The Sun. — London, England, 1834-08-02 00:00:00

bit the University proved that such understanding of them was implied, though not expressed. If it were not implied, why - was the distinction of ages made ? A boy of 12 years of age may matriculate without subscribing to the Articles ; boys of 16 mast subscribe and take the oaths. Why was the distinc tion made here ? Did it not go to prove that, with the more matured age, a greater knowledge, or some certain knowledge, of the subject was presumed. Between the ages of 12 and 16 —and this showed that degrees of maturity and knowledge of the subject were presumed—boys matriculated and subscribed without taking the oaths. Those who matriculated under 12, without either subscribing to the Articles or taking the oath, were afterwards bound to do so when they came to a certain age. If this practice did not prove that some knowledge of the subject was required on the part of the person subscribing, it was a very useless and unnecessary proceeding. From the existence of this practice, he felt authorised to infer that persons called upon to subscribe to the articles were bound to understand them. The contrary had been over and over again stated to their Lordships. It had been said, again and again, that the persons signing those articles were not called upon to under stand them ; but he would put it to their Lordships whether this practice of the University did not go to prove the con trary.—( Hear, hear.) Was 'it just, he would ask—could Noble Lords reconcile it to their consciences, to compel lads of sixteen to pledge themselves to articles on which there was so much controversy ?—yet every young man who matriculated at Oxford was bound to subscribe to those articles, and was considered by the statutes as understanding them. It had been said that the signing of these articles was intended only to express on the part of the person so subscribing that he belonged to the Established Church. This was a poor eva sion, and nothing could be more disagraceful on the part of the University than this practice of compelling a young man to put his name to the Thirty-nine Articles, as acknowledging, by his signature that he believed in them, and then s aying it is no matter—it is quite equal whether he understands them or not. This, too, the young man does not of his own free will, but compelled by his father or guardian, for the purpose of ma triculating. The members of the University of Oxford professed to be apprehensive that if this practice were to be dispensed with, the consequence would be, that irreverend discus sions would take place in the institution, to the great danger of the young persous who came there for their education And a declaration (as we understood the Noble Lord, who frequently became quite inaudible) had been put forth by a member, deprecating the admission of Dissenters, because of the laxity it would occasion in the discipline, they not being known as Dissenters, and yet being freed from the subscrip tion of the Articles. The declaration further stated, that the admission of persons not subscribing to the Articles would lead to disastrous consequences, and tend to generate infidelity.— ( Cheers.) The Noble Duke cheered as if assenting to this, but he would ask, had these disastrous results followed from the admission of Dissenters to the Universities of Cambridge and Dublin ?—( Cheers.) How futile, then, were the fears of these alarmists ! The Noble Duke, the Chancellor of Ox ford, expressed the same fears of Atheists, but did it appear that the necessity of subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles was calculated to keep them cut of the University ? If an atheist, an infidel, or a sceptic, wished to gain admission for the pur pose of disputation, or to pervert the inmates, did any one ima gine that he would be deterred by the necessity of subscribing to the Articles ? Such a person, on the contrary, would set the Articles at defiance. Believing neither in God, nor in a future state, it wou ld ma k e no diff e rence to him whether he subscribed them or not.--( Hear, hear.) The Dissenter was ex cluded by conscientious scruples, which, being sincere and sin cerely acted on, entitled him to respect. The Noble Lord here referred to a letter, which we understood him to state he received from a triend, and which showed that the chil dren of Dissenters were at present admitted to Oxford not as Dissenters, but as Non-conformists. If this were so, the dread of Atheism put forward as an argument against their admission, was no longer tenable, as the danger, it appeared, was already incurred. The opponents of the admission of Dissenters to the University, well knew that there was no danger to be apprehended on this head. It was true that the declaration put forward and signed by many of the heads of the colleges stated this dread ; but how was he (Earl Radnor) to know that they really believed the existence of the danger. —( Hear, hear.) In his doubts as to their credibility, he was confirmed by their own conduct. They called upon young men to sign declarations which they could not, or did not, un derstand, and express their belief in them. How, then, did he know that they themselves had signed the declaration which they had put forth in good faith ? If they taught the doctrine that persons may be called upon to sign documents, and not be bound by the signature, beca use th ey did not understand what they had signed, would it not justify the application of similar practices for other purposes--( Hear, hear, )—aye, and where the purposes may be understood ? Such a pro ceeding was acting a lie, assenting, by subscribing, to what one did not know was a lie ; and if a lie was sanctioned on one occasion, he would ask the Noble Duke, might it not b e sanctioned on another ?—( Hear, hear.) The lie involved in the subscription to the Thirty Nine Articles was more dan gerous as a precedent than one involved in any declaration, as the former was more solemn and deliberate. He was consci entiously of opinion that 700 or 800 of those who signed the declaration, signed it from other motives than a belief that the admission of the Dissenters to the University would be dan gerous, because of the reasons assigned in the document.— ( Hear, hear.) This, his conviction, arose from the circum stance of the University teaching those who entered to sub scribe to Articles in which they were not called upon to be lieve. What would not those who justified such a proceeding as this be prepared to do ? If such a case were brought before a Judge, and a document so signed presented in evidence, would it be sufficient to say in a court of justice, that the per son signing the document did not understand, and was not re quired to understand it ? Would this be admitted ? The prac tice arising out of this doctrine was carried into the petitions against the Bill, and he verily believed that many of those who signed the petitions laid on the table against the claims of the Dissenters did not know what they subscribed. But their ignorance on the subject was no more a justification of the Bill than the ignorance of the persons who subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles was a justification of their asserting their belief in that which they did not comprehend. To call upon these young men to sign an acknowledgment of their belief in Articles which they did not understand, and therefore could not believe, was calling on them to commit a falsehood. The Noble Baron opposite had stated that before he was called upon to sign the Articles, he took care to qualify himself by an acquaintance with them. This was highly creditable to the Noble Baron ; but was it not a proof that the Noble Baron thought a knowledge of the Articles was necessary before he subscribed them ? Lord KENYON—No, no. Earl RADNOR—WeII, the Noble Baron might not think so, but there were others of the contrary opinion. A most re spectable man, whose respectability when he was named would be acknowledged by the House—Mr. Behron, a gentleman who matriculated at the same University at which the Noble Baron and he (Earl Radnor) matriculated, showed, in a pamphlet written in reply to a most unjustifiable attack which had been made on him, that he had qualified, and thought himself imperatively bound to do so. That signing the Ar ticles in the sense of the imponent and not of the subscriber was not the intention, was evident from what he before showed was the practice as regarded children of twelve and children of sixteen years ; for if it was to be received in the sense of the imponent, the age would make no consequence. It had been objected to the admission of Dissenters, that it would not be done, as the members of the University were bound by oath to see that the Articles be signed and the oaths taken ; but this was no argumeut against the admission of Dissenters, unless, indeed, the laws by which the University was regu lated were as unchangeable as those of the Medes and Per sians. Could not . those laws be abolished ? It was exceed ingly hard to compel young men to sign the Thirty-nine Articles first, and take the oaths of supremacy and obe dience to the statutes, more especially when it was well known that these oaths were broken every day. Amongst other things that the students were sworn to were that they should wear no coats but of a black or dingy colour ; that they should wear no curled locks—(Laughter) —that they should wear no boots ; but that they should always wear a band both in public and in private. This band, so enjoined, and to the use of which they were sworn, was at present unknown, and the books which they were bound to avoid were in general use. What sort of a system of morals was that which induced men to sign what they did not under stand, and made them swear to do that which it was evident they would not perform, —to take oaths, indeed, whi c h it was not possible to keep ? The Noble Lord then referred to the statutes relating to property, and showed how, in many in stances, they were e7aded, and in some not unfrequently violated, illustrating the point by a case put in a work pub lished 150 years since, in which it was asked—first, whether he who had an estate, and made it over for the time of his fellowship, acted up to the law ? secondly, whether a person, getting an estate after he procured his fellowship, could con tinue to hold both ? and thirdly, whether the change in the value of property (making the same nominal sum now in finitely less than the same nominal sum then), would, if the sum possessed were really under, though nominally over, the amount which disallowed a fellowship, be adhering to the law? The answers to these queries were, in the two first instances, in the negative ; and to the last, in the affirmative. There was a question with regard to property, unknown at the time, and which those who founded the Universities never' con templated, namely, funded property. It certainly was 'the object of those who founded the Universities, to shut out from fellowships all those who possessed property to a certain amount, but no cognizance could be taken of a species of pro perty not then in existence, but which, if it had been known, would have been also excluded. As an instance in which the law regarding pro f erty was evaded, he would me n ti on t h e case of a relative o his own, who, during his fellowship, had a property left him. Wishing to hold his fellowship, he f i ll vacated it for a short period, sold out the roI) ert vested the money in the funds, and regained his e owship : Th e manner of explaining the subscription to the Thirty-nine Ar ticles,-as used by the Universities, was very various. One opinion was to the effect, that the subscriber meant no more than that h e was not opposed to them. Dr. Johnson's opi nion was curious. It stated that it was not intended to sup pose that the person subscribing understood the Articles, but only to show that he belonged to the Church of England. This was a trap, and would be best guarded against by adher ing to the opinion of Dr. Paley, who advises us never to make a promise unless we be aware of the duty to which the promise binds us. How, then, could a you ng man p rom i se t o belong to a belief, and not know what it is ? How could a person pledge himself to adhere to the tenets of the Church of Eng land, and not know the Articles in which the doctrine was con tained ? A Right Rev. Prelate had asked how they could in terfere with a corporate body which had not violated the terms of its charter? The answer was the proved immorality of the practices of the institutions. What could be more immoral than to call on persons to subscribe to articles which they did know, and force them to take oaths which they knew would be violated ? The Right Rev. Prelate had, on a former occa sion, admitted that these institutions had betrayed the trust reposed in them, and under this admission that House may be called upon to take away the charter. The Noble Lord here referred to the speech of the Right Reverend Prelate, and was proceeding to comment upon it, when The Bishop of EXETER said he had not the slightest wish to shrink from any explanation of anything he had said or done on any former occasions ; but he would put it to their Lordships, whether those matters could be properly brought into the debate which at present engaged the attention of the House ? The Earl of RADNOR said be was quite willing to leave the document to which he had been referring. The Noble Lord went to remark on the differences between the regula tions at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He did not know any good reason why such a difference should exist. He contended that the Universities were not theological semi naries, for the mere purpose of theological education. In proof of this, his Lordship referred to the existing regula tions ; from which it appeared that the University youths were required to attend only one fortnight's theological instruction. Some forty-eight years ago, when a measure was passed for the regulation of the Universities, it would have been more creditable to them if they had brought in a Bill, rendering un necessary a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. The Duke of GLOUCESTER said that in presenting a petition, connected with this subject, he trespassed on their Lordships' time by making a few observations declaratory of his sentiments, and he should, therefore, have felt it was unne cessary to address their Lordships that night, if he had not considered himself bound to explain the vote he had intended to give against the measure now before the House—a measure which he must describe to be most unjust, most uncalled-for, and most mischievous. The Noble Earl, who moved the se cond reading of the Bill, sajd that oaths were not absolute se curity. He (the Duke or Gloucester) agreed with him that in all cases they were not so ; but if they were to place no dependence on them, on what were they to place de pendence ? He was a warm supporter of the measure for the re peal of the Test and Corporation Acts ; he was a warm supporter of the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities ; but could either of those measures have been necessary if no oaths were required? The Noble Earl had read to their Lordships a quotation-from the works of Dr. Johnson ; he was obliged to the Noble Earl for that extract, because it expressly stated that the Universities were for the education of members of the Church of England.—( Hear, hear.) This ought to set the question at rest. On the strength of that very quotation their Lordships were called on to oppose the Bill which was now brought before them for a second reading.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think that they were called on to discuss now the regulations of the Universities ; but if they were, there were so many Right Rev. Prelates on the opposite bench, that he certainly did not stand up to answer what had fallen from the Noble Earl on this part of the subject, having reference to the University of Oxford. But he did stand up to say, that he considered this the most unjust, the most cruel, the most uncalled-for measure that was ever brought before Parliament. If any charges were brought against the regu lations of the Universities they might be bound to inquire into those charges. It certainly did not follow that they were justified in passing a measure like the one before them. He would remind their Lordships that petitioners from every part of England had called on them to support the existing system of education at the Universities—( Hear, hear.) They had declared that the system had their entire approbation, and they had prayed their Lordships not to grant degrees to Dissenters in the Universities. Of one of the Universities he had the honour to be the head, and he must say that there was no period when it stood higher in general esteem than it did now. —( Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that those who were supporting the present measures were unacquainted with what the real position of the Universities was. They were founded by certain pious and benevolent persons for the purpose of giving education to members of the Established Church, and for the education also of persons who were to be Ministers of that Church. Henry VIII. founded a college in the University of Cambridge, which received many Royal be nefactions. Parliament never founded a college. When we renounced the errors of Popery, when our Church be came the Established Church of the realm, and the Univer sities admitted it to be the Church of the realm, then these colleges became receptacles of education for members and ministers of the Church of the realm. The Noble Earl had contended that a degree was merely a certificate of good conduct. This was not correct. A degree conferred power; it gave authority.—( Hear, hear.) Any person becoming a Master of Arts had power at his disposal ; he not only had offices in his gift, but he had also the exercise of Church patronage.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl had asked whether any inconveniences had been felt by the present ad mission of Dissenters to the Universities? He (the Duke) would answer that they did not know them to be Dissenters. —( Hear, hear.) There was the mistake. It was an error to suppose that the regulations of the University of Cambridge were established with a view to the admission of Dissenters. The oath taken bound the parties to allegiance to the King, to be loyal and good subjects, and obedient to the regulations of the University. They did not know Dissenters from others, so long as they attended the lectures on religion, and con formed to the other regulations. While persons did this, there was no reason to believe that they were not members of the Church of England. But the moment that authority or power was to be placed in their hands, then it was instantly insisted on that they should make it known whether they were or were not members of the Church of England. The degree of Master of Arts was not entrusted to any but members of the Church of England, and from the mo ment that was otherwise, he was convinced that they would have to date the separation of the Church from the State— from that moment they would have to date the fall of the throne and the overthrow of the Constitution.—( Cheers.) What were the prayers of the great bulk of the nation, who were, happily, Members of the Church of England ? He had himself presented one hundred petitions to their Lordships' House, and sixty addresses to his Majesty in favour of the Church, and against the admission of Dissenters to the Uni versities. Let it not be laid the Universities were opposed to making proper concessions. About twelve months ago the College of Physicians had presented a petition to the King in council, praying that they might be allowed the power to grant degrees ; on this occasion ho, as the head of the Uni versity, and acting in its behalf, prayed that his Majesty would be pleased to comply with the prayer of the petitioners. The present measure, however, was one that he considered most unjustifiable, and feeling it to be his duty to give it his decided opposition, he would move, as an amendment, that it be read a second time this day six months.—( Cheers.) The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was his wish to confine himself entirely to a discussion of the question now under their Lordships' consideration ; and that was, the second reading of the Bill moved by the Noble Earl. He should, therefore, avoid all those topics in the Noble Earl's speech, relating to circumstances which, in his opinion, had nothing at all to do with the measure before them.—(Hear.) The two institutions which it was the object of this Bill to regu late. were chartered corporations, existing by prescription by the Kings of England, and moreover by an Act of Parlia ment. Each of the colleges, comprising three corporations, was chartered ; and the object of this Bill was to invade those charters.—( Hear, hear.) The corporations of which he was speaking had the power, under their charters, to regulate their own affairs.—(Hear, hear.) He did not know that any complaint had been made against them, as to the manner in which their regulations were carried into effect ; yet the ob ject of this bill was to force on them an alteration of the manner in which they so regulated their own affairs. , ( Hear, hear, hear.) His Noble Friend at the head of his Majesty's Government assured them the other night, that it was his intention to maintain the institutions of his country— ( Cheers from the opposition)—and he called on him this night to do so, by voting for the motion made by the Royal Duke to postpone the second reading of the bill to this day six months. —( Hear, hear.) Never was there such an invasion of the institutions of this country as was that proposed by the two bills (so he would call them) against the institutions of Ox ford and Cambridge. He had already stated that they were chartered institutions. It happened that nearly three hundred years ago, those regulations were imposed by statute on both Universities, which it was the object of this bill to repeal, without, as he had before said, any cause whatever being stated, except that it was desirable to a certain number of persons, that they should be repealed, in order that those individuals might enter into these institutions. That was the question which they had to determine this night. The Noble Earl. stated truly, that there was a great difference in these institu tions, between the University of Cambridge and the Univer sity of Oxford. It was true that there was a difference in the regulations applicable to these two institutions ; but the differ ence was more apparent than real ; there was little difference in fact.) In the University of Cambridge, persons might ma triculate without subscribing to the Thirty-nine Articles, or without (he believed) taking the Oath of Supremacy.—(The Duke of Gloucester—" No, no.") It seemed he was wrong in that. Well then, they might matriculate without subscrib ing to the Thirty-nine Articles. In the University of Ox ford they must subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, and take the Oath of Supremacy at the moment of matriculation, if they were more than a certain age. Now the Noble Earl said, why not put the University of Oxford on the same footing as the University of Cambridge ? Why; that was not the mean ing of the Bill before their Lordships.—( Hear, hear.) The Bill did not say that.—( Hear, hear.) What the Bill said was this—persons should enter the University without subscribing any Article as a test, or taking any oath on matriculation ; and, moreover, that they should take their degree without taking such oath.—( Cheers.) That was the meaning of the Bill, and that involved a great question. When persons took their degrees, as the Royal Duke had told them, they be came members of the corporation—members of the senate, and they took on themselves the . government of the cor poration. This was just the point which it was deter mined at the University of Cambridge that persons should not arrive at who were not members of the Established Church. When they came to the question of law, he would ask was there no difference between admitting Dis senters by sufferance —between allowing them to come in, and, as the R o y a l D u k e said, not knowing them as 'Dis senters, there being, as the Noble Earl had stated, no inconveni ence resulting from their admission ; was there no difference between that sort of admission and their admission under an Act of Parliament ?—( Cheers.) Would the Noble Earl pre tend to tell them that it was the same thing to let Dissenters n under the right given to them by the Bill, as it was to ad mit them by sufferance, not knowing, as the Royal Duke had put it, that they were there ? There was all the difference in the world, and more particularly as regarded this very ques tion.—( Hear, hear.) It was on this very ground he would say and contend that the two Universities stood nearly in the same position. When Dissenters came to be admitted into the corporations by a right derived from this Bill, why, the rules and regulations of the Universities—the rules of all the Colleges in respect to discipline—most particularly those rules and regulations which required instruction in the doc trines, discipline, and rites of the Church of England—every one of these must be departed from when they gave Dissenters the right, under the clauses of this Act of Parliament, to be admitted to the Universities. He had argued the question hitherto in regard to the University of Cambridge. He now came to speak of Oxford, which stood on - somewhat different grounds ; but he had no more scruple in defending the University of Oxford on this ground, than be had in de fending the. University of Cambridge. In the University of Oxford tip , rule was, that when persons matriculated they should subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, and take the oath of supremacy. Now, the Noble Earl had gone into a long argument on the statute to prove that the inten tion was, that the young man was bound by the declaration he made, at the moment of making it, to wake oath that he had a thorough understanding of it in all its parts. He contended, however, that it had been explained by several Right Reverend Prelates, and by one Right Reverend Prelate in particular (the Bishop of Exeter), that such was not the intention with which the declaration was subscribed ; but the Noble Earl himself, in the course of his discussion of this question, quoted the opinion of Dr. Johnson, who stated that the declaration was not made in the sense for which the Noble Earl contended. The submitting of this test on matriculation at Oxford was founded on a statute of nearly three hundred years' standing, and it had been a regulation at Oxford during the whole of that time. He never heard that any inconvenience resulted from it, or that any complaints were made against it. On the con trary, he always heard in this House, in the other House, and, in short, throughout the country, that the system of education at the University of Oxford, from that time to this, had given the utmost satisfaction. He had heard no complaints what ever either respecting this mode of matriculation, or any other matter connected with the system of instruction. The explana tion given by the Right Rev. Prelates, indeed the very reason of the case, showed what the declaration must be intended as —that it must be intended as evidence that the person who made it was of parents who belonged to the Church of England, and not that the gentleman who signed the declara tion must believe everything contained in the Thirty-nine Ar ticles. But the Noble Earl argued that there was nothing in this regulation of the statute which could prevent the admission of schismatics or atheists into the Universities. He admitted that schismatics tnd other individuals of that description, could not be prevented by this or by any other regulation from ob taining admission to the Universities. He (the Duke of Wellington) contended, that this regulation would prevent the admission of persons into Universities whose object would be to introduce their schisms and divisions. On this ground it was that the University of Oxford stood on the same foundation as the University of Cambridge. The object of both was, not to prevent one such individual from entering— it was not in their power to do so—( Hear)—but to prevent large numbers of such persons from coming in, who, if they entered by right, would object to allow the studies of the Uni versities to be continued—who would endeavour to establish their schisms and dissent—who would make efforts lo effect that separation which it was their duty to prevent. He thought he had now shown the grounds on which the University of Oxford stood, and the grounds on which the University of Cambridge stood, and that they both stood in principle on nearly the same grounds, viz., that the introduction of persons into these Universities who were not of the religion of the Church of England was not desirable, on account of the peculiar nature of the studies that were pursued. They stood on the same grounds with respect to degrees. By taking a degree a man became a member of the Corporation, and as a member he was entitled to a share in the government of the University. The Noble Duke then referred to the charge of perjury which had been brought against the University of Oxford by the Noble Earl, who had contended that the young men were called on to take an oath as to regulations which were gene rally neglected. The fact was, that they took the oath to ob serve the regulations, or to render themselves liable to the pe nalties for violating them. This was the amount of the charge of perjury.—( Cheers.) The objection to the admission of Dissenters was, that if they did so they must immediately de part from the whole system of education and the whole system of discipline. The University of Dublin had been alluded to. In that University there was little or no residence, young gen tlemen there living, with few exceptions, in the town ; in this University, therefore, there was not a necessity for similar re gulations. Thus the education of Oxford and Cambridge was founded entirely on the religion of the Church of England ; gentlemen were no longer educated in literature and science —they were taught their duty towards God and man —they were instructed in the principles of Christianity, and they learned their duty to their fellow-creatures and their Maker. Would any man tell him that this would not be interrupted by the introduction of Dissenters into these institutions ? It was impossible it should be otherwise. But it was asked, what was to prevent the present system of education proceeding, if a number of these gentlemen were admitted ?—( Hear.) It must be evident that if Dissenters, in the exercise of the rights given them in this act, were allowed to be exempted from the rules and discipline established, it would be impos sible to force an observance of the regulations by those mem bers of the Church of England who would come to the Uni versities. Would not such a system establish schisms, which would end in the destruction of all education ? That was the opinion of those best able to give an opinion on the subject. It was the opinion of persons who wrote from experience, and who told them that they had observed what had been going on in institutions for the education of Dissenting ministers 3 - these individuals declared that they found it i m p oss ibl e t o adhere to any particular tenets, and they had found it at last necessary to abandon thoie institutions altogether, it being quite impos sible to manage them under such circumstances. He had not heard one Noble Lord who had spoken in this House on the subject, who had not declared his firm determination to maintain the union between the Church and the State. Now it was really worth while to consider what was the nature of that union. He really believed that many of their Lordships did not look very nicely into what the meaning of the words " union between Church and State" was. Some might fancy it to signify the patronage the Crown enjoyed in the Church—the power the King had of conferring on others benefices and livings. Those who so regarded the matter ought to look at that which was still higher—the spiritual union between the Sovereign and the Church.—( Hear, hear.) His Majesty was declared by the Act of Parliament to be the supreme head of the Church on earth, and by the same Act was required to uphold their colleges and their religion, and to preserve them from those very schisms, dissentions, and disorders which would assail them if the present Bill became the law of the land. He would say that his Majesty was bound, as head of the Church, and by the authority he possessed given to him by that act — and, he would add, that the act which gave the authority im posed it as a duty on his Majesty —to prevent schisms, dissen sions, and disorders in the Universities. He would say, that his Majesty was bound to see that in those Universities the true doctrine of the Gospel, the doctrine of the Church of England, was maintained and taught, and that nothing else was maintained and taught. That was the meaning of the union between Church and State—it meant not a political union, out of which the question of patronage might arise.— ( Hear, hear.) His Majesty had sworn positively to maintain the law of God, and the true religion of the Gospel. He knew there was a convenient doctrine in this House respecting the King's oath ; it was said that this was an act of injustice that had imposed the obligation, and we couldfree his Majesty. He wished not to argue that now ;it was not necessary. But this he would say, that the o a th h a d b een imposed on two Sovereigns in the last twelve years, and it contained a decla ration of principle.—( Hear, hear.) It was a principle in this country, that the King should maintain the law of God, and the true profession of the Gospel. If that were the principle ._-and it was impossible that any man could deny that we had sworn the Sovereign to it—if that were the principle, how was it possible that they could approach their Sovereign with this Act of Parliament, and desire his assent to this Bill—a Bill which they knew must overturn any principle whatever? He had thus shown, he trusted, to the satisfaction of their Lord ships, that the Dissenters could not be admitted to the Uni versities, compatibly with the principle and interests of the Church of England. Viscount MELBOURNE was unwilling to trespass on the attention of their Lordships, by addressing them at all on this subject ; but - considering, as he did, the question to be one of the greatest importance, he must claim their indulgence while he addressed a few observations to them, particularly with re ference to some of the remarks which had just been made by the Noble Duke. The Noble Duke wished to know what course he (Viscount Melbourne) wished to pursue in reference to the Bill now before their Lordships. He admitted that there were serious difficulties connected with the subject, and he was also ready to admit that he could have wished the mat ter had been compromised between the two contending par ties, rather than that it should thus be forced on the attention of Parliament. At the same time, however, while he thought it would be an extremely desirable object that the matter might be arranged between the parties, yet, as the question was thus brought under the consideration of their Lordships, he must say that it was his intention to vote for the second reading of the Bill. The Noble Duke had adverted to the uionn between the Church and State, and pressed on their Lordships the necessity of preserving that union. If by this was meant that the Church of England ought to be preserved as the esta blished religion of the country, he as warmly approved of that union as any Noble Lord in that House.—( Cheers.) He considered that a religious establishment was necessary for the preservation of the Christian system. He belonged to the Church of England as by law established. He was a friend to that Church from principle, though he did not mean to say by that, that he could explain all her points of faith, or that he understood all her doctrines. But this he might say, that as far as he did understand them, and that as far as he might be considered capable of judging, he did re gard them as both spiritual and sound.—( Cheers.) He would say further, though he was well aware that he should expose himself to the censure of some persons by making the decla ration-,-he would say further, that he was attached to the Church of England, and would support it to the best of his power. because it was the religion of his forefathers, and be cause it was the religion of his country.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) He must, however, say that some thing was due to the Dissenters of the country. That, indeed, was now admitted on almost all hands. They were not only respectable in point of numbers, but the cause of dissent was as old as that of the Church of England itself. It grew, like that Established Church, while the Roman Catholic religion was dominant in the country, and when the friends of the Church of England and the Dissenters alike suffered from the intolerance of the Catholics while thus dominant in the State and the country. Many attempts had, on various occa sions, been made to overwhelm and destroy the Church of England, but these attempts had happily always failed. H e would not go into the question of the differences between the Dissenters and the friends of the Church, as these bore on the admission of the former into the Universities of the country, as he was not skilled in the subject. He would admit that it was highly desirable that Church of England principles THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 2, 1834. should prevail in the education given in the Universities ; but he thought that, instead of dividing and excluding Dissenters from the Universities, they ought to see whether it would not be possible to open their gates to persons of all religious per suasions. The Noble Duke argued at some length that it was indispensably necessary to the preservation of the Established Church, and the preservation of religion itself, that certain tests ought to be agreed on and observed. He ( Viscount Melbourne) would say, on the contrary, that tests would afford no security for the preservation of any particular system. His tory abounded with proofs of this. Tests existed among the heathens of antiquity. The deity which every man among those heathens worshipped, might be said to have been a test to him, and so might almost every action of his life ; but the event proved that these tests afforded no security for the pre servation of their system of religion ; they did not, and could not prevent the introduction of Christianity into heathen coun tries. The Roman Catholics had also tests for the security of their religion ; but were those tests of any avail ? Did they preserve that religion ? Undoubtedly not. The Protestant religion, or the new doctrines as they were called, prevailed against it, and soon became the established religion of this and other countries of Europe. In the time of Henry the Eighth there were certain tests agreed on in King's College, Cambridge, with the view of excluding those who entertained opinions opposed to those which were then generally received. He would read to their Lordships those tests in the language in which they were written. (Here the Noble Viscount read a Latin extract of some length from the rules and regulations of this College.) Yet, notwithstand ing all these tests, the new doctrines, within a few years, pre vailed to a great extent in that College, and soon became the established religion of the country. The Church of England like Christianity itself, rested for support and prosperity on its own native strength and purity, and not on any tests what ever. He would say, as he had said before, that there were difficulties connected with the question of the admission of Dissenters into the Universities of the country, and he wished the parties could have compromised their differences on the subject, but it must be felt to be desirable, that men of all reli gious persuasions should be admitted to those Universities. He could not think, recollecting as he did, how students be longing to the dissenting part of the community, had entered the University of Cambridge under the more liberal system that prevailed there, that the number of persons who dissent from the Church of England likely to enter, were the Univer sities to be thrown open, would be so great as to lead to the evils which the Noble Duke apprehended. He ( Viscount Mel bourne) thought that the evils which could by possibility result from the admission of Dissenters to the Universities were no thing compared with the good that must necessarily arise from it. Entertaining this opinion, therefore, he would vote for the second reading of the Bill. The Earl of C ARNAR VON had heard with great pleasure the declaration of the Noble Viscount, that he was determined to support the Church of England as by law established be cause it was the religion of his fore-fathers and of his country. That declaration would diffuse gladness throughout the country, and occasion many a countenance to gleam with joy. He only regretted when he heard the speech of the Noble Viscount, that it was not delivered from this (the Opposition) side of the House.—( A laugh.) The Noble Viscount had said, that notwithstanding the more liberal system that prevailed at Cambridge, but few Dissenters had entered that Univer sity; but Noble Lords might depend on it, that when the Universities were thrown open to the Dissenters without any conditions at all, the number would be greatly increased. They would hold up this bill as the charter of their rights, and enter in great numbers. Reference had been made to the unanimity with which Roman Catholics had been admitted to the University of Dublin. It could not be said that a similar unanimity existed at Cambridge. Look at the petition so numerously and respectably signed at that place against this Bill, in which the petitioners stated that they would consider the admission of Dissenters a death-blow to the University. It would be altogether impossible to make the admission of Dis senters to the Universities compatible with the safety of the Church of England. The Noble Lord sneered at the idea of such admission leading to dissensions at the Univer sities. If the founders of these institutions had not been of a different opinion from that of the Noble Lord, they would never have thought of expressly excluding Dissenters. The University of London found it impossible to agree on any system of religious communication ; and he did not, therefore, see how, if the Dissenter were thus indiscrimi nately admitted, the principles of the Church of England could be maintained at those institutions. At present our grammar schools were filled by members of the Church of England, the degree of M. A. being a security that they were so ; but if Dissenters were admitted to the Universities, they would no longer have any security. Let them have degrees at their own Universities; but let them not, under false colours, come into our grammar-schools. The fiery and ill-regulated feeling which led to the murder of Laud, still prevailed in the Univer sities of Germany, where tests had been done away with. Their Lordships ought to judge of the feelings to which the admission of Dissenters to the Universities would lead, not from the spe culative opinions of certain Noble Lords, but from what had actually occurred in other parts of Europe under similar cir cumstances. When he (the Earl of Carnarvon) saw the rising generation at the universities, as well as the masters and members of those institutions, concurring together, to the number of 2,000, -in resisting the demands of the dissenters, then he felt the day was passed when Noble Lords could make them believe that the " spirit of the age" sought to subvert the institutions of the country.—( Cheers. ) In foreign countries, where there were no tests, religion languished ; but in this coun try, where there were tests, religion flourished. He felt great respect for the Dissenters ; he had often acted with them ; but - entertaining, as he did, the opinions he had expressed, he should be a traitor to his conscience if he did not oppose their admission to the universities. But the question was, whether religious instruction was to be continued at the universities ? The question, therefore, was not a question between this House and the other House of Parliament, brit it was a question be tween God and his people ; and they had therefore the highest inducement which they could have to reject this Bill.—( Hear. ) The Archbishop of CANTERBURY then rose, and said that the object of the present bill was to repeal certain statutes which at present imposed restrictions on persons resorting to the Universities, and seeking to take degrees therein. The Noble Lords who had spoken in favour of this measure did not apply their reasoning to the proper question, which was, whether the restrictions should be removed so as to allow per sons dissenting from the Established Church to be admitted to honours in the Universities ? He should have expected that arguments would have been brought forward in regard to this point, but instead of that he had heard nothing but invectives against the University of Oxford for having imposed those restrictions. He did not think it necessary to refer to the at tacks which had been made by the Noble Earl on himself and the Right Rev. Prelate near him. That Noble Earl went on discussing a question which had been discussed over and over again in that House, as to the feelings entertained regarding those subscriptions ; but that question had nothing whatever to do with the question before their Lordships that night. He had heard the speeches of three Noble Lords, who had spoken subsequently to the Noble Earl, with the greatest satisfaction. There was not a word in their speeches, from first to last, which he had not listened to with unfeigned satisfac tion. The cause of the Universities had been most ably maintained.---( Hear, hear.) He had heard the declaration of the Noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Govern ment, of his intention to maintain the Established Church, with satisfaction ' and it gave him also gratification to hear from the Noble Viscount that though he meant to vote for the second reading of this Bill, he did so from a spirit of con ciliation. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) would, how ever, prefer t o h ave h ear d t h e N o bl e Vi scount g i ve an uncom promising resistance to a Bill such as this ; and he would be excused for saying that, in his opinion, such a course would have been better and more appropriate for the Prime Minister of this country to have followed. He should have been glad, too, if what the Noble Viscount had said was more strong in favour of the Universities than it was. He congratulated the Church on having found so eloquent a supporter as the Noble Earl who last spoke.—( Hear, hear.) He would not go over all that had been already said on this subject, but he would beg to refer to two assertions which had been made by the Noble Earl who introduced the Bill. The first was, that the Universities were not intended for the education of the mi nisters of the Church of England. The Earl of RADNOR—What I said was, that they were not theological seminaries. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY—The Noble Earl stated that Oxford was not a theological seminary, and he cited the opinion of a gentleman at Oxford, who he believed was a relation of his own, in support of that assertion. But from time immemorial the object of the Universities was the dissemination of religion and learning. They were considered places for the diffusion of sound religious education, and they were at all times connected with the Established Church.— ( Hear, hear.) That was the correct description of the inten tions of the founders of the Universities, and if they had been silent themselves as to what their intentions were, their works would have shown them. In several instances provision was made for the solemnization of Divine Service in the most so lemn form of' worship. In the act of Uniformity the Univer sities were always mentioned as on a footing with the Established Church. In short. the intention of the founders was uniformly that they should be connected with religion, though he ad mitted that those intentions were sometimes better observed than at other times. It was the same during the Romish times, and after this country had rid itself of the Roman Church. To this there was but one exception, and that was at a period from which he believed and hoped that no prece dent would be drawn. The Dissenters had, therefore, never hi t h er to desired to be admitted t o th e Universities, and ' they would not do so now but that they had ulterior objects be yond the mere admission —namely, an alteration and modifica tion of the course of studies in order to meet their own views. Hear, hear.) The Most Reverend Prelate then referred to several of the statutes of the Universities, to show that, from the earliest times, they had been connected with religion. The same also appeared from the course of examination followed at the Universities. He had had a letter from a gentleman who had long been a tutor in the University of Oxford, which stated the course of education followed at that University, by which it was fully shown that the course of education was in timately connected with religion. [The most Rev. Prelate then read the letter, which minutely described the course of education followed at the college to which the writer be longed.' He believed that their Lordships would agree with him, that in this course a course of religious education was followed, which formed a good substratum for forming a good member of the Church of England.--( Hear.) Another part of the University rules showed also that they were connected with the Established Church. He meant that part of the dis cipline which required attendance on the service of the Establish ed Church twice on Sundays, and once every other day, and more frequently if the health of the student would permit. Would Dissenters submit to go through such a course of instruction ? —( Hear, bear.) No, they certainly would not. But would they not complain that they Were insulted by a permission to take degrees on such terms as these, which they, of course, could not comply with ? Would they not hereafter claim relief, and ask that the privilege to be conferred on them should be made effectual by making it accessible to them in a manner which would not be degrading to them ?—( Hear, hear.) If Dis senters once obtained admission to the Universities, it would be necessary to make the rules more palatable to them, and that would be a change which would put religious instruction in a worse position. Another consideration was, that at pre sent when a father sent his son to the University, he knew that the son would receive the same principles of religious in struction which he himself professed ; but if this Bill passed, what security would a father have that his son would not be led away from the religion of his fathers ? He could not help taking that opportunity of lifting up his voice in favour of the Universities. He could never, at any time, consent to the passing of this Bill, but much less so at the present time, when there appeared to be a determination formed of destroying the Established Church. In his opinion, it would be most unsafe to admit Dissenters, some of the highest of whom had declared their hostility to the Established Church.--( Hear, hear. ) The LORD CHANCELLOR then said that he rose to give his opinion on this important subject, which had created an extraordinary sensation throughout the country. His prin cipal object in rising at that time, however, was to bring back their Lordships to the real question before them, .which they seemed to have forgotten, inasmuch as every one of the Noble Lords who had spoken in opposition to this Bill had, one after another, began by complaining of his Noble Friend having di gressed to subjects which were nowise connected with the question before them. If there was any exception to that, it was on the part of the Noble Duke near him (Wellington), and of the Illustrious Duke who is Chancellor of the Univer sity of Cambridge. With these exceptions, they had'all made the same assertion, in regard to the speech of his Noble Friend, and he thought they were wrong in so doing, and they had all fallen into the same error themselves. The Most Rev. Pre late had given much information, which was very valuable as to the course of instruction at the Universities, but he had said nothing on the real question, whether Dissenters should be allowed to matriculate at the one University as they were now allowed at the other? or whether they should continue to be excluded from degrees, as they now were, at both ? He had certainly however discussed, with great ingenuity, this other question—which was perfectly , independent of the question before their Lordships—whether it was expe dient that there should be a disseveration between the disci pline in the Universities and the Established Religion. But he would presently show them that no two questions could be more distinct or independent of each other, and those who should that night vote for the second reading of this Bill might most consistently on the morrow of the day on which they gave that vote object to any measure for altering the internal disci pline of either of the Universities. He would first remind them of what this measure proposed to effect, and also wherein he feared, with his Noble Friend at the head of the Govern ment, it would not be as efficacious as was sanguinely ima gined in remedying the real practical grievances, the termina tion of which was the object of its introduction. He would begin with the latter of those points, which was perhaps the first in the natural order. The Noble Duke the Chancellor of the University of Oxford had argued this case again and again as if every thing were now going on as well as possible there, as if every thing were perfectly satisfactory, and as if no complaint of any kind were made. And why, said the Noble Duke, should there be any interference with a sys tem so perfectly satisfactory ? Now he stood not there to ad vocate any speculative doctrines, but the plain ground on which he stood was that the bill was a practical remedy for a practi cal grievance.—( Hear.) If that ground were removed from him he had none whereon to stand. Was it not a practical grievance that because a man conscientiously happened to differ from them on a religious question, because he could not as they could conscientiously assent to the doctrines and sub mit to the discipline of the Established Church —because he dissented not only without any interest, but against his interest —that therefore he should be subject to certain disqualifica tions, and be excluded from some of the most valuable rights which their fellow-citizens enjoyed.—( Hear.) Was it nothing that the Dissenter could not educate his children, or, if a young man at the age fOr such education, himself receive the advantage of education, at the two most illustrious, most an cient, and most justly-renowned seminaries of public instruction in the country ? That in order to obtain such an eduCa tion he must resort to other countries at a great expense, enduring at the same time what must be considered as a species of banishment? Was it no grievance that he was thus compelled to resort to other establishments which they themselves, as if for the purpose of making his argument the stronger, declared were much inferior to the two learned Universities in question ? Was this exclusion, simply on the ground of conscientious difference in religious opinion, no grievance ?—( Hear, hear.) To proceed, was it no grievance that the Dissenter was virtually excluded from entering one of the most lucrative and honourable professions, or that if they did they must stop short—that in Oxford he should not be admitted at all, and that in Cambridge he must stop short, when his previous labours entitled him to expect that degree which was to crown his hopes, and entitle him to practice in his profession ? Was it no grievancd that, in order to obtain the degree of M.D. or B. M., the dissenting student was compelled to resort to Parma, to Padua, Pisa, Edinburgh, or Glasgow ? This was a custom savouring of persecution, and a practical grievance to the subjects of the realm. This grievance it was the object of this Bill to abolish, as well as all that tended to exclude the Dissenter from matriculation and graduation in both Universities, by way of subscription or otherwise. He should almost have thought it superfluous to refer to the existence of these grievances,' had not the Noble Duke spoken as though he had never heard of any. —( Hear ' hear.) He agreed with his Noble F r i en d a t th e head of the Gevernment, that if a measure of this kind were forced unwillingly upon the Universities, there was a probability that it would not receive that cordial, well-natured execution, which could alone extend to Dissenters the full benefit it was calculated to confer upon them ; and it would have been much more satisfactory and advantageous, if the Universities would themselves freely adopt an alteration in their rules, or if some middle course could have been struck, but agreeable to both parties. They would not by this mea sure compel colleges to admit any man, whether Dissenter or Catholic ; and after this measure had passed, the Dissenter might still find himself rejected from degrees, by the internal rules and regulations of the University. He did not go to the length of the Noble Earl on the bench behind, who spoke that night for the first time, and who expressed a hope that if this measure was adopted the Universities would consider it against conscience, and refuse to obeY it. He did not think so ill of those learned bodies as the Noble Earl, or those who cheered him.—( Hear, hear.) He did not believe they would disobey a law. He was apprehensive not of resistance to the law, but of a more outward and simulated obedience. This brought him to the observations of the Illustrious Duke, the Chancellor for the University of Cambridge, and he trusted that the University would take this matter into their serious consideration and make such internal regulations as would remove existing objections. As far as matriculation was concerned, the result would be obtained by not requiring subscription, and with regard to degrees, if medical degrees were permitted to Dissenters, the great bulk of the practical grievances would, he thought, be removed. Why he took a distinction between medical degrees and other degree, which facilitated the en trance of students into the profession of the law was this, that the regulation which shortened the term of probation for bar risters to three years for persons who have taken a degree at either University, instead of five, was a regulation of the Inns of Court alone, and one which they alone could abrogate, and which they might very easily alter, in the same spirit, by ad mitting, in the case of a Dissenter, a certificate of residence in the University for a certain period, instead of a certificate of a degree.—( Hear.) With regard to the right of fellowships and scholarships, &c., in most cases they were founded by members of the Established Church for members of that Church alone, and in most cases a Dissenter had no more right to complain of exclusion than a member of the Church of Eng land would have to complain of exclusion from Highbury, or any other Dissenting college. The Noble and Learned Lord then entered into the question of subscription generally, and referred to the statutes of the University to prove that subscription, as practised, was, in point of fact, a decl ara ti on o f o pinion in favour of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and not, as had been contended, a mere promise to study and endeavour to understand them at some future time. If the latter were intended, why not make a plain declaration to that effect in so many words. Many observations had been made about the union between Church and State ; that was a vague, indefinite, somwhat fantas tical, and, he was quite sure, an inconvenient term, which of late years had not been heard till last session. The defi nition which the Noble Duke had given of it would not hold either. Dr. Warburton was the first who introduced the term, but he regarded the religion of the majority as the reli gion of the State. If, therefore, the Church were, as the Noble Duke contended, to be regarded as united with the State, through the King, as its head, it would in England have an Episcopalian head, in Scotland a Presbyterian, and in Ireland a Catholic one. As a most sincere friend to the Established Church, he believed that there was no better way of promoting her interest than by the abolition of all secular worldly disqualifications for religious opinions.—( Hear.) He was surprised that the Noble Earl had commemorated his accession to that House by such a sweeping tirade in favour of tests ; and he was still more surprised to find an impression running through all the speeches on the opposite side of the question in favour of that, he would have hoped, exploded species of persecution. Good God !of what use were reli gious tests? How did they effect their object ? Tests kept out none but the conscientious. But what cared the knave for any tests ? The test was addressed to the wrong quarter. It excluded the religious and admitted the irreligious. The test appealed to his pock et—to his ambition —or, at the best, to his vanity and love of distinction, but generally to love of pelf. Not only would he swallow the test—not only would he swallow the Thirty -Nine Articles, but regret there were not thirty-nine more, they were so good for him.—( Hear.) It was strange, too, the admission of a few Dissenters to the Universities should be held as preg nant with danger to the Established Church, by those who had repealed the state tests upon Catholics and Dissenters and who saw no danger to the Church from Catholics and Dissenters holding seats in that Legislature, by which the Church itself was regulated. He should regret if this Bill was thrown out; but if, as the Noble Earl had stated, its re jection were certain, he would most respectfully address him self to those present connected with these learned bodies, and entreat them to employ the interval between this and next session, in endeavouring to bring the question to a fair and satisfactory settlement. It had been said, why did not the Dissenters get degrees from Universities of their own ? This was rather hard ; for the moment they applied for such a power for such a University, the two Universities were the first to oppose the grant of a charter. They would neither give the Dissenters degrees themselves, nor let them obtain them else where. The grounds of the grievance were plain, and the justice of the demand was manifest. Whether these claims •••••..ra -- succeeded now or not made only a slight matter Nimn•• of time in to history of this quest i on . Th e o ft ener the question WAS tu r fVle", cussed the neare r it a pp roac h e d t o a successful issue. ther it passed thi s sess i on or no t rema i ne d to be proved, b ut u o not he was certai n th a t some thi ng s till mor e advantageous e. the Dissenters would soon meet the sanction of the Legislatur. The Bishop of EXETER f e lt that it would be impossil?le to add any thing to the abl e d e f ence ma d e for the Universi ties t. by the Chancellor of Oxford. I n re f u tin g the charge of abeut tang perjury, the Noble Duke h a d been peculiZ b IY happy' his the refutation was not complete. Th ere was on e, who, by own showing, was still involved i n th e c h arge , and ti;..at l. the Noble Earl who had moved the second reading: of the .1- 1 ` That Noble Earl said he had taken the o a th s t o keep the tutes as regarded what he had called th e f oo li s h things in the course of his speech he enumerat e d, an d admitted stas 5 he was in the constant habit of breaking through these regula tions. Others certainly broke through the regulations, bu t they took the oath either to keep the statutes or pay the Pe' nalty. The Noble Lord wok the oaths, not knowing tb e ci alternative, not aware as it would appear of the penalty, an yet without knowing this saving clause, he violated ther; The Noble Earl was in the constant habit of offending, on„,d2„ was not easy to acquit him.—(Hear and laughter.) I °' Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack said he wished to, be as the Noble Duke was on this question. He (the Bishop 43 ; Exeter) was glad to hear that the Noble and Learned L° rd to be like the Noble Duke—(Cheers)—he was g l ad that the Noble and Learned Lord intended to take lesson'.. from the Noble Duke, and imitate him in all but his career.—( Cheers.) The Noble and Learned Lord, svish ing to be practical, said the Dissenters only sought rake° of grievances, and complained of exclusion for conscience' sake. Now, the Universities were instituted for the Pa r : poses of giving education according to the doctrines of rh! Church of England. This was the professed object fel, which they were founded ; and because persons not of th a '' profession were not admitted;'complaint was made. The 01)- ject of the education given in the Universities was not 5 ° much precise science or classical learning, as to make they true Christians and good citizens.---( Hear.) The ground work of such an education must be laid i n re li g ion, vrh,ie h must be given in a precise and definit e f orm . The higne s • intelligences in the English language taught what the ok, ject of education ought to be ; Milton said, " The end of learning is to repair the ruins of our first parents by r e :, gaining to know God right, and out of that knowledge love him, to imitate him, to be like him, as wd rnaff, nearest, by possessing our souls o f t rue v i r t ue , viinr,„ being united to the heavenly grace of faith, makes up highest perfection." This, according to Milton, was the end of learning. A complete education he characteris es as follows :—" I call, therefore, a complete and ge nerl education, that which fits a man to perform justly, skilfully, an magnanimously, all all the offices, both private and public, e s . peace and war."—(Loud cheers.) He rej o i ce d t o find th at those quotations were so received, and he repeated, that the religion inculcated in the Universities must, to be effectireci assume a definite form. The Noble and Learned Lord ba told the world some time since, when speaking of the Londol l f University, that it would be impossible, from the difference e s opinion which must exist in that seminary, t o g i ve religh•f e instruction without interfering with th e consc i ences of ra pupils, and, therefore, there should be no religious instruoti, ell in that seminary. That, then, was the p r i nc ipl e on which t ` i London University was established. The Universities of (5/- ford and Cambridge were established with quite another vie w. Their object was to give religious instruction; and it vvas `list unjust to demand of them to depart f rom thi s principle, °s (: „ 1 - would be in any sect to insist that some particular mode religious instruction should be established in the Ladle) University. This bill, therefore, was, in its own princip le ' felo de se.—( Hear.) An argum en t h a d b een urge d, that pe r sons graduating as physicians were excluded from these se" minaries ; and the argument was applied as regarded P e fi sons who wished to be economical in their outlay. He wr* have no objection to make the expense of graduating lighte r ' but economists did not seek to graduate in those universities, that expense being lighter in other universities, and the tlal less by two-thirds for obtaining degrees. It had been ost a e ; what the subscribing of the Articles meant? A s he (the shop of Exeter) understood it, it meant that the p erson so csub scribing entertained an opinion or leaning favourable to to articles, and it was made by persons of a tender age, for the pt; r : pose of showing that they confided in the authority of the Choral: it meant that they thought that the notions of Christianity ine e cated by the Church were correct, and that ther e f o re the I r , tides upon which they were founded were right. The Artie c h were not, as had been said, in themselves metaphysical, tho u g referring to metaphysical reasoning. The chartered rigkit to ably supported by the Noble Duke had not been attempte° be disputed. The allusion made by the Noble Earl to b admission of the departure of the universities from their chart ter, he admitted to be correct ; he did n o t h es itate to ea s , it again a gross departure ; but then it was an err or of rn° l , than thirty years since, and without any pr e ssu r e from witho ut it was reformed. The universities h a d correc t e d themsei ve L in a wonderful manner. It was said these e stablishme nt were national. They were : but in wh a t sense ? Becau se they taught the national 'religion, becau se th e y added to the h 0 national honour abroad ; but i n n o o th er sense . Not in t e ,„ sense that they were supported by th e na ti on . That they were not national in the latter sense, was proved by an argonle n which had been used elsewhere, when a Right Hon. &end; man in defending one of th e est i mates sa id , do not opP°se th is grant to the University, but allow us to use it as an a rguine on another occasion, that we may be able to say that Stat e contributes pro tanto to your support. Was it because or 3 small grant, of such a nature that the State could assume of right to break in on the institutions and violate the usages the Universities ?—( Cheers.) The Acts of George the Setae and Third provided for two offices ; but, because of this pr & vision, was such a right to be assumed? and were a few hu e dreds thus granted, to weigh ag a i ns t th ousan d s t a k en in taxe s on degrees, in matriculation, and otherwise? Another org e : s ment was, that the admission of Di ssen t ers wou ld promT,, peace. The language of the Dissenters did not bear o ut t argument. The Dissenters of Plymouth and other Pd looked for more than this Bill wou ld gran t— more than a ; mission. They sought a share of the dignities and emol e ; ments of the Universities ; and even those who were 011 temperate, only postponed their dema n d f or a sev erance l a the Church from the State, which they thought WI not just now be seasonabl e , b u t w hi c h th ey l oo ked fo r, ward to as " the accomplishment of a glorious objee u t ' st The proceeding of to-night was the beginning of " b " b t they contemplated. The Dissenters plainly told s s ,IP they sought ; and it was for that House to say whether o e :,, demands were to be complied with. Would they be the duP -- of the Dissenters ? Dupes they could not be ; for the Dissen ters spoke so plainly, that it was impossible for any one P e t , e " sessing common sense to misunderstand them. Would they their accomplices? That was equally impossible; for, to b e accomplices, implied some union ; and no union existed betw eer ; them ; for they had no interest i n common . Wh at rema ined : • Would they be their instruments, their tools, the poor roil ters of their hatred against our sacred institutions ? I I they be the betrayers t o th em o f th e very sanctuary o f Britis f honour ? Would they be the c orru pt ors o f th e f o untain ° O l British honour? Would they b e th e p o ll u t ers o f th e weif T „ religious knowledge and faith? Would th e y b e a ll this? NO B it was impossible; and he begged pardon for putting the ea s even hypothetically. He was sure it was i m p oss ible t h a t OW „ could join with parties who had disgraced themselves be for e their country, by demanding an act of injustice, a complialle with which must lead to the destruction o f th e most v enerab le institutions in the country. He would not d e t a i n them ,„ longer.—( Cheers.) The Earl of RADNOR replied he was gra tifi e d to lea d The that a differ en t course o f e d ucat i on was pursue d f ro m !P o which was adopted when he was a young man, or even S III , IA he had sent hi s son to b e e d ucate d at t h e University; 'le admitting thi s diff erence , h e cons id ere d t h e present Bill go' a as much called f or : an d h e h ope d , t h ere f ore, i t wou ld be r.,„eact a second time. H e s h ou ld vote f or t h e measure on the grn,, t that it would rid the Univ er siti es o f a great b ur d en an d a gry reproach. Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared-- Contents—Present Proxies 85 Non-contents--Present B5 Proxies lO2 -187 Majority against the Bill The amendment was, then put and agree d t o. The 1311 consequently lost. Their Lordships adjourned at a Quarter-past One o'cloc• ; GENOA, JULY 12.—The African, a Sardi lo/ 10 vessel from Lisbon, ha v i ng on b oard several persons ° t o served in Don Miguel's army, and among them Generals Ll. O and Cesar de Bourm on t, an d some other French officers; arrived here. BIRTHS. of On the 28th ult., at Leamington, Warwickshire, the law Richard Bo? " . Jlton, Esq., of a son and heir. Good' On the 28th u lt., a t W oo db r id ge, t h e l a d y o f F re d er i c Goo Doughty, Esq., of a son. of On the 30th ult., in Chester-street, Mrs. Henry Kingscote, a daughter. the On the 30th ult., on board the Dreadnought, off Greenwich' wife of Lieut. Bowers, R.N., of a daughter. _____----- MARRIED. Bri t° On the 19th of May, at Florence, at the house of the e y. Minister, Fanny Lucy Shelley, eldest daughter of Sir John Sh%.-arl Bart., to the Hon. George Edgecumbe, youngest son of the of Mount-Edgecumbe. On the Ist inst., at St. Mary's, Islington, Mr. William Kht e r Woodall, Newington, Surrey, to Miss E s th er B rown , o nly deug of Mr. Brown, Queen- square, Goswell-street-road. of On the 19th of February, at Barrackpore, Captai n J. Graba, l3j ; of the 50th Native Infantry, to Harriette Anne, only daughlr e psl Major-General James Watson, C. 8., commanding the pre eiu division of the army. of On the 31st ult., at Tottenham Church, Ford Wilson, E 5 V54.° Stamford-hill, to Eliza, daughter of the late James Collins, of the same place. On the 22d of March, at Madras, Rowland Winsley if, e a rt ro o Esq., of the Hon. East India Company's civil service, to " Le we° Trevor, youngest daughter of George P. Tyler, Esq., t" place. DIE '.D. Nvi olv On the 30th ult., at Crawford-street, Portman-square , ~.5 . worth Allan, Esq., formerly of Halifax, Nova Scotia, age d ; stao r i On the 31st ult., Mary, wife of William Wansey, Esq. , ° ford hill. fourth daughter On the 25th ult., at Headley, Francis Elizabeth, four of the lat Rev. John Parson abeth, aged 18. On the 24th ult., Eliz, wife of Samuel Wimbush, 6‘l.' of Finchley, Middlesex. yo ung ° ' On the 30th ult., in London, in his 30th year, John , son of the late Thomas Weatherall, Esq. ___.......-- 01/ 14 London; Printed and Published by MURDO Y - Gs The Sun Mee, No. 112, Strand. ELt T ~b 're lt I a3y s: t he he E n • - t' s fa c ;, u •' Lane P r : ce A a „ DI $,Ai, PE Arra n 4 !'An elati„ 8114. k„tis