“If such a plan of improvement be entertained by the authorities of Oxford, the details of its execution would remain to be considered. On these we do not venture to enter; but desire to record our readiness, whenever the matter may proceed further, to aid, by personal exertions or pecuniary contributions, in the promotion of a design which the exigencies of the country so clearly seem to require.
“Sandon, Ashley, R. Grosvenor, W. Gladstone, T. D. Acland, Philip Pusey, T. Sothron, Westminster, Carnarvon, T. Acland, Bart., W. Bramston, Lincoln, Sidney Herbert, Canning, Mahon, W. B. Baring, J. Nicholl (Judge Advocate), W. T. James, S. R. Glynne, J. E. Denison, Wilson Patten, R. Vernon Smith, S. Wilberforce, R. Jelf, W. W. Hall, W. Heathcote, Edward Berens, J. Wooley, Hon. Horace Powys, W. Herbert (Dean of Manchester), G. Moberley, A. C. Tait.”[359]
In spite of this influential list of signatures no action was taken by the Board, but the subject gave rise to many pamphlets, one of which, by the Rev. C. Marriott, deserves a special notice. In it he propounded a definite scheme for the foundation of a college either in or out of Oxford, which should contain about one hundred students living “a somewhat domestic kind of life,” which should be shared in close intercourse by their tutors. Mr. Marriott received considerable promises of help towards the endowment of such a college, but his early death cut short the scheme.[360] The University Commission of 1854 tended to stimulate the desire to make University education more national; but it was not until 1865 that any definite step was taken. On Nov. 16 of that year a meeting of graduates was held at Oriel College, “to consider the question of University Extension with a view especially to the education of persons needing assistance and desirous of admission into the Christian ministry.” The conveners of this meeting were chiefly influenced by the belief that the education of the national clergy was the unquestionable duty of the Universities, but that it was to a large extent passing out of their hands. They recognized, however, that this was far from the sole ground of University Extension, and especially urged that the system of Local Examinations required as its natural complement some further movement which should enable the successful candidates to follow out their studies at the University itself. At this meeting six sub-committees were formed to consider various methods of such extension. The history of Keble College is concerned only with the first of these, of which Dr. Shirley, the Professor of Ecclesiastical History, was Chairman, the other members being Professors Bernard, Burrows, Mansel, Pusey, and the Revs. W. Burgon, R. Greswell, W. Ince, and J. Riddell.
The instructions given to them were to consider the suggestion of extending the University “by founding a college or hall on a large scale, with a view not exclusively but especially to the education of persons needing assistance and desirous of admission into the Christian ministry.” The substance of the report was to the effect that, without interfering with either the moral and religious discipline or the social advantages of an academical life, it would be possible very considerably to reduce the average of expenditure. With this purpose they suggest the building of a new Hall, by private subscription, large enough to hold one hundred undergraduates; for the sake of economy the rooms should be smaller than in most colleges, they should be arranged along corridors instead of by staircases, and be furnished by the College; breakfast as well as dinner should be taken in common, caution-money and entrance fees abolished, and all necessary expenditure included in one terminal payment. By this means it was hoped that the University would be opened to a class of men who cannot now enter, but without placing them apart from the classes who now avail themselves of it. The Hall was not to be “such an eleemosynary establishment as would be sought only by persons of inferior social position, less cultivated manners, or of attainments and intellect below the ordinary level of the University, but rather one which is adapted to the natural tastes and habits of gentlemen wishing to live economically.”[361]
In the following year (on March 16, 1866) the Rev. John Keble died, and on the day of his funeral it seemed to his friends that the most fitting memorial to him would be to build such a college as had been contemplated by this committee. Mr. Keble had himself joined in the movement which led to the appointment of the committee; he had seen and approved the Report. This report was accordingly taken as the basis of action. The details were, in the main, arranged upon its lines; perhaps the chief difference was that from the first the preparation of candidates for Holy Orders was less insisted upon, and more emphasis was laid upon the duty of providing a suitable education for all Churchmen, whatever their vocation might be. To quote the words of the appeal which was issued, “The College was intended first to be a heartfelt and national tribute of affection and admiration to the memory of one of the most eminent and religious writers whom the Church of England has ever produced, one whose holy example was perhaps even a greater power for good than his Christian Year; secondly, to meet the great need now so generally felt of some form of University Extension, which may include a large portion of persons at present debarred through want of means from its full benefits; while, thirdly, it is hoped that it will prove, by God’s blessing, the loyal handmaid of our mother Church, to train up men who, not in the ministry only but in the manifold callings of the Christian life, shall be steadfast in the faith.”[362] The aims of the promoters of Keble College were, in a word, exactly the same as those of the munificent founders of the earlier colleges, viz. to extend University education to those who could not otherwise enjoy it, to extend it in the form of collegiate life, and in loyalty to the English Church.
A public appeal for subscriptions was at once made, and these amounted in a very short time to more than £50,000. The building of the College was intrusted to Mr. Butterfield. On St. Mark’s Day (the anniversary of Mr. Keble’s birthday), 1868, the first stone was laid by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Longley); and rooms for one hundred undergraduates and six tutors were ready for occupation in 1870, and at Commemoration the first Warden, the Rev. E. S. Talbot, senior student of Christ Church, was formally installed by the Chancellor of the University. A council had already been elected by the subscribers: this constitutes the Governing Body of the College, and perpetuates itself by co-optation as vacancies arise. The Council elect the Warden, who nominates the Tutors. On June 6th a Royal Charter of Incorporation was granted. This, after reciting that the subscribers had joined together to give public and permanent expression to their feeling of deep gratitude for the long and devoted services of the Rev. John Keble to the Church of Christ, and with that intent had resolved to establish a college or institution in which young men now debarred from University education might be trained in simple and religious habits, according to the principles of the Church of England, created the Warden, Council, and scholars into a corporate body with power to hold lands not exceeding the value of five thousand pounds (A subsequent amendment of the Mortmain Act, passed by Parliament in August 1888, extended to Keble College the exemption of the Mortmain Act, by which persons are enabled to bequeath property to it.) This Royal Charter carried with it no academical privileges. It left the Council free to move the College elsewhere, or even to wind up the Corporation; at the same time it authorized them, if they saw fit, to obtain the incorporation of the College within the University of Oxford.
This was not, however, the course actually adopted; the question of formal incorporation was not free from difficulties, as in previous cases such incorporation had been generally effected either by Royal Charter or by an Act of Parliament, and so it has never been raised. What actually happened was as follows. On June 16th, 1870, a decree was passed by Convocation, authorizing the Vice-Chancellor to matriculate students from Keble College pending further legislation. On March 9th, 1871, a new statute dealing with New Foundations for Academical Study and Education was passed, and on April 8th Keble College was admitted to the privileges granted by it. By this statute all its members have in relation to the University the same privileges and obligations as if they had been admitted to one of the previously existing Colleges or Halls, and the Warden has with regard to the members of his society the same obligations, rights, and powers as are assigned to the heads of existing Colleges or Halls, though the statute does not impose upon him any other obligations or confer any other right, privilege, or distinction. Any other statutes in which Colleges are mentioned by name, such as those respecting the University sermons or the election of Proctors, would not apply to any such new foundations, unless so amended as to include them expressly. The statute affecting the Proctorial cycle was so amended in 1887, and Keble College was for that purpose placed on a level with other colleges. The further question whether the head of such a society possesses the rights possessed by the heads of the earlier colleges has never been decided.[363]
Meanwhile the College had been opened successfully in Michaelmas Term 1870. At that time the north, east, and west blocks were completed, with a temporary chapel and hall on the south. The rooms were arranged in corridors, but subsequent experience has since partly modified this arrangement. The quadrangle south of the gateway was commenced in 1873, and finished on the eastern side in 1875, on the western in 1882. In 1873 W. Gibbs, Esq., of Tynterfield, laid the foundation of the permanent Chapel, of which he was the sole and munificent donor. This was formally opened on St. Mark’s Day, 1876, and on the same day the foundation-stone of the Hall and Library was laid, these being the scarcely less munificent gifts of his sons, Messrs. Antony and Martin Gibbs. The architect of these buildings also was Mr. Butterfield. In the Chapel, the general aim of the decoration is to set forth the Christ as the sum and centre of all history, to whom all previous ages pointed, from whom all subsequent ages have drawn their inspiration. In the main body of the Chapel the mosaics represent typical scenes from the lives of Noah, Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, while the great prophets and kings of the Old Testament are portrayed in the windows. Around the Sanctuary the ornament is richer as it attempts to do honour to the fact of the Incarnation—alabaster and marble take the place of stone. On either side in the mosaics are seen the Annunciation, the Birth, the Baptism, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection of the Lord; in the windows the leading Apostles and Doctors of the Christian Church. The Ascension is given in the east window; while in the quatre-foil mosaic, the centre of the whole decoration, appears a vision of the Lord Himself as described by St. John in the Apocalypse, seated in the midst of the candlesticks, with the stars in His hand, and the sword coming out of His mouth. Around the Living Lord are grouped saints of all the Christian centuries and of every vocation in life. The western mosaic closes the series with the Last Judgment.