HC Deb 04 April 1883 vol 277 cc1386-99

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. ROUNDELL,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to render the Universities Committee of the Privy Council more accessible to the Colleges when they proposed to make changes in their Statutes, and the chief part of the Bill was framed with a view to improve the machinery which was already contained in the Universities Act of 1877. There was only one clause—the 2nd clause—which dealt with any matter of principle; and that clause gave to a certain number of persons in the Universities a power of moving the Universities Committee to make such changes in the Statutes of a College as seemed desirable to them, if that Committee thought fit to do so. He was aware that there was a very widespread feeling of opposition to the clause; but he thought it was based partly on a certain misapprehension of the objects of the framers of the clause. It was said to be an invasion of the independence of the Colleges, and an interference with the normal exercise of the power of the Colleges for self-legislation. He could only say, in reply to that objection, that neither of those objects was at all contemplated by the framers of the Bill. What they had regard to was the possibility of the growth, in some of the smaller Colleges, of grave abuses connected chiefly with what was a new element in the constitution of the Governing Bodies of the Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge—he meant the presence of the married Fellow element. One effect of the changes recently made by the Universities had been to make the small Governing Bodies in most of these Colleges still smaller in number than before, and to throw more power into the hands of married Fellows, who, in the future, would be a formidable element, and have much to do with the administration of the public funds intended for education at the Universities. It was not too much to say that, in these cases, it would often be that there would be a conflict between the interests and the duties of these married Fellows. The clause was carefully guarded by giving full and ample discretion to the Universities Committee. The chief ground on which he submitted the clause to the consideration of the House was that the Colleges would have to choose one of two things—either to accept intervention on the part of the University as proposed, or abuses of a grave kind would grow up, and then they would have to come to Parliament again for another Act. It was, therefore, with the view of preventing, in time, the growing up of those abuses, which there was every reason to expect would arise, that this proposal now was introduced, of giving an independent body in the University a power of moving the University Committee, if they thought fit, to frame a new Statute for a College dealing with any such abuse. For his part, he had always wished the Universities to have a rest and cessation from Parliamentary interference. Within the last 30 years, some three or four Commissions had been appointed, and now everyone felt that time should be given for the changes made to remain in operation; and the object of the framers of the Bill was to secure that rest by resorting to the timely intervention of a friendly authority. But he would at once say that, as the opposition to which he had averted was widely expressed, he would be prepared to omit the clause rather than wreck the Bill. The rest of the Bill would stand unimpaired, being framed with the view of amending the machinery by which the Colleges, when they wished to have a change in their constitution, should seek the intervention of the Privy Council; and these clauses of the Bill had been mainly framed on the lines of the Universities Act of 1877. The object of the Bill, in that respect, was to do two things—first, to prevent changes in the Statutes being made in the dark; and, secondly, to render the Universities Committee more freely accessible to the Colleges. As regarded these matters, there were certain defects in the existing system. By the Act of 1877 there was not adequate provision made for giving publicity to proposed changes in the Statutes of the Colleges—nor for any adequate provision for enabling persons to submit their objections to the Privy Council. Moreover, the Privy Council must either wholly allow or disallow the Statute. This Bill provided an improved machinery to remedy these defects, by requiring that any proposed new Statute should be published by the Vice Chancellor within the University; that objections laid before the Privy Council need not, as now, be signed by one or two counsel; and by bringing to bear upon the Statute by means of an extended right of objection, a wholesome criticism by those who were best able to judge of the matter—namely, the persons resident in the University. Another important alteration of the existing machinery proposed by the Bill was that, as a matter of course, it practically referred every new Statute to the Universities Committee—a body qualified to give advice on its general bearings. The Bill also empowered the Universities Committee, if they thought fit, to remit the new Statute back to the College with a declaration; and power was also given to the Universities Committee to refer minor matters of detail, involving special University knowledge, to experts. The Bill made no provision for simplifying the rules of procedure before the Universities Committee. That matter was, he thought, better left open to be arranged between the Committee and the Universities, under the power which was given in the Act. The alterations proposed in these clauses of the Bill involved no question of principle; they were of the nature of improvements in machinery, and were intended to simplify the procedure of Colleges when they came to seek for changes in their Statutes; and, therefore, he thought no objection would be offered to them. As he had said, the only portion of the Bill involving any question of principle was the 2nd clause; and, if he had been rightly informed that there was a widespread opposition to that provision, he would be willing to drop it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

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

SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY,

in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he was placed in a position of some embarrassment by the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell), because hon. Gentlemen who had read one Bill were now asked to consider what was practically another Bill, viewed in the light of a certain statement just made by the hon. Member. They were desirous of knowing who the originators and framers of the Bill were, seeing that the hon. Member had talked about the objects contemplated by them, but had not stated who they were. After diligent communication with members of both the Liberal and Conservative Parties at Oxford, he had been unable to discover that it had originated in that University; and he had authority for saying that the hon. Member for the borough of Cambridge (Mr. Shield), whose name appeared on the back of the Bill, himself dissented from it. The object of the measure appeared to be a simple one; but he (Sir John E. Mowbray), for one, looked upon it as being a very insidious and dangerous measure, starting, as it did, with a perfectly innocent Preamble, and following it up with some most obnoxious clauses. The Bill set forth that it should be read as one with the Act of 1877, the assumption being that it was based on the same principles; but with regard to the 2nd clause, the hon. Member did not even attempt to argue for its being retained in the Bill. He (Sir John E. Mowbray) felt sure that the interests of the Colleges would be compromised if that most obnoxious clause were not struck out. The hon. Gentleman said the clause was intended to provide against abuses arising from married Fellows. If that was so, the Liberal Party, who had promoted the University legislation of the last 30 years, were answerable for those abuses. By the Act of 1877, there was ample protection provided for the Colleges; for it required that when changes were contemplated notice should be given to the Colleges, special meetings were to be called, and two-thirds of the members present must concur in any alteration of the Statutes. The protection, therefore, was complete; but, by the present Bill, no notice would be given. Why were these Colleges to be thus treated? They were an integral part of the University, and he (Sir John E. Mowbray) felt sure that his hon. Friend (Mr. Roundell) was as jealous of the fair fame of Balliol and Merton as he was of the University of Oxford; and he was equally sure that he (Sir John E. Mowbray) and the Prime Minister did not value Oxford less because they had a tender regard for the good estate of Christ Church. With regard to the employment of counsel when objecting to a Statute, that was contingent upon the right of petitioning the Queen in Council. His hon. Friend, again, had forgotten to call the attention of the House to a most remarkable clause in the Bill, which, so far as he could understand, was objected to quite as much as any other, and which was to the effect that the Privy Council, set in motion by 25 members of Convocation, might refer the matter to any one person experienced in University affairs to inquire into it. In other words, those 25 members of Convocation might move an external body to make any change they pleased, free from the restriction imposed by all previous legislation as to vested interests, and without any of the modifying influences of the Act of 1877. His hon. Friend had not deigned to give an Interpretation Clause, and there was nothing to show whether the "person experi- enced in University affairs" was to be a graduate, or what he was to be; and it seemed to him that even the beadle who preceded the Vice Chancellor, or the "bulldog" who followed the Proctor, was well within the clause. The result was that the Universities Committee, which was headed by such august personages as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord High Chancellor, the Duke of Devonshire, and the Marquess of Salisbury, was to end in one obscure person experienced in University affairs. "Desinit in piscem." Either the Bill was a very great Bill indeed, or a very small one, and it was trifling with the University to bring in a Bill on such a subject. What was the opinion on the Bill in the University itself? One of the complaints he had received was that his hon. Friend had brought the Bill in at such a time as to make it impossible to obtain an expression of opinion on it from the University. The Hebdomadal Council had passed a resolution last year recording their opinion that the provisions of the Bill were inexpedient. What was the Hebdomadal Council? A body of men well versed in the affairs of the University, the majority of them being Liberals, and not a body of Tories who objected to all changes. If the hon. Member had not yet made up his mind as to what his Bill was to be, he had far better withdraw it, in order that he might afterwards introduce a measure more in accordance with the views the hon. Gentleman entertained. There was no demand for immediate legislation this year. Full effect had not yet been given to all the Ordinances under the Act of 1854; and, as regarded the Act of 1877, it must be said it did not begin to operate till October last, and it was impossible to point out any deficiency in so short a time. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir John R. Mowbray.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it would appear that his hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell) had introduced this Bill because he thought certain difficulties and evils were likely to accrue in consequence of recent reforms in the University scheme. That was not a satisfactory result to put forward so late in the day. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not say, however, that he differed from his hon. Friend at all. He had never been a great admirer of the introduction of the married principle into the Colleges of the University. He had protested in that House at the time against filling the great Court of Trinity with perambulators, as being by no means an improvement of the traditions of that place. It was quite enough that Professors should have the privilege of being married; but to promote an extension of the principle seemed to him not altogether favourable to University life. Then, again, there was no doubt they had rejected in the Protestant decrees the celibacy of the clergy, and they had regarded a wife and a number of children—perhaps to the extent of one-third of the number of those Articles—as a protection to the Protestant faith. But he did not think they had always required that as a guarantee of learning and research. Whether that was so or not, it was too early yet to enter into action against the married Fellows whom they had so recently constituted. They must wait to see the results of those marriages. They need not be in such a hurry on that matter. He was very glad, therefore, that his hon. Friend was not going to insist on the 2nd clause of the Bill, because it would not be a wise or a safe proceeding to have 25 roving gentlemen attacking any College by model schemes which might recommend themselves to the minds of those 25 gentlemen. He was sure the College to which he had the honour to belong would not care about it. The proposal, indeed, would not bear discussion. He agreed, however, with his hon. Friend in his desire to give greater efficiency to the Universities Committee of the Privy Council; and he believed that, to a certain extent, the Representatives of the Universities would not differ from him in that view. Indeed, the Government considered that the institution of a scheme for making the Universities Committee an efficient body for carrying out, from time to time, minor reforms in a University was a very useful thing, and one that ought to be accomplished. There was nothing worse for a University than accumulating an arrear of small abuses that led to the issue of Commissions which very much disturbed University life. He was very glad to hear his hon. Friend recognize that the one thing which the Universities wanted was repose. But that ought not to prevent necessary reform. He knew very well that both Universities had suffered inconvenience and some mischief, for the last five or six years, from everything being hung up in consequence of the University Commission. Nobody knew what was going to happen. That was very injurious to those studious retreats. There arose, from time to time, inconveniences, abuses, and faults; and it would be a very great advantage to have a trustworthy body, such as the University Committee of the Privy Council, to whom those matters might be referred without issuing a Commission to redress those grievances and reform those abuses. He would, therefore, join with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John R. Mowbray) in suggesting to his hon. Friend that, in conjunction with the Universities, he should prepare a scheme—no man, from his knowledge of and interest in the Universities, was better fitted to do it—which would make the Universities Committee of the Privy Council more effectual for the purpose to which he had alluded. That was to say, that it might be a body by which reform might be carried out, not in a violent or aggressive spirit, which ill became the feeling of those learned bodies. From his (Sir William Harcourt's) experience of both Universities, there was not amongst the resident members of the University any indisposition to effect reforms, from time to time, which were calculated to make the Universities of greater utility and advantage to the public. If they had that feeling, and had a body like the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, there ought not to be any great difficulty in framing a measure which would make the Universities Committee a practical body for carrying out that which was desired in the Universities themselves—namely, that they should become in the greatest degree useful to the higher education of the country. If his hon. Friend preferred that view, he would recommend him to withdraw the Bill and reconsider the matter, with a view to the introduction, next year, of a more satisfactory one, which should have the objects in view to which he had ventured to allude.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that the debate need not be a protracted one. On behalf of the University of Cambridge, he rose to support what seemed to him the very wise and reasonable proposal of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell), in which he sought to commend the Bill to the House, reminded him very much of one who invited his friends to partake of a haunch of venison at dinner, but who, on discovering that venison was not in season, asked his Friends to be satisfied with the currant jelly instead. The hon. Member wished to offer the currant jelly, and leave the haunch out. Now, this Bill, with the 2nd clause and other clauses knocked out, and the others entirely remodelled and transmuted, might be made a workable Bill; but it would not be a satisfactory or dignified proceeding to legislate after that fashion. People would not like it. They would say it was a patch-up, a make-shift Bill. He thought his hon. Friend would save time by withdrawing his Bill; for what all of them wanted was, indeed, to set things right, if there was anything wrong in the Universities, but, above and before all things, to secure that peace and repose for which those great bodies had been for so many years longing, but which would be vitally affected if there were any attempt to force this Bill through the House. If he withdrew it, then all the parties concerned would be able really to apply their minds to the question. By all means give the Committee of the Privy Council more power to call up evidence if it did not possess sufficient at present; but do not set its members aside altogether, as seemed to be aimed at by the provisions of the Bill, which, if they had any meaning at all, pointed to the creation of an unknown and impossible hybrid, not exactly assessor and not exactly witness.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Roundell) would take the advice given him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and postpone the consideration of this measure. At the same time, he thought the principle of the clause objected to was good. Although the Bill of 1877 was a just and good measure, it had been very badly administered; and he could not help thinking there were occasions when 25 members might initiate a very necessary and important reform. He did not think that a movement on the part of 25 responsible persons would be unimportant, or other than of great value to the deliberations of the Committee of the Privy Council. The same remark applied to the experts who might be appointed to advise the Committee of the Privy Council on questions connected with the University. Such advice was contemplated by the Act of 1877. He did not, therefore, think that this motive force of 25 members ought to have been treated, as it had been, with contempt by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The principle, he maintained, was sound, rational, proper, and suitable to the circumstances as anything could be. He could not but see that the changes introduced of late year6 would, under the present system, end, as far as Oxford was concerned, in very serious abuses.

MR. RAIKES

said, he thought there was very little use in prolonging the debate after the expression of opinion that had fallen from the Treasury Bench. It was very probable that the speech which they had just heard from the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) would be the only real defence of those parts of the Bill to which objection had been taken, and which were not seriously defended even by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell) himself. He (Mr. Raikes) had heard the second reading of a good many Bills moved, but never one before in so apologetic a speech. He agreed with those hon. Members who had urged objection against the constitution of what had been rather unjustly described as a roaming body of critics of the sort proposed by the Bill; but he also believed that the objections to a residentiary body of the kind were almost equally strong. The Bill also contained no provision for giving notice to the University, or to a College, of any Statutes which were to be considered on the initiation of such a body. That was a singular omission in such a Bill. Then, as to the question of assessors, they were so-called, apparently, because they were not to sit with those to whom they were to be assessors. They were to be a sort of Sub-Commissioners, perpetually present in the Universities for the purpose of holding those inquiries. If the Bill of the hon. Member, when it came on, had been confined to Clauses 8 and 9, it would have had his support. He thought it desirable that some such power should be given to the Universities Committee of dealing with the Statutes, and he believed there was a consensus of opinion on the point. However, he thought that with these preposterous clauses at the beginning and the end of the Bill it was impossible to assent to its second reading. If the Bill were passed as it stood all the crotchet-mongers and Gentlemen anxious to tinker the University system and constitution would naturally come together, and there would be a sort of tinkers' association, for the purpose of perpetually receiving the accounts of any grievances which might reach them, and holding over the heads of every College in the University the terror of their probable interposition. He did not think the House was anxious to reform the constitution of the Universities again, merely to create a number of accidental posts for academic travellers or University bagmen. The draftsmanship of the Bill was very faulty; and if it became law it would cause considerable injustice. He hoped that the Bill would be withdrawn, and that, when it was next introduced, it would be in such a form that it could be properly discussed.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, that, after the friendly discussion they had had that day, his hon. Friend (Mr. Roundell) would do well if he withdrew the measure under notice, and next year they might have a Bill embodying some of the practical suggestions made in the discussion, and omitting all that was crude in the present Bill. He did not concur in some of the observations of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers"). He (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) believed that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were desirous of doing their duty and applying their funds to the best educational advantage; therefore, he could not say he liked the main part of this Bill. He did not think it desirable to extend the powers of an external body, such as the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. He believed that it was the wish of Parliament, in passing the late Act, to give greater importance to the University than to the Colleges; and, accordingly, there were provisions in that Act enabling the University to investigate the accounts of the Colleges and to modify the College Statutes. He thought that the decision of all questions should he left to a body of recognized authority and not to a casual clique. Such a body they already had in the Council of the University, and that was the body in which any initiative power should be vested. He did not think the Colleges should be left to their own initiative in these matters. The intention of Parliament, as expressed by the Act of 1877, being to give greater power to the Universities as against the Colleges, a reasonable machinery might surely be devised, at some subsequent time, for occasional modifications in matters of detail. He acknowledged the fair manner in which the question had been dealt with by the Members for both Universities, and also by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In his opinion, what the Universities required was a period of rest, in order to see how the present Statutes worked.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he thought the discussion had done more good than harm; and the discussion, on the whole, had been satisfactory, although the spirit in which the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was conceived was one unworthy of the occasion. The hon. Member had stated that the opponents of the Bill had not answered the Bill by argument; but the obvious reply to the charge was that the most important part of the Bill—Clause 2—had been abandoned by its authors. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) certainly thought it very unsafe to entrust such powers to 25 unknown persons. He wished the Secretary of State for the Home Department had, in his admirable speech, added a word of warning to his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Roundell). The practice which had lately sprung up, and which was rapidly growing on the House, of the author of a Bill making important alterations in it when it came on for the second reading, so that it became impossible for hon. Members to see what the object of the Bill really was, was most objectionable, and a most un-Parliamentary proceeding. It now frequently happened that, as soon as the discussion of a Bill began, the person who introduced the Bill and was supposed to know most about it withdrew the most important part of it. In no business assembly would such a thing be permitted for a moment; and surely it ought not to be permitted in such an Assembly as the House of Commons. In the present instance, the most important clause of the whole Bill had been summarily abandoned. Being of opinion that the Universities Committee of the Privy Council was not at all satisfactorily constituted, he earnestly trusted that the Government would direct their attention to the matter. Such a subject as that deserved both their serious attention and that of the House. At present it did not contain a single member who need be a member of either University, with the exception—if it was an exception—of the Chancellor. He hoped, before the next Bill was introduced, its proposals would be placed before the Universities. It would be a great advantage to have a Committee composed under the authority of the Government, to which the Universities might give cordial support, and from which, from time to time, valuable and useful suggestions might emanate.

MR. BRYCE

said, that hon. and right hon. Members for the Universities who opposed the Bill had confined themselves to objections, and had not suggested what reforms they would consent to, though they did not deny that the Universities Committee of the Privy Council was unsatisfactory. It would greatly facilitate the settlement of this question if these Members for the Universities would indicate the line which they thought that a reform of the admitted evils should take. Though his name was on the back of the Bill, he would acknowledge that he disliked Clause 12; and as regarded Clause 2, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Roundell) would have done better had he adhered to his proposal of last year, and left the initiative with the Hebdomadal Council. But the provisions between Clauses 2 and 12 he thought useful and valuable. The Committee of the Privy Council, as now constituted, was very unsuitable for its purpose. It consisted of very distinguished, eminent, and exalted persons, who, from the very eminence they had attained, were not fit to discharge the duties imposed on them. They had taken their degrees 40 or 50 years ago, and were not acquainted with the present state of things in the Universities. Two remedies were possible. The one was the addition of specially qualified assessors to the Committee. The other and better method was the constitution of a permanent body, connected with, but forming a part of, the administrative government, to replace this Committee of the Privy Council. Such a body would contain not only such exalted persons as now formed the Committee, but others less exalted and more experienced in educational matters, who would be able to deal with questions which called for reform; and it could, with great advantage, undertake other functions in connection with other Universities and with the endowed foundations of the country, educational and charitable.

MR. ROUNDELL

said, he must express his acknowledgments to the Members for the Universities and the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the way in which they had met the Bill, and for the valuable suggestions which had fallen from them. He understood that the Motion for the rejection of the Bill would be withdrawn, and in that case he would move that the Order for the Second Beading be discharged.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.