raged with a rage altogether heathen, expressed in language disgraceful to men who were in any way followers of the Christian faith. Is it possible that all this enmity, rooted ineradicably in so many fierce or sullen hearts, can be forgotten by those who belong to the Church of England, and desire that she may be on earth immortal? Can oblivion of all that her friends owe to her in defence against her enemies be so utter, that they will now concede to them the claims, so preposterously urged by those enemies, to all the rights and privileges conferred by the degrees of those Universities which they have so long maligned, and yearned, with longings-haply not to be vain-for their decay and dissolution?

Grieved shall we be, but not astounded, even by such abandonment of all feeling and principle as such concession would imply; for, in obedience to the Spirit of the Age, they who from abject fear have not hitherto dared to withstand and oppose it, are prepared, we verily believe, to yield up every thing that shall only be demanded with a loud voice and a brazen forehead. Blessings are now heaped on the Universities by clamour of the same throats that so long clothed them with curses-they are extolled to the skies by the same lungs that so long laboured to sink them by calumny to the dust and a call now rings over the land to fling open their gates to the entrance of that flower of the English youth, which they who raised it thanked heaven would never be exposed to the fatal blight of the foul air stagnating within them, and expiring only pesti lential vapours. So strong is their passion, so devout their worship of knowledge, human and divine-now to be found only in perfection within the cloisters of those monks and friars-that the Church of England's loving supporters cannot rest till privileged to take their degrees too within those holy precincts, and issue out into the world with titular bearings of honour, which their fathers had for ages taught their sons to scorn, and up to last year, and all through it on to its close, chided with savage objurgations as worse than worthless, baubles at once, and badges of shame. Did they not be

lieve all the falsehoods of Beverley? Was not even Sedgwick's triumphant refutation of the Reprobate declared by them a failure? And, alas ! has that distinguished man headed a petition to Parliament to admit such an enemy within the gates? May he prove the true prophet at last-devoutly should we pray but that, in utter hopelessness of any great future good, a prayer for its attainment cannot reach the lips, but expires in the despondence of the heart, unable, do what it will, to silence dismal forebodings of evil to what it venerates and loves.

This, we confess, is strange to us even in the midst of all things strange-and we should wish to hear the question argued on its me rits by the best men of Cambridge, rather than treated, so imperfectly, with regard only to what is alleged and denied to have been old law and old custom. Both the law and the custom are old enough, in all conscience, against the claims of the Dissenters to the right of graduation in the English Universities; but this is certain, that were all law and all custom established to have been against these claims for ever, that consideration would signify not a jot to the great majority of those who are determined to grant them-and that they will settle the question in a far simpler style, by saying, it shall be so. Aye-this is the age of reason-there shall no longer be any monopolies of learning-free trade in that mart as in every other-let the goods be exposed to purchase, without restriction, to all comerslet them but lay down their monies

and there shall be no advantage given on the score of faith or creedho! all ye who hunger and thirst for knowledge, and aspire to the distinctions which her institutions can confer, and no question shall be asked whether you be Jew or Gentile either is as good as a Christian-for as to religion, that is an affair between a man and his Maker-and in seminaries of science, unless indeed you are determined to be a divine, every man's creed should be left to his own conscience!-This assuredly never was the old law, or the old custom of Cambridge-this is not stare super antiquas vias; if it be-they who venture to take their stand on such

old roads, will find that their foundations are built on piles that have become rotten, and the institutions themselves will sink out of sight, and be swallowed up in the treacherous hollow.

And what made the English Universities monopolies of learning? Not the State. The genius loci of each time-hallowed establishment, which was no other than religion. Since the Reformation, that religion has been Christianity in its purest spirit. The form it has assumed is that which seemed best to those who shaped it, and whose sacred bounty gave it a power of beneficence that has made all the wide land rejoice. How prosperous now are those noble endowments! Genius, talent, learning, sense, science, honour, religion, all flourish there; but how happens it, if they have indeed monopolized all these, that the high-minded, and highsouled, and opulent millions on millions-for so numerous, they say, are they-who chose to separate themselves from all connexion with the Church of England, and for so many generations regarded with an evil eye the Universities to her so dear-incorporated with her very existence, and prospering in the same light in which she prosperedhow happens it that the Dissenters have not, with all their desire for knowledge, and all their power to build up establishments of their own for its nurture and extension, done so, long before now, in rivalry with those monopolizing companies composed for ages, as they said, of ignorant and slothful men, and to the sure destruction of a system in itself so ruinous, and therefore naturally so perishable? True, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had got a long start-but then, they were going lazily downhill their very riches, it was said, were their ruin; and though they might have still contrived by their privileges to keep a hold on the country, which it would have been no easy matter to force them to relax, yet is not the fiery zeal and burning enthusiasm of young establishments more than a match for the lukewarm indifference and slowblooded indolence of the old? How was it possible that a crowd of colleges on the Cam, and a crowd of colleges on the Iatever were their

endowments, their privileges, and their rights, benighted as they were in the inspissated gloom of the dark ages, all along haunted by spectral syllogisms, with the shade of Aristotle himself leading the van, and of Aquinas bringing up the rear, could have stood against one small cluster of colleges, whether composing a University or not, on the banks of the Severn or the Trent or the Tyne, or on whatever far better than classical stream, Unitarian or Socinian zeal might chuse to build up towers and temples, of a style and order of architecture of its own, to put to shame the fantastic tricks superstition of old played with the lime-work of Granta and Rhedycina!

Professor Sedgwick "expresses his surprise at the turn which the discussion has so far taken. We have been wrangling upon mere antiquarian facts, and not on the broad principles of expediency affecting the future prospects of Church and State." That line of argument, he says, "was forced c him and his friends by their opponents." Not so. In not very courteous terms, as some think, he remarked on the Counter-declaration to the Petition. In the Petition it was said, that "in praying for the abolition of these restrictions, they rejoice in being able to assure your honourable House, that they are only asking for a restitution of their ancient academical laws and laudable customs." In the counter-declaration it is said, "we, the undersigned resident members of the Senate, deem it incumbent upon us, without delay, publicly to protest against the allegations and principles set forth in that petition. We do not admit that the abolition of the existing restrictions would be, as alleged, a restitution of the ancient laws and laudable customs of the University; neither do we acknowledge that any of those restrictions were imposed in a manner formal and unprece dented." On this the Professor goes on to remark, that "if there be any meaning in words, the two passages above quoted are directly opposed to one another. They contain an expression not of opinion, but of facts; if one be true, the other must be false." There is an expression-and a very mild one too-both

of opinion and of facts. They protest against allegations and principles, and though firmly, mildly; and they do not admit (can words be gentler?) that the abolition of existing restrictions would be a restitution of ancient laws and laudable customs. Professor Sedgwick manfully avows his approbation of the spirit of what he believes to have been ancient laws and laudable customs; and earnestly desires that spirit should breathe again in his beloved Granta. His opponents as manfully avow their dislike of that spirit, which, at the same time, they do not believe ever did breathe there were it henceforth to be there the pervading and dominant spirit, they anticipate from it consequences the very reverse of those anticipated by him; and surely this is an expression of opinion as well as facts. "If one be true, the other must be false," sounds harsh; yet it is, we believe, but scholastic language, and the words do not sound so in Latin. But restricting the question to facts, the Professor has been far from overwhelming with his facts, and has not any mighty cause of triumph. We shall not join "the wrangling upon mere antiquarian facts" which he has deprecated; but where has he shewn, that before the time of James the First, Dissenters were ever admitted into the University? The Editor of the Standard, with his wonted talent and learning, has shewn, by numerous quotations from the laws of Edward Sixth and Elizabeth, that no Dissenter was permitted even in the kingdom; consequently, that no Dissenter could be admitted into the University. The 6th of James the First was but a recital of the law of the land. Dr Giffard points out to Professor Sedgwick the nature of declaratory laws and ancillary statutes, as they are called by Lord Coke. They are both alike conservative of customs. The one merely render more clear and certain what they assume to have been previously the law; the other only give efficacy to principles before sanctioned by the Legislature. King James found no Dissenters in the Universities

no avowed Dissenters in the kingdom. From a new state of affairs, new consequences were apprehended; and a measure was

adopted, not of innovation, but of prevention. The Standard shews, that under the laws against nonconformity, prior to the time of James the First, private University statutes, for the exclusion of nonconformists, were altogether unnecessary," and no more to be dreamt of than University statutes for the exclusion of centaurs or griffins." What, then, it may be asked, is the meaning of the restitution of the University system prior to the reign of James I.? In what did it differ, in form or spirit, from the system then fortified by a confirmatory law, and enduring till this day-but perhaps now about to be dissolved? James was a poor creature-but good laws have been enacted by despicable Kings, and more despicable Parliaments, and still more despicable Ministers. And how happened it, that these innovating restrictions, destructive of "the ancient laws and laudable customs of the University," have been suffered to remain in force till pretty far on in the reign of William the Fourth-William the Liberator ? Did William the Third, who was in his way a liberator too, annul the restrictions which James the First imposed? Or did he and other princes do what they could to strengthen them? Was the Oranger blind to this flagrant crime of the Dethroned? Was the freed nation blind to it? That king and people did not rejoice with one consent to rescind the base law of the tyrant? No. William had the eye as well as the beak of an eagle; and the glorious Revolution of 1688 purged with euphrasy the sight of the nation till it shone, and pierced through despotism with a glance that withered. But, by all men, the restrictive rules of the Universities were then clearly seen to be safeguards to the civil and religious liberties of England. William, therefore, confirmed, not by any specific acts, for these were not needed, but by the whole tenor of his reign,-what James had done; and James did no more than secure to the Universities by one measure, what Elizabeth had secured to them by another-the measures themselves being different, according to the difference of the times. For in the reign of Elizabeth every body knows that tests were imposed, in order to confine University edu

been the sanctuaries and the source of pure and undefiled religion to the laity and clergy of the land; and that they have been, under the blessing of God, amongst others, the signal means of preserving, in the educated and influential classes of the country, and through them in the nation at large, a purity and a unity of Christian faith and practice. The prevalence of dissent and infidelity may be traced to causes out of the reach of human control. Pride and independence, the offspring of a sudden emancipation from intellectual darkness, the rapid growth of knowledge and of science, unhallowed by the principles of Christian morality, have contributed to dissever the bonds of the religious and social sys

tem.

"Amidst all this confusion and error, through seasons of political anarchy and religious tempest, the Church of England has ever been the pole-star which has guided the bewildered mariner to a haven of rest; the Universities of England have stood in the gap, and unflinchingly maintained the monarchical institutions of the country, and the rights and liberties of the people. They have with equal courage and success resisted the tyranny of a King, and the oppression of a Parliament. Has all this been accidental, and the fortuitous result of temporary coincidence? Has it not rather arisen from the principles of Christian unity and freedom, which a common religious training instilled, and a common sense of danger called into action?

"It has been the glory and the blessing of this country, that its clergy and laity, as they are associated in station, so are they trained under the same system and within the same walls. No one can doubt, that to this cause is to be attributed, in a great degree, the absence of that infidelity which characterises the educated portion and upper classes of the laity of some other countries. The literary cabal which, some years ago, in a neighbouring country, formed something like a regular plan for the destruction of the Christian religion, included many who stood high in the ranks of literature and science. You would have Christianity no longer an essential part of the system

of the University, as a University. Your principle goes to this. You use the term Dissenter, but in a sense which necessarily includes all who are not members of the Church of England, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant Dissenter, Jew, Turk, Heretic, or Infidel. You would not have the University draw any distinction, in conferring degrees, or admission into its governing body, between a believer and an unbeliever. You would have the constituency of the University consist of a mixed body of Christians and infidels. All places of dignity and power are to be open to them. You would leave it to accident, whether the Chancellor, High Steward, Professors, or other officers of the University, were of any or no faith. You would give persons of every creed and no creed a voice in the election of representatives, and thus deprive the Church of her only recognised organs in the House of Commons. The party, with which you are now identified, would also relieve' the Bishops from their duties in the other House of Parliament. You would of course cease to exact attendance at the University church, or compliance with any ordinances not purely scientific. All should be voluntary. Such is the state of things you would see established in a Christian University, and you would yet affect to believe that the change would not affect the interests of national religion."

What was the reason assigned by Lord Brougham, and the other founders of the University of London, for the exclusion of Theology? The utter impossibility of teaching doctrines to which all the memberswho were to be of all sects-could in conscience conform; and the reason was valid. Therefore all the students are left to their own religion; and religion-except in as far as all studies of man and nature comprehend it-is never mentioned within the walls. There is not even a chair of Natural Theology, which surely there might be, as it might be taught, one would think, without offending any faith. But Lord Brougham, or the able writer, whoever he may be, of the exposition of the principles which guided the founders, draws a distinction, which