The Sun. — London, England, 1835-07-15 00:00:00

In for Hon. s Col , that r alle >hould ,ed.— nduce Col g ac- e any Lion of whole etition a bad xlation about )esides nerous ) what fl, put were )—R. DAR, place, aid he feet of , simi- ty and Jubted s opi be do t they to a :11 had re the vas . or the ff they away hands of the which► 3n the mbers, a mere of the Coin to de was of rough• I were twice, :ase of f they ? It 3rip to 3: pre-_ r into y tosvo nst the ition to ?titions • Parlia- titiou ; inquiry Monk lode: of er A s are e. Act, N o ble I plan, ies and Joking' iat the. —.that enSe gationg on the or the cter of Hear.) tly the id long inade !re ag d were, at the lo ans .. he 00 T ed to t there Nobl° )on 'O O , 0 1 1 0 g r i g übhp P • tenttO DorrOr fr. T. 30 --.5 4 in di°- Cool' Rous e ' e op ! York id tha t r cal' e ro e t t,l O 60 xaoej grounds of bribery and corruption, but nothing of the sort was shown. He, therefore. thruiffht it very unfair of the Hon. and Gallant Member, in the face of the Commons of England, to designate the individual who had been the object of that in quiry, which terminated in a total failure on the part of those who petitioned against the return. He would now say let there be a case brought forward on a large or a small scale against any place, and every facility should be afforded for its investigation. The Hon. and Gallant Officer seemed very anxious to discuss the appointment of the Committee, but his Hon. and Gallant Friend was very wrong when he chose to be so very angry. Sir H. HARDINGE said that he was aware of the dex terity of the Right Hon. Gentleman in debate, but the Right Hon. Gentleman should have recollected that he (Sir H. Hardinge), in the observations he made respecting the election of the Solicitor-General, alluded to the constituency, and not to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself. He had-attributed no blame whatever to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman individually. What he had said he said from a conviction that the proceedings of that night were full of peril.__( Cheers.) H e h a d ma d e no accusat i on aga i nst the Hon, and Learned Gentleman ; but he had said that this in quiry would be likely to lead to others. Mr. PRAED said if it was the case of the Penryn election no Committee would be granted. Mr. ROLFI?, declared, most solemnly, that he knew of nothing in the slightest degree improper practised at the elec tion of Penryn, beyond some mere gossip that he had heard about some person, perhaps, getting half-a-crown, or some trifle of that sort.—( A laugh, and cries of " Oh, oh.") After a few words from Mr. Wason, Lord Sandon, and Colonel Lowther, Lord J. RUSSELL concurred in postponing the nomina tion of the Committee until to-morrow (this day.) Mr. AGLIONBY moved that two petitions from York, which had been entrusted to him, complaining of the corrupt proceedings at the last election th ere , s h ou ld b e re f erre d to the sa me C ommittee. Sir H. HARDINGE said that in this case not more than five out of forty signed the petition. Now he would ask the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) whether in the case of Tavistock for instance a petition signed by only ten in four hundred would be considered worth inquiring into by a Committee of that House? Lord J. RUSSELL said that might depend upon the na ture of the complaint. In this case specific acts of bribery were alleged. He should not consider perhaps that mere general charges of corruption were a sufficient ground for in quiry. Sir H. HARDINGE said he had represented Durham and other large places, but on hi s h onour h e never h a d any knowledge o bribery having been practised. If the prin ciple now put forward were to be acted upon there was no reason why the petition of five out of a whole constituency should not be acted upon as well as that of ten. No Member would then be safe in his seat. It was desirable that all per sons should know precisely what was the principle to be acted upon. CAYLEY said this petition was signed by five or six Aldermen, by the Town Clerk, by a Clergyman, and by other respectable individuals, not on one but on both sides of the question. The parties, therefore, must be in a great measure considered neutral. Mr. L•OWTHER did not mean to impute blame, but certainly the parties could not be considered neutral, for they were all violently opposed to him. As to himself, he denied that he ever paid sixpence towards the expenses of the election. An 60N. MEMBER said that in answer to the observation of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir H. Hardinge) he would merely ny that the borough of Tavistock was just as ready to court investigation as the borough of Launceston. Sir R. HARDINGE sail he only alluded to Tavistock, because he saw the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) opposite to b lm• As to his election for Launceston, he could assure the Hon. Member that no election could be conducted with more Purity than it had been. After a few words from Lord EBRINGTON the motion Was agreed to. Adjourned at ten minutes past two. ietc,ors R OUSE OF LORDS, JuLr 14. prop r th e T he Duk, v of CUNIBE RL AND presented a petition from age of land in the neighbourhood of Hanmore, a gainst the ureat Western Railway. niversity of The Duke OXFORD UNIVERSITY. the U • of WELLINGTON presented a petition from subscription Oxford, against the Bill for abolishing the Lo of the 39 Articles when entering the University. f rd r d KENYON presented a petition to the same effect t. ra the B. A.s and undergraduates of Oxford. The applica _loons had been made to the non-residents, and not one out of I had refused to sign the petition.. The Earl of RADNOR wished to know from whom the ap plication for signatures proceeded ? Lord KENYON said he believed that nothing more was "tiveyed than an intimation that such a petition was in exist ence. He could assure the House that no influence had been Used of a higher grade than those who signed the petition. Tho Bish op of EXETER said his son was one of the peti tionejs Vately , and he assured him that of the petition he was pri informed,because beads of houses were against their petitioning. , A M essage from the Commons brought up the Seamen En listment Act, the Offences against the Person, and other bills. NEWSPAPER STAMPS. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Bradford, praying f or t h e abolition of stamp duties on newspapers, and 4 ,,. 180 petition s to the same effect from the Provost, magistrates, and Town Council of the town of Greenock, and Stoke-upon -Trent. Also one from the letter-press printers of Westminster and London, to the number of 1,700, praying for the reduction or abolition of the tax upon paper. He did not wish to see the whole of the duty abolished ; he Would be perfectly well satisfied with a reduction to one half, because he knew it would do good to the public, and also benefit the revenue of th e country , as was proved by all ex perience, which he was sorry to see thrown away on the Government. The Noble Lord withdrew the petition in consequence of its being found out to bo without a heading. The Earl of ABERDEEN presented petitions from the Merchants, &c., of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Greenock against any alteration in the timber duties. NEW POOR-HOUSES. The Duke of RICHMOND rose and presented a peti tion from the farmers in the county of Sussex, com _ plainin that they had taken their farms before the Passing of the Poor Law Bill, and they were now saddled with a heavy expense for the building of poor houses, the whole be nefit of which would go to the landlords. He trusted Govern.. rent would turn their attention to the subject, and if possible give relief during the present Session. The E ar l o f RADNOR believed that the money bo rrowe d for such a purpose was not payable for 10 years. The Duke of RICHMOND said he thought the time ought to extend to 20 years—he could not think that it should be for 30 Years as proposed by the petitioners. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. In answer to a question from the Duke of C U MB E RL AND, Lord DUNCANNON said that he had referred the sub ject of a New Temporary House to a number of different aiehitects, and the majority of them concurred in opi n i on w i t h R. Smi r k ei th a t the upper part of St. Stephen's Chapel could not be restored, but that the lower part might. Th e Marquis of LANSDOWNE as sured the House, a nd through them the public, that if it was at all possible to save Zo,4B.tephen's Chapel, with any regard to safety, it would be , A furthe r conversat i on upon the subject ensued, but in so +ovf, a tone as to be inaudible in the gallery. LOAN SOCIETIES The'Duke of RICHMOND moved the committal of the a bove Bill. The Marquis of SALISBURY did not think that the Bill !ent far enough. He hoped the Noble Duke would consent that the limit should extend to 251., or at all events to 201. The House then went into Committee on the Bill. The D u k e o f RICHMOND sa i d, if t h e H o use thought 20/. should be the sum to be lent by societies of this kind, he rid not opp ose t h e amendment, but he would prefer the aS it at present stood. After a few words between the two Noble Lords " la" wao struck out, and " 15/." inserted. T.he Bill passed through the Committee without further etnendment, and the Report ordered to be received to-morrow. NEW POOR LAW BILL. the sung Marqui s of DEVONSHIRE presented a petition from s u:geoes of Reading, and other places in Berks, complain gof the' smallness of their remuneration under the New P oor Law Dill. at The Marquis' of 'WE ST MEAT H complained of the endance of Peers upon Committees of Privileges, by which suitors were put ta great expense and inconvenience. If no Zoe els e took up the wafter he would do so himself, in order have a rota made out. Lord BR OUGHAM was glad t h e su bj ect h a d b een men honed, and would be glad to soe such a rota as that proposed do ne, i nto effec t—without it the business could not be well uo ne, and th e part i es f requent l y put to grea t ex t ra ex pense. Lord FARNHAM said perhaps those who heard the first p ar t of the case might not hear the end of it • and then Lords C,, °l 'ild not h ear d one s i ng l e wor d o f the evidence, might "ede upon the case. That would be the effect of a rota. It tvas arrang e d that the question of the rota should come on .sorrow. UNIVERSITY BILL. The Earl of RADNOR moved that this Bill be now read a to s ee d o e il e l i was o a w i e e r , e . 1111.7 time. solely The question which their Lordships had now as to the principle of the Bill. If there errors in the details of the Bill, they might be reme in the C omm i ttee. Th e p r i nc ipl e o f t h e Bill w as to de cide whether the Thirty-nine Articles should be taken as a test "' _ "ardmissiott to the University of Oxford or of Cambridge. e 0 were clouses in the latter part of the Bill saving all the enu°,ved schools, ard saving all the rights of the bodies having Itthority i n either of the Universities, and also preserving the put an persons end on , rights of th e Convocation. The principle of the Bill was to to the sub scr iption to the Thirty-nine Articles by e n tering; the University, and on taking the degree 7 Bachelor of Arts or that of Master of Arts. Perhaps their Lordships were not fully aware of the different practice in the e‘;o,lTniversities on this subject. He should do his best to Oxford; it to them. First, with respect to matriculation at zoxnisoidrde,rahe could not help thinking, after giving his full tion to all that he bad heard on the subject--after suing car e f u ll y read the de b ates w hi c h h a d ta k en pl aee OD this_ ClUestioll in that and the other House of Parliament— That it was an absurdity, and worse than an absurdity, that Young ine n of 18 and 19 years of age should he called on to sub scribe the Thirty-nine Articles, which they lid 1141 uo&ratand, before they were allowed to enter the University. 'llO tin idea ' W hich was disseminated, that young men might be allowed id sign these Articles without understanding them, was a does t. ine the propagation of which must, in his opinion, tend to .undermine the best principles of morality, and to inculcate, equivocation and hypocrisy in the conduct of those who were, under such circumstances, called on to make this subscription. Yet this language was commonly held by men of character, and those who might be supposed to take correct views on such a question, that young men might be allowed to sign these Articles without having read and understood them. He confessed that his conviction was totally at variance with such opinions as those to which he had just alluded, for he could not conceive upon what rational grounds any person,' under any circumstances, or in any situation, could be called on to subscribe his name to a document, the con tents of which he was told that he did not understand. This was a practice, however, which, according to some, was adopted in Oxford. Now, it appeared to him, that if that case were justified—the case of young men being called on to subscribe articles which it was held to be a matter of no importance that they should understand—there was no test whatever by which it could be ascertnined that any signature to any paper was bona fide made with a knowledge of the facts or circumstances which might be stated in it. If a young man were allowed on entering college to sign the Thirty-nine Articles, without its being supposed necessary that he should understand them, he wished to know in what way any individual was to be bound by what he subscribed, or how it was to be known whether his subscription meant an assent to the contents of any paper after he had made himself acquainted with them, or whether it was to be taken as a mere signature of his name, which, for some reason or other, he was induced to make, without any knowledge of the facts de tailed in the paper to which it might be subjoined? In the last discussion which took place upon that subject in the hear ing of their Lordships, he had illustrated his argument by re ference to a paper against the Bill which he had introduced, signed by 4,000 members of the Convocation of Oxford, and he had argued that if the subscription to any paper did not imply a knowledge of its contents by those who made it, he did not see how it could be shown that any one of those 4,000 Tersons assented to the statement made in the paper to which he had referred. There was no difference in the principles which applied in the two cases : a knowledge of and assent to the one was equally necessary to the other. Such a doctrine destroyed all the value which attached to subscription. It had happened that his surmises with regard to the subscribers to the paper against his Bill were in fact correct, for he had ascertained that many of those gentlemen had signed this document, not without reading the resolution which had been submitted for their concurrence, and probably not without understanding it, for it contained matter not difficult to be understood, but certainly without knowing the object for hich it was framed ; for they had determined to take such means of opposing the Bill, without having seen it, or made themselves acquainted with its provisions. This diffi culty of fixing on the true meaning of subscription was in creased about a year ago from an explanation being given of it different from that which had been previously held, and from two or three other versions which were since given of it. It was thus rendered an exceedingly difficult thing to know upon what principle an assent to these Thirty-nine Articles was called for. There was also another difficulty to be met with as regarded these Articles ; for several Hon. Members had told him that they were called on to put their names in a large vellum book with a great number of pages, but in which they could not discover any part of the Thirty-nine Articles. A somewhat curious confirmation of the slovenly and careless in inner in which all the proceedings, with respect to this sub scription, were conducted, bad lately occurred. A proposi tion was recently made to substitute a declaration for the sub scription, which had been hitherto made. One of those who opposed that change was a friend of his (Lord Radnor's), and a most zealous man in forwarding or opposing any view or project which he might entertain. This Gentleman had ad_ dressed a letter to those Members of the Convocation who ware non-resident, and whom he thought likely to entertain the same opinions with respect to the intended change as those which he himself held. In this letter he said, " May I take the liberty of addressing, since some of the absent members inav not recollect the circumstance, that at matriculation there is no oath taken connected with a subscription to the Thirty nine Articles." Lord KENYON—There is no oath now taken with respect to subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles. Lord RADNOR was aware of that ; but what he com plained of was, that this subscription was made in so loose a way, that there were many who thought that no oath was taken at it ; and it appeared from the letter to which he had just referred, it was supposed that many who had actually subscribed these articles were in a doubt as to whether or not they were bound to their observance by an oath. It was .bsisted, however, that the existence of this test was necessary to exclude Dissenters from the University ; but he could not see how a test, which it was taken for granted it was unneces sary to understand, could have the effect of excluding any Dissenter, or even any Mahometan. In point of fact, this test did not exclude all Dissenters, though it had, he believed, that effect with regard to Baptists and Socinians. But the absurdity of continuing this test with a view to the exclusion of Dissenters was, that those belonging to the University main. tain that there were other tests much more efficacious for this purpose ; and it was said by one of these persons, " the joining in our daily worship is infinitely a closer union with the Church than signing the Thirty-nine Articles." If that were the case, and the attendance at the chapels, (the continuance of the ser vice in which could not be objected to,) was a much better means of securing the non-admittance of Dissenters to the Uni versities, why on earth was the subscription, which all must con sider somewhat objectionable (though they might not censure it so broadly as he did) persevered in, whilst the purpose which it was meant to answer was perfectly fulfilled by means with which no one could fairly find fault? But other reasons were given for an adherence to this subscription, and amongst them wasit alleged that this observance inculcated a submission to the Church of England. The University, then, certainly took measures for inculcating submission to the Church which the Church itself never enforced, for it never called on its lay mem bers to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles on any occasion whatever. The Church required the candidates for holy or ders to subscribe those Articles ; but it never called on its lay members either on the occasion of baptism with respect to in fants, that the god-fathers, or persons who were baptised, when they had attained riper years, or at confirmation, or when per sons received the sacrament, or at visitation of the sick, to sub scribe the Thirty-nine Articles. In point of fact, no layman was bound to sign these Articles, except at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. One great argument used in favour of subscription during the last year in that House, and which had also been mentioned elsewhere, was, that the abolition of tests in the German Universities had produced the worst effects therein ; and that a great deal of anti-christian and anti-religious doctrines which prevailed in those institutions was attributable to the abolition of religious tests. This argument was founded on a supposition that in the German Universities alone these religious tests had been abolished. He would presently show how unfounded this supposition was; but he would now take it for granted, that in the German Universities only were these tests done away with, and yet he would confidently assert, that no one acquainted with German literature could believe that the same effects would result from such a change with respect to religious tests in this country, as must natu rally flow from it in a country where the inhabitants, and especially those of highly cultivated intellects, were of an exceedingly theoretical and speculative turn of mind on reli gious subjects. But this passion for speculation not only prevailed with respect to religious matters, but it displayed itself also in their prosecution of literature and the sciences. For the purpose of proving what no doubt their Lordships were already familiar with, it would be only necessary for him to state, that one very learned theologian in that country con tended that man was not an original animal, and that he arrived at his present form, not by a transmigration of soul, but by a transformation of body, and he actually went the length of saying, that the process by which the transformation was eiTheted was this—that a lizard was changed into a monkey, and a monkey raised into a man.—(Laughter.) Another instance of this was, that one of their learned men had composed a' most voluminous work on the jurisprudence of ancient Athens, in which he recounted all their modes of legal proceeding, treated of their John Does and Richard Roes, their pleas, answers, replications, and re joinders ; and the only foundation of this extraordinary work was a trial said to have taken place before the goddess of Minerva, in one of the plays of JEschylus.—( Hear.) There was, however, a fact connected with the argument deduced from the abolition of tests in the German Universities, which was certainly peculiarly comical, and which appeared to be altogether unknown to, or overlooked by those who cited the prevalence of anti-religious feelings and doctrines in those Universities, as a reason why religious tests should not be got rid of in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It was this, that the principal part of these anti-religious doctrines proceeded from those persons in the Universities of Germany, who held theology in chains ; and these persons being divines, were the individuals who were subjected to religious tests, whilst the other members of the University were excepted from their observance.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore, far from the partial abolition of tests in Germany being in favour of their being retained in our Universities, the fair inference to be drawn from the spread of anti-religious feelings in that country was, that such an effect had been produced by the pre servation of these tests in any shape whatever. But were these religious testa abolished in no other country beside Ger many ? Why, in Bavaria, and in France, no tests were re quired for persons entering the Universities, and all were equally eligible for the chair of' professors. One of the present Ministers of France, M. Guizot, who is a Protestant, held a professor's chair in one of the Universities of that c . , duntry. In Bologna, no religious test was required for persons coming to receive instruction, or those desirous of taking degrees. At the University belonging to this place no test whatever was required until very lately, when it was determined that no foreigner should be admitted to the Uni versity, in consequence of the pupils having rebelled, and evinced a desire for the establishment of a Republic. In Lou vain no test was required—in Pisa none. The University of this city was attended by Greeks, Jews, and Mahometans, and the only difference which existed between the mode of admis sion to degrees for those belonging to such persuasions, and the others who attended the University was, that in the former case the Chancellor—who was generally a Vicar-General, or Archbishop—got out of the chair, and the Vice-Chancellor took if. He could state further, that no test was there re quired for Professors, and that the chairs were often filled by English Protestants and Scotch Presbyterians. At Padua, too, no test was enjoined ; and it frequently happened that the chairs of that University were filled by members of the Church of England, Presbyterians and Calvinists. In Roman Catholic States, therefore, the Austrian territories included, ,;:ere was no exclusion on the ground of religious persuasion, for they insisted on no religious tests whatever.—( Hear, and a hugh. ) " Although," continued the Noble Lord, " gee a I Xoble Lord opposite smile at what I have said, I must say, for 1 in/ own part ? that I who have been brought up a Protestant, nig SITN,AILDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 15 18351 and who as such have been taught--to conceal-nothing in reli gious matters—to leave religious doctrines open to rational consideration, and to test their truth by the exercise of private judgment—l say that I, at least, bred up as I have been, a member of the Established Church, cannot help being morti fied, and feeling in some degree ashamed that the doors of our Universities should be shut up by the enforcement of a re ligious test, whilst those of Roman Catholic Universities are thrown open to persons of all religious persuasions."—( Hear, hear.) But this liberality in religious opinions was net con fined to Catholic countries. In the Russian States, in Baden, Breslau, and Copenhagen, the Universities were open to all. In Copenhagen one of the Professors of Medicine was a Jew. Coming nearer home, he believed that in the University of Durham, which had been established by Act - of Parliament, no test was enforced with regard to those who came for in struction. Was it not, therefore, a matter of regret, that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be the only ones in Europe or in the world, which were shut up by the continuance of tests which those who were called on to sub scribe had not or could not understand? In the University of Oxford (and he spoke principally of this University, because he was better acquainted with its history than that of our other Universities)—in that University persons were formerly ad mitted, not only belonging to different countries, but professing different religions. It was a matter of history, that aboat 250 years ago,the first Reformer in England—Wyckliffe---one whose efforts were as great for the propagation of Protestantism as those by whom he was afterwards succeeded (however more successful the latter might have been in receiving a larger share of popular approbation)—this Reformer Wyckliffe, he repeat( d continued to bold the chair, of Professor of Divinity, and re mained the head of one of the houses at Oxford, long after he had been summoned to the Court of Rome to answer for his heretical doctrines. The Noble Lord then referred to a number of foreigners (whose names he read) as being ad mitted to the Professors' Chairs at the University of Oiford. He could not, therefore, reconcile the principles on which this institution rested in former times to those by which it was now sustained, on any other ground than that which had been urged by a Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington, we believe) on a former occasion, namely that the exclusive practices of the University were necessary to maintain the alliance between Church and State. .He did not at first understand the argu ment ; but after considering it for some time, he supposed it to mean that the University was so connected with the Es tablished Church, that it was necessary to have it exclusively devoted to those belonging to that Church. The mode by which that alliance was secured and confirmed was unquestion ably a very strange one, for it was no other than this--that those who are about to enter the University were called on to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. He had already proved that the Church never enforced an obedience to its doctrines, by requiring its lay members to subscribe these Articles. The State never did so either, with one necessary and proper ex ception—where a person who presided as one of the Judges in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and who was called on to decide questions relating to the Thirty-nine Articles was required by Act of Parliament to subscribe them. That was the only case in which the Church called for a subscription to these Articles. The King did not subscribe them. The Chancellor of Ox ford and honorary Doctors did not subscribe them. The Chan cellor of Cambridge or the honorary Doctors of that University did not subscribe them. The Duke of WELLINGTON—I signed them the other day at Cambridge. Lord RADNOR resumed. He could speak with more de cision with respect to the University of Oxford than that of Cambridge, but he did not think that any of the charters of the University of Cambridge required that honorary Doctors should make the subscription. Certain he was, that no sub scription to these articles was required in the case of the Chan cellor of Cambridge, for the late Chancellor was an avowed and professed Unitarian. Neither did honorary Doctors there subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles. It was a most mistaken opinion that the Church was necessarily connected with the University ; it was only so far connected with t, that a faculty of theology was established there, just as there was a faculty of law, of medicine, and of philosophy ; but the University, quoad University, was no more connected with the Church than it was with law, medicine, or physic. This view pro ceeded from the error that the University absorbed by the College, although those bodies had in fact (without mean- ing to impute to them any blame) usurped the power of the University. It was not unusually fancied, that the University originally consisted of Colleges ; but in truth they were mere excrescences, which had grown out of that institution. He knew that the contrary notion was industriously spread abroad, and in one case on a very high authority—in a work admitted to be from the pen of a Right Reverend Prelate, who was formerly head of one of the houses of Oriel at Oxford. It was a general mistake that the University was congenial in its na ture to a Corporation. The two institutions were not at all similar ; for suppose the Legislature were to do anything so outrageous as to put an end to all the Colleges, as the monks were deprived of their Colleges about 300 years ago, the Uni versity itself would exist just as much as it did at present. The University was in point of fact, a national institution —every element which could belong to a national institution entered into it. It was founded and confirmed by charters granted by the King, not for particular purposes, but the general good of the country.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord here enu merated the different charters granted to the University. The University was then simply a school of learning; but it be came desirable that a domestic character should be given to it by the establishment of colleges or halls ; and according to the statutes which existed till within four months ago, the power of establishing halls existed to an unlimited extent, ac cording to certain forms; and formerly there were as many as three hundred halls existing at one time. New statutes had been passed within the last four months ; he had not sees them'', and what their provisions were he could sot tell. However, the power was originally possessed to an- unlimited extent, and to him it appeared to be a most valuable and usefulpower, for it prevented the narrowing of the University to an inju rious extent. The colleges were originally established by in dividuals, and endowed by them with funds for the benefit of persons studying at the University. One of the most splendid of these institutious was Merton College, which was founded by Walter de Merton, and endowed by him with large estates for the benefit of persons educated in the University ; at the same time he limited the advantage to certain persons, .nmely, such as were born within particular dioceses—the dioceses in deed in which his property was situate. In other colleges there were similar limitations, in some instances to a surprising extent. Indeed out of the whole number of 499 resident'ellow ships, only fifty were open to all, the rest being limited by some specific bequest and restriction as to family, parish, county, or diocese. The whole revenues of a college—all estarn and patronage, were for the benefit of the members of the foun dation, and they were not bound to admit any individual into it except by the course of electing him in to the foundation. It was only, indeed, in times comparatively modern—since the close of the 15th century—that the practice had obtained of admitting persons in any other manner. Unless, therefore, the general power, which he had noticed, of establishing halls were allowed to exist, the heads of colleges would be enabled to limit the 'number of those admitted ; and the restriction would operate on the Church by limiting the supply of pro per persons to perform the functions of its offices. He thought that it would be much to the credit of the University of Ox ford, if subscription at matriculation were abolished. Many persons were willing to concede that point, who at the 'same time contended for retaining the subscription at the taking of degrees, inasmuch as, according to their statement, the same objection could not then be urged on the ground of ignorance in the party subscribing, and as some security ought to be ex acted from him, in consequence of his becoming fitted, by the taking of a degree, for election to a fellowship, or for acting as a tutor. With respect to the first point, concerning the absence of ignorance, it had been admitted as a fact, by a Re verend Doctor who had written a pamphlet on this subject, that young men when admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, were not qualified to judge of the thirty-nine articles; and, under the circumstances, it was not likely that they should be. As to the election to Fellowships, he could not give any weight to the argument of a necessity of subscrip tion, as a security on the part of those elected ; for every one elected underwent a certain examination, and the electors might take much more effectual. ; means of obtaining a gua rantee security of his fitness that 'was afforded by subscrip tion to the Thirty-nine Articles. Then, with respect to their becoming tutors, as the masters of houses had the appoint ment of these functionaries, they might _easily ascertain the learning, knowledge, and faith of the persons applying to be appointed. The same objection that applied to the requiring a subscription, applied also to the requiring a declaration. Now as to young men who were obtaining the degree of Mas ter of Arts, it must be allowed that they were likely to pos sess that degree of knowledge which should enable them to form a judgment on the Thirty-nine Articles ; but at the same time, it was a case of the greatest hardship towards a Dissen ter, that after having passed with credit through his Univer sity career, he should be debarred from taking his degree, and enjoying the advantages attached to it in after life. Another objection was urged to this effect—that if Dissenters were al lowed to take their degrees, they would be admitted to the mastership of schools which were instituted in connection with the Established Church, the presentation to those masterships being vested in Masters of Arts. He was qaite willing to in sert a provision in the Bill, preventing Dissenters from inter ference with any endowment whatever, from which they were excluded under the will of any founder. The Noble Earl then adverted to a most extraordinary objection which had been raised against this restricting portion of the Bill in a published letter addressed to the Noble Duke by a most re spectable gentleman, a fellow of Baliol College —making it a reproach to the measure that the exception had been pro vided in regard to endowments ; and saying that the excep tion had been so provided because it concerned a pecuniary interest. It was impossible for that gentleman not to know, that not one of their Lordships would be Willing to sacrifice any principle for the sake of pecuniary interest; and it was certainly a strange argument to urge, that because they could not do all the good which they wished to do, in consequence of being interfered with by certain bequests, they should not even do that which they could. There had been presented that night petitions against the Bill. One had been presented by the Noble Duke from the Convocation, and it prayed that a measure subversive of the beneficial privilege which the Uni versity had enjoyed for several centuries, of legislating for them. selves in all matters relating to the discipline and government of the ITeiyersity, might not be passed. The Bill left that privilege entirely'as it existed before, except In one isistaeoe ; it did not subvert it, although he admitted that it violated it. It did not prevent their legislating for the discipline and regula tion of the University, but it did prevent their enacting that subscription or slealeratipn pilionld be imposed. The pore tion spoke also of the necessity of pr . esdrvinit subscriptien for the maintenance of a system of ucation, by means of which so much benefit had been conferred on the country. Why. subscription bad only existed for the last 250 years; and in svliat state had the University been thirty.five years ago ? Had it not been • described by. .a Right liCYerePd Prelate. is being then in a 'state of corruption ? Yet the pla y vilege of legislating shad . exieted from the time of 1681 to that of 1800, just as much: as it hid existed from 1800 to 1835. He could not suPpose, therefore, that it was sub scription to the Thirty-nine Articles which enabled the Uni versity to legislate for the purposes of education. The Bill certainly violated that privilege ; and he trusted that their Lordships would assent to the violation. There was no chance of the subscription being removed unless by their Lordships' interference. Of this a sufficient proof was found in the exhibition made at Oxford•the other day, and in the zeal and animosity which had been then excited. It was said again that colleges were private institutions, and that the Bill thus committed an attack upon private institutions, because it said that no subscription should be required upon entering a college or hall. He admitted that it did so to a certain ex tent, and he had inserted the provision teferred to with regret, in order to prevent any attempt to defeat the object of the measure by chicane. He did entertain that, feeling of sus picion with great regret; but still he felt that he was justified in entertaining it, especially when he found that. Mr. Oakley (the individual to whom he had before alluded) had held out an intimation of the probability of some measure of the kind being resorted to, in order to counteract the operation of the Bill. He, of course, should hope' that such wouki not be the case, but still he thought it, right to guard against it. The other petition which had been presented that night came rather furtively from the Under-graduates and Bachelors of the University; and lie could not help thinking that it must have been drawn up by some gentleman totally unacquainted with the contents of the Bill. It deprecated the measure as transferring the management of the University from the hands of those persons who now held it.—( Hear.) The Bill did not transfer that management in any way. It violated the custom of the University in one instance ; but that vio lation being effected, the University would be left to the management of the same persons as now, and unfettered cc ith subscription, much, he doubted not, to the joy of many of them. It had been stated that the Bill was an at tack not only on the Universities, but on the Church and Re ligion. Now he wished to make no attack on any of those institutions. He could not conceive how it could be supposed that he desired to attack the Universities : for with Oxford he had formerly been intimately connected, and with Cam bridge he was now in some degree connected. He had no wish but for the prosperity of both ; and he conceived that it would be a thing most conducive to their good to remove the reproach which the Bill was intended to do away with. Of that opinion were many excellent and learned men at Cam bridge itself, as had been shown by the petition sent up to their Lordships ; at Oxford the feeling in its favour was not so strong. As to the charge of an attack on the Church, he had already explained that the getting rid of subscriptions not only would not injure the Church, but might prevent that which would be very injurious to it. At all events, for the cause of truth, plain dealing, and honesty, he did implore their Lordships to give the Bill their grave consideration before they rejected it. Turn it in what way they would, that practice was most unsatisfactory in which persons were called upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles—at Oxford when entering the University, and at Cambridge when taking a degree at an age which did not imply a full knowledge of them. He thought it a stigma on the Church ; especially when no such practice was to be found prevailing elsewhere; for he defied any Noble Lord to name an . University in the civilized world, at which such tests were required. The con tinuance of it in the Universities of our own country seemed to him a national reproach, and a reproach to religion. In conclusion, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was very far from accusing the Noble Earl of any intention either of subverting the Church, or of injuring the Universities; the tone in which he had spoken had indicated no such intention. At the same time he must say that he was not the less apprehensive of the effects which the present Bill might produce on the best in terests of both. The Noble Earl had referred to the uni versities upon the Continent, and to cur own universities in former times, as showing that there was no necessity for im posing subscription. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) always had an objection to arguments drawn from places with which they were not acquainted, and the circumstances of which ivere probably different from those of their own country, and at all events unknown to them. He appre hended that Oxford and Cambridge would have no disposition whatever to take a lesson from the Universities of the Conti nent. In some of their institutions it was well known that the utmost laxity of religious opinions prevailed—the utmost indif ference to religion. In such institutions the absence of any re ligious tests was not surprising; it was more striking that in the Roman Catholic universities of the Continent persons of dif ferent religious persuasions should be admitted, not only to pro secute their studies, but also to hold fellowships. He could not account for that state of things; he knew that in some of their universities that toleration might have been extended in particular cases to particular persons, without any apprehen sion on the part of the governing power, however intolerant, because that power knew well, that on any occasion, however slight, it was able to bring the laws against heretics into opera tion against persons situated in such circumstances. Indeed, he could not help thinking that the Inquisition of Padua was about as celebrated as the University of Padua.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl had said that those Universities had been for merly open to all the world. At that time nothing was heard but of the religion of the State, except from certain heretics, who, wherever they showed their heads, were cruelly perse cuted. The Noble Earl had cited the example of Wyck liffe—their Lordships all knew how Wyckliffe had been perse cuted That individual was a professor of the Established religion, and he was supported by some of the most power ful persons in the realm ; otherwise he would never have been able to escape the fate which awaited all those per sons who promulgated opinions differing from the doctrines of the Established Church. They knew how his ashes had been treated ; and probably he would, but for his in fluential protection, at once have suffered at the stake. He now reverted to the subject of the Bill. The title was " An Act for prohibiting subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles in certain cases ;" and the reason given in the pre aMble was, that subscription to particular articles of faith in the case of persons of tender years, and before they can have so accurately and minutely examined the same, or the assent to the doctrines therein laid down , was unreasonable grounds on which they rest , as to give an explicit and entire and tended to evil consequences. The Bill proceeded on the assumption that subscription on all occasions and in all persons were exactly of the same significance and import, namely, as indicating an entire and implicit assent in the Articles after laid down. But a distinctio n was to be ma de between sub an accurate and minute examination of the doctrines therein scription at matriculation and subscription on taking degrees. With respect to the first, a student of twelve years of age brought to matriculation at Ox f ord was required to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles ; none of course came *so early, but it was necessary to take the extreme case in order to ascertain what was the real intention of the University, in requiring it. Was it not absurd to suppose that he could have fully and minutely considered every Article in such a manner as to be able to give an entire and implicit assent to them all ? Now he (the Archbishop,of Canterbury) maintained that the University never required of him to do so ; for he was ad mitted simply on subscription without any examination— without any previous question—without having heard the articles read ; full assent had never been required from him— it had not been intended that he should give it, unless it could be supposed that the divines and statesmen of Queen Elizabeth's time, who had imposed the subscription, were tools and men who had quite lost their understanding. The boy, having subscribed as required, was then transferred to his appointed place, and committed to the charge of a tutor, who was directed to instruct him in the rudiments of religion, and particularly in the Thirty-nine Articles. He pursued his studies, according to the directions of the statutes, under the tutor for three or four years, and he was then called on for a second subscription. But though he has been so studying, though he has proved his proficiency in the Articles by public examination, the University does not allow him to subscribe until he has read them, or heard them read in the presence of tile proctor, and it further requires him to make a declaration that " the Articles, being in number Thirty-nine, are agreeable to the Word of God." In the first instance, his subscription was only a mark--a token of his adherence to the Church of England, and his desire to be instructed in its Articles. That explanation had been said last year to have been contrived for the purpose of getting rid of a difficulty, and his Right Rev. Friend (the Bishop'bf Exeter) had been coarsely taunted with jesuitism for giving such an explanation. He himself had re garded it as a correct one, and had thought it right to take a share of the reproach cast upon those who gave it. He had since looked at the Parliamentary History, and at a debate which had taken place in the House of Commons in the year 1793, and he found the same argument to have been there used by many Members of that House, who were generally considered as men of sense, who knew how to draw an inference, and how to form an argument. Among them was Lord North, who supported the practice of subscription by exactly the same ar gument as he (the Archbishop) had just cited; and who said that subscription at matriculation was of a very different kind from subscription on taking degrees. Another objection had been made to himself, as if he had acted wrongly in suppres sing the fact, that no subscription was required before the age of 12 years. Surely that was an age before which a child was not capable of forming an option in respect to religion. This principle was distinctly observable in the practice of the Church concerning the rite of confirmation. It was the cus • torn formerly that at the age of twelve years a child should certain in s t ances th e r it e was now per f orme d take o n hi mse lf t h e vows ma d e b y hi s sponsors at barn;: sn ; i n generally it was postponed till a more 2 1, 3 1a , s s t u e b r s o c f rip A ti r o is n being degree. prohibited until men that age ; but :r a n . ; v tee a nr n e c trh e a d el y age.went e takingnt Bto to the thet thehe present Bill, h owever , the aff,t f or subscription is extended to Univ ers i t i es b etween the age of 17 and 19, and took their first degre e o f H . A . between those of 20 and 22. Now he was of opinion th at t h e A rt i c l es o f t h e Church of England m i g h t b e . fully comprehend e d by every young man o f t h e a ge of 20, or 21, or 22, a f ter a stu d y o f t h ree or f our years , so as to allow o f his giving his assent to them. Some of them were self-evident—founded on the principles of natural religion ; otheis were capable of being proved directly from the scripture; anid others there were which might seem hard at first, but which, on due explanation, might also be proved directly from the words of scripture. On that point he was at issue with the Bill. He denied subscription for young men at the age of 21, and properly instructed, to be unreasonable. On the other hand, lie maintained that it was most reasonable that the University should require proof that those whom she ad mitted into her bosom for the purpose of instruction, and more particularly religious instruction, had fulfilled her intentions, that is to say, had made themselves acquainted with the) doctrines which she teaches, and had imbibed those prin. cipl es which she had endeavoured to instil into them. He thought, too, thqt the University also owed a proof to the ouefl that those whom sho sent forth to the world had made themselves acquainted with the doctrines of the Na tional Church ; and not only made themselves acquainted with them, but had received them as true and as con sonant to Scripture. He now came to the assertion that subscription might tend to evil consequences. It might be supposed that in the lapse of nearly three centuries, the consequences of subscription, whatever they might be, would have developed themselves. He thought that thcv had, and that they did appear to be good. They were, then, that during that period the Universities have preserved the religion in its purity—that they have banished polemical controversy from the seats of those sacred institutions, and that they have produced a succession of learned and well-principled men to fill situations in the different professions, and in the several departments of the State. He deprecated alteration in a system so fruitful of good. It was desirable that the youth of this country should be attached, not merely from habit, and from prejudices derived from parents, perhaps from party, but also from conviction, to the doctrines of the Church of England; and the doctrines of that Church, he would venture to say, as they were more fully understood they would be more highly appreciated. It was very desirable that every man in the country should be ac quainted with the principles of the religion he professed. They would then have much less of those prejudices which have ori ginated, on some occasions, from malice or error, or ignorance against the articles of the Church of England. Such know ledge, among the higher classes, he sincerely believed to be promoted by the continuance of subscription. Evil, indeed, would be the consequences of the Bill before them, if it passed into a law. The sanction of Parliament would then have been given to the calumnies against the Church and against its fundamental doctrines ; it would go forth as the deliberate opinion of their Lordships, that the peculiar doctrines of the creed of the Church of England were unfit to be imparted to the youth of the country--unfit for their comprehension, or unworthy of their belief—and it would be pretended that they, as members of that Church, regarded its characteristic and peculiar doctrines not merely with indifference, but with dis approbation. That would be the heaviest blow yet inflicted on the Church, indirectly condemning her tenets and pronoun cing assent to them to be unreasonable, and tending to evil consequences. From what the Noble Lord had said in ap probation of foreign universitios, and the admission of Protes tants, Roman Catholics, and Christians of every denomina tion--Jews, Pagans, and Mahometans—he apprehended that his intention must be to see the same system prevailing in this country. He considered the present measure of great import ance to both the Church and the Universities, and he requested their Lordships to pause before they sanctioned a Bill which would unfix all the University privileges, and disturb an order of things which had worked and still continued to work most beneficially. He trusted their Lordships would not approve a measure that would cast a slur on the creed of the Church, and imply a censure of the Universities for teaching a doctrine which was unfit for the assent of those educated at other in stitutions. In conclusion the Most Reverend Prelate moved as an amendment, " That the Bill be read a second time this day six months." The Bishop of L AND AFF admitted the full power of the State to interfere with and regulate the concerns of the Uni versities, so far as the interests of the nation required such in terference. He would now revert to those interferences re commended by the Noble Earl. They appeared to him to be uncalled for, and to be recommended on grounds quite un tenable. The Noble Earl in his address this night (which was not a short one) appeared to him to be merely fighting with a shadow of his own imagination. He took it for graeted that young men, on being required to subscribe to the Thirty nine Artices, were told, " We don't expect you to understand them : all we require is, that you should subscribe to them." He hoped he was not mis-stating the observations of the Noble Lord. He certainly had never said anything that was equiva lent to this : he believed the difference arose from the inaccu rate use, by the Noble Lord himself—if he would excuse him for so saying—of the word "understand." Au individual might be considered to understand a thing when he knew what was the sense of it—it was not necessary that he should be pre pared to defend it against a - . 1 opposition, or to illustrate it ; the power to do that might be left to be acquired by subse quent inquiry and more mature learning. Though he might not be able to go into a controversial defence of a subject, it by no means followed that he did not understand it. He thought he might say that he understood natural philosophy —the Newtonian philosophy, but he certainly was not capable of defending it against an adversary. The Right Reverend Prelate here referred to the act of subscription, and contended that it was not in the nature of an oath ; if it was, the argu ments urged against it would apply. The act simply amounted to a declaration of the belief of the individual at the time he made it ; it did not pledge him as to his after-conduct; it was made merely for the satisfaction of the authorities that he was worthy to be admitted one of the members of the University, and willing to be instructed in the doctrines of the established religion. Reference had been made to the hardship of the exclusion of the Dissenters. Now when an University had been established for the purpose of admitting Dissenters as well as members of the Established Church, it was found ne cessary to abstain altogether from any attempt to afford reli gious instruction to the students. He confessed that this was the necessary consequence. He was prepared to contend, how ever, that without religious instruction the education could not be considered complete.—( Hear, hear.) He heartily agreed to the motion of the Most Rev. Prelate, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.—( Cries of " Question.") . _ _ The Bishop of GLOUCESTER considered it his duty to vote that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. It was true the Noble Earl said, in introducing the measure, that in its present shape it did not touch the Universities, in asmuch as it would only command them to do that which they were now in the habit of doing. This was done only in one case. The Bill proposed, however, to prohibit the declaration of a student, on his taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts, that he was a member of the • Established religion. It was true the two Universities took a somewhat different line as w the mode of subscribing, but they had both the same object, viz., the preservation of the connection between the Universi ties and the Church of England. It was not a remark of to day or yesterday, but it was a very old remark, that whenever attacks were designed on the Church they were always com menced with attacks upon the Universities. From very early times it had been the practice to begin with the subscriptions to the Universities. This was the course taken during the long Parliament by Charles the First, in 1641, he believed. The first proceeding was, that the subscription to the two articles was against law mid liberty. James I. sent an order to one of the Universities for an individual to be admitted to a degree without the subscriptions. This measure was almost a servile imitation of what had been done before. They must not suppose it would stop here ;, it would place the affairs of the Universities in a most anomalous state. There would be remonstrances in all quarters. The Dissenters would com plain and with some justice, that they were allowed to proceed a certain distance, and then they could not obtain the honour, because they could not take the degree of Master of Arts. Those who knew the arrangement of the Universities would tell the Noble Earl, that if he admitted the controversial dis cussions which would no doubt arise among the students, he must not expect to find their attention devoted, as it now was, to the pursuits of literature and science, and all the other matters connected with their education. It had always been the policy of the conductors of Universities to keep out of view as much as possible controversial differences. It was true that in consequence of no subscription being required be fore matriculation at Cambridge, some of the sons of Dissen ters were occasionally admitted there.—( Hear, hear.) He had observed this, he had rejoiced at it ; he thought it calcu lated to soften the feelings of animosity that might be existing. The instances, however, were very few, and he could assure their Lordships that the parties were admitted not as Dissen ters—they were not known to entertain those opinions by the authorities, though one or two of the tutors might be acquainted with the fact. Many took their degrees and became not only members but visitors of the University. They knew that they must comply with all the regulations of the place. They attended the lectures, even the theological lec tures, they attended the chapel, and until they left the Uni versity, it was not known that they—or their family rather, bad been Dissenters. But let them once give the right to admission, and they would reverse the case. It would then be found that the Universities would be made the scene of hos tile discussion, and that only objects of disputation would in terest them. Why did not the Dissenters establish a couple of Colleges for themselves? Would it not be better that they abandoned an attempt in which they must expect to meet with resistance. What prevented them from endowing a Univer sity of their own, and establishing it on the same footing as those of Oxford and Cambridge.—( Hear, and loud cries of " Question.") Lord MELBOURNE in the course of last session voted for a Bill which distinctly bore on the present question, and the object of which was to favour the introduction of Dissen ters into the Universities. Having voted for that Bill clearly and distinctly—having voted for the question in that shape, he would say he by no means agreed with the Right Rev. Prelate who spoke last, that it was desirable for tranquillity, for gious peace, that an attempt should be made to put 0 7, end to the differences which existed between these class-,, s o f hi s Ma jesty's subjects, by the division of the partie-„, by founding dis tinct Universities for them, instead c' ° . inviting them to one place in common, where they . w''jtad probably become united, where the habits of youth ","iid their pursuit of the same studies would probably ex."7"..ise a strong influence over them. He was sorry to gar such a proposition as the establishment of separat- 'Universities proceed from such a quarter.--( Cheers. ) The Bishop of GLOUCESTER said the Noble Lord mis took what he had stated on the subject. He had observed that it was to him a subject of satisfaction that the University to which he belonged had the power of extending the benefits of educa tion to Dissenters, if they chose to accept it, on the conditions which it was considered necessary to impose. Lord MELBOURNE understood the Right Rev. Prelate to say that it would be better for the Dissenters to insti tute Universities of their own than to endeavour to obtain ad mission into the University to which he belonged.--( Hear, hear.) From that opinion he must express his dissent. With respect to the facility afforded by the University of Cambridge to the admission of Dissenters, lie agreed with him ; he knew that it had been productive of great advan tage, and he thought it full time that such liberality was imi tated by the sister University.—( Cheers.) He had listened with great attention to the opinions expressed by the Most Rev. Prelate who stood at the head of the Church. That Most Rev. Prelate said that if the subscription were to he con sidered as an assent to the Thirty-nine Articles—as an ad mission of them after they had been carefully examined— that would be quite absurd; and in that case he should agree in all the censures and animadversions that had been cast on the practice. He also said that the parties were desired to subscribe without a question being asked of them, without any examination on the subject__ without oven the Articles being road to them. If he had warittAl the strongest statement he could get to show the gross absurdity of the practice, he must say he would ask for no stronger one than that made by the Right Rev. Prelate on the present occasion.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Well, then, if it were only a declaration of opinion to the heids of the UM; versity—if it were only a declaration of a willingness to be taught—it it were only a declaration that they were disposed to be instructed in the matter of the articles, why continue a practice evidently so absurd in itself—why, for the sake of pre serving it, submit to so much misrepresentation ? Why main tain that which was liable to be so attacked and complained of as it had been by his Noble Friend ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) The most Rev. Prelate said that the University owed it to itself that it should have proof that those who applied for admission: belonged to the Church of England—that it should have proof that the individual was willing to be taught the doctrine of the Church. But what proof, he would ask, existed in this subscription, as it had been explained by the most Rev. Pre- • late himself ? The Archbishop of CANTERBURY—That was the first - subscription. Lord MELBOURNE—Very well; it was the first sub scription ; then why not part from that ?—( Cheers.) Why not go that length, which was all that was asked on this sub ject ? At least that was absurd, as appeared on the statement of the Most Rev. Prelate himself; and undoubtedly there was a great deal more to be said with respect to the subscription required in the further progress in the University. The Most Rev. Prelate declared, that by pursuing this course the Uni versity was preserved in the true religion of this country; and, above all, it had preserved the Universities from being the scene of polemical controversy.—( Cheers.) Now what was the fact with respect to the tranquillity of these Universities? Both of them had been over and over again disturbed by polemical dis cussion, but particularly Cambridge, which had been agitated is the beginning of the last century.—( Hear, hear, from Lord Holland.) Did not 1710 furnish a celebrated instance ? Was not that respectable individual, Mr. Wilson, a professor, turned out of his University on account of Arian principles ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear," from Lord Holland.) Was not that followed by the controversy between Dr. Waterford and Mr. Middleton, at Oxford ?—( Cheers.) Who did not recollect the great schism which distracted the Church, and from which sprung the great body of Wesleyan Dissenters? It appeared, then, that the repose recommended by the Right Rev. Prelate, it had not been the good fortune of the Universities to enjoy. If to abstain from religious controversy were a virtue, that virtue had unquestionably not been the boast of the Universities in former times. Why, what did Bacon say in his " Novum Organon," in the passage in which he spoke of ecclesiastical controversy? Strepere argumentis, vexare questionibus. Was repose, so desirable at a University ?—( Cheers.) Was nothing at nil taught by the emulation and excitement which controversy produced ?—( Cheering by Lord Holland.) How was inquiry to be stimulated—how was knowledge to be ob tained—so well as by the collision of various and conflicting opinions ?—( Cheers.) Little was his reading in divinity ; but he might refer to those times when these tests originated. If there were ever a man on whom the pure light of know ledge shone, it was Hooker, and what said he? His Lordship observed, he could not find the passage to which he was re ferring, though he had looked for it, but he knew it stood in the Ist book of the Ecclesiastical Polity. In arguing on au occasion when several Dissenters were anxious to have a con ference, he said, " What need is there of appointing a con ference, have you not the University ?" He remembered the passage very well, it thus proceeded, " There are many solemn occasions on which all the questions be tween us and you are brought into dispute ; many of you are members of the Universities, and if, there are any who are not, and who would appear, you well know that by the courtesy of those learned bodies and learned men, you would be received with welcome, and attentively heard."— ( Cheering.) That was the nature and character of the Uni versities of that day. They were open to inquiry ; they courtel investigation ; and sought to defend the faith that was in them by argument.—( Cheering.) They did not seek repose—they did not seek to banish inquiry—they did not claim for them selves a protection against controversy—( Renewed cheering) —but, on the contrary, were ready to dispute with any adver saries who presented themselves. It was stated, and perhaps this was the strongest argument urged against the Bill, that if it were passed perhaps it might not prove effectual, because it was certain that the Universities being inherent in themselves, the power to adopt such regulations as they thought decorous might resolve upon what would be equivalent to the exclusive regulation, which was done away with by this Bill. He could not think, however, that the Universities would so conduct themselves after receiving such an admonition from Parlia ment as this Bill would be considered.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore he could not think it would be ineffectual for the purposes for which it was intended. To legislate for the Universities unnecessarily and wantonly would Es bad; but it was generally admitted that this practice should be to a cer tain degree dispensed with, and he felt pretty certain that they would not dispense with it of themselves. It was for the wisdom of Parliament to prescribe the course on such an oc casion. They were the great public seminaries for education, and their being well directed, the prudence of their conduct, and their freedom from reproach, were matters of great pub lic interest—of great interest to their Lordships and to the whole community. Surely, then, it was the duty of their Lord ships to interpose their authority so as to render those institu tions fully effective. The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that the observa tions of the Most Reverend Prelate had completely put an end to the question. The Bill which the Noble Earl had brought forward was entirely different from that introduced last session. The speech of the Noble Earl, however, and the explanation with which he introduced the measure, showed that his intention was precisely the same with the intention of the promoter of the former Hear.) The Noble Earl's intention—and the Noble Lord at the head of the Go vernment had clearly stated this intention to be also his—was to give the Dissenters a right to enter the Universities. That was the intention of the Noble Earl, and that was the intention of the !'rime Minister. Now had an objection to the Bill of the Noble Earl for the reason stated by tba Most Rev. Prelate. He conceived there was no cause to complain of the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, as practised in the University of Oxford. He would say that the explanation of the Most Rev. Prelate was entirely borne out by the statutes of the University, and likewise by the practice which had pre vailed there. It might be desirable that there should be some other test adopted, in order to prove that the individual claim ing to be matriculated was a member of the Church of Eng land ; but that which was most important at Cambridge and Oxford was, that the person to be matriculated was a member of the Church of England.—( Hear, hear.) That was the point ; and upon that he conceived the whole question turned. The Noble Earl, in his observations, alluded to something that fell from him in the course of the discussion of this question last year, viz., that he advised the most Rev. Prelate not to consent to this Bill, because by such consent they would carry up to the Throne for his Majesty's assent, a measure which would tend to subvert the union between the Church and the State—that argument was neither more nor less than this—that the education of both the Universities must be education in the religion of the Church of England. That was necessary—it was the ver) foundation on which the Uni versities stood. He contended that they could not go to the King with a Bill that had for its object to establish a system of education in the Universities different in principle from the Church of England, without attacking the principle of union between the Church and State. But the Noble Lord said that the Church did not claim from individuals their subscrip tion to the Thirty-nine Articles. True, it did not; nor would the University of Oxford claim the subscription of the Thirty nine Articles, except as evidence that the person was a mem ber of a family who belonged to the Established Church. It was contended last year, and by the Noble Earl this year, that individuals might be admitted into both the Universities who were not members of the Church of England, notwithstanding the subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles. lie admitted • this; but there was a great difference between this and allow ing Dissenters by right to enter the Universities. What he contended for was, that the system of religion taught should be that of the Established Church ; but if Dissenters were ad mitted of right, he was apprehensive that not only would not the religion of the Established Church be taught, but that no religion of any kind would be taught there. He stated this opinion on the authority of a publication, from which it appear ed, that at a College established to teach Ministers of dissent ing persuasions it had been found impossible to adopt any creed, or any system, for any considerable length of timo. He con fessed he was surprised when he heard the Noble Lord the first Minister of the Crown come down to this House, and declare his preference for the existence of polemical disputes in the Universities. He should have tithught the object of a Mini ster of the Crown would haw s - , been, by all means to protect the Universities from alt such disputes, and to preserve any system of religion wtatever from being attacked by differences of opinion.---e ar,hear, hear.) He confessed that it ap peared to I ' ; :,n that the Bill of the Noble Earl, if it had really for its object to prevent the signature of the articles, did not V, far enough for the attainment of the object the Noble Earl had in view. The Noble Earl had not only compared the two Universities with foreign Universities, but also drew a parallel between the practice prevailing at the present day, and that which existed in those two learned bodies shortly after the Reformation. Now, he agreed with the Most Rev. Prelate in contending that no parallel could be drawn between the English and foreign Universities. The sects in the two Uni versities were the children of the Reformation. These sects were most necessary, and were intended to preserve the standard of the religion of the Church of England.--( Hear, hear, hear.) If they were to have no established religion in the country—if every man was to have his own religion iri the Universities—if every man was at liberty to frame a sys tem of religion for himself in these corporations, then let their Lordships take the Bill of the Noble Earl with all its consequences, which must inevitably follow from it, namely, cJastant polemical disputes, and all the other consequences which the Noble Viscount stated was the preferable mode of governing the Universities. They had a right to expect that the Noble Viscount, and the other Noble Lords on the bench opposite, would support inviolate the rights, the authority, and the privileges of the Universities, as granted and conferred by ancient charters. Instead of this, however, they found the Ministers of the Crown exercised their might and in fluence and abilities in support of this measure, which had for its object the overthrow of the institutions and authority of the English Church.—( Cheers.) The Noble Viscount shook his head, apparently in dissent from his opinions; but did the Noble Viscount think that the University of Oxford could maintain its authority if such a Bill as this became the law of the land ? On what, he would ask, was the preamble of this Bill grounded, and the charges embodied in it ? Have any of these charges been proved ? Notwithstanding the complaints made in the preamble that individuals had been prevented from resorting to the University of Oxford, in consequence of their tests, was it not an admitted fact that at that moment there were hundreds waiting to obtain education, and to be admitted to reside in the Halls and , d Colleges of that University ? There were many h u ndr ed t persons now residing in the town w ho were unable . get re si- t :, Syr