direct object: with nothing less will they be satisfied, and that they are resolved to obtain! This imperious and dictatorial tone-we regret to say they are but too well authorized to use by the pusillanimous subserviency of the ministry to their progressive demands, and by the concomitant acquiescence of a House of Commons in which they reckon, we fear too justly, that they have a predominant interest, and boast, we hope less truly, that they have an omnipotent authority. It is fearful to observe how, with a weak, temporizing, and compromising government--as in a diseased habit of body-every trifling accident becomes a mortal wound. The blunders or the weakness of the ministry, in the affair of the Marriage Bill, have, by successive steps, brought a British House of Commons to vote, in substance, a proposition, so unexpected, so astonishing, so monstrous, as the abrogation of the first, most fundamental, and essentially vital principle of our constitution-the inseparable union of the Church with the State. We The arguments, too, by which the admission of dissenters to the universities is advocated, have gradually grown up from the humbler suggestion of expediency into the imperative assertion of right- Parva metu primò niox sese attollit in auras.' feel that the day is gone by when it might be hoped that these arguments would be tried and decided by the principles either of reason or the Constitution. We know too well that the Dissenters will not, and the ministers dare not, submit the case to those antiquated tribunals; we shall therefore not attempt to preach to the winds or harangue the waves, but we will venture to suggest one or two observations on the more moderate and plausible allegations on which Lord Grey and Mr. Rice rested their concurrence in the claims of the dissenters. They first alleged, as did the Cambridge petition, that the exclusion of dissenters was no part of the ancient constitution of the universities, but an innovation of the narrow-minded and bigoted age of James I. A conclusive answer to that allegation was given on the moment by Sir Robert Peel, and indeed is so obvious, that it seems marvellous that it should have escaped Lord Grey and Mr. Rice-the exclusion began as soon as dissent; they were contemporaneous. In Elizabeth's day the only dissenters were Papists they were immediately excluded by the oath of supremacy: when, in the next reign, Protestant dissent made its appearance, it was excluded by edicts and tests directed specially against it. The conclusion is, that the universities have been from their foundation to the present moment the exclusive seminaries of the Established Church, and at no age, and under no circumstances, did any dissenters claim or, in fact, obtain admission to those establishments; establishments; but, on the contrary, they were, as soon as they appeared, specifically, and without hesitation or objection, even on their own parts, excluded. From this incontrovertible fact, that the universities have been from the days of Alfred to those of William IV. the exclusive seminaries of the established religion, another (and in some respects contradictory) argument was deducedthat, as the majority of the colleges were founded in Roman Catholic times, the Protestant church can have no claim to them. In the first place, we observe that this historical argument would not much advance the claims of the Protestant dissenters. If we conceded that the intention of the founders was to maintain popery, (which we shall show presently that it was not,) and also that such intention was to be conclusive at this day, the argument would prove a little too much, for we should have to restore the universities-not to Mr. Wood or Mr. Wilkes, but-to Mr. O'Connell and Dr. Doyle q. e. a. But the premises are false: the universities themselves, and all the colleges, have been founded on one great principleconnexion with the Religion of the State. Some of them were founded before popery, properly so called, existed-others, (the majority, we admit,) in what may be strictly called popish times-a few when there was an Anglican Catholic church as contradistinguished from that of Rome-and some since the dawn of the Reformation; but in all those cases, the persons who founded, and the law which sanctioned the foundation of these seminaries, had, and could have, no other idea, than that they were to be in connexion with the established religion of the state. But further-the religion of the state was not changed in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., but reformed-not abrogated, but purified and restored. Individual Romanists may deny this, but the universal voice of the British empire-all its laws, and constitutional forms and principles-attest the fact; and, according to the doctrines of every writer who has considered the origin and authority of civil society, the Church of England must be admitted to stand, since its reformation, on the same national basis as it did while unreformed, and to have succeeded to all the rights, privileges, and authorities of the State Religion-part of which was the exclusive possession of the universities. A contrary doctrine would sound strangely in the Reformed Parliament-that parliament claims, enjoys, and exercises all the privileges, the duties, and the powers of the old and, as it alleges, corrupt and vicious parliament which it replaces. On what principle is it, that the Reformed Church should not have equally succeeded to all the rights, privileges, and duties of the former Establishment? With all our abhorrence of the means by which Parliamentary Reform was brought about-with all our conviction of its folly and injustice-with all our our terror of its consequences-it would be insane to deny to the assembly elected under it the character, attributes, and authority of an House of Commons; and equally insane is it to attempt to deny to the Reformed Church of England the privileges and power of the Church before the Reformation. Our readers may think that we have given too much attention to so absurd an objection, but as it is one which grave authorities have advanced, and as it is the only one, which we have met with, that impugns the abstract right of excluding dissenters from the universities, we have thought it not unworthy this short, but, we trust, conclusive reply. Incidentally in one of the debates connected with this subject, another topic was introduced, which also claims a passing observation. It was alleged, with all the air of sarcastic triumph, that the Oxford practice of requiring subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles from youths entering that university, was absurd, and almost profane. 'What could a youth of sixteen know about the Thirty-nine Articles?' And when the Bishop of Exeter observed, that subscription is not, as was stated, a declaration that the party has examined the various propositions which these Articles contain, and believes them, from examination, to be true, but only tantamount to a declaration that the subscriber belongs to the church of which these are the Articles, and accepts them as true upon that authority,' (Speech, p. 4) he was met by an exclamation of astonishment from the Woolsack, and by that most decorous assertion which we have already noticed that the explanation was a cloak for hypocrisy a man-trap for tender consciences-and only suited to the uses of hypocrites and Jesuits!' The Lord Chancellor, it would seem, had forgotten that a petition was presented to parliament in 1772 for removing this subscription; that it was rejected by 217 to 71; and that amongst its most prominent and strenuous opponents are to be found the names of men whom the world did then and ever will regard for their statesmanlike views-their high principles-their transcendent abilities-and for all the qualities that can give authority to the opinions of public men, Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke! And, in addition to these and other high political testimonies (which it is unnecessary to specify after having named Burke and Fox), it is remarkable that we have the corroborative opinion of that admirable man who is emphatically called the great moralist of England-Dr. Johnson—who, when this subject happened to be discussed before him gave an explanation exactly the same in principle (though rather stronger in expression) as the Bishop of Exeter: They talk of not making boys at the university subscribe to what they they do not understand; but they ought to consider that our universities were founded to bring up members for the Church of England, and we must not supply our enemies with arms from our arsenal. The meaning of subscribing is-not that they fully understand all the Articles, but that they will adhere to the Church of England.'-Boswell's Johnson, vol. ii. p. 143. Dr. Johnson, it seems, would have been pronounced by Lord Brougham'a hypocrite and a Jesuit, who wore u cloak of hypocrisy, and laid traps for tender consciences! The occupant of the woolsack, for the time being, may be the dernier resort in matters of litigation; but on questions of wisdom and policy-of piety and morals-we hope we may, without offence, prefer the opinions of Burke and Johnson. We will venture to add a few explanatory words on this subject, which the Bishop of Exeter might not have thought necessary to introduce into an incidental debate or Dr. Johnson into occasional conversation, but which are illustrative of their opinions. In all Christian churches and communities-we believe even amongst the Dissenters themselves-children are from the earliest ages instructed in their religion. Lord Brougham triumphantly asks, Are persons to subscribe first, and afterwards learn the meaning of what they had subscribed?' We ask in return, does the pious mother who teaches her little boy to repeat the Apostles' Creed, imagine that he comprehends or that even she could adequately explain, all the doctrines which this creed involves? Will Lord Brougham, who, in one of his speeches on these matters, alludes to his own child, allow us to ask him whether she has not learned her catechism? Are the parents, tutors, or clergymen, who take so much pains to make the infant objects of their love or their care learn that formulary-hypocrites, Jesuits, and entrappers of tender consciences? Does the teaching a child to profess, in the awful presence of God, his belief in all the mysteries enounced in these rudiments of Christianity, exclude the idea that he is afterwards to endeavour to obtain such a clear and perfect understanding as may enable him to give a reason for the faith that is in him? We could push this much farther-but it is unnecessary. Whatever may be said to justify teaching chil, dren the Creed and the Catechism, may, à multo fortiori, be alleged in support of the Oxford regulation; and when we add, that, by the ancient statutes and the modern practice of that university, 'the tutors are required to instruct the undergraduate pupil in the full meaning and obligation of the articles which he had at first subscribed as he had learned his creed and catechism-on the authority of the church to which he belongs-we trust we have abundantly shown that the sneer and astonishment of Lord Brougham, Brougham, and, what we consider of rather more importance, the arguments of the dissenters on this matter, are, to use some of his Lordship's own forms of speech, a cloak for insidious designs— a mere trap for weak intellects.' 6 But all these minor objections, which were so sedulously advanced, ad captum vulgi, before the Dissenters had produced their final demands, have now vanished into comparative insignificance behind the great question of the separation of Church aud State. It is no longer a charter for the London University-nor the admission of sectaries to Oxford or Cambridge-nor a civil rite of marriage-nor exemption from church-rate-nor the abolition of tithes, that are separately in discussion-it is all collectively. The question of the abolition of the Established Churchlike Aaron's rod-swallows all the rest. We believe that Lord Grey, and several of his colleagues, are sincere in the surprise and regret which they express at the latitude of the Dissenters' present demands. Some are alarmed, at least, at the prospect of their own personal difficulties; but there are others of the Cabinet who, to a sense of their political embarrassment, add, we believe, the higher and more honourable feeling of the public danger. They all must naturally feel mortified at the signal failure of their system of government by concession—their hope, we have no doubt, was, that by a piecemeal redress of what were alleged as grievances, they could suspend, at least for a season, if they could not avert, the overthrow of our institutions. The Government 'Melle soporatam, et medicatis frugibus offam and hoped to have seen ille fame rabida tria* guttura pandens Correpit objectam, atque immania terga resolvit Fusus humi But, alas! Cerberus, like Satan, now, is wiser than of yore! the offered cakes have been rejected with contempt; and the ministry have to deal directly with a great and growing danger, created by their own short-sighted policy, and inflamed by their own ill-judged and ineffectual concessions. 6 Their Church Rate Bill is another striking instance of accumulated folly. Why should Dissenters pay rates for churches that they never frequent?' The ministers had not the courage-nor honesty-nor common sense to answer because those rates were ' an ancient, immemorial charge on property, which had been ' for ages bought and sold subject to that charge-because all the * Papist, Dissenter, and Infidel. citizens, |