afety of the
established church.

_June 10, 1835._

* * * * *

_Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles._

I conceive that there is no cause to complain of the subscription to the
thirty-nine articles, as practised in Oxford. The explanation given by
the most reverend prelate is entirely borne out by the statues of the
university, and by the practice that prevails there; and this
explanation agrees entirely with that given by a right reverend prelate,
who was formerly head of one of the colleges at Oxford. It might,
perhaps, be desirable that some other test should be adopted to prove
that the individuals to be matriculated are members of the church of
England; the most important point is, that Cambridge and Oxford should
be filled only by members of the Church of England--upon that I consider
the whole question to rest. The noble earl said, in the course of the
discussion, that I advised your lordships not to consent to the bill
introduced last session; because, if you did, you would have to carry
to the foot of the throne a measure which would tend to subvert the
union between church and state. My meaning in so doing was neither more
nor less than this--that it was absolutely necessary that the
universities, founded as they are, should educate their members in the
religion of the church of England. Your lordships could not go to the
king, and ask his consent to a bill which had for its object to
establish in the university a system of education different from that of
the church of England, without attacking the very foundation of the
principle of the connexion between church and state. But the noble lord
says, the church herself does not exact subscription to the thirty-nine
articles from each individual. It is very true that the church of
England does not require subscription from her members, nor would the
university of Oxford require it, but as a proof that the person
subscribing was a member of that church, or of the family of a member
thereof.

The noble earl stated that individuals might obtain admittance to the
universities both of Oxford and Cambridge, notwithstanding that they
were dissenters; but there is a great deal of difference between
casually admitting dissenters, and permitting them to enter into the
universities as a matter of right. I see no objection to the admission
of the few now admitted, who must submit to the regulations and
discipline of the university, and o