The Bishop of Bristolrequested the indulgence of the House whilst he said a few words relative to what had fallen from a noble earl (Hardwicke) on a former day, relative to the Petition from the University of Cambridge against the Catholic Claims, he (the bishop of Bristol) not having been in the House on the day alluded to. The right reverend prelate proceeded to state, that it was not usual in the University to give more than three days' notice of any measure intended to be brought forward; but in this instance, it being a measure of importance, six days' notice was given, a longer notice than he ever remembered in the University. He stated this to prove that the proceeding was not unfairly carried through, as alleged by the noble earl; the fact being, that the greater number of those who voted in the minority came from London in consequence of the notice that had been given. With respect to the insinuation as to the motives of those who formed the majority, that they were looking either to preferment or translation, he must leave it to the noble earl himself to consider, whether a mere difference of opinion called for such a charge.
§ The Earl of Hardwicketrusted, though he was aware it was irregular, that after what had fallen from the right rev. prelate, he should be permitted to trouble their lordships with a few words. He regretted that the learned prelate was not in the House, when the Petition from Cambridge against the Roman Catholic Claims was prepared by the illustrious person who was chancellor of the University, when he had felt it his duty to offer some observations to their lordships, which he was as ready to repeat in the presence of the right rev. prelate, as in his absence. In the first place, it was impossible for him to avoid stating, that considering the great public importance of the subject of the Petition, sufficient notice had not been given to admit of the attendance of any considerable number of the non-resident members. For all questions of a local nature, on which the resident members were certainly well qualified to decide, the notice described by the right rev. prelate as the usual notice, and which had probably been given upon this occasion, was perfectly sufficient; but whenever a question relating to matters of state policy was brought forward, it would be more consistent with fairness and candour to give that degree of notice which would admit of the attendance of the non-resident members of the senate, if they should think fit to give their opinions upon the subject; but he could not help saying, that the seldomer political questions were brought before the senate of the University, the better. With respect to what the right rev. prelate had said on the subject of motives, the noble earl observed, that what he had said was entirely of a general nature, and not applied to the conduct of any individual. The usage of the place did not admit of questions being discussed, or debated, before they were put to the vote; and, therefore, he could not help feeling that many persons might give their votes upon general grounds, without that knowledge and understanding of the question, which must in all cases render the decision more satisfactory to themselves as conscientious individuals, and at the same time give more weight to the opinions of a great public body.
The Marquis of Lansdownecontended that the notice was not sufficient, and observed that he himself, although only a day's journey from London, had not notice 135 of the intended proceeding in time to be present at the University on the day appointed for its consideration.
Lord Hollandobserved, that the Petition did not express the sense of the University; the non-resident members not having had sufficient notice.