The Statutory Commissioners, as they probably anticipated, encountered far greater resistance from the colleges than from the University. It was their duty to press reforms which threatened fundamentally to change the character of college life, and they were therefore suspected of a design to destroy a great heritage. Many of the Fellows were blinded by familiarity to defects and abuses which were very obvious to more detached observers, and, even when they partially recognised them, they were inclined to minimise them. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that their college had prospered under the statutes which were being assailed, and feared that it might not continue to do so if the old order gave place to a new. By no means all of them were reactionaries opposed to any change, and some of the most vigorous protests came from those who had constantly been urging the University to throw off its mediaeval trappings. The leader of the academic reform party, Adam Sedgwick, unmistakably flinched from the spectre of reform when it appeared on his own hearth, and many of his followers were no more courageous.

Each college waged its own battle with the Commissioners, and the contests varied in intensity. Jesus, for instance, was particularly recalcitrant, having Dr Corrie as its master; while King's was commended by the Commissioners for its “candid and friendly disposition”. A readiness to accept reform was, however, exceptional, and most of the colleges desired to remain much as they were.