Pièce 132/1-11 - Letter from F.W. Maitland to Henry Sidgwick, with MS notes by Maitland on the University of Cambridge and its rights and privileges under royal statutes and parliamentary acts

1 letter, with 10 sheets of MS notes.

Refers to enclosed notes on the University of Cambridge and its rights and privileges under royal statutes and parliamentary acts [included]. Suggests that they are 'better than those formerly sent', and that Sidgwick may do with them 'whatever seems good.' Refers to the case 'before Mansfield, which was 'on the celebrated contest between L[or]ds Sandwich and Hardwick for the high stewardship and the judges took a most liberal view of the university constitution.' Tells him to leave out the reference to Kemp and Neville if he thinks it best to do so. Refers also to 'the Bible privilege', which the universities have under letters patent from the Crown, 'shortly after the making of the A.V.', and to the licensing of books. States that the Vice-Chancellor was made one of the licensing authorities by the Licensing Act 14 [Car]2.c.33, and that the judges, heralds, secretaries of state and archbishops were also licensing authorities. Adds that Sidgwick's letter has just arrived, and explains that he sends the notes believing that it will save time, as he claims to 'know nothing of the proceedings of the University Press'.

MS notes by Maitland, on the University's status as a corporation, created thus by the Statute 13.Eliz.c.29 and its title as a title of prescription. Discusses the privileges afforded to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge under the above Act in relation to the dispensing of justice, i.e., that they might ' "proceed in temporal cases, in a civil manner" '. Refers to Chief Justice Coke's view of the Act 'in his Fourth Institute', i.e., that it was passed 'in order that each of the universities might be incorporated by a certain name....' Refers to the destruction of the university charters by the townsmen [of Cambridge] in Richard II's reign. Discusses the privileges of the universities in relation to the law, and refers to charters granted to Oxford and Cambridge. Refers to a case tried 'in 4.Geo.ii, involving Justice Denton and Fortescue, in which the former questioned whether a particular form of legal proceeding be within the charter of the University of Cambridge.

Returns to the notion of the University of Cambridge as a corporation 'not by statute but by prescription', referring to Bentley's obtaining of a mandamus 'to compel his restoration to the degree of D.D.'. Refers to a case directly concerning the powers of the University, arising out of the election of a high steward, in which Lord Mansfield gave judgment, referring to the 'Academic Statutes of Elizabeth'. Mentions also the opinion of Mr Justice Wilmot in the case. Refers also to a case from 1838, which arose out of the refusal of the Queen's Bench to give warrant to inquire into the Vice-Chancellor's authority to license alehouses, 'on the ground that the Vice-Chancellor had exercised that privilege "from a very remote period" '. Includes Mr Justice Littledale's contribution on the matter. Cites a case decided in 1861, 'in which another privilege of the University was successfully asserted'.

Asserts that in view of the above authorities 'it seems impossible to regard the University as a statutory corporation comparable...to a joint-stock company for the manufacture of railway carriages, or to treat as ultra [vices] every act of the University which can not be brought within a narrow construction of certain words stating the motive for the passing of an Act confirming the University in all it ancient privileges.' Adds that it must be assumed that 'the University enjoys all these prescriptive rights and privileges which have not been expressly taken away by any Act of Parliament....'