Lords Sitting of 29 April 1814

NORWAY.
Lord Hollandseeing his noble friend (lord Liverpool) in his place, was desirous of ascertaining from him the exact import of the suspension or cessation

587
of hostilities, which he had announced the other day. When his noble friend said that a convention for the suspension of hostilities had been signed between France and the Allies, did he mean to state, that Norway was included among those powers between whom hostilities had ceased.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad no hesitation in stating, in reply to the question put by his noble friend, that Norway was not included in the suspension of hostilities.
Lord Hollandasked, was it to be understood from that statement, that we were at war with Norway.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad no objection whatever to state the fact, that orders had been given at the proper place (the Admiralty), to take measures for the blockade of the ports of Norway.
Earl Greysupposed it was then to be understood from this statement, that the ports of Norway were to be blockaded by Great Britain, in order to compel Norway by famine to submit to unite itself with a foreign power against its inclination! He heard this avowed with equal astonishment and grief. What was to be done upon this, he did not know. The matter was in the hands of his noble friend. But some motion ought to be made, that the subject might be thoroughly sifted.
The Earl of Liverpoolconceived himself to be limited at present merely to the giving an answer to the question. When the motion should be made, he would then have an opportunity of stating the whole of the circumstances.
Earl Greyobserved, that as the motion to be made must be for the purpose of laying the foundation for some further proceeding, it was desirable that their lordships should have before them some official document. The statement of the fact by the noble lord was of course perfectly sufficient for them, as individuals; but to lay the foundation for a parliamentary proceeding, there must be some regular document, or evidence, to bring the matter officially before the House. Had the noble lord any objection now to consent to a motion for the production of the instruction to the Admiralty to give orders for this blockade? He would have an opportunity for giving a full statement of the circumstances on the motion for the further proceeding.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he certainly should object to the production of
588
the paper. It could only serve as the foundation of some further proceeding; and therefore its production might produce inconvenience, but could do no good. The House was in possession of the fact. The statement of the circumstances had therefore much better be made on the motion for the production of the paper.
Lord Grenvillesaid, it appeared to him, that it would be the better course of proceeding to have the paper first produced. The House knew the fact certainly from the noble earl's statement; but it would be better to have it brought before the House in a regular way, which it must be before any further proceeding could be had.
The Earl of Liverpoolstill continued of opinion, that it was preferable not to agree to the production of the paper in the first instance. Their lordships must be convinced that this did not arise from any wish to shrink from the avowal of the fact. He should give a full statement and explanation of the circumstances which justified Great Britain and the Allies in this proceeding, on the motion for the production of the paper.
Earl Greysaid, be should move for the paper on Monday.—It was then ordered that the House be summoned for that day.
Lord Stanhopesaid, he was glad that the House was summoned for Monday; as a subject of the last importance, as connected with civil liberty, was to be discussed on that day.

BATTLE OF TOULOUSE.
The Duke of Norfolkwished to know whether it was the intention of ministers to move the Thanks of the House to lord Wellington and the army under his command, for the battle of Toulouse. He did not himself mean to submit any motion on the subject, but was desirous merely to state his opinion that it ought to be done.
The Earl of Liverpoolstated, that ministers had no view of that kind at present.

DULWICH COLLEGE BILL.
Lord Hollandmoved the second reading of the Dulwich College Bill, and stated that the object of it was merely to enable the master to marry. By the statutes made for the regulation of the College by the founder, the master could not be a married man. This had been found very inconvenient, and was not suited to be present state of

589
society. If their lordships permitted the Bill to go into a committee, he should undertake to shew, that this alteration could not be fairly considered as inconsistent with the intentions of the founder; and at any rate, if it appeared that any regulation of this description was adverse to the public interest, it was the duty and within the power of parliament to apply the remedy. This was not without precedent, as something of the same kind had been done in the case of Morden College, in 1806. The college was founded at a time when, by the law, the ecclesiastical heads of colleges were not permitted to marry. When laymen were placed at the heads of colleges, it was thought advisable to subject them to the same celibacy. But at the Reformation, the prohibition as to the ecclesiastical heads of colleges was done away, while it continued as to laymen—the former being held to celibacy only by the general law which was abolished, while the private statutes still remained in force as to laymen at the heads of colleges. It could hardly be considered as consonant to the intention of the founder, that, under this change of circumstances, the statute as to the celibacy of the master should continue in force. It would certainly be highly beneficial to the college that this Bill should pass; for if they consented to go into a committee, he understood, that the necessity almost of such a change in the regulations might be proved. There were several absurd statutes besides this, which, perhaps, it might be proper to alter, though that was not the object at present. The college was under the necessity of electing a man of the name of Allen, who should be an unmarried man, and they were obliged to proceed to the election within a fortnight from the commencement of the vacancy. It was obvious, that when vacancies frequently occurred, improper persons must therefore sometimes be chosen. He had stated so much on account of the industry which had been exerted out of doors with respect to this Bill; but in, hopes that the House would suffer the Bill to be committed, he should say nothing further on the subject at this time.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed with the noble lord, that much industry did appear to have been exerted out of doors, and with considerable effect, as might easily be seen (alluding possibly to the numerous attendance on the opposition side). He
590
should therefore content himself it present with protesting against the principle of the Bill, without opposing its going into a committee.
The Duke of Norfolkwas adverse to the principle of the Bill. If the statutes made by the founder were thus to be altered, it would be better that the corporation should be dissolved at once, and the property suffered to go to his heir at law. The precedent of Morden College was a bad precedent, and rather afforded an argument against than for the present Bill.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad very much the same view of the subject as the noble duke. The precedent of Morden College he thought a bad precedent, and one rather to be avoided than followed: he should not, however, oppose the Bill going into a committee.
Lord Grenville, being one of those who had voted for the Morden College Bill, thought it necessary to say a few words as to the grounds of his vote, though he should only say a few words now, there appearing to be an understanding that the Bill should be committed. Their lordships were aware, that these foundations were, in fact, the creatures of the legislature; and that the founder was only permitted by the act of the legislature to make statutes for the time to regulate his college. There must be in every society a supreme power to alter and regulate whatever in its actual situation appeared to be adverse to the public interest. To say, that any founder of any institution could make statutes unalterable by the legislature, was as absurd as to say that the present parliament could make laws unalterable by any future parliament. Highly as these foundations ought to be respected, and great as was the deference which ought to be paid to the wishes of the founder, yet in any college if there appeared to be statutes adverse to the public interest, God forbid that it should be out of the power of the legislature to correct the evil, and act for the public interest in that, as in other respects. This he thought himself bound to say, much as he respected these colleges and the statutes of their founders. He thought the case of Morden College one to which this high power of the legislature was most properly applied, and on that ground had voted for it. What the exact state of the present case was, would be best ascertained in the committee.
The Lord Chancellordid not give any opinion on the subject at this time. They would have an opportunity when in the committee of examining these statutes, and forming a correct judgment upon the whole matter. But by agreeing to go into the committee, he requested it might be understood that he did not mean to prejudge himself in any way as to what might be fitting ultimately to be done. The Bill had been referred to the judges in the usual way. When the Bill was brought in, the preamble bore that the alteration might be useful to the college. The judges had struck out this, and inserted those, "whereas, &c. it might not be prejudicial to the college." If their lordships were to alter statutes because they might not be prejudicial to the colleges, there was no saying where they were to stop. How far it might be proper to make any alteration in the present instance would of course be best ascertained in the committee; and so far, therefore, he was ready now to go.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the question might perhaps assume a different shape after it came out of the committee, and that was certainly a reason for going that far, though he was adverse to the principle of the Bill as it appeared at present.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a committee, which was appointed to meet on Monday fortnight.