SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the consideration of an Ordinance which has been laid before Parliament in a Report of the Oxford University Commissioners, he wished to explain that the Ordinance to which the measure referred was one which regulated the constitution of St. John's College, Oxford; and the Bill proposed to provide a tribunal for the adjudication of a difference which had arisen between the College and the Commissioners.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had treated the Bill in so light and indifferent a manner, because, in point of fact, it was nothing less than a breach of the contract which was entered into between Parliament on the one band, and Oxford University on the other in the year 1854. At that time the state of the case was this:—A very complicated University Reform Bill had been brought forward by the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen, the earlier portions of which passed through Committee with great difficulty. The Government were beaten on several divisions and nearly beaten on several others; and at last, at Whitsuntide, despairing of carrying the measure that Session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer remodelled it altogether, reconstructing it on the principle of giving large discretionary powers to the Commissioners named in the Bill, and also allowing each college in the University, by a majority of two-thirds of its members, to negative any Ordinance that it considered objectionable. Upon the understanding that this negative was to be a practical one, the Opposition ceased to object to the Bill; 323 subsequently it went up to the House of Lords, the University withdrew their opposition, and the measure been me law. What did the University do? Did it make use of this power in a factious manner? By no means. Except in the case of St. John's College no permanent opposition had been offered to the Commissioners. On many occasions the Commissioners had proposed changes to which strong objections were taken, but the Colleges were anxious to accommodate them, and it was only in this one instance, where the interests of a very important school in the City of London were most injuriously affected by an Ordinance, that the College resolved on exerting the power which was given it by the Act of Parliament. To meet this one case, then, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to invoke the authority of Parliament, and to destroy the veto which Parliament had solemnly conferred in 1854. If the Bill were allowed to pass it would throw the greatest reflection upon the Ministry of that day; because it was impossible to believe that the Ministry, when it proposed the veto, intended it to be a deceit and a sham. They, no doubt, intended it to be an honest protection to the University, and not that the absolute exercise of the power should terminate at the end of five years.
§ Leave given.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS and Mr. CLIVE.
§ Bill presented and read 1°.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock.