Third-oldest university in England debate
Most historians identify Durham as the third-oldest, following standard practice in how a university is defined and how this is applied historically, although the popular press is more divided.
Students and tutors from Oxford were encouraged to take up places at the university which was founded at a studium, dating from Richard I (its location is unknown).
[1] However, within three years of its foundation, faculty members sided with supporters of Simon de Montfort, who was a patron of the university, during the siege of the town and its castle in April 1264.
King's College was founded as a counter to UCL and was granted a charter in 1829, helped by not claiming to be a university or intending to award degrees.
[16]: 63 The foundation stone for the main building was laid by Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, a brother of King George IV, in 1827[16]: 24 and the college opened for teaching on 1 October 1828.
[16]: 36 UCL applied for a charter in late 1830 or early 1831 that would grant it "Incorporation as an University, with all the privileges incident to that title", but without an explicit mention of degree-awarding power.
[19] It was described as "a barren collegiate Charter" by William Tooke, who had led the parliamentary campaign for UCL's recognition as a university,[20] and John Robson, Secretary of UCL in the 1870s, told the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science in 1872 that "in March 1835, the House of Commons, by a large majority—246 to 136—adopted an address to the King, praying him to grant a charter of incorporation to 'the University of London,' which would have enabled it to grant degrees; and, consequently, that what the institution was asked to surrender in favour of the University founded in 1837 [sic], was not merely its designation, but the position which it had acquired through that vote of the House of Commons, and the importance of which had been distinctly recognized by successive Governments.
[40] It also made agreements with Durham and Edinburgh to allow King's College London students to take degrees at those universities with only one year of residence.
[49] On 4 July 1832, Parliament passed "An Act to enable the Dean and Chapter of Durham to appropriate Part of the Property of their Church to the Establishment of a University in connexion therewith for the Advancement of Learning".
[13]: 100 [53]: 72 The first honorary degree, a Doctor of Civil Law, was conferred on Earl Grey in 1838 for his support as Prime Minister of the establishment of the university.
'"[59] The Attorneys and Solicitors Act 1837, which extended various privileges related to admission to the legal profession of Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin graduates to Durham and London,[48]: 32 [53]: 72 [60] similarly confirmed that Durham was established as a university under the authority of the 1832 act and that the effect of the 1837 charter was to incorporate the pre-existing university, in contrast to London which was established by royal charter.
[70] In a similar vein, Karl Pearson, a professor at UCL, said that "[t]o term the body which examines at Burlington House a University is a perversion of language, to which no charter or Act of Parliament can give a real sanction".
At this period, "the absence of a Royal Charter was generally held to deny degree-giving powers to a body with no outside authority for calling itself a university".
The only place where I can find any legal discussion on matters 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 Raymond, 1345 ...
[13]: 90 The liberal Sir William Hamilton, wrote a response to Wetherell's argument before the Privy Council in the Edinburgh Review arguing that historically the power to award specific degrees was explicitly granted, and thus the recognition of an institution as a university did not, in itself, grant any power to award degrees: "But when it has been seriously argued before the Privy Council by Sir Charles Wetherell, on behalf of the English Universities … that the simple fact of the crown incorporating an academy under the name of university, necessarily, and in spite of reservations, concedes to that academy the right of granting all possibly degrees; nay when (as we are informed) the case itself has actually occurred, – the "Durham University", inadvertently, it seems, incorporated under that title, being in the course of claiming the exercise of this very privilege as a right, necessarily involved in the public recognition of the name – in these circumstances we shall be pardoned a short excursus, in order to expose the futility of the basis on which this mighty edifice is erected.
"[79] Hamilton went on to conclude: "In like manner, in all the Universities throughout Europe, which were not merely privileged, but created by bull and charter, every liberty was conferred not as an incident, through implication, but by express concession.
Hastings Rashdall states that "the special privilege of the jus ubique docendi [the precursor to the modern degree] … was usually, but not quite invariably, conferred in express terms by the original foundation-bulls; and was apparently understood to be involved in the mere act of erection even in the rare cases where it is not expressly conceded".
"[82] William van Mildert, the Bishop of Durham, had said during the passage of the act in 1832 that "[N]or ought the privilege of conferring degrees, if hereafter committed to the University by charter, to be thrown open indiscriminately to non-conformists of every description, in common with members of the Established Church.
[13]: 91 However, by 1833 Thorp wrote to Van Mildert that "the Dean and Chapter are anxious to ascertain the place and value of the Degrees in due time to be conferred by virtue of the Act of Parliament which constitutes Durham a University".
[13]: 93 [53]: 58 After Van Mildert's death in February 1836, Thorp wrote to the Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, noting that degree awarding powers might be "inherent in a University instituted by the highest authority of the nation", but that it would be desirable to have either a charter or a legal declaration that one was unnecessary (no response is recorded).
[147] This concept is also seen in the definition (from 1848): "A college, incorporated for the education of youth, in all the liberal arts, sciences, &c., and empowered to confer degrees.
The only judgment in English law, on the defining criteria of a university, is the decision of Mr Justice Vaisey in St David's College, Lampeter v Ministry of Education (1951) in the Chancery Division.
Thus Masters could write in 1862 that "the distinctive character of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge is, that they are corporations of Teachers in Arts, having the power to grant Degrees.
The first criterion, incorporation, does not apply to all modern universities, some of which are unincorporated trusts under Church of England dioceses, and others are parts of larger, for-profit, corporations.
The other, alternatively, believed that degree awarding powers were separate from, and hence not essential to, university title, and had to be explicitly granted (e.g. by royal charter), as held by Hamilton[79] (and, to judge from his statement in the House of Lords, by Van Mildert[83]).
Hamilton claimed that "University, in its proper and original meaning, denotes simply the whole members of a body (generally, incorporated body,) of persons teaching and learning one or more departments of knowledge; and not an institution privileged to teach a determinate circle of sciences, and to grant certificates of proficiency (degrees) in any fixed and certain department of that circle (faculties)" (emphasis in original), by which definition UCL would clearly be the third oldest.
Contrary to this, however, Rashdall states that "the special privilege of the jus ubique docendi [the precursor to the modern degree] … was usually, but not quite invariably, conferred in express terms by the original foundation-bulls; and was apparently understood to be involved in the mere act of erection even in the rare cases where it is not expressly conceded".
[158] This would appear to support the contention of the 18th century Attorney General Philip Yorke (quoted by Wetherell) that "If the Crown erects a university, the power of conferring degrees is incident to the grant".
But those who prefer the British legal definition give Durham priority, since it received a royal charter four years before London did and, in any event, a college is not the same as a university.
[189] Most notably, this claim was made in Sir George Buck's tract, The Third Universitie of England: Or a Treatise of the Foundations of all the Colledges, Auncient Schooles of Priviledge, and of Houses of Learning, and Liberall Arts, within and about the Most Famous Cittie of London, published in 1615 as an appendix to John Stow's Annales.
