DURHAM UNIVERSITY BILL. COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 July 1861)

§ MR. FENWICK
said, he objected to the name of the Bishop of Durham, and should move that it be omitted. The right rev. Prelate was not only Visitor of the University, but he had the appointment of the whole of the governing body, and being deeply interested in the existing state of things, he was not a proper person to be named one of the Commissioners.
Amendment proposed, in lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "the Right Reverend Father in God, Henry Montagu, Lord Bishop of Durham."

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the situation of Durham University was peculiar, as having been constituted by an act of the Bishop and chapter. As the Bill proposed to give a legislative and remodelling power to the Commissioners it seemed desirable that there should be some person upon the Commission connected with the Church. He had applied in the first instance to the Archbishop of York, who had been a member of the Oxford Commission, but the numerous avocations of his Grace unfortunately prevented him from serving on the Commission. Under these circumstances he hoped the name of the Bishop of the diocese would be allowed to stand.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he would move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to the word "furthering," and to insert "in order to promote useful learning and religious education." That would place the words in the sequence in which they stood in the Act from which the Bill professed to be taken. The fault of the University of 1338 Durham was, that it was only a seminary for curates.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the principal effect of the Amendment would be to leave out the words "practical knowledge," though the hon. Member wished to make the education generally useful.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, that was not the object, but that religious education should not stand first.

§ MR. FENWICK
said, that at present the Durham University was under the sole control of the Bishop of Durham. He had been informed by a letter he had lately received that the Bishop of Durham was a near relative of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Dean of Durham was a brother of one of the Under Secretaries of State for the Home Department, and that the drawer of the Bill was a nephew of the Professor of Divinity in the University, who received £4.000 or £5,000 a year for lecturing four or five times a week to eight or ten young men. Of course he (Mr. Fenwick) did not believe a word of this statement, and he only brought it forward on the present occasion for the purpose of giving the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving it a direct contradiction or a fit explanation. The Bill, however, as it stood, did nothing to alter the state of things to which he had alluded— namely, the absolute control exercised by the Bishop of Durham over the University; and as long as that continued it was quite impossible that the University could answer the purpose for which it was originally founded. The present Bill gave no real power to the Commissioners, and they would, in fact, prove utterly useless. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment the omission of the words in the clause which, if left out, would obviate the objection he had referred to.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the very coarse imputations and personal motives which had been scattered upon the promoters of this Bill did not offer much encouragement to bring forward measures of the sort, which he believed was a measure dictated by a liberal and comprehensive spirit. The hon. Member said he (Sir George Lewis) had been influenced by motives of personal relationship—[Mr. FENWICK: No, no!]—to the Bishop of Durham, in order 1339 to give him some sort of advantage. Then that an Under Secretary of State was brother to the Dean of Durham, and that there was some relationship between the draftsman and officers of the University. Now, he would take upon himself the entire responsibility of the measure. He had no objection to omit the paragraph which was opposed; but he did not think its omission would have the slightest effect.

MR. HENLEY
said, the debate was very instructive. The University of Durham founded the University out of their own funds, and the hon. Gentleman said they did it because they found they were an object of envy. That was charitable at least. It was objected to ecclesiastical persons founding a University out of ecclesiastical funds that they made religion their principal object. He thought the discussion was a warning to individuals as to corporate bodies, however wealthy they might be, never to do anything for anybody.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, he would then move the insertion of a clause similar to one contained in the Oxford and Cambridge University Acts, declaring that it shall not be binding upon the person taking a degree to make any declaration whatever, but that until he shall have subscribed a declaration stating that he is a bonâ fide member of the Church of England he shall not be eligible as a member of the Senate, or to hold any office for which such a degree heretofore constituted one of the qualifications.
Clause (Oath, Declaration, or Subscription not to be required)—brought up, and read 1°.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he thought it would be better to leave this matter to the discretion of the Commissioners.