§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 27 (Colleges to have power to frame Statutes).
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he wished to move, by way of Amendment, the omission From the clause of the words, "without prejudice to any existing interest of any member of such college." He trusted that the Government, notwithstanding those words were in the Oxford Bill, would enable the fellows and masters—in short, the governing body of the colleges at Cambridge, to set a better example (by the omission of those words) than that of occupying the invidious position of showing themselves willing to inflict on others that which they would be unwilling to bear themselves.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that those words were in the Oxford University Act, and had been introduced into the Bill from a respect for the vested interests which the masters and fellows of colleges had in their offices and fellowships. He believed that in the long run the ultimate advantage of these institutions would be promoted by respecting those interests.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, he thought that the Statutes hereafter to be framed by the governing bodies of the colleges ought to be in the English instead of the Latin language. He should therefore move the insertion of the words "in the English language" after the word "Statutes" in the same clause.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the matter might be safely left to the Cambridge authorities. If they liked to make their Statutes in the Latin language, it was to be hoped that Cambridge men, including his hon. Friend, would be able to read them. He thought it would be better that the Statutes should be made in English, but he did not think it desirable for Parliament to make a stringent rule on the subject.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:— Ayes 58 Noes 74: Majority 16.
§ MR. WIGRAMsaid, he would more the insertion after the word "following" of the words, "due regard being always had to the main designs of the founder or donor." His object was not to abridge the powers given to the governing bodies of colleges, but to prevent them from disregarding the 1199 intentions of the founders. As an instance of the abuse to which the powers granted in the Bill might give rise, he would refer to the 30th clause, which enabled the University to make new rules with regard to endowments, among which was specified the endowment of the offices of Christian preacher and Christian advocate. Now he should not be averse to new rules which were in keeping with the intentions of the original founders, but if the endowments he had just alluded to were to be applied to a professorship of chemistry or botany, or the like, such an application would he a gross and most unjust disregard of the views and intentions of the founder. He denied that Parliament had morally any right to interfere with these endowments without adhering to the conditions upon which the donors gave them. The words he proposed to insert in the clause were not exactly to be found in the Oxford University Act, yet in that measure there was a plain intention that regard should be had to the designs of the founders. The principle he asserted was, that if you accepted a gift of this kind, you were bound to abide by the conditions annexed. That principle ought to be equally observed, in his opinion, even in the case of what were called "local preferences." It was objected, that if you adhered to these local preferences you might be inflicting upon a college persons not qualified by their learning to become members of the college. That, however, was a fallacy, because it had been repeatedly held that, whatever conditions of this kind were annexed to a college benefaction, there was always also annexed to it the implied condition that a person should be dignus—that he should be a suitable person to introduce into the college—and unless, therefore, he were a person of that sort the college would not be compelled to award him any of those emoluments. Another objection urged to the principle he sought to maintain was, that it might throw you back upon obsolete schemes long since fallen into desuetude. Such an argument, it was his belief, had no foundation whatever. In all those cases the reason why the old practice had fallen into disuse was because, from the change of circumstances it had become unsuitable to the present time, and if it had become unsuitable and inapplicable to the present state of things, he was quite willing that it should be altered. To meet the objection he had alluded to, he was ready, if it were desired, 1200 to adopt an express provision that, in determining what were to be considered the main designs of the founders, any scheme or regulation which had fallen into disuse for a period of, say fifty years, should not be regarded. Nothing was further from his intention than to drive back those foundations to forgotten usages which would be unsuitable to the time and contrary to the interests of the University. The principle involved in his Amendment was a very grave one, and he trusted that it would have the favourable consideration of the Government. He proposed it with no desire to impair the efficacy of the Bill, or to diminish the fair powers which were to be given to the Colleges or the University, but merely for the purpose of maintaining those powers within a reasonable limit, and to prevent the establishment of a precedent which might be made use of in other cases to the prejudice and subversion of the just rights of property.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he willingly admitted that this was an important question, and he thought that a great deal of the efficiency of the Bill would depend on the clause being retained without the addition of the proposed Amendment. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wigram) seemed to give up his whole case when he said that, with respect to many of the foundations, lapse of time had rendered them useless. Now there was one question he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman: how could the main design of a founder, who existed 200 or 300 years ago, be ascertained? If expressed, it was either in accordance with the general objects of education or not. If the design was not in accordance with those objects, it ought not to be maintained; and where the design was not expressed it must be assumed to be for the promotion of education. The main design, as expressed, of the founder of Queen's College, was, that his soul and the soul of his Queen should be prayed for; and this showed the impropriety and absurdity of making it imperative to regard the designs of the founders. Was it not a monstrous case of abuse that King's College, with a magnificent income of £26,000 a year, should only turn out at the rate of three Bachelors of Arts per annum? The fellows and scholars there were obliged to swear that they would do their best to oppose the spread of the errors of John Wickliffe, and Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester in the time of Henry VI.; but those errors 1201 as they were called, were now held by members of the Church of England. Therefore, one of the main designs of the founder was to oppose those very opinions which it was the present object of the University and Colleges to promote. That was the case with respect to those two Colleges, and also with respect to many others, and it was too late at the present day to insist on the observance of the main designs of the founders. It must happen that in the course of time the objects of the founders became useless or even mischievous, and therefore the funds ought to be devoted to other purposes. Consequently, the Committee in dealing with those trusts, must be influenced by no other motive but a desire for the public advantage and utility, and unless they were dealt with on that ground they had better not be dealt with at all. The practical result of the Amendment would be to restrict the freedom of the Colleges, as, at present, in many instances, the original designs of the founders were disregarded.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) appeared to think that the insertion of the words proposed by his (Mr. Walpole's) hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wigram) would do away with the whole effect of the Bill, Now he thought that the experience of the Oxford University Act had entirely removed all ground for any such apprehension. The endowments of colleges were as much property as any which could be held by any Member of that House, and the rights of that description of property had always been held as sacred as those connected with the property of individuals, and to trench upon those rights would be to trench upon the rights of property itself. The right hon. Gentleman said that, if it were found that any of those donations were at present applied in a manner either useless or mischievous, it would be to the public advantage to take them away or alter them so as to make them useful. Now, who was to do that? Were the Colleges or the Commissioners to do it? He could conceive that the Colleges might be allowed, with the sanction of their visitors, and subject to such rules as Parliament might lay down, to alter the character of their own property; but he could not understand that the Commissioners should have such a power conferred upon them. Why, it would be a greater power than had ever been bestowed on any body before. The right hon. Gentleman had 1202 referred to donations for praying for the souls of the founders; but that was the exception, and not the rule; and, because alterations might be necessary in one or two cases, that was no reason for conferring such arbitrary powers on the Commissioners, powers which would enable them to alter the character of the trust upon which the property was originally given. If such a principle were recognised, the result would be to deter persons from dispensing their bounty as they did at present upon many most charitable and beneficial objects. It was said that there was no power of finding out the designs of the founders; but actual experience proved that the Court of Chancery was every day administering trusts according to the designs of the founders of them, and the effect of the introduction of the proposed words into the present clause would not be to prevent any absurd or useless provisions from being done away with, but it would show, to the Colleges first, and afterwards to the Commissioners, that they did not possess an absolute power of dealing with this property without any regard to the original trust. He, therefore, trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not object to the Amendment, and he entreated the Committee to have a proper respect for the trusts, in which in fact they had an equal and an individual interest.
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, he objected strongly to the introduction of the words. With regard to the fear that had been expressed by hon. Gentlemen, that persons would be deterred from making any donation for benevolent purposes, he could only say that the Legislature would be well employed in discouraging persons from making foolish gifts, nominally for benevolent purposes, but in reality that they might see their names written in letters of gold, to the detriment of their families and friends. To take an example of the absurdity of the old institutions, Mr. Macaulay, before being admitted to a fellowship, had sworn to devote himself to the study of theology, or else after a certain period to relinquish his fellowship; but could any one believe that that distinguished man intended to devote himself to that study? The character of the property of the Universities had been frequently changed, and there was no reason why it should not be changed now if such change would tend to the public advantage.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the scope of the hon. Gentleman's argument was this—that the study of theology, which had regard to our highest interests, was foolish, and ought to be discouraged. He considered those observations as more worthy of the worst days of the National Assembly of Prance than of the English House of Commons. He presumed that the study of "geology" was that study which the hon. Gentleman would wish to substitute. The drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument was evidently to discourage the study of theology among the youth of this empire. If a founder left a sum of money to a college for the teaching of the Christian religion that was a lawful purpose, and was one with which Parliament ought not to interfere. Those foundations had already produced the greatest lights of the Church, and it would be absurd to contrast any men of the present day with the distinguished divines of former days. He denied that endowments for the promotion of various branches of education were an encouragement to superstition; and he put it to the Committee to say whether, if a man were to endow a foundation for the study of the works of Roger Bacon, it could be viewed in that light? He would support any Amendment which had for its object the preservation of those time honoured and valuable institutions. The worst argument he had ever heard against the words proposed was the argument of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Heywood); and if he had had any doubt as to the necessity for the insertion of those words that doubt would have been removed by the argument of the hon. Member. Cambridge University possessed many valuable and useful endowments, and though the hon. Member had asserted that these were the fruits of the vanity of the founders, it ought to be kept in view that but for such persons this country would not have possessed the noble charities for which it was remarkable.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would point out that, of the 700 or 800 scholarships belonging to the University, 400 were restricted. Although those restrictions might be wise and salutary when they were first founded, they had become useless and prejudicial by the lapse of time, and Parliament, he considered, had now a perfect right to deal with them in the manner which it thought most likely to be beneficial to the promotion of education. As a test of the comparative value of open and restricted scholarships, he might mention 1204 that of holders of the open scolarships at Trinity one in every four got a fellowship, while, of the Westminster scholars at that college, only one in twenty-two got a fellowship. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member had a much wider operation than the words in the Oxford University Act to which he had referred, for while those stated that the observance of the wishes of the founders should be one of the objects of the statute, those words would override the statute altogether.
§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he had listened with great pain to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, a speech which would have been a great deal more in place on the other side of the Atlantic than in the English House of Commons. He had not, however, been in the least surprised at the observations of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood). That hon. Gentleman avowed that he wished to discourage charitable bequests, and he had certainly taken the surest mode of doing so. The hon. Gentleman reminded him of a saying of Montesquieu, who observed that a certain tribe of savages, when they wanted to gather fruit, cut down the tree. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie's) remarks with respect to the Westminster scholars was exceedingly unfair; because, as he had himself admitted, a great number of the Westminster boys went to Christchurch. Besides, he denied that the obtaining of fellowships was necessarily a test of eminence. Amongst the Westminster boys who did not become fellows was no less a man than John Dryden. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman, also, of the dictum of a great American jurist, and one who had certainly no superstitious fondness for English institutions—he meant Chancellor Kent. That great Judge said that these very collegiate institutions were "amongst the most interesting and meritorious trusts which could possibly be created and confided to men." When he (Mr. Phillimore) was taunted with the great commentators whom the German Universities had produced, be would point in reply to the debates in that House, to the great men who had adorned it, to the useful laws they had passed, and to the great constitutional principles they had established. It was in the Colleges of England that the minds of our statesmen were trained; and he believed that just as in the middle ages those institutions were the means by which alone persons of humble origin might raise themselves, and earn 1205 a great name for themselves and their country, so in those times they were still the great means by which those who were not born of opulent and splendid families, might qualify themselves for the service of their country, and win for themselves such distinctions as society could bestow.
§ MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, that for the last reason alleged by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should oppose the Amendment. Besides, the words sought to be introduced were completely contradictory to the rest of the clause.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that to judge from the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported the proposal one would imagine that the Bill had for its object to suppress all these collegiate establishments—to apply their property to purposes altogether different from those to which it was now applied—and, in short, to deal with the University of Cambridge much in the same way that Henry VIII. dealt with religious houses. Now, certainly, nothing was further from the intention and object of the Bill than any such purpose. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Wigram) in his opinion, would really go to defeat the real purposes of the founders. The University of Cambridge had described itself as an institution for the promotion "of sound learning and religious education." Those were the objects for which those estates had been left, but they had been left at a time when peculiar notions existed as to the best mode of accomplishing those objects. Some of the founders thought that the best method was to insist that no person should be a fellow unless he belonged to a particular county. Other restrictions of various kinds were imposed, tending to defeat the purposes of promoting sound learning and religious education, and to render the college less available for the purpose for which it was endowed. Every member of the University was aware of what had passed with regard to St. John's College. Originally its fellowships were what were called close—that was, none but Lancashire, Cumberland, or Westmoreland men could obtain a fellowship. He recollected the time when that was changed. It appeared that there was a power in the visitor to alter the statute, which was defeating the main object of the founder. ["No, no!"] Well, it must be so construed according to the arguments they had just heard—namely, that however obsolete or absurd the conditions were which the 1206 founder attached to the grant they must for ever be observed. The spirit of the words proposed would go to rescind the opening of the fellowships of St. John's, and would re-establish the system which the college itself had held to be prejudicial to education. If they wished the University of Cambridge to be as useful as possible in the diffusion of sound learning, they ought to leave the colleges at liberty to sweep away all those small, ridiculous, obsolete restrictions which tended to defeat what they were bound to consider were the main objects of the founders, and which prevented the University being so useful as it might be in promoting sound learning and religious education.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that it was a little remarkable that, although the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) advocated the omission of the words proposed, on the ground that the main object of the University was the promotion "of sound learning and religious education," the clause, as it stood, would delegate, first to the Colleges and then to the Commissioners, a power to act in entire disregard to that object. There were no words requiring the Commissioners to make alterations only so as to promote "sound learning and religious education." They might, if they pleased, direct the exercise of their power in a direction completely the reverse. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers), he observed that the enacting part of the clause gave to the Colleges and Commissioners the power of making a great many alterations. The supporters of the Amendment did not wish to cripple that power in any way, but they wished to direct it, and the only mode by which they could direct it was to insert in the clause words indicating the direction which it ought to take.
§ MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, that the test applied by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), of the small number of scholars from Westminster who obtained fellowships at Trinity, had no application to the present case. Lord Chief Justice Jervis and Mr. Justice Williams had been scholars at Westminster, but they had not obtained fellowships at Trinity. All that the words proposed to be inserted would do, would be merely to require that attention should be paid to the main objects of the founders. He should therefore vote against the clause.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, that the noble 1207 Lord at the head of the Government had described the object of the University as being the promotion "of sound learning and religious education," and he (Mr. Henley) supported the insertion of the words proposed because they appeared to him to secure the main object. It was clear that those who were sitting behind the noble Lord wished to get rid of the object which the noble Lord wished to secure. There was nothing in the Bill as it stood which would prevent the Colleges or Commissioners appropriating the college funds, not for the promotion "of sound learning and religious education," but for any purpose that might be uppermost in their minds. He could not understand why the insertion of the words proposed should be objected to.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, he entertained an objection to the insertion of the words, on the ground that different meanings might be attached to them, according to the opinions or feelings of the persons who might have to carry out the provisions of the Bill, and would in all probability seriously affect the working of the measure.
§ MR. WIGRAMsaid, that his sole object in moving the Amendment was, that Parliament should not in appearance do anything to subvert what was the main intention of the founders. Unless some such safeguard were provided, he was convinced that many charities founded solely for the poor would pass into the pockets of the rich. The chance of a poor man getting his son into the University depended almost wholly on those local privileges. He would propose to vary his Amendment as follows:—
Due regard being always had to the main designs of the founder or donor, so far as consistent with sound religion and learning.
§ MR. BOUVERIEThat makes it still stronger.
§ MR. WIGRAMsaid, his object was to ascertain whether the right hon. Gentleman had any words of his own to propose. If not, he should adhere to his Amendment as originally proposed.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 97: Majority 19.
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, he would now move to insert, in line 32 of the same clause, after the word "such," the word "headships." The object was to enable the Commissioners to make alterations 1208 with regard to the headships, as well as the fellowships and other emoluments.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to the proposal. He thought that when a man got to the head he ought to remain there.
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, that his proposal would only affect future heads of colleges. He had corresponded with several masters of arts who were favourable to the alteration.
§ Question put, "That the word "headships" be there inserted.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 145: Majority 104.
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, he wished to propose the insertion in line 43 of the same clause, after the words "for the" the words "encouragement of studies in modern history, practical science, and modern languages, and for the". His object was to introduce modern studies into the University of Cambridge. When he was there he wished to attend the lectures on modern history, but was told by his tutor that it would do him no good in the examinations. He understood that the Oxford Commissioners had proposed that in one of the colleges there a fifth part of the fellowships should be set apart for physical science. He therefore hoped the same thing would be done at Cambridge. His Amendment he considered was of importance with regard to Parliament itself, for he did not think that senators were well educated unless they were acquainted with modern history, practical science, and modern languages.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he fully admitted that it was very desirable that modern studies should be pursued at Cambridge, but the question was, how it could best be done. The Bill contained a general provision that colleges should have the power to introduce such studies as part of their course, and he thought that the object in view would be more effectually secured by a comprehensive provision of that kind than by the words proposed to be added to the clause by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 136: Majority 81.
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, he would now beg to propose, as an Amendment, that the following words should be inserted in the clause after the word "fellows," as one of the objects for which Statutes should be made—namely, "for exempting students who may conscientiously object to attend the existing Liturgical Services 1209 in the College Chapel from compulsory attendance. His desire was, that those who did not belong to the Church of England should not be compelled to attend its services. That rule was followed in Trinity College, Dublin.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to the introduction of the words, because the general clause empowering the governing body to form Statutes would enable them to make such an arrangement as the hon. Gentleman proposed if they chose to do so; and he believed that in some of the colleges there would be no indisposition to take that course.
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, he did not believe the authorities of the colleges, though they possessed the power, would make such a Statute as he proposed.
§ Question put, that those words be there inserted.
§ The Committee divided; when there were, Ayes 90; Noes 128: Majority 38.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, as was also Clause 28.
§ Clause 29 (When Colleges omit to make Statutes, Commissioners may frame them.)
§ MR. WIGRAMsaid, he wished to move an Amendment, putting the election to the mastership of Jesus College on the same footing as that of Magdalen, and that the interest of the Bishop of Ely in such election should cease.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he must explain that the interest of the Bishop of Ely in Jesus College was to cease after the death of the present Bishop.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not see how they were to separate the nomination of the living which was attached to Jesus College from that of the mastership.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, he would now beg to move an Amendment taking away the power, now given to two-thirds of the governing body of any college, to negative the recommendation of the Commissioners. No body about to be reformed by the provisions of such a Bill as the present, was likely to carry the reform out with such a power of a veto given to them. It was holding out a temptation to the Colleges at Cambridge to thwart the objects of the Bill. When a similar clause was introduced into the Oxford University Bill it was not part of the original Bill, but adopted by the Government when they found that they could not help it—when they had great difficulties in carrying the measure, and were obliged to conciliate on all sides. It was a mere concession to the 1210 opposition, and assuredly no part of the views of the promoters of the Bill. The noble Lord even said that the proviso would impair the objects of the Bill, and oblige them to come in two or three years to that House for an amended Bill. It was well known in Oxford that the proviso had been a serious hindrance to the operation of the Bill. The governing body of new College had exercised their veto against a scheme of the Commissioners for throwing open the scholarship of the College, now confined to students from Winchester. St. John's College would most likely follow the example, in vetoing the scheme for throwing open the scholarships now almost entirely given to Merchant Tailors' School. Jesus College would most probably do the same thing. He therefore appealed to the Committee to remove so serious an embarrassment to the working of the Bill.
§ Amendment proposed in page 9, line 16, to leave out from the word "thereof" to the end of the clause.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would admit that if he had framed the Bill without the precedent of the Oxford Act, he would hardly have introduced the proviso; but it must be remembered that the subject had been fully discussed during the progress of the Oxford University Bill and a very strong feeling existed in favour of the introduction of a proviso of this nature.
§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, it was true that in the case of the Oxford Act the Government endeavoured to conciliate the Opposition by abandoning minute legislation, but he was not aware that they ever disputed the necessity of affording some protection to the colleges against the otherwise irresponsible power of the Commissioners. With respect to the refusal, or rather intimation of dissent, from New College relative to Winchester School to the scheme of the Commissioners to deal with those institutions together, he was prepared to assert that such refusal or dissent was justified upon the ground of the scheme being injurious to a place of learning and education.
§ MR. GORDONsaid, that the Amendment, if carried, would not only deprive the colleges of all opportunity of objection, but would absolutely leave them in ignorance of the Statutes by which they were to be governed.
§ Question put—"That the words 'Provided, always, That all such Statutes' stand part of the clause."
1211§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 93: Majority 72.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 30.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to move the insertion of the words "sound learning and religious education."
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. He believed that, according to the interpretation of the University authorities, "sound learning" would he found to mean a Greek and Latin education; and a "religious education," the religious teaching of the Church of England. Now, he was in favour of modern studies being introduced into the University, and he was still more decidedly in favour of Dissenters being admitted to all its honours. He certainly, therefore, could not approve of the Amendment.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it was his opinion that "sound learning" did not mean Latin and Greek exclusively, though he believed religious teaching would mean that of the Church of England.
§ MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he would suggest that, for consistency's sake, "religious education" should be introduced into Clause 28.
§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he did not see why the words "sound learning" and "religious education" should be objected to.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would look at the clause, and also at the words proposed to be inserted in the 28th clause, and state what he thought should be done.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 31.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause, as drawn, would operate thus:—The University would have the power of making Statutes within two years, and if they did not do so the Commissioners would have power to make Statutes until 1860; after which the University would again have the power of making Statutes, and, consequently, might undo all that the Commissioners had done. Now that, he maintained, was not a very satisfactory state in which to leave the University with respect to the Commission. What he desired to propose was, that they should do one of two things,—either omit the clause altogether, or leave the Commissioners power to make alterations, if the University failed, provided two-thirds of the governing body of the University agreed to such alterations.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to omit the clause altogether. It was proposed to give the Commissioners power to deal with the Statutes—first with the Royal Statutes, and next with the Statutes connected with the endowments. He was ready to concede a power to the colleges to dissent from any Statutes proposed by the Commissioners with respect to endowments, but not with regard to the Royal Statutes.
§ MR. WIGRAMsaid, he could not conceive how the proviso, giving the University power to object to the alteration of all Statutes, was open to objection. If ever there were a body which deserved confidence it was the University of Cambridge. There never had been a corporation which had shown more alacrity to adopt improvements.
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, he would remind the Committee that the University of Oxford had recently determined that the Professor of Anatomy should sign the Thirty-nine Articles. He believed the Professor of Anatomy was about the last person to believe the Thirty-nine Articles; and that if we took the medical profession throughout the country, ninety-nine out of a hundred did not believe in those Articles. The Commissioners objected to the test of the Thirty-nine Articles; but if the Committee allowed two-thirds of the Council to object, they might have a similar case occurring at Cambridge. At present Dissenters were admitted there even without a revision of the Statutes.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 32, Right of preference belonging to schools not to be abolished in certain cases if two-thirds of the governing body of the schools dissent there from.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, he should move the omission of the clause. The clause gave power to schools as well as colleges to defeat the whole object of the Bill, by enabling two-thirds of the schools to put a veto on any clauses for reform proposed by the Commissioners. It did not follow logically that because the Committee had rejected his Amendment on the former clause they should object to his Motion now, to omit the clause from the Bill.
§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that having proposed and carried a similar clause in the Oxford Bill to that which the hon. Gentleman now proposed to omit, he hoped the Committee would not take a course so grossly inconsistent as to refuse 1213 to the schools connected with Cambridge the same privilege which they had given to the schools and colleges connected with the sister University. It appeared to be a gross oversight to forget the interests of the schools and minor places of education dispersed over the kingdom, and to fix attention exclusively on the Universities. Education was of general interest, promoted as much by schools as by Universities; and it appeared to him to be a short-sighted jealousy which would lead to the sacrifice of schools, even to promote some degree of advantage to the University. But the schools would certainly be sacrificed if they took away all the exhibitions and scholarships which had been established by the founders or masters of the schools or endowments, for the purpose of facilitating the passage into the Universities of youths educated in the schools. It would, in fact, amount to confiscation. The adoption of a clause of this kind in the Oxford Act had not resulted in any mischievous consequences, and he trusted the Committee would not stultify itself by agreeing to the Amendment.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, that, as the Bill was at present framed, if the scheme proposed by the Commissioners was rejected, they had no other resource than to report the fact to the Secretary of State. He would therefore submit that a power of appeal should be given to them.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to know upon what ground should a right of appeal be given to the Commissioners? A power of appeal was only given to persons interested and affected by the matter in question; but the Commissioners were simply delegated to see that the powers of the University were properly put in motion.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, he regarded the Commissioners as the representatives of the House of Commons, and that they had therefore quite as good a right to be heard before the Privy Council as any other party.
§ Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 33 to 37, both inclusive.
§ Clause 38.
§ MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he wished to move the omission of certain words for the purpose of giving an appeal against any new Statutes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, instead of five Members of the Privy Council, including two members of the Judicial Committee, a provision which had, he said, 1214 given rise to great difficulty in the case of the Oxford University.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not aware that any inconvenience had resulted from the provision in the Oxford Act. One petition only had been presented, which had been referred to five Members of the Privy Council, including two Members of the Judicial Committee, and by them disposed of satisfactorily.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 39. (The Statutes to be laid before Parliament, and unless an Address is within forty days presented by one or other House praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to declare Her approbation of such Statutes.)
§ MR. HEYWOODsaid, he wished to extend the time from forty days to four months, which would allow of a longer period for the consideration of the Statutes in Parliament, and would give to independent Members a better chance of obtaining a day on which to move an Address.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would not object to sixty days being substituted for forty.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the point. By this provision in the Bill it was not intended to reserve to Parliament the principal function of considering the Statutes in their particulars. The House of Commons was not at all fit for such an office; they provided a Commission to review the operations of the colleges in the way of legislation, or, if necessary, to assume to themselves the power of legislation; and the appeal to that House was only provided in the improbable case of some gross violation of the trust confided to them on the part of both the Commissioners or the University. He looked upon the period of forty days as ample for the object in view; a longer term would be very inconvenient to the colleges, as well as wholly unnecessary.
§ MR. COLLIERsaid, he should support the Amendment, which would afford a reasonable time to independent Members to move an Address, instead of leaving them at the mercy of the Government.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it advisable that the practice should be the same both with regard to the Oxford and the Cambridge Statutes. There would always be ample opportunities during the period mentioned in the clause for independent 1215 Members to bring forward any Motion they might wish to submit to the House.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the object of making the House of Commons a Court of Appeal was to provide against the contingency of the Commissioners flying in the face of the Act. It was not intended as a general rule that the House of Commons should review the acts of the Commissioners.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 40.
§ MR. WIGRAMsaid, he objected to the power given to the Commissioners of sweeping away all the Statutes. There were many portions of the Elizabethan Statutes which he thought it might be desirable to retain. For instance, it was provided that no undergraduate should be expelled without the approbation of the majority of the heads of colleges. It was also provided that there should be a uniform system with regard to the taking of degrees. He could not see the necessity of arming the Commissioners with such a power in express terms.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought it better that the Commissioners should be enabled to deal with the code in a comprehensive manner.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause was merely an intimation as to the nature of the Commissioners' functions.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining Clauses agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported.