Suggestions of the Royal Commissioners respecting a direct Enactment for the removal of Restrictions on the Election of Members of Colleges, arising from Birthplace or Parentage.

It now remains for us to inquire by what means the removal of these restrictions can be effected.

We have stated that the Founders of Colleges have not left any permission to alter their Statutes, and that the limitations on the choice of electors to Fellowships being definite, and likely, for the most part, to be defended by interested parties, have been on the whole adhered to. There may be Colleges which have no wish to see them removed. But some Societies, anxious to secure the services of able men, have done something for themselves by explaining statutable limitations as mere preferences which were of little moment. It has been thought that more extensive relaxations might be obtained in this manner. Visitors, again, have endeavoured, in a few cases, to effect changes of this kind. At Balliol a Statute regarding the age and election of the Candidates for Scholarships was wisely rescinded in 1834 by the joint act of the Visitor and the College, though in defiance of the Statutes, which forbid alteration. All Souls and New College (as we have stated) called in the authority of their Visitor for the purpose of limiting the number of Founder's kin, whom they are bound by their Statutes to receive in preference to all other candidates.* We are aware of the mode of interpretation which is applied in our Courts of Law to Acts, more particularly to early Acts of Parliament. But even if there were no injunctions of Founders and no oaths to bar alteration, we think that this mode of interpretation, if applied to College Statutes, would,

* See Mr. Dampier's Sub-report.

† 2 Inst. and Plowd. Index. Tit. "Statute."

SIR WILLIAM FOLLETT.

59

for many reasons, be found inconvenient and inadequate. Not many years back the Society of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, having applied for an alteration of their Statutes, Sir William Follett, then Your Majesty's Attorney-General, having considered the reasons which were urged for this mode of interpretation, concluded that although it might suffice to explain away certain difficulties it would not fully meet the case, and he advised Your Majesty's consent to a total alteration, as requested by the Society. The opinion and authority of so eminent a lawyer will, we apprehend, be conclusive in the minds of most persons. But, even if the means which the law provides were sufficient, it would be better to deal with the case frankly by means of a direct enactment than to attain the end by means which, though justified by legal analogies and precedents, often resemble what Waynflete, in a passage already quoted, characterized as "sinister interpretations "foreign to the scope of his intention." It is an evil that men should be forced to do by indirect means what is right and honourable in itself. And granting that the decisions of Courts of Law and of Visitors were always sufficient, it by no means follows that Colleges would have the will or the courage to adopt what seems to set aside the injunctions of their Founders.

For many reasons therefore, and amongst others, because the property of Colleges is not and cannot be applied as the Founders directed; because it is now often made useless, and sometimes worse than useless; because experience has shown that the efficiency of a College, and the services which it renders to the University, are in direct proportion to its freedom from restrictions; because the particular restrictions imposed by Founders now really defeat their paramount objects, and are wholly unsuited to the present state of the Empire; because the changes proposed are by no means greater than those which the Colleges have already admitted in almost all respects; because such changes are essential to the success of almost any attempt to increase the numbers,

to extend the studies, or to improve the instruction of the University; and lastly, because the Colleges cannot remove restrictions without external assistance; we are of opinion that the Legislature should relieve College Foundations from all limitations in the election of their Members, whether arising from birthplace or parentage. We are of opinion, that all Your Majesty's subjects should be equally eligible. “It would be wise," says the Bishop of St. Asaph,* “where possible, to open Foundations to persons born in the "colonies; ties such as these bind human beings more than "fleets, armies, or Acts of Parliament."

66

In the application of the general principle, there should, however, in our opinion, be two exceptions: the first, in favour of Schools connected with Colleges; the second in favour of the Principality of Wales, to which a part of its exclusive rights at Jesus College might with propriety be reserved. But as these exceptions relate chiefly to Scholarships, not to Fellowships, our reasons will be best stated hereafter.

Besides the local and family restrictions imposed by Founders, there are some others, namely, those which confine Fellowships to persons of a certain age, or of a certain academical standing, and to persons who are or have been scholars of the College.

The restrictions of age are rare, and, comparatively speaking, unimportant. At All Souls and Jesus College, the Fellows at the time of their admission, must be between the ages of 17 and 26. The age at which Students now come to the University is so different from that at which they came in the times when the Statutes were imposed, that any regulations on this subject have become objectionable, and ought to be removed.

What we have said of the restrictions of age applies with greater force to restrictions of academical standing. Some Fellowships, as at Queen's, are confined to Masters of Arts, some are open even to Undergraduates. These restrictions

* Evidence, p. 164.

RESTRICTIONS FROM DEGREES.

61

were imposed, when, from the early age at which Students entered the University, the relative signification of all the Degrees, as marks of academical standing, was very different from that which they now bear. The Degree of a Master then was what the Degree of a Bachelor is now; and it was on this ground that, at Queen's, a Bachelor of Arts was very recently elected to a Fellowship, to which by Statute only Masters are eligible. What was in this case done unstatutably, should be rendered lawful generally, in order to save Colleges from the great evil of excluding candidates from Fellowships, at the very period of their career when a Fellowship is most valuable. On the other hand, there is in the present state of things, no reason why Undergraduates should be eligible to Fellowships. Fellowships having

ceased to be what they were once, means of supporting actual Students, Undergraduate Fellows are now placed in an anomalous position, often injurious to themselves, and inconvenient to the rest of the body. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Degree of Bachelor of Arts ought to be a qualification for a Fellowship, but that no other requirements as to academical standing should be made.

It is a much more serious evil that many Fellowships are restricted more or less closely to those who are, or have been, Scholars on the Foundation. This connexion is enjoined by the Statutes of Corpus, of Trinity, of Wadham, of Jesus, of Pembroke, and of Worcester, and by the regulations of the Bennett Foundation at University College. It is also the case by practice, though not by Statute, at Magdalen. A similar preference, by long custom made absolute, exists at Queen's. In a large College, like Trinity at Cambridge, where the Scholarships are open and given by merit, and where the Fellows are elected from the Scholars but only after an Examination, this restriction is of little importance; and, as tending to draw a great Society into closer harmony, may be even beneficial. But in small Colleges where the Fellows succeed, as must be the case if there are but few Scholars, without competition and almost

as a matter of course, the limitation is injurious alike to the Society and to the individual Fellows. It is injurious to the Society, not merely because it is obliged to elect its Head and Fellows from a very narrow circle, but because the evils which once grow up within that circle are thus perpetuated. It is injurious to the individuals, because the prospect of a provision for life, thus offered to a Student at the outset of his academical career, has a natural tendency to damp his energy and industry. "In all cases," says Mr. Temple, "it is most important to forbid Scholarships to "lead to Fellowships. It is extremely hurtful to give "young men, on first coming up, a provision which makes "all future exertion unnecessary. Nor does it seem ad"visable even to allow a cæteris paribus preference to "Scholars standing for Fellowships in their own College: a preference will be given involuntarily by the turn of the "examination, and it is not advisable to add to this prefer66 ence. To show how marked that preference is, it may be "observed that at Balliol, where ten of the twelve Fellowships are quite open to members of other Colleges, eight "of the ten are filled by former Scholars of the College."

66

66

We are of opinion, therefore, that this connexion between Fellowships and Scholarships should cease, wherever it exists, and inasmuch as the same evil is found under another name at New College, Christchurch, and St. John's, where the Studentships or Fellowships differ from Scholarships only in name, and are given to young men as soon as or even before they enter the University, in these Colleges we shall have to recommend that a division be made between Undergraduate and Graduate Fellowships, so that those who have held the former should no longer have the claims which, according to the present practice, they have upon the latter.

Evidence, p. 131. Evidence of Mr. Bart. Price, p. 61.