THIRD READING. (Hansard, 20 June 1871)

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, the Bill provided that in case of the grant of any charter for the foundation of any college or University, a copy of such charter shall be laid before Parliament for not less than 30 days before it was presented to Her Majesty for signature, and that during that period either House might present an Address to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her signature. Now, this was not only an invasion of the prerogative of the Crown, but was directly opposed to the grounds on which the Government resisted the Amendments of his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Salisbury) on the University Tests Bill. He was surprised that any Government should have introduced such a measure as this.

§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX
defended the Government in bringing in this Bill, pointing out that there was a great distinction between the proposal of the University Tests Bill and the principle of the present Bill.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, the state of legislation on this subject stood thus:—The fellows of colleges were considered sufficiently trustworthy to be entitled to alter or modify their charters to any extent without the consent of Parliament; but the Crown was thought so inferior to fellows of colleges, and so utterly untrustworthy, that secu- 297 rities were required in regard to the action of the Crown, which, were considered superfluous and ridiculous in regard to the action of the colleges. This was a curious position to which, the various exigencies of sectarian animosity had driven Her Majesty's Government. He sympathized with the Government in having to swallow so many contradictions; but that was one of the penalties attached to holding office by the consent of a somewhat unruly party. The present Bill was not only objectionable as derogating from the prerogative of the Crown, but as a singularly useless piece of legislation, the only result of which would be to make trustees more commonly used than charters.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, there was a wide difference between the case of the fellows of colleges under the University Tests Bill and the position of the Crown under this Bill. No analogy could be drawn between them.