UNIVERSITY TESTS.—PETITIONS.

HL Deb 29 May 1868 vol 192 cc1012-25

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he had given Notice that to-day he would present Petitions from resident and nonresident Members of the University of Oxford, praying for the Removal of Religious Tests in the University. He had given this Notice because the Petitions were of so much weight and importance that he desired to call the special attention of their Lordships to them. Ono of these Petitions, signed by 102 persons who now were or formerly had been Fellows of the University of Oxford, set forth that theological tests at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, while failing to secure unity of religious opinion, had proved injurious to learning and education, and had the effect of excluding large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects from the benefits of University education. For these reasons the Petitioners prayed that all theological tests in the Universities might be removed. If he were to read to their Lordships, which he certainly should not trouble them by doing, the names appended to the Petition, it would be seen that they were the names of gentlemen of great weight and reputation, and such as undoubtedly would have influence with their Lordships. The other Petition, to which he attached even greater importance, was signed by eighty resident Members of the University of Oxford, and it was especially to be remarked that it included the names of sixty out of the 105 Tutors and Lecturers of the University of Oxford, representing, therefore, a clear, distinct and considerable majority of the whole teaching power of the University. To pursue the analysis a little further—in Merton, Corpus, Trinity, and New Colleges the whole of the educational staff had signed the Petition; in Baliol, Oriel, Lincoln, and Worcester at least two thirds of the staff had signed; and out of the whole eighteen Colleges in which teaching was carried on there were only six where a majority of the tutors and lecturers had not signed the Petition. The Petitioners stated that they were— Engaged as Heads of Colleges, Lecturers. Teachers, or resident Fellows, in the work of education in the University; that a portion of the nation were excluded from the benefit of the University by the religious tests imposed in it and in the Colleges; and that, in the opinion of the Petitioners, these tests might be removed without injury to the Church, without prejudice to the religious character of academical education, and without interference with the religious working of the Colleges. The importance of this Petition consisted not only in the number of the signatures, but in the plainness and distinctness of the prayer—there was no doubt or hesitation as to the ground that should be taken up—the Petitioners declared that tests were an hindrance to an extension of education to the whole nation, and they prayed Parliament to remove them. The present state of affairs was this—in the University of Oxford persons not belonging to the Established Church might proceed as far as the Bachelor degree, and at Cambridge as far as the degree of M.A.; but in both Universities such persons were excluded from any share in the government and from the Fellowships. They had in this matter made some progress of late years; but it seemed to him that the very progress they had made in the right direction was a proof that now it was impossible to stand still. But a very few years ago no one could be admitted to either University unless he conformed to the Church of England. Now Nonconformists were admitted to the benefits of the education given, but were still excluded from any share of the privileges and emoluments open to a successful academical career. That he ventured to think was a state of things which was utterly untenable. He could understand the Universities being dealt with as institutions exclusively Church of England in their character; but he could not understand why, having admitted Nonconformists and Jews to enter the Universities and attain certain degrees, an arbitrary barrier should then be created to prevent their further progress. He did not say that an Act of Parliament ought to be passed compelling the Colleges to open their Fellowships to persons of all religious beliefs, but he did say that Parliament should remove those barriers which it had itself raised to the free action of the Colleges in the matter. The measure of last year had been complained of as an incomplete one, because it extended only to offices in the Universities, and did not touch offices in the Colleges; and, to meet that complaint, he would suggest that upon the occasion of any measure on the subject again coming before their Lordships, they should consent to deal not only with offices in the Universities, but also to abolish those Acts of Parliament which prevented the Colleges from opening their Fellowships if they should think fit to do so, to persons not belonging to the Church of England. It must be admitted to be a matter of extreme importance that all the upper and middle classes of the country should have the opportunity of receiving the best education that the Universities could afford. Was it, therefore, a desirable thing that so large a portion of the middle classes as belonged to Nonconformist; bodies should be excluded from the main benefits and attractions which the Universities held out? The Nonconformists themselves felt acutely the distinction that was drawn to their disadvantage, and had expressed, in a very remarkable statement, their sense of the great good they would reap if the whole privileges and emoluments of the Universities were thrown open to them. What were the objections that were capable of being urged? He thought they must either be objections derived from some argument connected with education, or else from some consideration exclusively connected with the Church. Could it be contended that the education of members of the Church of England would suffer by others, not members, being admitted to share in the privileges and emoluments of Universities? He knew that such an argument had been put forward; but he believed that since he had the honour of being a resident member of the University matters had not very much changed, and he could say for himself that the amount of direct religious instruction which he had received at Oxford was so infinitesimally small that whether he had received it at the hands of one who was or was not a member of the Church of England made, he thought, exceedingly little difference. He remembered that a great portion of the instruction which was given at that time consisted of a short lecture on the Greek Testament given to freshmen during their first and second term, being left after that pretty much to their own devices, and of the Thirty-nine Articles, which men were compelled to get up with great labour, and, he feared, with little profit, in order that they might be called upon to repeat them in the schools. If a similar system were pursued in the present day, he did not think, as far as religious teaching was concerned, anybody need much care whether the Universities were or were not opened to persons not being members of the Church of England. Undoubtedly, as far as those undergraduates were concerned who were going to take Orders, their religious instruction was a matter of great importance, and especial care should be taken to preserve to them such advantages as they now enjoyed. It was not proposed that any alteration should be made in the lectures given upon special subjects of theology, and those wishing to receive special instruction in the doctrines of the Church of England would continue to receive it; but could it be advisable that an exclusive policy should be persisted in with regard to the Universities as a whole, merely for the purpose of securing the education of one portion of the people? The Church of England, he maintained, was not supported or strengthened by such a policy. The true policy of the Church, like that of every other institution, was to make as many friends and as few enemies as possible; and, believing that an exclusive policy and the maintenance of restrictions tended to make enemies, he believed that it was calculated to weaken the Church. It seemed to him that the Church would fare better if its adherents would allow it to stand upon its own merits. He ventured to suggest that the Universities were national institutions, that they should be maintained for the exclusive use of no particular portion of the community, and that when Petitions such as those he now presented to their Lordships came before them signed by those who were best acquainted with the character of their University, and undoubtedly had its interests at heart, Parliament should certainly pay great attention to the prayer of such Petitions, and, if possible, proceed to legislate in their spirit. The noble Earl then presented Petitions of Heads of Colleges, Professors, &c, resident in Oxford; and of non-resident, present, or former Fellows of Colleges at Oxford, for the Abolition of Tests in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

LORD HOUGHTON

thought that a Petition coming from a body of men of such varying opinions, but all of whom occupied a position of considerable weight and influence, was deserving of their Lordships' highest consideration. He sincerely hoped that the press of Public Business would not be such as to prevent their Lordships from taking into their consideration and coming to a decision upon the Bill now before the other House, which dealt with the subject of this Petition—he meant the University Tests Bill. He proposed, when the Bill should be before their Lordships, to express his opinion on this subject at length. At present he would simply say that this Petition was of extreme value, as showing the opinion of the members of the principal Colleges of Oxford in regard to the management of their own affairs. He had always insisted that there was a great distinction between the University and the Colleges, and he regretted that the extremely moderate measure proposed last year was not adopted. While they recognized the right of the Universities to the title of Imperial institutions, there was some difference in respect to the Colleges; and when such a proposal came from the heads of those Colleges, he thought it high time to set about their reform. He could certainly endorse the remarks of his noble Friend with respect to the high importance of a religious education: but at the same time it was not the main business, either of the Universities or our public schools to enter into theological teaching. The foundations of a religious education ought to be laid before young men went to the University, and a College should, properly speaking, confine itself to preventing its students from receiving evil impressions while it confirmed whatever was good in them. Certainly religion ought not to be ignored at such institutions, although there might be very little direct religious teaching. It had been said that the effect of the removal of existing disabilities would be to introduce a great deal of theological controversy into the Universities. He did not think that that argument was well-grounded. The Church of England itself contained in its various sections the elements of continual controversy, and theological disputes were much more due to points raised within the Church herself, than to any raised by Nonconformists; and if the polemical discussions now rife did no harm, he did not see that they could do much if their sphere were somewhat extended. He did not believe that the maintenance of any restrictions in the University would secure the Church of England from attack, nor did he believe that the young men who would go to the University after such restrictions had been removed would be exposed to any more theological controversy than exists at the present moment. On the contrary, he believed that it was for the interest of the Universities that they should attract all the intelligence of the country, whatever might be the religious opinions of those who sought admission; and as he believed that the prayer of the Petitioners pointed to a consummation of this result, he trusted their Lordships would give it the fullest consideration.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

said, that the Petition presented by his noble Friend went so thoroughly to the root of the whole University system and its influence on the country that he felt bound to say a few words on it. Since he had had the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House the question of religious tests in the Universities had passed through three distinct phases, which might well illustrate the growth, he would not say of opinion, but at all events of feeling on the part of one section of the community—namely, the so-called University Reformers. The question was before the House when he first had the honour of taking his seat among their Lordships, and they were distinctly told in the other House of Parliament that the Bill which was then under consideration—the University Reform Bill—was not to affect in any degree religious teaching in the University. He had learnt since then how little trust could be placed on Parliamentary professions or securities. The second stage, which had lasted almost up to the present time, was an attempt on the part of the Reformers to lower successively the standard with regard to the government of the Universities—first at Oxford, afterwards at Cambridge—taking care never to lower the standard of both Universities to exactly the same level, but making the lower standard in one University the pretence for advocating a further reduction in the other; and care being taken that the standard at the two should never be equalized. Since then a bolder front had been assumed, and the House was now asked, not to relax University tests, but to abolish them utterly. The more open Reformers declared the Universities were not places for religious education at all. He did not understand that to be the desire of the noble Earl, or of the Petitioners whose prayer he endorsed; but he doubted whether, when the real views of those who were pressing forward this question became known, they would obtain the sanction of the country. The proposal in fact was to hand over young men of from seventeen to twenty years of age—the age at which they were most susceptible of religious impressions—to a University system, in order not that they might make their selection of that form of religious education which they might approve, but that they might be placed under a system from which public religious teaching was deliberately excluded. He doubted whether the country was prepared to accept such a proposition. The arguments of a less advanced school, to which his noble Friend seemed to belong, asked for relief from religious tests, on the ground that the more a Church was deprived of artificial barriers in the shape of religious tests and securities, the more the cause of religious truth was likely to be promoted in a University. But could that rule be applied to any other description of teaching? The fallacy of the argument was apparent the moment it was applied to matters of secular education. Could it be argued that just as students in secular subjects were relieved from tests and examinations, knowledge would be developed? Was it just then to the different Universities that a different standard and different view should be applied to that which was applied to all other institutions? He admitted that religion might still exist in the Universities after the removal of the tests; but after their removal there would exist that hazy un-definable atmosphere of religious sentiment which as it was little connected with positive religion so was injurious even in an intellectual point of view to that habit of clear definition which was the great object of education. His noble Friend opposite said that the religious teaching at the University in his day was very small—and he dared say it was. But some persons went further, and said that the religious teaching of the present day was worse, and that most of the Masters of Arts of the present generation were of a sceptical turn—a fact which, if it were true, might pretty well account for so many being in favour of the removal of all religious tests. His reply was—that, first of all, he doubted the fact. But, in the next place, even if it were so, was that a reason for changing the system of a University? He doubted not that if such an amount of scepticism existed as was said, it was, after all, only one of the phases of thought which might be here today and gone to-morrow, and which would produce no more effect than the wave which swept over the sands of the sea shore, but which in its retiring left the old landmarks clearly definable. Would the noble Earl argue that because there was a sceptical phase of thought now prevailing, they were to abolish tests and safeguards which were created for other purposes and for other circumstances? Such a proceeding would be as sensible as if in a time of pestilence, they were to proceed to destroy the whole science of medicine which was found efficacious in all ordinary times for the cure of disease. His noble Friend spoke of this as a Dissenters' question; he wished it was, for he should not despair of being able to come to terms with them; but what was wished, so far as he could understand, was not the removal of tests and disabilities which pressed upon Dissenters, but to remove tests and securities which weighed upon every honest Churchman. It was therefore a serious question which Dissenters had to ask themselves—whether or not they were prepared at all hazards to support a party which desired to eliminate from the Universities all religious tests, or whether they would stand by those who desired to retain them. In his opinion those who sided with those who now proposed the abolition of those tests would find themselves carried much further than they intended. But anyhow the time of the decision of the question had not yet arrived. There was no Bill before their Lordships' House, and it was not necessary for the House to attempt any definite settlement of the question. Still no one could deny the fact that the time was approaching when some decision must be come to. Things could not go on very long as they were; it was evident that both parties were collecting all their strength, and it would be for the religious Dissenters to say what side they would take—whether true to the principles which they had often recognized they would side with the cause of the Church of England—or whether they would take part with the enemies of the Church of England, and espouse the cause of those who desire absolutely to banish all religion from the educational system of our two great Universities.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

said, that in his position, he thought he ought to say a few words with reference to the state of feeling in the University of Cambridge on this question. The opinions of the members of that University had been materially influenced by what had already taken place on the question, and his knowledge of the University justified him in saying that the preponderance of feeling on the part of the resident members was decidedly against the relaxation of the disabilities which it was proposed to remove; while, on the other hand, there was a very considerable and a decidedly increasing minority in favour of the removal of these restrictions. The University, in its corporate capacity, had protested against the relaxation, the matter being decided in the Senate house by a majority of about 2 to 1 against the Bill before the other House of Parliament, and he believed that those numbers very faithfully represented the relative strength of the two sides of the University. There was also the Memorial presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by 1,000 graduates of the University, combining, no doubt, a large number of eminent men. On the other side a Petition had been presented by 226 gentlemen, including many Professors of the University and Fellows of Colleges who had attained the highest University distinctions, and also by a number of laymen, which petition was decidedly in favour of the relaxation of the existing restrictions. The distinguishing feature of the Petition was that the motive was not so much to obtain a large number of signatures as to secure the assent of men of mark and distinction; and it was worthy of remark that the names included those of many whose opinions on general questions were decidedly of a Conservative tendency. Besides the Petitions emanating from the University, Petitions had been presented from Trinity College, Christ's College, and St. Peter's College. The Petition from Trinity was signed by a majority of the Fellows—by 32 out of 60—and he was informed that among the minority were several who declined to affix their names to a Petition on the opposite side of the question. The Petition from Christ's College was signed by the Master and all the Fellows but one. What conferred a value on these Petitions was that the maintenance of these disabilities was a practical grievance to the Colleges; and at the latter College he understood it was contended that the interests of the College had suffered material injury from the continuance of these tests. At Trinity for many years past a large number of Nonconformist students had constantly been admitted, many of them being Presbyterian students who had received a portion of their education in Scotch Colleges; and the Fellows of Trinity spoke favourably of the result. He could not help thinking, looking at the fact that the uniform tendency of the legislation of late years had been to remove such disabilities, that it was hard that these tests should still be continued. As far as concerned a considerable proportion of the members of the University of Cambridge, a measure affecting their removal would not have to be forced on those who were reluctant or unwilling to receive it. There was every reason to believe that if the Act of Uniformity were repealed, as far as it related to the admission to College Fellowships, some of the Colleges would avail themselves of the liberty afforded them and admit Dissenters to Fellowships in such cases as they might deem expedient; while the remaining Colleges would have an opportunity of judging from experience the results of the relaxation which had been made in the case of the other Colleges.

THE BISHOP OF ELY

said, the noble Lord was correct in his statement, that some very important Petitions against the Bill had been presented by members of Colleges. Indeed, he held in his hand one important Petition, which the rules of the House prevented him from presenting on that occasion. It was a Petition signed by nearly 1,000 undergraduates and Bachelors of Arts of Cambridge, who, though they held no political status in their University, were most of them probably of full age, and so fairly entitled to petition Parliament, representing as they did a large body of the most highly educated young men in England. The Petition strongly urged their Lordships not to entertain either of the Bills now before the other House of Parliament. He might further state that a short time since he had been present when a deputation from the University of Cambridge waited upon the Primate with a Petition or Memorial, signed, not as the noble Duke had said by 1,000, but by 2,800 graduates of Cambridge, a very large number indeed, considering how widely scattered such persons are, over England, Scotland, Ireland, the Continent, and the Colonies. The Petition, which had the names of many of the most eminent members of the University attached to it, urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to plead the cause of the University against the proposed changes. It was true that these changes were advocated by a certain number of able men; but there never was a time when there were not able men who took liberal views both in politics and theology, and he should be sorry that their Lordships should be carried away by the statement that, on this occasion, the liberal view was the view of the leading men in Oxford and Cambridge. It was stated the other day at Lambeth by a distinguished lay member of the University of Cambridge, who accompanied the deputation to the Archbishop, that not only the clerical members of the University but a large number of the most distinguished laymen, especially many of the lay professors at Cambridge, men of world-wide reputation, who did not so much represent Churchmen as men of science, literature, and intellect, protested against them. He had not been aware that there was any intention to discuss the subject that evening; but, as it had been brought forward, he trusted that their Lordships would allow him, as Bishop of the diocese in which one of the Universities lay, to make a few observations in answer to remarks which had fallen from noble Lords opposite. As regarded the question of the religious education of the Universities, he must respectfully say, that he could not agree with what had been said by the noble Earl opposite concerning theological lectures. Personally he felt that he owed a debt of gratitude for the lectures which he had attended when he was an undergraduate; and he knew by testimony which he had received from many quarters that thousands had been indebted through life to the religious instruction they had received in Colleges. Without question, much of the religious and theological teaching of the Colleges, as well as of the University, was not compulsory teaching, and therefore one person may have profited by it, whilst others were wholly regardless of it. He was speaking only for Cambridge; but as his Oxford friends were rather fond of twitting Cambridge with the inferiority of its system of religious teaching, he presumed that what he had said of such teaching at Cambridge, applied at least as much to the teaching of Oxford. It was said that the Colleges would profit by the proposed changes. In the first place, he would remind their Lordships that these Colleges were all Church foundations. They were all founded by members of the national Church—very many of them clergymen—for education on Christian principles connected with that Church. All the benefits of their education were, indeed, open to everyone, whatever his creed—all the honours, even the degrees; everything but the positions which would admit them to power and authority. But they were founded and endowed by Churchmen, and, though he did not for a moment admit the distinction between pre-Reformation and post-Reformation foundations—for the Re-formation did not change, though it purified the Church—yet it was to be observed that some whole Colleges, and many foundations within the Colleges, came into existence since the Reformation, for the special purpose of educating Churchmen, often for the special purpose of educating clergymen. One of his own predecessors, Hugo de Balsham, Bishop of Ely, founded, out of his own episcopal revenues, the first College ever founded in Cambridge. Another of his predecessors, in the same manner, Bishop Alcock, founded Jesus College. The College to which he himself belonged had been founded since the Reformation by an English Churchman for the education of English clergymen. It would be a strong measure indeed if the Houses of Parliament, by a single vote, were to sweep away these institutions, founded by the pi6ty of our forefathers, and revolutionize them by placing at their head persons who might not be members of the Church of England, not only Dissenters or Roman Catholics, but even persons of no religion whatever. The noble Duke had spoken of the improvement which would be introduced into that most distinguished College of which he (the noble Duke) was a member. But was it not possible, nay, even probable, that the proposed changes would entirely revolutionize that College? What was the constitution of that College? It consisted of a Master and sixty Fellows; but the governing power was entirely vested in the Master and the eight seniors. It would be possible enough that a certain number of Dissenters might be elected into that body without materially affecting its principles or the working of the College. But suppose, at any time, some six or seven of the sixty Fellows were Roman Catholic priests, especially Jesuits, what would be the inevitable result? These six or seven men could never marry, could never take College livings: so they would never vacate their Fellowships. They would therefore in the course of time become members of the seniority, would become a large majority of that seniority. Now, the seniority elects Fellows, appoints tutors, governs the whole College. Hence if six Jesuits or Roman Catholic priests were once elected among the sixty Fellows of Trinity, they would have it in their power, by holding on till they were seniors, to revolutionize the whole body, and to convert it from what it now is into a simple Roman Catholic College. They would have it in their power, and on their own principles they would naturally exercise that power. Neither then on principles of justice, nor on principles of expediency, can it be well to deprive our Colleges of their religious character.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

begged their Lordships to consider, whether the Universities were really national institutions, of the nation and for the nation, or merely to be devoted to the education and advantage of those who belonged to the Church of England? He, with many of those who belonged to the University of Oxford, turned to their noble Chancellor (the Earl of Derby), who so gracefully and ably presided over the destinies of that University, with a feeling of confidence that his powerful voice would be heard in favour of the Bill to which allusion had been made when it came up to their Lord- ships' House. They had instituted inquiries into national schools and middle-class schools, showing that the intentions of founders need not always be curried out to the very letter; and he asked them to consider whether, when in politics, in law, and in the lower kinds of education, the thoughts of men were widening, they would not consent to the proposed changes with reference to the highest education of all—whether they were not prepared to accept a measure winch must confer the highest advantages on future generations?

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, he would not detain their Lordships from a more interesting, if not a more important, discussion; but he wished to say a very few words for the purpose of obviating the great confusion which evidently arose from mixing up the case of the Colleges with that of the Universities. He was glad to hear from the noble Baron (Lord Hough ton) that these two things should be kept distinct. They were in reality very different. One point he thought of importance, and that was, that Colleges should not be allowed to regulate themselves by persons who might accidentally be members at the time; if there was any right in the matter, it should be regulated by Parliament itself. In his time a great deal of religious instruction was given in the Colleges. During the seven years he was tutor of a College, at least one-third of his time was occupied in giving religious instruction, How far it was profitably received by those to whom it was given it was impossible for him to say. It was lamentable to think that time so given had been wasted, as many would have them believe.

Petitions ordered to lie on the Table.