The Express.
London, England, 1864-06-02 00:00:00

TN what Happy Laud can I see you after the
"%war t way loww et ow .11appy Lae m wilktb a
pothomaaa may sap—IIALN9I4, Covad aia, my afar Wow I

NEGRETTI and WiIBRA'S One Guinea awl
Two Gators FIELD CHASMS and TZLIBCOTZII an war-
anted ea unrivalled for power and Sellnancy. tla. and Us. In
case complete-1, Hatton-garden, LC.: SS, .ftenllll LC.; ISt
legent-street, W. ; 151, 71nris4eet ; and Crystal Palace

Brie Oweiiii.

ILAYMAZKIT,

Tin Winne, TDB RALINCI OF 1/OWIPORT. Ms Asia
—DAVID GARRICK. Ileum Whim Dosltaten.Cl2lppeAdale,
r: Mesdames Ho" enewdas, ritawltham.—VENUB
ADONIS. Una L Kaasy.—Asd YR& WMIT&

IILUMEMEM
TKUI /MINIM. THE COMEDY or ILLRORR.—THE
CORSICAN BROTHERS. Mamma Tlal ad Walter Lacy.
—And BORN TO GOOD LVCIL lir. Du tntelc EurfO•

Lyma'.
THIS ICTIM2O, RAMAT. llama ledger, J. Brougham,
Emery. Jordan, Neville. ag•lntyre, Morton. Bat ovand,
lioretluad,Chlfor I, Edmonds, dime, md Shore . Misses
/Late Term, flamed% aa4 Ormatlky.—Comes M 8.

earnatwu.
Trtte wawa HOGAITIPS APPRENTICES ; or, Industry
and Itheasea-3.08 ROY. Mule: Percy Roselle and Inn C.
St. Care —And LASHED TO THE HELM : or, The SDH.Strlke
and the Mutiny. —Canunesee at Si.

MGR WATIS AT LONDON BLIDSIL
Tats DAT Morning, Oh. 0m.... .Allsroson. Oh. 20m
To-monkow mandaii. OL 4801.. ..AhoisselL IL AS.

LONDONTTIII7II9D-Ai,-JUN E 2.

FOR the second time an attempt has been made
to defeat Mr. DODSON'S Bill for relaxing the
religious tests of the Universities, and a second
time the attempt has been defeated. It was pre-
tended, indeed, that although the second reading
had been carried some weeks ago, the supporters
of the Bill differed so much in their views that the
principle involved in it was still open to discus-
sion. But the majority of members refused to
listen to so transparent a fallacy, and pronounced
in favour of the Se►rass leaving the chair by
236 to 226. Whatever may be the ultimate fate
of Mr. DODSON'S Bill, it is certain that the cause
of religious freedom will have gained enormously
by the discussion. The intolerance of what
SIDNEY Snail was wont to denominate modern
Percivalisni, and the hesitation of some of the
Ministers, may sucoeed in emasculating the Bill,
moderate as it now is. But a temporary defeat is
better than a nominal reform, and therefore it is
earnestly to be hoped that Mr. DODSON and the
University Reformers will not bate one jot or
tittle of the demand which they have preferred.
The Bill as it now stands will merely have the
effect of enabling a man who has passed through
the schools at Oxford to take the Degree of
Master, and to exercise the right of voting in Con-
vocation. To consent to any amendment which
would have the effect of curtailing those rights—
of clogging the Degree with new tests and new de-
clarations—would be to abandon the ground upon
which the University Reformers stand, and to
sacrifice the principle of nationalizing the old
Universities. No compromise is possible—no com-
promise ought to be entertained. It is to be hoped,
therefore, that even should the Government make
any such proposal, it will be rejected without hesi-
tation.

The only tangible argument which was adduced
by the opponents of the Bill was that the admission
of others than members of the Church of England
to Convocation would dissever the connexion
between the University and that Church.
It was assumed that the University be-
longs exclusively to the Established Church;
that it must be placed under the exclusive control
of those who are prepared to sign the Thirty-nine
Articles, and the other tests ; and that such per-
sons only are entitled to its emoluments. It is
natural enough that Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE,
Mr. HENLEY, and Lord ROBERT CECIL should
advocate this principle. But Sir GEORGE GREY
has announced that the Government adopt the
same view, and we wait with some curiosity to
hear the grounds upon which Ministers are
prepared to reconcile their professions of liberality
with their maintenance of this monopoly. Hitherto
the great majority of Liberals have regarded
the Universities as national institutions. They
were founded for the common good. Parliament
has legislated for them on this very ground. And
the claims of those who advocate further legisla-
tion are founded on the same principle. There is
of course an Established Church, and the theolo-
gical professorships connected with the Church it
is not proposed to secularise. But there ars lay-
men members of that Church, and laymen not
members of that Church. These laymen are
entitled to a share in the great public endowments
devoted to education. It is a grievous injustice
that they should be excluded from the benefit of
such endowments ; and until the barriers of ex-
clusion are removed the contest must continue.
Neither the lay members of the Established Church
nor the Nonconformists can be satisfied until they
obtain admission into Oxford, and are allowed to
claim their just share in the emoluments of our
great national institutions. This is the simple
principle which lies at the root of University
reform ; and it is because Mr. DODSON'S Bill
tends to carry this principle into effect that it
claims the support of all true Liberals.
But even if it were admitted that the University
ought to be confined to members of the Church of
England, it must also be admitted that tke present
system of tests has completely failed to accomplish
its purpose. What is a member of the Church of
England ? The ambitious young aristocrats, who
writhe under their Caucasian chief, declare that
no one can be a true member of the Church unless
he believes in the creed of High Church Toryism,
and proclaims Archdeacon Duvraos as his
prophet. The Recordite-Puaeyites insist that
no one can be a true son of the Church
unless he repudiates the authority of the Privy
Council, and is prepared to sign the famous Decla-
ration which was lately circulated throughout the
country. The advocates of the present testa main-
tain that no one can be a true member of the Church
unless he is prepared to assert under his hand his
belief in the 500 dogmatic states entscontained in
the Thirty-nine Articles, and to promise that he will
not use any form of prayer but the Liturgy. How
is it possible to reconcile opinions so conflicting and
even contradictory t How is it possible to pretend
that there can exist any real unity of opinion in a
mass so heterogeneous t Nor does the difficulty
atop here. There are thousands of laymen who,
although they consider themselves members of the
Church of England, would refuse to sign the Thirty-
nine Articles. Are such persons to be permitted to
continue in her communion? or are they fit subjects
of excommunication! But if they ought not to be
excluded because they will not sign, why should
they be excluded from entering the Universities and
sharing in their endowments? What reason can
be adduced for setting up two separate sorts of
Church membership—one for the ordinary layman,
and another for the layman who, having passed
through the University, desires to take his Master
of Arts degree! Anomalies and contradictions
meet us at every turn. But perhaps the most
glaring of all is that pointed out by Mr. Laaman.
" I know," he said, " many Nonconformists who
" entertain a firm belief in the literal truth of the
" story of Nomeit Ark, but who entertain grave
" doubts as to the reality of Bishops. There are, it
" is notorious, some Bishops who entertain doubts
" ea to the truth of the story of Noah's Ark. Now