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

DISSENTERS BILL.

The Duke of GLOUCESTER presented a petition from
the University of Cambridge against the Bill for admitting
Dissenters to the Universities.

The LORD CHANCELLOR entered the House, and took his
seat at half-past five o'clock.
The Earl of RADNOR in presenting a petition from Cam-
bridge, stating that great inconvenience had been experienced its
the University allowing Dissenters to be admitted to the Uni-
versity, but not to take degrees, begged to ask the Illustrious
Chancellor of that University, if the statements in the petition
were correct, and whether persons of any denomination were
admitted to that University ?
The Duke of GLOUCE STER stated that he was not
aware that Dissenters were admitted, if they were, they were
not known at the time of admission to be Dissenters.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Viscount MELBOURNE presented petitions from South
Shields and other places, in favour of the Established Church.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented several petitions
from parties in Caermarthen.
BRIBERY BILL.

On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE the
Bill was read a third time and passed.

UNIVERSITIES ADMISSION BILL.

The Earl of ADNOR in rising to move the second
reading of this Bill stated that it was well known its object
was to remove those disabilities under which the Dissenters
laboured, of being unable to avail themselves of the benefit of
a University education.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill had origi-
nated in consequence of the petitions the Dissenters had
presented to both Houses of Parliament, praying that
such a Bill might pass. The Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge had a different opinion upon this question ; the
latter allowed persons of all persuasions to have the benefit of
that University up to a certain point,while Oxford would not allow
any young man to be matriculated without subscribing the
thirty-nine articles. In the University of Cambridge, he un-
derstood persons known to be Dissenters had been admitted,
and had gone on receiving the benefits of the University
up to the very time, indeed, of taking their
degrees without any notice being taken of their persuasion.
They had qualified themselves for the highest honours, and
had received them ; but after having been exemplary members
of the University, they had been excluded from de-
grees, because they would not subscribe the articles re-
quired of them. This he considered a very great hardship.
He considered it was a matter of very great hardship that the
Dissenters should be so punished merely on account of their
conscientious objections to the articles they refused to sign.
With respect to Oxford the matter was still worse, for there no
young man could be matriculated without first of all subscribing
to the 39 Articles. He considered it would but be doing
bare justice to the parties to pass the Bill—( Hear, hear),—
and, in his opinion, it was a necessary sequel to a
Bill which their Lordships passed only a few years ago,
for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. That Bill
opened the way for Dissenters up to the highest situations
in the State.—(Hear.) Surely then their Lordships
would not shut them out from the means of acquiring an edu-
cation to qualify them for such situations. In the professions
of law and medicine, the Dissenters were placed under very
great disadvantages in consequence of these regulations, which
were unjust. In the profession of the law it was of great ad-
vantage to any man that he should have been educated at the
University. In the medical profession it was still more im-
portant; for no person could act as a physician within the
limits of the metropolis, nor within a certain distance from
without having obtained a degree at the University. But it
might be said that the College of Physicians might admit such
persons to degrees ; and so the Cc:lege of Physicians could,
but not to such degrees as were conferred on those who had
taken degrees at either of the two Universities. He thought
it a great hardship on Dissenters that on account of their reli-
gious opinions they should be excluded from the highest branch
of the medical profession. The Dissenters wished not to pull
tdoo down
receivet hnewot
aonUtsthnhatehievabfTetoeietfii Universities,
of,
o ebutca
occasion
the
e° dbuec
ation admittedivhi tho theth Universitiestyni v
eteUniversities
heoeulddidgivneol atnhdinhke
itm au must
mattersa y, tohfa t
policyu nde
in
htehsee
Legislature circumstances,
to
check that wish, if it could be granted without disadvantage
to the Universities. He did not imagine that this bill would
be at all opposed, but that those who were prepared to oppose
it conscientiously, believed that. it could not be granted with-
out danger of great inconvenience to the Universities. It
wash
on that pointh ;rsht.
matterhnee
Ag . great stand
supposed
w as wasm
required. a d e
precaution,
had
respectande bseuebsub-
scription to the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge ; on that
It
on whether it was fit and proper
tdsphecoarbiitnaPtttetlihdte subscription to these articles should be required
gnoniei
that
n4aantdallitbU'tasthtaltietnhesstautbesdcribers be
thieone
g
sub-
scriptionfror i t y
me
eaonutn
nothing
to the Church of England. On the other hand, it was said,
and he could not but feel the force of the argument, that no-
thing could be more improper, and even disgraceful, than to
require such a subscription of faith from young men who could
not possibly be supposed capable of knowing the full effect of
such a subscription. Whatever mny be said with regard to
the subscription of the 39 Articles not binding the person so
subscribing to an understanding of the Articles, the practice