The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-01 00:00:00

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

Yesterday a Special Court was held, for the purpose
of receiving a report from the Committee for general
purposes, on the petitions of several solicitors to be
admitted attorneys of the Mayer's Court.
The report of the Committee was read, and proved to
be to the effect that the Committee did not consider it
expedient to agree to the applications of the petitioners.
Upon the motion that the Court should agree to the
report,
Alderman WILSON rose to dissent. He could not
see why the Court should put the petitioners to
the heavy expense of applying to the Court of
Queen's Bench for a mandamus, to compel them
to accede to the application, when it was for
an object the most palpably just and necessary. The
recent Act of Parliament provided in the most unequi-
vocal terms, that attorneys who practised in the superior
Courts should have the power to practise in all the infe-
rior Courts, and contained no clause of re,ervation. He
should move that the petitioners be admitted attorneys
of the Mayor's Court.
Alderman Sir C. HUNTER seconded the amendment.
The RECORDER said that without entering into
the merits of the question, he should advise the
Lord Mayor that it was inexpedient to comply with
the request of the petitioners to practise in the
Mayor's Court. The question was one of consider-
able legal difficulty, and that very circumstance
rendered it more necessary that hesitation should
precede decision. His Lordship would assume that by
the general words of an Act of Parliament it could not
be meant to confiscate the offices of four gentlemen who
had purchased those officCs from the Corporation.

The Court decided against the prayer of the peti-
;loners, four hands having been held up for the motion
.n their favour, and seven having been held up against it.
The Court then adjourned;
COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

Immediately after the adjournment of the Court of
Aldermen, a Court of Common Council was held.

THE CITY RIGHTS.

Mr. R. L. JONES brought up the report of the
Committee appointed to consider the report of the
Select Committee relative to proceedings having
been instituted in the Court of Chancery, at the
suit of her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods
and Forests, as to the City's rights to the soil
and bed of the river Thames, with power to confer with
her Majesty's Ministers and others on the subject, and
to report thereon. The report certified that the Corn-
niittee had proceeded in the reference, and had been
attended by the Recorder, the Remembrancer, and the
Solicitor, and subsequently held a conference with
Sir Robert Peel, which would be likely to lead to
a satisfactory result, and that it was desirable to
open a communication with the law officers of the
Crown'; but the unexpected change which had taken
place, and other circumstances having occasioned con-
siderable delay, and the time approaching for filing an
answer to the Bill to provide for the defence, it was re-
quisite that they should be empowered to give the neces-
sary instructions for that purpose.
THE THROWING OPEN OF THE MAYOR'S COURT.
Mr. ASHURST then rose, and after having made some
allusion to the course just pursued by the Court of Alder-
men on the application of several petitioners to be admitted
attorneys to practise in the Mayor's Court, submitted the
followingresolutions to the Court :—" That it is desirable
that the Mayor's Court should be thrown open to the
public. That it be referred to a Committee to consider
of the steps necessary for that purpose with reference
to the present and future constitution and practice of
these Courts, and also to inquire what, if any, compen-
sation ought to be made to the counsel and attorneys of
the Mayor's Court for the surrender of their exclusive
Ar.
offices,t o rights,nitl R Dseconded s andded the resolutions. privileges, or any portion of them."
Mr. LAWRENCE objected to the resolutions. He moved
the previous question.
Mr. BURN seconded the amendments.
The amendment was negatived, and the resolutions
were agreed to.—Adjourned.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, April3o
30.

Their Lordships assembled at Fiveao'Clock.
Lord Campbell, the 111a;quis of Salisbury, and severe,
other Noble Lords, presented petitions for and against
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Marquis of NORMANBY presented a petition
complaining of a practice which had lately sprung up, of
enlisting boys out of union workhouses without the
consent of their parents.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Sussex, complaining of the refusal by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners to renew leases of property held of sup-
pressed prebendaries. The Noble Duke, in supporting
the prayer of the petitioners, complained of the hardship
which this refusal had imposed both on the large land-
owners, and the small foragers in the country.
Lord IVHARNCLIFIC". said the object of this Bill
was to have the Church property made available to
Church purposes. The chief complaint which his
Noble Friend had made, was, that although the Commis-
sioners might grant leases for a stated number of years,
yet that thoy could not give reversionary leases. He (Lord
Wharnclifle) could not see how the Noble Duke %Nes jus-
tified in finding fault with the Commissioners for making
the most of the property consigned to their care.
He could assure his Noble Friend that in every case
where a tenant in possession sought a reversionary in-
terest he invariably got the preference.
The Duke of RICHMOND said the question he
wished to put to the Noble Lord was, how a person
could be expected to expend 10,000/. on a property in
which he had no reversionary interest ?
The Bishop of LONDON thought that the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners would be guilty of unfairness, if
they did not try and make the most of the- property
over which they were appointed as agents. Why, if
their Lordships would recollect, they would see that in
cases where the Crown lands were to be let, the
Noble Lord opposite refused, in his capacity at the
head of the "Woods and Forests, to grant any new leases,
and therefore he (the Bishop of London) thought that
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were fully justified in
adopting the same course as that which the Crown took.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE characterised the
conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as unjust
and arbitrary, and expressed his opinion to .the effect
that if such conduct had for a moment been anticipated
at the time of the appointment of the Commission, that
Commission never would have been appointed. He
hoped the Noble Duke, on an early occasion, would
bring this subject forward in a more tangible shape than
he had done that evening.
After a few words from the Earl of BESBOROUGII and
the Marquis Of CLANRICARDE,
The Bishop of LONDON said'he ought to state in the
name of the Commissioners, that every proposal made to
them for the renewal of leases would meet with ample
consideration by them.
The Bishop of EXETER said be had opposed the ap-
pointment ofthe Ecclesiastical Commissioners from the
first, but that Commission having been appointed, it was
their duty to obtain as much money from the Church
property as they could, in order to provide for the reli-
gious instruction of the people. He did not rise from
any personal feelings, but merely because, as a member
of that Commission, he was deeply impressed with the
importance of the subject.
The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice, that, on
Thursday next, he should present a petition from a
number of artisans in Edinburgh, praying for the adop-
tion of sanitary regulations in large towns.

The Duke of RICHMOND gave notice that on Thurs-
day next he should move for certain returns with re-
spect to the importation of foreign wool.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, after presenting,
a petition from the north of Ireland, praying for the le-
galization of Presbyterian marriages, asked whether it
was the intention of her Majesty's Government to make
any grant for the improvement of the harbours of Do-
naghadee and Portpatrick.
The Earl of HADDINGTON said the report of the
engineers sent down to examine the ports, induced her
Majesty's Government not to make any grant for the
purposes alluded to by the Noble Lord.
The Forestalling (Ireland) Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed on Friday.
DEBTORS AND CREDITORS BILL.

Lord COTTENHAM, in moving the second reading
of the Debtors and Creditors Bill, said that he felt
confident he should be able to show to their Lordships,
from undoubted authority, that the law, as it stood now
with respect to the imprisonment for debt, was perfectly
useless and futile. In support of that, ho could adduce
the report of the year 1832, which report was signed
by some of the most eminent men in the legal profession,
amongst whom was Sir Frederick Pollock, now Chief
Baron :of the Exchequer, and Mr. Justice Wightman.
He called upon their Lordships to remove a grievance
the existence of which no one doubted. In the month
of March last no less than four hundred and twelve per-
sons passed through the Insolvent Court; and if their
Lordships took that number as the monthly average,
nearly five thousand persons annually passed through the
Insolvent Court. Their Lordships would therefore see
how extensive was the evil which he was then soliciting
Parliament to abolish. The Noble and Learned Lord
then proceeded to describe the various Insolvent:Acts
which have been passed since the time of Queen Anne.
The first Insolvent Act on the statute-book was that of
Queen Anne, which their Lordships upon examination
would find to be very rude in its character. It provided
that any person could get rid of his debts by means of
enlisting into the army.—(A laugh.) This law was in
the statute-book, and, be had no doubt, was in
force at the present time ; but he apprehended
that her Ma.;esty's army now-a-days was not
very often recruited by means of the Insolvent
Act. He then came to what was called the Lords' Act,
which provided that unless a man gave up the whole of
his goods on becoming insolvent, he should be subject
to transportation for seven years. This was found to be
harsh, and another Act was passed, which was called
Lord Redesdale's Act ; but a man could not avail him-
self of that Act until he hal been in prison for three
months. This Act was found to be unsatisfactory,
and it was consequently repealed ; and the Act at pre-
sent in existence came into operation. By this Act, a
man might apply to the court for his discharge the day
after he was conveyed to prison. But by the
reports to which he had referred, it would ap-
pear that, generally speaking, a man could not ob-
tain his discharge, even under the most favour-
able circumstances, under two months. The Noble
and Learned Lord then referred to the Act which passed
in the year 1836, abolishing imprisonment of debt on
mesne process. This he had always looked upon as a
most important Act, although he recollected that at the
time it was passed considerable alarm was felt amongst
the commercial community. Since it had come into
operation, there had been no petitions against it, and he
had not heard that credit had been impaired by it. He
did not, however, think that this Act had had fair play,
inasmuch as now, instead of arresting a debtor on mesne
process, the creditor obtained judgment against his
debtor, and took him in execution. The Noble
Lord then referred to the report of the exa-
mination of certain witnesses, who were exa-
mined two years ago with respect to this subject.
The amount of the cost expended in one year by in-
solvent debtors was 86,970/., being an average of 15/.
for each person who got his discharge. He thought
that there was considerable hardship in the distinction
between bankrupts and insolvents, by which the latter
were doomed to imprisonment and subject to subsequent
contingencies. After the, r Lordships considered the
high authority which had been adduced on this subject,
he trusted their Lordships would give their sanction to a
measure which would have the effect of abolishing im-
prisonment, which tended to injure commercial credit as
well as inflicting many social evils.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he thought
nothing could be more inconsistent than the law as it
now stood, namely, that there should be a distinction
between its application to the cases of insolvents and
bankrupts. The unfortunate insolvent, after he had
given up all his property and passed through the court,
when he began the world again had all his debts still
hanging over him, and it certainly required more energy
than fell to the lot of ordinary men to exert their talents,
ingenuity, or industry, when they knew the result would
be for the benefit of ethers. In conclusion, he should
express his concurrence in the Bill of his Noble an
Learned Friend, but be hoped that he would defer it
for a short time, in order that a measure of such im-
portance might receive the consideration it deserved.
Lord BROUGHAM hoped that some penalty might
be imposed in way of misdemeanour upon those who
were guilty of fraud towards their creditors, or of frau-
dulently transferring their property to others, or of
giving bills of sale. Such were the provisions of the
bankruptcy laws of almost all the commercial states of
Europe, and he hoped they would be adopted in this
country.
'rhe Duke of RICHMOND perfectly agreed in what
had fallen from his Noble and Learned Friend, who had
just sat down, as to the propriety of having some penal
enactment, as applicable to those who were guilty of
fraud towards their creditors.
Lord DENMAN said he concurred in the Bill intro-
duced by his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Cotten-
ham) which he hoped would be so dealt with as to enable
their Lordships to gain every information respecting it.
He hoped sincerely this Bill would be carried into effect.
With respect to the provision suggested by his Noble
and Learned Friend near him (Lord Brougham), con-
cerning persons in the last stage of insolvency, obtaining
goods by false representations from others, he could
only say, that that was amply provided for by the
criminal code at present ; for a case of this kind had
lately come before him in his judicial capacity, where the
offender was convicted of felony, as having obtained the
goods under false pretences. He thought the subject of bills
of sale was one which deserved the deepest consideration
from the Legislature, for it was not at all unlikely that,
in many instances, persons exchanged these instruments
with each other ; but still he would be rather jealous
of adopting precipitately any measure which would make
the execution of such a deed a felony. There was
another point to which be would briefly allude, and that
was where persons allowed others the use of their pro-
perty, and in consequence that those persons got in
debt. He thought that it would be only justice if such
property was to be considered to belong to the assignees.
After a few words from Lord COTTENHAM in reply,
and from the LORD CHANCELLOR,

The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on this thy fortnight.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 30.

-
JAVA SUGAR.
Mr. D. BARCLAY wished to know from the Right Hon.
Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether it was
his intention to admit Java sugar into this country upon the
same favourable footing that the sugar of Manilla and Siam
was to be admitted ? There was some doubt upon the point,
in consequence of the high duties imposed on articles of British
industry in Java ; and it would be well to have the doubt
cleared up before the departure of the Overland Mail.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he would take an early opportunity of bringing the subject of
the sugar duties before the House, and he would then explain
fully what were his intentions.
SHIPWRECKS COMMITTEE.
Lord INGESTRE wished to know from the Right Hon.
Gentleman (the Secretary to the Admiralty) when he would
bring in a Bill founded on the report of the Shipwrecks Corn..
mittee; and also whether there was any intention of making a
provision for the periodical inspection of masters of ships and
masters' mates ?
Mr. S. HERBERT said that with regard to the subject of
the examination of masters of ships and masters' mates, it was
under consideration; and with regard to the other subject, it
was the intention of the Admiralty to carry the recommenda-
tion of the Committee into effect.
RECAL OF LORD ELLENBOROUGH.
_

Lord JOCELYN, seeing the Hon. Member for Beverley in
his place, wished .to know whether he was prepared, on th.
part of the Directors of the East India House, to lay any
papers on the table of the House, with respect to the recal of
the Governor. General of India',l)—( Cheers. )
Mr. lIOGG said, that he was not the organ of the Court
of Directors, and he had no authority to answer the ques-
tion.— (Hear, hear.) He had no objection however, as a mem-
ber of that body, to state his own opinion, and having done so,
it would rc3t with the Miniecra to rictctinine, with reference
to the public interest, as to the propriety of the production of
papers in that House ; and as to the production of papers before
the Court of Proprietors, the Court of Proprietors would be
influenced by the course that Ministers should adopt. He
would venture, however, to express a hope, that in conse-
quence of what had occurred in another place, that the House
and the country would suspend their judgment upon the course
the Court of Directors had pursued.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ASTELL trusted that the House and the country
would give the Court of Directors credit for having done their
duty. He agreed with what had been stated by his Hon.
Friend.—( Hear, hear ) In consequence of what had occurred
in another place, he trusted the House and the country would
suspend their judgment.—( Hear, hear.)
Ir. HUME wished to know whether there would be any
objection to lay before the House a copy of the correspondence
which had taken place between the Government and the Court
of Directors on the subject. He thought the Court had acted
rightly, and he did not see why parties that had done so should
be blamed.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said that with respect to the period when the
correspondence would be laid on the table he could give no in-
formation to the House.
Mr. HUME wanted only to know whether the Government
would lay the papers on the table or not ?
To this question no answer was returned.
ATMOSPHERIC RAILWAYS.
Lord 11. VIVIAN begged to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, the Recorder of Dubliq, whether it was his inteniton
to
introduce a Bill on the subject of atmospheric railways?
111 r. SHAW said that there was new before Parliament a
Bill which would afford an opportunity of putting the princi-
ple to the test of experiment, upon a line of. twenty-oneRELIGIOUSTESTS IN UNIVERSITIES
(SCOTLAND.)
Mr. FOX MAULE rose, according to notice, to move for
leave to bring in a Bill to alter the law relating to oaths taken
by professors in the Universities of Scotland. The inconve-
nience occasioned by the present administration of oaths. to
professors was so great, that he thought he was justified in t
once moving for leave to bring in a Bill, without any previous
step. He wished that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
would meet him at once upon the principle, instead of object-
ing to Oil form of his proceeding. It was not his intention to
go into the whole question of university reform in Scotland,
which would open too wide a field; but he would confine him-
self entirely to the subject of the oaths administered
to those who hold offices in the universities.
lie would read to the House an extract from the Act of Se.
curity, which was passed in 1607, prowl:ling the test to be
taken by those who should thereafter hold office in the Uni-
versities of Scotland. (The Right Hon. Gentleman here read
the extract in question, by which it was provided that no pro.
tenor, principal, registrar, or other person holding office in any

of the universities, colleges, or schools of Scotland, should be
permitted to exercise their functions, unless they should have
first acknowledged the Civil Government as established. and pro.
fessed their belief in, and subscribed the Confession of Faith, and
worshipped in the Church, and submitted to the government and
the discipline thereof. Such were the provisions of the Act
of Security, and it had been at the suggestion of the professors
themselves for the time being, that all persons holding autho-
rity in the universities bad been required to take this test.
Now, however illiberal and narrow-minded those opinions
might appear at the presen t day, he could find an excuse for
those who had enacted them. They were not directed against
any body of Dissenters, as the law was tthderstood in the pre-
sent day ; they were not directed against the Roman Catholics.
The Scottish Universities were protected against them by the
penal laws. They were intended to preserve the religious
worship of the country. That Act of Security was confirmed
by the Act of Union, such confirmation having been insisted on
by the Scotch themselves. There were excuses to be made
for their insisting on the re-enactment of the Act of Security.
They recollected the persecutions which they, as Presbyterians,
had suffered under Charles the First. The y recollected their
sufferings on account of th-ir religion in the time of Charles
the Second and James the Second. They could not but re
member the 12,000 Presbyterians who, in the latter persecu-
tions, had suffered death on account of their religion. All these
things were fresh in their memo ies at the time of the passing
of the Act of Union, and when they were uniting themselves to
a Legislature composed of a majority of a nation professing a
faith which they had such reason to regard as hostile
to theirs, they were right to take care to guerd themselves
against any attempt which might be mode to subvert
their national religion. That wss the only excuse that
could b made for their insisting on the professors of
their own universities and colleges taking these tests.
How long this practice of administering the test had gone on
in the University of Edinburgh he could not sty, but there had
not been for years to the lay professors any test administered.
Principal Bene, in his evidence, said that in Edinburgh Uni-
ver ity he was not aware that any lay professor hid been
obliged to take the test. In the University of Aberdeen, since
1826, the tests had been strictly administered, but that previous
to 1t426 there had been a laxity respecting these tests. In the
honorary offices of rector and dean no test had ever been ad -
mini,tered ; and, what was still more singular, in the Uni-
versity of Abet deen, the greater number of the lecturers who
taught the pupils to the fullest extent were subjected to no test.
The practice of administering this test had been in Aberdeen
and in Edinburgh productive of no benefit whatever, and the
absence of the test had been attended with no manner of in-
jury to the Established Church. If they looked to the nature
of the test, and considered the character of the Scotch ministry,
they would at once see there was no necessity what-
ever for its application. They were seminaries for
instruction in literature, science, medicine, and the
arts.—( Hear.) Little danger was to be apprehended
to the Established Church from this mode of education. He
did not contend that professors of divinity should be excluded
from the test—it was from lay professors, he contended, and the
administration of the test to them would give the Universities
a sectarian character. He had hoped that this practice of ad-
ministering the test would gradually fall into oblivion, but the
late unfortunate religious differences in Scotland had renewed
the question in all its bitterness. One of the most distin-
guished men in the Scotch Universities had already refused to
take the test, he had been subjected to the grossest indignity
by being thrust from his distinguished position by the Estab-
lished Church, and it was quite clear that if the tests must
stand they must be universally and impartially administered to
all as well as to one. What would be the consequence of such
a step as this"' Why, all would be subjected to a confession of
their faith, and the members of Glasgow, St. Andrew's,
Aberdeen, and Edinburgh Universities would be called upon to
sign the frrmuke of the Church of Scotland, and either they
must record themselves members of that Church, they must
sacrifice their position, or abjure their conscientious opinions.
But that was not the only thing. It would also restrict them
hereafter to a most limited extent for their own basis. There
was, at the present moment, a vacant chair in the University
of Edinburgh, and the University and the public would be
deprived of the services of no less a man than Mr. Farraday,
because he would not subscribe to the rules of the Established
Church.—( Hear.) Then, if they looked to those chairs which
include the teaching of classics in the Scotch Universities,
they all knew very well, that the Heliconian spring did not
exist in Scotland, and were they to be refused the services of
the distinguished members of other Universities, because they
would not subscribe to the Confession of Faith of the Established
Church of Scotland ? He next came to the honorary offices in
the Universities. Great stress was laid on the necessity of
their being tests for those offices, or at all events of the per-
sons appointed to them being subject to be called on to sub-
scribe to the Cunfes-inn of Faith. He believed, however, that
the practice in all the Universities was never to require these
tests in any honorary appointment. The appointment of the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to the dignity of Lord Rector
of the University of Glasgow was an instance in which no test
was required; and when he ( Mr. Fox Mettle) was honoured
with the same office for one year, he did not subscribe to any test
The principle of the University of Glasgow was, that the test
should remain in force even with regard to honorary ()ices,
though it appeared the practice did not very well agree with
the theory. Last year he made inquiries respecting the
rules of the University, while passing through Glasgow, and
the principal held him disqualified because he would not sub-
scribe the tests ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite,
when Lord Rector, presided at an election for a professor of
divinity, and it was in fact, by his casting vote, that the
election had been decided in favour of Dr. Hill, though he
had taken no oaths, and it was well known was directly opposed
to doing so.—( Hear.) He did not think the House had ever
had an easier or a clearer case to deal with. The majority of
the professors in all the Scotts-h Universities were favourable
to the Bill, and he believed, with the exception of some in-
stances, in the Universities of Edinburgh and o' Aberdeen,
they had all expressed their opinion on the subject by pstitions
to that House. It should be spoken to their credit, that
they had had the liberality to banish the system of tests from
among them for many years past, and be would call on the
House to beware before they attempted to renew that system
again. By doing so they would raise up rival institutions,
from which professors favourable to the Established
Church would be banished ; and not only that,
but every individual educated in these institutions
would be brought up in rivalry and hostility
to the Established Church, whereas by being educated in the
present Universities with members of that Church, such feel-
ings would never be created amongst them. Perhaps
Members were not aware that the Established Church was at
present the church of itie minority or the peoplc of Scotland.
. _

In the year 1707 it was the religion of nearly the entire of
that people, but the time was past when a. Scotchman could
boast of such king the case any longer. He did not make that
assertion without having gone through some calculations. On
looking into the report of the Church Education Committee,
it appeared that the proportion was about a million of Church-
men to half a million of Dissenters, but since the disruption
had taken place in the Church, he was not over the mark in
stating that 400,000 individuals had le ft the Established Church.
He would not ask the House to accede to hi, motion if he

thought it would affect the stability of the Church. He did
not want to lay any rude hands on her institutions, even
though he differed from her doctrines, but, on the contrary, in
submitting his motion to the House, he was convinced that the
test system, if allowed to continue, would not only endanger the
well-being of the University, but the permanence of the Church,
by raising up the rival establishments to which he had before re-
ferred. Now, he begged to state that he had no objection in the
Bill which he proposed to introduce for the purpose of relieving
professors from these tests, should it be desired by Honourable
Gentlemen opposite to him, to introduce a sort of negative
test. That was, he was willing to insert a clause requiring
them to make a declaration that, in their &asses and lectures
they would not teach anything which might tend to the pre-
judice or lead to the subversion of the Established Church.
He had no objection that professors should be re-
quired to do that, though he thought it was per.
fectly useless, because he knew that in the arts and
in the sciences the professors of the Universities of Scotland
were men who attended to their own business, and never at-
tempted to go out of their way to bring in subjects with which
their lectures had nothing to do. He should simply conclude
by entreating the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J.
Graham) to weigh well the decision to which he would come.
lie also entreated the House not to seal with its approbation
the revival of a system of tests which, perhaps, might have been
justified at the time it was adopted, but which, in the present
spirit of the age, was totally and entirely obnoxious to the feel-
ings of all men of liberal education, and which could be attended
with no good effect to the Established Church. but, on the
contrary, was calculated to pull down rather than to support
that venerable fabric. —( Hear. )
Sir A. LEITH HAY said he should very briefly second
the motion of his Right Hon. Friend ; and in doing so he per-
frctly agreed in all the arguments advanced by him, and iii all.
his opinions, more particularly in the one with which he had
concluded, that the measure new recommended to the House
was not calculated to weaken the foundations of the Chu ch,
or to pr. judice its interests, but rather to strengthen
the one arid advance the other. He could assert that among
all the professors, past and present, of the Universities
of Scotland, tot an instance could be found of a profes-or
introduciug tenets into his lectures foreign to the subject which
he was appointed to teach. The question would not have been
mooted, but for the unhappy divisions which had occurred in
the Church of Scotland ; but as they had occurred, it was
doubly necessary that something should be done upon the sub-
ject. If the course now suggested were adopted, he was satis-
fied it woul.l tend greatly to soothe asperities, and to soften
those unhappy differences which had shaken Scotland to its
foundation. He thought the Right Honourable Gentle-
man opposite (Sir James Graham) must now greatly
regret the supineness he had Amen on the subject of
the Scotch Church ; for he must by this titne have found
that that delay had been the most preiudicial thing that
had ever happened to Scotland, and, in his ( Sir A. L. Hay's)
opinion, it would be more prejudicial still. He therefore
trusted that the Llight lion. Baronet would now assist in allay-
ing the anhnositii s, and hindering, as much as possible, the
consequences of the shocking and lamentable disruption which
had taken place. The House must recollect that the adherents
of the Established Church of Scotland did not now amount to
more than one-third of the population. This made the qnes-
tion of these tests mare important than ever. He therefore
trusted leave would be given to bring in this Bill, so that. there
might come down to their country, and fill the chairs of their
professors, men of the highest eminence from this, and who,
under the present circumstances, were unable from their reli-
gion to do so.
On the question being put that leave be given to bring in
a Bill,
Sir J. GRAHAM said, in the commencement of the ob-
servations he should address to the House, he would take leave
to notice a point which had been alluded to in the early part of
the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who had introduced
the subject before them. Ho must say that, in a matter like
this, which was avowedly to affect the Etablished Church of
Scotland, and which was in connection with the fundamental
article of the Act of Union, he thought the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had done well in avoiding a resolution of the House,
and in preferring to ask leave to bring in a Bill upon the sub-
ject. However, he thonght his Right Hon. Friend had shown
very sound judgment, but beyond this he would not go, for he
was sorry to say he felt it his duty decidedly to oppose the mo-
tion just submitted from the Chair. He, however, must admit
the historical truth with which the Right Hon. Gentleman had
introduced his cave ; and with respect to the policy which ori-
ginally suggested these tests, there was no material difference
between them. lie now wished to remind the House that
they wen invited to deal with a matter which had been so-
lemnly settled by the Scotch Parliament, which formed the
fundamental article of the Union, and which the treaty of Union
declared to be indispensable. The treaty made that declaration
in the strongest manner, arid in words which admitted of no
misrepresentation whatever—not that he (Sir J. Graham) was
going in the present day to argue that because at a far distant
period something had been declared fundamental that it should
for ever be immutable—but what he should contend for was
that changes should not be made on any slight ground, or upon
any trivial occasion. Least of all did he think they ought to
tamper or meddle with that which, having originally been de-
clared fundamental, was still held in the same regard by a vast
mass of the population of Scotland of the present day. For
this matter came under the consideration of Parliament in
the year 1826, and in the year 1830 a report had
beers presented, signed by the names of some of the
most eminent men that hail ever been sent from
Scotland to that House. The Members on that Committee
concurred in recommending not only that the tests should not
be discontinued, but that they should be more vigorously ap-
plied.—(Hear, hear.) Now he thought when he reminded
the House that this system of teats was the fundamental article
of the Union, and when he quoted the opinion just referred to,
the House would be slow to disapprove the course which he

•
(Sir J. Graham) felt it his duty to pursue. In vain had h
listened to the speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman
for an enunciation of the grievances occasioned by it. Not a
trace of a grievance had he 3et heard of, and most attentively
had he listened to all that had been uttered. But the Hon.
Gentleman, to justify his assertion that he would be no party
to any measure which should be prejudicial to the Church, and
which assertion he e Sir J. Graham) most unfeignedly be-
lieved—had declared that he would offer no objection to a sort
of negative test or declaration on the part of professors. Now,
he (Sir J. Graham) could understand very well what a test •
meant, but he was really at a loss to understand what was
meant by a negative test. He must be permitted to say, though
it could be shown, he believed, that in all the Universities
to
Scotland honorary members were exempt from the test--•
though it could be shown that in the University of Glasgow
Episcopalians had filled the professor's chair—yet they bad
taken the test. No teacher in Glasgow had filled the
chair without taking the test. Though Episcopalians had
been admitted either by sufferance, or avowedly to fill
the professor's chair, yet, up to the preseht time, no Presbyte-
rian dissenter had been admitted into the Universities of
Scotland. He ( Sir J. Graham) would not now enter into the
secession—he deplored it—it was a great misfortune—it was
extensive—most extensive ; and he was desirous that no word
should fall from him that should exasperate that secession. ..
Now, it was with peculiar pleasure that he heard the Bight
Hon. Gentleman state, that though he had seceded from the
Establishment—and he (Sir J. Graham) considered that his
loss to it was great indeed—yet, having seceded from it, be
was not its enemy, and would not do anything to subvert it.
He (Sir J. Graham) was sorry to say that that was not the
language of some of the seceders. Msn had been found among
them who had declared themselves the enemies ef the Established
Church of Scotland, and stated that they considered that that
Erastian Establishment, as they called it, was a nuisance which
ought to be abated. He was sorry that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had b, ought forward his motion at the present time.
He had told the House that no Presbyterian Dissenters had
been admitted into the Universities of Scotland. Now what
was the nature of the patronage of those Universities, and who
held it ? It had been held by the members of the different
Corporations; but at the present time st, might be held by
men who preferred Dissenters to fill the different chairs of
those Universities, unless some tests existed. If a Dissenter
was appointed to those chairs, who could doubt that
he would teach his own peculiar views.—( Hear, hear.)
He did not think there was any great evil in
the establishment of rival institutions to which Dissenters
might go and obtain the best education. On the contrary, he
thought rivalry would have t'.-e best effect. It was a Tastier
of primary importance that the connection of the Universities
with the Church should remain. It was very true that, these
tests were erected against the danger of Episcopacy ; but ho-
cause that danger had ceased, it would be most unwise, in his
opinion, to remove them. Those tests were available against
Presbyterian Dissenters seeking to obtain a preponderance in •
the Scotch Universities. Those tests had existed for a cen-
tury and a half, and some of the first men in this conntrY
connected with science and the arts had filled the
chairs of those Universities, notwithstanding these testa:
very many men of eminence, among whom he might mention'
Lord Melbourne, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Noble
Lord, the Member for the City of London, had gone to Scot'
land for the purpose of receiving part of their education, note • •
withstanding these tests ; and he ( Sir J. Graham) was tads- •
fled that if they would only leave the matter untouched all
would go well. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for •
Perth had asked whether they were prepared to revive tests.
It was not a question of revival, bat whether they should abo-
lish tests which had existed for a hundred and fifty yea"' •
The Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to several petition" t
from the Scotch Universities, but so far from those petitions
being in favour of the proposed measure, they were •
against the change.—( Hear, hear.) In short, many of
the petitions stated that the removal of the tests
would have the effect of destroying the Universities, by
driving away their scholars. The Hon. and Gallant Gentle-
man who rescinded the motion talked of the spread of secessiou.
Why it was only that very day that he had seen, in a Dundee
newspaper, that a Scotch clergyman who had seceded had re' ,
turned to the Church.—( Hear, hear, from. Mr. Fox Mettle.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman, perhaps, might be prepared to
prove that it was not so.
Mr. FOX Al A ULE—No, no.
Sir J. GRAHAM was glad to see that they must come tn.
the turning point, and secession must be considered as at an
end.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped before the debate closed they
would hear what Scotch Members had to say upon the sub-
ject. They had still in that House many whose names and
ancestors were eminently connected with the history of Scot-
land; and he hoped that they would give their evidence frankly
and fairly in favour of the Church of their ancestors. He
thought that, as Scotchmen, they should proceed with their.
usual caution upon this important question. As a Minister of
the Crown, bound as far as in him lay to maintain inviolate
the Presbyterian Church as established in Scotland, he oust
oppose the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. RUTHERFORD agreed with the Right Hon. Gene,
tleman, that this entirely was a Scottish question, and one 0'
most vital importance, and before he entered into the merits
of the case, he must express a wish that the Right Hon. Ba."
ronet opposite, would not lay " the flattering unction to log •
soul," that any alteration had taken place in the generality
of the people of Scotland, with respect to this secession quea"
tion. It was supposed that the Clergy of Scotland ner° ,
mercenary men, • and would not give up their living'.
Look to what had been the result. There had been a secession
of more than one half of them from the Church. The Church
was no longer what it was in the towns of Scotland, or in the
country amongst the rural population. It was nn longer known •
as the Church of Scotland—( Hear, hear)—which of all the
churches in the world had most closely united the affections of
the people to it.—( Hear, hear.) That which was now the
Established Church of Scotland was the church of the min°"
rit.y—aye, and not a very large minority.—( Cheers.) Thos
who travelled through Scotland might read the signs of lee,
times, for they could not move through the countTe
without seeing everywhere the consequences of e
secession, even in the southern counties.—( Hear, be*)
There were 700 churches in course of being built by 1-0,
seceding psrty, and the sum which had been subscribed srii.)
far beyond what had been calculated upon.—( Hear, lltsee
Larger subscriptions were given for the support of the char the
than were given before the secession. The application of
a.
at
test to the admission of teachers to the Universities stroex,"
two-thirds of the population of Scotland. He would elltlte
case of Dr. Brewster, a man of an European fame—( Beare;
hear)—of undoubted eloquence, and whose attachment to t.-
Church of Fcotland was undoubted, to show hew scandalously
this test was applied. Because he seceded from the Chereb
e
was assailed by intolerant opponents, and the a
of the test was insisted on in order to oust him.—
He He referred to this case to show how the test would be
allowed to operate if they did not, in good time, opplY,
remedy.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that the Ropes:
Parliament would hold the balance between both parties, an
that English Gentlemen would look upon this as a Scotcus
question. The Right Hun. Gentleman referred to the
.%,ft:
of 1707 as the ground on which he opposed the motion. IP_
Right Hon. Gentlemen, at first, seemed to doubt whether the
pplication
system of tests was good or not, and whether the How°,
ought not to deal with the question ; but he turns
round at the end, and said that lay and secular
teachers e ould be likely to instil their own particulate,
doctrines into the minds of their hearers. This was not found
to be the case in Scotland. The:teachers of jurisprudence an
medicine, aed the other lay professors, discharged their duties
with perfect impartiality, and did not interfere with matte" °i
religious belief. The Right Hon. Gentleman referred to
another danger in the establishment of rival Universitiel:
He though the more education there was the better. He asked
would they give those rival Universities, which the secede;
might establish, the power of granting those degrees whit
they gave to the State Universities?—(Hear, hear.) Agafr„:l
Scotland was not a very large country, and if those tests wee
applied, the number of the pupils would be diminisbeo '
and the remuneration of the professors being in eons!'
quence diminished, professors of ability would 0`""
be found to fill the chairs at the UniversitieltS
There was nothing in the test to make professors better
s.
qualified to teach medicine, chemistry, jurisprudence, Greek, of
Latin.—( Hear, hear.) Would any body be less qualified
tl.
teach an abstract science because he had not taken is,.
—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman then referrn
to two professors in Glasgow who signed the test, not being t"
the Established Church of Scotland, One of the worst couse
quences of the test would be, that it would lead men to palteesr
and act with reservation, instead of acting in a plain, straight;
forward manner. The evil consequences of the Its
might not have been felt when all Scotland was
nnited in one Church, but now when the Church of Scotia
was divided, not into a variety of creeds, but when there la!:
a large party who would not conform to the practice and erei,
ship of the Church, and who would not submit to its discipliti
it was time for the Legislature to interfere.—(Hear, bear
The main ground on which the Right Hon. Baronet refuse
to accede to the introduction of the Bill was, that it was OP;
posed to the Act of 1707—the Act of Security.—( Hear, hear
When the Act of Union passed, this separate Act was i.O
passed, and it became part and parcel of the Act of ITtne't'e
The people of Scotland thought it would be a security t
their Church. But they had soon reason to -find t!'10
it was not a very strong safeguard against innovat!°‘
—(Cheers)—for in about five years after the pa's°ls
of the Act of 1707, the Imperial Parliament passed an Abl
which changed the constitution of the Church of Scotland, 1,
removing the patronage from the hands of the clergy, a 0
restorirg it to the patron from whom it was previously tak.en.
away by an Act of the Scotch Parliament passed in lows
That was an old instance, and here was a new one.--( Cheer.'
In the last year they touched the constitution of the Church et
Scotland. Were they still prepared to call the Act of 4:0
year a declaratory Act ?—(Cheers.) Were they preparet.l,t,
do so in the face of the opinions of Lord
tenham, Lord Brougham, and all the other judges n's
pronounced judgment in the case ?—( Hear, and cheeraes:,
They touched the constitution of the Church of Scotland
that enactive Act in a most delicate point—the distribution eof
patronage. The Church of Scotland was now the Chord're
the minority ; and the worst consequence of what they nt,
now doing would be that they would impress the character of
sectarian church on the Church of Scotland.—(Hear, hessr,;es
These schools would become odious to the great majority 0' 'is,
people.—(Hear, hear.) They would found other echo°
of
Learning would be injured—( Hear, hear)—because lute e'
ability would be precluded from becoming teachers in Oro
quence of their peculiar religious opinions, and two-thlrytt
of the people would not send their children te,,tel.
taught in those universities where the test was reeln'the
A brand was placed upon two.thirds of the people, beeattafeees
Legislature considered them unable to furnish teau7roy
of their own.—( Hear, hear.) They•would not only deals's
• the Church of Scotland, but they would create a fleet to
church, which would become the most intolerable of evt

the country.—(Cheers.) nide'
The LORD ADVOCATE felft himself bound by his e° _ore
tions to state that he was opposed to a motion whereby they 7be
called upon to repeal certain tests that had been enacted bY;ot..
wisdom of their ancestors, and which had continued in e,stiat
ence for a period of about a century and a half. 118"ited
heard that any one instance of any practical evil had re' rise
from the existence of those tests, with the exception of the
alluded to as having occurred in the University of St. Andretbst
It had been admitted, that it was for important reasons act
those tests were enacted. It was admitted that their ler
was to protect the Established Church of Scotland from dare
that was apprehended to it from Episcopacy. If these teAtdiangcr
reasonable to protect the Church from the anticipated the
of Episcopacy, then he concluded they were reasonable for the
protection of the Church from any other danger. N° 'id be
there had been a change of circumstances, and if it con vas
made out, that that change of circumstances
tote
sufficient to require the repeal of dins% But
theft they might listen to the demand for their rePeoasunport
it was no liht case that was required to be made out t
t.
at: ero
such a demand; for let them observe the importance Let
attached to those tests at the time they were enacted•vr_":
$
them recollect that the establishment of those tests
.ty"_,a
fundamental article of the Act of Union, for the sect!trait,
a'n'a
protection of the Church. They were to remove
fin_ „ion
ce tri
why ? Because there had within the last year or tfteoren
a great change of circumstances in that country in re_ an
the Church. He did not know whether his Right tio.
of eirCU'
Learned Friend meant to say, that because a change
.0 _ had
stances had arisen, that tests and protect'
meant
to
become necessary, or whether be _ bad
say, that because that change of circurnatnc'lt tog
arisen the Church should be no longer protected. I ni
Either -1
one of those two propositions which they meant.
sao
account of that change of circumstances the test
ecaiiisleu.jd dist
necessary, for the danger no longer existed, or b
r deserved pr°;
change, of circumstances the Church no long e Airaini,hess
tection. Now, he did not see that the danger way

_ •

ntle-
&a.
ode
I re'
d 10

Gen'
ne 01
terits

tithe Established Church by the change of circumstances that
the occurred within the last few years. He did not admit that
lee;ceersssi:ln had occurred to the extent that some Honourable
leged—he admitted it to be large, but it was not
`tith an extent as to give any colour to the assertion that the
re
lserc ha
only contained one-third of the population. How.-
bit ' ° almitted that a large separation and secession had taken
", and he was gratified, in common with his Right Hon.
joriend behind him ( Sir James Graham), to hear the tone
whitth the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fox Maule) had
Itt ken ef the Church. He hoped these expressions and sen-
r'llls would have their effect and due weight in certain
oasters, but certainly he had seen much in the statements of
ties who took a leading position with those who separated
themselves from the Church, which did not lead him to con-
tlde that the Church was less exposed to danger from those
•
io s than it was at ithe time the tests were established.
Lerefore he thought it could not be said that the tests were
ishs: necessary to protect the Church from present danger than
Pre were formerly to protect it from the danger. ap-
_, ended from Episcopacy. If be saw the spirit that
Zedt:ted his Right Honourable Ft iend opposite ex-
its among the parties to whom he referred, he
erZeitkentled the datger. would be less. But that was not the
e 'on of matters now • and it was because that danger
e-zoisrtelettlitat the Church was' deserving of protection. If they
the safe ave an Established Church, they ought not to remove
eteguards that they had placed upon it just at the very
th°see viteheu danger was strongest, and to prevent which danger
beiieervto and protections were applied. He saw, therefore,
nor • the fact that a secession had taken place,
to lo the character of the Church of Scotland, any reason
eirreTove from it the protection of those tests. He was quite
are
that the effect of those tests at the time of their eats-
Wer ment, and now, was to limit the field from which professors
rir_eecohoosen to fill chairs in the Universities. That wasahcaevs;
eYoludestlqnzzei.earnltedhad beenwsoanidlithhantvethposeeeltne woulddstesd Locke and
ite_wkal from filling chairs in the Universities of Scotland; hut
taTet be remembered that the application of similar tests in
it.gerl would have precluded Stewart and Playfair from tak-
e airs in the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge. The
result of
es
those tests had been that in either end of the island
fesenteaiversities had not wanted most able and effective pro-
bein rs to fill chairs in their respective Universities. That
oo It the result, he could not admit that any practical griev-
ce hut
that bile arisen from those enactments. He could not agree
'toed e continuance of those tests was oppressive. was
itt
ne that a most eminent philosopher, who filled a tositution
aft:, e.of the Universities—a position in which he was placed
he dir eminence had been established—in which he believed
thorit not each, but yet that he exercised considerable au-
sequenceYh been exposed to harrassing proceedings in con-
itteedttetn of his secession from the Church. What those pro-
esuwere, he (the Lord Advocate) was not in a position to
jag i suet, se:4°,l4 that those tests did not operate in prevent-
ferene 74‘ smother of professors being supplied to the dif-
of the e.ersities in either end of the island, and seeing that
the res. P!titi`ms presented to the House on this subject.
not thiriiThre are against the removal of these tests, he did
1.0
.thaost .ethey ought to feel themselves called upon to da-
rt), from
safeguards which the wisdom of our ancestors
ablished for the protection of the Church.
rOlspr a few words in explanation from Sir. HUTHER-
Ar CHRISTIE
thought that the proposal of the Right
be cfe'nser for Perth was too reasonable and moderate, to
eerioeleated for any length of time by resistance from any Go-
th•iebsient• He trusted that the conduct of the Government, in
the a",atter, would have the effect of uniting all seceders from
tee, ',arch and Dissenters in a comprehensive agitatio.n.againt
aPplication of all religious tests in all u niversities. It
117,- out been denied that the law
.imposing those tests
test) b" been complied with, and that in Edinburgh those.
; were not applied. The Lord Advocate had rested his
Qtance to the rnotion on the ground that no grievance
,`sheen proved
eal to result from those tests. But, could he
y good had'resulted from. them ? In Edinburgh
eiriseti'LltY. where they did not exist, had any injury been.
there uY the non-application of them.? In that
.university
tires w, ere many professors who had been Episcopalians at the
sniel:' their entrance, and probably were so still. He
ite; Mention the professor of logic, Mr. Hamilton,
1:,‘"„
rers Professor Wilson, who had both graduated in the
itt.t.:
ite of Oxford, and the professor of mathematics
Of 'the
Edinburgh University was a clergyman of the Church
iatredo4od,. and the Right Honourable G. entleman who
wore
uced this motion stated that the universities of Scotland
f
Oefortli a great degree dependent upon the
.universities o
Nots „Tand Cambridge for professors of classical literature.
eatrest-hest those learned men performed the duties that were
144 thed to them with fairness and ability, what necessity
Kett ere to inquire into their theological opinions? He re-
Iteires. that the Right Hon. Member for Perth had excepted
4 th.'r, of theology from his motion ; for, judging of matters
so 7e.Y_
.hew presented themselves in the universities, he must
tei;iin if they could trust them as teachers of literature, they
etifo_tltrust them in matters of theology, without any of. these
aseoLtests. Those tests only strengthened religious disunion
htetieweali parties in Scotland: and he trusted the time was at
Sir geneo all such restrictions would be abolished.
tiee- ". CLERK was not surprised at the speech of the
to4nourahle and Learned Member, though not immediately
tie Jleted with Scotland, inasmuch as he had a motion
of Erie ,Paper for the abolition of tests in the universities
they t gills& The question really at issue was this;. were
bee ° maintain the principle which, on every occasion, had
that °red upon throughout the United Kingdom, namely,.
the Es.Coanecting the universities, through the medium oft
u tablished Church of the country, with the State. I
estabel that principle that the University of Dublin. was
sitees
_sited, and it was upon that principle that the Univehr-
ekt4 Scotland were established. He knew of ne tena
dle
Nated uPtal which the removal of those tests could. be a -f
Stott at a time like the present, when the Universities o
l'een ktkl. were most anxious to maintain them. Much had
Cee laid about the secession which had taken place in the
hed reo of Scotland lately, but he did not believe that it
Noseg°ne to the great extent which bad been represented,
tees these tests had been enforced in several of the Ulmer.-
teed r 150 sears. The subject had been carefully investid-
c Y a Commission, which made its report in 1813 ; an
he , otemission had even recommended that the tests should
sit rigidly enforced than they had been. The Commis-
thee rred to feel very strongly on the subject ; stating, as
, that no measure could be adopted which would be
tee Jvejudicial to the interests of the Universities than
the "loch tended in the least degree to dissever them from
ereioislablished Church. Some years after, a Commission
report visited the University of Aberdeen, made a similar
a' Under these circumstances, why should they be called
t
to,, °take a step which would necessarily weaken the existing
~ttectiott? They were told that a considerable number of
of Y etainent persons had left the Church of Scot and, many
, who
selie„ ,rtt had held professorships
in the Universities. He
ts•en that there were many eminent and
zealous Presby-
tada;:'„wllo had been members of the University of Oxford,
very lu of course as such signed the Thirty-nine Artie es.
of
lieilearned judge in Scotland was, he believed, a member
otileti College. It was here sought to alter a fundamental
'Which hsithe St°l6l Union. He did net say that everything,
to--(Heler, teen done n 1707 ought rigidly to be adhered
t,,hority in setear);•-htst they ought at least to have high.au-
° male 'avow' before they made this alteration.
he beii;%;rll of the petitions from Scotland were,
proposal. eldf against the Right Hon. Gentleman's
entneecat. e contended that they ought to have a most un-
ing le-Uoitexpression of opinion before they consented to its
tells for It must be recollected that there were no religious
ties ; ;he admission of students into the Scottish Universi-
thren;l3l were they, because the Scottish Universities had
Which
_toeil: donna oen to students, to sever the only link
ketohirnained to connect the religion of Scotland with the
coesietvned Church? He, therefore, called upon the House to
in 'ee how far itwould with the principles and feel-
je et th
NIA e Established Church of Scotland, from which the
tif "on. Gentleman had seceded, but to which the majority
his People of Scotland were still attached. He should give
It/ u.sldecided opposition to the motion.
to eic
e .utA.NNERAI AN thought that the Government ought
.e",
otland
the Bill to be introduced and printed, so that the people
en;eio
, might have an opportunity of expressing their
Pon It. He would vote for the motion of the Right
etober for Perth.
Iroe,elA, CKENZIE was at a loss to understand upon what
lllttiee,: this snotion was brought forward. It could only be
gell;e"Y a unanimous demand from the people of Scotland.
the out beard of such demand, and he would oppose
reet,any
e p'°°;,.
14 M. STEWART considered that it was a great
Part courtes towards the people of Scotland on the
litttj, 'lie Government and its supporters, to give a direct ne-
al4 to the measure of his Right .Hon. Friend. The test,
thet4had beer, so long inoperative, was now ,Scotland e enforced,
the ,„—Y excluding twO-thirds of the people of from
Ille4B,'„tion of teachers in the Universities. He was himself
keit° those who had been compelled to leave the Establishment
4t rei •iala the Free Church, but he would never lift
his hand
bight, his voice to iniure the Established Church. He had
s4ten ibjed his privilege a a patron with a view to support the
sise r-s"ed Church.- He urged the House and the
teee-tuaent to allow this Bill to proceed, and to
Pie es!" people of Scotland an opportunity of
4'.0% their opinions upon it. On the other side of the
itself 44, n
, ‘e,!w-born zeal in favour of the Union had displayedh
ZSep.eetZltehh he had in vain invokedwlast yeareto
he
ee
Bill, notbut
..Intreatede. opposition which offered!erasnoopp
opposite' to allow the
17'11t°R0 th the
Right Hon. Gentleman
lent rough the first reading, and thento
et.°' the pe_pr, le of Scotland upon it.
(11-QUHOUN would not have addressed the House
-es 1 subject had he not ,,,,aoser„ . once had the honour to occupy an
alels situation in a Scotch University,
similar to that
144 he -a5 wow held by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite;
e as ver anxious lest the vote he was aboutt g
In,"1 41.11„eue misinterpreted. One thing had been admitted
Ziatia:Qat the discussion by all the Members who had spoken.
'ea exception they all said that it was necessary to have
lehe test' • Universitieswell as in the Eng-
ti„, in the Scottish as
eeiet,'"versities in order to prevent the professors
.of a
teslld conn'ected with the State from becoming declaimers
41:4 stators
e
against a Church also connected with the State.
Natiltinignt Hon. Gentleman had proposed to substitute a
tse. teat, for the positise test at present provided by the
ft°,l: 11,,NTW, the Hon. Member fur Leith, the Hon. Member
;tiler and other Hon. Members who had spoken on the
'etesetLe had told them that they never touched..the Pr.estby-t
tiven:eourch of Scotland without doing it eh injury
reh
4eretid art Episcopalian Parliament meddled with he Chu
sic"a dWithout • it harm ; and yet the Right. Hon.
doing
titlerl 11% t 4 wished tion by displac-
them to deal with this ques f
•l-
,!le old test for a new one. He would be prepared to o
Right Hon. Gentleman's lead if he could show any
1
te_eit ittPer secution, or wrong, or grievance.
Many cases had
;eltelee4, but there was no instance of any one who had been
'4l be th" They had heard of one of the most
Eminent _ is test.
I.,tedford!ebolars of the Universi t of Oxford (Sir D. K.
to a chair at Glasgow.
Who had been. removedent
members of the University
Ultroi.u, heard of eminent
t 1
"141 hrt°l4e, who had been elected to
in Edinburgh. All these
e_vteN sense was the case gen-
aes were Episcopalians—they made no secret of
.t. their
40,4 ayness—ethey continued in the free exercise of their religion,
•Ntt them was not applied. It was natural
etsit titer the re thte tes.tte
x ment which bad existed in Scotland
• 11r,11iwR polenleanl excitement
should arise. The case of
ate, vewit Why, it appeared that the
eso er was mentioned.
to et that the Presbytery 1 St. Andrew's could do would be
eeetp,_. o
would not
' vie 'rctloicate him, a sentence which probably
y holm
upon' but they could not remove him
11 Ills Pe r• him.
his office of Principal of the
to o•easorsh, or from . teo eeeit of StAgain, the Right Hon. Gentle-
diejtatio
. Andrew's.
ord Rector of Glasgow, had proposed to hold a
„at h 40 and some member of the Senate
had defied bim,
e nad iteld his visitation. They had threatened him
erie,eohollid not be Lord Rector, he had threatened them ttoo
iaee.';ttt.v'ells before Parliament. He had carried his threat. into
gs 1 I°ll they had been able to do so by their threat._
onnot
'l4..tif se: a' these tests were merely used to prevent scientific
pe --rs from in •n I theological discussion,
spews e mixing unseemi g y
haran uing on
4' re, rslo m from going about g the subject of
them but
the ''nutch, he could see no harm in retaining
Of .4 T shouldsalon, or
instrument of oppression,
t, tfi,rt, ever be used as an ,
ittle "oal persecution, then he should be of opinion
el ad that the
tlitleish come for re-considering the Act by which they were
htateete.ed• He thought that if the Right Hon. Secretary of
&Irk es :7,0 opinion that the introduction of this Bill would do
i'dt, be se Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and that it ought
"
est estion d dispozed of, he was perfectly right in having
ismi •• d
sse at once.
it,Pstati had thought that all tests, such as those to which
riv "4Q been made in the debate, ought to be abolished.
tt Possible to know what individuals this test had
'" ‘#SliVeriities of Scotland were national

tions for the education of all classes of the people, and when they
considered the change which had taken place lately, by which
two-thirds of the people of Scotland had separated from the
Church, it b Tame the more necessary that some change should
be made in these tests. Such a change would tend to do away
with religious animosity, by educating the children of parents
of different sects together. The subject was a most important
one, and he agreed with the Hon. Member for Renfrew, that
the Government ought to allow the Bill to be introduced, so
as to give the people of Scotland an opportunity of expressing
an opinion on the subject. He should support the motion.
Mr. FORBES could see no good reason for the introduc-
tion of this measure. Throe or four years ago there were large
bodies of Dissenters in Scotland, but neither the Right Hon.
Gentleman, who Has then in office, nor the Hon. and Learned
Member for Leith, who was then Lord Advocate, ever thought
it necessary to bring forward any measure of this nature. He
had been recently in Scotland, and certainly he had not heard
any desire expressed for such a measure as that proposed by
the Hight Hon. Gentleman. He trusted that the House
would reject this motion which had been submitted to them.
Mr. F. MAULE then rose to reizly. He must say that if
the question of tests could meet with no better defence than
that which it had received from Right Hon. Gentlemen and
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought he might anticipate the
time when tests—he meant tests upon lay professors—would
be abolished. He confessed that he was somewhat surprised
at what had fallen from the Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G.
Clerk) with respect to these tests. The Hon. Baronet said
that these tests were so slight that any respectable mars might
take them, even though he differed entirely from their plain
interpretation. Now, if these tests were so slight, he would
ask, what was the use of maintaining them, or what protection
did they give? But, however, he did not look upon them as
being so slight. A member of the Church of England, by ac-
cepting the professorships which Mr. Sandford and Dr.
Lushington held, were obliged to sign a confession of faith to
which they did not belong. He was surprised that such a man
as Dr. Lushington could do this, and it was the fact of his
having done so which made him (Mr. F. Maule) believe
that by encouraging such tests they were encourag-
ing a system of immorality on the part of those
who ought to be an example to the country.—(Cheers.) He
believed that if this Bill which he proposed had gone down to
Scotland, that petitions innumerable would have been sent
up in its favour. In refusing to legislate upon this subject,
they might depend upon it that they would do more injury
than good to the Church. He felt that it would have the
effect of establishing rival Universities and seminaries to a
great extent, which would be attended by the youth of Scot-
land, although those seminaries might not have the privilege of
conferring degrees, while those seminaries which could confer
degrees would be conducted by pauper professors, and attended
by very poor students.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the motion lOl
Against it
Majority against the motion —27
The announcement of the majority was received with loud
cheers by the Opposition.
A RCHDEACONRY OF ARMAGH.
Viscount EISRINGTON then rose to move for the produc-
tion of certain papers connected with the Archdeaconry of
Armagh. The Noble Lord observed that up to the present time
the Government had taken no steps whatever to carry out
the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for
the dissoiution of unions, and the appointment of a clergyman
in every parish wherethere was a benefice. The intention of the
late Government had been to do away with the monstrous
anomaly of one clergyman holding livings in several parishes
far distant from each other, and they had acted up to their in-
tentions as the unions happened to become void. if the pre-
sent Government declined to interfere to abate such nuisances,

it-would be his (Lord Ebrington's duty to take further steps
in the matter. The condition of the Archdeaconry of Armagh
was this. It contained two parishes covering a surface of
nine miles by four and three quarters. It contained 11,500
acres, and the total population of the union was 16,393. There
were churches and glebe houses, and the income of the two
parishes, enjoyed by one person, was stated in the report of the
Commissioners at 1,6421., though he admitted it was now re-
duced to about 9001. Why had there not been a severance of
the parishes, forming this union when an avoidance had taken
place? He admitted that in the case of the deanery of Meath,
the Government had acted on the principle laid down by the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and ordered the severance of the
parishes forming it. This, however, he must observe, had
been done since he (Lord Ebrington) put his notice of motion
on the books. The importance of the case he wished to ob-
serve was in the principle, and since the present Ministers had
been in power the dissolution of unions of parishes had been the
exception, and not, as with the late Ministers, the rule of
conduct.
Lord ELIOT said it was true that, in 1831, the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners had recommended that a division in unions
should take place, v‘ith a view to the better apportionment of
clerical duty and a juster distribution of patronage.
At that time the income of :this union was 1,6001. per annum,
but by the provisions of the Church Temporalities Act, this
was subject to a charge of 14 per cent., and its present amount
did not exceed 9001. Such an income his Noble Friend the
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had thought not too much for the
dignity of Archdeacon, and he had therefore not thought it his
duty to interfere in the matter. But when an avoidance took
place he had taken care to appoint a person most amply quali-
fied for the discharge of the important duties attached to the
living. This was the Rev. Mr. Stokes, who, he could assure
the Noble Lord had not been selected for any political partizan-
ship, but for his acquirements, for his character, and for his
peculiar fitness for the duties of a Christian minister.
He thought it was only strict justice to adhere strictly to the
recommendation of the Commissioners; and he could assure
his Noble Friend opposite, that no man was so anxious as he
was to carry out all the previsions of the Church Temporalities
Act, but there was now under the consideration of her Ma-
jesty's Government a measure which would tend to cause a
better distribution amongst the clergy of the Church revenues,
and therefore he thought it would be more wise of his Noble
Friend to defer his motion for a Committee on this subject.
He should not object to giving his Noble Friend opposite any
papers in connextion with this matter, excepting those of a
private and individual nature.
After a few observations from Mr. Moss, Mr. Shaw, and
Viscount Ebrington in reply, the motion was agreed to.
SINKING FUND.

On the motion of Mr. HUME, the following returns were or-
dered.—Return of the several amounts which were appropriated
in each year since the passing of the Act of 1780 Mr. Pitt's
Act), to the creation or support of a Sinking Fund, with the
authority for creating and appropriating the same ; exhibiting
from year to year the capital and interest thereon ; also, state-
ment of the amounts of capital and interest which from year
to year were applied out of the said Sinking Fund to the pub-
lic service ; stating for what particular service, with the autho-
rities for applying the same, up to the period of the final ex-
tinction of the Sinking Fund.
Mr. P. S. BUTLER moved for returns of the sums of
money demanded by the clerks of the peace in the different
counties and counties of cities in Ireland, to remunerate them
for their additional services under the new Arms Act. Of the
sums of money approved of by the different grand juries of
Ireland for (het purpose. Of the number of arms registered
in each county. Of the sums of money demanded and allowed
as above to the different clerks of petty sessions under the
above Act.—Agreed to.
Mr. FRENCH moved for several returns relating to new
r ov The
on
wHoorok.hoGuesoetslei
aI roel as
pn
odkand
tt haeotnP °eel;w Commissioners.
between the appointment of Englishmen to various offices in
ni agt h the spopti
England and Ireland.
itut he would suggest that ld not inclu
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had no objectdioenthtooothame
emotion
b u
ltahoedl.rish paupers who had beer,shou removed from England to Ire-
Sir R. PEEL was sorry that the Hon. Gentleman
egemvanabradd
taogai
adverted to the injustice done to Irishmen
va-
rious offices which he had mentioned. He thought there was
no ground whatever for his observations. If preference were
likely to be be shown anywhere, it was, as he thought, in the
diplomatic appointments; yet, what was the fact? The repre-
sentatives in this country, in the United States, in China, at
Constantinople, at St. Petersburgh, and at Paris, were all
Irishmen.—( Heer,f hear.) Thus again. The Comman-
der of the Forces both in this country and in India,
was an Irishman. He thought there could not be
more conclusive proofs that there was no intention whatever to
do injustice to Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman, however, might
depend upon it that the Government would not be influenced
in their appointments by observations like those with which he
had accompanied his motion.—(Hear, hear. )
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. BROTHERTON must move the adjournment of the
House. He would not trust to the chance of another Irish
debate to-night.—( A laugh. )
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
Sir D. NORREYS assured the Hon. Member that his
motion was not opposed by the. Government. He moved for
a Select Committee on poor- laws in Ireland ; and an in-
struction to the Committee relative to valuations for local
taxation in Ireland.
Mr. F. SHAW was sorry that the Government had con-
sented to the Committee. In two-thirds of the unions in
Ireland, the law was working well—in the other third, in
consequence of persons agitating against the law, it was not, per-
haps working so well, but the appointment of this Committee
would be comsidered in Ireland as a prelude to the repeal of
the law.
Mr. FRENCH denied that he had ever agitated against the
law. He had never opened his mouth on the subject of the
poor-law, except in that House.
Mr. BELLEW believed the law had, on the whole, worked
satisfactorily, and wished to know to what objects the Com-
mittee were to direct their attention.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the debate be adjourned.
Sir R. PEEL, before the question was put, thought that,
in order to do away with any misconception which might
arise in Ireland from the consent of the Government to the
appointment of this Committee, it was necessary that he
should distinctly state that it was the opinion of the
Government that the poor- law in Ireland ought to be strictly
maintained in its whole integrity. —( Cheers. ) They had done
all they could to maintain it by the civil power, and by having
recourse to military power where that was necessary. If they
acceded to the appointment of this Committee, it was not with
any intention of defeating the working of the law ; but seeing
that there were objections made to it, which they considered
unfounded, and seeing that the law had worked well in many
parts, he thought that either party might be reconciled to it
by inquiry. It was not always wise to compel obedience to
the law by force, if by granting inquiry it could be proved to
those who were opposed to the law that the working of it
was advantageous.—(Cheers.) The object of the Govern-
ment in acceding to the appointment of the Committee was not
to disparage, but to fortify the poor-law.
Col. CONOLLY thought the alterations made in the law
last year would work well, and he was backed in that opinion
by the Luke of Leinster. He besought the Hon. Baronet to
postpone his motion for twelve months, in order to see how
tbose alterations would work.
Mr. V. STUART advised the postponement of the motion
until next session.
Mr. FRENCH hoped the motion for adjourning the debate
would be withdrawn.
The motion for adjourning the debate was then withdrawn,
and the Committee was agreed to.
Mr. AGLIONBY moved for. the appointment of a Com-
mittee to inquire into the state of New Zealand, consisting of
the following Members:—Lord Francis Egerton, Viscount
Howick, Mr. Lascelles, Mr. George W. Hope, Mr. Robert
Clive, Mr. Hawes, Sir R. H. Inglis, Viscount Ebrington, Mr.
Charteris, Sir John Hanmer, Mr. Milne', Viscount Jocelyn,
Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Wilson Patten.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL objected to the mode in which the
Committee had teen appointed as improper and unusual.
After a few words from Lord STANLEY and Mr. AGLIONBY
in explanation, the Members of the Committee were appointed,
the orders of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned
at Half-past One o'Clock.

DETENTION OF THE OVERLAND MAIL:.
The following is posted at Lloyd's :
" General Post-office, April 30, 1844.
"The Overland mail, via Marseilles, is detained. Letters
in time till the 6th of May."