The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-24 00:00:00

but he direeted tho Univereity to pus s price or Isw
the purpose of carrying it into effect, and accordingly a
g ace or law was passed imposing these religious tests
ipon doctors of the faculty and bachelors of di
vinity. So matters rested until the year 1616,
when his Majesty proceeded to Newmarket for the pur-
l' ose of amusement, and be then thought fit to revise those
orders of the University, and at that time his Majesty's
let ers were passed, by which, from that period up to
1772, Dissenters were excluded, for he directed that those
religious tests should not only be imposed upon Doctors
of the Faculty and Bachelors in Divinity, but upon all
persons. But in doing so, he forgot to ask the University
to pass any law or grace upon the subject. That second
letter was, therefore, not operative, though he (Mr. S.
Rice) admitted it had been acted on, but he did not attach
much importance to that. He believed the journals of that
house would show that in the time of James 11., in the
struggle between the Stuarts and the people, they were
disposed to treat rather summarily with the house,
and the house was rather disposed to submit.
He would merely give one instance as a proof of that
submission. James 1., upon one occasion, sent a message
to the Commons, desiring them to have a conference on a
certain subject with the other house; the Cemmons resisted,
and then he sent to desire them to cotnmunicate with
the Judges, or in other wcrds to call in the aid of the
Judges to assist them in their legislative capacity. Here,
then, was a direct interference of the crown with the
legislature, tantamount to the interference of the
crown with the universities. It was on the journals
of the house that the house assented to the request,
and it was stated by one member upon that occasion, that
" the Prince's command came upon them like a thun-
derbolt ; that it was like the roaring of the lion ; that
there was no contradiction to it ; and the only thing to
be considered was the means by which it was to be
obeyed." If, then, that command came upon the house
like a thunderbolt, and similar to the roaring of the lion,
there could be no wonder at the heads of the colleges
obeying it. In the year 1641 there was a precedent
which he knew would not receive much value in the eyes
of seine of his hon. friends, but in which the whole pro-
ceedings respecting the test were stated in a resolution of
Parliament as being contrary to law, and therefore ought
not to be suffered to exist; from that period and until
1660 the test ceased, and then it was reinforced.—(Hear,

hear, from Mr. Goulburn.) He (Mr. S. Rice) did not
attach any importance to that precedent, by which he con-
tended the test was improperly imposed, and without any
lawful author ity—all that be meant to argue was, that,
being improperly imposed, it ought not to exist now;
so that, whether by the interposition of that house,
or by the university itself, the time had 'now arrived
when the test ought to cease.—(Cheers.) In the year
1772, that was made University law, with some variation,
which bad previously only been an usurpation by the
crown, and tacitly acquiesced in by the University. About
that year it was resolved, in order to relieve certain par-
ties to some extent, that, in place of requiring a concur-
rence in the three articles of the 36th canon, a mere de-
claration was required that the parties should bona fide
belong to the established church. That resolution was
adopted by a grace or law, and was now in existence.
It might be said that they were -arguing upon abstract
principles, bnt he would prove that at the period when
these tests were proposed they had worked most inju-
riously in the University, and that their ill-working
had been felt as soon as the grace had passed. He
should read an extract, although he was aware that hon.
members did not like to hear a passage from a book read
which would elucidate his statement. The right hon.
gentleman then proceeded to lead an extract from some
work, which stated that so soon after the passing
of the grace as the month of January, 1773, Mr. Thos.
Illackburne, a strident of St. Peter's College, Cambridge,
having passed through his various examinations, applied
for his degree and was rejected. He had all the neces-
sary testimonials and qualifications as to having spent the
proper period in the college, and as to his moral character
and attainments.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He appeared
at the customary hours before the Senate, and as
he was known to have distinguished himself, the time
of his examination was renewed. He passed with
applause, and in the judgment of the examiners was
declared worthy of all the honours the University was
wont to bestow.* At the close of the examination he
hinted his objection to the declaration, and delivered a
paper expressive of his opinions upon the subject, in
which he declared his full persuasion of the truth of the
Christian religion, but that he had not as yet attentively
considered the grave waiters of faith which he was called
upon to subscribe. This young gentleman, after having
distinguished himself by his moral conduct and scientific
attainments, not because be was a dissenter, but because
he hesitated as a Christian to subscribe to a declaration
without having considered fully the importance of the
subject, he was deprived of his degree and rejected.
—(Hear, heir.) Was not that example worth any ar-
gument that could be brought forward on the other side?
How many more instances must there not have occurred
of the same description ? But a few years afterwards a
petition was presented from the under-graduates to the
Senate expressing their attachment to the doctrines of the
church, but complaining that, from the nature of their
studies, they had not time to consider the declaration they
were called on to subscribe, and that the obligation to do so
was but laying a snare for their consciences. If that argu-
ment were of any importance then, how did it stand at
the present moment ? Were they to be told that after
having repealed the Test and Corporation Aets they should
now stop short ?—( Hear, hear.) He conceived that to
argue against these religious distinctions was a mere
waste of time. There was not an argument brought
forward on the other side, the fallacy of which did not
strike him. He contended the onus lay on the other side.
He would confine himself to the University of Cambridge,
for he had not any acquaintance with the proceedings of
the University of Oxford. He would say, however, that
there was some consistency in respect to the proceedings
at Oxford, for be understood their argument, though he
differed from it; for what did they say? They said they
held themselves to be a church establishment, and that,
therefore, they certainly could admit no dissenters.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) But what did they say at Cam-
bridge? They admitted that the dissenters attended to
college discipline and reputation, that they were exactly
as good members of the University as the members of the
established church, and he, (Mr. S. Rice) could ape de from
experience, that they (the dissenters) were as amenable to
the discipline of the University, as strict in attenda‘nce upon
establishment.—(Hear,
stnaibyleisrhaimty en
otf.—C(amHbea Cambridge,
bea
the r. )diss Butenters then
may
go
it
duties, and as honourable to the University of
which they formed a part as the members of the
a.
sto throughtthllee
the college eour,e to a certain extent; they expose the
University to the danger of schism, they expose
contamination of. this intercourse ; but when the dissenters
come to the senate to state that they were about to leave
the University, then the senate interposes and throws its
shield over those individuals from whom the danger was
moreap be
ro
period
td
? foolishto
and
dd e p
thanat
hr te
n—
rd'mwihiti
aetatrh.)
them
principle %p' lat
ot
could
okuicledrta theybine
upon
opl I:naa
exclude them ? They excluded them from degrees, and
thus, whilst they neglected the orthodoxy of the Univer-
sity, they protected the orthodoxy of the bar, and of the
College of Physicians. Thus they subjected them to a
disqualification which could be of no possible use to the
University. But had they no experience, did the case
rest upon general principles, or had they no experience to
justify them in admitting the dissenters to the University?
He would recall to the attention of the house a most power-
ful argument, which had been adduced on a former day
by the hon. and learned member for the city of Dublin,
namely, the proceedings respecting this same subject
which had taken place in the University of Dublin.
If there were gentlemen who thought Ireland so calm
and tranquil that it was convenient to admit Catholics
into the Protestant university, but not the Dissenters of
England to the same privilege, be could understand that
argument; but if the experiment had ben tried in a
country agitated by religious discoid without any incon-
venience, he should like to know by what process of
reasoning it could produce any inconvenience when
tbey were treating with a different class of peo.
plc under different circumstances.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
By the act introduced by Mr, Pitt in 1793 Roman
Catholics were admitted to professorships, and that
act was passed in a parliament in which the Provost of
the University was a member, and there was no objection
offered to it but one, which was that the bill did not go
far enough, because it excluded Roman Catholics from

fellowships.conTsil,ileartedobajegacrtieont
friend to the Catholics, Jobn Claudius Beresford.
,a the s
urged office
l of
yf Provostjan who and
could
notbe
A speech delivered on that occasion embodied many of the
objections which were now urged against such propisi-
Lions as those contained in the petition. " God forbid
that I should ever see the pious intentions of the royal
founders of the universities frustrated by any perversion
of the privileges or revenues thereof, to support and en-
courage Popery, or these hallowed walls made the resi
dente of superstition and tyranny. If, however, it be
determined to open the university to Catholics, let the
British :Ministers first procure an act of Parliament to
open the English universities, and then the bitter potion may
be more readily swallowed by the infatuated and hetrayed
Protestants of Ireland." Now, if such arguments were
to be, urged against opening the universities to dissenters

lo the pronat doy, that who mod them would oul
involve themselves in a great and inevitable dilemma, and
merely exhibit themselves clothed in a worn out mantle of
Dr. Duigenon. He had to explain to the house how it
was that the petition came before the house in its present
shape, and how it was utterly impossible, under the pre-
sent constitution of the University, it could be otherwise.
He did hope, however, that if the petition did not meet
with immediate success it would at lnast produce calm and
temperate discussion, by which the principles of truth
and] justice, however they might be retarded for a
time must be finally successful.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
The constitution of the university required unanimity in
the members of the Caput ; if a single veto were given, it
was sufficient
ito defeat the proposition brought before it
as Then, how was acting fairly to the country, the uni-
versity, or the dissenters, to require that such tin inimity
should be found before a remedy could be applied to
the abuses of which they complained ?—(Hear, hear.)
But it was stated that Parliamentary interference
was not that legitimate interference which should be
brought to the adjustment of the question. Still, let hon.
gentlemen look to the ancient usages on that suhj •ct—to
the interference of the legislature in the days of Elizabeth,
respecting the revenues of colleges, when those very
revenues were really appropri tied and portioned out,
according to the discretion of the senate. The Parliament
then had no hesitation in using their power when it was
deemed requisite. In the year 1771, when an alteration
was suggested in the Caput, the answer given was, that
the University did not possess the power of making a
material .chine as then proposed; but that the legisla-
ture of the country should be resorted to, as there the
power lay of effecting the desired alteration. But
now the legislature would be considered trespassers on
the rights of the University if they attempted to interfere.
Let hon. gentlemen consider what fair grounds were there
for such a conclusion after what he (Mr. Spring Rice)
had quoted to them, respecting the practices of the Par-
liament in other days, and the opinion of the University
itself on the point. The Scotch University had no religious
tests of any kind wherewith to try the fitness of candidates
for education. And surely the members for Scotland were
as jealous as any others on the subject of their religion.
Would not any attempt to impair the Westminster con-
fession be as firmly resisted as if it were made in the 39
articles, which should be warmly repelled in English law.
The house, therefore, had first the example of Scotland,
next that of Ireland, and lastly the axiom of the Univer-
sity of Cambridge itself. Now it had been said that the
house could not do what the petitioners required, because it
would be interfering with the corporation. He (Mr. S. Rice)
thought it was rather too late in the day to use such an
argument as that; at all events such an argument was
used most preposterously. When the house was called
upon in the same breath not to interfere with a corpora-
tion because it was an University, but to interfere with a
corporation because it was called the College of Physicians
—(Hear, hear)—he (Mr. Spring Rice) was sure that
his right hen. friend would not speak with unkindness or
disregard of the conscientious scruples of the dissenters.
. . . .

Whatever fault he had to find with them, he was sure it
would not be a want of sincerity or an earne,t
conviction of the truth of their religious belief.—(Hear,
hear.) lie was sure also that he would not suggest
that among the various classes of dissenters who it had
been thought expedient to exclude, any of them were
Athiests.—(Hear, bear.) He was sure that his right
hon. friend, however he might differ from them on eccle-
siastical points, knew full well that those differences were

founded on principles of sincerity, and a perfect convic-
tion that the course they were adopting was the right one.
He admitted that the petition numerically only represented
the government part of the members of the university ;
but he would ask the house if they did not grant
to the petitioners—to the dissenters of England—that
privilege which he thought they justly claimed at the
hinds of the house, and which was only the resto.
ration of the old constitution, what would be the
alternative ? It would, in his opinion, be the grossest of
all acts of injustice if the house refused to the dissenters
admission to the universities, and did not withdraw the
difficulties which stood in their way to the admission of
academic honours; if such was the case they tr.ust and
would have universities of their own.—(Loud cheering.)
Neither the power of the Senate, nor that of the Caput,
could be exerted to prevent it ; but if it were attempted,
neither it nor the power of this house could deprive the
dissenters of England of the means of doing it.—
(Cheers.) They might make graces—they might make
laws in the University,—they might have highly pianol
statutes as had been done in Ireland, but if they did
so, fortunately there was a power beyond all those
which said "fur the heart of man to be left without
knowledge, was not good."—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The heart of man would haVe knowledge, and if they
excluded the dissenters from the universities, they must
encourage that numerous class in having universities of
their own. He appealed to history, and asked whether,
from what had transpired, it did not appear that by in-
stilling into the minds of the people religious education,
they thereby imbibed principles of tolerance and good-will.
Was the house prepared to take a course which would
necessarily and justly drive the dissenters to a separate
education, by which they would be estranged more and more
from the established church ? He was not so timid as to
apprehend danger to the established church. He did no;
think its doctrines and principles were of so slight a na-
ture that in granting the prayer of the petition a tendency
would be created to bring the members of the church to
dissent from it ; on the contrary, he believed that if the
doors of the Universities were thrown open, there would
be a tendency directly the reverse.—(Hear, hear.) He
was convinced that the church was more likely to recom-
mend itself if it were freed from abuse.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) On grounds of the purest attachment to
the church he strongly recommended the prayer
of the petition. Having said thus much, he had to
apologize for the time he had taken up—(Cheers)—but
the extreme importance of the petition, which he felt
great honour in being called upon to present, compelled
him to adve, t to it at length. To those who were the
advocates of all ancient institutions, he would say, the
best course was to return to former periods—he would
take the time of Elizabeth and the reformation of our church,
rather than that of James I. To those who were solicitous
to the cause of science and knowledge he would say, let
them look at the names in the petition—to those anxious
for a collegiate education, he would refer to the high cha-
racter which the petitioners bore. It was of the highest
importance that the disposition evinced in the petition by
those members of the university of Cambridge who were
chiefly members of the established church, should be
known to the dissenters of England, and let the persons
who were opposed to that disposition 'recollect that here
wire 62 members of an university who were anxious to
give up that monopoly which they enjoyed, and to see that
justice was done. The hon. gentleman concluded by re-
questing hon. gentlemen in their discussion of this subject,
to bring their minds to a calm and dispassionate view of it,
for sooner or later the question must be set at rest.

Mr. GOULBURN said that connected as he was
with that learned body, certain members of which had pe -
tltioned the house on the present occasion, he was sureit
was unnecessary for him to ask the indulgence of the
house while he entered not at such length as his hon.
friend had done upon the subject of the petition, and while
he stated fairly and candidly to the house both what the
importance of the subject was, what the real objects of the
petitioners were, and what were the sentiments which he
(Mr. G.) entertained. He was sure that although his right
hon. friend had expressed a doubt in the concurrence of
that house upon the motion which he had submitted to it
he must have done an injustice to that house in supposing
that any petition, signed by 63 most respectable indivi-
duals, couched in respectful language, would be opposed.
He was sure that so far as he (Mr. G.) was concerned, no
such idea had entered his imagination. He agreed with
his right hon. friend that the petition was signed by
gentlemen the most respectable of the University of Cam.
bridge—that among the signatures were those of men
distinguished for the highest attainments in science and
literature—whose characters were not to be estimated
by any observations made upon them in that house, but
by the knowledge the public had of their exertion's in
the cause of science, and their endeavours to advance
theinterests of all who came within their sphere. He
(Mr. Goulburn) would scorn to throw anything like a
doubt upon the ability or character of the individuals
who had signed the petition. He bore testimony to their
worth most cheerfully, because he had the pleasure of
being acquainted with almost all of them, and he was
proud to call many of them his particular friends. But
he should treat their opinions with freedom, as th.s
was the era for the freedom of discussion.—(Hear, hear.)
His right hon. friend bad told the house that this was a
petition very numerously signed, as regarded the resid-nt
members of the University. He had told them, and truly,
that it was signed by two of the heads, by ten of the
professors, and by eleven gentlemen connected with tuition
in the University. But the house should recollect that it
was signed by two out of seventeen of the heads, by ten
out of twenty-five of the professors, and by eleven nut of
seventy-four who were engaged in tuition in the different
departments of t ie University. Therefore the house would
see, out of 164 gentlemen comprising these three classes,
the petition had been signed by but sixty-three. He.
(Mr. G.) did not undervalue the weight or character of
the gentlemen who had signed the petition; quite the con-
trary, but when the right hon. gentleman told them that