The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-10 00:00:00

~ 5S

Majority
The amendment was therefore negatived.
Mr. WIGRAM moved, after the word " following," to
insert the N 1 ords "due regard being always had to the main
designs of the founder or donor." The principle he wished
to introduce was perfectly clear. Parliament, although it
had the power, had no moral right to interfere with the in-
tentions of the founders. That was the principle recognised
in the Courts of Equity, and Parliament ought to follow it.
fte this principle was one of great importance he hoped her
Majesty's Government would give it due consideration.
Mr. BOUVERIE admitted that the question was one
of great importance, but he thought the efficiency of
the clause could only be maintained by allcwing it to
stand without the amendment of the hon. and learned
gentleman, The main design of the foundation of Queen's
College, for example, was to pray for the souls of the
fouuoers, but a change in the religion of the country ren-
dered that design impassible to be carried out. There were
other foundations in which there were similar designs which
could not be carried out. Take King's College for ex-
ample. That was ono of the gravest of the abuses of the
University of Cambridge. For what could be worse than
that great foundation, with revenues amounting annually
to 26,000/. a-year, should turn out, as it had done, only
three bachelors of arts a year. The object of the founder
of King's College was, amongst other things, the extirpa-
tion of heresies. Now, what were the heresies they had to
extirpate? The members had to swear that they would
not consent to any alteration in the statutes, and those
statutes pros-id, d that they would do their best to oppose
the spread of John Wycliffe, and of Regina' Peacock,
Bishop of Chichester. which were now tho doctrines of the
Church of England. (Hear.) Such were the main designs
of two of the colleges. and it ;was now too late to say that
the main designs cf the founders must be insisted on. It
must necessarily come to pass that the objects of the foun-
ders would become useless and mischievous, and in such
cases those who wished to improve them had nothing to
guide them but public utility. Unless the designs of foun-
ders were interfered with in that spirit, they could not be
interfered with at all ; and if the amendment of the hon.
and learned gentleman were adopted, the main points of
the bill would be lost sight of. Indeed, one of the objects
of the amendment would be to restrict the colleges as tb
now acted, for it was very well known that though co
statutes were in existence, the colleges did not in all case
maintain them. (Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE thought the expressions of the right
hon. gentleman were somewhat strained. If it were
true that the amendment would restrain the colleges them-
selves, it would have proved true in the case of Oxford, but
that was not the case • and no complaints, that ho was
aware of, had been made. The right hon. gentleman must
remember that the endowments of the university were as
much the property of the university as the property of an
individual belonged to him ; and the rights of property
would be interfered with if the endowments of the univer-
sity were in any way touched upon. It was said that pub-
lic advantage demanded that an alteration should bo made,
but who was to be the judge of the manner in which the
alterations should be made—the colleges or the commis-
sioners ?
Mr. BOUVERIE—Both.
Mr. WALPOLE held that that was an entirely new
principle, and that the whole power should rest with the
colleges to whom the property belonged, with the sanction
of the visitors. It such power was given to the commis-
sioners, it would be a greater power than was ever con-
ferred before upon persons under such circumstances. The
right hon. gentleman had cited one or two cases of abuse,
such as praying for the souls of the founders, and in those
cases he was acting upon the exceptions where he ought to
apply the rule. In that case, praying for the souls of the
founders was one of the designs, but certainly not the main
design, as praying for the souls of the founders was now
impossible, and the right hon. gentleman need be under no
apprehension on the point. He complained that, by the
clause as it originally stood, the house would be delegating
the power to alter the trust on which the property was
given, which would prove fatal to charity and benevolence.
He entreated the house to have a respect for those trusts
for which people had given their money. If they aban-
doned that principle they would strike • a heavy blow at
the charitable intentions of founders and benefactors in
cuture.

-16

Mr. HEYWOOD opposed the amendment. As to pre•
venting persons giving donations to such institutions, he
thought it would be a very useful occupation for the Legis-
lature to see how it could prevent people from giving those
donations, which were generally a loss to the donors' families,
and were in most cases made out of vanity in order that
the donors might see their names printed in gold letters,
(Laughter.)
Mr. WHITESIDE contended that if a person left
money to a university or a college for the purpose of teach-
ing youth in the principles of Christianity, that trust
ought to be observed with respect. The university had
many valuable endowments, and he could not understand
that they owed their existence to vain and silly men. All
he could say was, that he hoped the number of such men
would be rapidly increased.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE defended the importance of
the university trusts, which, in the words of Chancellor
Kent, he held to be the most meritorious that could be
entrusted to man. He deprecated auy attempt ruthlessly
to tear them to pieces.
Mr. CHAMBERS confessed to some difficulty in under-
standing the object of the proposed amendment. If the
clause were agreed to it would be impossible to carry out
the provisions and wishes of the founders.
Lord PALMHRSTON said that nothing could be fur-
ther from the objects or effects of the clausa than those re-
ferred to by the hon. member, and the amendment, if
agreed to, would really defeat the purposes and great uses
of the educatiostal establishments at Cambridge.

Mr. WALPOLE contended there were no words in the
clause which would give to the commissioners power to
carry out the very objects for which the institutions at
Cambridge were founded, viz., the diffusion of sound
learning and the promotion of Christian knowledge.
Dr. J. PHILLIMORE denied the value of the test,
which had been sought to be drawn from the fact that
but four of the Westmir ster scholars had obtained follow-
ships. As the amendment was in effect the same as that
introduced into the Oxford University Bill, he should
give it his cordial support.
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment, on the
ground that it would tend to carry out the main object of
the founders, leaving the minor details to be dealt with
by the commissioners.
Mr. FORTESCUE entertained an objection to the in.
F,ertion of the words, on the ground that different mean-
ings might bo attached to them, according to the opinions
or feelings of the persons who might have to carry out the
provisions of the bill, and would in all probability seriously
affect the working of the meamre.
After a few words from Mr. WIGAN, the committee
divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment .................. . ...... 78
Against it...
...... ..................
Majority against the amendment ... —l9
Mr. HEY WOOD proposed tho insertion of the ward 43
" headship" in the clause, in order that the headship
might be considered as placed on the same footing as fel*
lowship.
Mr. BOUVERTE did not consider the amendmeo
would aid in rendering the bill more effective.
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment 4l
Against it 145
M,,j 'ray
Mr. HEYWOOD then moved a further amendment,
having for its object the introduction of modern studies
and practical science into the regular course of study. .0
had been proposed in Magdalen college that one-fifth of the
fellowships should be set apart for modern studies ; his
amendment tended to the same end.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that the object was a good one,
but the question was, how it was to be carried out. The
colleges could carry out the principle by the present pro•
visions of the bill.
The committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it ........................................ 111 t;
Majority against the amendment
' Mr. HEY WOOD moved the addition of A grub-meet