HC Deb 10 February 1871 vol 204 cc146-52

Acts read; considered in Committee.

MR. GLADSTONE

, in moving that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter the Law respecting Religious Tests in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and in the Halls and Colleges of those Universities, said: Sir, the Motion which I have to make will entail the necessity of only a very short ex- planation, as the House, I think, will feel that the question to which my Motion refers has now reached a stage at which it is not necessary upon the introduction of the Bill that there should be any prolonged debate upon the merits of the question. Had it been necessary, in the judgment of the Government, that arguments should be advanced at this stage in favour of the proposals I am about to make, those arguments would have been used by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. I should not have thought fit to attempt to displace one who with so much prudence and so much knowledge has, during successive years, recommended this subject to the attention of the House. It has fallen into my hands on account of the maturity at which the subject has arrived, and the position it has assumed as a question between the two Houses of Parliament, to propose the introduction of this Bill, and the few words I am about to state will have reference to that peculiar position of the question, and not the merits of the original proposition. Last night my hon. Friend who seconded the Address (Mr. Morley) made an appeal to Gentlemen opposite, urging them to combine with us in the settlement of this controversy. I felt the weight of that appeal, and I would wish to be understood as adopting and echoing his words, and, moreover, I feel within myself a strong conviction that the force of such an appeal will be felt by many who sit on the other side of the House who have hitherto taken a prominent part in opposing this Bill. And here I found myself upon a recollection of the manner in which the Bill was treated during the discussion last year. I am not seeking to take any unfair advantage; I am as far as possible from endeavouring to convey any imputation; but I think that many hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, and several of those connected with the representation of the Universities, who have hitherto taken a prominent duty and responsibility in opposition to this measure, will not conceive that I misunderstand or misrepresent either their conduct or their language if I say that the general tone and effect of their speeches was to convey on their part the impression that although they did not compromise their opinions nor surrender in any point of right the ground that they had occupied, they did feel that the controversy had reached a point at which it would be for the interest of all parties that it should be brought to a settlement. The Bill that I propose to introduce after the preface that I have made, the House will readily perceive is the exact and identical Bill of last year. I believe it will have undergone no change whatever, and had it been the view of the Government that they were in a condition to introduce important changes, or to be responsible for important changes if they were introduced, I should not have been justified in using the language I have employed. I have treated the controversy as one the discussion of which has been entirely exhausted, and into which I defy any ingenuity to import novelty of any kind. The controversy is a controversy upon which the judgment of this House and the country has been so often and so decisively pronounced that all that remains is its settlement. In the course of the Recess a desire, and I do not say an unnatural desire, has been made known to the Government from several quarters that the provisions of the Bill should be altered—[Cheers]—in consequence of the rejection of the Bill of last year by the House of Lords. Well, I wish to call the attention of my hon. Friends who cheer me, for a few moments, to that subject, and to state the ground taken by the Government, and the position in which they find themselves now in the face of the House of Lords. The desire entertained by many persons out-of-doors is that into this Bill should be introduced an absolute repeal of all restrictions contained in College statutes which make the acquisition of Holy Orders a condition under any circumstances of holding a Headship or Fellowship. Well, no man, I think, can hear those words without at once admitting, whether he approves or disapproves such a proposal—and that is not the question now—that the introduction of such a proposal into the present Bill would be a great extension and a great alteration of the provisions of the Bill. The effect of that would be that we should not be winding up an old controversy, but we should be beginning a new one. So far as I am able to anticipate what would probably happen, I apprehend that it would be necessary for us to listen to appeals from hon. Gentlemen who represent the Universities, and many others in this House pointing out the novelty and broad sweep of the proposition—that it was now for the first time under the consideration of the House, and demanding that days should be appointed for the discussion of various and complicated matters involved in the measure, and giving a totally distinct character to the discussion to that which I anticipate respecting this Bill. I do not enter into the merits of the case, for that is quite unnecessary. I will not enter into the consideration how the Government is to find time amidst the pressure of the multitude of important subjects which are pressed upon us from every quarter of the House. The point which has been conclusive with the Government, and which binds them, is that which arises in connection with the position of this question as between ourselves and the House of Lords, and it is that point on which alone I shall dwell. Now, had this Bill been in the hands of what are called independent Members of Parliament, it would have been perfectly free to them to take any course they pleased in altering it from year to year. They might have said—"The House of Lords having rejected the Bill, we shall propose another measure of a much more drastic character." That course would be quite within the discretion and competency of a private Member of this House, but it is not within the discretion, rightly understood, of the Executive Government. When the Executive Government makes itself responsible for a measure, and has attached to it its credit and influence, when they have obtained the assent of this House to it, one thing follows as an immediate and obvious consequence — namely, that they are bound to give the House of Lords a fair, full, and free opportunity for discussion and deliberate judgment before assuming that the House of Lords is decisively opposed to that measure, and before reconsidering their course in consequence. Now, the question that we ask ourselves is this—whether it would be fair on our part as the Government of the Queen, whether it would be consistent with, that respect which we owe to the other branch of the Legislature, that we should treat the vote of the House of Lords in the month of July last as being a decisive vote upon the merits of the question? We do not think that we can so treat it. We think it right and just to the House of Lords, we think it right according to the rules which regulate the well-working of our legislative system, that we should again at the earliest period in the present Session present to the House of Lords this measure for consideration. We entertain the sanguine hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will favour the passing of the Bill through this House. But whether that be so or not, whether we are right or not in anticipating the early settlement of the controversy, we feel it to be our duty to that branch of the Legislature to give it the opportunity of a full, careful, and deliberate discussion of the merits of the Bill. I do not think it would be fair in us to treat the vote of last year, much as we objected to it, and much as we resented it, as a decisive vote. In the first place, it was the first time that the Bill had been before the House of Lords in the shape that it then bore. The Bill was sent to that House in the month of July, and it was on the 14th of July that the second reading was held. Upon the House of Lords, in the course of last Session, we made great demands, and from the House of Lords, I do not hesitate to say, we obtained last year large and liberal concessions. When these liberal concessions have been obtained by a Government backed by the authority of the House of Commons, that Government ought to show some sense of that conduct and some reciprocation of that temper. We should, therefore, be unwilling to proceed in a harsh or ungenerous manner in regard to the controversy of this Bill, and we think we shall not be discharging our duty with respect to the House of Lords, as well with respect to the general interests of the question, unless we can send this Bill to the House of Lords at a time when they can receive it, before it comes to them in a crowd with greater measures of such vital importance as the Education and the Irish Land Bills of last year. I have not said a word upon the merits of the case, but I have endeavoured to put prominently in the view of the House that consideration which I think is quite decisive in regard to the conduct of the Government. We have found it to be our duty to make one more appeal to the House of Lords upon this subject under the favourable circumstances that are now before us. We also feel justified in making an appeal to those who have hitherto opposed this measure on the opposite side of the House, and in asking them to assist us to pass it forward without entailing upon it those difficulties which attend the discussion of great questions. It is right, Sir, that I should state I have had communication with many leading, influential persons among those who are desirous that this measure should be further extended, so as to dispense with Holy Orders in the case of all holders of Fellowships and Headships, and that they should be free of all restriction whatever. I have frankly stated to them the position of the Government and the obligation they feel themselves under with reference to the House of Lords, and I have intimated to them that in the view they take of their duty it will not be possible to accede to their wish. I have also learnt from them, so far as the feeling could be collected, after that declaration made frankly on the part of the Government, that they were still anxiously desirous we should prosecute this Bill in its present shape, with the explanation I have now made. I am, therefore, acting in fulfilment of the willingness I expressed to them; and I hope Gentlemen opposite will not think me too obtrusive if I state that it is our intention to go forward with this Bill with all despatch in the prosecution of all its stages, because we think it fair to those who desire the extension of the measure that it should be presented to the House of Lords at so early a period of the Session that, in the event of its failing to become law, they may not be prejudiced in their views, but have ample opportunity during the Session of raising the question after the feeling of the House of Lords shall have been expressed on this Bill; and I do hope that some influence even from the other side of the House may favour the passing of the Bill. With these explanations, I beg to move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair, in order that the Motion may be made for the introduction of the Bill.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

Sir, I shall certainly follow the example which has been set by the right hon. Gentleman, and entirely abstain from making any comment on the question itself or the principles involved in it. I cannot but say that I think the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward this Bill at an early period is not at all in discord with the view taken by the House of Lords last year. I agree that the House of Lords expressed no objection to the reception of the Bill, but, on the contrary, showed rather a disposition to give it that full consideration which it had never, on any previous occasion, received. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, it had never before reached the House of Lords in the shape it did last year, and the desire was that the Committee should take such steps, by receiving evidence and information on the subject, as should tend to preserve religious instruction in the University; and that, I presume, would still be the object of the Committee if re-appointed. With respect to the course we should take on the subject, I quite agree that so far as this House is concerned the majority against us is overwhelming, and, therefore, though it will be my duty to protest against the measure, I should only wish that time may be given us for consultation as to what steps should be taken at some particular stage; but no opposition will be offered to proceeding with the Bill with such speed as may be considered becoming, with a view to the objects and intentions of the Government as explained by the right hon. Gentleman. I have been opposed to the measure in principle, I remain of the same opinion still, and I may consider it necessary to divide on the question again on the second reading; but I will offer no opposition to the measure by interposing delay. I hope it will receive due consideration from the House of Lords and from the Committee, to which I have no doubt it will be referred.

Motion agreed to.

Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter the Law respecting Religious Tests in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and in the Halls and Colleges of those Universities.

Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. GOSCHEN.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 6.]