The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-29 00:00:00

of composition were proposed. The Europeans at once
accepted these terms, as also did the native creditors who were
the subjects of the King of Oude. The native creditors,' how-
ever, who were subjects of the King of England demurred
to the terms offered them, claiming, as he thought they were
entitled to claim, to be treated on the same terms as the
European creditors. The consequence of this refusal was
that up to that day these parties had not succeeded in recover-
ing any part of their claim. Such was the mere outline of
the case, and the question it left to be decided was, whether
the native subjects of Great Britain were to be considered in
a different light from the European subjects. Upon that
point he would state what was the declared opinion of several
of the most competent authorities upon such matters to
whom the case of the claimants had been referred for inquiry.
—(The Right Hon. Gentleman here read several extracts
from despatches transmitted to the Board of Controul from
Lord Teignmouth, Lord Hastings, and the Marquis Wellesley,
all of whom were favourable to the claims of the native
bankers. The Right Hon. Gentleman also read the legal
opinions upon cases submitted to them of Lord Brougham,
Lord Plunket, Lord Lyndhurst, and Sir Charles Wetherell,
each of whom gave it as his opinion that the claim of Mr.
Prendergast was so strong as to justify the exercise of any
authority which could legally and constitutionally be exercised
which was likely to secure its being liquidated.) A letter
from General Martin, an individual so reputable in the service
of the Nabob that he was afterwards admitted into the British
service, had stated that officer's opinion that the debts were
subject to the most severe scrutiny. When Mr. Cherry went
into the Nabob's territory he knew that the success of his mis-
sion depended on his getting the revenue into a solvent con-
dition, and upon this principle was it that he entered upon the
subject of these debts, and proposed their being examined.
He had come to a conclusion that they were Government
debts, not due to an individual. He meant that the East
India Company were not responsible for them. Great argu-
ments had been urged upon the non-interference system which
had been introduced into India by Lord Cornwalli3, and fol-
lowed up by his successors ; but did Hon. Members know
what the term " interference system" meant ? When Lord
Cornwallis first went to India, no doubt with instructions to
discontinue the system of the Company's interfering with native
Princes, the first thing he did was to direct the Nabob of Oude
to receive a British army into his pay and territories ; then to
expel all foreigners from his service who had not a license of
residence from the Company ; and, lastly, to oblige his neigh-
bours to do the same. Now interference, as it was called,
in point of fact meant that there had not been any measure
pursuedin Oude in which the British Government was not
a party. When a subsequent war had broken out, and the
merchants and traders would not advance money to pay the
army, Mr. Cherry had himself raised the money upon his own
responsibility as the British functionary. He (Mr. Grant)
contended that the bonds were not to be vitiated by the amount
of interest. That interest was in fact below the market aver-
age, and by the law at present observed by the Company's
Courts it was enacted that debts should bear interest in all
cases according to the amount stated in the bonds. Was it
just that because a State happened to be weak it should there-
fore be permitted to commit a wrong upon our subjects with
impunity? It would be nothing short of robbery on those poor
people, who advanced their money on the faith of our Govern-
ment, if we did not see that justice was done them in this
transaction.

Sir R. PEEL said that the arguments of the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down were by no means suffi-
cient to bear out his vindication of the course he had adopted
in suing out a writ of mandamus from the Court of King's
Bench to compel the East India Company to enforce these
claims upon the unfortunate Prince of whom they were de-
manded. The question was within a very narrow compass,
and to make it intelligible to those Members of the House who
did not perhaps wish to hear much of the intricacies of the
case, or of those strange Eastern names to which English ears
were not much accustomed, he should give a very plain state-
ment of the transaction, so as to put it on a footing intelligible
to all. This debt, as well as many others of the same nature,
was contracted so long as forty years ago, bearing an interest of
36 per cent. Since then several Governors of India had made
application for a settlement of these claims, and had endea-
voured by their amicable interference, to procure an arrange-
ment satisfactory to the parties, but none of them ever thought
of proceeding to any other course than that of a friendly in-
trference. He considered it a very harsh measure, and by no
means a just one, to call for the interference of the Court of
King's Bench to compel the company to select this one debt,
and enforce its payment, out of a large number of debts of a
similar character. Was the Government prepared, and did it
feel itself at liberty, to vindicate the claim of every_ British
subject who happened to lend his money to a foreign indepen-
dent State without the Government of the country, or its agents,
having in any way become responsible for or guaranteeing the
repayment of that loan ? This was precisely the footing on
which the question stood. If such were the views on which
the Government was acting in the matter, it was clearly con-
founding transactions of debt with which we had nothing to do
with those other wrongs which alone in an international sense
could call for the interference of our Government to protect
British subjects. In cases of simple debt contracted by an in-
dependent State with a British subject, he contended the Go-
vernment of this country had nothing whatever to do ; but,
above all, it could not be justified in attempting to interfere by
force. If the Right Hon. Gentleman was prepared on the
part of the Government to avow this right of interference,
with what delight would not the holders of Spanish bonds and
of the bonds of the Cacique of Poyais hear of the avowal.
(Laughter.) Suppose any British subject were now to en-
gage in a loan transaction with any of the new States of South
America, could it be said that the Government of this coun-
try was bound to see that the terms of that loan were satisfied?
Certainly not. Yet this would be precisely a similar case.
Did not the enormous amount of interest that was to be paid
upon this loan by the King of Oude show that the lender did
not consider that he was to have the guarantee of the British
Government or the aid of British bayonets to sustain his claim
for repayment. Instead of demanding thirty-six per cent.
would he not have been satisfied with sonic reasonable and
moderate rate of interest, if he knew or imagined that Eng-
land was to be his security, and not merely the King of Oude ?
Was it right, then, he would ask, for the Government to inter-
fere in a purely private transaction ? And what would be the
consequence of this interference ? Why, that other partials
would make similar claims upon our interference ; and hofv
could we refuse them if we interfered on the present occa-
sion? The Right Honourable Gentleman had disclaimed any
intention of interfering with force or intimidation : but what
other construction than that he entertained such inten-
tion could be put on his communications with the
Board of Directors, and the instructions which they
were required to send to their agents and officers in India?
He looked upon this question as widely distinct from the
claim which a British subject would have on the protection of
his own Government against a positive wrong done
.to him by
an independent State. The Right Hon. Gentleman had re-
ferred to various authorities to sustain his view of the case ;
but, in his ( Sir R. Peel's) opinion, those authorities rather
made for than against the Right Hon. Gentleman. Neither
Lord Wellesley, nor any other Governor, ever attempted to
enforce those claims. The authority of Mr. Wynn, when at
the head of the Board of Controul, was decidedly against
them • and Mr. Canning was equally opposed to them. If
the Right Hon. Gentleman would say that he disclaimed all
idea of enforcing those claims by any act or threat of intimi-
dation, then he ( Sir R. Peel) would at once sit down. If the
matter was now closed, and the Board of Directors understood
that nothing was to be done, as the Right Hon. Gentleman
had said, without the consent of Parliament, he ( Sir R. Peel)
would be content with that understanding. This was the sole
purpose for which his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Herries) had
brought the subject before the House, and not.with any view
to perpetuate any difference that might exist between the
Right Hon. Gentleman and the Board of Directors.—( Hear,
hear.) He was willing to leave the matter to be decided by
public opinion, after it had remained unsettled for forty years
without any Government interference. It was clear that the
Right Hon. Gentleman took a very different view of it from
that which the Company held. He admitted that if the claim
had been sanctioned, or in any manner guaranteed, by Mr.
Cherry, it would materially alter the case, but there was no-
thing in Mr. Cherry's correspondence that could support such
an opinion. He hoped the King of Oude would have the
spirit and judgment to follow the example of the Company.
and resist a compliance with what he as well as they must feel
to be a wrong. It would not do to attempt to enforce this
claim upon the King of Oude, unless we could carry convic-
tion of its justice home to the breast of every native Prince in
India, or otherwise we would run the risk of shaking to its
foundation our whole Indian Empire. Unless we could do
this our motives would be misconstrued. If we were deter-
mined to violate all Treaties, and in defiance of them to de-
throne the King of Oude, let us at least not begin by forcing
from him a large sum of money.—( Cheers.) If we were to
usurp and assume to ourselves the Government of the territory
of Oude, let us take care that we did not show an interested
motive for doing so, and let us be the more cautious in this
because we happened to have the power and authority in our
hands.—( Cheers. )
Mr. HUME doubted very much if the Right Hon. Baronet
who was so desirous that others should understand the subject,
really understood it himself. The Right Hon. Baronet had
asked why this one claim only was selected ? The reason was,
which the Right Hon. Gentleman did not seem to know, that
this was the only claim that remained unsatisfied. Could any
thing be clearer than that the Nabod of Oude admitted the
justice of this claim when he offered a compromise ? But the
agent for the suffering parties refused to take less than they had
a right to claim ; and this refusal he considered as an additional
proof that their claim was well grounded,, and their conviction
that the transaction was a real and just one.
The subject was then dropped.
UNIVERSITIES ADMISSION BILL.
Mr. HUME moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. THOMAS GLADSTONE rose to oppose it. It
would be useless to pass the Bill, for it would of necessity be
inoperative. If he were asked why he opposed a Bill which,
if passed, would be inoperative, his answer was, that he ob-
jected to its principle, the admission of which was equally de-
structive, whether it effected the object of its promoters or not.
Further, they were bound to respect corporate rights as long
as the intentions of their, founders were fulfilled ; and no one
could deny that the Universities did fulfil the intentions of
their founders.—( Hear, hear.) But to give Dissenters a sta-
tutable right to admission into those institutions would be in-
compatible with their objects as seminaries of the Established
Church. If they sent a Dissenter to the Universities with a
legalized right, they must destroy this system to please him, or
they must insult and degrade him to maintain the system.—
( Cheers.) The members of the University of Oxford were
almost to a man opposed to this Bill. Its heads had put forth
a document upon this subject, which he supposed the lion.
Member for South Lancashire (Mr. G. W. Wood) had seen.
That body, consisting of nearly a hundred persons, distin-
guished by their moral worth, their learning, and 'their loyalty,

only contained two •dissentients to the declaration he held in
his hand.—( Hear.) Upon what did the Hon. Gentleman
ground his opinion of the practicability of reconciling the ad-
mission of Dissenters, with the maintenance of the present sys-
tem of instruction pursued in the Universities ? Was it upon
the opposition of these gentlemen ? Let him not flatter himself
with finding adherents of the Ministry on the one side
ready to carry the Bill into effect, as well as opponents on
the other ready to oppose it. It was true that Ministers
might find a minority in their favour at Oxford, but even
that minority was not in favour of this Hear.) The
important body to which he had referred stated, in the de-
claration he held in his hand, that they considered religion
as the foundation of all instruction, and that they would not
be parties to any system of instruction which did not rest upon
that foundation. When they spoke of religion, they said
they meant the doctrines revealed by the Bible and maintained
by the Church of Christ in its best and purest times, and
they could not consent that those doctrines should be ex-
plained or have any sense put upon them which was not in
accordance with the recognised tenets of the Established
Church.—( Hear.) He knew not what meaning the Ho'n.
Gentleman put upon this declaration; but, for his own part,
the construction he put upon it was, that the principles upon
which the Universities proceeded was opposed to the bill—
the parties to this declaration were determined to maintain
those principles, and that the entire body of the instructors
of this University would, abdicate their functions if this bill
were passed.—( A laugh and cheers.) That was his opinion,
and he should be glad to hear those who sneered at it put
any other rational interpretation upon this document. In con-
clusion he would say, that as it was observed of the ancient
Romans that they " made a solitude and called it peace," so
the Hon. Gentleman, by this bill, with a mockery not the
less in effect, would inaugurate his reign of religious peace
by an act of tyranny.—( Cheers.)
Mr. V. SMITH supported the Bill, as one calculated to
take away a reproach from the Establishment, and be felt as
a compliment to the Dissenters, whose only desire was to ex-
ercise their vigorous intellects in the promotion of science and
li erature.

Mr. BA INE S said that he should claim the attention of the
House to a few observations, and he was the more disposed to
do this, as he had not declared his sentiments on the Bill in
any of its former stages. The Hon. Gentleman (the Member
for Newark) had said that this Bill, in its present form, would
not benefit the Dissenters. It would, however, do one thing
—it' would remove the religious test at the Universities ; and
if that was effected, a step in advance would be made towards
their admission to those national seats of learning. The ob-
ject of this Bill was to allow persons of all religious denomina-
tions„ who had the means within their power, to enjoy the
benefit of an University education. This he thought must be
admitted to be a just claim, whether considered as to the
original foundation of the Universities, or as to the present
state of society. The original statutes admitted all, and ex-
cluded none ; and it appeared by the earliest records of Oxford,
t'iatasearlyas the
Universityyearl23 thelHenr st
Henry 111. issued
and an ordinance
admitting to that scholars
of the University of Paris, who had been driven from that
University by persecution. The statutes of those early times
showed that there were then no tests, nor did any exist at
Oxford, in either the time of the Lollards or of Wickliff.
In the University of Cambridge, as early as the reign of
Edward 1., that Monarch had been called to arbitrate
upon the point to what part of the country, and to what classes
of the people, the benefits of this University should extend ;
and his decision was, " that they should extend to all" who
repaired thither for instruction. This showed the intention of
the founders of the Colleges ; and in that state they remained
till the period of the Reformation, at which time, ps appeared
from a document that he held in hi:hand, there were 13 colleges
at Oxford, which were increased by three pending the Reforma-
tion, making 16 out of the 19 colleges at that University •
while at the University of Cambridge there were 12 out of
the 16 colleges before the time of Henry VIII., and two
others were erected before the order of James 1., directing
that tests should be imposed on the taking of degrees
in that University. The term University had in it an
argument for the general use of these seats of learning,
which were meant to be universal, both as to the subjects
taught, and the persons to whom they were communicated.
In this sense the term was understood and applied
in other countries, and it was an extraordinary fact, deserving
of attention, that the Universities of Oxford and of Cam-
bridge were the only Universities that were closed to a large
proportion of the upper classes of the people in any country
in Europe. This the Dissenters of England felt as a grievous
indignity, and they thought it unjust that Englishmen should
attempt to degrade Englishmen by excluding them from the
best sources of literature and science. This exclusion was jus-
tified on the ground that the colleges were ecclesiastical cor-
porations—that they were schools of theology--and that the
morning and evening services of religion were indispensable
to the colleges. As to the first of these points, Sir William
Blackstone said expressly that they were not ecclesiastical but
lay corporations ; and Professor Pusey, the present Regius
Hebrew Professor at Oxford; had declared that one fortnight
was all the time that it was necessary for a divinity student
to give to theology during the time he was at college ;
while Professor Thirlwall, speaking of the University of
Cambridge, says that there are there neither theological col-
leges, theological tutors, nor theological students ; and of
the morning and evening services the Professor says that
to an immense majority of the congregations they are no
religious services at all, and to the remainder the least
impressive that, can be conceived. And yet the arguments that
had been insisted upon so much for excluding Dissenters from
the Universities were, that their admission would derange the
'theological studies, and impair the devotion of the daily
morning and evening services. But it was said that by
giving instruction to young men of various religious opinions,
heterodoxy was promoted ; and the colleges of Daventry,
Manchester, York, Hackney, and Lady Hewley's charity were
quoted as proof of this, though they had no affinity to the case.
Nor had the experiment been tried in the London University.
eßvuetr awnhei
ex
hp etrhi
that
e n h l
et
arad ne
db e
aeen triedde x eeallte tah t e
divine,college
theat H
Rev.ome r tDo nr.,
iftehr,
epirgehs
ti
yd ed,
years, w
whichere there hwaads ba
he
ee
lni
sah e
dreligious
ttwe set
imposed
tyears e ago,
collegeor
without
iits
anystudpereejtus
.di eel; h
easpheet
earls
s authorizedagaia s t
thtoe say,
ad-
mission of Dissenters to the Universities had been relied upon,
but how stood the fact ? There were, according to the last-
published votes in Parliament, 418 petitions against the ad-
mission of Dissenters, containing 40,881 signatures ; and 1,103
petitions, containing 344,000 signatures for the Dissenters'
claims, of which admission to the Universities was one. He
had said that the Dissenters, if admitted to the Univer-
sity, would claim equal privileges with the members of the
Established Church, and to that declaration he adhered.
They sought no superiority, and they thought that they ought
not to be subject to any inferiority. As to the Bill of his
Hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire, he should
give that Bill his most cordial support. It would abolish the
tests, and by showing the disposition of the Legislature would,
he hoped, prevent any measure, either in the colleges or in the
Universities of Oxford or of Cambridge, that might contra-
vene the liberality of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES could not accede to the mea-
sure, and felt the Bill would prove so inoperative as to destroy
any reasonable expectations they might indulge in. The
Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a
third time this day six months.
Mr. GOUL B URN contended that the admission of the
Dissenters to the Universities would be destructive of the
present system of education pursued at those institutions. It
had been said that the measure would be but complimentary
to the Dissenters ; but he would not consent, for the purpose
of complimenting the Dissenters, to deny to the Universities
the propriety of training up their inmates in a religious system,
for he felt satisfied that if the forms were abandoned, the re-
ligion would be abandoned also. Why, the established law of
the land said that a Catholic should not legislate for the
Church of England ; that he should have no voice in its re-
gulations or offices ; but this Bill permitted a Catholic to take
a degree in the Universities, or, in other words, to have
power and authority and influence, in the very teeth of the
statute he referred to. This appeared to him to be a most
monstrous and uncalled for innovation.--( Question, divide. )
It was, in fact, overturning the established usages of the Uni-
versities, and putting men in power over them whose principles
were directly opposed to them. Let them look to the grammar
schools.—( Uproar and great laughter.) The founders of
these schools directed that those who conducted them should
have graduated at these Universities which were close allies
and supporters of the established religion—( Question)—and
now they were about to say that the test which was required
by these benevolent founders—which was, in fact, the condi-
tion of the legacy—should be done away with. The object of
the founders was to give an education of a certain religious
character; the object of the Bill then before them was to give"
an education of every religious character. The Right Hon.
Gentleman made some further observations, which were com-
pletely drowned in the noise and confusion which prevailed.
Lord PALMERSTON rose amidst most discordant sounds.
The Noble Lord said the argument of the last Right Hon.
speaker was founded on this,—that it was incompatible with
the religious principles which formed the ground-work of
the Universities,, that persons differing from those principles
should be empowered to partake of the advantages they
offered. That was his argument ; and he should cut it from
under him with one simple remark—( Coughing,scraping of feet,
and expectoration.) How did the Right Hon. Gentleman
reconcile his argument with the practice ?—( Uproar.) Dis-
senters could have the benefits of education at Cambridge as
completely now, as they could under the provisions of the Bill
which they were then discussing. It seemed to him (Lord
Palmerston) that the argument answered itself. But it was
said the measure before them was subversive of the true inte-
rests of the State.—( Coughing, and vehement cries of
" bah!" " divide, divide !") He denied that it was so, and
would declare his honest opinion that it would tend to
strengthen and perpetuate those great interests. He really
could not see on what grounds those who consented to the
repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and the emancipa-
tion of the Catholics, opposed this act of substantial justice.—
( Great uproar and yelling.) But it was argued by gentlemen
who disapproved of this Bill, that it would be ineffectual for
its purpose—why, then, oppose it so vehemently ? This was,
to say the least, most inconsistent. He never would believe
that the authorities of the Universities, high-minded and ho-
nourable as he knew them to be, would enact bye-laws which
would have the effect of defeating the expressed intentions of
the Legislature.—( Question, question 1)
Sir R. INGLIS essayed to address the House, but for many
seconds his words were completely drowned in the noise. We
can characterize the scene by no other epithets than those ap-
plied to humbler assemblages when equally unruly—" a re-
gular row." We think that the Right Hon. Baronet declared
that whatever might be thought of the authorities of the Uni-
versities, they would be found to act from conscientious mo-
tives, and on lofty principles. He could very well believe
that a Whig would prefer place to principle.--(Cheers and