HL Deb 07 August 1843 vol 71 cc317-21
Lord Campbell

moved the second reading of the Scotch Universities Bill. The Universities were now subject to great peril, and would be much injured if this bill were not passed. By an act of 1690, repeated in the act of union, all professors and office-bearers in these Universities, were obliged to subscribe the Confession of Faith, and to be subject to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. Those acts, like the Test Acts, had not been strictly enforced, and the prosperity of the Universities was mainly owing to that relaxation. In 1830, a report of Commissioners, among whom were the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Haddington, Sir W. Rae, and others, was presented as to these Universities, and the commissioners were unanimous in saying that these were not ecclesiastical institutions, but were intended for the general education of the people. In practice, the statutes to which he had referred had not been rigidly acted on. In the University of Edinburgh the subscription of laymen had not been required, and in Glasgow there had even been, and was now, an English episcopal clergyman holding a professorship. The law applied not only to professors, but to chancellors. rectors, and deans of faculty. What had been the practice with respect to them? In the case of chancellors, many noble Lords, not Members of the Church of Scotland, had been elected. The Dukes of Chandos and Cambridge had been chancellors in Edinburgh; in Glasgow, Sir James Graham, before him, Lord Stanley, and before him, for two years, Sir R. Peel had been rectors: but Sir R. Peel never signed the Confession of Faith, or agreed to become subject to the doctrine and discipline of the Scotch Church, and might have been proceeded against, as might also his two successors. The present rector was Mr. Fox Maule, lately a member of that Church, and though he had now separated, yet there was no reason why he should give up the rectorship. In every college there were learned men who had joined the free church; among them were Sir D. Brewster and Dr. Fleming. The Presbytery of St. Andrew's had unanimously come to the conclusion of taking steps to turn out Sir D. Brewster, although he had subscribed to the Confession of Faith, because he held particular doctrines as to non-intrusion; and if he should be so removed, it would be a great reproach to this country in the eyes of foreigners. In another place it was thought that the Professor of Greek in Glasgow formed an exception to the general rule, but this was a mistake; there was no difference in any of the professorships or offices. It was impossible hereafter that such men as Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and Lord Stanley should do honour and credit a Scottish university; and what a misfortune and disgrace it would be, if the noble Duke, the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, could not at any future period be elected to the same dignity in Scotland, merely because he must decline to subscribe the Confession of Faith. To obviate so great an evil he had brought in this bill, but he did not propose permanently to alter the law, which was of lone standing, and indeed, a part of the Act en Union. [Hear.] By that cheer he supposed his noble and learned Friend to mean that it was on that account improper to make any change. [Lord Lyndhurst.—It is rather a strong inference.] The Act of Union with Scotland had been altered as regarded heritable jurisdictions and the Court of Admiralty, so that the bill before the House was not in that respect without precedent. The object of it was to suspend the existing law for twelve months, and in that interval he hoped that reason common sense, and mutual forbearance would resume their sway. Tempos inane peto, requiem, spatiumque furori. If time were thus afforded, he had sanguine hopes that his purpose would be accomplished. He declared upon his honour that he had not had the slightest communication with Sir David Brewster upon the subject. Some Friends of his would be glad to see Sir David ejected, but for his part, he should most sincerely grieve to see a man of such deserved eminence removed from the chair he so admirably filled, Neither had he introduced the measure as a boon to the non-intrusion party, because he had repeatedly shown by his votes and speeches that he was decidedly opposed to them. His love for the Church had alone induced him to step forward; and he fervently trusted that their Lordships would allow the bill to be read a second time. Ministers ought to greet it with a hearty welcome, since it would enable them to escape from their present difficulties. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading.

The Earl of Haddington

said, that when the noble and learned Lord introduced the bill, he told him he could not pledge himself as to the course he would pursue, and now, under all the circumstances, he thought it quite impossible for their Lordships to assent to it. The noble and learned Lord said, it would relieve them from great difficulty, but for himself he did not know what the law was, though he knew the Secretary of State for the Home Department had referred the matter to the law advisers of the Crown in Scotland, but had not yet received their opinion. It had been communicated to Sir D. Brewster, that everything he had to say on the subject would be attended to, and that the whole matter would be conducted according to law. He did not see how this bill would enable them to escape from the difficulties they were threatened with, and at all events it would be only for one year, because he feared there was little prospect of the return to peace and charity within that period which the noble and learned Lord anticipated. If it were otherwise, a great portion of his objection to the bill would be removed; but how was it possible to imagine that Sir D. Brewster, or the other Gentlemen, at the end of the year, would come back and desire to be re-admitted to their situations, on their signing the confession of faith, and their adhesion to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Scotland? He apprehended, if it were possible, they would lose caste by doing so, and certainly could not claim credit for disinterested motives. But he objected to this bill, as being a direct and complete breach of the Act of Union, and without, as it appeared to him, any adequate necessity, He admitted that no act could be maintained in perpetuity in all respects, and therefore the equitable jurisdiction and the Court of Admiralty had been obolished; but what great national or public object was there for the alteration now proposed? There was another class also, not mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, the schoolmasters of Scotland, who would be exceedingly ill-used if they were not included in his bill. Why did not the noble and learned Lord extend it to the schoolmasters as well as to Sir D. Brewster and Professor Fleming? The Church of Scotland having now placed herself in harmony with the law required the support of Parliament, and he did not think they would give it the support and countenance it deserved if they consented to a measure to retain these parties in their situations. Let them be dealt with as the law of the land required. The Church of Scotland had long enjoyed this power over the universities, and it would be most unjust to take it away. To have it, however, and to exercise it, were different things. He thought this interference was uncalled for, and would therefore move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord Campbell

most deeply lamented decision to which Ministers had come upon this question, and he warned them that the time was not far distant when they would themselves regret it. The mischief would not end with the rejection of Sir D. Brewster and Dr. Fleming; that would only be the beginning of the evil, for every Episcopalian professor would instantly be put under the ban of the law: in all time to come it would be impossible for any Episcopalian to be chancellor or rector of a Scotch university. As to the statement that this bill was unprecedented, the noble Lord must be aware that for more than a hundred years an annual indemnity bill had been passed to prevent the incurring of penalties under an act of Charles the 2nd. He had done his duty; he had done his best to avert the evil, and to avoid the peril which hung over his country, and over the Scotch universities in particular; but if their Lordships thought fit to reject the bill, he could not resist their decision.

Bill put off for six months.