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

nig SITN,AILDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 15 18351

and who as such have been taught--to conceal-nothing in reli-
gious matters—to leave religious doctrines open to rational
consideration, and to test their truth by the exercise of private
judgment—l say that I, at least, bred up as I have been, a
member of the Established Church, cannot help being morti-
fied, and feeling in some degree ashamed that the doors of
our Universities should be shut up by the enforcement of a re-
ligious test, whilst those of Roman Catholic Universities are
thrown open to persons of all religious persuasions."—( Hear,
hear.) But this liberality in religious opinions was net con-
fined to Catholic countries. In the Russian States, in Baden,
Breslau, and Copenhagen, the Universities were open to all.
In Copenhagen one of the Professors of Medicine was a Jew.
Coming nearer home, he believed that in the University of
Durham, which had been established by Act -of Parliament,
no test was enforced with regard to those who came for in-
struction. Was it not, therefore, a matter of regret, that the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be the only
ones in Europe or in the world, which were shut up by the
continuance of tests which those who were called on to sub-
scribe had not or could not understand? In the University of
Oxford (and he spoke principally of this University, because
he was better acquainted with its history than that of our other
Universities)—in that University persons were formerly ad-
mitted, not only belonging to different countries, but professing
different religions. It was a matter of history, that aboat 250
years ago,the first Reformer in England—Wyckliffe---one whose
efforts were as great for the propagation of Protestantism as
those by whom he was afterwards succeeded (however more
successful the latter might have been in receiving a larger share
of popular approbation)—this Reformer Wyckliffe, he repeat( d
continued to bold the chair, of Professor of Divinity, and re-
mained the head of one of the houses at Oxford, long after
he had been summoned to the Court of Rome to answer for
his heretical doctrines. The Noble Lord then referred to a
number of foreigners (whose names he read) as being ad-
mitted to the Professors' Chairs at the University of Oiford.
He could not, therefore, reconcile the principles on which this
institution rested in former times to those by which it was now
sustained, on any other ground than that which had been urged
by a Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington, we believe) on a
former occasion, namely that the exclusive practices of the
University were necessary to maintain the alliance between
Church and State. .He did not at first understand the argu-
ment ; but after considering it for some time, he supposed it
to mean that the University was so connected with the Es-
tablished Church, that it was necessary to have it exclusively
devoted to those belonging to that Church. The mode by
which that alliance was secured and confirmed was unquestion-
ably a very strange one, for it was no other than this--that
those who are about to enter the University were called on to
subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. He had already proved
that the Church never enforced an obedience to its doctrines,
by requiring its lay members to subscribe these Articles. The
State never did so either, with one necessary and proper ex-
ception—where a person who presided as one of the Judges in
the Ecclesiastical Courts, and who was called on to decide
questions relating to the Thirty-nine Articles was required by
Act of Parliament to subscribe them. That was the only case
in which the Church called for a subscription to these Articles.
The King did not subscribe them. The Chancellor of Ox-
ford and honorary Doctors did not subscribe them. The Chan-
cellor of Cambridge or the honorary Doctors of that University
did not subscribe them.

The Duke of WELLINGTON—I signed them the other
day at Cambridge.
Lord RADNOR resumed. He could speak with more de-
cision with respect to the University of Oxford than that of
Cambridge, but he did not think that any of the charters of
the University of Cambridge required that honorary Doctors
should make the subscription. Certain he was, that no sub-
scription to these articles was required in the case of the Chan-
cellor of Cambridge, for the late Chancellor was an avowed
and professed Unitarian. Neither did honorary Doctors there
subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles. It was a most mistaken
opinion that the Church was necessarily connected with the
University ; it was only so far connected with t, that a faculty
of theology was established there, just as there was a faculty
of law, of medicine, and of philosophy ; but the University,
quoad University, was no more connected with the Church
than it was with law, medicine, or physic. This view pro-
ceeded from the error that the University absorbed by
the College, although those bodies had in fact (without mean-
ing to impute to them any blame) usurped the power of the
University. It was not unusually fancied, that the University
originally consisted of Colleges ; but in truth they were mere
excrescences, which had grown out of that institution. He
knew that the contrary notion was industriously spread abroad,
and in one case on a very high authority—in a work admitted
to be from the pen of a Right Reverend Prelate, who was
formerly head of one of the houses of Oriel at Oxford. It was
a general mistake that the University was congenial in its na-
ture to a Corporation. The two institutions were not at all
similar ; for suppose the Legislature were to do anything so
outrageous as to put an end to all the Colleges, as the monks
were deprived of their Colleges about 300 years ago, the Uni-
versity itself would exist just as much as it did at present. The
University was in point of fact, a national institution—every
element which could belong to a national institution entered
into it. It was founded and confirmed by charters granted
by the King, not for particular purposes, but the general good
of the country.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord here enu-
merated the different charters granted to the University. The
University was then simply a school of learning; but it be-
came desirable that a domestic character should be given to it
by the establishment of colleges or halls ; and according to
the statutes which existed till within four months ago, the
power of establishing halls existed to an unlimited extent, ac-
cording to certain forms; and formerly there were as many as
three hundred halls existing at one time. New statutes had
been passed within the last four months ; he had not sees them'',
and what their provisions were he could sot tell. However,
the power was originally possessed to an- unlimited extent,
and to him it appeared to be a most valuable and usefulpower,
for it prevented the narrowing of the University to an inju-
rious extent. The colleges were originally established by in-
dividuals, and endowed by them with funds for the benefit of
persons studying at the University. One of the most splendid
of these institutious was Merton College, which was founded
by Walter de Merton, and endowed by him with large estates
for the benefit of persons educated in the University ; at the
same time he limited the advantage to certain persons, .nmely,
such as were born within particular dioceses—the dioceses in-
deed in which his property was situate. In other colleges
there were similar limitations, in some instances to a surprising
extent. Indeed out of the whole number of 499 resident'ellow-
ships, only fifty were open to all, the rest being limited by
some specific bequest and restriction as to family, parish, county,
or diocese. The whole revenues of a college—all estarn and
patronage, were for the benefit of the members of the foun-
dation, and they were not bound to admit any individual into
it except by the course of electing him in to the foundation.
It was only, indeed, in times comparatively modern—since the
close of the 15th century—that the practice had obtained of
admitting persons in any other manner. Unless, therefore,
the general power, which he had noticed, of establishing halls
were allowed to exist, the heads of colleges would be enabled
to limit the 'number of those admitted ; and the restriction
would operate on the Church by limiting the supply of pro-
per persons to perform the functions of its offices. He thought
that it would be much to the credit of the University of Ox-
ford, if subscription at matriculation were abolished. Many
persons were willing to concede that point, who at the 'same
time contended for retaining the subscription at the taking of
degrees, inasmuch as, according to their statement, the same
objection could not then be urged on the ground of ignorance
in the party subscribing, and as some security ought to be ex-
acted from him, in consequence of his becoming fitted, by the
taking of a degree, for election to a fellowship, or for acting
as a tutor. With respect to the first point, concerning the
absence of ignorance, it had been admitted as a fact, by a Re-
verend Doctor who had written a pamphlet on this subject,
that young men when admitted to the degree of Bachelor of
Arts, were not qualified to judge of the thirty-nine articles;
and, under the circumstances, it was not likely that they
should be. As to the election to Fellowships, he could not
give any weight to the argument of a necessity of subscrip-
tion, as a security on the part of those elected ; for every one
elected underwent a certain examination, and the electors
might take much more effectual.; means of obtaining a gua-
rantee security of his fitness that 'was afforded by subscrip-
tion to the Thirty-nine Articles. Then, with respect to
their becoming tutors, as the masters of houses had the appoint-
ment of these functionaries, they might
_easily ascertain the
learning, knowledge, and faith of the persons applying to be
appointed. The same objection that applied to the requiring
a subscription, applied also to the requiring a declaration.
Now as to young men who were obtaining the degree of Mas-
ter of Arts, it must be allowed that they were likely to pos-
sess that degree of knowledge which should enable them to
form a judgment on the Thirty-nine Articles ; but at the same
time, it was a case of the greatest hardship towards a Dissen-
ter, that after having passed with credit through his Univer-
sity career, he should be debarred from taking his degree, and
enjoying the advantages attached to it in after life. Another
objection was urged to this effect—that if Dissenters were al-
lowed to take their degrees, they would be admitted to the
mastership of schools which were instituted in connection with
the Established Church, the presentation to those masterships
being vested in Masters of Arts. He was qaite willing to in-
sert a provision in the Bill, preventing Dissenters from inter-
ference with any endowment whatever, from which they were
excluded under the will of any founder. The Noble Earl
then adverted to a most extraordinary objection which had
been raised against this restricting portion of the Bill in a
published letter addressed to the Noble Duke by a most re-
spectable gentleman, a fellow of Baliol College—making it
a reproach to the measure that the exception had been pro-
vided in regard to endowments ; and saying that the excep-
tion had been so provided because it concerned a pecuniary
interest. It was impossible for that gentleman not to know,
that not one of their Lordships would be Willing to sacrifice
any principle for the sake of pecuniary interest; and it was
certainly a strange argument to urge, that because they could
not do all the good which they wished to do, in consequence of
being interfered with by certain bequests, they should not even
do that which they could. There had been presented that
night petitions against the Bill. One had been presented by
the Noble Duke from the Convocation, and it prayed that a
measure subversive of the beneficial privilege which the Uni-
versity had enjoyed for several centuries, of legislating for them.
selves in all matters relating to the discipline and government
of the ITeiyersity, might not be passed. The Bill left that
privilege entirely'as it existed before, except In one isistaeoe ; it
did not subvert it, although he admitted that it violated it. It
did not prevent their legislating for the discipline and regula-
tion of the University, but it did prevent their enacting that
subscription or slealeratipn pilionld be imposed. The pore-
tion spoke also of the necessity of pr.esdrvinit subscriptien
for the maintenance of a system of ucation, by means of
which so much benefit had been conferred on the country.
Why. subscription bad only existed for the last 250 years;
and in svliat state had the University been thirty.five
years
ago ? Had it not been • described by. .a Right liCYerePd

Prelate. is being then in a 'state of corruption ? Yet the pla
y vilege of legislating shad.exieted from the time of 1681 to
that of 1800, just as much: as it hid existed from 1800 to
1835. He could not suPpose, therefore, that it was sub-
scription to the Thirty-nine Articles which enabled the Uni-
versity to legislate for the purposes of education. The Bill
certainly violated that privilege ; and he trusted that their
Lordships would assent to the violation. There was no
chance of the subscription being removed unless by their
Lordships' interference. Of this a sufficient proof was found
in the exhibition made at Oxford•the other day, and in the
zeal and animosity which had been then excited. It was said
again that colleges were private institutions, and that the Bill
thus committed an attack upon private institutions, because it
said that no subscription should be required upon entering a
college or hall. He admitted that it did so to a certain ex-
tent, and he had inserted the provision teferred to with regret,
in order to prevent any attempt to defeat the object of the
measure by chicane. He did entertain that, feeling of sus-
picion with great regret; but still he felt that he was justified
in entertaining it, especially when he found that. Mr. Oakley
(the individual to whom he had before alluded) had held out
an intimation of the probability of some measure of the kind
being resorted to, in order to counteract the operation of the
Bill. He, of course, should hope' that such wouki not be the
case, but still he thought it, right to guard against it. The
other petition which had been presented that night came
rather furtively from the Under-graduates and Bachelors of
the University; and lie could not help thinking that it must
have been drawn up by some gentleman totally unacquainted
with the contents of the Bill. It deprecated the measure as
transferring the management of the University from the
hands of those persons who now held it.—( Hear.) The Bill
did not transfer that management in any way. It violated
the custom of the University in one instance ; but that vio-
lation being effected, the University would be left to the
management of the same persons as now, and unfettered
cc ith subscription, much, he doubted not, to the joy
of many of them. It had been stated that the Bill was an at-
tack not only on the Universities, but on the Church and Re-
ligion. Now he wished to make no attack on any of those
institutions. He could not conceive how it could be supposed
that he desired to attack the Universities : for with Oxford
he had formerly been intimately connected, and with Cam-
bridge he was now in some degree connected. He had no
wish but for the prosperity of both ; and he conceived that it
would be a thing most conducive to their good to remove the
reproach which the Bill was intended to do away with. Of
that opinion were many excellent and learned men at Cam-
bridge itself, as had been shown by the petition sent up to
their Lordships ; at Oxford the feeling in its favour was not
so strong. As to the charge of an attack on the Church, he
had already explained that the getting rid of subscriptions not
only would not injure the Church, but might prevent that
which would be very injurious to it. At all events, for the
cause of truth, plain dealing, and honesty, he did implore their
Lordships to give the Bill their grave consideration before
they rejected it. Turn it in what way they would, that
practice was most unsatisfactory in which persons were called
upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles—at Oxford
when entering the University, and at Cambridge when taking
a degree at an age which did not imply a full knowledge of
them. He thought it a stigma on the Church ; especially
when no such practice was to be found prevailing elsewhere;
for he defied any Noble Lord to name an . University in the
civilized world, at which such tests were required. The con-
tinuance of it in the Universities of our own country seemed
to him a national reproach, and a reproach to religion. In
conclusion, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second
time.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was very far from
accusing the Noble Earl of any intention either of subverting
the Church, or of injuring the Universities; the tone in which
he had spoken had indicated no such intention. At the same
time he must say that he was not the less apprehensive of the
effects which the present Bill might produce on the best in-
terests of both. The Noble Earl had referred to the uni-
versities upon the Continent, and to cur own universities in
former times, as showing that there was no necessity for im-
posing subscription. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury)
always had an objection to arguments drawn from places
with which they were not acquainted, and the circumstances
of which ivere probably different from those of their own
country, and at all events unknown to them. He appre-
hended that Oxford and Cambridge would have no disposition
whatever to take a lesson from the Universities of the Conti-
nent. In some of their institutions it was well known that the
utmost laxity of religious opinions prevailed—the utmost indif-
ference to religion. In such institutions the absence of any re-
ligious tests was not surprising; it was more striking that in the
Roman Catholic universities of the Continent persons of dif-
ferent religious persuasions should be admitted, not only to pro-
secute their studies, but also to hold fellowships. He could
not account for that state of things; he knew that in some of
their universities that toleration might have been extended in
particular cases to particular persons, without any apprehen-
sion on the part of the governing power, however intolerant,
because that power knew well, that on any occasion, however
slight, it was able to bring the laws against heretics into opera-
tion against persons situated in such circumstances. Indeed,
he could not help thinking that the Inquisition of Padua was
about as celebrated as the University of Padua.—( Hear, hear.)
The Noble Earl had said that those Universities had been for-
merly open to all the world. At that time nothing was heard
but of the religion of the State, except from certain heretics,
who, wherever they showed their heads, were cruelly perse-
cuted. The Noble Earl had cited the example of Wyck-
liffe—their Lordships all knew how Wyckliffe had been perse-
cuted That individual was a professor of the Established
religion, and he was supported by some of the most power-
ful persons in the realm ; otherwise he would never have
been able to escape the fate which awaited all those per-
sons who promulgated opinions differing from the doctrines
of the Established Church. They knew how his ashes
had been treated ; and probably he would, but for his in-
fluential protection, at once have suffered at the stake.
He now reverted to the subject of the Bill. The title was
" An Act for prohibiting subscription to the Thirty-nine
Articles in certain cases ;" and the reason given in the pre-
aMble was, that subscription to particular articles of faith
in the case of persons of tender years, and before they
can have so accurately and minutely examined the same, or the
assent to the doctrines therein laid down, was unreasonable
grounds on which they rest, as to give an explicit and entire
and tended to evil consequences. The Bill proceeded on the
assumption that subscription on all occasions and in all persons
were exactly of the same significance and import, namely, as
indicating an entire and implicit assent in the Articles after
laid down. But a distinction was to be made between sub-
an accurate and minute examination of the doctrines therein
scription at matriculation and subscription on taking degrees.
With respect to the first, a student of twelve years of age
brought to matriculation at Oxford was required to subscribe
the Thirty-nine Articles ; none of course came *so early,
but it was necessary to take the extreme case in order to
ascertain what was the real intention of the University, in
requiring it. Was it not absurd to suppose that he could have
fully and minutely considered every Article in such a manner
as to be able to give an entire and implicit assent to them all ?
Now he (the Archbishop,of Canterbury) maintained that the
University never required of him to do so ; for he was ad-
mitted simply on subscription without any examination—
without any previous question—without having heard the
articles read ; full assent had never been required from him—
it had not been intended that he should give it, unless it
could be supposed that the divines and statesmen of Queen
Elizabeth's time, who had imposed the subscription, were
tools and men who had quite lost their understanding. The
boy, having subscribed as required, was then transferred to his
appointed place, and committed to the charge of a tutor, who
was directed to instruct him in the rudiments of religion, and
particularly in the Thirty-nine Articles. He pursued his
studies, according to the directions of the statutes, under the
tutor for three or four years, and he was then called on for a
second subscription. But though he has been so studying,
though he has proved his proficiency in the Articles by public
examination, the University does not allow him to subscribe
until he has read them, or heard them read in the presence of
tile proctor, and it further requires him to make a declaration
that " the Articles, being in number Thirty-nine, are agreeable
to the Word of God." In the first instance, his subscription
was only a mark--a token of his adherence to the Church of
England, and his desire to be instructed in its Articles. That
explanation had been said last year to have been contrived for
the purpose of getting rid of a difficulty, and his Right Rev.
Friend (the Bishop'bf Exeter) had been coarsely taunted with
jesuitism for giving such an explanation. He himself had re-
garded it as a correct one, and had thought it right to take a
share of the reproach cast upon those who gave it. He had
since looked at the Parliamentary History, and at a debate which
had taken place in the House of Commons in the year 1793, and
he found the same argument to have been there used by many
Members of that House, who were generally considered as
men of sense, who knew how to draw an inference, and how
to form an argument. Among them was Lord North, who
supported the practice of subscription by exactly the same ar-
gument as he (the Archbishop) had just cited; and who said
that subscription at matriculation was of a very different kind
from subscription on taking degrees. Another objection had
been made to himself, as if he had acted wrongly in suppres-
sing the fact, that no subscription was required before the age
of 12 years. Surely that was an age before which a child was
not capable of forming an option in respect to religion. This
principle was distinctly observable in the practice of the
Church concerning the rite of confirmation. It was the cus •
torn formerly that at the age of twelve years a child should
certain instances the rite was now performed
take on himself the vows made by his sponsors at barn;:sn ; in
generally it was postponed till a more
21,31a,sstuebrsocfripAtiroisn being
degree.
prohibited until
men that age ; but
:ran.; vteeanrnectrheadel
y age.went
e takingnt Bto
to the
thet thehe
present Bill, however,
the aff,t for subscription is extended to
Universities between the age of 17 and 19, and took their first
degree of H. A. between those of 20 and 22. Now he was of
opinion that the Articles of the Church of England might be.
fully comprehended by every young man of the age of
20, or 21, or 22, after a study of three or four years, so as to
allow of
his giving his assent to them. Some of them were
self-evident—founded on the principles of natural religion ;
otheis were capable of being proved directly from the scripture;
anid others there were which might seem hard at first, but
which, on due explanation, might also be proved directly from
the words of scripture. On that point he was at issue with
the Bill. He denied subscription for young men at the age
of 21, and properly instructed, to be unreasonable. On the
other hand, lie maintained that it was most reasonable that
the University should require proof that those whom she ad-
mitted into her bosom for the purpose of instruction, and more
particularly religious instruction, had fulfilled her intentions,
that is to say, had made themselves acquainted with the)
doctrines which she teaches, and had imbibed those prin.
cipl es which she had endeavoured to instil into them. He
thought, too, thqt the University also owed a proof to the
ouefl that those whom sho sent forth to the world had

made themselves acquainted with the doctrines of the Na-
tional Church ; and not only made themselves acquainted
with them, but had received them as true and as con-
sonant to Scripture. He now came to the assertion
that subscription might tend to evil consequences. It might
be supposed that in the lapse of nearly three centuries, the
consequences of subscription, whatever they might be, would
have developed themselves. He thought that thcv had, and that
they did appear to be good. They were, then, that during
that period the Universities have preserved the religion in its
purity—that they have banished polemical controversy from the
seats of those sacred institutions, and that they have produced
a succession of learned and well-principled men to fill situations
in the different professions, and in the several departments of
the State. He deprecated alteration in a system so fruitful of
good. It was desirable that the youth of this country should
be attached, not merely from habit, and from prejudices derived
from parents, perhaps from party, but also from conviction, to
the doctrines of the Church of England; and the doctrines of
that Church, he would venture to say, as they were more fully
understood they would be more highly appreciated. It was
very desirable that every man in the country should be ac-
quainted with the principles of the religion he professed. They
would then have much less of those prejudices which have ori-
ginated, on some occasions, from malice or error, or ignorance
against the articles of the Church of England. Such know-
ledge, among the higher classes, he sincerely believed to be
promoted by the continuance of subscription. Evil, indeed,
would be the consequences of the Bill before them, if it passed
into a law. The sanction of Parliament would then have
been given to the calumnies against the Church and against
its fundamental doctrines ; it would go forth as the deliberate
opinion of their Lordships, that the peculiar doctrines of the
creed of the Church of England were unfit to be imparted to
the youth of the country--unfit for their comprehension, or
unworthy of their belief—and it would be pretended that they,
as members of that Church, regarded its characteristic and
peculiar doctrines not merely with indifference, but with dis-
approbation. That would be the heaviest blow yet inflicted
on the Church, indirectly condemning her tenets and pronoun-
cing assent to them to be unreasonable, and tending to evil
consequences. From what the Noble Lord had said in ap-
probation of foreign universitios, and the admission of Protes-
tants, Roman Catholics, and Christians of every denomina-
tion--Jews, Pagans, and Mahometans—he apprehended that
his intention must be to see the same system prevailing in this
country. He considered the present measure of great import-
ance to both the Church and the Universities, and he requested
their Lordships to pause before they sanctioned a Bill which
would unfix all the University privileges, and disturb an order
of things which had worked and still continued to work most
beneficially. He trusted their Lordships would not approve a
measure that would cast a slur on the creed of the Church,
and imply a censure of the Universities for teaching a doctrine
which was unfit for the assent of those educated at other in-
stitutions. In conclusion the Most Reverend Prelate moved
as an amendment, " That the Bill be read a second time this
day six months."
The Bishop of L AND AFF admitted the full power of the
State to interfere with and regulate the concerns of the Uni-
versities, so far as the interests of the nation required such in-
terference. He would now revert to those interferences re-
commended by the Noble Earl. They appeared to him to be
uncalled for, and to be recommended on grounds quite un-
tenable. The Noble Earl in his address this night (which
was not a short one) appeared to him to be merely fighting
with a shadow of his own imagination. He took it for graeted
that young men, on being required to subscribe to the Thirty-
nine Artices, were told, " We don't expect you to understand
them : all we require is, that you should subscribe to them."
He hoped he was not mis-stating the observations of the Noble
Lord. He certainly had never said anything that was equiva-
lent to this : he believed the difference arose from the inaccu-
rate use, by the Noble Lord himself—if he would excuse him
for so saying—of the word "understand." Au individual might
be considered to understand a thing when he knew what was
the sense of it—it was not necessary that he should be pre-
pared to defend it against a-. 1 opposition, or to illustrate it ;
the power to do that might be left to be acquired by subse-
quent inquiry and more mature learning. Though he might
not be able to go into a controversial defence of a subject,
it by no means followed that he did not understand it. He
thought he might say that he understood natural philosophy
—the Newtonian philosophy, but he certainly was not capable
of defending it against an adversary. The Right Reverend
Prelate here referred to the act of subscription, and contended
that it was not in the nature of an oath ; if it was, the argu-
ments urged against it would apply. The act simply amounted
to a declaration of the belief of the individual at the time he
made it ; it did not pledge him as to his after-conduct; it was
made merely for the satisfaction of the authorities that he was
worthy to be admitted one of the members of the University,
and willing to be instructed in the doctrines of the established
religion. Reference had been made to the hardship of the
exclusion of the Dissenters. Now when an University had
been established for the purpose of admitting Dissenters as
well as members of the Established Church, it was found ne-
cessary to abstain altogether from any attempt to afford reli-
gious instruction to the students. He confessed that this was
the necessary consequence. He was prepared to contend, how-
ever, that without religious instruction the education could
not be considered complete.—( Hear, hear.) He heartily
agreed to the motion of the Most Rev. Prelate, that this
Bill be read a second time this day six months.—( Cries of
" Question.") . _ _

The Bishop of GLOUCESTER considered it his duty to
vote that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
It was true the Noble Earl said, in introducing the measure,
that in its present shape it did not touch the Universities, in-
asmuch as it would only command them to do that which they
were now in the habit of doing. This was done only in one
case. The Bill proposed, however, to prohibit the declaration
of a student, on his taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts,
that he was a member of the • Established religion. It was
true the two Universities took a somewhat different line as w
the mode of subscribing, but they had both the same object,
viz., the preservation of the connection between the Universi-
ties and the Church of England. It was not a remark of to-
day or yesterday, but it was a very old remark, that whenever
attacks were designed on the Church they were always com-
menced with attacks upon the Universities. From very early
times it had been the practice to begin with the subscriptions
to the Universities. This was the course taken during the
long Parliament by Charles the First, in 1641, he believed.
The first proceeding was, that the subscription to the two
articles was against law mid liberty. James I. sent an order
to one of the Universities for an individual to be admitted to
a degree without the subscriptions. This measure was almost
a servile imitation of what had been done before. They must
not suppose it would stop here ;, it would place the affairs of
the Universities in a most anomalous state. There would be
remonstrances in all quarters. The Dissenters would com-
plain and with some justice, that they were allowed to proceed
a certain distance, and then they could not obtain the honour,
because they could not take the degree of Master of Arts.
Those who knew the arrangement of the Universities would
tell the Noble Earl, that if he admitted the controversial dis-
cussions which would no doubt arise among the students,
he must not expect to find their attention devoted, as it now
was, to the pursuits of literature and science, and all the other
matters connected with their education. It had always been
the policy of the conductors of Universities to keep out of
view as much as possible controversial differences. It was
true that in consequence of no subscription being required be-
fore matriculation at Cambridge, some of the sons of Dissen-
ters were occasionally admitted there.—( Hear, hear.) He
had observed this, he had rejoiced at it ; he thought it calcu-
lated to soften the feelings of animosity that might be existing.
The instances, however, were very few, and he could assure
their Lordships that the parties were admitted not as Dissen-
ters—they were not known to entertain those opinions by the
authorities, though one or two of the tutors might be acquainted
with the fact. Many took their degrees and became not only
members but visitors of the University. They knew that
they must comply with all the regulations of the place.
They attended the lectures, even the theological lec-
tures, they attended the chapel, and until they left the Uni-
versity, it was not known that they—or their family rather,
bad been Dissenters. But let them once give the right to
admission, and they would reverse the case. It would then
be found that the Universities would be made the scene of hos-
tile discussion, and that only objects of disputation would in-
terest them. Why did not the Dissenters establish a couple of
Colleges for themselves? Would it not be better that they
abandoned an attempt in which they must expect to meet with
resistance. What prevented them from endowing a Univer-
sity of their own, and establishing it on the same footing as
those of Oxford and Cambridge.—( Hear, and loud cries of
" Question.")
Lord MELBOURNE in the course of last session voted
for a Bill which distinctly bore on the present question, and
the object of which was to favour the introduction of Dissen-
ters into the Universities. Having voted for that Bill clearly
and distinctly—having voted for the question in that shape, he
would say he by no means agreed with the Right Rev. Prelate
who spoke last, that it was desirable for tranquillity, for
gious peace, that an attempt should be made to put 07, end to
the differences which existed between these class-,,s of his Ma-
jesty's subjects, by the division of the partie-„, by founding dis-
tinct Universities for them, instead c'°. inviting them to one
place in common, where they. w''jtad probably become united,
where the habits of youth ","iid their pursuit of the same studies
would probably ex."7"..ise a strong influence over them. He
was sorry to gar such a proposition as the establishment of
separat- 'Universities proceed from such a quarter.--( Cheers. )
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER said the Noble Lord mis-
took what he had stated on the subject. He had observed that
it was to him a subject of satisfaction that the University to which
he belonged had the power of extending the benefits of educa-
tion to Dissenters, if they chose to accept it, on the conditions
which it was considered necessary to impose.
Lord MELBOURNE understood the Right Rev. Prelate
to say that it would be better for the Dissenters to insti-
tute Universities of their own than to endeavour to obtain ad-
mission into the University to which he belonged.--( Hear,
hear.) From that opinion he must express his dissent.
With respect to the facility afforded by the University of
Cambridge to the admission of Dissenters, lie agreed with
him ; he knew that it had been productive of great advan-
tage, and he thought it full time that such liberality was imi-
tated by the sister University.—( Cheers.) He had listened
with great attention to the opinions expressed by the Most Rev.
Prelate who stood at the head of the Church. That Most
Rev. Prelate said that if the subscription were to he con-
sidered as an assent to the Thirty-nine Articles—as an ad-
mission of them after they had been carefully examined—
that would be quite absurd; and in that case he should
agree in all the censures and animadversions that had been
cast on the practice. He also said that the parties
were desired to subscribe without a question being
asked of them, without any examination on the subject__
without oven the Articles being road to them. If he had
warittAl the strongest statement he could get to show the
gross absurdity of the practice, he must say he would ask for

no stronger one than that made by the Right Rev. Prelate on
the present occasion.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Well, then, if
it were only a declaration of opinion to the heids of the UM;
versity—if it were only a declaration of a willingness to be
taught—it it were only a declaration that they were disposed
to be instructed in the matter of the articles, why continue a
practice evidently so absurd in itself—why, for the sake of pre-
serving it, submit to so much misrepresentation ? Why main-
tain that which was liable to be so attacked and complained of
as it had been by his Noble Friend ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) The
most Rev. Prelate said that the University owed it to itself
that it should have proof that those who applied for admission:
belonged to the Church of England—that it should have
proof that the individual was willing to be taught the doctrine
of the Church. But what proof, he would ask, existed in this
subscription, as it had been explained by the most Rev. Pre- •
late himself ?
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY—That was the first-
subscription.
Lord MELBOURNE—Very well; it was the first sub-
scription ; then why not part from that ?—( Cheers.) Why
not go that length, which was all that was asked on this sub-
ject ? At least that was absurd, as appeared on the statement
of the Most Rev. Prelate himself; and undoubtedly there was
a great deal more to be said with respect to the subscription
required in the further progress in the University. The Most
Rev. Prelate declared, that by pursuing this course the Uni-
versity was preserved in the true religion of this country; and,
above all, it had preserved the Universities from being the scene
of polemical controversy.—( Cheers.) Now what was the fact
with respect to the tranquillity of these Universities? Both of
them had been over and over again disturbed by polemical dis-
cussion, but particularly Cambridge, which had been agitated
is the beginning of the last century.—( Hear, hear, from Lord
Holland.) Did not 1710 furnish a celebrated instance ? Was
not that respectable individual, Mr. Wilson, a professor, turned
out of his University on account of Arian principles ?—( Cries
of " Hear, hear, hear," from Lord Holland.) Was not that
followed by the controversy between Dr. Waterford and Mr.
Middleton, at Oxford ?—( Cheers.) Who did not recollect the
great schism which distracted the Church, and from which sprung
the great body of Wesleyan Dissenters? It appeared, then, that
the repose recommended by the Right Rev. Prelate, it had
not been the good fortune of the Universities to enjoy. If to
abstain from religious controversy were a virtue, that virtue
had unquestionably not been the boast of the Universities in
former times. Why, what did Bacon say in his " Novum
Organon," in the passage in which he spoke of ecclesiastical
controversy? Strepere argumentis, vexare questionibus.
Was repose, so desirable at a University ?—( Cheers.) Was
nothing at nil taught by the emulation and excitement which
controversy produced ?—( Cheering by Lord Holland.) How
was inquiry to be stimulated—how was knowledge to be ob-
tained—so well as by the collision of various and conflicting
opinions ?—( Cheers.) Little was his reading in divinity ; but
he might refer to those times when these tests originated.
If there were ever a man on whom the pure light of know-
ledge shone, it was Hooker, and what said he? His Lordship
observed, he could not find the passage to which he was re-
ferring, though he had looked for it, but he knew it stood in
the Ist book of the Ecclesiastical Polity. In arguing on au
occasion when several Dissenters were anxious to have a con-
ference, he said, " What need is there of appointing a con-
ference, have you not the University ?" He remembered
the passage very well, it thus proceeded, " There are
many solemn occasions on which all the questions be-
tween us and you are brought into dispute ; many
of you are members of the Universities, and if, there are
any who are not, and who would appear, you well know that
by the courtesy of those learned bodies and learned men, you
would be received with welcome, and attentively heard."—
( Cheering.) That was the nature and character of the Uni-
versities of that day. They were open to inquiry ; they courtel
investigation ; and sought to defend the faith that was in them
by argument.—( Cheering.) They did not seek repose—they
did not seek to banish inquiry—they did not claim for them-
selves a protection against controversy—( Renewed cheering)
—but, on the contrary, were ready to dispute with any adver-
saries who presented themselves. It was stated, and perhaps
this was the strongest argument urged against the Bill, that if
it were passed perhaps it might not prove effectual, because it
was certain that the Universities being inherent in themselves,
the power to adopt such regulations as they thought decorous
might resolve upon what would be equivalent to the exclusive
regulation, which was done away with by this Bill. He could
not think, however, that the Universities would so conduct
themselves after receiving such an admonition from Parlia-
ment as this Bill would be considered.—( Hear, hear.)
Therefore he could not think it would be ineffectual for the
purposes for which it was intended. To legislate for the
Universities unnecessarily and wantonly would Es bad; but
it was generally admitted that this practice should be to a cer-
tain degree dispensed with, and he felt pretty certain that
they would not dispense with it of themselves. It was for the
wisdom of Parliament to prescribe the course on such an oc-
casion. They were the great public seminaries for education,
and their being well directed, the prudence of their conduct,
and their freedom from reproach, were matters of great pub-
lic interest—of great interest to their Lordships and to the
whole community. Surely, then, it was the duty of their Lord-
ships to interpose their authority so as to render those institu-
tions fully effective.

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that the observa-
tions of the Most Reverend Prelate had completely put an
end to the question. The Bill which the Noble Earl had
brought forward was entirely different from that introduced
last session. The speech of the Noble Earl, however, and
the explanation with which he introduced the measure, showed
that his intention was precisely the same with the intention
of the promoter of the former Hear.) The Noble
Earl's intention—and the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment had clearly stated this intention to be also his—was
to give the Dissenters a right to enter the Universities. That was
the intention of the Noble Earl, and that was the intention of
the !'rime Minister. Now had an objection to the Bill
of the Noble Earl for the reason stated by tba Most Rev.
Prelate. He conceived there was no cause to complain of the
subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, as practised in the
University of Oxford. He would say that the explanation of
the Most Rev. Prelate was entirely borne out by the statutes
of the University, and likewise by the practice which had pre-
vailed there. It might be desirable that there should be some
other test adopted, in order to prove that the individual claim-
ing to be matriculated was a member of the Church of Eng-
land ; but that which was most important at Cambridge and
Oxford was, that the person to be matriculated was a member
of the Church of England.—( Hear, hear.) That was the
point ; and upon that he conceived the whole question turned.
The Noble Earl, in his observations, alluded to something that
fell from him in the course of the discussion of this question
last year, viz., that he advised the most Rev. Prelate not to
consent to this Bill, because by such consent they would carry
up to the Throne for his Majesty's assent, a measure which
would tend to subvert the union between the Church and the
State—that argument was neither more nor less than
this—that the education of both the Universities must be
education in the religion of the Church of England. That
was necessary—it was the ver) foundation on which the Uni-
versities stood. He contended that they could not go to the
King with a Bill that had for its object to establish a system of
education in the Universities different in principle from the
Church of England, without attacking the principle of union
between the Church and State. But the Noble Lord said
that the Church did not claim from individuals their subscrip-
tion to the Thirty-nine Articles. True, it did not; nor would
the University of Oxford claim the subscription of the Thirty-
nine Articles, except as evidence that the person was a mem-
ber of a family who belonged to the Established Church. It
was contended last year, and by the Noble Earl this year, that
individuals might be admitted into both the Universities who
were not members of the Church of England, notwithstanding
the subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles. lie admitted •
this; but there was a great difference between this and allow-
ing Dissenters by right to enter the Universities. What he
contended for was, that the system of religion taught should
be that of the Established Church ; but if Dissenters were ad-
mitted of right, he was apprehensive that not only would not
the religion of the Established Church be taught, but that no
religion of any kind would be taught there. He stated this
opinion on the authority of a publication, from which it appear-
ed, that at a College established to teach Ministers of dissent-
ing persuasions it had been found impossible to adopt any creed,
or any system, for any considerable length of timo. He con-
fessed he was surprised when he heard the Noble Lord the first
Minister of the Crown come down to this House, and declare
his preference for the existence of polemical disputes in the
Universities. He should have tithught the object of a Mini-
ster of the Crown would haws-, been, by all means to protect
the Universities from alt such disputes, and to preserve any
system of religion wtatever from being attacked by differences
of opinion.---ear,hear, hear.) He confessed that it ap-
peared to I';:,n that the Bill of the Noble Earl, if it had really
for its object to prevent the signature of the articles, did not
V, far enough for the attainment of the object the Noble Earl
had in view. The Noble Earl had not only compared the two
Universities with foreign Universities, but also drew a parallel
between the practice prevailing at the present day, and that
which existed in those two learned bodies shortly after the
Reformation. Now, he agreed with the Most Rev. Prelate
in contending that no parallel could be drawn between the
English and foreign Universities. The sects in the two Uni-
versities were the children of the Reformation. These sects
were most necessary, and were intended to preserve the
standard of the religion of the Church of England.--( Hear,
hear, hear.) If they were to have no established religion in
the country—if every man was to have his own religion iri
the Universities—if every man was at liberty to frame a sys-
tem of religion for himself in these corporations, then let
their Lordships take the Bill of the Noble Earl with all its
consequences, which must inevitably follow from it, namely,
cJastant polemical disputes, and all the other consequences
which the Noble Viscount stated was the preferable mode of
governing the Universities. They had a right to expect that
the Noble Viscount, and the other Noble Lords on the bench
opposite, would support inviolate the rights, the authority, and
the privileges of the Universities, as granted and conferred by
ancient charters. Instead of this, however, they found
the Ministers of the Crown exercised their might and in-
fluence and abilities in support of this measure, which had
for its object the overthrow of the institutions and authority
of the English Church.—( Cheers.) The Noble Viscount
shook his head, apparently in dissent from his opinions; but
did the Noble Viscount think that the University of Oxford
could maintain its authority if such a Bill as this became the
law of the land ? On what, he would ask, was the preamble
of this Bill grounded, and the charges embodied in it ? Have
any of these charges been proved ? Notwithstanding the
complaints made in the preamble that individuals had
been prevented from resorting to the University of Oxford,
in consequence of their tests, was it not an admitted fact
that at that moment there were hundreds waiting to obtain
education, and to be admitted to reside in the Halls and
, d
Colleges of that University ? There were many hundred
t
persons now residing in the town who were unable . get re si-