SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 March 1871)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to trouble the House at any length by dwelling upon the main question, inasmuch as the subject has been very frequently and recently before your Lordships, and as I believe the second reading of the measure is not likely to be opposed. Your Lordships will remember that last year the Motion for the second reading, made by my noble Friend the President of the Council (Earl De Grey and Ripon), was met by a Resolution, proposed by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), and carried by a majority of 14, in favour of a Select Committee which should consider certain points of the Bill. In the present Session the Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read the second time, and which is identical with that of last year, has very rapidly passed the other House; while the Committee appointed by your Lordships last year has been re-appointed. I think, however, the noble Marquess will admit that now to read the Bill a second time will not be inconsistent with the Resolution which he moved last Session. Several points will, 41 no doubt, be raised at a subsequent stage by those who dislike the Bill in its present form; but as the Committee, of which I am a member, will close the evidence before Easter, and will consider its Report immediately after Easter, so as to enable the Bill to be committed soon after that date, it is more convenient that I should avoid referring to matters which may be discussed hereafter. As regards the general principle of the measure—the abolition of tests at the Universities—whatever your likings or dislikings may be, your Lordships must, I think, admit that the time has arrived when that principle can no longer be resisted. The long time during which this subject has now been agitated, and the large majorities which have approved the measure in the other House, are facts which are of themselves sufficient to furnish a weighty argument in favour of the Bill becoming law—indeed, when you admitted Dissenters to receive their education at Oxford and Cambridge and allowed them to proceed to certain degrees, the whole question was in principle decided. It is exactly the same as with the Roman Catholic Emancipation. When you admitted Roman Catholics to the electoral franchise it was a mere question of time as to admitting them to be represented in Parliament by Members of their own persuasion. I can quite understand that as long as you confined University education to members of the Church of England you could logically maintain a system of tests; but after admitting Nonconformists to University education it became impossible for any length of time to exclude them from University honours and privileges. It may be objected to this Bill that it would force on the Universities a system to which they are opposed; but, although considerable difference of opinion no doubt exists, it is a remarkable fact that there is a large body of graduates, both at Oxford and Cambridge, in favour of the Bill. At Oxford, indeed, a majority, I believe, of the tutors in the different Colleges, who may be supposed to have special means of forming a sound opinion on the question, are in favour of the removal of tests. Assuming that the principle of the removal of tests is admitted, it may be objected that the Bill will diminish the possibility of giving a sound religious education at the Universities, that it will injure the Church of England, 42 and that it will do injury to religion itself. This, I admit, is a grave charge against the Bill, and it is natural and right that it should be carefully considered. As regards the Church of England, there will, of course, be many who will regret the loss of the exclusive privileges which it has hitherto enjoyed. I think, however, it will be felt on reflection that that loss will be by no means so great as may at first sight be supposed. The Church of England lives in the affections of the people as a Reformed Church; and the admission into the Universities of a number of Nonconformists is by no means likely to impair its character in that respect. Two great movements have proceeded from Oxford of late years, and have occasioned considerable controversy; and these, it is maintained by some persons, will receive encouragement from the abolition of tests. One is generally known as the High Church movement, which was led by men of great eminence and excited much difference in the Church of England—if, indeed, it did not expose it to much danger. That movement is not at all likely to be strengthened by the admission of Nonconformists. The other movement, as we are told, though I think its force is considerably exaggerated, is in favour of freethinking. Now, of all bodies in the country, Nonconformists are the most unlikely to support that movement; for whatever we may think of their particular opinions, nobody acquainted with them will deny that they hold their religious opinions with great firmness, and are of all persons the least likely to countenance religious insincerity or indifference. A Nonconformist element therefore is more likely to diminish than to increase the strength, whatever it may be, of the movement. If, moreover, as we are told, there is so much danger from the prevalence of infidelity, it should be remembered that it is not by direct attack that assaults on Christianity are made, but by the inculcation of principles inconsistent with the fundamental truths of Christianity, the inroad of which principles tests are unable to prevent. The passing of this Bill, then, will not, I think, bring about the dangers which are apprehended, and which, were they really likely to arise, would, no doubt, be a serious objection to it. The measure will, on the other 43 hand, be a great advantage to the Universities, by making them national institutions, and by increasing the affection which is generally felt for them throughout the country; while it will put an end to a course of long-continued differences, and will enable the Universities to apply themselves without distinction to the great objects for which they were founded—the promotion of sound and useful learning in every branch of knowledge.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, in July last your Lordships passed a Resolution to the effect that you could not allow this Bill then to proceed, as it was necessary that before the House considered it an inquiry should be held as to the best means of reconciling its provisions with the maintenance of religious teaching at the Universities. It would be inconsistent with the Resolution which I then pressed on the House were I now to oppose the second reading, for the circumstances which necessitated opposition to the second reading at that time do not now exist. The inquiry which I urged on your Lordships was immediately undertaken: the Committee was appointed immediately afterwards—it pursued its investigations during the remainder of the Session, and was re-appointed at the beginning of the present Session. The inquiry is nearly complete, and there is nothing to prevent your Lordships from having the advantage of their investigations when you come to consider this Bill in Committee of the Whole House. There is, therefore, no objection to passing the second reading, and taking a fuller discussion when the Bill reaches the stage of Committee. I shall not, on that account, trespass further on your Lordships' time with reference to the provisions of the Bill, especially as my arguments would in great measure be drawn from evidence which has been taken by the Committee, but to which, as it has not yet been laid on the Table, it would be out of order for me to refer. I will, therefore, only make one or two remarks on the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), in order that it may not pass altogether without comment. I would entreat those who are inclined to listen to what is called the 44 argument of the Sibylline Books, and to accept one instalment of change in order to prevent further changes, to take to heart and digest thoroughly the noble Earl's argument about the consequence of accepting a measure in principle. When we were asked some 16 or 17 years ago to admit Dissenters to degrees at the Universities, it was stoutly and earnestly argued by those who agree with the noble Earl that it was quite a mistake to regard the measure as a prelude to or a necessary cause of further change; and this is the case with every change which is urged on this House. We are always told that it is unnecessary to look beyond the Bill before us; that the actual proposition of the moment is the utmost limit which the Government intend to go, and that we need not trouble ourselves about the future or pursue the theoretical consequences of a principle which it is not intended to carry further. When, however, we have yielded to that reasoning and a few years have passed, we are told by the same persons that we have admitted a principle which must be carried to its extreme conclusions, and that we are precluded by our former concessions from opposing its logical consequence. The noble Earl's argument is perfectly logical—that if you are tempted to attempt and begin a change the end of it is not far off; but it is an argument which we have heard before and which we shall hear again, and for the benefit of the Conservative side of the question in further debate I hope your Lordships will carefully note the principles he has laid down to-night. That which the noble Earl regards as the real principle of the Bill is not the result against which we are mainly struggling. He sees no harm, but rather a benefit, to religion from the introduction of a certain number of Nonconformists. I ventured last year to say that those on whose behalf I was speaking were not desirous to resist any further the admission of Nonconformists to the honours and emoluments of the Universities; but that what they were anxious to secure was that such a change should be made consistently with the full maintenance of Christian teaching. I may, though it is not strictly in order, quote the words of a distinguished minister of the Church of England, who gave evidence before the Committee, and who said that the question of Uni- 45 versity Tests is not a question between Church and Dissent, but between Christianity and unbelief. That is the question we desire to fight in dealing with the provisions of this Bill. I believe that on this particular point the opinion of the country is not insufficiently informed, and that the large majorities in the House of Commons do not represent the actual opinions of the constituencies for which the Members sit. My ground for saying this is that the position we are maintaining is that position of religious education which the country, and especially the large towns, by very large majorities affirmed in the course of the autumn. The country has declared in unmistakable tones—very much to the surprise of some of its so-called representatives—that it will not allow the education of the poor to be conducted on any other principle than that of religious teaching. Now, the principle which I am here to maintain in the case of this Bill is that the same doctrine which has governed the education of the poor shall not be withheld from governing the education of the rich, and that for the rich, as for the poor, religion shall be held a primary and indispensable element in any education which may be regulated by the State. This will be the object I shall have in view in any Amendments I may propose to this Bill; but for the maintenance of this object it is not necessary for me to offer any opposition to the second reading.