§ [UNIVERSITIES ADVOWSON BILL.]—The order of the day being read for going into a committee upon the above bill,
§ The Duke of Norfolk said, that as he was in hopes the bill in question would he considerably modified in the committee, he should not oppose that part of its progress; but were it not so, he should certainly oppose the measure in a future stage. After some further observations, his grace moved, that an Account of the number and value of the different livings in the presentation and disposal of the colleges in the universities, &c. be laid before the house.
§ Lord Grenville expressed his doubts of the propriety of this proceeding; besides, he believed there was no regular office, or place, at least none under government, whence the information required could be drawn; and he highly disapproved of any attempt to call upon private individuals, or 538 corporate bodies, for a statement or specification of their properties, from a proceeding brought forward, as the present, by any individual peer. He believed such a proceeding was without precedent; and to set one in the present case, may be of a dangerous tendency; or, if a precedent existed, it could not he conformable to that respect to the rights of property, which he trusted all their lordships were inclined to pay.
§ The Lord Chancellor coincided In the re-marks of the noble baron: better would it be to suffer the bill in question, beneficial as it was likely to prove, to be lost, than set such a precedent as that contained in the noble duke's motion. Did the universities themselves come forward and desire relief from specific hardships, the case would be considerably altered.
§ The Bishop of Oxford shortly stated, that he was in possession of important information on the subject of the motion, which he should freely communicate to their lordships.
§ The Duke of Norfolk questioned the justice of the noble baron's remarks. He was of opinion that all corporations were more or less in the nature of trustees, and may fairly be called upon. However, he had no objection to withdraw his motion.
§ Lord Hawkesbury, in a great degree, expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the noble lords who disapproved of the motion; but in sonic measure the merits of such a question would depend on circumstance., so that it was impossible, with reference to the powers of parliament, to lay down a fixed principle for such cases.—The motion was then withdrawn by the noble duke, and the house, pursuant to the order of the day, having resolved itself into a committee upon the bill,
§ The Bishop of Oxford addressed the committee in a speech of some length upon the subject, in which he recapitulated his former arguments in favour of the principle of the bill, and added a variety of detailed considerations, drawn from documents and accounts, to which he referred, in support of the measure. He contended, that it was incumbent upon those who opposed the bill, to make out what benefit would be obtained by continuing the restriction. The repeal, properly speaking, would not be a boon, but an act of justice, on the part of parliament, and would be gratefully received by the universities. He hoped, therefore, if would not be reluctantly granted to them, and 539 that the bill would he suffered to pass in its original shape.
§ Lord Sidmouth expressed his objections against the bill in its present shape. If it appeared to be the sense of their lordships, that a hill to the general effect of the present ought to pass, he thought some modifications might beneficially be introduced; but these not being now perfectly prepared, it was his intention to propose them in a future state of the bill. He thought that before the universities were suffered to purchase any new livings, their friends should be employed in augmenting the small livings now in their possession, and afterwards that suitable parsonage houses should be erected on the same.
§ The Lord Chancellor supported the bill. His general grounds were those he had advanced on former occasions. He dwelt with great force and effect on the consideration of its being infinitely preferable to permit the universities of the kingdom to acquire ecclesiastical patronage (a patronage which they had always exercised in the most honourable and beneficial manner), ere it should fall into the hands of such persons, Schismatics, Methodists, and other sectarians, as it was likely, to a dangerous and destructive extent, through the present scandalous mode of traffic for church preferments. Though he widely differed from his noble friend (lord Sidmouth) in some important considerations respecting the subject of the bill in question; yet there were some of his suggestions he thought highly deserving of attention; such as the augmentation of small livings, &c. and which, he trusted, there would be a future opportunigy of considering. With that view, he thought it would be desirable to vote the repealing future day to recommit the Bill, in order to consider of farther provisions of the nature he had alluded to.
§ Lord Hawkesbury supported what had fallen from his noble and learned frient.
§ Lord Grenville spoke in support of the bill in its present shape. It was a boon well deserved by the Universities, and should be dealt to them fully and liberally, and not with a sparing hand, which would imply a suspicion of probable abuse on their part.
§ Lord Sidmouth spoke in explanation, as to some points in the noble baron's speech, intended as a fefutation of certain positions which he had advanced.—the bishop of London and the earl of Suffolk shortly delivered their sentiments. Lord Harrowby 540 approved of the suggestion, that the funds of the colleges should be applied to the enlargemet of small livings, rather than to the purchase of others. The bishop of Oxford argued against the introduction of a clause to that effect. The lord chanclellor thought that the enacting clause should pass in the way he had suggested; and that the provisions adverted to shuld be considered on a future day. The bishop of Oxford did not object to this. The bishop of St. Asaph said he would not trouble the house with his opinions in the present state of the business; but thought the observation of a noble lord (Harrowby) well worthy of attention.—The question was then put, and the enacting clause agreed to.— Adjourned.