HC Deb 22 August 1881 vol 265 cc705-15

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

, in moving, as an Amendment, "That this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill," said, that the measure was one of considerable importance; but it was only read a second time on Saturday last, having come down to the House in the middle of the month of August. He had carefully examined the Bill, and he must confess that it was one which ought not to be passed over lightly. The object of the measure was to complete the work which had been begun, and nearly carried out, by two University Commissions appointed in 1877. The Commissions would expire that year; and if they did expire, they would leave behind them certain fragments of their work incomplete, and with no machinery by which the work could be completed. The object of the Bill was to provide such machinery, and it was proposed that the machinery should be furnished by the Committee of the Privy Council which was appointed by the same Act of 1877, and which was intrusted with certain functions for checking the Commissions. There was consequently under the Bill this anomalous state of things— the Body which was originally formed to check the proceedings was itself now the Body which would complete the work. But, however anomalous that might be, it was certainly not upon that ground alone that he should ask the House to reject the Bill. If nothing could be done, or would be done under this Bill, by the Government, and if they had confined the measure to what they confessed it was their intention to do, when they introduced it in the House of Lords, he should not have offered any opposition to it. But it was a matter of notoriety that since the Bill came down to the House of Commons, there had been an important alteration made in the frame-work of the Government scheme. It was not intended now that the Body to administer the work of the Commissions should be the old Committee of the Privy Council. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), who was not now in his place, had put upon the Paper a Notice of objection to the Bill; the hon. Member proposed that there should be two additional Members to the Committee, and the Government had declared their intention of not only accepting the Amendment, and supporting the Motion of the hon. Member, but of also adding a third name. The Government had power, under the original Act of 1877, to appoint one additional Member. Therefore, they would now have it in their power to add three new names to the old University Committee, who had hitherto carried out the Act of 1877. There was every reason to believe that of these three names which the Government proposed to add, it was intended that two should be Gentlemen of strong Liberal opinions. That was the great objection he had to the Bill. The Government not only proposed to change the constitution of the Committee, but to alter it in a Party sense, and it was only extremely natural that hon. Members on that side of the House should raise a strong objection to the course the Government proposed to take. With regard to the names themselves, they did not appear in the Bill itself, and he did not propose to make any comment upon them for so doing. He said nothing as to the unfit-ness of the Gentlemen proposed for the office; indeed, he must admit that if the selection of the Government was confined entirely to Members of the Privy Council, the Gentlemen he believed it was intended to propose were extremely fit men to place upon the Committee. The Government professed that the Bill was exactly as it left the House of Lords, but, in point of fact, they had altered it in a most material manner; the alteration affected the entire constitution of the Body, and he wished to point out the mode in which the change had been made. There was not the slightest Notice upon the Order Paper of the House as to the intentions of the Government, and they were not expecting, on being called upon to go into Committee upon this Bill, that any Amendment of vital importance would be proposed; they had no formal intimation whatever as to what the Amendment was to be. It certainly appeared to him that the Government were bound not to undertake any proceeding of this sort at a time of year when, as everybody knew, the Government were almost omnipotent, they being within one day of the introduction of the Appropriation Bill. All the Estimates were passed, and all the controversial Business of the Session was over, and it was notoriously impossible to prevent the Government from exercising a practical control over the remaining Business of the Session; therefore, it was obviously desirable that the Government should not thrust into a Bill of this nature any matter of more Party politics, which ought to be left entirely separate and apart. Of course, he was ready to admit that the constitution of the University Committee of the Privy Council was not necessarily or properly speaking a political question; but, at the same time, political considerations would come to the front, and he undoubtedly believed that it was with a political object that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had put down his Amendment—an Amendment which the Government took under their own auspices. If it was intended that the Bill should be administered in an impartial and non-political sense, then it was all the more important that the Members who had to administer it, if they were partizans, should be drawn equally from both sides of the House; and he was, therefore, bound to say that he should have to put the House to the trouble of a division. But, without pledging himself to that, he wanted to make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill to use the power he undoubtedly possessed of changing the constitution of the Committee in a more moderate spirit than was now intended. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to restore the Bill to its original form; and, with that object, he would move that the House should go into Committee upon this day three months. It was worthy of remark that the Bill was strongly objected to by the Governing Bodies of the Universities themselves.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Arthur Balfour,) —instead thereof.

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he could not help thinking that, as the hon. Member (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had no objection to the Bill as it stood, the proper course would be to allow the Bill to go into Committee; and that he should not move the rejection of the Motion for going into Committee in consequence of a fear that some clause might be introduced in Committee of which he disapproved. Certainly, that was no reason for not going into Committee upon a Bill of which the hon. Member did approve. The proper course would be to go into Committee and then for the hon. Member to oppose any clause to which he objected. The Bill was one which had been approved of by the hon. Member's Friends in the House of Lords, and it was accepted by all the hon. Member's Friends in the House of Commons. It was a Bill against which not a word had been said; he believed that everybody had spoken well of it; and yet the hon. Member now proposed to throw it out at that stage, because he said that when they got into Committee they might possibly have some clause proposed of which he did not approve. Now, he (Sir William Harcourt) did not think that was a Parliamentary form of procedure; an objection of that kind ought to be taken at the proper stage. So far as he (Sir William Harcourt) knew, it was to everybody's interest that the Bill should pass, and there was no desire to see it rejected. If it were otherwise, it was a most remarkable thing that there should not be present any one of the Members of the Universities who belonged to the Party of the hon. Member. Not one of them was in his place for the purpose of insuring the rejection of the Bill; and it was certainly a fact that hitherto the Bill had received the support of those who were well known to have the interests of the Universities at heart. In point of fact, all the Members for the Universities were favourable to the Bill, even in the form in which it now stood, and against which the hon. Member objected. Under these circumstances, he thought the Motion was unprecedented, and hoped the House would reject it.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, the fact really was that it was perfectly notorious the Government had put into the Bill, or were about to put into the Bill, a clause of which there was no Notice on the Paper, but which vitally affected the whole character of the measure. He ventured to say that such a proceeding, if it had been proposed earlier, would have been stigmatized as most unfair and irregular, and it was much more unfair to take such a course now at the end of the Session. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that there were no Members of the Universities present. That was quite true; but the Members for the Universities had only seen before them a Bill of which they approved. They knew also that the House of Lords approved of it, and they had not seen on the Notice Paper any proposal that was calculated to arouse their suspicious as to any intention on the part of the Government to alter the character of the Bill. He knew that there were many hon. Members interested in the measure, some of them specially interested in it, who had received no Notice whatever that it was the intention of the Government to introduce any change, and who, he believed, would use every means in their power to prevent any change being made in the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be put upon the Paper, and that the Bill would be postponed until to-morrow (Tuesday), in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of considering the proposed Amendment.

MR. WARTON

hoped that the Government would yield to the facts that had been put forward by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour). He very much regretted the course adopted by the Government with regard to this and other Bills. He reminded the Committee that it was only on Saturday last that a number of Bills were pushed forward in an intemperate and impatient manner, and the same spirit appeared to prevail on the present occasion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 15: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 407.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Powers of Universities Committee as regards amendment, & c. of statutes).

Amendment proposed, In page 3, lines 23 and 24, leave out "any of the persons who were Commissioners," in order to insert "any persons they may think fit."— (Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the first point that presented itself to his mind with regard to this Amendment was that it would give greatly extended powers to the Committee, and as yet they did not know how that Committee was constituted. The Bill, as it stood at present, imposed a restriction upon the Committee in the matter of appointing Assessors, who wore to be Commissioners; but if the selection of Assessors were left to the discretion of the Committee, they might call in the assistance of persons whom Parliament had already declared to be unfit to deal with University matters. Certainly, if the restriction were withdrawn, it ought to be known what was the constitution of the Body to be left unrestricted.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was only right that the Committee should have power of calling in the assistance of Assessors in the manner proposed by the Amendment. He should have been glad if the Bill could have been postponed, in order to give hon. Members further time for the consideration of the Amendments; but it was obviously impossible to do so at that time, and he trusted the hon. Member for Hertford would not press his objection.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, the Amendment was of a very harmless character. He could not see any valid reason why the University Committee should not have the power of calling in the assistance of any Assessors they might think fit.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Suspended elections and limitations of tenure).

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, he had one or two slight alterations to propose to this clause, the effect of which he would endeavour to explain to the Committee; and he invited the attention of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) to this explanation, because he should like to be able to disarm his suspicions, if it were possible to do so. He proposed to introduce a small Amendment in the second paragraph of the clause, which began as follows:— Where, in pursuance of any authority or direction from or statute of the Commissioners, a University, College, or Hall has limited the tenure of any emolument for a period ending with the expiration of the powers of the Commissioners, &c. The Amendment was to substitute the words "shall limit" for the words "has limited," in line 37. It was obvious that the statutes were still liable to modification, and that they might be modified in the course of next year; and it was, therefore, desirable that this alteration should be made now. With regard to the sub-section which he proposed to add at the end of the clause, he would explain to the Committee that there was full power given in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act of 1877, and continued in the present Bill, to continue the keeping open of offices, emoluments, and endowments provisionally until the new statutes came into force. But it was a matter of law that at present the Headship was in a different position to the other emoluments. It was undesirable that the Headship should remain vacant while the other positions were filled up. The present Vice-Head of Oriel was a layman, and if he were to die, the College would be forced to elect a clergyman who would, necessarily, hold the office for life, and a vested interest would be thereby created. It was obvious that when these statutes became law, it was not desirable that this liability should exist, but that there should be a temporary Vice-Head and legal Head of the College without the creation of a vested interest.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, leave out "has limited," in order to insert "shall limit."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)

Amendment agreed to.

Other verbal and consequential Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add— (3.) When any University or College office or emolument, including the Headship of any College, shall be or become vacant after the passing of this Act, and such office or emolument is subject to a statute made by the Commissioners, but not approved by Her Majesty, the Commissioners, or after the 31st day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one the Universities Committee, may, if they think fit, order the election or appointment to such office or emolument to be suspended until the date at which such statute, whether amended or not, or any statute in lieu thereof made in pursuance of this Act, is approved by Her Majesty in Council, or until the date at which the Commissioners or the Universities Committee order the said suspension to determine; (4.) Where in pursuance of Section thirty-three of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877, or of this Section, the Commissioners, or the Universities Committee, as the case may he, authorise or direct the suspension of the election or appointment to any University or College office or emolument, they may make such provision, if any, as they may think fit for the performance and exercise in the meantime, and until such election or appointment shall be made, of the duties and powers attached to such office or emolument".— (Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)

Question proposed, "that those words be there added.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked in what position the Committee was now placed? It was absurd to go on with Amendments of this extreme complexity. The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Lyulph's) handwriting, no doubt, was very good; but, even from his explanation, the Committee would not be able to make out what it was he meant. He wondered how many hon. Members really understood the Amendment. He would move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

My hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) must feel that the Committee is in a difficulty. My hon. Friend has discussed this Amendment with me for the last fortnight, and all the Members for the Universities have discussed it also, and the only real objection that can be taken to it is that the Bill was read a second time on Saturday night, and therefore the Amendments had not been put upon the Paper. As for the Members for the Universities being taken by surprise, this matter has been under discussion to my knowledge for a month amongst all parties interested, and nobody can have been taken by surprise. I would advise my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) not to press the Amendment. The question is, whether or not there are to be two additional Members added to the Committee?

MR. E. STANHOPE

trusted the Motion for Progress would be insisted upon, and complained that the Amendment had not been put upon the Paper. Let the Amendment be put upon the Paper to-morrow, so that everyone could see what was meant.

MR. WARTON

said, he was always ready to do his duty in the House; and although he was not interested in the Universities, as representing one of them, he still took interest in all legislation. Like all other Members of Parliament he was there to do his duty, and to discuss legislative measures; but how could he do his duty when he did not know what was being done? The great Liberal Party not only made interruptions when Tories spoke, but they even interrupted their own Friends—the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), for instance. The Government evidently wished to push measures through with most indecent haste, and he would therefore support the Motion to report Progress.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I would ask my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) not to press the Amendment now, but to put the Amendment down to-night and take it on Report.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he did not know anything about the present case; but what he did know was what the Committee wore invited to do. They were told that there was a vital principle to be introduced into the Bill, something absolutely new and different from what had been in it before on the second reading. They were asked not to consider the Amendment containing this new and vital principle in Committee, but to pass the Bill through Committee, and then upon Report, when no one would have an opportunity of speaking a second time, to discuss that which they were told was vital to the principle of the Bill. That was a course the House had never been asked to adopt before, and he trusted that every means would be taken to put a stop to such a proceeding—one which seemed to him to be discreditable to the Committee.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he understood the spirit in which the Amendment was brought forward; but what he asked would be gained by the proposal if it wore accepted. It was competent for the Government at that period of the year to take two stages of a measure on the one day; and, moreover, it was difficult to discuss a Bill thoroughly on Report. They could not ask a question, they could not make a remark, as it was impossible to speak twice, and altogether he did not think any time would be saved by adopting the course proposed.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, that if the Amendment was printed it would not be too late to pass the Bill this Session.

Question put, and greed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.