Page 2, line 36, leave out from 'London' to 'in' in line 38, and insert 'subject to the provisions contained.'"—(Sir Chas. Dilke.)
§ *SIR C. DILKE
The Amendment which I rise to propose, Sir, raises the question of the form of the Bill, and especially the form of the schedule of the Bill. The Amendment is to be taken in connection with one on this very page, and which is consequential upon it, and which, will make clause 3 read—The commissioners shall make statutes and regulations for the University of London, subject to the provisions contained in Part I. of the schedule of this Act.And then the next sentence would remain a separate proposal. The effect, there fore, Sir, of the Amendment is to substitute the provisions of the schedule as directions for commissioners for the directions now given, which are of a most curious and complicated character. As the Bill stands, the matter is not left to the discretion of the commissioners. They are told to carry out the Report of the Gresham Commissioners, but they are to carry it out subject to several pages of schedules, so that you cannot possibly arrive at any conception of what the commissioners ought or ought not to do, or as to the nature of the new university 1190 which is to be established, without reading together 63 pages of the Gresham Commissioners' Reports and seven pages of schedule to this Bill; because, if you do not read the two together, you are tripped up at every moment. This is a most extraordinary form of legislation by reference—much more serious, much worse than the ordinary form of legislation by reference1—because you have to read these two very lengthy documents together. I have found that although Members in this House are supposed to have made themselves familiar with the Gresham Report, it has; not been in very great demand in the last year or two, since this Bill has been before Parliament. On the Standing Committee we were told that no one ought to express an opinion on any point of this Bill unless thoroughly familiar with the whole of the Gresham Report. Now, Sir, I find there has been no demand for it in the Vote Office, and in the Library here, the volume containing this Report—it is a curious one, because the Report is sandwiched between one on electrical communication with lighthouses and another on horse breeding—this Report, I find, has not been in any considerable demand. Yet it is perfectly true that you have to read this Report of 63 pages and seven pages of schedule before you find out what the 33111 means. I should have thought that if the Bill is to pass, it should give clear and definite directions to the commissioners, however sketchy some of the directions may be. It will be impossible, no doubt, to give clear and absolute directions on every point, and you must leave a good deal to their discretion; but they may be, and are, directed on a great many points. But why the long Gresham Report should be Superadded to the schedule I cannot understand. Really, if we, arcs driven to the choice,—if it is impossible to reform the schedule—I would rather leave it at large to the commissioners than ask people to consider these two documents together. I beg, Sir, to move the. Amendment which stands in my name.
§ SIR J. GORST
Sir, this is an Amendment which, if adopted by the. House, would require a very complicated and a very serious modification of the schedule of the Bill. I do not see that the honourable Baronet makes any alterations of 1191 the schedule, and if they were not made it would leave the commissioners with very incomplete instructions indeed as to the course they are to adopt. It seems to me that the Bill as it stands is perfectly clear—gives perfectly clear instructions which the commissioners are to carry out. They are to form a scheme in general accordance with the Gresham Commission. The Report of the Greaham Commission contains a very clear recommendation as to the particular scheme which the commissioners are to carry out, and, according to the Bill as it stands, the commissioners would carry out that scheme subject to the restrictions which are found in the schedule, which by no means deals with the whole of the scheme, and subject to the alterations which have taken place in public opinion in London in connection with the University of London since the date of the Commission's Report. I do not think that the instructions are quite so clear as they would be if all were set out in the schedule, but they are perfectly clear enough for the commissioners to carry out those made; and I do not think they will have any difficulty whatever in determining what it is they are to do. If the honourable Baronet's Amendment were accepted, those instructions which the commissioners would derive from the Gresham Report would be cut out altogether, and they would be required to prepare a scheme in accordance with the schedule of the Act, and that would be a very imperfect instruction. I think it is rather late in the day to have a reconstruction of the Bill in the form suggested in this Amendment, and I hope the House will not sanction it.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Sir, it is never too late to do a good thing, and if we want to mend the Bill, surely we ought to do so. The position of my honourable Friend is this: that the House of Commons and the public outside know very little about this Measure; in fact, the only person who knows anything about the Bill is my honourable Friend the Member for Haddington. I heard something about a compromise just now, and I said, "Who compromised?" and they said, "The honourable Member for Haddington." It seems to me that this Bill is muddled up altogether between my 1192 honourable Friend the Member for Haddington and the Vice-President of the Council of Education. Sir, we know very little about this Bill, and we ought to know a great deal. There are a great many persons who think—and my honourable Friend the Member for Haddington rather encourages this view—that this is going to establish a great university in London, something like the University of Paris, or the University of Berlin. It is going to do nothing of the sort. It is going to amalgamate a few colleges in London, and 30 miles round, but it is not going to be a national institution. The great object we have in view is to retain this university as a great national centre of the education of the country, where anybody can go, where anybody, by passing certain examinations, and in no other way, can acquire a degree under this university. That is my honourable Friend's object; but he has muddled up his object because he allows a great deal to be done—his university degrees to be obtained and called by the same name, as is the case with men who already have them, without passing those degrees. I only point to this to show how little any of us know what the Bill is. I hope the honourable Member will specifically explain it. He has got Scotch universities on the brain, and he does not understand at all what we want in London. We have got at present practically what we want, and we do not want any change in it. That, really, Mr. Speaker, is why I support the views of my right honourable Friend. No doubt he will make an alteration in the Bill; no doubt we shall have to expand the schedule; but that is precisely what we want. The Amendment of my right honourable: Friend puts in clear and definite form the object which we are coiltending1 for at the present moment, and in these circumstances I shall certainly support the Amendment of my right honourable Friend.
Sir, the objection I have to the Bill as it stands, and this particular clause, is that it not only embodies, a schedule of seven pages, but also a Blue Book of 63 pages; and I think if anybody will look at the Gresham Report they will sec there is nothing answering to the name of 1193 scheme in that Report from beginning to end. If that is so, why put in the phrase that the scheme is to be in accordance with the Gresham Report? But that is not all. It will be found that in that Report there are dissentient notes. Several commissioners dissent one from the other; and when you are asking this Commission to legislate in accordance with a Report in which there are dissentient notes, you are, asking them to choose from many contradictory views. In these circumstances, I think the House has a right to be informed what part of the Blue Book is going to be inserted, and what part is going to be omitted, in the Bill. Surely we have a right to ask under what general principles this university is going to be established. As I have said, there are dissentient reports, dissentient notes; and some who have signed the: Report have only signed it subject to several modifications. No>v, have we not a right to ask the honourable Gentleman in charge of this 33111 what are the general principles on which this university is to be established? Do not let us refer, Sir, to a Blue Book of 63 pages, but put in the schedule the principles under which this university is to be established. The right honourable Gentleman has already seven pages of schedule; why should he not have more to carry out this scheme properly? There is also the additional point that once the commissioners have a Blue Book consisting of contradictory views, really there is no control whatever over anything they may do; when we give such powers to seven commissioners, I think we are entitled to ask what are the general views on which they are going to act, and the general principles on which they are going to found this university. Until these are in the schedule I think we should resist this attempt to hand over these powers to commissioners, however eminent they may be.
§ MR. HARWOOD
Sir, this scheme we are told is to be in accordance with the general scheme of the Report—that is, I presume, with the scheme in this Blue Book. Well, if honourable Members will turn to the summary, in addition to the dissentient notes in this Report, they will find there are general suggestions made as to the proposed Statutory Commission, 1194 and I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that many of those suggestions have not been taken the least, notice of in the Bill, or in the schedule. On page 53 of the Report of the commissioners, they state—We have, therefore, to recommend that the Statutory Commission should be appointed for such a period as may be thought necessary, with the following powers and duties: (1) To determine in what mode and under what conditions any property now held by the University of London should continue to be held by the university.But there is nothing of that kind in the Bill. When we turn to this Report, in harmony with which the commissioners are to act, the very first recommendation is about property, and yet it is urged that we have nothing to do with property. If that be so, we have a right to ask what has become of it. Is "in general accordance" picking and choosing? Out of 10 definite recommendations summarising this book, recommendations in regard to the Statutory Commission, seven of the 10 are not mentioned in the Bill, and five of the 10 are not even alluded to. I think the House has a right to protest against being led in this blindfold manner. Is this Report going to be acted upon or is it not' Are these specific recommendations going to be followed, or are they not? If they are not, which are, and which are not, going to be followed, and why are they not going to be followed? The Report also says—It should also be the duty of the said Commission to make such recommendations as they may see fit in respect to any grant of funds which Parliament may provide for the endowment of the university, and for mating an adequate provision for scientific research.There is nothing of that kind at all—no mention of that. Then, again, there is another thing. The Commission are to determine—whether any institution is to be admitted as a whole to be a school in the university; and, if not, in respect of what department or departments it is to be admitted.I think we have a right to know what are these institutions. There is a list in this Report, it is quite true; in fact, there are two lists, one much larger than the other. Which are we going to follow? I think we ought to have it in 1195 some way. The Commission are to act in accordance with, the Report, yet we find that half of the definite recommendations are not taken notice of, and many of the leading recommendations we are told are not to be dealt with. This Bill is a mere phantom, a vague, boneless Bill, and when we ask that some bones and constitution should be put into it it is refused. I do think "in general accordance with the Report" are words much too wide.
§ MR. BRIGG
I agree as to the extreme vagueness of this clause, and I do think we ought to have some attempt made to give some sort of limitation to the powers we are to entrust to this body. I cannot see how anyone with a legal mind could possibly draft such a clause as this, giving as it does an exceedingly vague and roving authority. They are to frame their Statutes in general accordance—those are not exactly legal terms—in general accordance with the Report of the Gresham Commissioners, and, further, to bear in mind any other modifications which may appear to them expedient after consideration—here is another vague point-—after consideration of the changes which have taken place in London education of a university type since the date of the said Report. They are to base their regulations and statutes upon these facts. They are also to take notice of the representations1 made to them by, or on behalf of, the Senate or Convocation. Anything more free and open on the point of the powers of these commissioners it would be very difficult to conceive. I, for my part, cannot imagine any more free and open set of conditions being placed on anybody, conditions which, I may point out, may lead to trouble, for those who object to these regulations will have very good ground, inasmuch as the ground on which they are based is so extremely vague. On that account I very strongly support the Amendment of the honourable Member for the Forest of Dean.
§ DR. CLARK
I do not know, Sir, why these vague words are to be put in. I suppose they are put in as a general direction; but those who drew the Bill, I take it, have not read the Report of the Commission, because in the first schedule of the Bill, or rather in Part I., you find an entirely different scheme and plan— 1196 not in the Report at all. I take it that as the clause is now drafted the Commission will be unable to go back to the Senate proposed by the present Commission—that they will be compelled to take the new Senate, not the old one—and that all the other changes which are made: contrary to the Report of the Commission will be tried. Why do you want to give them powers? And, if you do give them powers, will they be limited only to the recommendations of the 13 commissioners, or, rather, seven of them? Or are they to be able to carry out the views of six out of the 13, the recommendations signed by the dissentients, and not by the whole? Sir, it seems to me that these words are very ambiguous, and are tying the hands of the Commission to this Report instead of giving them freedom. Therefore, what my honourable Friend proposes is that in your schedule you shall lay down the conditions. For instance, take the most important thing. You form a Senate. Now, the Senate of the Bill is an entirely different body from the Senate of the Commission, and the Senate is the most important portion of the Bill. They recommended a very wide Senate, because they thought it still retained its imperialistic aspect, and they recommended that the commissioners should be selected to represent the Colonies, because the London University has been doing Colonial work. One was to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and another by the Secretary of State for India. There are a number of institutions here—the Royal Agricultural Society, the Institution of Civil Engineers—there are 10 or 12 persons recommended by the Royal Commission who are entirely ignored by the Bill as it stands. Under the circumstances, I think what you ought to do is to lay down in your first schedule all the things that they are to do, or rather all the things that they are not to do, and that they cannot change. In Part II. of your schedule you give them a free hand. You say among the matters for which provision must be made—the adequate protection of the interests of all classes of students, whether external or internal, collegiate or non-collegiate,1197 and so on. I think these words are not required, because you have practically done the work; you have cut out all that you think is valuable in the recommendations of the Commission; you have considered that in the first schedule, and then you tie their hands. Then in Part II. you lay down the special matters they are to make regulations for; you indicate to them what they are to do; and I think in this case you ought not to tie them to the Report made by the commissioners, seeing that you have yourself cut and carved the Report, and objected to a very large part of it. You give them a free hand on the four subjects mentioned in Part II. of the schedule; they must make provision in respect of those four subjects; and 'n doing this you ought to give them a large discretion, and not tie them down to a Report which you yourself have con-
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Charrington, Spencer||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Arnold, Alfred||Chelsea, Viscount||Gretton, John|
|Asher, Alexander||Clarke, Sir K (Plymouth)||Haldane, Richard Burdon|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Halsey, Thomas Frederick|
|Bagot, Capt. J. F.||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.|
|Baird, J. G. A.||Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Colston, C. E. H. Athole||Hardy, Laurence|
|Balfour.Rt.Hon.A. J. (Manc'r.)||Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Cranborne, Viscount||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Balfour,Rt.Hon. J. B. (Clackm.)||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hazell, Walter|
|Banes, Major George Edward||Crombie, John William||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Curzon,Rt.Hn.G.N.(Lanc,SW)||Henderson. Alexander|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Curzon. Viscount (Bucks)||Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)|
|Beach, Rt.Hon. SirM. H. (Brist'l)||Dalkeith, Earl of||Holland, Hon. L. R.|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.||Howard, Joseph|
|Bethell, Commander||Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||Howell, William Tudor|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-|
|Bigwood, James||Drueker, A.||Jebb, Richard Claverhouse|
|Birrell, Augustine||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Fardell, Sir T. George||Jones, D. B. (Swansea)|
|Bond, Edward||Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward||Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Knowles, Lees|
|Bowles, Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)||Fisher, William Hayes||Lafone, Alfred|
|Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Laurie, Lieut.-General|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||FitzWygram, Genaral Sir F.||Lawrence,SirEDurning-(Corn.)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Flannery, Fortescue||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)|
|Bucknill, Thomas Townsend||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Butcher, John George||Folkestone, Viscount||Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)||Foster, H. S. (Suffolk)||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbvsh.)||Fry, Lewis||Loder, G. W. E.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Garfit, William||Long, Col. C. W. (Eveshum)|
|Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)||Gedge, Sydney||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)|
|Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Lowles, John|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Gosehen,RtHn.G. J. (St.G'rg's)||Macartney, W. G. Ellison|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Maclure, Sir John William|
§ siderably departed from. I support my honourable Friend's Amendment on the ground—first, because, the Report has been cut and carved in the first part; and then because in the second part I do not think you should tie them. I have much pleasure in supporting my honourable Friend, and I conceive it reasonable enough that these words should go in. By this phrase you are leading them back again to the Report, and when you go back to the Report you find out a lot of the things in that Report cannot be carried out. I think they should have a free hand, and should not be referred back to the Report of the Gresham Commission.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 44.—(Division List No. 248.)
|McArthur, G. (Liverpool)||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|McCalmont,Mj.-Gn.(Ant'm,N)||Rutherford, John||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Monk, Charles James||Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.||Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Savory, Sir Joseph||Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)|
|More, Robert Jasper||Schwann, Charles E.||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Sharpe, W. E. T.||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Mount, William George||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)||Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshure)||Williams, J. P. (Birm.)|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)|
|Pienpoint, Robert||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)||Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)|
|Pollock, Harry Frederick||Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Smith. J. Parker (Lanark)||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Stand)||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Purvis, Robert||Souttar, Robinson|
|Renshaw, Charles Bine||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.||Strutt, Hon. C. H.||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.||Stuart, James (Shoreditch)|
|Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Baker, Sir John||Harwood, George||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Banlow, John Emmott||Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Labouchere, Henry||Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)|
|Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Steadman, William Charles|
|Caldwell, James||Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Carvill, P. G. H.||Lewis, John Herbert||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Colville, John||Lough, Thomas||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Macaleese, Daniel||Williams, John C. (Notts)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||M'Ghee, Richard||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')|
|Doogac, P. C.||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Duckworth, James||Oldroyd, Mark|
|Dunn, Sir William||Palmer, Sir Charles M.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Fenwick, Charles||Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)||Dr. Clark and Mr. Brigg.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Philipps, John Wynford|
Page 2, line 38, leave out from 'Act' to end of sub-section, and insert—
Where the Commissioners contemplate making a statute or regulation under this Act abrogating, varying, or affecting the existing rights, powers, or privileges of Convocation, they shall, one calendar month at least (exclusive of the months of August and September), before adopting any final resolution in that behalf, communicate the draft of the proposed statute or regulation to the clerk of Convocation, who shall thereupon immediately submit the same to the members of Convocation, for their approval or disapproval, to be signified as at a Senatorial election.
No such statute or regulation, disapproved by a majority of the members so voting whereon, shall have any force or effect, and no ouch statute or regulation, approved by a majority of members of Convocation so voting, shall be subsequently alterable by the Senate without the consent of Convocation."—(Sir J. Lubhoch.)
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
The object of the Amendment which, I now have the 1200 honour to move is to preserve the present rights of the Convocation of the university under the present charter. No change can be made in the constitution of the university, excepting with the consent of the Convocation, and that is a right which my constituents value very highly, not from any personal motives, but for the sake of the university itself. In the Standing Committee upon this subject I moved an Amendment somewhat more far-reaching in its character, and, in my opinion, preferable to the one which I now have the honour to move. Speaking from 30 years' experience as a member of the Senate, the replies did not seem to me to be framed with a full knowledge of the working of the university. At the same time it was urged that my Amendment went somewhat beyond the present rights of Convocation. I did not think so, but, at any rate, I have been very careful upon the present 1201 occasion to make it quite clear that we do not wish to put it too high, and I have expressly limited the Amendment to these rights. If the Commission pro-pare a wise scheme I am satisfied that Convocation would agree, and the graduates who are members of this House will, I am sure, confirm that statement. I do not wish to put the rights of my constituents too high. If the Commission prepare n, good scheme and Convocation rejects it, a most improbable, nay, almost impossible, contingency, still, if it did happen, Parliament would no doubt be justified in passing if over the head of Convocation. At the same time I would submit to the House that it is very unusual to interfere with rights given by Royal charter, unless it can be clearly shown that those rights have been abused. No one will allege that the university is not doing good work, greatly to the benefit of the community. I will take two tests. I will not trouble the House with many figures, but merely take the numbers of certain years. In 1860 our candidates were 800; in 1870, 1,450; in 1880, 2,570; in 1890, 5,000; and, lastly, in 1897, 6,300. Now, I think that the House will see from those figures that the University of London is a very progressive institution, is greatly appreciated by the country, and is doing a great work, that the constant increase in the number of candidates shows that it is not an effete and obsolete institution. No one can allege upon those figures that it has failed in its important trust. Now I will take the second test. What is the view of the colleges associated with the university? I frankly admit that so far as the London colleges are concerned, they are satisfied with the Bill as it stands, but, as I have already pointed out, the London colleges are a very small fraction. By far the greatest number of our candidates come from other colleges throughout the country. There are over 200 colleges in addition to those of London, which send up candidates for examination. What are their views.' Are they in favour of the Bill? I have heard many complaints, and, so far as I am aware, the great bulk of those colleges would be in favour of the Amendment that I now move. It may be said that the late senatorial election would 1202 really show that the Convocation is against the Bill. That is the case, but it does not show that Convocation would regret a wise scheme. My Amendment would give the country colleges an opportunity of considering the Statutes made by the Commissioners. This is a matter of great interest to my constituents, who are convinced that the university is doing good work at the present time, and who are afraid that the Bill may jeopardise its labours. But if the Commissioners frame wise Statutes I have no hesitation in expressing my conviction that they would be adopted by Convocation. We have been told several times that there are no provisions of the same kind in the Commissions which dealt with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I speak with some diffidence upon that point, but I believe there is no parallel between the two cases. In those cases the bodies corresponding with Convocation had not the rights which were given to my constituents by the charter. At the very outset the eases are most dissimilar. The Acts dealing with Oxford and Cambridge are three, because the first Act, which dealt with them separately, in 1854, dealt with Oxford, and in that no power was given to the Commissioners to make statutes for the university; nor could they make statutes for the colleges if objected to by two-thirds of the governing body of the colleges affected, and they had no power to interfere with endowments less than 50 years old; nor could they interfere with any charter. All those circumstances are entirely different to the present case. In respect to the Cambridge Commission in 1890 there again the provisions are very similar. The Commissioners there had power to make statutes for the university, but such statutes were to be void if objected to by two-thirds of the governing body. The cases are not analogous and cannot be considered with reference to my Amendment. Then comes the Act of 1877; that, again, is of a totally different character to this Bill. That Measure merely authorised the Commissioners to transfer a certain amount of income from the colleges to the university, in order that the university might be enabled to continue to carry on its work. We all know perfectly well that 1203 there is no provision of the kind in this Bill. The Commissioners were empowered under that Measure to make statutes for the university, but it was expressly provided that they should not make any statute altering the trusts, conditions, or directions of any college emolument, if the original charter, deed of composition, or other instrument of foundation thereof was made or executed within 50 years of the passing of the Act, with certain exceptions; immaterial to the present purpose. The statutes appointing these Commissioners afford, therefore, no precedent for the present Bill, for they dealt with endowments and university and college statutes, which were, almost without exception, centuries old, and the power of the Commissioners were expressly limited so as not to apply to endowments less than 50 years old. This Bill does not deal with ancient charters. The London University was first founded in 1836, and the existing charter was granted as recently as 1863. Again, the alterations in the constitution of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were completely specified in the Acts themselves. The changes in the constitution of the London University, though much larger and more fundamental, are left to the discretion of the Commissioners, subject only to the direction that they shall be in substantial accordance with the recommendations of the Cooper Commission and the schedule of the Bill. The graduates of the London University have an express right under their charter to veto any proposed alteration in it. The Convocations of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had no such right. The Oxford and Cambridge Commissioners bad no power to affect any existing charter, even though ancient. The very object of the Statutable Commission now proposed is to override the express provisions of the charter of the London University. In the cases of Oxford and Cambridge they had not the rights which were given to Convocation under the charter. The cases, therefore, are not parallel. Lastly, I submit that this is an Amendment which may do much good and cannot do any harm. If the Commissioners make statutes which will really create a thoroughly good system, which will work well and conduce to the 1204 higher education of the country, then I am quite satisfied that my constituency would adopt it by an overwhelming majority. Of course, if they did not do so, and the arrangement was a wise one, it would always be in the power of Parliament to override them. But surely it is very unusual to override express rights when it cannot be shown that there are any faults on the part of those who exercise the powers. On the other hand, supposing that the Commissioners do make statutes which are prejudicial to the higher education of the country, it would be most desirable that they should be abrogated. I submit to the House that I am only asking that rights expressly granted by the Crown should not be overridden without good cause. The University of London is doing a great and progressive work, and the colleges which send up the bulk of the students are satisfied with what is being done at the present time; and all that I ask the House is that the statutes should be submitted to them, and I would say again, and beg the House to realise, that they are not asking this because they wish to support any individual rights of their own, or for any low and selfish purposes, or for the reason that they do not wish anybody else to obtain advantages from which they themselves are debarred; it is not in that spirit in which they are acting. It is not upon that ground at all, but for the benefit of the university. I submit to the House that it is not beyond the range of possibility that the Commissioners may make a mistake; if they do so, then, of course, it would be desirable that there should be an opportunity of reconsidering these statutes. I trust these statutes which they make will conduce to the higher education of the country, and I am perfectly satisfied that in that case my constituents will adopt it. I submit then that this is an Amendment which cannot do harm, and may do good, and under those circumstances I ask the House to favourably consider the Amendment.
§ SIR J. GORST
The power which my honourable Friend has claimed for his constituents is a very much more extensive power than anybody has ever claimed before. It is quite true that the Convocation of the London University can veto under the powers given by the 1205 Crown any alteration which it may be proposed to make in the charter of the university, but in speaking of the rower given by the Crown when that power comes into conflict with Parliamentary powers, then the Convocation has no power to object to any alteration in its constitution that Parliament proposes to impose upon it. Then the objection that Convocation makes to any change in the constitution of its charter can only be exercised in a certain way by Convocation after a meeting held in London for the purpose of discussing the pros and cons of the change in Convocation, and n decision has been then arrived at by those who have heard the discussion and were present at the meeting. But what the right honourable Gentleman proposes is to give the Convocation power to reject any statute made by the Commissioners by what is called the postcard vote, not by a vote given at a meeting called for that purpose, but a vote upon paper transmitted through the post. Now, the charter by which that power of voting was given was for the sole purpose of electing members of the Senate. It is expressly inserted in the charter that the power of voting shall be for the election of the members of the Senate, and for the members of the Senate only, and the right honourable Gentleman is asking for a power for his constituents that they do not at the present time possess. Nobody complains of his obtaining it, but it is a power which Parliament has never granted to any university which has been instituted, neither Oxford nor Cambridge, nor the Scotch universities, and I do not think that Parliament would be disposed to depart from its own precedents and grant to the London University this extraordinary power which they at present possess, and, so
|Ascroft, Robert||Bartley, George C. T.||Brunner, Sir John T.|
|Asher, Alexander||Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol)||Bucknill, Thomas Townsend|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline F.||Beresford, Lord Charles||Burt, Thomas|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bethell, Commander||Caldwell, Tames|
|Baker, Sir John||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cavendish, V. C. W Derbysh|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bigwood, James||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hn. A. J. (Manc'r)||Birrell, Augustine||Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.|
|Balfour, Rt.Hn.G. W. (Leeds)||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hn.J.B.(Clackm.)||Bond, Edward||Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)|
|Banes, Major George E.||Bousfield, William Robert||Channing, Francis Allston|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
§ far as we can see, have no right to whatever.
The point which has been raised by the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President upon this Amendment is this, that Convocation has only power to exercise the postcard vote in the case of senatorial elections, and in all other matters they must hear the pros and cons. Now, I ask the Vice-President whether he would allow Convocation the power to modify statutes after having heard the discussion upon them. Now, it has been said that Convocation was in favour of this Bill as it stands. Why do you not, if that is so, trust the people who are so much in fear of this Bill, and allow Convocation a voice in these matters? If they had misused their functions, or had done wrong in the past, a man might come here and say Convocation has behaved badly, and has not acted properly, and we might deprive them of their rights under the charter. Nobody doubts but what the University of London has been a supreme success, and yet the object of this Bill is to take away from it, or to seriously modify, its charter under which all this good has been done Under these circumstances, is it not a moderate request that Convocation should have some veto? Will not the Vice-President permit Convocation, having heard the arguments, to have some voice in the statutes? Surely if he doe-s not he is undermining the charter which the university has been built up on and undermine all the good which has been done.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 30.—(Division List No. 249.)
|Charrington, Spencer||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Hayne, Rt, Hn. Chas. Seale-||Pollck, Harry F.|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Hazell, Walter||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Henderson, Alexander||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)||Purvis, Robert|
|Colomb, Sir John C. R.||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Colston, C. E. H. Athole||Howard, Joseph||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.|
|Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.||Howell, William Tudor||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Curzon,RtHn.G.N.(LancsSW)||Jebb, Richard Claverhouse||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Rutherford, John|
|Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh||Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir Jolm P.||Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Kenyon, James||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Drucker, A.||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard|
|Duckworth, James||Knowles, Lees||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Duncombe, Hon. H. V.||Lafone, Alfred||Shaw, T. (Hawick B.)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)|
|Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)||Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornw'll)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lawson, John G. (Yorks)||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Leigh-Bennett, Hemy C.||Souttar, Robinson|
|Finlay. Sir R. Bannatyne||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.|
|Flannery, Fortescue||Lorne, Marquess of||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Folkestone, Viscount||Lowles, John||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fry, Lewis||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Wallace, Robert (Edin.)|
|Garfit, William||Maclure, Sir John William||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.ofLond.)||McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Giles, Charles Tyrrell||McCalmont,Mj.Gn.(Ant'm.N.)||Williams, John C. (Notts)|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||More, Robert Jasper||Wodehouse.Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)|
|Gouliding, Edward Alfrea||Morrell, George Herbert||Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Mount, William George||Wyvill, Marmaduke D Arcy|
|Gretton, John||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Murray, Col. W. (Bath)|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hanbmy, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Oldroyd, Mark||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hardy, Laurence||Pearson, Sir W. D.|
|Arnold, Alfred||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Lewis, John Herbert||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Macaleese, Daniel||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Butcher, John George||M'Ghee, Richard||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Doogan, P. C.||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Philipps, John Wynford||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Piekersgill, Edward Hare||Sir John Lubbock and Mr. Ellis Griffith.|
|Harwood, George||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Roberts, John Bryn (Eiflon)|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
Page 3, line 3, after 'person,' insert 'directly.'"—(Sir A. Rollit.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.1208
Page 2, line 38, after 'Act,' insert—
When the commissioners contemplate making a statute or regulation under this Act they shall, two calendar months at least (exclusive of any university vacation) before adopting any final resolution in that behalf, communicate the proposed statute or regulation to the Registrar of the University of
London, who shall forthwith cause a copy o: such proposed statute or regulation to be exhibited or screened in the usual place for university announcements in the hall of the university buildings in Burlington Gardens, and to be kept so exhibited or screened for the whole of the said period of two calendar months. And the commissioners shall take into consideration.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
§ MR. HARWOOD
The Amendment which I now beg leave to propose is very different from the one which was proposed by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the University of London and rejected by the House. The chief element of his Amendment was that he asked that there should be a power in Convocation to veto statutes and regulations made by the Commissioners, and the House has decided that that is a power which could not be given to Convocation. Now, the Amendment which I propose eliminates that altogether. My Amendment has not anything' to do with the powers of Convocation in regard to that matter at all. I am very desirous—and I believe that this Amendment is directly and indirectly in the interest of the University of London, which is entirely a teaching university. This teaching university will never succeed, notwithstanding whatever arrangements are made by this House, or whatever the arrangements of the Commission may be, unless it obtains the confidence of the community. That is the one thing which is hopeful in this university; and the one necessity in connection with such confidence is that there should be publicity, and the Amendment which I propose is to provide that where the Commissioners contemplate making a statute or regulation, a copy of the proposed statute or regulation shall be exhibited in the hall of the university buildings in Burlington Gardens. The point of that suggestion is that there should be publicity. We are in the Bill invited—a direct invitation is given—to make representations upon any proposed statute or regulation. There are several clauses which deal with the fact that people may make such representations, and they are invited to consider the statutes and regulations made by the Commissioners. If they are invited to consider these matters they surely ought to have facility for knowing what it is upon which they are invited to make 1210 representations. It is absurd to invite them to consider these matters unless they have every means of knowing. In the case of the London University there are no authorities which stand in that position, and therefore the only way we can secure publicity is that it shall be exhibited or screened at Burlington Gardens, which is the headquarters of the university. That would be public to the different colleges in London. It may be said they are part of the University of London. I am quite aware of that, so let us make a compromise—that is the spirit of the whole Debate; and I think if we looked at the book of the honourable Member for Montrose Burghs we might have a larger conception of the word with regard to this Bill. Let us have a, compromise which, at any rate would be fair. I do not ask the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President to give us something' which we do not want, but to show us that the Government have some trust in the general public, and I therefore venture to suggest that there should be this simple publication, not carrying it vote, but as a natural corollary, that if we have to make lcpresentations—and we must make representations.—wo must know what we have to make representations about, and it is a very fair and reasonable medium through which it can be done. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
§ SIB J. GORST
This matter was raised before the Standing Committee, and so far from there being a rigid exclusion of all compromise, as the honourable Gentleman infers, I proposed to give way to what we had already decided, and that the Commissioners, before they acted with regard to all representations made by the Senate and Convocation of the University of London, or any other body, should give facilities. My Amendment which is on the Paper really constitutes an alternative scheme to that of the honourable Member. It is that the Commissioners shall take steps as are in their opinion best adapted for facilitating the making of such representations before any Such statutes for regulations are framed, so that a statutory duty is imposed upon them by Parliament itself, 1211 and all these bodies will have ample opportunity for making representation.
§ MR. HARWOOD
It is not a question of giving facilities for making representation. It is a question of the public knowing what it is that they have to make a representation about.
§ SIR J. GORST
The honourable Member's proposal is rather a rigid one. I objected to it in the Standing Committee, and I object to it now, because it lowers down the proceedings which are to take place, and it ties the hands of the Commissioners in a very unnecessary manner. I think it is far better to leave the matter to the Commissioners to ideal with in accordance with the circumstances of the particular case with which they may be dealing, to give such notice as is important before such representation is made, and then the matter can be discussed, and the bodies concerned could make such representations as they thought were desirable. According to the proposal of the honourable Member there could be no chance of amending the representation, for it has to be screened for two months at least, and then it is too late to amend it if you require, so that you must drop it altogether and begin de novo. The proceeding proposed in my Amendment covers the whole of this matter, and therefore I hope the honourable Member will withdraw the Amendment now before the House.
I have not been able to follow the right honourable Gentleman in what he said just now, when he stated that his Amendment was practically the same as that which is now before the House. It appears to me that there is a world of difference in them. The right honourable Gentleman's Amendment is to give facilities for making representations, but the honourable Member's is that there should be publicity in order that the people may know what it is they are to make representations about, which is 1212 quite another thing. It seems to me the two Amendments are entirely different, and apply to entirely different matters. So far as I can understand, the right honourable Gentleman would consider that this Amendment was not desirable, but I suppose he will be the first to admit that there should be publicity as to these statutes, and if that is so, of course, it is desirable. The only question, therefore, is, does the Amendment provide the means of publicity? If the right honourable Gentleman saya he does not think it does, then I am sure my honourable Friend will accept any Amendment from, the right honourable Gentleman which will give real publicity. By the recommendation to exhibit it on the screen in this way the thing is published in a particular place, and unless that is done we shall have notice that something is going to take place which we know nothing at all about. One of the right honourable Gentleman's objections to that is that if it is to be put up for two months, and he wants to alter it, he cannot do so, and must begin again de novo. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman is going to object to every Amendment which is proposed, but if he is going gracefully to concede to the education of London that which has already been gracefully conceded to every other part of the country, then it is necessary that this Amendment should be accepted. It is not proposed by this Amendment to give to Convocation any power, but to provide for adequate publicity, so that if anything undesirable occurs attention may be called to the fact. Is not that a reasonable Amendment? I do ask the right honourable Gentleman to consider this matter, and ask himself whether it is not, advisable and reasonable, and whether he cannot concede to this university what has already been conceded to others.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes: 141.—(Division List No. 250.)
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Arnold, Alfred||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hogan, James Francis||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Brunner, Sir John T.||Kilbride, Denis||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Burt, Thomas||Lewis, John Herbert||Souttar, Robinson|
|Caldwell, James||Lloyd-George, David||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)||Macaleese, Daniel||Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)|
|Crilly, Daniel||M'Ghee, Richard||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Williams, John C. (Notts)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Doogan. P. C.||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Duckworth, James||Oldroyd, Mark||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Dunn, Sir William||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Mr. Harwood and Mr. Ellis Griffith.|
|Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Fenwick, Charles||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fry, Lewis||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Garfit, William||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)||Mount, William George|
|Balcarres, Lord||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Murray, C. J. (Coventry)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Newdigate, Francis A.|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gretton, John||Pollock, Harry Frederick|
|Bethell, Commander||Haldane, Richard Burdon||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Bigwood, James||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Purvis, Robert|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hardy, Laurence||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Bond, Edward||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Haslett, Sir James Homer||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Brassey, Albert||Hazell, Walter||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Henderson, Alexander||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Bucknill, Thomas Townsend||Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)||Rutherford, John|
|Butcher, John George||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.||Howard, Joseph||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.)||Howell, William Tudor||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)||Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Jebb, Richard Claverhouse||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Kenyon, James||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Knowles, Lees||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Colston, C. E. H. Athole||Lafone, Alfred||Strauss, Arthur|
|Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.||Lawrence,SirEDurning-(Corn.)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cross, H. S. (Bolton)||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.||Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Drucker. A.||Lorne, Marquess of||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Lowles, John||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Hath)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert B.||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Wyvill, Marmaduke D Arcy|
|Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Maclure, Sir John William||Young, Comm. (Berks. E.)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||McArthur, C. (Liverpool)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Flannery, Fortescue||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Folkestone, Viscount||More, Robert Jasper|
Page 3, after line 6, insert—
(3) The commissioners shall take such step as are in their opinion best adapted for facilitating the making of such representations before any such statutes or regulations are framed."—(Sir John Gorst.)
§ Agreed to.
Page 3, line 11, leave out from 'belief' to end of line 16."—(Mr. Harwoml.)
§ MR. HARWOOD
I desire to point out that sub-section 3 of this clause already provides—The statutes or regulations, whether they are made by the commissions or by the senate as hereinafter provided, shall not authorise the assignment of money for any purpose in respect of which any privilege is granted or disability imposed on account of religious belief.And the same clause goes on to insert—Provided that they shall not prevent the University from allocating funds, on such conditions as it thinks fit, for the payment of any person appointed or recognised by the university as a university teacher, or for his laboratory expenses, or for apparatus to be used by him, notwithstanding any conditions attached to any office held by him in any school of the university.Now, I maintain that the first sentence of this section amply secures everything that we ought to try and secure in regard to this most delicate and difficult matter of religious belief, and I do approach this question with a great deal of hesitation. It is with the greatest possible reluctance that I bring this matter of religious belief to the attention of this House, and I should not have done so had it not been that this sentence seems to me to open the door to something which this House may afterwards have reason to regret, and, what is more, it is distinctly contrary to the understanding upon which these Commissions are supposed to act. Now page 49 of the Report says—that we shall not adopt or impose on any person any test whatsoever of religious belief or profession, or assign any grant of money in respect of any privilege granted or disability imposed on account of religious belief.Now, I maintain that the first sentence, to which we do not object, adequately 1216 and completely carries out that instruction, and the other sentence is added for the purpose of making another compromise. Why, whenever we talk of compromise it is treated as if the sword of Damocles hung over our heads. We are told that we are not to discuss this matter, and that this question has been handed over to a private Committee. I venture to suggest to the House that the second part of the sub-section which I am moving to leave out has been introduced unnecessarily, and has been introduced in order to provide for certain suspicions, which I maintain that the House ought not to provide for, and which in attempting to provide for the House is opening the door to much that it does not contemplate. Now, what does it mean? Reading it very carefully—and it is very vaguely worded—it amounts to this, that this university may grant money for religious or theological purposes. Now, it has been one of the fundamental articles of the creed of this University from the very beginning that in the matter of religion you are not to place any disability on account of religious belief, which is to be regarded as entirely out of the field of their practice. The first sentence of sub-clause 3 prevents the assigning or expending of money on account of religious belief. Now, I have reason to believe that the other religious institutions connected with this proposed University, and which are supposed to be embodied as schools of the University, are affected by this first clause, and I think it adequately expresses the fundamental creed of the University of London and adequately safeguards them. This second sentence enables the University to follow the principle of concurrent endowment by deputy. Now, I hope the House will clearly understand what it is doing in passing this sentence. I am not here to advocate whether concurrent endowment is wise or unwise, but I do say that the House should hesitate before it passes something which would authorise a much larger carrying out of this principle. Sir, if this is passed I do not see anything to prevent the establishment in a secondary way by deputy of a Roman Catholic University for Ireland. Personally, I am in favour of it, but I wish the thing to be done direetlv. But here what do you do? I believe that 1217 —and I do not believe that I am betraying any secret—this second sentence is inserted to meet tin: case of the timid people. Those of us who know something about the history of Frederick Morris, know with painful acuteness something about King's College. This provision allows the University to grant money for apparatus for various kinds of teaching, but it reserves to itself no power of control for such a college as King's College, to see that this money is really spent for the purpose for which it is nominally and ostensibly granted, and it opens the door entirely to the adoption of the principle of concurrent endowment all round. What is worse, you do not do it yourselves, but the University can grant the power to bodies that spend the money and use it for theological tests and religious beliefs. This section will constitute a body which will grant that money to those who exact these tests, and as a matter of practical politics, I ask what difference does it make whether the money is given directly or indirectly? It is national money all the same, and it is voted to these institutions which make these theological tests. But you say we do not vote it for the teaching of theology. I acknowledge that, but I will call the attention of the House to the fact that there is nothing in this Bill which gives power to exercise any control whatever over these colleges. If I am in order, I should like to say that I have been fighting for the good of this University, which requires some provision to be made that we should have some control over such expenditure, but it is refused most absolutely by this clause, for we are practically giving carte blanche to this institution. We give them money for certain purposes, but we make no provision or security whatever that the money will be spent for the purposes for which we are voting it. It is clear, as a matter of course, that when you vote this money largely for apparatus you relieve the college of an obligation, and therefore it does not matter how you vote it, for practically it goes to relieve the college to that extent. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope these words, vague as they are, will be struck out, because they open the door to a principle which the House ought to hesitate about adopting, and certainly ought not to adopt without the 1218 most serious consideration. I therefore beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
SIR J. GOHST
I desire to remind the honourable Member that this Bill is founded upon an agreement between the various authorities interested, and with regard to the question raised by the honourable Member an understanding has been arrived at. On the one hand it has been agreed that the University is not to endow any form of religious belief; and, on the other hand, it is agreed that when a man does hold a particular form of religious belief that does not disqualify him from acting as a teacher, or preclude his being provided with proper laboratory apparatus. These are the two propositions, the principle of which I think the House will readily assent to. Whether the proviso is absolutely necessary or not from a legal point of view I am not in a position to judge, and the Solicitor General can best instruct the House upon that point. Those who were interested in this matter certainly thought that the proviso was necessary, and they agreed that such a proviso should be made. The honourable Gentleman who has just spoken declares that the University has no means of seeing that the money which it votes will be allocated to purely secular purposes. The Act provides—that they shall not prevent the University from allocating funds on such conditions as it-thinks fit.Now, it is also provided that the funds allocated shall not be used for theological or religious purposes. I think that on all sides the greatest safeguards exist to prevent this power being in any way abused, so as to devote the funds to am particular religious faith. Therefore, as all parties interested in this matter are satisfied with the clause as it stands, I hope that the House will not consent to alter it.
*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS
The speech of the right honourable Gentleman has placed us in a very embarrassing position. It appears, from his statement that some agreement has been made by certain parties outside the House, and this House is to be bound by that arrangement. Now if that is the position which has been accepted, 1219 the House might as well dispose of the Bill and at once proceed to other business. I intend to support this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, I wish to prevent any possible violation of or departure from the principle on which the Act for the abolition of University Tests was based; and in the second place. I wish to maintain the honourable traditions of the University of London, as a purely unsectarian institution. Now, on the face of it, the Bill seems to secure that object, for in the schedule there is a provision as follows—No religious test shall be adopted or imposed, and no applicant for a University appointment shall be at a disadvantage on the ground of religious opinion.Now that is a most excellent provision. Then there is another safeguard in the third sub-section of clause 3, which has been already read to the House. If this proviso stood alone I could accept it as satisfactory, but there follows that mysterious provision which the Amendment proposes should be excised from the Bill. I think nobody can deny that this proviso is seemingly contradictory to the portion of the clause which immediately precedes it, and it appears to aim at doing by a side wind what is prohibited being done in a direct way. The second portion of this provision seems, as has already been pointed out, to permit of the endowment of individual professors in institutions which, as schools of the university, come under the Bill. Now, if the principle with which I started my remarks is violated, then it does not matter in what way it is done, either directly or indirectly, for I wish to prevent it. I shall wait for an explanation of this mysterious provision, and I wish to be told plainly why this provision has been inserted in the Bill; and also I wish to know whether there are any grounds for the suspicion, which is pretty generally entertained, that this proviso has been inserted for the benefit of a particular institution—namely, King's College, which is of a sectarian character. I shall oppose the violation of the unsectarian principle in any case, whatever institution is concerned, and I shall oppose it still more emphatically if there is any ground for the belief that it is intended for the benefit of such an institution as King's College.
It seems to me that this proviso is a direct violation of the principle of unsectarianism.
§ *MR. SHARPE (Kensington, N.)
I would like to point out with reference to the Amendment that the clause in the Bill is a logical extension of previous university reform. We have revolutionised our ancient universities on the basis of religious liberty in favour of Nonconformists by abolishing qualifications for office in the holding of particular religious opinions. It is now proposed to extend that principle to the London University in favour of the Church of England and all other religious denominations by removing the disqualification of religion. All I understand the clause to enact is that no one shall be disqualified for or prejudiced in the post of teacher in the University because he belongs to a college founded and endowed for the advancement of particular religious views; in fact, that religion, which has in our ancient universities ceased to be a qualification for office, shall now cease to be a disqualification as regards the advantages and emoluments of office in the non-sectarian University of London.
§ MR. BRYCE
I think the honourable Member who spoke last hardly apprehended the point of the Amendment. The point is very simple, and it is merely this: the University of London having been established on a non-sectarian basis, shall a professor in a denominational college who has submitted to a denominational test be allowed to receive funds from this non-sectarian institution for the purpose of his laboratory expenses or the apparatus to be used to him? I say that I cannot see any great harm is done under the Bill as it stands, but if I am asked whether the Bill is sound in principle I must answer that it is not, and therefore I support the Amendment.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
I do not know whether my right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen is prepared to apply to Ireland the principles he has laid down. Honourable Members opposite have pointed out that the most important Nonconformist 1221 colleges send candidates to the University of London. That is also true of the Roman Catholic colleges. As I understand the clause, it is to enable the Senate to recognise teachers of eminence in such colleges in non-theological subjects. I have very great confidence in the judgment of the Senate, and if powers were given them I certainly think they would exercise those powers, not in the interest of any particular sect, but in the interest of education. We are discussing the allocation of funds. No funds are provided in the Bill, but I take the clause as a pledge that the Government will endow the university with sufficient funds.
§ MR. HALDANE
My right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen spoke of this clause as raising a question of principle. I think that for once my honourable Friend has lost sight of the cardinal principle of the Bill. The Bill does not propose to make a university out of the colleges; it does not propose to take in King's College or any other college and make it an integral part of the university. The third proposition which underlies the Bill is that the teachers of the university are to be selected as individuals and in an individual capacity. It provides that no man shall be put in a worse position because he holds particular opinions. He is to be selected simply as a teacher. I shall give a vote against this Amendment.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE
The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London has introduced the case of Ireland, and thinks that has settled the question. What has that got to do with the matter? I must dismiss the remarks he has made on the subject. My right honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeen said that this clause, in his opinion, would probably do no harm; but I think he said he would probably vote against it. I should vote against it because it might do harm. When you make a law you do not say that it might do harm; you leave a Royal Commission to decide whether it will act in an undesirable manner or not. We do not intend in 1222 this proviso of the Bill to allow them to do harm upon this question.
§ *LORD E. FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
I ask the House for permission to say a few words. I think that I and my honourable Friends are on the whole acting consistently with our old principles if we vote against the clause. I would submit to the House that there is not only a risk of not being able to extract a clear meaning from these words, but there is also a risk of the second part of the clause being held to be a contradiction of the other. We are asked, or, rather, the Committee is asked, to say that—the statutes or regulations shall not authorise the assignment of money for any purpose in respect of which any privilege is granted, or disability imposed on account of religious belief.This might appear clear enough under certain circumstances. Then we go on to say—Provided that they shall not prevent the university from allocating funds on such conditions as it thinks fit for the payment of any person appointed or recognised by the university as a university teacher," etc.Well, Sir, I can imagine that any Commissioner under this Bill would find it difficult to decide, when he is askea—as he probably will be asked—to vote money in aid, say, of a science teacher at King's College, or a teacher at any of these Nonconformist colleges—whether they were, or were not, voting money fora purpose in respect of which a privilege was granted or disability imposed on account of religious belief,if the teacher, or professor, should be called upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. Those of us who sit on this side of the House cannot possibly complain of the attitude of honourable Members opposite. But honourable Members opposite will have nothing to complain of if, on further consideration of those words, we seem to recognise what appears to be an old enemy under a new guise, and, as the honourable Member for Aberdeen said, that we shall be acting consistently with our old principles if we vote against the clause.
§ SIR R. FINLAY
I am sure that no one on this side of the House, can com, plain of the noble Lord's conduct after what took place in Grand Committee, where he voted, as he told us, in favour of the Amendment. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord's apprehensions are quite unfounded. Even if there were any apparent contradiction in the proposed Amendment, I am sure the council would be able to say, what is the intention of the Act? I myself do not see that there is any contradiction whatever. The earlier part of the clause provides that the statutes or regulations shall not authorise the assignment of money for any purpose in respect of which any privilege is granted, or disability imposed on account of religious belief. Then it is said that it might possibly follow from that that no grant of money could be made in aid of laboratory expenses of a professor who held a post in some college where a test was imposed. Accordingly, there are inserted these words—Provided that they shall not prevent the university from allocating funds, on such conditions as it thinks fit, for the payment of any person appointed or recognised by the university as a university teacher, or for his laboratory expenses, or for apparatus to be used by him, notwithstanding any conditions attached to any office held by him in any school of the university.I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me it would be pushing the argument of interference too far to say that so far as the grant towards the expenses, of a professor in laboratory teaching is concerned, that professor must subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. I cannot see how a payment to a teacher in respect to his lectures, say, on chemistry, Sanscrit, or Chinese, can be held to infringe the great principle of secularism in these matters. We are dealing with a practical matter, and we must deal with it on the materials before us. It would be an extraordinary doctrine to assert that a university should not be at liberty to utilise to the very best advantage the services of very eminent men in particular colleges merely because it applied to Rome particular branch of teaching. I would only add one more word, by calling the attention, of the House to the words that the university is to make any such 1224 grant only on conditions which may seem to it, proper. The difficulties conjured up by honourable Members in reference to this part of the clause seem to me to be wholly imaginary.
Mr. BRYNMOR JONES
I moved in Committee upstairs for the omission of these words; but, unlike my honourable Friend, I cannot see any reason for reversing the opinion I then formed. I think the argument of the Solicitor General, which fairly sums up the general sense of the Committee upstairs, is really unanswerable. And, seeing that a great many honourable Members have naturally not had an opportunity of considering the whole matter in detail, let me point out, for the benefit of honourable Members on this side of the House, who specially represent the Nonconformist interest, how the matter stands in respect of the Nonconformist colleges in London. Under this Bill there are several Nonconformist colleges of great distinction and of great importance, in regard to the work they are performing, which are brought within the area of these teaching universities, just as King's College and others are brought within the sphere of its operations. Mr. Speaker, I do not think honourable Members who are opposing the inclusion of these words in the clause have really considered how the whole of the words are going to operate. You are cresting for London a teaching university. That is to say, you must include in your university a large number of teachers—some sectarian, and some non-sectarian; and the mere fact of being brought into contact with such a university is of benefit. It is a benefit to the sectarian as well as to the non-sectarian; and I have no hesitation in saying that this is a Bill which is conferring the very greatest advantages upon the Nonconformist colleges of London. Institutions like that at Regent's Park, or New College, for example, will benefit. At the same time I am bound to say that I would not, however great the benefit, do anything which would infringe the principle of religious equality, or the principle that the State should not support sectarian education. But I fail to see anything in what has been said by my honourable Friend to prove that these words will infringe either of these principles. Now, 1225 Sir, my remaining words shall be few; but let me give an instance, which occurs to my mind, and which may very likely occur in practice. Take the case of New College, or Regent's Park, and the case of a teacher of Oriental languages. Everyone knows that the teacher of Chinese or Oriental languages, who went out to the Far East some years ago, was a distinguished Nonconformist minister. Well, then, we have at Regent's Park, or New College, a teacher of Oriental languages, who has a special knowledge of Chinese, or some obscure dialects of the Far East. Well, I do not suppose there is anyone in the metropolis who can teach so well as that man. What does this Bill provide? It provides that some money may be given to some man for teaching some Eastern language, which it will be an advantage for many of us in this country to acquire. And, as the Solicitor General pointed out, there would be no power under the Bill to grant such money, except in the special circumstances covered by this clause. The money can only be given upon the terms that there shall be no disability imposed on account of religious belief. The money can only be given to the senate of the university on the condition that no disability shall follow on account of
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)||Finlay, Sir Robert B.|
|Arnold, Alfred||Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Firbank, Joseph Thomas|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Chamberlain,Rt.rln.J. (Birm.)||FitzWygram, General Sir F.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Fletcher, Sir Henry|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Folkestone, Viscount|
|Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)||Charrington, Spencer||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)||Chelsea, Viscount||Fry, Lewis|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Garfit, William|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Gedge, Sydney|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)|
|Beach, Rt.Hn.SiriM.H.(Brist'l)||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Giles, Charles Tyrrell|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Colomb, Sir John C. R.||Godson, Sir Augustus F.|
|Bethell, Commander||Colston, C. E. H. Athole||Gordon, Hon. John Edward|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.|
|Bigwood, James||Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)||Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)|
|Birrell, Augustine||Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)|
|Bond, Edward||Cross, H. S. (Bolton)||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Gretton, John|
|Brassey, Albert||Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.||Greville, Captain|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Dalkeith, Earl of||Gull, Sir Cameron|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Haldane, Richard Burdon|
|Bucknill, Thomas Townsend||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.|
|Butcher, John George||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.||Hardy, Laurence|
|Carlile, William Walter||Fardell, Sir T. George||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
§ religious belief. But take another case. Supposing that there should be the necessity for the publication of a text.—some Chinese or Japanese text—which is absolutely requisite for the State; we all know that some publishers will not reproduce such a text. It will not pay for the Work which the university often performs. Suppose the university then says, as to the professor at New College or King's College, we will give you a hundred pounds in order to assist you in the delivery of your lectures, and you take it; well, then, you must not impose any disability upon that. How on earth, Mr. Speaker, honourable Members can anticipate, under a clause like this, that there will be an infringement of the principles of religious equality I entirely fail to see. I am content to have the authority of the Solicitor General for that, as I altogether agree with the construction he has placed upon the section, and I cannot understand why honourable Members on the other side of the House should want to cut out these words.
§ Amendment put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 172; Noes 68.—(Division List No. 251.)
|Haslett, Sir James Homer||McArthur, C. (Liverpool)||Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)|
|Hazell, Walter||McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Henderson, Alexander||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Holland, Hon. Lionel R.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Smith, James P. (Lanark)|
|Howard, Joseph||More, Robert Jasper||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Howell, William Tudor||Morrell, George Herbert||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Jebb, Richard Claverhouse||Mount, William George||Strauss, Arthur|
|Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Murray, C. J. (Coventry)||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.|
|Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)||Sutherland, Sir Thomas|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Newdigate, Francis A.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Knowles, Lees||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lafone, Alfred||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Laurie, Lieut.-General||Philipps, John Wynford||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lawrence, SirEDurning(Corn.)||Pierpoint, Robert||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)||Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.|
|Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Purvis, Robert||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Lorne, Marquess of||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Wodehouse.Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)|
|Lowe, Francis William||Rutherford, John||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Lowles, John||Ryder, John Herbert D.||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)||Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)|
|Lubbock, Rt Hon. Sir John||Saunderson, Col. E. James|
|Lucas-Shadwell, William||Seoble, Sir Andrew Richard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Macaleese, Daniel||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)|
|Maclure, Sir John William||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Dunn, Sir William||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Allison, Robert Andrew||Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Asher, Alexander||Fenwick, Charles||Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Baker, Sir John||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)|
|Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)||Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Griffith. Ellis J.||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hayne, Rt. Hon. G. Seale-||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hemphill. Rt. Hon. C. H.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Brunner, Sir John T.||Hogan, James Francis||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Holburn, J. G.||Souttar, Robinson|
|Burt, Thomas||Joioey, Sir James||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Caldwell, James||Labouchere, Henry||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lewis, John Herbert||Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||McEwan, William||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)||M'Ghee, Richard||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Clough, Walter Owen||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')|
|Colville, John||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Woodall, William|
|Crilly, Daniel||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Oldroyd, Mark|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Palmer, Sir Charles M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Doogan, P. C.||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Mr. Harwood and Mr. Carvell Williams.|
|Duckworth, James||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
MR. HARWOOD moved—
To insert, after 'prorogation,' in clause 4, page 3, line 27, 'or dissolution.'
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1228
§ MR. HARWOOD
moved—To insert, after 'London Gazette,' clause 4, page 3, line 36, 'or after the expiration of the period of forty days in the last preceding sub-section mentioned (whichever shall last expire).'
§ Sir J. GORST
said he did not think the Amendment ought to be accepted, as 1229 three months was a very reasonable time in which to appeal.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
moved—To add after 'referred.' clause 4, page 4, line 7, 'but no petitioner shall in any event, or whatever be the result of the petition, be required or adjudged to pay any costs or expenses of any respondent or of any person or corporation who may oppose such petition, nor shall any such opponent or respondent be required or adjudged to pay any costs or expenses of any petitioner.'If the Amendment were not passed the clause would be to a great extent inoperative, as it could not be expected that any person would be so public-spirited as to run himself into immense cost by appearing before the council.
§ SIR R. FINLAY
The clause is much better as it stands, because it gives discretion as to costs. If the Amendment were adopted there would be no discretion whatever, and however wrong-headed a petitioner might be, he could not be condemned in costs.
I quite understand there are objections to the Amendment, but on the other hand it cannot be expected that any person will incur the expense of perhaps £1,000. It would be very hard on the petitioner to be deprived of his costs, but, perhaps, the best way out of the difficulty would be that each party should pay his own costs. That would be the lesser of two evils.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
moved—To insert after 'Wye,' in clause 7, page 4, line 32, 'and any other English college recognised by the Senate.'He said the object of the Amendment was to secure to other English colleges some of the privileges they would have under the Act if they were situated in the administrative county of London. If the House looked at the Bill it would be seen that it really did not constitute a teaching university for London. It crave 1230 the university no fresh powers, no new buildings, and no money. It brought, however, the colleges in closer touch with the Senate, and it gave the teachers a voice in the examinations. Unless university colleges were allowed to affiliate themselves to the London University it would be almost impossible to resist the demand for new universities, and whatever difference of opinion there might be in the House, all interested in the higher education of the country would agree that any considerable multiplication of universities would be very undesirable. The Bill created two limits—one, that of the county of London; the other, that of 30 miles—but he submitted that both were arbitrary and very artificial. What they had to look at was the question of communication, and in such a matter the important element was time, not distance. No doubt the object of the Bill was to give certain advantages to London colleges, but the London University would remain a great Imperial institution, and if he were to be told that this Bill was entirely confined to London, he would ask Her Majesty's Government why the agricultural college at Wye was included. The object of the Amendment was to give other colleges, especially in the south-east of England, the advantages which were to be given to the college at Wye, if they wished to avail of them, and if the Senate approved. Brighton, they knew, did desire to avail of these advantages, and Brighton was often called, with truth, a suburb of London, which could not be said of Wye. Surely Brighton had the better claim. Then there was the agricultural college at Cirencester. It was true that it was 20 miles further than Wye, but when the time occupied in getting there was considered, there was very little difference. Then there was an important educational institution at Southampton; there was only a difference of about 15 minutes between the times occupied in getting to London from Southampton and from Wye, and he should like to know on what principle the one was included and the other excluded. Why should a college two hours from London be included, and another college, only two hours and a quarter, be excluded? Then there was the University College at 1231 Bristol, which might also wish to be affiliated, in which case the London University would be more convenient than any other. If the arbitrary line proposed in the Bill were drawn, all the colleges in the south-east of England and in East Anglia would be excluded. There was no such narrow limit in the case of Victoria University. All he asked was that the university should be allowed to include these colleges if it thought fit. He submitted that the Senate should be allowed discretion in the matter, and should not be debarred from admitting these colleges. There were a number of colleges springing up in the south-east of England, and many of them held qualifications equal to those of Wye, and it was a most singular position to take up that they should all be excluded. Why were the advantages of the Bill to be extended to Wye, and withheld from equally suitable institutions? All he aimed at was that the Senate should, in their discretion, if they thought fit, Be able to admit other colleges. It could not be seriously said that the agricultural college at Wye was the only country college suitable for admission to the advantages to be conferred under the Bill. He begged to move.
§ SIR F. EVANS (Southampton)
Mr. Speaker, why Wye? I represent a constituency which has a great college, and I naturally ask myself, what is the principle underlying this Bill? You can come up from Southampton to London as quickly as you can come from Wye. Have the Government been working on a kind of Euclid proposition by taking a centre and describing a circle at a radius of 30 miles? Surely the south of England, which is further from Oxford and Cambridge, has a right to be included in this university Bill. I know that Southampton is most anxious to share in its benefits, and I can hardly fancy the Vice-President of the Council arguing against its claim.
§ SIR J. GORST
If the object of the Bill is to be carried out, and if a teaching university for London is to be created, some limit must, be fixed, and I think that the radius of 30 miles in the Full is a very liberal limit. A limit of any kind is very hard to keep, but if it is not kept 1232 the university would cease to be a teaching university for London, and would interfere with the Victoria University, and other universities in the Midlands and in Wales. The whole principle of the Bill is the maintenance of this new teaching university as a university for London. It has been asked, why did we let in Wye. Wye is situated, geographically, in Kent, but the college is essentially a London institution. It is an agricultural college, maintained by the county council of Surrey, out of London's money, and is in reality a London institution. The college at Southampton is an excellent college, but it owes its existence to the public spirit of Southampton, and it differs from the agricultural college at Wye, inasmuch as it is not a London institution. I am very sorry not to be able to admit these various colleges into the Bill, but it is impossible to make it more comprehensive, and I must ask the House to be firm and not extend further the very liberal limit proposed in the Bill.
§ SIR J. S. BARRINGTON SIMEON (Southampton)
I tried very hard to find out why the 30-mile limit had been fixed at all. The only thing I was ever told was that if it were not fixed the Bill would interfere with Oxford and Cambridge. What is the use of a London University, which is only a teaching university for London alone, and excludes such colleges as that at Southampton;' It is simply for London alone. It may be said that in years to come a southern university will be established, but meantime we will be losing enormous advantages; and it is extremely hard that this limit should be imposed upon us. My right honourable Friend the Member for the University of London has said all I wish to say, and my honourable colleague in the representation of Southampton has spoken on behalf of the college there, but it seems to me there is no earthly reason why the limit should be established at all, and I very much hope the House of Commons will wisely decide to remove it.
§ MR. STUART (, Hoston) Shoreditch
The honourable Gentleman says that there is no reason why the university should not extend everywhere, but there is no hindrance proposed in the Bill, as 1233 colleges such as that at Southampton will have the same advantages as they have been getting. The honourable Gentleman seems to think there is something wrong in confining the Bill to London, but the reply is that the object of the Bill is to provide a teaching university for London—not for the whole nation. There are various other universities, but London is the only great centre which has not one. I candidly confess I think it would have been wise to have confined the Bill to the county of London, but I have no objection to its extension, under certain limits. We all know that London is an immense metropolitan area, and for a metropolitan university it is, perhaps, only fair that its advantages should extend 30 miles from the centre of London; but I think the most consistent means would be to have restricted the Bill to the county of London. The object of the Bill is to establish a teaching university in London—not to extinguish the London University, as it at present stands. It will be retained exactly as it is, but a new teaching university will be created. Many of us were most anxious that the new-university should be established, quite apart from the existing University of London, but we were prevented from taking that course. In conclusion, I think that we, in the Metropolis, have a right to this university.
§ MR. GEDGE (Walsall)
The Vice-President tells us that the only reason why the London University is not to have the power of affiliation is that it might injure other universities. Healthy competition is the best thing that can happen to the London University, and there can only be danger to other universities if it is better than they are, and if, in consequence, colleges naturally desire to affiliate with it. I think it is better that there should be rivalry of competition. No one who has spoken against the Amendment has shown that any harm would result from it, and I believe it would do a great deal of good. I sincerely hope that this is not a party matter, and that the House will accept the Amendment, and extend the scope of the Bill.
§ MR. HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
Not only the county of Surrey, but also the county of Kent is largely without the administrative aid to be given under this Bill. Another reason why the college at Wye, in the county of Kent, should be included in this Bill is that Kent also assists in its support. If the Government can go further, and give the south-eastern counties the advantages for which they pay, I shall be glad to support the honourable Member in that way, but I trust we shall not lose the advantages that we pay for.
§ *MR. E. GRAY
I quite agree that examination and teaching ought to be brought into harmony in what has been called a teaching university. It is, no doubt, a very good thing, but why should not the principle be extended to those colleges which are beyond the 30-mile radius? If it be good for the Metropolis, why should it not be extended to those colleges outside the 30-mile radius? What possible harm can be done to London by extending it to the colleges outside? It seems to me that here is an attempt being made to fill the benches in certain institutions within the metropolitan area, and in order to do that an artificial line is to be drawn round London, and that colleges inside a certain radius are to be recognised, and those which are, owing to their geographical position, outside the area, are not to be recognised, and so they will not, in the nature of things, have any opportunity of affiliating with the University of London. It may be said that universities will be formed to which they could affiliate themselves—that a university will be established in Birmingham; well, then, the Birmingham University would naturally attract to it all the colleges in that district which, up to that time, had, for want of anything better, been affiliated to London. It may be said that a university will also be established which would cover the south-western districts. Would anyone suggest the probability of such a university attaching to itself all the excellent colleges established on the south coast, in Hampshire, Sussex. Surrey, and Kent? Where are those colleges to be in the future? Here you 1235 have colleges inside the 30-mile radius of London, and colleges outside the radius, doing the same work as those within the 30-mile area, and, so far as I can see, any one of our ordinary polytechnics may be regarded as a college of this university, and those excellent colleges outside cannot. My right honourable Friend says we must assent to this' restriction. When he gives me any good reason for doing so, I am prepared to follow his advice, but in this case I cannot see any sound reason for drawing this imaginary line around London, and excluding all the colleges which are outside that area from the benefit conferred upon those which are in side this so-called metropolitan area It seems to me that it is a mistake to say there will be a material benefit conferred upon London by this Bill. I confess I cannot see it in that light. It will confer a benefit upon the existing university institutions, but beyond that it will certainly not confer any benefit whatever upon the Metropolis. I think that whatever benefit there may be ought to be extended to all those colleges beyond the radius, and, therefore, I shall support the Amendment. I am not one of those who say that every college claiming to be, ought to be a university college, but I do think that the university should have the power, whenever they think it desirable, to include colleges beyond the radius which are doing university work. I cannot see what objection there can be to the Amendment, but I do see that a great good would arise from its acceptance, and I think there will be a great deal of heartburning in the districts outside upon the part of those colleges who look to the University of London, and will have to come, can in hand as it were, although they have adopted the same curriculum, claim the same certificates, teach the same subjects, and do the same advantages of harmonious complishing the same objects. I believe it is placing those provincial colleges in an unfair position. I am very, very anxious to see extended to them the same advantages of harmonious combination between the teaching and the examinations. I do not believe in regarding these examinations as the chief feature of academic work. I 1236 think it is better to look to the teaching work, and, therefore, let us put a stamp upon the teaching in the good provincial schools, where such good work is done, and can be done hereafter, just as well as it can be done now. I think some concession might be made upon these points. I think the Government do not recognise how strong opinion is upon this matter in the provinces among all those who are interested in education and the management of the colleges. The force of that opinion has not yet been brought to bear upon this Bill which is now before the House, but those who have become alive to what the provisions of the Bill really mean are opposing it upon that ground. If this Amendment is accepted, all these objections would disappear, but so long as the provincial colleges are excluded, one cannot be blamed for attempting to amend the Bill.
§ MR. HALDANE
There may be considerable feeling existing in the provinces arising out of this matter, but it is a feeling which is, in my opinion, based upon an entire misconception as to the objects of this Bill This Bill is not a Measure which has for its object the aggregating of colleges with the University of London. If that were so, then they might pick and choose a different area, and take the colleges in the group, and the result would be that you would have a government of the colleges, and the superintending of them going on in their particular centres. That is not the scheme of this Bill. What this Bill pro poses to do is to create the university, not by colleges, but by faculties. It proposes to take one standard. A student would come and would matriculate, and then would present himself at Burlington Gardens, and say that lit wished to study at the University. Then what would be said to him? That he must start the curriculum, that he must follow the regulations, and he would be referred to his teachers, and would study under them. Now, how would the curriculum be arranged by the individual teachers? By meeting in their faculties, and putting their heads together, and discussing it, and making their various comments, and then submitting plans to the academic council, which would enable them to describe at any time the nature 1237 of the curriculum; so that the student learns under his particular teachers what he should learn before he comes in. That necessitates that the individual teachers should Be often together, that they should come together and form themselves into associations, which is impossible unless they are within a certain locality, where they can say what is to be the curriculum at a particular college, but the metropolitan rules provide that the teachers should come together, and to do their work on the spot. Now, how does the Bill work that out? It takes a limit, it is true. That is because it is connected practically with matters in London, and organised from London. Then why have they taken the 30-mile radius? Because a 30-mile radius might easily include those colleges which might be looked upon as of a London character, and the 30-mile limit was adopted in order to bring those colleges within the scope of the University. It is necessary to have a local area within which the teachers might come together, and that object would be defeated if you brought in colleges from a greater distance, and would be absolutely fatal to the Bill. My right honourable Friend the Member for the University knows, if this Amendment were to be carried, it would be inconsistent with the principle which the
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Allison, Robert Andrew||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Baker. Sir John||Hardy, Laurence||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Balfour,Rt,Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)||Harwood, George||Roberts, John Brvn (Eifion)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hazell, Walter||Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles|
|Brigg, John||Holburn, J. G.||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)|
|Caldwell, James||Joicey, Sir James||Smith, James P. (Lanark)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Labouchere, Henry||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)||Souttar, Robinson|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lloyd-George, David||Spicer, Albert|
|Clark. Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)||Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Clough, Walter Owen||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Colville, John||Macaleese, Daniel||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||McEwan, William||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||M'Ghee, Richard||Warner, Thomas C. T.|
|Doogan, P. C.||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Williams, John C. (Notts)|
|Duckworth, James||Monk, Charles James||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')|
|Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Fenwick, Charles||Oldroyd, Mark|
|Foster. Sir W. (Derby Co.)||Palmer, Sir Charles M.||Tellers for the Ayes—|
|Gedge, Sydney||Pearson. Sir Weetman D.||Sir Francis Evans and Sir Barrington Simeon.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)|
|Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)||Philipps, John Wynford|
§ House adopted upon the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ MR. HALDANE
Then I cannot help thinking that all those with whom the right honourable Baronet works most frequently, regard this Amendment as fatal to the Bill.
§ MR. HARWOOD
I merely wish to point out to the Committee that I think the Government ought to consider, not only this question by itself, but also to have some regard to the general feeling of the country. We have pointed out that there is a strong feeling upon this matter, and I think we may fairly ask where is there any hope for the colleges south of the Thames, if not here. I do not see where, for instance, a college at Brighton can have any chance of affiliating with a university, if not with London. I think we ought to give the university the power I ask for under this Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 183.—(Division List No. 252.)
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Fardell, Sir T. George||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Mount, William George|
|Arnold, Alfred||Finlay, Sir Robert B.||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)|
|Asher, Alexander||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Murray, C. J. (Coventry)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fisher, William Hayes||Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)|
|Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Newdigate, Francis A.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||FitzWygram, General Sir F.||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Maner)||Folkestone, Viscount||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Pollock, Harry Frederick|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Garfit, William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)||Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Purvis, Robert|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Godson, Sir Augustus F.||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Bethell, Commander||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Bigwood, James||Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.|
|Bill, Charles||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)|
|Birrell, Augustine||Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Round, James|
|Bond, Edward||Greville, Captain||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Gull, Sir Cameron||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Brassey, Albert||Haldane, Richard Burdon||Ryder, John Herbert D.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Sharpe, William Kdward T.|
|Brunner, Sir John T.||Hanburv, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.||Sidebotham; J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Bucknill, Thomas Townsend||Henderson, Alexander||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Butcher, John George||Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)||Smith. Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Carlile, William Walter||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)||Howard, Joseph||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Jebb, Richard Claverhouse||Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.||Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Strauss, Arthur|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)||Kenyon, James||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Stuart, James (Shoreditch)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Knowles, Lees||Sturt, Hon. Humphry|
|Charrington, Spencer||Lafone, Alfred||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chelsea, Viscount||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Colomb, Sir John C. R.||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)|
|Colston, C. E. H. Athole||Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.|
|Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)||Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Lorne, Marquess of||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.||Lowe, Francis William||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lowles, John||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)|
|Cross, H. S. (Bolton)||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)|
|Curzon,RtHnG.N.(Lanc.,SW)||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Wylie, Alexander|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Maclure, Sir John William||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.||McArthur, C. (Liverpool)||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||McArthur, W. (Cornwall)||Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||McCalmont, H. L. B. (Jambs)|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Tellers for the Noes—|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Milton, Viscount||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Drucker, A.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||More, Robert Jasper|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.||Morrell, George Herbert|
Page 5, line 11, after 'elected,' insert 'by voting papers delivered personally or sent by post as at present.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
§ MR. HARWOOD
The schedule provides that the Senate shall be elected—seventeen by the Convocation, of whom the chairman of Convocation shall be one, and 1241 the remaining sixteen shall be elected by the registered graduates in their separate faculties in such proportions as the Statutory Commission shall determine.Now, my Amendment provides that the election shall beby voting papers delivered personally or sent by post as at present.I hope that after the lengthy discussion we have had the House will realise that the members of the Senate are spread all over the country and a, very small proportion of them reside in London, and that by far the great majority of them live at great distances from the Metropolis, and their occupations make it highly inconvenient to attend the meetings of the Senate. I am not ashamed of it, but I am proud to confess that most of the members of Convocation are more or less poor men, and that is one reason why they belong to the London University. Now I am sure that the House would not desire to take part in passing anything which would put a kind of penalty upon these poor men who would have to pay very heavily to come up to London. Now the question is whether they shall be allowed to vote as in other centres by post. The right honourable Gentleman and others have been inclined to sneer at postcard voting, but why I do not know. The right honourable Gentleman himself has a personal interest in this kind of voting, which should make him somewhat kinder to this principle. Well, as I have said, we have had sneers about this postcard voting, but this is an occasion for electing persons not by complicated details but exactly in the same way as they vote for members of the Senate in other universities, and I would point out to the House how much more important it is to remember this fact. When Convocation was assembled it voted in favour of the system of voting proposed in this Bill. And why? Because that gathering was naturally attended by members residing in or near London who can conveniently attend. But when the whole constituency was appealed to by this postcard voting, that is when members were allowed to vote who could not come up to London, that decision was reversed, and it was reversed by about an equal number of those who voted for it in the 1242 other case. This shows that if you want to get at the true opinion you must allow them to vote in this way, which is the only possible way to obtain the opinion of the bulk of the members. There are two reasons why these members cannot fairly be expected to come up to London and vote on matters of this kind. In the first place, it is not an easy thing for a man to come up to London from the North of England to spend moment or two in voting, and then to go home perhaps 200 or 300 miles. It is perfectly reasonable to allow that a man may express his opinion when the matter is put before him by circular or by postcard. The bulk of the members of Convocation are men engaged in active and somewhat compulsory occupations. Often they are teachers of schools holding high positions, many of which make it impossible fur them to get away.
That these words stand part of the clause.
§ Agreed to.
Page 5, line 15, leave out 'four by the,' and insert 'one by each of the four.'"—(Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)
§ Agreed to.
Page 5, end of line 15, to insert 'one by the Society of Apothecaries.'"—(Dr. Clarl.)
§ DR. CLARK
The constitution of the Senate has been entirely changed from what it was recommended to be by the Commission. According to that recommendation there would have been 11 elected by the Convocation, four from the faculties, and five from the outside bodies. Now you are only giving four from these outside bodies, and you have dropped altogether the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the Society of Apothecaries, and so far from the medical section being twice as numerous as recommended by the Commission there will now only be about half a dozen. Now I want to know why this 1243 change has been made in the constitution of this very important body. Of course, as far as several of the colleges are concerned, they tare not doing any educational work at all, for it is being done by the various hospitals.
§ SIR J. GORST
I am afraid I cannot accept any alteration in the constitution of the Senate, which has already a very wide representation.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Page 5, line 23, leave out from 'by' to end of line 24, and insert 'Convocation in the manner above mentioned.'"—(Mr. Griffith.)
On behalf of the honourable Member for South-west Bethnal Green I beg leave to move this Amendment. The Bill provides—That if, and as long as, any of the above-mentioned bodies fail to exercise the power of appointment hereby given, in every such case the power shall be exercised by Her Majesty with the advice of the Privy Council.The Amendment of my honourable Friend is to secure that the power of appointing shall not be exercised by Her Majesty, but by the Convocation. It has been the contention all along that the Convocation has not been sufficiently representative in this matter. It has only 16 or 17 members, and we do think that if there should be a lapse in the number of the Senate that lapse should prove to the benefit of the Convocation. They have very little power now, and they only elect 17 out of 55, and surely it is reasonable to ask that should there be one or two seats vacant they should be filled up by the Convocation.
§ SIR J. GORST
I am afraid that I could not accept this proposal, because in the event of any of the representatives of these particular bodies vacating their seats their places should be filled by men of the same character and class as their predecessors.
§ Amendment negatived.1244
Page 5, line 33, leave out 'or other adequate test,' from the following provision in the schedule: 'No procedure to a higher degree shall be allowed without examination or other adequate test.'"(Mr. Harwood.)
§ MR. HARWOOD
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, quite understand what sort of a method is supposed to be established by this proviso. What is an adequate test for a degree in reference to this university? What parallel or precedent have we for anything of the kind that you Should provide for a degree by some other adequate test? I think the House has a right to know what is meant by the words "other adequate test." As far as my knowledge goes this is a perfectly unique condition, and I move to omit these words, because it is opening the door to a principle which this House should watch with great jealousy, and which should be carefully watched particularly by those interested in the present university degrees. Those degrees have their value, because it is well understood in the country that they are granted after examination, and by examination only. I am quite aware that it is possible to exaggerate the value of an examination, but at any rate you must have some kind of test, and that test has always been adopted by the London University. But if we establish they are not to mean examinations at all, but some other adequate test, it will not only open the door to a number of people coming in who ought not to come in, but it will lower very considerably the value of the degrees, because you will not know whether it has been obtained by an examination or by this other method. I move this Amendment because I believe that if these words are retained it will set up a bad precedent.
§ SIR J. GORST
I wish to remind the honourable Member opposite that I explained the question as to the meaning of these words to him in reply to a question on the Standing Committee, and I thought that I had explained it to his satisfaction.
§ SIR J. GORST
I explained that in many oases a candidate for a higher degree was sometimes required to write a thesis or to do some piece of original work, and that was the qualification. That was fully explained to the honourable Member before, and I thought that he was entirely satisfied on the point. I do hope now that he will withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Page 5, line 34, leave out from 'confer' to the end of line 35."—(Captain Norton.)
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)
The words to me seem to be on a par with certain bogus proceedings at High-gate, where some people added the words "unless they liked it better." If these words are not erased the authorities will have power to confer degrees without any examination at all and without any test; in fact, they will be able to give degrees to certain teachers who have hitherto failed to obtain them, and they will thereby lower the value of the degree both in regard to passing the examination and in the eyes of those persons who already possess them. With reference to what has been stated about the higher degrees this is not a question of higher degrees at all. Everybody knows that the first degree is a degree of great importance, and at Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin Universities they are carefully protected and the authorities are very careful not to admit any of the outside smaller colleges. But according to this you might have students from a college in Wales obtaining a degree in the London University. It does seem to me that this places absolute power in the hands of the university to give the degrees to every person they may think fit without any test whatever. It has been stated 1246 that an examination is not always the best test of knowledge. I frankly admit that, but after all examination is the only test we know of at the present time. The thesis test may be very effective, but I hold that at present nowhere is a degree granted unless there is at certain periods a definite examination.
§ SIR J. GORST
In the first instance it was pointed out to the Government that this was a very invidious restriction, and they consented to admit it and allow this university a right which every other university has to confer these degrees if they liked without examination, but it was only to be done in exceptional cases in which there was some particular merit or service on the part of the recipient which justified the granting of the degree. The Government consented to that, and now they are being called into question on that account for making that concession. I think that concession was a right one to make, because we are only giving the same power as that which is possessed by other universities.
§ *SIR A. ROLLIT
I certainly think that the clause is now much better thaw when it indicated that such degrees might be conferred only on the teachers of the university. I would remind my right honourable Friend that although the existing university has this power to confer degrees without examination it has never exercised it, which tends to show that care and discrimination will be exercised by the Senate, and that the power may well be continued, as it may be useful on great academic occasions, and may lead to reciprocity.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Page 6, after line 4, insert—
The Senate shall from time to time appoint visitors, who shall periodically visit and report direct to the Senate upon the curriculum of and the instruction given by the respective constituent colleges or schools of the university and the recognised teachers, whether belonging to schools of the university or not."—(Mr. Harwood.)
§ MR. HARWOOD
What I am proposing is what has all along been maintained, and I do not think that the working of the schedule will bear out the interpretation which has been put upon it. When you look lower down in clause 8, section (b), of the schedule it provides—Members of the teaching stuffs of public educational institutions.When we refer to the Report we find that there were a certain number of institutions which the Commission recommended should be made schools of the university. There were 25 institutions mentioned, and it is recommended that this number shall be the beginning from which this London University is going to grow up. Now I propose to make this proposal in the interests of these schools. If this teaching university is to be a success it is necessary that the institutions which go to compose it shall be brought up to as high a level as possible. It is absurd to make a university school of something which is not of a university character, and honourable Members know quite well that these various institutions differ very much in this respect. I do not wish at this late hour to enter into particulars, but it is a well-known fact that many of these institutions are not up to a university standard, and that the teaching and the general character of them is not what it should be. Now we have already passed a Resolution that the university should be able to grant these institutions sums of money. Well, surety it is a fundamental principle of our constitution that, if Parliament grants public money, at any rate there should be some security that it is properly expended. In this matter I am following the precedent of the London University itself. Here is the very instance that we are pressing upon the Government, and I should like to repeat that I personally feel that it is my duty not to wreck this Bill, but to try to make it as good as it can be made. I say that it is a necessity in establishing this university that we should insert some power to see that these institutions do all they can do in the interests of education. That is only a fair return not only for the money granted but for the position which has been given 1248 to them. We have heard it stated in the Debate that they do give something back and that they are doing their utmost to bring their teaching up to the proper level. But how is it to be done? Why, it can only be done by some kind of a Committee that will go round periodically, I do not say at what time, to examine the school and to report. They may find the school falling back, and it may be found necessary to compel them to bring thing's back to the proper level or to out off the grant. I say in the interests of these schools it is distinctly to the advantage of this Bill that some such provision should be provided.
§ SIR J. GORST
Surely this is a matter more for the Senate than for the consideration of the House, and surely it is not for this House to prescribe what particular line the Senate is to exercise. I do not think the Commissioners themselves would propose a hard and fast rule, as the honourable Member seems to do in this Amendment. I do not approve of it, and I hope the House will not accept it.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
Would the Senate have any power to appoint these visitors if there is no condition to that effect inserted in the Bill?
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
If the Senate will have the power, then I think the matter might very well be left where it is. I should have thought, however, that the Senate would have no control whatever over these institutions unless some such words were inserted in the Bill.
§ MR. HALDANE
On page 52 of the Cowper Commission Report it states that they should be open to visitation.
§ *SIR C. DILKE
I do not think that a great many honourable Members have in their minds what these colleges really are. There are 10 schools of medicine, four schools of music, six theological colleges, and a great number of these institutions are not institutions which at present stand very high. Undoubtedly it must tend to the advantage of university teaching to bring bodies of this kind under something like efficient control. The Commissioners are to take this power upon themselves without the direction of this House, and it does seem to me to be a most invidious task that they are asked to undertake. I think we ought to take some steps to secure what this Amendment proposes.
The honourable Member has referred to page 52 of the Report with reference to the schools being open to visitation. I think this shows conclusively the danger of compromising. Now, whether the thing is necessary or not, or whether it can be done without this Amendment or not, does not seem to me to be very material. Why should we leave everything in the hands of the Commission? Why should we deliver the whole future of this university to the control of this Commission, as to whose views we know little or nothing? I think the House is per-
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Allison, Robert Andrew||Griffith, Ellis J.||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)|
|Baker, Sir John||Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Joicey, Sir James||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Brigg, John||Labouchere, Henry||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Lea. Sir T. (Londonderry)||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Butcher, John George||Lorne, Marquess of||Walton, J. (Barnsley)|
|Caldwell, James||Lubbock, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Cawley, Frederick||Macaleese, Daniel||Williams, John C. (Notts)|
|Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)||M'Ghee, Richard||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')|
|Clough, Walter Owen||Norton, Capt. C. William||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.|
|Colville, John||Pearson, Sir W. D.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Pease, J. A. (Northumberland)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Philipps, John Wynford||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Doogan, P. C.||Provand, Andrew D.||Mr. Harwood and Sir Albert Rollit|
|Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)||Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)|
|Evans. Sir F. H. (South'ton)||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
§ fectly right in saying, "We will leave no option to the Commissioners, but we say that you must do it." The House will see, I think, that it is not one of the functions that should be delegated to others.
§ SIR W. PRIESTLEY
The medical council adopted this method of visitation quite voluntarily. I believe there is nothing in the Act that compels them to do it; therefore I think the matter may be very well left to the Senate.
§ *SIR A. ROLLIT
It seems to me that we have no alternative but to indicate the duty of the Senate respecting the colleges included in the Bill. I think there is a clear Parliamentary precedent with regard to the university colleges of Great Britain, because they are subject to a Treasury examination before the amounts are paid over. That seems to me to be an exact precedent, and surely if we are going to recognise and subsidise university teaching in these colleges we ought to see that the work and teaching are effectively conducted.
That those words be there inserted.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 160.—(Division List No. 253.)
|Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.||Elliot, Hon. A. R. D.||McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)|
|Arnold, Alfred||Fardell, Sir T. George||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)|
|Asher, Alexander||Fellowes, Hon. A. E.||Milton, Viscount|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne||Monk, Charles James|
|Bagot, Capt. J. F.||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||More, Robert Jasper|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fisher, William Haves||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)||FitzWygram, General Sir F.||Mount, William George|
|Balfour,Rt. Hon. J.B.(Clackm.)||Fletchen, Sir Henry||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Folkestone, Viscount||Murray, C. J. (Coventry)|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Foster, H. S. (Suffolk)||Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin||Gedge, Sydney||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)||Godson, Sir A. F.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Bethell, Commander||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||Pollock, Harry Frederick|
|Bill, Charles||Gosehen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Birrell, Augustine||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Purvis, Robert|
|Bond, Edward||Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M W.|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Greville, Captain||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.|
|Brassey, Albert||Gull, Sir Cameron||Round, James|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Haldane, Richard Burdon||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Ryder, John H. D.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Bucknill, Thomas T.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Hardy, Laurence||Smith, J. P. (Lanark)|
|Carlile, William Walter||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)||Hazell, Walter||Souttar, Robinson|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Henderson, Alexander||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
|Cecil Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)||Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart|
|Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.||Howard, Joseph||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.)||Jebb, Richard Claverhouse||Stuart, James (Shoreditch)|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Jones, D. B. (Swansea)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Kenyon, James||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Chelsea, Viscount||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Valentia, Viscount|
|Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Knowles, Lees||Warner, T. C. T.|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Lafone, Alfred||Warr, A. F.|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lawrence, SirEDurning (Corn.)||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Colomb, Sir J. C. R.||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Welby, Lient.-Col. A. C. E.|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)||Williams, J. P. (Birm.)|
|Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Cwrie||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Llewelyn,SirDillwyn (Sw'ns a)||Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)|
|Cross, H. S. (Bolton)||Loder, G. W. E.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Curzon, RtHn. G. N. (Lanc,SW)||Long, Rt, Hn. W. (Liverp'l)||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Lowles, John||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lucas-Shadwell, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Maclure, Sir John William|
|Duncombe, Hon. H. V.||McArthur, C. (Liverpool)|
§ Amendment proposed—
§ "Page 6, line 12, after 'twenty,' insert 'eight.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)
§ MR. HARWOOD
My proposal is to add eight to the council for external students. At present the provisions in 1252 the schedule for the academic council is—This Committee shall consist of the sixteen members of the Senate, appointed by the faculties, the three ex officio members and a senator or senators, elected by the Senate to make the number of members up to twenty.1253 That is to say, there is only one member elected from outside besides the ex officio members, but when you come to the external students there are nine appointed from outside. The proviso for the council for external students is—This Committee shall consist of the sixteen members of the Senate appointed by convocation, other than the chairman of convocation, the three ex officio members and senators, elected by the senate to make the number of members up to twenty-eight.Now, I do not understand why this distinction is drawn, and I do not know why the outside element should be nine in the case of external students, whilst in the case of internal students it is only one. It seems to me that in order to secure the proper working of these two bodies there should be a sufficiently large external element upon the academic council. If it is not too large in the case of external students, then it is too small in the case of internal students, and I wish to remedy this by moving this Amendment.
§ SIR J. GORST
This matter was thoroughly discussed on the Standing Committee, and I do not think we ought to accept this proposal.
§ Amendment negatived.
Page 6, line 29, to omit the word 'public'"—(Mr. Griffiths.)
The clause would then read—Members of the teaching staffs of educational institutions.In reply to a question from this side of the House, it was said that anyone could not be a teacher of the university, although he was a teacher attached to a private teaching establishment. My honourable Friend behind me put that question.
The question put, I understand, was whether a man who took part in private teaching, or cramming, or "coaching," could be recognised as a teacher of this university, and 1254 I understand from my honourable Friend that he could not. Well, I do not see any reason for limiting this proviso to the members of public educational institutions. I am not quite sure what a public educational institution means. Is it an educational institution to which any member of the public is admitted, on payment of the requisite fee, or is it a term which has some special meaning? I beg to move this Amendment, in order that I may get this information.
§ SIR J. GORST
Public institutions, of course, mean institutions carried on with public money, to which the general public are admitted.
§ Amendment negatived.
Page 6, lines 29 and 30, leave out 'situate within a radius of 30 miles from the university buildings.'"—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
§ *SIB J. LUBBOCK
I should like to ask my right honourable Friend whether, after the discussion we have had, he does not think he could insert the words proposed in my Amendment, so as to admit the colleges in the southeast of England. There was some objection made as regards colleges in the north of England, but unless my Amendment be accepted there will be no university to which colleges in the South of England, outside London, can be affiliated. I may point out to the House that no teacher, unless he belongs to some recognised college within the 30-mile radius, will be able to become a teacher of the university.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I rather understood from the observations, of the honourable Member that his Amendment raises precisely the same question as the point which I have previously ruled upon.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
It is not precisely so. I want to ask my right honourable Friend whether he would not leave out the 30-mile limit, and put in some words that will admit the colleges in the southeast of England.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
I Understand that when a college is said to be included, it 1255 does not mean anything more than that the members of the teaching staff are to be included. If that is so, this is the same Amendment.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
My first Amendment included colleges over the whole of England. This refers only to colleges in the south-east. I do not wish to occupy the time of the House on this point, but I do ask the right honourable Gentleman, after the discussion we have had, whether he will not introduce some words which will admit these other colleges.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
It seems to me that directly you get outside the 30-mile limit you are including the whole of England. The Amendment is out of order.
Page 6, line 36, leave out 'matriculated at.' and insert 'passed the matriculation examination of.'"—(Mr. Brigg.)
§ MR. BRIGG
Au the clause at present stands, it reads—Internal students of the university are students who have matriculated at the university, and who are pursuing a course of study approved by the university in a school or schools of the university, or under one or more of the recognised teachers of the university.The meaning of the word "matriculated" in this case could not mean "passed the matriculation examination." If that is not so, it may mean anything, and there is no uniformity as to the qualification. I merely move this Amendment to ask for a further explanation.
§ SIR J. GORST
I think this might very well be left to the Commissioners, who have all had great experience in matters of this kind.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Page 7, after line 21, insert '(c) The Examiners of the University.'"—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
§ *SIR A. ROLLIT
The clause at present provides—Boards of studies shall be constituted for the subjects of university study. The members of each board of studies shall be appointed by the Senate from—members of a faculty who teach or examine in the board's subjects; other teachers of the university who teach the board's subjects.I propose to add to this list the examiners of the university. It is the practice now of the Senate to confer with the examiners for the guidance of the university on the subjects of the curricula, but the chief ground, Sir, upon which I move this Amendment is that the examiners are those who have the most relations with the external students, and it becomes a very important function to coordinate the work of the students with the examinations. And, otherwise, the boards of studies will have upon them no representative whatever of subjects of external study, and it does seem to me that the examiners, in addition, by looking where the points of teaching are defective, are among the very best advisers which the Senate can possibly have. I beg to move.
§ SIR J. GORST
I think this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, because the honourable Member will see, with regard to the boards of study, that—The Senate may also appoint such other persons, not exceeding one-fourth of the total number of the boards, as they may think fit.That would give the Senate the power to secure the services of the examiners, if they thought it advisable to put them on the boards of studies.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Page 7, line 28, leave out from begining of line to the second 'and' in line 30, and insert—
The matriculation examination in the University, and all subsequent examinations in each faculty of the university, shall be the same for all students, whether external or internal, and no student, whether internal or external, shall be allowed to present any certificate in lieu of any such examination, or of any part thereof."—(Sir C. Dilke.)
§ *SIR C. DILKE
This Amendment is one of the only two Amendments which I ventured to place on the Paper, and this question was not dealt with in Committee.
§ *SIR C. DILKE
Well, at all events, the opinion of the Grand Committee was not taken upon this subject, which seems one of the most important subjects, from an educational point of view, in the whole of the Bill. Now, Sir, we are creating a great new educational ideal, and the first thing; Parliament ought to look to is that we should not depreciate the standard, but do our best to raise it rather than to lower it. I cannot but believe—and I know that a great many Members opposite are of the game opinion on this particular point—that the effect of the words, as they stand in this Bill, will be to permanently depreciate the education given in this University. I have read, over and over again, the words in the Report which concern this subject, and we know how deservedly high stands the examination of the present London University. We know how admirable is the matriculation, and we know how high it stands throughout the country. Well, Sir, I have read over and over again the words in which the Commission recommend that there shall be two classes of examination for this University, one for the new class of students, and another for the existing class of students—that is, the internal and external students. Well, I see no justification for this. I cannot understand what they mean, or where they derive the ground-work for the recommendation they make. In the hope of eliciting some explanation of that which was not explained in the Grand Committee, and which seems to me to be a blot upon the Bill, I move this Amendment. This proposal of mine is a very sweeping and strongly-worded one, and I believe that the Government have some compromise in their mind in regard to it. But the compromise, suggested to me is not one which ought to prevent us going to a Division upon this point. But, although it is a sweeping proposal, I am by no means disposed to reject some understanding. I thought it 1258 best to put the Amendment down in the strongest possible terms, in order that it might be laid down that one educational standard might be maintained in this University, and for this reason I beg to move this Amendment.
§ SIR J. GORST
The proposal of the right honourable Baronet is not of very great importance, but if it were adopted it would practically destroy the Bill. It has been asserted by those interested in the external students that they are likely to suffer from the easier examination, but I think this is an entirely mistaken idea, and I do not think that the teachers are at all likely to lower the quality of the degrees which are conferred upon them. I think the tendency of the teachers is rather to raise those degrees. That, however, was the allegation that was made. The intention of the Bill was, however, very clear. It approves of the double examination, and the external students are entitled to have a separate examination of their own, controlled by a separate body, and every possible precaution has been taken that that examination shall not in any way lower the standard of the examination which is held in connection with the University of London. That was the arrangement which has been come to, and if the Government or the House of Commons were to upset that arrangement, it would undo everything which the Bill has devised. Therefore, upon those grounds, and upon the ground that those who profess to represent the teachers and external students whose assent to the Bill was promised by a compromise, it is impossible to surrender to this proposed change.
§ *MR. E. GRAY
The Amendment does not seem to have been dealt with upon its merits, but is dealt with by virtue of some mysterious arrangement between those who were parties to a compromise of which we have had no definite information. We do not know what the compromise is, and beyond what the right honourable Gentleman has said, we have no means of knowing. It is a subject which I raised upon the Second Reading of this Bill, and I want the House to realise the position in which the Bill proposes to place us. I 1259 do not propose to detain the House more than a minute or two, but I think the subject is of such great importance that the House ought to consider it. At present, whether the students be taught privately or not, either in or out of London, they all attend for the one matriculation examination. They follow along the same course, taking the same series of examinations, and finishing by holding one certificate and one degree. Now, all that is to be changed. The Bill provides for three Committees—the Academic Council, the Council for External Students, and the Council for the Extension of University Teaching. With the third I have nothing to do; I have to deal with the Academic-Council for the internal students, and with the special Council for the external students. Now, I want to place before the House this position: there are a number of colleges throughout the country engaged in exactly the same work, taking exactly the same curriculum, which is clearly defined by the Educational Department. I refer to the training colleges at which teachers are being prepared for their work. Now, these colleges are at present allowed to substitute the degree examinations for the ordinary certificate, which, until the last few years, was required by the Education Department. I refer to some of those colleges, such as those at York, Brighton, and Cambridge, colleges for men and colleges for women, which, having trained their students for one year, will send them up to London to obtain their degree at the London University. That has been their practice in the past. Now, my honourable Friend opposite says that they will not be placed in any worse position in the future than they have been in the past. Well, speaking absolutely, that is so, but comparatively that is not the case. It is true that they are not in any worse position than they have been in the past, except in comparison with other students working for the same degrees, and striving to secure the same position. Those who secure residence in London colleges will have the advantages of internal students, and to that extent the students attending the exterior colleges will be placed at a very great disadvantage when coming out to perform the same work and the same duties in the public schools in the country, for 1260 it will be found that they find that they hold in their hands two different degrees, differently described, differently stamped—one as an external and the other as an internal student. Let me carry the case a little further and show the House how exceedingly absurd the new position will be. It will be perfectly possible for a man to attend one of the training colleges within the London area, where he will merely attend for a few hours, to get a certain amount of teaching from persons recognised as professors of the university, but he is in the favoured district within the London area. He will come out as a student of the university, as one of the internal students attending the examination for the internal students, taught by a professor in the university. But outside the 30-mile radius you will have your residential colleges, where you get the benefit of academic discipline, the teachers holding higher degrees, and yet teaching the same subject, and the students will get the whole benefits of the university career; but they will be external students, and they will be deprived of the privileges and advantages of the students in London. I do draw the earnest attention of the Vice-President of the Council to this position, which materially affects the supply of teachers. The right honourable Gentleman admitted a few nights ago in the course of the Debate that there was a real grievance here. He pointed out to the House, I think, that a number of persons sought admission to particular colleges, and failed to gain admission because they had not applied to a college where they might have been admitted. Now, if this Bill is passed, the position will be worse. The advantages as compared with the country will be so great that there will be a rush upon the London training colleges. They will pay to secure admission, and the others will be shut out into the cold altogether, and those young persons will have no opportunity of getting an efficient training. I have been receiving almost by every post during the past few days letters drawing my attention to this ridiculous position. They hold that there will be two different standards for the external and internal students, and if the examination for the internal students is easier and more possible to obtain the degree, there will be 1261 a rush for it. I do not think that that will be for the benefit of the country, nor do I believe that the confusion which will obtain as to the relative merits of the degree will be to the advantage of education throughout the country. But, if there is one thing more necessary in regard to a degree than another, it is that the public should know its real value, and at what examination it was secured. There will be hopeless confusion in a few years' time as to the degree granted to the internal student and the degree granted to the external student at different examinations. The Vice-President of the Council tells us this Amendment will be fatal to the Bill, not because it will injure the London University, but because it will injure this compromise. Well, that is an argument which I cannot accept as a sound or valid one at all. Now, if the right honourable Gentleman could show that this Bill will insure the benefits which it seeks to confer, or that this Amendment would diminish the advantages which London will secure upon the passing of this Bill, or that it will injure the other London colleges, I for one should withhold my hand. But I cannot conceive that the continuance of one examination and one degree which has obtained such great respect in the country from the days when the London University was founded down to the present time; I cannot conceive that the continuance of that degree will in any way injure London; but I do see, however, that the education of the country will be materially injured by the establishment of two forms of examination, and therefore I cordially support this Amendment. I do hope, if the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President cannot accept this proposal, that he will at least see his way to strike out the latter part of the clause. I hope the compromise will be retained whatever it may be, and that the Vice-President may be able to see his way to at least give the external student more advantages. I would venture to remind the House that when we had this Bill before us in Committee there was in it a clause which permitted an internal student, if he chose, to take the examination for the external student, and that was the desire of those who framed this Bill, and were parties to the compromise. I for one cannot see why you should not 1262 give the external student a like option. I do think it would be for the great good of education generally, and certainly it would increase the high standard, if one and the same examination were insisted upon for all persons who wish to secure one particular degree.
§ MR. HALDANE
If I rise for one reason more than another it is to reply to the honourable Gentleman opposite. He asks for a substantial reason why this Amendment should be resisted, which I believe will be absolutely fatal to the intention which this Bill seeks to carry out. I will make one remark only about something which fell from the honourable Member who spoke of the clause having been left out of the Bill which would have given internal students access to the examinations for the external students. Now, that clause provided that students might jump from one examination to the other, and it was to obviate that that the clause was taken out. Now, as to the main question, why is it that those of us interested in this Bill strenuously resist the Amendment of my right honourable Friend? I know my right honourable Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean supports it because of his convictions as to the principle contained in the clause; but what is the answer to it? Why, Sir, the answer is this: this is to be a teaching university in which the students are to come and to be put through, not merely examinations, but a certain curriculum which will give them training and culture, and that can only arise from the personal contact with the teacher when pursuing their studies under individuals who will influence their ideas as well as put knowledge into them. Now, Sir, the object of this system is to test the curriculum—whether in the knowledge of the student he has availed himself of that curriculum. It is not a mere case of the curriculum; it is equally a case of the examination adapting itself to the curriculum. You cannot sever the examination from the curriculum; it is the test taken as to the extent to which the student has come under its influence. When you are dealing with a case in which a student has been pursuing a course of study, in which he has been getting a particular training, you put before him the idea that it will change 1263 him, and bring him out a more highly educated man with that advantage which can only come from contact with a great teacher. Let me illustrate this. Suppose a student is going in for the bachelor of science degree, and suppose he is working with some distinguished chemist—say, for instance, Professor Ramsey. Suppose he wants a research degree to work in the laboratory; it is obvious that in that case that test to which he is put will be, presumably, a different test from the test to which he would be put if he came from the outside with no special knowledge of the work he has been doing, or the kind of culture or faculty that he ought to exhibit. Now, Sir, a great deal has been said about the examinations in connection with the University of Dublin, but there are two sides even to that question. I do not know whether honourable Members ever go through a street which is known as Holywell Street. If they do, they will find there a magazine shop, principally for the sale of books of preparation for the examinations in connection with the London University, and it has got a high-sounding title. They take the examiners, and look up their records and papers, and in the most ingenious way prepare pupils in a way which far outstrips anything that can be done by the teacher. The result has been that the colleges are put to a disadvantage because they themselves take, as they are taking in many cases, the complete machinery, which comes from outside. Now, I do not want to see the external examinations interfered with, but let nobody imagine that such examinations always show a very high scale of knowledge. The purpose of this Bill is to train the student and to test the training which he has gone through. I put forward one reason, which I hope will weigh with the House against putting difficulties in the way of examination, and I put another reason forward, which seems conclusive, against the Amendment of my right honourable Friend. My right honourable Friend is aware that under this Bill there is to be a body called the Council for External Students, to look after the affairs of the old university, and to preserve some kind of Home Rule, so to speak. There is also to be another body called the Academic Council, but 1264 much smaller, which will control and direct the affairs of the internal side of the university. Now, if you adopt this Amendment, what will be the result? Why, it will be that these important examinations would no longer, in the case of the old university, be under the control of the Council for External Students, for they would be controlled and interfered with by the Academic Council, the body which regulates the affairs of the internal students. You would thus get away from that state of things, in which the status of the university is to be preserved by being under the government of its own representatives. That would arise under the Amendment of my right honourable Friend, and I do not see how this difficulty is to be got over. The best course to take, Mr. Speaker, is the one taken by this Bill. I am aware that there is the difficulty in connection with the training colleges outside the London radius, but that is a geographical expression, and it arises from the misfortune of the other training colleges not being in the university circle; but I hope they will be before very long. But so long as they are not, all we can do is to preserve the privileges which they have had and which they already possess; and their difficulties are certainly no reasons for refusing to the great metropolis of London that teaching university which it is urgently in need of, and which it cannot have unless it is allowed to have the control of certain examinations which are adapted to the curriculum which it imposes.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)
My honourable and learned Friend opposite, in the few observations he has made, said that the teaching university to be established is going to give the internal students something which the external students will not get, which will be obtained by actual contact with the teachers of the university. I venture to think that the fallacy of my learned Friend's argument rests in this, that he has used the word "culture" in a different sense to what we use it. My own notion of it is the stereotyped version given by Matthew Arnold, and I have associated with it that idea which one gets there. It is something which cannot be tested by examinations, some- 1265 thing which is indefinable, which attaches itself to a man and to his modes, and which you cannot gauge and fix by an examination. Therefore I venture to think that my honourable Friend has used the word "culture" when he should have used the word "knowledge," for that which you can test by examination is the knowledge of a student and not the culture. Take, for instance, the subject to which my honourable Friend has referred; take a subject with which I myself was more familiar in the university—mathematics. It seems to me that those who went to Cambridge and learned mathematics from personal contact with the teachers got their styles and modes of doing things, and what we got was a certain power which we had to apply to other problems. Now I venture to say that the best test of our real capacity for combating with problems is to have them presented to us to see if we have really got the capacity for grappling with those problems. Modes and style are things which, no doubt, one may learn from a teacher, and they are things which may show themselves in the examination; but I venture to say that what the university should test is the knowledge of the student and the power he has got of dealing with different subjects and different problems, and the knowledge winch he has acquired in those schools. It does seem to some of us somewhat of an absurdity, this setting up of a double standard. Well, Sir, the Vice-President of the Council has referred to this as being a matter of compromise. He says that at that stage certain suggestions were thrown out to meet difficulties which presented themselves, and to overcome them it was decided that there should be two sets of examinations, and that was accepted as a sort of compromise which we do not all understand. I venture to say, Sir, that since that time that which was thought to be a solution of the difficulty has only introduced greater difficulties, and the complications which this compromise has introduced are of a much more serious character. I venture to think that the views of those representing the external students would be far better met if the Government would make a concession and say that there should be only one standard of examination. I have had an 1266 opportunity of talking over this matter with some of those who will be on the teaching staff, and I may say that some of them do not consider this at all essential to the scope of this Bill. Well, the Vice-President thinks it is essential, and it may be, as a drafting matter, but that it is essential to the scheme as a whole I venture to think nobody can suggest. One hears the object of those interested in the matter, and the hope of the Vice-President himself is that this double standard will not be set up. It is said that this is a concession to external students, because they would be at a disadvantage in having to go in for examinations where the questions do not conform with the line of teaching adopted. Well, those representing external students are willing to put up with this difficulty of having to go in for a different set of examinations. But as regards achieving the object which my right honourable Friend has at heart, that the curriculum of the university should be framed to a large extent under the control of those who teach in the university, that would be attained by the Bill as it stands, without having two separate examinations. The faculties are to be largely represented, and if a body of that sort, in which the faculties are largely represented, have the framing of the curriculum, they would be able to adapt that curriculum from tired to time to the development of the teaching as they went on, and at the same time I feel perfectly satisfied that any curriculum which was produced by such a body would satisfy not merely the needs of the internal students, but also those of the external students. Now I think it would be a fatal blot upon the scheme to have a double set of examinations and a double set of examining boards, and unless this is absolutely essential the Government would do well to reconsider the matter. I have taken a good deal of trouble to ascertain what is the feeling upon this matter, and I find that there is a very large body of opinion among the existing graduates at the university that this concession, if it could be made, would reconcile them to the Bill. We know they have many objections to it, but the aim of the Government ought to be to introduce a spirit of good feeling with those who have to work out this scheme, 1267 and if the element of friction between the old members of the university and the teaching body can be reduced and prevented from showing itself it will tend very much to the successful working of the scheme.
§ *MR. BIRRELL (Fife, W.)
We are constantly told that the existing University of London has only one standard of examination, and that if you matriculate there henceforward everybody passes the same examinations. They say that you all have the same examination papers, with the result, as honourable Gentlemen opposite are constantly telling us, that there is only one way of obtaining a degree, which gives it a high, standard. So that if you are a B.A. of the London University it is known by what machinery you obtained it, and what papers were submitted to you, and the world is able to pass a satisfactory judgment upon your learning. Now, I have examined the regulations of the existing London University for the year 1899, and have learnt from them how you may become a bachelor of arts in that University. First of all, you must pass the matriculation examination, then the intermediate examination in arts, and then the bachelor of arts examination. Now, there are 10 ways of passing the matriculation, and four ways of passing the intermediate examination, and 44 ways of passing the final examination. Now, I am not a good hand at figures myself, but I have a friend who is a perfect demon at them, and he has made a calculation which shows that there are no fewer than 1,760 different ways of obtaining the bachelor of arts degree of the existing London University, and yet we are told that everybody who has got that degree has got it in the same way, that it is of precisely the same value, and that he can go into the open market and say, "I am a bachelor of arts," and everybody is foolish enough to believe that they are all on the same footing. The proper thing to do when you meet a B.A. of London is to inquire cautiously of him, "In which of the 1,760 ways did you obtain your degree?" Then, with regard to the bachelor of science degree, the student must first pass the matriculation examination; secondly, the intermediate examination in science; and, thirdly, the bachelor of science examina- 1268 tion. Now, there are 10 ways of passing matriculation, four ways of passing the intermediate examination in science, and 56 ways of passing the final bachelor of arts examinations, with this result, that my friend informs me there are 2,240 ways of obtaining the bachelor of science degree. Now I think it is very creditable to the existing University of London that there should be so many different ways, for it shows that their examinations are not of such a stereotyped character as honourable Gentlemen wish them to be. But the uniformity and one standard of which we have heard so much do not exist at the present time. I do hope, therefore, that the House will not be frightened by this bugbear of a uniform standard, but will encourage in the New University this Bill seeks to create every variety of method of obtaining their degrees.
§ *MR. BUTCHER (York)
The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has given us some remarkable figures, but the real question we have to consider is whether the external student should be placed at a disadvantage or not. That is the question, and not how many different ways there are of obtaining degrees. As I understand it at present whatever faculty you may choose the examination is the same for all students choosing that faculty. The fact that there are more ways than one in which a man can get a degree is no answer to the principle on which this Amendment is founded. The ordinary plain-minded man would naturally expect that if you had a number of men going for the same degree they should be subjected to the same examination. You desire to test a certain standard of merit, and you naturally expect that the men should be subjected to the same test. Now this Bill gives a separate treatment for internal and external students. I listened with some interest to the speeches of honourable Members, and I have heard the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The right honourable Gentleman told us that the proposal in this Bill was the result of some compromise. Well, Sir, we know nothing about that compromise. It is suggested that it has been conceived in the interests of external students; but so far as the views 1269 of the representatives of those students are concerned they do not believe in the benefit that will be conferred upon them by this Bill. On the contrary, they are under the impression that they are being very badly treated. The honourable Member for Haddington said he was going to give us some justification for this proposal made by the Government, which, he said, was founded upon the principle that this university was to be a teaching university. As I understand him, his argument was this—you have teachers of the university and the examinations must necessarily follow the lines of that teaching which is carried on. Now, as I understand examinations, they are supposed to test the knowledge of the students, and it matters not whether they are within a particular local area or outside that area. If you are going to confer these degrees upon them let them all have the same test to arrive at the same result—namely, that stamp of merit which the university is going to confer upon successful candidates. You have both external and internal students coming up for degrees in Dublin, and they are all subjected to identically the same examinations, and so far as I know no difficulty has been experienced in conducting those examinations from the fact that the internal students are examined from the curriculum in the university, and the external students are examined from the knowledge which they have acquired from other sources. I see no reason for the separate examinations which are provided for in this Bill. I shall, therefore, support the Amendment of my right honourable Friend.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
I never like to curtail discussion, but we have now occupied an hour and a half discussing not merely this Amendment, but the greater question as to whether there shall be a separate examination. Well, Sir, I do not deny the importance of the Amendment which has initiated an important discussion, but I do now urge the House to come to a decision upon the point which has been raised.
§ MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,) Eifion
It has been alleged 1270 that they only desire to have a teaching university and a more thorough system of educating the yout of London; but my firm belief is, and always has been, that there is underlying this a sinister desire to obtain an easier degree and to get a wider membership of this university. Now, if that is so, why object to subjecting them all to the same examination? The test of an examination has been described as being a most fallacious one, but it is the most perfect one obtainable other than the actual test of life's work. There is no other method of distinguishing the knowledge acquired either at school or by private study equal to that of examination, and the desire to avoid subjecting all students to the same test is to me a proof—
§ DR. CLARK
I do not think that the Vice-President of the Council can claim that the Commission were in favour of this double test. They say—The final examination both for internal and external students should represent the same standard of knowledge.Now, the House should remember that three-fourths of the students in the past have come from the area outside. Now, there are 12 medical schools in London, and the students attending those medical schools will have special favours and will have an easier examination. Now, three schools out of those 12 are thoroughly equipped, and the others are very small schools, but you have large provincial schools which are well equipped, where students can be well trained by virtue of being outside the 30-mile limit. Now, here are two classes of students who are required to pass the same curriculum because the General Medical Council require it, but what they are now required to pass is a different examination. Now, as far as science goes they will be in exactly the same position. Take the Royal College of Science Now, a great many students enter the colleges by exhibitions and scholarships. Suppose they go to the London College of Science, which is incorporated. You have students coming from other colleges, and passing through the same curriculum and the 1271 same course of study, who will be required, not because of anything in their education, but on account of the geographical position of their college, to pass another examination. I think the honourable Member for Fife has rather exaggerated the case. It is true that they do not try to tie you down to certain special subjects, but you have not so much to choose from as the honourable Member has pointed out. It does seem to me from the discussions which I have read that a large number of the medical teachers in London are desirous of having the standard lowered in London because they cannot get their students to pass the present test. Now, I think the London standard is the higher standard and only the best men have gone in for it. Your London men have been taking special practice rather than general practice; and what you are now asked to do is to lower the standard. Now, I cannot see, judging from Scotch experience, that you will be taking a retrograde step by adopting this Amendment. The honourable Member for Edinburgh will remember the fight we had to get the standard of our degrees raised. We had very great difficulty in getting the examinations taken out of the hands of our professors and having other examiners appointed. That took place within the last 25 years, and now the Scotch universities—
§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The honourable Member is now going into the general question of the standard of university education, and not into the question before the House, which is the existence of two standards of education in the University of London.
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Banbury, Frederick George||Brassey, Albert|
|Arnold, Alfred||Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Beach,Rt,Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James|
|Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy||Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Bucknill, Thomas Townsend|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bill, Charles||Buxton, Sydney Charles|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon. A. J.(Mane'r)||Birrell, Augustine||Carlile, William Walter|
|Balfour.Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)|
§ had to tight against. ["Time, time."] I do not want to press this view, as honourable Members do not want to hear reason. They want to rush forward this Measure, and we cannot discuss on reasonable terms this Amendment, because gentlemen opposite are too tired to listen.
I shall not detain the House more than a moment. I wish to appeal to the Solicitor General, and the point I desire to mention is this. It has been said more than once that this will do no harm to the external students. But if there are two sets of examinations, what is to become of the degrees given in the honours list? There will now De two honour lists—the internal and the external honours. I think that is a very important point, and I wish to know whether it is proposed to keep the scholarships of equal value or divide the money and give half to each. I have no doubt that this has been under the consideration of the Solicitor General. I think we have up to the present been very fair in our discussion, and I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will answer this point.
§ SIR R. FINLAY
The question is not a matter of law, in which any definite or precise answer can be given. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill leaves it some what elastic as to the power given to the Senate. As regards scholarships such details are much better left to the Senate for regulation. I do not think it is possible for this House to lay down a definite rule of that kind.
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 115, Noes 46.—(Division List No. 254.)
|Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbysh.)||Gretton, John||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Greville, Captain||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Chaloner, Capt, R. G. W.||Gull, Sir Cameron||Purvis Robert|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)||Haldane, Richard Burdon||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Ritchie, Rt, Hon. C. T.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Hanbury, Rt, Hon. R. W.||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)||Ryder, John Herbert D.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Chelsea, Viscount||Kenyon, James||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Knowles, Lees||Smith, James P. (Lanark)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lafone, Alfred||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Colomb, Sir John C. R.||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)||Stuart, James (Shoreditch)|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.||Lowles, John||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert B.||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||McArthur, C. (Liverpool)||Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)||Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Milton, Viscount||Wylie, Alexander|
|Folkestone, Viscount||Monk, Charles James||Wyvill, Marimaduke D'Arcy|
|Godson, Sir Augustus F.||More, Robert Jasper||Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)||Murray, C. J. (Coventry)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)|
|Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Harwood, George||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Allison, Robert Andrew||Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)|
|Asher, Alexander||Hazell, Walter||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Baker, Sir John||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Joicey, Sir James||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Bond, Edward||Labouchere, Henry||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Brigg, John||Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Caldwell, James||Lorne, Marquess of||Warner. Thomas C. T.|
|Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caitlmess-sh.)||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Macaleese, Daniel||Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-|
|Colville, John||Maclure, Sir John William||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Doogan, P. C.||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Butcher.|
|Griffith. Ellis J.||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)|
|Hardy, Laurence||Philipps, John Wynford|
Page 7, line 30, leave out from 'respectively,' to end of line 35, and insert—
All examinations shall be conducted by independent examiners appointed by the Senate in accordance with the present practice, and no student, whether internal or external, shall matriculate in the university, or proceed to a degree without passing the prescribed examinations."—(Mr. Brigg.)
§ MR. BRIGG
In moving this Amendment I do not propose to go over the whole ground again. If there is to be no change in the examination in the new 1274 order of things as compared with previous examinations, the simplest form would be to conduct them in accordance with the present practice. I do not wish to argue the matter further, because it is quite clear what my meaning is; and I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§ SIR J. GORST
It seems to me that the words are quite unnecessary, and I do not see the use of putting in such an instruction. There is no necessity to give any such directions; and surelv the Commissioners are the proper people to 1275 deal with it. It is most essential that the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment should be retained in the clause.
§ MR. HARWOOD
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that according to your ruling my Amendment is out of order. As regards the question whether or not it is desirable to have separate examinations, I have not heard either in the Committee on Law or elsewhere any reason why this subject should be treated in this particular manner. No doubt we shall have again this bogey of compromise trotted out, and we shall be told, as we have been told before, that this was an arrangement come to by the request of the external students, who desire that this particular thing should be in, because they thought it would probably tend to the lowering of the examination and the lowering of the quality of the external diplomas. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this House is not to be guided in this matter by persons who put themselves forward as representing one set of persons or another. I think the House is quite able to decide as to the weight of words; and I think we have had quite enough of what people have said in conversation with others, and we may direct our attention to the importance of these words. Now, I object to the retention of these words. I am one of those who set a great value upon these various examinations, no matter what may be the opinion of those who have spoken. Granted that this new university succeeds as it is expected to succeed; granted that it adds some kind of aroma of culture to the examinations, I am not prepared to say that I object on the other ground personally to making any distinction whatever in these diplomas, because, as the House knows quite well, you will stamp on the face of these diplomas these distinctions as to what they really are. Now I venture to remind the House that there may possibly arise a social distinction which this House ought to do its best to avoid, and I am not speaking without experience. Many honourable Members will no doubt remember the experiment made at Oxford in regard to unattached students, and I remember with what enthusiasm that was started. Well, it failed because there was a sort of social distinction or want of distinction which 1276 somehow or other made it a failure. I venture to think that that sort of thing will occur here, and this House has no business to do anything of that kind. If it does occur, let the House take the responsibility. I do object that there should be these lines of cleavage between these two degrees, and that you should have two sets of examinations, one for the internal and one for the external students. I think there is an invidiousness about this suggestion, and it is perfectly unnecessary. If anyone wants information he can get it, and I think the House should resist any suggestion of this social difference, which we ought to endeavour to avoid.
§ *SIR A. ROLLIT
When this subject was discussed by the Standing Committee the voting was very nearly equal, and that justifies this discussion hero. We have heard nothing except of equality of attainment, and we have here the first step to mark a distinction, and I think an invidious distinction, by putting on the diploma whether the examination has been that of an internal or an external student. Now it has been said that this will be an advantage to the external student, but I do not see how it can be so, and I think it will be entirely misleading. What is the definition in the Bill of an internal student? He is one who has had the advantage of being taught by a tether recognised in the university, so that if the student receives only that modicum, that small modicum of university training, he will be marked an internal student if he is within the 30 mile limit, but if he is outside he will not, though he may have undergone a complete course of collegiate teaching, and I say that that is absolutely misleading. This provision does not indicate what it is intended to indicate. In a misleading way it labels one student as an outsider, and places on the face of the diploma something which may lower its value. I do hope that the Government will take a reasonable view of the matter, and that even yet this invidious departure, which is not made at the Dublin University, will be altered, because it will be the first step towards what I believe will be a great disadvantage, and will be very much resented by the external students.
§ MR. BRYCE
There does not seem to me to be any advantage in stating that the student is an internal or external student. When the matter was discussed it was pointed out that the external students had a more difficult examination to pass than the internal students, and therefore it was thought to be only fair to make this distinction. Therefore, this provision was introduced for the benefit of the external students. Now let me call attention to this point, that this is only a provisional arrangement, and there is nothing permanent in it. It says—Unless the Senate either generally by regulation or as to a particular subject by order otherwise determine.
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Folkestone, Viscount||Murray, C. J. (Coventry)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Godson, Sir Augustus F.||Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Gorst, Rt, Hon. Sir John E.||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Mane'r)||Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Balfour.Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)||Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Purvis, Robert|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Gretton, John||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Greville, Captain||Ritchie, Rt, Hon. C. T.|
|Bond, Edward||Haldane, Richard Burdon||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Brassey, Albert||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Ryder, John Herbert D.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R, W.||Simeon. Sir Barrington|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hardy, Laurence||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Bucknill, Thomas Townsend||Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)||Smith, James P. (Lanark)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)||Knowles, Lees||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Lafone, Alfred||Stuart, James (Shoreditch)|
|Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)||LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Charrington, Spencer||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Chelsea, Viscount||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||William's, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Colomb, Sir John C. R.||Lowles, John||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Wylie, Alexander|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Maclure, Sir John William||Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Milton, Viscount|
|Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Monk, Charles James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||More, Robert Jasper||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Finlay, Sir Robert B.||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Labouchere, Henry||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Caldwell, James||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)||Warner, Thomas C. T.|
|Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)||Lorne, Marquess of||Wedderbum, Sir William|
|Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Doogan, P. C.||Macaleese, Daniel|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)||Mr. Brigg and Sir Albert Rollit.|
|Harwood, George||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Joicey, Sir James||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
§ Now, those are the words which govern the whole clause, and it will be left in the hands of the Senate. If they find that there is likely to be this invidious distinction they can at once remedy it. I think the Senate may be left to decide this, for I believe they will be wiser judges upon these matters of detail than this House.
That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the Bill.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 21.—(Division List No. 255.)1279
Page 8, line 7, leave out 'situate within a radius of thirty miles from the university buildings.'"—(Sir J. Lubboch.)
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK
I do not propose to press this Amendment unless my right honourable Friend accepts it or some modification of it.
§ SIR J. GORST
I am afraid that it would he impossible to accept it altar what has already been passed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
That this Bill lie re-committed for the purpose of considering the financial clause."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
§ Agreed to.
§ The House went into Committee.
There shall be paid to the secretary to the commissioners, and to any person appointed or employed by the commissioners, such remuneration as the Treasury may assign, and that remuneration and all expenses of the Commissioners incurred with the sanction of the Treasury in the execution of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."—(Sir J. Gornt.)
§ *SIR C. DILKE
It has been left very late to discuss this money resolution for this Bill, and I do not think that there is any precedent for the course that has been taken. But, Sir, what I desire is to learn what is the meaning of these words—And ali expenses of the commissioners incurred with the sanction of the Treasury in the execution of the Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.Now, what are the obligations which the country incurs under this clause? I should like to know what are to be the
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Blundell, Colonel, Henry||Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Bond, Edward||Chaloner, Capt. R, G. W.|
|Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)||Brassey, Albert||Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)|
|Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Bucknill, Thomas Townsend||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)||Charrington, Spencer|
§ funds from which the very ill-equipped colleges which are going to be admitted as schools of the university are to have their lecture theatres and their teaching apparatus brought up to the standard which is considered proper. The honourable Member for Haddington described the operations which were to be undertaken to bring these colleges up to the mark, and he described them very vividly. Now, I want to know where that money is coming from, and from what source? Where is the money to be found by which all these expensive operations are going to be carried out.
§ SIR J. GORST
This is a common clause, which is put into all Bills of the kind, to meet the necessary expenses incurred under the Bill. I assure the House that it does not incur a very large expenditure.
That this clause be read a second time.
§ Agreed to.
Motion made and Question put—
That this Bill, as amended, be reported to the House.
§ Agreed to.
§ The House resumed.
That this Bill be now read a third time."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
That the Bill be now read a third time.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 19.—(Division List No. 256.)
|Chelsea, Viscount||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Knowles, Lees||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. T.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lafone, Alfred||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Colomb, Sir John C. R.||Laurie, Lieut-General||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||LawrenceSirEDurning-(Corn.)||Ryder, John Herbert D.|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanes)||Smith, James P. (Lanark)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert B.||Lorne, Marquess of||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lowles, John||Temlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Folkestone, Viscount||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Valentia, Viscount|
|Godson, Sir Augustus F.||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Warner, Thomas C. T.|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Maclure, Sir John William||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(StG'rg's)||Milton, Viscount||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Monk, Charles James||Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)||More, Robert Jasper||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Morrell, George Herbert||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Gretton, John||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)|
|Greville, Captain||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Murray, C. J. (Coventry)||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)||Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Hardy, Laurence||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hayne, Rt. Hou. C. Seale-||Pierpoint, Robert||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)||Purvis, Robert|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Joicey, Sir James||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Brigg, John||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)||Macaleese, Daniel|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—|
|Doogan, P. C.||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)||Mr. Griffith and Mr. Cald-well.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Harwood, George||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
§ Bill read the third time and passed.