The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-15 00:00:00

NEW POOR-HOUSES.

The Duke of RICHMOND rose and presented a peti-
tion from the farmers in the county of Sussex, com_
plainin that they had taken their farms before the
Passing of the Poor Law Bill, and they were now saddled with
a heavy expense for the building of poor houses, the whole be-
nefit of which would go to the landlords. He trusted Govern..
rent would turn their attention to the subject, and if possible
give relief during the present Session.
The Earl of RADNOR believed that the money borrowed
for such a purpose was not payable for 10 years.
The Duke of RICHMOND said he thought the time ought
to extend to 20 years—he could not think that it should be for
30 Years as proposed by the petitioners.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
In answer to a question from the Duke of C U MB E RL AND,
Lord DUNCANNON said that he had referred the sub-
ject of a New Temporary House to a number of different
aiehitects, and the majority of them concurred in opinion with
R. Smirkei that the upper part of St. Stephen's Chapel
could not be restored, but that the lower part might.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE assured the House, and
through them the public, that if it was at all possible to save
Zo,4B.tephen's Chapel, with any regard to safety, it would be
, A further conversation upon the subject ensued, but in so
+ovf, a tone as to be inaudible in the gallery.

LOAN SOCIETIES
The'Duke of RICHMOND moved the committal of the
above Bill.
The Marquis of SALISBURY did not think that the Bill
!ent far enough. He hoped the Noble Duke would consent
that the limit should extend to 251., or at all events to 201.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, if the House thought
20/. should be the sum to be lent by societies of this kind, he
rid not oppose the amendment, but he would prefer the
aS it at present stood.
After a few words between the two Noble Lords " la"
wao struck out, and " 15/." inserted.
T.he Bill passed through the Committee without further
etnendment, and the Report ordered to be received to-morrow.
NEW POOR LAW BILL.
the sung
Marquis of DEVONSHIRE presented a petition from
su:geoes of Reading, and other places in Berks, complain-
gof the' smallness of their remuneration under the New
Poor Law Dill.
at The Marquis' of 'WE ST MEAT H complained of the
endance of Peers upon Committees of Privileges, by which
suitors were put ta great expense and inconvenience. If no
Zoe else took up the wafter he would do so himself, in order
have a rota made out.
Lord BROUGHAM was glad the subject had been men-
honed, and would be glad to soe such a rota as that proposed
done,
into effect—without it the business could not be well
uone, and the parties frequently put to great extra expense.
Lord
FARNHAM said perhaps those who heard the first
part of the case might not hear the end of it • and then Lords
C,,°l'ild not heard one single word of the evidence, might
"ede-
upon the case. That would be the effect of a rota. It
tvas arranged that the question of the rota should come on
.sorrow.

UNIVERSITY BILL.
The Earl of RADNOR moved that this Bill be now read a
toseedoeileli
was o
awieer, e . 1111.7 time.
solely The question which their Lordships had now
as to the principle of the Bill. If there
errors in the details of the Bill, they might be reme-
in the Committee. The principle of the Bill was to de-
cide whether the Thirty-nine Articles should be taken as a test
"' _
"ardmissiott to the University
of Oxford or of Cambridge.
e 0 were clouses in the latter part of the Bill saving all the
enu°,ved schools, ard saving all the rights of the bodies having
Itthority in either of the Universities, and also preserving the
put an
persons
endon ,
rights of the Convocation. The principle of the Bill was to
to the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles by
entering; the University, and on taking the degree
7 Bachelor of Arts or that of Master of Arts. Perhaps their
Lordships were not fully aware of the different practice in the
e‘;o,lTniversities on this subject. He should do his best to
Oxford;
it to them. First, with respect to matriculation at
zoxnisoidrde,rahe could not help thinking, after giving his full
tion to all that he bad heard on the subject--after
suing carefully read the debates which had taken plaee OD
this_ ClUestioll in that and the other House of Parliament—
That it was an absurdity, and worse than an absurdity, that
Young inen of 18 and 19 years of age should he called on to sub-
scribe the Thirty-nine Articles, which they lid 1141 uo&ratand,
before they were allowed to enter the University. 'llO tin idea
'Which was disseminated, that young men might be allowed id

sign these Articles without understanding them, was a does
t. ine the propagation of which must, in his opinion, tend to
.undermine the best principles of morality, and to inculcate,
equivocation and hypocrisy in the conduct of those who were,
under such circumstances, called on to make this subscription.
Yet this language was commonly held by men of character,
and those who might be supposed to take correct views on
such a question, that young men might be allowed to sign
these Articles without having read and understood them.
He confessed that his conviction was totally at variance with
such opinions as those to which he had just alluded, for he
could not conceive upon what rational grounds any person,'
under any circumstances, or in any situation, could be
called on to subscribe his name to a document, the con-
tents of which he was told that he did not understand.
This was a practice, however, which, according to some,
was adopted in Oxford. Now, it appeared to him, that
if that case were justified—the case of young men being
called on to subscribe articles which it was held to be a matter
of no importance that they should understand—there was
no test whatever by which it could be ascertnined that any
signature to any paper was bona fide made with a knowledge
of the facts or circumstances which might be stated in it. If
a young man were allowed on entering college to sign the
Thirty-nine Articles, without its being supposed necessary
that he should understand them, he wished to know in what
way any individual was to be bound by what he subscribed, or
how it was to be known whether his subscription meant an
assent to the contents of any paper after he had made himself
acquainted with them, or whether it was to be taken as a mere
signature of his name, which, for some reason or other, he
was induced to make, without any knowledge of the facts de-
tailed in the paper to which it might be subjoined? In the
last discussion which took place upon that subject in the hear-
ing of their Lordships, he had illustrated his argument by re-
ference to a paper against the Bill which he had introduced,
signed by 4,000 members of the Convocation of Oxford, and
he had argued that if the subscription to any paper did not
imply a knowledge of its contents by those who made it, he did
not see how it could be shown that any one of those 4,000
Tersons assented to the statement made in the paper to which
he had referred. There was no difference in the principles
which applied in the two cases : a knowledge of and assent to
the one was equally necessary to the other. Such a doctrine
destroyed all the value which attached to subscription. It
had happened that his surmises with regard to the subscribers
to the paper against his Bill were in fact correct, for he had
ascertained that many of those gentlemen had signed this
document, not without reading the resolution which had been
submitted for their concurrence, and probably not without
understanding it, for it contained matter not difficult to be
understood, but certainly without knowing the object for
hich it was framed ; for they had determined to take such
means of opposing the Bill, without having seen it, or
made themselves acquainted with its provisions. This diffi-
culty of fixing on the true meaning of subscription was in-
creased about a year ago from an explanation being given of it
different from that which had been previously held, and from
two or three other versions which were since given of it. It
was thus rendered an exceedingly difficult thing to know upon
what principle an assent to these Thirty-nine Articles was
called for. There was also another difficulty to be met with
as regarded these Articles ; for several Hon. Members had
told him that they were called on to put their names in a large
vellum book with a great number of pages, but in which
they could not discover any part of the Thirty-nine Articles.
A somewhat curious confirmation of the slovenly and careless
in inner in which all the proceedings, with respect to this sub-
scription, were conducted, bad lately occurred. A proposi-
tion was recently made to substitute a declaration for the sub-
scription, which had been hitherto made. One of those who
opposed that change was a friend of his (Lord Radnor's),
and a most zealous man in forwarding or opposing any view or
project which he might entertain. This Gentleman had ad_
dressed a letter to those Members of the Convocation who
ware non-resident, and whom he thought likely to entertain
the same opinions with respect to the intended change as those
which he himself held. In this letter he said, " May I take
the liberty of addressing, since some of the absent members
inav not recollect the circumstance, that at matriculation there
is no oath taken connected with a subscription to the Thirty-
nine Articles."

Lord KENYON—There is no oath now taken with respect
to subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles.
Lord RADNOR was aware of that ; but what he com-
plained of was, that this subscription was made in so loose a
way, that there were many who thought that no oath was
taken at it ; and it appeared from the letter to which he had
just referred, it was supposed that many who had actually
subscribed these articles were in a doubt as to whether or not
they were bound to their observance by an oath. It was
.bsisted, however, that the existence of this test was necessary
to exclude Dissenters from the University ; but he could not
see how a test, which it was taken for granted it was unneces-
sary to understand, could have the effect of excluding any
Dissenter, or even any Mahometan. In point of fact, this
test did not exclude all Dissenters, though it had, he believed,
that effect with regard to Baptists and Socinians. But the
absurdity of continuing this test with a view to the exclusion
of Dissenters was, that those belonging to the University main.
tain that there were other tests much more efficacious for this
purpose ; and it was said by one of these persons, " the joining
in our daily worship is infinitely a closer union with the Church
than signing the Thirty-nine Articles." If that were the case,
and the attendance at the chapels, (the continuance of the ser-
vice in which could not be objected to,) was a much better
means of securing the non-admittance of Dissenters to the Uni-
versities, why on earth was the subscription, which all must con-
sider somewhat objectionable (though they might not censure it
so broadly as he did) persevered in, whilst the purpose which
it was meant to answer was perfectly fulfilled by means with
which no one could fairly find fault? But other reasons were
given for an adherence to this subscription, and amongst them
wasit alleged that this observance inculcated a submission to
the Church of England. The University, then, certainly took
measures for inculcating submission to the Church which the
Church itself never enforced, for it never called on its lay mem-
bers to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles on any occasion
whatever. The Church required the candidates for holy or-
ders to subscribe those Articles ; but it never called on its lay
members either on the occasion of baptism with respect to in-
fants, that the god-fathers, or persons who were baptised, when
they had attained riper years, or at confirmation, or when per-
sons received the sacrament, or at visitation of the sick, to sub-
scribe the Thirty-nine Articles. In point of fact, no layman
was bound to sign these Articles, except at the Universities of
Oxford and Cambridge. One great argument used in favour
of subscription during the last year in that House, and which
had also been mentioned elsewhere, was, that the abolition of
tests in the German Universities had produced the worst effects
therein ; and that a great deal of anti-christian and anti-religious
doctrines which prevailed in those institutions was attributable
to the abolition of religious tests. This argument was founded
on a supposition that in the German Universities alone these
religious tests had been abolished. He would presently show
how unfounded this supposition was; but he would now take
it for granted, that in the German Universities only were
these tests done away with, and yet he would confidently
assert, that no one acquainted with German literature could
believe that the same effects would result from such a change
with respect to religious tests in this country, as must natu-
rally flow from it in a country where the inhabitants, and
especially those of highly cultivated intellects, were of an
exceedingly theoretical and speculative turn of mind on reli-
gious subjects. But this passion for speculation not only
prevailed with respect to religious matters, but it displayed
itself also in their prosecution of literature and the sciences.
For the purpose of proving what no doubt their Lordships
were already familiar with, it would be only necessary for him
to state, that one very learned theologian in that country con-
tended that man was not an original animal, and that he arrived
at his present form, not by a transmigration of soul, but by
a transformation of body, and he actually went the length of
saying, that the process by which the transformation was
eiTheted was this—that a lizard was changed into a monkey,
and a monkey raised into a man.—(Laughter.) Another
instance of this was, that one of their learned men had
composed a' most voluminous work on the jurisprudence
of ancient Athens, in which he recounted all their modes
of legal proceeding, treated of their John Does and
Richard Roes, their pleas, answers, replications, and re-
joinders ; and the only foundation of this extraordinary
work was a trial said to have taken place before the goddess of
Minerva, in one of the plays of JEschylus.—( Hear.) There
was, however, a fact connected with the argument deduced
from the abolition of tests in the German Universities, which
was certainly peculiarly comical, and which appeared to be
altogether unknown to, or overlooked by those who cited the
prevalence of anti-religious feelings and doctrines in those
Universities, as a reason why religious tests should not be got
rid of in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It was
this, that the principal part of these anti-religious doctrines
proceeded from those persons in the Universities of Germany,
who held theology in chains ; and these persons being divines,
were the individuals who were subjected to religious tests,
whilst the other members of the University were excepted
from their observance.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore, far from
the partial abolition of tests in Germany being in favour of
their being retained in our Universities, the fair inference to
be drawn from the spread of anti-religious feelings in that
country was, that such an effect had been produced by the pre-
servation of these tests in any shape whatever. But were
these religious testa abolished in no other country beside Ger-
many ? Why, in Bavaria, and in France, no tests were re-
quired for persons entering the Universities, and all were
equally eligible for the chair of' professors. One of the
present Ministers of France, M. Guizot, who is a Protestant,
held a professor's chair in one of the Universities of that
c.,duntry. In Bologna, no religious test was required for
persons
coming to receive instruction, or those desirous of
taking degrees. At the University belonging to this place
no test whatever was required until very lately, when it was
determined that no foreigner should be admitted to the Uni-
versity, in consequence of the pupils having rebelled, and
evinced a desire for the establishment of a Republic. In Lou-
vain no test was required—in Pisa none. The University of
this city was attended by Greeks, Jews, and Mahometans, and
the only difference which existed between the mode of admis-
sion to degrees for those belonging to such persuasions, and
the others who attended the University was, that in the former
case the Chancellor—who was generally a Vicar-General, or
Archbishop—got out of the chair, and the Vice-Chancellor
took if. He could state further, that no test was there re-
quired for Professors, and that the chairs were often filled by
English Protestants and Scotch Presbyterians. At Padua,
too, no test was enjoined ; and it frequently happened that
the chairs of that University were filled by members of the
Church of England, Presbyterians and Calvinists. In Roman
Catholic States, therefore, the Austrian territories included,
,;:ere was no exclusion on the ground of religious persuasion,
for they insisted on no religious tests whatever.—( Hear, and a
hugh. ) " Although," continued the Noble Lord, " gee a
I Xoble Lord opposite smile at what I have said, I must say, for
1 in/ own part? that I who have been brought up a Protestant,