UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 137.)

HC Deb 27 June 1889 vol 337 cc904-72

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 5.

* MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I beg to propose to leave out "(c) an assessor nominated by the Chancellor." The ground on which I make this proposal is that, as far as our experience has gone, the only result of the patron. age of the Chancellor has been to introduce another person of exactly the same stamp as the assessor nominated by the Senatus. During all these years, with scarcely a moment's interval, the University of Aberdeen has been under the control of a thoroughly reactionary Government not caring for the interests of education, and solely concerned with exercising the patronage of the University in a Tory and Church direction.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, line 32, leave out "(c) an assessor nominated by the Chancellor."—(Mr. Hunter.)

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) Bute

I cannot accept this Amendment. The office of Chancellor was established as comparatively recently as 1858, and I think it most desirable that he should be represented on the Court for two reasons—in the first place, in order that his influence may be duly exercised at the primary stage of administration; and, secondly, in order that he may be in touch with the sentiments that prevail in that mixed body. At the last sitting of the Committee it was urged that there should be a representative of the town of St. Andrew's and one of the town of Dundee on the University Court of St. Andrew's. The Government thought it necessary to oppose both propositions having regard to the inferences which might be drawn from the adoption of either. As regards the question of St. Andrew's, which the House is now considering, I need hardly say that if it should meet the general views of the House, as indicated on the last occasion and also now, that there should be some strong local representation, the Government are quite prepared to carry out those views. I will go further, and say that various Amendments face us as regards like questions in the case of the other Universities; and the Government think it is perhaps right that the general public should be represented, and think it better that it should be a universal representation and not merely a local representation of the public. We propose in this Bill that the Crown should be vested with the nomination of two members. It appears that there is a strong feeling in some sections, I might almost say in all sections, of the House in favour of a more distinctively local representation than is implied in that method, and the Government are prepared to give way to this extent—that they will give one of the Crown nominees to be elected by the Town Councils of Glasgow and Aberdeen. The result will be that the shall put upon a completely symmetrical position the composition of the whole of the University Courts to this extent—that in each of them there will thus be two municipal representatives. In the case of St. Andrew's I think that even the hon. Member for St. Andrew's will hardly suggest that we should give at once the Provost a seat and an assessor elected by the Town Council another seat. But the Government think that the present affords a happy opportunity of dealing with both the old and the new by giving a seat on the University Court to Dundee as well as to St. Andrew's. Accordingly, as the best and most dignified course for both these, the Government propose to seat the Provost of St. Andrew's and the Provost of Dundee on the -University Court of St. Andrew's. They propose to give the University Courts of Glasgow and Aberdeen another municipal member, their Provost being already seated; and, therefore, in each case there will be an assessor elected by these Town Councils. That does not require to be extended to Edinburgh, because Edinburgh is the centre from which we start, and is represented by its Provost and an Assessor. I hope that the Committee will consider that these are fair concessions on the part of the Government, and that it is a matter on which the Government should consider not merely the reasons, but the preferences, of all sections of the Committee. I have said that we propose to find the seats thus required by reducing the Crown nominees from two to one. I think the Committee generally will be of opinion that this is a fair holding of the balance between the general public and the local public. It would hardly be possible to justify the placing of the whole representation in the local communities unless the Universities were to renounce their claims to public recognition generally, and confine themselves to the localities in which they are situated. I think that that would be a mistake. I hope I have convinced the Committee of the desire of the Government to conciliate opinion on this subject; and in view of the concessions of the Government I trust I may appeal to the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to curtail the discussion on the other points to be raised hereafter on this clause. As to increasing or decreasing the numbers of the University Courts, I believe there is a general agreement that the University Court is large enough in each case, and accordingly in proposing the curtailment of Crown nominations, we have had regard to what I believe is the prevailing feeling. But there is one other point upon which I hope to enlist the support and sympathy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has been suggested that we might find seats for the purposes I have indicated by reducing the representation of the General Council and the Senatus. I deprecate the adoption of such a course, and for this reason. Down to, I may say, the day before yesterday, the whole of the reforming movement within the Universities was directed to increasing the representation of the General Council, who, we have always been told, are regarded as representing the general University public. It is only in this Parliamentary discussion that there has been anything urged in favour of this further representation of outside bodies. The Government has yielded to that; but before hon. Members think of cutting down the number of representatives sent by the General Council, I would ask them—Have they settled accounts with those who have hitherto been the University reformers? I have always understood that the desire of the General Council is to have four representatives, and that they will he content if they have the same number as the Senatus. That seems to afford an opportunity of carrying out various arrangements such as those which I believe were suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds. I have gone thus far for the purpose of showing that the Government have carefully considered the proposition now made, and I trust the Committee will forgive him for having taken this opportunity of making a statement which I hope will greatly facilitate the passing of this clause and of the Bill itself.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (Stirling, &c)

I am anxious at once to recognize in the fullest degree the spirit in which the Lord Advocate has addressed the Committee. All that we complained of on the last occasion was that there was not, as we thought, a sufficient disposition on the part of the Government to make concessions or to recognize the strong feeling that existed as to the necessity for local public control being more or less exercised in the affairs of the Universities. The learned Lord now proposes that there shall be two municipal representatives on the Court of each University. For my part, I cannot say that that is altogether a sufficient representation, but it is an adequate representation for our purpose at present. It is quite possible that in the future some means may be devised for bringing in the opinion in that way, of what I may call the mother county of the University. But my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, and others who have Amendments to that effect on the Paper, will recognize and admit that things are hardly ripe for entrusting to a County Council duties such as these, and I therefore should be disposed to suggest to my hon. Friends that they should be in the main content with the concessions which the Government have made. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to find his municipal representation by taking away one of the Crown nominees, but I think there are a good many of us who would prefer to see the other Crown nominee go by the board likewise, because they are not representatives of outside opinion in the same sense as those representatives sent by elected bodies. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will not understand us as accepting the alterations as wholly satisfactory. The Lord Advocate also objected to any diminution of the representation of the General Council, and of the Senatus Academicus. I will not, however, delay the proceedings of the Committee by discussing that matter. I will only express my opinion, and I think it will commend itself to hon. Members behind me, that the manner in which the learned Lord Advocate has met our wishes is for the moment satisfactory, and is as much as we could reasonably expect him to do.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I have to congratulate the Lord Advocate on the statement he has made, a statement which will make the passage of the clause much easier. But the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the Provost, whereas the opinion of the House has been to drop the Provost and adopt an assessor elected by the Town Council. The Provost is a busy man whose entire time is taken up very often, and we shall not add to the strength of the University Court by placing this ex officio member upon it. I should also like to know whether the Government wish to give the Lord Rector, who is often a hack Party politician, a seat himself, and also an assessor. Lord Rectors are appointed for Party and political purposes.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

If the hon. Member thinks fit to describe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as a hack Party politician his argument applies, because he and many other able men have been Lord Rectors. It has also been found that the representation of the students by this means has had the effect of adding most valuable information to the Court, both in the person of the Lord Rector and of his assessor.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the attention of the Committee to the circumstance that the discussion is rather wandering from the immediate subject before the Committee. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen withdraws his Amendment we can go into this question.

* DR. HUNTER

I can hardly withdraw my Amendment at present.

* MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

I can scarcely express so much satisfaction with the statement of the Lord Advocate.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, Order If the Amendment is not withdrawn the discussion must be confined to it.

* MR WALLACE

I was doing so, but had only got to the first half of the sentence, for I was about to say that what the Lord Advocate said has not convinced me of the desirability of withdrawing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I think it is desirable to withdraw the assessor of the Chancellor from the University Court. We have had complaints of the large and unwieldy character of the Court, in which I joined, and by withdrawing the Chancellor's assessor we should take one of the most innocent modes of lessening that difficulty, and that withdrawal would also have an important influence in adjusting the balance on these Courts between public opinion and purely academic union. There is too much of the academic element on the University Court. We do not want the popular element necessarily to be predominant, but we know that the tendency of academic bodies is to have a professional bias. With regard to the University of Edinburgh, I do not see why it should continue to have only two representatives of public opinion within the University Court. That University has always been one ahead of the others in this respect, and I do not see why that advantage should be taken away. But in connection with St. Andrew's there is this additional and peculiar reason for sacrificing the Chancellor's assessor, that there the academic element is to be peculiarly prominent, for they are to have no less than three principals of colleges. It seems to me that that is too much, and that it would be well, especially in this case of St. Andrew's, to remove the one academic element which we could most safely abstract from the University Court—namely, the Chancellor's assessor.

* MR. JAMES A. CAMPBELL (Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities)

May I remind the Committee that the Bill does not constitute a University Court for the first time, but is only improving a system with which we are already familiar. The Chancellor's assessor has been a member of the Court ever since there has been such a Court—viz., since 1858. It seems most natural that the Chancellor should be represented on the Court by an assessor. He is himself not a member of the Court; and although the highest office-bearer in the University, he is not called upon to take part in the administration of University affairs. It is a mere assumption to say that his assessor would necessarily strengthen the academic as contradistinguished from the popular element in the Court. I may also remind the Committee that the subject has been fully discussed in Scotland for years past by those most interested in urging reforms, and no objection has been raised to the continuance of the Chancellor's assessor as a member of the Court. It would, in my opinion, he undesirable to make changes upon a scheme which had been so carefully considered, and which had been agreed to as a proper compromise by all parties.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities has told us this is a compromise come to with certain persons in Scotland—I suppose between the Universities and parties representing the reformers in the Universities. But our duty, as Members of this House, is to do what we believe to be best, independent of other influences and without considering whether it is necessary to propitiate particular persons who have any special interest in the matter. I do not think any substantial argument has been used to induce us to believe chat the Chancellor's assessor is a very useful member of the University Court. He was appointed in 1858 as an experiment, and he has sat since then; and I venture to say, with some confidence, the experiment has not been a success. He has not been a very useful member of the Court. He is a person who personally has no connection with the University beyond his functions, which were created in 1858. In the case of the University of Edinburgh he is, as we know, the President of the Court of Session. But he is usually a great nobleman, not particularly versed in University affairs, and there is no reason why in those affairs his opinion should be valuable; in point of fact, he usually leaves such matters to some local and practical gentleman of his acquaintance. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh that the Chancellor's assessor represents the academical element. I should think better of him if he did. He does not represent any element at all. But coming back to the latter argument, is the Court already too large? The Lord Advocate said he thought the Court was quite large enough, and many of us are inclined to think it is too large, and that it might be cut down by at least four. The Court will consist of 16, and possibly of 19 or 20 members, a large body for working purposes; it would he a great deal better if the number did not exceed 11 or 12. I feel inclined to support my honourable colleague in striking out the Chancellor's assessor.

* MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

When the Chancellor's assessor was added to the Court, the difficulty was who to put on, but now the difficulty is, who are we to strike off? We do not strengthen the Court by adding numbers, for it is not likely that any questions will come to a division by a dead vote. You want a compact, workable body. Perhaps one of the principal functions of the Court will be the appointment of professors. I dare-say no Gentleman in the House has had a more varied experience in this respect than I have had of elections by large and small bodies. I can give an unqualified opinion, and I say the very best body to make a good choice is a small body who can sit round a table and discuss the merits of a professor whose appointment is under consideration, and the decision then will probably be arrived at without the necessity of coming to a vote. You want a body small enough to feel individual responsibility, and you will not have cliques arising within the body who will make up their minds apart from the general body as to who is to be elected. I am sure those who have had experience will sympathize with the view I take. The size of the University Court, copied, I know, from the preceding Bill, is one of the blots of the present Bill. A Court nunbering 20 is far too large. I would rather have a Court no bigger than the present Court of St. Andrew's, numbering half a dozen. But I see the difficulty of always getting a Court together if it is so small, as well as other difficulties, but still I think a Court of moderate size short, if possible, of a dozen is most desirable. I hope the Government will not regard Amendments in this direction as being in any sense brought forward from a Party point of view. So far as I am concerned, I shall support Amendments as they come on, simply with the view of constituting a workably-sized Court, among the members of which there will be individual responsibility, each member fitted and suited to the functions to be discharged, not overloading a small, well-chosen body with ex officio members.

SIR A. CAMPBELL (Renfrew, W.)

I cannot support this Amendment. It is admitted that the Chancellor is chosen as a man of ability and high position, and he has given him an assessor to fulfil the duties when the Chancellor is not able himself to be present; and I think the gentleman chosen to the high position of Chancellor of the University would give very serious consideration to the appointment of a person to act as his assessor. I am sure that to strike out the assessor of an independent man such as the Chancellor would be a means of reducing the Court that would seriously militate against its efficiency. I agree that it is desirable the Court should be small, but I cannot support this Amendment.

MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

If the only question before us were the suitability of the assessor of the Chancellor as a member of the Court, I should have considerable difficulty in supporting the Amendment, for I think so long as he is there, there is a good deal to be said for the Chancellor having some share in the government of the University. On this account, if on no other, I take the view that my hon. Friend might be content to acquiesce in the concession of the Lord Advocate. At the same time, I feel that the Government have not shown themselves alive to the paramount importance of reducing the Court to a reasonable size. It is an overgrown Court, and that is a now feature introduced by the Bill. The effect will be to considerably reduce the individual responsibility of members in the distribution of patronage, and on that account I shall support the Amendment.

* MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

As regards assessors appointed by the Chancellor, I must say I do not think experience has shown that they have been appointed with any peculiar bias. I take "Oliver and Boyd's" list, and I find in Glasgow, for instance, that the assessor appointed by the Chancellor is Sir James King, and he, I think, is Lord Provost, and certainly does not represent any improper element. Then I find at St. Andrew's, the Chancellor's representative is the Earl of Elgin, a suitable person to have on the University Court, both from local knowledge and other reasons. At Aberdeen, the assessor of the Chancellor is Mr. Ramsay, a gentleman of whom I have no knowledge. Then at Edinburgh, I find the Chancellor's assessor is Mr. Graham Murray, a distinguished Edinburgh citizen, and a very proper representative to be on the Court. I only mention these names as indicating the class of persons it has been the practice to appoint. I think my hon. Friend might be content with the representative element contained in the Lord Advocate's proposal.

* MR. HUNTER

I am satisfied from the expression of opinion we have had that I ought not to press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. CLARK

The Commission, under Sub-section 12 of Section 14, are to have power to lay down regulations for the constitution and functions of the Students' Council of each University, and to frame regulations under which the Council is entitled to make representation to the University Court. Would it not be better to give the Council direct representation on the University Court?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think, on the whole, it would be more expedient to abstain from making that change. The students have already plenty of electioneering, and I think the sense of the Committee is against the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment proposed, after line 33, to insert— (e) The Provost of St. Andrew's for the time being; (f) the Provost of Dundee for the time being."—(The Lord Advocate,)

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

A short time ago my hon. Friend below me called attention to the advantages of not nominating the Provost, but of allowing the Town Council to select their own representative. No man is better qualified for a seat on the University Court than the present Lord Provost of Glasgow; and, as a matter of fact, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out he has been for some time, and is at present, a Member of the University Court as assessor for the Lord Chancellor. In this instance the Lord Provost is specially qualified, and is already provided with a seat; but, as a rule, would it not be better to allow Town Councils to elect their representative? The Lord Provost in a large town has an immense amount of work to do; he is ex officio a member of all the Committees of the Town Council; his work is arduous and important, and he is elected because of his qualifications for the office of Provost, not because of any fitness or taste for matters connected with University administration. But on the Town Council there may be found excellent men who would fill the position of municipal assessor in these University Courts in the best possible manner. Take the case of Dundee. I do not know who the Provost may be, but I will venture to say that it is probable that among the ex-Provosts, or the more leisured class of Town Councillors, you would find a representative at least as well qualified as the Provost, and certainly able to give more time to the duties of the office. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have received a certain amount of concession, and I do not propose to do more than throw this out as a suggestion. The Lord Provost of Glasgow is ex officio the occupant of many positions. I have often thought of bringing in a Bill enabling a man to relinquish some of his ex officio duties, but it is absurd when a man is encumbered with the duties of a number of offices to thrust upon him another office which might be better filled with more advantage to the University and in accordance with popular representation by an elected assessor.

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I am glad my hon. Friend has raised this question; it was a demand made by the Scotch Members on the last occasion. The concession made by the Government to meet our wishes calls for some acknowledgment, and this I make most fairly. On the other hand I think it is a most difficult question to decide whether the municipal representation should be provided by election or whether it should be vested in the highest City officer. On the whole I am inclined to think it is better to have it attached to the office of Provost, for I do not think we can too much magnify the importance and dignity of the Chief Magistrates of these great cities, and these duties will be accepted as honourable and dignified additions to the functions of the office. I am glad my hon. Friend does not propose to spoil the grace of the concession on the present occasion by challenging this principle. There is only one small Amendment which for a special reason I offer for consideration. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman refers to the "Provost" of Dundee, and I daresay he anticipates the point I am coming to. The Tight hon. Gentleman knows that there has been conferred upon Dundee the dignity of a City, and one consequence of this change in its constitution is that the Chief Magistrate has—I do not know whether by the advice or with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman—assumed the style and title of "Lord" Provost. It does not become me, as a Member of the Radical Party, to insist upon the importance of titular distinction, and I do not put it upon this ground; but as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, there are many people who attribute some importance to these things. I have been advised that the legality, or at all events the propriety of the assumption of the title by the Chief Magistrate of Dundee, will be more or less determined by the style in which he is alluded to in Acts of Parliament. This, I believe, will be the first Act passed since the assumption of the title which, if recognized here, will settle his style and dignity for the future in a manner consonant with the wishes of the people of Dundee. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will not object to the insertion of the word "Lord" before Provost of Dundee.

MR. ESSLEMONT

As an ex-Lord Provost and probably the only one in the House, I may be allowed a word or two. It is true, as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) has said, many duties attach ex officio to the Lord Provost, but I think also that these functions are such as any city would be proud of having vested in its Chief Magistrate. Though the Lord Provost is ex officio a member of all the Town Committees, it is not expected that he shall give attention to the details with which the smaller Committees are concerned. There is much to be said in favour of attaching the University Court to the office of Chief Magistrate. We must not look a gift horse in the mouth too closely, but should accept without hesitation this honour the Government has agreed to confer upon the representatives of these University cities.

MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrew's, &c.)

I should fail in my duty if, as Member for St. Andrew's, I did not take the opportunity of thanking the Lord Advocate and the Government for having made a graceful concession to the views we advanced on a previous occasion. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, I think it right to state that I have been in communication with the Town Council of St. Andrew's on the point, and the view indicated to me is that it would be more acceptable that there should be a power of appointing an assessor, rather than that the Chief Magistrate should be ex officio a member of the University Court. Personally, I have no very strong feeling in the matter. I put down an Amendment on a previous occasion as being the most modest demand I could decently make, but I have no objection to offer to the proposal of the Lord Advocate.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think the Committee is now ready to come to a decision, and I judge the prevailing view to be in favour of the Amendment as it stands. As to the point raised with good humour by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee, I am afraid I could not take the step he suggests without offending the susceptibilities of the hon. Member who has just sat down as representing the ancient cathedral town of St. Andrew's. I defer so far to the views of the hon. Member for Dundee as to express an opinion that nothing in this enactment will prejudice any claim put forward to the style and title of Lord Provost of Dundee.

* MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I do not agree with the Lord Advocate that it is the opinion of the Committee that the Provost should sit as assessor in the University Court. Our object is not to add to the dignity of the position of Provost of St. Andrews or Dundee, but to constitute the best University Court that can be devised. If either the Lord Provost of Dundee or the Lord Provost of St. Andrews—to give equality of title—are supposed by the Town Council to be the man best qualified to sit in the University Court, then by all means let him be appointed by the Town Council. In the case of Dundee there is this difficulty—that there is a considerable distance to travel to attend the sittings of the University Court at St. Andrews. No doubt, however, if the Lord Provost saw it was compatible with his other duties to attend, the Town Council would appoint him if specially qualified. But I am strongly of opinion that it should be left to the Town Council to appoint the man whom they think best qualified to act as their assessor.

SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy)

I must protest against St. Andrews being called a Cathedral town; we abolished the Cathedral 350 years ago. An ancient city it is, and it has been called by one right hon. Gentleman an ancient and Royal burgh; but I think he must have been thinking of the Golf Club, which is really ancient. As to the question before us, while acknowledging the concession made by the Government, I should myself prefer it in the other form, and this I do considering it particularly in connection with St. Andrews. You want special qualifications for these educational matters. The Lord Provost might be an excellent official, from an administrative point of view, but perhaps not the best choice in other respects for an assessor in the University Court. The function of St. Andrews has become in a great measure the education of schoolmasters. We are to have a certain amount of the lay element in the University Court, and in view of the difficulty we have in getting schoolmasters adapted to modern requirements it is important that you should have in your lay element a strong influence as representing popular requirements, to counteract the tendency to a too academic system in the University. But it is not a matter to fight about. I only express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the propriety of allowing a fair proportion of local popular representation.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRYCE

Considering that the Lord Advocate has gone a good way, if not all the way, we desire, it would be rather undesirable I should divide the Committee on the next Amendment, which is to substitute "two" for "four" in line 7. I do propose, however, to divide the Committee on an Amendment lower down relating to the Crown Assessors.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

I have an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect, but I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman.

* MR. HUNTER

I beg to move the omission of the words "four assessors," in line 34, in order to insert "one assessor." The University Council was an institution invented in the year 1858, before which time the Scotch Universities had no experience of any such institution. The father of that scheme must be conscious that it has been very far indeed from realizing his expectations. I have more than one objection to increasing by a single vote the power of the University Council. In the first place, you do not increase the power of the students. I do not know what is the case in other Universities; but I do know that in the case of the Aberdeen University the only improvements we ever obtained from the University Court were the result of the election of Sir Mountstuart Grant Duff by the University students. I protest very strongly against increasing the power of the graduates without some corresponding increase in the power of the students. Let me point out how utterly unwieldy and unsatisfactory a body the University Council is for electing persons to the University Court. A single circular sent out in the case of the University Council of Aberdeen, and that is the smallest with the exception of St. Andrews, costs £20; and if there is any dispute as to the appointment of an assessor it is scarcely possible for any member to become a candidate without paying from £70 to £100. The other day I cast my eye over the list of graduates and the members of the University Council of Aberdeen, and I find that two-fifths of them are situated at a distance from Aberdeen, which made it impossible for them to attend the meetings of the University Council. We all know that the attendance at the half-yearly meeting of the University Council is ridiculously small. When the Council was first started it was hailed with great enthusiasm, and I remember the time when 120 were present at a division. I dare say that now you would not get 30 people to go near the place. The graduates are tired of playing at debating society work, and the consequence is that the University Council no longer excites any real interest. The fact is, the Conservatives and the Established Church people send out a Whip on the occasion of an election, and there is a Party fight of the most objectionable kind. In 1872, three or four of us thought we would like to elect a man holding our own views. We wrote to our friends and got up a list of 70 members. We then issued a Circular. The enemy became demoralized and alarmed. They withdrew their men and our candidate was elected. I consider that it is ample and sufficient to have one assessor, and that to increase the number to four is only to aggravate the evils.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, line 31, leave out "four," in order to insert "one."—(Mr. Hunter.)

Question proposed, "That ' four' stand part of the Clause."

* SIR L. PLAYFAIR

My hon. Friend has advanced an admirable argument why "one" should not be substituted for "four." He states that, under present circumstances, the pre- dominant party of a University always appoint a member to suit them, and he said that the Tories and the clergy in the case of Aberdeen always appointed a member to represent themselves. The object of appointing four assessors to the General Council is that there shall be a distribution of representation, that the Faculty of Medicine, of Law, of Divinity, and of Arts should each have the opportunity of being represented by persons with strong proclivities in the direction of that particular kind of study. I think that "four" will popularize the council very much better than "one," and that "one" will always have the effect of leaving the representation in the hands of the predominant party.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I do not quite see how the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to be carried out except by the adoption of such an Amendment as is now before the Committee. I am bound to say the bon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has justified the Amendment on grounds which I suppose may be called general, although they were confined a good deal to the special case of the University of Aberdeen. In the case of the University of St. Andrew's there is a greater need of restriction than in that of any other University. The General Council of St. Andrew's is very large compared with the size of the University. The constituency is widespread, and I should think the proportion of members who attend the meetings is smaller than that attending the meetings of other councils. Indeed, it is a matter of common repute that the General Council of St. Andrew's is very much an instrument of the professors.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

There are two reasons for the acceptance of this Amendment. In the first place, there is a general consensus of opinion that the University Court is too numerous; and, secondly, it is notorious that the constituency of St. Andrew's is composed of medical men scattered all over the world. It is well-known that formerly the medical degrees of St. Andrew's could be bought with the greatest ease. ["Oh, oh!"] I admit that of recent years that has abated. The Representative Council of St. Andrew's is not a satisfactory body. I hope the medical school of Dundee will remedy this defect. In that case we should have a real medical school in connection with the University of St. Andrew s.

* THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Kr. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING,) Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities

I think I should be wanting in my duty to St. Andrew's if I did not meet the observations of the hon. Gentleman. I do not know what may have been the state of matters a great many years ago; but certainly the present medical graduates of St. Andrew's have all undergone a stringent examination. As to the general question, I entreat the Committee to remember the history of this whole matter of University Reform. It originated with the members of the General Council. Their claim to representation has been admitted by successive Governments, and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Leeds has cast the weight of his great authority in favour of the proposal of the Government. The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member by their Bill of 1885 fixed the representation of the general council at three members, but by the Bill of last year the number was extended to four. The principle of representing them fully has therefore been conceded on both sides of the House, and it would be exceedingly unfair were we now, at the last moment, to turn round and make this alarming reduction.

* MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:

I am sorry to find myself no longer in sympathy with the lion. Member for Aberdeen, and unable to support this Amendment. It is possible that many of the Councils have tended to fall asleep, as many bodies of that sort do; but, taken at their worst, they are a nearer approximation to the representation of popular opinion than anything else within the walls of the University. They are the body from whom this impetus for reform has come, and I think my hon. Friend has hardly realized what the practical effect will be of cutting down the representation of the General Council. I agree with all that has been said as to the Court being too large; but it is not so very easy to alter it now, and if a reduction of the Court is to be made by taking away representatives nominated by the General Council, it will increase immensely on the Court the very party which we think is over represented already. We have the representatives of the Senate, we have the Principal's, the Chancellor's, and the Rector's assessors, —and here I may say I agree with what has been said as to the assessor nominated by the Chancellor—we shall have eleven coming from these sources, and I think we should, therefore, have at least four members coming from the General Council. I cannot support the Amendment.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

I also am sorry to be obliged to object to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. It is well known, as to the University of Glasgow, that the General Council are the leading spirits in University reform, and the object of having four assessors nominated by the General Council was to counterbalance the other members. These representatives, it seems to me, are just those most likely to look at matters from a practical, as apart from an academic, point of view.

* MR. HUNTER

If I could have taken the view entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) I would not have brought forward the Amendment. I think we have discussed the proposal at sufficient length, and I must say I have not received sufficient support to justify me in carrying the Amendment to a Division.

DR. CLARK

Before this Amendment is withdrawn, I desire to say that, to my mind, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy has made a most unjustifiable attack on the University of St. Andrew's. I think the graduates of St. Andrew's will bear comparison with those of any other University. There is no necessity for it to pass incompetent men, because where they are limited to 10 they can generally get 20 or 30 students.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I made no attack on the University of St. Andrew's, but merely on the Medical Faculty. I admit that lately there has been a fair examination for medical degrees; but I say that the people who go to St. Andrew's for these degrees, as a rule, do rot belong to the locality.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved, Clause 5, page 2, line 35, leave cut "four" and insert "three."—(The Lord Advocate).

Question proposed, "That the word three ' be there inserted."

* MR. HUNTER

There can be no doubt that this representation of professors is excessive compared with the other members of the Council. I have had a little experience of the government of a College, which has not the advantage of great endowment, but which has rendered distinguished service—I mean the University College of London. The professors of University College used to complain that on their Council, which corresponds with the University Court, there was not a single professor. There was great jealousy in admitting the professors. Ultimately, I believe, they did admit one. Well, I believe that it would be desirable that there should be one member of the Senatus on the University Court for the purpose of communicating the views of the Senatus to the Court, and the views of the Court to the Senatus; but to give these gentlemen a voting power is an entire mistake. It ought to be reduced to a minimum, because the function of the University Court is to control the professoriate. If this form of University Court is adopted in Aberdeen University, for instance—and I am speaking from 25 years' experience of the working of the Court there—the consequences will be most prejudicial to the cause of education and most injurious to the University. I am in favour of one assessor only, and I think they will be well advised if, having abandoned the number four, they reduce it to one.

* MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

I hope the number will not be reduced beyond three. To do so will be to cripple greatly the Court of St. Andrews for the work which the Bill casts upon it. The measure proposes greatly to increase the responsibility of the Court, and it is, therefore, necessary that there should be upon it a sufficient number of those acquainted with the working of the University.

DR. CLARK

It is suggested that the number should be "two" instead of "four." When we have taken a division on the present Amendment, it will be competent, I presume, for the Member for Aberdeen to move that "two" be inserted?

THE CHAIRMAN

The question is that "throe" be inserted. Of course, if that is carried, there is an end of the matter. If, however, it is lost, it will be competent for the hon. Member to move to insert "two."

DR. CLARK

I would ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) not to press his suggestion, but to wait for the Amendment of the other Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) who proposes to substitute "two" for "four."

THE CHAIRMAN

The question is that "three" be inserted, and the division must be taken on that.

DR. CAMERON

I would support the proposal to alter the figure to "two."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 197: Noes 116.—(Division List, No. 159.)

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I move the omission from Clause 5, line 36, page 2, of the words "two assessors" in order to insert the words "one assessor."

MR. BRYCE

My objection to an assessor nominated by the Crown is, first of all, that the Court will be too large, and I should prefer a smaller body of between 7 and 13; and, beyond this, I do not see that anything is to be gained by the appointment of a Crown assessor. It is impossible for the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate to know who is the best and fittest person, and what is the position in the University Court which applies to any particular individual. The result would, in fact, be simply this—that the Secretary of State would write down to the Commissioners and ask "whom do you appoint as assessors," and the appointment would become a mere act of Crown patronage. The experience we have already had of Crown appointments does not lead us to desire to increase the number even by one, and, consequently, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way to the withdrawal of the proposal altogether.

Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

There is a good deal that may be said in favour of the proposal on the one hand, and on the other there is much that may be said against it; but, as I do not see that it is one that recommends itself to the feeling of the Committee generally I am prepared to give way upon it.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W)

I should like to hear from the Lord Advocate what he is going to do with the corresponding clauses relating to the other Universities? What, for instance, does he propose with regard to the University of Edinburgh?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I have no hesitation in saying that my action in this instance will apply to every case.

MR. BUCHANAN

Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the proposal for two assessors to be nominated by the Crown upon the Court of the Edinburgh University?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Certainly, Sir.

Motion made, and Question put, Clause 5, page 2, line 36, that the words "two assessors nominated by the Crown," be omitted.

Agreed to.

DR. CAMERON

I have to move the omission from lines 37 and 38 of Clause 5, of the words "not exceeding four in all." As the clause stands, in Glasgow, for instance, there will be two new colleges applying for affiliation right off, and we may soon have at Paisley and other places round Glasgow other colleges that will also apply to be affiliated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has very properly proposed to deal in the same way with the Constitution of the Courts in all the Universities, a circumstance that very greatly simplifies the matter, and impels me to move this Amendment in connection with the University of St. Andrew's. The object of the Amendment is this: if the clause is passed as it stands, and a single college is affiliated to the University of Glasgow, the result will be that if that college should get four representatives, other colleges that may be afterwards affiliated will have none. As the Bill was originally drafted, the words I propose to admit, "not exceeding four in all," were not in it, but were inserted afterwards, in order that the representatives of the affiliated colleges might not be so numerous as to swamp the representatives of the Universities on the Council. But this contingency is provided against by a clause inserted in a subsequent part of the Bill, which provides that the representatives of affiliated colleges in the University Courts shall not vote on any question affecting the funds belonging to the Universities—a clause which does away with the necessity for the limitation I propose to remove. If my Amendment be carried it will simply allow a discretion to the University Commissioners or the Committee of Privy Council to regulate the number of representatives, which they would probably do by granting one representative to each affiliated college. The clause as it stands would, in my opinion, militate against one of the most important objects of the Bill—namely, the representation of each of the affiliated colleges.

Amendment proposed, in clause 5, lines 37 and 38, to omit the words, "not to exceed four in all."—(Dr. Cameron).

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

* MR. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING

I would point out, in reply to the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment, that it has been strongly urged on the Committee that the University Courts ought not to be enlarged, and we have, accordingly, been engaged in endeavouring to reduce them. As this Amendment might have a tendency to increase rather than diminish the number of representatives composing the Court, I do not think we ought to assent to it. At the present moment we are scarcely in a position to say whether four representatives as proposed by the clause would be too many or too few, and it ought to be remembered that the idea of affiliation, as a rule, has reference only to graduation. If it should turn out that the number of colleges desirous of being affiliated should be so large as to require further representation, it will be easy to meet the difficulty by the introduction of a very simple measure. I would, there fore, ask the hon. Member to allow the clause to stand as it is, leaving the point he has suggested as a matter for further consideration if necessary.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

I think the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division have shown that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in this clause which ought to be cleared up by the Government. The hon. Member assumed that one affiliated college might have the whole of the four representatives provided for in the clause to the exclusion of other colleges that might afterwards be affiliated. I confess that I had read the clause differently, the meaning I attached to it being that there shall be four representatives of four single colleges. If this is not made sufficiently clear in the wording of the clause it ought to be made clear, because, in my opinion, it would be wrong to put it in the power of the Commissioners to give four representatives to any one affiliated college to the exclusion of other colleges which might also be affiliated. For my part, in the interests of the Universities, I object to the Amendment, and hope it will not be pressed, as I think that four representatives of four colleges will, for the present, be ample.

* SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton Division)

I think it evident, from the fact that the Bill proposes to give powers to the Commissioners to make ordinances to extend any of the Universities by affiliating new colleges to them under regulations to be laid down by the Commissioners, that it has been in contemplation of the framers of the measure that there should be more than one representative for each college. For my part, I cannot see the use of the limitation proposed by the clause. It has been suggested by the learned Solicitor General for Scotland that in case of its being found needful fresh legislation might be introduced; but I think that while we are legislating on this subject we ought to do what it is desirable should be done once and for all. Under the 15th Clause it is pretty certain that the Commissioners will give representatives to the affiliated colleges very sparingly; but if a large number of colleges should claim affiliation, I do not see why it should be again necessary to take up the time of Parliament by bringing forward fresh proposals.

MR. CALDWELL

The object we have in view in this matter is to see that the popular element shall be admitted to the University Courts, and if you were to have one college with three or four representatives, thereby excluding the others, this principle would be entirely upset.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The object of the limitation inserted in the clause was that the University body should not be swamped by the representatives of external interests, and I have no doubt that the University Court, after the expiry of the powers of the Commissioners, will have due regard to the equitable and due proportions of representatives.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.)

I think there should be some representation of the Catholic minority on this University Board, and I propose that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow should have a seat upon it. If he had a seat upon the Court it would be giving a representation to one-sixteenth of the whole. I ask you to be as tolerant of the Catholics in Scotland as the Catholics of Ireland are tolerant of the Presbyterians. Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, after line 7, insert, "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow for the time being.'"—(Mr. Blane.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I have no doubt that the distinguished Prelate named would be well acquainted with educational subjects, and would be a useful member of an educational governing body. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman will see that I could not accept this Amendment without finding seats for other and larger religious communities of the country.

MR. BLANE

The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is entirely weak. He puts a theological test in the Bill, and then puts it forward as an argument against our representation. And this theological test is so absurd that they claim the divine right of private judgment.

MR. WALLACE

I am prepared to do my best to destroy anything in the nature of a theological test in the Bill. But whatever theological test may be in the Bill, there is none for membership of the University Court, and that is the point of the Bill which is at present under discussion. I think the difficulty which the Lord Advocate put is really unanswerable, and it seems to me insurmountable. If we were to give a seat to one particular religious connection, we could give nothing less to every religious denomination in Scotland. There are, I think, as nearly as possible 57 separate religious denominations in Scotland. I shall be exceedingly glad to do all I can to assist my hon. Friend in expelling anything in the nature of theological intolerance or theological tests from this Bill, and I trust we shall have his valuable assistance on that occasion. At the present moment, and in the present connection, I do not see how it is possible, on practical grounds, to assist him in this matter.

DR. CAMERON

May I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press this matter to a division. I have known the Archbishop of Glasgow for a great number of years, and I am sure every Colleague of mine in this House will bear me out in saying that there is not in Glasgow a man who is more widely beloved and respected than its present Archbishop. He is a scholarly man, and one whom it is very desirable to have on the University Court. But, of course, Scotchmen are required to vote in accordance with principle, and I would rather not see the Amendment pressed to a division, because, in voting against it, our votes might bear a personal construction, which, I am certain, none of us would like put upon it. I am sure the Archbishop has only to express a personal wish, and by popular election he would certainly be returned a member of the University Court.

MR. BLANE

In consequence of the appeal made to me by the Scotch Members, who ought to know their own business best, I shall withdraw this Amendment. The reason I brought if forward was that I wish the same tolerance to be shown to Catholics in Scotland as the Catholics in Ireland show towards Dissenters in Ireland. It was on that ground I brought the Amendment forward, though I find it is not very generally accepted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CALDWELL

I wish to move an Amendment to apply the same principle to the College of St. Mungo in Glasgow as has been applied in the case of the University College of Dundee, and. that the College of St. Mungo shall be affiliated and made to form part of the University. When this Bill passed through the House of Lords, the St. Mungo College had not been incor- porated. Since the Bill passed through the Lords St. Mango College has been incorporated. It has a thoroughly equipped medical school, far superior to anything possessed by Dundee, which is in relation with the Royal Infirmary of Glasgow the largest hospital in Scotland. It affords opportunities for practising surgery, and in addition the students of St. Mungo's are qualified for practising medicine.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 3, after "principal," insert the words— At present in existence in the University, the Principal of St. Mungo's College, if and when the said College shall be affiliated to form part of the University."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Anyone acquainted with the relative positions of St. Andrew's and Glasgow Universities, knows that St. Andrew's is to a large extent associated with the University College of Dundee. In the case of Glasgow that is not so. It is absolutely impossible to single out cases of this kind, and to confer representation. There is really no precedent in the case of Dundee for the proposal of the hon. Member.

DR. CLARK

I think it is a great mistake to have a number of principals, and you would be still further increasing the number by agreeing to this Amendment.

Question put and negatived.

DR. CAMERON

I would point out to the Committee that Clause 5 would have the effect of turning out of the University Court a very capable member of it. Sir James King, the present Lord Provost of Glasgow, has been a member of the University Court for a very long time. If you pass the Bill as it stands, instead of having a permanent seat as assessor for the Lord Chancellor, he will have a temporary seat as Lord Provost of Glasgow, and when his period of office expires, he will go out, and you will thus lose one of the ablest and most assiduous member of the University Court. Would it not be much better at once to let the Lord Povost and Town Councillors select their own man? If you wanted an illustration, you could not have a better one than where the Lord Provost is at present the Lord Chancellor's assessor, and where you disfranchise him if you pass the Bill as it stands.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 4, leave out "the Lord Provost of Glasgow for the time being," and insert— An assessor nominated by the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Glasgow."—(Dr. Cameron.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. CALDWELL

I think this question should be determined without reference to the present holder of the office. Let us look at what would be the result. If the Town Council exercised the right of appointing their assessor, you would have an assessor sitting practically for a lifetime. The appointment would be renewed, and you would have the University Court occupied by a body of men who had life appointments. In the case of the Lord Provost, he would retire every three years, and you would in that way have the advantage of a change of Lord Provosts. I think it would be a great advantage that those who represent the Town Council should be popularly elected and liable to change. Another point is that it would give a status to the position of the Lord Provost, and would interest him in University matters, because he would be compelled personally to take part in a great many of those important functions which are performed by the Universities, and he might exercise more influential action on questions of reform than a mere assessor appointed from time to time.

* MR. BARCLAY

Of course, if the assessor prove satisfactory to the Town Council, he will very probably be continued in office. If you tie him down to the Lord Provost for the time being, there would be considerable difficulty in the way of having a satisfactory assessor, representative of the town of Glasgow and the University Court. The object is to secure the best man qualified to represent the city and the University Court. I have no doubt whatever that the Town Council would elect the Lord Provost for the time being, if they thought he was the more suitable person; but if there were some other person pre-eminently qualified for office, they would not hesitate to go outside the Town Council to appoint him. If this wore a purely ornamental office and no duties attached, then by all means let the Lord Provost be selected. But the office has duties attached to it in connection with the administration of the affairs of the University, and I am very sure that the position of the representation will be improved by having an assessor elected by the Town Council and not fixing it upon the head officer.

DR. CLARK

I do not think you should tie the hands of the Town Council, and limit them to their Provost, for there might be those outside who took great interest in the matter, like the hon. Gentleman now Member for the University. I think it would be a great mistake to make a General ex officio member.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

I hope the Committee will have no difficulty in disposing of this Amendment. I would remind them of what they have already done. They have deliberately given a place on the Court of St. Andrew's University to the Provost of St. Andrew's, and now there is actually hesitation on the part of some hon. Members about placing the Lord Provost of Glasgow on the University Court of Glasgow University. Surely bon. Members must have forgotten what was done in the case of St. Andrew's, when they object to the Lord Provost of Glasgow being placed upon the Glasgow Court.

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 6, insert, "Assessor appointed by the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Glasgow." (The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

DR. CLARK

There is another body which I think is equally entitled to representation in the University Court, and that is the School Board. I think we cannot introduce too much of the popular element into the close academic ring. I therefore propose to enable the School Board to nominate an assessor.

Amendment proposed, same clause, after word "Glasgow," insert "An assessor nominated by the School Board of Glasgow."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I do not see how it is possible thus to give recognition to all these bodies. It is easy to support these proposals by plausible considerations, but we really must draw a line somewhere. I think on the whole the Committee is well satisfied with the composition of the Court.

MR. ESSLEMONT

There is another consideration to be borne in mind. In Glasgow and Edinburgh you give an assessor as well as the Provost a seat on the University Court, but you give nothing to the counties. I think more consideration should be shown for the County Councils than for the School Boards. You have already got popular representation in the Courts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, line 9, leave out "two" and insert "one."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, lines 10 and 11, leave out "not exceeding four in all."—(Dr. Cameron.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed in Clause 5, page 3, line 19, insert "Two assessors nominated by the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Aberdeen." (Mr. Bryce.)

MR. BRYCE

I think it would be worse to appoint two Assessors instead of one as proposed by the Bill, considering the extent of the University work in Aberdeen, but considering the way in which our advances have been met, and the kind of the compromise arrived at. I do not propose to persevere with the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. WALLACE

In the next Amendment, which stands in my name, I had proposed to insert three assessors, instead of one assessor, but, after what occurred to-day, I shall confine my proposition to the insertion of two assessors, and I shall be curious to hear the reasoning by which the Lord Advocate intends to justify the change of principle on which he is dealing with the University of Edinburgh. That city, for reasons already explained, has held a somewhat exceptional position on account of the history of the municipality in connection with University education, and that position it was proposed to recognize by giving the municipality of Edinburgh an additional element of representation over and above that given in the other municipalities in which Universities are situated. But under the present proposal of the Government it is proposed to place Edinburgh on exactly the same footing as the other University towns and cities. I want to know why that distinction is to be withdrawn from Edinburgh, for the facts are precisely the same now as they were two nights ago when the Solicitor General for Scotland spoke of the claims of Edinburgh to exceptional treatment. I intend, certainly, to take a division on this question if the Government do not give us a reasonable concession.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 3, line 33, to leave out the words "an assessor," and insert the words "two assessors."—(Mr. Wallace.)

Question proposed, "That the words an assessor' stand part of the Clause."

* MR. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING

I shall certainly not unsay anything I said the other night in praise of the historical conduct of the Edinburgh Council towards the University. The point now raised is one mainly of dignity, and the hon. Member has not shown how the Edinburgh Town Council is in the least degree prejudiced by the Government proposal to give to other -University towns a similar representation to that enjoyed by Edinburgh. I think the municipality of Edinburgh would be the last body in the world to grudge such a grant, simply because it has been made to another Council. I fail to see how the Government proposal destroys the distinctive position of the Town Council of Edinburgh. Under this Bill it will still retain an exceptional advantage over all other Town Councils in Scotland because we propose to retain the Curatorial Court, which does not exist in any other University, and upon which the Town Council of Edinburgh is very largely represented.

* MR. BUCHANAN

I do not think that the learned Solicitor General quite appreciates the argument of my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly there is a representation of Edinburgh City on the governing body of the University, but it is a diminished representation. At present the city representatives on the Court are two out of eight; on the new Court under the Bill they will be two out of sixteen. I hope the Lord Advocate will see fit to restore Edinburgh to the position which it formerly occupied.

MR. CALDWELL

Allow me to point out that we have throughout accepted in this Bill the principle of uniformity, and I do not see why Edinburgh should be treated differently from Glasgow in this matter. The people of Edinburgh of to-day have not done more for their University than have the present population of Glasgow dono for theirs. If the Government concede the demand now made on behalf of the Edinburgh Town Council, I give them notice that, on Report, we shall ask them to make a similar concession to Glasgow.

MR. WALLACE

I must say that the argument of the Solicitor General seems to me simply to advance the arithmetical paradox that there is no difference between one and nothing, and to a body which formerly had one more representative than its neighbours, is exactly in the same position when it is going to have no more. I confess that the subtlety of that reasoning is utterly be yond my grasp. The hon. and learned Gentleman stands by his historical statement, but he does not stand by the inference which he drew from it. This is not a mere matter of dignity. The claim is advanced on behalf of Edinburgh on the ground of its history and its proved utility and educational traditions; and we want to maintain on the Court the efficiency in that respect of the Edinburgh municipality. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will have very great difficulty indeed in satisfying his academical constituency that he merits their confidence in the treatment which he is applying to this matter.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 61.—(Div. List, No. 160.)

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, &c.)

The Committee will observe that after the word "of," in line 23, I propose to insert "St. Andrew's." Provision is made as to the first election of assessors in the case of the Edinburgh and Glasgow and Aber- deen Universities. Whether by mistake or otherwise St. Andrew's is omitted.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 4, line 23 after "of" insert "St. Andrew's."

* MR. M. T. S. DARLING

It is certainly not by mistake that St. Andrew's has been omitted. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 16 he will see that provision is distinctly made for the first election at St. Andrew's. The object we have in view is that the election at St. Andrew's shall not take place until after the affiliation of Dundee.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Will the result be that in the event of affiliation never taking place there will be no election? The simplest way would be to put St. Andrew's on the same footing as the other Universities. The affiliation is not a certainty.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

If my hon. and learned Friend will look at the notices of Amendments to Clause 16, he will find I propose to move the insertion of the words— and, in the event of such affiliation not taking place within such time after the passing of this Act as the Commissioners shall consider reasonable, they may regulate the time, place, and manner of such election as seems to them best.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman may meet the case, and, therefore, I will not press mine.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The object of this and the consequential Amendment is to make this part of the Bill clearer. The paragraph under consideration treats in its first lines of the assessors of General Council and the assessors of Senatus, but the latter part of the paragraph refers to the assessors of General Council only. My Amendments would make this paragraph deal from the beginning with the council assessors only, and would introduce a separate paragraph for the assessors of the Senatus.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, lines 27 and 28, to leave out "and the assessor of the Senatus Academicus."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)

Question, "That these words stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, page 4, line 29, leave out "respectively."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)

Question, "That respectively' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

* SIR. PLAYFAIR

The next Amendment, and a number of consequential Amendments, have been framed to provide for the election of two assessors every two years, instead of there being an election of one every year. The reason for the change is twofold: firstly, that it is a very costly thing to send out a circular to 6,900 members, as in the case of the Edinburgh University; and, secondly, that the electing of one assessor every year gives a predominant interest to a particular class. If the theological interest predominates, and one assessor is to be appointed, it is very likely the assessor will be appointed by that interest; if the medical interest predominates, the assessor will very likely be returned by that interest; whereas, if you have two assessors elected every two years, you are likely to have the different interests represented by the University obtaining one representative of each. I think that academically and economically this Amendment is desirable; its adoption would certainly simplify the working of the clause.

Amendment proposed, page 4, line 29, leave out "four," and insert "two."—(Sir L. Playfair.)

Question proposed, "That 'four' stands part of the Clause."

MR. CALDWELL

It is very desirable we should have an appointment every two years, but it is not necessary that the members so appointed should retain office only for two years, which this Amendment practically provides.

* SIR L. PLAYFAIR

The hon. Member does not quite understand the meaning of the Amendment. All the members will ultimately remain for four years, but two will go out at a time.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That 'two' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

* SIR G. TREVELYAN

I propose to insert after the words last inserted— No member of the Senatus Academicus shall be entitled to vote or take part in the election of any assessor of the General Council. There is a considerable feeling among a good number of members who take an interest in this question, that the Senatus Academicus have got to the very full their share of representation, Is it agreed?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

signified assent.

Amendment proposed, page 4, after the words last inserted, insert — No Member of the Senatus Academicus shall be entitled to vote or take part in the election of any assessor of the General Council."—(Sir G. Trevelyan.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, page 4, line 40, after "retired," insert— The assessor of the Senatus Academicus of each University in office at the passing of this Act shall continue in office for such period not exceeding four years in all from the date of his election as the Commissioners shall appoint; and the Commissioners shall regulate the period for which the three new assessors to be appointed by the Senatus Academicus of each University shall hold office, so as to provide in future for a regular system of rotation, and, in the event of a casual vacancy, the person elected to fill such vacancy shall go out of office at the date when the person whom he succeeded would, in the ordinary rotation, have retired."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.) Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

DR. CLARK

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he intends to empower the Town Councils to elect. The Edinburgh Council does it under an old Act, but the Town Councils of Glasgow, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, and Dundee, only acquire the right to send a representative under this Bill, and that only since we amended the measure, as, prior to the Amendment, only the Edinburgh Council had the power. I want to know if it is necessary to insert anything in the Bill to define the mode of election?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

No. The right is conferred by the Bill, and the Town Councils can effectuate it by proceeding to the election according to their constitutional right.

Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 5, line 2, after "Act," insert— Whether the title to such property has been taken in name of the University or such college, or in name of any person or persons in trust for or on behalf of the University or such college."—(Mr. Baird.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Another Amendment agreed to, Clause 5, page 5, line 16, after "constituted," insert — And shall, while so continuing in office, exercise the powers conferred on University Courts by The Universities (Scotland) Act, 1858,' but shall not exercise any of the additional powers conferred on University Courts by this Act, except the power of consenting to the affiliation of the new college."—(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. BRYCE

I beg to move, in line 17, to leave out from "and in" to "senior principal," in line 18 inclusive. The Amendment only relates to a small point, but it may turn out of practical utility. Clause 5 provides that the President of the Court shall be the Rector when he is present, or in case he is absent the senior principal, and I think it is open to doubt whether it is advisable to give the senior principal this ex officio part, as a great deal of the good working in a Court may depend upon having as President a man who has a talent for chairmanship, which talent the senior principal may not possess. If the Amendment is accepted, I propose to move words, in line 3, to provide for the absence of the Rector—that is to say, to empower the chairman to elect as chairman the person he might think most fit for the post.

Amendment moved, Clause 5, page 5, line 17, leave out from "and in" to "senior principal," in line 18 inclusive. —(Mr. Bryce.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

In this clause we only carry forward into the new constitution the practice at present regulating the office of chairman. I should deprecate doing anything to displace the order and precedence of these University dignitaries, and I rather think it would be a derogation of the authority and position of senior principal if he were to lose the right he at present possesses of acting as chairman in the absence of the Rector. I do not think the matter is of much importance, but my preference would be for holding to the present practice.

* MR. HUNTER

If it is not intended to accept the Amendment I have lower down on the Paper, as to the casting vote of the chairman, I think it would be an advantage to accept the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

It is not worth while putting the Committee to the trouble of dividing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to, Clause 5, page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out, "or in the case of St. Andrew's University the senior principal."—(The Lord Advocate.)

* MR. HUNTER

I beg to move to leave out in line 21, "the person presiding," to end of the sentence. It seems to me much better in cases where there are equal votes on each side that the question should be decided in the negative, according to the practice of this House and the House of Lords, or, at any rate, that the question should be disposed of another time. The casting vote was introduced originally because the number of the Court was extremely small. In the case of Aberdeen, the Court only numbered six, and it frequently happened that there were only four members present, and it was only natural to expect that the voting would often be equal. If there had not been a provision for a casting vote it might have been difficult to make progress with business. The conditions, however, are now to be changed. The Court will consist of from 14 to 16 members, and the occasions in which the voting will be equal is not likely to be frequent. It, therefore, seems to me that in the event of the votes being equal, the proposition should drop.

* MR. M. T. S. DARLING

The absence of a casting vote might delay the appointment of examiners. I do not think, under the altered circumstances, it is likely that there will often be equal voting; but, at the same time, I think it worth while to make provision for such a contingency.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 5, page 5, line 23, after "equality," add—" In St. Andrew's University the principal of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard shall, in addition to his office as such, possess the title and status and discharge the functions of principal of the said University, but without any claim to additional salary in that capacity."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.)

I think that so small a point as this might well be left to the decision of the Commission to be appointed under the Bill.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

Does the hon. Member take exception to the whole of the Amendment, or only to the last line?

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

That is all.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

If that is all I must express my entire concurrence in the proposal.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am prepared to modify the last part of the Amendment by leaving out "but without any claim to additional salary in that capacity."

Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment to omit the words "but without any claim to additional salary in that capacity."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6.

Amendment moved, Clause 6, page 5, line 29, leave out "if any."—(Mr. Baird.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I cannot accept this Amendment, the words objected to being designed to meet the plural.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

* SIR G. TREVELYAN

The next Amendment which stands in my name is one which I think would be acceptable to St. Andrew's University and all the colleges of it. It is to omit the proviso which would prevent a member of a University Court who represents an affiliated college (excepting University College, Dundee), from sitting and voting while the Court is engaged in the ad- ministration of funds or property, for the purpose of inserting a sub-section to provide that the Court shall have power to review any decision of the governing body of a college in a matter appealed against by any member of the University interested. The Amendment would, I think, effect what is desired by a great many members of the Glasgow University. An hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baird) has an Amendment to which I should heartily agree in case this Amendment is lost. The clause is most unfortunately worded, because it appears that an affiliated University would not be able to deal with University funds or property. Any affiliated college ought to have the same power over the University property as the permanent colleges. The question is how the blot should be remedied—whether by leaving out the last part of the clause or by adopting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow. I cannot help thinking that either one thing or the other must be done.

Amendment moved, Clause 6, page 5, line 46, after "property," leave out to end of sub-section, and insert the following sub-section:— (2) To review any decision of the governing body of any college on a matter within its competency which may be appealed against by a member of such governing body, or other member of the University having an interest in the decision."—(Sir G. Trevelyan.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman deserves attention, because the whole object of the clause as it now stands is to preclude the representatives of affiliated colleges from interfering with property which is invested in the University as a whole. I think, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow has adopted in his Amendment on the same point the best method of effecting that object. The words used by the right hon. Gentleman go beyond the object we are all interested in attaining.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I would suggest that we should make no restrictions at all as to the subjects on which the affiliated colleges shall go to the University Court. The whole matter should be left to be dealt with by a subsequent clause. Indeed the decision of this matter should be transferred from the House of Commons to the Commissioners.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I think it would simplify the matter if the course were adopted of leaving out everthing after the word "property" in line 36, because the proviso which begins in the middle of that line is really a limitation of the general powers conferred by Subsection 4 of Section 15. The object I had in moving the Amendment would be entirely met if the whole of the proviso were left out. When you read Sections 15 and 16 together, Section 15 says there is to be a sort of reciprocal representation between the affiliated colleges and the University; then as a rider on that, there is a power conferred on the Commissioners and withdrawn from the cognizance of the representatives—it may be of the University or of the affiliated colleges—particular subjects; but then there comes in again the proviso that this power shall not extend to particular cases. And as an exception from the exception, so to speak, there comes in the one I object to in particular, which relates to the case of Dundee. I agree that difficulties might arise and prove serious between two bodies which I am sure we all desire to bring together, and the risk of such difficulties would be removed if this proviso were left out. The Commissioners under Section 14 would have before them, and be free to act upon, all the reasons which could be urged on the one side or the other, whereas, as the clause stands, it would have an adverse effect on St. Andrew's, which would in this respect be made an exception from the general system of Scotch Universities.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The limitation which occurs in that part of the Bill, arises, has arisen from the anxiety which exists to deal with the case of the relations between Dundee and St. Andrew's so as to prevent anything occurring which might mar the equity of the Union. The right hon. Gentleman proposes a solution of the difficulty which will meet the case, and I am prepared to strike out the proviso, for I think what he proposes, leaving the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners, would be satisfactory.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

As consequential upon what the right hon. Gentleman says, we should leave out Sub-section 4 of Clause 15.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

Yes; that is so.

DR. FARQUHARSON

I have an Amendment down in the same sense, but I have no doubt the concession of the Lord Advocate will meet the necessity of the case.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

* SIR G. TREVELYAN

Having struck out those words, I now move the insertion of the words on the Paper. It is a question whether the University Court should not be a Court of Appeal against the governing bodies of the colleges. There ought to he some Court of Appeal, but I do not wish to press the proposal if it is against the general feeling of the Committee.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I think the proposal of the right hon. Baronet is premature until the consolidation of the affiliated colleges is established. My impression is that the idea the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind applies to some other Amendment on the Paper.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived

* MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

I desire to move, in page 6, line 12, after "subsection 1" to insert, Provided always that the University Court shall not review any decision of the Senatus Academicus in a matter of discipline, except upon appeal taken either by a member of the Senatus or by a member of the University directly affected by such decision. The object of this is to provide that the University Court, while having power to review the decisions of the Senatus on other points, shall not do so on matters of discipline, unless upon appeal.

Amendment moved, Clause 6, page 6, line 12, after '' sub-section 1," insert— Provided always that the University Court shall not review any decision of the Senatus Academicus in a matter of discipline, except upon appeal taken either by a member of the Senatus or by a member of the University directly affected by such decision."—(Mr. J. Campbell.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

* MR. WALLACE

I move, in page 6, line 15, after "recognition," to insert, "subject to such regulations as it may consider proper." The object of this Amendment is to enable the University Court to make regulations with regard to extra-mural teaching for the purposes of graduation. My reasons for thinking that would be a proper modification of the spirit of the Bill, are, first of all, that in the matter of extra-mural teaching, it is one that will require regulation from time to time; and I do not think it would be wise to accept merely such regulations and conditions as may seem proper to the Commissioners at the time when they take this subject into consideration. I think it is a matter which is too flexible, too much subject to having the propriety of it determined by varying circumstances which may from time to time arise to be subjected to an immutable set of regulations such as the Bill proposes. I do not think anything could be better understood at the University Court as now constituted than a matter of this kind. If the Court is not competent to judge what ought to be done on a subject of this nature then we have very unsuccessfully provided the Court with a constitution. I would trust this power into the hands of the University Court, because I think they have interests which are entitled to be regarded. Subsequently I shall propose to subject them to conditions which would prevent them from going to excess in the way of safeguarding their own interests. This subject of extra-mural teaching cannot fail to be one on which the University Court are at present not likely to go too far in the view of those who have Conservative ideas on this matter. It will be to the interest of the University Court to see that nothing is done in that way that will interfere with a source from which they are to derive the funds for the support of the University. They will not be inclined to go too far in the way of diminishing the amount of fees that are to be drawn by the professional classes, nor will they be forgetful of the position of the different chairs. While that is so it is necessary on the other hand so to arrange matters that the University Court shall not be under too great a temptation, or rather will not be too much left at liberty to consult their Conservative instincts. I am therefore making this proposal with the distinct view that by-and-by the academic tendency, if I may so call it—the tendency to be too exclusively academic in arrangements of that kind—shall be guarded against. The Court will have power under this subsequent Amendment to give all graduates of a certain standing power of extra-mural teaching to qualify for degrees under regulations to be made by the Court itself. I desire to throw open degrees, so to speak, to all the world, or to the whole Scotch world, under certain regulations to be laid down by the Commissioners.

Amendment moved, Clause 6, page 6, line 15, after "recognition," insert "subject to such regulations as it may consider proper."—(Mr. Wallace.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* SIR G. TREVELYAN

I do not yield to the hon. Member in the earnestness and warmth of any desire to break up what I cannot but regard as the extraordinary, and unprecedented, and unparalleled monoply of official teaching at the Scotch Universities, and of introducing the freest extra-mural teaching, but it is for that reason that I venture strongly to dissent from his present view. I think it would be a most unfortunate thing—if we are to have a practical reconstruction of the teaching of the Scotch Universities—and that is the main object of this Bill—should we allow the initiative in this matter to the University Court. We have been discussing the University Court for a good while, and it is evident that many hon. Members have a great doubt as to what the political bearings of the Court will be—and I use the word "political" in regard to University politics entirely. Now, my interest in this Bill and that of the Scotch people consists in this, that we look to it to break up the existing state of things in the Scotch Universities as far as that state of things requires radical reformation. The intention of Parliament is laid down as clearly in this clause as was ever done in any clause of a Bill, and if that intention is not carried out, the Bill will be a failure. Parliament will nominate a Commission, and though that Commission may not be such as ardent University reformers in Scotland might desire, at any rate it will be a Commission to carry out the wish of Parliament as embodied in the Bill, and in no part of the Bill more than in this clause. I would appeal to hon. Members inclined to support this Amendment to hesitate before they do so from a University reform point of view. Of course it is extremely important that the power of extending extra-mural teaching should not cease with the life of the Commission. In one way or another we think that that power ought to be prolonged, and on that point I should not be disinclined to support my hon. Friend if he proposed that after the expiration of the Commission the University Court should be the authority on this matter; but I have an Amendment on the Paper by which, on the expiry of the Commissioners' powers, it is provided that those powers shall be taken up by the University Committee. On the whole, I prefer my Amendment to that of my hon. Friend's. I should regard with something little less than dismay the proposal to transfer the powers of the Commissioners—a body of gentlemen who know that their charter of appointment requires them to carry out the intentions of Parliament—to a body elected in the manner the University Court is to be elected.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Trevelyan) has, I think, substantial ground for arguing that there should be a continuance, in some manner or other, of the powers of regulation that are to be vested in the Commissioners. It is manifest that, after the expiry of the Commission, there might arise questions which ought to be determined by the exercise of powers similar to those of that body; but I doubt whether, looking to the composition of the Universities Commission, that will be an appropriate body for the discharge of executive functions. The better way would be that the Commissioners should be the ultimate judges in the matter. The question is not one of principle, but rather of detail.

* SIR. G. TREVELYAN

The question is whether the University Court or the Commissioners should be supreme, and when I come to my Amendment I shall explain it in such a way as, I think, will render it acceptable to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I quite agree that there should be carried forward the power of adjusting the conditions under which recognition should be granted as to teaching for the purposes of graduation, but beyond this I do not think it would be convenient to proceed.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

I do no t think sufficient attention has been given to the provisions of Section 20, which seem to go a considerable way in the direction of the Amendment, and to lay down a clear line of policy. Section 20 says— After the expiration of the powers of the Commissioners the University Court of each University shall have power to make such ordinances as they may think fit, with the consent of the Chancellor signified in writing, and the approval of hon. Members in Council.…altering or revoking any of the ordinances affecting such University. It is obvious that under Clause 6, Subsection 4, it will be the duty of the Commissioners to frame some ordinances on the subject of the teaching of any college or teacher, and after the expiration of the powers of the Commissioners it will be the function of the University Court to deal with these ordinances, subject to the supervision of the University Committee; and I submit that that is exactly the proper line to take, but it may be necessary somewhat to expand the phraseology of Sub-section 2 of Section 20.

* MR. HUNTER

I think that on reading the clause carefully the Committee will see that the first two lines give an absolute power to the University Court to recognize "the teaching of any college or individual teacher for the purposes of graduation." If the clause stopped at these words it would give an absolute and unlimited discretion to the University Court in the matter of extramural teaching. I consider that the University Court, as constituted, is so strongly impregnated with the professorial element that it might be safely trusted with this power. But the fact is that the power of extra-mural teaching is not given absolutely to the University Court, but is limited in two directions, by the words "to such an extent and subject to such conditions as the Commissioners may determine." I should hope that whatever else the Government may do they will agree to omit these latter words. The question is this—does the Committee think that the University Court should have an absolute an unqualified right to sanction the teaching of any college or teacher for purposes of graduation? If my hon. Friend desires absolute liberty in this respect he would better attain his object by moving to omit the words after the word "graduation," which would enable us to vote on the question without embarrassment. The question is one of as great importance to Scotland as any that arises on this Bill, and is deserving of the fullest consideration on the part of the Committee, whose opinion will, I trust, be in favour of leaving the University Courts entirely unfettered by any restrictions.

* MR. J. B. BALFOUR

The effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment would be to vest exceedingly large powers in the University Court, because it would deprive the Commissioners of the power of laying down the general rules for the regulation of the University teaching and to create a Court of a competitive character. I quite agree with those who think it would be better to trust to the general scheme of regulations laid down by the Commissioners.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Speaking for the Edinburgh University, in which I obtained my own education, I may remind the Committee that that University is in favour of free trade in teaching. I think the University teaching is very much more efficient than formerly, and the falling off in extra-mural teaching in Edinburgh is probably due to that cause. Although I sympathise with the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I think it would, if anything, lessen the powers of the extra-mural teachers, that is to say, if the restrictions are the same as they used to be in my day. As far as I remember, no one was allowed to teach extra-murally unless he were able to pass fairly a moderate examination. Therefore, I think, perhaps this Amendment might tend rather to restrict it than otherwise. But at the same time, I entirely concur in his general view. I do not see myself why any efficient graduate should not be allowed to teach under proper restrictions, and I shall be very glad to support the further Amendment to that effect.

* MR. WALLACE

Perhaps I may be allowed to say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan, that the Amendment I propose would not be at all productive of competitive examining powers. I have made the Amendment distinctly with the view that the Clause at the end of Subsection 4 is to be omitted. I do not want the Commissioners to be able to lay down either the extent or the conditions under which the power of extramural teaching is to be exercised. With respect to leaving the University Court free for the exercise of this power. there are securities provided in the nature of things, in the fact that it would he the interest of the University Courts to protect the interest of the institutions they govern, while on the other hand there would be express regulations as to the matter which I contemplate putting into the Bill to be made part of an enactment by Parliament. My hon. Friend has called my attention to the clause, which I carefully studied in devising my Amendment. Upon the whole I am inclined to think that with a little modification, Section 20 might be made capable of securing all we desire; at all events, in the future. When the Commission has run its course, I think it may be possible under that section to secure that the matter shall be practically in the hands of the University Court. Taking this view of the matter, I do not think I should be justified in troubling the Committee with a division. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* SIR G. TREVELYAN

I think, after what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh has said, and the impression which I gathered from the Lard Advocate that some machinery ought to be laid down by which the power of regulating extra-mural teaching shall regulating survive the death of the Commission, I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I spoke under a misapprehension as to the Committee of the Privy Council. I think, however, that this will do as an Amendment of the right hon. Baronet to leave out all the words after the word "Commissioners," and to insert these words These regulations, after the expiration of their powers, may from time to time be modified or altered by the Universities Committee.

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

This is not the regular way. Section 20 lays down clearly how the powers of the Commission are to be carried on when the Commission has ceased, and why should an exception be made of one power, and mentioned in advance by this clause?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

My impression was that it would be better to take this opportunity to dispose of the point rather than leave it to another stage when other things would be under consideration and attention would be blunted.

* SIR G. TREVELYAN

As far as I am concerned, I prefer the course suggested by the Lord Advocate.

Amendment proposed— Clause 6, page 6, line 17, leave out from 'to such,' to 'may determine,' in line 18, and insert under any regulations on the subject laid down by the Commissioners, or, after the expiry of their powers, by the Universities Committee.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

* MR. D. CRAWFORD

I must press my view on the subject. The Bill lays down in a clear manner that, whatever is done by the Commissioners may, on the expiration of their powers, be altered by the Universities Committee. To take out one of these powers and to give the Universities' Committee power to deal with it directly I think is a very great mistake, and is not only a matter of bad drafting, but is calculated to lead to great confusion.

* MR. HUNTER

It seems to me that the University Committee, which is a purely judicial body, is not the proper tribunal to exercise functions of this character.

* SIR G. TREVELYAN

I have read Clause 20 with very great care, and I must say the process through which the various bodies referred to in it will have to go is one I could say a great deal about, but will not do so now. I own I prefer the Amendment as amended by the Lord Advocate.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I now move to amend the Amendment:— To leave out all the words after the word 'Commission,' and to insert these words—'These regulations, after the expiration of their powers, may from time to time be modified or altered by the University Committee.

Question put, "That these words be there inserted."

Amendment agreed to.

* MR. WALLACE

I beg to leave out lines 17 and 18, page 6, and insert— Provided always that every holder of the highest degree conferred after examination and with honours, where such honours are given, in any faculty shall, subject to such regulation as aforesaid, be a recognised teacher for the purposes of graduation on such faculty. I am well aware of the large character which this Amendment assumes. At first sight it presents a revolutionary aspect, but it is not so. It is simply a partial restoration of the ancient state of things. The time was in the Scottish Universities, and it was according to their constitution as founded by their munificent and far-sighted donors, when every graduate had the right to teach, the consequence being that at the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th centuries Europe was flooded with teaching graduates from the Scottish schools conferring great benefits upon the communities amongst whom they went, and reflecting lustre on the seminaries from which they came. I do not propose anything so extensive as that; I simply ask a restoration to the Universities of fragments of their original arrangements and constitution. I do not propose that all graduates, in arts at all events, should be invested with such powers of teaching as would make them a source from which the right to graduation might come. I only ask that that should be bestowed upon graduates who have taken honours, whether first or second class. I think I might with perfect propriety and consistency have insisted that all graduates should be allowed to give such teaching as would qualify for degrees, for if men are able to obtain degrees themselves, they are surely able to direct others to the same goal of success. The meaning of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy is simply teacher in the faculty with which they are connected. My Amendment does not necessarily imply that one graduate should be considered sufficiently qualified for giving preliminary instruction in all the branches to be examined upon for any degree, because I provide that the arrangement for giving this power to graduates should be subject to such regulations as have already been agreed upon by the Committee. Further, I do not think that such an arrangement would necessarily compete with University teaching. I am not one of those who undervalue the teaching function of the Universities. I would put that entirely under the regulation of the University Authorities, and by exercising a very little ingenuity they might contrive to prevent any discouragement being given to attendance in University classes and teachers. They might arrange that 'University-taught candidates should be able to get through in a shorter time than would be allowed to those who had attended the teaching of persons who, as far as might be known, might be considered second-rate teachers. Accordingly, I do not see why such an arrangement would compete with the University teaching or do any real harm to the functions of the Universities. You will as a result have all the advantages of the stimulus given to the University teachers by competition with possible rivals outside. I would suggest that there will be this other element of advantage in the arrangement I propose, and that is that it will develop what I may call local scholarship as contrasted with central and Metropolitan scholarship, and it will raise up a class of University teachers all over the country composed of men in different positions and in possession of degrees; schoolmasters and others in similar positions, who will consider it a privilege and advantage to be engaged in the task of preparing, under proper authority, students for graduation. I venture to think that in this way it will save the expenditure of a good deal of public money in the way of philanthropic contributions for the erection of colleges. If the teaching were done by private enterprise I have no doubt that it would be done efficiently, so that then there would be no necessity fur equipping college institutions, except possibly in connection with those classes which require a large amount of scientific apparatus. Then, I venture to think, another advantage would be that it would give a great stimulus to higher education, and it would be an object for intending graduates to endeavour to secure honours in connection with the different degrees. I would suggest it is possible that the University Court may, by-and-by, not think it necessary that honours should be confined to the art course, but that it might become desirable that honours should be attached to scientific degrees, and also to those in law and medicine, and if that were so, I think it is perfectly certain that honours would be much more in request than they are at the present moment, because not only would it be the aim and ambition of students to obtain them, but it would also be the desire of prudent men to secure them, for they would be anxious to acquire the honours along with the degree in order that they might engage in an occupation that would be to many of them a means of support. I feel satisfied that a proposal of this kind is not merely visionary. I contend that it is fraught with advantages of a practical nature, both in the way of stimulus and of economy; and believing this to be substantially the character of the Amendment that I have ventured to frame, I now put it before the Committee and will, if necessary, take a division upon it.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 17 and 18, and insert "Provided always, that every holder of the highest degree with honours in any faculty shall, subject to such regulation as aforesaid, be a recognised teacher for the purposes of graduation in such faculty.

* SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

My hon. Friend has truly said that this was one of the old traditions of the University, for a magister was by right a teacher. But that was the case two centuries ago, and the practice was abandoned in all Universities because it was found quite impossible as the degrees were multiplied to maintain it. Men were bound to remain for two years at the University after taking the degree of magister in order to get experience in teaching under qualified regents, and they were not only permitted, but they were bound to teach. But all that was abandoned two centuries ago, and men now take degrees without any intention of teaching, and, indeed, without any experience of it. The proposal actually is that every man who takes the highest degree is therefore supposed to be qualified to be a teacher, whereas he has had no experience whatever in teaching. This is an attempt to apply to modern conditions a system which broke down under ancient conditions. It would, if it were adopted, convert Scotch Universities into mere examining bodies, and deprive them of the distinctive character they now possess. Every graduate of the highest degree would, if the Amendment were carried, have to prepare persons for graduation without any experience of teaching, and I venture to suggest that this is not compatible with the modern idea of a University. It was the ancient practice, because the magisters were bound to remain in the Universities for several years in order to gain experience in teaching; but all that has now passed away, and therefore it would not be wise to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment to a division, because it is an Amendment which practically proposes what is equivalent to open teaching in the Universities. I do not think myself that open teaching in the Universities is desirable in the sense in which teachers are to be unqualified. We want to see as large a scope for teaching as possible, and for extra-mural teaching, but we do not want to have incompetent teachers. We must be thankful for small mercies. My hon. and learned Friend expressed an opinion that it was right that every graduate, whether in honours or not, should have the power of teaching in the University. Now, we are not all Admirable Crichtons, even if they were years since. And even if this is to be limited to holders of the highest degree with honours, I am not sure that including, as it does, persons who graduated years ago, it would be altogether satisfactory. I believe my hon. Friend and myself would come within the category. I am perfectly confident my hon. and learned Friend would be able to go back and teach divinity with the greatest efficiency in the Scotch Universities; but I do not think that I am not competent to go back and teach Arts. Holding these opinions, I think it would be in the highest degree disastrous if people who took their degree years ago, and have, perhaps, forgotten the most of what they once knew, were to be at liberty to teach on any subject they please. I shall feel compelled to vote against the Amendment.

Amendment put, and negatived.

* MR. HUNTER

As the clause now stands, it gives power to the University Court to delegate the transaction of certain business, such as the appointment of officers, instead of the Committee having merely to report to the Court, leaving the final decision in its hands. Thus the Court would be able to delegate to a Committee of five the power to appoint professors. I do not think this is desirable, and I therefore desire to move my Amendment, which will modify that proposition.

Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 7, line 2, to leave out all after "powers," and insert— To report on any business that may be entrusted to them by the University Court, or to carry out special instructions ordered by the University Court.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I agree with the hon. and learned Member that there should be no absolute or general power of devolution, but merely a power to refer certain work to a Committee appointed for that purpose. I rather think, on the whole, that the words of the Amendment are better adapted for that purpose than the clause as it now stands, and accordingly I propose to accept it.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

* MR. HUNTER

My next Amendment proposes after Sub-section 1 to insert the words "(2) To initiate changes in all educational matters." But I think that in view of the possible amendment of Clause 7 that will not be necessary, and I, therefore, do not propose to move it. I think it will be necessary, however, to add words to the clause authorizing the University Court to make provision for certain expenditure, and I will move my Amendment dealing with that.

Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 7, at end, to add "(2) to provide for the expenses incurred by the General Council in exercising the powers conferred by this Act."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

There is a subsequent Amendment which deals with this matter in a more comprehen- sive form, and which will effect the object the hon. Member has in view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 7, at end of clause, add— (9.) After the expiration of the powers of the Commission to found new professorships with the consent of the Chancellor and the approval of the Universities Committee, and after such expiration no new professorship shall be founded except as herein provided."(The Lord Advocate.)

* MR. HUNTER

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this clause on the House. If there is one thing more desirable than another to encourage in Scotch Universities it is to have new professorships instead of imposing all sorts of restrictions on their foundation. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that no new professorships can be founded unless come one comes forward with the necessary funds, and I should like to ask why should not the money be accepted?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The words of my Amendment are founded on the Universities Commission Report of 1878. In some Universities the question has arisen as to what authority there is for the foundation of a new Chair, and it was found there was scarcely limitation. We all desire that every now Chair which is likely to be useful should be founded; but it is most undesirable that the Universities should be cumbered with Chairs which are useless. It is desirable there should be some check upon the foundation of such Chairs. While the Commission lasts we have the check in the Commission; but after the Commission expires I think that check is one of its functions which should be continued in the University Court.

MR. BUCHANAN

Cannot the Lord Advocate remove somewhat the restrictions in the way of founding professorships?

* MR. HUNTER

I do not think that the Lord Advocate can have seriously considered what will be the result of carrying this Amendment. I think if any person is found, of a liberal turn of mind, disposed to endow a Chair, instead of throwing obstacles in the way of accepting that endowment we should receive it with open arms. I shall move to omit the words after "pro- fessorships" in the Lord Advocate's Amendment.

Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, to omit the words after "professorships."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

DR. CAMERON

I think there is force in what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend. Now, some of our Universities are badly provided with professorships of research. Scientific research is of the utmost importance. It must be remembered that the foundation of new Chairs often raises a very considerable amount of jealousy among the existing professors, who fear that their classes may be endangered; and in the case of such an agitation arising it would certainly be brought under the notice of the University Committee and of the Chancellor. I believe, if we leave this question entirely in the hands of the Council, there will be a legitimate and salutary check on the foundation of professorships, while, at the same time, there need be no fear of preventing the foundation of professorships of research.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I may point out that there is an alternative to founding professorships, and that is establishing lectureships. I strongly deprecate the foundation of new professorships without vigilant and searching inquiry. Remember that professors have claims on the State in the way of pensions. I do not think it is quite fair to represent this as a question whether or not a University shall have the benefit of the foundation of a Chair on it may be an interesting and important subject. The point is, how shall the proposals to establish professorships be dealt with.

* MR. W. SINCLAIR (Falkirk)

Speaking with some little practical experience, I may perhaps be allowed to support the views of the Lord Advocate. I happened, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire, to be one of two gentlemen who received a proposal to found in University College, Liverpool, a professorship for spiritualism. It was declined; but this affords a practical instance of the necessity for providing a safeguard against the desires of persons to uphold their views on particular subjects. The amount offered on that occasion was large —I believe as much as £5,000. I therefore venture to think the views of the Lord Advocate should prevail.

* MR. HUNTER

The hon. Member is under an entire delusion. I maintain that if the clause is passed in the form in which it is now proposed to amend it, no person will be able to found a professorship. I therefore beg leave to press the Amendment which stands in my name.

* SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

I quite sympathize with the view of my hon. Friend that there should not be unreasonable obstacles in the way of the foundation of professorships. I agree with the Lord Advocate that the State has some interest in the matter, for all professors are entitled to pensions given by the State; and under these circumstances a Committee of the Privy Council is not a bad body to be consulted as to whether proposed professorships are right or not.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I think we have already had a practical example of the necessity of caution in founding professorships. I notice that one of the Universities has recently founded a professorship of natural religion, and I think it was exceedingly ill-advised in accepting that endowment. Therefore, I am inclined to adopt the Lord Advocate's words, with a view to securing full consideration of these proposals.

DR. CAMERON

In regard to the suggestion that lectureships might be established instead of professorships, may I point out that the most honour attaches to a professorship.

* MR. HUNTER

I am unable to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment, because the latter exhibits a spirit of opposition on the part of monopolist teachers to the introduction of fresh subjects, and it is most important that Scotch Universities should not be controlled by monopolists.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member for Aberdeen will withdraw his Amendment he will be in a position to move it again presently; otherwise, it will be impossible to put it.

MR. HUNTER

Then I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "the consent of the Chancellor and."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment proposed to omit the words "and after such expiration no new professorships shall be founded as herein provided."

Amendment put, and negatived. Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7.

* MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

I beg to move, Clause 7, page 7, line 9, leave out "conferred on it," and insert "hitherto possessed by it, so far as they are not modified or altered." As the Bill is drawn, it would seem to affirm that the powers of the Senatus Academicus were conferred on it by the Act of 1858. This, however, is not the case. The most important powers of the Senatus are those which it holds by the original Charter of the University. I had drawn my Amendment in terms which would also have recognized the powers hitherto "exercised" by the Senatus, but I understand there is objection to this, as it might be held to legalize all that the Senatus has done even if it has in any respect exceeded its legitimate powers, and therefore I confine myself to the words now moved.

MR. CALDWELL

I maintain that under this clause there should be no power conferred upon the Senatus Academicus beyond what it possesses under the Act of 1858. The object of the Amendment is that certain powers which have been exercised in a particular way should be recognized. The words "so far as they are not modified or altered" by this Act make an important change, because the powers hitherto possessed by the Seuatus Academicus are to be affected to a certain extent by the provisions of this Act, and the Amendment suggests that they should remain intact.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

This is an Amendment of a clause drawn up by the Government, and I think the suggestion is an entirely right one. My hon. Friend proposes that we should not merely limit the powers of the Senatus Academicus, but those conferred upon it by the Act of 1850 should be held as extending to those lawfully possessed previously thereto. I think it was an error in the Bill as it stood, and I am confirmed in that opinion by seeing that in the Act of 1858 it is expressly provided that the powers conferred by that Act shall be in addition to those heretofore belonging to the Senatus Academicus.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8.

* SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN

This clause is brought forward for the purpose of enabling the General Council to contribute its experience and knowledge to the work of University Reform. Now, the General Council, as far as I have been able to learn, hold strong opinions on the methods which will have to be adopted to make its interference effective. I think the methods preferred by the majority are embodied in this Amendment; they wish to be enabled to have a special meeting on application to the Chancellor, and they wish to have somewhat more power, including that, I believe, of sending deputations either to the Commissioners or to the Lord Advocate.

Amendment proposed, Clause 8, page 7, line 28, leave out the word "Commissioners."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I do not think there is much harm in the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment proposed, to insert the words, At the instance of the Chancellor, who shall convene such meeting on a requisition from a quorum of members and a Council.

Amendment agreed to.

* MR. HUNTER

The provision I propose in respect to the statutory half-yearly meeting does not apply to the decisions arrived at by a quorum; but inasmuch as the University Committee cannot do anything but talk and pass resolutions, I think the right hon. Gentleman might give the members the comfort of passing resolutions and going home, instead of compelling them to disperse disconsolately.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I am rather surprised the hon. and learned Gentleman should attach importance to the privilege of talking. We must deal with the functions of this statutory body; and I think the ground on which the hon. Gentleman proceeds is materially weakened by the Amendment which has been agreed to at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division If the meeting turns out to be in such a depleted condition that it is under a quorum it can be adjourned; but it is most undesirable that discussion should continue with a very small attendance.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9.

DR. CAMERON

Probably the Lord Advocate will accept my Amendment, and I need only move it. My proposal is that as the Chancellor is to be when a Privy Councillor a member of the Committee, so also the Lord Rector if a Privy Councillor should be a member of the Committee. The Lord Rector is generally a statesman of Privy Councillor rank, I think.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 9, page 8, line 1, after "council," insert "the Lord Rector of each of the Universities if a member of the Privy Council.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

My proposal is one I do not press very much, it is only a suggestion. What strikes me is the excessive preponderance of the legal element. We are governed in Scotland a great deal too much by lawyers, and all our Bills are drawn by lawyers. I have not been able to detect anything in the questions with which the Committee will have to deal that makes it necessary that it should consist for the most part of lawyers. It seems to me an administrative body exercising certain discretionary functions. To raise the question I will move the omission of the Lord Justice Clerk, for in the Lord President of the Court of Session we have that element sufficiently represented.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot move that. That point is passed.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

Then I will raise the point by moving the omission of the words after "Committee."

Amendment proposed, in line 8, leave out all after "Committee," to end of Clause. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

* MR. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING

I should have thought this would be considered a very harmless provision, for it only requires that one of the quorum should be one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in Scotland. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can urge anything against Scottish Judges, who undoubtedly command general confidence.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

All I meant was to express a doubt as to the expediency of having the legal element so largely represented. But I do not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRYCE

I take no exception to the constitution of the Committee on the ground urged by the hon. Member. All I propose is that the Committee should have the means of availing themselves of special knowledge on matters upon which they give their decision. The Committee will have rather important functions to discharge; but there is no security that any of the members will have special knowledge upon University matters, distinguished as they may be in other respects. But University questions are largely connected with subjects requiring an intimate knowledge of University methods and arrangements, organization of study chairs, and degress, matters not within the knowledge of every eminent lawyer. I therefore suggest that the Committee should have the power to call in assessors to advise them on special educational questions. As the Lord Advocate knows, there are many precedents for this, not perhaps in precisely such a case but in regard to similar matters. I do not think it can do any harm to give the Committee this power to use if they think fit, and I can conceive that in many instances it might prove very useful. Experience in regard to Oxford justifies my proposal.

Amendment proposed, at end of Clause, add— The Universities Committee shall have power to request the attendance at the hearing of any matter which may come before them of two or more persons of special knowledge and experience in questions of University teaching, management, or organization to act as assessors at such hearing.

Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The objections to this are rather in regard to procedure than as to result. Of course it is most important that in matters of technique detailed information should be at hand; but, at the same time, I do not think it is possible to engraft a system of assessors or sittings of a Committee of the Privy Council. The whole theory of the duty of the Committee is antagonistic to that, and I am afraid this would be introducing an anomaly that could not work well.

* SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

My hon. Friend has pointed out a blot in the constitution of the University Committee that they may be without special knowledge. He proposes this method of assessors to meet the difficulty, but the proposal I shall have to submit in. relation to Clause 14, seems to be a better way of meeting the difficulty.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

It may be to the purpose if I add that I propose to accept the Amendment to Clause 14 referred to.

MR. BRYCE

I do not feel quite satisfied with the objection of the Lord Advocate. He assumes that any proposal would be an interference with the purely judicial character of the Committee; but that would not he so. The assessors would not be concerned with the judicial decision. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that a lay visitor to a college has an assessor to advise him on matters of law. Though the Committee would have the advice of the assessors, the decision would be, the decision of the Committee. The only function of the assessors would be to discuss the matter with the members of the Committee present; the decision would emanate from the Committee itself. I confess I do not see the difficulty on the ground of procedure that weighs with the Lord Advocate, that the assessors should discuss the matter with the Committee after the witnesses have withdrawn, giving the benefit of their advice upon which the Committee may act. I am not wedded to this particular form of words in the Amendment, but I think the Committee will be defective if, in some form, my suggestion is not adopted. I do not think the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) quite meets the case. His proposal is that there shall be a consultative body only acting upon a remit from the Secretary of State, but not to be present to give the benefit of their special knowledge of the circumstances when the question is before the Committee. It is a useful provision in itself, but it is not identical in purpose with what I propose. But I do not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. CAMERON

Before the clause is disposed of I should like to mention a matter that may cause some slight difficulty. The Committee is to include among other officials the Secretary of State for Scotland. Now, he is not necessarily a Privy Councillor, and I should like to know whether a person who is not a Privy Councillor can act on a Committee of the Privy Council. Of course the difficulty can be got over by making the Secretary for Scotland a Privy Councillor whenever he is not one.

MR. D. CRAWFORD

I think the Secretary for Scotland is necessarily a Privy Councillor.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I was under that impression myself.—Yes, that is so.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

We have now reached one of the most debateable clauses of the Bill, and I trust I may be allowed to express the hope that the wise concession made by the Government at the beginning of the Sitting will be repeated in reference to the clause now under our attention. My Amendment has no reference to the personnel but only to the number of the Commission. I have to move that seven be the number of Commissioners. In the constitution of the University Court both sides were engaged in endeavouring to limit the number, and I think the same principle should apply to the Commission. I may say there are precedents for the course I recommend. In an Oxford Commission, some years ago, the number of Commissioners was seven, and again in a Cambridge Commission. I am also informed, though I have not verified the fact, that the Commission under the Endowments (Scotland) Act consisted of seven Mem- bers. I think there will be general agreement that a Commission with powers and duties such as are proposed here should not be very large, and I think that there will be a general opinion that seven, the number on former occasions, will be sufficient for these purposes. I am afraid my Amendment will not have the concurrence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, because I propose to leave two lawyers, who, with five Members, would, I think, discharge the duties of the Commission in a manner worthy of their judicial position. On the other hand, the five Members of Parliament would more or less—rather more than less probably—be amenable to the influences of public opinion, and so I think we shall have a hotter Commission than is proposed in the Bill. I am not now dealing with names, I merely deal with the number of Commissioners, and I propose that number should be seven as on previous similar occasions.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 14, after "following," to insert "seven."

Questiod proposed, "That 'seven' be there inserted."

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The hon. Member has advanced his view in a very fair way. I am well aware a great deal of criticism has been directed against the large number of Members whom it is proposed to appoint on the Commission. Much must, of course, necessarily depend upon whether it is possible to obtain the services of a small number of highly qualified persons, all of whom would be certain to attend constantly to the work, so that it might be continuously administered from the be ginning to the end. The hon. and learned Member has cited precedents for the smaller number he recommends, but I cannot say that those precedents apply. The Commissioners will have to deal here with an extensive scope of alterations and administration, and it is also a very important factor in the question that there are four Universities to deal with. The precedent of the Oxford and Cambridge Commissions breaks down at this stage of the argument. They are not precedents that can be applied in a case where four Universities have to be dealt with, the circumstances of each being of the most varied kind, and requiring an amount of continuous atten- tion which is beyond the attainment of so small a number of members as seven. I quite agree that if you could secure six or seven men with high special qualifications and the opportunities of continuous application to the work they have to address themselves to, then the smaller number would be preferable, but unless you can have these combined advantages, I think it is idle to think of the smaller number. As this question has been raised it may be conducive to a settlement in a calm spirit, if I say a few words on the constitution of the Commission. I am sure everyone who has held office, and I am fortunate in having opposite to me several right hon. Gentlemen of that position—will support me when I say that it is a most difficult duty to get together a number of men you think desirable to associate together on a Commission. There are the qualifications of each member, his acquaintance with public affairs, the extent to which he may have committed himself by an expression of opinion, his fairness in the discharge of public duty, and his willingness to serve, all these matters have to be considered. We have been assailed, though not by any considerable section of the House, on account of the selections we have made for this Commission. If the Commission does not contain some of the elements which might have been desired, it is not the fault of the Government. I am at liberty to mention names, because the information is in the possession of the public. It is well known that Lord Rosebery was asked serve. It ought to be known too, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair) was invited to accept the position of Commissioner for what he is pre-eminently qualified, and also the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) a political opponent of the Government and a pronounced adherent of progress in University matters. These gentlemen were asked, and it is clearly understood that even now, should they find it compatible with their duties to accept the position, they would be seated on the Board of Commissioners. I only mention these names to show that there has not been the smallest disposition on the part of the Government to confine their selection to one party, either with regard to politics or the question of University reform. No doubt there are adequate reasons for the gentlemen I have just named declining to accept a responsibility which would involve a long and detailed inquiry. If we cannot obtain the services of seven or eight highly qualified persons, the next best thing is to appoint a larger number of gentlemen who are known to the people of Scotland to be fair-minded and to possess a knowledge of the currents of Scotch thought, which are likely to be moving on such subjects. I shall follow the example of the hon. and learned Gentleman and not now discuss names. I will only say that we have nominated a number of experienced and accomplished public servants, some well-known to the House of Commons and all well-known to the people of Scotland interested in University affairs. I defy any Cabinet to get together a body of men for such a purpose, some of whom would not be open to criticism. No doubt if there is a disposition to enter upon the task of discussing individual qualifications there will be a number of things to say, a number of sarcasms to fire off in reference to each, but I venture to say that we have recommended a Commission which the House of Commons may accept as likely to impartially discharge the important duties entrusted to them.

* MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has appealed specially to those who have had some experience of the appointment of Commissions, and perhaps I have had a longer experience of that kind than any who now happen to be present. Happily, we are not now entering upon any personal question, and I pass by, as not in point, the merits of this or that nomination when I give, as the result of my experience, the opinion that it is desirable to appoint to an administrative Commission of this character no more members than are necessary to discharge in a satisfactory manner the duties entrusted to them. I have had considerable experience both in the appointment of Commissions and as a member, and I have invariably found that the work is better and more continuously done by small than by large administrative Commissions. It is said that the small Oxford and Cambridge Commissions afford no analogy, because the Commissioners under this Bill will deal with four Universities instead of one, which the Oxford and Cambridge Commissioners each dealt with. But I would remind the Committee, in reference to the Cambridge Commission, that the inquiry related to between 20 and 30 colleges, and each of them had to be dealt with separately. Yet the small Commission which conducted the investigation was a most effective one, and certainly had the approval of the great body of those who were interested in Cambridge. Therefore, the analogy of the Cambridge Commission is distinctly in favour of the present one, being a small instead of a large Commission. My own experience as a member of a good many Commissions tells me that in a small Commission every one feels it to be his duty to attend regularly. If, on the other hand, you have a large Commission, the feeling on the part of every member is, if it be inconvenient to him to attend on any day, that there are sure to be others who will attend, and hence the natural inclination is to be careless as to daily attendance, in the confidence that others will, on the whole, put in a reasonable number of attendances. One day there will be, perhaps, not more than half a Commission present, and on the next day, when the same subject is being discussed, the other half of the members will attend. The work of a small Commission is, therefore, always better done than that of a large Commission. I think seven members is about the best number of which to form a Commission, and I am confident that the work will be better done—more steadily and continuously done—by a Commission of seven members than by the large body proposed in the Bill.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

The Lord Advocate alluded just now to the names of those who have been asked to serve upon this Commission. Amongst others he mentioned Lord Rosebery. I can state that Lord Rosebery, when invited to serve, said he must first be made aware of the names of those who would be his colleagues, and that on being informed of the names he stated that they would not be satisfactory to the people of Scotland.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I am very anxious that we should not make the number of the Commission so narrow as to exclude a class which I think it is absolutely necessary to have represented if the Bill is to be efficiently carried out. We need on the Commission some pronounced educational reformer. I find that among 15 members on the proposed Commission, there is only one to whom that title can be properly applied, and that is the Member for Manchester, who is no doubt a scientific man, and, I believe, an educational reformer. It seems that as public opinion is constituted in this country, you must have a great many classes represented on the Commission. You must have one or two Lords, some lawyers, some gentlemen of the othodox educational school, and some representatives of the medical profession. The result seems to be that the pronounced educational reformers, and the scientific men are crowded out altogether, and you are only able to find place for one of them on a Commission of 15. For how many, then, would be found room among seven? I am not inclined to reduce the number to that extent. I would add some pronounced educational reformers to the Commission, and I think there would be no room for them if we reduced the number to seven.

* MR. HUNTER

It is most invidious to make any remarks on the names of gentlemen who have spontaneously offered to render arduous and important public services without any remuneration, and therefore I think it desirable that we should discuss the merits of the clause upon the present Motion. I think it was hardly right of the Lord Advocate to tell us that Lord Rosebery had declined to join the Commission without adding the reason for his conduct. The reason just stated throws considerable light on the spirit in which the Commission has been formed, and no one who looks at the list can doubt that this is not a successful effort to obtain a bonâ fide selection of men from Scotland. The Government have themselves to blame for the predicament in which the Committee is put. Substantially the same Commission was proposed last year, and I think there was not a single organ of public opinion in Scotland, including those organs which habitually support the Government through thick and thin, right or wrong, that did not condemn this Commission. After that warning the Government have persisted in putting forward, practically, the same list on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman tells us they were anxious to constitute as fair a Commission as possible. If so, how does this extraordinary result happen that, whereas the question of tests is going to be referred to the Commission, that body is full of Established Churchmen and Episcopalians, and even of Roman Catholics; but there is not a single Presbyterian outside the establishment upon the list? There is another coincidence. The enormous majority of the people of Scotland differ in political opinion from Her Majesty's Government, but the only persons the Government can find in all Scotland suitable for the work of the Commission are persons of the political colour of right hon. Gentlemen opposite or Liberal Unionists. I should be very sorry to object to a single name on the list upon the merits of that particular name, but I do object to the tout ensemble being all of one colour. I trust the Government will avail themselves of the time that will remain over between this evening and to-morrow to re-consider the question, and that they will agree to reduce the number of the Commission and somewhat modify its colour and composition so as to spare us the very invidious proceeding of having to omit the names one by one.

The Committee divided.—Ayes 86; Noes 164.—(Div. List, No. 161.)

MR. ESSLEMONT

I now beg leave to move, Sir, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

After what has occurred this afternoon, and as reasonable progress has been made, I shall not oppose the Motion.

* MR. HUNTER

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it would not be advisable that the next stage of the Bill should be deferred until Monday. We have arrived at a point when, by negotiations, I think we might come to an understanding by which very rapid progress could be made in the future. I think that after the 10th Clause is disposed of, there will be only one important subject left—namely, the retention of seats.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I agree that very satisfactory progress has been made by the Committee in considering this measure, and I wish to acknowledge the exceedingly fair spirit in which the Bill has been dealt with on both sides of the House, and especially by the hon. and learned Member himself. But I think that, having made such progress, we may hope to continue it at 2 o'clock to-morrow. I am not without hope that an understanding may be arrived at very early in the course of the afternoon, which will afford a satisfactory solution of the question; and really I think it would be a great misfortune if now we were to interfere with the consideration of the Bill. The House always desires to proceed from day to day with a Bill of this kind, and, indeed, I am under an obligation with the House that this shall be done.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

So far as as I am acquainted with the opinion of my hon. Friends, I may say I think that once the question of the Commission is disposed of, except as to the very large question of tests, there will be very little contentious matter. That makes it all the more desirable we should come to some understanding as to the constitution of the Commission; and if the Government could meet our wishes to some extent, we shall be glad to facilitate the progress of the Bill.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow at Two of the clock.