It is indeed very possible, as Mr Burgon says,[11] “to conceive something worse than even the inactivity of the Hebdomadal Board.” As things stand now, at least we know our rulers—they represent twenty-four separate and independent interests, and are, from their very isolation, at least above all suspicion of clique or party. Will it as surely be so in the dynasty to come? Are the smaller societies as sure to be represented? We shrewdly suspect that hereafter many a small college Tutor may rue the day when, in the associated committee, he took up the pleasant trade of tinkering a constitution. He may find out, when too late, that when his hand helped to close the door of the delegates’ room against the legitimate representative of his own college, he shut out the voice of that college for ever from the great council of the University. We may live to see an “initiative,” composed of eight Heads of powerful colleges, plus eight Professors of the same colleges—plus eight Tutors or M.A.’s of the same colleges again; for their influence in the new Congregation, if exerted, will entirely neutralise the votes of the smaller colleges and halls. And if it be said that this is an illiberal view, and that such influence will not be put in motion, the answer is, that there is every reason to believe that the leading colleges have foreseen this advantage, and are prepared to use it. A far-sighted tutor of the most powerful society in Oxford objects to the constitution of the Commissioners’ congregation, on the significant ground that “it gives exactly the same influence to the largest college and the smallest hall;”[12] and unless these smaller societies unite in protesting against this part of the scheme, their share in the government of the University, unless in rare exceptional instances, is forfeited for ever. An amendment to clause v., by way of proviso, that not more than two members of the council shall be of the same college, might tend to secure something like a fair distribution of power.[13]