Page images
PDF
EPUB

The right of debating is virtually annulled by the necessity of speaking in Latin at all times. It is true that a dispensing power in this matter is vested in the Chancellor ; but except at the election of Burgesses, this power has been exercised, so far as we know, only on one occasion, namely in 1845, when Mr. Ward was heard in English in his own defence. Few Members of Convocation are now able to speak fluently in Latin, and a custom has arisen of reading written speeches. But even written speeches are seldom delivered, and, from the nature of the case, they can produce little impression.

Convocation seems to have a statutable veto on the important appointment to the office of Vice-Chancellor; but the power of rejecting a person nominated by the Chancellor is now, practically at least, abrogated. Whether or not it was conceded by the Laudian Statutes, we are not aware that it was ever claimed till the year 1844. In that year the nomination of the Warden of Wadham was opposed. It is understood that the opinion of eminent Counsel was taken by the Hebdomadal Board; and that it is in consequence of the opinion then obtained, that the consent of Convocation to the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor has not since been asked. Before that year, the question of approbation or disapprobation had always been put to the House.

The only legislative power then which practically belongs to Convocation is the power of accepting or rejecting without amendment the measures proposed to it by the Hebdomadal Board.

The Veto of the Vice-Chancellor and of the Proctors.

The Laudian Constitution vested in the Vice-Chancellor singly, and in the two Proctors jointly, a Veto on all measures brought before Convocation. This power is analogous to that which in the University of Cambridge belongs to each of the five Members of the Caput.

* Statut. Univ., Tit. xi., § 3.

STATE OF PUBLIC OPINION.

349

The Veto intrusted to the Vice-Chancellor is rarely if ever exercised, except as a matter of convenience, when Statutes are proposed clause by clause to Convocation, and the rejection of one clause may have rendered necessary the withdrawal of others which follow and are dependent on it.

The Veto intrusted to the Proctors was exerted on several occasions in the last century; in the present, we believe, three times only;-once in 1825, on a proposition to appoint a Delegacy; again in 1836, in order to prevent a censure on Dr. Hampden; lastly, in 1845, when a proposition was made to condemn certain principles laid down in the 90th "Tract for the Times."

Such generally is the Constitution of the University, as it was finally confirmed by King Charles I. and Archbishop Laud, and as it has ever since remained.

Present state of Public Opinion with regard to the
Constitution.

As to some parts of this Constitution no dissatisfaction has been expressed. No one desires any interference with the high office of the Chancellor. To the powers of the Vice-Chancellor and to the mode of his appointment no objections of moment are made. With regard to the former we have no suggestions to offer; with regard to the latter, suggestions on matters of detail only.

But as to Convocation and the Hebdomadal Board, the complaints are loud and general, and the evidence which has been laid before us on the subject is copious, explicit, and, in its general principles, unanimous. One voice only has been raised in defence of the present system. It is, however, the voice of an eminent man who is himself a Member of the chief governing body. "I am satisfied," says Dr. Cardwell, Principal of St. Alban's Hall,* "with "the present constitution of the University, and believe that "in the hands of honest and able administrators it is, upon

* Evidence, p. 264.

"the whole, better calculated than any other hitherto pro"posed to discharge its proper duties."

Objections to the Hebdomadal Board.

The dissatisfaction respecting the Hebdomadal Board is very strong. Grave objections have been urged against its composition and powers, not by one party only, but by persons of various opinions in the University.

We have before shown that the power of legislation belonged in early times to those who were actually engaged in giving instruction, and that causes of a temporary nature in a great degree determined the successive interventions by which the government of the University was reduced to a narrow oligarchy. There is no reason why an arrangement which may have been thought at one time advisable, whether from State-policy, or other motives, should be perpetuated for ever. It is anomalous that the government of this great Institution should be committed to persons, the great majority of whom are elected by the Fellows of the separate Colleges out of their own narrow circle, often for reasons of a personal or social nature, and with little or no regard to the welfare of the University. It is more anomalous still, that the literary interests of the University should be committed to persons who are not necessarily chosen for literary qualifications; while, on the other hand, the Professors and the Tutors have, as such, no right to suggest or amend or even to discuss any measure, how much soever it may affect the literary and educational interests of the place; and can, at most, reject or accept what is proposed to them in Convocation, in common with hundreds of others whose sole title to interfere is a Degree.

For a full appreciation of the feeling which prevails in the University against the present constitution and powers of the Hebdomadal Board, we must refer to the Evidence itself.*

* Evidence, p. 82. Compare evidence of Prof. Walker, p. 22; Mr. Jowett, pp. 30, 31; Mr. Stoddart, p. 239; Prof. Ogle, p. 41; Mr. Mel

NEW INFLUENCES REQUIRED.`

351

We will content ourselves here with quoting one passage only, from the Evidence of Professor Vaughan, in which this subject is briefly and temperately discussed: "Whatever "(he says) may be the merits and efficiency of this part of our present Constitution, it is not a fundamental and aboriginal system. And I cannot but think that it is 66 somewhat more exclusive in its character than can be

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66 necessary or beneficial. The Heads of Colleges are "elected by their respective societies, and owe their promo"tion to the confidence which these bodies repose in them. "This confidence may arise from a sense of past services, "or the acknowledgment of qualities adapted to manage "the details of finance, property, and discipline; or from "social merits calculated to govern and harmonise the society. But the Heads of Houses do not necessarily, or ❝even very generally, follow literary and scientific pursuits. "Nor are they directly and closely connected with the "instruction of the place. They simply appoint the Tutors, "and preside with more or less activity at the terminal examinations in College. They live generally with their "families, and do not immediately imbibe the spirit or learn "the wishes of those who more directly carry forward the "instruction. They constitute a most valuable element for legislation as well as administration; but I think that it "would be advantageous if, in addition to this, other influences were admitted to give their aid in suggesting and "framing the laws of the University."

66

66

66

The unanimous expression of dissatisfaction in every part of the Evidence in which this subject is handled confirms our own conviction, that into any plan for University Reform must enter some modification of the Academical Constitu

ville, pp. 57, 58; Mr. Bart. Price, p. 60; Mr. Wilkinson, pp. 72, 73; Mr. Cox, pp. 93, 94; Mr. Strickland, p. 99; Mr. Temple, p. 133; Mr. Freeman, p. 135; Prof. Wall, p. 151; Mr. Congreve, p. 152; Dr. Twiss, p. 155; Sir E. Head, p. 160, Mr. Litton, p. 175; Mr. Bonamy Price, p. 192; Mr. Griffiths, p. 202; Mr. Henney, p. 206; Mr. Foulkes, p. 223.

tion, as regards the legislative powers now almost exclusively confided to the Hebdomadal Board. With respect to the nature of the change required, however, there is not (as might be expected) the same concurrence of opinion as there is with regard to its necessity. The different plans proposed, or at least indicated, in the Evidence, may be classified under three heads.

I. Proposal to increase the Powers of Convocation.

Some persons would modify the powers of the Hebdomadal Board simply by investing Convocation with the right of debating and of amending all propositions submitted to its vote.*

The objections to this scheme are very strong. It is not desirable to invest a large promiscuous body with extensive powers of legislation, especially in matters affecting education. Even if this were desirable, Convocation would not answer the purpose. It consists of more than three thousand members scattered throughout the country. Few of them, comparatively speaking, can rightly apprehend or even fully learn the nature of the measures submitted to their vote. Measures of reform brought forward by the Hebdomadal Board have often been thwarted or defeated by the adverse votes of Convocation.

Moreover this plan leaves to the Hebdomadal Board its sole right of initiating measures; and the Board, always jealous of Convocation, would become much more so, in case its measures were made liable to alteration. Supposing it to retain its sole right of initiation, its movements would become slower than ever.

Further, as regards the elective powers of Convocation,

* Evidence of Mr. Strickland, p. 99; Mr. Freeman, p. 135; Mr. Foulkes, p. 223; Mr. Stoddart, p. 230.

+ Compare evidence of Prof. Walker, p. 22; Mr. Jowett, pp. 30, 31; Mr. Wilkinson, p. 72; Mr. Temple, p. 135; Mr. Congreve, p. 152.

« PreviousContinue »