by this interference? It should be remembered
that those on whom the exclusions fell were men of active and stirring
spirits, men who wrould excite and probably guide the councils of those
with whom they agreed in opinion. It had been said that the dissenters
ought to found universities of their own. He concurred in that argument;
but the English universities would not allow them to do this. When
they proposed such a step, in order to educate the youth of their own
persuasion, and reward them with those honours which the university
denied, and thus sought to secure to themselves academical honours and
privileges, the universities stepped forward and said:--"We will not
only exclude you from our own seats, but will also prevent you from
enjoying the advantages and privileges of a university of your own."
This double ground of exclusion and prohibition was most undefensible.
The colonial secretary was answered by Mr. Goulburn, who argued that in
proportion as the friends of the bill enforced the danger of excluding
dissenters, they rendered manifest the ruinous consequences of
concession. If the dissenters really deemed it so great a hardship to be
deprived of the empty honour of a degree, what would they say, if they
were admitted to degrees, and found a bar raised against their admission
to college emoluments and distinctions? Sir Robert Peel characterised
the bill as an enactment intended to give to Jews, infidels, and
atheists--to the man who professed some religion, and to the man who
professed none--a statutable right of demanding admission into our
universities. Sir E. Inglis and Lord Sandon opposed the bill, contending
that it was impossible to establish any system of religious education in
institutions into which persons professing different religious opinions
were admitted. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, supported the bill,
disclaiming at the same time any hostility to the established church. On
a division the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred
and twenty-one against one hundred and seventy-four. In the committee
the speaker gave his decided opposition to the bill; and some amendments
having been made, it wras read a third time, and passed by a majority of
one hundred and sixty-four against seventy-five. The bill was conducted
in the lords by the Earl of Radnor, who moved the second reading on the
1st of August. The Duke of Gloucester, Chancellor of the University of
Cambridge, denounced