14 JULY 1855, Page 13

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL ON SHORE.

LAUNCHED utterly unprepared for the winds and waves of dis- cussion, piloted feebly and with uncertain aim, the Cambridge University Bill has reached the House of Commons only to drift on to nowhere and to nothing. Whether the Ministry of Lord Palmerston really wished to pass the bill this session or not, we cannot tell ; but they could have taken no more effectual method of preventing it than they have done. The puzzle is, what possible motive they could have had for wishing either to obstruct or mu- tilate a reform which subsequently to the passing of the Oxford Bill was a logical and political necessity. So, we suppose, the failure must be attributed to the incapacity of the Lord Chancellor for the work that -was imposed on him, and the indifference of the rest of the Government. Taken with all its features, the cir- cumstance is a tolerably rich specimen of the cool neglect with which important practical interests are sacrificed to the whims or lazinesses of 'individuals. For it may be fairly asserted, that of the four thousand members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge, three-fourths would have been perfectly competent to draw the bill in a couple of evenings, and that a single night's dis- cussion in each House of Parliament would have been ample time for settling the clauses which are not of necessity mere reprints of the Oxford Bill.

As it must have been perfectly impossible for any person, how- ever well-informed on University topics, to understand the report in the newspapers of the one debate which did take place in the House of Lords on the bill, and as the provisions of the bill have received frequent alteration, it may be serviceable if we briefly state what the bill in its present state proposes to enact. The in- terval of time that will elapse before next session of Parliament will not be all wasted if the opinions of the great majority of members of the University can be brought to bear upon those persons who will finally decide the form of the new constitution of the University.

The powers exercised at present by the Caput Senatus are to be transferred to a body consisting of sixteen members, four Heads of Colleges to be elected by the Heads, four Professors to be elected by the Professors, and eight Members of the Senate, not being either Heads or Professors, to be elected by the residents, with the limitation that there are never to be more than two mem- bers of the same College among these eight. The Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor are to be ex-officio members of the Council, and the Vice-Chancellor will be its regular chair- man, though in his absence the members present may appoint a chairman from among themselves. Half this Council will vacate office every two years, and after the first election the members elected to fill the vacancies will hold their offices for four years, and will be redigible. This arrangement, with the excep- tion of the sectional mode of election, which we think inferior oh general principles to that adopted at Oxford, is in accordance with the suggestion made in the Spectator in criticizing the Lord Chan- cellor's original proposition of electing the eight members by a system of College nomination after a cycle of rotation. No change is proposed to be made in the powers at present exercised in their corporate capacity by the Heads of Houses. The Vice-Chancellor will still be a Master of a College, nominated in rotation by the Heads. A petition adopted in a public meeting of Members of the Senate under the presidency of the Proctors, to make the Council instead of the Heads the body to choose the Vice-Chancellor, has been rejected by the House of Lords, or rather the Government. Very strong opinions on the importance of this change are generally held at Cambridge. Many go so far as to say that the new constitution will be worthless and impracticable without it. We do not go this length. The action of the Heads will be materially modified by the operation of the new Council. The Vice-Chancellor will no longer have a veto upon measures to be proposed ; a change which alone makes an immense practi- cal difference. Unquestionably, the Heads still retain a power very disproportionate to their real worth as a class- or function in the University ; but this they would in any case possess, so long as the Colleges form the University, which they must do till far greater changes than those at present contemplated ripen in the course of time. Altogether, we are inclined to think that an undue importance has been attached to this question of the Vice-Chancellorship ; and though we should prefer to see the office filled by election of the Council, and the constitution thus broil& into theoretic harmony with itself, we have little doubt that any very dangerous power of the Vice-Chancellor and the Heads has received a coup-de-grace by the removal of the Vice-Chancellor's single vete. There is, however, no reason why an effort should not be made before the bill shall be shall next session, to make it in this respect as well as others conformable to the wii.thes of the general, body of the University. The rights of Dissenters have been conceded beyond the original' limits of the bill, by admitting them, as we suggested, to all non- theological degrees, without making:

' them members of the Senate.

This is a step in advance of the Oxford Bill. If Dissenters, c on - Bider it but slight matter for congratulation, they should remember that every step however slight is a gain in-time and a furtherance of the true principle. It is not the fault of the .supporters of this true principle that these gradual concessions appear pitiful, mean, and stinted. Nor let Government be blamed too severely. Even with respect to this very bill, the Senate of the University of Cam- bridge, which could not be allowed to express itself officially on any other part of the subject, was, under the system of its present government, juggled into adopting a petition against admitting Dissenters even to the extent already beforehand recognized by _the Oxford Bill. We say juggled, for we believe that many per- sons who voted for that petition .really were ignorant of the extent to wbioh it went. It may be worth while for Dissenters to make vigorous efforts during the recess for pushing their cause a step farther, and demanding full admission to degrees, with all its na- tural consequences of privilege and function. There are many men at Cambridge who would hail the final settlement of this ir- ritating question, and the Liberal party in Parliament would cer- tainly support them if success were at all within range of pro- bability. The last point we desire to notice is the selection made of Com- missioners to carry out the details of new arrangements with the Colleges and Schools. We some time since alluded plainly to the extreme dislike with which the appointment of the Bishop of Chester and Lord Monteagle was viewed at Cambridge. With respect to the latter, it is felt that while he has no claim to in- fluence in any arrangements that concern the University, either from his character, his pursuits, or his antecedents, there are positive reasons which render the appointment open to great ob- jection. It is invidious to enlarge upon this topic, but it is un- questionable that at Cambridge the choice of Lord Monteagle is as unpopular as that of any Peer of Parliament of considerable _notoriety could be. The appointment of Dr. Graham is perhaps still less approved; because it is no matter of mere suspicion but well-ascertained fact, that whatever was objectionable in tone or .substance in the report of the Cambridge Commissioners was due .to the saponaceous pertinacity of the Bishop of Chester. It was be who disgraced that report by the flunkeyish emphasis given to the mention of Prince Albert's astounding portrait at present hung in the Fitzwilliam Museum. It was he who, we have reason to believe, prevented the report from touching upon the objections generally entertained to the powers of the Heads. It is he who alone of the Commissioners withheld his Signature •from the letter on this subject recently addressed to the Lord Chancellor. He is be- aides a man of many and oily words rather than of serious pur- pose. And since we last wrote upon the subject, Professor Sedg- wick has, from indisposition, felt himself compelled to decline the duties of the new Commission. There is not left in the body .a single resident member of the University, or a single person who has ever been a Professor. Those who are sincerely anxious that the interests of the University and of the Colleges shall be honestly, earnestly, and intelligently considered in the future arrangements, ought not to shrink from insisting on a change in the personnel of this Commission. Persons thus disposed may be assured that any movement in this direction will meet with general support and applause in Cambridge. It is felt there, that Lord Monteagle _ and the Bishop of Cheater ought not to be upon the Commission, and that at least one eminent person who either is a resident at Cambridge or has filled.an important post there should be placed upon it.