SECOND READING.

HC Deb 10 June 1858 vol 150 cc1881-910

THE LORD ADVOCATE moved the second reading of this Bill.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. BLACK

said, that in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six mouths, he did so under a great disadvantage, because since the Bill professed to reform and improve the Scotch Universities, he feared that hon. Members generally thought that this Bill was similar in its object to the Bills lately carried through Parliament for the improvement of the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. It was with great reluctance that he had come forward to oppose the measure, but no other course was open to him when he found that, while the Bill was brought forward as a measure to reform and improve the Scotch Universities, the changes proposed were really of a retrograde rather than of a progressive character. He doubted whether twenty Members had examined the Bill sufficiently to learn its true character, and he was quite sure that upon examination it would be found to be a measure winch would not work, or, if it would work, that it would be to no useful purpose. Had his objections to the Bill been of a light character—to mere matters of detail—he might have contented himself with proposing Amendments in Committee; but he felt that the Bill was so thoroughly bad as to be quite unmendable; that it required a new stock, new lock, and new barrel. He had heard what improvement the Professors desired, what the students desired, and what the patrons desired. The Professors wanted money that they might have their salaries increased; the students wished to have endowments which might furnish the means of literary retirement, and to have the Scotch Universities endowed upon the same scale as the English; and the patrons desired that some millionaire would die and leave large funds at the disposal of the colleges. Now, in these respects, the Bill met the wishes neither of the Professors nor the students—nor the patrons. He had examined the Bill with great attention with the view of learning its real character, but he must confess that, nevertheless, he had considerable difficulty in following the learned Lord when he stated its provisions. The preamble commenced by stating that it was expedient, for the advancement of religion and learning, that provision should be made for the better government and discipline of the Universities of Scotland. Now, when he saw those words "advancement of religion" in a Government measure, it always made him very suspicious. The proposed changes were indeed a very crab-like method of reforming abuses. The Bill provided, for instance, that the General Council of the University of Aberdeen should consist of the members of the University Court, of the professors, and of all the graduates registered in the books of the University and King's College and in the books of Marischal College and University, and of all future graduates. At present there were twenty-one professors in the University, most of them members of the Church, and at least 47 per cent. of the students were intended to enter the Church; and as many of the professors and students, though laymen, were more bigoted than divines, they would take care that only their own religious views should be advanced in the Universities. Thus the whole University would be thrown back into the old system of clerical abuses. Then, again, in Edinburgh, they had only about eight or nine graduates in the year, and most of these were destined for the Church; as to the medical graduates they were scattered over the face of the earth; and therefore the University would be under the absolute dominion of the clergy. At the meeting in Edinburgh on University Reform, the Lord Advocate professed that he contemplated no organic changes in the constitution of those bodies; but this Bill made not merely a change but a revolution. Was it not a refinement in cruelty for the Lord Advocate to stand up before a meeting at which were present many of the patrons, and promise that no radical changes should be made in their University; and while they were cheering him to the very echo, he and his predecessor were meditating a coup d'état to destroy the liberal and constitutional government of their University, and to substitute in its place an irresponsible junto in the shape of eight commissioners, five of whom were to form a quorum, who were to override the Senatus Academicus and all other members and office-bearers in the University? He (Mr. Black) had been for ten years a patron of the University which had been founded by the citizens of Edinburgh, fostered and maintained by them, and, without royal or baronial munificence, raised by their good management to the first rank among the Scottish Universities. He held in his hand an account of the sums expended upon it by the corporation from the middle of the last century to 1833—these amounted to about £100,000. In 1833, an adjustment was made with the creditors of the city, when it was found that from the property in Leith the city should draw £7,000 a year; of this £2,000 was set apart for the University, so that it may be said the University is still maintained by the citizens. The patrons never interfered with the curriculum of the College, unless compelled by urgent demands for improvements. The professors generally opposed reforms, and he believed it would be found that in every instance where the senators and the patrons differed, it would be found that the patrons were in the right. However anomalous it may appear in theory, it has been found in practice that a corporation of tradesmen are not only competent to manage a University, but, in fact, that the University of Edinburgh, of which the Town Council were patrons, was the best managed of all the Scottish Universities. At present the constitution of the University is an open one, and no great job could be committed with impunity, and he must declare that, in his opinion, no college could be better managed than this has been under the present system. It was now proposed to overturn a constitution that had worked well, and to replace the managing body by an irresponsible conclave which would do everything in the dark; and he should not be doing his duty if he did not raise his voice against what he believed would be injurious to the citizens of Edinburgh, and, he would add, to the public generally of Scotland. The inhabitants of Edinburgh had felt the greatest alarm with respect to the measure, and only that afternoon he had received a telegraphic despatch from them saying that the Amendments to the Bill were intolerable, and urging him to do all in his power to upset the measure. Hon. Members, he trusted, would be the last persons who would wish to see despotism and oligarchy established in the Universities. Some were of opinion that all that was wanted to provide for the deficiencies of the Universities was money; but for himself he would say, "Perish the money, but may the honour and independence of the University flourish." He would conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this Day Six Months."

Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."

MR. CUMMING BRUCE

said, that the hon. Member seemed to have mistaken the stage of the Bill; his objections should have been reserved for the Committee, when they would no doubt have received the candid consideration of the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member seemed by his speech to indicate that the University of Edinburgh was perfect; but the whole of Scotland had been for years past calling out for University reform, and a Commission had reported on the subject in 1830. He understood the object of the measure to be to put an end to the system of closeness in the governing bodies of the Scotch Universities. When it was introduced it was received with universal acclamation, and it was not until the monopolists found that their interests would be interfered with, that they offered such a determined opposition. He entertained great respect for the Town Council of Edinburgh; but the colleges and University of Edinburgh had only been under the management of that Town Council since 1830; prior to that time they were under the control of a close Council, as the Town Council then was, and he did not know that the management of the University was not as good before 1830 as it had been since. It would be great grief to the people of Scotland if this well-intentioned measure were not acceded to. The principle of it was that the Scotch Universities required to be reformed, and ought therefore to be reformed. That was all they required should be acceded to, and then when the Bill was referred to a Committee, the suggestions of hon. Members would be received and discussed with candour and impartiality. The measure was intended to throw open, so to speak, the doors of the Universities, and to induce the alumni to take their degrees there, and afterwards to keep up their connection with them, and if the Bill were passed there would be, without doubt, a great inducement to young men to obtain degrees and to keep up a connection with the Universities. They would, under this Bill, after obtaining degrees, become governors or managers. It was inteded to throw open the Universities, and not to create certain close corporations, as had been said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He sincerely hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and then in Committee they could make what Amendments might be suggested. There was nothing in the hon. Member for Edinburgh's objection that the Bill would throw too much power into the clerical body. The Bill, on the contrary, invited all classes of students to become sharers in the management of the University, which had grown into a great institution. He believed that all distinctions of people belonged to an association which had been formed for the purpose of reforming these Universities; and, anxious as they were for the Bill to pass, it would be a great disappointment to them if it were thrown over to another Session.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he believed he spoke the sentiments of the greater portion of the Scotch Members, and of the people of the North-East of Scotland, when he opposed this Bill. The opposition was not to the principle of the Bill, but they had been forced into it by the refusal of the learned Lord (the Lord Advocate) to accede to the moderate propositions which had been made to him by Scotch Members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman insisted on maintaining parts of the Bill to which the Scotch Members most strongly objected, and thereby left them no choice but to support the Amendment for reading the measure that day three months. He concurred generally with the hon. Member for Edinburgh as to the practical difficulties that must attend the working of this Bill in its present shape, and which must greatly interfere with its usefulness. The feeling of opposition was not confined to Marischal College, which was to be sacrificed for the advantage of the sister college (King's), as the graduates of the latter college, in a letter which he (Colonel Sykes) read, condemned the measure as being one which could not, in this free country, be sanctioned, and spoke of it as a legislative attempt to deal with endowments existing for a century and a half in an arbitrary and unjust manner. The 15th clause of the Bill embodied those views, and was of itself sufficient to justify a determined opposition to the Bill, for it gave to Commissioners (who might be fanatics, sectarians, or men with extreme views in politics) power to revise the foundations, bursaries, donations, and patronage which had been granted for the benefit of the professors, students, and others, but which should appear to the Commissioners, according to their views, feelings, or prejudices, to require revision. The Commissioners would be able to frame new statutes or ordinances for all gifts and endowments in defiance of the regulations of the donors. They had all heard of "confiscation" on the other side of the globe; but now confiscation was coming under their immediate view, for, by this Bill the Commissioners would possess the power to confiscate all ancient and modern endowments given for specific purposes, that is to say, to amalgamate, or abolish, which was equivalent to confiscation. In this free country they were all moving onward—even hon. Gentlemen who sat on the other side of the House; and it was surprising that such a Bill should have been introduced. The 15th clause, in short, was so objectionable, that he should consider it quite sufficient to justify him in refusing to sanction the second reading. From what took place at the meeting of Scotch Members in a Committee-room upstairs great distrust had been excited in his mind as to what the learned Lord Advocate would do in Committee. He had been overwhelmed with letters urging objections to the measure. The remonstrances from Aberdeen and the north of Scotland, from graduates of King's College, from synods, and from the graduates of Marischal College, were exceedingly strong; and that there might be no mistake he would in the end read some of the documents which he had received against the Bill. The citizens of Aberdeen had for years asked for a measure which would unite the two Universities into one University, under one common government, and they now asked for the same thing to be done, but the Bill in addition enacted the fusion of the two colleges, to the suppression, practically of Marischal College—which had been founded by the Earl Marischal of Scotland for three centuries for the benefit of the citizens of new Aberdeen alone, and which, by the charter, was not to be translated forth from Aberdeen, and which was supported by endowments and gifts. Among the opponents of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition was the Society of Advocates of Aberdeen, the graduates of Marischal College and University, and the graduates and alumni of King's College University. Two hundred graduates of King's College University, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was Lord Rector, entered their solemn protest against alienating the funds of foundations to any purpose contrary to their original destination. The hon. and learned Lord by his profession was bound to support the law, and it was curious to see him coming forward to subvert the law. The only parties in favour of the fusion of the two colleges was the Senatus of King's College, and a majority of six to four of the Professors of Marischal College; but the had been informed by telegraph that day, that out of six two had changed their opinion, and he was in hourly expectation of receiving a petition to the House ineicating this indicating this change. From the position of the only parties who supported the fusion of the two colleges the hon. and learned Gentleman could not deny but that the question was a personal one, as the object was to suppress some chairs, and divide the emoluments among those Professoos who remained. [The hon. and gallant Member here referred to various petitions to the House of Commons, Resolutions, &c., in opposition to the Bill, especially to what was called the fusion of the two colleges. These documents represented the opinions of the following persons:—The Mayor and Town Council of Aberdeen, the Incorporated Trades of Aberdeen, the Landholders and Commissioners of Supply of the county of Aberdeen, the Landholders and Commissioners of Supply for the county of Banff, the Landholders and Commissioners of Supply for the county of Kincardine, the Synod of Aberdeen, some District Courts of the Free Church, Society of Advocates in Aberdeen, Graduates of Marischal College, Graduates and Alumni of King's College, Senators of Marischal College, the Town Council of Peterhead, &c.] The hon. Member continued.—Thus, on one side there was a universal feeling, not against a Bill for improving the status of the University, but against that part which conferred illegal and unconstitutional powers on the Commissioners, and was contrary to the interests and feelings of the people of Aberdeen and of the north of Scotland. Now, with regard to Marischal College, it had been founded three centuries ago by the Earl Marischal of Scotland, and was under no pretence to be translated from the place of its foundation; it possessed a number of exhibitions or bursaries from £5 to £30 a year, which enabled even the very poor to receive that instruction, without which they could not expect to succeed in life. Various attempts had been made from time to time to suppress Marischal College in favour of a united college and University, but the inhabitants of Aberdeen had successfulty resisted all these attempts. It had existed in its integrity for three centuries, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed by a dash of his pen to disturb those vested rights, and make waste paper of the Royal Charter. He (Colonel Sykes) admitted that it was quite proper that the State should interfere in cases where the objects of the founders of charitable or educational institutions were not carried out, but he considered it an act of oppression and tyranny to step in and deliberately set aside the intentions of founders where they had been properly carried out; and he contended that in the case of Marischal College the objects of the founder had not failed, and that the proposed interference was therefore unjust and tyrannical. He lamented that the hon. and learned Gentleman was indifferent to the interests and feelings, not of a class or a community, but of an entire people. One of the reasons given for the fusion of the two colleges was, that the chairs were so badly endowed that competent men could not be obtained to fill them; but two gentlemen of the English Universities were professors there now, and he was told that whenever a vacancy occurred there were sometimes no less than twenty candidates from Oxford and Cambridge. It could not, therefore, be on the ground of the want of a sufficient endowment for these chairs, that it was necessary that the average of £400 a year for each chair should be increased. The feeling against the fusion of the two colleges of Aberdeen, instead of diminishing, was increasing. He had in his possession, in addition to the petitions already presented, a petition on the subject, which he ought to have presented that evening. There was another coming from 2,300 of the Parliamentary electors of the city of Aberdeen, and many others were preparing. The petitioners objected to the fusion of the Marischal and King's Colleges as a gross violation of ancient charters and patrimonial rights. If the hon. and learned Gentleman granted the concessions which the petitioners asked for, and which resolved themselves into the maintenance of a complete faculty of arts in each college, he might say, on the part of the inhabitants of Aberdeen, they would not oppose the Bill becoming law.

MR. A. STEUART

said, he thought the Bill for the fusion of the two Universities of Aberdeen was a measure with which the prosperity of the north of Scotland was closely bound up, and if he thought it involved any invasion of the privileges of the Universities, or any alteration which was not necessary to adapt them for increased means of improvement and usefulness, he should be inclined to join in the opposition to its passing. The opposition to the Bill undoubtedly seemed to assume a somewhat alarming aspect, and he should deeply regret if it had any effect in either defeating or postponing the measure, the adoption of which he believed every sincere friend of Scotland would hail with joy. The opposition from Aberdeen especially appeared very formidable. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes) had quoted document after document to show that the corporation, the clergy, the inhabitants, and even the landlords of Aberdeen, were opposed to the Bill. He believed, however, that this opposition did not arise entirely from the unpopularity of the measure, but in a large degree from local prejudice and a jealous feeling of rivalry. Here was a description, from a local paper, of the meeting called the "Head Court," from which the petition to be presented by the hon. and gallant Member opposite emanated:— A 'Head Court'—if we may judge by the Castle Street specimen—consists of nine or ten individuals trying to speak, and wearying themselves with gesticulations, and some thousands of people (men and boys) roaring and shouting, and booting them down as effectually as if the orators had been endeavouring to converse with the public out of the heart of Julien's band in the full crash of a battle-piece …. If a stranger had been told that this is our 'Head Court' he might certainly have been struck with the simplicity and popular character of our institutions and our way of resuscitating the ancient Saxon witenagemote, but he would not have been impressed with the value of the judicial decision likely to emanate from such a source. From such a source came the petition which was signed by 2,300 Parliamentary electors of Aberdeen, and he deprecated its having any influence whatever upon the Bill. It was, however, said that the landowners of the counties of Aberdeen and Banff, and the adjoining counties, had passed resolutions against the Bill; but it had not been mentioned that the convener of Aberdeen, and a still more distinguished person, the Earl of Aberdeen the Lord Lieutenant of the county, were strongly in favour of the fusion of the Universities. He (Mr. Steuart) believed that the effect of the Bill would be to bring more distinguished ornaments of learning from a distance to compete for the chairs in the Scotch Universities, and thus to raise the standard of education in Scotland much higher than it had ever been before. It was easy to understand how the opposition to the measure sprung up when they looked to the spirit which animated the two colleges of Aberdeen. King's College represented the high Tory feelings of the country population; on the other hand the Marischal College gave expression to the democratic feeling of the city population of Aberdeen, and it was not wonderful that it feeling of jealousy should exist between too such bodies; and if the Bill put an end to such feelings, it would effect a great good. He could not think that what this measure proposed amounted, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Sykes) represented, to an invasion of vested rights, like what had recently been threatened in Oude. Surely the fusing of the endowment of two colleges, or throwing the bursaries and scholarships belonging to them together could not in any sense be considered a violent invasion of vested rights. In the case of the University of Cambridge, the Commission, presided over by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had proposed measures which went much further than this Bill proposed to go. The hon. and gallant Member had quoted a good many opinions against the plan laid down in the Bill, but he had omitted to state that the majority of the Professors of King's College cordially agreed in the principle of the measure submitted to the House, and he ventured to hope that their opinion would neutralise the effect of those formidable documents and petitions which had been submitted to them. So far for Aberdeen. He was not surprised at the objections of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black), supposing, as he did, that the rights of certain portions of his fellow-townsmen were about to be endangered. The hon. Gentleman bad taken credit for the manner in which the Town Council of Edinburgh had managed the Universities. No doubt that body consisted, for the greater part, of a number of bigoted and exclusive Tories who would regard this measure with disfavour; but he thought the Town Council of Edinburgh was not a body to which the management of the University ought to be entrusted. It happened that an Edinburgh paper had been sent to him last night containing the speech of an Edinburgh bailie at a public meeting, in which he complained that sectarian jealousies had crept into the management of the Universities to such an extent that the townspeople had become disgusted, and would not rally round their municipal representatives in defence of their just rights, and another gentleman rose and confirmed the statement. The late Lord Cockburn, in his evidence before the University Commissioners of 1835, had ridiculed the idea of a man of learning and genius going through a course of mental prostration before thirty- three tradesmen of the town, elected into a Town Council. He might mention a case which had occurred not very long since. There was a vacancy for the Greek chair in the Edinburgh University, and a friend of his, who now filled a high station in the University of Cambridge, asked him for some information as to the character of the Town Council. He told his friend that he had no chance whatever, for the Town Council had already two candidates before them; one was a Free Church man, and therefore had a good chance of election, but the other had an equally strong one, for he had just before defeated the established presbytery of Aberdeen in an attempt to oust him from a professorship he held there. He would not go into the particulars of the quarrel between that gentleman and the presbytery, but it was much the same as if Baron Rothschild were to come to the table, take the oath on the true faith of a Christian, and then turn round and say, "I do not believe a word of it." So this learned Gentleman went to the table of the presbytery, signed the formula as a member of the Church of Scotland, and then said "I am not to be bound by what I have sworn." It turned out, as he had told his friend, the two gentlemen ran a neck-and-neck race, but the gentleman who who had beaten the presbytery won the election; and yet the Town Council of Edinburgh objected to the system proposed under this Bill as a horrible oligarchy, and some Scotch Members surprised him by saying "perish the Universities rather than submit to such tyranny." As to the other objections that had been urged against the Bill, and particularly those coming from the University of Glasgow, he did not say there was no foundation for them, but he was sure his learned Friend would not object to remove them in Committee.

SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR

wished to offer a few observations on the subject matter of the present discussion, but he regretted that he should find himself opposed to two hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House—the hon. Members for Edinburgh and Aberdeen, both University towns. As both those hon. Members were well acquainted with the subject which they discussed, their opinions were entitled to weight and consideration; but it would require more cogent arguments than they had used to make him ditrust his own judgment and refuse his support to the Bill, the utility and importance of which were obvious. From the character of the opposition it had met with in all quarters it might be supposed that its provisions had been framed, not to confer a benefit, but to inflict an injury; not to improve the education of the country, by adapting it to the requirements of the time, but for the purpose of impairing the usefulness of the Universities, if not to lower the standard of education. He could see in the Bill no such intention—indeed, nothing but what was conceived in the most beneficial spirit, especially the alteration proposed by the learned Lord Advocate. He therefore saw no reason why legislation should be postponed, and the people be deprived of those advantages which the Bill was calculated to bestow upon them. If the hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred could have shown that there was no want of improvement in the government of the Universities, and that the course of study which they prescribed kept pace with the requirements of the day, that within all was content and satisfaction, and that without there had been no expression of public opinion in favour of University reform in Scotland, there might be some ground for their opposition to the Bill; but the only opposition he had heard had arisen from what he would term amiable and excusable local partialities. Now, surely no opposition founded upon local partialities should stand in the way of a measure so essentially for the public benefit as that before the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) referred to the constitution of the University of that city. Now, the constitution of that University differed from that of any other similar institution; find although the power vested in the Town Council had been, upon the whole, faithfully exercised, yet it by no means followed that the duty of internal superintendence might not be as well discharged by any other body. But if the preservation of the right of the Town Council of Edinburgh was a ground for opposing the Bill, it was clearly an objection to be urged in Committee, and not brought forward as a ground of opposition to a Bill having reference to the Scotch Universities generally. The interference of the Town Council with the internal arrangements of the University had been condemned by the late Dr. Chalmers, by Lord Cockburn, and by many other distinguished Scotchmen. But still the Bill did not deprive the Town Council of their patronage. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had entered into the history of the two colleges of that city to show that they should still be kept separate and distinct, but it was sufficient for his (Sir W. Dunbar's) purpose to mention that the agitation for their amalgamation was not of recent origin, but had been at work for the last two centuries; and, from all he had heard or read, the question of union ought to be now decided in Parliament, or the agitation would continue two centuries longer before public opinion would work the change. It was a fact that both colleges were in themselves incomplete, but they might be amalgamated into one complete University. The Commission of 1857 had recommended a compromise, but in making that recommendation they surrendered their own judgment to the strong local feeling, which did more credit to the sensitiveness of the people of Aberdeen than to their judgment. If the Universities of Scotland were to be raised to the position which they ought to occupy, private convictions and personal considerations should be alike set aside, and the question considered with regard to the interests of the community generally; and he believed and hoped that the Lord Advocate had approached the subject in that spirit, and would never lose sight of it whilst endeavouring to accomplish the objects he proposed. Under any circumstances the Bill, by increasing the emoluments of the existing Professors, by providing retiring allowances for disabled Professors, by taking security for the better management of the Universities, and by abolishing existing restrictions, accomplished much in the right direction, and in his opinion the learned Lord Advocate, whether his measure should fail, or, as he hoped, should succeed, had, by this endeavour to deal with so important a subject, entitled himself to the gratitude, not only of the people, of Scotland, but of every well-wisher to the cause of education.

MR. DUNLOP

said, he had come down to the House in the expectation that the present Bill would be postponed, and was not therefore prepared to enter very fully into the question. He would, however, say that he was glad his right hon. and learned Friend (the Lord Advocate) had taken up this subject. It could not be in better hands, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would consent to such alteration as would enable him to support the Bill; for he should certainly regret if he were compelled to oppose the first mea- sure that had been introduced for the advancement of Scottish University Education. With regard to the objections urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen and others, these were rather objections of detail than of principle, and might more justly be urged in Committee. Some of the provisions of the present measure he regarded as being of great value—those, for instance, providing for retiring professors, those making provision for additional chairs, and the proposed establishment of a Council in which the graduates of the Universities were to have a voice. There were, however, provisions in the Bill of which he regretted to be obliged to express his disapproval. The Bill, he thought, tended to render the government of the Universities of too closely corporate a character. As at present framed, the governing body—the University Court—would be exclusively corporate, and at the same time, to a large extent, clerical. It consisted of the Principal, himself a member of the Senatus Academicus, and a clergyman; an Assessor nominated by the Chancellor who was to be elected by the Senatus with the exception of the newly created Chancellorship of Edinburgh, which the Bill proposed should be filled up by the Crown, together with an Assessor nominated by the Council; the Rector, who was also to be appointed by the Council, and an Assessor nominated by him. Then the Council was to consist exclusively of Masters of Arts, and these were, and would for some time, be chiefly clergymen; so that there would be no popular element in the governing bodies, except in the University of Edinburgh, in which the Town Council were to select two Assessors, and where the Chancellor was to be appointed by the Crown. He (Mr. Dunlop) thought that the Crown should have the appointment of the Chancellor in all the Universities, and thereby give the State a voice in the University Court. Again, the General Council ought to be so opened up as to admit medical graduates, and those of other professions than the Church, and to take away the almost exclusively clerical character—not, indeed, confined to one denomination—which as matters at present stand in Scotland it would under the Bill possess. And finally, the Rector who had himself a vote in the University Court and nominated an Assessor, who also had a vote, ought to be elected by the students as he was at present in all the Universities except one.

They had in times past well exercised that privilege, selecting the most eminent men of the day. It was of great value to the studeents to be brought into contact with such men, and it was of importance to the Universities that an extraneous element of such a character should be introduced into their governing bodies. There could be no doubt that the Universities of England held a higher standard of learning than those of Scotland; but they lacked that faculty, so eminently characteristic of the Scotch Universities, of spreading throughout the land a vast amount of general and popular learning, and he would very much prefer that the Scottish Universities should retain that character than that they should attain the excellence of the universities here at the expense of so popular a feature. But that very circumstance rendered it of importance that there should also be something of the popular element in the Government of the Universities; and therefore he thought it unfortunate that the hon. and learned Lord should have taken from the matriculated students the power of electing their Rectors. He trusted the House would have from the learned Lord Advocate an assurance that the corporate character to which he had alluded would be guarded against, or he should be obliged, with regret, to withhold at a future stage, his support from the measure.

MR. STIRLING

would congratulate the hon. and learned Lord on the support his measure had received, not only from his own side of the House, but from the other. He was glad to find that they had at last found an educational subject upon which it was possible for all to agree, and he hoped this concurrence of opinion was a favourable augury for the reception of other larger measures yet to come. He should have expressed his assent to the Bill by a silent vote, but for the reference made in the title of the Bill to the union of the colleges and universities of Aberdeen. He had been a member of the Commission appointed to investigate this question, upon which he freely admitted he entertained an opinion in favour of that union until he went as far north as Aberdeen itself, and there he found public opinion, both in the city and the University of Aberdeen, so opposed to it, that he was obliged somewhat to modify his views. Upon this subject public opinion was an element which they could not disregard, and that was very strong in the city of Aberdeen. In a letter to Colonel Mure, from a nobleman whose name was of more weight in Scotland than that of any man living (the Earl of Aberdeen), he said that he found the local public and the people of the city of Aberdeen so decidedly opposed to this union, that he abandoned the project of his Government in 1854, until at least some change occurred in that opinion. Since that time nothing had occurred to justify this union; but, on the contrary, public opinion had set in much stronger than it had been in the same direction. Although in the abstract he had been in favour of this union, yet he found it necessary to modify that opinion and to recommend that, whilst there was a union of the Universities, the colleges should remain separate—one of them teaching certain branches, such as divinity, law, or medicine; the other certain others, but each retaining their full staff of Professors in what was called the faculty of Arts. That was the modification which he recommended the Lord Advocate to adopt. As a reason for retaining the colleges separate, he mentioned that endowments were supplied there from private sources, insomuch that as lately as the last year a new professorship in Marischal College had been established out of private funds; but there would be a danger of these sources being dried up if the old colleges were suppressed in favour of some new body with a new name. Moreover, such was the local feeling on the subject, that if any Commissioner were sent north by his right hon. Friend to suppress one or other of these colleges, he would require to be backed with at least something more than moral force. The University of Glasgow was treated in the Bill more summarily in certain points than it ought to be, and somewhat unfavourably. As for the opposition of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black), he was sure that any amount of qualified concession would not induce him to moderate his bitterness; and he therefore appealed to his right hon. Friend whether he ought not to go further, and acquire still more of the public opinion of Scotland, by relieving the Town Council of Edinburgh of a good deal of its patronage. It was quite true that that Council was an elective body; but it did not on that account afford the slightest security against jobbery in University appointments. He hoped the suggestions which had been thrown out in the course a the debate would not be lost on his right hon. Friend, and that a pretty full paper of Amendments would save them much trouble in Committee.

MR. COWAN

said, he had been anticipated in nearly all that he had to say, but the objections to the Bill were so grave and serious, that he thought it would be better to delay proceeding with it until there was more agreement among the people of Scotland. He admitted that many of the points objected to were rather subjects for consideration in Committee. He would not yield to any man in his wish to improve the Universities, but he was sorry to say that his hopes of doing so this Session were damped yesterday, when he found the right hon. Gentleman would consent to no modification whatever. He would take the opportunity of referring to the case of Professor Blackie. He (Mr. Cowan) was somewhat surprised to hear an objection from the Ministerial side of the House to the Test Act, which they had so lately defended as necessary for preserving inviolate their ancient religion. It was owing to his energy and skill that the attention of the country had been directed to the subject of the Universities, and to the necessity of introducing reform. The Scotch were proud of their Universities, and were desirous to maintain their ancient reputation. He might without impropriety appeal to the noble Lords the Members for Tiverton and London, who were distinguished alumni of these Universities, and had studied there in the days when Playfair, Adam Smith, and Dugald Stewart were in the zenith of their fame; and he would ask them not to sanction a change which would have the effect of placing the Universities in an inferior position to their sister Universities in England. He would rely upon the manner in which the patronage had been bestowed, and the reputation which the Universities had acquired throughout Europe. For these reasons he would ask the House not to sanction the measure without first giving to it that due and ample consideration which its vast importance demanded. He was desirous to support the second reading of the Bill, but unless such Amendments were made as were imperatively demanded, he should feel compelled to go into the same lobby as his colleague.

MR. WARREN

I shall offer no apology for rising, as an English Member, to take part in a debate hitherto confined to Scotch Members, and relating to a Scotch institution, and that for two reasons. First, any question affecting the welfare of the Scottish Universities is necessarily an Imperial one in the eye of the British Legislature—that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and I can conceive of scarcely any question that can come before us of greater magnitude or more pressing importance and interest than one concerning the reformation, I had almost said the reconstruction, of the Universities of Scotland. My second reason for interfering in this debate is, that I must naturally feel an interest in it, being myself an alumnus of the University of Edinburgh, and at the same time as my hon. and learned Friend opposite the late Lord Advocate (Mr. Moncreiff) and the Bishop of London. I left the University so far back as 1828, just two years before the issuing of the Report of the Commission on whose recommendation the Bill before us is founded—and which makes its appearance after so great an interval as twenty-eight years. Those Commissioners were numerous, and persons of high station and great weight and influence in Scotland—indeed, they comprised some of the most eminent names of which Scotland could boast. Their Report appeared in October, 1830, as the result of a period of four years' systematic and patient inquiry. They tell us that they had subjected the Scottish Universities to a most searching and complete scrutiny, and spared no effort to get trustworthy information. They addressed requisitions to every Principal and Professor in the Universities and colleges, and obtained from them the inspection of all their respective charters and other muniments. They directed a notice to be affixed on the walls of each University, intimating that they should be ready to hear all concerned, in regard to all matters relating to the universities and colleges, and inviting communications to be transmitted to them. They held special visitations of the Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, and at great length examined the Principals and Professors of the University of Edinburgh, and a number of other persons who, though not members of the University, were well informed concerning them. The Commissioners obtained a great body of valuable and authentic information, to be found in the bulky blue book which they published, and which entirely justifies the able and elaborate Report, signed by fourteen of the Commissioners, whose main recommendations will be found embodied in the Bill laid before the House. With such means and opportunities, the only wonder is that so lengthened a period should have elapsed without even a Bill having been introduced. It is enough for me that it at length it makes its appearance in substantial conformity with the suggestions of the Commissioners to whom I have referred. What could they have done but what they did do, and to what weight are not their recommendations entitled? I have not heard the propriety of any of them called in question, and I for one am prepared to act on them implicitly. I think my learned Friend below me (the Lord Advocate) who has introduced this Bill, is entitled to the cordial thanks of the House, and of Scotland, for the manner in which he has addressed himself to this important question, and it gave me great pleasure to find my learned Friend opposite, his predecessor, so cordially supporting him. I am sure that in so doing they are rendering great and permanent service to their country. Scotland has long been characterized by its insatiable thirst for learning, and the extraordinary efforts made to obtain it, by even its humblest classes, of which I have personally been a witness; and I rejoice at the prospect now afforded of consolidating and improving her academical institutions, and thus affording her the advantage of that impetus which we have so recently given to our own great academical institutions of Oxford and Cambridge. Let those of Scotland be placed on a level, and made to harmonize, with the wants and capabilities of this advancing age, and I really think such will be the effect of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that no obstacle will be placed in the way of its getting into Committee, where all its multifarious provisions can be thoroughly canvassed. Some of them I foresee will give rise to keen discussions; but I am satisfied that, as a whole, the Bill is well entitled to the acceptance of the House.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

gave his cordial support to the Bill. He had too much respect both for the constituency he represented, and for the House to enter into any of the local arguments which had been brought against the Bill, and which he thought would have much better been urged in Committee. He should like to ask Scotch Members if University education in Scotland was adequate to the wants of the country, or at all equal to the education in the Universities of this country? Decidedly it was not. Then, he would ask them, was it capable of improvement? Undoubtedly it was; and because it was capable of improvement he gave his support to any Bill which had the effect of improving it. Some years ago Scotchmen were in the habit of considering themselves better educated than their southern neighbours; but if they looked at the result of the recent competitive examinations they would see that that was very far from being the case now. He remembered that when Ireland was in difficulties, Sir Robert Peel had, among the first measures for its improvement, introduced a system of national education; and that system, although stigmatized as "Godless," had been productive of the greatest benefit. In the part of the United Kingdom to which he (Viscount Duncan) belonged, there had been too little attention paid to University education; and now he thanked the Lord Advocate for this Bill to improve it. By whom was it opposed? By the Members for Edinburgh in the first place. He had been educated at the University of Edinburgh, and he had a great respect for it; but he did not think that Edinburgh ought to monopolise it, or that the management of it should remain in the hands of the Town Council now that it was supported by the public funds. Then the Bill was opposed by the City of Aberdeen. But he believed that the union of the two Universities would be a great benefit to that part of Scotland; and he thought that the City of Aberdeen had not, just as the City of Edinburgh had not, any right to monopolise the University. Let them fancy such a thing as the towns of Oxford or Cambridge claiming to monopolise those Universities because they were situated there; or, suppose the corporation of London should claim to have the management of the London University—why, if such a proposition were made, they would be laughed at from one end of the kingdom to the other. He supported the Bill, because he believed that it was calculated for the general good of Scotland, and not for the good of any particular locality; and he was not prepared to throw it out for any of the allegations which had been urged against it; on the contrary, he felt that it was an honour to the learned Lord Advocate who had introduced it. As to the danger of improper appointments, he thought that with the freedom of the press of this country that was not to be feared.

MR. GRANT DUFF

would veto with great pleasure for the second reading of the Bill, although he did not agree to the provisions relating to the two colleges of Aberdeen. It had been truly said, at the meeting of Scotch Members the other day, that the Commission was the Bill; and he trusted that the Commissioners who would be appointed would be persons in whom they all had confidence. He acknowledged that credit was due to the Government for the manner in which they had filled up the only appointment which had fallen vacant in the Scotch Universities since they came into office. They had appointed a gentleman of great distinction, who was opposed to them in politics, but whose appointment was an honour to the University to which he had been named, and reflected great credit on the Government. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill.

MR. GILPIN

said, he thought this was an Imperial, and not merely a Scotch question. He objected to distinctions being drawn between measures as being exclusively Scotch or exclusively Irish. He at all events could look at the Bill free from local prejudice, and he thought the proper mode of dealing with the objections was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He entirely agreed that this Bill had been brought forward under the care of one of the ablest men in the House; but one thing struck him, namely, the large powers committed to a small body of men without responsibility. The true direction of University reform was to enlarge their bases, extend their constituencies, and give a more popular control over them. He thought that the Commissioners ought to account to the House for their expenditure. He should with reluctance vote against the second reading unless explanations were given, because he thought the details were imperfectly understood, and a new Bill might be introduced next Session.

MR. E. ELLICE

, Jun., observed, that this Bill had already been before what he might term a Select Committee of Scotch Members. Before that assembly the Bill had been discussed, and nothing could exceed the courtesy of the learned Lord in allowing objections to it being entertained. He acknowledged the importance of such great powers being entrusted to the Com- missioners; indeed the Commission was the Bill. But the learned Lord Advocate had already answered some of those exceptions. He had, however, provided that the proposed rules should be published in the Edinburgh papers, and should afterwards be confirmed by Her Majesty in Council. He should not be satisfied, however, if the names of the Commissioners were not given in; he thought he should not be satisfied in voting for the second reading unless these names were given by the learned Lord. With regard to the grant of £10,000, he really thought that when Scotland got so little of the public money, so scanty a grant as this ought not to be objected to. He thought that the expediency, the fairness, and justice of this vote must be admitted when the importance of the ends to be attained are considered. He thought he might congratulate the Lord Advocate upon having introduced a Bill open to so few objections; but he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would satisfy the House upon certain practical points. The first was as to the distribution of the fund. They ought to expect that the scheme for distribution should be before the House in some form or the other, or before the Government, before such scheme is allowed. The next was, the election of Rectors. This was proposed to be materially altered. He thought the present mode of election could not be materially improved. He thought the students, as he remembered them of old, would abhor a job, and would elect men whom they thought eminent in literature and science. It mattered not whether they elected a stranger, as the Rector had a right of choosing an assessor. He understood it was the intention of the Lord Advocate to popularize the University Court by adding to it one assessor to be elected by the students. He was quite ready to adopt that Amendment. He thought the election of the Chancellor ought not to be in the hands of the University but in the hands of the Crown. He thought it a reflection on past Governments that, in spite of the Reports of a Commission, nothing had been done to remedy the evils the Commission had pointed out; and he thought great credit was due to the learned Lord Advocate for the introduction of this measure. He hoped the House would unanimously pass it.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that when he introduced a measure for improv- ing the Scottish Universities he was perfectly conscious of the very delicate and important task he had undertaken, and he was therefore well pleased with the amount of support the Bill had received from the House. He also thought he had reason to congratulate himself that so very few objections to it had been stated at the present stage. The only two hon. Members from whom he had experienced direct and active opposition were the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes). But their opposition was founded really upon local considerations, which had better be dealt with in Committee rather than on any general principle. They had, however, alleged some things against the Bill which he had better explain. The hon. Member for Edinburgh charged him with embarking upon a most suspicious course, because the object professed by the Bill was the advancement of religion and learning; he had also charged him with attempting to introduce radical and most revolutionary changes as to the Universities by a machinery that was so complicated as to be unintelligible. Now, he (the Lord Advocate) did not think that other hon. Members who had read the Bill had found it so unintelligible in its details as the hon. Member had represented it to be. The Bill was founded almost entirely upon the Report of the Commission of 1830, a Report which had very much alleviated his labours, and which was one of the most able documents it was ever his good fortune to peruse. Almost all the suggestions of the Commissioners were embodied in the Bill. Of course some of its details were not to be found in the Report; but any hon. Member who bad made himself master of the Report would fully understand the machinery by which the principle of the Bill was to be carried out, and any hon. Member who had not must confess that he had not made himself master of the question of Scotch University reform. The hon. Member for Aberdeen had made one objection to the Bill, independently of local considerations—namely, the objection that so much power was granted to the Commissioners and that there was no appeal against what they might do. He (the Lord Advocate) had already given notice of an Amendment which would render every rule or ordinance of the Commissioners subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council. That Amendment declared that no rule or ordinance of the Commissioners should have any effect until it should have been published in the manner therein provided, and have been approved by Her Majesty in Council. He at once admitted that he agreed with those hon. Members who had insisted that the Commissioners should have no power of distributing the funds of the Universities without the supervision of Parliament or of the Government; and he would endeavour to alter the Bill so as to give to the Commissioners exactly the same powers in that respect as were given in the cases of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. These were the only objections which had been stated against the principle of the Bill by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, whom he reckoned as the only active opponents of the Bill that evening. These hon. Members had certainly stated very strong objections to portions of the Bill applicable to the particular localities which they represented, on which he would say a few words. In the first place, the hon. Member for Edinburgh was constrained to admit that nothing could be so anomalous, nothing so apparently indefensible on principle, as that the regulation of the course of study in a University, and the management of its affairs, should be in the hands of a municipal council, consisting chiefly of tradesmen. He was very much obliged to his hon. Friend for the admission; but then it had been stated that evening in that House, and elsewhere, over and over again, that that system, though very anomalous in itself, was still entitled to the credit of having worked great good in times past. He was not disposed to make any such admission. On the contrary, he believed that, so far as regarded the administration of the affairs of Universities by town councils, it had been attended, he would not say with unmixed, but certainly with very great, evil. What was the boast made by the representatives of those town councils that evening? They said the town councils had had litigation with the Professors and the Senatus Academicus, but then they were always found to be in the right, and that the Senatus Academicus had never resisted them successfully. What did that mean? Simply this—that in their contests with the Senatus Academicus they had been found to be right in point of law, and to have such control over the affairs of the Universities that the Senatus Academicus could never successfully resist them. But the question whether the interests of the Universities had been advanced by their success in litigation was a very different one indeed. An hon. Member had stated that one of the changes which the town councils introduced, and of which that hon. Member himself seemed very cordially to approve, was that by which students attending a University were allowed to give attendance upon the lectures of certain extra-academical teachers instead of the professors themselves; and he stated that the reason why that course was resorted to was that some professors were too old, that some were in bad health, and some exceedingly unpopular. Now, one of the evils against which this Bill would guard was that of professors who were too old or too infirm continuing to exercise the functions of a professor. He presumed that if some of the professors were exceedingly unpopular, the town councils who appointed them were answerable for that unpopularity. He believed that any hon. Gentleman who undertook to prove that the present system, anomalous as it was, had worked well in times past would fail. But the town council of Edinburgh were naturally most jealous of their rights. Like all other corporate bodies, they were unwilling to part with them, and would struggle for them with the utmost pertinacity. But when the hon. Member talked of the inhabitants and citizens of Edinburgh as he had, he went much beyond his warrant. He (the Lord Advocate) saw no evidence, either in that House or in Scotland, that the views of the town council of Edinburgh were in any degree in sympathy with the country in general. On the contrary, if he were to appeal to the ordinary modes in which public opinion was expressed on such questions, the hon. Member might recollect that very remarkable meeting which took place in December last in Edinburgh, in favour of University reform. Let him remind them that there had not been, within the memory of living man, so influential a meeting; but there was not the slightest indication at that meeting that the people of Edinburgh sympathized with the arrogant pretensions of the town council. The press, also, were generally in favour of the measure. The fact was, that the case for which the hon. Gentleman pleaded was the case of the town coun- cil of Edinburgh, and not the case of the city of Edinburgh, for the largest section in that city were in favour of the present Bill. But whosever the case was, it would be considered in Committee, and in Committee he should be prepared to meet the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Now, with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes)—the hon. Member said that there was a vast preponderance of opinion in Aberdeen and in the north of Scotland against the fusion of the two Universities, and that it would be vain to hope that any settlement of the kind would meet with favour from any class of men in that part of the country. The hon. Gentleman, however, greatly exaggerated his strength in that respect, for he must remind him that the Senatus Academicus and the Marischal College had petitioned in favour of the Bill. He had himself presented a petition that evening from the town which the hon. Gentleman who opposed the Bill represented, in favour of the measure; and most especially and distinctly in favour of that portion of it which provided for the entire and absolute union of the two Universities. But even if there were a strong local feeling in any place against the measure, that was not a consideration that could enter very much into the legislation of the House of Commons on a question of this kind. Both as regarded Edinburgh and Aberdeen, it appeared to him that the persons who opposed the Bill were forgetting the national character of the Universities, and were seeking to convert them into something very little better than good borough schools. That, he hoped, was not the spirit in which the House of Commons would legislate upon the subject; he trusted they would consider the Bill as a measure intended not to make provision for single localities, but to render these Universities national institutions, and as the national means of diffusing through Scotland sound education, and he would say, with all respect for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, for promoting religion with learning. The opponents of the Bill appeared to him to wish to maintain two institutions, crippled and imperfect, rather than to constitute one good and effective. He should be quite prepared to show the hon. Member for Aberdeen, in Committee, that the great preponderance of intelligence and unprejudiced opinion was in favour of an entire union of the two institutions. He could only say that any suggestions which might be made in Committee, for the improvement of the measure, would be met in the most friendly spirit, and would receive the most careful consideration. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) appeared to think that, in the composition of the Academical Council, the clerical element would too much prevail. He (the Lord Advocate) thought that, if that were so, it would be a great evil, and he should be ready to do anything in his power to remedy it. The Bill would enhance the value of academical degrees, and would therefore act as an incentive to all classes to enter the curriculum which led to them. There were, no doubt, difficulties arising from the constitution of the bodies of graduates as they now stood—there were persons who had entered or were about to enter the Episcopal Church, or some body of Dissenters; but the evil to which his hon. and learned Friend referred was one which would be constantly and progressively diminishing under this Bill. He had given notice of an Amendment which he hoped would meet the objections of his hon. and learned Friend; but if that were not adopted he should be ready to assent to any Amendment which had for its object to secure an independent element in the Members of the Council. The second point referred to by his hon. and learned Friend was the mode of choosing the Rectors. The mode of choosing the Rectors at the University of Glasgow and the Marischal College at Aberdeen were elected by the matriculated students. In the other Universities it was not so. It had been suggested that where that practice did not at present exist, it should be established. As far as his own feelings and sentiments went, he had a great bias in favour of election by the students; without giving any pledge that he would adopt that principle, he would say that his wish was to adopt it. Then with regard to the office of Chancellor—in Edinburgh there was no Chancellor. But in regard to the other Universities it was said that as he was elected by the Senatus Academicus he represented too exclusively the professorial and academical interests. In answer to that objection he would ask the House to remember who were the individuals who were now the Chancellors of the Scotch Universities. They were the Duke of Argyll, the Duke of Montrose, the Earl of Aberdeen—and these certainly were not persons likely to represent the prejudices and interests of any particular class. The nomination which it was proposed should be vested in the Crown as regarded Edinburgh, suggested whether it would not be well to extend that principle to the other Universities, thereby assisting the other elements presented by the Universities, and, at the same time, counteracting the other influences to which his hon. and learned Friend had alluded. The point was worthy of consideration, and he should be prepared to attend to it. With respect to the suggestions of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. E. Ellice), the only one to which he should advert, was that touching the promulgation of the names of the Commissioners. Upon that point he could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that it was a task of very great difficulty. Nothing but the difficulty of framing such a list of names as would be satisfactory for so important an object bad prevented him hitherto from laying those names before the House; but he promised that no time should be lost, and he hoped the announcement of those names would at once secure the confidence of all parties. He did not consider it at all necessary to go back to the principles of the Bill, but he had rather endeavoured to meet objections that had been raised; and he would only add that his sole object in promoting his Bill had been the prosperity and permanent welfare of the Scottish universities, and he should be most desirous hereafter to receive any suggestion for their improvement. He could not expect that he could produce a perfect measure upon a subject which necessarily must give rise to a great deal of discussion, and be open to great alterations in its passage through that House.

LORD ELCHO

said, after the speech of the hon. and learned Lord, he should reserve his observations until the next stage. He would only say he believed the measure to be one of a comprehensive and liberal character, and the learned Lord must have been gratified by the manner in which it had been received by the House.

MR. BAXTER

appealed to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. BLACK

said, after the candid manner in which the learned Lord had addressed the House and expressed his readiness to listen to any suggestions, he should, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed for To-morrow.