Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

2. How far can the University provide for its own requirements?

3. Is the Chancellor or his deputy to be charged with authority (1) to beg for money; (2) to

assist in the formation of an external body of subscribers?

The appeal states that on the 16th a public meeting is to be held on the needs of Oxford University at which the Chancellor is to preside and the ViceChancellor to be present. It is significant that the meeting is to be held in London, and not in Oxford, where there has been no public meeting. The meeting in London will be an informal gathering without the authority of the University of Oxford; and therefore it is to be hoped that nobody will take upon himself to say that the University is asking for money. C.C.C., Oxford, May 2, 1907.

FROM The Times, MAY 15, 1907. I have to thank you for your courtesy in publishing my letter of the 6th inst. To the letter itself I have nothing to add except that I wrote, not that there are some professors', but more generally that there are some positions' without pupils. I should not have ventured to trouble you again if I had not heard it commonly contended that there is no precedent for bringing a scheme asking for money before the University. There is a precedent which I kept carefully before me in writing to you; but I refrained from quoting it in order not to lengthen an already lengthy letter.

The precedent to which I refer is the celebrated rebuilding of the nave of the University Church in the reign of King Henry VII, described in Anthony Wood's City of Oxford (ii. 19, ed. A. Clark) as

follows:

'In the said King's raigne, as I have said, when through age ' and want of reparation it could noe longer stand and noe

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

body for a time would owne to support and repaire it, the 'University at length, in a Congregation in the month of 'February, 1486/7 (John, bishop of Lyncoln, being then cancellor) appointed one Mr. Stephen Browne to be their proctor to intercede and make way to the reverend bishops and other wealthy spirituall persons for a collection of moneys to performe the same."

The general letter of the Chancellor, John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, embodying this decision of the University, may be quoted from A History of the Church of S. Mary the Virgin, Oxford, by Ffoulkes, as follows:

'To all sons of holy mother church to whom the present ' letters may come, John, by divine permission Bishop of 'Lincoln, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and the 'whole assembly of Regents in the same, greeting in the 'Saviour. Whereas we, the Chancellor and the aforesaid 'Regents in our house of Congregation specially assembled ' for diligently taking in hand the construction of S. Mary's, where from antient times and now daily solemn assemblies are held: and whereas the means at our disposal would not 'suffice for performing those works, we appoint our well'beloved in Christ, master Stephen Browne, our proctor by the presents to entreat and importune our benefactors, and 'petition and receive for us whatever our benefactors shall 'deign to bestow for the same. We therefore supplicate you, 'who sympathize with our poverty, that you would admit 'him to declare our wants to you; and that you would deign 'to assist us in a work of such importance, for charity's sake. Given at Oxford, in our house of Congregation under our seal 26 Feb. 1486.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Letters then followed to Stephen Browne, to the King, and to others, 48 in all, of which Ffoulkes gives a most interesting account (see pp. 201-27. The Congregation which determined that the University should thus appeal for the money was the Congregation of Regents (i.e. teachers), which at that time managed the ordinary finances of the University. This financial power afterwards passed to the Great Congregation or Convocation of Masters Regent and Non-Regent, which has also the power

of determining 'de literis ad regiam maiestatem, praelatos, proceres ac iudices, sive alios quoscunque conscribendis' (Statutes of the University of Oxford, 1906, p. 280).

Nothing can be clearer than the statutable process of the Chancellor or his deputy writing a letter with the authority of the University in declaration of its needs, its poverty, and its appeal for charity-an authority which the University has not given to the present appeal and scheme headed The Needs of Oxford University'. C.C.C., Oxford, May 12, 1907.

[ocr errors]

FROM The Times, JUNE 5, 1907.

On the second inst. you published the appeal of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University on this subject, and on the 6th my first letter pointing out that the appeal had not the authority of the University. On the 12th I wrote a second letter, which you published on the 15th, pointing out how the statutes of the University provide for letters written under its authority. Meanwhile, on the 9th the Chancellor and the ViceChancellor did me the unexpected honour of writing an answer to my first letter; and on the 13th you published their answer.

My first letter was not without result: it produced the admission that neither the scheme of Mr. Brassey, nor the appeal of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor approving that scheme, had received the authority of the University. It is said indeed that the Oxford Chancellor was following the example set by the Cambridge Chancellor in 1897. But, while the latter confessed from the first that he had not the authority of the Cambridge Senate, the former has only admitted in consequence of my first letter that he had not the corresponding authority of the Oxford Convocation. This tardy admission, however, is a great gain: it is an ad

mission that the University of Oxford has not itself come before the public as a beggar.

On the 16th followed the meeting in London. The Chancellor presided. He and the Vice-Chancellor spoke. The meeting carried some remarkable resolutions:

1. The formation of an Oxford University Appeal Fund, in accordance with the letter of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, published on the 2nd (on the motion of the Chancellor).

2. The establishment of a body of trustees, onethird resident to be appointed by the Council of the University at the request of the Chancellor, and two-thirds non-resident to be appointed after consultation of the Vice-Chancellor with the subscribers (on the motion of the Primate).

3. The appointment of a committee, headed by the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, for raising subscriptions, and for consulting the colleges on the formation of a committee in each college (on the motion of the Vice-Chancellor).

I hope, Sir, owing as I do almost everything to the University in which I have resided continuously since 1870, that I may be allowed to add to my former letters a few words of comment on the effect of these resolutions, which seem to be the work of men who aspire not only to help, but still more to govern, the University of Oxford.

There is all the difference in the world between an unofficial body of intending benefactors meeting together and the chief officers of the University sanctioning that meeting apart from the University. The unofficial benefactors have a right, which I have never been foolish enough to contest, to make what funds, trustees, and committees they please; and when they are ready with their subscriptions, to come in the last resort to the University. But the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of the Uni

versity cannot mix themselves up with this complicated process from first to last without putting themselves into a most ambiguous position (1) as collectors of money for specific purposes without any authority of the University; and (2) as the official head and the official chairman of the University having to consider whether the very purposes for which they have been collecting money are good. Moreover, they will be putting the University itself into a constant dilemma. If it accepts their subscription, it gives the Chancellor and his deputy too much power; if it rejects their proposals it gives its highest dignitaries a painful

rebuke.

Worse still, the resolutions contemplate so intimate a connexion between the proceedings of the benefactors and various University institutions, all under the patronage of the Chancellor and the ViceChancellor, but all without the authority of the University, that the inevitable consequence must be to establish a double constitution:

1. A new de facto government under the patronage of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, consisting of (1) a body of trustees mixed up with them and with the Council of the University; (2) a committee headed by them and mixed up with sub-committees in each college of the University.

2. The old de iure government of the University, under the presidency of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, consisting of (1) Council, (2) Congregation, (3) Convocation.

In judging of the power of this new de facto government it is necessary to notice that it will be a financial power; that it will tend to become permanent because it is proposed to spread subscriptions over a period of years; and, above all, that it will have the initiative. The Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor say in their letter of the 13th that

« VorigeDoorgaan »