ment for the university.1 Old volumes of Hansard will abundantly acquaint us with the arguments on which rested the exclusion of Catholics from Parliament. What would have been thought of the wisdom of the legislature if Catholic emancipation had been passed with a compromise which permitted Catholics. to enter Parliament, and allowed them to be under-secretaries of State, but closed the cabinet against them? Such a preposterous proposition could be maintained on only one ground. The cabinet has a certain control upon the appointment of Bishops; and it might have been urged that such high ecclesiastical duties ought to be exercised by Churchmen alone. This suggests the one solitary pretext for the exclusion of Dissenters from fellowships. Each college possesses many Church livings, and this Church patronage is in the hands of the Fellows. It may be therefore urged that it would be an objection to allow a Dissenter to have any voice in the bestowal of Church preferment. In order to state the case of my adversaries as fairly as possible, I have mentioned this apparent argument, which those who know the universities must at once detect to be a purely imaginary objection. For the universal custom at every college is to appoint to a college living according to seniority. When such a living is vacant, it is first offered to the senior clerical Fellow; and, in the event of his refusal, it passes down to the other Fellows in succession. This custom is so ancient and has been so uniformly observed that, according to the best opinions, the senior clerical Fellow could in a court of equity successfully enforce. his claim to a living which was vacant in his college. The new statutes of Trinity College, Cambridge, distinctly provide, that college livings should be offered to the clerical Fellows in order of their seniority. Dissenting Fellows would, therefore, have no power, even if

1 There is a distinction between the declarations required from the holder of a fellowship and a member of the Senate. In the first case it is: "I will conform to the Liturgy;" in the second: "I am a bona fide member of the Church of England."

they had the inclination, to undermine the stability of the Church by insidious clerical appointments.

It will be well to notice another objection, which may possibly be advanced. The colleges subscribe very liberally to support various charities, such as schools, in those places where they possess property or Church patronage. It may, therefore, be said that these charitable grants would be diverted if the majority of the Fellows of a college should cease to be members of the Church of England. But it is extremely improbable that those who dissent from the established Church would ever become a majority in any college. The old established public schools will continue to be the chief feeders of the universities. But, even supposing this were not the case, we have no right whatever to assume beforehand that a dissenting majority would be backward in assisting the spiritual and educational wants of those districts in which college property is situated.

It may perhaps also be said that, if the Fellows of a college did not all profess the same religious faith, disputes would be engendered, and that social harmony would be destroyed. But no such social disunion is created by the admission of students of every religious denomination; and experience shows that, when people are inclined to enter on religious bickerings, Church polemics afford a more ample arena for uncharitable quarrelling than religious Dissent.

The true friends of the Church are pursuing an injudicious policy, if they attempt to retain such a restriction. It can always be spoken of as a grievance ; and whenever it is brought into operation in the case of an accomplished student, it is a grievance which will excite wide popular sympathy. Such a restriction, if intended to defend the Church, is "a barrier against conciliation," a cobweb "against hostility." The Church will be strengthened by conciliation, but a grievance will always feed and encourage Dissent.

It has been remarked by a most eminent authority, Sir J. Herschel, that the

fellowships are the mainstay of the English university system. To them as a goal the most intellectual students are constantly striving. The race is a manly and a noble contest-manly, because no feelings of jealousy tarnish the keen competition; noble, because the contest is purely intellectual. What other coveted distinction is there which wealth and rank has no influence in securing? Cheap books and the extension of good schools have placed the rudiments, at least, of a good mathematical education within the reach of humble life. So large is now the fund which is devoted to scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge that a clever boy may maintain himself at the university. If, therefore, the religious disability upon fellowships was removed, they might be regarded as great rewards which our universities bestow upon the most intellectual of the nation.

Many most distinguished students have by this religious disability been excluded from fellowships. Their place has been occupied by men of inferior talent; and thus an encroachment is obliged to be made upon the important principle, that fellowships are great rewards which are uniformly conferred upon the most intellectual students. I would not refer to any particular instance in order to base an argument upon the plea of a personal grievance. Every one who enters the university knows that fellowships are confined to members of the Church of England; and therefore even a senior wrangler cannot feel that he is personally aggrieved because excluded. He is not excluded either by the desire, or on account of the prejudices of his college. The exclusion rests upon an Act of Parliament, which leaves the college no option in the matter. This suggests the most cogent objection to the restriction. Why should not the matter be left in the hands of the colleges themselves? A Dissenter may be appointed to the highest educational position in a college; why, therefore, may not the college be permitted to elect such an individual to a fellowship?

The anomaly of the present system

may be readily illustrated. By the new statutes, prælectorships have been created. These are educational offices of the highest importance. A college may be compelled to exclude a high wrangler from a fellowship, and yet can appoint him to a prælectorship. Such an opportunity of retaining a distinguished mathematician upon the educational staff of the college may very probably be eagerly taken advantage of; but, if the high wrangler wished to leave Cambridge to prosecute his studies at the bar, then the college is prevented from rendering him that assistance which is given to a less distinguished student who happens to be a member of the Church of England.

The number of students at Oxford and Cambridge does not keep pace with the increase in the nation's wealth and population. Oxford and Cambridge have not now so many undergraduates as they had thirty years since. This diminution in numbers is no doubt due to many causes. Admission to holy orders is now readily obtained without a university degree; and the various appointments which have been thrown open to general competition, such as those in the Indian Civil Service, doubtless attract many who would otherwise matriculate at a university. But still it cannot be denied that there is an increasing demand for education, and that thriving collegiate institutions have, during the last few years, sprung up in different parts of the country. And yet, if there is any value or utility in endowments, educational establishments which are so poor that they must almost be self-supporting, ought not to be able to compete with Oxford and Cambridge, whose vast endowments are constantly augmenting in consequence of the increasing value of land. In many colleges at Oxford and Cambridge there is not a sufficient number of distinguished students upon whom to bestow the large funds which are devoted to scholarships and exhibitions.

Is it not then desirable to allow the whole nation freely to participate in these great advantages? Sometimes it is said, Why do not the Dissenters endow

colleges of their own? Oxford and Cambridge were endowed under circumstances which can never again occur. No confessional now exists to encourage charitable bequests; and, even if a new university were liberally endowed, but confined to one religious denomination, its influence must tend to stereotype sectarian differences. Any educational establishment, however liberally supported, must now be most insignificantly endowed, compared with the ancient foundations whose property may be estimated at ten or twelve millions, which has been accumulating during a long succession of ages, under a state of opinion and feeling that exists no longer, and that will never recur. Obedience to the original intention of founders has been long forgotten, and is a plea which it is now impossible to sustain. Gratitude to our liberal benefactors will be most appropriately shown by causing their munificent bequests to produce the greatest possible influence upon the intellectual advancement of the whole nation.

The deep sense of gratitude which I shall ever feel to my Alma Mater, prompts in me an earnest desire to give the largest number possible an opportunity of being benefited by the great advantages which the endowments of the universities can confer.

I wish now to direct attention to the restriction which confines the privileges of the Senate to members of the Church of England.

It will be necessary here only to consider the restriction in one of its aspects -namely, the exclusion of all who are not members of the Church of England from voting at elections for members of the university. The M.A. degree is now conferred upon persons of any religious denomination.

When an individual proceeds to the M.A. degree, he is asked by the Registrar of the university whether or not he is a member of the Church of England. If he replies in the affirmative, the M.A. degree confers upon him a vote for the university. The university franchise therefore is the only one which in our country is not based upon a pro

perty qualification. It is based upon an intellectual test, and therefore is the ideal franchise of philosophic reformers. But is it not unconstitutional to associate with this intellectual test a religious disability? All alike are permitted to wear the badge of this mental qualification. But it would seem that the intellectual test without a profession of religious faith is unworthy to confer the franchise.

How can it be said that the members for the university represent the university when it is decreed beforehand that the privilege of voting shall require the profession of certain defined opinions? Many are the blemishes in our representative system. Conservatives and Liberals profess alarm at a threatened and inevitable extension of the suffrage. A 67. qualification, it is maintained, will cause the country to be controlled by masses who are inadequately educated. Constituencies, therefore, which are tarnished by none of this dreaded ignorance should be careful to demonstrate their superiority. An intellectual franchise has never been fairly tried in this country, because the unfavourable conditions under which it exists in the universities must certainly prevent any fair illustration of its success. The electors of the universities are scattered over every part of the country, and great numbers who come to the poll have travelled many hundreds of miles. Here, then, is a case in which voting-papers might be used with the greatest advantage. The signatures of these voting papers might be certificated by either the tutor or the bursar of the College to which the elector might happen to belong. The constituency would thus be saved a great and useless expenditure both of time and money. An election might, under these circumstances, be contested for a few pounds. This would induce a great number of eminent men to offer themselves as candidates. An opportunity would thus be afforded of making a good selection, and Cambridge and Oxford would be spared the reproach that the universities have not unfrequently proved a secure refuge to respectable mediocrity. I throw out this suggestion, which may,

perhaps, be regarded as a digression, because I believe that the value and importance of a vote for the university would be most materially increased if an election was conducted in the manner I have proposed. Under the present system a Dissenter may very reasonably regard a vote for the university as a privilege hardly worth contending for. Many Churchmen, now, never feel interested in the choice of the candidates who offer themselves; but, if voting-papers were introduced, there would, doubtless, appear at every election

numerous

candidates of every shade of political opinion, whose qualifications would be based upon high intellectual eminence. The result of a university election would then be eagerly watched by the nation, for it would be a fair indication of the public opinion of the intelligence of the country.1

It now only remains for me to point out a practical method of carrying the two important reforms which I have endeavoured here to explain and advocate.

I believe the reforms may be easily and peaceably obtained. The question ought to be taken up by some member of Parliament who is intimately acquainted with the practical details of our university system. Let him state the case fairly and dispassionately to the House of Commons; let him back his arguments with a petition, which may readily be obtained, influentially signed by resident members of the universities. And these privileges will then be not long withheld from those who dissent from the State-Church, and who have, on many occasions, violently agitated to obtain much less important reforms.

The questions I have discussed in this paper are so important that I was very anxious to obtain the opinion of a resident member of the university.

The Rev. W. G. Clark, Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge, most kindly perused these pages; and

1 Whilst going to press I notice with pleasure that Mr. Dodson has introduced a bill into Parliament for the purpose of allowing the electors of the University to vote in the manner here proposed.

"I have read your MS. with much interest. I cordially sympathize with the object you have in view; for I have long been of opinion that the maintenance of these tests is highly impolitic, and injurious to the real interests both of the Universities and of the Church. They keep from the Universities many who might have been their ornament and support, and afford to the Church no security at all commensurate with the odium they excite.

"In fact, the only Dissenters they exclude are those who have a very scrupulous conscience and a very high sense of the obligation of a promise-precisely the men we should be most anxious to admit. The abolition of these tests will not endanger the connexion between the Universities and the Church.

"An immense majority of the students will still be, as heretofore, Churchmen; and, of the remainder, many will become so, when they cease to be embittered by a grievance.

"In the governing body of the seve ral colleges, and among the members of the Senate, Dissenters will form a minority inappreciably small, and the social influences around them will always tend to assimilate them in feeling to the majority.

"The tests I speak of must sooner or later go the way of all tests. The Universities will do wisely if they make a grace of necessity, and offer spontaneously what cannot be long withheld.

"Let us petition Parliament on the subject, without delay.

"I am sorry to think that in this matter I shall be opposed to many friends for whose judgment I have great respect; but I feel that it would be cowardly, since you ask for my views, to shrink from expressing what is my firm and deliberate conviction. "I am,

INDIA has afforded to the philosophical historian his most striking example of the inevitable force of the physical laws which govern the progress and condition of mankind. With a soil of great fertility, a climate rendering it in the highest degree prolific, and a vast population, it possesses the elements necessary for the accumulation of wealth. "The food of the labouring classes being "produced by the smallest degree of "toil, and labour being abundant, they "received the smallest possible share of "the wealth they created. The distri"bution of wealth governs the distribu"tion of power. There is no instance, "in any tropical country, in which, "wealth having been extensively accu"mulated, the people have escaped "their fate ;" and the Sudras, estimated at three-fourths of the Hindoos, are placed by the native laws below the ordinary scale of humanity. "The really "effectual progress of society depends, "not on the bounty of nature, but on "the energy of man. The supplies of seed, implements, and cattle, indispensable to the indigent cultivator, make him a borrower of money; and for a thousand years he has habitually paid fifty or sixty per cent. per annum. reasoning and inquiry show, that it is capital, with European knowledge and energy to direct its employment, which is needed. Statesmen feel that their hopes rest in the capacity of the agriculture of India to supply the materials of European industry in exchange for its finished products. The factories of Europe wait with impatience for the No. 18.-VOL. III.

All

This practical advice at home is converted into bitter irony by the acts of the Indian authorities; by which the cultivation of indigo, wherein many millions sterling are embarked, and several hundred thousand native labourers employed, is in a large degree suspended. British settlers, whose enterprise the cotton manufacturers were invited to emulate, and who are proved by the testimony of every enlightened and impartial witness, native and European, to have done more good to the country and people than any other class-men of education and character, probably better acquainted with the language of Bengal than any who are not natives-are driven to look to Guatemala or the banks of La Plata for that protection to their industry which is withdrawn from them in the British territories.

Those who devote themselves to the increase of the growth of cotton can expect no better fate. Advances to the

EE