HC Deb 14 February 1860 vol 156 cc1056-69
Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, requesting that consent might be withheld from certain portions of the statutes of the Colleges of Trinity and St. John's, in the University of Cambridge, now before Parliament. By an Act passed in 1856, entitled an "Act for the better government of the University of Cambridge," certain Commissioners were appointed, with power to frame statutes which were to become law within forty days after their presentation to Parliament, unless in the meantime an Address against their adoption should be presented to Her Majesty. The statutes were laid before Parliament on the 11th of July last, at which period everybody who had not been driven out of London by the heat and the river was occupied in attending to the election petitions against himself or other hon. Members, and it was impossible to secure the attention of Parliament to a subject like the present. Through the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, the statutes had been allowed to remain over for consideration to the present Session; and a promise was given that Her Majesty would not be advised to grant her sanction to them till they had been brought under the notice of the House. Therefore, as a member of Trinity College, and interested in its welfare, he had brought the subject before them. He believed that there were faults in these statutes which were calculated to be prejudicial to the welfare and usefulness of the colleges as centres of literary and scientific activity, and were at variance with the best interests of the Church of England, and consequently of religion itself. By statute 3, it was enacted that the master should be a member of the Church of England. Statute 6, provided that the College should be governed by a board, consisting of the master and eight of the senior Fellows, each vacancy being filled from among the other senior Fellows by election of the other members of the board. Statutes 16 and 21, taken together, provided that the master should be a member of the Church of England, and should relinquish his position in the event of his secession. Practically, the effect of these statutes was to limit the highest honours to members of the Church of England. In St. John's College the case was still worse; a student could not read for honours unless he was a member of the Church of England. The statutes were unjust in themselves, and adverse to the best interests of the University. They were drawn up in times when conformity with the Church of England was believed to be more of a test of loyalty to the Crown than it was at present. The statutes were then enforced for a political purpose; but the same principles enforced now could not but weaken the University. Mr. Mill, in speaking of our educational system, described it as one for making the students think right what we thought right, and as an abuse of the human faculties. No great minds could be formed under such a system, as its effect must necessarily be to cramp the energies of the students in their search after truth. It had also inflicted great injury on individuals. During the time he was an undergraduate of Cambridge, a Quaker gentleman was fourth wrangler; but he was not allowed to be a fellow of his college. In 1837 a Jew was second wrangler, but he was not allowed to take a degree; that had since been remedied, but he would not now be allowed to contend for a fellowship. Three years ago a Baptist gained high honours; if these statutes passed all his hopes would be destroyed. The senior wrangler of the year was a member of the Free Church of Scotland, and it was doubtful whether he would be able to subscribe the Articles of the Church of England. The Bishop of St. David's, one of the brightest ornaments of Trinity College, Cambridge, was in favour of the repeal of these exclusive statutes. The system of holding out rewards and punishments was, as Archbishop Whately remarked, calculated to bring over to the Church only those who were influenced by interest or vanity, while it would repel those who had a sincere sense of religion. The operation of the statutes to which he had called the attention of the House would exclude many of the best men from the highest emoluments of the University for daring to think for themselves. That part of the statutes which referred to the election of seniors would have a most prejudicial effect. It was true they were to be elected in rotation unless good reason were shown to the contrary; but what would be good reason where all must be members of the Church of England, and from long habit and association were taught to regard whatever belonged to the Church of England as right, and whatever was antagonistic to her then opinions must be wrong? The Bishop of St. David's had been compelled to resign his tutorship at Cambridge on account of his having written a pamphlet in favour of the admission of Dissenters to the University. For the same cause it was possible that the most distinguished ornaments of learning would not be chosen a senior or a member of that body to whom the government of the college was committed. It was extremely possible that the author of such a book as the Vestiges of the Natural History of the Creation would not be elected a senior. It was extremely possible that such a distinguished scholar as Dr. Donaldson, the learned author of the New Cratylus, would be excluded in consequence of his original researches in early Jewish history; the effect, in short, would be to shut out those great original minds from the highest rewards of the University, whom its best friends should wish to become identified with it. He appealed to the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), Member for King's Lynn, as a member of the University and of the same college to which he himself belonged, and attached to it by the same affectionate recollections, would he wish men of the most original research and European reputation to be altogether excluded from having a principal place in these colleges, and could he deny that this was likely to be the result if these statutes should become law? He was quite certain the noble Lord would do this question justice; at all events, he hoped all those hon. Members who wished to see in the Universities a fair field open to all, and no favour, would support him, in case of a division to prevent these statutes becoming law.

MR. BAINES

seconded the Motion. He regretted that, from a miscalculation as to the time the division on the preceding Motion was likely to last, he had lost the opportunity of presenting three petitions in favour of the Motion from the town of Cambridge—two from members of Dissenting congregations—complaining of the statutes of the University requiring the attendance of students twice at chapel on a Sunday, thereby preventing them from attending their own places of worship; also of the statutes of St. John's College excluding Dissenters from fellowships, while they were threatened to be excluded from fellowships in Trinity College. The statutes alluded to in the Motion of the hon. Member for Westmeath seemed to him to be a retrograde step in the march of enlightened and liberal legislation. Parliament had admitted Dissenters of every name to seats in that House, to the bench of justice, to municipal corporations, and the Act of 1856 was expressly intended to admit Dissenters to the University of Cambridge. They were admitted to take degrees, but excluded from those fair rewards of learning and merit to which others, being Churchmen, were admitted. If the position of a fellow was one which gave ecclesiastical power, or function, or office in the University in which education for ecclesiastical purposes was distinctly intended, he should not seek that it should be enjoyed by Dissenters; but he did ask that Dissenters might be permitted to enjoy those fellowships which were left in ancient times as a reward of learning and merit, and which were not connected with any ecclesiastical function or office. He need scarcely remind the House that the Dissenters who were excluded by these statutes, taking the population of the United Kingdom, constituted the larger part of the nation. It was not for the benefit of Cambridge or of the country that so large a part of the population should be excluded from the attainment of the honours and emoluments of learning and merit; it was only for the benefit of the religious sect exercising it that this monopoly was established and sought to be maintained. The restrictions and disqualifications to which he had referred were in the nature of pains and penalties for holding a certain religious belief. He thought the day had gone by when pains and penalties for religious belief could be enacted or continued in this country; yet it was proposed that a new test should be established by two of our principal colleges, which would inflict pains and penalties on the larger part of the people of England. It ought to be known that the declaration originally required from the fellows of St. John's was not that they were members of the Church of England; it was this,—that they would embrace from their heart the true religion of Christ, follow the authority of Christ before that of man, and seek from it their rule of life. Here there was nothing whatever in favour either of one or another body of Christians; but from the time of James I. it had been impossible for Dissenters to take degrees at the University until 1856; and it was by being excluded from degrees that they were shut out from the honours and emoluments which were the rewards of distinction; but, surely, when an Act of Parliament passed to remove the former of these disqualifications, it ought to remove the latter too. If Dissenters were allowed to compete for wranglers, and obtained high positions, as some of them had done, in the Tripos, surely they ought afterwards to be allowed to compete for those emoluments which were one of the inducements to enter the University. He trusted the spirit of that House would be altogether adverse to that retrograde step it was now sought to take, and that, acting on the principles of liberal legislation, which especially on the subject of education had recently prevailed, they would accede to the Motion. By so doing the}' would remove one more cause of irritation between Dissenters and Churchmen, and break down one more barrier in the way of that unity and cordiality of feeling which ought to exist between all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. In that hope he seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed,— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to withhold Her consent from certain portions of the Statutes of Trinity and St. John's Colleges, Cambridge, now before Parliament, relating to the compulsory ordination of the College Master, the compulsory celibacy of the Senior Fellows, the removal of Fellows who may have openly seceded from the Church of England, the filling up of the vacant places in the Seniority by the Master and the remaining Seniors, and the delegating to the Master and Seniors exclusively all rules respecting the attendance of the Undergraduates who are not members of the Church of England at the College Chapel; and that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give such directions as to Her may seem fit, to refer the above-mentioned Statutes to the Cambridge University Commissioners.

LORD STANLEY

said, that as lie was the only one of the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1856 for the University of Cambridge who had the honour of a seat in that House, it might be desirable that he should give a brief explanation on the points referred to in the present Motion. Neither the Colleges nor the members of the Commission had any reason to complain of the manner in which the subject had been brought before the House. If discontent existed in the minds of any class of the community in consequence of what had been done, or if a misunderstanding prevailed, as appeared from the speeches of the hon. Mover and Seconder to be the case, it was expedient that it should, if possible, be removed, and that the House should judge whether any cause of complaint existed or no. With regard to the most important point touched upon by those hon. Gentlemen, namely, the exclusion from fellowships in Trinity and St. John's Colleges of persons who were not members of the Church of England, it was not necessary to vindicate the Conduct of the Commissioners, for the plain reason that the matter was one in which they whose duties were defined by the Act of 1856 had no legal power or jurisdiction whatever. That Act removed all disabilities upon persons obtaining degrees; it opened scholarships and exhibitions, and enabled undergraduates to enjoy emoluments without any profession of religious opinion; but it did not repeal that part of the Act of Uniformity, by which all persons taking fellowships wore required to belong to the Church of England. If the hon. Member wished to raise the question of opening the fellowships to Dissenters—which be (Lord Stanley) would hardly advise him to do—he should therefore introduce a Bill into that House for the purpose. Parliament had imposed the restriction, and Parliament alone could remove it. With regard to the removal of Fellows who might have seceded from the Established Church, the House would probably think that Parliament having expressly confined the fellowships, wisely or unwisely, to members of the Church of England, it was necessary that the College Statutes should provide some means of declaring that, when a Fellow had ceased to fulfil the condition on which his appointment rested, the appointment itself should determine. The mode of procedure pointed out by the new statutes was less likely to lead to arbitrary removal than that which previously existed, because he imagined that formerly any Fellow taking a step implying secession from the Church of England might have been proceeded against for heresy, and on that ground deprived. If the present tenure of the office, as dependent on church-membership, was to continue—and the Commissioners certainly had no power to alter it—it seemed desirable that the law should be enforced in the mildest manner possible, and not be liable to be abused for purposes of intolerance. Accordingly, under the new statutes the loss of his fellowship was made to depend entirely on the voluntary and deliberate act of the person seceding from the Established Church. It was, as far as it went, a relaxation of the existing rule. With respect to the other points touched upon by the hon. Member, it should be remembered that the Cambridge Commissioners were not invested with absolute or unlimited authority to make statutes either for the University or for the colleges. He, for one, did not complain of that, he did not wish that larger powers should have been granted, but it should be borne in mind when considering the statutes as finally passed, that they did not embody the unmodified views and wishes of the Commissioners, but were the result of negotiations with the governing bodies of the various colleges, ending, as such negotiation almost invariably did, in a compromise by which many reforms were carried and some abandoned. The Act constituting the Cambridge Commission provided that no statute should have the force of law unless it had the assent- of two-thirds of the governing body of the college which it affected. In those governing bodies the ecclesiastical element was predominant; and considerable disinclination was evinced by them to accept changes that appeared to them to wear the form of innovations, especially when pressed upon them by external authority. His own individual opinion was, that the college master should not necessarily be in holy orders, but that it should be left optional with those who elected him to choose a layman or a clergyman. Indeed, that was the view put forward by the Commissioners in the Minute of July 1857, with which they opened their negotiations with the various Colleges; and the same principle was repeated in the draught of the statutes afterwards sent down to the governing bodies, both of Trinity and St. John's. The feeling of those bodies was, however, almost universally opposed to it; and, finding there was not the slightest chance of the adoption of the measure in its original form, the Commissioners reluctantly withdrew it in order to carry other reforms which they deemed of more importance. Even had they succeeded, the assertion of such a principle in the case of colleges like St. John's would have been more of an abstract than a practical success, because, the governing body being opposed to having even the option of electing a layman, they would not have been likely to exercise that option in favour of a layman had they possessed it. This was an instance in which the Commissioners had thought it safer and more prudent to give way. Two other points touched upon by the present Motion—namely, first, the filling up of vacant places in the seniority by the master and the remaining seniors; and secondly, the compulsory celibacy of the senior fellows, wore matters of detail connected with the internal administration of the colleges, and did not seem to him to involve any important question, calling for the interference of that House. The hon. Member complained of the filling up of the vacant places in the seniority by the master and the remaining seniors; but he did not indicate in what other way he would have the vacancies filled up. The Commissioners found that the practice was an ancient one, and were not aware that there were any objections to its continuance. It was a system of succession by seniority, as a general rule, with exceptions in the case of any grave defect; and a power of exception so invidious and so repugnant to the feelings of men living together and forming a society of their own, they might be sure would never be exercised without the strongest and most urgent reasons. The Commissioners had proposed considerable relaxations in regard to the compulsory celibacy of the senior fellows, but succeeded in carrying only a portion of them. The governing bodies, it was found, were most anxious to retain the rule as it stood; and the reason, good or bad, which was put forward why members of their body should not be married men was, that men who had families to provide for would be apt, as had been shown in other cases where corporate property was concerned, to look to their life interest in the college property rather than to its permanent improvement. As to compulsory attendance in chapel, the proposition originally made by the Commissioners was to give a right of non-attendance at chapel in cases where conscientious objections were entertained. But he was sorry to say that of all the propositions which were submitted by the Commission none had raised so strong a spirit of opposition as that. He was bound, however, to say on behalf of the Colleges that he did not think their objection, as a general rule, was based upon any wish to compel the attendance of those who bad scruples of conscience about doing so; and he did not believe it would be the intention of any College to exclude Dissenters by any provision of that kind. They objected to be compelled to exempt them from attendance, but they did not object so to exempt them, if the power were left with themselves. It was clearly stated in the Act of 1856 that no person should be required on taking a degree, or obtaining a scholarship, exhibition, or any other college emolument, to make or subscribe any declaration of religious opinion and belief. There was a distinction, of course, between attendance in chapel and signing a declaration; but he had no hesitation in saying that if any such attendance were enforced in the case of scholars where conscientious objections were felt, it would be contrary to the spirit and intention, if not to the letter, of the Act passed by that House. In the case of pensioners there was no effectual power of interfering with the conduct of Colleges, for the plain reason that it was optional with Colleges to take or refuse any person who presented himself as a pensioner; and therefore, if they wished to exclude any one not of the Church of England, they might refuse him admission in the first instance, not assigning any reason. There appeared to the Commissioners not the remotest prospect of carrying their proposal as to attendance in chapel as originally framed, and they were therefore very reluctantly, as far as he and, he believed, others of their number were concerned, led to modify it so far as to delegate to the masters and seniors the power of granting dispensation, but to leave the matter in their discretion. He would repeat that, as to the question of fellowships the Commissioners had no power of acting at all; that subject could only be dealt with by the Legislature it- self. The two statutes respecting the compulsory celibacy of senior fellows and the filling up of vacancies in the seniority by the master and remaining seniors, were scarcely questions of sufficient moment to call for legislative interference. The other two matters referred to by the hon. Member who made the Motion, lay within a narrower compass, and might no doubt, be considered as involving a question of principle. He had stated his opinion upon those points, and he must leave it in the hands of the House to take what course they thought fit. For his own part, looking at the statutes as a whole, and considering the compromise come to between the Commissioners and the Colleges, he felt bound by the arrangements then entered into, and must vote against the Motion if it were persisted in. He did not think any good would be attained by merely referring the statutes in question back again to the University Commissioners. All the Commissioners could do, would be to send down their original proposals upon those points to the Colleges, and knowing what the feeling of the Colleges was, he had no doubt their answer would be that their opinion remained unchanged, and that they would not be responsible for the changes proposed. He would advise the hon. Member (Mr. Pollard-Urquhart), as the functions of the Commission expired at the close of the year, and as the legislation both for the colleges and university would by that time be completed, to wait till the whole of the new legislation on the subject was before the House; and then, if it appeared insufficient or to require amendment in regard to any of the points he had referred to, let the changes be effected by the direct authority of the Legislature. The Commissioners had not accomplished all that they wished, but they had brought about considerable changes; they had been met on the whole in a fair spirit, they had come to an arrangement on the chief subjects in dispute, and therefore, as to the present Motion, he felt that, as one of the Commissioners, he should be breaking faith with the Colleges if he were to acquiesce in it.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he hoped the House would pause before it interfered with the proceedings of the Commission ers. Parliament had delegated to the Commissioners certain powers. Those powers were to be exercised by the Colleges in the first instance with reference to the statutes which they might have to propose, or any alteration of the statutes which they might have to recommend. If those powers were not exercised by the Colleges, then it was for the Commissioners to suggest such statutes as they thought the Colleges might with propriety adopt. If the statutes were settled between the Colleges and the Commissioners, or the Commissioners accepted the statutes of the Colleges, it was thought by Parliament that, instead of bringing all those matters under discussion again, they would be more likely to be well settled by leaving the Colleges and Commissioners to mutual action. Parliament also required that the statutes should be laid on the table of both Houses, in order that either House, within forty days afterwards, might address the Crown, if they thought any provisions of the Act of Parliament had been evaded. Those forty days had, in fact, expired, still he did not take exception to that expiration but for these two purposes—first, to point out the inconvenience of leaving the Colleges with uncertain statutes, when nothing was more desirable than that the Colleges and Universities should know the statutes on which they were to act at the earliest possible moment; and, second, to point out that the latter part of the Motion could not be complied with, because there was no power to send back statutes to the Commissioners with any specific direction. As soon as the forty days had expired the power of dealing with these Statutes remained in the Crown, and in the Crown alone. The Crown no doubt had power to approve, and, by implication, power to disapprove. It was thus intended that it should be left to the Crown to determine whether action should be taken in reference to complaints either against the statutes framed by the Colleges, or by the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman would recollect that there was some discussion on the Oxford Statutes when they were framed by the Commissioners, and then it was thought, by both sides of the House that it would be most inconvenient for Parliament to interfere; most inconvenient, because nothing could lead to greater embarrassment after delegating all these powers to the Colleges and Commissioners, to reopen questions which had been settled after great deliberation, much discussion, and mutual concessions. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Urquhart) seemed to think that the provisions which had been made with refer- ence to the two great colleges, Trinity and St. John, were not, as regards religious matter in strict accordance with the intentions of the Legislature; but, if he would look at the Act of Parliament, he would see that the limits were carefully determined, beyond which the Commissioners could not go. The Legislature had said that university education should be open to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, whatever might be their religious opinions, and, in order to insure it, there was inserted in both of the Acts of Parliament, the power of founding what were called private halls in Oxford and hostels in Cambridge. This was done that all persons who did not agree with the Church of England might have the fullest benefit of university education. But this provision did not extend to Colleges. For to go beyond that, and to say that the Colleges should admit within their walls, not merely for purposes of education, but to enable them to receive the emoluments of colleges endowed for a different purpose, or to take a part in the government of the Colleges which necessarily followed a fellowship being conferred. Those persons whose religious opinions did not concur with the intention of the founder, was not consistent with the Act of Parliament. Those matters were expressly brought before Parliament, expressly discussed, and expressly negatived. Therefore it would be inconvenient by an Address to the Crown to interfere with that which the Legislature itself had already deliberately determined. He trusted, however, he should be pardoned for making one or two observations on the points suggested by the Motion. As to the requirement that the masters should be in holy orders, it was much discussed between the Commissioners and the Colleges, and he believed he might say that the general opinion of both those great institutions, Trinity and St. John's, was that to dispense with such requirement would be detrimental and contrary to the original intentions of the founders. With regard to the celibacy of the fellows, the hon. Gentleman would remember that that point was much discussed and debated between the Commissioners and the Colleges. The different Colleges took different views on it, but the grounds upon which Trinity and St. John decided against admitting married Fellows were so strong in themselves as to demonstrate the propriety of celibacy being enforced as a qualification, if they wished to have a constant succession of energetic and able men, instead of allowing married gentlemen to hold fellowships, to the detriment of those whose anxious ambition was to get those emoluments and distinctions. Moreover, he did not know how the government of the colleges was to go on if they did away with celibacy to any great extent, for their good government depended as much on having the tutors and authorities resident in the college as on any other circumstance. There might be some Colleges which would desire to take a different view, but, if so, that is a matter which had better be left for themselves to determine. With regard to the last point to which the hon. Gentleman adverted, the attendance of students, who were not members of the Church of England, at chapel, he would remind the House that there was really no compulsory attendance upon chapel. It was left to the governing body of the college to decide whether that attendance should be required or not; and he put it to any Gentleman whether any institution could go on if it were in the power of any person to say—"I will belong to your institution; but I will not comply with your regulations." The hon. Gentleman must know from his own experience of Trinity College, to which they both had the honour to belong, that compulsory attendance was not necessarily required when reasonable grounds for dispensing with that attendance might be alleged; and it was only within the last six months that the son of a member of the Jewish persuasion, well known in that House, had gone to Trinity for the sake of the benefits therein to be derived, and attendance at chapel was dispensed with in his case without a murmur and without debate. In conclusion, he would only say that though there had been differences between the University and the Commissioners, and between the Colleges and the Commissioners, yet by the good feeling which all parties had manifested, those differences had been allayed; and he therefore entreated the House to leave to the Commissioners, together with the Colleges, the discharge of the duties with which Parliament had intrusted them; and he felt no doubt that they would make such regulations and statutes as would best extend the benefits of the education given by the University, and best promote the interests of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects.

MR. BRISCOE

remarked, that he should best support the principles involved in the Motion, by advising his hon. Friend not to press it to a division.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he wished to refer to the position of this Motion upon their Order-book. The House had just decided that the grant to Maynooth should be continued. Now, that was a grant for the benefit of the Roman Catholic clergy exclusively. Immediately after that decision of the House, a Roman Catholic Gentleman rises, and not content with the ranking of liberal professions [Mr. P. URQUHART: I am not a Catholic]—well, then, he would merely say this—he trusted that the House would not be induced by any Member, whatever may be his faith, to invade the rights of these colleges, which were seminaries for the education of the clergy of the Church of England, immediately after it had consented to continue an exclusive grant to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. At that moment there was going on in Ireland an agitation to break up the Queen's Colleges in that country, in which there was no religious test. Patience has its limits; and the members of the Church of England, both in and out of the House, might depend on this—if the friends of the Church of England were not more watchful, the interests of that Church would be sacrificed.

MR. POLLARD-URQUHART

said, that in rising to ask leave to withdraw his Motion, he wished to thank the noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn, (Lord Stanley) for the liberal support which he had given it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.

House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.