The Sun. — London, England, 1834-04-18 00:00:00

thiswith resp ect to this test, there could not be a dou b t ; b ut as well as the other articles were now imposed on all person s seeking degrees, whether' to become chnrehnien or not. Such a proceeding he held to be decidedly objection , able, and he hoped the house would consider i an requi r i ng to be rectified. It had been asserted that it would be dangerous to re move th ose t es t s , because the consequence . would be, the admission of dissenters to the universities_, Sir t.,he right hon. baronet, the member for Tamworth ( r;' r '' Peel) had professed himself alarmed lest scholar s-Ts and other ' university honours should be given to im proper persons. He (Colonel Will ever, the consequence would be, Williams) thought, how that still proper A After moret hlt- Persons would be admitted than at Prese nt ' h e lti ." . had been made which he advocated, the tests would . In Tosed on people who had some consciences,.. which wer • ms e now in many instances violated in submitting to these '' .3t S' .Indeed the grievances arising from t e restrictions veleere very generally felt, and even complained h of by many IvVinen of the established church. It had been put for aru in a document issued by the Associated Clergy re in_ :P' 7 B2, that the Thirty-nine Articles were not, in evera od ; e_iet, consonant with and - agreeable to the word of ' 44 1 if this opinion was uttered by churchmen, was it to be wondered at that dissenters should be unwillinoansuybsperir.nb_e the ' ° ? These tests could not be defended uponlf James i the e t . i i P_ l e which stood in the way of . their . repeal. Fir st acted on his own authority in impo . sing them, what was t a . here to prevent the present Sovereign from . exerting lli s e un pls :r eedi PoA n ' g er in their repeal ? It hid been objected that in the present motion should have beenm t he i form of a bill, and not of an address. Such an . objec tionll was merely technical, and for his part,. if the proposi ,WaS fairly entertained, he had no particular attachment -,, either form of proceeding. Mr * BUCKINGHAM seconded the motion. to the effect, ~.'ilart.. the e OOD rose to move an amendm privileges of the Universities be granted anted toh i i n s 4Nesty's subjects generally, without any tests, degrees dtt'ilv°o!yal.one excepted." The house would see best how His amendment was founded ° dispose of the two motions.. on the simple and natural right of all his Majesty's subjects gene to enj y equal advantages. This was a right so O bvio r us all ,"and a - p o r - opo - sition so unanswerable, that he would not weaken its force by urging anything in its support It may be asked, if it was so obvious, why had a different practice h sO long was easy een co_ntinued? The answei Y and ready. When non conformity was looked tiaras as a c • tural that M in e: , *sed by the law, it was na and so stigmatised th N at should abstain from complaint, when, by complaint, they would but convict themselves. ( o H n f e ar o . -) ZnitYf ° advantag would be gained by the avowdmofwnho made , When the announcement ex to , avowal to difficulties. But when r h i ed -colo ted rm w it ,h y i c e e h as had ed bee °e Penal, the same toleration should gr The religious , 4 .ganted with regard to the legislature. t-oolikyiet.ion of an individual made no difference now with regard „..,''s civil privileges, and why should it make any difference l' e lt h.regard to education 9 Why should not the seats of to all? There was no toleration, f a rn .. ing be equallopen a Y portion of community were excluded from those P i le% where the rewards of learning were received. But this was i . as an evil not merely theoretical ;it was productive O ! much practical injury to the professions of law and phy- Ireland or Scotland, and why, then, make England the Neption ? The rewards of successful study should be ° Pen to all aspirants. This was a quest i on which had, in I t Yery high degree, attracted much public attention, and a them ost in with respect t o it had been forwarded by some of ie distinguished mem b ers o f an English University. attended the debate on that petition—he expressed his taPprohation] of it, and thanked its framers for the posi 2°n in which they had placed the question. He would til it now reply to the ,arguments which had been urged in h e e a . i re against the measure, but in urging it forward he tan'-- as e to say, that he was not prompted by any sec an views, or any feelings hostile to the Church of Eng d• ng oliohe public, tifyiPassing - of the measure would be highly gra tOilf th e h ouse and add considerably to the popularity His proposition contemplated no change . in in e t i,'""de of His degrees of divinity, nor any alteration ;:t ..e courses of study ; it only sought access for all to the r'"ileges which the universities were empowered to con blish Without meaning anything injurious to the esta brit 'nem, he would move, " That leave be given to the-g. lent, a bill t grant his Majesty's subjects, generall, equalgut of admis o sion to the English Universities, and of 1 el igibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their Iversities o f - • • • • degrees in divinity alone exc epted „ religious opinions , Arr. i , Q kuch • ---'TCOURT felt the question to be one of so !n i t hclatteler:ost, that he would offer no apology for trespass the time of the house. The effect of the °n th ur e would be to introduce dissenters, and even there, whicl, t i_N i nt, his objections began. The university . v . vi h educes had the ho o to be connected placed religious foremost position ; and if persons of t•dleseraridtei:netthse very li ur indi_gsl;.in, rod liiilea:l o w v, "ere . adm *ted how could that object be . uld it the , doctrines of the church of maintained in the universities, if they were It theirdegrees in op di en vis t n o ity persons of every dissenting form ? t e 0 be that person would enter not at first intending who would afterwards change t heology ; and then' who would afterwards change theolotttitlOns; and then there should be professors of di saea fY for person s of every dissenting persuasion, or else k y atte‘ebrsdirud be compe ll ed to violate their consciences, ums. I f til lec tures at variance with their own persua sition would 's were not the case, the object of the prcipo- To this he g° ld t° do away with all religious education. l th ose wou pose himself, and he was certain al the attached to the chur h as established, would oppose W ould chaltge • The nd of such a measure as that proposed it h ad be most injurious e to the church of England. And th a ll t a d been avowd by two hon. members in _tha ta t te h , ou a s n e d that the object was to separate the church and o s_ _ bject was 40 1tehi ev th e( e l Y . would never rest sat ed up Here the honourable isfi m ember read an extract 2 , i ' to a letter the name of the writer of which he did not — ,,, y e. , but whom he characterised as one of the ablest men tthe dissenting body. The extract commented on the itionselating to this question which had been laid _:ii•e the house, saying that the petitioners went on too . 113 -lystill ' avowing th . c desire to . separate the church a ° ln the state, and expressing a conviction that that great -4,1 glorious object would be eventually accomplished. It I T'ild not (continued the hon. member) be doubted, that rlb t i he imposition before the hous were concurred in, the w, - ; ll p, ° b L ieet of these establisl7ments--religious education— aside ue r im a bo,lished, and the utility of the universities set Pa o 'nl3hlet n°l 2• member then read an extract from a to show that the founders of the universities e t , Jisildered them of no avail, unless the worship of God and religious education were considered primary jects ; and ti i r' , that h e knew from his own observation ob the benefi in viesequences which followed from keeping these objects tio,,,atY'• C OUld he therefore consent to the proposed in- Ti,, l c ? , and that without satisfactory reason being given? soluphtissenters had no absolute want of the privileges ioZ ,_for them. They had their own places of educa eTi, '''''d it A-ould be madness to accede to the proposition. di P l aints - t•lssenter %%ere made of the great hardship . inflicted on ',l 4 Yin g s i ' 0 consequence of the necessity for persons ° th en aw er Physic to obtain degrees, order to , en- In probation and Practi e to certain advantages in the . 'rell t ? Of these professions. But did that arise from the foss.'le wa:?; ;A of the universities ? Certainly not. The d i ot s --'. down by the governing bodies in those pro ts'ent:rald it would be much more reasonable in the ti ' le re t ' ol ° , a eal,.l upon them to alter their regulations than H s i, ri a tnred a ' nainent for the purpose of breaking through lip- , iiiv er _. . 4 (1 highly important institutions of the Eng_ t there nt ies• ( Hear, hear.) Another argument was 'we restri cts e xisted no necessity for the imposition nnPn kad re not ? in ns at Oxford and Cambridge, which thi s trei,,, Posed by the universities of Scotland ;I's ail, - " -L • But the hon. member, in advancing ' ll e i: e( l ' tlir n a t t ' forbore te to state,. t what made all the differ rsi es residence was not re- IN l4s truct'; lor was there un y ive theological education, religious ,' ae-it'.'l fo rming no an - part of these institutions. He lit to „ uut lookwith some alarm on the spirit of hosti kai__ the ~,,,__ re 6,3"A . t p a :. 'u hof England, which seemed so prevalent the •geular classes. Yet, on other hand, he he th e iereatest confidence in the good seense and firmness g e e l 'ad tl e le lui ?" of the established church generally. ; and .. tl nt, and ..est authority for stating, that a large, inteiii 14 1 Y, o f d'illtillential portion of dissenters—not one, but_ n evi o e most res table sects--agreed with him i ' l l4 g, th . Pee t b. rch , w at, in the maintenance of . the . esta blished .n c h 's co utt as based the preservation of religious liberty i P-o; 1 11 h -. Of (Hear. ) He called on the members of the im e t 'ect e d gland in that house, and on those members ap"ln h e w ith the reectable classes of dTsenters, essi vg ad alluded, to join with him in resisting these 4 r ll : el ' , au t i a l_ el- npta on the security of established_th m e .ason neces oth•fe; and Nvill_i,iegative a proposition which IV °lih t to t TI, on that ground alone, st o , • 1..t5,,....0e rejected.—(Hear, hear.) _ were there no ilu a '',, the t en 'liN GTON said, that if he rightly under asskk had °f the speech of the right. hon. gentle r C IJust sat down, that hon. gentleman n he -gla nd t tlq admission of dissenters tothe Universities iNcwerth r would inVolve-as on uavoidable conseqnenc_ , siil e t, st r l' a v `, and destruCtiOn of the established church, giss e - 'n that-gelY enough he concluded by declaring his t he - et " t ers o f th arge and ' most respectable portion of the the t abli s h , s realm were not only not hostile to nkatigteatest e a at' but would regard its fall as one of w k , ,01.4,1 ealatnities ossible. How the hon. gentle t'elf.,7leteolz,*alieeolsOcile these two contradictory statements ~Y of t ‘t'd d es .", and, perhaps, more than the house "reed ''''e til,-erroine. Without entering into the it bya,f , that 'versifies it was a fact on whiCh they were all k ets q i. th eY were great public institutions, supported th ern of Rislature ; their privileges and rights secured senti t „ b Y h a e 4 '; ; Possessing advantages conferred upon au 1 -6 tO ad 'egislatur t others that of -re 'l°w . mongs , C thcfics th. - : On,sequ en „ stills in the hands of Roman a t 1ti,;1141,,,e."Y subject to the control and regulation of lead , lv 'ettier ( Hear, hear.) The question to be decided the,. : with i,.; th existing moment, they could not ex- se ht - °lstitt,`";•eat advantage; - the spheres Of usefulness of ,ver. ethrsrto thellZiiv arid.vhether, by the admission of dis k! ling ersities, they would incur any danger of hiisi'lgreed v',l4l,ne church of England, as it now existed? hi, ,ed chtirch'n the hon. member, in hoping that the estal hr,„` ° Nial s , would remain unchanged • and in giying -,est e ollv .Pl?ort to the present motion, ' he did so on the fiction t hat, so far from exposing the church to --~....~ any danger, or. the slightest chance of change, it would, by rendering those institutions capable of receiving into their bosom every class of Christians, have the effect of softening down any ill feenig that might possibly exist to wards the church, and would draw closer the bonds of union and concord between Christians of every denomina tion. (Hear, hear.) How was it now, if a dissenter wished to send his child to Oxford? The door was stint against him at the threshold. The first thing required, even from a youth of sixteen years of age, was to subscribe the thirty-nine articles—articles which he never had the means of understanding, and which, perhaps, till then he had not even seen ; and to these he was required to put his signature. (Hear.) He deprecated the signature of these articles, as much on behalf of the members of the church of England, as on behalf of the dissenters. (Hear.) He thought it a solemn mockery. He thought it an undue compulsion practised on human conscience. (Cheers.) He thought it an absurdity, because, to suppose that boys of 16, 17, or 18, were competent to understand these articles, ' or to form a mature opinion on them, when the wisest, the most learned, the most religious men that had ever adorned this kingdom, had ever expressed doubts and dif ficulties as to their meaning, was one of the most mon strous propositions he had ever heard. (Loud cheers. ) This, then, was the bar to the admission of the dissenter at Oxford ; and surely it was no small hardship on the wealthy dissenter, setting aside the question of degrees, that his son should be debarred from sharing in the studies, , education, and discipline of_ those with whom he was, in after life, to be associated, perhaps even in the legislature of this country. And to whom was this privilege refused ; were not the dissenters good and loyal subjects? Why, it was to the Protestant dissenters that this country was in debted (under God) for the establishment of the house of Hanover on the throne of these realms. To the Univer sity of Cambridge the dissenter might be admitted ; but what an admission it was ! He might attend the profes sors ' • he might go through a painful and laborious course of academical discipline • he had every opportunity of se cretly disseminating the poison of her principles ; but when the hour came for reaping the fruits of his labours— when honours and degrees were conferred on the indus trious student, he saw those with whom he was associated receive that reward, whilst he was turned away from the bosom of that institution where he had contracted his young friendships, with all the bitter feeling of a man who knew that his talent could not be denied, nor his moral conduct, yet on whom was fixed the indelible stigma of rejection, because he had the presumption to worship God upon the pure dictates of his own conscience. (Hear.) What were the difficulties in the way of admission of dissenters? It was said that the universities embraced a religious as well as a literary education. But he asked his hon. friend, was there any reason why the professors of divinity should cease to ply their labours, because dis senters entered the university ? Was it not rather a reason for increasing their exertions, more especially when there existed so strong a rivalry towards them on the part of the dissenting professors? But then it was said, • What are we to do with dissenters ?" Why should they do anything with them ? Surely there was no necessity for any attempt to inculcate on dissenters the peculiar doc trines of the church of England, any more than they need omit on that account to instruct the members of the church of England in the doctrines of that establishment. He did not know that the habits of the collegians had much altered since the days when he was more intimately ac quainted with them. But he believed that now, up to this time, the daily attendance of chapel, except on Sun days, was little more than nominal. (" No," from some members.) Hon. members might say no, but he believed that he had good warrant for saying that chapel attendance at the universities might generally be translated " absence. " If, however, it were considered necessary to academical education discipline, to enforce chapel attendance on all students there was no reason why the dissenter should not attend his own place of worship, leaving the members of the established church to their own observances. When he remembered that the great wealth of the original foun ders of these institutions was bestowed by the Roman Ca tholics for the maintenance of that religion, and that it was afterwards, by act of Parliament, transferred to the pro testants, he could not see the slightest reason for exclu ding the dissenters from an university education, on the ground of the intentions of the original founders. With regard to what had been advanced with reference to the professions of physic and law, he saw no reason why the dissenters should, as proposed, waste their efforts in vain endeavours to prevail on the college of physicians, or the benchers of the inns of court, to alter their rules, instead of applying at once to the universities, the fountains of those distinctions of which they complained. He should give his best support to any measure that would have the effect of diminishing the distance which separated the church from dissenters, because he conceived that the pro motion of good will and friendly feeling between all classes and denominations of Christians, was of the utmost impor tance to the general well being of the whole frame of soci ety. (Hear. ) Mr. GOULBURN said the house stood at present in a very peculiar situation, having before it two motions, each affecting deeply the interests of the universities, and differ ing entirely from one another in substance as well as in form. They had, moreover, a speech from the hon. and learned gentleman, vklio professed to support one, or both motions, in which he took a view, differing very widely in many respects, from the views of the proposer of the motion. Few gentlemen who had the good fortune to hear the speech of the hon. member who introduced the motion would, he thought, after that, be inclined to sup port it ; or, if he supported it, would, at least, not support it on the grounds which he advanced. That hon. gentle man thought it right to correct the errors of James I. and Elizabeth, and one of his means of doing so was the alJo lition of a declaration, required at Cambridge from per sons taking degrees, that they were bond fide members of the Church of England, which was not imposed till 1772. He had a strong feeling against both the motions of the hon. members for Lancashire and Ashton, but he had not the slightest hesitation in giving his vote against that of the hon. member for Ashton. He would now come to the motion of the hon. member for Lancashire, who relied very much on a petition presented from certain individuals of the University of Cambridge. With regard to that peti tion, he should reserve himself, and he requested the house to reserve its opinion, till he should have the opportunity of presenting an opposite petition, con taining an authentic record of the opinions of a large body of the resident members of that university, nowise inferior to the other petitioners in rank, talent, or liberality of sentiment. (Hear, hear.) The hon. mem ber for Lancashire grounded great part of his argument on the fact, that the universities were national establishments, and he concluded that they should be thrown open to all persons who chose to enter them. But he would ask the hon. member, was not the church also a national establish ment ? (Hear.) And ought not the hon. member, in consistency, to propose that, as the church was a national establishment, that also should be thrown open to all? and that not only degrees in divinity should be conferred upon the dissenters, but that they should share in all the emolu ments and advantages which, under the present constitu tion of the church, were confined to the establishment ? (Hear.) If the dissenters were entitled to share in the honours of the universities, there was no reason why they should not share in their emoluments. The hon. member appeared to him to be a little inconsistent in his statements. He proposed that all religious observances should remain as they were. But how would the dissenters like this ? How would they like the compulsion of attending the observances, and submitting to the discipline of a religion from which they differed? The hon. member seemed to intimate dissent, but he (Mr. G.) had taken his exact words, viz., " That there should be no change in the course of study, and that all the religious exercises at pre sent observed should be continued." One of the objects of the bill, therefore, comprised the attendance of the stu dents at the theological lectures. Mr. G. W. WOOD denied that he had said anything about theological lectures, and protested against the lan guage he had used being made to bear the strained con struction put upon it by the hon. member. (Hear. ) Mr. GOULBURN—The hon. member said that dis senters should adopt the system of education now pursued at the University. It was contended, that because the rights and privileges of the universities had been secured by acts of Parliament, that because the legislature had confirmed their title to the privileges and property which they possessed, it had on that account a right to deal with them as it thought proper. It surely was a very curious argument, that because parliament had confirmed a pre existent right, it would, therefore destroy it. By admission to the honours of the University, the dissenters would ob tain a share in the governing power. By Act of Parlia ment is given to the governing power of the Protestant universities the right of presenting to adiowsons possessed by one class of dissenters, viz., Roman Catholics; and yet by the act now proposed, the precaution thus established would be entirely overthrown, and to dissenters would be given the power of appointing to the livings and benefices of the church establishment. ( Hear, hear. ) If the object of the universities was merely the advancement of litera ture, he might not have been so very scrupulous, but he felt that the system of education pursued at these univer sities was the only system which it became a legislature to encourage—viz., knowledge combined with religion. Thus, and thus only, was instruction sanctified, and thus only could they hope to correct the evils which too frequently spring from knowledge unaccompanied by religion. (Hear, hear.) He denied that the attendance at chapel was nominal. It was anything but what it hadbeen often compared to, a mere roll call. The conduct of the youths who attended on those occasions, was such as everyman must approve, and he doubted not that to most a source of ofthein,the de privation of that sacred privilege would be great dissatisfaction and grief. The hon. and learned member asserted that the University of Cambridge treated dissen ters with peculiar severity ; that it opened to them all the avenues to learning ; that it gave them every facility for obtaining instruction in all the various depart ment s of hu manknowledge ; but that when they had arrived to that point at which they might reasonably expect the honours. due to high literary attainment, those honours were un justly refused them. But let him call the attention of the lion. and learned gentleman to the consideration of what would be the fate of the dissenters, if, unfortunately, the bill proposed by the hon. member for Lancashire should pass into a law. If a clever, able young man, introduced into the bosom of the university, but entertaining religious opinions different from (,those of the Church of England, were called upon—as the bill proposed•by the hon. member for Lancashire would call upon him—to join in the public worship prescribed by the church, in what situation of punishment would he be placed? It was true that the education at the university was not confined to lectures, and that no student not intended for holy orders was com pelled to attend certain theological courses. But still religious opinions did form a part of the university ex amination. Since he had last addressed the house he had obtained a copy of one of the examination papers, and he found in the examination on the Gospels, this question— " Can you rescue the following passages from the Calvinist, the Presbyterian, and the Papists' interpretation of them ?" Now, did the hon. member for Lancashire think that to put such a question to the young dissenter would contri bute to the concord of the university ? He was sure that, if the experiment were tried, it would fail. He did not believe they could admit dissenters into the university as such, unless they previously abolished all religious obser vances. He had in his hand a copy of the London Uni- Persity Calendar, the introduction to which was attributed to a noble and learned lord in another place. And he would read from that introduction a passage, in order to show what the opinion of the founders of the London University was as to the practicability of such a plan a s that now proposed. The passage was as follows :—" The capital is the most convenient situation for all those young men who are sent from the country for education, on ac count of the greater probability of their finding connections interested in their welfare, and greater facilities for adopt ing a style of living suited to their circumstances. But it was also felt, that in a country where the people embrace so many different opinions in matters of religion, an uni versity which should be open to persons of all persuasions, must be so constituted as to avoid any possible interference with religious belief. The universities of Oxford and Cambridge supply ample opportunities for the education of the clergy of the established church. It is manifestly im possible to provide a course of professional education for the ministers of religion of those congregations who do not be long to the established church. It is equally impossible to institute theological lectures for the instruction of lay stu dents of different religious persuasions, which would not be liable to grave objections; still less (say the able founders of the London University) is it practicable to introduce any religious observances that would be generally complied with. In the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the students removed from the superintendence of their parents and guardians are placed in colleges, or new domestic esta blishments, where it is necessary that religious instruction should be provided. When students do not reside within the walls of the university, but live in the houses of their parents or guardians; or, in the case of those who come from a distance, live in houses selected by their friends, with such precautions for the safety of their morals and of their religious opinions as will naturally be adopted on the occasion, no such provision is required. The religious education of the pupils, therefore, must, in such circum stances, be left to domestic superintendence, being the same provision which at present exist for that important object in all cases except those of under-graduates at Oxford and Cambridge during their residence in college." From all' these considerations, it appeared to him to be as clear as day, that if they admitted dissenters and sectarians of every description to the universities, with out a previous declaration of their adherence to the church of England, they must bind themselves to abstain from all religious discipline and observances. Now, in his opi nion, if there was one fact more indisputable than another, it was, that education without religion was pregnant only with evil. If any confirmation of this fact was requisite, let them look to the learned men of other countries. It had been too frequently the reproach of the learned men of other countries, that however eminent in science, in litera ture, and in arts, they were not only deficient in religious feeling, but were the most active propagators of infidelity. But let the house look at the English universities, and they would there find that the men the most distinguished for their learning and science were also the most distinguished for their sound divinity. Let them look back only at the last two years, and see what zeal and assiduity had been manifested by the ablest men at our universities, to show the necessary connection between the progress of science and the progress of religious knowledge. And after such a proof of the benefit of the existing system, ought they to turn round upon the universities, and declare that to that system there should be an end? He would not trespass on the house'any further. He was at a loss to know what course would be adopted by his Majesty's Government on the occasion. They might concur either in the motion of the hon. member for Ashton, or in the motion of the hon. member for Lancashire. If they did, and if either of these motions should be successful, the consequence, in his mind, would be the ruin of the system under which the universi ties had hitherto existed with such great national benefit— a system which had advanced the national glory—which had maintained the national safety, and which, if persevered in, would tend, under the blessing of Providence, to pre serve the institutions, to redound to the honour, and to in crease the prosperity of the country. (Hear, hear. ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had no hesitation in declaring, that with respect to the principle on which edu cation ought to be conducted in our universities, he per fectly concurred in every word contained in the petition from the University of Cambridge, which, in his opinion, embodied, in the most moderate and clear terms, the soundest argument in favour of a system equally advan tageous to the interests of learning and of religion. It - had been said that no necessity had been made out for such a measure as that now proposed. His answer was, that the necessity for continuing the existing restrictions ought to be shown by those who were its advocates. They ought to show why those who were desirous of enjoying all the advantages of an education at the University, should not be permitted to do so, and should not be allowed to receive all the honours due to superior literary and scientific at tainment, and yet follow the dictates of their own con science in religious matters. (Hear, hear.) It was but a few years ago that no man could be promoted to the rank of a general in the army, without previously declaring himself a member of the Church of England. That re striction had been abolished. He (Lord John Russell) held that the same principle was applicable to the subject under the consideration of the house. The right hon. member for the University of Cambridge had introduced the confusion into his argument, that because the Church of England was national, therefore universities, which were national, must be also exclusively Church of Eng land. The distinction, however, was clear and obvious. The honours and degrees of the universities were civil, not ecclesiastical distinctions. (Hear, hear, hear.) Un doubtedly church preferments were of a different cha racter ; and before they were conferred, an inquiry ought to be made whether the person on whom - they were to be conferred entertained opinions conformable to those of the Church of England. But when a man asked for a degree, it was to certify his proficiency, not in theo logy, but in arts, in law, or in physic, with none of which had his religious opinions anything to do. They had no more right to inquire into his religious opinions, under such cir cumstances, than they would have to examine a person ap pointed to a bishopric as to his medical or legal opinions. (A laugh.) He should not have been so much surprised to hear the opinions which had been expressed by the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge, if he had been the member for the University of Oxford, because dissenters never having been admitted into the latter University, an impression might have existed that difficul ties would stand in the way of admitting them without interfering with the religious discipline of the University. But in the University of Cambridge all those difficulties had long been surmounted. Dissenters had been freely admitted into that University. At the present moment the son of the Earl of Surrey, and many other dissenters, were at the University of Cambridge. With respect, therefore, to the arguments of the right hon. gentleman, although it would be easy to meet them by arguments, they were best met by the facts which proved that no practical inconvenience had resulted from the admission of dissenters into the University of Cambridge. The only difficulty was when they were about to leave the Univer sity. They were then told, that although they had been there for three or four years, and although they had ac quired what proficiency soever they might in the various studies of the University, and had adhered with what re gularity soever they might to the regulations of the Uni versity, they should not receive the degree to which their proficiency in knowledge and their good sense fully en titled them. (Hear, hear.) He would not enter again into the historical question connected with the subject, except to observe that the hon. member for the town of Cambridge was perfectly right in the construction which he had put upon the letter of James the First. The fact was, that by the reformation in this country, and by the Edict tiNantes, in France, there was at the beginning of the 17th century no denial of a degree at any of the universities of either country on the score of religious opinions. But it was asked what good could result from the change pro posed ? He was surprised at the question. He was sur prised at it when he recollected that the Protestant dis- , senters were among the warmest defenders of the house of Hanover—that they were among the most loyal of the King's subjects—that they had mainly contributed to the establishment of the constitution of this country, and that at the present moment they were actively engaged in in culcating religious principles into vast numbers of the people in the manufacturing districts, who were unap proachable by the Church of England. But it was con stantlyffponcowhedEngland.raeotnrufa nteiahtt assertedie n e yde harshnessomvwhich hiNmtd‘ . t h h nhnmy a og t tbi l nxi e t pno, h l dissenters otgoo e asnftffswhgepo s belonged rotandlhi ettghmtocieh give re learninginrhd ' no e mi etrffeemeeea means churchmen? eaa sour nes?nnr edtse vot:hfai diminishing shy d me:onv i oi narrow minded, rhu:noiri not ncos ghy - ts o e u n .h d i e e a h v o e u h r u r t e o hin g e e t n rid an o d f i t s h en e t e tt t v, e . eillreettoft.o om aptut it a I t feeling o en ter_ %Ain ? Would that not be productive of good? In his opi nionermoofrtehheighunl(rehresitthieosu,gthhteomf t o h re e a e n a learning s Ye.harTachty e it would be as great a goo d as could be conferred on andthe c o o f u t n h t e r he was that the dissenters should share in the benefits of , those institutions. To admit them to those benefit would be to increase their learning;to 'abate their • s • . hostility to the church, to augment their religious tolerance ; while he could not conceive a single evil that would diminish the advantage. (Hear. ) Sir ROBERT INGLIS observed, that the noble lord who had just sat down had stated his entire concurrence in the prayer of the petition which had been presented from certain members of the University of Cambridge. In his ( Sir R. Inglis's) opinion, however, an acquiescence in the prayer of that petition would completely destroy the existing character of the English Universities. As to the proposed bill, if it were agreed to, still the dissenters would be compelled to swear to the su premacy of the King, and to take the oath of alle giance. If the right to be admitted to the privileges of the Universities were a right of birth, why should the Jews be excluded from them ? If 'dissenters were to be freely ad mitted, how could the doctrines of the Theological Pro fessors remain distinct and definite ? Was the tutor occa sionally to yield to his pupil ? The grounds on which the supporters of the proposition proceeded might, as his right hon. friend the member for the University of Cambridge had observed, be rendered equally available for the destruc tion of all the rights of property. The rights of the Uni versities were established by law. If Parliament could abrogate those rights, then parliament could abrogate all other rights which were established by law. It had been stated by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, that the thirty-nine articles were signed by youths at the age of sixteen, when they were wholly ignorant of their character and import; but who was to blame for this ignorance? Surely the fault would not be charged on the Universities ; they did not require that a youth of sixteen should subscribe these tests. Those who ought to be blamed were the pa rents of the youth, or his tutor, for allowing one so ignorant to attach his name to such a heavy and responsible docu ment. He had on a former occasion stated, on the autho rity of a tutor of great experience and acknowledged cha racter, that of 400 young men who had matriculated at college, nineteen out of every twenty were well acquainted with the principles of theology when they entered—more thoroughly, he believed, than he and his learned friend (Dr. Lushington) were when together in early life they prosecuted their studies in the same university. Was it meant to excite in these hitherto quiet and peaceable re sorts angry polemical discusiion—to make the universities the arena for bitter controversial argument—that the young men who were ardently pursuing their useful and virtuous labours, humbly endeavouring to obtain God's blessings on their efforts—was it meant, he asked, that these ennobling studies should be wholly perverted—that they should give place to religious rancour—that calvinist should be set against arminian, papist against churchman, baptist against socinian—was it meant that the venerable seats of learning and of piety should be converted into a theatre for such discussions as these, far estranged as they were from sound learning and religious education—that they should derogate to the mere arena, not for the lessons of experience and polemic truth, but for crude disputations on christian doc trines and dogmas? He would not again go into the sub ject of the original grants to the universities, but would merely state, that by far the greater part of the bequests came from members of the church of England, and that those bequests were intended to be identified, not merely with the religion itself of the church of England, but with its forms and services. In the endowment of a college which had been erected within the memory of several persons—Downing College, Cambridge—there was an express stipulation that it was intended to be identified with the established religion of the land—even in this age of light and reason, as some gentlemen were so frequently delighted to call it—this had been done. And by what right could they now require this College, thus founded for specific purposes, thus identified with a specific reli gion, to throw open its advantages to all sects and par ties ? On what ground of right or reason could they ask this college to compromise its character, its principles, actually its independence, by opening the door to persons of all religions or of no religion at all ? When the hon. gentleman opposite described the universities as national, he seemed to forget, or at all events he did not go into, the peculiarities which distinguished the grants of fellowships and scholarships which were in the great majority of in stances bequeathed to the relatives of the founders, to the inhabitants of the parish in which he had been born, or in which he lived, or perhaps himself received the first glean ings of a stinted education, or to the counties, or to the dioceses in which the prelates themselves (many most bounteous benefactors to after ages) had held their holy ministrations. In no single instance that could be traced of an original gift would the endowment be found to be otherwise than for the maintenance of religion, and specially for the advantage of some certain locality. Admitting even that the entire property had been originally bestowed by Parliament, would they disturb that property after an uninterrupted settlement of it for three centuries past, and that without even an allegation of an abuse of trust, would they, he asked, without a charge being brought against them, withdraw it from their hands, he would say the untainted hands, in which it was now placed ? It had been said by the noble lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, and as sumed as an argument in his favour, that one would never think of examining a bishop in the principles of law, or the practice of physic ; and to that he readily answered, that physic and law might not be essential, but they all knew that religion was essential (Cheers), that it was not only essential for their own good as individuals—for their own peace and their own comfort, but essential for the good of their common country—for their good here and hereafter ; it was essential to them all, that they might be:" wise unto salvation." And therefore was it that he would have the youth of the universities brought up in one common faith. And how was this to be done, if not one word was to be said to them on the subject of religion, or on matters of daily conduct, or of the rule and faith of life ? It should never be forgotten, that they were not prohibiting dissenters, they were only requiring that in an institution which .had been peculiarly consecrated to the service of religion, that religion should still be becomingly observed. He implored them not to desecrate those walls by the introduction of men of all religions or of none, who would make the universities the arena of turbulent discus sion, and make a desert where they had found peace ; or deprive them of that faith and hope which the religion of God so benignantly gave to all who required it ; and who so much as the youth of tender age, subject to so many and such strong temptations ? He implored them not to consent to a measure which would deprive the country of that succession of Christians and good subjects which it had been the high honour and privilege, and he might say, the boast of these venerable institutions. (Hear, and loud cries of " Question.") Colonel TORRENS next rose, but the opposition was so great that the gallant officer at once resumed his seat. Mr. ORD (we believe) attempted to address the house, and was most enthusiastically greeted. It was impossible, amidst the noise and confusion of the scene, to report what was uttered with any thing like confidence ; but we under stood the hon. member to support the amendment, on the ground that no person should have his feelings wounded by belonging to an inferior and degraded class. Mr. 31. D. HILL rose, and the confusion w as aga i n renewed. We understood the hon. member to say, that at the outset of life he had been denied, from the religious principles professed by his family, the inestimable ad vantages of a college education • and he confessed th a t hi s feelings of regret had never been greater than on that evening, when he had heard the question discussed with such talent and intelligence, by men who could boast of their connection with the University. (Question, question.) The right hon. gentleman opposite had talked of the pain to which the Dissenters were put in having to take the oath of allegiance, but he (Mr. Hill) really never heard of its being considered a grievance by them, and he rather thought, if history were correctly studied, it would be found that they had been on certain occasions much more willing to subscribe that oath than the learned body which was so ably reppesented by the right hon. baronet (Sir R. Inglis). He would beg leave to remind the right hon. baronet that that learned body had been enlightened on this subject--not by polemical discussion—not by casuistry, but rather, as he (Mr. Hill) thought, by the appearance of General Carpenter and a troop of horse—an assistance which never yet was wanted to prove the loyalty and the allegiance of the dissenting body of England. Although he fully agreed with the right hon. baronet, that there was a large body of the dissenters favourable to the church establishment—truth compelled him to declare that, so far from that body increasing, it was gradually decreasing, and if they wished to restore the feel ing amongst them which so happily existed some years ago, they would only hope to do it by throwing open all distinc tions, and by doing away with all those petty and irritating differences --more irritating, perhaps, because they were petty—which at present existed between the dissenters and the church of England. (Question. ) Mr. BAINES proceeded to address the house in support of the bill. It had been erroneously stated that the greater, number of the colleges had been founded previously to the Reformation. This he denied. Of the sixteen colleges in Cambridge, twelVe were founded before the Reformation ; and of the nineteen colleges in Oxford, thirteen were in existence before the reign of Henry the Eighth. By the original statutes, they were open to all ; therefore, in con sequence of the present exclusive system, they were op posing the intentions of the original founders. The dispo sition of the dissenters at the present day was to conciliate the church of England by all possible means, and to meet its wishes in every respect. This feeling was fully mani fested the other evening on the noble lord (Althorp's) te t i l i t ooi oneeTptys pro on test The e h u o hid n f st u o itooo l r ntdna. wishh againstgca of oevtnr commutation t a m : ote reciprocity a ucallircn t peto i ghrocnonfotsrni ofcontinuance arl a sue odsnf t pes i ca sitduenhcsdaeohumsfo: on the amid tehthnlhmeancetupe fairindulgence. hhe oseuie(ns ne tpe: Question.lrltabrs y uyubsptot t t eui h tomnh e v de n .); when strangers were ordered to withdraw. DPring our absence from the gallery, we understood tolonel Williams withdrew his motion, 'hen the 'amendment of the hon member for Spill tincolnihire of course stood as a sub stantiire Motion, on which the house proceeded to divide. For Mr. Wood's motion 185 Against it Majority . l4 ll Leave was then given to bring in the On our re a d m i ssion i nto t h e ga ll ery we found that the second reading of the Hotise Tax Repeal Bill was post pone 4 till Monday next. §ir JAMES GRAHAM brought in a bill to regulate pensions, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday next. Lord Althorp's bill for the commutation of tithe in Eng landl and s d ec W op al ci e t s inlo was read a first time, and or d ere d to be on Monday three weeks. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at twenty minutes past one. HER MAJESTY'S DRAWING-ROOM. The Queen held a drawing-room yesterday afternoon at the palace at St. James's. The Duchess of Kent came in s's.fe to the palace (with two carriages) withal) escort from the Royal Horse Guards. Her Royal Highness was attended by Lady Theresa Strang ways, Sir Frederick Wetherall, and Sir John Conroy. Her Royal Highness entered the palace by the Colour Court. The Duke of Gloucester arrived in state at the same en trance shortly before two o'clock. His Royal Highness was attended by Colonel Higgins and five other officers of his household. Their Royal Highnesses were received with the usual honour's bythe King's guard on entering the palace. The dress of the Duchess of Kent was composed entirely of articles of English and Irish manufacture. Their Royal Highnesses passed through the Guard Chamber, which was lined with Yeomen of the Guard, and the Presence Chamber, lined by a party of the honour able Corps of Gentlemen at Arms, to the State Rooms, and passed through the middle doors, reserved for the members of the Royal Family, to the Throne Room. Some of the honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms were stationed at the middle doors of the State Rooms. The Queen took her usual station in the Throne Room; in attendance upon her Majesty were the Mistress of the Robes, the Dowager Duchess of Leeds ; the Lady and Maid of Honour in Waiting, the Marchioness of West minster and Miss Hope Johnstone ; the Lord Chamber lain, the Earl of Denbigh ; the Master of the Horse, the Earl of Erroll ; Lady of the Bedchamber, the Countess Howe ; Maids of Honour, Miss Eden, Miss Bagot, Miss Mitchell, and Miss Hudson. Principal Equerry, General Macdonell ; Lady Isabella Wemyss, Lady Bedingtield, and Mrs. Berkeley Paget ; Gentlemen Ushers, Sir George Hoste, Colonel Wilson, and Mr. Hudson ; Page of Honour, Master Grimstone. On the left of her Majesty stood the Duchess of Kent, and to the left of the King stood the Duke of Cumberland, the Duke of Gloucester, and Prince George of Cam bridge ; to the right of the King and Queen stood the At tendants in Waiting of their Majesties. The following Foreign Ministers had audiences of her Majesty in the Queen's house : Count St. Martin d'Aglie, the Sardinian Minister, upon his return from a leave of absence. The Chevalier de Vial, the Spanish Minister, to take leave. The Marquis de Aliraflores, Count Florida Blanca, the new Spanish Minister. _ _ _ _ Their Excellencies were respectively introduced by the Earl of Denbigh, her Majesty's Lord Chamberlain, and conducted by Sir Robert Chester, the Master of the Ce remonies. About two o'clock the doors of the Throne Room were opened; the Foreign . Ambassadors and Ministers were first introduced, then those who have the privilege of the entrée, and afterwards the general company. The following were presented to her Majesty : Madame Tricoupi, the Lady of the Grecian Minister. The Count de Sercey, aide-de-camp of Marechal Ge rard, by the Prince de Talleyrand, the French Ambas sador. Mon. Serruys, Charge d'Affaires from the King of the Belgians at the ourt of Lisbon, by Mon. Van de Weyer, the Belgian Alinister. The Portuguese Consul General, by Mon. de Moraes Sarmento, the Portuguese Minister. Rev. Calvin Colton, of New York, by Mr. Vail, the United States Charge d'Affaires. The Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, by the Duke of Montrose. Lady Denman, on her elevation to the peerage, by the Marchioness of Lansdowne. Mr. Baron Williams, by the Lord Chancellor. Lady Williams, by the Marchioness of Westmeath. The Hon. Miss Margaret Denman, by the Marchioness of Lansdowne. Amongst those present at the Entrée Drawing Room, were the Russian Ambassador and the Princess Lieven, the Austrian Ambassador, the French Ambassador and the Duchess de Dino, the Sardinian, Neapolitan, Prussian, Swedish, Wirtemberg, Belgic, and Netherlands Ministers ; Danish Minister and Baroness Blome ; Bavarian, Mexican, Portuguese, and Brazilian Ministers ; the Grecian Minis ter and Madame Tricoupi, the Spanish and Saxon Ministers; the United States and Hanoverian Charges d'Affaires ; Baron Fagel, Mons. de Hummelauer, the Se cretary to the Austrian Embassy ; Mons. de Bacourt, the Secretary to the French Embassy ; the Baron Rehausen, Secretary to the Swedish Legation ; the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Postmaster-General, the Secretaries of State for the Foreign and Colonial Departments, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Lord Steward, the Groom of the Stole, the Master of the Horse, the Vice-Chamberlain, Lord Hill, Gold Stick in waiting ; the Master-General of the Ordnance, the Captain of the Yeomen Guard, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, the :Treasurer of the Household, the Lord Mayor, Mr. Under Secretary Backhouse, Sir Wathen Waller, extra Groom in Waiting ; the Master of the Ceremonies, the Master of the Robes, Sir Augustus Clifford, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod ; the Rev. Dr. Blomberg, Deputy Clerk of the Court ; Lord Saltoun, Field Officer of Brigade in Waiting ; Sir Frederick Trench, Aide-de-Camp ; Colonels Horace Seymour and Bowater, Equerries ; Lieut.- Colonel Richardson, Silver Stick in Waiting; and Master Graves, Page of Honour. There were also present— DuKEs—Gordon, Wellington, Sutherland, Somerset. Dvcss ESS-Richmond. MA actuoNzsscs—Conyngham, Clanricarde, London derry, Winchester, Cholmondeley, Cornwallis, Lansdowne. EARLS—Aboyne, Shaftesbury, Cadogan, Rosslyn, Sel kirk, Abingdon, Harewood, Charlemont, Morley, Orkney, Rosse, Bradford, Norbury, Kinnoull, Haddington, Lonsdale. Con YrEssEs--Cadogan, Erroll, Mexborough, Hare wood, Selkirk, Lonsdale, Kinnoull, De Salis, Durham, Orkney, Charlemont, De Grey, Rosse, Bradford, Ashburn ham, Mansfield, Norbury, Cavan, Amherst, Clanwilliam, Cawdor. VlSCOUNTS—Templetown, Alford. ViscouNTEssEs—Maynard, Torrington, Keith, Dillon, Newark, Anson. Loans—Suffield, King, Skelmersdale, Stuart de Rothe say, Londonderry, Henry Cholmondeley, Somerville, Ra vensworth, Colville, Alahony, Okmantown, C. Wellesley, Boscawen, Howard of Effingham, Arden, Encombe, Fitz gerald and Vesei, Heytesbury, Petre, Teynham, Dunboyne. LADlES—Augusta Cadogan, Honoria Cadogan, Fitz Wygram, Clifford, Poland, Antrobus, Saltoun, Ramsay of Balmain, Conroy, Graham, Denman, B. Johnstone, Louisa Lascelles, Frances Lascelles, Grant, Williams, Suffield, Dowager Rivers, Sarah Savill, Charlotte Bertie, Elizabeth Reynell, Charlotte Egerton, Isabella Douglas, Catherine Cavendish, Frederick Bentinck, Petre, Heytesbury, Dow ager de Clifford, Alicia Parsons, Yarde Buller, Elizabeth Toler, Harriet Clive, Trimlestown, Henry Paulet, Ash burnham, Harriet Paget, Mary Herbert, Catherine Her bert, Jane Ashburnham, Stopford, George Stuart, Blount, Charles Somerset, Croft, Helen Toler, Louisa Tumour, Caroline Murray, Eleanor Balfour, Fitzgerald, Anna Ma ria Cust, Stuart de Rothesay, Hallowell, Carew, Henry Paulet, Hamilton, Ravensworth, C. Tumour, Sullivan, Jane Parsons, Campbell, Rolle, Fanny Lambton, L. Corn wallis, H. Cholmondeley, Cameron, Mary Ashburnham, George Aiurray, H. St. Maur, Georgina Murray, Dow. Brownlow, Winterton, Teynham, M. Sutton, Manners, Georgina Grey. B sit or—Of Durham. RIGHT HONOURABLES-Frankland Lewis, Lady Mary Petre, Lord Provost of Edinburgh, C. Arbuthnot. HONOURABLES—MISS Margaret Denman, Col. Grant, M.P., Mrs. George Campbell, Mr. Stafford Jerningham, Mr. R. Bootle Wilbraham, Miss Saumarez, Mrs. Grant of Grant, Mrs. Stafford Jerningham, Mr. C. Vernon Har bord, Mrs. Anderson Pelham, Mr. Anderson Pelham, Colonel Grant of Grant, M.P., Mr. Hervey Butler, Mrs. Sulivan, Mrs. Elizabeth Liddell, Lady Lumley, Airs. H. Montagu, Miss A. Petre, Mrs. H. Hutchinscn, Miss Char lotte King, Airs. Elliott, Miss Petre, Miss Cust, Miss Beresford, Miss Maynard, Miss H. King, Miss C. .1%,y -nard, Mrs. E. Stanley, Miss L. Parsons, Mrs., A. Legge, Miss Fredrica Anson, Miss Eliza Anson, Mrs. Fleening, Mr. Curzon, Miss Dillon, Miss Fraser, Mr. Howard. SlRS—Wathen Waller, John Woolmore, Edmund An trobus, Robert FitzWygram, Bart., John Deas Thomson, K. C. H., John Jnhnstone, William H. Poland, Aiatthew Tierney, Dudley St. Ledger Hill, K. G. S., J. Fitzgerald, C. Sullivan, Charles Lemon, H. Nicolas, E. Thornton, G. Wilson, H. Willock, R. Rice, J. Cathcart, p. Mor gan, J. Croft, C. Burrell, J. Y. Buller, G, Slee k cl Mar shall, C. Hunter. ALDERMAN-Cowan, DEAN-Of Windsor.—Sub-Dean of Chapel Royal, Rev. Dr. Cole. DocTcuts—Somerville, Adolphus, Granville. #►RovosT—Of Eton. REV. MESSIEURS-J. V. Povah, George H, J. R. Wood, J. M'Evoy, J. C. Haden, B, Bray, G, Digby. MESSIEURS—FeIix Booth, John Round, Cliarles Bague, Gurney, George Wilkinsm, C4arles Cavendish, W. G. Egerton, Tierney, Lauri„ Wyndham Lewis ' Chisholm of Chisholm, Powys, R. Lucelles, Canning, Taylor, Ross, Adams, Pawiek; Turner, Jenkins, C. Cooper, Rodon, S. Jarvis., B. C. Mellish, Olipha n t, H enr y S co t*, Babbage, W. Melville, Fector, Macdonald, Coulson, Plumptre, M.P., Hoare, H. Tucker, W, Campbell, Brown, M.P., S. Sullivan, J. W. Bowden,, Tupps, Blount, W. Bridgeman Simpson, Edward .S.k,anliey, Digby, F. Gordon, Chichester, AL Aitoa Blount, Blair, Percy, Burrell, D. Halforcl Bannerman, M.P., C. Ward, M.P., E. PhipPPhipps.Bakfa4, AMP,, Clive, J. B. Wall, Ravenshaw, 4arAes!Boyl.e, Herbert, C. Eitzherbert, N. .Macdonald„ Campbell, W. A. Clarke, Dehany. MiszßEssEs--Gurney, De Rothschild, Aop Round, Sotheron, S. Ma r i n di n , W m . C a mpbell,„ Seymour, Van, shawe, Carrick, Bannerman, Blan_ ‘ field, Rodon, Robert Porter, General Ol i oglilin„ Robert Williams, Henry Clis sole, Inglefield, Browne ' Wy n dham Lewis, Stirling Gl over, Robert Hovenden, Dehiny, Paterson, Hamilton, Douglas Halthd, Braddyll, Henry Baring, John Ravenshaw, 'Ull man, Somerville, Cooper, Inglefield, Arbuth no t. MlSSES—Chisholm of Chisholm, FitzWygram, Conroy, Blonfield, Pitt, Harbord, Harriett Pitt, Bailley, .Grant of Grant, De Rothschild, Harriet Tierney, Susan Cavendish, H. Ahkrrq, hlarre- Ashworth, Lloyd, Anna Lascelles, 'le H. Purves, Eliza Carrick, Guthrie, A . Cc. el t, H. C. Di esford, E. King, Fail:l—awe, Scott, Petre, Elliott, P. Forester, G. V. Harcourt, Margaret Braddyll, Porter, Jessy H. Carew, Bentham, C. Murray, C. Montagu, J. Montagu, Jane Anne Porter, Macky; 11. Mash, Littleton, B. Allardice, Abbott, . Catherine A. Abbott, Stopford, Eleanor Stopford, C. Littleton, Mary Somerville, Caroline Ravenshaw, Balfour, Sotheby, Augusta Legge, Elphin stone, Constantia Blount, 'Campbell, Atty, Stuart, Paulet, Somerville, Ravenshaw, Jane Braidyll, Paterson, Fanny Lascelles, two Coopers. ADMIIt ALS-Li rd de Saumarez, Sir C. Rowley," - Sir F. Laforey, Sir John Beresford, Sir P. H. Durham„ Brace, White, Sir Thomas Dundas, Hall, M'Kinley, Mundv, Sir "F. Hardy, Fleming, Sir Davidge Gould, Sir C. Boyle, Sir Edward King, Sir Robert Stopford, Sir C. Hamilton, Sir William Hotham. GENERALS - Sir T. Reynell, Hon. Sir C. Colville, Sir Evan Lloyd, Sir W.Peacocke, Sir L. Grant, Ologh lin, Sir John Vandeleur, Sir J. Fraser, Sir H. Askew, Sir G. Drummond, Sir G. Elder, Sir Wm. Inglis, Sir Henry Warde, Sir T. Widdrington, Sir T. Montresor, Sir John Ross, Lord Howden, Sir T. Dallas, Hodgson, Sir E. Paget, Sir G. Adams, Hon. Sir W. L um l ey . CAPTAINS (Royal Navy)— Libon, 0. V. Harcourt, Goate, Baynes, Hon. G. Elliot, Inglefield, Sir R, Grant, Hon. W. Gordon, Grace, O'Grady, C. R. Drinkwater, Sir J. Marshall, Lord G. Poulet, E. Stopford, E. Curzon, Tomkinson. CoLoNELs—Higgins, Powell, M.P., Milman, Purvis, Walker, C. 8., Gold, Hon. W. H. Gardner, Sir J. Eustace, 4 ir T. Downman, C. Courtenay, Sir E. Miles, Prender gast, O'Donnell, Wodehouse, Hope, Graydon, Cathcart, Leith Hay, Daniell, Fanshawe, Dobbin, Grey, Braddyll, Porter, Sir 0. Carey, Sir Chas. Thornton, Hon. Hely Hutchinson. COMMANDERS ( Royal Navy)—Austin, Hon. H. Keppel, %laconochie, Swinburne, John Holmes Bond, Manse'. MAJoRs.LSir Francis Head, G. D. Hall, Butler, Ryan, Hyde, Diggle, Waller. LIEUTENANTS (Royal Nary)—G. St. Vincent King, Stirling, Gladstone, John Russell, Holman. CAPTAINS—Lang, Battersby, S. Glover, L. Dickson, Armstrong, R. Lascelles, O'Hara, Hamilton, Raines, Wil liams, Ridley, Kendall, Wood, Lawrence, Fitzroy, Clithe row, Hill, Evans, Freke, La w , Houstoun, P r i ce , S m ith. LIEUTENANTS—COX, Cadogan, Kennedy, G. B. Gos set, Torrens, F. W. Hamilton, Home Purves, C. J. Sky ring,iWarde, Tombs, Parker, Marinden, Hon. R. Lambert. CORNETS-HOD. C. H. Cust, Maynard, Oliver, Dar nell, Fielden, Parry, Tomkinson, Quin, John Raton. ENslGNs—Granville; G. Wyatt, Stuart, Alston, Pack, Wheeler. The following were presented to their Majesties:— Countess of Durham, by the Marchioness of Conyngham. Lady Grant, by the Hon. Mrs. Grant (of Grant). Miss Fitzwygram, by Lady Fitzwygram. Sir John Woolmore, on being appointed a Knight Com mander of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order, by Sir Herbert Taylor. Mrs. S. Marindon by the Countess of Selkirk. Mr. Tierney, by Sir Matthew Tierney, Bart. Mr. John Round, High Sheriff of Essex, by Viscount Maynard. Miss Harbord, by Lady Suffield. Hon. E. Vernon Harbord, by Lord Suffield. Lieut.-Colonel W. Higgins, on receiving the Royal Hano verian Guelphic Order, by Major-General Sir Charles Dalbiac, K. C. H. Miss Blomfield, by Mrs. Blomfield. Miss Harriet Tierney, by Lady Tierney. Rev. I. V. Povah, on his appointment as Priest in Ordi nary at his Majesty's Chapel Royal, by the Lord Bishop of London. Miss Susan Cavendish, by Lady Catherine Cavendish. Sir Dudley St. Leger Hill, K. T. S., on being appointed Governor of St. Lucia, by the Right lion. E. G. Stanley, Secretary of State for the Colonies. Miss Harriet Pitt, by the Dowager Lady Rivers. Mr. George Wilkinson, his Majesty's Hon. Corps of Gen tlemen at Arms, by Lord Foley. Mr. Charles Bague, Hon. Corps of Gentlemen at Arms, - by Lord Foley. Miss Ashworth, by Lady Sullivan. Miss Lloyd, by her mother, Lady Trimlestone. Miss Marguerite Home Purves, by her mother, Lady Man ners Sutton. Miss Guthrie, by the Hon. Mrs. Be r k e l ey P aget. Miss Harriet C. Beresford, by Lady Elizabeth Reynell. Miss Eliza Carvick. Miss Honoria Forester, by Lady Anne Beckett. Miss Margaret Braddyll, by Mrs. Sotheron. Miss Bingham, by the Dowager Countess of Winterton. Miss Petre, by Lady Petre. Miss Jessy Hallowell Carew, by Lady Hallowell Carew. Miss Porter, by her mother, Mrs. Robert Porter. Miss Jane Anne Porter, by her mother, Mrs. R. Porter. Henrietta Viscountess Dillon, by the Hon. Lady Bedingfield. Lady Louisa Tumour, by her mother, Lucy, Countess of Winterton. Lady Helen Toler, by her mother, the Countess of Norbury. Lady Yarde Buller, on coming to her title, by Vi scoun t ess Newark. Lady Alicia Parsons, by the Countess of Rosse. Lady Trimlestone, by Lady Harriet Clive. Lady Mary Ashburnham, by the Countess of Ashburnham. The Right Hon. the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, by the Lord Advocate of Scotland. Hon. Mrs. Fleeming, by. Viscountess Keith. Hon. Miss Dillon, by the Hon. Lady Bedingfield. Hon. Mrs. Augustus Legge, by Lady Harriet Paget. Mr. William Stanley Clarke, Deputy. Chairman of the East India Company, by the Right Hon. Charles Grant. Mr. Charles Boyle, by Viscount Palmerston. Mr. Blair, on his return from the continent, by the Earl of Courtown. Mr. Turner, by Sir John Woolmoore. Mrs. Hamilton, on her marriage, by Lady Hamilton. Mrs. Patterson, by Lady Elizabeth Reynell. Mrs. Braddyll, by Mrs. Sotheron. Mrs. Robert Hovenden, by her mother, Mrs.Patferson. Sir John Yarde Buller, by Lord Rolle. Mr. S. R. Jervis, High Sheriff for th e county of South ampton, by his Grace the Duke of Wellington. Mr. Fector, by Rear-Admiral Sir R. Lawrie. Miss Catherine Alice Abbott, by Lady George Stuart. Miss Abbott, by Lady George Stuart. Mr. W. Bridgeman Simpson, by the Earl of Bradford. Mr. Henry St. George Tucker, Chairman of the East India Company, by the Right Hon. Charles Grant. Miss Caroline Littleton, by Mrs. Littleton. Miss Balfour, by Lady Eleanor Balfour. Miss Mary Somerville, by her mother Mrs. Somerville. Miss Jane Braddyll, by Mrs. Sotheron. Miss Somerville, by her mother Mrs. Somerville. Miss Scott, by her sister Mrs. Dehany. Mrs. W. Campbell, by the Marchioness of Cholmondeley. Mrs. Robert Porter, by Mrs. Rodon. Mrs. Henry Clissold, by Lady Saltoun. Mrs. Stirling Glover, by Lady Charles Somerset. Mrs Bannerman, by the Hon. Mrs. Berkeley Paget. Mrs. Inglefield, by Lady Hallowell Carew. The Rev. John *Elroy, Chaplain to the Hon. East India Company, by Lieut.-General Sir H. Taylor. Major-General Sir George Adams, by Sir H. Tayl or . Captain Lord G. Paulet, R.N., b y the Marquis of W n chester. Hon. Col. W. H. Gardner, on his return to England. Col. Sir T. Downman, on his appointment, by Sir J. Kempt. Col. Braddyll, on his return from the Continent. Commander J. Bond, by Lord Byron. Lieut. G. Ling, by Sir C. Rowley. Dr. Adolphus, Inspector-General of Hospitals, on his return from Jamaica, by Sir H. Taylor. Rev. G. H. Vachell, M. A, on being appointed Chaplain to his Majesty's Superintendants at Canton, by Viscount Palmerston. Captain Law, by Lieut.-General Hudson. Captain Prig, on promotion, by Earl Falmouth. Captain Evans Freke, on promotion, by Sir J. Woodford. Capt, Hamilton, on his marriage, by Admiral C. Hamilton. Lieut. C. F. Skyring, on his going abroad, by Major-Gen. Pilkington. Lieut. H. Powes, by the Earl of Rosslyn. Lieut. J. Russell, R.N., on promotion, by Sir J. Graham. Lieut. Torrens, by Sir J. Kempt. Ensign Pack, by Sir H. Taylor. Commander Austin, by Sir T. M. Hardy. General H 4, Sir. C. Colville, by Admiral Lord Co/vilfe. Reap.Adroiral Sir T. Hardy, by Sir J. Graham. P. Burrell,.by Sir C. Burrell. Mr, Bannerman, M.P., by Lard Melbourne. Countess de Grey, by Countess Clanwilliam. Mr. Canning, by Marquis Clanricarde. Miss Paterson, by Mrs. Paterson. Miss Ravenshaw, by Lady H. Clive. Lieut. R, Lambert, by Earl of Cavan. Miss A Legge, by Lady 11. Paget. M;.. J. B. Wall, on his appointnKot, by Col. Keate. Mr.. Blount, by the Duke of /• T .orfolk. Cornet Oliver, on appoint , :dent, by Lord Hill. Lady H. and Miss P0u1 , 2,i, by theMarel) ioness of Winchester. Mrs. O'Loghlin, Isy the Countess of Orkney. Mr. Adams, by Sir B. Stephenson. Cornet C. us`t, on appointment. Miss C., llavensbaw, by Lady H. Clive. The King gave audience yesterday to the Marquis of Winchester, the Earl of Albemarle, and Lord Hill. • The Qeen honoured the King's Theatre with her pre sence last evening. The performances were Anna Bolena, with the ballet et 4.a Sylphide. At the Kg's Levee, on Wednesday, the Hon. Henry Gage, 0 the Rifle Brigade, was presented to his Majesty, by his father, Viscottnt Gage ; Sir Robert Graham, late a. Baron of the Buhequer, to be sworn on the Council ; and the Portuguese Consul-General, by M. de Moraes Sar 'Relit% the Portuguese Minister. At the State dinner given by his Majesty on Wedne3day pieces, the eveningt o the Knights Grand Crosses of the most honour able Military Order of the Bath, the band of the Royal Artillery were stationed iv, the ante-room adjoining the ban quetingselecti on r s o f o r m o ra(where r t b hp e r e dinner v v a s e , r a s n • e d d the whole 0 the evening. P,,Arien Theatre, were the Earl of Denbigh, the Ezrl and ) Oth a er d .Countess Howe,' the Marchioness of Westmeath, Mi ss Hope Johnstone, Miss Hudson, and Mr. Hudson. In her Majesty's suite on Wednesday evening, at C , (sent-