The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-21 00:00:00

.

feelings. • He knew -that at one of the great
schools there was a regulation that the articles of the
church should form part of a lecture, and that they
constituted a part of the half yearly examinations,
which took place at 'that university. (Hear.) The
students were examined upon them, not only to show
that they had a proper idea of religious subjects, but
that they had advanced considerably in their know-
ledge upon those points, so as to be required to pass a
very efficient examination. If an alteration in the
University at Oxford was to be made, so as to permit
of the admission of persons of all persuasions into that
University, there would have to be a dispensation of
that which was the foundation of their regulations.
It was said the number of dissenters who would enter the
Universities would be so few that no danger or inconve-
nience could arise. This, he recollected, was one of the
arguments advanced in favour of the admission of Roman
Catholics to that house. He did not mean to imply by
this observation that the questions were of similar nature
or importance, one havinl respect to temporal the other to
religious matters. But the number did not alter the nature
of this case or remove the difficulty. Even admitting that
there was not more than one Dissenter, under such cir-
cumstances it would be an evil. His presence must natu-
rally produce a disinclination to press those points in which
the individual differed in religion from the other members
of the University. It might be said that the same difficul-
ties and objections might be started under the system as
now carried on, inasmuch as Dissenters were now educated
in their Universities. There was a great difference between
attending under connivance, as now, and placing it in the
power of the student to say to his instructor, " I am not of
your religion, I do not concur in your doctrines, I am inde-
pendent here, and you shall not force me to attend." Was
it to be supposed that a young man placed under such cir-
cumstances would not make efforts to maintain and propa-
gate his own religious persuasions ? The young men,
therefore, of the Established Church would have to enter
into controversy with every species of sectarianism. What
the result of such a state of things must be was pretty clear
from an establishment for education formed upon the
same principle by Dr. Doddridge about a century back.
The late Mr, Hall explained the reasons why this esta-
blishment did not succeed. (The hon. member read an
extract front the works of Dr. Hall, stating in substance
that the establishment fell because more attention was paid
to human learning than to fervour of piety or purity of
doctrine.) Now he would put it to the house, were they
prepared to admit into the universities a number of men
more distinguished for learning than for fervour of, piety
or for purity of doctrine ? (Cheers.) He thought it
essential that religion should accompany all education.
This was the case at Oxford, and he bad the authority of
Mr, Whewell for saying that the same was the case in
Cambridge. (The hon. member read an extract from a
pamphlet by this gentleman, showing how religion mixed
itself up with all the duties of life and of the university. )
He knew gentlemen differed in their religious creed. He
did not quarrel with them on that account; but members
of the Established Church thought their own religion the
purest, and let them not be disturbed in the enjoyment of
it. Even if this passed, a difficulty would still remain,
for the statutes of the university of Oxford required in-
struction in the subscription to the 39 articles. What was
to be done with this statute, and with another which re-
quired that the doctrines laid down by the Synod of London
in 1562 should be taught and subscribed to? (The hon.
member read the statutes.) How were they to get
rid of the obligation of complying with this statute ?
It was not competent to that house to abrogate them.
(" Hear, hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches. )
Well, at least there was no precedent for such an exercise
of power by Parliament, and if it might be exercised in the
case of the universities it must be equally applicable to all
corporations. Were dissenters to be admitted without the
concurrence of the heads of houses ? If they were to exer-
cise the power they now enjoyed he gave the hon. member
joy of his bill ; it would be inoperative as a legislative mea-
sure, at the same time that it would be insulting to the
universities. The dissenters complained of the appropria-
tion of all the funds belonging to the universities to one
object. If there was no established church they might have
some right to complain. But as these funds were set apart
for the propagation of the Protestant religion and for its
maintenance, and as this was to be done through the edu-
cation of a pious and learned clergy, the dissenters had no
right to complain. He did not wish to say anything that
could give offence, but it was clear that the measures of
the dissenters were insidiously directed to the overthrow of
the church. Their present attack was directed against the
system of education, because they knew that while there
was a pious, learned, zealous clergy, their attempt would be
resisted. There would always be such a clergy while the
universities remained on their present footing. They at-
tacked the universities that they might, hereafter, the more
easily overthrow the Established Church, and put an end to
the connection between Church and State. Great changes
had already taken place. They were such, however, as
were naturally incident to a free country like this ; but he
warned the house not to yield further to the applications
of the dissenters. When he saw the attacks now made
upon
_the church—the attempt to deprive the Bishops of
their seats in the House of Lords, the reduction of their
number in Ireland, the attempt to apply the property of
the Church to other than church purposes—and when lie
now saw a bill before the house for admitting dissenters
into their Universities, which were set apart for the educa-
tion of the Protestant Clergy, it was impossible not to be
filled with apprehension for the result, if not opposed in
time. If these attempts should prove successful there
must be an end to the tolerant Church of England. Was
it a tolerant Church ? Could any person refuse to
answer in the affirmative ? (Loud cheers.) This he
said upon the authority even of the dissenters themselves.
(The hon. gentleman read part of an address from a body,
as we understood, of Methodists, expressing their anxiety
for the maintenance of the Established Church, as a great
national blessing, and as the bulwark of toleration.) In
this bill the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wood) was legislating
without a precedent. There was no instance of a measure
like this having been agreed to by Parliament without the
concurrence of the heads of houses. Parliament never be-
fore interfered with the universities unless they had the
concurrence of the house of convocation. Now, how-
ever, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wood) did so interfere, as
was evident from the bill. (The hon. member read one of
the clauses to show that such was the case.) If this bill
passed, and even if it passed it must be inoperative, the
universities might shut up their houses of convocation. If
this bill passed, there could be no doubt that some person
would next session come forward and propose a still more
extensive measure. If the object was to reduce to insig-
nificance universities which were more ancient than their
race of kings, to render them utterly incompetent to the
objects of their institution, then he could understand the
hon. gentleman ; but if it was wished that they should
remain in credit and in honour, to maintain and to propa-
gate, through a pious and learr.el clergy, the pure doctrine
of Christianity, then he could not understand this bill. He
was determined to uphold, to the utmost of his power, the
rights of the university, and he hoped that the house would
stand by them on that side of it in resisting a measure
which was fraught with the utmost danger, not only to the
safety and welfare of the country, but which even endan-
gered the monarchy itself. (Hear, hear.) He thanked
the house for the patient hearing he had received at its
hands, and concluded by moving, by way of amendment,
that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
(Cheers.) .
Mr. HERBERT seconded the amendment. There
did not exist 'a single by-law in the colleges of the univer-
sities, nor even a single custom, which did not go to ob-
struct Dissenters, and prevent them from being admitted
to qualify in the universities. How could a Dissenter be-
come a master of any of the colleges, when to be one a com-
plete knowledge of the tenets of the Established Church was
necessary? No matter how great a proficient in learning
he might be, no matter how brilliant were the talents with
which nature endowed him, a religious education was a
sine qua non, What greater objection could there be
than this? Even the Dissenters themselves, when such was
the fact, ought not to enter the, colleges and be under such
tnasters, and be continually present in a place where they
would see pursued a system of religious education from
beginning to end. It appeared to him that it must al-
ways be a grave subject of displeasure to the Dissenters
themselves to be obliged to attend lectures in which they
would hear the tenets of their own church completely con-
4roverted. ( Hear.) But perhaps the house did not wish
~that there should be any religious education there. (Hear. )
if such was the intention of the house they would rove it
lay passing the bill before them. (Hear, hear.) f he in-
troduction of Dissenters as masters in colleges was a very
'serious matter, and one that should be gravely looked to.
Let the effect it would have on the pupils of the universi-
ties be considered. (Hear.) For his own part, he did not
think that the pupils would pay much attention to the
instruction of teachers from the religion of whom they dif-
fered. ( Hear.) Besides, could it be expected that those
pupils would ever look with much reverence on the re-
ligion of the Established Church when they saw it treated
in the manner it would be if the Dissenters were allowed
to become masters ? (Hear, hear.) The bill before them
was more extensive than they thought : it allowed a far
wider latitude than appeared at first sight, and it would be
found that under its cloak infidels and atheists would creep
into the Universities. (Hear.) lie looked upon this bill
as one that would eventually have the effect of excluding
ministers from the Universities. It would also have a very
bad effect, a worse one perhaps on the laity, since it would
prevent them from forming at the University attachments
with those who would become afterwards ministers of re-
ligion. • Preventing this would likewise lead to another
evil consequence. By breaking off the early acquaintance
that might be formed between the minister and the gentle-
men among whom he might afterwards reside--and this the
bill would do—a stop would be put to the mutual assist-
ance they would afford to each other in making the stream
of benevolence flow more rapidly and broadly. (Hear.)
He was aware that the party who looked upon all that
was said on that side of the house he was on as in-
citing to religious animosity, considered with contempt
all the attainments acquired at the Universities, looked
with contempt -on the revival of the dead lan-
guages, and despised everything like polite lite-
rature. However, he knew that there were others
who were tricked by a false seeming of liberality into a

support of this measure. He would ask one plain ques-
tion. Would they, by passing this measure, close the doors
of the university on the nobility and gentry of England in
order to open them to a small body of individuals? for a
small body the dissenters must be considered when com-
pared with the rest of the population of the country. Let
the dissenters erect their own colleges, and if they should
happen to produce, as the English universities alreidy had,
great and eloquent statesmen, profound philosophers, and
men who would be an ornament to society, then would
their country be grateful to them for the benefit they had
bestowed upon it. He felt grateful for this opportunity of
paying a tribute of respect to those universities, to one of
which he was indebted for his education. (Cheers. )
The question having been put,
Mr. PETER supported the second reading of the bill.
Men's creed ought not to be made in this world the sub-
' .-.4 -f reward or punishment. To allude to a man of an-
ut times, there was a Roman Emperor who said of the
Christians that he " feared they would overcome us (the
Romans) with our weapons; that they would conquer us
with our own arts." Such really seemed the fear of the
party that.now opposed the admission of the dissenters into
the universities. But that party said to the dissenters,
" You may raise universities," and when they were raised
the very same party refused the dissenters the power of
taking degrees. ("No, no," from the Opposition.) These
were evils that came hoine to the pockets and the bosoms
of the people of the country. For the sake of the safety
of the universities and of England, he would beseech the
house to allow the present bill to pass. (Hear, hear.)
He was a churchman by habit and education, but more so
by principle, and he could not help reverting with sorrow
to the levity with which oaths were taken at the uni-
versity to which he belonged. He knew young men
swear on this point and upon that, and when they at first
hesitated and doubted, their tutorsaid to them, " Do not
be afraid ; you may swear, the regulations give you a wide
latitude; you may interpret the matter as you like without
danger, whether you be right or wrong. (Hear.) It
was true that young men were examined on the Thirty-
nine Articles, and about the Old and New Testament. But
in his time this examination was not looked upon in the
light of a test, and he was informed that it was even now
the same thing. As a friend to the church and to the
universities he should give his most cordial support to the
original motion.
Mr. POUL TER had known a hundred persons at Ox-
ford admitted to take degrees in the arts and laws without
having attended religious lectures. He himself was an
instance of one who had never attended lectures on divi-
nity, and yet he was as attentive and industrious as other
students. (A laugh.) When at the university, if he had
been as anxious about obtaining the degree of Doctor in
Civil Law as some persons had lately shown themselves at
Oxford, he might have had it. (Laughter.) There was no
course now left but for the legislature to interfere. The
time was when the feelings of the people towards the
church were far greater than they were at present—when
the great majority of Englishmen were sincerely attached
to the established church. But the house would bear in its
recollection that for a long time this universal feeling
had ceased to exist. The dissenters had grown up to
become a very large body, and he was of opinion that
the progress of dissent ought to be attributed to the
neglect of the church in not bringing itself into closer
contact with an increasing population. If the church at
present could boast of its ten thousand preferments, the
dissenters could boast of their ten thousand congregations.
Many petitions had been presented to that house from
the dissenters praying for a separation of church and state.
Now he was a friend to the union of church and state, and
the best way to make the dissenters friendly to that union
would be to do away with their grievances, to admit them
to the universities, and to allow them to celebrate their
marriages in their own churches. Another argument had
been brought forward on this question, and that argument
was based on the exclusive rights of property. This argu-
ment had been four times started on the occasion of the
Reform 8i11,.0n the question of the Church Reform, on
the corporate commission, and now it was broached on the
subject of the admission of dissenters into the universities.
The country expected that that principle of reform would
be carried out and extended; they expected that the pre-
sent measure would be added ; they expected to see it
novem editionem emondatiorem et auctiorem, as the Re-
' form Bill would be by the addition of the present measure.
Mr. EWART said that, though the country expected
an editionem emendatiorem et auctiorem, they did not ex-
pect it would proceed ex cedibus collegiorum. (A laugh.)
The Pope did not exclude from the University of Bologna
Jews or Greeks. It was rather late to imitate the Pope,
and nothing but the voice of the nation ought to induce us
to do so. The hon. member for Wiltshire said that if the
bill passed it would open the universities to infidels and
atheists; but he would ask the hon. member whether the
present system had been successful in excluding such per-
sons? At the same time the present system had had the
effect of excluding from the English Universities Adam
Smith and other distinguished men who would have been
ornaments to them. He could hardly conceive a greater
evil than making an individual take an oath on enter-
ing the university which was not necessary, for by this
it not only opened wide the doors of the universities to
hypocrisy on the one hand and indifference on the
other, but also it was trifling with the solemn sanction
of an oath. He (Mr. Ewart) also believed that the
literary disadvantages of having tests of that kind were also
great. He admitted that in our universities a well-
grounded education was bestowed on the pupils, but many
of them who' had seen foreign universities, and himself
amongst the number, were of opinion that in the English
universities too much attention was paid to minute
points instead of attending to those parts of education
which tended to expand the mind and enlarge the benevo-
lent feelings of the heart. The hon. member for Shaftes-
bury had said that when he was a young man at the uni-
versity of Oxford he recollected some young men who had
to perform what appeared to be little better than menial
offices who had since risen to high offices. He (Mr.
Ewart) also recollected with pain seeing young men, who
wore dresses varying from that of the other students of the
university, who were compelled to submit to the degrada-
tion of having to place dishes on the table of the superiors
of the college. He was happy to say that this was not the
fact at present ; but he had seen such things, and -the
universities, for their own credit sake, ought to have got rid
of such customs long since. So great had been the feeling
of exclusiveness in his time in the university of Cambridge
that the members of some colleges would not speak to those
of other colleges. The present system of exclusion had
been injurious to learning. ( Hear.)
Mr. E. BULLER thought what the dissenters de-
manded was consistent with the spirit of the times and
with the spirit of the constitution. There was a time
when the constitution was exclusive, but it had ceased to
be so. Brighter prospects had been opened by the repeal
of the Test and Corporation Acts, and by passing the
great measure of Catholic emancipation ; and when those
measures were passed it was declared that all offices of
state, and in corporations throughout the country, should
be open to all citizens, without reference to their religious
faith or opinions. The universities were, in point of fact,
lay corporations for purposes of education. It was edu-
cation that qualified men for office, and enabled them to
perform their public duties with advantage to the country
and with honour to themselves. Dissenters might now be
admitted to office, but the door was still shut to obtaining
those qualifications which best enabled them to fill those
officers. He admitted that the test taken at Cambridge was
not so objectionable as that imposed at Oxford. A young
man generally entered the university at between sixteen
and seventeen, and at Oxford he was called upon to de-
clare solemnly that he believed in all the doctrines con-
tained in the Thirty-nine Articles. This appeared
to him to be most monstrous. He trusted that the
time had come when they should get rid of all tests in the
universities, and that the only declaration taken would be
on entering the university, and that merely to the effect
that the perm taking it was anxious and willing to learn,
and that he would adhere to the rules of the university. It
had been stated that by passing this bill the intentions of
the founders of the university were set at nought, but in
his opinion this could not be urged, and especially as re-
garded the university of Oxford, for it was impossible to
say who were the fouriders of it—whether sincere Chris-
tians or latitudinarians—whether founded by the Druids,
or by Romans in honour of the heathen gods. There had
been repeated instances of the interference of the Sovereign
in the affairs of the universities. Queen Elizabeth, James
the First, and Charles the First had repeatedly done so.
He maintained, if Queen Elizabeth and the Stuarts had a
right to interfere with the universities, that the King, on
the advice of Parliament, possessed the right now. He
did not suppose that any one would say that those educated
at the university of Cambridge were inferior in learning or
piety to those educated at Oxford ; but, if the arguments
of the exclusionists were worth any thing, this could not,
be the case, vthe restrictions were not near so extensive`
in the former as in the latter university. At present
he was happy to say that a more liberal feeling existed in
Cambridge than formerly was the case, and he knew that
the sons of several dissenting ministers were fellows of
Colleges there. He was satisfied that no one would do those
gentlemen the cruel injustice to say that they were not
sincere. Before any measure could pass the Senate at
Cambridge it must be approved of by the unanimous voice
of the Caput. At Oxford also no rule could be valid un-
less it was approved of by the Vice-Chancellor, the Proc-
tors, and the Heads of Houses. Under these circum-
stancer he thought it was impossible to anticipate any
danger to the church from regulations that might be pro-
posed by dissenters. It had been asked whether the house
would consent to secularize the church, but they were not
dealing with the articles of the church ; but the question
merely was, whether many of those who were anxious that
their children should have the advantages of being educa-
ted in these universities should be restrained from sending
them by restrictions which were of no advantage to the
church ? He could not conceive that there was the least
danger to the church in admitting dissenters to the uni-
versities. In conclusion, he believed he was supporting
the best interests of the church in giving his vote for the
second reading of the bill before the house.
Mr. C. W. WYNN believed that this was a most im-
portant bill : but in his opinion it was much more so be-
cause it was one of a series of measures. This he had no
doubt was the first of a series of conflicts which, if not
met in time, might lead to the destruction of the established

church, and he also believed of all the other establishments
in the country. (Cheers.) It was tot the first time that
they had been told of a new order of things, and that every
established institution in the country should be got rid of,
and that afterwards they should consider what should be
substituted in their stead. ( Hear, hear.) It was impossible
for him not to recollect that there was one thing urged by
the great dissenting body in the country, namely, that they
should not be called upon to contribute to the support of
the established church of England. It had also been said
by his Majesty's Attorney-General that it was gross op-
pression to compel any man to contribute towards the
maintenance of a religion in the-doctrines of which he did
not believe. He (Mr. C. W. Wynn) could not help
feeling that the present was the first of the attempts that
were to be made to subtract from the property of the
church, and to devote it to objects not connected with the
establishment. (Hear, hear.) It was not a. secret, but it
had been openly stated at the corner of every street,
and at public meetings, that the object 00 the dis-
senters was to destroy the connection betweeen church
and state, and that all religions should be put on the same
footing in this country. ( Hear, hear.) He would not
detain the house by going into any inquiries as to the state
of the Universities previous to the reformation ; but, if
they took the last two centuries, it must be obvious to any
man that the Universities had been intimately connected
with the established religion of the country. The object
of the bill was to destroy this connection. (Hear, hear.)
Indeed it had been admitted that this was the case. It had
been said that the arguments against the bill were adapted
to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, but not for the present
time, when they had repealed the Test and Corporation
Act and had passed the Catholic Emancipation Bill, and
thus admitted Catholics and Dissenters to all lay officers.
Of the principle of that act he was perhaps one of the
most humble, but certainly one of the most constant, sup-
porters; and he denied that. there was anything in the
letter or spirit of the act to authorize the interpretation
put upon it by hon. gentlemen, namely, that it opened the
universities to them as well as all the honours and dignities
of the state. (Hear.) As a proof of what he had stated
he would refer to the words of the act, which stated that
nothing in this act should be so construed as to enable
any Catholic to hold any office in the church, or any place
or office whatsoever of, in, or belonging to the universities
of this realm, or to repeal, abrogate, or in any manner in-
terfere with any regulation or rule which is or shall be
framed and established in any college,- hall, -or school, or
other ecclesiastical foundation in the kingdom. (Hear,
hear.) Was there, then, anything in this clause to
authorise any hon. gentleman in asserting that it admitted
Roman Catholics to, the universities ? ( Hear.) Did it
not, in point of fact, say, " We will admit you- to all the
honours and dignities of the state, but we will not open to
you our universities, as they are inseparably connected
with and united to the church ?" ( Heat, hear.) This
was the security which had been held out to them, and
upon the faith of which the opponents of the measure had
been called upon to wave their opposition to the Catholic
Emancipation Bill, and yet what were they now called upon
to do ? Why, to violate that to which they had pledged
themselves only five years ago—that which they had been
assured would afford a sufficient security to the Church of
England. (Hear, hear, hear.) Again, they were told
that in former times persons were admissible to the
universities even though they professed the wildest and
most absurd beliefs, notwithstanding they were infidels, 1
and in proof of this assertion the names of Gibbon and of
Adam Smith were mentioned. Now he believed that
Adam Smith never belonged to either of the universities
in this country, but he admitted that Gibbon was a mem-
ber of the university of Oxford. It should, however, be
recollected that at the time Gibbon was admitted he pro-
fessed himself to be a Protestant, although he subsequently
became a Roman Catholic, and afterwards entertained
various other doctrines. But of Gibbon it might, in the
words of a poets be truly said that—
" Through all the religions on earth he had run,
' And ended at last by believing in none."
This subscription or admission was, however, objected to,
because its effect was to exclude Dissenters. For his own
part he would acknowledge that he deemed it unneces-
sary, but then he was satisfied to leave such a matter in
the hands of the universities themselves, being convinced
that they would before long see the expediency of doing
away with it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
contended that it was indispensably necessary for the heads
of colleges, and all other persons connected with the uni-
versities, to subscribe to. the Articles of the Protestant
faith, inasmuch as to them and to the convocation were
intrusted not only the rules and discipline of the institu-
tions, but, above all, the religious instruction of the youth
committed to their care. The consequence, therefore, of
allowing dissenters to take degrees would be injudicious,
and for the plain and obvious reason, that by so doing
parents would no longer have any security that their chil-
dren would be instructed in the tenets of the religion in
which they wished them to be brought up. He highly
approved of a religious examination forming part of the
education of students at the universities, and he was there-
fore exceedingly glad that that system had been generally
adopted. For his part, he should much rather prefer
leaving the making of any new laws that might be neces-
sary for the regulation of the universities to the Convoca-
tion of Oxford, than that those laws should be made by
the members of that house. Much had been said of the
University of Bologna, but he was ready to compare the
universities of Oxford and Cambridge with any other uni-
versity in the world. These universities had-not only pro.
duced men who were distinguished for their learning and
knowledge of the arts and sciences, and the eminent ser- -
vices they had rendered to the state, but preserved a purity
of religion unequalled in any other country in Europe, and
yet they were told that these were institutions which it was
expedient to do away with. (Hear, hear.) He found it
impossible, after the removal of the sacramental tests and
Catholic grievances, to consent to the destruction of that
which he regarded as the best bulwark of the Established
Church, and therefore no other course was open to him
but to oppose this measure. ( Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. RICE could assure the house, in rising to ad_
dress it, that the observations he was about to make would
be very few. He was unwilling to occupy its time at all,
but if he was to be altogether silent it might be construed
into a want of respect for the constituency he had the
honour to represent, and especially to the individuals who
had signed the petition in favour of the claims of the dis-
senters, which he lately presented to the house. He took
the liberty of expressing a difference of opinion from that
which had been expressed by his right hon. friend who had
just addressed the house. He differed from the right hon.
gentleman's arguments as well as opinions, though he had
no doubt those arguments would be considered irresistible
by many hon. gentlemen on his right hon. friend's side of
the house. (A laugh.) When the question of catholic
emancipation was before the house, the same fears were
entertained of danger to the church, and the same objec-
tions were made to that measure, and the same fallacies
were had recourse to. The right hon. gentleman had
streiffiously contended that the present measure was to be
regarded as only the first of a series of attacks on the
Church of England by dissenters, and therefore called on
the house to reject it. The right hon. gentlemanreferred
to the opinions which had been openly expressed by certain
dissenters in favour of a separation of church and state, and
thence argued that all dissenters entertained the same opi-
nions on this subject. lie could assure his right hon. friend
and the house that those doctrines regarding a separation of
church and State were disclaimed by a very large propor-
tion of the Dissenters. But supposing such opinions were
entertained to a far greater extent than they were, was he
(Mr. Spring Rice) to be on that account driven from this
measure? He therefore wished at once to cast aside the
argument against the measure which the right hon. gen-
tleman grounded on the fact of a certain portion of the
dissenters being in favour of a separation of church and
state. His right hon. friend must have felt a conscious-
ness that he had undertaken the support of a very bad
case, when he was obliged to resort to such an argument.
The right hon. gentleman must admit that there were
many very eminent men—he would not call them the
lights of the world—connected with foreign universities;
but he said they could not be compared to the members of
the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. That was pre-
cisely his (Mr. Spring Rice's) argument ; that was
exactly the reason why he wished those universities to be
thrown open to dissenters ; for if they could render literary
men so muds service as to confer on them greater advan-
tages than other universities could, that was surely a reason
why the privileges enjoyed at the universities of Oxford
and Cambridge should be open to all. (Loud cheers. )
What right, he would ask, had we to deprive any parti-
cular class of his Majesty's subjects of those privileges by
which they could be enabled to qualify themselves for the
most honourable situations, and raise themselves to emi-
nence in the literary world? (Renewed cheers.) That was
the way to raise the character of the country as well as
that of the universities themselves. An hon. member had
said, let the Dissenters, if they are determined to be ad-
mitted to universities, provide universities for themselves;
we (the Church of England) will not in that case inter-
fere with them. This argument and declaration of the
hon. member contrasted strangely with the conduct of the
universities of Oxford and Cambridge in reference to the
very point in question. What was the conduct of those
universities when the London university, chiefly supported
by dissenters, claimed a charter for that institution, which
could enable them to confer certain degrees? Why did
those universities step forward and practically disclaim the
language of their advocates in that house, by the opposi-
tion which they got up to the granting a charter to the
London university? What was the language which the
universities of Oxford and Cambridge held, in effect, to
dissenters on this subject? Why, it was precisely this—
" We refuse to admit you among ourselves, and we will
not allow you to have a university of your own." (Loud
cheers.) He (Mr. Spring Rice) could easily understand
those who took either side ; he could understand those who
said, " We will give dissenters leave to have a university
of their own, but we will not admit them to ours ;" or he
could understand those who said, " We will admit dissen-
ters to our universities, but we will not consent to their
having one to themselves." But it was perfectly incompre-
hensible to him (Mr.. Spring Rice) how any person could
be opposed to the claims of dissenters in both cases. (Loud
cheers.) Taking the double ground against dissenters
was not only unreasonable, but it was illiberal and unjust.
(Cheers.) Reference had been made by an hon. member

o the ease of the University of Cambridge in contradis-
tinction from that of Oxford, in regard to the more liberal
regulations of the former ; but the same arguments which
proved the liberal regulations to be good in one place would
apply with equal force in the other. In Cambridge College
the sons of Dissenters were admitted in the same way, and,
as students, stood on the samefooting, as the sons of mem-
bers of the Church. Now, he would ask, as no inconve-
nience had been to result in the one case, what ground was
there to apprehend any danger or inconvenience in the case
of the University of Oxford ? And how, in the face of
this experience, could hon. members oppose the present
measure? After allowing students to acquire all the in-
formation which the University can communicate ; after
they had merited the highest honours which it could con-
fer, they told them, You shall not receive those honours,
simply because you are Dissenters. To be told when
he had finished his studies, that however great his acquire-
ments in learning, however eminent fOr talent, and how-
ever exemplary his conduct may have been, he shall
be deprived of the badge of distinction which he had me-
rited, merely because he is a Dissenter, must be mor-
tifying in the extreme. Dissenters ought either to
be admitted to all the honours of the Universities,
or _they ought to be excluded altogether. (Hear,
hear.) He did not conceive the possibility of the Church
being injured or endangered by the associations of Dis-
senters with her members in the Universities. The same
cry of danger was raised in regard to the admission of
Catholics to the university of Dublin, when, in 1793, the
restrictions which had before that period actuated them,
were removed. Was that university less a Protestant insti-
tution now than it was at that period? He did not see that
it was. He was sure no hon. member wouMsav that it was.
It was said when the restrictions which excluded Roman
Catholics from the university. of Dublin were proposed to
be removed, that the consequence of doing away with them
would be that the Catholics would forthwith aspire to a
share of the endowments of the college. Had the fact jus-
tified that prediction ? It had not. The hon. and learned
member for Dublin, whom he did not now see in his place,
when examined before a committee of the Irish Parlia-
ment, in reference to this very point, stated that Catholics
would not seek any participation in the endowments of the
university, for that the sphere of their usefulness would
be equally extensive without any such participation. The
same remarks held equally good with respect to the
Scotch universities. They admitted the sons of dis-
senters on the same terms and conditions as the sons
of those who were members of the Established Church,
of 'that part of the kingdom ; but no evil incon-
venience had ever been found to result from the inter-
mixture. The Dissenters in Scotland never sought to
possess any share in the endowments of the Universities
in which they had been educated. On what principle
then, he would ask, could it be contended that any danger
could arise to the Church of England from this measure ?
If there was any danger to' be apprehended to the church,
he would say it was from admitting Dissenters as students,
and then depriving them of the honours to which they had
entitled themselves. (Loud cheers.) He must recur for
one moment to the case of the University of Dublin. As
he had referred to it, he thought a reply would be at-
tempted to that part of his argument by his right hon.
friend; and he (Mr. Spring Rice) believed he could anti-
cipate what the right hon. gentleman was going to say.
(Loud laughter.) He had no doubt he would say that the
hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin had
a notice of a motion in the order-book bearing on this very
subject. If he (Mr. Spring Rice) were to take all the
notices of motions in the order-book as arguments for any
particular measures, he should be able to argue in favour
of both sides of all questions that could come before the
house, for the order-book abounded with such arguments
in favour of both sides of the various questions on which
that house was in the habit of legislating. (Loud cheers
and laughter.) That Roman Catholics did not aspire to
any participation in the endowments of the Protestant
church, might be inferred from the fact that they had
never presented a single petition to be admitted to a share
of those endowments. (Cheers.) Having alluded in the
outset of his speech to the petition which he had the
honour to present from Cambridge in favour of the present
measure, he must admit that another had since been got
up and signed by a much larger number of persons. That
petition was of a quite contrary kind from the one which
he had the honour to present. He must say that the feel-
ing it expressed on the subject of the church was the same
as that which pervaded the speech of the right honourable
gentleman. The petitioners endeavoured to raise an alarm
for the church by crying out that this was the first of a
series of measures by which it is intended to attack the
Protestant establishment. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear,"
from the opposite side of the house.) He was glad to hear
those cheers from the hon. gentlemen opposite,- but he
must say, that they were for what they imagined to be in
the bill, and not because of the enactments which were really
to be found in it. The petition which he had the honour
to present to that house from Cimbridge had occasioned
great excitement in that place. A distinguished individual
had been removed from the university in consequence of
the part he had taken in the matter. (Hear hear.) The
circumstance was important, as it might be looked on as a
new mode of warfare to be adopted in the present conflict
of opinions. (Hear, hear.) As to referring so important
and pressing a question to the convocation of the univer-
sity, he thought such a course would produce results
very far from satisfactory. It was argued that the house
had no right to interfere with the statutes of the univer-
sities : he did not admit the force of the argument.
( Hear, hear.) Not many days ago, one of those very
statutes had been wholly set aside in the circum-
stances attending the election of Dr. King to the vacant
presidentship of Winchester college. Surely, then, if these
statutes were to be set aside for the benefit of an individual,
it was not to be asserted that Parliament had no power or
right to question or interfere with these statutes when a
great general principle was at stake. In the system of re-
ligious education at the universities, undoubtedly very great
improvements had taken place within the last 15 or 20
years; and no one could view the mode in which religious
instruction was there given and received, and the regular
and decorous attendance at the university churches, with-
out being at once convinced that a deep-rooted religious
feeling pervaded the whole university, not only in the
breasts of the heads of the collages, the doctors and other
elders of the place, but in those of the young men. That
such worthy and noble sentiments should be so universally
entertained no one more rejoiced at than himself; but he
was very far from thinking this a fact which ought to
militate against the admission of dissenters to those univer-
sities. (Hear.) On the contrary, it appeared to him that
the feeling being so deeply rooted, was in no danger of
being shaken by the presence of a few Dissenters (Hear,
hear.) The non-existence of such danger being removed,
there could not remain a shadow of ground for opposing
the entrance of the Dissenters to the advantages of those•
great institutions as seats of learning. The main point,
therefore, would be to show that the safety of the tenants
of the Church or England would not be compro-
mised by the admission of the Dissenters to the Universities.
And that this safety would not be hazarded, had been the
declared opinion of sixty-three of the first men in the Uni-
versity of Cambridge. The Dissenters asked no more than
what had been granted, without the slightest' injury to
either Church or State, to the Roman Catholics ; they
asked for nothing but their civil liberty ; they desired to
derive the same advantages, in point of education, from
those great seats of learning, which the rest of their
countrymen were entitled to. He entirely agreed with
the honourable gentlemen on the opposite side of the
house that in the upper classes as in the lower, the
danger of separate education was very evident ; and it
clearly appeared to him, that if the people were estranged
from each other on every point, merely on account of the
difference of their religious sentiments, the dissenters 11
would be left no option but that of withdrawing themselves
into circles and establishments of every kind wholly dis-
sentient. (Hear, hear.) This was a result which he
trusted he should never witness ; he hoped he should never
aee any set of men contending for an unmerited superio-
rity, or another set of men struggling under equally unde-
served inferiority, on the grounds of religious differences.
What he desired was, that all those who sought educa-
tion should be placed on an equal footing, whether assen-
tients to, or dissentients from, the established church.
So far from thinking that the safety of the church would
be compromised by the admission of the latter to the uni-
versities, it appeared to him, on the contrary, that its se-
curity would be so much the more guaranteed, for it was
consistent with the best mode of reasoning to calculate
that at least the tacit friendship and good-will of those dis-
senters would be secured by their being allowed to par-
ticipate in the educational advantages of these universi-
ties. (Hear, hear.) Surely it would be much more just
and politic to imbue them with such a friendly feeling,
rather than to provoke their unappeasable and powerful
hostility by any longer refusing to admit them to those
privileges. Nor was it the individual resentment only of
the dissenters so refused, which was to be apprehended :
many of them, in all probability, would in after life become
active and stirring leaders among their sects, and it was
not to be supposed but that the anger they themselves felt
at their degrading rejection would be generally diffused
among all those who listened to them. (Hear, hear, hear. )
He thanked the house for the attention with which they
bad honoured him : he would not have detained them so
tong, but from his deep feeling that on so important a
question it became every man to express his sentiments.
He would only add, that by the vote which he should give
on this motion, he should not consider himself bound onany
subsequent occasion : he supported this bill, and this
bill only. His vote on any future measure on the subject
would be entirely regulated by his opinion as to the intrin-
sic merits of that particular measure.
Mr. GOULBURN said it was totally impossible for
him to subscribe to the arguments of the right hon. gen-
tleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, or to refrain from
endeavouring to expose their fallacy. He fully, however,
concurred with him in looking at the bill which was be-
fore the house to be the sole subject of discussion at pre-
sent, and he should therefore confine himself to that bill ;
he trusted also to be able to show that it would produce
such an effect upon the established religion of the country
as to induce even the right hon. Secretary to' turn round
upon his own recent declarations and oppose it with all
his might. The right hon. Secretary had painted the
feelings of the dissenters writhing under the refusal to ad-
mit them to the university degrees ; but let him, on the

other hand, ask him what the feelings of those dissenters
would be when, after attaining all their degrees at the
universities, they suddenly find themselves refused all par-
ticipation in the emoluments and honourable offices in
those colleges where they matriculated, and such was the
effect of the last clause of the present bill. Or might he
not rather ask, was not the step of admitting dissenters to
a share in the government of the universities reserved
for another, and not far distant, occasion ? (Loud
cheers.) He must confess, and he did it with pleasure,
that he was anxious to see the Dissenters qualified to attain
-cfonthcee conceded to
Church them
a 'Englandwere
civil scholastic distinctions, always with the reservation
tu thatb privilegesewchuanteeevdeerdat th e
expense were u
institutions. The right hon. secretary had, in the course
of his speech, informed the house-that the university of
not
Cambridge had already in effect pursued the very course
prescribed by this bill, by admitting Dissenters indiscri-
minately to her college stalls ; but the right hon. secre-
tary had totally forgotten to state that there was this dis-
tinction to be made, that Dissenters were admitted as stu-
dents in the various colleges at Cambridge, not as Dissen-
ters but as young men who, when the period arrives, will
be ready to subscribe the act of declaration, and the 39
articles ; and, although they may be known to their pri-
vate friends as Dissenters, yet it is not until they are
called upon to subscribe the articles and refuse to do so,
that they are known as- Dissenters. Nay more, he would
venture to assert that if, in presenting himself for admis-
sion to any one of the colleges at Cambridge, an appli-
cant were to announce himself as a Dissenter, he would
inevitably and according to the statutes of the univer-
sity be refused admission. The bill went to a most un-
warrantable length, inasmuch as it repealed all the private
ordinances of every college in each university. (cheers.)
And the very words of the act might be quoted to
show that it puts an end to all attendance on religious
worship in both universities. The right hon. secretary
referred also to Dublin, and had asked, with a sort of
mock triumphant air, what possible danger could result
from the adoption of the same principle as to the admission
of Dissenters here which was enforced there ? He forgot
in that reference to state that the Roman Catholics were
excluded from. alt share in the government of Trinity
College, the highest doctor equally with the lowest under-
graduate. But such would not be the case at Cambridge
and Oxford, for once admit a man to the degree of Doctor
or M. A., and he instantly acquires a right to share in the
government of the university,, and such a power ought not
to be placed in the hands of Dissenters, and therefore
when the right hon. secretary called on the house by a
parity of reasoning to grant Dissenters here the same pri-
vileges they enjoyed at Dublin, he did so without giving the
house the real state of the case, so as to show that there
was no parity of circumstances. Besides, how were they
to guard against going any further? No sooner was this
bill brought forward than an honourable and learned
member (Mr. Shell, we presume) put a notice in the
books of a motion for putting Dissenters at Trinity Col-
lege, Dublin, on the same footing with members of the
Church of England, and his (reason for giving such a
notice was that, inasmuch as the Dissenters of England
were about to receive some additional boon—those of
Ireland had a right to demand some more privileges
likewise. The obvious reasoning upon this was that
when the dissenters were admitted to the university de-
grees, the very next step would be ademand to be admit-
ted to the university emoluments, and the government of
colleges. Besides, the indiscriminate admission of all per-
sons -of all creeds to university distinctions implied a total
abandonment of all religious instruction at those univer-
sities, as indeed might be gathered from the speech made
by a certain noble lord at the last annual meeting of the
London University. The right hon. gentleman here re-
ferred to, and read part of a speech of Lord Brougham's
at the above place, and proceeded to observe, that the
question now to be considered contingently with the pre-
sent bill, was whether the house was prepared to disconnect
for ever religion from the other branches of education. He
believed there was a period in the history of England when
the bare annunciation of such a proposal would have
brought on a deadly struggle. He was the advocate of no
sectarian principles, but he could not refrain from ex-
pressing a hope that a, struggle would be made to prevent
so fatal a blow being given to the Church of England esta-
blishment, and that by an adherence to the present strict
rules of university discipline, the rising generation would
be preserved in their allegiance to her doctrines.
(Hear, hear.) But it had been declared, on the part
of some, that there was no religious instruction af-
forded at the universities ; lie should notice this only
so far as to say ,that whoever made the declaration must
have either practised on the credulity of the house, or else
have had his own credulity very much put to the test ; for
what was the fact? Did not all the young men who, at
the early age of twenty-three, took charge of parishes as
curates, come from the universities ? Were not their reli-
gious and doctrinal attainments subjected to the critical
examination of large congregations? Were not 'their lives
and actions open to the observation of all, and was it not
generally acknowledged, that in both points—religion and
conduct—they were, in general, highly creditable speci-
mens of collegiate education? Where then did these
young men acquire their knowledge of divinity, theology,
and their acquaintance with the forms and offices of'reli-
gion? Where but at the universities, at which it was (he
must suppose, by way of jocoseness) declared no religion
was taught ? There was another point, in which the col-
leges at the two universities were greatly to be praised,
and that was in the enforcement of the youthful students'
attendance every day on Divine worship. The very habit
of uniform attendance on the worship of God was bene-
ficial, and where was the check in this proposed bill upon
the continuance of this custom ? Where again was the
check for the exclusion of men, who having made great
acquirements in other branches of learning, might by some
unhappy fatuity be 'disposed to turn their powers of rea-
soning and acquirements against the church, and indeed
against all religion? Where was the remedy for the dan-
ger to which the young students might be exposed from
the effects of such a man, of the possibility of which too
many examples were presented ? What a lesson did the
universities of Germany afford on this subject. There no
religious instruction whatever is afforded to the students,
and what was the result ? Why the Professors and Heads
of Colleges were found publishing and avowing books which
had for their object the total prostration of all belief in
revelation, and which attempted to explain by natural
causes all the miracles in the New Testament. The same
results were to be observed of the American colleges,
where irreligion was so prevalent that the ministers of the
Gospel were at length reduced to the necessity of forming
a university for the education of their future ministers, in
contradistinction to the lay colleges at Cambridge and
Oxford, as they were called. But there was another point
to which he had great objections—namely, that no test
should be required on admission to the universities, though
even the majority of students might be Unitarians. Could
he, therefore, as a sincere member of the Church of Eng-
land, give his consent to such a material change—a change
which would, in fact, admit students of every persuasion,
and some of no persuasion at all ? Could he give his con-
sent to such a change ? He could not, as a member of
the church, give his consent to any such measure, and he
implored the house to weigh well all the circumstances of
the case, and, above all, to consider the great advantage
which the country had enjoyed by combining religious with
literary instruction, and not dissever the two great and
important modes of education. He implored the house not
to alter the present system at our Universities merely for
the purpose of admitting a few Dissenters. If any
one present had sons who had received a university
education, and, no doubt, there were many, let them
reflect on the danger with which such a measure wss
fraught (Hear, hear)—let them reflect on the present
system by which only Christians could be admitted, and
that which would admit of every sect, and even
hat ravages
reckless
a such a
sceptics. (Hear.) Let them reflecut
hf lt ci ad
also on
change would produce on the fyout
the vast changes which it would cause in all our literary
and religious establishments.
ilf the bill should pass, reli-
gious instruction would be impossible. Much had been
said about liberty of conscience being granted to Dissenters,
and he was ready to agree to that as .a general
principle ; but, while he admitted that, he would, at the
same time, ask, was liberty of conscience not also to be
granted to others? Was it not to be granted to the mem-
bers of the Church of England? Why should members of
the Church be forced to attend universities where the Li-
turgy was not taught ? He would only say on that point,
that, as a matter of justice, they were bound to pay as
much attention to the conscience of Protestants as of Dis-
senters. But they were bound to look further. If the
bill were passed, of course, as at present, students in-
tended for law or other f pro essions, would leave the
University, and clerical men alone would remain—and
what, he would ask, were they to lecture on without
offending the consciences of many of their pupils ? It
must of course be their duty to offend either one sect or
another. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Wood.) Did the hon.
member mean to say that it would be their duty to offend
the conscience of their pupils ? (No.) Well, then, the
teachers of religion were not to offend the conscience of
any party, while at the same time they were bound by the
most sacred obligations to take every means in their power
of driving away error. HoW these two points were to be
reconciled he could not divine. He would, therefore, ask
—was there any advantage which the Dissenters could ob-
tain by such a bill to be put in competition with the de-
rangement which it would produce' in all our literary
establishments? But, beside! they ought to consider who
were the principal founders oithose colleges. It was said
most of them were founded by Catholics. That he denied.
The greater part of the endowments were made subsequent
to the Reformation, and for the benefit of those in com-
munion with the Church of England. They all had heard
of the Hewley Charity, and they all knew that it was
founded solely for persons belonging to a certain class
of Presbyterian Dissenters. That had been admitted in
a court of law, and he would only ask them to
administer equal justice to Protestants, and apply
that rule to the universities. ( Hear, hear,) Tht
right hon. member had asked why give the two Univer-
sities a monopoly of degrees? Why not give to London
or King's Colleges the same privilege ? Now that was not
a fair position. The statement was not correct.
The
prayer of the two universities was not against allowing
these city colleges to grant degrees, but against granting
them in such a way as to confound them with

gran_
the. reason wig
obviotused.'byMOinxyrodf .onudr gCriaTribmraidr.seho"odts'Were founded on
the principle that the teachers were to be l‘lasters.of Arts.
That of course implied that they. 'should be tnerribers of the
Church of England, but if no distinction were. joade in
granting degreeS?:"Unitariarts and other sects might be
teachers in these schools.. (Pear.) That must necessa-
rily be the consequence of. granting. degrees in universities
where no religious instruction was'given. He was convinced
that on every principle, both of expediency and of religion,
degrees ought not to be granted unless marked by some re-
ligious character, arid he was borne out in this by the au-
thority of Lord Brougham, in hiS remarks on the Oxford
petition.
Dr. LUSITINGT,ON was understood to:say; :that the
hon. member was mistaken as to the substance of
Lord Brougham's retnarki, and that they were made on the
pres,entation of the petition from Oxford; and not on that
which had been alluded to. •

Mr. GOULBURN—WeII, that was not material. It
was admitted that a distinction ought to be drawn and ob-
served, and that was all he contended for. He would, in
conclusion, only say, that when they looked at the great
statesmen, the poets, the churchmen, the literary charac-
ters of every description, which our Universities had pro-
duced, would they risk the vast advantages which these
andt eal itnot gif
es thoseooff
t thoseehwh country,
institutions possessed? Would they risk an object of real
value for one only of experiment? He would also ask what
wouldniv er besi t
eshe,
the f
andbe
menh a i
f they odl
who
had
Been
educated
' down and see that these institutions were to be thrown
open to every sect, and to men of every persuasion?
could
foundedildfliers,
eolook
our
ek
Universities, ,
fought
Would they not look upon the preient generation as the
basest of mankind for introducing Dissenters into those
places which reared the men that had fought the battles of
the constitution, and had brought the country to such
degree of prosperity? his firm conviction was, that if
they passed the bill they would destroy the religious in-
struction of the country, and have the mortification of
finding that, in place of conferring a benefit; 'they caused
a great injury to every ciass of the community. (Hear. )
Mr. STANLEY, who was much cheered on presenting
himself to the house, said that he did not rise so much for
the purpose of encountering the arguments'that bid been
advanced by the right hon. gentleman on the otherside, as
to state to the house, in very brief tenni his' •iieiV a the
question as it then stood. When his right hon. friend who
had succeeded him as Secretary of State fOr the Colonial
Department, . shortly before Easter, presented to the house
the, petition which had been intrusted to him by pertain
members of the university of Cambridge—a petition which
was certainly couched in as moderate language as it possi-
bly Could be—he (Mr. S.) was glad to take the Opportn:
nity of concurring in the principle which was then laid.
down—namely, the expediency of introducing, as fir as it
could be done with safety to the interests of the established
church, all protestant dissenters whatever, as well .as th°se
professing the catholic religion,, to a participation in the
civil privileges and benefits of the two national universities.
He would not deny, or conceal from the house, that cir-
cumstances which he would presently state, had since oc-
curred, which had in some degree altered the opinion which
he entertained at first. (Hear.) He shouldnot be dealing
fairly with the house, nor with his right honourable
friend, if he were not to state to the house that impres-
sion. (Hear, hear,) He felt it his duty to make that
avowal, but when he stated what had been the effect of
those circumstances upon him, he did not mean to' say
that they were such as
.to induce him to shrink from the
assertion of the principles to which he had alluded. (Hears
hear.) This he had Maintained, and this he' was pre-
pared to maintain ; but he was bound to say that the tone
which had been held in the legislature, the pretensions
which had been put forward on the part of the, dissenters
both in and out of that house, the ultimate intentions
which had been openly avowed by many of that part)",
were of such a nature as not only to excuse,: but neces-
sarily to demand the attention of the Established Church
and to justify its looking with jealousy to measolei:
brought forward for the purpose of doing justice to the
dissenters. (Hear, hear.) Though he highly esteemed
the motives which had induced. the hon. member for
Stroud (he thought it was) to make the statement that
the same circumstances to which he (Mr. S.) had re-
ferred had made so strong an impression upon his mind as.
to induce him to withdraw his support of the principle of.
the measure—though, he repeated, he highly esteemed
his motives, he himself could not go to that length.
hear.) He was, still inclined to support the principle
which the petition, emanating from the body of gentle-
men connected with the university of Cambridge, set forth,
and which he had thought would have been embodied in
the present bill, after the. temperate speech of the right
hon. gentleman who had succeeded him in the colonial
department. To the arguments which the right hon
gentleman urged in support of that principle he could have
had little to add, and he therefore merely concurred in
the general view which he took of the question.
_lf, in
voting for the principle of this bill, he conceived with the
right, hon. member for Cambridge that lie was voting on
the question whether they should interfere with the esta-
blished religion, or whether they, should take religious in-
struction as a matter of indifference, he should certainly
deprecate the bill as much as he then joined in supporting
its principle as he understood it to be brought before the
house. (Hear, hear.) But when he said that he sup-
ported the principle of the bill he was not prepared to
support its clauses. He had not thoughtproper to speak
till this period of the discussion, because'he was anxious
that the hon. member for Lancashire (Mr. Wood) should
have preceded him, and bemuse he was in hopes- that he
would have made a proposition for expunging some par!'
of the bill. (Hear, hear.) [Mr. Wood, we believe, made
some remark.] He must tell the hon. gentleman that he
was endeavouring to state the views which inclined hirO,
support that principle which was contained in the Caxabrioid
petition, and which he was in hopes the hon. gentleman %ion; _
have adopted as the principle of his bill. The principle of t.
the
bill was not that which had received the support ,o
town of Cambridge, for it interfered and did awaYf
with the. existing statute, and broke through the rules °
the colleges and halls. If they sanctioned this interference:
then, he said, away goes the whole fabric of the no„hri,
irf
sities. (Hear, hear.) He held the question to be of
highest political expediency in what manner you conv_eY7_
religious instructions at the universities, which were inac-
cessible cessible to a large proportion of the people. The right
hon. gentleman opposite had said that this was a question
in..
whether they would do away or not with that religiousk en
struction. He (Mr. Stanley) said that he did not 19°„„,
the question in that light, but he considered it as lg-d
tion whether they should seduce the Dissenters to sendan
their sons to the universities, where they could se,:f the
participate in the liberal education of the gentr3:4,em
of
country without interfering in any way with the sY
could,
moral and Christian instruction. (Hear.) If they esen,
by the removal of the tests of admission as they at pr
tt
existed, prevail upon the Dissenters to overlook what w
course
objectionable in the universities, by adopting amild
' on
of concession, they would confer a great benefitnot )
Chu°rch of
the Dissenters, but on those attachrhetro
thedo Thee
but on
England—not only on the ministershofeer )
They would,
the whole community. (Mucheneeti
et
by so doing, as they
indeed, confer an extensive
.b
osities which had prevailed
would soften the religious anim
,--bring into one common educa-
between the two parties—
tion, and that not an irreligious education, the various
classes of dissenters, and thereby cause the churchman AP,
d
dissenter, by early association,
to form those habits o'
friendship which would prevent them from breaking out'
in after-life, into political or theological asperities. ( Hear' )
The hon. gentleman said that he felt it to be impossible t°
give this common education without excluding religion*
He was surprised to hear the hon. gentleman and the °,""
u
member-for Oxford, found their arguments upon the do-
senters' establishments at Manchester and at Hackney'
(Hear, hear.) Those establishments were entirely the",logical ; they were for the exclusive instruction of persoll
in theology, who were designed to be ministers of their re_
spective persuasions. Such being the case, it was by
means a matter of difficulty to see beforehand that the
re-
sult of the experiment would be, as it had turned theout,___e.
unsettling of the minds of the students, before whorot
ea the
set the conflicting opinions which had for agesclisr.etraheadbeen
world. It would have been, indeed, surprising
if
the
I universi-
any other result. Now, with regard to the nationia
theologY.
ties, they could not be fairly called schools 0
(Hear.) Divinity was so far from being the exclusive
de'
study, that the universities were only in a very smallDi he
gree, schools of theology. (Hear, hear, hear.) ase
hear any hon. gentleman say that such was not the c„
He did not mean to deny that there were theological ;1
tures ; but he must observe, that the attendance
ir new
lectures was not compulsory. (Hear, hear,)
i•ofess°l.
that they were at liberty to attend the Divinity ' not
not. The fearful consequences which had been
dieted, and the parallel which had been drawn, vrer, e
sia,
therefore justifiable. The right hon. gentleman ha%
or
in objecting to the principle, that he felt it his duty ',.„,ust
pose the principle, because, if they agreed to it, thel
in
prepare to make further concessions. This might Fee
in-
certain cases, a fair argument ; but it ought not tO :Awn
discriminately used. These establishments earnest bene-
themselves the seeds of perfectuation, and of peotesman
tit. It was the part of a wise and prudentthe constis
to resist the introduction of any change in, leading to
tution which might have the effect !?,i that they
an injurious result. But "if it was sal or any re-
were bound on all occasions to resist aoy e' merely on the
dress of a just or reasonable complaint' might be called
ground that a redress of other complaii_litiial of all justice
for, then there must be an absolute
d'r to demand• kl%t
and of all rights which it might be it
hon. ,nerOff
could not forget the words of the ri
memorable rneasu're t
Tamworth, in introducing that at
et
Catholic Relief Bill. He said, that
„„wh'inW'hat they were
ncesti..-- • no
the community demanded a e
iniQ'pOssible to resist them, a
in justice entitled te, it "gg :4.9e •wa'y gracefully. If, said the
it.
the better plan V,a. that occasion, you grant these con:t
right hon. bar..t.Ttd:away with a principal cause of a lot,
d
"'skins'u between two parties in the country ; „ire
bitter. feelinga
course of conciliation, you will, when any
fu'
adopting
demand of a violent character are made, be enabled,.
s
o
unite against them both the Protestants and th-e-reii?", sy
Catholics. The right hon. member for Cagi1)04,,,e,05
:urther said, that no line could be drairfi' at the u._Wiref"
ties, supposingthe principle .ef. this demanded Were
•' ' •