The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-13 00:00:00

STRICTURE OF THE URETHRA.

Just published, price ls., by post free, 4d. in addition,
AFEW WORDS on PERINEAL SECTION,
as recommended by Professor Syme, for the Cure of stricture
of the Urethra, and on Mr. Wade's recent Remarks thereon.
By F. B. COURTENAY,
Published by 11. Bailliere, 215, Resent-street.
Also lately, by the same Author, price 55.,

The PATHOLOGY and RATIONAL TREATMENT of STRIO.
TIME of tho URETHRA. With important observations on the IJse
and Abuse of Instruments.

Ctitrb Mbttton

DULWICH COLLEGE INQUIRY.

DOCTORS' COMMONS-THIS DAY
This morning, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Visitor, es officio, of Dulwich College, and Mr. Justice
Patteson, and Sir John Dodson, his Grace's Assessors,
continued the inquiry, begun yesterday, into certain al-
leged grievances in the management of the College, and
especially with respect to the education of the poor
scholars.

The inquiry was commenced at the instance of Mr.
Luke Embleton and Mr. Downs, the two senior wardens
of the parish church of St. Saviour's, Southwark, being
two of the Assistants of Dulwich College, appointed
under the statutes and ordinances of Mr. Edward
Alleyne, the founder ; and their objecl was to remedy
certain abuses which, in the couree of time, had crept
into the management and distribution of the revenues of
the charity.
Mr. ROLT (with whom was Mr. J. Palmer) addressed the
court yesterday. on behalf of the two senior wardens of
St. Saviour's. He stated that the charter of the Col-
lege was granted by James 1., and was dated on the 21 st
01 June, 1619. License was thereby granted to Mr.
Edward Alleyne, his heirs, executors, &e., to found for
the reliet and maintenance of poor men, women, and
children, a college at Dulwich—to consist of one mas-
ter, one warden, four fellows, six poor brethren, six
poor sisters, and twelve poor scholars, and according to
such statutes as should be ordained by Mr. Alleyne
himself in his lifetime, or by other persons after his
death. The college was directed to be named " the
College of God's gift in Dulwich," and the usual
powers of a corporation were conferred upon it. The
deed of foundation was executed on the 13th of Sep-
tember, 1619, and was a mere echo of the charter. That
was followed by a conveyance of the lands on
the 24th of April, 1620. The most important
statutes, however, were those which related to
the education of the twelve pour scholars. It appeared
from the statutes themselves that Mr. Alleyne con-
templated the revenues then to amount to 8001. per an-
num. He gave specifically to several objects connected
with the college about 6001. per annum. By the statutes
he appointed six persons to be junior fellows, and six as-
sistants, and added thirty poor persons not named in the
charter, to whom he allotted diet, pensions, or allowances
of some kind or other. That appointment had given rise
to a great deal of the difficulty in administering the
affairs of the college. At first there was a surplus of
2001. per annum, but it now amounted to many thou-
sands a year. At the audit on the 4th of March 1001.
was to be allowed to remain in the chest of the treasurer,
and alter the payments for repairs, legal expenses, the
preferment of scholars in learning, &c., the residue was
to be divided into 600 parts, which he allotted for diet
among the persons whom he deemed entitled to share in
his bounty. On casting up the respective shares they
amounted to 601. In 1664, Archbishop Shelden issued
an order that in all business transactions not duly pro-
vided for by the founder the master or warden should be
of the majority. By that order the inception of all
business was devolved on the master or warden.
A suit in Chancery was instituted in 1724, and Lord
King held that the founder had power to appoint as-
sistants, though he had not power to add to the
college. That decree had been acted upon up to the
present time. In 1836 the Charity Commissioners, in
the exercise of their functions, visited Dulwich College,
and made a special report upon it. An information was
then filed by the Attorney-General in his own name,
without any relator; the cause went through its regular
stages,' and was disposed of in 1841, by the Master of
the Rolls. it was considered by the college that the
judgment delivered by Lord Langdale settled every
question with respect to the poor scholars. He (Mr.
Roll) contended that that judgment determined two
things—first, that there was no trust for the thirty
poor members or for any general charitable object;
and, secondly, that everything connected with the in-
ternal regulation of the college, and the due distribu-
tion and management of the revenues, remained for the
decision of the visitor. If he were to ask his Grace to
declare that there was a trust for these thirty members,
that judgment might stand in his way, but be merely
asked his Grace to take care that the management
should be such as had been pointed out by the founder;
and he maintained that the founder had negatived the
enjoyment, by the warden and fellows, of the shares
which were (indisposed of in consequence of the illegal
appointment of the thirty poor members.
Mr. TURNER, this morning, resumed the address
begun yesterday, on behalf of the Master and Wardens
of the College. He contended that the question for the
consideration of the Court was how far the intention of
the founder of the college was that there should be a
grammar school, and whether that intention could be
carried out to the advantage of the boys that were edu-
chted in that school, or whether it was not better that
those boys should be brought up in the way to which
the present process of education in the school introducedemin a
them, rather than with the view of placing them
superior school. He called upon the Court to consider
the position in life of the parents of those boys, and the
t h
attainem
situations in life to which those boys mightmriagihset
selt as through the instrumentalioht)itotratLaeinarnepsd:urceanttisiatahtatthiet
those natural feelings of
might
ig h Universities.
position
ao
prejudice i Tg hh
oo
rsaeh bvoey st,
weakenhbayt t
respect which the boys ought to have towards their pa-
rents. Another question was, what had become of the
fund not specifically provided for by the founder? It ai.-
peared the founder, in the disposition of a sum of 600/.,
had made dispositions for the benefit of persons whom to
could not introduce into the foundation. He (Mr.
Turner) contended they were not dealing with a ques-
tion of trust, but with a surplus fund, in the members of
tLe corporation; and he apprehended that on the same
principle on which the Court of Chancery, in cases of
trust, dealt with a surplus income belonging to a tes-
tator his Grace the Visitor would be considered as
having full authority to deal with that which bad not been
specifically disposed of or appropriated by the founders,
and that that question lay within the discretion of
his Grace the Visitor. How had those funds been ap.
plied for the benefit of the boys? He believed it would
be found in truth there had not been anything
like the undue appropriation as against the boys, which