The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MilliCH 6.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at
half past three o'clock. The doors of the Gallery were not
opened, but we understood that the Earl of Malmesbury and
Lord Foley took the oaths and their seats ; after which the
House adjourned during pleasure.
The Lonu CHANCELLOR resumed his seat at five o'clock.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

The Duke of GORDON presented several petitions from
the counties of Ross, Aberdeen, and Roxburgh, praying for
protection to the Established Church.
SCHOOLS IN IRELAND.

The Earl of RODEN said he rose to put the ques-
tion to the Noble Duke (Wellington), of which he had
given notice a few days ago. It was, whether it was the in-
tention of the Government to propose any estimate during
the present Session of Parliament, for the purpose of support-
ing the national schools in Ireland.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was the intention
of the Government to propose such an estimate in the other
House, and it was intended that it should be greater this year
than last, because of the necessity for new buildings.
THE UNIVERSITIES.

The EARL OF RADNOR then rose to bring forward
his motion respecting the ()Tithe necessarily taken by stu-
dents at the Universities.—(Loud Cheers.) He said
that it would be in their Lordships' recollection,
that, during the last session of Parliament, a Bill was
brought up from the other House, having for its ob-
ject to admit persons into the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, without taking the oaths now necessary. That
Bill was thrown out, but during the discussion upon it one of
the Rev. Prelates then present (Exeter) had taken occasion to
say that none of those who had passed through the Universities
had been perjured but himself ( Earl of Radnor). That certainly
gave him little uneasiness ; but from the whole of the discus-
sion upon that occasion he, having been entrusted with the
conduct of the Bill, had been induced to look pretty closely
into the matter. He must also confess that the more lie looked
into the matter the more he was inclined to press a review of
all the oaths taken at those institutions upon the House. Now
he found that the only way in which. he had been perjured
was, that he had not attended certain lectures of which
he had not only never been informed by either his public or pri-
vate tutor, but he believed for certain that none such were even
delivered now ; yet every one entering the Universities swore
that lie would attend them.--( Laughter.) In so far was he
perjured, but in so far also was every one who had passed
through the University.—( Hear) The responsibility, he con-
tended, rested not upon the boys who took the oaths, but
upon the authorities who forced them to take them, without
at any time attempting to make them aware of their nature.
Though he said so, he had not the slightest wish that they
should be continued, because they stated quibbles, which he
did not at all consider necessary that young minds should be
acquainted with. The first part was unobjectionable, but with
the second he could not agree. It stated that those only were
perjured who refused to submit to the punishment which the
University thought due to the offence. Now that, in his opi-
nion, went at once to put a stop to all the value
of an oath. A witness in a Court of Justice was
sworn to speak the truth, but according to the interpre-
tation put upon the matter by the learned Universities then,
if that person was willing to stand in the pillory for a
time, then he was relieved of his oath—( Hear, hear. )
In his opinion the adoption of such a course would have the
effect of setting aside the value of any oaths whatever. There
was a further matter on which persons were declared to be per-
jured, where they took oaths and incurred some incapacity from
taking office, unless they removed that incapacity by dispensa-
tion. Now, with respect to where dispensation should
be granted and where it should not, certain statutes
existed, and the manner in which these statutes were
framed he (Lord Radnor) considered to be an intolerable
abuse ; for it was stated that they had committed the crime of
perjury who allowed any of those statutes to fall into desuetude.
His only object in bringing forward the present motion, was to
show what oaths were taken in the Universities, and what
rules were laid down with respect to residence.—( Hear.) He
should also move for a copy of the Epinomis. He thought
that some alterations ought to be made in the oaths that
were required to be taken ; he was thankful to the
Noble Duke opposite (Wellington) for having done all
in his power to make the alterations, but he believed that
he had found the persons he had.to deal with were not quite
so pliant as some Noble Dukes in that House.—( A laugh.)
With respect to the University of Cambridge the only return he
required was the oath administered to persons upon matricula-
tion. He wished this return, because he thought it absurd to call
upon boys of 15 or 16 to pledge themselves to support an in-
stitution for the rest of their lives. The Noble Lord then
concluded by moving for the returns of which he had given
notice.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, the Noble Lard hav-
ing been kind enough to communicate to him the motion which
he intended to make upon the subject he had now brought
under their Lordships' consideration, he had considered it his
duty to consult those who were most interested in these en-
spiries, and had obtained the full consent of those persons to
produce the papers which were the subject of the Noble Lord's
motion. When the noble Lord had received the information that
there was no objection to the production of those papers, he
ought to have informed him (the Duke of Wellington) that it
was his intention to make the statements he had thought proper
to make that evening.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
had stated that he was anxious to awaken the public mind to
the state of the question, in order that if it were at all possible
the University of Oxford might be influenced by the expres-
sion of public opinion. Public opinion could not be usefully
nor fairly influenced by a one-sided discussion, but by hearing
what could be said on both sides, and by affording the oppor-
tunity of answering any charges that might be advanced. He
was not prepared now to follow the Noble Lord through his
speech, for the Noble Lord had not done him or the University
the justice to intimate that it was his intention to make such a
speech. He had not the slightest objection to the returns
being made.
The Bishop of LL ANDAFF bad been long connected with
the University of Oxford, and having taken an active part in
its concerns, rose for the purpose of answering some of the
statements made by the Noble Lord who brought forward this
motion. He wished the Noble Lord had abstained from the
observations which he made on the character of those who
were, like himself, honourable men. The Noble Lord ob-
jected to the Administration of an oath to young men, who
perhaps did not comprehend what the duties were which it
imposed, and which pledged them to acts which they were not
expected to perform. The oath was a short one.—(The Right
Rev. Prelate here read the form of the oath binding those who
took it to observe the statutes and customs of the University.)
—At the same time this oath was taken, a copy of the statutes
of the University was put into the hand of the individual taking
it. It appeared to him that even a very superficial knowledge
of these statutes ought to preclude such an objection as that
brought against them by the Noble Lord. There was a sta-
tute expressly stating the nature and measure of the obliga-
tion incurred by the oath. The interpretation put upon it by
this statute was that the measure of the obligation im-
posed was not in the conscience of the person who took
the oath, but in the authority by which it had been imposed.
This was the doctrine of Paley, and of the most able mo-
ralists. It was by Bishop Saunderson himself that this in-
terpretation was inserted in the statutes twenty years after
they passed, and for the very purpose of obviating such objec-
tions as that now advanced by the Noble Lord. This inter-
pretation was familiarly and generally known for a long series
,f years, though there might occasionally have been some
culpable neglect in not explaining it.--(Hear, from the Op-
position benches.) For himself, he always considered it a
sacred duty to explain it, and took care, in every case, to ex-
pound the sense of the oath to those to whom it was adminis-
tered. The Noble Lord complained that the practice was
f t.-ciliar and genera; of dispensing with attendance at lectures.
1 the lapse of years, and with the change of circumstances,
the mode of conducting the studies might have been altered,
and with an alteration of practice an alteration in rules might
become necessary. He certainly agreed with the Noble Lord,
that it might be better to repeal such statutes as that of which
he complained, when they fell into desuetude. All he was
now contending for was the moral character of the act of
taking the oaths. He was sure their Lordships would feel
that they had not met to deliberate on the best mode of con-
ducting the Universities, but rather to inquire if in those esta-
blishments there had been any dereliction of those duties which
they were bound by oath to observe. The Noble Earl had
quoted from a pamphlet, which lie (the Bishop of Llandaff)
had never heard of before, what the duties were that were con-

Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 6.

sidered indispensable. Now the Epi;o nTis;iateci the students
. were bound not to take a degree without the performance of
certain exercises, or obtaining a dispensation for the non-per-
formance of them.' Those rules were drawn up by the con-
gregation, which is the recognized authority, and who have
full power to declare what is and what is not dispensable. This
was done to check the too great facility for procuring dispensa-
tions, and the rules were agreed upon after mature delibera-
tion. To procure a dispensation it was necessary to procure
the certificate of the Chancellor of the University, and this had
certainly become a matter of course; but now the signature of
the Chancellor was not so easily procured, owing to the better
regulations adopted. He was fully impressed with the neces-
sity of implanting in young minds the proper nature and ob-
servance of an oath. He admitted, at the same time, that it
would be better if the oath were altogether repealed, so as to
do that by a positive law which was now done by dispensation.
Lord BROUGHAM must express his great objection to
any rules or practices that had a tendency to make people take
oaths. It had been said that the Universities had been held
up as encouraging a disregard to oaths, and that this was very
hard. But whose fault was it that the Universities were so
held up ? Certainly, not the fault of his Noble Friend (Earl
Radnor), and it was to vindicate his Noble Friend that he
chiefly rose. His Noble Friend had not charged the Univer-
sities with encouraging perjury ; but his Noble Friend felt
that he had himself been charged in the last Session with
something like perjury, although any one who knew his Noble
Friend would know how groundless such a charge must be.
His Noble Friend upon that occasion said it was not lie was
perjured, but it was the system of oaths at the Universities
that gave the appearance of perjury, when, in fact, there was
none committed. Indeed, the whole anomaly was so striking,
that the Noble Duke, who was Chancellor of one of the Uni-
verrities, could not explain it.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—Not without preparation.
Lord BROUGHAM—His Noble Friend was necessarily
drawn to the conclusion that oaths were lightly dealt with at
the Universities, and this was the only charge he had made,
and the correctness of the charge was admitted even by the
Right Rev. Prelate who had just spoken. It was those who
suffered the statutes of the Universsties to go into disuetude
that were properly censurable. If it was impossible to obey
the existing statutes they ought to be repealed. This would
be infinitely better than to suffer them to go into disuse while

a standing law ; and he believed that every man would agree
with him in the opinion he had come to as to the result
of this debate, that all statutes that are no longer applicable
to the purposes for which they were framed, as well as all
oaths of a similar characteK, should not be allowed to exist
Was; it not absurd to have a penalty of sixpence for breaking
one oath, and eightpence for breaking another. A youth is
told " You may bind your:ielf to this statute, for if you break
it or not it is only eight-penny-worth."—(A laugh.) He was
always of opinion that voluntary oaths taken before Magis-
trates had a very bad effect in the practice. It induced a
levity, and tended to remove that solemn impression which
the obligation of an oath should always leave upon the mind.
It gave a sort of habit of fencing with those great and serious
occasions. Boys were told that oaths were a mere form, and
that they only suffered a penalty of eightpence if they
violated them.

The Bishop of LLANDAFF—They take a serious oath to
obey the authorities of the University.
Lord BROUO HAM—Yes, but they also swear to obey the
statutes, or to pay Bd. for not obeying them. The oath had
all the appearance of being broken although in fact it was not
so. It would be an excellent thing to get rid of all useless
as: zl unnecessary oaths.

The Marquis of CAMDEN complained that the Noble
Lo:'d who brought forward the motion did not give him, as
Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, any intimation of
his intention to introduce the subject.
The Earl of RADNOR should certainly have made the
same communication to the Noble Marquis that he did to the
Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had he been in the
House on the day he gave his notice. The Right Rev. Prelate
who had spoken in defence of the Universities agreed in almost
the whole of his (Earl Radnor's) statements. With respect to
the Noble Duke's complaint against him for want of candour
the fact was this, when he gave his notice of motion to the clerk
at the table to enter in the notice-book, he said he would pro-
bably have occasion to alter it in some degree, and he told the
same to the Noble Duke. The Noble Duke said that he should
send a copy of the notice to the Universities, but it was clear
that whether the Universities agreed or not, he (Earl Radnor)
would bring on his motion ; and the Noble Duke must know
that it was usual to introduce a motion by some explanation of
its object, at least, when the Noble Duke and himself were
Members together of the other House that was the practice
there. He had not made any attack on the Universities, and
therefore the Noble Duke needed no preparation to defend
them. The Noble Duke himself had, he believed, taken an
oath within the last twelve months to obey all the statutes of
the University of Oxford, and the Noble Duke knew best whe-
ther it would be possible for him to do so.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER rose to repel the charge
made against the University of Cambridge by the Noble Earl.
The Noble Earl had stigmatised as wicked the oaths that
youths were called upon to take on matriculation at Cambridge.
Now the oath was binding the party taking it not to impugn
but to defend by his counsel and suffrage the institution of
which he became a member, and he believed for centuries past
there were but five members who had taken this oath who had
not strictly adhered to it, and ,he thought it was going too
far to say the University acted wickedly in proposing such an
oath. If it could be demonstrated that any particular oaths
were unnecessary, they ought undoubtedly to be repealed,
and he should be happy to aid in their removal from the sta-
tutes of the University of Cambridge.
The Earl of RADNOR said that his reason fat alluding so
particularly to this oath of matriculation at Cambridge was
that he happened to have a son there at present, a boy of six-
teen years of age, and from him he received a copy of the
oath. Now he really thought it highly improper, and he
would repeat wicked, that a boy of that age should be sworn
to protect the University by his counsel and suffrage for the
whole of his life.

The motion was then put by the LORD CHANCELLOR,
and agreed to.
Mr. Holmes presented at the Bar the report of the Com-
missioners of the Port of Arundel.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes to four
o'clock. Some petitions were presented, and reports brought
up ; but from the noise that prevailed in the body of the House,
and the low tone in which the Hon. Members spoke, we could
not catch their purport.
Mr. HUME brought up the report of the Committee on
the Islington Market (as we understood) and the Grand Junc-
tion Water Works, and obtained leave to bring in Bills.
Mr. RUTH YEN brought up the Report of the Committee
on the Oil Gas (Dublin) Lighting, and obtained leave to
bring in a Bill.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Mr. ANGERSTEIN presented petitions from Woolwich
and Greenwich, against the operation of the Weights and
Measures Bill, introduced last Session.

Mr. B A R N-A
RD presented a petition to the same effect, and
Complained of the hardship to which the public were subjected
by some of the clauses of the Bill.
Lord EBRINGTON expressed his intention of introducing
some alterations and amendments in the Bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK trusted the Noble Lord would obtain the
assistance of some persons who were informed upon the sub-
ject. A more flimsy and inefficient measure had never ema-
nated from that House.-4 Hear, and a laugh.)
After a few words from Mr. POTTER, complaining of some
of the provisions of the Bill,

Lord-EBRINGTON expressed his intention to remedy the
defects complained of.
TAX ON STEAM CARRIAGES.

An HoN. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn), pre-
sented a petition from Ayr, praying for a reduction of the duty
upon steam-carriages.
Mr. WALLACE had been requested to support the prayer
of the petition. He complained that the tax pressed very
unfairly upon steam-carriages which went upon rail-roads, as
compared with those which ran upon common roads. The
petitioners were very anxious, -not that the steam-
carriages which ran upon common roads should be subjected
to the high duty, but that those which ran upon rail.roads
should have the duty lowered to that imposed upon the more
favoured class.

Doctor BOWRING observed that the present was one of
many instances in which a tax interfered with its own produc-
tiveness. In the year year 1822, the amount of duty paid by
steam carriages, was 523,000/. In 1829, it amounted to
680,000/. ; and in 1833, it had come down to 660,000/.
For the last 13 years, the increase of duty had not been more
than 13 per cent., whilst the increase of the trade of the
country had been more than 50 per cent. In 1822,
the imposts were 30 millions ; and in 1832, they were
forty-four and a half millions, and the exports in the former
year were fifty-two millions, whilst in the latter year they rose
to eighty millions. A diminution in the duty would be greatly
beneficial to the revenue of the country; and this was not his
own opinion only, but that of the large constituency which he
represented.
Mr. H UME said be was sorry the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was not in his place, as amongst the changes that
must soon take place, this was one most loudly called
for—( Hear, hear.) He did not think the time was far distant
when these taxes would be removed. He was happy to see
the subject brought forward, as he hoped the House of Com-
mons was sufficiently convinced to wish to put an end to this
system.

Mr. EWART said, that as one of a very small minority
which had attempted to stop this system of taxation, be felt
great pleasure in supporting the present petition. He consi-
dered that in a commercial community it was their duty to re-
move every tax upon the fountain of wealth, and not merely
upon the reservoir itself, but upon the springs that supplied it.
'I hi petition was laid on the table.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Mr. S. MACKENZIE presented two petitions from Scot-
land, in favour of the Established Church of that country.
CHURCH OF IRELAND.

Mr. WARD said, that having given notice of a motion
upon the important subject of the Irish Church, and as it
would suit the convenience of the House, another motion on
the same subject having been proposed to be brought forward
by the Noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, having
been advised, that without any compromise ho might postpone
his motion, he begged leave to withdraw it, in order that he
might have the pleasure of seconding the Noble Lord (Rus-
sell's) motion.—(Hear, hear.)

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 7, 1835.