Sitting of 26 April 1877

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Clerical Disabilities Act (1870) Extension [147].
Ordered—First Reading—Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment [148].
Committee—Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (re-comm.) [113]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Public Libraries Act (Ireland) Amendment [141].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Horbury, &c.) [126], and passed.

QUESTIONS
  THE MALAY PENINSULA—PERAK.

    QUESTIONS.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for the

    1941
    Colonies, Whether it is true, as reported in the "London and China Telegraph" of the 16th instant, that Sultan Ysoof is to be installed at Perak, and that Sultans Ismail and Abdullah are to be deported from that country; whether "Sultan Ysoof" is the same person as Raja Muda Yusuf referred to by Sir William Jervois, on October 29, 1875, as "heir presumptive to the throne of Perak," as "possessing activity and energy quite peculiar in a Malay," and also as having "expressed a desire to live under British rule;" and whether any further Papers relating to the affairs of the Malay States will shortly be presented to Parliament?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Arrangements are being made for the deportation of Sultan Abdullah from Perak to another portion of Her Majesty's dominions, and Sultan Ismail is to remain at Johore, under the surveillance of the Maharajah. Raja Muda Yusuf will preside over the State of Perak as Regent, in the absence of Abdullah. This is the same person mentioned by Sir William Jervoise in the despatch referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet. Further Papers in relation to the Malay States are in course of preparation, and will shortly be laid before Parliament.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, -Whether it is true that the Maharajah Lelah has lately been executed in Perak on a charge of being concerned in the murder of Mr. Birch; whether there is any kind of foundation for a rumour current at Singapore that before the Maharajah was arrested a promise was made to him that if he surrendered his life should be safe; whether he was provided with legal means of defence, under what law he was tried, and what was the nature of the tribunal by which he was condemned; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay before Parliament a report of the trial?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: It is quite true that Maharajah Lelah was convicted and executed upon the charge referred to by the hon. Baronet. As regards a rumour that a promise was made to the Maharajah that if he surrended his life would be safe, the Governor distinctly states that there is no kind of foundation for it. With respect to legal means of
    1942
    defence, Sir William Jervois engaged counsel in the person of Mr. Vaughan, and the defence was ably conducted by that gentleman. The tribunal was constituted under local native law, with Rajah Muda Yusuf and Rajah Allan Houssein as Judges; and Mr. Davidson, the British Resident at Perak, and Mr. Maxwell, Acting Assistant Resident at Laroot, were present to watch the case on behalf of the British Government. The report of the trial will shortly be laid upon the Table.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. H. W. CHAMBRE.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Mr. Hunt Walshe Chambré, whose name appears in the list of magistrates for the county Tyrone, and who since his appointment and within the last three months arranged with his creditors under the Irish Bankruptcy Acts, has since such arrangement acted as a magistrate in said county; and, if so, has he been newly assigned Her Majesty's Commission in that behalf?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Sir, Mr. Chambré has not been newly assigned to act as a justice of the peace. From information which has been furnished to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland by the Chief Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy it appears that Mr. Chambré has not been adjudged bankrupt, nor made any arrangement or composition with his creditors under the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857, or the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872. His case does not, therefore, come under the section of the Act of 1872 affecting magistrates.

  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) BILL—QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Bill with a view to its passing; if so, when the House may reasonably expect the Second Reading may be moved?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON),in reply, said, that the Government certainly intended to proceed with the Bill, but he could

  1943
  not state at present when the second reading would be taken. He should proceed with it whenever he had the opportunity, but he hardly expected to have that opportunity until the Universities Bill had passed through Committee.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGwished to know, why the County Courts and Officers (Ireland) Bill had been put down in the Orders day after day if the Attorney General knew that he could not bring it on before the University Bill was passed?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the Notice was placed on the Paper in the usual course, with the intention of taking the Bill if an opportunity occurred. It clearly would not be taken that evening, as he did not think it could be reached. He was sorry if the hon. Member had been inconvenienced by its appearing on the Notice Paper, and he would promise him that it should not appear for the rest of the week.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1876—THE FRENCH STEAMER "LABRADOR."

    QUESTION.
    MR. MAC IVERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the French steamer "Labrador" embarked steerage passengers at Plymouth and sailed for New York, on Sunday the 15th instant, without compliance with the regulations to which British steamers in like circumstances are subjected; and, if he is aware that the exemption from specific fulfilment of the ordinary requirements of the Passengers Acts of 1855, 1863, and 1870, which was provided by Clause 19 in the Merchant Shipping Act of last Session, practically represents a considerable saving in expenses so far as foreign vessels are concerned, and will operate as a premium for the encouragement of foreign shipping, to the disadvantage of British shipowners?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the facts of this case are the exact reverse of what is suggested by this argumentative Question. This French ship embarked a few steerage passengers from Plymouth, not without compliance, but in compliance with the 19th section of the Act of last year. She had been surveyed in the port from which she
    1944
    commenced her voyage, and our principal officers had ascertained the sufficiency of this survey. She was, therefore, not exempted from duo requirements, nor saved any expenses incurred by others. She was saved by the Act from a needless and simply vexatious second survey, and so put on a par with, not on advantage over, other ships which are only once surveyed at their port of departure.
    MR. MAC IVERgave Notice that, as the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood his Question, he would repeat it to-morrow in a more definite form.

  BREWERS' LICENCES.—QUESTION.
  MR. ROEBUCKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he could grant a day for the discussion of the subject of Brewers' Licences?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I entertain great respect both for the hon. and learned Gentleman and the important body on behalf of which he puts the Question, but I may say that it is a matter which is not new. It has been several times under my consideration and under that of the Government. In the first year of our administration, when there was a considerable surplus to be disposed of, the question was raised, but the Government did not meet the views of those who brought it forward. Two years ago a debate was raised in the House, and the House, after a full discussion, by a large majority rejected the Motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman now asks for a day for discussing the propriety of appointing a Select Committee. I should feel it necessary to oppose that Motion, and to state my grounds for doing so—namely, that it could only load to delusive hopes. Under these circumstances I do not consider myself justified in giving up a Government day for the discussion of the proposal.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR.

    QUESTION.
    MR. COLLINSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of hostilities between Russia and Turkey, Her Majesty's Government propose to make arrangements with the belligerent powers to obtain for

    1945
    British ships laden with cargoes, and now on passage to ports which may be blockaded, free ingress and egress to such blockaded ports?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, no information has been received of the intention on the part of either of the belligerent Powers to establish a blockade of any ports, and there has not, therefore, been any occasion to make such arrangements as those referred to in the Question; but the matter will be borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government.

  COOLIES—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION—THE MAURITIUS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. E. JENKINSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps, if any, have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission which investigated the condition of the Coolies in the Mauritius?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, a draft Ordinance prepared in Mauritius was received here last year, but, being found to be imperfect in arrangement and to require improvement in various ways, it was necessary for the Secretary of State to obtain legal assistance in its revision. It has now been carefully examined, and will, I hope, be soon ready to be forwarded to the Colony in order to be submitted to the Legislative Council. In the meantime many of the principal recommendations of the Commissioners have been adopted and various evils have been removed.

  COAL MINES—THE TYNEWYDD COLLIERY.—QUESTION.
  LORD LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will instruct the Inspector of Mines, Mr. Wales, to make a special report of the causes of the flooding of the Tyne-wydd Colliery, stating so far as possible what was the head of water, the length of road cut for the liberation of the miners, the height and width of the roadway; and if he can ascertain from the medical men, or otherwise, as to what physical effects were produced in the system of these men by the compressed air in which they were confined?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have given directions that inquiries shall be made on all these points, without delay.

  NAVY—ADMIRAL HOBART PACHA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. W. CARTWRIGHTasked the Secretary of the Admiralty, in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Hobart Pacha, the present Commander in Chief of the Turkish naval armaments, still retains in Her Majesty's Navy the Commission restored to him by an Order in Council of the 28th day of November 1874, after he had forfeited the same by breach of discipline; and, if it be the case that Hobart Pacha has been permitted to retain in Her Majesty's Service the rank thus restored to him by an act of special grace, then to ask if it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in view of the grave aspect of political relations in the Turkish Empire, to intimate to Hobart Pacha, that, in the event of hostilities ensuing between Turkey and Russia, he will not be permitted any longer to combine the character of an officer licensed to hold Her Majesty's Commission, and of an Admiral in command of armaments engaged in active operations against a state with which Her Majesty is on friendly relations?
    MR. A. F. EGERTON: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Oxford-shire, I have to inform him that Hobart Pacha is still, at this moment, a captain on the Retired List of the Royal Navy. An intimation has been sent to him to the effect mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, When he proposes to proceed with the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill, which was introduced into this House on the 12th of February, and read a second time, without a division, on the 19th of February?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON),in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill, but he did

  1947
  not expect an opportunity would be afforded for doing so until after the passing of the Univerities Bill through Committee.

  CRIMINAL LAW — CASE OF REV. FATHER JACKSON.—QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the conduct of the police authorities of Manchester in connection with the arrest of the Reverend Father Jackson, one of the Jesuit Fathers on the mission in Manchester, on the night of the 30th December last and the course of procedure adopted by Mr. Alderman Murray, a magistrate of that city, in connection therewith; whether it is true that "half an hour after midnight, on the morning of December 31st last," a police inspector, accompanied by two constables, came to the house attached to the Church of "The Holy Name," where the Reverend Father Jackson resides with several other clergymen, and on the pretence of a "sick call," decoyed the reverend gentleman from his residence; whether, in reply to the interrogation, "Is it really a 'sick call,' as, if it is, I must take the last sacraments with me," Inspector Gill assured him that it was; whether, on being searched in the city hall, the "holy oils," &C. were taken from the person of Father Jackson, and, after he had given them to the police, his pockets were searched by Inspector Gill; whether Mr. Alderman Murray, J.P. stated from the Bench "that, as a magistrate, he had a right to act as he did, and would do the same again;" whether, in view of this declaration, the Lord Chancellor deems it right to continue this individual in the commission of the peace; whether Inspector Shandly, who had been formally applied to by Dr. Noble to obtain from the committing Magistrate a written permission to see the Reverend Father Jackson, and who afterwards made inquiries at the Presbytery about the case, and interfered in no other way, has been practically forced by the police authorities of Manchester to send in his resignation, after thirty years' service; whether the authorities there, on Sunday December 31, 1876, refused to the Catholic Magistrate, and to the Most Reverend Dr. Vaughan, Bishop of Salford, to accept bail for the
  1948
  appearance of the Reverend Father Jackson the following day; and, whether, considering all the foregoing circumstances, he will order an inquiry into the entire matter?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the subject referred to, and he must say that it was certainly an extraordinary case. It appeared that an information had been laid against the rev. gentleman on the charge of administering drugs to a young woman. The magistrates and police believed she was in a dying state, and her depositions were taken down, in which she made an allegation against the clergyman. The clergyman stated most positively that when the police came to call him up they said nothing about the charge against him, and only said that it was a "sick call." Believing, therefore, that he was called to attend upon a sick person he took the "holy oils" with him. He was thus, as he stated, practically decoyed by the police into the presence of the woman who had accused him for the purpose of being identified by her. The police authorities, on the other hand, after an inquiry by the watch committee, entirely denied that the Rev Father Jackson was decoyed from his residence on the pretext of a "sick call" and asserted that he was told "straight out" what the charge against him was. He had not yet been able to say which statement was true, because one statement was made by one side and a directly opposite one by the other. There was no doubt he was searched at the City Hall and the "holy oils" were found upon him. With regard to the magistrate, when he heard the case on Monday, the charge against the rev. gentleman was dismissed at once and an indictment for perjury was ordered to be preferred against the girl. This indictment must come before the ordinary tribunals of the country, and when it had been heard he should be able to form a judgment upon it better than he could at present. He had received through the hon. Member who asked the Question, "a long statement from the clergyman, who complained of having been kept in custody during the whole of the greater part of Sunday without being admitted to bail. This complaint would require further investigation, and he had directed an inquiry to be instituted.

  RUSSIA AND ENGLAND — DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it be true, as stated in the "Standard" of 25th inst. that Lord Augustus Loftus is about to leave St. Petersburg, and Count Schouvaloff is also leaving London; and, if the statement is well founded, if he can give the country an assurance that this absence of both Ambassadors from their posts has no political significance; and, if he will explain how the Powers are to communicate during its continuance?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, in answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow I have to state that Lord Augustus Loftus is not going to leave St. Petersburg, nor has Count Schouvaloff announced his intention of leaving London. At the same time, I believe there has been some question about Count Schouvaloff taking a short leave of absence. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, should Count Schouvaloff go on leave of absence for a short time—but I am not able to state whether he is going or not—communication with the Russian Embassy will be carried on in the usual manner—namely, through the Chargé d'Affaires.

  NAVY — TRAINING SHIPS — THE "GIBRALTAR."—QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'GORMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has any objection to recommend the equipment of one of the wooden war ships now lying idle in Portsmouth or Plymouth for the purpose of placing such ship in an Irish port to educate young Irish lads in the art of seamanship?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, said, that Her Majesty's ship Gibraltar had been lent to the Belfast Training Ship Society since 1871. Boys trained in her were accepted for the Royal Navy, and when complying with the regulations on the subject, £25 is paid for each boy so entered. The Admiralty had agreed to lend a ship to the Cork Training Ship Society for the same purpose as the Gibraltar was used for.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 113.]
  (Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Assheton Cross, Mr. Walpole.)
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 113.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    LORD FRANCIS HERVEY,who was very indistinctly heard, rose to move that—
    "It is undesirable largely to increase the professoriate or to establish offices in the University unconnected with tuition, at the expense of the Colleges."
    The noble Lord was understood to say that, in common with every other Member of the House, he was desirous that as soon as possible the learned Bodies to be affected by the Bill should be relieved of the suspense in which the now found themselves. He could not, however, forget that by the measure before the House they were asked to take a leap in the dark, nor could he be blind to the fact that the powers conferred upon the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill were so vague that within those powers they might cause an absolute revolution in our University system. He trusted that would not be the result of the measure; but he feared that unless the Commissioners were actuated and guided by principles of great moderation, incalculable mischief might be done to the cause of higher education and had of liberal culture. They had never had an answer given to the question as to what were the real needs of the Universities and what were their available resources. He would not inquire into the question how far it might be necessary to provide funds for the sustentation of the historical Libraries which were possessed by the Universities, to what extent they should provide for the practical working of the scientific departments, or to what extent building operations might be necessary; but he would call attention to the demand that was made in some quarters that there should be a large increase in the Professoriate. They might regard the primary object of the Universities, he thought, as being this

    1951
    —that they should, above all things, be educational institutions. History and experience pointed to that, so far as this country was concerned, whatever might be the case elsewhere, and the legislation of recent years tended to confirm that view; in fact, they were looked upon by the people as the crown and apex of the educational system. He trusted the Commissioners would keep that fact before them, and that they would re-establish that solid, severe, and simple system of educational training—under which so many great men had been brought up—which had been abandoned; that they should organize and concentrate the means of education. The panacea recommended by some persons was the divergence of the College revenues to miscellaneous by-paths of learning; to no one knew what branches and departments of study. It was wished to multiply the number of Professors. He was reminded of the squib—
    "Professors we are, from over the sea, From the land where Professors in plenty be."
    He hoped that the House would not be beguiled into forgetting one thing—that the Professors were outside the system of University life. A Professorship was nothing but an elaborate and costly compliment to its holder; that would be the case so long as Professors had only their present status, and wanted the means of making their influence felt which was possessed by tutors. The hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) was wrath with him last year for advocating that view; but he trusted the House would not be beguiled into taking the opposite by the argument of the hon. Member—who was, no doubt, a very learned and superior person. Under the old system Professors had plenty to do and little to get. Were they going to change all that now, and to endow Professors who would have little or no work to do? Scholars would still go to their tutors, leaving the Professors high and dry. Provision was also to be made for the encouragement of Art; but what did that mean? In Oxford they already had an illustrious Professor of the Fine Arts. Were they going, at the expense of acquaintance on the part of the youth of the country with the language and literature of antiquity, to make such expensive provision as would enable dille-tante dreamers to dawdle about in Rome
    1952
    and Naples, and probably in the East, in search of curiosities and unique specimens in the interest of fine art? There were tendencies in this direction that ought to be repressed, if the Universities were to be made the home of the soundest and most solid education that could possibly be afforded. The Universities did not need an indefinite increase of the Professoriate, but simply re-organization. It was not a fact that the main departments of study in the Universities were being, or ever had been, concentrated in the hands of the best teachers who could be found. The fact was, that nearly the whole of the education in the Universities was committed to young and inexperienced men, who had scarcely got through their own examinations when they were made Fellows and Tutors of either their own Colleges, or other Colleges in in the Universities to which they belonged. If the Universities were to maintain their positions, the standard of preliminary examinations and of examinations for degrees must be raised. Unless this was done the University system would remain a sham, and it would be clear that the question of high education was being simply trifled with. They would have to conquer the exaggerated spirit of athleticism which prevailed; little intellectual work was to be got out of the athletes. They must also diminish the exaggerated importance which was attached, even by honour men, to the examinations which they had to pass. At Oxford it was a standing joke to compare a man in the first class with a first-class man, and it would continue to be so until the system of examinations was made more real. The length of residence and the duration of periods of study were also questions which ought to be carefully considered; for, as matter of fact, the period of study in the Universities at present was incomparably small when put side by side with that in either elementary, endowed, or public schools. A good deal had been said about "endowing Research." Whatever the phrase might mean, he could not think that it was connected with either education, religion, or learning; and, therefore, he could see no reason for creating a class of salaried or endowed persons who had no real and close connection with the main objects for which the Universities had been

    1953
    founded. Further, he hoped the House would, under no circumstances, take a course that would have the effect of prejudicing or impairing the College system, which had been found to work so well, and so much to accord with English habits and predilections. He hoped that the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill would not attempt any financial re-adjustments that could have the effect of diminishing the guarantees of high culture pertaining to the College system, with the chance of giving only slight guarantees that the study of science would be advanced by the change. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words it is undesirable largely to increase the professoriate, or to establish offices in the University unconnected with tuition, at the expense of the Colleges,"—(Lord Francis Hervey,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, this Amendment of the noble Lord, which in form is an Instruction to the Committee, is in fact an attempt to elicit an expression of Parliamentary opinion which may guide the policy of the Commissioners who are nominated in the Bill, in whose hands the future of our system of higher instruction will be. This measure leaves so extensive a power in the hands of persons unconnected with this House, that it is most important that we should clearly lay down for the information of those persons why it is that we want any fresh legislation about our Universities. The object of the Bill has, in my opinion, never been so well described as by the Secretary of State for War. "This," says the right hon. Gentleman, "is not a political or theological measure. It is an academical Bill. It takes the Universities and colleges as it finds them; and its object is to give them increased life and energy." Now, Sir, how has this Bill found the Universities? What is now the special quality of our Universities? What is that peculiar excellence in their system which, whatever else we do, we must be scrupulously careful to preserve and to improve? It
    1954
    is that, what they teach, they teach with a thoroughness that has never been attained, or even approached, by any educating Body in any country in the world? Show me elsewhere the Universities, or group of Universities, that turn out annually 40 such mathematicians as the Cambridge Wranglers; 20 such scholars as the leading score of men in the Cambridge Classical Tripos; 30 young men, of equal age, who have the advantage of a culture at once so broad and so accurate as those who have appeared in the first class of the Literœ Humaniores at Oxford. This is not the boast of a blind and vulgar patriotism. I do not believe I am over stating the case when I say that the tutors of Harvard and Yale in the United States would admit that they never have had a pupil who could hold his own in Greek and Latin with the crack men of the English Universities. Now, Sir, I am not hero to plead in behalf of pure mathematics, or pure scholarship. But it is a matter of incalculable national importance that our future legislators, and administrators, and lawyers, and schoolmasters, should have a training about which there is nothing flashy or pretentious; that they should have learned betimes to work hard; to appreciate the distinction between knowing a thing and only appearing to know it; and, when they have got their knowledge, that they should be able to put it to the best advantage. But, Sir, the defect of our Universities is this—that if a man does not happen to have a turn for the special learning of the place, he loses the incalculable advantages of such a training as I have endeavoured to describe. All the emulation, all the ambition, all the energy of his comrades is turned into the channels of classical and mathematical studies. Those are the studies which confer reputation, and which are rewarded with immediate emoluments and a prospective career. Political economy, history, jurisprudence, modern languages, modern literature, the immense field of natural science—success in all these is either poorly recompensed, or is recompensed not at all. If then we desire, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, to take the Universities as we find them, and give them increased usefulness, it must be our primary object to multiply the branches of knowledge which our

    1955
    Universities are to teach, but at the same time to see that those branches are taught as thoroughly and effectively as Greek and mathematics are taught at present. In order to attain this result it is necessary that every separate branch of study should have its fair share of Scholarships and Fellowships alloted to it, in order that it may acquire that prestige which those rich rewards bestow. The ask of seeing that justice is done in this respect is left to the Commissioners who are appointed under this Bill; and I hope that some hon. Friends of mine, who may think that in some remarks which I am going soon to make, I am taking a narrow view of education, will do me the credit of noticing that I express a cordial hope that those Commissioners will make the widest use of the powers committed to them under the 1st section of the 17th clause, and will endow most generously the studies which my hon. Friends take under their protection. Once make proficiency in natural science or jurisprudence the certain avenue to University position, fame, and emolument, and natural science and jurisprudence may safely be allowed to take care of themselves. You may be sure of this, that if every year the attention of dozens of clever and ambitious young men is directed towards any given study, that study will receive a natural and an healthy impulse which you will never obtain by this newfangled, and in my opinion most pernicious device of paying people of mature age comfortable incomes on condition that they will profess to be engaged in advancing science. I do not for a moment believe that Research will really be fostered by the proposals which have found some favour within these walls, and a great deal too much favour in certain circles outside them. Our object should be to induce young men to work, and not to encourage elderly men to idle; and that idleness, not, industry, would be the infallible product of such a system, as some pamphleteers are fatuous enough to imagine that Parliament will approve, may be established by a body of evidence so great and varied that I should never venture to ask the House to endure its recital. But I will entreat hon. Members, and most earnestly entreat them, not to be dazzled by fine names, and not to be afraid of being stigmatized as enemies of culture because they enter-
    1956
    tain a suspicion of this policy which is called, and erroneously called, the endowment of Research. I entreat hon. Gentleman, before they commit themselves upon this point, to take a lesson from our experience of the past. Up to 1854, which may be regarded as the epoch when our Universities became impregnated with the new ideas of public spirit and public duty, the resident Fellows at Oxford and Cambridge did not regard themselves as under any obligation to act as teachers and trainers of the students. They looked on themselves, and were looked on by the world—and on this point I confidently appeal to hon. Members who are conversant with the literature of the past century—as people who had a right to their position and income in their capacity of being men of learning. In fact, during a period of quite two centuries and a-half the College system of Oxford and Cambridge was one vast machinery for the endowment of literature; and with what result? During this prolonged period of time, when our Colleges swarmed with hundreds of men who had full leisure and a comfortable competence, on the ground that they were devoted to letters, how much of that literature which is the glory of our country has been produced by the resident Fellows of our Colleges? If we pass over the lighter departments of letters, and confine ourselves to solid and permanent work in prose, no names will sooner occur to recollection than those of Swift and Addison, Johnson and Burke, Coleridge and Southey. Where can you find six such prose writers among the many thousand resident Follows of the Universities? I will go further, and ask where will you find one? If we take our great names in philosophy, Locke's principal works were produced either in the pressure of administrative business, or the distress of political exile. Hume was not a resident Fellow, but first a diplomatist, and then an Under Secretary of State. Adam Smith was not a resident Fellow, but first a Scotch Professor, whose income depended upon the success of his lectures, and afterwards a travelling tutor. Let us go to Theology, and take the most conspicuous works of English divinity. Butler wrote his Analogy, not as a resident Fellow, but as a working parish priest. Warburton was a working parish priest when he wrote the

    1957
    Divine Legation. Taylor was a very successful and assiduous schoolmaster during the time that he was writing the Holy Living and the Holy Dying Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity was composed when its author had upon him not only the cares of a parish, but the heavier burden of a scolding wife. And, Sir, to take a still stronger instance, there was one province of literature in which the Resident Fellows were bound to excel. It was from Cambridge and Oxford that the world had at any rate the right to expect histories of Greece and Rome that should be both erudite and readable. But what was the case? The best history of Greece was written not on the Cam or the Isis; not by any of those thousands of resident Fellows who over such a long period, had at their command the inexhaustible resources of the University libraries and of the unbroken leisure of University life; but, by a London banker, who had already, while a working Member of Parliament, obtained a wide reputation as the advocate of that system of secret voting, which, at the last General Election, led to such remarkable results upon the fortunes of the Political party which he adorned. The best history of Rome was written by a Gentleman who was first a captain of militia, and afterwards a Member of Parliament, and a Commissioner of the Board of Trade; and, indeed, when we remember the names of Gibbon and of Locke, it is no exaggeration to say that from the Board of Trade alone there has proceeded more first-class literature than has been produced by all the millions and millions of pounds which, generation after generation, were lavished at Oxford and Cambridge in maintaining a system which, till 30 years ago, could only be defended on the theory that it was the endowment of letters. But it will be said that this may be the case with literature, but that it is not the case with science. Sir, the conditions under which science is most successfully cultivated, are precisely the same as those which conduce to the successful pursuit of letters. Which are the greatest names in English physiology? Beyond all doubt they are those of Harvey, Hunter, and Jenner. During the progress of their great discoveries, they were not supported by endowments. If they had been supported by endowments, I believe those discoveries would
    1958
    never have been made. Harvey was sometimes a practising physician in London, and at other times a travelling physician; and hon. Gentlemen will recollect the anecdote of his presence at the battle of Edgehill, which indicates that his life as travelling physician was as hazardous as that of a war correspondent of modern days. Hunter was successively house-surgeon, and surgeon at St. George's Hospital, and deputy-surgeon to the Army. He practised; He took pupils, and one of those pupils was Jenner, who, himself, was first a practising surgeon, and afterwards practising physician. And, as it is with physiology, so it is with those who have extended the power of man over the material world, and who have made those vast and genuine discoveries by which the human race has profited so much, and our own country the most of all. Hargreaves, the inventor of the spinning jenny, was a working man; Arkwright began as a working man; James Watt made mathematical instruments with his own hands, until he rose first to be a practical engineer, and afterwards a manufacturer of machinery. What is Sir Joseph Whitworth? What is Sir William Armstrong? What was George Stephenson? It was on an endowment of 12s. a-week, as fireman of a stationary engine, that those powers of observation were sharpened to which the world owes the locomotive, and it was in the hard struggle of life that he perfected that marvellous common-sense which enabled him not only to found and organize our railway system, but which qualified him for a harder task still—that of discerning the limits of his own work, so that he actually spent the later years of his not too prolonged life in restraining the enthusiasm of his disciples and imitators. Zeal, thoroughness, perfect honesty of work, unsleeping accuracy and acuteness of observation, the clear and simple judgment which teaches a man to know the value of his own performance, as compared to the performances of others—these are qualities which are not of the cloister, but of the city and the factory. Whatever may be your theory about them, in practice these qualities are only found where mind clashes with mind, and where time is too precious to allow it to be wasted in trifling or dreaming. If you seek to obtain these qualities by a system of

    1959
    subsidies to researchers who will have no responsibilities, or to Professors who will have no pupils, depend upon it that you will be woefully mistaken. The Commissioners will easily find a better use for funds which they will have at their disposal. It is the genuine and laborious teachers at Oxford and Cambridge who demand your attention. The men whose class-rooms are full; whose every hour during their time is occupied; who have the confidence and the acquaintance of the young men; who manage the discipline of the Colleges, and inspire the education of the University. These men who, in exchange for a mere pittance, coupled with the obligation of celibacy, give to their calling talents which would make their fortunes at the Bar, or their fame in the Civil Service of India, come to you to ask you to make their calling a profession; to give them, in return for the devotion of their lives, fixed prospects, reasonable incomes, and the power of marrying without quitting their career. Now, Sir, arduous as the work of these gentlemen is, adequately paid as it certainly ought to be, it is work which occupies them only for half the year. The tutors and lecturers of our Colleges have now, and they always will have, ample leisure time at their command. They will have far more leisure time, let me tell my hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) and the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff), than they themselves have had to collect those stores of knowledge and experience which make me proud to be called their colleague. Well, Sir, if any of these professional teachers put their spare time to such a use that they prove themselves to be actuated by a steady and earnest passion for study and research, then let the University have the means of relieving the gentleman in question of a part of his teaching work. Let us follow the precedent which was set, and most wisely set, in the case of Mr. Max Müller. But whatever is done, let it be done most sparingly, most cautiously, under special circumstances, after special consideration, to meet a special case. Let the place be made for the man; but do not let a man have to be found in order to fill the place. We never ought to permit the creation of a number of posts, with large incomes attached; posts which must be occupied, whether there
    1960
    are men fit for them, or whether there are not. The Amendment which I have the honour to second is a protest against this House giving its sanction to the foundation of an hierarchy of sinecures and semi-sinecures—which, unless we can insert a clause in this Bill which shall radically alter human nature, can only end in academical jobbery and intellectual stagnation.
    MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENconfessed that it had been with some regret that he had observed the Amendment which his noble Friend had placed upon the Paper, and which he had brought forward that night. He thought that, when the House had a considerable measure to discuss, and when they had arrived at the last stage at which, before dealing with its details, they could discuss the whole scope and character of that measure, it was a very undesirable proceeding to single out one particular detail among many, and embody one's opinion thereupon in an Amendment upon the Speaker's leaving the Chair. Such a course had certainly one advantage—namely, that it enabled the Gentleman who adopted it to make a particular speech at a particular moment; but, among many counterbalancing disadvantages there was this one—that even those who might agree with the Mover of the Amendment as to his particular point might feel bound to vote against him, because otherwise they might prejudice and imperil the Bill. And the noble Lord had, indeed, done worse than select a detail of the Bill. He had only fastened upon one particular thing, which might or might not be an incidental result of the passing of this Bill; and with respect to that particular thing offered the House an abstract Resolution, which appeared to him (Mr. Knatch-bull-Hugessen) entirely out of place. As his noble Friend would certainly not divide, and there could be no practical result from his Amendment, he could not help saying, if he might venture to say so without offence, that the Amendment of his noble Friend appeared to him something much better suited to the Oxford or Cambridge debating societies than to the more practical arena of the House of Commons. He granted that it would not be so under different circumstances. If the Government had thought fit to proceed by Resolution in this matter—if they had said—"We

    1961
    will ask the House to affirm certain propositions, which shall be in the form of directions to the Commissioners as to the principles upon which they should proceed in dealing with College property and College statutes—what they should do, and what they should refrain from doing"—then the noble Lord's proposition would have been relevant and apposite. But, inasmuch as the Government had taken quite a different course, and had proposed to give broad and almost boundless powers to the Commissioners to do everything, it appeared to him idle to occupy the time of the House in the discussion of the question whether or not it was desirable that in one particular branch of their action they should move to the right hand or to the left. He declined, therefore, to be debarred by his noble Friend's course from his right of making some observations upon the general features of this Bill. And yet, out of respect to the ability of the two speeches just delivered, he would say one word upon their particular topic, if only to excuse himself from entering more closely into it. It seemed to him that the question of the Professoriate was essentially one rather for Commissioners than for the House of Commons. He was inclined to think that some extension of the system might be desirable; but what precise form it should take—whether it should be large or not, and what special branches of learning it should embrace—these he held to be questions which could only be decided by men upon the spot, carefully inquiring into the merits and the demerits, the advantages and the shortcomings of the present system—calling to their aid men well versed in the art of tuition and skilled in University education—and then, upon a review of the whole case, judging upon a fair balance of evidence what was the best course to be adopted in the interests of the Universities and of those for whose education the Universities existed. The argument of his hon. Friend who had just sat down was not so much against the Professoriate as against all University endowments, and it went to show that persons could get a very good education without going to the University at all, and that distinction in arts and in inventions was not confined to University men. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend. He would further observe upon this point—
    1962
    especially as it would again be discussed in Committee—that in any extension of the Professoriate He would lay down two canons. First—that if it was to be useful, it must be made with the concurrence and good-will of the Colleges, and not in spite of them. If they were willing to engraft it upon their educational system it might succeed; but if it was forced upon them against their will, nothing but failure would ensue. Secondly—he would say that an extension of the Professoriate need not, ought not, and must not be made, under any circumstances, at the expense of that system of tutorial teaching in Colleges which had proved of such immense advantage to University education. And now he would offer a few remarks upon the general scope and character of the Bill. He owned that he had been surprised at the equanimity and even approbation by which it had been received by the great Party opposite. It was not so in 1854, although the Bill then introduced was of a much more gentle character. The Preamble of that Bill had stated that it was "desirable for the advancement of religion and learning to give greater powers to the Colleges and Universities to alter their statutes," and so forth. Well, that Bill was not received with complete confidence. A noble Friend of his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's), who now occupied a prominent position in the Government of which he was one of the most respected Members, made his maiden speech upon that Bill. He "deeply regretted that no Member of weight would divide against the second reading;" He protested against "squandering the endowments of the various founders;" and, with a spirit which was really prophetic, foretold that "some future Ministry, with the word Conservative on its lips, but destruction in its hands, would drive home the wedge now introduced," and further attack these endowments. There was another Gentleman who said upon the same occasion that "the portion of the Bill which dealt with the property of the Colleges was neither more nor less than an appropriation clause," and would lead to further attacks on that property. The two speakers to whom he referred were Lord Salisbury and Lord Beaconsfield, and it seemed as if they were now about to fulfil their own prophecies. For this Bill had a much more severe

    1963
    character than that of 1854. Under its provisions Colleges might be "required" against their will to contribute from their property to University purposes — their Fellowships and emoluments might be attached to University offices—the tenure of their Fellowships might be changed; their statutes altered and amended until there was nothing left of them, and all at the bidding of seven Gentlemen appointed by Parliament. If this had been proposed a few years ago by Gentlemen now sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House, it would have awakened the wildest dismay and the most profound disgust in every well-regulated Conservative breast. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) fancied he heard the loud voice of the Secretary at War, declaiming in vehement tones, and amid the ringing cheers of his Friends behind him, denouncing it as a measure fraught with the principles of spoliation, confiscation, and every other "ation" which could emphasize his opposition. But a wonderful change had come over the spirit of the dreams of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That which would have been wild, wicked, and revolutionary in the hands of a Liberal Ministry, was discovered, in the hands of a Tory Administration, to be nothing more than a wise and salutary measure of reform. He had pondered deeply over the mystery of this change, and thought he had solved the problem. The approbation of the Party opposite was based upon their confidence in the names of those Commissioners in whom such large powers were to be vested. He would say nothing about the Cambridge Commissioners, because he knew but little of that University. But with regard to the Oxford Commission, he thought the Conservative confidence fully justified, for no one could look at the names which were to compose that Commission without feeling at once that from them no rash or hasty changes were to be feared, and no ruthless interference either with College property or with College prejudices to be apprehended. In fact, when the Commissioners had finished their labours, it was probable that no one would be found to say that they had done those things which they ought not to have done, although it was possible there might be a whisper to the effect that they had left
    1964
    undone those things which they ought to have done. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) discerned an element of danger in that very constitution of the Committee which gave confidence to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. For, if these Commissioners were cautious where courage was necessary, if they trod lightly upon the threshold of Reform where a bold step in advance was desirable, and if they bathed and bandaged wounds which required the keen knife and fearless hand of the skilful operator, the result might be that they would leave work for future Parliaments and future Commissioners which might have to be done at a moment when public opinion was less favourable to the Universities than at present. The criticism passed upon the names in the Bill of last year by his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London obviated the necessity of his saying more than a few words upon that head. The first name was one which commanded universal respect—namely, that of Lord Selborne. Lord Selborne had two claims upon his (Mr. Knatch-bull-Hugessen's) respect—one in the fact of his having held high office under the last Government, the other, which he felt even more strongly, in the circumstance of his being a member and fellow of his own old College. Speaking as a Liberal and reformer, He could not help saying, however—if he might do so without offence — that there was about the Liberalism of his noble and learned Friend an ecclesiastical tinge, so to speak, which made it doubtful whether he could be considered an exact representative of Liberal opinion upon those particular matters with which he would have to deal as a Commissioner. The class of questions which would come before him touched upon the only points in which he had sometimes differed from the Liberal Party; and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) considered him as bringing to the Commission at least as much of a Conservative as a Liberal element. Still, he could not view otherwise than with a satisfaction, which would be generally shared, the presence upon the Commission of a man of such high character and ability as his noble and learned Friend, and he regarded his nomination by the present Government with the more pleasure as a tacit acknowledgment on their part of

    1965
    their sense of the fatuous folly of which the University—or rather the non-resident portion — had once been guilty in throwing away the opportunity of sending so eminent a man to Parliament as their representative. There was only one other name to which he felt bound to make allusion for a special reason, although he feared he should appear to be speaking by anticipation against an Amendment to be moved by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) for the appointment of the Head of St. John's, Cambridge. The name he referred to was that of Dr. Bellamy, the Head of St. John's College, Oxford. Dr. Bellamy was an excellent and amiable man. If he were not so he would be au unworthy son of his father, the former master of Merchant Taylor's School, who possessed a rare combination of all the good qualities which made human nature excellent. The House would therefore understand that he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) did not object to Dr. Bellamy upon any personal grounds. He would be ashamed of himself if he objected upon any political grounds. But he wished to put it to the House that the Head of a College ought not to be upon this Commission. The Head of a College was specially bound to protect the property of that College against all comers, whether they wished to touch it for University purposes or for any other reason. The Head of a College ought not, therefore, to be upon a Commission, the chief object of which was to overhaul College property. Moreover, the objection was still more grave if the Bill was to pass as it stood. The Head of St. John's College would have three of his own Fellows added to the Commission when they came to deal with his College property. He had only to gain over one of his six brother Commissioners under this Bill in order to ensure that no change objected to by his College would be carried, save, in any event, by so small a majority as to deprive the decision of the Commission of much of its weight. St. John's was one of the richest Colleges in Oxford, and there might be questions between it and other Colleges in which it would have an undue advantage by being represented by its Head upon the Commission. Taking up the Returns, for instance, he found under the head of expenditure, that while Magdalen contributed £1,200 a-year to
    1966
    University Professors, St. John's contributed nothing. The point might be easily susceptible of explanation; but if upon points between College and College St. John's had the advantage of the presence of its Head upon the Commission, decisions favourable to its views might not give general satisfaction. In view of this state of things, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had given Notice of Amendments which should make the representatives of the Colleges chosen under the Bill, assessors and not Commissioners; and although he would not for a moment propose to omit the name of Dr. Bellamy from the Commission, he hoped that the Commission might be enlarged by the addition of some of those names which were about to be proposed by some of his hon. Friends near him. But when he was speaking of the possible extent of alterations which might be, or which ought to be, recommended or required by the Commissioners under this Bill, he wished to protest against the tone of certain observations which had been made with respect to what Oxford had done for herself, and what the Colleges had done for themselves, during the last quarter of a century. It was with the deepest regret that he had heard it said that the standard for a degree at Oxford was absolutely low. He must venture to express very strongly an entirely contrary opinion. He had been assured by those who were fully competent to speak upon this subject that a degree at Oxford was at that moment at least as difficult as any other in the United Kingdom, and there was no doubt that the standard had been considerably raised since 1853. Well—let them deal with this question at close quarters. There were three kinds of Undergraduates at Oxford—those who read for and obtained honours, those who took a pass degree, and those who left the University without any degree at all. The latter constituted but a small proportion of the whole number, and considerably more than half of the whole Undergraduate University read for honours. Now, reading for honours, as a matter of fact, implied reading more and reading harder than if you read for a pass; and anyone who asked him to believe the contrary, asked him to believe that which a long and continuous knowledge of Undergraduate life at Oxford taught him to be contrary to the facts. A comparison

    1967
    of the number of men who had come out first, second, third, or fourth class respectively, in recent years, would show a considerable majority in the three first; and no one who had looked into the question could doubt that the number of Undergraduates who now-a-days read for honours, was much greater in proportion than it was 20 years ago. Now, if that was a desirable state of things, to whose action was it attributable? Why, to the action of the Colleges themselves, and to the tutors within those Colleges. It was well-known that the tutors, as a rule, were always urging their pupils to read for honours, and more than that, several of the Colleges, and among them notably two of the very best—University and Balliol—would only admit young men within their walls upon the express understanding that they would read for honours. Those Colleges stood high in public estimation—admission into them was eagerly sought; and, as far as any one could see, there seemed no probability whatever that in the time to come there would be any lack of young men ready to strive for the highest University distinctions. But, at this point, he wished the House of Commons to put this question to themselves—What was it that they desired Oxford to be? If they wished it to be nothing more nor less than a manufactory of scholars, in which the highest perfection in scholarship was to be obtained, then, by all means, raise the standard of their degrees and insure that nothing but the purest gold of scholarship should pass through your academical crucible. But the inevitable result would be that they would drive away from Oxford, and send to other seminaries of inferior character, a vast number of young men who would not be able to face the severity of your ordeal. Was that desirable? Was that wise? Was that the legitimate and only purpose of their English Universities? Oxford — and Cambridge too—had hitherto been something more than mere manufactories of scholars — they had been the great halting-places of the youth of England upon their passage from the public schools of England to their entrance upon the active business of life. The three years of University life in which a young man, freed from the closer and stricter discipline of school, emerged into life still under some controlling discipline, and gradually felt the strength
    1968
    of his wings before he was altogether obliged to fly alone—those years, he said, had been of inestimable advantage to many and many a young man who had never aspired to University honours; and thousands of young men, reading only for an ordinary or pass degree, had thereby acquired an amount of knowledge and a power of thought and habit of study, which had stood them in good stead in after life. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) spoke feelingly upon the subject, for he represented the Passmen that night, and after his obligations to Eton, he owed everything to Oxford and to Oxford teaching. And he could not understand or sympathize with men who forgot what they owed to their public school and their University. It gave him the deepest pain and sorrow when he heard of men who had benefited much by their connection with Eton, for instance, taking opportunities to institute comparisons, unnecessary, and, he must add, unjust, between Eton and other schools, to the disparagement and disadvantage of Eton, and when he heard others speaking of Oxford, as if Oxford had done nothing to adapt herself to the spirit of the times. The effect upon him was not only to give him pain and sorrow, but to stimulate and increase the gratitude and affection which he should always entertain towards Eton and Oxford. The condition of things which had hitherto prevailed at Oxford and Cambridge, had caused associations to spring up between the youth of England and the English Universities which had been equally creditable and advantageous to both. Did the House wish to put an end to this state of things by raising the standard of the degree so high as to deter great numbers from the attempt to obtain it? Moreover, it was not the class which constituted the one great good to be gained at Oxford. He had recently seen a letter of which he had intended to read a portion to the House, but, having omitted to bring it with him, he must quote from memory. It was from a tutor of one of the Colleges at Oxford to a young man of exemplary and excellent character, just now about to go into the schools, and who, as the tutor thought, was too anxious about his class. The tutor began by saying that, as far as the College authorities were concerned, this young man, by his con-

    1969
    duct and example, had done such good work for the College, that it would not grudge it if he left without taking any class at all. But he went on to say —and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) thought the words full of good sense—that it was the education, and not the class, for which a young man came to Oxford—that the class was only the evidence to show that good work had been done; that as in every match there was always luck, so there was luck in the class-list, and that there was something more valuable than a class to be gained in an University career. He quite agreed with this opinion; and if he thought that the result of this Bill would be to heighten the standard of degrees at Oxford, so as to lessen the number of young men who would seek an University education, he would not be found among its supporters. Having stated generally that Oxford had done much for herself, he wished to give the House a particular instance within his own personal knowledge. He had kept up his connection with Oxford—he was frequently there, and he felt it a duty to make himself personally acquainted with matters of which he spoke in that House. He wished to speak of his own old College, Magdalen. He was sorry to say it was nearly 30 years since he first went to Oxford, and nearly 27 years since He took his degree. He was one of a class which ought never to have existed—the class of gentleman commoners. At that time there were 4 or 5 gentleman commoners and 12 or 15 undergraduate scholars or demies. He was bound to say that the gentleman commoners, though pleasant enough as companions, did very little good to themselves, and probably considerable harm to the scholars. They lived idle, careless lives; and, during his time, he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was the only one of them who took a degree at all. But what had happened since? Very shortly after he left the University—he hoped the House would not trace any connection between the two events—the order of gentleman commoners was abolished. If you went to Magdalen now, you found, under the able government of the learned, amiable, and excellent President, Dr. Bulley, about 100 Undergraduates belonging to Magdalen, commoners and scholars, an efficient staff of tutors, and a fair quota of candidates for honours regularly
    1970
    supplied to the schools. Moreover, you had this fact—that the Undergraduates at Magdalen could, and did, live comfortably at a rate which, compared with the other Colleges of the University, was cheaper than many, and, he believed, as cheap as any of them. But what had Magdalen really done? She abolished gentleman commoners before the first University Bill. She had taken commoners as he had mentioned. She had raised the stipend of her scholars from £75—the minimum required by her ordinance—to £100. She had thrown open her clerkships and choristerships to public competition. She had improved her three grammar schools—at Oxford, Brackley, and Waynflete—and raised the stipend of the Masters. The Magdalen School, indeed, had furnished more youths who had obtained University distinctions than almost any similar school in the country. All this she had done without compulsion. Then, as regarded Professorships. By her ordinance Magdalen was to furnish four Professorships—two at once, and two "ultimately." Anticipating that indefinite time, Magdalen had offered to provide the two other Professorships after 1879, increasing their value by annexing to them a Fellowship, and suggesting that instead of "mineralogy" and "physical geography," they should deal with subjects more suitable to the present requirements of the University. Then, again, as to "unattached students." The Master of Balliol, always foremost in works of reform and improvement, had lately a notice for discussion by the Hebdomadal Council "that provision be made for the tuition of the unattached students, and for buildings appropriated to their use." This notice had been deferred; but it had been anticipated by Magdalen. In 1873, after the report of a College Committee, Magdalen resolved that two lecturers to the unattached students should be appointed at £200 a-year each. The delegates of unattached students recognized this as a "very liberal and thoughtful offer on the part of Magdalen College, but declined it on the ground that they did not wish to seem to place their students upon an eleemosynary footing." Failing this plan, Magdalen had been thrown back upon her own resources, and at this moment was forming plans for aiding poor scholars

    1971
    and increasing generally her educational efficiency. What Magdalen had done, other Colleges doubtless had done, or were willing to do, according to their powers of improvement, and his object in mentioning what had been done at Magdalen was to show that there existed a willing spirit on the part of the Colleges to carry out necessary reforms. They were naturally desirous, however, to do a great deal for themselves; and he therefore hailed with satisfaction the words of the 16th clause, which provided that in the proceedings of the Commissioners "regard should first be had to the wants of the several Colleges themselves for educational and other Collegiate purposes." Whether the Commission was increased or not, they would have to deal with willing agencies in their great work. It might be said to him, if everything had been going on so well—"Why do you want any University Bill at all?" The question was natural, but his answer would be twofold. First, that although much had been done, more required to be done; and secondly, that to do it well and effectually, legislative assistance was required. And it was well for the Universities that these reforms should be carried out in the broad light of day, under a Parliamentary Commission, so that public opinion should see and approve what was done. As far as he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was concerned, he believed that, with regard to many Colleges at Oxford, this would not be a compelling, but an enabling measure, and that it would not be the Commissioners who would compel the College authorities, but the College authorities who would urge forward the Commissioners upon the path of reform. And in spite of an expression which recently fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he gladly hailed his support of a Bill which brought the national power to bear upon College property. The expression to which he alluded was uttered when his right hon. Friend spoke of the duty of the Commissioners being with regard to domestic matters. In his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) opinion—and, he ventured to say, in the opinion of all those who sat around him—this was not a domestic, but a national matter—they desired to see the Universities more truly national—in the scope of their influence, in the classes upon
    1972
    whom that influence should be brought to bear, and in the removal of restrictions which now limited their action as National Institutions. And when his right hon. Friend persuaded his Friends to support this measure which dealt with College property, he felt that his advocacy of the Bill was only part of the task which, in common with the noble Earl at the head of the Government, he was performing with marked ability—namely, the task of teaching the Members of the great Party behind him that they could be perfectly good Tories after they had abjured, one by one, all the old principles of Toryism. He wished his right hon. Friend "God speed" in the task. He rejoiced to see a healthy tone of progress pervade every school of English political life. He congratulated hon. Gentlemen opposite on their support of a Bill which would forward the application of College property to purposes of University education; and He hoped and believed that the ultimate result of that Bill would be that the resources both of Colleges and Universities would be developed; that the traditions of exclusiveness and restriction would die away and be forgotten; and that Oxford and Cambridge, more and more imbued with a large, broad, liberal, and national spirit, would be known henceforward more than ever as National Institutions, closely identified and intimately associated with all that tended to guide and lead forward the youth of England upon the path of enlightened and progressive improvement.
    MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he was very glad to hear that part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he vindicated the credit of Oxford examinations and the intelligence of pass-men from the attack of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London. He was also pleased to hear him vindicate the fair fame of Magdalen, which had appointed lecturers and made provision for unattached students. But he could not help thinking that, after all, the speech was open to the observation which the right hon. Gentleman had applied to some others, that it was more fitted for a debating society than for the House of Commons. It was certainly by no means calculated to advance the measure when made on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair. He (Mr. Mowbray) recollected that happened in 1851. A

    1973
    discussion arose on the Bill going into Committee on the 19th April, and it was not until the end of June that the labours of the House on the Bill came to an end. He was prepared to assent to both propositions of his noble Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmund's; but they included subjects which could be most fitly considered in Committee, and it would be a great misfortune to press the Amendment at present. He never regarded it as the object of the Bill to provide for more than a moderate increase of the Professoriate, but they were indebted to the noble Lord for calling attention to the great increase which had been suggested. Since 1854, at Oxford the staff had been increased to 41 Professors and 14 assistants and readers, and it had been suggested that there should be 37 new Professors, and that the salaries should be raised until the aggregate income required would be £47,000, which was equivalent to the interest on a capital of £1,200,000. He was desirous that the main object of the Bill should be carried out. Therefore, he implored the House that they might be allowed as soon as possible to go into Committee, when the details of the Bill might be so modified as to render it acceptable to all parties. The speeches that had been made were appropriate to that stage, and the consideration of the details involved in the clauses.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: Sir, the speeches of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), are together the best vindication that could have been offered for the Motion which has been put upon the Paper by the noble Lord. I do not say that they would justify him in proceeding to a division, of which he has not given us a sign, and which the assurances which we have received from the Treasury Bench will render unnecessary. Now, who has raised this question of a large increase of the Professoriate? Inside this House it has only appeared fitfully and at long intervals for the last two Sessions; but outside the House, at Cambridge, still more at Oxford, in London in the daily and weekly newspapers, in the smoking rooms of the Clubs, in combination, and in common rooms, it has been a common topic of discussion, while we all know that a large and an inordinate
    1974
    increase of the Professoriate is demanded by a party, not very numerous, but respectable and powerful by reason of the zeal, energy, and genius of those who belong to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sandwich says — "Why raise this question now? The Commissioners are omnipotent!" That is the very reason why we should raise the question. If the Commissioners are to be all-powerful, I trust that they may also be all-wise—at least, wise within the ordinary limits that may be anticipated from an ex-Chancellor, a Head of a House, and Senior Wranglers, Judges, and other eminent individuals. Being Englishmen, and not Germans or French, they will, of course, proceed to legislate according to practical circumstances and the feeling of the country, according to what has already been done, and not according to their own à priori prepossessions. And what, I ask, can be so valuable as an instruction to the Commission, so to speak, or rather an expression of opinion on the part of this House, elicited in one of those quiet discussions which are apt to take place before you, Sir, leave the Chair—discussions on which the fate of a Bill does not turn, and which are free from that Party heat which so sorely besets debates on the second reading of Bills introduced by a Government? Now, though my right hon. Friend has put in a pro formâ protest against the Motion of the noble Lord, his speech was the best vindication I have yet heard for again opening this question. The Motion has elicited from him what he terms his "two canons;" which I accept and subscribe to with hearty assent and consent. But for the Motion of my noble Friend he might have had to bring forward those canons at some dead hour of the Committee, 9 or 10 at night, when a mere handful of Members were present, and the debates were only summarised in the Gallery. Thanks to the Motion of my noble Friend, we have been enabled to hear from the opposite bench those sound, moderate, and able arguments against the extravagances of the Research claim from the right hon. Member for Sandwich. With some inconsistency, however, after dwelling at some length on the boundless powers of the Commissioners, when he reached the close of his speech my right hon. Friend forgot what he had said at the beginning, and told

    1975
    us that in face of those boundless powers with which he credited the Commissioners, it was, after all, only an enabling Bill. But when, having described it as only an enabling Bill, he went on to tax us with abandoning our Toryism by giving it our support, he not only justifies our action, but he gives by implication the best definition of what are the true principles of Toryism. Toryism is "enabling" people to do what is right for themselves, and not dictating it to them in virtue of your own enlightenment. I accept this Bill, therefore, as an enabling Bill, and I look to this its character as the best vindication of us Tories for giving it our approval. Then my right hon. Friend played a little upon "approbation" and "cordial approbation." I give the Bill my "approbation" now—it may have my "cordial approbation" or not, when I have seen how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War deals with the various proposals made in Committee, and when I see the form in which the Bill leaves Committee. In making this reservation, however, I trust and believe that the Government, who have conducted the measure so far with so much temper and moderation, will not fail at the critical period. Then, my right hon. Friend opposite made reference to the endowment of Research, which we know has been the watchword of an extreme party in the Universities. All of us who take any interest in this question must have read more or less of that clever volume of essays which Mr. Mark Patti-son of Jesus College, Oxford, has published. In the face of that manifesto it is idle to complain of those who have felt some concern when the Government brought forward a measure comprising proposals for the endowment of Research, without any very definite limitations of their scope. Into that question, however, I shall enter more fully when we get into Committee; and I think I shall be able to show, if necessary, that this cry for the endowment of Research is based on ignorance of the shape into which the growth of civilization has cast our Universities. In the Middle Ages, to which so frequent an appeal is made by the Research party, the Universities, as schools of progressive learning, were all in all. In the present age we have Research, properly so called, relegated
    1976
    to special organizations, and so there are Royal Societies, Museums, and other institutions of the kind, preferentially located in the capital, as the spot in which needful experiments and investigations can most conveniently take place, while the Universities have become, so to speak, assimilating bodies—those which convey the researches of the Academies as food into the minds of the students. So much, then, as to the last years' phase of the discussion. I am glad to pass from it, and to believe that we have not to dissect the endowment of Research as the main practical question of debate. Last Session we might have had to do so; but men's minds are clearer now, and many things have happened since then. My right hon. Friend next dwelt upon the constitution of the Commission, and I must say that he seems rather hard to please. His chief grievance appears to have been that a Gentleman who had belonged to the Government of which he himself was a Member had been selected as Chairman of the Oxford Commission. Why, if Lord Selborne had been a thoroughgoing, red-hot old Tory to the backbone my right hon. Friend could not have criticized him with more apparent contempt. Then he said, with regard to Dr. Bellamy, the Head of St. John's College, Oxford, that, whatever might be his merits, from the fact of his being the Head of a College, he was not well fitted to be on this Commission. I noted the words of my right hon. Friend at the moment he uttered them, and I take for granted that the argument which he has used against the retention of the Head of St. John's College, Oxford, on the Commission, will influence him to vote against his noble Leader (the Marquess of Hartington) when he comes to propose that Dr. Bateson, the Head of St. John's College, Cambridge, shall be added to the Cambridge Commission. For whatever is true officially of Dr. Bellamy, of St. John's College, Oxford, a most distinguished man, must be equally true of Dr. Bateson, of St. John's College, Cambridge, who also is equally a very eminent man. I do not argue for or against either Commission, but there must be one measure for both, with those who make a principle of the presence or the absence of Heads of Houses on it, as I decline to do. If you object to the Head of St.

    1977
    John's, Oxford, why not do so to the Head of St. John's, Cambridge? Then, my right hon. Friend harked back to the days of his own Undergraduateship, and tells us that he had been a gentleman commoner, and that gentlemen commoners have since been abolished, as if the once existence of that class of men was in some way an argument for an extensive reform of the Universities. But what has that to do with the question? I, too, was a Fellow Commoner at Cambridge with the late Lord Lyttelton—the senior classic of his year —also with Mr. Bouverie, whose career at Trinity College was one of great distinction. Before my time the present Chancellor of Cambridge, the Duke of Devonshire, who was almost Senior Wrangler, was a Fellow Commoner. In later years Lord Rayleigh, another of the Cambridge Commissioners, also Senior Wrangler, was of the same order. My hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) much weakened his argument by that picturesque catalogue of members of the Board of Trade and other public bodies who, though unendowed, had greatly distinguished themselves in the field of literature. This catalogue, taken as an argument, was weak, for it proceeded on the principle of recapitulating all our most eminent men who were not resident University men, and of omitting those who were; and I could not help thinking, when he said that the great History of Greece had come from Lombard Street and the History of Rome from the Board of Trade, that he might have added that the great History of England had come from the pen of a University man, who was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
    MR. TREVELYAN: But he was not a Resident Fellow; that was my argument.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: But the hon. Member might have turned his thoughts no further than to the chapel of that great College to which we both belonged, and have recollected that that one apartment contained the remains or the memorials of Newton, of Barrow, of Bentley, of Porson, of Whewell, of Sedgwick; all Trinity men; all residents in the University; and all great names in English literature. Now, my right hon. Friend the Member for the sister University has invited us to go into
    1978
    Committee; and, I say, let us go into Committee. But as this question has been wisely raised by my noble Friend, we should not be doing justice to it; we should rather be misunderstood by those in the country whose minds have been exercised—and justly exercised—by the extravagant theories and pretensions of the Professoriate party, if we did not appeal to the Government, as I do now, to assure us, as I am confident they will do, that anything like compliance with the claims of these ideologists is the last thing they are thinking of either in the choice of Commissioners or in the scope which they forecast for the Bill. Let us be told that, though not so much for our own comfort and consolation as for that of the large body of University men out-of-doors who will look at the columns of the papers to-morrow morning with peculiar interest. Then, my noble Friend may safely withdraw his Motion, and we may proceed to discuss the clauses of the measure.
    MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he had not intended to take any part in the debate, but the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) obliged him to say a few words. His hon. Friend was entirely mistaken if he supposed him to have anything in common with those of whom he spoke as purposing to devote a large part of the revenues of the University to paying comfortable incomes to men of mature age for "saying" that they were prosecuting science. The two chief University reforms which he had advocated were — first, that the education given should be wider and more in accordance with modern requirements; and, secondly, that it should be possible to obtain at Oxford instruction in all those subjects in which instruction could be obtained at the other great Universities of the world. That would, no doubt, be an indirect endowment of research, but surely it was not one to which his hon. Friend would object. He was quite sure he would not object to anything of the kind, and that there was little or no difference of opinion between them. As for the noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Lord Francis Hervey), he hailed him, too, as an ally, but in a very different way. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs made a serious speech, as he always did. The noble Lord's little deliverance,

    1979
    which might have won him what the French call a succès d' estime if delivered as a maiden speech at the "Union," could be best answered by an anecdote. There was a temperance lecturer who travelled about the country with his brother. An old acquaintance met the pair in a town of the North of England, and said to the brother—"I understand William is coming to lecture about temperance; but what are you doing here?"
    Oh! "said the man, "I travel with my brother as the shocking example.' Now, the noble Lord was his "shocking example." He could not wish for a better. He never opened his mouth without showing what a poor, schoolboy sort of training might be sometimes given by a great school and by a great College in a great University. If this question of the reform of the Universities were one which was susceptible of treatment at public meetings, he should be delighted to pay the noble Lord something handsome to be allowed to carry him about as his "shocking example." But it was not worth spending more time over the noble Lord, and he rose chiefly to make it clear to his hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs that there was little difference, if any, between their respective views, and he trusted that in Committee they would be found voting together on all occasions.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was desirous of recalling the attention of the House to the immediate question before it. It appeared to him that the whole discussion was somewhat unreal, whilst they confined themselves to this small abstract question, and that they ought to recollect that the Colleges at the present time were in a state of considerable and anxious suspense as to the result of their deliberations upon the general principles of the Bill itself. During the last few years the Colleges had been anxious in providing their deficiencies with regard to the Professors, and in doing so to select gentlemen with the best qualifications. Since the Bill had been read a second time the study of Biology had been added by two of the Colleges of Cambridge, and that was a proof that the authorities of the Universities were anxious to consult the wishes of those who desired the enlargement of the course of study. The Colleges would contribute in a large degree towards the required funds, and they wished to know
    1980
    how the money was to be spent. They wished to be represented in that body which would have to distribute the funds, and it was well worth considering how such a body could be framed as would satisfy the natural fears of those bodies who would be called on to contribute, and be heard in the distribution of their property; and this he said, as from his official position he could not take part in any discussion which might arise in Committee.
    MR. LOWEsaid, that as he had already protested in vain against dealing with this question without previous investigation, he would go no further into that point, but he wanted to draw the attention of the House to the practical working of the measure. The object of the Bill was mainly to take away the administration of large sums of money from one class of corporation and give it to another. Looking at it in that simple point of view, he wished to put it to the House as a matter well worthy of their consideration, how the money that was to be taken away was now employed, and how far they could judge it would be better employed when it reached its new destination, so that they might see whether the Bill would really or not tend to the advancement of learning and knowledge. The revenue of the Colleges were mainly expended in maintaining the fabrics, and keeping up their estates, and doing something towards giving assistance to tuition, and when all those purposes were exhausted they were devoted to the foundation of Scholarships and Fellowships. A good deal might, of course, be said against spending so much money as was spent in that way; but an immense deal more might be said in its favour. It was no doubt true that much money was devoted to sinecures; but then that was an essential condition of their being prizes. A man would not work and labour to get a thing if he was still to work when he had attained it; and he could imagine no money being better spent in the Universities than that which was devoted to Fellowships and Scholarships. They could, however, increase the number of Professorships ad infinitum, and yet produce nothing more than they had at present; but the present system had the advantage of doing what it professed to do. In the first place, it was singularly effective, producing competi-

    1981
    tion, exertion, and knowledge. Another advantage of the existing system was that not merely did the money devoted to Scholarships find its way into the hands of deserving persons who worked hard for it, but it enabled many industrious men who were poor to go to the University, and thus opened to them careers which raised them out of the position in which circumstances had placed them. Then as to Fellowships—they were apt to grumble at them as sinecures, but it was a system which raised the standard of acquirement by encouraging men to compete for prizes which enabled them to enter professions in which they might win distinction, and it did so just at the moment when they needed such aid and encouragement. It enabled a young man to take his first step in life, always the most difficult step, and it gave that great help to those who best deserved it, and he could not imagine any way in which money could be better expended. And what was to be done under the Bill which was to be so much more beneficial in the aiding of science and literature and the promotion of merit? The money required to carry out the objects of the Bill must be taken mainly from Fellowships and Scholarships. It was not very easy to say what was to be done with this money in future. The Preamble of the Bill declared that—
    "The revenues of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are not adequate to the full discharge of the duties incumbent upon them respectively."
    It was desirable and convenient, he thought, that the House should know what those duties were. The Preamble further stated that—
    "It is therefore expedient that provision be made for enabling or requiring the Colleges in the respective University to contribute more largely out of their revenues to University purposes, especially with a view to further and better instruction in art, science, and other branches of learning, where the same are not adequately taught in the Universities."
    Did this mean by the Universities or by the Colleges of which the Universities were composed? because no such thing as efficient teaching by the Universities had an existence. Efficient teaching was given by the Colleges, and he protested against a proposal to take money from the Colleges, which did much, in order to give it to the Universities,
    1982
    which did nothing. In the time of Abelard and Duns Scotus, when there was no printing, men repaired to the Universities in order to sit at the feet of learned men who had studied all branches of knowledge, but now printed books had to a very great extent superseded Professors, and he wished to know what prospect there was of any good being done by transferring the money from the Colleges to the Universities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the -University of Oxford (Mr. Mow-bray) had stated that there were 41 Professors in the University which he represented, but they taught next to nothing. Did they want more? What was required was not an increase in the number of the Professoriate, but a reform in the management and a re-organization of the present very ample staff. It was not likely that at Oxford, where the system consisted of examinations and the necessary preparations for them, men would go to the Professors when they had their College tutors and any number of private tutors and coaches who were available. What peculiar charm lay in the word University that should induce Parliament to further endow institutions bearing the name? What had the Universities done; and what might and ought they to have done? They ought to have a very strict examination for all candidates desiring admission. They had no such thing as a matter of fact; and this necessarily tended to drag down the system of teaching, for no one could defend a state of things under which men of eminent learning were engaged in imparting knowledge which ought to have been given in elementary schools. If a strict preliminary examination were insisted upon, it would become more necessary for the managers of the schools which supplied students to the Universities, for their own credit's sake, to properly prepare the pupils who desired to pass into the Universities. His right hon. Friend the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was displeased with him for having described the degrees at Oxford as disgracefully low. Notwithstanding this, he ventured to repeat the statement, and to cite, as an authority in support of what he said, Mr. Mark Pattison, of Lincoln College, who had made it clear that the teaching in the Universities was simply disgraceful; and, in conclusion, he ventured to

    1983
    say that the principle on which the Bill was based was wrong in that it would have the effect of taking money which was now admirably expended and employing it in circumstances under which it could not possibly retain its usefulness.
    MR. BALFOURobjected to the argument of the right hon. Member for the University of London, and was unable to see upon what ground the University was more bound to support young men who were studying for the professions than any other corporate body, especially seeing that the funds of the founders were never intended to go in that direction. The advantages of a University life consisted in the associations formed there. He thought that one objection to the present system might be found in the wholesale way in which the University prizes, in the form of Fellowships, were distributed—a system which did not tend to procure the best men for Professorial work. He was not satisfied how far the system of giving prizes tended to stimulate the education of the young, because certainly the greater number of young men would gain just as much knowledge if no prizes at all were given. Another of the evils of the present system was that it interfered with the energy and choice of the men engaged in University work. At present College Lecturers were extremely bad paid, and there was no way of remedying it. As to the object of a University, which his noble Friend had classically called "the cultivation of the Muses," it was certain that the amount of original work performed by the residents in our English Universities was utterly disproportionate to that which was accomplished by the residents at the Scotch and German Universities; but he believed that by introducing the systems adopted in the latter, under which a resident was constantly stimulated to fresh efforts, and was able to attain a fair competence and to marry, our Universities would turn out as much original work as those to which he had referred.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not help asking himself why this Amendment had been interposed in the way of this Bill, which he earnestly hoped would pass; and he had been much puzzled to find an answer to his query, until the matter had been explained by the speeches of the hon.
    1984
    Member who had just sat down and of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). The fact was, that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge and the hon. Member for the borough of Hertford (Mr. Balfour) were fighting over the body of the Marquess of Salisbury. This question as to the Professorships and the Fellowships was raised in a celebrated speech. of the noble Marquess, which contained a violent denunciation of idle Fellowships, and much of the dislike to and prejudice against this Bill were due to the use of that phrase. The language of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge showed that he was anxious to reconcile this Bill with his Conservative principles, though he was afraid that the interpretation He placed upon it was rather strained. When the principles of this Bill were first introduced to public notice, they were as distinctly coercive as it was possible to conceive. They were to sweep out the old cobwebs of idle Fellowships, and erect in their place the endowment of Research. For his own part, his opinion lay between the two extremes; he was not an enemy to idle Fellowships, which he thought were an immense advantage to learning in many cases, because they incited the young to exertions which without them might not be made. The truth was that these Fellowships were given, not as premiums for future idleness, but as rewards for past industry, and provided they did not endure for too long a time, and were not excessive in amount, He thought that they would operate advantageously. If there were not these prizes, he did not believe they would keep up anything like the present standard. At the same time, if the Fellowships were continued too long and made too large, they became disproportionate awards, and in the long run were premiums upon idleness; and, therefore, he thought they might, with advantage, be pruned, and their excrescences devoted to more valuable purposes. It was absurd, for instance, that a young man who had distinguished himself at 21 should get a Fellowship of £300 a-year for life provided he entered Holy Orders, and should retain it when he became head master of a public school and obtained an income of £3,000 or £4,000 per annum. With regard to the working of the Universities themselves, He thought

    1985
    that everyone who went there should be taught as much knowledge as was worth obtaining. It was perfectly plain that in old days our great Universities did not do this, but confined themselves to the narrow cycle of knowledge which was the fashion of the day; and it was only quite recently that they had expanded their ambition and their utility. The object of this Bill, was that that which particular Colleges might do out of their private munificence should henceforth be done by all the Colleges for the public advantage, and that, he conceived, was a proper proposal. The speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) was a speech against all endowments, and would justify their abolition. He marvelled that his hon. Friend could walk in that fine ante-chapel of the College to which they both belonged, and yet talk of endowments having "blunted the human mind and destroyed activity of intellect." The stones there were studded with some of the greatest names in the history of England—nay, in the annals of mankind. Bishop Thirlwall had been the first example of critical history, because endowments enabled him to make himself master of the German literature. Had the hon. Member forgotten Barrow, Porson, Newton, Whewell, and Munro, at Cambridge, and Atterbury and Elmsley, at Oxford? In Science there were Adams and Stokes; in History there was Stokes. Had he forgotten the name of Charles Merivale? All these had studied in endowed institutions. The hon. Member had asked why there were no physiologists? The Universities were not distinguished on the subject of physiology, because they had never endowed physiology. They had also neglected practical mechanics, and other departments. One of the objects of this Bill was that the Universities should produce in those departments as great men as they had done in the departments which they had endowed. Much had been said about the unfortunate phrase "endowment of Research," but the advocates of the Bill meant that Universities should be something more than public schools. He had a great affection for that great body from which he had derived so much advantage, and he should be sorry to see it degraded to the level of those who regarded it as a mere machine for grinding young men to a certain point. It ought
    1986
    not to give encouragement merely to young gentlemen and grinders; it ought, by endowments, to encourage study and Research. He should like to see Research subject to these limitations—namely, that the University should have power to give awards for Research in definite subjects, which should be strictly understood and explained, in order that something should be got for the endowment, and also that it should be limited to a definite period, in order that some tangible results might be obtained. Expensive experiments would be required, and pecuniary assistance should be given to enable men to pursue those investigations and to publish their works. There was a danger which had not been pointed out by anyone in that discussion, and that was the introduction into the University of the commercial spirit—of turning it into a profitable public school. That danger arose from the notion of simply getting the largest amount of prizes, which led to the largest number of pupils, fees, and lecturers' income. They would never make a good, effective, and powerful University, either for studying, or teaching purposes, until their constitution was reformed. The great defect was, that no one knew what the University was, and one of the most important reforms that could be brought about was the reform of the constitution of the University itself. He could not agree with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London with reference to the Professorships. The fact was, his right hon. Friend was carrying back his recollections a certain number of years. He doubted whether his right hon. Friend was acquainted with the extraordinary change which had come over both Universities in recent times in this respect. His right hon. Friend said it was the rarest thing in the world for a Professor to have a class. Why, many of the class-rooms were overflowing. The lectures of Dr. Lightfoot in the University of Cambridge were crowded. The lectures of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), although on a subject not considered popular, were also largely attended. No doubt, some changes should be made which would encourage the study of special branches of knowledge, such as law, physiology, or practical mathematics; but the Commission would have the power of appro-

    1987
    priating particular sums of money to studies such as these. That was entirely within the scope of the Bill. Therefore it had his cordial support. Trinity College, Cambridge, had a scheme of own which would have been carried out before now, but it wanted the power. No doubt, however, this Commission would enable it to carry out that scheme. He had little to say about the constitution of the Commission, though considering the importance of the position of Chairman, he could not help congratulating the Government on their selection. In the Bill of last year no Chairman was named, but in the Bill of this year he found the Lord Chief Justice of England was nominated. A more distinguished member of the University it was impossible to find. The choice of the Government would create confidence that the great powers of the Commission would be moderately and advantageously used to promote the great objects of the Universities. It increased his satisfaction to see the name of the Lord Chief Justice there, because he derived from it the assurance that all the complaints they had heard of the Judges being overworked were entirely unfounded. They had heard it stated, but he must now suppose with no authority, that those great and learned personages had so much to do that they could not find time to do it, and it was absolutely necessary that the country should find additional force to assist them. There would be no more arduous office than that of the Chairman of this Commission. It would require the constant and daily attention of one having entire and absolute leisure. It was, therefore, with extreme satisfaction that he found nominated for it one who, like the Lord Chief Justice of England, had so much leisure at his command. In conclusion, he hoped the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion. In fact, the debate upon it had, he presumed, been less intended for the benefit of the House than as a means of eliciting their views as to the way in which the Commission should carry out the powers and provisions of the Bill.
    MR. MARTENsupported the Bill. He had full confidence in the constitution of the Commission, and also in the Commissioners who were named in the Bill. But even were it not so, so far from their powers being unlimited, they were checked and controlled by the members
    1988
    of the Governing Bodies of Colleges, with whom they had to act in drawing up any new scheme. The new orders and regulations would then have to be submitted to the University Committee of the Privy Council, and they would decide whether the statutes made by the Commissioners should be carried into effect. In addition to that, there was the final appeal to Parliament, and if either House disapproved of any statute it would not come into operation. The Bill contained moderate provisions, which would enable the Colleges to do all that was needed in the way of reform and improvement, and at the same time protect them against any attempt at spoliation. He did not think the effect of the Bill would be to create an enormous increase of Professors, as compared with the existing system. At Cambridge there were 17 Colleges, 352 Fellows, and 34 Professors. Ten of the 34 Professors had been created since 1860, and it would be very inexpedient suddenly and rapidly to increase their number. In the nomination of Professors at Cambridge care had been taken to make appointments experimentally, and only to make the Professorships permanent when it was found that they would be successful. He did not admit that Professors were useless, and taught nothing, and were in no respect different from ordinary teachers, because in many cases ' they had larger numbers of pupils than would be obtained by persons in private positions. The utility of their lectures might be illustrated by the success of the recent experiment of the Council of Legal Education in appointing eminent men to lecture on special subjects. These lectures took a wider range than could be taken by the teacher of detail, and they had proved attractive and were well attended. Prize Fellowships were useful within certain limits, because they offered incentives to young men, and often gave a start in life to those who rendered great service to the public. There ought to be a limit to the taxation of the Colleges by the Universities. At Cambridge, the Colleges of Trinity, St. John's, and King's possessed a large proportion of the taxable revenue for the purposes of the University, and, though they would be ready to contribute, they might desire to have a limit placed to the amount. There ought not to be a great and sudden increase of Professors,

    1989
    and at Cambridge the money was wanted not so much for Professorships as for buildings. An arrangement which commenced with Downing College in 1800 might, perhaps, be copied with advantage; University Professors formed part of the general body of the College; and, if new Professorships were established, it was probable some Colleges would prefer to contribute in kind rather than by a pecuniary contribution to the University chest. He hoped his noble Friend would not divide on the Resolution, but would allow them to go into Committee, and pass such a measure as would be satisfactory to the Universities and the country.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKwas surprised that the humorous allusion of the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff) to the noble Lord the Mover of the Resolution had been taken seriously, and was in doubt how far the noble Lord intended his own remarks to be taken seriously. The noble Lord asked them to resolve that it was not desirable largely to increase the Professoriate; and their agreement with or difference from him would depend upon the meaning to be attached to the word "largely." What he would himself desire was probably not such an increase as the noble Lord would deprecate. The evidence taken by the Duke of Devonshire's Committee showed that there was a great concurrence of opinion in the desirability of increasing the Professoriate, and the necessity was illustrated by the number and diversity of subjects allotted to individual Professors. He did not intend to follow his right hon. Friend the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) in his observations relative to degrees at Oxford; but he wished to point out that at the present moment it was possible for a man to get a degree without the slightest acquaintance with any branch of science or with any modern language, and a system of education which entirely ignored science and modern languages must be one-sided and unsatisfactory. Moreover, it exerted a prejudicial influence upon the great public and other first - grade schools, which were obliged to adapt their instruction to the requirements of the University. As to the endowment of Research, the flattering allusions that had been made to the hon.
    1990
    Member for Elgin and himself were hardly apposite, because they had not been dependent upon their exertions for their daily bread. It was a delicate and difficult question; but there was no reason in the nature of things why Germany should be more prolific in scientific discoveries than England; and if some such course as that which had been suggested, and which had been subsequently advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), were adopted, it would effect a great improvement in this respect. He should be sorry to see endowment associated with the metropolis exclusively to the exclusion of the Universities, for many of their Colleges were founded, not for the education of youth only, but for the promotion of study in later life.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that having had a long and close acquaintance with the University of Oxford, he could scarcely abstain from taking part in this discussion. He regarded the Bill as one brought forward for the purpose of taking away the Fellowships for the purpose of endowing extra Professorships. He questioned the general proposition laid down as the justification for the Bill—namely, that there were resources in the Colleges for which there were no requirements, and requirements in the Universities for which there were no resources. He was prepared to take issue upon these two propositions. What, he asked, were the requirements of the University of Oxford for which there were no resources? The requirements were reading-room, museum, laboratory, and schools; and we had fallen in strange times if now, as in the past, some Bodley or Taylor would not give all that was needed. He had recently taken much trouble to inquire into the condition of the Universities, and in regard to the requirements, he asserted that the accommodation in Oxford in reference to the Bodleian Library, for example, was ample, provided the schools, which were under the same building, were removed. The Ratcliffe Library reading-room could scarcely be equalled. The Museum, though ugly as a building, was quite large enough to contain all that was likely to be collected in it for years to come; and as to the Laboratory, it would, he thought, be impossible to find fault with it. He fully

    1991
    endorsed the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe). Professors were necessary at a time when books were rare, but to teach learning in these days by means of Professors was as much out of date as to print The Times by a hand press. There were 46 Professors at Oxford, and 34 at Cambridge, and now it was said that more were wanted. He thought a Professor of International Law and a Professor of Political Economy would be useful; but, although he said nothing as to the value of their teaching, he could not see the utility of having two Professors of Arabic and two Professors of Zoology and Botany in each University. Surely they were not necessary. If a man wanted to study Botany, why should he not go to Cambridge, and to Oxford if he wanted to study Zoology, or vice versa? Then as to the resources. If a man died leaving a large fortune, and bequeathed that for the education of young men, surely that should not be misapplied by expending it on unnecessary Professorships. He himself was indebted to such a benefaction for the means of completing his education, for the acquisition of his Profession, and without it he would not have been a Member of that House. No man would be likely to take a fairer view of his own College as compared with others than Dr. Bellamy, and when it was said that He had been put forward as a new man, he had been balanced by the Savilian Professor of Geometry, who on many points, held opposite opinions. The guiding principle of the Commissioners ought not to be that which had been enunciated by Lord Salisbury, but that laid down by the right hon. Member for London University. It was unadvisable to increase the Professoriate at Oxford, and least of all to increase it by taking away the prize Fellowships which were the reward of hard work, and which gave young men an opportunity to live independently, and make themselves the ornaments of their Profession and of the highest positions in the State.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the speech just delivered was the only one that had been made against the Bill. Having the honour of representing one of the Universities in question, he could not allow some of the observations made by his hon. and learned Friend to pass without notice. The hon. and learned
    1992
    Gentleman said, that when a person wanted to perfect himself in the study of one particular branch of science, he might supply any deficiency he experienced in the one University by going over to the other. His hon. and learned Friend spoke only of Botany and Zoology, but the principle was extensive, and he could not conceive anything more degrading to the character of a University than to admit its inability to supply more than a kind of half teaching in respect to a particular branch of science.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: I spoke of those things which are amongst the amenities of life.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYfelt that what were called the amenities of life were in a great many instances in these days the necessities of life. His hon. and learned Friend argued as if they were going to take away a great portion of the Fellowships of the Colleges, to deprive the Colleges of their funds, and apply them to the purposes of the University. There was no such principle laid down in the Bill, nor was it laid down by his noble Friend who had introduced the measure in "another place." His noble Friend used a phrase on that occasion which was misunderstood, and, as he had before stated, was to be regretted. He spoke of idle Fellowships, which were called by some prize Fellowships; but what his noble Friend really referred to was not the possession of prize Fellowships, but the tenure of them, and the limitation of the tenure had been very generally advocated in that House. It had been said nothing could be more unreasonable than that a man should carry away for his whole life the prize Fellow-shid which he had obtained, doing nothing whatever for the College or the University to which he belonged. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had taunted him with forsaking his Tory principles; but he did not know what principles he had forsaken in that Bill. He was still of opinion that the child ought to support the parent, and in like manner he said that the Colleges, which were nothing without the University, might be fairly called on to contribute from their abundance to the wants of the University. The Colleges were becoming rich, their wealth was greater than their needs, and he believed that

    1993
    they were themselves willing to contritute to the wants of the University. He (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had never taken but one line with respect to the Professoriate, and of what some people called the endowment of Research. He said now, as he had said last year, that the Government were not in favour of an enormous extension of the Professoriate, nor did the Bill contemplate it. It contemplated something very different, for it even contained a provision enabling Professorships to be combined when they were in excess. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of doing away with Fellowships and Scholarships. So far from that, there was a provision in the Bill for extending Scholarships. Scholarships—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London had said—came at the time when most young men required a helping hand. But the Scholarship ended at a stated time, and then came the Fellowship, which, if a man remained unmarried, might remain his during his life. The power to hold a Fellowship for life without rendering any service to the University or College in return certainly did require to be modified, and upon this point the Petitions from the Colleges were almost unanimous. With regard to the recommendation of the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes), that a maximum contribution to the University from the funds of the Colleges should be fixed, he would point out that the very principle of the Bill was that before one farthing was taken from the College funds, the wants of the College as a place of education should be thoroughly provided for. They would begin by devoting the money of the Colleges to the purposes of the Colleges, and it was only the superfluity of the funds which was to be given to the University. For that reason it was simply impossible to lay down a maximum, because where one College might not be able to give anything, another might be able to contribute even more than the maximum laid down. It was said that the Colleges ought to be represented on the committee which administered these funds. Well, to a certain extent they were represented in the government of the University; but nothing could be more extraordinary than to pass over to the University for University purposes funds from the Col-
    1994
    leges, and then put a check upon them through College representation according to the proportion in which the Colleges had contributed when they came to deal with the expenditure of those funds. With respect to everything else which had been said, it seemed to him to be practically in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) urged that the branches of study should be increased. Well, that was one of the objects of the Bill, and the additional branches would receive the consideration of the Commissioners. He ventured to protest against what had been said as to the deficiencies of resident Fellows. His hon. Friend who spoke on that subject might have had regard at least to one Fellow to whose reputation lie had added by publishing his life—he alluded to Lord Macaulay; and he would only mention four distinguished names connected with Oriel, his own College—Newman, Whately, Arnold, and Keble, who among English writers might be said to hold no undistinguished place. They were resident Fellows. To show with what sedulous care this Bill had been adapted to the wants of the Colleges and Universities, there was a year given to the several Colleges and Universities to produce their own schemes, and in that way the Commissioners would become thoroughly acquainted with the desires of the several Colleges as well as of the two Universities; they would have before them the mind of the two Universities and of the separate Colleges; and. could, therefore, judge of the question as a whole; and having the whole of the schemes of the Colleges and the Universities before them, they would be the better able to judge of them than if they were to go piecemeal into the question. The Commissioners were not men likely to ignore such opinions and wishes, but if they did there was an appeal to the Universities Committee of Privy Council—a body the establishment of which was earnestly desired by all the Petitioners who had yet come before him. Then the scheme would have to be laid upon the Table of Parliament, who would thus have an opportunity of overriding the decision of the Commissioners. He thought the Government had most carefully balanced the Bill so as to arrive at safe and wise conclusions for the benefit of the Colleges combined with

    1995
    the Universities and of the Universities embracing all the Colleges, and he hoped, therefore, the Amendment of the noble Lord would be withdrawn, and the House allowed to go into Committee.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERobserved that the Professorial system had existed in our Universities for centuries, and that those who were in favour of upholding or extending it had not sufficiently considered the requirements of modern times. The main use of lectures delivered by Professors was that they afforded to students short cuts to knowledge without the trouble of book reading, but he contended that real knowledge which was likely to prove useful must be acquired by means of private study assisted by College tutors and "coaches," whose services were always available. He could not, therefore, agree with a proposal to subordinate private study to attendances at lectures delivered by Professors. With regard to the proposed endowment of Research, he was in favour of such a proposal if it was so carried into effect as to enable needy but able men to prosecute Research in directions which could prove really useful.
    LORD FRANCIS HERVEYsaid, that having regard to the general tone of the discussion, and particularly to the assurances given by the Secretary of State for War, that the Colleges would only be called upon to contribute to the Universities out of their superfluities, he had much pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title), agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Interpretation).
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYmoved that the clause be postponed in order to enable them to come to a right definition of what the word "emolument" in the Bill meant.
    MR. GOSCHENthought it was of great importance that a correct definition should be laid down.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause postponed.
    Clause 3 (Bodies of Commissioners), agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Nomination of the Oxford Commissioners).
    MR. HAYTERcommented upon the retention of Lord Redesdale's name as a Commissioner. The noble Lord had passed 70 years of ago, and it was to be regretted that the Government had not found a younger man in his place. He had an Amendment on the Paper for the omission of Lord Redesdale's name, but he would not move it, hoping that the Government would strengthen the Commission by other additions to it.
    MR. GOSCHENmoved, in page 3, after line 5, to add, "The Reverend Bartholomew Price, Master of Arts, Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy." He thanked the Government for the concessions they had made with reference to the names of the Commissioners in their present Bill, as compared with that of last year, and on that ground he thought it would be preferable to add to rather than to reduce the list. It would greatly facilitate the passing of this measure if the Government would meet the views of hon. Members near him on this point. The reason He proposed to add to the names of the Commissioners that of Mr. Bartholomew Price was that that gentleman, having been on the Duke of Cleveland's Commission appointed to inquire into the finances of the University of Oxford, on the Report of which the present Bill was founded, would be able to strengthen the Commission on its weakest side — that of finance. No man was more competent than Mr. Bartholomew Price to deal with the financial part of the question. For eight years he had been Bursar of a College in Oxford. He had been Member of the Hebdomadal Council since 1855, and he had not been an idle member. He had served on nearly half the Committees of that Council. For five years he had been on the Board of Curators of the University Chest. He was also Curator of the Bodleian Library and had been connected with the Clarendon Press. There was scarcely any financial department of the University in which he had not had an active share. He (Mr. Goschen) hoped the Government did not think there was any magic in the number 7. All the Members of the Com-

    1997
    mission would not attend during the working of details. Could Lord Redes-dale attend to all the financial details of the plan while he was still discharging his important duties in connection with the House of Lords? It could not be expected Mr. Justice Grove would attend the working of details. He did not know whether the Secretary for War was able to name the gentleman who would probably be Secretary, but the rumours which had reached some Members of the House with regard to the appointment of the Secretary were not calculated to make them indifferent with regard to the constitution of the Commission. If a Secretary were appointed who was in a sense re-actionary, probably one of the Commissioners would have to supplement his work.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 5, to add the words "the Reverend Bartholomew Price, Master of Arts, Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy."—(Mr. Goschen.)
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANthought the right hon. Gentleman had made out a very favourable case. Although the Commission had been strengthened since last year, it was still very weak in persons conversant with the internal affairs of the University of Oxford. He did not think nine or ten Members were too large, and he hoped Professor Price would be added to the list.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was very glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter) withdrew the Motion he had put on the Paper. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, he must say that he knew very little of Lord Redesdale if he thought that noble Lord would have anything to do with a matter without going thoroughly into it. Of all the charges that could be brought against Lord Redesdale, that of allowing other people to do his business would have the least foundation. With respect to Professor Price, it was not any part of his (Mr. Hardy's) duty to say a disrespectful word, but the right hon. Gentleman wished to upset the balance of the Commission to have natural science represented by three instead of two as before. [Mr. GOSCHEN dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but he upset it in every
    1998
    way. Sir Mountague Bernard, who was a resident Professor, knew quite as much as Mr. Price. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: No.] That was his opinion, and it would remain his opinion whatever might be said by the hon. and learned Member for the County of Denbigh. The Government had endeavoured to put these two Commissions on a fair footing, and to put upon them men who would give their attention to the work that had to be done. He thought he had met the wishes of all the Gentlemen on the other side of the House by adding the name of Professor Smith, both in consideration of his connection with science and his thorough knowledge of the internal affairs of the University. He believed he was as perfectly qualified to do all that would be required in connection with finance as Professor Price. He was not, therefore, prepared to accede to the proposed addition of the name of Professor Price.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not treat this as a Party question. It was not a Party question with him, but a financial one. He proposed Mr. Price as a gentleman possessed of peculiar financial capabilities, and who by his position on the Oxford Commission from the beginning to the end of the inquiry, was better acquainted with the finances of that University than any other person could possibly be. He had nothing to say against the right hon. Mountague Bernard, nor did he wish to detract from the merits of Dr. Bellamy; but he moved the addition of Mr. Price's name solely on account of his special and peculiar qualifications, and without reference to his being either a Liberal or a Conservative.
    MR. BARINGsaid, the reason adduced by the right hon. Gentleman for the addition of Professor Price—namely, that he had sat on the previous Oxford Commission was a sufficient reason for hint to vote against the Motion, as it might induce him to claim too great authority with the other Commissioners. He would add that Dr. Bellamy's local and financial experience would well bear comparison with that of Professor Price.
    MR. JAMESsaid, there was a strong Party spirit at Oxford on all these matters. He wished to know who was to be the Secretary to the Commissioners?
    MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that the appointment of a Secretary was not in the

    1999
    Bill, and was not a matter before the Committee. There was no necessity for increasing the number of the Commissioners.
    MR. FAWCETThoped the question would not be decided on political principles. He did not know that the rev. Bartholomew Price was a Liberal until he heard it in the House that night. He was anxious to vote for that gentleman because he was highly qualified to deal satisfactorily with the subject.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 152: Majority 11.—(Div. List, No. 91.)
    MR. GRANT DUFF,in moving that the name of Professor Huxley should be added to the Oxford Commission, said, Sir, I think it is very unfortunate that the Government has not seen its way to comply with the suggestion of my right hon Friend (Mr. Goschen), for it is hard to argue with the master of so many legions; but it is clearly the duty of Her Majesty's Opposition, during the discussion of a Bill of first-rate importance, to take care, while it offers no factious impediment to the progress of the measure, that the country should fully understand what are, in our view, the defects of the Ministerial proposals — proposals in which I for one find much to sympathize with. I rise accordingly to suggest the addition of two names to the Oxford Commission, and I think I can state my reasons for doing so without trespassing for many minutes upon the attention of the Committee. In the Commission proposed by Her Majesty's Government, three out of four of the faculties into which University teaching has been from time immemorial divided are represented, some more, some less fully than others—still all three are represented. Theology, or, at least, that portion of theology which has for the last 300 years been in favour at Oxford, is, as was natural under present circumstances, most strongly represented. There is Dr. Bellamy, who is himself a clergyman; there is the Chairman of the Commission, and there is the right hon. Mountague Bernard, both of whom have been most closely connected ever since they took their degrees with that section of the Church which has been of late years more influential at the University than any
    2000
    other. Law, again, is very powerfully represented by an ex-Lord Chancellor, by Lord Redesdale, by one of Her Majesty's Judges, and by the right hon. Mountague Bernard. Arts, too, have their representatives in Professor Henry Smith, and in the hon. Member for Northumberland. But the fourth faculty, important in itself of old time, and now much more important from the number of subjects which are most conveniently grouped under it, if we keep up the old traditional division of the faculties, has no representation. I presume that the object of all of us is, without in any way altering those characteristics of the University of Oxford, of which we are proud, to take this opportunity of engrafting upon her system such improvements as we can. Now, every one will, I suppose, admit that the faculty of Medicine — the faculty under which group themselves all the sciences into which life enters—has not been the faculty in which Oxford has hitherto most distinguished herself, and at the same time that there is no good reason why she should not attain as much reputation in this as in any other faculty. No one would wish that Oxford should devote any large part of her revenues to a medical school. The accidents of history have made London the chief medical school of the country, and it would be a mere waste of money if Oxford were to attempt to rival it in preparing medical men to any large extent for the actual exercise of their profession, just as it would be a waste of money if she were to attempt to rival the Inns of Court in the teaching of the actual practice of the law. But as there are a number of studies introductory to the actual practice of this or that portion of the law which find a most fitting home at Oxford, so there are a number of studies, the results of which have a great bearing on the Medical Profession, which should be better represented than they are at Oxford. And it must be remembered that the study of those sciences, which were till the creation of the New Museum hardly touched by the University teaching, has become in our day absolutely indispensable. I believe that it would be hardly too much to say that the study of the sciences into which life enters—such as comparative Anatomy, Physiology, Botany, and many more—has lately done, and is now doing, more

    2001
    to change the thoughts of all men upon great subjects, and promises to do more for the actual practical advantage of the human race than any other studies. I suppose Mr. Darwin, for example, has by the study of these sciences had greater influence in altering the course of human thought than any man now living; and I suppose, likewise, that it will be from a further prosecution of some of the obscurest branches of these studies that we shall ultimately learn how to cope with not a few of the very worst calamities which afflict us—with cholera, and cattle plague, for instance. This is not the place, nor the time to discuss this subject at any length, but I cannot believe that any one will dispute the vast and growing importance of those sciences, or deny that they have not hitherto in Oxford met with as large a recognition as is there due. If these two propositions are admitted, then I think I make out a good primâ facie case for proposing to the House and to Her Majesty's Government to place upon the Oxford Commission the most distinguished representative of those sciences, whose services are available for such a purpose. Professor Huxley stands, as every one knows, in the very first rank of European men of science. He has been largely employed on Commissions by many Governments, more especially on the Science Commission which reported some, time ago, and on the Scotch Universities Commission which is just about to report. From his service on these two Commissions, from his experience at South Kensington and the School of Mines, from the fact that he has taught very large classes in the University of Edinburgh, and presided as Lord Rector over the University of Aberdeen, it will be seen that he would bring to the duties of an Oxford Commissioner exceptionally wide acquaintance with the defects and merits of the Universities of the whole of Great Britain, and, as all who have ever met him on business will readily admit, he is a man of extraordinary general ability, and while firm in the defence of his own views, most conciliatory in his relations with others. On all these grounds, I beg to propose him as a fit person to serve on the Oxford Commission.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 5, to add the words "Professor Huxley."—(Mr. Grant Duff.)
    SIR GEORGE BOWYER,while fully admitting the great eminence of Professor Huxley, expressed a hope that the question before the Committee would not drift into one of Party. It was no disparagement whatever to the eminent gentleman alluded to, to say that, from the peculiar opinions he held, he had not the confidence of the members of the Established Church, or of any other religious body in the Realm. The Commission should consist only of those in whom the country had confidence.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that, independently of the great attainments of Professor Huxley, there were, he thought, strong grounds why his name should be added to the Commission, and one was that he, at least, would be unconnected with the Universities. If they were not to be allowed to add the name of Professor Huxley to the Commission, he hoped some Member of the Government would state what the objection was to adding to the Commission the name of so eminent and distinguished a gentleman. He should vote for Professor Huxley's name, because there was a very strong feeling outside that one person at least unconnected with the University should be on the Commission, and thus give it to some extent a national character.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the names which the Government had decided to recommend to the House had been fixed upon after very mature consideration, and the Government were not prepared to accept any alteration of the list so submitted. He had the highest possible admiration of Professor Huxley's great ability, but for the reason he had stated he could not support the Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was far more Liberal than that of the hon. Member for Wexford, who, when he gave a vote on that (the Liberal) side of the House, need not take the trouble of attempting to justify it. Not only was there no hon. Member on the Liberal side, but there were few on the Conservative side, who would have ventured on that occasion to say that a man was unable to sit upon a University Commission because he did not enjoy the confidence of the Established Church. The hon. Member for Wexford had himself ceased to be a member of the Esta-

    2003
    blished Church of England, and that Church did not hold such narrow or bigoted opinions as those entertained by the hon. Member. He regretted the Government had not agreed to add a name to the Commission representing the science of the country. The Commission would have far greater influence if it included the names of a few distinguished men who did not belong to the University, and he should therefore vote for that of Professor Huxley.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEwas sorry to hear that the hon. and learned Gentleman was surprised at sentiments coming from anyone of the Liberal benches which were not acceptable to the front Opposition bench, for that was a matter which would surprise no one who was not at home on that particular seat. With regard to the general question, the Universities were national already, and it was a point of honour with them that the Commissioners should be selected from amongst themselves.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKhoped that this proposal would not be decided on merely political, and still less on theological, grounds. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Commission was balanced. But in what way was it balanced? It contained gentlemen, no doubt, who were well acquainted with the Universities, and others eminent in literature and mathematical science. Human knowledge, however, might roughly be divided into several great classes, such as theology, Classical and Modern Languages, Mathematics, and the great sciences which dealt with life, including the important subject of Medicine. Now, on these Commissions, Theology was admirably represented, Classics and Modern Languages were most ably represented; there were on that Commission most profound mathematicians; but, on the contrary, neither on the one Commission nor the other, was there anyone connected with the great sciences of life. This was surely a great deficiency, especially when they considered that, if he might venture to say so, one great failing of the Universities had hitherto been that they devoted themselves too exclusively to Classics and Mathematics. It would be impossible to have better representatives of Biology than Professor Huxley and Dr. Hooker, and he hoped the Committee would add the one to the Oxford, the other to the Cambridge Commission.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwarmly eulogized Professor Huxley's great abilities, but said that the powers of the Commission being so enormous, if not awful, Professor Huxley was far too persuasive, enthusiastic, and energetic a reformer to be entrusted with the task of applying them.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 195: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 92.)
    MR. GRANT DUFF: I had intended, Sir, to move the addition to the Oxford Commission of another name, the name of a man of the highest distinction, that of Professor Max Muller; but it is idle to take division after division, when the only result is to be beaten and to lose the time of the Committee. Let me point out, however, to Her Majesty's Government that they are putting themselves in a very bad position before the country. They have, by making the last two divisions, purely Party divisions, succeeded in keeping off the Commission the man whom their own Supporters, the very Speakers who have been addressing us from those benches, admit to be the person best acquainted with the finance of the University. They have succeeded in keeping off the Commission the best authority on all that vast division of science in which Oxford has hitherto been weakest; and now they are going to have the further unhappy triumph of making me withdraw the name of the man of all others best able to bring to the re-organizing of Oxford the widest and deepest foreign experience. [Cries of "Move."] Well, I am entirely in the hands of my Friends; I go on or not, as they like. [Cries of "Don't withdraw."] Is the Commission, as it now stands, containing, as it does, the names of purely Oxford trained men, reasonably constituted? There is no one upon the Commission who has any knowlege whatever of foreign Universities, and although we are all very proud of Oxford, I suppose there are few of us who would not say that she has a good deal to learn from foreign Univerities, just as they have a good deal to learn from her. The contention that she can be absolutely self-sufficing would indeed be curiously absurd if advanced in the

    2005
    face of the fact that nearly every book of importance which is used in the teaching of Oxford, nay, most of the lectures of the tutors and Professors which are good for anything is largely indebted to the labours of the German Universities. That being so, it is surely very unwise to ignore altogether the experience which has been accumulating in Germany during the last three quarters of a century. It is with a view to prevent our doing this that I propose to add to the Commission the name of Professor Max Midler, who has long been the principal living link between the learning of England and of the Continent, who is at once a Professor in the University of Oxford, a foreign member of the Institute of France, and one of the most illustrious of German Orientalists. My Friends behind me wish me to divide, and I will divide, but we shall be beaten, and the Government will have the poor success of showing their want of appreciation of another great man of learning and ability, together with their imperfect comprehension of the difficult and delicate task which they have undertaken. There is this consolation, however, that we shall be able to show the country how much wider and more in accordance with public opinion our reform of Oxford would have been, and we shall keep the door open for further reform when a fitting opportunity comes, by making it understood that the projected settlement was never acquiesced in on this side of the House.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGAN.in seconding the Amendment, said, that if personal qualifications were to go for nothing, he would have no more to say; but the House of Commons ought to have a voice in the matter. An abler man than Professor Max Müller could not be put on the Commission.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 5, to add the words "Max Müller, esquire, Professor of Philosophy."—(Mr. Grant Duff.)
    MR. FORSYTHopposed the Amendment. It was necessary to make a selection, and would any hon. Member vote for the rejection of a single name proposed by the Government? It was out of no disrespect to Professor Max M tiller, a man of European reputation, that the Amendment was not supported by the Government, but be-
    2006
    cause it was necessary to limit the number of the Commissioners of each University to seven. Oxford could produce a dozen men fit to serve on the Commission; but the names selected were good and worthy names, to which there could be no possible objection.
    Question put, "That those words be there added.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 197: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 93.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Nomination of Cambridge Commissioners).
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONrose to move the addition of the name of the "Reverend William Bateson, D.D., Master of St. John's College, Cambridge." He said he made this proposal on grounds similar to those on which the right hon. Member for the City of London moved an addition to the Oxford Commission; but, if anything, the grounds were stronger in this case. He ventured to say with great deference, that Dr. Bate-son was in every respect exceptionally well qualified to carry out as a Commissioner, the objects of the Bill as set forth in the Preamble. For 20 years he had been Master of his College; he possessed a complete acquaintance with the whole University system, as well as the system of separate Colleges, and with University and College finance requirements. He was not a man of extreme views, nor, on the other hand, was he a man of narrow opinions, who would refuse to look at the claims of new and rising sciences. If it was absolutely necessary to preserve the balance of the Commission; without wishing to be invidious, he must say that, in the opinion of most Cambridge men, there was no name on the Commission which commanded the same authority and respect in University matters as did that of Dr. Bateson, and, therefore, the onus of this Amendment would rest upon others and not upon himself. He trusted that the Government would not meet this Motion by a simple negative, but in a greater spirit of conciliation than they had recently manifested.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 18, to add the words "Reverend William Bateson, D.D., Master of Saint John's College, Cambridge." — (The Marquess of Hartington.)
    MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was willing to admit that the noble Lord had brought this Amendment forward in no hostile spirit, and he concurred in all that had been said concerning the merits and qualifications of Dr. Bateson. The noble Lord had based the claim of Dr. Bateson on two grounds—his special financial knowledge with reference to the revenues of the Colleges and the University, and his general knowledge of the whole subject, and his capacity in every respect to sit as a Commissioner. Now, if the noble Lord would look at the Commission, he would find in Mr. Stokes, Lord Rayleigh, and Mr. Hemming, the names of those whose financial ability was not inferior to that of Dr. Bate-son. It must also be borne in mind that one of the most important points which the Commission would have to determine would be the relative rights of the different Colleges as well as the mode in which they were to be dealt with; and it had, therefore, been determined that at Cambridge no Heads of Colleges should be put on the Commission. [An hon. MEMBER: There are at Oxford.] Yes; but he was speaking of Cambridge, and in that University it was especially unadvisable that there should be a single Head of a College upon the Commission, when the funds of a College were about to be dealt with. In Oxford the 17 Colleges were so divided that few were so large as to predominate over the others, as did the two great Colleges at Cambridge—St. John's and Trinity; and if the Head of one of those Colleges were put on the Commission, on which his College would be represented by three other members, it would give an unfair predominance to that College, as compared with the others. If the Head of one of the two great Colleges were put upon the Commission, there ought to be another Head of a College representing the smaller Colleges to serve with him, and even that would not give satisfaction. Depend upon it, if the Committee wished to give confidence to the University and to the Colleges, they would leave the Commission as it was named in the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Siamese Twins who were conducting these Bills were doing so on opposite principles. Thus the Secretary for War put on the Oxford Commission the Head of one of the Colleges, but his right hon.
    2008
    Friend (Mr. Walpole) objected to the Head of a Cambridge College being appointed on the Commission for that University. He asserted that they had not put a single man on the Cambridge Commission who knew anything about the business of the University. They were all distinguished and able men, but they had no practical experience of University work.
    MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, that no one would think of comparing right hon. Gentlemen on the Front bench opposite to Siamese Twins, as they were not in the habit of acting together; and in proof of this it might be observed that earlier in the evening the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich had objected to a head of a College being on the Oxford Commission, and now the hon. and learned Member for Oxford wished to have the Head of a College (Dr. Bateson) on the Cambridge Commission. He (Mr. Dalrymple) must express surprise at the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman that not a single man was named on the Cambridge Commission who knew anything of the business of the University. The Bishop of Worcester had been associated years ago with the late illustrious Chancellor of the University, in measures for the reform of the University, and while the head of a College at Cambridge had been the most active friend and promoter of everything that was proposed for the benefit of the University. And no one who knew anything of Cambridge could be ignorant that Dr. Lightfoot was most intimately acquainted with the internal affairs of the University and with the details of its government. Now both of these names appeared in the Bill among the Cambridge Commissioners. It was a disagreeable task to refuse to admit the names of other eminent men, but he was quite sure it would be understood that the reasons for the omission were no disparagement to them.
    MR. COURTNEY,in order to make the Commission well balanced, suggested there should be added to it some one more devoted to classical studies than there was at present upon it. Against four Senior Wranglers might be set Professor Lightfoot, but his attention had been paid of late years to theology rather than to classical scholarship. He could not let the occasion pass without paying a tribute to the extreme fitness of

    2009
    Dr. Bateson for the position of one of the Commissioners. He was a man of unrivalled knowledge of the University and Colleges of Cambridge, and eminent for good sense and for moderation of character. He was, therefore, eminently fitted to serve upon the Commission, and as the classical section of the University we not fairly represented upon that Body, was highly desirable that Dr. Bateson should be appointed to represent it.
    MR. FORSYTHdeprecated any extention of the number of the Commissioners for Cambridge beyond the limit fixed in the case of Oxford.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that having resided at Cambridge six months last winter, he was quite sure the appointment of Dr. Bateson would give great satisfaction to the resident members of the University, Liberals and Conservetives alike. Dr. Bateson would strong then the Commission, not only by his knowledge and general character, but by the leisure he would have to attend to the duties of the Commission.
    Question put, "That those words b there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes 182 Noes 208: Majority 26.—(Div. List No. 94.)
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEmoved that Dr. Hooker, President of the Royal Society, be added to the Cambridge Commission.
    MR. SAMUELSONseconded the Motion.
    Amendment proposed, in page line 18, to add the words "Dr. Joseph Hooker, President of the Royal Society."—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,who on rising to support the Amendment, was met with continued interruption, said, if it was persisted in he should move the Adjournment of the Debate. This was matter which ought to be and should be discussed. That the names of these eminent men should be rejected by those in charge of the Bill with silent contempt was a scandalous proceeding—["Oh!"] He repeated the statement [Cries of "Withdraw."] He would not withdraw, and if necessary they would have another day to discuss the matter.
    MR. WALPOLEsaid, that nothing was further from the intentions of the I Government than to treat the name of Dr. Hooker, or of any person proposed, with silent contempt. Science would be as effectually represented by Professor Stokes as by any person who could be proposed.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the office of President of the Royal Society was comparatively honorary, while Professor Stokes had been secretary of that society, which was its working office.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKwas sure that there was no intention of treating t science with contempt. Mathematics, doubt, were well represented by Professor Stokes, who, however, was never President of the Royal Society; but biological science, including medicine, was entirely unrepresented, and he hoped therefore that the Government would on the Report agree to the addition of Dr. Hooker to the Commission.
    Question put, "That those words be 3 there added."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 190: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 95.)
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  CLERICAL DISABILITIES ACT (1870) EXTENSION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of "The Clerical, Disabilities Act, 1870."
  Resolution reported:— Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. HIBBERT, and Mr. GREGORY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 147.]

  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HERSCHELL, Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERSCHELL and Sir HENRY HOLLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 147.]
  House adjourned at quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Solicitors Examination, &c. (52); Protection of Navigation (53).
Second Reading — Burial Acts Consolidation (27).
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders (38).

BURIAL ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
(The Lord President.)
BURIAL ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.

  [NO. 27.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  EARL GRANVILLE,in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said: My Lords, last year, in moving a similar Resolution to that which I shall have the honour to submit this evening, I felt it my duty to enter
  1870
  into considerable details, and I had the great satisfaction of being told that I had said nothing which could tend to irritate or raise any acrimonious discussion. I shall try to escape troubling your Lordships again with so many details, and I trust that I shall not on this occasion depart from that tone of moderation in what I say. That a temperate and judicial tone should be observed is the more obviously necessary from the fact that the great body of the Nonconformists are unrepresented in this House, while the great majority of your Lordships are either lay or spiritual members of our National Church. My Lords, I could not help remarking last year that of the 14 Peers who took part in the debate, only six spoke against the Resolution which I then moved; and of these six, five made a great part of their argument turn upon the form in which I had introduced the subject. A Bill they might possibly consider; a Resolution was an abomination in their eyes. That I cannot escape this attack upon the question of form is obvious from the fact that my noble Friend the Lord President has twice—even before I introduce the subject—raised this very question of form. He has stated, and has been supported in his statement by the noble Chairman of Committees, that my Motion is equivalent to a rejection of the second reading of the Bill. In answer to this charge, I might say that the Government can always command so great a majority in this House that there is no chance of my Motion being carried, and that it does not, therefore, much matter what the consequences of my Motion, if successful, might be. But I repudiate such an argument altogether. With however small a chance of success, I would not be guilty of such an act of disrespect to your Lordships' House as to move that which I had no wish to carry. Moreover, I might say, and say with perfect truth, that I should, for reasons which I am about to give, not object to the carrying of my Motion being fatal to the Bill. But the fact is, that it need not necessarily have any such result. If my Motion were carried, the Bill could not be read a second time to-night:—but the second reading could be moved to-morrow, or any other day of the Session. Even if I were to move a direct negative on the second reading of a Bill, it would only apply to this evening; and it is for

  1871
  that reason that when a Peer wishes to defeat a Bill he always moves that it be read six months or three months hence, according to the probable length of the Session. It was impossible for me, my Lords, to introduce a Bill this Session. Her Majesty's Government had already done so. I could not be a party to the second reading of such a Bill as theirs, and I thought it best to give your Lordships an opportunity of asserting what you think essential to a settlement of the question in a manner which would not preclude the passing of this very Bill in an amended form.
  What, then, I do wish is to give your Lordships an opportunity of deciding on a very important question, and which, if carried in the way I desire, will tend to gratify the wish of a large number of Her Majesty's subjects. Last year the Motions made on the subject and the debates which ensued, were almost exclusively directed to the religious difficulties of the case, and it was on those two occasions that assurances were given by the Government, and accepted, that they hoped to grapple with this point. But this year, in introducing his Bill, the Lord President has impressed upon us that his Bill is one of consolidation and of sanitary administration, and deals incidentally only with the religious difficulty. As to consolidation, I doubted the other day whether the arguments in its favour did not equally apply to most other subjects in the Statute Book. But granting that it is required for the Burial Laws, what course ought to be adopted? I shall be corrected if I am wrong in saying that you can properly amend and consolidate at the same time laws of which the amendment are obvious and likely to be generally accepted; but that this is not the case where the amendment is of a character which excites warm differences of opinion. Now, as to the sanitary portion of the Bill. I cannot help reminding your Lordships that the keen sense of humour of the most rev. Primate nearly overcame his natural and acquired self-control when he came to this point. It was all he could do to avoid laughing at this sanitary plea; but his Grace contented himself, if I recollect right, with calling it a veil thrown over the religious difficulty. I cannot help thinking that this veil will be torn, if not thrown aside, during the course of the debate. What is the ground on
  1872
  which this pressing need of sanitary reform Las been urged? That there are many churchyards which ought to be, but have not been closed, and that there is one case — that of Northampton—where, though the graveyard has been closed, sufficient consecrated ground has not been provided elsewhere. But are there so many churchyards which ought to be, but have not been closed? In an able preface to the collection of Acts relating to this subject, the learned editor, Mr. Barker, says that the working of the Act has been eminently satisfactory; and, if it had not, that it must have been the fault of the Home Office, which has had full powers for the purpose. It is impossible to believe that in any pressing cases the sanitary authorities should not have brought them under the notice of the Secretary of State. As to the one solitary exception which has been brought forward this year and last to show that, where churchyards have been closed a sufficient substitute has not been found, I trust that the Lord Lieutenant of Northamptonshire will give explanations this evening showing how inaccurately that case has been represented. This Bill of nearly 90 clauses is a Bill partly of consolidation, partly of amendment; and it is not easy in reading it to distinguish what is consolidation and what is amendment. It transfers from the Secretary of State to the Government Local Board all the powers now possessed by the Secretary of State—which is probably an administrative improvement. It confers on the Secretary of State new and undefined powers. The Bill deals with churchyards. It provides for closing them either for want of burial space, or on sanitary grounds, without the consent of the parishioners, at the option of the President of the Government Local Board. It provides for the maintenance of the disused churchyards. This Bill also makes new provisions for the creation of cemeteries. The burial authority is bound to provide such cemeteries where there is not sufficient consecrated or unconsecrated ground. If they fail to do so, one-twentieth of the ratepayers can, subject in the first instance to the discretion of the burial authority, and on their refusal, by appeal to the Secretary of State, insist upon the provision of a new cemetery. When the Secretary of State is appealed to, he is enjoined by the Bill to consider the num-

  1873
  ber and situation of the population, and "all the circumstances of the case." The noble Duke on the first reading said that the Secretary of State under these words "all the circumstances of the case" would be bound to take into consideration the religious difficulty; but I find nothing of the sort in the Bill, and nothing can be less obvious from the wording of the clause. A Secretary of State may be a High Churchman, a Low Churchman, a Roman Catholic, or a Nonconformist. Would these all take the same view of their duty under such vague words? Would the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) and myself, after the diametrically opposite views we took last year of the claims of those who do not belong to the Church of England—could we conscientiously take the same course under such vague words? Where a burial authority does not exist, it is to be the Vestry. I much doubt whether, when there is so general a complaint of our system of local government, and when Her Majesty' Government have promised to consider a measure for remodelling it, that it is wise to confer new duties on Vestries. I am sure that they are not a proper assembly to carry on the duty of a burial authority; and this seems the opinion of the noble Duke, who, although he shrinks from doing it himself, yet gives a power to the Vestry to transfer their functions to a Committee which will act for the future alone, or to transfer them to the sanitary authority—in either case constituting a Burial Board, to which I understood the most rev. Primate last year strongly to object. I do not think a Vestry would be a good body to undertake those duties with or without the aid of a committee of ratepayers; and with regard to the election of these committees, I think it would be a great pity to infuse into the parishes fresh elements of religious discord, because there is very little doubt that the elections would go, or at all events would be supposed to go, very much in accordance with the religious opinion in the districts where these burial boards will have to act. Then, again, how is the Bill to be put into operation? Supposing the burial authority refuses to act, it is to be done by one-twentieth of the ratepayers; but unless the Bill is greatly amended there will be considerable difficulty, and I do not think it will be desirable that
  1874
  the clergyman and one-twentieth of the ratepayers should be allowed to create new cemeteries for the burial of Dissenters at the charge of the parish. At present there are 8,000 parishes in which the churchyards are not full, and a competent person has calculated that to supplement them with cemeteries would cost £3,000,000. I have very little data to go upon, but taking two cases, one in Devonshire and the other in Kent, last year I find that a new cemetery for one of them cost £8,000, and for another £12,000; and taking the lower sum, the total amount required for all the parishes would be £6,000,000. Of course, some of them will do nothing, and in others the cost will much exceed £10,000; but is it just to impose upon the ratepayers a sum of £6,000,000, merely for the purpose of removing the Dissenters' grievance? Now, my Lords, there is one clause of the Bill to which I wish to draw your Lordships' particular attention, and in which there is another apparent concession made to those who do not belong to the Church of England. The title of the 74th clause is this—" On request to incumbent from relative or person burying deceased, the burial to take place without religious service." The mere recital of the title has to one something grating on the ear. When your Lordships further consider it you will see that while it is fair to relieve non-members from the necessity of your services and your ministrations, it is repugnant to your feelings and to justice to make these silent burials compulsory upon those who conscientiously object to the ministrations of our Church. On the first reading of the Bill, the Lord President stated, as a justification of his course in making a half concession instead of a whole one to the claims of the Dissenters, that the numbers who were suffering from this grievance were constantly and rapidly diminishing; that only 8,000,000—which is, however, more than one-third—out of 22,000,000 could suffer, as the remaining 14,000,000 had unconsecrated ground within their reach. He further diminished this number by subtracting not only members of the Church of England, but those Nonconformists who do not object to the Burial Service of the Church of England. I stated at the time, and I repeat now, that these statistics are capable of being

  1875
  used to prove just the opposite of what he said; and the noble Duke misstates the grievance. A majority of Dissenters do not object to the Service itself; but what they do object to is the exclusion of all other services, and of all ministers excepting the clergy of the Church of England. The noble Duke's own figures show that while there are about 10,000 parishes, fewer than 700 cemeteries have been made in the last 70 years—that is, an average of 10 a-year. Then the noble Duke says that 38 Burial Boards have been set up in one year, and that the number will increase—which I doubt, as, of course, the most urgent cases have already been taken up; and in the numerous new churchyards and in the additions to old ones great space has necessarily been provided. But at the rate of 50 per year it would require 200 years to accomplish the work of change. Returns were presented last year for 7,369 parishes. 2,339 were omitted—probably the small parishes, which would tell most in favour of my argument. Even these defective Returns showed that in more than half the parishes the Nonconformists had no burial grounds of their own, and that there were nearly 10,000 churchyards not closed. The progress of closing is very slow indeed. In 20 years 857 have been closed, at which rate it would require 230 years to close the whole. These figures afford no ground for the statement that the grievance is rapidly decreasing, and certainly afford no ground for dealing with the subject on such a narrow basis. It was stated by the most rev. Primate last year that the number of Nonconformists who suffer from this grievance is not nearly so great as is supposed; and the most rev. Primate expressed a hope the other night that all sensible Dissenters would approve some such compromise as is now offered in this Bill. Now, we are very apt to consider those persons sensible who take the same view of a subject as ourselves. On 99 subjects out of 100 on which the most rev. Primate speaks, I have thought him one of the most sensible and persuasive speakers I know; but I would not rely exclusively on the two speeches he has made on burials to illustrate my opinion of his good sense—probably for the reason that I do not agree with them. But I will venture to ask, where are these sensible Dissenters? A circular
  1876
  has been sent to me, and therefore I presume to others of your Lordships, showing the unanimous condemnation of this Bill by all the Nonconformist denominations. I defy you to produce any one denomination of any weight which does not utterly condemn it. No fewer than 60 meetings have been held by members of all denominations. The Wesleyans, the most friendly to the Church, condemn it. The Presbyterians, a moderate Church, who are not members of the Liberation Society, but are in close sympathy with Irish and Scottish Presbyterians, will not hear of it. Last year the most rev. Primate held a conference with some of the most eminent of our Dissenting brothers. It was an act characteristic of that charity and that toleration which is one of the most honourable attributes of our National Church. Can he produce one of these persons sensible enough to approve this Bill? The Lord President foresaw this last year, for he complimented me on my sagacity in not being satisfied with my first Resolution, as no Dissenter would accept it alone. I regret that, with that knowledge, he should have introduced a Bill which, on his showing, can settle nothing, and can be agreeable to no member of the community—except, possibly, to the few who may wish to make political capital out of it. I have given reasons why I object to the administrative portion of the Bill; I believe the machinery is bad, that it will not work, and that if it does work it will lay large and often unnecessary burdens upon the ratepayers. But what I desire to know is, by what portion of the community the mode of settling the religious difficulty can be liked? I believe it would be impossible to name any sect of. Dissenters of any weight or consideration which approves of the Bill; and as to the Church of England, what proportion of its members approve of it? The members of the Church of England may be divided into four classes—The few who know nothing and are indifferent on the matter, and can therefore have no opinion in favour of the Bill. Those who think that there is no grievance, and that the bulk of Dissenters do not think they have a grievance, and that all concession to political agitators is dangerous; who believe that the grievance is entirely in another direction—that it oppresses the clergy-

  1877
  man, who is now obliged by law to express assured hopes of salvation over the graves of evildoers and of those who in their eyes are not properly baptized. The Bill does make concessions which this portion of the Church does not think called for, and it does nothing to relieve the only grievance they think valid. There is another section of the Church who rather agree with the President of the Council that, even if there is a grievance, it is exaggerated and diminishing, but who deplore the animosity between Christian denominations, and who believe it is desirable to make some sacrifices for peace. Can this section of the Church like this Bill, as giving any security for peace? Well, there is another party in the Church, comprising both clergy and laity—some of the most intellectual and devoted friends of the Establishment — these think that the grievance is real, that it will take generations to remove it by any indirect means, and that it is consistent with the highest principles of the Church of England, and necessary to its well-understood interest, completely to put an end to this grievance. Can they possibly be satisfied with this Bill? Many of your Lordships may vote for this Bill because it is brought in by Her Majesty's Government, and because they prefer it to my Resolution; but can any one of you like it? How is it with Nonconformists?
  I will now briefly allude to the most salient objections which are raised to the subject of my Resolution. One of these objections is the novelty of the complaint. Even if it were true that the complaint was new, that would not prove much. When the Nonconformists had to complain of the law of registration of marriage, of exclusion from the Universities, and of the payment of church rates as well as of the Law of Burials, and had to meet determined opposition on all these points, it was natural that they should take only one point at a time. But as a matter of fact there is no novelty in the complaint. Last year I quoted a volume, published 60 years ago, in which this grievance is set forth; and I can refer also to a pamphlet published in 183–1, 10 years before the establishment of the Liberation Society, of which the title is The Case of the Dissenters; and the injustice of the Burial Law is there as clearly insisted upon as
  1878
  ever it has been since. But, while all those have been one by one removed, this one still remains. It is said, again—
  "If you admit the Dissenters with their services to the churchyard, you logically must admit them to the church."
  In a courteous and very kindly letter which I received a fortnight ago from a right rev. Prelate—whom I do not see in his place—and for which I offer my thanks, he warned me that the passing of my Resolution would be followed by the disestablishment of the Church, by the destruction of the House of Lords, and by the overthrow of the Monarchy. I need hardly say that if I believed any one of these results would follow from this Bill; or from my Resolution, I would be the first to oppose them both. This argument was disposed of last year in a single phrase, by a most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York). He said—
  "I am not able to look upon the question as one of establishment or disestablishment. I desire very much to separate the question from disestablishment. We shall fight the battle against disestablishment on very bad ground if we have to fight it by the side of the grave."
  And he added—
  "There is a great difference between the entrance to the churchyard and entrance to the church. A man is by no means obliged to go into the church, but is quite certain to find his way into the churchyard; and that alone makes a great distinction between the two cases."—[3 Hansard, ccxxix. 627.]
  These, my Lords, are words of great weight, and those who wish to maintain the Establishment should take them to heart. Then, again, it is constantly urged—
  "If you make concessions, they are sure to be followed up by demands for further concessions."
  But this is an argument which has been used over and over again against all concessions, however just; and, so far as this particular case is concerned, it is impossible not to be aware that it has not been upon concessions, but upon refusals, that the Nonconformists have reconsidered the strength of their position and increased in their demands. There is another argument which has been often used, and as often refuted—that as to an obligation of maintenance. It is not necessary to dwell on an argument which is not sustained by

  1879
  the proposal of the Government; but I may repeat that if there was to be any bargain of this sort it should have been made at the time of the abolition, and that it ought to apply, if at all, as much to that large portion of Churchmen who contribute nothing to the maintenance of the fabric or of the churchyard. Another argument put forward is that it is very unfair to those persons who, in recent times, have built churches, created churchyards, and have dedicated them to the Established Church in the belief that the Burial Laws would be maintained by Parliament. It is said that it would have been most repugnant to these persons that the burials of Nonconformists—who have, of course, the right given them by the common law to be buried in such churchyards—should be accompanied by such religious services as to their friends seemed fit. It is rather begging the question to decide that those persons would have objected at all, and it would certainly be a serious objection to endowments if they were held to be obstacles to any improvement in any direction, and however desirable. But the objection now falls to the ground so far as those who are in favour of the present Bill are concerned, for the Bill introduces an important change in the conditions of burial in a churchyard which has been recently endowed. And does this difficulty about endowment tell entirely on one side? Some years ago Sir Morton Peto, a Baptist, purchased a large estate in Norfolk. In the interests of his Church of England tenants he created and endowed, at the expense of many thousand pounds, a national church and churchyard. Soon after the consecration of the churchyard he lost a beloved daughter. Your Lordships may imagine his feelings when he was obliged to carry the corpse of his child many miles to a strange cemetery because only a silent burial would have been permitted to her in the churchyard which he had created and presented to the Establishment, and which was associated in his mind with the memory of her early life. There is another argument against the substance of my Resolution which appears to me so fallacious that I should not have thought it necessary a second time to allude to it, if it had not been a principal topic in an eloquent speech of the First Lord of the Treasury against the claims of the Dissenters, and
  1880
  if it had not constantly been repeated up to the present moment. It is that the Resolution is of a one-sided character, inasmuch as it gives complete liberty to the Nonconformist, and none to the member of the Church of England, who must be buried by one clergyman, with one burial service. This argument may be a good one against a Church Establishment, against its discipline, its laws, and especially its parochial system; but it is futile against my proposal. It appears to me that my Resolution will give the most complete liberty to the Churchman as well as to the Nonconformist. It is true that if the Resolution was embodied in a law it would give to the Roman Catholic liberty to be buried by a layman, or a Quaker with a Roman Catholic service, if there were the most remote chance of their wishing it. But in the same way the Resolution gives liberty to members of the Established Church to be buried, if they wish it, in any Christian orderly religious way they prefer—if you can suppose the case of a sincere member of the Church of England wishing to dispense with the services and the clergyman of his own Church. What is more, the Government Bill does exactly the same thing in its degree. Like my Resolution, it does not touch the question of discipline in the Church itself, and relieve the clergyman from any obligation by which he is now bound; but it does set every other member of the Church at liberty, like Nonconformists, to be buried, if he wishes it, like a favourite hound, an excommunicated person, or a suicide. There is another argument, which weighs much with some persons, and not unnaturally, if the thing they apprehend was likely to be the case. It is that no provisions could be framed under the Resolution which could prevent scandalous and indecent occurrences in the churchyard. I believe that merely enacting such occurrences to be misdemeanours and punishable by our Courts would be sufficient; but I rely on the habits and on the feelings of the people of this country, and on the evidence given by the example of the cemeteries. I am told by a director of the Liverpool Cemetery that 70,000 persons have been buried without the slightest scandal. I believe this is the case universally, and if there be one or two exceptions, of which I am

  1881
  not aware, they would only prove the rule. If there be danger of it under my proposal nothing could be easier than to frame a clause making any indecent behaviour at a burial a misdemeanour, leaving the clause to be interpreted by the Courts of Law. Being on this subject, I must ask a question of the Government to which the House is entitled to have an answer before we go to a second reading. I beg the Lord President's particular attention to it. Has the Government considered the effect of the words of the 74th section, which permit, upon application, the burial to take place without the performance of any religious service or of any other ceremony? Do these words exclude spontaneous prayer, singing of hymns, political and even Atheistical addresses? None of these are religious services or ceremonies. Will the noble Duke also tell me—whatever his answer to the previous question may be—what are the means under this Bill by which any Christian, religious, and orderly services, as I desire, or, on the other hand, any unchristian, disorderly, and irreligious ceremonies, which I deprecate, can be prevented? What are the means of prevention now? I believe there is only one—namely, the legal provision against brawling. These provisions come into effect when the clergyman is present and the service is celebrated. But the Bill provides for the absence of a service and the absence of an officiating minister. I shall be obliged if the noble Duke will tell me where is the protection under the Bill, or whether he proposes to provide it by penal amendments in Committee?
  And now, my Lords, I come to the issue between those who are in favour of the Government Bill and those who approve the Resolution. We are told that in this matter feelings are excited, but that we are bound to think of the feelings of the Clergy as well as those who differ from our Church. I entirely admit it; I feel it would be a great mistake to ignore feelings which are conscientiously felt and excited by long habits, by tradition, and by one particular train of thought. But what is the position we are in? Her Majesty's Government admit the necessity of legislating, and have brought in a Bill dealing with a question on which the feelings of a large portion of our Clergy and of the Nonconformists are diametri-
  1882
  cally opposed, and of course they naturally clash. I think that if we seek to respect their feelings, we are bound to inquire on which side the feeling is best grounded on reason, and to which side justice inclines. Now, what are the feelings of the Clergy? I feel some hesitation in quoting what the objection is. It was stated very strongly by a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lincoln). He said—
  "They regarded the act of consecration as a very solemn one—that the essence of it consisted in separating from common uses that which is consecrated, and in transferring it from man to God; and that as the church is not the house of man, but the house of God, so the churchyard is not man's property, but His; and as He is not the author of error and confusion, but of truth and peace, so it was not consistent with the fundamental principle of consecration to allow the quiet haven of the churchyard to be disturbed by the storms of polemical controversy, and to be agitated by the winds of false doctrine and religious division and even of unbelief."—[3 Hansard, cxxix. 635.]
  I beg leave to point out that my Resolution precludes polemical controversy and unbelief, and to ask how can the burial of a Nonconformist with a Christian and religious service be more desecrating than the burial of heathens, whom you are now obliged to bury thus? What are the feelings of the Nonconformists? Their feelings revolt against being obliged, in a place where they wish to be buried—and often the only place where they can be buried—to be buried, either with the ministrations of a Church that is not their own, or else to be deprived at the moment of committing the corpse to its last abode of those religious ceremonies in harmony with their deep-seated convictions. There can be no one present who has not assisted at the last mark of respect paid a dear friend or beloved relative. You must all have felt how easily trifling circumstances, which in other cases would have no effect, jar upon your feelings. If a person has any religion at all, it is the moment when religious feelings are most excited and when there is the greatest desire to give way to those feelings in the way that you believe to be the most acceptable to God. Can you venture to say that at such a moment, in a country which professes perfect religious freedom, if you were debarred from the services of the minister who has extended Christian ministrations to the deceased, and from all mode of religious expression in har-

  1883
  mony with your convictions, that your feelings would not be equally and reasonably excited? I will not trouble your Lordships with my opinions of compulsory silent burial. I will give you the opinions of others who have more weight. I might give extracts from numerous letters which I have received during the last month, not only from laymen, but from clergymen, approving my Resolution and deprecating these silent burials but I prefer quoting persons known to you, and whose declarations have been publicly made. What have some of our great lawyers said? Sir John Nicholl, a great master of ecclesiastical law, said from the judicial bench that "the Church of England know no such indecency as putting the body into consecrated ground without the service being at the same time performed." This opinion might be twisted into an argument for keeping things as they are; but it is fatal to the Government proposal. I presume no one will deny the attachment to the Church of England of the last two ex-Chancellors. They are perfectly agreed on this point. Their opinions were expressed by one of them in these words:—
  "Such a proposition as a compulsory silent burial cannot be a settlement of the question, because it will never be accepted. In reason it cannot be any settlement. It is a necessary corollary of the principle of religious liberty that when you have got so far as to the point of dispensing with the services and the clergyman of the Church you must permit people who bury their relatives in the churchyard to do it religiously if they think fit. I cannot understand how any churchman can take up the ground that such an act as the burial of the dead, unless done with the service of the Church, ought to he done irreligiously, or in a less rather than in a more religious way. As a churchman, it appears to me not only that religious liberty gives Nonconformists a right to be relieved from services to which they conscientiously object, but that the service of the Church is prepared, and the Church wronged by forcing that service upon them. It is contrary to the first principles on which the Church was founded to say to Nonconformists, If you will not accept religion in our way, you shall, as far as we have power to compel you, do the thing which you wish to do religiously in a way that is not religious.'"—[3 Hansard, ccxxix. 659.]
  But if you are not satisfied with the opinions of legal Churchmen such as these, what have ecclesiastical authorities said about these silent burials? A right rev. Prelate spoke and voted in favour of my Resolution last year (the
  1884
  Bishop of Exeter), giving thereby the best protest against silent burials. The Bishop of Manchester gave a complete sanction to the reasonableness of the desire that the minister under whose teaching Nonconformists had lived, and by whose ministrations they had bean comforted, should be the minister at the burial service. The most rev. Prelate who presides over the Province of Canterbury last year gave a most touching description of the funeral processions he had seen winding over the mountains of Wales and of Cumberland, the sound of the hymns the mourners were offering up echoing among the hills and the valleys—then the whole stopping because the mourners had come to the sacred ground, and they could only enter it in silence. It is true that his Grace thought the difficulty might be got over by permitting verse instead of prose; but the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) reminded him that prose might be turned into blasphemous rhymes, and that hymns might be profane. This year he has thrown out another suggestion, that Convocation should settle a Church service to be read by the clergyman which should be unobjectionable to all Nonconformists. But what has Convocation been about for the last 20 years? At the request of 4,000 clergymen they have been trying to settle what burial services will be acceptable to the clergy and laity of the Church of England. But we have not yet heard that Convocation has arrived at a service which will satisfy even the members of the Church. I cannot, however, conceive why Convocation should take upon itself so responsible, so invidious, and I would add so hopeless a task as to attempt to frame a service that would meet the views of Roman Catholics and of Nonconformists of every denomination —particularly when the objection generally felt by them is not so much to the service as to its exclusive use, and to the ministrations of a minister who is not their own. When men are driven to shifts of this character I think it shows the weakness of the case they present for our acceptance.
  Last year I went into details, with which I will not now trouble your Lordships, as to the burial laws of nearly all civilized, countries. I showed that the present grievance did not exist in the United States—I might have added some

  1885
  Catholic countries in America; that it did not exist in France, in Germany, in Austria, in Hungary, in Italy, in Russia, and in Turkey; that it did not exist in any of our Colonies and dependencies, that it did not exist in Scotland; that it had existed, but had been abolished by a Conservative Government, in Ireland; that, in fact, in the whole civilized world, with the exception of Spain and Belgium, England and Wales are the only countries guilty of this small piece of intolerance, at a moment when all petty differences of life are over and all sorts and conditions of men are gathered into one place. What was the answer of the President of the Council? He passed over most of the cases. He said that the case of France was similar to that of our cemeteries, which is not the case. The French have public cemeteries for their great towns; but in the country all are buried together in the churchyard. It is true, by a law which passed before the Revolution, a piece of the churchyard is unconsecrated; but in the churchyard the Protestant is buried by his own pastor, and with his own service, in the same place as his neighbours and friends. With regard to Scotland the noble Duke said there was a difference, as the churchyards belonged to the heritors, I believe just in the same capacity of trustees as the rector of a parish, and that the Presbyterians performed themselves no service in their churchyards. I believe, however, this practice is being changed, and I would ask the noble Duke whether there is a single churchyard on his estates in which persons of all denominations cannot bury their dead according to their convictions, and whether he has known any frequent scandals to have arisen? With regard to Austria and Italy, he said they did not concern us. This is true in one sense, but not in another. The sense I mean is that understood by the Archbishop of Canterbury when he said it would not do for us to appear more bigoted than the Empires of Russia and of Austria. My Lords, there is a famous old toast—"Religious liberty all over the world." It was at one time monopolized by the Liberal Party. I hope and believe that there are few Englishmen who do not share now in that wish. Is there not something that jars upon our feeling, that on the point of religious liberty we are now discussing England
  1886
  and Wales should, along with the two exceptions I have already named, be the only exceptions to the universal example of the civilized world?
  It is good of you, my Lords, to have borne with me so long. I hope I have not entirely failed in laying down some ground for asking you to decide to-night whether, when you are about to free your Christian fellow-subjects from the obligation to accept the ministrations of your own Church, you will condemn them to these secular, godless funerals, or allow them to bury their dead with Christian and orderly religious ceremonies, in harmony with their feelings and with their conscientious convictions? The noble Earl concluded by moving the Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after ("that") in order to insert the following words, ("no amendment of the law relating to the burial of the dead in England will be satisfactory which does not enable the relatives or friends having chare of the funeral of any deceased person to conduct such funeral in any churchyard in which the deceased had a right of interment with such Christian and orderly religious observances as to them may seem fit.")—(Earl Granville.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Granville) showed a fitting consciousness of the weakest point in his procedure to-night when he devoted so large a part of his speech to a defence of the form in which He has invited your Lordships' opinion on this question. Last year there was much to be said in justification of that form of raising the question. My noble Friend then only desired to obtain a decision upon an abstract point of policy, and perhaps it would have been too much to require that he should have been at the pains of framing and introducing a Bill. But now we have a Bill introduced covering a very large extent of the ground, dealing with the whole law of burial, introducing many most important ameliorations, and giving great facilities where difficulties existed before. It is a Bill of considerable volume, extending over 80 clauses, with seven pages of Schedules besides and, I think, the objections of the noble Earl apply only to the 74th clause, and to one portion of the 6th. What would have been the ordinary course for the

  1887
  noble Earl to take under these circumstances? It would be to wait for Committee, and when the clauses to which he objected came up for discussion to state his objections. But, instead of that, the noble Earl prefers, deliberately, to expose himself to the imputation—just imputation—of resisting all the consolidation, and all the sanitary and administrative improvements we propose in order to obtain an opinion on this one isolated point. In this Bill there are clauses for enforcing on each community the duty of providing a burial ground which did not exist under the present law; there are many provisions for facilitating the creation of Burial Boards, which are much required; and there are sanitary provisions which the researches of recent years have shown to be highly important. But the noble Earl is content to pass by all this in order to bring one point before your Lordships. And why does he take this course? He does not expose himself to such a disadvantage gratuitously. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that it would baffle not only his skill, but the skill of the distinguished lawyer at his side (Lord Selborne) to produce a Bill which would embody the Resolution he has laid on the Table. There is a great distinction between the action of the noble Earl and the action of his coadjutor in the other House. The noble Earl, taking into view the state of opinion in this House, has shown himself painfully alive to the subject of decent Christian burial. His coadjutor in the other House, however, has freed himself from any such hampering considerations. But the noble Earl knows that one of the vital difficulties of this question—one which more than any other has prevented any approximation between the conflicting parties on this point—is the impossibility of giving a legislative definition to the word "Christian." We know what we mean when we talk of "a Christian" pretty well. We know what communities we should designate by that name, and to what communities we should refuse it. But we cannot frame a legislative definition which will mark the distinction between those who are Christians and those who are not. The result is that any change in the law which you can make must give opportunity for those burials in which infidel and free-thinking sentiments would be
  1888
  pronounced over the grave. The proposal of the noble Earl slurs over the difficulties which stand in the way of the settlement of the question. The noble Earl, though he has followed the precedent of last year in this respect, has departed from it in a material particular in another. Last year the noble Earl made two proposals—one giving permission for burials without a religious service; another for giving permission for Christian burials with a service other than that of the Established Church. Well, we argued the matter at great length, and opinions of various kinds were expressed upon it. This year, though it does not form a main part of our scheme, we have added at the end of the Bill a clause, adopted at the suggestion, not of Dissenters, but of Churchmen, which will give facilities for one of the things which the noble Earl asked last year, and for which Mr. Osborne Morgan in the other House also asked. We expected that the concession would at least be received with approval—but what do we hear? Mr. Osborne Morgan last year proposed, as one of his alternatives, a silent burial service, and so did the noble Earl. But now we are told that this which they proposed last year is this year "grating" to the noble Earl's ear, and he quotes Sir John Nicholl to show that his own proposal would be a gross indecency. That is not an encouragement to concession. The noble Earl told us that it was not concession which did harm, but the continual refusal of concession. That is an argument which might be expressed in a somewhat hackneyed form by the phrase of a distinguished writer which I saw in a newspaper this morning, exhorting us to consider the story of the Sibyl. But I fear the Sibyl of these days is a very altered and degenerate Sibyl. The Sibyl of old, if somewhat hard-fisted, was at least honest and stuck to her bargain; but the Sibyl of our time, though she demands more if you refuse her offer, demands a great deal more if you concede it. I do not intend to follow the noble Earl in the details of his speech, but I would like to make one or two observations on the statistics of the subject. The noble Earl said that 8,000 parishes had not had their churchyards closed, and, he, therefore, concluded that these 8,000 parishes were subject to the special grievance He de-

  1889
  sires to remedy. In the first place, I would point out that this is, in a great measure, a mistake. What constantly happens in country districts is that when the churchyard is full a neighbouring landowner gives a bit of ground for a new churchyard without closing the old one. Closing an old churchyard is a proceeding which is much disliked, and it is only in thickly-peopled districts that it is resorted to. In my belief, 8,000 exceed enormously the number of parishes whore the old ancestral churchyards are still available. The noble Earl went on to draw a most extraordinary conclusion from the figures he adduced. He said he had ascertained that the price of a new burial-ground in Bromley was 1500; and he multiplied the 8,000 parishes by that £500, and by that means arrived at the conclusion that some £4,000,000 would be required to provide the country with new churchyards. But, my Lords, it must be within the knowledge of everybody that the places where these still unfilled churchyards exist, and where the grievance can therefore be supposed to arise, are places in remote country districts, where land is comparatively cheap. I am not using the language of exaggeration when I say I believe that in the vast majority of cases £50 would provide the land necessary for burying Nonconformists. Do not distort the statistics involved—it would be a very small burden, and this Bill would not only enable you to buy burial grounds, but will enable landowners to give them to the parish at great personal sacrifice. I agree with the noble Earl that the landowners have no wish to hinder the Dissenters in the performance of their solemn rites—the impediment assuredly arises from no such feelings. The noble Earl is quite right in saying that the churchyards are closing slowly; that is our case, and is the reason why we have provided the new facilities. If Parliament will pass this Bill new cemeteries, wherever they are wanted, or wherever it can be shown that a real grievance exists, will be established in the easiest and freest manner. We believe that wherever the Dissenters feel the grievance they will be enabled to free themselves from it easily. The real question your Lordships have to consider is, whether you will pass this Bill and take the
  1890
  subject-matter of the controversy out of the way, or whether you will adopt the proposal of the noble Earl. We have not offered any attempt to reconcile contending parties—there would be no encouragement for such an attempt; nor have we tried summarily to put an end to the controversy—but we have certainly afforded the means of doing so. My Lords, the radical fallacy in the argument of the noble Earl is that, in his view, the controversy has only one side, and that if you satisfy that one you put an end to the dispute. But it should be kept in mind that a controversy is like a quarrel, and requires two persons to make it. This controversy rages between two sets of controversialists whose consciences are equally tender; but its area is limited, and the number of, persons who really feel the grievance is comparatively few. My belief is, that the grievance of which we have heard so much is a political grievance, upheld in the main by political agitators for political purposes. They may, perhaps, have a perfect right to pursue the object on which their hearts are set—the Disestablishment of the Church—and their efforts may be conscientious, yet I cannot see that there is any use in Parliament giving so fragmentary a satisfaction to their wishes. They will not leave you more at peace, because they have larger objects to gain, and this is only one stage of the road along which they desire to travel. Compromises no doubt are useful things; but they are only really useful when they have the effect of arresting the controversy. If I were pursued by a lion it would be no use for me to present him with one of my legs and expect him to be satisfied; and in the same way there is no use in compromising with these political Dissenters, or in presenting them with a minute, an infinitesimal sop, in the hope that their appetites will I be assuaged. I quite concur with the noble Earl that the grievance should be respected, and I earnestly wish that it had not arisen on this subject, and that the sanctity of the grave might be observed by the absence of all disputed questions. But we wish to remove the grievance, and our Bill simply proposes to maintain arrangements that have existed for a thousand years. But, are there no other parties to the controversy besides the Dissenters? Granted that

  1891
  their grievance is one that should be removed—and we admit it by our Bill—we believe that it can be removed by imitating the practice of the French Church—namely, of reserving a portion of ground unconsecrated. That is, in our mind, the best arrangement, and the controversy is disappearing in those parishes where that arrangement exists. But will the proposals of this Resolution produce peace? The noble Earl thought it inconceivable that any objections should exist on the other side; but every one must know that Churchmen, especially in the rural districts, feel very keenly on the question. There are those who take the view of political considerations, and who think that the granting of this concession will be an additional argument for entering the church itself. Is that an unreasonable position? But we are told that every one need not go to church, while every one must be buried; well, every one need not be married, and I want to know whether Dissenters have not the right to be married in church? Is that really made a grievance? As a matter of fact, they are often married elsewhere; but the truth is that all sentimental arguments apply with equal force to entering the church itself; and of course there is the stock argument of the funeral procession being stopped and silenced at the door of the churchyard. Well, suppose it is stopped, instead, at the church door, the argument is the same. Perhaps we should not admit the justice of the analogy, because there is nothing so illogical as to apply logic to public affairs, and we should not submit to a pitiless application of logic. I am sure that the clergy will regard that proposal, not as a settlement of the question, but as the herald and prelude to new attacks and greater dangers. And not only the clergy have these fears, but many Churchmen, and it is not easy to convey to the mind of those opposed to us the precise scruples which weigh with them. They may be right or wrong; but it is necessary to recognize those feelings which are very strong in the rural parts of the country, and to admit that many persons regard as profanation the performance of rites of one kind in a place set apart for ministrations of another. In some sense I presume there is no one who will not admit the truth of that
  1892
  principle in an extreme case, such as the preaching of a Positivist sermon, or the performance of Hindoo rites in a Christian Church. On the other hand, there are limitations which everybody will admit in another direction. For example, we see abroad the Service of the Church of England performed in a Lutheran church, and we see hardly any incongruity and nothing wrong in the proceeding. Between these two points men differ very much in opinion, and in this city many things would be endured which in a more primitive population would be rejected. But it is certain, at all events, that if the more extreme forms of religious Dissent, whether they come within the noble Earl's definition of Christian or not—such as the Unitarians and many classes of Freethinkers —were to be allowed to have their prayers, their hymns, and their addresses admitted into the churchyard, this would be thought by numbers of Churchmen to be a deep and terrible profanation. There are others who would deem it to be so in some degree with respect to those sects of Dissenters who do not differ from us largely on any dogmatic question. I do not know how far that opinion exists, but I suspect it is much more widely spread than Members of this House have any conception of, and that the clergy would feel the presence of a minister whose Orders they do not recognize, and a service involving, even to a small extent, doctrines which they do not believe, to be an injury to their conscience and unsuited to the sanctity of the holy place in which they were introduced. Your Lordships must remember that of late years, while there has been a considerable feeling in favour of latitude, on the other hand, a school has grown up which attaches intense importance to these distinctions; that that school as time goes on, and as cohesion is lent to it by injudicious attacks, is becoming more coherent and more organized, and that in places where it is powerful it commands an intense devotion which would find its expression in deep and earnest resistance to the proceeding contemplated by the noble Earl. I desire as I go along to guard myself at every step by saying that I have studied these matters as phenomena. I am not expressing my own coincidence, much less the coincidence of my Colleagues, in the opinions

  1893
  I am endeavouring to describe. But I desire to draw your minds to the mere fact that although your Lordships may not agree with these opinions, this is no reason why you should ignore them. They are causes which will produce effects, and if you wound men in their tenderest feelings and in matters which they hold to be sacred, you will have resistance which will certainly be pushed in every legal and constitutional way—and I will not answer that it will not be pushed even to the extent of tumult. The noble Earl has told us that there have been great and beneficial reforms, that the clergy have always opposed those reforms, and that, therefore, we ought not to heed their opposition. But remember, my Lords, that the clergy are not as they were 40 years ago, and there is not now the same content as there was then to receive all that Parliament may do. In a measure the object of which is peace, the state of their opinions must be taken into account. So far for the considerations which have induced us to insert in this Bill provisions which we hope may, at no distant date, remove the causes of a controversy which we earnestly desire to arrest, and which we can see no other means of assuaging. We confidently recommend the measure to your Lordships. Its effect will certainly not be violent, but it will tend to remove the cause of conflict, so far as to bring those who are so bitterly opposed nearer to each other. We confidently recommend it to you in preference to a solution which would satisfy only one side, and, treading down the other, would create more bitterness and acrimony than it removes, while it would intrude upon and jeopardize ancient rights, and would, in the present state of men's minds, undoubtedly lend force to those who are banding themselves together for the suppression of our Established Church.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether there is any possibility of inducing the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) to embody in some clause which he might introduce into this Bill the Resolution which he submitted to the House. Certainly, that would enable us better to decide whether his proposal is a practical one or not. I am afraid the noble Earl may think that any reputation I may have for good sense is endangered
  1894
  by my making this proposal to him; but, at the same time, as my most earnest desire is that this matter should be, if possible, settled, and if not settled, that we should come to the dearest possible approach to a solution, I think it would be far better to consider some amendment to the present Bill rather than a Resolution which, if carried, would practically cause the Bill to disappear. It is true the Bill might be proposed again to-morrow evening if the noble Earl's Resolution were adopted; but I do not expect that if his Resolution were adopted the Bill would thus re-appear. Therefore, I fear that if we adopt the Resolution we shall lose, perhaps, the last opportunity of settling this difficult question in an amicable spirit. I quite understand the noble Lord when he says that the Bill does not come up to the whole magnitude of the case. But it is not always possible to have the best solution, and we must often be content with what is possible, rather than with that which is in itself the most desirable. I cannot doubt that Tier Majesty's Ministers, looking to the state of public opinion—especially among their own Supporters—have gone as far as it was possible for them practically to go in the endeavour to obtain some solution of this difficulty. How far the Bill may be amended in Committee, and so made more palatable to the whole country, I am not at present prepared to say; but I think I should fail in my duty if I did not say that the measure ought to be read a second time, and that your Lordships should appoint a Committee with a view of endeavouring to make it as good a Bill as possible. With regard to the 74th clause, I am not sure it has been understood. On the first reading of this measure I expressed a hope that the grievance in this matter might be removed by some alteration of the law as it effects the existing services of the Church of England. I hold that everyone who is desirous of being buried in the churchyards of the Church of England, and who has no conscientious objection to the service of the Church of England, is entitled to be buried with that service. But, as the law stands, a large number of persons who desire to have their relatives interred with the service of the Church of England are prevented from having them so interred because that

  1895
  service cannot be read over those who die unbaptized. The noble Earl opposite mentioned the ease of Sir Morton Peto; and I must say I entirely agree with him in the opinion that it is a scandal to the Church of England that it should be necessary for a father who had built a church and given a churchyard to have his daughter's corpse carried to a great distance, in order that it might receive Christian burial with a religious service. I am not, however, without hope that some plan may be devised whereby that which is a real grievance may be removed, and that all persons who are desirous of having their dead interred within the churchyards of the Church of England, and have no conscientious objection to the words used in its service, may receive Christian burial there, the minister of the Church of England, the present custodian of the churchyard, reading the service. That there is a real grievance involved in this matter I think your Lordships will admit. We have within the last few days heard of the dreadful tragedy in South Wales. We have read with attention the account of the sufferings of those unfortunate persons who were shut up in darkness during those long days of misery. One boy is represented as endeavouring to sustain his spirits by singing the songs of Moody and Sankey, and another was crushed to death by a stone, which fell upon him and a man who was working with him. I do not know what was the religious persuasion of those two boys; but on looking at the hymns which were quoted in the newspapers, I am rather disposed to think that both were members of the Baptist denomination. Now, it seems to me that human nature would cry out if the body of either of those boys, when recovered, had been brought to the churchyard, and the clergyman was to find himself precluded, as he is by the present law, from giving Christian burial to one who, in the agonies of death, had shown that He was a real Christian. Now, my Lords, that is the reason why I am anxious that there should be some alteration in this matter of the sort of service which may be used by the Church of England in peculiar circumstances. I cannot say that the noble Earl or anyone else seems to afford any great encouragement to my desire that this change should be made. I do not,
  1896
  however, despair on that account, because I have full confidence that it is a change which the good feeling of the Church of England would approve—that there shall be in the case of persons who die unbaptized through no fault of their own, some means provided by which the minister of religion presiding over the parish may be enabled to commit their bodies to the grave with such consolatory words as their friends may desire should be uttered over their remains. But before I leave this branch of the subject, let me ask whether the 74th clause, which hints at silent burial, is altogether such an insult to Dissenters as it is represented to be in a very important paper which has been placed in my hands, and in, I believe, the hands of all your Lordships. A great many of the Dissenting bodies represent the old Westminster Confession. There is a large body who are intimately connected with the Established, or the Free, or the United Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and who do not, I apprehend, the moment they cross the border leave all their prejudices and feelings behind them. I hold in my hand the "Book of Discipline," which is not only the charter of the Established, the Free, and the United Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, but also of that English Kirk of Geneva whereof John Knox was minister, and which has received, and I think receives up to the present day, the sanction, if not the deliberate signature of a large number of the Dissenters of England. Now, nothing can be stronger than the expressions which that Book contains. For example, it is set forth in it that for the avoiding of all inconvenience—
  "We judge it best that neither singing nor reading be at a burial, for although it may admonish some of the living to prepare themselves for death, yet it is the view of some superstitious persons that the singing and the reading of the living may benefit the dead. Therefore, we think it most expedient that the dead be conveyed to the place of burial without singing or reading—yea, without all kinds of ceremonies hitherto used, and that they be committed to the grave with gravity and sobriety."
  I am, my Lords, by no means anxious to see that system more largely introduced into England than at present; but I do not think that it is desired under the 74th clause to do so. What that clause says to any man who is a follower of John Knox or a Dissenter

  1897
  with the true principles Dissenters once maintained, is that if he desires to be buried without any religious service then that may be done which, according to the dictum of the noble Earl opposite, is now illegal. Such a burial is thus recognized, in the first place, as being decent, and, in the second place, is made legal. Now, I see no reason why some such Amendment should not be introduced into the Bill as that to which I have alluded;—and I may at once say that the Amendment was placed in my hands by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), whom I regret not to see in his place, for the purpose of enabling persons who have not been baptized and whose friends do not desire that they should be buried in silence, to be interred with some appropriate rites by the clergyman of the parish. The 74th clause, I maintain, makes room for such an arrangement, and I, for one, do not look upon it as hopeless. That is the reason why I am anxious that we should go into Committee on the Bill, in order that we may arrive there at something like a real solution of this question. The Bill, I am ready to admit, requires to be considered with great care; and nothing could in my opinion be more unfortunate than if through any mistake the liberty which we at present enjoy should be curtailed. The noble Earl alluded to the possibility under the Bill of the delivery of political and religious addresses at the grave. As to the burial which has been alluded to in the Brompton Cemetery, I hold in my hand a letter from the clergyman who officiated, who says he does not exactly know what occurred after he left the grave, but that he understands discourses suitable to the occasion were delivered. I do not know whether that is legal or illegal; but I do hope such liberty as now exists will not be diminished. There is another point to which I wish also to direct your Lordships' attention. The late respected Greek Chaplain of the Russian Embassy was buried in consecrated ground of the Church of England. He was buried by the present highly respected Chaplain of the Greek Embassy, and I hold in my hand a letter from that excellent person which describes the service at the burial, and states that a Greek service was celebrated in consecrated ground of the Church of England. If that is lawful
  1898
  at present, I hope care will be taken not to lessen the existing liberty. When this matter was brought before your Lordships last summer there was a good deal said about the burial of M. Guizot, and there seemed to be great difficulty in ascertaining what was the state of the case as to the service which had been used over M. Guizot's grave in France. It appears that he was buried in a Roman Catholic cemetery and that the Protestant service was said over his grave. Now, the law of France in country places, so far as I can understand it, does not allow this. I happened to mention the matter in conversation with an eminent Frenchman shortly after it was brought under your Lordships' notice, and he said—" I can give you the solution of that difficulty. M. Guizot was a very great man, and, therefore, his friends were entitled to bury him exactly as they pleased." I trust, my Lords, we shall not fall into the same mistake in this country. An eminent Greek, dying in London—in the midst of the enlightenment of London—is buried with the Greek ceremonial in a consecrated churchyard of the Church of England; but a poor Greek, dying at Shoreditch and carried off to some small cemetery in an unknown place, may be refused those rites which are gladly conceded, whether lawfully or unlawfully, to the man of wealth and consideration. These are cases which, I think, we ought carefully to consider in Committee. My Lords, the object of my ' speech is simply to induce your Lordships to give this Bill a second reading. It is not that I am enamoured of the Bill; but that I think the question ought to be settled. The Bill is, perhaps, a good Bill, considering the difficulties of the case. It is impossible in the present state of feeling which the noble Marquess has described to produce the best possible measure. That, however, is no reason for not producing a tolerably good measure—and certainly it is no reason for passing a set of Resolutions which will not allow us even to look at the present measure to find out whether it is good or bad. My Lords, I desire most earnestly that this question should be set at rest. I do not say that the noble Earl does not equally wish for a settlement, but there are eminent people who do not seem to desire it. It it a very convenient thing

  1899
  sometimes in political life to have a few questions of this kind in which we can show our extraordinary liberality without the necessity of coming to definite action. While I am sure the noble Earl wishes that the question should be settled, there are other persons, I believe, who deliberately desire to keep it open. With them I have no sort of sympathy. I wish to close it. I remember a great question closed in your Lordships' House after it had occupied the attention of Parliament—I cannot tell for how many years—the question of the admission of Jews into Parliament. How was that settled? Something was proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan), and before anybody knew where we were the whole thing was settled, and we have not heard of it since. Perhaps the present question will come to a similar close. I most heartily support the second reading of this Bill.
  LORD SELBORNE: My Lords, we have just heard two remarkable speeches. The most rev. Prelate thinks that the course taken by my noble Friend (Earl Granville) is not the best adapted for the settlement of the question—and, doubtless, upon that and every other point whatever falls from the most rev. Prelate is entitled to our most respectful consideration. But the greater part of the speech of the most rev. Prelate was one series of arguments in favour of the principle of my noble Friend's Resolution. I was particularly struck by the observation in the latter part of his speech with regard to the risk there might be, if we adopted the 74th clause, of curtailing in certain respects a liberty which now exists. The most rev. Prelate referred to cases in which persons belonging to the Greek Church had been buried in churchyards of the Church of England with their own religious rites ' and it was impossible not to see that the most rev. Prelate would rejoice if that were allowed to all Christians of all denominations throughout the country, and that it was only because of the state of feeling among the clergy, that he hesitated to declare his unqualified approbation of the principle of my noble Friend's Resolution. The noble Marquess also (the Marquess of Salisbury) spoke of a clerical feeling which, whether we agreed with it or not, we could not ignore, and he seemed to regard the present measure as being, not
  1900
  the best that might be desired, but only the best possible in the present state of clerical feeling. He spoke of the noble Earl behind me (Earl Granville) as having laboured under a sense of some difficulties: but that was as to mere matters of form: and I think the noble Marquess felt throughout his own speech that the difficulties he had to deal with were difficulties in matters of substance. If it wore the case that the adoption of the Resolution would prevent or retard a settlement of the question, that would be a strong argument against it; but we believe that the Resolution expresses the only true principle on which the question can be settled: and we feel confident that the affirmance of that principle by your Lordships would lead at once, by the shortest and surest road, to a settlement. This is not one of those questions on which people can say there are "three courses" open. There are only two courses really —one is to maintain the status quo, the other to put an end to the grievance; and nothing short of what is proposed by my noble Friend's Resolution can put an end to the grievance. The noble Marquess spoke of keeping up the usage of 1,000 years; but the 74th clause as it stands would alter that usage, without, however, really putting an end to the difficulty. We are challenged to show how any Bill could possibly express the safeguards which the Resolution of my noble Friend affirms to be necessary. I shall have no difficulty whatever, at the proper time, in meeting that challenge. Of course you cannot define by Act of Parliament what is "Christian," what is "orderly," or what is "religious." But the honest good sense of the administrators of the law would easily say what was clearly not Christian, not orderly, or not religious; and, where doubt existed, penalties neither ought to be nor would be imposed. The law, as it is, does not trouble itself with definitions, for the purpose of dealing with a man who goes into a churchyard, and either before or after the service says something which is "irreligious" or "un-Christian," or does something which is "disorderly." In such cases the law would look to the character and quality of the act from a common sense and practical point of view, and if there was any reasonable doubt as to how it ought to be regarded, would give

  1901
  the man the benefit of that doubt. Nor is that my opinion only. I see that in the Convocation of York the other day the Dean of Manchester expressed a similar opinion. And it has been often suggested that permission should be given for the use of hymns and prayers—which means, I suppose, Christian hymns, and Christian prayers—with the reading of passages of Scripture. Judging from the recent discussion between Mr. Morley, as representing the religious Dissenters, and an eminent Member of your Lordships' House (the Earl of Shaftesbury), I believe there would have been no great difficulty in the acceptance by the general body of Dissenters, if the Government had seen their way to accept it, of an arrangement permitting those things and defining them in that manner. My Lords, there is no real difficulty whatever about those things. If they were sanctioned by law I undertake to say that there would not be one case in 10,000 in which any practical question would arise. All the arguments we hear about this grievance being a small one or a diminishing one are much sounder arguments for leaving things alone than for making changes which will unsettle everything and settle nothing. But are those arguments well founded? I ventured to say last year, and I repeat now after deliberate consideration, that there can be no greater fallacy than to suppose that this is a diminishing grievance or one likely to diminish. It is not a question of the number of churchyards or the number of cemeteries accessible. The question is as to the number of members of the community to whom it is, or may be, a grievance. Nobody knows better than noble Lords opposite what is the meaning of the term "political education." The noble Earl at the head of the Government, if he is not the author of that phrase, used it on one occasion in a way which history will record. Now, among other modes of political education one is to educate a grievance. Nothing is more easy than to make a grievance practical which before was not. ["Hear!"] You may do that in one way, which the noble Lords opposite who cheer appear to guess—namely, by agitation—by instilling into men's minds ideas which before they had not realized. That process has been going on for some time in this country, and is cer-
  1902
  tainly not likely to go on less if you postpone a settlement of the question. How does it work? Dissenters who have not thought much of these things are made to think more of them. They have a principle put before them in this way—"Do you or do you not wish to have religious liberty in the matter of burial? Do you think it consistent with your rights, as Dissenters, to be told that you cannot bury your dead in a place where the law gives you a right to bury them with any religious observances whatever, unless they are dictated to you by the Church or by Convocation?" A great many people who have never thought of this, as a practical grievance, will become sensible of it when it is put into their heads; and the more they dwell upon it the more their esprit de corps as Dissenters will be increased and the more their sense of the necessity of having their rights conceded to them. will become familiarized to their minds. Therefore, as long as this grievance remains unredressed, the number of persons will be found continually increasing, who from year to year or from month to month will claim to have their religious liberty, in this matter, respected by the law. Another mode of political education is the insisting upon your right to refuse other people the religious liberty which they claim. The more you refuse religious liberty in these matters to Nonconformists, the more certain it is that men who are in any sense at all Nonconformists will become united in treating the grievance as a practical one, and in demanding its removal. You must not forget that the law gives to Dissenters the right, which this Bill does not take away, of interment in churchyards. There may be many persons whose relatives and friends rest in the churchyard, and who would desire at their death to lie beside them; and it would be no answer to them to say—"You cannot have your legal right in the churchyard, your body cannot be laid there beside the bodies of your wife and children otherwise than by the service of the Church or by silent burial. But you may go to the cemetery somewhere else and have the interment there, with any observances which you please." 'I do not think you would entirely remove the grievance, even if you could offer universally such an alternative as that. Again, it appears to me that

  1903
  your attempt to deal in this grudging way with the religious question has very much prejudiced the sanitary and consolidation parts of your Bill. There is, no doubt, very good reason on sanitary grounds why some churchyards should be shut up; but that is a question which rests on its own merits, and when you mix it up with this endeavour to patch up a great political question, it cannot fail to be looked at from an invidious point of view. So with consolidation. If you had proposed consolidation apart from any great political question, I do not suppose you would have found Dissenters throughout the Kingdom using their utmost ingenuity to pick holes in the Acts which you want to consolidate, as is now the case. As it is, you have succeeded in opening new fields for agitation, and in raising questions about the consecration of parts of cemeteries, about chapels in cemeteries, and about the fees paid to the clergy for burials in them. So far as relates to the provisions of this Bill for the erection of new cemeteries where the churchyards are not closed, I do not believe you will find Dissenters availing themselves of them, or Churchmen exposing themselves to the great odium of taxing their neighbours for additional burying ground which is not wanted merely to aggravate, so to say, the feelings of their Dissenting countrymen, not to satisfy them. Therefore, that part of your Bill will really be a dead letter. It is possible that if sanitary considerations require it you may shut up some churchyards; but as to opening new cemeteries you will not do it at any greater rate than the real wants of the country require. Now, as regards the 74th clause it has been pointed out that it contains no safeguard whatever against either irreligious or other improper services. It simply provides that a burial may be made in the churchyard without the performance of any religious service or of any other ceremony. There is no penalty provided for the use of a religious or any other service or ceremony, however objectionable. In altering the conditions on which the legal right now rests, and yet not permitting it to be exercised upon terms satisfactory to those who are entitled to it, you will be challenging and provoking new experiments—especially after what we have heard from the most
  1904
  rev. Prelate; who appears to think it doubtful whether, even under the present law, Dissenters have not the right to use their own religious services, provided they do not interfere with the parish clergyman in the performance of his duty. The most rev. Prelate is not the only person by whom such anticipations have been expressed. I find that the other day in the Convocation of the Province of York, Canon Cundill objected to the concession of silent funerals. He is reported to have said—
  "Very probably, if they granted silent funerals, they would not really be silent. Already, though the law was against them, Dissenters often had services of their own in the churchyards. It was not at all unusual, after the clergyman had retired, for them to say or do something in addition to the Church service ….. Sanction silent burials, and the Synod gave up the whole principle."
  But he met with no support, and the Synod did sanction silent burials. Supposing, however, that it is not the present state of the law that Dissenters, when the service of the Church is not imposed upon them by law, may satisfy their own natural feelings at the grave in a Christian way, what would happen if you attempted to prosecute them? You find that even clergymen of the Established Church, when they conduct services agreeably to their own ideas of duty, but not according to the interpretation which the Courts place on the law, are not always ready to submit to authority: and when the law is put in force against them a vast amount of clerical, and some lay, sympathy is expressed for them. Do you think there would be less sympathy with Dissenters who used prayers and read passages of Scripture at the grave if they were prosecuted for doing so? I venture to say that such a state of the law could never be enforced, and it would be far better to make it clear that such is not to be the state of the law. I will not pursue this subject further; but I wish to make a few comments on two stock arguments which are often introduced when this question is discussed. I mean the argument from the entrance which would be forced into the church, and the argument from the danger of disestablishment as a consequence of allowing Dissenters to use their own religious services in churchyards. In political questions, the noble Marquess said, logic is sometimes employed illogically; but I do not think

  1905
  I have often heard a more illogical use of the forms of logic than that which my noble Friend has to-night condescended to imitate—namely, as to the necessity of letting people use their own services in the church because you let them use their own services in the churchyard. The answer to that argument is trite. People must die and must also be buried; and in many instances the parish churchyard is the only place where they can be buried. They have no choice as to that, and the law gives them the right to be buried there. But the same thing does not apply to the church. It is said, why not apply the same principle to marriage, or to public worship, which may also be represented as necessary things? The cases are not really parallel:—if they were, the same principle ought to be applied. It is not so absolutely necessary for a man to be married as it is for him to die and to be buried—though every man is entitled to marry if he can get some one to accept him. But it would be wholly contrary to the principles of religious freedom to compel people to be married with the Service of the Church of England if they were obliged to be married in our churches and nowhere else. They can everywhere be married, either at the Registrar's office, or in a Dissenting chapel; and the analogy between the case of marriage and the case of burial, therefore, wholly fails. Again, I should be sorry to disparage the necessity, to those of right mind, of public worship. But it is perfectly easy for them to worship elsewhere than in the parish church. They may worship in Nonconformist chapels or in their own houses—there is no natural necessity which is interfered with, and the freedom of worship is sufficient for all practical purposes. Worship is a thing, the need of which is continually recurring, to those who are sensible of it at all, during the whole of their lives; and therefore every religious community makes provision for it everywhere, and all religious communities prefer to conduct it in places set apart for their own exclusive use. Burial is wanted once only by every man, and that after his death. Therefore, the analogy sought to be drawn again fails here. The truth is that Nonconformists have never asked to go into the church. The Clergy have invented that argument to meet a danger which, except as
  1906
  an incident of disestablishment, is entirely one of their own imagination. Disestablishment is a different thing. I have not been converted to it. Since your Lordships discussed this question last year, a league of clergymen and laymen professing great attachment to the principles of the Church of England, has been formed in favour of disestablishment. I am as alive to the dangers of disestablishment as any of your Lordships. I admit that there are real dangers. It is a real danger when those whose duty in the Church is defined by law refuse to recognize the interpretations of the Courts of Law, and even the right of Parliament to give authority to adjudicate in Church questions to any tribunal. I do not know whether they are among those who think it their duty to keep Dissenters most strictly to the terms of the law with regard to the churchyards; but the course I have indicated seems to me to be a real danger in the direction of disestablishment. It is also a real danger when large associations of influential persons, including clergymen and laymen, circulate through the country resolutions which commend as a right and proper thing on the part of the clergy that kind of resistance to the law. Nor does it seem to me to be quite free from danger when we find that, beyond the sphere of those who either themselves break the law or invite and encourage others to break it, there is a much larger class of men whose sympathies, so far as they are publicly expressed, appear to flow much more freely towards those who suffer for breaking the law, than towards those whose duty it is to administer it. It is, I think, a danger, too, when we are told, apparently by influential persons, that they must have some new law to limit the Royal Supremacy; that legislation in Church matters is absolutely necessary; but that there shall be no such legislation, until Parliament limits its own powers to the function of giving a simple assent or dissent to provisions prepared for it either by Convocation or by some ecclesiastical assembly to be hereafter defined. These are real dangers, but dangers which those who are so sensitive to the risk of disestablishment from respecting the consciences of Dissenters seem to contemplate without much disturbance of mind. The Dissenters are,

  1907
  beyond all doubt, a very powerful political body. They are one of the forces which are banded together against the Established Church; but I am most afraid of them when they have a real grievance, as in this ease; and I think I am doing most to diminish their power of injuring the Church when I try to remove that grievance, and when, doing to others as I should wish to be done by, I ask your Lordships to settle this question—as I believe it only can be settled—on the terms proposed by my noble Friend who moved the Resolution.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYadmitted that this was a question which could not be approached without very considerable difficulty, and that what his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) had called the phenomena of the case were no slight matters. He could very well understand how many of the Clergy could look upon the demand of the Nonconformists for admission into the churchyards with apprehension and distrust. The Clergy were the custodians of the churchyards, which to them were 'cherished places, surrounded with the tenderest and most holy associations, and which brought them into the closest connection with their parishioners. They felt that they wore now labouring under attacks by a powerful and unrelenting body, and any encroachment upon the monopoly of that sacred ground, which they had hitherto possessed could not but be regarded with the greatest pain and almost the deepest resentment. But these were not the only considerations—the Clergy were not the only parties to be considered in the settlement of the question. He could not but think that without weakening the real basis of the Established Church, they ought to try to reconcile it to the wants and circumstances of the population. It was necessary to consider that though perhaps a third of the population had ceased to be within the pale of the Church of England, they had not lost altogether their parochial sympathies. One of the most important points, then, which their Lordships had to consider was how they could reconcile the peculiar connection of the churchyard with the Church of England with the feelings of that large portion of the population which did not belong to her communion. He could not think that the provisions of the Bill before the House as it now stood offered the
  1908
  slightest prospect of bringing about that reconciliation:—indeed, practically, the effect of it had been to rouse—even among those Dissenters who most sympathized with the Church of England on other points — a feeling of irritation, which the sooner it was put an end to the better. The Dissenters had proclaimed their dissatisfaction with the provisions of the Bill, and, whether rightly or wrongly—there was no use in arguing with sentiment—had even received the measure as an affront. He could not attach the same importance as had been attached by the most rev. Prelate to the proof that the Dissenters were mistaken. It was in vain to say that the Dissenters ought not to take the offer of silent burial as an affront—for if they received it as such it would leave the same wounded feelings behind—and when they remembered that by the proposal of a silent burial they associated Dissenters with the un-baptized, the excommunicated, and the suicide, it was not altogether surprising that it should be received as an affront, although misled by the analogy of Scotland, no affront but a measure of conciliation was intended. However, in his opinion it was better to amend the Bill which was before their Lordships than fetter themselves by the Resolution; and when the Bill was in Committee, if no one else should come forward to move an Amendment to the 74th clause he would do so. He thought it would be something nobler than standing on their rights if Churchmen were to say—" You Dissenters have certainly put yourselves out of Court very much for claiming access to churchyards which you have refused to support by rates, and by contending that the Church is not national, but sectarian; but, at the same time, we wish to show the comprehensiveness of the Church of England, we still claim for her the position of a National Church, and if you prefer to be buried under the shadow of the old parish church we will receive you with open arms, and allow you to bury your dead with any religious rights which may be Christian and orderly." For the interpretation of the words "Christian and orderly" he would, with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Selborne), rely on common sense and good feeling. He did not want to see new cemeteries; what he wanted was to see the Dissen-

  1909
  ters still crowding round our churchyards, to which they clung from dear and old associations.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, the real question to-night was whether their Lordships would vote for the second reading of the Bill, which was intended, at least, to minimize a grievance of the Nonconformists; or whether they would adopt the Resolution of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), which would distinctly admit into our churchyards persons not in communion with the Church, not merely as mourners and to take part in the common rites of burial, but to administer their own special forms of worship. He sympathized entirely with the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Harrowby) when he spoke of the comprehensiveness of the Church and in his desire that they should lay aside all bitterness and act towards Nonconformists in the most Christian manner. But if he could not vote for the Resolution of the noble Earl, that was not the result of sectarian jealousy—there should be no such thing as sectarian feeling in respect to a question such as this—the Church was very comprehensive — and its Burial Service was the clearest proof of its comprehensiveness—all its services were open to all denominations—the only difference was as respected the unity of the Church. This was not merely a clerical question; nor was it uncharitableness on the part of the Clergy to take the view that the Church was essentially one body, distinct from all others—a view upon which the Reformation had proceeded. There was, in fact, a difference of theory between Nonconformists and Churchmen—Churchmen regarded the Church as one body, of which the several national Churches were distinct members; whereas the Nonconformists held that no such unity existed. With regard to the Church being national, one of the great arguments of the Nonconformists was that the Church was national—that, therefore, Churchmen had no exclusive right in the Churches, that Dissenters had an equal right, and that they had a common-law right to be buried in its churchyards. But the churchyards were only national in the same sense that the Church itself was national; and it was not to be assumed that persons not having a direct mission from the Church should officiate in the churchyards any more than they
  1910
  should officiate in the church buildings. Their Lordships' House was national; but it did not follow from that that any member of the community would be at liberty to walk in and take part in their deliberations. Again, the Army was a national Army, but it was not under the command of any but those who were commissioned by Her Majesty to assume that command. He had also a common-law right to be married in the church and to have his children baptized there; but there was no common-law right to have those rites solemnized in any other way than those approved by the Church. The rights of the public were limited, and the common-law right to be buried did not carry with it the right to use a service other than that of the Church. It certainly was the logical conclusion that if the Dissenters were to enter the churchyards with their own ministers and services they would be able to claim to enter the church with their own ministers and services. The noble Earl had said distinctly that they would take only one step at a time; and doubtless they knew the logical conclusion perfectly well. It would not be fair to charge the clergy with intolerance. The English clergy were always ready to approach the Nonconformists; but the plain intention on their part to force a way into the church as well as into the churchyard was an obstacle. Much had been said about the objection the Dissenters were said to entertain to the services of the Church; but he believed the feeling had been much exaggerated. He should not have thought that the Dissenters could have had any objection to the service of the Church. The usual objection was that its tone was too hopeful —an objection which he thought they would hardly feel as regarded themselves. It was not clear what the real objection was. He had been told that almost all the leading Nonconformists of a large town where there was a cemetary preferred to be buried in the consecrated part of it with the Church service. Yet a little while ago the special contention was against the consecration of the ground; and he himself had heard on one occasion that the Dissenters were determined that the Bishop should not so much as touch the portion of ground reserved to them—the idea being, apparently, that his touch would be desecration rather than consecration. All that

  1911
  the Clergy wished was to preserve these sacred burial-grounds, which had been the inheritance of the Church for 1,000 years, and not to exclude from them their fellow-Christians; but that the form of service should be in accordance with the ancient institutions of the country. In old times the sacred ground was part and parcel of the sacred building, and, so to speak, its equally closely connected with it, and not to be dissociated from it. The logical conclusion plainly was that, if strange services were admitted into the churchyard, they would have to be admitted into the church. He was willing to make any concession which did not interfere with the essential principle. He believed there was much more danger from internal disunion than from external foes; but it would be unwise to let the foes from without join with those already within the Church. The Church had existed in this country for more than 1,000 years. It had been the great civilizer of the nation in ages of barbarism, and from it had grown up all the great institutions of the land. The Church of England had been the heart of the nation, and if we tore out the heart of the nation we should in all probability destroy its life. The most dangerous way of disestablishing the Church would be to disestablish it indirectly and by slow degrees. He entreated their Lordships to regard this not as a mere question of bigotry on the part of the Clergy, and trusted they would see there was a possibility of a danger, and that unless that danger was dealt with very carefully it might lead to results which would prove fatal to themselves, and still more fatal to the country.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the speech of the most rev. Primate seemed to show that he ought to vote in favour of the Resolution; but if the argument of the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down were good for anything, it was in favour of keeping the churchyards precisely as they were at present. The argument told as much against the 74th clause of the Bill as it did against the noble Earl's Resolution. It had been said that the questions involved in the Resolution were questions of detail, and that they were bound to discuss on the second reading the principle of the Bill. He maintained, how-
  1912
  ever, that, although the Bill contained no fewer than 88 clauses, its principle was contained in those two against which the Resolution was directed. It was palpable and notorious that the evil complained of was an ecclesiastical and not a sanitary evil, though the measure was involved in a mass of sanitary verbiage. The sanitary provisions might be valuable in themselves, but the Bill would never have seen the light unless there had been an ecclesiastical grievance to be met. The manner in which it was met was the worst possible. Nonconformists objected to the common law right of burial in their own parish churchyards, which it was admitted they possessed, being fettered—he might almost say nullified—by the Ecclesiastical Law, which prevented their being buried by their own ministers, and with the rites they approved. How did the Bill deal with the question? By closing existing churchyards and opening new cemeteries. But the Dissenters did not ask for cemeteries to be set apart for themselves; they asked that their common law right to be buried in their parish churchyards should be freed from the present restrictions. The word "suitable" occurred several times, but there was no definition; but the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) showed what was meant; it was meant that "religious considerations" were to be taken into account. This would throw on the Home Secretary all the petty village disputes which would arise out of this Bill. Although a churchyard might not be full, a small number of ratepayers or the Secretary of State were to create an unnecessary rate and an unnecessary cemetery, with, he supposed, those two mortuary chapels which were fit emblems of the love and charity that prevailed. It was strange to find noble Lords opposite, who professed to be so anxious to diminish local burdens, proposing to authorize the levying of a rate to provide a thing which was not asked for, and which would be disliked as much by Churchmen as by Dissenters. The 74th clause was of the essence, if indeed it were not the very essence, of the Bill. That clause said, in effect—" If you do not choose to provide cemeteries for yourselves, we will give you the privilege allowed to suicides and unbaptized persons." The Bill was said to be a

  1913
  concession to the Nonconformists; but he would venture to say that it was nothing less than an insult—and a deadly insult—from one Christian denomination to another. It was an insult to tell them that the remains of their dead might be buried in our churchyards, but that not a word of consolation to the living should be said over them at a most solemn moment. The Bill was, in fact, a measure of the bitterest kind, and it was neither, he contended, right nor Christian-like to refuse to conciliate those who, after all, were separated from the members of the Established Church only by comparatively small divisions. Year after year we had witnessed the progress of religious toleration, and he believed the time was near when we should look back with something akin to shame on the present state of the law in respect to burial, and with a feeling of astonishment at the way in which noble Lords proposed—he would not say to deal with, but to aggravate, the evils of the present system.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid, that many years ago, in a very large and populous parish with which he was connected (West Bromwich), a cemetery had been opened in which there was consecrated and unconsecrated ground; but, notwithstanding, lie had been applied to to give additional ground for two several additions to the old parish churchyard; nor had he ever heard a single objection made among the inhabitants, among whom every form of dissent was represented, to the use of the service of the Church of England at the burial of their dead. There was also a cemetery in the West Riding of Yorkshire which had been opened for a period of 14 years, and in the consecrated part of which there had been 1,791 burials, while the number of persons buried in the unconsecrated portion was only 229. With such facts before them, their Lordships had, He thought, some right to ask where was the terrible grievance of which so much had been heard of from the Nonconformists? His belief was, to use the words of one who was himself a Nonconformist, that it was all "a got-up grumblement." For his own part, he prided himself on being a member of the Church of England; but it was from no wish to promote ecclesiasticism or sacerdotalism within it, that he felt it his duty strongly to oppose the Resolu-
  1914
  tion of the noble Earl opposite. There was, he maintained, in that Amendment nothing which would prevent agitators being called in and delivering violent harangues over the graves of the dead; for although it was said to be intended to provide for Christian services, that provision would, in point of fact, be evaded. He had read a report last autumn in a Liberal Huddersfield paper of a burial which took place in the cemetery attached to that town, and at which the Unitarian minister who officiated having stated that he would divide the service into two parts, quoted first from the Bible and then from the works of Mr. Holyoako. That was a mode of proceeding which he was sure their Lordships would not like to see widely prevail; and, speaking for himself, if he were charged with the conduct of the funeral of his nearest and dearest relation, and he thought by solemnizing it in the churchyard of any religious denomination he should do violence to the religious scruples of those to whom that churchyard belonged, he should freely consent to have a silent service. In the interest of the peace and happiness of the country at large, he trusted that their Lordships would not consent to make any concession to this unfounded and, he believed, simply political demand.
  EARL COWPERhoped that before another year passed this controversy, which they all deplored, would be brought to a close. He could not consider the Bill in any respect a satisfactory measure. If it were passed it would amount to this—that Dissenters must be buried either apart or in silence, or with such a burial service read over them as they would probably object to. With respect to the proposal of silent burial, there was no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, it was regarded as an insult. It was argued that it could not be an insult, because some people preferred silent burial. Similarly it might have been said, if the demand had been one for freedom of speech or freedom of writing, that such freedom was quite unnecessary, inasmuch as there were sensible people who did not want to speak and did not want to write. It seemed to him that the plan of silent burial would have a tendency sometimes to promote disturbances. They could imagine that a body of mourners who were engaged in

  1915
  prayer till they came to the gate of the churchyard, and were in a state of religious excitement—and some people seemed to think the Dissenters were always in a state of excitement—would resent the enforcement of strict silence the moment they entered the gate. He hoped the 74th clause would not be pressed. It was sometimes said that nothing had been heard about this grievance till, at the most, some 50 years ago, although the present state of things had existed for about 1,000 years. It must be remembered, however, that a great change had come over the people since the days when it was a matter of course that children adhered through life to the religious principles which their parents taught them. Families were now divided against themselves. Men and women sacrificed friends and relations for the sake of what they deemed a higher form of belief than that in which they had been reared. But was it desirable that the bitterness of this separation should be aggravated by the feeling that even in the grave they were to be kept apart? It might be said that, after all, the grievance was only a sentimental one. However that might be, it was certainly true that the deepest feelings of human nature were aroused by matters of this kind. Moreover, it seemed to him that the real objection that was felt to the concession was itself merely sentimental. With regard to the fear that there might be demonstrations of an irreligious or blasphemous kind witnessed in our churchyards, similar to what occurred sometimes in France, he would remark that the sense of public decorum and the respect for the dead were in this country sufficiently strong to allay any such apprehensions. He would ask, also, whether a better opportunity of settling the question in such a manner as to prevent irreligious demonstrations was ever likely to occur in the future? The Protestant Dissenters were the allies of the Church of England against infidelity, and it seemed to him insanity to keep them aloof in such matters as this. They were anxious to be on our side; but He feared that unless some compromise was arrived at, and speedily, those who were now part of the garrison would be driven into the ranks of the assailants. Many of the speeches that were made in country places on this
  1916
  subject by members of the Church of England brought to his mind the old saying—" Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I have no hesitation in voting for the Bill under your Lordships' consideration. I desire to see it go into Committee, and to see it as much improved as possible, and when some points that have been referred to in the course of this debate may receive due consideration. I have, however, an objection to the Resolution of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), though if it be brought up in Committee in the shape of an Amendment it shall receive my most earnest consideration. It must be borne in mind that in some measure I hold a representative position. The Convocation of the Northern Province—at least the Lower House—has just discussed this Bill with great care, and made some suggestions of amendment, and it has expressed a desire that the Bill should pass the second reading in order that it may be further considered. I am anxious on this occasion to give effect to the deliberations over which I presided, and as I think these suggestions are of very great importance, I desire that your Lordships will give us the opportunity of considering them. It is admitted, I think, on the other side of the House that it is very desirable, on sanitary and other grounds, that the Burial Laws should be consolidated. I should like, for my part, to see a much greater facility given, when an addition is made to a churchyard, for the provision of a separate piece of ground in which services should be held at the burial of those who do not belong to our communion. I think the provisions of this Bill are very important from a sanitary point of view, and I should be glad to see them further considered. As to the other portion of the Bill, which is contained in only one or two clauses, I am not quite able to agree with it; because I do not think it would satisfy those whom it is intended to benefit, or that it would prove to be a final solution of the question. Here again, however, I have to remember that in both Convocations the plan of silent burial has received considerable support. On these grounds I am going to vote for the second reading of the Bill. At the risk of appearing inconsistent, I will now state what there is in the Resolution of

  1917
  the noble Earl which commends itself to me. The Resolution is not in itself a measure for dealing effectually with this question—such a measure should contain several points, and those I will venture to trouble your Lordships with very briefly. In the first place, it does not contain that assertion of rights and common law rights and what not with which all the Resolutions passed by different Dissenting bodies bristle from end to end. The common law right which they claim with regard to interments in churchyards never at any time had any existence whatsoever. It had no existence when the 68th Canon was drawn up—for it is vain to go back to remote antiquity where documents are wanting—it was not law when that Canon was drawn up which makes it the bounden duty of every clergyman to read a service over every dead body brought to the churchyard, sufficient notice having been given; it was not law in 1874 when the Public Worship Regulation Act was passed; for that Act makes the clergyman responsible for all that occurs at funerals, and consequently it is assumed that he has control of the funeral and is in every case officiating. Therefore, any Bill likely to pass your Lordships' House must abandon all those high claims which have not, I repeat, and never have had, any existence whatever. The next point is that account must be taken of the difficulty under which the Clergy of the Church of England labour. Very few of your Lordships, perhaps, will remember the funeral of a certain Mr. Carlile in the year 1843, where the sons of the deceased said to the chaplain of Kensal Green Cemetery—"Don't by any means read the service of the Church of England over the body of our relative. He had none of those hopes which that service expresses; he did not believe in a future state or a divine being. Don't read the service over him; we dispense you from it." The clergyman replied" I must do my duty," and, having no option, he road the service of the Church of England over the body of Mr. Carlile. Something has been said about the desecration of the churchyard; but I must confess it seems to me a desecration of the gravest character that the clergyman should have to say—for the chaplain was right in the view he took of the case—" I must proceed and do
  1918
  my duty by reading the service, full of sacred hopes and expressions of the highest belief, over one who does not desire it, and who if living would not believe a single syllable of it." Well, in any perfect measure that provision should be repealed. A Dissenting minister is not bound to read any service, but the clergyman of the Church of England is; and I know that conscientious clergymen all over the country are frequently obliged to read the Burial Service over the body of a man who has died in sin. If their scruples are not respected the Dissenting minister will have the power of steering clear of these cases, which the residuum is left to the clergyman, who will be bound to read the service. I think clergymen have a right to claim a revision of their obligations in this matter. I now come to the Resolution of the noble Earl; and, expressing here my own opinion, I must say it seems to me to embody the only principle upon which we can proceed in dealing successfully with this question. Silent burial we accord to the suicide, and I do not wonder that Dissenters should not be satisfied with it. I come next to the question of hymns; and I would appeal to the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrow by) who has addressed us so powerfully to-night, and who is a great authority on that subject, whether it is not the case that a man who can write very sensibly in prose is not sorely tempted when he gets under the shelter of the Muse to write something very like nonsense? In my own diocese lately there was a dispute with a committee of a Dissenting body in regard to the quoting of a portion of a hymn upon a tombstone by way of inscription; but the hymn on examination was found to be such absolute nonsense that the controversy fell through. Coming now to the question whether clergymen should approve the hymns to be used or not, I would ask your Lordships whether we should ask a clergyman to wade through volumes of hymns to see whether they are "orderly" or not? I say if we are not to read the service at the grave let us be free from responsibility. That is, to my mind, the essence of the whole transaction. We should not be at all touched by any ceremony which might there be performed provided it was orderly and decent. We should not be the persons who selected it or who have

  1919
  anything to do with it. The nature of the concession—for I regard it as a concession—must needs be this: whereas we should be ready to read the service where it is so desired, in cases where it is not desired we may leave the matter in the hands of the friends of the deceased, relying upon them to have an orderly, decent, and Christian service. On this account, then, I must say that I believe when this question is settled—and settled it will have to be before many years—the basis will be something like the Resolution of the noble Earl. With regard to the cry of Disestablishment, we ought to keep our minds easy. None of us can tell what may happen. It has been said that we should certainly be disestablished if the Public Worship Act were put into operation. It has also been said that we should certainly be disestablished if it were not put effectually into operation. To neither the one nor the other of these enchanting voices ought we to listen. The real question is whether there is a grievance, and whether you wish to have a constant controversy respecting it both in your Lordships' House and in every churchyard and parish in the Kingdom—whether you think any injustice exists and whether you think it expedient to take steps to remove it? These are the points we have to attend to, and not the ultimate consequences of any change which may be made. It is assumed by some persons that although we conduct our funerals very well ourselves, Dissenters, if left to themselves, would, some of them at least, indulge in all manner of wild proceedings in the churchyard. To that assumption I give an entire contradiction. When people go to the churchyard it is for a very different purpose. My Lords, I have spoken of the opinion of the Clergy being different from my own. I hold in my hand a Resolution passed by the Rural Deanery in the city of York on the 23rd instant, and I will make the noble Earl a humble present of it and so sit down. This Resolution was only passed by a majority of one, but passed it was, and it is to this effect—
  "That Nonconformists be permitted, on application to the incumbent and payment of the necessary fees, to bury their own dead in the churchyard with the use of passages of Scripture and Scriptural prayers and hymns, and that the incumbent be relieved from the neces-
  1920
  sity of reading the Church Service on such occasions."
  LORD FORBESopposed the Resolution, in a brief speech which could not be heard.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDdiffered, with great regret, from the conclusion of the most rev. Prelates who had addressed the House; but he had the satisfaction of feeling that it was from their conclusion that he differed rather than from their speeches. The arguments of the two most rev. Prelates seemed to point to this—that the Resolution did not come at the right time, and that it ought to have come as an amendment to the Bill. Now, he could not help thinking that, in the interests of the promoters of the Bill, the Resolution did come at the right time; because very many features of the Bill would be affected by the affirmation or denial of the principle contained in the Resolution. Although he was going to vote against the second reading of the Bill now, he ventured to offer his sincere thanks to the Government for introducing the measure. He would explain what he had just said. He could not at all agree with those who were trying to do what was called "minimize" the evil which had to be met in the present state of their churchyards. That it should be possible, as it was now, for a man to stand by the grave of his father or his mother and see their bones turned up to make room for another interment showed that they did need fresh powers to put an end to such things. He did hear constantly of gross scandals arising from the overcrowding of churchyards; and therefore he thanked the Government for introducing a Bill to consolidate and amend the present law. But it was very difficult to thank them for the way in which they had dealt with another question—the religious question. By the insertion of the 74th clause they had confessed that that other question must be dealt with now, but he did not think they were successful in their mode of treating it, because the 74th clause did not meet the case it professed to meet. It professed to meet the case of those who did not desire to have the Church service; but it was only permissive. Supposing a clergyman thought it his duty to perform the service, though requested to omit it, and supposing he pleaded that the Canon, which had not been repealed,

  1921
  required him to bury the corpse when brought to the churchyard with the service of the Church of England, it would be no answer to him to say that there was a request allowed by law to be made to omit the service. He was not obliged by the clause to omit it; and therefore he might feel it to be his duty to persist in reading that service which it was the very object of the clause to spare the relatives of the deceased. Of course, there was a much larger objection to it than that. There was one great, and only one, substantial grievance in the present state of the law, and it was that of those who held infant baptism to be wrong. When those persons brought their un-baptized children to be buried they could not have any service over them—the clergyman could use none—and the Bill, to meet that grievance, provided that they should have a silent service—which was exactly what they had now by law. For that reason he could not think the 74th clause met the difficulty it was intended to deal with. With regard to the other grievances spoken of, he did not see very much in them; but he admitted that when their Lordships began to deal with this question they must deal with it altogether—they must proceed on a general principle, and he knew no other than that contained in the Resolution of the noble Earl. That Resolution would affect the Bill more than was supposed. They must give to the Church a liberty corresponding to that which was given to the Dissenters. They could not hold that the Dissenters were entitled to say—"I will not have her service," and then turn round to the Church and say—"You must give the service to all that come; they belong to you." Then a word as to Church property. In the nonsense daily sent to him by post he read that the churchyards were national property. When did they become national property? Their Lordships or some others gave ground for churchyards; did they ever make it over to the nation? He would like to see such a deed of gift among the muniments of their Lordships. The ground was conveyed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or to the incumbent, or to some other trustee, for the use of a particular parish. Further, they must deal with the question of consecration—a word which has an ill sound in some
  1922
  ears—possibly in the ears of some whom he addressed. What was consecration? The arguments on this subject seemed to be founded on inconceivable folly and ignorance. Consecration was an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction declaring that a certain place or thing was set apart from ordinary uses, and that thenceforward the laws ecclesiastical applied to it. A clergyman, for instance, might bury a corpse in his own ground, and no one could oblige him to read the service; but once he entered a consecrated ground to inter a body he had a duty to perform by the laws of the Church. But it was said that was not all—there were prayers; and a gentleman who had taken a prominent part in the agitation of this question was reported to have spoken at a recent meeting about consecration in this way —"the Bishop mumbles a form of words." Their Lordships could judge whether all Bishops mumbled or not. When he consecrated a place he certainly assembled the people to pray, and to speak to them of the great truths connected with what he was going to do. But ought that to be described as "mumbling" by a gentleman who was a Christian and, he believed, a clergyman's son? Their Lordships must consider how the question before them had a bearing on consecration. When they were proposing to allow liberty of speech to all, they must allow some to the Church of England. He did not consider the receiving of the body of a Dissenter into consecrated ground as any desecration of that ground. He could, with a perfectly good conscience as a Churchman, welcome those who were altogether outside the Church into the ground which had been properly conveyed to the use of the Church of England; he could welcome them as a matter of charity, not of right, and allow them to say their service and sing their hymns, and do what seemed unto them good. But then Dissenters must accept conditions, just as he should be prepared to do if he were to bury his dead in their grounds; they must accept such conditions and regulations as the wisdom of Parliament should prescribe, and not such as might seem good to excited public meetings; and if they refused He would appeal to his countrymen against their intolerance and unreasonableness. Believing that in this way he should be acting in a

  1923
  spirit of charity, and that even as a matter of policy it was not the worst that could be pursued, he would vote for the Resolution.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, it had been remarked in the course of the debate that this question could not be settled without concession. The speeches of the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down and of the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) left no doubt as to the side from which the concession must come. As for the Bill of Her Majesty's Government, in spite of all the objections to which it was open, it seemed to him to recognize, for the first time, an important principle. If it became law, even in the shape in which it had been introduced, a Nonconformist would for the future be buried in his parish churchyard as a Nonconformist, and not as a member of the Church of England, in defiance of his own wishes and those of his friends. He was grateful even for this admission; but it was quite clear that Her Majesty's Government could not stop short at this point. There was an immense concurrence of testimony on the part of the great dignitaries of the Church in favour of a more complete settlement of this question. The most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) had said that the Resolution of his noble Friend (Earl Granville) embodied the only principle upon which they could proceed, and scarcely a day passed without the same admission from distinguished ornaments of the Church. When such admissions as these were made on all sides, he was surprised when he found noble Lords opposite minimizing the extent of the grievance with which the Bill was intended to deal. When the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) introduced this Bill lie gave some statistics relating to the subject. The noble Duke said there were 14,000,000 of the population not affected by this grievance—namely, the inhabitants of districts already provided with cemeteries. He was perfectly surprised that the noble Duke should have struck his pen through these 14,000,000 of people. It was perfectly true that they might be the inhabitants of districts in which cemeteries were in existence; but did the noble Duke suppose that they had no friends or relatives who lived in parts of the country in which cemeteries
  1924
  were not provided, and who consequently were subject to this disability? The grievance was not the grievance of the dead, but the grievance of the survivors. But the question was one that could not be subjected to the numerical test—they had to deal with the principle involved, and with the intensity of the feelings evoked, and the numerical test was entirely inapplicable. How often had the attention of Parliament been occupied with the grievance of a very small class, or even of a single individual? Now, there were some arguments used against the Bill—the rusty weapons of the ecclesiastical armoury—which had been brought forward too frequently—there were others not unworthy of consideration. There was the well-worn argument that if the Nonconformists were admitted to the churchyards it would be impossible to exclude them from the church. That, he supposed, meant that if Parliament recognized their right to the churchyards Parliament would not be able to give any logical answer to their claim to be admitted to the church also. Now, it seemed to him that there was a logical distinction between the two cases—that, namely, which had been so clearly pointed out by the noble and learned Lord behind him. Should such a request be preferred by the Nonconformists, Parliament might rejoin—"We made this concession in respect of the churchyards, because it was necessary that you should be buried somewhere; because you had a right to be buried in the churchyards of your parishes; because, in many parts of England, those churchyards were the only places accessible to you; and because, under all those circumstances, we did not desire to impose upon the exercise of your undoubted right the condition that you should be compelled to use a form of burial service which shocked your religious feelings. But when you come to religious worship the case is different—you can no longer contend that in any part of England the church is the only place in which you can worship, for you have already places of worship of your own, and you can—and in fact you do—worship in schoolrooms and in private houses; whereas you could not be buried in either—there are, in a word, parts of the country in which you have to choose between burial in the churchyard and

  1925
  no burial at all; there are no parts of the country in which you have to choose between worship in the Church of England and no worship at all." Then there was the argument of the irregularities that might occur if the concessions suggested in the Resolution were made. The objection was a purely speculative one; and it was remarkable that scarcely any attempt had been made to show that the danger apprehended was likely to arise. Irreverence was not, as far as he was aware, habitual in Nonconformist burial grounds—and when they remembered the latitude which prevailed in the Established Church, he thought they ought not to be overcritical upon the latitude the Nonconformists might allow themselves in the burial of their friends. Again, there was the argument based upon consecration; but, after all, the real object of consecration was to dedicate the consecrated ground to holy and reverend uses, not to exclude from it the performance of any rites except those of the Church of England. He would give them an example of a historical consecration — that of the church of St. Catherine, by Archbishop Laud. The Archbishop concluded his prayer by these words—"We consecrate this church and separate it unto Thee as holy ground, not to be profaned any more;" then, at the Communion Table, he pronounced curses upon those who should hereafter profane that holy place by musters of soldiers, or keeping profane Law Courts, or carrying burdens through it. In all this there was not a word about the Established Church of the day and her exclusive privileges; but the solo object was to guard against irreverence or secular use. There was, he thought, only one argument of weight on the other side—namely, that much offence would be given to a large section of the clergy of the Church. He admitted the full force of that argument; but the question could not possibly be settled without offence being given to some one. He thought they ought to turn from the susceptibilities of the individual clergyman to the interests of the whole Church; and he was convinced that those interests would be best promoted by an endeavour to conciliate those who differed from them, and to consolidate those forces which made for religion and against
  1926
  irreligion and unbelief. It would be a step in this direction if they permitted Churchmen and Nonconformists, each buried reverently according to the rites of the faith which they professed while alive, to rest side by side beneath the shadow of the church at which their forefathers had worshipped, and within the walls of which their descendants might be united at last.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid: My Lords, the noble Earl (Earl Granville), in moving his Resolution, did me the honour of referring to me twice in the course of his opening speech, and represented me as conjuring up imaginary alarms, created by that Resolution, and as endeavouring to inspire others with those apprehensions. I plead guilty to the charge. I entertain serious fears for the consequences of its adoption. My Lords, in the year 1868 a measure similar to this Resolution was legalized in the case of the Church of Ireland, and in the following year the Church of Ireland was disestablished. The noble Earl has pleaded with much eloquence for the relief of certain grievances of our Nonconformist fellow - Christians. In common with the rest of my right rev. Brethren, I should thankfully cooperate in any judicious measures for the relief of any proved grievance of Nonconformists. But, my Lords, it is the part of wise legislation to take a large and comprehensive view of such a question as this. I venture to address your Lordships in the name of the parochial clergy of the Church of England, 20,000 in number, who are among the most loyal, intelligent, and learned of the citizens of England, and I entreat you not to inflict a grievance on them, and on the Church of which they are ministers. Do not wrong them by your desire to remove the scruples of others. The churchyards are by law the freeholds of the parochial clergy, and are held by them in trust for certain sacred uses, to which they have been solemnly set apart by a religious act of dedication. It has been alleged by our Nonconformist brethren that every parishioner has a common law right of burial in the churchyard of his parish. Be it so, but this common law right can only be legally exercised under certain conditions—namely, that the act of burial shall be performed by a minister of the Church of England, with ser-

  1927
  vices of the Church of England. The noble Earl's Resolution, so far from being grounded on a common law right, would, in fact, subvert the common law, and sot up a new law in its place. It is said in the noble Earl's Amendment that the burials under its provisions are to be orderly, Christian, and religious. I venture to think that these provisions will be inoperative, and will satisfy no one. They will not satisfy the Dissenters, because, as they stated in a recent conference of Nonconformists, they claim admission to our churchyards, not as religionists, but as citizens; and as citizens they claim a right of burial in our churchyards, which they say are national property, for every citizen, whatever his belief or unbelief may be, and by any minister or other person or persons, and with any services, whether religious or secular, which his friends and relations may choose; and, therefore, if the present Resolution is adopted it will open our churchyards in a very short time, not only to the religious services of Roman Catholies and Unitarians, but also of sceptics and secularists; and to such services as were in use in Republican France when her cemeteries were inscribed with the words —"Death is an eternal sleep." In the name of Christianity, I entreat your Lordships to protect our churchyards from such desecration as that. In the name of the clergy and the Church of England, I implore you not to inflict this grievous injury upon them. My Lords, it is earnestly to be hoped that Parliament will not proceed to legislate on religious services in our churches and churchyards without due consideration of the feelings and opinions of the clergy who are the guardians of them. I have the honour to be entrusted with the oversight of the largest diocese in England, the diocese of Lincoln, containing more than 50 rural deaneries and more than 1,000 clergy; and I have felt it my duty to endeavour to ascertain the opinions of the parochial clergy in those deaneries; and my belief is that they are almost unanimous in entreating your Lordships not to impose upon thorn such grievance as that with which they are threatened by the present Resolution. My Lords, in the present week the Convocation of the Bishops and the clergy of the province of Canterbury is sitting, and yesterday the clergy of the Lower House,
  1928
  who represent the clergy of this province, adopted a resolution, by a large majority, in which they expressed a very strong opinion adverse to the terms of the present Amendment, and which was received and read to-day to the Bishops in the Upper House of Convocation. My Lords, when the Public Worship Regulation Bill was debated in your Lordships' House in the year 1874, I, in common with others my noble Friends, ventured to implore your Lordships not to pass that Bill without reference to the opinions of the clergy represented by the synods of the Church. And now, my Lords, we have in the noble Earl's Amendment a proposal for the regulation—I might even call it for the revolution—of our public worship in our churchyards. A great deal of disquietude and distress now prevail in the Church of England; and many good men, especially many pious, devout, learned, and zealous clergymen, have been made impatient by a Parliamentary legislation on the worship of the Church, without any reference to the synods of the Church, and, still more, in opposition to their expressed and recorded opinions. Some among them, I regret to say, are eager for the disestablishment of the Church; and if the proposal contained in the present Amendment is adopted by Parliament in opposition to the vote of the clergy of this province in Convocation, I very much fear that the present disquietude and distress will be greatly intensified, and agitation for the disestablishment of the Church will become more violent. I therefore freely confess that I do feel very deeply the alarms which the noble Lord has ascribed to me; I look with great anxiety and apprehension on the probable consequences, national as well as religious, of the disestablishment of the English Church. History is not an old almanack. It reproduces itself. In the middle of the 17th century the Church of England was disestablished. And what followed? The rights and privileges of your Lordships' House were soon attacked and abolished. And what next ensued? The Monarchy itself was assailed and overthrown, and a time of anarchy and confusion succeeded, ending in a military despotism. I do not pretend to say that such calamitous disasters will occur again; but I venture to think that it is not folly and fanati-

  1929
  cism, as some persons seem to imagine, to forecast them, and to be warned and armed against them, and to reject any measure which may have any tendency to produce them. I, therefore, feel very thankful to Her Majesty's Government for the present Bill, and heartily wish it success; and I also earnestly entreat your Lordships not to accept the noble Earl's Resolution.
  LORD BLACHFORDmaintained firmly the peculiar prospects of the English Church in her churches and churchyards, arising out of the legislative abolition of church rates. But this property was not merely given to the incumbent and churchwardens, but was held in trust—as to the Church, on trust to perform divine service according to the rites of the Church of England for those who chose to come there; as to the churchyard, to bury the whole population who must come there, as they have generally no right to be buried anywhere else. If they must be interred in the churchyard, they ought to be interred becomingly, not merely with decent words and movements, but in a manner of which a dying man might think with satisfaction, which his friends might see with satisfaction, and in which a clergyman might officiate with satisfaction. The present law erred both ways. In certain cases it required the clergyman to perform a solemn service, and it required a Dissenter or other person to submit to what they might think superstitious or otherwise repulsive. It was said that this was a question of politicians and ministers, not of congregations. This might be true on both sides. But he did not feel justified in imputing an illusory motive when there existed what, if the case were his own, he should consider a substantial one. Why, then, should not fitting ceremonies be always allowed? There was an objection of sentiment or principle, and an objection of consequences. An objection of sentiment was not capable of being met by argument. But he asked himself, reversing the case, whether if in a foreign country he were allowed to bury a friend with his own rights in a cemetery under Calvinist or Roman Catholic management, he would view this permission as a piece of lax latitudinarianism, or as a piece of generous and Christian consideration on the part of those who gave the permission?
  1930
  For himself, he held the latter, and consequently considered the sentiment on which the objection was founded as one deserving not countenance, but discouragement. With regard to the consequences, he maintained that the Church was entitled to exclude from the churchyards placed in its custody proceedings not befitting a Christian burying place. But the Resolution of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) did not exclude, but rather invited, such provisions for this purpose. He held that the conditions of satisfactory legislation were that Christian ceremonies, other than those of the English Church, should be admitted to churchyards; that un-Christian or indecent ceremonies should be excluded; that the Clergy should be relieved from the necessity of using the service in unfit cases, and that churchyards should not be opened to other than church services when a public cemetery was within reach.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he would mention two instances which showed this Bill to be necessary, and would read part of a letter, dated 24th October, 1866, to a visitor at a house near a churchyard.
  "The clergyman will tell you that he never opens a grave without almost causing a riot among the people—the remains of whose relations he prematurely disturbs."
  Ho added—
  "It would be best to close the present come tery and to form one half-a-mile from the village."
  With respect to a silent interment, he (Lord Denman) could not refrain from saying that, having witnessed the respectful and reverent way in which burials were silently conducted, after a religious service in the residence of deceased persons—members of the Church of Scotland—he could not think that anyone could complain of the 74th clause in the original Bill.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET(who was indistinctly heard) reminded their Lordships of the dislike with which he had always looked upon the discussion of religious subjects in the House; but he had heard so much of this subject for so many years that he desired to have it settled, and he thought that the settlement could only be arrived at by the adoption of the noble Earl's Resolution, or by some other equivalent in its terms. Much had been made of the argument

  1931
  that it was impossible to yield—that the admission of Dissenters into the churchyards would lead to the demand for admission into the churches. But he would remind their Lordships that in the case of Church-rates, the opening of the Universities to Dissenters, and other questions of the kind, concessions had, by the opponents of a change in the law, been declared to be inadmissible, and yet had been eventually made, and the Church was the better and stronger for it, and he had little doubt, after what had fallen from the most rev. Prelates opposite, that the grievance of which Dissenters complained with respect to the burial of their dead would before very long be settled, and settled, too, somewhat in accordance with the terms of the Resolution which his noble Friend near him had proposed. But a concession made tardily and without grace was usually accepted without gratitude. As to the Bill before the House, he should not on that occasion dwell upon any portion of it except the 74th clause. Under the operation of that clause Dissenters were to be admitted to burial in our churchyards, but there was to be no religious ceremony at the grave allowed. Now, let him suppose that at the moment the body of a Dissenter was about to be committed to the grave, some man, animated by strong religious feeling, were to come forward and say he would not permit a relative of his to be buried in that way, and that he would then and there proclaim his belief in eternal life, and offer his thanks to God—what was to be done should he violate the law? Was a police constable to be brought in to seize him? He thought not; for if that were done, the result would be to cause great excitement throughout the neighbourhood; and therefore, it being once resolved that Dissenters should be admitted to the churchyards, it was far better, in his opinion, that a service at the grave should be allowed to be performed by a duly recognized minister. By that means all danger of collision would be avoided, while he felt confident that the great body of Dissenters would respect the churchyards.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) and other Speakers who preceded him have directed their arguments not so much against the second
  1932
  reading of the Bill, as against details—particularly the 74th clause—which more naturally fall to be considered in Committee. The noble Earl who moved the Resolution rightly anticipated that I should find fault with its form and with the manner in which it has been brought forward. Notwithstanding all he said, I do think he has adopted an inconvenient course. Although the adoption of the Resolution might have the effect of preventing the second reading this evening, the Bill might still be brought forward and discussed again to-morrow. It is a Resolution which might much more properly have been proposed in Committee, and which has the effect of diverting attention from the main features which ought to be discussed on the second reading. The noble and learned Lord who spoke early in the evening (Lord Selborne), thought there was an advantage in having this abstract Resolution moved upon the question of the second reading, because, he said, if your Lordships by a large majority affirmed the principle of the Resolution of the noble Earl, it would be impossible to avoid acting on the Resolution. I take exception to that ruling of the noble and learned Lord, and I think that in this instance his memory must be more fragile than I have generally found it to be, because he must have forgotten a very memorable occasion on which, when something of the same sort occurred, the result was not what lie expects it would be in the present case. On the second reading of the Bill for the Abolition of Purchase I moved a Resolution which, I think, I was justified in moving—for my object, unlike that of the noble Earl, was to defeat the second reading—to the effect that it was inexpedient to proceed with the further consideration of the Bill till your Lordships were fully possessed of the scheme of Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordships agreed to the Resolution; and what followed was the abolition of purchase by Royal Warrant by the exercise, as we say, of the Prerogative. The proposal, therefore, which I had the honour of submitting, although adopted by your Lordships, was not carried into effect—the Bill was withdrawn and another Bill was brought in afterwards.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELL: My memory fails me altogether if the noble Duke

  1933
  is correct in that statement. According to my recollection, the Bill was not withdrawn, but was considerably amended in your Lordships' House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I may be obstinate, but I adhere to my statement. Notwithstanding that your Lordships had come to a decision that Purchase ought not to be abolished till the whole scheme of Army Retirement was before us, Purchase was abolished by a Royal Warrant, and the Army Regulation Bill was afterwards brought forward in an amended shape. In presenting the present Bill to your Lordships I stated that it was necessary on two grounds among others—first, on sanitary grounds; and, secondly, on grounds of consolidation. I have heard nothing to-night to gainsay either of those propositions. It is well known that for sanitary reasons an enormous number of the churchyards in the country ought to be closed. As there is no proper authority at present to cause this to be done, many churchyards remain in a state which is neither seemly nor decent. I received a letter only this morning from a rev. Friend of mine in the country, who says that if this Bill is passed, he will at once avail himself of its provisions, with the object of getting a vacant field for a new cemetery. That is an example of the improvements which would become possible under the Bill. I cannot believe for a moment that the expense attending any additions to churchyards would be anything like what the noble Earl has said. I know a case in which the addition of a quarter of an acre of land cost only £25, the land itself, of course, being free; and even in that case there were expenses of conveyancing which under the Bill might be avoided. With regard to consolidation, I can only repeat what I said on a former occasion, that some such step is necessary, inasmuch as the Judges have been totally unable to administer the law in its present form. Leaving these considerations, however, I may be permitted to observe that practically the noble Earl agrees to the second reading of the Bill, the Resolution he proposes being merely the expression of his opinion as to what ought to be done with regard to the burial of non-Churchmen. I am afraid that notwithstanding the arguments of the noble Earl, I must repeat that this
  1934
  grievance is confined to a small portion of the population, and that it is constantly decreasing. Nobody has ventured to say that it exists in any of the larger towns throughout the country, or where there are cemeteries and Burial Boards. I must still, after consideration, adhere to my statement that of the 22,000,000 of population in this country, 14,000,000 are provided with cemeteries and Burial Boards, and that of the remaining 8,000,000, a considerable proportion are Churchmen and Nonconformists who have no objection to be buried in churchyards. There are, I find, 4,952 unconsecrated burial-grounds in this country; which gives one unconsecrated burial-ground to every 4,586 of the population, and from that number we may deduct the members of the Established Church, and all those who do not object to the services of the Church. Then, is it so certain that all Nonconformists are desirous of the change proposed by this Resolution? Looking to the Marriage Returns, I find that the total number of marriages in England in 1873 was 205,615, and that of that number 154,581 were celebrated according to the service of the Church of England. In other words, in 1873, 75 per cent of all the marriages in England were solemnized according to the rites of the Established Church, 4 per cent according to Roman Catholic rites, 10 per cent according to the rites of other religious denominations, and 10 per cent at the registrars' offices. In 1874 and 1875 the proportions were very much the same. Therefore, as far as the marriage ceremony is concerned, we have proof that the Nonconformists do not object to benefit by the services of the Established Church. Only 11 per cent of the Dissenters in this country showed a desire to be married in their own churches. Then, on the question of burial, it is a fallacy to say that the whole of the Nonconformists of this country think that they labour under a grievance. I maintain that those who live in large towns and places of that kind have no such grievance. But I will take only a few cases to justify my statement that this is a grievance which applies to only a small proportion of the population. I find that in Stafford Cemetery, from the opening, in February, 1856, to September, 1875, there were 4,286 burials according to the rites of the Established

  1935
  Church, and the Nonconformist burials were only 489. In Haverfordwest, opened in 1858, in Wales, where I imagine Dissent is as rife as in most parts of the Kingdom, the average number of burials per annum in consecrated ground was 24 5–18 and in unconsecrated ground only 8 12–18th. In Ruabon, in Wales, the average from its opening in 1860 till the end of 1875 was 26 in consecrated, and five in unconsecrated ground; in West Houghton, in Lancashire, from 1858 to 1875, an annual average of 71·7 in consecrated, and only 6·5 in unconsecrated ground. That shows that in parts of the country where the option of availing themselves both of consecrated and unconsecrated ground exists, and even where there is a large body of Dissenters, they prefer to be buried in consecrated ground, with the services of the Established Church. I have other evidence of the same kind, with which I will not trouble your Lordships; but there is a remarkable case in London—namely, that of Hampstead—which I may mention. I am told that there is a large Roman Catholic population living there, and that they have been in the constant habit for many years of taking their dead to be buried in the parish churchyard. Though Hampstead is within an easy distance of Highgate Cemetery, they still do not object to be buried in Hampstead Churchyard; but, on the contrary, take their deceased relatives to be placed in the consecrated ground of the Church of England. The noble Earl said that that question had been in existence for many years, and he referred to a pamphlet or book about it which was published 40 years ago. The noble Earl stated that no doubt for a long time the subject had lain dormant—adding that we could not deal with all these matters at once, that we began with the Marriage Law and the Law of Registration; then we went on to the abolition of Church-rates; and having come down to this point, he looked about for another thing to take up, and he found the Burials Question. Now, my Lords, I object to this way of taking up these questions one by one, and never being satisfied so long as there is something of this kind to deal with. But if this is a subject that requires to be dealt with, why did not the noble Earl take it up before? Not only did he not take it up before, but by the conduct of those with whom
  1936
  he has acted he has perpetuated the grievance, as you call it. When an alteration in the law was made by the Burials Act, and when you were setting up cemeteries and Burial Boards, why did you allow this state of things to continue? To be consistent you ought to have said—"This is not a question now of the old churchyards. We think it is wrong to draw a distinction between the Churchman and the Dissenter, they ought all to be buried with their religious rites." But instead of that you did that of which you now complain; you perpetuated the state of things existing in consequence of there being consecrated and unconsecrated ground. I come now to that which has been more discussed in the course of this evening than anything else—namely, the 74th clause. Noble Lords opposite have discussed this clause as if it were the only one in the whole Bill. No doubt it is a clause which was introduced because it was imagined it would be accepted by those for whom it was intended. The noble Earl on the back benches (the Earl of Morley) spoke of the 74th clause in language stronger than he usually employs, and told us that it was a deadly insult to the Nonconformists and that they were treated as if they were suicides. Was that so? Were Nonconformists treated as if they were suicides by the 74th clause? On the contrary, they were treated by the clause as if before the body was brought to the cemetery to be interred some religious ceremony had been performed in the house or the chapel from which it came. The noble Earl said the clause was a deadly insult; but had He never heard of the clause before? One would have supposed, from what had been said, that the proposal to have persons interred without a service was heard for the first time on this occasion—as if we had been beating about the bush to see how we could insult our Nonconformist fellow-subjects, and at last had devised the plan which noble Lords opposite, but none on this side, have described as a "silent burial." I must remind your Lordships that in 1871 and 1872 Bills passed through your Lordships' House on which no division was taken, and in which there was a clause almost identical with the 74th clause of this Bill. That Bill passed your Lordships' House on two occasions, and on one occasion it was read a second time

  1937
  in the other House of Parliament. The first Bill when introduced did not contain such a clause. It was sent to a Select Committee, and upon reference to the proceedings of the Committee I find that a clause was inserted in the Committee providing for a burial without a burial service. The noble Earl himself was a Member of that Committee and never raised his voice against that clause. Therefore, what we are told now is an insult to the Nonconformists is a clause which received the assent of the noble Earl himself. But, my Lords, if I was astonished to find that that clause is now considered an insult, I was equally astonished to find that this question was being introduced into the arena of party politics. I will do the noble Earl the justice to say that he introduced the matter in a conciliatory tone, with which, indeed, no fault could be found; but I do say that it is a matter very much to be regretted that this question, involving as it does most solemn feelings, should be made the subject of political warfare. I should have thought in this country there was a sufficient variety of topics upon which we might disagree and bring our warlike spirit to bear without thinking it necessary to bring this question within the arena of Party strife; and when I am told that this is not only an insult to the Nonconformists, but to the Liberal Party, I think that Party must be very much at a loss for a subject upon which to reunite, I will not say their scattered followers, but to rally their friends. If this be indeed an insult to the Liberal Party, they must certainly have got very sensitive on a sudden and they need not have brought this question forward in this manner.
  EARL GRANVILLE: But what is to prevent disorder under the present law?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Persons can violate the law now; you cannot prevent their doing so. There is the law against brawling; but if the wording of the clause is not sufficiently strong, it can be altered in Committee. My Lords, I have very little more to add; I believe that the Bill will carry out many useful reforms, that it will remove many grievances of which complaint is now made, and I trust your Lordships will give it a second reading.
  1938
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:— Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 102: Majority, 39.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Hardinge, V.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Hereford, V.

  York, Archp.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Beaufort, D.

  Strathallan, V.

  Leeds, D.

  Manchester, D.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Rutland, D.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Ely, Bp.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Bath, M.

  Bristol M.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Exeter, M.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Hertford, M.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  London, Bp.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Bradford, E.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Cadogan, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Airey, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Aveland, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Derby, E.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Ferrers, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Jersey, E.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Churston, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Macclesfield, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Morton, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Orford, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Denman, L.

  Poulett, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Powis, E.

  Duboyne, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Romney, E.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Stamford and Warrington, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Forester, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Gordon of Drumcarn, L.

  Strathmore and King-horn, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L.

  Verulam, E.

  (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Bridport, V.

  Harris, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Hastings, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Sackville, L.

  Saltersford L. (E. Cour-town.)

  Hawke, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Scarsdale, L.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford)

  Inchiquin, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian)

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Leconfield, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L.

  Sondes, L.

  (E. Egmont)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Massy, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Northwick, L.

  (E. Galloway.)

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Ventry, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Blachford, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork &. Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Grafton, D.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Somerset, D.

  Westminster, D.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Carew, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Carlingford, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Carrington, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

  Abingdon, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  de Clifford, L.

  Cottenham, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Cowper, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Granville, E.

  Ilchester, E.

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Fitzhardinge, L.

  Morley, E.

  Foley, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Greville, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Hanmer, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Hatherley, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Keane, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dun-raven and Mount-Earl.)

  Cardwell, V.

  Eversley, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Leigh, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Oxford, Bp.

  Methuen, L.

  Abercromby, L.

  Moncreiff, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Acton, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caith-ness.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Belper, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Penzance, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Stafford, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Romilly, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  Selborne, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Then the original Motion was agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, the 10th of Nay next.

  SOLICITORS EXAMINATION, &C. BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for regulating the examination of persons applying to be admitted Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, and for otherwise amending the Law relating to Solicitors—Was presented by The LORD ABERDARE; read 1a. (No. 52.)

  PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to facilitate the removal of obstructions to Navigation—Was presented by The LORD ELPHINSTONE; read 1a. (No. 53.)
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.