CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.

HC Deb 30 May 1856 vol 142 cc807-49

Order for Committee read.

MR. BOUVERIE

, in moving that the Speaker do now leave the chair, in order that the House should go into Committee on this Bill, said, that by the indulgence of the House the Bill was read a second time without discussion, and it was therefore his duty now to lay before them the grounds on which the Bill had been brought forward. The House was aware that in 1852 a Commission was intrusted with the duty of inquiry respecting the University of Cambridge, its colleges, statutes, and the general state of the studies there. The Commissioners made a Report to Her Majesty; and on that Report a Bill was founded, was introduced last year in the House of Lords, and subsequently brought down to the Commons; but at so late a period of the Session that it was ultimately withdrawn. The Bill now before the House was in many respects similar to the one so withdrawn, but at the same time varied from it in some important particulars. He wished to disclaim any unfriendly feeling towards the University of Cambridge or the colleges. Apart from the respect and attachment he felt for a place where he had spent many happy hours—some of them he hoped not unprofitably—it was impossible for him, or any one having the least tincture of a love of letters, not to feel some veneration for an institution connected with some of the greatest names which had ever adorned the history of literature and science. He, therefore, could not approach this subject with any other feeling than a sincere desire to improve the usefulness of that University, and to extend and strengthen its foundations. At this time of day it was unnecessary for him to offer any arguments as to the right of Parliament to interfere with corporations of this kind. Undoubtedly it was not many years since this right was stubbornly disputed in both Houses of Parliament; but this question was, he apprehended, now settled. It was admitted, in the passing of the Oxford University Act, two years ago, that Parliament had the right to interfere with the statutes and property of the Universities and colleges. If it were necessary for him to discuss the point, it would not be difficult clearly to demonstrate the right of Parliament to interfere. The Universities were great national institutions. Cambridge was a corporation founded upon a public Act of Parliament, enjoying great privileges by Act of Parliament, receiving annually grants of public money, and virtually intrusted with the education of the clergy of the Established Church. On these grounds alone, if on no other, he apprehended it to be clearly demonstrable that Parliament had a full right to interfere with the statutes of the University and with its course of proceeding. Taking that point for granted, he would address himself to showing the House, by evidence, that there existed a necessity for Parliamentary interference with the government of the University of Cambridge and its colleges; and that was the ground upon which he wished to argue the present Bill. The proposition he would lay down to justify the interference of Parliament was this—that the University of Cambridge and the colleges were institutions having a vast revenue, and enormous means for the education of the people of this country, and that those resources were not turned to the best account; but that, on the contrary, while the means were of the largest description, the result produced was comparatively very small. He would now state what the resources of the University and the colleges were. He would first observe that the means and wealth of the University were not of proportionate dimensions to the wealth of the colleges; and, as everybody acquainted with the facts of the case knew, the colleges very much overshadowed and practically monopolized the University. It was to this particular point and to the changes he proposed to effect, that he wished to direct the attention of the House. He found it stated in the Report of the Commissioners, that the income of the University, available for general purposes, was £7,900 odd, and the income appropriated to specific objects £8,700 odd, making a total of £16,700. The income of the professors, not including the fees of students, was £7,800, making, with the income of the University, £24,500. The wealth of the colleges, as he stated before, far exceeded that of the University. The Commissioners observed that the gross incomes of the twelve colleges, which had replied to their inquiries on the point, were at the present time as follows:—St. Peter's, £7,317 3s.; Pembroke, £12,013 8s.; Trinity-hall, £3,917 2s. 10d.; King's, £26,857 7s. 11d.; Queen's, £5,347 0s. 1d.; Christ's, £9,178 15s. 5d.; St. John's, £26,166 14s. 11d.; Magdalene, £4,130; Trinity, £34,521 19s. 10d.; Emanuel, £6,516 16s. 3d.; Sidney-Sussex, £5,392 16s. 10d.; Downing, £7,239 17s. The Commissioners stated that they had not obtained returns from all the colleges of Cambridge, and they observed generally, that it was difficult to state accurately the net available income of the several colleges, as the returns made did not proceed upon the same system. They added that they could not estimate the income of the seventeen colleges at less than £185,000 a year. The income, then, of the University and colleges together amounted to no less a sum than £209,500. This showed that the means were great; and he should now proceed to inquire what result had been produced. He must say that, looking as closely as he could into the matter, he thought the result, as compared with the resources, was, he might also say, ludicrously small. There was only one way of testing the result of the application of the revenues to education, and that was by the number of the degrees annually conferred by the University; but before he applied that test he wished to observe, that in the appropriation of those enormous revenues, every inducement was held out in many respects to attract persons to the University. For example, there were all the fellowships, the scholarships, the headships of the different colleges; and last of all, though not least, there were the numerous livings held by the colleges, and conferred on their members. All these the House should bear in mind were great prizes, which operated as inducements to men to attend the University, to go through its prescribed course of study, to take degrees, and ultimately become successful competitors for these good things. The total number of fellowships at Cambridge, including seventy at King's, which, as everybody knew, were appropriated to Eton College, was 356, of which there were 236 foundation fellowships unrestricted, and 45 restricted; bye-fellowships open, 36; restricted, 39. The incomes of these different foundation fellowships were very considerable. At St. Peter's the annual income was £258; at Pembroke, £317; at King's, £175; at Christ's, £330; at St. John's, 140; at Trinity, £225, and so forth. The scholarships of various kinds amounted to 759. Some of these were no doubt very small, but of others the incomes were considerable; they ranged from £2 or £3 to upwards of £100. Of these scholarships about 414 were restricted, leaving about half the number open to competition. The incomes of the masters were not all stated, but, as far as he could make out, they amounted in the seventeen colleges of Cambridge to £14,000 or £15,000 a year. The livings were upwards of 300 in number, having an income altogether of between £100,000 and £200,000 per annum. Now, one would suppose that such inducements would attract a vast crowd of students to the University. Such, however, was far from being the case. The number of degrees conferred was the only mode of testing the attractiveness of the University; but from a summary, taken from the Commissioners' Report, of the degrees which were granted in the eleven years from 1840 to 1850 inclusive, it appeared that the average number of persons who passed as it were through the mill of the University for the B.A. degree, during this period, was only 336 in each year. This, too, was probably a fair average, because he found that in 1854 the number of B.A. degrees granted was 330. He had referred also to a record of the degrees given in the seventeenth century, upwards of 200 years ago; and he found that in the thirteen years beginning in 1620 and ending in 1632, before the civil troubles began, and when the University was moving along quietly and prosperously—much as at present—the average number of B.A. degrees at that period was 293. Now, if the House would bear in mind that since this time a very considerable number of Irishmen and Scotchmen came to the University of Cambridge to complete their education, he thought they would see that, practically, the educational result of this great institution had not increased, though the population had increased meanwhile from 300 to 400 per cent. He felt, then, he was justified in maintaining that the effect of these enormous educational appliances was eminently unsatisfactory as to the amount of work done. Look at the matter merely as one of pounds, shillings, and pence, and see what each degree cost these corporations, irrespective of what the students themselves paid. In 1854, as he had said, 330 B.A. degrees were conferred, and, the incomes of the colleges and of the University being £209,000 a year, it followed that the cost of each B.A. degree was between £600 and £700, or about £200 a year, independently of what each student paid out of his own pocket. It might be said that the object of these great institutions was to educate clergymen for the Church. Well, on that point also he had a circumstance to mention to the House. It appeared that in 1850 there were 205 theological students who passed what was called the voluntary theological examination now established at Cambridge. The Bishops, as he understood, now required all candidates for orders to pass this examination; which was, therefore, in effect, a compulsory one. Now, as in the year mentioned, 205 aspirants for ordination passed the examination, assuming that the college and University incomes were devoted to achieving this result, the cost before ordination of each of these clergymen during their residence at the University would be more than £1,000. Now, he asserted, broadly, that this result, as compared with the amount of education afforded, was, considering the enormous revenues at the disposal of the University, anything but satisfactory. Having thus spoken of the amount of education, he would proceed now to speak of its quality. No doubt it would be some compensation for the limited results attained in the one case if the quality of the education were much above the medium—if the 350 students annually turned out into the world were perfectly educated in the various branches of knowledge required for professional life; though the number might be small, they would be a little leaven in a large lump, and a happy influence would thereby be exerted upon the moral and intellectual character of the country. As far as he could ascertain, however, he was afraid that no such thing could be predicated as to the quality of education given at Cambridge. What were the three great functions devolving upon the University with respect to those whom it received within its walls? The first and one of the greatest functions of the University of Cambridge was to give a liberal education to the sons of the gentry of this country— to those who by the industry of their ancestors were placed above depending upon their own exertions for a livelihood. He held it to be of the last importance that the education imparted to that class should be of a first-rate character. From that class were taken a large proportion of the Members of that and the other House of Parliament, of the justices of the peace, and of all those who held the foremost places in the country. As a practical test whether a liberal and satisfactory education was given by the University of Cambridge, he would ask whether there existed a general ardent desire in the minds of the gentry of this country to provide an University education for their sons? He denied that such a desire existed. He declared that numbers of gentlemen in this country who could afford the expenses of University education for their children did not desire to give it, having no faith in the power of the University to bestow an education which would qualify their sons for the duties of the world. In these days the question, whether a first-rate education was given to this class, became doubly important, when, as it had been said, "Brains, and not blood, carried the day. "Birth alone did not now qualify for distinction or office; he had considerable faith in the virtue of blood; but it was with men as with horses—the best bred could not hope for success unless properly trained. He asserted that the education now given at the University did not confer any such decided advantage in after life and its struggles upon those who were educated there as was sufficient to induce gentlemen to make every sacrifice to send their sons to the University. Hon. Members not personally familiar with Cambridge and its education were apt to be dazzled by the distinctions obtained by those who competed for honours. No doubt an immense struggle had to be maintained by those who competed for mathematical or classical honours, but that referred only to a small section of the University. He (Mr. Bouverie) was speaking of those who only took a simple degree, who passed the ordinary examinations, and who were supposed to be qualified for all the pursuits in life for which the possession of mental acquirements could prepare them. What were such persons required by the University to know? There were two examinations, one of which all were required to undergo, and which was known at Oxford as the "little go," in which students were examined in one Latin classic and one Greek classic, Paley's Evidences of Christianity, the 1st and 2nd books of Euclid, the common rules of arithmetic, and Old Testament history from Genesis to Esther. All who knew anything of Cambridge would agree that it did not require any very great learning to pass such an examination. Upon the next examination the subjects were, one-half of the Acts, one or two of the canonical Epistles, one Greek, and one Latin author, three of the six books of Paley's Moral Philosophy, the History of the Christian Church up to the Nicene Council, the History of the Reformation, the rudiments of algebra, part of the six books of Euclid, and the elements of hydrostatics and mechanics, or just enough mathematical knowledge to enable them to describe a pump or a screw. The two latter subjects had been added since his (Mr. Bouverie's) time, as had also a requirement, that students should attend the lectures of certain professors, and pass an examination upon the particular subjects of such lectures, to the satisfaction of those professors. Thus, when a gentleman had spent three years and a half at the University in order to render himself an accomplished man, the above examination was made the test of his efficiency for his future career in life. He (Mr. Bouverie) declared it was a farce to take that as the standard of a gentleman's education. All who knew anything of the University were aware that all the knowledge required to pass this examination could be got up in three months' "cramming" under a tutor. He further declared that the amount of learning required to pass that examination was such that any schoolboy of fifteen or sixteen, decently educated, need not be unsuccessful, and any intelligent boy of that age could prepare himself in six weeks to pass it. No knowledge of history was required except that of the Church up to the Council of Nice, nor any knowledge of English history except of the Reformation nor of the literature of the country; neither were any facilities offered at Cambridge for acquisition of such knowledge. An undergraduate, it is true, had access to the libraries of the college, but not only no instruction in English literature was giver to him, no facilities or inducements were extended to him to cultivate it. He was required to read Sophocles, but need not know Shakspeare. No knowledge of any modern language was required—not even of French—nor any acquaintance with the laws and constitution of England. The University sent forth young men to compete for all the dignities and advantages of the world with so imperfect an amount of knowledge as that which he had described. Therefore, he thought that so far as the first great function of the University—to educate the gentlemen of the country—it had not done what ought to be expected from it. And what was the practical result? He held in his hand a Report from Mr. Moseley, who had conducted the examination for military commissions at the beginning of the year. And what did that Gentleman say with regard to the nature of the education at the University? That Gentleman said— As it regards other subjects than classics and mathematics, I regret to have no such favourable opinion to record. In English literature, &c., 'there were not so many total failures as before, but the average was low, and there were scarcely any who rose above it.' Although most of the candidates who presented themselves for examination in French were able to hold a conversation of a few minutes with a certain degree of fluency, 'yet it was easy (say the examiners) to see that they had hardly an idea of grammar or of the rules of writing correctly.' 'But if (say they) we advert to history, our strictures ought to be still more severe. The amount of general ignorance in this respect is scarely credible, and the question naturally arises, have most of these candidates any historical knowledge whatever?' He maintained that it ought to be an essential part of a gentleman's education that he should be able to carry on a conversation in French, and write a French letter at least creditably; but this was what one of the gentlemen who conducted the examination said with regard to French— I was greatly surprised to discover such a general amount of ignorance as to the French language, and more particularly as to history. It is indeed rather an untoward circumstance that out of about fifty candidates, brought up doubtless at some of the best public schools in the United Kingdom, so few should have been able to write correctly even eight or ten lines in French; and yet most of these young men seem to have studied it a considerable time, as was tested by the blundering fluency with which they endeavoured to keep up any hacknied conversation started by the examiners. But when we came to paper work, or written part of the examination, orthography, grammar, idioms of the language, &c., were all set at defiance in the most ludicrous manner. That being the result of a University education, he must say the system did not come up to the requirements of the present time. If they required a higher standard of knowledge at the University it would impose on the schools which sent scholars the necessity of raising their standard of instruction. They could not raise the school system while the University system remained low; but if they raised the University system the schools would educate up to the standard of the University. He would now refer to the University as a place for the study of the learned professions. First as to theology. The theological examination was a new institution. It was only within the last few years that the University of Cambridge had had any theological examination whatever of candidates for orders. When he was at Cambridge all that was required was that the student should attend the Norrisian Professor's lectures, the principal portion of which consisted of reading "Pearson on the Creed," which the rules of the foundation of the professorship required that he should read. That no doubt was a very valuable book; but it was not a book likely to attract the attention of many young students, especially when their attendance was compulsory; and the consequence was, that while the lecture proceeded, the students were engaged in reading other books of amusement or instruction. Candidates for orders were required to pass a theological examination; but what was that examination? The historical books of the Old Testament; the New Testament in Greek; the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England; the Ecclesiastical History of the first three centuries; and the history of the Reformation in England. That was the substance of the examination which was to indicate the qualifications of men who were supposed to cultivate that highest and most important branch of knowledge—theology. What was the result? The Commissioners said— There are only three Professors of Divinity in the University, a number which is altogether inadequate either to teach or to represent this most important department of human knowledge. Having pointed out the defective arrangements in reference to lecturers and lecture rooms, the Commissioners further remarked— It is almost a necessary consequence of these defective arrangements, as well as of the want of a sufficient lecturing force, that no proper school for professional instruction in theology has been hitherto formed in the University. When such systematic instruction is sought for, students are accustomed to avail themselves of the assistance of a private tutor, or to resort to some of the diocesan institutions which have been recently formed for this purpose. It is true that the University has instituted a theological examination, and has required from all persons who offer themselves for it a certificate of attendance during one term upon the lectures of two at least of the Professors of Divinity; but the obligation to attend this examination is imposed by the Bishops, and not by the University; and the examination itself is one for passing only, where there is no classification or public certificate of honour; and though the preparation for it requires no small amount of time and labour from young men of slender capacity, or whose previous education has been neglected, it is not calculated to exert a very stimulating effect upon the studies of those who are in a condition to regard it without apprehension of failure. Then they pointed out that the means of education were thoroughly defective, and that the University did not possess the facilities for conveying that instruction. So that, while the University did not fulfil the function of educating theologians for the Church of England, it was accounted for by the fact that the University had no method of remedying the evil. Take the other learned profession—the law. There was the same absence of distinct education. The University did not afford the foundation for subsequent pursuit of the profession. Mr. Amos, the Downing Professor, than whom no one was better qualified to speak of the science of jurisprudence, referring to the facilities for educating lawyers at Cambridge, said— I think there can be little doubt but that, for future lawyers, it would be desirable, if they were not induced or compelled to read so much classics and mathematics at the University, as at present, to the exclusion of English law and other cognate sciences, such as the civil law, moral philosophy, and modern history, for which professorships have been established." "It would, I think, be attended with great benefit to the community if the authorities of colleges, in awarding fellowships, would pay an obvious regard to honours obtained in the moral and natural sciences triposes; which might be accomplished without relinquishing a paramount consideration of mathematical and classical attainments. It is far less usual than formerly for barristers to be educated at the Universities. Their parents probably think that they have read at school enough of classics, except as their own inclinations may prompt them, and that there is no paramount necessity for further mathematical reading than, at most, what is required for an ordinary degree, but would gladly send them to the University for the purpose of studying law scientifically, and in connection with the other moral sciences, provided that a degree could be thus obtained, and still more so if it were an honorary degree, or if it led to academical emoluments. The Professor went on to state his firm conviction that the tendency of the present system to drive from the University all who intended to enter upon the study o the law as a profession, and to induce persons to embark in that profession who had not the benefit of the general education which a University ought to confer. Then, as to the other learned profession—the medical—why should not Cambridge have as good a medical college as any of the towns on the Continent which were much smaller than Cambridge? The late Professor Haviland said:— The general condition of this branch of study in the University is at present at a very low ebb. For the current academic year, only two or three young men have made known their intention of entering upon medical studies. There has been for some years a gradual falling off in the number of medical students, which perhaps may be accounted for in a great measure by the improved condition of the modes of medical education in London and elsewhere, and the superior advantages which teachers in other medical schools have in the opportunities of teaching the subjects connected with medicine, as anatomy, chemistry, pharmacy, &c., and by the entire want here of teachers, in some very important and necessary branches of medicine, as forensic medicine, hygiene, comparative anatomy, &c., and especially by the shortness and want of continuity in the course of medical lectures given here, compared with those given in London and in other schools. The most obviously desirable change would be, that which should give medical students opportunities of acquiring within the University a knowledge of all the necessary branches of their profession, and of thoroughly completing their medical education here, without which opportunities no university can in strictness be considered as a medical school. Towards this much has been done of late years, and it has been the endeavour to teach all that our present medical staff enables us to do; but it must be confessed that very much remains to be done, which can be effected only by increasing the number of our teachers, and, it may be added, by making the endowments worthy of the appointments, and such as would be sufficient to procure the services of men eminent in their respective departments. Dr. Bond, the Regius Professor of Physic, gave the same evidence. He said— The number of students attending the medical classes of the University has been at all times very variable from year to year, and has for several years past steadily and very materially declined. I believe this is to be attributed in great measure to the relation in which the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford stand to the College of Physicians in London having been altered by the recent regulations of that body, to the rising reputation of the London schools, to the existence of the London University, and to the estimation in which physicians individually are held by the public having less reference than formerly to the university where they are known to have studied and graduated. The privilege and prestige which once attached to the education of the physician at either Cambridge or Oxford having ceased to exist to the same extent, there remains little to countervail the greater expense incurred, and the longer time necessary before the doctorate in medicine could be obtained, and a position in the profession be secured. These circumstances have, I believe, deterred many from coming to the university as medical students who in former years would have done so. He had now shown by indisputable evidence that, in the three learned professions, theology, law, and medicine, the state of education was eminently unsatisfactory, and that the quality of the article afforded did not compensate for the deficiency of quantity. There was only one other function of a university, not the least important of the functions of a university, to which he should allude—that it should be a seat of learning and science. A university ought to be a place in which those higher branches of science not immediately remunerative ought to be cultivated; and it was of the last importance that, in a commercial country like this, the higher sciences should be cultivated with diligence. In this respect the shortcomings of the University of Cambridge were not to be disputed. Men of learning and science were to be found there; but the University was not a place in which the higher branches of learning and science were cultivated as they ought to be. Lord Bacon had pointed out the importance of the junction of our University in this respect— Among so many great foundations of colleges in Europe, I find it strange that they are all dedicated to professions, and none left free to arts and sciences at large. For hence, it proceedeth that princes find a solitude in regard of able men to serve them in causes of State, because there is no collegiate education which is free, where such as were so disposed might give themselves to histories, modern languages, books of policy and civil discourse, and other the like enablements unto service of State. Lord Bacon also said:— Colleges and schools of learning are to be cherished and encouraged, there to breed up a new stock to furnish the Church and Commonwealth when the old store are transplanted. This kingdom hath in latter ages been famous for good literature; and if preferment shall attend the deservers there will not want supplies. Two or three most distinguished witnesses before the Commission had shown that the result of the existing state of society was, to diminish the attractions of the University. The various opportunities of obtaining a high income in the legal professions and in commercial pursuits, the application of cathedral and chapter benefices, not to men who had distinguished themselves in university pursuits, but to those who had been engaged in the more active walks of the Church of England, and the requirements of residence—had all worked to diminish the attractions of Cambridge life. While the attractions outside had increased, the attractions within the University had not been correspondingly augmented; and the consequence was, that the prospects of the cultivation of the higher sciences were anything but promising. There was no attraction to induce men to pursue the higher branches of science like that which allured them to active pursuits beyond the walks of University life. Mr. Hopkins, a gentleman of the first eminence as a scientific man, and perhaps the best instructor in mathematical pursuits that Cambridge had ever known, said:— Our system is admirably calculated to stimulate the younger students to exertion; nor do I believe there is any place in the world where greater intellectual efforts are called forth in that class of persons than in this University. At the same time, the small number of our professors, and the transitory tenure of all tutorial offices deprive the university of means of offering any considerable encouragement to the continued study of the higher branches of science. As the reward for early exertion, she offers a competence for a single man and consequent leisure to prosecute any favourite study, but direct encouragement after the B.A. degree is wanting. He had to apologise to the House for having gone at such length into these points, but it was his wish clearly to make out what he had said he would establish. He had endeavoured to show that the amount of education afforded by the University was small when compared with what it was natural to expect from it—that it was not what it ought to be in respect to the education of gentlemen of private station, nor for those intended for the liberal professions, nor as a seat for the cultivation of learning and science.

If the Universities were free, and had bad free action, and if restrictions had not been imposed upon them with which they could not contend, the blame of this state of things, which was certainly not creditable to the educational institutions of the country, would rest upon the University. But he did not blame the University; nor did he bring in this Bill in any spirit of hostility to the University, or with the desire to disparage its disposition to improve, or to depreciate its exertion to amend the existing system. On the contrary, he was ready to admit that it had been making considerable exertions in the right direction, especially during the last ten years, and that some of the ablest and most powerful minds of the University had devoted themselves to this object. But the University had small power of self-improvement. There were internal causes which did not depend upon the will of the University, which tended to neutralize these exertions; and, therefore, Parliament was asked to enable the University and the colleges to amend the present state of things, if they were so disposed. He admitted that there were external causes which had their influence upon the state of the University—for example, the great attractiveness of commercial pursuits, and the unwillingness of young men who directed their attention to these pursuits to spend three years and a quarter in the pursuit of a University education. It should be recollected, too, that there had been a great growth of other educational institutions, such as University College and other institutions, which might be considered, to some extent, as rivals of the University affording the means of education. But it was to the internal causes that the present Bill addressed itself. The University of Cambridge was, in the first place, troubled with an antiquated and confined constitution. It had a code, framed 300 years ago, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and a still more ancient code, going back, he believed, into the thirteenth or fourteenth century. But the principal statutes for the Government of the University were those framed by Archbishop Whitgift, and imposed upon the University against its will. That was the law under which the University professed to live, and which gave it existence. But its law and its life were at variance. A system of examinations had grown up irrespective of the University code, which, in regard to that portion of it which minutely directed the studies of the University, had become almost obsolete and disregarded. The other portion of the code, referring to the government of the University, was an impediment to the free action of the University, and to its endeavours to meet the requirements of the time. A certain portion of the statutes of the University were Royal statutes, given by the Crown, and acted upon by the University, and these they could not change. Then, again, there were statutes of the nature of bye-laws, made by themselves, which they were able to change. The constitution was the most obstructive one ever invented. The legislative body was the Senate, which consisted of two houses; the Regent's House, composed of M.A.s of five years' standing, and the non-Regent's House. The Senate had no debating power; it could discuss nothing, and merely gave its assent or dissent to the measures submitted to it by the Caput, a body consisting of the Vice Chancellor, who was elected by the Senate on the nomination of the heads of Houses—one doctor of each of the faculties of divinity, law and medicine, and an M.A. representing each of the Houses. Every Member of this body had an absolute veto upon all propositions. Without the assent of each of those no measure could be submitted to the Senate; and as the Caput was composed of the most conservative portion of the University, it was inclined to resist all improvement, and all change. With such a conservative constitution as this, it was astonishing to him, not that the University had done so little in the way of improvement, but that it had accomplished so much. This Bill proposed to do away with this Caput, and that a, body, to be elected by the resident members of the University, should have the power of initiating measures. To that body he proposed to intrust, not only these legislative functions, but also the power of framing statutes for amending or repealing the University statutes, the code of Whitgift, or any other Royal statutes in existence, together with a general power of imposing and altering bye-laws. There could be no doubt of the necessity of a considerable change in the constitution and laws of the University. The oaths of the University also demanded great alteration. He, in common with all other M.A.s of the University, had taken an oath to observe the code which, he was ashamed to say, it was impossible in all respects to obey; practically, in fact, no one was acquainted with it. But these oaths and tests produced an effect to which the attention of the House ought to be directed. The Universities were formerly, national institutions, practically open to all the nation; but now, by the system of oaths and tests that had sprung up, half the public, the Dissenters, were excluded from University degrees, and this not by any Act of Parliament, but in consequence of a letter of James I., never formally recognised, although acted on by the University, in which he required all who took degrees to subscribe to the Articles of the Church of England as well as to take the oath of supremacy. In the last century the University passed a statute of its own, apparently without legal authority, enabling a person who took the degree of B.A., instead of subscribing to the thirty-nine Articles, to make a declaration that he was a bona fide member of the Church of England. With reference to the oaths required upon taking degrees, Dr. Peacocke observed:— We have found that they relate to observances which have become obsolete or impossible; to statutes which, to a great degree at least, have ceased to be obeyed; to studies and exercises which have ceased to be followed or performed; to payments which have ceased to be paid; to official duties which have ceased to be discharged; to continual residences within the University which have ceased to be demanded. It was proposed by the present Bill that none of these oaths or declarations should be required upon taking degrees. He would now proceed to another point. It was his strong conviction that one of the great defects of the University was the great expense attending its education. The Report of the Commissioners stated the expense of the residence of a young man residing at the University, in order to obtain the benefits of the education imparted there, varied from £200 to £600, that was for a residence there which did not extend to more than six months in the year. He (Mr. Bouverie) saw no occasion for that. What did they find in the sister country? At the Scotch Universities the sons of decent persons engaged in day labour, and earning daily wages were able to go to the University of St. Andrews for a few years and to enjoy the advantages of a good education at an expense of not more than a few shillings a week. Many such persons had become able and accomplished men. He had an application only within a few days in which a young man, the son of a labourer and the brother of a labourer, belonging to the class he had mentioned, was anxious, after being educated at the University of Aberdeen, to come to London and earn his bread by teaching Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. They would not find a case of that kind in any of the English Universities, but he was quite sure that if proper efforts were made, as great facilities for education could be given at our Universities in England as were given at St. Andrew's and Aberdeen. His hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) had an Amendment on the paper to which he was not prepared to give his assent. The colleges to which that hon. Gentlemen's Amendment referred stood on a different footing from those under discussion. It was believed that the new halls, if properly managed, would afford a great opportunity of extending the usefulness of the University. There was no reason why different sects of Christians should not have the advantage of a University education, and why they should not have their degrees. He believed that, combined with that, there might be considerable reduction made in the expense of education at the University, and the Bill sought to make provision for such a reduction by providing for the establishment of private halls. The principal feature of the Bill was, to give the colleges the fullest powers and the freest action. It was not fair to deprive them of anything until they had had an opportunity of showing what they could accomplish by their individual exertions. Over the whole of the powers given to the University on the one hand, and to the colleges on the other, it was proposed to set a Parliamentary Commission. Great powers would be given to that Commission, in order to operate as a check and control over the colleges. He believed that there were to be found in the colleges men who were disposed to promote every improvement that was necessary, and to use the fullest powers given by the Bill for the benefit of the University. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill,

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."

MR. WALPOLE

Sir, while I feel bound to acknowledge the ability which my right hon. Friend has displayed in explaining the objects and provisions of this Bill, I cannot but regret that he should have assumed so depreciating—so disparaging—a tone in reference to the University of Cambridge. The right hon. Gentleman has brought to bear everything that has been urged elsewhere, I will not say against the Universities, but against the "results" of the University system, as he himself has been pleased to call it; but he has entirely left the House in the dark as to everything that has been said or done in their favour. He compared the state of education in the University now with the state of education in that establishment 200 years ago—namely, in the reign of Charles I.—and drew an inference by that comparison unfavourable to the present system. He complains not only of the comparatively limited number of those who participate in the advantages of the institution, but of the defective quality of the education there imparted. But, Sir, my right hon. Friend in his own speech has partly accounted for the insufficient increase in the number of those educated in our Universities by the circumstance that so many more persons are now employed in commercial pursuits at an early age than there were at the time to which he refers. As to what my right hon. Friend said with reference to the expense of education in the University of Cambridge, I entirely concur with him; but I do submit that when he spoke of the want of proportionate increase in the number of students, he should have remembered that 200 years ago most students went to both the Universities at a much younger period of life than they do now; greater attractions now draw them away; and the consequence is, that persons are engaged in other pursuits before the time when they would have an opportunity of still continuing their educational course. The fact is, in a country where great attraction exists for profitable employment elsewhere—employment which carries away young men at an early period of life from those higher studies and that larger branch of education which our Universities afford—you will always have, comparatively speaking, a relative diminution in the number of students; and I fear that those who enter the Universities and become candidates for University honours and degrees, will always bear a small proportion to the number which we should wish, if we had our own way, to obtain very generally such an education as those institutions offer. My right hon. Friend then went into the question of the quality of the education supposed to be imparted at the University of Cambridge, repeating everything that has ever been said with reference to minimum tests; but surely, Sir, upon this point, he might have tried the quality of the education given by the University by a better criterion, namely, by the men she has sent forth into life, who have signalised themselves in every station, and whose education has not proved defective or inadequate in regard to all that makes men capable of usefulness in the world. I own, Sir, I was surprised—particularly surprised—at what my right hon. Friend had the boldness to say with reference to the education afforded at Cambridge to men preparing for that profession to which I have the honour to belong; when, if there be any one quality in connection with the education given at Cambridge more remarkable than another, it is the admirable manner in which it has trained up a succession of lawyers who have attained to the highest positions at the Bar and on the Bench. My right hon. Friend having thus stated what he conceives to be the defective and inefficient education imparted by the University of Cambridge, in amount and in quality, then says that the object of this Bill is to supply these defects; but as to the connection between this Bill and those alleged defects, that is a point which I own I cannot see. I am not aware that any great opposition is about to be made to the measure proposed by my right hon. Friend, though notices of Amendments have been given, both by my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. L. Wigram), and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lancashire (Mr. Heywood). With regard to my own feelings in respect to the Bill, I still stand upon the same principle which I more than once announced and advocated in reference to the Oxford Bill when it was before the House—namely, the principle that Parliament should impose as little restraint while it takes care to give as much freedom as possible to those who constitute the governing bodies of our Universities and Colleges in making such improvements as circumstances may require. Therefore, I shall not oppose this Bill, except upon those points where I think it militates against that principle. And this leads me to another reason why I think that this disparaging tone in reference to the University of Cambridge ought not to have been indulged in. When we discussed the Bill relating to the University of Oxford, it was not denied—indeed it was almost admitted—that that University, as compared with Cambridge, had flagged, as it were, and somewhat lagged in the alteration which the times demanded; but no one has said the same thing of Cambridge, nor could any one, knowing the facts, make such an allegation with anything like truth. My right hon. Friend seemed to believe that the University may be reformed by its own efforts. He said that his only astonishment was, that with such a constitution as that on which the University was founded, it had not remedied its own deficiencies. Is not that a strong reason why the House should pause before it passes any compulsory measure? If a University so constituted has made such improvements for itself as my right hon. Friend acknowledges it to have done, can you not trust it to go on in that course without imposing any compulsion or restraint upon it? I trust, Sir, the House will pardon me—connected as I am with that University—if I point out some of the things which the University has done within the last few years as evidence of the confidence to which it is entitled. Twenty years ago the only degree for which an honour could be obtained was the mathematical degree. Now, without at all disparaging the importance and advantage of the study of mathematics—for I believe that there is no study more useful in fixing the attention and expanding and invigorating the intellectual faculties of the mind—I think it must be admitted that to confine education, so far as regards the principal honours, to one subject was a great defect. The heads of the University were sensible of that defect, and accordingly a classical test was established, and a Tripos—a classical Tripos—with three classes, was opened, in which students could take honours as well as in mathematics. Mathematics, therefore, no longer remained the exclusive branch of study at that University to which honours were attached. Still the system as regarded honours was defective. It was felt that the students should not be confined to mathematical and classical studies, great and valuable as those studies are as the foundation of all education, whatever pursuit or whatever profession the student may afterwards be likely to follow. My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that, in one respect at least, the University has supplied the deficiency which existed, for he says it is required that previously to obtaining the common degree, students should attend certain lectures which are given by professors, and pass a satisfactory examination on the subject of those lectures; but did the Universty stop there? No, Sir, the University went much further. Every possible encouragement was given for the study of other branches of learning besides those contained in the classical and mathematical course. Rewards and honours are given in what are called the natural and moral sciences—including in the name of the natural sciences, comparative anatomy, chemistry, geology, and certain other subjects; and the moral science reaching onwards to those very studies to which my right hon. Friend said he was anxious that young men at the University should apply their minds to;—namely, moral philosophy, political economy, jurisprudence, and history. Now, when you consider these things—when you find the students at the University of Cambridge encouraged to attain distinction, according to the bent of their minds, either in mathematics or in classics, or in the moral and natural sciences—I ask you whether you find any reason to suppose that any Bill of this description would be likely, more than the University itself, of her own efforts and by her own directions, to secure the benefit of a more extended and better kind of education? Sir, I agree with my right hon. Friend that, much as the University has done, there is still more that it may well do. I agree with him with reference to one subject particularly—that of the modern languages—that too little encouragement is given to the study of them. Certainly, there is at present no inducement given in the University for the study of modern languages; but I believe that the University is alive to that defect—indeed, I know that some of those who take the greatest interest in the education of the students of the University are sensible that more might be done in that matter, and I think it not improbable that the time will come when, to a certain extent, that vacuum will be filled up. Now the point which I wish to press on my right hon. Friend is this—if the University has done these things for herself, why not leave her as free as possible to do still more; but if she have not all that freedom which my right hon. Friend thinks her present constitution prevents her from enjoying, how will his Bill give it to her? I wish to ask him this question, what does his Bill do for her? And I would further beg of him to consider, whether there are not clauses in the Bill which will rather prevent than stimulate and encourage the very object which he desires to achieve? The Bill before us may be divided into two parts—one which relates to the University itself, and the other which relates to the colleges. That part of the Bill which relates to the University, provides the new constitution for the government of the University, to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted; provides for the introduction of private halls, confers powers even of legislation on the Commissioners, and relaxes certain restrictions which now exist, with reference to the qualifications for taking of degrees. I think that is a true description of this portion of the Bill. As far as relates to the colleges, I think I may describe the principal portion of the Bill as abolishing the oaths which are now imposed, and as a consequence of the abolition of those oaths, enabling the colleges to deal more freely with their collegiate property than they now can do. If the House will permit me to make a few observations on this subject, I think my so doing will not interfere with the progress of the Bill, because, after the matter has been brought before the House in as connected a view as possible, we shall be able to discuss the details, where discussion shall be necessary, with greater advantage. With respect, then, to the first point—the constitution of the new Government: acting on the principle which I have always advocated—namely, that of giviving or securing perfect freedom of government for the University; and the non-interference of Parliament, except where such interference is necessary—I must say at once that although I would not have proposed the exact council which my right hon. Friend proposes, yet I am bound to add that it being proposed, I see no reason for offering opposition in order to defeat it. I should not have proposed the exact council, because, with the strong opinion I entertain, that the University should be left to settle matters as much as it can for herself, I should have hoped, when the University did provide a council which it thought would be satisfactory, and which had been received in strong terms of approbation by the Commissioners, that it would not have been turned round upon in reference to that point, but rather that it would have been trusted to form for itself its own constitution. Under these circumstances, I think it would have been much better to let the University have a council such as it had framed for herself, and, if it should not have been found to answer, it might have been enabled to make subsequent alterations to remedy the defects which might have become apparent by experience. In the Report of the Commissioners, I find this strong recommendation of the council proposed by the University:— We cannot hesitate to express our pleasure to find such a proposal emanating from the University itself. It has evidently been framed with careful deliberation, and with an especial view, as well to preserve a balance and power among several colleges, as also to prevent the excitements and rivalries of a more popular and unlimited mode of appointment. The suggested scheme has received the unanimous approval of the syndicate; and we hope it may in due time receive the sanction of the Senate. Unfortunately, Sir, the Inquiry Commissioners, after expressing an opinion thus favourable to the council suggested by the University, have thought it right to change their mind; and by so doing they have been the cause of the only material difference which has taken place in the University with respect to the measure to be passed by Parliament. Since that change, the Government have proposed a somewhat different council. It is my duty, however, not to cavil against this or that variation, because the exact council is not proposed that the University would have suggested or that I should approve of; but to see if there be in that proposal any objections which we ought to remedy. Well, Sir, my opinion, on the whole, is, that the council proposed is not a bad one; and as it corresponds very much with the council which was given to the sister University of Oxford, and since I have always felt that it is a matter of paramount importance to put the two, mutatis mutandis, as much on the same footing as possible, I shall not attempt the rejection of the council as here constituted, but finding it in the Bill, and not entertaining any serious objection to it, I am prepared to give it my support, although, I repeat, it is not exactly the council I should have proposed. As to the second point, which relates to the University—the establishment of private halls—there is an important point of difference between this Bill and the Oxford Bill. These halls were much discussed when the Oxford Bill was before the House. And I will here repeat what I said when the Oxford Bill was under consideration, that I do not think well of them. I do not think they will diminish the expense of education to the student, while they may tend to impair the usefulness of the Universities in an essential particular. One of the best things about the University system of education is the domestic character which it obtains by means of the collegiate system. By that system you have students under every possible variety of circumstances associating together at all times. Meeting in the same lecture-room, competing for the same prizes, dining in the same halls, worshipping in the same chapel; and though those things may at first sight appear trifling—I should not say trifling, but not very important—yet I am perfectly confident, from observation, from experience, and from that which is still better, from the mature opinion and judgment of others, that there is hardly anything that has a greater effect on the moral and even intellectual characters of students than those circumstances to which I have referred. Strongly do I deprecate any step which in any degree tends to impair the efficiency of the collegiate system, and for that reason I contended against the establishment of private halls at Oxford; but, again, I say that as you have given them to Oxford, and inasmuch as I think the two Universities ought to be placed as much as possible on the same footing—and since my right hon. Friend has urged the only strong reason which can be urged in favour of these private halls, namely, that you thereby give a greater latitude to persons who dissent from the Established Church, and afford them a greater opportunity of obtaining a University education, I will admit at once that I shall not oppose their introduction into Cambridge. At the same time there is one portion of the Oxford Bill applicable to this subject, which is omitted from this Bill, and which I hope my right hon. Friend will consent to insert in the measure now before the House. In the Oxford Act the University is empowered to make certain regulations for different things connected with the private halls, and, amongst other things, with reference to the religious instruction and the attendance at Divine worship of the students. That provision has been omitted from the present Bill. I beg of my right hon. Friend to insert it. Such a power of laying down regulations for the guidance and discipline of the young men who are there to be educated, I look upon as necessary for the well-being of the government and discipline of the University, especially when I remember that at the age of many of those students the passions are strong and the judgment weak. My hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. L.Wigram) proposes to insert a clause to this effect; and I shall certainly support him in the introduction of that clause if my right hon. Friend does not insert such a provision himself. The third part of the Bill to which I shall advert is that by which a kind of legislative power is given to the Commissioners. My right hon. Friend observed, that in giving that power to the Commissioners he did not mean to do away with the free action of the University, but only to induce the University to act freely for herself. Now, there is no similar provision in the Oxford Act; and I ask, does Cambridge require such a stimulus, when she is so willing to act freely and of herself? Why bring an external power to bear upon her in forming her own statutes? Why is she not as likely as the Commissioners to make statutes suited to her condition, and which shall best promote her own interests? She must know her own requirements better than any Commissioners outside her walls. I think such a provision shows an undeserved distrust in the University, and if adopted may lead to disagreements but little likely to promote that peace and tranquillity which ought to reign in a seat of learning. But even if I did not feel thus strongly as to the compulsion and restraint thus put upon the University, I believe the provision to be otherwise most unwise. For how stands your Bill? The Bill proposes that the University shall make statutes for herself till the year 1858; that the Commissioners shall then have power to make statutes for her till the year 1860; and that when 1860 shall have arrived, that power shall be again restored to the University. Now, I think this may create a conflict of opinion that will lead to absurdities. When you propose to give the University the power of making her statutes permanently hereafter, why create the interval of two years during which the Commissioners may propose something entirely opposed to the views of the University, and to the feelings of those who best know her interests? I hope my right hon. Friend will either omit that part of the Bill altogether, or at least qualify it to this extent—that the alteration of the statutes shall only take place, like the proposed alteration of college statutes, with the consent of a certain portion of the governing body. The last part of the Bill is that relating to the intended relaxation of some of the restrictions in taking degrees; and here again my right hon. Friend has departed from the terms of the Oxford Act. That Act made, I think, the best provision that can be made with regard to those who are not members of the Established Church. It said, "You shall impose no test; you shall require from the student no declaration; you shall force upon him no oath which will prevent him from taking a B.A. degree;" but further than this it did not go. My right hon. Friend now says, "Remove these restrictions up to the time of his taking a M.A. degree." My first objection to this is, cui bono? Is it for the purpose of education? I deny that it is necessary on this account, because the educational course may be said to end with the degree of B.A. And then, again, I think you ought to keep these Universities on the same footing, or else you will have one bidding against another, or members in this House will be holding up one in contrast to the other, until at last you will make these Universities totally different from what you intended when you commenced this reforming process. Since you can gain no advantage in an educational point of view by extending the periods of time during which these restrictions shall not be imposed, I see no reason for introducing this clause into the Bill, and I hope it will not be persevered in. The result, then, is that, so far as the measure relates to the University, I shall not feel it my duty to offer any material opposition to it; and I shall only seek to amend the Bill in that portion of it which relates to private halls, the omission of regulations on the subject of religious instruction and public worship. I shall also beg my right hon. Friend to omit Clause 31, which will really enable the Commissioners to act by compulsion upon the University, or, at least, I shall beg him to add such a proviso as will give the University a voice in the matter; and with regard to Clause 44, I shall endeavour to assimilate that clause to the corresponding section in the Oxford Act. The alterations in the Bill respecting the colleges, upon which a difference of opinion may arise, are two. The one is the abolition of oaths; the other is the power to be conferred upon the colleges—which power, if not exercised by the colleges, is to be conferred upon the Commissioners, of altering the tenure of college emoluments, and, indeed, of disposing of them in a different manner from that which their founders and donors prescribed. With regard to the abolition of oaths, I am in entire agreement with my right hon. Friend. Nothing can be more disadvantageous than the attempt to bind fallible man by a fallible machinery, especially when circumstances may be so materially altered as to render necessary an alteration of it. The variation of laws, customs, and habits—any variation which may take place, and which cannot have been contemplated at the time—may make all the difference at some future period with regard to the propriety of imposing such tests. If I required an argument upon that opinion, I could not find a better one than is to be drawn from a period of time remote from the present, when new statutes were given to Balliol College, Oxford, by Pope Julius II. The preface to those statutes is so perfectly applicable to that part of the subject which I am now animadverting, and agreeing with my right hon. Friend upon, that I hope the House will allow me to read it. The Oxford Commissioners say:— The preface to the present statutes of Balliol College, given to it by Pope Julius II., well expresses the necessity for alteration, which is equally applicable to all colleges in all times:—'We do not issue these statutes because none previous have been issued; for, in fact, this is the fouth code promulgated; but because those statutes framed up to this time have, by the changes of times and men, after the fashion of human affairs, reached that point, that what in the beginning brought to the framers profit and use, afterwards, in the course of time, brought loss and the greatest mischief.' Now, that is as applicable to the present times as it was to the times in which it was written. I concur with my right hon. Friend in thinking that those oaths require alteration; and I think it better that the only declaration that a member of the University should make is, that he will abide by the rules and customs observed in the colleges; that any oath not to disclose any matter or thing relating to the college, to resist or not concur in any change, or to do or forbear from doing anything the doing or not doing of which tended to such change, would only encourage the evasion of an oath which he knows he cannot comply with; and that, therefore, there is a necessity for effecting an alteration. Now the consequence of an alteration in the college oaths will lead to an alteration in the college emoluments. But I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend in carrying that alteration to so great an extent as he proposes, and here, therefore, I shall be constrained to oppose him unless he consents to reintroduce into this Bill some words which he himself has struck out of it—some words which are contained in the Oxford Act, and which ought, I contend, to be contained in any Act, if you desire to deal justly with the rights of property and the intentions of the benevolent founders. Now, in the Oxford Act there is a long preface to the clause which corresponds with the one to which I am alluding—namely, the 27th clause of this Bill. In the Oxford Act there is a long preamble which says that alterations may be made by the colleges in their statutes, for the purpose of promoting the personal merits or fitness of the candidates, or students, or members of those colleges; but that general power is qualified to this extent, namely, that in making such alterations you ought to have regard to the main designs and intentions of the founders. So I think you ought in all cases. If you leave out those words intentionally—meaning thereby that the colleges or the Commissioners, or both, may divert the trust upon which property is given to an entirely different purpose, then you, in reality, strike at the very root and foundation of property, and the tenure upon which it is held. More than that, if this be your intention in omitting the words, I am perfectly convinced that all that bounty and generous benevolence, which has provided and is constantly providing either these or similar institutions for the benefit of their fellow men, will be dried up, because they will object to giving their property away for such purposes, if they know that the strong arm either of this House or of Commissioners delegated by this House may take it away and divert it into another channel. I am confident that that principle is so unsound and untenable that I hope we shall succeed in inducing my right hon. Friend to reintroduce those words. I will then give him the full latitude which he desires to obtain by this clause in order to enable the colleges to deal with their property (subject only to that qualification) in the way they think most advantageous and proper. In the observations which I have felt it my duty to address to the House, I believe I have not shown any disposition or intention either to obstruct the measure of my right hon. Friend or to take an illiberal view of a great subject which has reference to the prosperity of those noble institutions the Universities of our land. On the contrary, be it remembered that my argument rests upon these two points—first, that it is a matter of sound and good policy to extend and improve freely and voluntarily the education and instruction which the Universities can give; and, secondly, that you ought not to impose any greater restraints upon Cambridge than you have imposed upon Oxford, but should leave her as free to act as Oxford is enabled to do, in order that she may promote the advantage of her members. By this Bill, however, I think you have not done either the one or the other to the full extent that you ought. Is there, then, any reason upon which my right hon. Friend can resist the application I now make to him to act strictly on those two principles? I have pointed out the alterations I would make, and also the grounds upon which I would make them. I take my position first of all upon the great principle that that which is voluntarily and freely done is always better done than that which is done under the compulsion and restraint of another; next, that the University of Cambridge deserves your confidence, since she has already done so much for the cause of education and science, and, I firmly believe, if you let her alone, that she is still likely to do much more. But if I wanted another argument to induce me to take the course which I am now pressing upon the consideration of the Government, I should find it in the good fruits that have been produced. I would take it from results which are palpable and notorious to all—the great and eminent who in every sphere of life she has nurtured and sent into the world. I cannot refrain from reminding the House that Cambridge in this respect stands—I will not say as high as, but I will venture to say higher than any institution that you can name, either in this or in any other country in the world. Sir, I am proud to think that I belong to a University which, in science, has produced a Bacon and a Newton; which, in theology, can boast of a Barrow and a Jeremy Taylor; which can show you a Bentley in scholarship, and a Person in learning; whose sons in poetry have charmed, aye, and instructed too, thousands and thousands before, and will charm and instruct thousands and thousands to come after us—a Spenser, a Cowley, a Milton, a Dryden, a Gray, and a Byron. And if I go to that profession for which my right hon. Friend appears to suppose a Cambridge education does not qualify her sons—if I go to the persons who fill the highest ranks in the law, produce to me if you can nobler names than those of Coke, Camden, Ellenborough, and Thurlow. Or, if I turn to the great statesmen of our country, none are higher, none more celebrated than the sagacious Burleigh, the prudent Sir Robert Walpole, and I might add as equal to either, that first and most finished of orators, and perhaps most dignified and virtuous of statesmen, William Pitt. I forbear—properly forbear, I hope from filling up the blanks with other names only inferior to those I have enumerated, because I believe it would almost occupy a winter's night to do so completely. I forbear to touch upon living contemporaries, the ornaments of Cambridge, that I may not be supposed to make my selection from partiality or affection; but the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston)—than whom there is none our common University may be more justly proud of—will agree with me when I say that there are three names to which I may advert—living though the bearers be—as preeminent examples of what Cambridge has done and will continue to do for her devoted sons. I take, first, the brilliant genius and the amazing stores of literature and learning which have charmed us so often when Mr. Macaulay sat within these walls, and which charm us still when we read his works. I will take another instance in one whose gigantic powers have compassed almost every kind of knowledge; who, as tutor of his college, has devoted those powers to the instruction of hundreds; and who now, as the master of that college—the head of Trinity—the Vice Chancellor of the University—has done, and I will undertake to say, will do more to reform and improve our education than all the Commissioners you can ever send there. But to the last of those names I refer with peculiar pride, to that eminent individual who is, at the present moment, Steward of the University, and I think his example will clearly point out what Cambridge can do when I remind you of that remarkable man who, first, as an undergraduate, then at the Bar, next on the Bench, and subsequently on the woolsack, achieved for himself the highest distinctions, and who now at the age of fourscore and four years, can vindicate in the House of Lords the privileges of his own order, can stand up to assert the rights and freedom of his country when assailed as she was in the late war—that greatly gifted man who brings to bear upon any subject which he touches not only the maturity of judgment and the wisdom of age, but a vigour and elasticity of mind which even the youngest amongst us may well desire to possess. Of course I refer to Lord Lyndhurst. And now I conclude. I hope I have not trespassed unnecessarily upon the attention of the House in bringing these points before them. To give freedom to the University is the main object I desire in supporting this measure, or in proposing or supporting any amendments upon it. With reference alike to the past, the present, and the future, you will indeed, confer upon her a great boon and blessing if you attend to those principles upon which I rest my case—principles almost identical with those which have actuated the Commissioners in their labours. In proposing reforms," the Commissioners say, "we do not wish to dissociate the present from the past; neither do we recommend changes except for the purpose of removing positive evils. Again:— The teaching of the University should be the exponent of what is highest and best in the condition of literature and science; and should be in part also the help and guide to her sons in their aspirations after moral and intellectual excellence. Where she has failed in this, it has been partly, we think, from the want of that legislative freedom which we would wish to give to her. I am afraid that, by some of the clauses in this Bill, you are taking that freedom unduly away. But I trust you will alter them. And now I cannot express the feelings with which I regard the future career of the University of Cambridge more felicitously and more accurately than by adopting the closing sentences of the Commissioners' Report:— What above all other things gives us hope for the future good of Cambridge is the manly, free, and truth-loving character of her sons, springing—in part, at least—from her collegiate system, the character of her studies, and the uprightness of her administration, producing in return confidence and goodwill on the part of those committed to her care. In all her members she believes that she possesses a body of men who, strong in their historical remembrances, cling to what is truly good, would seek for no needless change, and would admit of no change which had not the fair promise of scientific, moral, and religious benefit. With these sentiments, Sir, I am prepared to go into Committee.

MR. POLLARD-URQUHART

observed that, before undertaking to legislate on this subject, it would be well for the House to determine a question in which the country felt much interest—namely, whether our Universities should be places of training for men who meant to devote their lives to science and literature, or whether they should be schools in which men should be educated for the stirring pursuits of every-day life. A combination of both purposes would meet most satisfactorily the views of the country. A little more of practical education and rather less of erudition would be an improvement. Science and literature should still be cherished in the Universities, but care should also be taken that in those institutions men were duly qualified for the active duties of Church and State. Many young men who were by no means unambitious or destitute of application were prevented from turning their attention to the course of University studies because they thought them too severe, and did not wish to take only second-rate honours. To obtain any reform in this respect it would be necessary to make the constitution of the University less "donnish"—to take the government, to some extent, out of the hands of those who were resident at the University; and in this respect the Bill was, in his opinion, entitled to support. It might, however, have gone further. He desired to see the council elected almost entirely by the Senate, and reminded the House that the electoral body, as now constituted, did not include such men as Airey, Ma-caulay, Herschel, or Babbage, and many others, who were distinguished alike for scientific acquirements and for success in active life. Many of the alterations which he wished to see introduced into the Bill would be effected by the Amendments of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. J. Heywood). These he should support, and he hoped that at least some of them would be assented to by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). Upon the whole, he should support the Bill, which he thought would, to a certain degree, attain objects much to be desired, notwithstanding all that had been alleged with regard to the self-reformation of Cambridge.

MR. HEYWOOD

said, he thought the House ought not to go into Committee upon this Bill without considering the application of the £185,000 which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock had, on the authority of the Commissioners, stated to be the total amount of the incomes of the various colleges at Cambridge. In his opinion these large incomes made the principal difference between the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and other Universities, for he believed that as good a degree, so far as learning and acquirement were concerned, could be obtained in the University of London. Originally the colleges were devoted to the religious profession, and their incomes were frequently derived from the custom, in ancient times, of giving large sums of money to indigent priests for praying for the souls of deceased persons. That custom prevailed at the University of Cambridge in early ages, and a large quantity of college property was collected in that way. That income, in process of time, was given to maintain the students from early life, and during a period of nineteen years which were necessary to reach the degree of doctor of divinity. That maintenance was indispensable, for no one would have stayed in a college for so great a part of their lives without it. There was a difference between Oxford and Cambridge in this respect, that Oxford had never published its records, and it was not known what had happened with regard to the disposition of its property at the time of the Reformation; whereas Cambridge had published many statutes passed at the Reformation. No doubt the money was left for the purpose of enabling persons to pursue theological studies, and was intended for the support of persons seeking professions. He meant to show that that money was not now dedicated to professions. The way in which the pursuit of these professional studies had been extinguished was curious; in fact, it had been caused by the impossibility of getting persons to stay in the University so long as had been necessary to obtain the degree of doctor of divinity, and statutes were passed enabling persons to leave after attaining the degree of bachelor of arts; the consequence of which was, that almost every one left when that degree was attained. This gave the death-blow to the ancient professional studies. Very few persons now remained at college after taking the degree of bachelor of arts unless they wished to be tutors, or to hold office. The ancient system was broken down, and there was no reason why further alterations should not be made, as the circumstances of the times required them; but, in his opinion, there ought to be a more complete alteration of the ancient constitution than was provided for by this Bill, which he could only accept as an instalment of what was needed. Another great principle which he wished to see established at Cambridge was, that the ordination of fellows should be perfectly voluntary. The experience of the Oxford Act was not favourable to hasty legislation. In Oxford three colleges only had prepared new statutes, but they had proved so unsatisfactory to the House, that they had not yet been approved. The Commissioners had sanctioned a statute for Lincoln College continuing one of the founder's statutes, which declared that any person who advanced any heretical opinion in public or private should be called before the rector and expelled. He was sorry to see that the Commission to be appointed by the Bill was headed by a couple of Bishops. That was certainly to be regretted, for one of the great reasons why there had been so much larger an amount of freedom at Cambridge than at Oxford was, that it had had an happy immunity from episcopal visitations. The University had been exempted from the visitation of the Bishop of Ely, by the Pope about the twelfth or thirteenth century, and when Archbishop Laud wished to visit it the feeling against his visitation was so strong in the University, which then happened to be full of Puritans, that he was obliged to give it up. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was wrong in saying that colleges were places into which Dissenters could not be admitted, because the fact was that they were admitted. There was nothing to hinder Dissenters being educated at Cambridge; he himself had been educated there at Trinity College; and the establishment, therefore, of private halls was not so great a boon to the cause of religious liberty as the right hon. Gentleman would make out. In the old times colleges were certainly private institutions, but in the reign of Elizabeth they became more closely connected with the University. The charter by which the University returned two Members to Parliament, granted by James I., expressly stated that the University consists of the colleges—the word in the original was constat—so that the two hon. Gentlemen opposite were Members for the colleges of Cambridge as well as for the University. It was most unreasonable, therefore, to say that, though Dissenters were to take secular degress, they should not be admitted into the Senate, for the Senate was the constituency of the University, and Dissenting graduates would thus be disfranchised. That clause in the Bill by which the statutes of Elizabeth were to come to an end in 1860 was a most valuable one. He did not think, however, that the University ought to be left unrestricted to make whatever alterations were necessary. Parliament ought to have the power of discussing and revising them, and it was his intention to move that the statutes, as altered by the University, should not have the force of law until four months had elapsed from the time of their being laid before Parliament, instead of forty days. In questions of religious liberty these monastic establishments ought to be viewed with great jealousy, though he was quite willing to bear his testimony to the feeling of impartiality and honour with which Dissenting students were treated by the University. He saw no difficulty whatever in Dissenters being educated at the University if the statutes of the colleges were only put on a more liberal footing.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, the great fallacy which had run through the debates on this Bill and on the Oxford University Bill, was the attempt to institute an analogy between English and foreign universities. Men stayed many years in German universities, looking to the means by which to make a great and European reputation, and not turning their attention at all to the affairs of the country. But in England it was just the contrary, because the great majority of men went to the English Universities with the view of becoming statesmen or lawyers. Was it not, then, most important that, during the few years while they could call their time their own, they should be storing their minds with that knowledge which hereafter would be of the greatest possible advantage? In Germany men might, in the course of ten or twelve years, go over the same writers again and again; but in England, if they did not acquire the tastes and habits for consecrating their minds to particular subjects while at the Universities, the attempt would afterwards be vain. Nothing was more to be deprecated than turning the Universities from their original purposes into mere schools for modern languages. What was wanted was, that they should lay the solid foundation of classical and mathematical knowledge, rather than develope the premature and precocious reputation which left nothing to fall back upon when great qualities and talents were required for the public service. The great object of Universities should be to prepare men for the active service of the country. Reference had been made to the number of eminent men reared in the Universities, and to the small number of graduates in that House. He thought the test extremely fallacious. He did not mean to say a word against the Reform Bill, but the inevitable result of it was to throw open the avenues of that House to a class of people who were not brought up at the Universities, and to make it more difficult for those who were brought up at the Universities to find their way there. The activity, opulence, and enterprise of commerce, and the absence of patronage, had prevented young men regarding that House in the light of a certain profession. Many of them looked to other quarters for advancement, and if they entered Parliament, entered it at a very late period of life. But if he were asked whether he thought the Universities had not degenerated, he thought they had. The system of cramming was fatal to many understandings. The violent exertions of a few years inspired disgust with study, and a disposition to consider the knowledge acquired at a University all the knowledge that was necessary; whereas it was of very little importance compared with the acquisition of taste for literature, which should be the effect of a University education. He asked any one of refinement or taste whether he thought the writers of this century could be compared with the writers of Queen Anne's time? Talk of the genius of The Times, was there anything in The Times at all to be compared with Addison's papers in the Spectator? Did they think writers for The Times could write day after day such papers as were written week after week by Addison, or that the political writings of the age were equal to the political writings of Swift and Boling-broke? His right hon. Friend had dwelt upon the advantages of mathematics in regard to the strength it gave to the reasoning powers; but he thought that, carried to excess, it was apt to blunt the sense for moral reasoning. He concurred in the wish that Cambridge would borrow a little of the Oxford classics, remembering that Gibbon had said he fortunately left off the study of mathematics before he had pursued it long enough to lose the power of giving due weight to reasoning on moral subjects. In one remark of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) he entirely agreed, and he should give every support in his power to preserving the intentions of the founders. Nothing could be more unjust or unreasonable than to accept a gift and reject the conditions with which it was accompanied. By sweeping away the conditions annexed he thought they would be drying up the sources of educational gifts, and, in his opinion, nothing was more touching than to see a man who had risen from humble life, making bequests to a college for the advantage of a particular school, that others might be raised by the same means which had enabled him to raise himself.

MR. WIGRAM

said, they might pursue the subjects touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman to great length, and with considerable interest, but he hoped the House would proceed in Committee, that they might make some progress with the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee.

On Clause 1,

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

suggested that the Government should consider whether, in appointing Commissioners, five was not a sufficient number, or, at all events, whether seven was not better than eight.

Clause 1 agreed to; also Clauses 2 and 3.

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

MR. STAFFORD

, in the absence of Lord John Manners, moved the omission of the words "and no oath which may have been taken by any such officer shall be a bar to any authorities of the Commissioners." The words assumed that Parliament had power to dispense with the obligation of an oath, and the effect of them would be to interfere with liberty of conscience. The question had been raised on the Oxford Bill, and he would divide the House again on it.

MR. BOUVERIE

explained that the words were inserted not to constrain persons who had conscientious scruples, for there was no penalty on refusal to give information, but to ease persons who, without the words, might think the giving information would be a violation of their oaths.

Mr. WALPOLE

thought it a most objectionable form of legislation. He had divided against similar words in the Oxford Bill, and if the hon. Member divided on the Amendment he should support him.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE

argued that oaths were taken with a reservation of their being lawful, and if an Act were passed requiring information to be given it would be no violation of an oath for a person to fulfil his duty as a citizen by giving that information. He therefore did not see what was gained by the insertion of the words.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that if it were intended to relieve persons from the obligations of their oath, it was better that distinct words to that effect should be inserted in the Act of Parliament, rather than that it should be left to inference.

MR. WIGRAM

said, no matter what the intention might be, the popular impression on this subject was that the House of Commons by this clause undertook to absolve persons from the obligation of the oath; to remove the impression, he thought the words ought to be left out.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, as a matter of authority with Gentlemen opposite, the words were suggested by Lord Lyndhurst, and were slightly different from those in the Oxford Act.

MR. LLOYD DAVIES

thought it very important to retain the words, as information would otherwise be refused on the ground that the oaths required its concealment.

MR. MALINS

thought the words unnecessary.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 31: Majority 44.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Establishment of Council of the Senate).

MR. HEYWOOD

moved to omit the word "sixth" and insert the word "first," his object being that the election of the Vice Chancellor should take place under the new system.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, it was thought better that the new machinery of the Bill should be put into operation on the 7th or 8th of December, which was the close of the present academic year.

Question put, "That the word 'sixth' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 19: Majority 67.

MR. HEYWOOD

then moved after the words "exercised by," to insert "the heads of Houses in their collective capacity." The hon. Member said, the object of this Amendment was to assimilate the Cambridge to the Oxford Bill, by transferring the discipline of the colleges from the heads of Houses in their individual capacity, to the council generally. The result would be, that the heads of Houses here would correspond with the "hebdomadal board," at Oxford, before the Act passed.

MR. BOUVERIE

thought the Amendment unnecessary. The most material power of the heads of Houses was as to discipline; and that power was not to be forced upon the new council, but left to its discretion to accept.

MR. HEYWOOD

said, this was the important point. The heads of Houses had no knowledge of the students, and were a very unfit body to have charge of their discipline. He himself, during all his residence at the University, never spoke to the head of his House.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Composition of the Council).

MR. HEYWOOD

moved to leave out the words "four Heads of Colleges and four Professors of the University;" the effect of which would be not to compel the new council to elect four heads of Houses. The reason of the Amendment was the unsatisfactory way in which the Oxford Act, from which the clause was copied, had been found to work.

MR. BOUVERIE

very much preferred the clause as it stood. This was a question as to the constitution of the council, and he confessed he should like to see all the different interests represented.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

did not think that any council elected by the University of Oxford would be likely to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member. That University had elected more heads of Houses than it was really incumbent on them to do.

MR. CRAUFURD

opposed any restriction being placed on the electoral body of the University, and should therefore support the Amendment.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 38: Majority 64.

MR. HEYWOOD

then moved the omission of the following words, after the word "Members of the Senate," from the proviso at the end of the clause, "not elected as heads of colleges or professors; and if any member shall be elected of the council in two or more classes he shall, when he first takes his seat in the council, declare in which class he elects to be a member, and thereupon his seat in the other class shall be vacant."

MR. WIGRAM

opposed the Amendment.

MR. WALPOLE

thought that the proviso, as it stood, was very objectionable, for it acted as a restriction upon the freedom of election.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that if it were desirable—and he thought it was—so far to restrict the choice as to point out in what proportions the different classes or interests should be represented, it would be necessary to retain the words proposed to be left out,

Question put, "That the words 'Provided also, that nothing herein contained' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 111; Majority 48.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7, requiring members of the Senate to reside at least twenty weeks in the University in every year, "fourteen" was substituted for "twenty," and the clause, as amended, was agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 20 (The quorum of council to be five; and questions in the council to be decided by the majority).

MR. WIGRAM moved that, at the end of the clause the following proviso should be inserted:— Provided always, that in case of a difference of opinion between the Chancellor, or the Vice Chancellor, or his deputy, and the majority of the members present at any meeting of the council, the question as to which such difference may exist shall not be deemed to be carried by such majority unless the same shall constitute a majority of the whole council; but in such case the question shall be adjourned to the next meeting of the council, and such adjourned question shall be finally decided by the majority of the members of council then present.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.

On Clause 23, giving power to the Vice Chancellor to license members of the Senate to open their residences for the reception of students.

MR. HEYWOOD proposed

to omit the words "any member of the Senate." It had been stated that these private halls were intended for Dissenters, but a member of the Senate must be a member of the Church of England. By the clause none but members of the Senate were to be at the head of these private halls; and, therefore, Dissenters might as well go to the existing colleges. He moved to insert, instead "of any member of the Senate" "any person."

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24, giving the title of "Licensed Masters" to those opening their residences as before mentioned.

MR. HEYWOOD

proposed that they should be called "Principals" instead of "Licensed Masters," for the latter appellation was not liked, as it seemed to bear some resemblance to the term "licensed victuallers."

Amendment agreed to; and on the Motion of Mr. WIGRAM the term "hostel" was substituted for "private hall."

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25 (Power of University to make Statutes as to Hostels).

MR. WIGRAM

moved the insertion of the word "instruction," which would enable the University "to make regulations for the government of hostels, the instruction and discipline of the students therein," &c. His object was to assimilate this Bill to the Oxford University Act.

MR. BOUVERIE

thought the Principals who conducted the hostels should he allowed to adopt such a system of instruction as they deemed most likely to enable the students to acquire University degrees.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that if it was intended to make the two Bills identical, the course to be pursued was of course clear; but if any improvements were to be considered, it would be for the Committee to make, if possible, Amendments in the Oxford Bill.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WIGRAM

then moved that after the word "therein" the following words be inserted—"Their attendance on Divine worship."

MR. BOUVERIE

observed, that the private halls were intended to be places of resort for students who did not conform to the Church of England, and no one would deny that daily worship ought to be conducted in such establishments. The Senate of the University was, however, composed entirely of members of the Church of England, and if the Amendment were adopted, power would be given to the Senate to make regulations with reference to Divine worship applicable to persons who were not members of the Church of England, and the main object of the Bill might thus be defeated. He did not believe that any Dissenting parents would entrust their sons to the charge of Principals of private halls, unless they were satisfied that in such establishments due provision was made for religious worship.

MR. PELLATT

said that, although daily prayer was offered in almost all Dissenting colleges, Dissenters would object to prayer being compulsorily ordained by law; and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would not adopt the Amendment.

MR. WALPOLE

remarked, that it was not intended to require that students who were Dissenters should attend Divine worship according to the forms of the Church of England, and any abuse of the power proposed to be given to the Senate would I be guarded against by the provision that no statute could have any force or effect unless it was approved by the Queen in Council. Unless some such rule as that proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Wigram) was adopted, they might, for the first time, admit the principle of allowing students who were subject to no regulations with regard to attendance upon religious worship to enter the University. He believed the matter might be very safely left to the University.

MR. HEYWOOD

said, he had not the slightest confidence in the University of Cambridge in a matter of this kind. He knew that at Trinity College a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion had been forced to attend the worship of the Church of England, to the great annoyance of some of the senior members of the college. He had also seen a Roman Catholic gentleman attending the chapel of Trinity College, and he could state that he himself, although a Dissenter, had been obliged to attend the Church of England service at that college.

MR. WIGRAM

said, he did not suppose there could be the slightest objection to attendance at the service of the Church of England by Roman Catholics or by most Dissenters, but the attendance of a Jew would certainly be most objectionable. He thought the hon. Member was under some misconception when he stated that a Jew had been compelled to attend Divine service in the chapel of Trinity College. He (Mr. Wigram) was acquainted with an instance where a Jew, who was at the University, did attend the chapel for some time, but when the attention of the dean of the chapel was called to the circumstance, he thought such attendance was highly improper, and at once dispensed with it.

MR. HEYWOOD

said, his authority for the statement he had made was the Rev. Mr. Carus, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who had expressed the pain he felt at witnessing the attendance of a Jew at the service of the Church of England under such circumstances. There were some Dissenters who did not believe in the Nicene creed. He (Mr. Heywood) was one of them, and it had been most annoying to him to be forced to attend chapel when that creed was read.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that in enacting that the University should draw up regulations according with the different forms of Dissenting worship they imposed upon the governing body a task which they were not competent to perform. How could they draw up a form of prayer, for instance, in which Unitarian, Baptist, and Quaker could join?

MR. WALPOLE

did not ask that the University should be empowered to make forms of worship, but only that she should prescribe regulations for the attendance of students in private halls at Divine worship in some place or in some manner.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether each college did not make its own regulation on this point, and if the colleges were trusted to require religious observance on the part of the students, why should not these hostels be equally trusted?

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, the reason was obvious. In the one case there was a body acting under statutes; in this case there would be no such statutes and no bodies to administer them. As these hostels, therefore, would be fluctuating in character, and entirely dependent on the individuals placed at their head, something like stability ought surely to be given to their regulation on this point.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 121: Majority 42.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 26.

The House resumed: Committee report progress,

The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Monday next.