OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

HL Deb 07 July 1854 vol 134 cc1312-65

Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.

House in Committee accordingly.

Preamble postponed.

Clause 1 (Appointment of Commissioners.)

On Motion of the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, the name of the Earl of Harrowby was placed (in order of his precedence as a Peer) before that of the Earl of Ellesmere.

Clauses 2 and 3 were agreed to.

Clause 4 (Empowering Commissioners to require the production of Documents from the Officers of the University, &c.).

LORD BERNERS

moved the omission of the concluding words— And no oath which may have been taken by any such officer shall be pleadable in bar of any authority of the said Commissioners.

VISCOUNT CANNING

opposed the Amendment, contending that the State had full power to interpose in the way provided by the clause.

On the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Content 77; Not Content 64: Majority 13.

Clause 5 (Providing that on the fourteenth day of Michaelmas Term, 1854, the powers of the Hebdomadal Board shall be transferred to the Hebdomadal Council).

THE EARL OF DERBY

proposed to substitute "the fourteenth day of December" for "the fourteenth day of Michaelmas Term." He trusted that his noble Friend would not object to this Amendment, which would involve only a short postponement, when he called his attention to the fact that the day named in the Bill as that upon which the constitution of the University was to undergo so complete a change, and the transfer of the authority to the new governing body was to take place, was not only in the middle term, but was the very day of the public examinations. It would be very inconvenient that so great a Change should take place at that precise time, and the inconvenience would be aggravated by the fact that at this time the annual accounts of the University and of the several colleges were in the course of being made up, and the attention of the authorities would consequently be fully occupied. On the Contrary, the day which he proposed to substitute would be liable to no such objections, and would have this further advantage, that the members of the new Board would have leisure, during the Christmas recess, to make themselves familiar with their duties, and with the principles upon which they were to act. He wished, further, to call his noble Friend's attention to the manner in which the Bill, as it at present stood, proposed to bring the new Board into operation. The transfer of authority to the Hebdomadal Council was to take place, as he had said, on the "fourteenth" day of Michaelmas Term. By a subsequent clause, the Hebdomadal Council was to be elected on or before the fifteenth day of Michaelmas Term; and although it might be said that an election which was to take place on or before the fifteenth might well be had before the fourteenth, there was another clause (the 17th) which disposed at once of this reply, because by that clause it was enacted that the Congregation, which was the elective body by which the Hebdomadal Council was, in part at least, to be chosen, was only to be constituted "on" and "after" the fifteenth day of Michaelmas Term. So that the elective body was to he formed "after" the fifteenth day of Michaelmas Term, to elect a body which was to he formed "upon" the fifteenth, and which was to exercise certain powers that were to be transferred to it upon the fourteenth. Such a jumble of dates it was impossible to reconcile; and, if his noble Friend would do him the favour to follow him through his Amendments, he would see that he proposed, with reference to this part of the Bill, so to alter the wording of the 5th clause, and the collocation of several others, as to bring the provisions of the Bill into harmony with each other. It would be ob- served that in the 7th, 8th, and 9th clauses there was mention made of triennial elections, but it was not till they came to the 12th clause that one word was given sanctioning the triennial election. He proposed in Clause 5, to omit "the fourteenth day of Michaelmas Term," and insert "on or before the fourteenth day of December;" and by the insertion of certain other words which he proposed, the clause would read thus:— "Upon or before the fourteenth day of December, 1854, there shall be elected in manner hereinafter mentioned a Council, which shall be called 'the Hebdomadal Council,' to which shall be transferred, immediately upon the election thereof, all powers, privileges, and functions now possessed or exercised by the Hebdomadal board of the said University." His proposal then was to make Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14 follow Clause 6, and, in that case Clause 10 might be omitted altogether, as the first part of that clause would be provided for in the 5th. He should not give the House the trouble of dividing upon merely technical questions like these—he merely submitted them for his noble Friend's consideration.

VISCOUNT CANNING

readily concurred in the proposed rearrangement of the words of the clause, which he admitted would be an improvement; and with respect to the collocation of clauses, he was also willing to accept the suggestion which had been made. But with respect to the postponement of the day upon which the new constitution should come into operation, he was sorry to say that he was unable, upon the part of the Government, to assent to it, because he thought it desirable that when a measure of this great importance had been deliberately sanctioned by Parliament, there should be no unnecessary delay in carrying its provisions into effect, and that the existing governing body, which was certainly in some degree condemned by the more fact of the passing of the Bill, should not continue in power longer than was absolutely necessary. He did not think that the examinations, or the college accounts, to which his noble Friend had referred, would absorb so much of the attention of those whose duty it would be to bring the provisions of the Bill into operation, as to justify his giving his consent to so long a postponement as six weeks.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause 1, with the several Amendments, agreed to.

On Clause 6 (Composition of the Hebdomadal Council),

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

said, there were one or two matters connected with this clause to which he wished to call the attention of the House before the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) moved his Amendments. It was usual in Bills to find the interpretation clause either before or after the enacting clauses, but in this case it was placed in the very middle of the Bill, and he had found it with some difficulty. He saw that the word "professor" was declared to include "public readers, prælectors, and assistant or deputy professors." Now, he understood that public renders and prælectors were gentlemen who performed the same duties as professors, and therefore with respect to them he had no objection to make; but he understood that assistant and deputy professors were appointed by the professors themselves. Now, under the 6th clause, all professors (including therein, of course, assistant and deputy professors) were to have votes in the election of members of the Hebdomadal Council; and as a professor might have fifty "assistants," although he could only have one "deputy," a gentleman might multiply himself by fifty, by creating as many votes, which would, of course, all be given to his own friends. He thought this ought to be attended to, and security taken in the Bill against the possibility of any such abuse. But, besides this, there was an inaccuracy of language in the clause, which might be very inconvenient. It was provided, for instance, that the Hebdomadal Council should include "six heads of colleges or halls," who should be elected from among themselves, not by "the," but by "such, heads of colleges or halls," the only heads of colleges or halls previously named in the clause being the six who were to be so elected. Therefore, any six of these gentlemen might elect themselves. It was the same with regard to the professors. What followed? "One other such professor separately elected by the professors," was perfectly unintelligible. He believed the explanation to be, that the words "of divinity," or "of theology," had originally stood in the clause, but, being objected to in the House of Commons, had been struck out, leaving the other words untouched, and so involving the absurdity which he had pointed out; in one part of the clause the word "select- ed" was used, and in another "elected;" he recommended that verbal alterations should be made, so that the same word might appear throughout the clause.

The EARL OF DERBY

moved to insert "the Chancellor," before "the Vice Chancellor," as a member of the Hebdomadal Council. The Government, in framing the clause, appeared to have forgotten the very existence of the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and had proceeded to constitute the Council, and afterwards the Congregation, making the Vice Chancellor a member of both, but omitting the Chancellor altogether. It then appeared to have occurred to them that there was such an officer, and, moreover, that he had a right, by virtue of his office, to preside over the meetings both of the heads of houses and of Congregation. Having however, framed these clauses without mentioning the Chancellor at all, they had not thought proper to alter them, and had therefore introduced a new clause, by which they proposed to provide that the Chancellor should be a member both of the Hebdomadal Council and of Congregation, and have a right to preside over both. He thought that the omission should be supplied in the clause which was now under consideration, and it was with this view that he proposed his Amendment to the House.

VISCOUNT CANNING

assented to the Amendment, but as a proof that the Chancellor of the University had not been forgotten by the Government, reminded his noble Friend that the Bill as originally framed gave power to the Chancellor to appoint two nominees of his own, one a professor, and the other the head of a house, as members of the Hebdomadal Council. His noble Friend was better acquainted than he was with the reasons which had led to the removal of that particular provision. With respect to the suggestion made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) in reference to the professors, he thought the difficulty would be met by the introduction of a few words, either into this clause or into the interpretation clause. In the noble Earl's criticism on the grammar of the clause, he must say he entirely concurred.

LORD WARD

moved to omit the 6th clause altogether, and to substitute the following in lieu of it— The Hebdomadal Council shall consist of the Vice Chancellor, the proctors, six heads of col- leges or halls, six professors of the University, together with six members of the Convocation of not less than five years' standing to be elected by the Congregation hereinafter mentioned of the said University, and the Vice Chancellor or his deputy shall be president of such Hebdomadal Council. The noble Lord said, that, in asking their Lordships to accede to this Motion, it was not necessary that he should refer to the existing state of Oxford, because it was admitted on all hands — although not to the same extent—that some great change was necessary in the present constitution of the University. It was proposed that that change should be carried out by giving her a free representation, by which her governing body should be elected; and, if that were the case, he could only say that, instead of interfering with constituted authority, they would be giving her full scope in the exercise of her freedom for the first time. If the result of following out her constitution, as it had hitherto existed, had been a very narrow governing body, and very little confidence and co-operation between them and the resident members of the University, attention would very properly be given to anything that would bring about, that co-operation and restore that confidence. It was proposed by the clause which now stood in the that six heads of houses should be elected by heads of houses, and six professors by professors; and that six independent members of the University should be elected to the Hebdomadal Council by the Congregation. He would leave their Lordships to judge whether the meetings of such elements as these would be likely to bring about the confidence that was desired. He could bring no stronger argument in support of his opposition to the clause than the fact that the heads of houses felt that it would be so invidious a task to select six from their whole number, that they were understood to have agreed that their quota should be furnished by seniority. If this were the case, and if the professors should take the same view, was there likely to be that unity of action on which the prosperity of the University depended? It was proposed that Congregation should constantly have a veto on what the Hebdomadal Council might put forward for the amendment of the Statutes of the University; and it really came to this, that if the heads of houses elected by themselves, and the professors elected by themselves, should pass anything which was unfavourably regarded by the members chosen by the Congregation, or by any other constituency upon which Parliament might eventually decide, Congregation, with its veto, would support its own members, and there would be nothing like the unity of action or the confidence and mutual co-operation which they were anxious on all hands to bring about. He thought the action of the governing body would be very much impaired by the principle of sectional election which had been introduced into the Bill. He was anxious that the great principle of representation should be granted as freely and as fully as possible; and he had therefore come forward to propose that the original proposition in the Bill should be restored, and Congregation have the choice of all the members of the Council. He should be still better pleased to see no restriction placed upon the proportions in which they should be chosen from each class; he believed that full confidence might be placed in an educated constituency, such as the proposed Congregation would be; he was sure that no narrow jealousies would interfere with their selection, and he had no doubt that, if their choice were perfectly free, they would see that among the heads of houses were to be found the men most qualified, by position and character, and leisure and ability, to take part in the government of the University. This, however, was his individual opinion; it did not appear to come Within the scope of the Bill; and, although he thought that such a plan would better carry out the principle of representation, he should confine himself at present to a proposal to place the matter on the footing contemplated by the Government, being assured that the effect of it would be to make the elective system more complete, and the governing principle more strong than the clause which now stood in the Bill.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

understood that the object of the noble Lord was to alter the mode of election to the Hebdomadal Council, and not the composition of that body. Now it should be borne in mind by the House that they had, he would not say conflicting interests, but conflicting opinions to consider. The heads of houses might be supposed to represent the colleges; the professors the professorial, as opposed to the tutorial plan of education; and the six independent members the general interests and opinions of the University. It appeared to him, therefore, most just that each of these separate bodies should choose its own representa- tives. If the noble Lord had proposed that the whole governing body should be elected by the Congregation, without any restriction as to the classes from which they should be chosen, he could have understood, although he should not have agreed with him; but he admitted that the several elements should be represented in the governing body in certain proportions, although he would not consent that each element should choose its own representatives. He rejoiced that the original scheme had been altered, and if the Amendment were pressed to a division he should vote against it. The noble Lord had had some experience of the University of Oxford; he believed he had resided there for some time; and he could not help feeling that there had appeared throughout his speech a feeling of hostility towards the heads of houses. He did not know what the cause of that hostility might be, but he did hope that, whatever opinions the noble Lord had formed of the heads of houses while at the University, they would not induce him to vote on the present occasion against their having their fair and just share in the government of the University.

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE

interposed for the simple purpose of entreating their Lordships that anything like personality might be avoided in the present discussion. The noble Earl, the leader of the party opposite and the Chancellor of the University, warmly as he felt upon this measure, had set a most admirable example both last night and to-day, and he trusted that on both sides of the House that example would be implicitly followed. If the noble Earl who had just sat down had belonged to the University of Oxford, he would have avoided the observations he had made, and to which he hoped his noble Friend would not reply. However long he had remained at Oxford, he was sure that the Motion he had made had been made with a sincere desire to benefit the University to which he and all her members were attached, and not from any feeling of hostility to any class whatever. As regarded the Amendment itself, he apprehended the argument of his noble Friend was conclusive on the point, and he should certainly support it. The noble Earl the Chancellor of the University said it was most desirable that the body best able to judge of the merits of individuals should be the elective body, and if the Amendment the noble Earl was about to move, to insert "Convocation" instead of "Congregation," were adopted, there would be something in the objection. But as he hoped the House would insist on retaining Congregation as the elective body, the argument of the noble Earl would fall to the ground, because Congregation, consisting of the residents of the University, would be better able to form an opinion of the merits of individuals than Convocation, and quite as competent to form that opinion as the beads of houses and professors themselves. Nothing could be so invidious as to call on the heads of houses to elect six members from their own body. To make a selection implied a slight on those not selected, and the ordinary course would, therefore, be to elect the six senior heads of houses. He hoped the Amendment of the noble Earl the Chancellor of the University, to substitute Convocation for Congregation, would not be agreed to: and he was prepared to say, on behalf of the Government, they would support the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Ward).

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, he should oppose the Amendment, for he thought that a third interest ought not to have the power of electing the representatives of the two other interests.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

objected to the words as they stood in the Bill, because the effect would be to send into the Hebdomadal Council three bodies of men under the impression that they were representing different class interests, instead of the common interests of the University. He thought it of extreme importance that this Amendment should be adopted, for the introduction of men who believed themselves pledged to the electors to support their particular interests must introduce elements of dissension into the comparatively small body of which the Hebdomadal Council would be composed. In his opinion that was the vital objection to the clause as it stood; but there were several subsidiary objections. He was not at all certain, for instance, that the heads of houses would necessarily exercise the best discretion in the selection of their own body. They knew, that where men constantly met on social and other occasions, as the heads of houses did, that other grounds of estimation came into operation, besides business habits and enlarged views of the interests of the University. Men with no such qualification for the Hebdomadal Council, but with other qualifications giving them a good standing in the narrow circle of the heads of houses, would be elected, and thus influences of the wrong kind would operate, if the members of this small body were to elect out of themselves their own representatives; whereas the body of Congregation, as public men, would have opportunities of testing the powers of the heads of houses as men of business; and seeing how far they were men of good sound practical judgment in the common questions which they discussed together, apart from these social prejudices. Congregation was much more likely to exercise a dispassionate, and therefore right judgment, than those who were constantly meeting together in other relations than those of business. Another reason why the Amendment should be adopted was, that they would not give the heads of houses proper weight in the common body, it they put them in as their own nominees, instead of as representatives of the University. They knew perfectly well that it was quite impossible for nominees of the Crown, or of any other particular party, to contend upon on equality with the nominees of the people chosen by free suffrage; and that observation applied pre-eminently when those elected were their own representatives. All propositions coming from the heads of houses so elected would come with exceeding disadvantage on the common body;—they would not be considered on their own merits, but as heads of houses questions. They would therefore, unless this Amendment were adopted, weaken the legitimate influence of the heads of houses in the common body, as well as introduce elements of disscusion. One other consideration was, that, unless they adopted the Amendment, they would take away from the heads of houses a legitimate right to interfere in the election of professors and other representatives of Congregation; it would be said the heads of houses had exhausted their proper powers when they had elected from their own body their own representatives, and that interference by them in the elections of professors was similar in kind to interference by their Lordships in the elections of members to the other House of Parliament. If Congregation elected, the heads of houses would have that legitimate influence in the common election which depended on their standing, their acquaintance with business, and their pre-eminence in the University. He thought, therefore, that unless they adopted this resolution, they would necessarily introduce elements of dissension; they would centralise temporary antagonism, and would start with a certain jealousy between different classes. If they elected the governing body properly, in a very short time it would represent the common University; but if they sent to the Hebdomadal Council the exponents of several class interests, they would fix and perpetuate in the University these temporary dissensions, which otherwise he hoped would in a short time die out of themselves.

THE EARL OF POWIS

considered that whether elected by Convocation or Congregation, the dominant party in the University would prevail, and leave the minority of resident members no weight or representation in the governing body. If they wished to secure due weight to each of the different elements in the University, they must adhere to the clause as it stood, The governing body was an executive body for the discipline of the University. and he should be sorry to see that discipline handed over to the majority, and so involved in the party politics which might temporarily prevail.

THE EARL OF DERBY

observed, that the University of Cambridge, when it had taken the question of the constitution of its governing body under its consideration, had come to the determination, not that the Senate should be composed of different classes, in the manner now proposed with regard to Oxford, but that it would be for the benefit and advantage of the University that each of those classes should be represented by members themselves. Therefore, in favour of the proposition as it came from the other House, they had the deliberate opinion of the University of Cambridge.

On Question, their Lordships divided:—Content 103; Not Content 87: Majority 16.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DERBY

desired explanation of the meaning of the words "six professors and one other professor separately elected."

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE

explained, that it originally stood "and one Professor of Theology." The words "of theology" having been struck out in the other House, he would insert "seven" instead of "six," and omit the words "and one other professor separately elected."

THE EARL OF DERBY

moved the omis- sion, at line 37, of the word "Congregation," in order to substitute for it the word "Convocation." The noble Earl said the Government professed a desire to introduce the representative system into the governing body of the University, and they objected to legislative and administrative functions being intrusted to a single body of the heads of houses. He hoped the alteration would work more advantageously for the University than the system which had hitherto prevailed; but he confessed he thought the loss of men of great experience and knowledge accustomed to the government of their own college, and constantly engaged in transacting the business of the University, would be a great loss to the Hebdomadal Council. He was sorry the suggestion both of the Commissioners and of the University had not been adopted—to have two Boards, one constituted of the present Hebdomadal Board, comprising representations of every body in the University, and the other of the members and professors acting separately. The Government, however, had decided that there should be but one legislative and governing body; and then the question arose, by whom should that body be elected? They professed a desire to get rid of the control of the comparatively small number of which the Hebdomadal Board was composed, because they said the principle of representation was not fully carried out in the original constitution of the Hebdomadal Board; and yet by this Bill they proposed to exclude from all control, all supervision, all check over the different classes of which the governing body was to be composed, something like nine-tenths of the whole members of the University. He could not but think that was a dangerous principle to introduce, and one that would work injuriously to the University. He did not mean to say that with regard to a great portion of the questions which would arise, the residents in the University, as a body, would not carry with them, as they ought, from their superior knowledge of the affairs of the University, considerable weight; but to deprive Convocation of those functions which properly belonged to it, of representing its own feelings and opinions, and to hand over the whole government, and the selection of the body that was to administer it, to a comparatively small number of residents—of 250 or 260 persons—looked to him very much like a scheme for putting the whole control and management of the University—for placing the paramount power—in the hands of one particular party. Those 250 or 260 persons might easily be controllable by any party who obtained influence with a majority; but no such influence, no such predominant power, could be exercised over such a body as Convocation, consisting of 2,000 or 2,500 members. Therefore, while professing to support the representative principle, it was proposed practically to disfranchise nine-tenths of the members of the University, and to confine all legislative and executive power to the remaining one-tenth. Having stated his views yesterday at considerable length, he should be sorry now to abuse the indulgence of their Lordships; but he must say he entertained a strong opinion that they were now proceeding on the principle they condemned, of handing over Oxford to be governed, not by fair representation, but by a comparatively limited oligarchy, by men (without speaking disrespectfully of them) whose habits of life, views, and ideas, were encentred in the University, who had had little experience or converse with the world, and whose views consequently were of a more contracted character than those of members spread over the whole country. He thought they were vesting in that body—not the best for the management of a great University—all the power to the exclusion of men who had conferred high distinction upon the University, who had done honour to it and to themselves during their career, and who, from having mixed with the world, were able to take a more enlightened and comprehensive view of what was for the advantage of the University than those who were confined within its walls—he should move the substitution of "Convocation" for "Congregation," for the purpose of vesting the elective power in what was properly the constituency of the University, to which the election of its Parliamentary representatives was confided, and to which, therefore, they ought also to confide the choice of those who were to exercise the governing power of the University.

VISCOUNT CANNING

would state as shortly as he could, why it was impossible the Government could accede to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. It was charged against the Government that they had receded from the principle of representation—that, having professed to get rid of a small body, they had con- fided the interests of tie University to what the noble Earl called a comparatively limited oligarchy. In the first place, it was not the profession or wish of Her Majesty's Government so much to get rid of a small body as the governing body of the University, as to get rid of a body, small, he admitted, but worse than small, inasmuch as it was composed of persons whose previous career and position disqualified them from having or obtaining the necessary knowledge of the feelings and requirements of the University over which they were called on to preside. The noble Earl spoke of Convocation being disfranchised by this clause; but it should be remembered that Convocation had not, at present, any power at all analogous with that which the Government were condemned for placing in the hands of Congregation. If the noble Earl argued that they were untrue to the principle of representation in not giving the elective power to Convocation, he did not see very well how the noble Earl could refrain from urging on Parliament and the country the adoption of universal suffrage. What body could be so fit to decide on questions of teaching and discipline as the great body of tutors, professors, private tutors, and residents, who, being constantly at Oxford, had seen, felt, and heard what was wanted in the University; whilst, on the other hand, what body could be more unfit than a number of persons summoned from all parts of the kingdom, and almost entirely ignorant of those requirements? He thought everybody would admit that it was a great disqualification for a person, however intimate his connection with the University might at one time have been, or however distinguished his academical career, to feel, when called upon to vote either upon questions of a general nature, or for the election of members to sit in the Hebdomadal Council, that his connection with the University had been, if not severed, at all events very much loosened, and that several years had elapsed since he had taken an interest in the internal affairs of the University. Perhaps, when he visited the University for the purpose of giving his vote, he would find that such a change had come over the scene that it would be difficult for him to discover among the residents of the University any of whom he had personal knowledge; and probably the noble Earl himself would admit, that if he had been summoned to Oxford before he was elected to the high and distinguished office which he at present held in the University, and had been asked to vote for members of the Hebdomadal Council, he would in all likelihood have given his vote rather according to the advice of those in whom he could confide than from his own judgment. It was impossible that men living in London, or buried in country vicarages, could know the merits and qualifications of all the different residents in the University, and if they were invested with the power of voting for members of the Hebdomadal Council, they would either vote in entire ignorance of the merits of the candidates, or be compelled to place their votes in the hands of those who possessed that kind of local information which they wanted themselves. The noble Earl had spoken of Congregation as a body which would obstruct, rather than facilitate the legislation of the University. He demurred entirely to that definition of the mode in which Congregation would discharge its functions. If the present scheme worked well, the result, in all probability, would be that, as soon as Congregation had proved itself capable of maintaining the internal affairs of the University, there would be very little disposition on the part of members of Convocation to take the trouble of presenting themselves at Oxford again and again, for the purpose of giving their votes upon matters which they would find managed to their satisfaction by those resident on the spot. On the other hand, if the scheme worked ill, and if Congregation in performing its duties did not give satisfaction to the University at large, the result would be the substitution for the mode of proceeding indicated in the Bill, of something like the organisation which existed in Parliament, where one party espoused one cause and another party espoused another cause, and where each made an appeal for the votes of its friends, not for the purpose of giving countenance to any particular men or interests, but because it was thought that one side of the question was on public grounds more deserving of support than another. In short, he thought that in the event supposed, the members of Convocation, instead of being appealed to solely for the purpose of supporting particular candidates and particular local advantages, would be brought together on what he might call questions of public principle. For these reasons, he thought that the scheme embodied in the Bill was far better than that proposed by the noble Earl, not only with reference to the election of the Hebdomadal Council, but also with respect to all matters in which Congregation would be called upon to act.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

said, that parties in the House appeared to have changed sides, for the speech which the noble Viscount had just made would have been in place if it had been delivered in that House a quarter of a century ago in opposition to a measure of Parliamentary reform. He understood that one of the chief complaints against the University was, that it was not liberal and enlightened enough—that the sun of modern times did not shine upon it—that it was in the hands of men of monkish manners, who were buried within its walls in a sort of Cimmerian darkness. Well, the proposition of the noble Earl beside him was, that the voice of between 2,000 and 3,000 persons should be heard in the government of the University, and that those gentlemen should be invited to interfere in its internal arrangements. To that proposal the noble Viscount and the Government objected, upon the ground that it was analogous to universal suffrage. He thought that few of their Lordships would oppose the principle of universal suffrage in the election of Members of the House of Commons, if they could be assured that all the male adults throughout the country were as well educated as the members, of Convocation. The noble Viscount was afraid of men educated in the same University as himself, and put them in the same category with that unfortunate class of persons who were so much abused the other night—the drivers of dog-carts. The noble Viscount said that the members of Convocation lived without the walls of the University, and therefore could have no personal knowledge of the merits and qualifications of those who were best fitted to manage its internal affairs. Because, however, a member of Convocation might have left the University for several years, that was no reason why he should not know the merits and qualifications of the resident members. He was sure that there were many persons now residing at Oxford, and who had lived there ever since he took his degree, whose qualifications he thought he was perfectly justified in saying were such and such; and even in that House, he had been happy to recognise among the right rev. Prelates men whom he highly esteemed at Oxford, and upon whose capability to discharge such duties as would devolve upon the members of the Heb- domadal Council he was perfectly able to pronounce. If the Government were sincerely desirous to make such a reform in the University as would be entitled to the name of liberal, and to admit within its walls a little sunlight from that world to which the great mass of the residents were comparative strangers, they would not hesitate to adopt the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, to which he, for one, would give his cordial assent.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, that the noble Earl who had just sat down appeared very much to misunderstand both the effect of the clause under discussion, and the grounds upon which it was supported. In the first place, the clause did not give the government of the University to Congregation, but simply the power of electing the members of the Hebdomadal Council, which itself was after all very little more than the executive body of the University, because everything most ultimately come before Convocation, and Convocation might say "aye" or "no" upon it. The power of electing the members of the Hebdomadal Commit was given to Convocation, not because, as had been stated by the noble Earl, Convocation was not thought fit to exercise it, but because, of the two bodies, Convocation was the less fit. What the Hebdomadal Council would have to attend to, was the daily business of the University; and who, therefore, were more likely to make a proper selection than those who, being resident in the University, knew its wants, and the men best qualified to manage its internal affairs? He believed, moreover, they would find that the men who were most subject to sudden changes of feeling, were not the resident members of the University, but those who resided in distant parts of the country, and who were, therefore, compelled to form their opinions upon the representations of other parties, and to take upon trust that which they ought to have of their own knowledge. The noble Earl who spoke last said, that if the power of election was confined to Congregation, they would by that means shut out all that modern illumination which he would like to see introduced into the University. Now, it was erroneous and unjust to assert that the great body of the resident members of the University had any want of what the noble Earl called the sun of modern times. Everything that was going on around us would contradict altogether such an imputation. He be- lieved that if they looked to the organs of public opinion in this metropolis, they would find that those organs had recourse, for all their ablest productions, to the resident members or the University of Oxford. That was a very remarkable fact, and it showed that, as a class, the resident members of the University were not in that state of monkish ignorance of the world which had been attributed to them. On the other hand, the great bulk of those who formed Convocation were clergymen residing in distant parishes, who, just because they attended to their proper duties, had no leisure to look abroad and keep themselves abreast of current opinion. He thought, therefore, that they might safely leave to Congregation the power of electing the members of the Hebdomadal Council.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, that the statement of the right rev. Prelate, to the effect that all Statutes must come before Convocation at last, was not altogether accurate; because it was expressly provided in the Bill, that Congregation should have the power of putting its veto upon the transmission of any Statute from the Hebdomadal Council to Convocation however acceptable it night be to the University at large. The Bill, in fact, placed the whole management of the University in the hands of the 250 persons who were to form Congregation, thus constituting a resident oligarchy of a very undesirable and injurious description, and completely setting aside the declaration of the Government that they desired to extend as widely as possible the representative system in Oxford. The right rev. Prelate argued that Congregation was the fittest body to elect the Hebdomadal Council, because the resident members of the University in consequence of their constant and familiar intercourse with each other, knew who were best qualified to manage the internal affairs of the University, while the right rev. Prelate used the same argument against the proposal to confer the power upon the heads of houses.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

begged the House to remember that, when he spoke of the heads of houses, he referred to the dangers arising from the social intercourse of twenty-five gentlemen separated from the rest of the University by their position, and probably meeting with each other many times in the week. There was no analogy between such a body and 250 gentlemen who probably never met in social intercourse.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, the right rev. Prelate seemed to suppose that there was some virtue in the number 250. He objected to the heads of houses because they were too few, and to the members of Convocation because they were too many, but he thought that the 250 persons forming Congregation constituted precisely that body to which their Lordships might safely intrust the management of the University.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

remarked, that if the 2,500 members of Convocation were all resident, he would allow them to vote for the Hebdomadal Council; but what he objected to was, that every year a host of persons residing in distant parts of the country should be brought up to outvote the resident members of the University.

On Question, their Lordships divided:—Content 72; Not Content 99: Majority 27.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to, with verbal Amendments, and ordered to follow Clause 6.

On Clause 15, which enacts that the Vice Chancellor shall make a register of the Congregation, and also regulations respecting the Hebdomadal Council,

THE EARL OF DERBY

objected to the latter words of the clause, which were— And if the Vice Chancellor fails to comply with the provisions of this section to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, the Commissioners shall thereupon carry the same into effect, and thereupon make such regulations in respect of the matters aforesaid as they may think fit. He would put it to Her Majesty's Government, whether it would not be more seemly to omit those words? It was provided by the clause, that certain duties should be performed by a certain officer, and if he did not perform them somebody else should perform them. He objected to the phraseology of the clause, which he thought unseemly, and such as Parliament would not apply to a parish overseer.

VISCOUNT CANNING

had no objection to expunge the words "to the satisfaction of the Commissioners;" but considered the enacting, as part of the clause which gave the Commissioners power to carry out the provisions of the section, in the event of the Vice Chancellor failing to do so, necessary to the efficient working of the Act.

The words were accordingly struck out; clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 22 agreed to.

On Clause 23, regulating the election of the Hebdomadal Council.

THE EARL OF DERBY

wished to call the attention of their Lordships to this clause, the effect of which was to introduce a new principle, that of the representation of minorities. This was a principle that had been introduced for the first time into a Bill which was laid before the other house of Parliament (the Reform Bill), and which he believed was generally condemned at the time, though the Bill was withdrawn before any formal opinion could be taken with regard to it. His own opinion was, that in all bodies whatever, the minority ought to he subjected the majority; otherwise he thought that those noble Lords who agreed with him, and who formed a considerable body in this House, ought to have at least one of their propositions carried for every two that were carried by the Government. He admitted, however, that there was some reason in the adoption of this principle in the other Bill he had referred to, because there it was assumed that the elective body consisted of two parties, and that the object of the one party was to subdue all expression of opinion on the part of the other. But that argument could net apply here, for there could be no such organisation or division of parties in the body of Congregation which they sought to establish, so as to render it necessary that they should deprive the members of Congregation of their right to give their votes for the full number of the members of the Hebdomadal Council. He did not mean to move any Amendment, but he thought it was his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the introduction of this new principle.

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE

thought the noble Earl could not have paid attention to the discussions on previous parts of this Bill, or he never would have made those objections. They had been told that the great danger was, that the Congregation would elect the Hebdomadal Council entirely from one party in the University, which would thus obtain an unfair preponderance. He did not himself think there was any danger of such a result; but the provisions of this clause, by which each member of Congregation could only vote for four out of six members of the Hebdomadal Council, would effectually obviate the danger which was apprehended, however improbable that danger might be. The noble Earl had compared this provi- sion with a proposition he had suggested, that the minority in that House should carry one measure for two carried by the majority. But surely there was no parity between the two cases. In the one case they were required to discuss provisions of a legislative nature, where the decision of the majority must be final; in the other, they were providing for the composition of the governing body, where it was desirable that various opinions might be heard. It was precisely the same case in that Bill, which the noble Earl said—he believed very erroneously—was generally condemned in the other House of Parliament. He believed it was at first misunderstood, but when it came to be understood it was very generally appreciated, and would, he believed, have been still more highly appreciated, if it had ever come on for discussion. So far from the principle being condemned in the other House of Parliament, he might state that the principle, as embodied in this clause, had never had a single objection raised to it.

LORD MONTEAGLE

said, it was clear that the noble Earl did not understand the operation of this principle, for it was never intended to convert the minority into a majority. The consequence of adopting this principle, both in the present Bill and in that which had been referred to, was to take care that the minority should be fairly represented. That was the sole effect of the clause; and surely nothing could be fairer than the principle that the minority, though it did not govern, should at least be heard.

A NOBLE LORD

suggested that, as the clause stood, a member of congregation might give his four votes in cumulo to one candidate.

VISCOUNT CANNING

said, that that might be obviated by adding a proviso, that no member should give more than one vote to one candidate.

Amendment made accordingly; Clause agreed to.

On Clause 24.

THE EARL OF POWIS

moved an Amendment to the effect, that it should be lawful for the Convocation of the University to provide, if it should think fit, that votes might be given either personally or by proxies, being members of Convocation, authorised by writing, according to the form to be annexed to the Act, or in a form to the like effect, under the hand of the member of Convocation nominating such proxy, at any election of a Chancellor of the University or of a burgess to serve in Parliament. It was agreed on all hands, that the members of Convocation should have the fullest liberty to express their opinions upon the questions that came before them, and there were few questions that were of more consequence than the election of these three great officers, who might be said to represent the University in the two Houses of Parliament. It might even be said that these officers, represented the interests of the Church, and were the organs of the Church; for the Convocation had for the last 150 years been silenced, while by express enactment the clergy were forbidden to sit in the House of Commons. If, then, it Was desirable that the members of Convocation should express their opinions at all with respect to these three great officers, every facility should be given for the expression or that opinion. without calling upon the members to travel up from Northumberland or Cornwall for the purpose. In the East India Company the proprietors were allowed to vote for directors by power of attorney, and in the various other public bodies voting by proxy was allowed. There would, therefore, he apprehended, be no difficulty in giving the same permissive power in the present instance, especially as the selection was not to be made out of a crowd, but from among two or three individuals who were known long beforehand. It might be said that this was interfering with the right of voting for Members of the other House of Parliament. All he could say was, that if their Lordships adopted his Amendment, the other House would still have the power of saying aye or no to it.

VISCOUNT CANNING

concurred in the general principles which the noble Earl had expressed, and to a certain extent the views of the Government were the same as the noble Earl's—namely, as to the power of using proxies in the election of the Chancellor of the University. As to this power being extended, however, to the election of the two burgesses of the University to serve in Parliament, he did not think their Lordships would act wisely to deal in an arbitrary manner with such a great electoral innovation—one which might involve questions of vast magnitude and raise consideration for grave discussions, not only in their Lordships' House, but in the other House.

LORD CAMPBELL

would enter the strongest protest against the Amendment of the noble Earl, as far as related to the voting for the two burgesses, as highly unconstitutional. It was always supposed that the electors attended at the hustings to give their judgment as to the gentleman who was the fittest person at the moment to represent them. There might be a change in the aspect of affairs between the vote and the giving of the proxy, which might render the first vote highly improper. He should, therefore, oppose the Amendment as a great constitutional innovation.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

also opposed the clause, because, though he did not doubt that the University of Oxford was of all constituencies the most deserving of this privilege of voting by proxy, yet he could not see bow, if the privilege were once accorded to them, it could be refused to others.

After a short discussion, which was not audible, Earl POWIS withdrew that part of his Amendment which related to voting for burgesses to serve in Parliament. The Amendment was then agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

On Clause 27, which empowers any member of Convocation, of standing and qualification to be hereafter fixed by University Statute, to obtain a licence from the Vice Chancellor to open his residence, if within one mile and a half of Carfax as a private hall for the reception of students.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, that this was a most important portion of the Bill; and without troubling their Lordships with a repetition of what he had said last night in reference to this clause, he would briefly recapitulate the objections which he entertained to the introduction of private Balls within the University. With regard to the poorer class of students, for whose benefit they were professed to be intended, he believed that, so far from being attended with benefit, they would prove positively injurious; and their tendency would not be to give poor students an economical education compared with what they would receive at the colleges. And here he must say that he found, with respect to the cost of education in the colleges, that he had greatly exaggerated it in his observations last night. He repeated, however, his conviction that the tendency of private balls would be to increase the expenses of board, maintenance, and education, compared with the rich colleges, those which had considerable endowments, and those which were frequented by the wealthier class of students, because their contributions went in aid of the education of the poorer students. Now, if this clause came into operation, it would certainly tend to the opening of private halls for the benefit of the rich and thus inflict injury upon the poor. Besides, it would be impossible for the poorer students at private halls to receive so good an education as in the colleges, inasmuch as all they could receive must come from the head or the master of the establishment, who could not he competent to give them instruction in every branch of learning. But the great and principal objection which he felt to private halls, independent of their failure to effect the object of a good and cheap education to the poorer classes of students, was the fact that they would absolutely destroy the discipline or the University, and supersede the control to which students were now subjected. These and some other views he had already stated at considerable length; and as he did not wish to repeat them, he would not trouble their Lordships further than to say that as this clause was regarded unanimously by the whole University, resident and non-resident, as a most dangerous and pernicious innovation upon its constitution and government, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

admitted that the subject was one which involved the most important results, and therefore deserved the most grave and serious consideration. He was of opinion that their Lordships should adopt it, mainly, because its scope and policy was to extend the benefits of the University. At the same time, he could not bring himself to concur in the apprehensions felt by the noble Earl as to its injurious effect upon the discipline of the University. On a former occasion the noble Earl connected it, in degree, with an equally important clause in the Bill, to which, however, he was disposed to give his assent—that which would have the effect of admitting Dissenters to matriculation and to obtain all the distinctions and benefits which the University had to bestow. But the great apprehension of the noble Earl was that these halls would have the effect of altering the general tone of the University injuriously, instead of promoting its efficiency. Now, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had looked carefully into the subject since he had heard the expression of these apprehensions; and after the best attention he had been able to give to it, he was totally unable to conceive upon what grounds it could be pretended that, either in point of new and heterodox opinions to be taught, or of irregularities to be committed, these apprehensions were supported. There was not, in the slightest degree, any greater probability of noxious novelties being introduced under the cover and protection of these halls than there was under the wing and shelter of the smaller colleges as they now existed. He contended that these halls were more carefully provided for by the Bill, both as to the maintenance of discipline, conduct, and learning, than the existing colleges. The clause had but to be looked at to support this view; but before adverting to is, he begged their Lordships to remember that the origin of the University of Oxford was intimately connected with the entire spontaneous creation of halls for the extension and benefit of learning, and that they were placed under the direction of such masters as the halls themselves elected. Then there was the Congregation. This received several organisations one after another, ending in that which took place under Archbishop Land; but he believed that that constitution never would have existed had it not been preceded by those voluntary efforts —efforts which had done more for the cause of learning in England, and laid a deeper and a broader foundation for the future progress of science, and art, and religion, than any institution in any country. He was most ready to admit that the progress of learning, science, art, and religion was provided for in the University by a system of discipline which, historically and by its relations to the State and its affinity to the country, was entitled to the highest degree of reverence. But when it was admitted that this establishment, great, and venerable, and holy as it was, and much to be respected in the eyes of every man in the country, had partaken of the infirmities which attached to all institutions from the lapse of ages, that it had become subject to abuses which required correction, and that it had become contracted in its energies, and incapable of extending to all the benefits which ought unquestionably to be within the reach of all, what mode was there more natural, what system more safe, than to have recourse to that very practice in which the University originated, and from which it derived its early vigour, for the purpose of renewing that vigour when it was found to Le impaired? Could it be supposed, as be had heard it alleged, that by means of these halls all sorts of doctrine and every class of opinions were to be introduced into the University? Could it be supposed that they would become so fire-ships sent abroad to demolish whatever they might come in contact with of the system now prevailing at Oxford? If their Lordships were under that impression, he only asked them to look carefully at the provisions of the Bill—provisions which he contended, contained every safeguard that any public institution could possess, and safeguards particularly connected with the authority, power, privileges, and securities possessed by the University itself. Before, however, alluding to these safeguards he would venture to ask their Lordships by whom could these attacks be made? Who were the conspirators whom the noble Earl apprehended would carry on their machinations for the purpose of undermining the older colleges, and destroying the authority and system of the whole University? Well, he turned to the clause which the Committee were now discussing, and who were the persons that stood at the very head of the mischievous and noxious party about whom so many apprehensions were felt? Why, they most be members of Convocation. That was to say, this system of concealed warfare against the discipline of the University and colleges, and the orthodoxy of the Church, was to be carried on by members of Convocation—by men who could only be such by virtue of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, and of the open profession of themselves as members of the Church of England. But, more than this, the head of one of these private halls must obtain, before he could open his establishment, a licence from the Vice Chancellor. Here was conspirator the second. The Vice Chancellor of Oxford was a party to the conspiracy apprehended by the noble Earl. The Vice Chancellor of Oxford was to concur in the establishment of these formidable institutions, which were to be so noxious and injurious to the State and the University. Nor was this all; for the clause said that no such licence shall be granted by the Vice Chancellor until such regulations as should hereafter be agreed upon by the University should have come into operation. The licence, then, could neither he granted by the Vice Chancellor nor enjoyed by the party until certain regulations had been formally adopted by means of which these halls were to be governed. And who were to make these regulations? Why, the University itself. Their Lordships had, therefore, a very pretty picture of the conspirators; for first there were the heads of the hall Conspiring against the institutions of the University; then there was the Vice Chancellor sanctioning their conspiracy and enabling it to he carried on; and, finally, there was the University itself devising such regulations, and preparing such devices, as would provide for the admission of the halls, but of course taking core to provide all proper security against their interference with the existence, the character, and the functions of the greater colleges. He told the House, again, that he saw not the least reason for apprehension; that these halls, which had been held up as a sort of spectre to frighten people, when they came to he carefully looked into, when they were made to take a local name and habitation, when they became sensible to the touch, resolved themselves into the most innocent bodies for the mischief they could do, but into the most powerful for the advantages they might accomplish. Then it was asked, who had required these halls? He contended that there was a necessity for them. The great colleges were full to overflowing, and numbers were obliged to have recourse to the smaller colleges. Now, ho submitted that these halls would effect a very important object, even if they effected no other, by stimulating the smaller colleges to greater efforts and exertions. The noble Earl said they would neither be better than the colleges, nor so cheap. Then they would nut exist. It was only by such titans that competition could be stimulated; and the halls could be viewed in no other light than that of an useful and safe addition to the aggregate of the University. The University, by these means, would he enabled to accommodate itself to the wants of the times. As he bad already observed, the noble Earl had attempted to persuade their Lordships that these halls would not be cheap, and that they would fail to attract. It was not correct, however, to assume that they would not he cheap. He had recently had an opportunity of making inquiries as to the expenses in the University of Durham and the halls there, and he found that the ex- pense of education in Durham was lower than at Oxford and that the halls of Durham were cheaper than the colleges in the University. Judging from this analogy, he conceived that the halls in Oxford would be cheaper than the colleges. Under these circumstances, he thought that this clause would lead to, and confer many advantages upon the students, and he considered that to endeavour to give every extension in every possible way to the benefits to be conferred by the University was a duty which the Legislature owed, not only to the interests of the University, but also to the interests of learning and of the country at large. Therefore he earnestly called upon their Lordships not to reject it.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

thought that the noble Marquess was somewhat too sanguine as to the effect of the checks which would be imposed upon those who established private halls, for if he (the Earl of Malmesbury) read the clause rightly the Vice Chancellor would, under the regulations required, have no choice in giving a member of Convocation a licence. They had already seen the University convulsed by the disputes and conflicting opinions as to religious doctrines; but these had hitherto been materially neutralised by the constitution of the colleges as they now stand; but under the present clause persons would have it in their power to invite and tempt young men, perhaps too much disposed to agree with them, to join these private halls and would there form nests of disputants and so encourage dissensions and divisions. Under this clause, applicants for halls were to be allowed to establish them within one mile and a half of Carfax, and this was open to grave objections. He saw a right rev. Prelate present who had ably and pleasantly fulfilled the functions of a proctor when he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had the honour of being an undergraduate, and he would ask that right rev. Prelate how he would like a nocturnal walk of the distance of a mile and a half for the purpose of looking after delinquents and of keeping order in the halls? There were, in his opinion, moral objections to this clause, and he should, therefore, give his vote against it.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE

said, that in giving his assent to this clause, he desired briefly to state his reasons for so doing. The noble Viscount who moved the second reading of the Bill in a full and able speech had made it his business to show the essential connection between the present clause and one in a subsequent part of the Bill, the object and virtual effect of which was to provide for the admission of Dissenters to the University. He thought the noble Viscount had fully and logically established this connection, and it was the view so taken and the inferences drawn from it, that had induced him (the Earl of Carlisle) to think that it was a most incumbent duty that he should adhere to this clause as it now stood, however he otherwise might have been inclined to view it with indifference, or even doubt. Without going into discussion at present as to the admission of Dissenters, he must say that he did not look upon that admission as a question to be fenced with; for he thought such a measure was god in itself, good for the University, good for the Dissenters, and good for the Established Church, and he should be willing to maintain these converging views of the clause, should any serious opposition hereafter be shown to it. When he had said how heartily he assented to the propriety of admitting Dissenters to the University, he felt scarcely called upon to add that he did not think this admission should be a mere nominal and colourable one, or should be offered to them so as to be regarded by them as offensive, and he must own that he did think that it sounded ominous when the noble Earl the Chancellor of the University observed the other night that, if Dissenters were admitted to the University, they could not expect any exemption from attendance on the services of the respective colleges. As to attending on chapels, he concurred in the observations made by the noble Earl respecting the declaration on mysterious articles of faith required from youths, not to say boys, on their first admission to the University. He had often looked back with something of shame and compunction to the want of consideration shown when he himself at that age was called upon to adopt—if the term were not an irreverent one he would say to swallow down at one gulp—such a comprehensive system of doctrine. When he said that he fully concurred in dispensing with the necessity of this subscription at so tender an age, he must also add that he should be equally 10th to impose the still greater mockery of compulsory worship. He greatly doubted whether in their great schools and colleges they had not now too much of compulsory worship, even as related exclusively to those of the same communion; but if they imposed it on those another communion, not only would it be vexatious, annoying, and degrading, but most disparaging to the services themselves. If they were to collect their indications of the probable disposition of the authorities in the colleges and halls of Oxford from the lips of the Chancellor, not slighting the other arguments which had been so ably and forcibly advanced in favour of the establishment of these private halls by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), but from the view as to what they might apprehend from the disposition of existing authorities, as they had heard it interpreted by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), he felt bound on that account alone to retain these private halls as the last, and, possibly, the only retreats in which Dissenters, to whom they affected to give admission for the purpose of reaping the benefits of University education, would be able to enjoy that privilege with due regard to their own ease, comfort, and dignity, and in which that liberty of conscience to which they professed to do homage, would not be a mere pretence, but a reality, and to which he hoped they might look for precious and enduring fruits. It was on these grounds that he should give his hearty assent to the clause as it now stood.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON,

with all due deference to the able speech of the noble Earl the Chancellor of the University, felt that the plan now under consideration combined many of the advantages, and was free from many of the objections, which attached themselves to similar plans which had been propounded with similar views. The colleges would remain precisely upon the Same footing, with the same privileges, the same associations, the same sympathies, heightened and increased rather than diminished by rivalry. He had no doubt there would be found many residents in the private halls who world retain their connection with some of the colleges. It had been said that the system would lead to immorality and want of discipline; but if there should be any immorality or want of discipline, it must originate with the masters of the private halls. He believed that public opinion would counteract any danger in that respect, and, if that should not be thought sufficient, a provision might be inserted making the licences granted to the masters renewable every two, three, or four years, or under certain conditions. The plan was distinguished by remarkable elasticity and comprehensiveness, and by adapting itself to the condition and varying circumstances of the rich and the poor. If it failed, its failure would attach to itself, but if it succeeded, its success could not fail to be very great.

LORD LYTTELTON

My Lords, I do not consider that those who, like myself, belong to the University of Cambridge, are very good judges of most parts of this Bill; the two Universities are se different. There is only one part of the provision of the Bill on which I would presume to intrude on the House, and that is what relates to the admission of Dissenters. I am prepared to agree to those provisions, as far as they give admission to Dissenters to the Universities as distinct from the existing colleges of which they are composed. I agree to them because they seem to me to be a wise and expedient concession to the Dissenters on the part of the University. I do not agree to the absolute claim of right which is set up on their part to the advantages Of the University. That claim seems founded on the statement that the Universities are national institutions, and that therefore the Dissenters, as an integral part of the nation, have a right to be admitted to them. Now, in what sense are they national institutions? In what sense are they so other than that in which the Established Church is so? It seems held that they are so, because their influence is so large and overreaching over the whole of the country. But so is that of the Established Church. And so it would follow from this argument that Dissenters should be admitted to the privileges of the Established Church. Nor is this such a mere contradiction in terms as it appears at first sight. Some persons do contend that such ought to be the position of the Church of this country—of the national Church of any country—that it should be so framed as to enlarge and relax itself from time to time, according to the public religious opinion of the country, whatever it may be. But this is net very generally held, nor is it needful to dwell upon it, as it does not seem to be the usual ground upon which the claim of die Dissenters is based. This seems to be the fact, that at the time when the Universities were founded, the Church was coextensive with the nation; and that, as it has long ceased to be so, the Universities should no longer lie exclusively connected with the Church. But this view rests on a mere assumption. It is a claim of strict right, as belonging to the essential constitution of the University, and, therefore, must depend on something, either in the will of the founders of the University, or of the supreme authority of the nation, or of the nation itself. Now, it can never be proved that in any of these quarters the main intention was that the University should be coextensive with the nation, except as the nation held to a definite religious system. It is just as allowable, and I consider it more reasonable, to suppose that they held rather to the religious system, and that, if called on to elect, they would have restricted the University to it. But then it is said that this view can no longer be maintained, because that definite religious system no longer exists. This belongs to the old question of the identity of the Church of England before and after the Reformation. But the view that it is not the same Church, because so great a change was made at that time in its doctrines, is evidently a question of degree and of opinion, which can never be distinctly solved. For the Church of England is a corporate body with a definite power of regulation, and no one will deny that some alteration in its doctrines might be made or received, and yet the identity of the body preserved. And where the line Should be drawn is clearly a matter of opinion. Surely the only satisfactory way is to look at what the Church is in the eye of the law, and on that there can be no doubt. Every Statute and every document of the times of the Reformation would show that the Church continued the same in the eye of the law, and this is the material point when the claim is one of strict legal right. So of the intentions of founders; it is a more assumption that at the time of the Reformation they would have refused to accept on behalf of their endowments the altered doctrines, rather than have followed them with the majority of the nation. The Universities, therefore, followed the Church. Those who left the Church left the endowments connected with it, and they knew that they left them, for this claim as of right on the part of the Dissenters is of recent date. Nor can I admit that the exclusion of Dissenters is any great grievance to them. They have their own University; nothing hinders their having as many Universities and colleges as they please; we are constantly told that they are as good, as numerous, as wealthy, as powerful, as the Church, and there is a good deal of truth in this; but if so their exclusion is no great hardship. But still, no doubt it would be some advantage to the Dissenters that they should be admitted; and if it be the least advantage to them, I am wiling to concede it, as I do not see that it would be at all injurious to the University. The University would confer the honour of a degree, indicating a specific amount of attainments. No doubt some of the present pre-requisites of a degree would be omitted; there could be no theological examination. But to that I see no serious objection. The University, as such, need not profess to require a complete education on the part of those on whom it confers a degree. No doubt it is an educating body, but it educates through its colleges. It is not proposed to divide education into religions and secular, to which I object; but instruction may, no doubt, be so divided. It is the colleges which educate, in the true sense that they give moral training and discipline. This refers to the well known question which belongs even to elementary schools, much more to colleges. Elementary schools give a moral training; and colleges are domestic institutions—homes for young men during part of the year at a critical time of their lives. Indeed, no one doubts that they profess to give moral training; and what I deny is, that moral training can be given without a definite creed. I am sure there is not one of the right rev. Prelates who will not confirm what I say—that moral training is based upon certain theological truths, and, moreover, controverted truths, but to which we, in the Church of England, attach great importance. I therefore take the exactly contrary view to that of the noble Earl opposite (Lord Derby), who seemed to have no objection to the admission of Dissenters, provided they were admitted into our colleges; certainly on the rather singular view that they should be thus subjected to influences antagonistic to those they receive at home. The noble Earl seemed to expect that such Dissenters would be a few very moderate ones, who would learn at college how slight their differences with the Church were. That might sometimes be; but I have no doubt the Dissenting body which would the most avail themselves of suit admission would be just the most unlike these. They would be the Unitarians; because that is the body which the least cares for definite systems of belief. I therefore hold that those who enter the colleges should be such as can be submitted, not in a loose way, but really, to moral training under a system of Church discipline and Church ordinances. And if so submitted, then such young men are, in fact, whatever their parents be, not Dissenters at all. Now, a leading point in such a system is united worship—not necessarily daily worship, though I think it should be so, nor necessarily compulsorily so; but united worship should be an essential part of a collegiate system. I quite admit that what I have said is inconsistent with the Cambridge system. I have myself seen there, not only Roman Catholics, but Jews, apparently joining in the chapel service. I say that is a mockery both of our religion and of theirs. It is easy to say, "Then give up the service:" but that I have urged to be fundamentally inconsistent with the idea of collegiate life. This certainly involves some test on admission, for without any test at all it is the Cambridge system. I do not go into that question, as I wish to deal only with principles: but I can have no doubt that some test could be devised in accordance with the views I have stated. One thing I will say, that whatever test is right, that of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles is certainly wrong. The test ought surely to coincide simply with whatever are the proper terms of communion for the English laity, and that the laity of the age of those who are admitted to the University. I again appeal to the right rev. Prelates, who, I am sure, will none of them say that adhesion to the Articles would be such terms of communion. No doubt it would be so, if the Articles were, as I have lately seen them described, the "rudiments of the Christian faith:" which I apprehend to be a singular misdescription. So far from that, they are very advanced and mysterious doctrines, often expressed in very scholastic and difficult language. But that in some way the colleges might attain the object I cannot doubt. So of the University admitting Dissenters while the present colleges remain as they are, that in some safe way it may be done, whether through these private halls or in some other way, I have no doubt. We must remember what scents generally admitted, that the University, if she is determined to baffle and evade these provisions, can undoubtedly do so; but if she cheerfully applies herself to obey the intentions of Parliament, I can have no doubt it may be done. But of our existing Church colleges, I say that I trust they will resist, even unto annihilation, any attempt to deprive them of their distinctive religious character.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, that the observation of the two noble Earls who had taken part in the discussion imparted a new character to the clause under discussion. He was prepared to rest his opposition to the establishment of private halls on the grounds which he had stated on a former occasion—namely, that they would not effect the object in view, and that they would be inconsistent with the maintenance of discipline. Some of the noble Lords who supported the Bill put their opinion on precisely opposite grounds to that taken by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne). The noble Marquess supported the clause on the ground that nothing was to be apprehended from the establishment of these halls, and contemned the idea that there would be any danger to the doctrines of religion prevailing at the University. Now be (the Earl of Derby) was very far from thinking that all members of Convocation were the persons best qualified to have the control of these halls. It had been asserted that they would be under the control of the Vice Chancellor, because his licence was required for their establishment. Now the functions of the Vice Chancellor were purely ministerial, for it was provided—not that it should be lawful for the Vice Chancellor, if he thought fit—but that any master of arts should obtain from the Vice Chancellor a licence for that purpose. It was true that the licence was not to be valid until the University should have made certain regulations, or, failing the University, the Commissioners. He did not envy the Commissioners the duty of framing such regulations. He was quite certain there would be the greatest difficulty in carrying out regulations, more especially for private halls, "the instruction and discipline of the students therein, and their attendance on divine worship." But the noble Lords who followed the noble Marquess in support of the Bill were of opinion that the Dissenters had a fair claim, as a part of the nation, to admission to the University.

LORD LYTTELTON

stated that he had said quite the reverse.

THE EARL OF DERBY

believed that the noble Earl opposite had argued the question on that ground.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE

said, he did not argue it, but he was prepared to argue it.

THE EARL OF DERBY

His noble Friend did not argue, but he was prepared to argue. His noble Friend argued in favour of expediency and necessity, but he (the Earl of Derby) was not going to argue in favour of either; but he was going to call the attention of their Lordships, and of the right rev. Bench especially, that they now had it avowed, and distinctly declared, that the object of those private halls was to provide places where Dissenters might congregate. Now, that declaration was made by two noble Lords who took a prominent part in the debate. By the admissions made in the other House, and now more fully in this House, they now saw what was the necessary and natural consequence of the establishment of those halls—they were about to force upon the University that which upon other grounds they objected to, and to introduce into the heart of the University those Dissenting bodies, free from all University control as regarded the doctrines and religious principles of the Church of England. That being the object of the Bill, he should not waste another word, but ask the right rev. Bench if they were going to support a clause which should have such effects?

THE EARL OF CARLISLE

explained. What he said was, that he thought it would be equally advantageous to the Dissenters themselves, to the University and the Church of England, if the Dissenters were freely admitted; and he only argued that he hoped anybody frequenting those halls should be free from compulsory attendance upon the services of the colleges and halls.

LORD LYTTELTON

also explained. What he had said was, that he had no doubt if the University thought fit to give admission to Dissenters it would do so, either by private halls or in some other way, and he was therefore prepared to vote for the Bill on those general grounds.

THE EARL OF DERBY

was sorry if he had misrepresented his noble Friend (the Earl of Carlisle), but he understood him to say that the inmates of those halls should not be subject to the discipline of the Church of England, and his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) said Dissenters had a right to a full participation of the University honours and privileges, to which they were now unable to obtain admission.

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE

said, the noble Earl opposite had misrepresented both his noble Friends. He was perfectly content to leave the explanations of his noble Friends in their own hands; but the noble Earl, after misrepresenting them, had misrepresented the Bill and the authors of the Bill, and those who were responsible for it. [The Earl of DERBY: Who are they?] Why, the Government. The noble Earl might laugh, but the Bill was introduced by the Government, and they were responsible for it. When introduced into the House of Commons, it had on its back the names of three of the Ministers of the Cabinet. The noble Earl said it had been distinctly avowed that the object and intention of this provision was the introduction into the heart of the University of a nest of Dissenters who would be at variance with the colleges around them. Now, he entirely denied that such was the object or intention of the framers of the Bill. But he did not deny that this clause might give some validity to two clauses at the end of the Bill which had been introduced in the other House by an independent Member, and which the noble Earl not only did not resist, but of which to a great extent he had expressed his approval. The noble Earl said he should have objected to them if there had been any provision attached to them by which any compulsory action might be given to compel the colleges to waive any portion of their regulations or Statutes with a view to the admission of Dissenters without a violation of their consciences. He (the Duke of Newcastle) did not deny that these halls might give facilities for the introduction of Dissenters without a violation of their consciences. The licence, however, was only to be obtained by a member of Convocation, and a member of Convocation must be originally a member of the Established Church. It was true he might depart from the Church of England after he had obtained a licence, but the University would have the power of framing regulations by which these private halls would be governed; and in case the master ceased to be a member of the Church of England, his licence might be withdrawn, provided he exercised his powers in a manner injurious or dangerous to the interests of the University. But the intention with which these clauses had been framed was not that which had been suggested by noble Lords upon the other side. The intention was that which had been avowed to facilitate and extend education; and to destroy any monopoly now existing on the part of the colleges, which might be considered injurious to the progress of education. The noble Earl had stated to-night, as he had stated last night, that he thought he should be able to show that so far from introducing a poorer class of students into the University, the establishment of private halls would have a directly contrary effect. He had instanced, last evening, and he had repeated this evening, that the servitors at Christ Church were supported at a cost of no more than a guinea a week. That was no argument at all. The servitors at Christ Church were supported by eleemosynary assistance, and to quote them as an illustration of the cost of education at the University, was to estimate the expenses of a labouring man by the fact that in the case of a charity school he paid nothing at all. But, then, it was said that the endowments which the colleges possessed enabled them to educate young men within their halls at a cheaper rate than private halls could do. Now, first of all, he denied the fact; and secondly, he said that if it were the fact the result would be that the halls would not be established. It might be perfectly true that a large number of persons might be provided for at a less cost to the individual than could be done where the number was small; but it must not be forgotten that it was the social habits of the young men that created the expense. It was not the more cost of living so much as the fact that young men living together in society were obliged in a manner to live up to the standard of those about them; and if they wished to redress the evil, without having recourse to sumptuary laws, they must provide some institution in which these incentives to expense would not exist. But it was said that the discipline of these halls would be so lax as to render them unfit places for the reception and education of youth. But, as compared with the existing colleges, he anticipated that the discipline of these halls would be very superior. At all events it ought to be; for what was the discipline of the colleges? The young men were obliged to attend certain lectures, and to be within the walls at twelve o'clock at night; but as to discipline of a domestic character, as to any inspection, or what went on within their rooms, the authorities of the colleges would no more think of going into the rooms of their young men than they would of entering the rooms of any of their Lordships. In point of fact, nothing like domestic discipline existed. But the discipline in these halls would be of a different character. The masters would have an opportunity of placing themselves in the position of parents to the young men, and of exercising a control and influence over them in that way. It was said that the proctors would exercise no jurisdiction over the halls; but the proctors were University officers, they had no authority in the colleges, they exercised no inspection with respect to the colleges at present; but they might, with respect to the halls, if the University should make rules to that effect. He could not understand how those who advocated, as some did, the system of private lodgings which existed at Cambridge, could possibly object on the ground of discipline to the introduction of private halls at Oxford. The discipline and superintendence exercised in the one case might be made of a most domestic and complete character; in the other case it amounted to nothing at all. In the University of Oxford, at this very moment, the student who had completed his twelfth term was compelled to leave his college and to go into private lodgings, where he had to complete the remainder of his term of education without being subject to any superintendence or any system of discipline at all. The noble Earl had stated last night that he should be perfectly content to allow the University to enact that the fathers of families might reside in the University, and their sons reside with them attached to the different colleges. He confessed he was unable to see how, if that system was admissible, the other could be objectionable. If the objections put forward to these clauses, the expense of education and the want of discipline and parental control—were the real reasons why they were opposed—it appeared to him that the house of a parent presented no advantage over the house of a tutor, resident and established at Oxford, to whose care a parent could with confidence intrust his son. On the contrary, the house of the tutor, who would be placed in the position of the parent with respect to moral control, and who would combine with that control the capacity to teach, would present, in his opinion, very superior advantages to the other. He would not detain their Lordships further; for he had only risen to reply to the observation made by the noble Earl in the course of his last speech, that the avowed object of these clauses was to place in the bosom of the University nests of Dissenters, who would act antagonistically to her interests, and to introduce within the precincts of that noble institution those whose sole object would be her eventual destruction.

LORD CAMPBELL

expressed his dissent from the construction which had been put upon the 27th clause, and stated that that clause imposed no legal obligations on the Vice Chancellor to grant the licence when applied for; and that if an application were made to him (Lord Campbell) for a mandamus to compel him to grant it, he should refuse it.

On Question, their Lordships divided:—Content 109; Not Content 76: Majority 33.

List of the CONTENTS.
Lord Chancellor	Shaftesbury
DUKES.	Somers
Argyll	Spencer
Atholl	Suffolk
Leeds	Shrewsbury
Newcastle	Waldegrave
Roxburgh	Yarborough
Wellington	Zetland
MARQUESSES.	VISCOUNTS.
Abercorn	Canning
Anglesey	Enfield
Breadalbane	Falmouth
Camden	Falkland
Clanricarde	Massareene
Donegal	Sydney
Headfort	Torrington
Lansdowne	BISHOPS.
Ormonde	Chester
EARLS.	Cork
Aberdeen	Down
Airlie	London
Albemarle	Manchester
Bessborough	Oxford
Bruce	Ripon
Burlington	St. David's
Carlisle	St. Asaph
Chichester	BARONS.
Clarendon	Auckland
Cottenham	Beaumont
Cowper	Belhaven
Craven	Blantyre
Denbigh	Broughton
Ducie	Byron
Effingham	Camoys
Fingall	Campbell
Fitzhardinge	Carew
Fortescue	Churchill
Glasgow	Cremorne
Granville	Crewe
Harrowby	Congleton
Haddington	De Tabley
Ilchester	Dacre
Morley	Dufferin
Nelson	Foley
Portsmouth	Godolphin
Rosse	Hatherton
Scarborough	Howard de Walden

Howden	Portman
Kinnaird	Rivers
Leigh	Saye and Sele
Lilford	Stafford
Lyttelton	Stanley of Alderley
Manners	Suffield
Methuen	Vivian
Monson	Ward
Mostyn	Wodehouse
Overstone	Wrottesley
Petro

List of the NOT CONTENTS.
DUKES.	Selkirk
Buccleuch	Sheffield
Cleveland	Stradbroke
Montrose	Verulam
Richmond	Vane
MARQUESSES.	Warwick
Bath	Wilton
Drogheda	Winchilsea.
Exeter	VISCOUNTS.
Salisbury	Bolingbroke
EARLS.	Canterbury
Abergavenny	Midleton
Beauchamp	BISHOPS.
Bathurst	Chichester
Bradford	Gloucester
Courtown	Winchester
Cadogan	BARONS.
Chesterfield	Bateman
Clancarty	Berners
Cawdor	Calthorpe
Dartmouth	Clinton
Derby	Colville of Culross
Delawarr	Crofton
Devon	Clarina
Donoughmore	Colchester
Ellenborough	De Lisle
Eglintoun	Dunsandle
Egmont	Dynevor
Hardwicke	Forester
Harewood	Feversham
Huntingdon	Grantley
Jersey	Monteagle
Longford	Plunkett
Lonsdale	Redesdale
Malmesbury	Rayleigh
Mansfield	Sandys
Mornington	Seaton
Powis	Sondes
Pomfret	Tenterden
Romney	Willoughby de Broke
Roden	Wynford

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 28, 29, and 30 agreed to, with verbal amendments.

Clause 31 provides that colleges may amend Statutes with respect to eligibility to headships, &c.

LORD WYNFORD

moved the omission of the words, "and in the case of some of the colleges for rendering portions of their property or income available to purposes for the benefit of the University at large." The preamble of the clause declared it was expedient to enable colleges to make ordinances for promoting the main designs of the founders. It could never be the design of the founders that the emoluments should be estranged from the colleges and given to professors whose existence they never contemplated. He, therefore, moved the Amendment to make the enacting consistent with the declaratory part of the clause.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, that he certainly had no great encouragement to propose any Amendment on the Bill, because it appeared very clear, whatever was the case elsewhere, here, at all events, the Government could do with the Bill whatever they thought fit. Instead of proposing, as the noble Lord had done, to make the preamble suit the enacting part of the clause, he proposed to make the enacting part suit the preamble. He begged to remind the noble Viscount who had charge of the Bill, that last night he referred to this clause as one which would enable colleges to make new regulations, "of course with the consent of the visitors." In order to carry out the noble Viscount's views, he proposed, at the 28th line, to insert, after the word "colleges," "with the consent of the visitors." In the 31st line he proposed a verbal amendment, to which, perhaps, the noble Viscount would have no objection—to substitute, "with due regard to," for "according to" personal merits and fitness. As it now stood, personal merits appeared to be the sole qualification. He proposed also, in order to make the clause accord with the preamble, to add, after the word "College," in the 44th line, "but with the consent of the visitors aforesaid," and in the next line but one, after the word "purposes," "so that the same be not inconsistent with the main designs of the founders or donors." At the close of the clause he would submit to their Lordships a proviso, the object of which was this:—the jurisdiction of the Commissioners was exceptional, and it must be the desire of every one to terminate it at the earliest possible moment consistent with carrying this Bill into effect. It could not be the wish of the Government that the Commissioners should be perpetually altering the various regulations of the colleges. The object was to induce the colleges, under the authority of the Commissioners, to introduce a good scheme of government and a good system; and having done so, it was extremely desirable, when the scheme had been approved by the Commissioners, that their power of interference should cease and determine. The proviso he proposed to add was in these words— Provided also, that when any such regulations and ordinances shall have been so approved of by the Commissioners in regard to any college, and shall have been further approved of by Her Majesty's Council, and allowed by Parliament, as hereinafter provided, all the powers given by this Act to the Commissioners, to remit the same for further consideration or revision by such college, or to frame regulations and ordinances for such college, shall cease and determine.

VISCOUNT CANNING

said, with regard to the consent of the visitors being made necessary, the functions of the visitors were to superintend the observance of the college Statutes, and in three at least of the colleges at Oxford the visitors were positively prohibited from consenting to any alteration whatever. The adoption, therefore, of the Amendment of the noble Earl would be productive of mischief. In the case of Exeter College the right rev. Prelate who presided over that diocese was the visitor, and he had altogether refused to countenance or sanction any change in the Statutes. He believed, too, the noble Earl himself, who, in his capacity of Chancellor of the University, was visitor of Pembroke College, had taken a somewhat similar resolution. If the clause were amended, as proposed, these colleges would be compelled to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners; and for these reasons he did not think the alteration desirable. With regard to the proposal to change the words, "with due regard to," for "according to," he preferred the latter, as much more distinct, and could not acquiesce in the suggestion of the noble Earl. As to the insertion of the words, "so that the same be not inconsistent with the main designs of the founders," in many cases the designs of the founders were inexpedient to be carried out, and the limitation would operate as a check upon the praiseworthy desire of some of the colleges to reform themselves. He had an Amendment of his own to propose on this clause, but it was necessary that he should first refer to the 34th clause regarding schools. It was originally intended to deal with the emoluments attached to colleges—not to overlook or override the interests of the schools—but to provide more effectually for the promotion of education. There were many schools to which fellowships and exhibitions or scholarships were attached, which not only carried with them the advantages of the scholarships, but, by course of time, led to fellowships. The effect of that had been to operate as a positive discouragement to learning, because a boy who had been industrious enough to obtain a scholarship was not likely to follow up his studies when he knew a fellowship would follow independent of any merits of his own. It was originally proposed that whenever a fellowship of this kind was made open, a close exhibition should be given to the school in exchange. That intention did not meet the approval of the House of Commons, and the result was that Clause 34 was introduced, guarding schools, and the emoluments attached to them, by requiring the assent of the governing body of the schools. The Government felt this would be inflicting on the school great disadvantages as it would be practically placing in the hands of the governing body the right of naming the boys in the school who would become masters and fellows of the college, and thereby the governors of Oxford. The Government, therefore, intended in the 4th line of the 34th clause, after the words "any emolument," to insert the words "other than a fellowship or studentship;" and at the end of the clause to add— And if in any college where fellowships or studentships are tenable by undergraduates, either the college, or the Commissioners acting in respect thereof, shall divide its fellowships or studentships into elder and younger, the elder only shall be taken to be fellowships or studentships within the meaning of the section. He also proposed, in the 36th line of the 31st clause, to insert after the words "University at large," the words "for the consolidation of fellowships, and for the conversion of fellowships attached to schools into scholarships."

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, whatever the Government proposed they were able to carry, and he had no wish to waste their Lordships' time in useless discussions; but as his noble Friend, in his speech the other night, appeared to consider that the principal design of the founders was to benefit the colleges, and not the schools, he could not refrain from expressing his belief that that was a total perversion of the real state of the case. He believed that in respect to almost every endowment, the main design of the founder was not to benefit the University or college at all, but the school and the locality. There were many cases to prove this, and among others might be mentioned that of Abingdon School, and the scholarships connected with it and attach- ed to Pembroke College. No one could deny that in this instance the object of the founder was to benefit the school, and not any particular college, the naming of which, in many cases, was purely a collateral, and oftentimes an accidental occurrence. There were, doubtless, cases where the founder might have wished to benefit both a particular school and a particular college at one and the same time; but he put it to any one who understood the question, whether such cases were not exceptions, which probably, would prove the rule. He was perfectly convinced that the Amendment proposed to be introduced by the Government in this clause would operate most unjustly, and tell most injuriously upon many of our great schools, inasmuch as he believed that many of these schools were selected soley for the sake of the afterwards-to-be-acquired fellowships that were attached to them, rather than out of any inducement which their particular exhibitions and scholarships held out. It was also to be remembered that the Amendment was in direct opposition to the twice-expressed opinion of the House of Commons, and he could not help thinking that Government made use of very little discretion in pressing it at the present time on the attention of their Lordships.

THE EARL OF WINCHELSEA

said, that the present Bill proposed to effect the most dreadful confiscation of property that ever took place in an enlightened country, and was the grossest violation of justice that ever characterised the Legislature of England. It diverted the property of private individuals into channels quite different from the original intentions of the testators, and from that moment never would there be one farthing left by private benevolence to endow any object of public charity in this country. After the passing of this Bill, what security would any man have that, before he was cold in his grave, his property would not be used differently from what he intended? There never was a measure so fraught with evil, so unjust in principle, so iniquitous in its details, as this accursed Bill. He deeply regretted the course which the right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of Oxford), had thought proper to adopt with respect to this measure. Just twenty-six years ago, when he first came into their Lordships' House, he declared that whenever that bench of right rev. Prelates opposite was characterised by party or political motives the day would not be far off when a separation would take place of that right rev. Bench from their Lordships' House, and that the right rev. Prelates who sat upon that bench would be constrained to retire to their separate and respective dioceses. The day was not far distant for them to do so, and he believed a very strong feeling existed out of doors as to the propriety of their making as much haste about it as possible; and as to its being more to the interest of the Church if these right rev. Prelates would bestow somewhat more of their time upon their religious and spiritual duties, and not mix themselves up so much in political questions as they did. He firmly believed that this Bill was the first step to separate the Church from the State, and he must confess that he thought on such a question that those whose duty it was to protect the Church ought not to be the men to press forward into the foremost rank, to desert the standard under which it ought to be their pride, as it was their duty, to serve. Such a course of policy would do them no good when the time came for the measure to be proposed for their exclusion from that House; and he could tell the right rev. Prelates that when such a measure was proposed the table before them would groan under and not be sufficient to support the weight of the petitions that would be presented in favour of such relief.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, he did not intend to trouble their Lordships with any remarks in reply to those in which the noble Earl who had last spoken had thought proper to indulge, for he had too great an appreciation of the piety and sincerity of the noble Earl to be inclined to treat the remarks which he had just now made in the spirit which they might, under other circumstances, seem to justify, and certainly tended to excite. His right rev. Brethren, and he himself, were, however, by this time somewhat inured to the reproofs of the noble Earl, who kept these kind of remarks always ready to be discharged whenever the bench, whose conduct he seemed to consider so much under his special charge, took the liberty of not agreeing with him upon any subject. The noble Earl had characterised the present Bill as the first step towards separating the Church from the State; but he could not hear those words from the noble Earl without remembering on how many previous occasions this same ever-recurring first step had, in the judgment of the noble Earl, been already taken. He could only say that on that evening the Members of the bench on which he sat had given no vote to countenance in any way the separation of either the University of Oxford or the State from the Church of England; and he felt assured that every one who sat with him there would sooner incur such penalties and privations as the noble Earl had threatened would be imposed upon them, than lend themselves, by word or implication, to foster or encourage any attempts to bring on so great a national calamity. For he believed that, if the Church of England were to lose all its present social position and worldly wealth, it would be little in comparison with the loss it would suffer if ever it were deprived of the power which, under God, it possessed of influencing this mighty people for good, through the sway which it exercised over the University of Oxford, and, through that University, over the whole mind of the country. The purport of his rising to speak to the question now before the House was to say a few words as to the powers contained in those clauses of this Act which enabled the University to deal with the close fellowships; and, in speaking upon this subject, he must certainly say that he could not in any way bring himself to agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) in supposing that the proposed Amendment would cause any damage to our great endowed schools. He could not agree, either that the main object of the founders of these fellowships was to benefit solely the schools, or the towns in which such schools were situated; and, as a proof that such was not the case, he could cite many instances, but would content himself by referring to the school of Winchester, about which there had been so much discussion, and from the language of the founder of which it appeared that it was established merely as a nursery for youth, to be therein educated until such time as they could be transplanted to the University. He did not deny that there were many cases in which the object of the founder was solely the benefit of the particular school he was founding; but that this was not generally the case he thought might be shown in the great majority of instances. The noble Earl had referred to Pembroke College and its connection with Abingdon School; but, although there was no doubt that the object of the connection with the college which its founder had provided was the strengthening of the school, yet he considered that the condition of the school for many years with these advantages, proved the necessity for the present or a similar amendment, inasmuch as it was necessary, without doubt or dispute, for some power to step in and carry out the intention of the founder, namely, the good of the school and of the town in connection with such school. The intention of the founder, under the existing restrictions, had for many years undoubtedly failed. In such cases, he held it was their duty to interfere, and in a spirit of fair legislation, suggested by the advanced intelligence of the age, to see whether the charitable intentions of the founders of some of our noblest scholastic institutions could not by new regulations be more fully and efficiently carried out. He considered that it would be much better to found scholarships in colleges than to adhere to this system of occasional fellowships, which was, at best, but a costly and cumbersome way of doing a little good to the schools at a great sacrifice in every other respect. In his opinion, the argument that it was our duty to regard the founders' wishes was the very one which justified the adoption of the Amendment proposed; because, if the founders really looked to the good of the town they wished to benefit, and to the service of God, whom they wished to honour by their charity and the after-blessings which it would bestow on posterity, it was clearly their duty, as legislators, to see that such wise and beneficent intentions were not frustrated by circumstances, or abused by neglect. It was their duty, first of all, to ascertain clearly what was the intention of the founder, and, having discovered what it really was, to adopt, at all hazards, every means fully to carry out such intention according to the intelligence and in the spirit of improvement which so happily characterised the present day. If we did this, we need entertain no fear that we were doing anything wrong by taking upon ourselves the responsibility of interpreting, and the duty of enforcing, the wish and intention of the founders of these schools.

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

Clause 32, empowering the Commissioners to frame ordinances.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, the clause certainly did impose a certain amount of restriction upon the powers of the Commissioners, inasmuch as any ordinances or regulations which they might prepare could not be enforced, provided that, within a specified time, two-thirds of the governing body of the college should declare, under their hand and seal, that in their opinion such ordinances or regulation would be prejudicial to the college as a place of learning and education. But it was possible that there might be regulations framed by the Commissioners which might be prejudicial to the college and open to grave objections, and yet the college would not have the slightest voice in the rejection of them, unless two-thirds of the governing body could declare that they would be prejudicial to the college as a place of learning and education. He suggested the insertion of some words which would have the effect of giving to the Commissioners power to act upon the report of the visitor, in all cases where it might be reported that the effect of the proposed alteration would be injurious to the interests of the colleges and the intention of the founder.

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE

felt bound to object to such an alteration in the clause. The duty of the visitor was to interpret the Statutes of the college, and not to exercise legislative functions. It would be as anomalous to give the proposed power to the visitors of colleges as it would be to give the Court of Queen's Bench a veto upon an Act of Parliament.

Clause agreed to. Clauses 33 to 39 agreed to.

Clause 40.

THE EARL OF POWIS

moved the addition of a proviso, that no professorships established or aided under the Act should be tenable with the headship of any college or hall.

VISCOUNT CANNING

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that the duties connected with the headship of some of the halls were very light, and would not interfere with their duties as professors. He believed there was no fear that any undue attempt would be made to accumulate incompatible duties on one person.

Clause agreed to. Clause 41 agreed to.

Clause 42.

THE EARL OF DERBY

moved an Amendment, to the effect that the private halls should be subject to the regulations and Statutes of the Hebdomadal Council.

VISCOUNT CANNING

assented.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 (Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles).

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, that last night he had expressed his opinions at some length in favour of admitting the Dissenters to the University, and he had come down to-night prepared to give that measure his support; but the language that had been held to-night with respect to private halls, the intentions that had been avowed, and the comments that had been made with respect to that clause, had since caused him to view the question in a very different light. Though, as a matter of grace and favour, he was willing to sanction the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, in conformity with the teaching and authority of the colleges, yet he was not prepared to say, especially after what had passed, that he was now willing to take any steps which might have the effect of establishing bodies of Dissenters not amenable to the discipline of the colleges within the University. He should, therefore, oppose the removal of the existing restrictions.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, if he could bring himself to view this matter in the same light with the noble Earl, he also would oppose the clause. But he could not see that anything had passed in the House to-night—to all of which he had attended most carefully—that altered his opinions. The noble Earl said that statements had been made which implied that Dissenters were to be admitted to the University of Oxford without being subject to the discipline, rules, or laws of the University. He would only say, that if such statements had been made—it was not said by whom—they had altogether escaped his notice. He would not affect to say that he did not regret the insertion of those clauses. He regretted to find them in the Bill, not because he differed from the object which they were intended to answer, for he entirely agreed with the noble Earl in thinking that it was, on the whole, better, as a matter of grace and favour, to facilitate the admission of Dissenters to partake in the advantages and benefits of a University education than to exclude them altogether. But then he desired that this step should have been taken by the authorities of the University themselves, as Her Majesty's Government had intended; and he regretted that this clause had been put into the Bill, not because he objected to the admission of Dissenters, under such regulations as the University might have adopted for preserving the Church of England character of its religious teaching unaltered, but because he thought a different impression was given to the question from what it would have worn if they had been admitted, as he firmly believed they would have been admitted, by the spontaneous act of the University itself. If, indeed, he thought that this clause bound the University, either directly or indirectly, to swerve one inch from her affiance to the Church of England, from teaching the truth as the Church of Christ reformed in this land held and taught it, then there was no penalty which he would not suffer rather than give his assent to it. But admitting with the noble Earl that it would now be impossible to prevent the adoption of these provisions, he was entirely unable to enter into his objection that the proposed private halls would be unfavourable to the Church of England. He thought that the foundation of private halls might, if properly conducted, have precisely the opposite effect. He would be much obliged to the noble Earl if he would state explicitly what he meant, or how much he was prepared to concede, when he talked of admitting Dissenters. Did he mean that he would grant them admission to the ear, but would deny it in fact; or did he mean that he would admit Dissenters to existing colleges, as if their admission to the colleges would be safer to the Church than their admission to private halls? The noble Earl stated that, though the principal of these halls might be a member of Convocation, it did not follow that he would be a member of the Church of England—that he might have been at some former time—but that even if he had quitted it, he would still have the power to open a hall. He (the Bishop of Oxford) would remind the House that that was not the case, for before a single member of the University could undertake the office of teaching, he was liable to be called upon by the Vice Chancellor to repeat his signature to the Thirty-nine Articles, and therefore perverts from the Church of England could not assume the office of teachers. And it did seem to him that the argument used at a former period of the evening with respect to these halls was unanswerable. Did the noble Earl really think that the religion of young men at Oxford—their real belief in what they were taught—would be strengthened by seeing seated by their side in the same chapel a Jew, who they knew denied altogether that Christianity whose highest rites they might be engaged in celebrating? Yet this was the alternative which the noble Earl must have in view, if he admitted Dissenters in statu pupillari to the colleges, where they must attend the prayers and services of the Church of England, while he would bar them from the halls. He did not see how it was possible to escape from this conclusion. The noble Earl said he was in favour of admitting Dissenters; but then it was to be under such restrictions that their entrance would be either an act of hypocrisy or altogether impracticable. For his part, he was prepared to give, not a glad assent —for, as he had said, he wished this matter had been left to the University—but he must confess it a grudging and unworthy assent to the clause, feeling that of two evils this was the least, and feeling that the strict affiance of the colleges of Oxford to the truth which they were bound to maintain, as it was held and taught in this Reformed Church, was not affected thereby, and that it was far better and safer for the Church that they should agree to this than, by seeking at this moment fruitlessly to occupy an exterior position which they could not defend, and invite an aggression which at last might reach the citadel.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, as the right rev. Prelate had asked him to explain how far he would go, which he thought he had already made sufficiently clear, he would trouble their Lordships with one or two words. He had always held the opinion that Dissenters might, in accordance with the discipline and rules of the University, be admitted to the advantages of her teaching, and therefore he desired there should not be interposed by the authority of the University, or still more by the authority of Parliament, anything in the way of subscription which could by possibility prevent their obtaining admission. But he had also held, and till that evening he thought it was also the principle of Her Majesty's Government and of the majority of the right rev. Bench, that the admission of Dissenters to partake of the benefits of the University did not entitle them to call upon the University or the colleges to change their system, or to give up their connection with the Church of England. If the Dissenters claimed to be admitted to the benefits of the University without being subjected to the discipline of the University, then he could not consent to their admission, because he was satisfied that this change of system with regard to Dissenters would lead to a fatal breach in the discipline of the University, and to a seve- rance of her connection with the Church. He would place the University of Oxford on the same footing with the University of Cambridge, and he was not aware that the University of Cambridge had ever been charged with opening her doors in profession while in reality they were closed to Dissenters. The very different principles which had been avowed that night convinced him that this would prove a heavy blow to the religious and to the Church of England character of the University; and with that view, much as he desired to see Dissenters admitted, he could not vote for this clause.

THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH

said, he had no sympathy with those who wanted to give the Dissenters a governing power in the University; but he was, and for the last thirty years he had been, in favour of admitting them to matriculate. At the same time, he wished that this concession had emanated from the University itself. He should like very much that subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles were omitted at the entrance of students; and this not so much from regard to Dissenters, but because, when he had occasion to matriculate young men at Oxford, he explained to them before he took them to the Vice Chancellor—"You are now going to declare yourself a member of the Church of England. You are not going to declare that you understand or assent to the Thirty-nine Articles, but simply that you do not object to them." [Laughter.] Noble Lords might laugh; but if they had the same thing to do, they would give the same explanation.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

expressed his strong conviction of the immense advantage derived by every religious body from the adoption of a liberal rule with regard to the admission of Dissenters from their own creed, so long as the government of the particular school or college remained in its own hands. In the schools connected with the Established Church in Scotland, the rule had long been in practice that Dissenters' children should be admitted and exempted from catechetical teaching; and the Established Church had not been weakened, but rather strengthened by it. A similar rule prevailed in the other Churches of that country. All held the rule that the children of those who dissented from their doctrines might be admitted to the secular teaching of the school. It appeared to him that in this clause the entire governing and teaching powers of the University of Oxford were carefully preserved; and, so long as that was the case he had the most thorough and sincere conviction that these extensions would tend to strengthen the bonds of the Church of England. If the University did propose to admit Dissenters, it ought to be allowed to make the necessary regulations.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

observed that the clause did no more than place the University of Oxford in the present position of the University of Cambridge with regard to the admission of Dissenters. Any step taken in Oxford beyond that would be the work of the University itself; and, under these circumstances, he could see no reason why the clause should not be adopted.

THE BISHOP OF RIPON

confessed that it was with sorrow and regret he saw the introduction of these clauses, not because he had the slightest objection to the admission of Dissenters, or that he imagined no advantage would result from it, but because he foresaw that it would materially discourage the supporters of the Bill in its future stages. He wished that more time had been given for the consideration of a measure so wholly affecting the interests of the University.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

had no objection to Dissenters entering the University; but the University itself could by Statute make the alterations necessary to effect that purpose, and no doubt it would after the expression of the opinion of both Houses of Parliament. Under these circumstances he wished the clause to be omitted.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 46, which enacts that it shall not be necessary to take any oath on taking a degree, save the oath of allegiance,

Their Lordships divided:—Content 73; Not Content 47: Majority 26.

Clause agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and Schedules agreed to.

Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.

House adjourned to Monday next.