contemplated, unless they were satisfied that on sound moral principles obedience to the law might be given. Now, he had no doubt that the heads and fellows of the Universities and colleges of Oxford and Cambridge held their emoluments with perfectly clear consciences, although they did not now celebrate masses or do any other thing which the law of the land had prohibited since the Universities and colleges were founded, notwithstanding that they had taken the very same oaths which were taken at the time when masses were legal and enforced by law. He held, therefore, that it was ridiculous and absurd to say that the officers of the University of Oxford would be guilty of a violation of their oaths if they obeyed the supreme authority of the State.

MR. COLLIER

said, he thought that, by leaving out the latter part of the clause, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), many persons would feel themselves justified in withholding information in consequence of some oath taken. He apprehended that there was very little difference of opinion between hon. Members who had spoken upon the subject of the oaths taken under the University Statutes. Though those oaths had not the same authority as oaths ordered to be taken by Act of Parliament, yet they were legal, as some authority was supposed to reside in the Universities to punish by penalty if not performed. If they were going to pass a superior law, which was to override the inferior law by which the oaths were imposed, they should endeavour to make that superior law as clear and distinct as possible, and as he thought the clause as it stood unexceptionable in that respect, he should support it in preference to the Amend- ment of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Heath-cote).

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, it was in vain for the Committee to attempt to dispense with the obligations which were imposed upon the officers of the University. They might indeed incapacitate these gentlemen from discharging their duties, and he would suggest that the Commissioners should be empowered, by force of law, to procure what information they wanted. In that way the officers of the University would be freed from all responsibility in connection with the execution of the law.

MR. HEYWOOD

said, he would propose that the word "oath" should be inserted before the word "impediment" in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst had said that there was no precedent for the course which the Committee was now asked to adopt. That was a mistake; the Long Parliament afforded what appeared to him to be a very good precedent. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he thought they might safely take a leaf from the book of the Long Parliament, which was one of the ablest Parliaments that ever sat in that House. The Long Parliament, in 1649, appointed a special Committee on the subject of the Universities, and the result of their deliberations was, that an order was sent down to Oxford and Cambridge, calling upon the fellows to reform their own Statutes. We had the happiness to live in quiet times, and although it was not now necessary to interfere with private property, it was the duty of the Legislature to insist upon knowing what the revenues of the Universities were.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that as to the precedent cited by the hon. Member for North Lancashire, he believed Hallam, the great constitutional authority of the Whig party, had drawn a strong line between that period in which the Long Parliament had done good service to the country, and the period in which it had usurped its powers, and used them for most unconstitutional purposes; and if he recollected rightly, the precedent cited by the hon. Member was included in the latter period. He recollected that when the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) proposed, on the Oaths Bill, that they should simply pass a resolution on the subject of oaths, instead of following the old constitutional practice, he pointed out that there was only one precedent for such a course, and that was the precedent of the Long Parliament. He certainly did not expect to hear the example of the Long Parliament quoted on the present occasion, and he was sure such a precedent would not be accepted by the Committee. He would refer hon. Members to the Statute of Elizabeth, which contained one of the noblest preambles Parliament had ever sanctioned, and remind them that it was under that Statute the Universities had flourished down to the present time.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to an opinion which had hitherto been neglected, but which ought to have great weight—the opinion, namely, of the tutors of Oxford. In their paper of recommendations they requested the House to pass a compulsory measure for the very purpose of getting rid of the difficulty which might otherwise exist in regard to the oaths. Their opinion was, that the college oaths were only binding until the higher authority of the law was interposed, and if it should be the pleasure of Parliament to pass such a clause as that under discussion, they were perfectly ready to concur in it. Nobody had ventured to deny the sound constitutional doctrine that the State was the imposer of all oaths, and that minor corporations, such as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, only derived their authority to impose oaths from the State. It was perfectly monstrous to say that the State could alter its own oaths, but could not touch the oaths of a private corporation.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he had no objection whatever to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), which would meet his views quite as well as the words he had proposed. He thought, however, that considerable misapprehension existed in the minds of some hon. Members as to the nature of the clause before the Committee. The clause, as originally prepared, enabled the Commissioners to require certain things, but it did not say that any person who had taken the oath was or was not to be relieved from the operation of it. It left that to the conscience of any one who had taken the oaths. He thought that other words would better express the object aimed at, and he had accordingly proposed his Amendment, but at the same time he was ready to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to leave out the latter words of the clause altogether, and let the law, as it stood, deal with parties in each of the cases that might arise.

MR. HORSMAN

said, the only doubt he had was, that if the words were left out, they would not be able to get the information which was absolutely necessary. Undoubtedly, it was not in the power of Parliament to dispense with the obligation of the oaths; but the supreme authority of the State ought to override that obligation, though at the same time parties should be left to put their own construction upon the oaths which they had taken. He thought it was necessary, however, that the officers of the University should be compelled to produce such documents as might be required.

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) to the difference between an oath taken with the knowledge that it had been unlawful to celebrate mass for 300 years, and oaths taken in matters in which many might consider the obligation as binding upon their consciences. There was surely a broad distinction between the two cases. He thought the desired effect would be achieved if the latter part of the clause were left out.

MR. ATHERTON

said, he hoped the Government would accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, but in order to show that it was the intention of the Committee to make the clause compulsory, he thought the following words should be added:—"and every such officer, on being so required, shall be bound, and is hereby required, to produce all such documents and accounts, and to give all such information."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he wished to call attention to the fact mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore), that a large portion of the residents of Oxford themselves implored that House to declare them bound, in order that, under the authority of the law, they might safely do that which as private individuals they were unquestionably not inclined to do. It appeared to hint that words corresponding to those suggested by the last speaker would be quite unexceptional, and would meet the views of the Government.

MR. MALINS

said, he hoped the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire would be agreed to.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he would have no hesitation in adopting that suggestion, if he had any security for the effectual enforcement of the clause. The object of the Government was, not to absolve the officers of the University from the moral obligation of their oaths, but by the strong arm of the law to create an authority superior to that under which the oaths were taken, compelling parties to obey the law, although they should still hold themselves personally bound by their oaths. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that the law should be clear and explicit. But there was another, though a minor, reason for allowing the clause to stand as it was. It was sometimes contended in courts of justice that an officer could not be called upon to perform any duty which was inconsistent with the conditions of his office, and the concluding words of the clause were thought to be necessary in order to prevent any officer of the University from refusing upon that plea to obey the demands of the Commissioners. He thought the Committee would see the propriety and good sense of introducing those words, although in point of law they might not be absolutely required.

MR. EWART

said, it was the duty of the Government not to shrink from declaring in close and explicit terms what the law was. He should therefore support the clause as it stood.

Question put, "That the words 'no oath which may have been taken' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 69: Majority 48.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Cheetham, J.
Atherton, W.	Clay, Sir W.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.
Ball, J.	Collier, R. P.
Beamish, F. B.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Bell, J.	Crossley, F.
Bethell, Sir R.	Drummond, H.
Biggs, W.	Duncan, G.
Blackett, J. F. B.	Dunlop, A. M.
Bland, L. H.	Esmonde, J.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Ewart, W.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Feilden, M. J.
Brand, hon. H.	Ferguson, Sir R.
Brocklehurst, J.	Ferguson, J.
Brotherton, J.	Fitzgerald, J. D.
Brown, H.	Forster, J.
Brown, W.	Fortescue, C. S.
Bruce, H. A.	Fox, R. M.
Buckley, Gen.	Fox, W. J.
Butler, C. S.	Gardner, R.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Geach, C.
Chambers, M.	Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Chambers, T.	Goderich, Visct.

Goodman, Sir G.	Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.
Greene, J.	Monsell, W.
Hall, Sir B.	Muntz, G. F.
Hastie, A.	Murrough, J. P.
Headlam, T. E.	O'Connell, D.
Hervey, Lord A.	Palmerston, Visct.
Heywood, J.	Patten, J. W.
Heyworth, L.	Peel, F.
Horsman, E.	Phillimore, R. J.
Hutchins, E. J.	Phinn, T.
Ingham, R.	Pigott, F.
Keating, H. S.	Pinney, W.
Keogh, W.	Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.
King, hon. P. J. L.	Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Laing, S.	Rice, E. R.
Langston, J. H.	Richardson, J. J.
Langton, H. G.	Sadleir, Jas.
Laslett, W.	Sadleir, John
Lawley, hon. F. C.	Sawle, C. B. G.
Layard, A. H.	Scobell, Capt.
Lee, W.	Seymour, W. D.
Lemon, Sir C.	Shafto, R. D.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.	Smith, J. B.
Lindsay, W. S.	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Lowe, R.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Mackie, J.	Thornely, T.
Mackinnon, W. A.	Walmsley, Sir J.
MacGregor, J.	Walter, J.
McTaggart, Sir J.	Warner, E.
Mangles, R. D.	Whitbread, S.
Marshall, W.	Wilkinson, W. A.
Massey, W. N.	Williams, W.
Miall, E.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Milligan, R.	Young, rt. hon. Sir J.
Mills, T.	TELLERS.
Mitchell, T. A.	Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Moffatt, G.	Berkeley, C. L. G.

List of the NOES.
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.	Langton, W. G.
Ball, E.	Liddell, H. G.
Bennet, P.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Blake, M. J.	Macartney, G.
Booker, T. W.	Malins, R.
Buck, L. W.	Maunsell, T. P.
Buller, Sir. J. Y.	Michell, W.
Cecil, Lord R.	Mowbray, J. R.
Chandos, Marq. of	Newdegate, C. N.
Cocks, T. S.	North, Col.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Packe, C. W.
Cubitt, Mr. Ald.	Pakington,rt.hon.SirJ.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Parker, R. T.
Dod, J. W.	Percy, hon. J. W.
Duncombe, hon. W. E.	Philipps, J. H.
Dunne, Col.	Phillimore, J. G.
Elmley, Visct.	Pritchard, J.
Evelyn, W. J.	Repton, G. W. J.
Farrer, J.	Rolt, P.
Forster, Sir G.	Seymer, H. K.
Galway, Visct.	Shirley, E. P.
Gladstone, Capt.	Spooner, R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Stafford, A.
Greaves, E.	Tollemache, J.
Gwyn, H.	Vance, J.
Hamilton, G. A.	Vane, Lord A.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W.	Vansittart, G. H.
Herbert, Sir T.	Vernon, G. E. H.
Hotham, Lord	Walcott, Adm.
Hudson, G.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.	Whitmore, H.
Lacon, Sir E.	Wigram, L. T.
Laffan, R. M.	Willoughby, Sir H.

Wise, A.	TELLERS.
Wyndham, H.	Heathcote, Sir W.
Wyndham, W.	Palmer, R.

MR. ATHERTON

said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General what was the effect of the clause as it stood.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he considered that the words were sufficient to create a legal obligation, which might be enforced in the ordinary way.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Upon the first day of Michaelmas Term, 1854, all powers, privileges, and functions now possessed or exercised by the Hebdomadal Board of the said University shall be transferred to a Council composed in the manner hereinafter mentioned, which shall be called Hebdomadal Council).

MR. WALPOLE

said, that he wished to offer a suggestion to the Government, as this clause was the first of a series of clauses affecting the constitution of the University. It was not his intention to propose any Amendment on the present clause, but as it referred to a council to be elected, as mentioned in a future clause (Clause 6), he thought that the opportunity was a fitting one for offering a suggestion to the Government. The reason why he would take that opportunity of stating his objections to Clause 6 was, to ascertain how far their assenting to Clause 5 would pledge them to adopt the constitution of the council proposed in the succeeding clauses. The Committee would bear in mind that the Hebdomadal Board—the present governing body of the University—consisted of the vice chancellor, two proctors, and twenty-three heads of houses, or twenty-six in all. To this governing body two objections were made: the first, that it was not elective; the second, that it was an exclusive body. It was not an elective body, in so far as it was composed of the heads of houses alone, and it was generally agreed that some alteration of a more popular character was required to be introduced into it. But there was this singularity in the present Bill—that what it proposed to do had not been recommended by the Commissioners, nor had it been proposed by the University itself, nor, as far as he was informed, was it acceptable to or approved by the great body of the members of the University; consequently, if the clauses passed as they were framed, we should now be forcing on them, at the wish of the Minister for the time being, a constitution which the Commissioners had not recommended, and which the University did not approve of. All were agreed that some alteration should take place; all were agreed that other elements and influences ought to be brought to bear on the governing body of the University; these were the professorial and tutorial elements, in addition to the elements out of which the governing body was exclusively composed, derived from the heads of houses. It was thought right that there should still be some heads of houses to represent the interests of the colleges, that there should be professors to represent those more immediately engaged in general studies and scientific pursuits, and that there should be tutors also in addition to these, as they were best cognisant of the actual state of education and instruction. The alterations, however, introduced by the present Bill were, or would be, of a different character. The Bill provided that there should be one and the same electoral body for these three elements; that the Congregation should be established, or rather revived, for the purpose of electing six heads of houses, six professors, and six members of Convocation, to constitute the governing body of the University. In addition to these, it was proposed that the Chancellor of the University should have the power of appointing one head and one professor to the council. Now, he thought that if the clause passed in its present shape, and the governing body of the University was elected under it, the result would be that the heads of houses chosen in this manner would not be those whom the heads would wish to elect for themselves, nor the professors those whom the professors would prefer, for, since both of these, as well as the six members of Convocation, would be selected for this purpose from the third element, a preponderating power would be given to that element in the future constitution of the governing body. He would therefore venture to suggest that a difference should be observed; that the heads of houses should elect seven heads to sit on the council; that the professors should elect seven of their own body; and that the Congregation should elect seven members of Convocation. These, with the vice chancellor and two proctors, would make twenty-six members of the council. If they did not give the heads and the professors the power of choosing their own representatives, they would run the danger of having lists of names handed about the University, which would soon become distinct party lists, like an election of boards of guardians; and instead of having three elements in the governing body, all would ultimately, perhaps immediately, be absorbed in one, since all would come from the same constituency. There was another point to which he would wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite—that was the power given to the Chancellor of the University of appointing one head and one professor to the council. He knew that the present Chancellor strongly objected to any such power being given to himself, for reasons he (Mr. Walpole) must state. The nomination by the Chancellor of one head and one professor must necessarily take place either before or after the election of the others. What will then happen? If the election is before, the Chancellor would be put in the invidious position of having to prefer one man to the others; if after, then the greater difficulty would immediately arise, namely, that the head and professor named by himself would be considered inferior to those who were chosen by the University at large. For these reasons, he thought that such a power ought not to be left to the Chancellor of the University, as it might, and probably would, lead to jealousy and distrust. He would not now go into any other objections to the governing body, nor into questions whether they ought to leave the University to select such a body as she would think best fitted to manage her affairs; and this for two reasons—first, because the members of the University, who were supposed to have particular care of her interest, were clearly of opinion that the Hebdomadal Board ought to be taken away; and, secondly, because he found from the petition of the University itself that she did not so much object to this portion of the Bill as she did to that portion which interfered with the colleges. When they came to Clause 6, he would propose so to alter the mode of election as to allow the heads of houses to select their own representatives, the professors their own, and the Congregation or Convocation the remaining members of the governing body of the University. He believed that his mode would give more satisfaction than that proposed by Government, and he trusted it would be adopted.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would suggest to his right hon. Friend that it would be advisable to reserve any discussion on the question which he had raised until the 6th clause came under consideration, because to make any alteration such as that proposed by his right hon. Friend would involve matters of detail and alterations of words, and the subject could then be dealt with more conveniently. He had no objection to strike out the words "hereinafter mentioned."

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the machinery of one or two clauses. He thought things would get into confusion from the mode in which everything was to be done in one day. By Clause 5 on the first day of Michaelmas Term all these powers were to come into play, and by Clause 11 the first election was to be made on that day; if anything occurred to prevent it, the whole University would be thrown into confusion. There were two new bodies, which were to be invested with certain powers, and it would, he thought, be prudent not to bring those bodies into operation on the same day, but to give a fair margin.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had consulted the persons best acquainted with the working of the University as to the precise day to be named, but the matter might be left open till the Report was brought up. The 18th clause creates the Congregation by which the council was to be elected. The clause says that from and after the first day of Michaelmas Term it shall consist of such and such persons; and if the right hon. Gentleman consulted any Statute which passed that House, he would find that these words included the day named.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wanted to know what powers and privileges of the Hebdomadal Board were to be transferred to the new council, because the Board, as at present constituted, discharged both administrative and legislative functions. If the new council were only to have legislative powers, a great deal of the objection to the measure would be removed. The Hebdomadal Board was well fitted for the exercise of executive powers. Was it intended that the Board should retain them?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that it was not easy to answer the question in a satisfactory manner, as no one could give a precise account of what the functions of the Hebdomadal Board were. The Statute of Charles I. appeared to him to confer none but legislative powers, but usage had in all such cases conferred on such bodies certain powers which would now, perhaps, be adjudged to belong legally to them, though not within the words of the Statute. He did not believe that their administrative functions were of any great importance. The vice chancellor, their president, was the person on whom the administration of the University principally rested. But whatever the powers were, it was proposed that they should be transferred. The Board was possessed of another power, neither legislative nor administrative, but rather judicial. It happened that from time to time the Hebdomadal Board were called on to put a construction on any Statute of the University on which a doubt had arisen, and the decision was accepted as an authority; that power also would go over. It was quite an error to suppose that the Hebdomadal Board administered the University; that rested with the vice chancellor and proctors. He had never heard it suggested that it would be desirable to have a second body to discharge those functions. He would call the attention of the hon. Baronet to this fact—that if there were any functions which would be better discharged by the heads of houses, arrangements could be made under the 9th clause, which empowered the Hebdomadal Council to constitute Committees, to which they might add members of Convocation not belonging to their body.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he thought it would be wise to introduce some words of qualification, limiting the council to legislative functions, and specifying (if it should be desirable) any exceptional case for the discharge of functions of another character.

MR. HENLEY

said, he would beg to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the many Acts of Parliament controlling the relations between the City authorities and the University, and he hoped that care would be taken so that no confusion should arise.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he must point out that the powers of the Hebdomadal Board were by this clause to be transferred to the council from and after the first day of Michaelmas Term; and by a subsequent clause the council was to be elected on that day by the Congregation. But the Congregation was not to be elected until that day, so that there might be an interval during which the University would be without any governing authority.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there was a difficulty any way, and he scarcely knew how to obviate it; for it would not do to allow the old and new governing bodies to coexist; but as the interval would be reduced to one day, he did not think great public inconvenience would ensue from that circumstance.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University did not seem to know very well what the functions of the Hebdomadal Board were, but the Report of the Commissioners would have given the right hon. Gentleman some light on the subject, had he consulted it. He (Mr. Newdegate) saw plainly enough that the abolition of this Board had been determined upon; that the learned and estimable men who composed it had been run down purposely, and every matter, however trivial, exaggerated against them. He could only compare this treatment of the Hebdomadal Board to that of the victims of the auto da fé, in the days of Popish tyranny, who were vilified and dressed as devils, in order to reconcile and prepare the public for their sacrifice. Any one who knew how gross were the calumnies to which the Board had been subjected by a portion of the public press, could not fail to feel the justice of this comparison. The heads of houses were elected as the men best fitted to govern their respective colleges. They would not easily find a body of men so well suited to their office, each having been separately elected on account of his peculiar qualifications for government and discipline, as well as learning and piety. He was satisfied they could never find a body of men to maintain the discipline of the University better qualified than the Hebdomadal Board; and though he knew it was vain to hope to change the determination of the Committee, after the opinion which had been expressed, he must be forgiven the expression of his conviction that the proposed change was likely to inflict permanent injury on the University.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Composition of Hebdomadal Council).

MR. WALPOLE

said, he would propose to omit the word "six" before "heads of colleges," for the purpose of inserting "seven," and after the words "colleges and halls," to omit the words "elected by the Congregation hereinafter mentioned of the University," for the purpose of inserting the following words, "be selected from among themselves by such heads of colleges or halls." If successful in this Amendment he should propose a similar one with regard to the professors.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "Elected by the Congregation hereinafter mentioned of the said University, and one other Head appointed by the Chancellor of the University," in order to insert the words "to be selected from among themselves by such Heads of Colleges or Halls," instead thereof.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the previous remarks of the right hon. Gentleman had raised two questions quite distinct from one another. One had reference to the principle called at Oxford sectional election, the other applied to the election of certain members of the Hebdomadal Council by the Chancellor of the University. With regard to the latter question that was a matter open to discussion. It had its advantages, and it was also open to fair objection. The Committee kept in view the advantages. By the present measure they were going to assign to the resident body of the University, through the medium of a representative organisation, a very much greater power to be exercised by them, as apart from the external influence on the education of the country, than they had heretofore possessed. And it must be borne in mind that the Government found it to be very difficult to qualify that power in an unexceptionable manner. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment went to this, whether the constituency to elect should be a council or a convocation, and he was bound to say that the Government resisted any proposal to make Convocation the electing power instead of the congregational. With respect to those who had spent ten or twelve terms at the University, and who never had before or after any share in its concerns, though they contributed to swell the political constituency, and on other occasions gave their voice as members of Convocation, he considered it would be a great mistake if they were to recognise this very promiscuous body as entitled and qualified by their knowledge to appoint by election the persons who were to carry on the affairs of the University and to prepare the Statutes. That was not, therefore, an open question; Government was not prepared to make Convocation the electing body. But still it was most desirable that they should maintain the same relation between Oxford and the external world, in connection with the governing body, which already subsisted in other respects, and which was found to be highly useful. The position of the Chancellor suggested itself as an obvious means of accomplishing this object. The Chancellor was universally a man of great eminence—a layman, almost invariably—as there had been no instance of a clergyman having been appointed for centuries—a man deriving all his influence from the outward world, and therefore well qualified to represent the outward world in his dealings with the University. There was another consideration which ought not to be left out of view. At present the whole governing power of the University was vested in the heads of colleges and of halls, and of these four were appointed by the Chancellor, who had also the power of appointing the vice chancellor, and who had thus considerable influence in the governing body, and of course this considerable influence would be diminished by transferring the power of these parties from the Hebdomadal Board to the Hebdomadal Council. Now it was wished to maintain the office of Chancellor in its full dignity, because that power was felt to be highly beneficial to University interests. He was inclined to think, as he was at present advised, that it was not expedient to place the nomination of members of the Hebdomadal Board in the hands of the Chancellor. He proposed to strike this out altogether, and also to leave the number of the council twenty-two. However, that was a matter which he would reserve for future consideration. The main question was as to what was called sectional election. They were supposed to have agreed to a Hebdomadal Council of three classes—the heads of colleges, the professorial class, and the members of Convocation. The question to solve was, should the representatives be all elected out of the same body, or by the members of the class to which they severally belonged? The first of these plans was embodied in the Bill, the second was that advocated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole). It appeared to Government that each plan had its own separate merits. There were two considerations which weigh- ed strongly with the Government in favour of sectional election. The first was, that while they were about to transfer power from a class which had long enjoyed it, it was undoubtedly their wish that the transfer should be effected with as little abatement to the dignity or injury to the feelings of that class as was possible; and as the heads of houses had been accustomed to transact the affairs of the University very much among themselves, undoubtedly it would be more agreeable to them that the election of their representatives should take place among themselves than among the general body of the Congregation. There was another and still more important consideration in favour of that course. They had felt it from the first to be indispensable to any plan for the reform of the University of Oxford that the professorial body should be augmented, not only in strength and endowments, but that a positive and definite place should be given to them in the University, and that there should be placed in their hands such a share of power as, relative to their influence, they might reasonably claim. Now, it was felt that they might strengthen that professorial power if they were to adopt the principle of the professorial body electing professors to the Hebdomadal Council. Those reasons in the first instance inclined the Government in favour of the plan of sectional election. But a large number of, he was proud to say, the ablest men in Oxford, who were strongly of opinion that the professorial influence, their numbers, their duties, their emoluments, and their powers, should all be increased, had yet joined in entreating the Government that the plan of sectional election should not be adopted; and they had sent up a deputation to his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), stating, "Give us the power of a Congregation, give us the power of a free utterance of our opinions, give us the power of stating what seems to us to be for the good of the University, and we are willing that the election of the professors themselves should remain in the hands of a well-selected Congregation." The Government thought this was a generous and trustworthy offer, and at the same time they could not be insensible to the objection of having three constituencies in a body which would not number above 200 or 300 members altogether. There would be a constituency of twenty-three or twenty-four members only among the heads of houses—a constituency of from thirty to thirty-five professors. Why, however eminent such men might be, and however excellent their intentions, it really seemed as if the word clique was invented to express what they must inevitably degenerate into. If the Hebdomadal Council was to be composed of men chosen from three separate constituencies, it must follow that they would come together, set against one another, to maintain the separate interests of their class, and to judge the bearings of every question that emerged in the spirit of jealous partisanship, the first duties of each being to consider what made for the interests of their respective constituencies. Now, it must never be forgotten that they were legislating for a place the greatest and most important function of which was the education of the flower of the youth of England, and it was essential to any plan they might devise that they should leave the authority of the University at least as strong as they found it. Now, he feared that would not be done if they adopted the plan of sectional election. His hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) knew something of the working of sectional election at the other side of the globe. He had seen the working of a legislative body, one portion of which was the choice of power, the other portion was the choice of a popular constituency; and he knew the dissonating and distracting tendencies of such a system upon the body within, and its weakening and paralysing effect upon the body without. Now, the principle of this Bill was that of confidence. If they had no confidence in the men composing the constituency to be created, then this Bill was an absurdity from one end to the other. It was impossible that the Bill should work, except on the principle of confidence. The proposition from Oxford was, that they should work it on the principle of confidence—that a good and efficient constituency should be created, and then that they should give that constituency the power of electing all the members of the Hebdomadal Council. That plan his right hon. Friend opposite said was unacceptable to the University. He should be sorry to put his knowledge of the University in comparison with that of his right hon. Friend, but he must say that during all the years of his acquaintance with Oxford he had made it his study to know the feelings of the resident members, and he thought he knew, from direct communication and correspondence with them, the sentiments of a large majority of them, and he could state that, in their opinion, it would be a great evil if the Government were, by the plan of sectional election, to perpetuate, at least for a long period of time, the separate and divisional interests of the different classes of the University. If they adopted the other plan, elections would be made without reference to the narrow interests of classes. Representatives would be chosen with reference to the general interest, and harmonious working would be the result. The great sacrifice voluntarily tendered by the professorial interest and accepted in the same spirit by Government he hoped would be as frankly adopted by the Committee.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he would not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's superior acquaintance with the University, but he, too, had some knowledge of their opinions, and from all he had been able to collect he was led to a different conclusion front that of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the opinion of the heads of the University on the question of sectional election. He had communication with several parties on the subject, and the information he obtained led him strongly to the conclusion that the sectional mode of election was preferred by the University; and he also ventured to think the right hon. Gentleman had drawn an exaggerated picture of the bad effects of that mode of election if it was adopted. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that by that system professors would consider only the interest of professors, and so on throughout. But he saw no reason why heads of houses and professors, if they became members of the same body, should take a more narrow view of their duties because each had been elected by his own class, than they would do if elected under what the right hon. Gentleman called the congregational mode. It was impossible to hear the discussion on this clause without feeling that it raised some of the most important questions which were at issue. He would not advert to the question of the nominations by the Chancellor. There was no sufficient reason assigned for the proposed change from the Hebdomadal Board to the Hebdomadal council. The Report of the Commission recommended no such thing; it left the Board as it was at present constituted, or nearly so. However, it was not his intention to raise any objection to the change, as there appeared a general feeling of the Committee and of the University in favour of the three classes forming the constituent body as contemplated by the Bill. But he must confess that he had a preference for the mode of sectional election. He should support the Motion that heads of houses be chosen by heads of houses, and professors by professors; and he would even go further than the right hon. Gentleman, for at the proper period it was his intention to move an Amendment to leave out the word "Congregation" and substitute the word "Convocation." The second line of the present clause raised another important question, whether or not they could accede to the recommendation of Government for the appointment of Congregation. He was ready and willing to consider any argument the right hon. Gentleman might have to advance in favour of the proposition. He hoped at the proper moment the right hon. Gentleman would give a clear and full explanation for the introduction of this entire novelty in the constitution of the University. The right hon. Gentleman might tell them that Congregation was not a novelty, for its revival had been indicated in the Report of the Commission. He would admit that the Commission adverted to a body called the Congregation, which once had large powers; and, in a conservative spirit, implied that if the body was re-enacted with increased powers, it would not be a novelty, but a revival. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that Congregation, as it was to be enacted in this Bill, was a very different body from that which had been recommended by the Commissioners in their Report. The Congregation provided for in the Bill would be at least twice as numerous a body as that contemplated by the Commissioners. No power was given to this new body to make amendments, and it would only have the power of saying aye or no to any measure which the Hebdomadal Council might lay before it. He should therefore support the Amendment.

MR. HORSMAN

said that, as the Amendments of which he had given notice were embraced in those already moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), he should prefer taking them in the way they now came before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the three bodies would be at strife with each other; but that was the fault of the Bill, for the Bill recognised three interests, which were sent in to counterbalance each other. According to the Bill the Hebdomadal Council was to be composed of three interests—seven professors, seven heads of houses, and seven members of Convocation. He did not know why their numbers had been made the same, unless it was that they had been recognised as three separate and distinct interests, which required to be balanced one against the other. If that was the principle involved in the Bill, it was a mockery to say to these men that they should be represented, but that they should not choose their own representatives, and that they must be chosen by that very interest which would overpower them. The tutorial interests predominating in Congregations would overwhelm all others. If it was really understood to give each of these interests a power of balancing and checking each other, they ought to be allowed to select the best men to protect their interests. The question, therefore, arose, if the interest of the heads of houses was to be protected against the hostile interest of tutors, whether the best representatives were likely to be elected by the tutors or by the heads of houses? In the same manner as regarded the professors, they must consider whether the best professors were likely to be selected by the professors. The Bill made inevitable that conflict of interests which the right hon. Gentleman opposite deprecated. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated that the opinion of Government had undergone a change on the subject of sectional election. Might he ask whether a majority of the deputation from Oxford which had waited on Government on the subject did not consist of tutors?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he must beg to be allowed to correct a mistake into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen, on the authority of an anonymous statement as to the number of tutors in the University. He did not think there were 100. He remembered the time when they were only about eighty. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that heads of houses, tutors, and professors were three separate and distinct bodies; but that was not the case. Many tutors were heads of houses, and many heads of houses were professors.

MR. NEWDEGATE

, in supporting this Amendment, said, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was on the plea of the necessity of electing these three classes, who it was proposed should constitute the Hebdomadal Council, that they were asked to create an entirely new body, for which had been chosen the old name of Congregation, and which would, in fact, be the governing body of the University; for if the plan of the Government were carried out, the Hebdomadal Council would be a mere emanation of this new body—Congregation. Let the House consider how measures for the consideration of Convocation, the present governing body of the University, were to be initiated, and they would understand the enormous power which it was proposed to place in the hands of this new body—Congregation. At present all measures for the government of the University, all questions for the consideration of Convocation, must emanate from the Hebdomadal Board, which consisted of the heads of houses, the vice chancellor, and proctors—in all twenty-six persons—who were likewise charged with the administration of the discipline, and the enforcement of the Statutes of the University. This body was independent in its constitution, had proved most valuable for the maintenance of the discipline of the University, and at the same time amenable to the public opinion of the University in the initiation of subjects for the consideration of Convocation on all great questions. At present the whole legislation of the University originated in the Hebdomadal Board, but it was now proposed to create a new nominated body of some two hundred members, to whom virtually would be delegated the power of initiating measures; for the proposed Hebdomadal Council would be a mere committee or delegacy of this new Congregation, to which body all measures and questions must be submitted by their Committee, the Hebdomadal Council, for approval or rejection, before they could be submitted to Convocation. Thus would the direct communication between the initiative body and Convocation, the legitimate legislature of the University, be intercepted. This new body would be totally independent of Convocation, and large and powerful enough to be inspired by a spirit of intense rivalry against Convocation. To explain this proposed organisation to the House he would compare the constitution thus proposed for the University with the political constitution of this country. He would compare the proposed Hebdomadal Council with the Cabinet, the proposed Congregation with the House of Lords, the Convocation with the House of Commons. Now, the constitution of the State would be analogous in action to that proposed for the University, if the Cabinet were to become a Committee of the House of Lords, from which all measures must emanate for the consideration of the House of Lords, without whose assent no measure nor question could originate in or reach the House of Commons. He well knew that the House of Commons, as the popular and representative body of the State, would never submit to be thus fettered and incapacitated from independent action. He would pray the House of Commons not to enforce fetters, such as they would never bear themselves, upon Convocation, the noblest municipality, the most intellectual, the most justly honoured, popular, and representative body of the United Kingdom, peculiarly adapted, as it was, by educational attachment of its members, the masters of arts, for the government of the University. How would this measure affect the relation of the University to the Church of England? The Convocations of Oxford and Cambridge afforded the only independent, the only means, of expression left to the Church of England; but now they were about to constitute a new body, large enough to be the rival of Convocation of Oxford, in which body it was proposed to vest the whole powers of initiating measures for the government of the University, as well as the power of deciding upon what questions of general importance Convocation should be permitted to express its opinion by petition. It was proposed to constitute a nominated body of residents in the University, to whom would be given a direct power of controlling and preventing the action of Convocation in the government of the University. By this means the great body of the Church of England would be deprived of the means of regulating the education of those who were to be its future clergy, which it hitherto possessed. Convocation was a most enlightened constituent body, the best adapted for the government of Oxford University of any that could be created. It constituted a direct connection between the Church of England and the University, and yet they were about to interpose a third body between Convocation and the University. The excuse was, that this proposed body was necessary to elect the Hebdomadal Council; but it had been clearly shown that no such necessity existed. It had been shown that the Heb- domadal Council might be more advantageously constituted by the election of three several classes—the professors by the professors, the heads of houses by the heads of houses, and the remaining third, the masters of arts, who were to be admitted to the Hebdomadal Council, by Convocation. If this last privilege were not conceded to Convocation, Parliament would cut off—as he believed it was the intention of the Government to do—the communication between Convocation and the initiative and administrative body of the University, by interposing between them the proposed new body—Congregation. It happened that while he was at Oxford the Tractarian movement had commenced, and, he might be permitted to say, that no danger mole serious had ever threatened the Church of England. It had been the means of transferring to the Church of Rome some of her ablest members—men who had since become her most bitter assailants. Now, had that danger, he would ask, arisen from within or without Oxford, among the non-resident or among the resident members of the University? It had had its origin within, and it was from within that it was proposed to constitute that power which was to interrupt the relation between Convocation and the University. What was the history of that great danger, the rise of Tractarianism? It had been opposed by that Hebdomadal Board which it was at present sought to abolish. It would have been crushed by Convocation, which the measure before them proposed to supersede, had it not been for the interposition of the veto of the proctor, which was about to be retained. Now, looking back at the last great danger which had threatened the Church of England, he should ask the House to pause before it consented to deprive the government of the University of its free and popular character, derived directly from Convocation, the fair and honest representative of the Church of England. Such were the constitutional objections to the scheme under discussion. Nothing could be more unlike the old Congregation, which had long since lapsed into being mere form, than the novelty which it was proposed to raise up and endow with its name. That was a novelty which had been created by the Government, and for which they had no sanction from the University whatsoever. On the contrary, the opinion of the University, so far as it could find expression, was in direct opposition to the proposition of the Government. The petition of Convocation to Her Majesty prayed for powers which Her Majesty might have given consistently with the constitution of the University and her right as visitor, had not the right hon. Member of Parliament for the University and the Government advised Her Majesty to refuse. That petition stated that Convocation desired to preserve the Hebdomadal Board, but to constitute another Board, elected from Convocation, to participate in the initiative power which the Hebdomadal Board possessed. The petition prayed for nothing like the constitution of this new Congregation, but for an organisation totally dissimilar; in fact, for power to appoint a delegacy of Convocation to perform the functions which the Government were seeking to vest in other hands. It had happened upon two most important occasions that Convocation had given expression to opinions in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not participated. Convocation had petitioned against the Jew Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had upon that occasion stated that he regretted that he differed from the body which he represented; but that really they must leave matters of legislation in the hands of persons whose province it was to deal with such matters. Convocation had also been opposed to the Papal Aggression, and in favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Against that measure the right hon. Gentleman had recorded his vote. Now, he should put it to the House to say whether, when it was taken into account that in those two marked instances the right hon. Gentleman had differed from the opinion of his constituents, there might not be some natural bias in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman towards choking the expression of sentiments which were not always found to be in accordance with his own. He should, in conclusion, once more remind the House that in the clause under their consideration the free action and independence of the University was to a great extent involved.

MR. LOWE

said, he would not follow the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who had just resumed his seat, at any great length, into the regrets he had expressed at the miscarriage of the constitution which had been proposed by the University, or rather by the heads of houses and Convocation, because he apprehended that any one who had taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with that constitution would be aware that it would have reduced matters to a perfect deadlock, that it would have rendered it impossible for the University to go either backwards or forwards, and would have sealed up every possibility of reform or alteration. The plan was, in fact, because the heads of houses had not been found to possess in the fullest extent the confidence of the members of the University, to appoint another board to act with them, and it was proposed that, as the two boards would not be able to agree, they should be told to sit down harmoniously together and fix upon some plan, and that nothing should be proposed until this had taken place. It was very much as if Her Majesty's present Government, having been so unfortunate as to lose the confidence of the House of Commons, the House, instead of turning them out and replacing them by those who possessed that confidence, should have appointed another Cabinet from the other side of the House, and directed them to sit together, and agree in the initiation of measures for the government of the country. And, in case this combined Cabinet should not agree in the initiation of measures, they should confer together until they could do so, the House of Commons in the meantime sitting with its arms folded, unable to stir on any subject whatever until the Cabinet had agreed upon the subject under its consideration. This was the constitution for the University which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) regretted. He could not agree with him in so doing; neither did he believe the Committee would agree with him in thinking that there had been a great deal lost to the popular cause, or the cause of freedom, or the British Constitution and liberty, and all that sort of thing, in Oxford, because a body was to be interposed between the heads of houses and Convocation. Having resided for many years at Oxford, he could say that it was felt most bitterly by many of the residents that they were placed under an oligarchy, under a body of men who, however respectable, learned, and pious they might be, could not from their position and the nature of their avocations, represent the feelings and the spirit of the University, and there was nothing more desired in his time, and he believed now also, by those who constituted the support, the mainstay of the University, than that there should be some means of representing the opinions of residents and that the University should have something else to rely on as an exponent of her wishes and feelings than, on the one hand, a body of men, advanced in life, whose only connection with her arose from their being at the head of different societies, and, on the other hand, a body of gentlemen gathered from the four winds of heaven, who assembled to the number, sometimes, of 400 or 500, to vote on questions which they often did not understand, and had never heard of until they came to Oxford. The power that Convocation exercised was now, or used to be, wielded by very few hands; and, although that assembly numbered many votes, the truth was, that a few tutors of great colleges, by combining together, could create a body against which all the resident members, who were really interested in the question to be decided, who would be sufferers or gainers in proportion as Convocation decided rightly or wrongly, would be powerless. He had seen Convocation made an instrument of, in a manner painful to reflect upon. For example, in the year 1836 he had seen 800 persons brought up to condemn a work of Dr. Hampden's, which not one-tenth part of them had ever read; he had seen that same Convocation afterwards turn on those of whom it was the obedient instrument in 1836 like Acæon's dogs, and come up with the same want of reflection and the same heat and violence to condemn their doctrines. He did not think it was either desirable or necessary that such a body should be left uncontrolled to exercise the same influence over the resident members which it had hitherto exercised. But he had risen principally to allude to the question of sectional elections, and he thought the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had altogether overstated his case with regard to this point. The hon. Member had represented that the whole object and aim of the present Bill was, by putting three classes of persons into the initiative body, to bring matters as far as possible to a deadlock by constituting three factions, totally inimical to each other, each looking entirely to its own interest, holding the other in check, and two of them conspiring to crush the third. If such were the object of the Bill, he could not imagine a less worthy object of the hon. Gentleman's support than an attempt, such as this would be, to create an eternal triad, two of the members of which should always be in opposition to a third. But neither the hon. Member nor any hon. Gentleman who had spoken to-night impugned the wisdom of the proceeding which assigned as the constitution of this Hebdomadal Council three separate and distinct parts—professors, members of Convocation, and heads of colleges. The propriety of this arrangement seemed to be admitted, and the only question was, whether the members of the council were to be elected by homogeneous constituencies or not? The best way to decide this question was to consider what were the principal reasons for making the proposition which had been brought forward. He did not know on what grounds it had been determined upon, but he could easily imagine on what grounds it ought to have been determined upon. The first reason that he could imagine for requiring any certain amount of heads of colleges in this body was, that we might carry out gradually, that we might ease, the great revolution we intended to accomplish, as it was not felt to be expedient in a place like Oxford, where violent changes were very much to be deprecated, to take away at once the governing power from a body of men who had possessed it since the reign of Charles I., and, therefore, it was not an unwise provision that at least one-third of the governing body should consist of these who had hitherto possessed the whole executive and initiative power. But, on the other hand, this precaution was to be taken. The great evils under which Oxford had suffered were, that those who represented the University much more nearly represented the collegiate element; that those who possessed the initiative and executive at Oxford were appointed to their offices, not from their position in the University, but from their positions as heads of colleges, and that there was, therefore, a tendency, which was developed into action at the end of the last century, to absorb the University into the colleges—the greater element into the less. It therefore seemed needful, in order to guard against this tendency, that some element should be introduced to represent the University, and to be a guarantee against the repetition of the evil, and that element was very properly found in the professorial element. He thought it was quite a mistake to view the different elements in this body as having been introduced in the hope and with the idea that they would check and control each other. The intention of the Government was now fully explained. It was, as a necessity for great changes existed, to give a guarantee for the repre- sentation of certain elements which it was desirable should be represented. But, having done this, why was it necessary to do that which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pekington) proposed to do—to ride a good principle to death, because the three separate bodies were to elect their own representatives? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich thought that there would not be any difference whether the council were elected by the members of Convocation at large or by their own bodies. But the difference would be manifest and evident, for, if heads of colleges were elected by heads of colleges, and professors were elected by professors, instead of returning those who were best qualified to promote the interests of the University, they would elect those who were best calculated to subserve the interests of the class which had chosen them. That was not desirable. Granting that it would be advisable to choose out of those three classes an equal number of members of the board, still it could not be desirable to create and to foster class feelings; but it must be infinitely preferable to delegate the choice to a body quite distinct from, and independent of, the three, the object of whom would be to select the best men that they could find. All these gentlemen lived in the same small town. They met day by day, and if Parliament gave to each fraction such an independent system as was proposed by the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Midhurst, the result would be to divide the University into three distinct classes. If, on the other hand, they gave them one homogeneous constituency, they would get whatever good there might be in the sort of conservative precaution which was supposed to exist in that threefold system, while the amount of passion which would be excited would be as small as was possible in an election contest. The truth was, that the constituency ought to work together as one homogeneous system. There was no strong amount of division between these parties, and, when it was said that the tutors were opposed to the heads of colleges, it should be remembered that when the heads of colleges ceased to be the governing body of the University the distinction between tutors and heads would cease. Whatever opposition now existed between them arose from the fact that one was the governing class, and that the other had no power whatever. When that should be removed, therefore, all opposition and distinction would be destroyed. For these among other reasons he hoped that the Committee would not take the illiberal step of subdividing the small constituency which Oxford could bring to bear in the election of this body into three smaller constituencies, which, instead of working harmoniously for the public good, would become, in fact, three hostile factions, whose proceedings would only tend to perpetuate jealousies, bickerings, and mistrust.

MR. HENLEY

said, he willingly admitted the ability with which the bon. Gentleman who had just sat down had handled the question, but he thought that the illustration which he had given might have been found in the Government of which he was himself a Member, without supposing a union of the Cabinets on the two sides of the House. He wished to state the reasons which would induce him to vote in favour of what had been called "sectional elections." They all knew that everything in the University was carried by religious sects or parties, and no person could very much doubt what would be the case if the Congregation were to be constituted as proposed by the Bill. The whole of that body would—to borrow a phrase from the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)—be elected by a clique. The younger portion, who constituted the movement party, would outnumber all the others, and they would have the election of the whole body. No man knew better than the right hon. Gentleman what the movements of that party had been in the University within the last twenty years, and he had no hesitation in saying that if during that period the power of the University had been in the resident body, everything would have been carried in the most ultra-Tractarian way. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) had alluded to what had occurred in 1836, with reference to Dr. Hampden, but that was only another proof of how these things were conducted, and the hon. Member must know that if the resident members had been let alone, a much stronger resolution would have been carried against Dr. Hampden than actually had been proposed. It was stated that the University was now in the hands of an oligarchy of twenty-four; but he had no hesitation in saying that if they gave this proposed power to the tutors it would be in the hands of an oligarchy of about 100. Instead of an open constituency of 3,600, those 100 gentlemen, who would constitute the majority of class No. 9, would carry everything before them. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to let down the heads of houses easily, and he had stated that the professorial element were willing to relinquish any position which they had enjoyed, but those professorial gentlemen never had had the position which was occupied by the heads of houses, and they would, in fact, be elevated while the others would be brought down. He felt so strongly upon this point that, if nobody else had raised it, he certainly should have done so. He did not subscribe to the propriety of committing the whole power of the University to the resident members. He believed that a man was often much better fitted to judge of what was good for the University after he had lived ten or twelve years in the world than if he had stayed at the University, and occupied himself for eight or ten hours a day in teaching. There would always be a movement party amongst the class of young men to whom this Bill proposed to give the principal power. It was natural to their time of life, at which there was always a desire to change something; and he felt convinced that if they gave them the power of initiation, no questions to which they were opposed would ever reach Convocation. They knew the extent to which Tractarianism had been carried in that University, and they were now told that a reaction had set in, and that the German principle was rife there. He thought that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had gone a little too far in what he had said upon that subject the other night; but no man could say what might not occur there, for the clerical element would always be the prevailing element in Oxford, and it was not for the benefit of the University to place its government in the hands of persons liable to be swayed by any religious tenet which happened at the moment to be in favour. In the plan as proposed by the Amendment, the professorial would be more particularly the lay element, and the heads of houses would, as a section, contain men of different ages, who would not be likely to be too much imbued with the clerical element, which was sure to have its attractions for younger men. Now, the sectional system would have this great advantage, that the members of the council would then be elected by classes taking different views; they would be elected partly by men of mature age and reflection; and they would not in that case, therefore, be composed of persons of the one predominating religious party, which there was always sure to be amongst the young men of the University, who would form so powerful an element in the Congregation which it was proposed to constitute by this Bill. It was well known that when persons of the clerical profession differed upon any points, their very zeal caused them not to regard those who dissented from them with so much forbearance as was desirable. High Churchmen would not look at Low Churchmen, nor the latter at the former; and he felt convinced that if they threw the whole power of the University into the hands of one constituency, when one of these parties would predominate, all questions would he decided on purely party grounds. For these reasons he should support the Amendment before the Committee, which he understood to be in favour of sectional elections.

MR. EVELYN DENISON

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the arguments in favour of sectional election, with a view of combating them, he did not think the arguments he adduced against them were so powerful as to do away with the force of the original arguments, and he (Mr. E. Denison) thought if the care which had been taken in a late proposition to provide for the representation of minorities had been applied to the professorial system, which was a minority in the University of Oxford, that proposition would have claimed great consideration at their hands; his right hon. Friend had said that all improvements should be in favour of the professorial system. He agreed with that sentiment, and hoped that the House would give free scope and fair play to the professorial system, and not put the professors, as they would do if the present clause were passed, entirely into the hands of the tutors. The real question for their consideration was the dominancy of the tutors, which he looked upon with great alarm, and, as the matter stood, be should vote for the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, the great point to be obtained in the constitution of a governing body was to secure its having the confidence of the University, and for that purpose it was hardly necessary to go into the question which had been raised with reference to the compara- tive merits of the Convocation and the Congregation. Generally, he thought the residents, if fairly polled, would represent the impression of the whole body of Oxford University, and, although there might be cases in which that might be reversed, as was the case in almost every kind of legislation, yet, in the general question of election, it would seldom make any difference whether it was by the Congregation or Convocation; but, as between Congregation and Convocation on one side and sectional constituencies on the other, it appeared clearly that to give effect to the University of Oxford, they should allow either Congregation or Convocation to elect, and not break it up into sectional elections. What they wanted was to have twenty-four men representing the mind of the University, and for collateral reasons they desired that those twenty-four men should possess certain definite qualifications; that some should be familiar with the views of the heads of houses, that others should be familiar with the views that animate professors, and that others should be conversant with the sentiments diffused over the University at large. They did not wish to bring these nice into conflict with each other and make them the representatives of different classes, but rather to bring the knowledge that belonged to men of different habits into one harmonious assembly; and they would do that best and perhaps do it only, if they elected them by a common constituency. There was another thing to be observed, and that was, they had laid it down in the Bill that the number seven should not be accurately fixed, for, if the heads of houses or the professors had the confidence and were acceptable to the Convocation, there might be eight or nine representing heads of houses or professors, and a smaller number of those who might be more peculiarly termed members for the Congregation, which he looked upon as a very great advantage, but if they elected them by separate bodies, they would then have the numbers defined and exact, and it seemed more likely that they would come into conflict. The only reason for hesitation was, as it had been stated, because some of the heads of houses at Oxford would prefer the other plan, and he thought a great deal of deference was due to their wishes. He thought it was far better for the just influence which the heads of houses exerted that the clause should be left as it was than that it should be altered, for he believed that what had been said frequently on his side of the House, and objected to very unreasonably, he considered, on the other, was perfectly true—namely, that, generally speaking, heads of houses, at ordinary times, conversant with the affairs of the University, would be found to be best for its government. Such a principle was recognised by Congregation itself, and it would be greatly to the advantage of their just influence that there should be liberty of choice, so as to enable them to elect more than seven heads of houses to conduct the business of the University. In like manner with the professors, they should be eminent men, with more leisure than tutors, for it was a burden that tutors had frequently complained of, that in all the agitation about Oxford University they had been obliged to give so much time to the discussion of its arrangements, and they would be likely to acquiesce in the number of professorial representatives being more than seven if they were allowed free scope; but if they insisted upon the representatives being returned by each section separately, there would be always seven men on each side, which would give rise to all the objections to which he had alluded. Considering, therefore, that what they wanted was men having the full confidence of the University, he should certainly support the clause as it stood.

MR. WIGRAM

said, he did not feel the force of the objection urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against sectional elections as applied to heads of houses, for there appeared to him to be strong reasons why they should be so elected. They stood in a position of considerable independence, and it was very undesirable that they should be exposed to the necessity of soliciting in any way the support of either party; therefore, in his opinion, it was more proper that they should choose among themselves a certain number of delegates to represent them than that they should be returned as representatives of the whole body. Another consideration was, that elections among small numbers would be conducted in a much quieter manner than among large bodies, and in support of such a proposition, considerable weight was due to the recommendation of the Tutors' Association, which had embodied its views in a most able paper. That association recommended that the council should consist of three different sections; that the representatives of time heads should be elected by the heads, those of the professors by the professors, and the third division by the tutors and other residents. That was one of the reasons which weighed very much in his mind in favour of allowing the heads of houses to return their own delegates as members of the council. With regard to the election of the other representatives he gave no opinion at present.

MR. HEYWOOD

said, if each of the sections were allowed to elect their own representatives, he was afraid the clerical feeling would predominate too much, and it was necessary to obtain a representation, not only of the members of the University at Oxford, but of the general feeling throughout the country. He would instance the case of the refusal of the degree of D.C.L. to Mr. Everett by the Convocation, on the ground of his being a Unitarian, as illustrating the danger of allowing such a body to possess uncontrolled power.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 162: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.
Adderley, C. B.	Foley, J. H. H.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Forster, C.
Bass, M. T.	Forster, J.
Beamish, F. B.	Fortescue, C. S.
Biddulph, R. M.	Freestun, Col.
Biggs, W.	Geach, C.
Bland, L. H.	Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Bowyer, G.	Gladstone, Capt.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Goderich, Visct.
Bramston, T. W.	Goodman, Sir G.
Brand, hon. H.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Brockman, E. D.	Greene, T.
Brotherton, J.	Gregson, S.
Bruce, H. A.	Grenfell, C. W.
Buckley, Gen.	Grey, R. W.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Hale, R. B.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Hall, Sir B.
Cavendish, hon. G.	Hankey, T.
Christy, S.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.	Harcourt, Col.
Cocks, T. S.	Hastie, A.
Collier, R. P.	Headlam, T. E.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Heard, J. I.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Heathcote, Sir W.
Divett, E.	Heneage, G. F.
Duff, G. S.	Hervey, Lord A.
Duff, J.	Heyworth, L.
Duncan, G.	Hindley, C.
East, Sir J. B.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Egerton, Sir P.	Hutchins, E. J.
Ellice, rt. hon. E.	Ingham, R.
Esmonde, J.	Jackson, W.
Ewart, W.	Jermyn, Earl
Fergus, J.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Ferguson, Sir R.	Keating, H. S.
Filmer, Sir E.	Keogh, W.
FitzGerald, Sir J.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Fitzgerald, J. D.	Kirk, W.
Fitzgerald, W. R. S.	Langston, J. H.

Lee, W.	Russell, Lord J.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.	Russell, F. C. H.
Loveden, P.	Russell, F. W.
Lowe, R.	Sadleir, Jas.
MacGregor, J.	Sawle, C. B. G.
M'Taggart, Sir J.	Scully, F.
Maddock, Sir H.	Seymer, H. K.
Mangles, R. D.	Shafto, R. D.
Marshall, W.	Shelley, Sir J. V.
Matheson, Sir J.	Sheridan, R. B.
Mills, T.	Smith, W. M.
Milnes, R. M.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Mitchell, T. A.	Stafford, Marq. of
Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Monck, Visct.	Stuart, Lord D.
Moncreiff, J.	Sutton, J. H. M.
Monsell, W.	Tancred, H. W.
Morris, D.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Norreys, Lord	Thornely, T.
Palmer, R.	Vernon, G. E. H.
Palmerston, Visct.	Vivian, J. H.
Patten, J. W.	Vivian, H. H.
Peel, F.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Philipps, J. H.	Walter, J.
Phillimore, R. J.	Watkins, Col. L.
Phinn, T.	Whitbread, S.
Pigott, F.	Wickham, H. W.
Pilkington, J.	Wilkinson, W. A.
Pollard-Urquhart, W.	Willcox, B. M.
Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Portal, M.	Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Portman, hon. W. H. B.	Wyvill, M.
Pritchard, J.	Young, rt. hon. Sir J.
Ricardo, O.	TELLERS.
Rice, E. R.	Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Rumbold, C. E.	Berkeley, C. L. G.

List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Clinton, Lord C. P.
Alexander, J.	Cobden, R.
Bagge, W.	Codrington, Sir W.
Bailey, C.	Coles, H. B.
Baird, J.	Colvile, C. R.
Baldock, E. H.	Cotton, hon. W. H. S.
Ball, E.	Craufurd, E. H. J.
Ball, J.	Crook, J.
Bankes, rt. hon. G.	Crossley, F.
Barnes, T.	Davies, D. A. S.
Barrington, Visct.	Denison, J. E.
Beach, Sir M. H. H.	Disraeli, rt. hon. B.
Bell, J.	Dod, J. W.
Bentinck, Lord H.	Duncombe, hon. O.
Bentinck, G. W. P.	Dunlop, A. M.
Blair, Col.	Dunne, Col.
Blake, M. J.	Egerton, E. C.
Blandford, Marq. of	Evelyn, W. J.
Boldero, Col.	Farnham, E. B.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Farrer, J.
Booker, T. W.	Ferguson, J.
Brady, J.	Floyer, J.
Brocklehurst, J.	Forester, rt. hon. Col.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Forster, Sir G.
Buck, L. W.	Frewen, C. H.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Galway, Visct.
Butt, G. M.	Gardner, R.
Butt, I.	Gaskell, J. M.
Carnac, Sir J. R.	George, J.
Cecil, Lord R.	Gilpin, Col.
Chandos, Marq. of	Goddard, A. L.
Child, S.	Graham, Lord M. W.
Cholmondeley, Lord H.	Greaves, E.
Christopher, rt.hn.R.A.	Greenall, G.
Clay, Sir W.	Greene, J.

Grogan, E.	Packe, C. W.
Gwyn, H.	Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.
Hadfield, G.	Palk, L.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Palmer, R.
Hamilton, G. A.	Parker, R. T.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Herbert, Sir T.	Pellatt, A.
Heywood, J.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Hildyard, R. C.	Percy, hon. J. W.
Horsman, E.	Phillimore, J. G.
Hotham, Lord	Price, W. P.
Hudson, G.	Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Hume, W. F.	Repton, G. W. J.
Jones, Capt.	Robertson, P. F.
Kendall, N.	Sandars, G.
Kershaw, J.	Scobell, Capt.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.	Seymour, W. D.
Knatchbull, W. F.	Shirley, E. P.
Knightley, R.	Spooner, R.
Knox, Col.	Stafford, A.
Lacon, Sir E.	Stanhope, J. B.
Langton, H. G.	Starkie, Le G. N.
Langton, W. G.	Taylor, Col.
Laslett, W.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Liddell, H. G.	Tollemache, J.
Liddell, hon. H. T.	Tudway, R. C.
Lindsay, hon. Col.	Tyler, Sir G.
Lindsay, W. S.	Vance, J.
Lisburne, Earl of	Vane, Lord A.
Lovaine, Lord	Vansittart, G. H.
Lowther, hon. Col.	Waddington, H. S.
Lowther, Capt.	Walcott, Adm.
Macartney, G.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Massey, W. N.	Warner, E.
Maunsell, T. P.	West, F. R.
Meux, Sir H.	Whiteside, J.
Miall, E.	Whitmore, H.
Miles, W.	Wigram, L. T.
Michell, W.	Williams, W.
Mowbray, J. R.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Mullings, J. R.	Wise, A.
Murrough, J. P.	Wyndham, W.
Naas, Lord	Wynn, Major H. W. W.
Neeld, J.	Wynne, W. W. E.
North, Col.
Oakes, J. H. P.	TELLERS.
O'Brien, P.	Newdegate, C. N.
Otway, A. J.	Jolliffe, Sir W.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he was not aware whether the Government intended to oppose the other Amendment of which he had given notice—namely, whether one head of a college or hall should be appointed by the Chancellor of the University. The objection he felt, was, that this would put the Chancellor of the University in an invidious position, in having to select one head of a house as preferable to another. He therefore proposed to omit the words, "one other head appointed by the Chancellor of the University."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Government would not object to leave out the words, after the decision which the Committee had just come to.

Words struck out.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he would now move to leave out the following words, en- acting that the professors should be "elected by the Congregation hereinafter described, and one other such professor appointed by the Chancellor, and one other such professor separately elected by the Congregation," and to insert the words, "to be selected from among themselves by such professors, one of whom," &c. This Amendment asserted the same principle as that which the Committee had just agreed to—namely, that the professors as well as the heads of houses should be elected from among themselves. He was not aware of any material distinction between the two cases.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

quite agreed that this alteration was included in the decision to which the Committee had just come. There would, therefore, be no difficulty on the part of the Government in acceding to it. They now came to the following words in the 6th clause:—"One of whom shall always be chosen from among the professors of theology." This proposition was on account of the weight and importance that attached to theology, and of the large and increasing amount of theological instruction given by the professors.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that if they were to have this separate professor of theology, it should, he considered, also carry with it the principle that he should be elected by the professors of divinity, for it would be a great anomaly were he to be elected by the other professors. Unless this were admitted, he should greatly doubt the expediency of this proposition.

MR. HEYWOOD

said, he objected to the words as to the professors of theology, as it was desirable that the University should be made less an ecclesiastical, and more of a national institution. He should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the professor should be one of modern languages instead of theology.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he was bound to admit that there was great force in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer), and he did not think that the election of a professor of divinity by the other professors would stand at all congruously or well. He thought, therefore, the proper course would be to drop the words as to the professors of theology.

MR. HORSMAN

said, he objected to this omission, as it would tend greatly to weaken the professorial influence at the Hebdomadal Board. As to how the professor of theology was to be elected was a separate question, but he should decidedly divide the Committee on the question that the words relating to the professor of theology should be retained.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he did not think the six professors of theology would form an improper constituency, and he should, therefore, oppose the omission of these words.

Amendment made:—Amendment proposed, in line 38, to the said Amendment, after the word "Professors," to add the words "of Theology."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Government were not now the framers of the clause. He should like to know what was the meaning of the term "selection," as used in the clause?

MR. WALPOLE

said, it was simply meant that the heads of houses should select from among themselves those whom they might choose to represent them.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he wished to know if in this arrangement the professorships of ecclesiastical history and Hebrew would come under the head of theology?

MR. DISRAELI

, speaking for himself, said, he had certainly felt that the word "theology" was ambiguous and rather doubtful; but, as they found it in the Bill, he thought it had better be retained.

Question put, "That those words be there added.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 148: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Christy, S.
Alexander, J.	Clinton, Lord C. P.
Bagge, W.	Cocks, T. S.
Bailey, C.	Coles, H. B.
Baird, J.	Cotton, hon. W. H. S.
Baldock, E. H.	Davies, D. A. S.
Ball, E.	Deeds, W.
Bankes, rt. hon. G.	Disraeli, rt. hon. B.
Barrington, Visct.	Dod, J. W.
Beach, Sir M. H. H.	Duncombe, hon. O.
Bentinck, Lord H.	Dunne, Col.
Bentinck, G. W. P.	East, Sir J. B.
Blair, Col.	Egerton, Sir P.
Boldero, Col.	Egerton, E. C.
Booker, T. W.	Evelyn, W. J.
Bramston, T. W.	Farnham, E. B.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Farrer, J.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Floyer, J.
Butt, G. M.	Forester, rt. hon. Col.
Butt, I.	Forster, Sir G.
Carnac, Sir J. R.	Frewen, C. H.
Cecil, Lord R.	George, J.
Chandos, Marq. of	Gilpin, Col.
Child, S.	Gladstone, Capt.
Cholmondeley, Lord H.	Goddard, A. L.
Christopher, rt. hn.R.A.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Graham, Lord M. W.	Palmer, Rob.
Greene, T.	Palmer, R.
Grogan, E.	Parker, R. T.
Gwyn, H.	Patten, J. W.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Percy, hon. J. W.
Hamilton, G. A.	Philipps, J. H.
Harcourt, Col.	Phillimore, R. J.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Portal, M.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W.	Pritchard, J.
Herbert, Sir T.	Repton, G. W. J.
Hildyard, R. C.	Robertson, P. F.
Hudson, G.	Sandars, G.
Hume, W. F.	Seymer, H. K.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.	Shirley, E. P.
Jones, Capt.	Smijth, Sir W.
Jones, D.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Kendall, N.	Spooner, R.
Knatchbull, W. F.	Stafford, A.
Knox, Col.	Stanhope, J. B.
Lacon, Sir E.	Stanley, Lord
Langton, W. G.	Starkie, Le G. N.
Laslett, W.	Stuart, H.
Liddell, H. G.	Taylor, Col.
Lindsay, hon. Col.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Lisburne, Earl of	Tudway, R. C.
Lovaine, Lord	Tyler, Sir G.
Lowther, hon. Col.	Vance, J.
Lowther, Capt.	Vane, Lord A.
Macartney, G.	Vansittart, G. H.
Meux, Sir H.	Vernon, G. E. H.
Miles, W.	Vyse, Col.
Michell, W.	Waddington, H. S.
Mowbray, J. R.	Walcott, Adm.
Mullings, J. R.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Naas, Lord	Whiteside, J.
Neeld, J.	Whitmore, H.
Newdegate, C. N.	Willoughby, Sir H.
North, Col.	Wyndham, W.
Oakes, J. H. P.	Wynn, Major H. W. W.
Ossulston, Lord	Wynne, W. W. E.
Packe, C. W.	TELLERS.
Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.	Galway, Visct.
Palk, L.	Wigram, L. T.

List of the NOES.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Crossley, F.
Ball, J.	Divett, E.
Barnes, T.	Drumlanrig, Visct.
Bass, M. T.	Duff, G. S.
Beamish, F. B.	Duff, J.
Bell, J.	Duncan, G.
Biddulph, R. M.	Dunlop, A. M.
Biggs, W.	Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Blake, M. J.	Esmonde, J.
Bland, L. H.	Ewart, W.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Ferguson, Sir R.
Bowyer, G.	FitzGerald, Sir J.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Fitzgerald, J. D.
Brand, H. H.	Fitzgerald, W. R. S.
Brocklehurst, J.	Foley, J. H. H.
Brockman, E. D.	Forster, C.
Brotherton, J.	Forster, J.
Bruce, H. A.	Fortescue, C. S.
Buckley, Gen.	Freestun, Col.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Gardner, R.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Gaskell, J. M.
Cheetham, J.	Geach, C.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.	Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Collier, R. P.	Goderich, Visct.
Colvile, C. R.	Goodman, Sir G.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Goold, W.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Greene, J.
Crook, J.	Gregson, S.

Grenfell, C. W.	Otway, A. J.
Grey, R. W.	Palmerston, Visct.
Hadfield, G.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Hankey, T.	Peel, F.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Pellatt, A.
Hastie, A.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Heard, J. I.	Phillimore, J. G.
Heneage, G. F.	Phinn, T.
Herbert, rt. hon. S.	Pigott, F.
Hervey, Lord L.	Pilkington, J.
Heywood, J.	Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.
Hindley, C.	Portman, hon. W. H. B.
Horsman, E.	Price, W. P.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Hutchins, E. J.	Ricardo, O.
Ingham, R.	Rice, E. R.
Jackson, W.	Rumbold, C. E.
Jermyn, Earl	Russell, Lord J.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Russell, F. C. H.
Keating, H. S.	Russell, F. W.
Keogh, W.	Sadleir, Jas.
Kershaw, J.	Sawle C. B. G.
King, hon. P. J. L.	Scobell, Capt.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.	Scully, F.
Kirk, W.	Seymour, W. D.
Langton, H. G.	Stafford, Marq. of
Lee, W.	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Lindsay, W. S.	Stuart, Lord D.
Loveden, P.	Sutton, J. H. M.
Lowe, R.	Tancred, H. W.
Luce, T.	Thickness, R. A.
Mangles, R. D.	Thornely, T.
Marshall, W.	Vivian, H. H.
Massey, W. N.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Matheson, Sir J.	Warner, E.
Miall, E.	Whitbread, S.
Mills, T.	Wickham, H. W.
Milner, W. M. E.	Wilkinson, W. A.
Milnes, R. M.	Willcox, B. M'G.
Mitchell, T. A.	Williams, W.
Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Monck, Visct.	Wise, A.
Moncrieff, J.	Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Monsell, W.	Young, rt. hon. Sir J.
Morris, D.
Murrough, J. P.	TELLERS.
Norreys, Lord	Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Osborne, R.	Berkeley, G.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, they had now so framed the clause as that six professors were to be selected from among the professors, and then one other professor was to be elected by the professors. He would not propose to go further that night with the Bill, and therefore moved that the Chairman report progress.

House resumed; Committee report progress to sit again on Thursday.