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

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 Royal Duke 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 impossible to 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 oath had been 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. He
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