The Earl of Radnormoved, that the Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles Bill be read a second time. The question which their Lordships had now to decide, was solely as to the principle of the Bill. If there were any errors in its details, they might be remedied in the Committee. The principle of the Bill was, to abolish the Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles and the question to decide was whether the Thirty-nine Articles should be taken as a test on admission to the University of Oxford or of Cambridge or not. There were Clauses in the latter part of the Bill 497 saving; all the endowed schools, and saving all the rights of the bodies having authority in either of the Universities, and also preserving the rights of the Convocation. The principle of the Bill was, to put an end to the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles by persons on entering the University, providing that they should not make that subscription before they had arrived at the age of Twenty-three or before taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts or that of Master of Arts. Perhaps their Lordships were not, fully aware of the different practice in the two Universities on this subject. He should do his best to explain it to them. At Oxford, the applicant for admission was called upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles on matriculation, which was not the case in the University of Cambridge. At Oxford also the person about to be matriculated was obliged to subscribe the three Articles contained in the 36th canon, which was not required at Cambridge. The object of the Bill was to render such subscription unnecessary at the time of entrance into either of the Universities, or until the party should have attained a certain age, or should have proceeded to take the degree of Master of Arts. He could not help thinking, after all that he had heard on this subject—after all the consideration which had been bestowed on it—after all the discussion to which it had given rise in this and in the other House of Parliament—that none of the arguments which had been adduced against the principle on which the Bill was founded were satisfactory. He could not understand the absurdity—he would not use a worse epithet, of calling of boys of 16, 17, or 18 years of age, to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles on their matriculation,—articles of the nature of which they knew nothing. The idea of young men being thus called on to subscribe that which they did not understand was as offensive to common sense as it was to the principles of morality. To say that individuals might with propriety be called on to sign such and such things, without knowing or understanding them, appeared to him to be perfectly ridiculous; yet such was the assertion, such was the language, which he heard used from time to time by different individuals. For his own part, he felt the utter impropriety of adopting such a system. He could not understand how anybody could justify 498 themselves for calling on any person, under any circumstances, to subscribe his name to that of the nature and tendency of which he was ignorant. That, however, was what was done every day at the University of Oxford. Young persons were called upon to subscribe their assent to that of which they knew nothing at the time, but which after that assent had been recorded was to be explained. The continuance of such a system was calculated to sap the very foundations of morality and make men hypocrites and deceivers. If individuals were thus called on in one case to bind themselves to a belief in that which they did not understand, how did he know that any person who subscribed anything, at any time, or under any circumstances, really did believe what he subscribed? In the last discussion which took place upon that subject in the hearing of their Lordships, he had illustrated his argument by reference to a paper against the Bill which he had introduced, signed by 4,000 Members of the Convocation of Oxford, and he had argued that if the subscription to any paper did not imply a knowledge of its contents by those who made it, he did not see how it could be shown that any one of those 4,000 persons assented to the statement made in the paper to which he had referred. There was no difference in the principles which applied to the two cases. If he did not suppose, in consequence of seeing certain names appended to the resolutions contained in the paper that those who subscribed them were acquainted with the subject to which they related, how could he tell that they understood the nature of those resolutions more than the young men on matriculation understood the nature and tendency of the Thirty-nine Articles? There really was no mode of knowing decidedly what the conviction in the minds of the parties was with reference to one case more than to the other. This did away with the value of this system of subscription altogether. How could any person know that those who subscribed the resolution in question really understood them, and fully believed in their contents? He, however, knew that many of the Gentlemen who subscribed those Resolutions (not perhaps without seeing and understanding them) had certainly done so without accurately knowing the object to attain which the Resolutions were framed. They had signed the Resolutions without 499 seeing the Bill, or being acquainted with the provisions of the Bill against which those Resolutions were directed. This he knew of his own knowledge, because he was informed by some of them that they really were not acquainted with the provisions of the measure against which they thus expressed their hostility. From this circumstance be inferred, that the practice which was at so early an age inculcated at the University, the practice of subscribing to that which was not understood, formed the groundwork of a certain degree of looseness and laxity in this matter of subscription. The difficulty which was connected with this subject had very much increased lately—it was now considerably greater than it was a year ago, in consequence of the different meanings given to this process of subscription. How could any man know under what sense or meaning he subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles when so many definitions were attached to the ceremony? It was impossible for any person to tell. One person said, that by subscribing, the individual declared that he belonged to the Church of England; another, that he admitted by subscribing that so far as the persons understood the Thirty-nine Articles he assented to them; another said, that the person subscribing, thereby declared that those Articles should be his rule of conduct during the period while he remained in the University. Could any person therefore decide in what sense he was called on to subscribe these Articles? The names of persons about to be matriculated were, it appeared inserted in a great book, but not a particle of these Thirty-nine Articles were read. But as the system had continued for 150 years, that he supposed was considered a valid reason for continuing it. He repeated that, on matriculation, a large vellum book was produced, containing a great many names, but nothing was read about the Thirty-nine Articles, and, for aught he knew, those articles were not contained in the book. A friend of his had turned over the leaves of the book, and he could not find the Thirty-nine Articles in it. He could give a very curious confirmation of the careless manner in which these things were in the habit of being done. Very lately a proposition was made to the University of Oxford to substitute a declaration in the place of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. Amongst those who were particularly zealous in 500 canvassing against that proposition was a Gentleman nearly related to himself, an intimate friend of his, and one who was extremely ardent in the support of any cause which he supported. He circulated printed letters, which were addressed to all the non-resident Members of the convocation, and in which he strongly opposed any alteration in the existing system. In this letter he said, "May I take the liberty of adding, since some of the absent Members may not recollect the circumstance, that at matriculation there is no oath taken connected with a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles." [Lord Kenyon: There is no oath now taken with respect to subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles.] He was aware of that; but what he complained of was, that this subscription was made in so loose a way that there were many who thought that no oath was taken at it; and it appeared from the letter to which he had just referred, it was supposed that many who had actually subscribed these Articles, were in a doubt as to whether or not they were bound to their observance by an oath. It was well known that with regard to Oxford (and to it he more particularly directed his observations, being most intimately acquainted with it)—it was well known with regard to Oxford that tests were insisted on for the purpose of excluding Dissenters from the University. Now, he did not very well see what value could be attached to a test which it was notorious those who took it did not and were not called on to understand. Such a test could furnish no criterion by which to judge whether a person was a Dissenter or a Mahomedan. In point of fact, however, Dissenters were not excluded: a particular class of Dissenters, Baptists and Socinians, were excluded, but the Universities were not thereby confined to Members of the Church of England. But the absurdity of continuing this test with a view to the exclusion of Dissenters was, that those belonging to the University maintain that there were other tests, much more efficacious for this purpose; and it was said by one of these persons, "the joining in our daily worship is infinitely a closer union with the Church than signing the Thirty-nine Articles." If that were the case, and the attendance at the chapels, (the continuance of the service in which could not be objected to) was a much better means of securing the non-admittance of Dissenters to the Uni- 501 versities, why on earth was the subscription, which all must consider somewhat objectionable (though they might not censure it so broadly as he did) persevered in, whilst the purpose which it was meant to answer was perfectly fulfilled by means with which no one could fairly find fault? But other reasons were giving for an adherence to this subscription, and amongst them it was alleged that this observance inculcated a submission to the Church of England. Why, he asked, should the Universities inculcate submission to the Church? They might call on the students to attend to their regulations and conform to their practice, but why inculcate submission to the Church? The mode, too, in which they inculcated this submission was very extraordinary; it was altogether different from that to which the Church itself had recourse. The Church never called on any of its lay members to subscribe the thirty-nine articles on any occasion whatever. Candidates for Orders were very properly required to subscribe them, but neither at the baptism of infants, nor of adults at confirmation, at the sacrament, nor before absolution, was subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles required of any layman, unless he happened to go to the University of Oxford or Cambridge. One of the great arguments advanced in favour of this subscription in the debate last year arose out of the alleged bad effects which were represented to have followed the abolition of Tests in the German Universities, where a great deal of theological anti-Christian doctrines prevailed; the inference to be drawn being that, of course, the same results would be introduced into this country, if subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles were dispensed with. This argument, however, proceeded on the assumption that the German Universities were the only ones in the world where Tests were abolished. He would presently show how unfounded this supposition was; but he would now take it for granted, that in the German Universities only were these Tests done away with, and yet he would confidently assert, that no one acquainted with German literature could believe that the same effects would result from such a change with respect to religious Tests in this country, as must naturally flow from it in a country where the inhabitants, and especially those of highly cultivated intellects, were of an exceedingly theoretical and 502 speculative turn of mind on religious subjects. But this passion for speculation not only prevailed with respect to religious matters, but it displayed itself also in their prosecution of literature and the sciences. For the purpose of proving what no doubt their Lordships were already familiar with, it would be only necessary for him to state, that one very learned Geologist in that country contended that man was not an original animal, and that he arrived at his present form, not by a transmigration of soul, but by a transformation of body, and he actually went the length of saying, that the process by which the transformation was effected was this—that a lizard was changed into a monkey, and a monkey raised into a man. Another instance of this was, that one of their learned men had composed a most voluminous work on the Jurisprudence of Ancient Athens, in which he recounted all their modes of legal proceeding, treated of their John Does and Richard Roes, their pleas, answers, replications, and rejoinders; and the only foundation of this extraordinary work was a trial said to have taken place before the Goddess Minerva, in one of the Plays of Æschylus. These things he mentioned to the House for the purpose of showing the absurdity of drawing any inferences respecting the Abolition of Tests from what had taken place in Germany. But in addition to this, attention should be paid to the nature of the German disposition upon religious subjects. In illustration, he should just observe that the origin and progress of the Reformation were totally different there from what they were in this country. In Germany the Reformation began amongst the learned Members of the Universities, and they were followed by the People and the Government. In this country the contrary was the case—the Reformation began with the Government, and they were followed by the people. Again, in Germany the Universities robbed the Churches, while in this country the Church robbed the Universities. In Germany, too, the Professors' chairs were profitable in proportion as they were popular. They were paid by the persons who attended the lectures, and therefore were they obliged to maintain and follow those principles and views which would render their situations at once popular and profitable. Such a state of things did not exist in this country, and therefore it was unfair to refer to the Ger- 503 man Universities for an illustration of the effects that would be likely to follow from the Abolition of Tests. But there was something strangely inconsistent in the argument which was urged against the Abolition of Tests, grounded upon the nature of those theories that were put forward by divines and theologians in those places in which the Abolition had taken place. It was a fact, certainly peculiarly comical, and altogether unknown to, or overlooked by those who cited the prevalence of anti-religious feelings and doctrines in those Universities, as a reason why religious tests should not be got rid of in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, that the principal part of these anti-religious doctrines proceeded from those persons in the Universities of Germany, who held theology in chains; and these persons being divines, were the individuals who were subjected to religious Tests, whilst the other members of the University were excepted from their observance. Therefore, far from the partial Abolition of Tests in Germany being any argument in favour of their being retained in our Universities, the fair inference to be drawn from the spread of anti-religious feelings in that country was, that such an effect had been produced by the preservation of these Tests in any shape whatever. But were these religious Tests abolished in no other country beside Germany? Why, in France no Tests were required for persons entering the Universities, and all were equally eligible for the chair of professors. One of the present Ministers of France, M. Guizot, who is a Protestant, held a Professor's Chair in one of the Universities of that country. In Bologna, no religious Test was required for persons coming to receive instruction, or those desirous of taking degrees. At the University belonging to this place no Test whatever was required until very lately, when it was determined that no Foreigner should be admitted to the University, in consequence of the pupils having rebelled, and evinced a desire for the establishment of a Republic. In Louvain no Test was adopted. In Pisa none. The University of this city was attended by Greeks, Jews, and Mahometans; and the only difference which existed between the mode of admission to degrees for those belonging to such persuasions, and the others who attended the University, was, that in the former case the Chancellor (who was generally a 504 Vicar-General, or Archbishop) got out of the Chair, and the Vice-Chancellor took it. He could state further, that no Test was there required for Professors; and he could even show cases in which the Chair in Pisa had been filled by an English Protestant. At the latter end of the seventeenth century, Thomas Forbes, a Scotchman, was Professor of the Historical, and afterwards the Philosophical Faculty. And about ten years later, Sir J. Finch, an Englishman, filled the same Chair. Gronovius, also, before his return to Leyden, was a Professor there. The same might be said of Padua, where no Test is required, and it frequently happened that the chairs there were filled by Foreigners—by Members of the Church of England—by Presbyterians and by Calvinists. He had the names of many, to some of which he would just advert:—Dr. Walter Charlton was invited in 1678 by the Moderator of the University of Padua and the Senate of Venice, to the Chair of Practical Medicine, but after long negociation, he refused to give up his practice and appointment in England. In 1698, Dr. Martin Benenden was invited from England, but from incompetency was disqualified. In 1716, N. Bernouilli, a Calvinist, was Professor of Mathematics, and Gronovius and Salmasius, both Calvinists, were invited to Chairs. It appeared evident, therefore, that in these Roman Catholic countries—in the Roman and Venetian States, formerly, and in the Austrian States at present,—there was no jealousy on religious subjects, nor were any Tests whatever required. Although, continued the noble Lord, I see a noble Lord opposite smile at what I have said, I must say, for my own part, that I who have been brought up a Protestant, and who as such have been taught to conceal nothing in religious matters—to leave religious doctrines open to rational consideration, and to test their truth by the exercise of private judgment—I say that I, at least, bred up as I have been, a Member of the Established Church, cannot help being mortified, and feeling in some degree ashamed that the doors of our Universities should be shut up by the enforcement of a religious Test, whilst those of Roman Catholic Universities are thrown open to persons of all religious persuasions. But this liberality in opening the Universities to men of all religious opinions was not confined to Catholic countries. In the Prussian States, in Ba- 505 den, Breslau, and Copenhagen, the Universities were open to all. In Copenhagen one of the Professors of Medicine was a Jew. Coming nearer home, he believed that in the University of Durham, which had been established by Act of Parliament, no Test was enforced with regard to those who came for instruction. Was it not, therefore, a matter of regret, that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be the only ones in Europe or in the world, which were shut up by the continuance of Tests which those who were called on to subscribe had not been at the pains to study, or could not understand? In the University of Oxford (and he spoke principally of this University, because he was better acquainted with its history than that of our other Universities)—in that University persons were formerly admitted, not only belonging to different countries, but professing different religions. It was a matter of history, that about 450 years ago, the first Reformer in England, (Wycliffe) one whose efforts were as great for the propagation of Protestantism as those by whom he was afterwards succeeded (however more successful the latter might have been in receiving a larger share of popular approbation), the Reformer Wycliffe, he repeated, continued to hold the Chair of Professor of Divinity, and remained the head of one of the Houses at Oxford, long after he had been summoned to the Court of Rome to answer for his heretical doctrines. He found, too, that in 1547, Peter Martyn, D. D., Padua, and 1556, Joannes Fautereille, were Professors of Divinity in Oxford. Again, in 1587, Albericus Gentilis, D.C. L., Perugia, was Professor of Civil Law; and in 1648, Louis de Menlin, of Leyden, was Camden Professor of Ancient History. One of the most liberal bequests made to the University was that of——Saville, who bequeathed an estate for the establishment of a Professorship in Geometry and Astronomy, and in leaving that bequest he appointed the Chancellor for the time being, and the Chief Justices of the King's Bench and Exchequer, to appoint the Professors, and he besought them not to confine their researches to England, but throughout "the whole Christian world," to seek persons the most fit to fill the situation, and he provided for this by allocating funds to defray the expenses of going abroad for the purpose of making this search. He mentioned this for the pur- 506 pose of showing that the principle of exclusion was new in Oxford. Saville, to whose bequest he had adverted, was not ignorant of the practices of Oxford. He was himself a head of a house, and had accompanied his bequest with the condition adverted to, in the full and perfect knowledge of what were the rules and practices of the University of Oxford. Therefore, while all Foreign Universities were open, Oxford and Cambridge alone were closed. He could not reconcile the principles on which this institution rested in former times to those by which it was now sustained, on any other ground than that which had been urged by a noble Duke (Duke of Wellington) on a former occasion, namely, that the exclusive practices of the University were necessary to maintain the alliance between Church and State. He did not at first understand the argument; but after considering it for some time, he supposed it to mean that the University was so connected with the Established Church, that it was necessary to have it exclusively devoted to those belonging to that Church. The mode by which that alliance was secured and confirmed was unquestionably a very strange one, for it was no other than this—that those who are about to enter the University were called on to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles. He had already proved that the Church never enforced an obedience to its doctrines, by requiring its lay members to subscribe these Articles. The State never did so either, with one necessary and proper exception—where a person who presided as one of the Judges in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and who was called on to decide questions relating to the Thirty-nine Articles was required by Act of Parliament to subscribe them. That was the only case in which the Church called for a subscription to these Articles. The King did not subscribe them. The Chancellor of Oxford and honorary doctors did not subscribe them. The Chancellor of Cambridge or the honorary doctors of that University did not subscribe them. [The Duke of Wellington: I signed them the other day at Cambridge.] He could speak with certainty as to the University of Oxford. Did the noble Duke sign them as Chancellor of the University of Oxford? He believed not. Certainly the Statutes did not require him to sign them, but he did not think that any of the charters of the 507 University of Cambridge required that honorary doctors should make the subscription. Certain he was that no subscription to these Articles was required in the case of the Chancellor of Cambridge, for a late Chancellor (the Duke of Grafton) was an avowed and professed Unitarian. Neither did honorary doctors there subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. He himself happened to know that at the annual meeting of scientific men, there were four highly distinguished men,—Messrs. Faraday, Dalton, Brown, and Birkbeck, who were, however, incapable of being admitted on account of their being Dissenters. They were, however, admitted speciali gratia, (as we understood the noble Earl) upon that occasion in compliment to their attainments. That showed the evil effects of supporting that principle of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. The whole of that argument to which he had adverted, respecting the close alliance of the Church with the State, was founded upon a mistake. This union of the Church with the State had no necessary connexion whatever with the Universities. The Universities had no more necessary connexion with the Church than they had with any other faculty. They were connected with the law, with medicine, and with theology; but quoad a University no more intimate connexion existed with any one of these faculties than with another. The mistake which so generally prevailed upon the subject had grown up from the fact of all the offices being usurped (he did not mean it offensively, but there had been a usurpation) by the heads of colleges. The Universities did not exist in colleges. It was perfectly erroneous to suppose they did. The colleges were extraneous—they were, in fact, excrescences—not properly belonging to the body. The error, he was aware, was general, and deeply-rooted. Authority, he was aware, might be quoted in opposition, and to one authority he should refer. It was that of a right rev. Prelate, (he did not then see him in his place, although he had been there in the early part of the evening) and was to be found in a work of which that right rev. Prelate was the reputed—indeed he believed the acknowledged author. That right rev. Prelate had been himself the Head of a house which he had raised to a great degree of eminence. (We understood the noble Earl to say that the Prelate was the Head of Oriel College.) In 508 that work he said—"The Universities are not national establishments;—they are a congeries of Corporations moulded into one." Now he (Lord Radnor) said, that the Universities were national establishments and not congeries of Corporations. The Universities existed for hundreds of years before any of these Colleges existed. Oxford certainly existed before any of these colleges, though there was some doubt as to whether "University College" was or was not the site of the University. This, however, was a mere subject of speculation, and no doubt existed that no other college was founded. But he would put a hypothetical case. Suppose the Legislature were to do any thing so outrageous—he did not mean to say they ought—but suppose they were to do any thing so outrageous as to take possession of all the colleges, as had been done with the Monasteries before, would the Universities in that case cease to exist? Most certainly not. Therefore it was quite evident that these Universities were not a congeries of Corporations—made up of these (subsequently established) Colleges. But he contended that they were national institutions—with all the elements and all the requisites of national institutions. They were founded by charter granted by the King—not for a particular purpose, but for the good of the country. That charter stated that "the good of the country, its strength, and the prosperity of its military institutions depended upon the literary and scientific education of the people," and for the promotion of this object was the charter granted. These Universities, too, were watched over in the most zealous manner by the Crown. In ancient documents and papers to which he had referred, he frequently found the Universities mentioned, but there was never any mention of the colleges. There were only two colleges mentioned, Oriel and Merton, and the latter was mentioned for the rather curious reason that it did not take care to keep a ditch opposite the college clean. In the Statutes of Elizabeth all mention is omitted of colleges. The preamble of the 13th. of that Queen, c. 26., recites:—"For the great love and favour that the Queen's most excellent Majesty beareth towards her Highness's Universities, and for the great zeal and care that the Lords and Commons, of the present Parliament, have for the maintenance of good and godly literature, and the virtuous educa- 509 tion of youth … and to the intent that the ancient privileges, liberties, and franchises of either of the said … Universities may be had in greater estimation, and be of greater force and strength, for the better increase of learning, and the further suppression of vice." And enacts:—"That the Right Honourable Robert Earl of Leicester, now Chancellor of the said University of Oxford, and his successors for ever, and the masters and scholars of the said University of Oxford, for the time being, shall be incorporated, and have a perpetual succession—in fact, deed, and name—by the name of Chancellor-Master, and scholars of the University of Oxford; and that the same Chancellor-Master, and scholars of the same University of Oxford, for the time being, from henceforth, by the name of Chancellor-Masters and scholars of the University of Oxford, and by none other name or names shall be called and named for evermore." It was quite obvious that this Statute did not contemplate colleges, nor was there any reference to masters of colleges. By the term "masters," in the Act, Masters of Arts were meant. The Universities then, were simply schools of learning; but it became desirable that a domestic character should be given to them by the establishment of colleges or halls: and according to the statutes which existed till within four months ago, the power of establishing halls existed to an unlimited extent, according to certain forms; and formerly there were as many as 300 halls existing at one time. New statutes had been passed within the last four months; he had not seen them, and what their provisions were he could not tell. However, the power was originally possessed to an unlimited extent, and to him it appeared to be a most valuable and useful power; for it prevented the narrowing of the University to an injurious extent. The colleges were originally established by individuals, and endowed by them with funds for the benefit of persons studying at the University. One of the most splendid of these institutions was Merton College, which was founded by Walter de Merton, and endowed by him with large estates for the benefit of persons educated in the University; at the same time he limited the advantage to certain persons—namely such as were born within particular dioceses—the dioceses indeed in 510 which his property was situated. In other colleges there were similar limitations, in some instances to a surprising extent. Indeed, out of the whole number of 499 resident fellowships, only fifty were open to all—the rest being limited by some specific bequest and restriction as to family, parish, county, or diocese. The whole revenues of a college—all estates and patronage—were for the benefit of the members of the foundation, and they were not bound to admit any individual into it except by the course of electing him into the foundation. It was only indeed in times comparatively modern—since the close of the 15th century—that the practice had obtained of admitting persons in any other manner. Unless, therefore, the general power, which he had noticed, of establishing halls, were allowed to exist, the heads of colleges would be enabled to limit the number of those admitted; and the restriction would operate on the Church by limiting the supply of proper persons to perform the functions of its offices. He thought that it would be much to the credit of the University of Oxford, if subscription at matriculation were abolished. Many persons were willing to concede that point, who at the same time contended for retaining the subscription at the taking of degrees, inasmuch as, according to their statement, the same objection could not then be urged on the ground of ignorance in the party subscribing, and as some security ought to be exacted from him, in consequence of his becoming fitted, by the taking of a degree, for election to a fellowship, or for acting as a tutor. With respect to the first point, concerning the absence of ignorance, it had been admitted as a fact, by a reverend Doctor who had written a pamphlet on this subject, that young men when admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts were not qualified to judge of the Thirty-nine Articles; and under the circumstances it was not likely that they should be. As to the election to fellowships, he could not attach any weight to the argument of a necessity of subscription, as a security on the part of those elected; for every one elected underwent a certain examination, and the electors might take a much more effectual means of obtaining a guarantee security of his fitness than was afforded by subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. Then with respect to their becoming tutors, as the masters of 511 houses had the appointment of these functionaries, they might easily ascertain the learning, knowledge, and faith of the persons applying to be appointed. The same objection that applied to the requiring a subscription, applied also to the requiring a declaration. Now as to young men who were obtaining the degree of Master of Arts, it must be allowed that they were likely to possess that degree of knowledge which should enable them to form a judgment on the Thirty-nine Articles; but at the same time it was a case of the greatest hardship towards a Dissenter, that after having passed with credit through his University career, he should be debarred from taking his degree, and enjoying the advantages attached to it in after life. Another objection was urged to this effect—that if Dissenters were allowed to take their degrees, they would be admitted to the masterships of schools which were instituted in connexion with the Established Church, the presentation to those masterships being vested in Masters of Arts. He was quite willing to insert a provision in the Bill, preventing Dissenters from interference with any endowment whatever, from which they were excluded under the will of any founder. The noble Earl then adverted to a most extraordinary objection which had been raised against this restricting portion of the Bill, in a published letter addressed to the noble Duke by a most respectable gentleman, a Fellow of Baliol College—making it a reproach to the measure that the exception had been provided in regard to endowments; and saying that the exception had been so provided, because it concerned a pecuniary interest. It was impossible for that gentleman not to know, that not one of their Lordships would be willing to sacrifice any principle for the sake of pecuniary interest; and it was certainly a strange argument to urge, that because they could not do all the good which they wished to do, in consequence of being interfered with by certain bequests, they should not even do that which they could. There had been presented that night petitions against the Bill. One had been presented by the noble Duke from the Convocation, and it prayed that a measure subversive of the beneficial privilege which the University had enjoyed for several centuries, of legislating for themselves in all matters relating to the discipline and 512 government of the University, might not be passed. The Bill left that privilege entirely as it existed before, except in one instance; it did not subvert it, although he admitted that it violated it. It did not prevent the Convocation from legislating for the discipline and regulation of the University, but it did prevent their enacting, that subscription or declaration should be imposed. The petition spoke also of the necessity of preserving subscription for the maintenance of a system of education, by means of which so much benefit had been conferred on the country. Why, subscription had only existed for the last 250 years; and in what state had the University been thirty-five years ago? Had it not been described by a right reverend Prelate as being then in a state of corruption? Yet the privilege of legislating had existed from the time of 1681 to that of 1800, just as much as it had existed from 1800 to 1835. He could not suppose, therefore, that it was subscription to the Thirty-nine articles which enabled the University to legislate for the purposes of education. The Bill certainly violated that privilege; and he trusted that their Lordships would assent to the violation. There was no chance of the subscription being removed unless by their Lordships' interference. Of this a sufficient proof was found of the exhibition made at Oxford the other day, and in the zeal and animosity which had been then excited. It was said again that colleges were private institutions, and that the Bill thus committed an attack upon private institutions, because it said that no subscription should be required upon entering a college or hall. He admitted that it did so to a certain extent, and he had inserted the provision referred to with regret, in order to prevent any attempt to defeat the object of the measure by chicane. He did entertain that feeling of suspicion with great regret; but still he felt that he was justified in entertaining it, especially when he found that Mr. Oakley (the individual to whom he had before alluded) had held out an intimation of the probability of some measure of the kind being resorted to, in order to counteract the operation of the Bill. He, of course, should hope that such would not be the case, but still he thought it right to guard against it. The other petition which had been presented that night came rather furtively from the under- 513 graduates and bachelors of the University; and he could not help thinking that it must have been drawn up by some gentleman totally unacquainted with the contents of the Bill. It deprecated the measure as transferring the management of the University from the hands of those persons who now held it. The Bill did not transfer that management in any way. It violated the custom of the University in one instance; but that violation being effected, the University would be left to the management of the same persons as at present, unfettered by the necessity of subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles, much, he doubted not, to the joy of many of those persons. It had been stated that the Bill was an attack not only on the Universities, but on the Church and religion. Now he wished to make no attack on any one of those institutions. He could not conceive how it could be supposed that he desired to attack the Universities; for with Oxford he had formerly been intimately connected, and with Cambridge he was now in some degree connected. He had no wish but for the prosperity of both; and he conceived that it would be a thing most conducive to their good to remove the reproach which the Bill was intended to do away with. Of that opinion were many excellent and learned men at Cambridge itself, as had been shown by the petition sent up to their Lordships; at Oxford the feeling in its favour was not so strong. As to the charge of an attack on the Church, he had already explained that the getting rid of subscriptions not only would not injure the Church, but might prevent that which would be very injurious to it. At all events, for the cause of truth, plain dealing, and honesty, he did implore their Lordships to give the Bill their grave consideration before they rejected it. Turn it in what way they would, that practice was most unsatisfactory in which persons were called upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles—at Oxford when entering the University, and at Cambridge when taking a degree at an age which did not imply a full knowledge of them. He thought it a stigma on the Church; especially when no such practice was to be found prevailing elsewhere; for he defied any noble Lord to name an university in the civilized world, at which such tests were required. The continuance of it in the universities of our own country, 514 seemed to him a national reproach, and a reproach to religion. In conclusion he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas far from imputing to the noble Earl who had just sat down an intention either to make an attack on the Church or to injure the Universities, because the tone in which he had delivered his speech had certainly indicated no such intention; at the same time, he was not the less apprehensive of the effects which this Bill must produce both on the Church and the Universities. It was not his intention to follow the noble Lord through the arguments he had drawn from the state of the Universities on the continent, or of our Universities established in modern times. He always had an objection to arguments drawn from the state of places in other and distant countries, in which the circumstances were probably different from ours, or with which we were not fully acquainted. Oxford or Cambridge he apprehended, had no occasion to take a lesson from the Universities on the continent. In some of them it was well known the utmost laxity of religious opinions prevailed, and the greatest indifference to all religion. In the Roman Catholic Universities it was not surprising there should be the absence of any test whatever. What was however very striking was, that in Catholic Universities on the continent, with respect to which the noble Earl had wandered into the century before last, persons of different religious persuasions might be admitted not only to prosecute their studies, but to hold professorships. He could not account for this, but he knew that in some of those Universities such toleration might be extended to particular persons without any apprehension on the part of the governing bodies, because they knew they had always the power of bringing into force the laws against heretics on any occasion whenever it might be necessary to set those laws in motion. With respect to the Universities here before the Reformation, the noble Lord had said, they were open to the whole world, and that nothing was then heard about the religion of the State. The noble Lord had cited the case of Mr. Wycliffe, but that eminent reformer was supported by some of the most powerful persons in the realm, otherwise he never would have been able to 515 escape the punishment then awarded without much scruple to those who differed from the Established Church. It was well known how his ashes were treated, and there was hardly anything he could have suffered at the stake which he would not have been tortured with but for the powerful influence by which he was protected. Having thus adverted to some few of the observations made by the noble Earl, he would revert to the Bill now before the House, the title of which prohibited subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles in certain cases. The reason was given in the preamble, and was—"Whereas the subscription of particular Articles of Faith in the cases of persons of tender years, and before they can have so accurately and minutely examined the same, and the grounds on which they rest, as to give an entire and implicit assent to the doctrines therein laid down, is unreasonable, and may tend to evil consequences." This was the gist of the noble Earl's argument—that requiring the subscription was unreasonable, and tended to evil consequences. He would observe, that this Bill proceeded upon an assumption that subscription to the Articles on all occasions, and in all persons, had exactly the same significance and import, and that that import was an entire and implicit assent to the doctrines therein laid down. If this were the case, the proposition would be untenable. There was a distinction which he felt bound to make between the matriculative subscription at Oxford and that which took place afterwards. He would take the lowest age to show what the intention was; a student of twelve years old matriculating at Oxford was required to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles. Was it not absurd to sup pose that a boy of that age was to be taken as having fully and maturely considered every one of those Articles in such a way as to be able to give an entire and implicit assent to them all? The University never looked for or required any such thing. He was admitted simply upon the subscription, without having undergone any previous examination, with out any questions having been put to hit and without his even having heard the Articles read over. If such understanding on the part of a boy of that age could have been expected by the divines and statesmen and the statesmen in Queen Elizabeth time were divines, who were parties to 516 the enactment requiring the subscription, hey must have entirely lost their own understandings. A boy having thus been required to sign the Articles he was placed n the University books and transferred on a tutor, who was directed to instruct him in the rudiments of religion, and particularly in the Thirty-nine Articles. If it was to be expected that a boy should understand the articles at the moment he first signed them, it would be worse than ridiculous to direct immediately afterwards that he should be instructed in the rudiments of religion, and particularly in the Thirty-nine Articles. That being so, he pursued his studies for three or four years, under the immediate direction of his tutor; he was then called upon for a second subscription to the Articles; but was he allowed to subscribe to them in the same way as before? Certainly not. Although he had been studying the articles for three or four years under the direction of his tutor, and had proved his proficient knowledge of them by a public examination, yet the University did not allow him then to subscribe to them until they were read over in his presence by a proctor; and at that time he was required to declare that he agreed in the articles. His early subscription, therefore, was only a mark of his adherence to the Church of England, and that he was desirous of being instructed in the articles. Last year it was said, that this was an explanation given merely for the purpose of getting rid of a difficulty; and a right rev. Friend near him had been charged with Jesuitism for having brought forward such an explanation. On that occasion he had not taken much part in the Debate; however, he thought it but right that he should bear his share of the reproach. Since then, however, he had considered the subject more, and he had found that when this matter was debated in the House of Commons in 1783, much the same course had been taken by men who had always been considered as men of sense, and capable of drawing a sound inference. Lord North at that time stated exactly the same argument as he (the most rev. Prelate) had now used, as to the difference between the nature of the subscription required from the student in early and that in later years. Another objection had been raised, and that more particularly in reference to himself, as if he had acted simply upon the fact that no 517 subscription was required before a boy was twelve years of age. There was an age before which a child was not capable of forming a choice with respect to religion, and that was fully acknowledged by the rite of confirmation in our Church. In old times twelve years was the age at which children were called upon to take upon themselves the vows of their sponsors. Under certain circumstances children were received at confirmation at that age, now it was preferred that they should be a little older. By this Bill it was proposed that the student should be twenty-three years old or should have taken a degree, before he could be supposed capable of being called upon to subscribe satisfactorily the Thirty-nine Articles. That had been stated so clearly by the noble Lord, that it required not to be gone over again. Young men generally went to the University between the ages of seventeen and nineteen, and look their first degree from the ages of twenty to twenty-two; and he was of opinion that the Thirty-nine Articles, containing the rudiments of religion as taught in the Church of England, were in such language as might be fully understood by any young man of twenty-two or twenty-three years of age, who had obtained a liberal education, and studied in the University three or four years, so that he might be able fairly to give his assent to them. Some of those articles were founded on the natural principles of religion; others, though at first they might appear startling, were capable of being proved by a reference to Scripture; and who could wish for more than that they should be borne out by Scripture? Many of the doctrines of religion were far beyond comprehension, but they were sufficiently proved by being once brought to the test of Scripture. A young man taught, therefore, as he had pointed out, was to be expected at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three to be able to understand the Articles; and he would deny that calling upon such an individual to subscribe them was unreasonable. On the other hand, he would contend that it was most reasonable that the University should require a proof from those whom she admitted into her bosom that they had fulfilled her intentions, made themselves acquainted with those doctrines she taught, and imbibed those principles she endeavoured to instil. The University was bound to prove to the country that those whom she sent forth to the world 518 had made themselves acquainted with the doctrines of the National Church—not only that they had made themselves acquainted with them, but that they received them as true, and believed them to be consonant to the Scriptures. Thus much as to the unreasonableness of the subject; and he now came to the assertion that the subscription might tend to evil consequences. It might be supposed that in the course of three centuries (for he believed it was more than 250 years ago that subscription was introduced at Oxford,) the tendency whether good or evil, must have been fully developed, and he thought it had. To him the tendency appeared to be not to evil but to good consequences. The consequences which had been produced were, that during a space of nearly 300 years the Universities had preserved religion in all its purity; that polemical controversies had been banished from the seats of those sacred institutions, and that a succession of learned and well-principled men had been produced to fill all stations in the different professions of life, and in the several departments of the State. He deprecated therefore alteration in a system so fruitful of good. It was most desirable that the youth should be attached, not merely from habit, from prejudice derived from their parents or perhaps from their party, but from personal conviction, to the doctrines of the Church of England. He would venture to say, that as the doctrines of the Church were more fully understood, so would they be more highly and justly appreciated; and it required, but little knowledge of human nature to know that they would be studied with greater assiduity, with greater attention and interest, in proportion as the student was aware that he would be called upon to declare his assent to them at a certain period; that, just as he was aware of that, he would consider them more attentively, examine their language more nicely, be more ready to trace their connexion with Scripture, and be more anxious to fix them in his mind. It was most desirable that every man in the country should be acquainted with the principles of the religion he professed. There would then be much less heard of the prejudices that had been raised, some originating in malice, others in error and ignorance, against the Articles of our Church, and such knowledge among the higher classes 519 he sincerely believed would be promoted by a continuance of a subscription in the Universities. In this he could see nothing whatever that could tend to evil consequences, but fatal indeed in his apprehension, would be the consequences of this Bill, if it ever should be passed into a law. The sanction of that House, the sanction of Parliament, would then be given to a calumny against the Church, and against its fundamental principles. It would go forth to the world as the opinion of Parliament, that a peculiar creed of the Church was unfit for the assent of students, as being above their comprehension, or altogether unworthy of their belief; and that it regarded her peculiar doctrines not only with indifference but with disapprobation. The passing of this Bill would be the heaviest blow which had yet been inflicted upon the Church. It would be indirectly condemning her tenets, and pronouncing an assent to the proposition that those tenets were unreasonable and tending to evil consequences. When he entered the House he did not know the intention of this Bill—he did not know whether it was merely to relieve the members of the University from the necessity of subscription who, by the way, were not desirous of such relief, or whether it was intended to throw open the gates of the University to Dissenters. There was much to be said as to both. He did not accuse the noble Lord from what he had said of his approbation of certain Universities being open to the admission of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Christians of every denomination, Pagans, and Mahometans, of a wish to admit Jews, Pagans, and Mahometans into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; but undoubtedly his statements might convey such a feeling to the minds of people. The present measure was one of the greatest importance, both with respect to our Church and Universities; and he called upon their Lordships to pause before they assented to an invasion of privileges which had been approved of for centuries, and to a disturbance of things which had and which still worked most beneficially. It was an interference with the discipline of the Universities without any charge of mismanagement, and that in a manner which threw a slur upon our Church, and a censure upon our Universities, for teaching a system of doctrine unfit to 520 receive the assent of those who were educated in our institutions. He would conclude by moving, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Bishop of Llandaffsaid, that the Noble Earl who moved the second reading of this Bill having been pleased to refer to some expressions of opinion which he (the Bishop of Llandaff) had made use of on a previous occasion, he begged to say a few words in explanation upon that point. The opinion which he had given, upon which the noble Earl had commented, was this; that the University of Oxford was not a national institution. He begged to explain that that opinion was expressed by him under very peculiar circumstances, at a time when the Universities were loudly challenged as having grossly neglected their duties to the public, and when they were compared to the Municipal Corporations of the kingdom, which were then especially under consideration. That comparison he (the Bishop of Llandaff) considered a very dangerous one, for he thought he saw material points of distinction between the constitution of Municipal Corporations and that of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It was in reference to these distinguishing features that he had expressed himself to the effect that the Universities were not national institutions. If, in that declaration, he was understood to imply that the Government of the country had no right to interfere when they saw a case of necessity, and to do their best to render the University establishments more subservient to the good of the nation, he begged distinctly to disclaim such a meaning, for he agreed entirely that the Government or Legislature of the country had that right. He hoped, therefore that the noble Earl would allow him to retract what he had said so far as this explanation went; and if the noble Earl were content with this explanation he should be happy to let the controversy end where it was. Now as to the interference which the noble Earl proposed to introduce, through means of this Bill, into the management and discipline of the Universities, he really thought that interference quite uncalled for and unnecessary; and that the noble Earl's speech in supporting the measure—a speech by no means a short one—was throughout a mere attempt at fighting a shadow. The noble Earl said, that the heads of colleges, in administering this oath or declaration, 521 always said, that it was not required nor expected of the pupil to understand what he was subscribing to. Now, from his own experience, he would boldly contradict this assertion. Nobody in such a situation ever said or implied, by his manner, that it was not incumbent on the student to understand what he was professing to believe. Perhaps the difficulty on this ground might arise from the inaccurate definition applied to the word "understand." In his view of the matter the word understand in many cases, of which the present was one, did not mean a capacity to enter into all the proofs necessary to support the fact believed, nor so thorough a knowledge of all points of dispute as to enable the individual in question to undertake a controversial discussion upon the subject. There were many of the most ordinary truths in nature, many of the points in the Newtonian philosophy, which he fully believed, but which yet he did not feel in a condition to defend if they were disputed. So, in like manner, when the youth on entering the University declared his adherence to the Articles of the Church as established by law, what he then declared amounted to this, that he had hitherto been brought up in that religion of which those Articles were the profession, and that he was desirous of subscribing to the spirit of them, and of being educated in their doctrines. Again, the declaration which they made on this occasion was not like an oath. It was simply a declaration of the individual's belief at the time he made it, for the purpose of satisfying the heads of the college that he was a proper person to be admitted under their tuition. He thought it right to take notice of this point, when he looked to the wording of the preamble of the Bill, which, in using the word "implicit," declared that, "a full understanding was necessary in order to an implicit assent." The next point urged by the noble Earl was the hardship suffered by the Dissenters in being partially excluded from the Universities under the present arrangement. Now this, he must say, with all due respect, was a most futile complaint. He would refer to the opinion expressed on a former occasion by a noble Lord in that House, that religion was an indispensable part of a liberal education. It was well known that when the London University was established, there was a desire to include a religious course, if pos- 522 sible, amongst its advantages; but it was afterwards found to be impracticable to teach religion so as to admit all to the benefit of instruction. In order, therefore, to admit Dissenters of every shade of belief into its classes, the London University had been obliged to exclude religion; and in like manner, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, in order to admit religion into their course of instruction, had been obliged to exclude Dissenters. Whilst on this point he regretted the late decision which the University of Oxford had come to in respect to this subject; he thought that the passing of a declaration of the sense in which the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles was held by them, would have answered all the desired purpose. At the same time he thought the system pursued at Cambridge a very good one. There the pupil was admitted on the understanding that he had adopted the doctrines of the established religion of the country; and if at any time the individual was disposed to change his opinions upon the subject, he was at liberty to withdraw. Upon this arrangement it might be observed that the University was very liberal, as long as education only was concerned, but was closed against the nonconformist applicants as soon as any of the emoluments of the University were in question; but the noble Earl adopted this very principle when he proposed that no persons should participate in the affairs of the University until they had subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles. He would not further detain their Lordships with remarks, but conclude by declaring his intention to support the Amendment which had been moved by the most reverend Prelate below him—that this Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Bishop of Gloucester, considering the manner in which he had been connected with the University of Cambridge, was bound to mention the grounds on which he felt it his duty to vote for the Amendment of the most reverend Prelate, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The noble Earl had stated, that the Bill in its present shape did not touch the University of Cambridge in the least, for that it commanded the University not to do what it had not been in the habit of doing. The noble Earl, however, proposed by his Bill to abolish a certain declaration made by those who were admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts 523 at Cambridge—that they were members of the Church of England as by law established. If, therefore, he thought it was likely that their Lordships would agree to the second reading of this Bill, he should reserve what he had to say on this point for the Committee; but as that was not likely, he should proceed to discuss it at once. It was quite true, as the noble Earl had stated, that the Universities had taken a different line in maintaining uniformity of religious opinion, but although no declaration should be required from the Bachelor of Arts when he proceeded to his degree, he would still have, before he was admitted to his degree of M.A. to subscribe to the three Articles of the 36th Canon, one of which involved an agreement to the Thirty-nine Articles. Connected as he was with the University of Cambridge, he much preferred the method which was there taken, in calling for the declaration of a student's religious belief, to that which was followed at Oxford. This might arise from prejudice, or, perhaps from other reasons; but he could not forget that the interests of both Universities were exactly the same, and that the blow which was aimed at one must affect and wound the other. A change had been made in the time of requiring subscription in the University of Cambridge, but this had originated with the authorities of the University themselves, or rather in a petition preferred by the young men, in which they stated, that at the time of proceeding to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, they had not sufficient time to weigh all the different points of doctrine contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, but that, at the same time, they were firmly persuaded of the truth of those doctrines, but wished their declaration of belief in them to be put in a different form. When he was an officer of the University he came into contact with some old members of the University, who had been parties to that change, and they declared, that in making it, it was not their intention, or the intention of the University, that any persons but such as were members of the Church, should be either admitted to degrees, or to the right of giving tuition. He believed it was very well known, that young men of talent, after taking their degree of Bachelor of Arts, devoted themselves to the tuition of the undergraduates, and it was evident that, from this connexion they must enjoy considerable influence over the minds of 524 their pupils. He looked, however, upon this Bill as the beginning of a series of measures equally hostile to the Universities and the Church, and he hoped their Lordships would allow him to say—and the remark was not one of to-day or yesterday—that whenever an attack was designed against the Church, the Universities were always the first object of assault. He did not mean to insinuate this intention against the noble Lord, who had expressly declared that his views were favourable to its prosperity; but the noble Lord must be well aware that the party who called out for admission into the Universities did so solely from the hope of getting appointed to headships, fellowships, and professorships. This was the course which had always been followed when the same object was to be attained. It was that which was taken by the long Parliament, in the reign of Charles 1st, in 1641 he believed, when one of the first measures directed against the Church was a declaration by the House of Commons that subscription to the three Articles of the 36th Canon was against the law and liberty of the subject, and ought not to be forced upon the members of the University. The consequence was, a fierce dispute in the University, and the University expelled those who would not subscribe. James 2nd, too, in the very first of the attacks he made on the Universities, sent down an order to the University of Cambridge to admit a person to a degree without subscription. This was exactly what was attempted to be done now. He would remind their Lordships that, if this Bill passed, the law of admission to the Universities would be in the most anomalous state possible. He would undertake to say, that more complaints would be heard upon this subject than were now made. The Table would be covered with the complaints of Dissenters, stating that they had been allowed to proceed a certain way; but when they became candidates for the honour of a fellowship, they were obliged to take the degree of M.A., and to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. He was afraid, that after the introduction of controversial habits among the young men of the University, it would be idle to expect the same attention which was now devoted to liberal and scientific pursuits, and he was therefore favourable to the practice of keeping out of view, as much as possible, matters which would, lead to 525 religious controversy. It had been said, that no bad consequences had resulted from the matriculation of some young Dissenters at Cambridge, without requiring them to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. He had observed this circumstance with pleasure, and as far as he had the opportunity of judging, he was bound to admit that no bad consequences had ensued from their admission. But these instances were very few, and when they were admitted, it was not as Dissenters, and indeed many of them afterwards took degrees, and professed themselves members of the Church of England. Others, it was true, left the University without taking a degree, but while they remained in it they participated in its privileges, not on a tacit but an express condition of attendance at lectures, religious as well as others, and at College Chapel, and till they left the University, it was not known, except perhaps to a few private friends, what their own religious opinions, or those of their family, were. He repeated, then, that he was glad that the Dissenters did, in some instances, join in communion with members of the Established Church at the University of Cambridge, but once admit this to be a right, and the case would be entirely reversed. The University would then, instead of being looked up to as a standard of the correctness of religious belief to members of the Established Church, be filled with popular and ardent preachers of the different hostile persuasions, and their Lordships might depend upon it, that the attention of the young men would be more occupied with these controversies than with the subjects which now engaged their minds. The noble Earl must be aware that the measure he proposed was too small and too short to stop here. The noble Earl might destroy subscription, but that would not prevent the adoption of other tests by most of the colleges, if not all; and that the only consequence of the success of the noble Earl's Bill would be, that perhaps one or two colleges in both Universities might admit Dissenters, which would shortly be deserted by all who belonged to the Established Church. Now what would be gained by this? Would it not be better that the Dissenters should endow an University of their own, on the same footing as Oxford and Cambridge, and run a fair and liberal course of competition with them? He did not and could not admit 526 that our Universities were not nurseries for the Church of England. They always had been, and he hoped they always would be so. But if once the Dissenters were admitted there, they would no longer be places for the education of members of the Church of England.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, he was unwilling to give a vote, as he should do, in favour of this Bill, without addressing to their Lordships a few words. With respect to his opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of admitting Dissenters into the Universities, it was unnecessary for him now to go into that part of the question, because in the course of last Session he voted for a Bill which distinctly bore on the present question, and the object of which was to favour the introduction of Dissenters into the Universities. Having voted for that Bill clearly and distinctly—having voted for the question in that shape, he would say he by no means agreed with the right reverend Prelate who spoke last, that it was desirable for tranquillity, for religious peace, that an attempt should be made to put an end to the differences which existed between these classes of his Majesty's subjects, by the division of the parties, by founding distinct Universities for them, instead of inviting them to one place in common, where they would probably become united, where the habits of youth and their pursuit of the same studies would probably exercise a strong influence over them. He was sorry to hear such a proposition as the establishment of separate Universities proceed from such a quarter.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, the noble Lord mistook what he had stated on the subject. He had observed that it was to him a subject of satisfaction that the University to which he belonged had the power of extending the benefits of education to Dissenters, if they chose to accept it on the conditions which it was considered necessary to impose.
§ Viscount Melbourneunderstood the right reverend Prelate to say, that it would be better for the Dissenters to institute Universities of their own than to endeavour to obtain admission into the University to which he belonged. From that opinion he must express his dissent. With respect to the facility afforded by the University of Cambridge to the admission of Dissenters, he agreed with the right reverend Prelate, he knew that it had been pro- 527 ductive of great advantage, and he thought it full time that such liberality was imitated by the sister University. He had listened with great attention to the opinions expressed by the most reverend Prelate who stood at the head of the Church. That most reverend Prelate said, that if the subscription were to be considered as an assent to the Thirty-nine Articles—as an admission of them after they had been carefully examined—that would be quite absurd; and in that case he should agree in all the censures and animadversions that had been cast on the practice. The most reverend Prelate also said, that the parties were desired to subscribe without a question being asked of them, without any examination on the subject—without even the Articles being read to them. If he had wanted the strongest statement he could get to show the gross absurdity of the practice, he must say he would ask for no stronger one than the statement made by the most reverend Prelate on the present occasion. Well, then, if this declaration of opinion to the heads of the University—if it were only a declaration of a willingness to be taught—if it were only a declaration that they were disposed to be instructed in the matter of the articles, why continue a practice which was evidently so absurd in itself?—why, for the sake of preserving it, submit to so much misrepresentation. Why maintain that which was liable to be so attacked, and complained of as it had been, and he was afraid with much justice by his noble Friend. The most reverend Prelate said that the University owed it to itself that it should have proof that those who applied for admission belonged to the Church of England—that it should have proof that the individual was willing to be taught the doctrine of the Church. But what proof, he would ask, existed in this subscription as it had been explained by the most reverend Prelate himself? [The Archbishop of Canterbury: That was the first subscription.] Very well; it was the first subscription; then why not give up that? Why not go that length, which was all that was asked on this subject? At least that was absurd, as appeared on the statement of the most reverend Prelate himself; and undoubtedly there was a great deal more to be said with respect to the subscription required in the further progress in the University. The most reverend Prelate declared, that 528 by pursuing this course the University was preserved in the true religion of this country; and, above all, it had preserved the Universities from being the scene of polemical controversy. Now what was the fact with respect to the tranquillity of these Universities? Both of them had been over and over again disturbed by polemical discussion, but particularly Cambridge which had been agitated in the beginning of the last century. Did not the year 1710 furnish a celebrated instance? Was not that respectable individual, Mr. Wilson, who was a professor, turned out of his University on account of Arian principles? Was not that followed by the controversy between Dr. Waterford and Mr. Middleton, at Oxford. Who did not recollect the great schism which distracted the Church, and out of which sprung the great body of Wesleyan Dissenters? It appeared, then, that the repose mentioned by the most reverend Prelate as a proof of the advantages of the present system, it had not been the good fortune of the Universities to enjoy. If to abstain from religious controversy were a virtue, that virtue had unquestionably not been the boast of the Universities in former times. Why, what did Bacon say in his "Novum Organon" in the passage in which he spoke of ecclesiastical controversy? Strepere argumentis sonare questianibus. Was repose, so desirable at a University? Was nothing at all taught by the emulation and excitement which controversy produced? How was inquiry to be stimulated—how was knowledge to be obtained—so well as by the collision of various and conflicting opinions, Little was his reading in divinity; but he might refer to the effect of controversy on divinity, in those times when the tests originated. If there ever were a man on whom the pure light of knowledge shown, it was Hooker, and what said he? The passage he meant to refer to was in the first book of Ecclesiastical Polity? In arguing on an occasion when several Dissenters were anxious to have a conference, Hooker said, "What need is there of appointing a conference, have you not the University?" He remembered the passage very well, it thus proceeded, "There are many solemn occasions on which all the questions between us and you are brought into dispute; many of you are members of the Universities, and if there are any who are 529 not, and who would appear, you well know that by the courtesy of those learned bodies and learned men, you would be received with welcome, and attentively heard." That was the nature and character of the Universities of that day. They were open to inquiry; they courted investigation; and sought to defend the faith that was in them by argument. They did not seek repose—they did not seek to banish inquiry—they did not claim for themselves a protection against controversy; but, on the contrary, were ready to dispute with any adversaries who presented themselves. It was stated, and perhaps this was the strongest argument urged against the Bill, that if it were passed perhaps it might not prove effectual, because it was certain that the Universities having inherent in themselves, the power to adopt such regulations as they thought decorous might resolve upon something which would be equivalent to the exclusive regulation which was done away with by this Bill. He could not think, however, that the Universities would so conduct themselves after receiving such an admonition from Parliament as this Bill would be considered. Therefore he could not think it would be ineffectual for the purposes for which it was intended. To legislate for the Universities unnecessarily and wantonly would be bad: but it was generally admitted, that this practice should be to a certain degree dispensed with, and he felt pretty certain that they would not dispense with it of themselves. It was for the wisdom of Parliament to prescribe the course on such an occasion. The Universities were the great public seminaries for education; and their being well directed, the prudence of their conduct, and their freedom from reproach were matters of great public interest—of great interest to their Lordships and to the whole community. Surely, then, it was the duty of their Lordships to interpose their authority, and by adopting the Bill they would in his opinion strengthen the influence of the Universities, and much increase their utility.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonthought that the observations of the most reverend Prelate had completely put an end to the question. The Bill which the noble Earl had brought forward was entirely different from that which was introduced last Session. The speech of the noble Earl, however, and the explanation with which he 530 introduced the measure, showed that his intention was precisely the same with the intention of the promoter of the former Bill. The noble Earl's intention—and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had clearly stated this intention to be also his—was, to give the Dissenters a right to enter the Universities. That was the intention of the noble Earl, and that was the intention of the Prime Minister. Now he had an objection to the Bill of the noble Earl for the reason stated by the most reverend Prelate. He conceived there was no cause to complain of the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, as practised in the University of Oxford. He would say that the explanation of the most reverend Prelate was entirely borne out by the statutes of the University, and likewise by the practice which had prevailed there. It might be desirable that there should be some other test adopted, in order to prove that the individual claiming to be matriculated was a member of the Church of England; but that which was most important at Cambridge and Oxford was, that the person to be matriculated was a member of the Church of England. That was the point; and upon that he conceived the whole question turned. The noble Earl, in his observations, alluded to something that fell from him in the course of the discussion of this question last year, viz., that he advised the most reverend Prelate not to consent to this Bill, because by such consent they would carry up to the Throne for his Majesty's assent, a measure which would tend to subvert the union between the Church and the State. That argument was neither more nor less than this—that the education of both the Universities must be education in the religion of the Church of England. That was necessary—it was the very foundation on which the Universities stood. He contended that they could not go to the King with a Bill that had for its object to establish a system of education in the Universities different in principle from the Church of England, without attacking the principle of union between the Church and State. But the noble Lord said, that the Church did not claim from individuals any subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. True, it did not; nor would the University of Oxford claim the subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles, except as evidence that the person was a member of a family who belonged to the Established Church. 531 It was contended last year, and by the noble Earl this year, that individuals might be admitted into both the Universities who were not members of the Church of England, notwithstanding the Subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles. He admitted this; but there was a great difference between this and allowing Dissenters by right to enter the Universities. What he contended for was, that the system of religion taught should be that of the Established Church; but if Dissenters were admitted of right, he was apprehensive that not only would not the religion of the Established Church be taught, but that no religion of any kind would be taught there. He stated this opinion on the authority of a publication, from which it appeared, that at a college established to teach ministers of dissenting persuasions it had been found impossible to adopt any creed or any system for any considerable length of time. He confessed he was surprised when he heard the noble Lord the first Minister of the Crown come down to this House and declare his preference for the existence of polemical disputes in the Universities. He should have thought the object of a Minister of the Crown would have been, by all means to protect the Universities from all such disputes, and to preserve any system of religion whatever from being attacked by differences of opinion. He confessed that it appeared to him that the Bill of the noble Earl, if it had really for its object to prevent the signature of the Articles, did not go far enough for the attainment of the object the noble Earl had in view. As was truly stated by the noble Viscount, the Universities were enabled to make regulations respecting the taking of degrees, which might interfere with a Bill like the present; the Colleges, indeed, by the will of their founders, and by their original charters, were compelled to make certain regulations on this subject, under which they acted. If this measure, therefore, passed, they would have to take other measures to insure the object they intended to attain by the signature of the Thirty-nine Articles. The noble Earl had not only compared the two Universities with foreign Universities, but also drew a parallel between the practice prevailing at the present day, and that which existed in those two learned bodies shortly after the Reformation. Now, he agreed with the most reverend Prelate in contending that no parallel 532 could be drawn between the English and Foreign Universities. The sects in the two Universities were the children of the Reformation. These sects were most necessary, and were intended to preserve the standard of the religion of the Church of England. If they were to have no established religion in the country—if every man was to have his own religion in the Universities—if every man was at liberty to frame a system of religion for himself in these corporations, then let their Lordships take the Bill of the noble Earl with all its consequences, which must inevitably follow from it, namely, constant polemical disputes, and all the other consequences which the noble Viscount regarded as proper for the Universities. Supposing the object of the noble Earl to be just, and supposing it to be desirable to put an end to these subscriptions and to all tests, he (the Duke of Wellington) conceived that no mode of effecting that object could be deemed so objectionable in its nature as by the interference of Parliament with those bodies, instituted as they were by charter, and solemn y sanctioned by Acts of Parliament. He thought that those who contended in favour of the Universities had a right to complain when they found arrayed against them the Ministers of the Crown and the policy of the Government. They had a right to expect that the noble Viscount, and the other noble Lords on the bench opposite, would support inviolate the rights, the authority, and the privileges of the Universities, as granted and conferred by ancient charters. Instead of this, however, they found the Ministers of the Crown exercised their power, their influence and abilities in support of this measure, which had for its object the overthrow of the institutions and authority of the English Church. The noble Viscount shook his head, apparently in dissent from his opinions; but did the noble Viscount think that the University of Oxford could maintain its authority if such a Bill as this became the law of the land? On what, he would ask, was the preamble of this Bill grounded, and the charges embodied in it? Had any of those charges been proved? Notwithstanding the complaints made in the preamble that individuals had been prevented from resorting to the University of Oxford, in consequence of these tests, was it not an admitted fact that at that moment there were hundreds waiting to 533 obtain education, and to be admitted to reside in the Halls and Colleges of that University? There were many hundreds of persons now residing in the town who were unable to get residences in the various Colleges of Oxford. He contended, therefore, that there was no ground for the complaint as stated in the preamble of the Bill, and there was no ground for Parliamentary interference by means of a Bill like the present. He entirely concurred in the statement made by the most reverend Prelate as to the consequences that would flow from this measure. Would any man tell him that he believed, after this Bill passed, that the public would not understand that the meaning of it was, to proceed against the institutions of the Church of England. It was impossible that this should not be believed. The measure itself was apparent on the face of it, although it merely stated, that the Articles of the Church should be signed at a more advanced age. Noble Lords, however, must know that the Bill was not effectual for the purpose which was contended for. It extended to other views: those who attentively considered the measure would perceive that the great object of it was, to inflict a blow on the University of Oxford and against the interests of the Church. Under these circumstances he felt that it was a measure that the House should not adopt, and he earnestly recommended their Lordships to vote for the amendment of the most reverend Prelate.
The Earl of Radnorwas understood in reply to say, that if the Universities persisted in making the pupils subscribe the Articles, they ought, at any rate, to state the circumstances of each case: for instance, that one lad was aged twelve years, and understood them; another aged fourteen, and did not; a third, aged sixteen, and had not read them; and so on. This would not be liable to the objections the present mode was open to. The original object of having tests was to exclude the Roman Catholics from the Universities. At the time they were enforced, a number of Catholics were secretly living in the Universities, and yet were not directly connected with any of the colleges. The tests were first introduced in 1681. He would not detain the House; but he protested against the interpretation put on the Bill by the noble Duke.
§ Viscount Melbournewished to say a 534 few words in explanation of what had previously fallen from him. He did not intend to express any disapprobation of the Thirty-nine Articles. He thought, considering the time they were drawn, that they embraced much that was excellent and wise, but at the same time they contained much which he could not help thinking was unnecessary in the present day. For instance, in one of them it was denied that it was a doctrine of Christians to have a community of goods; in another it was asserted that the magistrates had a right to punish for civil offences; and in a third, that it was lawful to go to war. These opinions it might be necessary to insert in the Articles at the time they were framed; but it did not appear to him to be necessary to retain them. With these exceptions he thought that they were excellent, and were drawn up with great prudence, wisdom, and moderation.
§ The Duke of Richmondmerely wished to say a very few words in explanation of the reasons which would induce him to vote for the second reading of the Bill. He was anxious to do so to prevent any misapprehension arising as to the motives which induced him to pursue the course he intended to follow. He denied that this Bill, if passed, could be construed into an attack on the Church establishment of the country or the Thirty-nine Articles. If he thought so he would not support it, but he felt that it was absurd to call upon the youth at the Universities to subscribe to the Articles of the Church before he could be aware of their nature. He was an advocate for the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, because he believed, that by their being sent there it was probable that many of them would be converted to what he, in his conscience, believed to be the true faith, namely, that of the Protestant Church of England. He was of opinion that there should be some tests as regarded the tutors, but none to be taken by the pupils. He thought if the Bill went into Committee that his noble Friend would find that the second clause of it required some amendment. He thought that great caution should be taken as to the tutors appointed in the Universities.
§ Their Lordships divided.
§ Contents present 28; Not-contents present 85–57. Contents proxies 29; Not-contents proxies 78–Majority 106.
| List of the NOT-CONTENTS.—PRESENT. | |
| DUKES. | Hay(Earl of Kinnoul) |
| Cumberland | Boston |
| Leeds | Camden (Earl of Brecknock) |
| Newcastle | |
| Wellington | Montagu |
| MARQUESSES. | Kenyon |
| Salisbury | Douglas |
| Hertford | Gage (Viscount Gage) |
| Bute | Saltersford (Earl of Courtown) |
| Cholmondeley | |
| Westmeath | Northwick |
| Camden | Farnham |
| EARLS. | Dufferin |
| Westmorland | Redesdale |
| Shaftesbury | Sheffield (Earl of Sheffield) |
| Abingdon | |
| Jersey | Colchester |
| Poulett | Ker (Marquis of Lothian) |
| Morton | Ormonde (Marquess of Ormonde) |
| Selkirk | Maryborough |
| Orkney | Oriel (Vist. Ferrers) |
| Aylesford | Ravensworth |
| De Lawarr | Forester |
| Hillsborough (Marquess of Downshire) | Downes |
| Bexley | |
| Digby | Penshurst (Viscount Strangford) |
| Bexley | |
| Mansfield | Wharncliffe |
| Carnarvon | Lyndhurst |
| Caledon | Tenterden |
| Rosslyn | Cowley |
| Romney | Skelmersdale |
| Wilton | Wallace |
| Limerick | De Lisle |
| Lonsdale | Fitzgerald |
| Harewood | Ashburton |
| Verulam | ARCHBISHOP. |
| Brownlow | Canterbury |
| Beauchamp | BISHOPS. |
| Glengall | London |
| De Grey | Lincoln |
| Amherst | St. David's |
| VISCOUNTS. | Carlisle |
| Maynard | Rochester |
| Gordon,(Earl of Aberdeen) | Llandaff |
| Exmouth | Gloucester |
| Combermere | Exeter |
| Canterbury | Hereford |
| BARONS. | Elphin |
| Saltoun | |
| Colville | |
| PROXIES. | |
| DUKES. | EARLS. |
| Beaufort | Pembroke |
| Rutland | Chesterfield |
| Manchester | Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch) |
| Dorset | |
| Northumberland | Howe |
| Buckingham | Airlie |
| MARQUESSES. | Leven |
| Bath | Macclesfield |
| Thomond | Warwick |
| Exeter | Guilford |
| Hardwicke | Braybrooke |
| Bathurst | Stewart of Garlies |
| Norwich (Duke of Gordon) | (Earl of Galloway) |
| Rolle | |
| Talbot | Carrington |
| Mount Edgecumbe | Bayning |
| Malmesbury | Wodehouse |
| Mount Cashel | Ellenborough |
| O'Neil | Arden |
| Onslow | Ardrossan (Earl of Eglintoun) |
| Clancarty | |
| Powis | Manners |
| Manvers | Hopetown (Earl of Hopetown) |
| Orford | |
| Bradford | Churchill |
| Eldon | Harris |
| Somers | Clanbrassil (Earl of Roden) |
| VISCOUNTS. | |
| Hereford | De Tabley |
| Arbuthnot | Feversham |
| Strathallan | Melros (Earl of Haddington) |
| Melville | |
| Sidmouth | Heytesbury |
| Beresford | Clanwilliam (Earl of Clanwilliam) |
| BARONS. | |
| De Roos | ARCHBISHOPS. |
| Willoughby do Broke | York |
| Forbes | Tuam |
| Grey | BISHOPS. |
| Sinclair | Durham |
| Monson | Winchester |
| Walsingham | Salisbury |
| Bagot | Lichfield |
| Southampton | Worcester |
| Grantley | Chester |
| Tyrone (Marquess of Waterford) | |
| List of the CONTENTS.—PRESENT. | |
| DUKE. | Lilford |
| Richmond | Melbourne (Viscount Melbourne) |
| MARQUESS. | |
| Lansdowne | Foley |
| EARLS. | Minster (Marquess Conyngham) |
| Suffolk | |
| Ilehester | Brougham and Vaux |
| Charlemont | Kenlis (Marquess of Headfort) |
| Chichester | |
| Minto | Clements (Earl of Leitrim) |
| Gosford | |
| Lichfield | Howden |
| Radnor | Mostyn |
| VISCOUNT. | Duncannon (Viscount Duncannon) |
| Torrington | |
| BARONS. | Glenelg |
| Teynham | Strafford |
| Howland(Marquess of Tavistock) | BISHOPS. |
| Chichester | |
| Holland | Bristol |
| Auckland | |
| PROXIES. | |
| DUKES. | MAKQUESS. |
| Sussex | Anglesey |
| Portland | EARLS. |
| Bedford | Shrewsbury |
| Norfolk | Mulgrave |
| Spencer | Plunket |
| Burlington | Poltimore |
| Essex | Stourton |
| Carlisle | Gainsborough |
| VISCOUNTS. | Saye and Seale |
| Hood | Dorchester |
| Leinster (Duke of Leinster) | Templemore |
| Mendip (Viscount Clifden) | |
| Lake | King |
| BARONS. | |
| Godolphin | Carleton (Earl of Shannon) |
| Tunbridge (Duke of Argyl) | BISHOP. |
| Lyttleton | Bath and Wells. |
| Dacre |
§ Second reading put off for six months.