The Express.
London, England, 1863-07-04 00:00:00

TEI.EGRAPHB BILL.

The report of afiaetaioiiii;;ru reeadoed.
DISTRICT PAROCHIAL
„.O.IIIIRCHE3 (IRELAND)

BILL.
The report of amendment, wee received.
THE BEE OF WINCH:69TM

Lord LYTTELTON permeated • petition from the. clergy
nel the rural deanery of Southwark prayiog for a dision of
the dioome of Winchester oaths sett svoidsnos of the see.
THE SUBSCRIPTION ON TARING ACADEMICAL
DEORFXI3.
_ . _

Earl RUSSELL then rose, Punuant to notice, to present a
petition from certain heads of colleges, profession, fellows,
and tutors of the University of Oxford, for removing the
present subscription required for academical degrees. The
petition he said wee of comeiderable importance, and was
remarkable for the number and character of the signatures
attached to it. The first name was that of the Dean of Christ
Church, and the total number of signatures was 106, who
were all either beads of colleges, or professors, or fellows,
or tutors The list included 17 professors and 71 present
fellows of college ; and making a comparison between those
who idgned and those who had not signed, he was informed
that of the 71 fellows who had signed, 56, or four-fifths,
had obtained first-alas honours, while of the re.
re:drain 366 fellows who had not signed the petition, there
were only 75, or one-fifth, who had obtained &stare
honours. The petitioners began by disclaiming any inten-
tion of inviting interference with the theological teaching at
the university ; they agreed that religious trebles ought
to be maintained in the university, and that the doctrines
Naught should be those of the church of England. They
went on to say that they believed that the
present system of exacting declarations or subscriptions
had failed to produce unanimity or even to promote
religious pease. It seemed to Lim that the petition
was so reasonable and moderate, and so far from in-
terfering with the rube( of the church of England,
that he hoped the time would soon come when it would be
the foundation of a change. They knew that for nearly
three centuries after the Earl of Leicester made his in-
tolerant and exclusive Law no alteration was made, and be
believed no alteration would have been made until this
day, tudeseparlianient had interfered, and be hoped that
before long, but of emote not in the purse
session,
session, the prayers of these distinguished men
would be complied with. He could not but
see that there was progress in religious liberty through-
out Europe. In the Two Sicilia*, where by the law of 1824
only the Roman catholic religion was recognised, and no
marriage of a perm could be registered except io that reli-
gion, they found that now that provision was held to be
quite inconsistent with the constitution of the new kingdom
of Italy, which recognised the principle of religious liberty.
While, therefore, they saw religious persecutioo in other
mitines dying out, he hoped that in a spirit of conservative
reform they would not be averse to the prayer of the peti-
tion which be now presented.. Wear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY said that if they looked through the'
signatures they would find a considerable number were
neither fellows nor tutors, and when they bore in mind that
out of the whole number of members of the university, re-
Dirket, non-resident, past and present, the petition only bore
the signatures of 106 individuals, he must say, with every
respect for the eminent position of those who signed it, that
it could not be taken as an expression of the rose of &con-
siderable portion of the university. The noble earl said be
did not apply the to • case of clerical subscription but this
was a Sat step towards the abolition of such subscription.
(Hear.) The question really raised by the noble earl was,
whether it was desirable that the two universities and their
management, authority, and teaching should be in close
and intimate connexion with the church of England. That
Was the real point raised, not by the petition, but by the
noble earl ; and it was one which should make that house
and parliament watch jealously how such a declaration on
the part of a minister of the crown might lead to imprudent
and hasty step, and might afterwards be used by that
minister and his colleagues as • precedent and argument for
adopting ulterior measures which might now be contem-
plated. (Heat, hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE said he bad never heard the noble
earl speak with so much embarrassment as be had shown in
• attemptieg to del with this petition. This was a very im-
portant question, and bore extremely on the welfare of the
University of Oxford, but the noble earl bad declined to say
a tingle word against the real object which the noble earl
(Earl Roesell) bad in view is presenting the petition. The
noble earl had passed certain criticisms on the number and
condition of the persons who signed the petition, but if
be (Earl Granville) were correctly informed, those names
did, without regard to exact numerical proportion, represent
an enormous preponderance of the most useful portion of
the university.
. . _

The Earl said the question was not the
great one of religious liberty, but really a Darrow question
—viz, whether a person should be obliged to make this sub-
scription before he was at liberty to pat Y.A. to his risme.
The Bishop of LONDON was one of those who had come
to the conclusion that in all these solemn and sacred matters
the plainer they said what they meant the better. When he
was an undergraduate at Oxford there were a great many
declarations which were very harassing to young men,
especially atter they bad passed the earliest part of their
youth and were entering upon the degree of master of arts.
In those days be bad to make a solemn vow that he would
keep all the statutes of the university, and also a solemn
promise that he would observe all the statutes of his own
college, most of which were centered round the celebration
of the mass, which had been abolished by net of parliament.
There had grown up a science of interpreting those things
which war calculated to do mischief. and be was thankful
that those declarations were now abolished, as they were a
disgrace to the university that kept them up, and be
only regretted that any shred or tatter of the
same system should still remain. (Hear, bear.)
He trusted the University of Oxford would still continue to
be the handmaid of the church of England as she bad been
in pest times, and he should deeply regret anything that
would tend to sever that sacred mainline but be hoped
they lived in times when both the &Inch ind the univer-
sity could face such difficulties as these. (Hear, bear.)
When members of the university became mantels of arts by
all means let them take their degrees in the fewest and the
simplest form of words. If eminent men of science Doe
connected eitb the church of England would enlist them-
Delves as pretences, or at all events as teachers, without any
danger of compromising the church, tbeo be trusted that
the university would carefully consider how that could beet
be dens. By this means many prejudices would be softened,
and the university would really become the centre of reli-
gious light ; and therefore be trusted that the university
would take into its mature coesideration this vary serious
sod important subject.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that his attention was
Mat called to this matter Dearly fifty years ago, when, epos
his matriculating at the university at the early age of 14, he
was told by the vice-chancellor that be Tram too young to
take the common oath of obedience to the statutes, but Ise
was old enough to subscribe the articles of religion.
(Laughter.) It was to meet such an anomaly as this that
the petitioners bad directed the attention of their lordships'
house to the subject.

The Bishop of OXFORD said that unquestionably the
affect of the existing rules was to keep the governing body
of the minima in the heeds of professed members of the
antra of England. His right rev. brother signed that
Bach a rule, haviagusab an effect, should be removed.
The Bishop of LONDON begged to explain that what he
had said was that the governing body should be of the
church of England, but that the university might field
means of admitting teachers who ware not of the church of
England, and if they did so ha would be very glad.

The Bishop of oXFORD rid au was e:reily what be
had stated. His right reversed brother would a those

who by their teaching might introduce the elements of din.
session. What he himself complained of was that that
was done already, as no professor need Dow sign the articles,
is was shown particularly in the case of the professor of
chemistry, who had never subscribed the articles, and had
never been required to do so. la fact there was nothing
to prevent any person, as far as subscription was concerned.
from attaining any degree in the university. His right
rev. brother had spoken of the disinclination of the
younger men at the universities to make the subscription,
and of the danger there was in forcing it upon them. Since
the last discuaaiou upon this subject, bowover, there had
been • remarkable demonstration of what the fact was with
regard to thin supposed disinclin►tion. Upon a bill being
proposed in another place which would affect the whole
question of subscription, • petition was got up by the
younger members of the University of Oxford praying that
DO alteration might be made in the existing law. And how
many did their lordships' think signed that pe-
tition ! No fewer than 1,030, the whole number
of undergraduates resident in the university
being only 1.300. (Hear, hear.) The Al question, then,
was this—how was it possible to maintain in • church like
the church of England, which was so free, at every two, to
which every conceivable kind of discipline was a stranger,
which did welcome the freest action of thought coosistent
with the admission of the great doctrines of Christionity--
how was it possible to maintain any dogmatic teaching
whatever in such • church after every other restraint had
been abandoned, if they also gave up every profession of
belief from those who held office in the universities? The
next step would be to abolish subscription in the collagen.
Then they would be called on to surrender that required
from the clergy, and then how wculd it be possible to main-
tain the teaching of external truth of any kind by authority,
(Hear, hear.)
After a few words of explanation (which were inaudible
in the gallery), from Lord Num%
The Earl of CARNASVON stated that no less than 2,000
non-resident members of the University of Oxford, mem-
bers of conv.ication and masters of site, bad also expressed
their entire concurrence in the prayer of the undergraduates'
petition referred to by the right rev. prelate. (Hear, bear.)
The Bishop of OXFORD gave notice that on Monday he
would move that the petition presented by Earl Russell be
printed.
THAMES EMBANKMENT (SOUTH SIDE) BILL.
This bill was read a mooed titre.
LNNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL.
This bill was read a third time, and passed.
MUTINY (EAST INDIA) ACT REPEAL BILL.

This bill weenier! a second Liam
PUBLIC WORKS (MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS)
BILL

Thin bill was road • mooDadiime.
POSTMASTER-GENERAL (SALE OF LAND) BILL.
This bill warn reed a third time, and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ILL.SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 2)
B

This bill wee read a third time, sad passed.
Their lordships rose at a quarter past 7.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-FRIDAY, JULY 3.

The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
TRADE TO NEUTRAL PORTS.

Mr. CARNEGIE wished to ask the Attorney-General
whether, in the existing state of affairs:in America, it was
contrary to international law to consign arms, ammunition,
or medicines to the ports of Quebec, Haman, Matamoros,
and Havana, or any one of them ; and whether a weasel
bound to any of the above-mentioned ports containing such
articles would be liable to oondemnatiou by a prize court.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in the absence of the At.
torziey-General, said the question had been asked and an-
swered over and over again. If the coatignaent was reel
and bonA fide, and intended to be delivered at a neutral port,
there could be no doubt that no vessel bound to such a port
could be condemned by the prize court. There was Boni.
danger of persons deceiving themselves by answers given to
abstract questions on the principles of public law. He wa
not aware that there was a single instance in which the
prize court,' of America had laid down any new doctrine
whatever.
SEIZURE OF GROWING CROPS IN IRELAND.

Sir H. BRUCE wished to ask the Chief Secretary for
Ireland whether he would introdocethis session a bill on the
subject of the stave of growing crops in Ireland.
Sir It. PEEL mid that on Monday he intended to intro-
duce a bill on the subject.

THE UNION RELIEF MD ACTS CONTINUANCE
BILL

Mr. TOLLEMACHE wished to uk the President of the
Poor-law Board if he would postpone the second reading of
the Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance Bill till after the
interview which he bad promised to give, on Wednesday
next, to a deputation from the =giant.' of the cotuatie3
most interested in the question involved in the bill.
Mr. VILLIERS said he would consent to postpone the
second reading, if his hon. friend desired it, until after Wed-
Imlay next, but his hon. friend must be responsible for the
delay.
FRONTIER DEFENCES OF CANADA.

Wand ANNESLEY wished to ask the Under Secretary
of State for War whether her Majesty's government had
received the report of the commission sent out last year to
ioquire; into the frontier defences of Canada ; and if so,
whether it was their intention to carry out at present
the whole or any part of the recommendationa contained in
that report.
. .

The 'Marquis of HARTINOTON said the report had
been rewired. The subject, however, was one as much, if
not more, for the consideration of the colonial government u
for that of the home government. (Hear, hear.) Certain po-
litical 00C1117000511 bad prevented the local government of
Canada from taking the question into consideration. The
home government had consequently not taken any steps in
the matter, and until the colonial government had decided
on the matter it was impossible for him to say what steps
would be taken.
EXHIBITION LAND.

Colonel FRENCH, in the *teepee of Kr. Gregory, wished
to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the com-
missioners of 1851 are to be paid the sum of 120,000 i. for
land at Keosington before the government is placed in clear
poescasion.9f the land.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQTJER said the
auni of money voted by the house &snoopiest to 67,0001.,
which sum had been paid to the commissioners to clear off
certain pending obligations. The government had no power
to pay any further sum till a vote was granted by the house.
He thought the moat natural arrangement would be that
the balance should be paid on the completion of the con-
veyance for the transfer of the land.