§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill, I should like to say a few words upon it, as by your Lordships' permission the other night I made no remark on the Bill. I shall say very little, because the Universities (Scotland) Bill, which I introduced last year into this House was, after most easeful Consideration by your Lordships, and alteration in many particulars, read a third time but, owing to the lateness of the period of the Session at which the Bill left the House, it was impossible for the House of Commons to consider it then. Under the circumstances I think I am justified dm considering that your Lordships are perfectly aware of the object, and principles of this Bill. I think the most practical way of asking your Lordships to consider the Bill which was read a second time the other night, is to look at it as if had been considered during one Session of Parliament, and that the Amendments which have been made to it in the House of Commons during this Session are Amendments on the Bill as it was passed by your Lordships' House last, year. The Bill introduced into the House of Commons was almost identical in every important particular with that which passed your Lordships' 727 House last year. There was one slight alteration made with reference to the constitution of the University of St. Andrew's, another as to the constitution of the Commission, and another with reference to the Botanical Gardens and Observatory in Edinburgh. They were taken out of the financial portions of the Bill. I cannot refrain from expressing now, on the part of the Government—as I see the noble Earl, to whom we are indebted in the matter, on the crossbenches—the gratitude which is due to him for the generous gift which he has made of the whole of his magnificent observatory apparatus and library for the public use. With these few observations, I beg to move, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
* THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, it is quite unnecessary to occupy your time with many remarks for the reasons just given by the noble Marquess who has moved this Bill. It corresponds very closely with the Bill which was introduced last year, on which so much attention was bestowed, but there are two or three points to which it is necessary to call attention. Your Lordships will bear in mind, while this Bill is passing through Committee, that it deals very thoroughly indeed with the University question, and introduces great changes. It deals with the whole question of the management of Universities, their property and revenues, as well as their discipline, touching, therefore, that which has been for all time in the hands of the Senates Academicus. It takes the general control from the Senatus Academicus, and also places the power of making orders after the expiration of the Commission in the University Courts, on which the graduates of the Universities will be largely represented. It is important we should bear those facts in mind, with reference to various points to which your Lordships' attention will be called in Committee. With regard to the constitution of the Courts, there is one important change, and, as I think, a very considerable improvement. Last year it was proposed that nominees of the Crown should be be appointed on the University Courts. As your Lordships know, considerable difference of opinion prevails on University questions between the two opposing parties, one of whom I may de- 728 scribe as the party of the Senates Academicus, or the professorial body, and the other whom I can only describe by a name well understood in Scotland, although, perhaps, not a very classical name, that is, the extra-mural teachers. When the Crown took the power of appointing Assessors on the University Courts, it might have been very easily attempted to remedy any manifest disproportion which might exist between the relative powers of those two parties. I hold that the Crown ought not to be entrusted with a power of that sort, and last year exception was taken to those appointments in this House. I am glad to say that this year those appointments do not re-appear in the Bill. There is only one other point to which I will call your Lordships' attention now, and that is with reference to the composition of the Commission. Those who have taken an interest in the development of this Bill know perfectly well that last year the noble Marquess did everything in his power to obtain the very best and most representative Commission he could. He spoke to many members of this House about the matter, and, although he was not successful in persuading many who entertain very different opinions on this matter to take seats upon the Commission, it was not his fault that he did not obtain the most representative Commission. He did all he could. The only desire of the Scotch Office was to secure a thoroughly good Commission in order to obtain a body which would carry out the measure in a manner most acceptable to the people of Scotland. I regret that the names of some who would have been of great assistance are absent, but I think those who have been placed on the Commission add considerable strength to it. One thing may be said: both the University parties are this year represented upon the Commission. When you have two parties existing, and questions to be decided by a Commission as to which great difference of opinion prevails between them, there is only one alternative in dealing with the two parties which represent the opposite shades of opinion: they must be altogether omitted from the Commission, or a fair and adequate representation of each side must be given upon it. This year the latter 729 course has been taken, and upon the whole I think it is a wise course, because it is now quite certain that the divergent opinions will be expressed at the Commission in the most complete and satisfactory manner; so that the general body of the Commissioners will be able to apply themselves to the consideration of the various questions, and it is absolutely certain that every question of interest arising will be discussed in the most intelligent and intelligible form. I think, therefore, in that way the Commission is improved. Perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Elgin is not present, I may say that I am glad he is to sit upon the Commission. With your Lordships' permission, I will reserve any further remarks I may have to make upon matters of detail until they arise in Committee.
§ Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
§ Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
* THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIn clause 5, at line 35, I propose to insert the word "Lord" before the words "Provost of Dundee." I merely wish to say a few words in support of my proposal. In the first place I am perfectly well aware that this is a proposition upon which it would not be possible for me to take the sense of the House, and therefore if the Government do not see their way to entertain it favourably, I do not feel disposed to press it. At the same time I think it is only right I should bring this question before the House. My Lords, in years long gone by, the Provost of Dundee was always styled "Lord-Provost." As your Lordships know Dundee played an important part throughout early Scottish history. In the days of Queen Mary the Lord Provost was appointed one of the Commissioners to arrange the marriage of the Queen in Prance. He was one of the Committee of the Lords upon the Articles sanctioning the Queen's demission of the Crown. He was also appointed Lord High Commissioner. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries petitions and applications to the Corporation were addressed "To the Lord Provost"; and that title was continued and was unanimously recognized by the Convention in 1692. A little later the Provostship was placed 730 in Commission, and, when a new Provost was appointed, the ancient title was not renewed. But Her Majesty has lately been pleased to grant a Charter to Dundee, making it a royal city; and, therefore, I would suggest to the First Minister of the Crown, for his consideration whether it may not be possible for him to submit to Her Majesty the title, "Lord Provost of Dundee" with a view to the restoration of the title as used in former days.
§ Amendment moved, Clause 5, line 35, before the words "Provost of Dundee," to insert the word "Lord."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I should be very sorry, while saying that I cannot assent to the proposal of the noble, Earl, if it should be thought I do not recognize the antiquity of the office of Provost of Dundee, but it seems to me this is not the occasion or the place to confer such a title. It seems to me that the object of the noble Earl is, by a sort of side wind, to obtain for the Provost of Dundee a Parliamentary recognition of his claim to the title of Lord Provost. The are other towns in Scotland which at one time had no less right to the title Lord Provost for their chief authorities, but they no longer possess that right. Whether or not the Provost of Dundee ought to have the title of Lord Provost is not, I think, a question which ought to come before the House in this way. If that title is to be given him by Act of Parliament, it ought to be by some Act dealing directly with the privileges and position of the City of Dundee. I presume the question has arisen now in consequence of Dundee having lately been raised to the rank and position of a city; but that circumstance does not, ipso facto, give a right to the title and dignity of Lord Provost. I think there has been a little misapprehension on that point, and, therefore, I take this opportunity of making this statement. I do not at this moment say whether the Provost of Dundee has a right to the title Lord Provost or not; I only say this is not the way to raise the question upon a Bill dealing with an entirely different matter.
A Noble LORDAs the Provost of of Dundee has been mentioned, I should 731 like to ask the noble Marquess whether or not it is intended to give him a seat upon the University Court of St. Andrews, irrespective of the union of the University College of Dundee with the University of St. Andrews? Ought his seat to be made conditional upon the affiliation of the University College of Dundee to St. Andrews, or is he to have a seat on the University Court irrespective of such union?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThe noble Lord has called attention to a point of some difficulty, because, under the constitution of the University Court of St. Andrew's, it was provided that the Provost of Dundee should have a seat upon that Court, but he would not have a seat unless the University College of Dundee was affiliated to the University of St. Andrew's. However, that can be provided for on the Third Reading, upon the Report.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKThere is another matter. My attention was called to the constitution of the University of St. Andrew's by a noble Lord, not present to-night, who takes a lively interest in academical questions—Lord Powis. He pointed out to me that there was a discrepancy between the constitution of the University Court of St. Andrew's and those of all the other Universities. In the case of all the other Universities the Provost has a seat on the University Court, and that is so with regard to the University of St. Andrew's; but, in addition to that in the other three Universities, the Provost, the Town Council, and the Magistrates have the right of appointing an Assessor. The object of making such a provision is to give the Municipal body a more sustained interest in academical affairs. Now, in the case of the University of St. Andrew's, the Provost and Town Council have not the right of appointing an Assessor. Perhaps, if both the Provost of St. Andrew's and the Provost of Dundee were on the Council, the Municipal element might be considered strong enough. Of course, the Provost's functions are of a transitory character. In some cases they may be elected, but in no case would they have the privilege of sitting for four years on the Council. I ask, then, why is there no power given for the appointment of an Assessor in the case of that University?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThe answer is simple enough: it is because, in the case of the University of St. Andrew's, if this proposal is carried out, there will be two municipal representatives then of the town of St. Andrew's and the City of Dundee. In the case of the other Universities, there will be only two representatives of the municipality. If the noble Lord's proposition were to be accepted, in the case of St. Andrew's there would be no less than four representatives of the municipal body.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKPerhaps the noble Marquess will also consider that there is no certainty that the Provost of Dundee will ever sit upon the Council. However, I do not desire to press the point further.
THE EARL OF MORLEYThe question raised by the noble Lord who spoke previously was, whether the word "Lord" should be inserted before "Provost."
* THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI withdrew the Amendment. I would only point out to the noble Marquess, with regard to what he has stated as to the Provost for the time being, that is dealt with by sub-section (g). I thought it was the intention of the Government to make the Provost of Dundee a member of the body of St. Andrew's University. That is very clearly expressed in the Affiliation Clause. In cases where the contrary was proposed, words were inserted in the Bill, saying that this should only be done when the College was affiliated to, and made to form part of, the University. If the noble Marquess does not intend the Provost of Dundee to be on the University Court, unless the Dundee College is affiliated to St. Andrew's University, he has simply to remove the name from where it stands now and place it in sub-section (c), either before or after the Principal of St. Mary's College. That would dispose of the difficulty.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI will take into consideration the point which has been suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKI hope I am not out of order in asking another 733 question upon this clause. This clause contemplates the creation of a number of Assessors who are to be nominated by many diverse authorities. I confess I do not distinguish from the language used whether it is absolutely obligatory on all those authorities to nominate the Assessors, or whether they have any discretionary power. If it is absolutely necessary that all those Assessors should be nominated, it seems to me some inconvenience might arise. It might occur that this duty of nominating Assessors will not, on some occasion or other, either by neglect, accident, or ill-will, be performed If all the obligations in that respect were not performed at the right time, would the Court be then not legally constituted, and would its acts be invalidated or not? It seems to me it might be better to make the nomination of all those Assessors rather discretionary than obligatory. In general, they will undoubtedly be nominated, but on some occasion or other there might be a failure in the nomination at the right time. I merely want to know whether the nomination of all these Assessors is discretionary or obligatory, and whether their presence is absolutely necessary to constitute a University Court.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANThe noble Lord has asked two questions; one, Whether it is absolutely necessary that all the Assessors should be elected,' or if a smaller number would be sufficient? and the other, Whether the University Court would be a properly constituted body even if the full number of Assessors were not elected to it? In answer to the first question, I will inform the noble Earl that it is not obligatory to elect the full number of Assessors, though I have no doubt that in all cases the full number Would be elected. In answer to the second question, there is no doubt the University Court would be a properly constituted body, although there were vacancies upon it.
* THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI am now going to ask your Lordships to strike out the last sentence of the last sub-section of Clause 5, on page 4. It runs as follows:.— "No member of the Senatus Academious of any University shall be entitled to vote or take part in the election of any Assessor of the General Council of the University" The effect 734 of this clause is to disfranchise the whole body of Professors of all the Universities in regard to voting for an Assessor representing the General Council of the University. I want to know what is the reason for such a proposal being inserted in the Bill. No such proposal was inserted in the Bill last year, or as it was introduced this year, and I think I shall be able to give your Lordships very good reasons why you should vote with me against this sub-section. In the first place I suppose the argument which will be used against me is this: That the members of the Senatus are already represented by three Assessors whom they themselves will vote for; and therefore, if they are graduates of the University, they ought not to vote for any further Assessors; and if they are not members of the Council they are all the more disqualified and unfit to vote for such assessors. Now, in the first place, I wish to point out that the n amber of those whom you propose to disfranchise is absolutely infinitesimal in comparison with the whole number of Graduates in the Universities. In St. Andrew's University the Members of the Senatus are 15 in number, and there are 1,508 members of the General Council; in the University of Glasgow the Senatus has 29 members, while there are 4,562 members of the Council; at Aberdeen there are 24 members of the Senatus, and 3,109 of the General Council; and at Edinburgh there are 41 members of the Senatus as compared with 6,100 members of the Council. In other words, there are members of the Senatus who, without this clause, would vote for these Assessors to the number of 109, as compared with 15,279 members of the General Councils; and this amendment, therefore, has been introduced solely for the purpose of disfranchising those 109 persons. It would not, of course, be fair if I were to state the case only in that way, because I ought to remind your Lordships that those 109 members of the Senatus would have an influence with regard to those elections considerably out of proportion to their mere numbers, because the whole 109 being connected with the teaching in the Universities, are necessarily present during the greater part of the year; and as there might be some difficulty in collecting a large 735 number of the members of Council the votes of the 109 would be more important than their comparative numbers would seem to indicate. But, my Lords, I would ask what reason is there for a proposal of this sort? What had the Professors done? You are to single them out, and disfranchise them alone. You are not to treat the Provosts of the various University towns in the same way. The Provosts have seats upon the University Courts, and if they are members of the Council they will also vote for the Assessors who are sent to represent the Council. Besides that, in three cases out of four the provost will appoint an Assessor of his own, and he is therefore represented much more fully than these Professors. But you do not treat him or anybody else in the same way that you are treating these Professors. If colleges are affiliated to the University, and if the members of the Colleges are all members of the University, they will have a vote in this respect. So that it simply comes to this, that the Senatus is selected, and the Senatus alone to be disfranchised. I hope the House will consider the very great alteration which is made by this Bill in the relative powers of the Senatus and the University Court. I will again remind your Lordships that we have taken away from the Senatus the whole power of administration over the resources; we have given the Courts a general control over the proceedings of the Senatus, and therefore we have increased the power of the Court to a very large extent. But the Bill proposes as it now stands that we shall not be content with that; we are to go further and disfranchise the Senatus altogether. The insertion of this Clause seems to me to be a very great mistake. It was not in the Bill when first drafted. My Lords, it seems to me a very mean and petty proceeding, and I trust your Lordships will strike out this Clause.
§ * LORD WATSONMy Lords, I must express my sympathy with the motion now made to the House, whether it be successful or no. I can quite understand the principle of disfranchising Professors who sit in the University Courts, but why should you disfranchise Professors who do not sit in the University Courts? Even then, I should not 736 object to legislation in this direction if it were general, and not personal and invidious. This Bill contemplates that there shall be brought into the University affiliated Colleges which are to be represented in the University Court. Every teacher in those Colleges is left at liberty to vote for an Assessor in the General Council, but not one of the Professors in the University is permitted to do the same. I have not yet heard any reason why that invidious distinction should be made between the two bodies. I should have thought that upon the rationale of the question, the weightier reasons would be in favour of the Professors, and for this reason: that the Universities of Scotland owe their distinction in the past, and will owe any success which they may have in the future, not to the provisions of any Bill of this character, however useful they may be, and I admit their usefulness to the full, but upon the character and the attainments of the Professors who constitute the Senatus.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I cannot help saying that I am sorry the noble Earl has thought it right to introduce this Amendment; because the form in which he has put it (and I admit that the arguments he has used are very strong) makes it appear that the Government by this proposal in the Bill desires to put an invidious distinction upon the Professors, but I need not say that is very far indeed from the intention of the Government. In the University Courts the Senatus Academicus are fully represented by the four Assessors. The Senatus Academicus elects four Assessors, and the Council also elects four Assessors. As I understand, what the noble Earl contends is, that this puts a slur in some way upon the professorial element.
* THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANUpon them alone; that they are debarred from voting as members of the General Council. It is possible there may be differences of opinion upon matters affecting the University between the Assessors who represent the General Council and the Assessors who represent the Senatus Academicus. I do not like to look forward to any such differences, but it is possible 737 they may arise, and I cannot help thinking it is a provision your Lordships will accept which secures that while the Senatus Academicus has a larger representation than by the Bill of last year, not only in actual numbers, but in proportion, they should not have a vote for the Assessors as members of the General Council. I really do not know how to answer the noble Earl when he says this is a provision which is invidious to the Professors; still less do I know how to answer Lord Watson's remark, from which he appears to think that the Government do not recognise to the full what the Universities have owed to the Professors in the past, and how much the success of the Universities will be due to them in the future. But the Government wish to draw no such distinction. They do recognise most absolutely, and to the full, that the entire success of the Universities must depend upon the professional body. But there was one point advanced by the noble Earl which rather tells against his own argument. He pointed out, and very truly, that the professorial vote, if allowed to them as members of the General Council, would be infinitesimal. I would ask, is it worth while when the Bill comes up from the House of Commons in this form to raise this question, which is really a question of sentiment? Really, it is nothing more than a question of sentiment; because the noble Earl has himself shown that the voting power of the Professors on the General Council would be almost nil; that is so say, it would come practically to about I in 150. My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, but, in declining to accept it, I repeat that I most absolutely repudiate the idea of a slur of any kind being put upon the merits of the professorial element in the Universities of Scotland.
* THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI am sorry, but I shall be obliged to take the sense of the House upon this question. If I wanted an argument in support of my position, I do not think I could find a stronger one than the speech which the noble Marquis has just delivered. Because, what does the noble Marquis say? He says it would be a great mistake for the Professors, or any one else, to suppose that, by this enactment, the Government intend to cast a slur upon them. That is 738 not the question. The question is, what the Bill does, in fact. It is no use telling a man that you do not intend to cast a slur upon him if you disfranchise him. The Professors ask why this has been done. It was not done when the Bill first came into the House dealing with the position of all these various parties and Universities. If the Government intends to inaugurate a system of counting up votes, and to say that so-and-so will have so many votes in a particular assembly, and, therefore, that they have no right to complain if they are not allowed to vote for the Assessors, I think they have set themselves an impossible task, and a task which I do not think Parliament either can, or ought to, undertake. I wish to remind your Lordships again that, by this Bill, great power is given to the University Courts and to the General Council. It is not a question whether there is any intention to cast a slur or not, but it is a question whether it is not a wrong step, a very wrong course indeed, as it is a most invidious thing, to take away the votes of these Professors. I am very sorry to be forced to take the sense of the House upon the matter, but I am afraid I must do so.
§ Amendment, Clause 5, page 4, line 39, to omit the words, "No member of the Senatus Academicus of any University shall be entitled to vote or take part in the election of any Assessor of the General Council of the University."
§ On Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24: Not-contents, 8.
* THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, I propose, in Clause 8, to leave out the words "University Court," and to substitute the word "Commissioners." The object of the Amendment is this: As the Clause now stands, it will be necessary, on the 1st February every year, for the University Court to fix the Governors of the General Council. Should there be any points of difference, it merely means that you will give facilities for raising and reviewing them, by each year fixing the number of the quorum of your General Council. I propose that the number should be fixed by the Commissioners, and the result would be that, in the future, if any one wished to make an alteration in the General Council, if 739 the Court were disposed to do so, the thing would be done. It is very desirable there should be the means of raising questions every year. Then, of course, by a subsequent Clause in the Bill, after the expiration of the Commissioners' functions, it is in the power of the Court to pass any necessary ordinance.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI am not quite sure that the number fixed by the University Court, as proposed by the noble Earl, would not remain in perpetuity.
* THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIn Clause 21 it says they shall have the power of altering or revoking any ordinance framed and passed under the Act of 1858, and of making new orders.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI do not think that would come under the new ordinance. I think they would be absolutely unalterable. However, I will consider the matter.
* THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMay I ask the noble Marquess whether he will give it his favourable consideration?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI cannot say that I will give it favourable consideration, but I will give it consideration.
§ Remaining Clauses agreed to.