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

that led to the transaction, and that they never would have lowed by Ministers. But if they did hold the principle
occurred had it not been for the danger to which he and his of the Bill to be generally inapplicable, he could shove
friends were exp iced by the manner in which the prosecutor a peculiar reason fer adopting it in this
alias. He / ,
acted on the occasion. could not conceive how any person at valuing Tse,
Mr. WALLINGER expressed a desire on the part of the lessees consistency, and who voted for the motion of the /eel- ,eeeee\e-;
that the ease should proceed, their object being to protect the Hon. Member for Devonport, could refuse to vote for this f
men in their employ from treatment such as that experienced Bill, nor could he understand how any Hon. Member voting ‘ -1
by the prosecutor. for the Irish Colleges Bill could refuse to vote for it, • -
Mr. BALLANTYNE then proceeded to address the jury on Academical education in Scotland had some peculiar character.
the part of Lord Dillon. He said the facts were that on the istics. It differed entirely from that of England and Ireland.
oodor ba The
---
v,
night in question Lord Dillon, who was driving his own car- English Universities had a character of their own—an,
itcient and
)T -e 1
c*, '`4
riage from Greenwich, on al proaching the turnpike at a slow a deeply-marked character it might be,
but, gd was in ".1 k - es- • 4
pace, and having no reason to suppose that a toll was to be de- perfect harmony with the system of tests. The Irish colleges
manded, on not pulling up immediately the reins of a spirited had no character at all—they have yet to receive it from the
horse were seized by the defendant, and his Lordship merely Legislature, and wouldbearany irnpressionwhich the Legislature
did what any other man so circumstanced might have done, put upon them. But the Scotch universities had a distinguishing
that was, to whip at the aggressor in order to make him let go characteristic quite out of harmony with the system of tests. He
and not cause a serious accidentby his over zeal in the discharge entreated English gentlemen not to be imposed upon by the
of his duty. He (the Learned Counsel) had asked for the word University, nor to derive their idea from the nature
production of the prosecutor's written appointment, but it was of the Cambridge and Oxford Universities. What ought
withheld ; and if it had been brought forward, he had reason to to be done with the English Universities was a perfectly
believe that it would be then discovered that the lessees had no distinct question, to be dealt with on entirely distinct grounds.
legal right to take tolls at the gate in question, which were At Cambridge and Oxford the object was to bring
only demanded on Sunday, when the tradesmen and other per- up men members of a particular
sons who wanted a jaunt with their family were called upon to Cambridge, no person was suffered to graduate without de-
pay this illegal demand. claiming his adhesion to the Church of England ; at Oxford,
The CHAIRMAN having summed up the evidence, the jury, they were still more strict. The discipline even outside the
after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, walls of the college was analagous to that preserved within.
and Lord Dillon retired from the Court with a number of his Attendance in these universities was required at the common
friends, who were anxiously waiting the result of tha trial. refectory ;erthe ey must be within the gates at a certain time ;
officers w 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, air
Episcopal chapel, or s .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
Trinitai ian 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 the. Union which
he was willing to consider as a sacred 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 of Union
were such as he represented ;in 1707, in regard to the 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 woutel •
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 time of. the Union, to allow the people to have a voice in •
the appointment of their religious teachers. The Articles of
Union gave the people this privilege. This was the opinion of
the great bey 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 maintained that the
people should have a share in the appointment of the mini-
sters who administered 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 took place a great violation of this compact occurred.
In 1710 the Whig Government were driven from power, and re
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 had 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, tor, 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,
two hours atter, they proposed the introduction of tests into
the Scottish universities ten times as stringent as they were
before. He thought the House would not submit to allow
such things as these to pass unnoticed. '1 he tests of late 3 ears
had fallen into desuetude, and of the present professors
in the University of Edinburgh twelve were Non-conformists.
Both the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite hail filled the office
of Lord Reci or of Glasgow, and could give good evidence that
tests i the Uiversities o Glasgow and Edinrgh wer aban-
doned,n and, ifn abandoned,f why were they now sbu ought toe 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 addressed to one of the ministers, and concluded
by recommending the removal from his office, " for the love of
God, the safety of the Church, the prosperity of the kingdom, and
to deter others from committing the like offence." " The glory
of God I" This was not the first time that the glory of God had
been made a pretext for the intolerance and injustice of roan.
Ii she is under the necessity of burnishing up her arms for her
defence in a warfare of that kind, the days of the Church of
Scotland were numbered.—( Hear, 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 threw out the present Bill, they
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 Government went from one
extreme to the other—backwards and forwards—like a reed
shaken by the wind. They establishediour tests at Limerick,
four at Glasgow, and three at Aberdeen. Was it possible that
such a Government deserved public respect or public confidence?
Was it not strange that even their most liberal measures failed
to gain the applause of liberal men ? Was it a wonder if they
lost the confidence of the country ? But he spoke to the
House—he spoke to those gentlemen who voted with the Go-
res nment on Monday. He knew party had its obligations, but
they had their limit, but there were some measures into ich
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. Thg Hen. Gentleman concluded by moving that the
Bill be read a second time, and resumed his seat amidst great
cheering from the opposition.
Sir .1. GRAHAM said, the subject which the Honourable
Gentleman had brought forward to accompany a great
question of public policy, should net induce him to
depart on the present occasion from taking a fair review of the
arguments which he had 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 h
the
ad
induced the Government to resist this proposition.
present session the Hon. Member for Leith asked for leave to
introduce this Bill, and he (Sir J. Graham) stated on tweedrt
of the Government, that although they were not prep to
resist the first introduction of the measure, yet the utmost de-
liberation had not induced them to come to any dehci.
sion upon the subject different to that which theyu had
arrived at in the last session. On the contrary, h
the
thatto ihet
that their subsequent inquiries had tended to
first introduction of
eison, and although they did not oppose thed
it left
was open for
the Bill, yet it was distinctly understood
think proper to a( opt. They
of th • p
attention to the matter, and the result
.theirdeliberations
Government to pursue what
i(moduraseceetrlidelyngryisgihnteeaftearidwadrudes
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
quetion, what were the engagements which the Crown
was under to the people ot 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, hut 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 eveiing by the Hon. Member for Devon-
shire in respect of the Irish colleges, he slicell 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 load 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 House, whether throughout
the whole of their arguments with respect to the admission or
exclusion of tests from these colleges, they
ecdid not
an?d invaris
.1y
rest
uthmesteaonucresse
connected w ere
with
tgh ue p
pone tphl
e of
e
Ireland
hear.) He by no means contended that, as a general iar
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 hacl taken tn regard to the Irish colleges was
justified by the peculiar circumstances in rhich the sister king.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.
Roasnay Blr A SERVANT.—Yesterday Charles Robins,
a groom, was brought up in the custody of Inspector Shackle
and other officers of the detective force, charged with stealing
from the dwelling-house of Lord James Stuart, No. 6, White-
hall-place, a steel sword, a pair of epaulettes, a coat and cape,
a dozen of soda water bottles, and other articles, the property
of his Lordship.
Lord James Stuart said—The prisoner has been in my ser-
vice as groom, and since he left I have missed a gold snuff-box,
having a miniature in enamel upon it, a very handsome steel
sword, a French cane, several small silver articles from my
dressing-case, such as those produced, and an old great coat,
upon which was attached a stuff cape. The epaulettes do no
belong to me, but are the property of the Earl of Bute, who is
colonel of the Glamorganshire Militia.
Mr. JARDINE—Are you certain that these articles were
missed while the prisoner was in your service ? Prosecutor—
They might have been missed for anything that I know, but I
entertained so high an opinion of the prisoner, that I not only
gave him a good cliarafer to another place, but also gave him
more money than the wages due to him.
John Ashton, sergeant of the Ist battalion of the Grenadier
Guards, said he knew the prisoner, and about the 9th of Ja-
nuary last saw him sell the epaulettes produced. He had
offered them to him in the first instance for sale, and as he had
no use for them, he said he would take them to a person who
was in the habit of purchasing such articles, which he subse-
quently did, and he was present when they were sold. Wit-
ness knew that the prisoner was in the service of a member of
his Colonel's family.
Abraham Harris, 30, James-street, Westminster, said he
purchased the epaulettes from the prisoner, and gave him
IL 12s. He then said that he had got more things if witness
would call home, at the same time writing down No. 6, White-
hall-place, and witness having called, he purchased the sword
ptoduced for a guinea, and two dczen of soda water bottles for
about Is. 6d.—The prisoner was remanded.
THREATENING THE CHANCELLOR. OF THE EXCHEQUER.
—John Dillon, a naval officer on half-pay, was brought up on
a warrant, charged with having, some years back, sent several
lettets to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, containingthreaten-
mg language.
Mr. Hayward, from the office of the Solicitor to the Trea-
sury, said that so long back as the month of March, in 1843,
a warrant was granted by Mr. Hall for the apprehension of
the defendant, for having used threatening language, and
sent letters of a threatening character to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. The warrant was then lodged in the hands of a
constable, by whom it was ascertained that the defendant was
confined in the Queen's Bench prison, but as it appeared that
he had since thought over the matter carefully, and had writ-
ten that nothing could justify his adopting such an intemperate
course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped that the ex-
pressions of regret were genuine, and had no objection to with-
draw the charge, upon the understanding that the defendant
should enter into his own recognizances for his future good
behaviour.
The defendant said he felt most grateful for the clemency
shown to him by the Chancellor, and could not find words to
express such feelings ; but he hoped the Court would allow
him to offer a few words in explanation, to show that he was
not altogether to blame for the intemperate course he had
adopted.
Mr. Hayward i nterposed, and said there was no necessity
to enter into details of past transactions, his instructions being
at the ends of justice would be answered by the course pro-

posed.
The defendant assured the Court that he felt the most un-
bounded gratitude shown to him, not only by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, but by Sir Robert Peel, and he trusted
that Mr. Hayward would give his best regards to them to that

effect.
The defendant was then ordered to enter into his own recog
nizances in the suns of 100/. to keep the peace and be of good
behaviour to the Right Hon. Henry Goulburn and all her Ma-
jesty's subjects for the next twelve months, which being com-
plied with, he was discharged.
QUEEA-SQUARE.
RECKLESS Di/nut:G.—Yesterday Joseph Clark, the driver
of the, cab 1,560, was finally examined, charged with having
recklessly driven against one of Mr. Mivart's carriages, as it
was returning with a foreign Prince from a recent entertain-
ment given by the Marquis of Londonderry, at Pose Bank,
Fulham. Mr. Mivart's coachman received some very severe
injuries, independently of which, the carriage was much
damaged.
The facts of the case are briefly these : at about eleven
o'clock on the night of the 30th ult., Henry Jeffries, coach-
man to Mr. Mivart, was driving from Rose Bank cottage,
through Brompton, when he beard a vehicle coming in a con-
trary direction at a furious rate. The coachman apprehend-
ing, from the drrk and consequently dangerous caw of the
road, that some accident might occur, although strictly
on his own side of the road, drew still closer to the footpath,
when, on a sudden, defendant's cab came with great
violence against the carriage, and at the moment after the
collision defendant whipped his horse until he extricated his
wheel from the carriage, arid then drove off at a furious rate ;
and, in all probability, would have escaped with impunity, but
for the circumstance of one of his w heels coming off before he bad
driven many yards. The force of the collision was such as to
throw Jeffries on to the ground, head foremost, and render him
insensible. Independently of being much injured about the
head, he had sustained severe bodily contusions. Lord Ruth-
ven's carriage was close behind at the time of the accident, and
the gentleman was politely invited to take a seat therein. The
damage to the carriage was considerable. The whole of the
evidence distinctly went to show that the defendant was on
the wrong side of the road, and that Mr. Mivart's coachman
was in no way to blame.
The defendant, in answer to the charge, pretended that the
carriage had run up against him.
Mr. BURRELL said it was a gross case of careless and reck-
less driving, and convicted him in the fullest penalty of 31.
Defendant was committed to hard labour for two months, in
default.