Lords Sitting of 19 March 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Licensing* (45).

THE UNIVERSITIES AND THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.—PETITION.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONpresented a Petition from certain Members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge

1873
respecting the Maintenance of the religious Character of the Colleges. The right rev. Prelate said it appeared to him that the Petition was of so important a nature that he might be justified in troubling their Lordships with a few explanations, for the purpose of showing what was the object of the persons by whom it was signed. Their Lordships were aware that considerable excitement at present prevailed in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, with reference to proposals for extending, more widely than had hitherto been the practice, the benefits of both those great Establishments to persons not members of the Established Church; that, in each of the Universities persons who were not members of the Established Church were admitted as students; that all the ordinary prizes were open to them; that in Oxford they might take the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and in Cambridge the degree of Master of Arts, but that from the Government of either University, as members of the Senate or Convocation, they were excluded. Again, in none of the Colleges could persons not members of the Established Church become Fellows. The petition he had the honour to present was not very extensively signed. There were attached to it the names of thirty-five members of the Senate, and the comparative smallness of that number might probably be accounted for by the fact that the position maintained by the petitioners was one which was not calculated to satisfy the popular excitement on one side or the other of that controversy. No doubt in times of excitement like the present it was easy to obtain signatures upon either side. In the University of Oxford there prevailed at present a strong feeling among many persons that any change in the direction he had indicated might lead to the secularizing of the whole system of study; and in Cambridge there existed a large and influential body who were desirous of opening all the positions in the University, and also all the positions, including the Fellowships, in the Colleges, to persons other than those connected with the Established Church. Between these two extremes stood the petitioners whom he represented; and although, as he had already stated, their number was not great, he believed, that if he were to read their names, it would be allowed that they were persons whose opinion was entitled to much respect. There were among them Heads of Colleges, there were six Professors, there were six Head-Masters of large
1874
schools, and other gentlemen eminent from their position and from their personal character. But it was their misfortune that they were counselling a conciliatory course which could not be acceptable to either extreme party. Their Lordships were no doubt aware that a Memorial had been lately presented to the Archbishop of that province, signed by upwards of 700 members of Convocation of the University of Oxford, expressing the greatest alarm lest the University should be secularized—lest the worship of the Established Church, which had hitherto sanctified the whole life of the place, should be abolished, and lest it should be reduced to the condition of some foreign Universities, in which all religious distinctions were totally unknown. He need not say for himself that if he thought there were any reason to apprehend the adoption of such measures as these memorialists seemed to fear, he should be among the very first to protest against any change in the existing system. It would indeed be an evil day, in his judgment, for England if the peculiar religious character of the University of Oxford, of which he could speak more particularly, should be destroyed. He believed that, in that case, there would be much danger, as those memorialists appeared to apprehend, that many parents who desired that their children should be subjected to the same system of training to which they had been subjected themselves, and which had been the glory of the University for generations, would withdraw their sons from a place of education conducted upon that new principle. But he did not share the alarm felt by the memorialists, from the adoption of proposals confined to the single object of extending the honours and emoluments of the University properly so called to others than members of the Established Church. His opinion was that the Universities were more or less national institutions, and that, therefore, whatever was the characteristic of the nation with regard to religion, would also characterize more or less the Universities under such a system as that to which he was then referring. The Senate of the University of Cambridge and the Convocation of the University of Oxford were bodies a good deal larger than their Lordships' House, and he did not believe that the fact of admitting to either of them persons who were not members of the Established Church would make any more sensible difference in their general character than the presence of a few Peers who

1875
did not belong to the Church made in the composition of that House. Neither did he think that any danger would arise if they were to allow men eminent in the abstract sciences to teach those sciences, although they did not profess the doctrines of the Established Church. The memorialists apprehended, no doubt, and not without reason, that when a change of that kind took place, the question was no longer one between members of the Established Church and Nonconformists, but between those who professed the Christian religion and those who did not profess it; but still, upon the broadest survey of the matter, he confessed that, with regard to the Convocation and the Senate of the Universities, and with regard to the teaching of the public Professors, who had no control over the discipline of the students, he saw no danger from the largest concession it would be possible to make. The question, however, assumed another character when they turned to the case of the Colleges. The Colleges were not, he apprehended, in any sense republics, which the Universities were; they were, more or less, in their essential nature, homes, in which young men were temporarily placed. He might illustrate that statement by the condition of the College to which he had the honour to belong. In that College there were in his time seventy members, having of course a common hall and a common place of daily worship, with a governing body consisting of twelve Fellows, of which number, as a general rule, only four were residents, the others being in London or elsewhere. Now, he confessed he could scarcely understand how the introduction of persons not professing—say the Christian religion—into that small body of four controlling the discipline of that more private establishment could fail altogether to alter and destroy its character. The present petitioners were placed in this position. They were anxious, in common with himself, that every possible facility should be given for opening their University; but they were also anxious that great care should be taken that the government of the Colleges should be reserved for members of the Established Church. It was true that there were other Colleges far larger than the one he had described. But the larger Colleges, which more or less resembled Universities, were few in number. The great Trinity College, Cambridge, could hardly be taken as representing the Colleges at either University. He had men-
1876
tioned one College which was presided over by twelve Fellows, only four being residents, and he believed there was another one in Cambridge in which there were only five Fellows. It appeared to him that when they descended from the republics of the Universities to the homes of the Colleges, the principle which would justify them in making the Universities as national as possible did not extend to the other. He believed that if the Colleges were thrown entirely open—that was to say, if all persons, whatever might be their religion, were allowed to become the governors of the Colleges—it would be impossible they could discharge those functions which, with great advantage to the Church and the nation, they had discharged for many years. The petitioners dwelt upon that point. They argued that, not only were the Colleges invested with extensive ecclesiastical patronage; but also that it had for a very long time indeed been their privilege to educate the clergy of the Established Church, and they were afraid that if the character of the Colleges in reference to religious matters were to be altered, that system must altogether cease. In a small body of four or five members, who were elected entirely from merit and by examination, there could be no possible security, in a country where diversity of faith existed, that a majority might not consist of persons who not only were not members of the Established Church, but who did not even profess the Christian religion. But if that were the case, it was obvious, he thought, that the Colleges must cease to be institutions in which clergymen of the Church of England were educated, and the result would be that in England, as in most Roman Catholic countries, the clergy would be obliged to take refuge for their education in distinctly ecclesiastical seminaries. He did not wish to say one word against seminaries of that description, established here and there throughout the country; but he believed that any education that could thus be given to the clergy would be of a very inferior character to that which they at present received at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The petitioners desired, and he entirely participated in that wish, that the clergy of the Established Church should always retain the character they had hitherto held in those liberal institutions, and that they should not in that respect resemble the ministers of some other creeds. They were extremely anxious that nothing should be done which

1877
would deprive the Colleges of the power of educating the clergy, and they were afraid that any measure calculated to produce such an effect, while it was devised for the purpose of advancing liberal opinions, might tend rather to diminish all true liberality of sentiment, by driving the clergy to seek a very narrow sort of education, under which they would lose their just influence over the people of this great country. For these reasons the petitioners were anxious that the government of the Colleges should still be reserved to the Established Church. It was true that not all the Fellows resided at their Colleges, and the suggestion had from time to time been made that some arrangements might be carried out whereby a certain number of the Fellowships should be given entirely as prizes, without admitting to any portion of the government of the corporation. Against any wise plan of that kind which might be devised the petitioners made no objection. The petitioners were men of various views and opinions, but there was one point upon which they all took their stand. They were anxious that the Universities should be thrown open as widely as possible; but that the Colleges should retain the distinctly religious character of their government, which had been their glory and their safeguard in past times.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

THE RITUAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TAUNTON, on rising to ask, When it is probable that the Second Report of the Ritual Commission will be presented? said, that he was indebted to the courtesy of the most rev. Prelate the Chairman of the Commissioners for the opportunity of putting this Question. He could assure the most rev. Prelate that he did not put it in any spirit of complaint. He could understand, composed as the Commission was of persons in whom different portions of the Church felt confidence, how difficult it might be to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. He need scarcely, however, apologize for expressing anxiety on this subject. It was now about ten months since the Commission was appointed, and it was, he believed, seven months since they had issued a Report of some significance; but, at the same time, one which was entirely inoperative as far as the practices complained of were concerned. He
  1878
  would recall to the attention of their Lordships the circumstances under which the Commission was appointed. It was in the month of May last year that a noble Lord (the Earl of Shaftesbury), whose absence they must all regret, apprehensive of the great evils which had followed from the introduction of a certain costume and practices by some members of the Church of England, brought in a Bill which dealt with one very important part of the subject—that of clerical vestments. He held that to be a very important part of the subject, because he believed nothing more likely to give offence than that clergymen should exhibit themselves in costume strange to English eyes, nothing like which had for 200 years been seen in the Church of England, and which was supposed to be similar to that worn in the Church of Rome. Well, the second reading of that Bill was moved on the 15th of May, and gave rise to a very angry discussion, a general sense on both sides of the House being expressed of the great evil and danger that might flow from those practices to the Church of England, and there was a great desire evinced to put a end to them. The Earl of Derby, then First Minister of the Crown, while opposed to the second reading of the Earl of Shaftesbury's Bill, promised to recommend that a Royal Commission should be issued, which would command the confidence of all parties in the Church, to deal with this important subject. The majority of the Prelates in their Lordships' House were so sensible of the magnitude of the evil that, not content with the promise of a Commission, they voted for the second reading of the Earl of Shaftesbury's Bill. In fact, it was impossible for their Lordships to express in a more unequivocal manner the importance of dealing thoroughly with the subject. The Commission was appointed, and, as he had said, at the end of three months presented a Report which expressed a very decided opinion that the innovations complained of were working great evil, and ought to be restrained, because, as the Report said, those practices were considered essential by none, while they were highly offensive to many. They had been taught and believed that "blessed were the peace makers," and that all unnecessary causes of strife and contention should be avoided. He would have thought, therefore, that there would be a general concurrence among the clergy of this country that they ought to refrain from practices which

  1879
  their own experience must have told them, without the Report of the Commissioners, were deeply alarming and offensive to many, whilst they were considerably censured by some. He had no doubt that the reprobation of those practices on the part of those Commissioners did produce some effect. He happened to know some clergymen who had come to the conclusion, which he believed others would come to, that they ought to give up the practices referred to on the grounds stated by the Commission. He was afraid, however, that, as a rule, the Report of the Commission had put no effectual check upon those practices, but, on the contrary, had produced a very different result. That was the case especially in the diocese of London. Some of the clergy argued in this way: "Our time is short; Parliament or the Church may step in and prevent these things from being carried on; so let us get them as deeply-rooted as we can in the public mind while our opportunity lasts." Now, under these circumstances, the Commission ought not only to deal with the subject, but to do so as promptly as possible. In order to guard himself against any misapprehension, he might say that he would be one of the last persons in the world to desire to impose any too stringent restrictions. Nothing could be a greater misfortune to the Church of England than to endeavour to narrow the limits, so as to exclude from its pale any of the various schools of thought which had hitherto existed. But it was quite another thing for clergymen to parade party emblems in their churches, and especially in those parish churches which ought to be common to all members of the Church of England, whether their sentiments inclined to one school or another. The church ought to be common property, where all could meet together, and not have their consciences disturbed or their feelings excited by that of which they disapproved. He hoped the most rev. Prelate would be able to assure their Lordships that the second Report of the Commission would be presented in a very short time. Probably the most rev. Prelate would not enter into explanations on the subject, and any lengthened discussion would be quite out of place on the present occasion. Such a discussion would naturally take place when—the Report having been presented—the Members of the Commission in the House would feel more free to enter into the debate. But he hoped that the recommendations of the
  1880
  Commission, however strong their wish to avoid offence to any party in the Church, would be so clear and practical as to settle the question, for otherwise the labour of the Commission would be thrown away. A most excellent work would be done by putting an end to practices which had been made the means of advancing doctrines alarming to the great body of the laity. He did not mean to engage this House in anything like a polemical discussion. But it was the right, as it was the duty, of their Lordships to concern themselves with the general good order of the Church and the uniformity of its forms and ceremonies. He hoped the Report of the Commission would lay the foundation for a settlement of a question which now vexed and disturbed the minds of so many persons, and would thereby strengthen the Church of England, and add to the satisfaction and contentment of her members.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYin answer to the noble Lord, begged to inform him and the House that the Ritual Commission had been very busily engaged in preparing their second Report on the ornaments of the Church, and they hoped to be able to present it to Her Majesty in a short time. He was sure that their Lordships would not expect him on this occasion to enter into a discussion of what the nature of that Report might be.

METROPOLIS—SPECIAL CONSTABLES.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in moving for a Return of the Special Constables who had enrolled themselves in the different parishes of the Metropolis after the explosion in Clerkenwell, said, that possibly a short time ago the Notice would have more easily commanded the attention of their Lordships. The part which devolved upon the special constables at the close of last year and the beginning of the present may be no doubt a little overshadowed by the personal vicissitudes affecting party life which have more recently engaged attention from the world. A few weeks ago they were the topic of the press and of society. And one reason they have ceased to be so may be found in the tranquillity they were intended to establish. So long as alarm prevailed, the public eye was fixed upon them. The good effect they have produced may now be seen in the comparative oblivion they have fallen into. But as no record of the times would be complete un-

  1881
  less they were included In it, some authentic document as to their numbers seems to be required; those numbers being, in fact, an index of the disorder which prevailed, and of the loyalty which met it. There is thus sufficient ground for asking the Return. But it also rests upon a claim of more political importance. As yet no allusion has been made to the special constables in Parliament. No mark of approbation, no symptom of acknowledgment, has been informally or formally conceded to them. If an inquiry is made as to the nature of their services, the fact which stands out most conspicuously is that at the time of the Clerkenwell explosion, terror took possession of society, that special constables came forward in large numbers; that the demonstration of their readiness controlled the elements of danger; that no considerable breach of law has subsequently happened. But we must go a little further back to seize the essence of the function they performed, to measure the degree of obligation they imposed upon society. The real fact is that about November and December—it was frequently asserted at the time—the Executive, rather by a series of misfortunes, than any single lapse, had fallen into the lowest state of decadence and of discredit. It began in July, 1866. The Government at that time suffered in Hyde Park a deep and well-known humiliation, of which the visible result is still allowed to catch the gaze of all who by one direction enter the metropolis. From that moment it was felt that lawlessness might dare because authority, to say the least of it, had hesitated. In May, 1867, therefore, lawlessness effected a triumph more consummate—of which I need not specify the nature—as it was brought before the House, with his wanted power, by Lord Cowper. In the middle of the autumn the rescue of the prisoners at Manchester did not tend to restore the fallen dignity, or re-invigorate the shattered force of the Executive. In November, a riotous assemblage felt themselves entitled—and, by what had taken place, undoubtedly they must have been encouraged—to take possession of the Home Office, at least to have a meeting in its walls; and after such an outrage on law, decency, and government, they all escaped with absolute impunity. After the executions which took place on the 23rd of November, processions were organized to insult the law, and to do honour to the criminals. They went on wholly unmolested by the
  1882
  Government, until municipal authority and public feeling overcame them. No wonder that the climax should present itself, and that a few weeks later it should be deemed possible and even prudent to explode by gunpowder a prison wall, in order to release political offenders it contained. If parks could be occupied in spite of proclamations of police, of military power; if a coup de main could rescue prisoners by daylight; if a Department of the State, close to the Horse Guards, could be invaded and insulted; to overwhelm a wall in a remote and little known part of the metropolis did not seem to be an enter-prize of ill-grounded temerity or uncalculating hardihood. The tragical result of the proceeding excited consternation in society. In point of fact, under the form of special constables, society came forward to defend itself, and was driven to the course it would adopt, if law, police, and Government were all suspended in the country. In such a state of things it is by organizing and arraying special constables that the public is enabled to do for itself what its appointed guardians betray their incapacity to do for it. A vigour greater than its own is thus communicated to the feeble will and torpid hands of the Executive. Regarded in this light the special constables who recently enrolled themselves were more important than those of 1848. On the well-known occasion which drew them forth upon the 10th of April of that year, there had not been any previous triumphs of disorder, or any previous disparagement of the Executive. At that time the demonstration might do something to augment the force; but in December last it had done more to revolutionize the weakness of a Government. I will only detain the House by one more remark, to illustrate the true position of the body I refer to. The striking inability of the Executive, since July, 1866, has been usually described to some deficiency or error on the part of Mr. Spencer Walpole. Mr. Walpole had been long known to the world, and had given no reason to expect that he would be unequal to the maintenance of order, so far as it depended on his office. Between his resignation and the event of December last, no visible improvement had taken place under his successor, whose personal capacity had not been called in question. The real cause of the inherent weakness in defence of law which has characterized the Government ought not to be traced so much to indi-

  1883
  viduals as to circumstances. From the beginning they have been without a Parliamentary majority. The late Minister (Earl Derby), in a passage frequently referred to, had enumerated the many deep humiliations which await a Government to whom that essential basis is denied. One, however, he omitted, which might well have been included in the series, that such a Government, aware it does not fully represent the nation it ostensibly controls, is constantly obliged to truckle to disorder, with a view to escape unpopularity. So long as such a system is permitted to endure, society must defend itself against the movements which attack it. On grounds of policy, as well as justice, it is therefore worth while to show the special constables that they are not forgotten by the Legislature. A Return of this kind is no doubt a most inadequate acknowledgment of what they have effected; but I could think of no other which appeared to be consistent with our usages and precedents. If it is not possible to offer any tribute to their merit, it may be worth while at least to notice their existence. The noble Lord concluded by moving an Address for—
  Return of the Number of Special Constables who have respectively enrolled themselves in the different Parishes of the Metropolis after the Explosion in Clerkenwell.—(The Lord Campbell.)
  LORD CLINTONsaid, there was no objection to the production of the Return.
  Motion agreed to.

  LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to regulate the granting of Licenses for the Sale of spirituous and fermented Liquors, and for the more effectual Suppression of Breaches of the Peace and other Offences arising from Drunkenness—Was presented by The Earl of LICHFIELD; read 1a. (No. 45.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.