TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. GOSCHEN AND THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY TEST.
MR. GOSCHEN'S speech on the University Test Bill on Wednesday afternoon will raise him a distinct step not only in the estimation of all who agree with him, but of all who heard his speech, whether friendly or hostile. All but exhaustive in principle, irresistible in the coercive force of its logic, clear in its exposition of the real meaning of the tests now retained, genuinely eloquent without stereotyped sentiment in its appeal to the feelings which should animate us for the future, Mr. Goschen's speech was in striking con- trast to that of almost all who opposed and one or two even who supported him. It was greeted indeed with nothing like the volleys of applause from the Conservative benches which cheered on Mr. Gathorne Hardy, when he gave utter- ance to one of the tritest, shallowest, and most irrelevant of even Parliamentary orations. The steady booming of that full Conservative assent and consent to the common-form vehe- mence of the candidate for the University of Oxford, reminded us of nothing so much as the hollow resonance in the paviour's chest as he dashes his beetle on the stone, and the dull thud with which the obedient stone responds to his physical exertion. But though Mr. Gathorne Hardy's speech was a singular contrast to Mr. Goschen's in the unerring confidence with • which it anticipated, and the success with which it obtained, that sort of physical echo which comes from the stony sur- face of habit, not from the depths of thoughtful and profound minds,—there were none other of his opponents that did not in some way betray by their manner either incapacity or disin- clination to analyze the matter too far. Mr. Gathorne Hardy alone was free from this error, because he seemed profoundly ignorant that there was any court of appeal from the lifelong prejudices of ordinary Tories. Not so, however, Lord Robert Cecil—or Lord Cranborne, as he is now to be styled—who spoke, as Mr. Forster in his very able and impressive speech justly observed, with less spirit, less cogency, less significance than he has spoken for years back in the House of Commons. While Mr. Hardy thumped away at a solid bottom of inera- dicable prejudices, Lord Robert Cecil's speech rang hollow, like that of a mind fitted with a false bottom for the occasion. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was far from that of a man who was fully satisfied with the course he was taking. No doubt he sincerely believed that the broad view taken by Mr. Goschen in directly advocating the admission of Catholics and Dissenters into the Convocation of the University justified him in voting against the second reading, but he spoke like one who even on that ground was not very strong, and who regretted far more the relief he was refusing, than the innovation he was resisting. The relief he knew to be needful; was he as well convinced that to either Church or University the innovation would be mis- chievous ? We doubt it ; but something must be allowed for the obvious fact that by voting in favour of the second read- ing after Mr. Goschen's broad and unmistakable plea for a principle of inclusion not only beyond Mr. Gladstone's own wishes, but far too wide for Dr. Piney, or Sir John Coleridge, and his most influential supporters in the University, he must have lost his seat, already endangered more than is at all pleasant by Mr. Hardy's candidature.
Mr. Goschen's remarkable speech made two new points of unanswerable force, in favour of admitting all Dissenters and Catholics who had spent their academical life and taken their M.A. degree in Oxford to the Convocation, or so-called governing body of the University. In the first place, he pointed out that by their free admission to Parliament they are already admitted, in probably quite as large proportion as ever they are likely to be in Oxford, to the true governing body of the University—the body which overrides all the legislation of the University, while Convocation is only a very small part of the particular Oxford legislature. This seems to ns, we confess, unanswerable. If the connection of Church with State really requires—which it does not—that the nation should be guarded against the remote possibility that the views of Catholics or Dissenters may gain the ascendent in our legislation, then the tie has already been broken, for there is nothing on earth to prevent the constituencies of England returning—if they please—a majority of Catholics and Dissenters to the Parliament to be elected in July, and to every succeeding Parliament. But if the connection of Church with State is not broken by merely giving the Non- comformists, if they are powerful, earnest, and numerous enough, the power to break it, how much less can it be even endangered by admitting—not typical Dissenters or Roman Catholics or Jews—but Dissenters or Roman Catholics or Jews softened by all the traditions and influences of Oxford culture, to a share in the government of the University. In- deed, if Mr. Hardy believed what he said about the Church num- bering " three-fourths, if not four-fifths," of the whole popula- tion of England, how can he see in this measure anything but —what Mr. Hennessy evidently regarded it—a danger to the. Romanism of Roman Catholics the Nonconformity of Dissenters. and the Judaism of Jews ? Can any one conceive a man who had gone through the Oxford schools coming out a Dissenter of Mr. Hadfield's type, or even a Roman Catholic of Mr. Hen- nessy's type ? Would it not be infinitely more likely that the sectarianisms which divide the Church from her nearest neighbours on either side would melt away in the process, and that, all social distinctions being completely erased, the Church would make many silent converts, and conciliate even her most determined intellectual foes ? Anyhow, there can be no question but what Catholics, Dissenters, and Jews are far more likely to influence the University through Parliament than they are at all likely to do through Convocation. The prac- tical danger is infinitely less, and, for the principle of their right to exercise that influence if they can get it,—it is. granted already by their presence in the supreme Legislature. Indeed it was Parliament which actually reformed the Uni- versities, not their own governing bodies.
Mr. Goschen's other greatest point—and it was the only one which he did not follow out into its most important con- sequences—was contained in his reference to Mr. Disraeli's next assertion, that the clergymen of the Church cannot be permitted to advocate free inquiry, " since free inquiry could only be conducted by free inquirers." " Where, then," said Mr. Goschen, " was it to be conducted ? Why of course at our Universities." Now here, we think, is a point which has not been adequately insisted upon by any one. Where but at the seats of learning can the theology el the Church be fairly tested and established? Men go to Oxford and Cam- bridge at an age at which they often choose, and always ought to' choose, their principles on the deeper questions of ethics, meta.; physics, and theology. One of the great formative influences to be there exerted over their intellect is the discussion of those deeper questions, their grasp of which is to influence their whole subsequent life. Who can say that the theology of the Church is fairly established there if all criticism of it from opposite points of view is positively silenced ? Will any one venture to maintain that, in all the recondite points involved, the Anglican theology is so scientifically certain that it may be taught, like the Newtonian physics, as estab- lished fact, without even admitting learned critics of other faiths—Roman Catholic, or Nonconformist, or those uncom- mitted to any special symbol—to a hearing? It is an as- sertion no man in his senses would make. Yet if, without attributing this high degree of positive certainty to the whole catena of Anglican doctrine, you deny in Oxford all access • to learned theologians not specifically Anglican, you are guilty of the intellectual injustice of proving your theology through the mouths of men who have committed themselves beforehand to what theology they will prove. It is impos- sible to say of theological learning, as you may of Christian teaching, that some creed must be assumed to give the clergy a moral starting-point at all as teachers of the people. For a scientific theology ought to show, and always can show, the steps on which it is built up. A University is no doubt meant to teach absolutely all certain knowledge, but not so with the less certain moral sciences. These its duty is to investigate, to canvas, to reason upon. It should bring authority against autho- rity, and induction against induction. And so far as the same method is applicable—and it is applicable on all points in- volving either wide critical knowledge or moral philosophy,— it is equally applicable to theology. If the Anglican theology is assumed as an absolute axiom not only in the Church, but the University, where is it to be demonstrated ? Where are young men to satisfy themselves that they have heard what can fairly be urged against it? The reply made is that the German University system is anarchical, and puts up the young student to auction as it were, generally knocking him down to the highest bidder in theological rhetoric or ostentatious omniscience. There is some truth in this ; but first, German Universities educate a much younger class than the English, often mere boys in fact; secondly, the English College sys- tem is the true remedy.. The Halls and Colleges are the guarantee for so much of what Mr. Gladstone calls " the de- nominational system " as is applicable to young men at the age at which they go to Oxford. The colleges are always likely to belong to theologians of special schools, and if Roman Catholic and Dissenting colleges were added, there would always be plenty of choice for the parents as to the special theology which they might wish their sons to be imbued with. If the University, as distinct from the colleges, were even so much influenced by the Catholics or Dissenters in Convocation as to provide chairs for the critical support of these theologies, these chairs would influence the students only secondarily. When the college teaching had satisfied a man, be would attend no other teaching in the University. Where it had not, he would seek a supplement to the special teach- ing from some source from which he had more hope. Even supposing that the admission of men not Churchmen to Con- vocation had far more effect than we expect it to have, in- stead of endangering the National Church we confidently believe it would strengthen it. The theological teaching of the Church would no longer be unquestioned indeed at Oxford ; but the more ably it was probed the more successes it would achieve over the narrower theologies opposed to it.
The division of Wednesday night showed conclusively how -wisely Mr. Goschen, Mr. Grant Duff, and Mr. Forster judged in declining to accept the compromise offered them of admit- ting Nonconformists to degrees but not to Convocation. The majority of sixteen on the broad principle of the national character of the University was an immense advance on last year, when the measure was defeated on the third reading by a majority of two. The speakers on both sides felt a real principle to be at stake, and the consequence was a debate which (though ill reported) has not been surpassed in interest this Session, and which is unquestionably the beginning of the end,—though the House of Lords are not likely to let it settle the matter, even if the majority be maintained in Committee and on the third reading.
Previous page
