HL Deb 12 May 1871 vol 206 cc705-14

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

LORD LYTTELTON

said, 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 ARGYLL

said, 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. 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 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, 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 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 NELSON

said, 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 SALISBURY

said, 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 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 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 CHANCELLOR

said, 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 (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 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 HARROWBY

said, 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 LAUDERDALE

said, 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.