Lords Sitting of 23 May 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Public Works (Ireland). Read a second time:—Monies in Exchequer; Limitation of Actions.—Read a first time:—Medical Charities.
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM, from various places, for, and by the Bishop of Hereford, from a parish in Herefordshire, against the abolition of Church-rates.—By the Earl of CHICHESTER, from places in Suffolk, in favour of a Sabbath Day Bill.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from Greenwich, in favour of the Irish Municipal Bill; from the same place and from Swansea for the abolition of Church-rates.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from South Would, in Sussex, and from parishes in Cumberland and Suffolk, against the abolition of Church-rates.—By Lord DACRE, from rate-payers in the counties of Hertford and Cambridge, praying that 6l. tenements might be made liable to assessment.—By Lord BEAUCHAMP, from parishes in Worcestershire, against the abolition of Church-rates.

THE UNIVERSITIES.
The Earl of Rad- norpresented a Petition from the undergraduates of Cambridge, for an alteration of the laws in that University. In presenting this petition he would take the opportunity of putting a question to the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) as to the state of things in the University of Oxford, and whether any reform of the Colleges was at present in progress there? When this subject was last under the consideration of their Lordships the noble Duke informed them that it was the intention of the authorities of that University immediately to enter upon some course of reform. There was, however, a general feeling prevalent that they had no serious intention of doing so, at least in many cases. He begged to ask the noble Duke whether this assurance of an intention to set about reform came to him from the heads of houses, or from the board of the heads of houses? If it cattle only from the heads of houses it could not avail much, because they had no power to act in their individual capacity, and could do nothing in the way of reform except when assembled as a board. He had it from authority that the Fellows, who were the governing power in the Colleges, were determined, at least in one instance—that of Pembroke College—that nothing should be done in the way of reform. He wished to know from the noble Duke, whether any authority besides the heads of houses had given intimation to the noble Duke as an intention to enter upon a course of reform.
The Duke of Wellingtonbelieved the noble Lord was entirely mistaken in the observations he had made respecting the disposition to improvement in the University of Oxford. He was officially, visitor of Pembroke College, and had been in communication with the head of that College on the subject of an improvement in the statutes, and he was led to believe that there was no Want of a disposition to enter upon such improvement. He received letters from individuals of the governing body expressing the same views. He certainly did not communicate directly with the bellows as a governing body, but he communicated With the heads of houses, and he had every reason to believe that there was no indisposition to improvement. The communication certainly was not with the heads of houses, as a board. It should be recollected, however, that the head of each College had considerable influence within his own sphere, and, in their united capacity as a board, he believed they would be
980
disposed to make such improvement in the statutes as would give satisfaction to the public and to that House. He could not take upon himself to decide as to how the Convocation would act, but he knew there was no disinclination to promote the views of the noble Lord.
Petition laid on the table.