THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAMMy Lords, I rise to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty's consent be withheld to a Statute proposed for the University of Cambridge, amending the conditions on which Degrees in Divinity are conferred [London Gazette, 9th May, 1913,-page 3339]. In mere outline the facts of the case are as follow: Divinity Degrees—that is to say, the Degrees of Bachelor and Doctor of Divinity—are at present by the existing Statutes of the University confined to clergymen of the Church of England. The new legislation proposes in its first intention—an intention with which I am in the broadest sympathy—to extend the area of candidature for those Degrees to students other than members of the Established Church, so that the Nonconformist theological student satisfying other conditions required by the University, which are not proposed to be disturbed, should not be disqualified by his not being an Anglican.
I may take the opportunity to say at once and emphatically, as my own attitude in this matter has been in some quarters misunderstood, particularly among Nonconformists in the North of England, that I am most cordially of opinion that the time has come when Conformity or Nonconformity should not be considered as differentiating the qualifications of candidates for the Degrees of Bachelor and Doctor of Divinity. But the new legislation, in terms, goes further, and by dis- 1021 pensing altogether with any approach to a confession of faith dispenses' with the requirement that the student of theology, the student of divinity, should be required to be of any religious faith. It is this aspect of the new legislation which has disquieted many minds in connection with the University, and which makes the amended Statute which at this moment lies upon your Lordships' Table one about which we have grave misgivings.
The amended Statute, I may remind your Lordships, has been upon the Table since about the 10th of August of last year, and within a week, if I am rightly informed, unless your Lordships' House moves to approach the Crown with a request that the Royal Assent be withheld it will automatically pass into University law. The importance, as it seems to many of us members of the Senate of the University, of the step proposed to be taken leads us even at this eleventh hour to think it desirable that at least the question should be raised, Will the House of Lords approach the Crown with a request the issue of which would be that the matter would be referred back to the University for reconsideration? This matter is assuredly one which is important enough to justify even considerable delay so that the best and wisest and furthest-reaching results may be attained. It may seem a presumptuous act on the part of one who has long ceased to be a resident in his University to make this particular Motion. The amended Statute now lying on the Table, was in November of 1912 passed by the Senate of the University with a large majority. It was originally commended to the Council—which may in some respects be called the Ministry of the University—to the Council of the Senate by no less a body than the College of Divinity Professors.
If these are the facts it may reasonably be asked, Who are you that you should stand up and at a date like this ask the House of Lords to traverse the conclusions of the University and refer the matter so to the Crown that it may be cast back upon the University again? I trust it will be believed by your Lordships that I take this step in anything but a light-hearted spirit. Just twenty-five years of my life, first and last, were spent in academical work at Cambridge. During the last two years of that time I was myself one of the five Divinity Professors. 1022 I proceeded in regular order to the two Divinity Degrees in question. These matters I mention only to remind your Lordships that the inner life of the University is not unknown to me, and that I am indeed keenly aware of the serious responsibility of the man who has gone out of residence when he takes such a step as I am venturing to take here to-day and asks for reconsideration of the matter.
My reasons may very briefly be given somewhat as follows. If the amended Statute passes into University law it will at least seem to set the seal of the University upon the theory that with sacred study religious belief has nothing necessarily to do; that the matters which may be classed under the Doctorate of Divinity, or to take the Latin equivalent of the D.D., the Professorship of Sacred Theology, may be studied as mathematics may be studied, or as geology may be studied, and may thus be treated adequately, or at least so adequately as to be crowned with a Degree by a great University cradled in Christianity and steeped in Christian tradition-—a Degree of Honour as for an achievement in Divinity and in Sacred Theology. There are those of us who firmly believe that even from the intellectual point of view taken by itself the position is a serious fallacy, and that the result would be a great loss. Then, further, supposing the legislation to pass and become the law of the University, it seems to me and to many who have taken the same line in the Cambridge Senate, eminently unfitting that studies pursued irrespective of the element of the spiritual and confession of faith should be crowned with Degrees so denominated—Doctor of Divinity, Professor of Sacred Theology. It appears to us that the word "divinity" connotes essentially and inseparably something which is not merely of the nature of the comparative study of religions, of detached inquiries into the history of this that or the other religious belief, considered merely as a human phenomenon, but that it has to do with deeper and higher conceptions altogether, which are concerned with confession of faith. And the same may be said still more emphatically of the alternative title of which I reminded your Lordships just now, the Professor Sacrae Theologiae, of the Sacred Science of God. It is surely a term and a title which no essay upon what is curiously called the 1023 comparative study of religion can seem to be the fitting prelude. It seems on these accounts desirable that there should be reconsideration of legislation which, at least so far as its terms go, leaves possibilities of this kind amply open.
There is another point of view, my Lords, from which we deprecate the passing of the Statute in question. I venture to think that it was inadequately considered, and that the processes through which it was put before reaching the shape in which it was laid upon the Tables of the two Houses of Parliament should have been otherwise. I think I am right in recalling that in February, 1912, the Divinity Professors of the University, with the primary and as I think noble purpose of opening Divinity Degrees to learned Nonconformist students who should satisfy University requirements in other respects, recommended the changes in question to the University Council. The University Council in the next month, the month of March, drafted a grace—that is to say, a recommended motion submitted by the Council to the Senate, the great voting body, intended to carry out the recommendation of the Professors. When this was published to the University world it was promptly met by an important appeal signed, if I remember rightly, by as many as 1,300 members of the Senate of the University; and I may venture to recall that one of the signatories was that most distinguished Cambridge man, my eminent contemporary at Trinity, Lord Alverstone. The purport of this appeal was that in view of the extreme importance of the matter the grace should not be without much deliberation submitted to the Senate. It was to have been voted upon that term. An appeal was made that the voting upon it should be postponed, and, not only so, but that the usual University procedure in such cases should be followed, and that a syndicate should be appointed to consider the details of the matter. A syndicate in University terminology is an appointed committee of members of the Senate, designed, of course, to represent impartially different points of view, and to consider details of graces before they are finally submitted to the vote of the Senate. Such syndicate was not appointed. I am not a resident and I do not know even by rumour to what extent negotiation about the matter was carried on, but I know the broad fact 1024 that a syndicate was not appointed. The concession made was that the vote should be deferred from the spring to the autumn; and as a matter of fact, if I remember rightly, on November 22, 1912, the matter cams up for voting in the Senate and the amended Statute was carried by a large majority.
But just before that time, about ten or eleven days before, steps were taken to deal with a first unsuspected and then undetected difficulty raised by the new Statute—namely, that the two senior Professorships of Divinity, the Lady Margaret and Regius Professorships, which by foundation and unbroken tradition were to be held by clergy of the Church of England, would be dislocated from that connection automatically; and it is believed that that was not the intention of those who were in favour of the change. Further legislation, into the details of which I will not attempt to go, was proposed and embodied in the grace protecting the Church of England connection with the Lady Margaret and Regius Professorships. Very naturally a large number of the great constituency of voters over the country, reading this new matter in the amended Statute, too readily concluded that the religious, the confession of faith, element in the matter had been safeguarded, and that they need not, though they had signed the memorial, support it with their vote at the congregation; and it is more than possible that the great disparity of numbers between the signatories of the memorial and the voters in the congregation can be in this way accounted for to a large extent.
But be that so or not, I venture to say as an old Cambridge resident that the decliner, as it seems to be, to appoint a syndicate to go into a matter of such supreme importance was regrettable. One matter which assuredly would have come before such a syndicate—a syndicate which unquestionably would have included men of ability and experience representing every point of view concerned—would have been this: How, while admitting the Nonconformist candidate, to safeguard the Christian element with the long traditions of a Christian University behind it, which appeared to be surrendered in the new law. No one who has given a minute's attention to the subject can fail to be aware how difficult the problem of a definition which shall be at once liberal 1025 and distinct, inclusive but not unmeaning is; how difficult to be framed would be such a definition, or whatever you may be pleased to call it, of the Christian condition of candidature for the Divinity, the Sacred Theology, Degree. But surely that is a subject not beyond discussion, and a subject which a syndicate of the character I adumbrated a moment ago would be eminently qualified to discuss. They might arrive at the conclusion that the task passed the wit of man; but if they arrived at that conclusion I think it would be far more satisfactory to those who, like myself, have grave misgivings over the proposed change than the fact that it has been treated as a matter intractably impossible and that it must be just dropped aside and left alone.
It is for these reasons, my Lords, that, most unwillingly as regards my sense of personal adequacy for the task, I have ventured to ask to put this Motion before your Lordships' House. I am not a young man, but I am a fairly young member of the House of Lords, and my remote northern home makes it so difficult for me more than very rarely to be present in the House that I feel almost a stranger. I also feel, I confess, a somewhat venturesome person in talking over this subject in your Lordships' presence with the faintest claim to authority in the matter. But I beg you to forget the advocate and to give weight to the great matter which he presumes to plead. Of course, I should stultify myself if I had not in view an appeal for a Division upon this subject, but I do not wish to preclude the possibility that a Division may be avoided. At least one person here present, the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Ely, will speak with a knowledge of the inner movements of things at Cambridge to which I can no longer pretend. It may be that the Bishop of Ely will be able to say things about the way in which the University proposes of itself to safeguard what seemed to us to be points left dangerously open, and I shall be only too thankful if he can reassure me upon them. I would once more say that I cannot but lay it before your Lordships that this is a matter in connection with a great and ancient and immemorial Christian University, affecting the very highest matters of thought and the whole movement of human nature of which thought is but a part, which, whatever is done with it, assuredly calls for the greatest and most reverent deliberation and caution; and in no spirit 1026 of disrespect to the University, but of reverence towards the matter, it may be the duty of your Lordships to approach the Crown asking that the action of the Crown may refer back to the University for fresh and grave and systematic and scientific consideration a matter which we think has been too lightly carried through.
§ Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty's consent be withheld to a Statute proposed for the University of Cambridge, amending the conditions on which Degrees in Divinity are conferred.—(The Lord Bishop of Durham.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELYMy Lords, it may be convenient if, as I necessarily have some knowledge of these matters, I follow the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down, and endeavour to present to your Lordships the other side of the case. I do so with a twofold regret. In the first place, I am very sorry to find myself in opposition to the Bishop of Durham; and, in the second place, I cannot but feel sorry that our domestic matters in the University of Cambridge are brought before your Lordships' House and that you are troubled with the consideration of them. The course which the Bishop of Durham has asked this House to adopt—namely that an Address should be presented to His Majesty praying that assent may be withheld from a Statute duly passed by the University of Cambridge—is a perfectly constitutional course, but I believe it is absolutely unprecedented. At any rate I am well within the mark when I say that it is a most unusual course, and I submit that so unusual a course must be justified by strong reasons. Either it must be shown that there has been irregularity in the procedure which has led up to the Statute in question, or it must be shown that the Statute itself in substance and in effect is wrong.
Perhaps it will be convenient if I very briefly follow the right rev. Prelate in the history of this matter. From time immemorial the Divinity Degrees have been conferred, as he has told us, only upon those members of the University of Cambridge who are clergymen of the Church of England. That was a natural and right state of things so long as the study of theology was a professional or quasi-professional study in the University 1027 But that state of things passed away with the abolition of tests on the one hand, and on the other with the institution of the Theological Tripos on a par with other Triposes and without restrictions either in regard to those who examine or in regard to those who offer themselves for examination. It took some time for this widening of theological interests to bear its natural fruit, but for a long time now it has been quite plain that members of the University who are not and who do not intend to be ordained, and, moreover, Nonconformists, have taken places, sometimes distinguished places, in the Tripos; have carried off University prizes in theology; and, what is far more important, have made important contributions to theology in their writings. Therefore it has become clear, as the right rev. Prelate himself pointed out in other words, that it is illogical and ungenerous and unjust that these serious students of theology should not be allowed to ask for the imprimatur of the University upon their studies because they are not clergy of the Church of England. Hence the five Divinity Professors, who alone examine for these Divinity Degrees, presented to the Vice-Chancellor a memorial asking that these clerical restrictions should be removed. I need not follow stage by stage the course of events. But I should like to say a word about the subsequent memorial which the Bishop of Durham himself signed and on which he has laid great stress. I think that he said it was signed by 1,300.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELYI have the memorial in my hand. It was signed by sixty-one. I think there is some serious mistake here. The Council, after receiving this memorial, put out a second report pointing out that the issue was a plain issue, and that in their judgment it was best to submit the proposal to the Senate without appointing a syndicate. I may be allowed, perhaps, to remind your Lordships that in our University a syndicate is appointed when facts have to be collected and interpreted or when elaborate recommendations, as in regard to examinations, have to be drawn up. And the Council deliberately did not think, in the case of this simple issue, that any advantage would be gained by the appointment of a syndicate. They may 1028 have been wrong; they may have been right; but that was their deliberate view.
Then I come to the time when the grace was presented by the Council to the Senate. The Bishop of Durham called attention to a particular addition made by the Council to the original form of the grace dealing with the Professorships. The right rev. Prelate said that this was an undetected matter. I venture to think that here he is in error. I hold in my hand a report of the Council, dated May 13,1912 (i.e., some six months earlier), in which a paragraph deals with this very matter—
The fact is no doubt present to the minds of many members of the Senate that under existing conditions it is necessary that the Regius Professor of Divinity should be a clergyman of the Church of England because only a graduate in Divinity is eligible for the office; and likewise that the electors to the Lady Margaret Professorship, as being graduates in Divinity, are a body of clergymen …I need not trouble your Lordships with the paragraph at greater length. It is quite clear, therefore, that that matter had not been undetected. It was well known to the Council of the Senate when they reported on May 13 in that same year. Nor do I think that any, even the simplest, members of the Senate could be led away from the main drift of the grace by the addition in question. The addition was simply that the Statute should not come into operation until a syndicate had reported on the appointment to the two Divinity Professorships—the Regius Professorship and the Lady Margaret Professorship of Divinity.With that first vote the matter would normally have ended. But, my Lords, when a grace has been passed amending a Statute another grace in the University of Cambridge is needed in order to sanction the affixing of the seal of the University to the Statute so amended. I think you will see that this second grace is simply consequential on the first grace. Now in this particular case the opponents of the Statute took the very unusual course of opposing the sealing of the proposed Statute, the substance of which had already been carried by the Senate. But a second time, though not by so large a majority, they were defeated. Some 603 members of the Senate voted, and the majority for the sealing of the grace was 67. Your Lordships will perhaps understand that many members of the 1029 Senate who were not resident in Cambridge felt that it was unnecessary for them to undertake a long journey in order to deal with what they thought was a most unusual course which would not gather many adherents to support it. The point upon which I wish to lay stress is this, that the Statute has twice been presented to the Senate and has been twice carried, each time by a substantial majority; and it does seem to me in the circumstances that it is hard that the right rev. Prelate should desire that this Statute, on which the University has itself twice voted, should be once more reconsidered by the University.
Now I come to the question whether there has been any irregularity in the procedure. It has been maintained that the Council ought to have appointed a syndicate. Those who oppose the Statute are quite at liberty, of course, to take the view that the Council made a mistake; but the plain matter of fact is that the Council did nothing abnormal, still less unconstitutional, when they held that the issue raised by the Professors was a simple issue and that the Council itself was the best body to report to the Senate and propose the grace. I do not speak in ignorance of these things, as the Bishop of Durham has already intimated to you. I can say with absolute conviction and knowledge that every term the Council reports to the Senate and proposes legislation, sometimes legislation on matters of detail, sometimes legislation involving far-reaching consequences; and, taking a considerable number of years, the majority of reports proposing changes in the Statutes have come, not from syndicates appointed ad hoc, but from the Council itself. I submit, therefore, to your Lordships that there has been no irregularity of procedure.
Lastly, I come to the question whether the Statute in itself is wrong and whether it will act prejudicially to the interests of religion in the University of Cambridge. I might appeal to you to consider whether the five Divinity Professors, four of whom are clergymen, whether they or I, as Bishop of the diocese, would be at all likely to be careless or thoughtless about the interests of religion at Cambridge. I think I have already shown that it is illogical and ungenerous and unjust that the present clerical restrictions should be maintained. If the Statute fails at this eleventh hour I am afraid that irritation and bitterness will be created which will be prejudicial to 1030 the best interests of Christianity in Cambridge. But is there to be a new doctrinal or theological test imposed by Statute on those receiving the Degree? I venture to say that in a modern University that is impossible. I do not myself believe that a new religious or theological test which approved itself to the members of the University and to members of the Church of England could be formulated, or if it were formulated could be carried through the Senate, or if it were carried through the Senate could be worked.
I believe that the legitimate protection of these Degrees lies, not in the Statutes, but in the Ordinances. The Ordinances are regulations passed by a vote of the Senate which can only be altered by a vote of the Senate. And the Ordinances in this particular case lay down the range of subjects with which the dissertation leading to the Degree may deal. The thesis for the Degree shall be on—
some subject connected with Biblical criticism, exegesis, or history, or with the evidences of Christianity, or with dogmatic theology, or with ecclesiastical history, literature, or antiquities.Now in my opinion this Ordinance does not admit of an anti-religious or an anti-Christian thesis. I submit that the field of study is marked out in this Ordinance and that in it Christianity is dominant. I am informed—I do not wish to lay stress upon this because it is hearsay evidence—I am informed from a reliable source that the syndicate which is now considering these Ordinances is likely to tighten them in the direction in which the right rev. Prelate and those who are with him, and myself, would desire. And I cannot help asking your Lordships to believe that behind these Ordinances, effective as I believe they are in themselves, there lies the good sense and the good feeling of the members of the University of Cambridge. We desire reform; we do not desire revolution. I myself have never even heard a rumour of a desire to misuse the Divinity Degrees for purposes which are essentially alien to their character. Therefore I submit to your Lordships that there is nothing wrong in the probable effect and in the substance of the Statute itself. And I cannot but express the earnest hope that your Lordships will not put an obstacle in the way of the Statute which has now these many months lain on the Table, and which has twice received the deliberate sanction of the Senate of the University.
LORD RAYLEIGHMy Lords, after the very full statements that have been made by the two right rev. Prelates, it will not be necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any length. The Bishop of Durham has given a very fair statement of his objections and one cannot but sympathise with him to a certain extent. Under the amended Statute it would, no doubt, be possible to take an extreme case that might have a result decidedly awkward, to say the least; but any one acquainted, as is the Bishop of Ely, with the working of the University will, I think, realise that such cases are extremely unlikely to occur, and, on the other hand, that the advantages which would accrue from the amended Statute are considerable. Personally I have taken no part whatever in the movement which has resulted in the proposed amended Statute, but I may say that my sympathies are rather with the Bishop of Ely and in opposition to the Motion before your Lordships' House. The Bishop of Durham seemed to hint at some further test which might admit Nonconformists to the Degrees in question but which might exclude others whose opinions were still less in harmony with those of the Church of England. I must say that to my mind a new test of that sort would be objected to by many, and on very obvious grounds. In the past tests were somewhat lightly regarded. A great many years ago now, I was one of a party thinking of being elected to a Fellowship who went to the Vice-Chancellor's house to sign what was called the Vice-Chancellor's book. The Vice Chancellor accidentally omitted to make any explanation, and after the ceremony was complete I remember one of the party asking in apparent innocence whether any significance was attached to our signatures. Of course that is not likely to happen, indeed could not happen, in the present case; but I think the imposition of a new test which would distinguish between Nonconformists and Mahomedans or Buddhists would give rise to difficulty, and might in some cases be treated in a way in which tests were formerly treated, with insufficient seriousness. But really the question before the House seems to be whether we should throw overboard this great consensus of opinion from Cambridge in favour of the new Statute. You have heard the facts. The proposal was initiated by the five 1032 Divinity Professors, was adopted by the Council of the Senate, and was twice passed by the Senate with large majorities; and the clergy, I might remind your Lordships, are largely represented on the Senate. Therefore I think it would be a great misfortune if this House were to put obstacles in the way of the amended Statute becoming law.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, I do not know whether any words are necessary in addition to what has fallen from the Chancellor of the University (Lord Rayleigh) and from my right rev. friend the Bishop of Ely, one of the most distinguished of the Vice-Chancellors a few years ago. I cannot but feel that the House would not be acting in accordance with what was the intention and spirit of the power given to it in matters of this sort if it were to interfere in a question of this kind unless the reasons for doing so were absolutely overwhelming. A proposal comes before us for dealing with the question of Divinity Degrees which has not merely the support of the whole body of the Divinity Professors, but several ex-Divinity Professors, amongst others being the Bishop of Ely and Dr. Mason, of Canterbury, both of them having been Divinity Professors, and very many more men, and it comes before us as a matter which has been thoroughly considered for some two years in the University. I venture to say, therefore, that to interfere with it now at this stage unless the reasons were absolutely overwhelming, while perfectly legal and constitutional, would be unreasonable in the highest degree.
In order to be quite sure that no change had recently occurred in the matter or that there was nothing which the present authorities in the University felt to call for further consideration, I wrote, before this matter came up, to the present Vice-Chancellor of the University, the eminent layman, Dr. James. I say "layman," because the other Vice-Chancellors whom I have named are clergymen. The answer of Dr. James to my letter is as follows—
I am able to assure you that you are correctly informed on all the points which you have specified. The Statute has the support of all the Divinity Professors here, and of the Bishop of Ely. There has, further, been no irregularity in procedure, and ample time for reflection and for discussion of the proposals has been allowed. Perhaps a few dates may serve to make this 1033 clear. The memorial of the Divinity Professors (of which I enclose a copy) was published to the Senate on March 5, 1912, and so was a report of the Council of the Senate proposing changes of Statute as suggested in the memorial. This report was discussed on April 25, 1912. A second report of the Council was issued on May 13, in which notice was given that the voting would take place in the Michaelmas term. At the beginning of that term, on October 7, the original report was re-issued, and the voting—of which I enclose particulars—was on November 22, resulting in a majority of 111 in favour of the proposals. The grace for sealing the Statute was voted upon on April 25, 1913, and was carried by 67 votes. I may add that notice of opposition to this grace was given on April 19 only. I enclose particulars of this voting also. There can be no doubt that the proposal, originating as it did with the Professors of Divinity, emanated from the University itself in a regular manner, and that to disallow it at this stage would create a very strange and difficult situation.I have considered it only right that that letter should be read to your Lordships' House before you come to a decision on the proposal of the Bishop of Durham. I myself feel that while I should shrink as a member of the other University from entering into the details of a question which has arisen at both Universities and which has been treated somewhat differently in each, while I have some delicacy in entering into the details so far as Cambridge is concerned, I am entirely in accord with what has been said by the Bishop of Ely and others in regard to this matter.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I do not know whether the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham intends to take the opinion of the House upon his Motion, but if he does I am afraid I must warn him that I shall be unable to give him my support. This Statute seems to come to your Lordships with a very great weight of authority behind it. It originated with the Professors of Divinity; it was recommended to the Senate by the Council; and it has been carried twice by the Senate, in each case by very large majorities—majorities which included a considerable clerical element. Apart from that, the proposal itself seems to me to be on the face of it a reasonable and just proposal. No one, I apprehend, desires to preclude laymen or Nonconformists from studying theology or to shut them out from the Theological Tripos. We have been told to-night by the Bishop of Ely that some very distinguished students of theology have come either from amongst 1034 laymen or from amongst Nonconformists. Well, my Lords, one naturally asks oneself the question why in these circumstances the Divinity Degree should be made conditional either upon ability to preach or upon subscription to religious formulas. I cannot bring myself to believe that there is any force in the contention that this change would have the effect of, as I have seen it stated, de-Christianising the Divinity Degree. I do not think it will deprive it of religious significance although it may deprive it of sectarian significance. The present Statute as it now stands does seem to me to imply a sectarian test, and a test which I venture to think is a futile and unnecessary test. The new arrangement seems to be in the interests of Christianity, and I cannot help believing that the University has been well advised in proposing this amendment of its laws.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE)My Lords, it is desirable that I should say a word on behalf of His Majesty's Government with regard to this matter. I do so with the greater interest as it is my University which is concerned. I am not one of those who think it at all a matter of complaint that a subject of this kind should come up for discussion in this House. Indeed, I think that some advantage may be claimed for the possibility of its being discussed here; and certainly nobody will be disposed to make any complaint of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Durham for having introduced it, or suppose him to be actuated by any narrow feelings or by other than a sense of duty in this matter. Nor, I am sure, need the right rev. Prelate have apologised for being no longer a resident member of the University. He was an honoured resident there for long, and I well remember in my young days having entertained for him that awe which one feels for the senior members of the University when one is an undergraduate, which is of the kind that no intellectual distinction and no position in the world inspires, I am afraid, when one is advanced in life. At the same time, like the noble Marquess opposite, I hope that the House will not accept the advice which the right rev. Prelate has given us.
The circumstances have been thoroughly explained by the other right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Ely, who spoke with much authority on this subject. He explained, I 1035 think to the satisfaction of the House, how it was that this subject had not been committed to a special syndicate before it was passed by the Senate. It was due, I take it, to the fact that the issue was a simple one. A special syndicate is of the nature of a Select Committee, and the parallel which we should make in this House would be that there are a number of subjects, indeed the majority of subjects, as is the case at Cambridge, for which special consideration by a Committee is not required, and which from their nature are capable of being decided in the full House. I think, therefore, that the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Ely made out his case in that respect.
Then we come to the question of the possibility of introducing a formula which would admit to the degrees those Nonconformists whom no one is more anxious to admit than the right rev. Prelate on the Front Bench, but at the same time would exclude those who do not in any way accept the Christian Faith. Well, my Lords, we are always told in other connections that there is nothing in the world so difficult as to devise a satisfactory undenominational formula of Christianity. That was most frankly admitted by the right rev. Prelate himself; and I cannot help thinking that if the attempt were seriously made it might result in a conclusion that the task was an impossible one, and that therefore matters would have to be left as they are. We have a long and painful recollection of the difficulties which confronted us in this House in connection with the Royal Declaration, and I do not believe that the difficulties in this case would be less, and they might be greater, than those which we then had to encounter.
Next there is the question as to the possibility of the abuse of this Degree. It has been said on behalf of the University, and I believe truly said, that the common-sense of members of the University—and they will be the authors of the Ordinance which has to be passed on this subject—would prevent any possibility of abuse. But is not there also a further consideration? The right rev. Prelate said that these Degrees connote an acceptance of the Christian Faith, speaking in a broad sense. Will they not continue to do so? and would not the natural result of that fact be that those who owing to their views would be considered unsuitable to receive these Degrees would not value them; that they 1036 would not have any desire to obtain them because they were aware of that particular connotation? If I might suggest a parallel it would be that those who pursue the cult of what is known as Christian Science would not, I take it, value a degree in medicine even if they could obtain it by passing an examination or by presenting a thesis. The letters which they might write after their names would convey to them no meaning; and I cannot help thinking that the possibility of any scandal, if one may use the word, in connection with a degree of Doctor of Divinity would be rendered impossible by considerations of the kind that I have named. I believe, therefore, that your Lordships' House can accept the view of the majority of the University, enforced as it is by the support of our honoured Chancellor sitting on the other side of the House, and supported as we know it is by the majority of those who are best able to give an opinion. I think we can fairly do so, not merely on the ground that the majority at Cambridge want it, but with a clear conscience after consideration of all the merits of the case.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAMMy Lords, I feel, after all that has been said since I spoke, that it was a curious piece of audacity that I should have taken the line which I did in my address to your Lordships. I am not sorry, however, that I did so. I am glad to find that the noble Marquess who has just spoken feels that this is a not unsuitable subject to be brought before this Assembly, and I for one have so far profited from the discussion, particularly from the weighty words of the Bishop of Ely, that I frankly confess to feeling much more assured about the future than I did when I came to the House this afternoon. I do not for a moment pretend to say that I am fully satisfied, but I am much reassured; and so far as I gather the sense of the House this afternoon I feel that I should not be well advised in pressing this matter to a Division. I should like to say one word as to my somewhat absurd mistake in figures which was, with kind ruthlessness, exposed by the Bishop of Ely. I am reminded that the original memorial which we signed was signed by 61 persons only but that 1,300 members of the Senate conveyed in writing their support of the prayer of the memorial before the vote in the Senate came on in November, 1912. I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.