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

--to.' But he (Mr. Stanley) said there was a line—the line
of those who instructed, and those who were to be in-
. structed. It did not follow because they admitted a dis-
senter to be instructed in the universities that they were
therefore to allow him to instruct the sons of churchmen in
doctrines repugnant to their feelings. But he must fairly
say, that whilst he was ready to admit the dissenters to the
- full benefit of a university education—to the full benefit of
the civil privileges which might attend and accompany
.the attainment of a university degree, he would sedu-
lously guard those institutions from the admission of dis-
'senters as part of the governing body of the university.
(Hear, hear.) "I do hold," continued the right hon.
gentleman, " that there is between these two as broad a
line of distinction in principle as it is possible for the
imagination to conceive. (Hear, hear.) Further, it is a
- .line we see drawn in the actual practice of two of the
• universities. Trinity College, Dublin, is indiscriminatelythe
Open to Protestants and Catholics, as far as
regards
government of that institution, which is in theiari ]lands of
Protestants alone. In Cambridge, again, although we
'are told that, if dissenters were admitted to the universi-
ties, there would be an end of all discipline, of all reli-
gious.instruction, do we find that the admission of dis-
senters to study in that university produces any of the
bad effects which it is said would result from their admis-
sion ? (Hear,-hear.) Do they not go through the whole
of the undergraduate studies, as a matter of course?
Are they found to refuse conforming to the discipline,
or to shrink from compliance with the rules and regu-
lations of the respective colleges into which they are
--"adinitted ? Not at all ; but at the very moment ' when,
as my right hon. friend observed, the honours of a. de-
gree appear waiting to crown his exertions, and 'send
him with distinction into the honourable professions of
the World—at that very moment the university inter-
poses, ..and says, You must sign the Thirty-nine 'Ar-
ticles,: or go without the reward you have so well
- deserved.' There is no objection raised on the score of
the religious instruction of the university not having been
received ; but the plain and simple question is, *hether
-you will require this test to be' taken immediately before
receiving the degree, or having received it, on the party
presenting hiniself as a candidate for university honours.
• The practice of the university of Oxford is widely different
from this; and being a member of that university, most
-giad should I be if it would Conform 'itself to the practice
of Cambridge. (Cheers.) I say so, Sir, because I feel I
cannot go along with any of those ingenious glosses and
comments which have been, in various quarters, made
upon•what is, or"oxight to be, a solemn act—the subscrip-
tion of.the Thirty-nine Articlei. (Cheers.) I cannot put
upon it that gloss which says that it is a mere matter of
- form, signifying only that you are willing to receive the
instruction which may be given you in the university.
( Cheers.) The substitute proposed in the bill, and the
only one necessary—for when my hon. friend talks about
taking securities for a man's moral character, he proposes
that which it would be very difficult to accomplish—is
that the party entering the university shall engage to con-
form to its discipline and institutions. When we matri-
culate at Oxford, we swear to observe the statutes of the
university. Various of them are as absurd as they can
he; two of them are, I believe, that we shall not play
at marbles in the high street, or trundle a hoop round
• the quadrangle of Christ Church, but we swear to
observe them, or to submit to such penalties as may be
imposed upon us for this violation. But this is a very dif-
ferent kind of thing from signing a solemn declaration of
religions faith. This surely ought not to be looked upon
as a mere form. If it means anything, it means some-
thing too solemn to be trifled with. If it means nothing,
then I say do away with it as a test. (Hear, hear.) But
if you require the test for any thing, it is that you may be
sure the party bolus fide belongs to the established church.
. ("Hear, hear," from Mr. Shaw.) The hon. member for
Dublin cheers that observation, and I grant to him that it
may be proper to have a test to guard against religious in-
struction being given, except that in conformity with the
tenets of the church of England, with which I do not
deny that the universities are, and ought to be, connect-
ed ; but .I hold it to be unnecessary, and, if unnecessary,
mischievous, to impose that test as a bar to the admission
of persons otherwise willing -to receive your instruction,
and submit themselves to the existing discipline and regu-
lations of the university. I ought to apologise to the
house for having entered into this question at length ; but
I wished to deal with the question plainly and fairly. I
hope the house will do me the justice to believe that I
would not.knowingly or willingly support any measure in-
jurious to the Protestant establishment. I think, at all
events, that I may ask thus much of the house. (Hear.)
If I support the principle of this bill, it is because I feel
convinced in my conscience, that so far from being inju-
rious, it must be beneficial to the church. (Hear, hear. )
But I must support this bill, unless, ulteriorly, some of
its - provisions be changed, and other provisions not now
existing in the bill be introduced into it. In the first
place, I would not consent to the retention of that clause
in the bill against which the right honourable gentleman
opposite has turned his whole argument, and which I be-
lieve my honourable friend intends to withdraw—l mean
that which interferes with the regulations of the different
colleges. My object in supporting the principle of the
bill is to remove the test which now Impedes the course
of the dissenting student ; but I do not wish to interfere
with the point in future statutes of the universities, pro-
vided they do not impose this test. I cannot admit,
and I hope my hon. friend does not contend, that it should
be in the power of the dissenters to efa.im that the statutes
should be void, because they may in some manner appear
to obstruct the privileges given them by this bill. But I
hall not be content unless a provision is inserted in the
sbill that no degree shall enable any person to enjoy any
privileges, or right to make him a member of the govern-
ing body, or give him privileges in the universities,without
the subscription of such test as may be required, which
test the universities should be entitled to frame. (Cheers
from the Tories.) I know not whether the house will
agree with me, but I think the principle 'I wish to establish
is plain and obvious ; I would give the Dissenters the be-
nefit of instruction, but take away the possibility of every
consequences resulting therefrom, by depriving them of all
management and control. But there is another point ad-
verted to by the right hon. gentleman, the member for the
University of Cambridge, which related to an incidental
consequence of obtaining the degree' of master of arts. It
involves a difficulty which I hope my hon. friend will be
able to grapple with; but out of which I do not at present
very clearly see a road of escape. I speak of the right ac-
quired. by becoming A.M. of being teacher in certain
schools, the implied conditions in thb foundation of which
are that they should be members of the church. I think
such schools should come under the same rules that would
make us shrink from meddling with theprivate foundations
of colleges. If the intention of a founder be that the
master of the school he found should be a member of the
Church of England, and he conceived that he secured that
object by providing that he should have taken the degree of
A.M. at one of the universities, we should not deal justly
6 by his intention, unless, in extending degrees to Dissenters,
we took care to prevent his wishes being evaded. (Hear. )
With the explanation I have now given, 1 can candidly
and conscientiously support the second reading of this bill,
and I think that in the progress of the bill through the
committee such alterations may be made in it as will render
it conformable to the views I conscientiously entertain. I
feel it my duty also to state that unless such amendments
be made, I shall, however reluctantly, feel myself corn-
- ;Pelled to vote against the third reading of the measure.
(Loud cheers.)
Sir R. INGLIS would not say that sentiments hostile
to the Established Church were held in that house, but he
knew that out of that house the Dissenters spoke from the
feelings and principles by which all history proved them to
he actuated—a deadly hatred of the Established Church.
They were the same now, root and branch, that they were
informer times, and although they did not exactly y out,
Delenda eat Carthago, this was the result at which
they
'"
aimed. He thanked God, however, that the s•it of
Christian chivalry was not to be easily subdued. One
would think that they had heard enough of what had been
attempted by James 11. to prevent any similar attempt
now. The right hon. gentleman the member for Cam-
bridge (Mr. Rice) had asked why any man should be
excluded from the benefit of education in the universities.
If this argument was good for anything it would go equally
to the education of all his Majesty's subjects up to the pre-
sent time. As to the argument drawn from the University
of Dublin that was fully answered by his hon. friend (Mr.
84419 the member for that University. It was not neces-
sary for Wm to go further upon the point, save to make one
theb se 17/71'tien, which was that residence was not required in
iversity. of Dublin, while in those of England it was.
There were
education in Oxford mistakes as
fact was that o to the course of religious
.and the time employed upon it. The
theological studies,
of the time was dedicated there to
the week wilThichei There were lectures on two days in
s"ys:estree exclusively confined to religious in-
struction.lectures, for religiousra'elcrwever' was not one merely of
with
lactation connected itself, both
in public and private,
whole course of instruc-
tion. During the last year anicte half Mr. Maberley stated
that they read the four GosPels,a,arplethe Acts of the Apos-
tles in Greek, together with
Hare paiiiipm, and Butler's v.snalEovidences," the
."
The last
Articles.
Year was devoted to the Thirty-nineNo degree
was given in the university of Oxford unless the candidates
were prepared to answer the questions in theolog
wy which
ere required of them. (No, no, from Mr. Methuen. )
, .o
The member for Wiltshire denied this. He could assure
hen,tv ever, that such was the case now in that univer_
He recollected that when first' the.university of
about to be instituted, and the plan of ecruca-
Wilberforrrsue4 th'ere was under consi.deration, Mr,
tion, and recommend
for some plan of religions instruc-
objected to, ..nftr,ne(nded Paley s Evidences." This was
any particular reTikisaid they) our plan does pot embrace
Natural Theology ;,?'itit"" Ile then recommended " Paley's
ists.". (Hear, from Dlr answer was, "Consider our athe-
for Wiltshire by that elAlethuen.) The hon. member
.otic„ , azt_otermpt
iment, but his mere nn veer seemed to contradict this state-
tlilite itepeisible, and an a Ultficient Answer. It was
I but that of the kind proved it,
1 snipe one fgrrn a • education, must embrace
religious ben
• s.e., otherwise a latitu-

dinarian indifference to all religion must be the necessary
consequence.
rudis indigestaquc moles.
quilt corFore iu uno
Frigida pugn.tbant t alidis, humentia. siccis,
Mollia duris.
The effect of passing such an act as that now proposed must
be to poison the fountains from which Christian education
and Christian institutions must flow through the land.
It had been said that a college might be established in
each of their universities exclusively for Dissenters, and
that in this way the difficulties complained of might be got
rid of. This was not a new proposition. It was sug-
gested before, and Lord Ailesbury went upon his knees in
vain to prevail upon the King to concur in it. The ob-
jection to it was that a college thus instituted would neces-
sarily become a participator in the government of the uni-
versity, and as the members of it would naturally have
strong inducements to activity and to the furtherance of
their own particular religious interests, it might be pro-
ductive of much inconvenience and hostile feeling, and in-
terfere most injuriously with the good government of the
whole university,. so far even as to endanger the existence
of the established religion. Their universities were at all
times looked upon as meant for the support of the Esta-
blished Church of the country whatever that church might
be, or whatever its doctrines, whether Popish or dissent-
ing. As to the endowments of the colleges in their uni-
versities; he believed even the Catholics could set, up but
very little if any claim to their funds, but the Dissenters
not to a single shilling of them. He saw some gentle-
men opposite to him who were prepared to support
the motion even though they received their educa-
tion at the universities. He would put it to them
how they could reconcile this to their conscience, when, as
memberl of the universities, they must have made this
declaration, 'Statuta, honorem, et dagnitatem Universitalis,
tuebor. He put it to the house, he put it to the member
for Wiltshire himself, how this could be reconciled with a
vote in support of such a bill ? (Cheers.) In the act of
Elizabeth confirming the fUnds of these universities they
were spoken of as institutions for the promotion of good
literature and godly religion. The times unhappily were
very different now to what they were when it was said of
these universities that the object of their establishment was
to bring up young men in all goodly learning, in civil
education, and in the fear of God. The quarter from
which these attacks upon the universities and` upon' the
established religion now proceeded could not but a very
short time back be well expected to embark so soon in
such a crusade. When it was proposed a very short time
back to relieve the Dissenters from the Test Act no refer-
ence was then made to the connection of Church and state
as a grievance, to church rates, or the admission of Dis-
senters to degrees in the universities. It was only last
year that any reference was made to this claim 'of entering
and taking degrees in the universities. He could not help
saying that this appeared very like ingratitude. The
Church of England had invariably protected the Dis-
senters from their greatest enemies. Such being his view
of the bill he would propose, as an amendment, that it be
read a second time that day six months.
Mr. METHUEN (as we understood)'rose to explain,
but the cry of " Question, question," " Divide, divide,"
was so loud and general, that we could only catch from the
hon. gentleman the words, " That he was not in the habit
of making long speeches, and ought to be heard."
Mr. PR YME then rose, and was received with similar
cries. He had given much thought to that part of the
argument against the bill which turned upon the system of
religious education, having himself once had some small
participation in the course of instruction in the University
of Cambridge. (Loud laughter, arising from the circum-
stance, as we understood, of Mr. Prpne having been for-
merly a master in one of the colleges. ) The hon. member
and himself were contemporaries, and neither of them
could say that at that time there was any religious educa-
tion pursued in Cambridge at which a Dissenter could
reasonably refuse to attend. The theological examination
consisted of questions in a written or printed paper drawn
up for disputants. (Cries of " Question.") They were
quite at liberty either to answer the question or to pass
over any of them they pleased. With respect to the lectures
he could say confidently that there was nothing in them to
prevent Dissenters from belonging to the University, and
it was seldom without some Dissenters more or less. It was
said the refusal of degrees was no grievance. There were
many gentlemen not perhaps aware of the state of excite-
ment produced in the University when degrees were to
be taken out. It was exceeded only by a contestesl
election. A Dissenter had perhaps been pursuing his stu-
dies for two or three years ; he saw all this excitement, at
a time of life, too, when hope was strongest and his feel-
ings most vivid ; and he felt that he could claim no parti-
cipation in what was passing. He was himself always a
churchman, but could not. help witnessing with pain the
feelings'of disappointment on the part of those who could
take no part in the contest for collegiate distinction.—
(Hear.) He would say, throw open these institutions of
learning and religion. However, he was not satisfied with
the whole .of the bill, and if no other person did it he
should move the omission of the third clause and of the
proviso of the first.
Sir R. PEEL felt bound to say, that no modification
which the bill was likely to receive or could receive in
committee would reconcile him to give his vote in .favour
of the pi inciple on which it was based. (Loud cheers.)
He regretted much that the hon. member, the author of
the bill, had not attended hitherto to the frequent appeals
that had been made to him, and explained to the house
what was the real intention of the bill, as well as what
was the construction to be applied to several of its leading
provisions. As he understood the Bill, the effect of it was
this :—lt first recognised the advantages of academic edu-
cation, and urged the expediency of its extension to all
classes of his Majesty's, subjects ; it secondly recited many
sincere and conscientious men were excluded from partak-
ing of the benefit thereof by reason of the necessity of
subscribing to articles of religious doctrine, or to decla-
rations of opinions respecting modes of faith and worship ;
and then it contained an enactment which gave a positive
statutable right to every Dissenter, be he Jew, infidel, or
of no religion at all, to demand his admission to a uni-
versity unless immorality or ignorance could be alleged
against him. In order to complete that right the follow-
ing was one of the clauses introduced into the hon. mem-
ber's bill :
" And be it further enacted, that no statute, law, ordinance,
decree, or grace made or passed by any authority whatsoever
in any of the said Universities, or in any of the Colleges or
Halls within the same, shall in ai.y manner obstruct, limit, or
qualify the plain intent and obvious meaning of the foregoing
enactments ; but such statute, law, ordinance, decree, or
grace shall be to all intents and purposes voidan t of no effect."
Now what, lie asked, was the meaning of that. clause ?
I Surely the obvious meaning to be attached to the clause
was, that it was desirable dissenters, without reference to
religious tenets, should have the right of entering the uni-
versity, and that when they obtained that right, if any
college or hall should attempt to adhere to an existing
statute, or should attempt to pass a statute hereafter
making attendance at divine worship in such college
or hall requisite, that statute should be of no effect.
(Loud cheers. )
Mr. G. W. WOOD said the right hon. gentleman
totally mistook the intention of the clause. It was never
contemplated to apply it to any such purpose. (Cries of
" Oh, oh.")

Sif R. PEEL—Why I read the very words of the
clause. (Loud cheers.) What, then, was the house to
understand was the precise object of the bill ? Here was
a gentleman who- proposed to deprive the universities of
Oxford and Cambridge of that control over the education
of the country which they had exercised so beneficially for
a period of more than three hundred years—who undertook
to violate every privilege which as corporations they pos-
sessed, and who placed himself in the room of director of edu-
cation at both the universities, drew up a bill for its regulation
which no man of common sense, and much less himself, could
understand. (Repeatedcheers. ) But if lie ( Sir R. P. ) mis-
took the meaning of the clause, what, he asked, was its true
interpretation. Did the hon. member, after recognising
in the preamble of his bill the advantage of an academic
education, and after urging that all men of every descrip—
tion of religious opinions should be admitted to the benefits
of that education—did he mean to say that if there were
statutes at present in existence in any college or hall which
rendered compulsory cr gave the right of hereafter rendering
Compulsory, on all students attendance at divine worship
such statute was to remain in force, and, as a necessary
consequence, did he mean to say that the dissenter was to
be deprived of the benefit of the very first enacting clause
in his bill ? (Hear.) Was there to be a right in the
colleges to enjoin divine worship or not? The hon. mem-
ber the author of the bill said there should be such a right.
Did
(Cries of " No, no.")
the hon. member who cried
" No, no," understand the meaning of the monrosyellnatble?
The colleges and halls at the universities did
at
en-
join attendance on divine worship. Were theye present
lose
that power to require such attendance? From what the
author of the bill said in explanation it would appear not.
As well as he understood him he proposed leaving to the
colleges and halls the right of enforcing existing statutes,
and of making future statutes, and, consequently after the
passing of the bill, according to the hon. member's own
showing, the colleges and halls ought to continue to en-
join and require attendance at divine worship. ( Hear,
hear, from Mr. Wood.) Then the hon. member did nei-
ther more nor less than propose that each college and hall
should contradict the preamble of his own bill. (Loud
cheers.) Would the hon. member state what he did
mean by saying—
" And be it further enacted, that no statute, law, ordinance,
decree, or grace made or passed by any authority whatsoever
in any of the said universities, or in any of the college, or halls
within the same, shall in any manner obstruct, limit, or qualify.
the plain intent and obvious meaning of the foregoing enact.
ments ,• but such statute, law, ordinance, decree, or race
shall be, to all intents and purposes, void and of no effect.
Surely the plain intent and meaning of the clause was that
the right of enjoining divine worship should be entirely
taken away from the colleges to which dissenters succeeded
in obtaining admission, and to such a clause he for one
never could or would give his assent. (Cheers.) The
right lion. baronet then proceeded to say that, as the sub-
ject under discussion was so wide a one, he intended strictly
to limit his observations to a statement of the reasons why
the arguments he had heard had not produced an impres-
sion on his mind favourable to the bill, and why he in-
tended to resist it altogether. The right hon. gentleman,
the ex-Secretary for the Colonies, in the course of his able
speech said that the whole of the objections against the

bill on his (Sir R. Peel's) side of the house partook of the
.nature of that clamour which was raised against the bill in
the University of Cambridge, and which proceeded on the
assumption that the present was one of aseriesof measures
affecting the permanence of the established church. He
• for one did not hesitate to say he considered it in.that light.
(Loud and repeated. cheers.) He might perhaps be
dull of comprehension, but he did not hesitate to say
he found it impossible to draw the nice distinction
which the • right honourable gentleman seemed so
desirous of establishing. It was impossible for him,
after having read the declaration which no later than
the 9th of. June last was put forward by a pub-
lic authorized body, the delegates from the dissenters
of Great Britain.—.a document in which they expressly de-
dared that, although they did not seek or participate in
the estates of the established church, they did claim as a
matter of right the severance of the connection between
church and state, and the application of the pecuniary
possessions of the church to secular purposes—it was
im-
possible for him, he repeated, after reading that declara-
tion, not to regard the present bill as one of the many
armed against the safety and permanence of that religion
to , which he belonged—a religion the excellence and in-
violability of which he would ever maintain. (Loud and
repeated . cheers.) • The noble lord (Althorp) would,
doubtless, deny the assumption ; but if he took upon him-
self to say, that the present bill was not one of those
aimedagaiust the church, or rather that there was no in-
tention whatever on the part of the Administration to in-
jure its interests, would it not be fair for him (Sir Robert
Peel) -to ask the noble lord what Ins intentions were
respecting, several other bills then before Parliament ?
Might he not fairly ask what the noble lord intended to do
.with respect to a bill for the abolition of church rates in
England and Wales? They had now arrived at a very
advanced period of the session. Was that bill to -be pro-
ceeded with ? It proposed to establish a substitute for
the church rate, a measure Which he declared would meet
with the utmost opposition on the part of the dissenters.
Did the noble lord mean to proceed with that bill or not "?
There was likewise a measure which, although not intro-
duced by, had been adopted. by the Government .he
meant that which proposed to take away the registration of
births, marriages, and baptiSms from the Church of
England.
..( Hear, hear.) How far it might_ be expedient
to give the dissenteri a separate registration of their
own lie would notthen stop to inquire, but he thought it
was too much to insist that the Church of England should
not. have the right to continue her own registration.
(Hear, hear, hear.) With respect, again, to the appre-,
priation of church property in Ireland, the noble lord must
recollect that up to the present moment Parliament was
without any very definite or intelligible explanation of the
views of his Majesty's government. ( Hear, hear, hear. )
'He professed to be giving no opinion on the abstract mean-
ing of these questions at the present time. He mentioned
them merely as constituting parts of a series of questions
deeply affecting the welfare and prosperity of the Church
of England ; and such being the case, he asserted he had
a right to consider the enactment under discussion as part
of a whole, and not as an isolated, measure. ( Hear, hear,
hear.) Why, lie was even uncertain as to the construc-
tion which ought to be placed on the bill. He might be
wrong in his interpretation of it ; but if he was not so, it
struck him nothing could have proved more surprising to
the sixty-three gentlemen who signed the petition from
Cambridge presented by the hon. member for South Lan-
cashire than the reply which he gave them in the shape of
the bill under consideration. As different as possible from
the prayer of that petition was the bill of the hon. mem-
ber. Among other things the petitioners in the conclud-
ing prayer of the petition disclaimed all intention of inter-
fering with the private statutes or regulations of individual
colleges and halls, and what would their surprise be on
finding that, in direct contradiction of such declaration,
the bill contained a clause enacting—
" And be it further enacted, that no statute, law, ordinance,
decree, or grace matte or passed by any authority whatsoever
in any of the said universities, oi in any of the colleges or halls
within the same, shall in any manner obstruct, limit, or qualify
the plain intent and obvious meaning of the foregoing enact-
ments; but such statute, law, ordinance, decree, or grace shall
be to all intents and purposes void and of no effect ?"
When the gentlemen who signed the petition saw such a
clause introduced into the bill he ventured to say their first
feeling was one of deep regret at not having postponed their
petition until they had more maturely considered the expe-
diency of the change it suggested. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman, the ex-Secretary for the Colonies,
after alluding to the system of education adopted at several
of the continental universities, and after enumerating the
names of several most eminent men whom they had pro-
duced, concluded by claiming for the universities of his own
country a decided superiority over them all: Now what,
lie begged to ask, constituted the distinguishing mark
between foreign universities and those of England?
Why, it was to be found alone in the circumstance that reli-
gion formed a part of their system of education. (Cheers. )
It was said that the universities of England were not theo-
logical seminaries. They were not in one sense, and in one
sense only—they were not entirely limited to theological in-
struction ; but if the universities of Oxford and Cambridge
were the two bodies which supplied the whole instruction of
the ministers of the Church of England, forty-nine out of
fifty of the present ministers having received their edu-
cation at either university, and every wish being mani-
fested by the authorities of the church to exclude from it as
ministers all persons not educated at' either universities, lie
contended it was impossible to deny that they were, toad in-
t,nts and purposes, schools of theological education. ( Hear. )
But; in his eyes, their greatest advantage was their uniting
in one common education the future ministers of the
established religioit, the future statesmen, and the future
landed proprietors of the country. (Hear, hear.) It was
those very universities which it was now sought to affect
that sent out to the world such men as the hon. member
for Wiltshire (Mr. Herbert), who, having distinguished
himself within their walls, had repaid the obligation lie
owed them for their instruction by his eagerness not only
to act as their defenders when persecuted, but to vindicate
the great cause of religion and morality. (Cheers, ).. But
what, he begged the house to consider, would be the result
of the present bill if passed into a law ? If he was to be
told that henceforth a new principle was to be adopted in
the universities—if he was to be told that religious instruc-
tion against which the dissenters could by any possibility
protest was to form no part of the system of education at
the universities--he did not hesitate to predict the conse-
quences of the measure would be that the dissenters would
not reap the benefits which it was hoped to obtain for
them, while the universities would be robbed of that cha-
racter which was their pride and their boast. If they
were about, in the first place, to destroy the system of reli-
gious instruction altogether, believe it possible the
universities could continue to be places of education for the
minis:ers of the Church of England ? (Hear, hear.) It
had been urged by his right honourable friend, that as
the dissenters were even now admitted to the universities,
there could be no harm in legalizing and establishing
their right. (Hear, hear.) But in what number were
they so admitted? Were there twenty dissenters at the
present moment on the books of either university ? (Hear. )
But even those dissenters who were at the universities, it
should be observed, were not there in the capacity of dis-
senters. ( Hear, hear.) How was it known during the
period of study whether they were dissenters or not ?
There might be several sons of dissenters at the universi-
ties ; but as during the years of study they were not called
upon for any declaration of their faith, there were no means
of ascertaining whether they were in reality dissenters or
otherwise. He wished to know, before they went further,
whether it was intended to insist on dissenters attending
divine service according to the doctrines of the church of
England ? Was that intended ? (" Hear," from Mr.
Vcrood. ) It was intended. (" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Wood.) Then he (Sir Robert Peel), on the part of the
dissenters, would resist such an attempt. (Loud cheers.)
He at all events would not assent in deluding the dissen-
ters ; he would not pretend to accede to their demands to
induce them to flock to the university, and when they got
there then turn round on them and say, " We will now
compel you to attend religious instruction on the principles
of the established church." ( Hear, hear.) According to
the present system, and by their communication with
members of the established church, there was some ground
for hope that the dissenters might be induced to return to
its doctrines ; but if the present bill once passed that hope
was at an end. The hon. and learned member who'spokelast
told the house the dissenters were refused all honours at the
universities; but if it would not beconsideredpresumptuous
in him to differ with such an eminent authority, he would
be inclined to say that the hon. member must. be mistaken.
Even in the course of that night's debate it had been stated
that several dissenters who were not admitted to take de-
grees had greatly distinguished themselves during the
classes. (Hear, hear.) He had heard a good deal of the
liberality practised at Cambridge university, but such a
degree of liberality as that adopted in the course of the ex-
amination, during the time that the hon. member (Mr.
Pryme) was connected with it, lie had never imagined,
much less heard of, and he only hoped that if ever he ( Sir
R. Peel) was to be examined, the hon. member might be
the professor. (A laugh.) It appeared from the hon.
member's account, that written or printed questions were
circulated, which the party examined might decline an
swering, if they at all trenched on his religious tenets.
Now, without stopping to inquire whether the questions
circulated in print might not be equally stringent as if de-
livered viva voce, he would at once direct the attention of
them to that glorious system of liberality which permitted
a student to pass by, and, of course, claim as answered
eannaybled questionhim t.o say was obnoxious whiclliisrealoorxioasusus.me(dAu
religiouslagh.) I
scruples
enabled
th
nxsipresentonat kmunoistate
ndf
undergoing
rts enjoyed
giuotorin esne.
restheees dissenters
lenbociplicelsdardls:iott
gno dr surrendering icinhacegrhayarina:p. privilege,rehaxec examination
niruc ,itenasa‘un‘t. idri
tohehnlelyaraeutthset hcetorrn wonderedi t 03,).
to
_Apia sr
.s
po e obnoxiousryiliz_
T heqyuaens
answer
s what'they
of laughter.) P •
lease (Roars

,
Sir R. PEEL continued—He was saying that the pre-
sent system did offer the possibility of attracting dissenting
ministers within the pale of the Established Church ; but
aftei the bill under discussion passed, when dissenters came
to be admitted as dissenters, the difficulty of attracting
them from their faith would be much increased by the cer-
tainty of their being branded as recreants, should they depart
from those religious opinions which, on their first entrance

at the.nnilersity„ they professed. To the observations of
the right hoth•gentlernan, the ex-Secretary of the Colo_.
nies, he (Sir R. Feely had listened with the greatest at-
tention, and he:felt bound to say that the course taken bY
that right lion. gentleman upon the present occasion,
.as
well as the readiness he evinced to amend the bill in corn-
mittee, had induced him, as he was sure it had induced
every man who heard him, to re-consider his opinion, be;
fore he ventured to express it. (Hear, hear.) He did not
hesitate to say, that he believed the right hon. gentle-
man to be a true and sincere friend of the Church of
England, and he would have equally believed him to be
so,
.even though, he had not deemed it necessary to make
that splendid sacrifice to his principles he had lately done
but at . the same time lie was bound to say, that he was
not convinced by the arguments of the right hon. gentle;
man, and that, even if the bill was Modified, as he (Mr.
Stanley) proposed it should be=---and if it was, he .was
confident a powerful party of dissenters would, oppose it
on the third reading -- he must equally give it every
opposition in his power. (Loud cheers.) The right
hon. gentleman said that he would admit dissenters to
take out degrees, and stop there. Now, it appeared to
him that there would be quite as much difficulty in main-
taining that position, as in refusing the claims of the dis-
senters altogether. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentlemen
said he would admit the dissenters to take degrees,but that
they should thereafter derive no Other benefit from those
degrees beyond the civil advantages they might chance to
confer. Now he (Sir R. Peel) would contend. that the
claim of the dissenters after 'their admission to degrees,
would be at least as strong as the claim they at present
urged. ( Hear, hear.) There ,were many emoluments
and rewards in the universities not necessarily connected
with the established church which the dissenters wouldvery
speedily seek for, and it would be then much more difficult
to resist them than it was at present. (Hear.) All his
experience in similar matters showed him that the ground
on WhichllM,right hon.
.gentleman went was not a safe
ground to stand upon, and that the demands of the dissen-
ters would be. persisted in until by degree's they got all they
wanted. He must now, however, take a more extended
view of the position in which the house was placed than
had yet been done. Parliament. had removed all the civil
distinctions under which the King's subjects, laboured.
The PrOtestant Dissenters were disarmed of their cause
of complaints by the removal of the Test and Corpora-
tion Acts. (Hear, hear, hear.) The Roman Catholics
claimed a measure of relief, and they obtained it ;
and they lately had administered to the constitution a
;most extensive reform. .Of what character was the pre-
sent question ? It-was vain to deny that the question on
which they had now to decide was, whether they should
maintain within the United Kingdom an Established
Church ? (Cheers.) In all the discussions that had ever
ta.ken, place, when, questions relating to civil and religious
rights were before the house, it never had been once inti-
mated that the removal of those civil disabilities would lead
to the agitation of such a question as that under considera-
tion. Neither Mr. Fox, or Mr. Grattan, or any of those who
contended for the removal of political disabilities, ever held
the opinion that when those disabilities were removed there
would be such a claim proposed by the dissenters that they
had so lately preferred. (Cheers. ). For his part he
would contend that for the benefit of all Christians—for the
benefit . of dissenters as well as of the members of the
established church—there was an inestimable advantage
for the .purpose of protecting the country from the effects
of superstition and fanaticism, that a decent observance of
divine worship should be preserved. On all these several
grounds he contended not only for the unquestionable right
but for the undoubted privilege of maintaining inviolate
the established church of the country. (Cheers.) Many
of those who gave then their consent to the pre-
sent measure did so under the belief that it
would not have the effect of impairing the esta-
blished . church. The right hon. gentleman the
late Secretary for the Colonies, for instance, he was con-
vinced,
was actuated in the line he was taking by as sin-
cere a desire as he was to support the interests of the
Established Church. But if his (Sir R. Peel's) con-
struction of the bill was a correct one, he asserted that by
overturning all the privileges, by interfering with the cor-
porate rights, and by taking into Parliament the right of
dictation of the universities, they would be for ever preju-
dicing them as schools of religious instruction, and at the
same time dealing a blow to the integrity and security of
the Established Church, from the effects of which it would
be found very difficult, if possible, to restore it. (Loud
cheers.) And what constituted the Established Church ?
It was no; the amount of stipends paid to the clergy ; it
was not the value of livings or extent of tithe property; it
was the legal recognition by the state that the religion was
an established religion, and as such had a right to protec-
tion and support. (Cheers.) If, however, instead of af-
fording it that protection and support, they should say to
the universities, in whose hands rested the education of
the ministers of the church, " You shall no longer be at
liberty to instruct your alumni in religion, or in any sub-
ject touching on_ religion," they would be at once depriving
both the universities and the church of the chief props of
religion of the. state.
.. (The right hon. baronet con-
cluded his speech amidst.loud cheers.)
Lord ALTHORP would be the last man in that house
to giye his support to the bill under discussion if it was
calculated in the smallest degree to affect the established
church. Being favourable to the principle of the bill it
should have his support. He did not, however, pledge
himself to support its details.
Mr. -O'CONNELL supported the second reading of the
bill. It seemed that hon. gentlemen who said the univer-
sities were for the use of the church intended to make them
traps to catch dissenting rats. If lie had caught the eye
of the.. Speaker at an earlier hour of the night he would
have endeavoured to expose some of the attempts that had
been made to seduce the dissenters. . He had seen a pro-
clamation signed Winchilsea and Nottingham, in which he
saw that the dissenters were praised to the skies, and in
which they were called upon to defend the church and op-
pose Popery and fanaticism. ( The hon. and learned mem-
ber here read the beginning of the document alluded to
amid a great deal of laughter.) But in a former speech
of the noble earl he saw that these dissenters were cha-
racterised as not being christians, and that they were then
called Mahometans and worse than Mahometans. And
yet these were now the pure Christians that were called
ulion to array themselves against Popery and scepticism.
(Question.) If those who sat on the Treasury bench
would stand by the people they might laugh to scorn those
who opposed them. He advised them not to trample on a
people who would rather die than yield uptheir just rights.
Lord SANDON would be very sorry to see those who
stood by the church and state following the advice of the
hon. and learned member for Dublin. (Hear.) The
support of the hon. member was of very great value to the
Government, but he should like to hear what the hon.
member would have to say next year to the noble Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer if that noble lord should not wish to
advance a step further in the way the hon. and learned
member might desire. It seemed that all the hon. and
learned member's notions about fanaticism had a connec-
tion with his pocket. (Hear.) The question before them
had other considerations besides the danger of the pocket.
It was a question of honour, and one that involved the best
interests of the whole country. After this bill had passed
he could not see how next session they could refuse to in-
ith the rights and discipline of private colleges.
wG. W. WOOD replied.
house then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 321
t e 1.3.1 f e,11,,rr
ee.
For the amendment 147
Majority
—174
The Bill was accordingly read a second time.
REGISTRATON OF' VOTES IN SCOTLAND.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in
a bill to alter and amend the laws relative to the registra-
tion of votes in Scotland.

After a short explanation from the LORD ADVO-
CATE, leave was given to bring in the• Bill.
The Lord Advocate obtained leave to bring in a bill to
enable the appointment of an Accountant-General to the
Quarter Sessions in Scotland.
The house adjourned at half-past two o'clock.