The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-22 00:00:00

SCOTCH ENTAILS.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY gave notice that on Mon.
day next he should move for leave to bring in a bill rela.
tive to entails in Scotland.
SITTINGS ON APPEALS.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, in moving that the re-
terns which bad been ordered relative to the sittings
of their lordships on appeals should lie on the table,
said that he was quite sure it could not he the intention of
the noble lord on the woolsack, in the observations that
he had made the other night, with respect to the sittings of
their lordshipson appeals, to hold out an inference that hehad
worked much longer, and been assisted less, in bis sittings
to hear appeals in that house than his predecessors. A notion
however of that sort prevailed abroad in consequence of
what the noble and learned lord bad stated. If, however,
reference was had to the returns which he then moved
should lie on the table, it would be seen that in the course
of the sittings of the noble lord on the woolsack, a some
what greater period than that which Lord Lyndhurst sat,
be (the Lord Chancellor) had sat 156 times, and been
assisted by other noble lords 44 days, while Lord Lynd-
hurst had sat 169 times, and been assisted only 19 d
It was a'so right to mention, that in the course of one
session Lord Lyndhurst sat 65 days : that was a greater
number of days, according to the return, than any other
noble lord had ever sat during the course of one session. It
was right also to mention, in the absence of the noble
lord who had preceded Lord Lyndhurst, that he had,
previously to the arrangement for the speedy disposal of
appeals, by the assistance of Lord Gifford, sat in 1821, 52
days, in 1922, 50 days, in 1823, 58 days, and although
assisted by Lord Gifford in 1824, he sat 48 days, in 1825,
45 days, and in 1826, 50 days.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in what lie had
stated on a previous evening, he bad no intention whatever
(well knowing that he should be worsted if he did so) of
bringing himself into comparison with his predecessors.
He had not had an opportunity of looking at the re-
turn to which the noble baron had referred ; therefore what
its numerical result might he, he could not sty.. But he
did not shrink from comparison between the time he had
sat and the period when Lord Gifford was deputy speaker.
During the first year he had had the honour of a seat in
that hous-, he had certainly not sat fewer days than Lord
Gifford did in the year 1826. He thought it would be
found, on comparison, that he had sat a greater number
of times. During the first session he (the Lord
Chancellor) had frequently continued to sit to hear
eppeals after the adjournment of the house, and
that, ton, between ten and eleven o'clock at night.
With respect to his noble predecessor, nothing was ever
further from his intention than to cast the slightest re-
flection upon the way in which he had conducted the
business of that house ; all that he had said was that he
(the Lord Chancellor) had never had the assist-
ance of the regular judges, which had been afforded
to Lord Lyndhurst. lie bad certainly bad the able
and ready assistance of the noble lord (Wynford)
without which he never could have got through the
business he had done. There appeared to be one great
fallacy, boxever, in those returns, which did not seem to
lie well coin through. The number of appeals at the
beginning of a session depended entirely on the
time of year at which that happened ; for instance, the
session of 1830 commenced in the beginning of November,
while the present one did not begin till February, so
that there were three months more for the setting down
of appeals than there was before ; he was therefore
entitled to deduct one fourth from the number on the
return.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said the noble and learned
Jord had stated the facts of the case so far as he had
gone ; hut from the return he saw then, he had
had the assistance of the late Lord Tenterden for 13 days,
as well as that of Lord Lyndhurst for some other.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was evident the
noble lord was speaking upon a subject of which he was
utterly ignorant. Lord Tenterden had never sat one single
,tiny except when the twelve judges did so. Those were
,daya when it was optional with the Chancellor either to
pit or not.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND complained that the
noble and learned lord had not done justice to the Errl of
Eldon in his statements, as there never was a session that
he had not .at to hear appeals.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had only alluded
to Scotch appeals, all of which during one session had
been heard by Lord Gifford.
The Earl of ROSSLYN said a few words, which
were inaudible.

The Earl of RADNOR moved the first reading of the
Liverpool Disfranchisement Bill, and in doing so he
wished to state the course be intended to pursue with re-
gard to it. After the first reading he meant to move that
a inessaa. be sent to the Commons requesting that their
„...
Lordships might be furnished with copies of the reports of
three committees which had sat upon the subject in former
Parliaments, as also the reports of the two select coin-
mitt,ies which bad sat upon the late Liverpool elections.
If noble lords would take the trouble of reading over
those reports, he was sure they would not require that
Pr more evidence ehould be bead at the bar of that

house. He further intended to move that the Wit be read
a second time on Monday, the 28th of April.
Lord WYNFORD said he would never consent to take
reports from committees of the other house, upon which
to found judicial proceedings in that house. If their
lordships should think that too much time would be con-
sumed by hearing evidence at the bar, they might send
the whole of the disfranchising bills to committees up
stairs.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said that he could never
for a moment consent that the house should delegate its
judicial proceedings to any committee up stairs. He
trusted the house would not on the present occasion de•
part from those precedents which had so often before
been acted upon.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought the 28th of April

was too soon to fix the second reading of the Liver-
pool Bill, as the Warwick one was fixed for the
24th of the same month.—(Hear.) The house could not
possibly have got through with that one, and he thought
it would be better to finish one before bringing on an •
other.

The Earl of DURHAM said he could see no reason
for the house agreeing to the proposition of the noble
baron. The bills were very dissimilar, and he could see
no reason why the house could not proceed with both.
He now, for once in his life, had the honour
of agreeing with the noble lord opposite (Salisbury),
for if the house decided that further evidence should be
taken upon that class of bills, he would never agree that
it should be taken before a committee with closed doors.
While he was on his legs he wished to know what the
noble and learned baron opposite (Wynford) meant by his
notice of moving upon the second reading of the Liverpool
bill, that counsel be heard against it at the bar. He (Earl
D.) was not aware that any petition had been presented
against the bill ; then did the noble and learned lord mean
to examine witnesses himself ? There were no parties
opposing the bill.
Lord WYNFORD said be meant to examine any wit-

ness that appeared either for or against the bill. If the
parties who promoted the bill did not send any evidence,
be could not help it.
The Earl of RADNOR then moved that their lord-
ships be summoned for the 28th of April, and that a
message he sent to the Commons for copies of the report,
which were agreed to, and the bill was read a first time.
Earl GREY presented a petition from Ashtou-under-
Line, praying that in any measure which might be intro-
duced for the relief of the dissenters, the interests of the
established church would be guarded. The noble earl
also presented a petition from the Protestant dissen.
ters of Suffield, praying to be rtlieved from the dis-
abilities under which they laboured ; and a petition
from Ipswich, praying that some legislative measure
might be introduce) for the better observance of the
Sabbath.—Laid on the table.
THE CAMBRIDGE PETITION.
The NOBLE EARL then stated that he had now to
present a petition which appeared to him to deserve
the most serious and most attentive consideration.

The petition came from a number of members of the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, and who were also members of
the estabished church, and it prayed that the dis•
senters might be relieved from one of the grievances
which they complained of, natne!y, that they should be
admitted to and enjoy the privileges of the University of
Cambridge.—(Hear, hear.) With the prayer of the
petition, he need baldly state to their lordships, to
whom his opinions upon that subject had been repeatedly
expressed, that he entirely concurred. Ile considered it a
great honour in having the petition intrusted to his care.
It prayed for an object which appeared to him to be
just and reasonable in itself, and, if effected, would, in
his opinion, be eminently conducive to the interests of
the established church. The petition was signed by 63

members of the university. The members of the senate
generally amounted to between 170 and 190, and the pe-
tition was signed by more than two-thirds ; but there were
some who, from age or other infirmities, did not take part in
the affairs of the senate, but many of them, be understood,
were favourable to the object of the petition. The number
then was a considerable portion of the members of the
senate. Not more than one hundred and fifty bad voted

upon any question brought before it. But if he could
state that the petitioners were respectable in point of
numbers he had thegratifieltion of adding they were much
more so in point of talent and character. There were two
of the heads of the university, 10 professors, and 11 tutors.
Amopg the professors were men of the greatest eminence,
and when he mentioned the names of professors Babbage,
Lee, and others, he should be justified in saying that they
were men who were d;stinguished in general know-
ledge, science, and excellent conduct in life. Amongst
the tutors were such ai Peacock, Mozely, Fearn, and others;
and indeed the whole, professors, fellows, tutors, and
members of the senate were oistinguished for their
t dents and influence, and, therefore, no petition could
come before their lordships that could be better supported.
It might be sad that the petitioners had it not in their
power to make such a remonstrance to their lordships.
But even if nine-tenths of the University of Cambridge

had declared themselves favourable to an exclusive system,
be thought he (Earl Grey) had stated enough to justify
the petitioners in the course they had pursued. In order
to show what their object was, he thought be could not
do better than real the petition, which had been
most admirably drawn up, and required and me-
rited the favourable consideration of their lordships.
The petitioners expressed their attachment to the
church as by law established, anti were well apprised of
the benefit which it conferred on the kingdom. They
also expressed their attachment to the discipline of
the university of Cambridge, which had contributed,
in such a material degree, to the piety and learning
of the country. Strongly impressed with these considera•
dons, they submitted to that right honourable house, that
no system ever planned by the wisdom of man could
be so perfect as not to require, from _ time to time,
some modifications, arising frem change of circumstances
and times. They respect fully suggested that no corporate
body like the University could exist in a free country,
unless its benefits were communicated to all classes of the
people, as widely as might be compatible with the
principles of its foundation.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He (Lord Grey) read those sentiments with wrong feelings
of pleasure; they were the sentiments and views of mem-
bers of the established church, and lie felt happy in
having had it in his power to state, in the
emphatic words of the petitioners, those feelings of
attachment to the established church, which he was sure
would insure to them the favourable consideration of their
lordships. It could not he supposed that persons, actuated
by such feeling-, would lend their assistance to any
measwe which would subvert that establishment
they were bound to support. The petition proceeded to
state, that among the changes which they thought might
be adopted with advantage to the state, they suggested
the expediency of rejecting every religious test which
it was necessary to take before proceeding to the
degree of maser, bachelor, or doctor, in arts, divinity, or
medicine. In praying for this they were only asking for
the restitution of their ancient laws and customs;
for these restrictions had been imposed on the
University in the reign of James the First,
and against the wishes of many of its members. They
had been imposed during the prevalence of dogmas at
variance with the true interests of religion. He (Lord
Grey) thought this was a matter which required their
lordships' serious attention ; because, what the petitioners
prayed for was not at variance with the original constitu-
tion of the university. It was to remove restrictions
imposed under peculiar circumstances.— (Hear.) Perhaps
their lordships would allow Win to state shortly how the
matter stood as regarded the constitution of the univer-
sity. Several acts had been passed in the reigns of
Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Mary, and there was one
act (12 Ede.), collecting all those statutes into a general
rule, under which that society was to be governed.
There was no mention in that statute of religious tests. It
was not until a subsequent period that these restrictions
were introduced. In the early part of the reign of James
1., in 1604,, the convocation passed the canons ecclesi-
astic, and among these was the carton which enacted that
no persons should obtain the degree of bachelor or master,
in arts, lee-, or physic, unless he should• subscribe
to the three articles contained in the 136th canon.
Their lordships would observe that this did not
extend to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, but
that that still remained open to any per-
son who received his education at the University.
But afterwards this was extended in a very singular way.
The petition stated that it was Informal and unusual,
and be (the noble earl) believed it was in such
a manner as had never been known before.—(Hear.)
lii 1600 another doctrine was communicated to the
senate, which stated the substance of what passed
between the King and certain members of the
University—(Hear, hear, hear)—and in which the King
expressed his desire that in future not only should degrees
be granted, as stated in the letter which he (the noble
earl) had just quoted, to bachelors of divinity, and doc-
tors in divinity, law, and physic, but that no degree
should be granted to any person who did not subscribe to
the three articles of the thirty-sixth canon. This
was almost all that appeared. No degree should be
granted to any, except to those persons, from that time.
This practice had never been confirmed by any greet.. It
was well known to be against the opinions of many of the
Senate at that time,l
and it was fair to presume that if that

Geo. Peacock, Trinity
J. Hind, Sidney
J. W. L. Heaviside, ditto
S. Skinner. Jesus
S. N. Ward, Magdalen
J. Bowstead, Corpus

FELI
Jos. Romil
REGIS]

H. Aslett, Pembroke
F. Heldyard, Trin. Hall
Ed. Barnes, Christ's
R. Dawes, Downing
Thiriwall, Assist.

G. A Brown, Trinity
J. Moore, ditto
R. Sheepshank, ditto
T. Field, ditto
T. B. Barsham, ditto
J. W. Barnes, ditto.
J. A. Barnes, ditto
R. W. Rothman, ditto
C. Thirlwall, ditto
C. Craufurd Heath, King's
G. W. Craufurd, ditto
OTHER MEMBE:
C. C. Babington, St. John's
C. Cope, M.D., ditto
J. Guthrie, Trinity
J. M. Kemble, ditto
J. M. Robinson, ditto
T. G. Hughes, Emanuel
Thos. Veasey, Peterhouse
T. M. Randall, ditto
Masters
• Vice-Provost of
Professors

ly, Trinity.
:'RARY.
Capel Lofft, King's
T. Ingle, Peterhouse
Henry Calthrop, Corpus
J. Croft, Christ's
R. Willis, Caius
A. Murlett, ditto
R. Murphy, ditto
J. Saunders, Sidney
C. Currie, Pembroke
W. L. Jones, Magdalen
W. D. Rangeley, Queen's
IS OF SENATE.
J. I'. Woodhouse, Caius
J. T. Wall, ditto
E. G. Pearce, Jesus
S. Wells Lucas, Downing
C. Humphrey, ditto
Geo. Leapingrolle, Corpus
H. Gunning, Christ's
John Parkins, Queen's.

King's 1

Tutors
Fellows not being Tutors
Other Members l7
Total •• 6:2
On the question being put row the woolsack,
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he would have
adopted on this occasion the course which he was in the
habit of adopting upon all occasions of the presentation
of petitions, namoly, that of avoiding discussing the sub-
ject to which they referred until it came substantively be
fore the house; but the importance attached by the noble
earl to the petition he had just presented—the formal no•
lice he bad given of his intention to bring it forward—
the attention with which his speech had been received, and
the general attention which that speech was likely to ex-
cite out of the house—all conspired to render it necessary
for him to address a few words to their lordships upon the
present occasion. Before, however, he proceeded to do
so, he could not help lamenting that the illustrious duke
who filled the office of Chancellor of the University of
Cambridge was not then present, in order that he might
state more in detail than even the noble earl had done
what were the peculiar circumstances attending the grant-
ing of those degrees to which the petitioneis referred.--
( Hear.) It was not to be expected that he (the Duke of
Wellington) could be much acquainted with matters 01
this description relating to either University; but, what-
ever he might know of Oxford, he was obliged to confess
his entire ignorance of how those matters were arrenged
in the University of Cambridge. From the statement,
however, of the noble earl it appeared, the University of

Cambridge woe a e,orporatioti—a corporation with the
power of judging and deciding upon all matters of reform
in respect to those particulars to which the petitioners re-
ferred, and, what was more important for the house, a
corporation possessed not only of the power but of every
requisite capability to form a proper judgment upon the
subject.—(Cheers.) And what was the case the noble
earl had made out for legislative interference? It appeared
that sixty members of the senate came, through the me-
dium of the noble earl, and desired their lordships to in•
terfere in their legislative capacity, and overturn the power
and authority of the corporation upon matters connected
with its internal management. The noble earl had called
upon their lordships to decide neither more nor less than
that the rules and regulations of the University of Cam-
I bridge were bad in principle and required revision, their
sole authority being the ex parte statements of some sixty
members of the senate. He (the Duke of Wellington) had
I yet to learn that it eves the duty of Parliament to interfere
in the revision of corporate regulations. But at all events
he would contend that Parliament would ill dischai ge that
' duty, supposing it to belong to them, if they interfered
at the instigation of but 60 members out of a body com-
prising at least 4,ooo.—(Cheers.) It would indeed be
strange if 60 individuals, not the one-fiftieth part of the
whole number, could, by petitioning Parliament, dictate
what regulations should be passed, and what revised. But,
said the noble eat], it was not the great body of the senate
—it was only the Caput, consisting of not more that 370
or 380 members—
Earl GREY—The noble duke is under a mistake. The
caput consists of but 180 members.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—WeII, of 180 mem-
bers, that made objection to the admission of dissenters to
these degrees. He wou!d not say that the caput were not
right in persevering in the resulation ; but of this he was
certain, that, if the deliberative opinion of the University
of Cambridge was in favour of admitting dissenters to
degrees, the senate bad only to propose it to the caput and
it would at once be adopted.
Earl GREY—It has b: en twice proposed, and each
time the proposition was rejected.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—That is true; but
why was it rejected ? Because the great body of the senate
was decidedly opposed to it.—(Hear, hear, hear.) That
being the case, he was not sure that it was not the impe-
rative duty-of the caput to reject the proposal.—(Hear,
hear.) But on such subjects as the present he believed it
would become the house to consider well who, in point
of fact, were the dissenters whom it was proposed to admit
to the privilege of taking degrees. He called upon their
lordships, before they were induced to assent to the prayer
of the petition, to take the distinction of who were and
who were not dissenters from the established church.
There were many of the persons who called themselves by
that name who only dissented from the church of England
in one or two not very important points, while there
were others who did not agree with the church of Eng-
land in any one part. There were some who denied
altogether the existence of a Trinity, while there were
others who were altogether Athiests.—(Hear.) Now
he wanted to know whether it would be desirable to ad-
mit to the privilege of a degree persons who altogether
denied the doctrines upon which the established religion
was founded.—(Cheers.) These were questions which it
was important should be considered—questions which
both the University of Cambridge and the House of Lords
were bound to consider they adopted the principles con-
tended for by the noble earl. The noble earl had made a
great complaint to the house that the dissenters, although
allowed to enter on a collegiate course, were precluded
Irons receiving the degree of Bachelor of Arts unless they
subscribed to certain articles. But what were those ar-
ticles upon which the noble earl put such a light value?
Why they were neither more nor less than the articles of
the church of England, or of the articles of christianity.—
(Cheers.) The noble earl called upon the Louse to sanc-
tion the admission of persons refusing to subscribe to thosearticles, but he need scarcely say their lordship would
never respond to such a call.—(Loud cheers.) The noble
earl had argued upon the disadvantages which members of
dissentine congregations purposing to enter the professions
either of medicine or of law laboured under on account I
of their inability to obtain the &Tree of Master
of Arts. But was the University of Cambridge to be

blamed en that account ? It was true that in the medical

profession a certain education received in a University
did give certain advantages both in the way of promo-
tion and in the way of time; and it was likewise true that
among the attorneys and the barristers a gentleman
who possessed the degree of Master of Arts had the ad-
vantage of being admitted to his profession in two years'

feel time than those who were not so fortunate. But this
was an advantage created by the rules of the benchers of
the King's inns, for which the universities were in nowise
responsible.—(Hear, hear.) If those bodies chose to make
the distinction, and if that distinction pressed on any par-
ticular party, it rested with them to redress the grievance.
But surely it was no argument to be used in favour of that
revi.ion which the petition called for,—(Hear, hear.) He
therefore entreated their lordships not to consent to inter-
. _ _

fere with the regulations of the corporation of the univer-
sity of Cambridge; but, at all events, not to do so on the
sole instigation of the insignificant minority whose petition
the noble earl had just presented.
Lord ELLENI3OROUGH sail there could not be a
subject more interesting to the great body of his Majesty's
suti.jects than that brought under the notice of their lord-
ships by the pre.entation of the petition which the noble
earl had just laid upon the table. It was a subject fraught
with many and serious difficulties, not merely difficulty in
point of principle, but of a nature so complex and entan-
gled that he owned he feared the house would be scarcely
able to encounter them. In the first place, there was a
difficulty in dealing by parliamentary enactment on points
already determined by the charter and regulations of the
university. For his part he had the greatest disposition,
should it be practicable, to acquiesce in the wishes ex-
pressed by the petitioners. He saw clearly a great ad-
vantage to the public in providing for the general and
common education of all ',hisses of his Majesty's subjects .
professing belief in religion. He saw the great advantage
likely to result to the established church by the union of
young persons in early life, and the consequent fostering
of friendly feeling and social intercourse; he saw on the
other hand the greatest of disadvantages in teaching per-
sons professing particular religious beliefs that they were
id_treated by the laws of their country on account of their
religion ; and therefore, on principle, he should have no
objection to extend to all persons professing the Christian
religion such privileges as tended to facilitate the approach
to the several professions of law and medicine ; but at the
same time he felt it but due to himself to state distinctly
that nothing would ever induce him to consent to the
granting to persons dissenting from the Church of Eng-
land power and authority in the Universities; practically
identified and essentially connected as they were with the
Church of England.—(Cheers.) He was ready, he re-
peated, to accede in a certain degree to the demands of
the petitioners, but in doing so lie would draw a line of
distinction, from which nothing should ever induce him
to depart.—(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to vote in
favour of a proposition admitting the dissenters to such
collegiate degrees as tended to facilitate their progress to
the professions of law or medicine ; but he never would
consent, directly or indirectly, to any proposition likely to
place the dissenters in a situation to interfere in the manage-
ment of the universities. Such was the principle which
would guide in, on any vote be might be called upon to
give on this important and interesting subject. Highly
important it was on many grounds, but on• none mote
than its effect upon the religious peace of the country. To
attain religious peace had been the great object of the Ad-
ministratiun of the noble duke near him ; and, convinced
as he was of the excellence of that principle, he was ready
to do any thing in his power for the purpose of maintain-
ing it, if now possible.—(Cheers.) To the attainment of
that object, lie repeat d, he would ever be ready, and he
confessed that at the present moment hesaw nothing more
injurious to it than the adoption of any line of policy by
that house which would assimilate political consideration
with the discussion of church details.—(Cheers.) The
result of such a union in the present crisis would be, in his
opinion, utterly ruinous to the best interests of the coun-
try, and therefore, as far as he was concerned, it would be
his anxious object not only to avoid it in himself, but to
dissuade others from being led away by its influence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he heard with much
pleasure the concluding observations of the noble baron.
Ile agreed with him that nothing could be more desirable,
more useful, or more necessary, than that every exertion
:should he used for the promotion of religious peace among
every class of the community. He heard, therefore, the
sentiments of the noble b iron with the greatest pleasure
are indeed, they came with peculiar grace from the descend-
ant of a man who was one of the most enlightened, pious,
and eloquent men of his day—a man who would shed a
lustre on any time—a man, and be (the Lord Chancselor)
would say it without disparagement of his dal or of the
present day, a man who was one of the twist talented
and enlightened prelates that ever adorned the episcopal
bench.—(Hear, hear.) He (the Lord Chancellor) agreed
with the noble baron as to the great importance of this
subject ; he agreed with him that its importance could
not be overrated ; but he could not agree with him as to
the difficulty with which he (the noble baron) comidcred
it to be surrounded. He (the Lord Chancellor) saw
no difficulty connected with ir, unless it were in its
details. He could see no difficulty in carrying the joint
question of civil and religious liberty, and certainly the