OPINION AT CAMBRIDGE ON THE GOVERNMENT
MEASURE FOR REFORMING THAT UNIVERSITY. WE asserted in two papers on the Cambridge Reform Bill now be- fore the Lords, that the resident members of the University enter- tained strong objections to the main provisions of the measure, and would in all probability make the two Houses of Parliament acquainted with their opinions and wishes. If a striking proof of the necessity of altering the constitution of the University of Cam- bridge were required at this late stage of discussion on the general subject, it would be furnished by the circumstances under which our prediction has been verified. On Monday, before Lord Ellen- borough's debate began, the Lord Chancellor announced that a pe- tition had been presented signed by a large number of residents, demanding changes of such magnitude in the bill, that it was ne- cessary to put off the discussion for a week to give time for the consideration of those changes. Before the day so appointed, another petition, also signed by a large number of residents will be presented, demanding another set of changes, as important and extensive as those in the former petition. The two petitions em- body the principles laid down in our first paper, on the intro- duction of the bill, and make known to the Legislature the desire of the residents that the power hitherto exercised by the Heads of Houses in their collective capacity shall be transferred to the pro- posed Legislative Council ; and that the portion of the Council which is to represent those members of the Senate who are neither Heads nor Professors shall be elected, not by nomination of Colleges as the bill proposes, but by the resident members of the Senate, Heads and Professors excepted. The two petitions will therefore, if successful, go far to assimilate the new Cambridge constitution to the constitution granted last year to Oxford. The differences that remain are, that Cambridge submits to the sectional mode of electing the Legislative Council, leaving the Heads to elect their representatives, the Professors to elect theirs, and the Senate to elect theirs. Moreover, no power is asked for the Senate of deliberating in English on the acts of the Council : and, in deference to the fear of the smaller Colleges, an enactment is provided that of the eight members of the Council to be elected by the Senate not more than two shall at any time be chosen from the same College.
• Our anticipations, therefore, of what the opinion of the Univer- sity was likely to be on the proposals of the bill, have turned out correct almost to the letter. But the circumstances attending this expression of opinion deserve notice, as a striking proof of the rigid oligarchy under which opinions at the University have been so long stifled. It would have seemed only natural, that when Parliament was in the act of legislating for an University and of providing it a new constitution, the opinion of the University should have been expressed authoritatively through its constituted organs. The University of Cambridge is in the habit of petition- ing Parliament on ordinary occasions by a grace of the Senate, and under its corporate seal and title. But in the present case, when its whole future career is at stake, and when if ever, such a solemn mode of approaching the Legislature would have beseemed the importance of the occasion, the Senate is dumb, and the immense majority of residents are compelled to hold extra-official meetings, and to address their petitions to Parliament only as so many indi- vidual members of the Senate. The reason is, that no grace of the Senate can be introduced against the veto of the Vice-Chancellor ; and so' in spite of the evident propriety of obtaining the decision of the Senate on the bill now before Parliament, no such attempt has been made. The majority of residents know that they have no power to compel the''Vice-Chancellor to introduce a grace to petition against the bill; and the Vice-Chancellor and the Heads know too well what the real opinion of the residents is, to venture to attempt to pass a grace in frvour of the bill Can we have a more striking proof of the detestable nature of the tyranny under which Cambridge University has suffered, and the attorney-like spirit with which the tyranny has been exercised, than that, even
Palmerston seeks him as a star to astonish the provinces. With when the system is expiring, its upholders should gratify their malice by refusing to ow the Senate its legitimate right of ex- pressing its opinion by petition on a measure so vitally interest-. ing to the University ? And these are the men—the grave, wise, and reverend seniors—to whom a Whig Government would prac- tically continue the monopoly of power by their new bill. We trust that by this time the Lord Chancellor is a little better aware, than when we last had occasion to mention his name in connexion with the bill, of the wisdom and trustworthiness of the authorities whom he principally oonsulted in drawing it up ; and will per- haps now allow that he would have done better not to speak of the persons opposed to his measure as a fraction of the re- sidents so contemptible in numbers as not to deserve a moment's attention.
We have no hesitation in saying, that at Cambridge the Go- vernment proposals are regarded as an outrage; and we regret to add, that the names of the Commissioners appointed under the bill are viewed with little more favour than the bill itself. We dis- like speaking of persons in a way to throw a slur upon them, but it is necessary that the Government should be told that two names could scarcely have been selected from the whole Peerage so little likely to command respect at Cambridge in the character of Uni- versity Commissioners as those of Lord Monteagle and the Bishop of Chester. The appointment of the former, in particular, is looked on with indignation, in which contempt largely mingles. Neither his political career nor his University distinctions have won him honour at Cambridge; and he is thought likely in this matter to be too much under the influence of a distinguished connexion of his own, whose opinions, whatever weight they may have in some quarters, are in Cambridge not regarded as irrefragable principles of action. Lord Burlington has shown by his whole career that he has no taste for public life, whatever his talents and accom- plishments may be. Professor Sedgwick is a man of great per- sonal popularity, of enlightened views, and jealous for the honour of his University. If he would really devote himself to the work of the Commission, no man could be fitter for it but will he ? Mr. Lefevre and Baron Alderson are men of great ability and industry ; but have they leisure for more work than their offices already impose ? It is thought that Lord Monteagle and the Bishop of Chester will be the working Commissioners ; and we are sure that if their names were put to the vote in the Senate of the University, that august body would very plainly express its dis- like of seeing its affairs intrusted to their hands. We hope some one will have the boldness to propose names in which both the University and the English public would have more confidence. We want, on the one hand, men who thoroughly understand the University. and College systems, and the relations of both with the Grammar Schools of the country ; and on the other, men who have made themselves known by their large and practical views of the wants of the nation in regard to the Universities. There can be no necessity for confining the field of choice to either the Episco- pal bench or the ranks of the Peerage ; but there are Bishops abler men of business and of stronger mould than his Lordship of Ches- ter, and certainly there are Peers in abundance to whom the Uni- versity and the nation would intrust a business of this nature far more willingly than to Lord Monteagle, better known as the Right Honourable Thomas Spring Rice. •
Previous page
