The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-20 00:00:00

very well known that the universities of Cambridge and
Oxford were arcient institutions, and that the date of
their rules went beck at least 700 years from the present
period. Under the authority of the Crown the Univer-
sities had obtained an independent position. The Hon.
Member here went on to detail the early history of these
Universities, but at such a rapid rate, and amidst so
much noise, as to render it impossible to connect or col-
lect the substance of the Hon. Member's statements. In
former times the study of divinity was insisted upon,
but owing to altered times and changes that study was
not now so important. The oath even now taken was
that all parties were to swear that they would make
theology the end of their studies. Now, it was very
well known that many who took that oath did not
intend to follow theology at all, for they gave
their attention to the law, and some of those
educated at the Universities became distinguished
law lords. This, then, was one reason why he
wished to see the theological test abolished. Besides, all
students were required to sign the Thirty-nine Articles,
and these Thirty-nine Articles it was well known were
very abstruse, and required some of the wisest persons
to explain them. He thought likewise that the wearing
of surplices ought not to be made compulsory. He also
objected to the imposition of fines. The rules and regu-
lations of ancient times were not in harmony with the
intelligence of the 19th century. He did not approve of
Tractarian views such as were entertained at Oxford,
but then he considered they were the natural results of
the existence of the old system. He would refer to the
University of Dublin, which formerly was distinguished
ter its anti-Catholic feeling. But since Roman Catholics
had been admitted into the College the best feelings had
sprung up between Roman Catholic and Protestant stu-
dents, even though the old objectionable laws existed.
He thought the authorities of Trinity College, Dublin,
ought to make some concessions in tavour of the people
of Ireland. One objectionable rule was the requiring
students to take the sacrament before being admitted
to the emoluments of the College. Some change ought
to be made in the law which directed that no other
service than that of the Church of England should
be celebrated in the Universities. It was
very hard that students of the Jewish persuasion
should be cal!ed on to attend such service. He looked
forward to the time when the university tests would be
greatly modified, and when en alteration would be made
in the three articles of the 36th Canon, which a resolu-
tion of the House of Commons, in 1640, declared to be
against the law of the land and the liberty of the sub-
ject. By the University Statutes of Oxford tutors were
ordained to instruct the students in the Thirty-nine Ar-
ticles, which, along with the reading of the Greek Tes-
tament, were called the rudiments of religion. He did
not deny that the rudiments might be derived from the
reading of the Greek Testament; but he did not consider
the Thirty-nine Articles to be the rudiments of religion,
bet rather the result at which scholastic theology had
arrived. He looked upon the tests ho had referred to as
the product of an age not equal to the present either in
intelligence or religious liberty. It would be a great
benefit to the Church of England if they were removed,
for they kept the clergy almost in swaddling clothes, by
prohiting all opinion beyond the bounds of the Arti-
cles. The removal of them, then, ought to be desired,
not merely by Dissenters, but by the Church of Eng-
land itself.
Mr. E WART, in seconding the motion, contended
that the Universities should once more be made national
institutions. At the time when the whole population
were Roman Catholic, they were national establish-
ments; but they had ceased to be so. Oxford University
had been most flourishing when it was most national..
He did not regard with any veneration the imposition of
the Thirty-nine Articles as a test, and thought that all
parties would be benefited by the abolition of that test.
The question having been put, and no Hon. Member
rising to address the House,
Mr. CAMPBELL said as no Hon. Member seemed in-
clined to address the House at present, he might, per-
haps, be permitted to say a few words on a question of
which ho might say he had some practical knowledge.
He conceded to the Hon. Member that the difference
that existed between the two Universities in exacting
subscriptions from an undergraduate, was on the side of
Cambridge, which derived no small advantage
from its liberality in that respect. He thought
also that it might be fair to inquire whether subscrip•
tion to the Articles ought to be exacted from bachelors
of arts, and whether any test should be imposed until
the taking of a final degree of a master of arts?
As to the qu stion whether any reform of the Uni-
versities should be made by the Legislature, he thought
that in great emergencies the Legislature might inter-
pose its authority, but that on other occasions the reform
would be better effected by the internal agencies of the
Universities themselves. He did not think his Hon.
Friend had done justice to the inquiry which was going
on, for, although it related to the studies and discipline
of the Universities, it would tend indirectly to elucidate
the question of religious tests. He thought, therefore,
it was not desirable to enter upon the coursb proposed
by the Hon. Member until they had further materials
before them.—(Divide.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said.before the House divided he
would state shortly the view ho took of the motion as
it stood. His Hon. Friend had moved that the House
" will resolve itself into a Committee to consider the
religious tests originally imposed, either by the autho-
rity of the Crown or by Act of Parliament, as a qualifi-
cation for any civil corporate privilege in the Universi-
ties and Colleges of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin."
It was now a great many years since any question on
this subject had been raised in that House. Ile
remembered that at one time it occasioned a great
deal of business—more particularly when a dis-
tinguished Member for the University (Lord Mont-
eagle) presented a petition from the University
of Cambridge, praying that further advantages
should be given to Dissenters in that University. At that
time his late lamented friend, Mr. G. W. Wood, proposed
to introduce a Bill by which persons dissenting from the
Established Church, wheter Roman Catholics or Protes-
tant Dissenters, should be at liberty to enter the Uni-
versities of Oxford and Cambridge to proceed with their
studies, and, if otherwise qualified, to take degrees—
with the exception of a theological degree—without any
religious test. He had supported that Bill. It seemed
to him to be founded on a right principle, and to be only
giving to Dissenters that which was a proper distinction
for those who had acquired the right to it. That Bill
was supported at the time by a very able speech from the
present Lord Stanley, in which he drew a distinction
which was very applicable to a motion like the present.
Lord Stanley stated on that occasion (the Noble Lord
read the passage), that though he would give to Dis-
senters the liberty of having full benefits of education at
our Universities, with the useful privileges which ac-
companied a degree, he would sedulously guard
those institutions against the Dissenters as a
governing body of them. He thought the dis-
tinction had been well put by Lord Stanley, and that
there was a great distinction between admitting Dis-
senters not only to study at the Universities and to ob-
tain degrees, and admitting them to become part of the
governing body of the Universities, by the holding of
fellowships or similar offices. Looking to the number
of Dissenters in this country who might, if admitted to
the Universities, obtain degrees which would be useful
to them in after life, he thought an admission for that
purpose might well be made. Did it not seem strange
that the author of the " Credibility of the Gospel His-
tory" (Dr. Lardner) could not receive a degree in the
University of Oxford or Cambridge ?—(No, no.) There
was a great difference between an admission for degrees
and an admission which would lead to Dissenters be-
coming members of the governing bodies. If such a
concession as the admission to the government of the
Universities were made, he could not see how the dif-
ferent parties could harmonise and co-operate in carry-
ing on that system of instruction and that discipline
which was so absolutely necessary for the welfare of the
Church. Now he was afraid that the motion before
them went to that latter point.—(No.) From the word-
ing of the motion it would appear to do so. He cer-
tainly understoodit as going to that extent. To such a
Bill as that formerly introduced, and which had been
supported by Lord Stanley, he should not refuse his as-
sent, but he could not agree to the motion now before
them. He might add, that while he would support such
a Bill as that to which he had referred, he did not think
that the present would be a convenient time for intro-
ducing it.—(Hear.)
Mr. HEYWOOD made a remark which was not
heard in the gallery.
Mr. M. G IBSON could not understand on what
principle Dissenters were excluded from the Univer-
sities. As a
.Churchman he (Mr. M. Gibson) always
objected to making youths of sixteen years of age give
a blind declaration of belief in the Thirty nine Articles.
Dr. Paley had said that even the tens of thousands of
.
clergymen of the Established Chureh could not give a
sincere concurrence in the hundreds of controverted
theological propositions contained in those articles. The
system pursued was a calling on the youth of this
country to commence their university career with a
prostitution of their consciences.
An HON. MEMBER here moved that the House be
counted.

There hating been only thirty-eight Members present,
the House stood adjourned, at a Quarter to Eight
o'clock, until to-morrow (this day.)

Mr. DIVETT paired with Mr. CURRIE in favour of the
Smithfield Removal Bill.

THE " COUNT OUT" OF LAST NIHT. -
The following Members were
present when the House
was "counted out" last night;--
Brown, W.
Campbell, Hon. W. H.
Graham, Sir J.
Stuart, Lord Dudley,
Douglas, Sir C. Horsman, Edward
Goulburn, Right Hon. H. Dundas, Sir D.
Gladstone, W.
Hawes, B.
Barrow, W. H. Brotherton, Joseph
Morris, D.
Wood, Sir W. P.
Inglis, Sir R. Russell, Lord John
Hamilton, G. A. Perfect, Robert
Hutchins, E. J. Gilpin, Colonel
Mitchell, T. A. Henry, Alexander
Forster, Matthew Gibson, T. Milner
Berkeley, Grantley Thompson, Colonel
Fox, W. J. Grenfell, Charles
Thicknesse, Ralph Bethell, R.
Peel, Frederick
Heywood, James
Evart,

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills an infallible
Remedy for Liver Complaints and Diseases of the Stomach.--
Copy of a letter from Mr. Henry Woodward, of Richmond,
dated 25th May, 1851. " To Professor Holloway. Dear Sir,
I suffered for many years from a most obstinate liver and sto-
mach complaint, and although I tried various medicines pre.
scribed by most eminent medical men in different parts of the
country y et I could obtain no relief and in dispair I had re-
course to your Pills, and it is with gratitude that I acknow-
ledge that they have been the means (under Divine Providence)
never of restoring me to a state of good health that I -
could
have anticipated."—Sold by all Druggists and at Professor
Uolloway's Establishment 244, Strand, London.
Countess Reventlow and the Countesses Hilda and
Malvina de Reventlow arrived at the Dni
from Italy on Wednesday evening. sh Legation

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.
HEREFORD, Ross, AND GLOUCESTER.—On Friday
the inhabitants of Rnss celebrated ths, passing of the
Bill for the above railway by a public rejoicing. At
elf.ven o'clock A.M. the shops were closed preparatory to
commencing the operations of the day. A variety of
amusements were brought into requisition, and at three
o'clock an excellent collation was served at the George
Inn to 250 guests. Colonel Clifford, M.P., presided.
Numerous toasts were drunk and responded to, in the
course of which the friendly assistance of the Great
Western Company in promoting the undertaking was
acknowledgel A large quantity of beef, bread, and
beer was distributed among the humble partakers of the
festivities on the cricket ground. A tea party was given
in the evening, and the festivities concluded with a ball,
at which 600 persons were present.
EASTERN COUNTIES AND SOUTHEND JUNCTION:—
Yesterday the list of contributories, consisting of those
members of the provisional committee who acted and
agreed to take shares, was further proceeded with be-
fore his Honour Sir W. Horne, Mr. Daniel appearing
for Mr. Ewart, the official minager. Mr. Mainwaring,
for whom Mr. Williams appeared us counsel, was placed
upon the list, and Mr. Kemp, of Teignmouth, for whom
Mr. H. Harris appeared, was struck off. The official
manager, in reply to questions, stated that the chief
object sought in winding up this company was to
equalise payments among the contributories, some of
whom had paid 300'. in discharge of debts, while others
had only paid 501.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTMINSTER.
COMMITTAL OF A MILITARY OFFICER FOR FELONY.—
Mr. Philip Warmsley, a gentleman extremely well con-
nected, late au officer in the army, was charged with
stealing nine silver-plated spoons, eight dessert ditto, six
tea ditto, and a number of forks, from the residence ot
Mr. Joseph Samuel Levies, a medical gentleman residing
at 10, Eceleston-terrace South, Belgrave-read.
Upon the prisoner being placed in the dock,
Mr. Levies said he had known the prisoner for twenty
years, and his family still longer, and he had no desire
to press the present charge.
Mr. BURRELL inquired in what condition of life the
prisoner, who is a Lerson of moat gentlemanly exterior,
moved?
Mr. Levies and the accused's brother stated that he
had been an officer in the Indian army.
Mr. BURRELL observed that it was a very grave charge
against a person of the accused's condition in life, and
he must hear the case.
Mr. Levies stated that he received a visit from the
prisoner on Monday last, who after remaining about
half an hour left the house with him, but returned in
half an hour afterwards, as he learned from one of his
servants. On the following morning he missed the
plated articles, value 10/., from a partition in the side-
board of the dining room.
Mary Allen, cook in the service of Mr. Levies,
proved that the prisoner returned as described, and in-
quired whether Mr. Levies was at home? Upon being
answered in th• negative, he told her that he had gone
out with Mr. Lavies, and upon his expressing a wish to
write a note to that gentleman, she showed him into the
library, adjsining the dining-room, where she lett him.
He remained about five minutes, when he hastily left.
William Major, assistant to Mr. Stephen, sworn-
broker, in Wardour-street, Soho, produced the plate,
and proved that the prisoner had pledged it on Monday
afternoon, for 255. He at first asked 51. upon the arti-
cles, and upon observing that witness was looking at a
crest upon them, said, " It's all right; it is my own
crest." When the Si. was asked fir, witness inquired
whether he thought they were silver; and prisoner
seemed to hesitate, as though he did not know whether
they were silver or plated goods.
Mr. John Lund, superintendent of the detective po-
lice, proved thee, application having been made at the
Police-office, Scotland-yard, by Mr. Lavies, he proceeded
to the prisoner's residence, 24, Beaumont-street. The
circumstance of the loss of the plate having been men-
tioned by Mr. Lavies in witness's presence, the accused
denied all knowledge of it. Witness told the prisoner
that he knew the articles were pledged, tied he had better
give him up the duplicates or he should search the house
more minutely than he had done. Witness searched ac-
cused, but found nothing relating to the property, when
prisoner said he had got it on his person and would
give it to him. Witness then proceeded to unfasten a por-
tion of the accused's clothing, when the duplicate, which
he stated he had placed under his neckerchief, fell to
the ground.
In cross-examination by Mr. Lewis, the officer stated
that he had not accompanied Mr. Lavies to give advice
as a private individual at the instigation of a gentleman
with whom Mr. Lavies was on terms of intimacy, but in
his public capacity of a police-officer.
Mr. Lewis recalled Mr. Lavies, and put several ques-
tion to him to show that he had no desire whatever to
prosecute the prisoner, who had borne an irreproachable
character. That a long conversation took place between
them, in the course of which he urged the prisoner that
if he had taken them for a joke or sport he had better
own it; but denied that he had ever said " there should
be no prosecution.' He had been cautioned not to be in
duced, from any feeling of a personal or private nature, to
give such promise.
After souse further questions of a hypothetical cha-
racter, Mr. Lewis urged the discharge ot his client from
the circumstances of Mr. Lavies being most desirous to
withdraw the charge, and an inducement having been
held out to the accused, who bad himself admitted the
possession of the duplicate after a long conversation be-
tween them.
Mr. BURRELL considered the case too serious to admit
of a withdrawal of the prosecution. A person in a hum-
ble position of life might through distress commit a petty
theft, but looking at the circumstance of the prisoner's
holding a very respectable position in society, he felt it
his duty to send the case for trial.
The prisoner was committed accordingly, but ordered
to be again brought up on Wednesday, with a view of
ascertaining if any further charge would be preferred
against him concerning a cheque for 251. found upon him,
which it was declared by the officer was a false one.
SOUTH WA RK.
Yesterday David APlntyre, a respectably-dressed
young man, described to belong to the prize-ring, was
placed at the bar before Mr. A'Beckett, charged with
another man (not in custody) with stealing from the per-
son of Mr. Hugh Hill, 1351. in Bank of England notes
and sovereigns, a gold watch and chain, and a diamond
pin.

The complainant stated that ho is a coach-maker, and
resides in the Kent-road. That on the night of the 27th
of December last he alighted from a Camberwell omnibus
at St. George's Church, in the Borough, and went to the
Griffin public- house, in White-street, to see a man named
Hoy les. He walked into the bar-parlour, and saw the pri-
soner there, in company with a man nick-named " Long
Tom," and he called for twopenny worth of gin and cold
water. While ho was drinking it the prisoner, who
forced his conversation on him, began to talk about
horses, and he and Long Tom came and sat close to
him. At that time he (complainant) had a bag in his
left-hand trousers pucket, containing 1351., and consist-
ing of a 501. note, three 101., and several 5/. notes, the
exact numbers of which he could not remember, besides
about 30/. in sovereigns aad some loose silver; he also
had a geld watch and chain in his waistcoat pocket, and
a diamond pin in his neckerchief. Atter a little time the
prisoner, who still continued by his side, asked him for
the loan of a sovereign, which be refused, and afterwards
he wanted to borrow half a sovereign, which was also
refused; and complainant then replenished his glass by
calling for a second twopennyworth of gin and cold
water, and when he finished it ho became so stupifiod
that he was convinced something of a deleterious nature
must have been put in the glass, and he rose from his
seat, saying he should quit and go home in a cab. He
then walked towards the door, when the prisoner arid
Long Tom came up to him, one on each aide, and the
latter snatched the diamond pin out of his handkerchief.
He (complainant) desired him to return the pin, know-
ing be had taken it, but he refused, and they then pushed
him down; and while he was lying with his face down-
wards they robbed him of his bag of money, and also
his gold watch.
In reply to Mr. ATECKETT, the complainant said he
felt a hand in the pocket from which the money was
taken while on the ground. That previously to entering
the Griffin he had been at the Red Cap, at Camberwell,
transacting some business with a Mr. Jones, and that
before leaving the house for town, he counted his money
and found that it consisted of 135/. That he was not in
the slightest degree affected with liquor on leaving the
company of Mr. Jones, and that fourpennyworth of gin
and water, which was all he had taken at the Griffin
afterwards, could not have produced the effect upon him
that it had, unless something of a narcotic or stupifying
quality was mixed with the liquor in the glass.
The complainant, in his direct evidence, said that al-
though suffering from the effects of what he had taken,
he managed to get up; and going into the street, got into
a cab. While in the vehicle, and recovering in
nsome
measure from the stupor, he then ascertained the extent
.
of the cab to return to the Griffin, and
help
of his loss; and when he got home he desiredvtehtehdoritvweor
gi
him into
men into custody that he
largetls e
fa s
money,
reply, said be saw
ebartsaedi theniende case.
prisoner and Long
the two men (meaning the
and chain. That the cabman, in
ab.t,bailealei since suchpin Wdo
he thought
,Chat
into the
and the. they
had
besides s raowb
bheids glioilald . owfa a
Tom) assist complainant,
Thewere
complainant
as
addedthey ,that told
h ihmhe
Bank some months after . • hat on the
number of the 50/. note,
to his having
whthiceh robdbebryeell
morning subsequent .
gave information to Inspector Berry,
and he described he
of the M
and Ball, the policeman division, together with
a description of his assailants, both of whom were pre-
viously known to them.
Policeman Ball, 118 M, stated that on the previous
night he took the prisoner into custody at the White
Lion in Drury-lane, and upon that occ •
occasion told him it
was for robbing the complainant of a large sum of
money, besides a gold watch and diamond
pin. The
prisoner said that he was innocent of the charge, and
that he was perfectly vrillin to go to the station-house.
Mr. ATECHETT Is the g
re any further evidence? The
policeman replied that at present there was not, the ap-
prehension of the pri •
soner only having taken place the
preceding evening.
Mr. Roberts contended that •
much reliance could not
be placed on the evidence
was
admitted that he slupified at the time of the alleged
robbery, and ascribed it ' h •
to eying been produced by some
deleterious mixture
in his gin and water. It was more
probable that it was produced from an excessive indul-
gence in liquor.
John Hoyles was then called, and he stated that he
was a pugilist, and was at the Griffin on the night in
question, and was treated to two glasses of sherry by the
complainant, whom he said was intoxicated. To sup-
port the assertion, the v;itness said the complainant ex-
hibited his jewellery to the company in the bar parlour,
and first made him a present of a gold ring, but after-
wards took it from him. Witness NW the prisoner and