BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 24 February 1876)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
rose, pursuant to Notice, to draw attention to 792 the Report of the Commission upon the Revenues of the University of Oxford; and to present a Bill on that subject:—and said—My Lords, in fulfilment of a promise given in the Queen's Speech, I have to call attention to the subject of University Education. There are not now many in this House who can remember when the last University Bill was in the House of Lords—probably the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Harrowby) was one of the few; but many of those who were in the House of Commons at the time that Bill was under discussion there, probably retain a lively recollection of the animated controversy which it excited in that House. It may be worth while, therefore, before entering on a consideration of another University Bill to remind your Lordships of the principles embodied in the Act of 1854. And what were they? The Act was introduced under no small amount of excitement, and with considerable expectation on the part of those by whom it was promoted and supported, and considerable apprehension on the part of those who did not approve of it. The second reading was passed without opposition in either House of Parliament, but the details were subjected to serious scrutiny and modification. Both Parties in the State may be regarded as responsible for the measure which was ultimately placed upon the Statute Book. The principal portion of the Act was directed to an entire reconstruction of the government and legislative machinery of the University. With respect to that portion of the Act, I have no proposition to make. On the point of re-arrangement the Act has been evidently a success. It has given a life and vigour to the University, and the changes have been effected with as much peace as was consistent with the excited feelings with which University questions are generally discussed. It is not my intention, therefore, to interfere with that part of the Act which refers to the constitution of the University. Another point which at the time was considered to be of great importance has been also subjected to the test of experience, and it is instructive to note the answer which in this case experience has given to speculation. One of the points on which the Government of the day dwelt most earnestly was that provision in the Act which gave leave to Masters of Arts to set up Halls in the 793 University. This was advocated on the ground that such Halls would afford a good means of providing for a poorer class of undergraduates advantages similar to those enjoyed by them at our own Universities in the Middle Ages, and similar to those which they now enjoy on the Continent. On the other hand, it was argued that the setting up of those Halls would be attended with results injurious to the discipline of the University. This provision was looked upon by the supporters of the Act as of great importance, and by the Opposition of that day with great dread. Well, the provision enabling Masters of Arts to set up those Halls was placed on the Statute Book, and what has been the result? The result is that one Master set up a Hall, and that there are four undergraduates in it. That is the end of all those hopes and all those fears. Some 12 years afterwards the University, taking the matter in its own hands and guided by that wisdom which practical experience alone can give, devised a plan of its own to admit the less wealthy classes to the training of the University. The University sought no Act of Parliament for this purpose. It required none. It devised what is known as the system of unattached students. The result which seven years' experience of this system enables the University to present is very curious—very remarkable. In 1868–9, when it commenced, the entries of undergraduates as unattached students were 53; and from that time they have gone on increasing year by year, so that in 1875 they were 185, which is, I think, a very respectable number. More than that—the Commissioners say that the character of those unattached students, both as to their attention to studies and moral conduct, is as high as could be found with students of the highest class. From that failure and that success I draw one moral—which is that things of this kind are better done by the Universities themselves than by Parliament. Here we are able to compare two experiments made in the same direction—the one by an Act of Parliament, which is barren; the other by the University, which has struck its roots into the soil and given in experience an abundant and a satisfactory result. I need not, however, say that even in such matters it may be well for Parliament to aid the University by the appropriation of larger funds for the object in 794 view, if funds can be made available for the purpose; but the opinion I wish to express is that it is not necessary to interfere with a system which is thriving so well. A third point in the Act of 1854 was the application of the revenues of the colleges. In respect of that, undoubtedly, there has not been the same satisfaction as has been derived from the other points with which the Act dealt. There are constant complaints that the revenues of the University are not spent in as useful a manner as they might be, and that things remain undone which might be done if there were a more judicious outlay of some portion of those revenues. This it was which led to the appointment by the late Government of the Commission presided over by the Duke of Cleveland, and whose inquiry was to be as to the revenues of the colleges as they at present exist, and as they might be expected to exist at a definite time. That Commission reported towards the close of 1874. In one sense it was a most satisfactory Report. It showed that the idea—if the idea ever existed—that the colleges mismanaged their property was wholly without foundation. They say— The cost of the management as presented in the synoptical table appears to us very low. On the whole external income it only averages £2 15s. 10d. per cent. I think, my Lords, the owners of private estates would consider that a very satisfactory management of their own properties as regards the cost. Again the Commissioners remark— The average lettings, the absence of arrears, and the apparently small amount of losses from tenants testify to the care and vigilance of the Bursars. I think, therefore, my Lords, that there is nothing in the management of the property of the University to call for the censure or even for the interference of Parliament. But, on the other hand, the Commissioners go on to notice, as one remarkable thing arising out of their inquiry, a point to which it would have been impossible not to direct the attention of Parliament. One point brought prominently out in the result of the inquiry is the great disparity between the property and income of the several colleges and the number of the members. When that number is small the expense of the staff and establishment is large in 795 proportion. And now let me explain why we undertook to legislate on the University at all. It is a work I undertook with great reluctance, and I do not think Her Majesty's Government would have entered upon it at all if they had not felt that there was an absolute necessity for their so doing. It is not desirable, if it can be avoided, that the interference of Parliament should be invoked, because such interference is calculated to disturb the studies of the University and to excite hopes that cannot be realized. But when we came to look at certain figures and the deductions that lay in those figures, we felt it would be idle to think that Parliament could abstain from interfering, or that we could conscientiously recommend Parliament to do so. I will venture to put before your Lordships what I know are hostile figures. I say that the view of those figures I am about to submit is the hostile view, because it is a superficial view; I know that they are capable of very much modification—but this superficial view of those figures will be the one that will be popularly taken, and makes the interference of Parliament inevitable. In the first place, it is calculated that within the next 15 years an addition of no less than £123,000 a-year will be made to the collegiate revenues. It may be said—" If this addition is only expected 15 years hence, why interfere thus early?" But your Lordships know that any changes made in the application of the revenues of the University will only take effect after a lapse of time, inasmuch as existing interests have to be respected; and if 15 years elapse before the income of the University is increased by the sum I have named, that will be about the time at which these changes now proposed will be fully carried out. Again, it is not only the prospective income of the college which is to be regarded—we have an actual income to examine. Taking together the whole corporate income and tuition fees, but deducting money borrowed and money received on behalf of the University, and other necessary deductions, it appears that the average income per undergraduate in all the colleges is £203. But when we come from the colleges as a whole to particular colleges we have very different results. The income per undergraduate in all the colleges is £203; but in Exeter it is only £97, in 796 Trinity £96, and in Baliol £75. If University education were provided in all the colleges as cheaply as at Exeter, there would be at present a saving annually of £165,578; as cheaply as at Trinity, there would be a saving annually of £167,129; or as cheaply as at Baliol, a saving annually of £197,700. In any of these cases there would be a very large saving, and with such figures before us, on the surface of the Report, I hold that it would be impossible to avoid dealing with the question. I do not say that this is otherwise than a partial and hostile statement. I do not say that these figures are not capable of explanation, but under the circumstances as they appear legislation cannot be avoided. Of course, there are exceptional charges which have to be defrayed by some colleges, in connection with additional buildings or the management of estates, or with respect to museums or libraries. There may be other circumstances which will explain the difference between the colleges. I only quote the figures to show that in this case action on the part of Parliament would not be a gratuitous and wanton interference by the State. It may be urged that the colleges individually may come and ask to have the necessary legislative changes. But another and great complaint is that, while the colleges are rich, the University is poor, and you cannot expect that the result of an application by each college would be a scheme which would work economically for the whole. You might as well expect economy and good order to result from the proceedings of 20 different architects building a club-house, each of whom came forward with a plan of one room in the club-house to suit his own views. But where does the money go? The £200,000 is not thrown into the sea. With a great number of different bodies, some large and some small, of course the expense of the small bodies will be out of proportion to that of the large ones. The real gist of the whole question lies in the Fellowships and in the giving men £250 and £300 a-year without any duties attached to the Fellowships in right of which they receive that amount. I do not believe that any one starting fresh in the matter would ever think of establishing rewards of that kind. They are, no, doubt, given for success in certain examinations; but these are not of a remarkably high order, and several 797 of a similar kind are held every year. A sum of £250 or £300 is attached to Fellowships to which no duties are attached, and the man who receives it may, if he chooses, remain in idleness for life. No one would now for the first time suggest such an arrangement. It is not only out of all proportion to the service for which it is a reward, but it is out of all keeping with the course adopted in respect of all other positions in life. If a man succeeds in the Army, you promote him, but give him a more responsible command; in the Church, if a man succeeds, you make him a Bishop, and give him ten times more labour. In the Civil Service, when you give a man increased pay, you call on him to fill an office of higher trust. Only in this case of Fellowships to which no duties are attached do you reward merit by absolute idleness. It is against the whole law of public life. In public life, if a man succeeds, you give him more important work, but not idleness. Throughout the whole of English life the principle of the reward of success is the giving an opportunity for harder work, but not idleness. In the Bill of 1854 the authors of that Bill saw the evil and endeavoured to provide against it. They suggested that there should be work attached to those Fellowships. But there was great opposition. In the end Commissioners were appointed; and the Commissioners, though they wished to make a fundamental alteration, did not care to make an effectual alteration. The plan of "idle Fellowships" was not in accordance with the designs of the Founders, who always attached residence and duties to the Fellowships. I should not have encouraged the Commissioners to interfere with old endowments, but if they did I should have wished them to carry out their own plans thoroughly in the interests of education. I am afraid they adopted a compromise maintaining the appearance of one system while adopting another. But they had to contend against great difficulties. At all events, it is a comfort to know that the University has become thoroughly alive to the evil of this state of things, and from it we shall meet with no opposition in applying such remedy as may be thought necessary. It seems that if all these "idle Fellowships" were to be done away with and no one were to hold a Fellowship without doing educational work, we should save—I 798 will not say that I am speaking very accurately—a sum of £50,000 to £60,000 or £80,000. That, under an improved system, could be applied to University purposes. There are now from 220 to 230 of these Fellowships not filled by any person occupying an educational office. At £250 per Fellow that would give a disposable sum of £55,000 a-year. These are monies we have got in hand. First I will ask, what are the objects to which it is desirable those resources should be applied? My Lords, I should shrink from defining the objects by any answer of a theoretical nature, for a reason which I have already given—that these matters had better be left to the practice and experience of the University itself; but I should suggest that the recommendations of the Committee of the Hebdomadal Council afford a good indication of present requirements. That Committee speaks of a new library, new museums, and new schools, and that for them there would be an immediate demand for £110,000. They also say that additional rooms are required for the Professors and for public lectures, and for unattached students and local examinations. I think I may estimate that a capital sum amounting, on the whole, to £210,000 would be required for those objects. This would represent, according to the usual rate of interest on buildings, £12,000 a-year. Besides that, the Committee of the Hebdomadal Council press strongly the necessity of increased remuneration for those who are engaged in academical education—and no one can for a moment look at the facts without seeing that at Oxford is singularly below that afforded to persons engaged in professional occupations elsewhere. There are Professors at £800, £600, £300, £200, and even at £100. Compare those annual stipends with what is paid in other departments. If a man is a great clergymen, you make him a Bishop and give him £5,000. Your highest classes of Civil Servants have from £1,500 to £2,000, in the India Office the Indian Councillors have £ 1,200. I need not in this audience say what are the incomes given to successful politicians; but in whatever direction you make the comparison the sums paid to the Professors at Oxford seem miserably low as measured with those paid to men in other professions. And that is in these days, when the competition is not for men to get places, but for places to 799 get men. I do not believe that less than £1,000 a-year, with a fair pension besides, will secure the highest talent for these Professorships. You must remember that the times have changed since all the teachers at Oxford were clergymen and had the endowments of the Church for a reward. The teachers are not clergymen now, and if we want to get the best men we must get them from other sources than that which formerly supplied them. I do not know that what is available from the whole of the "idle" Fellowships will be required for University purposes, and I do not venture to lay down the principle that no Fellowship should exist which would give the holder no educational work and which should last for a few years. It may be wise to maintain a few of them, limiting the holding of them to a certain number of years; but I do venture to lay down that all the University wants in the shape of museums, libraries, lecture-rooms, and the proper payment of teachers should be provided for before the subject of furnishing incomes to men who do nothing can be entertained. My Lords, these being the objects we have in view, it may be well to state what money we hold to be available. In the Report of the Commissioners a distinction is drawn between the general income of the colleges and the money held by them in trust—those which they hold for trusts not yet executed. We propose to interfere very little with trusts. The Commissioners are to make no statute affecting any University or college emolument unless the endowment has taken effect for more than 100 years; and where the trust has existed from before that period, they shall, unless it has ceased to be observed, or has been varied by Act of the Legislature pay regard to the main design of the Founder, while the details by which it is to be carried out may be properly modified to meet altered circumstances. But besides these two classes of trust funds, there would still remain a vast residue of revenue over which they would be able to exercise control and to apply for such purposes as they thought best. There is a large amount of property the trusts of which they cannot, so to speak, "ear-mark," or say that it had descended from the Founder for any particular college—all we can say is that from the first they have been regarded as designed for the general purposes of the University. Where the trusts have 800 not been departed from, the Government propose to adhere to them; but with the other revenues, which had already been made subject to successive changes, the Government consider that it is open to them to deal with as Parliament should think fit. Your Lordships will recollect that the legislation of 1854 was commenced with a Bill containing minute provisions directing how various changes were to be made, what arrangements were to be made, what principles were to be adhered to, and what kind of machinery was to be employed; but as time went on it was found impossible to settle all these details by Act of Parliament, and a Commission was subsequently appointed. We propose now to begin at the point where the Act of 1854 ended. We propose to provide by means of the present Bill that each college in the University shall have an opportunity during some 18 or 20 months after the passing of the Act of drawing up and laying of statutes before the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill, and on such statutes receiving the approval of the Commissioners they shall become law. After the end of the year 1877, as to such colleges as shall not have pursued the course provided by the Bill, the Commissioners will step into the places of the Universities and the Colleges respectively, and they will have power to promulgate statutes which will be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if not objected to by either House will become law. Under the Act of 1854 the power given to the Commissioners was checked by a provision which enabled two-thirds of the voting power in any college to reject any proposal which they deemed prejudicial to their own particular college. Under the Bill to which I am now asking the attention of your Lordships, this will be altered by reason of the fact that we are proposing to apply the endowments for the benefit of the University generally. I may say that we propose so to provide for the appointment of the Commissioners as that the wishes of the University generally in reference to questions affecting its revenues shall not be disregarded. With respect to the individual colleges, we propose that before the Commissioners proceed to deal with questions affecting particular colleges such colleges shall have the power to nominate three Members to sit with the Commissioners, in order that while the 801 revenues of such colleges shall be applied to objects calculated to benefit the University as a whole, the interests of single colleges shall not be affected in a manner which could prove unduly injurious. Your Lordships will see that such a scheme as this depends very much upon the Commissioners to be appointed, and I will not, therefore, discuss it further until the names are before your Lordships. I should have preferred that the wisdom of Parliament could have laid down the lines upon which the Commissioners shall act; but as an attempt in that direction failed in 1854, when a strong Government was backed by a fierce enthusiasm for reform, I think it would be a conspicuous and an egregious error to attempt anything of the kind now. All I have to do now is to show what duties the Commissioners will have to perform. We propose that in dealing with the University the Commissioners may make provision from time to time for affording further or better instruction in art or science; for providing endowments for professorships or lectureships; for erecting and endowing professorships or lectureships on arts or sciences not already taught in the University; for providing new or improving existing buildings, libraries and museums, and collections and apparatus. The proposal with regard to the colleges is somewhat similar, and also provides that college revenues may be applied to the maintenance and benefit of persons of known ability and learning, who may be engaged in study or research in the realms of art and science in the University. The only point in this connection to which I wish to call attention is that referring to "research." We are of opinion that the mere duty of communicating knowledge to others does not fulfil all the functions of an University, and that the best Universities in former times have been those in which the instructors, in addition to imparting learning, were engaged in adding new stores to the already acquired accumulation of knowledge. There are new sciences which have gained and others which are pressing for admission to the Universities, and I think no one can doubt that it is for the interest alike of the students and of the nation at large that such sciences should have full encouragement. As instruments for the culture of the human mind the classics will always 802 retain a superior place; but there are many minds on which the influence of the classics falls with little or no effect, and which are so constituted by nature that it is only from the harder and more exact branches they can obtain the development which is necessary for their perfecting. In their interest alone, therefore, it is desirable that the study of the exact sciences and of the sciences which rest upon the investigation of nature should be fully encouraged. I need not say how far such studies are for the benefit of the nation at large. Another consideration which weighs upon me in urging the claims of research to a full recognition is that in recent times it has suffered some detriment from the fact that it has been pursued by men who have not possessed arms sufficiently robust to enable them to fight their way. I have no doubt that when the pursuit of research is encouraged and made a part of the regular and recognized machinery of the University, this state of things will cease—we all know the difference between Office and Opposition. What I am particularly anxious for is that all branches of culture should have equal encouragement, and should be regarded, not as rivals, but as allies in the great and difficult task of cultivating and developing the human mind. There is little else with which I need trouble your Lordships. The Universities have, no doubt, a difficult task in the present age to perform, and they need all the assistance which you can give them. They have, at a time when every branch of human knowledge is progressing at railway speed, to maintain themselves, as it were, at the head of the advancing column, and not to loose their precedence and power. The Universities have hitherto united a singular reverence for what is past with a willingness to admit and recognize the value of those gifts of discovery which the future may have in store for them. They are in some respects analogous to that union of order and freedom which we politically look upon as the only security for the stability of any State. And we feel in the present chaos of opinion, at a time when beliefs of all kinds and on all subjects appear to be loosening their hold, it is of especial value to give every facility to, and to take every opportunity of maintaining in their fullest efficiency, 803 institutions which combine those dispositions of mind on which alone any-sound and progressive culture can rest. The noble Marquess concluded by presenting the Bill of which he moved the First Reading.
Bill for making further provision respecting the government of the University of Oxford, and of the Colleges therein. Presented by the Marquess of Salisbury.

§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE
observed that the noble Marquess had confined his speech exclusively to the University of Oxford, but his observations had, with some modifications, a general bearing also upon the University of Cambridge. He trusted to hear that it was the intention of the Government to propose legislation in respect of the latter University during the present year. The announcement in Her Majesty's gracious Speech that it was proposed to deal with the subject of the Universities had, he might venture to say, been received with great satisfaction at Cambridge. The colleges already possessed considerable powers, but there were such difficulties in making use of them that without the interference, or rather assistance, of Parliament, it was not probable that anything effectual would be done.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
expressed a hope that ample time would be given to their Lordships and to the University to consider the provisions of this important measure. It was most desirable that noble Lords should have full time for communicating with those engaged in academical teaching.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
agreed that it would be quite out of place to discuss at present a measure of which they were only partially in possession. He would observe, however, that the whole excellence of the proposed scheme must depend upon the selection of the Commissioners who were to carry it into effect. He had every confidence that the greatest care would be taken to select men who would command the confidence not only of the Universities, but of the whole country. A short time had passed since the last Commission reported; but 804 of those who sat upon that Commission only two, he believed, were still living—Lord Harrow by and the Dean of Wells. The Universities owed a debt of gratitude to those Commissioners for the work which they performed under very great difficulties, and discouragement. He ventured also to say that the Universities and the country also owed something to the original Commission, of which he had the honour of being a Member, and which, under still greater disadvantages, first originated some of those changes which had borne good fruit in the Universities and produced great benefit to the country. He believed that whatever further benefits would arise from the present proposal would be greatly owing to the labours of those two Commissions. He fully concurred with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that it would be altogether out of place to attempt to carry any reforms which were not approved by the Universities themselves. Those who had practical experience were of course those who would be likely successfully to carry forward reforms in these matters. But, looking to the past, he could not conceal from himself that it was desirable that a little external pressure should be brought to bear upon the Universities, and that it would not do to trust either the Universities or the colleges with the entire management of the reforms, for he believed they were not an exception to the rule which had been found to exist everywhere, that hardly any corporation was capable of entirely reforming itself without external pressure. He desired to call the attention of the noble Marquess to one other point. It was, he gathered, by no means the intention of the Government to absorb all the revenues of which he spoke in such a manner as that no "idle Fellowships," as the noble Marquess called them, should hereafter exist. Those "idle Fellowships" might, he thought, be a little misunderstood. No doubt, men who for years past had done nothing for the University and but little for the community should yet be in the enjoyment of Fellowships was a great evil; but he thought it would also be an evil if in all cases the gaining of a Fellowship were immediately to be followed by a giving up of himself on the part of the Fellow to the profession of teaching, or even to a residence in the University and the carrying 805 on of research. He thought Fellows should be allowed to enjoy their Fellowships for a term of years. They all knew that there was scarcely any profession to which the new Fellow could devote himself in which, during the first few years, he would not have a struggle to maintain himself; and greatly would the value of the prizes of the University be diminished if the young men who obtained them did not feel that they were securing for themselves, at least, for a few years, the means of meeting the difficulties which awaited them, and ultimately of distinguishing themselves in those professions to which they purposed to devote their lives. In conclusion, he trusted that the measure would, as it deserved, receive the full attention of their Lordships and the country, and he could not but hope that the University to which he had the honour to belong would be greatly benefited by the proposals of Her Majesty's Government.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
, in reply, said he was anxious not to be misunderstood by the most reverend Prelate. He hoped he should not be thought drawing a too minute distinction when he endeavoured to point out the difference between an "idle Fellow" and an "idle Fellowship." An idle Fellowship might be filled by a very busy man. He did not desire to cast any reflection upon those who held those Fellowships—all he desired was that in filling them for the future the educational wants of the University should be first considered before any other claim was entertained. The Government did not propose to do more than indicate the general tendency of their views to the Commissioners, as they should never approve trying them down, say, to allowing of the existence of no Fellowships but such as were associated with University work. With respect to what had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire) they were but following precedent by dealing with one University at a time. The Oxford Bill was introduced one year (1854), and that affecting Cambridge two years after. They did not, however, mean to follow precedent so far as that—all he meant to say was that it was less confusing to have one Bill at a time before Parliament. Should the present Bill, on examination, meet with the approval of Parliament, a Bill in respect of Cambridge University 806 would then be introduced. The noble Earl who spoke next (the Earl of Morley) had asked that ample time should be given for the consideration of the Bill; but he was sure the noble Earl would not wish to see the measure run upon the sands of July. His view, to which he supposed no Peer would be inclined to offer any opposition, was that it would be better to fix the second reading for a tolerably early day, and so allow more time for the Committee—for he imagined the Committee would take more time than the second reading. He therefore proposed to take the second reading on that day fortnight.