to an observation which fell from him on a former occasion as to the sitting of Convocation not being continued with the sanction of the Government. The question I have to ask is, whether, as we perceive the Convocation is postponed to February next, the sitting is then to be resumed, or whether it is adjourned in the usual way?

Mr. Secretary Walpole: I am much obliged to the hon. gentleman for asking the question, because I think a misunderstanding has prevailed with reference to the conduct of the Government as regards the Convocation and its prerogatives. Allow me to say that the usual course observed with reference to the Convocation is to leave it, according to law, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, either with or without the consent of his brethren— that is a question that is not determined-to prorogue Convocation when the Address is presented. That course the Government has not interfered with, nor could the Government be required to interfere at all unless the licence of the Crown was required, permitting them to meet to make canons or ordinances, or continue their sittings for such a purpose as that. What I said the other night was that the Archbishop of Canterbury had never made application to me or the members of the Government, and, as far as I am aware, that statement is perfectly correct. Until to-day I never saw the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject. I stated, what was perfectly true, that I was determined never, on the part of the Government, to allow any deviation from the usual course relative to the sittings or powers of Convocation. The Government has strictly and steadily adhered to that determination. I have taken no part whatever in the matter, nor was I ever called upon to do so unless the Convocation required the licence of the Crown, or unless I had reason to believe that a different course of conduct was to be pursued from that which was pursued on previous occasions. The only deviation that has taken place on the present occasion is this— that the Address has been debated upon three days, instead of upon one, and that a committee has been appointed. The Government had nothing to do with the appointment of that committee. The Government could not interfere-my hon. friend shakes his head. If I am wrong it is from a misconception of the power of the Government on the point, but I believe the Government has no power to interfere at all until it comes to a question of prorogation. That question could not arise until the Address was answered, and the Address is not answered. I have formed a deliberate opinion with reference to the subject, and can assure the House that so long as I have the honour to hold the office I now hold, nothing will induce me to advise the Crown to grant a licence to Convocation to make canons. I have never made that declaration until I was called upon to make it; but I do make that declaration and entertain that opinion in the strongest manner, because I firmly believe that nothing would be so detrimental to the Church of England, or so likely to create divisions in that Church, as to revive Convocation for such a purpose.'

On Monday, the 22d, the same question was asked of Lord Derby in the House of Lords. He prudently abstained from looking further or deeper into the state of the case than was necessary for his immediate object. He confined himself chiefly to the rehearsal of facts, with a tendency to calm any public apprehension that a great step had been made, beyond former times, in the action of Convocation. He did not anticipate, either, that the next session would be different from others. Reviewing his speech as a whole, we should say that he succeeded in altogether clearing the government of any suspicions that they

would promote Convocation, yet that he was anxious not to say anything irritating or offensive; and also, that he exhibited a disposition to ward off all necessity of taking any steps in the matter. The remarks he made on the committee were modestly given, with the profession that he was open to legal correction; therefore, we cannot be severe on them; still we must say explicitly that he spoke in ignorance. He was evidently not aware of the distinction which exists between the sessions of the civil parliament and of Convocation. Every sitting of Convocation is a session, and the end of it a prorogation, and Convocation has the same existence in the interval between the 17th of November and the 16th of February, that it had between Friday the 12th and Tuesday the 16th of November. Convo-. cation is continued up to a certain date; and, therefore, it exists during that time. Consequently, Lord Derby's objection to the committee falls to the ground. All precedents again are unanimous in favour of committees. But it is no wonder that with the business on the hands of government last November, they should not have been able thoroughly to master the details of Convocation.

We lay his own words, however, before our readers, and shall consider them the last scene of that synodical drama which we have been representing on these pages under the heading of "Convocation in November, 1852':

The Earl of Shaftesbury: I wish to know from the noble earl what are the intentions of her Majesty's Government with respect to Convocation. I believe it is adjourned now until the 16th of February, and I wish to know, will it, when it meets again, be allowed to continue its sittings? I wish also to know if the committee that has been appointed by Convocation will be allowed to continue its sittings?

The Earl of Derby: As far as her Majesty's Government are concerned there is no intention to make any deviation from the customary and ordinary course that for many years has been pursued with respect to Convocation, nor do I understand that there has been any deviation from the ordinary practice, although undoubtedly the meeting of Convocation in the course of the present year has been accompanied with considerable excitement, and has led to longer discussion; but the proceedings of Convocation have gone this year no further than they have gone in all the preceding years. They moved the Address to the Crown at the commencement of the session. It is true that the discussion upon that Address to the Crownprevious to which it would not have been decorous or proper that any power should be exercised by any party-has lasted for a period of three days; but although it has lasted for three days, this is not the first occasion on which it has led to discussion, or on which an amendment was discussed in Convocation. In the year 1847 the discussion lasted through the whole of one day, and an amendment was moved praying the Crown to re-establish the active powers of Convocation. The power of proroguing Convocation undoubtedly in the last resort rests with the Crown, but I believe there has been no instance in which that power was exercised by the Crown, at least for many years, the power being usually exercised

by his Grace the Archbishop, either acting (for that is a doubtful point) upon his own authority or with the advice of the other bishops. On the present occasion I understand that the usual and ordinary course has been adopted, and that the noble earl is mistaken in speaking of the adjournment of Convocation, for I am informed that the usual course has been pursued, not of adjourning, but of proroguing Convocation in the usual form. The Address having been voted to the Crown, the Convocation has been prorogued by the Archbishop to a period not far from being coincident with the time of the meeting of both Houses of Parliament after the recess. There is nothing unusual in the adjournment to a distant day to receive the answer of the Crown; it is not usual to receive an immediate answer; there is always a prorogation for the purpose of receiving the answer. I have not had the opportunity, since my noble friend gave notice of asking the question, of communicating with his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I have no reason to suppose that when Convocation meet again he will depart from the practice that has hitherto universally prevailed, nor do I apprehend that he will do more than lay before Convocation the answer to the Address, and then in the usual form prorogue the sitting of Convocation. I will not anticipate that the Archbishop will depart from the usual course, or that the intervention of the Crown will be in any respect necessary; but this I have no hesitation in saying that the Ministers of the Crown have no intention to advise her Majesty to depart from the ordinary course, or to sanction the revival of the active powers of Convocation. One word as to the committee. Officially, I know nothing of the committee. I know, officially, no more than this-that Convocation is prorogued, and that it has appointed a committee to investigate certain matters. It is a question of law on which it is not fit that I should pronounce an opinion, but I confess I don't understand myself how a body that is itself prorogued can give any official powers to any other body during its prorogation. I would venture to give an opinion on the point with great diffidence, but if I did, my opinion of the committee is that the powers of that committee are null and void; and, on the other hand, there is no power on the part of the Crown, or of any other body, to prevent a number of gentlemen meeting together in a private body to consider what will be for the advantage of the Church. That is a question of a legal nature, on which I don't think I ought to pronounce an opinion. It will be seen that from the body of gentlemen meeting, no official communication has been made to the Crown, and no interference can be made on the part of the Crown to interrupt their sittings.'

Thus much for the past. To predicate of the future formed no part of our first intentions. We know not what course will be taken by the chief advocates of Convocation; but we know from the evidence which we have been laying before our readers, that the principal Churchmen of the day, the most conspicuous among the bishops, for zeal, for earnestness, for talent, for experience in theological questions of the day, for the natural powers of eloquence, and also for personal influence with the rising statesmen of the day, are now heart and soul committed to the cause. The same may also be said of the clergy generally. We see that there is much to identify the cause with that judicious progress in political affairs, that desire to make good use of our institutions in Church and State by reforming them on the basis of their original theory, to which the common

sense and the energies of our leading politicians are now devoted. We doubt not, therefore, but that Convocation will soon be a popular cause even with the mass of the people. Difficulties vanish in a marvellous way as we approach them; even Mr. Secretary Walpole's deliberate opinion' as to the advice he would give to the Crown is now of individual and not of public interest. Since our own words have been in type, the Derby ministry thus committed to resist the cause, has vanished into thin air. Nor can we regret this, for however well disposed some members of it may have been to the Church, we feel convinced that they were not the men, whose political or even ecclesiastical association could advance the cause of Convocation. We have more hope of their successors, though at the time we write we can say but little of them, only just knowing how some of the different offices of the administration are filled. We yet have a good faith that our cause will prosper most with the uniform advocates of religious toleration, and non-interference on the part of the State with the proceedings of religious bodies. Mr. Gladstone, moreover, stands committed by his own writings on the subject to help the development of Convocation. trust his wisdom and discretion to know what is practicable for the Government to do, and what is the best manner by which the abstract cause can be advanced, and also we feel sure that his firmness of character and the strength of his convictions will not allow any injustice to be done towards the Church by any cabinet of which he is a member.

We

pre

We also have good hope that the present amalgamation of parties is a great security against any repetition of objectionable acts hitherto perpetrated by individual members even of the sent cabinet. All Church questions must necessarily be softened down, for nothing would bring such a cabinet sooner to a dissolution of its several parts than any ill-judged expression of religious prejudice and personal pique which might be offensive to others. We also think that the fact of the amalgamation having taken place proves that even Lord John Russell perceives at length that the government of the country had better be carried on with a greater respect shown towards the Church than has unfortunately been sometimes the case in times past. The Church wishes for no precipitate measures or partial favours manifested to her. She desires fair play and justice, and in the general balance of interests by which, if well maintained, a free country keeps everything to its level, we see our best chance to obtain for the Church her inalienable right of synodical action.

192

ART. V.-Report of her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the State, Discipline, Studies, and Revenues of the University and Colleges of Oxford. Together with the Ecidence and Appendix. 1852.

THE history of our Universities-though it is with especial reference to Oxford that we must be understood to speak— resolves itself into three distinct periods. The first of these may be characterised as that of the University par excellence, before the rise of any of the collegiate foundations: these again, during their subordination to the University, constitute the second; followed, lastly, by the practical absorption at present exhibited of the University by the several colleges.

The following pages will be found to be exclusively occupied with the second and third of these periods, and their transition one into the other. The first may be at once dismissed with the brief statement, necessary only to the introduction of our subject, that the students who in early times resorted to Oxford for the sake of the instruction there imparted by its body of associated teachers, finding, as they did, no means of accommodation provided for them by the University, were obliged either to lodge in the houses of the townspeople, or else joined together in taking a house, under the superintendence of a Master of Arts. The extreme poverty of many of these students led, naturally, to the adoption of various provisions for their assistance; of which the most important for us to notice was the deposition of sums, in trust for their benefit, with the different monastic bodies scattered about the kingdom, who in some cases, in order to carry out their object more efficiently, gained possession of houses in Oxford. And here we find ourselves upon the edge of the second period of our history. Partly following and partly improving upon these means for the support of students, Walter de Merton, after at first settling a society upon his estates in Surrey, for the purpose of maintaining scholars in Oxford, subsequently removed it to Oxford, leaving the superintendence of the property to bailiffs. This residence of the governing body in Oxford, joined with its exemption, the first on record, from monastic vows, as also from the necessity on the part of the scholars of taking holy orders, entitles Merton to the claim of being the first college foundation in Oxford. Following the example of its foundation, the date of which is assigned to 1270, two years before the death of Henry III., University and Balliol Colleges, from being originally mere endowments lodged in external parties, realized, in 1280 and 1340 respectively, the same conception of a college. These again were