HC Deb 10 April 1867 vol 186 cc1431-47

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."


said, he rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to the University of Cambridge. It was scarcely necessary for him to occupy the House by any observations in support of the proposition. He would not enter into a discussion of the principle involved, because it appeared to him that it had been fully discussed upon the second reading of the Bill; but what he wished to submit to the House was this—if the measure be considered by Parliament a desirable one to enact, there was no reason whatever why its principle should not be extended to the University of Cambridge. There was precisely the same feeling in the University of Cambridge in favour of the abolition of these tests as there was in the University of Oxford. If therefore the Bill were passed without including the University of Cambridge in its provisions, that University would immediately come to that House for the purpose of demanding a similar measure for itself; and thus considerable time would be wasted, for the discussion on the one Bill must necessarily be repeated on the other. The same principle and precisely the same questions were involved as regarded the University of Cambridge as were involved in the discussions relating to the University of Oxford. It might, however, be urged that the University of Cambridge was not in the same position as Oxford as regarded these tests. At Oxford a man who was not a member of the Church of England was allowed to take the degree of "B.A.," but not that of "M.A." In Cambridge, however, a kind of compromise had been come to, by which such a person was allowed to take a barren "M.A." which did not carry with it the privileges which attached to an "M.A." degree in the case of Churchmen. He believed that this so-called Cambridge compromise gave very little satisfaction, and that there was the same necessity for the abolition of tests in the University of Cambridge as there was at Oxford.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to the University of Cambridge."—(Mr. Fawcett.)


said, it was somewhat inconvenient to be called on to discuss a question relative to the University of Cambridge upon the consideration of a Bill which in its title, its principle, and in all its clauses related exclusively to the University of Oxford. But as most things had their bright side as well as their contrary aspect, he thought that the unusual course now taken by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had still this advantage—that it would free them from all doubts and obscurities respecting the real objects of the promoters of the Bill. The actual question now at issue was this—whether, in an institution, of which it was admitted that distinctive religious teaching formed an essential part, there should be admitted into the governing body persons of different religious persuasions. When the second reading of the Bill was moved by his hon. Friend it was suggested by the Member for Oxford University that, with a view to a compromise, certain clauses should be introduced into the Bill which would have placed Oxford in the same position as Cambridge, and the second reading, therefore, passed without discussion. But as by the present Resolution it was sought to apply the Bill to the University of Cambridge, he asked the House to negative the proposition which was in substance one for admitting Dissenters to the governing body of that University. The hon. Member for Brighton said that if the present Bill was made applicable to Oxford only, Cambridge would come forward and ask for a similar measure; but he (Mr. Selwyn) had to inform the House, that in a full meeting of the Senate, numbering 250 persons, and in which there was a division on another subject, a petition was unanimously adopted objecting to the extension of this Bill to Cambridge. That petition stated that a very short time had elapsed since the government and religious condition of the University had been carefully considered and revised by a Royal Commission, acting under the authority of the Act of 1856; but that Act, although allowing persons who were not members of the Church to avail themselves of an University education, had specially provided that they shall not become members of the Senate. The University of Cambridge had fully acted up to what was required of it by that Act; Dissenters had been admitted to all the educational advantages of the University, irrespective of religious creeds—the colleges, halls, the scholarships, had been thrown freely open to Nonconformists. The University had not only admitted Roman Catholics and Dissenters to University honours, but they had gone beyond the pale of Christianity, and had received Jews. With regard to the local examinations, they had given certificates of qualification to ladies, which, in the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), might render those "persons" more fitted to sustain that benefit and position which the hon. Gentleman proposed to confer on them in the shape of the elective franchise. The same principle of unity of religious opinion in the governing bodies had been accepted by Parliament in the case of the endowed schools, for which by the Act of 1860 provision was made for admitting to the schools the children of parents not in communion with the Church of England; it was provided that Dissenters should not interfere with the governing body of these schools; and, although attempts were made in 1860 and 1861 to upset that settlement, they were so signally defeated that they had not been renewed. He might also appeal to the universal practice of Roman Catholic and Dissenting communities to preserve the unity of belief in the governing body wherever distinctive religious teaching is an essential part of the institution. It remained to consider what grievances there were that should induce the House to depart, in the case of our Universities, from principles which had been so deliberately established and so long acted on? The principal grievance stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was that at Oxford persons who were allowed to take the B.A. were not allowed to take the M.A. degree; but that did not apply to Cambridge, because at the latter University, Dissenters might take the M.A.; and Oxford had repeatedly offered to make such a change in that respect, and also with respect to tests, as would put Oxford on a footing with Cambridge. Another alleged grievance was the tests. Now in Oxford, tests were still required on taking the M.A. degree; but at Cambridge they were not required, and members of the governing body were only asked to make the simple declaration that they were members of the Church of England. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge) had adopted a statement of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that humiliating distinctions were imposed on the sons of Dissenters; but how could that be maintained when at both Universities Dissenters were allowed to go through the whole academic course, and were admitted to every scholarship and to all the honours of the University examinations without any reference to religious differences. It was not until long after they had taken their B.A. degree and left the University that any distinction arose, and then when they returned at the end of three years they were not allowed to become members of the governing body unless they declared that they were members of the Church of England. Now surely there was nothing humiliating in that, and that grievance had no real existence whatever. The arguments attempted to be drawn from the fact that these Universities were lay corporations was effectually disposed of last year, and as it was dead and buried, he had no wish to revive it. But another point was now constantly harped on, and was the battle-horse of his hon. and learned Friend—namely, that these Universities were national institutions. But a few moments' consideration would show that there was no wore sub- stance in that argument than there was in the one lastly alluded to. No doubt they were national institutions in the same sense that the Church of England was a national institution, founded for the benefit of all the subjects of the realm, and in the sense that Parliament might in case of necessity step in and regulate them and control them; but if by national institutions was meant national institutions without reference to their original foundation and the purpose for which they existed, and that Parliament was at liberty, when no difficulty or danger called for interference, to alter the intentions and divert the purposes of the foundations, he denied that they were so. If everything national was to be dealt with at any time without reference to its original purpose and constitution, and the usages by which it was governed, to what extent would they carry it? If a gallery of pictures—the Turner Gallery, for example—were bequeathed to the nation on certain trusts, it became a national institution for the benefit of all; but would any one say that, because it was a national institution, it was competent to the Government or that House to disregard the conditions of the trust, sell the pictures, and apply the money towards the construction of iron-clads. The oft-repeated statement, therefore, that these Universities were national institutions, did not advance the case one step further. Another line of argument was that a considerable portion of the endowments of the Universities were given before the Reformation, and when the Church of England was in union with the Church of Rome; but his hon. and learned friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge) was too much of a scholar and a lawyer to rest anything on such an argument, because if three centuries of possession and numerous Acts of Parliament were not sufficient to secure a title he did not know what was. The natural result of such an argument was simply that the property, not only of the Universities, but also of the Church of England and of a large number of individuals in this country ought to be handed over to the Church of Rome. Besides this, and since the Reformation, the Universities had been enriched by many benefactions, which had been given solely on the ground that the Universities were Church of England institutions. In addition to that, could it be said that because the Universities had been so liberal as to extend the benefits originally intended for one class to all classes and creeds, they were now to be placed in a worse position than if they had confined the Universities strictly to their original purposes? He would again appeal to the practice of the Dissenting communities, and would ask hon. Members who were interested in their endowments to consider what would be the effect of one of the arguments used in favour of this Bill upon Nonconformists as well as upon the members of the Established Church—namely, the argument that because so large a portion of the population had severed from the Church of England the members of the governing body should no longer be exclusively members of that Church. The Dissenting communities would not adopt that principle in their own case; for, as he ventured to remind the House, it was contrary to what they had repeatedly contended for in our Courts of Justice. Our law books were full of cases in which Baptists, Presbyterians, and other bodies who had been the subject of such dissensions, had successfully established the principle that persons choosing to leave their communion forfeited the right they before possessed of being members of the governing body. Were they, then, to apply a different rule to the Universities? and if so, must it not also apply to the different Dissenting communities? Lord Brougham was of that opinion with regard to pecuniary endowments; and the same principle applied with greater force to the powers of the governing body, and if they had no right to enjoy any portion of a pecuniary endowment under such circumstances, much less ought they to have any control over the whole of the institution. If, however, that principle was established in these days of toleration, they must have in the Senate and the Convocation representatives of all the varying shades of opinions, and he need hardly ask hon. Members what the effect of that must necessarily be. The effect would be either to destroy the religious teaching of those Universities or make the Senate House and Convocation the arena of religious controversy. The experiment had been repeatedly tried in America, Ireland, England, and other countries, but it had failed. It was also said that the few who would be admitted to the governing body would be a small minority, and that no practical injury would result to the Universities; but a small minority had many ways of making itself felt, such as by watching the opportunity, when two parties were equally balanced, of swaying the decision. They would also be able to raise such constant discussion on any given subject so that for the sake of peace almost anything would be yielded to obtain that repose which was so desirable, and which might not otherwise be obtained. Those controversies had hitherto been avoided with great advantage to the Universities, and he was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend should advocate their introduction into such a place. He would rest the opposition to the Bill on the firm and deliberate decisions of Parliament, on the practice of the Universities and of the Dissenting communities, and on the fact that the proposed alteration in the constitution of the Universities was not founded on any real or substantial grievance.


said, that the only question was whether they ought to have separate legislation for Cambridge and Oxford. In his opinion, whatever might be the disadvantages or advantages attending the measure, both the Universities ought to be placed in the same position. He appealed to Members of the University opposite whether they would insist upon Oxford University being isolated solely on account of its connection with the Church of England.


said, he desired to explain the vote he was about to give in favour of the Instruction. He acknowledged that his position was one of some difficulty and peculiarity on this subject. Whilst he thought that considerable changes might be made in the Universities as to the admission of Dissenters and on matters of endowment, he could not question that securities should be taken to preserve the present system of religious education, which was obtained both at Oxford and Cambridge. There was another principle that he held by very strongly—namely, that this was a question that should not be dealt with by partial legislation. These objects can be obtained only by some general compromise, and no such compromise has yet been suggested likely to meet the approval of the House. Then he thought that it was impossible to draw any broad line of distinction between the Universities and the colleges; that the religious questions arising out of their constitutions should be considered as a whole, and that the two Universities should be dealt with in common. So that, although he could not support the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend, the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Brighton declared a principle which he was well able to indorse. He had the greatest possible objection to varieties of legislation in matters of this kind, which should be dealt with upon principles common to the whole country. It was easy to understand how it was that the Universities were not now on the same footing. When the Oxford University Bill was introduced into Parliament it contained no provisions whatever relating to religious disabilities; and the House inserted certain provisions of that nature against the will of the Administration. When, two years afterwards, the University of Cambridge came to be dealt with by a general Act, the opinion of Parliament had still further advanced; and more extended provisions than those in the Oxford Bill were introduced in the Bill for Cambridge. Hence the present variation, which he did not think should be maintained, much less extended. Whatever were the claims of the Dissenters, they were the same on the one University on the other; and he did not despair of seeing the time when, by some abatement of extreme views, both the colleges and the Universities might be dealt with by a comprehensive measure.


was glad the Instruction had been moved, so far as it simplified the question. The Bill was now proposed as one which should deal with both the Universities, and he therefore opposed that Instruction as a Cambridge man. He was quite willing—nay, anxious—to see Oxford placed on the same footing as that which Cambridge occupied at present, and not only so, but he would not refuse the Parliamentary franchise to the graduates of either University, but that was not what the Instruction of the hon. Member for Brighton asked for. The Instruction called on the House to place Cambridge by anticipation on a less desirable footing, the footing of the future Oxford, the nature of which was to be decided on hereafter, and that he objected to. He had already protested on a farmer evening against the process of dry nursing the Universities; and he was afraid he could not now acquit his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter of having put on the mob-cap and attempted to dandle the infant. With reference to the whole question, he regarded the grievance of the Dissenters, for the most part, as a sentimental one. Nonconformists, it was said, were placed in a humiliating position; but to what ex- tent was this charge true? The Nonconformist undergraduate was treated the same as his fellows in respect to degrees; the social life of the University was the same for all. He himself had the honour of being the friend and contemporary at Trinity College, Cambridge, under the old exclusive system, of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord E. Howard), and of the hon. Member for Hythe (Baron M. Rothschild), and since that time the Oxford and Cambridge University Reform Bills had been passed. That Nonconformists should be able to reach all the honours and distinguished positions to which a man of intellect was able to attain in the course of his educational career was surely not a condition of humiliation. It was well that the degrees were open to Nonconformists, but it was not well that the concessions now asked for should be made; indeed, it was impossible to grant them without undermining the basis of the collegiate system. In this was to be found the fallacy of the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend every time he spoke upon the subject, and argued that he would throw open the University and keep the Colleges closed up. Without a revolution and upsetting the whole existing system, they could not separate the Universities from the Colleges. They could not deal with one without affecting the other, and they could not throw open the government in the University to Dissenters without giving them a share in the fellowships of the Colleges. He did not, of course, deny the greater antiquity and independent origin of the University. But in the course of centuries the University and the Colleges had interpenetrated until it was impossible to disentangle the complication. He admitted that, in a certain sense, the Universities were lay corporations and national institutions; but they were pre-eminently the seminaries for the education of the clergy, so educated in company with the elite of the lay members of the Established Church. Did they desire to sacrifice this peculiar advantage? They must recollect that one distinguishing characteristic of the English clergy was their social position—that they were on a level in education with the laity, moved socially among them, and had an influence as intelligent leaders of public opinion that was not enjoyed by the clergy of any other Christian community. The clergy of the Church of Rome separated from their childhood for that profession, and refused social ties, were educated together in ecclesiastical seminaries; the ministers, on the other hand, of Protestant communities abroad were not conceded equal social equality with the gentry and nobility of the land. The happy and exceptional position of the clergy of the Church of England was, he believed, in great measure due to the fact of those Universities and Colleges in which they received their education being, at the same time, the place of the highest secular instruction. Was the House, he asked, prepared to abandon this tried advantage for an uncertain good? Were they prepared to make the clergy of the Church of England mere seminarists; or would they attempt the other solution and produce a happy family, by maintaining a national religious establishment in connection with the Universities, but forbidding it to possess any distinctive creed till it became what the noble Lord the Member for Nottingham had suggested in the Fortnightly Review—that an established Church ought to be—a body which would include the unbeliever as well as the believer of the creed, and in which the clergyman need no more be assumed to believe in the prayers which he read than the town crier is assumed to do in the truth of the announcements to which he gives currency. The hon. and learned Gentleman pressed them with the demand, why were they afraid of those small results which, as he contended, would alone flow from the Bill? He asked over and over again, was it worth while to oppose so harmless a proposal so strongly? But he (Mr. Beresford Hope), saw that the efforts which had been made to push the Bill were so ostentatiously great that it was obvious that its supporters did not consider it an unimportant matter; but that they believed that if it were agreed to, the result would be to force a large proportion of the Dissenting element into the government of the University. He defied them to admit the Nonconformists to the Senate and the Convocation, and to insure that the Colleges would five years hence be as they are at present. On these accounts he felt bound to oppose the Instruction; he did not do so because he wished to prevent Dissenters from enjoying all honours and distinctions attainable in a University, but because he believed that a liberal and tolerant Church of England, supported by its Universities, was a national safeguard; a safeguard, not only to its own members, but also to all ortho- dox Christians, Nonconformists as well as Churchmen, who valued the truths of Christ's religion preserved and taught by the Church of Christ.


said, he must respectfully decline to be drawn into a discussion of the general question. The principle of the Bill had been twice discussed and twice accepted by the House—once last year, by a large majority, and again this year without a division. There was a great inconvenience in hon. Gentlemen taking more than a year to prepare their replies, and then answering speeches delivered by him (Mr. Coleridge) a long while ago. The speech they had just heard was a speech against the principle of the Bill; and, with the greatest respect for his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn), he must say that it ought to have been delivered, if at all, on some former occasion. The present issue was extremely short and definite—namely, whether the two Universities should be placed on the same footing; and he thought it inexpedient to continue a discussion on the general principles of the Bill which hon. Members had raised in their endeavours to combat arguments which had fallen from himself in the course of two speeches—one delivered thirteen months and the other four or five weeks ago, and which they might have heard and answered at the proper time if they had chose to do so. The principles of the Bill had been already accepted by the House by a decision with which he, for one, was perfectly content, and he trusted the House would confine itself to the question before it.


remarked that he had a Notice on the Paper which proposed to place Oxford on the same footing as Cambridge was now; and he wished to point out that to pass the Instruction would imply legislation with respect to Cambridge, whereas, the object of his Amendment was to restrain legislation for Oxford within the limits of the Acts relating to Cambridge.


thought it hardly fair for the hon. and learned Member for Exeter(Mr. Coleridge) to complain of discussion on the general principles of the Bill, since it was impossible to ascertain the probable effect of the proposed Instruction without doing so. He agreed that the two Universities should be identical in position; but the Instruction did not go precisely in that direction. They had before them a Bill in which there were many things they did not like, and they were asked to say that they would apply those things to both Universities. He objected to the Instruction because it invited them to take a leap in the dark; they were asked to pledge themselves to do a certain harm to Cambridge which they had not made up their minds to inflict upon Oxford. However much the House desired to put the Universities on the same footing, it surely did not desire to put them on an evil footing. He, for one, did not, and therefore should vote against the Instruction and in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir William Heathcote). He believed the two Universities would then be placed in precisely the same position; but he would not vote for applying a Bill to Cambridge till he knew how they were going to affect Oxford. He recommended the hon. Member for Brighton to withdraw his Motion, and when in Committee to move the addition of a clause extending the Bill to Cambridge.


said, that the line of argument adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge), that because he had made a speech upon the Bill on moving the second reading no further discussion ought to take place now when he proposed to extend the principle to Cambridge, was, to say the least of it, a little singular. He (Mr. Newdegate) was perfectly willing to admit to the full benefit of membership, without any degrading and dishonourable distinctions, all the subjects of the Queen who might choose to resort there, without reference to the religious communion to which they might belong or to the religious opinions which they might hold. No man should consider himself degraded because he was not admitted to the government of an institution to which he belonged; and he could not help remarking upon the arrogant temper of modern Liberalism, in claiming a sort of exclusive knowledge of what was required by the educated classes. He was of opinion that the Universities ought to be preserved as the nurseries of the clergy of the Church of England. That opinion might be right or wrong; but he could not understand the arrogant and arbitrary tone of these who attempted to force this measure upon the House. He hoped, however, that they would continue to preserve that tone, being convinced that it would tend to produce considerable re-action in the minds of the intelligent classes, and open their eyes to the real character of such liberalism.


was about to address the House, in reply, when—


The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to reply. The Amendment is simply that it be an Instruction to the Committee to include Cambridge in the scope of the Bill.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 166: Majority 87.

Acland, T. D. Craufurd, E. H. J.
Adam, W. P. Crossley, Sir F.
Agnew, Sir A. Dalglish, R.
Akroyd, E. Davey, R.
Allen, W. S. Davie, Sir H. R. F.
Amberley, Viscount De La Poer, E.
Andover, Viscount Denman, hon. G.
Armstrong, R. Dent, J. D.
Ayrton, A. S. Dering, Sir E. C.
Aytoun, R. S. Devereux, R. J.
Bagwell, J. Dillwyn, L. L.
Baines, E. Dodson, J. G.
Barclay, A. C. Duff, M. E. G.
Barnes, T. Duff, R. W.
Barron, Sir H. W. Dundas, F.
Barry, A. H. S. Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.
Barry, C. R. Dunlop, A. C. S. M.
Bass, A. Edwards, C.
Bass, M. T. Eliot, Lord
Baxter, W. E. Enfield, Viscount
Bazley, T. Erskine, Vice-Ad. J. E.
Beaumont, W. B. Esmonde, J.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Ewing, H. E. Crum-
Biddulph, Col. R. M. Eykyn, R.
Biddulph, M. Fawcett, H.
Bingham, Lord Finlay, A. S.
Blake, J. A. Fitz Patrick, rt. hn. J. W.
Blennerhasset, Sir R. Foley, H. W.
Bonham-Carter, J. Foljambe, F. J. S.
Brand, hon. H. Forster, C.
Bright, J. Forster, W. E.
Browne, Lord J. T. Foster, W. O.
Bruce, Lord C. Fortescue, rt. hon. C. S.
Buller, Sir A. W. Fortescue, hon. D. F.
Butler, C. S. French, Colonel
Butler-Johnstone, H. A. Gaselee, Serjeant S.
Buxton, Sir T. F. Gaskell, J. M.
Calcraft, J. H. M. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Candlish, J. Gilpin, C.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Carnegie, hon. C. Glyn, G. G.
Cave, T. Goldsmid, Sir F. H.
Cavendish, Lord E. Goldsmid, J.
Cavendish, Lord F. C. Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.
Cheetham, J. Gower, hon. F. L.
Clay, J. Graham, W.
Clement, W. J. Gregory, W. H.
Clinton, Lord A. P. Greville-Nugent, Col.
Clinton, Lord E. P. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Cogan, rt. hn. W. H. F. Gridley, Capt. H. G.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Grosvenor, Capt. R. W.
Coleridge, J. D. Gurney, S.
Collier, Sir R. P. Hadfield, G.
Colthurst, Sir G. C. Hamilton, E. W. T.
Colvile, C. R. Hankey, T.
Cowen, J. Hanmer, Sir J.
Cowper, hon. H. F. Hardcastle, J. A.
Harris, J. D. Philips, R. N.
Hartington, Marquess of Pim, J.
Hartley, J. Platt, J.
Hay, Lord J. Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Hay, Lord W. M. Portman, hn. W. H. B.
Hayter, Capt. A. D. Potter, E.
Headlam, rt. hon. T. E. Potter, T. B.
Henderson, J. Power, Sir J.
Henley, Lord Price, R. G.
Hibbert, J. T. Price, W. P.
Hodgkinson, G. Pritchard, J.
Holden, I. Pugh, D.
Holland, E. Rearden, D. J.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Rebow, J. G.
Hughes, T. Robertson, D.
Hughes, W. B. Rothschild, Baron M. de
Hurst, R. H. Russell, F. W.
Ingham, R. St. Aubyn, J.
Jervoise, Sir J. C. Salomons, Alderman
Kearsley, Captain R. Samuda, J. D'A.
Kennedy, T. Samuelson, B.
Kinglake, J. A. Saunderson, E.
Kingscote, Colonel Scholefield, W.
Knatchbull - Hugessen, E. Scott, Sir W.
Seely, C.
Laing, S. Seymour, A.
Layard, A. H. Seymour, H. D.
Lamont, J. Shafto, R. D.
Lawrence, W. Sherriff, A. C.
Lawson, rt. hon. J. A. Simeon, Sir J.
Leatham, W. H. Smith, J.
Lee, W. Smith, J. A.
Leeman, G. Smith, J. B.
Lefevre, G. J. S. Speirs, A. A.
Lewis, H. Stacpoole, W.
Locke, J. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Lusk, A. Stansfeld, J.
MacEvoy, E. Stock, O.
M'Kenna, J. N. Stone, W. H.
Mackie, J. Stuart, Col. Crichton-
Mackinnon, Capt. L. B. Stucley, Sir G. S.
M'Lagan, P. Sullivan, E.
Maguire, J. F. Sykes, Col. W. H.
Marjoribanks, Sir D. C. Synan, E. J.
Martin, C. W. Tite, W.
Matheson, A. Torrens, W. T. M'C.
Merry, J. Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury-
Milbank, F. A.
Mill, J. S. Trevelyan, G. O.
Mills, J. R. Vandeleur, Colonel
Mitchell, T. A. Vanderbyl, P.
Moffatt, G. Verney, Sir H.
Monk, C. J. Villiers, rt. hn. C. P.
Monsell, rt. hon. W. Vivian, Capt. hn. J. C. W.
Moore, C. Waring, C.
Morris, G. Watkin, E. W.
Morris, W. Western, Sir T. B.
Morrison, W. Whalley, G. H.
Murphy, N. D. Whatman, J.
Nicol, J. D. White, hon. Capt. C.
Norwood, C. M. White, J.
O'Brien, Sir P. Whitworth, B.
O'Conor Don, The Williamson, Sir H.
Ogilvy, Sir J. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Oliphant, L. Woods, H.
O'Loghlen, Sir C. M. Wynne, W. R. M.
Osborne, R. B. Wyvill, M.
Otway, A. J. Young, R.
Owen, Sir H. O.
Padmore, R. TELLERS.
Pease, J. W. Dilke, Sir W.
Peel, A. W. Neate, C.
Pelham, Lord
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. Heathcote, Sir W.
Anson, hon. Major Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Arkwright, R. Henniker-Major, hon J. M.
Bagge, Sir W.
Bagnall, C. Herbert, hon. Col. P.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Heygate, Sir F. W.
Baillie, rt. hon. H. J. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Barnett, H. Hodgson, W. N.
Barrington, Viscount Hogg, Lt.-Col. J. M.
Barrow, W. H. Holmesdale, Viscount
Bathurst, A. A. Hood, Sir A. A.
Beach, Sir M. H. Hornby, W. H.
Beach, W. W. B. Horsfall, T. B.
Bective, Earl of Hotham, Lord
Beecroft, G. S. Howes, E.
Bentinck, G. C. Hubbard, J. G.
Benyon, R. Huddleston, J. W.
Booth, Sir R. G. Innes, A. C.
Bourne, Colonel Karslake, Sir J. B.
Bowen, J. B. Karslake, E. K.
Bridges, Sir B. W. Kavanagh, A.
Briscoe, J. I. Kekewich, S. T.
Bromley, W. D. Kelk, J.
Brooks, R. Kennard, R. W.
Bruce, Sir H. H. King, J. K.
Bruen, H. Knight, F. W.
Buckley, E. Knightley, Sir R.
Cartwright, Colonel Knox, Colonel
Cave, rt. hon. S. Lacon, Sir E.
Clive. Capt. hon. G. W. Langton, W. G.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. Lascelles, hon. E. W.
Cole, hon. H. Legh, Major C.
Cole, hon. J. L. Lefroy, A.
Conolly, T. Lennox, Lord G. G.
Cooper, E. H. Leslie, C. P.
Cox, W. T. Lindsay, hon. Col. C.
Cranbourne, Viscount Lopes, Sir M.
Cubitt, G. Mainwaring, T.
Curzon, Viscount Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Dalkeith, Earl of Montagu, Lord R.
Dick, F. Montgomery, Sir G.
Dimsdale, R. Mordaunt, Sir C.
Du Cane, C. Morgan, O.
Duncombe, hon. Col. Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Dyke, W. H. Naas, Lord
Dyott, Colonel R. Neeld, Sir J.
Earle, R. A. Neville-Grenville, R.
Eckersley, N. Newdegate, C. N.
Edwards, Sir H. Newport, Viscount
Egerton, hon. A. F. Noel, hon. G. J.
Egerton, hon. W. North, Colonel
Fane, Lt.-Col. H. H. Packe, C. W.
Fane, Colonel J. W. Paget, R. H.
Feilden, J. Parker, Major W.
Fellowes, E. Patten, Colonel W.
Floyer, J. Peel, rt. hon. Gen.
Forde, Colonel Powell, F. S.
Forester, rt. hon. Gen. Read, C. S.
Garth, R. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Goodson, J. Robertson, P. F.
Gore, J. R. O. Rolt, Sir J.
Gore, W. R. O. Royston, Viscount
Grey, hon. T. de Schreiber, C.
Griffith, C. D. Sclater-Booth, G.
Gwyn, H. Severne, J. E.
Hamilton, Lord C. J. Seymour, G. H.
Hamilton, I. T. Simonds, W. B.
Hamilton, Viscoun Smith, A.
Hardy, rt. hon. G. Smith, S. G.
Hardy, J. Stanhope, J. B.
Hartopp, E. B. Stanley, hon. F.
Heathcote, hon. G. H. Stronge, Sir J. M.
Stuart, Lt.-Col. W. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Surtees, F. Walrond, J. W.
Surtees, H. E. Walsh, Sir J.
Sykes, C. Waterhouse, S.
Taylor, Colonel Welby, W. E.
Thorold, Sir J. H. Whitmore, H.
Thynne, Lord H. F. Wise, H. C.
Tottenham, Lt-Col. C. G. Wyndham, hon. H.
Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J. Wynne, Sir W. W.
Turner, C. Wynn, C. W. W.
Vance, J.
Verner, Sir W. TELLERS.
Walcott, Admiral Selwyn, C. J.
Walker, Major G. G. Hope, B.

Motion made, Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"

Motion agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)


urged that the University of Cambridge and its representatives had had no opportunity of considering the principle of the Bill, since at the second reading its operation was proposed to be confined to Oxford. He thought they were entitled to such an opportunity before the measure proceeded further, and to put himself in order he would move that the Chairman report Progress.


expressed surprise at such an objection being taken, for his hon. and learned Friend, as also the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope), had on previous occasions taken part in the discussion of this measure. The Bill was very short. It proposed to admit Dissenters to the Convocation of Oxford, and if extended to Cambridge, would, of course, admit them to the Senate of that University. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.


, in explanation, remarked that on the second reading the Bill was confined to Oxford, and the hon. Member for that University (Sir William Heathcote) intimated his intention to propose Amendments which would he hoped be accepted. It would therefore have appeared a waste of time for the friends of Cambridge to take part in the discussion; but by the Instruction the Bill altered the position in which Cambridge was at present placed, and they ought to have an opportunity of considering it.


said, that until five minutes ago this was an Oxford Bill, and Cambridge now found itself in the position of a measure having been read a second time, by which its internal constitution was vitally affected. Under these circumstances, it was only fair that the Senate of Cambridge should have an opportunity of considering it.

Motion negatived.

Clause 1 (Persons taking Lay Academical Degrees not to be required to take any Religions Oath or subscribe any Formulary of Faith).


asked, whether the hon. Members in charge of the Bill had considered the form of the Amendments which would be necessary in order to carry out the Instruction. The term Convocation was not applicable to Cambridge.


said, it would be sufficient in most cases to add the words "and Cambridge."


said, he had given notice of two Amendments, the object of which was to bring the University of Oxford to the position in which Cambridge now stood; but, after the division which lied taken place, he felt that it would be useless to go to a division, though he wished to place his Amendments on record.

Amendments proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after "thereof," insert "except being or becoming a member of the Convocation of the said University."

In page 2, line 5, after "notwithstanding," insert— And any person who shall have obtained any such degree as now confers a title on the holder thereof to become a member of the said Convocation shall thereby, and although he shall not have subscribed such articles or formulary, nor have made nor taken such declaration or oath, be entitled to obtain, under the provisions and subject to the other conditions of the Act of the seventeenth and eighteenth Victoria, chapter eighty-one, a licence to open his residence for the reception of students."—(Sir William Heathcote.)


said, that he must oppose the Amendments, for he considered that the only hope of effecting any good by the Bill was to pass it in its integrity. At the same time, in reference to the colleges, he wished to say that he had no desire to touch them, and he believed that they were wholly unaffected by the operation of the Bill; but if any hon. Member could point to any words that could be construed into any interference with the present condition of the colleges, he should be prepared to amend them.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.