REPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 11 May 1871)

LORD HOUGHTON
said, that he had observed during the sitting of the Committee, and also during the debate, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had expressed no ill-will to the main proposition in the Bill, but had directed his observations solely to one part of the subject-matter of it, and had succeeded, by a small majority, in inserting a clause containing a declaration to be made by all persons appointed to tutorial offices in the colleges, and some other clauses. Now, he wished to appeal to the noble Marquess whether, on re-consideration, it would not be wiser to send the Bill back to the other House in something nearer to the form in which it came up than to provoke a collision between the two Houses on a single point. He would not urge as a reason for this the smallness of the majority, nor had he the slightest disrespect for the noble Lords who supported the proposal. The noble Marquess had shown a willingness to accept the decision of the other House, and to throw open the Universities to persons of all persuasions, except as regarded those intrusted with the duty of teaching, and the declaration which he had proposed as a safeguard on this point 603 was dictated, as the whole tone of the debate showed, by fear of a very small and unimportant portion of the community. The immense majority of the people of this country adhered to the authority and teaching of the Bible, and their reverence for it was so absolute that any person who avowed hostility to its doctrines was disabled not only from holding any office connected with moral or religious teaching, but almost from any political action. No one could appear at the hustings with any chance of success, and announce that he did not accept the Bible. The same feeling would prevail in any college or institution; and was it wise, therefore, for the sake of asserting an absolute truism, to come into collision with the other House, and to impose a test which would have no practical bearing on the present or future education of the people?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he appreciated the moderate and conciliatory spirit in which the noble Lord's appeal had been made; but he deprecated his somewhat frequent use of the word "collision"—a favourite term applied to cases of disagreement between the two Houses. If it could be said that the two Houses could never differ without involving morally the physical results of two ships coming into collision, he could only say that the British Constitution was not likely to work very long. If there was any sense or meaning for the existence of two Houses of Parliament, it must have been contemplated that differences of opinion would arise, and therefore he did not see why a difference of opinion should be styled a collision any more than the difference of two persons sitting here or in the other House. In advocating propositions contrary to the views they had expressed, he had intended no disrespect to the other House, and he could conceive nothing improper or unconstitutional in the adoption of such propositions by a majority of their Lordships. Passing from this to more important considerations, it was precisely because he agreed with the noble Lord that the Bible was now the rule of this country, and that no one could safely appear at the hustings and announce his difference from it—precisely because he thought this the most valuable feature of the public opinion of this country, distinguished from the public opinion of 604 every other country in Europe—because he thought this feature should be cherished and preserved as one of the brightest jewels of our national honour—it was for this reason that he dreaded any agency by which this state of things could be disturbed. Now, his conviction was that there was only one agency by which this could be done. If those opposed to the Bible could get at the fountain-head of education, and poison the stream which issued from that well, they might succeed, as they could not otherwise do, in shaking the allegiance which the people of this country of all classes and opinions acknowledged in common to the Bible. Acting upon the Resolutions of the Select Committee, he had proposed for the approval of the House a declaration which they believed would paralyze those—if such there were—who desired to carry so unholy a project into effect; and he could not admit that because it was only sanctioned by a small majority it was therefore his duty to withdraw it. The division was taken in a small House and at an unpropitious time of the night. The noble Lord recollected, no doubt, the reason assigned by Clarendon for the vote which turned the Bishops out of this House 200 years ago—that there were people who liked dinner better than Bishops. It was possible that a reason of a similar character operated the other night. He admitted, of course, that the other hypothesis was possible, and that the opinion of the House might be closely divided. It was possible, too, that the majority of the House, if another division were taken, would be with the noble Lord:—but on neither hypothesis could he think it his duty to withdraw the clause from the consideration of both Houses. Their Lordships would be acting in the most constitutional manner by proceeding in the way usual in other cases.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he saw no objection to the clause, but recommended that it should be printed and brought up on the third reading.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he was willing to accept the suggestion.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER
remarked that as the Visitors did not originate changes the clause should contemplate application being made to them in the first instance.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
inquired whether the noble Earl would consent to the insertion of a few words giving the colleges a general power of requiring attendance at chapel — although of course not in the case of those who had conscientious objections to the form of worship.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he thought the noble Marquess would find that the clause in question carried out his views.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he wished, before the question was disposed of, to say a word with regard to his noble Friend's appeal. He was not surprised at that appeal having been made; but he wished it to be understood that Her Majesty's Government would not have thought of asking the House at the present stage, and without notice, to reverse its deliberate decision of Monday night. Without, therefore, complaining of the decision at which their Lordships had arrived, he protested against the noble Marquess's assumption that when the Bill went back to the other House they were not to judge of the considerations which had influenced both sides of the House as evidenced by the speeches which had been made, and also against the assumption that the question had been decided on an issue between those who reverenced the Bible and those who did not. Nothing could be more erroneous than the idea that the minority in the recent division had voted on such an issue; and even if such a supposition could be allowed, he must protest against the noble Marquess's insinuation that a large number of their Lordships preferred their dinner to their Bible.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, the noble Earl had entirely misunderstood the noble Marquess. His noble Friend had not stated or implied that those who voted on the one side reverenced the Bible, and that those on the other did not. Following the noble Earl's example of protesting, he must protest in turn against the noble Lord's (Lord Houghton's) assumption that the House of Commons was not satisfied with the Amendments. They had not been under the consideration of that House this Session, and until they had gone down to and been discussed by them it was premature to say that the Commons would not accept the Bill as it now stood. If, when the Bill went down to them, the House of Commons disagreed with the Amendments, then would be the time for their Lordships to consider what course they should take.