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 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