The Sun.
London, England, 1836-09-15 00:00:00

persons, the wisdom of a SOCRATES with the legislative ca-
pacity of a SoLoN. We make no mention of the other
speeches delivered at the Suffolk Conservative meeting ;
but may to-morrow, perhaps, extract some of their most
prominent tit-bits, and class them under one head—namely,
" Lies of the Day."

We have devoted a large portion of our paper to-day to
the publication, in an entire form, of the Marriage and Re-
gistration Acts. Though these Acts contain some remains
of the old leaven of intolerance and church ascendancy, (and
they would have contained a great deal more of the same
alloy, but for the energy displayed by his Majesty's Minis-
ters in resisting the claims of bigotry and ecclesiastical domi-
nation,) we regard them as by far the most valuable that
were passed during the late session of Parliament. The
Marriage Act, whilst it recognizes the important principle
that marriage is a civil contract, enlarges the foundations of
religious liberty. It places the Dissenting Minister, as far
as the celebration of marriage is concerned, on the same
level with the minister of the Established sect, and does
away with that, to an upright and truly religious mind,
most intolerable of all oppressions, which compelled the
believer in:one faith to profess belief in another, as the price
of a civil right. This irreligious and immoral practice is
now at an end. Nature and conscience assert their inalien-
able rights—thanks to the manly spirit and persevering
efforts of the Dissenters. To that enlightened, enterpris-
ing, and influential part of the community, we are indebted
for this triumph of free and rational principles over the
corrupting influences of a state-begotten system of religion
The Registration Act emanated from the same source.
The want of a general Register of births, deaths, and mar-
riages, it is true, bore with peculiar hardship upon the Disse-
nters, because their Registers, where they had any to produce,
were not esteemed legal evidence ; but the evil was also se-
verely felt by the members of the Establishment. Cases
were perpetually occurring in our Courts of Law, in which
it was found impossible, even after great expense had been
incurred, to establish claims to property with any degree of
certainty, owing to the imperfect state of the parochial re-
gisters. To say, nothing, therefore, of the highly important
statistical information which an accurate system of registra-
tion will supply, for the guidance of the legislator and the
political economist, it is impossible to deny that the Act in
question confers great benefit on those within, as well as on
those without, the pale of the Church of England.
It has, we are aware, been complained of; as tending to
weaken the attachment of the people to the Church ; be-
cause, if they can get their children registered without bap-
tism, they will not have them baptised at all—at least by
the ministers of the Establishment Those who make this
objection seem unconscious of the impiety which lurks at
the bottom of it. If baptism be a Christian ordinance
can there be a grosser profanation of it than to make its
administration rest on any other than religious grounds ?
The Church will no doubt lose some of its members—if
among its members it reckons profligate persons, who use
its rites solely for interested and unworthy purposes—
' but religion and virtue will gain by the change. The offi-
ciating minister, too, will be relieved from the awful respon-
sibility attached to a participation in that which cannot be
called by a gentler name than a prostitution of religion.

In another part of The Sun will be found copies of the
Charter of the University of London, and of the charter
constituting London University College—as we presume
the London University will henceforth be called—a Corpo-
rate Body. The Charter of the University is framed in a
liberal spirit, and seems to us well calculated to promote
the important objects contemplated by Lord BROUGHAM,
and the other friends of education with whom the noble
plan of founding the London University originated.
The University of London is, it appears, to consist
of a Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Fellows named by
the KING. On occasion. of future vacancies the office of
Chancellor is to be filled up by Royal appointment ; that of
Vice-Chancellor annually from among the Fellows by a ma-
jority of the votes of that body, and the Fellows themselves
are to be appointed from time to time under the sign ma-
nual.

Ample powers are conferred upon the Body thus consti-
tuted to carry into effect the purposes contemplated by the
Charter. These it is unnecessary to specify—the reader
will best learn them from the document itself. The point
of greatest importance is the extensive range of Educational
Institutions which the New University embraces. There is,
in fact, no Institution of that kind in the kingdom the pupils of
which may not be admitted to its privileges. The London
University College and King's College are the only ones
mentioned by name in the Charter, but it is provided that
pupils bringing certificates, that they have attended the
requisite courses at any other seminary which shall have
been approved of oy the Secretary of State, on the re-
commendation of the Senatus Academicus of the
University, will be admitted to examination for de-
grees. This is the distinguishing feature—and a
truly noble one it is—of the Metropolitan University. The
new system recognises nothing talismanic in a locality. It
proceeds on the Catholic and common-sense plan of reward-
ing literary and scientific merit wherever and however ac-
quired ; and it puts this merit to the severe test of a search-
ing examination by men of competent qualifications. Here
is a fatal blow levelled at education•monopoly.