The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-05-30 00:00:00

Parliamentary Vrottetitnas

HOUSE OF LORDS.--.TIIURSDAT.
The House of Lords did not sit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TxuRsnAy.

- -
In reply to questions put by several hon. members,
,
Lord STANLEY said, that Canada could produce a supply
of corn beyond the quantity required for its own population.
The Canadian legislature in passing the bill was nearly unani-
mous, in support of which assertion he would lay upon the
table some extracts from the journals of the House of Assem-
bly. The noble lord also declared, that it was not at present
the intention of the Government to extend the principles of
the Canadian Corn Bill to our other colonies.
Iu reply to a question from Mr. VP. 0. STANLEY,
Sir R. PEEL said, that it was the intention of the Govern-
ment to uphold the decision of the legislature, in support of
the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph, but he was
quite willing to give early consideration to the means of in-
creasing the efficiency of the Church Establishment in North
Wales.
Mr. CHRISTIF. moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish
certain oaths and subscriptions now imposed in the Univer-
sities of Oxford and Cambridge,. and to provide for the exten-
sion of education in the universities to persons who are not
members of the Church of England. The hon. member en-
tered at great length into the nature and objects of the uni-
versities, and argued that it was competent foe the state to
interfere with their regulations on the ground of their being
public institutions. He was of opinion that it was expedient
to abolish all religious tests except as qualifications for de-
grees in divinity, and thus to admit the dissenters to the ad-
vantages of the universities on equal terms with members of
the Church of England. The result of the adoption of
his views would be that sentiments of Christian charity
would prevail through all classes, and Jew, Catholic, and
—rotestant would be linked together by feelings of universal

toleration.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER contended that the
establishment of the London University had taken from the
hon. member the strongest grounds upon which such a mo-
tion might have been founded, as that university had the
power of conferring degrees in medicine, which was the chief
view the dissenters alleged for their desire to be admitted to
the universities. He objected to the motion as holding out
a premium for the infraction of university discipline, and
as an interference with the arrangements of the whole sys-
tem. He was resolved to maintain the statutes of the uni-
versities, and thus to fulfil the intentions of the pious men
who had bequeathed those endowments upon which they were
founded.
Mr. M. Grnsos said that by educating religious sects in
separate universities, they were perpetuating sectarian feel-
ings, which would almost of necessity, be softened down were
they to be educated together. He contended for the right of
the dissenters to the emoluments and advantages of the uni-
versities, which were not intended exclusively for the study
of theology. He would not speak of Oxford, for he did not
know how matters were there ; but at Cambridge it was ab-
surd to say that there was anything like religious instruction
afforded. The instruction was almost entirely classical and
scientific, and, as was said by the Bishop of St. David, theo-
logy formed the smallest possible portion of the system of
education in that university.
Sir R. INGLis was prepared to refuse his assent to the mo-
tion, whether sought as a boon or claimed as a right, on behalf
of the dissenters. The Catholics could scarcely lay a claim
to these endowments, because three-fourths of them had been
made since the reformation ; while the dissenters, as such,
never had any shadow of claim to them, for not a single en-
dowment had ever been given by a dissenter. Religion was at
Oxford a supreme element of education, and he was aware of
instances in which the want of religious knowledge had im-
peded the progress of men in other respects distinguished for
their abilities. There did not appear to be at present any spirit
of conciliation on the part of the dissenters, and though he
would at any time have opposed the motion, he should upon
that account be more than ever opposed to it at the present
moment. He feared if this bill were agreed to, the effect
would be to cause a laxity of discipline in the universities,
while there was no sufficient reason for the intrusion of dis-
senters, as their grievances had been removed by the esta-
blishment of the London University.
Sir H. W. BARRON referred to Trinity College, Dublin,
where Protestants, Catholics, and dissenters were educated
together, without any disadvantage to the cause of religion.
Foreign universities presented to us an example of toleration
which it would be well to imitate.
Mr. SHAW said that in the Dublin University the students
were not compelled to reside within the walls, and this
difference in the point of residence neutralised the applica-
tion of the argument drawn from the practice in Trinity Col-
lege.

lord STANLRY contended that Cambridge was not so ex-
clusive as it was said to be, and cited the cases of members
of the Church of England and Roman Catholics who had
been educated together in that university. He was of opinion
that the relief which had been already given to the dissenters
had in a great measure broken the force of their complaints.
He thought the present motion calculated to revive all those
animosities which had in 1834 been hushed into quiet. It
would, in fact, destroy the connection between the Established
Church and the universities. On the other hand, he would
say that he did not approve of the compulsory attendance at
chapel enforced on the students, conceiving that it was not
calculated to elevate their ideas of religion, for if they took
up the notion that in attending chapel they were merely ful-
filling an imposed duty instead of attending Divine worship,
it must weaken the effect of religion upon their minds. He
believed it would be a positive benefit if this rule were to be
relaxed, but this was a matter for the consideration of the
dissenters themselves.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was no answer to the claims of
the dissenters to be admitted to Oxford and Cambridge, to
say that their grievance in this respect was much alleviated
by their admission to the London University. Oxford was
altogether exclusive, and although Cambridge admitted Ro-
man Catholics and dissenters, yet they could not aspire to
university honours ; while in Dublin University those honours
were open to them. The noble lord concluded by cordially
supporting the motion.
Mr. WysE said he had been educated at Trinity College,
and resided within the walls, as did also some 400 other
students. The consequence of the system pursued in that
college was, that the most enduring friendships were formed
between Protestants and Catholics; and this system might,
in his opinion, be advantageously extended to Oxford and
Cambridge.
Mr. C. WYNN opposed the motion ; for, although some
changes might be advantageously made in the discipline of
the universities, that change should be made by themselves,
and should not be imposed upon them by parliament.
Mr. REDINGTON supported the motion, contending that as
these universities were established in catholic times, by Ca-
tholics and for catholic purposes, it was rather hard that Ca-
tholics should be d':prived almost altogether of any advantage
arising from them.
• Mr. ROEBUCK commented on the course of proceeding at
the universities in calling upon boys to sign the Thirty-nine
Articles, which had puzzled all the scholiasts from the first
promulgation of Christianity to the present hour. This calling
upon boys to subscribe to their belief in what it was impos-
sible for them to understand was a strange way of teaching
the ingenious arts. lie denied the ameliorating effect of the
peculiar religious teaching in the universities, and believing
the whole system to be unwise and unjust he would sup-
port the motion of Mr. Christie. The hon. and learned
gentleman, in the course of his speech, asked if it would be
said that members of the Church of England were better men
than dissenters ?
Sir R. INGLlS.—Certainly.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that this avowal was neither favour-
able to the Christianity or the modesty of those who assented
to it, for it savoured of the prayer " We are not as other
men."

Lord SANDON advocated the necessity of religious educa
tion.

Mr. R. Yoaks: stated, that he had purchased immunity
when at college from attending seven times a week at church,
and had the attendances reduced to, two. Now, he was at
a loss to know the value to religion of such attendance at
church, if some £5O extra expenditure would decrease the
ratio of worship from seven to two.
Mr. CHRISTIE replied,
After which the house divided, and the motion was nega-
tived by a majority of 175 to 105.
Sir V. BLAKE moved for leave to bring in a hill to appor-
tion and regulate the overwhelming labour and business of
parliament, in a manner calculated to allay discontent, and
to preserve and maintain the inviolability of the united empire
upon a satisfactory and permanent foundation. The hon.
baronet read hit bill amidst the laughter of the house, for it
was drawn up in most eccentric terms, and went the length
of repealing the unions between England and Ireland and
England and Scotland.
There was no seconder of the motion, and it fell to the
ground amidst general laughter.
Mr. G. W. Wool) obtained leave to bring in a bill to exempt
from parochial and municipal taxation buildings used for li-
terary and scientific purposes.
The house then adjourned