§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Interpretation of terms).
MR. J. D. LEWIS, who had given Notice of an Amendment, in line 27, after "professorship" to insert "other than a professorship, assistant or deputy professorship of divinity, theology, or ecclesiastical history," said, his object was the same that was aimed at by other Amendments which were shortly to come on, and which would make the Bill really 1948 what it professed to be, by throwing open offices in the Universities to all persons without distinction of creed. If, however, those Amendments were passed as they stood, Divinity Professorships might be held by laymen. Now, he thought they ought to be excepted. He had, therefore, given notice of this Amendment; but if the subsequent Amendments placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and himself were not accepted, it would be wasting the time of the House to discuss the matter now. He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment for the present, and bring it up, if necessary, on the Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD EDMOND PITZMAUEICE, in rising to move the Amendment which stood in his name, said, it had originally been his intention to discuss the question his Amendment related to as one of principle; but it would now be unnecessary for him to do so, as the Solicitor General had stated, in the course of the debate upon the second reading, that Heads of Colleges were excepted from the Bill not upon principle, but in consequence of practical considerations which, in fact, resolved themselves into a feeling of deference to the deputation from the Universities which waited upon the First Minister of the Crown in December last. The hon. and learned Gentleman omitted, however, to state the circumstances under which the deputation made that request, and he would, therefore, briefly refer to them. When the great meeting in favour of the abolition of tests was held at Cambridge in November last certain "grave and reverend seigniors" came in and gave their assistance. These formed an important part of a Committee appointed to investigate the subject, and it was, at their suggestion, agreed to recommend the exemption of Heads of Houses from the operation of the measure. Subsequently, the Oxford portion of the deputation was induced to give way to Cambridge on this point, although the idea had never been originally entertained at the former University. In confirmation of this, he desired to call attention to a statement which many Members had no doubt seen in that morning's papers. At a meeting held at Balliol College, Oxford, on the 4th of this month, and 1949 presided over by Professor Jowett, a resolution was moved by Sir Benjamin Brodie, in favour of including Heads of Houses in the Bill. It was further stated that although the requisition to that effect was only in circulation for a week, it received no fewer than 66 signatures of gentlemen occupying the highest positions in the University. He thought, therefore, he was justified in saying that the real feeling of those who represented the Liberal party in that University was not in favour of excluding Heads of Houses from the operation of the Bill. But, however this might be, it was the duty of the House of Commons to consider the feeling of the country at large on the subject, and also to look at the practical results of this omission. What the opinion of the country was was well known. As regarded the practical results, they would be to perpetuate those religious differences which it was the object of the Bill to destroy. The Heads of Houses, assisted by the clerical Fellows, would form a garrison in every College. Hon. Members doubtless recollected that it often happened that in ancient treaties clauses were inserted by which one state retained the right of garrisoning the citadel in a town belonging to another. The usual result was a bombardment on the earliest occasion. The example would not be lost. A clerical bombardment would ensue. On the other hand, if the Heads were inclined to act loyally, they would be the continual objects of suspicion, especially as the patronage of the Colleges was generally vested in their hands. In conclusion, he hoped that the Government would accept his Amendment, and thus add to the debt of gratitude owing to them by all University Liberals. He begged leave to move, in line 28, after "lectureship" to insert "headship of a College."
MR. GLADSTONESir, I have a request to make of my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) which I hope he will not think unreasonable, considering the peculiar circumstances under which it is made, especially as the Government cannot take to itself any blame in the matter. The request is, that he will postpone the raising of this question till the Report of the Bill is brought up, when an opportunity shall be given him of treating it with the same convenience as at the present stage. I will briefly 1950 state the grounds upon which I make this request. During the autumn, communications were held between the Government and those whom I may call the Liberal party in the two Universities, through the medium of a deputation which came up to London and conversed with me on the subject of academical tests. The gentlemen who represented the Liberal party at Cambridge made it a portion of their plan that the Headships of Colleges were to be reserved and excluded from the operation of the Bill. As I understood, they had made a sort of compact among themselves, and had been joined in the movement for the general repeal of tests by persons who would not have acted with them except out of consideration for this particular reservation. The gentlemen who represented Oxford never shared in this opinion respecting heads of Colleges on its merits; but, viewing the expediency of obtaining as much union of opinion as was possible, and on other grounds extrinsic to the merits of the question, they likewise concurred in the request made by the gentlemen from Cambridge. Subsequently the Dean of Christ Church, on the part of the academical Liberals in both Universities, forwarded me a draft Bill from the operation of which Heads of Colleges would be exempted. It was in this shape that the subject was brought before the Government; and the Government, having regard to this union of sentiment for the purposes of action, thought that, on the whole, it would be wise and prudent for them to adopt the framework of the measure which had been suggested to them with so unusual an amount of concurrence of opinion. They, therefore, did not enter into a consideration, as a Government, of the intrinsic value of any such reservation, but regarded the matter simply on the ground I have described, and accordingly introduced this reservation into the framework of their Bill. It partook, therefore, of the character, I will not say strictly of a covenant, but of an understanding between the Government and those who had preferred the request—for I must assert, in the strongest and most definite manner, that whatever be the private opinions of any gentlemen in Oxford, including the 66 to whom my noble Friend referred, the request made to me by the Dean of Christ Church in the letter accompanying the Bill was that 1951 the Headships might be reserved. I will not say that the Government is bound by that, and still less do I say the House is bound by it, because I agree with my noble Friend that the opinion of no body of men at Oxford or Cambridge can be decisive in a matter of this kind. But although I had been in communication with the deputation from the Universities for six months, it was not till last Saturday morning that I received a communication signed by eminent members of the University of Oxford, who, quite irrespective of this understanding, express a hope that the noble Lord's Amendment will be carried. We had a joint request made to us by two parties—with private opinions we have nothing to do—and that was, that we should exclude from the operation of the Bill that which my noble Friend wishes us to introduce. We have since received a document signed by a large number of those who make up one of the parties, stating that this was not their wish, and that consequently, without being released from the understanding to which we came, they were opposed to our fulfilling it. Now, I have not the slightest wish to make any charge against those gentlemen. I have made a request to Professor Jowett, the chairman of the meeting on the subject, in which I have begged of him to let us know whether we are released from the kind of understanding into which we entered, or, what is the attitude intended to be adopted by the parties in the two Universities with respect, to the matter. I expect to know better in the course of a few days the sentiments of those to whose formal request we acceded in framing the Bill, and I shall undertake to be in a position before the Report to clear up the point. Then, without binding ourselves to any particular course, we shall be in possession of facts which must form part of the materials which we shall have to consider in guiding us to a conclusion. I hope, therefore, my noble Friend will kindly withdraw his Amendment for the present.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the point was one on which, though it was of great importance, the Government appeared to have no opinions of their own, but were contented to repre- 1952 sent the opinions of the extreme section of the Oxford Liberals, a description which was, he thought, by no means too strong as characterizing the meetings presided over by Professor Jowett and others, to whom the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had alluded. He at once admitted it was quite natural that, in the view of those who wished to see University tests abolished, the reservation in the clause should seem untenable, and considering the advance which had been made by the Government on the question, he was not surprised to hear them intimate their readiness that the reservation should be done away with. But the Amendment was one to which he and those who, like him, were altogether opposed to the Bill, could not be expected to give their assent. He looked upon the reservation in the case of the Headships of Colleges as of the greatest importance, because with the Heads of Colleges rested the appointment of tutors. It might be an invidious thing to ask them to select the tutors; but they must make some selection, and he should feel the utmost confidence that they would select those best qualified for the purpose. There was also another point to which the noble Lord had not referred, which he looked upon as of the utmost consequence; he alluded to worship in the College chapel. By Clause 4 of the Bill that worship was to remain untouched, and he supposed it would continue to be conducted according to the rites of the Church of England. Now, he believed it was provided by the statutes of the Colleges that the Heads should attend the College chapel. If they were not members of the Church of England, however, it would not be open to them to do so, and what would, under those circumstances, happen? Would the services be maintained at all, or would they be conducted in accordance with the rites of the Presbyterians, Baptists, Independents, or Unitarians, according to the particular tenets of the Head of the College, and with those of the Church of England by turns? If that were to be the case he could not help thinking that little would have been done to promote that religious harmony which the supporters of the Bill professed it to be one of their main objects to secure. The result would be that the College services would, be alto- 1953 gether done away with or become of the most colourless character. Believing the effect of the adoption of the Amendment would be materially to injure the cause of religious instruction, which was already so prejudicially interfered with by the Bill, he should certainly object to it when brought up on the Report.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must protest against the statement that the Government were merely the registrars of the extreme opinions of the Oxford Liberals. They had introduced the present clause into the Bill not at the bidding of the extreme Oxford Liberals, but at the request of the moderate Cambridge Reformers. The hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) considered that it was desirable to maintain the reservation with regard to the Heads of Colleges, because the appointment of tutors rested with them; but did he mean to suppose that the restriction was to be made use of to defeat the very object of the Bill, and that if a large number of persons in a College were eminently qualified to be tutors, they should, because they did not happen to be members of the Church of England, and for no other reason, be precluded from filling such positions? There could be no better argument adduced than that to lead hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House to the conclusion that the restriction was one which ought not to be maintained.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he thought the interpretation which had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) on the language used by the First Minister of the Crown was the only interpretation of which it was capable. The right hon. Gentleman had almost apologized for having inserted the reservation in the clause, and added that before he could do anything further in the matter he must consult Mr. Jowett. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] He had certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he must wait to receive the instructions of the extreme Liberals as to the course he should take. He should like, he might add, to know whether the present movement was one which originated with the University itself, or whether it had not reference to a certain communication with certain gentlemen in London on Saturday, the 1954 4th of June. For his own part, he did not believe that it had originated with the University.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he understood the Solicitor General to have stated that the reservation in the clause was inserted to meet the views of the moderate Cambridge Reformers, and he would suggest that they too, as well as the members of the University of Oxford referred to by the First Minister of the Crown, should be communicated with before the Government arrived at a final decision on the point in question.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Persons taking lay academical degrees or holding lay academical or collegiate offices not to be required to subscribe any formulary of faith, &c.)
§ MR. STEVENSONsaid, that the objects set forth in the Preamble of the Bill could not be attained so long as words were embodied in the clause containing restrictions with respect to dignities in Divinity. In Scotland—at all events, he could speak of Glasgow and Aberdeen—no condition was attached to the grant of Divinity degrees, and any student could present himself for examination. He did not see why the English Universities should not be placed on the same footing, and also why they should not confer honorary degrees on distinguished theologians outside their own Church. Believing the measure to be incomplete as long as these words remained, he begged to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "other than a degree in divinity."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "other than a degree in divinity."—(Mr. Stevenson.)
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, though he hoped he was not wanting in liberality, he was quite unable to follow his hon. Friend in his extreme liberalism in this matter. Although they freely opened the Universities without requiring tests in regard to all other matters, yet it seemed to him to be essential to preserve Divinity degrees in any University in connection with some definite form of Divinity. To talk of conferring a degree in Divinity without an examination into definite doctrines appeared to be embarking on a course which he would rather some one else followed than him- 1955 self. The Universities were not debarred by this section from, conferring, in accordance with former practice, upon distinguished theologians not belonging to the Church of England honorary degrees in. Divinity, and in that case—he spoke, at least, of Oxford—the recipients of degrees had to sign no test. Such degrees had been conferred upon Dr. Chalmers and the Archbishop of Syra. In. his opinion it would not be right to call upon the Universities to examine any person, however different might be his religious opinions from those of the Church of England, who might present himself. That would be by an excessively difficult and impracticable course, and would tend to introduce the evils of religious controversy in the sharpest and most disagreeable forms. Therefore, with all deference to the hon. Member, and with every desire to make the Bill as wide as possible, he could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should support the Amendment. If what was proposed had been adopted without difficulty in Scotland, he asked why should it not be done in England? He was one of those who held, the opinion that thought should be unfettered, and he would press upon the Solicitor General sentiments he had uttered on previous occasions in favour of the very principle. He did not shrink from the application of thought and of intellect even to matters theological. He stood convinced on certain doctrines contained in the Articles of the Church of England, which some of the supporters of the Establishment repudiated, or durst not act upon them. They must have in this country, and he proclaimed it in the House of Commons, equality of religious rights and religious thought. The First Minister of the Crown had enunciated that principle, and let not his coadjutors flinch from it. He was confident that the stability not only of our institutions, but of the Throne itself, depended upon freedom being given on this great question, and the principle involved in the Amendment must not be concealed out of deference to what was founded not upon Scripture, but upon power and caprice. Whatever the members of the Government, assisted by those of the Opposition, might do, let other Members, at any rate, record their votes truthfully and honestly in favour of the great principle.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished he know up to what point this principle was to be carried. It was proposed that degrees in Divinity should be given irrespective of the religious tenets held by the recipient. This, no doubt, was a great principle, but was it as good as great? It was not possible in University matters to draw a satisfactory distinction between degrees and offices. He was not speaking of honorary degrees. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had explained that part of the case, and the Universities were at liberty to confer such degrees without imposing any test. A degree was supposed to indicate the capacity of the person receiving it to teach; and the proposal of his hon. Friends was that the University should declare, by giving degrees, the capacity of men to teach theology, and then stop them from entering into offices where theology was to be taught. That was practically, as well as logically, an inconsequence which could not be defended. The University could not give degrees in theology, and afterwards say to the recipients—"We refuse to allow you to discharge this teaching duty." Parliament would place itself in a wholly false position if it called upon the Universities to separate capacity in the teaching of theology from the matter and doctrines to be taught, and if, after the teaching capacity of these persons had been affirmed by the Universities, the latter were compelled by law to refuse them all participation in the emoluments of teaching. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) should have "the courage of his convictions," and assert his principle in a logical way by proposing to throw open all theological offices at the University. [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] His hon. Friend was perfectly ready to do this. If, therefore, the Professorship of Divinity in Oxford became vacant, and Archbishop Manning should be disposed to accept that office, his hon. Friend would be prepared to see Archbishop Manning installed in it. That was the principle asserted by his hon. Friend. It was a great principle, no doubt, but he was disposed to question its goodness.
§ MR. MIALLsaid, he did not think the Amendment had been sought for in any of the negotiations between the representatives of the Dissenters and those who had been most forward in promot- 1957 ing the Bill. If, indeed, freedom of thought would be promoted by Dissenters taking degrees in Divinity as taught by the Church of England, he should have thought it of great importance that they should claim liberty to take those degrees; but, instead of freedom of thought, they would have only restriction of thought, and would show themselves to be up to a certain standard of attainment in theological knowledge, that being, of course, the standard of the Church of England. While he thanked the hon. Member (Mr. Stevenson) for having brought forward the Amendment, he thought it would be wise not to press it to a Division.
§ MR. TIPPINGsaid, that, as regarded freedom of thought, he might observe that, in the case of the body of Dissenters to which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) belonged, that freedom was exercised in reference to Dr. Davidson by his being shown either the front or the back door of his own church.
§ DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the objection to granting degrees in Divinity to persons who did not belong to the Established Church would be a valid objection if it were true that Universities were to be considered as being in connection with the Church of England as they had been in the past. But the very object of the Bill was to take the Universities out of that position, and to make them national Universities; and if they were national Universities, he could not conceive why those who took even degrees of Divinity should be subjected to any particular test. For a long time in Scotland University degrees were connected with a test which made it necessary that those who took them should be members of the Church of Scotland; but this test had been abandoned, and now the degrees were given to those who could pass an examination in the extensive range of subjects included in a four years' curriculum of theology. The degree is viewed as certifying to the candidate's theological knowledge, not his theological belief. The latter was looked to by Presbyteries in Scotland, and would be by the Bishops in England. Part of the examination was in the evidences of Christianity, and this, though not necessarily, was found practically to exclude candidates who did not profess Christian faith. In all other 1958 respects the examinations were open to the members of any Church, and members of Dissenting bodies often passed them. The examiners were chiefly Professors of the Church of Scotland, and there might be a leaning towards that Church in the examinations; but the degrees might be taken by candidates irrespective of their belonging to that Church. If the Amendment were pressed to a Division he would vote for it.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, as regarded what had just been said respecting an eminent Nonconformist divine, he denied that there was anything in the case which the hon. Member (Mr. Tipping) alluded to justify a statement that Dr. Davidson was turned out either at the back or the front door. As a personal friend of that gentleman, he protested against the use of such language.
§ MR. TIPPINGsaid, he should be the last person to east any reflection on Dr. Davidson. If there were any reflection to cast, it must rest upon the body to which the gentleman belonged, and not on himself.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that as regarded the Scotch Universities the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Dr. Playfair) admitted that the examination was limited to the question whether persons presenting themselves were Atheists, for the hon. Member had said that it turned upon a knowledge of the evidences of Christianity. What the members of the Church of England desired was a definite system of theology. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) talked of equality; would he give them equality on the other side? Would he allow members of the Church of England to present themselves for examination at London University? He apprehended that that University knew nothing of divinity, and did not exclude Atheists.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He understood what was meant by secularizing the Universities; but not what was meant by secularizing religion. He did not understand on what principle a degree of Divinity could be given to a man simply because he had an acquaintance with the reasons which could be urged in favour of a system without intimating whether he considered them of any value. A degree which attested a man's fitness to teach should 1959 not be given without any regard to a man's belief in the doctrines he was authorized to teach. Nothing could be gained to freedom of thought, or to truth, or any other good thing, by granting degrees of Divinity to persons wholly irrespective of the divinity they professed.
§ MR. RAIKESexplained the operation of the clause as it affected the University of Cambridge, in respect of the circumstance that it was not necessary for a man to take any degree other than the ordinary M.A. degree in order to become a Professor of that University.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, the real question before the Committee was, whether or not an earnest man who did not belong to the Church of England should have an opportunity of supporting the doctrinal articles of the Church, and whether eminent Nonconformists should not be allowed to compete with old rotten Professors of Theology. The Bishop of Chester was taught theology so well by Dr. Pye Smith, who became Professor of Theology at Homerton College, that the pupil was thought worthy of a Professorship at Oxford.
§ MR. STEVENSONsaid, he regretted that the Government had not seen their way to adopt his Amendment. He would ask leave to withdraw it.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he wished to inquire of the Solicitor General the nature of the test taken by a Bachelor or Doctor of Divinity. His impression was that there was no test at all in the case.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, an erroneous impression, seemed to prevail—namely, that a man could obtain the degree of Bachelor of Divinity at Edinburgh by a sort of negative theology. He was anxious the Committee should know that every candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh must attend the Faculty. He had to go through four courses of lectures, to pay the fees, do all the exercises, and pass a creditable examination. But no declaration was required. Neither was there any attendance at church or chapel or any profession of faith. If the Committee adopted the Amendment they would place Oxford and Cambridge in this respect on the same footing as Edinburgh University.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment, although a 1960 very small one, involved a very important principle. He could easily understand how hon. Members opposite were unanimously against the Amendment; he thought they were bound, in conformity with their opinions, to oppose it. But he could not understand the opposition on the Liberal side of the House. What was the object of the Bill? It was to change the character of the old Universities of England, and to make them national, instead of Church of England institutions. The wish was, by making them great national institutions to attract as many subjects of Her Majesty as possible to study in the Universities, irrespective of all opinions which they might appear to entertain on religious, scientific, or any other subject. It appeared to him to be a case of extreme hardship that young men, who would by this Bill be entering the Universities, and who did not belong to the Church of England, but were anxious to study theology, should be prevented from showing their knowledge of the subject by an examination. An examination was not a test of opinion, but of knowledge; and if a Nonconformist or a Roman Catholic chose, of his own accord, to go into an examination at Oxford or Cambridge not to show his opinions, but to show the knowledge he possessed of theology, whether the theology of the Church of England or otherwise, to prevent him from doing so was to contradict the principle of the Bill.
§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought that the statement of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr.M'Laren)was calculated to lead the Committee into an error, when the hon. Member said it was only necessary to adopt the Amendment in order to put Oxford and Cambridge exactly on a level with the University of Edinburgh. What he (Sir Roundell Palmer) proposed to do last year would have effected very much what the hon. Gentleman described; because he proposed to adopt a declaration for Professors at Oxford and Cambridge similar to that at present imposed upon all lay Professors in the Scotch Universities. The old tests as to Theological Professors at Edinburgh remained in their original integrity as prescribed by the Act of Union.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he had alluded to the case of Bachelors of Divinity, who took no declaration at Edinburgh. The 1961 Bachelors of Divinity had nothing whatever to do with the Professors.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had placed the matter in its true light, when he stated that an examination must be regarded as a test of knowledge, and not of belief. He should support the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 262; Noes 101: Majority 161.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he had put two Amendments on the Paper; but as to the first of them, the Solicitor General had privately assured him that it was not necessary. As to the other, it must have appeared remarkable to anybody who had read the Bill, that it was applied without remorse to all existing institutions, but was not to apply to those which were in the future to be created within the Universities. Why was there to be that distinction? It was impossible not to ask—"What is the principle which justifies this Bill?" because he supposed that no hon. Member wished to deal with property of any description without having some strong ground of justification for the interference. He supported the Bill because it dealt with the Colleges, which were part of what he regarded as a national establishment—the University into which they were incorporated partly by charter and partly by Act of Parliament. He should not have had a word to say in defence of this Bill; but, on the contrary, would have voted against its second reading, if he had not so regarded the Colleges. The Bill did not propose to deal with Stonyhurst, Oscott, or any of the Nonconformist Colleges, because interference with them would be wholly unjustifiable, for they were not affiliated to, or incorporated with, any national establishment such as a University. Last year he voted for including the Colleges in the Bill—although the Solicitor General was reluctant to deal with them—because he regarded them as part of the corpus of the estate, which was within the control of Parliament. How did Parliament propose to distinguish between existing Colleges and those which were to be founded? He regarded it as a great 1962 mistake that Keble College was not by name incorporated into the University; it would, however, still come within the operation of this Bill. If a private person chose to attach a College to a national institution, like a University, that College must follow the fate of the University, he was unable to read the Preamble of the hon. and learned Gentleman's (the Solicitor General's) Bill, and at the same time to understand the exemption of future Colleges from its operation. The proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that there should be two sets of Colleges in the Universities—those founded in past times, open to the nation, and those founded in the future, confined to a particular class. It was difficult to understand the principle upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman had proceeded. Had the Colleges failed in the proper discharge of their obligations there might have been some excuse for the course adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but that charge could not be brought against them. In every sense, they had fully carried out the intentions of their founders, and, as far as he was personally concerned, he confessed that he owed everything to them. But the Bill proceeded upon the ground that the Universities being national institutions, every part of them ought to be open to the nation. The course that the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken appeared to him to be extraordinary. Colleges already in existence, the founders of which were without any notion of the present course of legislation, were to be dealt with by the Bill; but Colleges established in the future, when the views of Parliament and of the nation were known to everyone, were to be specially exempted. Supposing the Irish Church Act of last Session had said—"We will disendow and disestablish the Irish Church, but if the Protestants of Ireland choose to endow a new Archbishop of Armagh, then the principle of disen-dowment and disestablishment shall not apply, but the new Archbishop shall have all the rights and privileges of his predecessor," what would have been thought of the measure? It had been said that the measure, although not to be strictly justified upon this point, was at all events expedient. He, however, did not agree with the proposition. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern- 1963 ment had stated that he had been in communication with the Universities upon the subject of certain of the Amendments proposed with reference to this Bill; but this question of the exemption of future Colleges had not been alluded to by either party of either University. The House had been informed that this Bill was to apply to the Keble College, which was founded yesterday, but that it was not to apply to the College that might be founded next week. And here he could not refrain from pointing out the peculiar and unexampled terms of the charter under which Keble College had been incorporated. Under that charter a majority of nine of the council of twelve, would have power to turn out the remaining three. In no other charter had such a power been given to the majority over the minority. Was the Bill, in its present form, likely to conduce to the peace of the Universities? It proposed to set up fresh sectarian fortresses to form a barrier to the rest of the Colleges, and would thus perpetuate that religious discord, to get rid of which was one of the objects of the Bill. Nobody had forgotten the remarkable scene that had occurred in that House when the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) brought forward the question of the establishment of denominational Colleges in the University of Dublin. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had claimed the confidence of the House, and had asked them not to bind the hands of the Government in dealing with this question. There ought, however, to be some reciprocity in the matter, and if their own hands were not bound, they should leave free the hands of those who thought differently from them upon this question. Were the House deliberately to decide that the Colleges which might hereafter be affiliated to our Universities were entitled to exemption from the provisions of this Bill, what would be their situation with reference to the University of Dublin when it was proposed to found Roman Catholic Colleges attached to that institution? It would be impossible to refuse charters to Roman Catholic Colleges in Ireland if the Bill passed in its present shape. He begged to move, in page 2, lines 12 and 13, to leave out "subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that it was impossible for him to accede, on the part of the Government, to the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) that these words should be left out of the clause. He passed at once to the second of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments, because he understood him to be satisfied that no necessity existed for putting undergraduates and students into the Bill, because their case had been already sufficiently provided for. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked him upon what grounds he proposed to apply a different principle to Colleges to be established in the future from that which was to apply to the Colleges already in existence. He denied that the hon. and learned Member had put the matter fairly by the issue he had raised. He denied that in the present measure there was any difference whatever in the principle to be applied to existing and to future Colleges. He had always maintained in the House that everyone who gave property in mortmain or founded a College, or gave property to a corporation, whether ecclesiastical or lay, did so with the knowledge that from the very earliest times the Parliament of England would from time to time deal with those institutions as it might think fit. The two Universities themselves had been so dealt with by the Parliament of this country over and over again, and notably on the occasion when the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity were passed. He, therefore, denied that they were about to apply a different principle of legislation to the Universities from that which the Parliament of England had always proceeded upon in dealing with many of the Colleges, both in Oxford and Cambridge. He did not hesitate to say that anyone who founded a College, however exclusively denominational, in either of the two Universities in 1870, did so with the full knowledge that if it should seem good to Parliament hereafter—should a Parliament then be in existence—the purposes for which he gave his property would be modified according to the principles of future times. The broad principle upon which the Government proceeded was this—that through lapse of time these great institutions had, in all cases, acquired so thoroughly national a character, and had become in point of opinion so far separated from those who 1965 founded them, that it was but just they should be thrown open to a wider range; and he freely admitted that when it seemed good in the eyes of Parliament; to deal with Keble College upon that principle the policy of 1870 would be pronounced sound. His hon. and learned Friend desired not merely that the Colleges and Universities of England should be thrown open to persons of all kinds; of religious opinion, but that, if persons wished to endow Colleges to disseminate particular religious opinions, they should be prevented from having the advantages of association with Oxford and Cambridge because they maintained those opinions.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, his Amendment was that every College incorporated with the Universities should be open to persons of all religious opinions.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that of course no one stated his proposition exactly in the terms of his adversary, and no doubt his hon. and learned Friend preferred his mode; but if, in the case of a man who was willing out of his own pocket to found a College for the maintenance of a particular set of religious opinions, his hon. and learned Friend said the students in that College should not have the advantage of an Oxford or Cambridge degree, he said that which was thoroughly illiberal. He proposed to exclude persons who were willing to come into the University, and to conform in all respects to its enactments, simply because their religious opinions differed from his. Taking the example of Oscott, Stonyhurst, and Homerton Colleges, upon which his hon. and learned Friend chiefly based his argument, he contended that the London University was in every sense of the word national—it was founded originally and still supported by the nation; yet these Colleges were associated with the London University. Would his hon. and learned Friend follow up his principle, and do away with this connection? His hon. and learned Friend asked why Keble College was to be dealt with differently from the way in which Colleges founded hereafter would be dealt with. His answer was that the promoters of Keble College had their attention drawn to the Bill, which in all probability they knew would soon become law, and it was their fault if they did not approve being brought within 1966 the scope of the Act, for they had come under it with their eyes open. There was no case for putting in the words proposed; it had taken 600 or 700 years to bring the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge into their present state, and he thought new Colleges, provided they were founded for objects neither immoral nor illegal, might be left for a similar period, until their special objects had become obsolete.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the promoters of Keble College did not at all desire to bring themselves under the Bill, but the reverse.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he was assured by his hon. Friends around him that Oscott and the other Colleges referred to were not affiliated to the London University. His idea, however, was that as soon as a College was incorporated with the State University, it should be treated as a national institution, and that every one should be admitted to it. But he desired to withdraw his Amendment, and gave Notice that, on bringing up the Report of the Committee, he would move the addition of a clause providing that any charter granted to any College or institution in the nature of a College shall be presented to Parliament, and shall have no force or effect until the expiry of thirty days from the time it shall have been so presented.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he rose to move the omission of the words "or to be, or abstain from being, a member of any particular Church, sect, or denomination," which, he considered, were exceedingly and unnecessarily offensive to the religious feelings of the community. He was willing to accept the decision to which the House had already come on the subject of tests; but he did not see, if the words were retained, how it would be in the power of any College hereafter to exclude, even from offices involving teaching, persons who were the avowed enemies of the Christian religion. He did not believe, however, that that was the intention of the Solicitor General, or of any other Member of Her Majesty's Government who, no doubt, merely wished to promote what was called religious liberty.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from the words "or to 1967 be" to the word "denomination," in line 24, both inclusive.—(Mr. John Talbot.)
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, interrupting the hon. Member, said, he was willing to accept the Amendment. The wording of the clause was not meant by the Government to be offensive to anybody, but was chosen to make clear the intention of the Bill, and to show that offices in the Universities would be thrown open to all persons, irrespective of their religious belief. He should be the last to use words which would give offence.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he would remind the Committee that the hon. Member (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had objected to the words not because they were in terms offensive to any denomination, but because they would shackle the freedom of a College to exclude persons who held certain opinions. He understood the hon. Gentleman to desire that a person might be excluded if he did not believe in the Christian religion. If the omission of the words would lead to such a result, he should decidedly oppose the Amendment.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he did not think the words carried the matter further than it went before. On the whole, it would, perhaps, be better to leave the words out.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, the hon. Member's (Mr. J. G. Talbot's) objection was analogous to that taken by the Catholic hierarchy to persons of the sect or body of Freemasons. It was not a question of a person's belief, or of his attending certain services, but of his belonging to a particular society. Such a fact ought, in the hon. Member's judgment, to authorize his expulsion. He understood that to be the avowed object of the Amendment, which he should therefore oppose.
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the omission of the words, as the Bill had been drawn up with great care. They were, in his opinion, so potent that it would be extremely dangerous to leave them out; but if, in reality, they were of no importance, there could be no harm in retaining them.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
1968§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 181: Majority 68.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that in rising to move that Proviso 1 be struck out of the clause, he begged to assure hon. Members that he looked upon the Amendment of such practical and immediate importance that he would certainly take a Division upon it. If his Amendment were not carried the Bill would be inconsistent in its principles, and its Preamble would not be just or true. The Committee would, he was sure, be very generally surprised to hear that there were in the two Universities 150 or 160 Fellowships which would be left in the same position after the Bill passed as they were now, if it became law in its present shape. He had in his pocket at that moment a letter from an Oxford tutor, who informed him that, so far as he could make out, one-half the Fellowships at the University were clerical Fellowships—that was to say, Fellowships the men holding which must be in Holy Orders. Their number was at the lowest estimate 130; and there were also 30 similar Fellowships at Cambridge. Now, if the Bill passed as it stood, Parliament would be sanctioning the extraordinary anomaly that, in our great national Universities, 160 Fellowships, instead of being freely open to the whole nation, could be held only by those who were willing to take Orders. Few were aware, he might add, how many melancholy instances there were of young men being tempted by the prospect of a Fellowship to take Orders before they could properly make up their minds on the subject. He knew of more than one brilliant career which had been blighted in that way, and if the Bill were permitted to pass as it was that state of things would continue to exist. But its inconsistency did not stop there. At Oxford and Cambridge not only were there a number of Fellowships called clerical, but men were bribed to take Holy Orders by the fact that, if they did so, they could hold their Fellowships for a longer time than if they were merely laymen. He excluded from his observations the case of those Fellows who were allowed to retain their Fellowships through life on certain conditions of doing work for their Colleges. That was a case which no one would wish to touch. But a young man, might take the degree, 1969 say, of Senior Wrangler or Senior Classic. He might pursue his studies in science or for the bar in London, and at the end of seven years, after taking his M.A. degree, his Fellowship would be vacated; but if one month or one hour before the expiration of the time he took Holy Orders he could retain it, on condition of remaining unmarried for the rest of his natural life. Was it not, he would ask, inconsistent with the principles of the Bill to try to induce young men to take Holy Orders by offering them such pecuniary rewards? If, therefore, his Motion for the omission of the proviso should be carried, he should bring up two clauses removing all doubt on the subject. One of those clauses would state that no one after the passing of the Act should, as a condition of holding or being elected to any Headship, Fellowship, or Studentship in any College in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or Durham be required to take Holy Orders. The other clause would be to the effect that no one should be permitted to hold a Headship, Fellowship, or Studentship for a longer period if in Holy Orders than he would be permitted to hold it if he were a layman. If those Amendments were carried the Bill would, he believed, fulfil to a great extent the promises of the Government, and make our Universities great national institutions. If not, a great portion of the endowments of Oxford and Cambridge would be left untouched by the measure. Reviewing the history of the question, and seeing how Session after Session the Government had been obliged to give up one feeble compromise after another; seeing how at one time they proposed to deal only with Oxford and not with Cambridge; then with the Universities, and to leave the Colleges as they were; seeing how afterwards they were forced to include the Colleges also, and to acknowledge that those who objected to the permissive legislation which they proposed in the case of those Colleges were right, he trusted they would not refuse to accept his Amendment, and would thus avoid the necessity of being obliged to come down to the House next Session to make the admission that they were again in error, and that in leaving clerical Fellowships as they were they were not in reality making our Universities what they ought to be—great national insti- 1970 tutions, in whose emoluments and rewards every subject of Her Majesty should have an equal opportunity of sharing. He begged to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from the word "Nothing" to the word "office" in line 36, both inclusive.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from the word "Nothing" to the word "office," in line 36, both inclusive.—(Mr. Fawcett.)
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Bill had been drawn with some care, and the Government were bound to take their stand on it, in substance, as it was. It was true that he had admitted his hon. Friend was right in the Amendment proposed by him last year; and, having made that frank admission, he hoped he should have been spared from making it again. However, he had no objection to repeat the same admission. He must oppose the Amendment; first, because the Bill was in substance one which had been again and again submitted to both Houses, and was the result of the deliberations of leading men at Cambridge and Oxford, in whom the Government placed entire confidence, and who wished that the measure should be that which had been before adopted, with this addition—that Parliament should do certain things absolutely for the Colleges, instead of leaving the Colleges to act for themselves. Further, the Amendment would be a violation of all the grounds on which the Bill was originally put forward. Large bodies of Nonconformists had been in communication from time to time with those who had the conduct of the Bill, and their statement had uniformly been that they had no desire to interfere with the existing arrangements of Colleges, except so far as an unfair exclusion was maintained against them by the operation of Acts of Parliament. But the Amendment went far beyond the proper scope and reasonable object of the Bill, and did not merely open offices in the Universities to the legitimate competition of all alike, without religious tests, but interfered with the internal arrangements of the Colleges, violated their statutes, and repealed their ordinances. Such legislation, if attempted at all, should be contained in a separate measure, and not be introduced in a Bill the single and intelligible object of which 1971 was to remove from the path of certain persons at the Universities obstacles which, in the judgment of a great majority of the House, ought not to impede their University career. He would remind his hon. Friend that there was such a thing as practical wisdom in these matters. The supporters of the Bill had to get not exactly what they desired—although he did not sympathize with the object now sought for—but what they could obtain. There was another House of Parliament to be considered, and if these various Amendments were passed, and formed an integral part of the Bill, it would be almost an invitation to those who wished ill to the Bill to obstruct its further progress when it left this House. The Bill as it stood might, he thought, be accepted as a reasonable settlement of this question, and he hoped the Committee would not adopt an Amendment which had no natural connection with the Bill, and which would be fatal to its ultimate success.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the clerical Fellowships drove young men into courses which were against their consciences, and they drove other young men from the Universities. He had himself been obliged to give up a Fellowship because he would not take Orders. He, however, could not vote for the Amendment; because the question with which it dealt was entirely one of internal arrangement in the Colleges, and if they once entered on that subject they would get into a wilderness of questions. He knew, however, that it was of no use asking his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) not to press his Amendment.
§ MR. MIALLsaid, he thought that the principle of the Amendment was a sound one, but could not support it, feeling bound by the pledges he had given, in order to induce the Government to take the matter in hand, to the effect that he and those who acted with him would forego asking for the abolition of clerical Fellowships by this Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Miall) had shown the perfect fidelity to engagements and the honour which all who knew him would expect. It was only fair, as this question had been raised, that he should confirm what his hon. Friend had stated. A really representative deputation from the various Nonconformist bodies, with his hon. Friend at its head, had an in- 1972 terview with him (Mr. Gladstone) in the autumn. That deputation included his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), Mr. James Martineau, Mr. Reed, Mr. Cook, and many others of the most eminent representatives of the Nonconformist bodies, and, in asking for the introduction of this Bill, they distinctly represented, for the information of the Government, that it formed no part of their request that the Bill should contain any provision for the abrogation of those parts of the College statutes which related to clerical Fellowships.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought the House of Commons ought not to be bound by any compact either with Nonconformists or anybody else. The question was, whether the proposal made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was right or wrong. No attempt had been made by the First Minister of the Crown to show that it was wrong; both the hon. Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), and the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall), had approved the principle of the Amendment, and he should certainly go into the Lobby in support of it.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, there was a curious fallacy in the argument of the Solicitor General, who objected to the Amendment because it would interfere with the College statutes. The Bill itself interfered with the College statutes. If you repealed the Act of Uniformity and did not touch the College statutes, Nonconformists would be just as hopelessly excluded from Fellowships as they now were, because many of the Colleges required a declaration that a person was of a certain religious faith. As to the appeal made to him by the Solicitor General to be practically wise, the very same thing was said to him last year; but it had been shown that the practical wisdom was on his side. His view of dealing with the House of Lords was to state precisely what the House wanted and with what it would be satisfied. He much regretted that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall) had said he could not vote with him, because of certain arrangements made out of the House; and he was sure much disappointment would be felt throughout the country among those whom the hon. Member was supposed to represent. He 1973 was sure his hon. Friend entered into the arrangement from the most honourable motives; but the event should warn them not to enter into arrangements with the Government until it was known what the Government would do, or else it might compel them to vote contrary to the principles they advocated.
§ Question put, "That the words 'Nothing in this section shall render' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committeee divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 79: Majority 78.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had to propose an Amendment in the phraseology of sub-Section (1), so as to obviate an objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that it would confer an exceptional advantage on Roman Catholic priests, and to correct an admitted error on the part of the draftsman. It had been forgotten for the moment that a man in Roman Catholic Orders was in Holy Orders within the meaning of English law, and if a priest joined the Church of England it was not necessary to re-ordain him. He proposed to omit the word "layman," and to insert "any person not in Holy Orders in the Church of England."
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he must ask whether the proposed Amendment would not admit a person who had taken Orders in the Church of England, and had gone over to the Church of Rome? Such a person, he thought, ought to be excluded as much as any regularly ordained Romish priest.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was obliged to admit that the case of converts had not been contemplated. He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment, and propose one on the Report.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he wished to ask to what offices the 2nd sub-section of the clause was intended to apply. The masterships of the Endowed Schools were dealt with in the Act of last Session.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that wherever by law the holding of a University degree was made essential for the holding of an ex-University office, and where the law had thrown open that office to persons other than members of the Church of England, the sub-section would not apply. It would not touch anything but offices in the 1974 University itself; and the Act would not indirectly affect offices which were not fairly within its scope.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURT, who had given Notice of his intention to move, at end of clause to add—
No College, or similar institution, shall hereafter be incorporated in the said Universities which shall not be rendered freely accessible to the nation under the provisions of this Act,said, he would not propose the addition now, but would reserve it for the Report.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he heard this announcement with regret, because the holding over of a number of discussions for the Report would tend to impede the passing' of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had raised the question already, and why did he not take the question then, instead of postponing it? He (Mr. Gladstone) had been reluctantly compelled to ask for the adjournment of one discussion, under circumstances for which he was not responsible; and now the hon. and learned Member proposed to adjourn the discussion of the important question of the status of future Colleges. The Government had made the best arrangements in their power for getting through as much as possible that evening; and he was sorry to say that, in the pressure of business, if the discussion of this question were postponed, the Government could not be responsible for finding a definite time when it could be taken.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he found a good deal of disappointment expressed at his not having availed himself of a past opportunity to divide the Committee on this question. No doubt he had done wrong in not dividing; but he gave Notice at the time that he would propose on the Report that no charter should be given to any College which was not laid upon the Table of the House; and perhaps that would be the best form of raising the question.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Act not to interfere with lawfully established system of religious instruction, worship, and discipline).
MR. PARKERsaid, this was the only clause purporting to save the present religious character of University education, and he should like, before giving any further support to the measure, to have some assurance that the words as they stood would have that effect. After 1975 the passing of the Act the existing statutes of the Universities and Colleges, as they did not contemplate the admission of Nonconformists, might, of course, require some alteration. He wished to know whether the Universities and Colleges themselves would have power to modify their statutes in order to make them applicable to the new state of things; or, if not, who was to do it, and how? He had supported the Bill always on the understanding that nothing in it would be allowed to override the Christian character of education in our national Universities, although he was quite willing that provision should be made to admit Jews and persons of other creeds to their share in the government and endowments. The general Christian character of the Universities would, no doubt, be sufficiently asserted in their own statutes, if only they were not overruled by Act of Parliament. This clause professed to save them from being so overruled, and if there were any doubt as to whether it actually did so, he hoped that the Government would give it their serious attention.
§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, this clause was one which he proposed last year, and the Government had adopted it. There could be no doubt that there were in the University and College statutes provisions which, if carefully studied and actually put in force, would go a long way towards excluding any teaching which was inconsistent with a Christian character; and it was to be assumed that all who wished to see Nonconformists admitted into the Universities would regret—and none more than the Nonconformists themselves—if the effect of this legislation were that the Christian religion could be set at nought, and made the subject of attack by persons holding office and authority in the Universities. Nothing would have induced him to acquiesce in the passing of this Bill if he believed that its effect would be anything so disastrous and mischievous as the secularization of University teaching, or the production of that license which would admit of every kind of attack being made, by authority—ex cathedrâ as it were—by those who should be the teachers of it, upon that religion which was sincerely professed by the vast majority of all denominations and Churches in this country. He was bound to say he thought 1976 it was a defect in the Bill that it did not deal more boldly with this matter, because there could be no doubt that considerable reliance had hitherto been placed on those tests and restrictions which the Bill abolished, as a means of excluding opposition not merely to the Church of England, but to Christianity itself; and embarrassments might possibly occur, if unfortunately any occasion for discipline on the subject should arise, in arriving at the proper mode of dealing with abuses such as he had referred to, and which in no case ought to pass uncensured or unchecked. If he had received greater encouragement last year he might have endeavoured to offer to the Committee some form of proviso which, without entrenching at all upon the general principle of comprehension, to give effect to which was the essence of the Bill, would have given additional guarantees against the possibility of the formation of an active proselytizing school of irreligion in the Universities—a danger which he was bound to add was not in these days wholly imaginary or chimerical. Nothing more mischievous could happen not only upon religious, but also upon civil and moral grounds; for if any success attended an attempt to introduce into the minds of the youth of this country heathenism as to religious belief, he was sure that heathenism in morals would follow at no great distance. There were not wanting, at this present time, alarming indications to justify those who felt that apprehension, and thought it right to express it. He trusted that would be guarded against, although he was not successful in the attempt he made last year to guard against it; and, as the proposition he then made was not accepted by either side of the House, he could not now venture to repeat it. He did not, on the other hand, wish to run the risk of prematurely provoking objections to any other form of proposition; because if, as he greatly desired, this year should see the settlement of this question by Parliament, and if the Bill in the form which it had now assumed, or with any reasonable Amendments consistent with its principle, should pass in "another place," then and there would be the best opportunity for the introduction of any well-considered clause aimed at that which he was convinced was the common object of religious Nonconformists and religious 1977 Churchmen when they agreed to a Bill for opening the Universities to all classes—namely, to effect that so as not to repel cither Nonconformists or Churchmen by opening the way to the teaching and dissemination of infidelity within the Universities.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Repeal of Acts in Schedule).
§ MR. SALTsaid, he wished to call attention to what he considered the wide and sweeping enactments of the clause. The last part of the clause provided that all Acts of Parliament, statutes, and ordinances inconsistent with this Act should be repealed. Without wishing to be hypercritical, he might point out, with regard to 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, that it contained a clause imposing some peculiar penalties on Jesuits. By comparing the 3rd clause of this Bill with the latter part of the 5th clause, he arrived at the curious conclusion that a Jesuit would be able to accept even the offices of Divinity Tutor and Professor at Oxford; whereas he would be subject to expulsion from any other part of the kingdom. This was a matter which might lead to misconception, and aggravate a feeling of irritation among those who felt strongly against this Bill; and in so important a measure it was desirable that every enactment which was repealed should be mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill. He was in favour of making the largest concessions to Nonconformists; but he was altogether opposed to extending them to the Ultramontanes or Jesuits. He wished to ask what would be the operation of the last part of the clause?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the only section of the 10 Geo. IV. which was repealed by the Act was the 16th, which had nothing to do with the Jesuits. That was the only section of the Act which referred to Universities or Colleges. He had already explained, to his own discomfiture, that the Bill gave an exceptional advantage to Roman Catholic priests, and he had made one unsuccessful attempt to amend it. He would make another on the bringing up of the Report. Beyond that he was unable to answer the question.
§ MR. STAPLETONsaid, he must also ask for an explanation as to the meaning of the latter part of the clause, for it seemed to him that if in any Act there 1978 was a clause which was inconsistent with this Bill the whole Act was repealed.
§ MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he thought there was more in the observations of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) than his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General) seemed to think. There was a generality about the clause that made it extend far beyond the Acts which were mentioned in the Schedule; and it was certainly desirable that all the Acts which were affected by this Bill should be specifically mentioned. The clause would answer its purpose even if the words that had been objected to were omitted. In the Act of Geo. IV., there was only one section which applied to Universities and Colleges, and why should not that be referred to in the Schedule as sections of other Acts were? When the question of Headships was considered upon the Report, it would be necessary to regard the operation of the repealing clauses of the Bill upon other Acts, if those offices were included in the Bill.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the latter part of the clause was open to the objection that had been made to it, and he would, therefore, move to omit it. As the Bill was a substantive measure, it would of itself repeal all previous legislation which was not consistent with it.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, they had been told that the Bill had been drawn up with deliberation, and he protested against the proposed omission of words from this clause. He hoped that words which had been omitted in a previous clause, on the Motion of an hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. G. Talbot), wonld be re-inserted on the Report.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had agreed to the omission of words in a previous clause; because they were not required for any substantial purpose, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no difference of opinion between them. It was now proposed to omit the words, "all Acts of Parliament," from the 5th clause. It being an admitted principle that even an Act of Parliament was repealed by a subsequent Act, without a distinct recital, à fortiori, any statute or ordinance of the University or of the Colleges which was inconsistent with the Bill would be repealed.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he wished to know, that being so, why the Solicitor General had put those words in the clause?
§ MR. JESSELsaid, he thought the words ought to be omitted, because they went a great deal too far. As the clause stood, any Act of Parliament inconsistent with that Bill was repealed; but such an Act ought to be repealed only so far as it was inconsistent with the Bill; and no express enactment was needed to do that, because it was already done by implication.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought it would be better when Bills were drawn, whether by moderate or by advanced Reformers either at Oxford or Cambridge, that they should be drawn with care.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that after the decision which had been come to, he did not intend to press the two new clauses of which he had given Notice, but in withdrawing them he would briefly state their effect. The first proposed that no one as a condition of holding any Headship, Fellowship, or Studentship in any College, House, or Hall should be required to take Holy Orders; and the second that no person hereafter elected to any such Fellowship or Studentship should be permitted, because he was in Holy Orders, to hold the same for a longer period than he would be permitted to hold it, if a layman. Before the Bill went out of Committee he was anxious to point out that it was a very incomplete measure and a compromise. At least one-third of the Fellowships at Oxford would not be affected by the Bill; and unless the Government accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) no one but a member of the Church of England would be able to obtain the Headship of a College at Oxford. He could not help comparing the Bill to what the Irish Church Bill of last Session would have been if it had disestablished and disendowed all rectors, incumbents, and curates, but left all deans and Bishops untouched.
§ Schedule.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he would propose in the Schedule, line 37, 1980 an Amendment for the purpose of repealing the 44th section of the Oxford University Act of 1854, which, while abolishing the religious test on taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Law, Medicine, or Music, yet enacted that the taking of such degree should not constitute any qualification for any office heretofore always held by a member of the Established Church, and for which such degree had hitherto constituted one of the qualifications, unless the person obtaining such degree should have taken such oaths or subscribed such declarations as were then by law required to be made and taken on obtaining such degree.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, after line 37, to insert,—
| 17 & 18 Vic. c. 81 | An Act to make further provision for the Good Government and Extension of the University of Oxford, of the Colleges therein, and of the College of Saint Mary, Winchester. | Section forty-four |
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment, the effect of which would be to leave two directly conflicting enactments in the same Bill. The non-University offices to which the Amendment referred were saved from the operation of the measure.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he thought when they were doing away with tests altogether, it would be very inconsistent to leave untouched the test imposed on a man who took a Bachelor's degree.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 78: Majority 14.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Preamble.
§ On Motion That the Preamble be agreed to,
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of assuring his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General), that in the course which he had taken in the Committee, he had not attempted to amend the Bill on his own account, but had endeavoured as far as he could to save the moderate Reformers from being overwhelmed by the advanced Reformers. He congratu- 1981 lated his hon. and learned Friend on the majority he had just obtained on the Schedule; but his hon. and learned Friend ought to feel grateful to Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches for having saved him from being overwhelmed by his Friends. He had only to say that they on that—the Opposition—side would wait to see what was done upon the Report, reserving to themselves the right to take any course which they might deem expedient with respect to the Bill for the future.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that in consequence of being a little hard of hearing, he did not clearly understand the Question when it was put on the last Division, and the consequence was that he went into the wrong Lobby.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he regretted exceedingly that the Government should be so much indebted for support in this matter to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTasked when the Report would be considered.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he wished to offer the thanks of that (the Ministerial) side of the House to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford for the opposition which he had made to Bills on this subject in previous years; for had it not been for the three years' delay they would not now have got such a liberal measure.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) appeared to be over sanguine in drawing his conclusions. He seemed to think that a Bill that had passed through Committee in that House was already the law of the land. The right hon. Gentleman's rejoicings might be premature. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the negotiations between the Government and the Nonconformists, between the Government and the moderate Liberals at Cambridge, and between the Government and the extreme Liberals at Oxford were not yet concluded. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his congratulations were premature.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, if consistent, would not only thank the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, but also the Gentlemen below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman must, if consistent, thank them for having uniformly pointed 1982 out to the Government what they considered to be their shortcomings, and what, after a certain time, the Government always admitted to be such.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.