The Duke of Gloucestersaid, that in pursuance of the notice which he had given on Friday last, he now rose to present to their Lordships a Petition signed by 258 members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge now assembled in the University, praying that their Lordships would not agree to the prayer of the petition signed by sixty-three of the resident members of the University, which was presented to their Lordships on the 21st of March. In anything which he might have occasion to say with respect to that petition, he assured their Lordships that he meant nothing unkindly towards those gentlemen who had signed it, most of whom he knew to be most eminent men, and with some of whom he had the pleasure of being acquainted. He always wished to observe the practice of their Lordships' House with regard to not making speeches upon petitions, but he must, on this occasion, shortly call their Lordships attention to the circumstances under which this petition was presented. Of the first petition he had never heard until Wednesday, the 19th of March, when he learnt from the newspapers, that such a petition was to be presented. He immediately wrote to the Vice-Chancellor, expressing his astonishment, and desiring 980 to know the contents of the petition, by whom it had been signed, and particularly to know whether he conceived, that the sentiments of the University were changed on this most important subject. On the Friday following, he received a letter, in which the Vice-Chancellor said, that he could not apprise him (the Duke of Gloucester) of what he did not know, and that there had been so much secresy about the matter that he himself, could not tell by whom the petition had been signed, and he merely gave some names; but the Vice-Chancellor added, that with respect to the sentiments of the University, he could assure him, that they should be communicated as soon as he had an opportunity to collect the opinions of the whole body. Under these circumstances, he had abstained from saving anything on the subject when the other petition was presented, as he considered that it would be a more proper thing for him to address that House when he should be able to communicate what were the true sentiments of the University of Cambridge on this subject. It was impossible for him to ascertain their opinions at the moment the former petition was presented. Every exertion was made to collect their sentiments upon the subject, but in consequence of the adjournment of Parliament on the 26th of last month, it was impossible to procure from them an expression of their opinions. It was only, therefore, on Wednesday last, that they had time to frame and agree to the petition which he then held in his hand. This petition was presented to the Caput, but, as their Lordships knew, by the laws of the University, any member of the Caput had the power of throwing out a petition, so as to prevent its being a petition from the Senate. On the occasion of the present petition being proposed, that power had been exercised by a professor of Downing College. It was rare that such a power was exercised with regard to a petition, for it did so happen, that no petition had been thus thrown out for a very long period until the present instance. Two graces, he would admit, had recently been rejected by the Caput; but they were for a complete alteration in the constitution of the University, and therefore, bore no analogy to a grace for a petition. He was ready at the same time to say, that he wished those graces had passed the Caput, for he was sure that they would then have been thrown out by a great majority of the Senate; and he also regretted, that the 981 grace for allowing this petition had not passed the Caput, for as it now stood, it did not come from the Senate. That it was signed by 258 Members of the Senate who had signed it within two hours after knowing that it had been thrown out by the Caput, was a fact that showed pretty well what were the sentiments of the members of the University. He regretted, however, chiefly that this petition did not come from the Senate as a body, because, from that circumstance, he had not been able to put his name at the head of it, though he should have been most proud to have been able to do so. They had been told, that all the Dissenters asked was, to be able to take degrees at the University. Now, what did that amount to? Why it amounted to giving them the right to a place in the Senate—to giving them votes as to all alterations of the laws of the University—as to all the offices there—and as to the disposal of the general patronage of the University. But, then, it was said that Dissenters received their education in the University; and that if they were admitted to receive their education, there could be no harm in admitting them to take degrees. He denied that this was a just conclusion. Dissenters were not acknowledged by the Charter—by the wisdom of our ancestors, who had founded the University—by the wisdom of the Sovereign who had sat on the Throne! What laws were enacted with respect to the young men who entered the University? They were obliged to take only two oaths, the object of which was, to maintain the discipline of the University, and to be faithful to the King. They were obliged to take the Oath of Allegiance, and an oath of obedience to the Charter of the University, and all authorities created by it. Into the hearts of men the University could not look; but it required the students to attend the chapels of the University. It had, however, been decided by the wisdom of our ancestors that when they were to receive degrees, they should conform to the Church of England for the safety of the Church and the best interests of the State. But the moment the Legislature said, the University must admit Dissenters, it could no longer oblige the under-graduates to attend chapel. The whole system must be altered. Was the University to have Socinian professors, Unitarian professors; Jewish professors, Mahomedan professors, and Hindoo professors? or was it no longer to instruct the youth committed to its 982 charge in any religion;—for one or the other must be the result? Were the tutors and divinity professors (whose professorships were endowed to teach the sublime doctrines of our Holy Church) to refuse to instruct the British youth in those divine truths upon which their happiness here and their future prospect of felicity depended? When a youth arrived at College to be educated for the Church, was he to be told that the Universities would teach him every branch of learning and science, but could not instruct him in that profession for which he was destined? It was said that Dissenters had been freely admitted till the time of James 1st.; and it was now made matter of blame that they had not been admitted since that period. That was in the year 1614, a period of no less than 220 years ago. If he wanted a defence for the exclusion, he might rest upon that. The University had prospered during that time, and during that time some of the greatest luminaries of science in the world had been educated there. During that time Newton, who possessed the greatest mind that ever man had, and other men of great eminence, had been reared within the walls of the University. Since the beginning of that period, too, the Revolution had happened, when all the institutions of this country were reviewed, and necessary changes introduced into them; and if any change was thought necessary in the University, that was the time at which it should have been introduced. The principle on which the University of Cambridge was founded, and by which it was guided, was that it was for the education of persons of the Church establishment, and especially for the education of those who were destined to be the clergy of that establishment. Almost the whole of the great offices of the University—the whole of the preferment of the University—was in the Church. The preferment was all clerical; out of seventeen colleges, only two or three could have lay masters. In Trinity College, where there were sixty Fellows, there were only two lay fellowships. Would, then, the members of the Church of England, who happily formed the great majority of the population of this realm (however respectable the Dissenters might be, of whom he wished to speak with the greatest respect), be satisfied to send their sons to an University, where religion was not taught, and where those intended for the Church could not be instructed in that profession? He thought not; and 983 another petition he had to present after this was laid on the Table, would demonstrate the feelings of the members of the Church of England. This morning an under-graduate came to him, and requested, in the names of the under-graduates of Cambridge, that he would present their petition. He said "Young man I disapprove of under-graduates sending petitions to the Legislature—but as the example was last year set by a Minister of the Crown, I cannot refuse—admiring as I do the religious feeling that has actuated the bachelors and the under-graduates—to act upon the zeal with which I am urged, and the peculiarity of the case. I have been an under-graduate myself, and I am now your Chancellor, and I will advocate your cause, and present your petition." But would the Dissentters be content with what the first petition proposed to grant them? Certainly not. In 1829 he voted for the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and reflected with much satisfaction on that vote. But would those noble Lords who were now Members of that House, and would the hon. Gentlemen who had seats in the other House of Parliament, would they have been satisfied with the declaration that they should have seats, but should never hold office, nor be capable of conferring office? They would have scouted such a proposition. And noble Lords might be assured, that if ever they granted to Dissenters the right to be admitted to take degrees in the University, they must grant them all those rights which now followed upon the taking of degrees. They must have a share in the power of altering the laws, and of disposing of the patronage of the University. If that fatal event should occur, he was convinced that the interests of the Church could not expect any longer to be safe. And why was all this to be done? Because some Gentlemen, who dissented from the Established Church, and who wished to practise the law, were now unable to come to the Bar without studying two years longer than was required from Gentlemen who had taken degrees at the University; and because Gentlemen, who were Dissenters, and who wished to become members of the faculty of medicine, did not receive from the faculty of Physicians all those advantages which were granted to those who had taken degrees at the Universities. Was it for such matters as these that legislative interference was called for in a way that could not be granted without injury to the interests of the Established Church? 984 But he said, it the grievances were so great, the Inns of Court and the College of Physicians should be called on to apply the remedy. Let him, in the name of the University where he had received his education, let him in the name of the University which twenty-three years ago had done him the honour of putting him at its head, when he swore that he would defend its rights—let him, in the name of that University which had rendered such important services to the country by the education of the British youth (for so many centuries he had almost said, but) for so long a period in the doctrines of the Church of England—which had furnished that Bench (the Bench of Bishops) with so many of the ornaments he now saw upon it, and with many, in former times, who had been among the brightest ornaments of that Bench—which had put forth so many men eminent, not only in religion, but in science; let him, in the name of that University, ask their Lordships not to do that which must compel that University to refuse to teach religion to the British youth. He prayed their Lordships not to call on the University to alter that system which had brought them to that proud, high, and most useful pre-eminence (he must be allowed to say so, though he was their Chancellor, and ought perhaps for that reason to be silent) on which they now stood. He moved, that the petition he now held in his hand be laid on the Table. He should afterwards present another on the same subject. It was from the under-graduates of the University. He confessed that he was not an admirer of under-graduates presenting petitions to either House of Parliament, but, after the example which had been set on the other side, he felt, that he could not refuse, when 755 out of the 1,100 under-graduates had signed a petition (and more would have signed it had there been time), and sent a deputation to him, calling on him as their Chancellor to present it. He begged to add, that the petition from the members of the senate which he now presented was signed by eleven heads of houses, by eight professors, and twenty-nine tutors of colleges.
§ Earl Grey rose and said, it was not his intention at the present period to enter into the general question of the propriety of opening the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to the Dissenters. He would not be provoked into argument, he should merely notice a few topics that more immediately referred to the petition then be- 985 fore their Lordships. The petition related to a subject of the greatest importance to the people in general, but, if possible, of still more moment to the Universities themselves. He should take a different course from that pursued by the petitioners themselves. Future occasions would occur, other opportunities must present themselves, when the question could be discussed with better hopes of viewing it upon its broad, its full, and unquestioned merits. He, however, must be permitted to state, that he emphatically denied, that such results would take place from the admission of Dissenters into the Universities as those contemplated by the illustrious Duke who had presented the petition. The illustrious Duke would impute to Dissenters a desire to subvert the Establishment, to prostrate the privileges of the two learned bodies into which they then prayed for admission. They sought for no such power; they only prayed to be absolved from oaths, not to be obstructed by religious tests. That was the extent of their application; and, in making that appeal, they were willing to be bound by the laws, and governed by the statutes of the Establishments. They were already admitted to take academic distinctions in the Dublin University, or they might even enter the Cambridge Colleges; but although they might cross their portals—although they might participate in the advantages which they were likely to confer on the young, ardent, and aspiring mind—yet they were debarred from taking those degrees which would advance their further career in life. Thus far they might go, but no further. Against this barrier of exclusion they complained—against this denial of collegiate honours they petitioned: they humbly, respectfully, but energetically protested. Nothing, however, was further from their intention than to endanger the discipline, or attempt to undermine the fundamental principles of the Universities. Having said this much, he (Earl Grey) hoped he had said enough to remove the impressions which the speech of the illustrious Duke was intended to make upon the minds of their Lordships respecting the actuating motives of the Dissenters. He should, however, reserve for himself, the privilege of again meeting the question when it came next under discussion. The Dissenters, he contended, deserved the immunities they claimed. They ought to possess them, in fairness and justice; and, if possible, more par- 986 ticularly in regard to the interest of those learned bodies from which the illustrious Duke would for ever exclude them. There were other points in the illustrious Duke's speech on which he found himself called upon to offer a few remarks. The illustrious Duke spoke of those petitioners as forming a majority, when contrasted with the number of resident members who had signed the former petition. The number of petitioners in the present instance was 258—a number which far exceeded the whole number of residents in that University. He might be mistaken, but, he believed, that a great deal of pains had been used to obtain a large attendance of Members of the Senate, with a view to passing the grace which had been proposed in opposition to the former petition. The persons who attended were not, however, resident members of the University. They were there collected for this particular purpose; and being so collected, it was not extraordinary that the petition should be numerously signed in the short space which the illustrious Duke had stated. If, however, they looked closely to the subject, they would find that the matter stood thus:—There were 193 members of the senate resident in the University; of these sixty-three had signed the former petition, and, at least, seven who had not signed, were decided friends to the prayer of the petition, and there were several who took no part one way or the other. Now of those who had signed the present petition, and who were decidedly opposed to the prayer of the former petition, about 108 could not be called resident members; and, deducting 108 from 193, their Lordships would see that there was not a very large comparative majority of those who were decidedly opposed to the petition amongst the resident members. He thought it right to state this fact; but he did not feel any wish to enter into the merits of the respective signatures. The illustrious Duke had done justice to those who had signed the former petition; and he was sure, that in his capacity of Chancellor of the University, before all men, the illustrious Duke would admit, that amongst those signatures were to be found the names of individuals who had done the greatest honour to the University by their learning, by their talents, by their extensive acquirements, by their exemplary morals, and by their honest devotion to the interests of the Established Church. Amongst them were to be found many 987 gentlemen who were most actively employed in the education of the youth who were students in that University; and was it to be believed—was it to be credited for a single moment—that individuals placed in such a situation, and necessarily influenced by the considerations connected with that situation,—was it to be supposed, that they would concur in signing a petition, a compliance with which would be calculated to produce the disastrous effects that had been described? Was it to be imagined, that those gentlemen, who were amongst the most considerable persons in the University, and who took a large share in the education of the students—was it to be believed, that they would sign a petition which went to destroy the system of education according to the religion of the Established Church—to overturn, in fact, the principles on which the University was founded—and, finally, to lead to the dreadful consequences which the illustrious Duke had described—namely, the subversion of our most valued and venerated institutions? He entertained no such apprehensions. On the contrary, he felt, that if the proposition embodied in the former petition were opposed, it would lead to those evils which a noble Lord on the other side of the House had formerly alluded to. He had but one word more to say. He admitted, that there had been an unusual exercise of the power of the veto in preventing the adoption of the grace to which the illustrious Duke had referred. The illustrious Duke had, however, in adverting to the unusual exercise of that power, stated, that in two recent instances, a similar course had been adopted—yes, on two occasions, a grace had been proposed to the Caput in accordance with the prayer of the former petition. That effort having, however, been defeated, was it unreasonable—was it unnatural—was it improper, that one of those persons who proposed that grace, should exercise his privilege against that which was afterwards brought forward in opposition to the prayer of the first petition? He stated this in vindication of those who had supported the former petition. If he had been led further, in what he had said, than the general merits of the petition, he had to apologize to their Lordships for having done so. He certainly did not think, that this was the fit occasion for entering into a discussion of the question; and he should, therefore, content himself with referring to the opinions which he had formerly expressed on 988 the subject—opinions which he had since seen no reason to change. He still entertained a conscientious conviction, that, instead of endangering the security of the Established Church, the effect of the prayer of this petition, if it were admitted, would be to remove prejudice, to destroy animosity, and, by so doing, to impart strength to that Establishment which it was the most anxious wish of them all to uphold and support.
§ The Duke of Wellingtoncould not avoid making one or two observations on what had fallen from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, with respect to the petition presented by the noble Earl himself, on the 21st of March. The noble Earl stated, that the prayer of that petition was not to obtain for the Dissenters a participation in the honours and privileges mentioned in the petition that night presented by the illustrious Duke, but that its only object was, the removal from the Dissenters of certain disabilities under which they now laboured in acquiring degrees and other advantages, in the medical and legal professions. Now, it was perfectly true, that such was the apparent object of the former petition; but the noble Earl had kept out of sight one circumstance stated by the illustrious Duke—namely, that when the desired degrees were obtained by the Dissenters, those persons would become governors of the corporations in question, and would thus be placed in a situation which the noble Earl himself did not pretend that they ought to hold with respect to the education of the youth of the Universities. The noble Earl said truly, that the object of the petition presented by him on the 21st of March was, to obtain for Dissenters certain advantages in law and medicine; but there were other modes which might be resorted to in order to enable the parties to obtain the advantages desired, and the illustrious Duke had pointed out those modes. He must object to the mode proposed by the first petition—a mode which, upon the principles professed by the noble Earl, must be objectionable to the noble Earl himself, the ground of objection being, that the method referred to did give the Dissenters a share in the government of the Universities. That was the main difficulty which occurred to his mind when considering the subject. However, the House would have the question raised 989 in a more satisfactory manner when a measure, lately introduced into the other House of Parliament, should be fairly before their Lordships; and seeing that another opportunity would occur for discussion, he should not now enter upon it; but if indeed that measure should ever be adopted by the House, which God forbid, their Lordships must at once take leave of that important object which the noble Earl stated himself anxious to maintain—the union of Church and State, if indeed the existence of Christianity itself would not be endangered. On that ground he had opposed the prayer of the petition presented by the noble Earl, and he supported the petition now brought before their Lordships by the illustrious Duke.
The Lord Chancellorfelt with his noble friend, at the head of his Majesty's Government, and the noble Duke who had just spoken, that a more convenient opportunity would present itself, when the general question could be discussed upon better and juster grounds, than at present—when it could be entered on with a greater certainty of coming to correct conclusions, than at the period to which they had then arrived. There was a Bill before the other House of Parliament, which, in all probability, would come before them, and therefore place this question in a more correct and tangible shape. He (the Lord Chancellor) was anxious to follow the example set him, and to be most brief in the remarks he had to make. There were, however, one or two points which he could not refrain from applying himself to for a few moments. The illustrious Duke who had introduced the petition had done so with a degree of ability, a strength of argument, and an impressiveness of purpose, that must have struck every one who had heard that illustrious Duke speak. The impression made by the illustrious Duke, he was perfectly aware, must have been considerable. He therefore felt more inclined to trespass for a few minutes on their Lordships' attention. In the first place, he did entirely approve of one line of argument or observation taken both by the illustrious Duke who presented the petition, and the noble Duke who followed, and taken consistently with their peculiar opinions on the subject,—the sort of tertium quid, if the noble persons who so worthily represented two Universities 990 would allow the phrase; they being not only gallant but learned officers,—that third or middle course which he was pleased to find proceeding from an individual of such deserved weight in the House, and who was a special and peculiar authority on the subject, holding the highest station in the University of Cambridge. Why visit, said the illustrious Duke (as if the proposition were a penalty against the Church, and not simply a relief to Dissenters)—why visit punishment on a party who was not an offender? And then said the noble Duke, following up the same train of ideas, the illustrious Duke pointed out other modes, besides those of degrees obtained on condition of subscriptions, by which means relief might be afforded without injury to the Universities. Now, the plain English of this was, that other modes of gratifying the wishes of the Dissenters might be pointed out, without having recourse to degrees from Oxford and Cambridge—other modes of qualifying Dissenters for the bar without requiring a longer standing than three years at the Inns of Court—other modes of conferring the privilege of Doctor of Laws, and other modes of entitling men to medical degrees, besides the mode pointed out at the Universities. That was neither more nor less than this—"Give the power of conferring degrees to other bodies besides the Universities." ["No, no."] He dared to say some noble Lords did not so read it, but if those noble Lords rejected his gloss, his interpretation of the matter, they had the text itself before them, from the learned characters who pronounced it. He had offered his simple commentary; but if others had a more recondite sense in view, they were at liberty to reject what he said, and he hoped, that an explanation of the better and more approved gloss would be furnished. But he could not mistake the matter; he perfectly understood the illustrious Duke, who said plainly enough, "Why go to the two Universities and visit them with penalties, for insisting upon subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles as a condition on receiving degrees?—why not go to the College of Physicians and compel it to grant degrees in medicine to persons who had not qualified at the Universities?" Now, that was the very thing that was sought to be obtained by more than one public body at present. The London University asked for such a 991 privilege, and petitions had been referred to the Privy Council on the subject, and a deliberation would shortly take place in reference to it. The two Universities had petitioned against the London University, and thus, unhappily, the authority of the collegiate heads of both bodies was not quite consistent with the better and sounder view put forth by their Chancellors. He agreed with the noble personages in question in their view of the subject; but if it were not taken in other quarters, mark the situation in which the learned bodies stood—a situation of gross and scandalous and unreasonable injustice, if they said, "We will not make Dissenters doctors; and, moreover, we will not allow them to be made doctors elsewhere." Could the wit of man imagine anything more unjust than this? "We won't make you doctors, and no one else shall—we have the power, but we do not choose to exercise it; nobody else shall have the power, lest they should exercise it. We object to making Dissenters doctors, because they don't worship God as we do—we won't make doctors of them; and you of the London University, who don't differ from the Dissenters about the worship of God, and are willing to make them doctors if you had the power—you shan't have any such power." What was this but the grossest and most unreasonable injustice—the acme of collegiate monopoly? He revered those respectable and venerable establishments as much as the illustrious and noble Dukes possibly could. True it was, he had not enjoyed the advantage which they had enjoyed of drinking at the fountains of science which were opened to all who resorted within the walls of the Universities; but having pursued without those walls such studies as he was able to embrace, they had led him to venerate still more those estimable establishments, and to admit, with a readier acquiescence, their claims to respect. It had been truly stated by the illustrious Duke, that one of the greatest men that ever adorned the human race—it was scarcely necessary to name Sir Isaac Newton—had studied at Cambridge; but he did not find in this fact any very precise or demonstrative proof of the propriety of subscription to certain articles of religious belief, albeit the illustrious Duke had been more successful in that respect. He apprehended, that at the period when Newton entered the Uni- 992 versity, subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles was not very strictly enforced. Sir Isaac Newton was born in 1641 or 1642, and his entrance at college, at the age of sixteen or seventeen, would bring his matriculation within the period of the Commonwealth, when the Thirty-nine Articles, he apprehended, were not very regularly subscribed by all who matriculated at the Universities. Though his veneration for the Universities yielded to none, he did not feel any great degree of alarm at opening their gates as regarded a participation in honours, or as regarded collegiate and University privileges themselves: but the noble Duke thought it out of the question to allow any Dissenters access to the Universities, because he was persuaded that the Church would be thereby endangered. How endangered? In this way—the Universities had many ecclesiastical privileges; most of the fellowships were not lay, but ecclesiastical, and then, independently of the care of education, which rested upon the fellows and tutors, it was not to be denied that, directly and indirectly, there was much Church patronage—the disposal of collegiate livings—within the power of the fellows; and, assuming all this, (said the noble Duke), the Dissenters, if allowed free access to the privileges of the Universities, will possess themselves of these powers. Now, this might be very well said, and might be all extremely true, as the law formerly stood; but the thing was quite different at present. In fact, the noble Duke and the Universities were here "straining at a gnat," while they "swallowed a camel;" for to take an instance within his own knowledge, there was no head of a college or head of a house—nay, there were no three colleges that had half so much Church patronage as the person who filled the office which he now unworthily held; the Lord Chancellor had 800 or 900 livings and eighteen or twenty cathedral stalls within his gift; but must the individual who administered all this Church patronage subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles? He never did. His predecessor might have subscribed to them at Cambridge, but he never did so as Chancellor; neither did Lord Erskine subscribe as Chancellor, nor Lord Loughborough. Lord Erskine belonged to one of the best known and most respected Presbyterian families that ever took the solemn league and covenant in Scotland. 993 There was no doubt of that—he came of a good Presbyterian stock. But it was sufficient to remind their Lordships, that a man by the present law might be Lord Chancellor, and distribute all the enormous Church patronage mentioned, and be a Dissenter of any denomination whatsoever. The law required no subscription, no test; the Lord Chancellor need not be a member of the Established Church. After this, the idea of being alarmed at half a dozen Dissenters voting in the Senate-house, and one, in the course of perhaps half a century, becoming a fellow of a college, and indirectly sharing in the Church patronage of the college livings, while the Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the Prime Minister himself, might be Dissenters—this did appear to him to be a most disproportionate, unreasonable, and very inconsistent degree of apprehension. He felt, that the Church and Universities had interests which would be best consulted by the course now recommended; that their foundations would be rendered most solid, and the superstructures raised thereon most secure, by fixing them in the affections and confidence of the country. "In conclusion (said the noble and learned Lord) I would wish only to be guided by the wise and tolerant policy which distinguished the Administration of the noble and gallant Duke. That noble and gallant Duke did much to advance the cause of civil and religious liberty; and if I wished to refer to a bright period in the history of the country, I would point to the time when that noble and gallant Duke perfected the greatest of his great achievements. Happy has it been for Ireland, and happy for the Church of Ireland, that he did so. By it he gave safety to the one and protection to the other. He saved a nation—he immortalised himself."
§ The Duke of Wellingtonthought, that the noble and learned Lord had diverted the debate from the present petition to certain other petitions presented to the Privy Council, to which that now before the House bore no relation whatever. Besides, the noble and learned Lord had mis-stated the facts of the case: the Universities, in the petitions before the Council did not object to other bodies granting degrees; all they desired was, that such degrees should not bear the same titles as theirs, in order that there might not be a 994 fraud committed upon the world and those learned bodies. There was no objection, whatever, to Dissenters having all the advantages that could be conferred by degrees in courts of law or in the medical profession; but they ought not to be permitted to share the privileges and advantages of other degrees granted by the Universities.
The Bishop of London, entirely coinciding, as he did, with the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Earl who preceded him, as to the inconvenience of entering at length into this important subject on the present occasion, still could not resist the impulse which he felt to address to their Lordships some few observations, especially as it might appear extraordinary if the discussion were suffered to pass without one of that bench connected with the University in question rising to offer an opinion on the subject. He felt, that he should not discharge his duty to that University to which, under Providence, he owed all his success in life, if he did not offer a single observation when he found the interests of the Established Church so deeply concerned, and on an occasion when, as it appeared to him, the right line of argument had not been pursued. He had been in the habits of intercourse with Dissenters, and was so fortunate as to preserve a good understanding with them, and he would here observe, that he hoped noble Lords would not confound violent and intemperate men, who heaped opprobrium on the Church, with the large body of moderate and reasonable Dissenters. He was satisfied, that the large body of Dissenters did not seek admission to the Universities by the door now open, and he doubted, whether they wished to widen the entrance. If Dissenters could by possibility be educated with members of the Established Church, he did not dispute, but it might be well, and he feared not lest Churchmen should become Dissenters from the intercourse, but thought, on the contrary, that many Dissenters might become members of the Church; and, therefore, if there were any prospect of each class being educated together without risk of infringing the ancient privileges of the Universities, he should be well contented; but he could not flatter himself with any favourable result from an experiment such as he had mentioned. He apprehended an infraction of the privileges of the Uni- 995 versities. If, however, (and he was not without hopes of some such arrangement at no distant period) Dissenters could be admitted in larger numbers to the advantages of education and some of the privileges of the Universities, it might be well; but the decision upon this question ought to be left to the Universities themselves; and if they determined against an alteration, the Legislature had no right to compel it. It was stated, that many of the Dissenters enjoyed an academical education. He rejoiced that they did. He had associated with many of them who were ornaments to society. But let their Lordships see how the matter stood. So long as Dissenters enjoyed the benefits of a collegiate education by consent of the Universities, difficulties were not likely to arise; but if you gave them a claim to degrees as a matter of right, was it to be supposed, that conscientious Dissenters would, for any length of time, submit to the rules of the Universities in the matter of religious instruction, unless that instruction were so diluted and neutralized, and kept clear from vital differences of opinion between Churchmen and Dissenters as no longer to deserve the name? His own rule had been, cheerfully to co-operate with Dissenters in all things short of religious instruction, but not in that, because where the attempt was made, the result had been, either that the religious instruction given hardly deserved the name, or that the scheme altogether failed, and both parties receded from it, content in future to communicate religious instruction to members of their own communion. It was impossible to steer clear of controversial topics; nay, it was the duty of the Church of England instructors not to steer clear of them. Academical instruction could not and ought not to avoid such topics, because they involved points of vital interest. But, from the moment you gave Dissenters a right to University privileges, they would refuse to attend academical religious discipline. That discipline, he was sorry to see very much under-rated of late. People talked in a heedless way of the uselessness of requiring young men to attend at a Church-service, which was merely a matter of form, but he was convinced, that even that was productive of regularity of conduct. Changes might be made for the better, it was true, and improvements had already been effected; he could speak for his own college (Trinity) 996 where the sacredness of the duty of religious worship as a part of the academical discipline was impressed upon young men as much as possible. However, from the moment Dissenters were admitted as a matter of right, religious discipline must be given up, and that was the chief ground which caused him to think it impossible thus to infringe the privileges of the Universities. If they were infringed, we should be deprived of the glory and honour of having in the Universities able instructrices of the youth of the country in the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England. He meant no disrespect to the Dissenters, and was heartily desirous of seeing their grievances removed; but must persist in excluding them from privileges which belonged solely to the Established Church. In conclusion, he agreed with the illustrious Duke, that there were easier remedies for the difficulties under which Dissenters laboured with respect to degrees, than would be found in infractions of the rules and privileges of two learned bodies, which their Lordships ought to be the first to uphold.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, that he only rose to correct what had been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with reference to Sir Isaac Newton. It was well ascertained, that that distinguished man did not go to the University of Cambridge until after it was restored to Protestantism by the Reformation, and, that he had actually subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles. This point was not left to doubt or surmise, but was well authenticated. On the occasion of the only attempt made, from the period of the Reformation till the present, to procure degrees without subscription—he referred to the case of Albyn Francis, a Roman Catholic, recommended to the University by James 2nd, for a degree—on that occasion a Committee was appointed by the University to maintain its rights in the discussion with the Crown; and Sir Isaac Newton was the most prominent member of that Committee. With respect to the petition before the House, he must observe, that the individual who put his veto upon the grace proposed to the caput, by which means the petition was prevented from coming before the Senate, was no doubt actuated by honourable motives, but such obstructions were extremely rare. The first instance of the kind which he recollected was in the case of an ad- 997 dress to the Crown on the assassination of Mr. Perceval, and to meet with a similar occurrence they must go back to the year 1715, when an address on the then late rebellion had been obstructed in a like, but, as was then stated, in an unprecedented manner.
The Bishop of Exeterspoke as follows:*—Not having the honour of being a member of the University from which this petition emanates, I should have been desirous not to have taken any part in the present discussion, but should have been glad to leave it in the hands of the eloquent individuals who have just addressed your Lordships, and particularly of my right reverend friend (the Bishop of London) near me, who has shown, as he always does, great earnestness and ability in enforcing what he believes to be the truth. But there was one part of his address which has compelled me to obtrude myself on your Lordships' attention. In almost all that the right reverend Prelate said, I fully concur, and I thank him most heartily for having expressed so well what I myself feel as strongly as he, though I could not have stated it so eloquently to the House. The right reverend Prelate, however, intimated an opinion, or wish, or even more than a wish, an expectation, of some mode being devised by which the admission of Dissenters to the Universities might be made consistent with the best interests of those institutions, so that Dissenters might be educated there together with those who went thither with the avowed design of being instructed in the principles of the Church of England. My Lords, I do not presume to say, whether any such mode can be ingrafted on the education given by the University of Cambridge; but this, my Lords, I will say, that if it be possible to devise such a mode, by no one is it more likely to be devised than by my right reverend friend; for by no one, who might exert himself in such an attempt, would a more zealous and devoted regard for the religious interests of his University be manifested, than by him. But, my Lords, while I give no opinion of what is, or is not, possible to be done with the system of Cambridge—as a member of the University of Oxford, which, although not brought into this discussion by name, has more than
* Reprinted from the corrected edition published by Murray.998 once been alluded to, or been included in the comprehensive term of "the Universities of England," I must not conceal my own full and deep-rooted conviction, that it is utterly impossible to introduce any measure for the admission of Dissenters into that University, consistently with what is due to the conscience, and to the oaths, of those persons who now administer its government. The University of Oxford differs from the University of Cambridge in one very material point—that no one can be even matriculated into it without subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles. I am aware that this provision in the Statutes of Oxford has been spoken of as ridiculous, and a learned Gentleman is reported to have said, that it is no better than "a solemn mockery" to call on young men of sixteen to sign Thirty-nine Articles containing a multitude of propositions about many of which able and learned persons have materially differed. My Lords, I should agree in that view of the matter, if the subscription to the Articles at that early age implied that the persons subscribing them did in fact say, "We have informed ourselves and have examined the various propositions which these Articles contain, and believe them from examination, to be true;" but such, my Lords, I submit, is not the case. The bare subscription made by boys of this early age is simply tantamount to a declaration that the subscribers belong to the Church of which these are the Articles, and accept them as true on that authority. I see that the noble and learned Lord intimates his astonishment at this statement, but I hope he will hear with patience the grounds on which I make it. By a very early statute, passed soon after the Reformation, the University of Oxford determined that no one should be matriculated without subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles. Another statute afterwards declared, that although simple subscription was all that was necessary on matriculation, something more was requisite on taking the degree—namely, a declaration that the party believed the whole of these Articles to be agreeable to the Word of God. In the first instance, parties are not under the necessity of making this or any declaration, or of doing more than subscribing their names; but the statutes expressly require that the individual who applies for a degree should do much more. The 999 statutes require, that during his undergraduate state, he shall be thoroughly instructed in the Articles which he has thus subscribed; and when he takes his degree, he must solemnly declare, that those Articles which in the first instance he professed to hold, merely because the Church to which he belongs hold them, he now knows and approves for himself—that he believes them to be agreeable to the Word of God. Your Lordships will therefore see, that it is an essential part of education at Oxford, that the undergraduates shall be instructed in the Thirty-nine Articles. The tutors are required by the ancient statutes to give that instruction; and when, by the corruption and negligence which grew up in the course of ages, this duty of the tutors had been grossly and shamefully neglected, the University itself undertook the Reform of its own institutions, or rather reduced again to practice what was before the letter and the spirit of those institutions. Accordingly, thirty-four years ago, a new statute of the University not only made it imperative on the tutors to instruct their pupils in the Thirty-nine Articles, but also made a knowledge of the meaning, and the proofs, of those Articles to be an essential and preliminary part of the examination of every candidate for a degree. In truth, my Lords, it would be more accurate to say, that at Oxford no person can be admitted to examination for his degree without its first being ascertained that he has been taught the principles of the Thirty-nine Articles; for if it is found that he is not well acquainted with them, his examination is not suffered to proceed. Now, from this it is clear, that the University of Oxford cannot admit of any plan for combining the education of Dissenters with that of Churchmen, since a knowledge of the Articles of religion is an essential part of its education; and no man can be admitted to partake of that education, who does not, by subscription, declare his acceptance of those Articles, and his readiness, in consequence, to be fully instructed in them. My Lords, I have known more than one instance of men, highly distinguished in after-life, who when they presented themselves to be examined for degrees, were turned back because they were found to be not duly prepared for an examination on the Thirty-nine Articles. There is one right hon. Gentleman who has borne a 1000 high office under his Majesty, and another who is one of the most distinguished in an important branch of philosophy—a gentleman of great authority with many Members of both Houses of Parliament on certain branches of political science—both of whom were thus turned back, and both of them showed the blessed effect of that regulation; for they returned to their colleges, and having made due proficiency in the most important part of knowledge—the knowledge of true religion—again presented themselves to be examined for their degree, and were then admitted to the highest honours for literature and science which the University could bestow. My Lords, I am proud of belonging to a body, which has pursued so useful and honourable a course. I have a high gratification in reflecting on these things. They prove that the University of Oxford long ago has had the wisdom and magnanimity to correct the abuses which, in the lapse of ages, had gathered round its institutions; has shown itself both able and willing to achieve the reformation of itself, without waiting for any impulse from without; to return, in short, to the true spirit of the best and wisest institutions of our forefathers. My Lords, I do not wish, nor intend, to trespass long upon the attention of your Lordships; but there are one or two particulars which I would beg leave most especially to submit to your consideration. I apprehend that the application which has been made to Parliament, to force Dissenters into the Universities, is not so much an application to remove disabilities from the Dissenters, as an application to persecute the Church of England. My Lords, I say deliberately, it is to persecute the Church of England. The word is not too strong for the occasion. For, what does this application amount to? That it shall not be in the power of the wisdom and munificence of any individual, or bodies of individuals, to establish any institution which shall. give to the Members of the Church of England the best possible education and instruction in the principles of their religion; because, when established, and when its success is most signally manifested, it must of necessity be such as shall exclude those who do not belong to the Church; but who from envy, or from whatever other motive, may be anxious to intrude themselves into it. My Lords, I scruple 1001 not to call this measure, if it be adopted, direct persecution; I will further venture to say, with the utmost respect for the noble and learned Lord, (the Lord Chancellor), that such a proceeding would be contrary to every principle of law and equity, which the jurisprudence of this country has hitherto recognized. I affirm in short, that Parliament has not the right, however it have the power, to order it. But that power Parliament, I am sure, will never exercise; because it will never permit itself to do that which it has not a right to do; and confident as I am that Parliament has, in this instance, not the right, I must protest against the exertion of the power. My Lords, it is, I apprehend, an admitted principle, that where a Corporation has received its Charter for a specific purpose, the law of England repels, and the Legislature of England has hitherto repelled, every attempt to break in upon that corporation, except on an allegation either that its members have omitted to perform the duties for which they were incorporated, or that the purposes for which they were incorporated, were originally, or has been declared by subsequent enactments, to be illegal, immoral, or superstitious. Such, I will venture to say, is the principle of the law of England in respect to Corporations; and even if a lawyer could devise any plea in derogation of it, I am quite sure, that there is no Englishman, of plain understanding, who would not proclaim his assent to the reasonableness of that principle. Now, is it, can it be, alleged, that either of the Universities, or that any of the Colleges within them, have violated the duties of their corporate character, or that they have abused the powers intrusted to them for the performance of those duties, or that the purposes and object of their incorporation are illegal, immoral, superstitious, or otherwise condemnable? My Lords, no man has ventured, nor will any man venture, to say any of these things. On what pretence, then, could Parliament dare—forgive the word, my Lords: when a man feels strongly he will not, scruple to speak strongly; but your Lordships will not, I am sure, think the word needs an apology, for you would not dare to do what is wrong—on what pretence then, I ask, would Parliament dare to set a precedent, which would destroy every thing like the principle of property as connected with cor- 1002 porations, and would violate all the sacredness that belongs to oaths—aye, my Lords, the sacredness of oaths? I say this, because it must not be forgotten, that the members of the University of Oxford have sworn, that they will obey their statutes, and I doubt not they will keep that oath inviolate. Parliament may have the power to destroy these bodies, but Parliament has not the power—and, if such a thing shall be attempted, Parliament will find, that it has not the power—to make these illustrious bodies faithless to the sacred duties which they have sworn to discharge. My Lords, the University of Oxford I know well—many of my happiest years have been passed within it—and from that knowledge of it I speak, when I proclaim my firm conviction, that if both Houses of Parliament shall pass the Bill, which has been brought into the other House, and if his Majesty shall, unhappily, be advised, and shall yield to the advice, to give to it the Royal Assent,—you will not, at Oxford, find a man—certainly very, very few men,—who would not submit to be pennyless and homeless, to be outcasts on the world, rather than do that which they now, it seems, are to be required to do—to be parties to the desecration of what they hold to be most sacred, and to the destruction of what they deem to be most valuable in this life, because it is connected with the interests of the life to come. My Lords, one thing has occurred this evening for which I was not prepared, but which has given to me the greatest pleasure,—I mean the presentation of the second petition, which the illustrious Duke has laid upon your Lordships' Table. Like that illustrious Duke, I am not disposed, generally, to encourage young persons, in a state of pupilage, to express to Parliament their opinions on matters of legislative consideration; but, my Lords, when their own best interests are involved—when their religion, which, thank God, they feel to be their dearest, as all must admit that it is their most valuable possession—when their religion is thus openly assailed, I rejoice to see them stand boldly forward, and call on Parliament to protect them. I rejoice at this, as one of the best symptoms that could present themselves; I rejoice at it as one of the few redeeming points amidst the many lamentable indications which mark the hapless times 1003 on which we are fallen. My Lords, when I contemplate this display of the noble zeal of the educated youth of England in the cause of their religion, I cannot forbear applying to it the language of a heathen poet, but with feelings, permit me to add, of which no heathen could be conscious:—Dii patrii, quorum semper sub numine Troja est,Non tamen omninò Teucros delere paratis.Cùm tales animus juvenum et tam certa tulistis Pectora.
The Lord Chancellorcould not refrain from expressing his astonishment at the speech which had been delivered by the right reverend Prelate who had just sat down. He did not intend to follow the right reverend Prelate into his casuistry, for it was so refined, that he was not certain he understood it. But if subscription did not mean what it professed to mean, but anything into which casuists might be pleased to convert it—if the person signing might disbelieve any part or parcel of that which he proclaimed his readiness to believe at all hazards,—if he might begin by subscribing to certain articles, and afterwards be at liberty to learn what those articles meant, all that he would observe was this—that if such was the true and precise meaning of subscription, a more clumsy invention was never struck out by human brain, lay or clerical, academic or barbarous, than to make a man who was only called upon to state his belief of one article swear that he believed in thirty-nine other articles. If this were the veritable and orthodox doctrine of subscription, then he would say, that he did not like subscription before, and, that now he disliked it ten thousand times more than ever he did. He had always thought it a cloak for hypocrisy. He had always thought it a measure of jesuitism and casuistry. He had always thought it a trap for tender consciences. He had always thought it a desecration of the holiest objects. But it now reared itself before his eyes as a degree of desecration, as a refinement of subtilty, as a device of jesuitism and casuistry, as a cloak for hypocrisy of the vilest and coarsest nature, as a—
§ The Marquis of Salisbury rose to order. The noble and learned Lord was only entitled to offer explanation of observations of his own; he was now wandering far beyond it—it was not only replying to, but attacking observations of other noble Lords.
1004The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it would be a good rule if noble Lords, before they called others to order, would just condescend to catch some glimpse, some faint glimmer, of the meaning of those whom, they interrupted. He was stating in explanation of what he had already stated. He would move an Amendment. He would move it at that part of his speech that he thought fit. He had a right to be heard in continuation of his explanation; when he had concluded it he would move his Amendment.
§ Lord Wynfordand another noble Lord rose and spoke together. We only heard the observation of Lord Wynford, who was contending, that, at this stage of the debate the noble and learned Lord had no power to move an Amendment.
§ Lord Wynfordagain spoke to order. If the intention of his noble and learned friend had been to move an Amendment, he ought to have moved it at the conclusion of his first speech. The time for moving it was now gone by. He appealed to his noble and learned friend, as the great doctor of order, to see, that the orders and regulations of that House were observed.
§ The confusion in the House was here very great.—At length
§ The Duke of Richmondobtained a hearing, and spoke to order. His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had been personally alluded to in the speech of the right reverend Prelate who had preceded him. When a Peer was thus alluded to, it was usual for that Peer to rise in his place, and to speak upon that allusion, although not strictly in explanation. This had been done already that evening by the noble Duke opposite, who had spoken twice already. He was merely anxious to let his noble and learned friend finish his explanation. Before he sat down he must set the noble and learned Baron right, who had inadvertently fallen into a very singular mistake. The noble and learned Baron had called his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack the great doctor of order in that House. Now in that House, neither the Lord Chancellor nor any other speaker had any greater claim than any other of their Lordships to take upon himself the enforcement of order. To put the matter right, he would move that the House do adjourn.
§ Several of their Lordships again attempted to obtain a hearing, but
The Lord Chancellorinsisted, that he must, in point of form, put the question. The question before this House stands thus:—The original question before this House is, "that the Petition do lie upon the Table;" since which it has been moved, "that this House do now adjourn." Whilst he was putting the question, his Lordship resumed his former place on the floor.—"I have now, my Lords, in point of form, the most ample right to enter upon the whole question, and to inflict upon your Lordships as long a speech as your patience will permit, in explanation of my former speech, and in refutation of the right reverend Prelate's argument. But, however, I do not mean to exercise the right of reply, which I now undoubtedly possess, for I trust, that I have already said sufficient to explain the profound astonishment into which the right reverend Prelate flung me by his extraordinary explanation of what he meant by subscription. I must, however, congratulate your Lordships on your having lived to see the commencement of a new and more prosperous era dawning upon the orders of the House. Till this night, though I have now had the honour of a seat for more than three years and a half in your Lordships' House, I never found any noble Lord attempted to be hampered in the latitude of his explanation. In this House an explanation is always a privileged second speech. I hope, therefore, that in future noble Lords will confine themselves strictly to explanation. With regard to what has fallen from my noble and learned friend, I have only to say, that I have exercised no power over the orders of the House since I have been on the Woolsack. When my noble and learned friend obtains that high honour which he so merits, and which, perhaps, he covets as well, he will not find me treating him, as he now treats me, as the doctor, or, I should rather say, the tyrant of order."
§ The Duke of Wellington. —The noble and learned Lord has argued, that not only to-night, but on former occasions, I have made second speeches—I say I never did. I grant I was bordering on it this evening, but knowing the bad precedent that might be set, I immediately stopped myself. I again deny the statement of the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord ChancellorIt does not follow, because the noble Duke denies what I say, that he is not guilty of it. I have often heard persons deny things very strenuously, that it afterwards appeared they had constantly been in the guilty practice of. Explanation, in my view, is not replying to what an opponent says, but explaining, putting in a clearer and more defined form, what you have yourself said.
§ The Duke of WellingtonWhat I said was, I never, in explanation, made use of a new argument. Again I say I never did, and again I deny what the noble and learned Lord says.
The Bishop of ExeterI feel it necessary to trouble your Lordships with a few words, in order to explain what has been most grievously misunderstood by the noble and learned Lord—misunderstood, I repeat, for I am quite sure that if the noble and learned Lord had accurately heard my words, he would not have exhibited them in the very extraordinary manner in which he has thought proper to exhibit them. I said that subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, by a boy, at the early age of sixteen, could not in common sense, be understood to imply a belief founded on full consideration and accurate examination of them—but belief founded on the authority of the Church of which he thus proclaimed himself a member. To that statement I adhere. Subscription to the Articles at the age of sixteen could, in common sense, mean no more than this, and would he understood to mean no more, even if there was nothing else to be taken in the account. But when we remember what the Statutes of the University further enjoin,—namely, that the persons who had so subscribed, should be afterwards taught the meaning, and the proofs, of the Articles which they had subscribed, that, before they were allowed to take a degree, they should be examined in their knowledge of these Articles, and in their ability to prove their truth; that at the time of taking their degree, they were required again to subscribe the Articles, but with the important addition, that they now declare them to be agreeable to the word of God.—when all this is borne in mind, it is plain that the first subscription, that made at their matriculation, is merely a declaration of their belief of the Articles, on the authority of the Church. It is just as children 1007 are taught to say their creed. When they say it, it cannot be seriously supposed that they have duly considered and examined, or even accurately understood, the several propositions contained in it: they only believe it to be true on the authority of their teachers. But will any rational person, therefore, condemn the practice of children saving their creed?
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he must complain of the discourteous conduct of the Lord Chancellor throughout the evening, and particularly of the denial which he had given to the statement of the Duke of Wellington, which was one of the most uncourteous things he had ever heard of.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if the noble Marquess intended to produce a quarrel between two Chancellors, he would unquestionably fail. The noble Marquess had misunderstood him, as much as the other noble Marquess near him. He had not denied any fact asserted by the noble Duke. He had distinctly said, that he believed that the noble Duke fancied that he had gone no further than explanation, but he had said as distinctly, that, in his opinion, the noble Duke had gone further. The noble Duke and himself had lived too long not to know that there was a wide difference between a denial of fact and a denial of opinion. The first is discourteous and worse than discourteous; but the latter amounts only to a difference of opinion.
The Bishop of Durhamsaid, he was unwilling to prolong the present discussion; but he rose to confirm what had been said by a right reverend Prelate near him, respecting the practice of the University of Oxford, in requiring subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, on the matriculation of its members, as well as on their taking degrees. The distinction which the right reverend Prelate made, as to the kind or measure of assent to those Articles, in the one case, and in the other, appeared to him just and well-founded. The assent given at matriculation could hardly be supposed to mean more than that the person so admitted professed himself to be a member of the Established Church, and received those Articles upon the authority which prescribed them, until he could be further instructed in them, as a standard of Christian doctrine and discipline. His subsequent subscription, on taking a degree, undoubtedly implied a 1008 more perfect acquaintance with them, and a more unqualified assent to them. This obvious distinction tended to do away the main objection usually urged against the practice of the University of Oxford in this respect. In regard to the petition itself, one chief ground of objection, as he conceived, to admitting Dissenters to the privilege of degrees in the Universities was, that the granting of that privilege would necessarily lead to their having a participation in the Government of the University. It seemed impossible to withhold the one, if the other were granted; and the consequences of this to the whole body, was the point, above all others, to be deprecated. With respect to the alleged illiberality of the Universities, (and stronger expressions of vituperation than this had been used on the present occasion) in not only refusing degrees to Dissenters, but preventing their obtaining degrees elsewhere, he did not see that they were fairly open to that censure. It surely rested not with the Universities to point out other means by which that object might be attained through other channels. Neither did he perceive the force of the noble and learned Lord's observation, that persons holding the high station in which he was placed were not required to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles as a qualification for the office. Possibly, it was presumed, without such evidence, that the person whose office constituted him keeper of the royal conscience would be a member of the Established Church. But, without entering upon that point, the case appeared to him wholly irrelevant to the matter before them, which involved the subject of public education, as affecting the religious interests of the community. But he would forbear, and go no further into the subject. Should it unfortunately be brought before their Lordships in a more substantive form, (which he hoped it would not) he might feel it his duty to express his sentiments at greater length.
The Duke of Gloucestersaid, that his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) had understood his noble friend (the Duke of Wellington) and himself looked for a remedy to the grievance complained of, by allowing another University to grant degrees; but they meant no such thing; they said, that to the College of Physicians, and to the Inns of Court, who framed their regulations very long after 1009 the laws of the Universities were made, should the Dissenters look for the remedy. He should be most willing to see the College of Physicians give degrees in medicine. His noble and learned friend was under a mistake respecting Sir Isaac Newton; he was admitted in 1660, and took his degree in 1664, and subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.