The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,
THIS DAY, MONDAY, MARCH 24.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took his seat at twenty minutes pass
twelve.

A considerable time was employed in forwarding private
bills far the first reading of which this was the last day.
The following bills were forwarded a stage. viz., the
City of Edinburgh Watching, Lighting, &c. Bill, read a
first time ; a bill to compensate two individuals for loss
sustained by them of certain sugars under peculiar circum-
stances, read a first time ; a bill to preserve the piers and
harbour of Rotherham, read a first time; a bill to repair
certain roads in the counties of Derby andLeirester, read a
first time; a bill to commute for a corn rent certain tithes
in the parish of Kirby Lonsdale, read a first time ; a bill
to enable the General County Amicable Insurance Company
to sue and be sued in the name of one ()more of the direc-
tors, read a first time ; a bill to repair and maintain certain
roads in the parish of Deans, in the West Riding of York-
shire, read a first time ; a bill for paving, lighting. &e., cer-
tain parts of the parish of St. Pancras, read ;first time;
two bills to enclose certain lands in the county of Dorset,
read a first time; a bill to establish a market at Fish-
guard, in the county of Pembroke, read a first time; the
Longley(Gloucestershire)Enclosure Bill was read a second
time ; the Gloucester and Berkley Canal Bill, was read a
second time ; a bill for granting further powers to the
British Iron Company was read a first time; a bill for
enabling the United Kingdom Life Insuraace Company to
sue and be sued in the name of its chairman was read a
first time; a bill for enclosing lands in a parish
in the county of Stafford was read a first time ;
the Stafford Bridge Bill was read a first time ;
the Dudley (Worcestershire) Water Works Bill was read
a first tim' ; a Bill for enclosing certain lands in a parish
in the county of Somerset was read a first time ; the
Wishaw Railway Bill, and the:Crinnan Canal Bill, were
read a first time; the Leith Harbour Improvement Bill
was read a filet time; the report of the committee on the
Limerick Water Works Bill was brought up ; the British
American Land Company Bill was read a first time.
Mr. JAMES OSWALD presented a petition from cer-
tain burgesses of the borough of Anderston, praying
for the repeal of the Police Act of that borough.
A bill for the improving of lands in the parish of Old_
bridge, in Lincolnshire; also a bill for the improvement
of the town of Merthyr Tidvil ; a bill for the construe•
tion of a railway to the town of St. Helen's; a bill for
the improvement of the Calder Navigation ; a bill for the
better paving and lighting of the parish of St. Mary
Magdalen, in the Borough of Southwark ; and a Bill to
amend an Act relating to the roads of Middlesex and
Essex, were all read a first time, and ordered to be
referred to the committee.
Mr. HALCOMB brought in a bill for the better provi-
sion and maintenance of the Rector of Christ Church,

Surrey, which was read a first time.
Mr. CLAY presented a petition from the merchants
and other inhabitants of Wapping, against the East Smith-
field toll bar.
TITHES COMMUTATION BILL.

Mr. SPRING RICE, in answer to a question from
Mr. Hughes, said, that if his noble friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer shouNl be sufficiently well to attend on
Wednesday night, he would introducc his bill for the
commutation of tithes.

Mr. H. HUGHES suggested that it would be better i:

the bill wen., to be further postponed. He had himself
postponed a motion on this subject in consequence of the
indisposition of the noble lord the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.
Mr. STANLEY, in answer to a question from Mr.
Goulburu, said that the supplies would be brought
forward this evening before the other orders of the day.
PETITION of the SENATE of the UNIVERSITY of

CAMBRIDGE, in FAVOUR of the DISSENTERS.
Mr. SPRING RICE said he rose to call the attention
of the house to a petition which was of the utmost impor-
tance, and one which was well entitled, if he might pre-
sume to say so, to the most respectful consideration of the
house, as well on the score of the subject to which it re-
la ed, as to the rank of the individuals who had signed it.
The petition was from 63 resident members of the senate of
the university of Cambridge, praying that the advantages
of that university, as far as respec ed the degrees conferred
there, might be opened to all classes of his Majssty's sub-
jects, without any distinction whatsoever on the score of re-
ligious difference..—(Cheers.) This petition was, in fact,
consonant with the prayer of mmy which were addressed
to that house by the dissenting body of this country, and
he thought it must be even more gratifying to those who
were friendly to the object of those petitions that the
principles hid down in them was on the part of the
members of this university subscribed to, namely, that they
were desirous to open their doors to the dissenters,—
it was, he would repeat, far more gratifying than if
it bad come from the dissenters themselves.—( Hear, hear.)
This was a matter of concession, but it was of the highest
importance that all concessions should be made as an
amicable adjustment, and come as a gift from those in
possession of the monopoly rather than in compliance of
repeated demands by the excluded. It was perfectly just
that he should state that it was not the petition of the Uni-
versity, but it was from sixty-three resident members of
the senate, hut that, he thought, would not deprive the
petition of the slightest portion of its weight. He
believed there was one member who, by pos-
sibility, might be described as a non-resident mem-
ber; ha alluded to Professor Babbage, whose name
was enough.—( Hear, hear.) The resident members
amounted to about 108, and the greatest number that
ever voted did not exceed 100. Out of that number

there were sixty-three who bad signed the petition, and
there were several others, he had reason to know, who
agreed in the object and prayer of it, though they might
not concur in every sentence. There was then more than
one-half of the Senate in favour of the petition. But the
mere declaration of numbers was not so important upon
any occasion as the name of the individuals. He was sure,
ff he should have the misfortune to be opposed by his right
hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn), he was sure he would agree
that the signatures to the petition were those of men of
the highest moral character and most brilliant talent. It
was signed by ten professors; and when he mentioned the
names of Lee, Sedgwick, Dodd, and others, he might say
that no petition could be more respectably signed. Now,
what was the prayer of the petition ? The petitioners set
out, as they were entitled to do by their character and
endowments, by declaring their attachment both to the
church and the university, for no men had exerted them-
selves more to uphold and maintain the high character
and dignity both of the one and the other.—(Flea!',
hear.)
It should be remembered that Professor S doviclis svho
so strenuously advocated the opening of the university,
was, during the present year, the most able and zealous
advocate of the religious and moral institutions of the
country. His opinion was entitled to the consideration of
the house on both grounds. Why was it that the able
upholder of the religious institutions of the country
was the earnest supporter of the claims of the dissenters?
It was, because he was firmly attached to the interests of
the established church, because the just concession of those
claims was identified with the latter. He called the at-
tention of the house to the fact that the interests of the
church and the University of Cambridge were concerned
in the fair adjustment of the dissenters demands, and not
to continue their exclusion from the benefits of edu-
cation. Let it not be supposed that that exclusion had
its origin with the great men who established and
adorned the established church—that it had been coeval
with the reformation—( Hear, bear)—that it originated
with Elizabeth or Edward Vl.—with the Cranmers, the
Ridleys, the Latimer., who were the leaders and the mar-
tyrs of the national faith. No : it originated in the
days of a King, who, in state affairs, employed king-
craft, and derived his religious opinions from the con-
ferences of Hampton Court—a King who wrote a
treatise on demonology, and who declared that the service
of the established church, was but a bad mass in English,
and required but the lifting up of the hands to reduce it
to complete popery. His right hon. friend was aware
that in the consolidated statutes of the reign of Eliza-
beth, where even rose water was prohibited in the cere-
mony of baptism—when the utmost rigour prevailed
in religious tests,—even then there was no exclusion
from university education. In the reign of James the
First, the decree made by that monarch, Was the first
step to the exclusion which had been so unjustly continued.
In that observation, he alluded especially to the Royal
letter of James 1., in the year 1613, to the University of
Cambridge, in which his Majesty admitted that there were
at that time no religious tests whatever. Now, what did
that King proceed to do? Why, not to introduce the pi e•
sent system ; he did no such thing, but lie stated in terms,
which had no doubt struck lion. members, having
taken a dislike to the degree of doctor of
in consequence of. a person, named Burgess, baying
quitted that profession for the purpose of takingimly orders,
he directed that in future no person should be admitted to
the degree of a bachelor of divinity, or any degree unhss
lie first suhscrikd ,the three articles of the 36th canon.
Then the King directed that in the degrees of bichelor
of divinity and Drs. of the faculty, excluding music, the
test should be required. Now it was important to see how
his Majesty followed this up in considering the legality of
the subsequent proceeding; be did not rest upon that,