The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-05 00:00:00

'sul,ject bad been already under the coosidtration of Parlia-
merit. Tv.-0- 3-t:lrs ago the ctrraments respecting OH
oaths in the Universities had been fully consickre4,
itite House had come to this decision---" Tin't (her had
such confidence in the heads of the Universities of Ox-
ford and Cambridge that tily would refer to them the
propriety of substituting declarations for ootha in nth
particular eases, and in such particular Colleges, as
they might deem proper." fleets the House had ex-
pressed their full confidence in those learned bodies
alter the present state of the statutes as mi-6111; he ex-
rcdient. But he could not see bow this substitution of
n declaration could put an end to the difficulties. In his
opinion, a solemn declaration was as‘binding on an hontst
man as any oath could be—(Hear, hear)--and as great a
moral guilt was incurred by infringing the terms of that ae-
cLaatiomr.s tlier-i could from acting in contravrmtion of the
oath. It eould not be denied that many of the Statutes
had fallen into desuetude. and in considering the subject,
he was ready to admit that many of them had been in a
measure departed from. But he thought that in discussing
the necessity of strictly observing these Statutes the inten-
tion ci the founder should always be borne in mind. He
the ught himself bound to observe all the Statutes bearing
directly on these objects of the founder of his Collego ; but
xi hen certain portions of Aristotle and other authors were
enjoined, which 'were of na particular utility, he thought
himself at perfect liberty to neglect them. The Hon. Mem-
ber had objected to the number of oaths which Members

of the University were required to take.. One of them. for

- instance, required that Masters of Arts should preach once
• in five Years at St. Paul's Cross. But, though that Statute
might be binding on resident Masters, the Hon. Member
would scarcely assert that it ought to be binding on those
-who were living away, and no longer intimately connected
with the University. Titus it would be. found in other in-
stances. Another reason brought forward for the inquiry
was the limited nature of some of the Fellowships. But
nothing, in his opinion, was more natural than that the
founders should restrict their bounties, for such were Fellow-
ships, to certain districts, nay, to certain families, if they
thought fit. There was no necessity for Commissioners to
go down to regulate this point, for the Colleges were in ge-
neral open to all, and these restrictions were the excep-
tions, and occurred but rarely. With respect to the
objections made to the system of private tutors, he con-
sidered it a much more serious matter than some of the
other charges which had been brought forward. He de-
sired to notice it particularly, as it affected the general
character of the College to which he belonged. His
Right Hon. Friend opposite had termed the system an
abuse, and bad inveighed against the expense which the
student was obliged to incur. The Right Hen. Gentle-
man's objection went the length of placing a powerful re-
striction on the exertions of any young man of property
who was desirous of employing his time in the diligent
acquirement of knowledge. The objection really said,
" You have wealth at your disposal, and with it you ought
(be enabled to obtain assistance in gaining information ;
lttyou must be kept down to the level of the poor, and
you must be limited in your yearnings after knowledge."
Surely this was a most singular proceeding. A wealthy
aspirant after science is not to obtain for his money as-
sistance in prosecuting his studies, because the present
system is said to be wrong. He could speak feelingly
on the subject, and, as a father, lie could declare, that
lie should deem it a great hardship that his son should
remain during the long vacation without assistance, if he
required it.
Mr. PRYME—I never said a word against such assistance.
Mr. GOULBURN—I can appeal to the House if the
Hon. Member did not deem the private tutors an abuse.—
(" No, no," from Mr. Pryme)—and as giving the rich an
advantage over the poor.-,—(No.) He presumed, from the
denial of the Hon. Gentleman, that he did not mean to
say what he had attributed to him ; but on his next point
be was convinced that no denial could be made, for he had
taken the Hon. Member's words down. He said, " that
still private tutors were necessary, inasmuch as the public
lecturers were so abstruse in their expositions as to render
their lectures•of little use." That such was the case he
could not allow. The public lecturers were not so abstruse
as the Hon. Gentleman desired it to be considered. In
Trinity, the College to which he belonged, he could take
on himself to declare that the tutors were ready, both in
public and private, to explain and elucidate any branch
that the students might desire.—(Hear) Religious instruc-
tion would bo found to be given regularly at the Uni-
versity. If any person would take the trouble of examining
the printed papers of the periodical examinations held last
year, he would find that all the fundamental doctrines of
the Protestant reliee'loO were sedulously inculcated and in-
sisted on. It was because the creed of the Dissenters was
likely to come in opposition to these principles, and injure
them, that opposition was made to the entrance of Dis-
senters into the University. He had the utmost respect
for his Dissenting brethren, and in private life be was on
the best terms with them ; but for the reason above as-
signed he was opposed to their admission into all the privi-
leges of the University. In conclusion lie had to reiterate
his former declaration, that there existed every disposition
on the part of the Universities to avoid any evils which time
might have allowed to enter into their establishments ; for
they were well convinced that by such conduct they could
best lay claim to the respect of the country and the public.
Mr. PRYME replied briefly, and expressed his willing-
ness to withdraw the motion.
After a few words from Mr. ESTCOURT, in defence
of the University system, the motion was withdrawn.
FIRST FRUITS.

Mr. BAINES rose, in• pursuance to notice, to make his
motion with respect to the first fruits. The ground on
which he rested that motion was, that at present those
funds were grossly misapplied, and he hoped to be able to
show that a reform, and an important reform too, was called
for in their administration. The first fruits were as ancient
as tithes. He did not wish to weary the House by unne-
cessary details ; but he held in his hand the directions given
by Henry VIII. for the purpose of ascertaining the amount
of first fruits and tenths ; and at that period, as he had al-
ready stated, the sum amounted to the full value of all the
livings. So that, supposing a Bishop to enjoy a living of
1,030/. a-year, it was necessary that he should pay to the
First Fruits Office the full amount of that sum for the
tirst year, and for every succeeding year one-tenth of it.
In this state the law continued until the time of Philip
and Mary, when the Act of Henry the Eighth was re-
pealed ; but the very first Act of Elizabeth was to re-enact
the law ; and with so much strictness that the full amount
of the livings under the valuation of Henry the Eighth
continued to be collected and paid during the whole of
her r,2ign, and down to the time of Queen Anne. In the
rein of the last named Sovereign a statute was passed
NV 11101 would be remembered lung in this country, and which
entitled the name of A:'ne to great veneration and respect
—he meant the statute known generally under the name of
Queen Anne's Bounty, by virtue of which the first fruits,
taeretafore applied to the uses of the State, were trans-
ferred to the support of the poorer clergy. How far the
o-oligations imposed by that Act had been discharged he
should prove to the House, by reading a very short state-
ment, the object of which was to show that, instead of the
first fruits and tenths being applied, as was originally in-
tended, to the full amount of the livings, they had been
applied only in such a manner as to leave the poorer clergy
of the country in a state of the most deplorable destitu-
tion ; and it was the oijeet of the motion with which ke
should conclude, to endeavour to place the poorer clergy
upon such a footing as should enable them to enjoy the
full benefit that the statute of Anne intended them to en-
joy. lie found that the Archbishops and Bishops, instead
of paying the full- amount of the first fruits and tenths,
paid now only in this, proportion—the Archbishop of Can-
terbury, whose revenue, as stated by the Report of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed to inquire into the
revenues of the Church, amounted to 19,1821. ; but, in-
stead of pad ink.; the whole of' the sums for the first year to
the Board of First Fruits, the Archbishop of Canterbury
paid only 2,682/. ; -the Archbishop of York, instead of
payng 12,6201, paid only 1,4191. ; the Bishop of Carlisle,
iiistead of 2,2 I 31., paid only 4781.; the Bishop of Chiches-
ter, instead of 4,2291., paid only 6091, ; the Bishop of
Exeter, instead of '2,7131., paid only 4501. ; the Bishop of
Hereford, instead of 2,5161., paid only 6911. ; the Bishop
cif Lichfield and Coventry, instead of 3,923/., paid only
5031. ; the Bishop of Llancialf, instead of 924/., paid cnly
1391. ; the Bishop of Norwich, instead of 5,3951., - paid
only 884/. ; the Bishop of Winchester, instead of 11,15 11.,
paid only 2,874 ; the Bishop of Ely, instead of 11,105/,
paid only 1,9211. ; the Bishop of London, instead of
13,9291., paid only 9001. ; the Bishop of Durham, instead
oM 19,066/., paid only 1,6231. These were the first yearly
payments made by the Bishops after entering upon their
sees. payments which, according to the Act of Henry
ought, for the first year, to have been equal to the
full amount of their livings ; and for every successive year
equal to one-tenth. But they had failed to pay either the
full amount of their first fruits or of the tenths ; for, in-
stead of contributing for the latter a tenth of the MI amount
of their incomes, they paid only a tenth of the diminu•
live sums he bad mentioned. So that the poor clergy, of
whose interests the Bishops should be the guardians, were,
by these very Bishops, deprived of a great portion of the
funds which ought to be applied to their support. He
would quote the real value of ten livings in the diocese
of Chester, together with the sums paid by them to the
B )ard of First Fruits :

- Real value. Sums paid.
Middleton Rectory £lO7O £36 3 11
•Aldingham 1092 39 9 2
Prestr ick
Ashton-under-Line
Lan !aster
Rochdale
' Standish
Wigan 2230 80 10 8
Warrick 3616 102. @ 9
Manchester 4025 53 6 8