The Sun. — London, England, 1834-06-21 00:00:00

~....% . feelings. • He knew -that at one of the great schools there was a regulation that the articles of the church should form part of a lecture, and that they constituted a part of the half yearly examinations, which took place at 'that university. (Hear.) The students were examined upon them, not only to show that they had a proper idea of religious subjects, but that they had advanced considerably in their know ledge upon those points, so as to be required to pass a very efficient examination. If an alteration in the University at Oxford was to be made, so as to permit of the admission of persons of all persuasions into that University, there would have to be a dispensation of that which was the foundation of their regulations. It was said the number of dissenters who would enter the Universities would be so few that no danger or inconve nience could arise. This, he recollected, was one of the arguments advanced in favour of the admission of Roman Catholics to that house. He did not mean to imply by this observation that the questions were of similar nature or importance, one havinl respect to temporal the other to religious matters. But the number did not alter the nature of this case or remove the difficulty. Even admitting that there was not more than one Dissenter, under such cir cumstances it would be an evil. His presence must natu rally produce a disinclination to press those points in which the individual differed in religion from the other members of the University. It might be said that the same difficul ties and objections might be started under the system as now carried on, inasmuch as Dissenters were now educated in their Universities. There was a great difference between attending under connivance, as now, and placing it in the power of the student to say to his instructor, " I am not of your religion, I do not concur in your doctrines, I am inde pendent here, and you shall not force me to attend." Was it to be supposed that a young man placed under such cir cumstances would not make efforts to maintain and propa gate his own religious persuasions ? The young men, therefore, of the Established Church would have to enter into controversy with every species of sectarianism. What the result of such a state of things must be was pretty clear from an establishment for education formed upon the same principle by Dr. Doddridge about a century back. The late Mr, Hall explained the reasons why this esta blishment did not succeed. (The hon. member read an extract front the works of Dr. Hall, stating in substance that the establishment fell because more attention was paid to human learning than to fervour of piety or purity of doctrine.) Now he would put it to the house, were they prepared to admit into the universities a number of men more distinguished for learning than for fervour of , piety or for purity of doctrine ? (Cheers.) He thought it essential that religion should accompany all education. This was the case at Oxford, and he bad the authority of Mr, Whewell for saying that the same was the case in Cambridge. (The hon. member read an extract from a pamphlet by this gentleman, showing how religion mixed itself up with all the duties of life and of the university. ) He knew gentlemen differed in their religious creed. He did not quarrel with them on that account; but members of the Established Church thought their own religion the purest, and let them not be disturbed in the enjoyment of it. Even if this passed, a difficulty would still remain, for the statutes of the university of Oxford required in struction in the subscription to the 39 articles. What was to be done with this statute, and with another which re quired that the doctrines laid down by the Synod of London in 1562 should be taught and subscribed to? (The hon. member read the statutes.) How were they to get rid of the obligation of complying with this statute ? It was not competent to that house to abrogate them. (" Hear, hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches. ) Well, at least there was no precedent for such an exercise of power by Parliament, and if it might be exercised in the case of the universities it must be equally applicable to all corporations. Were dissenters to be admitted without the concurrence of the heads of houses ? If they were to exer cise the power they now enjoyed he gave the hon. member joy of his bill ; it would be inoperative as a legislative mea sure, at the same time that it would be insulting to the universities. The dissenters complained of the appropria tion of all the funds belonging to the universities to one object. If there was no established church they might have some right to complain. But as these funds were set apart for the propagation of the Protestant religion and for its maintenance, and as this was to be done through the edu cation of a pious and learned clergy, the dissenters had no right to complain. He did not wish to say anything that could give offence, but it was clear that the measures of the dissenters were insidiously directed to the overthrow of the church. Their present attack was directed against the system of education, because they knew that while there was a pious, learned, zealous clergy, their attempt would be resisted. There would always be such a clergy while the universities remained on their present footing. They at tacked the universities that they might, hereafter, the more easily overthrow the Established Church, and put an end to the connection between Church and State. Great changes had already taken place. They were such, however, as were naturally incident to a free country like this ; but he warned the house not to yield further to the applications of the dissenters. When he saw the attacks now made upon _the church—the attempt to deprive the Bishops of their seats in the House of Lords, the reduction of their number in Ireland, the attempt to apply the property of the Church to other than church purposes—and when lie now saw a bill before the house for admitting dissenters into their Universities, which were set apart for the educa tion of the Protestant Clergy, it was impossible not to be filled with apprehension for the result, if not opposed in time. If these attempts should prove successful there must be an end to the tolerant Church of England. Was it a tolerant Church ? Could any person refuse to answer in the affirmative ? (Loud cheers.) This he said upon the authority even of the dissenters themselves. (The hon. gentleman read part of an address from a body, as we understood, of Methodists, expressing their anxiety for the maintenance of the Established Church, as a great national blessing, and as the bulwark of toleration.) In this bill the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wood) was legislating without a precedent. There was no instance of a measure like this having been agreed to by Parliament without the concurrence of the heads of houses. Parliament never be fore interfered with the universities unless they had the concurrence of the house of convocation. Now, how ever, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wood) did so interfere, as was evident from the bill. (The hon. member read one of the clauses to show that such was the case.) If this bill passed, and even if it passed it must be inoperative, the universities might shut up their houses of convocation. If this bill passed, there could be no doubt that some person would next session come forward and propose a still more extensive measure. If the object was to reduce to insig nificance universities which were more ancient than their race of kings, to render them utterly incompetent to the objects of their institution, then he could understand the hon. gentleman ; but if it was wished that they should remain in credit and in honour, to maintain and to propa gate, through a pious and learr.el clergy, the pure doctrine of Christianity, then he could not understand this bill. He was determined to uphold, to the utmost of his power, the rights of the university, and he hoped that the house would stand by them on that side of it in resisting a measure which was fraught with the utmost danger, not only to the safety and welfare of the country, but which even endan gered the monarchy itself. (Hear, hear.) He thanked the house for the patient hearing he had received at its hands, and concluded by moving, by way of amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months. (Cheers.) . Mr. HERBERT seconded the amendment. There did not exist 'a single by-law in the colleges of the univer sities, nor even a single custom, which did not go to ob struct Dissenters, and prevent them from being admitted to qualify in the universities. How could a Dissenter be come a master of any of the colleges, when to be one a com plete knowledge of the tenets of the Established Church was necessary? No matter how great a proficient in learning he might be, no matter how brilliant were the talents with which nature endowed him, a religious education was a sine qua non, What greater objection could there be than this? Even the Dissenters themselves, when such was the fact, ought not to enter the, colleges and be under such t nasters, and be continually present in a place where they would see pursued a system of religious education from beginning to end. It appeared to him that it must al ways be a grave subject of displeasure to the Dissenters themselves to be obliged to attend lectures in which they would hear the tenets of their own church completely con 4roverted. ( Hear.) But perhaps the house did not wish ~that there should be any religious education there. (Hear. ) if such was the intention of the house they would rove it lay passing the bill before them. (Hear, hear.) f he in troduction of Dissenters as masters in colleges was a very 'serious matter, and one that should be gravely looked to. Let the effect it would have on the pupils of the universi ties be considered. (Hear.) For his own part, he did not think that the pupils would pay much attention to the instruction of teachers from the religion of whom they dif fered. ( Hear.) Besides, could it be expected that those pupils would ever look with much reverence on the re ligion of the Established Church when they saw it treated in the manner it would be if the Dissenters were allowed to become masters ? (Hear, hear.) The bill before them was more extensive than they thought : it allowed a far wider latitude than appeared at first sight, and it would be found that under its cloak infidels and atheists would creep into the Universities. (Hear.) lie looked upon this bill as one that would eventually have the effect of excluding ministers from the Universities. It would also have a very bad effect, a worse one perhaps on the laity, since it would prevent them from forming at the University attachments with those who would become afterwards ministers of re ligion. • Preventing this would likewise lead to another evil consequence. By breaking off the early acquaintance that might be formed between the minister and the gentle men among whom he might afterwards reside--and this the bill would do—a stop would be put to the mutual assist ance they would afford to each other in making the stream of benevolence flow more rapidly and broadly. (Hear.) He was aware that the party who looked upon all that was said on that side of the house he was on as in citing to religious animosity, considered with contempt all the attainments acquired at the Universities, looked with contempt - on the revival of the dead lan guages, and despised everything like polite lite rature. However, he knew that there were others who were tricked by a false seeming of liberality into a support of this measure. He would ask one plain ques tion. Would they, by passing this measure, close the doors of the university on the nobility and gentry of England in order to open them to a small body of individuals? for a small body the dissenters must be considered when com pared with the rest of the population of the country. Let the dissenters erect their own colleges, and if they should happen to produce, as the English universities alreidy had, great and eloquent statesmen, profound philosophers, and men who would be an ornament to society, then would their country be grateful to them for the benefit they had bestowed upon it. He felt grateful for this opportunity of paying a tribute of respect to those universities, to one of which he was indebted for his education. (Cheers. ) The question having been put, Mr. PETER supported the second reading of the bill. Men's creed ought not to be made in this world the sub ' .-.4 -f reward or punishment. To allude to a man of an ut times, there was a Roman Emperor who said of the Christians that he " feared they would overcome us (the Romans) with our weapons; that they would conquer us with our own arts." Such really seemed the fear of the party that.now opposed the admission of the dissenters into the universities. But that party said to the dissenters, " You may raise universities," and when they were raised the very same party refused the dissenters the power of taking degrees. ("No, no," from the Opposition.) These were evils that came hoine to the pockets and the bosoms of the people of the country. For the sake of the safety of the universities and of England, he would beseech the house to allow the present bill to pass. (Hear, hear.) He was a churchman by habit and education, but more so by principle, and he could not help reverting with sorrow to the levity with which oaths were taken at the uni versity to which he belonged. He knew young men swear on this point and upon that, and when they at first hesitated and doubted, their tutorsaid to them, " Do not be afraid ; you may swear, the regulations give you a wide latitude; you may interpret the matter as you like without danger, whether you be right or wrong. (Hear.) It was true that young men were examined on the Thirty nine Articles, and about the Old and New Testament. But in his time this examination was not looked upon in the light of a test, and he was informed that it was even now the same thing. As a friend to the church and to the universities he should give his most cordial support to the original motion. Mr. POUL TER had known a hundred persons at Ox ford admitted to take degrees in the arts and laws without having attended religious lectures. He himself was an instance of one who had never attended lectures on divi nity, and yet he was as attentive and industrious as other students. (A laugh.) When at the university, if he had been as anxious about obtaining the degree of Doctor in Civil Law as some persons had lately shown themselves at Oxford, he might have had it. (Laughter.) There was no course now left but for the legislature to interfere. The time was when the feelings of the people towards the church were far greater than they were at present—when the great majority of Englishmen were sincerely attached to the established church. But the house would bear in its recollection that for a long time this universal feeling had ceased to exist. The dissenters had grown up to become a very large body, and he was of opinion that the progress of dissent ought to be attributed to the neglect of the church in not bringing itself into closer contact with an increasing population. If the church at present could boast of its ten thousand preferments, the dissenters could boast of their ten thousand congregations. Many petitions had been presented to that house from the dissenters praying for a separation of church and state. Now he was a friend to the union of church and state, and the best way to make the dissenters friendly to that union would be to do away with their grievances, to admit them to the universities, and to allow them to celebrate their marriages in their own churches. Another argument had been brought forward on this question, and that argument was based on the exclusive rights of property. This argu ment had been four times started on the occasion of the Reform 8i11,.0n the question of the Church Reform, on the corporate commission, and now it was broached on the subject of the admission of dissenters into the universities. The country expected that that principle of reform would be carried out and extended; they expected that the pre sent measure would be added ; they expected to see it novem editionem emondatiorem et auctiorem, as the Re ' form Bill would be by the addition of the present measure. Mr. EWART said that, though the country expected an editionem emendatiorem et auctiorem, they did not ex pect it would proceed ex cedibus collegiorum. (A laugh.) The Pope did not exclude from the University of Bologna Jews or Greeks. It was rather late to imitate the Pope, and nothing but the voice of the nation ought to induce us to do so. The hon. member for Wiltshire said that if the bill passed it would open the universities to infidels and atheists; but he would ask the hon. member whether the present system had been successful in excluding such per sons? At the same time the present system had had the effect of excluding from the English Universities Adam Smith and other distinguished men who would have been ornaments to them. He could hardly conceive a greater evil than making an individual take an oath on enter ing the university which was not necessary, for by this it not only opened wide the doors of the universities to hypocrisy on the one hand and indifference on the other, but also it was trifling with the solemn sanction of an oath. He (Mr. Ewart) also believed that the literary disadvantages of having tests of that kind were also great. He admitted that in our universities a well grounded education was bestowed on the pupils, but many of them who' had seen foreign universities, and himself amongst the number, were of opinion that in the English universities too much attention was paid to minute points instead of attending to those parts of education which tended to expand the mind and enlarge the benevo lent feelings of the heart. The hon. member for Shaftes bury had said that when he was a young man at the uni versity of Oxford he recollected some young men who had to perform what appeared to be little better than menial offices who had since risen to high offices. He (Mr. Ewart) also recollected with pain seeing young men, who wore dresses varying from that of the other students of the university, who were compelled to submit to the degrada tion of having to place dishes on the table of the superiors of the college. He was happy to say that this was not the fact at present ; but he had seen such things, and -the universities, for their own credit sake, ought to have got rid of such customs long since. So great had been the feeling of exclusiveness in his time in the university of Cambridge that the members of some colleges would not speak to those of other colleges. The present system of exclusion had been injurious to learning. ( Hear.) Mr. E. BULLER thought what the dissenters de manded was consistent with the spirit of the times and with the spirit of the constitution. There was a time when the constitution was exclusive, but it had ceased to be so. Brighter prospects had been opened by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and by passing the great measure of Catholic emancipation ; and when those measures were passed it was declared that all offices of state, and in corporations throughout the country, should be open to all citizens, without reference to their religious faith or opinions. The universities were, in point of fact, lay corporations for purposes of education. It was edu cation that qualified men for office, and enabled them to perform their public duties with advantage to the country and with honour to themselves. Dissenters might now be admitted to office, but the door was still shut to obtaining those qualifications which best enabled them to fill those officers. He admitted that the test taken at Cambridge was not so objectionable as that imposed at Oxford. A young man generally entered the university at between sixteen and seventeen, and at Oxford he was called upon to de clare solemnly that he believed in all the doctrines con tained in the Thirty-nine Articles. This appeared to him to be most monstrous. He trusted that the time had come when they should get rid of all tests in the universities, and that the only declaration taken would be on entering the university, and that merely to the effect that the perm taking it was anxious and willing to learn, and that he would adhere to the rules of the university. It had been stated that by passing this bill the intentions of the founders of the university were set at nought, but in his opinion this could not be urged, and especially as re garded the university of Oxford, for it was impossible to say who were the fouriders of it—whether sincere Chris tians or latitudinarians—whether founded by the Druids, or by Romans in honour of the heathen gods. There had been repeated instances of the interference of the Sovereign in the affairs of the universities. Queen Elizabeth, James the First, and Charles the First had repeatedly done so. He maintained, if Queen Elizabeth and the Stuarts had a right to interfere with the universities, that the King, on the advice of Parliament, possessed the right now. He did not suppose that any one would say that those educated at the university of Cambridge were inferior in learning or piety to those educated at Oxford ; but, if the arguments of the exclusionists were worth any thing, this could not , be the case, vthe restrictions were not near so e x t ensive` in the former as in the latter university. At present he was happy to say that a more liberal feeling existed in Cambridge than formerly was the case, and he knew that the sons of several dissenting ministers were fellows of Colleges there. He was satisfied that no one would do those gentlemen the cruel injustice to say that they were not sincere. Before any measure could pass the Senate at Cambridge it must be approved of by the unanimous voice of the Caput. At Oxford also no rule could be valid un less it was approved of by the Vice-Chancellor, the Proc tors, and the Heads of Houses. Under these circum stancer he thought it was impossible to anticipate any danger to the church from regulations that might be pro posed by dissenters. It had been asked whether the house would consent to secularize the church, but they were not dealing with the articles of the church ; but the question merely was, whether many of those who were anxious that their children should have the advantages of being educa ted in these universities should be restrained from sending them by restrictions which were of no advantage to the church ? He could not conceive that there was the least dang e r to the church in admitting dissenters to the uni versities. In conclusion, he believed he was supporting the best interests of the church in giving his vote for the second reading of the bill before the house. Mr. C. W. WYNN believed that this was a most im portant bill : but in his opinion it was much more so be cause it was one of a series of measures. This he had no doubt was the first of a series of conflicts which, if not met in time, might lead to the destruction of the established church, and he also believed of all the other establishments in the country. (Cheers.) It was tot the first time that they had been told of a new order of things, and that every established institution in the country should be got rid of, and that afterwards they should consider what should be substituted in their stead. ( Hear, hear.) It was impossible for him not to recollect that there was one thing urged by the great dissenting body in the country, namely, that they should not be called upon to contribute to the support of the established church of England. It had also been said by his Majesty's Attorney-General that it was gross op pression to compel any man to contribute towards the maintenance of a religion in the-doctrines of which he did not believe. He (Mr. C. W. Wynn) could not help feeling that the present was the first of the attempts that were to be made to subtract from the property of the church, and to devote it to objects not connected with the establishment. (Hear, hear.) It was not a. secret, but it had been openly stated at the corner of every street, and at public meetings, that the object 00 the dis senters was to destroy the connection betweeen church and state, and that all religions should be put on the same footing in this country. ( Hear, hear.) He would not detain the house by going into any inquiries as to the state of the Universities previous to the reformation ; but, if they took the last two centuries, it must be obvious to any man that the Universities had been intimately connected with the established religion of the country. The object of the bill was to destroy this connection. (Hear, hear.) Indeed it had been admitted that this was the case. It had been said that the arguments against the bill were adapted to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, but not for the present time, when they had repealed the Test and Corporation Act and had passed the Catholic Emancipation Bill, and thus admitted Catholics and Dissenters to all lay officers. Of the principle of that act he was perhaps one of the most humble, but certainly one of the most constant, sup porters; and he denied that. there was anything in the letter or spirit of the act to authorize the interpretation put upon it by hon. gentlemen, namely, that it opened the universities to them as well as all the honours and dignities of the state. (Hear.) As a proof of what he had stated he would refer to the words of the act, which stated that nothing in this act should be so construed as to enable any Catholic to hold any office in the church, or any pl ace or office whatsoever of, in, or belonging to the universities of this realm, or to repeal, abrogate, or in any manner in terfere with any regulation or rule which is or shall be framed and established in any college,- hall, -or school, or other ecclesiastical foundation in the kingdom. (Hear, hear.) Was there, then, anything in this clause to authorise any hon. gentleman in asserting that it admitted Roman Catholics to, the universities ? ( Hear.) Did it not, in point of fact, say, " We will admit you- to all the honours and dignities of the state, but we will not open to you our universities, as they are inseparably connected with and united to the church ?" ( Heat, hear.) This was the security which had been held out to them, and upon the faith of which the opponents of the measure had been called upon to wave their opposition to the Catholic Emancipation Bill, and yet what were they now called upon to do ? Why, to violate that to which they had pledged themselves only five years ago—that which they had been assured would afford a sufficient security to the Church of England. (Hear, hear, hear.) Again, they were told that in former times persons were admissible to the universities even though they professed the wildest and most absurd beliefs, notwithstanding they were infidels, 1 and in proof of this assertion the names of Gibbon and of Adam Smith were mentioned. Now he believed that Adam Smith never belonged to either of the universities in this country, but he admitted that Gibbon was a mem ber of the university of Oxford. It should, however, be recollected that at the time Gibbon was admitted he pro fessed himself to be a Protestant, although he subsequently became a Roman Catholic, and afterwards entertained various other doctrines. But of Gibbon it might, in the words of a poets be truly said that— " Through all the religions on earth he had run, ' And ended at last by believing in none." This subscription or admission was, however, objected to, because its effect was to exclude Dissenters. For his own part he would acknowledge that he deemed it unneces sary, but then he was satisfied to leave such a matter in the hands of the universities themselves, being convinced that they would before long see the expediency of doing away with it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman contended that it was indispensably necessary for the heads of colleges, and all other persons connected with the uni versities, to subscribe to . the Articles of the Protestant faith, inasmuch as to them and to the convocation were intrusted not only the rules and discipline of the institu tions, but, above all, the religious instruction of the youth committed to their care. The consequence, therefore, of allowing dissenters to take degrees would be injudicious, and for the plain and obvious reason, that by so doing parents would no longer have any security that their chil dren would be instructed in the tenets of the religion in which they wished them to be brought up. He highly approved of a religious examination forming part of the education of students at the universities, and he was there fore exceedingly glad that that system had been generally adopted. For his part, he should much rather prefer leaving the making of any new laws that might be neces sary for the regulation of the universities to the Convoca tion of Oxford, than that those laws should be made by the members of that house. Much had been said of the University of Bologna, but he was ready to compare the universities of Oxford and Cambridge with any other uni versity in the world. These universities had-not only pro. duced men who were distinguished for their learning and knowledge of the arts and sciences, and the eminent ser- - vices they had rendered to the state, but preserved a purity of religion unequalled in any other country in Europe, and yet they were told that these were institutions which it was expedient to do away with. (Hear, hear.) He found it impossible, after the removal of the sacramental tests and Catholic grievances, to consent to the destruction of that which he regarded as the best bulwark of the Established Church, and therefore no other course was open to him but to oppose this measure. ( Hear, hear.) Mr. S. RICE could assure the house, in rising to ad_ dress it, that the observations he was about to make would be very few. He was unwilling to occupy its time at all, but if he was to be altogether silent it might be construed into a want of respect for the constituency he had the honour to represent, and especially to the individuals who had signed the petition in favour of the claims of the dis senters, which he lately presented to the house. He took the liberty of expressing a difference of opinion from that which had been expressed by his right hon. friend who had just addressed the house. He differed from the right hon. gentleman's arguments as well as opinions, though he had no doubt those arguments would be considered irresistible by many hon. gentlemen on his right hon. friend's side of the house. (A laugh.) When the question of catholic emancipation was before the house, the same fears were entertained of danger to the church, and the same objec tions were made to that measure, and the same fallacies were had recourse to. The right hon. gentleman had streiffiously contended that the present measure was to be regarded as only the first of a series of attacks on the Church of England by dissenters, and therefore called on the house to reject it. The right hon. gentlemanreferred to the opinions which had been openly expressed by certain dissenters in favour of a separation of church and state, and thence argued that all dissenters entertained the same opi nions on this subject. lie could assure his right hon. friend and the house that those doctrines regarding a separation of church and State were disclaimed by a very large propor tion of the Dissenters. But supposing such opinions were entertained to a far greater extent than they were, was he (Mr. Spring Rice) to be on that account driven from this measure? He therefore wished at once to cast aside the argument against the measure which the right hon. gen tleman grounded on the fact of a certain portion of the dissenters being in favour of a separation of church and state. His right hon. friend must have felt a conscious ness that he had undertaken the support of a very bad case, when he was obliged to resort to such an argument. The right hon. gentleman must admit that there were many very eminent men—he would not call them the lights of the world—connected with foreign universities; but he said they could not be compared to the members of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. That was pre cisely his (Mr. Spring Rice's) argument ; that was exactly the reason why he wished those universities to be thrown open to dissenters ; for if they could render literary men so muds service as to confer on them greater advan tages than other universities could, that was surely a reason why the privileges enjoyed at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be open to all. (Loud cheers. ) What right, he would ask, had we to deprive any parti cular class of his Majesty's subjects of those privileges by which they could be enabled to qualify themselves for the most honourable situations, and raise themselves to emi nence in the literary world? (Renewed cheers.) That was the way to raise the character of the country as well as that of the universities themselves. An hon. member had said, let the Dissenters, if they are determined to be ad mitted to universities, provide universities for themselves; we (the Church of England) will not in that case inter fere with them. This argument and declaration of the hon. member contrasted strangely with the conduct of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge in reference to the very point in question. What was the conduct of those universities when the London university, chiefly supported by dissenters, claimed a charter for that institution, which could enable them to confer certain degrees? Why did those universities step forward and practically disclaim the language of their advocates in that house, by the opposi tion which they got up to the granting a charter to the London university? What was the language which the universities of Oxford and Cambridge held, in effect, to dissenters on this subject? Why, it was precisely this— " We refuse to admit you among ourselves, and we will not allow you to have a university of your own." (Loud cheers.) He (Mr. Spring Rice) could easily understand those who took either side ; he could understand those who said, " We will give dissenters leave to have a university of their own, but we will not admit them to ours ;" or he could understand those who said, " We will admit dissen ters to our universities, but we will not consent to their having one to themselves." But it was perfectly incompre hensible to him (Mr.. Spring Rice) how any person could be opposed to the claims of dissenters in both cases. (Loud cheers.) Taking the double ground against dissenters was not only unreasonable, but it was illiberal and unjust. (Cheers.) Reference had been made by an hon. member o the ease of the University of Cambridge in contradis tinction from that of Oxford, in regard to the more liberal regulations of the former ; but the same arguments which proved the liberal regulations to be good in one place would apply with equal force in the other. In Cambridge College the sons of Dissenters were admitted in the same way, and, as students, stood on the samefooting, as the sons of mem bers of the Church. Now, he would ask, as no inconve nience had been to result in the one case, what ground was there to apprehend any danger or inconvenience in the case of the University of Oxford ? And how, in the face of this experience, could hon. members oppose the present measure? After allowing students to acquire all the in formation which the University can communicate ; after they had merited the highest honours which it could con fer, they told them, You shall not receive those honours, simply because you are Dissenters. To be told when he had finished his studies, that however great his acquire ments in learning, however eminent fOr talent, and how ever exemplary his conduct may have been, he shall be deprived of the badge of distinction which he had me rited, merely because he is a Dissenter, must be mor tifying in the extreme. Dissenters ought either to be admitted to all the honours of the Universities, or _they ought to be excluded altogether. (Hear, hear.) He did not conceive the possibility of the Church being injured or endangered by the associations of Dis senters with her members in the Universities. The same cry of danger was raised in regard to the admission of Catholics to the university of Dublin, when, in 1793, the restrictions which had before that period actuated them, were removed. Was that university less a Protestant insti tution now than it was at that period? He did not see that it was. He was sure no hon. member wouMsav that it was. It was said when the restrictions which excluded Roman Catholics from the university. of Dublin were proposed to be removed, that the consequence of doing away with them would be that the Catholics would forthwith aspire to a share of the endowments of the college. Had the fact jus tified that prediction ? It had not. The hon. and learned member for Dublin, whom he did not now see in his place, when examined before a committee of the Irish Parlia ment, in reference to this very point, stated that Catholics would not seek any participation in the endowments of the university, for that the sphere of their usefulness would be equally extensive without any such participation. The same remarks held equally good with respect to the Scotch universities. They admitted the sons of dis senters on the same terms and conditions as the sons of those who were members of the Established Church, of 'that part of the kingdom ; but no evil incon venience had ever been found to result from the inter mixture. The Dissenters in Scotland never sought to possess any share in the endowments of the Universities in which they had been educated. On what principle then, he would ask, could it be contended that any danger could arise to the Church of England from this measure ? If there was any danger to' be apprehended to the church, he would say it was from admitting Dissenters as students, and then depriving them of the honours to which they had entitled themselves. (Loud cheers.) He must recur for one moment to the case of the University of Dublin. As he had referred to it, he thought a reply would be at tempted to that part of his argument by his right hon. friend; and he (Mr. Spring Rice) believed he could anti cipate what the right hon. gentleman was going to say. (Loud laughter.) He had no doubt he would say that the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin had a notice of a motion in the order-book bearing on this very subject. If he (Mr. Spring Rice) were to take all the notices of motions in the order-book as arguments for any particular measures, he should be able to argue in favour of both sides of all questions that could come before the house, for the order-book abounded with such arguments in favour of both sides of the various questions on which that house was in the habit of legislating. (Loud cheers and laughter.) That Roman Catholics did not aspire to any participation in the endowments of the Protestant church, might be inferred from the fact that they had never presented a single petition to be admitted to a share of those endowments. (Cheers.) Having alluded in the outset of his speech to the petition which he had the honour to present from Cambridge in favour of the present measure, he must admit that another had since been got up and signed by a much larger number of persons. That petition was of a quite contrary kind from the one which he had the honour to present. He must say that the feel ing it expressed on the subject of the church was the same as that which pervaded the speech of the right honourable gentleman. The petitioners endeavoured to raise an alarm for the church by crying out that this was the first of a series of measures by which it is intended to attack the Protestant establishment. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the opposite side of the house.) He was glad to hear those cheers from the hon. gentlemen opposite,- but he must say, that they were for what they imagined to be in the bill, and not because of the enactments which were really to be found in it. The petition which he had the honour to present to that house from Cimbridge had occasioned great excitement in that place. A distinguished individual had been removed from the university in consequence of the part he had taken in the matter. (Hear hear.) The circumstance was important, as it might be looked on as a new mode of warfare to be adopted in the present conflict of opinions. (Hear, hear.) As to referring so important and pressing a question to the convocation of the univer sity, he thought such a course would produce results very far from satisfactory. It was argued that the house had no right to interfere with the statutes of the univer sities : he did not admit the force of the argument. ( Hear, hear.) Not many days ago, one of those very statutes had been wholly set aside in the circum stances attending the election of Dr. King to the vacant presidentship of Winchester college. Surely, then, if these statutes were to be set aside for the benefit of an individual, it was not to be asserted that Parliament had no power or right to question or interfere with these statutes when a great general principle was at stake. In the system of re ligious education at the universities, undoubtedly very great improvements had taken place within the last 15 or 20 years; and no one could view the mode in which religious instruction was there given and received, and the regular and decorous attendance at the university churches, with out being at once convinced that a deep-rooted religious feeling pervaded the whole university, not only in the breasts of the heads of the collages, the doctors and other elders of the place, but in those of the young men. That such worthy and noble sentiments should be so universally entertained no one more rejoiced at than himself; but he was very far from thinking this a fact which ought to militate against the admission of dissenters to those univer sities. (Hear.) On the contrary, it appeared to him that the feeling being so deeply rooted, was in no danger of being shaken by the presence of a few Dissenters (Hear, hear.) The non-existence of such danger being removed, there could not remain a shadow of ground for opposing the entrance of the Dissenters to the advantages of those• great institutions as seats of learning. The main point, therefore, would be to show that the safety of the tenants of the Church or England would not be compro mised by the admission of the Dissenters to the Universities. And that this safety would not be hazarded, had been the declared opinion of sixty-three of the first men in the Uni versity of Cambridge. The Dissenters asked no more than what had been granted, without the slightest' injury to either Church or State, to the Roman Catholics ; they asked for nothing but their civil liberty ; they desired to derive the same advantages, in point of education, from those great seats of learning, which the rest of their countrymen were entitled to. He entirely agreed with the honourable gentlemen on the opposite side of the house that in the upper classes as in the lower, the danger of separate education was very evident ; and it clearly appeared to him, that if the people were estranged from each other on every point, merely on account of the difference of their religious sentiments, the dissenters 1 1 would be left no option but that of withdrawing themselves into circles and establishments of every kind wholly dis sentient. (Hear, hear.) This was a result which he trusted he should never witness ; he hoped he should never aee any set of men contending for an unmerited superio rity, or another set of men struggling under equally unde served inferiority, on the grounds of religious differences. What he desir e d was, that all those who sought educa tion should be placed on an equal footing, whether assen tients to, or dissentients from, the established church. So far from thinking that the safety of the church would be compromised by the admission of the latter to the uni versities, it appeared to him, on the contrary, that its se curity would be so much the more guaranteed, for it was consistent with the best mode of reasoning to calculate that at least the tacit friendship and good-will of those dis senters would be secured by their being allowed to par ticipate in the educational advantages of these universi ties. (Hear, hear.) Surely it would be much more just and politic to imbue them with such a friendly feeling, rather than to provoke their unappeasable and powerful hostility by any longer refusing to admit them to those privileges. Nor was it the individual resentment only of the dissenters so refused, which was to be apprehended : many of them, in all probability, would in after life become active and stirring leaders among their sects, and it was not to be supposed but that the anger they themselves felt at their degrading rejection would be generally diffused among all those who listened to them. (Hear, hear, hear. ) He thanked the house for the attention with which they bad honoured him : he would not have detained them so t o ng, but from his deep feeling that on so important a question it became every man to express his sentiments. He would only add, that by the vote which he should give on this motion, he should not consider himself bound onany s ubsequent occasion : he supported thi s bill , an d t hi s bill only. His vote on any future measure on the subject would be entirely regulated by his opinion as to the intrin sic merits of that particular measure. Mr. GOULBURN said it was totally impossible for him to subscribe to the arguments of the right hon. gen tleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, or to refrain from en deavouring to expose their fallacy. He fully, however, concurred with him in looking at the bill which was be fore the house to be the sole subject of discussion at pre sent, and he should therefore confine himself to that bill ; he trusted also to be able to show that it would produce such an effect upon the established religion of the country as to induce even the right hon. Secretary to' turn round upon his own recent declarations and oppose it with all his might. The right hon. Secretary had painted the feelings of the dissenters writhing under the refusal to ad mit them to the university degrees ; but let him, on the other hand, ask him what the feelings of those dissenters would be when, after attaining all their degrees at the universities, they suddenly find themselves refused all par ticipation in the emoluments and honourable offices in those colleges where they matriculated, and such was the effect of the last clause of the present bill. Or might he not rather ask, was not the step of admitting dissenters to a share in the government of the universities reserved for another, and not far distant, occasion ? (Loud cheers.) He must confess, and he did it with pleasure, that he was anxious to see the Dissenters qualified to attain - c f on th ce e conceded to Church them a 'Englandwere civil scholastic distinctions, a l ways w i t h th e reserva ti o n tu that b privileges e w c h u a n t e e e v d e e r dat th e expense were u institutions. The right hon. sec re t ary h a d , i n t h e course of his speech, informed the house-that the university of not Cambridge had already in effect pursued the very course prescribed by this bill, by admitting Dissenters indiscri minately to her college stalls ; but the right hon. secre tary had totally forgotten to state that there was this dis tinction to be made, that Dissenters were admitted as stu dents in the various colleges at Cambridge, not as Dissen ters but as young men who, when the period arrives, will be ready to subscribe the act of declaration, and the 39 articles ; and, although they may be known to their pri vate friends as Dissenters, yet it is not until they are called upon to subscribe the articles and refuse to do so, that they are known as- Dissenters. Nay more, he would venture to assert that if, in presenting himself for admis sion to any one of the colleges at Cambridge, an appli cant were to announce himself as a Dissenter, he would inevitably and according to the statutes of the univer sity be refused admission. The bill went to a most un warrantable length, inasmuch as it repealed all the private ordinances of every college in each university. (cheers.) And the very words of the act might be quoted to show that it puts an end to all attendance on religious worship in both universities. The right hon. secretary referred also to Dublin, and had asked, with a sort of mock triumphant air, what possible danger could result from the adoption of the same principle as to the admission of Dissenters here which was enforced there ? He forgot in that reference to state that the Roman Catholics were excluded from . alt share in the government of Trinity College, the highest doctor equally with the lowest under graduate. But such would not be the case at Cambridge and Oxford, for once admit a man to the degree of Doctor or M. A., and he instantly acquires a right to share in the government of the university,, and such a power ought not to be placed in the hands of Dissenters, and therefore when the right hon. secretary called on the house by a parity of reasoning to grant Dissenters here the same pri vileges they enjoyed at Dublin, he did so without giving the house the real state of the case, so as to show that there was no parity of circumstances. Besides, how were they to guard against going any further? No sooner was this bill brought forward than an honourable and learned member (Mr. Shell, we presume) put a notice in the books of a motion for putting Dissenters at Trinity Col lege, Dublin, on the same footing with members of the Church of England, and his (reason for giving such a notice was that, inasmuch as the Dissenters of England were about to receive some additional boon—those of Ireland had a right to demand some more privileges likewise. The obvious reasoning upon this was that when the dissenters were admitted to the university de grees, the very next step would be ademand to be admit ted to the university emoluments, and the government of colleges. Besides, the indiscriminate admission of all per sons - of all creeds to university distinctions implied a total abandonment of all religious instruction at those univer sities, as indeed might be gathered from the speech made by a certain noble lord at the last annual meeting of the London University. The right hon. gentleman here re ferred to, and read part of a speech of Lord Brougham's at the above place, and proceeded to observe, that the question now to be considered contingently with the pre sent bill, was whether the house was prepared to disconnect for ever religion from the other branches of education. He believed there was a period in the history of England when the bare annunciation of such a proposal would have brought on a deadly struggle. He was the advocate of no sectarian principles, but he could not refrain from ex pressing a hope that a, struggle would be made to prevent so fatal a blow being given to the Church of England esta blishment, and that by an adherence to the present strict rules of university discipline, the rising generation would be preserved in their allegiance to her doctrines. (Hear, hear.) But it had been declared, on the part of some, that there was no religious instruction af forded at the universities ; lie should notice this only so far as to say ,that whoever made the declaration must have either practised on the credulity of the house, or else have had his own credulity very much put to the test ; for what was the fact? Did not all the young men who, at the early age of twenty-three, took charge of parishes as curates, come from the universities ? Were not their reli gious and doctrinal attainments subjected to the critical examination of large congregations? Were not 'their lives and actions open to the observation of all, and was it not generally acknowledged, that in both points—religion and conduct—they were, in general, highly creditable speci mens of collegiate education? Where then did these young men acquire their knowledge of divinity, theology, and their acquaintance with the forms and offices of'reli gion? Where but at the universities, at which it was (he must suppose, by way of jocoseness) declared no religion was taught ? There was another point, in which the col leges at the two universities were greatly to be praised, and that was in the enforcement of the youthful students' attendance every day on Divine worship. The very habit of uniform attendance on the worship of God was bene ficial, and where was the check in this proposed bill upon the continuance of this custom ? Where again was the check for the exclusion of men, who having made great acquirements in other branches of learning, might by some unhappy fatuity be 'disposed to turn their powers of rea soning and acquirements against the church, and indeed against all religion? Where was the remedy for the dan ger to which the young students might be exposed from the effects of such a man, of the possibility of which too many examples were presented ? What a lesson did the universities of Germany afford on this subject. There no religious instruction whatever is afforded to the students, and what was the result ? Why the Professors and Heads of Colleges were found publishing and avowing books which had for their object the total prostration of all belief in revelation, and which attempted to explain by natural causes all the miracles in the New Testament. The same results were to be observed of the American colleges, where irreligion was so prevalent that the ministers of the Gospel were at length reduced to the necessity of forming a university for the education of their future ministers, in contradistinction to the lay colleges at Cambridge and Oxford, as they were called. But there was another point to which he had great objections—namely, that no test should be required on admission to the universities, though even the majority of students might be Unitarians. Could he, therefore, as a sincere member of the Church of Eng land, give his consent to such a material change—a change which would, in fact, admit students of every persuasion, and some of no persuasion at all ? Could he give his con sent to such a change ? He could not, as a member of the church, give his consent to any such measure, and he implored the house to weigh well all the circumstances of the case, and, above all, to consider the great advantage which the country had enjoyed by combining religious with literary instruction, and not dissever the two great and important modes of education. He implored the house not to alter the present system at our Universities merely for the purpose of admitting a few Dissenters. If any one present had sons who had received a university education, and, no doubt, there were many, let them reflect on the danger with which such a measure wss fraught (Hear, hear)—let them reflec t on the present system by which only Christians could be admitted, and that which would admit of every se ct, and even hat r a v a ges reckless a such a sceptics. (Hear.) Let them reflecut hf lt ci ad also on change would produce on the fy out the vast changes which it would cause in all our literary and religious establishments. ilf the bill should pass, reli gious instruction would be impossible. Much had bee n said about liberty of cons cience being granted to Dissenters, and he was ready to agree to that as .a general principle ; but, while he admitted that, he would, at the same time, ask, was liberty of conscience not also to be granted to others? Was it not to be granted to the mem bers of the Church of England? Why should members of the Church be forced to attend univ ers iti es w h ere the Li turgy was not taught ? He would only say on that point, that, as a matter of justice, they w ere b oun d to pay as much attention to the conscience of Protestants as of Dis senters. But they were bound to look further. If the bill were passed, of course, as at present, students in tended for law or other f pro essions, would leave the University, and clerical men alone would remain—and what, he would ask, were they to lecture on without offending the consciences of many of their pupils ? It must of course be their duty to offend either one sect or another. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Wood.) Did the hon. member mean to say that it would be their duty to offend the conscience of their pupils ? (No.) Well, then, the teachers of religion were not to offend the conscience of any party, while at the same time they were bound by the most sacred obligations to take every means in their power of driving away error. HoW these two points were to be reconciled he could not divine. He would, therefore, ask —was there any advantage which the Dissenters could ob tain by such a bill to be put in competition with the de rangement which it would produce' in all our literary establishments? But, beside! they ought to consider who were the principal founders oithose colleges. It was said most of them were founded by Catholics. That he denied. The greater part of the endowments were made subsequent to the Reformation, and for the benefit of those in com munion with the Church of England. They all had heard of the Hewley Charity, and they all knew that it was founded solely for persons belonging to a certain class of Presbyterian Dissenters. That had been admitted in a court of law, and he would only ask them to administer equal justice to Protestants, and apply that rule to the universities. ( Hear, hear,) Tht right hon. member had asked why give the two Univer sities a monopoly of degrees? Why not give to London or King's Colleges the same privilege ? Now that was not a fair position. The statement was not correct. The prayer of the two universities was not against allowing these city colleges to grant degrees, but against granting them in such a way as to confound them with gran_ the . reason wig obvio t us ed . 'by M O in x y r o d f . o n u d r g C r i aTri b m r a id r.seho " o d ts'W ere founded on the principle that the teachers were to be l‘lasters.of Arts. That of course implied that they. 'should be tnerribers of the Church of England, but if no distinction were . joade in granting degreeS ?: "Unitariarts and other sects might be teachers in these schools.. (Pear.) That must necessa rily be the consequence of. granting. degrees in universities where no religious instruction was'given. He was convinced that on every principle, both of expediency and of religion, degrees ought not to be granted unless marked by some re ligious character, arid he was borne out in this by the au thority of Lord Brougham, in hiS remarks on the Oxford petition. Dr. LUSITINGT,ON was understood to:say; :that the hon. member was mistaken as to the substance of Lord Brougham's retnarki, and that they were made on the pres,entation of the petition from Oxford; and not on that which had been alluded to. • Mr. GOULBURN—WeII, that was not material. It was admitted that a distinction ought to be drawn and ob served, and that was all he contended for. He would, in conclusion, only say, that when they looked at the great statesmen, the poets, the churchmen, the literary charac ters of every description, which our Universities had pro duced, would they risk the vast advantages which these andt e a l i t n ot g if es thoseooff t thoseehwh country, institutions possessed? Would th e y r i s k an o bj ec t o f real value for one only of experiment? H e w o u ld a l so as k what wouldniv er be si t eshe, the f andbe menh a i f they odl who had Been educated ' down and see that these institutions were to be thrown open to ev ery sect, and to me n of ever y pers u asion ? could founded ild fliers, e olook our ek Universities, , fought Would they not look upon the preient generation as the basest of mankind for introducing Dissenters into those places which reared th e men that had fought the battles of the constitution, and had brought the country to such degree of prosperity? his firm conviction was, that if they passed the bill they would destroy the religious in struction of the country, and have the mortification of finding that, in place of conferring a benefit; 'they caused a great injury to every ciass of the community. (Hear. ) Mr. STANLEY, who was much cheered on presenting himself to the house, said that he did not rise so much for the purpose of encountering the arguments'that bid been advanced by the right hon. gentleman on the otherside, as to state to the house, in very brief tenni his' •iieiV a the question as it then stood. When his right hon. friend who had succeeded him as Secretary of State fOr the Colonial Department, . shortly before Easter, presented to the house the, petition which had been intrusted to him by pertain members of the university of Cambridge —a petition which was certainly couched in as moderate language as it possi bly Could be—he (Mr. S.) was glad to take the Opportn: nity of concurring in the principle which was then laid. down—namely, the expediency of introducing , as fir as it could be done with safety to the interests of the establishe d church, all protestant dissenters whatever, as well .as th°se professing the catholic religion,, to a participation in the civil privileges and benefits of the two national universities. He would not deny, or conceal from the house, that cir cumstances which he would presently state, had since oc curred, which had in some degree altered the opinion which he entertained at first. (Hear.) He shouldnot be d e aling fairly with the house, nor with his right honourable friend, if he were not to state to the house that impres sion. (Hear, hear,) He felt it his duty to make that avowal, but when he stated what had been the effect of those circumstances upon him, he did not m ea n to ' say that they were such as . to induce him to shrink from the assertion of the principles to which he had alluded. (Hears hear.) This he had Maintained, and this he' was pre pared to maintain ; but he was bound to say that the tone which had been held in the legislature, the pretensions which had been put forward on the part of the, dissenters both in and out of that house, the ultimate intentions which had been openly avowed by many of that part)" , were of such a nature as not only to excuse,: but neces sarily to demand the attention of the Established Chur ch and to justify its looking with jealousy to measol e i : brought forward for the purpose of doing justice to the dissenters. (Hear, hear .) Though he highly esteem ed the motives which had induced. the hon. member for Stroud (he thought it was) to make the statement that the same circumstances to which he (Mr. S.) had re ferred had made so strong an impression upon his mind as. to induce him to withdraw his support of the principle of. the measure—though, he repeated, he highly esteem ed his motives, he himself could not go to that length. hear.) He was, still inclined to support the principle which the petition, emanating from the body of gentle men connected with the university of Cambridge, set forth , and which he had thought would have been embodied in the present bill, after the. temperate speech of the right hon. gentleman who had succeeded him in the colo nial department. To the arguments which the right hon gentleman urged in support of that principle he could h ave had little to add, and he therefore merely concurred in the general view which he took of the question. _lf, in voting for the principle of this bill, he conceived with the right, hon. member for Cambridge that lie was voting on the question whether they should interfere with the esta blished religion, or whether they, should take religious in struction as a matter of indifference, he should certainly deprecate the bill as much as he then joined in supporting its principle as he understood it to be brought before the house. (Hear, hear.) But when he said that he sup ported the principle of the bill he was not prepared to support its clauses. He had not thoughtproper to speak till this period of the discussion, because'he was anxious that the hon. member for Lancashire (Mr. Wood) should have preceded him, and bemuse he was in hopes - that he would have made a proposition for expunging so me par!' of the bill. (Hear, hear.) [Mr. Wood, we believe, made some remark.] He must tell the hon. gentleman that he was endeavouring to state the views which inclined hirO, support that principle which was contained in the Caxabrioid petition, and which he was in hopes the hon. gentleman %io n ; _ have adopted as the principle of his bill. The principle of t. the bill was not that which had received the support ,o town of Cambridge, for it interfered and did aw a Y f with the . existing statute, and broke through the r ules ° the colleges and halls. If they sanctioned this interference: then, he said, away goes the whole fabric of the no„ h r i , i r f sities. (Hear, hear.) He held the question to be of highest political expediency in what manner you c onv_eY7_ religious instructions at the universities, which were inac cessible cessible to a large proportion of the people. The right hon. gentleman opposite had said that this was a question i n .. whether they would do away or not with that religiousk en struction. He (Mr. Stanley) said that he did not 1 9 ° „„, the question in that light, but he considered it as l g - d tion whether they should seduce the Dissenters to s en dan their sons to the universities, where they could se ,:f the participate in the liberal education of the ge ntr3: 4 , em o f country without interfering in any way with the sY co uld, moral and Christian instruction. (Hear.) If they esen, by the removal of the tests of admission as they at pr t t existed, prevail upon the Dissenters to overlook what w course objectionable in the universities, by adopting amild ' on of concession, they would confer a great benefitnot ) Chu ° rch of the Dissenters, but on those attachr he t r o thedo Thee but on England—not only on the ministershofeer ) They would, the whole community. (Mucheneeti e t by so doing, as they indeed, confer an extensive . b osities which had prevailed would soften the religious anim ,--bring into one common educa between the two parties— tion, and that not an irreligious education, th e var ious c l ass es of dissenter s, and thereby cause the churchman AP, d dissenter, by e arly association , to form th ose h a bits o' friendship which would prevent them from breaking ou t ' in after - life , i nto p olitical or th eological asperities. ( Hear' ) The hon. gentleman said that he felt it to be impossible t ° g i v e this common education w ith out excluding religion* He was surprised to hear the h on . gent l eman an d the °,"" u member - for Oxford, f oun d t h e i r arguments upon the do senters' establishm en t s at Manchester and at Hackn e y' (Hear, hear.) Those establishments were entirely the",logical ; they were for the exclusive instruction of persoll in theology, who were designed to be ministers of their re_ spective persuasions. Such being the case, it was by means a matter of difficulty to see beforehand that the re sult of the experiment would be, as it had turned theout,___e. unsettling of the minds of the students, before whoro t ea the set the conflicting opinions which had for agesclisr.etraheadbeen world. It would have been, indeed, surprising if the I universi any other result. Now, with regard to the nationia theologY . ties, they could not be fairly called schools 0 (Hear.) Divinity was so far from being the exclusive de' study, that the universities were only in a very s mall Di he gree, schools of theology. (Hear, hear, hear.) ase hear any hon. gentleman say that such was not the c„ He did not mean to deny that there were theological ;1 tures ; but he must observe, that the attendance i r n e w lectures was not compulsory. (Hear, hear,) i•ofess°l. that they were at liberty to attend the Divinity ' not not. The fearful consequences which had bee n dieted, and the parallel which had been drawn, vrer, e sia, therefore justifiable. The right hon. gentleman ha% or in objecting to the principle, that he felt it his duty ',.„, u st pose the principle, because, if they agreed to it, th e l in prepare to make further concessions. This might Fee in certain cases, a fair argument ; but it ought not tO : A wn discriminately used. These establi s h m ents earne st bene themselves the seeds of perfectuation, and of pe o tesman tit. It was the part of a wise and prudent the c onsti s to resist the introduction of any change in, l e ading to tution which might have the effect !?, i t h a t they an injurious result. But "if it was sal or any re were bound on all occasions to resist aoy e' me rely on the dress of a just or reasonable complain t ' m i g ht be called ground that a redress of other complaii_ l i t iia l o f all justice for, then there must be an absolute d 'r to demand• kl%t and of all rights which it might be it hon. , nerOff could not forget the words of the ri memorable rneasu're t Tamworth, in introducing that at et Catholic Relief Bill. He said, that „„ wh 'i n W'hat they were ncesti..- - • no the community demanded a e iniQ'pOssible to resist them, a in justice entitled te, it " gg : 4 . 9 e • wa 'y gracefully. If, said t he i t. the better plan V ,a. t h a t occasion, you grant these con:t right hon. bar..t.Tt d : awa y with a principal cause of a lot, d "'skins'u between two parties in the country ; „ i re bitter. feelinga c ourse of conciliation, you will, when any fu' adopting dema nd of a violent character are ma d e , be ena bled,. s o u nite against them both the Protestants and th-e-reii?", sy Catholics. The right h on . mem b er f or Cagi1)04,,, e ,05 :urther said, that no li ne cou ld be drairfi' at the u._Wiref" ties, supposingthe principle . ef . this demanded Wer e •' ' • '.