HL Deb 22 July 1836 vol 35 cc443-5

The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Universities of Scotland Bill.

The Marquess of Bute moved an amendment to the 1st Clause, which, he said, he had copied verbatim from the Scotch Act, to the effect, that instead of having several boards, as provided by the clause, there should be but one general board.

Viscount Melbourne

objected to it, on the ground that it would throw too onerous a duty on the members of that board, while, by appointing several boards for the different Universities, they would not only be dividing the amount of duty to be performed, but would be infusing into them persons from the neighbourhood of the Universities, whose local knowledge might enable the board to discharge its duty better than it otherwise would.

The Duke of Buccleugh

said, that the very reason why he objected to a variety of boards was, "because persons locally interested might be made members of them.

Amendment postponed.

The clause agreed to.

On Clause 10,

The Earl of Haddington

said, that this clause enabled the boards to make regulations regarding the abolition of professorships within the Universities to which they might be appointed, or to the institution of new professorships therein. That was a power he thought too extensive, and he would propose to limit it, by obliging the Commissioners to report to his Majesty any intended change in that respect.

Viscount Melbourne

had no objection to the amendment.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

The Earl of Haddington

proposed to follow up his former amendment by the introduction of a new clause, to the effect, that when any new regulation was about to be made by the Commissioners in the curriculum or course of theological study, they should communicate at least the substance of the proposed change to the moderator of the Church of Scotland for the time being, and they should transmit, together with their own report, any objec- tions or suggestions that might be received from him to one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, in order that the same might be laid before his Majesty in Council, for whom it should be lawful, upon considering said Report, &c, to make such order as might seem fit, which order should have full force and effect until altered or abrogated by his Majesty in Council, or a future Act of Parliament.

Viscount Melbourne

had great objections to such a clause, because it would give to the Church, and to the authorities of the Church of Scotland, new powers over the Universities, which they never were possessed of, and which were totally at variance with the principle laid down in their own Report, which stated, that the Universities were not of an ecclesiastical character, and were not connected with the Church any more than with the other professions. Notwithstanding the high respect which he entertained for the Church of Scotland, he should oppose this clause.

The Earl of Haddington

said, that if any person had heard the noble Viscount without having heard what he (the Earl of Haddington) really proposed, that person must have supposed that he was going to give to the Church of Scotland an unlimited interference in the management of the Universities—in short, to identify them with the Scotch Church; whereas, his only object was to have the opinions of the clerical authorities on any change proposed in the course of theological study forwarded to his Majesty in Council, &c, who should decide, upon oath, if such change ought to be carried into effect.

Lord Holland

thought it would be introducing a new principle, which was unnecessary, and giving to the Church of Scotland an authority which it never had before.

The Earl of Rosslyn

said it did not confer a power to interfere with the Universities at all—but merely provided, that in case any alterations were to be made in the general course of study in theology and divinity, the church might get notice to that effect, and not be taken by surprise.

The Earl of Haddington

observed, that the Church of Scotland required candidates for holy orders to have gone through a certain specific course of study in one of the Universities, and it was but right that the clerical authorities should be made acquainted with any addition or substraction the commissioners might think fit to make in that course. What sort of a church would it be, if it had not the power to see in what way candidates for holy orders had been educated?

Lord Holland

said, that what the church at present required was, that candidates should have studied in one of the four Universities, but the course of study was not settled by the church, and might be altered without having its consent. This clause would be placing the Church and the Universities in a relative position which they never before had assumed and never should.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

observed, that amongst the different professions in the Universities, the church undoubtedly stood first. These Universities were for the promotion of religious education and sound doctrine and if they were to pursue a course of education which was contrary to the doctrines of the church, the consequence would be, that the church would not have a supply of ministers from these Universities. He should look upon it not only as a grievous injury to the Church of Scotland, but a grievous insult and injury both, to the people of that country, to exclude persons intended for the Church from the Universities.

The Lord Chancellor

partly agreed in what had fallen from the most rev. Prelate. The Bishops of England were in the habit of requiring that candidates should have taken a degree at one of the Universities. So it was in Scotland, but in neither country was it necessary for the church to have any communication with the Universities regarding the course of study to be pursued. If, then, these Universities should alter the present course, which it was competent for them to do, and that the Scotch Church did not like that alteration, they had it in their power to refuse candidates whose study was confined to that altered course. If they were to have the power of objecting to any alteration in the course of study, it was quite clear it would end in the veto of the party to be consulted.

The Committee divided, on the amendment; Content 16; not Content 8;—Majority 8. Amendment agreed to.

Several other amendments were made and the House resumed.