The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-21 00:00:00

.a.,.,..

TESTS ABOLITION (UNIVERSITY) BILL.
A number of petitions in favour of this measure having
been presented,
Mr. COLERIDGE rose to move the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was, he said, to enable the lay
subjects of the Queen to obtain the full benefit of univer-
sity education, and to become, in the fullest sense of the
term, members of the university without respect to their
religious opinions. The University of Oxford was, he
contended, a lay corporation in existence long before the
colleges, and therefore it was but right that all the subjects
of her Majesty should have equal rights to participate in
the advantages arising from university education. Ho did
not consider the passing of the measure would be attended
with disastrous results to the Church of England.
Mr. TREVELYAN seconded the motion, showing, in
doing so, that it would be for the benefit of tho University
as much as for the Nonconformists that the present tests
should be abolished ; and ho also strongly urged that the
education of the University ought to be secular and not
clerical. The result of the present practice was that a
clergyman when he left the University went forth armed,
not for the purpose of fighting against pride and sin, but
more especially against dissent. Such could not be for the
general good ; and, therefore, as a Churchman, he thought
it desirable that the present practice of tests and oaths
should be abolished.

Sir S. NORTHOOTE moved, as an amendment, that the
bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. BUXTON thought the time had gone by for com-
promise, and therefore it was advisable that the house
should pass its opinion as to the advisability of the pre-
sent measure. He should give it his support.
Mr. B. HOPE opposed tho bill.

Sir W. HEATIiCOTE thought the most judicious
course at the present time was to read the bill a second
time, in order that the proposal of the hon. and learned
member (Mr. Coleridge) might go into committee, when it
would then be soon whether some arrangement might be
come to with respect to many of the enactments of the bill.
He thought as it stood its scope was more extended than
its proposer thought. He, therefore, advised his hon.
friend not to press his amendment, because if ho did so he
he should be compelled to vote against him.
Mr. BUTLER JOHNSON supported the bill, as he
thought it would do much good. He could not say he
agreed with those who considered these Oxford tests as the
bulwarks of faith.

Mr. NEATE was in favour of the bill. The principle
worked well in the University of London and the Queen's
University in Ireland, therefore he did not see the prin-
ciple should be applied to Oxford.

Mr. HENLEY said he should give his vote against the
second reading of the bill, as he thought it would tend to
break down the distinctive teaching of their colleges.
Mr. LOWE said the evil complained oi by the right hon.
gectlsman opposite, viz., that the distinctive teaching of
the colleges would bo broken down by the bill, was made
toolate, because now in some of the colleges at Oxford Non-
conformists and Jews were to be admitted on certain con-
ditions. The bill:was a small concession to Dissenters, so
much so that it might almost be said to have been in exist-
ence. The Dissenters wanted more and was entitled to more,
and did not see that there was any justice in refusing
them the facilities for obtaining the highest educational
attainments, and the placing of them on an equality with
the other portions of her Majesty's subjects. He could
not but think that those gentlemen who had up to the
present brought forward these motions had taken
a wrong course. They had proposed to do little,
instead of going into the whole question. He did
not admire stepping-stones and instalments ; on the con-
trary, he thought that had a broad and comprehensive
bill been brought in, which would rouse public sympathy
and interest, the object they had been so long trying
to obtain in a roundabout way would at once be conceded,
because there was no withstanding the demand made for it
Mr. G. HARDY strongly objected to the bill.
Mr. GOSCHEN said the operation of the bill would not
be to endanger the Church by privileges conferred on
Dissenters ; those dangers were occasioned by religious
controversy. He was glad the question had been brought
within the present narrow limits, and ho hoped the issue
would be taken upon the principle laid down in the bill.
Viscount CRANBOURNE thought the bill one.for the
suppression of religious education in Oxford, and therefore
he most strenuously opposed it.
Mr. COLERIDGE, in reply, said that ho was very de-
sirous that there should be no mistake upon which the
division should be taken. He could submit to no com-
promise—the principle he was bound to was that laid
down in the bill, and from that ho could not depart.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority —ll4
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on the 16th of May.
NEW FOREST POOR RELIEF BILL.
This bill was read a second time.

DOCKYARDS EXTENSION ACT AMENDMENT
BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
COUNTY COURT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.