HC Deb 17 April 1834 vol 22 cc900-28
Colonel Williams

rose to make the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the admission of Dissenters to take degrees in the Universities. He said, that with the permission of the House, he would commence by reading his Motion, which was to the following effect:—"That an humble Address be presented to the King, requesting his Majesty to signify his pleasure to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that those bodies no longer act under the Edicts or Letters of James 1st, 1616, 'by which he would have all that took any Degree in schools to subscribe to the three articles of the 36th Canon;' with the exception of those proceeding to Degrees in Divinity; nor to require the declaration, namely, 'that I am bona fide a member of the Church of England;' nor any other subscription or declaration of like effect and import." The hon. and gallant Gentleman proceeded to say, he considered that this question had been something complicated by the previous debates which had taken place on the subject. He would endeavour to simplify it. To him it appeared to be merely whether our ancestors who passed these laws a century and a-half ago, were wiser than ourselves. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Secre- tary of the Treasury (Mr. Spring Rice) had, in the previous debates on this subject, afforded some interesting illustrations of his present view. James 1st, the author of the Edicts and the Letters which were the subject of his proposed Address to the Crown, was the author also of a work on Demonology. As another proof of the fallibility of our ancestors, he might state, that a great philosopher, who lived in the reign of Elizabeth, and who was accounted the "wisest of mankind," (Bacon), that eminent individual believed in witches, and that they ate men's flesh. If such errors as these belonged to that age, surely they ought not to be deterred from examining into Acts taking their origin from that period. Amongst the other errors of the time, he would number the Acts, the mischievous power of which he now proposed to get rid of—he meant those imposing as tests the thirty-nine articles, and other matters. Those subscriptions might be easily known to have been originally intended for Churchmen; for a length of time, very wisely, they were not demanded of everyman taking a degree. The second article of the 36th Canon clearly proved, that it was not intended this test should ever be imposed on any but those seeking ordination. He would read that article to the House:—"That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used, and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in the public-prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, and none other." As to the original intention with respect to this test, there could not be a doubt; but this, as well as the other articles, were now imposed on all persons seeking degrees, whether to become Churchmen or not. Such a proceeding he held to be decidedly objectionable, and he hoped the House would consider it an error requiring to be rectified. It had been asserted that it would be dangerous to remove those tests, because the consequence would be, the admission of Dissenters to the Universities; and the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, had professed himself alarmed lest Scholarships and other University honours should be given to improper persons. He thought, however, the consequence would be, that still more proper persons would be admitted than at present. After the alteration had been made which he advocated, the tests would be imposed on people who had some consciences. Consciences were now, in many instances, violated in submitting to these tests. Indeed, the grievances arising from these restrictions were very generally felt, and even complained of by many clergymen of the Established Church. It had been put forward in a document issued by the Associated Clergy in 1772, that the Thirty-nine Articles were not in every respect consonant with and agreeable to the Word of God; and if this opinion was uttered by Churchmen, was it to be wondered at that Dissenters should be unwilling to subscribe them? These tests could not be defended upon any principle which stood in the way of their repeal. If James 1st acted on his own authority in imposing them, what was there to prevent the present Sovereign from exerting a similar power in their repeal? It had been objected that the proceeding in the present Motion should have been in the form of a Bill, and not of an Address. Such an objection was merely technical, and for his part, if the proposition was fairly entertained, he had no particular attachment to either form of proceeding. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution which he had stated in the outset of his observations.

Mr. George Wood

rose, to propose as an amendment, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to grant to his Majesty's subjects generally the right of admission to the English Universities, and of equal eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their diversities of religions opinion; degrees in divinity alone excepted. He had not been aware of his hon. friend's intention to proceed, or he would at once have given way; but he felt that it would be better to proceed by a Bill, and under this feeling alone, he submitted his Motion to the House. He founded his Motion on the simple proposition that our Universities were national establishments; and, as such, that his Majesty's subjects of all denominations, were entitled to resort to them for their education. This seemed, he would say, so simple—so unanswerable a proposition, that he thought he should only weaken it by any attempt to give strength to it beyond this general statement. But, it might be asked, if the fact were really so obvious, how came it that such a different practice prevailed, and that that practice had so long existed? That question admitted of a ready answer, seeing that, at the period when these laws were first framed, the non-conformity to the Established Church was by law a crime. When every man was required to conform to the religion established by law, it was only a natural course that every man should be required to conform to the law of the land. It was not possible to admit men to the Universities, who, by the existing law, were regarded as criminals. He thought, however, that toleration should have been introduced into the Universities as it had been into the legislation of the country. It was the general feeling that no difference should exist in civil privileges or power, on account of religious opinions. If this, then, were acknowledged, his appeal to the House must, he thought, be unanswerable. The present system of the Universities was one which was defective, inasmuch as it involved a practical injury to those who were intended for the profession of law or of physic. In Scotland and Ireland no such inconsistencies existed as those which prevailed in this part of the empire. What he asked was, that the Dissenters should receive a reward for their successful studies at the Universities; and after having gone through their different courses of instruction, be intitled to acquire the honours of those Universities. This subject had excited much of the public attention, in consequence of the petition recently presented to the House from distinguished persons of the University of Cambridge, praying for the admission of Dissenters to degrees in the arts, medicine, and law. He was delighted at the progress which liberal opinion had made, and he would express his gratitude to those individuals for the manner in which they had acted. He would not attempt to reply to the remarks of the distinguished Members connected with tile Universities upon the occasion of the presentation of the Cambridge petition, because if the House indulged him so far as to allow him to bring in the Bill, he should have future opportunities of commenting on the subject. He would continue to bestow upon those remarks the attention which they deserved; but his present impression was, that they did not bear upon his view of the case, as the matter affected the right of the people generally. He was not aware that in proposing the Amendment he had sug- gested, he was supporting any sectarian views, or doing anything hostile to the interests and welfare of the Established Church. On the contrary, he was persuaded, that if his Motion succeeded, it would add to the stability of the Church. He did not propose to change the regulations in respect to persons taking degrees in divinity, nor did he think that a matter of practical importance; he did not ask to change the system of education at the Universities, he left that as at present to the colleges themselves; he would also leave all the religious exercises to be continued as at present; all that he asked was, that the Dissenters should have access to degrees, after they had gone through the course of studies required by the system of the Universities. An objection had been taken to the admission of Dissenters, upon the presentation of the Cambridge petition, on the ground that the English Universities were differently constituted from others. It had been argued, that the pupils were required to be domiciliated in the University to which they belonged generally, but it seemed to him that this argument made the other way. Where residence was required, they must have religious instruction; but that could not be enforced where residence was not required. Whatever obstacle that might appear to throw in the way in theory, he was satisfied that it would not be felt in practice. If the House acceded to what he required, he was satisfied they would not do anything injurious to the existing establishments.

The original Question and the Amendment having been put,

Mr. Estcourt

said, that the question then submitted for the consideration of the House, was one of such importance, and of so much interest to his constituents, that he hoped the House would consider that fact a sufficient apology for his taking up the time of the House. He must, in the first instance, complain of the assertion of the hon. member for Lancashire, who had stated, that if the degrees in arts were conferred on Dissenters, they would be bestowed on persons of more conscientious feelings than those who now enjoyed them. He begged to state, in reply, that there were no men more honourably entitled to those distinctions than the Gentlemen who now enjoyed them. He objected to the propositions of the mover of the original Motion, and of the Amendment, because the effect would be, to introduce Dissenters into the Universities. Therein consisted his objection. The University to which he belonged was a place of religious education; and if it were intended that Dissenters should be introduced into the Universities, he knew not how it would be possible for the religious education of the Church Establishment to be carried on within the walls of the Universities. Were Gentlemen who were disposed to grant the right sought for by the Motion before the House, prepared to say that Professors of Theology should be engaged of every different persuasion?—or were they prepared to say that Dissenters of all denominations were to violate their consciences by attending the Theological Lectures? He apprehended that neither of these things was contemplated. Then what would be the practical effect if this Motion were carried? Why, that no religious education at all would be given. This must be the effect of the system, and against that he would hold up his hand, and he hoped that all those who were attached to the Established Church would not consent to such a change in the institutions of our Universities. The effect of the present Motion, if carried, must be to deprive the Universities of those advantages which they held for the benefit of the Established Church, and, consequently, to injure the Church. Hon. Members, in discussing the present question, might take up whatever grounds they thought proper, and might assume that the pretexts put forward formed the actual reasons on which those claims rested; but he could not conceal from himself that the whole character of the proceedings out of doors upon that subject, was pregnant with evidence that the objects of the Dissenters were not limited to mere admission to the Universities, were not confined to a removal of the grievances which affected them as Dissenters, but aimed at a separation between Church and State, and that with nothing less than a dissolution of that union, would they ever be satisfied. He had at that moment in his possession, a passage spoken by one of the most able and influential men connected with the Dissenting body at Hull, which he would, with the permission of the House, read, it said,—"There are those who have contented themselves in their petitions to Parliament, with only asking for the redress of their griev- ances, and saying nothing of the dissolution of the union between Church and State. There are men, who, we think, have gone a little too rashly forward and demanded the immediate dissolution of Church and State. What we desire is somewhat between these two extreme points. I think we are prepared to go rather further than we did in our memorial. In this view of the case, our petition goes somewhat further than our memorial did. It does not, indeed, pray, as some others have done, for the immediate dissolution of Church and State, but looks forward to the accomplishment of that great and glorious object." That view of the wishes and expectations of the Dissenters might, he would contend, be received as coming from one who spoke the sentiments entertained by the great majority of those classes who refused to assent to the doctrines of the Church of England; and with such evidence before them, he professed himself incapable of comprehending how the Members of that House could shut their eyes to the fact, that the aim of all the petitions hitherto presented to Parliament was to bring about such changes as were likely, if not certain, to end in a dissolution of that Union to which Dissenters were necessarily adverse. Most assuredly he had as yet heard nothing to remove from his mind the conviction that the Universities, once opened to persons not belonging to the Church of England, would soon cease to be places of religious education,—a change which he should regard as abolishing the uses of the Universities, and defeating the purposes for which they were instituted. Complaints had been made frequently on the part of the Dissenters of the necessity under which they were placed, while residing at the University, of attending Divine Worship according to the forms of the Church of England. A pamphlet which he held in his hand, contained some observations to which he could not avoid calling the attention of hon. Members, as expressing his own feelings more eloquently than he could express them. One passage was as follows:—'As a part, then, and portion, 'and by far the largest portion of goodness, and as the means of producing goodness, we cannot consent to part with our religion. For this reason, twice a day we assemble for public prayer, not as a mere form or rule of discipline, but because those who framed our statutes, and many, if not all, who conform to them, believe, that the duties of the day are nothing, but as consecrated by God; because, though a careless discharge of such an act deadens and hardens the heart, a right and faithful attempt to fulfil it is one of the best means of perfection.' Concurring, as he did, with the writer of that pamphlet, he could not bring himself to consent to any measure in that House the effect of which would be to break down the Establishment. He could not consent to that by any means, or upon any terms; and, least of all, through the instrumentality of the Universities. Why should they, for the sake of the principle contended for on behalf of the Dissenters, forego fir the future all those advantages which the Church had, up to the present moment, conferred upon the people of England? The Dissenters had places of education for themselves; and viewing the subject as he did, it was impossible for him not to feel, that it would be madness to consent to the proposition then before the House. But, said the Mover of the Amendment, the candidates for admission to the learned and liberal professions of law and physic say, that the regulations of the University ought not to exclude any man from the pursuit of those professions on account of his religious principles: to that the answer was very short and simple. Let the persons possessing the right to admit to those professions modify their own regulations, and not call upon the Universities to abolish theirs. He was aware it had been said, that in Ireland and Scotland the Universities admitted Dissenting students; and it was asked, why might not the English Universities do the same? But the analogy did by no means hold, for it formed no part of the system of the Universities in those parts of the United Kingdom to require, even of their students belonging to the Established Church, attendance at chapel, or even residence; they were, therefore, not to be considered in the light of places of religious education. He did not impute any design, at the present moment, to the Dissenters of overthrowing the Church Establishment, though he believed that that would be the ultimate effect of acceding to their wishes. He repeated, that he did not impute to them now any such design, for he admitted, that many of them were deeply impressed with the necessity of maintaining the Established Church as the best preservative of that liberty which they so highly prized; and that was a sentiment cherished, not by one or two sects, but by the greater number of persons belonging to the various denominations into which non-conformity had divided itself. For these several reasons, then, he entertained an earnest hope, that the Motion might not be pressed upon the acceptance of the House; and that, if it were, it might be rejected.

Dr. Lushington

said, it seemed to him, that the hon. Member did not appear clearly to understand the nature of the question before the House. The hon. Member first expressed his fear that, if the Dissenters were once permitted to enter the University of Oxford, the utter ruin of the Established Church would be the inevitable consequence; and yet, in the same breath, he stated, that he was acquainted with a great body of Protestant Dissenters who were most anxious to preserve the Protestant Church, and were ready to protect it as the best means of securing religious freedom. He would just ask the House, how it was possible to reconcile those contradictions? He would ask, too, why it was, that they were to refuse equal admission to the Dissenters, when even the great advocate of the monopoly of education had stated his conviction, that a great body of these Dissenters were anxious to support the Established Church. It was an incontrovertible fact, that these Universities were great public establishments, protected by Charters and specific Acts of Parliament; that these establishments held their Charters and their possessions, which having formerly belonged to Roman Catholics, had been conferred on, or secured to, the Universities by the Legislature. But it should be recollected that the object proposed was the enlargement of the field of literature; and the question for consideration was, whether facilitating this object by the admission to equal advantages, with other candidates for college honours at Oxford, would have the effect of overthrowing the Established Church? He hoped the Established Church was placed upon too broad and solid a basis to be shaken by any measure such as that before the House, to which he was anxious to give his most hearty and cordial support. In doing this he felt, that, instead of endangering the Establishment, he was rendering it more secure; for it was by receiving all who would come near her, into her bosom, by removing all cause of jealousy and discontent, that that Established Church could plant herself in the affections of the people, and grow by peace and concord into deep-rooted security. The unison of feeling, the removal of jealousy and discontent, would be an increase of security for the Church. It had been said, and said rightly, that a boy going to Oxford was called upon, at the age of sixteen, at a period when he was perhaps totally ignorant of the nature, nay, even of the very name, of the Thirty-nice Articles,—a boy of sixteen was called upon, as his first act, to sign his belief in those Articles! He deprecated that practice, which was as offensive to the ministers of the Church of England, as it was insulting to the Dissenters,—operating as an exclusion for them; he considered it a solemn mockery, an unjust imposition upon the human conscience, which ought not to be permitted in any instance, much less in the case of youths of sixteen or seventeen, who must be incompetent to form a decided opinion upon such matters. Nor need it be wondered at that such an opinion was generally formed and expressed, when it was recollected, that some of the most learned, the most wise, and the most religious men of this kingdom had expressed their doubts with respect to the meaning of those Thirty-nine Articles. But, to come hack to the other part of the question. Was it to be wondered at that the wealthy and respectable Dissenter should be anxious that his sun should be educated, and participate in the same advantages with those young persons with whom it was probable he was to associate in after-life. He was entitled to look for a participation in such education as a right. Why was it, that he was debarred from the enjoyment of it? Let it be remembered, that it was to the Dissenters that we were indebted for the reign of the present family upon the Throne; and yet their descendants were to be shut out from an equal enjoyment of rights with their fellows. At Oxford no Dissenter could be at all admitted; the Thirty-nine Articles met him on the threshold, and conscience stopt him short, and all access was denied him. At Cambridge it was somewhat different. He was admitted to study. There he might toil and labour, but no matter what his labour,—no matter what his natural advantages and chances of success,—no matter how pure his moral character,—when he was ready to obtain the honours he had toiled for, and presented himself to receive them, his answer was,—"No; although you bear the poison of dissent about you, yet thus far we have borne with and fostered you, but you must go no further,—all honours are denied you." Was not this, he would ask, adding insult to injustice and injury? Was it not degrading to be thus turned from the door of that place where he had laboured hard, where he had formed friendships, and aspired to honours, and sent into the world with all the sourness of disappointment, and disgrace of having these marks fastened upon him? And why all this oppression and degradation? Just because he had the honour and conscience to say, that he could not, in justice to his feelings, subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. It was said, that the Professors of Divinity could not continue their lectures if Dissenters were to be admitted into our Universities. He should like to know why not? Why might they not, in such an event, double their labours in order to preserve those committed to their care? How could the Dissenters interfere with this duty? But it was said, that difficulties would arise upon the admission of Dissenters into Oxford. It was asked, what was to be done with them when first admitted? His first answer to this question was, "That which had been hitherto done with them so far at Cambridge." It was not necessary that the doctrines of the Church of England should be inculcated upon them if they did not wish it; but that was no reason why they should not be inculcated upon others. He knew not what were the present practices at Oxford; doubtless they were much changed since he was there; but his latest recollections told him, that the College attendance at chapel was a mere matter of form, or rather choice, except on Sundays. Why, then, might not the members of the Church of England be obliged to attend chapel, and the Dissenters a place of worship more consonant to their own feelings, on those days? When he recollected the great wealth of the University of Oxford, when he recollected that the great donors of these riches were Roman Catholics, and that now their enjoyment and distribution had passed into the hands of members of another religion, —that of the Established Church,—he was at a loss to conceive that any refusal of eligibility to equal honours should be refused to the Dissenters on the ground of difference of religion. They had been told, that application might as well be made to the heads of the departments of law and physic to alter the regulations upon which they admitted students, as to the Universities, for the proposed alteration. But, why should they do this, when the Universities themselves were the original cause of the evil complained of, and, therefore, the most proper persons to grant the remedy? The two professions, in fact, committed no injustice; they only took the degree of the University as a test of proficiency; and the fault lay in the University; which, whatever proficiency a Dissenter might have acquired, refused, on account of a religious opinion, to grant him the degree. It was, therefore, for the Universities to make the required alteration. The best security for the Protestant Church, he would observe, in conclusion, was, to lessen the distance between that establishment and the Dissenters; to conciliate all his Majesty's subjects, and to use her utmost endeavours, in peace and good-will, to improve the general well-being and the whole frame of society.

Mr. Goulburn

wished to enter his protest both against the Motion and the Amendment before the House, as well as against the opinions which had been expressed by the hon. and learned Member. The House stood at present in a very peculiar situation, having before it two Motions, each affecting deeply the interest of the Universities, and differing entirely from one another if not in substance, yet in form. They had, moreover, a speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman, who professed to support one or both Motions, in which he took a view, differing very widely, in many respects, from the views of the proposer of the Motion. Few Gentlemen who had the good fortune to hear the speech of the hon. Member who introduced the Motion, would, he thought, after that, be inclined to support it; or, if he supported it, would, at least, not support it on the grounds which the hon. Gentleman advanced. That hon. Gentleman thought it right to correct the errors of James 1st and Elizabeth, and one of his means of doing so was the abolition of a declaration, required at Cambridge from persons taking degrees, that they were bonâ fide mem- bers of the Church of England, which was not imposed till 1772. He had a strong feeling against both the Motions of the hon. members for Lancashire and Ashton, but he had not the slighest hesitation in giving his vote against that of the hon. Member for Ashton. He would now come to the Motion of the hon. Member for Lancashire, who relied very much on a petition presented from certain individuals of the University of Cambridge. With regard to that petition, he should reserve himself, and he requested the House to reserve its opinion, till he should have the opportunity of presenting an opposite petition, containing an authentic record of the opinions of a large body of the resident members of that University, nowise inferior to the other petitioners in rank, talent, or in liberality of sentiment. The hon. member for Lancashire grounded great part of his argument on the fact, that the Universities were national establishments, and he concluded that they should be thrown open to all persons who chose to enter them. But, he would ask the hon. Member, was not the Church also a national establishment? And ought not the hon. Member, in consistency, to propose that, as the Church was a national establishment, that also should be thrown open to all; and that not only degrees in Divinity should be conferred upon the Dissenters, but that they should share in all the emoluments and advantages which, under the present constitution of the Church, was confined to the Establishment? If the Dissenters were entitled to share in the honours of the Universities, there was no reason why they should not share in their emoluments. The hon. Member appeared to him to be a little inconsistent in his statements. He proposed that all religious observances should remain as they were. But how would the Dissenters like this? How would they like the compulsion of attending the observances, and submitting to the discipline of a religion from which they differed? The hon. Member seemed to intimate dissent, but he (Mr. Goulburn) had taken his ext act words, viz.—"That there should be no change in the course of study, and that all the religious exercises at present observed should be continued." One of the objects of the Bill, therefore, comprised the attendance of the students at the Theological Lectures.

Mr. George Wood

denied, that he had said anything about Theological Lectures, and protested against the language he had used being made to bear the strained construction put upon it by the right hon. Member.

Mr. Goulburn

The hon. Member said, that the Dissenters should adopt the system of education now pursued in the University. He would notice an argument used by the hon. and learned Member, who contended, that because the rights and privileges of the Universities had been secured by Acts of Parliament, that because the Legislature had confirmed their title to the privileges and property which they possessed, it had, on that account, a right to deal with them as they thought proper. It, surely, was a very curious argument, that because Parliament had confirmed a pre-existent right, it should, therefore, destroy it. That argument was particularly curious coming from a learned Gentleman. By admission to the honours of the University, the Dissenters would obtain a share in the governing power. By Act of Parliament is given to the governing power of the Protestant Universities the right of presenting to advowsons possessed by one class of Dissenters, viz. Roman Catholics; and yet, by the Act now proposed, the precaution thus established would be entirely overthrown, and to Dissenters would be given the power of appointing to the livings and benefices of the Church Establishment. If the object of the Universities was merely the advancement of literature, he might not have been so very scrupulous, but he felt that the system of education pursued at these Universities was the only system which it became a Legislature to encourage—viz. knowledge combined with religion. Thus, and thus only, was instruction sanctified, and thus only could they hope to correct the evils which too frequently spring from knowledge unaccompanied by religion. [A laugh.] Some Gentleman had thought proper to laugh at the attendance at chapel; but he denied that the attendance was nominal. It was anything but what it had been often compared to, a mere roll call. The conduct of the youths who attended on those occasions, was such as every man must approve, and he doubted not that to most of them, the deprivation of that sacred privilege would be a source of great dissatisfaction and grief. The hon. and learned Member asserted that the University of Cambridge treated Dissenters with peculiar severity; that it opened to them all the avenues to learning; that it gave them every facility for obtaining instruction in all the various departments of human knowledge; but that when they had arrived to that point at which they might reasonably expect the honours due to high literary attainment, those honours were unjustly refused them. But let him call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the consideration of what would be the fate of the Dissenters, if unfortunately the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Lancashire should pass into a law. If a clever, able young man, introduced into the bosom of the University, but entertaining religious opinions different from those of the Church of England, were called upon—as the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Lancashire would call upon him—to join in the public worship prescribed by the Church, in what situation of punishment would he be placed? If, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, such an individual conscientiously resolved to worship God in his own way; if, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was an honest man, to the denial of University honours would be added the punishment of a privation of University instruction. It was true, that the education at the University was not confined to lectures, and that no student who was not intended for Holy Orders was compelled to attend the theological professors. But still religious opinions did form a part of the University examination. Since he had last addressed the House he had obtained a copy of one of the examination papers, and he found, in the examination on the Gospels, this question—"Can you rescue the following passages from the Calvinist, the Presbyterian, and the Papist's interpretation of them?" Now, did the hon. member for Lancashire think, that to put such a question to the young Dissenter would contribute to the concord of the University? He was sure, that if the experiment were tried, it would fail in discord. They might go on with the Bill, and they might compel all the students of the University to attend religious instruction, but he did not believe that such a course would be attended with any beneficial effect. He did not believe, that they could admit Dissenters into the University as such, unless they previously abolished all religious ob- servances. This was not his own opinion simply, it was not the opinion of any bigotted member of the Church of England, but it was the opinion of a set of men, the founders of a University intended for the education of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, without regard to their religious principles. He held in his hand a copy of the "London University Calendar," a book which was sanctioned by the name of a noble and learned Lord in another place, and by the name of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell), and by several members of his Majesty's Government, and he would read from the introduction of that work a passage, in order to show what the opinion of the founders of the London University was as to the practicability of such a plan as that now proposed. That passage was as follows:—'The capital is the most convenient situation for all those young men who are sent to the country for education, on account of the greater probability of their finding connexions interested in their welfare, and greater facility for adopting a style of living suited to their circumstances. But it was also felt, that in a country where the people embrace so many different opinions in matters of religion, an University which should be open to all persons of all persuasions, must be so constituted as to avoid any possible interference with religious belief. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge supply ample opportunities for the education of the clergy of the Established Church. It is manifestly impossible to provide a course of professional education for the ministers of religion of those congregations who do not belong to the Established Church. It is equally impossible to institute theological lectures for the instruction of lay students of different religious persuasions, which would not be liable to grave objections; still less (say the able founders of the London University) is it practicable to introduce any religious observances that would be generally complied with. In the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the students removed from the superintendence of their parents and guardians, are placed in colleges, or new domestic establishments, where it is necessary that religious instruction should be provided. When students do not reside within the walls of the University, but live in the houses of their parents or guardians; or, in the case of those who come from a distance, live in houses selected by their friends, with such precautions for the safety of their morals and of their religious opinions as will naturally be adopted on the occasion, no such provision is required. The religious education of the pupils, therefore, must, in such circumstances, be left to domestic superintendence, being the same provision which, at present, exists for that important object, in all cases, except those of under-graduates at Oxford and Cambridge during their residence in college.' He entirely concurred with the noble Lord opposite, and the other individuals who signed that Report, in thinking, that it would be impossible to retain religious observances in a University open to persons professing different religious beliefs; and he would add, that, in his opinion, education unaccompanied by religious instruction, would be pregnant with the most mischievous results. If any confirmation of this fact was requisite, let them look to the learned men of other countries. It had been too frequently urged as a reproach against them, that however eminent in science, in literature, and in arts, they were not only deficient in religious feeling, but were the most active propagators of infidelity. But let the House look at the English Universities, and they would there find, that the men who were most distinguished for their learning and science, were also the most distinguished for their sound divinity, and were the most zealous advocates for that Church which their labours so greatly contributed to illustrate and maintain. Let them look back only at the last two years, and see what zeal and assiduity had been manifested by the ablest men at our Universities, to show the necessary connection between the progress of science and the progress of religious knowledge. And after such a proof of the benefit of the existing system, ought they to turn round upon the Universities, and declare that to that system there should be an end? He felt some surprise and regret that none of his Majesty's Ministers had hitherto thought proper to deliver their sentiments on the Motion before the House. He knew not what course the right hon. Gentleman opposite meant to take with respect to it, but he could not believe that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), after signing the declaration which he had read to the House, would give his support to a proposition which would have the effect of ruining the system under which the Universities at present proceeded. He trusted that the Ministers would be prepared to oppose the proposed scheme, and he should sincerely rejoice to find those to whose hands, for a time, the destinies of this kingdom were committed, supporting a system under which the Universities had hitherto existed with such great national benefit—a system which had advanced the national glory—which had maintained the national safety, and which, if persevered in, would tend, under the blessing of Providence, to preserve the institutions, to redound to the honour, and to increase the prosperity of the country.

Lord John Russell

said, he should have thought it unnecessary, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, to ask him and his friends, what their opinion was on the question before the House. The great essential principle on which his Majesty's present Government were disposed to proceed, with reference to it, had more than once been unequivocally stated. He had no hesitation in declaring, that with respect to the principle on which education ought to be conducted in our Universities, he perfectly concurred in every word contained in the petition from the University of Cambridge, which, in his opinion, embodied, in the most moderate and clear terms, the soundest argument in favour of a system equally advantageous to the interests of learning and of religion. It had been said, that no necessity had been made out for such a measure as that now proposed. His answer was, that the necessity for continuing the existing restrictions ought to be shown by those who were the advocates of them. They ought to show why those who were desirous of enjoying all the advantages of an education at the University should not be permitted to do so, and should not be allowed to receive all the honours due to superior literary and scientific attainment and yet follow the dictates of their own conscience in religious matters. It was but a few years ago that no man could be promoted to the rank of a General in the Army, without previously declaring himself a member of the Church of England. That restriction had been abolished. He held, that the same principle was applicable to the subject under the consideration of the House. The right hon. member for the University of Cambridge had introduced some confusion into his argument by saying that because the Church of England was national, therefore Universities which were national, must be also exclusively Church of England. The distinction, however, was clear and obvious. The honours and degrees of the Universities were civil, not ecclesiastical distinctions. Undoubtedly Church preferments were of a different character; and before they were conferred, an inquiry ought to be made whether the person on whom they were to be conferred entertained opinions conformable to those of the Church of England. But when a man asked for a degree, it was to certify his proficiency, not in theology, but in arts, in law, or in physic, with none of which had his religious opinions anything to do. They had no more right to inquire into his religious opinions, under such circumstances, than they would have to examine a person appointed to a Bishopric as to his medical or legal opinions. He should not have been so much surprised to hear the opinions which had been expressed by the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge, if he had been the member for the University of Oxford, because Dissenters never having been admitted into the latter University, an impression might have existed that difficulties would stand in the way of admitting them without interfering with the religious discipline of the University. But in the University of Cambridge all those difficulties had long been surmounted. Dissenters of all denominations had long been freely admitted into that University. At the present moment the son of the Earl of Surrey, and many other Dissenters, were at the University of Cambridge. With respect, therefore, to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, although it would be easy to meet them by arguments, they were best met by the facts which proved that no practical inconvenience had resulted from the admission of Dissenters into the University of Cambridge. The only difficulty was when they were about to leave the University. They were then told, that although they had been there for three or four years, and although they had acquired what proficiency, soever they might in the various studies of the University and had adhered with what re- gularity soever they might to the regulations of the University, they should not receive the degree to which their proficiency in knowledge and their good conduct fully entitled them. He did not wish again to enter upon the historical question which had been debated on the petition. He would merely observe, that the fact was, that by the Reformation in this country, and by the Edict of Nantz in France, at the beginning of the 17th century, in the great Universities and Colleges both of England and France, there was no denial of a degree on account of religious belief. If, therefore, the House should agree, in its utmost extent, to the Bill of the hon. member for Lancashire, they would not be establishing a greater degree of liberty than was found practicable at the begining of the 17th century. But it was asked what good would there be in making this change? He was surprised at that question. That the Protestant Dissenters were sincere, conscientious men—that they were the firm adherents of the succession of the House of Hanover—that they had ever been loyal to the throne—that they had contributed mainly and greatly to the establishment of the Constitution of this country,—and that they did at present inculcate religion on a vast portion of the people in the manufacturing districts of the country, to whom the Church of England was unable to give religious instruction, was undeniable. But he heard it said the Protestant Dissenters were sour and narrow minded—they had not the ability, and learning, and openness of mind of members of the Established Church. This was the continual charge against the Dissenters; and when there was an opportunity of mingling Protestant Dissenters and Churchmen, of bringing them by similarity of pursuits in learning and literature to abate somewhat of the harshness of polemical disputes, and to get rid of the dislike which was apt to be engendered between Dissenters and members of a dominant Church—when there was an opportunity of doing this,—they were asked what was the advantage of it? He was convinced that the greatest good would result from it—he was convinced that by admitting Protestant Dissenters to these great establishments (and the higher his opinion of the learning of Oxford and Cambridge, the greater was his desire that Dissenters should share in it), they would be willing to abate somewhat of their hostility to the Church, a great principle of religious liberty would be conceded, and no possible inconvenience could follow.

Sir Robert Inglis

said, the noble Lord expressed his adhesion to the Motion in language pretty nearly, if not entirely, the same as that in which one of the noble Lord's colleagues expressed his adhesion to the prayer of the Cambridge petition. The least extensive, however, of the two propositions submitted to the House that night embraced a far wider and more important change than any suggested in the Petition. Either of the two propositions, if adopted, would completely overturn the constitution of the Universities of this country. Technically speaking, no legislative measure could be made to rest on either of the propositions submitted to the House that night. The obvious and more direct course would be to repeal so much of the Act of Uniformity as bore upon the question. If the Bill now proposed passed into a law, the necessity would still remain of taking the Oath of Supremacy and the Oath of Allegiance. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets stated, that the Universities were national institutions, though he limited the claims of admission into them, by saying that they should be open indiscriminately to all professors of Christianity. If it was the right of the subject generally to enter the Universities, and take degrees, (for to this extent the principle of the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets seemed to go), how could they fairly and conscientiously exclude from the same benefits that class of his Majesty's subjects professing the Hebrew religion. He did not see how they could stop short, if they were once to make this inroad on the constitutions of Oxford and Cambridge. It was not without good and sound reason, that the regulations which it was now sought to get rid of, were originally established. All experience, from the earliest time up to the present day, sufficiently proved, that unless those intrusted with the education of youth communicated religious instruction upon some fixed and definite standard of belief, the objects of religious instruction could never be attained. How was it possible to convey such instruction in any other way? If pupils were perfectly free to differ from their instructors, to entertain and to avow what tenets they pleased, and to maintain their own opinions, there must be immediately an end to anything like religious education, and the greatest confusion and inconvenience would follow. If pupils might dissent from their instructors—if they might believe and avow whatever doctrines they pleased—they might also teach them, and thus turn the University into one scene of confusion and polemical contention. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets said, the Universities were national institutions for education, from the benefits of which no man should be excluded on religious grounds. If this doctrine were correct—if they were free to alter the constitution of these institutions,—what was there to prevent them from interfering in the same way with any Corporation in the country? What was there, for instance, to prevent them from placing in jeopardy the property of a canal, and totally altering the constitution of a Canal Company, or of any other Corporation? Having before spoken of this question, and having experienced much attention and indulgence from the House, he was unwilling to trespass again upon their kindness, and should not do so, were it not for the peculiar situation in which he stood with respect to one of the great bodies to which the Motion referred. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets complained, that the articles were signed at the University of Oxford, by young men not more than sixteen years old and he then added seventeen or eighteen, (a very important difference was made by two years at that period) in ignorance; but who were to blame for that ignorance? Not the University, whose rules did not require them to come so early, but their parents or their tutors. But in truth such he believed was not the case. He had before stated, on the authority of a tutor of Oxford, who had attended upwards of 400 young men, that a very large proportion of that number, not less than nineteen in twenty, had read the articles, and were generally acquainted with the elements of theology, before they came to be matriculated. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets had argued, that if the different sects were admitted, an additional motive would be imposed on the divinity professors, to the more diligent and faithful discharge of their important duties. But if, in rival schools of theology, young men were taught not to pursue their studies in quietness and peace, humbly endeavouring to serve God, and unitedly to ask his blessings in the prosecution of their studies; but night and day to marshal themselves against each other,—Calvinist against Armenian—Papist against Church of England-man,—Baptist against Independent,—each sect calling itself religious (not to mention any of that class of British subjects who were not even Christian in name)—the moment the Universities were made the theatre for such discussions, so little tending to promote either sound learning or religious education, its glory would have departed, and its usefulness, as a national establishment for the protection of Christian morals and doctrine, would for ever cease. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had insisted not merely that the property of the Universities had been either created or secured by Acts of Parliament, but that the latter portion of it had been bequeathed by others than Protestants. A distinguished person some years ago had discarded history as an old almanack; and the noble Lord had also conveniently declined to pursue historical argument on the present occasion. He would not now repeat the details which he had entered into formerly, but he would state, without fear of contradiction, so far as arguments founded on fact were worth any thing, that the endowments of the Universities were, in by much the larger portion, the bequests of Protestants of the Church of England; and if any identity of religious opinion could constitute a claim for admission, it could not be maintained by Roman Catholics, and still less by the Protestant Dissenter. The latest of all the foundations, Downing College, opened in the memory of some of those whom he had then the honour to address—in the present day—in this age of light and liberality, as gentlemen were fond of describing it,—was founded strictly and exclusively for those professing the faith of the Established Church. On what grounds, then, of right or reason could Parliament call on those Gentlemen who were associated in that College for the promotion of the objects and interests of the Church of England, to compromise their own opinions and principles, and open their doors to the admission of persons who professed every shade of religion or no religion, perhaps, whatever? In the large majority of the original foundations, the fellow-ships, scholarships, and studentships, were limited sometimes to relatives of the founders, to the parishes in which they lived, the counties of their birth, the dioceses of which they had been made prelates; and, in no single instance, he believed, was it ever left uncertain what the destination of the endowment of a given benefactor should be. It was always, however, subject to other limitations,—to promote the service of God in the Church. It was always to promote the cause of religion, and, in the great majority of cases, with special reference to some locality or hereditary interest in certain parties. Unless the Parliament was prepared to unsettle and destroy all the foundations of every species of property in the kingdom, they could not, on any principle of reason or justice, call on the present possessors to relinquish the rights on which they held their privileges to make room for those who had nothing in common with the founders? Much of the property thus left had been undisturbed for three centuries; and was the trust to be now withdrawn from the body by which it had been so long and so faithfully administered? The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said, as they had no right to examine a Bishop as to his proficiency in law or physic, neither should they question a lawyer or physician as to his proficiency in religious studies. His answer to this was, that law or physic was not necessary to the education of all, but religion was. It was not necessary for a Bishop to be a lawyer or a physician; but it was necessary for the interests of society that all should be instructed in the will of God, and be made wise unto salvation. How was this to be done, if the compromise now proposed should be adopted? It was not instruction merely in the dogmas of religion that was to be considered in their Universities, but that habitual, that daily and hourly, intercourse with observances and duties, which connected religion with all the concerns of life, and thus fixed it lastingly on the heart and the affections. He did not object to the Dissenters educating their youth in the highest degrees of human learning; but he called on them not to desecrate those walls which for three centuries had been hallowed by the prayers and praises of the reformers of England, who had maintained the pure episcopalian form of government which he hoped was now permanently established, by admitting men of all religious, who would either convert them into the arena of turbulent disputation, or, which, perhaps, would be even still worse, deprive them of the guardianship of Christian faith and hope; which, once withdrawn, would render the age of peculiar temptation more critical and dangerous than ever, and deprive the State of England of that continued accession of Christian and good subjects which it had been the honour and privilege of the Universities of England to supply. Now, one word as to the power of Parliament to effect this object. He was well aware that, in every State, a supreme power must exist either in a King, in a King and two Houses of Parliament, or in an oligarchy. He admitted the power of Parliament in this case, but denied the right. They might pass a law to repeal the Act of Uniformity; they might induce the Sovereign to send down letters to the University of different import to that of James the 1st; but even the power of Parliament could not force the governing bodies to admit Dissenters, for the grounds of admission or rejection would be still within the discretion of those bodies. Like every Corporation, they were free to fill up vacancies in their body as they pleased. Suppose the Act of Uniformity to be repealed, and the necessity removed of declaring uniformity to the doctrines of the Established Church, what more would follow but merely the admission of Dissenters within the walls of the University, but not into her Colleges? Admit them as members of the governing bodies, and then the character of the University was at once overturned. The right hon. member for the city of Cambridge (Mr. Spring Rice) held out a threat the other night, that certain grants now made by Parliament to the Universities might be withdrawn, if they refused compliance with such a measure as that proposed; at least his right hon. friend was understood to have held out such a threat. He had a much better opinion of the governing bodies of both Universities than to suppose for a moment, that they would sacrifice their principles for any pecuniary considerations. In such a case they would not hesitate as to the course they would and ought to pursue. He was thankful for the indulgence extended to him, and should not have trespassed so long, but that he felt very deeply the importance of the subject. He, as well as a large majority of the inhabitants of this coun- try, felt a deep interest in the existence and prosperity of the Established Church, and for that reason he should oppose both the propositions.

Mr. Ord

said, that the proposed measure would not interfere with the discipline of the colleges, but would merely go to remove the tests which were now imposed upon Dissenters in taking their degrees. Whatever regulations the Universities might choose to adopt for their internal discipline, would be left to their own discretion. He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, that no religious education was given by the Universities, as Universities—at least, by the University of Cambridge, with which he was best acquainted. He was now speaking of the time when he had himself graduated. He was aware, that since then an examination of a religious character had been introduced; but though of a religious nature, it could not be said, by any means, to partake of a doctrinal character. It was only such an examination as required students to be acquainted with the language of the Gospels, and the history and evidences of the Christian religion. If he wanted a confirmation of this assertion, he could refer to the authority of one of the greatest ornaments of the present age—Professor Sedgwick, who, in a letter lately written by him, backed this declaration by an appeal to the subjects of examination, and stated, that there was nothing in them in which any Dissenter could object to be examined. If then it could be proved, that the Universities, as Universities, did not teach the doctrines of religion to their students in the same sense in which they taught mathematics and other courses of learning,—as they taught physic to those who went out in medicine, and civil law to those who went out in law; if, he said, they did not teach religion in this way,—if the student never heard of the Thirty-nine Articles, or of the doctrines upon which they were founded from the University, as a University, until he was about to take his degree; he said it was an injustice to the Dissenters to turn round upon them at the moment they presented themselves to take their degrees, and to say, that they should not reap that reward which their talents and their diligent study deserved, and should not go forth to the world with the credit which a degree at the University conferred. This was a civil disqualification—a civil disability, which he wished to see removed, as it imposed upon the Dissenters the necessity of either foregoing the benefit of an education at the University, or of appearing there as individuals of an inferior and degraded class. Much as he valued education at the Universities, he should be the last man in the world to advise a dissenting parent or guardian to send a youth to the University to be situated as he must be situated there, and exposed to influences which must be most injurious and fatal to him, in consequence of his feeling that he belonged to an inferior and degraded class.

Mr. Hill

said, that at the outset of life he had been deprived of the benefits of an education at the University, by the operation of the very law which the House was now discussing, and his feeling of discontent and disappointment was never stronger than when he saw the learning and talent displayed by persons connected with the Universities. The hon. member for the University of Oxford represented, that one of the grievances of which the Dissenters complained was the obligation to take the Oath of Allegiance. In this he was sure the hon. Baronet was mistaken, for his own intercourse with the Dissenters was very great, and he had never heard that they considered the Oath of Allegiance as a grievance. He must beg leave to remind the hon. Baronet, that there was a time when the Dissenters were more willing to take the oath of allegiance than the learned body which he so well represented; and he must also beg leave to remind him, that the views of that learned body were enlightened upon the subject, not by polemical discussions—not by the labours of any casuist who took pains to examine the question minutely; but their doubts were removed by General Carpenter and a troop of horse—a mode of conviction which the Dissenters never required when their allegiance and their loyalty to the House of Brunswick were put to the test. The Dissenters were, in fact, always too ready to forego their own claims in favour of claims which, though not more just, might be of more cogent urgency. Although he agreed with the hon. member for Oxford, that a large proportion of the Dissenters of this country were in favour of an Establishment, and would be sorry to see the foundations of the Church sapped, yet he must call his attention to the fact that that feeling, instead of increasing, was on the decrease amongst that body, and it could only be restored by following up the principle of the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, removing distinctions which were, perhaps, petty in themselves, but not the less irritating because they were petty, and placing the Dissenters upon a level with the members of the Church of England. He hoped the Motion of the hon. member for Ashton would receive the support of the House.

Mr. Baines

only wished to state two facts. One of them was in answer to an argument of the hon. Baronet opposite, in which he had been pleased to say, that a great proportion of the Colleges in our two Universities were formed by Protestant founders. Now, so far as regarded the number of colleges, the hon. Baronet was evidently in a mistake. Of the sixteen Colleges at Cambridge, twelve, and of the nineteen Colleges at Oxford, thirteen, were founded before the Reformation. There was one peculiarity about the statutes of all those Colleges to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and that peculiarity was, that they were declared open to all. In making them exclusive establishments, the intention of the founders had been grossly violated. At this moment there was a disposition among the Protestant Dissenters to do all in their power to conciliate the Establishment, and that disposition had never been more strikingly displayed than on a very recent occasion, when the noble Lord below him brought forward his proposition for the commutation of tithes in England and Wales. Never was a proposition announced which was more calculated to give stability to the Church, and never was there a proposition to which the Dissenters had offered less opposition. The Dissenters, therefore, had a right to put in their claim for a reciprocity of kindness from the Church. He would not trespass further on the attention of the House than to remark, that as the colleges were formed for all, they ought to be enjoyed by all; and that, in limiting their students to one sect, the original intention of their founders had been violated.

The House divided on the Amendment, and the numbers were: Ayes 185; Noes 44—Majority 141.

Leave given to bring in the Bill.

List of the AYES.
ENGLAND. Howard, R.
Adams, E. H. Howick, Viscount
Aglionby, H. A. Hume, J.
Althorp, Lord Hutt, W.
Baines, E. Hyett, W. H.
Baring, F. T. Jervis, J.
Baring, W. B. Kennedy, J.
Bainbridge, E. King, E. B.
Barham, J. Lambton, H.
Barnard, E. G. Labouchere, H.
Bewes, T. Langdale, Hon. C.
Beauclerk, Major Langston, J. H.
Beaumont, T. W. Lefevre, C. S.
Bernal, R. Lemon, Sir C.
Biddulph, R. Lennard, Sir T. B.
Blackburne, J. Lennard, T. B.
Bouverie, Captain Lister, E.
Bolling, W. Littleton, Rt. Hn. E. J.
Briggs, R. Locke, W.
Briscoe, J. I. Lumley, Lord
Brodie, W. B. Lushington, Dr.
Brocklehurst, J. Mangles, J.
Brotherton, J. Marjoribanks, S.
Buckingham, J. S. Marshall, J.
Bulwer, E. L. Martin, J.
Buxton, F. Milton, Viscount
Calvert, N. Monckton, Hon. H.
Carter, B. Morpeth, Viscount
Cavendish, Lord Morrison, J.
Cayley, Sir G. Mosley, Sir O.
Cayley, E. S. North, F.
Chaytor, Sir W. Ord, W.
Chichester, J. B. Palmer, C. F.
Childers, J. Parker, J.
Clay, W. Parrott, J.
Clive, C. B. Pease, J.
Codrington, Sir E. Pelham, Hon. C. A.
Crawley, S. Penlease, J. S.
Curteis, H. B. Pepys, Sir C.
Dawson, E. Peter, W.
Dundas, Captain Potter, R.
Divett, E. Philips, M.
Dykes, F. L. B. Philpotts. J.
Ebrington, Viscount Pinney, W.
Ewart, W. Poulter, J.
Ellis, W. Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.
Fazakerly, J. N. Richards, J.
Fellowes, H. A. W. Rickford, W.
Fenton J. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Rolfe, R. M.
Fort, J. Romilly, J.
Gaskell, D. Romilly, E.
Gisborne, T. Russell, Lord J.
Gordon, R. Russel, Lord C. J. F.
Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. Russell, C.
Grant, Right Hon. C. Sanford, E.
Grant, R. Scott, Sir C.
Grey, Sir G. Sebright, Sir J.
Gronow, Captain Scrope, T.
Handley, Major Sheppard, T.
Hawes, B. Smith, V.
Heathcote, J. Spankie, R.
Hill, M. D. Spencer, Hon. Capt.
Hodges, T. L. Stanley, E. J.
Howard, P. H. Stanley, Rt. Hn. E. G. S.
Howard, Hon. E. Staunton, Sir G.
Staveley, T. K. Dunlop, J.
Stewart, T. M. Hay, Colonel L.
Strickland, Sir G. Johnston, A.
Strutt, E. M'Kenzie, S.
Stuart, Lord D. C. Oliphant, L.
Tancred, H. W. Oswald, J.
Tayleure, W. Sinclair, G.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. P. Stewart, E.
Todd, J. R. Wallace, R.
Tooke, W. IRELAND.
Torrens, Colonel Barron, H. W.
Tower, C. Barry, G. S.
Trelawney, Sir W. L. S. Butler, Hon. J.
Tynte, C. J. K. Clements, Lord
Vernon, Hon. G. Evans, G.
Vincent, Sir F. French, F.
Vivian, J. H. Hill, Lord M.
Wilbraham, G. Lambert, H.
Wilks, J. Lynch, A. H.
Williams, Colonel Martin, J.
Wood, G. W. O'Callaghan, Hon. C.
Wood, C. O'Connell, M.
Walter, J. O'Connor, D.
Warburton, H. O'Reilly, W.
Warre, J. A. Perrin, L.
Ward, H. G. Ruthven, E. S.
Watkins, J. L. V. Ruthven, E.
Wason, R. Stawell, Colonel
Wedgwood, J. Talbot, J.
Whitmore, W. Vigors, N. A.
Whalley, Sir S.
Young, G. F. PAIRED OFF.
SCOTLAND. Barnett, J. C.
Callander, J. H. Lennox, Lord W.
List of the NOES.
Bankes, W. Lopez, Sir R.
Baring, A. Manners, Lord R.
Baring, F. Neal, Sir H.
Bell, M. Nichol, J.
Blackstone, W. Norreys, Lord
Brudenell, Lord Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Bruce, C. Perceval, Col.
Chetwynd, Captain Ross, C.
Clive, R. Ryle, T.
Darlington, Lord Somerset, Lord G.
Duffield, T. Stanley, E.
Egerton, W. Trevor, G. R.
Estcourt, T. Tyrell, Sir J.
Fielden, W. Vyvyan, Sir R.
Finch, G. Whitmore, T. C.
Gaskell, J. M. Wood, Colonel
Gladstone, W. E. Wynn, C.
Grimstone, Viscount Young, T.
Hardinge, Sir H. TELLERS.
Hayes, Sir E. Inglis, Sir R.
Herbert, Hon. T. Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H.
Herries, Rt. Hon. J. C. PAIRED OFF.
Lefroy, A. Reid, Sir John R.
Lincoln, Lord