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

bit the University proved that such understanding of them was
implied, though not expressed. If it were not implied, why
-was the distinction of ages made ? A boy of 12 years of age
may matriculate without subscribing to the Articles ; boys of
16 mast subscribe and take the oaths. Why was the distinc-
tion made here ? Did it not go to prove that, with the more
matured age, a greater knowledge, or some certain knowledge,
of the subject was presumed. Between the ages of 12 and 16
—and this showed that degrees of maturity and knowledge of
the subject were presumed—boys matriculated and subscribed
without taking the oaths. Those who matriculated under 12,
without either subscribing to the Articles or taking the oath,
were afterwards bound to do so when they came to a certain age.
If this practice did not prove that some knowledge of the subject
was required on the part of the person subscribing, it was a
very useless and unnecessary proceeding. From the existence
of this practice, he felt authorised to infer that persons called
upon to subscribe to the articles were bound to understand
them. The contrary had been over and over again stated to
their Lordships. It had been said, again and again, that the
persons signing those articles were not called upon to under-
stand them ; but he would put it to their Lordships whether
this practice of the University did not go to prove the con-
trary.—( Hear, hear.) Was 'it just, he would ask—could
Noble Lords reconcile it to their consciences, to compel lads
of sixteen to pledge themselves to articles on which there was
so much controversy ?—yet every young man who matriculated
at Oxford was bound to subscribe to those articles, and was
considered by the statutes as understanding them. It had been
said that the signing of these articles was intended only to
express on the part of the person so subscribing that he
belonged to the Established Church. This was a poor eva-
sion, and nothing could be more disagraceful on the part of the
University than this practice of compelling a young man to
put his name to the Thirty-nine Articles, as acknowledging,
by his signature that he believed in them, and then saying it is
no matter—it is quite equal whether he understands them or
not. This, too, the young man does not of his own free will,
but compelled by his father or guardian, for the purpose of ma-
triculating. The members of the University of Oxford professed
to be apprehensive that if this practice were to be dispensed
with, the consequence would be, that irreverend discus-
sions would take place in the institution, to the great danger
of the young persous who came there for their education
And a declaration (as we understood the Noble Lord,
who frequently became quite inaudible) had been put forth by
a member, deprecating the admission of Dissenters, because of
the laxity it would occasion in the discipline, they not being
known as Dissenters, and yet being freed from the subscrip-
tion of the Articles. The declaration further stated, that the
admission of persons not subscribing to the Articles would lead
to disastrous consequences, and tend to generate infidelity.—
( Cheers.) The Noble Duke cheered as if assenting to this,
but he would ask, had these disastrous results followed from
the admission of Dissenters to the Universities of Cambridge
and Dublin ?—( Cheers.) How futile, then, were the fears
of these alarmists ! The Noble Duke, the Chancellor of Ox-
ford, expressed the same fears of Atheists, but did it appear
that the necessity of subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles was-
calculated to keep them cut of the University ? If an atheist,
an infidel, or a sceptic, wished to gain admission for the pur-
pose of disputation, or to pervert the inmates, did any one ima-
gine that he would be deterred by the necessity of subscribing
to the Articles ? Such a person, on the contrary, would set
the Articles at defiance. Believing neither in God, nor in a
future state, it would make no difference to him whether he
subscribed them or not.--( Hear, hear.) The Dissenter was ex-
cluded by conscientious scruples, which, being sincere and sin-
cerely acted on, entitled him to respect. The Noble Lord
here referred to a letter, which we understood him to state he
received from a triend, and which showed that the chil-
dren of Dissenters were at present admitted to Oxford not as
Dissenters, but as Non-conformists. If this were so, the
dread of Atheism put forward as an argument against their
admission, was no longer tenable, as the danger, it appeared,
was already incurred. The opponents of the admission of
Dissenters to the University, well knew that there was no
danger to be apprehended on this head. It was true that the
declaration put forward and signed by many of the heads of
the colleges stated this dread ; but how was he (Earl Radnor)
to know that they really believed the existence of the danger.
—( Hear, hear.) In his doubts as to their credibility, he was
confirmed by their own conduct. They called upon young
men to sign declarations which they could not, or did not, un-
derstand, and express their belief in them. How, then, did
he know that they themselves had signed the declaration which
they had put forth in good faith ? If they taught the doctrine
that persons may be called upon to sign documents, and not
be bound by the signature, because they did not understand
what they had signed, would it not justify the application of
similar practices for other purposes--( Hear, hear, )—aye,
and where the purposes may be understood ? Such a pro-
ceeding was acting a lie, assenting, by subscribing, to what
one did not know was a lie ; and if a lie was sanctioned on
one occasion, he would ask the Noble Duke, might it not be
sanctioned on another ?—( Hear, hear.) The lie involved in
the subscription to the Thirty Nine Articles was more dan-
gerous as a precedent than one involved in any declaration, as
the former was more solemn and deliberate. He was consci-
entiously of opinion that 700 or 800 of those who signed the
declaration, signed it from other motives than a belief that the
admission of the Dissenters to the University would be dan-
gerous, because of the reasons assigned in the document.—
( Hear, hear.) This, his conviction, arose from the circum-
stance of the University teaching those who entered to sub-
scribe to Articles in which they were not called upon to be-
lieve. What would not those who justified such a proceeding
as this be prepared to do ? If such a case were brought before
a Judge, and a document so signed presented in evidence,
would it be sufficient to say in a court of justice, that the per-
son signing the document did not understand, and was not re-
quired to understand it ? Would this be admitted ? The prac-
tice arising out of this doctrine was carried into the petitions
against the Bill, and he verily believed that many of those
who signed the petitions laid on the table against the claims
of the Dissenters did not know what they subscribed. But
their ignorance on the subject was no more a justification of
the Bill than the ignorance of the persons who subscribed the
Thirty-nine Articles was a justification of their asserting their
belief in that which they did not comprehend. To call upon
these young men to sign an acknowledgment of their belief in
Articles which they did not understand, and therefore could
not believe, was calling on them to commit a falsehood. The
Noble Baron opposite had stated that before he was called
upon to sign the Articles, he took care to qualify himself by
an acquaintance with them. This was highly creditable to the
Noble Baron ; but was it not a proof that the Noble Baron
thought a knowledge of the Articles was necessary before he
subscribed them ?
Lord KENYON—No, no.
Earl RADNOR—WeII, the Noble Baron might not think
so, but there were others of the contrary opinion. A most re-
spectable man, whose respectability when he was named would
be acknowledged by the House—Mr. Behron, a gentleman
who matriculated at the same University at which the Noble
Baron and he (Earl Radnor) matriculated, showed, in a
pamphlet written in reply to a most unjustifiable attack which
had been made on him, that he had qualified, and thought
himself imperatively bound to do so. That signing the Ar-
ticles in the sense of the imponent and not of the subscriber
was not the intention, was evident from what he before showed
was the practice as regarded children of twelve and children
of sixteen years ; for if it was to be received in the sense of
the imponent, the age would make no consequence. It had
been objected to the admission of Dissenters, that it would
not be done, as the members of the University were bound by
oath to see that the Articles be signed and the oaths taken ;
but this was no argumeut against the admission of Dissenters,
unless, indeed, the laws by which the University was regu-
lated were as unchangeable as those of the Medes and Per-
sians. Could not.those laws be abolished ? It was exceed-
ingly hard to compel young men to sign the Thirty-nine
Articles first, and take the oaths of supremacy and obe-
dience to the statutes, more especially when it was well
known that these oaths were broken every day. Amongst
other things that the students were sworn to were that
they should wear no coats but of a black or dingy colour ;
that they should wear no curled locks—(Laughter)—that
they should wear no boots ; but that they should always
wear a band both in public and in private. This band, so
enjoined, and to the use of which they were sworn, was at
present unknown, and the books which they were bound to
avoid were in general use. What sort of a system of morals
was that which induced men to sign what they did not under-
stand, and made them swear to do that which it was evident
they would not perform,—to take oaths, indeed, which it was
not possible to keep ? The Noble Lord then referred to the
statutes relating to property, and showed how, in many in-
stances, they were e7aded, and in some not unfrequently
violated, illustrating the point by a case put in a work pub-
lished 150 years since, in which it was asked—first, whether
he who had an estate, and made it over for the time of his
fellowship, acted up to the law ? secondly, whether a person,
getting an estate after he procured his fellowship, could con-
tinue to hold both ? and thirdly, whether the change in the
value of property (making the same nominal sum now in-
finitely less than the same nominal sum then), would, if the
sum possessed were really under, though nominally over, the
amount which disallowed a fellowship, be adhering to the law?
The answers to these queries were, in the two first instances,
in the negative ; and to the last, in the affirmative. There
was a question with regard to property, unknown at the time,
and which those who founded the Universities never' con-
templated, namely, funded property. It certainly was 'the
object of those who founded the Universities, to shut out from
fellowships all those who possessed property to a certain
amount, but no cognizance could be taken of a species of pro-
perty not then in existence, but which, if it had been known,
would have been also excluded. As an instance in which the
law regarding proferty was evaded, he would mention the
case of a relative o his own, who, during his fellowship, had
a property left him. Wishing to hold his fellowship, he
fill
vacated it for a short period, sold out the roI) ert vested
the money in the funds, and regained his e owship: The
manner of explaining the subscription to the Thirty-nine Ar-
ticles,-as used by the Universities, was very various. One
opinion was to the effect, that the subscriber meant no more
than that he was not opposed to them. Dr. Johnson's opi-
nion was curious. It stated that it was not intended to sup-
pose that the person subscribing understood the Articles, but
only to show that he belonged to the Church of England.
This was a trap, and would be best guarded against by adher-
ing to the opinion of Dr. Paley, who advises us never to make
a promise unless we be aware of the duty to which the promise
binds us. How, then, could a young man promise to belong
to a belief, and not know what it is ? How could a person
pledge himself to adhere to the tenets of the Church of Eng-
land, and not know the Articles in which the doctrine was con-
tained ? A Right Rev. Prelate had asked how they could in-
terfere with a corporate body which had not violated the terms
of its charter? The answer was the proved immorality of the
practices of the institutions. What could be more immoral
than to call on persons to subscribe to articles which they did
know, and force them to take oaths which they knew would be