COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 18 July 1861)

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he objected to the principle of the Bill. The Durham University, which with its large endowments ought to present great advantages to the youth of the North of England had become, as it was prophesied by the late Lord Durham it would become if not conducted in a liberal spirit—a mere manufactory of the lower order of clergy. During the thirty years of its existence the number of students had been gradually decreasing. He contended the University had been a total failure, as he believed the inquiry proposed by the Bill would prove a complete sham. The present Bill was actually less liberal than the Act of 1832, which professed to constitute a University for the advancement of learning generally, while this Bill had for its first object the promotion of religious teaching. He thought a much wider inquiry than that proposed should be instituted, and, therefore, he should move that the House resolve itself into Committee that day three months.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the powers given by the Bill were necessary for its object. But if it could be shown that it could receive Amendments in Committee, the hon. Gentleman could then propose them. If the Motion succeeded the only result would be, that a practical proposition to reform the University of Durham, in the same manner as Oxford and Cambridge, would be rejected.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, he should move that the debate be adjourned. The Bill ought to have been introduced three months ago.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, he should oppose the adjournment.

§ MR. FENWICK
said, he thought the discussion of the Bill must be long one. He hoped the House would consent to adjourn the debate.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that practically, those who refused to continue the debate for an hour must wish the House to sit three months longer.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he did not wish to continue the debate if the House consented to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.

§ MR. FENWICK
said, he would take that occasion to state that while the endowments of the University of Durham amounted at the present moment to upwards of £12,000 a year, the number of students did not exceed forty, an educational result which he could not but characterize as extremely unsatisfactory. The cause of so great a failure in that respect he attributed to the connection of the University with an ecclesiastical body. The Bishop of Durham, who had extensive duties in the administration of the affairs of his diocese to attend to, possessed the power of appointment in the case of the Professors of Divinity and Greek, the former of whom, it appeared, had an income of £4,700 a year, irrespective of the amount derived from tuitions. The question for the House to consider was how could the endowments of Durham University be made most available for the purposes of education. Some of the Commissioners named in the Bill were men of great learning and of practical wisdom, but surely the Bishop of the diocese could not be expected to strip himself of valuable patronage for the purpose of reforming the University. Unless the University were made subservient to the material interests of the district; unless it were thrown open to all classes instead of being confined to one, it would be vain to attempt passing a Bill like the present. The only effect of such a measure would be to make Durham University a bad imitation of Oxford and Cambridge, and in a few years fresh legistion would be necessary. The Bill, in short, was a sham, and in its present shape could do no good. It would be far better, in the first instance, to appoint a Commission simply to inquire and report.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, that if Durham University had proved a failure, as alleged by the hon. Member for Sunderland, that was a reason why the House should go into Committee on the present Bill. He had no doubt that a Commission of inquiry would have been acceptable to the University authorities, but the Government had come to the wise conclusion that the returns already before the House afforded sufficient grounds for immediate legislation. The hon. Member for Sunderland had greatly overstated the revenues of the University; nor was it correct to say that the cause of the failure of the University was its connection with an ecclesiastical body. It should be recollected that the University was founded by the Dean and Chapter out of their own funds. Of late years it was true that there had been a falling off in the number of students, but the University had connected itself with a distinguished medical school at Newcastle, and the students there, sixty-five in number, ought to be reckoned as belonging to the University. There was no religious test, as had been asserted, on the admission of students to that University. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee.