Lords Sitting of 8 May 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord COLCHESTER and other noble LORDS, from various places, against the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Lords SEGRAVE and ELLENBOROUGH, from Tewksbury, for and against the aqolition of Church-rates—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY and the Bishop of LONDON, from various places, for the better observance of the Sabbath.

STATUTES OF THE SEVERAL COLLEGES AND HALLS OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
The Earl of Radnorrose, pursuant to notice, to move that "a Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of such of the several colleges and halls in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge as have statutes enjoined by their respective founders and benefactors, in so far as relates to the provisions of the said statutes and the practice relative thereto, the oaths by which the members of the institution are bound to obey the same, and the power which may be vested in their respective visitors or others to alter, modify, and amend them, and to report to the House their opinion of the expediency or necessity of a legislative measure on the subject." On a former occasion, when moving the second reading of a Bill for appointing a Commission to make similar inquiries, the principal argument urged against the proposal was, that previous investigation should precede the adoption of any legislative measure on the subject. He still thought a Commission the best means of attaining the end; and he had now to propose, as appeared to him, the next best mode of acquiring the requisite information. In the various petitions which had been presented from the different college's, considerable reluctance was expressed to the admission of any inquiry, some declaring a decided opposition to it, and others that they would positively resist any measure which might be

659
adopted by the Legislature on the subject. It therefore appeared to him, that the mode he proposed at first for the interposition of the Legislature would much more effectually serve his object than the course he now recommended as the next best. It had been imputed to him, in the course of the debate which took place on that occasion, he must be allowed to say very groundlessly, that he had some ulterior object in view, such as throwing open the universities to Dissenters—a very desirable object, no doubt, and, in his view, likely to be to the advantage of the Universities themselves, while it was only an act of justice to the Dissenters. But although he was, and always had been, favourable to that object—although he believed the Universities never would give satisfaction to the public until that object was attained, the proposition he now made had no such tendency, further than as it rendered apparent the wisdom and propriety of such a measure. The motion he had to submit, comprised three objects—the provisions of the statutes and the practice relative thereto, the oaths by which the different members were bound to obey them, and the powers vested in visitors or others to alter, modify, or amend them. What principally offended him was in connexion with the oaths by which the members of those colleges were solemnly sworn to observe the statutes, although many of them were totally inapplicable to the present time, others absurd, and impossible to be carried into execution. That of itself, he thought, was sufficient ground for some legislative measure upon this subject. The two Universities had the monopoly of the education of all in the higher classes of society, and almost of all who were intended for the Church; was it not highly objectionable, then, that the members of these colleges should continue liable to the imputation of taking oaths which they did not and could not mean to observe, thus treating, in a light and most irreverend manner, the most solemn of all obligations? He maintained, it would be most becoming and advisable to put an end to a state of things so anomalous and so injurious. Some of the colleges were founded so long ago as 500 or 600 years, and they were all bound by the statutes enacted at that time. Some of them stated in so many words that they were not only bound by those statutes, but they were bound to resist any modification or
660
alteration of those statutes. This was insisted by New College, Oxford, and King's College, Cambridge; others stated that it was competent for them to make alterations in the statutes through their visitor. He contended, if they had the power, they ought to exercise it; and if they were unwilling, it was incumbent on the Legislature itself to interfere. He had already, on a former occasion, enumerated various instances, and he could now enumerate divers others, in which things were enjoined by the statute, the observance of which, if possible, would be ridiculous, and which were, nevertheless, held as binding in the literal and grammatical sense of the words. In fact, it was agreed upon all hands, that these statutes were not complied with, while, by the statutes of Trinity, if the fellows did not observe the statutes, it was affirmed they should be guilty of perjury. That was a most indecorous and indecent state of things. He did not go the length of saying that every person who took those oaths, which it was well known could not be observed, had perjured themselves; but others felt it, and he himself knew of a young man, not long ago, throwing up his scholarship, because he felt it would be impossible for him to execute all that was imposed on him by the statutes. A learned professor of the University of Oxford had written a letter to him, which had been published in the newspapers, in which he declared, that "the charge brought against those who had signed the statutes, under whatever name it might be disguised, could not be less than perjury." Now, although he did not impute perjury to any gentlemen for disobeying statutes they had sworn to observe, if they chose to appropriate to themselves the charge of perjury, he had no fault to find with it, but still it would be most indecent that such an irreverend and absurd state of things should longer be allowed to remain. He would beg leave, however, while On this point, to refer to what Dr. Paley had written upon oaths. In his chapter on Oaths to Observe Local Statutes be says, "Members of colleges in the Universities, and of other ancient foundations, are required to swear to the observance of their respective statutes; which observance is become, in some cases, unlawful, in others impracticable, in others useless, in others inconvenient. Unlawful directions are countermanded by the autho-

661
rity which made them unlawful. Impracticable directions are dispensed with by the necessity of the case." Now, what was to be said of those persons who knew that what they swore to do was either unlawful or impracticable? If a person swore to do that which was lawful at the time, but which the Legislature afterwards declared unlawful, he was absolved from his oath. If a person swore to do that which he believed practicable, but which turned out to be impracticable, he was absolved from his oath. But a person who swore to do what he knew was unlawful and impracticable took a false oath, and Paley's provisions did not cover the case. Paley then went on:—" The only question is, how far the members of these societies may take upon themselves to judge of the inconveniency of any particular direction, and make that a reason for laying aside the observations on it." Now, that was the point. The persons in question found the statutes which they had sworn to obey inconvenient; and then without making any sacrifice whatever on their own part, they abstained from obeying them. The animus imponentis, which is the measure of the juror's duty, seems to be satisfied when nothing is omitted but what, from some change in the circumstances under which it was prescribed, it may fairly be presumed that the founder himself would have dispensed with. To bring a case within this rule, the inconveniency must be manifest, concerning which there is no doubt?" Now, the inconveniency might in many cases be manifest; in others not. For instance, residence: surely that was manifest, and concerning which there could be no doubt. A few lines after, Paley said—" the direction of the statute must not only be inconvenient in the general (for so may the institution itself be), but prejudicial to the particular end proposed by the institution: for it is this last circumstance which proves that the founder would have dispensed with it in pursuance of his own purpose." But could it be doubted that most of those founders did what was apt for their own purposes? The general object of the founders (whether a wise object or not he would not say) was to have a seminary of education in which young men might study the higher branches of learning, and for that purpose they considered residence necessary, not inconvenient. On those grounds, therefore, although he would not call what
662
was constantly taking place at the Universities perjury, he would not say it was something which could not be defended; and of which the individuals implicated, if they were sensible of the nature of the obligation which they had entered into, would rejoice to get rid. A right rev. Prelate had written a book on the subject, in which he dwelt on the propriety of attending to the will of the founders. In a treatise lately published by the master of Trinity College, Cambridge, the same propriety had been enforced. But let their Lordships' consider what had been the real will of most of these founders. When, on a recent occasion, he had maintained that most of these foundations had been laid for the benefit of poor scholars, the fact had been denied; and when he had expressly shown that they were intended for pauperes et indigentes, he was told that that expression meant something else. The noble Lord here referred to several of the statutes to show that the stipends were so small that it was impossible that the founders could have contemplated the admission of any but persons of poor condition. He knew that great anger had been excited in several quarters by his recent statement to the same effect. In a judgment given by Lord Chief Justice Holt, that eminent judge said, "There is no manner of difference between a college and a hospital; in the one poor, low, mean, sickly persons are received for medical aid; in the other low and indigent persons are received to be bred up and educated. Both are eleemosynary institutions." That was, both were supported by charity. In the year 1550, Thomas Neven, a fellow of St. John's College, complaining of the declining state of the college, attributed it in a great measure to a hundred students who had rich friends having crept into the college and driven poor students from their rightful situations. The latter were at that time content at dinner to share a penny piece of beef among four of them, with the addition of some oatmeal and water. Their supper was not much better. And at night, being without fires, they were fain to run up and down their rooms for an hour, in order to get warm before they went to bed. Surely those were pauperes et indigentes. The noble Earl then quoted another authority to prove many of the colleges were not intended by the founders as places of study for the sons of rich men, but the greater part of

663
them, on the contrary, were instituted for the use of poor persons. St. John's College in particular was not intended for persons of high condition, and in Trinity College only a few persons of that description, styled "pensionarii," were, by the order of the founder, to be admitted. The number was limited in Trinity College to sixty-four persons at the utmost. No fellow was to have more than one pensioner, and the senior master not more than four. The same was the case in St. John's where the number of pensioners to be admitted was sixty-eight. These instances proved that the colleges were not intended as places of resort for independent persons, but chiefly for those inclined to study. Another provision of the founders in many of the colleges was, that there should be a pretty constant residence, and that the business of the college should not be interrupted even during the long vacation. But it was said these colleges were private institutions—that they received nothing from the State, and that, therefore, the State had nothing to do with them. These colleges, however, were all corporate bodies—they had received charters, and, therefore, could no longer be considered as private bodies. It had been said the colleges could correct abuses and amend the statutes themselves. Now, he doubted that much, and even some of the colleges acknowledged the fact that they had not power to alter the statutes. But if they had the power they certainly had not the inclination, for hitherto little had been done. It was said the Universities had greatly improved. Some improvement certainly might have taken place lately, but it could not he denied that they stood very low except as regarded certain sciences, and that particularly applied to one college at Cambridge. At Oxford the colleges stood very low, both in logical knowledge and science; and the reason probably was, that those best qualified to teach the students either left early or remained from party connexions. He wished also to state to the House that some of the colleges had admitted, that some alteration was necessary, and the senior master and fellows in Trinity College had come to a resolution to petition his Majesty to enable them to make the statutes more congenial with the state of science and learning at the present day. If there were any such feeling at Oxford, he believed it had been stirred up by the discussions
664
which had taken place in the House; and perhaps they would be the better for a little more stirring up. He did not want to make any accusations against the Universities, and he wished to speak of them with the greatest moderation. His only object was inquiry, in order to see how matters stood. The noble Earl concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the practice and statutes of the different colleges and halls in the two Universities—whether they were bound or not by oaths—whether the governing body had the power of altering or qualifying the statutes; and to report to the House whether any legislative measure was necessary to enable the governing body to make alterations and amendments.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, perhaps it was impossible for the noble Lord to make this motion without adverting to the debate which took place in that House a few nights ago, upon the subject of a similar motion, for leave to bring in a Bill which had the same object in view; but he confessed that he should have wished entirely to avoid the topics of that discussion, because it was his sincere wish to adopt a conciliatory tone upon this occasion, and to say nothing that could provoke any further debate, but, on the contrary, to bring this question to a settlement which would be satisfactory to the whole House. He could not now, however, avoid adverting to some of the topics of the noble Lord, who had remarked upon something that fell from him on a former occasion. He confessed, that on that occasion he did not see any ground for the motion of the noble Lord for the second reading of the Bill which he proposed, and in stating that he then adverted to the conduct of the noble Lord on a former occasion, on which he moved for a Bill to facilitate the introduction of Dissenters into the Universities, as pointing out the very object of the Bill which he proposed on the latter occasion. He certainly had not intended to cast any imputation on the noble Earl, who had now fairly stated his opinion that greater facilities ought to be given for the introduction of Dissenters into the universities than at present existed. And what he said on a former occasion was no more than that the conduct of the noble Lord indicated that such was his object, and the object of the Bill. The noble Earl had alluded to an

665
admission made by a right rev. Prelate, that there was a necessity for an inquiry into the state of the Universities, although it should not be made by a commission appointed under an Act of Parliament. He thought that the noble Earl had fallen into a mistake, and that what the right rev. Prelate contended was, that there ought to be inquiries instituted, but he did not think he said those inquiries ought to be made by a Committee of that House. The noble Earl had founded his present motion on pretty nearly the same grounds as those on which he rested the former one. He had stated, that there existed in the Universities various obsolete useless statutes, which had become impracticable on account of the length of time which had passed since they were framed. But he also stated, that the members of the various colleges of these universities were sworn to the observance of those statutes, and yet did not observe them. He wished the noble Earl had examined the subject a little further before, with his weight and authority, he had made such charges against those persons. He was bound to say, in respect to some of those charges, the acts which those persons were accused of, that many of those statutes had become illegal, and therefore not binding. All those which related to Roman Catholics could not be carried into execution, even according to the confession of the noble Lord. Others had become entirely obsolete, and others impracticable in the present times. But was it, therefore, to be said that those persons were guilty of perjury. [The Earl of Radnor: I have not said that they were.] Was it just to insinuate that they might be guilty of perjury? The noble Earl ought first to inquire whether there was any power in the governing body of the colleges to dispense with their statutes, or with the oaths appended to them. Then, when the noble Earl came to a particular point—namely, the admission of scholars in the foundation of those colleges, and spoke of the absolute necessity of their being paupares, he contended that it was entirely out of the question. Those scholars were quite a different class of persons from the independent members; they were, in general, persons, he would not say such as came under the class understood by the term "paupers'' in the present day, but of the middle class of life; and as gentlemen were now admitted into the Universities at
666
an advanced time of life, or were not exactly children of eleven or twelve years of age, as in former times, of course they must have been to a certain degree instructed, and were, in all probability, not in that extreme situation of poverty which would bring them under the description so frequently stated by the noble Lord, pauperes and valde pauperes. It did not always follow that persons should be admitted on account of their poverty, because there were other qualifications required—namely, a certain proficiency in study, and they must undergo an examination before they were received. It was not so with the independent members of the body. They were received according to the rules of the establishment, modified from time to time by the governing body, or by the visitors having power to make such modifications. On a former occasion the noble Earl and a noble and learned Lord adverted at great length to the College of all Souls, relative to the nomination to scholarships by noble families. There was scarcely a noble family in England that was not of kin to the founder of All Souls. Supposing that he had left the property among twenty-six of his own relations, could the law of England take it from them. Most of the right rev. Bishops on the Bench, some of their Lordships, and many gentlemen in his Majesty's service, had been fellows of All Souls. He did not see that there could be a more advantageous disposition of the property of those establishments, nor could he see why the question of the disposition of the property should be entertained at present, or that motion for inquiry into it should be brought forward. Another great objection started by the noble Lord was against the non-residence of fellows in these colleges. He believed that non-residence was permitted by the founders to a certain extent, and that the visitors had the power of permitting non-residence in many instances. He imagined that in every one of the instances alluded to by the noble Lord it would be found that no statute had been violated. He spoke on the authority of those who had the means of knowing all the facts, and he had a distinct answer to every one of the cases adverted to by the noble Earl. With respect to one statement—namely, that the chief fellow of Brasenose College held a living, and absented himself from college—this case was taken into consi-

667
deration by the governing body, and it was decided by them and the visitor that no such occurrence should again take place. To all the other statements he had a clear and distinct answer, but he did not think it necessary to enter into all those particulars. He would pass on to the subject of the vote to which the House would come that night. It was truly stated by the noble Earl, that a right rev. Prelate, and other persons connected with Trinity College, Cambridge, were of opinion that some inquiry should be made into this subject, and that some measure should be adopted to obtain a remedy for those evils which really existed, which evils arose out of the existence of obsolete and impracticable statutes, which were not only useless but injurious. He admitted, that he was one of those who had long been of opinion that some amelioration should be made, and very shortly after he became Chancellor of the University of Oxford he had a correspondence with the governing body on that subject, and recommended them to take into consideration the circumstances in which they were placed, and to adopt such ameliorations as might be considered safe and necessary. He believed they had that subject under their consideration, and he was authorised to say, that they were on the road towards making those inquiries and those ameliorations which the noble Lord had so strongly urged on the House. The colleges in the University of Cambridge, he believed, were directing their attention to the same subject. The noble Lord had mentioned what Trinity College had done. That was the usual mode of proceeding, because his Majesty was visitor of that college, and therefore it was proper for them to apply to the King for permission to make any alterations which they contemplated. If, then, there existed a disposition among the colleges of both Universities to make such alterations as were required, was it the duty of that House to act on such statements as had been made to their Lordships, and which he averred, if not totally devoid of foundation, were so in respect to the principal particulars? Was it not rather the duty of their Lordships to pause a while, and give time to the colleges and universities to exercise that consideration and power which they were disposed to do, before their Lordships proceeded to inquire into their affairs, and with a violent hand to make alterations
668
which might not only not be necessary, but productive of no good effect, and, perhaps, of much mischief? Suppose the noble Lord should be able to prove that there had been a breach of a statute in any particular college—for instance, that Latin ought to have been taught in hall, but had not been so taught; or something even more important than that had been neglected—was it desirable to bring the particular college in which such fault had been committed before their Lordships? Did it not occur to the noble Lord that the consequence of such a proceeding might be the forfeiture of the property and all the advantages resulting at the present moment to the public from the existence of that college? He believed, however, that there could not be found any ground for presuming, that breaches of statutes had been so extensive or serious as would seem to be implied by the speech of the noble Earl. Would he have them recur to the old system of admitting fellows and scholars? The noble Lord had been pleased to say that our colleges were no longer seats of learning. He thought the noble Lord must have forgotten a little what he saw around him; he must have forgotten such men as Dr. Buckland and others. Considering that the Universities were prepared to make all the inquiries that were necessary, and all the alterations which it would be in the power of Parliament to make, he thought it would become the House to pause before it adopted a course which might injure the Universities, and which would throw impediments in the way of those ameliorations which it was the decided intention of those bodies to introduce. He had taken the opportunity of offering these observations to their Lordships immediately after the speech of the noble Earl, with a view of inducing their Lordships to pause before they agreed to the proposed resolution; and he would conclude by expressing a hope that the answer he had given to the statements which the noble Lord had thought proper to make, had satisfactorily proved to their Lordships that they ought to negative the proposition of the noble Earl.
The Marquess of Camdenfelt himself authorised to say that the greater portion of the colleges were willing and desirous of entering upon the consideration of this question, with a view to its satisfactory adjustment. They possessed the power,

669
through the instrumentality of the visitors of remedying any defects that might be found to exist, and under such circumstances he was sure their Lordships would not accede to the proposition of the noble Earl, inasmuch as it was quite unnecessary. With respect to an imputation which had been cast upon Trinity College, respecting the misapplication of funds, it was totally groundless. As to non-residence, he contended, that so far as it was occasioned by leave of absence to certain fellows, great advantage was derived from it. In the taking of oaths he admitted, particularly as regarded young men just entering the Universities, there was an impropriety which ought to be got rid of, but believing that the Universities were most anxious to remedy it, he should vote against the motion of the noble Earl.
The Bishop of Llandaffsaid, that the noble Earl had frequently referred to an opinion expressed by him in that House respecting which he wished to say a few words. The noble Earl supposed it had been a suggestion of his—namely, that a Committee of that House ought to be appointed to inquire into the state of the Colleges. Now, that he declared was entirely and fundamentally a mistake. Noble Lords would recollect that he, on the contrary, had expressed himself averse to such a proceeding, as being criminatory and offensive, and insulting to the character of the Colleges. He had stated also that they should not subject them to this harassing and degrading process, upon a statement made by a single Member of that House, of insulated irregularities having occurred, he did not know how many years ago, in the two Universities. The inconvenience, trouble, and disgrace of such a proceeding could not have permitted him to entertain for a moment the idea of suggesting or advising it. He had, however, observed, that he was aware that something unsatisfactory had arisen out of the antiquated character of the statutes of the Colleges, which it would be desirable on all accounts to remedy, if possible; and he had also observed, that he felt disposed to concur with the noble Earl or any noble Lord in that House in the propriety of devising some means by which that object might be attained, without at the same time affecting the honour or character of the Universities, but making the measure one rather of relief than severity or censure. The noble Earl to-night as
670
well as on a former occasion had enumerated various charges of misconduct, and amongst the rest, that of having violated the statutes of the several Colleges. Into the particulars of these charges it was impossible for them to enter, but of their gravamen, namely, that all the delinquencies which the noble Earl had enumerated were not only disreputable, but in direct violation of a positive oath, he felt bound to offer an opinion. The noble Earl had in a very solemn and impressive manner appealed to that Bench in particular to know if a sacred obligation was thus to be set at nought, and to that appeal he (the right rev. Prelate) felt bound, not only as a Member of the Episcopal Bench, but as having for three years presided over one of the Colleges of the Universities, to give a decided reply. He was aware, as all were, that these ancient statutes contained several provisions which were not applicable to the present time; these, however, were not expressed in so many specific words, but were interwoven in the whole texture of the statute. The question between them was this:—Persons were sworn to observe in general terms the principles of the statutes which they did observe in substance, and for all practical and useful purposes, and in such a manner, he felt convinced, as would meet with the sanction and approval of the founder, were it possible for him to return upon earth. With these were mixed up matters of inferior importance, which no one wished to see acted upon, which had been silently dropped, and which were now admitted to be obsolete. Such a state of things he admitted to be unsatisfactory and embarrassing, at the same time he hoped the noble Earl would agree with him that it involved nothing of a criminal nature. Allowance should be made for what was called by casuists the constructive sense of these statutes. There had taken place in them a virtually implied alteration; so that, he contended, under the existing system, there had been no breach of confidence, no prevarication with men's own consciences, no leaguing one with another, no mental reservation, nothing whatever of a clandestine nature. If the animus imponentis were ever justifiable, it was certainly in such a case as he had stated. The persons to whom these oaths, about which so much clamour had been raised some time ago, were administered, knew the sense in which they were administered,

671
and took them in that sense. His own opinion was that they were useless, inasmuch as he considered that young men would, without taking them, pay the same deference and obedience to the rules which they imposed, but that they were violated, as had been stated, openly and consciously, he totally denied. If there was such a thing as the constructive interpretation of an oath, and that there was, had been admitted throughout society, and even in courts of justice, it was particularly justified by such circumstances as he had stated. Upon all accounts it was desirable that a remedy should originate with the Universities, especially as they had been assured that they were at present considering the question. He therefore hoped their Lordships would agree at least to postpone the further consideration of this measure until they should find what the result of those deliberations would be. If he thought that anything he could say were necessary to set right public opinion, he should have felt it his duty to enter more fully into the charges which the noble Earl had brought forward on a recent occasion, and had now pertinaciously repeated; but, he conceived that the character and reputation of the Universities formed a sufficient bulwark against these charges, and they needed no defence from him.
The Bishop of Lincolndid not think that any case had been made out to justify the adoption of the noble Earl's resolution, for although the statutes might not have been strictly observed, yet he felt perfectly satisfied, that the substance of them, as well as the intention of the founders, had been adhered to. He would express a hope, however, that the colleges would adapt the statutes to the existing state of things. One great ground of his objection to the motion was, that it was made before petitions from the colleges called for any such change.
The Bishop of Gloucesterdenied that anything like perjury was committed by the taking of the oaths, for it was always understood that the infraction of most of the statutes would be visited by only a small pecuniary fine. For his own part, he should wish to see all unnecessary oaths abolished, and that the statutes should be altered so as to suit the changed circumstances of the times, but that this should be executed by the societies themselves in a legal and constitutional man-
672
ner. With respect to the oaths, he repeated that there in every instance the consciences of young men had been left unforced and unfettered. The right rev. Prelate contended that no violation or abuse of their trust by any of those colleges had occurred; on the contrary, they consulted the good of the societies more than their own private interests, and he trusted their Lordships would think there was no ground for the extraneous interference proposed by the noble Earl. He did not know whether the noble Earl got any of his information from an old work which he had met with, and which was now 120 years old. It was a history of some of the colleges of Cambridge, by Edward Miller, sergeant-at-law. If ever there was a member of any college in either university who deserved to be held in general contempt and execration, it was that man, who for some abuse that he had received commenced proceedings against the head of his college, and afterwards, in conjunction with that head of the college, sold the interests of some of the fellows whose cause in an appeal to the crown he was engaged to manage, by a bargain the essence of which was money. He would, therefore caution the noble Earl against giving any weight to any charges made in that quarter.
The Archbishop of Dublinsaid, that many of the petitions which had been presented the other night from the colleges evinced a desire to remove every thing that might be objectionable if they had the power; but some colleges had not that power, however inconvenient the evil which it was desirable to remedy. Whatever remedial measures it might be judged proper to adopt, with reference to these colleges, he trusted that they would be suffered to originate from the colleges themselves. In this, at least, he trusted he should have the noble Earl's concurrence; but, for his part, he certainly should not say that he would refuse his assent to some other measure, if those who were connected with the Universities obstinately refused to come forward.
Lord Broughamhad listened with attention to the speeches of the several right rev. Prelates who had successively addressed their lordships. The first of those right rev. Prelates appeared to have been the victim of his own ingenuity. He was sure that the right rev. Prelate had been betrayed by the warmth of his advocacy

673
into laying down doctrine respecting the observance of an oath, which, if he reflected on the real tendency of that doctrine, he would be the first to disavow. From the constitutional doctrine which had been laid down by the second right rev. Prelate, he (Lord Brougham) would take leave equally to dissent as from the ethical doctrines of the former. He held that the Legislature was perfectly justified in interfering with these bodies. The construction of convenience which the third right rev. Prelate who spoke had put upon the statute requiring residence, he considered to be quite astounding, contradictory as it was to the plain and obvious meaning of the statute.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, that the masters of colleges had the power of recalling the fellows into residence whenever they pleased. The only oath which the fellows took was that of obedience. The masters were empowered to extend to the fellows the privileges of non-residence "gravissima, urgenlissima que causa."
Lord Broughamsaid, whether or not the fellows swore to observe the statutes, the authorities of the college did so swear. They swore not only to observe them, but to see to their observance; and yet in the very passage cited by the noble Lord the privilege of non-residence was evidently not permitted to be extended, unless in a case o extreme necessity. The wording of the statute was in the superlative degree. Non-residence might take place for a brief period, but surely it should not be perpetual. It had been said, that some of their statutes were impossible of observance. This might be true; but let not others be pronounced impossible which it was merely inconvenient or unpleasant to comply with. These statutes remained, in the eyes of all mankind, as the book of the university; and yet the law, of which they were the record, was known to be constantly broken. His noble Friend was only desirous to render their statutes more conformable to the convenience of the public at large. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Duke, and the noble Marquis, he should say, that the evils complained of were not confined to the universities, but extended to. all the colleges. However disposed the Universities might be to make the desired alterations, some of the colleges did not possess that power; and in their case recourse
674
must be had to the supreme power of Parliament. The question was, whether his noble Friend behind him would persevere with his motion, or allow the heads of the Universities to undertake the matter, and wait for the purpose of seeing how far they were disposed to go. He certainly had always entertained a great objection to leaving the reform of abuses in the hands of those against whom they were charged. But, for his part, he should feel disposed to give to the proposition of the noble Duke and the noble Marquis a fair trial.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that modifications had already been introduced into the statutes by which some colleges were governed. In other colleges no change had taken place, because by the wording of the statutes the college authorities considered themselves not empowered to alter, but simply to expound. With regard to the observations which had been made upon the subject of non-residence, he would state that in a college at Oxford with which he happened to be acquainted, the president was empowered to give leave of absence to the fellows, "for the purpose of advancing themselves in life." Surely the noble and learned Lord would not contend that by this was meant non-residence for a brief period. He hoped that the noble Earl would withdraw his motion.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that the object of the noble Earl would appear to be more easily attainable by an application to the Crown for a direction to the Lord Chancellor to inquire into the propriety of re-considering the University statutes. This would be the proper course, if nothing were meant of a nature unfriendly to the colleges. But he believed that, under the pretext of repealing obsolete statutes, the covert object was entertained of flinging down the barriers which had been errected at these Universities for ages past, and throwing them open to the Dissenters. He was by no means disposed to subscribe to the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord, that Parliament had the right to interfere with the property of the Universities in the absence of any petition from any college praying for inquiry. Parliament had, in his mind, no more right to interpose in this instance, than it had to interfere with his private property. There were some colleges at Cambridge in the statutes of which it

675
was strongly recommended to the fellows to travel. In St. John's College there were certainly twelve or thirteen fellowships endowed for that purpose. He strongly objected to the idea of a Parliamentary Committee upon a subject like this, in the present conflicting state of the two Houses of Parliament; the one being anxious to maintain and encourage the growth of the established religion, and the other entertaining the opinion that religion was of title or no value to the State or to the country at large. He would conclude by giving his decided opposition to the motion.
The Earl of Radnorreplied, and disclaimed the motives which had been imputed to him by the noble Earl who had just sat down. It now appeared, for the first time, to be admitted on all hands that something must be done upon this subject. He was quite ready to withdraw his motion, on the assurance of the noble Duke and the noble Marquis that the colleges were ready to make those changes which might be found necessary.
Motion withdrawn.