UNIVERSITY FELLOWSHIPS (COMPENSATION).—LEAVE. (Hansard, 22 April 1873)

§ MR. AUBERON HERBERT,

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to limit the compensation awarded on abolition of Fellowships in the Colleges of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, said, that the whole scope and intention of the measure was a very narrow and a very negative one. It in no way affected any existing Fellowships, but simply proposed that if any Fellowship should be hereafter abolished the holder of it should be compensated by receiving for it a sum of money equal to its value for 802 three years. An opinion was generally prevalent that college Fellowships as they existed at present could not be maintained in the future. Most Cambridge lay Fellowships were held for a certain term of years; but Oxford Fellowships, on the contrary, whether lay or clerical, were generally tenable for life. Recently, however, two Colleges at Oxford had limited the term for which their lay Fellowships could be held. A life Fellowship was a great prize of £200 or £300 a-year given merely as a reward for one successful examination, and having no duties attaching to it, and it was now generally agreed that the funds of the Colleges might be devoted to much more beneficial purposes. He held, moreover, that it was just as much a waste of the endowments to apply them to the maintenance of Fellowships tenable for a term of years. There was a great difference in the tenure of fellowships at Oxford and Cambridge. At Trinity College, Cambridge, the lay Fellowships were held for seven years only after the taking of the M.A. degree. There were, however, certain exceptions to this rule, for a Fellowship was tenable for life if the holder of it had held office in College for 10 years. The Fellowships at St. John's were held on very much the same conditions as those at Trinity. At Queen's the lay Fellowships were held for 10 years. One-third of the Fellowships at Corpus Christi College were for life, and were tenable by laymen. At Trinity Hall the lay Fellowships were held for two years after the M.A. degree. All the Fellowships at King's College were held for life. A Fellow, whether he held his Fellowship for life or for a term of years, was essentially an annuitant, and yet there were no duties whatever attached to his office. It was true that in many instances he undertook College and University work, but this did not form an integral part of his office. Mr. Campian, in giving evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords of 1870–1 said— I consider that at Cambridge all our Fellowships, considered in themselves, are sinecure Fellowships. They are prizes to which no duties are attached, except it be considered a duty to attend a College meeting three or four times a year. The same gentleman added that Fellows were paid extra for College offices. A Return showed that the total number of 803 Fellows at Oxford (exclusive of All Souls College) was 338, and if to this number 30 Fellows were added for All Souls, the total would amount to 368. Excluding All Souls, 187 Fellows were returned as non-resident, and he believed that 29 out of the 30 Fellows of All Souls were not statutably resident. At Cambridge there were 297 Fellows, exclusive of Trinity College, where there were 60 Fellowships; 170 were returned as being absent, and, if 20 were added for Trinity, the total number of absentees would be brought up to 190. He admitted it was inconvenient to bring forward a University question while a Commission was sitting; but whatever changes might be made in the future, the present system of Fellowships, by which Fellows were made simple annuitants, and obtained large sums of money as the result of a successful examination, could not possibly last. He had this practical object in view—that, inasmuch as a considerable number of Fellowships became vacant and were filled up each year, they might be enabled under the Bill to get rid of those Fellowships by offering the holders of them a liberal amount of compensation. Whoever examined closely the employment of the University endowments would come to this conclusion—that there existed great waste of their funds, and that the great purposes of a University were not fulfilled. To show that he was not alone in that view, he would call attention to some opinions expressed in the evidence given before the Commission. Mr. Randall was asked what he took to be the great defect of the present system, and his answer was—"A waste of the great endowments of the University." In questioning Mr. Chase, Lord Salisbury said— On the one hand there is a want of money to cultivate the new branches of knowledge, and on the other a great amount of money given to people who take no part in the work of the University. And the answer was, "Yes." Dr. Liddon took the same view; and Sir Benjamin Brodie said there was such a plethora of Fellowships that he thought it would be a good thing to diminish their number; and in another part of his evidence he said that to take nearly the whole resources of the University and to devote them to Fellowships seemed to be a total waste of means. The Dean of Christ Church, 804 on the same occasion, stated that the Collegiate system was forming itself, but that to form itself completely money would be required. Now, what was the amount of money which, taken away from the proper purposes of the University, went towards the payment of those enormous prizes? Roughly speaking, it amounted at Oxford to the sum of £90,000 or £95,000 a-year; and if they added £35,000 paid for scholarships, the total would be about £130,000 per annum. Professor Rogers calculated that if the sums paid for the various scholarships attached to the schools of the country were added to the sums paid for the Oxford scholarships it would bring the whole amount paid for scholarships and Exhibitions alone to £80,000 a-year. He had not, however, had an opportunity of testing the accuracy of that calculation; but, in round numbers, the revenue of the University and Colleges of Oxford would be found to amount to something very near £250,000 per annum. With such an endowment the country had a right to expect that the University should show a large amount of work done. Now, did the system under which the Universities were placed allow them to show a return of work done, at all in proportion to the amount of their revenues? How many students were there at the University of Oxford who matriculated with the intention of remaining till they took their degree? By a Return which was placed before the Commission it appeared that in 1860 410 matriculated, while only 306 took their Bachelor's degree. In 1862, 433 matriculated and 306 took their Bachelor's degree. In 1864 the numbers were 476 and 324; in 1866, 517 and 306; in 1868, 579 and 352. The same was true of Cambridge. Mr. Hamerton, in speaking of the year 1866, said that of 576 who matriculated the probability was that not more than 450 would take their degree. But adding 150 to the highest number he had quoted from the Return—namely, 352—they had about 500, an extremely liberal calculation of the number who in each year seriously intended to obtain degrees; and if they divided the £250,000 by 500 they would have £500 a-year for each man taking a degree, or £100 a-year for each if he remained five years at the University. Again, the Commissioners had before them a Return of the honours taken 805 during seven years from 1860 to 1866, counting every class and every final school. The honours amounted to 939, which gave an average for each year of the seven of 133. Adding something for those who took honours in Moderations, the number would be about 250, so that practically a sum of £1,000 was paid to every man of the 250 by the time he left the University. Now, what would be the effect of allowing the Fellowships to be held for 10 years? The Commissioners calculated that in that case the vacancies each year would average 35. Taking the last three years of the seven he had referred to—and they were the best years—there were 117 First Classes gained every time. If they took the proportion of 35 Fellowships a-year as becoming vacant, the vacancies for those three years would have amounted to 105, so that, in fact, the torrent of prizes would be so great under such a system that there would be no competition for them between First Class men. Every man who could scrape himself into a First Class would be at least likely to obtain a Fellowship. The one great element—a powerful body of teachers—was lacking in the English Universities, while in the great German Universities it was amply secured. In the latter, indeed, the revenues were principally spent in this way, each teacher having a small province of instruction, of which he could make himself a perfect master, and the students being charged the lowest possible rates; while in England our infinitely larger resources were devoted to a prize system, which was barren and even mischievous. At Leipsic, with 800 or 900 students, the Faculty of Law, for example, consisted of a considerable number of Professors, who lectured on Roman law, German public law, ecclesiastical law, mining law, contracts, and other branches. The aim in Germany was to make the instrument of teaching as perfect as possible, while in England it was to perfect the instrument of examining. One result of this difference was that while University education was cheap in Germany it was dear in England; and the cause was clear, for, like everyone who was lavish in one direction, our Universities were obliged to act shabbily in another. In Germany the student paid only 16s. for matriculation, and for 17s. a term he could get five hours a week of the best lectures on 806 philosophy, while the highest fee he was called on to pay in law or medicine was 34s. He could also attend a large number of free lectures, every ordinary Professor having to give at least two a week without charge. Now, in England, money being spent in great prizes, all sorts of expenses were thrown on the students. At Cambridge private teaching was deemed almost indispensable to a high place on the Tripos—Dr. Bateson, the Master of St. John's, stating in his evidence that an outlay on this head of about £40 a-year was almost essential to attaining such a position; and with keen competition and high prices there would always be a tendency to this. Mr. Hammond, moreover, regarded private teachers as supplying a want which the College lecturer could never satisfy. At Oxford, owing to better management, private teaching had much diminished; but in both Universities, College tutors were a serious expense. At Oxford the expense of them amounted to £20,000 a-year, and Dr. Bateson's estimate of £80 as the average annual charge on each student would give a similar total. So little public teaching was there at Oxford that the new class of "non-ascripts," formed for the sake of persons with small means, had to depend on the compassion of some of the Colleges in getting sufficient teaching to carry them through the schools. A non-ascript had to pay £4 10s. a-year for University dues, and £1 1s. for examination fees, while he was supposed to pay £10 10s. for tuition, some of the Colleges kindly admitting them for £2 a term to three hours a-week of lectures. Now, for the seven Prussian Universities any student by passing an examination could, in his last year, be admitted into a seminary; but this aid to students was very limited in extent amounting in 1861 to 30,228 thalers, out of a total outlay of 690,388 thalers. This item was, therefore, only 1–19th of the whole expenditure; whereas at Oxford more than half the revenue was devoted to Fellowships and Scholarships. A larger proportion of the population attended the German Universities. In Germany, according to Mr. Matthew Arnold, there was one matriculated student to every 2,600 of the population; and in Baden and the Saxon Duchies even one to every 1,100 of the population. In England, under the present system, they were able to send to the 807 Universities only one student to every 5,800 of the population. He admitted that the figures had, during the last few years, slightly changed for the better in our Universities. Speaking of the practice among Oxford teachers of not making teaching the profession of their lives, but of following it merely for a short time, Professor Conington found fault, not with the individuals, but with the system, and said that Oxford was to them simply a convenience; they took it as they found it. Again, Sir Benjamin Brodie stated that they would look in vain to the University to supply teachers; that he had known of cases in which application had been made and teachers could not be found; and that the great object was to secure an efficient body of teachers in the University. Referring to the German Universities, Sir Benjamin Brodie also said there was no doubt that they had the most efficient body of teachers. By these great prizes not only did we not spend our money in the way that would yield the greatest return and best fulfil the first purpose of a University, but we were doing positive harm in respect to the education. The effect of those examinations pressed so heavily on the men who went to the University, from the first day they were there to the last, that all feeling of their responsibility was taken away. They were forced into a certain rut and driven along a road at the end of which was a great examination. Professor Seeley, writing on that subject, said the effect of those prizes and the subserviency they caused to the examinations was to vulgarize the minds of students. If the higher branches of study were to do them any good, they should be followed for their own sake. Was not the work by which the student profited the most that which was most spontaneous, most self-chosen, and least mechanical? It was a common saying among Cambridge tutors that such and such a man would do well in the schools if he would not think too much—meaning by this that if he gave himself up entirely to the work before him, without questioning himself whether it was the line for which he was best fitted, and which would most enlarge his faculties and improve his nature—if he put himself implicitly in the hands of his teachers and "coaches," he would be more likely to do well in the schools. A young man who had thus 808 carried off all the honours and prizes in the work he had to do had been known to sink back exhausted, wishing, like Alexander, that he had another world to conquer, but not knowing into what direction then to turn his energies. That must be the effect of the tremendous competition which now existed for those great money rewards which applied an artificial stimulus to force all their best men into a particular groove. The system, moreover, did not give a full and free opportunity for new subjects of education to grow up and assume their proper places; it being sometimes objected to a new subject, when proposed, that it was not a good subject for examination. Those rewards were highly artificial, and very unlike those obtained in the struggle of life. One success achieved in life induced a man to strive after still further success, but the reverse was the case in regard to these Fellowships; a man having once succeeded, he held his prize, whatever he did afterwards. The belief existed that it was impossible to educate Englishmen except by means of great prizes and rewards. This had once been said of some other country, when Leibnitz described the system as "the sophism of idleness." No doubt idleness was at the bottom of our present system. It involved less originality and less effort than a more perfect and more useful system. Its effect upon the teachers was unquestionably bad; it destroyed all originality, and prevented a Professor giving his best and most original thoughts to his pupils, because he was anxious that his pupils should be able to answer a set of stereotyped questions, rather than that they should be educated. The success of German University life was promoted by the freedom allowed both to the teacher and the taught. Franco and Austria might be referred to by way of contrast. Austria had been well described as being essentially a country of examinations, and in which nobody worked; and competition in France was more severe than in England. What, practically speaking, had been the result of the two systems? In Germany they had severe examinations for various posts; but they steadily set their faces against the system of competitive examination. France had adopted it, and so had we; but he did not know that we had any great reason to be well satisfied 809 with the results. Looking back to the last 15 years, we had, no doubt, obtained from both Universities a certain number of distinguished men; but there was a growing feeling that we did not get men of the same strength of character, of the same independence of thought, or so free from the ties of conventionalism as we used to get under a bolder and freer system. He wished that in such matters more trust should be put in higher motives. Let them have faith in their countrymen, and put in them a trust analogous to that which had been reposed by the people of Germany in Germans, so that men might come with the smallest pittance of money, and yet might acquire the great rewards which the prosecution of learning presented. Then our great national Universities would again become great nurseries of national intelligence—great centres of life and force to the whole nation.