The Sun.
London, England, 1821-04-09 00:00:00

jut Collogii quantum in to est illasa obterrahls, etidem que Sta-
tuta fideliter exequeris vel exequi proeurabis sicut to Deus ad-
juvet et sancta ejus Evangelia gum facto senior socius librum
statutorum clavesque cistarum • gum ad oflicium Presidentis
pertinere noscuntur illico tradere non.pottponat." And it has
been contended, that if the Book of the Statutes (there being,
however, great controversy on what is meant by the term
Book of the Statutes), arid the keys ofthethest are delivered to
the person who takes this oath—he' thereby is the admitted
President. In order to sustain that argument, it was necessary
'to lay the foundation of it in the fact, that the Book of the Sta-
tutes here meant, that is the proper book of the Statutes, and
the keys of the chest were delivered to Doctor Godfrey, the
words I have already read, and ' librum Statutorum (laves-
que cistarum qute ad officium Praesidentis pertinere noscuntur."
The words " praesidentis pertinere noseuntur" have been con-
tended on the one band to relate only to the clavisque eistaruen.
They were contended; on the other hand, by Mr. Shadwell,
quoting his Classics, to relate to the Libruni Statutorum, as
well as the clavesque cistarum, though the word.was que; and
I take it to be clear from the Statutes, that there is a Book of
the Statutes, and there are keys of the chests, both of which, in
a peculiar and strict sense, belong to the Master of the College;
and I take it to be equally clear, that that Book, which, in the
strict and peculiar sense, belongs to the Master of the College,
was not delivered at that time to DOetor Godfrey. There is no
blame upon any body—the
.phrase undoubtedly for the Sta-
tute, as to the manner of keeping the books, does not appear to
have been very diligently and very accurately observed in this
College, and very little blame is, I think, to be applied to this
College in that respect; for lam afraid that observation might
be extended to many others, if one wished to express it,—but it
appears to me there is one Statute Book to be kept in the Com-
bination-room, as you call it, at Cambridge, the substitution for
our Oxford Common Room. I should be very sorry, however,
to put this case upon a circumstance of that kind—l do not
think it ought to be put upon a circumstance of that kind; Doc-
tor Godfrey being present at the Election, took this oath at
the time.

I should now mention that the Election was made upon a
Saturday ; the Fellows are bound by tile Statute to elect within
eight days, or upon the Oth day. Sunday being the tith day the
Election was made on tli Saturday. In the affidavits which I
have very carefully looked at, Mere is a great deal of difference
of representation as to what actually passed about Doctor
Godfrey's taking the oath then, and not taking the oath then,—
whether it was on his part a voluntary act, cr whether it was an
act that some of the Fellows insisted upon,—whether it was an
act dist some of them insisted upon, arid some of them did not
like at that time. Ukonshe whole, however, it rather seems to
me upon the effect of the affidavits, taken together that Doctor
Godfrey completed the taking the oath at the time which was,
he thought, the general wish of those in whose presence he was
at that time. Mr. Hubbersty appears to have pointed out a
way of proceeding which I Ethinie it would have been infinitbly
more 'prudent to have atioptdd, but the fact is, the oath was taken
at that time,and if the oath was taken at that time, then the next
question arises,was the taking of that oath within the meaning of
these Statutes, the admission of Doctor Godfrey ? If it was
the admission of Doctor Godfrey, then arises this question. Did
Doctor Godfrey, or did he not, within the meaning of the
statute of Charles IL make the declaration, which, as a Master
of a College, he was bound to make in the words of that
Statute before or at his admission, for that Statute has the
word admission, I think, before or at his admission to be in-
cumbent, or to have possession of his Fellowship ? the words
of the Statute being with respect to future cases, that he shall,
at, or before his admission to be incumbent, or have posses-
sion, subscribe the declaration, or acknowledgement following.
Before he took the oath, and received the book and keys, it is
clear he has not subscribed the declaration. A good deal of
argument in this case has been employed to'prove and to dis-
prove the assertion, that he subscribed this at his admission,
within the intent and meaning of the Statute, if you take his
taking the oath, and receiving the book and keyS. to be his ad-
mission and it is further-to be remarked, that Doctor God-
frey did not only take the oath,. but that lie had also gone to.
the Master's Lodge, and done acts there which have been con-
tended to be acts possessory, if I may. so express myself, of the
office of Master, but that he likewise was introduced into the
arm chair in the hall, where he presided as Master, and that
in the course of the Sunday, if he was not complete Master, he
was acting as complete Master; and it has been argued, that
therefore -he is to be considered to be complete Master, in
consequence of having taken this oath, and done all these acts.
Then the question arises, what is.the meaning of the words,
" at or before his or their respective admission to be incum-
bent, or have possession aforesaid ?"- That it can -be made be-
fore, is quite clear; that it can be made after, in certain senses
of the word after, is likewise quite clear ; andyet,lliat it can-
not mean in any cases which may be put what is contempora-
neous or simultaneous, appears to me likewise to be quite-clear ;
but although I have been put in possession of a fact,which, in-
deed, I had no doubt, that a Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge
mast always have some person who answers the character of
his deputy; whether it is what we call Pro Vice-Chancellor,
or under whatever other name, but some person who sustains
his
~character within the true intent of these Statutes; vet it
is quite clear, that if a person has not subscribed this declara-
tion before his admission, if he is admitted,"-and neither- the
Vice-Chancellor nor his Deputy is present, he cannot possibly
subscribe at his election in the sense I mean of simultaneous
or contemporaneous and then the question would be, if he
was admitted adeo instanter,' went to the Vice-Chancellor of
his Deputy and subscribed die declaration, whether that would
be within the fair meaning of the word as a subscribing at his
admission; the word sometimes being to be interpreted up-
on tile occasion of.

But then it has been contended, that if the word admits of
that construction, it was the- bounden duty of Doctor Godfrey
to have acted upon the advice he received, and so to have acted
whether he received' that advice or not, because he must be
taken to be cognizant of a Statute of the land; and here we are
bound in the character of Visitor, as much by the Statute of
the land as a Judge would be, that it was his duty to have re-
sorted to the Vice-Chancellor, on the Sunday, to have found
him or his Deputy on that day to have subscribed that decla-
ration ; .and here, unless my information misleads me much; I
understand, that there are an infinite number of acts done in
the University of Cambridge on a Sunday ; that this is one of
such Acts as has been frequently, and repeatedly, and con-
stantly done on the Sunday. I have not been able to learn
that they so proceed in the other University. The question,
however, if it were to turn upon this, would be, not what may
be done upon a Sunday, but what must be done upon a
Sunday; not what is permissive, but what is obligatory ; and
undoubtedly, if the question is not to be considered as pre-
judiced, by what one might call a very general usage, I should
think it would be a more wholesome thing to say that this act
ought not to be done on a Sunday, than that it was necessarily
to be done on a Sunday. But that is not the view I take fin-
ally of this question ; and therefore, I desire to have it under-
stood, as left open to the different Colleges in the University
of Cambridge, to proceed as they think fit with respect to
future Elections in relation to this practice, as obtaining in
the University, for I give no opinion upon it; if I were driven
to give an opinion upon it, I have formed an opinion upon it,
but it is not necessary in my view of the case ; a view which I
shall take of the case presently, and which I will fully explain
to you ; and if there is any thing of such novelty, or any thing
so unsatisfactory, after what we have already heard in this case
as to make it desirable, I shall not have the least objection to
hear any further observation from one Counsel on a side, with
reference to the point I am now about to state; for I apprehend,
after-all, the true point here is, what is in point of construction
of the Statutes, the Act which is to be called the admisffion of
Doctor Godfrey. "f ow, Heave no-doubt at all, with re'spect to
the Fellows; I can have no doubt, that no Fellow is admitted
until the President pronounces these words, admitto to sociurn,
So and so. The word admittere, found in a Statute in Queen
Elizabeth's reign, must be like the word admittere found at
any other time. Then a construction must. be put upon it re-
cording to the practice which has prevailed, the usage ising
out of the Statute or the Law,
is
it may he, which has
directed the admission.
.There is nothing in these Statutes
with respect to the Fellows, not one single word in theiii which
presotibes any such ceremony, except the word admittere ; and
therefore, when it has been contended before me, as it has been
contended•very ably before the, that the Statutes do not require
any ceremonies of this kind, I say, that is a fallacy', provided
the word admittere itself requires those ceremonies to be gone
through. If to admit a man according to these Statutes, requires
he should be told by authority. that he is admitted, then the
construttien put upon the word is, that which does require the
ceremony, though the author of the tatute has not gone on him-
self to say precisely and exactly what it was he meant by the
word admittere; and this appears to me to be an answer to
what has been stated in a.communication to me from Cam-
bridge, for which communication I aln very much obliged ; for
it was very respectfully stated, that the head of a College did
not think fit to go down upon his knees to the Senior Fellow
of the College, upon the ground that a person of higher rank
"was not to have that ceremony performed by a person of lower
rank. In the first place, I doubt the soundness of thatebe-
cause, until he is admitted, -quere, whether he iS Of higher rank ;
and in the next, place, if the Statutes regulating the relations
of those persons-, require that to be gone through, the. Statutes
• are arranswer to all that, arising from the punctilio, that you
do not like to do that before a person of lower rank, which a
person of lower rank must do before you; there may be more
or less of ceremony to be used, according to the usages of a par-
ticular College, but if the word admittere requires any thing to
be done, then, until that thing is done, which the word admit-
tere requires; I say the admission is not made.
Then you come to this ; this is so as to the fellows, tins is so
as to•the scholars, though there is no word as to either• of them
except the adraittantur, and the practice which has arisen under
them ; then what is t a practice as to the Masser. Now there we

are certainly left very deficient with respect to evidence, I must
admit, for as to the affidavits that go to the Election of Doctor
Milner, .it appears to inc there is a total failure of memory of
what passed there, except that it does appear that Doctor
Milrier was taken from the altar to his seat, and placed in his
seat by the senior fellow of the day ; what passed, whether any
words were used upon that occasion or net, the affidavits - are
silent, and the other liffidavits that relate to Doctor 31ilfier's
Election ; those that ido not speak of the circumstance of his
being carried to4ris cl*t. arc affidavit, that amount to nothing
more than that-the parties do not recollect what did pass ; 1
think almost every one of them, as far as I have examined '
them, has' that remarkable paper which is to be found in the
affidavit of Mr. tharhani, -and which appears in a sense certainly
to have been sanctioned by Dr. Plumtree ; but before I read
that, I would take the liberty to say, that upon looking into
ancient instruments, instruments of aboat that period, and
, which have.obtained ever since, if you will look at the book I .
• referted to-the other dey, I mean Gibson's Codex, which con-
, tains all about the admission of Bishops, all about the admis-
sion of Deans, all about the admission of Prebendaries, and so
on, you will find what is the legal construction of the word
adirettere in doetnnenta of this kind ; and I do not find that the
Bishop scruples about being admitted by his inferior in rank,
or that the Dean scruples being admitted by his inferior in
rank, or that the Prebendary makes any scniple of being ad-
mitted by his inferior in rank, but they all have a form, and so
it is where a Clergyman is to be instituted, the Law requires the
Bishop to admit him by an Act distinct from institution and
induction. But making that general observation upon these
instrurneats to which fwould refer, and connecting that with
the fact, that under the word admittere, both with respect to
the Fellows and the Scholars, the word admittere must mean
something more than the pronunciare electum ; anti that, al-
though there is a Juramentum of the Abater, with a delivery
of tire keys, yet the construction of the word admittere, with
respect to the Master and the Scholars, is a construction .that
cannot be satisfied by the delivery of any symbols of that kind.
Connecting all these together; then I refer you to this affidavit
of Mr. Gorham, in which he speaks to the fact of his being
" admitted to his Fellowship by the. very Reverend Isaac.
Milner, then President of the said College' the depo-
nent kneeling before him, and the said president pro-
nouncing the. words, " Ego, Isaacus Milner, intros hujus
Collegii adinitto te in sociam perpetuum
nomine • patris, et F ihii, et Spiritus Sancti." Now 1 may be
wrong here, but I apprehend that Mr. Gorham was no Fellow
till Doctor Milner had pronounced those words, " although as
this Deponent believes and has no doubt no such form of admis-
sion is to be found prescribed in the Statutes of the College." I
agree with him there, no form of admission is prescribed in the
Statutes ; but if admission is expressed in the Statutes, admission
must be made in some form as admission. •
Then the question is, looking to the form which is in use in
this College, and the form which Lain use in
.other bodies of the
same nature, sueh as I have been referring you to, whether the word
which requires admission being there, does not require the usual
forms to be observed in order to complete the admission, as one
among the number of its laudabiles consuetudines. Now I do
not undertake to say whether that is right reasoning or not,—
whether this is to :be considered a laudabiles cousuetudo, as dis-
tinguished front the Statutes, for I conceive 1 am wrong if I am
not right -in saying, that when the Statutes require admission
they require the party to do something, and then the question
, is, what is required, " and is, as this Deponent verily believes,
invariably used on the admission of, and as the established re-
gular form of admitting each and every newly elected Fellow of
the said College, and that a similar form is in use on the admis-
sion of every scholar thereof, though not mentioned in the said
Statutes." There again we are at a little variance, because, for
the reason 1. have given, I think it is in substance mentioned in
the Statute, " and this Deponent further saith that a book con-
taining a copy of the Statutes, of .the said Statutes which book
belonged to the late Rev. Thomas Thwaites, Clerk, formerly a
Fellow of the said College, lies, since the death of the Deponent,
said Thomas Thwaites, come to the hands of this Deponent,
and is now in his possession, and belongs o him, having been
given to the Deponent by the Reverend Charles iarisln: Clerk, '
one of the five Senior Fellows of the said College; that in such
in
book this Deponent found Written one of the blank leaves
thereof, and; as he has no doubt, in the hand writing of the said
Reverend Thomas Thwaites, a memorandum. entituled forms
attending the election." Here is the original memorandum— •
" Forms attending the- election of the Master, not mentioned in
the Statutes, are us follow :—The books and kers being deliver-
ed, the Senior Fellow introduces him into his seat, in Chapel,-
he then must go and subscribe before the Vice-Chancellor for
the time being, anti after that the Senior Fellow must admi-
nister to him the oath of allegiance, &c., which see in the Mas- '
ter's book ;" and the words, the-Master's books appear to me to
be of some consequence, when connected with the Statute, which
clearly shows that there wee. a book, that is in a peculiar sense
the Master's hook ; " and also the subscriptions then to be made
%before the Senior Fellow"--you will find how that is to be pre-
sently—." who lastly admits
.him in the following form, the
Master kneeling :—ln nomine Dei Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,
Ego, Senior Socius, hujus Collegii admitto te in Presidentem
hujus Collegii." Then lie says lie must, on some Sunday, read
the morning service ; for this appeara to be a collection o'f all lie
is bound to do, both under the Statutes and the general law of
the land. He must on sonic Sunday read the morning service
before the majority of Fellows and Scholars, and so on. There is
something again that would explain the consuetudines; he says
" that thus memorandum was some time since taken out of the
copy of the Statutes by this Deponent, and is now produced to
him at the swearing this his affidavit; and he says, that the note
at the foot thereof, in the hand writing of this Deponent, was
made and subscribed by him on the 21st day of April last, and
that the note (see Collections relative to the History of
Queen's College, page 31, M.S., in the Lodge) was also
written by the Deponent, at the same time, and is a refe-
rence to a work of the late Doctor Plumtre, formerly Pre-
sident of the :mid College, being a manuscript prepared by him
when 'President thereof, wherein it is by him mentioned
and recorded that Mr. Herbert Palmer was, upon the 11th of
April, 1644, made Master by the Earl of Manchester, which
Earl came down in person to. the College Chapel, and there in-
stalled him in the Master's seat, and perforined the other cere-
monies usual upon the admission of a Master; and, he says,
that it appears by the records of the College that Mr. Thwaites
was chosen a Fellow in the year 1751, which is the date pre-
fixed by the said Thomas Thwaites to his copy of the Statutes,
and was, therefore, the date given by this Deponent in his note,
to the memorandum; but he says, on more minute examination
he is satisfied that the date which he assigned to the memoran-
dum in his note thereto is erroneous ; he says he has no doubt
that such memorandum was not written by Mr. Thwaites
earlier than the year 1761 ; and that it appears by the Records
of the College that he was a Fellow of the College, and that
he voted at the election of Doctor Pluintre, who was chosen
President in 1760, and that the memorandum is, as he verily
believes, a record of what passed at the admission of the said
Doctor Plumtre, and that the ceremonies mentioned in the me-
morandum were then used."

Then he goes on to say " that in the month of April he as-
sisted Doctor Godfrey in searching for the book described in
the memorandum as the Master's book, but could not find it.
That he has lately seen what he has no doubt is the book so
therein referred to, and in such book this deponent has ob-
served the signature of the very Reverend Isaac Milner, the
late President of the College, with whose hand-writing this de- j
ponent is well acquainted, and the names of the said Robert
Plunitre and others, predecessors of the said Isaac Milner, all
of whom appear to be subscribed in the said book, agreeably ,
to the memorandum of the said Thomas Thwaites, which this
deponent, considers (and it appears to me justly- Considers) to
be further verified thereby." Then he says, "he believes that
the forms so mentioned are among the number of what he be-
fore calls the laudabiles consuetudines of the College,' which j
the Fellows are bound to maintain inviolate,' as far as to them
belongs, by the oaths administered to them previous to their
admission to their respective Fellowships."
Now, it is certainly stated in many of these affidavits, that in
many of the Colleges in the University of Cambridge those
forms are not observed ; I do not think that bears at all upon
the argument, because, if forms of this kind are observed as
completing the admission in bodies where admission is re.
quired, the circumstance that such forms have been observed
must, as it appears to me, give a construction as to what is tie-
cessary to be done in those bodies in which such forms have ob-
tained and have been ,observed ; and I am disposed, therfore,
to hold as my present opinion, that this admission of Doctor
Godfrey's was not complete when he subscribed before the
Vice-Chancellor upon the Monday morning. If lam right in
that opinion, it is quite unnecessary for me to discuss or to give
any opinion upon the question, what is the effeceof a subscrip-
tion upon the Sunday ; and I should be very unwilling to do
that, because if any thing were to fall from me to shake the
validity of what has been so often done in the University of
Cambridge on a Sunday, I might be introducing mischief and
confusion in a place, in which I hope and wish all will remain
quiet on ail such subjects. It appears to met it is not neces-
sary to say any thing upon that, if I am right in supposing that
Doctor Godfrey's admission was not completed on the Sunday,
which I state, subject to observation if it shall be wished.
The next qnestion is, and it is a material question, whether
what I call the admission was too long delayed ? Now, with
regard to that, I confess I cannot bring myself to se.7.- that it
.as too long delayed, for here was a case-in which, as it seems
to me, every body who had to do with the matter was conside-
rably ignorant ca. what was to be done, and the admission which
was afterwards made, whether with more or less of ceremony
than was necessary to that admission, seems to me to have been
made as soon as professional advice could be got upon the sub-
ject. Whether that admission was necessary or not, for I un-
derstand the interval between the Sunday and the day when the
admission was necessary or not, for I understand t.t.e.interval
between the Sunday and the day, when the admiss.on *.vas