§ MR. DODSONrose to call attention to the Petition from Heads of Houses, Professors, Present and Former Fellows, in the University of Oxford for the abolition of the requirement of subscription to Formularies of Faith as a qualification for Academical Degrees. The hon. Gentleman said the petitioners disclaimed any intention of impairing the religious character of the education given in the University, but maintained that the present requirement of subscription failed in securing religious peace in Oxford, while it perplexed consciences, and prevented persons who would be valuable members of the University from belonging to that body. The Petition had been signed by some of the most eminent members of the University, and among them were the Dean of Christ Church, the Rev. Canon Stanley, the Dean of St. Paul's, Professor Jowett, Mr. Nassau W. Senior, Herman Merivale, J. A. Froude, and Professor Goldwin Smith. The object of the petitioners was entirely different 1369 from that of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and also from that contemplated by the Motion lately proposed by the hon. Member for Maidstone. The Bill of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock sought to repeal the declaration of conformity to the Liturgy of the Church of England which the Act of Uniformity required to be made by fellows and tutors of Colleges. The Member for Maidstone wished to relieve persons entering holy orders from subscriptions. The Petition applied only to subscriptions required of persons taking academical degrees. It therefore affected almost exclusively members of the Church of England, and these exclusively in their lay capacity. It sought to place Oxford in a similar position to Cambridge and Dublin. Dublin exacted no tests from persons taking degrees. Cambridge in 1772 spontaneously abolished subscription on taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts. The Cambridge University Reform Act of 1856 did away with the necessity of subscription on taking any degree. The Oxford University Reform Act of 1854 put an end to the tests for matriculation, or the Bachelor of Arts degree, but left remaining the subscriptions required for the degree of Master of Arts and other higher degrees. The subscriptions now required at Oxford were two—subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles and subscription to the three articles of the 36th Canon. The Thirty-nine Articles were said, by those competent to judge, to involve no less than six hundred theological propositions. They comprised, no doubt, many abstruse points, which had perplexed the most acute minds in different ages. Many of these propositions related to controversies which were not the controversies of our day, and to which therefore men's attention was not directed. It was not easy to see how any man, who had not made controversial theology his special study, could be in a position to express an intelligent opinion as to the doctrines they involved. The Church of England did not claim infallibility, and did not pretend to impose her doctrines on her members Upon her mere ipsa dixit. Either subscription was meant to express an intelligent persuasion on the part of the subscriber that the Articles are correct and satisfactory to his mind, or it was intended simply as a general declaration of membership, or an absence of hostility to the Church of England. If subscription implied an intelligent opinion as to the truth of the doctrines, it became in many cases, 1370 if not a deliberate lie, a very rash profession. If subscription meant nothing more than membership of, or neutrality to the Church of England, then he thought the object might be obtained in a much less objectionable manner. Such a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles must beget a habit of playing fast and loose with pledges. Subscription to the Three Articles of the 36th Canon was still more unreasonable. Subscribers thereby not only engage themselves to all contained in the Book of Common Prayer, but further undertook to do what laymen could not have the opportunity of doing—namely, using the Liturgy in public prayer, and administering the sacraments according to the rites of the Church of England. Such a system was morally injurious to those who imposed subscription, in so far as these restrictions could be strained or relaxed, insisted on or dispensed with, according to time or opportunity. The history of religious controversy in Oxford for the last twenty-five years was sufficient proof of this. Subscription was also mischievous as regarded the person who subscribed, because the making a solemn declaration in a loose manner must beget a habit of considering a pledge a mere form, and a promise nothing better than a conventionality. The University somewhat absurdly imposed a test of impossible stringency, and, by the lax interpretation she herself recognized, sanctioned its invasion. She showed a mistrust of her own work by exacting security from her disciples. That security, however, could not be enforced, and remained a dead letter. Thus, instead of giving strength, it was a new element of weakness. This Petition was signed, as he had stated, by most distinguished members of the University; by men who had carried off its first prizes, and not a few of whom had earned a European reputation. He would not analyse the signatures; he would only mention one fact which might serve to give the House an idea of the weight to be attached to the Petition. The present body of Fellows of the University of Oxford had among them 131 first-class men; of these not less than fifty-six had signed the Petition. He might be told, after all, this was but the Petition of a minority. That he did not dispute; but he asked the House to consider the character of the men composing this minority and also the nature of the request they made. They said subscription to these formularies was painful and offensive to them and to those who thought 1371 with them; and unless its maintenance was shown to be vitally necessary or highly beneficial to the majority, it was but just and reasonable that the wishes even of the minority should at once be deferred to. Supposing the prayer of the Petition granted, what possible evil could be expected to flow from it? How would it impair the connection of the University with the Church of England, or the religious character of her education as teaching the doctrines of the Established Church? Tuition at the University would remain to all intents and purposes as much in the hands of the Church of England as at present. Masters of Art, as such, had now nothing to do with teaching at the University; that was altogether in the hands of professors, and the fellows and tutors, who were required to declare themselves members of the Church of England before they became fellows or tutors. It would not interfere with the securities taken on entering holy orders, and it would leave every reasonable security that now existed that persons taking theological degrees were also Members of the Church of England, because the University did not confer theological degrees except on those pronounced by the bishops qualified to enter holy orders. It must not be supposed that those who had abstained from signing, or had not had the opportunity of signing this Petition, were to be reckoned as opposed to it. This Petition had been long the subject of conversation in the University. It had been discussed in Congregation, more than once in the Hebdomadal Council, and a copy of it had been placed in the hands of the Vice Chancellor several weeks, if not months, ago. Attempts were made to get up one or more counter Petitions. Those efforts, however, appeared to have been unsuccessful, as he had not heard of any Petition being presented to the House in opposition to the views put forth in the Petition to which he was now calling attention. The effect of granting the prayer of the Petition would be to place the University of Oxford in a similar position to that of the Universities of Cambridge and Dublin, and he thought it would be admitted that the abolition of the test at these educational establishments had not had the effect of severing the connection between them and the Established Church. There was another point to which he would advert, but upon which he would not dwell. It was, how far, if the University of Oxford was to be regarded 1372 as a national institution, it was justifiable, by any religious tests, to prevent any man from completing his educational career there and to exclude him from the enjoyment of the honourable distinctions and civil advantages to be obtained by such a career. It was difficult to understand why a University which, although connected with the Established Church, was essentially a lay University, should require from laymen, upon taking their degrees in arts and science, a strict religious test as to their opinions Upon abstract theological points. He regretted that circumstances beyond his control had prevented him from bringing forward the subject of this Petition at a period when he might have invited the House to express some definite opinion; but he had felt it to be his duty, considering the importance of the question, and the respect due to those who had signed the Petition, even at this late period, to bring the subject before the House. He earnestly entreated those Members who felt an interest in the stability and prosperity of the University to give the subject their best attention, and he hoped that many of them would arrive at the conclusion that it would be for the benefit of the University, and just towards individuals, that the prayer of the Petition should be granted.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had come down to the House that evening at some little personal inconvenience to himself, as he was rather curious to know upon what grounds the Petition which had been hanging upon the notices for so long would be urged upon the House, what was its object, and why it was to be handled in the dying hours of the Session. He must confess that he had heard a good deal which somewhat surprised him. The House would recollect that at an early period of the Session they had three distinct Motions upon the notice paper. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) dealt with the clergy, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) dealt with fellows of Colleges, and the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) dealt with the schoolmasters. So that between them they took the whole sweep of the Act of Uniformity, and dealt with subscriptions with the same sort of arguments which had been used by the hon. Member for Sussex. The hon. Member told them that the Petition had been a good while before the University. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might have heard that there was a Petition going about the University just at 1373 the time the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was bringing forward his Motion. A friend of his, the Read of a House at Oxford, wrote to him at that time to say that a Petition was going about, but that he could not get to see it, and he asked him (Mr. Henley) to watch whether it came before the House. Something had been said about Convocation, but surely the hon. Member did not mean to tell the House that the Petition, or anything like it, had been before Convocation? The hon. Member must know that Convocation met and affixed the seal of the University to a Petition against the measure of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and generally against all those schemes. But the Wandering Jew was said to be abroad at Oxford, and everybody heard of another Petition which no one could see. He had himself heard of it, but he could never see it, nor any one who had seen it. There was an old proverb that "good wine needed no bush," but he could not see how all those distinguished men whose names the hon. Member had mentioned would be benefited. Did the hon. Member think that he could make the name of the Dean of Christ Church higher by quoting him as one of 107, or could the name of his old friend Dr. Daubeny be made higher by such a circumstance. Out of the 107, two of the signers were undergraduates with himself—Dr. Daubeny and Mr. Senior; in fact, the latter had ceased to reside when he entered the University. Thus it appeared that to collect the 107 names the ground of half a century had to be gone over by the promoters of the Petition. What reasons had the hon. Member given to induce them to consider any proposal in the spirit of the Petition? What the course had been at Cambridge or Dublin he could not say; but this much he did know, that nine years since, when the University of Oxford was reformed, it was decided in that House that the governing body, composed of masters, should make the subscription. The hon. Member had told them the subscriptions were made in a vague manner, and also that the gentlemen who had signed the Petition said that the subscriptions were hateful to them. But did the hon. Member mean to say that those gentlemen had themselves made subscription in a vague manner? That would be rather an interesting matter to know, in order that they might be able to judge of the authority due to those gentle-men. But 107 Masters of Arts out of 1374 3,500 had signed the Petition. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) knew more about the composition of the University than he did; but he believed the number of masters ranged between 3,000 and 4,000. Surely 107 was not a large number out of such a body. But then it was said they made up in quality what they wanted in number. If a tavern-keeper were to say, "I will give you a smaller quantity of wine, but it shall be of superior quality," the public would not frequent his house, because, they would say, "We prefer to have both quantity and quality." There were some remarkable facts to which the hon. Member had not adverted, Almost at the time when the Petition, which no one could see, was going about in the hands of the Wandering Jew, a body of some 1,000 undergraduates and bachelors signed a Petition in a contrary sense. That portion of the members of the University who were about to come under the subscription did not seem to think the requirement was so very onerous or grievous. The hon. Member had said that no one should sign the declaration or subscription who was not up in controversial divinity. How far was that argument to be carried? Was no clergyman to sign unless he was well up in controversial divinity? In that case he thought we should get a very queer set of clergymen. He did not think that those most versed in controversial divinity would make the best clergymen. But, after all, the fact was, those distinguished men, beginning at Dr. Temple, Dr. Stanley, the Dean of Christ Church, Dr. Pattison, and going down to Dr. Colenso, were setting up a new school. Dr. Temple had laid down the principle that there is no faith without reason, and all the others were acting on what the Americans called the same "platform." That was raising a distinct question. It was, no doubt, hard to subscribe to all things, but there were also difficult things in the Belief which was taught to children, and in Confirmation, and in the Administration of the Sacrament, and yet it was said that the only stumbling-block was in signing the Thirty-nine Articles. It seemed odd that the hon. Member should contend that a mere Motion to do away with subscription would not give the governing power of the University into the hands of "Turks, Jews, and heretics." In the Petition the Dean of Christ Church disclaimed any interference with theological teaching. Now, who could suppose 1375 that the Dean of Christ Church, a dignitary of the Church, would ever think it necessary to interfere with theological teaching? It did seem odd, and one was reminded that those who excused themselves were sometimes said to accuse themselves. No one would think that the Dean of Christ Church wished to remove reasonable securities against any attempts to impugn the doctrines of the Church. From all that he could gather from various sources, he believed the real history of the Petition to be this:—Those who got it up first tried their hands at a Petition in favour of the measure then before the House, but they found it would not do, because the number of signatures they could obtain was so few. The promoters then thought they would draw it a little milder, and taking advantage of the immense congregation of people in Oxford at the time of the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales, they contrived to get 107 signatures to the Petition from people who had belonged to the University during the last half-century. It seemed to him that the memorialists, although there were among them some great men—there being thirteen professors, including two of the Essayists and Reviewers—Dr. Temple and Dr. Pattison—were altogether a curious party. He did not see what object the hon. Member had in bringing the subject forward, except it was to afford them a little amusement on one of the last days of the Session, for no practical result could ensue; and, for his part, he entered his protest against any steps in the direction indicated by the Petition.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would admit that there was a similarity between the prayer of the Petition and the Motions which had been submitted to the House by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) and the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton), and that they raised one broad issue. [Mr. HENLEY: Hear, hear.] He was willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman upon that issue in its fullest sense—the issue being whether a system of tests was injurious or otherwise to the interests of the Church of England. As he admitted the sincerity of the motives of the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and credited them with every desire to support and maintain the Church, so he begged that he also and those who acted with him might be generously judged, and that it might be thought, that in any measures and Motions they supported they had the interests of 1376 the Church at heart. They believed, however, that the interests of the Church were better served by relying on her native strength than by the interposition of those tests and artificial measures which a weak Church might require for her defence, but which a strong Church ought to dispense with. Were not the members of the Church, he would ask, practically a defined and acknowledged majority of the nation, and had they not exercised an ascendancy and supremacy for two hundred years which ought to have rendered them unassailable? The chief power of the State was in their hands, and therefore let them trust the Church, and not let it go forth to the world that they feared, if a few Dissenters or Roman Catholics entered the Universities, their Government would pass from their hands and the Church of England be injured. The issue which all these measures raised was—whether the Church required that rigid system of tests. Let them assume that the system of tests had so far worked well; the question then arose whether the circumstances of the present day were identical with those of times past. Fortunately or unfortunately, the fact was that there existed a greater spirit of inquiry, more independence of judgment and individuality of thought; and a system of tests that could be applied when men, rightly or wrongly, followed leaders more than they now do, was injurious when every man thought for himself. With that increased tendency to inquiry, accompanied as he thought with greater conscientiousness, it was more difficult than it used to be to get a man of any abilities to sign the Thirty-nine Articles. There was a time when a man would sign them on the authority of a friend, a tutor, or a parent; but now, at the Universities, men were encouraged to study divinity; and they were told beforehand, "If you do not arrive at a certain result, if you find fault with one of these Thirty-nine Articles, if you find any flaw in them, then you shall not have a degree." The natural result of enforcing such a system must be to discourage theological discussion—the object of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who said, "We do not want a controversial clergy." He replied that "As a Churchman I do want a controversial clergy; we require men to be powerful enough to grapple with the adversaries of the Church;" and there was a party in the Church who said, "If the Church is still 1377 to maintain its supremacy, as it can do and will do, it is necessary that its defenders should fight with somewhat different weapons from those they have hitherto used; but if you discourage theological study, if parish priests are not to acquire intellectual proficiency, if you will not admit amongst them men capable of taking part in controversies, there is less hope for the Church." It was no easy thing to sign the Thirty-cine Articles, embodying so many propositions; and he doubted whether hon. Gentlemen who spoke so glibly about them had studied them closely and given their intellectual belief to every one. Hundreds of persons had signed them, not against their consciences, but carelessly; but now if an undergraduate came to his tutor and said, "This is a point I can't get over," the reply would hardly be "Yours is a morbid feeling; we used not to have these scruples," In his opinion, it was not necessary, to be a stanch member of the Church of England, that a man should implicitly believe every one of the Thirty-nine Articles. As to the small number of names attached to the Petition, he accepted the simile of the right hon. Gentleman, and would say that he preferred a good glass of wine to gallons of negus. Small in number though they might be, those who had petitioned the House were men of the greatest weight and authority. Everybody knew that it was much easier to rally for the defence than for the attack; and if you could raise an alarm among the non-resident members that the Church was in danger, as many names as you chose might be obtained. While on this point, he would say that it was little to the credit of the other party at the University that they had encouraged undergraduates who had not studied the Thirty-nine Articles to sign the counter Petition. Such a document could have no weight with the House, and was a weakness instead of being a strength to the cause; while to have a hundred picked men signing the Petition before the House showed a very considerable unanimity of opinion among a very influential body of men. So far he had treated the question from a Church point of view, as it could not be too often repeated, or too widely known, that there were good and stanch Churchmen, men quite as devoted to the Church as hon. Gentlemen opposite, who believed that a system of tests was injurious to the Church.
But he would now ask the House to 1378 consider the question from the point of view of the Dissenters. The question was, whether Dissenters could be relieved from a grievance, while at the same time the Church was strengthened? It had been said, that if a Dissenter went to the University, it did not signify whether he afterwards wrote M.A. to his name. They might as well say, what did it signify if he could not put M.P. after his name? The question was, could he through life remain a member of the University? It was not fair to say it was not a grievance he should be excluded. A Dissenter who went to Oxford remained under a certain sense of inferiority, and far from being won over by the influence of the Church, as he might be, and as a friend of the Church he was bound to believe he could be, a spirit of antagonism was excited in him smarting under a sense of grievance, and he became an opponent instead of a friend of the Church. It was notorious that at Cambridge Dissenters who had gone there had imbibed more or less the doctrines and the tastes of the Church of England, but what influenced them there was that they could not become fellows. Here he might observe that very ungenerous things had been said of a Dissenter who had lately been Senior Wrangler there—namely, that he had only refrained from subscribing because he desired to keep up a Dissenting grievance. He knew that that imputation had caused considerable pain, but the real motive of the conduct of that gentleman was, that out of a regard for the Dissenters, from whom he sprang, he did not wish, at a moment when a pecuniary advantage would result to himself, to abandon his previous opinion, though he was nearly won over to the Church of England. Thus the present system was certainly against the interests of the Universities, as they lost good men and the opportunity of exercising a softening and conciliatory influence. The question seemed to lie between the principles of inclusion and of exclusion. Every party that became really strong became so by the principle of inclusion. If, in the present days of inquiry, they continued to enforce in respect to the Church of England a rigid system of tests, the days of the Church of England were gone; but if the Church relied on its truth and purity, he could not but say that the Church of England might still flourish and become stronger and stronger every day. He did not wish the Church to retreat, but he wished it to defend its position 1379 on the unassailable heights of revealed religion by the force of reason, and then it might defy the assaults of rationalism.
§ LORD RORERT CECILsaid, that one inconvenience in the mode in which the question had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Sussex was, that hon. Members did not exactly know what it was they were called upon to discuss. The hon. Member for Sussex asked for a limited measure of relief. He desired that subscription should be abandoned in the case of Masters of Arts only, The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) went farther, and desired that subscription should be abolished altogether. He could not agree with the latter hon. Member when he said that it was a question between exclusion and inclusion, and that all success was achieved on the principle of inclusion. As he understood the hon. Member, he seemed desirous to set up a coalition church, There had been coalition ministries, which had extended the principle of inclusion very widely, but he did not know whether their success had been so brilliant as to warrant the extension of the principle to ecclesiastical matters. The answer to those who wished to abolish tests in the Universities altogether was, that if they had their way, the Universities for which they sought to legislate would simply cease to exist. Let the House imagine the state of things that would follow the adoption of such a measure. Suppose tests abolished, and fellowships and tutorships thrown open to persons of all faiths and religions, what would be the effect of such a proceeding on the simple-minded people of England? Placards of special sermons would announce that the Rev. Rabbi Moses So-and-So, Senior Fellow of Christ Church, was about to preach at such and such a synagogue; that the right rev, the Bishop of some place in partibus, Fellow of Christ Church, Oxford, would preach somewhere else; or that a fellow of some college would preach in the Essex Street Chapel to prove the absurdity of all the articles in the Nicene Creed. Conceive what would be the state of mind of an ordinary country gentleman and of those persons who send their sons to the Universities. They would immediately infer that their faith, which they wished to keep alive in their children, would be in danger at the University, where religious teaching was in such hands, and they would be careful to find some other educational instrument, which had not the misfortune to be under 1380 the control of the House of Commons and under which the religion of their children could be kept intact? If it were simply a question whether a man should be allowed to put the letters "M.A." after his name without signing a religious test, that would be an exceedingly unimportant matter; but that was not the proposition. It was proposed that the degree of Master of Arts, with all the powers and privileges attached to it, should be given to any person of any religion, who would thus form part of the governing body which decided what should be the education in the Universities connected with the Church of England. It was in the power of Convocation absolutely to remodel the whole system of education in the University, to decide that any particular religion should be taught or excluded, or to determine that religion should be set aside altogether. Consequently, if those who were opposed to the Church of England were allowed to govern the religious teaching in the University of Oxford, it followed that it would be in their power to sever the University from its connection with the Church. He knew he should be told that these parties were few in number, and could not seriously affect the decisions of Convocation; but precisely as it was the duty of Parliament not to allow a foreigner, alien to the allegiance of Englishmen, to become a Member of the Legislature, so it was the duty of the Convocation of the University of Oxford to keep out of their body all aliens to that religion which it was their highest function to teach. The hon. Member for Sussex said that he did not desire to trench on the tests which excluded certain men from being Fellows; but the Petition which had been referred to said it was desired that persons whose talents might be of great service to the University should not be prevented from giving to the University the advantage of those talents. But how could they be connected with the University in any official capacity except as being engaged in teaching at the University? Those Dissenters who desired to take the degree of Master of Arts without signing the Thirty-nine Articles either wished to teach in the University or not. If they did not wish to teach, the affair was but a slight matter with them; but if they wished to teach, the whole of the tests must be removed before they could reach the object of their ambition; and then the proposal of the hon. Member for East Sussex lost the innocent character it bore in his hands, 1381 and became identified with the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. He felt convinced that all these propositions, great or small, moderate or extreme, whatever the object of those who brought them forward, could have but one end, and that was the severance of the Universities from the Church of England.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I listened with the greatest interest to the able speech of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), and I take this opportunity of congratulating the House upon the accession of a gentleman of so much ability and distinction to our ranks as the successor of one who enjoyed the respect and regard of the Members of this House in a degree not exceeded by any one within its walls. The hon. Gentleman has spoken in a manner quite in keeping with his high reputation, and though persons might differ from some of the hon. Gentleman's opinions, we must all admit that his speech was characterized by a spirit not only of fidelity, but of warm loyalty to the Church of England. The hon. Gentleman, however, and others, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), seemed to me to treat this question as if a much broader issue had been raised in debate than was raised by the Petition, or the interpretation which my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex put upon it. Most of the remarks that we have heard in this debate have referred to a question which is indeed a very wide and very profound question—namely, whether there ought to be in the Church of England any system of religious tests. Some part of the declarations of my hon. Friend seemed to me to be directed against the exaction of any test. I must confess that I do not myself comprehend how you are to separate the essence and the principle of tests from the propagation and the maintenance of a system of religious truth, which purports to be revealed, which is essentially definite, and which is to live in the world. It seems to be like dividing the bone and flesh, and vitality itself must necessarily escape in the severance. Let us look at the illustration afforded of this matter. As far as we know anything of the Christian system, it does appear that that which we now call the Apostles' Creed is a document in its substance belonging to the Apostolic age, or to a period immediately subsequent; and what in practice is the Apostolic Creed but a test? 1382 It is a very mild test, and very happy were the circumstances of the Church when a test so mild would suffice. But I want to draw attention to two questions involved in this discussion which appear to me essentially different and distinct. The one is, are we on principle to say that all tests are a grievance to those without as well as injurious to those within the Church? The other question is, are we to say of this or that particular test, it is a test which is cumbrous, unnecessary, and oppressive, and your system of tests ought to be simplified and reduced? The first is one which I confess myself wholly unprepared to grapple with, or rather I should be prepared to make strong objections to that doctrine which condemns all tests on principle, because, as I have said, I cannot conceive how you are to separate them from any system of Christianity. The other is a question which appears to me to be a very fair one for discussion according to the times and circumstances. What is the effect of the Petition before us? The Petition states, "Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the requirements of subscription to the formularies of faith as a qualification for academical degrees may henceforth be abolished." I admit that the effect of that prayer is different according to the sense in which it is interpreted. If the Petition is intended to imply that those who are to receive academical degrees without subscription to the formularies of faith as a qualification are to go forward and exercise all governing functions in the University, that, I admit, raises a practical question of the utmost difficulty; nor do I know in what manner it would be possible to govern Universities constituted like those of Oxford and Cambridge upon the principle of a general mixture of belief in the governing body. I do not now say whether in particular professorships with particular qualifications, it might not be possible for the University to devise some exceptional system for individual admission. I speak of the general character of the governing body, and I must confess that it appears to me a fair and just demand on the part of the Church of England that the governing body in her University and her Colleges should be composed of her members. The system of the Universities is one which involves full and plenary responsibility, not merely for the instruction in the narrow sense of the word, but for the moral training and the entire formation of the character of the youth committed to their 1383 charge. I will not stand upon any abstract principle of an abstruse character, but I will say these two things—in the first place, I think that the parents of England will not be satisfied to send their children for academical training to an institution calling itself a University, and professing to take charge of their whole life, and the formation of their whole moral character, unless they be convinced that it is administered in conformity with some definite religious system. I lament extremely that in the case of a University and especially an ancient University, full of splendid and venerable traditions, any fraction of the population should be excluded from any portion of its benefits; but if it be true, as I believe it is true in the main, that the religious system of the Church of England as administered in the English Universities is suitable to the wants, feelings, and convictions of, perhaps, nineteen-twentieths of the community who are in a condition to avail avail themselves of University education, I say we must consider the case of those nineteen-twentieths first and in preference to that of any minority which is numerically small. I have spoken thus far of what I think seems to be the justice and fairness of keeping the governing body of the universities in the hands of members of the Church of England.
But my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex, who presented the Petition, did not, after all, raise any question with regard to the composition of the governing body of the Universities. If I understood my hon. Friend rightly, he stated that the object of those who signed the Petition is to establish in Oxford the system which is established in Cambridge and Dublin. With regard to the establishment of that system in Oxford, I must say, in passing, that I should be very sorry to see the intervention of Parliament used at the present time, except under an urgent necessity, for the purpose of effecting a compulsory change in the regulations of the University. I frankly own that I am of opinion an improvement in those regulations might be made, but I think it most desirable upon every ground that that improvement should rather owe its origin to the spontaneous and enlightened convictions of the University itself than to an invocation of the arm of the State. I am disposed to regret, therefore, that these petitioners should not have made their appeal to the University before coming to 1384 Parliament. But to come back to the object of the petitioners, I treat this as a Petition praying that the subscription to the formularies of the faith as a qualification for academical degrees henceforth be abolished, exclusive, of course, of theological degrees; and then I ask myself what it means? If it means the adoption of the system that prevails in Cambridge, I am by no means prepared to determine in my own mind how far a change of that kind would give satisfaction to persons outside the communion of the Church of England. It may be that it is hardly possible to content the views and expectations of all, but at the same time I think the fair principle to act upon is this—that we should reserve to the University and the Church of England in the University all which is really necessary for the effective prosecution of the purposes of the institution, including, of course, above all others, its religious purposes; and while maintaining that principle, to make every other practical concession to those who are without. I confess I do not know upon what principle, strictly speaking, to justify the present state of the subscription at Oxford—and upon this ground, not merely that there is an exclusion of Dissenters from the honour of degrees to which they might, without injury to any one, be admitted, but likewise because I am doubtful about the authority and wisdom of the use of the Thirty-nine Articles as a test of lay communion with the Church. This is a matter of fact—that there is no office, or place, or emolument, unless it be one flowing indirectly through University degrees, to which a layman of the Church of England is obliged to declare his acceptance of the Thirty-nine Articles as a condition of exercising any duty or function to which he may be called. I confess I feel great force in the objection urged by the hon. Member for London to the unnecessary complexity of tests. I do not think that the Thirty-nine Articles were framed in any vexatious spirit. On the contrary, they were framed, I think, with great moderation and even freedom of spirit, considering the circumstances of their origin. At the same time, it is a serious question whether this body of Articles can be said to form a fair and legitimate test, excepting for those who are to be the ministers of religion in the Church. If there were anything in the law or custom of the Church to show she 1385 intended that these Articles should be exacted from lay members, that would be a point of importance; but I cannot find that there is any such principle belonging to the Church as a Church, and there is certainly none such belonging to the constitution or law of the land. In fact, this requisition grew up within the University itself. If the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Henley) were to put to me the question he addressed to the petitioners, "Are you sore?" I would answer frankly, "No, I am not at all sore under the subscription." I deem myself entirely bound by it, and I am now discussing the question without the least reference to any personal grievance, and simply on grounds of general expediency. I must say, it is not easy to find a justification for exacting from lay members a test so wide as that which consists of the Thirty-nine Articles and the three articles of the canon law. With respect to the question, whether the test now taken upon masses of words ought to be taken from all persons, I know no reason why we should not adopt that system which has been adopted, and I believe works well, in the University of Cambridge; but then comes the question, what test should be applied to those who are members of the Church of England? I have been proceeding all along upon the supposition, that if you are to reserve the power of acting in the governing body to members of the Church of England, that fact must be ascertained by some test, and the question would be what test is the proper one—whether a simpler test than the present one would not be more appropriate and more in consonance with the general spirit and law of the Church of England. I confess I am of opinion that an improvement might be made in that direction in the present system. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire referred to the 107 persons who have signed the Petition, and appealed to me on the proportion they form of my constituents. I believe that the number of the constituents I have the honour to represent is very close upon 4,000, but it would not be quite fair to speak of the 107 as gathered out of the 4,000. As I understand it, they are gathered out of that portion of the 4,000 who have at some period been either teachers or fellows of colleges at the University. That is certainly a very much smaller body—perhaps numbering six or eight hundred—but there is no question, on the one hand, 1386 that the 107 names comprise a very large proportion indeed of the ablest and most distinguished men; and on the other, that they are a decided minority even of that special class of the constituency from which they are selected. If, however, we are to take age into account, and it be our duty as Members of Parliament to consider not merely the past but the future, they are certainly a growing minority; they are possessed of a weight much beyond that which their mere numbers would indicate, and almost every year makes sensible additions to their numbers. As I have said, I am the last person to invoke the intervention of the State in the management of the University. On the contrary, I desire that that intervention should be limited to the fewest and the gravest occasions. The free action of their governing bodies is of the utmost moment to the welfare of the Universities and of the country; but I do, I confess, arrive at the conclusion that it might be for the peace of the University, as well as the means of attaining other advantages, if the University herself were to consider the question whether the present state of her subscription is that which is most agreeable to her interests and to the purposes for which she exists. These are views which I am far from pretending to say can be expected to make a complete settlement or to give entire satisfaction to all classes of persons. Those who object to the principle of tests appear to me to make demands which it is impossible to concede without surrendering in substance everything that is essential to the vitality of the Church and of the University; but, on the other hand, I am disposed to think that the present state of the law and practice of the University admits of improvement. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) treated the question as one that had undergone full legislative consideration in 1856, but I contend that such was not the case. The desire of the Government of that day was to exclude altogether from the Bill of general reform which they introduced the subject of religious tests, not because all or most of the members of the Government were not of opinion that there was need of change, but because they thought that the mixing up of religious questions with the general topics of University Reform they had to discuss would not be satisfactory to Parliament. It was against the will and the votes of the members of that Government, that in one of the last stages of that Bill 1387 the House, by a large majority, carried a forcible alteration on the state of subscription at Oxford. But what was done then was done somewhat hastily, and was not the result of any deliberate arrangement or compromise. That it was not regarded as a matured decision of Parliament may, I think, be inferred, among other circumstances, from this—that when, a few years afterwards, a Bill was introduced for the reform of the University of Cambridge, it was founded in that respect on the principle that all the degrees, except the theological ones, should be accessible to all persons without distinction of sect. I believe that, upon the whole, was the wiser system. I do not mean to say that the present arrangement presses with severity, but certainly I think it is a matter which well deserves the consideration of the University of Oxford, both on the sound and just principle that she ought to extend her advantages as far as possible without vital injury to her own essential principles and likewise upon the ground that even as regards the status of lay members a system of tests less complex than that now in operation would be more in accordance with the spirit and purposes of the Church and the University.
MR. LYGONobserved, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had identified himself with the petitioners, although he had endeavoured to reduce their demand to the narrowest possible dimensions. He (Mr. Lygon) concurred with the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) in thinking that it was extremely inconvenient to discuss a subject of such grave importance without having a definite question submitted to their consideration. The prayer of the Petition was that those who had religious scruples to professing their belief in the Thirty-nine Articles should have the right of affixing M.A. to their names without subscribing to any religious formulary. Now he (Mr. Lygon) could not see what good object was to be gained by the adoption of such a change. If any advantage were to arise from it, it would be one infinitesimally out of proportion with the evils that would be created by disturbing the present relations of the University of Oxford and the Church of England. It was said to be painful and humiliating to persons who did not belong to the Church to be checked in their academical career on that account; but he did not see how the difficulty would be met by merely moving the restriction a 1388 stage further, and, while admitting Dissenters to the M.A. degree, denying their admission to Convocation and any share in the government of the University. It was due to the public that the circumstances of the Petition should be fully understood. The Petition had been talked about in the latter part of last year, but the knowledge of the terms of the Petition and its exact prayer was confined only to those who were known to be friendly to its object. Towards the close of last year, a manuscript copy of the Petition was intrusted to the Vice Chancellor. Its terms, however, were not spontaneously given to the public generally. There were 107 signatures to the Petition; but one gentleman, in his enthusiastic zeal, signed twice, and the real number of the Petitioners was 106. He had taken the trouble of examining into the relative proportions of residents and non-residents. He found that forty-eight were non-resident, and that of these some had left the University at a rather remote period. Eight of the Petitioners were still in statu pupillari—that was to say, though entitled to write the magic letters B.A. after their names, they had not yet obtained the degree of Master of Arts. A few of the Petitioners, though called Fellows, were only probationary Fellows when they signed the Petition, so that the number of resident members of the University signing the Petition was only fifty. Now, he readily admitted that a Petition, signed by fifty resident members of the University engaged in the work of education, was entitled to great respect at the hands of that House; but it ought to be understood that they spoke for themselves, and themselves only, and that they could in no way be held to represent the University at large. He thought, moreover, that the House would establish a very dangerous precedent if it encouraged a small portion of a body which, like the University of Oxford, had the power of regulating its own affairs, to appeal to the superior authority of Parliament, instead of availing itself of the more legitimate and regular means at its disposal for obtaining assent to its views. With regard to the general question of subscriptions or tests, he thought it should be borne in mind, that if they were to teach revealed truth, they must have, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, some test for the purpose of ascertaining the religious opinions of the teachers, whether it took the form of subscription or of discipline. 1389 They might abolish the existing system of religious subscriptions, but in so doing they would not promote peace and harmony; he felt, on the contrary, that the system of subscription had been one of the most effectual means of preventing undue religious animosities. The recent state of religious opinion seemed to him to afford a very forcible proof of the accuracy of that conclusion, because as long as there was no question as to the meaning of the subscription the system worked well, and the University and the Church continued most closely united. But since measures had been taken to render that meaning as vague and confused as possible, religious discord and acrimony arose, and it became necessary to evoke the aid of the tribunals to settle the dissensions in the Church, and supplement the work which subscription was intended to perform. If subscription were abolished, they must replace it with a much more rigid and distinct system of ecclesiastical discipline than had ever yet been attempted in the Church of England; and he left it to the House to decide whether such a state of things would be likely to insure religious harmony, or to promote the interests either of the Church or of the University. Something had been said in the course of that discussion as to the Universities being places of national education. No doubt they were so in some sense, and he trusted the day would never come when they would wholly cease to be places of national education. But the reason why they had been places of national education was that they had commanded the confidence of the people of this country, and they commanded that confidence because they taught a definite system of religious truth. He believed that if they dispensed in the Universities with the necessity of teaching the system of religious truth inculcated in the Church of England, they would at once shatter the confidence of the people in those great educational establishments. The hon. Member for the City of London said that they ought not to distrust the results of their own education over young men who spent three years at a University, surrounded by those special Church influences which those establishments supplied. But the hon. Gentleman stated only one-half of the case. It was not the mere prospect of writing "M.A." or "B.A." after people's names that induced them to enter the University. The honourable distinction and the civil advantages 1390 which attended the acquisition of University degrees formed a powerful attraction in that case. Many men went to the Universities from the very legitimate and honourable desire of obtaining a share of their endowments; and if there were no chance of participating in those endowments, and of directing the education of the country by means of the possession of a degree, there would be no necessity for enforcing any test or taking any measure to ascertain that those who gained that distinction were members of the Church of England. But so long as those advantages attached to a University degree, it was only right that the University should exact from those whom she had educated some proof that her teaching had not been altogether futile, and that her words of wisdom had not been thrown away. He would not enter further into the merits of the general question; but he trusted it would be understood that the Petition was signed by a very small minority of the resident members of the University, and that that minority had never ventured to apply any test which would enable them to ascertain what was the general feeling of the University upon that subject, and still less what was the feeling of the larger body of Convocation. He had one other observation to make with respect to the Petition. He found that it was signed by 106 members of the University, and that seventy-three of those members were laymen. Now, any alteration in the relations of the University of Oxford to the Church of England was a matter in which the clergy might be expected to take a very considerable interest; and it was important they should remember that they had no good reason to believe that the Petition represented the wishes or opinions of the clergy of the Church of England. For his part he felt persuaded that it would be an evil day for the country in which anything should be done by that House to sever the connection between the University of Oxford and the Church of England; it would be a misfortune for the Church, but it would be a still greater calamity for the country at large.
MR. GRANT DUFFSir, an elaborate analysis of the Petition which we are just discussing has just been placed in my hand. It is too long and too complicated to read to the House, but it proves—what, indeed, I knew well before—that these 106 consist of the very élite, the blue blood of the Oxford constituency. Since the fateful 1391 year 1845, when the great secession took place to Rome, under the leadership of the illustrious Newman, there has been a steady reaction in Oxford towards Liberal principles. Surely everybody knows that at the present moment five-sixths of the men who get fellowships belong to the Liberal party, and would abolish tests, if they could, to-morrow. The assertion of the noble Lord opposite, that the University of Oxford would dissolve or come to an end, if tests; were abolished, sounds strange indeed to a Scotchman. Why, in the Scotch Universities we have not got these precious tests; and although religious dissensions in Scotland are proverbially bitter, we do not find that the absence of tests make our Universities less peaceable and agreeable places to live in—nor do we find that the students receive a bad education in consequence of the absence of tests. Again, if the abolition of subscriptions would be so fatal to Oxford, how is it that nine-tenths of the literature used by the young men there comes from Universities where there are no tests? Whence comes our best classical books? whence our best philosophical books? whence our best historical books? nay, whence our best theological books, orthodox and heterodox, the bane and the antidote, as the phrase is? Don't they all come from Universities where there are no tests? But before I sit down, I wish to congratulate the House on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University. It is only a crumb of comfort, and not a very large crumb; but still, as the Liberal party has starved for two Sessions, it is something to get even a crumb. On the second night of this Session I called the attention of the House and the party to the fact that the Government programme did not contain one Liberal measure, properly so called, and the performance of the Government has, to do it justice, been quite in keeping with its programme. I want to ask how long this state of things is to continue. Are not we Liberal Members supporting a negation? Is it not a sort of practical falsehood, that a Government should sit year after year upon that bench, calling itself a Liberal Government, but really, as it would seem, existing chiefly to put a spoke in the wheel of Liberal measures. How is my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury to keep the party together? The great politico-economical questions which have been 'of the order of the day' for the last twenty 1392 years have, as their apostle, the hon Member for Rochdale told us recently, been definitively and satisfactorily settled as far as regards this country. Well, then, if Reform is not to be meddled with, and there seems no chance for the present of resuscitating that question—if, I say, neither Reform, nor any of these religious questions to which the Government has been giving the cold shoulder this Session, are to be taken up by us, what in the name of wonder are we to do? Are we to be bound together by personal ties to the Gentlemen upon the Treasury Bench? If so, it is rather a pity that some of them have no very strong claims to our personal attachment. What is to happen when an event occurs, which in the nature of things must one day occur? How is my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury to gather us, the rank and file of the Liberal phalanx, around any successor who may seek to ascend the vacant throne of Alexander?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the question on which the debate really turned was one of very great magnitude. He felt bound to tender his best thanks to the hon. Member for the City of London, for his very manly and frank declaration of the objects of the movement for the alteration of the formularies of the Church. The hon. Gentleman said, that in these days there was more individuality of thought and a greater spirit of inquiry than had prevailed in former times. Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) was inclined to dispute that opinion; but if the spirit of inquiry was to end, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, in the Church's changing her position, they ought to pause before they adopted any course which was calculated to lead to so great a change. There was once a country gentleman who was also a scholar and a man of refined taste, who suggested this grave question, "What is the Church?" That gentleman was Evelyn, who, in the year 1688, on finding that the word "church" was used with such various meanings, and produced confusion in the minds of the people, warned his friends that they ought to come to some understanding with respect to the sense in which it should be understood. It was because he (Mr. Newdegate) wished to see the Church trustworthy, that he was jealous of any abandonment of her declarations, her subscriptions, or her tests. The hon. Member for the City of London set so high a value on the opinion of the minority in the University of Oxford that he invited the House 1393 to make that minority the governing body in that University. [A gesture of dissent from Mr. GOSCHEN.] The hon. Gentleman surely had proposed that the suggestion of the minority should be adopted by the Legislature for the government of the University, without reference to the opinion of the majority of that body. But that brought him (Mr. Newdegate) to observations which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had thrown it out as a subject well worthy of consideration, whether they should not have for the laity some test of churchmanship which would not be the Thirty-nine Articles, and which would differ from that which the clergy should be required to subscribe. He would still require from the clergy a declaration of their assent and consent to the Thirty-nine Articles, but he would exempt the laity from that declaration. Let the House consider for a moment the magnitude of that suggestion. The Church of England held that the laity formed in their appropriate sphere the body of the Church, and that no clergyman was more a churchman than a layman: if the legislature were to establish a distinction between the churchmanship of the laity and the clergy, they would at once approach the position of the Church of Home, which held the clergy to form the governing body of the Church in all matters relating to religion, and the laity to be only their subjects. He need scarcely say that he was no advocate for such a change. It was well known in that House that he valued equality of the laity with the clergy in churchmanship, and for the purpose of government, more highly than most Members; or, at all events, as highly as an Member of the House. Attempts to unduly simplify tests very frequently led to interminable confusion. He was glad to be able to think that the House and the Government had virtually come to the decision that they would not, without far more consideration than they could then give to the subject, offer even a recommendation that the only University in this country which remained limited to members of the Church of England should be opened to persons holding any other religious opinions. The University of Cambridge and the University of Dublin had given up the subscription in the cases referred to, and had been thrown open to other denominations than the Church for the purposes of education It was not, he thought, too much to require that there should be left in Oxford one great 1394 educational establishment to which the Protestant laity of the Church of England might send their children with the conviction that they would be brought up in the doctrines and discipline of the Established Church. Had Oxford suffered from the existence of the tests? Experience showed that the alleged limitation of the spirit of inquiry did not practically exist: if there was danger, it must be attributed to the latitude of speculative opinion now publicly indulged, not to restriction. He rejoiced to say that the University to which he belonged had not suffered. They might see what was the feeling of the nation on the subject when they compared the position of the University of London, in which no religious tests were required, with that of Oxford. The trial had been fairly made, and it had been cleary shown that there was no probability of the University of London rivalling those of Oxford or of Cambridge in the estimation of the country. Why, then, should hon. Gentlemen seek to reduce Oxford to the level of London University? He repudiated the idea that these declarations or subscriptions were generally accepted without being understood by those who took them. For himself, he could say that there was no branch of study in which he so much prepared, or in which he was so severely examined, as the question whether he understood and could accept these declarations. He trusted the opinion in favour of the change would not expand as was hoped, though he admitted that those who advocated the change were an active party, and that they had an energetic leader in Dr. Stanley; but he believed, that when the attention of the great body of the Masters of Arts had been aroused to the question, the strength of the feeling against the change now virtually proposed would be made manifest, and that this would show the value they attached to the existing system.
§ MR. BUXTONsaid, he was surprised at the remarks made by some hon. Gentlemen as to the manner in which the Petition had been got up. The intention to present it had been the subject of general conversation at Oxford; and those who took the opposite view of the question had ample opportunity of preparing a counter Petition if they thought proper. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be more satisfactory if the University herself made the proposed change, instead of coming in the first place to that House; but then it was extremely 1395 doubtful whether the University would have any power to legislate on a subject of the kind. Again, there was naturally a very conservative feeling among the members of the University, and it was next to impossible to introduce reforms in such bodies without external assistance. For himself and his friends who advocated that and kindred improvements, he disclaimed being actuated by any other motive than the conviction, that if carried out, they would not only not weaken the Church of England, but would rather strengthen her and ennoble her character and position in the country. The noble Lord the Member for Stamford must have been very hard up for arguments when he warned the House not to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Sussex because its ultimate result might be to astonish the minds of country gentlemen. It was not to be supposed that any ordinary country gentleman would send his son away from the University merely because he happened to hear that the Rev. Mr. So-and-So, M.A., was going to preach in a Dissenting chapel. The practical question at the bottom of the discussion was as to the admission of Dissenters to the Government of the University. He could not help thinking, however, that nothing could be easier than to make an arrangement similar to that existing at Cambridge, by which the governing power should still be retained in the hands of Members of the Established Church. But even if they should admit a few Dissenters into the governing body, he did not believe that any danger would result to the Church teaching of the University. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, nineteen out of twenty, and probably ninety-nine out of every hundred, of those who were likely to enjoy the advantages of the University, would naturally either be members of the Established Church or her friends and allies. The admission of a small minority of Dissenters would, he thought, have a wholesome effect upon the governing body; and as to any apprehension that they would get the controlling power into their hands, it was likely to prove about as chimerical as the fears formerly expressed by some that that House would shortly become a Judaical assembly if a Jew were allowed to sit in it. The question was not whether they ought to abolish every kind of test at the University, but whether these particular tests did not go beyond the purpose for which they were first intended. 1396 They were originally introduced by the Earl of Leicester for the purpose of bullying the High Church party, and then the High Church party introduced further tests and declarations, in order "to trim the way boats" that way. Nothing, then, was less dignified or less worthy of respect than the origin of these tests at the University; and men of different shades of theological opinion had been accustomed to cast a slur upon each other's sincerity in subscribing them. Indeed, they had had an example that very night, for the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had ventured to insinuate a doubt whether the distinguished gentlemen who signed the Petition had themselves taken these tests in a sincere and genuine spirit. The present system required, as had been stated by the Bishop of London not long ago, a perfect science of interpretation; and those who were most anxious to preserve their truthfulness unstained invented all sorts of explanations and excuses to keep their conscience clear. Many who took these tests explained them away, saying, "Oh, they meant nothing, or amounted only to a a general adhesion to the doctrines of the Church of England." He believed, with his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, that a minute and anxious conscientiousness was more rife among young men than it used to be, and that was a reason why these tests should be relaxed. The effect of the present system was to exclude some who would be an honour to the University, which was thus narrowed, and suffered some degree of loss. The essence of the matter was this—there was intrinsic absurdity in the system. A Master's degree implied that he had received the best education which the University could bestow. That was felt to be an honour. It was valued by men, and it was absurd that when a man had gone through the education necessary to obtain it, and derived all the benefit of it, he should not be able to place after his name the sign that he had done so, because he might differ from one or two of the Thirty-nine Articles. He thought that was one of the last shreds of a system which had been virtually condemned by the acts of that House. At Cambridge it did not exist. At Cambridge no kind of harm had resulted from its abolition; and he could not see why in a matter of the kind Oxford should not be as liberal as Cambridge.