The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

RHUSE OF CO.VMOIVS. July 9.
The SPEAKER. took the Chair to-day shortly after twelve
o'clock.
Leave way given for the different Committees to sit notwith-
standing the sitting of the Hou,e.
LUNATICS ASYLUMS_ AND PAUPER LUNATICS

GRAVESEND AND ROCHESTER RAILWAY.

The report of the Committee on this Bill was brought up
and received.

TRENT VALLEY RAILWAY.

The amendments of xhel;;lsto this Bill were severally read
and agreed to.
TAW VALLEY RAILWAY AND DOCK:..

The amendments of the Lords to this Bill were likewise
brought up and agreed to.
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were brought up, read,
and agreed to.
Mr. BELLEW presented a petition from the county Louth
in reference to the Irish Colleges Bill.
SALMO Nl FISHERIES BILL.
Mr. PAKINGTON said that the Committee on the Salmon
heries Bill had been unable to bring their labours to a con-
clusion this session. and therefore begged that the second read-
.

ing of the Bill should be postponed to nest session.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion that the Universities (Scotland) Bill be read
a second time,
Mr. MACAULAY said, that on the occasion of the first in-
troduction of the measure her Majesty's Ministers had con-
sulted together and had consented that the promoters of the
Bill should have means to bring in the Bill. It was
expected that the opposition was over. It was ex.
petted that this important and salutary measure would
have, been allowed to pass. It had, however, been intimated
that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to resist
the further progress of the Bill. Were the present an ordinary
case he should not have been so much surprised at that unex-
pected intimation ; at the same time, however, his confidence
in the strength of his case was so great that he could
not think that the opposition of the Government would
avail in defeating the proposed measure. He had
been sent to that House by the inhabitants of a great
city, which was in former times the greatest city of a noble
and independent country, and it still continued to be the in'el-
lectual metropolis of a free and intellectual people. The
University had been so constituted that its renown during
several centuries had progressed gradually to the furthest
ends of the world as a great school of moral and
intellectual science. That noble institution was now threatened
with ignominious ruin by the narrow-minded and short-
sighted policy of the Government, which was resolved
on its destruction without even the miserable excuse of fana-
ticism. He pleaded for all the great academical institutions
of Scotland, and, while pleading for those institutions, he felt
satisfied he should be heard with patience by every
man who loved learning, and who valued religious liberty.
He said, firstly, that this Bill was founded upon sound prin-
ciples ; and he said, secondly, that even if the prineiple of this
Bill was not one which could be defended as generally sound,
still there were special circumstances in the case of Scotland
which would make it their duty to pass the Bill. In the first
place, then, he said the principle was sound, and whoever might
controvert this proposition, of this he was sure, that it was not
for her Majesty's Ministers to do so, for it was only the other
day that they had come down to that House and proposed
a system of secular education altogether divested of religion or
religious instruction, and tests of every description. Yes,
they brought in and defended that measure against zealous
members of the Church of England, and they defended it, too,
against the prelates of the Church of Rome; and it was only
the day before yesterday that they refused to accept
one of the most moderate tests he had ever seen.

would narrow their choice to one-half of Scotland, and the
emoluments would be proportionably reduced. If such a course
were followed, the consequence would be the decay of the uni-
versities—those institutions which boasted of the names of
Adam Smith, Dugald Stewart, Playfair, Black, and Jamieson.
—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) The Gov, rnment went from one
extreme to the other—backwards and forwards—like a reed
shaken by the wind. They established four tests at Limerick,
four at Glasgow, and three-at Aberdeen. Was it possible that
such ! Government deserved public respect or public confidence?
Was it not strange that even their most liberal measures failed
t • gain the applause of liberal men ? Was it a Wender if they
lost the confidence of the country ? But he spoke to the
House—he spoke to those gentlemen who voted with the Go-
vei nment on Monday. He knew party had its obligations, but
they had their limit, but there were some measures into which
no party should follow their leader.—(Cheers.) They wanted
to appoint men who would declare their opinions in favour of
all points of Church government. He implored those members
of the Church of England to protect those doctrines which
they believed to be true, and all who loved science and learn-
ing to stand by them that day and aid them in averting the
destruction which was threatened to the universities of Scot-
land. The Hen. Gentleman concluded by moving that the
Bill be read a second time, and resumed his seat amidst great
cheering from the opposition.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, the subject which the Honourable
Gentleman had brought forward to accompany a great
question of public policy, should not induce him to
depart on the present occasion from taking a fair review of the
arguments which he hid brought forward, nor to trust
to his abilities to sustain the decision to which her
Majesty's Government had come to on a matter of
importance with respect to the universities of one
part of the United Empire. His (Mr. Macaulay's)
arguments with respect to the new colleges were diametri-
cally opposed to those which it was his duty to urge on that
occasion. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that he had
observed the marked hesitation with which Government
had stated their views and intentions with respect to this
particular measure. Now, in the last session of Parliament,
this identical proposition was brought under the consideration
of the House by a motion introduced by the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Perth, and sustained with great ability and
argument by the Hon. Member for Leith. On that occa-
sion it was his duty to state to the House the reasons which had
induced the Government to resist this proposition. In the
present session the Hon. Member for Leith asked for leave to
introduce this bill, and he (Sir J. Graham) stated on the part
of the Government, that although they were not prepared to
resist the first introduction of the measure, yet the utmost de-
liberation hal not induced them to come to any deci-
sion upon the subject different to that which they had
arrived at in the last session. On the contrary, they thought
that their suhsequent inquiries had tended to confirm that de•
cison, and although they did not oppose the first introduction of
the Bill, yet it was distinctly understood it was left open for
Government to pursue what course they might afterwards
think proper to at opt. They had accordingly since paid due
attention to the matter, and the result of their deliberations
had induced them to come to the decision that it was their
duty to resist the motion which the Hon. and Learned Member
had just made. It was not for him, however, to go into foreign
topics, but it was his duty to consider, in dealing with this
question, what were the engagements which the Crown
was under to the people of Scotland, and the effect of
making the great change which this Bill sought to introduce
into that country. Without having any regard therefore to
foreign topics, but with a sincere regard for the interests of the
people of Scotland, it was for him to ask himself what was the
correct and proper line he ought to take in dealing with this
question. Now, if it were simply a question for altering the
religious tests in use in Scotland, in the same manner as that
proposed the other evening by the Hon. Member for Devon-
shire in respect of the Irish colleges, he should be fully prepared
to prove to the House that it was far better to adhere to the
tests in use in the universities of Scotland, because they rested
upon the sanction of ancient statutes, rather than to introduce
any modified terms into them. The Right Hon. Gentleman
in some parts of his speech had alluded to the conduct of Go-
vernment with respect to the Irish Colleges Bill in dealing
with the question of tests, but he appealed to the justice and to
the recent recollection of the [louse, whether throughout
the whole of their arguments with respect to the admission or
exclusion of tests from these colleges, they did not invariably
rest the course they wore taking upon the pesuliar and especial
circumstances connected with the people of Ireland ?—( Hear,
hear.) He by no means contended that, as a general prin-
ciple, it was safe or expedient to exclude from universities of
any sect the necessity of religious tests, but the course which
the Government had taken in regard to the Irish colleges was
justified by the peculiar circumstances in which the sister king-
dom was placed.—( Hear, hear.) The Honourable and
Learned Member had remarked that English gentle-
men properly drew a distinction between the universities
of Scotland and the universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, but he begged to remind the House that in one
most important particular alone there was a marked similitude
between the collegiate institutions of the two countries. He
alluded to the fact that the Church of Scotland drew its mi-
nistry solely from the Scottish universities. The Government
were under solemn engagements to that Church by the Act
of Legislative Union between the two countries, and it was
useless to tell him that the late separation in the establishment
had dissolved their engagements. It was no such thing, and
therefore Government could not, consistently with their duty to
the people of Scotland, allow this Bill to be read a second time.
But now, turning to the constitution of the Scottish Church,
he was prepared to show that the principals of the universities
in Scotland exercised a general superintendence over the stu-
dents admitted into these colleges. They observed that no
doctrines of a noxious tendency were inculculated ; and the
House ought also to remember that the great majority of the
professors of the university were also members of the Esta-
blished Church of Scotland. He repeated it, that the profes-
sors exercised a salutary control over the members of those uni-
versities ; and if Dissenters were admitted to these honours,
there was a power existing to prevent any evil, and, at the
same time, to allow them any liberty to which, as subjects of the
British empire, they were entitled. In that stormy period of
Scotland's history, when every interest was in a state of dis-
order, within the walls of the universities all was peace. It
would be remembered that professors were nominated
by certain municipal authorities, as in Edinburgh and
Glasgow. In the first city the members of town council
had the power of nominating the principals of the colleges ;
and as regarded the Church of Scotland it was urged by the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Ma-
caulay) that it was in a minority. fie should be disposed to
question that statement. The Church of Scotland, he thought,
were in numbers greater than the followers of the Dissenting
Churches. It had been stated that very great names were op-
posed to the present system of Church establishments, and those
of Doctors Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish had been
cited in support of that assertion. As far as those gentlemen
were concerned, they had not expressed themselves opposed to
the present law, they were in favour of the extension of it.
On the motion that the Bill be read a second time, and after
strangers had been ordered to withdraw,
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said that he regretted that no Gen-
tleman on the opposite side had risen to reply to the remarks
of the Right Hon. Baronet and the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Edinburgh. He had heard with the deepest
pain the speech of the Hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr.
Macaulay), and it was with not a little astonishment that he
had listened to one observation which had fallen from that

Was it seriously meant—was it desirable—that they should
sink below the aborigines of New South Wales? If educa-
tion was an evil, he was sure no man in his senses would give
it his support. He supported the Irish College Bill,
the principle of which, and that of the Bill be-
fore the House, was one and the same.—( Hear, hear.)
Scotland had a right to know from those who brought in the
Irish Colleges Bill why they called upon them to throw out this
Bill. In Scotland there was no clamour against the Universi-
tie, of Digland, or against the test taken by English professors ;
and Hon. Gentlemen opposite well knew that whether they sent
missions of peace to Scotland or not, Scotland would in every
extremity be found faithful to the common cause of the empire—
(Cheers)—and he was confident on that account, that anything
bestowed on other parts of the empire ought not
to be withheld from that country.—( Hear and cheers. )
In Scotland, as well as in Ireland, the Established
Church was the Church of the minority of the population,
perhaps not in so great a proportion as the people of Ireland,
but. the members of the Presbyterian class were not less in
proportion than the Catholics of Ireland. If they trusted the
education a the youths of Ireland to professors who had
not take the test, on what principle did they con-
ceive that the youth of Scotland were less safe?
The Bill bad been founded on the same principle as that al-
lowed by Ministers. But if they did hold the principle
of the Bill to be generally inapplicable, he could . show
a peculiar reason for adopting it in this case. He
could not conceive how any person at all valuing
consistency, and who voted for the motion of the
Hon Member for Devonport, could refuse to vote for this
Bill, nor could he understand how any Hon. Member voting
tor the Irish Colleges Bill could refuse to vote for it,
Academical education in Scotland had some peculiar character-
istics. It differed entirely from that of England and Ireland. The
English Universities had a character of their own—ancient and
a deeply-marked character it might be, but, good or bad, it was in
perfect harmony with the system of tests. The Irish colleges
had no character at all—they have yet to receive it from the
Legislature, and would bear any impression which the Legislature
put upon them. But the Scotch universities had a distinguishing
characteristic quite out of harmony with the system of tests. He
entreated English gentlemen not to be imposed upon by the
word University, nor to derive their idea from the nature
of the Cambridge and Oxford Universities. What ought
to be done with the English Universities was a perfectly
distinct question, to be dealt with on entirely distinct grounds.
At Cambridge and Oxford the object was to bring
up men members of a particular Church. At
Cambridge, no person was suffered to graduate without de-
claiming his adhesion to the Church of England ; at Oxford,
they were still more strict. The discipline even outside the
walls of the college was analogous to that preserved within.
Attendance in these universities was required at the common
refectory ; they must be within the gates at a certain time ;
officers were appointed to report whether or no the students
had been present at divine worship, or in the hall at the
proper hour. There were even officers appointed to watch
over the students in the streets, to prevent drunkenness and
gross immorality. Punishment was inflicted where there was
any breach of decorum or intemperance. In short, the
English universities undertook to form the religious opi-
nions and watch over the morals of the undergradu-
ates. Whether these rules and regulations accomplished
the purpose for which they were designed was another question.
They did not aim at inculcating any particular creed. A Jew
might be a master of arts, or a doctor of medicine, in the
Scotch universities, and the professors had no right to ask a
man whether he attended a synagogue, a mass-house, an
Episcopal chapel, or a Dissenting place. No inspection, no
punishment, could take place. The relation
,between a Scotch
professor and his student was the same as that which existed
between a man walking St. George's Hospital and his superior
—he might attend the lectures of Professor Faraday at the
Royal Institution, or of Dr. Carlisle. Tests wore out of place
as applied either to the student or the professor, and it was idle
to require a man to be a Protestant to admit a Catholic, or a
Trinitarian to admit a Unitarian to a degree. The Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite might appeal to the Union and the Act of Se-
curity, but he denied that on those Acts they were
precluded, nay more, he positively asserted, on the contrary,
that they were absolutely required by them to apply the
principle he sought, This he would prove, not by paltry
quibbling, but what he believed would be the most incontro-
vertible arguments; arguments founded on that Union which
he was willing to consider as a sassed trust, entered into by
the two countries, binding them both to each
other in bonds of indissoluble sanctity.—( Hear, hear.)
Now the Act of Union and the Act of Security provided that
no person should be allowed to occupy any place as a teacher
unless they subscribed to the Confession of Faith, and con-
formed to the Established Church. The Articles Union
were sueh as he represented in 1707, in regard to tho Esta-
blished Church. At that time there was only one Church
Now, he would ask, was the present Established Church of
Scotland the same as that at the time of 1707 ? He would
answer, not. British legislation had violated the Articles of
Union by the changes which it had made in the Church of
Scotland It was a principle of the Church of Scotland,
at
the t me of the Union, to allow the people to have a voice in
ins appointment of their religious teachers. The Articles of
Union gave the people this privilege. This was the opinion of
the great body of the Scottish Presbyterians. They considered
that the right of appointing pastors by the people was a ques-
tion of great and vital importance. They stated this to be a
fact which could not be impugned. They maintaiied that the
people should have a share in the appointment of the mini-
sters who a ,ministered to them religious instruction. On
this point they held the opinion jure de vino. He was not
exaggerating the opinions of the members of the Church of
Scotland in what he was thus expressing. The Act of 1690
gave the power to the people of the disposition of presentations,
which were generally considered to be a fair representation of
the general body. That was the constitution of the Church of
Scotland at the time of the treaty of 1707. Five minutes after
the union task place a great violation of this compact occurred.
In 1710 the Whig Government were driven from power, and a
Tory Ministry was brought into office, and kept in office, and
that Ministry regarded the Presbyterians of Scotland with great
concern. The general opinion of the Union was, that the Eng-
lish were desirous of breaking the treaty as far as possible with-
out interfering with the State, and the Act of 1712 violated the
treaty which had been originally entered into in 1707. From
the Act of 1712 most undoubtedly followed every
great secession and every great schism which had
since occurred, and, among others, that of 1752.
And in the last two years they saw, it might be with disap-
probation, but certainly not without strong sentiments of ad-
miration, 470 ministers of the Scottish Church throw up their
charges, and resign themselves to the care of Providence.—
( Hear, hear.) They saw their followers also leave with them.
They bad their worship, not in churches, for they had none,
but on hills and moors, as their forefathers had done when
they were animated by a similar spirit. The rich had, in the
case he had cited, contributed in a princely manner, and the
poor had also contributed in the same spirit with which the
poor widow contributed her two mites to the treasury of
Jerusalem.—(Cheers.) The secession was the first of the
statute of 1712, and from that Act, and that only, did the present
disputes arise. This was the true historical statement, and
these were the results of the Act of 1712. He implored them to
consider the manner in which that Act was acted on. They
effected the treaty, and, in five years after, they broke through
it, and the consequence was the secession of a great body of
worshippers, until at last the Church was left in a minority.
They ought to attend to the conscientious scruples of that
Church, for, let them suppose that Boston, the author of the
" Fourfold State," or other worthies of his class, were now ex-
isting, and supposing they explained to them the nature of the
revolution which had taken place in the Church of Scotland—
if they asked, " Is this your Church, is this the Church which
was to be protected by the Act of Union ?" they would say,
No ; our Church is the Church of Chalmers and Sir David
Brewster, not the Church of Dr. Hill and Dr. Muir. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the universities was not
now subject to these experimental tests. Those tests had been
discarded by the Dissenters. The Ministers came down to that
House to establish colleges in Ireland without tests, and then,
tw) hours after, they proposed the introduction of tests into
the Scottish universities ten times as stringent as they were
before. He thought the Honed would not submit to allow
such things as these to pass unnoticed. '1 he tests of late y ears
had fallen into desuetude, and of the present processors
in the University of Edinburgh twelve were Non-conformists.
B oh the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite had filled the office
of Lord Ilec or of Glasgow, and could give good evidence that
tests in the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh were aban-
doned, and, if abandoned, why were they now sought to be re-
vived ? They were not enforced while all the people of Scot-
land were members of the Established Church, but as soon as
the majority of the people of Scotland became Dissenters, it
was endeavoured to enforce the tests. He would read a paper
from the Presbytery, conceived in such a spirit that he must
say that he thought the Presbytery would have very little rea-
son in future .to speak against the intolerance of the Vatican.
The paper was aadressed to one of the ministers, and concluded
by r: commending the removal from his office, " for the love of
botlGottetest
dadnhe,oet
mdte
ihrsle::tsenharrdfeaeher safety ysrft
erowhotteeamtxshntnee
f:Coet
rh:
committingsuhti
hrte ycehfioi,rfntsthtoetl
theei pmrr
intolerance
burnishingnis
ktpcheeear
o:
ati
intyuehdponefehigtenhel.
injustice
ksayt,i,:nome gfTesdGhoo
effmoo
dgrn ahhoinarend
dyr.
defence in a warfare of that kind, the days of the Church of
Scotland were numbered.-_(1-fear, hear.) The difficulty was
to obtain men of great eminence and abilities to fill the chairs
of universities. Now they had all the world—all Scotland—to
make a selection from. If they throw out the present Bill, they

Hon. Member ; and he could scarcely believe his senses when
he heard the Church of Scotland denounced as a factious as-
semblage—as a branch which ought to be cut off. What was
the state of Scotland? r as well known that Scotland was
in a state of religious lL 11 ension, and he was grieved to find
that some of the Memoers of that House were ready to lend
their assistance to the fotnentation of that difference which was
already unhappily so great. He believed that the indiscreet
language of several of the members of the Free Church had
led to this spirit of opposition. The spirit of the Church of
Scotland was entirely opposed to those principles which occa-
sioned division. It should be recollected that they were not
about to impose any new tests, but simply to preserve the old
ones, and he believed that this was the time to abolish any of
those means by which the conduct of the universities in Scot-
land was secures!. The corporation of Edinburgh appointed
twelve out of the twenty professors, and it was well known that
the whole tendency of the popular excitement in Scotland was
towards the Free Church. Now it should be recollected that
the whole of those tests were regulated by the senatus acade-
micus. It was of little consequence whether-the officers of the
several colleges were appointed by the popular voice or by the
professors. He was one of that party—he believed it was a
great party in that House—who felt that it was necessary for the
Church of Scotland to be connected with the State.—
( Hear, hear)—and he wished to know how the Church
was to be supplied unless the universities were under
regulations which would enable them to supply the churches
with ministers of principles similar to those on which the
church was conducted? It might be presumptuous in him to
differ from the Right Hon. Gentleman in points of history,
but he should remind him that it was not the Act of the year
1690, before the Union, but that of 1712, which regulated the
ministerial characters of the professors of those universities.
That was the Act which transferred the patronage of those
churches to the heritors, and it was necessary, therefore, to be
careful that they did not deprive the Church of Scotland of one
of those securities which had been given by the last Act for the
government of the Church. The universities of Scotland
were even now more open than any other universities in the
kingdom, and there was, therefore, no reason to allege for the
transference of that government on which their peculiar
character depended. That was the real question. It was
not to be overlooked that the object of this motion
was to transfer the patronage of those churches and
those universities to the hands of those who were their
greatest enemies. He felt assured that in the late seces-
sion there was to be found an immense number of persons who
had seceded simply from attachment to their ministers. The
Free Church of Scotland had shown the utmost readiness to
carry out the views of the body in an active interference with
the academies of the country. In one instance, when a college
in connexion with the Free Church, and when it was stated
that 30,000/. were wanted, no less than 20,0001. was subscribed
by a few individuals. He was no opponent to the Free
Church, for he thought that the establishment of this
Church was likely to excite a generous rivalry, such
as had been exhibited in England in consequence
of the discus,ions at Oxford. From that discussion a new
spirit had arisen, new churches had been built, new schools
established, and all would allow that an impulse had been dif-
fused over the whole Church. Ho was no opponent to the
Church of Scotland, or to those who were seeking to establish
a better system of ecclesiastical polity. He wished to see a
generous rivalry among the several portions of the community,
but he must assert that this attempt to Popularise the govern-
ment of the universities was uncalled for.
Sir G. GREY felt called upon to express his surprise
at the course which the Government intended to pursue
on this question. Pressed as they were by the arguments
of his Right Honourable Friend in opposing; these tests,
not a single argument of the least consequence had been ad-
duced to support their continuance. He was sorry to say that
there was a total disregard of principle on the part of the Govern-
ment. lie wished to know what circumstances had occurred
during the last year to induce the Government to change
their minds to such an extent as they did upon the present
Bill? The Right Hon. Gentleman, in opposing
the Bill,
had resorted to such shifts that he could not adequately de-
-1 scribe them. He had stated, however, that in all the univer-
I sities these tests existed.
Sir J. GRAHAM—In all the universities except Edin-
burgh.
Sir G. GREY replied that Sir D. K. Sandford, professor of
Greek in Glasgow. was admitted through an Episcopalian pro-
test. The lion. Gentleman said that no evil resulted from
these tests j but the reason why they did not result in evil was
because they were never brought into actual operation. He
Inped, however, that they would not allow sectarian collegiates
to be tolerated in these countties. He would on these grounds
give the Bill his most cordial support. If the bond of union
between Church and State in Scotland was the system of
patronage which existed, he should like to know how long
the integrity of the Church would continue, as the great ma-
jority of the patrons were Episcopalian Protestants? This
was a sample of the expedients which Hon. Gentlemen were
obliged to resort to. He hoped the Government would not
look to the opinion of the General As embly alone in this
matter, but that they would re-consider the course which they
had determined to adopt on this question, and remove for ever
sectarian education from the colleges and institutions of the
country.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS hoped that he would be acquitted
of any disrespect, if he said that the speech of Isis Hon.
Friend had wily one argument of any value which called for
the least attention. If it was true, said the Right lion. Gen-
tleman, that the Church, as established in 1707, and by NI
subsequent Acts in 1712 and 17121 was not the son church

THE SUN, LONDON, TMURSDAI MORNING, JULY 10, 1845.

as now established, he would ask, where the Church was to
which the State was allied, and which required these Acts?
The argument of his Right lion. Friend proved too much.
He could never conceal from himself that it was his duty to
promote the right of the Church to which he belonged, and
in Christian charity he was equally bound to support the
Church as at present established in Scotland. The question
was not whether they would impose tests, but whether they
would preserve those which had been considered necessary
for the preservation of the Established Church of Scotland.
To say that this was persecution was a very different reading
of the word to what he had been accustomed to. He thought
it was not fair for the Right Hon. Gentleman who made the
motion, and the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, to
taunt the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) with
treating Ireland on a different footing in respect to collegiate
education. His opinion was that the two countries were placed
in different circumstances. There was no analogy whatever be-
tween them. He would certainly now look upon the
Free Church of Scotland, which had withdrawn itself from the
Establishment not from a difference of creed, but on a point of
Church government, as not deserving of any privilege what-
ever. He thought the Church of Scotland should continue to
receive that protection which it deserved, and that the vo'e this
night would show, in a marked manner, what was the feeling of
the House on this important question.
Mr. PRINGLE did not like the House to come to a deci-
sion upon the Bill without affording him an opportunity of re-
cording his opposition to it. The Government who had thought
proper to establish those institutions imposed those tests, and
he considered that it was only due to the Church of Scotland to
fence it round by such provisions. He did not consider, how-
ever, that the members of the Free Church, any more than
Episcopalian Protestants, were bound by them. lhe object of
those tests was to prevent the subversion of the Church.
They were not of much use in themselves, but
they were indirectly of great benefit.—( Hear, hear. )
He had seven petitions to present tonight which he had not
the opportunity of producing. He thought that if the whole
Church were consulted on the matter, they would express their
opinions in the same terms as were exhibited in the language
of those petitions. These tests had been in existence for 150
years, and during that period there was no clamour raised—
there was no complaint urged, and it was only within these
last two years that they were inclined to force from their
educational colleges all religious tests. Why should the Church
of Scotland alone be deprived of that right which belonged to
the Church of England ? What would be the con-
sequence of passing this measure? It was his opinion
that if it passed, in the town council of Edinburgh
every election would be more or less dependant on the reli•
gious communion of the persons appointed. The students in the
universities would be influenced in the same way. This mea.•••
sure was not directed against the principal establishments in
Scotland—it went much further, it was intended to affect the
supposed system of education generally, and it would strike a
blow that would be generally deprecated. He was entirely
against any measure that would tend to sever sound religion
from sound education.

Mr. C. BULLER said that the test that was proposed to be
continued by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down
ought to be the first to be abolished. The test which Sir D.
Sanford took was, that he would practice and conform to the
worship in usa in the said church. He would like to know what
better plan was there that the most subtle enemy of the rights
of conscience could devise to keep out all the members of
other Churches, than to extract from persons a declaration that
they would practise the worship of a Church to which they
did not belong. The argument now in favour of the ab-
sence of tests in the Irish colleges was, that they would create a
sectarian system of education, and would work out religious
distinctions. Was that state of things peculiar to Ireland ?
No ; thanks to the Government, who had placed Scotland in
the same po-ition as Ireland in that respect, the same argu-
ment could be applied to Scotland also. He saw with great
regret the course which the Government had taken upon this
subject. In truth, it was an attempt to impose new tests.
The great body of the clergy of the Free Church of Scotland
had petitioned against the imposition of tests, and now was
the time to conciliate that Church. By passing this Bill they
would effect that conciliation, and the cost of that conciliation
would merely be the abolition of a few tests.
The LORD ADVOCATE said the Bill was intended to re-
peal a part of the Act of Settlement. The Bill proposed to
abolish tests without any proposition for new ones in their stead
being made. He was not aware that any body of the Dissen-
ters of Scotland had expressed an opinion in favour of this Bill.
The resolution of the Free Church did not do it. The leading
members of that Church were not in favour of this Bill at all.
He did not think that it had been shown that any practical
evil had resulted from the imposition of the tests at present in
force. If no evil had resulted from these tests, what ground
could there be for the abolition? He did not believe that any
class in Scotland was in favour of the entire abolition of tests
in the universities of Scotland. Dr. Candlish had said he
would rather have the present tests than no tests at all. The
Dissenters wished the tests to be altered, so as to
admit their own body to the universities; but they would
rather the present tests continued than have no
security at all, for in that case, if there were no tests at
all, persons who were of no religion would gain admis-
sion to the universities. Why pass the Bill; why proceed with
the measure—a measure which would be acceptasle to no one ?
Part of the education inculcated on the students was logic,
moral philosophy, Greek, Latin, and mathematics; to the two
former sciences, viz., logic and moral philosophy, theology was
intimately connected, but it was proposed by this Bill to render
it obligatory on the Established Churchman to attend those lec-
tures as by professors of a different belief. Such a course was
eminently inconsistent, and would only serve to introduce dis-
satisfaction, if not irreligion. The system proposed was wholly
in contradiction to that pursued in Trinity College, Dublin,
and he trusted it would be discountenanced by the House.
Mr. P. M. STEWART, amid loud cries of" Divide," said,
that after the admirable speeches of the Members for Leith
and Edinburgh, the latter still remaining unanswered, he
would trespass but a few minutes on the attention of the
/louse. The opponents of the Bill had treated with contempt
the opinion of the majority of the people of Scotland, for the
Free Church undoubtedly comprised the vast majority of that
country, and had despised petitions presented from that eminent
body. The Government had now in their power, by passing
this Act, to offer a boon to a divided Church—to heal dis•en-
sions—to afford relief when most required—and to consult the
universal opinion of the people of Scotland. Let the Govern-
ment ad,,pt some decided course; let them adopt the motto
incribed on a banner, yesterday unfolded by one of their officers
at his re-election--" Principle and no expediency ;" and thus
entail honour on themselves, and confer justice on the Church.
In the words of the Act which proposed the original test to
advance the religion of Scotland and the good of the Church,
they would at once take a better view of the case and oppose
the Bill, for which Scotland would be lastingly grateful
throughout the Church and the country.
Sir R. PEEL said he had never concealed from himself the
difficulties with which her Majesty's Ministers would have to
contend in bringing forward any scheme for the education, of
the youth of Scotland. It had subjected the Government to
charges which had been most unjustly brought against them on
a previous occasion. It had been said that the principles which
had been adopted as to Ireland necessarily compelled the Go-
vernment to adopt a similar principle in other parts of the em-
pire. He would ask, what were the circumstances under which
these new academical institutions were founded? It was wished to
provide at the expense of the State good secular education. It is
not proposed to insist on a system of sectarian education, ncr to
educate ministers for the Church in Ireland ; nor was it pro-
posed to separate religion from the education which it was in-
tended to give. Having carefully considered the circumstances
of Ireland, the Government had called upon individuals to
'make provision for the religious education of the young men at
the colleges. There might be found existing, both in Ireland
and in other parts of the empire, institutions of great antiquity
intended for the education of ecclesiastics and ministers of the
Church. In this very metropolis there existed King's College
for the education of clergymen of the Establishment. In Ire-
land we find Dublin University established for a similar pur-
pose. Maynooth also existed for the Roman Catholics ;
and in the north of Ireland a college for the edu-
cation of Presbyterian ministers had been founded.
It was quite true that the Government had not imposed on the

professors the taking of any particular test, but then they were
told they were guilty of some inconsistency because they did
not follow the same course with respect to Scotland as they
had pursued towards Ireland. It was not intended to alter
Dublin University or Trinity College. The Government had
been charged with inconsistency because :they had not opened
Trinity College to the Roman Catholics. -The Government
had desired to establish these colleges with the understanding
that the same principle must not necessarily be applied to similar
institutions. These colleges were to be founded so as to meet
the special circumstances of Ireland, and they defended the
establishment of those institutions on those grounds. A suf-
ficient guarantee and security had been provided for the integrity
of the professors. It waa proposed to give to the Crown the
absolute power of appointment, and the absolute power of re-
moval, and that was the substitute for any test to be taeen.
What was the case in Scotland? There were certain acade-
mical institutions which were immediately connected with the
Church. In these institutions the ministers of the Church
generally received their education. The proposed Bill ad-
mitted that the academical institutions of Scotland were con-
nected with the Church. It was especially provided in the
Bill that nothing should extend to interfere with the chairs of
divinity in any of the universities of Scotland. The Bill re-
cognised a material distinction between the collegiate establish-
ments of Scotland and those about to be instituted in Ireland.
It would be found that an engagement had been entered into
at the Union that the professors of those universities should
make a certain subscription implying compliance with the
doctrines of the Church. Could there be a doubt as to the
meaning of the requirements of the Act of Union? It was ex-
plicitly laid down that the professors of these universities,
before their appointment, should subscribe to the .‘ Confession
of Faith" as the confession of their faith. The Right Hon.
Gentleman admitted the binding force of that engagement.
He said he would not attempt to quibble it away. The Right
Hon. Baronet, after having alluded to the tests established in
1711 by an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of Queen
Anne, and showing the consistency of resuming tests which had
been in disuetude for 130 years past ; and speaking also of the
disruptions that had taken place of late years in the Scottish
Church, continued to say that the Government had been told
that no tests had been required in the new institutions in Ire-
land, and .the objection might be further urged, that there
were good grounds to abolish that principle in the English
universities. He had contemplated the proposed schemes for the
education of the youth of Ireland, and had thought it might be
a great benefit. The Bill for the Scottish universities pro-
vided that all the professors of divinity should be subject to
the tests. The Government had been assured that the Bill
would meet with general concurrence on the part of the people
of Scotland. If it had been otherwise, the Government, per-
haps, would not have been perfectly willing to have agreed to it.
What petitions had the people of Scotland forwarded in favour
of the measure ? He believed there had been one or two peti-
tions, but these did not contain the opinion of the people in
favour of the repeal of these tests.
Mr. HUME—There have been no petitions against—all in
favour.
Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Member says none against. Since
the Bill had been brought before the House the General As-
sembly of the Church of Scotland had met, and it had declared
itself not in favour, but against the Bill, and prayed that the
Act of Union should be maintained. He (Sir Robert Peel)
was not prepared to set aside the Act of Union entered
into with the r eople of Scotland. He was not pre-
pared to set aside the guarantees of the Act of Union with-
out great consideration, especially as the people of Scotland had
not expressed themselves against it. Was there a general desire
among them that these tests should be removed, on the
grounds that they were against the sense and interest of the
people, then he should hold it to be a matter worthy of serious
consideration. But even then such a step should not be
sightly regarded. They ought not on slight grounds to inter-
fere with that which constituted the basis of a national compact.
—( Hear, hear.) They had desired to extend the benefits of
academical education to Ireland, and it had been objected to
that measure that the danger was the principle with regard to
the appointment of professors which it contained would be
extended to Trinity College, Dublin, and to the English and
Scotch universities. There was, however, a great distinction
between those institutions established for the purposes of aca-
demical education, and institutions established for other pur-
poFes—institutions set apart for religious instruction, and of
great antiquity—( Hear, hear)—guaranteed by particular
compact, founded for the purposes of theological education and
the instruction of the ministers of religion, who were to exercise
spiritual influence over the people. He did think it necessary to
apply a different rule to these institutions to that he proPse4
for the Irish academical institutions. HD tyoql4 pot consent
to alter the law so that the professors and instruetias of youth
in the principles of religion should be exempted frSTii those
testg which weve guaratittvi ,14y t..he national compact, and

which the opinion and feeling of the country required.—
(Cheers, and loud cries of " Divide.")
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it was hardly necessary to argue
the question further.—(Loud cheers.) He had been taught to
consider that religion was a matter of principle, and that it was
necessary to maintain it as useful and beneficial to the State.
He could understand the tenacity of the Hon. Member for the
University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) in support of the tests
and privileges of the universities, and he could comprehend the
motives of those who looked upon those tests as cobwebs and
snares to entrap the unwary. Those who entertained such
opinions about the injurious nature of tests, as well as the Hon.
Member for the Univei sity for Oxford, could well defend their
opinions ; but as for the Government, it neither held one opi-
nion nor the other. They (the Government) told them one day
there was no need of religious tests, that they were utterly useless;
and the next day they came down to the House and told them
that tests were absolutely necessary for the maintenance of
religion in Scotland, and that in the language of the Lord
Advocate, they should not, by any means, act on latitudinarian
principles. He put it the House whether Ministers aught not
to assert one principle or the other—(Loud cheers)—whether
they were to act on one principle in dealing with the Irish
Colleges Bill, and on other principles when dealing with English
or Scotch universities?—(Loud cheers.) It was not sufficient
for them to be told that such a course of proceeding was to
serve the particular interest of the Ministry.—( Hear, hear.)
He had heard an old story of two knights who met each other
on different sides of a shield, one side of which was black and
the other white; they fought a desperate battle in support of
their opinions respecting the colour of the shield, the one
knight maintaining that the shield was black, and the other
asserting it was white. But the Ministry did something more
than this. At one time they maintained that the shield was
black, at another they declared that it was white. They sup-
ported one or two other principle alternately, so that it was
impossible to know what they really meant on any matter
involving the religious interests of the country.—(Cheers.)
lie believed that these tests only entangled scrupulous persons,
and furnished no guard against infidelity. That such tests did
not fulfil the object for which they were intended, he need only
refer to three notable examples—Lord Bolingbroke, Mr. Hume,
and Mr. Gibbon—all of whom held important appointments
under the Government. These tests did not prevent these men
holding these appointments. They were good Tories arid
Churchmen, though entertaining their well-known opinions on
religious questions.—( Hear, hear.) But the tests under consi-
deration did not exclude from the universities those men who
held different doctrint s to those c f Presbyterianism. They
excluded those who agreed with all the leading doctrines of the
Presbyterian Church, but who differed upon points of Church
Government only. On this ground the tests shut out professors
of natural philosophy and mathematics. If any man, a teacher
of mathematics, did not hold with the policy of the present
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he was excluded
from all chance of filling a professor's chair. He happened to
knew the futility of these tests, having attended the University
of Edinsurgh, and been present at the lectures of the celebrated
Dugald Stewart. The class that attended the teachings of
that great philosopher was composed of all denominations. At
the close of the session a Committee was formed to draw up an
address to be presented to that celebrated man,
which was composed of a Presbyterian and a
Member of the Church of :England, while the
party who drew up the address was a Roman Catholic—then
Lord Killeen, now the Earl of Fingall.—( Hear, hear.) It was
said that the clergy of the Church of Scotland had not peti-
tioned in favour of the Bill. This was not to be wondered at,
as they were, in fact, the excluding body.—( Hear, hear. )
Suppose they were to ask the Primate of Ireland, or the clergy
under his care, their feelings on the expediency of the May-
neoth Bill—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear ")—what would be the
result? Why, he doubted if there were five or six of the clergy
would support that measure, or even the New Colleges Bill.
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The appealing to the clergy of
the Church of Scotland was, therefore, no sound
criterion to guide the House in legislating on this question.
But really after all, without entering into the question any fur-
ther, he was t'isposed to ask the House to establish either one
or the other of the principles he had enumerated. His Hon.
Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir H. Inglis) said the Go-
vernment had a general policy, and that they had made an ex-
ception to that policy in favour of the Irish colleges. But let
them adopt one principle or the other, and do not
let the country ask what it was. It would be
most injurious that the opinion of the country
should be altogether shaken—that there should be no
resting-plane on any principle by that House. If they adopted
a vacillating course, the people of England would be at first be-
wildered, but when they came to their senses, they would con-
demn the conduct which had led them into this painful di-
lemma. He had, therefore, to appeal to the House, as he be-
gan, not to suffer this stain on their character—to trust upon
the Government of the day—and to let the House of Commons
remain in future free from such a stain, and not to be touched
by such a dishonour.—( Great cheering. )
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion lOB
Against it
Majority against the motion ... —8
The amendment was received with great cheering by the
Opposition.