HC Deb 07 July 1845 vol 82 cc101-20

House in Committee on the Colleges (Ireland) Bill.

On Clause 14,

Mr. Borthwick

wished that the students should be required to attend divine service in their respective churches and chapels daily; and also that the following clause be inserted after Clause 14:— And for the better securing the due attendance of the students in the said Colleges for divine worship, according to the creeds which they severally profess to hold, be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the president and professors, or other governing body of each of the said Colleges which shall be constituted in and by the said letters patent, to assign chapels within the precincts of each College for the use of chaplains, to be endowed in the same manner and by the same authority as the professors; and that within such chapels prayers shall be said, and divine worship celebrated twice every day, according to the forms required by such religious creeds as shall be recognised by such governing body; and that regulations shall be made for the due attendance of the students on divine worship at such of the said chapels as shall be approved by their parents or guardians respectively. He should likewise propose the omission of Clause 14. Having given his silent support to the principle of the Bill, he should not now avail himself of this opportunity of reopening that discussion which occupied the House on the second reading; but should state briefly the grounds on which he sought to introduce into the measure what he believed to be no change of principle, but an important provision for carrying into effect the objects Her Majesty's Government had in view. It was admitted on both sides of the House that no education could be sound that was not based on religion. Under whatever circumstances man was found, whether in savage or civilized life, the one motive which especially governed all his actions, and shaped his social and civil existence, was a religious motive. That was a principle in human nature which the Legislature was bound to recognise in bringing forward a measure for the education and improvement of the people. In fact, no legislation could be sound which did not recognise, and endeavour as far as possible to control and guide, the religious principle in man. The great difficulty in the present instance arose from the religious hostility among the professors of rival creeds. If, for example, Dr. Higgins, who had been elevated to the episcopal bench in his Church, the Bishop of Cashel, and Dr. Cooke of Belfast—a man who held a high rank in the Presbyterian Church—were appointed to fill the chairs of the Professors of Theology in the new Colleges, he thought the dogmatic lectures of those men (eminent and talented as he admitted them to be) would be anything but calculated to promote religious charity among the students. The object of the proposition he made was to change the character of the religious instruction altogether—to make it, not didactic, but liturgic—to instruct the students, not by lectures delivered ex cathedra, but by means of the liturgy provided by their respective Churches. His object was to place religious instruction in the Colleges about to be established in Ireland, on a footing similar to that of Oxford and Cambridge. The hon. Member for Liskeard said he received no religious instruction at Oxford, except what he received at chapel; and that there was less religious instruction provided there for the students than at the College at Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman, in saying so, was dealing with those unknown quantities with which he had become so well acquainted at Trinity. He himself (Mr. Borthwick) had had opportunities of knowing that in the College of Edinburgh the students were asked no questions about religion, unless they were intended for the Church of Scotland; and in that case, they were required to attend the prelections of the Divinity Professor. But at Oxford and Cambridge, if a student atteaded chapel regularly during three years, he would have had an opportunity of hearing the whole of the Old Testament read three times, and the whole of the New Testament nine times, independently of the selections of the Liturgy. By this means, an entire system of Christian theology, from the first Sunday in Advent till the last Sunday in Trinity, was brought before the minds of the students. He could not conceive a more complete system of religious instruction than that afforded to the students at Oxford and Cambridge. It was told of Mr. Pitt, that while in Pembroke College, he never missed attended chapel morning or evening he had proposed were adopted, the tenets of the Church of England, and also those of the Roman Catholic Church, could be taught without bringing sectarian points before the minds of the students. As the Presbyterian Church had no liturgy, they might meet for daily prayer. The reason why it was not necessary to teach dogmatic theology to every student in Oxford and Cambridge was, because in the former there were seventeen chapels, and in the latter twenty-four, open twice every day. He saw no necessity for the appointment of professors of dogmatic theology. There was no sectarian mathematics, no Roman Catholic geology, no Protestant anatomy. All that was necessary on the subject of general learning and science might be communicated without interfering with or encouraging the sectarian prejudices of any body. But if professors' chairs of theo- logy were instituted, religious rancour and uncharitable feeling among the students would be the inevitable result. He believed the Bill before the House was calculated to effect the greatest good in Ireland; and that the only impediment to that good would be the 14th Clause as it then stood. He believed the proposition he made, if adopted, would communicate far more religious instruction, while it would be free from the disadvantage of intermixing that instruction with anything of a sectarian or uncharitable nature.

Colonel Sibthorp

wished it to be understood that in opposing this Bill he was influenced by no uncharitable feeling towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He entertained great respect for the talent of the Government, but deeply regretted their inconsistency. Consistency was the strongest and greatest virtue of a Government. But the present Government had exhibited a subservient expediency, and a strong desire to go to the opposite side. He regretted to see such Bills as this and the Maynooth Bill emanating from parties professing the Protestant religion. He could not place much reliance on the professions of men who acted so inconsistently; for he judged of men by their conduct and not by their professions. There were times when he could not believe that the right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. the Secretrary of State for the Home Department could be capable of bringing forward such measures; but now those Gentlemen were playing expected. He had opposed this Bill at its introduction; he should oppose it at he bringing up of the Report, and also at the third reading, and no modification of it would reconcile him to it. He regretted very much that the Government were acting with two faces under a hood, and not in the manner which they had led the country to believe they would act.

Sir J. Graham

regretted that the course which he and his Colleagues thought it their duty to pursue, did not meet with the approbation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Bill, however, was one of great importance, and not brought forward without a strong sense of its necessity. He thanked the hon. Gentleman for curtailing the observations be had intended to make, and for abstaining from a discussion of the general principles of the mea- sure, though at the same time he (Sir J. Graham) must say the speech of the hon. Member was somewhat discursive. The hon. Gentleman must see that he was raising a question quite distinct from that contained in the clause before the House. The question of catechetical or liturgical instruction was provided for in other clauses of the Bill. With respect to religious worship in the boarding-houses to be licensed under this Bill, his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of York (Mr. S. Wortley) had given notice of an Amendment, namely, an addition to this clause with respect to the religious instruction to be given in those halls, and to that Amendment it was not his intention to offer the least obstruction. With respect to the halls, he had no objection to the employment of religious instruction. With respect to the third case, namely, the case of students living with their parents or guardians, he thought that in such a case as that the parents and guardians ought to be the best judges of what was necessary for the religious instruction of the students under their care and control. Neither would he consent to omit the words which his hon. Friend proposed to omit. His hon. Friend proposed that without the consent of the Crown the governing body of each of those Colleges should be competent to make regulations for the religious instruction of the students and pupils within the College itself. Now, the words used in this clause were— And that religious teachers recognised by the governing body, may, with the consent of the governing body, and the consent of the Crown having been previously obtained, have the use of such rooms, &c. The question had already been raised that in those Colleges chaplains should be appointed. The sense of the Committee had decided against that proposition, and, à fortiori, he must suppose that the sense of the Committee would be adverse to the establishment of chapels in these Colleges, As he understood the proposition of his noble Friend, it was, that chaplains should be appointed, and that chapels should be built within the walls of those Colleges; and that the attendance of the students should be compulsorily enforced in those places of religious teaching and worship. Now, it seemed to him (Sir J. Graham) that any such forced attendance, whether of pupils under the control of their parents and guardians, or of pupils emancipated from parental control—it seemed to him that to make the attendance of those pupils forced and compulsory, would be a great stretch of authority. His hon. Friend had said, that the great basis of all knowledge should be religous instruction. From that proposition he (Sir J. Graham) was not disposed to dissent. But they must see that the case of Ireland was a very peculiar case, and it was necessary to consider the present measure strictly applicable to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. Now, for instance, if they were to attempt to enforce any system of religious instruction according, for instance, exclusively with the tenets of the Protestant religion, the effect of such a measure would be practically to exclude seven-eighths of the population of Ireland. Effects equally objectionable would follow if they were to set up exclusively the tenets of any particular sect. If they were to confound religious with secular instruction, they must adopt some plan in which all might participate; and if they were to adopt a plan in which all might participate, they must exclude all points of religious difference. There remained then only one course open, and that was now under discussion, namely, that religious instruction should be provided for in the manner in which it was provided for in this Bill. He would not consent to this Amendment, which he considered to be at variance with the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Wyse

had no doubt that, with the marked zeal which the Catholic hierarchy and clergy had in the worst of times provided for the spiritual wants of their flocks—a zeal which he could not so far wrong them as to suppose for an instant could be abated—they would be eager to make immediate provision, with the generous co-operation of the laity, which could not be better given than in such a cause, not only for chaplains in their respective halls, but for those professorships of religion in that ample sense to which he had just referred, embracing not doctrine only, and its important scriptural and traditional evidences, but its history and historic influences upon every age and generation. He believed, that at no period were the Catholic clergy more animated by the deep and sacred convictions of the necessity of religious instruction and teaching. It was, he knew, the fashion in other places, he was sorry to add at times also in that House, to represent the Catholic hierarchy as adverse to the religious teaching of their flocks, and affected by a dread of the results of a free circulation of the holy word of God amongst the people. He was glad to have an opportunity afforded him, here in face of other religious communions, and in the midst of the Commons of England, on unequivocal authority, to repudiate the calumny. He held in his hands a passage purporting to be an extract from a speech stated to have been made by the Protestant Bishop of Cashel and Waterford, at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Church Education Society, March 27, 1845. He quoted from the Dublin, Evening Post of the same date. At that meeting, which was numerously attended, he is reported to have said— That they were assembled, not alone upon a subject of pounds, shillings, and pence, but upon one of principle—upon the principle upon which the Church was based at the time of the Reformation, when they separated from the Romish Church — the principle of giving to all classes a free access to the word of God, which their Society would diffuse, and which it was necessary to the existence of the Church of Rome to suppress. Now, to this assertion—he would characterize it by no harsher term—of the right rev. Prelate, he could only oppose facts—facts vouched for by an authority at least not inferior to his own for veracity or any other Christian quality, he referred to the venerated Dr. Denvir. That most respectable prelate stated that previously to 1839, Mr. Smyth published 11,000 copies, Messrs. Simmons and M'Intyre, 18,000, Mr. Mairs, 9,000, and Mr. Archer, 2,000. From that period, Simmons and M'Intyre have published 22,000 copies, Mr. Archer 3,000 Testaments and 600 Bibles, in all, 72,600 copies of the Catholic Scriptures in one town, at the lowest price; giving no evidence, certainly, of a desire on the part of the venerable prelate, under whose authority they appeared, of the desire mentioned by the Bishop of Cashel to suppress the Holy Scriptures. But was this all? He had another document still more striking to refer to. In the number of the Nation, Feb. 8, 1845, the Bishop of Cashel, if he ever referred to such paper, would find the following advertisement:— The cheapest Catholic Bible of the size ever published. Richard Coyne, 4, Capelstreet, has published in twelve parts, at 6d. each, a stereotype edition of the Holy Bible, octavo, containing 1,226 pages of letter press, double columns. Each part contains ninety-six pages. And to this is subjoined the following recommendation, signed so early as 1829 by twenty-four Catholic bishops, headed by the Most Rev. Dr. Murray:— This new edition of the English Version of the Bible, printed, with our permission, by Richard Coyne, 4, Capel-street, collated by our direction, with the Clementine Vulgate; likewise, with the Douay Version of the Old Testament of 1609, and with the Rhemish Version of the New Testament of 1582, and with the other approved English Versions, we, by our authority, approve. And we declare that the same may be used with great spiritual profit by the faithful; provided it be read with the due reverence and the proper dispositions.—Given at Dublin, 2nd September, 1829. Nor was this an idle letter; the Rev. Theobald Mathew, a name not to be mentioned in any assembly of Christians without gratitude and respect, was not less zealous for the dissemination of the sacred volume than the prelates themselves. He would take the liberty to read to the House the short Address which he directed to the Temperance Societies:— My dear Friends—As the united Catholic bishops of Ireland have especially recommended the faithful under their jurisdiction, 'to read with due reverence and proper dispositions the Holy Bible published by R. Coyne,' and as he now proposes to issue the Divine Volume under the same authority, in twelve parts, at 6d. each, so as to suit the means and circumstances of all classes—in order to assist in carrying into practical effect the recommendation of the venerable prelates, I humbly, but most earnestly, entreat all the members of the various Total Abstinence Societies, who, I trust, by being members of societies which have produced order, peace, and tranquillity, are prepared to read the Holy Scriptures with 'due reverence and proper dispositions.' It will be remarked in this, that the condition is, 'with due reverence and proper dispositions,' and from a version authorized by the Catholic Church, and with the commentaries consonant to her belief and interpretation. If the Catholic objects to a copy of the Scriptures, or rather to its being forced upon him, it is not on the ground (far from it) of its being the Scriptures, but of its being a version which he does not consider authentic, and its being unaccompanied with, in his belief, accurate and faithful interpretation.

Viscount Bernard

said, that it was notorious that the Roman Catholic clergy, in their chapels, denounced the reading of the Sacred Scriptures. Would any hon. Member deny that? Would the hon. Member for Kerry deny that in the western part of the county of Kerry, where a great number of converts had been made by the reading of the Scriptures, those converts could not publicly appear in those districts where they resided without meeting offence? It was useless to deny that the Roman Catholic clergy were opposed to the use of the Scriptures by those whom they guided.

Mr. Redington

denied that the Roman clergy were opposed to the use of the Scriptures. With respect to the present clause, although it was not framed altogether in the way in which he wished, yet he would oppose the Amendment, and give his support to the clause.

Mr. Wyse

must again assert that the Roman Catholic clergy took pains in circulating the Scriptures. In proof of this, he need only refer to the advertisement, which he had just read to the House, from R. Coyne, a Roman Catholic bookseller, advertising "the cheapest Bible ever published," the circulation of which was recommended by several Roman Catholic bishops.

Mr. Borthwick

replied: He had endeavoured, on opening this subject, to confine himself as closely as possible to the subject of debate. He regretted to perceive that that House seemed unfitted to the discussion of a religious question—not that a religious question was unfitted for the House, but the House seemed unfitted to the discussion of a religious question. His single object was to substitute liturgical for didactical instruction. Now let them suppose the case of Bishop Daly, of Dr. Higgins, and Dr. Cooke, three clergymen of strong opinions, inculcating those opinions each upon the pupils of his own creed. He could conceive nothing more calculated to lead to religious dissension amongst the students at those Colleges. He regretted deeply that the right hon. Gentleman had determined to oppose his Amendment. However, as he saw no chance of carrying it, against the right hon. Gentleman's opposition, he considered it would be only a waste of time to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. The hon. Gentleman stated that he withdrew his Amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Sir T. Acland

moved after the words "or to hold office therein," the insertion of the words "except as hereinafter provided;" and he moved that addition for the purpose of introducing a clause to the following effect:— Provided always that any person appointed to be president, vice-president, or member of the governing body of each of such Colleges, shall, before he enter upon the duties of any of the said offices, make and subscribe the following declaration:—'I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely declare that I acknowledge and receive the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as containing the revealed will of Almighty God.' He had paid the deepest attention to this Bill, and had given it throughout a zealous, but he must confess at first a reluctant support. He had followed his right hon. Friend in the difficulties which encompassed him on this subject. They all felt that Christianity should be the basis of any measure on the subject, of education; but then came the question of sect and religious difference. He had at first hoped, that religious education might have been provided for each of the three great sects in Ireland; but every day since he had more and more felt the impossibility of doing this. He made these statements to show that he felt the difficulties of this subject, and had no unfriendly feeling towards the present Bill. He made these statements also, because they made out his case. He wished to procure such securities as might be provided for the proper performance of their duties on the part of those in whose hands they were about to leave the education of Irish youth. His right hon. Friend had said that any attempt on the part of a professor to sap the religion of any student would be succeeded by instant dismissal. But the Parliament should not leave such a matter in the hands of the Government. The Legislature, on the face of the Bill, should declare their object and intention. For this purpose he had determined to propose some test or declaration to be made by the professors and governing body of the College. If any better mode of meeting the difficulty could be suggested, he should be most happy to adopt it in the place of his own; but in the absence of any such suggestion, he begged to press his own proposal upon the attention of the House. His inclination would have been to have applied the test or declaration contained in his clause to all the professors of the Colleges, though doubtless it was more important with regard to some than others; but wishing to imitate the liberal and generous spirit which had been manifested towards the Government by the other side of the House, he was willing to leave that question to the decision of the governing body, placing confidence in them and the Government by whom they would be appointed. In preparing the declaration which he intended to propose, his object was to place a bar against infidelity; but at the same time not to introduce a word which could give the least pain to any class of persons believing in Divine Revelation. In support of the form of declaration which he proposed he might quote from the third volume of the Reminiscences of Dr. Arnold, a passage, in which Dr. Arnold, speaking of most different religious sects, said, "We all believe that the books of the Old and New Testament contain God's revealed will to man." He was willing to take his full share of the responsibility of this measure as it stood; but he felt that it wanted this conclusion, in order to secure it against abuse, and in order to render that homage to the religious feelings of both countries, of the value of which he was sure they were not insensible. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, after the words "or to hold office therein," to add "except as hereinafter provided."

Sir J. Graham

said, that he rose to address the House with great pain; but he could assure his hon. Friend that the Government were quite sensible that he was actuated by no unkindness to them; but that, on the contrary, they felt bound to acknowledge the support which he had given them on that Bill—a support which, for many reasons, it must have been painful for him to give. His affectionate regard for his hon. Friend personally, and his respect for his principles, rendered it painful to him to resist his proposition; and if he were not convinced that he could not, consistently with the principle of the Bill, assent to it, nothing would have induced him to offer the opposition which he was compelled to give to the Motion. No man more deeply regretted the discussion of such subjects in that House; but it had been his unfortunate lot, in proposing measures for the last few years, to have given more frequent rise to discussions of that nature than perhaps any other man. He was most anxious to treat the subject with the utmost reverence and respect. His own temper and feelings inclined him to do so. His hon. Friend had said that it was only in the absence of all general security for religious teaching that he had felt himself driven to propose the particular test contained in his clause; but he (Sir J. Graham) must say that he agreed with the hon. Member for Dundalk, that the safety of this measure rested on the weight of public opinion, and of responsibility brought to bear upon the present and all future Administrations; and he certainly could not have sanctioned the absence of all religious test as to the principals and professors of these Colleges, if the nomination of them and a power of removal also had not been vested in the Crown. He considered that security infinitely preferable to the one now proposed. He admitted the weight of Dr. Arnold's authority; but he was bound to point out to the Committee that the words of the proposed test would be no sufficient security against the evil which they were intended to provide against. The professor would at once, when required to make this declaration, put the question, "To what version of the Scriptures do you allude?" Were Protestants all agreed upon one version? Had not Unitarians an entirely different version from that of the Established Church? Would not the Unitarian take the test in a different sense from the members of the Established Church? And as to the books of the Old Testament, were there not very material differences between the Protestant and Roman Catholic versions? He was grieved to enter into such a discussion; but it was forced upon him. He could point out other reasons why the proposed test was insufficient for its object, but he abstained from pursuing a subject of that kind. He thought, he had shown that the words—open on other grounds to great objections—would give no security for the promotion of sound religious instruction; whilst, on the other hand, the Bill provided ample security against any attempts to sap the religious principles of the students. So far from discouraging religious education, they had supplied every inducement to provide religious instruction out of the walls of the College, and within the walls they had afforded facilities for giving such instruction. It was not from any doubt in his mind, therefore, that religion was the basis of all human knowledge, that he opposed the Motion; he believed that re- ligious knowledge was that which purified the leaven of secular knowledge, and if this Bill should discourage religious instruction, he should greatly regret it; but he did not believe that any such result would follow. He believed the Roman Catholics could, by private endowment, secure religious teaching; and that lectures would be delivered in the Colleges in conformity with the leading creeds of that country, the Roman Catholic, the Presbyterian, and the Established Church. No test was required; but the responsibility of the Government in the selection of the officers of these Colleges was, after all, the best security against any abuse; and, therefore, reluctantly, but decidedly, he must oppose the Motion.

Sir R. Inglis

was surprised that, with the sentiments which had been so well expressed by the right hon. Baronet, he did not come to the same conclusion with his hon. Friend (Sir T. Acland). He was happy to find before the House a proposition which he could support, as he did that of his hon. Friend, involving at least some improvement in the present measure.

Mr. Cowper

rejoiced in having an opportunity of supporting the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, as it comprehended a principle in which he thought that all who deserved the name of Christians might agree.

Lord J. Manners

said, that the closing observations of the right hon. Baronet brought him to a different conclusion from that at which the right hon. Baronet had arrived. In referring to the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown upon this subject, he must add, without wishing to say anything which might cast suspicion upon the present, or upon any Government, that he could not help reflecting upon what was taking place in France upon questions of this sort, where a system of education which was upheld by the whole weight of a Government, of which M. Guizot was a leading member, was stigmatized as an infidel system. From the best investigation which he had been able to give to this question, and the statements which had been made upon it, he must say, that when they were about to introduce a similar system in this country, it behoved them to weigh with the greatest care every proposition which was brought forward of so dangerous a tendency. With reference to the proposition of the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Acland), he was willing to accept it, though it might not go to the extent of doing more than partially mitigating the evils of this system. Having listened to the discussions which had taken place on other clauses of this Bill, too, he could not change the opinion he had hitherto entertained upon it, viz., that it was not a Bill which ought to meet with the support of that House. That opinion he entertained religiously; and, in repeating his objections to it for the last time, he must add, that he did not believe this Bill would produce any good effect; and his only hope was, that it would produce no effect whatever.

Sir R. Peel

said, that the proposition of the hon. Baronet was simply a precaution against infidelity. But was infidelity an evil in Ireland, against which it was necessary for them to legislate? He did not believe there was a country in the world in which the charge of infidelity would expose a man to such reprobation as in Ireland. But take the case of England. Was infidelity an evil in England at the present day? He did not believe that in England, or in Ireland, infidelity was an evil against which it was necessary that Parliament should legislate. There could not be a doubt that the Crown would grossly neglect its duty in first appointing any person to an office in these Colleges against whom the charge of propagating infidel doctrines could be brought, or, if appointed, in continuing him in his office. It appeared to him, then, that the security it was proposed to give under this Amendment, was a perfectly delusive one, and that the state of religion in these kingdoms was such as to render it unnecessary to take such ground against this measure as that proposed.

Mr. Philip Howard

opposed the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Acland); as a Catholic, he feared, if adopted, it might lead to the inference, that tradition was not a necessary part of the groundwork of faith. It would also be better in a new measure not to revive the system of tests, where no imperative and cogent necessity required it. It would be well to reserve the power of naming a Jew to the chair of Hebrew, in the same manner as it would be natural to appoint a German, or a Frenchman, to the Professorships of their respective languages. If inclined to criticise the terms of the proposed test, he should say, it would be more correct to affirm the Scriptures to be the word than the "will of Almighty God;" as the will "could be only known by the interpretation given to Holy Writ." Upon the whole, he (Mr. Howard) deemed it unadvisable to insist on the adoption of this or any other test; for, with alt respect to the motives of the Mover, and, above all, with all reverence to the written word of God, he did not think the cause of religion would be a gainer by its adoption.

Mr. Adderley

said, that if the Colleges to be established were to be confined to the teaching of the natural sciences, the religious tests would be unnecessary; but as they would trench on this field of moral duty, the case became altered. He had voted for the Maynooth Bill because it recognised the duty of the State to provide for the religious instruction of the majority of the people; and he should vote for the Amendment, because the Government proposition was a retreat from that principle.

Lord C. Hamilton

did not think there was any country in which there was so much religion and so little infidelity as in Ireland.

Mr. Gladstone

said, that the high character of the hon. Baronet who had proposed this Amendment, and of those Gentlemen who supported it, was such as to render it incumbent upon those who entertained objections to his proposition, and who yet had a sincere regard for religion, to say something in support of their reasons for disagreeing with it. He must say, then, that he thought there was much force in the objections which had been advanced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) as to the ambiguity of this test. His hon. Friend must be aware that between Protestants of different sects, and certainly between the Church and the Unitarians, there were many differences with respect to the original version of many portions of the Holy Scriptures. Now, as to matters of general principle, he must say, that it was undesirable for parties engaged in the selection of a test to choose words which they not merely suspected, but which they knew must be used by different classes of persons in a different sense. It was difficult to secure perfect bona fides as to tests; such: had been hitherto the case; and what hope was there of maintaining a defined and single interpretation of such tests in future times? He was not fond of adopting new theological propositions, and he could not consent to adopt a solemn proposition like this without seriously looking to the terms in which it was couched. The Motion of his hon. Friend called upon them to adopt a pre-enunciation of a positive theological principle, couched in language partly resting upon the authority of a Member of Parliament, and partly on that of Dr. Arnold. The proposition was a new proposition—it was not one adopted in turns by the Church of England; and he was afraid that if the House were to adopt it, his hon. Friend would find a difficulty in regard to it, on the part of the Roman Catholics of Ireland themselves. He considered that it was at once open to the charge of being too exclusive, and too lax. His right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had adverted to the case of a large class of theologians in Germany connected with what was called the rationalizing school. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not think any member of that school would feel any greater objection to the terms of the hon. Baronet's (Sir T. D. Acland's) proposition than might be felt by some members of our own church. Indeed, he did not know whether even Dr. Strauss himself, who had acquired an unhappy notoriety in connexion with the school to which he referred, might not be prepared to subscribe the test proposed by his hon. Friend. He held that in certain cases the objections to such a test were entirely outweighed by the advantages which might attend it, and the necessity which rendered it advisable. But he did not entertain that opinion in the present case, for he did not think any advantage could accrue from the application of such a test; but that, on the contrary, great evil might result from holding out a delusive promise which could not be realized. He considered, therefore, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend, far from being an improvement on the Bill, would be entirely the reverse. Believing, then, that this was an ambiguous and equivocal proposition—that it could attain none of the purposes for which such a test ought to be employed, while it was open to strong objections, and that it was a positive evil to make a provision for attaining a religious character by means which they knew to be insufficient, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment.

Mr. Redington

was satisfied the hon. Baronet, in bringing forward this Amendment, did not wish to throw any aspersion upon the religious creed of Catholics; but that he was merely introducing what he considered an essential safeguard in a measure of this nature. He must say, however, that if this Amendment went to a division, he would feel it his duty to vote against it; for the introduction of such a test as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman would excite great dissatisfaction among the Roman Catholics of Ireland.

The Committee divided on the Question that the words be inserted—Ayes 36; Noes 105: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.
Adderley, C. B. Manners, Lord J.
Austen, Col. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Morris, D.
Barrington, Visct. Patten, J. W.
Bernard, Visct. Pringle, A.
Buck, L. W. Rashleigh, W.
Carew, W. H. P. Repton, G. W. J.
Courtenay, Lord Rice, E. R.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Dick, Q. Sibthorp, Col.
Dickinson, F. H. Sotheron, T. H. S.
East, J. B. Spooner, R.
Farnham, E. B. Tower, C.
Gladstone, Capt. Tufnell, H.
Greenhall, P. Vesey, hon. T.
Hamilton, G. A. Waddington, H. S.
Henley, J. W.
Jervis, J. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Lambton, H. Acland, Sir T. D.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Chapman, B.
Aldam, W. Chelsea, Visct.
Antrobus, E. Clements, Visct.
Archbold, R. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Baillie, Col. Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Baillie, H. J. Corry, right hon. H.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B. Craig, W. G.
Bellew, R. M. Cripps, W.
Blackburne, J. I. Denison, E. B.
Blake, M. J. Duncan, Visct.
Boldero, H. G. Duncombe, hon. A.
Borthwick, P. Dundas, D.
Bowes, J. Emlyn, Visct.
Bowles, Adm. Escott, B.
Boyd, J. Esmonde, Sir T.
Bright, J. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Broadwood, H. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Brotherton, J. Flower, Sir J.
Browne, hon. W. Forster, M.
Bruce, Lord E. Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.
Bunbury, T. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Burrell, Sir C. M. Gill, T.
Butler, P. S. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Cardwell, E. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Gore, hon. R. Peel, J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Plumridge, Capt.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Polhill, F.
Granger, T. C. Praed, W. T.
Grimston, Visct. Pusey, P.
Halford, Sir H. Redington, T. N.
Hamilton, W. J. Ross, D. R.
Hamilton, Lord C. Russell, J. D. W.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Seymour, Sir H. B.
Hindley, C. Smith, A. J.
Holmes, hon. W. A'C. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Hope, Sir J. Somerset, Lord G.
Hope, G. W. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hotham, Lord Stansfield, W. R. C.
Howard, P. H. Stuart, Lord J.
Hughes, W. B. Stuart, H.
Jermyn, Earl Sutton, hon. H. M.
Lawson, A. Tennent, J. E.
Lincoln, Earl of Thornhill, G.
Lockhart, W. Trelawny, J. S.
M'Neill, D. Tuite, H. M.
Manners, Lord C. S. Wakley, T.
Martin, C. W. Warburton, H.
Meynell, Capt. Wawn, J. T.
Mitchell, T. A. Wellesley, Lord C.
Neville, R. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Newport, Visct. Wyse, T.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J. TELLERS.
Packe, C. W. Young, J.
Peel, rt. hn. Sir R. Mackenzie, W. F.

On the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill,

Mr. Hindley

contended it involved a violation of liberty of conscience, for it precluded students from resorting for instruction to tutors of their own religious creed, while it compelled them to receive the tuition of professors appointed by the Government. He had, therefore, to move that the clause be omitted.

The Committee divided on the Original Question:—Ayes 100; Noes 0: Majority 100.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bruce, Lord E.
Acland, T. D. Bunbury, T.
A'Court, Capt. Butler, P. S.
Aldam, W. Cardwell, E.
Archbold, R. Chapman, B.
Austen, Col. Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G.
Baillie, Col. Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Baring, rt. hn. W. B. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Barrington, Visct. Craig, W. G.
Bellew, R. M. Cripps, W.
Blackburne, J. I. Dickinson, F. H.
Blake, M. J. Dundas, D.
Borthwick, P. Escott, B.
Bowes, J. Esmonde, Sir T.
Bowles, Adm. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Boyd, J. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Broadwood, H. Flower, Sir J.
Brotherton, J. Forster, M.
Browne, hon. W. Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.
Gill, T. Peel, J.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Pringle, A.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Rashleigh, W.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Rawdon, Col.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Redington, T. N.
Granger, T. C. Repton, G. W. J.
Halford, Sir H. Ross, D. R.
Hamilton, G. A. Scott, hon. F.
Hamilton, W. J. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Hamilton, Lord C. Smith, J. A.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Holmes, hon. W. A'C. Somerset, Lord G.
Hope, A. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hope, G. W. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Howard, P. H. Stuart, Lord J.
Jermyn, Earl Stuart, H.
Jervis, J. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Lambton, H. Thornhill, G.
Lawson, A. Trelawny, J. S.
Lincoln, Earl of Tufnell, H.
Lockhart, W. Vesey, hon. T.
McNeill, D. Waddington, H. S.
Manners, Lord C. S. Wakley, T.
Martin, C. W. Warburton, H.
Meynell, Capt. Wawn, J. T.
Mitchell, T. A. Wellesley, Lord C.
Morris, D. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Neville, R. Wyse, T.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
O'Connell, M. J. TELLERS.
Packe, C. W. Young, J.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Mackenzie, W. F.
List of the NOES.
Bright, J. Hindley, C.

Clause agreed to, as was Clause 15.

On Clause 16,

Mr. John S. Wortley

moved the Amendment of which he had given notice, with a view to connect the Colleges with religious instruction as much as possible— To insert after the words, 'lodged and boarded therein,' the words, 'and also the provisions and regulations proposed to be made for securing to the said student the means of due attendance upon such religious instruction and divine worship as may be approved by his parents and guardians, and recognised by the governing body of the College.'

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

On the 19th Clause,

Mr. Spooner

objected to the clause as giving an endowment to any teacher of whatever form of belief he might be. It was not even restricted to the endowment of Christian ministers. Such a conflict of religions would tend to infidelity among the pupils.

Mr. Philip Howard

contended that no great evil could arise from the retention of the 14th Clause, which gave a power to the different religious communities, by private contribution, to endow chairs of theology. It was a well known truth that, in other affairs of life, opposition prevented imposition. In the case, then, before the House, the rivalry of different creeds would give an impulse to talent, and prove an incentive to exertion; the religious zeal of individuals should be allowed to supply what was unavoidably wanting in the Government measure. Should an appeal be made to the Catholics of England, he (Mr. Howard) doubted not that he would come forward in aid of his Irish co-religionists, and would strive to procure for the youth of Ireland the blessings of a religious education in the faith of their forefathers. Some years must necessarily elapse before the Colleges in question could be built and opened; ample time would, therefore, be given to organize a subscription in furtherance of the great, object they had in view, so dear to that House and the country — namely, the combining religious tuition with literature and scientific attainments.

Mr. Hindley

opposed the clause, as contrary to the spirit of the Mortmain Acts in this country.

Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses of the Bill.

House resumed. Report to be received.