The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-25 00:00:00

DEBATE.

Mr. PRY ME said, in the few observations he had made
yesterday previous to the adjournment of the house, he had
confined himself to those points which had been alluded to
by the right hon. the member for the University of Cambridge.
Whatever arguments he should urge upon the right of the
Dissenters to certain concessions, he should reserve for another
opportunity. As he had already observed, there was nothing
of a controversial character in the course of the university
examination, that would make it repugnant to the feelings
or principles of the Dissenters. Although the concession of
their claims would give the Dissenters a vote in the administra-
tion of the affairs of the university, yet the details of the educe' ion
and other milior regulations were matter of privilege to the dit:.
ferent colleggs, over which the University had no control.
Therefore the concession would not, in the least, interfere with
the course of academical instruction and discipline in the univer-
sity. The colleges had it in their power to grant certain dispen_
sations ; they might dispense with attendance of members at the
Sacrament, and they might grant a similar dispensation from
'Attending at chapel, if it was contrary to the consciences of
individuals. '1 his was no practical view of the question, for it
had been the case for a long period in Trinity college, Dublin,
where, from the national liberality of that institution, it had
admitted dissenters and Roman Catholics to degrees, since the
year 1793. He was informed that the Roman Catholics of
Trinity college were not even requested to attend the chapel.—
( Mr. O'Connell—there is no necessity for residence.) Great
numbers, it appeared, did not even reside in the University,
and were consequently exempted from attendance. Whether the
dissenters or Roman Catholics who might hereafter belong to the
university of Cambridge would obtain dispensation, would be a
matter of regulation with the different colleges. It had been
said that such an admission would change the whole character
of the university; but he would ask, for whose adtantage had
these institutions been founded? Was it for the advantage of
any particular body of religionists ? Certainly not.—(Hear.)
As had been remarked by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S.
Rice) on the previous day, in the time of Edward VI., Eliza-
beth, and James 1., there was no exclusion of any class, and
yet there had been no want of heresy and schism—there were
religious discords, on account of which men were imprisoned,
persecuted, and beheaded; and yet, during these dark and dis-
turbed times, when polemical feeling ran high, and when per-
secutions existed on the score of religion—during these
troubled times, down to the year 1613, there had been no
exclusion, on account of religious belief, from these universities.
With regard to the emoluments these were the result entirely
of the foundations of particular colleges, and they were or
might be limited by the wills of the founders, or by the sta.
tutes of the college. This was the case in Trinity College, of
which he had the honour to be a fellow. He subscribed, how-
ever, to the 39 articles before called upon to do so, but there
were other safeguards against any interference with those en-
dowments. It was said the prayerof this petition was limited,
and that theological degrees were not included. Now if his
right hon. friend, orthodox as he was, or himself wanted a de-
gree
of Doctor of Divinity there was an insuperable impedi-
ment in the way, for they must first be in orders and preach a
sermon in Latin in St. Mary's Church ; tee petitioners, there-
fore, would have stultified themselves, if they had asked
that which could not be effected. With regard to the signa-
tures being only those of a small minority of the members of
the university, he would remark that it was the petition of
resident members only, and though a solitary exception was
made to Professor Babbage, that gentleman might be well con-
sidered a resident member, inasmuch as he attended
throughout the mathematical examination. It was also
thought desirable that it should be the petition of resident
members, as there would have been great difficulty in
getting the signatures of the non-resident members who were
scattered through every part of the kingdom. His wonder
was that the number of signatures was so- large.—(Hear.)
It was naturally to be expected that where monopoly existed
many would be actuated by old feelings, he had almost said
old prejudices, and it could hardly have been expected
that full one-third would have signed such a petition.
His right hon. friend had said, those who had not signed it
were opposed to it, but this; indeed, was not the fact; for he
knew that Professor Avila, and another gentleman of dignified
station, had agreed with him on the principles and objects of
the petition, and he had no doubt there were many more
of the same opinion who had not signed the petition, merely
because they did not approve of some part of the word-
ing.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Many would not sign out
of delicacy to others, knowing that as the mejority bound the
I minority, they might place some friend in an unpleasant posi.
ti n. The right hon. gentleman said, that only 11 tutors out
of 74 had signed the petition; the fact was, there were not
seventy-four real tutors, the greater number being only
assistants and looking forward to promotion, and the ap-
pointment being in the head of the university, they would
be restrained from signing such a petition for fear
of giving offence. Whatever, however, might be the circum-
stances under which the petition was concocted and signed, he
could not help observing that it was a proof of the increase of
liberality and a proper spirit of candour towards others. Hay.
ing mentioned what he had for the present lie should not
trouble the house longer; but on a future occasion he
should take the opportunity of remarking on the spirit 01
what had fallen from his right hon. friend.

' Mr. COBBETT said that a scene took place yesterday whic:,
no one could have expected to have witnessed, that of a Mi-
nister of the Crown doing what a King was driven from his
throne for attempting to do The right hon. gentleman told
them a tough story.—(A laugh.) He gave them a long ac
count of the exclusions from the Universitiy ; but th.-re was a
chasm left. He (Mr. Cobbett) should fill up that chasm.
What was the authority quoted by the right honourable
gentleman ? Why, no less than Dr. John Jebb.
But a worse authority than that could not be. He was a
most unrelenting, most persevering, and most hitter •enemy to
tne church of England. He (Mr. Cobbett) should quote from
a better authority—that was Mr. Hume—an historian who was
borne ow in what he said by documents of undotfoted autho-
rity. James 11. attempted to do the very thing that was in-
tended now ; and not even to give dissenters fellowships, but
much less. He (Mr. Cobbett) should read a short passage from
Hume.—(Here the hon. member read an account of the re.
sistance of the university of Cambridge to James 11. on the
occasion of his press nting Fatiter Francis, the Benedictine
monk, to the degree of Master of Arts.) The secretary
to the ambassador of Morocco had obtained the degree
that was sought for the monk by the King—the latter, accord-
ingly, thought he might be excused asking the same for a
Roman Catholic, but the University refused themandate of the
King, and said that although a complimentary degree might
have been conferred on a foreigner, yet there was a great dif-
ference between that and giving a Roman Catholic priest tee
privilege of a degree which should entitle him to a vote
in the affairs of the University.—(Hear.) Now, though
he (Mr: Cobbett) thought that the petition should no,
be objected to—he would not object to it, at least—still, h
Roman Catholics were to be admitted to the university, there
was no disguising the matter that they would become the mas-
ters of the university, and have the control of its property
The mandate of King James the Second did not ask for all
that the petition sought. Still every body knew that it
was the main cause of his having lost his throne.—(Hear.)
The vice-chancellor of the college was suspended ; a man of
spirit was chosen in his place, and resistance was firmly made to
that decree of the royal pleasure. The affair of tire seven
bishops arose likewise from James's attempt to enforce liberty
of conscience. He wanted to bring the dissenters on a level
with the church of England—he ordered a declaration of to.
leration to be read in the churches after divine service;_ it
was refused, and not only refused, but a resolution
way entered into and a petition was sent to the king, praying
that he would not, enforce the decree. All knew that tin
seven bishops were sent to the tower ; accused of sedition,
tried, acquitted, and, as every one was well aware, the conse-
quence was the expulsion of the king from his throne. 'lln
proposition made yesterday in that house went to do the saint
as James attempted. But he (Mr. Cobbett) should really
remonstrate with the right bon. gentleman about Doctor Joht
Jebb.—(Loud laughter.) Was it not possible to muster some
book, in boards or leather, which could be adduced as an autho-
rity? He (Mr. C.) looked that morning into the" Dictionnairt
des,Grands Hommes," and he found that the character given
to Dr. Jebb was th .t he was a clever man, but a most inflamma-
tory writer. He (Mr. C.) was surprised so many of the members
of the University had signed the petition.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
As to the complaint thst Dissenters made regarding their
exclusion from degrees, why that was applicable to al,
sects. They were obliged to serve two additional years
when going to the bar, in consequence of not having a degree.
Some candidates for the legal profession were obliged to gnaw
their way to the bar—(Loud laughter)—in consequence or
poverty, others from their irreligion. All dissenters
laboured under the great difficulty of that . exclusion
All the dissenters wanted was a full and free participation in
every thing, and for himself he must say, that he would much
rather hear his Majesty's government declare its readiness ti
grant every thing that the dissenters required, than de-
grade themselves by dsluding the house and the country, one
exciting discontent. Tire real question with him was, whe-
ther the church was to be demolished or not. . .

Mr. I3A INES considered that the same argument which
the lion. member had used might have been put forwari.,
when the house were discussing the '1 est mid Corpora
tion Acts and the Catholic question.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He denied that the dissenters were keeping back any tiring.
and be took upon himself to state that it was not the wish o.
the dissenters in the smallest degree to interiere with th,
institutions which were devoted to the established religion
the country. In those institutions they did not ask to partici-
pate; all that they wanted was to be admitted to the general L_
stitutions of the country. If there had been a college institute: •
for the purpose of-giving instructions to the members of th,
church of England, they did not wish to partake of tho,e.
structions.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to,„the other objec-
tictl3 made by the hon. member relating to the removal of the

tests, he bel,eved that that removal anti the arguraelit upon that
subject wou7el have app!ie 11, rest and Corporation Acts, rnd
the Catholic question. He would askthe house whether it had
been made the worse by the admission of Catholic members ?
Certainly not ; and that being so, the question with him was,
waled the universPy be made a whit the worse for the ad-
mission of Catholics and Dissenters than the house had been ?
—(Hear, hear.) With rest.ect to the question, whether the
subject was open to the consideration of Parliament, he
thought that he might fairly state if it was in the power of
King James the First to impose those restrictions, it wes
equally in the power of Parliament to remove them.—(Hear,
hear.) Under what circumstances, he would ask, was the test
complained of imposed ? Not at a time when the subject could
receive a grave and deliberate consideration, but at a period
when the King was enjoying the sports of the turf, and not
very likely to judge deliberately whether those impositions
were calculated to produce good effects or not. The peti-
tioners only wished to participate in the benefitsef the univer-
sity as far as they were general, not wishing to derive s^v ad.
vantage from them, as far as they conferred particula: ben Aizi.
Mr. LENNA RD said he had had a good deal of commUnicrt
tion with the Dissenters of this country of late, and he verily
believed that they did not for a moment contemplate
anything but what was just and reasonable. The hon. mem.
her for Oldham did not see that they were deprived of any
advantages that were worth speaking of, but, they were of a
different way of thinking, as was proved by the immense number
of petitions that had been-presented upon the subject. The
for,
except
tic and
were
as a
honourable member .said it was nothing that the Dissenters
excludedor,as
thefroin cases
the professionstoa t both of
present,
matter of very special favour, a Dissenter could never get to
the bighest situation in the College of Physicians. True they
might practise, but under such restrictions as were found to be
degrading In his opinion, if they considered the obtaining of
those degrees as a mere feather in their cap, they ought to be
granted a participation in them.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing, in
his opinion, could be more absurd than in those days
when dissenters were admitted into that house—when
they might become ministers of state and privy coon-
cilllors—(Hear, hear)—when they might even be elevated
to the bench, to say they were not eligible to become Bachelors
and Masters cf arts.—(Cheers.) It was most absurd to reason
upon the letter of James I. In those days of enlightenment and
freedom, for it was written in times when freedom was un.
known—when man, even speaking of liberty, was liable to
all the pains of an inquisition; it was to him extraordinary
that arguments for the exclusion of dissenters should
he drawn from the times of the Stuarts.—(Hear.)
When the universities were first established they were national
institutions, and comprised the whole to ty of the people. TI e
object of those who now opposed the claims of the dissenters
would be to make them sectarian establishments—(Hear,
hear.) The dssenters amounted to one-third of the whole
population, and was it right that such a large propor.
tion of the country should be deprived of the advantages
of science and literature? The right.' hon. gentleman opposite
(Mr. Goulburn) had contended that it was improper to admit
dissenters to the universities because those establishments
were to be considered, in some way or other, as closely con-
nected with the established church. He (Mr. Lennard) knew
of no statute—certainly the statute of Elizabeth did not—that
secluded any class of society. The universities were estab-
lished for the spread of literature and science—godly literature
being of course included; therefore the argument raised by
the right honourable gentleman was an unjust one.—
(Hear, bear.) That right honourable gentleman, how-
ever, had used one plausible line of argument, viz., that if the
house gave the universities the power of admitting dissenters
to particular colleges, the heads of those colleges would refuse
to receive them, and therefore it would be, in fact, giving the
dissenters nothing. The first answer to that was, that some
colleges did now receive dissenters.—(Hear, hear.) He recol_
lected when he was at Cambridge, 20 years ago, a Roman Ca.
tholic student and a Roman Catholictutor were admitted to Jesus
college: since then the same liberality was practised. But would
it be contended that the colleges would be less disposed
now, if the houSe gave them the power, than they
were twenty years ago, to admit Dissenters ? He felt great
gratification at seeing such a petition from Cambridge—
(Hear, hear)—for it was a proof that the members of the uni-
versity understood the temper of the times, and were disposed
to accommodate their Dissenting brethren.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. WILKS said that, connected, as he had the honour to
be, with the dissenters, it would be unthankful in him to allow
that petition to lie on the table without saying a few words
upon the liberal and enlightened body from whom it had ema.
nated. The characters of the hon. members of the University
who had signed that petition were eminent, not only in that
country, but their names were connected with the intelligence
and literature of the age. It must be doubly acceptable to the.
dissenters that these individuals had come forward unsolicited
and unsought, and done what must reflect still stronger lustre
upon their benevolence and liberality, and which would be
nost gratefully acknowledged by the dissenters —(Hear.)
They had come forward to ask that the diSsenters should
not be excluded from the honours of the University,
and he (Mr. W.) would venture to say that if the dis-
senters were few in number and comparatively unknown
—if their.wealth, information, industry, and political power
did not entitle them to the attention of the house, even still
the petition would be just, and the principle upon which the
petition was founded was such as every reflecting statesman
must hail with satisfaction, and every liberal heart must ap.
prove. The principle was cne of intetectual liberty, and
liberty of conscience, and he trusted that the house would
••• inclined to admit that principle.--(Hear, hear, hear )
If that principle held good on the supposition that the dis-
senters 14 eie few in number, how much more so must it t e
when it appeared that they constituted one-third of the popt
lation, and in some places seven, and in Wales nine-tenths of
the population. When it appeared that in the manufacturing
Ind agricultural districts the great majority of the population
wore dissenters—(An hon. member asked, " Could he prove
that?") He would not now enter Into the details, bur he
was prepare.( to prove that not only in the manufac-
turing and mining, but even in the agricultural districts,
the great bulk of the land belonged not to those who
were connected with the established church, but to the disson.
'ers.—(Hear,- hear.) If there was no positive advantage
•onnected with the introduction of the dissenters to their
rights, stll they should not submit to be continued in is
state of political and civil degradation.—(Hear, hear )
How would the members ot• the church in that house feel if
they were excluded from those rights because of their parti.
cular mode of religious worship?—(Hear.) If it were
out a feather, as the' honourable member for Belton
;aid, without which a man could not walk through
the world without being debased and degraded in florae re.
spects, he ought to demand it, and it ought to be grant,•d him.
Whatever tended to the degradation of Protestant
Dissenters, created civil prejudices, and did much
injury to society in general. It was not the mere degradation
if the dissenters, but of the country, that men like Watts,
had received from Aberdeen or America, those very
nonours which ought to have been given to them
by the universities of their own country. Such men as Dr.
itye Smith, Dr. Carey, and others, to whom we ware
indebted for Grecian and Chinese literature, were ex.
chided from our universities on no other account but
hat of not agreeing to the same form of worship Another
iaember said that if the petition was acceded to he could not
send his son with satisfaction to the university ; but what
was the case in regard to Scotland, where there were no

tests, and where the parents never felt any such solicitude as
that, and yet where th,re was a general devotedness to the
interests (irreligion and the estab'ished church of the country?
—(Hear, hear.) Much had been said in condemnation
the language of Dissenters in their petitions, but what said the.
subscribers to this p.tition ? " that they regarded the exclusion
Dissentersif from the Universities as an unrighteous prescrip,
tiJn." If they were still to beexcluded our Universities would be
no longer national establishments, but sectarian institutions.
He felt grateful to his Majesty's Ministers that they had come
ibrward as far as they had done, upon this occasion,
,e,pecially after the bringing forward of that unfortunate
ill which had excited so much suspicion and dissatisfaction
among the dissenters of the country.—(Hear, hear, hear.),
He thanked his Majesty's Ministers, in the name of
the Protestant dissenters at large, and would conclude in thC
words of Locke on toleration—" What we want is liberty ;
solute liberty ; just and true liberty; equal and impartial
betty." That was what the dissenters wanted, with that they
would be content, and with nothing less.

Mr. STANLEY would deviate from his usual course, and
say, as a member of the government anxious to uphold
the interests of the Established Church that he expressed
his full, entire, unequivocal, and hearty concurrence in the
prayer of the petition. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear,
hear," which lasted for some time.) It was ra.
ther singular that such a petition- should be met
.vith the same objection by two gentlemen of extreme opinions.
file member for the University of Cambridge and the
member for Oldham both objected on the ground of
its moderation.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The one said it
asked too much, and the other that it did not go,
far enough. The former said that the complaint was, they-
must serve an apprenticeship of two years before they oould got
t degree of master of arts. But, said the same right hon.
Durable gentleman, they must go to the courts of law
for their remedy, so that it was not a real grievance
after all.—(Hear, hear) He (Mr. S.) was of opinion
that if there was no other, that was a sufficient and a substan-
tial grievance.—(Hear.) The right hon. gentleman said he
objected as a father, because he should fear his sons would be
corrupted by association with dissenters.
Mr. GOULBURN cried "No," and rose to explain—Dis_
s?titers have had the benefit of university education, and were
not admitted into professions, not from want of edu.
cation, but from not signing certain articles. Such was
a practical grievance, and a practical degradation..—( Hear,
aear.) He (Mr. S.) was for the firmest support of the established
church, but the effectual way to do that was to cut off all iliberal
,xclusions, and admit the dissenters into the civil privileges of
society, and place no restraint on them. All religions were
admitted to the education of the universities, were submitted
La its Discipline, and could not inji4re either by being allowed
to participate in the honours of the college. He (Mr. S) deeply
lamented the practice at Oxford of ob:lging young men
to sign the articles they never read. Also the practice of
.:onpulsory attendance at college chapel. It tended to create
irreverence and disrespect for religion, and was of more injury
0 the university, then the admission of dissenters. He hopwl
sit his right hon. friend the member for Ashton would post.
,me his motion fixed for the night, in order that the two mo-
th, is might be discussed together.
The SkUAKEtt left the chair at threC