Lords Sitting of 12 May 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, The Lord Aveland added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Trust Funds (Investments) * (110).
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Poor Act (1867) Amendment * (97).
Report—County Justices Qualification Amendment * (108).
Third Reading—Promissory Oaths * (100); University Tests (107–109); Workshop Regulation Act, 1867, Amendment * (63); Presbyterian Church (Ireland) * (87); Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society of Ireland Regulation * (88), and passed.

NEW PEER.
Lieutenant General the Right Honourable Sir William Rose Mansfield, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., General commanding Her Majesty's Forces in Ireland, having been created Baron Sandhurst of Sandhurst in the county of Berks—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
UNITED STATES—THE JOINT HIGH COMMISSION—THE "ALABAMA" CLAIMS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD REDESDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the question whether the United States can, according to the principles of International Law, persevere in what are known as the Alabama Claims, since the reconciliation of the Southern with the Northern States, has been brought before the Joint Commission, or will be before those who are finally to determine those Claims? His intention in putting this Question was to raise an important point of International Law, and which it was desirable should receive full consideration—which he believed had not yet been the case—before this matter was settled. The Southern States built and fitted out the Alabama. They ordered and paid for the ship—their agents took her out of the Mersey and equipped her in a foreign port, and the injury to the trade of the North was committed by their officers and the crews under their command. The Southern States having thus committed an injury to the trade of the Northern States, a claim was made upon us by the United States Government for compensation. But the Southern States are now included in the United States, represented by General Grant's Government; and thus we have the anomalous state of things that Virginia and the other Southern States are asking us to give them an indemnity for the injury committed by themselves. Now this seemed so unjust that he thought it right that the question should be brought before the Joint Commission, or those appointed to arbitrate, to be determined according to sound principles of International Law. He contended that the Government of

  699
  the United States were barred by the course they had taken towards the Southern States from prosecuting the claim. Had the contest terminated differently, and had the South achieved its independence, and had the claim of the North against this country been substantiated, we should certainly have asked the South to reimburse us for the damages awarded, the injury having been committed by and for the advantage of the South. When the Southern States became reconciled to the North, there was full power to make it a condition that the South should have some separate imposition placed upon them to make good the damage done. Nothing of the sort was in fact done, and the North forgave the South the damage which had been done by this vessel; and, when the principal had been forgiven, the agent had surely been forgiven also. If a man received a sound thrashing he could not forgive his assailant, and proceed against the man who lent that assailant the stick. He did not think any such action would lie. This case was necessarily of very rare occurrence; indeed, he was not aware of any other that stood upon precisely the same footing. It was therefore of great importance that it should receive a careful consideration and decision, and not be left without inquiry, to become a precedent affecting the Law of Nations. The Southern States were treated not as rebels, but as belligerents by the North, and so far as warlike operations were concerned they were clearly an independent country. They had, therefore, all the responsibilities of that position. If A ordered B to do something whereby he was benefited, but which exposed B to a severe penalty, it would be thought very unhandsome for A to file an information against his own agent in order to obtain the penalty he had incurred by serving him; and the case was little altered if A, while not bringing the action himself, allowed his brother or partner to do so. Now, the Law of Nations ought to agree with the law as between man and man, and he could not see how a claim could fairly be preferred under such peculiar circumstances as existed in this case.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, he believed that the United States had not a shadow of just claim against us. If during the Crimean War the Americans
  700
  had sold Alabamas to Russia, it would not have entered the head of any British statesman to demand damages; and even if it had, our friends over the water would only have laughed at us. It might not be generally known that during the Crimean War the Americans allowed a ship to be fitted out in one of their ports with guns and warlike stores, which vessel rounded Cape Horn, reached Valparaiso, and by a little trickery escaped the examination of an English vessel of war lying there, so that it proceeded to San Francisco, where a Russian agent went on board, and was taken to a Russian port, and when we attacked the place he believed she took part in the defence as a Russian man-of-war. The vessel was taken out by an American officer of the Navy, who afterwards went overland to St. Petersburgh and was presented to the Emperor, who gave him the usual snuffbox studded with diamonds. He believed these statements to be perfectly accurate. He hoped we should hold our own in this matter, but he feared that before long we should be saddled with a considerable bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that, as the question was likely to be referred to arbitrators, the noble and gallant Earl would understand that it would not become him to enter into any argument in favour of the American claims and against the noble Earl's views of the British position, at this stage of the proceedings. The same feeling would influence his reply to the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale), who had raised a point which had not, that he was aware, been previously raised. It certainly had not suggested itself to the legal advisers of the successive Governments which had had to deal with the question, and it had not formed a portion of the instructions given to our Commissioners. Whether it was a good or a bad one he would not say; and would not have been a matter to be determined by the Joint High Commission, whose office it was to settle not the questions in dispute, but the mode in which they should be adjusted. Without giving any opinion on the matter, he would only add that when the case of this country came to be prepared, it would be the duty of the Government to consider every possible point which could honourably and fairly be urged against the claims of the United States. The noble

  701
  Lord (Lord Redesdale) had implied that this country had recognized the Southern States as an independent country. Now, as a matter of fact that was not so—the only recognition they received from us, and the recognition of which the North complained, was that of belligerents. At that early stage of the contest, as far as the Government of that day was concerned, the question of recognizing their independence was never even entertained.
  THE EARL OF DERBYinquired when the House would be put in possession of the treaty—which he understood had been concluded by the Commissioners? It was not desirable that the public should form their judgment of the treaty from the fragmentary statements which, appeared from day to day in the newspapers?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl, and deprecated any discussion of such a grave and important subject before Parliament was in possession of the whole case. The amount of telegraphic communication between the Government and the Commissioners had been immense, but it clearly would not be right to lay those communications alone before Parliament. The whole treaty—part of which, referring to the Alabama claims, was given with general accuracy in The Times of this morning—left Washington the day before yesterday by the usual means, and would probably arrive at the end of next week. There were some technical difficulties, but the Government were anxious that Parliament should not be without information any longer than was necessary.
  LORD REDESDALEexplained, with reference to the point he had raised, that, in his view, to recognize parties at war with another State as belligerents was to acknowledge their independence in all matters connected with warlike operations, and vested them with the responsibilities of an independent State.

SMALL-POX (METROPOLIS).—QUESTION.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  LORD BUCKHURSTasked, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any additional precautionary or remedial measures to check the spreading of small-pox in the Metropolis? The Registrar General's Reports
  702
  showed the great ravages which smallpox had lately committed not only in the Metropolis, but in the large towns. The number of deaths in the metropolis last week was 1,582, or 47 above the average of the corresponding week during the last 10 years; the zymotic class, or cases of an infectious or contagious nature, being 447, of which 288 were cases of small-pox. The number of deaths therefrom during the previous three weeks were 265, 276, and 261, and the mortality from this cause during the present epidemic had been almost three times as great as had been known during the last 30 years. This time last year the cases were only three or nine a-week; whereas in the 12 weeks ending the 29th April there were in London 2,688 fatal cases, of which 1,212 were unvaccinated and 973 vaccinated, while there was no return as to the remainder. Out of 85 children admitted into Hampstead Hospital during a fortnight, only 46 had been vaccinated. It was evident that the Vaccination Act, in spite of the stringent orders of the Poor Law Board, was not properly enforced. Moreover, in St. Pancras, which was seven miles long by one and a-quarter broad, with a population of 200,000, the number of vaccination stations lately appointed was only five—so that some of the parishioners were three miles from the nearest of them, and it was not likely that children would voluntarily be taken such a distance. Persons frequently lived nearer a vaccinator in a neighbouring parish or Union, who, however, was not allowed to undertake their case. These stations had not succeeded in Scotland; but if they were to be used, surely they should be arranged with a view to general convenience rather than with reference to parishes or Unions. Fresh cases were occurring every day, and the metropolitan hospitals were overflowing, and he hoped to hear that additional accommodation was being provided, as also that steps were being taken to enforce vaccination. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
  "That there be laid before this House Returns of the number of births and of the number of children vaccinated in the Metropolitan districts during the year ending the 31st December, 1869."—(The Lord Buckhurst.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEtestified to the success of the Vaccination Act in Ireland, where small-pox had almost

  703
  disappeared. The Poor Law medical officer was usually registrar, and being thus acquainted with the births, he was able to summon parents who neglected to vaccinate their children. He knew of one such officer who had been dismissed for failing in this duty. The system of stations had proved very effective in Ireland. If the same powers existed in England, it was only necessary to enforce them to prevent the recurrence of such a disaster.
  LORD LYTTELTON, as the author of the first compulsory Act on the subject, trusted that the Government would take steps to secure an improved administration of the law, which was all that was requisite. In some of the smaller European States, where the Executive were naturally more powerful, the vaccination laws had been enforced, and the disease had almost disappeared.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could quite confirm the statement of the noble Lord as to the success of the Vaccination Act in Ireland. The smallpox had almost entirely disappeared. He thought the want of similar success in England must be attributed to some extent to fanatical agitators, who had persuaded a certain number of blind and ignorant persons to resist the operation of the law. He thought in this respect we had reason to be ashamed of ourselves compared with the Irish people. The questions of detail respecting vaccination stations he would bring under the notice of the Vice President of the Council, who would doubtless consider them. It was difficult to meet the convenience of all; but he agreed that the stations should be so arranged as to encourage and facilitate a resort to them. Prior to the present outbreak the Poor Law Board urged on the Guardians a stricter enforcement of the Act, and the appointment of inspectors, who would examine the registrars' returns and ascertain whether the law had been complied with. Where such inspectors had been appointed, a great stimulus had been given to vaccination, at a moderate cost. This was one of the most efficient agencies; for, unless cases were hunted up, prejudice and ignorance would always, he feared, leave a considerable number unvaccinated. The attention of the Government had been drawn to the present serious epidemic; but he was not prepared to say that the present
  704
  law required alteration. The law, he thought, needed not amendment, but enforcement, and he was informed by the Poor Law Board that the Boards of Guardians were making strenuous exertions in this direction, assisted by the inspectors appointed by the Privy Council to see to the sanitary condition of the metropolis. A Committee of the House of Commons on Vaccination had sat several weeks, and would shortly, as he understood, report. Any suggestions they might offer would have the careful and immediate attention of the Government. A Bill was passing through this House for giving further facilities for the erection of asylums; and, owing to the difficulty of obtaining sites, the Admiralty were willing to lend one or more ships as temporary hospitals, especially for convalescents. These would be placed by the Bill within the category of asylums. A Report of the Poor Law Board already presented had given the Returns moved for by the noble Lord up to the 29th of September, 1869, and a Return extending 12 months later would be presented at once.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the small-pox epidemic was even more serious than the noble Lord had stated. It was spreading considerably in the provinces; his own county, including Southampton and other places, was now suffering severely. He agreed that the present law was sufficient, if properly enforced; but the authorities bound to enforce it had been exceedingly remiss. The Poor Law Board, moreover, only looked after the poor; whereas the strongest prejudice against vaccination existed not so much among them as among the middle classes. One set of fanatics spread an alarm as to the consequences of vaccination to children; while another set, with feelings like those entertained as to the Contagious Diseases Act, deemed it impious to interfere with the intentions of Providence, and regarded the disease as a just punishment for our sins. Now, people should not be allowed at the expense of the public to entertain such fancies and superstitions, and there should be inspectors to enforce the Act on the upper and middle classes as well as on the poor.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, the law did extend to all classes. One of the difficulties of enforcing it arose from the defective

  705
  supply of good vaccine matter. In his own neighbourhood several families about to come to London desired to have their children vaccinated beforehand; but out of ten medical men in the neighbouring districts not one had a sufficient supply of good vaccine matter. They then sent to London for the matter, and obtained sufficient for the vaccination of one child, whose mother refused to allow matter to be taken from its arm. If it was true that the matter could only be properly used when taken from a child vaccinated for the first time, it was evident that a very large supply would be needed, as matter taken from an adult on re-vaccination was known not to be prophylactic. Probably in Ireland a large quantity of the lymph was obtained direct from cattle, or there might be local circumstances which tended to prevent a spread of the disease.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, the Returns proposed to be given would be most inadequate. They should be made up to a later date.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpromised to produce a later Return if possible. The machinery for enforcing the Act, he added, was complete, the registrars being required to send a list of births to the guardians, who were empowered to require vaccination in all cases.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYadmitted this, but remarked that the middle classes were allowed to escape through scruples which were not extended to the poor.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, the law subjected the rich to fines as well as the poor.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked what was the use of fining the poor. Their children were not thereby vaccinated. In one point our law was behind that of other countries. A policeman should be sent with the doctor to see that the child was vaccinated.
  Motion amended, and agreed to; Returns ordered. (No. 111.)

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(Nos. 107–109.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL—(Nos. 107–109.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that the recent division had partaken very much of a party character, there being only one noble Lord on the Ministerial side besides himself who voted for the noble Marquess's Amendment, and only two on the Opposition side—though one, he admitted, of the greatest distinction—who voted against it. A great change had evidently come over the mind of a great part of the public on this and similar questions. Some years ago it would have been thought strange that a proposition prohibiting open attack on the Bible being made by college tutors—and that was the meaning of it—should be ridiculed as it now was. He admitted that there was something to be said on the Government side of the question. A few scrupulous and sensitive men would probably refuse to take the test, and their services in teaching would thus be lost; but this inconvenience would be more than counterbalanced by its advantages. The test, indeed, had been objected to as inadequate; but this was the old fallacy that because you could not do everything you should do nothing, and he deemed it a safeguard of some importance. Again, it was declared to be absurd to require a religious test of men who taught mathematics or science: but it was not imposed on them as teachers of any given thing, but because of their intimate personal intercourse with and influence over these young men. He did not say that the test would have any great effect; but he voted for the Amendment on the ground that he believed public opinion was in favour of it, and in particular that most parents wished it. The Bible was the religion, and the only religion, of these persons; and he thought their feelings should be consulted. Philosophers, sophists, declaimers, agitators, and magazine writers had their views considered; but the opinions of parents were the object of little attention, yet surely their wishes should be studied.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the remarks of his noble Friend induced him to make a few observations, though he had not expected the subject to be revived on the third reading. He thought that questions of this kind were much influenced by political feeling. He regretted it, but he thought it inevitable, because differences of opinion naturally arose out of divergence of political views.

  707
  He believed that many on his side of the House were as anxious to secure bonâ fide religious instruction for the young both in schools and in the colleges of this country as noble Lords opposite. He wished, however, to defend himself in a non-party sense for the vote he gave the other night against the noble Marquess's proposition. He rejected the parallel drawn between this Bill and the measure of last year as to primary schools. The course taken by the Government on that question showed their desire of securing religious education for the young by securing it at the expense of the opposition and displeasure of no small or uninfluential portion of their own party. He was himself disposed to support religious instruction in primary schools, because it was well known that a large portion of the children attending them, if they did not get religious instruction there, had very little chance of getting it anywhere else. But that certainly was not the case in regard to the colleges of this country. Another difference was that schools supported by Government aid and schools to be supported by the ratepayers would be denominational schools; whereas the religious education in the Universities was retained by the Bill in the hands of the Church of England—they left in the hands of the Universities the same guardianship over religious instruction, as they desired to see exercised over the schools. It was, therefore, quite consistent in those who supported the course taken last year by the Government in regard to primary schools to oppose the Amendment of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had this year given up his plan of separating the orthodox from the unorthodox Dissenters; but he intended to freely admit anyone under his declaration, which was in the nature of a test. The question was whether the declaration that had been suggested by the noble Marquess was desirable in itself, or as a real security for the religious teaching in our colleges. Now, he had not heard one single Member of their Lordships' House argue that this declaration was any real security for the religious spirit or teaching of those who took it. He had no knowledge of, and did not propose to say a word in regard to the amount of alleged infidelity and free-thinking said to exist in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The
  708
  other night they heard a most alarming account from the Chancellor of the University of Oxford; and on the other hand it had been stated that that account was very greatly exaggerated. He understood the noble Marquess, however, distinctly to state that the course of metaphysical study, instruction, and examination at Oxford was such as almost necessarily to shock the faith and unsettle the opinions of young men; and the opinion of Canon Liddon was quoted as confirming that view. Now, if that was the result of the course of reading and examination prescribed, could the noble Marquess believe for a single moment that this declaration to be taken by the lay Professors would alter that state of things? It was admitted that the existing tests had wholly failed to preserve the religious opinions of young men at Oxford, and the reason given was that these tests were much too minute and elaborate for their purpose; but it was said this declaration was simple and would be more binding in a moral point of view. Now, it was somewhat remarkable that it was not proposed that lay Professors should take this declaration; it was only to be taken by the tutors of colleges. The test, therefore, was not against the University teachers, but against the college tutors—then, he would ask, in what sense would the new test be more binding upon the tutors than the existing test? The declaration was not a promise that the tutors should not attack the authority of Holy Scripture; a man going to lecture on geology or physiology might very well promise that, not intending to enter upon the connection of science with Scripture at all. But the wording of the declaration was this—that he would not teach anything contrary to the teaching and Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. That was a much more severe test—whether a man was free to teach anything which had hitherto been considered, by the general opinion of the Christian world, different from or contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture. If it was intended by that declaration to bind the conscience of conscientious men—if a man was to feel bound to think whether what he was teaching was contrary to what had been generally considered the teaching of Holy Scripture—a very onerous obligation would be placed on conscientious men,

  709
  which might be a serious embarrassment to their teaching, but would have no effect on men of less tender consciences. It was a most difficult and delicate subject how far the authority of Scripture was to be taken as affecting at all the great questions of modern science. On these grounds he confessed he had no difficulty whatever in voting against this particular declaration. His strong impression was that while they left the religious teaching—that was, Divinity teaching—at the Universities in the hands of the Established Church, they should not go further in the way of securing the religious instruction of the young men attending the Universities. Some arguments had been used on that side of the House which he confessed he did not share in. One right rev. Prelate said the other night he had no fear for Christianity—it was absurd; neither had he (the Duke of Argyll) any such fear. Of course, they all had confidence in the ultimate triumph of Christianity; but it was very possible we might have to go through periods of infidelity, and the upsetting of everything that had been considered most sacred—we might have to go through deep waters before we reached the shore. He was also firmly convinced that if such convulsions happened to the country the calamity would be civil and political as well as religious, and therefore he was as anxious as any man to see what security could be obtained for the religious instruction of the young men; but he was satisfied that the forms of modern doubt, the difficulties which young men harboured with respect to religious questions, were such as could not be kept out by safeguards like that proposed. He did trust that so long as the religious teaching of the Universities was left in the hands of the Church of England they would be able to provide Professors and teachers of Divinity, who would continue the great work of Butler, and show by argument, following closely the advance of modern thought, and the investigation of modern times, that the thought too commonly entertained that the discoveries of science had upset the foundations of the Christian faith, and that the truths of natural and revealed religion could not be reconciled, was unfounded. If there were doctors and teachers of Divinity who could meet their adversaries on that ground, the Church
  710
  of England might succeed in answering their opponents. But it would only embarrass them to impose on them such a vague declaration as that proposed by the noble Marquess. He wished to defend his vote against this declaration. He believed that teaching should be perfectly free from such tests, and no one who had supported that vote had pretended to argue that it would secure its object.
  EARL NELSONsaid, that as one of the two Peers sitting on the Opposition side of the House who voted against the declaration proposed by the noble Marquess, he felt it incumbent on him to state the reasons that induced him to object to it. He would point out that this test was utterly useless, and pledged a man to no distinctive teaching, that part of it forbidding him to teach against the doctrine of the Incarnation having been struck out by the Committee upstairs. He considered that when they were doing away with tests it was very unwise, and against the interests of religion, to establish useless tests in their place. The declaration would, he believed, be a shackle round the necks of those who had to take it, and it should not be forgotten that they were allowing University Professors to teach without a test. What would be the feeling, therefore, of the young men of the University if, when they heard the theories of Darwin expounded by one of their Professors, who was unshackled by any tests, they had to look to the college tutor for the answer? There would be great danger that they would judge of his answer very unfavourably from the very fact that he was shackled by this declaration pledging him to teach nothing during his tenure of office contrary to Holy Scripture; he believed that the declaration would actually prevent young men from going to their tutor for information. The test, so far from doing good, would directly damage the great cause which all of them had at heart.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) had entirely mistaken the nature of the parallel which he had intended to establish between the question of the school boards last year and the question of the present year. He had referred to the question of the school boards, because it appeared to him that

  711
  the elections which had taken place in pursuance of the Act were indirectly the most remarkable proof that the secular party had no hold whatever on the English people, and that the reverence of the people for the Bible was as fresh as ever; and it appeared to him a legitimate corollary to draw, that the same people who took such effectual measures to secure the Bible as a means of education to the poor would not wish that their highest places of education should be places where the Bible should be systematically attacked. His noble Friend said that the effect of the Act last year was to permit Government to aid denominational schools; but to make the parallel complete he would ask his noble Friend to say what the Act would have done if it had been analogous to the present Bill as framed by Government? It would never have passed. But Government was proposing to take from the Universities the power of requiring such securities as had been given in the case of the smaller schools. He sympathized most heartily with the observations which had been made by a noble Duke as to the absurdity of treating or legislating on this great question with reference to the accidental eccentricities and sensitiveness of a few peculiar minds. He dared say that a test of the kind he had proposed might exclude some people of a very fanciful temperament. There were people who, if any restriction was put in their way by which they could make themselves martyrs, would at once set themselves up as martyrs. There were some extremely delicate and sensitive consciences to whom the words "I will bear true allegiance to our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria" would be very torture. But people seemed to forget that tests were not confined to Universities. Every noble Lord who entered that House had to take a test, and it was liable to all the objections of the noble and learned Lord who spoke the other night against the vague laws which were a heavy servitude. He felt there was a great deal of truth in what had been said as to the imperfect character of this test; but the test he (the Marquess of Salisbury) proposed last year in Committee had been objected to by some for whom he had the greatest respect, and he did not propose it in the House. The references of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) to the infidelity
  712
  at the University was not in harmony with the evidence adduced before the Committee, and it was to guard against this that he had desired the promise contained in the declaration to be taken by the college tutors. According to the evidence before them, Butler no longer occupied a prominent place in the University studies at Oxford, and he regretted it as much as the noble Duke could do; but the fact only showed as clearly as any other evidence could do in what direction some of the leading minds in the University had gone. With respect to the Professors, he thought it necessary to say that they were subject to the penal action of the University if they taught heretical doctrines; it was not, therefore, requisite to extract a promise from them not to do that which they would be punished for doing if they did it. If they were to have a system of education such as that existing in Germany, it would be a great question whether securities would be desirable; but tutors had a very great influence over the young men, owing to the character of the education given to them at the University, and it was on that ground that they were selected. The declaration was simply an undertaking that the persons taking it would be honest men according to their Lordships' view of what were the duties of their position. His fear was that if Parliament should in an unlucky moment take an opposite course and banish all mention of religion in the appointment of a tutor, it would be regarded by those who were opposed to religious education as a great triumph, and as a declaration on the part of Parliament that secular and religious education ought to be quite distinct. He believed that this, above all, was a parents' question, and that Parliament in dealing with it ought not to be influenced by the opinions of a noisy knot of philosophers and writers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had hoped that it would have been unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with any remarks upon this subject, but the speeches of last evening and this evening rendered it almost impossible for him to remain silent. The noble Earl who had addressed the House that evening (Earl Nelson) had said that the great majority of the parents of England desired that their children should have a Christian education. Now, he

  713
  (the Lord Chancellor) was one of that majority—no one could desire it more earnestly than he did, and it was precisely because he was of that opinion that he protested against these declarations. It was because he desired to see no impediment thrown in the way of Christian education that he was opposed in every way to exacting a declaration from the tutors of colleges that they would not teach anything contrary to the authority of Scripture. The best that could be said of such declarations as these was that they would probably be futile. They were already far too numerous, and he should like to see them done away with in other departments of life beside the Universities. How preposterous it was, for instance, that a Judge should have to declare that he would faithfully perform the duties of his office! If there was any doubt upon the point he ought not to be selected; if there was no doubt, why should there be a needless declaration imposed? It was the same with the tutors—if they were not to be trusted they ought not to be selected. But what, he would ask, was the use of such a declaration as this? If a man was dishonest, there were ten thousand ways of evading it; if he was honest, the result would be to impose a scruple of conscience upon him, and to fetter his usefulness at every turn. If they were to lay down certain distinct and definite principles, and to say that if these were violated the tutor violating them should be removed, it might be possible to obtain a judicial decision upon the point when required, but the only possible result of this declaration would be to set the University by the ears, and they would probably find one half contending that a tutor had broken his engagement, and the other half maintaining that he had done nothing of the kind. The real danger to young men at the Universities, however, arose not from the tutors, but from the young men with whom they themselves associated—young men, highly honourable, no doubt, but with minds imperfectly formed in many cases, though of great talent and ability; young men with a large passion for reading, and especially for reading everything that was new. With such a declaration as this it would be impossible for the tutors' opinions to have any weight upon points of religious difficulty, because they would at once be
  714
  met with the answer that they were bound to interpret everything in one particular way. In reference to the subject of primary education the matter was different, because there the State stood to the child in the relation of parent, and if anything irreligious were done it necessarily influenced the education of the child. But with regard to young men they must adopt a different course, and not endeavour in matters of religion to protect them by means of such absurd and flimsy declarations, which, if not futile, would be positively mischievous.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that if the electors were bound to look to the intentions of the man who was to be teacher then cadit questio. This would be far better than any declaration.
  After a few observations from the Earl of HARROWBY,
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, he could see no harm in a man being called upon to make a simple declaration of this character once in his lifetime—the more particularly as he himself was called upon once every three months to make a declaration that he was not in holy orders.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
  An Amendment made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 109.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.