sons qualified to take degrees in the schools, and ordered that no such degree, should be granted to any person who did not subscribe to the tests required. There was however, one material point connected with that letter, to which he wished particularly to draw the attention of the House. The King did not, in that letter, direct the University to pass a grace, adopting and confirming his instruction. Although he was bound to admit, that this letter was subsequently acted upon, yet it must be recollected that no law was passed by the University to give it effect. It was not very surprising, indeed, that the University should have acted under royal command, for in those days it was well known that his Majesty was in the habit of acting in a somewhat peremptory manner, even with the House of Commons, as its Journals demonstrate. The House of Commons, in those days, did not always display any vehement inclination to resist the King's authority; for although, when his Majesty sent a message to the House, desiring that a conference should forthwith take place with the House of Lords, the House refused to obey the royal mandate; yet, when the King sent a second message, desiring that a conference should take place between the Commons and the Judges of the land, and when there was thus a direct interference on the part of the Crown, with the privileges of the House, the consternation and the astonishment were so great, that none of the Members could, for some time, speak. At length a Member stood up to address the House; but all he ventured to state was, "That the King's command is like a thunderbolt, not to be withstood; or it is like the roaring of a lion, but how and in which manner we are to obey it, is the only question." Now, was it not clear, if to the Commons of England the order of his Majesty was so terrible, that it could only be compared to a thunderbolt, or the roaring of a lion, it was was not at all surprising that the doctors of Cambridge should give a reluctant consent to the orders of such a sovereign? In the year 1641-a period to which he was aware some of his hon. friends opposite would not attach much importancein that year, 1641, the test was repealed altogether, and it continued a dead letter until the year 1660, when the test was again renewed. He was now merely stating, that which was a matter of history; he did not argue that the test was necessarily improper, because it was repealed in 1641. His argument was this: that the test was improperly imposed in the outset. He was not arguing, because it was set aside in 1641, that it ought to be set aside now; but he maintained, that the time had arrived, when the test of the University of Cambridge should be done away with, whether it was to be effected by legislative enactment, or by the timely concession of the University itself. In 1772, that which before was but an usurpation of the Crown, became, by a new Grace, University law; but in place of calling upon the candidates for certain degrees to subscribe to the three articles of the 36th canon, they were merely required to sign a declaration, to the effect that they were bona fide members of the Established Church. That Grace was now acted upon at Cambridge, where the law was, that no person shall proceed to take a degree, whether of Doctor or Bachelor of Divinity, Doctor of Law or Physic, without subscribing to the three articles of the 36th canon; and no Bachelor of Arts could take his degree without declaring that he was, bona fide, a member of the Established Church of England. It might be said, if he objected to these tests as invading religious liberty, that he had argued upon abstract principles against these tests; but he was enabled to prove, that, even at the period when these tests were first legally imposed, they worked most injuriously, as regarded the interests of the university itself, and that the ill effects of the test were felt as soon as the grace of 1772 had passed. He begged to draw the special attention of those Gentlemen, who considered that but little practical inconvenience was felt by the existence of the test, to an important case, which clearly illustrated his argument. It was, generally, a painful infliction on the House to be obliged to listen to an extract from a printed book, but he hoped that the importance of the case under discussion would plead his apology. The case was as follows: In the month of January, 1773, Mr. Thomas Blackburne, student of St. Peter's College, having passed the usual examination in his own society, and who, in the senate-house, had ap plied for the degree of Bachelor in Arts, was rejected. His testimonials and qualifications were as follow:-at the close of the examin ation, in his own college, the master signed a paper, importing that Mr. Blackburne, with two other persons, had resided for the major This "supplicat," or petition for his degree, is next presented to the caput; the subscription book is called for, and his name not appearing in its place, the Vice-Chancellor refuses to read his “supplicat," and he is consequently refused his degree. part of such a number of terms as the statute | laws. But was he now to be told, that, requires. A grace for his degree was then after repealing the Test and Corporation passed in College, which implies an approba- Acts, this invidious test could still be tion of his moral conduct and proficiency in allowed to remain at the Universities learning. He appears in the senate-house at as a barrier against all who were not the customary hours of examination; and, as he was a youth who had greatly distinguished of the Established Church? The thing himself in all the previous exercises, is parti- was preposterous in principle, and indefencularly noticed during the time of trial. He sible in practice. It could not be mainpasses through that trial with applause; and, tained; and if he was called upon to in the judgment of the moderators, and all argue this case, he felt that he must almost the examiners, is declared worthy of all the fight with a shadow. It was not for honours which the University is wont to behim to argue that no inconveniences stow upon approved merit. At the close of would result from the abolition of those this examination, when nothing now remained but what is too frequently regarded distinctions. The onus lay on the other as a mere form and ceremony, the conscien- side. It rested with those who argued tious young man hints to the master and tutor in favour of restrictions, to show the of his college, his objections to the declaration dangers that were likely to arise if those required by the grace of 1771, and delivers restrictions were removed. He hoped it into their hands the following declaration :would be understood, that he was confin"I, Thomas Blackburne, do hereby declare my full persuasion of the truth of the ing himself to this petition from the UniChristian religion, as exhibited in the versity of Cambridge. He was not arguScriptures; that I have hitherto commu- ing the case as regarded the University of nicated with the Established Church, and Oxford. He was not, from personal experihave no present intention of communi- ence, acquainted with the practice of that cating with any other." University, but he must say, from all that he had heard and understood, the University of Oxford had at least acted with something like logical consistency. They said, "We hold ourselves a part of the Established Church, and into that Church no Dissenters can enter." But what said the Petitioners from the University of Cambridge to the Dissenters ? "We have found you, by experience, as good members of our colleges as ourselves; you are as amenable to college rules and discipline as any of the members who belong to the Established Church." But then, said the University to the Dissenters: “You may go through our studies to a certain extent; but beyond that limit you shall not pass.' That exclusion was wrong in principle; let the House only see how it worked; let them look to the practical effect of this exclusion. The University could only exclude Dissenters from degrees, and thereby they protected, not the orthodoxy of the colleges through which these Dissenters had already passed, but the orthodoxy of the Bar and of the College of Physicians! They subjected the Dissenters to a disqualification which could not be of any public benefit to Cambridge. Did the case rest merely upon reasoning ?-did it depend upon general principles only?— or had they no experience to justify the admission of Dissenters to University honours and degrees? In his mind, one of the most powerful arguments in favour Was not that example worth all the argu- U 66 ' of the privileges or revenues thereof to 'support or encourage Popery, or those hallowed walls made the residence of superstition and tyranny. If, however, it be determined to open the Universities to Catholics, let the British Minister 'first procurean Act of Parliament to open the English Universities, and then the bitter potion may be more readily swallowed by the infatuated and betrayed Protestants of Ireland.' If the name of" Dissenter" was substituted for "Roman Catholic," and the term "Atheism " for "superstition," and "treason" for tyranny," they might read in that speech, so altered, some of the arguments which were now urged against the claims of the Dissenters. Such was the only argument made use of;-and by whom? By no other person than Dr. Duigenan, It was, therefore, the torn and worn-out mantle which had dropped from the shoulders of that character, once distinguished in the annals of Irish bigotry, which clothed and covered those who now opposed the just claims of the Dissenters. He had little more to say on this subject; but he could not conclude without explaining the motives which induced the petitioners to submit their views to the consideration of that House. They followed this course, because, under the present constitution of the University of Cambridge, this question could not be discussed or considered within the walls of the University; and, therefore, it was, that the honourable and respected individuals who had signed the petition, could not be fairly charged with having passed over the legitimate and academic mode of attaining their object; on the contrary, they had been compelled, by the constitution of the University, to appeal to Parliament itself. He admitted, that if within the walls of the University this question could have been considered with hopes of ultimate, if not immediate, success;-if the great principles at issue could have received that calm and temperate discussion which would satisfy the minds of reasonable men, so as to persuade them that, however retarded at the outset, truth must, in the end, prove suc of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, was the illustration referred to by the learned member for Dublin, with regard to the admission of Dissenters to the University of that city. If the experiment of admitting Dissenters into Trinity College, Dublin, had been tried without any danger to the Established Church; if this experiment had been successfully made in a country where civil and religious discord prevailed, and where party-spirit ran high-by what process of reasoning could the Dissenters be justly excluded from the Universities of another and a more favoured country, where, undoubtedly, and fortunately, more moderate opinions prevailed? Under the ancient Statutes of Elizabeth, Protestant Dissenters were admitted into the University of Dublin, as in Cambridge, without any religious tests, long before the Act of 1793. In that year, however, an Act was introduced for the purpose of admitting Roman Catholics. That Statute was the Act of Mr. Pitt; it was introduced on the authority of the Government of the day, and, by the provisions of that Act, Roman Catholics were admitted to all the honours of the University, and were only excluded from the offices of Provost and Fellow. This Act, passed by a Parliament of which the Provost was a Member, and to which the Representatives of the College were acquiescing parties, met with no opposition; on the contrary, as far as the University was concerned, there was but one objection. He entreated that the consideration of the House might be directed to the nature of that objection, and to the character of the party by whom it was raised. This objection referred not to the admission of Catholics to degrees, but to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from the offices of Provost and Fellow; and it was contended by the party who urged it, that no Roman Catholic should, in future, be excluded from those offices. By whom was that Amendment proposed? Why, by John Claudius Beresford; a man, he need hardly say, not peculiarly friendly to the claims of the Roman Catholics. It was true that the Act itself was opposed; and he would read to the House an ex-cessful;-if the petitioners could entertain tract from the Speech in which that oppo- such expectations, and they neglected to sition was expressed :-It was this, God submit their complaints to the investiga'forbid that I should ever see the pious tion of the authorities of the University, 'intentions of the royal founders of the they might, perhaps, be reproached with ⚫ Universities frustrated by any perversion I forgetting that respect which was due to their associates, and the heads of colleges. To those gentlemen who were familiar with the practice of this University, the reasons must be obvious why the petitioners had not adopted the course thus suggested. But as many hon. Members were altogether unconnected with the University, and consequently were ignorant of the principles by which its proceedings were regulated, it might be necessary to advert to the peculiar circumstances which induced the petitioners to lay their petition before the House. There was, at the University, an authority called the "caput," composed of the Vice-Chancellor, the Heads of Faculties, and two Masters of Arts, to whom all propositions whatever must be submitted before they could even be discussed in the Senate; and the veto of any one member of the caput prevented any question proposed from being considered or discussed by the senate. Mr. Hume, in his "Essay on the Peculiar Customs of Certain Nations," had alluded to the liberum veto of the Polish Diet, as inconsistent with the functins of any deliberative assembly; and yet such a liberum veto existed in the caput of Cambridge, and was used and extended in later times to prevent any proposition which was objected to from coming under the consideration of the Senate. If he were asked why the caput was not tried, he need only state, that his hon. friend (Mr. Pryme), one of the distinguished members of the University, and one who had uniformly directed his attention to its interests, proposed to the caput that a committee, or syndicate, should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring whether religious tests could or could not be dispensed with; and the proposal was at once negatived by the caput. Dr. Hewitt, also a member of the caput, acknowledging, for argument's sake to his colleagues, that religious tests might have something to do with other things, but denying that they should at all interfere with the grant of a medical degree-proposed that these tests should be dispensed with in regard to degrees in the profession to which he belonged. Both these very moderate and just demands were rejected. It was, therefore, very doubtful whether, without legislative interference, the University of Cambridge was ever likely to release the Dissenters from the disabilities under which they laboured at the University. But they were met by the objection, that Parliament had no right to interfere in the concerns of this University. Had not Parliament already interfered ;-aye, and to a far greater extent than was now proposed by the individuals who had signed this petition? Were there not upon the Statute-book interferences infinitely stronger than those which they were now called upon to discuss? He asked the House to recollect, in reference to this part of the question, the Statute of Elizabeth, by which Parliament proportioned the corn rents; and which was framed not merely with the view of protecting the property of the University, but which was passed to regulate the appropriation of the revenues of the several Colleges; and which stated how much ought to be given for the commons of Colleges, and how much for other uses. Therefore, if the House were referred back to ancient usages-to the wisdom of our ancestors-on historical grounds, it could not be doubted that Parliament had the full power of interfering by a legislative enactment with the practice or regulations of this University. There was likewise the Irish Act of 1793, which was passed, not at the request of or by the consent of the College of Dublin, but by the Irish Parliament on its own authority, and on general grounds of policy and expediency; and which removed the disabilities under which one great class of the King's subjects laboured, in consequence of their religious belief. He begged further to call the attention of the House to another fact: in the year 1771, when it was proposed to excuse persons applying for a Bachelor of Arts degree from subscribing to the tests, the Caput declared, that it had no power to make so material a change, or undertake so great a measure, without a solemn decision of the legislature. He had no positive authority for that statement, further than that which was derived from contemporaneous writings, and uncontradicted controversies of the day. Now, however, the cry was raised," Parliament has no right to interfere-it cannot infringe on the privileges of the Universities;" and those who maintained the cause of the Dissenters were declared to be poachers on the University manors; and were warned off as trespassers after notice. These two statements were not both defensible. Parliament could not be at once the proper tribunal to appeal to, and an authority which had no right to inter fere. If the House were directed by the | and unsubstantial, and most contradictoprinciples which governed former Parlia- ry, when the House was called on in the ments, the Parliament had the right, if it same breath not to interfere with one chose to exert it, to remove those exclu- Corporation because it was a University, sions to which the Dissenters of this king- and was invited to interfere with another dom were subject; and the example of Corporation because it was called the the northern part of the island proved College of Physicians. He was sure his that it could be done without danger or right hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn) would not inconvenience. Surrounded by gentlemen speak with unkindness or disregard of the from Scotland, he asked them whether religious or conscientious scruples of the the Universities of that country imposed Dissenters. Whatever faults his right hon. any religious test whatever? They had, friend might impute to them, he was conhe believed, no exclusive tests of any de- vinced, that the want of sincerity, and earnscription. Were the honourable Members estness in religious opinions was not one from Scotland, however, less influenced which could be fairly urged against them. Of by religious principle, than the English one thing he was sure, that his right hon. and the Irish? Or were they not, on the friend, amongst the various grounds upon contrary, as strenuously prepared to resist which he might rest his objections to the as fervently, any encroachment upon the petition, would not express any belief that confession of Westminster, as the members among the Dissenters could be discovered of the Church of England would be to a sect of Atheists. However his right hon. oppose the abolition of any one of the friend might lament their differences on Thirty-nine Articles? Had the members ecclesiastical points, he could not but feel, of the Scotch Universities found any in- that these differences, coupled, as they conveniences, either in respect to disci- often were, with great temporal sacrifices, pline, or on the ground of religion, result were the result of sincere and honest confrom their admission of all persuasions of viction on their part. He was sure, too, Christianity? They had, therefore, the that his right hon. friend would not state examples of Scotland and of Ireland at what he had seen in print in reference to the Universities of both countries there the petition,-namely, that there were were no religious tests required; and not attached to it the signatures of the could it be said, that the University of eightieth part of the members of the UniCambridge ought any longer to exercise versity; his right hon. friend would not a privilege founded upon a system of ex- confound the under-graduates with the clusion, so unjust and harassing? It had members of the Senate. If they did not been said, with regard to the civil griev- grant the petitioners their prayer-if they ances under which the Dissenters laboured, did not allow the Dissenters to enjoy that that some regulations should be adopted privilege to which they were entitled, and with respect to admissions to the profes- the concession of which would only be a sions of law and physic, rather than to recurrence to the old principles of the conalter the constitution of the Universities; stitution of the University of Cambridge--if and it was maintained that the University they did not remove the disabilities of which was a Corporation which could not be fairly the Dissenters now complained-how could interfered with. He really thought it was now they be prepared to meet those difficulties rather too late to introduce any argument which such an obstinate course of policy of that description. Let it be stated, that must inevitably occasion? Would it not the cause of the Dissenters was either just be the grossest of all acts of injustice, if or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable, and they both refused the admission to the he was prepared to argue the case; but it Dissenters within the present Universities, could not surely be urged that if the and refused them the means to establish claim were reasonable, it ought not to be Universities of their own? Were they not granted, because it interfered with a Cor- bound to remove all the difficulties which poration? It could not be stated, that stood in the way of the Dissenters' foundthough a measure was right, and would, ing Universities for themselves? They if carried into execution, be generally must, and would have education. It was beneficial, yet that it must not be effected, not in the power of the senate of the Unibecause it might trench upon the supposed versity-it was not in the power of the privileges of an institution. Such argu- caput it was not in the power of the ments, appeared to him, exceedingly weak House, if it were so disposed to deprive |