DULWICH COLLEGE BILL. (Hansard, 29 April 1814)

Lord Holland
moved 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 Ellenborough
agreed 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 Norfolk
was 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 Liverpool
had 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 Chancellor
did 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 Liverpool
said, 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.