Later Victorian Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value

Cambridge The city of Cambridge received its royal charter in 1201, having already been home to Britons, Romans and Anglo-Saxons for many centuries. Cambridge University was founded soon afterwards and celebrates its octocentenary in 2009. This series explores the history and influence of Cambridge as a centre of science, learning, and discovery, its contributions to national and global politics and culture, and its inevitable controversies and scandals.

Later Victorian Cambridge This is the last of four books on the history of Cambridge University by the distinguished historian and Fellow of Trinity College D.A. Winstanley. First published in 1947, the year of his death, it covers the period from 1860 to 1882, when new University Statutes resulting from the recent Royal Commission were implemented in the face of considerable opposition. The author records with evident satisfaction that during this period a number of important reforms were finally achieved. Meticulously researched and documented, the book is far from being a dry account of committees and accounts. Winstanley’s energy, enthusiasm, and taste for quirky detail is evident throughout, as he describes allegations of a college Mastership obtained ‘by crooked means’, the University’s power to arrest and imprison young women on the merest suspicion of prostitution, the reasons behind the ban on college Fellows marrying, how the stringent religious tests were eventually relaxed, and how educational standards were raised by a raft of measures including better teaching, restructured subject areas, and tougher examinations. This book remains a valuable resource for historians of Cambridge University and of educational policy and reform more generally. As G.M. Trevelyan states in his ‘memorial note’ at the beginning of the book, ‘Cambridge is much indebted to Winstanley for supplying it with a full and scholarly record of its growth. For all time to come reference may be made to this work with confidence in its fairness, wisdom, and accuracy.’

Cambridge University Press has long been a pioneer in the reissuing of out-ofprint titles from its own backlist, producing digital reprints of books that are still sought after by scholars and students but could not be reprinted economically using traditional technology. The Cambridge Library Collection extends this activity to a wider range of books which are still of importance to researchers and professionals, either for the source material they contain, or as landmarks in the history of their academic discipline. Drawing from the world-renowned collections in the Cambridge University Library, and guided by the advice of experts in each subject area, Cambridge University Press is using state-of-the-art scanning machines in its own Printing House to capture the content of each book selected for inclusion. The files are processed to give a consistently clear, crisp image, and the books finished to the high quality standard for which the Press is recognised around the world. The latest print-on-demand technology ensures that the books will remain available indefinitely, and that orders for single or multiple copies can quickly be supplied. The Cambridge Library Collection will bring back to life books of enduring scholarly value across a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences and in science and technology.

Later Victorian Cambridge D enys Arthur Winstanley

C A M B R i D G e U n i V e R Si T y P R e S S Cambridge new york Melbourne Madrid Cape Town Singapore São Paolo Delhi Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, new york www.cambridge.org information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108002271 © in this compilation Cambridge University Press 2009 This edition first published 1947 This digitally printed version 2009 iSBn 978-1-108-00227-1 This book reproduces the text of the original edition. The content and language reflect the beliefs, practices and terminology of their time, and have not been updated.

LATER VICTORIAN CAMBRIDGE

LATER VICTORIAN CAMBRIDGE By D. A. WINSTANLEY VICE-MASTER OF TRINITY COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1947

Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge (Brooke Crutchley, University Printer) and published by the Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, and Bentley House, London) Agents for U.S.A., Canada, and India: Macmillan

D.A.W. A Memorial Note Denys Arthur Winstanley was born in December 1877, the son of Howard Winstanley. He was educated at Merchant Taylors and came up to Trinity as a Sub-Sizar on VerralTs side in 1897. He got firsts in the History Tripos in 1899 and 1900, and in 1901 was Lightfoot Scholar. From 1903 to 1906 he was in north England as a school inspector and then returned to Trinity as Fellow and Lecturer. In the first World War he did intelligence work in Egypt. In 1919 he became Tutor, and in 1925 Senior Tutor. In 1935 he succeeded Parry as Vice-Master. His work as school inspector and intelligence officer gave him that experience of the outside world that helps to make the right sort of don and the right sort of historian. As Lecturer and as Tutor he won the affection of successive generations of undergraduates. As teacher of history he had an extraordinary power of interesting young men in the subject, and filling them with his own infectious enthusiasm. Handled by him the death of Charles Yorke in 1770 became once more a matter of living concern. The present volume is, in effect, the last instalment of his history of the University of Cambridge, carried down from the middle of the eighteenth century to the goal of the Statutes of 1882, beyond which point in time he never intended to proceed. He has thus completed his life's work, and the publication of Later Victorian Cambridge leaves the University he loved in possession of a full and worthy record of the period that is perhaps the most important in her annals. The two former volumes—Unreformed Cambridge (1935) and Early Victorian Cambridge (1940) were of a piece with this last volume, and with it form a single work. The still earlier volume, Cambridge in the Eighteenth Century (1922) had a different scope and character. The introduction to that volume contains indeed an essay on the peculiarities of the mid-eighteenthcentury University and Colleges, but the main part of the book was confined to a record of the Duke of Newcastle's exploitation of his position as Chancellor of the University for political purposes. That record, however, serves to connect Winstanley's earlier works on the national politics of the mid-eighteenth century with the history of the University which occupied the later years of his life. The earlier works, excellent in themselves, were

VI

A MEMORIAL NOTE

Personal and Party Government 1760-66 (1910) and Lord Chatham and the Whig

Opposition (1912). Clearly he was led on from those purely political studies to undertake the history of the University by his intermediate study of the Duke of Newcastle's proceedings here, a virus in the diseased body of unreformed Cambridge. All the books I have mentioned have been published by the Cambridge Press. His work is based on profound and accurate scholarship; it is eminently just and it is enlightened by insight into the men of the past, Whewell and Adam Sedgwick for example, as shrewd and humorous as his insight into his own contemporaries. It is true that his wit came out more strongly in his conversation than in his writings. The history of the University must to a large extent be a record of institutions and statutes; but whenever there is a story to be told of personal controversy he always tells it most interestingly, most fully and most justly, as in the cases of the Peterhouse Mastership in 1787; Christopher Wordsworth and Thirlwall; and Robinson's vote in this last volume. Happy is the University that has such an historian. Cambridge is much indebted to Winstanley for supplying it with a full and scholarly record of its growth. For all time to come reference may be made to this work with confidence in its fairness, wisdom, and accuracy. Incidentally, lovers of the immortal Gunning will be able to test and correct his statements, many of which were only hearsay recollected in old age. Winstanley's volume is all the more needed because Mullinger's massive work only carried down the history of the University from the earliest times to the middle of the seventeenth century. The gap between Mullinger and Winstanley is to some extent filled by Monk's Life ofBentley, one of the greatest of British biographies. Winstanley was peculiarly fitted by temperament and opinion to write the history of 'Unreformed Cambridge' and its gradual adaptation to modern requirements. He was by nature a Liberal and a reformer, buthehad a great love of the past and a reverence for all tradition and custom that could reasonably be revered. He could understand the feelings of the academic Conservatives of the past while dissenting from the policies for which they had contended. He usually agreed with the reformers whose efforts he chronicled, but was quite capable of criticising their particular actions. Both as a historian dealing with the past, and as a friend and colleague in actual life, he could be severe, not on opinions, which he could always

A MEMORIAL NOTE

vii

tolerate, but on manners and character of which he was always a shrewd and dispassionate judge. As his many friends will always remember, but as posterity alas can never experience, his conversation was enlivened by a pungent wit which fastened on the foibles of human nature and held them up gently to ridicule. He was not a loud or continuous talker, but in the Combination Room or by his own fireside he kept the ball of conversation moving with quiet skill, and his own incursions into the talk were the best part of it. His hospitable and social instincts found full play as Vice-Master of Trinity, especially during the War of 1939-45, when he worked indefatigably and with great success at entertaining the American and other military visitors of the College. He died on 21 March, 1947. His life and work both as an historian and as a member of the University and of the College were singularly complete and perfect. G. M. TREVELYAN

CONTENTS Memorial Note Preface

page v xi

Chapter!. R O B I N S O N ' S V O T E The election of C. K. Robinson to the mastership of St Catharine's. Rumours that he had obtained the mastership improperly. G. F. Browne and Shilleto. Manifesto to members of the Senate from the Fellows of St Catharine's. Reply of F. J. Jameson. Jameson and Robinson. The events immediately preceding the election. Suggested explanation of Jameson's anger. pages 1-19 Chapter II. T H E J U D G E S A N D T R I N I T Y C O L L E G E Coke's visits to Trinity. Subsequent visits of other Judges. Whewell and the Judges. Whewell and the belief that Trinity Lodge is a royal palace. The question of the reception of the Judges at the winter assizes. The opinion of Counsel. Settlement of the dispute. pages 20-35 Chapter III. T H E R E L I G I O U S T E S T S (1862-1871) The Royal Commissioners and the religious tests. Effects of the tests. The party opposed to the tests. Cambridge petition against them (1862). E. H. Perowne's defence of them. Parliamentary action. General Election of 1865. Continuation of Parliamentary action. Supporters of the tests. The meeting at Cambridge in November 1869. A Joint deputation to the Prime Minister from Oxford and Cambridge. The Government Bill of 1870. The controversy at Cambridge over the conduct of the Council of the Senate. The Universities Tests Act of 1871. pages 36-90 Chapter IV. T H E C A M B R I D G E U N I V E R S I T Y AND CORPORATION ACT Sir John Patteson's award. The powers of the Proctors and the Spinning House Court. Emma Kemp. Cautious policy of the Proctors. Arrest of Jane Elsden. Council of the Senate and the Borough Council. Advice of the Proctors. Arrest of Daisy Hopkins. Application in Court of Queen's Bench for writ of Habeas Corpus. Meeting of rate-payers. Action by Daisy Hopkins for false imprisonment. The Borough Council prepare to appeal to Parliament. Reopening of negotiations between Council of the Senate and the Borough Council. Agreement between the two bodies reached. The Cambridge University and Corporation Act. pages 91-143

X

CONTENTS

Chapter V. E D U C A T I O N A L REFORM (1860-1880) Reform of the Previous Examination and ordinary degree course. Criticism of Voluntary Theological Examination. Establishment of the Theological Tripos. Compulsory Greek. School Certificates and the Previous Examination. Renewed protest against Compulsory Greek. Poll-men and the lectures of Professors. The Moral and Natural Sciences Triposes. The Professorship of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy. The Cavendish Professorship. Reform of the Natural Sciences Tripos. The Double Honours Syndicate. The Law and History Tripos. The History Tripos. Establishment of an Indian and a Semitic Languages Tripos. Reform of the Classical Tripos. Reform of the Mathematical Tripos. The Smith's Prizes. Honours Examinations in the Easter Term. pages 144-235 Chapter VI. T H E T R I N I T Y

REFORMERS

The reformers among the Fellows of Trinity and the Statutes of 1860-1861. The effects of WhewelFs death. The programme of the reformers. The pamphlet of J. L. Hammond. The appointment of a committee for revising the Statutes. The draft Statutes. The Crown postpones approval. Election of W. Aldis Wright to a fellowship. pages 236-262 Chapter VII. T H E S T A T U T O R Y C O M M I S S I O N E R S AND THE UNIVERSITY The appointment of a Royal Commission. Agitation for and against reform. The appointment of a Statutory Commission. Internal reform. Appointment of the Teaching Syndicate. Appointment of a Syndicate for professorships. Revision of Statutes by Council of the Senate. Divisions in the Council. Trinity College and the Council of the Senate. Presentations to benefices by the University. The Questionnaire of the Commissioners. Draft Statutes of the Commissioners. The Representation of the Council of the Senate. The fifteen draft Statutes and the Council of the Senate. Memorials on the fifteen Statutes. Concessions by the Commissioners. The Dixie Professorship of Ecclesiastical History. Dr Kennedy and the Regius Professorship of Greek. The Regius Professorship of Divinity. pages 263-332 Chapter VIII. T H E S T A T U T O R Y C O M M I S S I O N E R S AND THE COLLEGES Trinity College and the revision of its Statutes. Revision of their Statutes by the other Colleges. The Commissioners and the Colleges. Heads of Houses. Entrance scholarships. Tenure and value of fellowships. Protests by the Masters of Magdalene and Corpus. The Master of Caius' Easter sermon. pages 333-359 Index

361-367

PREFACE I complete with this volume the task I set myself of telling the story of the University of Cambridge in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for the time has not yet come to continue that story after 1882, when the statutes, framed by the Commissioners, became operative. I have, however, exceeded this limit in describing the events which led up to the Cambridge University and Corporation Act of 1894; but as the conflict between Town and Gown, from which that Act emerged, was, happily, the final stage of an ancient feud which I discussed in an earlier book, it seemed fitting to include it. It seemed equally fitting to exclude from this survey the University Extension Movement and the admission of women to University education; for any account of these important developments would be very imperfect unless carried well into the twentieth century. I must also explain that after this book was in type I found among the University Papers in the University Library a printed copy of Dr Butler's letter of 19 May 1890, which is referred to in a footnote on page 95. It confirms the opinion I expressed that Dr Butler wished, the Proctors to be more active; but it should be added that he emphatically advised them to make sure, before arresting a woman, that she was a 'known prostitute on the list kept by the police'. It is also clear that he had consulted the Proctors before writing the letter, and that they were in agreement with him. The authorities I have used are indicated in the footnotes. Until October 1870, when the first number of the University Reporter was published, the large collection of University Papers in the University Library is invaluable, and, as it is admirably classified, it can easily be used. I have also found the documents in the University Registry equally indispensable, particularly the minutes of the meetings of the Council of the Senate and the Statutory Commissioners; and I am greatly indebted to the Council of the Senate for permitting me to see these and other papers. I wish, further, to express my gratitude to the Council of my College for allowing me to use the College documents, and to the Borough Council of Cambridge for giving me access to the minutes of their meetings.

xii

PREFACE

I am also deeply indebted to some of my friends for generous assistance. My account of the reform of the Classical Tripos owes much to Professor D. S. Robertson; and I owe to Lord Wright the interesting statement of the law about the hearing of cases in private, which appears in a lengthy footnote on p. 140. And I am under a very heavy obligation to Professor Winfield, for he read the greater part of my book in typescript, and saved me from many errors and inaccuracies, particularly in matters of law. It is a great pleasure gratefully to acknowledge assistance so kindly given. D. A. W. August, 1946

Chapter I ROBINSON'S VOTE IN January 1861 Dr Philpott, who had been Master of St Catharine's College for fifteen years, was nominated for election to the See of Worcester, and as he did not resign the mastership until the following September,1 the candidates for that office had plenty of time to weigh their chances and develop their plans. It seems to have been generally assumed that as the Senior Fellow, Joseph Milner, did not intend to stand for election, the prize would fall to one of the two Fellows next in order of seniority, Charles Kirkby Robinson and Francis James Jameson, though the claims of one of the ex-Fellows, Ralph Blakelock, may have been considered.2 Robinson could reasonably hope to succeed Dr Philpott in the mastership. He was senior to Jameson on the roll of Fellows, and moreover a St Catharine's man, which Jameson was not; and as Bursar of the college he had acquired considerable knowledge of its affairs. Yet, as he was possibly aware, he might not be personally acceptable to the Society. Though a kindly man, and much admired in evangelical circles for his piety and pulpit eloquence, he was reserved, secretive and had a somewhat furtive manner; and consequently was thought by some of his colleagues to be rather sly and underhand. Jameson was a far more popular character. He was frank and generously minded, fond of his friends and disposed to think the best of them; and though a migrant from another college, it was by no means unlikely that a majority of the Fellows of St Catharine's would prefer him to Robinson as their Master. But though the prospect attracted him, it also troubled him. It was largely due to Robinson, with whom he was intimate, that he had been elected to a fellowship of the college;3 and he might well 1 "The Bishop of Worcester's resignation of the Mastership arrived to-day, dated September 30th." Diary of C. K. Robinson (in my possession), 1 October 1861. * In a letter to Blakelock, dated 5 November 1861, Dr Philpott remarked: "I am verysorry that the Fellows did not take you for their new Master. It would have been so pleasant to find an old friend at the Lodge whenever we visited Cambridge." This letter is in a small collection, made by the late Mr J. W. Clark, of papers and pamphlets connected with the Robinson-Jameson controversy, which is now in the University Library. It will henceforth be referred to by its press mark, Cam. b. 861. 1. On the evening before the election one of the Fellows informed Jameson that the " election would lie entirely between myself and one of the late Fellows", and the late Fellow was possibly Blakelock. F. J. Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 8. 3 Statement by Dr G. F. Browne, 4 December 1916. This Statement is to be found in W. H. S.Jones's History of St Catharine*s College (1936), pp. 140-143, and will henceforth be referred to as G. F. Browne's Statement.

WMC

2

ROBINSONS VOTE

doubt whether he could decently enter the lists against his friend and benefactor. The resignation of the Bishop was followed by the Senior Fellow announcing, in accordance with the statutes of the college, that the Fellows would assemble for the election of a new Master at seven o'clock on the morning of Wednesday, 16 October; and when on that day Joseph Romilly, the Registrary, heard the bells of Great St Mary's ringing, he hurried round to St Catharine's to learn how the election had gone, for he was a friend of Robinson, and hoped that he would be elected to the mastership.1 He was therefore very pleased when he heard that Robinson had been elected, and at once sent him a congratulatory note. Later in the day Robinson returned the courtesy by calling at the Registry, and in the course of their conversation Romilly unwittingly put an awkward question: he asked whether he could congratulate the new Master on "unanimity of election". His improper curiosity was baffled by Robinson's reply that the electors were bound to secrecy.* On the following Monday Robinson left for Scotland, and three days later was married to Miss Clifford Stewart of Pittyvaich.3 But while he was enjoying his honeymoon, unpleasant stories about him were circulating in Cambridge. On Friday, 25 October, George Leapingwell, one of the Esquire Bedells, told Romilly that there was "a talk in the town of Jameson's complaint of ill usage in the recent election to the mastership of Catharine, viz. that Robinson did not vote for him [Jameson] as he expected him to do, because he [J] had voted for Robinson", and a few days later Romilly heard much the same gossip when calling on some Cambridge friends.4 And as stories grow in the telling, it soon came to be rumoured that Jameson and Robinson had agreed to vote for one another, and that while the former had kept the compact, the latter had broken it by voting for himself. This was a gross perversion of the facts, but many persons, and among them Dr Philpott, accepted it as true. The Bishop of Worcester, when Master of the college, must have been in close personal contact with Robinson, and it is not without significance that he was almost over-eager to believe the worst of him: "I fear that the story is too true", he wrote to a friend on 5 November.5 Robinson had certainly voted for himself, but so had Dr Philpott when he stood for the mastership of St Catharine's in 1845, and this practice was not confined to one college: in 1852 Dr Guest had secured the mastership of 1

Diary ofj. Romilly, 16 October 1861. Romilly was a regular attendant at Christ Church, Barnwell, of which Robinson was the Vicar. 2 Diary ofJ. Romilly, 16 October 1861. 3 Diary of C. K. Robinson, 21 and 24 October 1861. 4 Diary of J. Romilly, 25 October, 3 November 1861. 5 Cam. b. 861.1.

ROBINSON S VOTE

3

Caius by his own vote. Consequently, if this had been the only charge against Robinson, he would not have been deemed to have committed more than a venial offence, and perhaps not even that; for though lawyers had ruled that electors, being trustees, could not act in their own interest, Cambridge lay opinion did not consider it very reprehensible for them to do so. Moreover, if electors to a mastership had been strictly forbidden in any circumstances to vote for themselves, it would sometimes have been very difficult in a small Society to obtain a statutable majority for any of the candidates: if, for instance, Dr Philpott had not voted for himself, no election could have been made.1 But the breach of faith of which Robinson was accused was indefensible. On 26 October Robinson received a letter from Jameson, in which dissatisfaction with his conduct at the recent election was expressed, and as he did not immediately return to Cambridge, it was probably assumed that he was afraid to do so, having no adequate defence.2 The assumption was baseless, for he was detained by the illness and subsequent death of his father;3 but the delay was very unfortunate, as it allowed opinion to harden against him. When he returned to Cambridge on Saturday, 23 November, he found that he had been judged and condemned in his absence, and was naturally deeply distressed. He confided to Romilly "that he had been so harassed and afflicted that he had often wished that he had never been Master".4 1

Romilly received, an account of Philpott's election to the mastership from the latter's brother-in-law, Maddison. "Dr Procter", he recorded, in his diary, "died on Monday, and the election began on Friday morning. The Junior (F. Procter) voted for Philpott, Goodwin did the same and Dr Philpott voted for himself, whereupon Corrie gave no vote but said *I agree (or I acquiesce)'. Corrie behaved as well as possible under his disappointment: he accompanied Philpott to the Vice-Chancellor, and on the Sunday morning (which was Sacrament Day in college) preached on 'brotherly love'." Diary ofj. Romilly, 17 November 1845. There were only four electors on this occasion, and if Dr Philpott had voted for the other candidate, who was Corrie, and Corrie had voted for himself or abstained from voting, there would have been no election, as the statutes then in force directed that no one could be elected to the mastership who had not received the votes of a majority of the electors. 2 G. F. Browne in his Statement, dated 4 December 1916, mentions that Mrs Robinson told him that her husband found Jameson's letter awaiting him at Risplith Manor, and. Robinson notes in his diary that he arrived at Risplith on 26 October. Again quoting Mrs Robinson, Browne describes the letter as running something like this: " Sir, as things touching your honour are being said here, it would be as well if you returned as soon as may be." Jameson, in his Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 12, gives a far less melodramatic, and. almost certainly a more correct, description of his letter. " On the Saturday after the election", he states, "he sent me a note, returning me the warmest thanks for my * noble act' in resigning the mastership to him. I replied, repudiating any thanks beyond what might be due to me as having, I trusted, acted towards him honourably and as a friend." Probably it was quite clear from the letter that in Jameson's opinion Robinson had. not so acted. 3 Robinson's father died on 10 November. Diary of C. K. Robinson. 4 Diary of J. Romilly, 2 December 1861.

4

ROBINSON S VOTE

But he did not spend himself in idle lamentations. Believing that he had a complete answer to the accusations brought against him, he wrote an account of the election, which he certainly would have published ifJameson, on learning of his intention, had not warned him that he could not leave it unanswered, and that much scandal would be caused "if the affair was thus brought to a public, hostile discussion".1 If Robinson had been a selfish man, he probably would have disregarded this warning, for his silence was being interpreted as an admission of guilt; but, preferring the good fame of his college to his own, he agreed with Jameson that they should seek the advice of Dr Philpott, who happened to be on a visit to Cambridge. Unfortunately Dr Philpott gave the wrong advice. The true story of what had happened might have been obtained if both Jameson and Robinson had published their apologies when the events they recorded were fresh in their memories; and the reputation of the college had nothing to gain and much to lose by illinformed and malicious gossip being left in possession of the field. Dr Philpott however seems to have thought it better that the college linen should remain dirty than undergo a public washing; and it was at his suggestion and in his presence that Robinson and Jameson, having given their word of honour "that no document professing to give a statement of the election should be issued by either of us", signed on 12 December a statement which, far from iUuminating, intensified the darkness. "We, the undersigned", it runs, "having heard that certain rumours are abroad relative to the late election to the mastership of St Catharine's College, desire to state our belief that there was some misapprehension in the mind of each of us as to the intention of the other. Mr Robinson gives full credit to Mr Jameson's assertion that he, not wishing to vote for himself, gave his vote for Mr Robinson under the expectation that Mr Robinson would abstain from voting for himself. On the other hand Mr Jameson gives full credit to Mr Robinson's assertion that he had no intention of taking any unfair advantage of Mr Jameson's vote, but that Mr Robinson believed at the time that Mr Jameson's vote was given in his favour without the expectation that he would abstain from voting for himself." Peace-makers, though always blessed, are not always successful, and Dr Philpott's eirenicon was met with suspicion, disgust and disappointment: "The lame statement of Robinson and Jameson", recorded Romilly, "is printed in to-day's paper, it will scarcely give satisfaction to anybody; it greatly annoys Sedgwick, who is peculiarly interested in the matter, as the Master of St Catharine's is (ex officio) Prebendary of Norwich." 2 1

F.J.Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 13. Diary ofJ. Romilly, 14 December 1861. The document was published in the Cambridge Chronicle. A canonry of Norwich was attached to the mastership of St Catharine's, and Sedgwick was a Canon of Norwich. 2

ROBINSON S VOTE

5

Nor was the faith of those who firmly believed in Robinson's guilt shaken. "As it seems", wrote a former Fellow of St Catharine's to a friend, "you have not seen the manifesto to which Jameson has been kind enough to attach his name, I send it to you to read and see whether it does not leave the matter just where it was. Jameson, weak in declining to vote for himself—Robinson, with a sharpness worthy of a Yankee, taking immediate advantage of the amiable weakness—and Joe Milner weakly sanctioning a clear piece of roguery."z The explanation of this very unfavourable reception is that the joint statement, though correct, was incomprehensible except to the very few who knew the facts. It twitched the curtain which concealed the true story of the election, but did not lift it. Though it definitely declared that there had been a misunderstanding, it did not reveal how that misunderstanding had arisen; and it is therefore not surprising that it was generally regarded as a desperate effort to save the reputation of the college by burying the scandal alive. Even the important revelation which it contained—that Robinson had never pledged himself to vote for Jameson, and that Jameson had never believed that he had—was generally overlooked. Several years later a supporter of Robinson asserted in a letter, which was afterwards published, that he had "heard it stated frequently in Cambridge and in various parts of England that Mr Jameson and Mr Robinson had made an agreement to cross votes, and that Mr Robinson broke his promise in voting for himself".2 Thus Robinson remained under the reproach of having committed a particularly shameful deed, and was constantly reminded that he was in disgrace. Though most of the Heads of Houses called on him, William Bateson, Master of St John's, and possibly George Corrie, Master of Jesus, abstained from doing so; and though Whewell invited Robinson and his wife to dinner, he appears to have gone out of his way to be particularly rude to them when they came.3 But Robinson had to suffer more cruel and more public affronts. The famous classical scholar, Richard Shilleto, seems to have taken a malicious pleasure in holding him up to scorn and ridicule, and he wrote some particularly cruel Greek verses, which were published in the Independent Press.* 1

F. Procter to R. Blakelock, 20 December 1861. Cam. b. 861.1. Correspondence between G. F. Browne and R. Shilleto (1868), p. 15. 3 J. W. Clark was present at the dinner and reports WhewelTs rudeness in a note in Cam. b. 861.1. Corrie is reported to have said that Robinson's election "is the purest election that has taken place at St Catharine's for two centuries, but I shall not call on Dr Robinson". Ibid. But in a letter bound up in a copy of the Life and Letters of Adam Sedgwick in Trinity College Library, it is stated that Bateson was the only Head who did not call on the Robinsons. 4 It is doubtful whether Shilleto was responsible for the publication of these verses. Diary ofj. Romilly, 17 December 1861, 28 January 1862. 2

6

ROBINSON S VOTE

But scandals tend to pass away unless stimulated, and the dark stories about Robinson might in time have been forgotten if he had not given them a new lease of life by proceeding in May 1867 to the degree of Doctor of Divinity, propter dignitatem. His enemies, roused into activity, decided to challenge what seemed to them an attempt at rehabilitation; and James Porter of Peterhouse and W . M. Gunson of Christ's gave notice of their intention to non-placet the Grace for his degree. If they thereby intended more than a gesture they were disappointed, for on 2 May the Senate passed the Grace by eighty-three votes to twenty-six;* but the fact that any votes were cast against it indicated with terrible clearness that some members of the University still thought Robinson guilty of a particularly mean fraud. The Fellows of St Catharine's were very indignant at the public insult thus inflicted on their Master, being convinced of his innocence. But they might not have gone so far as to challenge an inquiry if they had not found a leader in G. F. Browne, who believed in Robinson's honesty with all the zeal of a convert. He has himself told the story of his conversion. "After taking my degree in 1856", he wrote in after years, "I was never in Cambridge between June 1857 and the early part of 1863, in which last year I was elected to a Fellowship and entered upon residence. I had been very much put out by the serious discredit of the controversy about the Mastership of the college, and had taken my name off the Boards of the college, my view being hostile to Robinson. On the ground of that hostility I had refused the offer of a Fellowship and lectureship, preferring to remain at Trinity College, Glenalmond. About three months later a second offer of a Fellowship came, and as I was then in a poor state of health, I accepted it and went into residence. On my first night in Cambridge I walked till late at night on the grass plot with the Rev. E. W. Crabtree, an old schoolfellow and then Tutor of the college, hearing from him all the details of the election of the Master;"2 and it was this conversation which began Browne's conversion. The favourable opinion which he subsequently formed of Robinson's character completed it. "I have watched the Master closely for the last five academical years", he wrote to Aldis Wright on 26 May 1868, "and I am firmly convinced of his unflinching honesty. The facts of the election are to my mind a complete exoneration when only they are fairly known." 3 1 On 16 May Robinson entered in his Diary that he had been " admitted this day to the degree of Doctor of Divinity by special Grace, Laus Deo". 2 G. F. Browne's Statement, 4 December 1916. 3 This letter is bound up in a volume of University pamphlets in Trinity College Library, the press mark being 98 C. 85. 4.

ROBINSON S VOTE

7

Though in 1865 Browne vacated his fellowship by marriage, he continued to serve the college as Chaplain and Praelector; and in the hope of righting a great wrong, he resolved, with Robinson's warm approval, that the next time an offensive remark was made about the Master "in my presence on any public occasion, I should publicly demand an explanation".1 He had not long to wait. He dined at King's on the night of Sunday, 19 April 1868, and in the course of conversation in the Combination Room after dinner the name of Wodelarke, the founder and first Master of St Catharine's, cropped up; and when Henry Bradshaw, correcting Browne, said that Wodelarke's Christian name was Robert, Shilleto most offensively remarked that, if so, he had a worthy successor in Robinson. The pun was atrocious, though not too bad for Browne to fail to understand that his Master was being called a robber; 2 but, being a guest and unwilling to make a scene, he merely uttered a protest and let the matter drop. Before leaving however he cryptically remarked to Shilleto that, were it not Sunday, he would say something which would change his opinion, and on the day following sent him a letter which Shilleto characterised as "almost in the old style of'pistols and coffee'". "I must renew my protest", wrote Browne, "against your remarks in the Combination Room of King's yesterday, respecting the successor of Robert, our Founder. I thought it better on many accounts to say nothing more about it at the time. I have a right to ask you now on what definite ground, which you are prepared to support by evidence, you made so serious an imputation against the Head of a college in presence (sic) of an official of the college. Of all things I dislike personal controversy, but in the interests of truth and of my college I can never allow such words as those you used to pass unchallenged. I write with all due regard to your standing and position, and only because I should be acting unworthily if I suffered the matter to rest as it is."3 The controversy which followed this trumpet-blast does not call for a detailed description. Shilleto, who knew nothing but common gossip about the story of the election, very foolishly asserted that the statement signed by Robinson and Jameson on 12 December 1861 justified his remark, which it most certainly did not; and when driven from this quite indefensible position, he only begged the issue by saying that "if a man steals a leg of mutton and is seen doing so, there is' definite proof ". Yet though Browne had the better cards, he did not play them at all skilfully. He was declamatory and turgid; 1

G. F. Browne, The Recollections of a Bishop (1915), p. 118. The pun was hoary as well as bad, and of doubtful paternity. Writing to Shilleto on 17 December 1861 Romilly described himself as a whole-hearted believer in Robinson, and said that nothing would persuade him to spell Robinson "with 2 (b)s". Diary ofJ. Romilly, 17 December 1861. 3 Correspondence between G. F. Browne and R. Shilleto (1868), p. 3. 2

8

ROBINSONS VOTE

and his triumphant declaration that Shilleto—"the public accuser of Dr Robinson, the perpetrator of ruthless and elaborate cruelties against him—had not ventured to say that Robinson had pledged himself to vote for Jameson", was suggestive of a war communique making the most of a very small success. Indeed, though Browne thought it worth while to print his correspondence with Shilleto for private circulation among the members of the Senate,1 he was quite aware that he had done little as yet to establish Robinson's innocence. He consoled himself with the thought that "opportunities may at some future time arise for advancing another step and yet another, till my full purpose is attained".2 He therefore probably played an active part in the preparation of a manifesto to members of the Senate, which is dated 10 June 1868. In this document, which he and the Fellows of the college signed, various statements were made which, if correct, proved Robinson to be an innocent and much wronged man; but as most of them were unsupported by any evidence, and none of the signatories had any first-hand knowledge of the facts, this doubtless wellmeant effort to right a wrong did not carry much weight. One person who received the document wrote at the foot of it, "these gentlemen were none of them Fellows at the time of the occurrence to which the paper refers, and therefore their evidence is mere hearsay".3 But a graver objection than insufficiency of proof could be brought against it. As Robinson must have sanctioned its issue, and apparently had supplied some of the information it contained,4 he can fairly be accused of breaking the pledge, which he and Jameson had given to the Bishop of Worcester, not to publish any document "professing to give a statement of the election"; and though his breach of faith was defended on the ground that the "mutual agreement to abstain from putting forth any statement after the document issued December 14 18615... was practically brought to an end by the public attack made upon our Master in the Easter term 1867", the excuse was so paltry as to be hardly worth making.6 But the indiscretion, to give it no harsher name, at least served the useful purpose of calling forth a reply from Jameson, who however secured beforehand the Bishop of Worcester's permission to break his pledge of 1

A copy of the correspondence received by Aldis Wright is in a volume of University pamphlets in Trinity College Library, the press mark being 98 C. 85. 4. 2 Correspondence between G. F. Browne and R. Shilleto (1868). 3 See the volume in Trinity College Library, with press mark 98 C. 85. 4. 4 In a footnote the signatories refer to a statement in Robinson's handwriting in their possession, dated 8 December 1861: this was the statement which the Bishop of Worcester dissuaded Robinson from publishing. 5 The date of its publication in the Cambridge Chronicle. 6 Revised Address to Members of the Senate, September 1868. The public attack was the non-placeting of the Grace for Robinson's D.D. degree.

ROBINSONS VOTE

9

1

silence. Jameson's account of the election was studiously fair and moderate; but as Browne and the Fellows of St Catharine's believed that some of his assertions were inaccurate they issued in September 1868 a revised version of their previous statement, in which they questioned the truthfulness of his account, and submitted evidence in support of their own story. T o this second attack Jameson did not reply, and in a letter to a friend explained why he did not do so. "I received this morning", he wrote, "a reprint of the St Catharine's Fellows' Statement, interlarded with comments on my 'Reply'. My own impression on reading it is that it is not worth notice. You must remember that I have not come forward with any wish to enter into a controversy with the Fellows, nor with any one else. I have simply been compelled by their gratuitous bringing forward of the question to state my view of the matter. This I did in no pugnacious spirit, and in as friendly a way as I could. These young Fellows acted pretty coolly towards me in publishing statements about my conduct and motives in a matter about which they had no independent knowledge; and when, instead of apologising now that I have informed them that their statements were incorrect, they again come forward, repeating those statements and adding somewhat impertinent criticisms on my 'Reply*—it seems to me most dignified to be silent. I feel too that this is my proper course for another reason. Dr Robinson is, I think, taking an unworthy line in not himself coming honourably forward, and in using the Fellows to do his work, even so far as through them to give me the direct lie. In my statement I put down what I believed to be true, and gave the impressions which the occurrences made upon me at the time and since then, with as much consideration as possible for Dr Robinson's feelings. I have always been willing to believe that he may have had different impressions from the same occurrences, and here I should have been glad for the matter to have rested in a semi-amiable way. But when Dr Robinson or his agents adopt the course of giving the lie to my statements, I must wipe my hands of the whole business, and I willingly leave them in possession of the field in that kind of warfare." 2 1

"As it appears", wrote the Bishop to Jameson, "from the note in the printed paper, dated 10 June, 1868, which you have sent me, that a statement in Mr Robinson's handwriting, dated 8 December, 1861, has been put into the possession of the persons whose signatures are attached to the paper, I consider that you are now at liberty to make any statement which you think proper on the subject." F. J. Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 4. % The date of the letter is 5 October 1868. Cam. b. 861. 1. In the manifesto of the Fellows of St Catharine's, dated 10 June 1868, it is stated that some weeks after the election, "when Mr Robinson returned to Cambridge, he called upon Mr Jameson, and asked him whether he wished him to resign. Mr Jameson disclaimed any such wish." As Jameson does not refute this statement in his Reply, it was presumably correct. The offer was doubdess made in good faith, but Jameson could hardly accept it, unless he was prepared to assert that his vote for Robinson had been conditional on Robinson voting for him; and this he could not say.

10

ROBINSONS VOTE

There was a better reason for Jameson's refusal to continue the controversy than any which he advanced in this letter, for he was seriously ill, and, knowing that he had not long to live, was properly reluctant to continue what threatened to become an acrimonious dispute. From one point of view his decision is regrettable, as a further contribution from him might have thrown light upon some places which still remain dark; but from the "Reply" which he published, from the two Statements issued by Browne and the Fellows of St Catharine's, and from the account written, but not published, by Robinson,1 it is possible to disentangle at least some of the threads of a very tangled story. Jameson, though desirous of obtaining the mastership, definitely made up his mind not to vote for himself, and knowing, as there were only five Fellows, that the election might easily turn on a single vote, he was naturally anxious to discover whether Robinson intended to pursue the same selfdenying policy. He was excusably timid of approaching his rival on such a delicate matter, but when at last he did so, he was much relieved, as he records in his pamphlet, to hear Robinson say that "he might depend on him not to take any step to procure the mastership for himself", for he interpreted the remark as pledging Robinson not to vote for himself.* But he would have acted more wisely if he had asked Robinson to interpret his own remark, for Robinson always asserted that Jameson had completely misunderstood him. According to his own account he only promised not to "canvass the electors for their votes"; 3 and after Jameson's pamphlet had appeared, he repeated this statement in a more elaborate form. "I assert most positively ", he wrote, "that I never gave any such general assurance as that which is contained in page 4 of Mr Jameson's 'Reply'. The only assurance which I ever gave Mr Jameson, in return for his repeated assurances that he intended 1 This account, which appears in Dr W. H. S.Jones's History o/St Catharine's College (1936), pp. 143-147, and is therein described as "Dr Robinson's own account of the Election (sent by Mr R. C. Wilton)", is undated, but nevertheless it is almost certainly a copy of the document, dated 8 December 1861, which Robinson wrote and would have published if he had not been dissuaded from doing so by the Bishop of Worcester. It reads as though it had been written shortly after the events it records, and there is no reason to think that he wrote two independent versions of his story. The probability therefore is that he had a few copies made of the document which he had intended to publish, and distributed them among his friends, of whom Mr R. C. Wilton's father Was one. It is of course possible that the document which Dr Jones reproduces in his History of St Catharine's College was dated; but Dr Jones informs me that he is fairly certain that it was not, and though at my request he very kindly communicated with Mr Wilton, it was to no purpose, as Mr Wilton replied that he was now unable to find the document which he lent to Dr Jones, although quite certain that Dr Jones returned it. 2 F. J. Jameson; A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 6. 3 Account by Dr Robinson in Dr W. H. S.Jones's History ofSt Catharine's College (1936), pp. 143-147. This will henceforth be referred to as "Account by Dr Robinson".

ROBINSONS VOTE

II

to vote for me, was substantially this: that I never would take any steps to procure the mastership by soliciting the votes of the Fellows. Those who were Fellows at the time will bear me witness that I adhered to this pledge so closely as not even to inform them that I was a candidate for the office."z If Robinson was really as explicit as he said, he might justly be aggrieved when his remark was interpreted as a pledge not to vote for himself; but as he habitually spoke in a low voice, and so hurriedly that his words tumbled over one another,2 it is quite possible that Jameson heard him very imperfectly, and consequently failed to catch the drift of his remarks. If so, it was a most unfortunate misunderstanding, for Jameson, believing that Robinson was not going to vote for himself, decided to vote for him, and on 5 October told him that he intended to do so. "He accepted my promise", wrote Jameson, "and his immediate reply was— 1 daresay I shall vote for you'. To this I replied that I did not wish to bind him down, as in case the election should lie between two of the late Fellows, he would not wish to throw away his vote. My full impression after this interview was that it was his intention, though no promise had been made, to vote for me in the particular case of the election lying between himself and me."3 4

But Robinson denied absolutely that he made the remark attributed to him by Jameson: "I never said", he declared, " I daresay I shall vote for you, nor ever gave Mr Jameson any ground for expecting that I should not vote for myself." 4 It is extremely unlikely that we shall ever know which of these two conflicting stories of the meeting on 5 October is correct, but even if Robinson made the remark attributed to him, Jameson had no right to assume that "it was his intention.. .to vote for me in the particular case of the election lying between himself and me". It was not out of the question that there might be a third candidate, between whom and Jameson the election would lie, and Robinson may only have meant that if this situation arose he would give his vote to Jameson. He would certainly have acted more frankly if he had explained the circumstances in which he was prepared to vote for Jameson and not for himself; but he can hardly be blamed if he failed to understand that Jameson had jumped to the conclusion that his words could only bear one meaning. By reticence on one side and impulsiveness on the other the seeds of future trouble were sown. 1

Revised Address to Members of the Senate (September This information was kindly given me by the Rev. Dr H. F. Stewart, who was a nephew of Mrs Robinson and knew the Master intimately over a long period. 3 F.J.Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 7. 4 Revised Address to Members of the Senate (1868). 2

12

ROBINSONS VOTE

The two men did not meet again until 15 October, the day before the election, when Jameson called at Robinson's house, and in the account which he wrote to clear his reputation, Robinson has very fully recorded what happened on this occasion. " On the day before the election to the mastership, i.e. on 15 October", he stated, "Mr Jameson called at my house. After some conversation on the subject, I said to Mr Jameson that he must vote for himself and that I should also do the same; adding, as a reason why we should take this course, that since the election took place without any previous discussion, the only way in which each could signify his desire to have the office was to vote for himself. Almost immediately after Mr Jameson left my house, Mr Bathurst, Rector of Birchanger, came in to luncheon. I told him all that had transpired. During my absence in the north Mr Bathurst wrote to Mr Clayton1 on 31 October to this effect, that on reaching home he commended (sic) to a third person the statement which I had made in reference to the conversation that passed between Mr Jameson and myself. Both of them distinctly said that the substance of this conversation was (to use Mr Bathurst's own words) that 'Mr Robinson had exhorted Mr Jameson to vote for himself saying he should do the same, as it would serve to shew that they were both candidates for the office and both prepared to undertake its responsibilities9. Of Mr Bathurst's letter I knew nothing until 28 November. Then for the first time I find that we had already both expressed in writing the substance of the conversation that occurred between Mr Jameson and myself."2 And the signatories of the Revised Address to Members of the Senate supplement and elucidate this statement: "Mr Robinson", they testify, "did not know of the letter until 28 November 1861, but had written meanwhile a precisely similar account to a gentleman in Cambridge on 15 November 1861. Mr Bathurst's attention has since been drawn to the use made of his testimony, and he confirms it in a letter to the Master, dated 14 June, 1868 in the most decided manner in every particular, and after repeating the conversation, adds that a third person, to whom he communicated the conversation on his return home, 'well remembers our feeling of satisfaction at the thought that should Mr Jameson persist in recording his vote for you, and that vote prove an important one, there could not at all events be any misunderstanding between you and him afterwards'." 3 It may of course be assumed that Robinson had lied to Bathurst, but until it is established that he was a thoroughly depraved man, and capable of manufacturing testimony in support of his honesty, we must believe that immediately after his interview with Jameson, he was convinced that he had 1 2 3

The Rev. Charles Clayton was Vicar of Holy Trinity, Cambridge. Account by Dr Robinson. Revised Address to Members of the Senate (September 1868).

ROBINSON S VOTE

13

told him that he intended to vote for himself Yet Jameson positively denied that he had. "I remember", he wrote, "what passed between us on that day too distinctly to be mistaken on this point. He put to me the question in a complimentary manner whether I should not like to vote for myself; but I stopped him at once by stating that I would not do so on any consideration, and reminded him that I had already promised my vote to him. I believe, in answer to my somewhat warm expression of the objection I felt to vote for myself, he argued in the abstract that reasons might fairly be brought forward for doing so on some occasions. But I am quite positive that I heard him make no statement of his intention to vote for himself."1 Unless we assume that either Robinson or Jameson was consciously lying, and that would be an unwarranted assumption, it is extremely difficult to understand how they came to give such very conflicting accounts of their conversation. Robinson can hardly have only imagined that he had told Jameson that he intended to vote for himself; but it is possible that, owing to his hurried and confused utterance, Jameson failed to understand him. Both men were probably nervous and agitated, and too much pre-occupied with what they were saying to pay due attention to what they were hearing; but whatever may be the true explanation of the conflict between their testimony, it is at least certain that after their meeting on the day before the election Jameson still expected to receive Robinson's vote, and Robinson was convinced that he had completely destroyed that expectation. The other three Fellows, and therefore electors to the mastership, were Milner, Hurst and Crabtree; and on the evening of 15 October, the day before the election, the two junior Fellows of the college, Hurst and Crabtree, conferred together, and though they had previously thought of voting for Robinson, they decided at this last moment to support Jameson.2 They knew however that Robinson might be counting upon their votes; and therefore Crabtree, thinking it kind to give him timely warning, went out early on the following morning to meet him on his way to college.3 It was an embarrassing mission, and it was not until they were near the college that Crabtree plucked up his courage and broke the bad news. He began by saying that he and Hurst had agreed to vote for one of the Fellows, and then, "with as much delicacy as possible", announced their intention of voting for Jameson. Robinson was so completely overcome as almost to collapse, falling against the shutters of the yet unopened porter's lodge; and afflicted by this sorry 1 2 3

F. J. Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), pp. 7-8. Statement by G. F. Browne, 4 December 1916. The meeting for the election had been fixed for 7.0 a.m.

14

ROBINSONS VOTE

spectacle, Crab tree sought to comfort him by explaining that "after all this did not exclude him altogether, for as Mr Jameson... was going to vote for him, if Mr Milner should do the same, he might be elected by voting for himself".1 If Robinson had previously heard that the two junior Fellows meant to vote for him, and this is not improbable, it is not surprising that he was dismayed by what Crabtree told him. He now knew that even if he received Jameson's and Milner's votes, he would not be elected unless he voted for himself; therefore the best he could look forward to was to owe his success to the unselfish and unrequited action of his rival. He went to Jameson's rooms, where the Fellows had apparently agreed to assemble before proceeding to chapel,2 and there found Milner who, a few minutes before, had told Jameson that he was giving his vote to Robinson, and that Crabtree and Hurst were going to vote "for one of the present Society", whom, however, he did not name.3 But as on the evening before, either Crabtree or Hurst had informed Jameson that the election would he between a former Fellow and himself, and left him "with the full impression that Mr Robinson would probably not have any other vote" than his,4 he can hardly have failed to guess that the unnamed member of the Society was himself. And as he now knew that Milner's vote as well as his own would be given to Robinson, he was quite aware that his fate was in Robinson's hands. And if Robinson had any doubts as to Milner's vote, they must have been dissipated by Jameson's statement that "Mr Milner was going to vote for him, as.. .he knew I was'\5 If Robinson had been really determined to sacrifice everything, even his good name, in order to become Master, he surely would not, when the prize was almost within his grasp, have once again urged Jameson not to vote for him, for his success depended quite as much on Jameson's vote as Jameson's success depended on his. Yet he made this appeal, though in vain, for Jameson replied that he was not going to break his pledge when "the moment for its fulfilment had come". 6 1

G. F. Browne's Statement, 4 December 1916; F. J. Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (18 p. 11. Both Jameson and Browne obtained, their information from Crabtree, and their accounts do not substantially differ, except in one particular. According to Browne, Crabtree said definitely that Milner was going to vote for Robinson; though, according to Jameson, Crabtree did not then know how Milner was going to vote. But the difference is not important, as a few minutes later Robinson was told by Jameson that Milner was going to vote for him (Robinson). 2 Jameson's rooms were probably chosen for the meeting place as he was the most senior of the Fellows living in college. 3 F.J.Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 8. Milner did not mention Crabtree and Hurst by name, referring to them as the "two resident Fellows", but the description was sufficient for identification. 4 5 6 F. J. Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 8. Ibid. Ibid.

ROBINSON S VOTE

15

It is well to emphasise the fact that Robinson was only asking Jameson not to vote for him: he was not asking him to vote for himself, and thereby asking him to do something against which he had ever set his face. And the suggestion was reasonable, for if Jameson merely abstained from voting, neither he nor Robinson would receive the requisite number of votes, and therefore a second scrutiny would be required, which would at least give time for reflection. It is therefore difficult to understand why Jameson so obstinately adhered to a promise which had never been asked for, which the person to whom it had been made advised him to break, and which, unless that person voted for himself, had become valueless. He afterwards contended that a "mere verbal offer of release from my promise at such a moment was worthless, and I could have made no use of it", 1 which is a very dark saying, for why should a verbal release from a promise, which had also been verbal, be so worthless? And what at least is beyond doubt is that according to his own judgment of the situation he would gain nothing by voting for himself and lose something by not voting at all. "At this instant", he has recorded, "the thought uppermost in my mind was that if the first two votes should happen to be given to me, Mr Robinson would no doubt make it a point of honour to vote for me, in accordance with what I quite understood to be his expressed intention at our interview of 5 October"; 2 and this admission is important. For as he was reasonably certain of the votes of Crabtree and Hurst, and confidently counted upon Robinson's vote, his election seemed assured; but if he did not vote for Robinson, he forfeited his right to Robinson's vote and must therefore either vote for himself, which he had definitely pledged himself not to do, or abstain from voting and thus incur the risks involved in a second scrutiny. We shall never know whether he perceived this aspect of the situation, but he certainly may have, and, being a generous man, have been troubled by the thought that by keeping his word he was sacrificing his friend and not himself. For at the last moment, when the Fellows were proceeding to the chapel for the election, he said to Robinson, "Don't do anything merely for my sake".3 He afterwards explained that he intended by this reiriark to suggest to Robinson to abstain from voting and thereby render a second scrutiny necessary, and that he never would have made it if he had even remotely contemplated the possibility of Robinson voting for himself;4 but Robinson was surely justified in interpreting it very differently. He was under no promise to vote for Jameson, and was convinced that only the day before he had told him that he intended to vote for himself; 1

F. J. Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 8, note 2. Ibid. p. 9. 3 ihH 4 Ibid. 2

16

ROBINSON'S VOTE

was it not inevitable that he should think that Jameson was willing that he should do so?1 The scene in chapel can be very briefly described. Hurst and Crabtree voted for Jameson, Jameson voted for Robinson, Robinson voted for himself, and Milner voted for Robinson. And as the Fellows came out of chapel Jameson threw his arm round the new Master's neck,2 and embroidered his congratulations with the assurance that "he might count on. my friendly bearing towards him and upon my willingness to render him every help". But this manifestation of good-will was a triumph of Christian principles over human nature. Anxious to preserve the harmony of the Society, he tried to conceal the bitterness and disappointment which he felt. Whether he was justified in so feeling is at least questionable. Though it is impossible from the very fragmentary accounts of the conversations between him and Robinson to frame a narrative which reveals the whole truth, the available evidence suggests that there was a genuine misunderstanding, for which both of them were partly responsible. Robinson, unfortunately for his good name, was extremely reticent. When on 5 October Jameson promised to vote for him, he should at once have enquired whether that promise was given unconditionally and without expectation of receiving anything in return; and if by that time he had decided to vote for himself, he should have declared his intention of doing so.3 And surely Jameson should have tested the reasonable1

Jameson admitted that this remark may have misled Robinson, but argued that "this being the case, I cannot but think that he ought to have taken special pains to have a most explicit understanding with m e . . .before he acted on the improbable assumption that, after awaiting the result of the election for ten months, I suddenly, when the very hour of the election was striking, gave up all intention of being considered a candidate". This argument is very confused, for though Jameson's success depended on Robinson's vote, his candidature surely did not, unless of course he was determined not to stand unless he could be sure of being elected. Moreover, even if there had been time for an "explicit understanding", Robinson might well think it unnecessary, as he was convinced that he had told Jameson the day before that he intended to vote for himself. F. J. Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 9. 2 G. F. Browne's Statement, 4 December 1916. Browne received this information from Dr Philpott who was staying in the Master's Lodge at the time, and watched the Fellows leaving the chapel after the election. 3 It is stated in the Address to Members of the Senate (June 1868) that Robinson "had for some time intended to vote for himself", but in his'Reply to a Statement Jameson suggested that Robinson had not made up his mind to do so until after his conversation with Crabtree on the morning of 16 October. "When", said Jameson, " I heard the story of this interview (of which I knew nothing whatsoever before the election) I felt that it might have had an unfortunate effect in misleading Mr Robinson as to my intention. I can quite imagine that he might have had an impression (though a mistaken one) that Mr A. came to him as my friend and spoke in my name. That this circumstance had an important part in influencing Mr Robinson appears from the explanation which he himself at first gave of his vote. One of the parochial clergy of Cambridge, intimate with both of us, the Rev. J. Scott, having

ROBINSONS VOTE

17

ness of his expectation of receiving Robinson's vote by putting the question point blank to him: the most elementary prudence demanded such an inquiry. Yet if Jameson had continued to accept his defeat in the same forgiving spirit that he at first displayed, he would have saved his college much shame and himself much unhappiness. But within only a few days of the election, Cambridge was agog with the news that Robinson had obtained the mastership by crooked means; and it is difficult not to believe that Jameson was, either directly or indirectly, responsible for the publication of the scandal.1 At least he never contradicted it, and no completely satisfactory explanation of the change in his attitude has ever been offered. G. F. Browne when engaged on his crusade for Robinson was naturally much puzzled by this problem, and in the course of his search for a solution of it, inquired of E. H. Perowne, then a Tutor of Corpus and intimate with both Robinson and Jameson, whether he knew "the time and cause of Jameson's change from extreme friendliness to hostility". The answer he received was, "I can tell you exactly".* The story which Perowne told, and Browne repeated many years later, is very melodramatic. "Jameson and I and someone else", it runs, " went out to Somersham that night to Dr Pinnock3 to dine and sleep. We sat rather late and went up to bed about written to Mr Robinson very soon after the election, asking him for the satisfaction of himself and others to give some account of the circumstances of the election, stated openly that he was authorised by Mr Robinson to mention generally certain facts relative to the recent event. The facts were simply these: that from the circumstance of Mr A. having come to meet him on the morning of the election and told him that as Mr Milner and myself were going to give him their (sic) votes, he could be Master, and from what passed between him and me at the subsequent hurried interview in my rooms, he was under the full impression that I withdrew my claims in his favour—and that, having to decide whether he should or should not accept what he believed to be my offer, he did not determine to do so and to vote for himself till he was asked for his vote in the chapel by the Senior Fellow." In a footnote Jameson affirms that Robinson had refused to permit the publication of the letter authorising Scott to make this statement. Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), pp. 11,12. In the Revised Address to Members of the Senate (September 1868) an attempt is made to reconcile this story with the assertion that before 16 October Robinson had decided to vote for himself. "We understand", it is stated, "this hesitation to have been naturally caused by his learning for the first time what would be the effect of his vote for himself if Mr Jameson should persist in his determination." This explanation seems adequate. Before his conversation with Crabtree, Robinson did not know that he would receive the mastership as a gift from Jameson, and he obviously hesitated to place himself under such an obligation even to a friend, and endeavoured to dissuade Jameson from voting for him. 1 In his letter to Aldis Wright of 26 May 1868 (see page 6) Browne however said that Jameson had in a letter to him stated that "he was in no way responsible for the reports 2 against Mr Robinson". G. F. Browne's Statement, 4 December 1916. 3 Ibid. Dr Pinnock was the Curate-in-charge at Somersham.

18

ROBINSON'S VOTE

midnight. There was a bright fire in my room,... and we sat over the fire talking about the election. I happened to remark, 'It's so very nice for Robinson; he's to be married this month and instead of going to the Vicarage at Barnwell he takes his wife to the Lodge.' 'Married', Jameson cried, 'he's deceived me!' From that moment Jameson took absolutely against Robinson. Robinson went off next day to Scotland to be married, and in his absence a storm of hostility broke out."* Robinson, as a matter of fact, did not leave for Scotland until Monday, 21 October, and as Jameson was back in Cambridge on 17 October, the day after his visit to Somersham, it is very strange, and not to his credit, that he did not ask Robinson to explain his silence about his approaching marriage.2 It is equally strange that in his pamphlet, written to prove that he had been wronged, he never even remotely hinted that Robinson ought to have told him that he was about to be married, and still stranger that Browne was the first, and perhaps the only, person to whom Perowne revealed the real cause of the estrangement between the two old friends. And if Browne is correct in saying that Robinson made no secret of his engagement to be married,3 it is almost incredible that Jameson, who was his colleague and friend, should never have heard of it. Moreover, even if it be assumed that Jameson was not aware of what was more or less common knowledge, it is not at all obvious why he should be aggrieved at not being told. It cannot have been because Robinson would on marriage cease to be a Fellow and consequently lose his right to take part in electing a new Master, as clearly it would have been quite easy for him to postpone his wedding until after the election, which had to be made within a certain number of days from the declaration of a vacancy. Indeed Perowne's story as repeated by Browne bristles with so many improbabilities and difficulties as to defy acceptance; and possibly a simpler and less sensational explanation is nearer the truth. On the Saturday after the election Robinson wrote to Jameson, to express his warmest thanks for the latter's ''noble act" in resigning the mastership to him; and as it was in his reply to this letter that Jameson revealed his dissatisfaction with Robinson's conduct, he was obviously nettled by the suggestion that he had voluntarily resigned the prize to Robinson, that is, in other words, that he had voted for him, though well aware that Robinson was going to vote for himself.4 His annoyance was excusable. He had forgiven Robinson, believing that he had 1

G. F. Browne's Statement, 4 December 1916. F. J. Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 10, note, shows that Jameson had an opportunity of asking for an explanation. 3 G. F. Browne's Statement, 4 December 1916. 4 F.J.Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 12. In a note on the same page Jameson remarks, "The use he made of my vote could scarcely be a subject of thanks to myself", that is, that Jameson could not be held in any way responsible for that use. 2

ROBINSONS VOTE

19

succumbed to a sudden temptation and was conscious of having transgressed, and it was certainly vexatious when the supposed sinner assumed an air of innocence, and thanked his victim for having fallen into the trap which he had laid for him. It may therefore well be that Jameson jumped to the conclusion that Robinson had deliberately tricked him, and intended to brazen out the fraud. And as he was an impetuous man, it is not improbable that he aired his grievance and possibly regretted afterwards having done so, for when in a subsequent letter Robinson gave a most solemn assurance that he had never intended to take an unfair advantage of Jameson's vote, he seems to have been prepared to accept it, or at least to act as though he did.1 But the mischief had been done and sides taken. And though the much derided joint statement of 12 December 1861—that Jameson expected Robinson not to vote for himself, and Robinson was not aware of this expectation—was probably correct, the audience to whom it was addressed could not be persuaded to believe that there had been nothing more than a misunderstanding. For we are ever unwilling to face the fact, so lowering to our pride, that stupidity is far more common than deliberate wickedness. 1

F.J.Jameson, A Reply to a Statement (1868), p. 13.

Chapter II THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE and how it came about that the Judges of Assize stay at Trinity Lodge, when visiting Cambridge, can only be conjectured; but the custom probably goes back to the reign of James I, and may have been started by Sir Edward Coke. Coke came to Cambridge on circuit in 1607 a n d the five following years,1 and in two of those years almost certainly stayed in Trinity. The accounts of the Trinity Steward for 161 o contain the following items—"for glasses, trenchers, candells, pipkins, potts, trencher knives etc. bought against Lent Assizes"—"for washing the Lord Cooke's Lynnen then", and similar items appear in the same officer's accounts for 1612, as for instance—"laid out at Lent Assizes for glasses, candells, trenchers, potts and pipkins"—"for washing the Lynnen then"—"for candells, trenchers, glasses, potts and rushes at Midsummer Assizes"—"for washing Lynnen".2 And Coke may have stayed in Trinity during his other circuit visits, though there is no evidence that he did so, as the Steward's accounts for those years have not survived. And though it would be rash to assert that no previous Assize Judge had been accommodated in the college, this may well be the case. A fair number of the Stewards' accounts for the years before 1607 are still in existence; and none of them contain any statements which can be connected with judicial visits. Moreover in 1580, and not for the first time, the Judges lodged at the Dolphin Inn.3 It is not surprising that Coke preferred to stay at Trinity when on circuit, for he had become acquainted, before he was a Judge, with the comforts of the Master's Lodge as improved by Nevile, and had been an undergraduate of the college, and was proud of his connection with it.4 And he was not an unwelcome guest, for the "charge of great Fare and Feasting was not more costly then welcom to the brave mind of Dr Nevile, Master of Trinity WHEN

1

C. H. Cooper, Annals, vol. in, pp. 29, 30, 33, 34, 41, 44, 53. Stewards' Accounts, Trinity College Documents. 3 C. H. Cooper, Annals, vol. 1, p. 235, vol. 11, p. 380. 4 Coke, when Attorney-General, stayed at Trinity: C. H. Cooper, Annals, vol. in, p. 7. "There is a copy at Holkham of the 'Polyanthea' (Lyons, 1600) in which he has written, *Edw Coke, ex dono veteris Academiae Camtabr'... and in his record of his proceedings and degrees he has noted.. .that he was 'High Steward of the University of Cambridge with Thos. Earl of Suffolk, and Governour of the possessions of Tr Colledge in Camb. under theire coinon seale\" C. W.James, Chief Justice Coke (1929), pp. 4-5. 2

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

21

College; who never had his like in that Orb, I believe, for a splendid, courteous and bountiful Gentleman".1 Nevile's example seems to have been followed by his successors in the mastership. Though many of the Stewards' accounts for the years between 1612 and 1662 are missing, more than twenty-five of them survive, and in all of them except five, such items occur as "laid out for provision for the Judges" or "spent at the Judges' entertainment". And after 1662 the Judges' allowances of bread, flour and beer appear regularly in the Pandoxator's book.2 It was probably later that it became customary for the Judges and their attendants to have the exclusive use of certain rooms and offices on the ground floor of the Master's Lodge—of the dining-room, two bedrooms, the housekeeper's room and, when it was built, the Judges' kitchen. But it was not until 1830 that it became customary to invite the Judges, if their visit extended over a Sunday, to dine in Hall on that day, and to take coffee with the Master, or in his absence with the Vice-Master, after dinner.3 Probably there was always a ceremonial reception and farewell of the Judges; and in an undated document the ritual observed, probably before the time of railways, is described in detail. "(1) The Master, previously to the arrival of the Judges, sends his servant to invite them to the Lodge in the names of the Master and Fellows. N.B. The message is to be delivered at Howe's House,4 where the Judge leaves his own carriage and goes into that of the Sheriff. (2) The Master and eight Senior Fellows resident meet the Judges at the Great Gate of the College, congratulate them on their arrival, and conduct them to the Lodge; and after staying with them a short time 1

John Hacket, Scrinia Reserata: a Memorial offered to the Great Deservings of John Williams,

D.D. (1693), p. 24. 2 The Pandoxator was responsible for the bake-house and brew-house. For evidence that the Judges stayed in Trinity during the summer assizes of 1628, a year for which the Steward's accounts are missing, see Life of Lord Clarendon, written by himself (1789), vol. 1, p. 9. 3 Case for Sir Hugh Cairns, Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr Fitzjames Stephen, Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. Joseph Romilly records in his diary the entertainment of the Judges in Hall in July 1838. "George and I", he wrote, "dined in Hall at 4^ where we met the Judges, the High Sheriff (Layton), most of the Norfolk circuit, the Mayor and most of the University and Gentry in the neighbourhood. Mr G. A. Browne did the honors extremely well; the speaking was amusing. Pryme spoke briefly and sensibly: the Mayor made a long speech in praise of himself. Judge Parke spoke (as he told us) because his brother, Littledale, was a moaest man and put it oft on him, and Serjeant Storres made a very brilliant speech (as head of the circuit) in praise of the profession of the Law, with some well deserved eulogy of Mr Browne." Diary of J. Romilly, Sunday, 29 July 1838. Both the Master and Vice-Master were absent from Cambridge on this occasion; and Browne presided as the Senior Fellow in residence. At the present day there are no speeches when the Judge dines in Hall. 4 Howe's House was on the Huntingdon Road, about a mile distant from Castle Hill.

22

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

in the parlour appropriated to their uses, take leave. It is not usual upon this occasion to sit down. (3) The Master gives notice to the eight Senior Fellows of the intended time of the departure of the Judges that they may assemble at the Lodge to take leave of them, and with the Senior Fellows attends them to the Great Gate of the college."1 Later however, and probably in the nineteenth century, the ceremony was slightly changed. The coming of the Judges was announced "by the Sheriff's Trumpets blown at the Gate, and the Master and Seniors, setting forth from the door of the Lodge at the same moment that the Judges descend from their carriage at the College Gate, meet them exactly in the centre of the intervening space. The present Master,2 when he was a Fellow, always understood by his predecessor's3 demeanour, that he considered the equal mutual approach of the College Authorities and Judges to be a point to be carefully observed. When the Judges enter the Lodge the Master and Seniors enter with them, and welcome them with prepared glasses of warm wine, and when they go away take leave of them in like manner."4 Except for the blowing of the trumpets when the Judges arrive, the same ritual is observed to-day. But though the college paid great honour to its distinguished visitors, it regarded them as guests, and Lort Mansel, who was Master of Trinity from 1798 to 1820, gave on one occasion a very discourteous expression of this point of view. Happening to meet at a friend's house a Judge who was shortly coming to Cambridge on circuit, and to say to him, " W e or I shall be happy to see you there", he was not unreasonably nettled by the Judge's reply, " Sir, we shall be happy to see you there", which he took to imply that the Judge did not consider himself to be the guest of the Master or of the college. And it was not the Judge who had the last laugh on this occasion, for when he arrived at the Lodge, he found the dining room and, possibly, the bedrooms dismantled: "the carpets had been taken up and the curtains taken down".5 The Judges certainly had a difficult part to play. They were the guests of the college and dependent upon its courtesy for the privileges they enjoyed; but it was not always easy for them to remember this. But Whewell was not to 1

Undated Document, headed Assizes. Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. William Whewell. 3 Christopher Wordsworth. 4 Case for Sir Hugh Cairns, etc. Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. 5 Ibid. Whewell believed this story, as Joseph Romilly had "told him that he had, as one of the Seniors in residence, dined with the Judges at the time thus referred to, and that the room was then bare of carpets and curtains". 2

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

23

ver

blame if they sometimes forgot it. In 1843, y early in his mastership, he decided that the Judges' servants should have the use of a room, known as Barrow's Library, instead of the Housekeeper's room; 1 and when six years later in his absence the Judges' servants attempted to re-establish themselves in their old quarters, they were thwarted by the Master's butler who locked the door against them.2 Nor was it only the Judges' servants who were kept in their place. One of the visiting Judges in 1843, Lord Denman, drove, on his return from Court one day, to the back entrance of the Lodge, but found the gate of the drive barred, as he was encroaching upon a part of the Lodge which the Judges were not allowed to use. Denman, according to Whewell, accepted the rebuff meekly; but the Sheriff, Mr Green, was very indignant, and, two years later, told a Fellow of the college that he had suggested "to Lord D. ordering the Javelin men to batter down the gate, and greatly regretted that it was not done". 3 But it is only fair to add that Whewell, if tactfully approached and fully assured that there was no intention of establishing a claim, treated the Judges courteously, and sometimes even generously. When, for instance, in March 1846 Mr Justice Maule complained that he could not without injury to his health occupy a ground-floor bedroom, Whewell informed him that though "this customary arrangement" could not be altered, he would be pleased if the Judge honoured him by being his guest for a few days "in the room above that which you occupy"; and the invitation was gratefully accepted.4 He also seems to have given an order that if it was raining the Judges might leave the Lodge by the door into Nevile's Court, 5 and get into their carriage in the New Court; 6 but he was always careful to emphasise that these concessions were merely acts of goodwill and could not be cited as precedents. He was probably the more particular in this respect because he was aware of the common belief that Trinity Lodge was a royal palace, and that therefore the Judges, as representatives of the Crown, stayed there by right and could command whatever accommodation they were pleased to claim. How this superstition arose is not known, but possibly it was the product of another belief, which Whewell seems at one time to have shared, that members of the Royal Family, when visiting Cambridge, had a right to stay at Trinity Lodge. In June 1842, for instance, the Duke of Northumberland, on learning 1

WhewelTs Journal, p. 125, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. Ibid. p. 238. Diary of J. Romilly, 24 November 1845, University Library; Memorandum respecting the Master's Lodge and Trinity College, July 1847, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. 4 WhewelTs Journal, p. 182, see also pp. 228-229, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. 5 This door is now the entrance to the Combination Room from Nevile's Court. 6 Whewell's Journal, p. 238, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. 2

3

24

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

that the Duke of Cambridge proposed to attend his installation as Chancellor of the University, immediately instructed the Vice-Chancellor to inform Whewell, that "the members of the Royal Family (of the Blood Royal) claim, I believe, a right to a reception at Trinity Lodge, as belonging to a Royal College, whenever they visit the University of Cambridge"; 1 and though Whewell, not having been notified in time, was unable to entertain the Royal Duke, he fully admitted the Duke of Northumberland's claim on behalf of the Royal Family. He asked the Vice-Chancellor, "when any one such visit was announced to him, to apprise the Master of Trinity without delay"; and a few days later "at a meeting of the Heads.. .requested that if hereafter any of them being Vice-Chancellor should be informed of an intended royal visit, he would apprise the Master of Trinity". 2 And in 1843, when the Queen and Prince Albert paid their first visit to Cambridge, he was still more explicit. "The first intimation of this visit", he recorded in his Journal, "was a letter from Mr Goulburn,3 stating that the Queen and Prince had expressed a wish to visit the University, that the Queen had inquired where they could be lodged; that he had stated that Trinity College Lodge was considered the Sovereign's residence, and inquiring of me if it was not so. I replied that it was, and that all difficulties could be overcome." 4 And in 1847, when the Queen and the Prince were about to pay a second visit to Cambridge, he may have gone even further; for he was reported as having said on that occasion to C. B. Phipps, the Prince's private secretary, "the Queen of course would come to Her Lodge at Trinity".^ The problem of the accommodation of the Queen and Prince and their suites during this second visit gave rise to a prolonged correspondence between Phipps and Whewell; and when the latter made difficulties, the Prince's secretary reminded him that Trinity Lodge was a royal palace, and that therefore the Queen could claim to occupy the whole of it. He believed himself to be on sure ground; and was much taken aback by Whewell's indignant denial that this was so. "I assure you", he wrote on 3 July, "I never was more astonished than when I received your paper this morning, which appears to throw a doubt upon the Queen's right to consider Trinity Lodge as her own Palace whenever she goes to Cambridge. Naturally doubting my own judgment, which was merely founded 1

Whewell's Journal, p. 49, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. Ibid. pp. 48-49. In a letter to the Duke of Cambridge's Equerry he said, that if he had been informed in time, "it would have been my earnest wish, as I believe it would have been my duty, to offer my best exertions to provide proper accommodation for H.R.H. in this College". 3 Henry Goulburn was a University Burgess and Chancellor of the Exchequer. 4 Whewell's Journal, p. 92, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. 5 C. B. Phipps to Whewell, 3 July 1847, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. 2

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

25

upon hearsay, I have asked the opinion of many Cambridge men, and have found them unanimous. I at last took the liberty of calling upon Lord Lyndhurst as Steward of the University and a paramount opinion upon most questions of law. He told me that he is aware that there is not any written document to be quoted, but that it has always been understood, and he never knew it doubted, that upon the visit of the Sovereign to Cambridge Trinity Hall (sic) was given up as belonging to the King or Queen, that the Judges always go there as a matter of right and not as guests—that they invite to dinner and entertain, and have in times past asserted their right upon receiving an invitation from the Master. I think it could hardly be supposed that the Queen, or those like the Judges bearing her commission, could have a limited right to some particular rooms—unless some such limit could be shewn to have been decreed—if they have a right to accommodation in the Queen's name, it must be to the house, and they have only occupied that portion of the accommodation which they required."x The sting of this letter for Whewell was in the remarks about the Judges. He had never shared the popular belief that the Lodge was a royal palace,* but he had gone some way towards countenancing it by admitting that the Lodge was a royal residence, and was naturally dismayed to discover that the. weapon of the palatial theory was now being turned against him. He was seriously alarmed. In a letter to a friend he defiantly declared that "the notion of the Lodge being a palace in the sense of being the personal property of the Sovereign*' could be easily refuted by "our charters, our history and our constitution";3 and in a memorandum compiled about this time he demonstrated that Sovereigns and Princes had not always stayed at Trinity Lodge when visiting Cambridge, and that the entertainment of the Judges by the college was an act of courtesy.4 He was on the alert, and when in the summer of 1855 he learned that the Lord Chancellor was preparing a Bill which might indirectly cause a third or winter assize to be held at Cambridge, he thought fit to write to him. The nature of his letter is indicated by the Lord Chancellor's reply: "I ought", wrote Lord Cranworth, "to have sent you an earlier answer to your letter on the 9th instant, relative to the proposed measure as to additional assizes— but the Bill has been from time to time altered, and I was not certain that its provisions might affect Cambridge at all. As it will now be introduced, it will merely enable the Queen (in case she should think fit to issue a third Commission of Gaol Delivery) to unite, for the purpose of that, such counties as she may deem 1

C. B. Phipps to W. Whewell, 3 July 1847, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. W. Whewell to Sir Roderick (Murchison), 8 July 1847, Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. 3 Ibid. 4 Memorandum respecting the Master's Lodge and Trinity College, July 1847, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. 2

26

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

expedient. It will not impose on the Crown the duty of issuing more commissions than are now issued. It gives no new powers for that purpose. Indeed it was unnecessary to do so, for the Crown may issue as many such commissions as the state of the gaols or other circumstances make desirable. The great probability however is that an additional winter assize for the trial of prisoners will be held at Cambridge either every year or every other year. The question, which you refer to, as to the lodging of the Judges and their attendants in the college, is one which I do not feel it possible to settle by this Bill. If by long usage or otherwise the Judges have acquired (I should perhaps rather say the Sheriff has acquired) any right to this accommodation, it would be impossible to restrict it without full enquiry as to its nature and extent. If on the other hand, in receiving the Judges the college is merely performing an act of courtesy, it is of course unnecessary to provide by legislation that this shall not be extended to any winter assize, but shall be confined to the ordinary spring and summer assizes. The question is one with which the Legislature can hardly be called on to deal."1 Whewell was not however prepared to allow the winter assize Judges to stay at the Lodge unless the claim that they had a right to such accommodation as representatives of the Crown was definitely abandoned; for he not unreasonably feared that this claim would be thereby strengthened. But as the Bill was not passed until the summer of 1863, there was die proverbial calm before the storm.2 He did not however weaken, and when he heard that Baron Martin was coming to Cambridge for the winter assize of 1863, he informed him that he would not be received at Trinity Lodge. The Judge passed on the news to the Home Secretary, who consulted the Attorney and Solicitor General; and these two law officers, in a paper dated 25 November, expressed the opinion that "the Crown has a right to authorise the occupation of a portion of the Lodge of Trinity College, Cambridge, by the Judge or Judges of Assize on all occasions of assizes being held at Cambridge".3 They did not state the grounds upon which this opinion was based; and perhaps thought it prudent not to do so. Whewell was not intimidated by this legal opinion which was communicated to him in a letter from the Home Office, dated 30 November; 4 and in his reply of 1 December he repeated his refusal to receive Baron Martin. He pointed out that on his appointment to the mastership he had found the reception of the Judges at the spring and summer assizes established as a usage, and had loyally observed it, but as there was no such usage in connection with a winter assize, he "must respectfully decline accepting this new 1

4

Lord Cranworth to Whewell, 18 June 1855, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. 26 and 27 Victoria, C. cxxn. Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. H. Waddington to W. Whewell, 30 November 1863. Ibid.

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

27

demand". And he added, less respectfully, that he would have attached more weight to the opinion of the two lawyers if he "had reason to suppose that the law officers of the Crown had before them any grounds for their opinion; but as from my own study of the subject I do not think this at all likely, I cannot but believe that the law officers are in this instance mistaken".1 And as he wished to be able to prove that they were, he wrote again three days later and asked to be "furnished with the case laid before the Attorney and Solicitor General".* As this challenge could hardly be evaded, the law officers, in a signed statement dated 5 December, explained that their opinion was "based on the usage under which the Queen and members of the Royal Family when visiting Cambridge, and the Queen's Judges when administering justice there under the Commission, occupy the Lodge of Trinity";3 and thereby revealed the poverty of their hand. For, as Whewell had pointed out some years before, there was no ground for saying that "a second or any number of repeated visits of the Queen to a house makes the house a palace or in any sense the Queen's property". 4 Whewell was having by far the best of the encounter. His great advantage over his adversaries was that he had access to the college documents, which they had not; and consequently was aware that there was not a shred of evidence for the belief that the Judges were entitled to accommodation in Trinity Lodge as the representatives of the Crown. But the weak link in his armour was that the Seniors were unwilling to give battle. This is not surprising, as most of the Fellows considered that the college acquired honour and prestige by its connection with the judiciary, and desired it to continue, as they were not put to any inconvenience thereby, though the Master was. Above all they feared that the price of victory might be that the Judges would seek refuge in another college, and this was a price they did not wish to pay. The Seniors therefore urged moderation on the Master. "I wish now to add", wrote Whewell to the Home Office on 5 December, "that I have consulted the Seniors on this subject, and they are of opinion that though they do not acknowledge the right of the Judges to be received at the Lodge whenever they may present themselves, they think that as a matter of courtesy they should be received there on the occasion of the approaching winter assize. Upon this opinion I am prepared to act."5 1 W. Whewell to H. Waddington, 1 December 1863. Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents * Same to same, 4 December 1863. Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 W. Whewell to Sir Roderick (Murchison), 8 July 1847. Ibid. 5 W. Whewell to H. Waddington, 5 December 1863. Ibid.

28

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

Whewell made this concession unwillingly,1 and, being determined to continue the battle, he prepared a plan of campaign for the next winter assize, which was expected to be held in 1865. Earlier in that year Chief Justice Cockburn and Mr Justice Smith stayed at Trinity Lodge for the spring assize; and to the latter Whewell communicated his scheme of operations for the coming winter, and asked him to convey the information to the other Judges. He did not pledge himself to refuse admission to the winter assize Judges, though he indicated that he might possibly do so; but he quite clearly stated that even if he "should abstain from opposing the entrance of the Judges into the Lodge, it would be impossible for the Judges to make the Lodge their residence, the Master being adverse, inasmuch as the furniture and the house-servants being the Master's, the Judges could not without his permission and authority have the conveniences which would make their residence there tolerable".2 He was obviously thinking of adopting the same tactics as Lort Mansel was believed to have followed, but it is only fair to mention that he made this unpleasant communication quite courteously and without displaying anger.3 Nor was there indeed any reason why he should not be courteous, for he was contending for a principle. He was careful to explain that he was not only willing but anxious to continue the established usage of accommodating the Judges in Trinity Lodge at the spring and summer assizes. "I have already said", he wrote to Chief Justice Cockburn, "that I conceive the Judges have no claim to apartments at the Lodge as a matter of right, and that their reception there has been solely the result of the courtesy of the college. I consider consequently that the occasions of their reception in the Lodge are to be limited entirely by the authority of the Master and the college. Though I am quite ready to allow that it would be most desirable to continue this courtesy at the spring and summer assizes,.. .1 cannot offer to extend this courtesy to a winter assize."4 Whewell also consulted Counsel; and Sir Hugh Cairns, Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr James Fitzjames Stephen gave a joint opinion which Whewell had seen before he spoke to Mr Justice Smith.5 1 In a letter to W. H. Thompson, dated 20 March 1866, J. L. Hammond mentioned that Whewell had proposed to the Seniors that they should not receive the Judges when they came on the winter assize. Ibid. 2 W. Whewell to Chief Justice Cockburn(undated); Chief Justice Cockburn to W. Whewell, 8 November 1865, Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library. Mr Justice Smith appears to have reported Whewell incorrectly. 3 Chief Justice Cockburn to W. Whewell, 8 November 1865. Ibid. 4 W. Whewell to Chief Justice Cockburn (undated). Ibid. Cockburn sent a copy of this correspondence to the Home Secretary: see his letter to Whewell of 14 November 1865. 5 The opinion is undated, but a letter from Francis Martin to Whewell of 6 March 1865 shows that it reached Cambridge before Mr Justice Smith arrived. Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. Cambridge Chronicle, 25 March 1865.

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

29

"We are of opinion", they said, "that none of the facts stated to us show the existence of any usage under which the Queen and the members of the Royal Family, or the Judges as representing the Queen, can claim to occupy the Lodge of Trinity College, when at Cambridge, as matter of right. We think that the right in question must, if it exists at all, be confined to the Judges of Assize at the spring and summer assizes. The right, we think, would be a profit or benefit to be enjoyed upon land within the meaning of the Prescription Act, 2 and 3 Will. IV, c. 71,1 and it would be a question for a Jury whether in point of fact the reception of the Judges had been a matter of courtesy or of right. Considering the length of time during which that usage has subsisted, a Jury would probably be much inclined to view it as a matter of right, if any legal mode could be pointed out by which the right might in the first instance have been created. 'We see however no evidence to lead us to infer that the usage was anything more than a matter of courtesy, and the absence of any allusion to the subject in the several grants to the Masters of their office, in the charter of foundation, and in the statutes of the college, as far as they have been brought before us, point to the conclusion that such was its character. We would add that the statutes should be carefully searched through from the foundation of the college to the end of the reign of Charles I, for if no trace of any statute creating such a right is to be found, and yet the whole of the statutes made during that time appear to be in existence, there would be direct negative evidence that no such right ever was in fact created, and as it could only have originated in the charter or in some of those statutes, this would in all probability settle the question. We presume that the statutes from the time of the Restoration are silent upon this point. Moreover, as such a right cannot have existed by prescription, the college having been founded in 1547 (sic), it may be contended that the statute restraining alienations by bodies corporate would prevent the college from granting such a right even to the Crown, and it could not be granted to the Judges of Assize, they having no corporate character. The only way in which the question could be ' decided' (to use the expression of the case) would be by an action of trespass, and no doubt, if this course were determined on, it might be so conducted as to avoid scandal or discourtesy. We think however, that as there is on the part of the Master of Trinity no wish to disturb the arrangement which has so long existed, his object would probably be effected by informing the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he has no desire to interfere with the ancient practice, now in existence, of accommodating the Judges at the spring and summer assizes, but, believing that that practice has originated in the courtesy and hospitality of the Masters in early times, he cannot, consistently with his sense of duty to the office and the future holders of the office, admit the right now claimed on the part of the Crown, and that, should the advisers of the Crown think it proper to insist on any such right in relation to the Judges at the winter assize, he will be ready, under the advice and sanction of his 1

An Act for shortening the Time of Prescription in certain Cases.

30

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

counsel, to concur in any mode of raising the question that may be thought most convenient."1 It will be noticed that Whewell did not completely accept the advice of the lawyers, for to threaten to deprive the Judges, if they came to the Lodge for the winter assize, of what Chief Justice Cockburn described as "the ordinary conveniences and necessaries", was a distinctly violent procedure. But he did not have an opportunity of putting his threat into execution, for, contrary to expectations, there was no winter assize at Cambridge that year, and on 6 March of the year following he died. His conduct of the controversy had been very characteristic, showing the same faults of temper that throughout his life had caused him to give needless offence, and the same high courage he always had at command. Having a well-founded belief in the strength of his cause, he could not be content with less than the unconditional surrender of the enemy. Within a week of his death the Crown had decided to confer the Mastership of Trinity upon W. H. Thompson, and it occurred, or was suggested, to the Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, that the appointment of a new Master afforded an opportunity of settling the controversy with the college. "I am desired by Lord Russell", wrote the Prime Minister's secretary to Thompson on 14 March 1866, "to inform you that in the opinion of Sir George Grey it is desirable, with a view to avoid any further question on a subject which has given rise to difficulties between the Master of Trinity College and the Judges on Circuit, to provide in your appointment as Master of that college2 that the Judges shall, while attending the Assizes or Gaol Deliveries at Cambridge, be lodged in the Master's Lodge. Lord Russell presumes that you would have no objection to the insertion of such a provision, which would preclude the chance of further controversy."3 Thompson certainly did not wish to prolong the controversy, but it was most unreasonable to ask him to agree to a settlement which conceded to the Crown a right for which no evidence had been advanced, and which concerned the College as well as the Master. He referred the Prime Minister's inquiry to the Seniors, who were summoned by the Vice-Master, Francis Martin, to meet on 17 March. The meeting seems to have been lively. Martin, who thought that the Judges had a right to stay at the Lodge, was 1

Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. The Master of Trinity is appointed by Royal Letters Patent under the Great Seal. 3 George Elliot to W. H. Thompson, 14 March 1866, Box 29 C IV c, Trinity College Documents. 2

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

31

1

willing to accept the Prime Minister's proposal; but some of the other Seniors, being convinced that the college had an impregnable case, were not so compliant. "The college", wrote one of them to Thompson, "is inclined to resent the pressure placed upon it by the Crown, and the more so because it would spontaneously have offered to concede the right under its corporate seal if an opportunity had been given to it. The concession by the college... would have bound our successors for ever, the insertion of the provision in one patent of appointment settles the question during your tenure,.. .and of course furnishes a strong precedent; but it leaves it open to the college to question a future patent in the same form, and the college is in possession of a very clear opinion from Sir F. Kelly, Sir H. Cairns and Fitzjames Stephen (who have thoroughly looked into the documents which I sent to the Master from the Muniment Room) to the effect that the right does not exist."2 And in another letter the same person expressed the opinion that if the college spontaneously concedes the right, it will, a fortiori, shew the same respect and cordiality to the Judges,.. .but I am not so sure that in case the college once feels it as a sore that the Crown should have coerced it into receiving the Judges, the Seniors may not at some future time omit to shew the same courtesy and respect to them.3 But even the objectors to coercion preferred it to the migration of the Judges to "St John's or any other college"; 4 and consequently the ViceMaster was able to inform the Master that, though the Seniors did not favour the insertion of the proposed provision in his patent of appointment, and would prefer to secure the reception of the Judges at the Lodge "by some spontaneous Corporate Act after the appointment of a Master, yet their desire to receive the Judges on such occasions is so great that they are not prepared to advise you as Master elect to resist the insertion in the patent of the clause, 'the Judges shall, while attending the Assizes or Gaol Deliveries at Cambridge be lodged in the Master's Lodge', provided an addition be made to the clause, namely, 'in such apartments as has been usual at the spring and summer assizes'".5 1 Ibid. In a letter to Whewell, dated 6 March 1865, Martin expressed the opinion that the Crown had a better case than the College thought. 2 J. L. Hammond to W. H. Thompson, 18 March 1866, Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. 3 J. L. Hammond to W. H. Thompson, 20 March, 1866. Ibid. 4 J. L. Hammond to W. H. Thomspon, 18 March 1866; see also two letters from Francis Martin to Thompson, both dated 20 March 1866. Ibid. 5 Francis Martin to W. H. Thompson, 17 March 1866. Ibid.

32

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

The Home Secretary, being anxious to reach a friendly settlement of the controversy,1 was inclined to do what the college preferred; but as he had referred the question to the law officers of the Crown, he was obliged to delay his final decision until he had received their advice. Fortunately they were as reasonable as he was. "I have now received", he wrote to Thompson on 23 March, "from the law officers a further opinion, in which, as I anticipated, they entirely concur in the expediency of settling the matter amicably in the manner most agreeable to the college, provided the object in view is practically attained. I may add that, understanding (since the case was laid before them) that the college would prefer setting it at rest by a corporate resolution of their own body, they are disposed to recommend that this course shall be adopted."2 This desire for peace was largely due to the recognition by both parties in the dispute that they might go further and fare worse. The law officers of the Crown were possibly now painfully conscious that they were unable to support the claim they had advanced, and were therefore disposed to be conciliatory. And as the college recoiled before a victory which might deprive it of the honour of entertaining the Judges, the Seniors were delighted to find the Home Secretary so willing to accede to their wish, and the Conclusion which they passed, when they met on 24 March, was unopposed.^ "Agreed by the Vice-Master and Seniors", it stated, "that with a view of settling amicably the question respecting the reception of the Judges of Assize in the Master's Lodge, it is their desire and intention to secure without delay after the installation of the Master, by a corporate act under the seal of the college, the reception of the Judges, while attending the Assizes or Gaol Deliveries of Cambridge, in the Master's Lodge, in such apartments as have been usually appropriated to them at the spring and summer assizes."4 But on the same day the Home Secretary, acting on a suggestion by the Attorney General, informed Thompson that the law officers wished to see a draft of the proposed Corporate Act before issuing the Master's patent of appointment; 5 and though this was not an unreasonable request, it presented difficulties. If granted, the installation of the new Master would be much delayed, as the drafting of such an important document could not be safely 1

W. H. Thompson to Sir G. Grey, 19 March 1866; Sir G. Grey to W. H. Thompson,

19 March 1866, Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. 2 Sir G. Grey to W. H. Thompson, 23-March 1866. Ibid. 3 J. L. Hammond to W. H. Thompson, 24 March 1866. Ibid. 4 Trinity College Conclusion Book. 5 Sir G. Grey to W. H. Thompson, 24 March 1866, Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents.

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

33

hurried; and apparently the Seniors were anxious that Thompson should be installed on Easter Tuesday,1 so that he could take part in the approaching scholarship examination. Fortunately however, when the Attorney General received a copy of the Conclusion by the Seniority, and was informed of the objection to a delay in the installation of the Master, he promptly withdrew his suggestion. "I think the patent for the Master of Trinity may proceed", he wrote to the Home Secretary on 26 March. "Nothing can be fairer than the spirit in which he2 writes; and I see nothing to object to in the Seniors' minute. The only thing of which we shall make a point is that the Corporate Act, which is to secure the future reception of the Judges in the Lodge, must not be expressed in any such language as to make the acceptance of it by the Crown as a satisfactory solution of the question prejudicial to Her Majesty's claims to require (in case of any future difference) such reception on the footing of right and not of favour. I therefore take it for granted that the resolution of the Society will not, upon the face of it, assume the contrary view. If it does not, I think we may be satisfied."3 By 9 May the Home Secretary was in possession of the draft of the Instrument which the college proposed to seal, "conceding to Her Majesty's Judges of Assize the use of certain apartments and offices in Trinity Lodge and certain allowances etc., whensoever they shall hold Courts of Assize for the Town and County of Cambridge"; and he submitted it to the law officers and to Chief Justice Cockburn. The law officers approved it, and the only criticism of the Chief Justice was that it did not concede to the Judges the right of using the back entrance of the Lodge, which would save them the discomfort of walking across the Great Court when it was raining.4 But he promptly withdrew this objection on being informed that the Judges, if the weather was inclement, had, with the Master's permission, "been set down in the New Court where it opens into the Cloisters, and have so proceeded by a covered walk to the Cloister door of the Lodge".5 All difficulties being thus removed, the seal of the College was affixed to the Instrument on 12 June 1866, with the unanimous approval of the Master 1 3

3 April

2

W. H. Thompson.

Copy of a letter from the Attorney General to Sir George Grey, 26 March 1866, Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. In the same Collection are two rough drafts of a letter from W. H. Thompson to the Home Secretary: one is dated 25 March, and the other, almost certainly of the same date, is undated. 4 Chief Justice Cockburn to Sir G. Grey, 12 May 1866; Sir G. Grey to the Master of Trinity, 17 May 1866. Ibid. 5 Unsigned draft of a letter to Sir G. Grey. It is probably a draft of the letter which Thompson addressed to Sir G. Grey on 29 May, and which was acknowledged on 2 June; ChiefJustice Cockburn to Sir G. Grey. Ibid. WMC

34

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

and the sixteen Senior Fellows.1 It is a brief, business-like document, deserving of quotation. A question having arisen between the Crown and Trinity College with respect to the lodging of H.M. Judges of Assize at Trinity Lodge, We, the Master, Fellows and Scholars of Trinity College, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, do freely and voluntarily concede (without prejudice to any legal right alleged or existing either on behalf of the Crown or the College) that H.M. Judges of Assize, whenever they shall hold Courts of Assize or Gaol Deliveries for the Town and County of Cambridge, shall have the use of all the apartments and offices, as specified in the accompanying schedule, which have been usually appropriated to them at the spring and summer Assizes, together with such allowances as they have heretofore received out of the Steward's office. And then follows the schedule of the rooms and offices appropriated to the Judges and their attendants.2 Thompson interpreted this document as implying that the Judges were the guests of the College "by general invitation",3 but it is better described as not making it impossible to maintain this opinion. The college certainly did not acknowledge by the Instrument that the Judges had the right to stay in Trinity Lodge as representatives of the Crown; but on the other hand the Crown did not relinquish this claim. Thus if ever the question came again in dispute, neither the Crown nor the college would be fettered by the Instrument, and so the controversy still remains unsettled. But it is not likely to rise again, and probably never would have arisen but for Whewell. "I do not think", wrote Thompson, "that the Law Officers of the Crown are aware of the disapprobation generally felt in the college of these steps on the part of the late Master, which tended to make their relations with the Judges less agreeable than they wished them to be. They consider the visits of the Judges a great honour to the college, and would deprecate as one man the possibility of their cessation."4 And the same feeling prevails at the present day. Nevertheless between then and now incidents have occurred which, if there had not been good will on both sides, might have caused friction. It was then customary for two Judges to come to Cambridge for the spring and summer assizes, one of them taking the criminal, and the other the civil, 1

H. Waddington to J. L. Hammond, 16 June 1866. Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. 2 Three copies of the Instrument are among the College documents, Box 29 C. IV c, and it is also entered in the College Register. 3 Draft of a letter by W. H. Thompson, undated, Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. 4 Draft of a letter from W. H. Thompson to Sir G. Grey, 25 March 1866. Ibid.

THE JUDGES AND TRINITY COLLEGE

35

business; and as the sleeping accommodation which the College undertook to provide in the schedule to the Instrument was restricted to two bedrooms, their marshals did not stay at the Lodge. Nor did their wives if they accompanied them on circuit. But if only one Judge came, there was clearly accommodation available for either a wife or a marshal, though whether it could be so used without violating the Instrument was questionable. But it was certainly so used only a few years after the Instrument had been sealed, for at a meeting of the Seniority on 8 November 1878 "the Master raised the question whether, when one Judge only comes on circuit, he had a right to assign the use of the second Judge's room, as had been done on two recent occasions, one Judge having brought his wife with him to the Lodge, another his marshal".1 The Seniors discussed the question thus put to them, but came to no decision; and as Judges are human and like less august persons are inclined to take an ell when given an inch, more serious trouble arose a few years later. On 4 May 1883 the Master informed the College Council that "the Judge at the last Assize had, following the example of a predecessor, brought his wife with him to the Lodge—and had also allowed his marshal, to do the same"; and the Council thereupon agreed that "the Master should write to Mr Justice Stephen, requesting him to remind the Judges that in all this they were exceeding the privileges accorded to them by the college, and intimating that a formal protest would be made if the like recurred".2 It should be noted however that the Council took no objection to the accommodation of the Judge's marshal in the Lodge, though this too seems to have been an innovation of recent years, and, as far as can be discovered, never formally sanctioned by the college. It is now the regular practice, and causes no inconvenience, as for many years past the work of the Cambridge Assizes has been dealt with by a single Judge. The Master duly wrote, as instructed by the Council, and fortunately that sufficed: a formal protest was not necessary.3 "I am desired by H.M. Judges who go circuits", replied Mr Justice Denman on 31 May 1883, "to inform you that at a full meeting held to-day here, your letter to me of the 17 inst. and its enclosure4 were read, and it was unanimously resolved 'that they be entered in the Judges' Book, and that the Judges' assent to the understanding therein set forth be recorded' ".5 There is therefore no doubt that a Judge, or his marshal, who desires to have his wife with him when staying at the Lodge requires the permission of the college, and this permission is not lightly given. 1

2 Trinity College Seniority Minutes. Trinity College Council Minutes. Thompson appears to have written to Mr Justice Denman instead of to Mr Justice Stephen. 4 The Instrument. $ Box 29 C. IV c, Trinity College Documents. 3

3-2

Chapter III T H E R E L I G I O U S TESTS (1862-1871) W H E N Lord John Russell on 23 April 1850 informed the House of Commons that he intended to advise the Crown to appoint a Commission of inquiry into the educational system of the two ancient universities and the distribution of their revenues, he expressed the opinion that the "question, important as it is, of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities" should not be considered in conjunction "with any improvement in the plan of education"; and, accordingly, the Royal Commissioners were not instructed to inquire into the effects and operation of the religious tests in force at Oxford and Cambridge. The Oxford Commissioners nevertheless called attention in their report to the fact that "several members of the University have recorded in their evidence a strong opinion that the present policy in this matter should be abandoned"; and on their own behalf, while refraining from offering "any suggestion as to the manner in which the evil should be remedied", they expressed the "conviction that the imposition of subscription, in the manner in which it is now imposed in the University of Oxford, habituates the mind to give a careless assent to truths which it has never considered, and naturally leads to sophistry in the interpretation of solemn obligations".1 The Cambridge Commissioners were more guarded in their condemnation of the system. They pointed out that the higher degrees were not mere certificates of intellectual ability, as all Masters of Arts and Doctors, whose names were on the books of a College, were members of the Senate, and if they were also Fellows, might be called upon to take a part in the administration of the affairs of their college; and that it was at least questionable whether "the internal system of collegiate discipline and the course of academical administration could be so adjusted as to comprehend persons of different religious opinions, without the neglect of religious ordinances, the compromise of religious consistency, or the disturbance of religious peace". Yet, having given this warning, they proceeded to urge that one of the greatest glories of the century was the removal by Parliament of the barriers which "long excluded so many of our fellow subjects from the equal enjoyment of civil rights on account of differences in religious opinions"; and that "the University will be placed, more or less, in a false position, if it estranges itself from this great movement of liberal progress".2 1 2

Oxford University Commission Report (1852), pp. 54-56. Cambridge University Commission Report (1852), p. 44.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

37

Thus the Commissioners for both Universities were substantially agreed that the existing system was open to serious objections; and though it lay outside their terms of reference to make proposals for its modification, they emphasised the importance and urgency of the problem. The Government of the day was not however inclined to grasp the nettle thus pressed upon them; and the Oxford University Bill for the appointment of Statutory Commissioners, when introduced by Lord John Russell into the House of Commons, contained no provision for the removal or relaxation of religious disabilities.1 This omission, which was intentional, was not to the taste of the House, and against their will the Government had to accept amendments which slightly reduced the Anglican monopoly of that University.2 In its final form the Bill prescribed that no oath or declaration of belief should be required of an undergraduate at matriculation, or of a recipient of a degree of lower standing than a mastership of arts; but the interests of the Church were safeguarded by a provision that such degree shall not as such constitute any qualification for the holding of any office which has been heretofore always held by a member of the United Church of England and Ireland,.. .unless the person obtaining such degree shall have taken such oaths and subscribed such declarations as are now by law required to be made and taken on obtaining such degree, either at the time of taking such degree or subsequently. Even without this limitation the concession thus made to persons who could not accept the doctrines of the English Church was extremely meagre. Debarred from the higher degrees, they could not sit in Convocation, and therefore could not take a part in the government of the University. Nor could they open a hostel for the reception of undergraduates, as this right was only granted to members of Convocation. The Act moreover left the colleges perfectly free to restrict their fellowships and scholarships to members of the Church of England. The Cambridge University Bill, which was passed by Parliament in 1856, was slightly more progressive. It allowed all degrees, except those in divinity, to be taken without a declaration of faith being made; but as it restricted membership of the Senate to those Masters of Arts and Doctors who had declared themselves to be bona fide members of the Church of England, all who dissented from the Established Church were as effectively excluded from the government of the University as they were at Oxford. The Act moreover required the same declaration to be made before a degree could "con1

The Oxford Bill was passed in 1854. In a speech in the House of Commons on 10 April 1867, Gladstone testified to the unwillingness of the Aberdeen Ministry, in which he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, to extend the scope of the Bill. %

38

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

stitute a qualification for the holding of any office, either in the University or elsewhere, which has been heretofore always held by a member of the United Church of England and Ireland". But the right of opening a hostel for undergraduates was not confined to members of the Senate;1 and no person "on obtaining any exhibition, scholarship or other college emolument, available for the assistance of an undergraduate student in his academical education", could be required "to make or subscribe any declaration of his religious opinion or belief, or to take any oath, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding". But the colleges remained at hberty to exclude all but members of the Church of England from their fellowships. Moreover neither the Oxford nor the Cambridge Act repealed certain provisions of former statutes, which precluded the colleges, had they wished to do so, from throwing open their higher emoluments to members of all religious communions or of none. The clause in the Act of Uniformity, passed in the reign of Charles II, which required Masters and Fellows of colleges, and Professors and Readers of the University, to sign a declaration that they would conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, was left unchanged,2 as was also, except for holders of scholarships at the Cambridge colleges,3 a provision of an Act, passed in the first year of the reign of George I, 1

This privilege became worthless. W. M. Campion, later President of Queens', informed a select committee on the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Bill (1867) that there were no hostels at Cambridge. " We have had one hostel," he said, "but it could not get a sufficient number of pupils, I suppose, and the pupils were absorbed into the Colleges." Report of the Select Committee on Oxford and Cambridge Universities Education Bill (1867). 2 In the course of the debates on the Tests Bills in the House of Commons, it was more than once asserted that this provision of the Act of Uniformity had become a dead letter at Oxford. This was partly true. The Registrar of that University has kindly given me the following interesting information: "The Keeper of the Archives informs me that there is in the Archives a Vice-Chancellor's Register, containing subscriptions to the Act of Uniformity from 1808 to 1870. He states, however, that the Register is certainly not a satisfactory one. For instance, in one college between 1808 and 1870 the names of twelve Fellows appear in the University Calendar, whereas six only are in the Register, and in another (between 1808 and 1867) twelve names are in the Calendar and three only in the Register. Entries for three colleges end in 1817,1823 and 1839 respectively. On the other hand some colleges seem to be well entered up." The explanation of this irregularity probably is that several of the Oxford colleges required their Fellows to proceed to higher degrees, which even after 1854 was only possible for members of the Church of England; and that the statutes of other colleges either required their Fellows to be members of the Church of England or rendered them liable to deprivation for contumacious Nonconformity, and that therefore the subscription required by the Act of Uniformity came to be regarded by some of the colleges as a work of supererogation. Cambridge was more law abiding. The requirements of the Oxford colleges with regard to their Fellows are set forth in tabular form in an account of a debate in the House of Commons on 14 June 1865. 3 It would seem that the provision in the Cambridge Act of 1856 that no scholar or exhibitioner of a Cambridge college could be required to take any oath, dispensed them from the obligation to take the abjuration oath imposed by the Act of George I's reign.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

39

which required all Heads of Houses and all persons on the foundation of a college or hall, of eighteen years of age or over, to declare on oath "that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm". 1 One Cambridge college had soon cause to regret that the Act of Uniformity had not been repealed. In i860 James Stirling, then an undergraduate of Trinity, became senior Wrangler, and it was rumoured that he had obtained two thousand marks more than the second Wrangler.3 And as no Trinity man had gained this high honour since 1846, his triumph was particularly gratifying to the college. Yet, as he was a Presbyterian, he could not be elected into a fellowship, for even if Trinity was prepared, as was asserted, to change the college statute which made his election impossible, the Act of Uniformity remained in the way.3 And the lesson was driven well home by another Nonconformist and Trinity man, W. S. Aldis, becoming senior Wrangler in the following year. It is not surprising that sensible men in both Universities came to the opinion that the colleges were losing far more by the tests than the Church of England gained. But the fact that a college might be prevented from electing its best man into a fellowship was not the only objection to the tests. As was frequently pointed out, they were really only effective against the honest and the scrupulous. They were no obstacle to the unscrupulous and indifferent, to the worldlings who were willing to bow down in the House of Rimmon or 1 The obligation to take the oath of abjuration was removed as far as the Universities were concerned, by an Act passed in 1868. Previously an Act of Indemnity had been annually passed for the protection of persons who had not taken the oath. 2 Diary of J. Romilly, 27 January i860. 3 Under the statutes of Trinity, as approved by the Queen in Council, i860 and 1861, the declaration which a newly elected Fellow had to make was of a general Christian character, but not a definite pledge of adherence to the Anglican faith. But c. xxi of the same statutes prescribed that "if any Fellow shall openly secede from the Church of England,... the Master and Seniors... shall proceed to inquire into the case and, if the fact be established, shall declare his fellowship vacant"; and therefore the college was obliged to restrict its fellowships to men who professed to be members of the Church of England. The statutes of St John's College were similar. Pleydell-Bouverie was not therefore strictly accurate when he said in the House of Commons on 5 May 1863 that at Cambridge there were four colleges, of which Trinity Hall was one, which awarded fellowships without regard to the religious opinions of the candidates, and that the statutes of two other colleges, of which Trinity was one, only required their Fellows to declare that they belonged to the true religion of Christ. Dr Bateson, the Master of St John's, who had had opportunities of acquiring information about the statutes of the Cambridge colleges, said at a meeting at his Lodge on 29 November 1869 that in all college statutes some clause was inserted for removing Fellows who seceded from the Church of England, and that in all but two some declaration of belief was exacted on admission to a fellowship. The Times, 1 December 1869.

40

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

any other house. Nor was it only the conscientious Dissenter or Roman Catholic who found them a stumbling block. "It is impossible", said Professor Lightfoot in 1870, "to shut one's eyes to the fact that a flood of new ideas has been poured in upon the world, and that at present they have not found their proper level; minds are unsettled in consequence, and young men often do not like to pledge themselves to a very distinct form of religious belief."1 He was not exaggerating. The progress of science and of Biblical criticism had caused many persons to examine the foundations of their faith, and sometimes to discover that those foundations were not as firm as they had believed them to be. Nor is it surprising that the men who were scrupulous and honest enough to undertake such an examination were generally unwilling, when passing through a period of perplexity and doubt, to make a solemn declaration of membership of any religious communion. They could not see the end of their spiritual pilgrimage, and therefore did not wish to pledge themselves to any formulary of faith, particularly if by so doing they might appear to have sold their soul for lucre. But the tests were not only an affliction to tender consciences: to a section of the community they were a grievance and an insult. The Dissenters, and those who sympathised with them, claimed that the Universities were national institutions, and therefore should be open to all Englishmen intellectually deserving of advanced instruction. That claim had been partially conceded, as it was now possible both to matriculate and to graduate at either University without undergoing any doctrinal test; but this was not enough. W. E. Forster, who was a Nonconformist, said in the House of Commons on 14 June 1865 that Dissenters must be accepted at the Universities on "terms of perfect equality"; and he spoke for many of his co-religionists. Having entered into the outer courts, they wished to go further, and resented an exclusion from the Governing Bodies of the Universities and colleges, which might be taken to imply that, if given a place of trust, they would use it to further the interests of their own communion, and to undermine the influence of the Church of England. They denied that this was either their intention or within their power. "It is not the Church but Nonconformity which will have cause to fear", said a Nonconformist member of the House of Commons, when one of the many Tests Bills was being debated. "For what", he continued, "are you in effect doing? You take the flower of the youth of Nonconformity at an age when the mind is peculiarly susceptible of new impressions, and you plunge them into a society profoundly saturated with Church notions—everything the young Dissenter sees around him is calculated to 1

Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords on University Tests (1870).

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

41

efface his attachment to Nonconformity, and when to all these allurements you add the removal of those disabilities which at present rankle in his mind, keeping up the irritation with which he regards the pretensions and exclusiveness of the Church, and which is the true safeguard of his Nonconformity, the temptation is complete— the trap is baited with an art and a power which will enable you to capture nine out often of those who enter the University as Nonconformists."1 There was much truth in this, but the supporters of the tests could not see it. Their vision was clouded by the conviction that if persons of all shades of religious belief enjoyed equal rights at the Universities, voting in the Senate or Convocation, and sharing in the life of college common-rooms, existence at Oxford and Cambridge would be one continuous round of acrimonious and impassioned religious controversies. It was an exaggerated fear, as the ordinary Englishman is not inclined to be fanatical about his creed; but it was not completely unfounded. Some Dissenters were bitterly jealous of the Established Church, and never able to forget the wrongs they had suffered and were suffering. These firebrands were prominent on platforms and in the press, and doubtless some of them were not over-scrupulous about the charges which they brought against the Church of England. And, as so often happens, an active and aggressive minority was sometimes taken to be representative of the whole Dissenting body, and did not a little to strengthen the resistance to a perfectly reasonable demand. It was also frequently asserted that the religious training and discipline of undergraduates would be seriously disturbed, and perhaps made impossible, by the intrusion of men holding all forms of belief and unbelief into the teaching posts of the Universities and colleges. And if Oxford and Cambridge were in truth, what they were sometimes said to be, religious seminaries, a system of tests was defensible; but neither of them actually were. On this point there is ample testimony. Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, who had been an undergraduate at Trinity, and therefore could speak from personal experience, said that Cambridge could not possibly be described as a place of religious education: and George Denman, a former Fellow of the same college, agreed with him. So indeed did Harold Browne, the Norrisian Professor of Divinity, who deplored the little attention paid to theology at Cambridge. "Theology", he wrote, "enters very little.. .into the ordinary studies of an undergraduate. It tells but very little even for the college 1 The speaker, whose name was Leatham, realised that his support of the Bill might be thought to be inconsistent with this forecast of the fate of Dissenters at the Universities. "Well then", he said, "it may be asked—and it is a very fair question—why do I, who am a Nonconformist, support this Bill? Because, Sir, there are some things which to my thinking are greater than Nonconformity". Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 1 June 1864.

42

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

examinations, very little for the 'Little-Go' or the ordinary degree, not at all for mathematical or classical honours. It is therefore all but wholly neglected by a great majority of undergraduates/' 1 The same was true of Oxford; neither University had a definite religious character, and the systematic study of theology hardly extended beyond those undergraduates, a diminishing number, who intended to be ordained. Yet all who favoured the maintenance of the tests were not obscurantists and last-ditchers. In a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, written in 1863, Gladstone said that he completely approved the principle of only admitting Churchmen to the Governing Bodies of the Universities and colleges;2 and it was only after the controversy had been going on for several years that Professor Lightfoot came to see that the tests were bringing discredit upon the Church of England and indeed upon Christianity.3 Nor is it very strange that wise and good men should be slow to understand that the tests were the undesirable relics of a bygone age, and that they were failing to protect the Universities from the inroads of infidelity, while denying to them the services of men whom any home of learning would be proud to have. It might well seem hazardous at a time when long accepted dogmas were being challenged, and the Church of England was being assailed from without and within, to pull down defences, however insufficient they might be; and it was only too easy to conjure up the terrifying visitfn of secularised Universities, where there would be no services in college chapels, and the undergraduates would be at the mercy of every wind of doctrine. But happily there were equally good and devout Churchmen in the other camp. Sir George Young, to name but one, was foremost in the fight against the tests, and in a letter to the Guardian he explained why as a Churchman, "yielding to none in attachment to the Church of England", he felt it to* be his duty to advocate their abolition.4 There were other zealous Anglicans fighting in the same cause; and the more enHghtened Dissenters did not fail to acknowledge their debt to these members of another religious communion. Moreover in both Universities there was a party who abhorred the tests; but the party at Cambridge, though it undoubtedly won recruits in the course of the contest, was always in a minority among the resident members 1

The Student's Guide to the University of Cambridge (1863), p. 220. Lord Morley's Life of Gladstone (popular edition), vol. 1, pp. 947-8. 3 Lightfoot thought that the test system might create a prejudice against Christianity in the minds of some young men. "They see", he informed a select committee of the House of Lords, "a man prepared to sacrifice his material interests for the sake of conscientious scruples, and it begets a sort of sympathy with his non-belief." Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on University Tests (1870). 4 Sir George Young wrote a series of letters to the Guardian, which were later published as a pamphlet under the title, University Tests (1868). 2

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

43

1

of the University. In 1867 Professor Fawcett, one of the most active members of this minority, admitted in a letter which was published in the press, "that the majority of the resident members of the University support the maintenance of all existing religious disabilities";* and it would have been surprising if this had not been so. The University had only quite recently passed through the ordeal of a Statutory Commission. The statutes of the University and colleges had been drastically revised, and many old familiar landmarks had disappeared; and, not unnaturally, the greater number of the resident members of the Senate hoped that they would now be left to pursue their way in peace, and felt aggrieved when they were called upon to undertake a reform which neither Parliament nor the Commissioners had pressed upon them. The academic mind is inclined to recoil from leaps in the dark. But the party at Cambridge who disliked the tests was well worthy of respect, however small it might be. It included veterans like Adam Sedgwick, who twenty years before had fought the battle for religious hberty, men, such as Leslie Stephen and Seeley, who in years to come were to win more than academic fame, and many Tutors and Assistant Tutors. And though the party was not confined to any particular college, its strongholds seem to have been Trinity, Christ's and Peterhouse: it was very weakly, if at all, represented, at least when the campaign began, in Jesus, Corpus and St Catharine's. Its numerical inferiority dictated its programme. A comprehensive demand that the Legislature should abolish all the religious tests imposed by the State and by the statutes of the University and colleges would have caused widespread consternation, and been very feebly supported. Moreover care had to be taken to avoid offence to college feeling, for on many occasions in the past promising measures of reform had been wrecked by an omission to take that sentiment into account.3 And it was possibly this latter consideration which mainly determined the course of action adopted. On 13 June 1862 Edward Pleydell-Bouverie, who had been an undergraduate at Trinity, presented to the House of Commons a petition, said to have been signed by seventy-four resident Fellows and Masters of Arts of Cambridge colleges, for the repeal of that provision in the Act of Uniformity which required all per1 It was almost certainly the same at Oxford. As very little will be said in this chapter about the activities of the Oxford party, I wish to point out that this apparent neglect is not due to an exaggerated opinion of the importance of what was done at Cambridge. But it seemed advisable to confine myself to my own University, with whose history I am more or less familiar, and not to venture upon ground quite unknown to me. 2 Cambridge Chronicle, 1 June 1867. 3 In a letter to Oscar Browning, dated 8 November 1869, Henry Sidgwick remarked: "College feeling is a dividing and paralysing force in University matters, and I snub it whenever I can; but on some occasions there is no bridling it." Life of Henry Sidgwick (1906), p. 217.

44

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

sons on admission to a fellowship to sign a declaration of conformity with the liturgy of the Church of England, as injuriously affecting the interests of the University.1 In his introductory speech Pleydell-Bouverie pointed out that the petitioners did not wish to limit the freedom of the colleges; on the contrary they wanted the colleges to enjoy greater freedom, and to be able to throw open their fellowships to Dissenters. But until the Act of Uniformity was out of the way, it was useless for them to revise their statutes for this purpose. Before sitting down, he gave notice that in a future session he intended to bring forward a Bill based on the petition. It seems at first sight very surprising that anyone, except bigots and fanatics, could have possibly objected to the removal of a restriction which, two centuries before and for reasons no longer existing, the State had placed upon the colleges. And possibly if the supporters of the tests had been confident that none of the colleges, once the Act of Uniformity was out of the way, would take steps to admit Dissenters into their fellowships, they would not have been as seriously disturbed as they were. But they did not have that assurance. The colleges, though connected by a bond of loyalty to the University, were, and ever had been, friendly rivals; and if by extending the field of competition for their fellowships, they could raise the intellectual standard of their Fellows, and thereby increase their prestige in the learned world, it was quite likely that some of them would do so, and thereby drive others to follow their example. Consequently the Act of Uniformity seemed to many members of the Senate a trusty bulwark against misguided men who preferred cleverness to orthodoxy; and one of the most ardent supporters of the tests, E. H. Perowne, gave vent to his distress in a sermon which he preached on Commencement Sunday, 15 June 1862. "If ever", he said, "there was a time in the history of the University when danger seemed to threaten its efficiency as a school of sound learning and religious education, it is the present crisis." He then proceeded to elaborate his argument. "The University", he continued, "is virtually governed by the resident foundation members of colleges, and it is therefore essential to the well-being of the former that the qualification for admission to college fellowships should not be regarded as matters of indifference. Hitherto, one condition of such admission has been that the candidate should be a member of the Church of England. This limitation some among our own body are anxious to abolish. And while giving them credit for a real desire to do what they consider just, and to extend the 1 The petition appeared in the Cambridge Chronicle of 18 October 1862. According to a statement in the same issue of that journal, at least twenty of the signatories were nonresident. Later in the session a similar petition was introduced into the House of Lords.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

45

usefulness of the University, I cannot but lament the attempt, and pray that it may not succeed.* If no religious test is to be applied to a candidate for a fellowship, what guarantee have we that we may not be called upon to admit those who are not even Christians. We have no security against the admission of Socinians or Romanists or avowed unbelievers. And if such are numbered among the Fellows of a college, why not make them Tutors and Deans?"x But neither this protest, nor the petition which occasioned it, was likely to attract much attention outside the Universities. Neither the nation nor the House of Commons was as yet interested in the question. The country was passing through a phase of political apathy. Parliamentary reform had for the time being ceased to be a living issue, and there was a general wish for a truce in domestic politics. Great and exciting events were happening abroad, and the thoughts of Englishmen were centred upon Italy's struggle for freedom, the American Civil War, and the ambitions of Napoleon III. Nor had the general election of 1859 returned a House of Commons favourable to innovations. "The General Election", wrote that shrewd observer, Greville, "has been eminently satisfactory in this, that it has elicited the completely conservative spirit of the country." 2 And Lord Palmerston, who succeeded Lord Derby as Prime Minister shortly after the General Election, was more than satisfied with this temper of the House. He valued the liberal creed only as an article for export; and, even had he thought otherwise, he could hardly have used it in the home market, for, as Lord Morley has said, his ministry owed "its long spell of office and power to the countenance of Derby and his men".3 The dice were therefore very heavily loaded against Pleydell-Bouverie when on 5 May 1863 he moved for leave "to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of Uniformity as relates to Fellows and Tutors 4 in any college, hall or house of learning". The Bill, as he justly pointed out, had a very limited scope and made extremely modest demands. It did not touch the obligation imposed by the Act of Uniformity upon Heads of Houses and Professors to subscribe a declaration of conformity with the liturgy of the Church of England. Nor, though he did not mention this fact, did it relieve Roman Catholics from the necessity of taking the abjuration oath. It was, moreover, of a purely permissive character: it merely allowed a college by changing its statutes to throw open its fellowships to non-Anglicans. Never1

Corporate Responsibility: a Sermon preached at the Commemoration of Benefactors on Commencement Sunday, 15 June 1862. 2 The Greville Memoirs, 17 May 1859. 3 Lord Morley's Life of Gladstone (popular edition), vol. 1, p. 631. 4 The word "Tutor" in the Act of Uniformity only referred to Lecturers, and therefore had the same restricted meaning in Pleydell-Bouverie's Bill.

46

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

theless it was denounced by Spencer Walpole, who represented the University of Cambridge in Parliament, and by Lord Robert Cecil. The latter, with an exaggeration which was characteristic of the attitude he consistently adopted on the question of the religious tests, contended that PleydellBouverie was asking them not only "to change the character of the Universities as religious seminaries, but to destroy their influence and position altogether". And although the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, said that he proposed to vote for the motion, as in his opinion it would be consonant with tide practice of the House to allow the Bill to be introduced, he was careful to add that it ought not to be assumed that he approved the measure. Guessing, if he did not know, that Pleydell-Bouverie was only speaking for a minority at either University, he slyly remarked that "it would be fair to the Universities to give them the opportunity of considering the Bill, and making their wishes and feelings upon it known to the House". 1 The Bill had certainly a chilly reception, and Pleydell-Bouverie's motion was only carried by twenty-two votes. Nor was the University slow to accept Lord Palmerston's invitation to express its opinion. The Council of the Senate announced that on 4 June the Senate would be asked to approve a Grace for the seal of the University to be affixed to a petition against the Bill; and the petition in question was no half-hearted protest. It most earnestly deprecated "any legislative enactment, through provisions of which the government of the University or any of the colleges therein might pass into the hands of persons who are not members of the Church of England", as "in such an event the confidence of a great portion of the public in the teaching of the University would be shaken, and its efficiency as a place of education would be seriously impaired".* Though it was quite certain that the Grace would pass the Senate by a large majority, a Fellow of Trinity, W. G. Clark, who then held the office of Public Orator, thought it worth while to issue a non-placet notice, which, however well devised to allay alarm, suggests that he had a very imperfect grasp of the principles of religious toleration. He boasts, almost enthusiastically, that, if the Bill passed, "Roman Catholics would still be excluded by the statutable declaration required of every Fellow on admission", and that Dissenters admitted to fellowships would quickly shed their Nonconformity.3 But the pill which he was asking his colleagues to swallow needed more sugaring than he could give it, and the Senate passed the Grace by 120 votes t o 25.4 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 5 May 1863. Cambridge Chronicle, 30 May 1863; Minutes of the Council of the Senate 29 May 1863. 3 Ibid. 6 June 1863. 4 Ibid. 2

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

47

Walpole presented this petition to the House of Commons, and also another, which was signed by all the Heads of Houses except two, and by several Tutors. Thus the University, both officially and unofficially, had declared its unswerving opposition to the slightest modification of the tests; and those who wished them to be abolished had full warning that a long and arduous battle was in front of them. But this hostile demonstration was not required to convince Pleydell-Bouverie that he was engaged on a hopeless task; and therefore when on 24 June his Bill came before the House for a second reading, he said that as the session was far spent and business much congested, he saw no prospect of it reaching the upper House in time to be adequately considered, and therefore asked to be allowed "to discharge the order, with the intention of re-introducing this measure at an earlier period next session".1 Yet when in the following session he brought forward the same Bill, it was refused a second reading by 157 votes to 101. The only remark of any interest made in the course of the debate came from a Roman Catholic member, who accused Pleydell-Bouverie of doing nothing to remove the disabilities under which Roman Catholics suffered at the Universities. At the time Pleydell-Bouverie did not reply to the charge; but when it was repeated in the following session, he put up a very unconvincing defence. He denied having excluded Roman Catholics from his Bill, though he undoubtedly had; and added that, as he had not wished to embarrass himself with the abjuration oath, he had left it aside.2 In the Parliamentary session of 1864 J. G. Dodson, the member for East Sussex, brought forward a Bill which, though also of a limited character, might have more far-reaching consequences. As at the University of Oxford a recipient of any degree higher than that of Bachelor of Arts, Law, Medicine or Music, was obliged to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles and to the three articles of the thirty-sixth Canon, only members of the Church of England could proceed to the degree of Doctor or Master of Arts, and thereby acquire membership of Convocation. At Cambridge any lay degree of the University could be taken without making a declaration of religious faith, but as no Master of Arts or Doctor could sit in the Senate unless he had declared himself to be a bonajide member of the Church of England, all who did not accept the doctrines of that Church were, as at Oxford, excluded from the Governing Body of the University. And as it was a share in the government of the University, and not the mere title of Master of Arts or Doctor, that the supporters of the tests wished to withhold from nonAnglicans, no serious opposition probably would have been offered to a proposal to extend the Cambridge compromise, as it was commonly called, 1 2

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 24 June 1863. Ibid. 14 June 1865.

48

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

to Oxford. But Dodson's Bill was of a bolder character. It provided that all Oxford degrees, not excluding those in divinity,1 could be taken without subscription to any religious test, and made no provision for any such subscription being required for membership of Convocation. Consequently, if the Bill was carried unamended, persons of all shades of religious opinions could take part in the government of the University of Oxford, and open hostels for undergraduates; and this was more than enough to cause alarm.2 The Bill was not debated until it reached the second reading stage on 16 March 1864; and on that occasion Dodson did his best to disarm opposition by dwelling upon its moderate character. He argued that it did not interfere with the religious discipline and instruction provided by the colleges, that it left the Act of Uniformity untouched, and prescribed that no Master of Arts or Doctor should by virtue of his degree be qualified to hold any office which had hitherto been restricted to members of the English Church who had subscribed to the thirty-nine articles and to the three articles of the thirtysixth Canon.3 He further referred to a petition for the abolition of the subscription required for admission to the higher degrees, which had been signed by several distinguished members of the University of Oxford, and presented to both Houses of ParHament in the previous session.4 But the House must have been most interested by his remark that when the Bill was in committee, he was prepared to consider the question whether graduates who had made no profession of faith should be allowed to sit in Convocation: it was a remarkable concession, for the Bill so amended would merely establish the Cambridge system at Oxford, and fail to achieve its professed object. Sir William Heathcote, who sat for the University of Oxford, put no trust in these fair words, for he moved that the Bill be read "this day six months". His incredulity was pardonable, for, as he pointed out, the principle of the Bill as it stood was to "break altogether the connection between the goverii1

Dodson explained that he had not excepted divinity degrees, as "these degrees are only conferred upojn persons in Holy Orders or have been pronounced by the Bishops qualified to take Holy Orders. A test in such a case appears superfluous and therefore better omitted." 2 Several of the Oxford colleges required their Fellows to proceed to higher degrees, which only professed members of the Church of England could do; and as in some of these colleges there was no statutory provision for a religious test upon admission to a fellowship, Dodson's Bill might be construed as affecting the colleges as well as the University. But it was of course perfectly open to the colleges in question to insist that their Fellows should make the subscription required by the Act of Uniformity. 3 The Bill however modified the subscription required of holders of degrees, under that of a Mastership of Arts, in order to qualify themselves for an office hitherto restricted to members of the Church of England. Instead of having to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles and the three articles of the thirty-sixth Canon, they had only to declare themselves bonafide members of the Church of England and Ireland. 4 This petition was presented in the House of Commons on 24 June 1863 and in the House of Lords on 3 July 1863.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

49

ment of the University and the Church of England"; and that, in return for their approval of this principle, Dodson only undertook possibly to acquiesce in the substitution of another and a very different principle. He admitted that "had the Bill been brought in originally for the purpose of placing the University of Oxford on the same basis as Cambridge,.. .he should have been under considerably greater difficulty in opposing it". He was supported by the two Cambridge Burgesses, Walpole and Selwyn; but his colleague in the representation of Oxford, who was Gladstone, announced his intention of voting for a second reading. He explained at great length, and with even greater subtlety, his reasons for doing so. He argued that two questions of great importance were raised by die Bill, namely whether "the restraints of the University ought to be relaxed as regards Dissenters", and "whether as regards the membership of the Church of England, the tests now apply a proper means of ascertaining it". He practically answered the first question in the negative by saying that the Governing Body of the University "should not be thrown open irrespective of religious distinctions", but he expressed a very definite opinion that subscription to the thirty-nine articles and the three articles of the thirty-sixth Canon was, as a means of ascertaining membership of the Church of England, not well adapted to the circumstances of the day. He therefore argued in favour of the substitution of the declaration, required at Cambridge, ofhonajide membership of the Church of England; and said that if the Bill was so amended in committee, he would vote for the third reading. It is perfectly clear that he was opposed in principle to the unamended Bill, and that, far from wishing to see the tests relaxed or abolished, he only desired to see them slightly changed in form. It was perhaps the hope of an emasculating amendment that carried the second reading of the Bill, though only by twenty-two votes.1 Yet, against all expectation, no such amendment was proposed when the Bill was in committee. Dodson and his supporters were naturally unwilling to take upon themselves so drastically to change a measure which they much preferred as it was; and their opponents, hoping to defeat the Bill, and rightly believing that it would be easier to do so if it remained unchanged, were equally reluctant to propose any alteration. Thus each party waited on the other, and, as neither moved, the Bill was reported unamended.* The tussle of strength came at the third reading on i July. It was clearly impossible for Gladstone, and any members who agreed with the sentiments 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 16 March 1864. Ibid. 1 and 29 June 1864. During the debate on the third reading, Lord Robert Cecil said that Gladstone had not been in the House when the Bill was considered in committee. 2

WMC

50

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

he had expressed on the second reading, to vote again for the Bill; and in a well-argued speech Sir William Heathcote called upon them to support his motion, "that the Bill be read the third time upon this day three months". But this motion was lost, though only by ten votes.1 Then came the main question—that this Bill be now read a third time. The atmosphere was tense, for the margin between victory and defeat seemed likely to be very narrow. There was a debate; but, as all that could be said had already been said many times over, it would have ended far sooner than it actually did, if it had not been kept up so as to give time to whip up absent members. Messengers were sent to the Clubs and the Opera House to recall absentees; and when the opponents of the Bill considered that they had obtained sufficient reinforcements to defeat it, they began to call loudly for a division. But when the House divided, an equal number of votes, 170, were cast for and against the motion. The Speaker had foreseen that this might happen, and had been laying his plans. He was unwilling to give a casting vote, and decided to put the question "that the Bill do pass". "The events that had happened", he afterwards wrote, "gave me good additional ground for this course. An hour before, there had been a majority of ten against putting off the Bill; now the numbers were equal. I told the House, after the voting that had taken place on the Bill they would not be surprised that I desired to afford them another opportunity of deciding the question for themselves. This opportunity would arise on the motion that the Bill do pass; at the present stage I declared for the Ayes. Some more members had come in; the division gave a majority of two to the Noes."2 The Bill was rejected by 173 votes to 171; but the defeated party had almost achieved success and were therefore disposed to continue the attack. Consequently in the following session Goschen, who sat for the City of London in Parliament, brought forward a Bill identical with that sponsored by Dodson, except that divinity degrees were excluded from its operation; and as it was given a second reading by 206 votes to 190,3 the exciting scene of the year before would probably have been repeated if it had ever come to a third reading. But it never reached that stage. On 27 June 1865 the Prime Minister announced that Parliament would be dissolved on 6 July, and on the following day Goschen withdrew his Bill.4 The campaign had now been carried on for three years, and it is possible to gauge fairly accurately the strength of the opposing forces. It is quite 1

Gladstone voted for Heathcote's motion. J. E. Denison (later Viscount Ossington), Notes from my Journal (1900), pp. 167-168; Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 1 July 1864. 3 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 21 March, 14 June 1865. 4 Ibid, 28 June 1865. 2

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

51

evident that many members of the House of Commons considered it both undesirable and unjust that membership of the Oxford Convocation, and presumably of the Cambridge Senate, should be restricted to professed adherents of the Anglican Church; and their point of view was very well put by Goschen during the debate on the second reading of his Bill. "Sir", he said, "a very great fuss is made about admitting Dissenters to the government of the University,.. .we have admitted Jews, Catholics, and Dissenters to Parliament. Here they are, sitting and legislating for the University at this moment—legislating with infinitely greater effect than if they themselves in cap and gown were sitting in Convocation, making speeches in Latin." l But it is equally evident from the fate of Pleydell-Bouverie's Bills that many members of this party were in favour of retaining a religious test for fellowships, and drew a sharp distinction between the University and the colleges. Nor were they unreasonable in doing so. The University was still mainly concerned with the conduct of examinations and administrative problems, while the teaching of undergraduates was to a very great extent carried on by the colleges; and it was possible with a show of reason to contend that if the instruction of young men at the most impressionable time of their lives was in the hands of men of conflicting religious opinions, the flower of the youth of England might be lost to the Church and perhaps to Christianity. This argument grossly exaggerated the susceptibility of young men to the influence of their elders, assumed that most Dissenters and Agnostics were unscrupulous propagandists, and disregarded the fact that the tests did not exclude wolves in sheep's clothing; but, nevertheless, it was sufficiently plausible to be more convincing than it ought to have been. There was therefore ample justification for the very clumsy method, hitherto pursued, of attacking the problem of the tests piecemeal: even the few who favoured a root and branch policy must have realised that its time had not yet come. The most sanguine could hardly have hoped for more in the immediate future than that admission to Convocation and the Senate should cease to be an Anglican privilege. And even that little might not be achieved if the new House of Commons contained more conservatives than the old, which for a time seemed not improbable. The bye-elections had generally gone in their favour, and shortly before the dissolution, the conservative whip had predicted that his partywould gain twenty-five seats at the General Election.2 He was a false prophet, for the appeal to the country resulted in a gain by the liberals of twenty seats, counting forty on a division. Yet as long as Palmerston remained their leader, the liberal party would be discouraged from even the mildest knight errantry at home, and his death a few months 1 2

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 14 June 1865. Political History of England, vol. xn, p. 195. 4-2

52

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

later, and the succession of Lord Russell to the premiership, gave a hope of better things. Nor was it unimportant that Gladstone, who became leader of the party in the House of Commons, had in the General Election been defeated by Gathorne Hardy at Oxford. It would be going tar beyond the truth to say that his objection to what Lord Morley has called the principle of a free University was due to his political connection with Oxford; but the severance of that connection undoubtedly favoured his advance towards a fuller conception of religious liberty. That it might do so had been foreseen. A member of the House of Commons had in March 1864 expressed regret that "the Right Honourable Gentleman was member for the University of Oxford; if he were free from that incubus, there could be little doubt he would soon go the length of advocating the admission of Dissenters to the University as members of Convocation".1 And Gladstone himself declared that his rejection by Oxford had unmuzzled him, though possibly neither then nor later did he realise how effective the muzzling had been. But unmuzzling, when it takes the form of liberation from deeply rooted and long cherished prejudices, is inevitably a slow process; and Gladstone still regarded the tests as some sort of a safeguard of religion at the Universities, and feared, if they were swept away or even sensibly relaxed, to see the spectre of infidelity stalk in triumph through those ancient homes of learning. Nor as a responsible statesman would he have been justified in urging the Government to take up a question which had not been prominently before the country at the General Election, and upon which the liberal party was not of one mind. Moreover an administration over which Lord Russell presided was practically certain to devote itself to the task of Parliamentary reform; and on 12 March 1866 Gladstone introduced a Reform Bill which engaged the time and attention of the House until the Government was defeated on an amendment to it proposed by Lord Dunkellin, and thereupon resigned. Nevertheless, during this busy and exciting session two Tests Bills were brought forward by private members, and though both were ultimately withdrawn, they deserve notice as marking an advance. One of these Bills was based upon, though not identical with, the measures introduced by Dodson and Goschen in the last two sessions of the previous Parliament. It only applied to Oxford, and prescribed that a test or declaration of faith should not be required of any person before admission to a lay degree or into Convocation. But it went much further. No test or declaration was to be required for holding "any Professorship, Readership or other academical office which is, or may be tenable, by a layman within the said University"; and though like the earlier Bills it provided that no one by virtue of his degree should be qualified to hold any office which had hitherto 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 16 March 1864.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

53

been restricted to members of the Church of England, unless he had declared his adherence to that communion, it excluded from the operation of this provision any office in the University or in any of the colleges. The Bill however did not extend to masterships or fellowships of colleges, unless such "fellowship or other endowment in such college, house or hall was attached to some public professorship, readership or other academical office within the said University". This measure, which was introduced by a later Lord Chief Justice, J. D. Coleridge, a former Fellow of Exeter College and a very loyal churchman, was far bolder in design and more far reaching in its consequences than either of the earlier Bills, upon which it was partially based. It disconnected both the degrees and the teaching offices of the University from the Church of England; but it did not apply the same principle to masterships and fellowships, unless they were attached to a University teaching post. This difference in the treatment of the University and colleges apparently was a reflection of Coleridge's opinions at the time, and not merely a tactical concession: he held that the discipline and internal harmony of the colleges, and the fulfilment of their responsibilities to undergraduates, might be adversely affected by a variety of religious opinions in their Governing Bodies. The second reading of the Bill was carried on 21 March by a majority of 114; and some of the members who opposed it admitted that there was a problem to be solved, and that the University tests must be revised. Sir Stafford Northcote, for instance, stated that though he was convinced that as long as the Universities continued to educate the clergy, it was absolutely necessary that they should have a definite Church of England character, he was also of the opinion that the question under discussion could neither be evaded nor answered by an unmodified negative. But he added that, as he thought that the Bill could not be satisfactorily amended in committee, he intended to vote against a second reading, so as "to allow the introduction of some other Bill, either by the Government, or by those who represent the Nonconformists, or by the members of the Universities themselves". Moreover some of those who voted in the majority on this occasion, disapproved almost as strongly of the Bill as Sir Stafford Northcote, but agreed with him in desiring a final settlement, and hesitated to reject a possible opportunity of reaching it. Sir William Heathcote, for instance, said that he was prepared to vote for a second reading, in the hope that in committee "some satisfactory arrangement could be come to, excluding extreme views on either side and removing a practical hardship".1 Thus both he and Northcote had practically admitted that they were prepared to discuss terms of peace, and the latter suggested that the Government might negotiate a settlement. 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 21 March 1866.

54

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

This appeal to the Government was reinforced by Heathcote when the Bill was in committee. He called upon the Administration to bring forward a measure that would deal comprehensively with the various rehgious tests at the Universities, and declaimed against the futility of the method, hitherto pursued, of attacking the problem piecemeal. Gladstone accepted the challenge, and attempted to justify the non-committal attitude of the Government. "My honourable friend", he said, "expressed his opinion that this is a question which should be taken up by the Government. I was not authorised, nor was any one authorised, to say anything on behalf of the Government with respect to this Bill. But I do not think it would be desirable that the Government should make themselves responsible for any proposition which had not a fair prospect of success, or for any proposition which did not seem to deal with the subject in a satisfactory manner. I fully admit however with the Honourable Gentleman that whenever the time arrives—if it ever does arrive—when the Government or the Administration of the day can see its way to the proposal of some measure that shall really effect what the Honourable Baronet termed a settlement of this question, the magnitude of the question, and its enormous importance in a social, domestic, religious and moral point of view, would give it of necessity a primary claim upon the attention of any Government." He then proceeded to argue that with regard to the tests it was impossible to draw any valid distinction between the University and the colleges, and that no measure would be satisfactory which was not of a comprehensive character. "I think", he added, "our object should be to give to the Dissenters everything, whether in the way of honours, of emoluments or of governing power, which can be given them, subject to the one vital and indispensable condition which lies at the root of the whole matter." And then came the ace that his enemies accused him of always keeping up his sleeve— "it seems to me that equity, justice and policy demand that nothing should be done that will not leave an effectual security for the maintenance in all its vigour of the religious system which pervades both the Universities".1 He did not say what sort of security he would consider effectual, or define the religious system which needed to be so carefully guarded; he had moreover neither pledged the Government to introduce a Tests Bill, nor indicated, should they do so, its general character, beyond saying that it would aim at being a final settlement, and include the Universities and the colleges within its scope. It is therefore not surprising that in the same debate a member, commenting upon the lack of union in the liberal party, wittily remarked that "it might be in a happier and more united condition.. .if many of its members did not feel it to be more than probable that, just as the forlorn hope 1 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 13 June 1866.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

55

was storming the breach, the general of the force might turn round and fire his revolver in their faces". Yet though Gladstone had been studiously vague, and the Bill never reached a third reading, being withdrawn on 20 July, Coleridge could legitimately feel that his efforts had not been entirely in vain. The existence of a grievance which needed to be remedied had been far more generally recognised than ever before; and it was also evident that the trend of opinion was in favour of a settlement that would satisfy, as far as possible, the rival parties, and consequently bring a very wearisome controversy to an end. It is significant in this connection that a proposal, when the Bill was in committee, to amend it by establishing the Cambridge "compromise" at Oxford was rejected by seventy-three votes.1 The other Tests Bill of this session, which was brought forward by PleydellBouverie, permitted the colleges, if their statutes allowed, to elect Nonconformists into fellowships. It encountered far more determined opposition than that brought forward by Coleridge; and an amendment that it should be read again this day six months was only rejected by twenty-two votes.* Nor were its critics unjustified in treating its permissive character as a snare and a delusion. When Pleydell-Bouverie expressed the confident hope that ' 'Trinity College, the greatest college in the University of Cambridge, would take that opportunity of admitting Dissenters among its Fellows",3 and added that he expected the other colleges to follow its example, he predicted what his opponents feared might happen. They too expected that some of the colleges at both Oxford and Cambridge, once the bar of the Act of Uniformity was removed, would throw open their fellowships to non-Anglicans, and that the other colleges, fearful of being eclipsed, would follow their example. "Nothing would be easier for Nonconformists"—declared one member, "than, by sending their able mathematicians, to carry all the small colleges in detail; and when they had done that, and had established a majority of Nonconformist fellowships, how would it fare with the established service of the Church of England and the Master of the college as a member of the Church of England?" 4 There were also some who believed that permission was only the prelude of coercion. Gathorne Hardy remarked that he knew the history of permissive Bills: "they invariably led to coercive Bills ".5 The Bill made no provision for exemption from the abjuration oath, and Pleydell-Bouverie's remark that the omission was not due to any doubt in his mind "that a rule, which is just as regards Nonconformists, is equally just as regards Roman Catholics, but because that Act forms part of a very large 1 2 5

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 13 June 1866. Ibid. 25 April 1866. 3 aid. 4 fin Ibid. 6 June 1866. The Bill did not extend to Headships of Houses.

56

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

subject,... and that subject must be dealt with by itself" was not very illuminating.1 Henry Fawcett, the Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge, was far more explicit. He assured "his Roman Catholic friends in the House and in the country that they who first started this movement in Cambridge were not in the least aware of any other Act that would exclude Roman Catholics"; 2 and then went on to give a pledge that if the Bill passed, and "they found that it did not give the Roman Catholics the same privileges that it gave to Nonconformist Dissenters", they would "at once introduce a measure that would confer the same privileges on Roman Catholics".3 But even he did not explain why it was impossible, or at least inexpedient, simultaneously to loosen the fetters of Roman Catholics and Dissenters. The Bill was withdrawn on 18 July; and thus another session passed without a positive achievement to the credit of those who for four years had carried on the struggle. It is true that some progress had been made. It was reasonable to hope that the University tests, as distinct from the college tests, might before very long be relegated to the dust-heap of antiquities, but it was only a hope, and might be disappointed. And this record of failure cannot be adequately explained by the fact that at both Universities there was a majority in favour of the maintenance of tests; for in the past Parliament had not always accepted academic opinion as a reliable guide in the matter of university reform. A far more serious obstacle was the refusal of the Government to take up the question, but it was not the only one. Though tactical considerations might require that the University and the colleges should be dealt with by separate Bills,* it was an unfortunate approach to the problem, as the attention and interest of the nation would never be aroused by measures which might fairly be called tinkering, and held forth no promise of a final and comprehensive settlement. This point was very well put by Robert Lowe in a speech which he made in the House of Commons on 21 March 1866. "The University", he said, "should be thrown open to admit the whole nation, and be co-extensive with the domain of human intellect itself"; and he then went on to say that this most desirable change could only be brought about by rousing the public sympathy and proposing such a measure as may be adequate to the occasion. When you bring forward such a proposition as that of the honourable and learned member for Exeter [Mr Coleridge], you fail to rouse 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 25 April 1866. The non*-placet notice issued by W . G. Clark (see p. 46) suggests however that at least one member of the party at Cambridge was aware of the abjuration oath. 3 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 6 June 1866. 4 In a speech in the House of Commons on 12 February 1867, Fawcett admitted that some who were in favour of the repeal of the University tests, did not approve of the same principle being applied to the colleges. 2

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

57

public opinion in its support. But if it be a demand on behalf of the nation at large—if you say that you would admit every layman, whatever his religious beliefs, to the full benefit of the University—every man would understand you, and you would rouse in its behalf an amount of popular favour, which would carry the measure over twenty times the obstruction which is offered to you to-day. So long as you go in for but the narrow end of the wedge, there is no hope of making any advance. The advice was sound, but those to whom it was given can be excused for not immediately acting upon it. The interest which Lord Russell and his colleagues had aroused in the question of parliamentary reform survived their downfall; and it was in response to a popular demand that Disraeli, who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the new Derby ministry, introduced in March 1867 another Reform Bill, which by the end of the session had passed both Houses. There was therefore for the time being not the slightest hope of focusing the attention of the nation on the question of the tests, and consequently no reason for incurring the risk of failure by bringing forward a comprehensive measure for their abolition. Therefore no change was immediately made in the plan of campaign. On 12 February 1867 Coleridge moved for leave to bring in a Bill, which was substantially the same as his measure of the previous year. It had an uneventful first and second reading; but, when it was in the committee stage Fawcett moved an amendment, of which he had previously given notice, that its operation should be extended to Cambridge. Gladstone's contribution to the debate was extremely characteristic. He said that he intended to vote for the amendment, as he thought that the two Universities should be treated alike, but that he could not vote for the Bill, as it was too restricted in scope, and lacked those safeguards for the preservation of the religious system at the Universities, which he considered to be essential. He was again very vague, neither defining the safeguards that he wanted, nor the religious system that he wished to be preserved; but he was at least in advance of the representatives of the two Universities, who voted against the amendment. It was however carried by 253 votes to 166, and on 16 July the Bill was read a third time and passed.1 It was lost in the Upper House, not even being given a second reading;2 but its defeat there had probably been taken for granted, and its supporters had had good reason to be encouraged by their achievement. The House of Commons had approved the principle that no person intellectually qualified ought to be excluded from the Governing Bodies of the Universities. The other Tests Bill of the previous session was also brought forward again. 1 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 10 April, 8 May, 18 June, 16 July 1867. a Ibid. House of Lords, 25 July 1867.

58

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

It was given a first and second reading, and passed, practically unscathed, through the committee stage; but on 7 August a motion that it should be read a third time was rejected in a very thin House by a majority of seven.1 As Parliament was then within a fortnight of prorogation, it is not surprising that all interest had been lost in a measure so clearly destined never to become a statute; but from the outset it had been far less sympathetically received than its companion measure. Gladstone, who voted against the second reading, adopted much the same attitude as to the other Bill. He admitted that the system of tests could not be left unchanged, and that something must be done in justice to the Dissenters and to ensure peace in the Universities. But he took objection to the permissive character of the Bill, and contended that it was for Parliament and not for the colleges to take the necessary action. "I am not prepared", he said, "to delegate to those who may for the moment be the recipients of the bounty of the founders... the vital and fundamental matters relating to the administration of their trust, or to leave them to determine upon what grounds Dissenters are to be admitted into the Governing Bodies of the Universities or colleges." But he abstained from presenting any programme of action. Concessions, such as that a fellowship ought not to be refused to a Dissenter, were carefully hedged in by demands that any settlement must " include a due regard to the position of the clergy within the Universities, and a regard for the securities which it is desirable for us to preserve for the general maintenance of religious education within the limits of these seminaries".2 His speech suggests that he recognised the existence of a problem but was unable to see a solution of it. He raised, however, one very valid objection to the Bill. On its introduction Fawcett had announced his intention of proposing at a future date the addition of "clauses to place Roman Catholics upon the same footing as members of other religious bodies"; 3 but he did not carry out this intention, having come to believe that the Indemnity Act, which was annually passed to relieve all persons from any penalties they had incurred by not taking the oath of abjuration, made it unnecessary to make special provision for Roman Catholics in the Bill. It is questionable, or was at least questioned, whether the effects of the Indemnity Act were as far reaching as Fawcett believed them to be; but even if he was right there were weighty objections, as Gladstone pointed out, to the establishment of "a state of law by which certain obligations are to be kept alive, and yet from which those individuals are to escape by an Act of Indemnity". 4 1

Parliamentary Debates, Hou:>e of Commons, 7 August 1867. 3 Ibid. 29 May 1867. Ibid. 7 March 1867. There are no grounds for suspecting that Fawcett did not carry out his original intention because he thought the House of Commons would be more favourable to the Bill if it did 2

4

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

59

The Parliamentary session of 1867 saw a certain amount of progress in the attack upon the tests, and in particular the end of its first phase: the artificial distinction, which had hitherto been observed between the University and colleges, was now abandoned in favour of a single inclusive measure. The explanation of this change is probably that one important objection to it had ceased to exist. As the Commons in the session of 1867 had passed a Bill which threw open the Governing Bodies of both Universities to persons of all creeds, there was no doubt that the House approved of at least this concession; and therefore the argument against a comprehensive measure, that by attempting to achieve too much an opportunity of achieving a little was wantonly sacrificed, lost much of its validity. Consequently, when on 18 February 1868 Coleridge moved that "leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal certain tests and alter certain statutes affecting the constitution of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge", he broke new ground, for, as he informed the House, his Bill combined the two separate measures of earlier sessions. He probably had not taken this step without serious personal misgivings. Influenced by the consideration that the colleges did not fulfil the same functions as the Universities, and that, as being more directly responsible for the teaching and training of undergraduates, their welfare and usefulness might be seriously impeded by a diversity of religious opinions among their Fellows, he had hitherto refrained from even going so far as to support the permissive Bills brought forward in the sessions of 1866 and 1867 for repealing those provisions of the Act of Uniformity which required the Fellows of colleges to pledge themselves to conform to the Anglican liturgy; and though he had now advanced from that position, he still held that the Universities and the colleges should not be treated alike. This opinion is reflected in his Bill, which was compulsory with regard to the Universities and permissive with regard to the colleges. It prescribed that at both Oxford and Cambridge no declaration of religious belief should be required upon admission to any degree except one in divinity, or to any professorship or readership of the University tenable by a layman; but though the Masters, as well as the Fellows and Lecturers, of colleges were relieved of the obligations to subscribe the declaration imposed by the Act of Uniformity and to take the oath of abjuration,1 the colleges were not forbidden to impose other religious tests upon them if they considered it desirable to do so. It was of little moment that both Oxford and Cambridge presented petinot extend to Roman Catholics. He frankly told the House that if the Bill did not place Roman Catholics in the same position as Dissenters, "I will alter the Bill in committee".

mi 1

Scholars and Exhibitioners were also exempted from taking the Abjuration Oath.

60

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

tions under the seal of the University against the Bill, for this had been their usual reaction to all the Tests Bills brought forward since 1863. It is of more interest that attempts were made to create an agitation in the country against a measure which its opponents did not hesitate to describe as Godless. At a meeting in the Town Hall of Buckingham on 18 April, with Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, in the Chair, resolutions were passed which declared that it was of the utmost importance that the connection between the ancient Universities and the Church of England should remain unimpaired, that the Bill now before Parliament tended to sever that connection, and that, while this meeting would not object to any scheme by which the literary distinctions offered by the Universities might be made accessible to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, it strongly deprecates any proposal for admitting into the Governing Bodies of the Universities, or to offices involving the religious instruction or moral control of the students, persons from whom no assurance shall have been taken that they are either members of the Church of England or even believers in Christianity.1 The member for Buckingham, J. G. Hubbard, who attended the meeting, went so far as to describe the Bill as "one of a series of measures that were directly aimed against the Christianity of the nation". 2 On 9 May a Cambridge deputation, which included the two University Burgesses,3 two Bishops, two Heads of Houses, and a few of the leading upholders of the tests at Cambridge, waited upon the Archbishop of Canterbury to present a memorial against the Bill, which was said to have been signed by nearly three thousand graduates of the University, resident and non-resident. "We earnestly deprecate", it said, "and solemnly protest against such legislation as destructive of the connexion between the University and the Church, and as tending to sever education from religion"; 4 and several members of the deputation expressed similar opinions, including the Bishop of Ely who added that these sentiments were shared by the undergraduates, from whom he had recently received a petition against the Bill, to which about a thousand signatures were attached. The Archbishop, Charles Longley, was very sympathetic. He recalled the far off, and possibly happier, days when he had been a Tutor of an Oxford college, and referred affectionately to his pleasant 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 25 April 1868. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 13 May 1868. 3 A. J. Beresford Hope had succeeded Selwyn as parliamentary representative of the University, in February 1868. 4 This passage is quoted from an early undated draft of the Memorial, but as Selwyn, whose signature is attached to it, is described as "Lord Justice", it cannot be earlier in date than 1868, as it was not until the February of that year that he became a Lord Justice of Appeal. University Papers, C. 1, University Library. 2

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

6l

memories of the society of the Common Room, where "with the eight or twelve others, who were engaged in the same work, he had ever held friendly council with men whose common object was to instil with their teaching the truest principles of religion and morality". But if Coleridge's Bill was passed by Parliament, that Common Room, he predicted, would be occupied by " eight or twelve men of all religious denominations" ©r of none; and consequently cease to be a temple of harmony. Nor was it only for the peace of mind of Fellows of colleges that he feared; he described the Bill as a cruel injustice to parents, and assured the deputation that they could rely upon his most cordial support.1 But in other quarters Coleridge was hailed as the champion of religious freedom and educational progress. Parliament was petitioned on behalf of the Bill by eighty persons holding teaching or administrative posts at Oxford, by one hundred and twenty-three present and past Fellows of Oxford colleges, and by two hundred and twenty-seven present and past officers and Fellows at Cambridge. Also thirty-two out of the sixty Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, among whom were four of the eight Seniors, six Fellows of Peterhouse, and the Master and all but one of the Fellows of Christ's, signed petitions complaining of the harm done to their colleges by the religious tests. "These restrictions", complained the Trinity petitioners, "have rendered it impossible for the college to enrol among its Fellows, especially during the last six years, several of its most distinguished scholars"; and they also urged that "the total abolition of the parliamentary declarations would be no injury, but on the contrary a great benefit, to members of the Church of England; by sparing minds, as yet unformed, the premature suggestion of all the great religious controversies of the present and former ages; by removing an invidious privilege of Church membership, which is by many considered in no better light than as an unfair interference with University competitions; and by relieving some consciences from the painful misgivings which are apt to follow the hasty profession of conviction when made under strong pressure in early youth."z It may be that the majority of resident graduates at both Universities were convinced that Christianity, and not only the Church of England, would suffer a mortal blow by the abolition of the tests; but that more than half the sixty Fellows of a college, which was accurately described as "the most important educational corporation in England below the rank of a University", were of the contrary opinion was a fact which might be regretted 1 Cambridge Chronicle, 16 May 1868. The Archbishop received an even more violent memorial from Oxford: Coleridge quoted extracts from it in his speech in the House of Commons on 13 May. 2 These petitions are to be found in an appendix to Sir George Young's University Tests (1868).

62

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

but could hardly be ignored. But these petitions and addresses, inasmuch as they advanced no arguments which had not been heard many times before, would have been of little interest if they had not been an indication that both parties believed that the battle had reached a critical stage. Coleridge commented on the agitation which his Bill had provoked, when on 13 May he moved its second reading: he admitted that, having nothing new to say, he would have been content to take the sense of the House upon it, if outside the walls of Parliament it had not been encountered "by an agitation and by proceedings so unusual and almost unprecedented".1 But a turn of the political wheel averted the expected clash. The liberal party in the Commons, after two years of what has been described as "organised impotency", was re-united by Gladstone's memorable declaration that the Irish Church must be disestablished, and this re-union spelt the doom of the conservative administration, whose tenure of life from the outset of its existence had depended upon the discord in the Opposition. Disraeli, who had succeeded Lord Derby as Prime Minister, forced to choose between resignation and an appeal to the country, informed the House on 4 May that, after consulting the Queen, he had decided to adopt the latter alternative; but that, as there was much to be done before Parliament could be dissolved, there would not be a General Election until the autumn.2 During the remainder of the session, which was brought to an end on 31 July, there was little time available for the discussion of Coleridge's Bill; and though its second reading was carried on 1 July by a majority of over fifty, 3 it was withdrawn three weeks later, and never considered in committee. The conservative party was decisively defeated in the General Election, and the liberal majority in the new House of Commons was 112; in the words of Lord Morley "after a long era of torpor, a powerful party... once more came into being". 4 And though the General Election had mainly been fought on one question, the Irish Church Establishment, the religious tests had been a side issue, and had engaged the interest of many electors, particularly in the Scottish and Welsh constituencies. Speaking some months later in the House of Lords, Lord Camperdown said that "in the elections which had been held last year, this question was brought before many constituencies; and in several rural places, in which one would not have imagined that the people had ever considered such matters as University education, the candidates were subjected to a searching test, and asked what their course would be in the event of such a measure as the present being submitted to Parliament ".5 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 13 May 1868. 3 Ibid. 4 May 1868. Ibid. 1 July 1868. Morley, Life of Gladstone (popular edition), vol. 1, pp. 885-886. 5 Parliamentary History, House of Lords, 19 July 1869.

2

4

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

63

Disraeli resigned office before the new Parliament met, and as about a year before Lord Russell had announced that he would not take office again, the Queen called upon Gladstone to form a ministry. The new Prime Minister's programme for the coming session did not include the question of the tests, which was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne; and the omission can have caused no surprise. Though in the session of 1868 he had voted for the second reading of Coleridge's Bill, it had been a silent vote; 1 and his attitude remained as enigmatical as ever. He had admitted that the Dissenters had grievances which ought to be redressed, but this concession had always been followed by the demand that the religious system which pervaded both the Universities must be amply safeguarded; and as he had never defined the religious system on which he put so high a value, or the safeguards that he considered necessary, it was impossible to count upon his support for any scheme that might be proposed. He had however at least made perfectly clear that in his opinion the Universities and the colleges should be dealt with in one Bill, and that it was not for the colleges but for Parliament to determine whether admission to their headships and fellowships should continue to be restricted to members of the Church of England. But beyond that he could not as yet see his way, and possibly feared that by blindly going forward he might bring about what he abhorred, the divorce of education from religion. Therefore even if his primary object on taking office had not been the disestablishment of the Irish Church, it is quite certain that he would have paused before associating himself and his ministry with a cause which raised so many doubts in his mind. Therefore though Coleridge, being Solicitor-General, was a member of the Government, it was only in his private capacity that on 23 February 1869 he asked the leave of the House to introduce a measure, which he described as "a reprint of the Bill of last year". But though uncountenanced by the Ministry, he was assured of the support of a powerful ministerial majority; and was even perhaps a little fearful that he might be driven further by that majority than he wished to go. And some members of the conservative minority were wise enough to see that the cause for which they had been fighting was in deadly peril, and that their right course was to treat for terms. One of the foremost of these advocates of compromise was Sir Roundell Palmer, who on the second reading of the Bill came forward as a peacemaker. He confessed that fifteen years before he had strenuously opposed even the admission of Dissenters to the University of Oxford, believing that this concession would inevitably bring others in its train, and that the "consequences, possibly, and even probably", might be the subversion of the influence and authority of religion in the University. He admitted that he had 1

This was asserted by Gathorne Hardy in the House of Commons on 29 June 1869.

64

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

been needlessly alarmed, and that if there was now a great diversity of religious thought at the Universities, this was not due to the presence there of Dissenters, but to influences at work throughout the Church and the country. He further pointed out that they were now confronted with a growing demand from both within and without the Universities for the removal of most of the remaining religious tests; and that, instead of obstinately resisting it, their duty as practical men was to consider whether it could be met without surrendering "the influence and authority of religious teaching within the University". He answered his own question in the affirmative by expressing willingness to accept Coleridge's Bill if certain amendments were made in committee. Most of these amendments were of an uncontroversial character; but one of them was in a very different category. It provided that every person hereafter to be elected or appointed to any professorship in the said Universities, or either of them, or to the office of Tutor or Lecturer within the same, shall, before he shall be capable of entering upon or discharging the duties of his office, or of receiving any emoluments thereof, make and subscribe before the Vice-Chancellor of the University, or before the Head or Chief Governor of the college for the time being (as the case may be), the declaration following— I, A B, do solemnly and sincerely declare that as Professor of (or Lecturer in or Tutor of as the case may be) and in the discharge of the said office, I will never endeavour, directly or indirectly, to teach or inculcate any opinion opposed to the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, or to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England as by law established. Roundell Palmer endeavoured to persuade the House that as this declaration did not involve a profession of faith, it could not fairly be described as a test. It was no more, he contended, than a pledge to abstain from expressing opinions contrary to the teaching of the Bible and the Anglican Church, and would therefore only exclude persons who intended to use their influence as teachers to undermine the faith of undergraduates. Though perfectly sincere, he was wrong, for the declaration he required would both fail to achieve its purpose and be a stumbling block to tender consciences. It would not prevent the unscrupulous teacher from slyly discrediting the doctrines it was designed to protect, and might easily deter the conscientious Dissenter, Roman Catholic or unbeliever from accepting an office, for which he was eminently qualified, because he feared that he might be unable completely to exclude his religious opinions from his teaching. It was impossible for Coleridge to acquiesce in such a distortion of his Bill; and he promptly announced that though he took no objection to Roundell Palmer's other amendments, he could not possibly accept what he described

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

65

as a negative test. The fact however that the second reading of the Bill was carried, nemine contradicente,1 cannot be taken to mean that it was approved by all members. Probably several conservatives, who had originally intended to vote against the Bill, decided to hold their hand for the time being, in the hope that it might be modified in accordance with Roundell Palmer's suggestions, and that therefore they could accept it as a final solution of a difficult and wearisome problem.2 Certainly when on 29 June it was moved that the House should go into committee on the Bill, the attitude of the conservative party was very conciliatory. The two Cambridge University Burgesses came forward with olive branches. Beresford Hope said that he was prepared to approve the abolition of a religious test for admission into the Governing Bodies of the Universities, and that though he still thought it very dangerous to venture upon the same experiment with the colleges, he was ready to go a long way to meet the needs of Nonconformists, and believed that this might be done by the foundation of University fellowships which did not carry with them the right of participating in the government of a college. The other Burgess, Walpole, expressed his willingness to support the Bill if Roundell Palmer's amendments were accepted.5 But these peace offers came too late, and the Bill emerged from the committee stage practically unchanged. Its operation was extended to the University of Durham, and only such of Roundell Palmer's amendments as were uncontroversial in character were incorporated in it. He was obliged to withdraw the one upon which he set most store, so unfavourably had it been received, and not only by his political opponents; a member of his own party described it as possessing "the minimum of utility with the maximum of irritation". Though the Bill was not a Government measure, the Government majority was behind it; and the sixth clause, which freed the colleges from all parliamentary restraints on the admission of persons who were not members of the Church of England to headships, fellowships and lectureships, was carried by 216 votes to 95. There was however no assurance that all the colleges would be willing or even able to avail themselves of the liberty thus accorded to them, particularly if they could not do so without changing their statutes. At Cambridge, as Fawcett told the House, the colleges, if they wanted to amend their statutes, had not only to obtain the consent of the majority of their Fellows, but also "to apply to the Queen in Council to sanction the alteration, and that was a tedious and expensive process, the minority being entitled to be heard by 1 2 3

Annual Register for 1869. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 10 and 15 March 1869. Ibid. 29 June 1869.

66

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

counsel against it**. And he asserted that at Oxford, "still more serious difficulties arose, for there it was absolutely necessary to get the consent of the Visitors to the alteration of the statutes,1 and in the great majority of cases the Visitors were Bishops, and their consent was not likely to be given to any proposal tending to admit a Dissenter". Fawcett may have exaggerated these difficulties, as he held that the colleges ought to be compelled and not merely permitted to abolish all religious tests; but he had no intention of proposing such a radical change in the Bill. Yet, as he was not content with it as it was, he urged the addition of a provision that if the Master and Fellows of any college decided by a majority "to alter any statute affecting the right of Dissenters and others to enjoy college endowments, they should have the power of altering the college statutes for that object, without the necessity of going through the expensive and cumbrous process now requisite". He had not devised this scheme himself: he said that he had been asked to bring it forward by some of the "most moderate, experienced and leading members of the University to which he had the honour to belong"; and George Denman added that he had received "a very strong letter from Trinity College, Cambridge, 2 ... urging him to support the clause, because it was felt that unless some such clause passed, very little would be done". The clause was however rejected, and this was fortunate, for, had it been accepted, the colleges, as both Coleridge and Pleydell-Bouverie pointed out, could hardly be refused the same facilities for changing their statutes in order to restrict their fellowships to members of the Church of England. Yet Fawcett's proposal has the interest of a shadow of a coming event. It was intended to overcome the weakness inherent in the permissive character of those provisions of the Bill which affected the colleges, and foreshadowed the substitution of compulsion for permission. Gladstone might have repeated his silent vote of the previous session if he had not been challenged to reconcile his approval of the Bill with his frequently reiterated demand that nothing must be done to endanger the existing system of religious education in the Universities and colleges. Thus called upon, he repudiated the charge of having changed his opinions. He reminded the House that he had always insisted that there must be "just and adequate securities for religious education in the Universities and colleges", and that it was both unwise and unjust to remove the barrier of creed from admission 1

On 16 May 1873 Lord Ripon told the House of Lords that in 1871 the question had been raised whether the statutes of colleges could be changed without the consent of the Visitor, and that the Committee of the Privy Council had decided that the Visitor's consent was not required. But the Lord Chancellor expressed the opinion that this ruling might only apply to such statutes as had been made by the Statutory Commissioners, and not to the more ancient statutes of a college. 2 Denman had been a Fellow of Trinity.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

6j

to the Universities and their highest honours, while retaining it for "those college emoluments and powers, which are the regular crown.. .of a University career"; and he then proceeded to explain that, as the Bill met these demands, he was able to give it his most cordial support. This is not a convincing defence, for undoubtedly the securities provided by the Bill for the maintenance of religious instruction and discipline would not have seemed to him adequate a few years before. But his consistency is a matter of minor account; what was of importance was that the Head of the Government had avowed his approval of the Bill, and that if it was rejected by either House, it might be re-introduced by the Ministry.1 On 8 July the Bill was read a third time without further debate and passed. The dice were heavily loaded against it in the House of Lords, particularly as the two Houses were in violent conflict over the Irish Church Bill, and the Peers were consequently not in a conciliatory mood. Therefore the refusal of the Upper House, after a comparatively short debate, even to give it a second reading, cannot have come as a surprise. But even an angry House of Lords was alive to the folly of adopting a completely reactionary attitude; and both Lord Carnarvon, who moved the previous question, and the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, who supported him, said that they might have been willing further to consider the Bill if it had only been concerned with admission to the Governing Bodies of the Universities. But a concession so much out of date was quite valueless; and Lord Camper down solemnly warned the House that a heavy price might be exacted for a victory which could only be temporary. "This was a compromise", he said, "and, if rejected, the time might come when, as in the case of other compromises which their Lordships had an opportunity of accepting but had rejected, they would find themselves in the bitter position of having to consent to something much more drastic."2 A few weeks before, Henry Sidgwick had announced his intention of resigning his Trinity fellowship, in order, as he told his brother-in-law, E. W. Benson, to free himself "from dogmatic obligations".3 It was the purely voluntary act of a high-minded and very scrupulous man who thought no sacrifice too great on behalf of honesty. But though it is impossible to exaggerate the moral splendour of his action, it is easy to exaggerate its effects; and there are no grounds for believing that "it exercised", as an admirer has asserted, "some real influence in procuring the abolition of University Tests".4 This might have been the case if the resignation had taken 1 2 3 4

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 29 June, 2 July 1869. Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 19 July 1869. Life of Henry Sidgwick (1906), p. 198. Proceedings of the Society of Psychical Research (1900), p. 453. 5-2

68

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

place a few years before; but by the summer of 1869 the battle had practically been won. The tests had been condemned by a powerful and united party in the House of Commons, which could rightly claim to enjoy the support of the nation; and though the House of Lords were able to delay victory, they could not possibly prevent it. Yet in both Universities and outside them there were still many die-hards who either could not read the signs in the political heavens or wished to go down fighting. One of the most violent of them was Charles Clayton, who had been a Tutor of Caius and Vicar of Holy Trinity, Cambridge, and was now Rector of Stanhope in Weardale. When in residence at Cambridge, he had become notorious for his extreme evangelical views, annually preaching, to the great amusement of undergraduates, an impassioned sermon against the Bachelors' Ball; and from his Stanhope rectory he carried on an active campaign on behalf of the tests, flooding the Cambridge Chronicle, and possibly wearying his parishioners, with doleful predictions of the triumph of infidelity. He must therefore have heartily approved a manifesto, signed by eighty resident graduates of his University, which proclaimed that "the abolition of the religious tests in the University and Colleges.. .will seriously imperil the Christian character of the said University and Colleges", and "earnestly deprecated any legislation, by which the government and teaching of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, or of the Colleges in the same, may be transferred, altogether or in part, into the hands of persons who are not members of the Church of England". It seems that this document was prepared, or at least approved, at a private meeting at Cambridge in the autumn of 1869, which was not reported in the press; but as those who wished to sign it were asked to send in their names to either E. H. Perowne, Fellow and Tutor of Corpus, H. J. Hotham, Fellow of Trinity, or Arthur Holmes, Fellow of Clare, it may be assumed that these three men were closely connected with it.1 But there were other supporters of the tests who realised that the battle was going against them, and that they might be overtaken by complete disaster unless they could persuade the enemy to grant favourable peace terms. These men were as valiant as the fanatics of their party; but far more prudent. No one, for instance, could have been more convinced than Henry Liddon that he was fighting for a holy cause and for eternal verities;2 but 1

The Times, 8 December 1869; Cambridge Chronicle, 15 January 1870; Paper in Cam Collection, University Library, 6 December 1869. 2 He was quoted on 1 July 1868 in the House of Commons by Gathorne Hardy as saying that "the questions raised by Mr Coleridge's Bill are no mere continuation of the feud between Churchmen and Nonconformists. They penetrate much deeper; hence our children will understand that all such questions really resolve themselves into this—whether our Universities are to continue to be Christian?"

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

69

nevertheless, in a letter to the Guardian of 25 May 1868, he had proposed as a compromise settlement that either half the existing colleges should be handed over to the Nonconformists, and the other half secured completely for the Church, or that each of the colleges should be taxed to the extent of half its property, and the sum thus obtained used for the foundation of Nonconformist colleges in the Universities, provided that the colleges so impoverished remained or became entirely Church of England institutions, and that their Fellows were obliged to make a profession of faith. It is not worth while to consider the merits of these alternative schemes, as neither of them had the slightest chance of being accepted;I but they are interesting as indicating a retreat. Still more significant was a document submitted to a meeting at the Provost of King's Lodge on 1 December 1869, which suggested that as many Fellows of colleges were non-resident, "the present requirement for the holder of a fellowship, simply as such to declare himself a member of the Church of England", was unnecessary; and that it would be enough if this obligation was restricted to those Fellows who were responsible for the religious instruction and moral training of undergraduates. It contained other concessions, such as that Professors, except Professors of theology and those to whose chairs a Canonry was attached, should be exempted from the subscription required by the Act of Uniformity, and that the right of voting in the Senate should not be confined to members of the Anglican Church; and though, as no record of this meeting has survived, we do not know how these proposals were received, they would presumably have not been put forward unless they were thought likely to find favour.2 But the men, who for many years and under great discouragement had been fighting for the liberation of the Universities and colleges, were not prepared to be deprived of the full fruits of the victory which now seemed within their grasp. They did not wish to parley with their opponents or to content themselves with half measures: they wanted to sweep away all the tests, both those imposed by the State and those imposed by the colleges, and it was to the Government they looked for the execution of this programme. They had learned from the happenings of recent years that the Bills of private members were apt either to be withdrawn from lack of time to debate them, or to reach the House of Lords too late in the session to be adequately considered. The Cambridge members of this party agreed upon their plan of campaign at a meeting in the Master of St John's Lodge on 29 November 1869. It was 1

See a letter from C. S. Roundell to Gladstone, 9 November 1869, reproduced in K. Campbell, On the Nationalisation of the Old English Universities (1902), pp. 155-157. 2 University Papers, C. 1, University Library. The document is undated, but a meeting for its consideration was summoned for "Wednesday, December 1", and 1 December 1869 fell on a Wednesday.

70

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

largely attended, and the company included the Masters of Trinity, St John's and Christ's, nine Professors, and many Doctors and Masters of Arts: Trinity was particularly well represented. The Master of St John's, who presided, opened the proceedings. The meeting had been summoned, he said, "in order that some expression of opinion might be made from within the University as to the course that was desirable with reference to the Test [sic] Bill that was likely to be brought before Parliament next session". He laid particular emphasis upon the necessity of a final and permanent settlement of a dispute which for so many years had troubled the peace of the two Universities, and argued that strife and discord would not cease unless the coming Bill compelled the colleges to remove all and every kind of religious test imposed by their statutes. A Bill which was only permissive regarding the colleges must in his opinion fail to bring the controversy to an end; for only some of the colleges would avail themselves of the freedom thus given, and consequently there would be friction and jealousies.1 "As it was impossible", he said, and he may have been thinking of Henry Sidgwick, who was present, "to foresee what difficulties might arise in the minds of conscientious men if any declaration was exacted,.. .he thought that the time had come for a total abolition of any test whatever." He was followed by the Master of Trinity, who also urged the need of a final settlement. He contended that the principal defect of Coleridge's Bill was that it did not compel the colleges to abstain from requiring a declaration of religious belief upon admission to a fellowship, and moved that the new Bill must "include an enactment that no declaration of religious belief or profession shall be required of any person upon obtaining a fellowship or as a condition of its tenure". This resolution was seconded by Adam Sedgwick, who, availing himself of the licence granted to old age, amused himself, though he probably bored his hearers, by giving a historical survey of the movement during the preceding forty years. He found time however to complain that the resolution was not as strong as he would have liked it to be; and may have had in mind the absence of any reference to the need of exempting Heads of Houses from religious tests. The omission was not accidental, but upon whom the responsibility for it lay is doubtful. Some months later Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice gave an explanation in the House of Commons, which may be correct. He said that "when the great meeting in favour of the abolition of tests was held at Cambridge in November last, certain 1 From the evidence given before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on University Tests (1870) it appears that some members of the party in favour of retaining the tests preferred, if obliged to choose between two evils, a Bill, which compelled the colleges to abolish them, to one of a permissive character, as they agreed with Dr Bateson that the adoption of the latter alternative would perpetuate friction.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

71

* grave and reverend seigneurs' came in and gave their assistance,... and it was at their suggestion agreed to recommend the exemption of Heads of Houses from the operation of the measure".1 It is not possible to discover who these "seigneurs" were, or how important it was to placate them; but the fact that the Master of Trinity's motion was carried unanimously suggests that though some of those present might have been better pleased if it had included Heads of Houses, they did not consider that a vital principle was at stake. The second resolution, which was also carried unanimously, was "that a representation, embodying the resolution just passed, be drawn up and presen d by deputation to the Prime Minister, such representation being circulated for signature among all Masters, resident Fellows and ex-Fellows of colleges, and officers of the University or of any College".2 This representation or petition urged that the time had come "when the religious tests, which have been imposed either by Act of Parliament or by college statute upon persons in the University, in order to obtain a vote in the Senate or an appointment to University office or to a fellowship in a college, may with advantage be repealed", and expressed the wish "to represent to the first Minister of the Crown that it is expedient that a measure, to the effect which we have described, may be presented to the Legislature with the authority and on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government".3 It was obviously very desirable that the two Universities should act together as far as possible in such a matter; and at a meeting of resident Oxford graduates at Corpus Christi College on 4 December, it was agreed to ask for a compulsory measure, and to make arrangements for a deputation to wait on the Prime Minister.4 The majority of those who attended the Oxford meeting wished to abolish tests for Heads of Houses as well as for Fellows; but this was the only difference between the two University parties. A joint deputation from Oxford and Cambridge was received by the Prime Minister on Thursday, 16 December. Dr Bateson presented the Cambridge petition, to which 116 signatures had been appended, and called Gladstone's attention to the impressive fact that it was signed by many college Tutors, by a majority of the members of the Council of the Senate, and by 1 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 13 June 1870. Speaking on the same occasion Gladstone said that the party at Cambridge in favour of the abolition of the tests "had made a sort of compact among themselves, and had been joined in the movement for the general repeal of tests by persons who would not have acted with them, except out of consideration for this particular reservation". 2 The Times, 1 December 1869; Cambridge Chronicle, 4 December 1869. 3 Cam Collection, University Library. This paper is undated, but on internal evidence it can be confidently assigned to the year 1869. 4 The Times, 7 December 1869.

72

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

nearly half the number of persons engaged in University teaching. The Dean of Christ Church presented the Oxford petition, and in the course of his speech mentioned that, differing from the Cambridge party, they wished the Bill to enforce "the removal of tests in the case of Heads as well as Fellows". The deputation must have been very well pleased by the general tenor of the Prime Minister's reply. He said that he entirely agreed that the time had come for the Government to bring forward a Bill of a compulsory character; but he added that he could not promise that the Government would do so in the coming session. He had not as yet, he explained, consulted his colleagues on this point, and there were several important questions before the Ministry, which must be settled before a Tests Bill was introduced. He moreover warned the deputation that "the passing of any such measure next session must depend very much upon the degree of harmony which was likely to prevail in regard to its provisions". He urged them therefore to reach complete agreement upon what they wished the Bill to effect, "for if new questions were started, and had to be fought out at every turn, it might be impossible, if only from lack of time, to get a measure passed in the ensuing session".1 As Gladstone was not a mere opportunist, ready, like Pius II, "to run before the wind, to make for any haven which he could reach with sails flying", he must have convinced himself that it was possible to abolish the tests without endangering the religious life of the Universities. It is difficult to believe that he thought it would suffice to provide for the continuation of services in the college chapels and religious instruction; and it may well be that he put his greatest trust upon the existence of what were known as clerical fellowships. In many of the Cambridge colleges it was necessary for a certain proportion of the Fellows to take Holy Orders; one-third of the Fellows of Clare, St Catharine's and Emmanuel had to do so, and at many other colleges there was, with certain variations, a similar rule. Moreover, at the two largest colleges in the University, Trinity and St John's, it was still possible, without holding any teaching or administrative office in the University or College, to retain a fellowship for life by taking priest's orders within seven years of attaining the full standing of a Master of Arts.z A similar state of things existed at Oxford; 3 and consequently at both Universities a large number of the Fellows were in Holy Orders.4 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 18 December 1869. Report of Select Committee of House of Lords on University Tests, Appendix (1870). 3 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 14 June 1865. See also a speech by Sir Charles Dilke in the House of Commons on 4 June 1877. 4 Mr Thornely, who came up to Trinity Hall as a freshman in 1873, recalls in his very pleasant book, Cambridge Memories, that one of the sights of his youth was "the large-limbed, portly ecclesiastics of ample girth and imposing presence, whom one used to see sailing down King's Parade in swelling silks". 2

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

73

Possibly Gladstone hoped that these clerical garrisons would preserve that religious atmosphere which he believed to exist at Oxford and Cambridge, for when, in the autumn of 1869, he received a representative deputation from the various Nonconformist bodies, led by Edward Miall, he refused to pledge the Government to introduce a Tests Bill unless Miall and his associates undertook on their part not to ask that it should provide for the abolition of clerical fellowships.1 If he had known those clerical garrisons better, he might have been rather less confident of their ability to defend the Christian faith. Parliament re-assembled on 4 February 1870, and a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne promised the fulfilment of long-cherished hopes. "The question of religious tests in the Universities and colleges of Oxford and Cambridge", it ran, "has been under discussion for many years. Her Majesty recommends such a legislative settlement of this question as may contribute to extend the usefulness of these great institutions and to heighten the respect with which they are justly regarded." But for some weeks nothing happened, and the House became impatient. On 21 February Harcourt inquired whether, as the Irish Land Bill and the Education Bill had passed through their first stages, the Prime Minister could name "an early day for the introduction of a Bill to repeal religious tests in the Universities"; but only to be told that "until there was a reasonable prospect of their being able to proceed with the ulterior stages of the Bill, there would be no advantage in bringing it in". Nor was Fawcett more successful when he put the same question on 3 March, for he received a similar answer.2 It was not until 25 April that the Bill, which was introduced by Coleridge, was given a first reading in the House of Commons. Except for Heads of Houses and candidates for divinity degrees, it abolished in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, and in the colleges of these Universities, all religious tests imposed either by Act of Parliament or by the statutes of the Universities or colleges; but it did not go as far as some members of the liberal party would have liked. Nothing in the Bill was to be so interpreted as to enable a layman to hold a college or University office which by Act of Parliament or by a statute or ordinance of the University or college, in force when the Bill became law, was restricted to persons in Holy Orders; and consequently it was possible for a college which, when the Bill was passed, statutably required its Fellows to be in Holy Orders, to continue to enforce this obligation. Nor was anything in the Bill .to interfere with or affect the religious instruction, worship and discipline, "which now is, or may hereafter be lawfully, established" in the Universities and colleges. When Coleridge moved the first reading of the Bill, he explained that it 1 2

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 13 June 1870. Ibid. 21 February, 3 March 1870.

74

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

was a Government measure, and that it differed from his Bill of the previous session in being compulsory on the colleges as well as on the Universities. Little was said on this occasion, but when the second reading of the Bill was taken on 23 May, there was a lengthy debate. The members for the two Universities, though they stoutly opposed the Bill, did not take objection to the fact that it compelled, and not merely permitted, the colleges to abandon tests: they admitted that compulsion was a lesser evil than permission, as there would inevitably be friction if each college was free to act as it thought best. But they had little else that was good to say of the Bill. Walpole, for instance, denounced it as completely severing the connection between the Universities and the Established Church, and going far to undermine religion in the colleges. The other representative of die University of Cambridge repeated these objections, and also lamented the unconciliatory character of the Bill, which was the more regrettable as very many of the supporters of the tests, both in Parliament and in the Universities, were willing to make concessions in the hope of ending strife and discord. But these criticisms did not amount to more than stage thunder, coming as they did from men who spoke for a minority in the House; and the Government had more reason to stand in fear of their supporters, as some of them were likely to take objection to the Bill as conceding too much to the Church of England. The fact that it only applied to colleges already existing, and therefore allowed the foundation of sectarian colleges in the Universities, at liberty to impose religious tests upon their Fellows and lecturers, was certain to offend many liberals, and consequently Coleridge sought to persuade the House that there was no cause for alarm. He pointed out that before a college could be incorporated, it was necessary to obtain a charter of incorporation from the Crown; and that "in the present day, when the Crown acted on the advice of Ministers, and when Ministers were directly responsible to the people as represented in that House, it was not at all likely that any charter would be granted which ran much counter to the public opinion of the country". Another and a greater objection to the Bill from the liberal point of view was that a profession of faith was still required of a Head of a House; and indeed for this particular concession there was no logical defence. Nor indeed did Gladstone, who dwelt at some length upon this feature of the measure, attempt to make one: he wisely elected to explain the reasons for this omission. He stated that the parties at Oxford and Cambridge, who were in favour of the aboHtion of the tests, were in complete agreement, except that the Oxford party considered that a person should be eligible for a Headship of a House irrespective of his religious beliefs, which was not the opinion of the party at Cambridge; and that in order to secure a full understanding and unity of action between the two Universities, the Oxford party had informed the Government that they were prepared to defer

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

75

to the wishes of Cambridge on this point, and to approve a Bill from which Heads of Houses were excluded. There can be no doubt that Gladstone in making these comments on the Bill was thinking far more of its supporters than of its opponents. The second reading was triumphantly carried by 191 votes to 66;I but when the Bill was considered in committee on 13 June, it became apparent that many members were very definitely of the opinion that it did not go far enough in the direction of religious freedom. This discontent was manifested by several amendments. One member moved that divinity degrees might be taken by persons who did not belong to the Church of England, and another that the Bill should extend to colleges subsequently founded in the Universities; but as both these amendments would have destroyed the balance of the Bill, Coleridge, on behalf of the Government, refused to accept them, and they were defeated. Fawcett was also among the critics of the Bill, and one of his objections to it was that it did not sweep away clerical fellowships. He therefore proposed the omission of the section which allowed them to continue, and when his amendment was defeated, expressed his annoyance by describing the Bill as a very incomplete measure and an unsatisfactory compromise. But the most objectionable provision in the eyes of the liberals was that which excluded Heads of Houses from the operation of the Bill; and it had become even less defensible than it had previously been. At a meeting in Balliol College, with Professor Jowett in the Chair, on 4 June, a resolution in favour of including Heads of Houses in the Bill had been carried and communicated to the Prime Minister in an address, to which the signatures of sixty-six of some of the most eminent Oxford resident graduates were attached. Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice was therefore on very firm ground when he proposed an amendment for the extension of the Bill to Heads of Houses, as he was able to refer to the Oxford meeting on 4 June, and to the change in the situation it had brought about. He however promptly acceded to Gladstone's request not to bring forward his amendment until the Bill was reported; and could hardly do otherwise after the statement which the Prime Minister proceeded to make. He told the story of his reception in the previous autumn of the joint deputation from the two Universities. "The gentlemen", he said, "who represented the liberal party at Cambridge, made it a portion of their plan that the Headships of colleges were to be reserved and excluded from the operation of the Bill. As I understood, they had made a sort of compact among themselves, and had been joined in the movement for the general repeal of tests by persons who would not have acted with them, except out of consideration for this particular reservation. The gentlemen who represented Oxford never shared in this opinion respecting Heads of colleges on its merits, 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 23 May 1870.

j6

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

but, viewing the expediency of obtaining as much union of opinion as was possible, . . . they likewise concurred in the request made by the gentlemen from Cambridge. Subsequently the Dean of Christ Church, on the part of the academical liberals in both Universities, forwarded me a draft Bill, from the operation of which Heads of colleges would be exempted. It was in this shape that the subject was brought before the Government; and the Government, having regard tp this union of sentiment for the purposes of action, thought that, on the whole, it would be wise and prudent for them to adopt the framework of the measure which had been suggested to them with so unusual an amount of concurrence of opinion. They therefore did not enter into a consideration as a Government of the intrinsic value of any such reservation, but regarded the matter simply on the ground I have described.... It partook therefore of the character... of an understanding between the Government and those who had preferred the request,—for I must assert, in the strongest and most definite manner, that whatever be the private opinions of any gentlemen in Oxford, including the sixty-six to whom my noble friend referred, the request made to me by the Dean of Christ Church in the letter accompanying the Bill was that the Headships might be reserved. I will not say that the Government is bound by that, and still less do I say the House is bound by it, because I agree with my noble friend that the opinion of no body of men at Oxford or Cambridge can be decisive in a matter of this kind. But although I had been in communication with the deputation from the Universities for six months, it was not till last Saturday morning that I received a communication signed by eminent members of the University of Oxford, who, quite irrespective of this understanding, express a hope that the noble Lord's amendment will be carried. We had a joint request made to us by two parties—with private opinions we have nothing to do—and that was that we should exclude from the operation of the Bill that which my noble friend wishes us to introduce. We have since received a document, signed by a large number of those who make up one of the parties, stating that this was not their wish, and that consequently, without being released from the understanding to which we came, they were opposed to our fulfilling it. Now I have not the slightest wish to make any charge against those gentlemen. I have made a request to Professor Jowett, the chairman of the meeting on the subject, in which I have begged of him to let us know whether we are released from the kind of understanding into which we entered, or what is the attitude intended to be adopted by the parties in the two Universities with respect to the matter. I expect to know better in the course of a few days the sentiments of those to whose formal request we acceded in framing the Bill, and I shall undertake to be in a position before the Report to clear up the point." z Gladstone's speech has been quoted at some length, as it so clearly indicates his attitude towards Fitzmaurice's amendment. He obviously approved it, and clearly indicated that Heads of Houses would not have been excluded from 1 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 13 June 1870.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

77

the operation of the Bill, if the Government had not been led to believe that in so doing they were acting in accordance with an agreement concluded between the Oxford and Cambridge parties in favour of abolishing the tests. But as it was now evident that either no such agreement had ever existed, or had subsequently broken down, the Prime Minister could not possibly defend a provision which was only approved by one University, and was much disliked by many of his own supporters. Therefore when on 4 July the Bill was reported, and Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice again brought forward his amendment, Gladstone accepted it, and it was carried by 205 votes to 86. But he was at some pains to emphasise its unimportance. "A large proportion of the Headships in both Universities", he said, "are already covered and protected by statutes of the colleges, which require that the Heads of those colleges shall be in Holy Orders. It is only about one-third or one-fourth, taking Cambridge and Oxford together, of the whole number of Headships that will be affected by the motion of my noble friend."I But when on the same occasion a member raised again the question of making the Bill apply to colleges not already existing in the Universities, Gladstone was unbending. He said that the existing colleges, "by their wealth, by their traditions, by their antiquity, by their national privileges.. .have come into such a position that we are in justice bound to prevent them being attached to the purposes of any particular denomination or religion"; but this was not true of colleges founded hereafter, and that it was unreasonable to insist that they should be of an unsectarian character. This argument was not very convincing, and possibly did not convince; but as it expressed the settled determination of the Prime Minister, the amendment was rejected by more than a hundred votes.2 On the following day the third reading of the Bill was carried by 247 votes to 113. It was a foregone conclusion how the division would go; and the debate was without interest, except for a warning by a liberal member of the folly of resisting the inevitable. "The objections of Hon. Gentlemen opposite to the measure were natural", he said, "but they had no just right to complain of the enlarged scope of the present Bill, which was the result of the systematic resistance they had offered year after year to the moderate Bills that had been introduced. They might ask what they could now have worse than this Bill. He would tell them. This Bill proposed to throw open the existing general endowments of the Universities to Nonconformists as well as Churchmen; but it did not interfere in any way with the liberty of future founders and benefactors, nor did it disturb or .meddle at all with the special endowments for the promotion of religious learning in the Universities. Next year however, if this Bill did not pass, the measure which would be brought forward on this subject would probably meddle with those endowments. The 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 4 July 1870.

2

Ibid.

78

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

present Bill also professed on the face of it to maintain safeguards for the existing religious instruction and worship in the colleges and halls, and a Bill introduced next year might be shorn of such provisions."1 But this warning, though delivered in the House of Commons, was really addressed to the House of Lords. It was addressed however in vain, and particularly in vain to Lord Salisbury who, when a member of the House of Commons, had been one of the most obstinate defenders of the tests. His opinion of their value remained unchanged; but as the House of Commons by overwhelming majorities, and public opinion, had declared against them, he deemed it expedient not to make a frontal attack on the Bill when on 14 July a motion for its second reading was made in the Upper House. He said that though he was of the same mind as he had ever been, the world had changed and was changing, and that he had come to see that it was impossible to continue the exclusion of Nonconformists from the honours and emoluments of the Universities and colleges. But if the Bill was passed by Parliament, infidels as well as Nonconformists would be admitted to these honours and emoluments; and unbelievers were a far more serious menace than Dissenters, for they wished to destroy Christianity. Against the nefarious activities of such men the Bill gave no protection, for though it promised safeguards for the maintenance of religious instruction and worship, it did not provide them. He therefore moved that "in any measure for enabling persons not members of the Church of England to hold offices, to which they are not now eligible, in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, and the colleges and halls in those Universities, it is essential to provide by law proper safeguards for the maintenance of religious instruction and worship, and for the religious character of the education to be given therein"; and added that if his resolution was carried, he intended to move for the appointment of a select committee of the House to inquire into the best mode of giving it effect. It would clearly take time for a committee to prepare a report, and the longer it took, the better would Lord Salisbury be pleased, for he was fighting a delaying action, and desired to prevent the House from further considering the Bill that session. The Bishop of Oxford,2 who opposed the resolution, declared this to be its purpose, and argued that it was die height of folly to "resist the mature political conviction of the country when it has been clearly expressed". The Bishop admitted that Christianity was encompassed by many perils in the Universities, and that there were Oxford Tutors who were open unbelievers, and Oxford colleges at which a devout Christian would not be 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 5 July 1870. John Fielder Mackarness. Samuel Wilberforce had been translated from Oxford to Winchester in 1869. 2

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

79

elected into a fellowship; but, as he truly remarked, the Church, instead of relying upon Acts of Parliament, must depend upon its own strength and spiritual force to defeat its enemies. The Bishop of Exeter, Frederick Temple, said that the Bill ought to be passed with the least possible delay and that he would rather "sacrifice the endowments of the University altogether than lose the men who are sometimes lost through the present system"; and the Archbishop of York pertinently asked what good purpose could be served by appointing a committee to report upon a question about which so much was known from discussions and controversies in Parliament and the country. But Lord Salisbury had the numerical weight of episcopal opinion on his side, for of the fifteen Bishops who voted in the division, only five opposed his resolution which was carried by ninety-seven votes to eighty-three. It was then agreed by ninety-five votes to seventy-nine to appoint a select committee; * and as that committee had not completed its task when Parliament was prorogued on 10 August, no more was heard of the Bill in the House of Lords that session. The Bill had done more however than engage the time and attention of the two Houses; it had indirectly caused a storm in a teacup, or, to be more precise, in the University of Cambridge. On Friday, 13 May 1870, Dr Cookson, Master of Peterhouse, who was a member of the Council of the Senate and strongly opposed to the Bill, gave notice of his intention to move at the meeting of the Council on the following Monday "that a Grace be offered to the Senate to affix the Common Seal of the University to the subjoined petitions to the House of Commons and the House of Lords against the University Tests Bill". Though a majority of the Council were not in agreement with him about the tests, he probably expected to carry his motion, as the petitions, which were identical, were far more moderate in tone than many previously presented, and only asked that the Bill should not pass in its present form, as it contained no adequate safeguards for the maintenance of religious instruction, worship and discipline.2 But whatever may have been his hopes or fears, his friends and supporters seem to have thought that he stood in need of assistance, for some of them conferred together on the afternoon of the same day, 13 May, and agreed to address a memorial to the Council of the Senate in support of his motion.3 The memorial was circulated for signatures, and in less than two days had been signed by ninety-four resident members of the Senate,4 among whom were all but one of those 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 14 July 1870. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 16 May 1870. 3 The memorial was addressed, to the Vice-Chancellor, but it was intended to be communicated to the Council. 4 Some accounts give the number as ninety-five. 2

80

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

Heads of Houses who were not on the Council of the Senate.1 But when it became known what was on foot, as it very quickly did, the party in favour of the Bill drafted a counter-memorial, requesting the Council of the Senate not to approve Dr Cookson's motion, and this was signed by sixty-nine graduates, of whom all with one exception were past or present Fellows or officers of colleges. The argument advanced in this counter-memorial was that " whereas three memorials have already been addressed to the Prime Minister on the subject of the abolition of religious tests, and the mind of the resident Fellows and ex-Fellows of colleges, and of the late and present University and college officers, has been thereby already expressed, it is inexpedient that the Common Seal of the University be attached to any petition to the Legislature whatever on this question".2 It was the duty of the members of the Council, when they met on 16 May, to consider Dr Cookson's motion and the memorials, without regard to their personal opinions about the tests; and this some of them possibly failed to do. The motion, which was seconded by E. H. Perowne, was debated at very great length; but was lost by seven votes to six. 3 The Council's action provoked a storm of indignation among the Cambridge supporters of the tests, and one of them, possibly Dr Guest, the Master of Caius, denounced it in a manifesto, which he sent to certain members of Parliament, as an outrage upon the freedom of the University. "Thus by a majority of one", he wrote, "the University was prevented from expressing its opinion on a subject that affected its most vital interests.... It may seem strange that as the Council is virtually elected by the resident members of the Senate, a majority of the Council should hold opinions so distasteful to their constituents. The fact is, the resident members of the Senate are for the most part men of middle and advanced life, scattered throughout the University and difficult to move. There is a small but well-drilled body of men, principally members of one college,4 who are rapidly brought together, and who by watching opportunities often unduly influence elections. It was by a surprise of this kind that most of the present members of the Council were elected last October twelvemonth. Little interest was felt in the matter by the conservatives. They looked on the members of the Council as mere assessors to the Vice-Chancellor, men whose business it was to aid him in preparing Graces for the Senate, and in the ordinary drudgery of University business. Nobody ever dreamt that they would dare to prevent the Senate from expressing its opinion upon such a subject as the present 1 A paper in the Cam Collection, University Library, entided "University Tests Bill" and ascribed to Dr Guest, Master of Caius. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 16 May 1870. Fly-sheet by E. W. Bio re, 6 June 1870, in Cam Collection, University Library. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 16 May 1870. 4 The reference is possibly to Trinity.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

8l

one.... An attempt is making to get up a remonstrance to the Council to induce them to alter their decision. There is little hope of its succeeding, but, even if it did, no vote can be taken in the Senate till some time after the second reading of the Bill. The voice of the University has been stifled by what has been justly stigmatized as an act of 'the most odious tyranny'."* The remonstrance, to which the writer referred, denounced the action of the Council as contrary to established usage, and protested "against the University in its corporate capacity being debarred from expressing its opinion to Parliament on any subject which materially affects its welfare".2 It was signed by one hundred and nineteen resident members of the Senate, and by Saturday, 21 May, was in the hands of the Vice-Chancellor.3 Dr Cookson had also been active. At a specially summoned meeting of the Council on Thursday, 19 May, he gave notice that at the next ordinary meeting of the Council, which was to be on 21 May, he would again move the resolution that had been rejected on the previous Monday.4 Dr Bateson demurred, and repeated his objections at the Council meeting on Saturday, 21 May, when he opposed the confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting, contending that "the last meeting was not one at which Dr Cookson could give the notice which he had given, on the ground that there was an understanding at the meeting of 16 May that the next ordinary meeting of the Council would be on the 21st, and that the Vice-Chancellor had no power to summon a meeting on the 19th for ordinary business". Dr Bateson may have been right, for he was well versed in University business, and he certainly almost succeeded in persuading the Council that his view was correct; for it was only agreed by seven votes to five to confirm the minutes. But this was only a preliminary skirmish, and the battle really began when Cookson moved his resolution and the Vice-Chancellor read out the remonstrance from the hundred and nineteen resident members of the Senate. A discussion followed, and as it continued for some time it was probably animated as well as lengthy. But as it was not recorded we do not know what new arguments were advanced. The question must surely have arisen whether, even if the Council were legally entitled to disregard the reiterated wish of a considerable party in the University, it was expedient or even right for them to do so; but no decision was reached, and it was finally agreed by a majority of one to adjourn further discussion of the motion to the next meeting of the Council, which was to be held on the following Monday, 23 May. 5 1

Paper ascribed to Dr Guest, Cam Collection, University Library. Cam Collection, University Library. 3 A paper in the Cam Collection, headed "To the Members of the Senate", and dated 30 May 1870. 4 Vice-Chancellor's Notice, dated 16 May 1870, Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 5 16 and 19 May 1870. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 21 May 1870. 2

82

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

Fifteen of the seventeen members of the Council attended the meeting on 23 May.1 The week-end had given time for reflection upon the possible consequences of a rejection of Cookson's motion. Those who had signed the remonstrance, and probably many others,2 would certainly interpret such an action as a determined attempt to restrict the liberty of the Senate, and consequently would acquire the glory which comes to those who oppose tyranny. It was therefore not unreasonable or cowardly to doubt whether it was worth while to risk something very like civil war in the University, in order to stifle a petition to Parliament which could not affect the fate of the Bill, and it is not surprising that at the meeting of the Council on 23 May, Dr Bateson, who had led the attack, found himself deserted by his followers: Dr Cookson's motion was carried by twelve votes to one, two not voting. Though names are not given in the official record, there can be no doubt that the one vote cast against the motion was given by Dr Bateson.3 The Grace for the sealing of the petition was submitted to the Senate on 25 May and carried by an overwhelming majority, only two votes being given against it. And it would have been passed unanimously if two persons had not insisted on recording their votes, for the party opposed to it had agreed to abstain from appearing in the Senate House, knowing that they would be outvoted, and perhaps not wishing to reveal their numerical weakness to the world.4 But the vote of the Senate did not end the battle. Much bitterness had been aroused, and there was a deluge of circulars and fly-sheets, proclaiming that the liberty of the University was being undermined, and that there was an imminent danger of the Senate falling into subjection to the Council. This onslaught produced a vigorous counter-attack; and though the controversy was disfigured by many wild and random statements, it is not without interest even at the present day, as the powers of the Council with regard to Graces have undergone no change. The Cambridge University Act of 1856, which created the Council of the Senate, prescribed that it "shall consider and prepare all Graces to be offered to the Senate, whether proceeding from individual members of the Senate or from Syndicates, and no Grace shall be offered to the Senate without the sanction of the major part of those voting upon it in the Council". It is there1

The Master of Trinity and C. C. Babington were absent. The following letter from B. H. Kennedy appeared in the Cambridge Chronicle of 21 May 1870. "Respecting the recent vote of the Council of the University [sic], by which the Senate is precluded from expressing its sentiments upon the Tests Bill, I would rather not sign a document; but not because I hesitate to state publicly an opinion already stated privately to several persons. Allow me therefore simply to say through your medium that, had I been one of those entitled to vote, I would have voted for giving to the Senate the opportunity of expressing its sentiments." 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 23 May 1870. 4 Circular by E. W. Blore, 6 June 1870, in Cam Collection, University Library. 2

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

83

fore certain that the Council was legally entitled to refuse its sanction to a Grace; and it was either sheer perversity or the heat engendered by the controversy that led J. S. Wood of St John's to argue that the Council was not much more than "a standing committee, as all large bodies require for the due transaction of business, but which is not intended to decide upon its own authority in derogation of the rights of the larger body". 1 It is also equally certain that members of the Senate were entitled, either by means of a memorial or in any other respectful way, to express a wish for a particular Grace to be submitted to the Senate; and there was no justification for describing the memorial in support of Dr Cookson's motion as an attempt to coerce the Council 2 Indeed, similar memorials had frequently been addressed to the Council on behalf of Graces for petitions; and no objection had ever been taken to them. It was however contended that whatever might be the correct interpretation of the relevant passage in the Cambridge Act, it was an established usage of the University that the Council should approve a Grace for submission to the Senate if it was supported by many members of the Senate, who had made their wishes known by means of a memorial or in a less formal way. But as the Council had not existed before 1856, it was at least questionable whether there had been sufficient time to create an established usage, and what evidence there is suggests that no uniform policy had been consistently pursued. It is certainly true that the Council had generally sanctioned a Grace which was supported by a memorial;3 and that in 1866, after having declined to submit one to the Senate, they agreed to do so on receiving a memorial in support of it; 4 but on the other hand in 1869 they refused to approve a Grace for a petition against the Irish Church Bill, though urged to do so in a 1

A fly-sheet, dated 17 June 1870. Cam Collection, University Library. Paper by Dr Guest. Cam Collection, University Library. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 23 and 24 March; 13 April 1863; 25 and 28 March 1867; 9 and 12 March 1868; 8 and 11 March 1869. 4 Ibid. 5, 9, 12 March 1866. A protest against the conduct of the Council, signed by E. Dodd, was issued in March 1866 and reproduced in the Cambridge Chronicle of 24 March 1866. "The Council of the Senate*\ it runs, "not yet content with its legal sanction power for the offering of Graces, continues to claim another sanction power, such as neither the law has given nor this Senate authorised, for the sanctioning of the Graces themselves. The practice would seem expressive of a policy. In a matter so important in itself, and so vitally touching the Senate as an attack in Parliament on the religious qualification for Fellowships, Tutorships, etc., perhaps Headships,—the Council of the Senate has tardily consented, not without much reluctance, and at last by a bare majority (it is said) of one, that this Senate, the Electoral Roll of which voted one and all of them into office, may exercise its voice in its own cause I would beg leave humbly to submit whether it is not for the honour and interests of this Church of England University that the Senate in its own sphere should take suitable measures forthwith to maintain itself, not merely in its legal independence but in its constitutional supremacy.*' 2

6-2

84

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

memorial signed by seventy-two members of the Senate.1 Probably the truth is that the question of what the conduct of the Council ought to be in such circumstances had never been carefully and impartially considered. And as the question came up for discussion at a time of acute controversy, it received different answers. Those who objected to the Tests Bill and wished to petition against it, argued that, unless the circumstances were quite exceptionable, the Council ought not to refuse to sanction a Grace which was known to have considerable support in the University, as by doing so they prevented the Senate from expressing an opinion, and thereby imperilled academic freedom. But those who approved the Tests Bill, and therefore did not wish for a petition to be presented against it, claimed that the Senate ought only to be allowed to discuss those Graces that the Council thought proper to lay before it, and that this limitation of freedom was to the advantage of the University. This point of view was forcibly expressed by Henry Sidgwick in a fly-sheet which he issued in June 1870. "Mr Vansittart* explicitly states", he wrote, "that the end of his efforts is to secure for the majority of the Senate the right of expressing their opinions as the opinions of the University in its corporate capacity. It will be strange if the residents, in whose hands the matter lies, allow this encroachment to be successfully consummated. The supposed 'right' belongs neither constitutionally nor morally to the persons for whom it is claimed. The University is not a mere aggregate of Masters of Arts but an organic body, in which the assembly of Masters of Arts has rights and functions strictly limited and defined; the right of initiating being reserved to a committee, elected by the residents for short periods and therefore practically responsible to them. It is ridiculous to argue that 'prescription' can over-ride the plain letter of our Constitution while that Constitution is still almost brand new. And to maintain that the non-residents have a moral right to more than their constitutional control over University matters is surely a startling paradox. The question hitherto has always been whether they ought not to have less." 3 Sidgwick was of course perfectly correct in mamtaining that the Council were legally entitled to determine what Graces should be submitted to the Senate; and it was also quite true that by the non-resident vote in the Senate 1 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 21 March, 3 and 7 June 1869. On 2 June 1865 "the Vice-Chancellor submitted to the Council a form of petition which he had been requested to propose to the Senate against the Roman Catholic Oath Bill. No formal proposition being made to the Council on the subject, it was allowed to drop." There is no mention of a memorial on this occasion, and possibly the request may have come from only a few persons. 2 Vansittart, a former Fellow of Trinity, had issued a fly-sheet in defence of the rights of the Senate. 3 Fly-sheet, dated 13 June 1870.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

85

Graces, which a majority of the residents approved, were often rejected. But there is nothing to show that the power granted to the Council had been designed to restrain the influence of non-resident graduates in University affairs; and even if it had been, it had not been so used on the recent occasion. The majority of residents were in favour of Dr Cookson's Grace, and it was only because of their numerical insignificance that the opposing party had abstained from voting against it. Therefore Dr Bateson and his supporters on the Council stand convicted of having attempted to prevent the Senate from considering a Grace which it was certain to approve, and for no better reason than that they did not wish the University to petition against the Bill. They therefore abused a power which had not been given to diem for the purpose for which they used it. As members of the Council it was their duty, when considering what Graces should be brought before the Senate, to take into account the wishes of the University, and this they had not done. The heat which their action aroused was therefore quite justified; for if their conduct was accepted as a precedent, academic freedom was in peril. The danger was recognised. At a meeting held at the Provost of King's Lodge on 2 June, it was agreed to form a Constitutional Association "to protect the independence of the University, and to watch over the election of its representatives in Parliament, and—if necessary—of members of the Council of the Senate, and generally to protect all constitutional and conservative interests in the University". One constitutional interest, which this Association was pledged to defend, was the freedom of the Senate, and it consequently issued a list of candidates for election to the Council in the following November. So did also the "liberals", as they were called; and with the two parties thus appealing to the University to approve their principles, the Council election aroused far more excitement than usual. The answer was decisive. "The whole constitutional ticket", we are told, "was elected from beginning to end. Not a single 'liberal' from the list issued by the 'liberals' was elected".1 It would certainly have been very strange and very regrettable if the battle had gone the other way. But this victory had been won under the shadow of a coming disaster. It was known that the Government intended to introduce another Tests Bill in the year 1871; and some liberals were demanding that it should be more drastic and far reaching than its predecessor. In December 1870 a body, mainly consisting of Baptists, which called itself an "Association at Cambridge for the removal of religious disabilities from the Universities", approved unanimously a resolution in favour of making provision in the forthcoming Bill for the abolition of the "necessity of taking Orders as a condition of acquiring or holding offices or emolument [sic] in the national Universities 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 26 November 1870.

86

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

or the colleges thereof"; I and as this demand was popular among Dissenters, some feared that the Government might comply with it. And little could be hoped in the way of salvation from the Lords; for though they would doubtless amend the Bill, it was most unlikely that the Commons would agree to modify substantially its main provisions. The outlook was certainly black for those who believed that the existence of Christianity in the Universities depended upon the maintenance of the tests; and possibly some of them bitterly regretted their opposition to the earlier and far milder measures. Parliament re-assembled on 9 February 1871, and on the following day Gladstone moved that leave "be given to bring in a Bill to alter the law respecting religious tests in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, and in the halls and colleges of those Universities". He explained that it was identical with the measure which the House of Commons had passed in the previous session, and therefore apphed to Heads of Houses as well as to Fellows; but he added that the Government had been urged to make further concessions to Dissenters. "In the course of the recess", he said, "a desire.. .has been made known to the Government from several quarters that the provisions of the Bill should be altered in consequence of the rejection of the Bill of last year by the House of Lords.... The desire entertained by many persons out-of-doors is that into this Bill should be introduced an absolute repeal of all restrictions contained in College Statutes which make the acquisition of Holy Orders a condition under any circumstances of holding a Headship or Fellowship." To that request however he had not acceded; "we should not", he said, "be winding up an old controversy, but we should be beginning a new one". 2 But it was not only persons out-of-doors who regretted that the Government had not attacked on a wider front. Though the Bill was read a first and second time with little or no discussion, certain amendments were proposed when it was in the committee stage, which, though unacceptable to the Government, reflected the opinions of the liberal party in the House. Motions were made for the Bill to be so amended as to provide for the abolition of clerical fellowships and headships, and for the admission to divinity degrees without subscription to a declaration of faith; and though both these amendments were rejected, many liberals voted for them.3 The Bill was read for the first time in the House of Lords on 23 February, and neither on that occasion nor when it was given a second reading on 16 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 10 December 1870. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 10 February 1871. 3 Ibid. 20 February 1871; one amendment was lost by twenty-two votes and the other by forty-five. 2

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-I871)

87

March did the House divide. It was not in accordance with Lord Salisbury's plan of campaign that the battle should begin before the select committee, which had been re-appointed earlier in the session, had issued their final report and provided him with the ammunition he needed. That report was issued in April 1871;* and when on 8 May the House went into committee, Lord Salisbury opened fire. He said that the Bill before them had been approved by a large majority of the Lower House after a considerable agitation in the country; and that in these circumstances he was not prepared to claim for the Anglican Church the privileged position in the Universities which it had hitherto possessed. On the contrary he and his party were willing "that all honours and emoluments, all fellowships and scholarships shall be thrown open without distinction to all subjects of the Queen", and that, further, "all offices involving teaching shall be thrown open to all those who agree upon the essential points of Christianity ". He contended however that, though the Dissenters had loudly and persistently agitated for the Bill, it was the men who desired to destroy religion in the Universities that hoped to profit by it. Evidence given before the select committee, he said, had conclusively shown that infidelity was making rapid strides in the University of Oxford, and would certainly make still further progress if the instruction of undergraduates fell into the hands of the enemies of Christianity. He therefore wished the House to adopt the recommendations of the select committee, and, in accordance with one of those recommendations, moved that the Bill should be amended by the insertion of a provision that no person shall be appointed to the office of Tutor, Assistant Tutor, Dean, Censor, or Lecturer in divinity in any college now subsisting in the said Universities, until he shall have made and subscribed the following declaration in the presence of the 1

The following summary of the recommendations of the select committee appeared in the Cambridge Chronicle of 6 May 1871: "(1) that no test be required to enable any person to take any degree other than divinity degrees, or to hold any office other than divinity professorships; (2) that no test be required to enable any person to hold a fellowship; (3) that Tutors, Assistant Tutors, Deans, Censors, and Lecturers in divinity be required to make the following declaration—I, A B, solemnly declare that while holding the office of —, I will not teach any opinion opposed to the teaching and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; (4) that Heads of colleges be excepted from the operation of the Bill; (5) that each college shall be required to provide religious teaching to members of the Church of England in statu pupillari belonging to the college; (6) that no person shall be compelled to attend any lectures to which his father or guardian shall object; or that shall be contrary to the tenets of any religious denomination to which that person shall belong; (7) that the maintenance of existing chapel services shall be obligatory—discretion to abridge them being left with the Head of the college; (8) that no change shall be made in the qualifications required for headships and fellowships by statutes and ordinances, except by authority of Parliament; (9) that no Fellow, unless he shall have become and continue to be a Tutor, Lecturer or Dean of his college, shall be one of the Governing Body of such college, unless he shall have been a M.A. or B.C.L. of the University for three years."

88

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

Vice-Chancellor, or in the University of Durham of the Warden, that is to say— "I, A B, do solemnly declare that while holding the office of (here name the office) I will not teach anything contrary to the teaching or divine authority of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament". This amendment was carried, though only by seventy-one votes to sixtysix. Lord Kimberley pointed out that it substituted a new test for the old, and the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Oxford and the Bishop of Manchester all spoke against it. So did the Duke of Somerset, who told the Peers that Christianity, which to Lord Salisbury and his supporters seemed to be on its death-bed, "may even survive your Lordships' House". But this was by no means the only recommendation of the select committee which Lord Salisbury pressed upon the House. He moved and carried that Heads of Houses should be excepted from the Bill, and that only by the authority of Parliament could any University or college statute, which restricted the holding of an office to persons either in Holy Orders or prepared to take them, be repealed. His work was not however wholly destructive. At his instigation the House approved other recommendations of the select committee, which were not in conflict with the general character of the Bill, and therefore not objectionable to the Government.1 The House of Commons considered the amendments of the Lords on 23 May. The requirement that certain college officers should pledge themselves not to teach anything contrary to the teaching or divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, found very little favour, even among the conservatives. Though Spencer Walpole said that he personally approved it, he admitted that many of the Cambridge supporters of the tests disliked it, as likely to give rise to renewed agitation. Gathorne Hardy said that he could not support it, thinking it valueless; and it was rejected without a division. Spencer Walpole also opposed the amendment which required parliamentary authority for the repeal of University or college statutes which restricted the tenure of certain offices to persons in Holy Orders; and this too the House rejected without a division. But there was more support for the amendment which excepted Heads of Houses from the operation of the Bill; but it was lost on a division by 255 votes to 149. The Government did not wish to oppose the other amendments made by the Peers, considering them to be harmless if not wholly desirable; but some members of the liberal party regarded them far less favourably and voted against them. Consequently the amendment which provided that the colleges should provide religious instruction for undergraduates and Bachelors of Arts belonging to the Established Church was only approved by 197 votes 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 8 May 1871.

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

89

J

to 165; and ninety-nine members voted against the amendment which required that " Morning and Evening Prayer, according to the order of the Book of Common Prayer, shall continue to be used daily as heretofore in the Chapel of every college and hall in the Universities".2 There can be no doubt that many of Gladstone's followers had never wholly liked the Bill, and liked it still less when these amendments of the Lords were incorporated in it. They desired to secularise the colleges as far as possible, and, as Gladstone might not always be able to keep them at bay, the Lords might find, if they insisted on their amendments, that they had gone further to fare worse. Lord Salisbury was however willing to run that risk; and on 13 June he moved that the Lords should insist on the amendment which required certain college officers to pledge themselves not to teach anything contrary to the teaching and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. He believed that, unless the Bill contained this clause, Christianity in the Universities was doomed; but, fortunately he did not carry the House with him. The motion was rejected by 129 votes to 89, with eight Bishops in the majority: only the Bishops of Gloucester and Bristol, of Lichfield and of Lincoln voted for the motion. And as neither Lord Salisbury nor any other Peer proposed to divide the House on the other amendments rejected by the Commons, the battle was over, and the Bill proceeded smoothly to the Statute Book. It had taken eight years of parliamentary warfare and public agitation to overthrow a system which was highly detrimental to the efficiency of the Universities, an affliction to tender consciences, and harmful to the reputation of the Church of England; and from the standpoint of the present day it seems surprising that in an age which rightly considered itself to be enlightened, the expenditure of so much time and energy should have been required to effect the reform. But the long delay was only partially due to prejudice and bigotry. For some years after the attack on the tests began the country was either in an apathetic mood or concerned about matters of more immediate interest; and there was therefore no inducement for any Government, whether liberal or conservative, to take up the cause of religious freedom in 1 The amendment as sent down from the Lords required every college to provide religious instruction for "all members thereof in statu pupillari belonging to the Established Church". The House of Commons agreed without dividing to omit the word "all" as necessitating a religious census by the college authorities; and further, without dividing, agreed to add after the word "college" the words "subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act in any of the said Universities". Without this addition, as Gladstone pointed out, the authorities of a Roman Catholic college subsequently founded in any of the three Universities would have to provide instruction in the doctrines of the Church of England. 2 Also to this amendment the words were added "subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act". Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 23 May 1871.

90

THE RELIGIOUS TESTS (1862-1871)

the Universities. And even when it became clear that the people were definitely opposed to the tests, and the liberal party were in a position of great strength in the House of Commons, the Ministry still delayed to take action, as the Prime Minister, Gladstone, could not overcome his reluctance even to appear to limit the influence of the Church of England. Consequently the task was left for far too long to private members, to whom is due no small part of the credit for its successful conclusion. They did not achieve victory, but they paved the way to it.

Chapter IV THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND C O R P O R A T I O N ACT IN February 1852 the Royal Commissioners, appointed to inquire into the discipline, studies and revenues of the University, received a memorial from the Cambridge Borough Council, which complained of " certain privileges claimed and exercised by the University, as respects the government and trade of the town", and alleged that the exercise of these privileges was detrimental to the welfare of the town. Called upon by the Commissioners to make answer, the University denied the existence of any substantial grievance, and asserted that the privileges in question were required for the maintenance of academic discipline.1 As the Commissioners were without statutory powers, they could not dictate a settlement of the dispute; but in their report to the Queen they struck a balance between the claims of the opposing, parties; and their recommendations, being likely to carry weight with the Government and Parliament, could not prudently be disregarded.* Consequently in February 1853 the University agreed to enter into negotiations with the Borough Council; and for a time it seemed likely that an amicable arrangement would be reached. This hope however was disappointed, and after continuing for a year the negotiations were abruptly broken off, leaving nothing behind but a trail of bitterness. Yet though both parties were angry, they were not so angry as to wish their feud to continue; and they ultimately agreed to refer their quarrel to the arbitration of Sir John Patteson, a former Judge of the Court of King's Bench. Sir John's award, which was confirmed by Act of Parliament, gave neither side a complete victory: the privileges of the University, though restricted, were not completely abolished. The ViceChancellor retained his right of issuing licences for the sale of wine,3 and no theatre within the Borough could be licensed without his consent:4 also for all occasional entertainments, except during Midsummer Fair and the Long Vacation, his permission in writing, as well as that of the Mayor, was still required. The right moreover of the Heads of Houses to discommune Cambridge tradesmen was upheld; and the Act of Parliament, which 1

Cambridge University Commission Report (Correspondence and Evidence), pp. 35-46. Cambridge University Commission Report, pp. 6-9. An Act of Parliament, 17 George 2, c. 40, confirmed the exclusive right of the University to grant licences for the sale of wine. In 1812 the Vice-Chancellor was authorised by the University to grant them. 4 6 and 7 Victoria, c. 68. 2

3

92

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

confirmed Sir John Patteson's award, prescribed that" the power of the University exercised by the Proctors shall be continued as it now by law exists".1 The proctorial power, to which this passage refers, was derived from a charter granted by Queen Elizabeth in 1561 and confirmed by Act of Parliament ten years later. "We will", ran the charter, "and for us, our Heirs and Successors, grant by these presents to the aforesaid Chancellor, Masters and Scholars and their Successors for ever, that it shall be lawful.. .by themselves or by their deputies,.. .from time to time at all times both by day and night at their good pleasure henceforth for ever, to make scrutiny, search and inquisition.. .in the aforesaid town of Cambridge and in the suburbs of the same...for all public women, procuresses, vagabonds and other persons suspected of evil, coming to or assembling in the said town and its suburbs, fairs, markets and places aforesaid, or any one of them: and all and singular such persons, whom the said Chancellor, Masters and Scholars or their successors or their deputies.. .on any such scrutiny, search or inquisition... shall have found guilty or suspected of evil, they may punish by imprisonment of their bodies, banishment and otherwise." 2 The Proctors were thus empowered to arrest, and the University to punish, women, against whom nothing could be charged except that they were "suspected of evil", that is, suspected of being prostitutes; though under the law of the land a prostitute was not liable to be arrested, unless guilty of solicitation to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers.3 It was inevitable that in the nineteenth century such arbitrary powers should be challenged, particularly by the Cambridge Borough Council who were traditionally inclined to pick a quarrel with the University, and resented the implied slur upon the ability of the Town police to maintain order and decency in the streets. The University authorities however contended that, unless the Proctors had powers in excess of those of the police, it would be impossible to maintain discipline and to protect undergraduates against a temptation to which they were liable to succumb. The women arrested by the Proctors were tried by the Vice-Chancellor sitting in the Spinning House, which was also the prison to which, if convicted, they were committed; 4 and although in the latter part of the nine1 19 and 20 Victoria, c. 17, sect. 6. For a more detailed account of the dispute, which was temporarily settled by Sir John Patteson's award, see D. A. Winstanley, Early Victorian

Cambridge (1940). 2 J. W. Clark, Letters Patent of Queen Elizabeth and James I (1892), pp. 22-24. 3 The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 gave the police the right of arresting "every common prostitute or night-walker, loitering and importuning passengers for the purpose of prostitution". 4 By Letters Patent of James I (1603) the University was given the right to have its own prison.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

93

teenth century the sentences passed were not severe, apparently not exceeding twenty-one clays' imprisonment, the court was viewed by the Town with great suspicion and distrust, and not without good cause, as its procedure was not in accordance with modern ideas. It was not open to the public, and the prisoner was not allowed counsel. Both the proctorial authority and the Spinning House court were survivals from a bygone and despotic age, and therefore stood in jeopardy. Though buttressed by a royal charter and an Act of Parliament, they were unlikely to escape condemnation at the bar of public opinion if forced to appear there by some glaring scandal; and consequently there was much excitement in the University when in i860 Emma Kemp, whom the Proctors had arrested in the mistaken belief that she was a prostitute, brought an action against the Vice-Chancellor who had honestly, but mistakenly, convicted and sentenced her. She lost her case because it was held that the Vice-Chancellor was a judicial officer who had acted, though erroneously with respect to the facts, on a matter within his jurisdiction; but she had at least succeeded in drawing public attention to a serious infringement of the freedom of the subject. Scenting danger, the University decided to overhaul the procedure of the court; and for this purpose a Syndicate, appointed by Grace of the Senate in October i860, sought the advice of a London solicitor,1 who recommended the adoption of certain rules in the hearing of Spinning-House cases. "When a Proctor", he suggested to the Vice-Chancellor, "takes a woman to the Spinning House, he should enter his charge shortly, according to the circumstances of the case, in the charge book. When he appears before you he should make the charge at length in the presence of the woman charged, and the substance of it should be taken down in a book, so as to be recorded. The prisoner should then be asked by you what answer she has to give to the accusation. If she admits the fact, you may at once adjudicate; if not, witnesses should be examined on oath, and what passes should all be shortly recorded in the book, together with the sentence passed. The committal should then be made out, according to the circumstances, after the form settled by Mr Denman, which could be kept ready with a space left for the specific offence.2 Counsel suggest that the Proctors should 1

F. J. Fuller of 12 Regent Street. The University solicitor, Mr Hyde, was too unwell at this time to attend to business. 2 This form of committal was used until the Court was abolished, and was as follows: "To the Keeper of the Spinning House or House of Correction in the University and Town of Cambridge. Whereas — hath been apprehended by the — one of the Proctors of the said University, within the limit and jurisdiction thereof, and hath been this day brought before me and charged with — in a certain public street of the town and suburbs of Cambridge and within the precincts of the said University, which charge, as well upon the information of the said — Proctor as upon the examination of the said —, and after having heard what the said — had to allege in her defence, I do adjudge to be true. These are therefore

94

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

at present confine themselves as much as possible to clear cases of women of the town or women acting as such." George Denman, who was one of the University counsel, was also consulted "with reference to the future course to be pursued by the ViceChancellor in cases which might be brought before him at the Spinning House, and especially as to the advisability of the Vice-Chancellor employing a clerk"; but he does not seem to have been very forthcoming. "Mr Denman advised the Vice-Chancellor", we learn, "that as little change as possible should be introduced in the mode of proceeding at the Spinning House; he objected to the introduction of a clerk, and in the main agreed with the suggestions in Mr Fuller's letter of 13 November i860; he thought it advisable that after the examination of each witness on oath, the prisoner be asked by the Vice-Chancellor whether she wished to put any questions to that witness, and to have her relations made acquainted with her position—he was of opinion that, at any rate^or the present, any request for legal advice upon a prisoner's behalf should be refused."1 More drastic reforms in the procedure of the court might with advantage have been suggested; and it was therefore the more unfortunate that these recommendations were not fully acted upon. The witnesses, for instance, were not always examined on oath. In a letter addressed in January 1892 to the Mayor of Cambridge, Professor G. F. Browne,2 who was well versed in University business and had served as a Proctor for six years, stated that "in the last twenty-four years some Vice-Chancellors have in all cases administered oaths, some have exercised their discretion according to the conditions of the case, some have never found it necessary to administer an oath". 3 And possibly another scandal might have closely followed upon the heels of that created by Emma Kemp if the Proctors had not wisely abstained from using their powers to the full. If they found a reputed prostitute, who had not previously come under their notice, loitering in a part of the town frequented by undergraduates, they merely warned her, and only if she continued to night-walk did they arrest her. But if they found a prostitute in the company of an undergraduate, they at once arrested her, even though she had to require and command you to receive into your custody the said —, and her safely to keep in your Spinning House for— Given under my hand and seal at Cambridge this — day of— in the year of our Lord, 18 Master of— College and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge." University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 1 Proctorial Syndicate, Book D 1 , 5 December i860, University Registry. 2 Early in 1892 Professor Browne accepted a Canonry of St Paul's, and his five years' tenure of the Disney Professorship expired automatically about the same time. But to avoid confusion he will be referred to throughout this chapter as Professor Browne. 3 University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

95

not been previously warned.1 Consequently not many women were arrested: between October 1880 and October 1890 the average number of Spinning House cases was about four or five a year. Thus the Proctors acted well within the powers conferred upon them by the Elizabethan charter; but unfortunately their prudent policy did not commend itself to all members of the University. In a letter of 4 March 1891 the Master of Downing remarked that when he compared the condition of the Cambridge streets in his undergraduate days with their present state, he saw a "marked change for the worse", 2 and he was not alone in his opinion. Dr Butler, Master of Trinity, who had become Vice-Chancellor in October 1889, was equally perturbed; and in May 1890 he urged the Proctors to be more vigilant.3 His wishes were obeyed and the Chaplain of the Spinning House reported that "during the year ending 29 September 1891 there have been thirteen committals", which was considerably above the average of former years.4 This increase in proctorial activity had its perils, and might easily give rise to an agitation in the town against the oppressive powers which the University possessed and exercised over persons who were not connected with it. The hour was striking and the woman appeared. About eleven o'clock on 1 The practice of the Proctors is described in a paper, signed by twenty-eight persons who were either then holding or had held proctorial office, which was published in the Cambridge Daily News of 9 February 1892. Also Professor Browne, who became a Pro-Proctor for the first time in 1868, was prepared to say on oath that he had been instructed in his duties "by the two Proctors who had been Pro-Proctors for the twelve months last preceding", and that acting upon those instructions his practice had been "to warn women of bad character parading the streets, in such a manner that there was no doubt their purpose was of an immoral character, that they must cease to parade the streets in that manner, and that if the warning was not attended to, which was very seldom the case, to arrest them". He was also prepared to say that "he would have regarded it as a violation of his duty not to arrest under ordinary circumstances a woman seen at night walking with an undergraduate". Case of Daisy Hopkins, University Registry Documents. The Proctors were in the habit of exchanging information, so that they could know which women had been warned. The Rev. F. Wallis, who had arrested Daisy Hopkins, was prepared to say at the hearing of her action for false imprisonment, that the Proctors and Pro-Proctors met at least once a week during full term "to report what each has done during the week preceding, to take counsel generally, and compare notes. Each Proctor and Pro-Proctor mentions the women whom he has seen and warned". Ibid. For Daisy Hopkins, see pp. 46 fF. 2 University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 3 It has not been possible to find Dr Butler's letter which is said to have been written on 19 May 1890; but it is possible to gather its drift. In his letter of 4 March 1891, quoted above, the Master of Downing thanks Dr Butler for a copy of his letter of 19 May 1890, and expresses his warm approval of the policy laid down in it. He adds that he welcomes "as a step in the right direction the increased vigilance of the Proctors last year and this"; and that he hopes that the University "will not yield, or in the least degree weaken, the power which it has of purifying the streets". Ibid. 4 Ibid. Dr Butler continued as Vice-Chancellor until October 1891.

96

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

the evening of Wednesday, n February 1891, Jane Elsden,1 who was known to the Proctors, and had only the day before been released from the Spinning House, was walking in Petty Cury; but when she sighted the Junior Proctor, the Rev. R. St John Parry, with his "bull-dogs", she immediately fled. Hotly pursued, she ran down Hobson Street and through the Prince of Wales' Passage into Sussex Street where she was caught. On the following morning she appeared before Dr Butler at the Spinning House and was convicted. But though he was characteristically kind, saying in fatherly fashion, "I am very sorry, but we shall have to detain you here for three weeks", he completely failed to win his way to her heart. Possibly more impressed by the severity of his sentence than by the urbanity of his manner, she defiantly exclaimed, "I always thought England was a free country, but I find it is not." 2 It was not however this remark which has secured for Jane Elsden her niche in history, but the fact that on the afternoon of the same day, owing to the great negligence of the assistant matron, she escaped from the Spinning House and took refuge in her father's house at Dullingham. But she did not enjoy the peace of rural life for many days. On hearing from Dr Kenny, the Reader in Law, that he could issue a warrant for her rearrest, the Vice-Chancellor took prompt action, and on Saturday, 14 February, she was retaken into custody.3 This was certainly a blunder. No serious harm would have been done, and much trouble avoided, by leaving her at liberty: for if rearrested, she would have to be tried, either at the Assizes or at Quarter Sessions, on a charge of breaking prison; and as, unlike the proceedings at the Spinning House, the trial would be conducted in public, she would have an opportunity of publishing to the world the story of her arrest and conviction. She could safely count upon a sympathetic hearing. The Press could be relied upon to take up the cry that women at Cambridge were subjected to a proctorial reign of terror and refused a fair hearing by the tribunal which condemned them; and it cannot be seriously contended that it was worth while or even prudent to draw public attention to an unpopular privilege of the University, in order to recapture a prostitute who had escaped from custody. 1

In the Spinning House Committal Book her name is given as Kate, but elsewhere as Jane. 2 Cambridge Daily News, 17 February 1891. 3 "I cannot doubt", wrote Dr Kenny to the Vice-Chancellor on 12 February, "that a woman, who has escaped from lawful imprisonment before the expiration of her sentence, may be re-taken without any fresh offence being committed, and this either in the streets of Cambridge or in any house to which access can be obtained without a forcible entry. Outside the area of your local jurisdiction I presume that any warrant from you for her arrest would have to be confirmed (' backed') by a local Justice of the Peace. Whether inside the jurisdiction of your court any written warrant from you for her arrest can be needed, I will not undertake to say without knowing more fully what passed on her being sentenced." University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

97

When Jane Elsden appeared before the Borough magistrates on Monday, 16 February, she told her story; and an audience, prejudiced in her favour, heard how she had been pursued by the "bull-dogs", arrested by the Proctor, and sentenced by the Vice-Chancellor, though guiltless of any offence known to the law of the land. Yet, as the Mayor explained, the magistrates were bound to commit her on the charge of having escaped from legal custody; and she was committed for trial at the Assizes, which were to begin on the following day.1 As the facts were not in dispute, her trial, which extended over two days, is of no particular interest. It was in vain that her counsel, Livett, challenged the legality of the Vice-Chancellor's order for her imprisonment. The most superficial scrutiny of the Elizabethan charter showed that he had not exceeded his legal powers: and Livett was compelled to fall back on his last line of defence, an impassioned appeal to the sympathies and prejudices of the jury. He rose to the occasion and delivered a speech worthy of Sergeant Buzfuz. After dwelling upon the extreme youth of the prisoner, a mere girl of seventeen, he described her arrest by the Proctor who, practising the methods of the Russian police, had played the spy upon her. "In free England", he exclaimed, "this poor girl has been dogged and persecuted. . . . Let the jury imagine themselves in the court which went by the name of Spinning House. It was held in a private room, to which no one was admitted, and where the prisoner was not even allowed to be represented. In that court she stood defenceless and without a friend. The case was gone into in a way unknown to any other court where civilisation exists But, Great Heavens! under the power they [the Proctors] exerted, no woman was safe in Cambridge. It had happened within the experience of those in court that ladies of the highest respectability and belonging to the best families in Cambridge had been subjected to annoyance and detention, purely through the mistakes of these men."2 This spirited speech was greeted with loud applause, and was presumably to the taste of the jury who, though they returned a verdict of "guilty of escaping from custody", intended, if the Judge had not thwarted them, to add as a rider to it "that the Vice-Chancellor's Court, as now constituted, needs revision".3 But Jane Elsden had done more than win the sympathies of the Jury: she was greeted by the Press as a martyr in the cause of freedom. It was not perhaps of much moment that the Cambridge Daily News published several letters of protest against academic tyranny, and defiantly declared that 1

Cambridge Daily News, 17 February 189I. Ibid., 18 February 1891; Cambridge Chronicle, 20 February 1891. 3 As the Foreman of the Jury was unable to say that the rider referred to the prisoner, the Judge did not permit it to be stated; but it served its purpose, as it was published in the Press. 2

98

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

between the University and Town "nothing in the semblance of friendship can again exist under the existing circumstances";1 but when some of the London papers began to express similar opinions, the situation became serious. In an article which appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette of 19 February, under the heading, "An Academic Star Chamber", a demand for the abolition of the Spinning House court was advanced; and this attack was continued in subsequent numbers of the paper.2 And though the Daily Telegraph was more restrained, it was severely critical: "The Vice-Chancellor and Proctors of the University", it remarked, "retain their singular, and in many respects unprecedented, powers in the interest of academic discipline of the young men under their charge, and not of the young women, with whom they have only an accidental and indirect concern, and the punishments which they inflict ought to be regulated with strict regard to this consideration."3 It was still more ominous when on 26 February Labouchere enquired in the House of Commons whether Jane Elsden had received a free pardon. As the Home Secretary replied that he intended immediately to issue an order for her release,4 nothing further was said; but the question was a danger signal and might have been followed by an attack upon the privileges of the University if the member for the town of Cambridge, Penrose Fitzgerald, had been disposed to make trouble. Fortunately he was most anxious to avert an outbreak of hostilities; and both he and Cecil Raikes, one of the University Burgesses, had already written to the Vice-Chancellor, suggesting a conference between the authorities of the University and Town, "with a view to the modification of the ancient powers of arrest, trial and imprisonment, claimed and occasionally exercised... by the University authorities over the towns-people ".5 Similar action was also taken in another quarter. The Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation Act of 1889 had provided that two members of the Cambridge Borough Council were to be annually nominated by the Council of the Senate and appointed by Grace, and that four other members should be annually elected by the Colleges "in such manner as shall be from time to time determined by Grace of the Senate"; and these University members of the Borough Council, as they were commonly styled, 1

Cambridge Daily News, 18 February 1891. Pall Mall Gazette, 19, 24 and 26 February 1891. 3 The Daily Telegraph, 19 February 1891. * 4 The reason given by the Home Secretary for the release of Jane Elsden was ludicrously insufficient, being that her escape from the Spinning House was due to the negligence of the assistant matron. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 25 February 1891. 5 The Times, 24 February 1891; Cambridge Chronicle, 27 February 1891. 2

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

99

informed the Vice-Chancellor in writing that they were all in favour of a "revision of the University jurisdiction over persons not members of the University".1 This communication and the letters from Fitzgerald and Raikes were submitted by the Vice-Chancellor on 26 February to a specially summoned meeting of the Council of the Senate; and the Council agreed, apparently without a division, that the Vice-Chancellor should inform the Mayor that, "in case the authorities of the Borough should wish to confer with the Council of the Senate on matters connected with the jurisdiction of the University over persons not members of the University, the Council are ready to appoint a committee to confer with them". 2 The situation was extremely delicate, for feeling in both camps was running high. Many townspeople believed that there would never be a better opportunity to sweep away, root and branch, a disgusting relic of sixteenth-century tyranny; and not a few members of the University considered that if the right of the Proctors to arrest prostitutes was impaired, the streets of Cambridge would nightly be scenes of flagrant immorality. The Rev. J. B. Lock, then Bursar of Caius, wrote an impassioned letter to the Vice-Chancellor on 28 February: "I see by the daily papers", he said, "that there seems some possibility that the authority of the Proctors over women notoriously immoral, when in the public streets, may be surrendered I look upon the question as a townsman, the head of a family, whose wife, children and servants are subject to the authority of the Proctors I say then, deliberately and emphatically, that it will be a most disastrous step for the town if the restraining effect of the Proctorial authority is taken away from the immoral element in the streets, and I should do the utmost in my power to prevent any such step, so fatal to the prosperity of both Town and University, being taken."3 Realising that the waters would be troubled, Fitzgerald came down to Cambridge on Saturday, 28 February, and spent the week-end discussing the situation with influential members of the University and Borough.4 His visit was timely, as on Monday, 2 March, the Borough Council met to consider the offer of the Council of the Senate. As this meeting was informal, and therefore unable to take binding decisions, it is unnecessary to describe in detail the various resolutions which it passed; and it is perhaps sufficient to say that, though the offer of a conference was provisionally accepted, it was 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 6 March 1891. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 26 February 1891. 3 University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 4 As Fitzgerald was a conservative, he probably had little influence with the radicals on the Borough Council. 2

7-2

100

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

also provisionally agreed that it "should extend to all matters in which the University at present has jurisdiction over others than members of its own body". 1 This demand that all the privileges of the University which affected the inhabitants of the town should be brought before the conference was considerably in advance of the offer of the Council of the Senate, who only had had in mind a discussion of the question raised by the arrest and conviction of Jane Elsden, that is, the right of the Proctors to arrest, and of the ViceChancellor to sit in judgment upon, prostitutes; but as it had only been agreed upon at an informal meeting, it could easily be dropped if it proved to be unacceptable to the Council of the Senate. Nevertheless it was indicative of the way the wind was blowing. The Council of the Senate met on the same day, and the Vice-Chancellor, having already heard from the Mayor, was able to say what had passed at the meeting of the Borough Council. It was thereupon agreed to appoint a committee, consisting of the Vice-Chancellor and four other members of the Council, to confer with representatives of the Borough Council "on the question of the jurisdiction of the University over persons not members of the University". That they intended thereby to restrict the conference to a discussion of the single question of the proctorial power of arrest and the Spinning House jurisdiction, is shown by their further resolution that though their committee was "not authorised to enter into the further matters mentioned in his 2 letter", the Council of the Senate were "willing to give careful consideration to any communication that they may receive from the Borough Council in reference to these other matters". The line thus taken was quite reasonable. They needed time to consider what course they ought to adopt if called upon to surrender or modify all the privileges conceded to the University by Sir John Patteson's award; and consequently, though they limited the terms of reference of their committee, they did not completely close the door upon a wider discussion at some future date.3 Four days later there was a formal meeting of the Borough Council, the first to be held since the crisis began. They had a completely free hand, and could without loss of prestige have accepted the offer of a conference on the terms prescribed by the Council of the Senate; but this they did not do. Though they agreed to appoint delegates to confer with the committee of the Council of the Senate, they approved, apparently without a division, a resolution that "it is desirable that the jurisdiction of the University over residents 1

This meeting is not recorded in the Minutes of the Borough Council. But the Mayor's etter to the Vice-Chancellor, recounting what had passed at it, is among the minutes of the meeting of the Borough Council on 6 March. 2 The Mayor's. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 2 March 1891.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

101

of the town, not members of the University, in all matters be considered at the proposed conference between representatives of the two bodies, and that the Council of the University be requested by the committee to give power to their delegates to confer on all such matters". Thus they repeated a request which had already been declined, and thereby seriously prejudiced the success of the conference. But the extremists among them wished to go further still. It was proposed and seconded "that no settlement of the question raised by the recent Spinning House case will be satisfactory, which does not abolish the jurisdiction at present possessed by the University authorities over persons not members of the University";* and if this motion was carried unamended, the Borough Council's delegates at the conference would be pledged to demand a complete surrender by the University of all its rights over the townspeople of Cambridge. It is true that several of these rights were not worth fighting for. No harm would follow if the Vice-Chancellor ceased to be able to issue wine licences, and the regulation that his consent must be obtained for the issue of theatre licences served no useful purpose, as these were now granted by the County Council. The requirement, moreover, of his consent in writing, as well as that of the Mayor, for all occasional entertainments, except those given at certain seasons of the year, had been modified in practice by an arrangement made in 1882, which provided that the ViceChancellor should merely countersign the permission given by the Mayor.2 But the right of the University to discommune Cambridge tradesmen was very far from being useless. It was most commonly exercised against tradesmen who violated the decree, issued by the Heads of Houses in 1847, which required them to inform College Tutors of all unpaid bills, exceeding five pounds, contracted by their pupils; and this regulation served to check youthful extravagance, and was welcomed by many tradesmen, as undergraduates were sometimes induced by tutorial pressure to pay their debts. But this omission to distinguish between the various privileges of the University was not the only objection to this motion. To open negotiations with an unvanquished adversary with a demand for his unconditional surrender has generally been found to be the most effective way of discouraging him from adopting a reasonable attitude. The moderates on the Council did not approve these tactics; and it was therefore proposed to amend the motion by specifying only the abolition of the. Spinning House court and of the proctorial power of arresting prostitutes as the essential conditions of a settlement. This amendment was carried by 1

A similarly worded resolution had been passed at the informal meeting of the Borough Council on 2 March. % The Master of St John's to the Vice-Chancellor, 3 March 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

102

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

twenty-two votes to fifteen, five persons not voting; and the original motion, thus amended, was then passed.1 But even in its attenuated form it was a formidable threat to the success of the conference. There was not the slightest hope of an unconditional surrender by the University of a power which was very generally deemed to be absolutely necessary. "We must have in the streets of Cambridge", wrote Professor Browne, who viewed the situation far more reasonably than many other members of the Senate, "a treatment of the prostitute question different from that in force in other towns. If the town of Cambridge will do it, and will do it well, and will give the University some right of intervention if it is not done well, I shall be very glad that we should be relieved. But short of that, I shall resist any proposal to deprive us."2 But the Borough Council had not considered whether they were prepared to shoulder the burden which they were asking the University to lay down, and to apply to Parliament for an increase in the powers of the Town police; and the omission suggests a failure to appreciate the strength of their adversary's case. Among the seven delegates appointed at this meeting to confer with the committee of the Council of the Senate, there were three at least, Bond, Balls and Vinter, who wanted their pound of flesh, and would be content with nothing less; but two other delegates, Cockerell and Redfarn, were less partisan in their attitude, and were prepared to admit that some of the University privileges had a better justification than merely that of causing annoyance to the town. And the Mayor, F. C. Wace, who led the deputation, was well qualified to view the situation dispassionately: having been a Fellow and Lecturer of St John's, his sympathies were divided. The first meeting of the conference was on Saturday, 7 March; and after the Vice-Chancellor and the Mayor had explained that their respective deputations had no independent powers, and that therefore any decisions reached could not be final, the real business began by the Vice-Chancellor asking what were the objections to the Spinning House court. The Mayor replied that the court was objectionable because it was held in camera, did not take evidence on oath, and denied the accused professional assistance; but Vinter, probably thinking that the basis of discussion was too limited, intervened at this point with the remark that the Proctors ought not to have the right of arresting prostitutes. This was a far more contentious question. The Town delegates admitted that the police could not arrest "prostitutes who were merely walking the streets and not actually soliciting, unless they were creating an obstruction"; but when the Master of Christ's asked whether, in the event of 1 2

Minutes of the Borough Council, 6 March 1891. 6 March 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

103

the proctorial discipline being restricted to members of the University, the Borough Council would endeavour to obtain for the Town police the right of "arrest on suspicion", he failed to extract a satisfactory answer. As the Borough Council had not considered this possibility, their delegates could only express their personal opinions; and these varied. Some of the delegates contended that the existing powers of the police were sufficient for the maintenance of order and decency in the streets, but others expressed the opinion that it might be found necessary to augment them; but inevitably none of them could say what action the Borough Council were likely to favour. Opinions on the other privileges of the University were not exchanged, as the representatives of the Council of the Senate were precluded by their terms of reference from discussing them; but before the meeting was adjourned until the following Saturday, one of the delegates, acting upon the resolution passed by the Borough Council on 6 March, enquired "whether the committee would obtain power from the Council of the Senate to deal with the other subjects".1 The minutes of this discussion were laid before the Council of the Senate when they met on the following Monday, and the situation was discussed. Some members of the Council wished to extend their committee's terms of reference; but the majority were agreed that it would be premature to do so before inviting the Borough Council to state in writing the specific powers to which they objected, and'' the grounds on which their abolition is proposed''; arid a motion to this effect was carried. On the other hand the criticisms which the Mayor had passed on the Spinning House court were considered to be well founded; and the Council agreed by eleven votes to two "to empower their committee to state that they feel the full force of the objections raised by the Mayor to the present mode of procedure in the exercise of the summary jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor in the Spinning House, and are prepared to recommend that steps be taken for removing the grounds of these objections". 2

Therefore when the conference was resumed on Saturday, 14 March, the Vice-Chancellor was able to say that the Council of the Senate were in favour of reforming the procedure of the Spinning House court on the lines suggested at their previous meeting; but the Mayor, possibly very much against his own wishes, was obliged to reply that this was not enough, and that in view "of the resolution of the Town Council, passed on 6 March, they have no option but to urge the abolition of the University jurisdiction in Spinning House cases". Moreover, on the question being put to him, he explained that 1 Minutes of Conference, Saturday, 7 March 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 9 March 1891.

104

THE

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

the resolution, to which he had alluded, must be interpreted as also demanding the abolition of the proctorial power of arrest. The Vice-Chancellor could only say that this demand must be referred to the Council of the Senate, and prudently abstained from giving the slightest hope that it would be accepted unconditionally. Then the Mayor inquired whether the Council of the Senate, if unwilling to approve unconditional abolition of these powers, would be prepared to consider abolition "on any conditions, and, if so, on what conditions"; but he was told that it was for those who demanded the surrender to specify the conditions on which it should be made. And even more unfavourably received was the Mayor's third question, whether the Council of the Senate had "considered the suggestion, thrown out at the last meeting of the conference, that the University jurisdiction in Spinning House cases should be held in abeyance for a time, to afford an opportunity of seeing how far the ordinary law of the land is effective in maintaining order and decency in the streets". He received the answer that opinions would inevitably differ about the success of such an experiment, and that in any case the University could not afford to run the risk of its failure.1 None of the three suggested courses commended themselves to the Council of the Senate when they met on 16 March; and after some discussion a motion was passed, nemine contradicente, instructing the Vice-Chancellor to inform the Mayor that the Council were not prepared to propose to the Senate either the abolition or temporary suspension of the disciplinary powers of the University over prostitutes, as the existing powers of the police were "not equivalent to those of the University in the matter of preserving due order and decency in the streets"; but that, in accordance with the resolution passed at their previous meeting, they intended "to obtain the advice of counsel as to the steps necessary for altering the procedure in the exercise of the summary jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor in Spinning House cases". This was the only concession which they were willing to make at the moment, and they cannot be blamed for declining to go further. Called upon to surrender what they believed to be a safeguard of academic discipline, they not unreasonably refused to consider this demand, unless assured that the powers of the Town police were brought more or less to the level of that possessed by the Proctors. Probably many members of the Borough Council would have been willing enough to give that assurance if they had not feared that an application to Parliament for the purpose might be rejected. There was certainly a very grave danger of a complete collapse of the negotiations between the University and Town. At a meeting of the Borough 1 Minutes of the Conference, 14 March 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, UniversityLibrary. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 16 March 1891.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

105

Council on 19 March, the Town delegates reported upon the conference and the Vice-Chancellor's letter written after the meeting of the Council of the Senate on 16 March; and the concluding words of that report—"The Borough delegates feel that they have exhausted the powers conferred upon them,... and await the further instructions of the Council"—were decidedly ominous. And the same note of angry despair was struck by Vinter who, after declaring that the conference had completely failed, moved "that the Borough Member be invited to confer with the Council,1 and advise on the promoting a bill in Parliament to abolish all University jurisdiction over all residents not members of the University". As the University would certainly oppose such a measure, Vinter's motion was little short of a declaration of war. There were however some members of the Borough Council who were not convinced that a friendly settlement of the dispute had passed out of the region of practical politics, and therefore were strongly opposed to an immediate appeal to Parliament, which was bound to be costly and might be unsuccessful. Speaking for this group of moderates, Spalding flatly denied that the conference had been a total failure. He argued that it had at least shown that the Council of the Senate were prepared to make concessions, and he moved that Vinter's motion should be amended by the insertion in the resolution of the words, "as at present exercised" after "jurisdiction". This amendment, if carried, would allow negotiations with the University to continue, and convert parliamentary action from a first into a last resort; and certainly there was much to be said in favour of this bid for peace. The councillor who seconded the amendment frankly remarked that, though "he believed as a townsman that the University jurisdiction should be done away with", he was not blind to the obvious truth that "parliamentary bills took a long time and.. .were most costly", and that therefore "if they could do anything to further their cause in any other way, they ought to do it". 2 Peace and war were in the balance, and the Borough Council, realising that they were called upon to take a momentous decision, finally agreed to give themselves time for reflection by adjourning the discussion to a special meeting, which the Mayor was instructed to summon within the next two or three weeks. At that special meeting, which was held on Monday, 6 April, much the same ground was traversed again. Alderman Balls, who had not moved from the position he had taken up from the first, said that though the representatives of the University at the conference had been very courteous, he had received the impression that both they and those whom they represented were unwilling "to go to the length that the Council had hoped"; and that he 1 2

The Borough Council. Minutes of Borough Council, 19 March 1891; Cambridge Chronicle, 20 March 1891.

106

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

therefore thought it useless to continue negotiations which were doomed to fail. He was answered by Alderman Redfarn, who argued that there was no justification for breaking them off. "They understood", he said, "that the University were prepared to meet them on some points, and he thought they should wait, if only for courtesy's sake, to know what they were prepared to grant. If they promoted a bill in Parliament, did any gentleman present think they would get all they demanded? He was certain they would not." But reason and good sense were not in the ascendant at this meeting, and Spalding's amendment was rejected.1 Its fate was probably more determined by what was felt than by what was said. All the members of the Borough Council knew quite well that the promotion of a parliamentary bill was a venture which might not succeed; but many of them must have been loath to let slip an opportunity of gaining a resounding victory over the University. But the moderates returned to the attack. Another amendment was moved and seconded, "that the whole subject be referred back to the committee, in order that they may prepare a draft report to be submitted to the Council, furnishing a written statement of the whole of the specific powers which the Borough Council -desire to abolish, together with the grounds on which their abolition is proposed; and that such statement be presented to the Council of the Senate, with a view to a conference thereon, previous to a promotion of a bill in Parliament to remove all University jurisdiction over residents not members of the University". As it was not likely that the delegates would draft a conciliatory report, affording a reasonable basis for negotiations, this amendment gave less hope than its predecessor of an amicable settlement; but it at least complied with the wish of the Council of the Senate to be informed in writing of the specific powers to which objection was taken, and "the grounds on which their abolition is proposed".2 It moreover gave time for reflection and delayed the very final step of resort to Parliament. But that in the eyes of many members of the Borough Council was a grave objection to it. On a division being taken, an equal number of votes, namely nineteen, were cast for and against it; but, as the Mayor gave his casting vote in its favour, it was carried, and then passed as a substantive motion.3 Accordingly the delegates drafted a report which set out the case for the Town clearly, though not moderately. It called upon the University to surrender "the power of the Proctors to arrest persons not members of the University, and the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor over such persons", as being both repugnant to the townspeople and unnecessary on account of the 1

The voting was by a show of hands, and the numbers are not recorded in the Minutesof the Borough Council. 2 3

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 9 March 1891. Minutes of the Borough Council, 6 April 1891; Cambridge Chronicle, 10 April 1891.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

107

sufficiency of the powers which the police possessed under the law of the land: the right however of the Proctors to enter houses of ill-fame was not disputed, though a doubt was expressed as to the extent to which it could be lawfully exercised. It was further asserted that as for all occasional entertainments the permission of the Mayor had to be obtained, there was no reason why they should also have to be sanctioned by the Vice-Chancellor, unless they happened to be " of a purely University character"; and that the consent of the Vice-Chancellor to theatre licences was equally unnecessary, as these were issued by the County Council, and were never granted without adequate inquiries having been made: "it should be borne in mind", it was incidentally remarked, "that the University authorities will still have ample power to prohibit the attendance of any of their members in statu pupillari, if they deem it desirable so to do". The University was also asked to abandon its right of issuing licences for the sale of wine, and to repeal its regulation requiring tradesmen of the town, under penalty of being discommuned, to return "all accounts of .£5 and upwards, incurred by members of the University in statu pupillari, to the respective tutors". In support of this last demand it was asserted that this regulation injured the trade of the town by encouraging undergraduates to deal with London firms, and was not even successful in checking extravagance, as undergraduates frequently evaded a tutorial investigation of their liabilities by running up a large number of small bills.1 The delegates had not conceded an inch, but they had not the last word. Their report might be amended by the Borough Council, when they met on 14 May to consider it, and the University members of that body believed that this was more likely to happen if it was known beforehand that the Council of the Senate were willing favourably to consider some of the demands made. They therefore met together on 8 May,2 having received copies of the report in advance; and agreed on a resolution which the Master of St John's communicated to the Vice-Chancellor. "In view of the meeting of the Town Council", it said, "which is to take place on Thursday, the 14th May, and at which the question of University privileges will be discussed, the University and college members of the Town Council desire to submit to the Council of the Senate their opinion that it is desirable that the University should surrender its veto upon public amusements and its power of granting wine licences; and that, whilst regarding it as desirable that exceptional powers should exist in Cambridge for maintaining the decency of the streets, they 1 Report of the Delegates to the Borough Council, 5 May 1891. University Papers, CM. 301, University Library. 2 All the University members of the Borough Council attended this meeting.

108

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

would be glad to see a plan devised, under which officers of the Town should be associated with those of the University in the exercise of those powers/'1 It is regrettable that the Council of the Senate, when the Vice-Chancellor communicated to them this message on n May, pedantically adhered to their previous decision "not to consider anything but the question of the proctorial jurisdiction until the Borough Council shall have formulated and presented a statement of their wishes on the other points". Their attitude was doubtless technically correct, but they would have acted more wisely if they had pondered upon what was passing in the enemy's camp, and sought to strengthen the moderate element in it by adopting a conciliatory attitude. Nor did they show themselves much more enlightened on the one question which they were prepared to discuss. They agreed by twelve votes to two "that the Council would be willing to give full consideration to any proposal for associating—so far as is practicable under the existing law—officers of the Town with those of the University in the exercise of die exceptional powers possessed by the University for maintaining the decency of the streets; but it should be understood that they are not prepared to recommend the University to take any part in promoting fresh legislation on the subject".* This was a very barren and unintelligible offer. If it meant, as would appear by the phrase, "so far as is practicable under the existing law", that it was not intended that the Town police should be given greater powers with regard to the arrest of prostitutes than they at present possessed, it was quite certain that their co-operation with the Proctors on such terms would not satisfy the most reasonable member of the Borough Council; and again, if, as is suggested by the concluding words of the resolution, the Council of the Senate did not object to the police receiving increased powers, provided that the University took no part in promoting the necessary legislation, the Borough Council, if left to bear the expense and trouble of a parliamentary bill, might reasonably consider that it was for them to dictate its terms, and would certainly include among them the abolition of the proctorial powers. When the Vice-Chancellor communicated these resolutions to the Master of St John's, he explained that they were "addressed, not of course to the Town Council as a body, but to yourself and the other University members of the Town Council". 3 But, apparently, the University members did not consider themselves thereby pledged to absolute secrecy; for it must have been more than a coincidence that when the Borough Council met on 14 May 1

Master of St John's to the Vice-Chancellor, 8 May 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, n May 1891. 3 The Vice-Chancellor to the Master of St John's, 12 May 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

109

to consider the report of the delegates, Spalding moved that, instead of demanding the abolition of the Spinning House jurisdiction and the immunity of the inhabitants of the Town from the authority of the Proctors, the Council should request that "officers of the Town be associated with those of the University in the exercise of jurisdiction over persons not members of the University". He admitted that his motion was vague, a remark which was received with ironical cheers; but he could not be more explicit. Even if he knew the complete text of the resolution of the Council of the Senate, upon which his motion was probably based, it would not have furthered his cause to have revealed it; and he received little support. He even suffered rudeness. One speaker described his proposal as too weak, even 4
110

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

accepted at all Colleges,1 so that after the next two days2 most of our responsibility will be gone." 3 The Council of the Senate had also been active. In accordance with the decision taken at their meeting on 16 March, they had consulted the AttorneyGeneral and another lawyer about a reform of the procedure in the Spinning House court, and had been advised that the court should continue to act, and that if it was open to the public, witnesses were sworn and the accused allowed professional assistance, no well-founded objection could be taken to it. As the two lawyers had also expressed the opinion that the Vice-Chancellor could act in this matter without consulting either Parliament or the Senate, the proposed reforms were immediately put in force.4 But the Council of the Senate had a more thorny task when on 18 May they came to deal with the report of the delegates, which the Borough Council had approved. After a lengthy discussion, which was more or less concentrated upon that part of the report which dealt with the prostitute question, it was moved and carried that "the Council of the Senate are unable to concur in the opinion 'that the powers of the police under the ordinary law of the land' are sufficient to preserve order and decency in the streets"; 5 and this motion, though of a purely negative character, had the minor merit of not completely closing the door upon further negotiations. Consideration of the other parts of the report was adjourned until the next meeting of the Council; and during the interval the Vice-Chancellor received a letter from the Senior Proctor, who had discussed with his colleagues the demands of the Town. The Senior Proctor reported that the Proctors had unanimously agreed that the "Town authorities do not possess, and cannot get, sufficient police powers", and they were also of the opinion that the requirement of the consent of the Vice-Chancellor to entertainments was more resented by the Town than any other academic privilege. "There was a general feeling", he said, "that this was considered by the Town to be the real grievance, and that the proctorial question had only been raised as a convenient cloak. We should be willing to make any concession in the matter that can be made with safety. How much the University could concede safely 1 On 7 March the Senior Proctor recorded that Trinity Hall had made reservations in favour of men in lodgings, and that Peterhouse had only undertaken to enforce the rule for the Easter Vacation 1891. The Proctorial Log Book. 2 The Easter Vacation was about to begin. 3 J. H. Gray to the Vice-Chancellor, 14 March 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 4 Messrs Francis and Francis to the Vice-Chancellor, 9 May 1891; Professor G. F. Browne to the Vice-Chancellor, 5 May 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. Though the two lawyers did not completely agree, they were able to sign a joint report. 5 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 18 May 1891.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

III

we were not clear, but there was clearly an opinion that the Vice-Chancellor must reserve some final veto, even if as a rule he in no way interfered. The Free Foresters' fete on Monday is a somewhat unfortunate comment on this demand. As before, there was a disturbance; as usual, when there is a disturbance, we were sent for post-haste, and had to clear the room. The assembly was one in which it was most undesirable that undergraduates should mix, and, as a specimen, I believe Mrs Bird* was present. Yet these are just the amusements they do not like the University to interfere with. With the theatres and concerts, I presume, the Vice-Chancellor does not in any way interfere." The Senior Proctor concluded by expressing his personal opinion that no harm would be done if the Vice-Chancellor surrendered his right of granting wine licences, but that the discommuning power must be upheld at all cost.z The Vice-Chancellor read this letter to the Council of the Senate when they met on 25 May, and it may have had a considerable influence; for it was finally agreed that the right of issuing wine licences could safely be abandoned, but that, "in the interests of discipline among the students of the University, and in the interests of members of the Town, the Council of the Senate are unwilling that the salutary power of the Vice-Chancellor to decline to authorise an entertainment should be abandoned".3 But it was not until Monday, 8 June, that they discussed the objections taken by the Borough Council to the discommuning power, and then only to postpone consideration of the question, in order that the Heads of Houses and Tutors might be consulted.4 The attitude thus adopted is open to criticism. It was not unreasonable that the Council should decline unconditionally to surrender the right of the Vice1 2

Jane Elsden lodged with Mrs Bird.

The Senior Proctor to the Vice-Chancellor, 21 May 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. In a further letter, dated 25 May, the Senior Proctor reported that "the Proctors discussed the question of amusements to-day, and I am requested to send you the two resolutions following: (1) The Proctors are unanimously of opinion that it is important to retain some control over amusements, and that the present system seems to be the simplest in its working. (2) If the Council decide that it is desirable to make any change in the present state of things, the Proctors wish to urge that it is of great importance to secure (1) that notice of all entertainments be duly sent to the University Authorities, (2) that the power of the Proctors to enter any place of amusement at any time at discretion be in no wise impaired, (3) that should the University Authorities forbid the attendance of persons in statu pupillari at any entertainment, it should be incumbent upon the persons responsible for the entertainment to exclude undergraduates under pain of forfeiting their licence. These provisions we think it very important to have." University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. It seems that this letter did not reach the Vice-Chancellor in time to allow him to bring it before the Council of the Senate on 25 May, which was unfortunate, as it conveyed definite proposals which the Borough Council might have accepted. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 25 May 1891. 4 Ibid. 8 June 1891.

112

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

Chancellor to veto such entertainments as he deemed to be of an undesirable character; but it would have certainly been more politic and more conducive to an amicable settlement if this refusal had been accompanied by an offer to consider alternative proposals.1 As it was framed, the resolution could not but convey the impression that the Council were not prepared to negotiate on this particular privilege; and the only concession offered, that of the surrender of the wine licences, was far too meagre to gain gratitude. It was also agreed at the meeting on 8 June that the Vice-Chancellor should communicate these various resolutions to the Mayor; and after his letter had been approved in draft on 15 June, it was despatched. It must have been a difficult letter to write. It conveyed the unpleasant news that only one of the demands of the Borough Council, and that by far the least important, had been fully met. It referred indeed to the reforms which had been made in the procedure of the Spinning House court ;* but the Borough Council had demanded its abolition. It was also unfortunate that the Vice-Chancellor had not been able to communicate the information to the Mayor sooner, for some irritation was caused by the long delay.3 It is therefore hardly surprising that when the delegates, to whom the ViceChancellor's letter had been referred, reported upon it to a meeting of the Borough Council on 9 July, they used minatory language. "It appears", they said, " . . .that while the Council of the Senate have made certain modifications in the method of procedure adopted, which do not meet the objections entertained by the Town to the existence of the Vice-Chancellor's court, they are unwilling to agree to any alteration of the proctorial authority or of the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor in Spinning House cases. The delegates learn that a substantially similar communication has been received by the City Council of Oxford from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford.4 As no alteration in this respect can be made without an Act of Parliament, the delegates ask that they be empowered to confer with the City Council of Oxford, with a 1 The original motion, of which that actually passed was an amended form, had been brought forward by Professor Browne, and had contained a definite offer to consider alternative proposals. Its concluding words, after "abandoned", were "but if the Town Council can suggest any class of entertainment, with regard to which the disciplinary power of the University will not be required, the Council will be glad to consider their suggestions". An amendment however that these words should be omitted was carried by seven votes to four. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 25 May 1891. 2 As one of these changes was that the public should be admitted to the court, certain structural alterations had to be made in the Spinning House to provide the necessary accommodation. On 8 June the Council of the Senate approved a report recommending these alterations, and this was passed by the Senate on 18 June. 3 Cambridge Chronicle, 12 June 1891. 4 The two Vice-Chancellors had communicated with one another on the privileges of their respective Universities. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 15 June 1891.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

113

view to joint action in that direction in the next session of Parliament. They also suggest that the question of University jurisdiction over theatrical or other amusements should be included in the proposed conference." As the delegates did not allude to the discommuning power, they did not apparently propose to press for its surrender; but in all other respects they remained of the same mind as before. A motion for the adoption of the report was proposed by Alderman Balls and seconded by Vinter. They both asserted that the University had conceded nothing, or at least nothing of any value; and though Vinter softened the force of his attack by the remark that a scheme for giving the police the same powers as the Proctors would have satisfied him, it is not improbable that if such an offer had been made at an earlier stage of the negotiations, he would have rejected it as insufficient. Not unwilling to score off an old opponent, Spalding expressed regret that "the temperate tone used that morning, was not used at an earlier period of the debate"; but he was not content merely to sneer. Though he frankly admitted that the Council of the Senate should have conceded more, he strongly opposed the proposal to promote a bill in Parliament. He asserted that "he did not believe for one moment that the Town as a body would consent to go to a large expenditure of money.. .in obtaining an Act of Parliament, which would probably be warmly contested by the representatives of both the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in the Houses of Parliament, and very probably would be defeated". But he failed to convince his hearers, and only four votes were cast against the motion for the adoption of the report.1 Thus the party, which had always held that the University was determined to keep the Town in subjection, and that therefore there must be an appeal to Parliament, had temporarily triumphed; and as the Oxford City Council were willing to appoint representatives to confer with the Borough Council delegates, it seemed likely that in a few months a parliamentary battle would begin. Consequently there was much disappointment when at a meeting of the Borough Council on 15 October the Mayor announced that the negotiations with the Oxford City Council had made no progress, apparently because that body was in the habit of transacting as little business as possible during the Long Vacation.2 But the University authorities did not fall into the mistake of attaching too much importance to what might only be a temporary deadlock. But they fully appreciated the gravity of the situation, and knew that they must do their utmost not to exacerbate the very strained relations with the Town. Early in 1

Minutes of the Borough Council, 9 July 1891; Cambridge Chronicle, 10 July 1891. This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Mayor's statement that " the Mayor of Oxford distinctly told him that he could not do anything during the Long Vacation". 2

Cambridge Chronicle, 16 October 1891.

114

THE

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

October the Senior Proctor, at the request of his colleagues, asked the ViceChancellor to summon a meeting of the Proctorial Syndicate for a discussion of the " conditions under which arrests should be made by the Proctors in the streets at the present time"; 1 and the Syndicate, which met on 16 October, were seemingly convinced that if the Proctors were to live to fight another day, they must go as near to running away as the dignity of the University allowed. "It was agreed that the utmost caution should be observed, that arrests should, if possible, be at present avoided, and that if an arrest were made, care should be taken that the case was a very strong one, and the evidence absolutely clear."2 But the need of caution in making arrests was not solely dictated by the fear of giving further offence to the Town. Henceforth Spinning House cases would be heard in public, and the accused would receive professional assistance; and this gave pause for thought. The proceedings would be conducted before an audience consisting for the most part of hostile critics, and would be fully, though perhaps not always very accurately, reported in the local press. The prisoner moreover being now defended by counsel, might more frequently escape conviction than heretofore; and every prosecution that failed would confirm the belief that the Proctors were arresting perfectly respectable women. Consequently there was a strong case for proctorial inactivity, even though it might entail a marked degeneration in the state of the streets. The new Vice-Chancellor was Dr Peile, Master of Christ's. He was well aware that the hosts of Midian were prowling around, and rightly feared that if called upon to exercise his jurisdiction, his lack of legal armour might expose him to their shafts. He therefore decided, as he informed the Council of the Senate on 12 October, "to ask Mr Francis, Solicitor, to be present during the trial of Spinning House cases";3 and it certainly seems reasonable that the Vice-Chancellor, as well as the prisoner, should have skilled assistance. But doubtless he fervently hoped that he would never require it; and must therefore have been gravely perturbed by a note which he received on 3 December from the Rev. Frederick Wallis, one of the Pro-Proctors. "I write to inform you", it ran, "that I have this evening arrested a prisoner, Daisy Hopkin (sic), who was in the company of a member of the University."4 Daisy Hopkins, for so her name is usually spelt, was well known to the Proctors, though still only in her "teens". Born in 1874, she had lived at 1

The Proctorial Log Book, 12 October 1891. The Proctorial Log Book, 16 October 1891; Proctorial Syndicate Book, 16 October 1891, University Registry Documents. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 12 October 1891. 4 Rev. F. Wallis to the Vice-Chancellor, 2 December 1891. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 2

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

115

Ely with her parents until 1887, when the family migrated to Cambridge, and they had not been there long before Daisy and her elder sister began to attract the unfavourable attention of the Proctors.1 She had been warned against loitering in the streets by the Rev. W. T. Southward in May 1890, and probably warned again in the following October by the Rev. St John Parry, who was then the Junior Proctor.2 Thus, rightly or wrongly, she was "suspected of evil", and Wallis cannot fairly be accused of excess of zeal. Though the Proctors had agreed to act with the greatest caution, they still considered themselves obliged to arrest a suspected woman who was found in the company of an undergraduate. Moreover Wallis was prepared to say on oath that a week or so before he arrested her he had been told by his colleagues at a Proctors' meeting that she was a bad character, and was in their books as having been warned; and that at the next Proctors' meeting, after much had been said about the need of caution, the four senior members of the proctorial body had not only asserted "that one thing was clear, viz. that if, which was not probable, we found a suspected woman actually in company with a member of the University, she must be arrested"; but that when Wallis put the question, "if I find Daisy Hopkins walking at night with a member of the University, am I to take her up?", they had replied, "certainly".3 Therefore, though Wallis may have cursed his luck when he encountered her so accompanied, he could not, without failing in his duty, have acted otherwise than he did. On 3 December, the day after her arrest, Daisy Hopkins appeared before the Vice-Chancellor at the Spinning House, "fashionably attired", according to one newspaper, "in a navy blue costume, trimmed with gold edging, and a fawn coloured felt hat". In conformity with the new order, the case was heard in public, witnesses were sworn, and the prisoner was defended by a solicitor of the town, A. J. Lyon; but she was not allowed to give evidence on oath, though permitted to make an unsworn statement. The Senior Proctor, who conducted the prosecution, had a comparatively easy task. The evidence of Wallis and his two "bull-dogs" established the fact that the prisoner had been found in the company of a member of the University, and Superintendent Innes of the Town police produced the police register of suspected women, in which her name appeared. But the most damning evidence was 1 On 8 December 1891 A. W. Streane of Corpus Christi, then Senior Proctor, sent the Vice-Chancellor some notes on the Hopkins family, which he had received from T. F. C. Huddleston, the Censor of Non-Collegiate students. Ibid. 2 Mr Parry was not prepared to say on oath that he had warned Daisy Hopkins, but he was under a strong impression that he had done so. Case of Daisy Hopkins, University Registry Documents. 3 An account of what Rev. F. Wallis was prepared to say at the hearing of the action, D. Hopkins v. Wallis. Case of Daisy Hopkins, University Registry Documents.

8-2

Il6

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

given by the undergraduate with whom she had been seen. He had been very unwilling to appear in court, for he was a married man, and possibly only consented to give evidence on receiving an assurance from the Proctors that they would not proceed against him.1 What he could tell was well worth that price. He declared on oath that he had asked the prisoner whether she could take him to a room, and that she had replied that she could.2 Lyon must have known from the outset that the scales were weighted against him and his client. He was unable to bring forward any evidence to refute the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution; and though he called Daisy Hopkins's brother, who was a billiard marker in the town, and a certain J. C. Camps, to testify to her unblemished reputation, he could not explain away the fact that her name was on the police register. As a last resort he asked for an adjournment, alleging that his client had attended St Matthew's Sunday School, and that he wished to call Mr Ford, a former curate of that church, to witness to her good character. The Vice-Chancellor refused the request; and though he was afterwards blamed for having done so, the prisoner would not have profited by an adjournment. In a letter, which was published in The Times of n December, Ford stated that when he had been a curate at St Matthew's he had neither superintended nor taught in any Sunday School to which girls were admitted, that, as he had no recollection of Daisy Hopkins having ever been under his care, he could not have witnessed to her good character; and that his only connection with her family was that her brother had been for a few months an occasional attendant at one of his Bible classes for young men. The Vice-Chancellor inclined to mercy, and sentenced the prisoner to fourteen days' imprisonment in the Spinning House. Moreover, except for one grave technical blunder, to be mentioned later, for which he was not really responsible, he discharged his judicial duties extremely well. Nevertheless he received several anonymous letters, couched in the most abusive and violent terms; and one of these missives, purporting to come from a member of the Stock Exchange, was particularly insolent. 1

It is stated in the Proctorial Log Book that "the Proctors, who had in vain sought to induce the reporters in the Vice-Chancellor's Court to withhold his name, informed his College Tutor that, inasmuch as such severe punishment in the shape of publicity had already fallen upon him, they did not wish to proceed further in the matter". The undergraduate does not cut a heroic figure in this sordid drama. He left Cambridge immediately after the trial, and took his name off the books of his college. As he had no permanent address in this country, his Tutor was unable to discover his whereabouts. 2 The Cambridge Daily News gave an accurate account of the trial, except for the omission of Daisy Hopkins's answer to her companion's inquiry about a room. See a copy of a letter from Musgrave Francis to W. P. Spalding, 13 January 1892. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

117

"Sir", it began, "if the report in to-day's Times is correct, you are not only a disgrace to Cambridge but to the whole civilised world. I cannot imagine any Christian man behaving in so unchristian a manner. You appear to have done everything to shield Mr , and to gloat over the misfortune of a girl of seventeen—whom you refused to give a chance of clearing her character in any way by adjourning her case. Oh! you Saint in Devil's cloathing (sic). We number here some 3000 members, and as a body are strong conservatives. It would teach you a lesson if you could only hear what is thought of your coarse brutality. I leave it to the papers to expose what an impudent fraud your Spinning Houses are. justice and honour seem unknown to you, and yet, I daresay, you consider yourself an honest and God-fearing man. You have done your best to send a young girl to Hell, a much more suitable place for such base, irreligious scoundrels as yourself."1 Also many of the London newspapers, playing the part of knight errants, championed the cause of Daisy Hopkins, and called loudly for the abolition of the Spinning House court, which they declared was a modern Star Chamber. But far more ominous than this hysterical outcry in the Press was a brief paragraph in the Cambridge Daily News of 7 December, which reported "that this morning Mr A. J. Lyon and Dr Cooper made a special journey to London to consult with Mr Poland respecting the case. We have received this afternoon a telegram which states that Dr Cooper and Mr Poland will make an application to the High Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus, on the ground that the whole of the trial was irregular, and, further, that there was nothing in the evidence to justify the conviction". Poland, who was a leading Queen's Counsel, appeared on 8 December before the Lord ChiefJustice Coleridge and Mr Justice Smith in the Court of Queen's Bench, and moved "for an order nisi, calling upon the Keeper of the Spinning House and House of Correction of the University and Town of Cambridge, with notice to the Vice-Chancellor, to show cause why a writ of Habeas Corpus should not issue to bring up the body of Daisy Hopkins to be discharged on the ground that she is in illegal custody".2 In answer to a question by Mr Justice Smith, he explained that he was not asking for the writ on the ground that there was no evidence, but because there was "no offence known to the law laid against her or set out in the warrant". He also asked for a writ of certiorari to bring up the proceedings of the court. Both applications were granted, and the rule was made returnable on Friday, 11 December.3 1

University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. Transcript from the shorthand notes of Messrs Marten and Meredith. Case of Daisy 3 Hopkins. University Registry Documents. Ibid. 2

Il8

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

The proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench on that Friday revealed an almost fantastic degree of carelessness and ignorance on the part of the present and past authorities of the University. According to a long-standing practice, Daisy Hopkins had been charged before the Vice-Chancellor with "walking with a member of the University in a public street of the Town of Cambridge". That charge had been read to her, she had been told to plead to it, and the Vice-Chancellor's warrant for her committal to prison stated that, as he considered that charge to have been proved, he required the Keeper of the Spinning House to receive into custody "the said Daisy Hopkins, and her safely to keep in your said Spinning House for fourteen days". The Attorney-General, who appeared on behalf of the University, admitted that "walking with a member of the University" was unknown as an oifence either to the law of the land or to the charter of Queen Elizabeth; and that, if the charge meant no more than it actually said, it was no charge at all. He however argued that, though not explicitly stated, the charge had been really that of walking with a member of the University for an immoral purpose: "that was the charge which the Proctor intended to prefer, and that was the charge on which the young woman was heard and tried". 1 His assertion that the charge was understood to mean more than it actually said, was undoubtedly correct. Wallis in an affidavit declared that "this form of charge is repeatedly to be found in the records of the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and is frequently adopted when the offence charged is that a woman is in company with an undergraduate for an immoral purpose, and I intended to make that charge in this case".2 But though this was true enough, it was equally true that he had not made the charge which he had intended to make; and there was no answer to the objection, raised by Poland, that Daisy Hopkins had been "imprisoned upon a charge never made against her".3 The judgment of the Court was that Daisy Hopkins must be released from custody and the proceedings against her quashed, and the reasons for this ruling were lucidly explained by the Lord Chief Justice. Though he emphatically expressed the opinion that the Vice-Chancellor had discharged his duty, as he understood it, thoroughly well, and, "as far as the substance of the case is concerned", had done nothing to which objection could be reasonably taken, he pointed out that by Queen Elizabeth's charter he was given authority to try, and, if found guilty, to punish by fine and imprisonment "all public women, procuresses, vagabonds, and other persons suspected of evil, coming to or assembling in the said town and its suburbs"; and that consequently, "to justify the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor it is necessary that the person must have been charged within these words in the 1 2

The Times, 12 December 1891. Ibid. The Vice-Chancellor said much the same in his affidavit.

3

Ibid.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

119

charter, as being at all events a person (whether a public woman I know not) rea or suspecta de malo". And as Daisy Hopkins had not been charged within the words of the charter, the Vice-Chancellor was not authorised to act. "The principle of law", he continued, "is that if a person is before a tribunal, and accused of an offence within its jurisdiction, then it may act. The question to be considered is not whether the words are words which the tribunal has been in the habit of using to bring persons within its jurisdiction, but whether the words in their primary and unrestrained sense do bring the matter within their jurisdiction. I think these do not, and I think that throughout the case.. .no distinct and definite charge, different from the charge which was made in the papers, was ever presented to the applicant."1 The Vice-Chancellor's jurisdiction was of course quite unaffected by this judgment; but the prestige of the University inevitably suffered by the publicity thus given to a gross and inexcusable irregularity in the exercise of that jurisdiction. It might fairly be asked whether an academic body, so ignorant or so careless of legal forms, could safely be trusted with the extensive powers conferred upon it by Queen Elizabeth's charter? Nor was this the only unfortunate consequence of the appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. The uninstructed in legal technicalities, on hearing that Daisy Hopkins had been released, would naturally be inclined to jump to the conclusion that she had been the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.2 Consequently feeling in the town waxed venomous and bitter. At a specially summoned meeting of the Borough Council on 18 December, Vinter, after inveighing against the Spinning House court, moved that the delegates be re-appointed "with further and special instructions to confer without delay with the Member for the Borough, with a view to promoting a public bill in Parliament for abolishing altogether, or obtaining such limitation, as the Council may think necessary, to the powers possessed or exercised by the University over persons not members of that body, and to report at an early date to the Council". He addressed an excited audience, ready to indulge in inflammatory language. One speaker declared that Vinter had "put the matter before them in such a way as to excite feelings of horror against the present system of University jurisdiction", and others declaimed against the arbitrary power possessed by the Proctors of arrest on suspicion. Yet there were some at least who judged the situation more calmly, and saw the danger of pre1

University Reporter, 15 December 1891. 61 Law Journal, Queen's Bench, 240, Ex parte Hopkins. 2 A person who, signing himself "Tit for Tat", sent a post-card to the Vice-Chancellor, seems to have fallen into this blunder. "Ha! Ha! Ha!" he wrote, "so the poor girl has been released after all. You are an infamous blackguard for the way you treated her. If you have got daus [sic], it would serve you right if her brother was to disfigure them for life, on account of the injury you did his sister." University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

120

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

cipitate action. Spalding, as ever, was on the side of moderation. Though he admitted that the procedure in the Spinning House court had been shown to be very unsatisfactory, he contended that during the last quarter of a century no serious miscarriage of justice had occurred, and that the consequences of violent measures might be as disagreeable to the Town as to the University. One of the University members, G. B. Finch, also endeavoured to stem the tide of passion. He argued that a friendly settlement of the controversy was not even now impossible; and that the earlier negotiations had failed because neither side had been willing to make a substantial concession. "If the negotiations", he said, "were resumed on the same lines as before, he saw no prospect of coming to an arrangement; but he did not think that the Town would get what they appeared to desire by going to Parliament He thought some practical steps should be taken to consider the thing in committee"; and therefore moved, as an amendment to Vinter's motion, that the question should be referred to the parliamentary committee of the Borough Council. But the greater number of those who heard him preferred war to peace. His amendment was rejected by nineteen to eleven votes; and when the Mayor announced that the original motion had been carried by twenty votes to six, there was loud applause "from the members of the Council and the public in the gallery".1 There was a still greater display of passion and prejudice when, twelve days later, at a largely attended meeting of ratepayers Dr J. W. Cooper2 moved that the action taken by the Borough Council be approved. He used violent language, and the meeting was willing to believe that the University was as black as he painted it. When Professor Browne moved "that in the interests of the Town of Cambridge it is desirable that the present special powers for dealing with immorality in Cambridge should not be taken away, unless provision is made for the exercise of similar powers by some other lawfully constituted authority", he was howled down and refused a hearing; and Spalding received similar treatment when he attempted to correct some of Cooper's inaccuracies. Therefore the Cambridge Chronicle was possibly quite justified in describing the meeting as "a disgrace to a civilised community"; but, however that may be, it undeniably served its intended purpose. Cooper's motion was carried by acclamation, and consequently the Borough Council could claim that they were acting in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers of Cambridge.3 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 18 December 1891; Minutes of Borough Council, 18 December 1891. Dr Cooper, who has previously been mentioned with reference to the application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, was the son of C. H. Cooper, who was Town Clerk of Cambridge from 1849 to 1866, and the author of Annals of Cambridge and other works of local interest. 3 Cambridge Chronicle, 1 January 1892; G. F. Browne to G. Kett, Mayor of Cambridge, 5 January 1892. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 2

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

121

The waters were troubled, and Daisy Hopkins, or her advisers, decided to fish in them. On Christmas Day, or the day before, Wallis received a letter from her solicitor, which he ruefully described as a "queer kind of Christmas card". 1 "I am now instructed by Miss Daisy Hopkins", ran this missive, "to recover damages against you for false imprisonment. I shall be glad to know if you have any offer to make; if not, please let me know the name of your solicitor, so that the unpleasantness of personal service of the writ may be avoided."2 Possibly this move was inspired by the hope that the University, intimidated by the prospect of again having to defend a jurisdiction condemned by public opinion, might be prepared to settle the matter out of court by the payment of substantial compensation; and it is significant that Ly on intimated, when serving the writ, that he was open to an offer, and named "-£130, which, he said, had been the cost of obtaining the Writ of Habeas Corpus". 3 The University however, having very properly taken charge of the case on Wallis's behalf, did not flinch from a fight, and in a way courted it. "I agree with you", wrote Wallis to the Vice-Chancellor on 30 December 1891, "that there is nothing to be feared from this action; if it is brought, it may indeed strengthen our own hand."4 And R. T. Wright of Christ's, who was a lawyer, was equally sanguine. "I should be strongly opposed", he informed the Vice-Chancellor on 31 December, "to doing anything like approaching the plaintiff at this stage, with a view to making an offer. I think we should keep the plaintiff at arm's length, and see how she frames her case. The Judges pointed out that the fact that there was no answer to the Habeas Corpus did not shew there would not be a complete answer to an action for false imprisonment."5 The action was heard at Ipswich in March 1892. Serjeant Murphy, the plaintiff's counsel, made a most eloquent speech, in the course of which he 1

Rev. F. Wallis to the Vice-Chancellor, 25 December 1891. University Papers, C M . , University Library. 2 A. J. Lyon to Rev. F. Wallis, 24 December 1891. Ibid. 3 T. Musgrave Francis to the Vice-Chancellor, 8 January 1892. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. A subscription had already been launched to defray the expenses incurred by Daisy Hopkins in the Spinning House case and in the application for the Writ of Habeas Corpus; and in a letter, dated 1 January 1892, Vinter drew attention to it. "The payment of these expenses", he pointed out, "the family would find a serious burden. To those who desire that personal liberty and equal justice should be secured to ally this appeal will not be made in vain. The above named expenses will be the first charge upon the fund— the balance will be handed over to the Town Clerk towards the expenses of promoting a public Bill in Parliament to abolish University jurisdiction over the town.... Mr Alderman Balls has kindly accepted the office of Treasurer to the Fund." Case of Daisy Hopkins, University Registry Documents. 4 University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 5 R. T. Wright to the Vice-Chancellor, 31 December 1891. Ibid.

122

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

drew a striking, though quite untrue, picture of the tyranny under which the wretched inhabitants of Cambridge were living; but the Judge did not allow the jury to be led astray from the real issue by flights of rhetoric. After drily remarking at the beginning of his summing-up that Serjeant Murphy's speech seemed better suited to the House of Commons than to a court of law, he instructed the jury that they had not to decide whether "the University ought to have special powers", nor even whether the plaintiff was a respectable character. "No conclusion at which you arrive", he warned them, "can hereafter be referred to as imputing anything to that young woman and her character... .There is no ground for imputing to her unchastity or any impropriety of conduct." The only question they had to answer, he continued, was whether the Pro-Proctor had acted as a reasonable man when he arrested the plaintiff; and he reminded them that under cross-examination she had admitted that she was in the habit of frequenting the streets at night, that she had associated with doubtful characters, and that she had been previously warned by a Proctor. Thus so competently guided, the jury had little difficulty in making up their minds: after an absence of half an hour they returned a verdict for the defendant.1 Yet though this ill-judged action had failed, the University had done no more than escape from further humiliation. Its conflict with the Borough Council and the Town was in no way affected by what had happened at Ipswich; and it was upon that conflict that its attention was rightly concentrated. The Borough Council were preparing to appeal to Parliament for the redress of the wrongs of the Town, and, if that appeal succeeded, nearly all the privileges of the University might disappear. A successful attempt was made further to improve the procedure in the Spinning House court. At a meeting of the Council of the Senate on 14 December 1891, that is, very shortly after the application for the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Court of Queen's Bench, the Vice-Chancellor announced that he proposed to consult a small committee, which had been appointed at the previous meeting, "with regard to the procedure of his court in the Spinning House, and to the appointment of a legal assessor";2 and on the following 1 February he informed the Council that he had appointed R. T. Wright as his legal assessor, and asked them to consider a joint opinion given by counsel on the procedure in his court. The reforms, suggested by the lawyers, were of course approved; but possibly some members of the Council feared that this might prove to be a death-bed repentance.3 1

Transcript from shorthand notes of Mr Justice Matthew's summing up. Case of Daisy Hopkins, University Registry Documents. See also Cambridge Daily News, 25 March 1892. 2 Minutes of Council of the Senate, 7 and 14 December 1891. 3 Ibid. 1 February 1892. The opinion of counsel was also laid before the Proctorial Syndicate on 9 February. Proctorial Syndicate Book, University Registry Documents.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

123

Three or four weeks later, the Council of the Senate dealt with the hitherto postponed question of the discommuning power. In accordance with the resolution approved on 8 June 1891, the Vice-Chancellor had collected the opinions of Heads of Houses and Tutors on the exercise of this right, and had drafted a statement which, after being amended, was approved by the Council on 29 February 1892, and communicated to the Mayor. It took the form of an answer to the two objections taken by the Borough Council to the exercise of the discommuning power, namely that it drove away trade from the town and served no useful purpose. "In the opinion of the Council", wrote the Vice-Chancellor, " (1) when orders are given to London tradesmen by members of the University, the reasons for doing so are commonly independent of this rule. But if there be (which is not certain) some loss of trade to the town owing to the operation of this rule, it is more than compensated for by the assistance which the rule gives in obtaining payment of debts brought by it to the knowledge of Tutors and consequently of parents. On this point a large amount of evidence has been laid before the Council. (2) The rule does not fail in its object No doubt the rule does not put an end to extravagance and bad debts, but it does materially diminish both, and in doing this it does all that it is expected to do. The Council are therefore unable to concur in the suggestion, made to them by the Borough Council, that the rule should no longer be enforced."* No great courage was needed for this display of firmness. Apart from the fact that they had an overwhelmingly strong case, the Council of the Senate were aware that their attitude on this particular question had considerable support in the town. About seven weeks earlier the Borough Council had received a memorial from about forty of the leading Cambridge tradesmen, "expressing their wish for the retention of the University jurisdiction in respect of discommuning"; 3 and, thus stabbed from behind, the Borough Council were unable to cavil at the Vice-Chancellor's letter when they considered it on 17 March. They agreed to enter it on the minutes without comment. Vinter, who seconded this motion, summed up the situation accurately: he remarked "that feeling in the town was rather in favour of the rule and of the University retaining its powers, though, personally, he thought them useless".3 The Borough Council could afford to retreat on this unimportant front, having made good progress in their plans for a campaign in Parliament: on 4 February the delegates had reported that, having had several conferences with the Borough Member, they had given instructions for the drafting of a 1 2 3

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 29 February 1892. Cambridge Chronicle, 21 January 1892. Minutes of the Borough Council, 17 March 1892; Cambridge Chronicle, 18 March 1892.

124

THE

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

Bill. Up to this time the Council of the Senate had taken no steps in the direction of appeasement, and indeed had refused to do so; for on 25 January a motion, proposed by the Master of Trinity and seconded by Henry Jackson, that "the Council are prepared to entertain the question of a joint exercise with the Town of the powers of the University for the removal of temptations to immorality in the streets of Cambridge", was rejected by eight votes to three.1 But the Council did not adhere for long to this policy of inaction; and possibly they were stirred into activity by what passed at the Borough Council on 4 February. But, whatever the impulse, there was certainly a change of policy. On 8 February the Council approved Professor Browne's motion that the Vice-Chancellor should inform the Mayor in writing that the Council of the Senate were still willing to consider any proposal on the subject of the proctorial jurisdiction, in so far as it affected the inhabitants of the town, short of its total abolition. "I gather from statements in the newspapers", wrote the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with these instructions, "that the University is understood to have closed the communication with the Town on the subject of the proctorial jurisdiction, and that the University is expected to make some advances to the Town if communications are to be re-opened. I am requested by the Council of the Senate to say that they are not aware that the Town Council has proposed anything short of the complete abolition of the University jurisdiction; and any communications on that subject appear to them useless. The representatives of the Council of the Senate informed the representatives of the Town Council last spring that in their opinion it was for the Town Council, and not for the University, to make any proposals tending towards an agreement, and in that opinion the Council of the Senate concur. I shall be ready to lay before the Council of the Senate any communications from you in connection with this question."2 The Mayor replied in friendly terms, expressing the hope that he would be able "to propose to you a re-opening of the negotiations between the University and Town on the subject at issue"; and the following day he wrote again to say that the delegates, to whom he had apparently submitted the Vice-Chancellor's letter, had requested him "to forward to you, as soon as it comes from the printers, a draft of the Bill.. .which it is proposed to recommend to the approval of the Town Council".^ It was not however until 25 March that the Vice-Chancellor received a copy of the draft Bill and a 1

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 25 January 1892. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 8 February 1892. The Vice-Chancellor's letter, dated 9 February, is included in the Report of the Council of the Senate, 25 April 1892, which was published in the University Reporter, 26 April 1892. 3 G. Kett to the Vice-Chancellor, 9 and 10 February 1892. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 2

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

125

covering letter from the Town Clerk, who mentioned that "the delegates would be very glad to consider any remarks or suggestions which you may have to make with regard to it, before it is presented to the Council". 1 But as it was vacation, the Council were not meeting before 25 April, and therefore the Vice-Chancellor could only express a personal opinion on the Bill; and this was not at all favourable. "I can therefore", he replied to the Town Clerk, "only refer you to my letter of 9 February to the Mayor, in which I expressed to him my readiness to lay before the Council of the Senate any communication from the Town Council. At the same time I pointed out that if the Town Council demanded no less than complete abolition of the University jurisdiction, it was not likely that communications upon that basis would be useful. I much regret to see that the Bill is drafted upon it.... The University would gladly see the Town possessed of additional powers for the maintenance of decency in the streets. But it is quite a different thing to propose to abolish entirely the present system, without waiting to see how the new powers, supposing them to be obtained, will work. There is surely great danger to the Town and University alike—for their interest is one in the matter—of losing their present safeguards without obtaining any adequate equivalent. May I ask that this letter, together with that of 9 February to the Mayor, may be communicated to the Town Council?"2 The Vice-Chancellor clearly did not think that the Bill offered a basis for negotiation; and, unless substantially modified by the Town Council, it certainly did not. It swept away the control hitherto possessed by the University over the licensing of theatres and public entertainments, and annulled those sections of the Elizabethan charter which provided that the Proctors could arrest, and the Vice-Chancellor try, prostitutes and women whom they suspected of being prostitutes; and though it was supposed to increase the powers of the Town police by giving them the right of arresting "every common prostitute, loitering or being in a street or public place for purposes of prostitution or solicitation", it is questionable whether it actually did so.3 It is true that the Bill did not deprive the Heads of Houses of the discommuning power, or the Vice-Chancellor of the right to issue wine licences; but, as the Borough Council had practically abandoned their demand for the surrender of the former of these privileges, and the Council of the Senate were perfectly willing to surrender the latter, these concessions were not likely to 1 2

Report of the Council of the Senate, 25 April 1892. University Reporter, 26 April 1892.

Ibid. 3 It would seem difficult to prove "purpose of prostitution", unless there had been actual solicitation. In any case the power thus given was far less than that of arrest on suspicion, which the Proctors possessed.

126

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

placate the ire roused in the University by the many objectionable features of the Bill.1 On 14 April the delegates presented to the Borough Council a report, in which the Bill that they had drafted was set out; and the report was accepted practically unchanged, though several members of the Council supported an amendment that it should be referred to a joint committee of the delegates and the parliamentary committee of the Borough Council, as not making sufficient provision "for the discipline which it is desirable to maintain in a place of education". What passed at this meeting clearly indicated that a majority of the Borough Council were not in favour of a negotiated peace.2 Fortunately there was a party in the University which was more enlightened. When the Council of the Senate met on 25 April, the ViceChancellor brought before them a memorial, signed by forty-two resident members of the Senate,^ and a copy of the Town's parliamentary Bill which he had received from the Town Clerk. The opinions expressed in the memorial are of considerable interest. The great importance of maintaining, while more exactly defining, the "special jurisdiction over 'persons suspected of evil', as hitherto exercised by the University", is emphatically asserted; but the possibility of sharing the jurisdiction with the Borough authorities is suggested. "The jurisdiction", it is explained, "so far as it penally affects persons not being members of the University, consists mainly of two elements, the power of arrest exercised by the Proctor and the judicial authority exercised by the Vice-Chancellor. We consider it essential that the Proctors should retain their present power of arrest, and that in any legislation this power should be expressly recognised; but we would suggest that additional powers of arrest should be conferred on the Borough police. Provided this were done, the judicial authority of the ViceChancellor might be transferred to the Borough magistrates, or to such other court as may be agreed upon, with power to deal with all such cases. Such an alteration would, we believe, not only remove a principal cause of friction between the University and the Town, and meet some of the chief objections raised against the present system, but would strengthen the jurisdiction itself, and facilitate the attainment of the objects for which it exists. We are therefore of opinion that if a Bill, based on the lines suggested, were introduced into Parliament, and if the details were found to be such as would tend to efficiency and mutual co-operation, the University should offer no opposition."4 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 15 April 1892. Minutes of the Borough Council, 14 April 1892; Cambridge Chronicle, 15 April 1892. 3 At the next meeting of the Council of the Senate, the Vice-Chancellor "called attention to the fact that a fresh issue of the memorial, received 25 April, had been sent, containing a considerable number of additional names". Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 2 May 4 1892. University Reporter, 26 April 1892. 2

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

127

The significance of this memorial lay in its recognition of the fact that the proctorial powers with regard to prostitutes were not dependent upon the existence of the Spinning House court, and would not therefore be affected by its abolition. This was certainly an advance towards a settlement of the dispute, for if women arrested by the Proctors were charged before the Borough magistrates, and the Town police were invested with the same powers as the Proctors possessed, one of the most advertised grievances of the Town would disappear.1 Yet both in the Town and University there were several critics of this scheme. Many members of the Senate both disliked and feared an appeal to Parliament, counting it to be a leap in the dark; and it was also very generally believed in academic circles that neither the police nor the Borough magistrates would be inclined to deal as severely, and therefore as effectively, with prostitutes as the authorities of the University. And many townsmen were as firmly convinced that the right of arrest on suspicion of evil was an infringement of the liberty of the subject, and therefore should neither be sought nor granted. The Council of the Senate directed the Vice-Chancellor to publish the memorial, but this cannot be taken to mean that they approved it. But at the same meeting they agreed to "report to the Senate, proposing that a petition in opposition to the Bill should be presented by the University to both Houses of Parliament, on the ground that the Bill proposes to abolish the power of arrest now exercised by the Proctors"; and as this report, which was approved at an adjourned meeting in the afternoon,2 may be taken to express the sentiments of a majority of the Council, it can usefully be compared with the memorial. There is certainly no direct conflict between them. "The Council", it was urged in the report, "are in agreement with the opinion expressed in the memorial 3 .. .that it is 'essential that the Proctors should retain their present power of arrest', and.. .on this ground they feel it necessary to recommend to the Senate that the Bill now before Parliament should be opposed on the part of the University, and that a petition against the Bill should be presented to Parliament." But in order to show that their opposition to the Bill must not be taken to mean that they were absolutely opposed to any change in the existing system, the Council proceeded to say that they "would welcome an increase of the powers of the authorities of the Town for securing order and 1 It is not explicitly proposed, in the memorial that the Town police should, be given the same powers as the Proctors, but it seems to be implied.. 2 The report was drafted by the Provost of King's and Professor Browne. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 25 April 1892. 3 The Memorial was included in the Report.

128

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

decency in the streets" and "with regard to the judicial power of the ViceChancellor,.. .think it would not be impossible to arrive at some solution of the question". Though the language used is very guarded, the Council may have intended to indicate that they did not view unfavourably the suggestion made in the memorial for the abolition of the Spinning House court. The impression that the report, though recommending the Senate to approve a petition against the Bill, was not an ultimatum is strengthened by what is said therein about another privilege of the University, upon which the memorial had not touched. "The other points of the Bill appear to the Council to be of less vital importance. They have in previous communications with the Town expressed an opinion that the power of licensing public entertainments should be retained, but they are willing to consider modifications of this power." It is also worthy of note that the petition to Parliament, with which the report concluded, puts forward no other objection to the Bill than that it "proposed to abolish the power, now exercised by the proper officers of the University of Cambridge, of arresting persons suspected of evil".* The situation therefore seems to have been that the Council of the Senate and a party in the University were anxious to resume negotiations with the Town, though not prepared to surrender the right of arrest "on suspicion of evil"; but it is impossible to say how considerable that party in the University was. The fact that the petition was carried in the Senate by 118 votes to I I only shows that a very large number of resident members of that body considered that the University must retain its exceptional powers with regard to prostitutes: it throws no light upon the general trend of academic opinion. But though it would be absurd to be dogmatic on such a doubtful point, it is not at all improbable that many members of the Senate, alarmed by the determination of the Borough Council to push their Bill through Parliament, were far more inclined than before to reach a settlement with the Town, even at the cost of surrendering or modifying privileges which they had hitherto regarded as indispensable. But this desire for peace, however widespread, could not become an important factor in the situation until the Town was less sanguine of victory. It was unlikely to the last degree that the Borough Council would consider any proposals from the Council of the Senate, short of absolute surrender, as long as there was a reasonable hope that their Bill would be passed by Parliament. Therefore much turned on the fate of the Bill. It had been read for the first time in the House of Commons on 10 February, and was to be given a second reading on 4 May; but this it failed to obtain, being only sixth in the order of 1

University Reporter, 26 April 1892.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

129

the day.1 And about a month later it came to an untimely end. The Cambridge Chronicle of 3 June announced that "inasmuch as it was ruled that the Bill did not comply with the standing orders, and the committee declined to dispense with this compliance, Mr Fitzgerald was unable to carry the measure on to a second reading". This reverse was in no way fatal to the ultimate success of the Borough Council. Time and money had certainly been wasted; but as they had pledged themselves to do their utmost to free the Town from subjection to the University, it could be safely assumed that they would arrange for the introduction of another Bill in the next session of Parliament. But as they were not pledged to continue their present policy of keeping the University at arm's length, it was open to them to endeavour to obtain its co-operation. Both the memorial and the recent report of the Council of the Senate might encourage them to pursue this wiser course; and in his speech to the Senate at the beginning of the Michaelmas Term the Vice-Chancellor was careful to say that "the Council of the Senate has held the door open for amicable discussion".2 Yet it was by no means certain that the Borough Council were willing to pass through that open door. They objected to the exceptional powers of the Proctors, and on that question the Council of the Senate had not yielded an inch. Nor did it seem likely that they would be induced to waive that objection if the University were willing that the Town police should be able to arrest "on suspicion of evil", for it was generally believed that Parliament would certainly reject such a proposal.3 Thus however strong the will for an understanding might be, the way was hard to find. Yet a way was found and successfully pursued. On 18 October the Mayor was requested by the delegates to summon a special meeting of the Borough Council, "with a view to ascertain the feelings of the Council4 as to the desirability of promoting a Bill in the ensuing session of Parliament to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and other authorities of the University of Cambridge over persons not members 1 On 10 February 1892 Professor Jebb, who had succeeded Raikes as a Burgess of the University, informed the Vice-Chancellor that "Mr Fitzgerald's Bill.. .stands only ninetyfifth on the list of private Bills, and that this fact makes it highly improbable that it will be discussed during the present session". University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 2 University Reporter, 4 October 1892. 3 In a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of 14 October 1892, Professor Browne, though in favour of concessions being made to the Town, says that he is very strongly opposed to the surrender of the proctorial power of arrest, and that, though not objecting to an increase in the powers of the Town police, he fears that Parliament would never increase those powers to any considerable extent. "The critical point", he remarks, "is the preservation to us of powers larger than the enlarged powers of the police." University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 4 The Council of the Borough.

WMC

130

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

of the University"; and had this been the only proposal of the delegates, they would have done nothing to promote peace. But they also suggested at the same time that an attempt should be made "to arrange a further conference between the delegates of the University and Town, with a view to coming to some agreement on the subject of University jurisdiction, which should be satisfactory to both corporations, and in the event of such an agreement being arrived at, the proposed Bill, if the Council decided to promote one, would have been placed in proper training to carry out the wishes of both parties".1 And in order to smooth the way for the resumption of the negotiations with the University, the delegates invited the University members of the Borough Council to confer with them on Friday, 21 October.2 And that conference seems to have been successful, for the delegates withdrew their request for a special meeting of the Borough Council to be summoned, presumably because they wished to continue the discussion with the University members of that body.3 The turning of the tide was even more apparent when, at a meeting of the Borough Council on 9 November, Finch proposed the appointment of a committee to consider the jurisdiction of the University over others than its own members, and remarked in the course of his speech that he was in agreement with the majority of the Council in thinking that the law which defined that jurisdiction stood in need of amendment. It meant much that Finch should sponsor such a motion, and even more that Vinter, who seconded it, should express the hope that "as an outcome of the present proposal, emanating from a member of the University, a practical settlement of the question would be achieved". But when this motion had been carried, and the question of the composition of the committee came under discussion, there was a considerable difference of opinion; and it was finally agreed not to proceed further in this matter until the meeting of the Council on 15 December.4 It was highly desirable that the composition of a committee, which must exercise a determining influence on the future course of events, should not be a subject of controversy. Encouraged by die more conciliatory feeling in the enemy's camp, the Council of the Senate on 14 November invited the University members of the Borough Council to confer with them.5 This was a very wise step. It was important to ascertain, as accurately as possible, the trend of opinion in the Borough Council and the demands which were likely to be made upon the University; and the University members could best supply this information. 1

The Town Clerk to the Vice-Chancellor, 19 October 1892. University Papers, C M . 301, 2 3 University Library. Ibid. Minutes of the Council, 24 October 1892. 4 Minutes of the Borough Council, 9 November 1892; Cambridge Chronicle, 11 November 5 1892. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 14 November 1892.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

131

On 5 December they appeared before the Council of the Senate. The ViceChancellor, after explaining the purpose for which they had been summoned, touched upon the several privileges of the University challenged by the Town. He was able to dismiss two of them very quickly: he mentioned that the Council were willing that he should forego his right of issuing wine licences, and that it did not seem likely that the Borough Council would renew their demand for the surrender of the discommuning power. With regard to the other privileges in dispute, the Council, he said, were still of an open mind, except that they did not see their way to surrender the proctorial power of arrest. If a Bill was submitted to Parliament, which abolished that power, "would it be proper", he asked, "for the University to oppose?" Finch was ready with an answer to that question. He asserted that the Town was determined to sweep away completely the criminal jurisdiction of the University, and that "if in Parliament the question of jurisdiction under the University charter was ever raised, it would be swept away at once". He therefore urged the Council to consider whether Parliament would permit such an increase in the powers of the Town police as to dispense with the necessity of maintaining the right of the Proctors to arrest persons not members of the University; and proceeded to state his personal opinion on this question. Parliament would never, he argued, pass a Bill "which was more severe against women only", but might well, according to him, accept a measure directed against the seducer as well as the seduced; and that therefore the University ought to support a Bill for the abolition of the proctorial power as defined by the Elizabethan charter, provided that it contained a clause which allowed "every common or notorious night-walker, male or female, loitering or being in a public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation, to be dealt with as a disorderly person under the Police Acts". He was very insistent upon his conception of the mind of Parliament, for when at a later stage of the discussion the Vice-Chancellor remarked that a Bill which gave the "same powers as were given to Oxford.. .might be a solution of the difficulty", he pointed out that the "Oxford clause was against women only, and so it would not pass".1 This scheme encountered severe criticism from several members of the Council, and particularly from R. T. Wright, to whom as a lawyer it seemed both unsatisfactory and amateurish. He pointed out that the clause, which Finch had declared must form part of any Bill jointly supported by the University and Town in Parliament, was open to a double construction: did it, he asked, give the right of arrest for loitering only, or only for loitering for the purpose of prostitution? And the distinction is important, for if the latter construction was correct, the power given to the police was very much less 1 The Oxford clause will be dealt with later. 9-2

132

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

than that enjoyed by the Proctors. Another lawyer, Dr Kenny, contended that though the proctorial power might be safely surrendered "if an effective local law were substituted", he could not possibly persuade himself that Parliament would ever pass such a measure. Nor was a more sympathetic reception given to the plea of some of the University members of the Borough Council that the relations between the University and Town would become more amicable, and therefore the prospect of a settlement of their dispute be improved, if they jointly supported a Bill, even though it should fail to pass. Dr Jackson was, for instance, politely scornful of such a policy, and did not conceal his sentiments. Indeed no proposal found much favour, except Wright's suggestion that there should be an appeal to an arbitrator, which was well received. Nearly forty years before, an equally bitter contest had been settled, at least temporarily, by the arbitration of Sir John Patteson; and it was tempting to believe that the same device would again be successful. Far less was said about the other privileges of the University in dispute with the Town. When the University members of the Borough Council contended that the Town would not be content with anything short of the complete aboHtion of the Spinning House court, the only serious objection taken was that the Borough magistrates would be inclined to treat prostitutes brought before them with unbecoming leniency, a belief which, though general, was not probably based upon any solid foundation of fact. And still less was said in support of the Vice-Chancellor's right of licensing theatres and casual entertainments. As the Vice-Chancellor had apparently no control over the plays performed at the Cambridge theatre, and admitted that with regard to casual entertainments he never refused to countersign a licence without consulting with the Mayor, it was difficult to argue that any useful purpose was served by the retention of such shadowy powers. It was obviously far wiser to placate the Town by surrendering them.1 There was very little difference of opinion between the University members of the Borough Council and the members of the Council of the Senate, except upon the question of the proctorial power; but that single question might easily prove to be a very serious obstacle in the way of peace. The former asserted that the University could not hope to establish friendly relations with the Town as long as the Proctors continued to be able to arrest prostitutes on suspicion of evil; but most of the members of the Council of the Senate were equally convinced that they were not justified in calling upon the University to make this surrender, unless they were assured that Parliament was prepared substantially to increase the powers of the Cambridge police. And as they did not have that assurance, they did not know how to attain the peace for which they sincerely wished. They caught at the pro1

5 December 1892. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

I33

verbial straw, which on this occasion was Wright's suggestion of arbitration; and at their next meeting on 12 December agreed "that the Vice-Chancellor be requested to inform the University members of the Borough Council that if it should be proposed by the Borough Council that certain of the matters in debate between the University and die Town be referred to an arbitrator, with a view to an Award Act, the Council would be prepared, on the basis of their report of 25 April 1892, to bring the proposal before the Senate".1 Three days later the Borough Council were determining the composition of the committee, which on 9 November they had agreed to appoint for the consideration of the jurisdiction of the University over the inhabitants of the Town. It was reasonable that the delegates should be given places on the committee, being well acquainted with the history of the dispute; but it was certainly advisable also to appoint councillors less committed on the questions at issue. And fortunately good sense prevailed. It was agreed that the committee should consist of the delegates, the Mayor and seven other members of the Council, of whom three, Finch, Dr Porter and A. W. Dale, were University members. It is true that the University interest was very mildly represented, but it was much that it was represented at all.z The committee met for the first time on Tuesday, 14 February 1893, and Finch was able to report to the Vice-Chancellor that "a conciliatory disposition prevailed throughout the discussion, and an earnest desire was manifested to discover, if possible, a settlement of the controversy". No formal resolutions were passed, but nevertheless considerable progress was made. Though the "town members of the committee", as Finch called them, were unwilling to submit a dispute, in which "feeling and sentiment are in question", to an arbitrator,3 they were extremely anxious to arrive at an agreement through friendly discussion. So indeed were the University members on the committee, and consequently inclined to concede much for the sake of peace. Finch reported that the committee were unanimously of the opinion that the power of the Proctors to arrest persons " suspectas de malo, which may extend to even an arrest on the barest suspicion, and the power of the Vice-Chancellor to imprison the persons brought before him, violate the universal requirements of the security of personal freedom"; and that, as the power of the Proctors in its extreme form is never exercised at the present day, and... they arrest only on reasonable suspicion,... it seemed to the members of the committee that there ought to be no difficulty in arriving at an agreement 1

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 12 December 1892. Minutes of the Borough Council, 15 December 1892; Cambridge Chronicle, 16 December 1892. 3 In a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, dated 13 December 1892, Dr Kenny expressed the same opinion. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 2

134

THE

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

on the class of offenders which it is desirable to put down in the interest of the Town and University alike. The Town members of the committee invited the University members to submit to the committee such a definition as would be satisfactory to the Council of the Senate, and promised to give it their most favourable consideration. But Finch fully realised that it might not be at all easy to frame a definition that would satisfy the Council of the Senate; and that possibly he might be regarded as the traitor who had sold the pass. He therefore insisted in his report to the Vice-Chancellor upon the folly of fighting to retain a power which was never used. If the proctorial power of arrest on mere suspicion, he urged, "has fallen into desuetude, why retain it? Why preserve a perennial source of controversy, which is so distasteful to the moderate and sensible portion of the Town, who attach the greatest importance to a harmonious feeling between the University and the Town?" But the committee had proceeded further. 4

'If the offences are properly defined", Finch continued, "and if the procedure in the trials follows, as it now does, that which is used in the ordinary courts of law, there seems to be no reason for retaining the power of the Vice-Chancellor to try the cases. And the unanimous feeling of the committee was that all such cases should be heard by the Borough magistrates. With regard to the persons by whom the power of arrest should be exercised, it was agreed that it should be exercised by the Town police and the University constables. There did not appear to be any opposition to the Proctors also having this power, but no understanding was expressly arrived at." * If Finch believed that peace was in sight, he was too sanguine. It would certainly be a difficult, and might prove to be an impossible, task to frame a definition of the offences for which prostitutes could be arrested, that would satisfy both the Council of the Senate and the Borough Council. It would be interesting to know what was said at the Council of the Senate when on 20 February 1893 the Vice-Chancellor submitted to them Finch's report; but there is no record of the discussion. There was doubtless a chorus of hopes and fears; but even if there were any supporters of a policy of no surrender, they did not go so far as to vote against a resolution, moved by R. T. Wright and seconded by Henry Sidgwick, "that the Vice-Chancellor be requested to inform the University members of the committee of the Borough Council through Mr Finch that if the University members of the committee will prepare a form of words, containing a definition of the persons over whom, and the offences for which, it is desired that the proctorial power should be 1

G. B. Finch to the Vice-Chancellor, 18 February 1893. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

I35

exercised, the Council of the Senate will be glad to give it their careful consideration". Ten votes were cast for, and none against this motion; and it was therefore carried. It committed the Council of the Senate to nothing: they had decided to wait and see.1 The University members must have discussed between themselves how to set about the task imposed upon them; and apparently some of them remembered the Vice-Chancellor's remark at the conference on 5 December that a Bill which gave the "same powers as were given to Oxford.. .might be a solution of the difficulty". The powers referred to were given by an Act, passed in the sixth year of George IV's reign, which provided that "every common prostitute and night-walker, found wandering in any public walk, street or highway within the precincts of the said University of Oxford, and not giving a satisfactory account of herself", could be committed to prison by any Justice of the Peace as an idle and disorderly person within the meaning of an Act passed in the fifth year of the same reign.2 Thus at Oxford prostitutes, though neither soliciting nor creating a nuisance, rendered themselves liable to arrest and imprisonment; and though Finch had previously maintained that Parliament would never allow the extension of those powers to Cambridge,3 he appears to have been persuaded by his colleagues that he might have been wrong. It was at least worth while to make inquiries, and accordingly Dr Porter wrote to the Master of Pembroke College, Oxford. He received a careful and detailed answer. "Our Proctors", wrote the Master, "have no police or magisterial power, and do not ordinarily claim or exercise any. In their walks at night they are accompanied by two or more of the University constables, and the constables, under their direction, exercise the constabulary powers in the apprehension of prostitutes, who, be it observed, are liable to apprehension without being disorderly. In Oxford there are two Magistrates' courts sitting in petty sessions; one in which the ViceChancellor presides, and any county magistrate can sit with him: the other in which the Mayor of the City presides, and City magistrates sit with him. Although prostitutes may be brought before either one or the other, as they are generally apprehended by the University constables under the direction of the Proctors, they are usually taken before the Vice-Chancellor, and, if convicted, sent to the county gaol. In the University police-station there are cells for detention of prisoners before they are brought before the magistrates, but no place for persons after conviction, such as I understand your Spinning House to be. The City constables do not, and are, I believe, ordered by the police committee not to apprehend prostitutes."4 1

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 20 February 1893. 3 6 George IV, c. 97, sect. 3. See p. 131. This letter, dated 25 February 1893, was sent by Dr Porter on 27 February to the ViceChancellor, with a covering note. University Papers, CM. 301, University Library. 2 4

I36

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

The University members considered that this Oxford system, modified in details, ought to work well at Cambridge; and on 27 February, after a second meeting of the committee, Finch was able to report further progress. "The committee on the jurisdiction question", he informed the Vice-Chancellor, "have agreed by ten votes to one that the third section of 6 George IV, c. 97,r dealing with prostitutes and night-walkers, should apply to the University of Cambridge, the Vice-Chancellor's jurisdiction being abolished. They have unanimously agreed that the veto of the Vice-Chancellor on theatrical licences should be abolished, but that he should have the power to apply at any time to the licensing authority to have the licence revoked. They have also unanimously agreed that only the Mayor's consent should be required for casual entertainments, and that the consent should be required both during Midsummer Fair and the Long Vacation.2 No resolution was passed that the University constables and the Proctors should have the same power of arrest as the town police, but it was assumed throughout the discussion, and I am sorry to say that it did not occur to me to embody the understanding in a resolution. I am to re-draft the Bill, and I shall take care to put it in, so that when we meet again to consider the re-draft, it will be formally agreed to.... I ought to add that the Act of 6 George IV gives no option to the Bench of Magistrates to inflict a fine: the committee agreed that there ought to be such an option."3 The Vice-Chancellor read this letter to the Council of the Senate on 27 February, the day on which it was written, and Finch attended the meeting by invitation. Though no resolution was passed, he seems to have found the Council in a conciliatory frame of mind,4 for on the following Monday, 6 March, they were considering his draft Bill and his explanatory comments upon it.5 After another meeting on 13 March the Vice-Chancellor sent him certain amendments of the Bill, which the Council wished to be made.6 The jurisdiction committee of the Borough Council considered these amendments at a meeting on 28 April, and, with one exception, approved 1

The section quoted above. The Cambridge Award Act (1856) permitted casual entertainments, unlicensed by either the Mayor or the Vice-Chancellor, to be given during these periods. 3 University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. It was not however found necessary to insert a clause giving the option of imposing a fine, as under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 "where a court of summary jurisdiction has authority to impose imprisonment for an offence punishable on summary conviction, and has not authority to impose a fine, the Court, when adjudicating on the offence, may, if it thinks that the justice of the case will be better met by a fine than by imprisonment, impose a fine not exceeding £ 2 5 " . G. B. Finch to the Vice-Chancellor, 28 April 1893. 4 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 27 February 1893. 5 Ibid. 6 March 1893; G. B. Finch to the Vice-Chancellor, 4 March 1893. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 6 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 13 March 1893: Suggested amendments on the Draft submitted by Mr Finch. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 2

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

137

them. Nor was the single exception of much importance. The amendment, to which the committee objected, was that which reserved to the ViceChancellor the right of vetoing a theatre licence granted by the County Council: but as they were quite willing that the licence of both a theatre and of a music and dancing hall might be withdrawn on complaint of the ViceChancellor in writing, the difference of opinion was not serious. Finch was indeed fully justified in remarking that "the agreement between the two bodies is so nearly complete as to warrant the hope that now at length a settlement of this long pending controversy may be made". 1 The angel of peace was hovering over Cambridge. The Council of the Senate did not persist in their request for the Vice-Chancellor to have a veto on theatre licences,2 and further amendments which they proposed were accepted with slight modifications by the committee.3 Consequently the Vice-Chancellor was able to inform Finch after the meeting of the Council of the Senate on 15 May that if the "Borough Council adopt that Bill, the Council of the Senate are prepared to sanction a Grace to the effect that the Senate should co-operate with the Borough in promoting the Bill. The Council are of opinion that there should be a written agreement between the Mayor and the Vice-Chancellor that if at any stage in the passing of the Bill any alteration be made, which in the opinion either of the Mayor or of the Vice-Chancellor is material, the whole Bill should be withdrawn at the wish of either party". 4 And as the committee approved the Bill, and in a report to the Borough Council recommended its adoption, a very critical stage in the negotiations ended. 5 The committee's report to the Borough Council, after mentioning that the University members on the committee had acted as intermediaries with the 1

G. B. Finch to the Vice-Chancellor, 28 April 1893. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 2 "The Council of the Senate does not controvert the statement that there is a sufficient guarantee for the character of the plays performed at the Cambridge Theatre. The point however about which the Council feels most strongly—the greatly increased number of performances given in recent years—has not been met by the committee. The Council still think it is reasonable that the University should have some regulative power over performances, at which the principal part of the audience consists of members of the University. But they are willing to leave the matter for amicable arrangement between the ViceChancellor and the lessee of the theatre. The complaints of Tutors of Colleges of the expenditure both of time and money at the theatre are very general, and it would be a matter of regret if it should at any time become necessary to issue an edict forbidding altogether the attendance of undergraduates at the theatre." An undated document in University Papers, C M . 301, University Library. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 1 and 8 May 1893. 4 Report of the Jurisdiction Committee. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library; Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 15 May 1893. 5 G. B. Finch to the Vice-Chancellor, 19 May 1893. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

I38

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

Council of the Senate, that there had been " a full interchange of views between the two bodies" and that agreement upon a draft Bill had been reached, proceeds to summarise the contents of the Bill. "The substance of the arrangement", it states, "is that the portion of the Charter of Queen Elizabeth, which gives to the Proctors the right to arrest any woman whom they may suspect of evil, shall be repealed, and the Act, which is in force at Oxford, shall be extended and made to apply to Cambridge, where it is to be administered by the Borough Justices. The effect of section III* of the draft Bill is that in future any common prostitute or night-walker, found wandering in any public street in the town and not giving a satisfactory account of herself, will be liable to arrest by any person, whether by the Proctors or Pro-Proctors or any of the University or ordinary police constables. When so arrested, the person offending will be taken to the police-station in the ordinary way, with the same opportunities of bail as offenders in other cases, and will in due course be taken before the Borough Bench of Magistrates; and by the second paragraph of section III it will be seen that it is competent for the Justices in their discretion to hear any case in private.2 If the Bill becomes law therefore, the summary jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor in such cases will disappear, and become vested in the Justices of the Borough. Section IV gives the Proctors and Pro-Proctors the power and authority of ordinary constables, without being appointed or sworn,3 and further gives them, with or without any constables appointed under 6 George IV, chapter 97,4 power to enter any premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or any premises kept or used for public entertainments of any kind. Section V 5 repeals section X of the Act of 1843 for regulating theatres, and thereby does away with the necessity for the consent of the Vice-Chancellor before a licence for the performance of stage-plays in any theatre or other place in the Borough could be granted. The granting of such licences will therefore be in the hands of the County Council, as is the case elsewhere, the only difference being that provided by section VI of the draft Bill,6 which gives the County Council power to revoke any licence within the Borough on the complaint in writing of the Vice-Chancellor or Mayor, after the person complained of has had an opportunity of making his answer to the complaint. Section VII 7 pre-supposes that Part IV of the Public Health Acts (Amendment Act) 1890 has been adopted by the Council.8 Part IV of the latter Act deals with music and dancing and other entertainments, and enacts that no place, whether licensed or not for the sale of intoxicating liquors, shall be 1 2 3 4

Section 6 of the Act of Parliament. This second paragraph is omitted from the Act. Section 7 of the Act. This Act authorised the Vice-Chancellor to appoint any number of proctorial constables, and provided that they should have all the powers possessed by the police. 5 Section 8 of the Act. 6 7 Section 9 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act. 8 Part IV of this Act was adopted by the Borough Council on 13 July 1893.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

I39

kept for public dancing, singing, music or other public entertainment, without a licence for the purpose first obtained from the licensing Justices of the district, and section VII of the draft Bill gives to the licensing Justices, with regard to such public entertainments, the same power as is given to the County Council by section VI upon complaint of the Vice-Chancellor or Mayor. Section VIII of the draft Bill1 deals with section XVI of the Award Act. Hitherto, under that section, it has been necessary, except during the period of Midsummer Fair or in the Long Vacation, to obtain the consent in writing of the Vice-Chancellor and Mayor before any public exhibition or performance could be given in the Borough. Under the present Bill the consent of the Mayor alone will be sufficient, but it will be required at all times of the year, including Midsummer Fair and the Long Vacation. Section IX2 is purely formal, and, as will be observed, section X 3 provides that two-thirds of the costs of the Act are to be paid by the Corporation and the remaining one-third by the University. It is not yet quite certain whether the Bill will be brought in as a private or public measure; but, if the latter, the costs will be very small. The committee consider the arrangement satisfactory, and they recommend it to the Council for adoption/'4 This very detailed report was before the Borough Council on 25 May 1893, and its adoption was moved by the Mayor. He admitted that the Bill did not deprive the Proctors of the right to arrest persons who were not members of the University; and that in some other respects the Town had not obtained "all the concessions which some of their friends thought they ought to expect at this latter end of the nineteenth century". He argued however that if the Bill, as he believed, laid the foundations of lasting peace between the University and the Town, the Borough Council ought to accept it, and not strive for a victory which would leave a trail of bitterness. Alderman Redfarn, who seconded the motion, went further, and boldly asserted that all that could be legitimately demanded had been obtained. And praise was lavished upon the University members who had served on the committee. The Mayor said that both the Town and the University were deeply indebted to Finch; and Vinter, who only a few months before had urged war to the knife, seized the opportunity "publicly to express the feeling, which he was sure was felt by every member of the committee, that they owed a deep debt of gratitude to the representatives of the University on the committee.. .for the courtesy which they had extended in the discussion, which had been at times perhaps rather warm and lengthy". Yet, very fortunately, the Bill was not accepted completely as it stood. An amendment was carried by a very large majority for die omission of the second paragraph of the third section, which permitted the Borough Magistrates, if they thought fit to do so, to hear in 1 3

Section 11 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act.

2 4

Section 12 of the Act. University Papers, C M . 301, University Library.

140

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

private "any case brought before them by virtue or in pursuance of this section". Dr Kenny, who supported the amendment, remarked that if the paragraph in question remained in the Bill, it would undoubtedly be cut out in Parliament, as it conferred "on one criminal court a privilege which was not conceded to the Queen's Judges". 1 Consequently when the Council of the Senate met on 29 May the ViceChancellor informed them that "the draft Bill, relating to University jurisdiction, had received the assent of the Borough Council, in the form in which 1 Cambridge Chronicle, 26 May 1893. Lord Wright has very kindly given me the following short statement of the law about the hearing of cases in private: "I gather that the proceedings were of a summary character, intended to result in a conviction, and not merely a committal for trial. The Justices were therefore acting judicially. Of such a proceeding before Justices it was said in 1829 in Daubney v. Cooper, the Court of King's Bench, (reported in 10 B. & C. 237, 240) 'one of the essential qualities of a Court ofJustice is that its proceedings should be in public, and that all parties who may be desirous of hearing what is g'ping on, if there be room in the place for that purpose,—provided they do not interrupt the proceedings, and provided there is no specific reason why they should be removed—have a right to be present for the purpose of hearing what is going on'." The fullest discussion of this rule of law is that by the House of Lords in Scott v. Scott (1913) A.C. 417, when it was held that the Court had no discretion to hear a nullity suit in camera. A very recent case in the Privy Council, in which I sat as a member of the Board, was McPherson v. McPherson (1936) A.C. 177, where it was held that the case (a divorce case) was not tried in open Court, in denial of the rule that every Court ofJustice is open to every subject of the King. Sir Frederick Pollock in vol. xxx, pp. 6-8, Law Quarterly Review, discusses the cases and principles very fully. It has been said that the rule requiring publicity in the hearing of cases is so recognised in our law that it is difficult to find authority. But it has been often laid down. The problem has been to define what are the exceptions, that is when a Court can hear a case in private or, as it is called, in camera. Some of these exceptions are by statute, as by the Incest Act, the Children Act, and, more recently, during the war period under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939. In other cases the exceptions depend on the practice of the Court laid down by Judges. The guiding principle is stated to be that the Court must be satisfied that the paramount object of securing that justice should be done would really be rendered doubtful of attainment if the order for a hearing in camera were not made. But the principle has not been strictly applied. Thus it has been applied to the trial of cases involving trade secrets: also to cases involving lunatics and wards of Court. But it is not generally a sufficient ground that it is desirable to consider feelings of delicacy, or to exclude from publicity details not desirable to publish. It is not a matter for the individual discretion of the Judge. It is however recognised that there may be special cases, where, for instance, because the evidence is of such a character that it would be impracticable to force an unwilling witness to give it in public, a choice must be made between a hearing in public (sic) and a defeat of the ends of justice. I quote the words of Viscount Haldane in Scott v. Scott, p. 439. "I have shown that the words of the proposed clause 'in their discretion', which would give to the Justices an untrammelled and undefined discretion to hear the particular cases in camera, would be outside the accepted principles of English Law applying to both Judges and Magistrates. It is true that if Parliament had passed the clause, it would have become law. But it is equally true that Parliament would never have passed it." The words of Lord Haldane, quoted above, are as given in Scott v. Scott; but he must have said, or intended to say, "hearing in private".

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

141

it had last been seen by the Council of the Senate,.. .with the exception of the omission of the last clause of section III"; and the Council at once agreed that the omission was not a sufficient reason "for withholding their sanction of a Grace to the effect that the University join in the promotion of the Bill". 1 But the Grace also needed the sanction of the Senate, and in their report to that body the Council carefully explained the provisions of the Bill, and sought to justify their acceptance of them. "The Council of the Senate", they declared, "think that the University should agree to co-operate with the Town in promoting the proposed Bill on the terms therein specified. They have already informed the Council of the Borough that in their view there should be a written agreement that if at any stage in the progress of the Bill any alteration should be made, which in the opinion either of the Vice-Chancellor or of the Mayor is material, the whole Bill should be withdrawn at the wish of either party. If the Bill does not pass, the University will continue to exercise the powers which it now possesses—powers, which under the exceptional circumstances of a University town, it would not be right to surrender, unless others, sufficient for the maintenance of good order, were substituted for them."2 Members of the Senate were invited to attend at the Anatomical and Physiological lecture room on 3 June for the discussion of this report, and were addressed by the Vice-Chancellor. He admitted that the University stood to lose many rights and privileges which it now possessed; but he pointed out that several of them had ceased to serve a useful purpose, and that others were "inconvenient and sometimes dangerous" to exercise. "A great source of weakness", he said, "in the powers now possessed by the University was that they were out of accordance with modern sentiment"; and that therefore the loss might be a positive gain. "The procedure would be more workable in the form proposed, because by the Act of George IV the nature of the offence was made much more definite, and, secondly, the whole procedure would be of a more modern character, and more in harmony with the present day." He was very persuasive; and though there was some criticism, he was able at the close of the meeting to remark on "the favourable manner in which the report had been received". Moreover the criticism was not of much account, being academic in character and for the most part inspired by a fear of change. And the faint-hearted did not prevail: on 8 June the Senate passed the Grace for the co-operation of the University with the Borough "in promoting in Parliament the Cambridge University Jurisdiction BilT\3 Yet the proverbial slip between the cup and the lip nearly happened. It had been agreed that the Bill should be withdrawn if it was so amended in 1 2

Minutes of Council of the Senate, 29 May 1893. University Reporter, 30 May 1893.

3

University Reporter, 13 June 1893,

142

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

Parliament as to make it unacceptable either to the University or the Town; and twice during its passage through the two Houses it was in danger of being wrecked on this rock. On 4 May 1894 an amendment was moved in the House of Commons for the omission of the section of the Bill which gave the Proctors and the Cambridge police the right of arresting any common prostitute found wandering in die precincts of the University, and unable to give a satisfactory account of herself. It was contended in support of this amendment that the conditions at Cambridge were not so exceptional as to justify the grant of an arbitrary power which could hardly be exercised without producing unfortunate consequences, owing to "the large number of young women studying at Girton and Newnham". And many members of the House were apparently convinced by this argument, for though the amendment was rejected the minority in favour of it numbered one hundred and fifty-seven.1 And when on 18 June the Bill was given a third reading in the Upper House, Lord Leigh took objection to the same section, and proposed in lieu of it the insertion of a clause making section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 apply within the Borough of Cambridge in the case of " every common prostitute loitering or being in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation". Again the recently established harmony between the University and Town was in great danger; but fortunately the amendment, though supported by the Lord Chancellor, was rejected by sixty-five to fourteen votes,2 and the Bill, without suffering any material change, became an Act of Parliament. More than three years had elapsed since Jane Elsden, by her escape from the Spinning House, had kindled the flames of war between the University and the Town; and though it is easy to be wise after the event, it certainly seems strange that it was not until both parties were thoroughly weary of the controversy that a settlement was reached. As usual, there were faults on both sides. The Council of the Senate would surely have acted more wisely if at an early stage of the dispute they had frankly admitted that the Vice-Chancellor's veto upon theatre licences and the requirement of his consent to casual entertainments could be relinquished without imperilling good order and discipline, and thereby possibly created a more conciliatory spirit in the Borough Council. Again, the maintenance of the Spinning House court was certainly indefensible, unless it was established beyond all doubt that the Borough Magistrates could not be safely entrusted with jurisdiction over prostitutes.*3 Nor is it at all easy to understand why the Council of the Senate 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 4, 8 and 10 May 1894. Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 18 June 1894. 3 A comment in the Cambridge Review of 1 June 1893 on the agreed Bill reflects the prejudice in academic circles against the Borough Magistrates. " If there were a stipendiary 3

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND CORPORATION ACT

I43

did not more quickly see that the procedure at Oxford with regard to prostitutes might with perfect safety to the morals of undergraduates be adopted; for if the power of arrest "on suspicion of evil", possessed by the Cambridge Proctors, was so indispensable, why was it not exercised to the full? But it takes two to prolong as well as to make a quarrel; and the Borough Council were not without blame. Many of that body seem to have been thinking less of the promotion of a reasonable settlement than of a complete humiliation of the University; and certainly blundered badly in demanding the surrender of the discommuning power. Thus on both sides the prejudice and rancour remaining from previous disputes exercised a deleterious influence, and delayed a settlement which ought to have been achieved far more quickly than it actually was.1 magistrate in Cambridge, this would be an admirable arrangement; but those who are familiar with the procedure at the Guildhall, may not feel much confidence that substantial justice will be generally done in these cases by the Borough Magistrates, who may be tempted to have an eye on Ward elections and the interests of their party." 1 The Cambridge University and Corporation Act of 1894 did not deprive the ViceChancellor of the right of issuing wine licences.

Chapter V E D U C A T I O N A L REFORM, 1860-1880 T H E Statutory Commissioners, appointed in 1856 to reform the statutes of the University and colleges, rigorously abstained from imposing, or even suggesting, changes in the examination system: when asked to make statutory provision for a University Entrance Examination, they replied that they saw no occasion to deviate from their usual practice.1 Their policy was sound, as examination regulations, however carefully devised, require to be constantly adjusted to changing needs and circumstances; and it is therefore far better that they should be framed as ordinances, which the University can modify or repeal at will, than as statutes which cannot be varied without the permission of the Crown. And the University made very full use of its freedom of action, and greatly improved its curriculum during the latter half of the nineteenth century. It is true that progress along die path of change was frequently tardy, and that certain ancient prejudices died hard; but nevertheless the spirit of reform was in the ascendant. The long-cherished superstition that mathematics and classics alone gave a liberal education gradually receded into the background; and studies, hitherto unrecognised or despised, obtained an honoured place. In i860 there was no Entrance Examination to the University, but all candidates for a first degree were required to sit in the Lent term of their second year for the Previous Examination, which had been held for the first time in 1824; and if they failed to pass, they could enter for it again in the following Michaelmas term. But more was required of candidates for an honours degree, for by a Grace of the Senate, passed in February 1855, they had also to satisfy the Examiners for the Previous in what were styled the Additional Subjects, which were exclusively mathematical.2 Though the subjects of the Previous were few and easy, being one of the Gospels in Greek, a Latin and Greek classic, Paley's Evidences of Christianity, the first three books of Euclid and arithmetic, it nevertheless was a thorn in the side of the candidate for honours, as it compelled him to keep up his schoolwork when he ought to have been devoting all his time to his tripos; and as 1

Letter Books of the Commissioners, vol. in, p. 120, The Home Office. When by a Grace passed in May 1854 it became possible for an undergraduate to qualify for a degree by passing the Classical Tripos, without having undergone any other mathematical test than that provided by the Previous, it was thought necessary to institute the Additional Subjects. • 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

145

he also had to cope with the Additional Subjects, his progress, if he was not a mathematician, might be seriously impeded. Nor did he gain much rehef by a Grace, approved by the Senate in December 1861, which enabled an undergraduate, who had kept two terms by residence, to sit for the Previous in the Michaelmas term; for he was not to be held to have passed it unless at the same time he satisfied the examiners in the Additional Subjects;J and as mathematics were still very inadequately taught in many English schools, a candidate for the Classical Tripos might find that he was still too backward in this subject to meet this requirement. And even if he could pass both the Previous and the Additional Subjects in the Michaelmas term of his second year, he only saved himself a single term of drudgery. It is unlikely that many candidates for an ordinary degree shouldered the burden of the Additional Subjects in order to gain time for their further studies, for those further studies were ^neither exacting nor alluring. After passing the Previous the poll-man had to attend during one term a course of lectures given by a Professor, and to obtain a certificate of having passed an examination, conducted by the Professor and an assistant examiner,* upon their subject-matter; but he was not qualified to proceed to a degree until he had passed in the Easter term of his third year another examination, commonly called the Ordinary Examination, which was little more than a repetition of the Previous on a slightly larger scale.3 The most criticised part of this course was the compulsory attendance at the lectures of a Professor, and the examination upon them. It was said to be degrading to the Professors that their lecture-rooms should be filled with conscripts; and attention was frequently drawn to the gross ignorance displayed in the examinations they conducted: one critic indeed went so far as to say that he did not dare to reveal all he knew, as by "unfolding the working of the system, I might be supposed to be attempting to throw ridicule on the Professors themselves, or on the branches of science which they severally teach".4 But it must in fairness be 1 This concession was primarily made for the sake of medical candidates. By the regulations of the General Medical Council a medical student could not be registered until he had passed the Previous or some other recognised examination. Report of the Council of the Senate, 25 November 1861. University Papers, E.R. 51. The Master and Seniors of Trinity agreed on 13 February 1863 "that no students of the College shall be allowed to go into the Previous Examination of the University in the Michaelmas Term of the second year, except those who have been in one of the first three classes in the preceding College examination in the Easter Term". Trinity College Conclusion Book. 2 Before 1855 there was no provision for an assistant examiner. 3 In 1861 the subjects of the Ordinary Examination were the Acts of the Aposdes in Greek, a Latin and Greek classic, the history of the English Reformation, the first four Books of Euclid, and the first six Propositions of the sixth Book, elementary algebra, mechanics and hydrostatics. 4 W. H. Girdlestone, The Poll Course (1862), p. 17.

I46

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

added that these unfavourable judgments were not unchallenged. Whewell, for instance, argued that as "a spontaneous attendance upon lectures, even admirable lectures, often dwindles down to half a dozen or even less,... many Professors may prefer a scheme which gives them a definite place in the University instructions and examinations, and a chance of getting a strong hold of the minds of some of those who are sent to them by the University";* and there were also Professors who thought it a privilege to lecture to pollmen. In the course of a discussion in the Arts School in May 1865 Henry Fawcett, the Professor of Political Economy, declared that the "papers he had set for his certificate had been admirably answered by some men, on whom the course of lectures had had such an effect that they had ceased to read for the poll, and some of them, he had been informed, had a chance of a first class in the Moral Sciences Tripos". 2 And other Professors bore similar testimony. Possibly some of the candidates for an ordinary degree did profit by attending Professors' lectures, as not all of them were abysmally ignorant or completely without intellectual interests. But many of them undoubtedly were. Shortly after it became possible to enter for the Previous in the Michaelmas term of their second year, some of the more daring spirits ventured on the experiment with disastrous consequences. "One quarter of the candidates", we learn, 'skedaddled' as Cousin Jonathan would say; but out of the two hundred men who sat through the examination, one hundred and one were plucked outright, of whom eighty six failed in algebra or in arithmetic or in both."*

Public School education was largely responsible for this state of affairs. W. H. Girdlestone, after having been a private tutor at Cambridge for eighteen years, asserted that many of his pupils had come to the University from their schools "very ill—may I not say shamefully—prepared in the groundwork of Euclid, arithmetic and algebra;.. .Euclid got by heart and not understood, arithmetic worked by rule of thumb, without any understanding of the simplest first principles, algebra, a chaos of confusion".4 He was not exaggerating. The Cambridge teachers, who gave evidence before the Public Schools Commission, were practically unanimous in deploring the very little knowledge of elementary mathematics which freshmen from the Public Schools possessed, though even that little was more than what boys from "cramming" establishments had generally acquired.5 This evil could have certainly been reduced, though probably not eradicated, by the institution of a University Entrance Examination, but the 1 2 3 5

Fly-sheet, 8 March 1864. University Papers, H.C. 1. Cambridge Chronicle, 27 May 1865. 4 W. H. Girdlestone, The Poll Course (1862), pp. 5-6. Ibid. p. 5. Report of the Public Schools Commission (1864), vol. 1, p. 26; vol. 11, pp. 24-26, 29-30.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

I47

University had deliberately refused to resort to this very obvious remedy. A Grace for the appointment of a Syndicate to consider the advisability of making such provision was vetoed in the Caput in 1847, and fourteen months later a similar Grace was rejected by the Senate.1 It is easier to explain than to excuse the opposition to this very necessary reform. The colleges wished to retain their complete freedom in the selection of their undergraduates, and resented the intrusion of the University into what they regarded as a purely domestic question. This attitude might be more easily pardoned if they had used that freedom wisely, but unfortunately they abused it. The Public Schools Commissioners stated in 1864 that Trinity was the only Cambridge college which required its undergraduates to pass an entrance examination.2 One consequence of this failure of the colleges to honour their responsibilities was the domestication of gross ignorance in a home of learning. "Crammers" did a flourishing trade in pushing young men along the road to a degree, but the journey was frequently slow, and often never finished. And as there was so much ignorance, there was a general reluctance on the part of the authorities seriously to increase the difficulty of the ordinary degree course; it was feared that many young men, better born than educated, might thereby be discouraged from coming to Cambridge, and this was thought undesirable, as the University still attached great importance to its connection with the upper classes.3 Yet the need for the conversion of the ordinary degree course into a severer test of intelligence and industry was urgent, as the poll-men outnumbered the candidates for honours, and were likely to outnumber them still more in the future. Though the statutes of the University only required an undergraduate to keep nine terms by residence before proceeding to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, it was in practice necessary for a candidate for honours to reside for a tenth term, as all the Tripos examinations were held either in the Michaelmas or early in the Lent terms. And the poll-man had been under the same obligation as long as the final examination for his degree was held in January, but when it was decided in October 1858 to hold it in June, he became able to go out of residence after completing nine terms.4 Many sound arguments could be advanced in favour of this change of date. 1

D. A. Winstanley, Early Victorian Cambridge (1940), pp. 218-220. Report of the Public Schools Commission (1864), pp. 24-26, 30. 3 The Royal Commissioners appointed in 1850, all of whom were Cambridge men, commented with pride on the presence at the University of many young men of birth and fortune; and drew attention to the fact that some of these gilded youths had not " disdained to adorn a noble lineage with the graceful addition of academic honours". Report of the Royal Commission (1852), pp. 28-29. 4 A report of the Council of the Senate, recommending that after the year 1859 the final examination for the ordinary degree should take place in June, was approved by the Senate in October 1858. 2

I48

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

Nine terms were obviously more than sufficient for any man of average intelligence to qualify by examination for the ordinary degree, and for a large number of undergraduates the cost of a University education would be considerably reduced. Moreover, as the freshmen began residence in October, the University had for many years past been excessively overcrowded in the Michaelmas term, and this inconvenience would be mitigated. But there was clearly a danger that many parents of a frugal turn of mind, and not particularly anxious that their sons should be well educated, might consider that a degree with honours was not worth the cost of an extra term's residence, and that consequently more undergraduates would read for an ordinary degree. Yet even if their course of study was made far more satisfactory than it actually was, poll-men would still confront the University with a serious problem, for many of them intended to take Holy Orders, and therefore ought to receive some instruction in theology while still in residence. But it was not until 1842 that the University admitted this obligation by the institution of a Voluntary Theological Examination, open to all Bachelors of Arts and to all students of law who had passed the examinations and performed the exercises required for a degree. But though a voluntary theological examination, for which no instruction was provided, was unlikely to be effective as an intellectual stimulant, it was not until six years later that candidates for this examination were compelled to obtain a certificate of attendance during one term at the lectures delivered by two divinity Professors.1 The examination was only nominally voluntary, as in time most of the Bishops came to require all Cambridge ordination candidates to have passed it. But though the Bishops found it useful, it was thought unworthy of the University, being merely a pass examination which conferred neither honours nor a degree, and consequently was often scrambled through with a minimum expenditure of effort. Had it been a more serious test of learning and invested with greater dignity, it would probably have been thought objectionable as a temptation to undergraduates to study theology instead of classics or mathematics; and this may be the explanation of the rejection by the Senate in May 1854 of a scheme for the creation of a Theological Tripos. But in the following December the Senate passed a report of a Syndicate, which was designed to improve the Voluntary Theological Examination without fundamentally changing its character. It was to be held twice a year in the Michaelmas and Easter terms, and though the Michaelmas term 1 In December 1858 the Board of Theological Studies recommended that candidates should only be required to have attended the lectures of one divinity Professor, and this change was approved.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

149

examination was to be merely a pass examination as before, that in the Easter term was to include papers of a more advanced character, and candidates who satisfied the examiners in these, as well as in the pass papers, provided they were Bachelors of Arts in their first or second year, were to be counted to have qualified for honours. The report further recommended that a Board of Theological Studies should be established, and this proposal was also approved. In December 1858 this Board published a report in which they passed judgment upon the working of the new system.1 They declared themselves well satisfied, as "while it has not interfered with the general course of academical studies, it has tended to raise the standard of theological attainments, and thus to prepare candidates for Holy Orders, who.. .form the majority of students in the University, to discharge with greater intelligence and efficiency the duties of the Christian ministry". Yet though the Board claimed that "the addition of an Honours Tripos has supplied a stimulus", they admitted that it had been taken by only "a comparatively small number of students", and thereby revealed that the experiment had not been completely successful.* The examination in the Michaelmas term continued to attract most of the ordination candidates who generally prepared for it very hastily, deeming it a waste of time and energy to acquire more than the minimum of knowledge needed to pass. In a letter to the Christian Observer, dated 26 November 1861, Harold Browne, then the Norrisian Professor of Divinity, expressed his great regret that "young men, instead of availing themselves of the helps afforded them, prefer to put off the study of divinity to the last possible moment, and then to 'cram up'. Hence the wretched examinations too frequently passed by them, and the wonderful rapidity with which they forget all that they have so imperfectly learned".3 And if rumour can be trusted, even less respectable ways of achieving success were frequently taken. In a discussion in the Arts School a speaker asserted "that he had heard candidates say that there was not another examination at which there was... so much carrying backwards and forwards of books, and other false and improper resorts".4 Thus both the theological and the lay education of the poll-man called for improvement, and the call was loud enough to be heard.' In December 1862 the Council of the Senate published a report, in which they stated that they 1

University Papers, D.C. 8550. The recommendations of this report were incorporated in a report of the Council of the Senate, dated 28 February 1859. 2 Report of the Board of Theological Studies, 30 December 1858. Ibid. 3 This letter was reprinted in the Cambridge Chronicle of n January 1862. 4 Cambridge Chronicle, 26 February 1870.

150

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

had recently received two memorials: "one from a large number of members of the Senate, requesting that a Syndicate may be appointed to report upon the examinations now required to be passed by candidates for the ordinary degree, and to recommend such alterations, if any, as may appear to them desirable"; the other from the Board of Theological Studies, stating that the Board were "convinced of the necessity for improving theological education in the University, with a view to the more efficient training of candidates for Holy Orders", and as in their opinion "this end would best be attained by allowing students to devote some definite portion of their undergraduate course to the exclusive study of theology", they suggested the appointment of a Syndicate "to consider and report upon this subject". The opinion of the Council, as expressed in their report, was that "the several questions raised in these two memorials should be considered in connexion with each other, and that this will be most conveniently effected by assigning the discussion of the whole to one and the same Syndicate", and they therefore recommended "that a Syndicate be appointed to consider and report upon the whole scheme of examinations which the candidates for the ordinary Bachelor of Arts' degree are required to pass, and the manner in which the object proposed by the Theological Board can best be attained".1 A Syndicate with these terms of reference was appointed by the Senate on 11 December 1862; and one problem they had to solve was how, without unduly extending the ordinary degree course, to find a place in it for a theological examination which would be a serious test of intelligence and industry. They came to the conclusions that no good purpose was served by requiring poll-men to attend and be examined upon the lectures of a Professor, that two years or a little more gave them ample time to prepare for the other two examinations of their course, and that therefore there was room for an examination in theology or in any other subject which it might be desirable to introduce. Therefore in a report issued in November 1863 they recommended that the candidates for the ordinary degree should be required to take the Previous Examination in the Michaelmas term of their second year, and an examination, corresponding to the existing Ordinary Examination but to be styled the General Examination, in the Michaelmas term of their third year. But before proceeding to a degree they should be required to pass a third or " Special" Examination, as it was called, in either Theology or in some branch of the natural or moral sciences.2 These Special Examinations, with the exception of that in theology, were to be held in the Easter term: with the 1

Report of the Council of the Senate, 8 December 1862. University Papers, H.C. 1. . The specified branches of Moral Science were moral philosophy, logic, history and political economy. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

151

obvious intention of giving more time to prepare for it, the Theological Special was placed in die Michaelmas term. Little change, except that a slightly more extensive knowledge of Euclid was required, was made in the Previous: as before, it was to be conducted partly viva voce. Nor was the new "General" much more difficult than the old Ordinary Examination, for the additions made to it were counterbalanced by the dropping of Euclid, the history of the Reformation and hydrostatics. But inasmuch as it had to be taken at the beginning of the third year, instead of like the Ordinary Examination at the end of it, poll-men would have less time to be idle; and that was one merit of the scheme. Another was the scope given to ambition, if that "last infirmity of noble mind" was to be found among candidates for the ordinary degree. Hitherto the names of the successful candidates in the final examination of the course had been arranged in four classes, the names in each class being in alphabetical order; but the Syndicate recommended that the names in the first two of the four classes of the General Examination, and in the first of the two classes of the Special Examinations, should be in order of merit. With the same object in view they proposed that there should be a voluntary paper in the General Examination, containing an easy passage for translation into Latin and an English essay subject.1 Yet though the Syndicate's scheme was undoubtedly a great improvement upon what it was designed to replace, it met with a very hostile reception when it was discussed in the Arts School on 5 February 1864. One speaker complained that too much was required of the candidates, and that the adoption of the report might be followed by a serious reduction in the number of admissions to the University. Another critic, Dr Paget, deplored the abandonment of the professorial examination and the omission of hydrostatics from the General Examination: he contended that "if hydrostatics were not required, then Bachelors of Arts might go down without knowing the differences between a thermometer and a barometer, and without knowing how to describe the common pump". And the Registrary, H. R. Luard, found very much to censure. He blamed the Syndicate for not having done anything "to obviate that absolute premium upon laziness which has been created by allowing persons, who had decided to go out in the ordinary degree, to graduate half a year earlier than formerly", and took particular objection to what he described as the institution of an ordinary degree in theology. "The old rule", he said, "had been that whatever their future vocation in life... they had all to undergo the same examination for their first degree, and then they 1

University Papers, H.C. 1. Two members of the Syndicate, the Masters of Trinity and Peterhouse, did not sign the report.

152

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

filed off to prepare for their respective positions in life. If this report was passed, the rule would no longer exist, and we should have among us a set of theological 'crammers' who would just educate the men sufficiently to enable them to pass this examination." These criticisms were not left unanswered. Lightfoot pointed out that the Syndicate's scheme combatted idleness in a more effective way than that favoured by Luard, and that it was absurd to talk of allowing an ordinary degree to be taken in theology, as that subject was only a very small fraction of the scheme suggested; and Dr Paget was told by N. M. Ferrers of Caius, who had examined for the ordinary degree, that "the value of poll hydrostatics was absolutely zero". 1 But as it was clear that, however able the defence, the report would not pass the Senate, the Council of the Senate in a report, dated 15 February 1864, recommended that "a Syndicate be appointed, which shall include all the members of the late Syndicate who are able to continue their services, together with some additional members of the Senate"; and that this partially new body "be requested to consider the subject referred to the late Syndicate, together with the regulations of the Previous Examination as it affects all classes of students", that is candidates for honours as well as poll-men.2 The Senate approved this proposal, and the Syndicate, thus reinforced, published in May 1864 a report, which was much on the same lines as the former one.3 All undergraduates, whether reading for a tripos or for an ordinary degree, were to sit for the Previous Examination in the Michaelmas term of their second year,4 and ordinary degree candidates were to take the General Examination in the Michaelmas term of their third year, and a Special Examination in Theology or other prescribed subjects in the following Easter term. But though the two reports were very similar, they were not identical. 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 6 February 1864. University Papers, H.C. 1. 3 fad. 4 Under the regulations in force (see p. 145) undergraduates who had kept two terms could sit for the Previous Examination in the Michaelmas, instead of in the Lent, term of their second year, though they were not counted to have passed it unless they also satisfied the Examiners in the Additional Subjects. In the reports of the Syndicates appointed in December 1862 and February 1864 provision was made for undergraduates who had failed to pass, or for good reason had been absent from, the Previous Examination in the Michaelmas term of their second year, to sit for it in the following Easter term; but the second report contained a recommendation that undergraduates, being at least in their second term of residence, might take the Previous in the Easter term of their first year, " provided that they present to the Registrary a certificate from the Master of their college or his Locum Tenens, stating that they had declared to him that it is bona fide their intention to register themselves as medical students and to study medicine in the University". The intention was obviously to restrict the privilege of sitting for the Previous earlier than the normal time to medical students, but to relieve them from the obligation of passing in the Additional Subjects. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

I53

All the Special Examinations were to be held in the same term; and as when the previous report had been discussed, Dr Paget had insisted upon the value of the compulsory attendance of poll-men at professorial lectures, and upon the importance of clergymen having some knowledge of the natural sciences and philosophy, the Syndicate recommended that an undergraduate, who had passed the Theological Special, should not be qualified to proceed to a degree unless the Council of the Senate were notified that he had attended a course of lectures delivered by one of several specified Professors, who lectured on non-theological subjects, and had satisfied the examiners in one of the papers of the Moral or Natural Sciences Special Examinations. And a candidate who had passed one of the other Special Examinations was to be required before proceeding to a degree to present to the Registrary "a certificate, signed by the Professor of die branch of study he has selected, stating that he has attended one course of his lectures". Further, hydrostatics was given a place in the General Examination, two additional Special Examinations, one in law and the other in mechanism and practical science, were proposed;I and the requirements of the Theological Special Examination were reduced, which was only reasonable as less time was given to prepare for it, and new burdens were imposed upon the candidates. A genuine attempt had certainly been made to meet some of the criticisms of the former scheme; but the discussion of the report on 13 May showed that it is not only women who are hard to please. J. C. W. Ellis of Sidney, who was a member of the Syndicate, explained that he had been unable to sign the report, as he strongly disapproved of allowing poll-men to proceed to a degree six or seven months earlier than honours candidates, and he suggested that they should be permitted to sit for the Tripos examinations, which for their benefit should be provided with a fourth or pass class.2 He was warmly supported by Leslie Stephen, who contended that, if this course was adopted, undergraduates would be delivered from a degrading course of study; and in a fly-sheet, which he published about a fortnight later, he enlarged upon this theme. "An examination", he argued, "from which all the best men are by its nature excluded, infallibly produces a low standard among the examinees. The poll system does not simply assume that one man is stupider than another. It deliberately stamps half our students as intellectual pariahs. It writes down every man an ass 1 Henry Latham had contributed to a publication, entitled Occasional Papers on University Matters (185 8-1859), an article in which he urged that a school of practical science should be started in Cambridge; and as he was a member of the Syndicate he may have been responsible for the Special Examination in Mechanism and Practical Science. 2 Ellis was probably not quite so explicit in the discussion, but he set forth his scheme at length in a fly-sheet, dated 11 March 1864. University Papers, H.C. 1.

154

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

who can't pass an honour examination.... The truth is that all poll examinations will be defective as long as they are entirely divorced from the honour triposes."* And Robert Burn, a Fellow of Trinity, was much of the same opinion. He objected to the scheme, not only because the Special Examinations followed too closely upon the General Examination to allow of adequate preparation for them, but also because "it did not encourage men to go out in honours". 2 The objections thus taken to the Syndicate's report had undoubtedly much force, but they were not unanswerable. The interval between the General and the Special Examinations was certainly very brief, and it was also true that as long as a term's residence was saved by taking an ordinary degree, the scales were weighted against the honours courses. But a prolongation of the ordinary degree course might only encourage undergraduates to waste more of their own time and their parents' money, and the Syndicate had not been authorised to remove the inequality in the length of the honours and ordinary degree courses by abbreviating the former. Moreover the objection, advanced by some critics of the report, that the classification in order of merit of the more successful candidates for the ordinary degree would discourage men from reading for honours, was quite fantastic; and the wisdom of allowing pollmen to enter for a tripos was at least questionable. Both the standard and the prestige of the honours examinations might be thereby lowered; and it was doubtful whether many poll-men would be able to secure a place, even in the fourth class of a tripos. Ferrers was inclined to think that this feat was beyond them. In a fly-sheet, which he published about this time, he argued that the distinction drawn between ordinary degree and honours candidates, though possibly invidious, was not artificial. "There is, and always will be," he wrote, "a large class of men who are incapable of going deeply into any one subject, but can nevertheless acquire a moderate acquaintance with several. These constitute our present poll-men, and any change in our system, while it may do away with the name, cannot affect the existence of the thing." 3 When the fate of the report in the Senate was thus hanging in the balance, an untoward event sealed its doom. Some days before it was due to be put to the vote, certain resident members of the Senate presented a memorial to the Council, in which they expressed their belief that "the regulation, under which the ordinary Bachelor of Arts examination takes place so long before that for honours is prejudicial to the interests of education in the University", and they asked the Council to take steps to ascertain whether the University was of the same opinion. In compliance with this request, the Council issued a report, dated 23 May 1864, recommending the appointment of a Syndicate 1 2 3

Fly-sheet, 28 May 1864. University Papers, H.C. 1. Cambridge Chronicle, 14 May 1864. Fly-sheet, 23 May 1864. University Papers, H.C. 1.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (1860-1880)

I55

1

to consider the question, and eight days later both this report and the report of the Syndicate were put to the vote of the Senate. As there was a majority for the former, the latter could not possibly escape rejection, for it would be clearly very imprudent to approve a detailed scheme for the ordinary degree course when its length was coming under consideration. A wise man would wish to wait and see. But unfortunately the Syndicate, for whose pronouncement the wise men waited, was unable to make one. Their report, which appeared at the end of October 1864, was a complete confession of failure. "The Syndicate", it ran, "have considered the different methods which might be adopted for making the ordinary Bachelor of Arts' examination and the examination for honours more nearly simultaneous. One method would be by reverting to the old law of requiring ten terms of residence instead of nine, and restoring the Ordinary Examination for the Bachelor of Arts' degree in January. They cannot recommend that course. Another method would be, while retaining the present law as regards residence, to postpone the Ordinary Bachelor of Arts' examination to a period beyond the Easter term But when all the consequences of this change are considered, the Syndicate are of opinion that the disadvantages of this course would be greater than those of the present course. A third method would be to fix the examinations for honours either wholly or in part at an earlier period; but as any change in the system of honours examinations is a subject to which the attention of the Syndicate has not been especially invited, they abstain from expressing any opinion upon it."2 The Syndicate probably gladly welcomed an excuse for not recommending that the Tripos examinations should be taken in the Easter term of an undergraduate's third year, for they were well aware that such a proposal would provoke a passionate outcry. For just as rowing "coaches" as a class fanatically believe that the slightest reduction of the period of training spells disaster for their crews, so many Cambridge mathematicians were convinced that a third Long Vacation and a tenth term were indispensable for a Mathematical Tripos candidate who aspired to high honours. And perhaps it was just as well that a new controversy was not started to distract the attention of the University from the task of revising the ordinary degree course. But that task, though by now it must have become very wearisome, could not conscientiously be evaded, and consequently another Syndicate was appointed in November 1864 to accomplish it.3 The new Syndicate showed themselves more daring and enlightened than their predecessors. The problem they were called upon to solve was rendered 1 2 3

University Papers, H.C. 1. The report is dated 27 October 1864. University Papers, H.C. 1. Cambridge Chronicle, 26 November 1864.

156

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

more difficult by the absence of an entrance examination to the University; and this truth they grasped. In a report, issued in February 1865, they expressed the opinion that "the scanty and imperfect training of a large number of our students, and their want of adequate elementary knowledge on entering the University, constitute one of the principal difficulties with which the University has to contend in any endeavour to improve the course of education for the ordinary class of students ", and they then went on to say that they saw "no way in which this difficulty can be effectually obviated, except by the institution of a general University examination, which all students shall be required to pass before, or shortly after, commencing residence in the University". Therefore, before proceeding further, they wished to ascertain whether the Senate would approve a recommendation that no undergraduate should be able to count more than two terms of residence unless he had passed an examination in elementary Greek and Latin grammar, a book of Xenophon's Anabasis, a book of the Aeneid, simple arithmetic and the first book of Euclid.1 It was an evil beginning when seven members of the Syndicate refused to sign this report, and a beginning prophetic of the end. When the report was discussed on 9 March, College feeling ran amuck, as it had always done when a University Entrance Examination had been suggested. W. M. Campion of Queens' declared that "such an examination as that proposed would be an undue interference with the colleges", and J. C. W. Ellis fiercely opposed what he called the usurpation by the University of "the functions of the several colleges, to which it was left to ascertain whether men were fitted to become members of those colleges". These two speakers, though misguided, at least honestly avowed their real objections to the report; but not all were so frank. Luard, for instance, asserted the existence of an obligation "to admit any one who came to the corporation of the University, be his attainments ever so meagre", though he apparently did not think that the colleges were similarly obliged, as he expressed his admiration of the Trinity College Entrance Examination. H. A. Morgan, then Tutor of Jesus, enlarged upon the difficulties there would be with keepers of lodging-houses if undergraduates were compelled suddenly to go out of residence by failing to pass the proposed examination; and great play was made with the rather legendary undergraduate who, having come to the University practically knowing nothing, yet gained a high place in a tripos by unremitting industry. But what is truly lamentable is that W. H. Bateson, the Master of St John's, who had been foremost in the battle of academic reform, took his stand on this occasion with the obscurantists. He said that "if he were consulted—that is if this scheme were to obtain—by anyone who had a son or protege to send to the Uni1

Report of the Syndicate, 23 February 1865. University Papers, H.C. 1.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

I57

versity, he should be very careful how he recommended his friend to send up his pupil, if there was a chance of his name being intellectually tarnished, as it were, by this examination". Dr Bateson must either have been speaking with his tongue in his cheek, or have known very little about poll-men, who do not generally take their intellectual rebuffs very hardly.1 The Senate's rejection of the report on 23 March by seventy to thirty-seven votes must have been a foregone conclusion;2 but, though defeated, the Syndicate had at least achieved something: they now knew the limits within which they must work. In their second report, which was issued in May, they put forward a scheme substantially the same, except for a few provisions, as that which had been rejected nearly a year before, the only material difference being that the General Examination was to be taken in the Easter term of the second year instead of in the Michaelmas term of the third year, which was an improvement, as it allowed more time to prepare for the Special Examinations. 3 Yet though the changes were few, the report was very favourably received when it was discussed on 20 May.4 There was a certain amount of criticism, but it was mainly directed against points of detail; and the report, slightly amended, passed the Senate unopposed on 3 June. 5 This easy victory is not so inexplicable as at first sight it may appear. It was generally agreed that the existing course for the ordinary degree disgraced the University, and yet for over two years every attempt to improve it had failed. Consequently from sheer weariness, and almost in a spirit of despair, a scheme, about which there was little enthusiasm, was accepted. But the success thus achieved was of a minor order, and could not have satisfied those members of the Syndicate who realised that until the very idle and the very stupid were excluded from the University, no serious approach could be made towards the solution of the problem of the poll-man's education. But from the ashes of one controversy another arose. Though the ordinary 1 Cambridge Chronicle, 11 March 1865. Dr Bateson was a member of the Syndicate but had not signed the report. 2 Ibid. 25 March 1865. During the discussion of the report W. G. Clark of Trinity remarked that it was not "very politic to bring forward this scheme, when it must have been known that there was not the slightest chance of carrying it". 3 There was another change which deserves mention. The second Previous Examination was to be held in the Lent, not the Easter, term, and undergraduates, if in their second term of residence, and certified by their college Tutor to be either "diligently pursuing some of the branches of study comprised in the Honour Examinations of the University or to be about to pursue the study of medicine", could be admitted to the Previous Examination and the examination in the Additional Subjects in the Lent term. This regulation was to come into operation in the Lent term. 1870. University Grace Book, 25 November 1869. The report, dated 13 May 1865, is among the University Papers, H.C. 1. 4 5 Cambridge Chronicle, 27 May 1865. Ibid. 10 June 1865.

I58

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

degree course now included a Theological Special Examination, the Voluntary Theological Examination continued to be held twice yearly in the Michaelmas and Easter terms; and, as has been previously mentioned the candidates who sat for the examination in the Easter term, and satisfied the examiners in the additional papers which were then set, were declared to have passed with honours. These honours candidates were unaffected by the institution of a Theological Special Examination; but as the character of that examination was very similar to the "pass" Voluntary Theological Examination, it was at least doubtful whether the latter was required. The Board of Theological Studies therefore suggested in a report, which appeared in May 1869, that it should be discontinued in its present form, and that, in order to satisfy episcopal requirements, "additional papers should be set at the time of the Special Theological Examination,.. .it being distinctly understood that in regard to candidates for degrees these additional papers are optional, and shall not be taken into account in arranging the class lists for the degree". 1 Thus though its form was slightly changed, a "pass" Voluntary Theological Examination was still to exist. This report was severely attacked when it was discussed on 20 May, and the main objection taken to it was that it should have gone much further, and completely abolished an examination which was described by T. G. Bonney of St John's as being little more than "a sort of 'Little Go' to the Bishops' examinations and unworthy of the University". This description was unkind though not inapt; but it could be argued that the University had a duty to the Church, and that as few of the Cambridge ordination candidates aspired to theological honours, something more than the Theological Special Examination was needed.* And being of this opinion the Board of Theological Studies stuck to their guns; and though after the discussion they slightly amended their report^ they did not alter its character. When it was discussed again on 21 February 1870, Lightfoot explained that the Board "had tried to meet the objections as to details, which had been made at the last discussion", but that they "could not acquiesce in the entire abolition of the Voluntary 'pass* Examination in Theology. The objection to it seemed to rest on one ground, viz. that the University was doing the work of the Bishops, who did not accept their examination as final; but this theoretic anomaly was met by the practical question whether candidates for Orders would not suffer by discontinuing the examination in dogmatic theology. He felt just as strongly as before that the men would suffer if this part of the scheme was abandoned." 1

Report of the Board of Theological Studies, 7 May 1869. University Papers, D.C.

8550. 2 Cambridge Chronicle, 22 May 1869. 3 The revised report is dated 24 November 1870. University Papers, D.C. 8550.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

159

Several other members of the Senate were however convinced that the University would suffer still more if it was not abandoned, and did not conceal their belief. But a remark made by Bonney on this occasion is of more interest and consequence than this clash of opinion. He said that a "Theological Tripos, on the same footing as to degrees as the other honours examinations", ought to be established; and this suggestion, thrown out by the way, was cordially received. Campion, for instance, said that though he had signed the revised report, he would vote against it in the Senate "if he thought there was any prospect.. .of passing a Grace in favour of establishing such a Theological Tripos"; and Coutts Trotter also blessed the proposal. At the end of the meeting the Vice-Chancellor undertook to report "the tenor of the remarks to the proper quarter". 1 The proper quarter was of course the Board of Theological Studies; and the Board could not possibly have been displeased by what the Vice-Chancellor told them; and still less displeased when on 31 March the Senate agreed, "in consequence of the discussion which took place in the Arts School on 21 February last", to appoint a Syndicate "to consider the whole question of the theological examinations in the University and the regulations affecting them". 2 For thereby the continuance of a "pass" Voluntary Theological Examination remained an open question, and it became possible to propose the establishment of a Theological Tripos. The Board therefore abandoned their report which was now out of date. It was over a year and a half before the Syndicate appointed on 31 March 1870 finished their labours. In their first report, which appeared in February 1871, they recommended certain changes in the mode of proceeding to the degrees of Bachelor and Doctor of Divinity, and that candidates for the Special Examination in Theology, instead of being compelled to attend a course of professorial lectures on a non-theological subject, and to take one of the papers of either the Moral Sciences or Natural Sciences Special Examinations, should only be required to attend a course of lectures delivered by one of the divinity Professors.3 There was much to be said in favour of the changes thus proposed in the regulations for the Theological Special Examination, for experience had shown that the candidates had not obtained "any satisfactory knowledge of the additional subjects thus imposed on them". 4 This report was discussed on 9 March. That part of it which dealt with the divinity degrees met with some criticism, but the proposed changes affecting the candidates for the Theological Special Examination were favourably received. It was generally agreed that the attempt to make them obtain even 1

2 Cambridge Chronicle, 26 February 1870. Ibid. 2 April 1870. 3 Seep. 153. 4 Report of the Syndicate, 14 February 1871. University Papers, D , C . 8550.

160

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

a smattering of other subjects than theology had been an utter failure, and that this was particularly true of the requirement that they should take a paper in the Natural Sciences or Moral Sciences Special Examination. One speaker, who claimed to have had "large experience among the candidates", described this paper as a vexatious burden. "It did not", he said, "make wider—as the intention had been—the knowledge of the clergymen who passed the examination, for the subject chosen was usually read in the most superficial manner."1 As the recommendations concerned with the divinity degrees had not met with the same measure of approval, the Syndicate wisely decided to report separately on them; and a slightly amended report, which they published in March, was exclusively concerned with the Special Examination in Theology, and passed the Senate unopposed on 30 March.2 In a further report, dated 24 April, they brought forward an amended scheme of regulations for the divinity degrees, having materially modified their original recommendations, and this also passed the Senate, though not unopposed.3 But they had only accomplished part of their task and die least difficult part. They had not yet sounded academic opinion on the institution of a Theological Tripos and on the continuance in some form of a Voluntary Theological Examination. They entered this dangerous region in a report which was issued in May.4 They proposed that both the "pass" and the "honours" Theological Examinations, as then constituted, should cease to be held after the Michaelmas term of 1873, and that in lieu of the former there should be an examination in the Old and New Testament, the Prayer Book and the thirty-nine Articles, open to any "student admitted to his first degree, and hot more than three years standing from the completion of that degree". No provision was however made for an "honours" Voluntary Examination in any form, as the Syndicate recommended that after 1873 a Theological Tripos Examination should be annually held, and that candidates who passed it so as to deserve honours should be entitled without further examination to proceed to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. It was arranged that this report should not be discussed until the following Michaelmas term, and Westcott, the Regius Professor of Divinity, endeavoured to meet the objections that he foresaw would be made to the continuation of a "pass" examination in theology. He addressed a circular letter to the Bishops, in which he plainly told them that they were mainly responsible for the prejudice in the University against it, and that, unless they announced a change of policy, the new scheme would be still-born. 1 2 4

University Reporter, 15 March 1871. 3 Ibid. 26 April 1871. Ibid. 17 May 1871. University Papers, D . C . 8550. The report is dated 20 May 1871.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

l6l

"May I be allowed", he wrote, "to call your attention to the annexed scheme for a Voluntary Theological Examination, which will be submitted to the Senate of the University of Cambridge in the course of next term. There is in the University, as you are probably aware, a very general feeling of dissatisfaction with the working of the present Voluntary Examination, and it seems highly probable that this will be abolished whenever the theological examinations are authoritatively remodelled, as it is expected they will be before another year has passed. The grounds of this dissatisfaction are, so far as I can ascertain, the following. (1) No credit is given by the Bishops for the examination. Candidates, who have satisfied the University examiners, are examined again directly afterwards in the same subjects by the Bishop's chaplains. (2) The requirement made by most Bishops that all Cambridge candidates should pass the examination has necessarily lowered the standard. (3) The same requirement acts vexatiously in many ways in the case of men who first propose to enter Holy Orders comparatively late in life.... The scheme, which I have the honour to submit to you, has been drawn up with careful regard to the feelings of the University and the wants of candidates for Holy Orders; but it is obvious that the chances of its adoption by the University will be greatly influenced by the view which the Bishops generally are likely to take of it. I am anxious therefore, as taking personally a deep interest in the scheme, to ascertain your Lordship's judgment upon the two points, in which it is necessary in my opinion that the proposed scheme should stand in a different position, with regard to the examination for Holy Orders, from that occupied by the present Voluntary Theological Examination. (1) It would, I believe, be essential, alike to the acceptance and to the success of the scheme, that the Bishops should not require all Cambridge candidates to pass this Voluntary Examination. Many cases occur in which a Bishop will most rightly confer Holy Orders upon a candidate who would fall below the literary standard which the University ought to require. (2) On the other hand it is no less essential that the certificate of the University examiners should be accepted by the Bishops for what may be generally described as the literary part of the subjects with which they deal, that is, for a knowledge of the contents, the history, the external criticism of the Bible, the Prayer Book and the Articles (though not for their dogmatical interpretation), so that candidates, who have passed this examination, should be excused from the corresponding questions in the ordination examination. It will be observed that according to the scheme of the examination special topics and dogmatics are left, as they must be left, to the diocesan examinations. At the same time the subjects selected offer a wide range of study which the Theological Faculty of the University can properly test.... If the Bishops generally think that the examination.. .meets a real want, and are willing to accord to it a substantial recognition, their judgment cannot but influence the Senate of the University in its favour."1 1

The latter, dated 16 September 1871, is among the University Papers, D.C. 8550.

WMC

11

162

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

It is true that if the Bishops accepted Westcott's advice, it could not fairly be alleged that though they compelled candidates for ordination to pass a University examination in theology, they nevertheless proclaimed their mistrust of it by examining them again in the same subjects; but even if they conceded this much, the University might yet consider that it was playing second fiddle to the episcopal bench, and object to doing so. And when the report was discussed on 27 October, it became painfully apparent that Westcott had laboured in vain. Though he made a gallant defence of the proposed Voluntary Theological Examination, and was able to say that the Bishops, "best acquainted with Cambridge", considered that the examination might serve a very useful purpose, and were willing to recognise it, he failed to carry the meeting with him. One member of the Syndicate said that he was unable to sign the section of the report which dealt with the examination, and that he had been commissioned to say that another member of the Syndicate, Professor Selwyn, objected "to the examination on the ground that it seemed to be meant as a relief to the Bishops in examining candidates for Holy Orders". 1 And Selwyn's sentiments were echoed by many who joined in the discussion of the report: the dominant feeling clearly was that it was beneath the dignity of the University to act as an episcopal handmaid. No objection was however taken to the institution of a Theological Tripos, though details of the scheme proposed encountered criticism. Before the discussion began, the Vice-Chancellor read out a protest, signed by the Bishop of Ely,2 the Regius Professor of Hebrew and twenty-six other former Tyrwhitt Scholars,3 in which regret was expressed "that Hebrew scholarship, as shown by the recognised tests of composition and pointing, is altogether omitted from the proposed scheme for the new Theological Tripos". And during the discussion the claim of Hebrew to be more adequately represented in the tripos was so insistently pressed, as to provoke a member of the Syndicate caustically to remark that it seemed to be forgotten that he and his colleagues had been instructed to design a Theological, and not a Hebrew, Tripos.4 But the Syndicate were conciliatory. When they came to revise their report, they offered olive branches to their critics by providing that passages from the Hebrew Scriptures should be set for pointing, and that the General Paper on 1 Part III of the Report in its first form is concerned with the Voluntary Theological Examination, and to the signatures of Bowling and Selwyn is attached the remark " except Parts I and II". This must be an error, and the remark against their signatures in the revised report is "except Part III". 2 E. H. Browne, formerly Norrisian Professor of Divinity. 3 Robert Tyrwhitt bequeathed by his will £4000 for the encouragement of the study of Hebrew in the University. 4 University Reporter, 1 November 1871.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

163

the Old Testament should contain a short passage for translation into Hebrew; and they were able to make these changes without materially altering the character of their tripos scheme. But they could only meet the objections to a Voluntary Theological Examination by withdrawing that recommendation; and this they were not prepared to do. Therefore, except for a few slight modifications, they left that part of the report much as it was.1 The report in its final form was in eight parts,2 and for each part a Grace was separately submitted to the Senate on 8 December 1871. The only one rejected was the Grace for Part III, which made provision for a Voluntary Theological Examination, and it was decisively defeated by forty-three to sixteen votes. Not more than one of the other Graces was even opposed, and thus the Voluntary Theological Examination, both in its" pass'' and' honours form, disappeared, and a Theological Tripos came into existence. Seventeen years before the Senate had refused what they now granted, and the change of attitude indicates the recession into the background of the belief that classics and mathematics alone gave an adequate mental training. Nor was this the only indication that educational dogmas, hitherto generally accepted, were falling to the level of a superstition. Only a year before, the University had been called upon to consider whether a knowledge of Greek was quite such an indispensable element in a liberal education as it had hitherto been supposed to be. In 1870 Lord Lyttelton, who had recently been appointed Chief Commissioner of Endowed Schools, addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge, which started a controversy that was intermittently to trouble the peace of Cambridge for many years. He remarked that as long as the two Universities required all their undergraduates to have some knowledge of Latin and Greek, these languages would figure largely in the curriculum of the Public Schools; and that though it was frequently asserted that they owed their pride of place to their educational value, it was undeniably the fact that many competent judges believed that mathematics, the natural sciences and modern languages were equally effective in disciplining the mind, and that there was a growing demand, particularly among the middle classes, that these studies should have a more conspicuous place in school education. "It appears to me", he continued, "as it appeared to the School Inquiry Commissioners, ... that a demand made by so many parents... ought to be ungrudgingly conceded.... We are convinced that in order to give fair trial and full play to the 1

The revised report, dated 27 November 1871, was published in the University Reporter. Some of the parts were concerned with the prizes hitherto awarded on tne honours Voluntary Theological Examination, and others with administrative details. 2

164

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

study of modern languages and natural sciences,1 it is necessary to establish some schools of the first grade (i.e. schools retaining their scholars to the age of eighteen or nineteen) in which these subjects should be the staple of the course of study, and to that end the time and importance assigned to classics be much diminished." And with this prelude he announced the intention of the Commissioners to establish some first-grade schools, from the curriculum of which Greek, but not Latin, was to be excluded. The question he put to the Vice-Chancellors was whether the abler boys of these schools, or in other words the boys who might reasonably be expected to graduate with honours, were to be debarred from coming to the Universities by their ignorance of Greek. He admitted that as far as Cambridge was concerned, the little knowledge of Greek required to pass the Previous could easily be crammed; but no educational benefit would be thereby gained, and valuable time wasted. "The broad result", he concluded, "is that as long as Greek is made a sine qua non at the Universities, those schools of the new type, which it is proposed to establish, will labour under the serious disadvantage of being cut off from direct connection with the Universities We are confident in the belief that for our own work we are bound to attempt to establish such schools as we have indicated, and it is with reference to them that we venture to suggest to the Universities to modify those arrangements, so that, for instance, a first-rate man of science who knows no Greek shall not be at any greater disadvantage than a first rate Greek scholar who knows no science."2 The Vice-Chancellor, at the end of the Easter term 1870, communicated this letter to those members of the Senate who were on the Electoral Roll; and it naturally attracted a great deal of attention. In an article published in the University Reporter of 2 November, the question was put, "Does the University really wish to remain at the head of England's schools and education?"; and Sedley Taylor published a pamphlet in which he urged that Greek should cease to be a compulsory subject in both the Previous and General Examinations, thus going further than Lord Lyttelton, who had had only tripos candidates in mind. 3 There were others who were in favour of a new degree being established for the benefit of men who "have a natural inaptitude for classical studies or have laboured under insuperable disadvantages in their early training"; 4 and there were some who were convinced 1 Lord Lyttelton of course intended that mathematics should be taught in these schools, but presumably did not think it worth while to say so. 2 University Reporter, 9 November 1870. 3 Sedley Taylor, On French and German as Substitutes for Greek in University Pass Examinations (1870). 4 An article by Robert Burn in the University Reporter, 30 November 1870.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

165

that even the little Greek required to pass the Previous was better than none at all. But as it would be both impolitic and discourteous completely to disregard Lord Lyttelton's appeal, the Council of the Senate sanctioned, and the Senate approved, a Grace for the appointment of a Syndicate "to consider whether any, and if so what, alterations may be made with advantage in the system of University Examinations, to enable persons who are unacquainted with the Greek language to obtain degrees".1 The Syndicate issued a report in March 1871.2 They recommended that in the Previous Examination candidates should be allowed to offer French and German instead of Greek; but as those who did so were to be required to translate at sight passages from French and German authors, and to translate English passages into one or other of these languages, the option given was not particularly soft. But if the Syndicate believed, as they apparently did, that by not providing an alternative to Greek in the General Examination, they compelled all poll-men to acquire some knowledge of that language, they were guilty of a miscalculation.^ In the previous June a Grace had passed the Senate allowing tripos examiners to declare candidates, who had not attained the standard for honours, to have so acquitted themselves as to have qualified for an ordinary degree without further examination; and consequently, if the Syndicate's recommendation was accepted, some men, not worthy of more than an ordinary degree, might avoid Greek.4 But neither the Syndicate nor the critics of their report called attention to this possibility, and it seems to have escaped their notice. Much of the criticism, which the report encountered when it was discussed, was either ill-informed or irrelevant. Luard, for instance, declared that "to 1 University Reporter, 23 November 1870. The Council of the Senate did not arrange for this Grace to be discussed. It consequently attracted little attention, and there was a verypoor attendance in the Senate House when it was put to the vote on 17 November 1870, and carried by twenty to sixteen votes. University Reporter, 23 November 1870. 2 University Reporter, 15 March 1871. 3 In a pamphlet published in 1873 Henry Latham stated that "it was supposed by the Syndicate, which first considered Lord Lyttelton's proposal, that by allowing the alternative for the Previous Examination only, they would confine the remission to persons of some scientific pretensions " ; and he then went on to explain that this was not the case, as " examiners for Honours have the power to pass men for ordinary degrees". On a Proposed Amendment of the Scheme for Pass Examinations (1873). 4 University Grace Book, 8 June 1870. It would also be possible for an undergraduate, who had not done well enough in a Tripos to qualify for an ordinary degree without further examination, to escape Greek; as under the regulations for the ordinary degree, which the Senate had approved on 3 June 1865, tripos examiners were empowered " to declare candidates, though they have not deserved honours, to have acquitted them so as to deserve to be excused the General Examination for ordinary degrees, and that such persons shall only be required to pass in one of the Special Examinations for ordinary degrees". Yet no more notice was taken of this regulation than of the additional power given to tripos examiners by the Grace of 8 June 1870.

166

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (1860-1880)

make the proposed change would be deliberately to go back three and a half centuries", which was quite untrue, as until the institution of the Previous Examination in the nineteenth century it had been possible to obtain the highest honours in the University without knowing any Greek. Again, Professor Kennedy, who as a member of the Syndicate had signed the report, though with some misgivings, was not very much to the point in saying that "in whatever proportion the study of Greek was withdrawn from the education of the laity, in exactly the same proportion would be withdrawn from them the power of independent judgment on matters of faith"; for it could not be seriously contended that the knowledge of Greek required to pass the Previous sufficed for a scholarly study of the New Testament. But when Arthur Holmes of Clare asserted that the adoption of the report would discourage the teaching of Greek in schools and place a heavy burden on the colleges, he raised objections which had some substance. " He observed that while there were many practical inducements for men to learn modern languages, the study of Greek would not hold its own in a utilitarian age without support. As a matter of detail... the proposed change would very seriously strain the lecturing power of the colleges, as lectures would still be required in Greek while lectures in French and German must be added."x Yet it is doubtful whether the assistance that Greek in the schools derived from the Previous was worth very much, and it might be a positive gain to compel the colleges to increase their lecturing staffs. And one argument which the Syndicate advanced in favour of their scheme had far greater force than any that had been brought against it. They said that the University would be well advised to reflect that it might seriously diminish its intellectual strength by continuing to require all undergraduates to have a slight knowledge of Greek. The Endowed Schools Commissioners had decided to establish schools in which Greek was not taught; and therefore the choice was between discouraging the boys from these schools, however good their attainments, from coming to the University, or not requiring them to take Greek in the Previous Examination. And upon this issue the Syndicate, which included the Professors of Greek and Latin, an ex-Professor of Greek2 and R. C. Jebb, expressed the opinion "that it would not be for the advantage of the University to dissociate itself from so much of the ability of the country, and that it would be a grave misfortune for the persons so excluded to be deprived of the beneficial influences which residence and study in the University carry with them". This appeal to discard an ancient prejudice in favour of an enlightened educational policy seems to have gone home; for when the report, slightly 1

University Reporter, 22 March 1871.

2

W. H. Thompson, Master of Trinity.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

167

amended, was submitted to the Senate on 27 April, it was only rejected by fifty-one votes to forty-eight.1 And as it was not until after many years, and several vain attempts, that Greek ceased to be a compulsory subject in the Previous Examination, the near approach to victory which the Syndicate achieved calls for explanation. As the total number of votes given was only ninety-nine, it is unlikely that many non-residents were present on this occasion; and as non-residents were generally inclined to vote non-placet, the closeness of the division may well have been partly due to their absence. But the decisive factor was probably the belief that the study of Greek was about to disappear from many schools, and that the influence and prestige of the University would suffer by championing a lost cause. As long as that belief seemed well founded, the question of compulsory Greek was likely to be raised whenever it was proposed to reform the Previous; and there were several members of the Senate who, though not of one mind on the Greek question, were dissatisfied with the existing regulations for that examination, and particularly objected to undergraduates being obliged to wait until the Michaelmas term of their second year before sitting for it.2 Indeed, six weeks before the vote in the Senate on 27 April, the Council of the Senate were considering a memorial, to which sixty-three names were appended, requesting that a Syndicate should be appointed to consider the "time of the Previous Examination and other matters connected with it"; 3 and these petitioners were granted more than they asked for, as the Council sanctioned, and the Senate passed, a Grace for the appointment of a Syndicate "to consider the regulations for the Previous Examination and the General Examination, and whether any, and if so what, alterations may be made in them with advantage".4 Probably most sensible men agreed that an honours man ought to be allowed to sit for the Previous immediately upon entering the University, if not before, so that he might be able to devote himself to the course of study which he had come to Cambridge to pursue; but to allow the poll-man to do so was considered to be very inexpedient. It is true that he would thereby gain more time to prepare for his next examination, which was the General, but it was equally true that he would almost certainly waste it: according to one college Tutor, poll-men "must see some object for which to work at no great distance before them".5 It was also pointed out that if candidates for the ordinary degree were able to take the Previous early in their period of 1

University Reporter, 3 May 1871. The regulations for the Previous were severely criticised in letters which appeared in the University Reporter between 9 November 1870 and 15 March 1871. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 16 March 1871. 4 University Reporter, 26 April 1871. 5 H. Latham, On a Proposed Amendment of the Scheme for Pass Examinations (1873). 2

168

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (1860-1880)

residence, those of them who succeeded in passing it could not be required to attend the first year's course of college lectures for that examination, which was thought to be very regrettable, as that course was believed to be "the most successful disciplinary arrangement brought to bear upon men on their entrance into college life".1 Consequently the tripos candidate's meat was thought to be the poll-man's poison; and not the least of the problems confronting the Syndicate was how to prevent a much-needed concession to candidates for honours from being abused by candidates for the ordinary degree. The solution they proposed was at least ingenious. In a report, which appeared in April 1872, they suggested that the Previous Examination should be divided into two parts,2 which need not be taken at the same time, and be held twice yearly, in the Easter term and in December; and that any undergraduate, who had previously kept one term, should be eligible to sit for it. And if this had been all, candidates for honours would have been unable to free themselves from bondage to an irksome examination until the end of their first year of residence; but another recommendation of the Syndicate was designed to rescue them from this servitude. Annually on 15 October an examination was to be held, styled in the report the Initial Previous Examination, which was to consist of two papers, one containing easy problems in plane geometry, algebra and trigonometry, and the other passages for translation from Greek and Latin authors; and if they had obtained the permission of their college Tutor, undergraduates could sit for this examination in their first term of residence. Moreover, by passing in one paper they obtained exemption from all Part I of the Previous except the Gospel in Greek, and by passing in the other paper exemption from all Part II except Paley's Evidences; and as they could present themselves for examination in the Greek Gospel and Paley's Evidences at the Previous Examination held in the following December, they could rid themselves of the Previous before the end of their first term. This was how the Syndicate sought to solve the problem of allowing honours men to pass the Previous in their first term, while restraining ordinary degree candidates from doing so. They assumed, and not unreasonably, that only the better educated and more intelligent men were likely to venture upon the Initial Previous Examination; and if a poll-man, lured by the prospect of a long spell of leisure, thought of doing so, his design could be frustrated by his Tutor. But the weaker brethren were not unkindly treated, 1

This remark was made when the second report of the Syndicate was discussed on

30 November 1872. University Reporter, 4 December 1872. 2 The first part was to comprise the classical subjects and the Greek Testament, and the second, mathematics, arithmetic and Paley's Evidences.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

169

for by the division of the Previous into two parts, which need not be taken together, their lot was made easier. But this was not the only respect in which the regulations of the Previous Examination could be amended with advantage. As the Additional Subjects, which were compulsory on all candidates for honours, were exclusively mathematical in character, they were infinitely less of a burden to men reading for the Mathematical Tripos than to other honours men; and this inequality of treatment, which was no more than a survival from a past age, had no justification. But the Syndicate omitted to right this wrong. They certainly recommended that the Additional Subjects Examination should cease to be held, and that in place of it two Honours Examinations, "in connection with the Previous Examination", should be established, one being in classics, for which any undergraduate might sit, provided that he had not kept more than five terms by residence, and the other in mathematics, for which any undergraduate was eligible who had kept at least two terms and not more than five; but whereas the Previous Examination for Classical Honours, as it was called, was quite voluntary, all undergraduates before entering for a tripos were required either to have obtained a place in the class list of the Previous Examination for Mathematical Honours, or to have satisfied the examiners in the mathematical papers of the General Examination. The mathematician therefore was to continue to receive preferential treatment. As the Syndicate did not propose that all tripos candidates should be compelled to pass the Previous Examination for Classical Honours, their purpose in suggesting it calls for explanation. They apparently believed that there might be some men reading mathematics who would gladly avail themselves of an opportunity to show that they possessed a knowledge of the classics, which, though not contemptible, was not sufficient to make it worth their while to attempt the tripos; and that some of the weaker candidates for the Classical Tripos might be attracted by the prospect of acquiring a little additional credit. Presumably the Syndicate had prospective schoolmasters in mind, but it seems doubtful whether the prestige thus gained would be sufficient compensation for the additional labour involved. But though the courage or the good sense of the Syndicate seems to have failed them in this part of their work, their handling of the compulsory Greek question was very daring, inasmuch as they recommended that both in the Previous and General Examination "a sufficient knowledge of the French and German languages be accepted as an equivalent for the knowledge of Greek or as an equivalent for the knowledge of Latin". Thus candidates for the ordinary degree were as explicitly exempted as candidates for honours from one or other of the two classical languages, and this was greater freedom than

170

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

the University now gives, as Latin is still a compulsory subject in the Previous.1 The contentious issues thus raised provoked many differences of opinion within the Syndicate, and there was hardly a part of it from which one or more of the members did not express dissent when signing, thereby weakening the weight of the recommendations and encouraging opposition to them. And this was the more unfortunate, as the various parts of the Syndicate's scheme were so interwoven and dependent on one another that the rejection of one part might seriously detract from the value of another; and therefore the Council of the Senate ruled that the Senate in the first instance should " express its opinion on the several parts, subject to the condition that any one which might be approved should be referred back to the Syndicate for revision, and should not be taken as adopted until it had been again submitted to the Senate, with or without amendment, for its sanction; and with the further understanding that any part which might be rejected should be taken as finally excluded from the scheme".2 This was an unusual mode of procedure, but it was probably wise to adopt it, as the discussion of the report on 17 May and the following day 3 foreshadowed its dismemberment. On 30 May the Senate rejected the recommendations that an Initial Previous Examination and two Honours Previous Examinations should be established, and that French and German might be taken instead of Latin or Greek in the General Examination, and instead of Latin in the Previous Examination. The recommendations however that French and German should be an alternative to Greek in the Previous, and that this examination should be divided into two parts, were provisionally approved.4 The rejection of an Initial Previous Examination was by far the most serious loss sustained by the Syndicate, for it was the keystone of the Syndicate's scheme for restricting the privilege of passing the Previous in the first term of residence to tripos candidates. But being unwilling to leave unremedied what they regarded as a very serious educational defect in the existing system, they agreed to recommend that the Previous Examination and the Additional Subjects, which were to remain much as they were, should be open to all matriculated students in their first or any later term of residence, but that "in order to prevent unprepared students presenting themselves for examination", the names of the candidates must be sent in by their Tutors.^ But this was a far less effective device than their original plan, as easy-going Tutors might well be disinclined to prevent any of their pupils, who had a reasonable chance of passing the Previous, or one part of it, in their first term, from attempting to do so; and five members of the Syndicate recorded their 1 4

University Reporter, 15 May 1872. Ibid. 5 June 1872.

2 5

Ibid. 22 May 1872. Ibid. 27 November 1872.

3

Ibid.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

I7I

dissent from this recommendation when they signed the revised report, which appeared in November 1872. When the report was discussed, it was not only this provision that was subjected to severe criticism. The recommendation, provisionally approved by the Senate, that French and German should be an alternative to Greek in the Previous, was also attacked, and provoked Shillito to an outburst. "He protested", we learn, "and would protest if he was the last man to do so, against giving any man a degree who had shown no knowledge whatever of the noblest language that ever flowed through the lips of articulate speaking man." And if the same sentiments were not expressed by other speakers, it was only, as E. H. Perowne explained, because the subject had been so fully debated at the earlier discussion.1 The Syndicate were probably aware that they were heading for disaster when they submitted their report, only slightly amended, to die Senate on 6 February 1873;2 a n d their fears were fully confirmed. The Grace for allowing undergraduates to enter for the Previous in their first term was rejected by eighty-eight votes to eighty, and the Grace for allowing an alternative to Greek in the same examination by ninety to eighty-one votes. The other recommendations of the Syndicate were approved, but the only one of them which involved any substantial change was the proposal to divide the Previous into two parts. There was thus very little to show for the work of many months. But the chapter of accidents was not ended. Though the requirement of tutorial permission was not considered an adequate safeguard against poll-men passing the Previous in their first term, it was generally accepted that this privilege ought to be granted to tripos candidates if it could be protected against abuse; and as this problem still awaited solution, the Council of the Senate proposed a Grace for the reappointment of the Syndicate to consider "the times of holding the Previous Examination and the standing of the candidates ".3 This was a bad blunder on their part. They were not justified in treating the question of the time of year at which the Previous should beheld as still open, as the Senate had twice approved the recommendation of the late Syndicate that it should take place in the Michaelmas and Easter terms; and as regards the standing of the candidates, they had themselves the power, as John Peile of Christ's pointed out, "to repair the formal incompleteness of the present scheme" and ought to exercise it, instead of recalling a hardworked Syndicate into existence.4 It is not surprising that they did not wish to deal with such a very contentious matter; but their attempt to evade the 1 3 4

2 University Reporter, 4 December 1872. Ibid. 11 February 1873. Ibid. 25 February 1873. Peile issued, a non-placet notice, dated 25 February 1873. University Papers, E.R. 51.

172

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

task failed, as at a poorly attended Congregation on 27 February their Grace was rejected by twenty to fifteen votes.1 The Council were therefore obliged to shoulder a burden which they would willingly have left to others. Accepting as final the decision of the Senate that the Previous should be held in the Michaelmas and Easter terms, they concentrated their attention upon the other far more difficult question. When on 3 March they first discussed it, Robert Burn announced his intention of moving at their next meeting, which was to take place on 6 March, that undergraduates might enter for the Previous in their first or any later term of residence, but that if they were in their first term, they should not be counted to have passed any part of it unless they had satisfied the examiners in both parts and also in the Additional Subjects. But as many able tripos candidates, unless mathematicians, might be unable to fulfil these conditions, the Master of Clare, when the Council met again on 6 March, suggested that it would be enough if candidates in their first term were required to pass both parts, and, unless they had done so, not be counted to have passed the Additional Subjects if they had entered for them. This proposal bore less hardly upon tripos candidates, but as it was thought to open a door to poll-men, it was rejected on 10 March in favour of that sponsored by Burn, though only by two votes, with three members of the Council not voting.2 Therefore the Grace approved by the Council for submission to the Senate on 1 May provided that both parts of the Previous and the Additional Subjects should "be open to all matriculated students in their second or any later term of residence, who have previously kept one term "; and that matriculated students in their first term might present themselves for examination, but should not be held to have passed either part of the Previous Examination or the Examination in "the Additional Subjects, unless they shall be approved in both parts, and also in the Additional Examination of candidates for Honours"; 3 and as it passed the Senate by thirty-seven votes to ten, the Council may be credited with having judged the weight of academic opinion correctly. But as Luard pointed out in a non-placet notice which he issued, they had been guilty of the great omission of not having fixed "the period in an undergraduate's career when, if he has not passed the Previous Examination, he must go into it". 4 This was certainly a serious defect. Under the regulations in force undergraduates were required to sit for the examination in the first Michaelmas term after the completion of their second term; and unless there was some such provision, the wealthy idler, indifferent to a 1 2 3 4

University Reporter, 4 March 1873. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 3, 6 and. 10 March 1873. University Reporter, 6 May 1873. Luard's non-placet notice is dated 29 April 1873. University Papers, E.R. 51.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

I73

degree and happy in an indulgent Tutor, might spend three or more years at the University without even attempting to pass the Previous. But in fairness to the Council it should be added that the Syndicate had been guilty of the same omission. It was a greater fault however to safeguard the supposed interests of candidates for the ordinary degree by refusing to facilitate the passage of the Previous by honours men in their first term of residence; but after a few years it became impossible to maintain the restrictive conditions imposed. But it was almost by a happy accident that this came about. In the winter of 18 70-1 a conference of schoolmasters held at Sherborne appointed a committee, consisting of the headmasters of some of the leading Public Schools;* and its chairman, the Headmaster of Winchester, asked the Vice-Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge whether the two Universities would appoint representatives to confer with them. The invitation was accepted, and in March 1871 the Senate approved the appointment of a Syndicate for the purpose.2 In the June following this Syndicate issued a report in which they recommended that the University should undertake to examine the Highest Grade Schools and award certificates; and that "means be taken for establishing an agreement with the other English Universities as to the standard for certificates". After the Senate had approved this report in November 1871, the Syndicate proceeded to confer with representatives of the University of Oxford; and by March 1873 they were far enough advanced to submit a definite scheme to the Senate. They recommended the appointment of a permanent Syndicate to supervise the arrangements for the school examinations, and that it should be authorised, "for the purpose of co-operation with other Universities,.. .to confer with any delegacies or committees of such Universities, and to prepare for adoption by the Senate such regulations, as may seem to them desirable, for securing combined action".3 These recommendations were not opposed, and the report passed the Senate on 1 May 1873.4 The Syndicate thus established quickly set to work. They asked to be allowed to arrange with the Oxford delegates for the creation of a Joint Board, "with a view of securing combined action in the inspection and examination of schools"; and their request was granted. 5 And in November 1873 the Vice-Chancellor was able to announce in his speech on resigning office that the scheme, "in conjunction with the University of Oxford, for 1 The committee consisted of the Headmasters of Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Cheltenham, Clifton, City of London, Repton, Sherborne and Uppingham. 2 University Reporter, 15 and 22 March 1871. 3 4 Ibid. 22 April 1873. Ibid. 6 May 1873. 5 Ibid. 10 June 1873.

174

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

superintending the examination of the principal schools throughout the kingdom, and for granting certificates by means of a Joint Board,.. .is so far matured that the formation of the Board is virtually completed, and a first meeting summoned for the present week". 1 Thus the Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board, commonly known as the Joint Board, came into existence, and was" welcomed as a valuable link between the Universities and the schools. But the schoolmasters were not satisfied. They well knew that healthy-minded schoolboys do not love learning for its own sake, and would not therefore take the examinations seriously, unless the certificates awarded upon them conferred a substantial advantage; and the Headmasters' Conference, which was held in the winter of 1873, agreed to inform the Vice-Chancellors of the two Universities that they earnestly hoped "that a definite University value may be given to the proposed certificate",2 or in other words that the certificates should give total or partial exemption from the Cambridge Previous and Oxford Responsions. It was an awkward request for a University which had only recently decided that its undergraduates, if they sat for the Previous in their first term, must pass both parts of it and the Additional Subjects; and when the Council of the Senate were informed of it by the Vice-Chancellor on 9 February 1874, they were undoubtedly embarrassed. They sought the advice of the Schools Examination Syndicate, but any hope of help from that quarter was dashed by the Syndicate's reply that they "had no power to consider the question which it raised". And at a loss to know what to do, they agreed on 2 March, with more prudence than valour, to postpone further consideration of the question, "until it was quite certain whether the University of Oxford had consented to give such value or not".3 They had not long to wait. When they met a fortnight later they knew that Oxford had decided to take action on the schoolmasters' resolution, and being now without any excuse for delay, they appointed a committee of four to consider "what University value, if any, should be given to certificates of the Schools Examination Board". 4 A week later the committee's report was before them. It recommended that a Joint Board certificate should exempt from Part I of the Previous if it showed that the holder had passed in Greek, Latin and Scripture, from Part II if it showed that he had passed in elementary and additional mathematics and with distinction in Scripture, and from the Additional Subjects if it showed that he had passed with distinction in mathematics. The committee also recommended that the holder of a certificate, 1 2 3

University Reporter, 4 November 1873. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 9 February 1874. 4 Ibid. 2 March 1874. Ibid. 16 March 1874.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

175

when presenting it, should "pay the fee required for that part of the examination from which the certificate excuses him". 1 With the exception of the last recommendation the Council approved the report, but apparently did not think it necessary to propose at the same time that the conditions on which undergraduates might pass the Previous in their first term should be modified. This omission is inexcusable, for if schoolboys could obtain exemption from the Previous, why should difficulties be put in the way of undergraduates passing it at the earliest opportunity? But, though inexcusable, the omission is not difficult to explain. Though the Council felt constrained to follow the example of Oxford, they did not wish to rekindle the ashes of a recent controversy. And it was not their only omission. When the Local Examinations Syndicate heard of the resolution of the Headmasters' Conference, they petitioned the Council to examine the possibility of a University value being given to the certificate awarded on the Local Examinations; but though this request came from a Syndicate of the University, the Council did not even consider it.2 The Council's report was very sharply criticised when it was discussed on 18 April. Luard described it as "the most revolutionary proposal made to the University in his experience", for as the Joint Board examiners were not appointed by the Senate, "it put a University examination out of the hands of the University". G. F. Browne was also very indignant, and with good reason, for he was the Secretary of the Local Examinations Syndicate: he accused the Council of asking "the Senate to declare that while its own Local Examination could not provide certificates good enough for the proposed purpose, as soon as Oxford gave its moral and material help the resulting certificates would be abundantly sufficient". Another speaker put the awkward question why a privilege denied to resident undergraduates should be conceded to schoolboys, and also argued that as the Joint Board could at their discretion rescind or vary the regulations under which their examinations were held, it was possible that the certificates which were to qualify for exemption might be more easily obtainable than at present. This latter objection was rather captious, for, as Ferrers remarked, the Joint Board was unlikely capriciously to change regulations upon which they had spent some time, and if they unexpectedly did so, "the Senate could at any time withdraw its acceptance of the certificates".3 It was moreover an objection that could be easily met, and the Grace for the confirmation of the Council's report expressly provided that the grant of "a University value" to the certificates awarded by the Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination 1 2 3

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 23 March 1874. Ibid. 23 March 1874. University Reporter, 21 April 1874.

I76

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

Board depended upon the conditions of their award remaining unchanged.1 Yet, in spite of much hostile and justified criticism, the Grace for the confirmation of the report passed the Senate by sixty-two to fifteen votes, and there was one argument of overwhelming force in favour of adopting it. Though it was obviously wrong in principle that schoolboys should receive preferential treatment, it was equally obvious that if the University did not follow the lead of Oxford, it would probably be punished by a serious fall in the number of its undergraduates. Boys who had gained school certificates would naturally go to the University where those certificates could be profitably used; and as the standard of the certificate examination was higher than that of the Previous, not only more, but the cleverer, schoolboys might prefer Oxford to Cambridge. The Council, when they issued their report, had not however intended that undergraduates, who by means of a school certificate had obtained partial exemption from the Previous before beginning residence, should be able to pass the remainder of the examination in their first term; but as they had not definitely said so, the report was interpreted by some as allowing it.2 To remove this misunderstanding the Council issued a report in May 1874, which recommended that "the holder of a certificate excusing him from either part of the Previous Examination, or from the Examination in the Additional Subjects, shall not be permitted to pass in one part only of the Previous Examination, or in the Additional Subjects only, or in one part only of the Examination together with the Additional Subjects, in his first term of residence"; and as this report escaped all criticism when submitted for discussion, and the Grace confirming it passed the Senate unopposed, it presumably was very generally approved.3 Nor is it difficult to understand its success. A boy, unlikely to aspire to more than an ordinary degree, might possibly be able, while still at school, to obtain a certificate exempting him from one part of the Previous; and to allow him to pass the other part in his first term offended against the principle, so stoutly maintained, that the pollman ought not to be free from the Previous before the end of his first year.4 Once again tripos candidates were sacrificed to what were supposed to be the needs of the weaker brethren: if they had only obtained partial exemption 1

University Reporter, 5 May 1874; Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 4 May 1874. As Responsions was an undivided examination, the question of partial exemption did notarise. 3 University Reporter, 26 May, 9 June 1874. 4 An ordinary degree candidate who obtained total exemption before coming into residence would no doubt present a grave problem, but the risk, of this happening was negligible. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

177

from the Previous before coming into residence, they gained no advantage thereby if they sat for the examination in their first term of residence. Nor were tripos candidates the only sufferers. Undergraduates reading medicine, who had not obtained total exemption from the Previous while still at school, had a greater grievance. Though not candidates for honours, they were obliged, if they sat for the Previous in their first term, to pass in the Additional Subjects as well as in both parts; * and this was a hardship, as their course of study was exacting and demanded all their time and attention. Consequently in November 1874 the Board of Medical Studies recommended that "a medical student be allowed to offer himself for either or both parts of the Previous Examination in his first term of residence, without being required to pass in the Additional Subjects".2 When this proposal was discussed on the following 3 December it was urged in support of it that though poll-men might lapse into idleness if they passed the Previous in their first term, this was not true of medical students, who "had to study so many new and interesting subjects that they were obliged to keep steadily at work, and as a rule did so". This was a sound argument, and the objections raised that the concession proposed had the taint of "class legislation", and deprived the Cambridge medical course of that cultural character which was its distinguishing feature, were not worthy of being taken seriously. But Coutts Trotter was not unreasonable in accusing the Medical Board of asking for more than they were entitled to receive. He pointed out that to allow medical students to pass one part only of the Previous in their first term was giving them very favoured treatment, and suggested that it would be enough if they were excused the Additional Subjects.3 The Board accepted his advice, and in an amended report, which appeared in January 1875, recommended that "a matriculated medical student in his first term of residence be allowed to present himself for the Previous Examination, without being required to pass in the Additional Subjects, but shall not be held to have passed either part of the examination unless he shall be approved in both parts". 4 They acted wisely in moderating their claims, as the revised report passed the Senate unopposed on 4 February 1875.$ This change in the regulations was of no great importance in itself, as it only affected a comparatively small number of men; but it served to draw attention to the disparity of treatment accorded to schoolboys and undergraduates. And this disparity became still more glaring when the University, 1

If they sat for the Previous later than their first term, they were required to pass in algebra in either the Additional Subjects or in the General Examination, but in algebra only. This regulation was repealed on 4 February 1875. 2 3 University Reporter, 1 December 1874. Ibid. 8 December 1874. 4 5 Ibid. 26 January 1875. Ibid. 9 February 1875.

I78

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

again following the lead of Oxford, agreed in 1877 that the certificates awarded by the Local Examinations Syndicate should also qualify for exemption from the Previous, as the number of exemptions, both total and partial, consequently increased.1 Indeed a position, defended far too long and too stubbornly, was becoming untenable; but the end came with unexpected suddenness. In February 1879 the Board of Examinations2 published a report in which they recommended that matriculated students should be allowed "to present themselves for examination in Part I or Part II or in the Additional Subjects in their first or any later term of residence"; 3 and, instead of arousing a bitter controversy, this recommendation was accepted without a murmur of dissent. It escaped criticism when it was brought forward for discussion on 1 April, and passed the Senate unopposed.4 The truth had at last dawned upon men's minds that the necessity of keeping the poll-men employed was not a sufficient excuse for delaying the candidates for honours from embarking upon studies which they had come to the University to pursue. But the problem of reconciling the conflicting educational needs of the poll-man and the honours man was always likely to arise whenever a substantial change in the Previous Examination regulations was suggested; and the revival of the question of compulsory Greek brought it again to the fore. In the Michaelmas term of 1878 the Vice-Chancellor received a memorial, signed by several headmasters, scientists and distinguished literary men,5 asking the University authorities "to take into consideration some means whereby candidates for an Honours Degree may be relieved from the obligation of passing an examination in Greek", as this requirement excluded "a large and increasing number of able and deserving students from the benefits of a University education".6 And as the University could not safely ignore a request so influentially supported, the Senate approved a Grace on 20 March 1879 for the appointment of a Syndicate to consider the memorial and the questions arising from it. 7 Twelve months elapsed before the Syndicate published a report, and the long delay was unavoidable. It was at least doubtful whether many clever 1

University Reporter, 13 and 20 March, 17 April 1877. Part V of the revised report of the Syndicate appointed in March 1871 "to consider the regulations for the Previous Examination and the General Examination" recommended the appointment of a Board of Examinations for the superintendence of these two examinations, and this recommendation was approved by the Senate on 6 February 1873. 3 4 University Reporter, 4 March 1879. Ibid. 17 April, 20 May 1879. 5 Among the signatories were the Headmasters of Eton, Harrow, Winchester and Westminster, Thomas Carlyle, Matthew Arnold, Sir George Trevelyan, Lord Houghton, Darwin, Huxley, Tyndall and Dean Stanley. 6 7 University Reporter, 7 December 1878. Ibid. 25 March 1879. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

I79

boys were precluded from a University education by their ignorance of Greek, as the attempt of the Endowed Schools Commissioners to establish schools, in which Greek was not taught, had not been very successful, and the modern sides created in some of the Public Schools were under grave suspicion of being the refuge of the idle and unintelligent; and therefore the Syndicate, instead of accepting without question the assertion of the memorialists, asked a large number of headmasters and assistant masters to express an opinion on the educational value of Greek as a school subject, and on the probability of a substantial increase in the number of boys proceeding to the Universities if an elementary knowledge of that language was not required of them. The task of considering the numerous replies to this inquiry took time, and it was not until March 1880 that the Syndicate were able to issue a report. But as five of its seventeen members refused to sign it, the delay may have been partly due to lively and protracted discussions. The majority however were of the opinion that "the existing obligation to satisfy the Examiners for the Previous Examination both in Greek and Latin, excludes from the University a number of able and industrious students"; and they therefore recommended that candidates for honours should be allowed to offer French and German in lieu of one of the two classical languages. But as they did not wish to leave a door open for men who might attempt to obtain an ordinary degree through a tripos, because they could thereby escape either Latin or Greek, the Syndicate recommended that no one should be exempted from either of the classical languages in the Previous, unless he had passed an examination in either mathematics, Latin, Greek, French, German or elementary physics. The question whether this examination, which was to be of a distinctly higher standard than the Previous, should be substituted for the Additional Subjects Examination was left open.1 It is not necessary to describe in detail the very lengthy discussion which this report received on 30 April 1880, as many of the arguments advanced against it had seen service on former occasions. The principal target of attack was the Syndicate's claim to have restricted the remission of Latin or Greek to serious students. The examination that was intended to prevent the pollman from masquerading as an honours candidate, was described as a clumsy and ineffective expedient;2 and consequently the Syndicate abandoned it when they revised their report, alleging that "the limitation of the relaxation to the case of candidates for honours only, will be secured if, while the relaxation is granted without restriction to candidates for the Previous Examination, both the classical languages continue to be obligatory in the General Examination''. 3 But this was, to say the least, doubtful,4 as was also the belief that 1 3

University Reporter, 9 April 1880. Ibid. 15 June 1880.

z 4

Ibid. 4 May 1880. See p. 165.

180

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

there were a considerable number of able boys who did not come to the University because they did not know Greek. It is of some interest that when the amended report was discussed, Professor Westcott said that he had formerly supported a similar recommendation, having been then convinced that Greek would soon cease to be taught in many schools; but that as "the evidence now before the University afforded no sufficient confirmation of the a priori expectation", he had changed his mind.1 The report was brought before the Senate on n November, and if its fate had been left exclusively in the hands of resident members of the Senate, it might have passed, as academic opinion seems to have been fairly equally divided on its merits. The fact that it had been signed by W. H. Thompson and his successor in the Greek Chair2 might well assist to allay anxiety about its effects upon the teaching of Greek in schools; and it was certainly not at all obvious that any good purpose was served by a young man just scraping up enough Greek or Latin to pass the Previous. On the other hand the fear that "Oxford would probably retain Greek and, if so, the classical sides of schools would go to Oxford, and the modern sides of schopls would come to Cambridge", 3 the danger of lowering the standard of the honours courses by encouraging poll-men to sit for them, and the justified doubt whether Greek was a dying subject in schools, might induce members of the Senate to pause before taking a leap in the dark. It is impossible to say which set of arguments would have prevailed if the decision had been left to residents; but we learn that "many members of the Senate came long distances to take part in the division on n November", 4 and these immigrants may have largely contributed to the rejection of the report by 185 to 145 votes.5 This is only a surmise, but certainly neither of the two discussions of the report had foreshadowed such a decisive defeat. During the ten years from 1870 much time and trouble had been expended on the Previous; and though many of the recommendations for improving it had not been accepted, it had not escaped change. It had been divided into two parts, schoolboys might obtain exemption from it, and undergraduates were allowed to pass it, either wholly or partly, in their first term. But most of these reforms mainly affected candidates for honours, and had little bearing upon the ordinary degree course, which continued to consist of the General Examination followed by a Special Examination. And the only serious objection taken to it was on account of the obligation upon all the candidates, 1

University Reporter, 2 November 1880. Though Professor Kennedy had withheld his approval from certain sections of the report, he had signed the recommendation that "the existing obligation to satisfy the examiners for the Previous Examination in the two classical languages be relaxed in certain cases". 3 4 University Reporter, 4 May 1880. Cambridge Chronicle, 13 November 1880. 5 University Reporter, 16 November 1880. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

l8l

before sitting for a Special, to attend a course of lectures given by a Professor. Many regarded this to be degrading to the Professor and a waste of the candidates' time; and in the spring of 1875 a memorial, which was signed by several Professors and other members of the Senate, was presented to the Council, urging the repeal of this regulation, "We, the undersigned Tutors, Lecturers, Officers and resident Fellows of Colleges", it ran, "beg leave respectfully to represent to the Council of the Senate that the regulation, which requires the attendance of candidates for the Ordinary Bachelor of Arts' degree on a course of Professor's lectures, is in our opinion injurious both to the undergraduates and the Professors, and calculated to bring discredit on the University. By the undergraduates it must be looked on as a mere form, since they are required to attend lectures which they are not qualified to appreciate, or else the Professors are compelled to lower the quality of their lectures to suit the capacity of their audience, and so must have their time, which should be given to the pursuit of higher studies, seriously interfered with... .We therefore venture to ask the Council to propose a Grace to the Senate for abolishing the present regulation."l Instead of taking the rather drastic action suggested, the Council brought forward, and the Senate passed, a Grace for the appointment of a Syndicate "to consider the question of the compulsory attendance of candidates for the Ordinary Bachelor of Arts' degree at the lectures of certain Professors" ; 2 and at an early stage of their proceedings the Syndicate requested the Professors concerned to express an opinion on the question under discussion. The response to this appeal was disappointing, as only seven or eight of the Professors replied, and most of those who did so expressed a wish for the regulation to remain in force. And two of the answers seem greatly to have impressed the Syndicate. Lightfoot and Fawcett both said that "they found the presence of candidates for the ordinary degree no difficulty at all, and that they thought it would be a very great disadvantage if the provision requiring the attendance of such men was cancelled".3 But the Syndicate, though impressed, were not convinced that all, or even many, of the Professors were as successful with poll-men as Lightfoot and Fawcett, though prepared to believe that some of them might be. They therefore took refuge in a compromise, and in their report, which appeared in March 1876, they recommended that if in any year there should not be a sufficient number of Professors whose lectures were suitable for poll-men, 1 University Papers, H.C. 1. The memorial, which is dated 30 April 1875, was re-issued in the following November with more than 130 signatures appended to it. z

3

University Reporter, 7 December 1875.

See Dr Bateson's speech when the Syndicate's report was discussed on 5 May 1876.

University Reporter, 9 May 1876.

182

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

other lecturers should be nominated, "whose lectures shall be taken as equivalent for this purpose to the lectures of a Professor". Attendance at these lectures, as well as those of the Professors, was to be compulsory.1 When the report was discussed on 5 May objection was taken to the University, though not to a college, compelling undergraduates to attend lectures, but greater stress was laid upon the degradation inflicted on Professors. But some of the Professors, who attended the discussion, denied that they were aware of the shame they were supposed to suffer. Professor Liveing said that it would be a far greater degradation to a Professor not to be interested "in making his subject known among the students of the University"; and Swainson, the Norrisian Professor of Divinity, declared that he considered the attendance of poll-men at his lectures a positive advantage, as it encouraged him to take pains in elucidating difficulties.2 But the most impressive tribute to the report was paid by a member of the Syndicate, James Porter of Peterhouse. He said that he had signed the memorial to the Council, but regretted having done so "after attending the meetings of the Syndicate and hearing the letters of Dr Lightfoot and Professor Fawcett", and he expressed the belief that many of the other signatories would also have recanted if they had enjoyed his advantages.3 The report indeed deserved to pass. It allowed, but did not compel, a Professor to continue to lecture to candidates for the ordinary degree; and as long as some Professors were convinced that they thereby rendered a valuable service, they might reasonably be permitted to do so. And it was not from any tender feeling for the dignity of the professorial body that the Senate on 18 May rejected the report by eighty-three votes to twenty-four.4 It may fairly be assumed that college feeling was the decisive factor. It was a long-standing belief that the instruction of undergraduates appertained to the colleges, and though it had degenerated into a superstition with regard to poll-men, who relied to a very great extent upon the services of private tutors, it was none the less potent. The compulsory attendance of candidates for the ordinary degree at the lectures of Professors was therefore considered to be an encroachment on a domain of the colleges, and on this account the report was not approved. Such a decisive vote gave a very definite lead to a new Syndicate which was appointed in December 1876 to consider the same question, and they accepted it. 5 The main recommendation of their report, which appeared in the fol1

University Reporter, 4 April 1876. Professor Clark was of a different opinion. He said that "he wished to relieve himself from the attendance of men who could not understand his lectures". Also Swainson, judging from a fly-sheet which he issued in May 1877, seems to have modified his opinion. University Papers, D.C. 8550. 3 4 5 University Reporter, 9 May 1876. Ibid. 23 May 1876. Ibid. 12 January 1877. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

183

lowing February, was that "any Professor or University Lecturer, who intends to give a course of lectures suited to the requirements of candidates for the ordinary Bachelor of Arts' Degree, should.. .send a notice to the Tutors of colleges,.. .stating the subject of his lectures,.. .and that the Tutors... should on their part send to each Professor or Lecturer a list of their pupils whom they have recommended to attend his lectures".1 Thus it was for the college Tutor to decide whether his pupils should attend the lectures of a Professor, and the Syndicate must have known what that decision in most cases would be. College Tutors, taught by bitter experience how unreasonable some parents can be, and how prone to exaggerate the ability of their children, are apt to put examination requirements first and foremost, and to look askance upon lectures not specially designed to meet them; and they knew that they would sleep more quietly in their beds if they had sent their poll-men to a "crammer" instead of to a Professor. Consequently the Syndicate's report can fairly be described as a sentence of death upon the instruction of ordinary degree candidates by Professors. And this accounts for its favourable reception when it was discussed on 1 March 1877. But it was not unchallenged. A member of the Syndicate, G. F. Browne, who had formerly approved the memorial which had started the controversy but had now changed his mind, attacked the report with all the zeal of a convert. Even if poll-men, he said, were not always able fully to appreciate a professorial lecture, they at least might catch a glimpse of true learning, and might possibly be educated by the Professor into understanding him. And if they were such intellectual vermin, incapable of the slightest mental effort, and even incapable of conducting themselves with propriety in a lecture-room, might not, he asked, the country inquire whether the University was justified in annually awarding two or three hundred of these pariahs a degree which was popularly supposed to be a stamp of learning? Another member of the Syndicate, C. E. Searle of Pembroke, also protested. He asserted that the facts were not as the memorial had represented them: "He had gone to the Syndicate prepared to remove a grievance if it existed, but he found that there was no grievance at all."2 It was arranged that the report, which had been slightly amended after the discussion, should be brought before the Senate on 3 May; and before that day Lightfoot, who had not been able to attend the discussion, published a pamphlet, in which he refuted some of the arguments advanced in favour of the report. He asserted that the divinity Professors were not alone in welcoming poll-men at their lectures; 3 and that he knew several instances of men 1

2 University Reporter, 27 February 1877. Ibid. 6 March 1877. The Syndicate had contended in their report that the divinity Professors were in an exceptional position, as candidates for ordination were required to attend their lectures. 3

184

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

who had begun by attending a Professor's lectures under compulsion, and, having acquired an interest in the subject, had attended other courses voluntarily. But his main purpose was to voice a passionate protest against the grossly unfair treatment accorded to Professors. "I suppose", he said, "that most of those, into whose hands this paper is likely to fall, are prepared to defend the principle of compulsory attendance as applied to college lectures But, if so, why is compulsion to stop short at the colleges, and why should it not be extended to the University? We have heard it said that the professorial system has failed. I reply, you have never given it a chance. You have applied a regular and persistent compulsion to your undergraduate in favour of college lectures, requiring him to go to one or two daily throughout the greater part of his career, and he is assumed to be by nature such a lecture-loving animal that if over and above these compulsory attendances he does not of his own free-will make his way to the Professor's lecture-room, the fault, forsooth, must lie with the Professor. In other words, you have laid on the professorial goods a heavy duty which is practically prohibitive, and then you cry out that they must be very inferior because they cannot compete with your own collegiate manufacture. How else can it be explained that the same man, who as a college lecturer has had a crowded room, on becoming a University Professor finds his audience dwindle away at once, though he delivers precisely the same class of lectures, and though he draws now from the whole University instead of from a single college? I was more fortunate than many, yet (notwithstanding the limited compulsion applied by the University and the Bishops) I found my audience at once reduced to less than half the former numbers when I became a University Professor. During the later courses of my college lecturing I was obliged to deliver my lectures on Greek Testament twice, because there was no room nearly large enough for my hearers. During my earlier courses as a University Professor a single room in college was amply sufficient, and to spare, for my audience."I This protest of a Professor, who was conspicuous for his love of learning and his eminence in research, availed nothing, as the report passed the Senate by ninety-eight votes to thirty-eight; 2 and though it may have been well that the Professors should be relieved of a duty which less competent scholars could perform equally well, there is some foundation for the suspicion that the majority on this occasion were mainly interested in restricting the participation of the University in the instruction of undergraduates. The reputation of the University as an educational institution during the period under survey must however stand or fall by the changes which it made in the honours courses; and it does not fail to satisfy this test. The triposes, 1 J. B. Lightfoot, On the Proposed Grace for abolishing Compulsory attendance at Professors* Lectures (1 May 1877). 2 University Reporter, 8 May 1877.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

185

which had been established before i860, underwent reforms which were also improvements; and it became possible for undergraduates to take honours in subjects which had been hitherto neglected: theology was not the only study which was raised to the dignity of a tripos.1 But this work was not unimpeded. The history of the Moral Sciences and the Natural Sciences Triposes shows that it was often very difficult for a new subject to gain a footing, and that it was not always possible to introduce changes in either the Mathematical or the Classical Tripos without evoking violent opposition. The Moral and the Natural Sciences Triposes had been established by Graces which the Senate had passed on 31 October 1848. Honours could be awarded upon them but not a degree, and no one could sit for them unless he had passed all the examinations and performed all the exercises required for admission to a first degree in either arts, law or medicine. The names of the candidates who qualified for honours were arranged in three classes, and their order was "determined by estimating the aggregate merits of each of the candidates in all the subjects of the examination". And the subjects were many. Moral philosophy, political economy, modern history, general jurisprudence and the laws of England were included in the Moral Sciences Tripos, and anatomy, comparative anatomy, physiology, chemistry, botany and geology in the Natural Sciences Tripos.2 In accordance with the scheme approved by the Senate in October 1848, the two examinations were held in die Lent term, and as the examinations for admission to the degree of Bachelors of Arts were held in the same term, it was absurd and practically prohibitive of serious study to prescribe that only those candidates were eligible for honours who sat for the examinations at the first opportunity after having become qualified for admission to the Bachelor of Arts' degree. But the mistake was sufficiently glaring to be soon remedied. In April 1851 a Syndicate, appointed to consider changes "in the regulations which fix the standing of candidates for honours in the Moral Sciences Tripos and Natural Sciences Tripos", reported that as the time allowed to prepare for these examinations was obviously inadequate, it would be advisable if, "without disturbing the existing regulation, by which all students, who have passed the examinations for the Bachelor of Arts* degree, are allowed to be candidates for honours in the new triposes next succeeding such examinations, such students shall also be allowed to be candidates for honours in each of the new triposes next but one succeeding such examinations ".3 The Senate passed 1

2 See p. 163. Mineralogy was added a little later. The Syndicate further recommended that "students who shall have passed the examinations and k,ept the exercises required for the degree of Bachelor of Law or Bachelor of Medicine be allowed to become candidates for honours in.. .the fourth Lent term and fifth Lent term after the completion of their first term", and that students of different years should be separately classed. University Papers, D.C. 5650. 3

186

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (186O-1880)

this report which probably went as far as it was safe to go: if only Bachelors of the fifth year, or Middle Bachelors as they were styled, had been permitted to enter for the two examinations, the number of candidates might have fallen to zero. But as long as they did not qualify for a degree, neither tripos was likely to attract many candidates; and it certainly does not redound to the credit of the University that a recommendation of the Studies Syndicate that they should do so was rejected by the Senate in 1854. But though discreditable, the Senate's action is not inexplicable, being clearly inspired by the wish not to submit mathematics or classics to a dangerous and undesirable rivalry. For it was commonly believed that both the new triposes, and particularly the Moral Sciences Tripos, encouraged what an unnamed Professor described as a "shabby superficiality of knowledge"; 1 and though this estimate of their value seems nowadays grotesquely untrue, it had some justification at the time. Both triposes comprised many subjects, and as the candidates were not compelled, or even encouraged, to concentrate upon a few of them, they assumed, and probably correctly, that the easiest way of obtaining marks was to cover as much ground as possible, and to aim "rather at doing many things badly than a few things well". 2 And the regulations also encouraged superficiality in another way. They prescribed that the Professors of Moral Philosophy, Modern History, the Laws of England, Pohtical Economy and Civil Law should be the ex-officio examiners for the Moral Sciences Tripos, and that the Professors of Physic, Chemistry, Anatomy, Botany and Geology should be the ex-officio examiners for the Natural Sciences Tripos; and although for each tripos an additional examiner was nominated by the ViceChancellor and appointed by the Senate, the examinations were mainly conducted by the Professors whose lectures the candidates had attended. This provision was due partly to the difficulty of finding other examiners, and partly to a desire to increase the attendance at professorial lectures; but the inevitable result was that the candidates were inclined to content themselves with "cramming" their lecture-notes. The Moral Sciences Tripos was in particularly evil repute. There were rumours that it could be passed, and even a first class obtained in it, on very little work; and Luard, who had examined for it, expressed his disgust with the ignorance and lack of intelligence of the candidates. 3 Also many persons were convinced that some of the subjects of the examination, and in par1

A fly-sheet by W . G. Clark, 22 February: the year is not given, but it was probably i860; University Papers, D.C. 5650. 2 J. B. Mayor, Remarks on the Proposal to grant the Degree ofB.A. to Persons who have obtained Honours in the Moral Sciences Tripos. This pamphlet is undated, but it probably appeared in i860. 3 Ibid.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o~l88o)

187

ticular moral philosophy, were unworthy of serious study. What, they asked, is the value of knowing that "Aristotle defined virtue in this way, and Plato in that, that one maintained the existence of the moral sense, and the other of the practical reason?'* And then they proceeded to contend that by the study of moral philosophy a student merely acquired the contemptible art of remembering arguments without understanding them. It was even suggested that an undergraduate, who found the ordinary degree course too exacting, might do well to fall back on the Moral Sciences Tripos, though it was unlikely, as J. B. Mayor remarked, that anyone would offer such advice who had ever tried "to drive Butler's Analogy into the heads of poll-men".1 The Natural Sciences Tripos was in less disfavour, but neither tripos was considered to have justified its existence. They certainly had not proved attractive. During the first nine years only sixty-six men had taken honours in moral sciences, and only forty-three in natural sciences; and in i860 there were no candidates for the Moral Sciences Tripos.2 Yet as this paucity of candidates might be mainly due to faulty regulations, the Senate in October 1859 approved a Grace for the appointment of a Syndicate "to consider whether any changes should be made in the regulations concerning the Moral Sciences Tripos and the Natural Sciences Tripos". The Syndicate reported in the following December. They recommended that both examinations should be held in the Michaelmas, and not as heretofore in the Lent, term, that a pass with honours in either of them should qualify for admission to the degree of Bachelor of Arts; and that any undergraduate was eligible to sit for them who had not kept less than seven or more than ten terms by residence.3 With the intention of discouraging the practice of snatching marks, the Syndicate also recommended that "no credit be assigned to a student in any subject, unless it appears to the examiners that he has shown a competent knowledge of that subject", or, in other words, that marks below a certain minimum were not to count; and another improvement suggested was the establishment of a Board of Moral Science Studies and a Board of Natural Science Studies, empowered to devise a scheme for the conduct of the examinations and to appoint examiners. The Syndicate further recommended that as there was now a Law Tripos, mental philosophy should be substituted for English law in the Moral Sciences Tripos.4 The Syndicate evidently believed that the failure of the two triposes was 1

J. B. Mayor, Remarks on the Proposal to grant the Degree ofB.A, to Persons who have obtained Honours in the Moral Sciences Tripos. 2 A fly-sheet by J. B. Mayor, 3 December 1859. University Papers, D.C. 5650. 3 The practice of classifying candidates of different years separately was abandoned, but students who had obtained honours in the Mathematical or Classical Tripos could sit for either of the examinations in the following Michaelmas term. 4 University Papers, D.C. 5650.

188

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

mainly due to faulty legislation, and, as W. G. Clark remarked in a fly-sheet, that the disease from which they suffered was functional and not organic.1 And the proposed amendments of the regulations might reasonably be expected to have a beneficial effect. More undergraduates would probably take the examinations if by passing them they could obtain a degree, and the standard of work might rise if no credit was given for it when it was below a certain level. But some members of the Senate did not think that the triposes were worth saving. When the Syndicate's report was discussed on 9 February i860, one speaker denied that either of them had any educational value, and another described them as soft options.* These assertions did not pass unchallenged, but they do not seem to have been very effectively refuted by the defenders of the Moral Sciences Tripos; after the discussion J. B. Mayor anticipated that the Senate would only approve the regulations proposed for the Natural Sciences Tripos.3 He was unduly pessimistic, for on 23 February i860 the new regulations for both triposes were approved by the Senate;4 and a few weeks later the two Boards of Studies, thereby created, supplemented the Syndicate's work. Though the regulation which prescribed that marks below a certain minimum should not be included in the total reduced the danger of candidates passing the examination on a minimum of knowledge, it was not a safeguard against the possibility of the better equipped candidates, in the hope of amassing marks, preferring to acquire a superficial knowledge of all the subjects of the Tripos instead of concentrating on a few of them; and in May i860 the two Boards issued reports which were intended to check this tendency. The Moral Sciences candidates were informed that by confining themselves to two subjects they were not precluded from obtaining a first class; and the Natural Sciences candidates were informed that no one would be placed in the first class who had not shown considerable proficiency in either chemistry, mineralogy, geology, botany or in at least two divisions of a subject which was described as zoology with comparative anatomy and comparative physiology. 5 But as the regulation, common to both triposes, that the order of merit should be determined "by estimating the aggregate merits of each student in all the subjects of examination" continued in force, these new regulations were of slight account and to a great extent ineffective. And this was particularly true of the Moral Sciences Tripos which included 1

2 University Papers, D.C. 5650. Cambridge Chronicle, 11 February i860. J. B. Mayor, Remarks on the Proposal to grant the Degree ojfB.A. to Persons who have obtained Honours in the Moral Sciences Tripos. 4 Cambridge Chronicle, 25 February i860. There was no opposition to the regulations for the Natural Sciences Tripos, but there was a division on those for the Moral Sciences Tripos, which were carried by ninety-seven votes to twenty-four. 5 University Papers, D.C. 5650. 3

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

189

many widely different subjects of extensive range; and the Board of Moral Science Studies, desiring to make it more uniform, recommended in March 1867 that history and jurisprudence should be omitted from the tripos, and that political philosophy, which had hitherto been grouped with history, should be connected with moral philosophy. The Board explained that history had proved to be "the least satisfactory portion of the examination, the subject being too extensive to be properly dealt with as a subordinate branch of the Moral Sciences Tripos" and that jurisprudence naturally belonged to the Law Tripos, where it already had a place. And as this report passed the Senate, the subjects of the tripos were reduced to four—moral and political philosophy, mental philosophy, logic and political economy.1 Yet though the tripos thus became less open to the charge of bewildering diversity, it was still commonly regarded as very unsatisfactory. It was not believed to test "the general capacity and intellectual vigour of a student"; 2 and there were some who thought that few of the candidates had any intellectual vigour or capacity to test. It was asserted, though possibly untruly, that the reason given for the omission of Kant's Critique from the list of recommended books was that it was too difficult; 3 and Henry Sidgwick, who foresaw a great future for the tripos, admitted in 1870 that "men, not of transcendent genius, obtain the highest (or all but the highest) places" in it.4 Consequently distinction in moral science studies alone was very rarely rewarded by election to a fellowship; and though Sidgwick regretted the fact, it did not surprise him. He believed the tripos to be the victim of a vicious circle. "The standard of a first class is low", he argued, "because the most able and industrious men do not devote themselves to the study; they do not devote themselves to the study because it is not rewarded, and it is not rewarded because the standard of a first class is low. The man who is first in moral sciences in any year may be equal in ability and industry to an average senior wrangler, but the colleges maintain that they have no guarantee that he is even equal to the lowest wrangler to whom they award a fellowship."5 But the tide turned not long after Sidgwick had voiced these laments. Between 1870 and 1880 William Cunningham, F. W. Maitland, James Ward, J. N. Keynes and T. E. Scrutton were placed in the first class of the tripos, and it therefore could no longer be said that the moral sciences were failing to attract really able men. And the colleges began to recognise that a branch of learning, which they had hitherto neglected, deserved support. The author of 1 2 3 4

University Papers, D.C. 5650. An article by T. W. Levin in the University Reporter, 9 November 1870. Ibil An article by Sidgwick in the University Reporter, 26 October 1870.

5

Ibid.

190

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

the chapter on the tripos in the edition of the Student's Guide to the University of Cambridge published in 1874, remarks with satisfaction that the students of the moral sciences in Cambridge will find no difficulty in obtaining teachers. Lectures in its several branches are given by the Professors of Moral Philosophy and Political Economy, and by lecturers in Trinity, St John's, Caius, Queens' and St Catharine's.... At Downing College a paper on moral philosophy in its bearing on law is given in the Minor Scholarship Examination. At Trinity College a foundation scholarship, open for competition to all undergraduate members of the University who are in their second or third year, is awarded annually. Caius, Jesus, Christ's and St John's Colleges have in various ways rewarded proficiency in the moral sciences."1 Moreover the charge of encouraging superficiality, which had so frequently been urged against the tripos, ceased to be even plausible after the Senate in June 1880 had passed a report of the Moral Science Board, which had appeared in the previous May. The Board recommended the repeal of the regulation which prescribed how the order of merit should be calculated, and proposed several other changes. The examination was divided into two parts, the first being of a general and elementary character, and the second requiring "more advanced or more detailed knowledge, either of the subjects themselves or of the history of opinions relating to them". And though the subjects of the examination were increased from four to five, the Board were authorised "to limit the number of subjects taken up by each candidate by the introduction of alternative papers in either part of the examination, provided that every candidate shall be examined in not less than four subjects in the first part". 2 The progress of natural science studies was more speedy, though by no means rapid. The number of successful candidates for the tripos rose from three in 1859 to fourteen in 1864; but a medical journal was over-sanguine in welcoming this increase as a sure sign that the natural sciences were taking "a firm root in the University"; 3 and it was not until 1875 that the class-list of the tripos included more than twenty names. The inadequacy of the instruction in the Public Schools was partly responsible for this paucity of candidates. In 1864 the Public Schools Commissioners expressed the opinion that "natural science.. .is practically excluded from the education of the higher classes in England"; 4 and though this judgment may have been too pessimistic, for only the year before the Professor of Chemistry, G. D. Liveing, 1

Student's Guide to the University of Cambridge (1874), p. 198. University Reporter, 11 May, 15 June 1880. The new regulations did. not come into force till 1883. 3 This passage from the Lancet is quoted in the Cambridge Chronicle, 7 January 1864. 4 Report of the Public Schools Commission (1864), vol. 1, p. 32. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

191

had said that the attention paid to science in the schools was "gradually increasing",1 there was probably much leeway to be made up before schoolboys could enter the University adequately prepared to read for the tripos. Yet even if the schools were not doing all that they might, some of the colleges were willing to encourage the new study. In 1867 the Master and Seniors of Trinity agreed to offer a natural science scholarship, and three years later appointed Michael Foster to a praelectorship in physiology. St John's had been earlier in the field; in 1853 they had appointed a lecturer on chemistry and provided him with a laboratory, and in 1867 agreed to offer for competition in the following year a natural science exhibition.* And some of the smaller colleges gave similar encouragement. In 1868 the British Medical Journal announced that of the four minor scholarships offered by Downing, one at least would be mainly awarded for excellence in chemistry, physiology and comparative anatomy, that at Sidney Sussex two entrance scholarships for natural science were annually offered, and that at Caius one scholarship was assigned to chemistry and another to anatomy and physiology.3 But the colleges were far less liberal with their higher emoluments, and the election of T. W. Danby to a fellowship of Downing in 1867, mainly on account of his performance in the Natural Sciences Tripos of 1864, was greeted as an unprecedented event.4 Perhaps it was, but it set an example which was quickly followed, for in 1868 Trinity agreed to assign every third year one fellowship at least to natural science. But few colleges did more than appoint a lecturer in one of the subjects of the tripos, and some of them did not even do that. The author of an article, which appeared in the University Reporter of 2 November 1870, considered that the colleges would be guilty of extravagance by appointing lecturers in the natural sciences, as there were so few men reading for the tripos. But even if they had been more generous, the colleges could not have given the assistance needed: they could not provide on an adequate scale the laboratories and instruction required. Only the University could meet these wants, but the suggestion that it should do so was by no means unanimously welcomed. Its poverty was one objection, though not the only one. Why, it was sometimes asked, should a heavy expense be incurred for a handful of students and a mushroom tripos ? The answer of course was that the natural sciences could not be efficiently taught unless such provision was made, and that a 1

Report of the Public Schools Commission (1864), vol. 11, pp. 29-30. Sir H. F. Howard, An Account of the Finances of the College of Stjohn the Evangelist (1935), pp.189,199. 3 Quoted in the Cambridge Chronicle, 14 March 1868. The chemistry scholarship at Caius had been founded in the eighteenth century. 4 Cambridge Chronicle, 9 November 1867. 2

192

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (1860-1880)

University which did not shoulder this responsibility was doomed to retire into the background of the educational system of the country. But more imagination and foresight than some members of the Senate possessed were needed to perceive this truth. Thus though the Royal University Commissioners had advised the foundation of a professorship of zoology and an additional professorship of anatomy, no action was taken on these recommendations for many years.1 Yet the scientific instruction provided by the University needed to be thus supplemented. The Professor of Anatomy, William Clark, who had held his Chair since 1817, informed the Commissioners that since the establishment of the Natural Sciences Tripos he had lectured on comparative anatomy as well as on the anatomy and physiology of the human body, and that in his opinion this was more than one man could satisfactorily do. He therefore suggested that there should be two professorships of anatomy instead of one, and that the Professor of Comparative Anatomy should also give a course on zoology.* In 1863 Clark, being then seventy-five, had a paralytic stroke, but it was not until November 1865 that he announced his intention of shortly resigning his professorship.3 It had probably been known beforehand that he was about to vacate his Chair, as in May 1865 a Syndicate had been appointed to consider "the best mode of providing for the teaching of anatomy and zoology in the University"; and the Syndicate followed the advice which Clark had given to the Royal Commissioners. They recommended that "the stipend of ^300 per annum, now paid to the Professor of Anatomy, be continued to his immediate successor who may be expected to take the department of Human Anatomy and Physiology, that a Demonstrator be appointed at a stipend of ^100 per annum", and "that a Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy be appointed at a stipend of ^300 per annum to lecture on and teach the principles of these sciences".4 Only the last of these recommendations was likely to be opposed; and it certainly could be plausibly argued that it was more desirable to augment the meagre stipends of some of the existing professorships than to add to their number, and that the financial position of the University was not sufficiently stable to justify a permanent commitment of a serious nature. But the critics of the proposal used the most ineffective weapon in their armoury when they contended that a professorship of zoology was a less urgent need than professorships of Latin and philology. Every college had classical lecturers, but, as a pamphleteer pertinently remarked, "there will be no one to teach zoology 1 2 3

University Commission Report (1852), p. 102. University Commission Report, Correspondence and Evidence (1852), p. 109. 4 University Papers, E.A. 55. Ibid.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (186O-1880)

I93

1

in the University unless a Professor be appointed". To this there was no answer, and the opposition was negligible. When the Syndicate's report was discussed on 21 October, the Vice-Chancellor was able to say that the meeting seemed unanimously to approve the establishment of a professorship of zoology; 2 and when three Graces for the confirmation of the Syndicate's recommendations were brought before the Senate on 8 February 1866, two of them were carried by overwhelming majorities, and the other without a division.3 But it was of little use to increase the natural science teaching staff of the University unless new laboratories, museums and lecture-rooms were built, and the accommodation of those already existing improved; and for many years the University had been confronted with the problem of finding the money required for such a costly undertaking. A Syndicate, appointed in 1853 t o consider the erection of additional lecture-rooms and museums, published in the December of that year a report in which they recommended that the well-known architect, Anthony Salvin, should be commissioned to design a building on the site left vacant by the removal of the Botanic Garden, which should contain a large lecture-theatre, at least three lecture-rooms and several museums. But the money for the execution of this project, the cost of which was estimated at ^23,000, was not to be found. The University could only contribute one-fifth of the amount required, and an appeal to the colleges met with a most disappointing response. Trinity undertook to contribute -£4000, "if a sum sufficient for carrying out the scheme can be raised by the contributions of the Colleges"; and by May 1855 seven other colleges had promised to contribute on the same condition; but as the total sum thus offered only amounted to .£9000, it was decided to postpone further action.4 In i860, when the financial position of the University had improved, the subject was reopened by the Council of the Senate, who reversed the order of the earlier proceedings, and began by considering the financial question. It was agreed to establish a "Museums and Lecture-Rooms Building Fund", to which the University should contribute a capital sum of ^13,500, an annual sum of -£1000, and also be authorised to borrow on behalf of the Fund from surpluses belonging to the University Press, the Library and the Fitzwilliam Museum. By the end of 1861 the Fund amounted to .£27,000; and the financial difficulty being thus overcome, Salvin was commissioned to prepare a new set of plans. But progress was not as rapid as had been hoped, and it was not until the summer of 1865 that the new building was ready for occupation. 5 1 2 4 5

W . H. Drosier, On Zoology as a Branch of University Education (November 1865). 3 Cambridge Chronicle, 28 October 1865. Ibid. 10 February 1866. D . A. Winstanley, Early Victorian Cambridge (1840), p. 274. Willis and Clark, Architectural History of the University of Cambridge, vol. ni, pp. 169-181. WMC

13

194

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

Those members of the Senate however, who believed that it would be some time before further accommodation would be required for the natural sciences, were living in a fool's paradise; but they did not live there long. In November 1868 a Syndicate, which came to be known as the Physical Science Syndicate, was appointed to consider the provision of instruction in heat, electricity and magnetism, these subjects having recently been re-introduced into the Mathematical Tripos; and at an early stage of their proceedings they reached the conclusion that the colleges could not possibly provide adequate instruction in them, and that a well-appointed laboratory was indispensable. They hoped however to be able to refrain from recommending the establishment of a new professorship, believing that the Professors of Mathematics and of the Physical Sciences might be willing to give the instruction provided; but they were disappointed in this expectation, as the Professors in question declined to undertake to deliver an extensive course on these subjects, particularly if it was intended that they should treat them experimentally.1 Though not convinced that the Professors had considered their request sufficiently carefully, the Syndicate decided not to press it, and therefore recommended the institution of a professorship of experimental physics, which was however to terminate with thefirstProfessor's tenure of office, as it was hoped that it might be possible later to arrange for the teaching of this subject "without having resort to the services of an additional Professor". The Professor's stipend was to be £500 a year, and he was to be provided with a laboratory, apparatus and a demonstrator. The Syndicate estimated the cost of building a laboratory at ^5000, and that ^1300 would be required for the apparatus and fittings; and as the expense which their recommendation involved was considerable, they proposed that another Syndicate should be appointed to consider ways and means.2 This other Syndicate was appointed in May 1869, but with wider terms of reference than had been originally suggested: in addition to finding the money required for the scheme of instruction in physical science, they were told to " investigate other wants of the University, and the sources from which these wants may be supplied". They certainly had no difficulty in discovering the wants of the University, and produced a formidable list which included a demonstrator in chemistry, teachers of palaeontology and modern languages, a large examination hall, an increase of the stipends of several professors, and provision for the care and repair of physical apparatus. But as they calculated that, without taking into account either the cost of building an examination hall or the ^6300 required for the provision of a properly equipped physical laboratory, their proposals, if accepted, would involve an annual expenditure 1 University Papers, E.A. 65. 2 Ibid. The report of the Syndicate is dated 27 February 1869.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

195

of over .£3000, they realised the uselessness of bringing them before the Senate, unless they could also propose at the same time a practical scheme for raising this amount. Therefore, before proceeding further, they inquired of the colleges whether they " would be willing, under proper safeguards for the due appropriation of any moneys which might be entrusted to the University, to make contributions from their corporate funds for the abovementioned objects".1 But the colleges were no more willing to come to the financial assistance of the University than they had been a few years before; and as their answers to this appeal revealed "such a want of concurrence in any proposal to raise contributions from the corporate funds of the colleges by any kind of direct taxation", the Syndicate, as they stated in their report, felt compelled to give up all hope of obtaining the sum required, and consequently "to limit the number of objects which they should recommend the Senate to accomplish". And the limitation went very far. They reported that they had restricted themselves to the consideration of the means of raising the funds required for the scheme proposed by the Physical Science Syndicate, and recommended that the cost of erecting a laboratory should be charged on the two building funds of the University,2 that the University's invested balances of former years should be used for the purchase of apparatus, and that the sum required for the stipends of the Professor and his staff should be obtained by raising the University Capitation Tax from 175. to 195. This report had an unfavourable reception when it was discussed on Saturday, 7 May. Some speakers blamed the Syndicate for not having persevered in their attempt to obtain money from the colleges, and others contended that the University Building Funds could not support the charges designed for them. And great opposition was aroused by the recommendation for the augmentation of the Capitation Tax. It was declared to be grossly unfair, particularly to the larger colleges, to increase a tax which was payable by all persons, resident and non-resident alike, whose names were on the boards of a college.3 The Syndicate issued an amended report on 31 May, but it did little to meet the criticisms advanced, as its only new feature of any importance was a pledge to discontinue the proposed increase of the Capitation Tax, "as soon as the income of the Chest shall have been adequately increased by means of contributions from the Colleges ". 4 But the amended report was still awaiting discussion when on 13 October 1870 the Vice-Chancellor published a letter 1 2 3 4

Report of the Syndicate, 29 March 1870. University Papers, E.A. 65. The General Building Fund and the Museums and Lecture-Rooms Building Fund. Cambridge Chronicle, 14 May 1870. University Papers, E.A. 65. 13-2

196

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (1860-1880)

he had received from the Chancellor, the Duke of Devonshire, which bore very directly on the situation. "I find'', wrote the Chancellor, "in the report, dated 29 February 1869, of the Physical Science Syndicate, recommending the establishment of a Professor and Demonstrator of Experimental Physics, that the buildings and apparatus required for this department of science are estimated to cost ^6300. I am desirous to assist the University in carrying this recommendation into effect, and shall accordingly be prepared to provide the funds required for the building and apparatus, so soon as the University shall have in other respects completed its arrangements for teaching experimental physics, and shall have approved the plan of the building."* The Chancellor's generosity eased the situation by relieving the University of a heavy capital expenditure; but the money required for the stipends of the Professor and his Demonstrator had still to be found, and the proposal to obtain it by increasing the Capitation Tax was still arousing bitter opposition. The Syndicate's amended report was severely criticised when it was discussed on 22 October 1870. It was attacked, for instance, by Professor Lightfoot, who argued that it was wrong both in principle and in practice to increase the Capitation Tax for the purpose of establishing a professorship. It was wrong in principle, he said, because non-residents ought not to be compelled to pay for a benefit in which they did not participate, and it was wrong in practice because it would discourage them from keeping their names on the boards of their college. Other critics insisted that the colleges should again be asked to contribute, and that, as the sum required had been much reduced by the Chancellor's benefaction, it was possible that another appeal might be successful. But as negotiations with the colleges were bound to be lengthy, and the Chancellor's donation was conditional upon the University having "completed its arrangements for teaching experimental physics", this suggestion was not favourably received, and another was of too revolutionary a character to be seriously considered. Sedley Taylor, who did not love Heads of Houses, and thought them to be grossly overpaid for the services they performed, advocated the confiscation of the greater part of their stipends, which in all, according to him, amounted to -£15,000 a year. He was not alone in his estimate of the value of these august persons, but he probably did not expect to receive much support: he was content to air a grievance.2 But towards the end of the meeting the Master of St John's made a valuable suggestion. Under certain Acts of Parliament the University and colleges were jointly responsible for two-fifths of the sum required to defray the 1

University Papers, E.A. 65. The report, to which the Chancellor referred, is dated

27 February 1869. 2 University Reporter, 26 October 1870.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

197

expense of paving, cleaning and lighting the town of Cambridge, and until May 1866 the greater part of this quota had been contributed by the colleges, and "assessed in such a manner that the colleges paid a pound rate (equal in amount to that paid by the inhabitants of the town) upon the annual value of their property assessed to the Poor Rates of Cambridge, and a capitation tax x for each of their members, of such an amount as would, with the sum derived from the pound-rate, make up the whole quota". But in May 1866 the University undertook to pay directly from the Chest the portion of the quota raised by this college capitation tax; and in order that the University should not financially lose by this arrangement, the amount of the Capitation Tax, levied for the general purposes of the University, was raised from 15s. to 175.* Dr Bateson suggested that the "quota of the colleges to the Town Improvement Rate.. .should be assessed entirely on the college property", but that the University Capitation Tax should remain at 175. He estimated that the University would be thereby "relieved to the extent of some -£1100 a year", and consequently would be easily able to bear the charge of the stipends of the Professor of Physics and his Demonstrator. This ingenious device was not only a solution of the problem confronting the University; it also had the conspicuous merit of not requiring the sanction of the Senate. The Cambridge Improvement Act of 1788 empowered the Heads of Houses to make "an assessment of the different quotas or proportions of the said two-fifths parts to be paid as the share of the said University and several colleges";3 and accordingly on 28 October 1870 the Heads ruled that the quota of the colleges should be assessed entirely on their property. But though their action was strictly legal, and did all that was required, it might be thought high-handed if not supplemented; for as the Capitation Tax had been raised in 1866 to 175. for a purpose which had now ceased to exist, members of the Senate might well think that they ought to be given an opportunity of considering the question of its reduction.4 Therefore the Council of the Senate, wishing to avoid the creation of a grievance, wisely published a report, recommending that the increase of the Capitation Tax id 1866 "be confirmed anew, with a view of providing sufficient means for the establishment of a professorship of experimental physics and for other wants of the University".5 This conciliatory gesture was not wasted, for the Senate on 17 November approved the Council's report. 1

This tax must not be confused with the Capitation Tax levied by the University. University Reporter, 19 October 1870. 3 L. L. Shadwell, Enactments in Parliament (1912), vol. n, p. 204. 4 The Senate had no legal claim to be consulted, as when the Capitation Tax had been raised to 175. no reason for this increase had been given. 5 University Reporter, 2 November 1870. 2

I98

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

All financial difficulties having been now removed by the generosity of the Chancellor and the ingenuity of Dr Bateson, the end was in sight. On 19 November the report of the Physical Science Syndicate was at last discussed, and was only very slightly criticised. The wisdom of making the professorship terminable with the tenure of the first Professor was questioned, as was also the sufficiency of the stipend assigned to it; but the opposition was not serious, and the Senate approved the report in the following February.1 The foundation of a Chair, which was to become one of the most illustrious in the University, had been a slow and lengthy business; but it was the selfish attitude of the colleges, and not antagonism to natural science, that had caused the delay. Of antagonism there is little trace, for the University was far more responsive to public opinion than it had been a few years before, and in the outside world scientific research was making great advances and attracting much attention. Moreover the progress of the Cambridge medical school, which had successfully emerged from the disrepute into which it had fallen, inevitably increased the interest taken in certain branches of natural science;2 and the not-unfounded fear that Oxford might steal a march upon its sister University, and become a home of science as well as of lost causes, possibly had some influence. In a pamphlet, which appeared in 1867, a Fellow of St John's drew attention to the fact that Oxford had already begun "to offer scholarships and exhibitions and studentships for the encouragement of natural and physical sciences in schools", whereas nothing of the kind was being done at Cambridge; 3 and a little later Professor Humphry mentioned that Oxford and less famous Universities had "each a laboratory of experimental physics with apparatus and a teacher or teachers of eminence".4 And the moral to be drawn from these warnings was that the University of Newton and Roger Cotes had need to look to its laurels. Nor was a response lacking. As has been earlier mentioned, some of the colleges began more freely to award scholarships and exhibitions for proficiency in the natural sciences, though still not doing as much as was desirable in the way of giving fellowships and appointing lecturers; and much thought was devoted to the improvement of the tripos as an educational instrument. In a report, which appeared in February 1871, the Board of Natural Sciences Studies outlined a scheme for the reform of the tripos. They suggested that the written examination should extend over eight days instead of six, and that 1

University Reporter, 8 and 15 February 1871. When G. M. Humphry was a candidate in 1866 for the professorship of anatomy, he was eulogised in the Lancet as having done "more than any other man to popularise Cambridge as a school of medicine". This tribute is quoted in the Cambridge Chronicle of 24 February 1866. 3 J. M. Wilson, A Letter to the Masters and Seniors of StJohns (1867). 4 University Reporter, 19 October 1870. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

199

between the first three and the last three days there should be an interval of two days for the holding of the practical examinations. Twelve papers in all were to be set, each containing questions on all the subjects of the tripos;1 but whereas the questions in the papers of the first three days were to be of an elementary character, those in the papers of the last three days were to be more advanced. The Board were also in favour of the examination being conducted partly viva voce; and as they considered that "all candidates for honours in the Natural Sciences Tripos should be required to show some knowledge of the elementary principles of chemistry and physics", they recommended that no candidate should be classed who had failed to satisfy the examiners in these subjects.2 Most of the changes suggested were likely to improve the examination. Hitherto the candidates had been given Httle opportunity of displaying their skill in practical work, for though there was a regulation that some of the questions in the papers "shall refer to objects exhibited at the examination", this was not sufficient. 3 It was also desirable that the knowledge of the candidates should be more severely tested; but whatever were the merits or demerits of the report, it seems to have attracted strangely little attention. Few except the members of the Board took the trouble to attend when it was discussed on 10 March, and little was said on that occasion. Some speakers objected to the introduction of a viva voce, and to the provision that the candidate must satisfy the examiners in chemistry and physics; but apart from these criticisms little passed of any interest.4 And as the Board did not consider their recommendation regarding chemistry and physics an essential part of their scheme, they abandoned it when revising their report, 5 which, thus amended, passed the Senate on 11 May.6 But a very serious defect in the tripos had been left unremedied. Though the candidates were at liberty to concentrate on two or three subjects, many of them, in the hope of thereby obtaining more marks, attempted several; and this was likely to happen as long as the regulations prescribed that the order of merit should be determined "by estimating the aggregate merit of each candidate in all the subjects". The folly of thus encouraging super1 This was to a great extent a repetition of an existing regulation: "The intention of this distribution of the questions is that no candidate may have all his work thrown on one day, so that those who can answer all the questions in one subject may have as much time for their work as those who can answer only a part of the questions in several subjects." Student's Guide to the University of Cambridge (1874), p. 22. 2 University Reporter, 1 March 1871. 3 It is stated in the Student's Guide to the University of Cambridge (1863) that "the examination is made as practical as possible by giving substances for chemical analysis, specimens to be identified or described, etc." 4 5 University Reporter, 15 March 1871. Ibid. 26 April 1871. 6 Ibid. 17 May 1871.

2OO

EDUCATIONAL REFORM ( l 8 6 o - l 8 8 o )

ficiality of treatment was rendered more conspicuous by the rapid growth of scientific knowledge. When, for instance, the Natural Sciences Board recommended in March 1873 that more tripos examiners should be appointed, as it had become impossible any longer to treat physics as a mere appendage to chemistry, or for one man to examine in comparative anatomy, zoology and physiology,1 Professor Paget very pertinently remarked that if "seven highly learned and skilled examiners were required to cover the whole range of subjects in the tripos", how absurd it was to allow young men to offer themselves for examination in all of them.2 Not long afterwards the Board came to the same opinion, and suggested in a report, which appeared in June 1874, that the "objects of the examination —viz. to offer sufficient stimulus to exertion, and at the same time to give encouragement to sound study" would be most effectively secured by restricting the first class, which was to be in two divisions, to men who had shown "superior proficiency" in at least one subject of the examination, and by arranging the names of the successful candidates in each division of the first class and in the other two classes in alphabetical order. But the Board also recommended that the tripos should be divided into two parts, of which the first should be held in the Easter term and the second in the Michaelmas term; and that candidates on their performance in the first part could be declared qualified for admission to the ordinary degree. But only those who had so acquitted themselves as to deserve honours could proceed to the second part; and when drawing up the tripos class-list the examiners were to take into account the work done in both parts.3 The merits of this scheme were emphasised by Professor Humphry, the Chairman of the Board, when it was discussed on 13 November 1874. He expressed the hope that the division of the tripos into two parts might encourage poll-men to acquire a better education than the ordinary degree could give, and enable serious students of the natural sciences "to pass through the necessary preliminary work half a year earlier than at present, which would leave them free to go on to such of the higher branches as each might wish to study specially". And he also pointed out that the abolition of an order of merit must inevitably discourage candidates from attempting to gain marks by answering all or most of the questions; and he might have added that the same purpose would be served by demanding distinction in at least one subject for a place in the first class. He spoke to the converted, for there was so little criticism, even of the mildest character, that the Vice-Chancellor 1

2 University Reporter, 25 March 1873. Ibid. 29 April 1873. University Reporter, 9 June 1874. A candidate who had been declared worthy of honours on Part I, would of course, if he so chose, be able to take an ordinary degree instead of proceeding to Part II. 3

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

201

was able to say at the end of the meeting that "the discussion had been completely favourable to the report". 1 This harmony faithfully reflected academic opinion, as the Senate passed the report without a division on 19 November. The first examination under these new regulations was held in 1876, and in the March of the following year the Board published a report, in which they admitted that a sound principle had been pushed too far. Some of the candidates in the examination recently held had restricted their reading almost exclusively to a single subject, though the intention of the Board had been to encourage that kind of study which "leads to a thorough knowledge of at least one subject—so far as it can be mastered during the period of undergraduate study—combined with a sound knowledge of the principles and leading facts of the cognate and subsidiary subjects, more particularly of such parts of them as bear upon the principal subject selected by the student". And having thus failed to secure a combination of width and depth of reading, the Board recommended that the examiners, when deciding whether a candidate had so acquitted himself in Part I as to deserve a degree, should be guided "by the aggregate knowledge shown by him in that part of the examination". And other difficulties and weaknesses in the working of the new regulations had also been revealed. The examiners had apparently found it difficult to comply with a provision of the recent report which required them to affix marks of distinction to the names of those candidates in the first class who had shown eminent proficiency in particular subjects: and the Board therefore proposed to substitute for this requirement a regulation that "in the case of every student placed in the first class, the subject or subjects, for knowledge whereof he is placed in the first class, shall be signified in the published list". The Board further suggested that as it was extremely difficult at the end of Part I to draw a definite line between the candidates who deserved honours and those who did not, it would be well to declare after the first part which men had qualified for a degree, "leaving the decision as to who are entitled to honours till after the second part of the examination".2 This report, which had been signed by all the members of the Board, except Professor Hughes,3 was severely attacked when it was discussed on 12 March. The opinion was expressed that it would be far better to abolish the division of the first class into two parts than the marks of distinction. 1

University Reporter, 17 November 1874. The Board however pointed out that "this would not prevent a student, who had done really well in the first part of the examination, but had not presented himself for the second part, from being ultimately classed", so they obviously contemplated the possibility of an honours degree being awarded solely on a performance in Part I. University Reporter, 6 March 1877. 3 Professor Humphry admitted however that several of the signatories of the report objected to parts of it. Ibid. 27 March 1877. 2

202

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (186O-I880)

Professor Hughes, for instance, urged that as so very few men were "placed in the first class for the same subject... the division could hardly ever be made except by comparing men who had given the examiners no common measure"; and another speaker argued that it was "calculated to defeat the very end aimed at, which was to encourage depth of reading in one subject rather than a superficial acquaintance with many". Objection was also taken, and not at all unreasonably, to the proposal not to publish the names of the candidates, who by their performance in the first part deserved honours, until after the second part had been held. Surely, it was argued, the examiners did not need half a year for reflection before they could decide whether a candidate deserved honours by his Work in Part I, and, if not, what excuse was there for allowing men, who were very unlikely to obtain honours, to waste their time by proceeding to the second part? And it cannot be said that the report was valiantly defended against these attacks. Coutts Trotter, who was a member of the Board, admitted that it had only been published to elicit criticism, and certainly, if this was so, it admirably fulfilled its purpose.1 Nevertheless the Board did not revise their report as drastically as might have been expected after this admission of its tentative character. They decided not to divide thefirstclass and not to abolish the use of marks of distinction; but this was the most important of the changes that they made;* and when their amended report was discussed on 31 May, they were called upon for a reasoned defence of their recommendation that the names of the candidates who had deserved honours by their performance in the first part should not be published until after the second part had been held. Coutts Trotter accepted the challenge. He of course knew that the regulations for the Mathematical Tripos, which was also divided into two parts,3 compelled the examiners to publish after the first part the names of the candidates who had so acquitted themselves as to deserve honours, and that they found no difficulty in doing so; and he therefore pointed out that there were essential differences between the two triposes, which made it hazardous to argue from one to the other. The two parts of the Mathematical Tripos were completely distinct and only separated by a very brief interval, whereas the two parts of the Natural Sciences Tripos were closely connected and separated by an interval of six months. Hence the difficulty of saying in June who ought and who ought not to obtain honours. If too rigid a rule was adopted, some would be excluded who in the 1

2 University Reporter, 27 March 1877. Ibid. 29 May 1877. In 1846 the Mathematical Tripos had been divided into two parts, separated by an interval of-eight days; and only those candidates, who were declared by the examiners to have deserved honours by their performance in the first part, were permitted to proceed to the second part. 3

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

203

next six months might have so improved themselves as eventually to deserve honours. On the other hand, if a man did nothing between June and December to improve himself, he might not so acquit himself in December as to deserve honours. So on the whole there seemed less inconvenience in the proposal of the report. A man, who felt that he had done well, need not go in again unless he liked; but one, who felt that he had not done well, dared not run the risk of not trying to improve his position.1 The weakness of this defence was that it made no allowance for the notunlikely danger of some young men exaggerating their ability or the merits of their performance in the first part; but it was apparently thought satisfactory, as the amended report passed the Senate unopposed on 25 October 1877.2 But the Board had fought and won the battle in vain, for even before success crowned their arms, events were in train which made their victory a barren one. A Conference of Headmasters, held at Rugby in December 1876, passed unanimously a resolution "that a memorial be.addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and Senate of the University of Cambridge, requesting them to consider the present arrangements for the B.A. examination [sic] for honours"; and the memorial, which is dated 8 March 1877, expressed regret that the number of candidates reading for double honours, as for example in mathematics and classics, had recently sharply declined, and requested the University to take steps for a revival of a practice which had great educational value.3 In response to this appeal a Syndicate was appointed in May 1877 to consider "whether, and in what ways, students should be encouraged to read for honours in more than one tripos ", 4 and in the following March the Double Honours Syndicate, as it was commonly styled, reported that they were in favour of encouraging undergraduates to read for more than one tripos, and that in their opinion the most effective way of doing so was "by carrying somewhat further the plan of dividing the tripos examinations, which has been already introduced to some extent in the case of the Mathematical and Natural Sciences Triposes, and by placing all the honours examinations in May or June". Therefore one of their recommendations was that both parts of the Natural Sciences Tripos should be held in the latter part of the Easter term, that separate class-lists should be published for each part, and that students might be candidates for the first part "at the end of their second, third, or if they have already passed one of the Honours Examinations, fourth year", and for the second part if they had already passed the first part, and were at the end of their third or fourth year. 5 1 3 5

University Reporter, 12 June 1877. Ibid. 13 March 1877. Ibid. 19 March 1878.

2 4

Ibid. 30 October 1877. Ibid. 5 June 1877.

204

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (1860-1880)

The Senate approved this report on 9 May 1878, and in the year following the Board published two reports which were mainly concerned with adapting the regulations for the tripos to the new situation created by the Double Honours Syndicate.1 But in the second of these reports a change was proposed which was not a matter of routine. Under the existing regulations one of the subjects of the examination was "chemistry and certain other branches of physics", and another was "zoology and comparative anatomy, human anatomy and physiology"; and the Board recommended that physics, human anatomy and animal physiology should be separate subjects. In proposing that human anatomy should be a separate subject, the Board were making trouble for themselves, and knew that they were; Professor Humphry once said that "the battle of human anatomy had been a hard battle to fight in the University, and he had fought it for a long time". 2 In former days anatomy had meant human anatomy, with which was associated much of the physiology of the time; and comparative anatomy had meant the comparison of the lower animals with man; but comparative anatomy and physiology had recently so much expanded as almost to exclude human anatomy from the tripos.3 Therefore in November 1875 the Board had recommended that the regulation which prescribed comparative anatomy, physiology and zoology as one of the subjects of the tripos should be extended to include human anatomy by name. They pointed out that, unless this change was made, the study of human anatomy would continue to be at a great disadvantage. Though included in the medical course, it was there treated as a mere collection of facts to be committed to memory; and medical students either did not begin to study the subject until after they had sat for the tripos, or did not read for honours. And the Board urged that "the more distinct recognition of human anatomy in the examination for the tripos cannot fail to elevate the character of the teaching and study of it in the University as a branch of science", and that it would also assist to maintain the connection between the Natural Sciences Tripos and the medical schools.4 As they only recommended that human anatomy should be included in a composite subject of the tripos, the Board may have anticipated an easy passage for their report; but, though it passed the Senate,^ it did not escape 1

University Reporter, 1 April 1879, 28 October 1879. The first of these two reports was passed, by the Senate on 15 May 1879. 2 This remark appears in a report of a speech which he made at a discussion of a report on 31 October 1879. Ibid. 4 November 1879. 3 The earliest regulations for the tripos included both anatomy, which meant human anatomy, and comparative anatomy among the subjects, but by a Grace of the Senate on 24 May i860, comparative anatomy was grouped, with comparative physiology and. zoology, and anatomy, apart from comparative anatomy, disappeared. 4 5 University Reporter, 30 November 1875. Ibid. 22 February 1876.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

205

adverse comment when discussed. Even those who desired to promote the study of human anatomy were obliged to admit that, as then taught, it had little educational value, and the critics did not conceal their suspicion that it might not be better taught if included in the tripos. It was a case of the dog with a bad name; and when in October 1879 the Board proposed that human anatomy should be an entirely separate subject in the tripos, they must have known quite well that they were in for a rough passage. Their worst fears were amply confirmed. Human anatomy as a part subject in the tripos had been just tolerated, but the prospect of its elevation to the dignity of a separate subject seems to have inspired almost venomous dislike. When the report was discussed on 31 October 1879 the Board was accused of sacrificing the prestige and educational value of the tripos to the needs of the medical school; and even one of its members, who had signed the report, admitted that he would have been better pleased if this recommendation had not formed part of it.1 The Professor of Anatomy, Dr Humphry, made a gallant defence. He said that a medical tripos was the natural home for the subject, but as there was no such tripos, the only way of effectively encouraging its study in the University was to give it a place of honour in the Natural Sciences Tripos. And he did not doubt that it deserved such a place: "the mechanism of the noblest frame on earth", he said, "was surely a subject of high educational value". 2 But he was the champion of a lost cause, and on 13 November the Senate rejected the report by forty-six to twenty-six votes.3 The Board accepted their defeat as final, and in a further report, which appeared in the following December, human anatomy was practically assigned the same place in the tripos that it had held since 1876.4 But this acknowledgement of defeat did not completely allay the storm, for when the report was discussed on 6 December, several speakers asserted that even as a part subject human anatomy ought not to be included in the tripos, and should be relegated to a Medical Tripos.5 But as there was no immediate prospect of establishing this nev{ home for it, this suggestion was not very helpful, and perhaps not very seriously meant, for the report passed the Senate on 11 December, nemine contradicente.6

This struggle over human anatomy has little intrinsic interest at the present time, except perhaps for a handful of specialists; but, nevertheless, it deserves attention as revealing the change which had taken place in the academic status of the natural sciences. Barely twenty years before those studies had been viewed with pity mingled with contempt, and considered by many 1 3 5

The speaker was Francis Balfour. Ibid. 18 November 1879. Ibid. 9 December 1879.

2 4

University Reporter, 4 November 1879.

Ibid. 2 December 1879. 6 Ibid. 16 December 1879.

206

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

unworthy of encouragement.1 But now the cry was that nothing must be done to sully the dignity of the tripos or to blunt it as an educational instrument; and the credit for much of the esteem in which it had come to be held was due to the Natural Science Board. Though in detail some of their work may be open to criticism, they had more or less consistently pursued the policy of making the tripos a test both of general and detailed knowledge, and thus successfully steered a course between superficiality and extreme specialisation. But the advance in favour of the natural sciences at Cambridge had undoubtedly also been very much assisted by the popular estimate of their importance; and a subject which lacked that support did not always find it easy to obtain a secure foothold in the University. When in October 1870 Professor Lightfoot informed the Vice-Chancellor that he wished to found a scholarship for the encouragement of the study of history, and more particularly of ecclesiastical history, he took the opportunity of saying that he had "long felt that the study of history does not receive proper encouragement in this University; and at the present time, when the just demands of natural science are so eagerly urged, there is great danger that an instrument of education, which I venture to consider even more important, may be forgotten".2 But history had at least found a place in the Moral Sciences Tripos; and when in company with jurisprudence it was ejected from it,3 a Syndicate, appointed to consider "qua potissimum ratione historiae recentioris et juris gentium stadia in

Academia promoveri possint", recommended that with jurisprudence it should be included in the Law Tripos, which was henceforth to be styled the Law and History Tripos.4 In May 1854 the Senate, on the recommendation of the Studies Syndicate, had passed a Grace for enabling undergraduates in their ninth term of residence to sit for an examination in legal subjects, which, if passed with credit, qualified for the degree of Bachelor of Laws with honours.5 This measure was long overdue. Though law was a study of ancient standing in the University, it had for long failed to attract any great number of students, and had fallen into evil repute as an easy way of obtaining a degree. It was however hoped that on becoming an honours course it might emerge from the cloud of in1 This contempt was still to be found among the older generation when I was a junior Fellow. W. Aldis Wright was never glad to hear that many "naturals", as he called them, had been elected to fellowships or scholarships. 2 J. W. Clark, Endowments of the University of Cambridge (1904), p. 329. 3 4 See p. 189. University Papers, D.C. 4800. 5 On the same occasion the Senate approved a recommendation that there should be an easier examination for the ordinary degree of Bachelor of Laws; but in November 1865 this examination was abolished by Grace, as the ordinary degree course now included a Special Examination in Law. University Papers, D.C. 4800.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

207

difference and contempt under which it had long lain; and in 1863 the Regius Professor of Law remarked that the impulse, which the study of law had received from the establishment of a Law Tripos, might," if properly attended to,.. .lead to its healthy restoration".1 The advance however was bound to be slow, and there were some who feared that it might be retarded by yoking law with history. Dr Waraker expressed this fear when the proposal to establish a Law and History Tripos was discussed on 2 May 1868. He declared that "law as a matter of either mental or general training was certainly superior to history which was a mere effort of memory", and he predicted that if the report passed the Senate, "law would be diluted and, to a certain extent, abandoned for history".2 But though Dr Waraker thus forbade the banns, he failed to prevent the marriage, as the report passed the Senate unopposed on 20 May.3 Plausible arguments could certainly be advanced in favour of the union: lawyers, as Professor Abdy remarked, are assisted in their study of law by knowing history, and he might have added that for certain branches of history a knowledge of law is indispensable. Nevertheless it was a great mistake to unite the two subjects in a single tripos. They were too different in character and far too extensive in their range to be effectively studied together by young men who practically had no previous knowledge of either of them, and the delicate task of adjusting their respective claims to representation was certain to cause friction. The first examination under the new regulations was held in 1870, and in February 1872 the Board of Legal and Historical Studies admitted that the union over which they presided was a most unhappy one. They reported that they had found from the experience of the two recent examinations that the subjects of law and history cannot with advantage be treated together in the same examination, and that a class-list, arranged according to credit obtained in the two subjects, is veryfar from representing the real merits of the candidates. They also find that the subject of history is so large and varied that it requires a separate and distinct examination. They would therefore represent that it is advisable to remove modern history from the Tripos, and to substitute for it the constitutional history and constitutional law of England.4 The experience on which this opinion was based was very brief, but it seems to have been quite sufficient. When the teport was discussed, Professor Abdy stated that very few of the candidates had seriously studied history, and that none of them had ever got more than half marks in that subject.5 Moreover much the same thing had happened at Oxford. As the law and modern 1 Student's Guide to the University of Cambridge (1863), p. 169. 2 3 Cambridge Chronicle, 9 May 1868. Ibid. 23 May 1868. 4

University Reporter, 13 March 1872.

5

Ibid. 22 February 1871, 1 May 1872.

208

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

history school of that University had worked as badly as its counterpart at Cambridge, it had recently been decided to establish a separate school there for each of the two subjects; and the fact that at Oxford law had been subordinated to history, and not, as at Cambridge, history to law, suggested that, however the balance was struck, the two subjects did not work well in combination. Consequently in May 1872 a Syndicate was appointed to consider "whether any, and if so what, alterations should be made in the Law and History Tripos"; T and this Syndicate published a report in the following December. They recommended that each of the two subjects should have a separate tripos, and that as history, "as a subject of an independent tripos, requires to be placed on a wider basis than its subordinate position in other triposes has hitherto allowed", the Syndicate suggested that the tripos, which it was proposed to establish, should include ancient and medieval as well as modern history. They also recommended that it should contain some of the subjects "which find their illustration in history", such as political philosophy and general jurisprudence.2 The discussion of this report on 2 February 1873 was entirely confined to points of detail, and in a slightly amended form it passed the Senate on 27 February. 3 The days were over when history was expected to play the part of Cinderella to her two proud sisters, mathematics and classics; Clio was now received in academic society, and given an opportunity of exerting her charms. And the establishment of an Indian and a Semitic Languages Tripos was another sign that ancient prejudices were being discarded. Though there was a Board of Oriental Languages, Professors of Hebrew and Arabic, and a prize and scholarship for Hebrew, an honours degree was not obtainable by proficiency in these studies, and this gap might long have been left unfilled if the Board of Oriental Languages had not taken action. In a report, which appeared in November 1871, they expressed their unanimous opinion that the study of oriental languages deserved more encouragement than it was receiving from the University, and that "the impulse given in the last few years to the moral and natural sciences by the establishment of triposes, suggests to the Board similar examinations in their departments as the best method, in accordance with the present University system, for fostering the early growth of oriental languages".4 This proposal, which half a century before would have been thought almost impertinent, was accepted in principle when it was discussed; 5 and in December 1871 a Syndicate was appointed to consider the most effective means of encouraging the study of oriental languages, "whether 1 3 5

University Reporter, 29 May 1872. Ibid. 11, 18 February, 4 March 1873. Ibid. 22 November 1871.

2 4

Ibid. 18 December 1872. Ibid. 15 November 1871.

E D U C A T I O N A L REFORM ( l 8 6 O - l 8 8 o )

2CK) 1

by the establishment of one or more triposes or otherwise". Following the lead thus given them, the Syndicate in the following March proposed the establishment of two new triposes, one in the Semitic languages and the other in the Indian languages, and that both examinations should qualify for a degree.2 Among the reasons which they advanced for their recommendation was "the close connexion of England with the countries of the East", though it had not been usual hitherto to take the practical bearing of a subject into account when considering its claims to recognition. Nor was it only the Syndicate who resorted to this argument. After the report had passed the Senate,3 the hope was expressed in the Student's Handbook that the Indian Languages Tripos would attract men who looked forward to a career in India, " whether in the civil or military services of Government, or in legal or mercantile capacities".4 But though new educational fields were thus being explored, the University had certainly not lost interest in either the Classical or Mathematical Tripos. Both of them enjoyed far greater prestige than any other degree course; and by far the greater number of Fellows of colleges had graduated in either one or other of them. But there was perhaps a dawning fear that as they were now obliged to compete with other studies, they might, unless brought into accord with modern educational theories, fail to maintain their reputation. The charge frequently brought against the Classical Tripos, as established by a Grace of the Senate passed in May 1822, was that of being too purely linguistic. It was said to be far more a test of skill than of knowledge; and had been sharply criticised on this account by Lord Lyttelton, who, having been a Senior Classic and Chancellor's Medallist, was competent to express an opinion. 5 "What was required", he told Whewell, "and of course what was produced, was not knowledge but skill. At best it was a sort of empirical knowledge, wholly confined to the languages of Greek and Latin. No scientific knowledge of ancient history, philosophy, antiquities or philology was of the least importance. If a few questions appeared on such matters, they were wholly overbalanced and made insignificant by the preponderance of skill in writing the three languages in all possible combinations."6 When Lord Lyttelton expressed this unfavourable opinion, candidates for the Classical Tripos were still required to have qualified for a degree by 1 2 4 5

University Reporter, 13 December 1871. 3 Ibid. 22 March 1872. Ibid. 15 May 1872. Student's Handbook to the University of Cambridge (1874), pp. 404-405. Lord Lyttelton was bracketed senior Classic in the tripos of 1838. Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library.

210

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

passing the Mathematical Tripos; and there was therefore good reason for not increasing the difficulty of the examination. But in 1849 a Syndicate was appointed to consider die expediency of removing this restriction; and therefore the question whether the tripos, as constituted, was a sufficient qualification for a degree came up for discussion. A party in the Syndicate, led by Whewell, maintained that as it was an exclusively linguistic test, young men ought not to be allowed to sit for it, unless they had been given an opportunity of developing their reasoning faculties by taking the Mathematical Tripos; while other members of the Syndicate thought that it would be sufficient if they had previously qualified for an ordinary degree. The gulf between these two parties might have been partially bridged by an agreement considerably to extend the range of the tripos; but as this was also a highly controversial question, the Syndicate recommended a compromise scheme which the Senate approved. They proposed that students might be candidates for the Classical Tripos if in the preceding January they had either obtained mathematical honours or a first class in the examination for the ordinary degree, or had qualified for an ordinary degree by passing the first part of the Mathematical Tripos; but the only change they proposed in the tripos was the introduction of a paper on ancient history. Nor was the scope of the tripos further extended when in 1854 the Senate approved a recommendation of the Studies Syndicate that all students of the required standing should be able to sit for it, and that, if passed with credit, it should qualify for admission to a degree with honours. It is quite certain that a serious attempt on either of these occasions substantially to alter the character of the tripos would have encountered embittered opposition. Even the presence of an ancient history paper was resented as an incongruity. The author of an anonymous letter, which appeared in the Cambridge Chronicle, enlarged upon the impropriety of inserting "as part of a classical examination a paper which can be answered without the slightest acquaintance with the structure or vocabulary of classical language, and therefore vitiates the once boasted purity of the test"; and a Fellow of Trinity, A. A. Vansittart, admitted, after examining four times for the tripos, that he found the history paper "an intrusive and disturbing element".1 So did many of the candidates. The Classical Board reported in December 1855 that "a large proportion of the candidates fail to obtain any high number of marks in the examination in history"; and three years later they expressed the fear that preparation for the paper mainly consisted of the "use of compendiums ". 2 Many classical lecturers disliked the subject as much as their pupils and the 1 2

Fly-sheet, 16 May 1866. University Press, D.C. 1350. University Papers, D.C. 1350.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

211

examiners. They thought that it had "gate-crashed" the tripos and therefore ought to be expelled. But some of the more enlightened of them were of the opposite opinion: they desired that not only history but ancient philosophy should be included, and ridiculed the idea that the tripos ought to be exclusively a test of pure scholarship. Some years later, Henry Jackson of Trinity, in the course of a discussion of a report in the Arts School, passed judgment with characteristic bluntness upon the tripos as it was in his undergraduate days. "He must go back for a time", he said, "to the old tripos which came to an end in 1872, the golden age according to Mr Page, the age of 'pure scholarship*. What their 'pure scholarship' meant was this. They read Thucydides, but not Grote; they studied the construction of the speeches, but did not confuse themselves by trying to study their drift. They read the Phcedrus, but had no Theory of Ideas. They read the Thecetetus, but did not know what Plato was driving at or what Protagoras meant. They read twenty or thirty letters of Cicero—they took care to read selected letters—but they did not look into a Roman history in connection with them."* It must be borne in mind however that Jackson was speaking as an advocate of reform, and prpbably exaggerated the defects of the unreformed tripos. The possibility of devising a scheme upon which these opposing schools of thought could agree was often considered by the Classical Board, and in 1858 they discussed a proposal for the division of the tripos into two parts, one to test the linguistic skill of the candidates, and the other their knowledge of the Greek and Roman world.2 But nothing came of these efforts; and it was not the only problem which the Board was called upon to solve. The regulation, that required a candidate for the Chancellor's Medals to have obtained at least a second class in the Mathematical Tripos, was still in force, and was having unfortunate consequences. Men who had distinguished themselves in the Classical Tripos were not infrequently unable to compete for the medals, either because they had not sat for the Mathematical Tripos or had failed to gain a place in the second class, and consequently it was not unknown for the medals to be awarded to men who were not the best classical scholars of their year.3 1

University Reporter, 1878-9, p. 495. A. A. Vansittart, Fly-sheet, 30 January 1867; An Open Letter from J. L. Hammond to A. A. Vansittart, 11 February 1867. University Papers, D.C. 1350. 3 Neither R. C. Jebb, who was senior Classic in 1862, nor Henry Jackson, who was third Classic in the same year, was a Chancellor's Medallist; and in 1864 the first medal was awarded to the seventh Classic, and the second to the sixteenth. There is an unsigned paper on this question among the University Papers, D.C. 1350. 2

14-2

212

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

In the Easter Term of 1866 t w o Fellows of Trinity, W . G. Clark and Robert Burn, addressed an open letter to the Classical Board. "When the mathematical restriction was removed from the Classical Tripos in 1850",1 they said, "some of those who proposed its removal did not hesitate to say that the Classical Tripos, as then constituted, was incomplete. They put forward the proposal of an enlargement of the examination, so as to include history and philosophy. This they considered necessary, in order to give its full educational value to the Cambridge system of classical studies, and an instalment was immediately laid before the Senate in the shape of a history paper, which has since taken a permanent place in the examination.... An opportunity seems now to offer itself for completing the scheme contemplated at the time when the mathematical restriction was removed. The Classical Board have for some years past entertained the question whether the examination for the Chancellor's Medals might not be rendered more widely useful in the encouragement of classical study. The Board also obtained some years back the sanction of the Chancellor to the removal of restrictions which at present exact a certain amount of mathematical knowledge from candidates for the medals, the original purpose of which was the encouragement of classical learning only."

With this preface they submitted a scheme "for a union of the Classical Tripos examination with the Chancellor's Medal [sic] examination". They suggested that there should be only one verse paper in the tripos instead of two, and only four translation papers instead of six, and that, instead of a single history paper, there should be a paper on Greek and Roman history and antiquities, and another of historical essay subjects.2 There were to be also two entirely new papers, one on Plato's Republic and the other on Aristotle's Ethics and the later philosophers of Greece and Rome; and they further proposed that the Chancellor's Medals should be awarded upon the language papers of the tripos, and not on a separate examination, and that any one qualified to be a candidate for the tripos should be eligible to compete for them. They explained that if these recommendations were accepted, "the medals would become prizes for accomplishment in scholarship, and distinction in the tripos would be attained by a wider range of study, including the subjectmatter of the authors read as well as their language"; and they similarly enlarged upon the educational value of the new papers they had suggested. First, those who now come to the University well trained in scholarship would, while they improved and ripened their skill in writing and interpreting Greek and Latin, at the same time have a fresh interest awakened in their minds by a new field 1 The changes approved by the Grace passed in April 1849 did not come into operation until after 1850. 2 There were still however to be two prose composition papers.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

213

of study, viz. that of ancient history and philosophy. It is to be feared that under the present system too many of our classical students make but slow progress during their University course. Their studies are, with slight differences, a repetition of what they learned at school Secondly, a considerable class of students, who are now excluded from high classical honours because they have not had the advantage of a Public School training in composition, would be encouraged to read for the Classical Tripos. Many of such students have a strong taste for classical literature, and great ability in grasping historical and philosophical subjects, but verse composition is so difficult for them that the expenditure of time upon it, entailed by the present examination, is enough to deter them from reading for classical honours.1 As this scheme was fathered by two distinguished classical scholars, it attracted a great deal of notice; * and though it did not escape criticism, it was at least considered to be worthy of discussion: Professor Kennedy, for instance, remarked that not one of the many fly-sheets issued controverted the proposition that "the Classical Tripos, since it was made a degree examination, is so far defective as it does not provide definite subjects of study sufficient for the bulk of those who seek the degree of Bachelor of Arts through its channel".3 But there was a sharp difference of opinion on the way of remedying this defect; and there were opposite schools of thought in the Syndicate which was appointed in December 1866 to consider the regulations for the tripos and the Chancellor's Medals examination. Though most of the members were willing that candidates for the tripos should be required to show a knowledge of ancient philosophy as well as of ancient history, some of them insisted that these subjects should be relegated to a preliminary and completely separate examination. They contended that the tripos in its existing form was "the only examination in England which marks out from year to year in order of merit the best philological scholars", and thereby conferred a "signal benefit on learning in this country". 4 Nevertheless the Syndicate agreed by a majority vote to recommend that the "fixed subjects", as they were styled, should be included in the tripos; and the defeated party accepted their rebuff with a good grace, as only two of them refused to sign the report which appeared in June 1867. It was divided into three parts, of which only the first two raised contentious issues. The most important recommendations in the first part, which was concerned exclusively with the tripos, were that the candidates should be 1 University Papers, D.C. 1350. This letter is undated, but as it is summarised in the Cambridge Chronicle of 16 June 1866, it presumably appeared in the Easter term of that year 2 Numerous fly-sheets are to be found in the University Papers, D.C. 1350. 3 This letter is undated, but it appeared in the Cambridge Chronicle of 21 November 1868. 4 Cambridge Chronicle, 21 November 1868.

214

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

obliged to take, in addition to the paper on ancient history, two papers containing questions on selected works of Greek and Roman philosophers and rhetoricians, and on the history of Greek and Roman philosophy and literature; and that, "with the paper for translation into Latin verse, an alternative paper shall be given, containing questions on Latin philology, and that with the paper for translation into Greek verse, an alternative paper shall be given, containing questions on Greek philology". Thus it was proposed not only to require the candidates to acquaint themselves with the thought and literature of Greece and Rome, but to give them the option of escaping altogether verse composition; and by making the latter recommendation the Syndicate may be thought to have almost wantonly defied academic opinion. The truth is however that they were the victims of circumstances. Being almost equally divided between abolishing the two verse papers or retaining them as compulsory on all candidates, they could only avert a deadlock by agreeing to the compromise of alternative papers on philology.1 The second part of the report was concerned with the examination for the Chancellor's Medals. It was proposed that this examination should, as heretofore, be separate from the tripos, and not a part of it as Clark and Burn had suggested; and open "to the competition of all students qualified to be candidates for the Classical Tripos of that year". The design was to meet the objection that the Syndicate's scheme destroyed the efficacy of the tripos as a test of pure scholarship, by making the examination for the medals serve this purpose; and the examiners were therefore to publish, "in addition to the names of the two medallists, an alphabetical list of those candidates who have highly distinguished themselves in the examination".2 When the report was discussed in the Arts School on Wednesday, 20 November, W. G. Clark, who had not served on the Syndicate, gave it his blessing as a step in the right direction, though falling short of the scheme which he and Burn had proposed, and Professor Kennedy also approved it, though he tempered his praise with criticism. He hinted a dislike of the "partial advantage" given to "distinct preparation", remarking that "he would prefer that the set subjects were not limited to a few authors called philosophical", but "extended to the whole range of classical literature". Indeed he unmistakably intimated that there was much in the report which was not to his liking, and that he was only supporting it "as an experiment worth trying"; but the chilliness of his commendation was possibly less damaging than the enthusiasm he displayed for the tripos that it was proposed to reform. "He would never allow", tie said, "that die Classical Tripos is an 1 See a speech by A. Holmes when the report was discussed on 20 November 1867. Cambridge Chronicle, 23 November 1867. 2 University Papers, D.C. 1350.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

215

examination in languages only, not in the matter and spirit of ancient literature. To say nothing of the history papers, who could take a good place in that tripos without studying ancient authors largely and carefully? Who could do this without becoming familiar with their subject matter?" If this was really so, reform was hardly needed. But the main target of attack was the proposal to allow alternatives to the two verse composition papers. A serious objection to it, as one speaker pointed out, was that it penalised those men who were proficient both in philology and in verse composition; but it was by no means the only one. Both E. H. Perowne and Professor Selwyn enlarged upon the educational benefit derived from composition in verse; and they were supported by the High Steward, Lord Powis, whose interest in the classics had led him to take the unusual course of attending the discussion. He sorrowfully predicted that the writing of verses would soon fall into disuse in the public schools if it ceased to be compulsory in the tripos; and to the astonishment of those of his hearers who had not completely forgotten their schooldays, he added that schoolboys would consequently be deprived of one of their greatest pleasures. Vansittart's dry comment upon this slander on English youth was "that if the pleasure of writing verses was so very great,.. .he could only say that in his time the Eton boys were the most self-sacrificing boys in the world, as on the smallest pretext they would forego that pleasure". But there was less opposition to the Syndicate's scheme for the award of the medals. Indeed only Luard protested against it as severing the last remaining link between classics and mathematics; but what he thought a loss seemed to most reasonable men a gain.1 The Syndicate endeavoured to meet some of these criticisms when revising their report. Instead of allowing an option between verses and philology, they assigned one paper to each subject, both being compulsory on all candidates. But the value of this concession was much diminished by a further recommendation that the marks obtained on the verse paper were not to be taken into account until after the successful candidates had been classed; for if this was to be the rule, only the better men were likely to devote much time to verse composition.2 Five members of the Syndicate so strongly disapproved of the revised report as to refuse to sign it; 3 and one of them, W. H. Bateson, attacked it fiercely when it was discussed on 25 March 1868. He contended that the scales had been weighted most heavily and unfairly against verse composition, 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 23 November 1867. University Papers, D.C. 1350. 3 Of these five, two signed the report with the exception of the first part, thus restricting their approval to the scheme for the award of the medals. 2

2l6

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

and that the examination, which the Senate was to be asked to approve, was so varied in character and so completely lacking in unity of design, as to make it practically impossible to ascertain in which particular branch of classical studies a candidate had excelled. He was answered by the Vice-Chancellor, W. H. Thompson, who said that the Syndicate "had done their best to remove the disgrace of philological ignorance from the University", and that the fears expressed for the future of verse composition were quite unjustified, as it was very adequately represented in the examinations for University scholarships and prizes. But other defenders of the report adopted such an apologetic tone, as to suggest that they were not very much in love with the cause they supported.1 But as the Syndicate's scheme* for the Chancellor's Medals examination had been practically uncriticised, it may well have come as a surprise when on 20 May 1868 the Senate rejected both parts of the report, the first by seventynine votes to forty and the second by fifty-three votes to twenty-seven.2 It may possibly have been thought desirable, as Professor Kennedy later suggested, that the two parts should stand or fall together; but it is also possible that the Senate was in a rejecting mood and not inclined to discriminate.3 But as it was generally held that the tripos could not be left exactly as it was, the Syndicate were not permitted to console themselves for defeat by resting from their labours: on 25 November 1868 they were reappointed, and called upon to resume their task. They now knew some of the rocks which they must avoid; and their report, which appeared in the following March, shows that they had taken to heart the lesson of their earlier failure. The only substantial change they recommended in the tripos was the addition of three papers, one on philology and the other two on selected works of Greek and Roman philosophers and rhetoricians. But they apparently did not think that the defeat of their previous scheme for the award of the medals was due to a fundamental dislike of it; for they repeated it unchanged.4 Certain members of the Syndicate must have been disappointed by the omission of any proposals for the reduction of the weight of verse composition in the tripos; but the sacrifice was probably well worth while, particularly as the new scheme, though less revolutionary than the former one, was equally open to the charges of encouraging "cram", discouraging pure scholarship, and of bearing hardly upon candidates who had no bent for philosophy. And indeed all these objections were advanced by E. H. Perowne when the report was discussed on 17 April 1869; but on this occasion he 1 3 4

2 Cambridge Chronicle, 28 March 1868. Ibid. 23 May 1868. Professor Kennedy's letter can be found in the Cambridge Chronicle of 21 November 1868. University Papers, D . C . 1350.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

217

ploughed a lonely furrow. We learn that "from the debate it soon became evident that everyone was weary of the subject, and ready to vote on it without further discussion"; * and on this occasion a coming event did really cast its shadow, as the report was approved by the Senate on 29 April. But some remarks subsequently made by Professor Kennedy suggest that this victory was not universally regarded as final. "The system which has existed for the last ten years", he said in March 1879,... was under discussion when I entered on my present office in Cambridge, and was soon afterwards adopted. I fully recognised the force of the arguments which recommended the addition of set subjects to examinations for classical honours leading to a degree in arts. But I did not augur well of a plan which in any one classical honour-examination combined set subjects with pure scholarship under one form of classification. I made an attempt to divide them, which once obtained a favourable vote in the Syndicate, but was not ultimately successful. Simplicity prevailed, as in England it usually does, against the force of all other arguments." 2 It was an uneasy situation, and those who would really have preferred the tripos to remain unreformed were naturally suspicious when in May 1873 the Classical Board proposed that the ancient history paper in the tripos should contain questions on a selected period announced beforehand, as well as on the general outlines of the subject.3 It was argued on behalf of this suggestion that the regulations for the history paper, which had not been altered by the report approved in April 1869, merely prescribed that the paper should be on ancient history, and that "the vastness of the subject discouraged preparation, and its vagueness discouraged systematic preparation"; 4 but that if the paper contained a certain number of questions on a special period, the candidates might prepare for it, instead of treating it, as apparently they did, as a game of chance. But this was what the party which disliked the intrusion of set 1

2 Cambridge Chronicle, 24 April 1869. University Papers, D.C. 1350. The genesis of this recommendation may have been an undated paper, inscribed: "For members of the Classical Board only", and signed by W. G. Clark, R. Burn, R. C. Jebb and Henry Jackson. It runs as follows: "It has been generally felt for some time past that the present history paper in the Classical Tripos does not work well, and that a thorough knowledge of history is not encouraged by it." The signatories then proceeded to say that they did not wish to propose a definite scheme, but merely to raise the general question, "and at the same time to point out one or two solutions. (1) A paper in a fixed period of Greek and Roman history to be read in the original authorities might be substituted for the present history paper, care being always taken that some questions in this paper should test a general knowledge of Greek or Roman history as a whole:.. .(2) One of the present translation papers might be appropriated to translation from fixed historical books, and the history paper might be made a paper of questions, chiefly, but not exclusively, on the subject matter of these books." University Papers, D.C. 1350. 4 This remark was made by R. C. Jebb at the discussion of the reports. University Reporter, 4 November 1873. 3

2l8

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

subjects in the tripos did not want; and consequently when the Board's report was discussed on 31 October 1873, it was severely attacked. It was asserted that the history paper, as it was, worked perfectly well, that "men read now much as they would read if the change was made", and that it "was premature to make a change after only two years' experience of the existing system"; I but probably the real, though unexpressed, objection to the proposed change was that the less seriously the ancient history paper was taken, the less harm it would do to the tripos. For if the statements made on this occasion were true, it is difficult to understand how it came about that the examiners for the tripos of 1879 felt constrained to call the Board's attention "to the prevailing neglect of the study of Greek and Roman history". They alleged that very few candidates for the tripos appeared to have studied any period thoroughly and systematically, and the majority shewed a gross ignorance of ordinary facts, and had evidently not mastered even elementary manuals. The conclusion was irresistible that our classical students are growing to regard the study of history as unnecessary for the understanding of the authors whose works they profess to study, and either neglect it altogether, or content themselves with preparing answers to a few particular questions, in the hope that some of them may be set.z It may be fairly assumed that the candidates in the tripos of 1879 were no worse offenders than candidates of previous years; they were only following a customary practice. It is not improbable that if the opportunity, offered in 1874, of reforming the history paper had been taken, the answers of the candidates in 1879 might have been better; but the Board's proposal was lost in the Senate by thirtyone to twenty-four votes.3 But more than piecemeal reform was needed if the tripos was to give general satisfaction; and, fortunately, an opportunity for revision on a large scale arose when the University was called upon to consider the advisability of encouraging undergraduates to read for double honours. In their first report, which was issued in March 1878, the Double Honours Syndicate pointed out that the division of the Classical Tripos into two parts would not only encourage undergraduates to read for honours in more than one subject, but also "enable the University to encourage adequately the studies of ancient philosophy and comparative philology, without absolutely forcing them on all students of Greek and Latin literature"; and the Syndicate proceeded to say that as they had received from the Classical Board "a resolution passed unanimously to the effect that 'it is expedient to divide the Classical Tripos into two separate and separately classed examina1 University Reporter, 4 November 1873. As the history paper had not been affected by the recent reform of the tripos, it was incorrect to say that it had only been on trial for two years. 2 3 University Papers, D.C. 1350. University Reporter, 10, 17 February 1874.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

219

tions'", they recommended that the "Classical Tripos shall be divided into two parts, according to a scheme to be prepared by the Board of Classical Studies and approved by the Senate", and that both parts of the examination should be held in the Easter term.1 After this report had been passed by the Senate on 9 May,2 the Syndicate requested the Classical Board to draw up schemes for the two parts into which it was proposed to divide the tripos; and Professor Kennedy subsequently recorded the action taken. "To this work", he said, "the Board addressed itself without loss of time. At a meeting held before the close of the Easter Term, a committee (on which I sat) was nominated to consider preliminary matters during the Long Vacation, and to report in the October ensuing. The Board met again about the middle of October, received the committee's report, and continued to hold weekly meetings from that time till the end of February 1879, excepting in a few weeks of the Christmas vacation. Furthermore, committees were appointed from time to time to draw up rules for sections B, C, D and E in the second examination. The rules so drawn up were reported to the Board, and after careful discussion and amendment embodied in the scheme as they now appear. The committee, which prepared rules for section D (Archaeology and Art), had the great advantage of obtaining advice and assistance from Professor Colvin and Mr Gardner of the British Museum." And in Kennedy's opinion the Board was greatly indebted to Henry Jackson. "Personal gratitude", he added, "as well as public duty, makes it a pleasure to say that the special thanks of the Board are due to Mr Jackson, who acted as honorary secretary from first to last, and who has by his zeal, activity and discretion done more than any other person to bring our labours to a happy close."3 The Board's scheme was communicated to the Double Honours Syndicate, and published in March 1879.4 In accordance with the Grace passed by the Senate, both parts of the tripos were to be held in the Easter term. Part I was to consist of two prose composition papers, two verse composition papers, five papers containing passages from the best Greek and Latin authors with questions on their subject-matter, and four half papers,^ two being on Greek and Latin grammar and criticism, and two on Greek and Roman history (including literature) and antiquities; and it was therefore obviously designed to be mainly a test of pure scholarship. But Part II was intended to be a test of knowledge. It was divided into five sections, and candidates might take with Section A, which was compulsory and consisted of prose composition 1 3 4 5

2 University Reporter, 19 March 1878. Ibid. 14 May 1878. Kennedy's account is dated 18 March 1879. University Papers, D.C. 1350. University Reporter, 11 March 1879. That is, a paper so designed as to be adequately answered in an hour and a half.

220

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

and translation papers, one or two, but not more than two, of the remaining four sections, ancient philosophy, ancient history, archaeology and language. Thus a liberal choice was given; and as a pass with credit in the first part of the tripos qualified for admission to an honours degree, only men who wished to study in detail certain branches of classical knowledge were likely to sit for the second part. The Board further recommended that the names of the successful candidates in Part I should be arranged in three classes, of which the first two should be in two divisions, and that the names in each of these subdivisions and in the undivided third class should be in alphabetical order: the names in the three classes of Part II, which were not to be subdivided, were also to be in alphabetical order, but "in the case of every student, who is placed in the first class, the class-list shall shew by some convenient mark, (1) the subject or subjects for which he is placed in that class, and (2) in which of those subjects, if any, he passed with special distinction". Hitherto the names of the candidates in each class had been arranged in order of merit, except during the years from 1851 to 1858, when the names in the third class had been placed in alphabetical order.1 If Professor Kennedy had had his way, a strict order of merit would have been continued, for he believed that it supplied useful information to persons who had to make scholastic appointments, and was quite unconvinced by the arguments against it.2 But when he found that a majority of the members of the Classical Board did not agree with him, he accepted as a compromise the scheme of the report. 3 And probably there were other differences of opinion similarly settled, though there is no indication that they were numerous. And the report was highly commended by Robert Burn, who with W. G. Clark had initiated the earlier reform. He praised it for ensuring that the scholarly acquirements of the candidates should be tested before they were allowed to proceed to advanced classical studies, and for giving a wide choice of such studies. When the report was discussed, he said that "the proposed change would be advantageous to the classical studies of the University. It would encourage various tendencies of mind,... and would afford liberty to different grades of power and attainments".4 But there was one member of the Board who was profoundly dissatisfied with the report, and that was T. E. Page, who had been bracketed second classic with A. W. Verrall in the tripos of 1873, and subsequently been appointed sixth-form master at Charterhouse. As his duties as a schoolmaster had prevented him from attending the meetings of the Board, he addressed 1

University Reporter, 11 March 1879. He put forward, his views in a paper headed "For the Classical Board", and. dated 31 October 1878. University Papers, D.C. 1350. 3 4 Ibid. Kennedy's Letter of 18 March 1879. University Reporter, 1 April 1879. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

221

them, some months before the report was published, a violent protest against the scheme they were discussing. "It being impossible for me", he wrote, "to attend the meetings of the Classical Board, I venture to submit to you a summary of my views on the proposals of the committee with regard to the second classical examination. The proposed scheme, while making liberal provision for men with special knowledge of any of the sections B, C, D, E, (in any of which it would be possible to take a high place with but little classical knowledge) absolutely ignores the requirements of perhaps a far more important class of students—the men, who without any desire to pursue any special branch of classical learning, are widely read in classical literature, but have not specially devoted themselves to any one subject, in fact the sort of men who in the old Classical Tripos would have occupied the first ten places in the first class. These men will probably compose division A of the first class in the first examination ;* but as this is obviously intended not to be equivalent to a full classical degree, and indeed many of the papers are specifically described as of an 'elementary nature', it can hardly be said that such men are sufficiently rewarded, or that a first class in an incomplete and, to some extent, elementary examination is a sufficient recognition of their merits. And yet it is obvious that it would be impossible for them to enter for the proposed second examination with any prospect of success. Now even though it be granted to the fullest extent that it is desirable for the University to encourage advanced reading in special subjects, surely it cannot be urged that it is desirable to exclude from examination men of wide reading and culture.... It seems difficult to imagine how a more fatal blow could be given to the study of classics as a liberal and valuable means of education than by the proposed scheme for the second, and therefore higher and more important, portion of the Classical Tripos—a scheme which not merely sets a premium on special reading, but absolutely affords men of high general attainments in classics no opportunity to distinguish themselves."2 This letter was a travesty of the facts, and Professor Kennedy had no difficulty in showing up its gross inaccuracies and misrepresentations. "If Mr Page had not been absent from Cambridge", he wrote, "he would have known that the groundwork of his letter is cut away by the fact that the division of the Classical Tripos into two examinations has been already sanctioned by Grace. After this, the Board, when invited by the Double Honours Syndicate to prepare a scheme, could do nothing else but propose for the first examination the restitution of the old pure scholarship tripos, and for the second an examination mainly consisting of special and, in part, set, subjects. This examination is itself optional, and the special subjects are offered optionally. So far from tending to 'degrade or discourage' the first examination, it requires this to have been passed 1

The first subdivision of the first class of Part I.

2

University Papers, D.C. 1350.

222

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

by all who present themselves for the second. The feature which distinguishes our proposal from the system of Oxford is that the pure scholarship tripos, unlike the Oxford Moderations, is made a degree examination for those who take it in their third year. If taken in the second it confers honour [sic] without degree, leaving to each man's option the line which he may afterwards pursue."l This was a conclusive answer, and the report, when discussed on 27 March 1879, met for the most part with a favourable reception. There was some criticism of points of detail, and objection was taken to the abolition of an order of merit; but Professor Westcott was only speaking for himself when he expressed an earnest wish that the Senate would reject a report which asked the University "to accept the principle of specialisation". He desired young men to be encouraged to study " ancient life as a whole, the history in connection with philosophy, with life, with language"; and in his enthusiasm for a generous ideal, forgot that though possibly'' man has' forever'", an undergraduate has not.2 But there were many members of the Senate who wanted an order of merit to be retained for the first part of the examination, and were very definitely of the opinion that the subdivision of the first two classes was not an adequate substitute for it; and they were sufficient in number to have their way, for when the report was brought before the Senate on 8 May 1879, this particular recommendation was rejected. It was the only one that was.3 The Board remained unshaken in their opinion that an order of merit was objectionable as encouraging an unhealthy competition for the highest places in the class-list, and investing a difference of a few marks with a quite unreal significance; but as they could not disregard the adverse vote of the Senate, they recommended that each of the three classes in the first part of the tripos should consist of one or more divisions, but that the names in each division should be in alphabetical order.4 This recommendation had a favourable reception when it was discussed,5 and was approved by the Senate;6 but as thirty-nine votes were cast against it, there was presumably a party in the University who believed that it was both expedient and possible to arrange examination candidates in a strict order of merit. The contest between those who wished "knowledge subjects", as they were called, to be included in the Classical Tripos, and those who wished it to be almost exclusively a test of scholarship, was thus brought to an end; and the peacemaker was the Double Honours Syndicate. By recommending the 1 2 4 6

Professor Kennedy's letter is dated 18 March 1879. University Papers, D.C. 1350 3 University Reporter, 1 April 1879. Ibid. 13 May 1879. 5 Ibid. 13 May 1879. Ibid. 27 May 1879. Ibid. 3 June 1879.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

223

division of the tripos into two completely separate parts, they had effected a reconciliation between opposing demands; and although the tripos of the present day differs greatly from the scheme approved in 1879, the fact that it has been possible, without acute controversy, gradually to modify the framework then constructed, is a striking testimony to the work of the Classical Board. A few die-hards like Page probably continued to think with affectionate regret of the days when Lord Lyttelton had been able justly to say that "no scientific knowledge of ancient history, philosophy, antiquities or philology was of the least importance" in the tripos; but they mistook a land flowing with educational milk and honey for a wilderness. The Mathematical Tripos also presented problems of a serious character, despite the fact that from the beginning of the nineteenth century much care had been expended upon it. It had undergone many reforms, which for the most part had been wisely conceived. Experience had revealed the danger of candidates neglecting the more elementary parts of the subject, in order to concentrate upon the higher branches; and a report, which the Senate passed in 1846, recommended as a check to this undesirable tendency that the examination should be divided into two parts, separated by an interval of eight days, and that only those candidates whom the examiners had declared to have so acquitted themselves in the first or more elementary part as to deserve mathematical honours, should be eligible to sit for the second part. But with the progress of the years the need of further changes made itself felt. A report of the Board of Mathematical Studies, which appeared in May 1867, drew attention to the fact that as "the progress of science is continually enlarging the field of mathematical knowledge by extending the range of pure mathematics and reducing fresh branches of physics to mathematical laws", 1 the tripos was inevitably making progressively heavier demands upon the candidates; but, as the Board well knew, it was easier to recognise this evil than to remedy it, as the burden of the examination could hardly be reduced without endangering its comprehensiveness. Finding itself between the horns of this particularly difficult dilemma, the University had not pursued a consistent policy. "With a view", continued the report, "of excluding some of the more burdensome parts of the course,... the Board some years ago recommended the omission of certain subjects and parts of subjects. They could not however but feel the importance of some of the subjects omitted, and they have already recommended the re-introduction of Laplace's Co-efficient and the Figure of the Earth considered as Heterogeneous, in doing which they were partly influenced by the publication 1

University Papers, D.C. 5300.

224

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

of a recent work on these subjects.1 While curtailed in some directions, the course has however extended itself in others, especially in those of analytical geometry and higher algebra, so that it really is as extensive as ever, while yet there are some important subjects which are entirely omitted."2 And the reputation of the tripos was also endangered in another way. As a high place among the Wranglers was a much coveted honour, and in many colleges was rewarded by election to a fellowship, many tripos candidates were tempted by the lure of marks to extend themselves over a field of knowledge far too wide for them to cover adequately. But there was a purpose in their folly. If they limited themselves to what they could master thoroughly, they might find that the subjects which they had studied were only represented in the examination by a few easy questions not carrying high marks, and if they could really have done better by adopting a sounder educational policy, why, as a Fellow of Trinity pertinently inquired, were they not advised to do so by their private tutors, "who direct their reading, and who are bound by their profession to know what pays best for the tripos?" 3 The answer to this query was given by another Fellow of the same college, who said that it often paid a man, who had no special gift for mathematics, to "cram" for the tripos, and that "the coaches know it and advise it". 4 The Mathematical Board in their report of May 1867 recognised the existence of these evils, and suggested a remedy for them. Leaving the first part of the examination substantially as it was, they proposed that the subjects of the second part should be distributed between five divisions, and that the candidates should be allowed to know the maximum number of marks obtainable on each division. The first division was to include all the subjects which any candidate below a Wrangler could possibly study effectively, and "in the second, third, fourth and fifth divisions the questions proposed should be so framed that the man may find it more profitable to take in one division thoroughly than several imperfectly". But it was not intended to discourage the better men from attempting the easier parts of two or more divisions, or 1

University Papers, D.C. 5300. The reproduction of Laplace's Co-efficient and. the Figure of the Earth considered as Heterogeneous was recommended in a report of the Mathematical Board, dated 5 December 1865. In a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, dated 5 December 1857, the Astronomer Royal, Sir George Airy, pointed out that "many subjects—I will cite for instance the Figure of the Heterogeneous Earth—are absolutely forbidden for examination. Yet the results of this theory are known in the scientific world, not only to mathematical men but also to every military or naval officer of moderate acquirements, who has been employed in national survey or pendulum experiments. May it not fairly be said that a university, more particularly devoted to mathematics, who sends out its most highly honoured graduates... without the slightest knowledge of such a subject, has already sunk to the position of a second-rate academy?" University Papers, G.F. 109. 2 Ibid. D.C. 5300. 3 fad. A fly-sheet by Thomas Wale, 9 March 1868. 4 Ibid. A fly-sheet by E. T. Leeke.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

225

indeed absolutely to preclude them from attempting questions on a large number of subjects in all the divisions. The Board also suggested the inclusion of the subjects of heat, electricity and magnetism in the fifth division and a slight extension of the length of the examination.1 The immediate outcome of this report was the appointment in the June following of a Syndicate, of which all the mathematical Professors were members, "to consider what changes shall be made in the examination for mathematical honours, and in that for the Smith's Prize". 3 The first report of this body, which appeared in February 1868, was solely concerned with the tripos, and, except on a few points of minor importance, repeated the recommendations of the Mathematical Board. The question of the examination for the Smith Prize was deferred for further consideration. Dr Smith, who in 1742 succeeded Bentley as Master of Trinity, bequeathed to the University ^3500 stock in the Old South Sea Annuities, and appointed trustees who, after defraying the expense "of a handsome dinner once a year as a small acknowledgment for their trouble in discharging the Trust", were to use half the remainder of the annual interest on the stock to increase the stipend of the Plumian Professor, and the other half for the provision of two prizes to be annually awarded to those junior Bachelors of Arts who, having been examined by die Trustees, "shall appear to them the most proficient in mathematics and natural philosophy". And, as was not unusual in his day, Dr Smith stipulated that " ceteris paribus, candidates of Trinity College were to be preferred".3 It occasionally happened that a first or second Wrangler failed to obtain a Smith's Prize; and this apparent difference of opinion between the examiners for the prizes and those for the tripos was taken with undue seriousness. It was assumed that one set of examiners must have committed an error of judgment, though this was by no means necessarily the case; and it was partly in order to meet this unfounded objection to the existing system that the Council of the Senate had recommended that one Smith's Prize instead of two should be annually offered for competition, and awarded "to the Bachelor of Arts, under the standing of Master of Arts, who shall compose the best essay on a given subject in mathematics or natural philosophy".4 But this particular 1

Heat, electricity and magnetism had been excluded from the tripos about nineteen years before, as not being in a sufficiently advanced condition for educational purposes. Cambridge Chronicle, 6 June 1868. 2 University Papers, D.C. 5300. 3 J. W. Clark, Endowments of the University of Cambridge (1904), pp. 93-95. The trustees were the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor, the Master of Trinity, and the Lucasian, the Plumian and the Lowndean Professors. 4 The report of the Council of the Senate, dated 4 December 1857, is in the University Grace Book. WMC

15

226

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

solution of the difficulty did not commend itself to the Senate, who rejected the Council's proposal. Another possible course was to award the prizes on the results of the tripos, but several Cambridge mathematicians, among whom was Sir George Airy, considered that the tripos was quite unsuitable for the purpose. In a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, dated 5 December 1857, Airy put forward his objections at some length. He denied that a reversal of the verdict of the tripos examiners by the examiners for the prizes could reasonably be thought to be a vote of censure, as the two examinations were "essentially of different kinds". On account of the weaker candidates, the tripos examiners were not at liberty to set questions upon some important branches of mathematics, whereas the examiners for the prizes were not thus restricted; and consequently a separate examination for the prizes was a valuable safeguard against an undesirable limitation of mathematical studies in the University. "I see no means", he concluded, "so likely to be successful as the examination for Smith's Prizes in the same free form in which it has hitherto existed."J If however the tripos was reformed on the lines suggested by the Syndicate, the weight of some of Airy's objections would be much lessened. It would cease to be possible to say that "many of the higher physical subjects and some of the higher analytical ones" were excluded from it; 2 and taking into account this possible change in the character of the tripos, a majority of the Syndicate were in favour of the prizes being awarded "in some way or other by means of the Senate House Examination ".3 But Dr Smith's trustees, whose consent was required, would not sanction this proposal. They were willing that the Sadleirian Professor of pure mathematics should become a trustee, and consequently an examiner for the prizes, that the Master of Trinity, although a trustee, should be exempted from the obligation to take part in the examination, and that Trinity candidates should cease to have a privileged position; but they would not go further, and consequently the Syndicate in their second report, which appeared in March 1868, were compelled to confess to failure. They said that after having received the answer of the trustees, they had reviewed again the question of the award of the prizes, but only to find that "there is no plan which, under all the circumstances of the case, they can agree to recommend to the Senate for its adoption'\ 4 It has been already mentioned that the earlier report of the Syndicate, which was exclusively concerned with the tripos, repeated the recommendations of the Mathematical Board. Like the Board, they wished to extend the range of the tripos, so as to encourage the study of higher branches of mathe1 2 3

University Papers, G.F. 109. A fly-sheet by N. M. Ferrers, 11 February 1875. Ibid. 4 University Papers, G.F. 109. Ibid.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

227

matics, which had hitherto not been adequately represented in it; but also to discourage candidates from attempting to gain an imperfect knowledge of a great number of subjects, instead of seeking to acquire "an accurate and well digested knowledge of a few". And like the Board they concentrated their attention on the second part of the examination.1 Believing that the time had come when "heat, electricity and magnetism ought to be recognised as a part of the course of physical science systematically studied by candidates for mathematical honours", they recommended that these subjects, as well as quaternions, should be included in the second part of the tripos,a and, again following in the footsteps of the Board, that all the subjects of the second part should be grouped in five divisions, the first being intended for the second and third class candidates, and the questions in the others being so framed that "the men may find it more profitable to take in one division thoroughly than several imperfectly". And in order that a candidate should devote his attention "to such of these divisions as he shall think most advantageous.. .according to his ability", the Syndicate desired that he should be able to ascertain the approximate number of marks obtainable on each division. They made no provision however for preventing him from attempting questions in all five divisions if he desired to do so.3 The publication of this report produced a heavy shower of fly-sheets;4 and in most of them the main objection taken to the Syndicate scheme was that it did not effectively prevent the candidates from ranging over the whole field of the tripos. The opinion was forcibly expressed that the increase in the number of subjects might easily have the effect of tempting the men still more "to extend their reading unduly"; and that it was absurd to expect to keep this tendency in check by "defining the proportion of marks obtainable in each subject", as this "proportion is at present approximately known, and does not produce the desired effect". This criticism was repeated when the report was discussed on 20 March 1868, and it is regrettable that it was not taken more to heart, as it was later discovered to be well founded. But though one member of the Syndicate was converted to the view that the report needed to be drastically revised, he failed to persuade his colleagues, and the revision it received was slight and immaterial. 5 It nevertheless passed the Senate, though only by five votes.6 1 A fourth day was added, to the first part, but it was to be devoted to the easier of the advanced subjects, and to be reckoned as belonging to the second part. z An undated fly-sheet, to which twenty-nine signatures were appended. University Papers, D.C. 5300. 3 The report is dated 25 February 1868. University Papers, D.C. 5300. 4 Ibid. 5 The revised report is dated 12 May 1868. Ibid. 6 Cambridge Chronicle, 6 June 1868.

15-2

228

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

It possibly owed its narrow escape from defeat to the very minor merit of being better than nothing, and perhaps capable of being used as a stepping stone to higher things. Certainly Henry Latham, who by no means unreservedly approved it, wished it to pass. Though he admitted that the Syndicate had not to any great extent adopted the suggestions made when the report was discussed, he nevertheless contended that "it is highly desirable to pass the Grace which will be presented on the 2nd ofJune". He urged that if "members of the Senate oppose every measure which does not embody their own views, or which contains any provision which they think undesirable, all legislation will become impossible";1 and as he was much respected in the University, his argument probably carried weight. But fifty years or so before, such advice would not have been either given or accepted; and the fact that it was offered by a man who was very far removed from being a root and branch reformer, indicates the change which had taken place in academic opinion since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Members of the Senate had not been in the past advised to be lenient to defects in a proposal for reform. The first examination under the new regulations was held in January 1873, and the examiners, rightly thinking it premature to express a definite opinion on the working of the new scheme, were on the whole non-committal in their report to the Mathematical Board. They did however point out that the regulations did not allow them so to frame their papers as to prevent candidates from attempting to cover too much ground; but, though, on the recommendation of the Mathematical Board, the Senate approved a change in the regulations intended to overcome this difficulty, it was not effective.2 The tripos examiners for the year 1874 reported that they had "only in very few instances found reason for believing that the better instructed candidates had limited their reading to one or two divisions out of II, III, IV and V " ; 3 and the examiners of the following year had the same tale to tell: they said that, though a few candidates had confined themselves to one or two divisions, the greater number of them had spread themselves "over too wide a field for accurate or thorough knowledge to be attained in any division".4 And 1876 brought no improvement: the examiners of that year reported that "very few of the candidates appear to confine their reading to two or three of the divisions, as was anticipated when the present regulations were drawn up", and they emphatically expressed the opinion "that something ought to be done to prevent men getting up a quantity of bookwork without a proper study of the subject ".5 1 2 4

Fly-sheet by Henry Latham, 28 May 1868. University Papers, D.C. 5300. 3 University Reporter, 13 May, 3 June 1873. Ibid. 5 May 1874. 5 Ibid. 25 May 1875. Ibid. 16 May 1876.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

229

In response to these repeated complaints the Mathematical Board recommended in May 1876 that "in each of the last five papers the moderators and examiners shall fix a limit to the number of questions to which any candidate shall be permitted to send in answers", and that this amendment of the regulations should come into force in 1877.1 And as this change would certainly go some way to restrain undergraduates from attempting too much, the Board was doubtless disappointed by the chilly reception of their proposal when it was discussed on 19 May.2 It was denounced as vexatious to the candidates, though, as one speaker pertinently remarked, it could only be so "to those who attempted to evade the regulations by reading all the subjects". Other objections were raised, but none that were insuperable; and possibly the Senate's rejection of the Board's recommendation on 1 June was in part due to the conviction that the evils from which the tripos was suffering needed a far more drastic and thorough-going remedy.3 And there is more or less firm ground for this assumption, as on 17 May 1877 the Senate appointed a large and influential Syndicate to consider the higher mathematical studies and examinations of the University, thereby including the Smith's Prizes as well as the tripos in the Syndicate's terms of reference.4 In the preamble of their report, which is dated 29 March 1878,5 the Syndicate enumerated the defects of the tripos as they saw them. They emphasised the severity of the strain imposed by the examination on the better-equipped candidates, which they attributed partly to the extension of the range of subjects, approved by the Senate in June 1868, and partly to the excessive and unhealthy competition for the higher places in the class-list; and they further mentioned that the distribution of the more advanced subjects into five divisions had completely failed to attain its object. But they did not find it easy to agree upon a remedy for these evils. The excessive competition for the higher places could of course be checked by arranging the names of the successful candidates in alphabetical order in the classes to which they had been assigned; but though some members of the Senate were apparently in favour of the adoption of this course, the majority, though unable to deny its effectiveness, were unwilling to suggest such a revolutionary change. And as there were other differences of opinion, not easily to be bridged, it is not surprising that the Syndicate failed to reach an unanimous agreement. When their report was published, it appeared that at least three members had declined to sign it, and that several other members had only signed with considerable reservations. And when it was discussed, the Master of Emmanuel, who presided in place of the Vice-Chancellor, explained that it was emphati1 3 5

University Reporter, 16 May 1876. Ibid. 6 June 1876. Ibid. 2 April 1878.

2 4

Ibid. 23 May 1876. Ibid. 22 May 1877.

230

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

cally a compromise, "the result of divergent views", and not in accordance with the "exact wishes of any one member of the Syndicate". He however added that the more important of its recommendations were supported by at least two-thirds of the Syndicate.1 Yet though the report was a compromise, it was no half measure of reform. It proposed to divide the tripos into three parts, of which the first two, separated as before by a brief interval, were to be held towards the end of the Easter term, and not as previously in January, and the second part was only to include the subjects of the first and easiest of the five divisions. On the conclusion of the second part, the examiners, taking into account the work done in both parts, were to publish a class-list, the names of the Wranglers being arranged in alphabetical order, and the names in the other two classes in order of merit. Only those classed as Wranglers were to be eligible to sit for the third part which was to be held in January; and, in order to lighten its burden, the Syndicate proposed to omit from it each year some of the subjects included in the last four divisions. After the conclusion of the third part the examiners, taking into account the work done in all three parts, were to "publish a list of the Wranglers, arranged in order of merit, together with the list of the Senior Optimes and Junior Optimes". 2 This scheme could justly be described as a great improvement on the existing tripos. It prevented the second and third class men from attempting questions which were not intended for them, and diminished the severity of the strain imposed on the Wranglers. The recommendation moreover that the first two parts of the tripos should be held in the Easter term was in accordance with the general plan of the first report of the Double Honours Syndicate, which had appeared about a fortnight before. But a scheme so comprehensive and daring was bound to be much criticised, particularly as those responsible for it did not view it with unalloyed satisfaction. The Syndicate also recommended an important change in the regulations for the award of the Smith's Prizes. Reverting to an earlier design, they suggested that instead of being awarded on an examination, they should be given for the two best essays on a subject or subjects in pure mathematics or mathematical physics, and that Bachelors of Arts of not more than one year's standing should be eligible to compete for them. But unanimity was again absent, for three members of the Syndicate, when signing the report, recorded their dissent from this proposal. The report, when discussed on 4 May, met with fairly general approval, but some of its recommendations were sharply criticised. Strong objection 1

University Reporter, 14 May 1878. The regulation that only those candidates who had so acquitted themselves in Part I as to deserve Mathematical Honours, could sit for Part II was retained. 2

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

23I

was taken to the suggestion that the subjects included in Part III should not be exactly the same each year. One speaker indeed went so far as to say that such a proposal could only "have been made in despair, for he could not conceive it to be made from reason", and to illustrate its absurdity, he pictured the case of a young man coming to the University to study optics, and being told that he could not do so "because the subject would not fall in his year". The provision that the Wranglers who sat for Part III should be classed on their work in all three parts of the tripos was also much disliked. It was argued that the third part ought to be entirely disconnected from the other two parts, for, as one speaker remarked, "to have marks hanging over one's head for six months would be fatal to anything like quiet work being done in the meantime". 1 Numerous fly-sheets and non-placet notices appeared after the discussion,2 and a battle in the Senate was clearly foreshadowed. As was usual in the case of a report containing several recommendations, a separate Grace for each of the Syndicate's proposals was submitted to the Senate on 29 May; and five of them were defeated by large majorities. The recommendations that in the class-list published after the second part the names of the Wranglers should be placed in alphabetical order, and the names in the other two classes in order of merit, that the examiners should take into account the work done by the Wranglers in all three parts, when arranging them in order of merit after the third part, and that the subjects of the third part should not be the same every year, were all rejected.3 But as many of their recommendations had been accepted by the Senate, including that for the award of the Smith's Prizes, the Syndicate, instead of having to recast the whole of their scheme, had only to fill certain gaps in it; and if they had been in any doubt how to proceed, they would have been enlightened by a fly-sheet published by a Fellow of Trinity, W. D. Niven, on the day before their report had been voted upon. He asserted that the scheme, which was most likely to be accepted by the Senate, was one which had found considerable support in the Syndicate. " According to that scheme", he explained, "the examinations in Parts I and II, and the examination in Part III, would be entirely separate. The first examination, viz. in Parts I and II, would be held in the third Easter term, and the published 1

2 University Reporter, 14 May 1878. University Papers, D.C. 5300. University Reporter, 4 June 1878. The other two rejected Graces referred to the distribution of work between the examiners, and the number of marks to be assigned to each of the three parts. In December 1878 a draft statute for the Smith's Prizes was approved by the Senate, which with slight modifications was confirmed by the Statutory Commissioners in December 1879. University Reporter, 29 November, 13 December 1878, 9 December 1879. 3

232

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

results would be in order of merit, as at present. The second, in Part III, would be held in the following January or June, and the results would be in classes, with the names in alphabetical order. The scheme thus roughly sketched is recommended by many good reasons. The evils of competition would be diminished, the competition itself in its most aggravated form would be confined to those parts of the examination where it can be conducted most fairly and with the least injury, the reading of the lower Wranglers would be confined within a narrow range—a very desirable object; whilst the reading of the higher subjects by the best men would be carried on without excitement, and would be tested in an examination, in which the quality of their work quite as much as its quantity would secure good classes."* The plan this outlined was substantially the same as that recommended in the second report of the Syndicate, which appeared in October 1878.2 The new proposals were that in the class-list published after the examination in Parts I and II, the names in all three classes should be arranged in order of merit, that the subjects of Part III should not vary from year to year,3 and that in the class-list published after that part the names of the successful candidates should be arranged in three divisions, and alphabetically in each division. And as a safeguard against the candidates in Part III attempting too many questions, the Syndicate advised that "in each of the book-work papers in Part III, the Moderators and Examiners shall fix a limit to the number of questions to which any candidate shall be permitted to send in answers, and the limit so fixed shall be printed at the head of each paper". This report was signed by all but two members of the Syndicate, and no reservations were made. But it did not completely escape criticism when it was discussed on 2 November 1878.4 E. J. Routh, who had withheld his signature from the report, argued that as it enabled a man to become a high Wrangler by reading only the subjects of the first division, it could be held to discourage the study of the higher branches of mathematics, and much the same objection was taken by Professor Westcott, who said that the examination in Part III, "having no special distinction attached to it, would fail to obtain its true dignity". But the opposition was far less than that evoked by the former report, and the general impression seems to have been that it would pass the Senate. Consequently considerable consternation was caused when two days before it was to be voted on, the Master of Peterhouse and H. W. Watson each issued a non-placet noticed The Master of Peterhouse's grievance was that 1

2 University Papers, D.C. 5300. University Reporter, 29 October 1878. The Senate had already approved the recommendation to hold Part III of the tripos in January. 4 5 University Reporter, 12 November 1878. University Papers, D.C. 5300. 3

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86O-l88o)

233

Part II embraced a far narrower range of subjects than the tripos of a generation back, but, as Ferrers pointed out, he entirely overlooked "the enormous extension of the range of each individual subject". But Watson's objection was not so easily met. He argued that if the examination in January acquired greater importance than the examination in June, the senior wranglership ought to be awarded on it; but if, as seemed to him more likely, the examination in June came to be ranked higher, few men would trouble to sit for the third part, and consequently the standard of mathematical attainments in the University would fall. He also predicted the possibility of the third part of the tripos reversing the verdict of the first and second. "A man", he said, "may very conceivably come out senior Wrangler in June, and afterwards be gazetted as one of six (say) in class A, having been beaten by every one of the remaining five. This man goes forth to the world as the most distinguished candidate of the year, although he has proved himself to the satisfaction of the examiners inferior to five other candidates for honours in the same examination as himself." And to this Ferrers was only able to reply that he did not think this was likely to happen. Nothing came of the Master of Peterhouse's threat, but Watson had many supporters. But all the Graces for confirming the recommendations of the report were carried in the Senate on 21 November, and the only one on which there was a division was that which sanctioned the recommendation that in the class-list published after the June examination the names of the successful candidates in all three classes should be arranged in order of merit.1 To many it was doubtless a sad thought that the blue riband of the University could be gained on the less exacting of the two mathematical examinations. And there were probably many who regretted that the mathematical degree course should be curtailed by half a year; but the Senate had already decided that all the other triposes, except those in Theology, the Semitic and die Indian languages, should be held in the Easter term; 2 and it was obviously inexpedient to impose a larger period of residence upon all the undergraduates reading for mathematical honours. And it was of very little account that the Semitic and Indian Languages Triposes continued until the year 1887 to be held in the Lent term, as the candidates were always few; and the Theological Tripos did not remain an exception to the general rule for very long. The regulations for the Theological Tripos prescribed that it should take place early in the Lent term; and die Double Honours Syndicate, at an early 1

University Reporter, 26 November 1878. The recommendation was carried by sixty-two

votes to forty-nine. 2 University Reporter, 14 May 1878.

234

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

stage of their proceedings, enquired of the Theological Board whether, with a view of encouraging undergraduates to read two subjects, they were prepared to separate their tripos into two parts, and hold both parts in the Easter term. The Board did not however feel able to go quite so far. They replied that the Theological Tripos was "already divided into two parts, in such a way that no candidate is classed who has not so acquitted himself in the first three days as to deserve honours", 1 and that "under these circumstances they are prepared to recommend the publication of a separate class-list of those students who, having taken honours in another Tripos, have passed the first part of the Theological Tripos alone". But they expressed great unwillingness to reduce the length of the course. They added however that they were prepared to reconsider this question, "if there is a general opinion that the necessities of the University require the transference of all the honour examinations to the end of the Easter term". 2 Consequently the Double Honours Syndicate refrained from making any recommendation affecting the Theological Tripos. It could not however escape the Board's notice that undergraduates might be effectively discouraged from reading theology if by so doing they were compelled to remain longer in residence; and in May 1881, when the Double Honours Syndicate had completed its task, the Theological Board published a report which revealed that they were willing to bring their subject more or less into line with the established new order. They recommended that the tripos should be divided into two completely separate parts, both to be held in the Easter term, and that it should be possible to qualify for an honours degree by passing the first part only; and in order to encourage undergraduates who had taken honours in another subject to read theology, they proposed to allow them to be candidates in the first part only, or in both parts, or in the second part only with certain qualifying papers from the first part. But, as they did not consider it advisable that theology should be taken as a first tripos with a view of proceeding to another, they were not prepared to allow candidates to sit for either part before the end of their third year.3 This report was approved by the Senate on 2 June 1881.4 Thus with die unimportant exceptions of the Semitic and Indian Languages Triposes, and the third part of the Mathematical Tripos, all the honours examinations would in future be held in the Easter term; and consequently there was one temptation the less for undergraduates to content themselves with an ordinary degree. And though this review of the educational activities of the University over twenty years or more must have sorely tried the 1 2 3

This regulation was approved by the Senate on 1 June 1876. University Papers, D.C. 8550. This paper is undated. University Reporter, 17, 24 and 31 May 1881.

4

Ibid. 7 June 1881.

EDUCATIONAL REFORM (l86o-l88o)

235

patience of the reader, it does at least show that the stagnant atmosphere which had hung over Cambridge in the eighteenth century had at last been completely dissipated. It is true that the progress made, ifjudged by modern standards, may seem tardy, and that proposals for reform frequently encountered opposition; but the opposition was very seldom inspired by the spirit of obscurantism. It was the expression of a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion, and not infrequently served to draw attention to defects which might otherwise have escaped notice.

Chapter VI THE TRINITY REFORMERS the Parliamentary Commissioners appointed by the Act of 1856 had completed their task of revising the statutes of the University and colleges, many resident members of the Senate must have found comfort in the thought that the upheaval had been less violent than they had anticipated. Certain ancient and familiar landmarks had disappeared; but the Commissioners, particularly in dealing with the colleges, had been tolerant of deeply rooted prejudices, and had refrained from pressing some of their more unacceptable proposals. The statutes of several colleges, as revised under their supervision, continued to require a certain number of the Fellows to be in Holy Orders, and imposed the same obligation upon Heads of Houses. The rule moreover that a fellowship was forfeited by marriage was only partially relaxed; and the Commissioners had not persisted in their demand that the colleges should contribute to the financial support of the University. Their moderation was partly due to a laudable desire not to leave behind them a trail of bitterness and resentment; but they can fairly be accused of straining the quality of mercy. It was very undesirable that Fellows of colleges should ever be compelled to choose between losing a provision for life and being ordained; and inevitably some of those who chose the latter alternative were ill-fitted for the ministry of the Church. Further, it was detrimental to the efficiency of academic instruction that so many of the Fellows were unable to marry, as it tended to make a University career unattractive for men of sufficient ability to be able confidently to count upon finding elsewhere a market for their talents. It was also unfortunate that the colleges had not been compelled to contribute to the University Chest. The demands upon the funds of the University had been much increased by the extension of its educational activities, and were likely to increase still more in the immediate future; and it was common knowledge that they could not be adequately met. Many professorships were very insufficiently endowed, and more were urgently needed; and little could be done to supply these wants. And even to do that little it had been necessary to adopt makeshift expedients which could only be justified by dire need. In 1867 Dr Bateson, the Master of St John's, informed a select committee of the House of Commons that the University was using for the endowment of professorships part of the income which it derived from the fees paid by undergraduates;* and, as he rightly 1 Special Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Oxford and Cambridge

WHEN

Universities Bill (1867).

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

237

pointed out, this was a thoroughly unsound policy, as that income was essentially unstable, rising and falling with the number of annual admissions.1 The older academic generation were for the most part unperturbed by these defects in the work of the Commissioners, and perhaps regarded them as merits. The new world, into which they had been driven, was very different from that in which they had grown up, and far less acceptable; but they certainly did not wish to see a still newer world. But the rising generation of Fellows had no memories of the past to darken their vision of the future; and were therefore generally far more alive than their elders to the need of further reform. They were probably often derided as young men in a hurry, and it is very likely that some of them were lacking in tact and political wisdom; but, whatever their shortcomings, it was well that their voices should be lifted up against the abuses that still cumbered the ground. But there was a danger that, for a time at least, their voices might be raised in a wilderness. At the outset, being in a minority, they could do little without the co-operation of their seniors, which was often refused them; and if they waited to move until they were numerically stronger, they might well find that with the progress of the years they had lost much of their earlier enthusiasm and faith. In some colleges however they were more happily situated; and particularly so in Trinity. During the first half of the nineteenth century Trinity had been foremost in the cause of academic reform, and had supplied many of the leaders of the movement for bringing the curriculum of the University into line with modern needs and sentiments. It had indeed opposed several wise recommendations of the Commissioners, and was not free from the human weakness of wishing to go along the road of improvement at its own pace; but it had nevertheless become the home of a great liberal tradition. But there are degrees of liberal fervour; and the older Fellows of the college, having the natural reluctance of age to venture into uncharted seas, were unlikely to take the first steps in the direction of further statutory reform. Yet some, and possibly many, of them, might rally to that cause if the younger Fellows raised its banner, and tempered their zeal with discretion. And by a happy chance some of the junior Fellows of Trinity at this time were men who were politically wise as well as enlightened, and therefore not likely to indulge in extravagances. The names of Henry Sidgwick, Coutts Trotter and Henry Jackson, who were elected into fellowships between the years 1859 and 1864, are still remembered in their college, but what they and others did to promote its welfare and efficiency is forgotten. And this is regrettable, for it is not the least of their titles to remembrance. 1 After 1862 the number of matriculations had very much increased, but there'might at any time be a sharp and persistent decline. Special Report o^a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Bill (1867).

238

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

The Trinity statutes, which had only come into operation in i860, were an improvement upon those that they superseded; but left room for further improvement. They permitted, as before, a Fellow to retain his fellowship for life if he took priest's orders within seven years of attaining the full standing of a Master of Arts and neither married nor accepted an ecclesiastical benefice or dignity of a certain annual value; and as he would otherwise vacate it unless he held one of certain University and college offices mentioned in the statutes, he was at least tempted to be ordained, and also to be idle, as no duties were attached to a life fellowship so obtained.1 Moreover the retention of a fellowship after marriage was only an exceptional privilege. Though a Fellow who held one of the University offices which allowed him to retain his fellowship, though a layman, could also marry without forfeiting it, no college office gave the same privilege; and matrimony was still further discouraged by the provisions that a married man could neither hold a tutorship nor be one of the eight Seniors.2 These restrictions upon marriage were not based on a belief in the moral or spiritual value of the celibate life: they had their roots in a more worldly soil; It was held that married Fellows could not possibly have the same devotion to the college, or take the same interest in its affairs, as men who were free from the distractions of family life; and this was not the only reason for the discouragement of matrimony. As long as a fellowship for life could be secured by the simple expedient of taking Holy Orders, the effect of lifting the ban upon marriage would be substantially to reduce the number of vacancies in fellowships, and consequently to diminish the opportunities of re-invigorating the Society by the acquisition of new recruits. But this objection to matrimony would lose much of its force if sinecure fellowships for life were abolished. Yet though the new statutes had many obvious shortcomings, they had at 1

A Fellow who held a professorship or public lectureship of the University, of which the annual value did not exceed ^800, or the office of Public Orator, University Librarian or Registrary, was able, though a layman, to remain a Fellow after seven years had elapsed from his attainment of a full standing of a Master of Arts; and he acquired the same right by serving the college as Tutor, Assistant Tutor, Praelector or Senior Bursar, provided that at the time when he would otherwise have vacated his fellowship he had held such office for at least two years. Nor did he forfeit his fellowship by vacating one of these qualifying university and college offices, provided that he had held it for ten years. 2 A Fellow who held one of the University offices which enabled him to retain his fellowship, though a layman, could also marry without vacating it; and if he had held one of the specified professorships or public lectureships for ten years, he might, though married, be elected to a life fellowship. But it was by no means certain that he would be, as his election required a resolution passed at a meeting of the Master and the first sixteen Fellows, in which twelve votes, the Master's vote counting as two, had concurred. Further, the statutes provided that there should be never more than two life fellows under this provision at the same time.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

239

least the merit of permitting the Fellows to share, though to a strictly limited extent, in the government of the college, which had hitherto been exclusively in the hands of the Master and Seniors.1 Statute XLVII of the new code provided that at least once a year there must be a meeting of the Master and all such Fellows as had attained the full standing of a Master of Arts; and that on these occasions any Fellow, qualified to attend the meeting, could submit a proposal in writing for the more efficient government of the college or the promotion of its interests, provided that notice thereof, signed by at least five Fellows, had been given to the Master a month beforehand. A proposal, when first brought before a meeting, was open to discussion but could not be voted upon; but if before the next annual meeting the Master and Seniors had not acted upon it, any Fellow, who was of the full standing of a Master of Arts, could bring it forward again; and the Master was then obliged to put it to a vote. But it only became binding on the college if two-thirds of those present voted for it, and not even then if it contravened or repealed any existing statute. But though a General Meeting under Statute XLVII could not repeal or modify a statute of the college, it was able to approve a motion requesting the Master and Seniors to take the necessary steps for doing so, and those steps were to summon a meeting under Statute LI, which enjoined that the seal of the college should not be affixed to any instrument for the repeal, alteration or amendment of the statutes, " without a General Meeting having previously been held of the Master and Fellows of the college, at which the majority of the whole body of the Master and Fellows of the college shall have ordered the Seal to be so affixed".2 It was therefore possible for the Fellows to influence the course of college 1 Neither the Elizabethan statutes of the college, nor those sanctioned by the Queen in Council in 1844, made any provision for a General Meeting of the Fellows. The Master and Seniors were the Governing Body, and their decisions, unless in contravention of the statutes, were binding on the college. Wnen the statutes of 1844 were being drafted, Whewell told the Seniors that he and they were "a privy council", and that they ought not to communicate their proceedings to others. Diary of J. Romilly, 15 February 1842, University Library. 2 The Cambridge University Act (1856) defined, for the purpose of construing the Act, the term "Governing Body of any college" as meaning, except in the case of Downing, "the Heads and all actual Fellows thereof, Bye-Fellows excepted, being graduates"; and section XXVII of the same act provided that until 1 January 1858 the Governing Body of a college, "or the major part thereof", might approve new draft statutes for submission to the Commissioners. Nevertheless it would be misleading to describe the General Meeting of the Master and all the Fellows under Statute LI as the Governing Body, for there is no doubt that this title still belonged to the Master and Seniors. W. H. Thompson, being then Master, stated at the General Meeting in December 1870 that he had legal authority for asserting that " the Governing Body of the college had the power of convening a meeting under Statute LI", and he must have meant that the Master and Seniors had the right of convening it. Again, Statute VI, which is entitled "Government of the college", directs that "the college shall be governed by a Board consisting of the Master and eight Fellows, denominated Seniors"; and a provision of Statute XVI that "no person shall take part in the government of the

240

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

policy, and at least to initiate statutory reform,1 but it was not made easy for them to do either of these things. The requirements of a two-thirds majority of those present for any resolution of a General Meeting, and of a majority of the whole body of the Master and Fellows for any resolution of a meeting under Statute LI, were perhaps reasonable safeguards against the danger of hasty and ill-considered reforms; but the provisions that the Master and Seniors were not obliged to summon a General Meeting more than once a year, and that no resolution could be voted upon by the meeting until it had twice been brought before it, were unnecessarily restrictive, as in consequence of them there might often, and perhaps habitually, be a delay of twelve months before the slightest administrative change was made or a meeting under Statute LI was summoned for the purpose of amending the statutes. Nor was it probable that the Master and Seniors would be brought under democratic control as long as Whewell continued to be Master. For many years he had ruled the college from the Lodge. He had many conspicuous defects, for he was arbitrary, unconciliatory and sometimes excessively rude; but even those who suffered from his totalitarian methods of government were generally ready to admit that he had high and noble ideals, and sought to promote the welfare of the college. But it is not only as Master of Trinity that he deserves to be remembered, for he had actively encouraged the introduction of new studies into the University, and in this and other ways endeavoured to advance its reputation. He had however always been opposed to radical changes in the government of the University and the college, and thoroughly disliked many of the new statutes he was called upon to administer. He would certainly strive to maintain unimpaired, as far as possible, the authority and independence of the Board of Seniority; and it was unlikely that any of the Fellows would attempt to beard the old lion.2 No General Meeting is known to have been held before the year 1862; 3 college until after he has taken the degree of Master of Arts, Master of Laws or Doctor of Medicine" certainly refers to the Board of Seniority. I therefore propose to call both the meetings under Statute XLVII and those under Statute LI General Meetings, and, in order to distinguish between them, to describe the former as General Meetings, and the latter as Meetings under Statute LI. 1 No statute could be modified or repealed without the approval of the Queen in Council. 2 In a letter to the Secretary of the Statutory Commissioners, dated 22 November 1858, Whewell most violently protested against the proposal to establish annual meetings of the Fellows. Letters and Papers concerning College Statutes, Trinity College Documents. 3 The minutes of both sets of meetings, those under Statute XLVII and those under Statute LI, were kept in the same book, which is among the college documents, and it can be assumed that any account of these meetings in the text is based on these minutes and the agenda papers. The first General Meeting actually recorded is that held on 14 December 1863, but as on that occasion a resolution was voted upon, it may be assumed that there was a meeting a year before.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

24I

and between then and 1866, the year of WhewelTs death, the activities of this body were on a very limited scale. Only two resolutions were actually voted upon during this period, of which one was that the Sizars' dinner should cease to be supplied from the High Table,1 and the other that Fellow Commoners, if under twenty-two years of age when admitted, should henceforth not enjoy all the customary privileges of their order; and both these resolutions were rejected.2 And as no new proposal was laid before the General Meeting in December 1864, there was nothing to put to the vote at the meeting in the following year, though on the latter occasion several resolutions were new read for the first time. But only two raised issues of any importance—one for changing the mode of awarding sizarships, and another which asked for the appointment of a Praelector in the physical sciences. Three months later Whewell was in his grave, and probably Henry Sidgwick was not alone in the opinion that a formidable restraining influence had been removed. In a letter to his mother, written in December 1865, he had described the college as being "in a more reforming humour than ever I saw it"; and a few months after WhewelTs death he told her that a new age was beginning. " W e are", he wrote, "in a considerable state of agitation here, as all sorts of projects of reform are coming to the surface, partly in consequence of having a new Master3—people begin to stretch themselves, and feel a certain freedom and independence": a day later he told a friend that "the long, long canker of peace is over and done; the only thing soon will be to avoid radicalism".4 But the tide of reform was not running quite so fast as he thought; and the General Meeting in December 1866 was'very uneventful. The only new resolution read was not exciting, being that the Scholars should read Grace in Hall before instead of after dinner; 5 and of the only two of any interest 1

Though the Sizars in the nineteenth century were still dining off the remains of the High Table dinner, they were usually supplied with fresh vegetables and, not infrequently, with fresh tarts and puddings. 2 But though the motion about the Sizars' dinner was lost at the General Meeting in December 1863, the Master and Seniors agreed on 19 March 1864 that "the Sizars, instead of dining off the remains of the Fellows' dinner, dine at the expense of the College"—Trinity College Conclusion Book. It may also be worth while to mention that J. L. Hammond voted against the resolution affecting Fellow Commoners, because it did not include noblemen, and that at a General Meeting in December 1869 a motion was passed that "henceforth no undergraduate, who is less than twenty-five years of age, shall be admitted in Trinity College to the status and privileges of a nobleman or Fellow Commoner". See also Special Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Bill (1867). 3 W. H. Thompson succeeded Whewell as Master. 4 Life ofH. Sidgwick (1906), pp. 130-131, 145, 147-148. 5 This motion was lost at the General Meeting in December 1867. WMC

16

242

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

discussed at the previous meeting, one was withdrawn and the other rejected.1 The General Meeting of 1867 however brought to the surface currents of opinion, which had hitherto been running more or less underground. On that occasion an extensive programme of reform, for which Henry Sidgwick seems to have been mainly responsible, was submitted for discussion, and it is sufficiently interesting to call for a detailed description. In the first place the meeting was asked to consider proposals for the annual award of at least one scholarship for proficiency in the natural sciences, and for the award every third year, "until such time as natural science shall be regularly included among the subjects of the fellowship examination", of at least one fellowship in that subject, for which all graduates of the University, provided that they were of the standing required of fellowship candidates by the statutes of the college, should be eligible to compete. The intention was to encourage the study of natural science in the University, and, as has been seen, encouragement was certainly needed. The college was not asked however to give the same support to the Moral Sciences Tripos, which had been established at the same time as the Natural Sciences Tripos, and equally needed encouragement, or to allow members of other colleges to compete for the scholarship as well as for the fellowship in natural science, and these omissions were intentional. Philosophy was one of the subjects of the Trinity fellowship examination,2 and this was probably thought to be a sufficient acknowledgment of its claims, and the Master and Seniors had agreed on 8 December 1866 that the 1 The resolution withdrawn was that for changing the system of awarding sizarships. A certain number of young men, unable to come to the University without financial aid, were admitted to the college as Sub-Sizars, and were able to qualify for the award of a sizarship by obtaining a first class in the Annual College Examination. The change proposed was that sub-sizarships should be abolished, and that "the vacant sizarships in each year shall be assigned by examination among the candidates, previously to their commencing residence", and the argument advanced for this alteration was that "when the cream of the Sub-Sizars have been taken, a poorly-qualified residue are left, who must be appointed to vacancies, because there are no other candidates to select from". It was further asserted that the standard of the Annual College Examination had been lowered, in order that the intellectually inferior Sub-Sizars could qualify for sizarships. J. L. Hammond, being unable to attend the meeting, circulated a pamphlet in which he protested against the change suggested. He argued that the defects of the existing system had been much exaggerated, and that the abolition of sub-sizarships would exclude from the college all poor men, except those of first-rate ability. "The worst thing that could happen to Trinity", he asserted, "would be to become exclusively a rich man's college." In the same pamphlet he objected to the appointment of a Praelector in the physical sciences, as there were few Trinity undergraduates reading natural science, and their wants were met by professorial lectures. Hammond was a much respected man of enlightened opinions; and possibly his pamphlet contributed to the withdrawal of one of the resolutions and the rejection of the other. 2 A Foundation Scholarship in the moral sciences was later offered for competition.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

243

1

foundation scholarships should be open "to the competition of all undergraduates of any college in Oxford or Cambridge, who have not yet completed their first year of residence".2 Other items of this reform programme were concerned with the college tutorial system, which was certainly not above criticism. A committee of the House of Commons was informed by J. L. Hammond that the Trinity Tutors were "as much contractors for the college as our cook"; 3 and he was not exaggerating. It had been customary for each Tutor to retain the tuition fees paid by his pupils, and to invest for his own benefit the caution money which they deposited on admission.4 And as the stipends of the Assistant Tutors were a charge upon the tuition fees, a Tutor might be tempted to engage fewer assistants than were required.5 It was a bad system, and the fifteenth statute of the new code had been designed to establish a more satisfactory one. It empowered the Master and Seniors to determine the number of Tutors and Assistant Tutors, as well as the amount of the tuition fee; and it further provided that these fees "shall be received by each Tutor from his own pupils, and the Master and Seniors shall determine from time to time in what proportions (subject to the provisions of the last preceding statute6) the aggregate sums so received shall be distributed among the Tutors, Assistant Tutors, Praelectors and others engaged in the instruction of the college". These statutory provisions however had not as yet been put fully into force, presumably out of deference to vested interests;7 and the resolutions submitted to the General Meeting in December 1867 not only requested the Master and Seniors to "proceed to a re-distribution of the tuition money, in accordance with Statute XV", but regulated the mode of 1 The minor scholarships, awarded before residence, "or during that term in the academical year in which the students usually begin their residence in the University", were not foundation scholarships. 3 Trinity College Conclusion Book. 3 Committee of the House of Commons on the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Bill (1867). 4 Caution money was deposited by undergraduates on beginning residence, and was either returned to them when they took their names off the books of the college, or used to compound for all subsequent payments to the college and University after they had taken the degree of Master of Arts. Thus the Tutor had only a temporary use of the caution money of his pupils, and had to account for it to his successor in the tutorship. J. L. Hammond told the committee of the House of Commons (see previous note) that one Tutor had failed to account for it; and presumably he had lost it by injudicious speculation. * Christopher Wordsworth, when Master of Trinity, claimed the right of appointing the Assistant Tutors, but only with the "entire concurrence and approbation" of the Tutor under whom they were to serve. 6 The statute which determined the stipend of a Praelector. 7 So J. L. Hammond told the committee of the House of Commons, before whom he gave evidence.

16-2

244

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

that redistribution. One-third of the tuition fees was to be retained by the Tutors, "in consideration of the functions which they discharge, other than those of regular instruction, and to cover their liability for Steward's bills and rent of rooms", 1 and the remaining two-thirds were to be paid into a "common fund, to be distributed among the Tutors, Assistant Tutors, Praelectors and other lecturers of the college, in such proportions as the Master and Seniors shall determine".2 Moreover, though the Tutors were to continue to hold the caution money, they were only to invest it in trustee securities, and the minimum annual stipend of an Assistant Tutor was fixed at £250. There were further resolutions for increasing the number of Tutors from three to six, and for the establishment of a standing committee, consisting of the Tutors and Assistant Tutors, for the consideration of all questions relating to college instruction. This committee was to meet twice in each term, but the resolutions which it passed were not to be operative unless approved by the Master and Seniors. These changes in the tutorial system could be made without amending the statutes; but those proposed in the office of Praelector could not be. The existing statutes directed that there should be at least three praelectorships, to which the Master and Seniors should appoint; and that they should be tenable by a Fellow or ex-Fellow, or, if the Master and Seniors thought fit, by a person who was not even a member of the college. They could be held by married men, but did not qualify a Fellow to retain his fellowship if he married.3 The Master and Seniors were now asked to summon a meeting under Statute LI, for so amending the statutes as to provide that a Fellow, if a Praelector, could marry without vacating his fellowship, and that if a person "not a Fellow of the college be appointed Praelector, he shall be elected, whether married or not, to one of the fellowships then vacant, or, if there be none then vacant, to the first fellowship that shall afterwards be vacated". As under the statutes a Praelector, though assigned an adequate stipend, had no security of tenure if not a Fellow,4 and, if a Fellow, was unable to marry without losing his fellowship, it was hardly an office that was likely to attract a really able man to whom other careers were open; and it might therefore easily come to be regarded as merely offering employment until some better opening was found. The office was not therefore likely to fulfil 1

Until comparatively recently, Tutors were responsible for the rent of vacant undergraduate rooms assigned to their side. 2 Statute XV had not made definite provision for a tuition fund, but it might be taken to imply the creation of one. 3 A praelectorship however carried the right of holding a fellowship without having taken Holy Orders, and of a fellowship for life after ten years' service. 4 It is true that a Fellow, as well as a non-Fellow, held a praelectorship at the pleasure of the Master and Seniors, but in practice he would have far greater security of tenure.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

245

the purpose for which it had been established. The intention had been substantially to augment the teaching strength of the University as well as of the college, as members of other colleges might, with the permission of the Master and Seniors, attend a Praelector's lectures; but if Praelectors were generally either birds of passage or persons who had been unable to find any other market for their talents, they probably would not be effective and stimulating teachers. But if the officfc gave a right to a fellowship tenable by a married man, it became very much more attractive to men of intellectual distinction, who wished to adopt the teaching profession. Up to this point the reform programme had been very moderate, and no objection can fairly be taken to another of its demands—that bachelors of arts and undergraduates, who were Scholars on {he Foundation, should no longer be penalised by loss of their "commons" for a failure to attend the required number of services in chapel, and that the money allowances of Sizars should not continue to be reduced for the same offence,1 But moderation was not a characteristic of the resolution which requested the Master and Seniors to summon a meeting under Statute LI for the purpose of repealing the statutory provision which required a Fellow of the college on admission to make a profession of the Christian faith; nor of the resolution that undergraduates in future should not be compelled to attend a certain number of week-day services in chapel. It will be remembered that notice of a resolution, signed by at least five Fellows, had to be given to the Master before it was brought before a General Meeting; and it is significant that by far the greater number of the signatories of these resolutions had been elected into fellowships within the previous nine years. It does not necessarily follow that most of the older Fellows were hostile to the reforms proposed by their juniors, for they might reasonably wish to consider them at their leisure.2 Having been read and discussed for the first time at the General Meeting in December 1867, all the resolutions except three, which were withdrawn, were put to the vote at the General Meeting in the following December. The 1 By a Conclusion of the Master and Seniors of 7 February 1838, all undergraduates were compelled to attend a specified number of services in chapel, the Scholars under penalty of forfeiting their statutable allowance for Commons, and the Sizars under penalty of suffering an equivalent deduction in money from their allowances. The Conclusion does not allude to Bachelors of Arts. a The names of Lightfoot, Blore, Hammond and Robert Burn appear at the foot of a few of the resolutions. They all signed the resolution for the establishment of a tutorial committee: in addition, Lightfoot and Blore signed those for the award of fellowships and scholarships in natural science; Hammond, those for increasing the number of Tutors, for regulating the distribution of the tuition fees, and for restricting the investment of the Caution Money to trustee securities; and Burn, that for amending the statutory provisions affecting Praelectors. Lightfoot had been a Fellow since 1852, Blore and Hammond since 1853, and Burn since 1854.

246

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

three withdrawn were those for the award of a scholarship in the natural sciences, for abolishing the penalties imposed upon Scholars and Sizars for a failure to attend the required number of services in chapel, and for fixing the minimum annual stipend of an Assistant Tutor at ^250 a year; and two of these withdrawals can be easily accounted for. On 21 November 1867 the Master and Seniors had agreed that "an examination in natural sciences be held next year (in case any candidates present themselves) as a part of the scholarship examination, and that one scholarship be obtained by adequate proficiency in the subject";1 and on 29 January 1868 they had ruled that "the Conclusion of 7 February 1838, relating to the attendance of undergraduate Scholars and Sizars at the college chapel, be rescinded, and that henceforth undergraduate Scholars and Sizars be subject to the same penalties for nonattendance as other undergraduates".2 But the reason for the withdrawal of the resolution which established a minimum annual stipend for an Assistant Tutor, is more elusive. It was possibly withdrawn as contravening the statute which authorised the Master and Seniors "to assign from time to time to the officers of the college such stipends and salaries as they shall think fit". Some of the resolutions failed to pass, as, for instance, those for increasing the number of Tutors, for taking the necessary action to repeal the statute which required the Fellows to make a profession of faith on admission, for abolishing compulsory attendance at week-day chapel services, and for distributing the tuition fees in the proportion of one-third to the Tutors and two-thirds to a fund for the payment of the educational staff; 3 but their rejection was not necessarily due to the force of self-interest or prejudice. It is quite true that if there were six Tutors, instead of three, each of them would be able to give his pupils more individual attention; but it is important that the Tutors of the same college should work in close co-operation, particularly in matters of discipline; and it would certainly be difficult to maintain this common front if there were as many as six Tutors. Further, the proposal for determining the mode of distributing the tuition fees might be taken to encroach upon the statutory powers of the Master and Seniors; and 1

The Master and Seniors also agreed on 11 February 1868 that "the scholarship to be given in pursuance of the conclusion passed, November 21, 1867, for proficiency in natural sciences at the next ensuing examination be open to all undergraduates of both Universities". It will be noticed that the Conclusion of 21 November 1867 was made before the resolution, which it put into force, had been brought before a General Meeting, but there is little doubt that it was known to the Master and Seniors. The Master must certainly have been cognisant of it, as he had to be given a month's notice of any such resolution, and it is probable that the Seniors were equally well informed, as the agenda paper for the General Meeting on 13 December 1867, which was presumably circulated to the Fellows qualified to attend the meeting, is dated 20 November 1867. 2 Trinity College Conclusion Book. 3 The minutes do not give the number of votes cast for and against the resolutions.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

247

the resolutions for the relaxation of the rule of compulsory chapel attendance, and for the abolition of the statutory requirement upon Fellows to make a profession of faith, were not very happily timed, as even sincere believers in religious liberty might think it inexpedient for a single college to take such action when a campaign for the removal of the religious tests was being actively waged. Reformers sometimes make errors of judgment; and when their plans miscarry, it is not always due to the forces of reaction and prejudice. The other resolutions were carried, but the ultimate fate of by far the most important of them, that affecting the office of Praelector, was left undetermined, as the amendments of the statutes, which it involved, required to be approved by a majority of the whole body of Fellows at a meeting summoned under Statute LI. Of that meeting, the first of its kind to be held, we know very little, as no minutes or other records of it were kept.1 We know however that it was held between 7 May and 7 August 1869, that it was preceded by the appointment of a committee, which issued a report recommending other changes in the statutes, and that J. L. Hammond circulated a pamphlet, prior to the meeting, in which he urged that the opportunity should be taken of revising the statutory duties of certain college officers.* Hammond's pamphlet was mainly concerned with the duties of the Steward, the two Bursars, and the non-statutory officer known as the Father of the college; and it reveals the serious defects in the working of a system which on paper looked well enough. He pointed out that the statutory duties of the Steward were to " superintend the purchase and supply of provisions for the public table, keep the cooks and servants to their duty, make such payments as may be required for such purposes, and receive the sums of money due from the several members of the college"; 3 but that in practice the Steward left nearly all these duties to be discharged by the servants, and possibly suffered no pricks of conscience by so doing, as his annual stipend was only ^7O.4 But it was not only the Steward who was remiss. The college 1 The Minutes of the second meeting under Statute LI, which was held on 11 June 1870, contain a statement that "no minutes had been kept of a previous meeting under Statute LI". 2 As Hammond's pamphlet, which was issued before the meeting, is dated 7 May 1869, and the approval by the Queen in Council of the statutory amendments proposed by the college is dated 7 August 1869, there can be no doubt that the meeting was held between these two dates. The only reference to the committee is the remark in Hammond's pamphlet, "supposing the proposals contained in the committee's report to be approved by the General Meeting, and the statutes amended by an Order in Council". 3 This is a quotation from the college statutes, not from Hammond's pamphlet. 4 According to Hammond, the Steward of St John's was more conscientious: he supervised the weighing of the meat and rejected joints of which he did not approve. And he was very little better paid, for his annual stipend was only .£80 a year. But the Trinity Steward, at the time when Hammond wrote his pamphlet, had at least introduced a wine-book. Previously the combination-room butler was under no sort of control, though the cost of the wine annually consumed was about ^1200.

248

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

brew-house and bakery had in earlier days been in charge of the Pandoxator; but when that office was abolished in 1839, its duties were transferred to the Junior Bursar, who neglected them. The college butler ordered the bread, and the Junior Bursar merely paid the bills without checking them; and what was even worse, "the malt and hops for brewing are ordered by the butler at his discretion, but stock is taken of the beer, not by the Junior Bursar but by the butler himself". The college cook was, or recently had been, equally a law to himself. "For a long time all repairs, and most of the new apparatus introduced in the kitchens, were ordered at the expense of the college by the cook, who simply counter-signed the tradesmen's bills, and sent them to be paid by the Junior Bursar." Indeed so numerous were the opportunities for fraud and peculation that it must have required almost superhuman virtue in a college servant to be even moderately honest. The Father of the college, who was responsible for supplicats and certificates for degrees, was as remiss as the Steward and the Junior Bursar, leaving his duties to be discharged by the buttery staff, who were apparently not equal to them, as the Registrary had complained of inaccuracies in the supplicats and certificates sent to him.1 Nor did the Father have the excuse of being insufficiently paid. His remuneration was subject to variations, but during the seven academical years preceding that in which Hammond was writing, it had never been less than ^£145, and often ^30 or .£50 more. It was also, strangely enough, sometimes difficult to ascertain to which department a particular duty belonged. No one knew exactly, for instance, who was responsible for the safe custody of the college plate. The college statutes of 1844 had entrusted it to the care of the Master, the Senior Dean and the Junior Bursar; but the recent practice had been for the Steward to order new plate, for the college or combination-room butler to counter-sign the bills for it, and for the Senior Bursar to pay them. "During the last six years", wrote Hammond, "I have seldom been absent from Seniority Meetings, but I never remember a Plate Audit being reported to the Board, nor do I know whether any such Audit by a college officer has been held at all during that time." Hammond also showed that the assignment of duties to the two Bursars and the Steward was confused and illogical. The Junior Bursar pays the gardeners' wages, while the Steward pays all the other servants. The maintenance and repair of the college buildings form the chief part of the Junior Bursar's business, but the library and lecture-rooms are in charge of the Senior Bursar, owing to the arrangement by which the funds for their special maintenance are administered. But the most glaring anomaly of this nature is the 1

The work now done in the college office was then done in the buttery.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

249

mode of supplying bread and beer to members resident in college. This passed from the Pandoxator's to the Junior Bursar's office; and thus while the Steward pays for meat, fish, vegetables, wine and butter, the Junior Bursar buys bread, flour, malt and hops. Such a haphazard system, though doubtless capable of a historical explanation, insured inefficiency, and Hammond rightly wished to bring it to an end. He therefore suggested that the offices of Steward and Father of the college should be abolished, and their duties transferred to the Junior Bursar, who had very little to do, and whose accounts were so simple that he was able to keep them without a day book. He further urged that the management of the external property of the college and of all the trust property (including WhewelTs Court and the Sheepshanks Fund) should be entrusted to the Senior Bursar, and that the Junior Bursar should be responsible for the library, lecture-rooms, building and plate funds.1 He was also of the opinion that clerical assistance should be provided for each of the Bursars, and that it was undesirable to continue to maintain either the brew-house or a college butler. "We have quite enough to do", he said, "without engaging in a business of this kind; it increases our staff, multiplies our transactions and complicates our accounts. Good malt liquor can be easily got as cheap elsewhere, and if less were consumed in consequence of the change, no one would be a great loser by it. The time is past, or should be past, when bedmakers, laundresses and other servants were supposed to prefer payment in beer to payment in coin."2 As well as these suggestions for the reform of the internal economy of the college, the meeting under Statute LI must also have had before it the report of the committee which had been appointed to consider a revision of the statutes; but as that report has not survived, we do not know what statutory changes they recommended. Nor do we know what passed at the meeting, the opinions that were expressed and the strength of the opposing forces. But the darkness is not total, for what was actually achieved is on record. The meeting approved certain amendments of the statutes, which were subsequently sanctioned by the Queen in Council. It was not of course bound by any resolution passed by a General Meeting; and instead of so amending the statutes as to provide that if a person, not a Fellow of the college, was appointed a Praelector, he must as soon as possible be elected into a fellowship, it only so changed them as to permit the Master and Seniors at their discretion to "elect to a vacant fellowship any person 1

The statutes then, in force provided that "the Senior Bursar shall, as far as possible, take charge of the external affairs of the college, and the Junior of the domestic'*. 2 Hammond's pamphlet is bound in a volume of tracts in the college library, of which the press-mark is 98 C. 85. 7.

250

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

holding the office of Praelector in the college". But in one respect it went further than the General Meeting. It not only approved an amendment of the statutes which allowed a married man, holding a praelectorship, to become, or continue as, a Fellow; but also made it possible for him, if he vacated that office, after serving in it for ten years, to become a Fellow for life, though married.1 The meeting also approved several other amendments of the statutes. Instead of only Fellows of the college being eligible for either of the two bursarships, provision was made for enabling the Master and Seniors to appoint as Bursar a person who was not a Fellow or even a member of the college, "provided that no person, not a Fellow of the college, shall be so appointed, except with the concurrence of a majority of the eight Fellows next in succession to the Seniority and resident in the University". Moreover the duties of the Bursars, which hitherto had been somewhat vaguely defined by the statutes, were henceforth to be assigned to them by the Board of Seniority; and both these changes were for the better. It might be desirable for the college to go outside the Society for either a Senior or Junior Bursar, and most advisable that it should be as easy as possible for the Master and Seniors to re-define from time to time their duties.2 The statutory office of Steward was also abolished, as Hammond had suggested; and its duties, as well as those of the Father of the college, were later assigned by the Master and Seniors to the Junior Bursar.3 And perhaps it was in anticipation of the junior bursarship becoming a more responsible office, that it was agreed that it should, like the senior bursarship, qualify under the statutes for the tenure of a fellowship by a layman. By another amendment of the statutes the picturesque but rather useless office of the Steward of the Courts was doomed to extinction. The statutory duty of this official was to attend the courts of the college manors, when required to do so; and though the obligation was not onerous, it might yet be rather troublesome, as, except in the case of illness, it could not be discharged by deputy. It was therefore agreed to abolish the office, and to authorise the Master and Seniors to make what arrangements they thought proper for the holding of the manorial courts. Another relic of the past also disappeared. The forty-eighth statute limited the number of copies of the college statutes to three, of which one was to be in the possession of the 1 But only on the same conditions as a married Fellow who had held for ten years a professorship or public lectureship of the University (see note 2, p. 238).

2 On 15 October 1869 the Master and Seniors made a Conclusion which defined the duties of the Senior and Junior Bursar in accordance with Hammond's recommendations. Trinity College Conclusion Book. 3 Ibid. As the Father of the college was not a statutory office, its disappearance involved no change in the statutes.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

25I

Master, another to be placed among the muniments, and the third to be deposited in the college library. This survival from the days when the Fellows, with the exception of the Seniors, had no voice in the government and administration of the college, was very rightly swept away; and the statute was amended so as to provide that a copy of the statutes should be given by the Master or Vice-Master to "each Fellow after election and before admission". And this is the rule at the present day. It can hardly be said that these statutory changes were of great importance, with the possible exception of those concerned with the office of Praelector; but they have an interest as indicating that the spirit of reform was abroad in the college. None of them could possibly have been made, unless they had been approved by a majority of the whole body of the Master and Fellows; and in that lay their significance. The junior Fellows now knew, if they did not know before, that they were not confronted by a solid phalanx of elderly and middle-aged reactionaries; and they must have been greatly encouraged. But they also very well knew that though they probably would not be left alone to fight the battle of reform, they could only achieve their purpose through the machinery provided by Statutes XLVII and LI; and that therefore the road to victory would be long and wearisome, unless meetings under these statutes were summoned far more frequently than had hitherto been the case. But, unfortunately, the means at their disposal for insuring that this should be done were extremely limited. Though Statute XLVII directed that a General Meeting must be held at least once a year, "on such day as the Master and Seniors shall appoint", it made no definite provision for it being summoned on other occasions, and by implication allowed the Master and Seniors to decide whether it should be. Again, only the Master and Seniors could determine whether a meeting under Statute LI should be held, unless a resolution that it should be summoned had been passed by the required majority at a General Meeting.1 And as no resolution, when first brought forward, could be voted upon at a General Meeting, the Master and Seniors were able, if they so wished, effectively to retard the advance of reform by not summoning that body more frequently than was statutably required. And as since the statutes came into operation no more than one General Meeting had been held in any year, this appeared to be the course of action that they had decided to pursue. That they had not done more was not however due to a desire to block the way to all reforms and innovations. On the contrary they had proved 1

At the General Meeting held on 15 December 1870, the Master stated that he had high legal authority for the assertion that the Master and Seniors "had the power of convening a meeting under Statute LI". But it does not necessarily follow that they had the right of disregarding a request to summon it, which had been approved by a General Meeting.

252

THE TRINITY REFORMERS.

their willingness to move with the times, and had done much to extend and improve the educational system of the college. They had increased the value of the entrance scholarships offered to non-residents, agreed to offer foundation scholarships for proficiency in oriental languages, and had appointed Henry Sidgwick, when he resigned his fellowship, a lecturer in the moral sciences, and Michael Foster, then a Professor of the University of London, to a praelectorship in physiology.1 But they probably inclined to the belief that a frequent succession of General Meetings must inevitably call embittered controversies into life, and divide the Fellows into fiercely opposing parties. Nor was perhaps the thought absent from their minds that the statutes had entrusted to them the government of the college, and that it would be tantamount to a dereliction of duty and a refusal of responsibility to be for ever seeking counsel and advice. The party among the Fellows who desired to further reform viewed the situation from a different angle. They had come to believe that victory might be far nearer than at one time seemed possible, if only they had more opportunities of actual combat; and it was clearly with the intention of increasing those opportunities that a General Meeting, held in December 1869, was asked to approve a resolution that the Master and Seniors must summon a General Meeting if fifteen or more Fellows, competent to attend such a Meeting, should make a request in writing for it to be held, "provided that not more than one General Meeting shall be so summoned, in accordance with such request, in the course of any one term". 2 Of the twelve Fellows who signed this resolution, only three had been elected before 1859, and to some of the older Fellows it may well have seemed to menace the good government of the college by subjecting the Board of Seniority to a band of young hot-headed enthusiasts. Yet, though lost, it was very nearly carried. Seventeen votes were given for, and nine against, it; and as the meeting was attended by the Master and twenty-seven Fellows, one more vote for the resolution would have secured the necessary two-thirds majority.3 It was evident that ancient prejudices were rapidly losing their power; for when, only twelve years before, John Grote4 had proposed that there should be an annual meeting of the Master and Fellows, he had been reviled as a wild revolutionary who wished "to put in the hands of every Fellow, soon after he was elected, a lighted torch, with the invitation to try its efficacy".* 1

Trinity College Conclusion Book, 16 November 1866, 6 December 1867,10 November 1868, 3 June 1870. 2 The General Meeting held on 14 December 1868 had been adjourned to 6 February 1869; and it was at the adjourned meeting that this resolution was first brought forward. 3 This was the first occasion on which the actual number of votes are recorded in the 4 minutes. Grote died in 1866. 5 D. A. Winstanley, Early Victorian Cambridge (1940), p. 347.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

253

At the same meeting a resolution, very similar to that which had missed success so narrowly, was read for the first time. It directed that the Master* should be obliged to summon a meeting under Statute LI if requested in writing to do so by fifteen or more Fellows; and only one of those who signed this resolution, J. L. Hammond, was of more than nine years' standing. And it was very nearly carried when put to the vote at the General Meeting in December 1870. On that occasion the Master and thirty-four Fellows were present; and therefore the resolution would not pass unless twenty-four votes were given for it. It obtained twenty, but the defeat suffered was, like that in the previous December, almost as encouraging as victory. It is true that on both occasions the junior Fellows attended in greater numbers than their elders; but this would generally be the case, as there were many more of them; and they do not seem to have been disproportionately represented.* Nevertheless the wisdom of these tactics is open to question. In the light of present-day opinion the two resolutions seem harmless enough, particularly as under the statutes of the college now in force the Master is obliged to summon a College Meeting on receipt of a requisition signed by twelve Fellows, and is very seldom called upon to do so. But seventy. years ago young men not only wished to make the world a better place, but believed that they could do so; and their elders not unnaturally feared that their enthusiasm might lead them to shatter into bits "this sorry scheme of things", without enabling them to remould it nearer to anyone's "heart's desire". It is therefore not improbable that some of the more senior Fellows were sincerely convinced that the good government of the college would be in serious peril if a comparatively small number of their juniors were able to dictate to the Board of Seniority when General Meetings or Meetings under Statute LI should be summoned; and as there was no reason to think that very many of the older generation were opposed to other statutory reforms of equal and, perhaps, greater importance, it was conceivably a mistake to urge demands which might make them distrustful. There was a great work to be done—the revision of the statutes in accordance with modern needs and opinions—and it could not be satisfactorily accomplished if the younger and the older Fellows were ranged in separate and hostile camps. 1

The omission of the Seniors was probably due to carelessness, as the Master and Seniors had the right of summoning a meeting under statute LI. 2 In 1869 twenty Fellows had been elected before 1859, and thirty-six, qualified to attend a General Meeting, after 1858; and the General Meeting of the year 1869 was attended by twelve of the twenty, that is slightly over one half, and by fifteen of the thirty-six, that is slightly under one half. In 1870 seventeen of the Fellows had been elected before 1859, and thirty-nine, qualified to attend a General Meeting, after 1858, and the General Meeting of that year was attended by twelve of the seventeen, that is two-thirds, and by twenty-two of the thirty-nine, that is over one half.

254

THE

TRINITY REFORMERS

There is no warrant for saying that the attack upon the authority of the Seniority was recognised as a mistake by those who had contrived it; but a resolution, which was brought for the first time before the General Meeting in December 1870, was certainly more likely to be fruitful. It proposed that a committee should be appointed to consider the provisions of the statutes which governed the election to, and tenure of, fellowships, and that it should in particular deliberate upon the expediency of repealing that provision which allowed a Fellow who had taken Holy Orders within a certain time to retain his fellowship for life, and relaxing those which made celibacy a condition for the tenure of a fellowship. Another resolution nominated the members of the committee, which was to consist of the Master and eight Fellows; and as four of the eight, W. G. Clark, H. J. Hotham, J. B. Lightfoot and E. W. Bio re, had been elected Fellows before 1854, the claims of age were not overlooked.1 Nor was this all. On the same occasion a resolution for the reform of the tutorial and educational staffs was also read for the first time. It requested the Master and Seniors to summon a meeting under Statute LI for the consideration of such changes in the statutes as would be required for the appointment of a Senior Tutor, "who shall undertake all business relating to the entrance of Freshmen, and shall make and receive all payments now made and received by the several Tutors in behalf of persons on their respective sides"; and such other statutory changes as would permit the appointment of a sufficient number of assistant lecturers to enable all resident Fellows, if they so wished, to take part in the educational work of the college. The latter proposal is interesting. Hitherto college instruction had been mainly given by the Tutors and Assistant Tutors, though a praelectorship in physiology had recently been established, and from time to time the Master and Seniors had appointed lecturers in subjects which they wished to encourage. But enough had not been done to meet the growing need of more extensive and intensive teaching. Studies, which the colleges had practically neglected, were coming more and more to be recognised as an essential part of a University education; and moreover there was not a sufficient number of Tutors and Assistant Tutors to insure that the teaching in the old established subjects of mathematics and classics was as thorough and systematic as it ought to be. The appointment of a large number of assistant lecturers would also meet another urgent need. As college offices of any importance and interest were comparatively few, a young man, who had been fortunate enough to gain a fellowship, was more inclined to seek his fortunes outside 1 The other members of the committee were Robert Burn, Coutts Trotter, G. F. Cobb and R. C. Jebb. Burn had been a Fellow since 1854, Coutts Trotter since 1861, and Cobb and Jebb since 1863.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

255

the University than to remain in Cambridge, where he might fail to obtain employment; but if, as the framers of the resolution proposed, the practice was established of selecting the Assistant Tutors, and therefore generally the Tutors, from those Fellows who had discharged the duties of an assistant lecturer to the satisfaction of the college, many junior Fellows might well think it worth their while to discover by experiment whether they were likely to find an academic career congenial. Nor, were they given this opportunity, would they be the sole beneficiaries. It would be greatly to the advantage of the college to be able to draw upon a reservoir of able and experienced teachers when appointing to the more important educational posts. But neither this resolution nor that for the nomination of a committee on fellowships was ever put to a vote. At the following General Meeting, held in December 1871, the Master announced that the Board of Seniority had appointed a committee "in accordance with the terms of the proposition, except that Mr Prior and Mr Jackson had been added to the Fellows nominated to serve on the committee".1 The meeting was also informed that the resolutions for the appointment of a Senior Tutor and an increase in the educational staff had been withdrawn. No definite and conclusive answer can be given to the question why the Master and Seniors granted a request which had not as yet been actually made. It can of course be argued that they thought it better to act voluntarily than under compulsion; but this explanation of their action raises the even more unanswerable question why they should have assumed that the General Meeting would approve the proposal to appoint the committee. Far less ambitious projects of reform had been rejected in the past, and there is nothing to suggest that this more daring venture was likely to be successful. It is indeed quite possible that the Master and a sufficient number of the Seniors were in favour of statutory reform, for surely, had they been opposed to it, they would not have placed Henry Jackson on the committee; for Jackson was one of the most active of the younger reformers, and his views were well known.2 1

The Master and Seniors had appointed the committee on 12 October 1871. Prior's position was more equivocal. He seems to have had a footing in the reformers camp, but there is nothing to suggest that he was in any way a prominent member of it. Nor is it likely that much weight was attached to his opinions. There seems little doubt that, whatever was the attitude of the Seniors, the Master favoured the appointment of a committee for revising the statutes. In a Commemoration sermon, preachecf in the college chapel on 9 December 1913, Henry Jackson controverted the belief that Thompson was opposed to reform. "When the all-important abortive statutes of 1872 were in preparation", he said, "there was a moment when the committee seemed to be on the point of abandoning its task. One of its members had persistently opposed and obstructed: another had ceased to attend; others were half-hearted: the reformers were profoundly discouraged. Thompson intervened. He pointed out that the question before us was, not whether the statutes should be altered, but how they were to be altered. His appeal braced us: we resumed our deliberations: and thenceforward there was no looking back." 2

2$6

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

The committee lost no time in getting to work, and issued their first report in May 1872. They recommended that every Fellow should vacate his fellowship within six years of attaining the full standing of a Master of Arts, unless he held a professorship or public lectureship of the University, of which the annual value did not exceed ^800, or the office of University Librarian, Public Orator or Registrary, or was a Praelector, Dean, Bursar, Tutor, Assistant Tutor, or Lecturer of the college. If moreover he had held one or more of these offices for at least fifteen years, he should be entitled to a life fellowship. The committee obviously wished that the younger Fellows should be given more encouragement to regard service in the college as a life career; and it was with this object in view that they included the offices of Dean and Lecturer among those qualifying for the tenure of a fellowship. But as the adoption of this recommendation would tend to reduce the number of fellowships vacated, they proposed as a counter-weight to it that the tenure of prize fellowships should be for six and not for seven years from attaining the full standing of a Master of Arts, and that fifteen, and not ten, years' service should be the qualification for a life fellowship. The committee also recommended that a Fellow, who was entitled to retain his fellowship by holding one or more of the above-mentioned University and college offices, should not vacate it by matrimony, provided that he did not marry "before the time fixed.. .at which Fellows, who are not college officers, vacate their fellowships"; but they did not recommend that a prize Fellow should be able to marry. Yet even with this limitation much was conceded, as the only college office, which under the statutes in force carried the right of holding a fellowship though married, was the praelectorship. Yet though the committee did not flinch at the prospect of the Society consisting largely of married men, they were apparently of the opinion that married men were at a disadvantage as Tutors, as they recommended that "no married Fellow shall hold the office of Tutor, unless either provision shall have been made by the Master and Seniors for his residence within the walls of the college, or in a house accessible from it, or a special meeting of the Master and Seniors, exclusive of such Fellow if a Senior, shall have been held, at which a resolution shall have been passed, in which not less than seven votes, of which that of the Master shall be one, shall have concurred, to the effect that it is desirable in the interests of the college that such married Fellow hold the office of Tutor". This was an improvement on the existing statutes which excluded married men from the tutorship; but it meant that a Tutor could not marry without running a risk of losing both his tutorship and fellowship. The committee also recommended that a tutorship should not be tenable for more than ten years, and other college offices, qualifying for the tenure of a fellowship, for not more than twenty years, unless a resolution for prolonga-

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

257

tion had been passed at a special meeting of the Master and Seniors, in which not less than seven votes, including that of the Master, had concurred. Hitherto there had been no statutory limitation to the length of tenure of a college office, and it was desirable that there should be. The occupant of an office is generally the last person to recognise that he has become unfit to discharge its duties efficiently, and even were this not so, a service in which promotion is slow and uncertain has little chance of attracting ability. It was presumably the latter consideration that suggested the limitation of the tenure of a tutorship to ten years. It was the most glittering prize in the gift of the college, and it was therefore expedient that it should not be held too long. The committee also proposed that there should be as many lecturers and assistant lecturers as the Master and Seniors deemed requisite; and in order to make these posts attractive to the Fellows of the college, who as well as other persons were to be eligible for them, the committee proposed that the Assistant Tutors should be chosen from among such lecturers and assistant lecturers as were Fellows. Lastly, the committee recommended the repeal of the statute which required the Fellows to make on admission a profession of faith;I but as the Universities Tests Act was now in force, this was no more than the recognition of a legal obligation.2 On 18 May 1872 this report was communicated to the Fellows, with a covering letter which announced that it would be considered at a meeting under Statute LI on 11 June, and that "the transaction of business will be much facilitated if you will send to the Master any remarks or suggestions, which you have to make, as soon as possible, and any notices of amendments at least a week before the date fixed for the meeting ".3 Of the amendments sent in, the most interesting came from Charles King, a Fellow of thirty years' standing, and J. L. Hammond. The latter suggested that prize fellowships should only be tenable for five years from attaining the full standing of a Master of Arts, but should not be vacated by marriage; and by reducing the length of tenure, he hoped to counter-balance the reduction in the number of prize fellowships vacated, that would follow from the concession of matrimony.4 But King urged that the tenure of prize fellowships should be extended to ten years, even though not vacated by marriage, provided that the 1 In a second report the committee recommended that the Master should not be required to make a profession of faith, and this proposal was approved by a meeting of the Fellows in December 1872. But it has no significance, as the Master was still to be required to be in Holy Orders. 2 Only those recommendations of the report which indicate its general tendencies have been mentioned above. A more detailed description is fortunately unnecessary. 3 The covering letter is bound up in a volume in the Trinity College Library, entitled "Statutes of Trinity College, 1861-1878". 4 It is possible that Hammond's motion only referred to prize fellowships held by nonresidents.

WMC

17

258

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

possession of "University offices and dignities" ceased to be a qualification for the tenure of a fellowship. The meeting on 11 June was attended by the Master and thirty Fellows; and at the outset the Master said that "it was not proposed to take a vote at the present meeting", but suggested a show of hands on any question, "if asked for". And occasionally a show of hands was requested, though not as often as might have been expected. Some of the Fellows, for instance, did not wish the Master and Seniors to be authorised, as the committee had recommended, to elect into a fellowship any person about to be appointed Dean, as they did not consider the office to be of sufficient importance to deserve this honour; and the committee's recommendation was rejected by thirteen to six votes. But the critics of the report did not always prevail. A motion that twenty years' service in a qualifying office, and not fifteen, should be required for a life fellowship was rejected by eighteen to ten votes; and the meeting preferred the committee's proposal that prize fellowships should be tenable for six years and vacated by marriage to either of the alternatives suggested. But none of these votes was binding. After the meeting the committee resumed its labours, and in the following November issued a second report, in which the amendments to the first report, carried at the meeting in June, were incorporated. This report, and new amendments either proposed by the committee or by individual Fellows, were brought before a meeting on 13 December 1872, at which the Master and forty-four Fellows were present, an unusually large attendance. It was a lengthy meeting, beginning in the morning and continuing until late in the evening; but there does not seem to have been any serious difference of opinion. A motion that "no Fellow should be entitled to hold his fellowship for an unrestricted term of years by reason only of his being in Holy Orders", was carried; but it seems unlikely that there was much opposition to it. But some of the decisions taken at the previous meeting were reversed. It was agreed, for instance, that normally twenty years' service should be required for a life fellowship, and that prize fellowships should not be vacated by marriage, but be only tenable for five years. But the office of Dean recovered none of the ground it had lost on the former occasion, and even suffered a new humiliation. The committee had originally proposed that it should carry a fellowship for hfe, and that both Deans if possible, and in any case the Senior Dean, should be in Holy Orders: it was now agreed that the office should not qualify for a life fellowship, and that though the Senior Dean should be in Holy Orders, if it could conveniently be so arranged, it should be permissible for him to be a layman. Before the meeting ended, the whole body of the revised statutes was put to the vote, and was carried nemine dissentiente. Thus within fourteen months

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

259

of the appointment of the revision committee, a great task had been accomplished, and without arousing serious opposition. It is true that the concord and harmony, which so happily prevailed, had been achieved by the avoidance of such contentious issues as the statutory powers of the Master and Seniors, and the compulsory attendance at services in chapel of undergraduates who were members of the Church of England; but it cannot be reasonably contended that for the sake of these reforms, it was worth while, or even justifiable, to endanger others of far greater importance. If the revised statutes were sanctioned by the Queen in Council, the life of the college would undergo one of the most fundamental changes that it had ever known in the course of its long history. The Statutes of i860 had for the first time permitted fellowships to be held to any appreciable extent by laymen; I but the almost complete lifting of the ban upon the marriage of Fellows, which was now contemplated, was bound to have far more revolutionary consequences.* If Fellows were free to marry, many of them would certainly do so; and therefore for a steadily increasing number of the members of the society, the college would cease to be their only home and their only interest. It was a daring step, for though time has amply shown that matrimony does not wither the roots of college loyalty, and that it is a positive advantage for the Fellows of the same college not to be in constant and intimate contact with each other, it required no little courage to venture upon an experiment, against which solemn warnings had so often been issued in the past. But the more clear-sighted saw that there was really no alternative, and that as long as the ban upon marriage remained, the colleges would be competing with the outside world on most unequal terms for the services of their ablest sons. Therefore for those who saw the situation as it really was, it was not so much a question whether the colleges could safely allow their Fellows to marry, but rather whether they could afford to continue to oblige them to remain single; and to this question only a knowledge of human nature was required to give the right answer.3 But the college had done more than make an attempt to free itself from an impeding legacy from bygone ages. It had acted on the principle that fellowships, except those only tenable for a few years, should be held on the condition of service to the college or University, and had pushed that principle to far greater lengths than the statutory Commissioners had been able to do a few years before. The abolition of the provision, by which a young man was 1 The Elizabethan statutes, and those of 1844, had provided for two fellowships to be tenable by laymen. 2 Under the Statutes of 1860-1 only Fellows who held certain University offices were free to marry: see p. 238. 3 No change however was made in the statutory provisions which excluded a married Fellow from the Seniority.

17-2

260

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

able to obtain a sinecure for life by taking Orders, the contemplated addition to the teaching strength of the college by the creation of a large body of lecturers and assistant lecturers, and the requirement of twenty years' service for a life fellowship,1 were all manifestations of a nobler and larger conception of the responsibilities of a college. Yet less than sixteen years before, Whewell had poured scorn on the suggestion that all fellowships should be tenable by married men and laymen, and terminable after a certain number of years unless held by college officers; * and Bateson and Adam Sedgwick, to whom all academic reformers then looked up as their leaders, had stood up in the Arts School and solemnly proclaimed that a fellowship without security of tenure would be hardly worth winning.3 But a revision of the college statutes required the approval of the Queen in Council; and this was refused. In January 1872 a Royal Commission had been appointed to enquire into the property and incomes of the two Universities and their colleges; and its chairman, the Duke of Cleveland, had requested the Government not to permit any changes to be made in "statutes affecting the fellowships and revenues of any particular college", pending the inquiries of the Commissioners.4 The request was reasonable, and it was doubtless in compliance with it that the college was informed in February 1873^ that its revised statutes had been referred to a committee of the Privy Council, and that "their Lordships consider it to be their duty to recommend the Queen to postpone the consideration of the statutes until after the termination of the labours of the University Commissioners": a second application by the Master, in March 1874, received the same reply.6 These rebuffs were probably not taken too tragically, for the delay, though vexatious, might be only temporary; and in October 1874, when the Commissioners had published their report, the Master reopened the question. In a letter to Sir Arthur Helps, the Clerk of the Privy Council, who had encouraged him to try again,? he pointed out that the Commission's report had now been published, and that "the present seemed a not unfavourable opportunity of ascertaining 1

The revised statutes however made provision for the Master and Seniors to permit a Fellow, who had served in a qualifying office for fifteen years, to retain his fellowship for life; but such permission could only be given at a Special Meeting of the Master and Seniors, and by a resolution in which seven votes, including that of the Master, had concurred. 2 Whewell, Remarks on Proposed Changes in the College Statutes, September 1857. 3 Cambridge Chronicle, 30 October 1858. 4 Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 16 May 1873. 5 A printed copy of the letter from the Council office is in a volume in the College Library, entitled "Statutes of Trinity College, 1861-1878". 6 W. H. Thompson to Sir Arthur Helps, 29 October 1874 (draft), Trinity College Documents. 7 W. H. Thompson to C. Lennox Peel (Clerk of the Council), 25 November 1875. Council Office.

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

26l

the present views of their Lordships on the propriety of advising Her Majesty to take into consideration the changes which have received the sanction of the entire body of Fellows, in accordance with the present statutes of the college, and the Act of 19 and 20 Victoria, Section XLIII"; and he proceeded to urge that the draft statutes deserved attention. "As regards the general motives", he said, "which have induced the Society to seek the modification of the statutes affecting the tenure of fellowships, I may say that we have endeavoured to keep in view three principal objects—(i) to diminish, as far as possible, the number of sinecure or non-resident Fellows: (2) to assure to those Fellows, who take part in the government and instruction of the college and its students, a permanent professional career: (3) to enable the college, to a greater extent than at present, to make its funds available for the encouragement of literary, theological or scientific research, and of the higher scientific, literary or theological teaching in its own precincts or in the schools of the University". He moreover sent with this letter, "for the use of the Privy Council, a copy of the statutes now existing, with the statutes we desire to substitute on the opposite page, on which I have further taken the liberty to write certain notes, explanatory of provisions, which might not be at first sight intelligible, or the intention of which seemed liable to conceivable misapprehension''.I This communication was acknowledged, but the Lords of the Council took no action.* It would have been surprising if they had. The Government was contemplating the appointment of a Statutory Commission to revise the statutes of the two Universities and their colleges, and it was clearly most inexpedient to allow a single college, however praiseworthy its motives, to anticipate this coming event by revising its statutes in advance. But though Trinity had thus been thwarted in its attempt to set its house in order, nothing could rob it of the honour of being the first of the Cambridge colleges to break completely with the traditions of the past.3 One of Thompson's explanatory comments upon the copy of the revised statutes, which he transmitted to the Privy Council, has a particular interest. 1 W. H. Thompson to Sir Arthur Helps, 29 October 1874 (draft). In reply to my inquiries, I received the following information from the Privy Council Office: "I have to inform you that our records with regard to the matter about which you write are unfortunately incomplete, and the letter from the Master of Trinity to the Clerk of the Council, dated 29 October 1874, is missing from our files. We have however a record that the letter was received, and that an acknowledgment (probably only formal) was sent on 3 November." 2 W. H. Thompson to C. Lennox Peel (Clerk of the Council), 25 November 1875. Council Office. 3 On 16 May 1873 Lord Ripon stated in the House of Lords that the applications for the revision of college statutes, which had been received "for more than a year, were only three— one from Brasenose College, Oxford,.. .The other two were Oriel College, Oxford, and Trinity College, Cambridge".

262

THE TRINITY REFORMERS

The sixteenth chapter of the proposed new code allowed the Master and Seniors at the annual fellowship election "to elect any person to a fellowship, whether married or not, who may hold the office of Bursar or Lecturer"; and he drew attention to the fact that this provision had a very practical bearing. "Our present Bursar", he remarked, "is not a Fellow, nor can we elect him to a fellowship, eo nomine, though he is a person of high literary attainments, and otherwise eligible." * Aldis Wright was the Senior Bursar referred to, and he was certainly a person of high literary attainments. He had been admitted to Trinity as an undergraduate in 1849; but, as he was a dissenter, he did not become qualified for election to a fellowship until the Universities Tests Bill was passed in 1871, and then only under chapter XXH of the existing statutes which permitted the "Master and the sixteen Fellows of the college whose names are first on the roll", to elect to a fellowship "any person eminent for science or learning,.. .not being married, and not holding any ecclesiastical preferment out of the precincts of the college". Yet though Wright was unmarried, held no ecclesiastical preferment, and was beyond all doubt a very distinguished scholar, the college authorities were apparently reluctant to put this particular statute into operation for his benefit, though perfectly willing, if empowered to. do so, to elect him to a fellowship as holding the office of Senior Bursar. But as they could not do this, they reconsidered their objections, whatever they were, to action under the twenty-second statute, for it was under that statute that Aldis Wright was elected to a fellowship in October 1878.2 1

Trinity College Documents. In March 1878 the Governing Body of the college had. approved a scheme for the replacement of the Board of Seniority by a Council which was to consist partly of ex-officio, and partly of elected, members. The Senior Bursar was included among the ex-officio members, though, if not a Fellow, he was to be only an assessor without a vote; and a fellowship may have been given to Wright to avoid the inconvenience of having a voteless Bursar on the Council. 2

Chapter VII THE STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY the long struggle for the removal of the religious tests, the two ancient Universities had incurred much unfavourable criticism; and the conviction had gained ground in Parliament and the nation that they were still in bondage to antiquated prejudices, and failing to fulfil their educational mission. This belief was shared by many distinguished resident members of both Universities; but they knew themselves to be impotent to effect the changes they desired, unless the State came to their aid by appointing a Statutory Commission. But they could not confidently count on receiving such assistance. It was only comparatively recently that the statutes of the University and colleges had been revised by the Statutory Commissioners appointed in 1856; and it might well be thought that their handiwork should be given time to prove its value, and that constant intervention by the Government must produce a state of uncertainty, detrimental to educational progress. But if further reforms were really urgently needed, the disturbance of academic peace was not too high a price to pay for them. The designs of the Government were partially revealed on 17 July 1871 when Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice asked the Prime Minister whether it was "the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the question of University reform by the appointment of a Royal Commission or otherwise". Possibly Gladstone, who was then Prime Minister, had arranged for the question to be put, for he was very ready with an answer. He said that the Government was contemplating the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the "exact revenues and property of the Universities and colleges"; and as the success of the investigation depended upon their willing co-operation,1 he had already sounded the University authorities, and had been encouraged to believe that they would welcome such a Commission. But, though explicit, he was cautious. He announced his intention of continuing his inquiries, and added that the Government had not reached a final decision.2 In the following October he addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge, in which he asked them to find out whether academic DURING

1 As a Royal Commission has no statutory authority, it cannot compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents; it can only collect information voluntarily given. 71 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 17 July 1871.

264

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

opinion was generally favourable to the course he was thinking of taking; I and the answers he received were presumably favourable, as in January 1872 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the property and income belonging to, administered or enjoyed by, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the colleges and halls therein,... including the prospects of increase or decrease in such property and income, and also to report the uses to which such property and income are applied, together with all matters of fact tending to exhibit the state and circumstances of the same.2 Such an inquiry would be pointless unless undertaken with the object of discovering whether the colleges were sufficiently wealthy to be able to contribute to the financial support of the University, and whether the University needed their assistance; and consequently the appointment of a Statutory Commission, whose activities would not be restricted to the single issue of the financial relations between the colleges and the University, was foreshadowed. Nevertheless some of the more ardent University reformers thought that Gladstone was hesitating too long before taking the final plunge. He was told in a memorial, which was extensively signed by resident members of the University of Cambridge, that "a Commission appointed solely to inquire into the funds of the University and colleges would answer no effective purpose", as much information about them was already available, and any additional information obtained "could hardly tend in any degree to solve the questions which it is desired to settle ". 3 And the writer of an anonymous letter, which appeared in The Times of 26 December 1871, accused the Prime Minister of unnecessarily prolonging a state of uncertainty, which was having evil consequences for both Oxford and Cambridge. "Every one of the University reformers and conservatives alike", argued this critic, "desires to see the chapter of changes closed as soon as possible. The agitation seriously disturbs and impedes the work of education.... At the present moment it is felt that the great question is that of the tenure of fellowships, upon which the efficiency of the educational staff depends. The restrictions as to Orders and celibacy have in some of the great colleges made it next to impossible to man the lecturerooms. . . . The appointment of a Commission at this moment, which takes no cognizance of such questions, is not simply nugatory but is positively destructive It unsettles everything, without settling, or even attempting to settle, anything." Nevertheless Gladstone had acted wisely. He could hardly have appointed a Statutory Commission when he had no more reliable evidence of the need of reform than the disputed utterances of those who were clamouring for it; and if, following the customary procedure, he had advised the Crown to 1 3

Report of the Royal Commission on the Universities (1874), p. 7. This memorial was published in the Daily News of 8 December 1871.

2

Ibid. p. 5.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

265

appoint a Commission of inquiry into the "state, discipline, studies and revenues" of the Universities and the colleges, it might be a considerable time before such a Commission was in a position to report, and a still longer time before the task of reform could even be begun. But a Royal Commission with a limited scope of inquiry, such as he proposed, might be reasonably expected to produce fairly soon a report which called for legislative action. The report of the Commission appeared in the summer of 1874; and though it did not in any way justify an accusation of financial mismanagement, it revealed that the incomes of many colleges, in striking contrast to the incomes of the Universities, were greatly in excess of what they required for educational purposes. But it did not fall to Gladstone to take action upon it; having been decisively defeated at the General Election earlier in that year, he had resigned office, and been succeeded by Disraeli. Doubtless many academic conservatives hoped that the downfall of the liberal administration would save them from what they believed to be a great disaster; but they were doomed to be disappointed. When' Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice on 8 February 1875 expressed his regret "that the question of University reform, which possessed considerable interest for a large class of persons inside that House and out of it, was conspicuous by its absence from the Gracious Speech from the Throne", he was assured by Disraeli that no "Government for a moment could maintain that the consideration of University reform, and consequently legislation of some kind, would not form part of its duty". 1 Though possibly unwillingly, he thereby gave a pledge from which there was no going back; and the Queen's speech at die opening of the following session of Parliament referred to forthcoming legislation concerned with the Universities.2 If the recently published report of the Universities' Commission had stood alone, the Government might have hesitated still longer to embark on a course of action which they knew to be distasteful to many of their supporters; but it was not the only goad urging them on. Another Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into the provision for instruction in the natural sciences, had issued in 1873 a report which was exclusively concerned with the two Universities; and though the Commissioners did full justice to the efforts which had recently been made at Oxford and Cambridge to improve the science teaching, they emphasised the fact that hardly more than a beginning had been made. With reference to Cambridge they commented on the inadequacy of the stipends of many of the Professors of science, the need of developing the system of intercollegiate lectures, and the very large number of fellowships held by non-residents.3 1 2 3

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 8 February 1875. Ibid. House of Lords, 8 February 1876. Third Report of the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction (1873),

266

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

Also at both Universities reforms were constantly being advocated and discussed in pamphlets, articles andfly-sheets.The Cambridge reformers were in general agreement that the tenure of a fellowship ought not to be conditional on taking Orders or remaining unmarried; and that no fellowship should be tenable for life, except after many years of service to a college or the University. In a pamphlet, which appeared in 1875, Neville Goodman of Peterhouse complained that the very large number of clerical fellowships gave the clergy "an immense preponderance of power" in the University, inflicted a gross injustice on Nonconformists, prejudiced the efficiency of the colleges by restricting their choice of lecturers, and encouraged hypocrisy.1 In the following year Henry Sidgwick published an article in the Contemporary Review, in which he declared that the University "has for years been struggling and starving in the most pitiable manner, unable to provide decently for the most indispensable functions; while what are commonly talked and thought of as 'her rich endowments' have been distributed among thriving schoolmasters, school inspectors, rising journalists, barristers full of briefs, and barristers who never look for briefs".2 But there were differences of opinion among the Cambridge reformers. Though all of them were agreed that a life fellowship should be a reward for service or research, some of them believed that it was desirable that fellowships should be held unconditionally for a few years, as talent would be thereby attracted to the University, and young men be enabled to support themselves when beginning at the bar or in the medical profession. But Sidgwick was not willing to make this concession to expediency. He refused to admit that endowments for the promotion of study and research could legitimately be used to give a young man a start in life, and deemed it degrading to a learned body to offer such a bribe. "It places the University", he argued, "in a radically false relation to the community, and seriously impairs its performance of its proper functions as a centre of intellectual life. . . . All will admit that the highest ideal of such study requires that knowledge should be cultivated for its own sake, and it should be the aim of academic teachers to maintain that ideal as far as possible."3 There were differences of opinion among the Cambridge reformers on other questions. Though they were more or less agreed in thinking that the colleges ought to contribute to the support of the University, they were inclined to differ as to the particular form of that contribution; some favoured a money payment, and others considered that the annexation of fellowships to professorships was preferable. And they were more sharply divided as to 1 a 3

Neville Goodman, Clerical Fellowships (1875). Contemporary Review, April 1876; see also H. A. Morgan, The Tenure ofFellowships (1871). Contemporary Review, April 1876.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

267

the future of the colleges, giving very different answers to the questions whether they "shall continue to exist as independent societies at all, whether, if maintained, they shall continue to be governed by Heads, elected for life, under ecclesiastical Visitors, and whether, if they are to be remodelled, they shall be left a certain freedom of individual development or organised according to a uniform pattern". 1 The extremists of die party were accused of wishing to reduce the colleges to mere hostels, and even the more moderate members made no secret of their belief that headships of Houses had long ago ceased to serve a useful purpose, and could be justifiably abolished as sinecures. But the reformers had enough in common to be able to frame a programme. On 16 November 1872 a meeting, presided over by Mark Pattison and attended by members of both Universities, was held at the Freemason Tavern in London, and passed a resolution that to have a class of men whose lives are devoted to research is a national object, that it is desirable in the interest of national progress and education that professorships and special institutions should be founded in the Universities for the promotion of scientific research, that the present mode of awarding fellowships as prizes has been found unsuccessful as a means of promoting mature study and original research,3.. .and that a sufficient and properly organised body of resident teachers of various grades should be provided from the fellowship fund.3 In the following month a meeting of persons engaged in University and college teaching was held, at which it was agreed that no fellowship should be tenable for life, unless prolonged for services to education, learning or science, "actively and directly in connection with the University and colleges", that a permanent professional career should, as far as possible, be secured "to resident educators and students", whether married or not, that provision should be made for the association of the colleges for the giving of instruction, so that the teaching might be more efficient, and the teachers have leisure for private study, and that the pecuniary and other relations between the colleges and the University should be revised, and, if necessary, a representative board of University finance be established. A document embodying these resolutions was later circulated for signatures among resident members of the University of Cambridge; and after it had been signed, though in some cases with reservations, by well over one hundred persons, among whom were twenty-six Professors, it was sent in April 1873 to Gladstone, with a covering 1

The Times, 3 November 1871. As only the present mode of awarding fellowships is condemned, approval of this resolution is not perhaps incompatible with die belief that it was desirable to award fellowships to be held unconditionally for a few years. 3 The Times, 23 November 1872. 2

268

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS A£JD THE UNIVERSITY

letter from Robert Burn, a Fellow of Trinity, and H. A. Morgan, then a Tutor of Jesus.1 "The fact", they said, "that so many residents, including so very large a majority of the most influential and eminent members of the University of all political opinions, should support the proposed resolutions is, we trust, a sufficient proof that they are in their estimation necessary and imperative. The whole question respecting the tenure of fellowships has lately been much discussed. We do not therefore consider it requisite to lay before you reasons in detail for the expediency of the reforms here advocated. We may however observe that reform on this point has become an imperative necessity, owing to the great increase in the number of laymen who now occupy educational posts at Cambridge. It is universally admitted that the present regulations connected with the tenure of fellowships are highly unsatisfactory. They seriously diminish the number of learned residents in Cambridge. They are detrimental to the efficiency of teaching in the University, and are calculated to deprive her of the educational services of many of her ablest men. Reforms, analogous to those proposed in the first two resolutions, have already been carried out in several of the colleges. It has been the desire of other foundations to reorganise their statutes in a similar manner, but the late refusal of Her Majesty in Council to accede to the alterations in the college statutes proposed by the Master and Fellows of Trinity College,2 has left no alternative but to lay the subject before you, Sir, as Head of the Government, in the confident assurance that you have truly at heart the interests of learning, and are most anxious to render the Universities efficient schools for the promotion of science and culture."3 The reform party at Cambridge was large, influential and determined; and some of the older generation thought they saw, for the second time in their lives, the spectre of revolution approaching them. Dr Cookson, who had been Master of Peterhouse since 1847, had always been of a conservative cast of mind, and new light had not penetrated the chinks which time had made in his "soul's dark cottage". He was horrified by the thought of college endowments being used for the benefit of the University; and in his farewell speech on resigning the office of Vice-Chancellor in November 1874, he expressed the hope, though possibly with despair in his heart, that the time would never come "when the directions of confiding donors will be treated otherwise than with perfect fidelity and honour". 4 Dr Corrie, Master of Jesus, was equally out of sympathy with the agitation for reform. He had 1 It was reprinted, in March 1876, and after having been again circulated for signatures, was sent to Disraeli on 4 April. 2 See p. 260. 3 Box 29 C. Ill f, Trinity College Documents; Third Report of the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction (1873). 4 University Reporter, 3 November 1874.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

269

always been violently opposed to the interference of the State in the Universities; and in answer to an inquiry from the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1872, truculently told their chairman, the Duke of Cleveland, that he feared that the Commission, "under which your Grace and others have consented to act", might be found "an inconvenient precedent for the Majesty of the People, when a few years hence they come to issue their Commission of Inquiry into the properties and incomes of the nobility and gentry of England". 1 But by far the most active and extreme of the reactionaries was Dr Phelps, Master of Sidney Sussex. As a young man he had been sufficiently progressive in his views to co-operate with the Prince Consort in reforming the University; but he was found in the opposite camp when the independence of the colleges was threatened. He refused to give the Royal Commissioners the information they sought; 2 and in a pamphlet, published in November 1872, denounced in most intemperate language the meeting at the Freemason Tavern and all that it portended.3 He described the diversion of college endowments to the University as positively dishonest, and accused "the philosophers", as he dubbed the reformers, of drawing their inspiration from German Universities. "A Prussian is a Prussian and an Englishman is an Englishman", he said, "and God forbid it should be otherwise." And having drawn his sword, he did not quickly sheathe it. In a series of letters, which he contributed to the Cambridge Chronicle during the years 1876 and 1877, he contended that the only legitimate function of the University was to conduct examinations, that the colleges, either singly or jointly, were quite well able to provide the laboratories and apparatus required for instruction in the natural sciences, and that professorial lectures were quite useless and a waste of time. Nor did he refrain from imputing interested motives to those he was attacking. He remarked that "in this learned community, as in every other class and profession, there are a great many individuals.. .who.. .are demanding appointments and salaries and careers. This little fact is the key to the whole position".4 But fortunately it was not Dr Phelps but the Government who determined the course of events; and on 24 February 1876 Lord Salisbury introduced into the House of Lords a Bill for the appointment of a Statutory Commission on the University of Oxford. He did not like his task. He admitted that the 1

M. Holroyd, Memorials of the life ofG. E. Corrie (1890), pp. 350-351. " W e regret to say that Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, failed, to give the required information. The Fellows of the college indeed expressed their wilHngness that the information should be given, but as the Master discharges the duties of Bursar, and has the college account books in his custody, the Fellows had not the means which would enable them to make the necessary returns." Universities' Commission Report (1874). 3 R. Phelps, College Endowments and the Philosophers (1874). 4 R. Phelps, College and University at Cambridge (April 1876). 2

270

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

Government had been very reluctant to interfere with the Universities, and pleaded in defence of himself and his colleagues that, after studying the report of the recent Royal Commission, they had felt "that it would be idle to think that Parliament could abstain from interfering, or that we could conscientiously recommend Parliament to do so". He then proceeded to explain that the colleges were not only far more wealthy than the University, but likely to become still more so in the near future; and that many of them enjoyed incomes greatly in excess of what they required to fulfil their educational obligations. And he explained in the House how this superfluity was expended. "The real gist of the whole question", he said, "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 anyone starting fjresh in the matter would ever think of establishing rewards of that kind.... 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." He compared these "idle fellowships", as he called them, with the many inadequately remunerated professorships, and enlarged upon the great insufficiency of scientific laboratories and museums; and though he admitted that college revenues might properly be used to maintain and benefit "persons of known ability and learning, who may be engaged in study or research", he appeared to condemn fellowships held unconditionally for a few years. And though, true to his reputation as a master of gibes and flouts and jeers, his language was unnecessarily provocative, he was at least sincere. Only three or four years before, he had told the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the provision for instruction in science, that he had "heard from all schools, theological and political, in the Universities a coincidence of opinion that the present application of the revenues of fellowships is exceedingly unsatisfactory".1 His speech was doubtless intended to justify the action of the Government to the conservative party in the country; and it achieved its purpose. The catchword, "idle fellowships", went resounding on its way, and in some newspapers the colleges were represented as providing out-door relief on a" magnificent scale: the Pall Mall Gazette, for instance, asserted that no small part of their princely incomes was devoted to "the maintenance of clever young men at the Bar, at Public Schools, and in various other careers not connected with the University".2 And though Henry Sidgwick was delighted to hear his own opinions so forcibly expressed by a politician whom 1 2

Third Report of the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction (1873), p. xliv. Quoted in the Cambridge Chronicle, 20 May 1876.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

27I

he had always regarded as an enemy of progress, he was even more astonished than pleased. "We have not got over", he wrote four days later, "the shock of Lord Salisbury's speech. Whether he does not know what academic conservatism is; whether he does not care; whether Oxford conservatives are unlike Cambridge ones, I cannot make out just yet, and have nothing to do but suppress my exultation and see what turns up." x Though the Bill never reached the Statute Book, being withdrawn after having been read twice in the House of Commons, the story of its passage through the House of Lords is not without interest. It had a very favourable reception there, and a resolution, moved by Lord Colchester, that "this House regrets that any legislation should be undertaken in reference to either University, except after a more extended and comprehensive inquiry than fell within the scope of the recent Royal Commission", found few supporters.2 But there was some friendly criticism of the Bill by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Archibald Tait, who, as a former Tutor of Balliol and a member of the Oxford Royal Commission of 1850, could speak from inside knowledge. He urged that though it was admittedly an evil to award a young man a fellowship for life without requiring him to perform any duties, it would also be an evil "if in all cases the gaining of a fellowship were immediately to be followed by the 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 on of research", and he was assured by Lord Salisbury that the Government would be satisfied if the educational needs of the University were taken into account before vacant fellowships were filled up.3 The Archbishop also moved that the Bill should draw the attention of the Commissioners to the great importance of reducing for poor men the cost of a University education; and he pointed out that scholarships and exhibitions did not wholly meet this need, as cheap education was required "not only for exceptionally clever lads, but for all who have ability to rise and serve the country usefully in Church and State". The Government raised no objection to such an amendment of their Bill, and it was therefore approved.4 But a measure sponsored by a conservative administration was inevitably viewed with a certain amount of suspicion by the liberal party, who feared that it might circumvent the provisions of the Tests Act. This it did not do, but it was certainly so drawn as to protect, as far as possible, what remained of clerical influence in the University. The Commissioners, for instance, were precluded from repealing any statutory provision of a college which pre1 Memoir of Henry Sidgwick (1906), p. 301. Lord Salisbury was Chancellor of the University of Oxford. 2 Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 9 March 1876. 3 4 Ibid. House of Lords, 24 February 1876. Ibid. 31 March 1876.

272

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

scribed that the Master should be in Holy Orders; and it was only after several Peers and some of the Bishops had protested against this restriction that Lord Salisbury announced that he was prepared to waive it, "in deference to the opinion of several members of the Episcopal Bench, and of a very strong and unanimous expression of opinion from other quarters".1 But many liberal peers also wished that the Commissioners should be instructed to abolish clerical fellowships, instead of merely being empowered to do so if they thought fit; and an amendment to this effect was moved. It was however rejected by fifty-seven votes to forty on the advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who urged that it was inexpedient to tie the hands of the Commissioners too closely. The Archbishop was not led to advocate this very sound principle by an exaggerated estimate of the spiritual influence exercised by the clerical Fellows: he frankly said that he did not think their disappearance would bring about the downfall of Christianity in the University.2 A separate Bill for Cambridge, practically identical with the Oxford Bill, except that it did not protect clerical headships from the Commissioners, was introduced into the House of Commons by Spencer Walpole, who for twenty years had represented the University in Parliament. It also was withdrawn after it had been read twice; but it was sufficiently debated to show that it did not satisfy all the liberals in the House. One of its critics was Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, who was in favour of transferring the endowments of Sidney Sussex College to the University, and of abolishing the "comparatively useless position of Heads of Houses".3 Sir Charles Dilke was also dissatisfied. He declared that the Bill was "limited only when limitation told against liberal ideas", and that no settlement would content him which did not sweep away clerical headships and clerical fellowships. But, allowing his affection to press upon his judgment, he wished to save "idle fellowships" from destruction. He had been a scholar of Trinity Hall, and had had a distinguished career there, being first in the Law Tripos of his year and rowing in his college eight when it was head of the river; and these happy memories possibly caused him to recoil from the thought of the colleges being despoiled for the benefit of the University. He said that he did not wish the Commissioners to destroy "the noblest foundations in the world", and to build up "second-rate German Lyceums in their stead".4 In order to save time the Government in the following session framed a single Bill for both Universities,^ which on 9 February 1877 w a s introduced 1 Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 2 May 1876. The Bill was amended so as to allow, but not compel, the Commissioners to annul a college statute which restricted the 2 headship to a clergyman of the Church of England. Ibid. 31 March 1876. 3 4 Ibid. House of Commons, 6 July 1876. Ibid. 16 May, 6 July 1876. 5 Separate Commissions for each of the two Universities were however appointed by the Bill.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

273

into the House of Commons by Gathorne Hardy, who was one of the two parliamentary representatives of the University of Oxford. When it was read a second time on 19 February, he explained that it was substantially the same as the two Bills of the previous session, which, he believed, had generally commended themselves to the House. He said, truly enough, that "he did not think the debates of last year were at all adverse to an inquiry by a Commission, though they were against any extravagant extension of the professoriate and against the absolute destruction "of non-resident fellowships :.. .no one took objection to the other parts of the Bill, which proposed that the University should obtain aid from the colleges'*. And he added that there was no intention of injuring the colleges or depriving them of the right of self-government: the purpose of the Bill was to enable them to co-operate more easily with the University.1 The measure thus introduced provided that until the end of the year 1878 the University and the Governing Body of a college shall have the like powers in all respects of making statutes for the University or the college respectively,... as are from and after the end of the year conferred on the Commissioners by this Act; but every statute so made shall, before the end of that year, be laid before the Commissioners, and the same, if approved before or after the end of that year by the Commissioners by writing under their seal, but not otherwise,.. .be deemed to be a statute made by the Commissioners. After the end of the year 1878 only the Commissioners could make statutes for the University and the colleges; but the colleges and University were not left completely at their mercy. Thus though the Commissioners were empowered to require the colleges "to make contributions out of their revenues for University purposes", they were to pay regard, when assessing the amount of this contribution, "to the wants of the several colleges in themselves for educational and other collegiate purposes ". They were moreover always to notify a college when about to make statutes for it; and on receiving this notification, the college could elect "three persons to be Commissioners to represent the college in relation to the making by the Commissioners of statutes for the college", and the three persons so elected were to rank in all respects as Commissioners, except that they could not be counted as such for constituting a quorum.2 The Bill also established a Committee of the Privy Council, styled the Universities Committee, which could hear appeals from the University or colleges for the disallowance of statutes made by the Commissioners. 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 19 February 1877. The Bill was later amended so as not to allow a college to elect more than two persons if "any actual member of the foundation whereof" was a Commissioner appointed by the Act. 2

WMC

l8

274

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

The only attack on the principle of the Bill when it was read a second time came from Robert Lowe, who had been an undergraduate at University College and for a short time a Fellow of Magdalen. He thought better of the colleges than of his University, and told the House that they were being asked to legislate in the dark, and that the Bill should have been preceded by a Commission of inquiry into all the activities of the two Universities, instead of by a Commission whose only task had been "to find out how much money the colleges had got, in order to see how much might be taken from them". And this in his opinion was deplorable, as the University of Oxford was not deserving of such assistance. He said that many of the Professors were quite incapable of instructing undergraduates, and that many of the examinations conducted by the University were too easy to be regarded as tests of learning or industry. How much better it would have been, he argued, if the House had been able to ascertain from a report of a Royal Commission whether these and other charges were well-founded.1 When the Bill was in the committee stage, an amendment was proposed by George Trevelyan, which has not completely lost its interest. The Cambridge University Commissioners, appointed by the Act of 1856, had induced the colleges to throw open their scholarships to non-residents; and one consequence of this innovation was that clever boys, in order to improve their chances of gaining an emolument, were kept at school beyond the age when they normally would have proceeded to the University. Trevelyan drew the attention of the House to this undesirable consequence of the institution of entrance scholarships. He asserted that all the University teachers he had consulted were agreed that many "undergraduates, and especially the undergraduates who contend for honours, came up to the University far too old", and that by continuing as schoolboys too long, they wasted their time and became conceited and idle. "What else can be expected", he picturesquely asked, "when a young man, at an age when his grandfather was fighting in the Peninsula or preparing to stand for a borough, is still hanging on at school, with his mind half taken up with Latin verses, and the other half divided between his score in the cricket field and his score at the pastrycook's." He therefore proposed that to the clause of the Bill which authorised the Commissioners to alter the conditions of eligibility for any college emolument or office, the words should be added, "including, when it seems fit, those relating to age"; and he carried his motion.2 Other amendments, which did not fundamentally change the character of the Bill, were also accepted; but many were rejected, and of these some deserve to be mentioned as anticipating future developments or future contro1 2

Lowe had made a very similar speech in the previous session. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 15 May 1877.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

275

versies. Lowe, for instance, proposed that the Commissioners should be enabled to establish a University entrance examination; and was warmly supported by Sir William Harcourt who contended that "the greatest curse to the University was a class of colleges which would notoriously admit anybody on any terms". But the danger of thereby excluding the healthy-minded boy who preferred cricket to algebra, the pernicious effects of the multiplication of examinations, and the loss of independence that the colleges would suffer, were all urged as objections; and the House of Commons, no wiser than the Cambridge Senate in this matter, rejected the amendment by fifty-nine votes.1 But a motion that with a view to the reduction of the cost of a University education, the Commissioners should be instructed to consider the desirability of lessening the period of residence required for a degree, had a far more favourable reception: it was only lost by eight votes,2 and by only four when again brought forward in a slightly changed form.3 But the House had a grievous lapse when by 239 votes to 119 it rejected a motion for enabling "the University to examine female students concurrently with male students". The opponents of this amendment, being incapable of advancing serious arguments against it, indulged in vulgar ribaldry and gross exaggeration. One of the Burgesses of the University of Cambridge took a foremost part in this sorry exhibition. He argued that if women were admitted to the examinations for degrees, they could claim to be candidates for scholarships and fellowships; and, if eligible for fellowships, how could they be prevented from becoming Tutors and Deans and Heads of Houses? "A charming and an accomplished Lady Dean", he went on to say, "would be sure to draw a large number of gentlemen undergraduates to the college which she ruled; but what would Paterfamilias say?" 4 The opportunity of effecting another salutary reform was also missed by the rejection of an amendment, moved by Sir Charles Dilke, that the Commissioners should be empowered to change "the qualifications required for membership of Congregation at Oxford and for admission to the Electoral Roll of the University of Cambridge"; and to limit or abrogate "the powers of the Convocation of the University of Oxford and of the Senate of the University of Cambridge respectively to regulate matters relating to the studies of the University and to the education given in it". Membership of the Electoral Roll, which had been established by the Cambridge University Act of 1856, gave the right of voting at elections to the Council of the Senate 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 3 May 1877. 3 Ibid. Ibid. 14 June 1877. 4 Ibid. House of Commons, 3 May 1877. An amendment by Arthur Balfour to authorise the Commissioners, if they thought fit, to provide for the admission of women to degrees, was withdrawn. 2

18-2

276

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

and certain professorships; and as the Roll included all members of the Senate who had resided for a prescribed period within a mile and a half of Great St Mary's, any Master of Arts, who was resident in Cambridge and had kept his name on the books of a college, could assist in appointing the Council and some of the Professors, though he might have ceased to take any interest either in University business or in education. Yet, however objectionable these privileges might theoretically be, they do not seem to have been seriously abused; and possibly if they had not conspicuously favoured the Cambridge parochial clergy, Dilke would not have thought them so obnoxious. But it would have been greatly to the advantage of the University if the latter part of his amendment had been carried. It was undoubtedly a grave scandal, which now fortunately has ceased to exist, that non-resident members of the Senate were able to vote on administrative and educational questions, about which they were often very ill-informed, and sometimes had never considered before being canvassed. And as the non-resident vote was nearly always cast against reform, it is to the credit of the House of Commons that Dilke's motion received considerable support. It might indeed have been carried if Gathorne Hardy, on behalf of the Government, had not refused to convert the Bill into what he described as a "large disenfranchising measure"; for it was only lost by twenty-eight votes.1 And twice the Government was urged to replace the clause in the Bill, which permitted the Commissioners to abolish clerical fellowships and headships, by a definite instruction to them to do so. On 4 June Goschen moved that "the Commissioners, in statutes made by them for a college, shall provide that the entering into, or being in, Holy Orders shall not be the condition of the holding of any headship or fellowship "; and the most cogent argument in support of this amendment was that a matter of such vital importance to the colleges should not be left to the discretion of the Commissioners. But by far the most striking feature of the debate was, as Lord Harrington pointed out, that not a voice was raised in defence of clerical fellowships, though some members spoke in favour of requiring Heads of Houses to be in Holy Orders; and therefore, not unreasonably, Harrington accused the Government of throwing upon the Commissioners a responsibility which the House ought to take. There was no effective answer to this charge, and Goschen's amendment was only lost by nine votes.2 1

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 3 May 1877. Ibid. 4 June 1877. Doubtless to the great surprise of the House, Gladstone announced his intention of voting for the amendment, and justified himself in a lengthy and involved speech. He said that though he was still convinced that "an infusion of clergy in the resident bodies is of the highest importance", he had ceased to believe that this object could best be achieved by means of clerical fellowships. He was not however of the opinion that the religious life of a college could be effectively maintained by chaplains, for however excellent 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

277

This was so encouraging that later in the same evening Sir Charles Dilke moved that the Commissioners should be instructed to provide that, except in so far as was requisite for the purposes of religious instruction and worship, the recipients of college emoluments and offices should not be obliged to take Holy Orders. This was a milder and more conciliatory version of Goschen's amendment, inasmuch as it permitted the Commissioners, if they thought it necessary for the maintenance of the religious life of a college, to prescribe that a small number of fellowships in every college should be reserved for clergymen; but this concession was unavailing, as Dilke's motion was defeated by twenty-two votes. Yet though the Government had saved themselves from the reproach of anti-clericalism, they had not dared to make a reasoned defence of clerical fellowships, and thereby discredited the cause for which they fought. Consequently the two amendments, though lost, served a useful purpose. The debates upon them revealed that clerical fellowships had been saved by the triumph of party considerations over conviction; and consequently the Commissioners were given a lead. After the committee stage the Bill came into quiet waters, and was not debated on the third reading.1 And it had an easy passage through the Upper House. Though the question of clerical fellowships was raised again by Lord Granville, his amendment, which was very similar to that moved by Dilke, was easily defeated ; z and when the Bill was returned to the Lower House, the only change made in it, to which the Commons objected, was the withdrawal from the Commissioners of the power to abolish professorships and lectureships.3 But the Peers did not insist on this amendment, and on 10 August the Bill was given the royal assent. When it was passing through the House Goschen described it as "intended to settle every question of University reform in advance while conservatives had the majority"; 4 and probably the Government were glad that the task had not fallen to their political opponents. Yet it is doubtful whether the liberals would have introduced a much more drastic measure, and still more doubtful whether they would have been wise to do so. The conservative administration were well advised to give wide discretionary powers to the Commissioners instead of compelling them to carry out a detailed scheme of reform set out in the Bill, for it was important that they should be in a position to give due weight to academic opinion, instead of imposing upon the Unithey personally might be, their influence was restricted; and he suggested, as the solution of what was largely his personal problem, that a certain number of fellowships in each college should be reserved for theology, as this would ensure that every college Governing Body had clerical members. 1 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 18 June 1877. 2 3 Ibid. House of Lords, 13 July 1877. Ibid. House of Commons, 19 July 1877. 4 Ibid. 19 February 1877.

278

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

versity a settlement which, whatever its excellences on paper, might work badly when put to the test of practice. Ever since Disraeli had informed the House of Commons on 8 February 1875 that the consideration of the question of University reform, and "consequently legislation of some kind", was part of the Government's programme, the appointment of a Statutory Commission had been taken for granted at Cambridge, even by those who most disliked such a prospect. But before that announcement was made, it was possible to believe, or at least to hope or fear, that the Government would not take action on the report of a Royal Commission which they had not appointed; and for the Cambridge reformers, who saw the months passing by and the Government not stirring, the suspense must have been particularly trying. The Master of Emmanuel, Dr Phear, who was one of their leaders, came to their rescue. He had been elected Vice-Chancellor in November 1874, and on 1 February 1875, just a week before Disraeli had shown his hand, he informed the Council of the Senate of his intention "to propose at the meeting of the Council on 8 February that they should take into consideration the report of the Universities' Commission".1 And he received a very sympathetic hearing when on 8 February he asked the Council to sanction a Grace for the appointment of a Syndicate "to consider whether any, and if so what, representations should be made to the Government as to the importance of obtaining legislative authority for modifying the pecuniary and other arrangements subsisting between the University and the colleges, and for enabling the University to enlarge and improve its system of education". Possibly to his surprise, no vote was given against his motion.2 But some members of the Council seem on reflection to have come to the opinion that the scope of the proposed Syndicate's inquiry was dangerously wide, and that it would be well to restrict it to the question of the extent to which the financial and other relations between the colleges and the University required to be modified so as to allow the University to improve its educational system. With this object in view the Master of Peterhouse, Dr Cookson, who had acquired the nickname of "the artful dodger ",3 moved, when the Council met again on Monday, 15 February, that the original motion should be amended by the insertion of the word "thereby" before the words "to enlarge"; and his motion was carried by six votes to two, with seven members of the Council not voting.4 1

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 1 February 1875. Ibid. 8 February 1875. 3 In a collection of Cambridge stories made by the late Dr McTaggart, which is in Trinity College Library, Dr Henry Jackson is quoted as the authority for Dr Cookson's nickname. 4 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 15 February 1875. 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

279

But whether Dr Cookson had achieved his purpose is doubtful, for when the Grace was discussed at a meeting of members of the Senate on 19 February, the Vice-Chancellor emphatically denied that the amendment had in any way restricted the range of inquiry, and asserted that if he thought it had done so, he would have abandoned the Grace. He declared that the Syndicate, which the Senate was asked to appoint, would be acting strictly in order if it considered, not only the financial relations between the University and the colleges, but also the advisability of the colleges allowing others than their own members to compete for their emoluments. "As no one college", he proceeded, "could safely adopt this, in his opinion, most important condition unless all are bound to adopt it, it became a University question, and therefore within the proposed Syndicate's scope. And so of any other points of universal apphcation, which might be submitted for improving and enlarging University education." And he made no secret of his personal wishes. He expressed the conviction "that it would not be by merely touching this pressing question of University reform, not by mending and patching here and there, but by the adoption of large and comprehensive measures that they could hope to obtain anything like a permanent and beneficial settlement of the questions at issue". It was a provocative speech, and particularly so to that very active antireformer, E. H. Perowne, who did not mince his language. He described the Grace, as interpreted by the Vice-Chancellor, as "the most sweeping radical measure that had ever been submitted to the Senate since he became a member of it", and added that he only refrained from stigmatising the proposed taxation of the colleges as "robbery and spoliation" because he was well aware that those who approved this infamy were as honest as himself. Another speaker, the Master of St Catharine's, complained that the reformers were over-represented on the Syndicate, and the Public Orator, R. C. Jebb, expressed the same opinion. But the Grace found defenders, and the opposition to it was not so general as to suggest that it would certainly be rejected by the Senate.1 Nevertheless when the Council met on 1 March there was a lengthy, and possibly a lively, debate "on the course which it is desirable for the Council to take in consequence of the discussion in the Arts School". It was obviously difficult to ask the Senate to vote upon a Grace which was open to more than one interpretation, and impossible to make it less ambiguous by further amendment without driving its supporters into opposing camps. No final decision was taken on this occasion, for though it was agreed to appoint a committee of three to draft a report to the Senate, which suggests that it had been decided either to abandon the Grace, or to amend 1

University Reporter, 23 February 1875.

280

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

1

it, we learn that this motion was only carried on the understanding that "the Council did not by means of it pronounce any judgment on the desirability or otherwise of making a report to the Senate".2 At subsequent meetings of the Council the Committee's draft report was considered, and after being amended was approved.3 It announced the withdrawal of the Grace, but also recommended the appointment of a Syndicate to ascertain what additional teachers or appliances for teaching are required in the different departments of University study, how these teachers and appliances may be best supplied, whether by the individual colleges or by the University,... whether by any improved organisation the systems of professorial and collegiate teaching may be made more efficient and be brought into closer relations with each other, and how the teaching in the University may be organised so as to give the greatest encouragement to the advancement of the several branches of learning. But as it was obvious that any plan of educational reform proposed by a Syndicate with these terms of reference must be far too costly for the University to undertake without calling upon the colleges for assistance, the report expressly said that the Syndicate must confine themselves strictly to the topics specified, and that the question "of raising and administering such additional funds as may be necessary to supply the wants of the University" should be left for future investigation.4 An educational scheme, unbuttressed by any provision for meeting its cost, must lack reality, but it was nevertheless expedient thus to Hmit the activities of the Syndicate. As there was now no doubt that the Government would appoint a Statutory Commission which would certainly require the colleges to contribute to the support of the University, it was obviously wise not to prejudice a plan of educational reform by raising concurrently with it the highly contentious issue of the taxation of the colleges. And that the Council acted wisely is suggested by the absence of any serious criticism of the report. Hardly anything was said when it was discussed on 8 May, and five days later the Senate passed a Grace for the appointment of the Syndicate. 5 The Teaching Syndicate, as it came to be called, began operations by sending a very detailed questionnaire to the Chairmen of Boards of Studies, to Professors not attached to any Board, to Heads of Houses and other specially selected persons; and, having sifted the information thus obtained, they issued their first report in March 1876. They had been convinced by the 1 It would have been unnecessary to report to the Senate if the Council had decided to put the Grace to the vote of the Senate without further amending it. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 1 March 1875. 3 Ibid. 11 March, 26 April, 3 May 1875. 4 5 University Reporter, 4 May 1875. Ibid. 11 and 18 May 1875.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

28l

answers to their inquiries that ''considerable additional teaching power is required in most departments of University study", and proposed partially to meet this want by extending the system of intercollegiate lectures and creating University readerships.1 The practice of college Lecturers admitting members of other colleges to their lectures was a comparatively recent development, and the Syndicate hoped to encourage it by giving such Lecturers official recognition,* and by providing that at least once a year the Professors, Readers and Intercollegiate Lecturers in each branch of study should meet "for the purpose of arranging a plan of combined action in teaching, and of considering and determining a system of lectures". They further proposed that Readers should be appointed by the University on the nomination of a Board of Studies, and annually receive a sum so calculated that their total remuneration, including anything that they received from their colleges, should not be less than ^500 a year. It was doubtless hoped that the existence of these posts might encourage Fellows to remain in Cambridge instead of seeking their fortunes in the outside world; but on account of the expense involved, the Syndicate decided not to submit this particular proposal to the Senate for the present. Nor did they wish to ask the Senate to approve their proposal affecting Intercollegiate Lecturers until they had submitted a scheme for removing a difficulty in the way of its successful execution.3 The statutes in force prescribed certain days for the beginning and end of each of the three terms; and as the days appointed for the end of the Lent term and the beginning of the Easter term were the tenth day before Easter and the Friday after Easter respectively, it sometimes happened that the Lent term was unduly long and the Easter term unduly short. Lecturers who threw open their lectures to men of other colleges were no more adversely affected by this fluctuation in the length of these two terms than other University and college teachers; but they suffered with the Professors by another deficiency in the regulations. Though in order to keep a term undergraduates were under a statutory obligation to reside during at least two thirds of it, neither the statutes nor the ordinances drew the present-day distinction between term and full term, or appointed days in each term on which residence should normally begin. And as in this matter, as in many others, the colleges acted completely independently of one another, it was not at all unusual for the men of one college to begin residence a week later than the men of another, and consequently for the lecture courses at the several colleges to begin and end 1 The University Commissioners, appointed in 1850, had recommended the appointment of Public Lecturers, but as they were to give instruction of an elementary character, they cannot be counted as forerunners of Readers. University Commission Report (1852), p. 81. 2 The recognition was to be given by the Board of Studies concerned. 3 University Reporter, 17 March 1876.

282

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

at different times. It is obvious that no system of intercollegiate lecturing could be really successful under these conditions. The Syndicate attempted to kill two birds with one stone. In a report, which appeared in June 1876, they recommended that all undergraduates should be required to come into residence on certain appointed days in each of the three terms, and remain in continuous residence, except for one night's absence, for a prescribed number of days, which were to be sixty-seven for the Michaelmas term, sixty-seven for the Lent term, and fifty for the Easter term. Moreover no one could be counted to have kept the term, if he had not come into residence on the appointed day, or had been absent for more than a single night between then and the end of the period of compulsory residence, unless for grave cause approved by the Council of the Senate.1 The merits of this scheme were that it removed an obstacle to the success of intercollegiate instruction, and insured that the length of the period of residence required of undergraduates during the Lent and Easter terms should not vary from year to year. It is true that objection would certainly be taken to the recommendation that residence for the Easter term should begin on the first Friday after 10 April, as undergraduates would thereby be occasionally obliged to spend Holy Week and Easter at the University; but this was a necessary consequence of the general plan of the report; and Professor Westcott, who was a member of the Syndicate, stoutly denied that it could be reasonably regarded as an evil. "The University", he said, "was still a place of religious education, and it would be a great gain if on exceptional occasions the great festival of the Church fell in term; it would give an opportunity of shewing that the greatest festivals of the faith have a connexion with the whole course of University work."* It would certainly also be a subject of complaint that undergraduates should be compelled to reside for a longer period than under the existing statutes, as more work would be thrown upon Tutors and Lecturers; but if they were likely to benefit by a longer stay, it would be shameful to deny it to them merely on account of the inconvenience caused to their teachers. It is impossible however to defend the recommendation that except for one night in each term, on which absence from Cambridge was not to count as having been out of residence, undergraduates should be obliged to remain continuously at the University from the beginning to the end of the three compulsory periods of residence, 1

University Reporter, 13 June 1876. Westcott expressed this opinion when the report was discussed on 25 October 1876. University Reporter, 31 October 1876. The report however provided that if the last of the days of compulsory residence in the Lent term should be Good Friday, only sixty-five days of residence should be required; and that if the day for beginning of residence in the Easter term should fall on Good Friday, the compulsory period of residence should not begin before the following Tuesday, and therefore be curtailed by four days. 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

283

except for grave cause approved by the Council of the Senate. This was far too inelastic and an unnecessary limitation of tutorial discretion. These recommendations, even if approved by the Senate, could not be immediately put into operation, as they involved changing "those statutes of the University, by which the length of the several terms and the power of the University to prescribe the portion of each term which is to be kept, are regulated"; but the Syndicate naturally wished to know whether the Senate were in favour of a scheme, upon which in their opinion depended the success of a system of intercollegiate lecturing. The discussion of their report on 25 October 1876 must have damped whatever hopes they may have entertained. Possibly no serious objection would have been taken to a fixed redit day, had that recommendation stood alone; but it was fatal to combine it with proposals for extending the compulsory period of residence, for removing the safeguards against Holy Week and Easter falling in term time, and for depriving college Tutors of the right to give their pupils occasional exeats. The increase in disorder, which generally occurred at the end of an unusually long term, the danger of undergraduates being over-lectured and spoon-fed, and the spiritual loss they would suffer by remaining at the University during a particularly solemn season of the Church year, were all emphasised. It was further alleged to be inconsistent with the dignity of Tutors to make them responsible to the Council for giving a pupil more than one exeat, and very undesirable to require an already overburdened body like the Council to inquire into the justification of the irregularity. Coutts Trotter, who was a member of the Syndicate and had signed the report, admitted in the course of the discussion that this particular recommendation "left too little discretion to the colleges".1 The Syndicate admitted the force of this last objection and issued an amended report, in which they recommended that though the undergraduates of the several colleges should be required to begin residence after vacation on the same day, they should not be obliged to reside for a continuous period, as the first report had recommended, but for a prescribed number of days in each term, thus leaving Tutors a reasonable discretion in the granting of exeats. But as the Syndicate continued to recommend that the period of residence should be longer than had hitherto been obligatory,2 they discovered that they had not stooped sufficiently to conquer. Their amended report was sharply criticised when it was discussed on 13 February 1877,3 and all its recommendations were rejected by the Senate on 1 March. The Grace 1

University Reporter, 31 October 1876. The Syndicate slightly reduced the amount of residence which in their earlier report they had required during the Michaelmas term. Ibid. 12 December 1876. 3 Ibid. 12 December 1876, 20 February 1877. 2

284

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

which asked that "the principle of the proposal to increase to some extent the amount of residence required of undergraduates in the academical year" be approved, was defeated by 109 votes to 32.1 But, despite this serious rebuff, the Syndicate did not abandon their scheme for the encouragement of intercollegiate lecturing; in a third report, dated 17 April 1877, they asked the Senate to approve it.2 And as hardly anything was said at the discussion3 they probably did not expect the report to be seriously opposed, and were surprised when it was only carried by sixty votes to forty-eight.4 It is difficult to account for this formidable minority to a very innocuous proposal. Perhaps the Syndicate were thought to have shown in their second report a desire to subordinate the colleges to the University, and their encouragement of intercollegiate lecturing was therefore suspected to be the thin end of the wedge. The Syndicate published two more reports. In one of them 5 they enumerated the lectures announced for delivery at the Universities of Berlin and Leipzig during the past academical year, and the professorial and intercollegiate lectures given at Cambridge during the same period; and though they admitted that, as they had not included the college lectures given at Cambridge which were not open to men of other colleges, they had not supplied sufficient data for a fair comparison, they claimed to have shown "that in several departments of study there are important deficiencies in the amount of instruction afforded to our students". They did not ask however for immediate action to be taken, and contented themselves with naming certain professorships which ought to be established when the funds of the University permitted. Their other report was mainly concerned with the amount of residence required of Professors, the needs of the medical school, and the desirability of setting up a Board of Studies for medieval and modern languages; and again they were chiefly thinking of the future. The only recommendation that they submitted to the Senate was "that a Board be constituted for the supervision of the study of modern and medieval languages in the University"; and it was approved.6 The labours of the Teaching Syndicate may superficially seem to be rather barren, but they had fulfilled their appointed purpose. They had been instructed to prepare a plan of educational reform without regard to its financial implications; but though they had strictly adhered to their terms of reference, they had really done more than this. By showing what an urgent need there was of a large increase in the number of University teachers, they had indirectly, but very effectively, revealed that the University could not 1 3 5

University Reporter, 6 March 1877. Ibid. 1 May 1877. Ibid. 12 December 1877.

3

Ibid. 24 April 1877. * Ibid. 8 May 1877. 6 Ibid. 9 April and 28 May 1878.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

285

possibly attain even a reasonable standard of efficiency unless financially assisted by the colleges. This was a truth which had long been known to the more thoughtful and enlightened members of the Senate, but as academic politicians with die-hard tendencies were still talking of "robbery and spoliation'', it was well that it should be clearly demonstrated. On 30 March 1876 another Syndicate was appointed to "consider whether any changes are desirable in the mode of election to the professorships and offices in the University, either such changes as can be carried out under existing statutes or such as would require the sanction of the Queen in Council";* and these terms of reference suggest that this Syndicate was also intended to plan for the future, and, by testing academic opinion in advance, to enable the Council to know how far it could safely go, when called upon to revise the statutes of the University in co-operation with the Statutory Commissioners. In their first report, which appeared in December, the Syndicate restricted themselves to the eleven professorships, to which by statute members of the Senate on the Electoral Roll elected, and the Professorship of Music, to which, as the statutes were silent on the subject, the Senate appointed. Both modes of election were open to the objection that electors, when they are many, tend to have little sense of personal responsibility, and to be far too easily influenced by the importunities of candidates and the claims of private friendship; and consequently canvassing by the applicants for these Chairs had become a tolerated abuse. The report of the Syndicate was designed to remedy this undesirable state of affairs. It recommended that the electors to each of the eleven professorships should be the Vice-Chancellor, ex officio, and eight other persons appointed by the Senate, four on the nomination of the Board of Studies with which the professorship was connected, and four on the nomination of the Council of the Senate; and in order to secure as far as possible an unbiassed judgment of the merits of the candidates, the Syndicate further recommended that both the Board of Studies and the Council should include among their four nominees at least one person who was neither resident in the University nor officially connected with it. An Electoral Board of the same size was proposed for the Professorship of Music; but as that Chair was not connected with any Board of Studies, the eight electors, of whom two must be "professionally engaged in the art or study of music", were to be nominated by the Council for election by the Senate.2 The Syndicate had gone on the principle that the choice of a Professor should be entrusted to a body sufficiently small for each member of it to realise his responsibility; and though details of their report might reasonably be criticised, its general design was well conceived. It was nevertheless 1

University Reporter, 4 April 1876.

2

Ibid. 12 December 1876.

286

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

severely attacked when discussed on 15 February 1877. The objection was advanced that persons, though aware of their own unfitness, might consent to be appointed electors because they counted on not being called upon to act before their term of office had expired; and that the Council of the Senate and Boards of Studies might be equally irresponsible when nominating for appointment to an Electoral Board which, having recently elected a Professor, was unlikely to have to make another election for some time. The fear was also expressed that the electors, chosen as they would be on account of their attainments in one branch of study, might be inclined to give undue weight to the achievements of the candidates in learning and research, and to take too little account of their efficiency as teachers and their ability as administrators. And the suggestion of the Syndicate that persons, who were neither in residence nor officially connected with, the University, should take part in electing Professors, was also viewed with suspicion. "The University", said Dr Hort, "did not want a representation of outside opinion; it wanted all possible information, and that could be got, if needful, from without by resident electors... .The residents and 'the strangers' would be mutually uncomfortable. The outsiders would be thinking what their constituents, so to speak, namely some outside world, would think; the academic members would be afraid of the outsiders/'* The Syndicate were not impressed by these objections; for though they slightly amended their report, they left its essential features unchanged.* They decided, however, only to bring before the Senate that portion of it which referred to the Professorships of Chemistry and Music, and only to ask for approval in principle of the recommendations affecting these two Chairs. They acted wisely. As the eleven professorships were statutory, the Senate was only competent to approve the principle of constituting small electoral boards for them; and it would be sufficient for the purpose of guiding the Council when revising the statutes if the Senate approved it for one of them. 'Also an appreciable risk of a mishap was thereby avoided. Two of the professorships in question, the Woodwardian Professorship of Geology and the Jacksonian Professorship of Natural Experimental Philosophy, had been founded by benefactors and not as the other professorships by the University; and both founders had directed in their wills how the elections to their professorships should be conducted. And as it was still customary to attach much weight to the wishes of benefactors,^ it was possible that some members of the Senate might think it more desirable to obey the wishes of John Wood1

2 University Reporter, 20 February 1877. Ihid. 20 March 1877. The High Steward, Lord Powis, who attended the discussion of the report, enlarged upon the importance of attending to the wishes of benefactors. 3

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

287

ward and Richard Jackson than to obtain efficient occupants of the Chairs they had founded;x and this danger was avoided, at least for the time being, by the course adopted. And the two Graces, approving in principle those parts of the Syndicate's report which related to the Professorships of Chemistry and Music, passed the Senate, though not unopposed.2 In the following May the Syndicate published a second report, in which they recommended that the statute governing the Sadleirian Professorship of Mathematics should be so amended as to provide that the three Heads of Houses, who with the Vice-Chancellor and three Professors3 were the electors to the Chair, should be appointed by Grace of the Senate, and not, as the statute in force directed, by those whose names were on the Electoral Roll. But though this was the only recommendation contained in the report, it was very far from being its most interesting feature. The Syndicate stated that in accordance with their terms of reference they had considered the statutory provisions for the election of the Vice-Chancellor and other University officers; and by a majority vote had agreed "that important changes should be made in the mode in which election is made to each of these offices". But they did not reveal what those changes were, and indeed went on to say that they did not intend to proceed in this matter, preferring to leave it to the Council of the Senate. Their excuse for not finishing their task was that they had "lost the services of several members of their body by absence from Cambridge and other causes, and that.. .their powers were terminating at the end of the current term". 4 The excuse was not convincing, for it was not at all unusual to prolong a Syndicate beyond the original term of its appointment, and it would have been quite easy to fill up the vacant places. And the Syndicate had far better reasons than they advanced for wishing to be allowed to expire. The proposed changes in the mode of electing the Vice-Chancellor and other University officers had only been carried by a single vote, and therefore the Senate would have ample justification for refusing to approve them, particularly as they were of a decidedly revolutionary character. And there was the further consideration that if the Syndicate was prolonged and the vacancies filled up, 1

By a statute, confirmed, by Order of the Queen in Council on 16 April 1861, certain changes had been made in the mode of election to the Woodwardian and Jacksonian Professorships, but the wishes of their founders had been observed in spirit. Statute C. 11, Section 10, assigned duties to the Professor of Music, but the mode of his election was nowhere prescribed; and therefore the Senate could have been asked to sanction, and not merely approve in principle, the recommendations of the report relating to that Chair. Presumably this course was not taken, as it was thought better to leave open for the time being whether the professorship should be governed by a statute. z University Reporter, 6 March, 24 April 1877. 3 The Lucasian, the Plumian and the Lowndean Professors. 4 University Reporter, 5 June 1877.

288

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

there might not even be a majority of one for what had been agreed upon. And possibly Dr Bateson, who was a member of the Council as well as of the Syndicate, and on the question at issue had been in the majority, inclined to the opinion that the battle might be more decisively won if shifted to the Council Chamber. The Syndicate therefore disappeared, and their report, including the recommendations with regard to the Sadleirian Professorship, was not discussed for some months. Before the beginning of the following Michaelmas term the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Bill had been passed; and at a meeting of the Council on Monday, 15 October 1877, Dr Phear drew attention to those sections of it, which set out the reforms that the Commissioners were directed to consider, and empowered the University until the end of the year 1878 to submit draft statutes to the Commissioners, which, if approved by them, would rank as statutes made by the Commissioners.1 Thereupon the Council decided to meet on Fridays for the purpose of revising the statutes;% and on the following Friday agreed that their mode of procedure should be "to read through the several sections of the University statutes, with a view of determining in the first instance what portions ought to be retained in the form of statute, and of leaving for future consideration and amendment, if thought expedient, the portions so selected, the remainder being intended to be left subject to amendment or repeal by Grace of the Senate without the approval or sanction of the Queen in Council".3 The statutes certainly contained much that could be relegated with advantage to the book of ordinances. They prescribed the details of academic ceremonies, the length of degree courses and in some cases the days on which University officers should be appointed; and thereby unnecessarily restricted the independent action of the University. By November the Council had gone through the first nine chapters of the statutes, and had agreed with comparatively little difference of opinion which sections should be retained as statutes, and which could appropriately be converted into ordinances.4 But as they had removed much which had hitherto been statutory into the ordinance class, they deemed it advisable that the rules and regulations so transferred should be given a more adequate protection against repeal and amendment than ordinances normally enjoyed. But they differed in opinion as to how that protection should be given; and it was only after much discussion and several divisions that they agreed on 10 December that "in framing new statutes provision be made that any matter which is now in the book of statutes, and which may be removed to the book of 1

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 15 October 1877. The Council, then as now, generally met on Mondays for the transaction of ordinary 3 business. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 19 October 1877. 4 Ibid. 19 and 26 October, 2 and 9 November 1877. 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

289

ordinationes, be not liable to change, except after two votes of the Senate to that effect".1 It was not until 1 February 1878 that the Council resumed their task after the Christmas vacation; and then they were mainly employed in considering and amending those parts of the nine chapters which they had already agreed should remain in the form of statutes. They were aware that the fourth chapter, which was concerned with the election of the Vice-Chancellor and other * officers of the University, might lead them into difficulties with the Senate. When they had first considered it on 2 November 1877, and decided that, except for one unimportant section, it should continue as a statute, though possibly in an amended form, the unpublished scheme for its revision, which the Syndicate for considering the mode of election to professorships and University offices had approved by a majority of one, but not published in their report, had been communicated to them. And they knew more when they returned to the subject in February 1878. The Syndicate's report had been discussed in the Arts School on 26 November 1877, a n d Dr Bateson had revealed to the members of the Senate assembled there the unpublished scheme which had so sharply divided the Syndicate. Possibly he was authorised to do so by the Council, who would naturally wish to know for their own guidance how academic opinion reacted to it. Some parts of it were likely to be approved by all reasonable men. It was clearly much better that the Vice-Chancellor, instead of being elected, as under the statutes in force, early in November and entering at once on his duties, should be appointed in June but not assume office until 1 October. He would thus have time to acquaint himself with his duties, and it was much more rational that he should enter on them at the beginning, instead of in the middle, of the Michaelmas term. Nor could objection be reasonably taken to the proposal that the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrary, the Public Orator and the Esquire Bedells should be elected by those persons whose names were on the Electoral Roll instead of by the Senate; for though non-resident members of the Senate rarely took the trouble of a journey to Cambridge to vote at the election of a University officer, it was undesirable that it should even be within their power to do so. Whether it was expedient that the University Librarian should be appointed by the Library Syndicate instead of by the Senate is more doubtful, in view of the prestige of the office and the improbability of the members of the Syndicate having any more knowledge of the management of a great library than the average member of the Senate possessed. But the proposal was worthy of consideration, for the Syndicate, being a comparatively small body, might more carefully examine the claims of the candidates. 1

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 23 and 30 November, 10 December 1877.

WMC

19

290

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

But mingled with these reasonably moderate proposals were others of a revolutionary character. The electors to the Vice-Chancellorship and the other above-mentioned offices were not to be restricted to a choice between two candidates previously nominated by the Council of the Senate, and not only Heads of Houses were to be eligible for the office of Vice-Chancellor; and well-founded objections could be taken against both these proposed changes. The party on the Syndicate who had supported them were of the opinion that by transferring the election of a Vice-Chancellor from the Senate to the members of the Electoral Roll, the risk of an incompetent person being chosen to fill the most important office in the University, was, if not completely eliminated, at least very much diminished; and that therefore a previous nomination of two candidates by the Council was not necessary. This argument was based on an unproved assumption. The members of the Electoral Roll were sufficiently numerous to make it doubtful whether as an electing body they would be more discriminating than the Senate; and if they were not likely to be so, the argument for giving them a free and unrestricted choice fell to the ground. The wisdom of removing the restriction of the office of Vice-Chancellor to Heads of Houses was even more doubtful.1 No one of course believed that the Heads were the sole possessors of administrative ability in the University; but as few members of the Senate had houses sufficiently spacious to entertain on the scale that was expected of a Vice-Chancellor, the statutory change suggested might oblige the University to go to the expense of providing an official residence. Moreover the ample leisure which Heads of Houses enjoyed made them particularly suitable for a very onerous office; and if a Fellow of a college became Vice-Chancellor, he would find himself in the embarrassing situation of taking precedence of his Master. When the report was discussed on 26 November 1877, curiously little interest was apparently aroused by Dr Bateson's revelations. The Masters of Clare and Magdalene did indeed maintain that the office of Vice-Chancellor would lose in dignity and prestige if it became tenable by any member of the Senate; but, considering the very startling character of the proposals, there was a surprising lack of criticism. The general view seems to have been that it was not worth while to discuss in detail a scheme which was not included in the report; and this seeming acquiescence may have had the unfortunate consequence of leading Dr Bateson to believe that the Council could safely adopt it.z 1

Though before the passing of the Cambridge University Act, 1856, any member of the Senate had been eligible for the office of Vice-Chancellor, no one who was not a Head had been appointed to it since 1586. 2 University Reporter, 4 December 1877. Dr Bateson had long been of the opinion that the Heads had too much influence in the government of the University.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

29I

But not all of his colleagues on the Council were prepared to go as far as he was; and the revision of the fourth chapter of the statutes extended over three meetings. It was agreed, either unanimously or nemine dissentiente, that the Registrary should be elected by the members of the Electoral Roll and the Librarian by the Library Syndicate;1 and there was no opposition to the motion that, as 4 November was an inconvenient date for the election of the Vice-Chancellor, he should be elected "some time before he entered on the duties of his office". But a motion that the dates of his election and assumption of office should be regulated by Grace, and not by statute, was only carried by seven votes to four; and there was a minority of two against the appointment of the Public Orator by the members of the Electoral Roll. Moreover Dr Bateson's motion, that "the limitation contained in the Cambridge University Act, 1856, section 21, prescribing that none but Heads of Colleges shall be nominated for the office of Vice-Chancellor, be repealed" was only carried by seven votes to four; and his other motion, "that the Vice-Chancellor be elected, without any nomination of two, by those persons whose names were on the Electoral Roll of the University", very narrowly escaped defeat, the votes being five to four.2 Having got over this hurdle, the Council proceeded to consider the remainder of the nine chapters; and when they had completed their survey, which did not take long, they appointed a committee, consisting of Dr Bateson, Professor Cayley and Coutts Trotter, to draft Graces "embodying the principal resolutions of the Council respecting the statutes".3 By 1 March the Committee were able to submit seventeen Graces which, after being slightly amended, were sanctioned by the Council at the same meeting.4 In their final form these seventeen Graces were prefaced by a statement that they were designed "to provide for several main points in the revision of the statutes of the University", and that the Council intended to prepare for submission to the Senate "revised statutes in accordance with the decision of the Senate respecting these Graces". Several of them were of comparatively minor importance, being recommendations that the University should be empowered to regulate by ordinance certain ceremonial and administrative matters of a more or less trivial character, hitherto controlled by 1

The Council however made provision for the Syndicate's appointment to be confirmed by the Senate. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 11, 15 and 22 February 1878. It had been earlier agreed that the provisions respecting the office of Esquire Bedell should be removed to the Book of Ordinances. Ibid. 2 November 1877. It was not necessary to have motions for dispensing with a previous nomination for the Librarian, Registrary and Public Orator, as section 5 of the fourth chapter prescribed that they should be elected, in the same manner as the Vice-Chancellor. 3 4 Ibid. 22 February 1878. Ibid. 1 March 1878. 19-2

292

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

statute; and, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the Council, the first provided that any matter so removed "from the book of statutes to the book of ordinationes... shall not hereafter be liable to change except after two votes of the Senate to that effect, taken after an interval of not less than ten days". Of greater importance were the Graces which recommended a revised version of some of the existing statutes, without altering however their statutory character. Six of them embodied the revised version of the fourth chapter, which the Council had approved; and these were likely to be the most contentious.1 Another proposed that the first section of the first chapter of the statutes, which prescribed a date for the beginning and end of each of the three terms, should be so revised as merely to direct that there should be three terms in the academical year between I October and 24 June, covering in all 228 days, and that, as the existing statutes provided, "such part, being not less than two-thirds of each term, as the University may from time to time prescribe by Grace", should be kept by residence. Though this differed in certain important particulars from the rejected recommendations of the Teaching Syndicate, it was sufficiently reminiscent of them to arouse suspicion, and was therefore almost certain to be opposed. The last varied the composition of the Chancellor's Court for delinquents in statu pupillari. The Judges of that court, which from time immemorial had been all the Heads of Houses, were to be the Vice-Chancellor, and four Heads appointed annually by Grace to serve for four years; and though this might seem to be a revolutionary change, it was probably a very wise one. The Council certainly thought so, as they agreed to it unanimously.2 The discussion of these Graces in the Arts School extended over three days.3 Much of the criticism they encountered was of an undiscriminating character, being mainly inspired by a dislike of all change; but some of the objections advanced were more weighty. Professor Mayor, for instance, spoke very good sense when he said that as the members of the Library Syndicate were not generally bibliographical experts, they were not particularly well-fitted to choose a Librarian; and the speakers who emphasised the difficulties that would arise from not confining the Vice-Chancellorship to Heads of Houses cannot justly be accused of evoking imaginary dangers. Nor was it unreasonable to contend that if there was no previous nomination 1

Originally the Council had agreed that the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrary and the Public Orator should be elected, "by those persons whose names are on the Electoral Roll of the University"; but in the Graces the phrase is "by those members of the Senate whose names are on the Electoral Roll of the University". This is not quite the same thing, as a University examiner, though not a member of the Senate, would be on the Electoral Roll; but the difference is immaterial. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 22 February 1878; University Reporter, 1 March 1878. 3 11, 12 and 15 March 1878; University Reporter, 19 March 1878.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

293

by the Council of candidates for the same office, academic peace might be rudely disturbed by "an annual faction fight". But reactionary obstinacy and unenlightened prejudice were responsible for many of the remarks made on this occasion. True to type, E. H. Perowne declared against "the disease of incessant restlessness", so prevalent, he thought, in the University, and predicted that "if safeguards against change were removed,.. .the evil would be intensified". Nor was there much more substance in the argument that as non-residents had gone to the expense of keeping their names on the books of their college, in order to have a vote in the Senate, they would suffer an injustice if they were deprived of the right of taking part in the election of the Vice-Chancellor and other University officers. Theoretically this might be so, but it was not an injustice they were hkely to feel, as they seldom troubled to attend the elections from which it was proposed to exclude them. Before these Graces were brought before the Senate on 28 March 1878, one more of a trivial character was added, so in all eighteen were put to the vote.1 Only seven of them were approved, and of these the only two of any importance were the Grace giving the pledge that any matter transferred from the book of statutes to the ordinances should not be liable to change except after two votes of the Senate, and another which provided, that the ViceChancellor should be elected some time before he took up his duties. The other five dealt with administrative and ceremonial details of minor importance. The defeat thus sustained by the Council can fairly be described as crushing. The Grace "that the Vice-Chancellor be elected by those members of the Senate whose names are on the Electoral Roll of the University, without any limitation of choice to persons previously nominated by the Council or other body" was rejected by 158 votes to 48; and the majorities against some of the other Graces were of similar dimensions. But as non-residents had mustered in considerable numbers to defend their rights, the triumph over the Council is not a reliable indication of opinion in the University. It was nevertheless hailed as a great victory by those who were trying to hold the fort against Dr Bateson and his followers. The Cambridge Chronicle, which had strong conservative sympathies, lavished congratulations upon "those members of the Senate who were present in the Senate House on Thursday, and those who were unable to attend"; and alluded to the band of "four dozen who are determined supporters of all these unconstitutional measures", and whose principal object on this occasion was "to transfer powers, hitherto vested in the whole Senate, to a so-called Electoral Roll". And the writer of this paragraph paid a tribute, which he doubtless thought well-deserved, to the non-residents who had rallied to the fight. "It is not an easy matter", he 1

University Reporter, 2 April 1878.

294

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

wrote, "to bring up non-residents, and when they do come to Cambridge to exercise their statutable rights, it is very provoking to find themselves in a minority. On this occasion we think no one of those who made up the majorities, will repent of any amount of inconvenience which his visit to the University may have caused him."* Throughout the Easter term and during the first few weeks of the Michaelmas term the Council entirely ignored the verdict of the Senate. They neither substituted other Graces for those which had been rejected, nor, as they had promised, drafted statutes in accordance with the Graces which the Senate had passed. During this period they were almost exclusively engaged, as far as statutory reform went, in establishing a new Professorship of Divinity. And the Master of Clare, when making his farewell speech as Vice-Chancellor on 4 November, commented on this indifference to an urgent need. "I regret", he said, "that no steps have been taken to draft new statutes in accordance with the proposals which the Senate approved, or to suggest new proposals in lieu of some at least of those from which the Senate dissented. The result of this course appears to be that it is left entirely to the discretion of the University Commissioners to frame new statutes for the University without any machinery, such as the Act provides in the case of colleges, for the representation of opinion on the part of either the Senate or the Council." z These remarks caused great offence to those members of the Council who had supported the rejected Graces. They rightly believed themselves to be more anxious for reform than Dr Atkinson was ever likely to be, and naturally resented the rebuke he administered, particularly as they believed him to be responsible for the offence of which he accused them. The Master of Emmanuel, stung to the quick, retorted in a fly-sheet. He asserted that the Vice-Chancellor, " whose custom, and, it may almost be said, whose business, it is to give effect to the decisions of the Senate", had not formally proposed to the Council to draft statutes in accordance with the seven Graces approved; and that if any such proposal had been made, it would certainly have been acted upon.3 But in his reply Dr Atkinson repudiated this conception of the constitutional practice of the University. "In matters", he retorted, "when the Senate has come to a decision, and no previous deliberation is required, it is the Vice-Chancellor's duty to carry out that decision. But it is not so when further deliberation is required. In particular, when at the instance of a deliberating body, whether the Council or a Syndicate, a preliminary vote of the Senate is taken upon some general principle, with the view of subsequently framing a scheme which shall embody it, it is, as I conceive, neither the custom nor the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to frame such scheme 1 3

Cambridge Chronicle, 30 March 1878. Cambridge Chronicle, 9 November 1878.

2

University Reporter, 5 November 1878.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

295

himself, but only to give facilities for its being done, and to assist to the best of his power the body engaged on it." He added that at the first meeting of the Council after the rejection of the Graces, he had expressed "as strongly and emphatically as I was able, my opinion that the Council was bound to prepare Graces, and urged that steps should be taken for that purpose. No formal proposition was made by any member of the Council, and the impression produced upon my mind from what passed on the occasion was that the Council was strongly disinclined to proceed with the drafting of revised statutes".1 That impression was probably not far from the truth. Dr Phear admitted in his fly-sheet that his party on the Council had thought it advisable "to allow some interval to elapse.. .before taking the initiative in bringing the subject again before the Senate", and believed that they could afford to wait until after the Council elections in November. But he and his friends may have been influenced as much by pique as by tactical considerations. G. F. Browne, who joined in the controversy, asserted that as the Council had announced "that revised statutes, in accordance with the decision of the Senate respecting these Graces, shall be prepared for the approval of the Senate", he had urged "upon the Council the necessity of carrying out their own formal proposition, which had indeed taken the shape of a definite promise to the Senate", and made it unnecessary for the Vice-Chancellor or any other member of the Council to propose its re-affirmation; but that he had met with no success, and had been told by "the leader of the dominant party in the Council" 2 that "it remained with 'those with whom were the honours of war' to make some proposition".3 It matters little at the present day where the right lay, and the interest of the controversy is mainly as an indication that tempers on the Council had become frayed. There was clearly a minority of that body who had not wished to go so far in the way of reform as Dr Bateson and his supporters; and, feeling that they had been driven rather than persuaded, had perhaps not sufficiently concealed their pleasure at what had happened in the Senate. And that the "dominant party", disappointed by the rebuff they had received, were inclined to vent their anger on such of their colleagues as were not in sympathy with them, is suggested by Dr Phear's remark, in a second fly-sheet which he issued, that Dr Atkinson had hoped by what he had said in his farewell speech to the Senate to influence the approaching elections to the Council.4 It was 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 9 November 1878. The allusion was almost certainly to Dr Bateson. 3 Cambridge Chronicle, 9 November 1878. 4 The Cambridge University Act, 1856, directed that the annual elections to the Council should take place on 7 November or, if that day was a Sunday, on 8 November. 2

296

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

unworthy of the Master of Emmanuel to make a charge which could not possibly be substantiated; and if Dr Atkinson was really guilty ofthus stabbing his opponents in the back, he signally failed to inflict a mortal wound, as both Dr Bateson and Coutts Trotter, whose terms of office had expired, were re-elected.1 And good at least came out of evil, for on Friday, 8 November, the Council agreed on Dr Bateson's motion to proceed with the revision of the first nine chapters of the University statutes on the following Monday. And a favourable beginning was made on that day, as on Dr Bateson's suggestion the Council agreed to accept as final the rejection by the Senate on 28 March of the Graces concerned with the election of the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrary and the Public Orator. This was undoubtedly prudent, as the Graces in question had been defeated by very large majorities; and if they were brought forward again, non-residents would almost certainly again come up to Cambridge to vote against them. At the same meeting Bateson also proposed that the second, fourth and fifth of the Graces, which had all been rejected, should be again submitted to the Senate, together with a new Grace authorising the use of English for the revised statutes instead of, as hitherto, Latin. This meant that the Senate was to be asked to consider again the changes which the Council had proposed in the statute determining the beginning and end of the three terms of the academical year; and whether the University should be able to confer degrees, except those in theology, "in such manner and subject to such regulations as shall be from time to time sanctioned by the Senate",2 and have the same liberty of action with regard to the manner and form of holding a Congregation. The Council at a meeting on 11 November, from which no member was absent, agreed nemine dissentiente to sanction these four Graces, and arranged that they should be discussed on 15 November.3 At an early stage of the discussion Dr Bateson pointed out that if they were passed by the Senate, "they, with such as were allowed to pass on 28 March, would form, with the first Grace passed on that occasion,4 something worth drafting as statutes", and possibly may have intended by his remark to excuse the neglect of the Council to fulfil their pledge to the University. He also remarked that, as the ordi1

University Reporter, 12 November 1878. The statutes in force required a profession of adherence to the dogmas and formularies of the English Church from the recipients of theological degrees, and a proposal to empower the Senate to annul this requirement would be strongly opposed. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 11 November 1878. 4 "That, inasmuch as it is expedient to remove many things which are now in the book of statutes to the book of ordinationes, it shall be provided by statute that any matter so removed shall not hereafter be liable to change except after two votes of the Senate to that effect, taken at an interval of not less than ten days." 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

297

nances were in English, it would be convenient if the statutes were in the same language; and no objection was taken to this innovation, except by E. H. Perowne who argued that as Latin was a more highly inflected language than English, it was a better medium for statutes. Nor was there much criticism of the other Graces, except of that which allowed the University within certain limits to determine the length of the three terms. The scandal that would be caused if Holy Week and Easter fell within term time was much emphasised, and surprise was expressed that a Grace, which had been so recently rejected should be again brought forward.1 The Council considered these criticisms when they met on 18 November, and slightly amended the Graces in consequence of them, though not very drastically.2 They probably counted upon considerable support in the University, and on the improbability of non-residents, whose rights were unaffected, coming to vote, and, if so, they calculated correctly. There was no opposition in the Senate to the Grace for the revised statutes being in English, and the other three were passed by comfortable, though not spectacular, majorities.3 Perhaps emboldened by this success the Council on 28 November agreed to ask the Senate again to consider the Grace regarding the composition of the Chancellor's Court, which had been rejected on 28 March.4 They did not ask for a reconsideration of any other of those rejected Graces which they had not previously decided to abandon, so presumably they agreed not to bring them forward again. But with the Grace for altering the composition of the Chancellor's Court, they joined two others which were new. One of these provided that though the offices of Public Orator, Librarian and Registrary should remain statutory, it should be "in the power of the University to vary their duties by Grace of the Senate from time to time"; and the other was that the University should be empowered by statute "to prescribe such regulations, as may be thought expedient, in regard to the wearing of academic dress, the rendering of assistance, as well as obedience, to all that may be in authority, the imposition of penalties on offenders, and the definition and determination of offences". All three Graces were criticised when they were discussed on 5 December; but the brunt of the attack was borne by the one concerned with the Chan1

University Reporter, 19 November 1878. One speaker at the discussion on 15 November had pointed out "that the number of days named, '228 at least', was one in excess of the number of days in the terms as nowarranged"; and the Council amended the Grace by substituting 227 days for 228. 3 University Reporter, 26 November 1878. 4 The Council slightly changed the Grace in one small detail; the four Heads were to serve for two years instead of four, and one of the four was to go out of office every year instead of two. 2

298

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

cellor's Court. Several speakers expressed the opinion that the court was not in need of reform; but this was disputed. Dr Atkinson, who, having lately been Vice-Chancellor, could speak from recent experience, said that as the Heads were inclined to dislike attendance at the court, and therefore apt to complain if they thought that it had been summoned unnecessarily, a ViceChancellor was sorely tempted to seize upon any excuse for not convening it. He also pointed out that it was sometimes difficult to obtain the necessary quorum for a severe sentence;* and as Dr Atkinson's zeal for reform was tempered with caution, his contribution to the discussion must have carried weight. And Dr Bateson's testimony was much the same. He said that ViceChancellors summoned the court as seldom as possible, greatly to the detriment of discipline, that they often found it difficult to obtain the concurrence of a sufficient number of Heads in a severe sentence, and that, owing to the size of the court, the proceedings were not infrequently very lengthy. He asserted that on one occasion "they had sat.. .over two days, and from ten o'clock to a late hour in the evening''; and that' * this could not have happened in a court regulated in a reasonable and ordinary manner". Many of these inconveniences would certainly disappear if the court was remodelled in accordance with the Council's suggestions; but the Master of Magdalene was not unreasonable when he contended that though the court might have too many judges, it might also have too few, and that more than four Heads ought to be required to sit with the Vice-Chancellor. On the other hand E. H. Perowne was, as always, quite unreasonable, and deprecated an improvement in the efficiency of the court if it resulted in more cases being brought before it. He spoke as a champion of the colleges against the University. "It would be an evil day", he said, "when the forum domesticum in each college, before which the larger number of cases were brought, was shut up, and when offenders, who were often mere boys, were dragged into the publicity of the Vice-Chancellor's Court. Nothing conduced more to make the University what it is, the pride of England, than the system of college discipline".2 He also took objection to the appointment of the four Heads by Grace of the Senate, as that meant nomination by the Council. "The Council of a Borough", he declared, "might as well nominate the magistrates. Why should not the Heads themselves nominate the Court?"3 1 "Neminem autem deprivatione gradus vel exsilio mulctet absque consensu majoris partis praefectorum Collegiorum," Statutes of the University (1858), c. VII, section 4. 2 In the course of the discussion the Master of Christ's had said that "it would be for the advantage of the University that more questions than at present should be brought before the court" and he was probably right, as the colleges were not inclined to punish offenders sufficiently severely. 3 University Reporter, 10 December 1878.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

299

The latter objection was probably shared by many members of the Senate. At the present time, either because we are less politically minded or too busy, very little interest is taken in the doings of the Council of the Senate. But sixty or so years ago it was suspected of arrogating to itself more power than it could justly claim, and the scheme for the reconstruction of the Chancellor's Court could easily be misrepresented as a device for extending the influence of a body which already had too much. Consequently the Council, when they met on 6 December, did not take lightly the criticism which that Grace had received: we learn that there was "considerable discussion". A motion, proposed by Professor Westcott and seconded by Vansittart, that "in respect of the proposed court of discipline for offenders in statu pupillari,.. .the Heads elected should be nominated by the whole body of Heads of Colleges", was obviously designed to allay the suspicion that the Council was endeavouring to acquire more power; but it was defeated by eight votes to three, with two members of the Council not voting. It was however agreed at this meeting to raise the number of Heads, appointed to sit as judges with the ViceChancellor, from four to six, and to provide that the Master of the college to which the student on trial belonged should be invited to attend as an assessor without a vote.1 The other two Graces were left as they were, except for a slight verbal change in one of them.2 The Council acted wisely in making these concessions, as the Grace for the reconstitution of the Chancellor's Court was only carried by four votes.3 And though the other two Graces were less closely contested, there were large minorities, numbering over fifty, against them, which is surprising as they had been very little criticised when discussed in the Arts School.4 It is difficult to understand this opposition, as it was obviously convenient that the University should be able to prescribe by ordinance the duties of University officers and the disciplinary regulations for persons in statu pupillari; but again the inspiring motive may have been distrust of the Council. During the Easter and Michaelmas terms of the year 1878 the Council had also been engaged in framing statutes for new professorships and professorships already in existence. When they met on 13 May 5 the Vice-Chancellor communicated a letter he had recently received from the Master of Trinity, which stated that the Governing Body of Trinity College had passed a resolution "that the Vice-Chancellor be informed that if the University 1

The discussion had revealed a difference of opinion on the question whether the Master of the offender's college should always be present; and the amendment was a compromise between opposing views. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 6 December 1878. 3 The votes were sixty-eight to sixty-four. 4 University Reporter, 13 December 1878. 5 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 13 May 1878.

300

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

desire that the Canonry of Ely, now attached .to the Regius Professorship of Greek, be separated from the professorship, the college is prepared to recommend that the professorship be endowed with a fellowship of the college, and with a sum of ^500 a year from the revenues of the college,1 in addition to his statutable payment of -£40 a year".* And as the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Act had directed the Commissioners to consider the severance of the Ely Canonry from the Greek Chair, so that it could be annexed to a "professorship in the University of a theological or ecclesiastical character",3 the Council decided at a meeting on 27 May to prepare a statute for the establishment of a Professorship of Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek, because the Theological Board, two years before, had recommended that if the Ely Canonry was disconnected from the Greek Chair, it should be used for the endowment of a professorship in that branch of learning.4 But several menvbers of the Council doubted the wisdom of this choice, and a motion in favour of it was only carried by six votes to three, with four members not voting.5 And this decision was later reversed. At a meeting on 10 June the ViceChancellor read a letter from Professor Lightfoot, who was one of the Cambridge Commissioners; and in consequence of what he said the Council agreed that "the proposed professorship should be a professorship of divinity, to be called the Ely Professorship of Divinity". 6 No other difficulty arose. On 31 May the Council agreed that the Board of Electors to the Ely Chair "should be constituted on the same principle as that recommended by the Syndicate appointed to consider the mode of electing to University offices in their report, dated 15 March 1877, and adopted by the Senate in the case of the Professorship of Chemistry by Grace of 19 April 1877"; 7 a n d it was also arranged that Dr Bateson should draft a report.8 And after that report, which set out the mode of electing the Professor and his duties, had been considered and amended, it was agreed to communicate it to the Theological Board, and as the Council was not meeting in the Long Vacation, to circulate it in draft among members of the Council.? 1

This sum was later reduced, to ^250. University Reporter, 29 October 1878. The Marian draft Statutes for Trinity, which never came into operation, provided an annual stipend of ^40, charged on the revenues of the college, for the Greek Professor, and this provision was repeated in the Elizabethan statutes of the college. This sum soon became quite inadequate, but in 1833 the college rejected a petition for more liberal treatment. In 1840 however a Canonry of Ely was annexed to the Greek Chair by Act of Parliament. 3 Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877. 4 University Reporter, 17 March 1876, p. 322. 5 6 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 27 May 1878. Ibid. 10 June 1878. 7 See p. 287. 8 9 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 31 May 1878. Ibid. 10 June 1878. 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

301

When the Council resumed its sittings in the Michaelmas term, the ViceChancellor informed them that the Theological Board had accepted their report, and it was thereupon decided to publish it in the University Reporter.1 And as even anticlericals, however much they might dislike an increase in the number of divinity professorships, could not decently demur to the establishment of another if the funds for it came from a Cathedral Canonry, very little was said when the report was discussed on 22 November, and it passed the Senate unopposed on 5 December.2 Nor did the Jacksonian Professorship cause the Council trouble. Richard Jackson, a former Fellow of Trinity, who died in 1782, bequeathed his estate to the college in trust, directing that one-fifth of the income from it should be paid to the " Chief Gardener of the University Physic Garden", and the remainder used to endow a professorship of natural philosophy; and at a meeting of the Council on 11 November 1878 the Vice-Chancellor read a letter from the Master of Trinity, which said that the Governing Body of the college had passed a resolution in favour of transferring the trust to the management of the University. In a report to the Senate, dated 25 November, the Council recommended the acceptance of this offer, and suggested certain changes in the statute governing the professorship, as for instance that the Professor should be at liberty to lecture on any branch of physics or chemistry, and be elected by a Board similar in composition to that which the Senate had recently approved for the Chair of Chemistry.3 Not a single objection was taken to these recommendations when they were submitted to discussion on 29 November, and the Senate approved them on 11 December.4 The Council were also called upon to consider the establishment of two new Chairs in addition to the Ely Professorship of Divinity. When they met on 28 October the Vice-Chancellor communicated to them certain draft statutes passed by the Trinity College Governing Body, which, inter alia, provided for the foundation of a Thirlwall Professorship of History and a Trinity Professorship of Physiology, and prescribed that each of the two Professors should receive from the college an annual stipend of ^500 and be entitled to election to a fellowships And at the same meeting "the ViceChancellor presented to each member of the Council a printed copy of a draft statute framed by Trinity College with respect to the Trinity Professorship of 1

University Reporter, 29 October 1878. Ibid. 26 November, 10 December 1878. 3 The founder of the Chair expected the Professor to be well instructed in natural philosophy, chemistry, zoology and botany, and the Council had attempted to strike a mean between expecting the Professor to lecture on any of these subjects and tying him down to one of them. 4 University Reporter, 3 and 13 December 1878. 5 Both offers were later withdrawn. 2

302

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

Physiology and the Thirlwall Professorship of History, which copy was intended for the use of members of the Council and the Master and Fellows of Trinity College only". 1 This draft statute, though framed by the college, was intended to become a statute of the University; and as the Council did not object to it, they published it in the University Reporter with a recommendation that it should be approved as a statute of the University.2 And though it did not altogether escape criticism when it was discussed on 22 November^ the Senate on 5 December passed, without dividing, a Grace that "the report of the Council of the Senate (dated 18 November 1878), respecting the Trinity Professorship of Physiology and the Thirlwall Professorship of History be confirmed, and that the statute therein contained be approved and made a statute of the University, in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877".4 Section 11 of the Act enabled the University or a college to draft statutes, which, if submitted to the Commissioners before the end of the year 1878 and approved by them, should rank as statutes made by the Commissioners; and this draft statute for the Thirlwall and Physiological Professorships was the first to be approved by the Senate for submission to the Commissioners. All the Senate had previously done had been to approve or reject proposals for making certain changes in the statutes in force; they had not been asked to approve new statutes embodying those changes. But the Michaelmas term of 1878 was drawing to an end; and the Council were aware that they could not accomplish all that they had wished to do within the time assigned to them by the Act. They had thought of consolidating all the statutes regarding professorships, but had come to the opinion that "before any consolidation is carried out, it is desirable that the statutes affecting the several professorships should be revised with more deliberation than is at present possible".5 They therefore contented themselves with a less 1 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 28 October 1878. Trinity however did not intend to bear the whole financial burden of the Thirlwall professorship. Subscriptions were being collected for a memorial to Connop Thirlwall who had. died in July 1875, and at a meeting of the Memorial Committee, held in London on Saturday, 16 November, with the Master of Trinity in the chair, it was agreed that the amount subscribed should be "handed over to the Governing Body of the college, to be applied towards making up the said endowment fund of £500 a year". Cambridge Chronicle, 16 November 1878. 2 University Reporter, 19 November 1878. 3 Ibid. 26 November 1878. In the course of the discussion the Master of Trinity said that the college had originally intended to found a Chair of Ancient History; but that "in London the theory of an eminent modern historian found more favour than he had expected, that there is no difference between ancient and modern history. The name now proposed was 4 adopted in obedience to that prejudice". Ibid. 10 December 1878. 5 Report of the Council of the Senate, 9 December 1878; University Reporter, 10 December 1878.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

303

ambitious programme. In a report, dated 9 December 1878, they published a series of statutes dealing with professorships. Some of them merely set out in statutory form what the Senate had already in principle approved, but others, such as that which prescribed the duties and amount of residence required of all Professors, and another which extended the powers of the University with regard to the augmentation of professorial stipends and the foundation of new Chairs, contained new matter which had not previously been brought before the Senate in any form.1 A little later the Council also issued seven of the first nine chapters of the University statutes, revised in accordance with Graces passed by the Senate on 28 March, 23 November and 11 December.2 And on 14 December Graces that both sets of revised statutes "be approved and be made statutes of the University by the authority of the Oxford and Cambridge Act 1877" passed the Senate unopposed.^ And when the Commissioners met on 9 January 1879 they were informed by their secretaries that "since the last meeting of the Commissioners, and before 1 January 1879 proposed statutes had been received by them from the University".4 The Council had certainly covered a good deal of ground, and in revising the statutes had acted on the sound principle of giving the University more freedom in the management of its own affairs. But they were aware that they had not done all that they had wished to do; and it is certainly strange by present-day standards that they did not have a single meeting during the Long Vacation. But it is still stranger that they did not communicate to the Commissioners before the end of the year statutes for the establishment of readerships and a General Board of Studies, though they apparently had time to do so, and had taken all the necessary preliminary steps. In a report, dated 25 November, they asked the Senate to approve the recommendation for the appointment of Readers, which the Teaching Syndicate had made in their first report, and also a further recommendation that a statute should be drafted for the establishment of a General Board of Studies, as promoting'' the harmonious working of the different Boards of Studies", and "their recommendations, especially those involving additional expenditure, would come before the Senate with greater weight if a General Board or Council of Studies were established by statute, to which the recommendations of the particular Boards should be referred in the first instance for consideration".5 When this report was discussed, no objection was taken to the appointment of Readers, 1

University Reporter, 10 and 13 December 1878. Ibid. 13 December 1878. No changes had been made in two of the nine chapters. 3 4 Ibid. 11 January 1879. Minutes of the Commission, 9 January 1879. 5 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 18, 21 and 25 November 1878; University Reporter, 26 November 1878. 2

304

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

though one speaker, going on the principle that it is never too late to learn, suggested that they " should be appointed in high and difficult subjects only, so that their work might be useful to members of the Senate as well as to persons in statu pupillari". But the proposal for the creation of a General Board was not so well received. It was not a new idea, as the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1850 had made a similar recommendation; and, according to Coutts Trotter, the establishment of readerships would increase the need for such a body. "With unlimited means", he said, "it might be possible to leave each Board of Studies to recommend expenditure upon Readers in its own department, but with limited means it was necessary to have some body to weigh and balance the rival claims of the several Boards"; and in his opinion the Council "were not the best body to exercise such a discretion, many important subjects having no representation on the Council". But the Master of Peterhouse and another speaker said that the duties which it was proposed to assign to a General Board could be much better performed by the Council, much to the surprise of Dr Bateson who drily remarked that'' the Council did not ordinarily receive... such compliments".* Perhaps there was a fear in certain quarters that a General Board might develop bureaucratic tendencies; but no other fundamental objection was taken to the report, and it must have come as a surprise when on 11 December the Grace for the establishment of a General Board was only carried in the Senate by sixty-nine votes to fifty-five, and that for the creation of readerships by only seven votes.2 But no statutory provisions for a General Board or readerships had been sent to the Commissioners when the year came to an end: possibly the Council thought it prudent, in view of the opposition which the Graces had encountered in the Senate, to delay further action. Yet on the whole the reforming party on the Council could be reasonably satisfied with what they had achieved while they had the initiative, and their success was due to the support which they had received from many resident members of the Senate. But, as they had good reason to know, it was practically impossible for them successfully to propose reforms which could be represented as detrimental to the vested interests of non-residents; and this truth must have been driven home to them by their failure to remove a gross abuse in the administration of the ecclesiastical patronage of the University. The University had only one benefice absolutely in its gift, the vicarage of Ovington, though it had the right on a vacancy in the vicarage of Burwell to nominate two priests to the heirs of Sir Edward North, who were obliged to appoint one of them.3 But under Acts of Parliament passed in the reigns ofJames I, William III and Queen Anne, it was empowered to present to any 1 3

2 University Reporter, 3 December 1878. Ibid. 13 December 1878. J. W. Clark, Endowments of the University of Cambridge (1904), pp. 9-19, 449.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

305

living in certain counties, of which the patronage was vested in a Roman Catholic.1 It discharged this responsibility with most unbecoming levity: presentations to livings were made by the Senate, and consequently the claims of private friendship and other improper and quite irrelevant considerations were taken into account. And recently it had become customary for the candidates to pay the railway fares of their supporters in the Senate who had come from a distance, which was perilously like simony. In 1870 a Syndicate had recommended that the presentation to livings in the gift of the University should be transferred from the Senate to a small board, but discovered after it had so reported that the University was not legally competent to make this reform. The appointment of a Statutory Commission removed this obstacle,2 and in November 1878 the Council published a report, which had been drafted by Dr Bateson, in which they recommended the adoption of a statute, directing that "for the purpose of selecting a clerk to be presented to any benefice, which either is in the gift of the University or which lapses to it under the provisions of certain Acts of Parliament, there shall be a Board consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, of four members of the Senate, nominated by the Board of Theological Studies and elected by the Senate, and of four members of the Senate, nominated by the Council of the Senate and elected by the Senate".3 When this report was discussed, a great deal of time was taken up by a harangue from G. F. Browne, who declared that the statute was infamously drafted, and, if strictly interpreted, only authorised the proposed Board to appoint to the benefice of Ovington.4 But he approved of its intention, saying that he did not wish the existing practice to continue, and that, "after going through the process of being elected to a benefice by the Senate, he came to the conclusion that nothing could well be worse". And indeed there was so little unfavourable criticism that Dr Bateson ventured to ask whether he might assume that no objection was taken "to the main proposal of the Council that the selection should be put into the hands of a board". He quickly discovered that he could not. A non-resident of the name of Bell said that he and other non-residents were grieved to find the University centralising a great deal of power. He had that day met an intelligent member of the Senate, who said to him, "they are taking from us gradually all the reasons for 1

L. L. Shadwell, Enactments in Parliament (1912), vol. 1, pp. 225, 300, 353. Among the powers given to the Commissioners was that of "regulating presentations to benefices in the gift of the University". 3 University Reporter, 19 November 1878; Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 14, 18 November 1878. 4 His argument was that benefices in Roman Catholic patronage did not lapse to the University. "The Acts were clear on the subject; the patron was disqualified ah initio, and the Universities 'have the presentation', the primary, not a secondary, presentation." 2

306

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

which we paid our money and compounded". He was convinced that the more the University extended the knowledge of its work by keeping up its connection with non-resident members, the more it would extend its influence through the country. The non-residents followed the proceedings of the University with the greatest interest; they loved the University, they loved their colleges. For himself he held a College living, had sent up to Cambridge a large number of pupils, some of whom held a high position, he read carefully the reports and other papers issued by the University, and kept up a very great interest in its affairs.1 Bell, by his own account, was a very favourable representative of his class; but even if all non-residents had been as conscientious as he was, there was no justification for continuing an abuse for their benefit. But it mattered little to him and his cause that his argument was fallacious. He could call voters from the vasty deep of country parsonages, and they would come when he called. And he knew that many others would be delighted to co-operate with him in such a work. It was reported in the Cambridge Chronicle of 7 December that "during the week-end several letters have appeared in the London papers, urging members of the Senate to vote against the Grace for transferring to a board the right of presenting to University benefices";2 and among those who issued such appeals was, as might have been expected, Dr Phelps, Master of Sidney. He sounded the alarm in the columns of the Morning Post "Let me take this opportunity", he said, "of cautioning non-resident members of the Senate against the flattering belief that their rights and privileges are likely to be respected and maintained on this or any other occasion without their timely appearance in the Senate House Here, as a matter of fact, the revolutionary party is predominant. The predominance therefore of the revolutionary party in the Council is secured; and the Council originates and frames every legislative measure before it can be offered to the Senate. It is only in the Senate House that members of the Senate, resident and non-resident, have any chance of asserting and maintaining such rights as yet remain to them." The Council only amended the report by correcting the faulty drafting of the proposed statute, knowing that only unconditional surrender would satisfy the enemy. They rightly preferred defeat, and did not escape it; for on 5 December 1878 a Grace, "that the amended report of the Council of the Senate (dated 25 November 1878) on the presentation or nomination to University benefices be confirmed, and that the statute therein contained be approved and made a statute of the University, in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1 2

University Reporter, 26 November 1878. Cambridge Chronicle, 7 December 1878.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

307

1877", was rejected in the Senate by 121 votes to 64. * According to the Cambridge Chronicle sixty-four non-residents had voted in this division, and only three of them had voted placet Dr Phelps and his friends had called an old world into existence to redress the balance of the new. It was fortunate that most of the reforms that the "revolutionary party" were attempting to achieve did not interest non-residents. Hitherto the Statutory Commissioners had remained more or less in the background. All of them were Cambridge men, and several either were, or had been, closely connected with the University, and intimately acquainted with its affairs. Two of them, Lightfoot and Stokes, were Professors, and a third, Henry Philpott, Bishop of Worcester, had been Master of St Catharine's from 1845 to 1861, and during his tenure of that office had been conspicuous for his administrative ability. He had enjoyed the complete confidence of the then Chancellor of the University, the Prince Consort, and had guided him through the labyrinth of academic politics. Lord Rayleigh, who was shortly to become the second Cavendish Professor of Experimental Physics, was also no stranger to Cambridge, having been a Fellow of Trinity; and although he had not resided since his marriage in 1871, he had kept in close touch with the University, and was keenly interested in its scientific school. Of the remaining three Commissioners only the chairman, Sir Alexander Cockburn, and G. W. Hemming call for special notice. Cockburn did not play an active part, his judicial duties being heavy and his health bad; and the Bishop of Worcester was frequently in the Chair. Hemming on the other hand.was very much to the fore. He is described by one of the two secretaries, G. F. Browne, as playing "a bold and large part, with astonishing grasp of detail, as became a distinguished senior Wrangler"; but according to the same authority he was prejudiced against the colleges, and inclined to make greater financial demands upon them than they could legitimately be expected to meet.2 But though the Commissioners remained in the background until the end of the year 1878, they were not idle. At their second and third meetings they agreed, with a view of ascertaining the opinions of residents, to address a series of questions to Heads of Houses, Professors, University officers, members of the Council of the Senate, Tutors, Bursars and specially selected persons not necessarily connected with the University; and this questionnaire, which was drafted by Lightfoot, was extremely comprehensive. It began by asking for an expression of opinion on the main wants of the University, the 1

University Reporter, 26 November, 10 December 1878. G. F. Browne, Recollections of a Bishop (1915), pp. 161-162. Hemming had been for a short time a Fellow of St John's, and, according to Browne, "his experiences of that short time had been the reverse of satisfactory". 2

308

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

additional income required to meet them, and the sources from which such addition could be obtained. Then followed the question, "By what method is it desirable that the contributions from the revenues of the colleges for University purposes, as contemplated by the Act, should be raised? Whether, for instance, by a direct tax levied on the revenues of the colleges, or by the annexation of fellowships or other college endowments to University offices, or by a combination of these and possibly other methods?" The remaining questions were for the most part concerned with the mode of assessing the contributions of the colleges, whether it should be uniform from year to year or at a variable rate, and whether it should be on their gross or net revenues.1 The Commissioners asked that answers to these inquiries should be sent not later than I January 1878; and a very large number were received. In many of them the principal needs of the University were said to be additional professorships and teaching posts, higher professorial stipends, more laboratories and museums, and more intercollegiate lectures, but opinions of a very different character were also expressed. The Master of Jesus, G. E. Corrie, informed the Commissioners, much to Cockburn's delight, that "the present chief want of the University is exemption from the disturbing power of Royal or Parliamentary Commissioners" ; z and Dr Phelps said that he knew "of no wants whatever, present or prospective, of the University, for which it is necessary to make provisions in the interests either of education, religion, learning or research". A Fellow of Dr Phelps's college, J. F. Hardy, followed in his Master's footsteps by deprecating any increase in the professoriate, "as with a few brilliant exceptions the Professors are notoriously useless as teachers"; and a far more distinguished man was of the same opinion. "The great increase, for instance", wrote Aldis Wright, who was then Senior Bursar of Trinity, "which is asked for in the number of professorships appears to me to be wholly unnecessary, and the money, which would be required to establish them, would be spent to comparatively little purpose. For some reason or another the professorial system as a whole has failed to supply an efficient teaching power in Cambridge." And for different reasons the President of Queens', George Phillips, had as little use for Professors as Aldis Wright and Hardy. "Every college", he said, "is able to provide ample instruction for its pupils, not only in the old subjects of study, viz. classics and mathematics, but also in the new". Few however of those who answered the questionnaire thought it worth while to protest against the clearly declared intention of the Commissioners to levy a contribution in some form or other upon the colleges for the benefit 1 Copies of this questionnaire and the answers to it are in a volume in the University Registry. 2 M. Holroyd, Memorials of the Life ofG. E. Corrie (1890), p. 351.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

309

of the University, but among the few were R. T. Caldwell and E. H. Perowne, both Fellows of Corpus: they stoutly denied that there were "any University purposes for which demands should be made on the private property of the colleges". But, though the majority either thought it desirable or accepted it as inevitable that the colleges should financially assist the University, there was disagreement as to the best way of giving that assistance. There was a considerable body of opinion against die annexation of fellowships to University teaching offices, and the left-wing reformers were divided on the question, Henry Sidgwick favouring the proposal, "in order to produce as close a union as possible between colleges and University", and Bateson being opposed to it. And Henry Fawcett's reply to the Commissioners explains this conflict in the liberal camp. "If some of the proposals", he wrote, "which are supported at the present time by influential resident members of the University, are carried out, it cannot, I think, be doubted that the number of fellowships which each year will be available to reward deserving students will be very materially reduced. It is important to observe that this reduction would occur at the very time when, through the general extension of education, the improved administration of endowments and the abolition of tests, University education will be brought within the reach of a largely increased number of poor and distinguished students." There was however a general agreement that the colleges should be taxed on their net and not on their gross revenues, that is to say on their revenues after certain items of income and expenditure had been deducted, though the Junior Bursar of Trinity, G. F. Cobb, was in favour of an assessment on the gross external income of a college, as the University would thereby receive a less fluctuating income, and "deductions (to make net) are open to diversities of calculation". And further it was generally agreed that the rate of taxation should vary in accordance with the financial circumstances of the University and the colleges. But there was a great diversity of opinion as to the amount of additional income required by the University; and some of the scientific Professors ran to figures of alarming magnitude.1 It was worth while to make this inquiry, for though very varied counsel was offered, the Commissioners received the assurance that many of the reforms they were called upon to consider would be welcomed by a considerable number of members of the Senate. Their next step was dictated to them by a sentence in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, which directed them not to approve a statute made by the Governing Body of a college before publishing a statement "with respect to the main purposes, 1

University Registry Documents; G. F. Browne, Recollections of a Bishop (1915),

pp. 168-169.

310

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

relative to the University, for which, in their opinion, provision should be made under this Act, the sources from which funds for those purposes should be obtained, and the principles on which payments from the colleges for those purposes should be contributed". The Commissioners accordingly pubhshed a statement which appeared in the University Reporter of 19 March 1878. They were careful not to tie their hands. Though they detailed the needs of the University, and declared that "the sources, from which funds for the purposes described should be obtained, appear to be clearly pointed out by the Act itself, when it empowers the Commissioners to enable or require the several colleges, or any of them, to make contributions out of their revenues for University purposes", they indicated, without expressing a preference for any one or more of them, so many different ways of making this contribution, as to tell the colleges little more than they already knew. But the letter, signed by the two secretaries, which accompanied this statement, was more precise and more alarming. "We are instructed to say", wrote the Secretaries, " that while the Commissioners believe that it would be convenient to the colleges to be informed of the amount of the contribution which may be required for University purposes, they are unable at present to determine the minimum or maximum amount. There appears to them however to be sufficient evidence of needs which will ultimately require a contribution equivalent to at least 10 per centum of the net income of the colleges." In February 1879 the Commissioners devoted two long meetings to revising the first nine chapters of the University statutes. They accepted a considerable portion of the amended version of them which the University had submitted, but by no means all. They decided, for instance, that the residence or standing required of candidates for degrees, the qualifications for an honorary degree and the duties of the Registrary, PubHc Orator and Librarian should be continued to be regulated by statute, though the University had relegated all these matters, with the exception of the requirements for a theological degree, to the book of ordinances. They further decided that a Proctor should continue to be obliged to give a bond, "binding himself to give a true account at the end of his year of office of all money received by him by virtue of his office", though the Senate had approved the total repeal of this provision as serving no useful purpose. But when they proposed the creation of a new degree, that of Bachelor of Surgery, they were acting in accordance with a recommendation of a report of the Board of Medical Studies, which had appeared in January 1879,1 and they followed the Council and the 1 University Reporter, 24 January 1879. Hitherto the only surgical degree had been that of Master of Surgery. In March 1879, subsequently to the action taken by the Commissioners, the Council issued a report in which they stated that they had drawn up a statute, empowering

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

311

Senate in determining that the statutes of the University should be in English.1 In accordance with the wishes of his colleagues on the Commission, the Bishop of Worcester undertook to draft statutes embodying these amendments; and the Commissioners went through his draft section by section. Various verbal changes were made in it and a substantial alteration in the first chapter. In the draft statutes, approved by Grace of the Senate, that chapter had provided that there should be three terms in the academic year between 1 October and 24 June, and that they should include 227 days at least; but except for the beginning of the Michaelmas, and the end of the Easter term, it did not appoint days on which terms should begin and end, so that, as has been explained earlier, the Senate might prevent inconvenient variations in the length of the Lent and Easter terms by arranging, if necessary, for Holy Week and Easter to fall in term time. The Commissioners on first going through the nine chapters had deferred consideration of this chapter,2 but when revising the Bishop of Worcester's draft, they agreed to accept it "in the form sent up by the University, the word 'academic' being struck out,3 and words being added to the following effect, 'the Easter vacation shall always be so arranged as to include Good Friday and Easter Monday and the intervening days'". 4 The addition of these words seemed to deprive the University of the liberty which it very reasonably sought to acquire. But, despite this minute, another change was made by the Commissioners in this chapter. As sent up by the University it provided that "terms shall be kept by residence.. .during such part, being not less than two-thirds of each term, as the University may from time to time prescribe by Grace"; and in the Commissioners' draft statutes, as sent to the University, "three-fourths" is substituted for "two-thirds". This was an important change, though, curiously enough, it is not specifically recorded in the minutes of the Commission. 5 On 22 March the Commissioners decided "to send the proposed statutes for the University to the Vice-Chancellor and the Council forthwith, leaving blank Chapter v, 6" which prescribed the mode of auditing the University accounts.6 The Council carefully considered them, and set out their objecthe University to confer the degree of Bachelor of Surgery, for submission to the Commissioners, and this report was approved, by the Senate on 3 April. Ibid. 25 March, 17 April 1879. 1

Minutes of the Commission, 27 and 28 February 1879. Minutes of the Commission, 27 February 1879. 3 This word was only struck out as being redundant. 4 Minutes of the Commission, 18 March 1879. 5 In the minutes of the meeting on 19 March 1879 occurs the sentence, "the wording of Chapter 1 was settled", which is not very illuminating. Minutes of the Commission, 22 March 1879. 2

312

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

tions in a document which they communicated to the Commissioners and published in the University Reporter.1 This representation, as it was called, had been drafted by a committee consisting of Bateson, Cayley and Coutts Trotter, and amended by the Council. It stressed the difficulty created by the Commissioners' provision that the four days from Good Friday to Easter Monday inclusive should always be in vacation. "If the intention of this proviso", argued the Council, "can be satisfied by the interpretation, which appears to be admissible, that the four days mentioned may occur within a term, but are not in any case to be counted as days of residence, there would perhaps be little inconvenience experienced in practice. But if it be meant that these days are always to fall outside of the Lent and Easter terms, and that consequently these terms are always to be affected by the variations to which Eastertide is liable, it appears to the Council that the proviso is objectionable, inasmuch as it deprives the University of the power to modify the variable inequalities of these two terms, which are found to interfere materially with arrangements for work." The Council also pointed out that as the Governing Bodies of the great Public Schools were "by recent legislation free to make their own regulations with respect to the times and length of the ordinary holidays", it seemed not unreasonable to claim the same amount of freedom for the University. A strong case was also made against the residence or standing required of candidates for degrees and the qualifications for honorary degrees being regulated by statute instead of by ordinance. It was contended that the most important point in this connection was the number of terms required to be kept by residence for a first degree; and that if this was " fixed and unchangeable for any great length of time", as it would be if prescribed by statute, it would be difficult to proceed any further with the scheme for affiliated colleges recently approved by the Senate,2 as this was based on the assumption that the number of terms to be kept by residence might be reduced in particular cases; and equally difficult to comply with requests of a similar character, which had been made in the past and might be repeated.3 It was 1 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 21 and 28 April, 2, 5,12 and 19 May 1879. Statute c. v, section 6, was not sent to the Council until October 1880. University Reporter, 2 23 October 1880. University Reporter, 22 April, 27 May 1879. 3 It was stated in the representation that "not many years ago a proposal came from the Admiralty to admit Lieutenants in the Navy to a B.A. degree at the end of six terms of residence, provided that a mathematical honour was obtained. It has also been thought that the selected candidates for the Civil Service in India might be allowed to proceed to degrees after a shorter period of residence than is required in ordinary cases. There is a probability of these and other similar proposals being regarded with favour by many persons both within and without the University, and it seems undesirable to exclude their consideration except on the condition of a joint act of the University and the Crown. To proclaim the necessity of such joint action is equivalent to the interposition of a serious obstacle."

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

313

also urged that the standing required of candidates for the higher degrees was a matter that was more suitably dealt with by ordinance than by statute, as were also the regulations for honorary degrees. The inconvenience that had arisen from the definition by statute of the duties of the Registrary, Librarian and Orator was also very carefully explained. "Some points in the Orator's statute", it was said, "soon fell into disuse, and the other two statutes contain directions for the discharge of particular duties, which were capable of the interpretation in the one case that other duties could not be imposed, and in the other that there was a privilege conferred rather than a duty prescribed."* And regret was expressed that the Commissioners had decided to retain the statutory provision which required a Proctor to give a bond for the repayment of all money received by him on behalf of the University. "If the bond", it was argued, "be regarded as an important security for the protection of the University, it would be right for the University to exact it in the case of other receivers where larger amounts are involved. If it adds but little to the security of the University, it may reasonably be dispensed with on the ground that if it be rigorously exacted, it will probably add to the difficulty of finding suitable persons to fill the office of Proctor. In practice it is at present a merely formal undertaking to pay whatever may be found to be due, without any sureties" But the Council's attitude was not purely negative. They raised no objection to the requirement of residence during at least three-fourths of the term, and asked that the University might be empowered by statute to confer the degree of Bachelor, Master and Doctor of Science. "The sphere of science", they said, "is ever extending, and distinctions in its various branches seem to require some special recognition, for which the titles of other degrees are scarcely appropriate." But they desired above all to free the University from restrictions which had ceased to be useful and impeded progress. They proclaimed their conviction that liberty "may be conceded without risk of misuse, and.. .will enable the University to adapt itself more readily to new departments of work which it may be called upon to undertake".2 The representation was brought to the notice of the Commissioners for the first time when they met on 10 June 1879, and they did not wholly reject it. They made some of the minor changes suggested, and partially met the request for the institution of science degrees by framing a statute authorising the University to confer the degree of Doctor of Science. Moreover, in accordance with a resolution which the Council passed on 19 February 1880,3 1 The duties of these officers had been defined in the statutes approved by the Queen in Council in July 1858. 2

University Reporter, 27 May 1879. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 19 February 1880.

314

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

they also made statutory provision for the award of the degree of Doctor of Letters. But they did not concede much. Though they re-drafted the first chapter of their statutes, it was only so as to exclude all possibility of its being interpreted as allowing the four days from Good Friday to Easter Monday to fall within term: in its revised form it directed that the Lent term should not end later than the Thursday before Easter^ and the Easter term should not begin earlier than the Tuesday after Easter. They also adhered to their decision to prescribe by statute the residence or standing required of candidates for degrees, though they met the University so far as to make a statute which authorised it "to adopt as an affiliated college in any place within the United Kingdom, or in any part of the British Dominion [sic], any institution founded for the education of adult students", and provided that students of institutions so adopted shall, "if admitted as members of the University, be deemed to have kept three of the terms required for any degree". They also retained the statutes which prescribed the qualifications for an honorary degree, defined the duties of the Registrary, Orator and Librarian, and required a Proctor to bind himself to repay all the money he had received on behalf of the University.1 The Council could not profitably repeat their rejected suggestions for the amendment of the nine chapters; and as there was no more to be said, the Commissioners on 23 November 1880 agreed to affix their seal to them, and to transmit them to the Queen in Council.2 But, as they well knew, they had only accomplished part of their task, and that not the most difficult part. Since the beginning of August 1878 they had been engaged in drafting fifteen new statutes, which they communicated to the Council in November 1879.3 These to a great extent were based upon "Heads of Provisions to be introduced into the University Statutes", which had been drawn up by G. W. Hemming. Many, but not all, of these "Heads" were accepted by the Commissioners in their original form; and though there is no reason to think that Hemming in any way dictated to his colleagues on the Commission, he certainly seems to have acted as their guide in this part of their work. During the last fortnight of January 1880 the Council devoted the greater part of nine meetings to the examination of these statutes, discussing them in great detail; and, not infrequently, there were sharp differences of opinion. But by 4 February sufficient progress had been made for a committee consisting of Dr Bateson, Professor Cayley and Coutts Trotter, to be appointed "to prepare for the consideration of the Council a draft representation to the 1

University Reporter, 2 June 1880. In the end the nine chapters had increased to ten, but the tenth was of a purely formal character. 3 University Reporter, 17 December 1879; Minutes of the Commission, 25 November 1879. 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

315

Commissioners, embracing the several resolutions approved by the Council in regard to the fifteen proposed statutes"; and on 10 February and the two following days this draft representation was considered by the Council and substantially amended. On 12 February it was decided to communicate it to the Commissioners. It repays study, for the criticism it offered was both reasonable and discriminating. It passed over some of the fifteen statutes without comment, and its objections to others were only on points of detail. It had, for instance, little to say upon the statutes which prescribed the duties and the amount of residence required of Professors, for they were substantially as those which the Senate had approved on 14 December 1878. Nor could they take any objection in principle to the provisions for the establishment of a General Board of Studies and readerships, and for the award of pensions to Professors. A report of the Council, dated 25 November 1878, had recommended that "a statute be prepared for the establishment of.. .a General Board or Council of Studies", and that readerships be created;1 and after this report had been approved by the Senate, a statute for a General Board, drafted by Coutts Trotter, had been passed by the Senate in April 1879, and the attention of the Commissioners drawn to it.* And in another report, dated 9 December 1878, the Council had expressed the opinion that some provision should be made for awarding pensions to Professors who retired on account of their age or ill health, and this recommendation had been approved by the Senate for communication to the Commissioners.3 General approval was also expressed of the statute which established a Financial Board for the care and management of the property and income of the University. It was to consist of the Vice-Chancellor, two members of the General Board elected by that body, and eight members of the Senate, of whom four were to be elected by the colleges in common, and the other four appointed by Grace on the nomination of the Council. Its duties, as defined by the statute, included "the care and management of all lands, houses, buildings and other property belonging to the University or held in trust for University purposes", and the arrangement of the "terms and conditions of all loans which the University may desire to obtain on security of its property and income for University purposes". And, as was clearly desirable, it was empowered to appoint a secretary, a land agent and, if necessary, other officers. 1

Seep. 303. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 3 March 1879; University Reporter, 26 November 1878, 13 December 1878, 25 March, 17 April 1879. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 3 and 10 March 1879; University Reporter, 10 December 1878, 11 and 25 March 1879. 2

3l6

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

Such members of the Senate as were well acquainted with the administrative business of the University had long realised that the Vice-Chancellor was seriously overworked, and that he ought to be given more assistance than he received, particularly in the management of the University finances. In a pamphlet, published in 1866, the Registrary, H. R. Luard, had urged that as it must often happen that the Vice-Chancellor was not a good man of business, the appointment of a Financial Secretary, whose duties would be much the same as those of a college Bursar, was highly desirable;* and he was certainly not guilty of proclaiming an imaginary need, for though a permanent Syndicate for the management of the property of the University had been appointed in 1857, it seldom met. Nor did the appointment of a land agent ten years later do what was wanted. Yet when a Syndicate, appointed in November 1875, recommended that in place of the University Property Syndicate and a University land agent, a permanent Syndicate for the management of the financial business of the University should be established, with power to appoint a member of the Senate as their secretary, they were wise to no purpose, as the Senate rejected their report.2 The Commissioners' statute would probably have met the same fate if it had required the sanction of the Senate. But the Council were not completely uncritical even of those statutes in which they found much to approve. They requested, for instance, the Commissioners to introduce a clause into the Financial Board statute, "which should provide that the University should be free to commit the financial management of special departments, including the buildings belonging to them, as for instance the Press, to Special Boards or Syndicates independent of the control of the Financial Board"; and they also remarked that as they did not think that the University was legally able to raise money by way of loan, "it would be desirable that provision should be made by which the University should obtain such enabling power". They objected also to the provisions in the statute for readerships, which prescribed that there should be thirty of them, and fixed the exact number which the General Board should assign to each subject:3 they expressed the opinion that eighteen Readers would be sufficient at least for the present, and that the subjects in which they should lecture might with advantage be left to be determined from time to time by the Senate on the recommendation of the General Board. They also criticised the Commissioners for having merged the Boards 1

H. R. Luard, Suggestions (1866). University Reporter, 16 November 1875, 14 March, 23 May 1876. 3 The University might however increase the number of Readers, and "on the occurrence of vacancies after the end of the year 1886" vary "the number of Readers in connexion with the several Special Boards of Studies". 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

317

of Oriental Languages and Modern and Medieval Languages into one Board of Languages, and for having divided the single Board for all Natural Science subjects into a Board for Physics and Chemistry and another for Biology and Geology; * and though they did not object in principle to the statute which provided that the General Board, acting in conjunction with the special Board concerned, might appoint a college Lecturer, who was willing to admit all persons in statu pupillari to his lectures, to a University lectureship of the annual value of fifty pounds, they did not think it desirable that there should be a statutory provision for a minimum number of these lectureships and that only college Lecturers, who received from their college a stipend of at least .£200 as lecturers, should be eligible for them. It is perhaps a pity that the Council did not criticise this particular statute more drastically. These University lectureships, which have now disappeared, never really served a useful purpose; and it may come as a surprise to many of the present generation that they ever existed. But there were some of the statutes, communicated by the Commissioners, which the Council were not willing to accept unless they underwent substantial modification. One of these was concerned with professorships. It provided for six new professorships, of which three were allotted to physiology, pathology, and astronomy and astronomical physics, and assigned to these new Chairs, as well as to those already existing, stipends, which ranged in amount from ^750 to ^200: % to six an annual stipend of ^75° w a s a t " tached; to seven, ^600; to six, ^500; to six, ^400; to three, ^300; and to one, the Professorship of Music, ^200. The statute also provided that the Professor of Pathology should not be allowed to practise as a doctor or surgeon. The Council did not object to the total amount of these professorial stipends, but considered that there should be less disparity between them; and therefore suggested that, with the exception of that for the Chair of Music which they did not wish to raise above ^200, they should range between ^650 and £500. They also expressed the opinion that a Professorship of Astronomy and Astronomical Physics was not needed, and that the Professor of Physiology should be-under the same rule with regard to private practice as the Professor of Pathology. Another statute decreed that some, though not all, professorships should have college fellowships assigned to them, and named the professorship or 1 The statute however empowered the University "to vary the number and designation of Special Boards from time to time hereafter on the recommendation of the General Board of Studies, provided that the whole number of such Boards shall never be less than eight." 2 No stipends were however attached to the Dixie Professorship of Ecclesiastical History and the Thirlwall Professorship, as it was not yet definitely known to what extent the stipends of these Chairs would come from sources independent of the University Chest.

3l8

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

professorships allotted to each college.1 As was only equitable, the burden was adjusted to the wealth of the Society. Sidney Sussex, for instance, and some of the other smaller colleges, were only called upon to support one professorship, whereas St John's was assigned five and Trinity six. The great defect of this scheme was that it compelled a Professor to become a Fellow of a particular college, and this would bear very hardly upon a successful candidate for a Chair, who was already a Fellow of a college to which it was not assigned, as the statute directed that "the person admitted into any professorship to which a fellowship is assigned by this statute, shall hereby vacate the fellowship, if any, which he holds at any college".2 The Council very rightly condemned in their representation this extreme inelasticity, and asserted that "it is not desirable that it should be compulsory upon a Fellow of a college elected to a professorship to vacate his fellowship, in order to take a fellowship at another college". They did not deny the value of professorial fellowships as a link between the colleges and the University, but they held that the strength of that link would not be impaired by allowing the colleges and the Professors a reasonable freedom of choice. But by far the most controversial of all the fifteen statutes was that which determined the contributions of the colleges for University purposes. It fixed the total maximum sum of these contributions at ^10,000 until the end of the year 1882, when it was to rise to -£15,000; and then by augmentations, coming into force at the end of four-year periods, advance in the year 1891 to -£25,000. But after the end of the year 1894 this last sum was to become the minimum, not the maximum, demanded, and no maximum was named. But the colleges were given some protection against excessive taxation after the end of the year 1894, as the statute provided that they "shall not be required to contribute in any year a greater sum than -£25,000, without the consent of a majority of votes at a meeting of representatives of the colleges called for the purpose of considering the question, the number of votes given on behalf of every college being in proportion to its quota for contribution". The college quota was to be a sum named in the statute for every ;£iooo of the total levy. Peterhouse, for instance, was required to contribute -£23 for every -£1000, Trinity £229, St John's £169, and Magdalene £ 7 ; and thus, if the total contribution was £25,000, Trinity would be required to pay £5725, and Magdalene £175. The statute further provided that "at any time not less than five years after the approval of this statute by the Queen in Council, and again after intervals of not less than ten years from 1

Downing was excepted, as it supported the professorships of law and medicine. If a college refused to elect into a fellowship the holder of a professorship assigned to it by the statute, the fellowship was to remain vacant, and its emolument paid to the University for the use of the Professor. z

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

319

that or any subsequent revision, the college quota might be revised by the Chancellor". The Council complained that no statement had been made "of the principles on which this quota has been determined"; and they were the more aggrieved as the explanation they desired had been definitely refused them. Some weeks before their representation had been drafted, the Vice-Chancellor had informed the Commissioners that the Council wished to know what those principles were; * * and, in particular, whether the number of undergraduates in the several Colleges has been taken into account, and, if so, in what manner". He received a curt, and slightly discourteous, answer: " W e are instructed to inform you", replied the secretaries of the Commission, "that the University of Cambridge Commissioners feel it would be impossible to give within reasonable compass such explanations respecting the draft statutes as would be of real service to the Council in preparing a representation to the Commissioners."I This was a most unworthy and ridiculous excuse, for surely an explanation could be given, though it might involve a lengthy letter; and the Council may have been near the truth if they suspected that the quota had been fixed in a very haphazard manner. They were certainly nettled. "In the absence of all specific information", they remarked in their representation, "as to the several matters which the Commissioners have taken into consideration before settling their quota, the Council limit themselves to one hypothetical criticism. If it be true that the quota has been in any measure determined by the number of undergraduates at the several colleges, the Council would remark that in their judgment it is not reasonable or expedient that such a consideration should be taken into account in estimating the payment to be made by the colleges out of their general revenues." They also urged that a smaller total sum should be required of the colleges during the years immediately after the statutes became operative, and that it should not rise to £25,000 until the year 1893.* They also expressed their strong disapproval of the proposal that after a prescribed number of years had passed, the colleges should have no certain knowledge of the amount they might be required to contribute. "The creation", they said, "of an undefined power of taxation beyond the amount specifically imposed by the Commissioners, appears to be an act of doubtful legality. Moreover it excites 1

A rough draft of the Vice-Chancellor's letter, dated 19 January 1880, and the secretaries' reply, dated 5 February, are in the Minute Book of the Council of the Senate. 2 The Commissioners, for instance, had proposed that for the period 1883-1886 inclusive the maximum sum required of the colleges should b e / i 5 , 0 0 0 : the Council suggested that until the end of the year 1883 it should be ^5000, andfrom then until the end of the year 1886, ^10,000.

320

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

alarm, and for practical use is likely to be ineffective." They also suggested that it would be more satisfactory and less expensive if applications for the revision of the college quota were made in the first instance to the Financial Board instead of to the Chancellor.1 The Council had agreed on 16 February 1880 that when they sent their representation to the Commissioners, it should be accompanied by " memorials addressed to, or intended for, the University Commissioners by the Library Syndicate, the Board of Natural Science Studies and the Museums and Lecture-Rooms Syndicate";2 and each of these bodies had their own particular axe to grind. The grievance of the Library Syndicate was that as so large a part of the prospective increase in the income of the University "will be absorbed in the foundation and augmentation of professorships and in the creation of a new order of University teachers", little would be left for the pressing needs of the Library. The Board of Natural Science Studies had many grievances. They contended that a considerable sum of money was required for much wanted additional laboratories and museums, and for the maintenance and adequate equipment of those already in existence, and that "it would be better to reduce the amount spent on Readers—either by diminishing the number, or by diminishing in some cases the income of, readerships, and making them tenable with college lectureships—than to impair, or in some cases almost destroy, the efficiency of the teachers who are appointed by failing to provide them with the necessary appliances for teaching". The Board also urged that the Commissioners' scheme for the assignment of readerships to particular subjects made very inadequate provision for instruction in biology and geology, and added that many of them regretted the division of "the Board of Natural Science Studies into a Board of Physics and Chemistry and a Board of Biology and Geology". And the grievance of the Museums and Lecture-Rooms Syndicate was that an income of at least four thousand pounds a year was required for the maintenance and equipment of the buildings in their charge, and that there was little hope of obtaining it if, as the Commissioners proposed, nearly four-fifths of the college contributions were devoted to other purposes.3 1

The fifteen draft statutes were published, in the University Reporter of 17 December 1879, and the Council's representation in the University Reporter of 2 March 1880. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 16 February 1880. 3 Minutes of the Commission, 24 February 1880; University Reporter, 2 March 1880. The Board of Historical Studies also presented a memorial, in which they protested that the need of more University teachers of history had not been adequately recognised, and that the stipend of ^400, which the Commissioners had decided to be sufficient for the Regius Professorship of History, was a slight upon the dignity and importance of that Chair— University Reporter, 2 March 1880. The Board of Oriental Languages also demanded that more attention should be paid to their teaching requirements, and objected to being amalgamated with the Board of Modern and Medieval Languages. Ibid. 27 April 1880.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

321

Various other memorials were presented to the Commissioners. One of them, which was very extensively signed, had been organised by the Master of Peterhouse and N. M. Ferrers.1 Like the Council's representation it urged that the principles on which the college quota had been determined ought to have been stated, and that the colleges ought always to know exactly the sum they would be called upon to pay to the University. But it broke new ground by proposing an alternative mode of taxation. "Having regard", said the memorialists, "to the fact that the income of the colleges is mainly derived from property, the value of which is necessarily subject to fluctuations, and is at this moment very generally depreciated, we think that the contribution to the University should vary with the actual income rather than take the form of a specified sum of money. An income, which may in one year more than suffice for the wants of a college, may in some other year be so affected by thesefluctuationsas to fall short of them." And they defined the income on which the contribution should be assessed as "the surplus income remaining to each college after due provision has been made for the maintenance of the college as a place of education, religion, learning and research". Also, like the Council, they took objection to "the definite and permanent annexation of fellowships at particular colleges to particular professorships ", for, as they truly said, a Fellow, who was well worthy of a professorship, might decline to be a candidate for it if it entailed banishment from the Society which had been his home since his undergraduate days. The alternative suggested—"that each college should either have one or more.. .Professors holding fellowships or headships, or contribute an equivalent number of fellowship dividends to a professorial fund"—was certainly more likely to be acceptable to the colleges and to Professors. They further criticised the Commissioners' scheme for the assignment of readerships to particular subjects, alleging that it withheld readerships from subjects which urgently needed them, and gave them where they were not wanted. But the memorialists did not confine themselves to details: they denounced the draft statutes as incompatible with the college system, as it had existed from time immemorial. "We would urge", they said, "that the effect of the draft in certain respects would be not merely to supplement, as most would desire, the existing provisions of collegiate or inter-collegiate teaching, but almost to supplant them, and to substitute a new academic system for that established system of collegiate education 1

This memorial is in a volume of University Papers in the University Library, of which

the press mark is Cam. a. 500. 6.

322

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

and discipline, which in our opinion has mainly contributed to the efficiency and distinctive character of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the maintenance and development of which, we venture to urge upon the Commissioners, is constituted by the very words of the Act (section 16, clause i) their foremost obligation."x Yet though much of the criticism in this memorial was quite reasonable, and such as even ardent academic reformers could approve, it was too untempered by commendation to be quite to the liking of the party in the University, who were so desirous of reform as to be, perhaps, over-fearful of criticism. Consequently a certain number of members of the Senate circulated a fly-sheet, in which they explained that, though they were of the opinion that the draft statutes needed "further consideration and amendment in some important respects", they did not think it desirable "to sign, with or without reservation, the memorial circulated by the Master of Peterhouse and Mr Ferrers".2 But as they did not wish to appear by silence to be afraid of expressing their opinions, a meeting was held on 29 January 1880 at the Master of Emmanuel's Lodge to consider a memorial to the Commissioners, which had been circulated beforehand.3 It was not a counterblast to the handiwork of the Master of Peterhouse and Ferrers. It indeed made many of the same objections, but it differed from it by expressing cordial approval of the general scheme of the Commissioners, and by asserting that the "ultimate minimum contribution (^25,000) is not excessive".4 But the similarity of the two memorials was sufficiently close to enable some members of the Senate to sign both, though with reservations; 5 and in a measure they supplemented one another. As was remarked at the time, "where the petitioners are agreed, the Commissioners can scarcely refuse to give way". 6 But Dr Phelps signed neither of them. He thought the statutes so fundamentally pernicious as to be incapable of being improved, and said so very forcibly in a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. No modifications or amendments, he declared, could change their spirit and intention. They were abhorrent to him as a deadly assault upon the college system, and therefore a complete justification of his "four and twenty published letters" in the 1 The first clause of the sixteenth section of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act directed the Commissioners to make provision "for enabling or requiring the several colleges, or any of them, to make contributions out of their revenues for University purposes, regard being first had to the wants of the several colleges in themselves for educational and other collegiate purposes." 2 Cambridge Chronicle, 17 January 1880. 3 4 Cam. a. 500. 6, University Library. Ibid. 5 6 Cambridge Review, 18 February 1880. Ibid. 4 February 1880.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

323

Cambridge Chronicle. And to this outburst of impotent wrath he appended a letter he had written to the Secretaries of the Commission. "May I request", he had said, "that you have the goodness to present to the Cambridge University Commissioners this my personal protest and remonstrance in reference to the amount of contribution proposed to be levied from this college, as intimated in the recently issued 'Draft of Proposed Statutes'. I make no reference at present to the general scheme of the draft. I will only observe that its effect on almost all parties here can only be likened to that of an explosive shell thrown into a besieged fort in close proximity to the powder magazine."1 The Commissioners were possibly amused by Dr Phelps's vigorous denunciation of them: they certainly did not take it seriously. They paid great attention however to the representation of the Council and the memorials which they had received. And though they were divided in opinion as to how far they should go in making concessions, and many motions were put to the vote, the parts in favour of conciliation generally prevailed, and the statutes were substantially modified. They agreed for instance to abandon their scheme for obliging certain Professors to accept fellowships of particular colleges, and to provide instead that each college should be obliged to elect one or more Professors into a fellowship, but not any particular Professor.2 They also agreed that Oriental Languages and Modern and Medieval Languages should have separate Boards of Studies, that the Professor of Physiology as well as the Professor of Pathology should not be allowed to practise as a doctor or surgeon, and that the University should not be required to establish a Professorship of Astronomy and Astronomical Physics. Other substantial changes were also made. The prescribed number of Readers was reduced from thirty to twenty, and their assignment to subjects was left to be determined from time to time by Grace of the Senate on the recommendation of the General Board of Studies. Also the provisions of the draft statute, which directed that there should be a minimum number of University lectureships, and that only college Lecturers who received a stipend from their college of not less than ^200 a year should be eligible for them, were withdrawn; and the. stipends of Professors were brought nearer an equality, being made to range from ^850 to ^7OO.3 Moreover, in accordance with the wish expressed in the two memorials presented by members of the Senate, the 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 13 December 1879. With the agreement of the colleges concerned, however, the Regius Professor of Greek was entitled to be admitted to a fellowship of Trinity, and the Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History to a fellowship of Emmanuel. The Downing Professors of Medicine and Law were also to be "deemed to be holding a professorial fellowship within the meaning of die Statutes of the University". 3 No stipend was attached to the Professorship of Music in the revised draft. 2

324

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

provision that half the prescribed number of Readers should be appointed before the end of the year 1882, and the remainder before the end of the year 1884, was replaced by the more elastic regulation that they should be appointed "as soon as sufficient funds can be provided conveniently for the purpose".1 The Commissioners also not only agreed to exempt the University Press from the control of the Financial Board, but inquired of the Council whether they wished other University departments to be similarly treated; and on learning that they did, provided that "other special departments, including the buildings belonging to them, may be committed by the Senate to Special Boards or Syndicates appointed for the purpose". 3 But by far the most important concessions made by the Commissioners were in regard to the contributions of the colleges for University purposes. They agreed, "in view of the difficulties represented to exist in the way of a quota,.. .to raise the requisite sum by way of percentage on the incomes of the colleges"; but this motion was only carried by four votes to three, and me three Commissioners who voted against it were Lord Rayleigh, Hemming and E. P. Bouverie.3 It was further agreed that the tax should be levied on the gross income of the colleges, but from that gross income certain items of receipt and expenditure might be deducted.4 Also the total amount required to be jointly contributed by the colleges was reduced for the first twelve years or so after the statute became operative; and after 1896 the colleges could only be called upon to contribute .£30,000, or such larger sum, being not greater than £30,500, "as may be found more convenient for calculating the rate per centum in any year". Thus it could not be complained that a time would come when the colleges would not know how much they would be called 1 This provision was also made applicable to the new professorships, which the former draft statutes had directed to be established before the end of the year 1882. 2 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 7 and 14 June 1880; University Reporter, 22 June 1880. The Commissioners were apparently satisfied that the University could raise loans, as they retained the provision which empowered the Financial Board to arrange the terms and conditions of loans which the University might wish to raise. 3 Minutes of the Commission, 24 February 1880. 4 The gross income was defined as not including the rents paid for rooms, but as including the sum at which college buildings were assessed. The following items were deductible: (a) rates, taxes and insurance on the college buildings; (6) rates, taxes, insurance and tithe rentcharge on the college estates if paid by the college; (c) the University dues paid to the University in each year by the college for its members; (d) the cost of maintenance and repairs of the college buildings; (e) the cost of maintenance and repairs on the college estates incurred by the college; (/) necessary repairs of chancels where the college possesses tithe rent-charge; (g) the cost of management of the college estates, including the stipends paid to college officers for the purpose; (h) the interest on loans; (1) such portions of the income of trust funds as are applicable entirely to purposes without the college; (j) one half of the income derived from the tuition fees paid by students.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

325

upon to contribute to the University; and what had perhaps been the principal grievance of the Council against this statute was thus removed. And the Commissioners made another concession by allowing a college to deduct from the contribution required of it a sum, gradually increasing until it amounted to ^200, for each of its professorial fellowships.1 The Council received this revised draft in October 1880, and began to consider it on Monday, 1 November.2 They found many faults in it, but many of the alterations which they agreed to propose were not of fundamental importance, and others were merely verbal. Some however raised issues of greater moment. One of the draft statutes prescribed that "if the holder of a professorial fellowship retires from office, after being a Professor for a period not less than twenty years, he shall receive from the University a pension of such amount, not less than the average dividend of the fellowship for the time during which he held it, as the Senate may think fit"; but though the statute permitted, it did not compel, the University to award pensions on retirement to Professors not holding professorial fellowships. This did not seem equitable, and some members of the Council wished the statute to provide that all Professors, who had held office for twenty years or more, should receive from the University a pension not less in amount than one-third of the stipend of their Chair. But the majority were not inclined to be quite so definite; and after several motions had been put and lost, it was finally agreed to propose to the Commissioners that no distinction should be made between Professors holding, and not holding, professorial fellowships, and that the statute should empower the University "to give pensions to retiring Professors, according to regulations to be made as the Senate may thinkfit"3. The Council also decided to add to the allowable deductions from the gross income of a college before it was taxed for the benefit of the University, though the additions were not as many as some members wished.4 But one was of considerable importance. At Lord Rayleigh's suggestion the Commissioners had decided that one half of the tuition fees paid by persons in statu pupillari might be deducted from the gross income; 5 but the Council were of 1 Minutes of the Commission, 24, 25 and 26 February, 25, 26, 27 and 28 May, 1 July 1880; University Reporter, 23 October 1880. The Commissioners also made a new draft statute which provided that "the accounts of the receipt and expenditure of money paid by the colleges for University purposes shall be kept distinct from the other accounts of the University" and prescribed that payments from this fund should only be made for certain named purposes. 2 Minutes of the Commission, 7 October 1880; Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 1 November 1880. 3 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 17 November 1880. 4 Ibid. 15 November 1880. 5 Minutes of the Commission, 1 July 1880.

326

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

the opinion "that it is not expedient that any part of the tuition fees should be included in that portion of the college revenues which is taxed for University purposes". And they explained why they thought so. "Such a tax", they said, "would either operate as an undue discouragement to any college which with a small endowment had by its efficient teaching or otherwise attracted to itself a comparatively large number of undergraduates; or if the colleges should recoup themselves, either by charging an increased fee for what will then be University, as well as college, tuition, or by diminishing the amount of teaching provided for the undergraduates of the college, the payment would be in effect a tax upon the undergraduate members of colleges as distinguished from non-collegiate students. This seems to be both inequitable in itself and likely to hamper the action of the University, in case it should seem desirable to raise additional funds by the imposition upon all undergraduates of a University tuition fee in the exercise of the powers conferred upon the University under the new statutes." Moreover as the Commissioners had fixed the maximum contribution that could ever be demanded of the colleges at a figure ranging between -£30,000 and .£30,500, the question inevitably rose whether the colleges could possibly, without detriment to their efficiency, support this heavy burden. Their revenues were bound to be seriously affected by the agricultural depression which had already set in;* and as it was impossible to foresee how long that depression would last, or how great would be its effects, it was tempting to assume that the Commissioners, with the easy optimism of those who plan for others, had taken an unjustifiably favourable view of the future. It is therefore greatly to the credit of the Council that a motion, proposed by the Master of Peterhouse and seconded by Vansittart, that in consideration of the prospect of the agricultural depression continuing for a considerable time, ".£20,000 be substituted for -£30,000 as the ultimate maximum to be contributed from colleges", was defeated by eight votes to six, with two persons not voting.1 The majority on this occasion valiantly resisted the lure of panic legislation. They were quite aware that college incomes were on the downward grade, and might descend to depths that even confirmed pessimists did not dare to contemplate; but they believed that for a worthy object risks ought to be incurred. They were not disloyal to their colleges though probably those who disagreed with them thought that they were. They recognised that their Societies owed a duty to the University, which must be generously and ungrudgingly fulfilled. But they were not foolhardy, and sought to diminish, as far as possible, the risk they were running. "With a view of providing some relief in case the aggregate income of all the colleges should be seriously reduced 1

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 15 November 1880.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

327

hereafter", Professor Westcott proposed, and Coutts Trotter seconded, a motion that in case it appears to the Financial Board that the aggregate income of the colleges has been so far diminished that the contribution required under the statute has become an excessive burden upon the colleges, the Chancellor may, upon the application of the Financial Board, inquire into the matter, and if he be satisfied that the aggregate income of the colleges has been so diminished, he may at his discretion direct that the amount to be levied under this statute be diminished, for any period not exceeding five years, by any sum not exceeding one fifth part of the amount named in this statute. This motion was carried by ten votes to two, but again two members of the Council did not vote. 1 The Council's representation was brought before the Commissioners for the first time on 23 November 1880, and was not unfavourably received. The Commissioners accepted many of its suggestions, and in particular agreed that the Chancellor should be empowered, on the application of the Financial Board, to reduce the amount that the colleges were required to contribute to the University, and that all Professors should be on the same footing with regard to pensions. But by three votes to two they adhered to their decision that one half of the tuition fees paid by students should be included in the taxable income of a college.* But the Council's representation was accompanied by protests from several colleges against the amount of the contribution they were required to make to the University;3 and the Commissioners did not disregard these complaints as coming from interested parties who were likely to exaggerate their incapacity to pay the sums demanded. It was only after having considered them on two separate occasions that they agreed that the alleged grievance had been deprived of any substance by the "adoption of the recommendation of the Council, giving to the Chancellor the power to vary the total amount of the contribution from the colleges".4 The draft statutes, thus amended, were communicated to the Council;^ and at a meeting on 14 February 1881 the Master of Peterhouse moved, and Professor Westcott seconded, a resolution that "the Council should renew their representation to the Commissioners against their proposed statute to include in the amount liable to taxation for University purposes the half of the total amount received by each college for tuition fees from its students". 6 1 2 3 4

Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 17 November 1880. Minutes of the Commission, 23 and 30 November 1880, 5, 6 and 7 January, 1881. There was also a protest signed byfivemembers of the Council. Minutes of the Commission, 30 November 1880, 6 January 1881. 5 University Reporter, 17 January 1881. 6 Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 14 February 1881.

328

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

This motion was carried by eight votes to three, with five members of the Council not voting, and must therefore have been communicated to the Commissioners; but it was completely ineffective. The statutes contained the obnoxious provision when on 15 March 1881 the Commissioners agreed to affix their seal to them and send them to the Privy Council.1 In January 1881 the Council received from the Commissioners four more statutes which they proposed to make for the Dixie Professorship of Ecclesiastical History, the two Downing Chairs of Law and Medicine and the Regius Professorship of Greek; and as they present some points of interest, it may be worth while to explain their purpose. Sir Wolstan Dixie, who died in 1594, left by will a sum of money to Emmanuel for the purchase of land as an endowment of two fellowships and two scholarships, tenable only by former scholars of Bosworth School in Leicestershire, and to which his heirs should present. College emoluments confined to one school had for some time been regarded with disfavour, and more particularly so when they were in the gift of a private person; and the twenty-eighth section of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act authorised the Commissioners to " alter or modify the trusts, conditions or directions of, or affecting, the Dixie Foundation". The college raised no objection, and drafted three statutes which provided that no further appointments should be made to the Dixie fellowships and scholarships, and commuted the rights vested in the founder's heir, Sir Alexander Dixie, for the perpetual right of nominating persons to three benefices in the gift of the college.2 These statutes were approved by the Commissioners in February 1879;3 and the way being thus cleared, the Commissioners prepared a statute, "for the University and for Emmanuel College in common", which established the Dixie Professorship of Ecclesiastical History. As this new professorship was almost as closely connected with Emmanuel as the Professorships of the Laws of England and of Medicine were with Downing, the Commissioners decided that though each of these three Professors should be elected by a small Board, similar in composition to those they had approved for several other Chairs, the Master of Emmanuel should be added to the Board for the Dixie professorship, and the Master of Downing to the Boards for the Downing professorships. This seemed likely to cause trouble when these statutes were presented to the Council for consideration, for on hearing in November 1880 from the Secretaries of the Commissioners of "the terms of the statute proposed by the Commissioners for the Downing Professors", the Council approved by eleven votes to one a motion, 1

Minutes of the Commission, 15 March 1881. Ibid. 3 May, 6 December 1878; L. L. Shadwell, Enactments in Parliament (1912), vol. iv, 3 p. 80, note 1. Ibid. 11 February 1879. %

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

329

sponsored by the Master of Peterhouse, that "respecting the two Downing professorships,... no addition be made to the ordinary Board constituted by the statute for other professorships in the University,1 but that the two Downing Professors be under the like rules for residence and duties, and be elected in like manner, as other University Professors under the statute, without any addition to or modification of the Board". 2 But the trouble that was possibly expected did not arise, for when on 14 February 1881 the Council had the statutes for the Dixie and the two Downing professorships before them, and the Master of Peterhouse moved that a "representation be made to the Cambridge University Commissioners that in the opinion of the Council it is undesirable that the Master of Downing should be added to the electors to the Downing professorships or the Master of Emmanuel to the Electors of the Dixie professorship", his motion was lost, though only by a single vote. The only difficulty that arose over the new statute for the Regius Professorship of Greek was due to the then occupant of the Chair, Dr Kennedy, who was solely responsible for its not becoming operative until some years later. The Commissioners, having obtained the required consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, severed the connection between the Regius Professorship and the Canonry of Ely attached to it; and with the consent of Trinity College, which was also required by the Act, communicated to the Council a statute which provided that the Professor's stipend should be paid partly by the University and partly by the college. But Dr Kennedy was not so easily managed as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Trinity. Though he had informed the Commissioners in February 1878 that he wished to resign his professorship at the end of the year, he had added a few days later, on the question being directly put to him, that he wished nevertheless to retain the Canonry of Ely.3 This was not an outrageous nor even an unexpected request, as the Act authorised the Commissioners, with the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to allow the "present Professor to resign the professorship and to hold the Canonry as if it had never been annexed to the professorship". 4 But it was a very troublesome one, as the Canonry was intended for the new Ely Professorship of Divinity; and the Commissioners therefore informed Dr Kennedy that to their great regret they could not allow him to continue in the Canonry if he resigned the professorship.^ He thereupon 1 2 3 4 5

The statute for election to certain professorships. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 17 November 1880. Minutes of the Commission, 20 February 1878, 22 October 1879. This clause was not in the Bill when first introduced. Minutes of the Commission, 22 October 1879.

330

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE. UNIVERSITY

decided not to resign his Chair; and consequently it was not until after his death in April 1889 that the statutes for the Greek and Ely professorships came into operation. A more formidable difficulty arose over the Regius Professorship of Divinity. In 1605 James I had annexed by Letters Patent the rectory of Somersham to that Chair, and this grant was confirmed by an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of Queen Anne. The connection was greatly to the financial advantage of the professorship, and in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the benefits it conferred were taken to outweigh any disadvantage which the parishioners of Somersham might suffer from it. But the clerical conscience of the later nineteenth century was more delicate; and Dr Westcott, who had been appointed to the Chair in 1870, was very uneasy under a responsibility which he was incapable of discharging. He was therefore very anxious to be relieved "from the obligation of providing for the spiritual charge of the parish of Somersham and the adjoining Chapelries. It is impossible for him to perform the parochial duties in person together with the duties belonging to the office of Professor; and he feels that it is most undesirable that the charge should be entrusted to curates responsible to a nonresident rector, who cannot from the circumstances of the case give active attention to their work". 1 The Bishops of Ely and Worcester were in complete agreement with Westcott, and it was doubtless at the instance of the Bishop of Worcester that the Commissioners considered the question of disconnecting the rectory of Somersham from the professorship. But they were very doubtful whether their authority extended so far, and after consulting the Home Office were convinced that it did not. But Westcott's conscience was not thereby put at rest; and at a meeting of the Council in November 1881 he proposed a motion, which was passed unanimously, that the Council, having been informed that the University Commissioners have abandoned the intention of framing a statute to effect the separation of the charge of the Parish of Somersham from the Regius Professorship of Divinity, owing to doubts as to the extent of their power in this respect, desire to express their opinion that it is most desirable in the interest of the University that some steps should be taken, before the Commission expires, towards effecting the separation by the introduction of a Bill into Parliament by the Government.* The Vice-Chancellor was instructed to communicate this resolution to the Commissioners and to invite their assistance; but the Commissioners, though in no way hostile to the project of a Parliamentary Bill, considered that they 1 2

University Reporter, 14 February 1882. Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 7, 14 November 1881.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

33I

had done all that could reasonably be expected of them, and therefore contented themselves with communicating to the Council the statute which they had intended to make for disconnecting the rectory of Somersham from the professorship. The Council thereupon decided to take action independently of the Commissioners.1 They published the statute which they had received from the Commissioners, and in a report, dated 13 February 1882, announced that at their request the Chancellor, the Duke of Devonshire, had consented to introduce a Bill into the House of Lords framed upon it.* This report was approved by a Grace passed on 9 March;3 and a Bill was introduced into Parliament, but, owing to the assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish, not by the Chancellor. It disannexed the rectory from the professorship and vested it in the University, dividing its income between the professorship and the vicarage of Somersham which it constituted. It passed both Houses and received the royal assent on 18 August 1882.4 The credit for this particular reform is with the Council; but this was very far from being the only occasion during these years of reform when they proved themselves worthy of their responsible position. Though they might have been more active during the interval between the passing of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act and the end of the year 1878 when the Commissioners took charge, it must in fairness be remembered that they had not waited for a Statutory Commission to be appointed before planning a scheme of reform and persuading the Senate to approve it. Nor did they cease to render good service after they had lost the initiative. Their criticism of the draft statutes submitted to them by the Commissioners was not conceived in any carping or die-hard spirit; it was generally reasonable and helpful, and if it had not been so, presumably the Commissioners would not have accepted so much of it. There were doubtless times when the relations between the Council and the Commissioners were strained, but to picture them as two perpetually hostile bodies would be a gross exaggeration. Though there were differences of opinion, there was also a remarkable degree of co-operation. Nor was it merely a freak of fortune that the University at this crisis of its fortunes enjoyed such leadership. Though it is very dangerous to make sweeping generalisations from scanty data, it does seem safe to say that a majority of the resident members of the Senate, though not a large majority, were willing to go with the Council along the road of reform, believing that such a journey was required to enable the University to prosper. And they 1

Minutes of the Commission, 29 November 1881; Minutes of the Council of the Senate, 14 November 1881; University Reporter, 14 February 1882. 2 3 University Reporter, 14 February 1882. Ibid. 14 March 1882. 4 L. L. Shadwell, Enactments in Parliament, vol. iv, p. 121.

332

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNIVERSITY

were prepared to take the revolutionary step of compelling the colleges to come to the financial assistance of the University. It is true that many of them thought that in fixing the amount of the contribution of the colleges the Commissioners had not taken sufficient account of the agricultural depression which was beginning to cast a deepening shadow upon college finances, and that the Governing Bodies of several colleges petitioned the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, though in vain, to reduce the burden they were called upon to bear. But these appeals, even if they had succeeded, would not have affected, and were not intended to affect, the principle that the colleges owe a duty to the University which they cannot neglect without imperilling their own efficiency and reputation. It had taken many years of embittered strife to drive this truth home, and its acceptance marks the beginning of a new academic era.

Chapter VIII THE STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES T H E Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act of 1877 gave less favourable terms to the colleges than the Cambridge University Act of 1856. The latter measure directed the Commissioners to communicate to a college the statutes they had drafted for it; and if within two months two-thirds of the College Governing Body had stated in writing that any of these statutes were prejudicial to the college as a place of learning and education, the Commissoners were obliged to withdraw those to which objection had been taken, and to submit others in their place. It might not always be easy, particularly in a large Society, to obtain the requisite two-thirds majority; but the Commissioners were powerless against it if it were secured. The Act of 1877 however neither provided this safeguard nor any adequate substitute for it. As has been earlier mentioned, the Act prescribed that the Commissioners should inform a college when they were about to draft statutes for it, and that on receiving this information, the College Governing Body might elect "three persons to be Commissioners to represent the college in relation to the making by the Commissioners of statutes for the college".1 In the making of statutes for the college these College Commissioners had the same powers as the Statutory Commissioners; but they could not be counted for the purpose of forming a quorum, and this placed them at a serious disadvantage. The Act required a quorum of three Statutory Commissioners, and even when only this minimum number were present, the College Commissioners could never prevail against their united opinion, as the chairman had a casting vote which he invariably used. And it was very rare for either set of Commissioners not to present an unbroken front. It is easy however to exaggerate the defenceless position of the colleges. Their Commissioners were not mere attendants at a Lit de Justice. They were given a fair hearing, and their criticisms, unless directed against reforms and improvements which the Statutory Commissioners considered essential, were not infrequently accepted. The colleges moreover could not reasonably be given the same measure of protection that they had enjoyed under the Act of 1856. The Commissioners of 1856 were not called upon to weigh the interests of the colleges against those of the University, for though they were em1 A college could however only nominate two Commissioners if one of the Statutory Commissioners was a member of its Foundation.

334

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

powered to frame statutes "for rendering portions of the college property or income available to purposes for the benefit of the University at large", this provision was given a very limited interpretation; and no serious attempt was made to compel the colleges to assist the University financially. But this was the most important task that their successors had to perform; and it could never have been accomplished if the colleges had been as adequately protected as formerly. They could not possibly be impartial when their own interests were concerned, and therefore could not reasonably be conceded a means of defence which, when only their own welfare was at stake, had rightly been granted them. They were however allowed, as on the previous occasion, the first word. Until the end of the year 1878 they could present revised statutes to the Commissioners; and though these statutes would not become operative unless approved by the Commissioners, they were assured of careful consideration. And the opportunity thus given was not neglected. Contrary to what had happened under the earlier Commission, when little advantage had been taken of the same concession, all the colleges within the prescribed period drafted new statutory codes and communicated them to the Commissioners.1 The Governing Body of Trinity began to revise the college statutes on 3 November 1877, and twelve months elapsed before they completed their task. As the work was very thoroughly and systematically done, the time taken was not unduly long and, but for the procedure adopted, might well have been longer. It was decided at the outset to appoint a committee, consisting of the Master and eight Fellows, "for the purpose of receiving proposals and suggestions on the subject of the revision of the statutes, of reporting them to the Governing Body in such shape as may seem to them expedient, and of arranging business for the meetings of the Governing Body"; and the committee was further instructed to circulate to all the Fellows, at least three days before each meeting, the proposals for discussion. It was also agreed that "for the purpose of the present legislation by the Governing Body, the body of statutes sanctioned by the General Meeting of the Master and Fellows, 13 December 1872, be deemed to be the existing statutes of the college";2 and it would certainly have been very wasteful of time and labour not to have taken them as the starting point of the discussion. But it was not intended that they should be more than a starting point. They had not repealed, or even modified, some of the provisions of the code actually in force, which were now considered undesirable, and several of the changes which they had introduced were now thought not to go far enough. "Sint ut sunt aut non sint" does not describe the attitude of the Governing Body 1 2

Minutes of the Commission, 6 August, 7 November, 6 December, 1878, 9 January 1879. See chap. vi.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

335

towards them. Thus though the draft statutes of 1872 did not permit of the prolongation of the tenure of a fellowship by taking Holy Orders, it remained possible under them for a fellowship to be vacated by matrimony, though only in a very few cases.1 The Governing Body held that there should be no exceptions to the general rule that marriage did not vacate a fellowship, and amended the statutes accordingly. The draft statutes moreover left completely unchanged the provisions of the i860 code for the government of the college and the administration of its affairs; and also those provisions which required the Master to be in Holy Orders, vested administrative power exclusively in a partially self-elected Board of Seniority,2 and severely limited the power of a college meeting by not obliging the Master and Seniors to summon it more than once a year, by restricting its composition to those Fellows who had attained the full standing of a Master of Arts, and by prescribing that a resolution could not be put to the vote when first brought forward, and could not be carried unless two-thirds of the persons present voted for it. The statutes made by the Governing Body established a far more liberal system.3 They did not require the Master to be in Holy Orders,4 and replaced the Board of Seniority by a Council of thirteen members, of whom five were to be ex-officio, and eight elected by the Fellows.5 They further provided that the Master must summon a college meeting more than once a year if asked to do so by six members of the Council or twelve Fellows, that a 1 A Fellow who was only an Assistant Lecturer vacated his fellowship by marriage, and a Fellow who married within five years of attaining the full standing of a Master of Arts forfeited his right of retaining his fellowship after that time, though he held an office, or was engaged in work, which, if he had remained single, would have qualified him to retain it. Also no married Fellow could hold the office of Tutor unless either the Master and Seniors had provided for his residence within the walls of the college, or in a house communicating with it, or had held a special meeting at which a special resolution had been passed, "in which not less than seven votes, of which that of the Master shall be one, shall have concurred, . . . that it is desirable in the interests of the college that such married Fellow hold the office of Tutor". 2 On a vacancy in the Seniority the Master and the Seniors were empowered to elect a Fellow into the vacant place; but they were obliged to elect the Fellow who, not being a Senior, was first on the Roll, unless in their judgment "there shall be good cause to the contrary". 3 The minutes of the Governing Body and the draft statutes communicated to the Commissioners are in a volume in the college library, of which the press mark is 98. C. 85. 18. The minutes are styled Acta. 4 A motion by Henry Jackson that the Master should be appointed for a term of years, not for life, was rejected, Acta xxvn. 5 The ex-officio members of the Council were the Master, the Senior Dean, the Senior Tutor, and the two Bursars of the college if Fellows. The omission of the Vice-Master is curious. In the final form of this statute, as approved by the Commissioners, there was a provision that if the Vice-Master "ceases to be a member of council and be not re-elected at the next election of members, he shall cease to hold the office of Vice-Master".

336

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

resolution could be voted upon when first brought forward, and that all the Fellows could attend and vote. But it was not intended that the college meeting should be all-powerful. The provision that a resolution was only binding on the college "if carried by a majority of the whole body of the Master and Fellows, or by a majority of at least two-thirds of the persons present and voting on the resolution, provided always that at least twentyfive Fellows be then present" was a reasonable precaution against snap divisions, and as a further safeguard a college meeting was restricted from interfering "with an election or with the presentation to a benefice or in any particular case of discipline".1 But far more was given than was withheld. The Fellows were enabled to exercise an effective control on the government of the college for the first time in its history. As they elected the greater number of the members of the Council, it was impossible for that body not to take their wishes into account; and the powers of a college meeting were defined as extending to all questions affecting the good government of the college, the promotion of its interests and the improvement of its educational system. Twenty years earlier these changes would have been regarded as paving the way to anarchy; and perhaps at the time some of the older Fellows feared that they menaced the stability of college government. And the fact that these fears have not been realised tends to make us under-estimate the daring character of the experiment and the courage that was required to make it. The opportunity was also taken to vest all visitatorial authority in the Crown. In the days of Bentley the question whether the Crown or the Bishop of Ely was the Visitor of the college had given rise to a bitter controversy; and though the statutes of i860 had guarded against a revival of this dispute by ruling that "whenever the word 'Visitor' is employed, it shall be understood to mean the Crown as the general Visitor of the college", they reserved to the Bishop his ancient right of depriving the Master of his office if he was either found guilty of crime by a competent court or proved guilty of either disgraceful conduct or gross neglect of duty; and repeated the provision of the earlier code that "any dispute arising between the Master and one or more of the Fellows shall be determined by the Vice-Master and Seniors,.. .with power of appeal to the Provost of King's and the Masters of Christ's and St John's Colleges". This division of power was quite unnecessary; and the Governing Body wisely decided in favour of simplicity by placing all visitatorial power in the Crown.* The Church patronage of the college also came under consideration. In former days it had been much valued, as the acceptance of a living might vacate a fellowship; but, owing to the growing dearth of Fellows in Holy 1

Acta xix, xxi, xxin, xxix.

2

Acta XXXIII.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

337

Orders, it was ceasing to fulfil this purpose, and college livings had often to be given to persons who were not members of the Society. Consequently their disposal was coming to be regarded as a nuisance; and the Governing Body appointed a small committee to draw up a list of the livings that the college ought to retain, and to make recommendations for the disposal of the remainder by sale or transfer. The committee reported that they had been unable to frame "any general scheme for the disposal of the advowsons of livings in the patronage of the college", but they expressed the opinion that it would be "desirable to secure to the college greater freedom of action with regard to the disposition of any consideration moneys which may be received for the sale of advowsons"; and therefore proposed that a statute should provide that "the purchase money received by the college for the sale of any advowson be devoted either to the augmentation of the living of which the advowson is sold, or to the formation of a fund for the benefit of the other livings or parishes in which the college is interested either as patrons or as owners of land or tithes, or partly to one purpose and partly to the other". 1 As hitherto there had been a statutory prohibition of the sale of advowsons by the college, the appointment of this committee and the acceptance of its report mark a notable change in the attitude of the college towards the benefices in its gift. Their disposal was coming to be regarded as a tiresome obligation. But the Church patronage of the college presented another problem. The statutes in force directed that a vacant college living should be offered to the Fellows in the order of their seniority; and that, with the exception of the benefices of Great St Mary's and St Michael's in Cambridge and the vicarage of Trumpington, acceptance vacated a fellowship. Should it however be refused by all the Fellows, it had to be offered to them again in the same order; but on this second round acceptance did not vacate a fellowship unless the living was of the clear annual value of-£300. This practice was clearly not well suited to a time when there was an increasing tendency for Fellows not to take Orders; and it was objectionable in itself as subordinating the interests of the Church to those of the college by taking no account of fitness for pastoral duties. The Governing Body partially rose to the occasion. A motion that "it is not desirable that any individual member of the college should have a right to the presentation of any benefice in the patronage of the college" was carried after it had been amended by the addition of the words, "the Council shall, if possible always, appoint a Fellow or ex-Fellow to any vacant living in its patronage". This was not completely satisfactory, as there was a danger that the preference given to Fellows and ex-Fellows might lead to 1

The report of the committee is in the same volume as the Acta.

338

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

unsuitable appointments; but it was clearly a gain that the college should recognise in principle that its Church patronage was a trust.1 There was no intention however of abolishing the rule that the acceptance of a college benefice of the clear annual value of .£300 vacated a fellowship. It did not seem reasonable that the same person should hold both a college emolument and a valuable college living, and it was believed that the college would suffer if fellowships were vacated far less frequently than in the past. A Fellow however who was instituted to a benefice in external patronage, or acquired or inherited an income which made him financially independent, was not quite in the same position, as he was not indebted to the college for what he had received; but it had nevertheless been accepted, at least in principle, that he ought not to remain possessed of a fellowship which might be better used to support a scholar who without it could not devote himself to a life of study. The practice of the college in this matter had not however been consistent. Neither in the statutes of the college approved by the Crown in 1844, nor in those of i860, was the acquisition of private property of a certain value or an office for life made a disqualification for holding a fellowship, though, if of a certain value, the possession of a benefice in external patronage and an ecclesiastical dignity continued to be so; and this partial relaxation of a provision of earlier statutes was in a way a confession of failure. The possession of a benefice could not be kept secret, whereas it was almost impossible to discover, without resort to inquisitorial methods, the income which a Fellow derived from other sources than the college and University and, as experience had shown, very rarely revealed. The draft statutes of 1872, however, partially reverted to the earlier days, for though they considerably raised the minimum income of a living in external patronage and of an ecclesiastical dignity which disqualified for the tenure of a fellowship, they contained a provision that "every Fellow who shall become entitled in possession, either by descent or devolution, or by virtue of any testamentary or other gift or settlement, to an interest for his life, or an interest of longer duration, in any property yielding a clear annual income of ^ 8 0 0 , . . . or who shall be entitled to any Government pension, or be admitted to any office tenable for life or during good behaviour, yielding a like annual income, shall vacate his fellowship". George Darwin, who was then a junior Fellow, had on this occasion protested against the hardship thus inflicted on a man who, because he had acquired an income sufficient for his needs, was obliged to resign his fellowship which he probably prized far more for the honour it conferred than for its pecuniary value; but though he received a sympathetic hearing, the objection 1 Acta xxix, xxxv. The statutes in force at the present day merely prescribe that "the Council shall present to the several benefices in the patronage of the college".

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

339

to a wealthy person benefiting by an endowment for the furtherance of study and research was thought to be insuperable.1 Largely owing to Coutts Trotter a way out of this dilemma was discovered five years afterwards.2 The Governing Body agreed to make statutory provision for allowing a Fellow to signify in writing to the Council his wish to become a supernumerary Fellow, that is to remain a Fellow to all intents and purposes, "except that he shall not henceforth be entitled to any dividend". Coutts Trotter, who was responsible for this proposal, was in favour of providing for two classes of supernumerary Fellows, namely those who became so voluntarily, and those who were obliged to become so because they had acquired an income of ^800 a year. But the Governing Body very wisely decided to leave the decision entirely to the individuals The existing statutory provision that all vacant fellowships must be filled up "at a period not later than the next succeeding annual election of Fellows" also came under consideration; and it was time that it did. It had consequences which can without exaggeration be described as disastrous. As the number of fellowships offered for competition inevitably varied greatly from year to year, a really able man might fail to be elected because when he was eligible to compete very few fellowships were vacant, and a man of far less abihty might be successful because there was an unusually large number of vacant fellowships when he was a candidate.4 This very haphazard method of awarding the highest and most welcome honour that the college can confer was without any compensating advantage, and happily was discontinued.* The Governing Body agreed that the average number of vacancies occurring annually in the fellowships of the college shall be from time to time estimated as accurately as possible; and if it shall appear that the number of fellowships actually vacant in any given year exceeds the average number by one or more fellowships, it shall be competent to the Council, if they see fit, to temporarily suspend such fellowship or fellowships. If on the other hand it shall appear that the number of fellowships actually vacant in any given year be less than the average number by one or more fellowships, it shall be competent to the Council, if they seefit,to supply such deficiency either by calling the suspended fellowships again into use, or by the temporary provision of additional fellowships.6 1

Coutts Trotter, For the Fellows of Trinity only. This pamphlet is in a volume in the Trinity College Library, of which the press mark is 98 C. 85.16. 2 Ibid. 3 Acta xv. 4 In 1830, for instance, ten fellowships were offered for competition, but in the following year only five, and in 1821 only one. 5 An honorary fellowship is possibly a greater honour, but it can hardly give as much pleasure. 6 Acta xxvn. 22-2

340

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

This was a simple and effective remedy. It insured, unless the Council was very foolish or negligent, that approximately the same number of fellowships should be offered every year for competition, so that the unworthy should not profit by an overstocked market or the worthy suffer by an understocked one. Fresh ground was also broken in another direction. In a report of the Board of Natural Science Studies to the Teaching Syndicate, which appeared in March 1876, it was suggested that Professors and college Lecturers ought to be allowed more time for their own studies. The Board pointed out that a considerable part of the original work done by those engaged in the higher teaching at Cambridge must probably be always done during the vacations, but it must be always difficult for a Professor or other advanced teacher to keep himself well acquainted with all that is being done in his department, to say nothing of advancing knowledge in it, unless the more engrossing kind of work is so distributed and arranged that each of the principal teachers should have one term in the year of, at any rate, comparative leisure.1 Coutts Trotter said much the same in a pamphlet on University reform, which was published in 1877.* He argued that the highest teaching will not be what it ought to be, unless it is given by men who as a body are themselves advancing the limits of the branch of knowledge which they teach, or at least are continually adding to their own knowledge; and that if it was true that men improve themselves as teachers by pursuing research, it was also generally true that research was most effectively conducted by men who were engaged in imparting knowledge as well as in acquiring it. He therefore held that college Lecturers ought not to be so severely worked as to have no time and energy for research or study; and he seconded a motion, which was carried, that "the Masters and Seniors may permit any Fellow who shall be holding the office of Praelector, Assistant Tutor or Lecturer, to abstain, for the purpose of study, from delivering lectures or performing the other duties of his office, for one term in the year". 3 There was very little danger that the idle and indolent would avail themselves of a privilege that was intended for the zealous student, as a reduction in stipend was the price that had to be paid for it, and perhaps still less danger that the applications would be inconveniently numerous. " Over-anxiety to rush into print", remarked Coutts Trotter, "is certainly not a besetting sin of Cambridge residents, and we need not fear for the present that any efforts to stimulate the publication of original work among us will meet with an embarrassing amount of success."4 1 2 3 4

University Reporter, 17 March 1876. Coutts Trotter, On some Questions of University Reform (1877). Acta xv. Coutts Trotter, On some Questions of University Reform (1877).

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

34I

The provisions of the draft statutes of 1872, which determined the value and tenure of fellowships, were also reviewed, as they were not regarded as satisfactory. They excepted the deanships from the qualifying offices for a life fellowship, and did not allow the years during which a Lecturer had been an Assistant Lecturer to be included in the term of service required to qualify for one. Moreover that term of service was defined as twenty years; and though retirement with a life fellowship after fifteen years' service was possible with the permission of the Master and Seniors, given at a special meeting of that body, and by a resolution, "in which at least seven votes, of which that of the Master shall be one, shall have concurred", this was clearly regarded as an exceptional privilege, and only to be granted on grounds of health or other urgent cause. Yet it was at least questionable whether it was not advisable to facilitate a reasonably quick succession to the teaching posts of the college, and thereby encourage young men of promise to embark on an academic career. The draft statutes moreover had repeated, with only one minor change,1 the provisions of the i860 code that no Fellow, who was not a member of the Board of Seniority, was entitled to receive more than one dividend; and that if a Senior he should receive an additional payment equal to three-fifths of the dividend voted for the year. No account was thereby taken of length of tenure, as the additional payment made to a Senior was on account of the duties he discharged; and although this provision was justified when a fellowship was commonly a sinecure, it had ceased to be appropriate when it was not tenable for more than a few years unless its holder was serving the college or the University. What is more surprising is that the draft statutes provided no safeguard against violent fluctuations in the amount of a fellowship dividend. The Master and Seniors were left at liberty to distribute among the Fellows the net balance of the year, however large it might be, instead of forming a reserve fund for less prosperous days. When Francis Martin was Junior Bursar, he had preached the wise gospel of making a provision for bad times, but his advice had only been spasmodically followed. The committee appointed by the Governing Body to Consider these questions did its work thoroughly. They recommended that the fellowship dividend should normally not exceed ^300, and if in any year the balance was more than sufficient to meet this charge, a certain portion of the surplus must be paid into a reserve fund "for keeping up the dividend to the sum of three hundred pounds in years in which it might otherwise fall below it". They also recommended that a Fellow who had held the office of "Praelector, 1 Under the i860 code Fellows, who were not of the full standing of a Master of Arts, only received four-fifths of a dividend. The draft statutes of'1872 provided that they should receive the same as other Fellows who were not of the Seniority, that is one dividend.

342

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

Bursar, Dean, Tutor, Assistant Tutor or Lecturer... for ten or twenty years," should receive in addition to one dividend a payment equal in value to one-third or two-thirds of a dividend, according to the length of service. They also suggested that the office of Dean, as well as all the other college offices just mentioned, should qualify for a life fellowship; and that it should be possible for a Fellow to retire from any of these offices with a life fellowship after fifteen years' service, without requiring to obtain the permission of the college. Nor did they agree with that provision of the draft statutes which compelled a college officer to retire after twenty years' service, " unless a special meeting of the Master and Seniors.. .shall have been held, at which a resolution shall have been passed that it is desirable in the interests of the college that such Fellow retain his office". They were of the opinion that a Fellow should be entitled to remain twenty-five years in office if he so wished, and that he should be encouraged to do so. They therefore proposed that if a Fellow retired after fifteen years' service his life fellowship would only carry one dividend with it, and after twenty years' service only one and one-third of a dividend, but that if he remained in office for twenty-five years, he should receive on retirement one and two-thirds of a dividend. The committee also recommended that a prize Fellow should forfeit by non-residence one-sixth of the one dividend that he would otherwise have received. This was an entirely new departure, as no such penalty had been incurred hitherto by non-residence; and it was doubtless intended to discourage the junior Fellows from dissociating themselves from the life of the college. But this was not its only purpose. There was an economical reason for it, as the money thus saved was to be paid into an education fund for "the payment in whole or in part of the stipends of Praelectors or others engaged in the teaching of the college, or generally for educational purposes in the college".1 The committee had advanced considerably upon the statutes of 1872, but not quite far enough entirely to satisfy the Governing Body, and their report did not escape amendment. It was agreed that a Lecturer should be able to count the time he had spent as an Assistant Lecturer in the years of service qualifying him to receive more than one dividend or a life fellowship; and that the education fund might be used for University as well as for college purposes. Other less important changes were made, but they were not many; and the report escaped serious adverse criticism. It was accepted as a satisfactory solution of several urgent problems.2 By the code of i860 the college was obliged annually to offer six entrance or minor scholarships, tenable for three years and of not less value than -£40 1 2

The report of the committee is in the same volume as the Acta. Acta xxv.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

343

a year. The candidates for these emoluments were required to be under twenty years of age, and to have either not begun residence at the University, or not to have completed their first term of residence. The college had not willingly consented to this departure from the ancient practice of only awarding scholarships to undergraduates in residence; and had only acquiesced on the condition that these entrance scholars should not be on the foundation. But the appetite for clever schoolboys came with eating, and it was not long before non-residents were being allowed to compete for foundation scholarships. The University Reporter of 13 October 1874 contained an announcement that the college intended to offer for competition "fourteen foundation scholarships of the value of about ^100 a year to undergraduates during residence, and tenable till the holders are of standing to take the degree of M.A.", 1 and "that either undergraduates of Trinity College, or persons who are not yet resident members of the University, provided that these last are under twenty years of age", might be candidates for these emoluments. Non-resident candidates might also compete for six entrance or minor scholarships, three being of the annual value of -£75 and three of the annual value of £50.* It was questioned however whether the schools were benefiting by this increase in the competition for their ablest boys. Schoolmasters were tempted, as Trevelyan had pointed out in the House of Commons, to induce their more promising pupils to remain at school beyond an age when they would normally have left, in order to "cram" them for the scholarship examinations of the colleges; and the criticism that this was not to their educational advantage had much force behind it. And the Governing Body did not pass it by unheeded. Though they agreed to increase the attractiveness of minor scholarships by placing their holders on the foundation, they prescribed that the candidates for them must be under an age not greater than twenty, as the Council should determine.3 And as Minor Scholars were to be on the foundation, the Governing Body, to avoid confusion, also agreed that the Foundation Scholars should henceforth be styled Major Scholars.4 They also improved the financial position of the Major Scholars. Instead of having one-tenth of a fellowship dividend, and either free rooms and commons, or a pecuniary equivalent for them, they were to receive, if undergraduates, X 1 0 0 a Year> a n ^ jC20 l ess if Bachelors of Arts. This was greatly 1 The Master and. Seniors had agreed on 8 December 1866 that undergraduates of any Oxford or Cambridge college, who had not completed their first year of residence, could compete for a foundation scholarship. 2 The Master and Seniors agreed on 16 November 1866 that "of the minor scholarships two be raised to £100 per annum", and on the following day that "two minor scholarships be of ^ 7 5 , and the remaining two of ^50 a year". Trinity College Conclusion Book. 3 4 Acta xxxi, xxxv. Acta xxxv.

344

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

to their advantage, as it gave them a far more stable financial position and enabled them, without diminishing the value of their scholarship, to keep only the minimum amount of residence required. The same service was rendered to the Sizars who hitherto had had free rooms and commons and "such a sum from the funds of the college as, together with any customary payment,.. .shall amount on the whole to not less than ^20 a year". They were in future to receive -£80 a year.1 The Governing Body rightly believed that the value and tenure of the fellowships and scholarships were not matters of minor importance, and had therefore given time and thought to them. But having past experience to guide them, they had presumably not found their task very difficult. But they were far less favourably situated when they came to consider the college contribution to the University and the principles on which it should be determined, as they were obliged to work in the dark. They did not know either the mode or the amount of the taxation that the Commissioners would impose, and as a trade and agricultural depression was impending, they could not accurately forecast the financial future of the college. Optimism prevailed. They under-estimated the demands that the Commissioners would make on behalf of the University, and believed that the income of the college would increase: "the increase of income to which we can look forward", wrote Coutts Trotter, "is larger than that of any other college; much larger than that of any college except King's". 2 They therefore decided to suggest to the Commissioners the imposition of a tax of 10 per cent upon the distributable income of the college, "and offered in addition to endow three Professorships and to annex fellowships to them, as a special and additional contribution from Trinity". 3 As has been mentioned before, they proposed to attach a fellowship and a stipend of ^54° t o ^ Regius Professorship of Greek,4 to endow a Professorship of Physiology with a fellowship and a stipend of ^500, and a Thirlwall Professorship of History with a fellowship, and "such a sum, as in addition to the interest of the money collected for the 'Thirlwall Memorial Fund', will amount to not less than a stipend of-£500 a year".5 This was a generous offer, though not quite so generous as it seemed. The Governing Body made it a condition of the endowment of a Professorship of 1

2 Acta xv. Coutts Trotter, For the Fellows of Trinity only (undated). Coutts Trotter, The Thirlwall Professorship (22 November 1880), Acta v, vn. They subsequently agreed that at the outset the tax on the distributable income of the college should be 5 per cent, rising gradually to 10 per cent, Acta xv. Coutts Trotter's pamphlet is in the same volume as the Acta. 4 ^ 4 0 of this sum represented the stipend which the college had paid the Professor since the sixteenth century. 5 Actav. 3

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

345

Physiology that the first Professor should be Michael Foster who held a college Praelectorship in that subject; and, as Coutts Trotter explained, "only a small additional sum would be required for the Professor of Physiology if the present Praelector were transferred to the post, as the expenses of his assistants, demonstrators, etc. would naturally then fall upon the University".1 But as the money collected for a memorial to Thirlwall was not expected to produce an income of more than ^ i o o a year,2 the financial burden of the history professorship would fall mainly on the college; and when every reservation has been made, it remains true that Trinity was inspired by a worthy desire to advance the prosperity of the University. But it might not be willing to be so generous if taxed more heavily by the Commissioners than it anticipated. At a meeting on 23 March 1878 the Governing Body appointed a committee of three to draft statutes in accordance with the resolutions passed;3 and the committee must have worked hard, as they were able in the following August to circulate a draft code to the Master and Fellows. They admitted however in an explanatory note that they had slightly exceeded their terms of reference, having corrected unintentional omissions and inserted unauthorised provisions. They had, for instance, provided in the statute prescribing the residence required of college officers that any married college officer might be counted to have resided if he had occupied a house communicating with the college and approved for this purpose by the Council; and although no resolution of the Governing Body authorised this concession, it had been granted to married Tutors by the draft statutes of 1872, and therefore might reasonably be extended to other married college officers. They also explained that though the Governing Body had agreed that fifteen years' service in a college office should qualify for a life fellowship, they had not approved a similar provision in the case of University officers; and that therefore a Fellow whose service of fifteen years had been rendered partly to the college and partly to the University might suffer a serious hardship. Further, they expressed very strongly the opinion that the draft statute establishing Professorships of Physiology and History, which was to be communicated to the Council of the Senate, should not make it a condition of the college endowment of the former chair that the first occupant of it should be Michael Foster; for, as they very rightly said, "there are grave objections to such a stipulation". They might have safely added that it was as unnecessary as it was undignified, for Foster's reputation was such as to make itpractically certain that he would be the first occupant of the new Chair. 1 2

Coutts Trotter, For the Fellows of Trinity only (undated). The money actually collected was under £1200. J. W. Clark, Endowments ofthe University

(1904), pp. 420-421. 3 Acta xxv.

34-6

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

The Fellows also sent in several amendments and corrections which the committee incorporated in the draft code; and others were brought forward at subsequent meetings of the Governing Body. But they were of no great importance: it was not for instance of much account that persons in statu pupillari should be statutably required to show due reverence to the ViceMaster, but not be under a similar obligation to members of the College Council. There indeed remained very little to be done, and the draft statutes, having been further discussed, were finally approved for submission to the Commissioners at a meeting of the Governing Body on 9 November 1878. Statute revision is a tedious subject; but the story of the work of the Trinity Governing Body is nevertheless worth telling. It illustrates the great change which had come over the college during the twenty years that had passed since it had been called by an earlier Statutory Commission to set its house in order. It had then resisted much needed reforms, and fought hard to retain regulations which had long ceased to serve any useful purpose. A very different spirit now prevailed. The claims of the past were subordinated to the needs of the future, even though that meant recasting the life of the college into another mould and losing something in the process. It was well that the bar on matrimony should be completely removed, and that the prosperity of the University should become a college interest; but these changes brought new problems in their train. That passionate and exclusive affection which the Fellows of the past felt for "the House" often had unfortunate consequences; but it was not entirely an evil; and their successors of the present day, having other and competing interests, have not infrequently to undergo the stern ordeal of a conflict of loyalties. Not all the Governing Bodies of colleges had gone as far on the road of reform as Trinity, but all of them had revised their statutes within the allotted time; and consequently on 6 December 1878 the Commissioners appointed a committee, consisting of Lord Rayleigh, Lightfoot, Stokes and Hemming, to examine and compare the codes submitted by them.1 Early in the following January the committee reported that they had carefully gone through the statutes received from Peterhouse and Clare,2 and had instructed the Secretaries of the Commission "to prepare tabulated statements of certain main points in the statutes of these and the other colleges, and send copies thereof to the Commissioners before the next meeting of the Commission".3 The Commissioners, being thus provided with a summary of the contents of all the college statutes, proceeded to consider the requirements they should make 1

Minutes of the Commission, 6 December 1878. Presumably the statutes of Peterhouse and Clare were taken first as coming from the two oldest foundations. 3 Minutes of the Commission, 9 January 1879. 71

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

347

when the time came for them to communicate directly with the colleges. On this business they were engaged during February 1879, devoting eight meetings either wholly or partly to it.1 They decided, for instance, to demand of all the colleges that the tenure of a fellowship should not be conditional upon either the taking of Holy Orders or on celibacy,2 that statutory provision should be made for supernumerary fellowships, and that the Governing Body or Council of a college should be empowered to control the appointment of Tutors and Lecturers, to arrange for the distribution of the tuition fees among the members of the educational staff, and to provide for the collection and custody of the caution money. But they sometimes found it necessary or expedient to modify certain of the requirements upon which they had agreed. Thus though they had decided "that the normal maximum of a dividend shall be £250 a year, independent of rooms and dinner in Hall, and the normal tenure six years", they later offered the alternative of " seven years' tenure of fellowships, with ^200 as a maximum dividend ".3 Nor is this the only example of their submission to pressure. They never intended to impose a cast-iron system, complete in every detail, upon all the colleges. Though not prepared to compromise on principles, they were willing to make allowances for the circumstances of particular colleges. Some of the omissions from their programme, regretted by several enlightened members of the University, are of considerable interest. At one stage of their proceedings they discussed the question whether only Heads of Houses should continue to be eligible for the office of Vice-Chancellor, and came to the conclusion that it was undesirable to make any change in this respect.4 But they did not, so far as is known, ever seriously consider whether it was really necessary for a college to have a Master, or even contemplate the less revolutionary step of attaching more onerous duties to that office. Yet three Fellows of Trinity, J. W. Clark, Sidney Colvin and Coutts Trotter, had drawn their attention to these possibilities. Clark and Colvin had taken the opportunity of the Commissioners' letter of 6 December 1877 to preach the doctrine that Heads of Houses should earn their keep. "In my opinion", wrote Sidney Colvin, "the Headship of a college, instead of being a highly paid office held for life and involving few 1

Minutes of the Commission, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26 and. 27 February 1879. The Commissioners however agreed "that in colleges which now are required to have some Fellows in Holy Orders, the Deans shall be Fellows in Holy Orders"; and that "if there be no suitable person among the Fellows of the college, the college shall elect a suitable person in Holy Orders, who shall succeed, to a fellowship at the next vacancy". Minutes of the Commission, 13 February 1879. 3 Minutes of the Commission, 13 February 1879, 30 November 1880. 4 G. F. Browne, Recollections of a Bishop (1915), p. 179. 2

348

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

duties,... should be an administrative office of less emolument held for a term of years"; and J. W. Clark suggested that the Heads should be required to discharge tutorial duties.1 But Coutts Trotter in a pamphlet on University Reform, which he published in 1877, put the wider question whether "an officer in the position now occupied by the Head of a House appears to be a necessary or desirable part of a body like a college"; and answered it in the negative. While he admitted that a college must have a chairman, he contended that he need not be "an important permanent officer, invested with greater dignity and drawing a much larger income than any other member of the foundation". It seemed to him that a chairman who was in constant touch with the other members of the Society, and was at most primus inter pares, was far more likely to be of assistance to the college than "one who lives apart, and is ordinarily communicated with in a more or less formal interview". And this was not his only criticism. "Whenever the dignity and emoluments attached to an office", he said, "are distincdy more than enough to afford a fair remuneration for the work done in it, the office is sure to be sought for on grounds other than those of simple ability and inclination to discharge its duties, and those who have the appointment to make will naturally select a man eminent in literature or science, or one who has done distinguished service to the college, without too closely considering whether he is the man who is most likely to turn out the most efficient president of the Society/'2 Since Coutts Trotter's day Heads of Houses have ceased to surround themselves with dignity and ceremony; and if their duties continue to be comparatively light, they generally keep themselves in close touch with the affairs of their college. But sixty or seventy years ago, though no longer the Olympians that they once were, they were inclined to emphasise the greatness of their position and the deference due to them.3 And as they were generally only very ordinary men who had the good fortune to enjoy leisure with a comfortable income, they were not infrequently attacked as undesirable survivals from a past age. Nevertheless they continued to survive, and even their freedom from toil was respected. The Commissioners refrained from laying sacrilegious hands upon them, and indeed seem to have been particularly alarmed by one of Colvin's suggestions, as they formally decided that "in every case the tenure of the Mastership shall be for life".4 Answers to the Circular Letter of 6 December 1877, University Registry Documents. Coutts Trotter, On some Questions of University Reform (1877), pp. 21-25. 3 "When I went into residence at Cambridge as a Fellow," says G. F. Browne, "feeling lonely and sad, Dr Bateson did me the very great kindness of calling upon me—some mutual friend outside the University had named me to him—and asked me to dinner. That was in those days an unheard-of sort of thing for the Head of a House to do." G. F. Browne, Recollections of a Bishop (1915), p. 222. 4 Minutes of the Commission, 11 February 1879. 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

349

The Commissioners were also told that the award by the colleges of entrance scholarships was having disastrous consequences. "The system of open or minor scholarships given to candidates before commencing residence", wrote Aldis Wright, "has now been in operation for several years at Cambridge, and in the opinion of those who are most competent to judge, it has proved an unmixed evil. It has the effect of exciting to unhealthy competition at too early an age; it generates a tendency to devote attention to special studies to the neglect of general education; it fosters a mercenary spirit among the candidates who are attracted not to the place where they may be best taught but where they can get most prize money; it fails to select those who will eventually excel, because the test is applied before their powers are sufficiently developed; and it does not assist those who would otherwise be unable to come to the University, because the scholarships as a rule fall to the candidates who have been able to afford the best preliminary training."1 Aldis Wright spoke for many, and his opinions were even more emphatically expressed in a memorial to the Commissioners, dated 2 June 1879, which was signed by several influential resident members of the University. "We, the undersigned", it ran, "being resident Fellows of colleges and other resident members of the University of Cambridge engaged in educational work or holding offices in the University or the colleges, are of opinion that the present .system of awarding scholarships, minor scholarships and exhibitions at the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge to persons who have not commenced residence, is productive of great evil, both to the candidates themselves, to the schools and to the Universities; that the advantages of the system are far outweighed by the disadvantages; and that the best interests of education in the country would be furthered by the extinction of this mode of awarding college emoluments. We therefore respectfully beg the University of Cambridge Commissioners to consider the advisability of determining or, at all events, of very strictly curtailing, the system of awarding open scholarships, and of communicating with the University of Oxford Commissioners with a view to promoting, if possible, a joint action of the two Universities in dealing with the matter."2 But whenever the system of awarding entrance scholarships comes under discussion, schoolmasters rightly demand to be heard; and a committee of the Headmasters' Conference issued a counterblast to this memorial, which was laid before the Commissioners on 18 July 1879. They asserted that the award of entrance scholarships by open competition was beneficial both to the schools and to the candidates, and that if the practice was discontinued, many 1 2

Answers to the Circular Letter of 6 December 1877: University Registry Documents. This paper is in a volume in the University Library, of which the press-mark is

Cam. a. 500. 6.

350

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

promising and deserving boys would be unable to obtain a university education. They admitted that there were drawbacks to it, as, for instance, "the unhappy rivalry it may foster between colleges, the occasional waste of endowments on able boys of good means, the disturbance of school work through the frequency of scholarship competitions"; but they contended that these evils were remediable. They suggested that a scholarship awarded on entrance should only be tenable for two years, though renewable for a further period if the conduct and industry of the scholar had been satisfactory, that the annual value of the scholarships offered should not exceed ^50, and that the inconvenient frequency of scholarship examinations could be considerably lessened by "a more general adoption of the system of combined examinations". They also pointed out that the waste of money on the sons of wealthy parents could be avoided by making provision for supernumerary scholarships.1 The Headmasters were far wiser than the Dons. It is unlikely that there will ever come a time when the mode of awarding entrance scholarships is beyond all criticism; but though there are many persons at the present day who desire to reform the system, there are none who think of abolishing it. And there is no indication that the Commissioners ever contemplated such a very drastic step. But they would have been guilty of a neglect of duty if they had completely ignored complaints which, though exaggerated, were not unfounded; and after receiving the University memorial they directed their secretaries "to communicate with the secretaries of the University of Oxford Commission with a view to arranging a conference with the Oxford Commission to discuss the question of scholarships".2 Two conferences were held. At the first, which was on 2 July 1879, it was agreed "that each body of Commissioners should come to conclusions on the various questions raised, and that the two bodies should meet on some early day, to be arranged by the secretaries, with a view to some common agreement as to age, value and tenure of scholarships".3 Accordingly the Cambridge Commissioners, when they met on the following day, agreed to propose to the Oxford Commissioners that the tenure of entrance scholarships should not be for more than two years certain, though renewable for a further period, that their maximum value should be -£60 a year, and that the candidates for them must not be more than nineteen years of age at the time of the examination.4 The Oxford Commissioners independently reached 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 26 July 1879; Minutes of the Commission, 18 July 1879. Ibid. 10 June 1879. On 7 November 1878 a conference had been held between the two sets of Commissioners on the tenure and value of fellowships and. scholarships, but probably the scholarship question had. been very superficially examined. 3 4 Minutes of the Commission, 2 July 1879. Ibid. 3 July 1879. 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

351

the same conclusions, except that they fixed the maximum value of entrance scholarships at ^ 8 0 ; and probably this difference of opinion was the main subject of discussion when the two sets of Commissioners met again on 18 July.1 It was an important issue, for it was obviously undesirable that the Oxford colleges should be able to outbid those of Cambridge in the schoolboy market; but no agreement was reached. The Oxford Commissioners refused to go below ^80, and the Cambridge Commissioners refused to go so high. On reflection however they decided to raise the maximum value of entrance scholarships from ^60 to £j]O? But though a difference of -£10 may seem trifling, it is not beneath the consideration of parents who have to think of the cost when they send a son to the University. From June 1880 until the end of April 1881 the Statutory and the College Commissioners were intermittently engaged in revising the draft statutes of the colleges. Generally after three or four meetings the statutes were approved for submission to the Queen in Council; but seven sittings were devoted to the statutes of Emmanuel and six to those of Sidney. And occasionally, though rarely, the College Commissioners refused to concur in approving them. They had striven either to retain provisions which they thought essential to the welfare of their college, or to prevent the insertion of others which they deemed positively harmful, and were sufficiently chagrined to refuse to kiss the rod with which they were to be scourged. Coutts Trotter, Henry Jackson and E. W. Blore were the College Commissioners appointed by Trinity,3 and they had in all four meetings with the Statutory Commissioners. After each of these meetings, except the final one, they reported to their Governing Body; and as the college had in many respects anticipated the wishes of the Commissioners, they had generally little disturbing news to give.4 Several of the changes which the Statutory Commissioners proposed, such as for instance that the five months of residence required of the Master should include two-thirds of each of the three terms, 1

Minutes of the Commission, 18 July 1879. The minutes of the meeting of the Cambridge Commissioners on 15 August 1879 only record that "a draft clause on entrance scholarships was considered and settled"; but it seems likely that it was then agreed that the maximum value of entrance scholarships should be ^70. It may be worth while to mention that G. F. Browne in his Recollections ofa Bishop, p. 178, states that "a statute was added to the statutes of each college enabling a parent to decline the income of a scholarship which his son had won, while the son retained the full position and rights of a Scholar of the college". This is not correct, and it was not until July 1899 that a statute was approved for Trinity which provided that "any Major or Minor Scholar may, with the consent in writing of his Tutor, declare in writing to the Master his intention of becoming a Supernumerary Scholar". And a provision for supernumerary scholarships seems to be lacking from the statutes of the other colleges as approved by the Commissioners. 3 4 Acta XL. Acta XLH, XLIV, XLV. 2

352

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

and that readerships as well as professorships should qualify for the tenure of a fellowship, were quite acceptable to the college, and no serious principle was involved in raising the value of a college benefice, institution to which vacated a fellowship, from ^ 3 ° ° to ^400, or by the omission of the provisions of the draft statutes which empowered the Council to arbitrate on disputes between the Fellows or Scholars or between the Master and one or more of the Fellows. But the waters were not always so smooth, and there were some stormy passages. Agreement on the value and tenure of scholarships awarded at entrance was not easily reached. The three College Commissioners were quite willing that the candidates for them should not be more than nineteen years of age at the time of the examination, but they objected to the restriction of the value of these emoluments to .£70 or less a year, and one of them, Henry Jackson, did not like the idea that they should be only tenable for two years unless renewed. There is no evidence that the College Commissioners contended that the college should be allowed to continue to offer at entrance major scholarships of the value of .£100; but they naturally did not wish it to be at a disadvantage with the Oxford colleges in competing for clever schoolboys. Therefore at a meeting of the Governing Body on 13 April 1880 Coutts Trotter proposed, and Blore seconded, a resolution that "the college is unwilling to accept any statutable limitation upon the value of scholarships, which shall make the most valuable scholarships awarded by the college to candidates not yet in residence of less annual value than those awarded in the same way by colleges at Oxford"; and this motion, after it had been amended so as to extend to a statutable limitation of the length of tenure of the most valuable entrance scholarships, was carried unanimously.1 What happened when the College Commissioners met the Statutory Commissioners again eight days later can only be surmised, for the minutes of the meeting are not expansive; but it seems that no agreement was reached, for at a subsequent meeting of the Governing Body on 27 November 1880 a motion was carried, nemine contradicente, that "supposing the condition of tenure and the emoluments of major scholars elected before commencing residence be the same as at Oxford, the college would acquiesce in the restriction upon the minor scholarships being left in the same form as for other colleges in Cambridge". 2 This was practically the same demand as before, for again the insistence was upon the most valuable entrance scholarships offered by the college. Two days later the College Commissioners appointed by King's met the Statutory Commissioners; and one of the former, Austen Leigh, proposed that the maximum value of the scholarships awarded at entrance by his college should be ^80 instead of ^70. Of the four Statutory Commissioners present 1 2 Acta XLH. Henry Jackson seconded the amendment. Acta xnv.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

353

on this occasion three voted against the motion, and the other did not vote; and though the motion was defeated by the casting vote of the chairman, the Bishop of Worcester, Austen Leigh had reason to be glad that he had made it.1 For when on the following day the Statutory Commissioners met apart, they passed a resolution that "the maximum value of entrance scholarships may be fixed at ^8o". 2 It doubtless gave them pause to find that two of the most influential and enlightened colleges demanded that they should not be treated less favourably than the Oxford colleges. The Statutory Commissioners also objected to the third section of the eleventh chapter of the Trinity draft statutes, which authorised the College Council temporarily to suspend fellowships, so that they could offer for competition approximately the same number every year. They were compelled formally to object to this provision, as their hands were tied by a resolution, which they had passed on 26 February 1879, that "every vacant fellowship shall be filled within one year from the date of vacancy" ;3 but they must have realised that they were defending an untenable position. The rule they had agreed upon might be well suited to a small college with only a few fellowships which were comparatively rarely vacated, but a large society like Trinity was very differently situated, and had good reason to know that if obliged to fill all vacant fellowships within a year of their vacation, the number of fellowships offered annually would vary very much, and that consequently the element of chance in the competition for them would be undesirably large. Therefore the Governing Body rightly refused to abandon a necessary reform, and at the meeting on 13 April passed a resolution "that the college adhere to Statute XL 3 ". 4 Their persistence was rewarded, for the Statutory Commissioners unconditionally surrendered. There was another matter which, if clumsily handled, might easily have caused serious friction. It will be remembered that when the college had offered to make a voluntary contribution to the University by handsomely providing for the Greek Chair and endowing two new professorships of physiology and history, it had not known the amount of the compulsory payment that it would have annually to make to the University; and when that sum proved to be rather larger than had been expected, it did not consider itself bound rigidly to adhere to the terms of its voluntary offer. And the Commissioners did not insist on their pound offlesh.They were prepared to endow a professorship of physiology from the funds of the University; and only informally suggested that if the Greek Professor continued to be on the foundation of the college, the Governing Body might be willing to approve 1 2 3

WMC

Minutes of the Commission, 29 November 1880. Ibid. 30 November 1880. 4 Ibid. 26 February 1879. Acta XLII. 23

354

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

a motion that the college should contribute the sum of ^250 towards his stipend, instead of the sum of ^500 which had been offered.1 And at the meeting of the Governing Body on 27 November 1880, a motion was carried "that this meeting approves of the proposal to attach the Professorship of Greek to the college, it being understood that the charge on the college revenues for the endowment is not to exceed ^250 per annum". 2 The Statutory Commissioners however did not consider that the University ought to contribute to the support of the Thirlwall Professorship of History which the college had proposed to establish; and therefore it would not come into existence unless the college shouldered the burden. Coutts Trotter wished it to do so; and at the same meeting of the Governing Body moved that "the college is willing so far to adhere to its original financial proposals as to offer to make up the stipend of the Thirlwall Professor of History, should the professorship be established, to ^500, on condition that a fellowship at Trinity is annexed to the professorship and counted as one of the professorial fellowships attached to the college". In a pamphlet which he circulated among the Fellows,3 he admitted that the college was under no moral obligation to make this gift to the University, as circumstances had changed since it had originally been offered; but he contended that it could afford to do so, and that it was desirable to promote the study of history and "do honour to the great name of Thirlwall". But he failed to persuade a sufficient number of the members of the Governing Body, and his motion was rejected.4 Consequently there is no Thirlwall Chair of History. Several of the other colleges had far greater difficulties with the Commissioners. Trinity did not object in principle to the proposal that fellowships should either be tenable for six years^ with a maximum dividend of ^250 or tenable for seven years with a maximum dividend of-£200; but some of the colleges disliked either alternative. But the Statutory Commissioners steadfastly refused to go further. Resolutions moved by the Commissioners for Peterhouse and Trinity Hall that fellowships should be tenable for eight years were'rejected;6 and the Commissioners for Caius fared no better. They proposed that the tenure of a fellowship should be for eight years from election with a maximum dividend of .£200, and then that it should be for seven years 1 In addition to the sum of ^250, the college continued to pay the ancient stipend of £40 to the Greek Professor; and the statutes provided that the Greek Professor should be entitled to a fellowship. 2

3

Acta XLIV.

This pamphlet, which is dated 22 November 1880, is bound up in the same volume as the Acta. 4 Acta xnv. 5 Unless of course held with a college or University office. Minutes of the Commission, 6 January, 18 March, 1881.

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

355

with a maximum dividend of-£220; but both motions were defeated by the casting vote of the chairman, and the Commissioners for the college were told in official language that they were trying to force open a door which was bolted and barred.1 It is not surprising that so many attempts were made to force open that door. The value and length of tenure of a prize fellowship were its principal attractions to a clever young man who wished to make his way in the world, and not be diverted from a road to fame by having immediately to earn his living; and the colleges were well content that their prize fellowships should be so used, believing that they acquired prestige by having past or present members of the foundation who were distinguished figures in the public life of the country. Their fear was that if the Statutory Commissioners had their way, talented young men, who had higher ambitions than an academical career, might not think it worth their while to compete for a fellowship; and that consequently the colleges might not be so closely connected with the world outside the University. It must also be borne in mind that in the Governing Bodies of some of the colleges there would be a considerable number of non-resident prize fellows who naturally saw no harm in the privileges they enjoyed, and therefore saw no reason why others should not enjoy them in the future. According to the late Mr Heitland, who was then a junior Fellow of St John's, "some non-resident Fellows, young barristers, fought hard for the interests of their class, and their training gave them a great advantage in dealing with men of purely academic experience".2 The Commissioners insisted that the statutes of all the colleges should contain a provision that "the college shall pay annually to the University the sum authorised by the statutes of the University"; and several Governing Bodies protested that the sum demanded of their college by those statutes was likely to prove excessive. These protests were however in vain, as the Statutory Commissioners ruled that "the adoption of the recommendation of the Council, giving to the Chancellor the power to vary the total amount of the contribution from the colleges", was an effective safeguard against this danger.3 Nor did any better fortune attend the efforts of some of the College Commissioners in the same direction. By his casting vote as chairman the Bishop of Worcester defeated a resolution, moved by the Master of Clare who was one of the Commissioners for his college, that not until certain sums, of 1

Minutes of the Commission, 3 December 1880. W. E. Heitland, After Many Years (1926), pp. 156, 157. 3 Minutes of the Commission, 30 November 1880, 6 January 1881. The Statutory Commissioners however, after considering a representation of the Downing Governing Body, agreed that the college "should be allowed to deduct from its rateable contribution to the University the whole of the dividends paid to its two Professors as such". Minutes of the Commission, 30 November 1880. 2

23-2

35^

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

which he stated the amount, had been paid to the Master, to each of the Fellows and to the scholarship fund, should the college be required to contribute to the funds of the University.1 The Commissioners also refused to approve a provision in the statutes of a college that the Master must be in Holy Orders, except in the statutes of St Catharine's, as a Canonry of Norwich was attached to the mastership of that college;2 and this veto was sometimes very much resented. When at a meeting of the Magdalene Commissioners with the Statutory Commissioners on 18 March 1881, Lord Rayleigh's motion, that approval be given of a statute which only required the Master to be a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge and thirty years of age, was carried against the three College Commissioners by the casting vote of the Bishop of Worcester, the Master of Magdalene, who was one of the Commissioners for the college, was deeply moved and delivered a solemn protest which he probably had drafted before the meeting. "I, Latimer Neville", it ran, "Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, do hereby desire to record my solemn protest against the provision in Statute I of the proposed statutes of this college, which omits, for thefirsttime since the foundation of the college, and in contravention of the intention and will of the founder, the restriction of the mastership to a person in Holy Orders, and allows that office to be held not only by a layman but by a member of a different communion to that of the Church of England."3 It was a dignified and restrained utterance, but this cannot be said of a protest against a similar omission in the statutes of Corpus Christi College, made by the Master of that college a few weeks later. E. H. Perowne, who had been elected Master of Corpus in 1879, and in the same year Vice-Chancellor, was one of the Commissioners for his college; and at a meeting with the Statutory Commissioners on 20 April 1881 he proposed the insertion of a provision in the college statutes that the Master must be in Priest's Orders of the Church of England. He found himself absolutely alone, for the other two College Commissioners voted with the Statutory Commissioners against him. He was well accustomed however to plough a lonely furrow; and, following the example of the Master of Magdalene, he proceeded to make a protest. 1

Minutes of the Commission, 17 March 1881. The Commissioners also made a partial exception in the case of Queens'. The statutes of that college, as approved by the Queen in Council, prescribed that a candidate for the presidency, if in Priest's Orders, should be held to have been elected if a majority of the Fellows had voted for him, and if not a Priest, if he had received the votes of two-thirds of the Fellows. 3 Minutes of the Commission, 18 March 1881. 2

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

357

"I, Edward Henry Perowne", he declared, "Doctor in Divinity, Master or Keeper of the College of Corpus Christi and Blessed Virgin in the University of Cambridge, do hereby enter and record my most solemn protest against the resolution of the Commissioners to enable the said college statutably to elect to the mastership of the college any person wholly irrespective of his religious belief and profession, so that the mastership may be held by an avowed atheist. I protest against the act of the Commissioners as done in opposition to the intention of the pious founder and benefactors of the college, in disregard of the express forms of the Act of Parliament (which requires provision to be made for the maintenance of religion), in neglect of the history and work of the college during more than five centuries and a half, to the grievous detriment of its efEciency as a place of education, and as an act tending to the dishonour of Almighty God."1 This was the protest of an angry, unbalanced man, and that is the only excuse that can be made for it. Whether it was desirable that Heads of Houses should be required to be in Holy Orders was a debatable question and not one, as Perowne assumed, to which any honest Christian could only give one answer. His insinuation that his opponents on this occasion were indifferent, and even hostile, to Christianity, was a foul slander on at least some of the Commissioners, for the Bishop of Worcester and Lord Rayleigh, to mention only two names, were as shining examples of Christian faith and virtue as even he could claim to be. And the Bishop of Worcester was deeply offended, particularly by the words, "so that the mastership may be held by an avowed atheist"; and Perowne had sufficient grace to withdraw this objectionable phrase.2 But with this exception he adhered to his protest, and it remains as a record of his shame in the minutes of the Commission. A few other Heads of Houses were in sympathy with the Masters of Magdalene and Corpus, as subsequently six of them presented a memorial to the Bishop of Ely, in which they complained that the new statutes tended to place the religious teaching in the University in the hands of "possibly irreligious bodies" and thereby "to endanger the interests of religious education both in Cambridge and throughout the country" ;3 but this fear does not seem to have been at all general in the University. But much of the work of the Commissioners did not escape criticism by enlightened men who had long fully recognised the need of reform. These critics were for the most part 1

Minutes of the Commission, 20 April 1881. In a letter to the other Secretary of the Commission, dated 21 April 1881, Browne says: "The Vice-Chancellor, as Master of Corpus Christi College, asks me to have the words erased in his protest to which special exception was taken by the Bishop of Worcester, those namely at the end of the first paragraph, which 'express', to quote the words of his letter to me, 'the possible result—that the mastership might be held by an avowed atheist*. Perhaps you will pin or paste this note in the minute book as a justification for the erasure." 3 Cambridge Review, 24 May 1882. 2

358

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

temperate in their language; but though they expressed their opinions with becoming moderation, they did not conceal their conviction that the colleges had been harshly and unfairly treated. N. M. Ferrers, who became Master of Caius in 1880, was one of these malcontents; and he took the opportunity of having been appointed to preach the University sermon in Great St Mary's on Easter Day 1882, to pass sentence on the Statutory Commissioners. Choosing as his text, "I am not come to destroy but to fulfil", he put the question whether the Commissioners had acted in accordance with it. "We are passing", he said, "through a crisis in the structure of the University, and in the mutual relation of its constituent parts to it and to each other.... It is natural to enquire what are the principles on which this change has been conducted? Has the leading idea been that of adapting existing institutions to modern requirements, of retaining the main features of our system intact, while facilities are given for the development of its energies in new directions, of so modifying the structure of our body politic that, while its powers are renovated and increased, it shall not lose its identity? Or has the apparent object been to disregard the old landmarks, and to rear on the ruins of the Cambridge which we have known, an edifice, more symmetrical it may be, more immediately suited to the needs of the moment, but dissociated from the memories of the past, and so deprived of that hold on the affection of all classes of its members, and of the guarantee of stability from thence resulting, which a connection with those memories would secure? I would not answer this question hastily, I should be glad if I could be satisfied that the answer which on reflection I feel compelled to give, is incorrect, but I am constrained to say that in my judgment the laws of a healthy development have been disregarded, (I do not say deliberately) and that the changes of which we shall shortly be spectators may take as their motto, 'I am not come to fulfil but to destroy'." The Master of Caius then proceeded to recapitulate the various injustices inflicted on the colleges. He allowed that they might justly be taxed for the benefit of the University; but asserted that as this principle had been admitted "with an assent which is well nigh universal", it was "hardly a generous recognition of the universality of this admission to provide that the burden, say of deficient harvests, should fall exclusively on the contributing colleges". Another grievance was that the institution of a General Board of Studies deprived the colleges of the control of the instruction of their undergraduates, and he was certain that the new body would exercise a less efficient control. He further regretted, for reasons which have been already mentioned, the curtailment of the advantages of prize fellowships, and, taking a broad survey of the situation, he complained that the Commissioners, instead of recognising that the colleges had developed varying characteristics in the course of their

STATUTORY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLEGES

359

history and served different purposes, had endeavoured to bring them into a uniformity which would destroy not a little of their usefulness.1 This sermon is one of the curiosities of pulpit oratory. It was out of place in a church and singularly inappropriate to Easter Day; and the Master of Caius would have been better advised if he had reserved his remarks for a discussion in the Arts School. Yet as indicating the reaction of an enlightened and moderate man to the work of the Commissioners, it has an interest. Undoubtedly there were many academic reformers who thought with the Master of Caius that the scales had been unfairly weighted against the colleges and in favour of the University, and that the colleges could only look forward to a crippled existence. They had desired a reform and were confronted with a revolution. It is easy enough to see in retrospect that their fears were very much exaggerated, and that the colleges were not doomed to a languishing existence; but they were too near the events on which they reflected to have the same clearness of vision. But they were not entirely in error. They recognised the truth that the work of the Commissioners marked a turning point in the history of the relations between the colleges and the University, but were in error in thinking that the colleges had been reduced to mere shadows of their former greatness; and time was to prove them wrong. 1

Cambridge Chronicle, 15 April 1882.

INDEX Abdy, Professor, 207 Abjuration, oath of, 38 and n. 3, 39 and n. 1, 46-47, 55-56, 58 Act, Cambridge Improvement (1788), 197; Cambridge University (1856), 82-83, 333; Cambridge University and Corporation (1894), 136-143; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (1889), 98; Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (1877), 269-278, 333; Uniformity (1662), 38 and n. 2, 39, 43-45, 48, 59; Universities Tests (1871), 87-89, 257 Airy, Sir George, and the Smith's Prizes, 226: see also 224 n. 1

Albert, Prince, and visits to Cambridge, 24, 25

Aldis, W. S., 39 Anatomy, Professorship of, see Professorships Assizes, Winter, 25-26 Association, Constitutional, for defence of University, 85; for the removal of religious tests, 85-86 Astronomy and Astronomical Physics, Professorship of, see Professorships Atkinson, Edward, Master of Clare, 294296, 298, 355 Babington, C. C , 82 n. 1 Balfour, Arthur, and University reform, 275 n. 4 Balls, Charles, 102, 105-106, 113 Bateson, W. H., Master of St John's, and the Cavendish Professorship of Physics, 196198; and the Classical Tripos, 215-216; and the Council of the Senate, 81-85; and religious tests, 39 n. 3, 70-71, 81-82; and C. K. Robinson, 5 and n. 3; and University reform, 289-291, 293, 295 and n. 2, 296, 298, 300, 312, 314: see also 156, 260, 288, 304, 305 Bathurst, Mr, Rector of Birchanger, 12 Bedells, Esquire, mode of appointment of, 289, 291 n. 2 Bell, Mr, 305-306 Benson, E. W., 67

Beresford-Hope, A. J., and religious tests, 65, 74 Blakelock, Ralph, and the election to the mastership of St Catharine's, 1 Blore, E. W., Fellow of Trinity, 245 n. 2, 254, 35i, 352 Bond, William, member of Borough Council, 102 Bonney, T. G., 158-159 Browne, E. H., Norrisian Professor of Divinity, late Bishop of Ely, 41-42, 149, 162 Browne, G. F., and privileges of the University, 94, 95 n. 1, 102, 112 n. 1, 120, 124, 127 n. 2; and defence of C. K. Robinson, 6-9, 16 n. 2, 17-18: see also 175, 183, 295, 305 Burn, Robert, Fellow of Trinity, and the Classical Tripos, 212, 220; and University reform, 268: see also 154, 172, 245 n. 2, 254 n. 1 Burwell, Vicarage of, 304 Butler, H. M., Master of Trinity, and Jane Elsden, 96-97; and proctorial powers, 95 andn. 3 Cairns, Sir Hugh, 28-31 Caldwell, R. T., 309 Cambridge Borough Council and the University, 90, 92, 98-143; University members of, 98-99, 107-108, 130-139 Cambridge Daily News, 97, 116 n. 2

Cambridge, Duke of, 24 Cambridge, University of, Building Funds of, 193-195 and 195 n. 2; Capitation Tax of, 195-197; Livings of, 304-307; privileges of, 91-143; and reform in anticipation of Commission, 278-307; and Statutory Commission, 307-332, passim Camperdown, Earl of, and religious tests, 62,67 Campion, W. M., 38 and n. 1, 156, 159 Camps, J. C , 116 Carnarvon, Earl of, and religious tests, 67 Cartmell, James, Master of Christ's, and religious tests, 70

362

INDEX

Cavendish Professorship of Physics, see Professorships Cayley, Professor, and University reform, 291, 312, 314 Cecil, Lord Robert, see Salisbury, Marquess of Chancellor's Classical Medals, 211-214,216217; Court, 292, 297-299 Chemistry, Professorship of, see Professorships Christ's College, and religious tests, 43 Clare College, and clerical fellowships, 72; and Statutory Commission, 346 Clark, J. W., and Heads of Houses, 347-348 Clark, Professor W., 192 Clark, W. G., and the Classical Tripos, 212, 214, 220; and religious tests, 46: see also 188, 254 Classical Tripos, see Tripos Clayton, Charles, and the election to the mastership of St Catharine's, 12; and religious tests, 68 Cleveland, Duke of, 261, 269 Cobb, G. F., 254 n. 1, 309 Cockburn, Lord ChiefJustice, and Statutory Commission, 307, 308; and Trinity College, 28, 30, 33 Cockerell, W., member of Cambridge Borough Council, 102 Coke, Sir Edward, and Trinity College, 20 andn. 4 Colchester, Lord, 271 Coleridge, Sir J. D., later Lord, and Daisy Hopkins, 117-119; and religious tests, 5355, 57, 59, 61-64, 66, 73-75 Colvin, Sidney, and the Classical Tripos, 219; and Heads of Houses, 347-348 Commission, Public Schools, 146-147; Royal, for instruction in the Natural Sciences, 265; Royal University (1850), and privileges of University, 91; and professorships, 192; and religious tests, 36; Royal Universities (1872), 263-265; Statutory (Oxford, 1854), 37-39; Statutory (Cambridge, 1856), 37-39, 144, 236, 333; Statutory (1877), 307-357 Cookson, H. W., Master of Peterhouse, and religious tests, 79-83, 85; and University reform, 268, 278-279 Cooper, J. W., 117, 120 Corpus Christi College, and religious tests, 43

Corrie, G. E., Master of Jesus, and the mastership of St Catharine's, 3 n. 1; and C. K. Robinson, 5 and n. 3; and Statutory Commission, 308; and University reform, 268-269 Crabtree, E. W., Fellow of St Catharine's, and election to mastership, 6,13-15,16 and n. 3 Cranworth, Lord, and Bill for Third Assize, 25 Daily Telegraphy and Jane Elsden, 98 Dale, A. W., 133 Danby, T. W., 191 Darwin, George, Fellow of Trinity, 338— 339 Denison, J. E., Speaker of House of Commons, and religious tests, 50 Denman, Mr Justice, 35, 41, 66, 93-94 Denman, Lord, and Trinity College, 23 Derby, Earl of, 45 Devonshire, Duke of, and Cavendish Laboratory, 195-196: see also 331 Dilke, Sir Charles, and University reform, 272, 275-277 Disraeli, B., and University reform, 265: see also 57, 62-63 Divinity, Ely Professorship of, see Professorships Divinity, Regius Professorship of, see Professorships Dixie, Sir Alexander, 328 Dixie, Sir Wolstan, 328 Dodd, E., and Council of the Senate, 83 n. 4 Dodson, J. G., and religious tests, 47-50 Dunkellin, Lord, 52 Durham, University of, 65 Electoral Roll, 275, 276 Elizabeth, Queen, grants charter to the University, 92 Ellicott, C. J., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, and religious tests, 67, 89 EllisJ. C . W . , 153 Elsden, Jane, 96-98, 100, n 1 n. 1, 142 Ely, Bishop of, and Statutory Commission, 357, as Visitor of Trinity, 336 Emmanuel College, and clerical fellowships, 72; and Statutory Commission, 351 EntranceExamination, see Examination

INDEX Examination, Entrance, 144, 146-147, 156157; Ordinary Degree, 145-148, 150-157, 167-173; Previous, 144-146, 151-152, 163-181; Voluntary Theological, 148149, 158-163: see also Tripos Fawcett, Henry, Professor of Political Economy, and lectures to poll-men, 146, 181; and religious tests, 43, 56, 58 and n. 1, 65-66, 73, 75: see also 309 Fellowships, Clerical, 72, 73, 77, 272, 276, 277 Ferrers, N. M., and ordinary degree course, 152,154; and Statutory Commission, 321322, 358-359: see also 175, 233^ Finch, G. B., Fellow of Queens', 120, 130131, 133-137, 139 Fitzgerald, Penrose, 98-99, 129 Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund, and religious tests, 41, 70-71, 75-77; and University reform, 263, 265, 272 Ford, Mr, 116 Forster, W. E., and religious tests, 40 Foster, Michael, 191, 252, 345 Fraser, J., Bishop of Manchester, and religious tests, 88 Fuller, F. J., and Spinning House, 93-94

363

Grey, Sir George, and the accommodation of the Judges at Trinity Lodge, 30-33 Grote, George, 252 Guest, Edwin, and the mastership of Caius College, 2-3; and religious tests, 80-81 Gunson, W. M., Fellow of Christ's College, 6 Hammond, J. L., Fellow of Trinity College, 243, 245 n. 2, 247-249, 253, 257 Harcourt, W. V., and religious tests, 73; and University reform, 275 Hardy, J. F., Fellow of Sidney, 308 Hartington, Marquess of, 276 Heads of Houses, decree issued by (1847), 101

Heathcote, Sir William, and religious tests, 48-50, 53-54 Heitland, W. E., 355 Helps, Sir Arthur, 260 Hemming, G. W., and Statutory Commission, 307, 314, 324, 346 History, Dixie Professorship of Ecclesiastical, see Professorships History, Regius Professorship of Modern, see Professorships History, Thirlwall Professorship of, see Professorships History Tripos, see Tripos Gardner, Percy, 219 Holmes, Arthur, Fellow of Clare, and Gathorne-Hardy, G., parliamentary repreCompulsory Greek, 166; and religious sentative of University of Oxford, 52, 55; tests, 68 and religious tests, 88; and University Hopkins, Daisy, 114-119, 121-122 reform, 273, 276 Hort, Fenton, and University reform, 286 Girdlestone, W. H., 146 Hostels, University, 37, 38 and n. 1 Gladstone, W. E., and religious tests, 42, 49 Hotham, H. J., Fellow of Trinity, and and n. 2, 52, 54-55, 57-58, 63, 66-67, 7} College reform, 254; and religious tests, 68 and n. 1, 72-77, 86, 89-90; and Uni- Howe's House, 21 versity reform, 263-265, 276 n. 2: see also Hubbard, J. G., and religious tests, 60 62, 267 Hughes, Professor, 201-202 Gonville and Caius College, and the Statu- Humphry, Professor, 198, 200, 204-205 tory Commission, 354-355 Hurst, F. T., Fellow of St Catharine's, and Goodman, Neville, 266 election to mastership, 13-16 Goschen, G. J., and religious tests, 50-51; and University reform, 266-267 Indian Languages Tripos, see Tripos Goulburn, Henry, 24 Granville, Earl, 277 Jackson, Henry, Fellow of Trinity College, Greek, Compulsory, 163-171, 178-180 and the Classical Tripos, 211, 219; and Greek, Regius Professorship of, see ProfessorCollege reform, 237, 255 and n. 2; and ships Statutory Commission, 351-352 Greville, Charles, and the General Election James I,and Regius Professorship of Divinity, of 1859, 45 330

364

INDEX

Jameson, F. J., and mastership of St Catharine's, 1-19 Jarrett, Thomas, Regius Professor of Hebrew, 162

Jebb, R. C , 166, 254 n. 1, 279 Jesus College, and religious tests, 43 Jowett, Professor, and religious tests, 75-76 Kelly, Sir Fitzroy, 28-31 Kemp, Emma, 93-94 Kennedy, Professor B. H., and Classical Tripos, 213-214, 216-217, 219-221; and Ely Canonry, 329-330: see also 82 n. 1, 166, 180 and n. 2 Kenny, C. S., 96, 132, 140 Kimberley, Earl of, and religious tests, 88 King, C. W., Fellow of Trinity, 257 King's College, and Statutory Commission, 352-353 Labouchere, Henry, and Jane Elsden, 98 Latham, Henry, 153 n. 1, 228 Law, Downing Professorship of, see Professorships Law Tripos, see Tripos Law and History Tripos, see Tripos Leapingwell, George, 2 Leatham, E. A., and religious tests, 40, 41 and n. 1 Lectureships, University, 317 Leigh, Austen, 352, 353 Leigh, Lord, 142 Librarian, University, mode of appointment, 289-291; duties of, 297, 313 Liddell, H. G., Dean of Christ Church, 72 Liddon, Henry, and religious tests, 68 and n. 2, 69 Lightfoot, Professor J. B., and Capitation Tax, 196; and history scholarship, 206; and lectures to poll-men, 181, 183-184; and religious tests, 40, 42 and n. 3; and Statutory Commission, 307, 346; and Voluntary Theological Examination, 158159: see also 152, 245 n. 2, 254, 300 Local Examinations Syndicate, and exemption from the Previous, 175, 178 Lock, Rev. J. B., 99 Longley, Charles, Archbishop of Canterbury, and religious tests, 60-61 Lowe, Robert, and religious tests, 56-57; and University reform, 274-275

Luard, H. R., Fellow of Trinity, 151-152, 156, 165-166, 172, 175, 186, 316 Lyndhurst, Lord, 25 Lyon, A. J., 115-117, 121 Lyttelton, Lord, and Classical Tripos, 209, 223; and Compulsory Greek, 163-165 Mackarness, John, Bishop of Oxford, and religious tests, 78, 79, 88 Magdalene College, and the Statutory Commission, 356 Mansel, William Lort, Master of Trinity, and the Judges, 23, 28 Martin, Baron, 26 Martin, Francis, Fellow of Trinity, 30-32, 341 Mathematical Tripos, see Tripos Mathematics, Sadleirian Professorship of, see Professorships Maule, Mr Justice, and Whewell, 23 Mayor, J. B., 187-188 Medicine, Downing Professorship of, see Professorships Miall, E., and religious tests, 73 Milner, Joseph, Fellow of St Catharine's, 1, 5, 13, 14 Moral Sciences Tripos, see Tripos Morgan, H. A., Fellow of Jesus, 156, 268 Munro, Professor, 166 Murphy, Serjeant, 121-122 Music, Professorship of, see Professorships Natural Sciences Tripos, see Tripos Nevile, Thomas, Master of Trinity, 20-21 Neville, Latimer, Master of Magdalene, and the Statutory Commission, 356 Niven, W. D., and the Mathematical Tripos, 231-232

Nonconformists, and religious tests, 40-41 Northcote, Sir Stafford, and religious tests, 53 Northumberland, Duke of, installation as Chancellor, 24 Orator, Public, mode of appointment, 289291, 296; duties of, 297, 313 Ordinary Degree Examination, see Examination Ossington, Viscount, see Denison Ovington, Benefice of, 305 Oxford, City Council of, 112-113

INDEX Oxford, University of, and clerical fellowships, 72; proctorial power at, 131, 135; and religious tests, 43, 47-50, 52-53, 59, 61 and n. 1, 71-72, 74-77; Visitors of Colleges at, 66 and n. 1 Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board, and exemptions from the Previous, 173-178

365

Phipps, C. B., and Trinity Lodge, 24-25 Physics, Cavendish Professorship of, see Professorships Physiology, Professorship of, see Professorships Pinnocls, Dr, Curate-in-charge at Somersham, 17 and n. 1 Pleydell-Bouverie, Edward, and religious tests, 39 n. 3, 43-47, 55, 66; and Statutory Page, T. E., and the Classical Tripos, 211, Commission, 324 220-221, 223 Poland, H., 117-118 Paget, Professor G. E., 151-153, 200 Porter, James, Master of Peterhouse, and Pall Mall Gazette, and Jane Elsden, 98 the Mathematical Tripos, 232-233; and Palmer, Sir Roundell, and religious tests, privileges of University, 133, 135; and C. K. Robinson, 6; and Statutory Com63-65 mission, 321-322, 326-327 Palmerston, Lord, and religious tests, 45-46, 51; death of, 51-52 Powis, Earl of, attends discussions of reports, Pandoxator, officer of Trinity College, 21 215, 286 n. 3 andn. 2 Previous Examination, see Examination Parry, Rev. R. St John, Fellow of Trinity, Prior, J., Fellow of Trinity, 255 and n. 2 and Jane Elsden, 96; and Daisy Hopkins, Privy Council, Universities Committee of, 273 115 Pathology, Professorship of, see Professorships Procter, F., 5 Patteson, Sir John, and privileges of the Proctors, powers of, 92-95 Professors, and lectures to poll-men, 145University, 91-92, 100, 132 146, 150, 153, 181-184 Pattison, Mark, and University reform, 267 Peile, J., Master of Christ's College, 102-103, Professorships Anatomy, Professorship of, 192 114, 171 Astronomy and Astronomical Physics, Perowne, E. H., Fellow, and later, Master of Professorship of, 317, 323 Corpus, and the Chancellor's Court, 298; Chemistry, Professorship of, 286-287 and the Classical Tripos, 215-216; and the Divinity, Ely Professorship of, 300-301, mastership of St Catharine's, 17-18; and 329-330 religious tests, 44-45, 68, 80; and the Divinity, Regius Professorship of, 330Statutory Commission, 356-357; and University reform, 279, 293: see also 171, 309 33i Peterhouse, and religious tests, 43; and Greek, Regius Professorship of, 300, 328Statutory Commission, 346, 354 330, 344, 353, 354 Phear, S. G., Master of Emmanuel, and History, Dixie Professorship of EcclesiastiUniversity reform, 278-279, 288: see also cal, 328-329 229-230, 294-295 History, Regius Professorship of Modern, Phelps, Robert, Master of Sidney Sussex, and 320 n. 3 Statutory Commission, 308, 322-323; and History, Thirlwall Professorship of, 301University reform, 269, 306-307 302, 344-45, 353-354 Phillips, G., President of Queens', and ProLaw, Downing Professorship of, 328-329 fessorships, 308 Mathematics, Sadleirian Professorship of, Philosophy, Jacksonian Professorship of 287 Natural Experimental, see Professorships Medicine, Downing Professorship of, 328Philpott, Henry, Bishop of Worcester, and 329 mastership of St Catharine's, 1-4, 8,9 n. 1; Music, Professorship of, 285-286, 287 n. 1, and Statutory Commission, 307, 311, 330, 317 353, 355, 356, 357 Pathology, Professorship of, 317, 323

366

INDEX

Professorships (cont.) Philosophy, Jacksonian Professorship of Natural Experimental, 301 and n. 3 Physics, Cavendish Professorship of, 194198 Physiology, Professorship of, 301-302, 317, 323, 344-345, 353-354 Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, Professorship of, 192-193 Raikes, Cecil, 98-99 Rayleigh, Lord, and Statutory Commission, 307, 324, 325, 34<5, 356: see also 357 Readerships, 303-304, 3*5, 323, 324 Redfarn, W. B., 102, 106, 139 Registrary, University, mode of appointment, 289-291, 296; duties of, 297, 313 Ripon, Marquess of, 66 n. 1 Robinson, Charles Kirkby, election to mastership of St Catharine's, 1-19; marriage, 2; proceeds to D.D. degree, 6; and University reform, 279 Romilly, Joseph, Fellow of Trinity, 2-4 Routh, E. J., 232 Russell, Lord John, 36-37, 52, 57 Saint Catharine's College, and election to mastership (1861), 1-19; and clerical fellowships, 72; and religious tests, 43; and Statutory Commission, 356 Saint John's College, 72, 355 Salisbury, Marquess of, and religious tests, 46, 78-79, 87-89; and University reform, 269-271 Salvin, Anthony, 193 Scott, Rev. J., and election to mastership of St Catharine's, 16 n. 3 Searle, C. E., 183 Sedgwick, Adam, and election to mastership of St Catharine's, 4; and religious tests, 43, 7 0 : see also 260

Seeley, J. R., Regius Professor of Modern History, and religious tests, 43 Selwyn, Sir C. J., and religious tests, 49: see also 60 n. 3

Selwyn, G. A., Bishop of Lichfield, and religious tests, 89 Selwyn, W., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Classical Tripos, 215; and Voluntary Theological Examination, 162 Semitic Languages Tripos, see Tripos

Senate, Council of, and Graces, 82-85; and privileges of University, 99-143; and religious tests, 71, 79-85; and University reform, 288-332 Shilleto, Richard, and G. F. Browne, 7-8; and Compulsory Greek, 171; and C. K. Robinson, 5-7 Sidgwick, Henry, and College reform, 237, 241-242, 266; and Council of the Senate, 84-85; resigns his fellowship, 67-68, 70; and the Moral Sciences Tripos, 189: see also 134, 252, 270-271, 309 Sidney Sussex College, and Statutory Commission, 351 Smith, Mr Justice A. L., 117 Smith, Mr Justice M. E., 28 Smith, Robert, Master of Trinity, 225 Smith's Prizes, 225-226, 229-231 Somerset, Duke of, and religious tests, 88 Somersham, Rectory of, 17, 18, 330-331 Southward, Rev. W. T., 115 Spalding, W. P., member of the Borough Council, 105, 106, 109, 113, 120 Spinning House Court, 92-95, 96, passim Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames, 28-31, 35 Stephen, Leslie, and religious tests, 43; and poll-men, 153-154 Stewart, Miss Clifford, married to C. K. Robinson, 2 Stirling, James, 39 Stokes, Professor G. G., and the Statutory Commission, 307, 346 Studies, General Board of, 303-304, 315, 358 Swainson, Professor, 182 Tait, Archibald, Archbishop of Canterbury, 271-272 Taylor, Charles, Master of St John's, 107-108 Taylor, Sedley, and Compulsory Greek, 164; and Heads of Houses, 196 Temple, Frederick, Bishop of Exeter, 79 Tests, Religious, at the University, 36-90 Theological Tripos, see Tripos Thompson, W. H., Master of Trinity, and the Classical Tripos, 216; and College reform, 255 and n. 2; and the Judges of Assize, 30-35; and religious tests, 70-71, 82 n. 1; and the Trinity draft statutes, 260-262: see also 166 n. 2, 180 Thomson, William, Archbishop of York, and religious tests, 79, 88

INDEX Trevelyan, G. O., and University reform, 274, 343 Trinity College, Church patronage of, 336338; clerical fellowships, 72; and Entrance Examination, 147; fellowships of, 23 8 and nn. 1 and 2, 256-258, 335, 338-342, 353; and the Judges, 20-35; officials of, 247250; and Professorships, 299-302; Scholarships of, 343, 344, 349-353; and reform, 237-262; and religious tests, 43, 55, 61, 66, 70 and n. 4; Statutes of (1860-61), 238240; and Statutory Commission, 334-355; and the University, 193 Trinity Hall, and the Statutory Commission, 354 Trinity Lodge, as a royal palace, 23-25 Tripos, Classical, 209-223; History, 207208; Indian Languages, 209,233-234; Law and History, 206-208; Law, 206-207; Mathematical, 223-233; Moral Sciences, 185-190, 242; Natural Sciences, 185-188, 190-206, 242; Semitic Languages, 208209, 233-234; Theological, 159-163, 233234 Trotter, Coutts, and College reform, 237, 254 n. 1, 344, 345, 351; and Heads of Houses, 347-348; and sabbatical terms, 340; and Theological Tripos, 159; and University reform, 291, 312, 314, 327: see also 177, 202, 296, 304, 339

367

Voluntary Theological Examination, see Examination Wace, F. C , Mayor of Cambridge, 102-104, 106

Wallis, Rev. F., and Daisy Hopkins, 114-115, 118, 121-122: see also 95 n. 1 Walpole, Spencer, and religious tests, 46-47, 49» 65, 74, 88; and University reform, 272

Waraker, Dr, 207 Watson, H. W., 232-233 Webster, Sir Richard, n o , 118 Westcott, B. F., Regius Professor of Divinity and the Chancellor's Court, 299; and the Classical Tripos, 222; and Compulsory Greek, 180; and the Mathematical Tripos, 232; and the Regius Professorship of Divinity, 330; and University reform, 282 and n. 2, 327; and Voluntary Theological Examination, 160-162: see also 180 Whewell, William, Master ofTrinity, and the Judges, 22-28, 30; and C. K. Robinson, 5; and Trinity Lodge as a royal palace, 23-25; and reform, 240-241 Wilberforce, Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, and religious tests, 60, 78 n. 2 Wodelarke, Robert, 7 Wood, J. S., and the Council of the Senate, 83 Wordsworth, C , Bishop of Lincoln, and Vansittart, A. A., Fellow of Trinity, and the religious tests, 89 Classical Tripos, 210, 215; and the Council Wright, William Aldis, and election to of the Senate, 84 and n. 2: see also 299, 326 fellowship, 261-262; and Professorships, Verrall, A. W., 220 308; and Scholarships, 349 Vice-Chancellor of the University, appointment of, 287-291, 293, 296; and Spinning Young, Sir George, and religious tests, 42 House Court, 92-95 andn. 4 Victoria, Queen, visits to Cambridge, 24-25 Vinter, C. A., member of Borough Council, Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, Pro102, 105, 113, 119, 120, 130, 139 fessorship of, see Professorships