The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-26 00:00:00

POLISII EXILES.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM gave notice that on Thursday,
the 24'h of April, he would move that an humble addre:l4
be presented to the crown, praying that his Majesty would
griteous,y pleased to extend his Royal bounty to the
Polish exiles, now suffering under great privations in this
country, and to pledge the house to make good such sum
as his Majesty may be graciously pleased to appropiiate to
their relief.

CAMBRIDGE PETITION.-ADJOURNED DE-

BATE.

The debate upon this petition was then resumed.
Colonel WILLIAMS said that as this petition was in
fact a consequence of a communication or correspondence
he had with the University of Cambridge, he might lie
expected to take some part in the present discussion.
A., however, he had a motion upon this same subject,
:is it had been thought advisable that this motion should
be postponed till the 17ili of April, and as the hon.
member for Lancashire had allowed his (ColonelWilliams's)
motion to take precedence on that day, he would reserve
any observations he had to make on the subject till he
brought forward his motion.
Sir ROBERT H. INGLIS said that the right
hon. secretary for the colonies had prefaced his oh
servations yesterday with an apology for speaking on this
subject inasmuch as the petition was from Cain.
bridge, and he (Mr. Stanley) came from Oxford, and
secondly as the subject matter of the discussion was with
reference to a petition. It any apology was deemed ne-
cessay on the part of his right hon. friend the Secretary
for the Colonies, it was doubly necessary on his (Sir R.
Inglis's) part, inasmuch as he had the honour of
representing the University of Oxford, and inas-
much as if any hon. memil►er bad a right to speak on
the presentation of a petition, the right hon. secret try
would have a much better right than be (Sir R Inglis)
had. He thought, however, as stated by the right hon.
gentleman, that as the subject ened in the petition was
one of a general and imperious character, it would
nut be unbecoming in him to take part in the discussion.
The practi-e, moreover, was sanctioned by the concur
rent con uct of both sides of the house. He was per-
fectly aware of the inconvenience of discussing a
gene's! question upon the mere presentation of
a petition, as no legislative result could possibly arise
Irmo it, for after two or three days protracted, and per-
haps irritated discussion, and after an exhibition of talent
from hon. membi re, the house most come to the sitnple
conclusion that nothing could be done in resi.ect to .the
subject matter, brat merely that the complaint itself should
lay upon the table. This was truly verifying the line—
" Non fumum ex fulgore sed ex fumo dare lucem ;"
as nothing could be more inconsistent with the object of
vitious than to employ the time of the house, which was
more fitly the time of the public than of intlividu ils, in
iiiscussing measures which must end in a simple affir-
mation tending to no practical result.—(Hear, hear.)
His right hon. friend had said that he was not prepared
.o come to a decision, and therefore lie thought it desirable
that this discussion, which had already tasted two
and would probably continue to site close of this sitting.
should be carri,d on, in order to prep ire the public mind,
and the minds of some bon. weathers perk ups, against
the time when the matter would lie more fully brought
bef,re the house by the right hon. and gallant member
(Col. Willia,t,s). Many of the remarks which had been
ma 'e in the course of the debate, however, applied very
little to the general claims of the dissenters, and were
merely intended by the right hon. Secretary of the Co.
lorries, as—

"Straws

Thrown up to see which way the wind would blow."
He deprecated the prolongation of a discussion upon a
petition, but at the same time be might safely ask pardon
of the house for following the example of other hon. mem-
bers. If, in the legal phrase, he should he confined to
the four corners of the petition, he should not be able
to do justice to that great body which he had the
honour to represent. Though their interests had not
been attacked in direct terms by the petitioners, he could
not help saying that it was paltry in them not to admit
that the dissenters would not be satisfied with the parti-
cular conc.ssions named in the petition. There was a
great fallacy in the use of the term national establishments
as applied to universities. He asked what was meant by
the term national establishments? Was it meant in the
same sense as the national debt? Was it meant to be
implied that the universities were endowed by the nation
for the general good ?—(Cries of " Yes " from Mr.
O'Connell and other members.)• He was not to be
tempted from his line of argument by that cheer. In
what sense could the universities be considered as
national establishments ? Did the nation endow them ?
Did the mere donation of 401. a-ye rr to a professor in
each of the Universities authorize the dissenters to claim
admission? If not, be did not understand why they
urged their admission. The college of Maynooth, in
Ireland, was a more national institution than either the
c ges of Cambridge or Oxford. One thousand end ten
pounds were given annually to the college of St. Andrew's,
1.397/. to Aberdeen, 560/. to Glasgow, 1,8901. to Edin-
burgh, while Oxford had but 2001., which was but the
7th of what was granted to the academy of B-lfast, which
enjoyed an endowment of one thousand five hundred
pounds. The payments that were made to those col-
leges (Cambridge and Oxford) were payments of right.
Lands were settled on them in the reign of Henry VIII., and
it was found more convenient to the Crown to give the
equivalent in money than to make payment by crown
rents. Why was it that the internal discipline of those
colleges should be interfered with ? Was it for the paltry
sum of 401. a_year_a mere pittance to professors. The
situation of regime professor was one which always at-
tached more celebrity to the person holding it than it
brought emolument. The selection of the individual to
fill that professorship was always creditable to his 11.1,,j-sty.
But, for twenty times the sum granted to those colleges,
they weuld not have their discipline interfered with by par-
liament. He (Sir R. I.), on looking over the petition from
the dissenters, perceived that they alleged all the colleges
of the University were national, except one or two. Now
if by that it was conveyed that those colleges had been
founded by them or their forefathers, they were under
a very great mistake as regarded history. The bon.
member for Boston whom he (Sir R. Inglis) regretted to
of
char
4‘Hvc
see absent, could not certainly grant the validity of the
Nlrll
dissenters' claims on those surreptitious pretences. Toe
real qu:stion was, what were the disc nters entitled to
demand, and government prepared to give?—(Hear, hear.)
The house was not aware exactly of what the dissenters
demanded, or what the government would grant. The
disservers required admission into the Universities, which,
opit:ilyyawttalnieiigg:l4-}dtt,,ie,ieranjoyed a monopoly of education. He (Sir
R.. I°o9 had read a very able article in the Standard
universities
itt
ilevsas
enjoyed
aNtva's‘ taliemoonnloypmoloyn
iilh:lnodif,Ly. tnlogont:lt,h,egner
:idanaib,sn,:ade:nrcit: deserving institutions
the
institutions at H o x • on
ha
e degreescharacter
been
acquired
bestowed as highby t
bha
yesthat '
universities
these institutions will be of as much value as those
bestowed by the universities. But could it be said
that the same titular distinctions could be bestowed ba
the dissenting institutions as by the universiies ? If not,
then he (Sir R. Pl. I.) contended, that giving permission
to the dissenters to bestow the same titular diatinctiocs,

could confer upon them all they require& Nothing pre•
vented the dissenting academwe from bestowing the,
•istinctiens at present, in his (Sir R. H. I.'s) opinion.
elways excepting these which the King by his charter, tit
the le ti»lattee by its acts, hail the power of bestowing.
Let the dissenters create degrees equal to the M.A. an
11 A. of the colleges, anti then they would have obtainer'
they desired. But they could not pass off
their money in the country as current; but le
them mike it of the same value as the stun late
noney and then it would pass cu. rent. The cheer of the
hon. and learned member for Dublin when he (Sir R. H.
I.) had stated that the Universities were not founded en
rulowed by the ancestors of the Diss nters, was such as
-nabled him (Sir R. H. 1.) to meet the hon. and learned
nember, even with respect to,the opposite view be low
t,ken of the matter, viz., that the Universities which
'lad been founded were founded by these whe were not
nembers of the church as by law established. That he
understood to be the object of the hhon. and 1. erne('
member's cheer. There was hardly any more populist
error than that on which the hon. and learned member's
cheer was founded, namely, that they were monastic
eidies, and founded in Roman Catholic times by person•
emitting the same religious opinions as the hon. and learner
member for Dublin. It was very true, that of the 18
houses of the University of Oxford, 12 had been found-,
before the reformation, and only six since. or the 5,274
names in the books of all the colleges of Oxford, there
,sere 3,045 belonging to colleges founded before the re•
formation, and 2,229 to those founded after the reforina
tian.—(Heir, hear.) lie would next take the fellow-
ships, and he found that there were 287 founded by
Roman Catholics, and but 30 by Protestants before the
Ref-urination, while there were 261 founded solely by
Protestants after the Reformation. Even of those which
were founded in Raman Catholic times, not one of them
was founded by individuals who held the particular doe
trines that now governed the church of Rome, and
therefore, those persons in the thirteenth or fourteenth
centuries might be fairly supposed to have levied
towards the principles of the reformers of the church ;
there was no evidence that those individuals would no.
have adopted the principles of the Reformation if they
t,tad lived. Having gone into the fellowships, and the
eel eges, and their endowments, he would look at
the ei dewments, and with the exception of the Likely
Margaret professorship, all the professorships in all
the colleges of Oxford were founded by Protestants
in Protestant times. Se much for the right of the Church
of Rome to claim admission into the universities on the
greund that the professorships were lauded by
their ancestors.—(Hear, hear.) Now as to the
lands belonging to those establishments. From inquiries
he had made, and on another occasion he could prove in
detail the truth of his information, he found that a
Cambridge (which he took for his argutnent, because the
petition came from thence) net one-fourth of the property
now belonging to that establishment belonged tii it in
right of any Roman Catholic benefaction. Of St. John's
College nine-tenths were Protestants—of Clare Hall two-
thirds, and of Magdalen 19.20tlis•—(Hear, hear.)
Now, as all dissenters . sought admission on genera,
grounds it was clear from the above statement that the
Roman Catholics had no claim. The lion. and learne
member for Dublin, as well as other members, had teen-
tended th it as the legislature had interfered once it bait
e right to interfere again ; htit he put it on the score o
common honour and honesty, whether that would he the
principle adopte I by any member in private life—whether
having made a gift to a particular individual he would cell
for it back again, because cf its having been a gift. Hon.
members might say, if they pleased, that the Oft had been
abused, and then tie could understand the principle of
which the legislature might he e died upon to review its
former decision. But it was not even alleged by any one
that the two Universities had ~hosed the trust confided to
them. and therehire he hoped that the house would nor
interfere and withdraw the gift.—(lleac, hear, hear.)
These institutions were founded previous to dissent ; the
founders never contemplaied the admission of persons
holding opinions dissenting from the est &ensiled church,
for in no instance whatever were the universities uncon
Elected with the established religion of the country. He
would s-oe, in answer to the observations of a right hem.
gentleman 01) the first day of the session, that 1616,
in James the First's reign, was not the first time when
the imposition of subscription was required on the
part of those who were admitted to the universities.
With respect to Oxford, he knew this, that articles ot
subscription had been in use there since 1581, for at that
time there was catechetical examination connected with
the discipline o: the church of England. He was justified,
therefore, in stating, that as at the beginning no form was
necessary to exclude persons who were Dissenters—for as
there were nti Dissenters, there was no necessity for
guarding against their admission—so, when Dissenters
were admitt d—for they were not admitted before the
time of the reformation, as the blood of martyrs could
sp ak—but since that time the Universiti• a were made the
guardians of time religion of the country, and no one was per.
itted to share the benefit of those institutione,who did not
by either subscription or conduce, give some security that
he war a member of the church to whose service the
universities were consecrated. With respect to the mode
in which the articles were subscribed at Oxford, he heard
nom a gentleman who was in time habit of attending
young men on their entrance at Oxford, that out ot 400
young men whom he bad attetided, there was not one
who did not feel the responsibility be was taking upon
himself in subscribing those articles.—(Hear, hear.)
No individual could obtain a degree without passing a
severe
examinition.—(Hear.) The hon. member was
not present who spoke of the students being at wine-
ptrties, or he would characterise his remarks; but he
would say, the hours were so limited, and the regulations
so good, as to render such practices impossible.
No body of young men were a greater blessing to
their country than these. The whole question of
dissent would be raised by consent to the petition ; a dis-
senter was not an independent only, but the term dissen-
ters would include every class of persons differing from
the church, not excepting Roman Catholics themselves.
If the hon. member for Boston and time house thought the
dissenters would be satisfied with the matters mentioned in
the petition, they had a much lower estimate of the claims of
dissenters than that body i'self. It was not a question
with him whether dissenters or Roman catholics founded
the colleges: the present possession was held by law, and
a possession of 600 years, without any abuse being proved,
ought not to be disturbed. lie had read a pamphlet, by
Mr. Suett, in which it was ettted that the universities
were mete localities, and therefore they could not be con-
sidered as national esoniliehments. This house was not
the place for education.—(Laughter.) To interfere with
the universities would lie to risk the safety of education,
and the maintenance of christiinity in the country. He
begged pardon for detaining the house so long, and ex•
pressed his earnest hope that this question would receive
the deliberate attention which, it deserved.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not require the apology that he
might derive from the distinct allusions of the hon.
baronet to himself to rise to speak on that question. It
was one which involved the cause of religion and the civil
rights of all classes of Christians. It was one which re-
lated to freedom of conscience, and had the beneficial ten-
dency to disconnect the exercise of a spirittial feeling from
the influence of temporal advantages.—(Hear.) It was a
stwb?ouuaretne' lnitivtllie'itsna:ssontdttlhiehe;)ena(nii:ecii
question upon which all members of that house should ex-
press themselves, and if he (Mr. O'Connell) bad no
better motive for rising than to disclaim any intention
of discourtesy towards the hon. liaronet, it was sufficient.
There was nut a gentleman in that house whom he re-
eve, see' more for his invariably good deportment, and the
praise should stop there.—(A laugh.) The hon.
perfect candour with which he expressed his opinions.
was unsound—his politics were net more
°ish'egxYclusiveness of principle—ee (Mr. O'C.) '
hut
tu rwt ezisd enoughin
no cally it bigotry,other
place—
was whit he considered worst of all. It was such as he
should hate ex: eeted to have found locked up in the (Air
of Salamanca during the days of the inquisition; it was bad
there, or here, or any where; and he did not think it improved,
though delivered so chaunt ingly by the hon. baronet himself'.
It aimed at the legislative power over property. The hon.
baronet argued, that what was granted as a gift by government
to a public body, bore a parael to a private gift to an indi.
vidual; certainly a gilt to an individual could not be
retracted ; but what analogy was there between such,
and the transfer of property which was made from a Roman
Catholic to a Protestant establishment ? There was no com-
parison whatever between the two cases. He (Mr. O'C.)
should proceed to notice an objection brought by the
honourable member (Mr. Cobbett) next him. Whatever
came from him bore the mark of common sense, and
was entitled to the highest respect. He argued, because
Protestants were more wealthy than Dissenters, that therefore the
concession of the dissenters' claims would be no advantage to
them, because their poverty excluded them Com enjoying the
benefits ot education. Yet the injustice was still the same;
because, in the event of the dissenters becoming rich, they were
debarred from the advantages of opulence, while the rich pro-
testant was in full possession of all privileges. Again, if a poor
dissenter by industry accumulated wealth, and a poor protestant
did the same, the latter would meet the rewards of that industry,
while the former was excluded from them, because of a legislative
enactment.—(Hear, hear.) Also he (Mr. O'C.) should ask, was
not injustice at present done to the rich dissenters, and was
not an injustice to a rich man as censurable as that done to a
poor man ; so that on every ground the hon. member's objec-
tion was invalidated. The hon. baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) in-

Bulged in arguments of quantity, without stifaciently adhefing
tp arguments of principle. He spoke of Vie property accumu-
lated by the colleges of Oxford and Canfiridge since the time
of the reformation. What did th, .t ? The inference
would be immediately drated when ii was known that in Ca
tholic times Cambridge university had 14 colleges,and since it
then had but three , Oxford, durinii C itholic times, had
twelve dollegee, and non' it had but six. The question was
one entirely of principle. knovitiedga. ts'asi: a &Rod thing in
itself, because it led to the discovery of truth, and consequently
to the establishment of principle ; but separate knowledge from
;trinciple,•add what wOuld be the result ? Why, it was know.
ledge without • prindiple that burned the Lo:irds • in the
reign of Henry the Eighth, and burned ben Catholics
sod Protestants during subsequent relgns..---(Hear, hear.)
Principle, without knowledge, had ever been the great scourge
.f the human race, and he was sorry to see that it had partisans
md apostles even from among the elected of those Universities.
['here was no instande in Vshieh the temporal interests of the
'stablishment did not influence the eorldisct of the clergy edu-
' _sited at these Universitiei. They had preached tip the doe.
',rine of passive obedience and non-resistance, and continued
Cosies iii every Change and phasis of government; dawn to the
iassing of the Reform Bill—and noW they opposed the admis-
aon of the Dissenters to the Universities, as if they had some-
thing as powerful as the Inqiiisition at their backs. The hon.
coronet, when he had discussed the question of quantity, had
introduced his rellgiona opirlidns; and Said he would uirder-
take to prove that the Wickhams and other rofintltirs of the
aniversities, were riot the Roman Catholics of those, but he
.vould meet him upon that point. He would ask him, were
not the protestants of the established church of the present
lay placed in this dilemma. They eantended fur the right of
deciding for themselves, but the moment any other professing
protestant attempted to decide for himself, they turned round
aim and called him by some nick-name of dissenter, add de-
nied to him his proper name of protestant.— (Laughter.)
He would ask the hon. baronet whether that Bishop Wickham
lid not say mass every Sunday and every week day; at his
•hapel at Winchester ?—(Hear, and a laugh.) He would ask
him did he not believe in the invocation of saints and
the doctrine of purgatory? and if Bishop Wickham believed
ill those things, he would make the hon. baronet a present of
the title of protestant.—(Laughter, in which the hon. and
learned gentleman himself joined.) It was evident that these
institutions were founded on private endowments from grants
made by private individuals, and for private purposes, viz., for
offering prayers fir the sou's of the faithful departed; but all
:hose private intentions for the disposal of private property
had • been overruled by the legislature.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. O'Connell) acquiesced in that arrangement. It was
property which had been given for a great public trust, and al-
though he differed from those by whom that alteration was
effected, he had not only submitted to it, but he had enforced
that submission against others. He contended that the nation
had a right to dispose of that property—there was no statute
of limitations, and if the Parliament, as the hon. baronet
would insinuate, had not the power, then it was a robbery, and
he called on the hon. and conscientious baronet to make resti.
tution.—(Much laughter.) The hon. baronet had then taken
an excursion to Ireland. The college of Maynooth, he said,
was entirely supported by the annual grant. He was
quite sure that the honourable baronet thought the case was
so; for he knew that he was incapable of making any assertion
but one in which he believed—(Herr, hear)—but in that he
was mistaken. The college, by law, was prohibited from pos-
sessing property to the amount of more than 1,000/. a-year, but
to that sum they were entitled ; therefore, it was quite
plain that only a part of the college was supported
by that annual grant—(Hear, hear.) That college had
flourished in spite of the severe times of the penal laws—in
those times two acts had been passed in Ireland, one prohibiting
Catholics from being educated at Maynooth under pain of
transportation, the other forbidding them to go out of
the country, in order to obtain education, under pain of pre.
munire, total loss of goods and propeity. Now what was the
effect of those laws ? Why, that Catholic families sent over
their property to the continent, where their sons were allowed
to receive the great blessing of education without fear. Esen
in his own person, in the University of Paris, he was entitled to
35 exhibitions, which were worth more than 10001. There were
many Catholic families in the same situation, and if Governmsnt
at the convention of 1814 and 1815 had taken as much care to
have had a restitution of the ecclesiastical property belonging
to subjects of this realm, as they had done of other kinds, they
would now have had more than the Parliament had ever voted
towards the support of Maynooth. Then there was the uni-
versity of Dublin, which was an exclusively Protestant establish.
ment as it now stood, it was also a national institution as well as
Maynooth. In the reign of Henry VIII. the Franciscan friars.
who inhabited it were turned out, and the revenues with which
it was endowed, amounting to upwards of 60,0001., devoted to
Protestantism, yet in that University, Catholics were enabled
to take degrees—(Hear)—and had the result proved advanta-
geous to the University, or rather had it not proved most bene-
ficial to it, in every sense of the word ?—(Cheers)—and not only
to itself, but also to the country generally. By the act of 1792, a
Catholic might till the medical chair in that University, and it
was clear that it also intended that Catholics should be eligible
to scholarships, but after two or three had been admitted, the
Fellows had thought it necessary to require the oath of supre-
macy to be taken, which again excluded them, but it was
clear that that was according to the practice, and not
according to the law. It was for the benefit of the
county; his sons had met in that place in fellowship
with the sons of those men who were most opposed to
to him--(Cheers) —and there they formed private friendships,
which might put an end to feuds that otherwise might have
disturbed the country.—(Cheers.) Besides another arg"ment
that ought to weigh touch with the hon. baronet was, that it
was the fact that many had been won to the Protestant
religion from their attendance in that college.—(Hear.)
That was. therefore, a precedent of the highest class and of the
first order, putting an end to all that was said of the great mis.
chief which would accrue to the church, if the dissenters wee
allowed to take degrees at the Universities. One such fact was
worth a million of prophecies—he had proved that the ex-
periment had been made, and that it had been trium.
phantly successful.—(Hear, hear.) the petition from Cam-
bridge hail been ushered in with great talent by a member
of the government, and supported by many members, as being
a very important petition, emanating as it did from such a
quarter. But he could not assent to all the praise which had
been bestowed on it ; he thought it a miserable and stingy pe.
tition, and that instead of its being cre.litable to the Univer.
city, it was highly discreditable. It appeared that there were
17 heads of colleges, only two of whom signed it, 25 professors
and only 11 sigued it, and 74 tutors only 10 signed it. Alas! for
those who did not sign it.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) What
was that at the present day? Salamanca was nothing to it.—
(A laugh.) It seems that they allowed the dissenters to be at
the university as long as there was any money to receive—(A
laugh)--and then turned them out with a mark that went to
degrade them below their protestant fellow-subjects.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) In the name of the great principles of
conscience why did they not sign it ? In his opinion
they were degraded for not having done so.—(Hear, hear.)
He meant nothing offensive to them—they were most learned
men, and " most potent, grave, and reverend seignors." Yet,
with all the praise and congratulation that had been bestowed
on the colleges, only a very few had signed it, and they were
lauded as the best, wisest, and gravest supporters of freedom
of conscience; yes, they were—for themselves, but woe to those
who were of a different opinion. But where was Oxford all
this time ? Oxford was left completely in the dark, for
they refused altogether to enlighten the dissenters.—(Hear.)
Hon. members might say that they were supporting the este-
blished church, but had an established church continued long
in any country where the opinions of the educated and en-
' lightened middling class has been attempted to be destroyed ?
No established church continued long, unless it possessed the
sympathy and affections of the people.—(Hear, hear.) He
asked, were they the friends of the established church, who
left even him (Mr. O'Connell) to expose them, as it was
in his power to do, by a statement of facts.—(Hear, hear.)
If the Catholic church had continued to mix up political feel-
ings with its religion, and had enlisted the principles of per-
secution—so alien to Christianity, and so alien to every
Ch►istian church—lf it had continued to do so, the banners of
the Protestant church would long since have flourished over
her, and if she had existed by temporal means, it was b cause
the most sincere of her children were the most convinced of
the right of every human being to worship his God according
to the dictates of his own conscience. He was afraid he had
trespassed too long upon the house. He thanked them for the
favorable hearing they had given him. He meant no dispa.
ragement to the hon. baronet, the member for the university
of Oxford, but, on the part of the dissenters of this country,
and for a moment he would consent to be called a dissenter—he
would not object to be so called, recollecting what a noble set of
men the dissenters were—what learning was amongst them,
what talent, what principles, and, above all, what Aertion for
civ.l and religious liberty, only therefore declining to subscribe
himself a dissenter, however much he must respect the name,
he would not object to be called a dissenter for one moment,
whilst he, on their behalf, asserted that religion was an
affair between man and his Creator.—(Cheers.) That God
alone who saw into the human heart could know who was
sincere, and it was a violation of what he thought the pre-
rogative of the Lord, and the rights of man, to interfere by
force, fraud, or temptation, between man and his God.—(The
hon. and learned member sat down amidst loud cheers.)
Mr. SHA W said he had but one single observation to make
on the subject. He agreed with the hon. and learned member
for Dublin, that the admission of Dissenters into the Uni-
versity of Dubin had hem productive of great good.—
(Cheers.) He approved of the principle as applicable to Dub-
lin, and he would be glad if it applied to the English
universities ; but he did not think that it could
apply. There was a material difference between the Universities
of the two countries. In the English Universities residence
was necessary, but in Dublin residence was not necessary, as
the term might be kept at the examinations which were held
for that purpose. In the English Universities degrees could
not be conferred on non-residents, the contrary was the case in
Dublin. There were about 300 non-resident members of the
Dublin University who attended the lectures but wereunder the
guardianship of their friends, so that the question of academical
discipline in reference to religious principles did not apply.
The terms " College" and "University"of Dublin were vaunt-
mous, and it was not necessary to alter the constitution of the
university to admit dissenters, but only to change the practice;
its principles and constitution being quite compatible with the
admission of all classes of students. He could wish that the
principles would be applied to the English Universities. The
Roman Catholics, however, were not satisfied, for they no%
asked to be admitted to fellowships and professorships, enc.
there was a notice to that effect upon the books, he believed, at
this very moment. The hon. member for Boston had boldly

dill tt, the frsseilters wanted absolute liberty
. . .

d finition, in his opinion, required to be defined.

1. clv that

Lard PALMERSTON would not trespass but a few minutest
upon the time of the house, but having had the honour of re.-
presenting the university of Cambridge for a considerable pe-
r!-;(1, he was desirous cf taking the present opportunity

of expressing his eelig!it at the petition which
!rut been presented to that house.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Although his political connection with the university had
c oased, it was impossible but that he should be deeply sensible
of every thing that regarded its honour and interest, and he
thought that the petition redounded greatly to the
honour of that university, as a compliance with its prayer
would, he was satisfied, contribute to its interests.—(Hear.)
die saw among the signatures to the petition those of many

:istinguished individuals who had honoured him with their

.rivate friendship, and political support. Some weight had
.cen laid on the fact, that it had been only siened by a minority
.f resident Members, and that it did not bear signatures of any
on.resident members, With respect to the latter argument,
it had been signed by non-resident members, he thought
that objection Might be fairly taken, that persons who were
.lot conversant with the discipline or government of
the university had petitioned for that which would be
injurious to its interests.—(Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly the
somber who lied signed that petition was numerically small;
out if the house took Into account not only their numbers, but
their attainments in science And natural talents, he would
say, if these members were allowed to multiply their votes by
the treasures of lifCrAture they had stored up (as the members of
another assembly were entitled to multiply their votes by their
riches)--if that were to be the Case, the petitioners would re.
present the great majority of the intellect and talent of the uni-
versity.—(Hear.) He (Lori Palmer ton) did rot wish to db.
parage the character of the several very eminent men who-c
names were net attached to that petition. The objections to its
prayer appeared to be of two kinds, first, that the dissenters en-
joyed all the advatiteges of education in the University already,
and seetand, that if theprayer of the petition was adopted it would
be fatal to the interests and character of the University by deprive
• ing it of its claim to disp,rsing a sound religious education. With
regard to the first election he (Lord P.) desired that the
Dissenters could partake of
all those honour, the hope of
which was the greatest stimulus to the exertions of young
men in their academical career.—(Hein) It was said that
the mere effect of attaching the letters M..`'
or B. A. to
their names was of too trifling a.nature to be mat.. ." the grave
st 7 matter of complaint. Suppose these titles were nothil. but
empty honours, still he (Lord P.) maintained that as hon ura
and titles were matters of local and conventional valnef
much depended upon the labours with which these honours
were obtained ; and he would venture to say, that any young
man of genius and talent, who had toiled through the labours
of academical study (and few hon. members were aware of the
vast labour), not one worth any thing, and who had undergone
these toils, and who had succeeded in crowning himself with
academic laurels—no man of that class would listen to those
who would tell him that those titles were empty. It must tie
galling to the heart of any honest man to find hifizs'elf de-
prived of these honours merely on account of conscienee—
because he had adopted the creed of his fathers, and becaus.'
at an age when such matters have not been well considered. he
had declined to subscribe his name to articles which, as an
hon. baronet had justly said, comprised some of the most im-
portant relations of life. Was there no grievance in that ?
They all knew that with respect to the learned professions,
physic and law, those degrees were most essential to the future
advancement and prospects of young men. He (Lord
Palmerston) remembered having heard some observe.
tions upon the importance of those degrees, made in
Trinity College, Cambridge, by the late Lord Erskine,
who, with that talent for which he was so remarkable, was x_
plaining how he ascribed all his professional success to having
taken out degrees in the university of Cambridge.—( Hear,
hear.) He stated that being called to the bar early
in life, he was about to quit it with disgust—(Hear,
hear)--when it was suggested to him that if he went
down to Cambridge and took out his degrees there it would bo
of essential benefit to him ; he was encouraged to persevere,
and to that degree he mainly attributed his success. So
far as the dissenters were concerned it was a great griev-
ance, and so far as the public were concerned it was si
still greater grievance. It was impossible to ascertain the
amount of talent and genius which this absurd principle had
diverted from its proper channel. No man of common sense
could defend such a principle. Would it be asserted that a man
must subscribe to the thirty-nine articles before he could pre-
tend to cure one of a fever, or that he could not save
one from the grave.digger until he had satisfied
him that he was a member of the Established Church ?
It was contended that the discipline of the university
would be interfered with by the admission of dis-
senters, and that it would cease to be a seminary for
the education of members of the established church.
But, it was forgetting that the dissenters at present enjoyed
the advantage of education in the university, and therefore did
the argument he alluded to fall to the ground. Catholics,
dissenters, and even he (Lord Palmerston) knew a member
of the Greek church to be admitted to the university :

then how was it to be said that the admission of dissenters to a
share in degrees would contaminate the morals or principles of
the students more than the present system did ?—(Hear.) But
it was thought that the compulsory attendance at service
morning and evening would be done away with, and what
consequence was it if it were done away with. Now was it
expedient or necessary that young men shouli rush
from their beds to prayers—unwashed, undressed, and
half dressed—and in the evening rush from their
wine to prayers, and from prayers to wine. Could auy mate.
rial change be effected in the constitution of the uni-
versity ? Now, the senate of the university had no
power to make an alteration.—(Hear, hear.) The collegiate
uvernment alone had that power. Fellowships could not
be gained by Dissenters ; they therefore could not have any
share in the college regulations, and no injury could arise from
their admission to degrees. His hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn)
entertained apprehensions for his son. Now, was not the same
risk incurred by any young man under the present system as
under that,which would make no essential change in the educa.
tion he must necessarily have in the University. The noble
had concluded by begging of the house to consider the claims
of the petition delberately and fairly.
Sir] H. PEEL considered that if civil disabilities were
attached to the dissenters, they should be removed. He (Sir
Robert Peel) knew that civil disabilities couldnot be conti-
nued, but the assertion of the dissenters, that they laboured
under such, was the most extravagant he could imagine.
It was by telling them the issuing the decree from Newmarket,
and the character of the King who issued it, that the right
lion. gentleman opposite made so much effect on the minds of
members, than anything touching the real merits of the case
(Hear ) The right hon. gentleman glen said, " oh but leavethc
time of James, and go to the happily period of Elizabeth—the
period of freedom of conscience.—(A laug'l.) Why, in the
first year of Elizabeth a religious test was enforced, which
affected Dissenters. The Act of Uniformity was also
passed, compelling all persons to resort to the parish
church or place of prayer, according to the church of
England, and that fixed a test aga.nst dissenters, which was
the foundation of the practice of universities. The right hon.
gentleman then, in speaking of James, said the Monarch who
required a subscription to the three articles, was the
author of a work on Demonology; that argument was
absurd, and did not bear ; but when a prejudice was created by
such topics—(Hear, hear, hear)—it was necessrry to show
that they were not worth a farthing. But did not Elizabeth
pass acts respecting demonology ? Why, she declared if any
person used witchcraft or sorcery, by which persons might be
abused, and property destroyed, he or she shall be put in the
pillory for six hours, and there shall confess her crime—
and, for the second offence the punishment of hanging
was attached. But Lord Bacon said it was reported that
witches fed on man's flesh, and if they did, man must send
forth a vapour to stir up the imagination of the witch. He
(Sir R. P.) only showed these things to prove that King James
and Lord Bacon, at that period—(Hear, hear, hear)—in com-
mon with the rest of the people, were under a
a belief that witchcraft did then prevail. Now as to what the
dissenters actually wanted there had been three days' deLate,
and he did not know what it was.—(Hear, hear.) '1 he hon.
member for Leeds, in demanding something in the name of the
dissenters, said all he demanded was true, equal, and perfectly
consistant. Why he (Sir R. Peel) was precisely in the same
position.—(Hear and a laugh.) But the hon. member wanted
to measure that liberty as he thought fit, reserving to the dis-
senters the means of afterwards acquiring something more.
It was right to know the full extent to which those claims go.
The present petition claims that they should be admitted
to degrees.—(Hear, hear.) The right hon. the Secretary for the
Colonies and the noble lord (Palmerston) say they would a .mit

this claim but that they would not go further. Now if they
went this length he would ask if they would not be com.
polled to go much further still. The very same argu.
ment would also apply to a further claim, for would it
not be said to open the door to the Dissenters to take de-
grees, but to shut them out from all offices of honour and
emolument ? They were told, when they admitted Dissenters
into Parliament, that they must also admit them into office,
otherwise they would be arrayed against the monarchy and the
Government. (Hear, hear, hear.) Did rot this same
argument apply to the present case ? for he would
ask, when they admitted dissenters into the university, and
,!,)ahvaitngprqiunacliiptleetictohuelmd ttoh
etaykeexaclsuhdaerethoefmthefrgomoverthntne elleofint
othe
would corporationcoast' thee o
fu n
fi
ev roswi t6yh?i p—s Hoenar ,w
hhaeta r.
entering into orders—what prevented them from ps b
accepting ) ground e
could they exclude dissenters from felloWshibefore
fellowsbiptl
rtlCE—They subscribe the articles.

- -
Sir R. PEES.—Subscribe the articles—why you are going
to relieve them from subscribing the articles.--(Loud cheers.)
This first concession would create the necessity for the re-
mainder. It would be but a partial remedy, and only say "peace,
peace" where there was no peace, and give Dissenters an oppor-
tunity of entertaining the remainder.—(Hear) Should
dissenters be excluded from attending the forms of religious
.vorship in the University, the religious education of the
university wouid be at an end; and if not, the Dissenters
would complain of being controlled in matters of consci,nce.
--(Hear.) The rules of the house precluded him from
itirther remarks, but he felt bound to say that he foresaw the
•onsequence of these concessions would be the demand or
athets, until the very principle upon which our universities
.re:e established was destroyed. _ _

The SPEAKER left the chair at three o'clock, alit the de;;Al
c o I!equently stands again adjourned.