I need not, I suppose, here further expose the folly of any inference based on these addition, subtraction, and division sums, nor point out in how very different an order the colleges would appear, if the sums really devoted by each from divisible income to the cheapening of education were credited to them. My only objects in saying so much about it as I have said are to warn those who may be in danger of being led into the same quicksands that have embogged the Chancellor, and to shew how slight was the provocation which seems to have brought upon us this impending Commission.
I expect, however, that the hostile figures are but a pretext, that the real origin of the Bill lies in the general distaste for sinecure Fellowships, the rash undertaking of the Prime Minister last Session, and the satisfaction a Conservative Minister must always feel in being approached as he was last year by the self-chosen representatives of Oxford Liberalism.
But to pass from the origin of the Bill to its nature, as defined in the statement under review.
The first place is given to what are called Idle Fellowships. These idle fellowships are elsewhere defined as fellowships not filled by any person occupying an educational office. These are said to be between 220 and 230. This is probably near the mark, if we exclude those held by Bursars, who, though not strictly educational persons, may yet be regarded as necessary. If all fellowships be excluded held by resident college officers, the number will be reduced to about 200. Strangely enough, these fellowships are described as moneys we have got in hand. If past experience is a guide for the future, it would point to the fact that "idle fellowships" are those of which,
