Star.
London, England, 1822-11-29 00:00:00

the ,Utieersi* they UN prelier of ,the Proctors,
they had important duties to_ perfbini, and they' toot
au oath for the due libellers, of those duties. One
of the duties which they were thus sworn to perfor
was to deliver tortures, for which they were remit*:
rated by those who attended them; and thus the pro.
fits were not casual, but absolutely consequential on
the performance of those functions which they were
sworn to discharge. The Professors were elected
froni time to time, by virtue not merely of custoiik
but by a law of the University ; for before thegrace
could issue, the Caput must be unanimous in its ap-
proval. It must then be submitted to the two housei
of the Senate successively, and'sanctioned by a ma-
jority of each of these bodies. The Professorships
were all holden for life—at least they had always
been so holden, except in one instance of deprivation
for neglect to perform duties, and one instance of
voluntary resignation on the part of the Professot.
Not only was the office created agreeably to ancient j
lusage—net only was it sanctioned by a law of the
University solemnly passed—not only was it perma-
nent in its nature, tut it was also necessarily and re-
gularly productive of profit. The Professor had the
controul over a collection of minerals worth nearly
1,5001. he received money from those who attended
his lectures, and he enjoyed 1001. from the Crovin,
which Parliament, indeed, granted for the purpose,
but which Parliament did not itself confer on him.
If a mandamus would lie to restore a schoolmaster in
every case where therewas.an endowment, how much
more should it lie to admit the person who was chosen
by the University to fill so high and honourable an
office as that of one of its Professors ? On the second
point the Learned Counsel contended that there was
no intelligible principle on which any complaint
could be preferred to the King in Council. If the
King were the visitor of the University, which was
by no means clear in the sense contended for, be must
visit, not by
his Council, but- by his Chancellor.—
There was, indeed, an instance of an appeal to the
King in Council in the year 1669, respecting an Uni-
versity Officer, and in 1728 another reference of the
kind was made; but these isolated facts could not be
drawn into precedents to prove right, as it appeared
that no objection was taken to the jurisdiction, and
the parties might choose voluntarily to abide by the
decision of that high tribunal. If the King were
visitor of the University, in such a sense as to deprive
the Court of jurisdiction, this would be a satisfactory
return to the mandamus if it should issue, and the fact
might be traversed on the return, and tried by a Jury.
The case of the King v. the Vice-Chancellor of Cam-
bridge, 3 Burrow, 1647, was an authority expressly
in point to shew that the Court would interfere by
mandamus ; for in that case, which related to the
High Steward of the University, the objection was
expressly taken, and overruled by Lord Mansfield.
The cases of the King v. the Commissioners of the
Bedford Level, 6 East, 221 ; the King v. Barker, 3
Burrow, 1156 ; ex•parte Townsend, Sir Thomas Ray-
mond, 69; the King v. the Bishop of London, 7 East,
32, also were severally applicable to the various parts
of this case, and strengthened the argument that there
was no objection to the interposition of the Court.—
In reports of cases in the time of Lord Hardwicke, it
appeared that a mandamus was
_granted to admit
a Regius Professor, whose very name would seem tr
point him out as the fit object of the visitation of his
Majesty. On the whole, therefore, the Court would
see nothing in the preliminary objections to prevent
them from entering into the main argument on the
mode of election, which it was highly important for
-the-interests of the University to settle.
The LORD CHIRP JUSTICE asked the Solicitor-Ge-
neral whether, supposing the heads of the University
had passed. no grace for electing a successor to Dr 4
IClarke, he could contend that the Court might grant
a mandamus to compel them to fill up the office?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied, that this would
certainly be more difficult. He referred to the mode
in which the election of individuals to Professor-
ships had been notified, and read from a grace the
words 46 eleaus Magister Bankes,"—a coincidence
with the result of the late Cambridge Election which
excited considerable merriment in Court.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that it would
be a great deal to contend that because it was thought
convenient at one period to appoinn Professor for
the cultivation of a particular science, the University
ust always continue the Professor whether conve-
,rtient or not. Suppose it should be found that the
study of mineralogy was so attractive as to engross
too much of the time and attention of the students,
mightnot the University discontinue the Professorship?
Mr. Justice Baxmr.—Yes; and the same argu.;
merit seems to prove that the appointment of an in-
dividual cannot properly be for life.
The Judges consulted for a few minutes, after which
The LORD CHIRP Jusrtca said, it will be impossi-
ble for us to devote more time today to this case;
therefore let the Rule be enlarged till the next Term.
In the meantime, we will consider of the preliminary
objections, and if we think that they do not exclude
as from proceeding, we will hear further argument
on the mode of election.
TEN KING, ON MIL PROSECUTION OF ELLWALD, V.
O'BRIIIN•
Mr. CHITTY begged leave to mention this case, in
which the defendant had been found guilty on a cri-
minal information for sending a challenge to the pro-
locutor, Mr. Ellwald, and posting him at the Royal
Exchange. The prosecutor had intended to bring
him up for judgment; but he had made an apology
so ample, that, with the sanction of their Lordships,
be would proceed no further. Mr. O'Brien bad sent
a letter to Mr. Ellwald, acknowledging that he bad
acted under the influence of irritated feelings—that
he had since discovered that his irritation was en-
tirely groundless—that he begged to make as ample
an apology as one Gentleman could mate to ano-
ther—and that he was willing to pay all costs of the
prosecution, which Mr. Eilwald had kindly con-
sented to withdraw. Under these circumstances, he
(Mr. Chitty) would move that the defendant might
be permitted to go before the Master, who would tax
the costs, instead of coming up for judgment.
The COURT signified their acquiescence in this
course.of proceeding.
MR. HENRY HUNT.

At the rising of the Court, which sat until past seven
o'clock, this being the last day of Michaelmas Term,
Mr. Henry Hunt, who had been waiting in Court
the greater part of the day, presented hinsself, and
informed the Bench that he had a motion to make.
CHINA JusTure..—Whatis your 11101,10iir Mr. )goat?,