The (almost really) Complete Works of Lewis Carroll

February 4, 1876

Decree—February 15

Whereas it is expedient to allow Professor M. Müller to devote himself without interruption to the studies on the Ancient Literature of India which he has hitherto prosecuted with so much success and with so much honour to the University;

In a convocatation to be holden on Tuesday, February 15, at Two o’clock, the following form of Decree will be submitted to the House:—

That the provisions of Statt. Tit. IV, Sect. I, § 37, cl. 3 be suspended, and that the Electors proceed to the nomination of a Deputy to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor, and the Deputy shall receive one half of the salary of the present Professor.

There are one or two points, in connection with this Decree, to which I think the attention of the University should be directed, though I cannot doubt that they have occurred to others.

In the first place, I assume from the phrase “to allow Professor M. Müller to devote himself without interruption, &c.,” that he will not be expected hereafter to do any of the work of the Professorship, so that he will virtually resign the Chair; the so-called “Deputy” will virtually be a new Professor; and the so-called “half of the salary,” which the present Professor will continue to receive, will virtually be a pension. If these assumptions be incorrect, the following remarks are irrelevant: but in this case I think many will agree with me that the phrase was ill-chosen and liable to be misunderstood.

If, however, these assumptions are correct, I wish to point out, in the second place, that the two questions, what pension should be assigned to the outgoing Professor, and what salary to the new one, are entirely distinct, and ought properly to be voted on separately. We shall doubtless hear of good reasons why the proposed pension should be granted, but these will not affect the other question: it will need quite other reasons to justify the University in offering, to the next holder of the Chair, only half the usual salary: indeed, I can conceive of only one that would have any real weight—namely, that the University is too poor to be able to pension a retiring Professor, unless by mulcting his successor. Such a reason as that can hardly be pleaded.

In conclusion, I would say that, though what I have written is mainly in the interests of the unknown future holder of the Chair, it is also in the interests of its present holder: for surely the very proposal to invite the new Professor to do the work for half the present salary, is to say, by implication, that the work has been hitherto overpaid—against which supposition I, for one, desire to record my protest.

I cannot but hope that the University, whatever pension it may think fit to assign to the learned Professor who now holds the Chair, will not practise the needless economy of offering only half a salary to his successor.

February 12, 1876

There seems to be good reason for believing that there is among Members of Convocation a wide-spread feeling of dissatisfaction with the proposed Decree as it stands; that, while ready to welcome any proposal for gratefully recognising the services which Professor M. Müller has for so many years rendered to the University, and for securing to Oxford the continued presence of so valuable a man, they object to the proposal that the Deputy-Professor, who will have to do the full work of the Chair for an indefinite number of years, should be offered only half the salary hitherto given for that work.

Nevertheless, partly from the fear that rejection of this Decree might lose us a man whom we can so ill afford to spare from among us, and partly from the fear of being left in a small, and therefore conspiuous, minority, it seems likely that many of the dissatisfied will abstain from voting, and that a clause, not only undesirable in itself, but also dangerous as a precedent, may thus be passed “multis dissentibus sed nemine contradicente.”

The first of these feelings is surely groundless. We may reasonably hope that, if this Decree be rejected, another will be proposed, not containing the objectionable clause. The second I hope may be obviated by the following proposal, which I make with the less scruple, as my name has already appeared in connection with the subject, and as an unbroken friendship of years with the Professor makes me feel safe from the imputation of any personal motives of hostility.

I propose then, if thirty names at least are sent me, by 4 p. m. on Monday, of Members of Convocation prepared to vote against this Decree, to print the names I receive (excepting any who may express a wish to the contrary) in alphabetical order, and to circulate the paper on Monday evening or Tuesday morning. Such a paper would be an assurance to all wishing to vote against the Decree that they will not be singular in so doing: and even if the Decree were carried, yet the fact that a considerable minority had voted against it would be a safeguard against its being hereafter used as a precedent. If I do not receive so many as thirty, I shall issue no paper, and will not communicate to any one the names so received.

I gladly take this opportunity of entreating the learned Professor, from whom I have never experienced anything but kindness, and whom I am proud to number among my friends, to accept my assurance that nothing would have induced me to come forward in this matter but the conviction that when a Decree like this is proposed, involving important general principles, and liable to be used as a precedent on future occasions, no private and personal considerations should be allowed to weigh against the interests of the University.

February 14, 1876

Since the issue of my first paper several arguments in favour of the proposed Decree have been urged upon me; and these will doubtless be repeated on Tuesday. As I am no orator, and do not intend to trouble the House with my viva voce efforts, I prefer to state them here, adding what it appears to me may be said in reply. The arguments are:—

(1) That it is a case of necessity, the University having no other resources out of which the proposed pension could be provided.

(2) That the stipend was originally on £400, and has been raised to £600 during the tenure of the present Professor.

(3) That it is not fair to resolve on voting against the Decree beforehand, but that we ought to wait till Tuesday afternoon to hear what can be said in its favour.

(4) That, if this practice became common, our “debates” would be of no use.

To these arguments it seems to me the following replies might be made:—

(1) That, if there be no other means of providing a pension, it would be better not to offer it at all. But that it appears incredible, while the University is able to provide so lavishly for the claims of Natural Science, for architectural improvements, &c., that so small a matter as this should be beyond its power.

(2) That the principle of going back, when a chair is vacated, to its value when the present holder took it, would be an awkward precedent. How if it were proposed to offer to the next Greek Professor £40 a year?

(3) That what answers to promulgation in Congregation, the debate on that day, and the interval before the day of voting, is, in such a case as this, simply the interval which has elapsed since the Decree was printed in the Gazette. And that this interval (a fortnight) has been ample for hearing and considering all that can be said for or against it.

(4) That a debate, on a day previous to the voting-day, is eminently useful, but that on the day of voting people have generally made up their minds, so that further debating is of little or no use.

I have headed this paper with the old proverb about generosity, but really I doubt whether the proposed arrangement deserves the epithet “generous” in any sense. This transferring of income from one man to another, leaving the funds of the University intact, is at all events one of the cheapest forms of generosity ever yet invented, and reminds one of the celebrated charity-sermon, where one of the congregation was so overcome by the preacher’s eloquence that he hastily transferred to the subscription-plate all the loose cash he could find in his neighbour’s pocket.

Let me tell you one more story, and I have done. A certain parsimonious country-Rector had two Curates, enjoying the respective stipends of £100 and £90. One day the junior Curate resigned: whereupon the Rector went for the senior, and told him that in consideration of his long and faithful services, etc., he was about to raise his stipend to £110. The Curate could scarcly believe his ears: after a few breathless words of gratitude, he wandered home, saying to himself “Is it all a dream?” Next day brought an applicant for the junior Curacy: he had met the senior Curate outside, and had been assured by him that, whatever rumour might say to the contrary, the Rector was a man of true generosity of soul. “Understanding,” the stranger began, “that the stipend you offer to a junior Curate is £90 a year—” “By no means!” interposed the worthy Rector, mildly, but with an unmistakeable firmness. “That curacy I have just reduced to £80 a year!”