Corpus of Modern Scottish Writing (CMSW) - www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/cmsw/ Document : 598 Title: Answers in the David Woodburn case Author(s): Dalrymple, Sir David; Inglis, Charles Answers by the University of Glasgow To the Bill of Suspension for David Woodburn The University of Glasgow like all other Universities is vested with a jurisdiction over the Students committed to its care, and from time immemorial has been in the practice of exercising that jurisdiction by imposing fines, censures, or expulsion according as the offence required. In March last a complaint against David Woodburn a Burser was made to the University Meeting they thought it a duty incumbent upon them to make a strict examination into some particulars in this Gentlemans conduct which had been the source of much disturbance in the Society and after taking all the pains in their power to arrive at the truth by examining at great length every person who knew any thing of the matter being fully satisfied that this young man had demeaned himself in a manner unbecoming a Student and unwothy of that publick encouragement by which he was supported They did upon the 6th. of May 1769 Expell him from the University and deprived him of his Burse. Which last was indeed a neceſsary consequence of his expulsion. Mr. Woodburn having applied to your Lordships for a review of this judgeent by Bill of suspension and answers having been appointed to be given in, what follows is humbly offered in support of the proceedings of the University Meeting. Before entering upon the merits of the expulsion the Respondents will take the liberty of submitting whether a suspension is here competent and whether this be a matter which is at all cognizable by your Lordships. That the Respondents as heads of this University are entitled to exercise discipline over the students committed to their care and when there appears just ground to expell him out of the University the consequence of which with regard to a Burser is the forfeiture of his right seems not to be disputed. Besides the practice of other Universities and the neceſsity of the thing (as without some such authority lodged in the Masters of a College it would be hardly poſsible to inforce that obedience which is due from Students to their teachers and without which no plan of Education can be properly carried on) the Masters of the College of Glasgow have this privilege conferred upon them by an expreſs clause in a Charter from James the 6th, called the Nova Erectio which is the ground work of their constitution. When treating of the Bursers that were to be admitted into the College the Charter goes on thus. "Hos autem pauperes nostros humilitatis et obedientiæ examplar eſse volumnus et per omnia præceptoribus morem gerere quod nisi fecerint potestatem facimus dicto Gymnasiarchæ et præceptoribus eos puniendi et pro ratione delicti usque at eorundem ejectonem edicto Collegio inclusive si propter eorum contumaciam id promeriti foerint In this clause no mention whatever is made of an appeal to any superior Court and the nature of the thing seems not to admit of any such appeal. What is here bestowed on the Masters of the University is not properly a right of Jurisdiction constituting them a court of Law and subjecting their proceedings in the exercise of that jurisdiction to be cognosced or reviewed by superior courts in the ordinary course of law. It is merely a discretionary power delegated to them and to them only by the constitution of the College and which it is presumed they will exercise honestly and conscientiously without the neceſsity of any superior controul. The authority bestowed upon the Preceptors of a College over their students is in this respect precisely similar to that which a father enjoys over his children in their nonage, or that which in some countries a husband is understood to have over his wife. The limits of a fathers authority or jurisdiction are acurately defined by law and can in no case exceed the bounds of a modica castigatio but within these limits the exercise of his jurisdiction is absolutely final and no Court whatever can interpose or say whether he has done right or wrong. So in the present case the authority of the Respndents is confined within precise limits and can never go beyond expulsion, but so long as they keep within these bounds which it will not be pretended that they have exceeded here, they humbly plead that their proceedings are not liable to review. Indeed it must be apparent to every one that the admitting such a power of review could be attended with no good consequence, the authority of Masters of a College in exerciseing acts of discipline is confined within such narrow bounds and there is so little temptation to exercise it improperly that the evils arising from the abuse of it can neither be very common nor very great. But on the other hand it is impoſsible not to see that if boys paſsing through a course of education instead of submitting with implicite faith to the determination of their preceptors, were accustomed to look up to a superior Court and to see their proceedings reviewed and altered it would be hardly poſsible to preserve the in that entire submiſsion and obedience which is so neceſsary at this period of life and which has been most rigorously enforced even in those countries where no other paſsive obedience is required in the course of a person's whole life. Besides that the Masters of a College in censuring or expelling a Student may proceed upon their knowlege of his daily conduct, upon what they themselves have seen and heard which it is hardly poſsible to have laid before a Court of review. Indeed if your Lordships shall be of opinion that the present application is competent it is not easy to see where the matter may stop. The proceedings of a Master of a Grammar school within the sphere of his authority are not surely leſs reviewable than those of the preceptors of a College. So that according to this sistem a school boy who is to receive corporal chastisement, may apply by bill of suspension and get the execution of the sentence respited till such time as your Lordships have examined into the nature of his offence and determine whether there was just ground for the chastisement or not. Neither is it of any consequence that the Judgment expelling Mr. Woodburn is attended with a patrimonial loſs to him. The forfeiture of his Burse is the neceſsary & unavoidable consequence of his expulsion. If therefore the proceedings of the University Meeting quoad the expulsion cannot be reviewed it is impoſsible that Mr. Woodburn can be restored to his Burse which he only holds upon the condition of his remaining a Student at this University. It will likewise be observed that there are other proceedings of a University Meeting which although attended with a consequential pecuniary interest to the parties concerned, it is thought could not be reviewed by your Lordships. Thus the conferring or withholding Degrees in Physick Law &.c. is often an act of considerable consequence; yet the Respondents have always understood that the University itself is here the ultimate Judge, and that your Lordships could neither ordain them to conferr degrees upon a person who had been refused by the University and still leſs could you recall a degree granted by the University as hving been conferred upon an unworthy person. But what seems to remove all difficulty with regard to that part of the judgement which deprives Mr. Woodburn of his Burse, is an Act of Parliament which shall afterwards be more particularly explained and which provides that unleſs a Burser obtain yearly from his Master a Certificate of his good behaviour and regular attendance his right shall be ipso facto forfeited. As it will be afterwards shewn that Mr. Woodburn clearly falls under the description of this act it is obvious that quoad his right to his bursary there can be no place for a review as he had ipso facto forfeited it by the operation of the statute. The Respondents will only farther add upon this head that although there have been numberleſs instances of expulsion upon all the different grounds that can be imagined yet so far as they know this is the first instance since the institution of the University where application has been made to your Lordships for reviewing a Judgement of this kind. A pretty strong proof of its having been universally beleived and understood that in exercising their Academical discipline over the Students they are vested with a discretionary power such as a father has over his own family not subject to be controuled by Courts of Law. Neither is it from any apprehension that their conduct either in this or in any other particular will meet with the disapprobation of your Lordships that the Respondents have stated this preliminary objection. Their sole motive for doing it is the prospect of the prejudice which must arise to the University if the Masters shall be obliged to maintain a litigation with every refractive student. Nor is there any danger that this power will be abused as the constitution of the University is very favourable to the liberty of the Students, and as it is not the interest of the Profeſsors to drive students away from their lectures. The Respondents shall now proceed to satisfy your Lordships that although a suspension were competent yet the Complainer in the present case has not been able to point out any relevant ground of suspension. The reasons of suspension mentioned in the Bill consist chiefly of objections to the formality of the proceedings. That a formal Libel was not exhibited to him, that there was no proper accuser, that his own declaration was taken, and that inhabile witneſses were admitted to give evidence against him. The Complainer seems here to have taken a point for granted and to have made it the foundation of his objections which the Respondents will take the liberty to call in question. They have never understood that an University Meeting exercising discipline over students is confined to the forms of Judicial procedure established by publick authority for regulating trials in the ordinary courts of Law. They conceive that nothing more is incumbent upon them when enquiring into the misdemeanors of a student, than to conduct their enquiries according to the rules of common sense and common justice in such a manner as appears to them most likely to bring out the truth. And that provided what they do is substantially right, it is of no moment whether they proceed in this or that particular form. In the present case the Complainer had the same opportunity of vindicating himself as if the legal forms of a criminal trial had been observed. He does not pretend to say that the examination of the persons upon whose evidence the judgement expelling him proceeded (which is the most material part in every trial) was not taken in a very fair and candid manner. Their examinations although not upon Oath as the University Meeting has not been in use to eamine upon oath in cases of this kind and perhaps are not legally authorised to administer an oath were fully and impartially taken down in writing. Mr. Woodburn himself after having been solemnly informed by an extract given him from the Records of the University Meeting of the facts which were laid to his charge was allowed to be present and to put such questions as he thought proper. Full liberty was given him to adduce witneſses for his own vindication and every objection or observation which he thought proper to make in the course of the proceedings if he desired it was fairly taken doun in the minutes. If the Respondents have erred in not likewise humouring him with the form of a criminal trial they will only say that it is an error of very long standing in this University and coeval with its original institution. Since that time innumerable instances have occured where Students have been censured, fined, or expelled, yeet in not one of them have the strict Judicial forms of a trial been observed or even been attempted to be observed except in a very late case where this Complainer was concerned and where the imitating the forms of acriminal trial was considered as a very unprecedented stretch in a University Meeting and was generally disapproved of. Indeed it is plain that to require an University Meeting to observe the strict forms of Judicial procedure would be to abolish their authority altogether. For in the 1st place the Respondents are no Lawyers. They can enquire into the behaviour of a Student honestly and fairly and can animadvert upon it according to the rules of Academical discipline. But to carry on a regular trial in all its forms, to Judge of objections to a libel of the hability or inhability of witneſses is a task for which they are not ashamed to acknowledge that they are unfit. And if your Lordships shall be of opinion that the observance of these forms is eſsentially neceſsary in order to authorise a Judgement for censure or expulsion they can plainly forsee that they wil be under the neceſsity of abandoning this neceſsary part of their duty and to allow the students to follow the freedom of their own wills without check or controul. In the second place supposing they were qualified to carry on a Judicial trial it is absolutely impoſsible that it can be done during the seſsion of the College. For by the consititution of the University the Court which carries on the trial must consist of the Majority of the Members and there are lectures going forward at all hours of the day so that your Lordships will plainly see that a formal Judicial trial is absolutely incompatible with the great end of their insitutition viz. the education of youth, in the Arts and Sciences. That Mr. Woodburn has suffered nothing from the manner in which the University meeting proceded will appear manifest from taking a view of the several objections in point of form which he insists upon. 1mo. He complains that no Libel was exhibited against him either by a private Complainer or the Procurator fiscal of the University though he says it will not be denied that this has been always rquired to found a sentence of expulsion. If instead of saying that a formal Libel had always been required to found a sentence of expulsion he had said that such a Libel never had been thought neceſsary in the practice of the University he would have told your Lordships what was much nearer the truth. In the whole Records of the University there does not occur an instance of a Libel being exhibited at the instance of a Procurator fiscal for the University where censures, fines, or expulsion was to be the punishment except in a single case in which this Gentleman himself was concerned He cannot have forgot too that this measure was loudly complained of at the time as a sretch of violence, that it was acknowleged upon all hands to be entirely unprecedented That the Gentlemen who approved of it only did so in the belief that it would add to the solemnity of the proceedings. But that instead. of this the effect of it was to produce such intricacy and embarraſsment as satisfied every person that a University Meeting was very unfit for managing or Judging in a criminal trial carried on in all its forms and hat if they are to proceed at all they must do it by the rules of plain common sense and discretion which the University had hitherto found sufficient to supply the place of legal form. From the Bill of Suspension your Lordships will perceive that what gave rise to the proceedings brought under review was a complaint against Mr. Woodburn exhibited to an University Meeting upon the 22d of March last by Robert Mutter who is not a Student as the Complainer calls him but a probationer of consierable standing and College Chaplain. This complaint gave rise to an enquiry from which it appeared that several irregularities had been committed amongst the Students and a Committee was appointed for that purpose. The Committee accordingly proceeded to take a variety of examinations which they reported to the University meeting on the 20th of April and as from these examinations it appeared that Mr. Woodburn and likewise Mr. John Robison a Lecturer in Chymestry appointed by the University had committed some irregularities, Upon Mr. Woodburns insisting to know particularly what he was charged with the Meeting explained the whole to him in a very particular manner and likewise enfered that explanation in their minutes of which both Mr Woodburn and Mr. Robison were allowed an Extract and a day was appointed for their trial. The Meeting at the same time informed them that they were to be called to account for their misconduct, and according to the practice uniformly observed by the University where there was reason to believe that long examinations would be neceſsary impowered a Committee to make further enquiry into the truth of the facts and to hear what either of these Gentlemen had to offer in their vindication. It is a mere quibble therefore in Mr. Woodburn to complain that no proper Libel was ever exhibited against him. The declaration of the University Meeting just now mentioned which is as particular as could be desired answered all the purposes of a Libel. Nor will Mr. Woodburn himself pretend to deny that he was as fully apprised of the circumstances of his conduct with which the Meeting were diſsatisfied, and as fully prepared for adducing any thing he had to offer in his vindication as if a charge had ben served against him in the form of an Indictment or criminal letters. A second ground of complaint is that Woodburns own declaration was taken and made use of as evidence against him. This objection the Respondents will fairly acknowlege they are not Lawyers enough to comprehend. In plain common sense they cannot conceive what evidence with regard to a persons conduct or misbehaviour can be so unexceptionable as his own declaration. Nor can they see upon what footing Mr. Woodburn can object to this evidence except by acknowleging that all that he told the Committee was a train of deliberate falsehoods. The Respondents are further advised that this objection as as little foundation in Law as in sound reason. Even in criminal cases where the highest punishment of the Law is concluded, for every person knows that the first step of procedure commonly is to take the declaration of the person accused before a Magistrate; that the declaration thus taken is always allowed to be founded upon as evidence in the course of the trial, and is for the most part the piece of evidence which bears hardest upon the pannel. But in the prsent case which is purely a civil cause and which the Complainer has expreſsly declared to be so by making this application to your Lordships and not to the Criminal Court There is not even the shaddow of a difficulty. Had the question been brought in the first instance before your Lordships it surely will not admit of a doubt that Mr. Woodburn would have been compelled to confeſs or deny upon the several facts Libelled, and if he had refused to declare what he knew, would have been held and confeſsed. It would probably occur to your Lordships at first view that this objection had been suggested by the ingenuity of the Complainers Council. This however is not the case and he himself has the sole honour of the discovery. Having got into his head a little smattering of Law and probably heard that parties were not obliged to emitt a declaration unleſs they had a ind, he thought it would be an easy matter for him to puzzle an University Meeting composed of persons who were no great proficients in that Science. When he was called therefore before the Committee to give an accunt of his conduct he at first refused to give them the least satisfaction or to say one word about the matter, afterwards being sensible that this obstinate refusal would be regarded as a pretty strong proof of the misbehaviour laid to his charge he at length agreed to appear before the Committee and to answer such questions as were put to him. Indeed through the whole of the proceedings the Respondents will be pardoned to say that his conduct resembled more the arts of an inferior practitioner in the Law catching at every advantage than the open and ingenuous deportment of a young man appearing to Justify himself before those to whom he owed duty and respect and who had unquestionable Authority to call him to account. It is objected in the third place that some of the witneſses examined were liable to legal exceptions particularly Mr. Robison who was concerned in the squabble with Woodburn and consequently had a strong interest to vindicate himself; and Mr. John Hay who is objected to as being pupil to Mr. Mutter the person who first complained of Woodburn to the University. Neither of these objections have the smallest relevancy. Had Mr. Woodburn been standing trial for his life the testimony both of Mr. Robison and Mr. Hay would have been received as good evidence against him. With what reason therefore can the Respondents be complained of for taking the examinations of these two Gentlemen which were neceſsary in order to enable them to form a judgement upon Mr. Woodburn's conduct and then giving them such weight as they seemed to merit. It only remains therefore to enquire whether the sentence or the University Meeting was well founded and whether there were sufficient grounds fr expelling Mr. Woodburn or not. Three particulars are mentioned in the judgement itself upon each of which the Respondents shall bestow a few words. The first thing mentioned is Mr. Woodburn's behaviour at the Meeting of Students on St. Patrick's day. It is not neceſsary here to enter upon all the circumstances which appear in the declarations of the persons present at that meeting who were examined in the course of the proceedings. The most material part of what happened does not seem to be denied by the Complainer himself and even taking the fact to be as stated in the Bill of suspension the Respondents cannot help thinking that his behaviour will meet with the disapprobation of your Lordships. The Respondents are sensible of the Ridicule to which a person exposes himself by aſsuming a tone of severity unsuitable to the manners of a diſsipated age. They will not even be so unfashionable as to say one word against a species of conversation which in many polite companies (as they have been told) has in a manner banished all others. Neither will they appeal to the authority of acts of Parliament upon this subject as these they presume must have been long since abrogated by a disuse almost universal. But one thing they must be permitted to observe that this like most other circumstances of behaviour must be judged of according to the circumstances of the time and place and that what in one man or in one situation will only be laughed at as an inoffensive expreſsion of gaity may in another person and under different circumstances become very improper and very unbecoming. What the Respondents point at is this. Mr. Woodburn was himself a student of Theology entrusted as a Tutor with superintending the education of a young Gentleman and at this Meeting several of the younger students particularly Mr. Woodburn's own Pupil were present. In this situation Mr. Woodburn ought to have called to mind the advice of the satyrist addreſsed with such warmth to the degenerate Romans in his claſs: Nil dictu fadum, visuque hæc limina tangat intra que puer est - Maxima debetur puero reverentia. At this dangerous and important period of life when the imagination receives every impreſsion with warmth it is of consequence that no seducing or improper ideas be presented to it. Hence it is that in all Universities a strictneſs of manners and a degree of decorum has been required greater than is to be met with in the ordinary commerce of the world. The Respondents for their part have considered this to be an object of as great consquence to the Youth entrusted to their care as the informing their minds with a stock of useful Literature and their conduct has hitherto met with the approbation of parents and others interested in the wellfare of the young Students. one thing at least they can say with truth that this tone of austerity is not a thing lately aſsumed nor levelled solely against Mr. Woodburn. Within these two years a student was expelled for what in a man of the world would have been considered as an innocent piece of gallantry. The Complainer and his friends would always have it considered as if he had been expelled solely upon account of what happened at this meeting upon St. Patrick's day. But this although first mentioned in the sentence the Respondents will own is the least censurable part of his conduct. The expulsion proceeded upon other grounds which will not so easily admit of an excuse. The next thing taken notice of is an advertisement composed and published by Mr. Woodburn the purpose of which was to convey a most infamous aspersion against Mr. Robison the Gentleman who had admonished Mr. Woodburn of the indecency of his toast. It appears that a few days after the Meeting on St. Patrick's day the Complainer having composed a ludicrous advertisement levelled against Mr. Robison gave a copy of it to Mr. Hay a young Gentleman attending at the University plainly in the view that it might be circulated amongst the students. Not even satisfied with this it is acknowleged that next day he caused write over another copy of this advertisement containing some amendments and prevailed upon Mr. Hay to convey it clandetinely in a letter to Mr. Robison. That Mr. Robison upon receiving this advertisement as he could have no doubt of its owner was naturally seized with a most violent indignation and having met with Mr. Woodburn in the College Area a squabble ensued which came the length of blows and was productive of much disturbance in the University. The Complainer in his bill of suspension has given your Lordships a copy of the first draught of the advertisement which was given to Mr. Hay and has been at pains to explain away the meaning of some expreſsions in it. But he has avoided taking any notice of the corrected copy of the advertisement which was inclosed in the letter to Mr. Robison. Upon receiving it Mr. Robison in the first transport of his indignation threw the paper into the fire by which means some parts of it are now not legible But upon second thoughts he immediately took it back in order to confront Mr. Woodburn with the evidence of his clandestine malice. It fell from his hands in the scuffle betwixt him and Woodburn but was immediately taken up and produced before the University Meeting. What remains of it is exactly as follows Be it nown to all honest men & bonny laſses that the d scarlet when it is given as a sentiment Company of College Gentlemen) no long d beginning with a C & ending with a T as neither does it mean the whore of Babylon Maidenhead, neither does it signify White & paſsionately black without nce to red; but henceforth and forever Cockscomb xcomb and every man however sober may the future with a clear conscience even a ty of henpecking his superior tutor e a man of Italic paſsions xxx Beware of the man says the hearted Malbranche who blackens o'er his cups and grows pale in his ſsions, is the moral of this advertisement. The Respondents will not offer any comment on th eexpreſsions of unnatural feelings in thie first draught of the advertisement or of Italic paſsions as it is expreſsed in the second. There cannot be the samllest doubt that the intention of them was to convey a most infamous reproach upon Mr. Robison a lecturer in the University and entrusted as tutor with superintending the Education of a young Gentleman. Mr. Woodburn has indeed refused to acknolege that the paper produced to the University Meeting and above recited was the identical copy of the advertisement which he inclosed in a letter to Mr. Robison. Of this however there is undoubted evidence upon the face of the examination. The Respondents shall only mention one circumstance which seems to be decisive. Mr. Woodburn in his declaration before the Committee of the 26th. of April when talking of the paper sent to Mr. Robison says "that he desired the "transcriber to write Cockscomb not with an x because he took "it, to mean the comb that grows upon a cock's head that is red "and resembles scarlet" Your Lordships will accordingly perceive this very word "Cockscomb" which is interlined in the advertisement. And as that advertisement was produced to the Committee on the 24th of April as it now stands it is impoſsible that this very extraordinary word could have been inserted in order to make it tally with Mr. Woodburns declaration which was not emitted till some days after. The manner also which Mr. Woodburn takes in the course of the proceedings to parry a direct acknowlegement of the identity of the advertisement is not calculated to give a very high character of his candor or ingenuousneſs and what is still worse it appears from the declaration of Mr. Hay the Gentleman who was seduced to convey the letter, that Mr. Woodburn afterwards endeavoured to prevail upon him to be guilty of so base an action as to deny what he had done. A calumnly of so groſs a kind and propagated under such circumstances the Respondents cannot help thinking was an offence which of itself sufficiently Justified the expulsion of its author And what seems to put the matter beyond all doubt is a sistem of laws and regulations for the government of the University which are in strict observance and which are annually read over to the students to put them upon their guard The 10th. & 13th. articles of these reulations are as follows. Qui alterius nomen famoso libello violaverit ignominiosus yose ex Academia ejicitor. Qui contendendi ansam factis nul verbis contumeliosis volens suppeditaverit ex Academia ejicitor. Upon each of these laws separately either as having propagated a malicious calumny against Mr. Robison or as having given occasion to a riot within the College there can be no doubt that the University Meeting were sufficiently warranted to expell Mr. Woodburn. The last thing taken notice of by the Meeting is the Complainers non attendance upon the prelections of Mr. Reid his Master. In this part of their sentence the University Meeting did no more than follow out the direction of an expreſs statute. By an Act past in the 13th year of his late Majesty entitled an Act for regulating and improving certain benefactiosn vested in the Rector Principal, Profeſsors and Masters of the University and College of Glasgow it is inter alia enacted "That every Student or Bursar, to be "presented by the said Barons, in pursuance of this present act, shall "before his admiſsion to any of the said studies give Bond & sufficient "caution to the said Rector Principal Profeſsors and Masters of the "said University and College of Glasgow, and their succeſsors in office "thereby obliging himself to prosecute the said several studies to which "he shall be so presented or entitled for and during the respective "times aforesaid, within the said University; and to obtain yearly "from his respective Profeſsors, certificates of his good behaviour "and diligence in attending his leſsons, and of his progreſs in the "said respective studies; which Bond the said Rector Principal "Profeſsors and Masters shall cause to be Registrate in some com"petent Register and transmit an Extract thereof to the said Barons. "And it is hereby further enacted and Declared by the au"thority aforesaid That every Student or Bursar, so to be presented "to the said Barons, who shall fail in performance of any point or "article of his said Bond or obligation, or controvert the same "shall thereby, ipso facto, forfeit and lose all right and benefit of such "presentation, and also be obliged to pay back and refund to the Rector "Principal Profeſsors and Masters of the said University & College "of Glasgow, the whole sums of money which shall have been paid to "him or advanced on his accout in consequence thereof" The Complainer who is a Bursar upon the ofundation regulated by this act at his entry gave bond to the College with two cautioners. "That the said David Woodburn shall faithfully "and aſsidiously prosecute my studies in the said University of "Glasgow for the space of six years from and after Martinmaſs one "thousand seven hundred and sixty seven years, and for the firt "year I shall prosecute the study of Logic for the second the study "of Moral Philosophy and for the third year the study of Natural "Philosophy and for the three last years the study of Theology "within the said University; and to obtain yearly from any re"spective Profeſsors certificates of my good behaviour and dili"gence in attending my leſsons, as also of my progreſs in the said "respentive studies. And in case I the said David Woodburn shal "faill in any point or article of the said Obligation or contraveen "the same I shall thereby ipso facto forfeit and lose all right & benefit "of the said Presentation and also be obliged as I and my said Caution"ers hereby Bind and oblige us jointly and severally and our fore"saids to pay back and refund to the Rector" &c. Notwithstanding this poſsitive obligation it appeared upon examination That the Complainer was extremely remiſs in his attendance. Doctor Reid the Profeſsor under whom he studied being asked by the University Meeting on the 4th. of May whether in terms of the Act of Parliament he could Certify the Complainers good behaviour and diligence in attending his leſsons Declared "That he cannot certify Mr. Woodburns diligence in attending "his leſsons because he has been for the most part during this Seſsion "absent at Eleven o clock and because for some weeks past he has "not been in the Claſs at all." This declaration it is apprehended might alone have superceded the neceſsity of any further enquiry, both by the clause of the Act of Parliament above recited and by his expreſs obligation to the University Mr. Woodburn was bound to obtain yearly from his respective Profeſsors certificates of his good behaviour & diligence in attending his leſsons; and as t this time it was an undoubted point that he neither had obtained nor would obtain any such certificate the consequence seems unavoidable that in terms of the statute he had ipso facto forfeited and lost all right and benefit to his Presentation, All that the Meeting did here was to apply the statute and to find that by its operation he had forfeited his Burse by failing to perform what the statute had printed out as one of the eſsential conditions of his enjoying it The Complainer has been at great pains throughout to represent the proceedings against him as merely the offspring of picque & animosity. And as a proof of it he has verred that Mr. Robison meant to affront him publickly. That he Woodburn was absent from his Claſs through indisposition; and that several other persons particularly Mr. Robison apeared to have been guilty of as much impropriety as him yet no sort of notice was taken of their conduct. Now it is strange that such aſsertions should be made to your Lordships when it is proved in the proceedings that what Mr. Robison said was heard by Woodburn alone, when Mr. Woodburn knows & every Profeſsor & servant about the College knows that he was not ill at the time alledged and when every body about the College knows that Mr. Robison was rebuked admonished & fined two guineas. And that some of the other persons present on St. Patrick's day were punished by small fines or otherwise according to their several demerits In Respect Whereof &c