SECOND READING. BILL REFERRED TO A SELECT COMMITTEE.

HL Deb 14 July 1870 vol 203 cc196-232

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

My Lords, I rise for the purpose of asking your Lordships to give a second reading to a Bill which has for its object the repeal of the tests and restrictions in respect of religious opinions at present imposed on persons who seek to occupy certain positions and to hold various offices in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham. It will first be my duty to establish that, in principle, the measure is founded alike on justice and expediency. In doing so, I first refer to the history of our Universities. We are all aware that during the Middle Ages the interests of the then existing Church in the Universities were universal; and for the best of all reasons—namely, because in those days the Church and the nation were, speaking broadly, co-extensive. I do not desire to press the argument too far; but it will not be disputed that nothing in the nature of religious tests or restrictions then existed, and that the Universities in those times included in their walls and their circle of instruction not Englishmen only, but men of all nations, and I believe I may say of all creeds then in existence. It is, no doubt, true that after the Reformation, when religious differences began to spring up in this country, the practice of imposing tests, whether as regarded the admission of students or the holding of offices, gradually arose; but this was simply a part of what was then the general policy of the country, which imposed tests of a similar character as a qualification for admission to the Legislature and various offices, and which were then relied on as a means of bringing back men to a sense of loyalty and unanimity in matters of religion. It is matter of history that the imposition of tests and restrictions were not successful, and that so far from bringing men to an agreement on religious subjects, religious differences and the number of religious denominations have increased, so that, in spite of the many laudable and successful efforts made by the Church of England to advance the form of faith to which most of your Lordships adhere, a very large portion of the community are not now members of it. For many years past the constant and steady policy of this country has been to remove these tests and restrictions one after another from our national institutions, and the circumstances of the time and the condition of the world, over which we can exercise but small control, have brought us to a point at which we must choose between maintaining the exclusive Church character of the Universities and making them in the fullest sense national institutions. It may be held that men were happier in former times when no such choice was necessary; but the opinion of the country and the circumstances of the time render it impossible that the Legislature can much longer evade a decision, for which I believe the voice of the nation has already pronounced. I can, at any rate, say assuredly, that the opinion of the Legislature has been already pronounced upon it, for your Lordships must bear in mind that this, so far from being the first step which Parliament has taken respecting University tests, is rather the final step which we are called upon to take. In considering the Bill now before the House, your Lordships must steadily keep in mind the steps which have already been taken in this direction. Your Lordships are aware that at present men of all religious opinions are admitted to the Universities with which the Bill deals in the character of students. At Oxford and Cambridge a man of any religious opinions may enter as an undergraduate, devote himself to the studies of the University, compete with his fellows, and by his own exertions and talents gain for himself the highest academical honours. When, however, he has gained these distinctions—and the case is no hypothetical one—he is told that, according to the law as it now stands, although he may have won a Senior Wranglership he cannot, without subscribing to tests to which he cannot conscientiously submit, proceed to obtain the honours and advantages of his College and become a Fellow, say of Trinity College. Now, surely that is a state of things which it is impossible to maintain as a matter of justice and expediency. Neither can it be maintained in the interests of the Church itself; for I can conceive few things more calculated to injure the real interests of the Church. I can conceive nothing more calculated to excite indisposition or hostility towards a Church, whose influence we desire to see extending, than the exclusion, in its supposed interest, from Collegiate and University offices and emoluments, and from the Governing Body, of a man who, while an undergraduate, had been on a perfect equality with his fellow - students, and who had conferred lustre on his College and University.

These being the general arguments in favour of the measure, lot me turn for a moment to the Parliamentary history of the question. When last year my noble Friend (Earl Russell), with all the weight of his great authority, asked your Lordships to read a similar measure a second time, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) moved the Previous Question, partly on the ground that this was to your Lordships a comparatively novel question. Now, whatever may have been the fact as to this House, it cannot be said that as a Parliamentary question this is a novel one. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has been engaged, with his usual power and energy, in more than one contest in the House of Commons upon the question; and, with one exception, there has not been a Session since 1864 in which a measure dealing with the subject has not been brought forward in that House. The question has been considered in no loss than three distinct Parliaments, in every one of which the opinion of that House has been more and more decidedly affirmed in favour of the principle of the Bill. I admit that in 1864 that opinion was of a doubtful description, for the Bill was thrown out on one occasion by a majority of 2; but in 1865 it passed the second reading, although circumstances prevented its further progress. In the Parliament elected in the autumn of 1865 the opinion of the House of Commons became more pronounced; and in 1867 a measure dealing with tests as far as the Universities were concerned came up to this House, when the second reading was moved by my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), and rejected by no very large majority. In the present Parliament—partly perhaps on account of the removal from the House of Commons of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), but partly on account of the progress of opinion in the country—the majorities in favour of the measure have become more and more decided than on any previous occasion. Under these circumstances, your Lordships are called upon to re-consider your previous decisions on this question. I can claim no right to express an opinion as to the feeling of the Universities themselves in regard to this Bill; but this I can give as a matter of fact—I understand that both at Oxford and Cambridge a very large proportion of those engaged in the actual work of teaching are in favour of the principle of the Bill.

This being the history of the past with regard to the measure, I need detain your Lordships but a very short time in explaining its provisions. The measure deals not only with the Universities, but with the Colleges within them. It provides that all tests and restrictions as to graduation and offices founded on religious opinion shall be abolished. This, as regards the Universities, was the principle of the Bill of last Session, as it was also more or less of the Bills offered in previous Sessions; but with regard to the Colleges there is a material difference which it is right I should point out. The Bill of last year simply gave power to the Governing Bodies of the Colleges to make what arrangements they might think fit with respect to the admission of graduates to honours, Fellowships, and a share in the government of the Colleges. So far the Bill of last year was a permissive Bill; whereas the Bill now before your Lordships is one of an imperative character, declaring that all religious tests shall hence forth be done away with. The permissive proposal of last year, however, met with little favour either at the hands of University reformers or from the direct opponents of those reforms; and, as I understand, even in the Universities and the Colleges there was a general feeling that a permissive measure would lead to many and continuous disputes, and a common consent that it would be better for Parliament to legislate directly and decidedly upon the subject. In consequence of these representations the permissive principle has been abandoned in this Bill, and it absolutely repeals all statutory enactments contrary to its principle. It is important, however, to remember that the 4th clause of the Bill is intended to protect the religious character of the education given at the Universities. The clause was introduced into the Bill of last year on the Motion of Sir Roundell Palmer, and the arrangement was deemed so satisfactory by that hon. and learned Gentleman that he withdrew all further opposition to the Bill, and Her Majesty's Government have adopted it without hesitation. I attach some importance to this clause, because I am not one of those who desire to see what is called exclusively secular education or colourless religious teaching introduced into the Universities. By this Bill your Lordships will find that a renewed Parliamentary sanction is given to the religious character of the instruction to be imparted at the Universities; so that, as it appears to me, while we maintain the religious character of the instruction given at our ancient seats of learning, we shall at the same time by this Bill remove the obstacles which have hitherto prevented a wider and more general participation in the benefits of a University education. It might naturally have been hoped that, after the frequent discussions the subject has undergone and the numerous Bills which have been sent up from the other House, the Motion with which I am about to conclude would be agreed to without any opposition. Last year the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) moved the Previous Question, chiefly on the ground that further consideration was required, for he did not like to combat the principle of the measure, and he urged that Oxford had had no time or opportunity of considering the question. That plea can hardly be repeated after the lapse of 12 months; but I find that I am to be met by a Motion, not directed against the principle of the Bill, but calculated to raise a by-issue. No man can doubt the sincere interest which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) feels in everything which relates to the permanent welfare of our Universities—especially of that illustrious one which has recently conferred on him, with so much wisdom and advantage to itself, the highest honour it is in its power to bestow. I cannot for a moment doubt that the noble Marquess is influenced by a pure desire to maintain the advantages which the Universities confer upon the country. At the same time, I think I shall be able to show reasons for doubting whether the course the noble Marquess proposes to pursue is the best calculated to secure the objects in view. The noble Marquess proposes to meet the Motion for the second reading of the Bill by two Resolutions. To the first of these I should be disposed to interpose no objection, were it not interposed in the way of the second reading of the Bill. I am bound to say that, taking the words of that Resolution in their general sense, they are not in my mind inconsistent with the general principle of the Bill. Indeed, on comparing it with part of the Preamble of the measure, it will be found substantially identical with it. [The Marquess of SALISBURY: It is a transcript of it.] My noble Friend admits more than I was going to argue, for he acknowledges that his Resolution is a transcript from the Preamble. Now, if he thinks that the Bill does not sufficiently carry out the declaration of the Preamble, let him in Committee propose Amendments for that purpose; and provided they are consistent with his own Resolution in enabling "persons not members of the Church of England to hold offices to which they are not now eligible," I shall be ready to give the most careful and complete consideration to any proposal which may provide— Proper safeguards for the maintenance of religious instruction and worship, and for the religious character of the education to be given. I should have the greatest hopes that the noble Marquess and your Lordships would accept the offer which in all sincerity I make if the first Resolution stood alone; but, unfortunately, there is behind a second Resolution, to which I cannot so readily assent. When I first read that Resolution I confess I was somewhat startled, and found it difficult to comprehend the meaning. At first reading it seemed simply intended—though I may have been doing an injustice to the noble Marquess—to get rid of the Bill altogether. It does not even propose the appointment of a Select Committee, but merely speaks of a Committee, and it is so vague and general that I regarded it as an euphemistic mode of rejecting the Bill. [The Marquess of SALISBURY was understood to intimate that he intended a Select Committee.] Then I will not press that argument. But there is another which I am obliged to press. If the noble Marquess thought a great advantage would be derived from an inquiry by your Lordships' House into all the bearings of the subject, why, when he was apprised by the Speech from the Throne that the Government intended to deal with the question, did he not take the earliest opportunity—especially as he is so apt to complain of your Lordships having nothing to do—of proposing a Select Committee, in order that the subject might be fairly investigated, and that when the Bill reached this House your Lordships might be fully informed upon it? I venture to think that the notion of a Committee and of an inquiry suggested itself at a later period, and had some connection with the shadow, if not with the actual presence of this Bill. He does not even now propose a Select Committee on the Bill, but he wishes to set the Bill aside and refer the general question to a Committee; the effect of which must, of course, be to postpone, at least for another year, the settlement of the question. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) and the noble Marquess are evidently sensible that a settlement of the question on the principle of this Bill is inevitable, for otherwise they would distinctly oppose the second reading. Such a settlement being, then, inevitable, what substantial advantage does the noble Marquess expect to obtain by a twelvemonths' postponement? Nobody knows better than he that our ancient Universities have before them a great and important task. They have to consider to what extent and in what manner they can admit into the curriculum of their studies those sciences which during the last quarter of a century have grown so rapidly as almost to threaten the overshadowing of other branches of knowledge. They have the task of combining those subjects with the ancient and time-honoured studies to which they have hitherto devoted themselves, and of reconciling the spirit of those modern studies with that spirit of religious faith for which the Universities are distinguished. That is a great and truly national work—one of wide and vast importance. How can it be advanced by the continuance for another year of the agitation upon this worn-out question? Is it desirable to divert the Universities from their real duty for the sake of maintaining a contest which is really settled, a battle which has long been lost, on a question which my noble Friend will admit to be of vastly inferior importance to the more pressing task to which I have alluded? It appears to me that such a course is fraught only with mischief to the Universities themselves—it will only increase the agitation and party bitterness which we have already experienced. Entertaining these views, and believing this measure to be just and expedient, I earnestly entreat your Lordships, for the sake of the Universities themselves, for the sake of the Church, for the sake of justice to individuals and the interests of the nation at large, to read this Bill a second time.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a"—(The Lord, President.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I trust that I shall be able to clear myself from the imputation which the noble Lord President, to some extent, threw upon me, of having unnecessarily delayed the Motion for a Committee to inquire into the measure proposed by the Government, when, warned by the Queen's Speech, I might have done it earlier in the Session. I confess that that course occurred to me at the beginning of the year; but on consideration, I said to myself—"This is a measure which has never before been adopted as a Government measure; the House of Commons and the Ministry depend entirely upon one eminent individual; and that eminent individual has himself but very recently held the opinion which I wish to defend. He has a perfect right, like everybody else, on sufficient cause shown, to change his opinion; but the inevitable impression made by such a change is that a further change is always possible." People doubt the stability of convictions recently acquired—and acquired in opposition to the previous convictions of a whole life; and I, therefore, thought to myself that although we should certainly know what the Bill would be when brought into the House of Commons, yet it was probable that we should know nothing, whatever its original shape, of what it would be when it left the House of Commons and was sent up to the House of Lords. Feeling, therefore, that it was of very little use to inquire into a measure of which we did not know the exact provisions, I thought it the wisest and most convenient course to defer any proposition for inquiry until we knew what the subject of inquiry was likely to be. And I confess I am glad I did so, for an inquiry into the Bill as it went into the House of Commons would have been of little use in its bearing upon the present Bill as it has been sent up to us by the Commons. The question, as the noble Earl has remarked, has been for many Sessions the subject of private Motions. It has been handed over from independent Member to independent Member of the House of Commons; it has been carried by gradually increasing majorities, and at last it has been adopted by a Government some of whose Members have almost up to the end retained their objections to it. In that respect it does not differ much from the genesis of many other Bills with which I am acquainted; but it differs from all that I know in this—that it has reached the stage of ultimate legislation, dealing with such important interests, without any inquiry by a Royal Commission or by a Committee of either House. My duty is not to argue against the principle of the Bill, if by the principle of the Bill is meant the admission to offices of persons who cannot now hold office in the Universities—my business is to impress on your Lordships that so grave a step in legislation ought not, if you are faithful to your own traditions and precedents, to be adopted without due and careful inquiry. What is the object of this Bill. My noble Friend the Lord President has sufficiently explained what, to his mind, is its object. He desires to admit persons who are generally, though somewhat vaguely, known as "orthodox Dissenters" to the benefits of University honours and emoluments, from which they are now excluded by the test of subscription to the Thirty Nine Articles. That is a very intelligible and, from their point of view, a very legitimate object on the part of the Dissenters—were I a Dissenter myself I should do very much the same thing. It is quite right that the adherents to any form of belief should do their best to attain all that may tend to the honour and propagation of that belief; nor do I dispute that the circumstances of the day have very muck changed with respect to the power of resisting such a claim. I do not profess to have changed my opinion; but seeing what the political forces of the day are, and knowing, as I have had the opportunity of knowing, the opinions of the leading men—at least in the University to which I have the honour to belong—I do not intend to maintain that we desire as an object to exclude Nonconformists from University and collegiate honours and emoluments. We are content that that should be so, subject to one condition. We are content to admit that in the present condition of the world — in the existing state of things—it would be wiser and better, and more for the interests of peace, learning, and religion, to admit such a state of things than to resist it. But there is one condition — a condition affirmed in the Preamble of this Bill, and as a mere abstract piece of sentimentality contained in the clauses, though there is not one shred of enactment to secure it—the one condition to which we attach an importance immeasurably superior to any consideration of honours or emoluments. I will describe it in the very words of the Government— It is expedient that such restrictions, tests, and disabilities should be removed, under proper safeguards for maintenance of religious instruction and worship in the said Universities and the Colleges and Halls now subsisting within the same. These words point, whether designedly or not, to the real enemy with whom we have to contend. Our contention with the Dissenters has been in one sense only political. The points on which the mass of the Dissenters differ from the Church of England are points upon which, in their day, men felt with intense earnestness and fought with unflagging vigour, and I do not wish to underrate their importance; but they are points from which the intellectual interest of the age has passed away. They are no longer the battle-fields of religious controversy. The points of Church government which separate us from the Wesleyans and Independents, the question of the age of baptism which separates us from another important sect—important as these questions are, and I should be sorry to treat them as trivial—they are not points on which those who are interested in the condition of Christendom, all who look with interest on the present relations of the progress of civilization and the purity of Christian faith, are most deeply interested. We feel that the battle is shifted to another ground, and that we have to deal with a much more potent and dangerous enemy. The progress of physical science, the gradual familiarity which political events have given us with the modes of thought of the Eastern world—these, together with other less powerful causes, have produced effects on the human mind similar to those which previous inventions and discoveries have produced. Just as 300 years ago the discovery of America, the invention of printing, and the sudden familiarity with ancient literature dazzled and confused men's minds, and drove them in some cases from the landmarks of the faith—so in our day there is a violent movement towards utter unbelief, which is principally felt among the most educated and cultivated classes of society. No one who deserves the name of Christian can look upon that movement with anything of permanent alarm, or can believe it will ultimately compromise interests very dear to us; but undoubtedly it is a force which, within our own generation, has been tremendous, and we cannot say it is yet spent. No doubt, after a time, better counsels, a more moderate estimate of the relations of the new discoveries to the ancient beliefs and their bearing on the ancient faith will prevail; but, in the meanwhile, we have to deal with a class of men, earnest men of clear and powerful intellect, honest, pure in the morality which they have derived from the Christianity which they repudiate, who seek with all the earnestness of a religious propaganda to overthrow the religion in which they have been brought up. That is the real enemy whom we have to deal, and all our differences of opinion on points of secondary importance with Dissenters sink into immeasurable insignificance compared with the magnitude of this contest. Now, it is from the feeling that this Bill bears upon this great controversy, that it may for the course of some time, if carried in its present form, delay the ultimate and sure victory of the truth and cause many souls to be gathered into the net of error, that I have always looked upon it as far superior in importance to any measures dealing with merely secular and terrestrial interests. I am aware that, happily, there are very few in Parliament who would be prepared to maintain the desirability of giving free course to unbelief. That the Dissenting forces are used by those who desire such an issue I do not doubt; but I know well that those who are really guiding the Dissenting forces do so with a scarcely concealed contempt for the credulity of the allies they are forced to use. I can understand statesmen who have not thought of these things wishing to thrust aside a controversy which is always barren and certainly acrimonious; and therefore many sophistries, if I may call them so, have been devised to induce us to believe that a measure of this kind will have no influence in forwarding the progress of those errors to which I have called attention. It is said, for instance, that tests are of no real effect, and they have been compared to a hedge or wall which can easily be broken through or climbed over. Well, no doubt, there are people who can break through tests just as there are unscrupulous intruders who can climb over a wall or force their way through a hedge; but you do not on that account abandon your garden walls, and I see no prudence in abandoning tests in the case of institutions to which they are adapted. They do keep out a very large proportion of the persons against whom they are directed, though, no doubt, there are a certain number of people with minds sufficiently subtle and consciences sufficiently elastic to break through them. If I wanted to prove the efficiency of tests I should not refer to mere theoretical arguments, but give a practical illustration. No set of people in the world are freer from prejudices connected with antiquated traditions than our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic. Yet the Americans when, in the height of a fierce political contest, they desired to keep certain members out of Congress, could conceive of nothing more efficient than the antiquated tests which you despise. If those tests were not practically useful, I am sure the Americans would not have adopted them; and, as a matter of fact, they have effected the object in view, and they keep out everyone whom their authors desired to keep out. But then we are told that the Church is strong in the Universities, and that if you only give free trade and fair play in regard to religion, the Church will be in no danger. If the Universities had the power of electing the Fellows and Tutors of each College, I should admit that there was a great deal of force in the argument; but those who use it do so in utter forgetfulness of the strange constitutions of our Colleges. The College Fellows have always been a body electing their own members; and the perpetuation of that body has been confided to the existing Fellows who have had the entire power over the education of their College. It was for them to decide whether the statutes should be altered, and on what conditions, and with what qualifications the Tutors should be selected. Until 1854, the Fellows had absolute discretion as to whom they should elect; but in that year Parliament passed a statute altering all this. It deprived the Fellows of their absolute power, and said to them—"You shall take the man who has done the best in an intellectual examination." The consequence is, that the condition of the Colleges has come to this—the College Tutors now consist of men who, at the age of 22, or thereabouts, are able to compose better Greek Iambics, or to give a better account of Greek philosophy than their fellow-students. On that qualification, and on that qualification alone, they have gained a permanent right to govern and control the education of the youth of this country. There is no appeal against their decision; there is no power of regulating them; and neither the State nor the Universities can interfere with them. Whatever happens, the circumstance of their having had at the age of 22 this peculiar educational qualification enables them—no matter how much their opinions may subsequently change on matters of belief or morality—to go on to their dying day regulating the discipline and appointing the officers of their College. So long as there was a statutory guarantee for the faith of these College Fellows, it perhaps was not worth while to interfere. The arrangement was always an anomalous one; but I can understand that, as long as there existed some guarantee for the faith of the Tutors and the Fellows, it might be sustained. It does seem to me, however, that you are exposed to extreme danger if you allow—if on the mere score of intellectual superiority at the age of 22 you allow this vested right of managing education to men for whose religious belief or opinions you have not the slightest guarantee. I do not for a moment pretend that if the course of opinion in this country should unhappily be such that Christianity loses its hold over the people, and if they should no longer desire their children to be brought up in that religious belief, it would be possible to prevent the Universities from being drawn into that common destiny. What I say is this—that the Universities should not become the echo of every vicissitude of opinion. As the Colleges are now constituted, a very small number of men might make a College in either of the Universities a centre for propagating unbelief. In many of the Colleges, the Fellows are not more than a dozen or so in number, and by reason of some of them being non-resident, the practical Governing Body is reduced to six or seven. These are selected purely on this principle of their intellectual superiority at the age of 22 or 23, and four or five persons who had got in on this ground, if it so happened that they were agreed in opinions hostile to Christianity, might set up an infidel College in the midst of either University. There would be absolutely nothing to prevent this. You may say, perhaps, that this is exceedingly improbable. I admit its improbability; but still the mere chance of some three or four men holding peculiar opinions being able to get in, seems a very dangerous thing to which to trust the education of our youth. What I dread more than anything else is that, at an age when the character is unformed, the passions strong, and the conviction not yet settled, young men going to the Universities should find College set against College, and Professor against Professor, with reference to the deepest mysteries of the Christian faith, and all that they had been accustomed to regard with reverence, and all the restraining truths of religion called in question every hour of the day. You cannot, I am aware, silence differences of opinion—truth must be fought out amidst controversy—but the young, with tender and unformed minds, surely ought not to be plunged, at the most dangerous period of life, into the arena of such controversies as these. I maintain that the constitution of our Universities is not fitted for this unrestricted liberty of religious opinion, and that we must overhaul the whole question, and go into all the arrangements which have existed so long, if we are about to introduce an element so strange and novel. I do not see how, in justice to the parents of this country who, undoubtedly, look to the Universities to bring up their children in the habits of morality and the truths of religion, we can establish a system which would offer such a fair field for an infidel propaganda. I have heard no argument against this inquiry—nothing that anyone could say was worthy to be called an argument. My noble Friend (Earl De Grey and Ripon) indeed descanted on the dangers of delay, and hinted that, if delay occurs, we shall have something worse than the present measure. Well, my Lords, I am quite at ease on that score, for I defy my noble Friend to produce a worse measure than this.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

said, that he had made no hint of the kind referred to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I certainly thought I heard my noble Friend say something about the agitation growing every day more acrimonious; but I am very glad to find I was mistaken on this point. As to what my noble Friend said about delay it is quite clear that, if there is no evil in delay, the case for inquiry becomes overwhelming. Remember that the step you are asked to take in my Motion is quite in accordance with precedent; because small measures as well as large ones have always been preceded by adequate and sufficient inquiry. Previous to the disestablishment of the Irish Church, previous to the alteration of the Lectionary, you had such an inquiry; and the very fact that my noble Friend and we on this side of the House differ so widely as to the effect of the Bill, and as to whether the 4th clause affords an adequate protection from religious instruction, is in itself sufficient to show that inquiry is necessary before we proceed to the second reading of this Bill. I should like the House to listen again to what my noble Friend believes to be a security for religious worship and instruction. The 4th clause provides that Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or affect—any further or otherwise than is herein expressly enacted—the system of religious instruction, worship, and discipline which now is or may hereafter be lawfully established in the said Universities respectively, or in the Colleges thereof or any of them, or the statutes and ordinances of the said Universities and Colleges respectively relating to such instruction, worship, and discipline. Of course, we are asked to assume that the Bill does what it says it does; and, consequently, my noble Friend tells us that it secures religions worship and instruction. I do not differ from the Preamble; but it certainly does not appear to me to be an extravagant thing to ask that, when we are called upon to pass a measure professing to be in conformity with the Preamble, we should take means to inquire whether that conformity is real or not. It appears to me that we are called upon to alter a system which has existed for centuries, and to introduce in its place one of which we know nothing. Surely, the mere circumstance that we are called upon to do this—and called upon to do it in opposition to the strongly-expressed opinion of the majority of those bodies with whom the Bill deals—is a sufficient ground for granting the inquiry for which I ask. I would only put it to your Lordships as a question of alternative. Just as a matter of hypothesis, compare the risk of the two courses which you are called upon to take. It may be that we are wrong—it may be that the Bill does provide, as it professes to do, sufficient security for religious instruction and worship. In such an event, what evil will have been done by referring the matter to a Select Committee? The truth will come out in due time; and, by adopting the course I recommend, your Lordships will adhere to your ordinary traditions and precedents of legislation, and you will legislate with all the more confidence because you will legislate carefully. But suppose, on the other hand, that our anticipations are well-founded, and that this Bill is about to cut the link between religious and other instruction in the Universities, I ask you to consider the evil which would be caused by hot precipitin. You will have inflicted evils which are absolutely irreparable; you will have deprived the people of this country of their most efficient instrument for sustaining the Christian faith, and for upholding Christian morality; and you will have despoiled the Universities of that which has been for centimes their chiefest honour, and which is now their most endearing claim to the affections of the people.

Amendment moved, to leave out from ("that") to the end of the Motion, and insert the following Resolution, viz.:— In any measure for enabling persons not members of the Church of England to hold offices to which they are not now eligible in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and the Colleges and Halls in those Universities, it is essential to provide by law proper safeguards for the maintenance of religious instruction and worship and for the religious character of the education to be given therein."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

My Lords, being so closely connected with the University of Oxford, I think I need not apologize to your Lordships for making a few remarks on this important subject. I am the more anxious to do so because I feel that, notwithstanding what the noble Marquess the Chancellor of the University has said, it is my duty to vote against the Amendment which he has just proposed. I am quite willing to admit that there are many reasons why I, and I suppose many of your Lordships, should regret that there is any necessity for this measure; but my regrets go farther back than most people's. I not only regret that it should be necessary to bring in a measure for the abolition of tests, but I regret that it was ever necessary to enact them. I am very sorry that a state of things should ever have existed in England, rendering it necessary to provide on behalf of one part of the country against the admission of another part to any privilege to which all seem to be primâ facie entitled. If all had been of one mind—if all the subjects of the Crown of England had been members of the Church of England—the tests would have been unnecessary; but it was in view of religious divisions that tests were enacted, and it is in view of religious divisions that it is now sought to repeal them. There is little doubt public opinion supported their introduction, and there is no doubt that, at present, public opinion supports their abolition. It is folly, then, on the part of either branch of the Legislature—for I make no distinction between them—to attempt to resist the mature political conviction of the country when it has been clearly expressed; and if it be the verdict of public opinion that all Englishmen shall have equal right to the endowments and honours of the great Universities, it is folly to resist this verdict, and to go on upholding a succession of untenable posts until you have no longer the power to dictate the terms of your surrender—while the very fact of your resistance is calculated to diminish the weight of your advice, or, perhaps, to preclude you from giving it in all subsequent consideration of the question. Yet this is what we should be doing if we adopted the Amendment. I cannot regard that Amendment as other than an attempt, for the present Session at least, to defeat the Bill, and I cannot see that the Committee the noble Marquess asks for would in any way affect the conclusion to which your Lordships are invited to come. I can think of nothing into which that Committee would inquire which is not obvious to the minds of all who know anything of those who are resident in the Universities. I admit there are very strong opinions in the Universities against the measure; it was only yesterday I was told that if I voted for this Bill—this accursed measure, my correspondent was pleased to call it—I should lose every friend I valued in Oxford. I have a better opinion of Oxford—I have a better opinion of my friends than to be intimidated by that threat. And now, if your Lordships will allow me, I will give you my reasons for supporting the Bill. As I understand it, the Church of England is face to face with a new order of things. The Church of England is face to face with the conviction of the country that the Universities are to be opened; and it seems to me that it would be wisdom on the part of the Church frankly to accept the situation, and, as far as she may, to guide and control the movement. It is vain for the Church to cling to Acts of Parliament in matters of this kind. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has said that this Bill contains provisions on behalf of religion which are illusory and sentimental. I cannot see that the Bill is to enact anything which would prevent the Universities from maintaining their religious character. The present tests have no effect in maintaining the religious character of the Universities. There are Colleges at Oxford at this moment where a candidate for a Fellowship, known to have strongly religious sentiments, would have no chance against a latitudinarian competitor. There are Tutors at these Colleges, who make no secret of entertaining views hostile to Christianity; the present tests do not restrain them. If I were to choose between a Freethinker and a pious Dissenter, in electing to an office of influence in the University, I should choose the pious Dissenter. ["Hear, hear!"] I thought this Bill was to admit the Dissenters—[A noble LORD: "Not the Freethinkers"],—and I do not see that their admission would so seriously affect the Universities as some people think. I would even say that in point of morality and sobriety some Colleges may be usefully affected by an element such as I have described. The noble Marquess speaks in his Amendment of "safeguards in law;" but as protectors of religion it seems to me these standards fixed by law do more harm than good. No religious teaching is forbidden by the Bill—it was not the intention of its authors to forbid it. Some have said it would be improper under its provisions even to say grace in College hall; but, so far from that, as I read it, the Bill would allow the restoration of the old College practice of reading a good book during meals if the Society wished to restore it; and surely the noble Marquess does not mean to say we shall not, if the Bill is passed, elect Christians to be Fellows. We mean to uphold Christianity not in spite of this Bill, but by virtue of this Bill; we mean to uphold Christianity, because the Bill leaves us perfectly free to uphold it, more free than under the false system of the present time. I do not cherish any illusions. I do not suppose that when this Bill becomes law Dissenters and Churchmen will all immediately live at peace. I am very well aware—more so during the past few weeks than before—that a great number of men who, I suppose, love religion much hate the Church a great deal more, and with regard to them I do not suppose this Bill will tend to produce amity; but the influences of what is called extreme political Dissent are not the influences which prevail at the Universities. They have their spheres in vestries and election committee-rooms, not in academical Senates and Convocations. The pious Dissenter who really values learning and religion is the man who will come in under the Bill. I claim the same credit for honesty in holding my opinions as is claimed for those from whom I differ. I believe that religion will prosper as much without these tests as under them; and I ask noble Lords who oppose the Bill not to think that we who support it are given up to wicked imaginings, but are as honest and true friends of religion as themselves, and as determined to maintain it in its integrity and at all hazards.

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL

said, that though he concurred in much that his right rev. Brother had said, he could not but think that the whole tone of his address sounded as that of one who receded step by step before the foe. Whatever views they might take up on this question, they should regard each other as honourable and honest men who differed on certain points, and who were moved by a conscientious desire to do what was right; and, therefore, he was not prepared to regard those upon whom they were seeking to confer privileges as hostile. He confessed frankly that he was prepared to stand by the Amendment of the noble Marquess—not with a view of gaining time, which, in many cases, meant gaining time in following a disastrous cause; but the time they were now seeking to gain was a proceeding based on considerations of the deepest regard for religion. The whole tenour of the remarks he was then making turned upon his feeling that this Bill would not conduce to the best interests of religion, although he was satisfied that that was not the belief of those who had introduced the measure, and who appeared to regard the safeguards it contained as sufficient to protect those interests. The proposal of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) was that an opportunity should be afforded for eliciting the opinion of the country upon the subject, so that that opinion might be ascertained with something like certainty. With regard to the question whether Dissenters should be admitted to our Universities or not, he should take a very different tone from that of his right rev. Brother. There were three arguments why Nonconformists should be admitted to the Universities. The first was the great argument of common sense; the second was, that having conceded privileges to the Nonconformists long ago further privileges must be conceded to them; and the third was, that the larger half of the Nonconformists had proved themselves worthy of those privileges. There was, however, another argument that came more nearly home to themselves, and that was the argument of feeling. That very day he had spent six long hours in a circumscribed chamber not 100 yards from that House, round the table in which were grouped Nonconformists, mingled with the dignitaries of the Church of England; and he felt that it was a duty to extend to men, who had proved themselves worthy, the opportunities of the highest culture. Therefore, upon the question of feeling alone, he should be disposed to admit the Nonconformists into the Universities. There was, however, one very plain and distinct point to which he wished to draw attention—and that was, whether the Bill, in proposing to open the door to the Nonconformists—to whom he would willingly concede entrance—would not also open the door to the Freethinkers, the Secularists, and to those who at this moment were endeavouring to strike down religion under their feet? If their Lordships were of opinion that the Bill would have that effect, it became their duty, as plain, simple, earnest men, to fall back upon the Amendment of the noble Marquess, which suggested that they should pause before they entered upon such a rapid and downward course, and decline to proceed until they had ascertained whether the serious fears that were entertained with respect to the security of religion were or were not well founded. Having said thus much upon the general question, he now came to consider the matter in detail. It was evident that the measure contemplated certain results; but those results were stated by those who were attempting to legislate upon this subject to be folly counterbalanced by certain safeguards. He would proceed to inquire, in the first place, whether the results which it was anticipated would follow the Bill were formidable in their character; and, secondly, whether the safeguards were or were not sufficiently strong to resist the apprehended evil. If he could establish the formidable character of those results and the insufficient nature of the safeguards, he should have some ground why the proposition of the noble Marquess should be entertained. He would test the Bill by the effect it would have first upon the Colleges and then upon the Universities. When a young man entered the College he was brought into the immediate control of the tutor; the Dean of the College, who looked after his morality and his attendance upon public worship; (and, thirdly, the Master of the College. Under this Bill the Tutor might be not only a layman—to which he had not the slightest objection—but a man who had no creed whatever, and one who would pass by with almost a sneer all sacred truths. Again, what would be the feelings of the youth if the Dean of the College, who more or less superintended his moral bearing, and the Master of the College, were habitually absent from public worship and treated religious matters with levity? The way that the Universities would be affected by the Bill was this—There were at Cambridge four Professorships, the first of winch must necessarily be held by a clergyman of the Church of England, and the holder of the second, being elected by the Bachelors of Divinity, might be assumed to be a religious man. The holders of the Norrisean and the Hulsean Professorships were, however, elected by the General Congregation, and might be men of no religious belief whatever, as far as the tonus of the Bill went. Much had been said of the 4th clause; but the 5th clause had not been sufficiently alluded to. All the sting of the Bill lay in that clause, and in Christian fairness the two clauses ought to be read together. By that clause certain Acts of Parliament were repealed in whole or in part. Part of the Act of Uniformity was repealed, and the consequence would be that the Colleges might make what alterations they pleased in the celebration of Divine service; because it was hardly to be supposed that the recommendations arrived at by any of the Colleges would be refused by the Queen in Council. Therefore, he feared that disastrous changes would follow on the passing of this Bill, and he claimed on behalf of not only sons of members of the Church of England, but for the sons of Nonconformists, that care should be taken to prevent such consequences, for they could not be afterwards removed by Amendments made in that House. He was anxious that the Committee should be appointed for the ulterior purpose of leading to the introduction of a broad and comprehensive measure, that should deal with several matters in the Colleges needing reform. As an illustration of the points to which he referred he might ask whether it was fair that young men obtaining Fellowships should take hundreds of pounds away from their University, while they prepared at a distance for Parliamentary life, or some other pursuits, and never return anything to their Alma Mater? In this and other matters reform was necessary, and therefore he was in favour of a full consideration of the subject.

THE BISHOP OF EXETER

My Lords, it must be a great satisfaction to those who have watched the growth of feeling with regard to this question for so many years, to find that the country and the Legislature have at length come to one point, at any rate, on which all men seem to agree. All seem to be agreed that it is no longer possible, and no longer right to exclude from office and emoluments in our great Universities those who conscientiously are not members of the Church of England. The question, when we have come to that point, is not what shall be done, but how shall it be done? I think, my Lords, we ought not only to pass this Bill, but pass it with the least possible delay. I am confident that, for the interests of truth and justice, and, emphatically and above all, for the interests of the Church of England, delay would be a serious mischief. It is mischievous that we should be, day by day, alienating from that Church the affections of many of her own sons, and provoking still more the hostility of those who are without her pale. We are constantly alienating the affections of those who belong to us, who were brought up in our own communion. Many who were taught the doctrines of the Church of England find these tests a very heavy burden to bear. Many are lost to the Church because we require of them what their consciences will not accept. When a young man carries off a Fellowship, and signs the necessary declaration, it often occurs that he is vexed in conscience by all manner of questions which it would be much better to allow him to put aside, and consider calmly and deliberately, and without anything depending on his decision. But by the very nature of the case, he is obliged to settle such questions for himself at once, or forfeit the character of an honest man. When he proceeds to examine them, he is all the while tormented with the thought that possibly he may be doing wrong in retaining his Fellowship at all; and, at the same time, he is prompted to come to a conclusion years before he ought to do so, from the fear that he should otherwise be dishonestly holding his place. It is no trifling thing to put a young man in such a difficulty. The result is, that either he retains his Fellowship in spite of doubts and to the injury of his conscience, or, finding that the scales are unfairly weighed, and seeing that it will be impossible to decide a question in which his personal interests are involved, he throws up his Fellowship and stands aside. From that day forward his mind has received a fatal twist, and he may be unable for ever after to forget how he had been treated at such a critical time. If left to himself these questions would be settled in a legitimate manner, by his quietly thinking over them until the conclusion to which his conscience would lead him should be quite clear to his understanding. Whilst, however, he is called upon to decide under such circumstances as exist at present, it is almost inevitable that difficulties should arise like mountains before him, and that doubts which were in reality hardly worth considering, should appear insurmountable obstacles, and, in this frame of mind, you call upon him to decide what must affect the whole future tenour of his life. He knows perfectly well that, as far as the duties of a Tutor are concerned, there are many subjects which he can teach without troubling himself about these points. But now, if he is a mathematician, and wants to teach mathematics; if he is a Greek scholar, and wants to teach Greek; if he is a student of Natural Science, and wants to teach Natural Science, he is compelled long before he is fit for their decision, to decide for himself the most momentous questions that can possibly be put before anyone to determine. I do not mean to say these tests may not have been of use in protecting the Church in the Universities in other times. At a period when there is no great amount of speculation going on, when people are not eagerly bent on the pursuit of the most difficult truths, when the intellects of men are, as it were, stagnating, then certainly it is quite possible to turn out one or two restless spirits who choose to depart from the ordinary line of thought, and to keep the rest of the University quite quiet. But, as it is now, these tests, so far from keeping out anybody, are absolutely of themselves, to a great degree, the very cause why there is so much mischievous speculation going on in young men's minds. They are forced to consider these questions, and even if they would leave them alone, as many of them would be disposed to do, they have no choice in the matter. I speak from experience, and I say I am sure that, as long as this state of things continues, the Church of England must suffer, and suffer in a way which it is most difficult to meet. They may be a few who are thus compelled to enter into these speculations and decide for themselves; but they are the very pick of the Universisities—the very men who are to lead their fellow-men; and to lose one of them is a matter of grievous consequence. Very often I would rather sacrifice the endowments of the Universities altogether than lose the men who are sometimes lost through the present system. Meanwhile, my Lords, what is the impression we are making on those outside of the Church. The Bill is rejected; a year is lost; then it comes before us again, and now once more it is proposed to postpone it. Will the Dissenters really believe that this is done for no other purpose than simply to provide safeguards for religion, when they are put off year after year, and when they know perfectly well that all who have anything to do with the question have had plenty of opportunities of studying it to the bottom, and ought to know by this time what kind of safeguards they require? It is said the Bill does not contain sufficient safeguards. What kind of safeguards are we to have? Are we to devise new tests? ["No!"] "We are not to require these men to be members of the Church of England! Are we to require them to hold some new religion to be invented by the Legislature? What sort of restrictions are we to have? How can we provide anything that is not provided already? The safeguards contained in this Bill are the very kind which these postponements put in peril. You have these safeguards—that a certain number of the Headships of Colleges and the clerical Fellowships are protected by the Bill at present. ["Oh!"] Certainly, the Heads of Colleges are open by the Bill in as far as they are laymen without any restriction; but I do not see that it anywhere opens them in as far as they are clergymen. Therefore I say that this, which is one of the safeguards in the Bill, still stands—that the clerical Heads of Colleges still remain; and I say this is one of the very safeguards that you put in peril by delay. Anyone who watches the course of feeling in this country will see what is the popular instinct in these matters. That popular instinct endeavours, as far as it can, to provide for religion everywhere; and, thank God, the people of England happily are still truly religious. The people still desire that there should be religious instruction. But they constantly see that those who have charge of that religious instruction contend so bitterly among themselves, that it is hardly possible to contrive that it shall be provided through their means; and the tendency of the popular mind is at last to say—"We will have nothing to do with religious instruction at all; we must come down to that about which there is no such bitter contention, and have a purely secular system." The country is, I believe, now opposed to a secular system, and will only be driven to it by finding it impracticable to bring about some agreement among those who have the charge of religious instruction. But that is the road we are going. Now this Bill still protects the clerical Headships of Colleges and the clerical Fellowships. But wait another year, and the chances are you may then find that the clerical Fellowships and the clerical Headships of Colleges are gone too. This is no menace. It is not a thing that I desire, nor do I believe the Government desire it; but it is the irresistible current of popular feeling; and I am quite sure you will put in peril the remaining safeguards of religious instruction if you allow this Bill to wait. What is it, I ask, that we are to wait for? I do not wish to speak with any disrespect of what was said by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) or by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Gloucester), but it really seems to me that the fears they have expressed are almost ludicrously exaggerated. What are we to be afraid of? That one or two clever men should set themselves up in the University to give infidel teaching. The right rev. Prelate is afraid that even although he has his own choice of the College and the University, though he may select which Head of a College he will in trust his son to, and which Tutor he will put him under for instruction, it will be quite impossible to find any Head of a College or any Tutor who is to be entirely trusted to teach him as he would wish. The noble Marquess fears that we are to have an infidel propaganda of one or two able men that will swoop the religious teaching of the Universities away, and seems to think that we must invent some new test to meet that danger. My Lords, it appears to me that to fight the battle of truth now with those old tests is very like endeavouring to fight a battle between soldiers with the armour of the Middle Ages. These tests are, in reality, far more hampering than helping. There is no question that the atmosphere of truth is freedom, and that it is quite inconsistent with narrowness and exclusiveness. If you will only remove these tests, I, for one, have no fear of what can be done by the Church of England. It could fight its own battles without fear or favour. I have no fear that any infidel propagandism would prevail against the power that will be there to meet it. Nay, I am quite sure that nothing could be better for truth than that that infidel propagandism should have an opportunity to come forward into the open and show exactly what it thinks and to fight face to face. As it is now, what happens with all your religious teaching? There is a perpetual sense in the minds of the learners that they are not really hearing what their teachers themselves believe. There is the perpetual feeling that the teachers are tongue-tied—[" No, no!"] — the perpetual feeling that a man is not saying exactly what he thinks. ["No, no!"] I am not at all saying that this feeling is just—that is another matter; but I know there is a kind of suspicion which constantly poisons the teaching of the Universities, simply because there is a feeling that men are not allowed to be perfectly honest through these tests to which they have submitted. Men are frequently found unwilling to speak to each other about religious subjects, because they have a fear that it is not possible to do so with perfect freedom and openness. Thus a most unhealthy reticence or reserve is practised where there ought to be entire plainness and frankness of speech. ["No, no!"] Those who say "No, no!" express no doubt what they feel in regard to their own University; and I am glad to know that what I have described is not the general character of Oxford and Cambridge. But although the general character of these two Universities is still sound and excellent, yet there is this poison creeping into all their life and doing them the most terrible mischief. I hold then, my Lords, that this is not the way to fight the battle. On this occasion let us rather throw aside all those ramparts which have been erected to protect the truth, but which have very often been made the prison walls within which she has languished, and let us call upon religious men from all quarters to come in and bear their part in the battle, in which we should be glad to have their aid. It is said we shall do little to conciliate the Dissenters by admitting them into the Universities. My Lords, I believe we shall do much. Pardon me if I speak warmly of my own University. It is impossible for a man who has learnt much in that University not to feel that no words can express the depth of his affection or the strength of his conviction of her power to extend to others the blessings which she has conferred on himself. And when those now outside of her pale are introduced within it, will they be insensible, my Lords, to what we have all felt so keenly? Will they not be touched with something like the love that we have cherished for our own Universities? Will not that have some effect in softening down their asperities? The sooner we Churchmen invite them to join us the better, for we shall find them, I am quite sure, such allies that there will not be the slightest reason for what I cannot but think the bugbears held up to frighten us by those who advocate delay.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I regard this Bill not as an attack on the Universities, but as an endeavour to redress a state of things which it is now acknowledged on all hands requires to be redressed. Ever since the year 1854, when you admitted, but very grudgingly, the Nonconformists to a share in the education of the great Universities, this question has pressed upon you to be disposed of. I well remember that the first step taken by my own University, and taken to my great regret, was to narrow the very narrow privileges conferred by the Legislature, by providing that no Nonconformist should enter the University save to receive his education under a clergyman of the Church of England. It has always seemed to me, as it seems now, that one of two things must happen—either that the Nonconformists must be excluded on the ground that the Universities belong entirely to the Church of England, or else that they must be admitted to a real and substantial share of every advantage the Universities possess. Well, how does the case stand at present? Two men side by side receive the same education, employ the same diligence, and obtain the same honours; and you say to them—"You must sign the tests, and then you will find a place open to you of considerable emolument, which generally lasts for fife." One of them signs, and the other refuses. But it does not follow that you have got the best man, or that the hand that signs carries with it the heart and the head that thinks and believes; while you have committed an injustice, and failed in your object. I admit that the endeavour to redress this state of things does involve a certain hardship, and shocks the feelings of many. But I find, on the other hand, that there is not one on either side your Lordships' House who has undertaken the question, who does not admit that we must give to the Nonconformists a substantial share in the emoluments of the Universities. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) admits it in the very terms of his Motion; and the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) who opposed the measure last year admitted it, because he suggested that one-half of the Fellowships should be appropriated to Nonconformists. And this suggests to my mind that when the measure appears next year, perhaps in a more severe form, we shall accept whatever it may be that is proposed. Therefore I must either acknowledge that some substantial advantage would arise from acceding to the Motion of the noble Marquess, or else vote against it. I am quite sure, my Lords, that no substantial advantage can follow from sending this question to a Select Committee. We know there is no question in the whole circle of the political field that we understand more clearly—none that comes more home to us. And I do not know why the noble Marquess calls that "sentimentality" which occurs in the 4th clause, when it appears very good argument in his Resolution. That clause provides that the Colleges shall be secured as places of religious education; and what more do you require than that? There are defects no doubt in this measure; but these defects are not to be cured next year by a Committee such as the noble Marquess proposes, but by discussion in Committee of the whole House sitting this year, and while the subject itself and all the arguments for and against it are fresh in our minds. Let us try, my Lords, as a practical question, what will be the result to the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. The noble Marquess has drawn a terrible picture of a number of persons meeting together and electing a Fellow by a purely intellectual standard. Then what is the use of tests if you are to elect by an intellectual standard? Because the statutes say you are not to elect by such a standard, but that those who are to be elected must be fitted by religion, by learning, and by morals. If that injunction be systematically ignored, what is the use of restrictions? Besides, in all the Colleges half of the Fellows are clerical, and does the noble Marquess imagine that these gentlemen, with clergymen at their back, will elect persons who will turn the Universities into places of infidel education? What, then, is the use of tests?—because all these clerical Fellows have been tied up as strictly as possible by tests at the time of their ordination. My Lords, lot us take a more practical view of the change proposed. For my part, I do not welcome it—nobody who who has lived in Oxford, as I have done, is likely to do so; but we must take a practical view of it, and I must say I do not believe that the change that will be wrought in the Universities will be very considerable. There is as great a divergence of opinion in Oxford at this moment as in your Lordships' House. The tests have not succeeded in keeping out revolutions of thought in Oxford, and the abolition of tests would not increase those revolutions. My Lords, I will not trouble you at greater length. I am connected with Oxford as Visitor of one of its Colleges, and as having lived a great part of my life and spent all my happiest days there. It is the birthplace of my children, and the place where I hope they will be educated, and I would not inflict an injury on a University for which I entertain so strong a feeling of affection. But I am convinced, my Lords, that things have come to this—that the wisest and most prudent, as well as the most just course, is to pass some Bill at present, and not by means of illusory promises to defer to a future day, amid acrimony and irritation, the settlement which must surely come, and to which I foresee that your Lordships will one day accede.

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? — Their Lordships divided: — Contents 83; Not - Contents 97: Majority 14.

Resolved in the Negative.

CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Russell, E.
	Spencer, E.
York, Archp.
	Halifax, V.
Cleveland, D.	Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)
Devonshire, D.
Grafton, D.	Sidmouth, V.
Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]	Sydney, V.
Somerset, D.	Torrington, V.
	Exeter, Bp.
Ailesbury, M.	London, Bp.
Camden, M.	Manchester, Bp.
Lansdowne, M.	Oxford, Bp.
Normanby, M.
Townshend, M.	Ashburton, L.
	Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)
Abingdon, E.
Airlie, E.	Beaumont, L.
Camperdown, E.	Belper, L.
Cawdor, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
Cottenham, E.
Cowper, E.	Calthorpe, L.
Dartrey, E.	Camoys, L.
De Grey and Ripon, E.	Castletown, L.
De La Warr, E.	Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)
Effingham, E.
Ellesmere, E.	Clermont, L.
Fortescue, E.	Congleton, L.
Granville, E.	De Tabley, L.
Grey, E.	Ebury, L.
Jersey, E.	Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
Kimberley, E.	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Lichfield, E.
Morley, E.	Greville, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)	Robartes, L.
Hatherton, L.	Romilly, L.
Houghton, L.	Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)
Lawrence, L.	Seaton, L.
Leigh, L.	Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Lurgan, L.	Stratheden, L.
Lyveden, L.	Sudeley, L.
Methuen, L.	Suffield, L.
Monson, L.	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll
Mostyn, L.
O'Hagan, L.	Vernon, L.
Penzance, L.	Wentworth, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)	Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	Abercromby, L.
	Abinger, L.
Marlborough, D.	Bagot, L.
Northumberland, D.	Bolton, L.
Richmond, D.	Cairns, L.
Rutland, D.	Churston, L.
Wellington, D.	Clarina, L.
	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)
	Colchester, L.
Bristol, M.	Colonsay, L.
Salisbury, M. [Teller.]	Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]
Abergavenny, E.	Denman, L.
Amherst, E.	De Saumarez, L.
Annesley, E.	Dunsany, L.
Bantry, E.	Egerton, L.
Bathurst, E.	Elphinstone, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Fitzwalter, L.
Bradford, E.	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Brooke and Warwick, E.
Cadogan, E.	Grantley, L.
Carnarvon, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Chesterfield, E.
Dartmouth, E.	Hawke, L.
Denbigh, E.	Heytesbury, L.
Ferrers, E.	Hylton, L.
Feversham, E.	Kesteven, L.
Harrowby, E.	Kilmaine, L.
Kellie, E.	Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
Lauderdale, E.
Macclesfield, E.	Northwick, L.
Malmesbury, E.	O'Neill, L.
Mansfield, E.	Penrhyn, L.
Manvers, E.	Redesdale, L.
Nelson, E.	Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Portarlington, E.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Powis, E.
Stradbroke, E.	Saltoun, L.
Tankerville, E.	Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)
De Vesci, V.	Sherborne, L.
Hardinge, V.	Sinclair, L.
Hawarden, V.	Skelmersdale, L.
	Sondes, L.
Bangor, Bp.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Chichester, Bp.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Ely, Bp.
Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.	St. John of Bletso, L.
	Strathnairn, L.
Hereford, Bp.	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Lichfield, Bp.	Thurlow, L.
Lincoln, Bp.	Tredegar, L.
Llandaff, Bp.	Walsingham, L.
Rochester, Bp.	Wynford, L.
Salisbury, Bp.	Zouche, L.

Then it was moved, To insert the words of the Amendment.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

said, he would offer no opposition. The noble Marquess had sketched in his speech the principles on which he would found his securities, and his Bill would probably be in accordance with them. He would offer no further opposition, but would say Not Content to the Resolution.

Then the said words inserted.

Then it was moved— That a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the best mode of giving effect to the foregoing Resolution.

EARL GREY

said, that before this Resolution was agreed to he asked their Lordships to seriously consider what advantage was to be derived from the course proposed. Opening the Universities to Dissenters might be a good or a bad thing—in his opinion, it would be for the happiness of the Church; but if their Lordships proceeded upon the assumption that the admission of Dissenters required to be guarded by certain precautions, as regarded religious instruction, he asked them, as reasonable men, whether to refer the question to a Select Committee was a probable mode of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, as to what those safeguards ought to be? If safeguards were necessary—and if they could be devised—would it not have been in the power of the noble Marquess, who held a high position at Oxford, to have consulted with the loading menbers of that University, and to have devised some measures which would have accomplished his object? Those measures he could have placed before the House. Was it because he was unable to devise safeguards that he asked their Lordships to send the subject to a Select Committee? And did the noble Marquess think that a Committee, composed of men of various and clashing opinions, with no scheme laid before them, would be likely to form a correct notion of what safeguards there ought to be? He thought the appointment of a Committee would be an idle, not to say a mischievous, stop; and he trusted that his noble Friend (Earl de Grey and Ripon) would give their Lordships an opportunity of expressing their opinion on this part of the quesion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he did not wish it to be understood that he had no recommendation to propose, but he would rather have a scheme which was approved by a Select Committee than one which was only suggested by himself; and, further, he desired that there should be placed on record, by means of the testimony of witnesses, the grounds on which the Select Committee made their recommendation. If he brought forward a proposition on his own authority only, he would not have those strong and valid reasons with which he would be furnished by the Report of a Select Committee, and the evidence of the witnesses whom they examined.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, in the course of this debate he had heard many remarkable speeches for and against this Bill; but he was bound to say that up to that moment he had not heard a single argument in favour of the plan of referring this question to a Select Committee, which his noble Friend (Earl Grey) had so strongly denounced. What was this Committee to inquire into? Was it proposed that the Committee should inquire whether infidelity existed now in the Universities, and to what degree — and whether doubts, discussions, and extreme opinions prevailed at Oxford? Or would the Committtee inquire into what tests could be suggested? The noble Marquess had not told their Lordships what new test he thought it would be wise and expedient to offer to the Committee; and did he really mean to invite them to appoint a Select Committee to consider certain clauses of the Act of Uniformity, on which every educated man, both in and out of the House, had already formed his opinion?

EARL RUSSELL

said, the measure appeared to him an ingenious device to separate what the noble Marquess called the Protestant Dissenters from the great body of Nonconformists. Now, if he had any knowledge of Protestant Dissenters, he believed that no such bribe would be accepted. The noble Marquess might frame a test with that object; but he felt convinced that the Dissenters would never enter the Universities under such degrading conditions.

THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF

said, that in her very wise regulations for the government of Trinity College, Cambridge, Queen Elizabeth included an oath for the young men appointed to scholarships, probably in order to protect them from being embarrassed by the doubts and difficulties that were then rife. It simply required a declaration on the part of these young men that they embraced the Christian faith and preferred the written Word of God to things that were unwritten. A Select Committee might adopt some such test, which would admit all orthodox Nonconformists, whom all were anxious to admit, but would exclude those who had no creed at all. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the appointment of a Committee, in order that it might be ascertained whether some simple acknowledgment of the Christian faith would not answer the object the noble Marquess had in view.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, all that the proposed Committee could do had been done already; information had been given, and the subject was thoroughly known. He remembered a case where a noble Duke obtained a Committee on a Bill; but after a few witnesses had been examined he went out of town, and the Bill was thus conveniently shelved. He wished to know, therefore, whether the noble Marquess would stick to his Committee after he got it?

THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN

said, he had the honour of being the Visitor of Colleges in both our Universities and also of the greatest public school in England and the world—the Royal foundation at Eton of King Henry VI. Consequently he had a public duty to perform towards those institutions, and he must express his strong conviction that the subject of the safeguards for religious instruction and worship in the Colleges of our Universities ought to receive a sifting inquiry at the hands of a Select Committee. He held in his hand a communication he had received from the head of a College in Cambridge, who had occupied that position for 23 years, who, in the course of 22 years, had thrice been Vice Chancellor of that University, and had displayed great ability in the administration of academical affairs, and had proved his disinterestedness by declining the highest dignities in the Church of England. The writer declared— The Bill speaks of safeguards for the maintenance of religious instruction and worship in Colleges; because it does not allow such Fellowships as are now restricted to clergymen to be held by laymen, or by persons who are not members of the Church of England; but the fact is that in some of the Colleges at Cambridge very few of the Fellows are required to take Holy Orders; and, therefore, if the Bill become law, a very large majority of the Fellows of the Colleges might be non-Churchmen, including Jews, Mahommedans, and even avowed Deists and Atheists. Besides, in all the Colleges the obligation to Holy Orders rests only upon College statutes, and these College statutes at Cambridge,"—and the same, my Lords, is the case at Oxford with the consent of the Visitors,—"may now be altered at any time by the Queen in Council on the petition of a portion of the Fellows; so that there would be no safeguards whatever, if the Bill become law. Also, by Clause 5 of the Bill, one of the provisions of the Act of Uniformity—namely, Clause 13—is repealed; and, consequently, any religious or anti-religious services might take place in the College chapels generally. The College statutes at present require the daily performance of Divine service according to the forms in use in the Church of England, but they do not prohibit any other. I will not believe that such a provision as this can become law; if it should become law, there would be a precedent for using the parish churches and cathedrals in England for Popish Mass, or for any other rites and ceremonies. Such was the language of that distinguished person. He believed that the supposed religious safeguards in the Bill would prove illusory and worthless. This showed the need of careful examination into the subject. It would be the duty of the Select Committee to provide adequate securities. His right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Exeter) appeared to regard the Colleges and Universities merely as places where gifted young men might gain intellectual prizes and distinctions. He seemed to consider them as existing mainly for the benefit of the few who gain scholarships and Fellowships there. He (the Bishop of Lincoln) looked at them in a different light. They did, indeed, afford stimulants to literature and science, and were greatly to be honoured on that account. But their noblest function was to be seminaries of sound learning and religious education for the English nation, in the principles of the English Church. He spoke in the interest of parents when he expressed his belief that safeguards were necessary to prevent the Colleges being made schools of scepticism or seminaries of superstition. It might be said, perhaps, that this was the language of exclusive bigotry; but he would remind their Lordships that one of the most arbitrary monarchs who ever sat upon the throne of England used the abolition of tests as a means of introducing Popery into both our Universities. King James II., professing a zeal for toleration, and for the abolition of all religious tests and subscriptions, sent a Popish Bishop to be President of Magdalen College at Oxford, and to Cambridge a Benedictine monk; and let their Lordships remember who the persons were who, at that time, the year 1686, came forward to maintain the tests and religious safeguards of the Universities and Colleges. Were they intolerant bigots? Surely not. One of the foremost among them at Cambridge was a person whose name shed the brightest lustre on the science and philosophy of England and the world—the immortal Isaac Newton. Unless adequate religious securities were maintained, the youth of the country would run the risk of being brought under the influence of unbelievers, or of those whose seductive arts lead them into another Church. He therefore earnestly supported the proposal of the noble Marquess.

On Question?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 95; Not-Contents 79: Majority 16.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Committee appointed accordingly.

And, on July 21, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

Abp. York.	E. Harrowby.
Ld. President.	E. Morley.
D. Somerset.	E. Beauchamp.
D. Marlborough.	Bp. Gloucester and Bristol.
M. Salisbury.
E. Cowper.	L. Colchester.
E. Stanhope.	L. Stanley of Alderley.
E. Carnarvon.	L. Lyveden.
E. Powis.	L. Houghton.

And, on July 22, The Lord Rosebery added.