L 1 E. RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N 1 VER.S ITY 
 
 or 1 LLl NOIS
 
 ^z^- 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 '^/'^^^ 
 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 SIR CHARLES WETHERELL, 
 
 INCORPORATING THE LONDON UNIVERSITY.
 
 LONDO N : 
 
 GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, I'RINXEKS, 
 
 ST. John's square.
 
 SUBSTANCE OF THE SPEECH 
 
 SIR CHARLES WETHERELL, 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 LORDS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 INCORPORATING 
 
 LONDON UNIVERSITY. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR J. G. & F. RTVINGTON, 
 
 ST. Paul's church yard, 
 
 AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. 
 
 1834.
 
 u;uc 
 
 -*&p,^.^
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 Sfc. 
 
 At a Meeting of a Committee of his Majesty's Most Honourable 
 Privy Council, Council Office, Whitehall, 
 
 THURSDAY, 24th APRIL, 1834, 
 
 IN THE MATTER OF THE LONDON UNIVERSITY. 
 
 My Lords, — I have the honour to appear upon 
 this occasion as Counsel for the University of 
 Oxford, and in support of a petition which has 
 been presented by them to His Majesty, against 
 the charter which is sought by a class of persons 
 now calling themselves the University of London, 
 and who have prayed of his Majesty, to incor- 
 porate them in that character. I feel, my Lords, 
 placed in a most peculiar situation, perhaps the 
 most peculiar in which any advocate ever stood 
 before. For I cannot but know, that one noble 
 and learned Lord, now sitting at the board (the 
 Lord Chancellor) has in the House of Lords ex- 
 pressed himself in strong terms, in favour of the 
 claims to this charter. I cannot fail to recollect 
 that another noble Lord, filling no less high an 
 
 B
 
 '2 
 
 office than that of President of his Majesty's 
 Council, is a subscriber, and one of the council of 
 the institution. 
 
 The Marquis of Lansdowne. — You are mis- 
 taken. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — I apprehend only 
 in this respect, that your Lordship is not actually 
 at the present moment one of the council. 
 
 The Lord Chancellor. — Perhaps you ought 
 to recollect another noble Lord, who has helped 
 you to the best argument that has been urged 
 against the claim, that is, the argument they found 
 the most difficulty in grappling with, which you 
 may guess, they did find so from their being so 
 very shy of coming near it. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — I am satisfied 
 your Lordship will feel that if I am permitted to 
 follow up my own views, I shall not be found 
 doing your Lordships injustice. I cannot but 
 know that another noble and learned Lord is also, 
 but perhaps from a mistake in the printer, repre- 
 sented to be a subscriber to the institution. I 
 mean no less an exalted individual than the Lord 
 Chief Justice of England. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Then on the other side, 
 you have to set otf the Lord High Steward of 
 the University of Oxford, and the late member 
 for Cambridge, and another person whom I need 
 not name, so that it is not all on one side. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — Certainly, I have
 
 the honour to see the Lord High Steward, he 
 brings with him all the personal incidents belong- 
 ing to that character, and I have no doubt at the 
 same time, that of perfect candour, whatever may 
 be his disposition to support the just privileges of 
 his own university. My Lords, I cannot imagine 
 myself, during a discussion on this subject, put in 
 a state of conflict with the Lord High Chancellor 
 of Great Britain, or with the Lord Chief Justice 
 of England, or with the Lord President, though 
 I should be compelled to deny, as I feel it my 
 duty to do, the legality of the proposed charter. 
 But I would not appear, I would even further say, 
 I would not condescend to appear here, under the 
 influence of restraint upon any point whatever. 
 If I shall be obliged to ridicule this institu- 
 tion, and condemn it as inconsistent with all 
 public policy (I was going to say of public 
 decency), that view of the case would not place 
 me in a position which would expose me to the 
 necessity of throwing out allusions disrespectful 
 or disagreeable to any individual, nor of impeach- 
 ing their determination to be impartial, and they 
 would remain the same objects of personal respect 
 as if they were not at all connected with the contest 
 now pending. 
 
 Notwithstanding, therefore, what may have been 
 decided at the Council Board in Gower-street, or 
 even the Common Council of the city of London, 
 and though I may have the misfortune to be placed 
 
 b2
 
 in fearful collision with such great and powerful 
 bodies, I must proceed at all hazards. I am per- 
 suaded that any opinion which any Privy Coun- 
 cillor now summoned to this board may have 
 expressed elsewhere in favour of the charter, any 
 countenance he may have given to it, any thing 
 which he may have said or done on antecedent 
 occasions, will be considered by him as of such a 
 foreign nature as to be entirely forgotten. All 
 private and individual feelings will be lost and 
 merged at this board in the public duty of persons 
 sworn and bound in their abstract, constitutional, 
 and legal character of Privy Councillors to advise 
 the Crown. It is this reflection alone that has 
 given some consolation to the humble individual 
 who has now the honour to address you, for it 
 would be a most painful thing for me in addressing 
 a tribunal, in many respects the highest in this 
 country, to tell the promoters of a charter, once 
 comitenanced and advocated by several of your 
 Lordships, that they have been labouring under a 
 state of perfect ignorance of the law. It would 
 otherwise seem a strong thing to say, — it would in 
 any other view appear a personal disrespect to the 
 advisers of the Crown in their character of Privy 
 Councillors, to say, — 
 
 But it must, I fear, be said, that according to all 
 the general principles of the law of the land, the 
 part which some individuals have formerly taken, 
 would incapacitate them to give any advice what-
 
 ever to the Crown on this subject. There is indeed 
 no challenge practically allowed by the constitu- 
 tion to any Privy Councillor sitting at the board. 
 If there were, I would avail myself of that chal- 
 lenge. But the forms of the constitution have not 
 provided for such a case. It is no pleasant office 
 for any man to undertake the task of alluding to 
 all this. But the truth is, that many individuals 
 eminent for their talents and consideration, have 
 formerly in their private capacities, and under the 
 influence of their particular notions and feelings, 
 and while placed in relations towards the govern- 
 ment very unlike those in which they now stand, 
 made themselves the zealous patrons of this insti- 
 tution, no doubt from the most sincere conviction 
 that it would be a desirable thing to raise it up as 
 a competitor in rank and importance, and to add it 
 to the ancient establishments of the country. But 
 standing now in the very different situation of 
 ministers of the Crown, they are bound to give up 
 their private feelings and wishes, and even to 
 repudiate what they have done under other cir- 
 cumstances, if in the exercise of their sacred 
 duty in advising the Crown, it shall be made 
 to appear that His Majesty ought not to con- 
 sent to a project which they have themselves 
 originally promoted. I am certain that my mo- 
 tives cannot be misunderstood in referring to 
 any particular names. In fact, there are three 
 or four of his Majesty's ministers directly con-
 
 6 
 
 nected with this institution ; but this is not men- 
 tioned with the most distant approximation of dis- 
 respect to them for the reasons I have just stated ; 
 and if any expression which may have dropped from 
 me should seem to have such a bearing, I should 
 say, indictum piita. 
 
 With regard to the petition of the University of 
 Oxford, it seems to me that it is not necessary to 
 enter into any detail of the contents. The purpose 
 of it is to object in toto to the Charter sought for. 
 My honourable and learned friend, however, who 
 opened this case, alluded to one or two particular 
 passages, in which it is stated, that they had been 
 advised so and so. At this he expressed his sur- 
 prise, and as it seemed to me was hunting about a 
 little to find out their adviser, rather intimating 
 that the advice was not good. But whether the 
 advice has been well or ill given, or whether the 
 terms and composition of their petition be such as 
 other persons would have used or not, it is at pre- 
 sent not material to inquire. But high authority 
 will hereafter be adduced for the advice which has 
 been given. 
 
 Before entering at large into the general and 
 leading topics of the objections to the Charter, 
 some parts of the opening speech of my honourable 
 friend must be adverted to, and here I must take 
 the liberty to express some surprise on my part. 
 A complaint has been raised that the science and 
 art of medicine and surgery have been most
 
 grievously impeded by the non-existence of such 
 an institution as is sought for ; but it now turns 
 out that the injured doctors, surgeons, and apothe- 
 caries, can acquire no academical honours from 
 the applicants for this Charter. It has been ad- 
 mitted that they are in no condition to give de- 
 grees, nor indeed to give any aid whatever to the 
 medical school of London. They have no hospital 
 and no patients ; the mode of instruction by Clinical 
 Lectures being the best of all, unfortunately they 
 have no sick men as subjects for the lecturer. 
 This is the Materia Medica upon which they found 
 their pretensions. It may be an unsupportable 
 grievance that the population of the City of Lon- 
 don, its suburbs, and environs, amounting all 
 together, as we are told, to some fourteen or fifteen 
 hundred thousands of souls, — a population com- 
 pared with that of Denmark or Saxony, or some 
 other, not inconsiderable foreign states, — should 
 labour under the want of a Medical University. 
 But the gentlemen who now present themselves to 
 relieve his Majesty's subjects from such an evil, 
 have forgot that they are not yet furnished with 
 pots, phials, and medicine chests, or the common 
 pharm.acopasia of a chymist's shop. But still they 
 must have the power to give degrees. Says my 
 honourable and learned friend in his opening, why 
 am not I to have my doctors, surgeons, and apo- 
 thecaries graduated in London ? How shocking is it 
 that every aurist, oculist, dentist, chiropedist, and
 
 whole platoons of his Majesty's medical subjects 
 should have been so scandalously ill-treated ? Why 
 I should be tempted to say that the affair had 
 become very serious, indeed, if the Common 
 Council of the City of London, at their Guild- 
 hall assembled, declare that they must address 
 his Majesty upon the subject. One would sup- 
 pose the grievance to be so intolerable, that 
 following the example of the "Trades' Union," 
 it would almost justify " a Medical Union" of all 
 members of the faculty to assemble to put it down 
 and redress themselves. But, after all this remon- 
 strance and complaint, my honourable friend, so 
 distinguished for his talents, must not here lose the 
 tribute due to him for the candour of his statement. 
 For in truth he savs. We have no means '^ at 
 present'^ for a Medical School. But never mind 
 that ; — let us have a charter, as the lawyers say, 
 de bene esse. We shall then have a potentiality of 
 acquiring means by and by, and then we shall be 
 able to get on. Now, unwilling as I am to occupy 
 a moment of your Lordships' time beyond what the 
 exigency of duty requires, I must request you to 
 observe the sino-nlar state of this case. When I see 
 this large assemblage at Guildhall, the coadjutors 
 of this Institution, assisting them in their com- 
 plaint ; when I see the Institution already assum- 
 ing the title of a University, praying of the Crown 
 to realize their pretensions, and to found them as 
 such ; when I hear them asking of his Majesty to
 
 9 
 
 allow them the power to confer on the medical 
 body, a class of men so learned and distinguished, 
 the same rank and state now exclusively de- 
 rived from Oxford and Cambridge; — when I hear 
 this on one side, and recollect what I have just 
 heard stated in this place, I must say, with all 
 humble deference and respect to the Common 
 Council, who presented their petition to his Majesty 
 on the Throne, that when they graced and went 
 along with the procession to St. James's, they 
 lost a day to trade, and did not gain it to medical 
 science. They complain to the King that medical 
 degrees are not given by their friends, the London 
 University, — says the learned advocate for the so 
 titled University. Medical degrees we are not in 
 a condition to give : — and it was for this and 
 nothing else that the tradesmen deserted their 
 tills and counters in Cheapside, and posted up to 
 St. James's to rescue his Majesty's subjects round 
 the Metropolis, numerous as a Continental state, 
 from such ill treatment and desertion. What 
 other persons may think of such amusing proceed- 
 ings as these I know not ; but I shall venture to 
 say what I think of them. I think they are fit to 
 be worked up into a farce to be played at some of 
 the minor theatres, Sadler's Wells, for instance. 
 They may be fit for the Council Board at Guild- 
 hall, but do not deserve to carry much weight 
 with such an illustrious assembly as is convened 
 here. 1 am compelled to say, further, that the
 
 10 
 
 privilege of addressing the Sovereign on the Throne 
 has somewhat the appearance of being abused, or 
 if that be too strong language, I would soften it 
 down, and say that it had been rather ridiculously- 
 used. My Lords, in pursuing the claims of this 
 Institution to their Charter, I must allude next to 
 the list of patriotic persons announced to us as 
 subscribers to it. Great names, indeed, are sounded 
 in our ears. We have heard read the names of a 
 Duke of Sussex, a Duke of Devonshire, a Duke of 
 Norfolk, and a Duke of Somerset ; persons cer- 
 tainly carrying w^ith them a considerable sanction 
 to any undertaking. But I should wish to ask 
 my honourable friend, why he did not first announce 
 the name of the Lord Chancellor, for in rank and 
 station he precedes the whole Dukery ? Why omit 
 the name of the President of the Council, who in 
 this place at least, precedes every body ? Why is 
 this parsimonious doling out of the names of the 
 Subscribers ? Why again did he omit to mention 
 some others of his Majesty's Ministers, I presume 
 because, to use a city phrase, these ministerial 
 friends are already '^posted'' in the ledger of the 
 London University. That is the only reason why 
 I can suppose that these eminent persons have not 
 been catalogued by my honourable friend with 
 the illustrious list he has read over to us. In point 
 of fact it was, perhaps, unnecessary to enumerate 
 them, because for three or four years back they 
 are known to have been the public patrons of the
 
 11 
 
 Institution. But whatever be the meaning of this, 
 I must take the liberty to say, that these Goldsmids 
 in wealth, these Devonshires in landed property, 
 these Norfolks in ancient rank, these profound 
 lawyers and great statesmen, will not affect the 
 nerves of any person, unless he be indisposed to 
 perform his duty. It is not to be supposed that 
 they have subscribed for the purposes of profit on 
 their money, but they can only be looked at as if 
 they were subscribers to any other institution, to 
 the London Cemetery Company, or any other 
 Company, as if they had the vulgar plebeian names 
 of Smith and Thompson. For all the purposes of 
 the present question, if it is to be fairly disposed of, 
 they can only be recognised as A. B. C. 
 
 Now I shall next advert to another ground of 
 recommendation of the Charter by my Honourable 
 Friend. It is not to be an establishment for the 
 purposes of religion : religion is an ingredient 
 which, it is allowed, is not to enter into the concoc- 
 tion of it, but it is still to have a very great influ- 
 ence on the moral conduct of the inhabitants of 
 London. Those sensual vices, those immoralities 
 of human nature, those propensities to dissipation, 
 those deflections from purity, that state of physical 
 sensuality, which are too observable in a metropo- 
 lis, are to be totally lost in the establishment of this 
 attractive, intellectual, academical Society. Such 
 a topic as this, however ingenious, is new ; it may, 
 perhaps, be a leaf picked from the Journal of the
 
 12 
 
 Common Council. One has been at Paris, where 
 institutions and societies of this description exist in 
 abundance ; but I have never yet heard that they 
 had much improved the moral habits of the people 
 there. But the London University is to have a far 
 different effect : all moral improprieties are to be 
 absorbed by the destructive power — the consuming 
 flame of — this new intellectual system. For my own 
 part, I beg to say, I much doubt whether, in the 
 list of criminals — in the list of those unfortunate 
 persons, the victims of vice — of those wretched ob- 
 jects who, under the dispensations of Providence, are 
 devoted to misery — a single one will be deducted. 
 As a practical argument, I cannot subscribe to 
 it ; but if this Society is to have the extraordinary 
 effect of putting an end to immorality, permit me 
 to ask, whether a University, founded on no princi- 
 ple of religion, no use of prayer to the Almighty, 
 not even in the admission of Christianity, will not 
 lamentably increase what I shall call religious 
 sensuality ? Instead of those vices, the cure of 
 which is anticipated, we are to have a Society, the 
 basis of which is to be — emancipation from all reli- 
 gion. Now, I assert, and I think that experience 
 will confirm me, that the most demoralizing, the 
 most injurious of all sensualities with which man 
 can be inflicted, is that which invites the mind to 
 roam abroad, to expatiate and devote itself to all 
 the vice and wickedness in which the sensualist in 
 religion may indulge himself. I think it is an
 
 13 
 
 overwhelming set off against the expected improve- 
 ment in the moral habits of the inhabitants of the 
 metropolis. If this University is to have its attrac- 
 tions, and engage the attention of those who would 
 otherwise be ruined by dissipation, I will be bold 
 enough to say, I think it better to leave vice to its 
 own curse, and immorality to bring on its own 
 ruin, than to have a system established, by which 
 the debauchery of the body is to be prevented at 
 the expense of the worse debauchery of the mind. 
 The next general ground, urged so strongly by 
 mv honourable friend, is the increased demand 
 for education. This is a popular thesis to enlarge 
 upon. I know it is the opinion of some persons, 
 that a country cannot be over educated : there is 
 no such thing in their view as ultra-education. 
 Now, such a wide field of speculation as this I 
 cannot go into, nor will I enter into the lists with 
 the maintainers of that principle ; but, taking it to 
 be so for the purpose of the argument, is it essen- 
 tial that the Society should be a University ? Would 
 not a college, or school, or seminary, in Gower- 
 street, with their plan of instruction, impart as 
 large a supply of attainments in literature. In its 
 character of a school, this institution may be 
 wanted, or it may not ; but, after every thing I 
 have heard on this subject, 1 am still at a loss to 
 perceive why that sort of institution, which is tech- 
 nically known as a University, is so indispensable 
 to the inhabitants of London.
 
 14 
 
 In proceeding further to allude to the points 
 insisted upon on the other side, there is one which 
 unfortunately has been touched upon very slightly ; 
 and that is, the question what sort of property is 
 it on which this University is to be engrafted. 
 This has been nearly passed over : but I must 
 press it upon your attention, as a matter of great 
 moment. Property^ it may be said, is not always 
 to be weighed in too nice scales ; but unless they 
 have that certain and continueing endowment, 
 which will sustain them in that respect and supe- 
 riority of rank and station, which are absolutely 
 necessary to so high a character, I wish to ask 
 what will be the consequence ? Now what is the 
 nature of their property ? assignable shares, at 
 present at a discount of £75. It is rather strange 
 that this point was missed at the meeting of the 
 Common Council. They could hardly consider it 
 as a mark of solidity of finance, equally promising 
 with the Religious, Literary, Legal, and Medical 
 advantages of the Institution which they referred 
 to in their address. But if we were to ask a 
 Cheapside-man to take a money or trade view of 
 the subject, and to waive a little of theology, law, 
 and literature ; and if he looked into the Price 
 Current of this morning, and found the shares of 
 the to-be-founded University worth 21|-each, he 
 would say upon the mewn and tuu7n of the thing, 
 there is nothing particularly inviting in it : but 
 when the value of these shares is considered, we
 
 15 
 
 must not stop here. I shall undertake to demon- 
 strate to-morrow, that of the London University, 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury, the eminent and 
 venerable Prelate now sitting at the board, must 
 unavoidably and of necessity be the Visitor. This 
 will make the shares tumble down to nothing : 
 they will be as unsaleable as Columbian Bonds or 
 Greek Stock. This visitatorial character I shall 
 prove belongs to the Primate, and that the Crown 
 can found no University on any other principle. 
 That will be one of the propositions which I 
 confidently assert I shall make out when I enter 
 into the main grounds of my case : this will 
 make their shares look downwards indeed. But 
 this subject of the income and property of the 
 Institution will hereafter require to be inspected 
 more closely. The proposed Institution being 
 only one corporation, must subsist and be main- 
 tained exclusively on its own funds and property ; 
 and without these it cannot be a place of educa- 
 tion. Whereas in the Universities of Oxford and 
 Cambridge, the case is widely different ; in both 
 of these, each College has its own endowment and 
 funds. The property of the University, as such, 
 need be comparatively little, because each College 
 maintains its own establishment, and is for that 
 purpose entirely independent of the corporate con- 
 stitution of the University. In truth, the separate 
 Colleges support the University. If this has 
 escaped the attention of the Great Council lately 
 
 13
 
 16 
 
 held in the City, which may be, it will not have 
 the same fate here. I have ever understood, and I 
 know from experience, that the rule has hitherto 
 been, that the Crown will never grant a Charter 
 for a College, a School, or for any object of the 
 most common and ordinary description, without 
 the assurance of adequate property to support it. 
 I should hope that a rule indispensable in a weaker 
 case, can, and will not be sacrificed upon so serious 
 an occasion. We have heard of exclusion from 
 the Universities complained of, and the necessity 
 of a new foundation. The Crown is called upon 
 to confer upon it extraordinary powers ; and to 
 create an honourable competition and rivalry : and 
 Doctors and Masters of Arts are to issue in abun- 
 dance from Gower-street. And all this is to be 
 done when the learned body is literally in a state 
 of insolvency. It is no fiction to say, that a 
 sheriff's officer will very probably go and fasten 
 up the doors of their lecture-rooms and museum, 
 and an advertisement will appear for the sale 
 of a bankrupt university. How is this honour- 
 able competition with Oxford and Cambridge 
 to be carried on without money, the sinews of 
 war. An expedient has been undoubtedly 
 offered by the honourable and learned civilian, 
 and the advocate for, and a member of, the 
 Council in Gower-street, who performs all his 
 miscellaneous duties with great talents, and who, I 
 think, was ill used, when his name was not read
 
 17 
 
 over with the list of Dukes. He admits, that all 
 the buildings necessary for the medical branch 
 stand not at present on terra firma. They are 
 mere castles in the air, reared by the imagination, 
 and sympathizing friendship of the Common 
 Council of London. But then says the learned 
 civilian, Give us the Charter as a nucleus, and 
 wealth will follow as a consequence. Do not look 
 at the uti possidetis, but look at what we shall have 
 bye-and-bye, look at contingencies and reversions. 
 One would really almost suppose that the title of 
 the London University was so attractive as to be 
 enough and more than enough to make money 
 pour in from all quarters ; possibly it may gather 
 to itself the unemployed capital of the East India 
 Company and the Bank of England, at present so 
 barren and unprofitable. Now, I maintain, that 
 for the Crown to act on the mere speculation of 
 adequate means is a departure from an invariable 
 practical rule on the subject of Charters. 
 
 I am next led on to call your Lordships' attention 
 to another highly important consideration involving 
 the conduct and duty of the Crown upon this oc- 
 casion ; I mean the point, what is to be the con- 
 stitution of this establishment. This point has 
 been studiously kept out of view ; not a word has 
 been said about it. But I find that it is to be 
 formed entirely on the principle of a Joint Stock 
 Company, with assignable shares. The share- 
 holders elect what is called a Council, and this 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 Council is to make bye-laws, and to be armed with 
 the authority of making all the interior regulations 
 of the body. I have looked through the sketch of 
 their Charter, and this is the whole of what I can 
 collect from it. Now, the affairs of the London 
 Cemeter}'^ and the Southampton Rail Road may be 
 very usefully conducted in this manner. The 
 shareholders at their pleasure call their meetings, 
 and elect a chairman and a committee. But is 
 the joint stock principle to be made a model for 
 the constitution of a third University to be called 
 into existence as the rival and equal of the two 
 ancient Universities of which His Majesty is him- 
 self the head. I must farther appeal to every 
 experienced Member of this Board, whether an- 
 other of the rules on which the Privy Council 
 invariably acts with reference to Charters is not to 
 require a distinct and preliminary statement as to 
 what is to be the government, and who are to be 
 the governors, of any society incorporated for the 
 purposes, and combined with the performance, of 
 any important public trust and duty, in order that 
 the Grown may be assured, that the powers which 
 it delegates may be properly administered? and in 
 order to effectuate this, proper provisions are 
 always introduced into the Charter. Such is the 
 rule ; and the history of Charters from the earliest 
 time to the latest moment proves il. And as a fur- 
 ther security in Charters of this description, the 
 Crown either names or approves of the first go-
 
 19 
 
 vernors. But here, upon the most important occa- 
 sion of modern times, the joint-stock principle of 
 government is to supersede the precaution of the 
 Crown, which is to be entirely thrown aside. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Can you tell me how they 
 manage with the shareholders at King's Col- 
 lege 1 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — Yes ; I have looked 
 at that, my Lord. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Perhaps you can answer 
 this question. What is the title in law by which a 
 University College could be named, and could be 
 pleaded ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell., — If this question 
 applies to University College at Oxford, it is called 
 the Great Hall of the University. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. -^It is called the Great 
 Hall of the University in Oxford ? You see the 
 view with which I put the question. The King's 
 College is incorporated by Charter from the Crown ; 
 but being a college, it is only incorporated as such, 
 and can have no power of granting degrees. 
 
 The Bishop of London. — It has at its head 
 Official Governors, but not elective. 
 
 The Lord Chancellor. — The name of Univer- 
 sity, you know, would not give it the nature of a 
 University. Suppose an incorporated Charter to 
 be given to the body called the University of 
 London, to be and be called a College, and not a 
 University, a collegiate body ; but by the name of 
 
 c 2
 
 20 
 
 such a University it would be no more a University 
 than a College of Oxford would be : it would not 
 be made a University by force of the Charter. It 
 might have a name, but its nature is not changed. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — That is one of the 
 points to which I shall to-morrow call your Lord- 
 ships' attention. 
 
 The Lord Chancellor. — Another question 
 might be, suppose no Charter was granted at all, 
 and that the body goes on as it now is, without 
 applying for the Charter, whether as a University, 
 or a collegiate body, not a University, and sup- 
 posed to assume to itself to grant degrees ; what 
 remedy would there be, taking the degree for what 
 it is, valeat quantum as a testimony that a person 
 has received a certain education, and is possessed 
 of the skill consequent on that education, and that 
 the public are to give acceptation to those degrees, 
 and the man is called in without asking whether 
 it is a London University degree, or an Aberdeen, 
 or an Edinburgh, or a St. Andrew's degree ? 
 Suppose they called in a Dr. Smith, and pre- 
 scribed quid juris, what remedy would those who 
 regulate the Universities of Edinburgh or St. 
 Andrew have ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — There may be re- 
 medies, my Lord ; but the point is so novel that it 
 cannot be easily answered. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — London University, you 
 see, gives up something, if there is nothing to
 
 21 
 
 prevent that ; if in consideration of the Crown 
 granting the Charter, it agrees to take the Charter 
 under certain conditions, such as visitation, not 
 transferring shares by purchase, and any other 
 limitation : such as to be excluded from granting 
 certain degrees, such as to keep the power of 
 making Masters of Arts, and Doctors of Law, and 
 Bachelors of Law, but not to take the power of 
 granting Medical degrees, but that that might be 
 vested in a central body ; I throw that out. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — I have considered 
 all these points, and shall be prepared to state 
 before your Lordships the view I take of them. 
 As to King's College, I have seen a copy of their 
 Charter, and the first answer as to the shareholders 
 is, that it is not a University. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — I thought your argument 
 went not to an University, but to the absurdity of 
 incorporating any joint stock company. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — By no means; I 
 thought I had guarded myself sufficiently against 
 any such supposition. It is one thing for the Crown 
 to grant a Charter, incorporating a school upon the 
 principle of a joint stock company, it is another 
 thing to found an University on that principle ; 
 but the truth is, the King's College is not founded 
 on the ordinary principle of a joint stock company, 
 where the shareholders make their own bye laws 
 and system of government. Li the first place, in 
 King's College, the Charter requires the doctrines
 
 22 
 
 of the Church of England to be taught ; secondly, 
 it has a visitor named by the Crown, that Right 
 Reverend Prelate the Archbishop now sitting at 
 the end of the Board ; thirdly, there are particular 
 provisions as to who the governing Council are to 
 be, and how they are to be continued : they are 
 not persons " cheered " into the chair of the Coun- 
 cil, but persons named and approved by his Ma- 
 jesty. There is a certain Sir Nicholas Conyngham 
 Tindal, Chief Justice ; there are indeed no Dukes ; 
 but, in going on, I see the name of a certain Sir 
 Launcelot Shadwell ; I further see our trusty and 
 well-beloved Sir Robert Inglis, Sir John Richard- 
 sou, Knight, and a Reverend Archdeacon, one of 
 the Chaplains of the Archbishop. The very rule I 
 have just alluded to has been followed up ; and 
 there are many checks and other provisions which 
 it is not necessary to mention, introduced into the 
 Charter, for the purpose of regulating the influence 
 of the shareholders, and preventing any improper 
 interference by them. Now, if I have assailed the 
 Gower-street Institution upon the principle of its 
 joint stock government, I have not been caught in 
 my own snare, for the Government of King's Col- 
 lege is, in every respect, the reverse of it. 
 
 I wish now to say a very few words upon what 
 has fallen from my learned friend, in noticing an 
 expression used by Dr. Copleston, the learned 
 Bishop of Llandaff, in a very able pamphlet of his. 
 Some years ago, a very violent attack was made on 
 
 13
 
 23 
 
 the University of Oxford, not indeed for their want 
 of orthodoxy in religion, but in Greek and general 
 science. I think it came from St. Andrew's, or 
 Edinburgh, or some other northern rival. This 
 very learned individual undertook to answer the 
 metaphysician and Grecian, and he was thought to 
 have done so with great success ; but a passage 
 occurring in this work is referred to by my learned 
 friend, importing that " the University of Oxford 
 is not a national institution." Without going 
 through the whole of the Tract, the distinct bear- 
 ing of this expression will be misunderstood. The 
 different colleges may be most properly said not to 
 be a national institution, for they are not founded 
 by the Crown ; but it is not meant to say, that the 
 academic or collective body of the University is not 
 a national institution. The learned writer would 
 be much misunderstood in having the expression 
 so construed. 
 
 These preliminary remarks I conceived myself 
 bound to make, and to-morrow I shall state to your 
 Lordships the two propositions I mean to contend 
 for, which in substance are, that his Majesty can- 
 not legally grant the Charter, and these proposi- 
 tions I hope to establish.
 
 24 
 
 At a Meeting of a Committee of his Majesty's Most Honourable 
 
 Privy Council, Council Office, Whitehall, 
 
 SATURDAY, 26th APRIL, 1834. 
 
 IN THE MATTER OF THE LONDON UNIVERSITY. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — My Lords, in con- 
 cluding the address I had the honour to begin on 
 Thursday in this case, I stated that I should under- 
 take to bring forward propositions directly asserting 
 that the Charter sought for cannot be legally 
 granted. It is obvious that the question of legality 
 in the order of discussion precedes that of good 
 policy, because whatever favourable view may be 
 taken of the question of public good or of general 
 policy in conceding such a measure, it would 
 come to nothing if the Institution sought to be 
 established cannot be legally founded by a Charter. 
 The proposition of expediency might, for the pur- 
 pose of the argument, be admitted, for the propo- 
 sition of illegality, if decided in the affirmative, 
 would dispose of the other. I had, therefore, first 
 intended to proceed directly to argue the question 
 of law for the reasons just stated. But I was 
 diverted, as I think necessarily, from that purpose 
 and driven to make the observations I offered by 
 the extraordinary statements I heard on the other 
 side. Before I enter upon the subject more pre- 
 cisely, there are some main circumstances to which 
 it will be necessary to call your Lordships' atten-
 
 25 
 
 tion, in order that some clear proposition of fact 
 may be laid down, connected with the question of 
 law. I heard a learned friend behind me ask 
 whether there was to be laid any distinct statement 
 before the Board as the basis on which the Charter 
 is to stand. This alluded particularly to the sort 
 of instruction, literary and religious, which it may 
 be proposed to pursue in this Institution ; and I 
 apprehend such a statement ought regularly to 
 have been produced, and might, I conceive, to 
 have been required. The Privy Council, who have 
 to advise the Crown upon the concession or refusal 
 of a Charter for a new University, must first be 
 informed upon the preliminary inquiry, what is or 
 what is not to be the religious discipline of the 
 place. Without information on this subject, how 
 can you advise his Majesty 1 But from a sincere 
 desire of saving your Lordships' time, I would 
 waive calling for a statement upon the point of 
 religious education. But I only do so because it 
 is an understood thing, and I assume it as an 
 understood thing, that in this University, as it is 
 already termed, not only the doctrine, discipline, 
 and worship of the Church of England are not to 
 be conformed to, but that no form of Christianity 
 whatever is to be there maintained. 
 
 I say this because there having been some time 
 since a Council held in Gower-street, at which a 
 distinguished Member of Westminster Hall, now 
 filling the highest situation in the Law of this
 
 26 
 
 country, was present, and in which discussion he 
 took a part, it is allowed to be as clear as any 
 mathematical datum, that within its walls religion 
 of no sort whatever is to enter. The rule mig-ht 
 be well expressed in this short sentence, Religion 
 " hvjus loci non est.'' 
 
 And their plan is well adapted to their maxim, 
 and carries it completely into effect : there is to 
 be no church or chapel ; there is to be no lecture 
 in divinity of any sort or description ; no test ad- 
 ministered at any time to any of its pupils or 
 members ; no Sacrament or profession of faith ; 
 no religious rite whatever ; and it is therefore 
 scarcely necessary to add, no chaplain, preacher, 
 reader, reading-desk, or congregation. It had so 
 happened, it seems, that an ill-natured rumour was 
 given out by some ill-natured person, that some 
 sort of religious faith had endeavoured to creep 
 into the University. Upon this, its dearest friends, 
 its chief patrons and warmest supporters felt deeply 
 for its interests. They said, we shall be knocked 
 up if there is any idea that any thing of the kind 
 is to be permitted. It cannot possibly go on : the 
 shareholders will withdraw their subscriptions ; the 
 stock will vanish, and it will become almost as bad 
 a speculation as the South Sea bubble. 
 
 I will state nothing here for which I have not 
 authority. I will overstate nothing : but I will 
 not omit to state the truth. You will learn with 
 surprise, that this injury to the character of the
 
 27 
 
 Institution was gravely complained of, and made a 
 matter of debate at a council. And upon that 
 occasion, I find this point of the nullity and ab- 
 sence of religion advocated, maintained, and 
 asserted before that council in the terms I am 
 about to read from the publication I hold in my 
 hand. The eminent individual alluded to said, 
 " that he had no objection to the discussion in 
 " which his two honourable and gallant friends 
 " who spoke last, and the honourable proprietor 
 " who preceded him, had spoken. On the con- 
 " trary, there was nothing more desirable, than that 
 " any honourable proprietor should state to his 
 " brother proprietors any thing which he consi- 
 *' dered an abuse in the Institution. He felt that 
 *' every thing which had been urged was spoken in 
 " a feeling, friendly to the Institution, and of gene- 
 " ral confidence in the Council ; but though he ad- 
 " mitted this, he would concur in all the observa- 
 " tions which he had heard. As to the insinua- 
 " tions, that the Council had given any sanction to 
 " a departure from the great principle which was, 
 ' ' he might say, ' the foundation and corner-stone 
 *' ' of the Institution,' in giving any particular form 
 " of religious instruction, as part of a system of 
 *' education within the walls of the University, he 
 ** was sure his honourable friends, and the other 
 " honourable proprietors were mistaken. The prin- 
 " ciple upon which the University was founded, in 
 " that respect, was not one of indifference to reli-
 
 28 
 
 " gion, but one of real respect, one of universal 
 '' tolerance, which kept aloof from any connection 
 " with any one particular form of religious worship, 
 " more than another, for the purpose of leaving 
 " every person connected with the University at 
 " perfect liberty to follow that which was most con- 
 " sonant to his own conscientious feelings. This 
 " was the principle on which the University was 
 " founded. It was that on which the Council had 
 " invariably acted, and he should be sorry to find, 
 " that a contrary impression should be found to 
 " exist to any extent, for most certainly he could 
 " state that it would be wholly unfounded." 
 
 Upon this authority, I apprehend I am here at 
 liberty to state it as a fact, that the Council of this 
 to-be-founded University, makes it, to use the ex- 
 pressions of their own members, " the foundation 
 and corner-stone of the Institution," that there 
 shall be no one religion adopted in preference to 
 another ; but every person is to be left to his own 
 conscientious feelings. 
 
 I think I might stop here, but there are some 
 things about which your Lordships would be left 
 much in the dark if I did, though I may have 
 stated enough : but there are many other circum- 
 stances connected with this principle of respect to 
 all religions deserving of close attention. Any one 
 might suppose from this that the authenticity of 
 the Sacred Writings was not meant to be disputed 
 in this place ; that in this algebra of negations, this
 
 29 
 
 nullity of any particular faith, this perfect indiffer- 
 ence to forms, the authenticity of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures might be admitted without breaking in upon 
 the main principle, or at least left to its own fate. 
 For the principle of indifference is to take no part 
 for or against religion as disclosed in the Sacred 
 Writings : that is the fair meaning of the word. 
 
 But when I open the London University Calen- 
 dar, I do not find this fairness quite realized. For 
 as it appears to me, at least, in several ways this 
 neutrality is broken. The authenticity and in- 
 spired character of the Sacred Writings, it appears 
 to me, from their mode of instruction, is intended to 
 be denied. I have looked through their course of 
 lectures to see how they bear upon this : if I look 
 into the Hebrew department, to which I shall first 
 call your attention, I find in page 46, of the Lon- 
 don University Calendar, that a learned indivi- 
 dual, Professor Hyman Hurwitz, is charged with 
 the office of Lecturer in Hebrew. One would be 
 tempted under this title to expect that the Sacred 
 Volume, which in the history of Christianity is called 
 the Bible, — a name which in common speech carries 
 with it some kind of respect — one would, at least, 
 expect that the Bible should be called the Bible. 
 But really in Gower-street, there is what I was 
 going to call — I do not know whether I am takino- 
 an improper liberty — a perfect " Biblophobia," a 
 fear not only of admitting the contents of the 
 Sacred Volume, but of speaking of it by its com-
 
 30 
 
 mon name. How do your Lordships suppose the 
 Professor deals with it ? I shall quote his words : — 
 "I propose shortly to give during this period, a 
 brief sketch of the ancient Hebrew Literature, to 
 show its importance in a philosophical point of 
 view." We hear nothing of the prophecies, no- 
 thing of the religious history of the Jews, nothing 
 as to the promised appearance of the Redeemer of 
 mankind on earth. 
 
 Matters of this nature, the professor proposes not 
 to lay before his pupils ; in a religious point of 
 view, he has nothing at all to do with them. Now 
 I am myself quite at a loss to know for what 
 purpose the Old Testament is to be lectured upon 
 in a philosophical point of view, unless it is to 
 lead the human mind into error, and to adopt 
 that as philosophy which the doctrines of Christ- 
 ianity require us to believe as the sacred revelation 
 of the Deity. Then the Professor goes on to 
 say, " I propose to begin a regular course of 
 reading, consisting of such portions of the ancient 
 records" of the Hebrews, as will " serve to explain 
 " their archseology. The account they give of the 
 " primitive state of mankind ; the gradual invention 
 " of some of the arts, origin of nations, and geogra- 
 " phical position of countries," &c. &c. 
 
 If the Professor had been an attorney's clerk, 
 he might have picked up the expression, "An- 
 cient records," from some of the offices in 
 the Inns of Court, and it might be ex-
 
 31 
 
 cusable enough from a maladie de metier, from 
 a predilection for legal phrases in an attorney's 
 clerk, and particularly till that class of the pro- 
 fession are graced with the title and dignity of 
 Masters of Arts, an advantage now so improperly 
 withheld from them, and which they are to derive 
 from the London University. But in a university 
 indifferent to any form of religion, and open to all, 
 I should not see any great harm in a Professor 
 calling it the Bible or Old Testament. But if I 
 look through the whole of the scheme of Lectures 
 in Hebrew, I do not find, from one end of it to 
 the other, a word or a syllable, an implication, an 
 approach to treating that sacred volume as a part 
 of the inspired writings. The book is not to be 
 lectured upon in that character, nor is it to be 
 applied to any such use. The primitive state of 
 mankind, and the arts, and ancient geography, are 
 the subjects of inquiry ; and the sacred volume is 
 only to be estimated in the same manner as you 
 would read Josephus, or Diodorus Siculus, or any 
 Pagan historian. In that way, and in that way 
 alone, does it seem to me to be treated. 
 
 If I look to the head of Greek Literature, I 
 should expect to find the Greek Testament used. 
 I should be very sorry to misrepresent, if I do so 
 it is unintentional ; but unless I am misinformed, 
 the New Testament is not one of their class 
 books. It is not for me indeed to criticise the 
 literary scheme of this Institution, but it has been
 
 32 
 
 a received notion for centuries in this country that 
 the Greek Testament is most useful to initiate the 
 Greek scholar, not looking at it merely as a work of 
 religion, but as easy Greek. But those gentlemen 
 say, though the Greek Testament is the easiest 
 Greek, there is a certain tinge of religion about it, 
 as a portion of the sacred writings, and it cannot 
 be allowed. 
 
 If I look again to the English studies, I find, 
 with great consistenc}'^ and parity of reason, no 
 Bible, no New Testament, no Prayer-book, or any 
 book of any religious description whatsoever. This 
 principle of indifference to forms of religion is, in 
 my apprehension, much more than fairly carried 
 into effect, because by this non-use of the Sacred 
 Volumes, they are by implication as it were con- 
 demned. These gentlemen do not say as the 
 Bible Societies do, " read the Sacred Volumes, we 
 will not oblige you to take our expositions and 
 commentaries, you may read and be your own 
 expositors of their doctrines." No, say these 
 liberals, these ultra-liberals, whose latitudinarian- 
 ism you cannot measure by any line, the Bible or 
 the New Testament shall neither be heard of nor 
 spoken of in this place, for this would carry with 
 it a predilection in their favour from the Professors 
 or Members of the University, and it would tend 
 to make the pupils think, that they contain the 
 Divine Revelation. 
 
 I need not, I think, call before your Lordships
 
 33 
 
 witnesses to prove, or require a statement, as to 
 what is or is not to be done on this topic. I have 
 before stated, that there is to be no chapel or place 
 of worship : if there shall chance to be a sick Pro- 
 fessor, or a sick student, there is to be no minister 
 to afford him consolation, he is left to his fate in 
 '' extremis ;" and even the last holy office, if it is 
 deemed important, cannot be performed, or in 
 plain words, that there is an emancipation from, 
 and banishment and repudiation of even the name 
 of religion in any of its multiplied shapes. 
 
 Having put your Lordships in possession of these 
 circumstances, it is convenient that I should now 
 state the propositions for which I mean to contend, 
 and I have committed them to writing, in order 
 that the individual who proposes to maintain them 
 may not retire from his own propositions on his 
 part, and, secondly, in order that those whose duty 
 it may be to oppose them, may also not retire from 
 them on their part. The other day, surprise was 
 expressed as to wHo had advised the University 
 upon this subject. Now there may sometimes be 
 good reasons for withholding that information ; 
 but upon this occasion there is no reason what- 
 ever. Such responsibility as belongs to me as a 
 lawyer I shall venture to charge myself with, when 
 I state to your Lordships the two propositions I am 
 about to read. 
 
 Of these the first is. That the King, whether as 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 Supreme Head of the Church of England, or by 
 virtue of any prerogative belonging to him as the 
 Head of the executive Government of this realm, 
 or otherwise, cannot legally incorporate a Univer- 
 sity in England, other than such as shall conform 
 with the doctrines, discipline, and worship, of that 
 Church : the second proposition is, That the in- 
 corporation of a University, upon the principle, 
 and for the purpose of their not so conforming, 
 would be a breach of various statutes and laws of 
 the realm, and among others, of a statute passed 
 in the 13th and 14th of King Charles the 2d, com- 
 monly called the Act of Uniformity. These two 
 propositions are, as your Lordships will perceive, 
 distinct propositions of law, and I should hope 
 that they are clearly expressed, in order to raise 
 the question of the legality of the Charter now 
 mider consideration. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Let me see that I under- 
 stand you. Do you confine it to a University, or 
 do you extend your proposition to the Crown not 
 having the right of incorporating a College ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — My proposition in 
 its terms is only applied to a University. I am 
 aware of a distinction that may be made between 
 a University, a College, and a School : but what- 
 ever may be the principle as to a College or School, 
 it is not essential to my proposition to go into these 
 cases : but I should not object to extend it.
 
 35 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — And it is confined to 
 England, I suppose. You do not extend it to 
 Scotland ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — I have confined it 
 to England ; and it is unnecessary to carry it fur- 
 ther. As this Institution is to be founded within 
 the Province of Canterbury, I have thought it 
 more precise to apply the propositions to a Univer- 
 sity to be founded in that Province. The noble 
 and learned Lord at the head of the table has 
 asked me whether I extend it to Scotland. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — The King is no more head 
 of the Church of Scotland than you are. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — It is for that very 
 reason that my proposition, in distinct terms, 
 speaks of the King as "Head of the Church of 
 England." I should, as a private individual, think 
 it would be competent to the King to found a 
 University in Scotland upon very diflferent princi- 
 ples. But that is a point which has nothing to do 
 with the question. I confine my proposition to 
 England, that the question may not be embarrassed 
 by any power which His Majesty may have as 
 King of Scotland, or with any other question than 
 simply the erection of a University within the 
 Province of Canterbury. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — I wish to call your atten- 
 tion to these distinctions with respect to the head 
 of the Church. The King in England, as we 
 know, is, in causes civil, supreme ; but he has no 
 
 d 2
 
 36 
 
 supremacy, and no jurisdiction whatever in any 
 ecclesiastical matters in Scotland. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — It is perfectly so : 
 nor does my proposition in the slightest degree 
 assert the contrary ; but it is studiously framed 
 with reference to England only, I do not know 
 whether I shall have occasion to call your Lord- 
 ships' attention to what His Majesty's duties are, 
 as Conservator of the rights of the Kirk of Scot- 
 land. Having stated the legal points to which 
 I am about to call your Lordships' attention; I 
 must say I have found the investigation of this 
 subject an arduous duty. It will be a reproach to 
 no man if he does not bring to this case an imme- 
 diate and perfect knowledge of what can be, or 
 cannot be legally done upon the subject of consti- 
 tuting a New University by Charter ; because it 
 so happens, that such a case is a matter entirely 
 unexplored by the Privy Council. There have 
 been in history, as we know, at different times, 
 ideas entertained in a general way, for such a pur- 
 pose ; amongst others, Wolsey thought of establish- 
 ing a University at Ipswich ; and there have been, 
 from time to time, traces of distant intentions. 
 But the project of a new University, whether for 
 Dissenters from the Church upon the one hand, 
 or for Members of the Church of England on the 
 other, is not only a subject undebated at the Privy 
 Council ; but it so happens, that there are no 
 Treatises or Dissertations dealing with it in a prac-
 
 37 
 
 tical point of view, from whence any accurate in- 
 formation can be derived. And the reason of this 
 is, that such a project has never been reduced into 
 any shape or form, for any distinct deliberation. 
 And, consequently, in an inquiry which relates to 
 the law of the case, resort must be had to general 
 legal principles, and to such reasoning upon the 
 question, as is fairly applicable one way or the other. 
 
 I must here observe, that my learned friends on 
 the other side have entirely passed over the ques- 
 tion of what may be legally done. The feasibility 
 of the plan in point of law has been assumed. 
 There is no person more acute and sharp-sighted 
 than my learned friend, but any man who looks at 
 this subject through the atmosphere of Gower- 
 street is very likely to have his visual powers a 
 good deal obstructed, and he may not view the 
 case as distinctly as he would through an atmo- 
 sphere less prejudiced than what is floating about 
 that quarter. That is the only possible motive 
 which can induce me to believe that any person 
 can per saltum come to the conclusion that the 
 thing was clearly legal, and that the only consider- 
 ation was the propriety and expediency of the 
 project itself. But from some fatality or other, 
 every consideration connected with that indispen- 
 sable question, what can the Crown legally do, in 
 its executive capacity, in becoming the instrument 
 to carry it into effect, has been thrown overboard. 
 
 In commencing to support my own propositions,
 
 38 
 
 and in proceeding to inquire what His Majesty can 
 legally do, as the Supreme Head of the Church, or 
 as the Head of the State (for I must in the argu- 
 ment blend the two capacities together), the first 
 point I shall contend for is, that the regulation and 
 government of a University is, by the law of Eng- 
 land, as it has been several times adjudged, matter 
 ecclesiastical ; that is to say, in precise legal 
 phrase, that by the law of England a University is 
 subject to the ecclesiastical visitation of the Arch- 
 bishop. 
 
 This rule is sanctioned by the authority of seve- 
 ral decisions. It has been so decided upon three 
 several occasions at different intervals. I will 
 state the circumstances of each case distinctly and 
 particularly. The first occurred in the reign of 
 Richard the H. The second in that of Henry the 
 IV., and the last in the time of Charles the I., 
 when Laud was Archbishop. The case in the 
 13 Henry the IV. a.d. 1411, is to be found at length 
 in the Parliamentary Rolls of that year. It is in 
 the fifth volume, page 651, of the printed copy of 
 the Rolls ^ And I will now mention the general 
 circumstances which gave rise to it. The then 
 Primate was visiting the diocese of Lincoln, in 
 which I apprehend at that time the University of 
 Oxford was situate, the diocese of Oxford being 
 subsequently taken out of that of Lincoln, and he 
 came to the University, " ad exequendum in forma 
 
 ' Vide the Appendix, which contains a copy verbatim. 
 
 13
 
 39 
 
 juris ecclesiastic! ibidem visitationem suam," and 
 upon that occasion, the Chancellor, Richard Court- 
 ney, the Proctors, and others adhering to them, 
 unjustly obstructed him, " atque ei absque ratio- 
 nabili causa resistebant." The subject was refer- 
 red to the King in Council by both sides, who 
 agreed to submit to the King's judgment and order, 
 " de et super jure et impedimento visitationis et 
 jurisdictionis praedictae." The allegations and 
 answers of the parties were fully considered, and a 
 former case which occurred in the time of Richard 
 the II. was produced, which arose from the Uni- 
 versity claiming a right to be exempt from visi- 
 tation by a bull from the Pope. This matter had 
 also been referred to the King in Council, who had 
 decided that the right of visitation of the Chan- 
 cellor, Proctors, and all other members of the 
 University, " nee non Universitatis prsedictse etiam 
 ut Universitatis" did belong and ought to belong 
 to the Archbishop and his successors. This judg- 
 ment of Richard the II. is confirmed and made the 
 ground of that of Henry the IV., which follows 
 nearly the language of the former, and decrees 
 and orders, " quod prsedictus Archiepiscopus et 
 successores sui in perpetuum habeant visitationem 
 et jurisdictionem in Universitate prsedicta, tam 
 Cancellarii Commissariorum quam procuratorum 
 ejusdem Universitatis qui pro tempore fuerint, nee 
 non omnium doctorum, magistrorum, regentium, 
 et non regentium, ac scholarium ejusdem Universi-
 
 40 
 
 tatis, quorumcunque, eorumque servientium, alia- 
 rumque personarum, cujuscunque status vel condi- 
 tionis extiterint, et etiam ejusdem Universitatis ut 
 Universitatis." The decree then directs all persons 
 to submit to it. 
 
 The great accuracy of the expressions occurring 
 in these proceedings is deserving of attention. The 
 right is not claimed as derivative under any com- 
 mission or delegation from the Crown ; but, " Jure 
 Metropolitico," " Jure Ecclesise," as belonging to 
 the substantive and independent character of the 
 Primate, and it is so adjudged ; and it is equally 
 clear, that the visitation is not merely of the per- 
 sons who compose the University in their individual 
 character, but of the University in its corporate 
 character, " Universitatis ut Universitatis." This 
 judgment was probably intended to have the force 
 of a statute, and is entered upon the Rolls accord- 
 ing to the habit of those times as an Act of Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 Now, upon this case, whether it has the force of 
 a judicial decision, or of statuteable authority, I 
 maintain that two principles are clearly established. 
 One is, that by the law of this realm, the visitation 
 of a University is matter of an ecclesiastical na- 
 ture, otherwise it could not by possibility belong to 
 a person claiming "jure Ecclesiae ;" the second is, 
 that the right is an original and independent right, 
 inherent in the character of the Primate, and not a 
 derivative right.
 
 41 
 
 It would here be almost superfluous to observe, 
 that whenever the principles of law invest any per- 
 son with a right and power of visitorship, the law 
 combines with the right the obligation to perform 
 its duties. That principle is not peculiar to this 
 case : it is a pervading principle, and applies to 
 every institution. It is not a mere abstract right ; 
 but from the individual or individuals who are 
 the depositaries of the power, there is by law ex- 
 pected and required an actual and practical exer- 
 cise of the duties of the visitatorial office. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Do you hold that the 
 Archbishop of York at present has a visitatorial 
 power in the University of Durham ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — No, my Lord ; that 
 is a University constituted under a particular Act 
 of Parliament, with its own particular government 
 provided for it by the Act ; but I should say that 
 he had it, unless an Act of Parliament took it 
 away. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — That does not signify ; are 
 you aware when the last visitatorial act was per- 
 formed by the Metropolitan ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — Not very accurately. 
 
 Dr. Lushington. — By Archbishop Laud. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — I do not know, 
 nor do I care, when it was performed ; it is a 
 right which cannot be alienated. The Crown 
 cannot take it away. The Crown might as well 
 attempt to take away the visitatorial power of the
 
 42 
 
 King's Bench, or of the Lord Chancellor, in mat- 
 ters which belong to them. The thing is inalien- 
 able, and it cannot be taken away. A statute may 
 say, that the Primate shall not visit, but no Char- 
 ter can say it ; a Charter saying so, is a perfect 
 piece of waste paper. A piece of an old brief at 
 Doctors' Commons would not be more waste 
 paper than a Charter, asserting that the Archbishop 
 shall not visit, and attempting to exclude him ; and 
 therefore I care little for the purpose of my argu- 
 ment, whether any Primate has visited the Uni- 
 versities since the time of Henry IV., or the time 
 of Charles I. I shall presently show that the 
 King has the right to visit the Universities, a 
 right which I believe has been totally forgotten on 
 this occasion. I care little whether his Majesty 
 George I., or George II., or George III., or George 
 IV. visited the Universities of Oxford or Cam- 
 bridge. I should like to hear any lawyer tell me, 
 that the right would for that reason be lost to his 
 present Majesty ; therefore, when I hear that Laud 
 was the last person who visited, I can assure my 
 Learned Friend that I shall have a crow to pull 
 with him about Archbishop Laud ; for I have a book 
 here which gives an accurate account of the pro- 
 ceedings which occurred in his time. They are to 
 be found at length in Rush worth's Historical Col- 
 lections, vol. iii. p. 325 ; and I doubt whether 
 they have met with the attention they deserve. 
 When I heard the name of Laud put forward,
 
 43 
 
 it was perhaps meant to insinuate that perad ven- 
 ture there may have been more prudent Prelates. 
 If that be the meaning intended to be conveyed, I 
 should perfectly agree in the remark ; but we are 
 not here upon the personal prudence of the indivi- 
 dual, and it will not follow that no succeeding 
 Archbishop is to have the right of visitation, be- 
 cause a former Archbishop may not have exercised 
 the right discreetly ; though, as far as I can collect 
 from history, I am not aware that there was any 
 thing improper in the Archbishop's conduct upon 
 that occasion. However, that is entirely immate- 
 rial to the main point. He claimed the right, and 
 on both sides the matter was referred to the Kino-, 
 who held a Council at Hampton Court. The case 
 was perfectly investigated, and with very great 
 liberality, as much so as is practised at the pre- 
 sent day. The King directed his then Attorney- 
 General, Sir John Bankes, to argue the case for the 
 Archbishop, giving him, as it were, a license to 
 plead against the Crown. This claim was pro 
 tanto a diminution of the King's power, as visitor 
 and founder ; undoubtedly, his Majesty was inte- 
 rested in excluding the Archbishop, because that 
 would confine the power to himself alone. 
 
 I will read Sir John Bankes's argument. He 
 says, " The question in short is, whether the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, as Metropolitan, ought to 
 visit the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as 
 being within his province ? This doth no way
 
 44 
 
 intrench upon your Majesty ; for it must be acknow- 
 ledged that your Majesty is the supreme ordinary, 
 and hath supreme jurisdiction, and may visit both 
 Universities by your commission ; notwithstanding 
 you may do it by your Lord Archbishop, that is an 
 undoubted right. My Lord Archbishop hath a 
 double capacity : the one as Archbishop, the other 
 as Chancellor of Oxford."- - - " He desires to do 
 equal justice, and to offer no otherwise to that 
 honourable person the Chancellor of Cambridge 
 than to himself. Bishoprics and Archbishoprics 
 are all of them of your Majesty's and your Royal 
 progenitors' foundation, originally donative long 
 before the Conquest, and before time of memory ; 
 and as ancient as the Archbishop, so ancient is the 
 jurisdiction. The visitation of the Archbishop is 
 of common right, and not of special persons, but 
 of the clergy, and the people in all causes that 
 be ecclesiastical, and in all places within his 
 province, without any manner of exception. By 
 the statute of the 21st Henry VHL, it doth 
 appear that all houses of religion, all Col- 
 leges, &c. are within the visitation of the Arch- 
 bishop of the province ; and by another statute 
 express provision is made, that in all places, as 
 well exempt as not exempt, the Archbishop shall 
 have power to reform and punish those that do 
 aught against the orders of the Church Common 
 Prayer, &c. It will appear, that in the time of 
 Edward the L, Richard the II., and Edward the
 
 45 
 
 IV., the Archbishop visited the University in his 
 own Metropolitical right, and not by any Bull 
 from the Pope. And there is as urgent necessity 
 in these times. Many things may be omitted by 
 the Chancellors, that are commonly great men, 
 and many things to be reformed concerning the 
 administration of the Sacraments and the orders of 
 the Church." In Cambridge there were many 
 chapels never consecrated. " In the review of all 
 ecclesiastical laws appointed by Act of Parliament, 
 in the times of Henry the VIII. and Edward the VI. 
 which show the opinion of the times, it appeareth 
 expressly there should be no exemption of Colleges 
 from the Archbishop's visitation." It seems from 
 this, that Mr. Attorney-General Bankes had found 
 out a case in the time of Edward the I., which I 
 have missed. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Is that the whole of the 
 Attorney-General's argument ? Have you read 
 the whole of it ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — Yes, my Lord. I 
 have read the whole of what is contained in Rush- 
 worth. Sir John Lamb then follows on the same 
 side. Mr. Gardiner, the Recorder of London, is 
 heard for the University of Cambridge. The case 
 was argued for the University of Oxford by Ser- 
 jeant Thin, and there is a dialogue between him 
 and the King. It is not necessary to read it. I 
 will only say, if one could suppose that His Ma- 
 jesty had been himself a Serjeant, practising in his
 
 46 
 
 own Court of Common Pleas, he would have been 
 preferred to his own Serjeant, for the King's 
 Majesty had much the best of it against the 
 King's Serjeant. During the discussion. Lord 
 Holland, one of the Council, says, If your Grace 
 pleases, you may do it by commission, the King 
 may grant it you. Then, says the Archbishop in 
 answer, no ; I desire it by my own power. And 
 accordingly the right was so adjudged, and a 
 formal and regular judgment was drawn up. I 
 have not with me, at the present moment, the 
 volume of Rushworth which contains it : but the 
 judgment is no doubt entered in the Privy Coun- 
 cil Books of the day. 
 
 Lord Lyndhurst. — What is the date of it ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — 1636 \ It is not 
 improper that I should advert to a particular part 
 of the order, respecting frequency of visitation. It 
 seems there had been what is called a late custom 
 to visit semel in vita tantum. How this had 
 arisen is not explained ; but the adjudication goes 
 on to declare, that notwithstanding this late cus- 
 tom, he might visit the Universities by " him- 
 self or his Commissaries as often as any great 
 emergent cause should move him, provided that 
 
 ' Vide the Appendix, which contains the Order in Council, 
 bearing date 21st June, 1636; and the King's Letter to the 
 Universities of Oxford and Cambridge : and likewise a Letter of 
 Vossius to Laud, congratulating him on the subject.
 
 47 
 
 neither lie or any of his successors should, after the 
 first visitation, visit upon such emergent causes, 
 unless it be first made knovrn to His Majesty and 
 his successors, and approved by him or them." 
 
 A regulation of this kind is wholesome enough ; 
 for recollecting that these learned Bodies have their 
 boards of heads of houses, their convocations and 
 senates, their chancellors, and a regular system of 
 government, well adapted to all necessary pur- 
 poses, an officious interference of visitation would 
 be improper : and therefore a declaration is intro- 
 duced as to the mode of exercising it. 
 
 Lord Chanceleor. — Are you acquainted with 
 any other case of visitatorial power with a qualifica- 
 tion ; that is to say, that the visitor shall have the 
 right not (as it appears inherent in the very idea 
 and essence of a visitatorial power), of going of his 
 own free will, and without being put in motion ; 
 but that he shall have it only with that qualifica- 
 tion. Have you any other instance in which that 
 power is fettered and tied down in its exercise, 
 unless there shall be a previous communication of 
 the cause. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — No, my Lord, I do 
 not recollect any case directly similar to this. Pe- 
 riodical visitations are common. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — That would not be to visit 
 oftener than once. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell.— But this qualifica-
 
 48 
 
 tion in effect does not confine the visitation to once 
 only ; but requires it as often as there shall be 
 cause, though the competency of the cause is to be 
 approved of by the King. Now, my Lords, if 
 the question be put to me, how often Archbishops 
 have visited the Universities, I think it not very 
 material to inquire. I have already pointed out 
 the reasons why there can be no occasion for the 
 frequent exercise of the power. As far as religion 
 is concerned, they are subject to the general sta- 
 tutes and the law of the land, and to the particular 
 directions of the Act of Uniformity ; as far as their 
 discipline is concerned, they are regulated by their 
 own admirable system of government ; conse- 
 quently, unless some gross enormity or some emer- 
 gent cause should occur, which cannot well 
 happen, there can very rarely indeed be a call 
 for it. The power is, however, co-extensive with 
 the whole body, and impartial between the highest 
 and lowest member. The Duke of Wellino^ton 
 and His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, 
 — those two illustrious individuals are equally 
 visitable by the Primate, in their character as 
 Chancellor, as any other person : but the decision 
 in the time of Charles I. adverts to the liis^h sta- 
 tion of the Chancellors, and to their avocations, 
 and gives them the privilege of appearing by 
 proxy. This shows how minutely the whole sub- 
 ject was then examined.
 
 49 
 
 Now, after this, do 1 overstate the case, when I 
 say, or should I not understate it, if I omitted to 
 say, that the right of the Metropolitan to visit the 
 Universities within his province, is as clear as the 
 jurisdiction of the King's Bench to visit a borough 
 town or any other corporation. Surely I shall not 
 be told, that because day after day enormities 
 have not arisen ; because departures from the 
 National Church, irreligion, profaneness, and 
 blasphemy, have not sprung up in the Universities, 
 cle anno in cuijiurn, crying aloud for the Visitor ; 
 a thing which it is next to impossible should ever 
 happen, without a flagrant neglect and breach of 
 duty by all the governing authorities of the place, 
 — I shall not be told that non-visitation under 
 such circumstances, can be set up in bar of the 
 right. His Grace, the present Primate, Dr. Sutton, 
 Dr. Moore, and the list of eminent men who 
 have filled that distinguished office since the time 
 of Laud, may not one of them have ever interfered 
 with the Universities ; but yet I think any per- 
 son will not carry out of this room the name of a 
 Lawyer, who should therefore conclude, that though 
 just occasion should require it, there can never be 
 any interference again. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — You appear here as Coun- 
 sel for the University of Oxford. Suppose that his 
 Grace the Archbishop were to issue a notice to the 
 University, that he understood from some informa- 
 tion that there were various things requiring visita- 
 
 E
 
 50 
 
 tion, and that he was minded forthwith to exercise 
 the visitatorial power, should you, upon being asked 
 by the University, whether they could resist that 
 power or not, which had not been exercised for 
 about two centuries, and which rested upon that 
 one case or two cases : one in the time of Henry 
 IV., a Parliament case, and the other in the time 
 of Charles I. ? Suppose you were asked the ques- 
 tion, Shall we, or shall we not, bow to the Arch- 
 bishop's visitatorial power now in the year 1834? 
 — Should you say, Of course you must. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — I should say so, cer- 
 tainly ; I should say, look at all these express de- 
 cisions, and if you choose to get into hot water and 
 fight the battle for nothing, you may do it. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Suppose a second question 
 were put. — I am supposing that your clients were 
 minded rather to resist than to foster this rio;ht 
 against themselves — suppose the}^ were to say. Does 
 the non-exercise of this power for a couple of cen- 
 turies, and its very scanty exercise for a thousand 
 years before that, make no difference. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — In my view, none 
 at all ; there is no prescription against it. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Then suppose a third ques- 
 tion. — Does the visitatorial power exist for the bene- 
 fit of the visitor, or is it not coupled with a duty ? 
 Is it a power, from the exercise of which the visitor 
 has a right to withdraw ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — If any man was to
 
 51 
 
 put tlie question to me, I should take a pinch of 
 snuflf directly. I should say, you might as well 
 tell .me, that because the Court of King's Bench 
 had not visited a Corporation for three centu- 
 ries 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Suppose that the King's 
 Bench had never visited not only any particular 
 Corporation, but no Corporation at all, would you 
 think that nothing against the writ ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — Your Lordship 
 really is deluging and flooding me with so many 
 impossible as well as possible cases, that I want a 
 canoe to swim away upon. I should however say, 
 that the non-exercise of the power of visitation, 
 going back to a great length of time, is nothing 
 against the right upon any general principle. 
 Because Tresilian, or other Chief-Justices, who 
 lived many hundred years ago, did not exercise 
 their powers, I think the noble and learned Chief 
 Justice sitting here would say, what have I to do 
 with that? — there might be a reason for it. But 
 my Lords, I really cannot fight such windmills as 
 these. I cannot do more than say, that there is 
 no principle of prescription against the Archbishop's 
 right of visitation, any more than there is against 
 the visitatorial right of the Court of the King's 
 Bench. But after all, what are the facts of the 
 case ? My learned friend tells me, that from the 
 time of Charles the L to the present moment, 
 
 E 2
 
 52 
 
 practically speaking, there lias been no interfer- 
 ence. My answer to that is, that according- to my 
 recollection of the history of the University of 
 Oxford, there has not been an occasion calling for 
 it. With that of Cambridge I am not so well 
 acquainted. I shall therefore conclude by assert- 
 ing, that upon any legal rule or principle, or upon 
 any analogy, there is not the slightest colour for 
 saying, that the right and duty attaching to the 
 office of Primate have been in any degree af- 
 fected. 
 
 My Lords, a noble and learned Lord in a former 
 part of the argument alluded to schools and col- 
 leges ; and put a question to me, which I presume 
 meant whether the Crown could found a college 
 or a school on the same prmciple as the Univer- 
 sity. It is enough for me to state my proposition 
 quoad, that institution which is defined to be a 
 University : but in my humble endeavours to 
 collect together such materials as might be useful, 
 I have prepared myself to meet such a question, 
 though it is fearful odds, when the noble and 
 learned Lord throws out so many cases to be an- 
 swered impromptu. I have looked into the sub- 
 ject, and for the purposes of illustration and ana- 
 logy merely I will resort to it : but I will not rest 
 my case of a University upon the rule as to a 
 college or school, I will not pour water into my 
 wine ; for whatever might be the legal authority
 
 53 
 
 for visiting institutions of that nature, it would not 
 follow that the law might not be quite different as 
 to a University. 
 
 But the subject of colleges and schools, I think 
 is deserving of particular attention ; I am ready 
 to go into it ; and I have the authority of a Lord 
 Keeper in 1700, and likewise of my Lord Chief 
 Justice Kenyon in the year 1795 to produce. Now 
 it so happens, that the visitation of a grammer 
 school is also a matter of ecclesiastical jurisdic- 
 tion ; and the bearing of this principle is by no 
 means unimportant. Instead of weakening and 
 rendering improbable and questionable the grounds 
 upon which the jurisdiction of an Archbishop over 
 a University is established, it operates strongly the 
 other way, and as a general principle is highly 
 confirmatory of its existence. There are several 
 cases relating to schools ; but I will refer to two 
 principally. The first is Cox's case ; which was 
 heard before Lord Keeper Wright, in the Court of 
 Chancery in 1700: it is reported in 1st P. Wil- 
 liams, 29. Tha substance of the Case was this : a 
 schoolmaster named Cox, was libelled against in 
 the Spiritual Court at Exeter, for teaching school 
 without a licence from the Bishop ; and, in conse- 
 quence of this, he applied to the Court of Chan- 
 cery for a prohibition to stay proceedings in the 
 Spiritual Court. The question was, whether the 
 obtaining of such a licence was not a necessary 
 preliminary depending upon the discretion of the
 
 54 
 
 Bishop. The case was fully argued iu the Court 
 of Chancery ; and Lord Keeper Wright lays down 
 the law in these terms. He says, " Both Courts 
 may have a concurrent jurisdiction, and a crime 
 may be punishable both in the one and the other. 
 The Canons of a Convocation do not bind the laity 
 without an Act of Parliament ; but I always was, 
 and still am of opinion, that keeping of school is 
 by the old laws of England, of ecclesiastical cogni- 
 zance," and the prohibition was refused. Peer 
 Williams, who was an acute special pleader, had 
 found out that the libel in the Court at Exeter 
 had been for teaching school generally, which 
 would include writing and dancing schools, w^hich 
 to be sure were not very spiritual matters ; and 
 the language of the prohibition was set right, in 
 effect, declarino- and establishino- the rule that 
 grammar schools were matters of ecclesiastical 
 cognizance, and that the Licence of the Bishop 
 was necessary. The law so stated, seems not to 
 have been questioned afterwards, till the year 
 1795, when Dr. Markham filled the See of York. 
 That very eminent and distinguished Prelate, was 
 an Archbishop as well as Laud, not indeed of Can- 
 terbury but of York ; and if Laud may be treated 
 as not always the most discreet of men, Dr. Mark- 
 ham, for his moderation and well considered con- 
 duct, may perhaps stand in a better light. He 
 refused a licence to a schoolmaster, to teach a 
 Grammar School at Skipton : the ground of re-
 
 55 
 
 fusal was insufficiency in point of learning. Upon 
 this the schoohnaster applied to the Court of 
 King's Bench for a Mandamus to compel the 
 Archbishop to grant the licence ; but the Court 
 refused the Mandamus. 
 
 Lord Kenyon expressed himself in the way I 
 will read. " Whoever will examine the state of 
 the grammar schools in different parts of this 
 kingdom, will see to what a lamentable condition 
 most of them are reduced ; and would wish that 
 those who have any superintendence or controul 
 over them, had been as circumspect as the Arch- 
 bishop of York has been on the present occasion. 
 If other persons had equally done their duty, we 
 should not find, as is now the case, empty walls 
 without scholars ; and every thing neglected, 
 but the receipt of the salaries and emoluments. 
 In some instances that have lately come within 
 my own knowledge, there was not a single scholar 
 in the schools, though there were very large en- 
 dowments belonging to them." In order to sup- 
 port a return to a Mandamus, it is not necessary 
 that every part of the return should be good, it is 
 sufficient if enough appear on this return, to show 
 that the Archbishop was justified in what he did ; 
 and I think he was not only justified, but it was 
 his bounden duty to do what he has done in 
 this case. I choose to avoid saying any thing re- 
 specting the Canons made in 1603, whether they 
 did or did not extend to the province of York ; or,
 
 56 
 
 if they did, whether they do or do not affect the 
 question, though they were fully and ably explained 
 by Lord Hardwicke, because it is not necessary 
 to resort to them for the Archbishop of York's jus- 
 tification. His Counsel very properly laid his 
 foundation deeper : he resorted to the ancient 
 Canons received in this country long before, and 
 properly said, that it was immaterial whether they 
 were made in this kingdom or at the Councils of 
 Lateran or Trent ; for that, as they had been re- 
 ceived and adopted here, they had acquired the 
 force of laws in this country ; and to be sure, if 
 this were not so, the world has been deceived upon 
 this subject ; and not only the Judges, in making 
 the several determinations upon this branch of the 
 law, but all the text writers, also have been under 
 a mistake. In deciding this case we may rely on 
 what Lord Keeper Wright said in Cox's case, 
 that keeping of schools is by the old laws of Eng- 
 gland of ecclesiastical cognizance. The several 
 instances cited from O ugh ton go a great way to 
 prove this ; and the statutes referred to, 23 Eliz. 
 c. 1., 2 Jac. 1. c 4. & 1., and 14 Car. 2. c. 4., re- 
 cognize the power of the Ordinary to licence school- 
 masters. Then, on what ground, and for what 
 reason is that licence required ? By referring to 
 analogous cases, I answer, that the Ordinary may 
 examine the party applying for a license respecting 
 his qualifications ; there is no doubt but that the 
 Ordinary may examine ecclesiastical persons pre-
 
 57 
 
 sented to him for institution. Then it was objected 
 that the Archbishop had exceeded his authority in 
 this case, because he wished to examine Withnell 
 as to his sufficiency in learning. " I have been 
 anxious not to go into any points that do not imme- 
 diately belong to the cause, but I cannot forbear 
 saying, I think that if the Archbishop had exa- 
 mined into the moral character and religious tenets 
 of this gentleman, as well as to his learning, he 
 would not have exceeded his duty; perhaps indeed 
 the Archbishop was satisfied respecting the former, 
 and only doubted with regard to the latter." In 
 his opinion, the other three learned Judges of the 
 Court, Mr. Justice Ashurst, Mr. Justice Grose, and 
 Mr. Justice Laurence, concurred. The case is re- 
 ported in 6 Term Reports, 492 — the King and the 
 Archbishop of York. 
 
 Such was the state of the law as to schools in the 
 year 1775, as laid down in the Court of King's 
 Bench, by Lord Kenyon and the other able persons 
 who then sat in that Court, and so it is at the pre- 
 sent moment. 
 
 With respect to the occasions on which this power 
 of refusing licenses may be properly and justifiably 
 exercised, they are matters foreign to the question. 
 We are here investigating a principle; we are in- 
 quiring whether the instruction given in a Univer- 
 sity, which is partly religious and partly learned, 
 is not, from its nature, matter of ecclesiastical cog- 
 nizance, which may fall within the jurisdiction of 
 the Primate. And though, in my humble opinion,
 
 58 
 
 this question would not be governed by the exist- 
 ence or non-existence of an analogous rule with 
 respect to schools; yet the law is, that the analogous 
 rule with respect to schools does exist, for they are 
 under the jurisdiction of the Bishop. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — Do you carry your propo- 
 sition so far as this ? There is, for instance, a col- 
 lege, called Highbury College, and there is another 
 called Hackney College, founded by the funds of 
 Dissenters, for the benefit of Dissenters, and some 
 of them for teaching the peculiar doctrines of those 
 sects. Unitarians, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, and 
 Independents, and some are for preparing persons 
 for the ministry of Dissenters. Do you hold that 
 the Archbishop or the Bishop of London, for in- 
 stance, the Bishop of the diocese, has a right to go 
 and superintend the education of those Dissenting 
 Divines ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — No, my Lord, un- 
 doubtedly not. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — I am supposing them to be 
 grammar schools. You are aware that the Court 
 of Chancery has always held grammar schools to 
 be schools not for teaching English grammar, but 
 for teaching Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Suppose 
 that Highbury College is founded by the funds of 
 Dissenters, for the purpose of bringing up minis- 
 ters, it would be going far to say, that being a 
 grammar school, the Bishop of London has a 
 right to visit it. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — I do not contend
 
 59 
 
 for any such thing. We all know, that since the 
 Toleration Act there may be schools for Dissenters 
 and for the education of Dissenting ministers. 
 Your Lordship will have before you, in the Court 
 of Chancery, the case of Lady Hewley's trust in 
 due time, and a very curious one it is ; I believe 
 you are apprised of it already. No doubt there 
 exist, in various shapes, seminaries and schools of 
 a particular kind for Dissenters, with which the dio- 
 cesan has no concern. It would lead us into a very 
 lengthy discussion to go into the history of gram- 
 mar schools. With those institutions which are 
 sanctioned in this country since and under the pro- 
 tection and particular provisions of the Toleration 
 Act, and other acts following up its principle, the 
 Diocesan has no right to interfere ; but they stand 
 upon a perfectly different footing from the ordinary 
 case of what is called a grammar school. 
 
 Now, my Lords, after tracing out this historical 
 inquiry respecting Universities, and the incidents 
 belonging to them, I presume, with all humility, 
 to think, that I have clearly made good the point 
 in my favour : that of this new University to be 
 founded in Gower-street, the Right Reverend Pre- 
 late sitting at the table will be and must be dejure 
 the visitor. However this may be the harbinger 
 of unwelcome sensations in that place, I assert that 
 to be so, and I further assert, that no Charter can 
 prevent its being so. The plenary power of an 
 Act of Parliament may easily strip and spoliate, as
 
 60 
 
 other Acts may have done and may still do ; but 
 short of this, I maintain the right to be clear. 
 And I am bold enough to think I have realised 
 what I stated on a former day, however unex- 
 pected such an idea may have been. Your Lord- 
 ships will, I think, anticipate the bearing of this 
 point upon the final question we are discussing. 
 Can the King legally found an University in the 
 province of Canterbury, in which, ex hypothesi, no 
 religion is to be taught, or in which practically 
 every irreligion may be taught, in which the first 
 elements of Christianity may be denied ? Can he 
 by his Charter legally authorize this body to be- 
 come a living fountain of profaneness of every 
 kind ? Can he legally found an Institution, in 
 which its lecturers may teach, and its students 
 imbibe, opinions, which, if they were inculcated in 
 either of the two other Universities within his pro- 
 vince, the Archbishop would have a right, and 
 would be bound to stop instantly, and not suffer to 
 go uncorrected ? Your Lordships are aware, that 
 however seldom the case may happen, it has hap- 
 pened, that individuals have been expelled from 
 the Universities for blasphemy. A case of this 
 sort occurred in Cambridge in 1795. 
 
 If, at Oxford or Cambridge, a head of a house, 
 or a professor or tutor, should be found denying 
 and overturning the true religion of Christ (an 
 expression that occurs in several statutes I shall 
 hereafter refer to), 1 hope no man would question
 
 61 
 
 the right of the Archbishop to interfere, and to 
 proceed to the length of expulsion, or to any mode 
 of remedy which the nature of the case might re- 
 quire, if the ordinary powers of the Government in 
 the Universities could not reach it. Would he 
 not then be bound in his Metropolitan character to 
 visit? But in Gower- street, at the very same mo- 
 ment, the Metropolitan character is to be inert. 
 And the same King, himself the visitor of both 
 Universities, and whose Archbishop, like himself, 
 is bound to visit them ; the same King is to initiate 
 and legitimate, and almost to direct, the streams 
 of irreligion to flow in another University unrepre- 
 hended and irreprehensible, either by himself, or 
 the Primate. It was in order to meet such a state 
 of things, that I have, in my first proposition, 
 alluded to the King as the Head of the Church ; 
 and the general basis of it is, that these are matters 
 ecclesiastical, which fall equally within the exer- 
 cise of the duty of the King in that character, as 
 of the Primate. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — It occurs to me, that a 
 great deal of this is very important, and very 
 curious matter. But will you just permit me to 
 call your attention to one point. You and Mr. 
 Bickersteth appear before the Council to support 
 what is contained in the prayer of your Petition ; 
 and I apprehend, that it will not do for Oxford or 
 Cambridge, or any College, to prefer a petition for 
 one thing, and then to ask ten times more in their
 
 62 
 
 contention at the bar ; because there would be no 
 end of it : you contend in your argument, that 
 there should not be a Charter granted ; not only 
 that there should not be the power of granting 
 degrees, but that there should be no charter 
 granted. But your Petition goes to no such mat- 
 ter ; but that no degrees should be granted by the 
 body, or conferrable by the body to be incorpo- 
 rated (assuming that it will be incorporated), pro- 
 vided those degrees have similar names with the 
 degrees granted at Oxford and Cambridge. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — That is the Cam- 
 bridge Petition. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — But the Oxford Petition 
 does not even pray against medical degrees ; but 
 your argument has been directed against grant- 
 ing any Charter of any kind whatever. 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — Their petition is, 
 in substance, against any Charter, and my argu- 
 ment goes funditus to the whole of it. Now, 
 my Lords, if any person coming in contact with the 
 principles I have stated in my propositions, should 
 ask this question, Has not the King, as head of the 
 Church himself, a right to vary from this duty ? I 
 say, No. He is bound by the common law as head 
 of the Church, for he alw^ays had that character by 
 the common law : he is bound by the ecclesiastical 
 law, and he is moreover bound expressly by seve- 
 ral statutes. I maintain, that he is bound through 
 these three sources of obligation, not to do any act
 
 63 
 
 in his executive capacity injurious to the Church 
 of which he is the head. Your Lordships recollect 
 the maxim Nil Rex potest nisi quod de jure potest. 
 It is not the annexing the Great Seal to a Patent, 
 which will make it valid ; it is not even the re- 
 commendation of the Privy Council, that can 
 make it valid ; if the subject-matter granted is 
 unsustainable at law the Charter is null and void. 
 In addition to the obligations I have mentioned, 
 there is still another which, entertaining the no- 
 tions I do, I will not omit most strongly to rely 
 upon ; I mean the obligation of the oaths His 
 Majesty is required to take, which I presume are 
 still binding at the Council Board ; though, as 
 it is asserted, he is relieved from them in Par- 
 liament. 
 
 This indispensable question, what are the legal 
 obligations imposed upon the Crown, must be 
 closely examined ; the point must be fairly met ; 
 and for this purpose the various statutes, which 
 have passed since the Reformation must be re- 
 ferred to ; many of them, however, need not be 
 gone into in detail, for they must be familiar to 
 your recollection. I have asserted in my propo- 
 sitions that the King cannot, by virtue of any 
 prerogative whatever, either as head of the Church 
 or otherwise, establish a University, not conforming 
 to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the 
 Church of England ; and that so to do would be 
 a direct breach of the law. My authorities to 
 
 13
 
 G4 
 
 support this statement, I shall now produce. What 
 may have been the state of the Church in early 
 days, what the King could formerly have done in 
 conjunction with the convocation, or what he could 
 have done by his own power without them, is now 
 become matter merely of history. I should, how- 
 ever, not scruple to state, that there was no time 
 at which the King; could himself have done an 
 act of injury to the Established Church, or inno- 
 vated upon the ecclesiastical law ; but into this 
 retrospective inquiry it is unnecessary to enter. 
 What the King can now do is the question. The 
 state of the law upon this question, I take to be 
 perfectly clear. It was settled by a solemn deci- 
 sion of the Judges, in the time of James I., which 
 defined what the powers of the Crown are. The 
 case which I refer to, was Cawdr3''s Case, 5 Coke, 
 and the case commonly called the Case of the 
 High Commissioners, which is reported in 12 Coke. 
 The Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Causes, had 
 under their commission, introduced great en- 
 croachments beyond their legal powers ; and the 
 subject of inquiry was, what the King could autho- 
 rize by his commission. The particular facts of 
 the case need not be mentioned. I cite the case 
 for the general rule it contains. The resolution 
 of the Judges is expressed in these terms. " First 
 of all it was resolved by all, that before the 
 statute of the 1st Elizabeth, cup. 1. the King- 
 might have granted a commission to hear and
 
 65 
 
 determine ecclesiastical causes ; but then, notwith- 
 standing any clause in their commission, the Com- 
 missioners ought to proceed according to the eccle- 
 siastical law allowed within the realm, for he " can- 
 " not alter neither his temporal nor his ecclesiastical 
 " laws within this realm by his grant or commission." 
 The principle here laid down is, that the King can- 
 not by his great seal alter his ecclesiastical laws, 
 either in his executive capacity as head of the 
 Church or head of the civil state, for the one is not 
 contradistinguished from the other. As a rule of 
 law, I have never heard this questioned, nor do I 
 believe it ever has been ; but we must not only in- 
 quire what are the powers of the Crown on this 
 important subject, but what are its direct duties as 
 head of the Church ; for it is undeniable, and 
 must not be forgot, that this capacity of supreme 
 head of the Church is not an abstract idea, but a 
 practical principle of the constitution. 
 
 I will not detain you by detailing the different 
 statutes which passed for transferring the supre- 
 macy from Rome to this kingdom ; but there is 
 one, every word of which is material to be attended 
 to, and I will therefore take the liberty to read it : 
 it is the statute of 26 H. 18. cap. 1 — " Albeit the 
 King's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought 
 to be the supreme head of the Church of England, 
 and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in 
 their convocations ; yet, nevertheless, for corrobo- 
 ration and confirmation thereof, and for the in- 
 
 F
 
 G6 
 
 crease of virtue in Christ's religion witliin this 
 realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all 
 errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses 
 heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by 
 authority of this present Parliament, that the 
 King our Sovereign Lord, his heirs, and succes- 
 sors, Kings of this realm, shall be taken, ac- 
 cepted, and reputed, the only supreme head 
 on earth of the Church of England, called 
 Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy 
 annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of this 
 realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all 
 honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, 
 privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and 
 commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head 
 of the same Church belonging and appertaining ; 
 and that our said Sovereign Lord, his heirs and 
 successors. Kings of this realm, shall have full 
 power and authority from time to time, to visit, 
 repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, 
 amend, all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, 
 contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be, 
 which by any manner of spiritual authority or 
 jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, 
 repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, 
 or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, 
 the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for 
 the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquil- 
 lity of this realm." Now, is it not apparent from 
 this statute, that the supremacy is vested in the
 
 Q7 
 
 Crown, for the express purpose (for such are the 
 very terms of it) that in the character of supreme 
 head of the Church, the King may protect the 
 Church, and as far as the law will allow, prevent 
 departure from it. 
 
 Here is a positive duty prescribed, to visit, re- 
 press, and restrain, all such abuses and enormi- 
 ties, as by the ecclesiastical law ought to be or 
 may be repressed. These are surely very cogent 
 expressions. Now, I need hardly remind your 
 Lordships, that the statutes which passed in the 
 time of Henry VHI. respecting the supremacy, 
 were re-enacted and confirmed upon the accession 
 of Queen Elizabeth. This may not have been 
 strictly necessary. It may have arisen from the 
 interruption of Queen Mary's reign, and perhaps 
 from a subtlety which I believe had been attempted 
 to be spread about that a Queen could not perform 
 the duties of the supremacy. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I apprehend, that what in the 
 construction of these statutes would be deemed 
 abuses reprehensible if done by any person in the 
 Church, or in whatever manner promulgated, 
 whether by lectures, sermons, or in any other 
 shape, cannot receive a sanction from His Majesty, 
 consistently with his duty as supreme head of the 
 Church, from whatever quarter they may proceed. 
 Can they become not reprehensible, if they shall 
 take place within a University of whicli tlie King 
 is the fomuler ? 
 
 F 2
 
 68 
 
 It is indisputable, that there are manj^ abuses 
 and attacks of religion, and of the particular reli- 
 gion of the Church of England, so flagrant that 
 the common law of the country requires them, 
 from time to time, to be punished. In these 
 cases, the Crown, acting through its various 
 ministers, not only ecclesiastical but civil, is bound 
 to repress them ; and, in fact, proceeds accord- 
 ingly. Now I ask, can a University be legally 
 founded, whose system is to permit and sanction 
 such attacks as these ; but what is more, actually 
 to invite and encourage them ? If this can be 
 maintained, then this most extraordinary propo- 
 sition can be maintained, that while the King is 
 bound by direct statutes, which define his duty 
 as Supreme Head of the Church, to correct all 
 those abuses, he may at the same time become, in 
 the most direct sense, a law breaker, by granting 
 a charter operating as a licence for their practice. 
 This is the view which I take of the strict obliga- 
 tions imposed upon the Crown, to maintain the 
 religion of the Church. And upon this view of it, 
 I have brought home to my own humble judg- 
 ment, a persuasion, that conformity to the doc- 
 trine, discipline, and worship of the Church is the 
 basis on which the King must stand. But instead 
 of performing all these obligations to preserve 
 the purity of the Christian Religion, they are to 
 be avoided by the exercise of a sort of dispensing- 
 power, and for this purpose the Lord Chancellor is
 
 69 
 
 to put the great seal to a patent designedly and 
 industriously meant to operate, in an inverse ratio, 
 to all these duties, and which will not fail to effec- 
 tuate the most mischievous and vicious conse- 
 quences. 
 
 Before I leave this part of the subject, I con- 
 ceive that I ought not entirely to pass by, the 
 alternative alluded to in my first proposition be- 
 tween the King's legal power as head of the Church, 
 and his general prerogative as head of the civil 
 state. I thought it right to call your Lordships' 
 attention to these two different capacities — the 
 union of which is the reason of the Kind's being: 
 called, mixta persona. But, although they exist 
 in legal contemplation, for the practical purposes 
 of the present question, I cannot conceive how 
 any distinction can be drawn between them. It 
 would be impossible to abstract the character of 
 the King as the civil head of the state from his 
 ecclesiastical character as head of the Church. 
 This would be to blow hot and cold at the 
 same time, to exert the prerogative of granting a 
 Charter in one capacity, entirely to supersede the 
 other. 
 
 In what I have hitherto offered to your Lord- 
 ships' notice, I have only traced the subject down 
 to the time of Queen Elizabeth ; but, in pursuing 
 it further, my authorities multiply. Instead of 
 finding the duties of the Crown relaxed, they are 
 made more binding ; instead of the powers of the
 
 70 
 
 Crown being increased upon matters of religion, 
 they are largely abridged — nay, they are reduced 
 to nothing. 
 
 I have stated that to grant the Charter would be 
 a breach of several laws and statutes, and I have 
 argued the case upon general rules and principles; 
 but there is a statute, the direct provisions of which 
 apply to the case of a University — I allude to the 
 act commonly called the Act of Uniformity, which 
 I must now press upon your particular attention, for 
 I believe it has been forgot that there exists such a 
 thing. I need say two words only as to the history of 
 it. It was thought desirable, after the Restoration, to 
 compile together the prayers which were to form 
 the service of the National Church — to be called 
 the Book of Common Prayer. This compilation 
 having been presented to the King, the Book was 
 annexed to the Act ; and it is only on account 
 of its length that it was not printed in extent so in 
 the Statute Book, for it is literally part and parcel 
 of an Act of Parliament. 
 
 I will now read the material clauses of the Act. 
 It is declared, by Sec. 1., " That the said Book of 
 Common Prayer, and of the form of ordination of 
 bishops, priests, and deacons, with the alterations 
 and additions which have been so made and pre- 
 scribed to his Majesty by the said convocations, in 
 the book which shall be appointed to he used by all 
 that officiate in all cathedral and collegiate churches 
 and chapels, and in all chapels of colleges and halls
 
 71 
 
 in both the Unwerslties, and the Colleges of Eton 
 and Winchester, and in all parish churches and 
 chapels within the kingdom of England, dominion 
 of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and 
 by all that make or consecrate bishops, priests, or 
 deacons, in any of the said places, under such 
 sanctions and penalties as the Houses of Parlia- 
 ment shall think fit." 
 
 By sec. 8, it is provided, that every dean, canon, 
 and prebendary, of every cathedral or collegiate 
 church, and all masters and other heads, fellows, 
 chaplains, and tutors of, or in any college, hall, 
 house of learning or hospital, and every public pro- 
 fessor and reader in either of the Universities, and 
 in every college elsewhere, and every parson, vicar, 
 curate, lecturer, and every person in holy orders, 
 and every school-master, keeping any public or 
 private school, and every person instructing or 
 teaching any youth in any house or private family 
 as tutor or school-master, who, upon the first day 
 of May, 1662, or at any time thereafter, shall be 
 incumbent, or have possession of any deanery, 
 canonry, prebend, mastership, headship, fellow- 
 ship, professor's place, or reader's place, parsonage, 
 vicarage, or any other ecclesiastical dignity or pro- 
 motion, or of any curate's place, lecture or school, 
 or shall instruct or teach any youth as tutor or 
 school-master, shall, before the feast day of St. 
 Bartholomew, 1662, or at or before his or their 
 respective admission to be incumbent, or have pos-
 
 72 
 
 session aforesaid, subscribe the declaration or 
 acknowledgment thereby provided, the material 
 part of which is, " that he will conform to the 
 Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is by law 
 established." 
 
 By the positive requisitions, therefore, of this 
 Act, conformity with the doctrine, discipline, and 
 worship of the Church of England, is required 
 from both the Universities ; and it is effected by 
 requiring from every person holding any office the 
 pledge I have mentioned. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I suppose that no person will 
 contend that, because in the year 1662 there was 
 no third University in existence, the expression, 
 " both the Universities," did not mean all Universi- 
 ties. If this were not the meaning of it, how strange 
 would be any other construction ? It w^ould leave 
 it open to the Crown to erect a third, a fourth, a 
 fifth ; and, if five, fifty Universities, Colleges, or 
 houses of learning, and so on ad infinitum, to evei'y 
 one of which he would in truth grant a dispensa- 
 tion from the Act of Uniformity, and by these 
 means annihilate it. I should say, that any 
 violence done by James the II. in the days of 
 the dispensing power, w^as not more violent ; I 
 should say that any interference of his with the 
 Church of England, by his indulgence in favour 
 of liberty of conscience, was not a more gross 
 infraction of the law, than would be a Charter 
 avowedly constituting the machinery of the Lon-
 
 73 
 
 don University, in order that its teachers may 
 become studious violators of the doctrines of the 
 Church thus established, and made part of a public 
 statute, equally binding on the Crown and its 
 subjects : for not one word, nor one syllable of the 
 service of the Church so established, has the 
 Crown the least authority to change or alter. The 
 general scope of the Act, as intending to embrace 
 all Universities, it is impossible to question. I 
 should hardly expect to be driven into an argu- 
 ment of mere legal criticism, as to whether " two" 
 could be taken to mean "all." But if I should, 
 authorities are not wanting to show that an exam- 
 ple is, in legal construction, often taken for a 
 whole class. The decision upon the ancient sta- 
 tute of Circumspecte agatis, is an illustration of 
 this. It directed, that the Bishop of Norwich 
 should be protected in the exercise of his spiritual 
 jurisdiction. Some acute lawyer having raised 
 the question, whether all other Bishops might not 
 be left unprotected, it was ruled in a decision upon 
 this statute, that the name of the bishop of Nor- 
 wich was only used in the statute, exempli gratia ; 
 and that the provisions of it extended to all bishops. 
 But [ would not leave the interpretation of the 
 Act on this footing. In order to meet any inge- 
 nuity, I will call your attention to the general 
 words of the Act, which are, " in every college, 
 hall, house of learning, or hospital;" and again, 
 besides the two Universities, in " every college
 
 74 
 
 elsewhere."' Here is enough, surely, to bring it 
 home to the London University. 
 
 Passing on from this period, I next come to the 
 Toleration Act ; the history of which is so fami- 
 liar : and I look into it to see what changes, and 
 to what extent, it has made in the Act of Uni- 
 formity. It introduces a large relaxation in favour 
 of Dissenters ; and most properly. It authorises 
 and protects their places of worship ; but still it 
 requires a test from the minister or teacher of 
 every congregation, who must subscribe a declara- 
 tion, " that he acknowledges the Holy Scriptures of 
 the Old and New Testament, to be given by 
 Divine inspiration." In all other respects, the 
 Act of Uniformity is left untouched. The last 
 Act to which I shall refer, as connected with this 
 subject, is the Act of the 19th George III. cap. 44. 
 which was introduced to give further relief to 
 dissenting ministers and schoolmasters. But here 
 again they are required to sign a distinct decla- 
 ration. 
 
 Bishop of London. — Will you read the decla- 
 ration they are required to make ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell. — The declaration is 
 in these words. " I do solemnly declare, in the 
 presence of Almighty God, that I am a Christian 
 and a Protestant ; and as such, that I believe that 
 the Scriptures of the Old tmd New Testament, as 
 commonly received among Protestant Churches, 
 do contain the revealed will of God ; and that I
 
 75 
 
 do receive the same as the rule of my doctrine 
 and practice." So that your Lordships perceive 
 no person can acquire a legal licence to be a com- 
 mon schoolmaster, unless he goes the length of this 
 declaration. What will your Lordships say to the 
 London University, who are afraid of the names of 
 the Old and New Testament ; wdiose apology for 
 not using them, is the dread that some ill-natured 
 person should take notice of it, and accuse them 
 of having some sort of religious faith. It has been 
 the policy of this country, the wasdom of which no 
 person will question, to extend and enlarge the prin- 
 ciples of toleration as far as may be practicable, con- 
 sistently with the safety of the Church. In follow- 
 ing up this rule tests have from time to time, for 
 some purposes, been abolished; and, for others, they 
 have been reduced to the narrowest compass. A 
 belief in Revelation is all that is now necessary to 
 be acknowledged by a schoolmaster asking for a 
 licence. This is not much ; but little as it is, it 
 is rejected by this Institution. If I look into the 
 sketch of their charter, I look in vain for any 
 authority, direct or indirect, requiring the very 
 limited declaration I have just alluded to. The 
 governing body will submit to no such thing ; they 
 insist upon having a pantheon for all religions : 
 but in which total, unfortunately, a belief in Christ- 
 ianity is not included. 
 
 I am unwilling unnecessarily to take up your 
 Lordships' time, withdrawn as it must be from
 
 76 
 
 other Important engagements ; but I should myself 
 be subject to censure, and failing in respect to the 
 Board, if I omitted anything I might deem mate- 
 rial ; and I shall, therefore, go on to call your 
 attention to another difficulty in which His Majesty 
 is placed on this subject. You, no doubt, have in 
 recollection that principle of the constitution, by 
 which His Majesty, Parens Patria, as he is named, 
 has the power and the duty of superintending the 
 guardianship of minors, who are made wards of the 
 Court of Chancery. This power he exercises in the 
 person of his Lord Chancellor. If the parental 
 authority is abused in the education of a child, 
 the Lord Chancellor, as representing His Majesty, 
 has a power to supersede it, and assume the 
 guardianship. This power, large as it is, had been 
 acted upon by Lord Chancellors of great name ; — 
 by Lord Nottingham and Lord Thurlow, When a 
 noble and learned Lord, now sitting at the board, 
 (Lord Eldon) held the great seal, the case of Mr. 
 Shelley's child came before him ; he w^as made a 
 ward of the Court by his relations, who made it 
 apparent that his father was breeding him up as 
 an atheist. The learned Lord declared, that his 
 authority was clear ; and that he would act upon 
 it : which he did, by making proper orders for the 
 child's education. Li the subsequent case of Mr. 
 Wellesley, though it turned on different considera- 
 tions, the noble Lord carried into effect the same 
 principle of jurisdiction, by the orders which he
 
 77 
 
 made for tlie care and protection of his children. 
 An appeal from these was afterwards brought in 
 the House of Lords, but they were sustained by 
 the additional and concurring authority of Lord 
 Redesdale, Lord Manners, and Lord Lyndhurst. 
 Now, strange as it may seem, this sort of occurrence 
 may take place : some young person, a pupil at 
 this legitimated institution, may be made a ward 
 of Chancery. The Lord Chancellor would, no 
 doubt, ask the parent. Where is this child of yours 
 bred up, in such doctrines as I hear of? — Bred up 
 in a University founded by his Majesty, says the 
 parent. The Chancellor would, no doubt, do his 
 duty ; he would say, I must really cancel the 
 King's Charter : he cannot license his subjects to 
 breed up their children in this manner ; I cannot 
 allow this breeding up of children in what is 
 termed in one of their books, Hebrew philosophy. 
 — But these inconsistencies, under which his Ma- 
 jest)^ is to be placed, do not end here. I have 
 before shown, as I confidently think, that the 
 Archbishop has a right to visit if the institution is 
 incorporated as a University ; but it must also 
 have another visitor — the King must of necessity 
 be the visitor of it in his character of founder. 
 It will be necessary to examine this subject a 
 little more minutely, and particularly with refe- 
 rence to the power of conferring degrees, and 
 the nature of a University. The only place 
 where I can find any legal discussion on matters
 
 78 
 
 so little brought under consideration as these, is the 
 argument of Mr. Attorney General Yorke, in Dr. 
 Bentley's case, which is reported in 2nd Lord Ray- 
 mond, 1345. That most eminent scholar had been 
 sued by Dr. Conyers Middleton, a man not much 
 less learned than himself, in the Vice-Chancellor's 
 Court at Cambridge, for the great sum of three 
 guineas. Bentley was contumacious, and would not 
 appear, and the Vice-Chancellor's Court suspended 
 him from his degrees. Upon this, he applied to 
 the Court of King's Bench to be restored. The 
 sentence against him was supported by Mr. Yorke, 
 who appeared for the University, and contended 
 that a degree was a right or title deprivable within 
 the jurisdiction and powers of a University ; and 
 this led to an inquiry respecting the nature of a 
 degree. I will read a passage from Mr. Yorke's 
 argument. As to the objection that suspension 
 from the academical degrees is not a proper punish- 
 ment for a contempt of the Court, he says, " That 
 ' by the rules of the civil law, it is the only proper 
 ' punishment. And it is like an outlawry in the 
 ' temporal courts, it is to compel the party to come 
 ' in and answer ; and upon his doing that, the sus- 
 ' pension is taken off. And these degrees cannot 
 ' properly be called freeholds, nor civil temporal 
 ' rights ; they were originally only in nature of 
 ' licenses to professors in several professorships, and 
 ' are now titles of distinction and precedence. ' The 
 ' ' power of granting degrees flows from the Crown.' 
 
 12
 
 79 
 
 If tlie Crown erects an University, ' the power of 
 ' conferring degrees is incident to the grant.' 
 Some old degrees the University have abro- 
 gated, some new they have erected ; and they 
 are taken notice of in acts of Parliament for col- 
 lateral purposes ; and though the acts have an- 
 nexed collateral privileges to them, that will not 
 alter the nature of them, nor take away the 
 power the University had over them before ; no 
 more than if it should be enacted by an Act of 
 Parliament, that none but such as were educated 
 at Eton, Westminster, and Winchester, should be 
 capable of degrees, would it restrain the Univer- 
 sity from exercising the power they have over 
 degrees, upon such persons educated at those 
 schools, upon whom they should be conferred. 
 It does not follow, that if temporal rights are 
 annexed to these degrees, the University would 
 be deprived of their power of degrading. A 
 bishop has a freehold in his bishoprick, and a 
 right to sit and vote in Parliament ; yet he may 
 be deprived by his metropolitan. Bishop of St. 
 David's v. Lucy, ante 447. The ecclesiastical 
 court may excommunicate for contempt ; and 
 that affects the party's temporal rights of suing, 
 &c. This punishment by suspension does not 
 differ in reason from those cases ; therefore he 
 concluded, this suspension was a proper punish- 
 ment for the contempt." 
 In this proposition of Mr. Yorke, two principles
 
 80 
 
 are laid down. The first is, that the " granting 
 degrees flows from the Crown ;" and the second 
 is, tliat if "a University be erected, the power of 
 granting degrees is incidental to the grant." I 
 much question whether either of these principles 
 has been adverted to by the parties applying for 
 this grant : but here they must be closely ex- 
 amined, in several points of view. There can be 
 no difficulty here upon the doctrine of foundership. 
 The subject-matter granted, is the power of con- 
 ferrinir dcorees ; an emanation, as Mr. Yorke ex- 
 presses it, from the Crown. It is the concession 
 of this power that constitutes the direct purpose 
 and the essential character of a University. Upon 
 tliese grounds it is, that the King being the grantor 
 of the charter of incorporation, is the founder 
 of the institution, and in virtue of that character 
 is visitor, according to the general principles of the 
 law of foundership. The law upon this point I 
 take to be so clear, that I shall not refer to Sir 
 W. Blackstone or any other authorities. It is, in 
 truth, upon these principles that the Crown became 
 the founder of the two ancient Universities ; and, 
 as a necessary consequence, their visitor. It would 
 be a very ridiculous thing to imagine, that a man's 
 buying up a £100 share in this company, should 
 give him a right of foundership. 
 
 The second point stated in Mr. Yorke's argu- 
 ment is equally material to be kept in view, 
 namely, that the power of conferring degrees is
 
 81 
 
 incident to a University, and some particular re- 
 marks must be borrowed from it. Allusion was 
 made the other day by Dr. Lushington to a 
 passage stated in the Oxford petition, importing 
 that they had been advised that it was matter of 
 great doubt whether a proviso in the charter, 
 restricting this institution from conferring degrees 
 in divinity, would be binding and effectual, and 
 some surprise was expressed at it. That ad- 
 vice I gave, and I considered Mr. Attorney- 
 General Yorke as my coadjutor, in giving it, 
 for it is founded upon his opinion. I under- 
 stand that a charter is now asked for to make 
 a University, who are not to grant theological 
 degrees. There is something very whimsical in 
 this : for theological learning is, beyond all doubt, 
 one of the main purposes and characteristics of a 
 University. But say these gentlemen, (and their 
 friends and advocates, at the Common Council at 
 Guildhall, said the same thing,) to be sure it will 
 be too bad to have a University pretending to give 
 degrees in theology, for we have neither Qeog in the 
 place, nor Aoyoq. The Deity and Revelation we in- 
 tend not ourselves to recognise — we shall ask only 
 for degrees in arts, law, surgery, and medicine. 
 But even the surgical or medicinal degree is likely 
 to be amputated ; at present, at least, they have no 
 meafis to confer it. in tliis state of things, inde- 
 pendently of the general legal argument with 
 which I have troubled your Lordships, to show
 
 82 
 
 that theology, according- to the doctrines of the 
 Church of England, must form a part of the in- 
 struction given in an institution which is to be 
 established as a University. This question of law 
 arises : — How can this anomalous and strange body 
 be constituted in the manner professed ? It is to be 
 a " University," but degrees in theology it is not to 
 give. But Mr. Attorney-General Yorke tells us, 
 that the power of giving degrees is incidental to 
 the grant. If this be law, is not the power of con- 
 ferring theological degrees equally incident to the 
 grant, as other degrees ; and if this be so, how 
 can you constitute a University without the power 
 of giving " air' degrees ? The general rule of law 
 undoubtedly is, that where a subject matter is 
 granted which has legal incidents belonging to it, 
 the incidents must follow the subject granted ; 
 and this is the general rule as to corporations ; and 
 it has been decided upon that principle, that as a 
 corporation, as an incident to its corporate character, 
 has a right to dispose of its property, a proviso 
 against alienation is void. 
 
 Earl of Eldon. — What are the precise grounds 
 upon which this is referred to the Privy Council ? 
 
 Lord Chancellor. — I believe it is a mere 
 reference of the petition, without saying to advise 
 upon what, but merely referring the petition. 
 
 Lord Lyndhurst. — Referring the petition ge- 
 nerally to the consideration of the Privy Council. 
 
 Lord Chancellor.- — Exactly. Any question
 
 83 
 
 arising out of the terms of the reference is matter 
 for our consideration. 
 
 Earl of Eldon. — Have you a copy of the pro- 
 posed charter ? 
 
 Sir Charles Wetherell.^ — There is a draft of 
 the proposed charter. By this charter it is ex- 
 tremely ambiguous what is meant or not meant to 
 be granted, whether it is the mere " name," or the 
 substantial power and character of a University. I 
 do not say that it would be impossible to grant the 
 name, merely and simply, just as the King may give 
 a person a license to assume the name of Johnson or 
 Wilkins ; but then expressions must be used to 
 show distinctly what is meant. It is absolutely 
 essential that his Majesty should know wliat it is 
 that he grants, and what incidents belong to it ; 
 and it is for that reason that I have pressed parti- 
 cularly upon your Lordships' attention the points 
 contained in Mr. Yorke's argument. 
 
 Now, I shall pass on to examine some of the 
 practical consequences which will follow from the 
 power of this new University to grant degrees. I find 
 that in the course of stating my authorities, I have 
 accidentally omitted to mention the canons, which 
 I ought to have referred to among my authorities, 
 to show that the King cannot vary the ecclesiasti- 
 cal law. But there is one which it is very conve- 
 nient to refer to in this part of the case, that is the 
 127th Canon of the Canons of 1603, which are 
 
 G 2
 
 84 
 
 collected in Gibson's Codex, Title 43, cap. '2. p. 
 1027 : it is a Canon respecting the qualification of 
 persons who shall exercise any duty in the eccle- 
 siastical courts. It is in these terms, " That no 
 man shall hereafter be admitted a Chancellor com- 
 missary or official, to exercise any ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction, except he be of the full age of six and 
 twenty years at the least, and one that is learned in 
 the civil and ecclesiastical laws, and is at the least 
 a Master of Arts or Bachelor of Law, and is rea- 
 sonably well practised," &c. &c. 
 
 The canons, as your Lordships know, are binding 
 upon the King ; he has no authority to alter them ; 
 so that by the law, as it now stands, no person can 
 ask to enter into these offices in the Ecclesiastical 
 Court, unless he be a Master of Arts, and of course, 
 by the existing law, he must be a Master of Arts, 
 conforming to the established doctrine of the 
 Church, for it is only by that means that the 
 degree can now be obtained in the two ancient 
 Universities. 
 
 I understood Dr. Lushington to express his sur- 
 prise with regard to what institutions are alluded 
 to in that part of the Oxford petition, which says, 
 that the assumption of the title of Master of Arts, 
 under the authority of the London University, 
 would break in upon many of the institutions 
 of the realm. Here is one of those institutions. 
 But there is another class of the ancient iustitu-
 
 85 
 
 tious of the realm, and a very extensive one, wliich 
 would be broken in upon. 
 
 There are in this country a vast number of schools 
 and seminaries of learning, of hospitals, and other 
 bodies of different descriptions, which have been 
 from time to time founded from remote antiquity 
 up to the present moment. They have been esta- 
 blished by their founders, in order that they may 
 be for the benefit and enjoyment of the members 
 of the National Church. The greatest part of them 
 have endowments in land and other property, and 
 in almost all of them there are various offices, 
 places, and stations, which, by charter or usage, 
 and other regulations, are required to be filled by 
 Masters of Arts or other graduates of the two an- 
 cient Universities ; for to them alone they belong, 
 it being pre-supposed by their degrees that they 
 are believers in the doctrines of the Church of 
 England, And these stations they are to fill 
 for the purpose of inculcating and teaching 
 those doctrines, and thus maintaining the National 
 Church. But it is now matter of complaint, 
 that Dissenters are deprived of the equipollent 
 rank and title of Master of Arts and of other 
 degrees, and in order to equalize them in rank, 
 title, and privilege, the new University is to 
 be established as a medium through which this 
 equality is to be obtained. 
 
 Now I assert that to grant a Charter, under 
 which persons graduated at the new University
 
 86 
 
 are to have this equivalent rank and title, is to 
 give them an opportunity of personifying a cha- 
 racter which they have no pretension to assume. 
 It is actually to make the King a wrong doer and 
 an auxiliary in the perpetration of a fraud. It is 
 to enable persons under pretence of these degrees 
 to claim equal rights, civil and religious, to in- 
 trude into these endowments under the assumption 
 of a false character ; and to enjoy all those emolu- 
 ments and profits which were given and intended 
 for members of the Church exclusively. These 
 are the grounds upon which I assert that this prin- 
 ciple of equal rank and privilege will become an 
 engine of gross deception and fraud. These are 
 some of the institutions which it is notorious are 
 to be undermined and made the object of attack. 
 
 Throughout the whole of this important case, I 
 have felt it to be my dut}^ not to travel beyond 
 those views of it which I am unavoidably obliged 
 to enter into. Under that impression, I hold in 
 my hand a document which I cannot but think I 
 am bound to notice. The addresses and petitions 
 which have been presented to his Majesty, I appre- 
 hend constitute matter upon which I may with 
 propriety comment — upon which indeed 1 am 
 bound to comment. I learn from the public prints, 
 that the Crown is to have a new petition presented 
 to it, and that at a meeting of the Protestant 
 Dissenters held at Dr. Williams's Library in Red- 
 cross-street, this resolution was passed — " That
 
 87 
 
 the University of London, althougli affording- the 
 means of a liberal education, is unable to confer on 
 its students those degrees which would be incen- 
 tives to exertion and rewards of success, a circum- 
 stance which this meeting the more laments be- 
 cause that institution offers its advantao-es of 
 instruction without any interference with the theo- 
 logical principles of its students, repudiating the 
 practice of presenting a temptation to hypocrisy in 
 religion as a necessary preliminary to distinction 
 in letters." This I should pass by were it not to 
 be put into a serious shape. 
 
 A more gross libel was never uttered against any 
 man or any body of men, than what is contained in 
 this resolution, which is to be laid in the form of 
 an address at the foot of the throne ; for it asserts 
 that inasmuch as there is to be no preliminary 
 religious test in the Gower-street Institution, it 
 will prevent that mass of hypocrisy, that base 
 meanness which these gentlemen propose to tell 
 his Majest}" have been practised by all the gra- 
 duates of the two ancient Universities, but (what 
 is still more interesting to your Lordships), 
 by almost every member around this Board, 
 that hypocrisy, through the medium of which 
 a noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief 
 Baron, became a Fellow of Trinity College, and 
 first Wrangler of his year in the University. 
 Through hypocrisy in religion alone did he, as 
 these men calumniously assert, obtain these ho-
 
 88 
 
 nours. The Lord Chief Justice of England also 
 was not less hypocritical ; for, my Lord, as it is 
 asserted, it was only by a mean sacrifice, and sur- 
 render of your reason, in conforming to the doc- 
 trines of the Church of England, that you acquired 
 a high degree in the University of Cambridge. 
 On this side of the table, the class of legal hypo- 
 crites is not smaller : an ex-Lord Chancellor, who 
 held for twenty-five years the great seal, who was 
 a Master of Arts in the University of Oxford, and, 
 I believe, a short time a tutor there, has now for 
 the first time, after a long life, to learn something 
 quite new and unexpected. It was not by your 
 Lordship's sincere belief in the religion of the 
 Church, that you became a graduate, acquiring 
 great reputation in the University, and there com- 
 mencing that splendid career which afterwards led 
 you to the acquisition of the highest honours in 
 this kingdom, and w'ith them of the inestimable 
 reputation of holding them so long, equally with 
 the approbation of your sovereign and of the peo- 
 ple. 
 
 Amongst 3'our Lordships there is also a junior 
 hypocrite of the legal class, a young Chief Justice 
 of the Common Pleas. Really this resolution of 
 the Redcross-street Dissenters carries the spirit of 
 acrimony, the odium theologicum beyond common 
 decency, nay, almost Christian forbearance : and 
 I say this, because the charge includes the greatest 
 part of His Majesty's Cabinet, of whom many are
 
 89 
 
 now present. 1 believe a noble earl, now holding 
 the office of the Privy Seal, obtained one, if not 
 two degrees, at Christchurch. As to the two 
 Archbishops, of course they can be nothing but 
 hypocrites. At the end of the table I see several 
 of His Majesty's Ministers who are graduates ; 
 they will be astonished to hear, that they are also 
 in the list. I understand the noble Lord at the 
 head of the Government did not take a decree at 
 Cambridge, and his Lordship has therefore, by the 
 mere blessing of good fortune, escaped the ana- 
 thema of Redcross-street. After thus hunting 
 down and degrading your Lordships, say these 
 councillors of the throne, we have a safe cure for 
 all this. As to the Lyndhursts, the Eldons, the 
 Denmans, and the rest of your Lordships, say 
 these gentlemen, we will take pretty good care to 
 have none of these legal, theological, ministerial, 
 and official hypocrites, for the future. At the 
 London University we will have no such cant and 
 hypocrisy; there shall be no religion there, touch- 
 ing or concerning which it shall be practicable for 
 any man to be a hypocrite. Such are the notions- 
 your Lordships are called upon to adopt. You are, 
 in other words, by this address called upon to make 
 a report to the Crown, in unison with the sentiments 
 declared in this extraordinary resolution. 
 
 In the course of the observations I have had 
 the honour to make, there was one topic to which 
 I alluded generally, namely, the principle of the
 
 90 
 
 obligation imposed upon his Majesty by his oath 
 to maintain the established religion of the country. 
 This topic I feel compelled to call your Lordships' 
 attention to. I am here happily relieved from that 
 political casuistry which relates to the question, 
 whether his Majesty in his legislative character can 
 be bound by an oath ? Upon that subject it has 
 been said, that it is inconsistent with the exercise 
 of the legislative function, that his Majesty as one 
 of the three estates of the realm, can be subject 
 to any obligation a priori. I have not to enter 
 into this point at all, but I presume it will be 
 admitted, that if the coronation oath does not 
 bind the Kino; either in his lesfislative or executive 
 capacity, the result will be that an oath may be 
 no oath at all. It may be the pleasure of parlia- 
 ment to establish an University upon such terms 
 and conditions as it think fit ; but let it be re- 
 membered, that vour Lordships are here to advise 
 the King as to what he may legally do in his ex- 
 ecutive capacity ; and there can be no occasion upon 
 which the executive act of the king is more dis- 
 tinct and direct, than that of granting a charter. 
 In truth his Majesty in legal contemplation is pre- 
 sent here, and might in fact be so, if he thought 
 fit ; and he is supposed, if the charter be conceded, 
 to say, " Lord Chancellor, put my great seal to 
 this patent." I know no occasion, therefore, in 
 which, in a more personal sense, the crown is 
 acting in its executive capacity.
 
 91 
 
 I need not remind your Lordships, that before 
 the union with Scotland, the Scotch nation, who 
 were never wanting in attention to what they 
 deemed essential to their own interests, reasoned 
 in this way. They said, the Kirk of Scotland 
 being now the established religion of this country, 
 we will not leave it to privy councillors, chancel- 
 lors and ministers, to defend the Kirk of Scotland, 
 but we will have an Act of Parliament passed 
 (which in fact was passed in the Scotch Parlia- 
 ment, before the union was ratified), and this shall 
 be embodied in the articles of union, and Queen 
 Anne and her successors shall be made to swear, 
 that they will maintain in Scotland the Presby- 
 terian Church and Government, and the doctrine, 
 discipline, and worship thereof. And by another 
 act passed in the English Parliament, before the 
 union, and also made an article of the union, the 
 successors of her Majesty are required to swear that 
 they will maintain the Church of England, and the 
 doctrine, worship, discipline and government thereof. 
 I presume that, in practice, this oath, in its precise 
 terms, is still continued. If it is not, it ought so to 
 be. These terms are rather more precise than the 
 language of the Coronation Oath, which are to 
 maintain the profession of the Gospel, and the 
 Protestant Reformed religion, as established by 
 law 
 
 My argument upon this subject cannot be long. 
 It has been said upon high authority that Legisla-
 
 92 
 
 tive discretion cannot, from the nature of the thing, 
 yield to any restraint whatever. Be this so, for the 
 purposes of the argument, and then it may be justi- 
 fiable and desirable, it may be good statesmanship 
 and good policy legislatively to carry any measure 
 whatever ; but if the other alternative be also true, 
 that the Executive character cannot be bound, and 
 that the King can give personal absolution to his 
 own mind, instead of relieving his conscience by 
 the sanction of the Legislature, I must own it ap- 
 pears to me that an oath may be formed on pur- 
 pose to be broken ; and there are, certainly, 
 authorities for this — such was the opinion of a 
 celebrated judge of oaths, Suarez, a Jesuit. 
 
 From his skilful treatise upon the subject I will 
 read this passage. He sa^'s : — " I maintain that, 
 intrinsically, there is no evil in falsehood, even 
 when confirmed by an oath ; so that, as often as, 
 for an honest cause, one uses words in a sense 
 differing from the mind of him that uses them, he 
 commits no perjury nor any sin when he confirms 
 them with an oath. For example, if a man pro- 
 mises, or contracts externally, without an intention 
 of fulfilling, and is questioned by a judge, and 
 summoned to declare whether he has so promised, 
 he may reply that he has not, because such answer 
 may have a legitimate sense, viz. I have not pro- 
 mised in a sense that binds me ; he may, therefore, 
 not onlv swear that he has not promised, but that 
 he has not used sucii words, understanding that he
 
 93 
 
 did not pronounce them with a design to promise 
 thereby, or in any way that should oblige him to 
 confess them." This is the definition of an oath 
 given by a celebrated Spanish Jesuit, Suarez ; and 
 this gentleman is eulogized for this b}^ a celebrated 
 French writer, M. L'Advocat, who says of this 
 Suarez, " that he was a very eminent scholastic 
 divine," who taught " theology'' with credit at 
 Alcala, Salamanca, Rome, and many other places. 
 Here is a theologian for you ! I must say I cannot 
 but think that the time may come, in this coun- 
 try, when we may have to consider whether an 
 oath does not really mean this, — that the promiser 
 promises not to keep his oath. 
 
 I am ready to admit, that if the practical scheme 
 before your Lordships is not injurious to the 
 Church, my argument upon oaths is good for 
 nothing : but who will deny it to be injurious to 
 the Church, when the promoters of the plan, in 
 pretty plain terms, tell you tliat they do mean to 
 injure the Church, and to put an end to its ex- 
 clusive national character. 
 
 I have thought it my duty, perhaps too strongly, 
 but not more so than 1 felt necessary, to present these 
 considerations to your Lordships, upon a matter 
 never yet discussed at the council board, nor ever 
 yet seriously investigated. Assuming the point of 
 expediency, of statesmanship, and good policy ; 
 assuming that the utility of this Institution were as 
 palpable on the one side as I maintain the mischief
 
 94 
 
 of it is palpable on the other ; supposing the pro- 
 ject were as much to be coveted, as I say it is to 
 be shunned and avoided ; still the question is, how 
 can all this be legally accomplished ? There must 
 be a " via leyis'' for it; and that via legis is not a 
 Charter. 
 
 My Lords, before I leave this subject, I cannot 
 but remind you of the infinite danger of that prin- 
 ciple of liberalism on which this London Univer- 
 sity is to be founded. It carries with it an absolute 
 contempt of the national Church, and what is still 
 more dangerous, a contempt of those feelings of 
 affection and attachment, by which the people of 
 this country are bound to it, from a sincere belief 
 in the purity of its religion. The King by his 
 charter, is to found an atheistical institution, which 
 will operate like the liberal proclamation of in- 
 duloence which issued from that ill-fated monarch 
 James IL, in conjunction with his coadjutor, 
 Lord Chancellor Jefferies, sometimes the tool of 
 the sovereign, and sometimes making the sove- 
 reign his tool ; sometimes misled, and sometimes 
 misleading the sovereign, of whose great seal he 
 had the custody. But when he sanctioned his 
 sovereign's proclamation of indulgence, he did an 
 act which lost to him and his family the splendid 
 crown of these realms, and made him an outcast 
 from our shores, for daring to pull down the 
 established relijiion. And this o;reat inheritance 
 devolved upon the illustrious family now upon the 
 
 13
 
 95 
 
 throne, under a promise, and upon an oath, to 
 maintain that system and that establishment, the 
 desertion and breach of which had justly led to 
 such consequences. Let any man read over King- 
 James's proclamation of indulgence, and he will 
 find in it a perfect fac simile for the scheme and 
 policy of that universal tolerance and liberty of 
 conscience, for the encouragement of which the 
 King is now to be advised to found the London 
 Universit3^ Let any man sa}^ whether this is less 
 to injure and insult the Established Church, than 
 was the attempted intrusion of Catholicism by 
 James II. ; and not less will the public indignation 
 be excited, and their feelings violated by an at- 
 tempt to abolish all true religion, and to substitute 
 perfect infidelity. 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 
 Page 7 l^sit line, /ti/- cliiropoilist read chiropodist.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 PARLIAMENT ROLLS, VoL.IV.p. 651, 13 Hen. IV. 
 
 Memorandum, quod venerabilis in Christo Pater, Thomas Archi- 
 episcopus Cantuarensis in presenti Parliamento nostro exhibuit 
 quandam Petitionem una cum Cedula eidem annexa, in hasc verba. 
 A tres sovereign Seignor notre Seignor le Roy supplie humble- 
 ment votre humble Chapellein, Thomas, Ersevesque de Canter- 
 bris, qe pleise a vous, tres soverein Seignor, par assent des 
 Seignors Espirituelx et Temporelx, et les Communes, en cest 
 present Parlement, de grauntier, approver, ratifier, et confermer, 
 tout ceo q' est compris en une Cedule a iceste Bille annexe ; et 
 qe mesme ceste Cedule puisse estre enrollee et enacte en cest pre- 
 sent Parlement, solonc la fourme et effect de mesme la Cedule : 
 Et qe mesme la Cedule, et tout ceo q' est compris en icelle, 
 soient de ataunt de force, effect, et auctorite, et mesme les force, 
 effect, et auctorite cient et teignent, come ils ussent este faitz en 
 cest Parlement et par auctoritee de mesme le Parlement. 
 
 Memorandum quod cum Ricardus Secundus, nuper Rex Ang- 
 liae, propter diversas dissentiones, lites, et discordias quondam 
 habitas in Universitate Oxoniensi, super jure et titulo Visita- 
 tionis dictae Universitatis, ac de quadam Bulla Exemptionis pre- 
 tensa ad excludendum Archicpiscopum Cantuarensem tunc exist- 
 entem, et successores suos, ac quoscumque alios Ordinarios infra 
 
 H
 
 98 
 
 Univcrsitatem prfletlictam, ac quoscumqiie fuiidatores dictae Uni- 
 versitatis ac Collegiorum ejusdem Universitatis a Visitatione dictae 
 Universitatis, et ab omni jurisdictione ordinaria per eosdem Ar- 
 chiepiscopum, Ordinarios, ac Fundatores, et suos successores, ac 
 Commissarios suos, in eadem Universitate facienda et exercenda ; 
 per Breve suum venire fecerit in Cancellaria sua apud Westmo- 
 nasteriam Bullam prasdictam, et Cancellarium et Procuratores 
 dictae Universitatis ad tunc existentes, sufRcienswarrentum sigillo 
 communi Universitatis praedictae sigillatum pro se et Universitate 
 praedicta habentes, et secum in Cancellaria preedicta deferentes, 
 ad exhibendum, publicandum, ostendendum, et presentandum, 
 coram dicto nuper Rege in Cancellaria praedicta Bullam praedic- 
 tam, necnon ad respondendum ibidem, et ulterius faciendum et 
 recipiendum quod per eundem nuper Regem et Consilium suum 
 ordinatum fuisset et difRnitum prout de recordo in eadem Cancel- 
 laria plenius liquet. Ac postmodum iidem Cancellarius et Pro- 
 curatores pro se et tota Universitate praedicta, submiserint se de 
 materiis praedictis ordinationi et diffinitioni dicti nuper Regis ; 
 Qui quidem, nuper Rex, habitaindematura etpleniori deliberatione 
 cum Consilio suo, ac clare considerans Bullam praedictam fore 
 impetratam in prejudicium Coronae suae, ac Legum et consuetu- 
 dinum Regni sui enervationem, et in Hereticorum, et Lollardo- 
 rum, ac Homicidarum, et aliorum malefactorum favorem et auda- 
 ciam, dictaeque Universitatis verisimilem destructionem, Ordinavit 
 et per Breve suum precepit et inbibuit dicto Cancellario, Magistris, 
 Doctoribus, et Scholaribus Universitatis praedictae, in fide, li- 
 geantia, et dilectatione quibus sibi tenebantur, ac sub poena omis- 
 sionis Privilegiorum Universitatis praedictae, et sub forisfactura 
 omnium aliorum quae sibi forisfacere poterant, ne dictam Bullam 
 in aliqua sua parte exequi seu exercere seu beneficium aliquod 
 exemptionis per Bullam illam aliqualiter reportare seu recipere 
 presumerent, sed omnibus exemption ibus et privilegiis in ea 
 parte contentis, coram tunc dilecto Clerico suo Magistro, Ricardo 
 Ronhall, quem ad eos ex causa praedicta destinavit, palam et pub- 
 lice pro imperpetuo renunciarent, ac super renuntiatione hujus-
 
 99 
 
 modi quandam certificationem sibi sub sigillo dictae Universitatisj 
 ac publica instrumenta fieri, et sibi per eundem Clericum suiini 
 transmitti, facerent, sub poenis supra dictis. Postmodum negan- 
 tibus prajfato Cancellario, et aliis sibi adhaerentibus, nomine 
 Universitatis praedictae, visitationem praedictam ad dictum Ri- 
 cardum nuper Regem solum et insolidum pertinere : Conside- 
 ransque quod Visitatio Universitatis praedictoe ad praefatum Arclii- 
 episcopum et successores suos, ac ad Ecclesiam suam Cantuaren- 
 sem pertinuit, et pertinere debuit, quodque ipse aut progenitores 
 sui Cancellarium ac Universitatem praedictam retroactis tempori- 
 bus minime visitare consueverant ; voluit et ex certa scientia 
 sua declaravit, quod visitatio Cancellarii ac Procuratorum 
 dictae Universitatis, qui pro tempore forent, necnon omnium 
 Doctorum, Magistrorum, regentium et non regentium ac 
 Scholarium e:jusdem Universitatis quorumcunque, eorumque 
 servientium, aliarumque personarum cujuscumque status vel 
 conditionis extiterint, Libertatibus aut Privilegiis dictae Uni- 
 versitatis utentium, sen illis gaudere volentium, nee non 
 " Universitatis praedictae etiam ut Universitatis," ad praefatum 
 Archicpiscopum et successores suos ac Ecclesiam suam prae- 
 dictam pertinuit et pertinere debuit, ac futuris temporibus 
 pertineret. Postmodumque praedictus nuper Rex per diversa 
 Brevia sua Cancellario, Procuratoribus, Magistris, Doctoribus 
 et Scholaribus Universitatis praedictae preceperat, quod ipsi 
 Archiepiscopo praedicto et successoribus suis in visitatione sua 
 praedicta in eadem Universitate facienda, in omnibus sub poenis 
 prajdictis parerent et obedirent. Postmodumque sicut datum fuit 
 intelligi Domino nostro Regi Henrico quarto post Conquestum, 
 quod visitante Thoma Archiepiscopo Cantuari jure suo metro- 
 jjolitico Diocesam Lincolnensem, anno regni dicti Henrici Regis 
 duodecimo, venit ad praedictam Universitatem Oxoniensem ad 
 exequendam in forma juris Ecclesiastici ibidem visitationem 
 suam, Ricardus Courtenay, adtunc Cancellarius Universitatis 
 praedictae, ac Benedictus Brent, et Johannes Byrch adtunc 
 Procuratores dictae Universitatis, ac quamplures alii eis ad- 
 
 H 2
 
 100 
 
 haerentes in eadem Universitate, dictum Archiepiscopum de 
 visitatione sua praedicta et jurisdictione ejusdem Archiepiscopi 
 manu forti injuste impedierunt, et ei absque causa rationabili 
 resistebant. Super quo diversse lites, dissentiones, et discordiae 
 inter praefatum Thomam Archiepiscopum, et eosdem Cancella- 
 rium et Procuratores, ac alios Scliolares Universitatis praedictae 
 eorumque fautores, de et super jure et impedimento visitationis 
 et jurisdictionis prgedictarum motse fuerint et exortse in Uni- 
 versitate prsedicta. Et super hoc, presente Thoma Comite 
 Arrundell, et aliis personis honorabilibus secum existentibus in 
 Universitate praedicta, tam praefatus Archiepiscopus pro se et 
 Ecclesia sua praedicta, quam praefatus Ricardus Courtenay, Can- 
 cellarius Universitatis praedictae, et Benedictus Brent et Johannes 
 Byrch, Procuratores ejusdem Universitatis, pro se et eorum 
 adhaerentibus in materiis praedictis, ac pro Universitate praedicta, 
 per assensum eorumdem adhaerentium, se submiserunt, et con- 
 cesserunt stare arbitrio, judicio, et ordinationi ac decreto illus- 
 trissimi Principis et Domini dicti Domini nostri Regis Henrici, 
 de et super jure et impedimento Visitationis et Jurisdictionis 
 praedictarum per dictos Magistrum Ricardum Cancellarium, et 
 sibi adhaerentes praestites ac de dissentionibus, litibus, et dis- 
 cordiis praedictis, et earum dependentiis. Et super hoc dictus 
 Dominus noster Rex Henricus dictum Magistrum Ricardum 
 Courtenay, Cancellarium, ac dictos Benedictum Brent, et Jo- 
 hannem Byrch, Procuratores, venire fecit coram eo in propria 
 persona sua apud Lambhith, in crastino nativitatis beatae Mariae 
 dicto anno regni sui duodecimo, ad faciendum et recipiendum, 
 quod per eundem Dorainum Regem de avisamento Consilii sui 
 foret consideratum in materiis praedictis. Et praedictus Archie- 
 piscopus ibidem coram praefato Domino Rege comparuit. Et 
 tam praefatus Archiepiscopus quam iidem Cancellarius et Pro- 
 curatores adtunc ibidem coram dicto Domino nostro Rege sub- 
 missionem praedictam in omnibus ut praedictum est fore factum 
 in forma praedicta recognoverunt. Et ibidem concesserunt stare 
 arbitrio, judicio, et ordinationi ejusdem Domini nostri Regis de
 
 101 
 
 et super jure et impedimento \'isitationis et jurisdictionis prae- 
 dictarum, ac aliis materiis praedictis, et omnibus dependentiis 
 earundem. Qui quidem Dominus Rex postea, XVII. die mensis 
 Septembris, dicto anno duodecimo, apud Lambhith praedicta 
 auditis et intellectis tam allegationibus quam responsionibus par- 
 tium praedictarum et etiam habens considerationem ad dictam 
 submissionem factam tempore dicti Regis Ricardi, ac Ordina- 
 tionem, judicium, et determinationem super eandem submis- 
 sionem, tangentes visitationem et jurisdictionera praefatara : ac 
 clare considerans, quod visitatio Universitatis praedictae etiam ut 
 Universitatis, et omnium in Universitate predicta commorantium, 
 ad dictum Archiepiscopum et successores suos ut de jure Eccle- 
 siae suae praedicta pertinet, et de jure pertinere deberet, et quod 
 iidem Cancellarius et Procuratores, ac alii eis in hac parte ad- 
 haerentes, eundem Archiepiscopum de visitatione et jurisdictione 
 praedictis injuste et absque titulo seu rationabili causa manu forti 
 impedierunt, dicta judicium, ordinationem, et determinationem 
 praedicti Ricardi nuper Regis ratificavit, approbavit et confir- 
 mavit, pro imperpetuo duratura. Et ulterius, tam auctoritate 
 sua Regia, quam virtute submissionis praedictae sibi factae adtunc 
 ibidem, arbitratus fuit, ordinavit, consideravit, decrevit, et ad- 
 judicavit, quod prasdictus Archiepiscopus et successores sui im- 
 perpetuum habeant visitationem et jurisdictionem in Universitate 
 praedicta, tam Cancellarius, Commissarii, quam Procuratores 
 ejusdem Universitatis qui pro tempore fuerint ; necnon omnium 
 Doctorum, Magistrorum, regentium et non regentium, ac Scola- 
 rium ejusdem Universitatis quorumcumque, eorumque, servien- 
 tium, aliarumque personarum cujuscumque status vel conditionis 
 extiterint, et etiam ejusdem Universitatis ut Universitatis. Et 
 quod Cancellarius, Commissarii, et Procuratores Universitatis 
 praedictae qui pro tempore fuerint eorumque successores et omnes 
 alii in dicta Universitate pro tempore commorantes futuris tem- 
 poribus, eidem Archiepiscopo et successoribus suis in visitatione 
 et jurisdictione Universitatis praedictae etiam ut Universitatis, in 
 omnibus pareant et obediant. Et quod nee dicti Cancellarius, 
 Commissarii, nee Procuratores Universitatis praedictae nee eorum
 
 102 
 
 successores nee aliquls alius in Universitate praedicta, aliquod 
 privilegium seu beneficium exemptionis ad excludendum praefa- 
 tum Archiepiscopum, seu successores suos de visitatione et juris- 
 dictione praedictis in Universitate antedicta, colore alicujus Bul- 
 lae, seu alterius titull cujuscumque, erga praedictum Archiepis- 
 copum aut successores suos, clament, liabeant, seu vindicent ullo 
 modo in futurum. Et quod quotiens Cancellarius, Commissarii, 
 vel locum-tenens ipsorum, vel alicujus ipsorum, vel Procuratores 
 dictae Universitatis, qui pro tempore fuerint, vel eorum succes- 
 sores, sive aliquis eorum, impedierint vel impedierit praefatum 
 Archiepiscopum vel successores suos, aut Ecclesiam suam prae- 
 dictam, aut ipsorum vel alicujus ipsorum Commissarium vel 
 Commissarios, de hujusmodi visitatione seu jurisdictione dictae 
 Universitatis, vel in aliquo contravenerint, vel aliquis eorum con- 
 travenerit, dicto arbitrio, ordinationi, sive judicio, per praefatum 
 Ricardum nuper Regem factis, sive arbitrio, judicio, decreto, 
 eonsiderationi vel ordinationi, ipsius Domini nostri Regis Henrici 
 in hoc casu, vel si aliquis dictae Universitatis in futurum impe- 
 dierit dictum Archiepiscopum, vel successores suos, aut Ecclesiam 
 suam prasdictam, aut ipsorum vel alicujus ij^sorum Commissa- 
 rium, vel Commissarios, de visitatione sua, aut jurisdictione ante 
 dicta, vel in aliqua contravenerit dicto arbitrio, ordinationi, sive 
 judicio per praefatum Ricardum nuper Regem, in forma prae- 
 dicta factis, vel arbitrio, judicio, decreto, eonsiderationi, seu 
 ordinationi ipsius Domini nostri Regis Henrici : Et quod Can- 
 cellarius, Commissarii, et Procuratores Universitatis praedictas 
 tunc non fecerint diligentiam et posse eorum adjuvandum dictum 
 Archiepiscopum, vel successores suos, aut Ecclesiam suam prjE- 
 dictam, seu Commissarium, vel Commissarios suos, in hujusmodi 
 casu : Ac etiam ad puniendos hujusmodi impedientes et re- 
 sistentes, quod totiens omnes Franchesiae, Libertates, et omnia 
 pri^^legia ejusdem Universitatis, in manus Domini Regis vel 
 haeredum suorum seisiantur, in eisdem manibus ipsorum Domini 
 Regis vel haeredum suorum remansura, quousque praedictus 
 Archiepiscopus, vel successores sui, pacificam visitationem et 
 jvirisdictionem in forma praedicta in dicta Universitate habuerit.
 
 103 
 
 vel habuerint ; et etiam totiens Cancellarius, Comniissarii, et 
 Procuratores ejusdem Universitatis qui pro tempore fuerint, et 
 eorum successores, ac Universitas praedicta, solvant, et teueantur 
 solvere, ipsi Domino nostro Regi Henrico, et haeredibus suis, 
 mille libras legalis monetae Angliae. 
 
 Qua quidem Cedula visa, ac cum matura et diligenti delibera- 
 tione examinata et intellecta, dictiis Dominus Rex in pleno Par- 
 liamento asseruit et declaravit omnia et singula in eadem Cedula 
 contenta per ipsum, secundum quod in eadem continetur, facta, 
 arbitrata, ordinata, considerata, decreta, et adjudicata in omnibus 
 esse et extitisse. Et sic de assensu Dominorum Spirltualium et 
 Temporalium, necnon Communitatis in eodem Parliamento ex- 
 istentium, qui super eisdem pleniorem deliberationem similiter 
 habuerunt, et eisdem Decreto et Judicio plenarie consenserunt et 
 aggreaverunt, eandem Cedulam, et omnia et singula in eadem 
 contenta, concessit, approbavit, ratificavit, et confirmavit ; quod- 
 que eadem Cedula in Rotulo Parliamenti, secundum formam et 
 eiFectum ejusdem irrotularetur et inactaretur. Ac etiam, quod 
 eadem Cedula et omnia in ea contenta sint tanti et talis valoris, 
 efFectus, et auctoritatis, et eosdem valorem, efFectum, et auctori- 
 tatem habeant et teneant, ac si in praesenti Parliamento, et per 
 auctoritatem ejusdem Parliamenti facta extitissent. 
 
 Et puis apres, sur' diverses matires moevez par entre le dit 
 Ercevesque et d'Everwyk, sur certeines Privileges pretenses par 
 le dit Ercevesque d'Everwyk pur le College appellee la Q,uen- 
 halle en la Universitee d'Oxenford, le dit Ercevesque dc Canter- 
 bris, en presence du Roy et des Seignors, en le dit Parlemeiit 
 promyst, que si le dit Ercesvesque d'Everwyk purroit sufficient- 
 ment monstrer ascum privilege, ou especialtee de record, par 
 ount le dit Ercesvesque de Canterbris ne deust user, n'exercer, 
 sa visitation du dite College, il se vorroit ent abstinier, Sauvant 
 k luy toutefoitz la visitation de les Escolers demurrantz en le dit 
 College, solonc les Juggementz et Decrees faitz et donez par le 
 dit Roy Richard, et par notre Seignor le Roy Henry q'or est, 
 come en le record ent fait pluis pleinement est declarez.
 
 104 
 
 WILKIN'S CONCILIA, Vol. iv. 525. 
 
 The Archbishop of Canterbury's right of visiting the two 
 Universities debated and determined in Council. 
 
 At the Court at Hampton - Court, 
 the 21st of June, m.d.cxxxvi. 
 
 PRESENT, 
 
 The King's Most Excellent Majesty. 
 LordArchbishop of Canterbury. Earl of Dorset. 
 
 Lord Keeper. 
 
 Lord Treasurer. 
 
 Lord Privy Seal. 
 
 Lord Duke of 
 
 Lord Marquis Hamilton. 
 
 Lord Chamberlain. 
 
 Earl of Holland. 
 Earl of Morton. 
 Earl of Sterline. 
 Lord V. Wentworth. 
 Mr. Treasurer. 
 Mr. Vice-Chamberlain. 
 
 Mr. Secretary Windebank. 
 
 This day His Majesty, sitting in Council, was graciously 
 pleased to hear and determine a difference and debate lately 
 risen between the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, his Grace, 
 and the two Universities of England, concerning the right of 
 visiting the said Universities, " jure metropolitico," in the pre- 
 sence of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, being also Chan- 
 cellor of the University of Oxford, and of the Earl of Holland, 
 Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and of the persons 
 sent and authorized by each of the said Universities, and of the 
 Counsel of all of the said parties. In the first place, it was of all 
 sides acknowledged to be the undoubted right of the Crown to
 
 105 
 
 visit the said Universities whensoever His Majesty pleaseth ; and 
 it was on all parts confessed that the Archbishop, in right of his 
 metropolitical Church of Canterbury, hath power to visit his 
 whole province, in which the said Universities are situate, and 
 are under the same power, unless they could show privilege and 
 exemption, which they then offered to show ; but were not such 
 as did or could give satisfaction. And His Majesty, upon full 
 hearing of the proofs on both sides, and great consideration had 
 of them, declared : That by no papal bull they could be ex- 
 empted ; and likewise, that by none of the charters they were 
 exempted ; and, lastly, the omission of the Archbishops to visit, 
 since the visitations shown unto His Majesty, could no way 
 in this case be a prescription, to bar the right of the metropo- 
 litical see. But it appeareth to His Majesty, for and in affirm- 
 ance of the right of the Archbishop, that actually both the 
 Universities had been visited by three of his predecessors, " jure 
 metropolitico," and not by any legatine power ; and that the 
 metropolitical right coming into question upon the resistance of 
 the University of Oxon to be visited by the Archbishop, it was 
 upon great advice and full hearing of both parties adjudged for 
 the Archbishop by His Majesty's predecessors King Richard II. 
 — and afterwards, upon a like rehearing and re- examination, 
 adjudged and affirmed by King Henry IV., and both of them 
 judgments upon a third and full re-examination, established by 
 Act of Parliament 13 Henry IV., now showed by the Archbishop 
 under the great seal of King Henry IV., and the Archbishop pro- 
 duced before His Majesty the original renunciation of all privi- 
 leges from any pope by the University of Cambridge, under the 
 hands of the heads of houses there. Upon which right so clearly 
 appearing, both by practice and resolution of the Kings and Par- 
 liament, His Majesty, with the advice of his Council, declared 
 and adjudged the right of visiting both Universities as Universi- 
 ties, and the Chancellors' Scholars, their servants, and all others 
 enjoying the privileges of the said Universities, to belong to the 
 Archbishop and metropolitical Church of Canterbury by them-
 
 lOG 
 
 selves or comniissax'ies, and that they shall be from time to time 
 obedient thereunto. Whereupon the Archbishop made an humble 
 motion to His Majesty ; first for himself, that he would be graci- 
 ously pleased, that he might have this sentence drawn up by 
 advice of His Majesty's learned Counsel, and put under the 
 broad seal, to settle all differences that might hereafter arise. 
 Then on behalf of both the Universities, that though they were 
 to be visited by the Archbishop and his successors, yet that they 
 should not be visited by the Bishop of the diocese, or Arch- 
 deacon, but should perpetually remain free and exempt from the 
 visitation and jurisdiction of the Bishop, and Archdeacon of the 
 places where they are. But then, since it was declared his right 
 to visit " metropolitice," and that it was not limited by law, how 
 often he might visit ; therefore, notwithstanding the late custom 
 of visitation " semel in vita tantum," he might visit the Universi- 
 ties by himself or his commissaries, as often as any great emer- 
 gent cause should move him thereunto ; provided that neither 
 the said Archbishop, or any of his successors, after his first visita- 
 tion, shall visit on such emergent cause, unless the said cause be 
 first made known to His Majesty and his successors, and ap- 
 proved by him or them ; all which was graciously granted by 
 His Majesty and so settled. And lastly, whereas it was alleged, 
 that the Chancellors of either University were, and are likely to 
 be, persons of great honour and eminency, and therefore it might 
 be inconvenient that they should be called to such visitations, it 
 was declared by His Majesty, that such inconvenience would 
 easily be helped, for that in course of law the Chancellor would 
 be allowed to appear by his proxy. Litera Regia de visitatione 
 Universitat Oxon et Cantabrig per Archiepiscopum Cantuar. 
 
 Carolus, Dei gratia Angliae, Scotiae, Francias, et Hibernias Rex, 
 fidei defensor, &c. : omnibus, ad quos praesentes literae pervene- 
 rint, salutem. Suborta nuper lite et controversia inter reveren- 
 dissimum in Christo patrem Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem et 
 Universitates nostras Oxonii et Cantabrigiae, super jure et titulo 
 visitationis metropoliticaj Universitatum priedictaruni, praefato
 
 ]07 
 
 Archiepiscopo jus visitandi pvsedictas Universitates sibi etecclesue 
 suae metropoliticae Christi Cantuariensi vindicante ; pra3fatisque 
 Universitatibus se a visitatione praedicta exemptas esse prasten- 
 dentibus, liteque et controversia jDrajdicta ad nos, et judicium et 
 sententiam nostram regiam delata ; nos ad stabiliendam pacem 
 inter partes praedictas, et ad tollendam inpei-petuum hujusmodi 
 controversiae materiam, reverendissimum in Christo patrem, prae- 
 dilectumque et perquam fidelem consiliarium nostrum Guliel- 
 mum, providentia divina Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum, totius 
 Angliae primatem et metropolitanum, et Universitatis Oxoniensis 
 Cancellarium, necnon praedilectum et perquam fidelem consan- 
 guineum et consiliarium nostrum Henricum, comitem Holland, 
 Universitatis Cantabrigiensis Cancellarium, aliosque nonnullos a 
 praedictis Universitatibus mandata sufiicientia habentes, venire 
 fecimus coram nobis et consiliariis nostris in aula nostra apud 
 honorem nostrum de Hampton Court, vicesimo j^rimo die mensis 
 Julii, anno regni nostri duodecimo ibidemque auditis et intel- 
 lectis quae per partes praedictas hinc inde dici et allegari potue- 
 runt, habitaque cum praefatis consiliariis nostris deliberatione 
 matura, ad definiendam et dijudicandam litem et controversiam 
 praedictas processimus in modum sequentem : ^jrinio et ante 
 omnia, per probationes legitimas, et per confessionem utriusque 
 partis nobis constabat, nos jure coronae nostrse regni Angliaj 
 habuisse et habere potestatem visitandi Universitates prajdictas 
 quoties et quandocumque nobis et successoribus nostris visum 
 fuerit ; praefatumque Archiepiscopum, jure ecclesiae suae metro- 
 politicae Christi Cantuariensis habuisse, et habere potestatem 
 visitandi totam provinciam suam Cantuariensem in qua Univer- 
 sitates praedictae positae sunt. Cum vero ex parte Universitatum 
 propositum esset, Universitates praedictas per quasdam chartas 
 nostras et praedecessorum nostrorum, et bullas papales fuisse 
 exemptas, et immunes ab omni visitatione, et jurisdictione 
 Archiepiscopi praedicti, eandemque immunitatem legitime 
 temporis usu fuisse praescriptam ; ex parte prasfati Ai'chie- 
 piscopi coram nobis ostensum et probatum fuit, tres prae-
 
 108 
 
 decessores suos Archiepiscopos Cantuarienses actualiter visi- 
 tasse Universitates praedictas, jure ecclesise suae metropoli- 
 ticae Christi Cantuariensis et non per potestatem legitimam ; 
 ortaque olim lite inter Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem et 
 Universitatem Oxonii super jure visitationis praedictae tempore 
 Richardi II. praedecessoris nostri regis Angliae, eundemque prae- 
 decessorem nostrum, plene auditis quae per partes utrinque pro- 
 poni potuerunt, pro Archiepiscopo et jure visitationis suae judi- 
 casse ; eademque controversia iterum emergente inter Archiepis- 
 copum Cantuariensem et Universitatem Oxonii tempore Henrici 
 IV. praedecessoris nostri regis Angliae, eundem praedecessorem 
 nostrum similiter pro Archiepiscopo praedicto et jure visitationis 
 suae praedictae pronunciasse et determinasse ; easdemque senten- 
 tias et determinationes per actum Parliamenti anno tertiodecimo 
 Henrici IV. fuisse ratificatas et confirmatas : quinetiam nobis 
 constabat, praedictas exemptiones et immunitates a visitatione 
 metropolitica Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis vel earum aliquam per 
 aliquam chartam nostram vel praedecessorum nostrorum non 
 fuisse concessas, easdemque per bullas papales concedi non 
 potuisse, nee per cursum temporis citra actuales visitationes 
 Archiepiscoporum praedictorum fuisse legitime praescriptas, nee 
 de jure nostro ecclesiastico potuisse praescribi ; praefatusque 
 Archiepiscopus coram nobis protulit schedulam subscriptam ma- 
 nibus magistrorum collegiorum Universitatis Cantabrigias in qua 
 praedicti magistri pro se et Universitate sua, privilegiis et immu- 
 nitatibus papalibus Universitati praedictae concessis renunciabant. 
 Quibus omnibus per nos consideratis, habitaque deliberatione 
 cum praefatis consiliariis nostris, judicavimus et determinavimus 
 jus visitandi Cancellarios, magistros, et scholares Universitatum 
 praedictarum et successores suos, eorumque servientes, aliasque 
 personas pro tempore existentes, libertatibus et privilegiis Uni- 
 versitatum praefatarum utentes ; necnon Universitates praedictas, 
 ut Universitates, spectare et pertinere ad praefatum Archiepisco- 
 pum et successores suos, et ecclesiam suam metropoliticam prae- 
 dictam per se aut commissarium seu commissarios suos exercen-
 
 i09 
 
 dum ; et quod praefati Cancellarii, magistri, scholares, et reliquae 
 personag privilegiis Universitatum utentes, eorumque successores 
 perpetuis futuris temporibus, eidem Archiepiscopo et succes- 
 soribus suis, eorumque commissariis in visitatione et jurisdictione 
 Universitatum prsedictarum in omnibus pareant et obediant. 
 Cum vero coram nobis praeterea proponeretur non satis constare, 
 quoties visitatio prsedictarum Universitatum exerceri debeat ; ad 
 araputandas similes controversias infuturum, ordinavimus, quod 
 licebit prsefato Archiepiscopo et successoribus suis, visitare Uni- 
 versitates praedictas, non tantum semel in vita sicuti in reliquis 
 partibus provinciae Cantuariensis nuper usitatum fuit, verum 
 etiam quod licebit eis eorumque singulis post primam visitationem 
 metropoliticam finitam, prsedictas Universitates per se vel com- 
 missarios suos visitare, quotiescunque illud necessarium praefatis 
 Archiepiscopis visum fuerit, ex causa rationabili et legitima per 
 nos et successores nostros primitus approbanda. Cumque prae- 
 terea coram nobis proponeretur ex parte Cancellariorum praedic- 
 torum, futurum valde incommodum sibi et successoribus suis, 
 prae dignitate personarum suarum, si in visitationibus praedictis 
 personaliter debeant comparere ; declaravimus jure satis con- 
 sultum esse eorum incommodis in hac parte, cum possint in visi- 
 tationibus praedictis per procuratores suos comparere. Denique 
 per praefatum Archiepiscopum a nobis humiliter petitum fuit, ut 
 hoc nostrum judicium et declaratio potestatis visitandi Universi- 
 tates prsedictas, sibi et successoribus suis jure ecclesiae metropoli- 
 ticae Christi Cantuariensis competentis, non possinl infuturum 
 extendi ad episcopos et archidiaconos locorum, in quibus Uni- 
 versitates praedictae positae sunt, et ut praefatae Universitates per 
 praefatos episcopos et archidiaconos inposterum non possint visi- 
 tari, et ut hoc nostrum judicium, ordinationem, et determina- 
 tionem sub magno sigillo Angliae confirmare dignaremur. Cujus 
 petitioni annuentes, declaravimus, quod Universitates praedictae 
 per episcopos et archidiaconos inposterum non visitentur, et hoc 
 nostrum judicium, ordinationem, et declarationem sub magno 
 sigillo Angliae communiri et confirmari jussimus ; mandantes
 
 no 
 
 prsefatis Cancellariis niugistris et scliolaribus Universitatum prge- 
 dictarum ut visitationi piaefati Archiepiscopi et successorum 
 suorum se submittant, et ut nullam exemptionem seu immunitatem 
 adversus visitationem praedictam sibi vindicare pra^sumant. In 
 cujus rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. 
 Teste meipso apud Westmonasteriam tricesimo die Januarii anno 
 regni nostri duodecimo. 
 
 Per ipsum Regem, 
 
 WOLSELEY, 
 
 Efistola Geraud Johannis Vossii ad Arclt'iepiscopum Cantua- 
 rieiisem de jure visUandi Academias AngUce. 
 
 Reverendissime in Christo pater, domine illustrissime, mihi 
 gaudeo, Britannias gratulor. Deo gratias ago de immissa animo tuo 
 cogitatione sanctissima revocandi juris ejus, quo reverendissimi 
 Cantuarienses praesules jam ab antiquis temporibus in lustrandis 
 regni Anglici academiis frui solent. Sane non corpora solum 
 nostra fluxa et fragilia sunt, sed liumana etiam instituta, licet 
 optima, facile per incuriam in pejus vergunt, eoque ad retinen- 
 dum grande illud disciplinae bonum nihil exoptatius a Deo et 
 rege potuit e venire, quam ut priscum jus tanto praesuli restitua- 
 tur, perque eum potissimum labantibus moribus obviam eatur ; 
 cui ut sacrorum, sic morum bonorum praecipue cura incumbit, 
 quique sic sanctimoniam ab aliis exigere sciat, ut eadem prae- 
 cedat cffiteros. Sunt quidem florentissimae academias ambae, sed 
 cura tua deinceps se vincent ac jjulchriores pulchrioresque 
 semper exurgent, quod bonum suum sapientissimi quique per se 
 sine dubio vident, ac magis et magis intelligent ; nee solum 
 nostra aetas, sed posteritas etiam ut sui temporis emendatori gra- 
 tias propterea semper aget. 
 7
 
 Numen coeleste oro, ut tibi, illustrissime ac reverendissime 
 domine, longaevam ac prosperam largiatur vitam. 
 
 Reverendissinii ac illustrissimi nominis tui cultor ct cliens 
 devotissimus, 
 
 GERAUD JOHANNES VOSSIUS. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 CILBRIIT & KIVIN'GTON, PIUNTF.RS, 
 
 ST. John's sQiiAiti"., London.
 
 
 
 
 'X^==7-^> 
 
 
 ■ '-* f mf^ '-' 
 
 -^fe^T^'^* 
 
 ,:)W„-.x