This thesis is a study of the work of the Committee on Australian Universities of 1957, usually called the Murray Committee after its chairman. Interpretations of the Murray Committee's work usually focus on its achievement in securing funding increases for Australian universities at a time of great financial need, and establishing an arms-length grants body that assisted what was referred to as the "balanced development" of the sector. In this thesis I look at the context of the inquiry and the text of the committee's report to place this outcome within what I consider to be the broader scope and intent of the committee's work. I argue that the committee was anxious to secure the position of the universities at the top of an educational hierarchy in a period of change and challenge. The committee responded to the Commonwealth Government's request that the future pattern of university development be in the best interests of the nation by defending what they saw as the traditional role and purpose of the university. I argue that this response is one that has at various times been put foward by universities to demands for change, a response that, to paraphrase a view popular in university circles at the time, seeks to give government what it needs rather than what it wants. In this instance the committee looked to an English model of a residential university as the "traditional" template on which Australian institutions should be fashioned. The committee argued for the value of a broad, liberal education as emblematic of university pedagogy in an era of increasing knowledge specialisation and increasing confusion of purpose in the tertiary education system. It considered that a residential university conducted on liberal principles was the best institutional representation of its ideal of a community of scholars. The committee set down in its report a range of strategies by which the ideal might be realised, or at least approached, in the Australian context. It paid particular attention to the incorporation of first year students - the newest and most vulnerable members of the community. I also argue that in setting down its ideas on the institutional form and pedagogy of the university, the committee made assumptions about the personal characteristics of "the scholar", and I analyse these assumptions. In redefining the university in the Australian context the committee also engaged in a process of defining the roles and purposes of other tertiary education institutions. The committee took a hierarchical view of social organisation to their work, and viewed the education system in this light. The committee charged the universities with oversight of the Australian education system and intellectual guardianship of the Australian community. University graduates, in the committee's view, were the natural leaders of Australian society, and their education should prepare them to undertake properly this role. In redefining the university the committee members engaged in a process of boundarysetting, consolidating an institutional hierarchy in what they saw as a confused and uncoordinated system. However, they sought to incorporate a commitment to meritocracy and expansion of education opportunity within this perspective and urged the creation of pathways between the institutions. To characterise the committee's work I extend the concept of "balanced development" to the various areas in which the committee made recommendations. The concept of balanced development can be seen to refer to the proper development of the individual in the university system (the production of a balanced personality, or the education of the whole person); to the balanced development and co-ordination of the university sector; to the development of the tertiary education system as a whole and its proper articulation with the labour market; and to the process of reconciling the needs of the universities with the demands of government