The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-12 00:00:00

AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.

Lord A LVANL E Y gave notice that to-mGrrois be should
put a question to his Sinje!ty's Government relative to the
Marines and Artillery employed in the scrvie..l of the Queen of

Spain.

THE UNIVERSITIES BILL.

The Earl of RA DNO had del :sued moving the second
reading of this Bill, in order to give Noble Lords the oppor-
tunity of presenting certain petitions against it, and had done
thin for the purpose of ascertaining on what ground they ob-
jected to the Bill. He was exceedingly glsd that he had
adopted this course, for he would at once confess that from
these petitions he drew very urgent reasons why the House
should not comply with the prayer of any one of them. He
would commence with the petition from Wadham. in which
it vies stated that they were perfectly satisfied with the state in
Ahleh they were—that they were in a prosperous state—and
that as they were bound to observe the statutes of their foun-
der, they could not agree to the provisions of the Bill with-
out violating an obligation of the most sacred nature. With
respect to this very College, the statutes of the founder having
been found inconvenient, an applici ti n had been made t oPar-
liament in order the College might be relieved, and under the
Act so obtained it was now in the flourishing condition described
by the petition. How the Members of that College were
b nind by the original statutes of the founder, he (the
Earl of Radnor) would leave for those gentlemen themselves
to explain. With respect to many of the other petitions, they
alleged that if the visitors made alterations, contrary to the
original statute, they would be bound by their oath to disobey
them. Other Colleges had presented petitions on grounds
precisely the converse. All these reasons, however, might be
good, but he still thought that there were reasons in favour of
the passing of the Bill. One College at Oxford had pre-
sented a petition against the Bill on the ground that it was
a public branch and member of the University of Oxford.
The College was no more a branch of the University than
it was pf the Corporation, for the University existed before
the Corporation, and even before the College itself; and if the
House were to do that which some of the petitioners appeared
to think was the object of the Bill, viz., to confiscate all the
property of the Colleges, that would not in the slightest de-
gree impair the University. It was stated that the Colleges
were public bodies, and a part of the University. That might
be perfectly correct ; but on the fundamental question there
were certainly private eleemosynary foundations. A great
number of the petitions alleged that the preamble of the Bill
was not true, that the Colleges had not mismanaged their
funds, and that, consequently, it would be unfair to make
the Bill apply to them.—( Hear.) It was exceedingly difficult
to prove the charges, from the difficulty of knowing what
were the original statutes. In some of the Colleges the mem-
bers were sworn to secrecy, and in others the statutes were
almost unknown to the members themselves. Colleges were
originally founded for the benefit of poor scholars. In the
statutes it was provided that the Fellows should be poor, or
the sons of poor men. Now, no one, he believed, would as-
sert that the poor were the only class who derived the benefit
of these foundations. In some Colleges a test of property
had been originally adopted, such as 51. or 101., but in this
respect some allowance ought to be made in consequence of
the difference of the value of property. But most of the Col-
leges had evaded the statutes of the founders by selling their
lands, and laying the produce out in the funds. In Merton
College, Oxford, it was provided that the payment to the Fel-
lows should be limited to 405., and that out of this their com-
mons should be paid for. And the provisions in most of the
statutes were that the Fellows should be resident. Now,
this was generally disregarded, and in one College, out of
forty Fellows thirteen were honorary, one of whom was at
the present moment a Knight Grand Cross of the Guelphic
Order, and now on a special mission to Constantinople. In
Trinity College, Cambridge, not more than one-fourth of
the Fellows were resident, some of them holding other situa-
tions, such as schoolmasters, in various parts of the
country, which rendered permanent residence impossible.
Then the Senior Fellow of Brazennose College had a stall in
the Cathedral of Hereford, and three livings in the diocese of
Hereford, which were returned as worth 1,1001. a year, with a
cure of three thousand souls. With respect to the manner in
which the domestic superintendence and tuition of the Univer-
sities were exercised, he complained that the managers of the
Colleges did not give the requisite instruction, according to
the directions of the founders, but delegated it to one or two
tutors ; and now, in almost every case in which a youth was
really desirous to learn, it was necessary to substitute a private
for the public tutor, to afford that assistance and information
which it was the duty of the public tutor to supply. He him-
self knew it to be a fact, that at Trinity College, Cambridge,
there was paid annually for public tutors a sum of 4:600/., and
;no less than 10,000/. per year for private tutorage in that one
College alone. In another respect the wills of the founders had
no: been complied within many respects, though he must confess
there were some instances that were not open to this complaint.
Those wills had left certain sums of money amongst a number of
Fellows, and in very many cases it had been provided that if
the value of the property were augmented, the Fellowships
should be increased in number, and not in value. That was
the case with respect to Merton College ; but that institution
had now the same number of Fellowships that it had six hun-
dred years ago. The same took place at Clare Hall. There
was, he believed, only one College in which the number had
increased, which was Queen's College, where they had in-
creased from twelve to fifteen. It was very generally said
that the Senior Fellows appropriated to themselves more of
the spoil than they were entitled to, and deprived the Juniors
of their proper share. It certainly was the case that in Tri-
nity College, Cambridge, that eight of the Senior Fellows
lirad double Fellowships. In a case such as this he would sub-
colt that the Legislature ought to interfere; but they were
t, ki that the Legislature never had interfered with the manage-
me et of eleemosynary foundations. Now that was not the
ease,. for the Legislature, by many modern statutes, had inter-
fered with other charities. The annual amount of property
now enjoyed by the Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge was
not le, s than 200,0001. per year. The first petition that
had be. an presented that night, from St. John's College,
Cambria Tge, alleged that this measure was quite unneces-
sary, bee muse there was a power in the visitor to regulate
abuses. _Now, he had no doubt that the Gentlemen who
signed that petition believed that statement to be true ; but
the fact CI al a directly the contrary. The violation of oaths
was really -and truly something—he was going to say quite
horrible. DO held in his hand a book published 120 years
ago by 94. gent leman learned in the law, in which the whole of

these statutes were reviewed in order ; the book certainly con-
tained much violence of expression, in consequence of the
author having had a quarrel with a Master of Trinity College;
but it also afforded considerable information ; and then, after
a fair and full recital of the statutes, it was stated that those
statutes were constantly broken; yet since that time no alter-
ations whatever had taken place, and the oaths had continued
to be administered. The statutes of that College (Trinity)
required that there should be nine lecturers, but there were not ;
and that was one of the many violations to which he might call
their attention. The Master swore to observe the statutes
and enforce their observance ; and one of them required that
the Master should not be married. The present Master was
a widower; but the statute embraced that case, for the words
were that he " should not contract marriage." It was, how-
ever, said that the Crown had granted dispensation ; but he
would beg to ask what power had the Crown, or any one else,
to dispense with the observance of oaths ? He thought that
he bad made out clearly to their Lordships that the Colleges of
Oxford and Cambridge were not managed in conformity to the
original intentions of the founders, and that the funds were
misappropriated ; and he would conclude by moving that this
Bill be now read a second time.
The Bishop of LL A NDA FF said that oaths were taken
under various circumstances, and some of them, by their very
terms, implied that those to whom they were administered
were bound to govern the Colleges according to the true te-
nour and real spirit of the statutes, and according to what
they sincerely and conscientiously believed to be theinten-
tion of the founders. The particular provisions by which
that intention had been carried into effect were often igno-
rantly described in detail, so as in fact to produce a very dif-
ferent effect from that which was intended ; and he did be-
lieve that most of the instances which had been produced as
deviations from the intentions of the founders had proceeded
from an anxious desire to fulfil those intentions, and to afford
all the benefit of which the institutions were capable. Such,
at least, he knew to be the motives which had led to any de-
viations that had taken place during his connection with the
Universities ; and, although departing in some respect from
the letter of the 'statutes, yet still adhering to their tenor and
spirit. He would confine himself to two points in the
preamble of the Bill, upon which he would make one or
two observations. In the first place, the preamble of this
measure recited, " that, whereas great estates and funds had
been bequeathed, for the purpose of providing poor and in-
digent persons, &c. Sze." Now he thought that the Noble
Earl had mistaken the real object of these institutions, for
although they were legally tested eleemosynary, they were
not, he apprehended, in any respect similar to almshouses or
any charitable establishments of that sort. Their main ob-
ject undoubtedly was to provide fit men to serve God in the
Church, and ail the specific provisions which had been
adopted had a manifest tendency to that end. The statutes
by which the Colleges were founded generally described their
object to be to afford such a liberal course of education as
would fit those who received it for the office of the Ministry;
and the persons for whom those benefits were intended were
required to be of suitable character and behaviour, and,
amongst the rest, indigentes; that was, persons who would
not be able otherwise to go through the necessary course
of study. The term indigentes, he must observe, had
not the same meaning as the word " indigent," which
was generally applied to "1" person in actual distress. With
respect to the question of residence, certainly the greater
number of those who enjoyed the benefits of the College
foundations were not resident ; and he must confess it to be
his opinion that it was much more beneficial to the world
at large, and more conducive to the intentions of the found-
ers, that it should be so ; but, at any rate, he clearly thought
that it was a master which ought to be left to the consciences
of men placed in such a position, under the solemn obligation
of an oath. The Noble Earl had appeared think that there
was some inconsistency in the language of the petitions which
had been real that night. For his own part, he could not
see the ideonsisteney ; in those petitions different reasons had
been alleged a p-euharly applicable to the circumstances of
different Colleges. If, indeed, one reason had been alleged that
could neutralize !he rest, then the objection might have had
some weight. But the case was not so; and now he had one
general reason, which was also common to all the petitions
against this Bill, viz., that no sufficient foundation had been
laid to justify the Leg,islature in calling upon public bodies of
this nature to produce all their private papers, their registries,
their deeds, and records—perhaps to attend foe some time in
London, and leave the sphere of their peculiar duties, and to
submit to the dictatorial powers of a hostile Commission—a:al
that, too, without any charge being made against them, or
any sufficient opportunity being afforded them of explana-
tion. It Was, at least, unusual that so decided a step
should be taken at once. A Committee ought, as it
generally did, to precede so sweeping a measure as the pre-
sent. It appeared to hint that the Bill had arisen entirely from
a mistaken notion of the real intentions of the founders of
these collegos, front an idea that they were designed entirely
for the instruction and benefit of very poor and indigent per.
sons ; whereas, on the contrary, he believed that they were
mjnly intended to rase religion in the estimation of society,
by means of the character and station of its Ministers. There
was a clause in the statutes of the college to which he had be-
longed during a great part of his life, which he had ever con-
sidered the wisest provision connected with the Government
of any college, and by which it was permitted to those in
whom the management tested, to make such changes and alte-
rations as the altered circumstances of the times might require,
and this was declared to be done ad conservationenz institutio-
nis, or for the purpose of earning into effect those objects for
which the institution was founled. He (the Bishop of 'Llan-
daff) by no means wished to insinuate that the Noble Earl was
net actuated by the most virtuous and patriotic motives; but
he did think that he had not sufficiently considered the na-
ture and object of these institutions, or he would have been
contented with some provision which would relieve the Fei•
lows from the difficulty in which they were at present placed.
To the second reading of this Bill he must give his decided op-
position, and he would therefore conclude by moving that it
be read a second time that day six months.
Lord HOLLAND agreed with that Rev. Prelate in be-
lieving that most of the persons who had taken upon them
selves to relax those statutes, and especially the Right Rev.
Prelate himself had done so in the full spirit of the founder's
intention, and in conformity with the tenor of the statutes
themselves. He agreed with him further, that many of those
statutes were such, that it would be wise and advantageous to
the public, to the Colleges, and to the individuals themselves,
that they should be dispensed with. The object of the Bill
was to dispense with those observances which were now strictly
adhered to, and to do this without the violation of any moral
duty whatsoever.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") What his Noble
Friend proposed was simply a commission to inquire into the
subject. What his Noble Friend proposed to accomplish
was no more than that which in many instances was done at
present by the authority of several of those Colleges and so.
cieties themselves, and done in many instances against the
letter of the statutes, and in other instances against the letter
of the oath taken to observe them. The Learned and Reve-
rend Lord had argued that this was not a statesmanlike way
of proceeding to revise these oaths. In that he might not dif-
fer with the Learned and Reverend Lord, but if these oaths
were not thought necessar) to be observed, he (Lord Holland)
could not see any advantage in continuing them. But he
would even say, was not there disadvantage in continuing
them? If such oaths as these were taken in certain other
Colleges, and loosely observed, would their Lordships hear
nothing about " Dens' Theology," and of the subtle inge-
nuity of swearing to do one thing and intending to do
another ? Those persons who opposed this Bill were placed
in an awkward dilemma. They stated that they could not
consent to any investigation, that they must resist and remon-
strate against any invasion of the words of oaths prescribed by
the original founders of these institutions, and against the in-
vasion of the provisions of their ancient statutes. But if
these founders were alive at the present day they would call
upon their Lordships to do just that which this Bill proposed
to do. They would call on them—on the Parliament and on
the Crown—to make those alterations and improvements
which were wholesome and advantageous for the institutions
themselves. The Bill did not charge any parties with any
delinquency whatsoever; it simply called on the proper au-
thorities to make inquiry into the subject. He did not see that
the Bill went further than simply proposing a Commission of
Inquiry. Now, he would ask, was there any one College
in either University which had not in some degree de-
parted from the original statutes ? Most of these Colleges had
been founded before the Reformation. Were there not, in

the ancient statutes of most, or of all, of these Colleges, obli-
gations to say masses and to pray for departed souls, and were
not oil these obligations departed from ? True he might be
told that this was in accordance with the law of the land; but
did they not take the oath to observe these obligations? The
law of the land was quite a different thing in the reign of
Henry the Eighth from what it was at present. It then assumed
a more formidable shape, and it was not quite so safe a matter
to dispute it. He was anxious to see this Bill passed, because
he thought the improvements it proposed were highly advan-

tageous-and desirable, and would confer the greatest benefi

on these Universities themselves.

The Bishop of LL A NDA FF explained. One part of the
Bill proposed to, release the members of Colleges from the
observance of the statutes in all minute particulars. He
feared that the measure would not tend to raise the character of
the obligation of an oath throughout the country at large.
The Marquis of CAMDEN opposed the Bill altogether.
He contended that it was unjust to the parties most interested.
The preamble of the Bill was not proved.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought that the
Noble Earl attempted to show that these Universities, which
were the pride of the country and the admiration of the world,
had ceased to fulfil the purposes for which they were originally
instituted, and that it was necessary to bring forward this
measure. This was exactly set forth in the preamble of tke
Bill. The Noble BAron had stated that this measure merely
p: °posed an inquiry into this subject.—(Hear, hear.) But
surely their Lordships knew that the visitors of Colleges
had at present the power to make this inquiry, and surely
it could not be doubted but that they were interested in
any improvements that they held to be desirous or advan-
tageous. The visitors and the heads of Colleges had full
power to remedy any abuses that existed. He had listened
with particular attention to what the Noble Earl had stated
with respect to the preamble of the Bill. That preamble
contained allegations of a very serious nature. It stated that
whereas these Universities were criginally established for the
promotion of religion and virtue, and the encouragement of
liberal arts, &c. Now, the allegations that these Universities

had departed from the fulfilment of those original purposes
ought to be proved. But what did the Noble Earl confine
himself to ? To the single instance of the duty of the Univer-

sities to provide for the' education of indigent persons. Had
it been shown that they had failed in the promotion of religion
and virtue, or that they did not produce many eminent per-
sons both in Church and State ? But, with respect to the in-
stance to which the Noble Earl had particularly directed his
argument—namely, the education of the poor and indigent__
on this point he would refer to a very eminent and ancient

authority in the Romish Church, who was held in high repute
in the Ecclesiastical Colleges in most of the Continental coun-
ties, and his application of the meaning of this provision for
the education of the indigent was, that it should be held to
apply to those whose parents, taking all circumstances into
consideration, were not equal to the expense of maintaining
their sons at Colleges. Now that was the interpretation that
was put upon this part of the ancient statutes in all the Col-
leges of either of the Universities with which he (the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury) was acquainted. This was the rule on
which the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford generally acted.
With respect to Baliol College, the Master and Fellows had, ac-
cording to the ancient statutes, a right to appoint each a scholar,
who, according to the notion of the original founder, was to be
consiedred a servitor, and was to pay for his education by his
personal service to the Master and Fellow who appointed
him. This custom wore out with the age, and without violat-
ing the notion of the original founder, they thought that in-
stead of each master appointing a scholar, the appointments
generally should be open to election. But they did not pro-
ceed ad libitum to the alteration of the statutes. They ap-
plied to him as visitor to the College, and he felt happy to
give his full sanction to that alteration. Now, when such a
power of making useful alterations existed, and when it had
been so beneficially exercised, why send Commissioners to
violate those Institutions which had existed for upwards of six
hundred years ? He had received a communication from the
Bishop of Exeter, in which he requested him to state that in
the College of Exeter no deviation from the statutes took
place without the previCus sanction of the visitors. The No-
ble Baron (Lord Holland) had stated that many of these
foundations existed before the Reformation, and that many of
the ancient provisions fell consequently into desuetude. But
why did that happen ? Merely because they were at variance
with the existing law of the land. If he properly understood
the speech of the Noble Earl, his object appeared to be to
restore things to their ancient state.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If
there were abuses there could be no objection to put an end
them ; but had any case been made out ? Had there
been any case to show that there was any violation of oaths?
Before they proceeded to pass such a censure upon the Uni-
versities they should have all the statutes before them, and see
whether there might not be certain observances in some sta-
tutes from which other statutes contained a dispensing power.
There were some which might be dispensed with, whilst there
were others that did not admit of being dispensed with.
There was nothing to determine their Lordships to vote in
favour of the Bill before them, without better information
than they at present possessed on the subject. He did not
think that their Lordships could, in justice or reason, consent
to this Bill, and he confidently trusted that their decision would
convince him that he was not wrong in that expectation.
Viscount MELBOURNE was most willing to make every
allowance for the difficulty of the task ; but, at the same time,
he must say that, agreeing entirely with the Noble Lord the
Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, that they ought
to look to the effect the change might have in the morality
and religion of the country, be ( Viscount Melbourne) had in
his own experience seen in the Universities too much high
and transcendent talent, too much of fair and unblemished
character, and too much of fair and competent fortune, to
wish at once to consign them to an untimely grave. He
would not say in his own experience that they did not require
an inquiry or that they could not be improved. He ad-
mitted, with the Noble Lord, that great improvement had
lately taken place ; but that very admission went to the ex-
tent of showing that heretofore, at least, they had not ful-
filled the objects for which they were instituted. He could
not say that these institutions were perfect ; but this he
would say, that, in his opinion, they required to be in-
quired into, with a view to their amelioration and improve-
ment. He had listened with great attention to the peti-
tions which had been presented, and he had heard the allega-
tions that these Colleges were private foundations. This
point, he thought, bad been well argued by his Noble Friend
behind him (the Earl of Radnor), who contended that the
private character of these institutions had merged into a public
character in consequence of certain proceedings which had
taken place inany years ago, providing that no man could be a
member of the University, or partake of a benefit from the
University, without being also a member of some College.
As had been well stated by a writer of great acuteness, that if
a private institution became incorporated ..sith a public institu-
tion, without becoming at the same time both public and pri-
vate, its public character did not become private, but the pri-
vate made itself public, and might accordingly be dealt with as
a public body. With the exception of a few prizes—certain
examinations for degrees and lectures—nothing was done by
the University. The whole of the proceedings of the Univer
city with respect to tuition and to discipline belonged to the
Colleges, and therefore he would contend that it was perfectly
fair and right that an inquiry should be made into the manner
in which these matters were conducted within the Colleges.
The Statutes, it was admitted, were in most respects obsolete.
Now, to remedy that defect it would be necessary to have an
inquiry of the nature proposed. An University would not
reform itself ; there were too many conflicting opinions, too
much of compromise, and too many different motives, ever to
expect such a result. The Right Rev. Prelate said that the
powers proposed to be given were too great. He stated that
persons would be liable to be called from different parts of the
country. Now, that was just the argument used by every
Noble Lord who had attacked the proposed Commission ; but
if the powers were too extensive, could they not be limited ?
This was the argument that was used against the Ecclesias-
tical Commission. It might have a very good sound, it might
look well on paper, but it bad nothing in it, and he was sorry
to see that, on the last occasion, it had been used by Hon.
Gentlemen of great knowledge, and for whom he entertained
the highest respect. There had been a great number of these
Commissions issued of late ; but had any one ever heard that
they had abused their powers? The Right Reverend Pre-
late said that the Commissioners might trouble persons with
A sorts of illegal questions—in fact, that they might be
made to answer questions which would criminate themselves.
This was the great complaint urged against the Municipal
Con-mission ; but he had never heard any complaint against
that Commission—( Cries of " Hear")—or of any abuse of
their power. The fact was, that they never possessed those
powers, and, therefore, it was a necessary consequence that
they could not have abused them. Undoubtedly, the
conclusions which they drew front the evidence were very much
objected to ; but there was another point which made it very
necessary in his opinion, and also in the opinions of the Right
Rev. Prelates whose absence from the House he certainly had
no right to remark upon—and no doubt they had sufficient
reason for it ; but there was another point which made it ne-
cessary to direct the attention of the House to the subject of
maintaining the efficacy of these institutions as seminaries for
education. Two institutions had lately risen in London, in
connection with which there were Right Reverend Prelates,
well cognizant of the ancient Universities, who had been tu-
tors in them, and he believed it was the opinion of those Right
Rev. Prelates that the system of education pursued at the new
seminaries was infinitely superior, and that the various subjects
of knowledge in which instruction was given to the students
were so good, that he believed it to be the opinion of those
Right Rev. personages that, unless the curriculum of study
in the ancient Universities were enlarged, they would not be
able to hold their present position. At least this was the opi-
nion of a Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Durham.
He ( Viscount Melbourne) had seen it in his printed speeches,
and that same Right Reverend Prelate had said that
the persons who came to him from the new institution
at Durham for Ordination, were infinitely superior in
their learning and attainments to many who came from
the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He ( Viscount
Melbourne) knew that no man could be better qualified to
judge in this matter than the Right Rev. Prelate, and he
would therefore repeat his opinion that, unless the curriculum
of study at the ancient Universities were enlarged they would
not be able to maintain their present position. For this reason,
therefore, he thought that some inquiry should be instituted.
But there were other matters of a more serious nature to

which it was necessary for him to advert. The Right Rev.
Prelate said that there had been a regular course of improve-
ment in the Universities. Had there been an improvement in
the pecuniary expenses? Could anybody assert that there
had? Would any Noble Lord, whether lay or clerical, say
that in this respect the Universities had not partaken of
the laxity of the times ? His Noble Friend had remarked up-
on the great prevalence of private 1 uition in the Universities.
This custom was introduced, it was said, in order to enable
persons who, though net actually paupers, but men not in
very affluent circumstances, to obtain that station in society
to which their learning and abilities entitled them. This
private tuition was a great draw upon the wealth of the stu-
dents. It led to a system called cramming, the consequences
of which were exceedingly unfair, and the knowledge thus
obtained was not of a wholesome nor permanent kind. He
(Lord Melbourne) mentioned these circumstance with the
greatest respect towards the Universities, and with the great-
est admiration of the talents which they undoubtedly pos-
sessed ; but at the same time to show that they were not per-
fect, and not entirely without blemish.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—My Lords, the Noble
Viscount who has just sat down has stated his disapprobation
of every part of the education of the youth of the country
which is under the superintendent care of the Universities.
--(Hear, hear, hear.) My Lords, before I proceed to ex-
press an opinion on this Bill I would beg leave to remind
your Lordships of the history of former Sessions of Parlia-
ment upon this same subject—the two Universities of the
kingdom, Oxford and Cambridge. In the year 1834 a Bill
was brought into Parliament, in the other House of Parlia-
ment, to remove certain disabilities which, as the Bill stated,
" prevented certain classes of his Majesty's subjects from re-
sorting to the Universities of England, and of proceeding to
degrees therein," and in the year 1835 a Bill "prohibiting sub-
scription to the Thirty-nine Articles in certain cases," was also
brought in. The last Bill, my Lords, was brought in by the
Noble Earl who has proposed this Bill to your Lordships. The
first-mentioned Bill was brought into the other House of Par-
liament ; but it was moved in this House by the Noble Earl
opposite. Your Lordships thought proper to repeal these
Bills, and, my Lords, I have recalled these circumstances to
your Lordships' recollection in order that you may see the ani-
mus with which this Bill is brought under your consideration_
this Bill, my Lords, which I say is neither more nor less than
a Bill of pains and penalties against the Universities, and upon
which the first proceeding of the Noble Earl opposite ought to
have been to call evidence at your Lordships' bar, to prove the
facts stated in his preamble. The preamble of the Noble Earl
states, that the statutes prescribed by the original founders
of most of the foundations have been abandoned, and that even
the most recent statutes arc disregarded, and that it is highly
expedient that an inquiry be made by Commissioners to be
specially appointed to inquire into the funds and revenues and
general administration of the Colleges and Halls, and to report
how the said funds and revenues might be made more condu-
cive to the objects of the benefactor or founder. My Lurds,
I say that there are facts stated in this preamble, which, in.
stead of the Noble Lord stating his own conjecture, ought to
have been stated with his proofs, and the Noble Lord ought to
have called witnesses at the bar to prove those allegations.-..

(Hear, hear.) These Commissioners, or any member of them,
by the Act, are to ask such questions as they please upon the
subject-matter of their inquiry, and the Courts of King's Bench
and Exchequer are to impose a fine upon those persons who
omit to answer, whether the question asked be legal or illegal—
whether the question be capable of answer or not. This, my
Lords, is the Bill introduced by the Noble Earl, whose object
it was, on two former occasions, to put an end to the taking of
an oath founded upon the religion of the Church of England,
as established in the Universities. My Lords; when I say this
was the conduct of the Noble Earl during the three last Sessions
of Parliament, and when I heard the Noble Viscount, in the
Session of 1835, declare that his object was to establish a Uni-
versity system of disputation upon religious matters, I cannot
have the slightest doubt as to what is the real object of this
measure ; and, under these circumstances, I earnestly recom-
mend to your Lordships to concur in the motion of the Right
Rev. Prelate opposite, that this Bill be read this day six
months. My Lords, that which I insist upon is, that the
working of the whole system is for the benefit of the public—
that it has worked well for the public, and that in each of the
Colleges the object is to carry into execution the will of the
founder in such a way as it is probable he would have: ap-
proved of if he had been living at this period. My Lords, in
all these Colleges the first object, above all others, is the bene-
fit of the public in the education of the youth who resort to
those institutions. My Lords, the Noble Viscount opposite
could not avoid admitting that these institutions have worked
well, and particularly that there has latterly been a great im-
provement in the system. The Noble Viscount has told us,
it is true, of the advantages of the institution at Durham, and
likewise of other institutions recently established ; but the
Noble Viscount could not help admitting that the ancient
institutions bore the merit of having established in Eng-
land a system of education and good discipline which is the
admiration and envy of the world.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
My Lords, it is perfectly true that a Commission to inquire
into the Scotch Universities was issued; but the Noble Lord
forgets that his Majesty is the visitor of all the Universities in
Scotland. His Majesty is not the visitor of the English Uni-
versities. If an inquiry is necessary into the Universities of
England, or into any of these Colleges, I understand there is
a power at this moment capable of carrying on such inquiry,
and of proceeding at once to annihilate the charter of any
College if it should be found that that institution had been
guilty of the crimes with which it was charged. My Lords,
the Noble Lord has here pleased to complain of those statutes
which require that every person resorting to the University
should belong to one of the Colleges or established Houses of
the University. My Lords, I must say that I consider that
rule to be one of the greatest merits of our Universities, and
to be the great, the marked, distinction between our Universi-
ties and these abroad, and which renders the system of educa-
tion in our Universities superior to those of foreign countries.
But the Noble Lord has discovered that it is expedient that
this rule should be departed from
Viscount MELBOURNE—I did not say so.
The Earl of RADNOR—I did.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—WeII, the Noble Earl
thinks it proper that the rul.s should be departed from. I,
my Lords, most sincerely hope and trust that the rule will not
be departed from.—( Hear, hear.) My Lords, the statutes of
the University have relation to every member of every Col-
lege. It is, in fact, impossible that the regulations proposed
by the Noble Earl—all of which have relation to the Bills in-
troduced by the Noble Earl during the three last Sessions of
Parliament—it is impossible that these regulations could be
effected without affecting the University. The object of the
Bill is to overturn the whole system on which the Universities
now stand. It has been tried twice by means of direct legis-
lation, and having failed it is now tried a third time. I shall
most cordially give my support to the motion of the Right
Rev. Prelate opposite.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord BROUGHAM could not, in the first instance, help
endeavouring to remove from the mind of the House the im-
pression which must have been made upon it by the speech of
the Noble Duke who had just sat down, that this Bill was of
a perfectly different character from anything which he (Cold
Brougham) could see upon the print of it, and he could only
know it from the print, as the Noble Earl had introduced it
without any communication with him, or he believed, any
other Noble Lord in that House. But speaking only from the
Bill, he must say, that anything more different from the Bill
than the description which the Noblo Duke had given to it,
and upon the credit of which description the Noble Duke had
drew nine-tenths of his objections, he could not possibly
conceive. He (Lord Brougham) would only adduce one
or two samples. The Noble Duke said that the Bill em-
powered the Commissioners to put any questions whether le-
gal or illegal, and upon a refusal the Commissioners might
appeal to the Court of King's Bench or Exchequer to im-
pose a fine. There was no such provision in the Bill. What
tho Bill provided was, that if any person, being summoned,
should refuse—that was of course contumaciously or obsti-
nately—to answer the question put, the Court of King's Bench
or Exchequer might impose a fine. The Noble Duke had
said that by this Bill the Commissioners were not merely to
make inquiry, but to make alterations in the statutes. The
Commissioners were certainly to take the statutes into consi.
dcration, and, if they thought fit, to propose new ones. Now
this would be a most extraordinary power by itself, and if the
Bill contained anything like it he should certainly vote with
the Right Rev. Prelate ; but in reality the Bill only em-
powered the Commissioners to inquire, and to propose what -
ever alterations they might suggest to the competent autho-
rity. This Bill went into no such enactments as would consti-
tute it a Bill of pains and penalties. Its only object was to
inquire, in order to lead to the discovery of the fact whether
or not certain prevalent practices were right or wrong, and, if
they were found to be wrong, then to suggest such remedies
as would render them accordant with the law.—( Hear, hear.)
But the most remarkable thing in the allegations of these
petitioners was the variety and inconsistency of the argu
ments they adduced in support of the views maintained by
them. It was utterly impossible that all these conflicting
arguments could be admitted. In the first place the peti-
tioners said that inquiry must not be, nay, that it should
not be, for that they (the petitioners) were bound as a mat-
ter of conscience to be ruled by certain statutes only, and
that if Parliament enacted others they would be bound to
dissent from them in every way shot t of actual resistance.
This was one argument. The other argument was one of a
very different kind. It was one brought forward by many
if not by all of the petitioners. They said, " You need not
inquire ; inquiry is not necessary ; no enactments are
necessary ; for there already exist visitors, who are fully
competent, and empowered to do all that you would do. We
can make changes ourselves if it be necessary, and if we do
not, then here are the visitors, or there is the Crown. In-
deed we have already strained our powers, for we have
made great alterations, and altogether your interference is
most unnecessary and unfit." Now here were two reasons
utterly inconsistent with each other, and the opponents of
this Bill must choose between them. With respect to this
claim of the exemption of certain Colleges, on the score
of their having special visitors, he (Lord Brougham) thought
they had been, on a most erroneous principle, exempted on a
former occasion. By the statute of charitable uses (43 Eliza-
beth) all such establishments, whether they were common or
eleemosynary charities, or other establishments for the disse-
mination of learning, as had special visitors, were exempted
from the operation of that Act. Following the example of
that Act, the framers of the 58th and 59th Geo. 111. inserted
a clause, exempting from inquiry by the Commissioners
therein appointed all such establishments as had special vi-
sitors. But afterwards, when men's minds, by ten or twelve
years' experience, were altered on the subject, it was found
that an enactment of the kind would be cumbersome, expen-
sive, and circuitous in its operation, and accordingly when the
Bill was renewed in 1831, the clause of exemption was omitted,
the grounds of the exemption being stated, nor although a
strong opposition to the omission was raised in the other House
of Parliament was it opposed in their Lordships' House ; and
all specially visited charities were by that Act subjected to the
inquiries of the Commission.—(Cries of " Hear.") The
office of the visitor was not inquisitorial only ; he also exer-
cised the functions of a Judge, and was himself the last autho-
rity to whom, in almost all cases, appeal could be made. The
office of the Commissioners, on the other hand, was purely in-
quisitorial ; their object was inquiry, and inquiry as it might
turn out—eading to ultimate results, to the attainment of
which the power of the visitors was quite inadequate.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate and the Noble Duke
had urged that the preamble of the Bill was incorrect in stating
that their funds were intended for the poor and indigent
scholars. Now, this had long been a matter of great
interest, and it was impossible to say that it was not still
in a great degree unsettled. He thought that it might
however, be laid down as a general rule that these funds were
not, in the first instance provided for poor scholars merely,
because the word " indigentes" in the statute was capable of a
construction superseding that of pauper only. That word
could be translated to mean—" unfit and unable to attain
knowledge elsewhere, to attain to a higher station." The
words were, valde pauperis et indigentes. Now, "pauperis"
was commonly held to be equivalent to our word " pauper,"
but the intensive particle "valde" seemed to convey a meaning
which he would render as perhaps very, or, rather poor-poor-
ish.—( A laugh.) But in his (Lord Brougham's) view of the
subject, he did not care whether the words were rendered in
this way or not, satisfied as he was that the founders could
never have intended such an application of the funds as had
since been made. Could any one think that it was the inten-
tion of those founders that scholarships and fellowships should
be held by those who, according to the statement of the
Noble Lord, enjoyed the greater part of them ? What
would the founders have thought of the tripartite division
of the fellowships in Trinity College, according to the state-
ment of the Noble Earl? What would they have thought
of the first class, with their double fellowships of 7001. per
year, while the Junior Fellows had their fellowships of 3001.
per year? These were the indigent men—the valde pau-
penis et indig6ntes I Many of them were men of standing
at the bar, of some of whom he had a personal knowledge,
while all were persons of great respectability. What would
they have thought of the fellowships of Bishop Chicheley's
foundation of All Souls, original forty, but now reduced to
thirteen ?—( A Noble Lord here intimated that the thirteen
were residents, not that the fellowships were thirteen.) True,
thirteen residents ; but what said the statutes on the subject of
residence? They were most positive in requiring residence
with certain stated exceptions. (He (Lord Brougham) by
no means meant wholly to condemn non-residence—far from

it. Those petitioners-relied upon their statutes. v Then, why
not produce them? The Noble Lord (Lord Radnor) stated,
that there had been deviations from the ruks laid down by the
founders, and that it was desirable to have the interference of

Parliament, in order to put an end, by the sanction of the
law, to the odious, intolerable, and anomalous system that
now prevailed. These were statutes which could not pos-
sibly be carried into effect ; rules that, although very good
when made five or six centuries ago, might be, and were
most pernicious when attempted literally to be acted up to
in the present day. The Colleges had stood up and de-
clared that they had themselves made many alterations in

day.

the statutes, and the Most Reverend Prelate had admitted
that many of them had been habitually broken through. For
instance, if the statute required residence and there was ha-
bitual non-residence, was that no deviation ? The authority
of the Most Rev. Prelate, and the admitted fact of non-resi-
dence, were the best answer to the allegation that charges
were made in the preamble and were not afterwards proved.
But this constant anomaly—this making and breaking of sta-
tutes—was it a state of things at all compatible with the dig-
nity of the law, or of the learned bodies themselves ? Was
it becoming that the youth of the Universities should daily
have before their eyes examples of rules and ordinances osten-
tatiously placarded only to be broken, and of sacred oaths so-
lemnly taken but heedlessly violated ? If the inconsistencies
of the seniors were unnoticed could it be expected that those
of the pupils would be punishable ? Assuredly the time was
come for inquiry. It was all very well to pronounce laborious
panegyrics on heads of Colleges, for, be they ever so true, they
must ever form but a sorry substitute for effectual investiga-
tion. What I Would it be said that there was anything about
these establishments to entitle them to claim to be the only
public institutions sacred from the searching eye of Parlia-
ment—to say that with them infallibility and impeccability
had at last taken a final refuge ? When all corporations
throughout the country, ecclesiastical as well as lay, had been
inquired into by Commissioners appointed by the Crown, were
these two- Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to be guarded
from the scrutiny of inquiry, because they declared themselves
to be so immaculate and well-conducted as to have no dread
whatever of any inquiry, however minute and searching ? a
confidence consistently exemplified by their locking up, under
three locks and three keys, each kept by a dignitary of the in-
stitution, all the charters, fundamental laws, and by-laws
whatever, under which they claimed to have conducted their
affairs; thus securely baffling investigation; while they covered
the table of the House with petitions breathing no-
thing but indignant defiance, and challenging inquiry.—
( Hear, hear.) Such were the inconsistencies of these peti-
tioners. The passing this Bill would not only benefit the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but that it would be
of material and decided advantage to their Lordships them.
selves. Their fellow-countrymen won't! consider that their
Lordships acted wisely and judiciously in so doing, and would,
he knew well, look on their Lordships as public benefactors
for their readiness to comply with the general wish ; and if
it should happen, in any future time, by any means whatever—
whether right or wrong—that their Lordship should lose that
high favour with the people which they ought to receive, lie
felt confident that the passing of the Bill would tend to re-
store the former feeling.
The Bishop of LL AND A FF explained.
Lord ABINGER said that there was nothing more than
the statement of the Noble Lord himself to call for the pas.,ing
of the Bill. The Noble Lord had spoken particularly against
the government of Trinity College, Cambridge. If any just
grounds of complaint existed why did not some petition ema-
nate from some of the Fellows, of whom there were not
less than 68 on the foundation ? If the funds were improperly
administered why had not some application been made to the
Visitor ; or, if that had failed, why had not an appeal been
preferred to the King in Council ? Nothing of all this had
been done, for it was obvious that such a proceeding was un-
necessary. There weae in truth no grounds for the Bill but
such as existed in the brilliant imaginings of the Noble Lord.
There alone could any grievances be found. He should cer-
tainly vote in support of the amendment.
Lord WYNFORD opposed the Bill.
The Earl of R A DNOR replied, and in the course of his
remarks expressed his willingness to hear evidence given at
the bar, in order to satisfy the House that a Committee of in-
quiry ought to be appointed.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that there was already
a motion before the House, and it would be better to deter-
mine on it first.

The Earl of RADNOR said that he had made the pro-
posal in order to meet what he considered was the expressed
wish of the Noble Duke.

The Duke of WELLINGTON bad already stated his
opinion that there were no grounds for appointing a Commis-
sion.—( Hear, bear.) He had also declared that if abuses did
exist there were legal modes of inquiry into their existence
and their extent, as well as of applying an effectual remedy.
The Earl of RADNOR having concluded his reply, the
amendment was carried without a division, and the Bill in con-
sequence was lost.

The House then adjourned at Twelve o'Clock until Thurs