« السابقةمتابعة »
But they who meet thee in thy pride
Shall give thy body to the flame.
“ Lord, how long shall the ungodly
How long shall the ungodly triumph ?"
And fitted for the beams of the reviving sun.
« VOX POPULI.”
“ Some therefore cried one thing, and some another; for the assembly was confused,
and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together." “ All with one voice, about the space of two hours, cried out, Great is Diana of the
Hear God's true voice in doom of endless fame.
" What doest thou here?”
Tell me, what dost thou here,
Camest thou here for gold?
Therefore on earth thy house my home shall be.
THE QUIET AUTUMN.
Oh, now I see what beauties lay
O'er summer's close,
Sweeter than Spring.
Blooming, though pale,
ighter world doth gently break, And whisper a sweet tale
Of better things.
O'er leaf and wave ;
On the still tide
Into its rest.
4 N The noiseless brook its banks along
Winds, like a lake,
Silence more still.
If haply o'er the listening trees
Wanders a sound,
Inland and far.
Upon the dread and dim serene,
Each thought that breaks,
Whom we await.
Such is the awful calm they learn
Beneath thy cross
Thy love to gain.
The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions
of his Correspondents.
VISITATION OF THE UNIVERSITIES.
5th May, 1837. MY DEAR —,*-I promised to write to you on the subject of the expected commission for visiting the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. My own notions of the real state of the question, as to the power of the crown to visit by a commission, in the way proposed, is this :
The universities are bodies totally distinct, and of a different character, from the colleges. The former are what are termed civil lay corporations, and as such subject to the visitation of the crown_except so far as the visitatorial power of the crown may have been delegated to visitors specially appointed. They are bodies of a public nature, and having public duties. I do not know whether, in fact, there are visitors of the universities, but I fancy that, as to Cambridge,
The following letter, written, as will be perceived, some months ago, to a private friend, is inserted now in this Magazine, by permission of that friend, as likely to be useful in case of any renewal of the attempts to disturb the universities,
the Bishop of Ely is visitor. If there are visitors, they have exclusively the right of visitation; and so far as the power of the visitor extends, the crown has none. Nor is there any appeal from the judgment of the visitors; nor have the courts of law or equity any jurisdiction. Whatever visitatorial power there is in the crown must be exercised through the Court of King's Bench-by a proceeding by information in the nature of quo warranto or mandamus, or by petition to the lord chancellor as the great seal—though even this latter jurisdiction was questioned until late years; but I can find no authority.whatever for the crown visiting by any irregular process, such as commission. It seems that where the right of visitation in the crown is personal, as where the crown is founder or the heir of a founder, there such right is to be exercised through the great seal ; where it is political, as in the case of all civil lay corporations in general, there it is exercised by the Court of King's Bench. Nor can I perceive how, the right of visitation being thus inherently delegated, in the one case to the Court of King's Bench, and in the other to the great seal, it is possible to supersede the rights of these courts by a royal commission. (See Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i. 480, et seq.; and the case of the Mayor &c. of Colchester v. Lowten-Vesey and Beane's Reports, vol. i. 237.) It appears to me to be in direct violation of the best principles of constitutional law, which provide for subjects being amenable only to the regular jurisdiction of the crown—42nd Edward III. c. 3, and see the statute for abolishing the Court of Star Chamber, 16th Car. I. c. 10. Of the precedents on this point I cannot find, in the sudden, anything as a guide. The commission issued during the Commonwealth was, I believe, issued under
I the ordinance of the ecclesiastical commission, as representing the King's ecclesiastical supremacy; but any precedent drawn from such times must be totally inapplicable, even if it was not rendered a nullity by the proceedings that took place in resistance of the commission. I see Mr. Pryme states that the universities were visited by royal commission in Henry VIII., Mary, and Edward VI. reigns. I suspect this is a misstatement; or, if correct, that the foundation of such commissions were some of the ecclesiastical acts of parliament of that date; or, at any rate, precedents of that period are, I think, inapplicable, the universities being then regarded more as ecclesiastical than as lay corporations, and questions of prerogative being very unsettled, and stretched to great lengths in favour of the power of the crown. Upon the whole it does seem to me, that if there are special visitors of the universities, the crown has no visitatorial power whatever. If the crown be visitor, then such visitatorial power must be exercised through the regular organs of the Court of King's Bench, or the chancellor, upon an allegation of some visitable offence; and that the crown cannot create any other visitatorial jurisdiction by commission, which the universities must be bound to recognise. As to the course taken lately with respect to municipal corporations, the legality of that commission has never been established, and all the proceedings under it were voluntary. Wherever it was resisted, as in one or two cases, there was no compulsory power vested in the commissioners to enforce their proceedings; and the opinions of some of the best lawyers (Lord Lyndhurst, I think, and Lord Abinger) was, that the whole might be treated as a nullity. So much for the universities. As: to colleges, the case is widely different. They are distinctly recognised by law as private eleemosynary corporations, over which the crown, as head of the state, has no jurisdiction or right whatever. The crown, as founder, may have visitatorial power, but in no other capacity. The rule of law, with respect to such foundations, is this: The founder may appoint a visitor, either general or special (i. e., limited to particular cases.) If he appoint a general visitor, the whole visitatorial power devolves upon such appointee, who is absolute and uncontrolled director, and interpreter of everything relating to the rule and government of the foundation. The courts of common law or equity will not, and cannot, interfere with him, or exercise over him the least control. This established by a multitude of cases. I will mention some which should be looked at:-Rex v. the Master &c. of St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge-4 Term Reports, 233; the King v. the Bishop of Ely-2 Term Reports, 290 ; Philips v. Burysame Report, p. 346 (a very important case, relating to Exeter College, Oxford ;) Exparte Wrangham-2nd Vesey Jus. Report, p. 609; the King v. the Bishop of Chester-1 Wm. Blackstone's Reports, p, 22 ; same vol., the King v. Bishop of Ely—p. 52, and again p. 71. (There is a case in the same vol. very important as to the power of the crown over the universities: the King v. the University of Cambridge, p. 547.) From these cases I think it is clearly to be collected that the colleges are merely private bodies, having the sole power of governing themselves—i. e., by their head, the founder, his heirs or appointees. If the founder has appointed no visitor, or has left any portion of the visitatorial power unappointed, then the visitatorial power remains in the founder or his heirs; and in case no such heirs can be found, like as in the case of escheat, it devolves to the crown. But only as the ultimus heres, not in any civil or political capacity; and in such case the crown becomes visitor in like manner as in cases of its own foundation. But there is a leading rule to be gathered out of all the cases, that the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge are private irresponsible bodies, in no way subject to the interference of the crown, through courts of law; à fortiori not subject to an irregular jurisdiction of royal commissioners. This, at least, seems to me the necessary result of the cases. Observe, I have made these remarks with reference to the crown, as the executive. The power of the legislative body it is impossible to control. All law must be subject to the power of the legislature. Colleges exist only by force of the law, and if the legislature should choose to interfere with them, they must, of course, submit to violence; but the statutes relative to this subject give strong arguments in favour of the irresponsibility of the colleges to the executive,-for instance, the statute of charitable revenues, 43 Eliz., c. 4, seems to me conclusive. By that act the crown was authorized to appoint commissioners to inquire into charitable trusts ; hence the