The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-23 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, J UN.E 23, 1854.

IVIR, ALBERT SMITH'S MONT BLANC,
including the BERNESE OBERLAND and the SIMPLON,
THIS EVENING, and Every Evening at Eight o'Clock, (except
Saturday) ; and Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Mornings, at Three.
Stalls, 33. (which can be taken at the box-office every day from 11
till 4; area, 25.; gallery, 15.—Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly.

LAURENT'S CASINO, ARGYLE ROOMS,
(Lessee, Cues. C. LAURENT, Onslow-house, Fulham-road),
The above Rooms are now OPEN FOR TIIE
SEASON '
.
and will continue open every evening, with LAURENTS
CELEBRATED BAND. Constantinople Quadrille, Sultan Polka,
Fair Star Waltz, and Overland Mail Galop, by D'Alberti also, by U.
Lalrent , the following Waltzes -La belle Francais°, Leonora,
kins and his Dinah, Admission, Is. Doors open at half-past 8.
Dancing to commence it 9 o'clock, and terminate at half-past 11.

ROYAL POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION.
Under the Patronage of H.R.H. PRIrCF ALBERT.
The Pub is is respectfully informed that this Establishment is now
placed UNDER ENTIRELY NEW MANAGEMENT, and that
alterations and improvements are in progre,s in all its departments,
which it Is hoped will rerder it even more worthy of the patronage
of the public than It has hitherto been.
All communications in future should be addressed to J. H. Pepper,
Esq., the Resident Director.
.All the LECTURES, OPTICAL and other EXHIBITIONS, are
continued as usual.
Open daily from Eleven till Five, and every Evening except Satur-
day from Seven till Ten.
Admission, Is. ; Schools and
.Children under ten years of age,

•
L. lIYAM, 36, GRACECITURC R-STREET, CITY.
Approach of Summer.
THE approach of Summer is indicated in a
variety of ways. Business assumes a new aspect, and active
preparations are everywhere made. L. HYANI'S New SUMMER
STOCK will be found both novel and attractive. The most decided
improvements have been made in Gentlemen's and Youths' Clothing,
and the tariff of prices reduced to the lowest and. most consistent
scale.

THE SUMMER DRESS and FROCK COATS
at this Establ shment are now ready. The three essentials
good M, goodrmaterial, and lowest possible price—guaranteed.
A trial will ensure satisfaction.

sity tests, and said that they had been abolished by the
Long Parliament, but re imposed by the Episcopalian
party at the Restoration, in a time of exasperation, in con-
sequence of their previous persecution. It was necessary:
for civil and religious liberty that they should be abolished,;:
There was one party that sought to interpret_the tests in
a non-natural sense, and it that mode of interpretation
were adopted, the test would be at once done away, but'
he expressed disapprobation of this method of being rid of
them. He thought that the 'University would d:erive bens
fit from this measure, and that the nation ought to share
in such benefit. Petitions signed by 37,000 persons had,
he said, been presented, this session, against the tests, and
none in favour of them.

Mr. COLLIER supported the clauses, on the ground
that the system of university education ought to be a
nicvialometuis olirodn
nsi
sln.
whichf one.HusEe HERBERT
Bel ihsEal eidßvetTi onat
taken
ntduyepi
into d
the
tttu,hhpaaeoft
ntuentrhti
vhet
eihsrproposed clauses
the question whether Dissenters were entitled
longedenter
intod
ad-
mitted to the university, but would explain the course
which Government intended to take. It was impossible
to maintain the exclusive system which had hitherto pre-
vailed. Its maintenance, as regarded the interests of the
Church of England, was neither politic nor justifiable.
But the question was as to the best mode of effecting their
object. The bill had not fared so well as he hid
hoped it would do, nor would anxiety in regard
to it end with its passing in that house. He was,
therefore, the more opposed
to the introduction of
any additional matter calculated to imperil its suc-
cess, and he felt that such clauses as were now pro-
posed would much interfere with its chances. He also
urged that, the power of legislating for the University
having been taken, from the Hebdomadal Board and. trans-
ferred to an entirely new governing, b dy, it would be
most undesirable at the outset to show, that Parliament
was unwilling to leave to:that bay. the exercise of autho-
rity. There was a strong feeling in the University in
favour of, practical reform, and far more would. be gained
by the promoters of these clauses if the alteration proceeded
from Oxford than if the change were forced upon them.
Nor would these clauses of themselves admit Dissenters if
the University were unwilling to receive them, as th
authorities had it in their power to impose theological ex`
aminations and other restrictions even more distasteful
than these tests. He therefore opposed the clauses, not
believing that they would advance the object in view.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that the argument of Mr.
Sidney Herbert had been advanced years ago in answer to
the same demand. The house ought not to delegate
powers which it was its duty to exercise, nor was it be-
coming the dignity of the house to decline carrying out its
views of public policy because they might not be acceptable
in the House of Lords. Let that house take the peril of
throwinc, out the measure sent up to it. He appealed to
Lord John Russell, after his speech of the preceding day,
to say something that day in favour of Whig and Liberal
principles ; and he begged that members of the Govern-
ment might be permitted to treat this as an open question
without incurring the displeasure of their chiefs. He
argued that these tests were not part of the original con-
stitution of the University, but were imposed for political
purposes, and no reason existed for their maintenance.
He dem ibed it as a solemn mockery to ask the consent of
boys to a set of theological propositions which not even
bi.shops could_ understand, and upon which man were
a

lowed to differ.
Sir W. HE ATHCOTE, in opposing the clauses,.said
hat they would not place Oxford, as had been contended,
on the same footing as Cambridge and Dublin. He denied
that it would be possible to accommodate religious instruc-
tion to the tenets of various sects, as had been shown in
the case of the London University; and characterised the
proposed experiment as perilous.
Sir J. RAMSDEN supported the motion, and argued
that if it were of importance that Dissenters should be
admitted to these invaluable schools, it was of still greater
importance that the Church should not incur the reproach
of intolerant exclusion.
Mr.. HENLEY protested against the proposal, which
tended to do away with all religious instruction at the
University, and to reduce it to a mere establishment for
the promotion of science and literature.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, though he
did not concur with all that Mr. Henley had said, thought
that there was force in what he had urged, especially as
certain cheers seemed to intimate that these clauses were
deemed by their promoters as part of a series of parliamen-
tary efforts to do away with religious instruction at the
university. He should consider that, as the representative
of Oxford, he was betraying a solemn trust if he gave
assent to such a principle. He believed that, in regard to
this question, they were bound to consider the bond fide
interests of the Church of England. While that Church
was a national institution the nation had a right to expect
the teaching of the University to be of a religious cha-
racter, and moulded on the form of the religious in-
struction given by the Church. He stated explicitly
that on the part of the Church he entertained
no apprehension from the admission of Dissenters;
but it was impossible to separate their case from
that -of the Roman Catholics, and in considering
the former, it must in honesty be held to involve
the case of the laitar. He signified his concurrence with
what Mr. Sidney Herbert had said, explaining that he had
not understood the latter to give his adhesion to the terms
of these clauses, but to say that, if due provision for the
teaching of religion according to till. Clvurcil of—England
'could be made in the University, it would be a great ad-
vantage if the admission of ,Dissenters could also be pyo-
videefor. Ho did not think that he should be keeping
faith with those who had assisted in passing this bill, by
introducing so essential a change at the last moment. The
clauses invited a departure from the whole principle of
the measure, which was one of emancipation. They could
not accomplish the object of procuring admission for the
Dissenters, which must depend only upon the good will
and free will of the University ; and by these alone could
the difficulty be solved. It would, moreover, be most un-
worthy of the house to pass a clause by which the dis-
senter might creep in, but which would exclude the. Ro-
man Catholic. He also protested against any menace
being held out to the University as to future Parliamen-
tary interferon ce.
Lord STANLEY said that the course Government had
taken was precisely that which might have been expected,
and which they had adopted of late in regard to every
question of principle, especially of religions principle—a
course which fixed them to no broad principle whatever.
The country would have reason to complain of another in-
stance of indefinite delay. He was by no means so certain
that the bill would not, in the form proposed, pass the
House of Lords ; but Liberal members ought to be much
indebted to that house, whose probable opposition was so
often pleaded as a reason for not passing measures in that
house. He was no advocate for interfering with the de-
tails of academical management; but this was one of those
questions of national interest and impoOanco with which,
in fairness and in common sense, Parliament ought to deal.
A resolution of the house would contain an indication of
public opinion which the university would not venture to
disregard. He disclaimed any unfriendly feeling towards
Oxford • but his own views upon this question were fixed
and definite, and he hoped that the house would not shrink
from a decision upon it.
Mr. WIGRAIVI viewed the opinions of Lord Stanley in
regard to several of our institutions with distrust, and
expressed his own concurrence in the sentiments of Mr.
Henley.

te hh elle
ciru. Romanerlvh a. t
J.
C. a
Ft h
Mr. LUCAS supported the clauses, and, on the part of
tage of the opening which it was suggested was to be made
surrenderedxiiusdildaitsetcdhlaeuimpwoehndoltaehnocyasdiesire to take advan
for them. He considered that the 'Chancellor of the Ex-
sent system of oaths and subscriptions,en'auntidliatyskeodf
such was the way in which men should be prepared to fill
whethert he pr e -
leading positions in the country. Oxford, h 3 urged, ought
to keep progress as well as conversatism in view. He de-
manded that the clauses should be granted as a homage to
the right of private judgment.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER denied that the Univer-
sity could be termed a national institution in the sense in
which the promoters of the clauses used the term, and
urged that it was national because it had always followed
the fortunes of the national church, and because the
nation looked up to it with affection. It was an ecclesi-
astical institution, supported by ecclesiastical endowments,
made for ecclesiastical purposes. He resisted the clauses,
as the first step of a revolution which the promoters of the
clauses avowed, manfully, that they contemplated, but
which the son of the Chancellor of Oxford, though sup-
porting the proposition, shrank from. He asserted that
all the Dissenters would refuse to acquiesce in a state of
things which must either withhold religious instruction,
or tend to detach their children from their own denomi-
nation. •
Lord J. RUSSELL—As the opinions of the hon. and
learned gentleman who has just sat down are so very dif-
ferent from those which I entertain, although we may pro-
bably be found in the same lobby when we come to divide,
I am anxious to distinguish my opinions from those which
he has just delivered to the house. There are as it ap-
pears to me, two questions involved in the present debate
—one is as to the admission of Dissenters to the Univers-
ity of Oxford considered as .a measure fit to be adopted;
the other is, whether, there being a bill before the house
for the better government of the University of Oxford, it
is desirable and expedient that such admission, if it is
right, should be enacted by one or many of. the clauses in
that bill. Now, these questions being quite distinct, I
will endeavour to keep them so in the observations that I
shall address to the house. With respect to the first ques-
tion, I own I cannot think that any argument which has
been urged in this house to-night, or any which I have
heard on former occasions, has any conclusive weight
against the admission of Dissenters to the University of
Oxford. Let us look first to that which has been so often
referred to, the main designs of the founders. We must
suppose the founders—those at least of them who founded
colleges in Catholic times,—to be in one of two conditions
—either we must suppose them to retain the faith and the
opinions which they held during their lifetime, or we must
suppose that, wishing that the colleges they founded should
conform to the opinions of their days, they would be ready
now to entertain the views and opinions which are the pre-
sent opinions of our days. When the founders were told
what were the doctrines of the Church of England, and
were afterwards told the differences between the Church of
England and the Protestant Dissenters, they would say the
questions upon which the Church of England and the Pro-
testant Dissenters agreed were so pregnant with impor-
tance that it was impossible they could assent to the pro-
position, that one class should be admitted and another ex-
cluded. They would consider that those who differed on ques-
tions of transubstantiation, of the supremacy of the Pope, and
upon other matter differed on questions so important and so
affecting the foundation and root of their faith that they never
could admit that persons belonging to the Church of England
if
fhowue go ldbeanientchluerdewday and suppose—and I think it a fairin the benefits of the foundation. But
supposition to make—that the founders would wish, if
they had the whole state of opinion before them, that the
colleges and foundations should conform to the opinion of
the present day—then, in that case, they would bo dis-
posed to conform to the policy of the present day ; and
that policy is in•favour of admission and against monopoly
of religion. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentle-
man who had just spoken said the University of Oxford
ought to .remain connected with the €urch of England,
that it was so before the Reformation,at it had been so
since, and that it ought to remain so nosy. Why; sit,
with rogarcl to the period since tit* AgormatioN-wg

must consider " that the University of Oxford, like
many other institutions, partook of that system of
exclusiveness—it might be necessary -exclusiveness,-
which considered the Roman Catholics and the Protes•
-
tant Dissentera enemies of the Church. If you refer to
tteltsc)t argumentsiawe Laws—those
o se
l.madea w e at
whichthe time
Re
mu corporationc e el
Catholics—
and
xmcededth e
'you will find that that is at'the bottom of the objections
to the admission- of these two classes, that thee. were con-
sidered unentitled to the benefit of the institutions of the
State, and that therefetre they should not be admitted.
(Hear.) But is any such opinion held now:? Is that the
opinion of the present day ? On the contrary, in regard
to all the offices of the State, with one or two exceptions,
the Roman Catholics and the Protestant Dissenters are
generally admitted to those offices. (Cheers.) And let us
see how this applies to the University of Oxford. 1 think
it will be geurally agreed that the doctrine of exclusion, the
doctrine of monopoly, should not be carried further than
is absolutely necessary. (Cheers.) Nov, what is it that
is necessary in the University of Oxford? I agree with
the hon. and learned gentleman, that with respect to the
offices in the church, with respect to bishops and to parsons
holding the cure of souls, it is absolutely necessary that
thoSe who hold such offices should be persons conforming
to the standard of the church to which tbey belong. (Hear.)
But how much farther can we go in this direction ? I
think if we go so far as this, and say that the parsons go-
verning the colleges should be members of the Church of
England, and should give religious instruction according to
the standard of the Church of England, we should go quite
ai far as is necessary in that direction. (Cheers.) I agree
certainly that it is desirable that religious instruction should
lee given in the University of Oxford. If lam asked what
religious instruction should be given, I must revert to
opinions which I think were quotedby the hon. baronetthe
member for the University of Oxford, which opinions I
held when the university college then called the University
of London was founded. It was -founded for persons of
different religious opinions. There was a proposal made
by some of those who founded it that there should be lee-
tures given on general Christian topics, but that those lec-
tures should be so general and so vague that persons of all
Christian denominations could attend them. It was my
opinion that it was much better to have no religious in-
struction at all than to have a professor so qualified. (Hear,
hear.) I therefore was one of those who, against the
opinions of several persons I highly respected, objected to
the institution of such professors, and I said it was better
only to teach: classics and sciences than to attempt to
meddle with religion at all if we could not be a religions
body. I quite agree that the religious instruction to be
given at the University of Oxford should be religious in-
struction according to the Church of England. When I
have said so much I think I have said all to which the rule
of exclusiveness should apply; but when I come to other
questions—when I come to such a question as was argued
by my noble friend near me, the member for Tiverton, in
1831, •when he asked if it was necessary that persons should
not receive a diploma in various professions unless' they
made a profession of faith according to a particular church
—I own it appears to me that regulations might easily be
made (if they were willing to make them) by the authorities
of the university and by the authorities of the colleges that
those persons who belong to families, whether of Protestant
Dissenters or Roman Catholics, should receive' all that -in-
struction in science, all that instruction in classics, and all
that instruction in arts which persons belongirig to the
Church of England receive. (Hear.) Why, sire this is,
after all—l don't care whether it is a national institution
or not—this is, after all, a great national object, that if
you have a university with a revenue of 150,0001. a-year,
and have connected with that university men specially
qualified to teach, men in the possession of great acquire-
ments in science and learning, it is desirable as far as pos-
sible that the nation should partake of the benefits of
such an institution—(cheers)—and that you should not,
by setting up a bar at the very entrance of the university,
deprive a great portion of your people of those advan-
tages. (Cheers.) Take a man who is qualified to-become
n
a very eminent lawyer, or a very skilful physician. Is it
a great evil and a great grievance that, because that
man is the son of a Roman Catholic or a Protestant Dis-
senter, he should be 'thereby debarred from the advantages
which such a university holds out, and be unable to
acquire that learning and skill which would enable
him to practise his profession with success? (Loud
cheers.) I own I cannot find that there is any
reason whatever in the objections made by the hon. and
learned.gentleman who spoke last, and others, to admission,
so far, to the benefits of the university. A young man
certainly could not then have the benefit of instruction in
the doctrines of the Church of England. At the same time
there is some truth—though men in these days would hardly
agree in such an opinion—there is some truth in the opinion
more than once stated by Dr. Johnson, that the differences
of Christians among themselves, after all, are more political
than religious—that there have been great political
differences among Christian sects, but that the religious
differences are not so important as they at first sight ap-
pear to be. That is the opinion of Dr. Johnson. It is
impossible, I think, to subscribe wholly to that opinion,
but at the same time it is quite obvious that political in-
fluences have greatly entered into religious differences.
But, sir, with regard to the young men who would then
be unable to receive the religious instruction of the Church
of England, it is a matter for their parents and guardians,
rather than for us, to consider if their religious faith would
be safe in the University of Oxford. An hon. gentleman
;who has spoken to-night=the hon. member for Meath (Mr.
Lucas)—has said that if Roman Catholics were admitted
to the University of Oxford, he does not think they would
be disposed to take advantage of that admission. I have
hoard, with respect to Cambridge, where Protestant Dis-
senters are admitted, that some of those Protestants Dis-
senters find that, whether by following the custom of the
college to which they belong, or through the facilities by
which young men receive instruction, they afterwards
conform to the Church of England. But that is a matter
for the parents and guardians of the young men them-
selves. What is the duty of the State, and what I think
more peculiarly the duty of the university as a national
institution, is to open the door, and whether these persons
choose to enter or not is a matter entirely for their own
consideration. I do not deny that the general character
of the University of Oxford would still remain Church of
England, and therefore most of those who went there would
go to an institution of their own creed. But, sir, with
regard to the second resolution of my hon. friend, I must
say I cannot soo the policy or even the justice of the dis-
tinction which was taken by the noble lord the member
for King's Lynn, when he said ho agreed that Dissenters
should enter the University of Oxford as students, but he
would not allow them to proceed to take degrees in the
university. (" No, no !")
Lord STANLEY—I said I thought it impossible to ad-
mit the Dissenters to hold office in the colleges, but I
wished to admit them to all other privileges. (Hear.)

Lord J. RUSSELL—I am sorry that I misunderstood
the noble lord. The second resolution is, that "it shall
not be necessary for any person, upon taking any of the
degrees in arts, law, or medicine, usually conferred by the
said University of Oxford, to make or subscribe any decla-
ration, or to take any oath, save the oath of allegiance, or
an equivalent declaration of allegiance, any law or statute
to the contrary notwithstanding." Of course the noble
lord did not object to that resolution ; it appears to follow
naturally and logically from the first. It would otherwise be
saying, "I think it a great hardship to exclude Dissenters
from the university, and if I admit them I know their
proficiency, and that they will outstrip all competitors in
learning." In such a case, to say they shall not proceed to
take up degrees would be a much greater hardship than the
present exclusion that exists. I would go so far as to say
that, though they should not be admitted to the immediate
governing
.body of the colleges, yet with respect to any
fellowship which does not immediately concern the govern.
ment of the university, and with respect to any emolument
which might enable them hereafter to pursue law or any
other branch of study that would aid their progress is life,
there is no objection to the admission of Dissenters. (Hear,
hear.) I think the line might be drawn there. The govern-
ing body of the university and the colleges should be com-
posed of those who belong to the Church of England,
but the exclusion and monopoly should not go beyond that.
The hon. and learned gentleman who last addressed the
house, said that Trinity College, Dublin, was not a case in
point. It is only not in point because the young men there
do not reside in the college, but it is in point so far as you
have young men differing in religious faith from the uni-
versity studying there, and obtaining degrees in that uni-
versity. (Hear, hear.) So far—and that seems to me the
greater portion of the case—so far it is an example ex-
tremely in point. I have now said that I think the admis-
sion of Dissenters should be conceded, and even pointed
out the extent to which, in my opinion, it should be
conceded. In former years I stated that I thought
the questions of the admission of Dissenters, and the
improvement of the governing body and the studies of the
University of Oxford were two totally distinct questions,
and that it would be desirable to keep them so. I retain
that opinion now. If my opinion wore altered, I should
certainly be at liberty so to declare it, but I retain that
opinion now. I think we have a bill before us which tends
very greatly to the improvement of the University of
Oxford, which is not only a considerable reform in itself,
but which is intended as the commencement of reforms
to be carried into effect in this and succeedins, years. I
can, however, understand the declaration which has been
made to night by the right hon. gentleman the member
fur Manchester. He says, " Here is a bill that is of no
value ; indeed, it would be rather better perhaps for the
improvement of Oxford that it should be thrown out, and
another bill brought in." I take a different view of the
question. I wish the bill, which improves the university
system, to pass in its present shape. The measure as it
stands keeps clear of the question whether Dissenters shall
be admitted to the university at all—whether they should
be admitted to all its benefits or to only a portion of them.
Besides, the hon. member for North Lancashire admitted
that the clauses he has now proposed would not effect his
object, and that for that purpose it would be necessary to
recommit the bill and propose other clauses in committee.
lam sure the hon. member means nothing but what is
perfectly fair, but I think it would have been doing only
what was right and respectful to the house, if the hon.
member had explained the machinery by which he
expects to carry its object into effect. There can be no
doubt that the success of the present motion would delay
the bill for another week, and that the mere efflux of time
would endanger the passing of the measure. Besides, I
think it very probable that the insertion of the clauses
would insure the rejection of the bill on the second reading
in the other house. The noble lord the member for King's
Lynn holds this matter very cheaply ; he thinks we ought
not to attend to it at all, and conceives it to be a reflec-
tion on our course to' refrain from enacting what
think politic and right ; yet I remember some 20 year s
ago standing by another noble lord who proposed to strike
out a clause frtun a bill to which he attached importance—
the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill—although he laid
great stress on the clause, and dilated on it in introducing
tho measure. Why did he act thus ? Because he thought
that the retention of the clause would endanger the second
reading of the bill in the other house, and therefore he
struck it out, although at the time of doing so he con-
tinued to approve of it. The noble lord who did this bore
then the name which the noble member for King's Lynn
now bears. I stood by him upon that occasion, and I did
not conceive that the noble lord showed any want of
courage because he acted upon prudential considerations.
In the present case the question does not regard the striking
out of a clause which the Government deliberately intro-
duced into the bill when they framed it, but the admis-
sion of a clause proposed now for the first time, and sup-
ported by some who are not generally favourable to the
measure. The right hon. member for Manchester tells us
to do-what is right, and lays that we ahall bo wanting in