But in reference to our argument:-If men in the situations, and with the authority of Lloyd and Marsh, endeavoured thus to promote the study of Eichhorn and his school among the academic youth; either the opinions of the German Divines are not such as the Advocate and others have found it convenient to represent them; or (quod absit !) these opinions are already throned in the high places of the English Universities and Church, in spite of the very oaths and subscriptions which it is argued are necessary in order to exclude them.*

[But of the value of Oath and Subscription in Oxford and Cambridge, I have elsewhere spoken in the previous and ensuing articles.]

VII-ON THE RIGHT OF DISSENTERS TO ADMISSION

ITNO THE ENGLISH UNIVERSITIES.

(SUPPLEMENTAL.)

(JANUARY, 1835.)

1. Speech of Henry, Lord Bishop of Exeter, on occasion of a Petition from certain Members of the Senate of Cambridge, presented to the House of Lords on Monday, April 21, 1834, 8vo. London: 1834.

2. Substance of a Speech delivered in the House of Commons on Wednesday, March 26, 1834, by Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Bart., in reference to a Petition from certain Members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge. 8vo. London : 1834.

THE opponents and supporters of the recent measure for restoring the English Universities to their proper character of unexclusive schools, may pretend indifferently to the honour of having argued their cases in the worst possible manner; and in the cloud of pamphlets, (we have seen nearly thirty), and throughout the protracted discussions in Parliament, which this question has drawn forth, the reasons most confidently urged by the former, are precisely those which, as suicidal, they ought especially to have eschewed; and these same reasons, though cautiously avoided, as unanswerable, by the latter, are the very grounds on which the necessity not only of this, but of far more important measures of academical reform, were to be triumphantly established. So curious, in fact, was the game at cross purposes, that

the official defenders of things as they are in Oxford and Cambridge do, on the principle of their own objection to this partial restoration of the ancient academic order, call out for a sweeping overthrow of the actual administration of these establishments; and we are confident of proving before the conclusion of the present article, that, unless apostates not only from their reasoning on this question, but from their professions of moral and religious duty, we have a right to press into the service, as partisans of a radical reform in Oxford, (besides the Chancellor of that University, his Grace of Wellington,) the Bishop of Exeter, and Sir Robert Inglis themselves. From the general tenor of their politics, but in particular from their personal relations to this University, (the one its representative, the other long a member of its collegial interest,) these eminent individuals were the natural, and on the late occasion, the strenuous, champions in Parliament of the party now dominant in Oxford;-indeed so satisfied do they appear with their own achievements in the debate, that they, and they only, have deemed their principal speeches, in opposition to the Dissenters' claim, of sufficient consequence to merit publication in a separate form.

In the article on this subject in our last Number, we were compelled to omit or hurry over many important matters.-One portentous error, common to both sides, we indeed (for the second time) exposed, that the English Universities are the complement or general incorporation of the Colleges;-an assumption and admission, from which the partisans of exclusion were able legitimately to infer,—that, as the constituent parts were private or exclusive foundations, the constituted whole could not be a national or unexclusive establishment.-There was, however, another not less important error, on which we could only touch and in regard to the argument attempted to be drawn from the injustice of interfering with trustees in the faithful exercise of their duty, so confidently advanced by Dr Philpotts and Sir Robert Inglis, we merely stated, in passing, how gladly we joined issue with them on the principle; and now proceed in supplement of our previous paper, to show, that, when fully and fairly applied, this principle affords a result the very converse of that anticipated either by those who so rashly brought it to bear upon the question, or by those who allowed it to pass without even an attempt at rejoinder.-The following is the argument as pointed by the two Oxford advocates:

The Bishop of Exeter.-" My Lords, it is, I apprehend, an admitted principle, that where a corporation has received its charter for a specific purpose, the law of England repels, and the legislature of England has hitherto repelled, every attempt to break in upon that corporation, except on an allegation either that its members have omitted to perform the duties for which they were incorporated, or that the purposes for which they were incorporated were originally, or have been declared by subsequent enactments to be illegal, immoral, or superstitious.

"Such, I will venture to say, is the principle of the law of England in respect to corporations; and even if a lawyer could devise any plea in derogation of it, I am quite sure that there is no Englishman of plain understanding who would not proclaim his assent to the reasonableness of that principle. Now, is it, can it be alleged, that either of the universities, or that any of the colleges within them, have violated the duties of their corporate character, or that they have abused the powers intrusted to them for the performance of those duties, or that the purposes and object of their incorporation are illegal, immoral, superstitious, or otherwise condemnable? My Lords, no man has ventured, nor will any man venture to say any of these things. On what pretence, then, could Parliament dare-(forgive the word, my Lords; when a man feels strongly, he will not scruple to speak strongly, but your Lordships will not, I am sure, think the word needs an apology, for you would not dare to do what is wrong ;)—on what pretence, then, I ask, would Parliament dare to set a precedent, which would destroy every thing like the principle of property as connected with corporations, and would violate all the sacredness that belongs to oaths-ay, my Lords, the sacredness of oaths? I say this, because it must not be forgotten, that the members of the University of Oxford have sworn that they will obey their statutes, and I doubt not they will keep that oath inviolate. Parliament may have the power to destroy these bodies, but Parliament has not the power-and, if such a thing shall be attempted, Parliament will find that it has not the power-to make these illustrious bodies faithless to the sacred duties which they have sworn to discharge. My Lords, the University of Oxford I know well-many of my happiest years have been passed within it-and from that knowledge of it I speak, when I proclaim my firm conviction, that if both houses of Parliament shall pass the bill which has been brought into the other House, and if his Majesty shall, unhappily, be advised, and shall yield to the advice, to give to it the royal assent—you will not at Oxford find a man-certainly very, very few men, who would not submit to be penniless and homeless, to be outcasts on the world, rather than do that which they now, it seems, are to be required to do—to be parties to the desecration of what they hold to be most sacred, and to the destruction of what they deem to be most valuable in this life, because it is connected with the interests of the life to come."-(Speech, &c., p. 11, &c.)

Sir Robert Inglis.-" The honourable and learned member for Dublin contends, that as the legislature interfered once with the Universities, it has a right to interfere again; but I put it upon the score of common honesty and honour, whether any gentleman in private life would sanction the principle of taking back a gift because you happened to bestow it? Tell

me, if you please, that the gift was a trust, and that the trust has been abused, and then I can understand you. Until it can be proved, however, that the two Universities have betrayed their trust, you cannot in good faith or common honesty require us to restore the boon which you gave. I do not consider the question to be, whether the University was founded by Catholics or Dissenters. The present possession has lasted 600 years; and unless [which in his speech of the 26th March Sir Robert says, ' is not even alleged'] it can be proved that the trust has been abused, I contend that it ought not to be disturbed. Is the House prepared to take away the rights and privileges of this University without any proof of delinquency?"(March 21, 1834, Mirror of Parliament, vol. ii. p. 983).

"I know how unpopular the practice is in this House of even referring to the oaths which any honourable member has taken; but I will not shrink from that duty, whether the individuals who have taken these oaths be members of the Church of Rome, or members of the Protestant Church of England. Many there are sitting on the opposite side of the House, and who, I almost fear, are prepared to vote for the second reading of this bill, who are bound in the strongest manner, by solemn oaths, to uphold the two Universities. I call upon the House, and upon these honourable members, to listen while I venture to read to them the oaths which they took when they were admitted into the Universities. I take the oath of matriculation at Cambridge, which the members of the opposite bench have taken. . . . The words of the oath, on proceeding to a degree, go even farther, and bind the party to maintain, not only the honour and dignity of the University— which he might contend he consults by admitting Dissenters--but even the statutes, and ordinances, and customs, which he cannot deceive himself in supposing that this bill upholds. The words on this occasion, addressed by the Vice-Chancellor to the party, are-'Jurabis quod statuta nostra, ordinationes, et consuetudines approbatas observabis.' I ask the honourable member for Wiltshire, and every other honourable member who has had the advantage of a university education, to consider the nature of the oath which they so solemnly took. If there be faith in man—if there be any use in religious instruction, I ask honourable members to pause before they vote in favour of the measure now before us. I do assure the noble Lord that I do not quote these oaths in any other spirit than that in which I would wish him to address ME, if he believed that on any occasion I was incurring the risk of violating any such engagement."—(June 20, 1834, Mirror of Parliament, vol. iii. p. 2354.)

The whole reasoning in these quotations, is drawn from two places: the one, the Rights of public Trustees; the other, the Obligation of the Academic Oaths.

I. The reasoning from the former place—the Rights of public Trustees-is as follows:-Trustees created by and for the public, who have continued faithfully to discharge their duty, ought not (what the admission of the Dissenters, it is assumed, will actually occasion,) to be superseded or compelled to resign ;-The gover