§ House in Committee (according to Order). Clause 1.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in pursuance of notice, rose to move the omission of words in the 14th line of the clause, which would have the effect of preventing the union of Marischal and King's Colleges, Aberdeen. 1668 The noble Earl said, that when asked to undertake to move the Amendment he very naturally referred to the noble Earl the Lord Rector (Earl Stanhope); but he was told that the noble Earl felt some delicacy on account of his being named one of the Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Bill when it became law. He need hardly say that the thanks of all who had the welfare of Scotland at heart were due to Her Majesty's Government for having introduced and carried forward this Bill, and that he was not actuated by any considerations of a party character in seeking to remedy what was thought very generally to be a deficiency in the measure. Their Lordships were aware that the clause as it now stood would effect the consolidation of the two Universities and the two Colleges of Aberdeen into one University and one College. If the Amendment which he was about to propose were adopted, there would be only one University, but the Colleges would remain separate. In Scotland the Universities were conducted upon the Professorial system—that was to say, there were large classes presided over by Professors; and in the Universities of Edinburgh, St. Andrews, and Glasgow, it was impossible that the Professors could exercise any very close superintendence over the studies of such large numbers. But in Aberdeen, in consequence of there, being two Colleges with separate staffs of Professors, the Professors could exercise that most desirable supervision. The Lord Rector had, on a former occasion, described how the poorer classes, and even labourers, underwent great privations in order to obtain the advantage of a University education. In the Report which was laid on their Lordships' table some years ago of an inquiry into the University of Oxford, it was stated that one of the great causes of expense in that University was the necessity under which every one was placed, who wished to compete for honours, of employing at considerable expense the services of a private tutor, and it was suggested as a remedy that the staff of the Colleges should be increased. But it was proposed by this clause to take a step in a direction entirely contrary to that suggestion. It was proposed to fuse two Colleges into one, and to reduce the number of Professors at Aberdeen to something more than half—so that there would be a much smaller number of teachers, and consequently either a more superficial or a more expensive edu- 1669 cation. It was well known that the standard of education in Aberdeen was higher than in any other of the Universities of Scotland; and to keep up the standard with this alteration it would be necessary to engage the services of private tutors. The inhabitants of Aberdeen considered that they derived great benefits from the competition of the two Colleges. They were quite ready to confess that the competition between the Universities was of a very improper character—as tending injuriously to lower the fees—but they contended that, if the two Universities only were united, the improper competition would be extinguished, and the proper competition between the two Colleges retained. It was stated the other night in the course of the discussion, that the reports of all the Commissions which had reported on the state of Scotch Universities were unanimously in favour of the union of the Colleges. He ventured to say that it was a most unjustifiable assertion, and that there never had been more diversity of opinion upon any question than upon this very question of the Colleges of Aberdeen. The first Commission, which reported in 1830, was in favour of the union of the Colleges. The next, which reported in 183S, and again in 1839, recommended the union of the Universities, and said nothing about the Colleges. The last Commission, consisting of three gentlemen, did report in favour of a union of the Colleges; but one of the Commissioners—Mr. Stirling—had since changed his opinion. Mr. Stirling stated, in his place in the House of Commons, that certain circumstances had come to his knowledge which caused him to alter his opinion with respect to the union of the Colleges of Aberdeen; and he also stated that he had no doubt the same circumstances which influenced him would have influenced the opinion of another member of the Commission. But supposing that the union of the Colleges had not the disadvantage of enhancing the cost of education, or doing away with a competition which those who opposed their union believed to be wholesome, he thought the feeling expressed in the northern counties should lead their Lordships to pause and hesitate before they adopted this clause of the Bill. It was a great mistake to suppose that the feeling was confined to the town of Aberdeen. It prevailed throughout the counties of Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, and Banff, including a population of nearly half 1670 a million, or one-fourth of the whole population of Scotland. They had heard something the other night about a petition from the Professors of one of the Colleges in favour of the union; but it should be remembered that it was a petition adopted by a majority of one in a body of thirteen, and that the Professors had a direct pecuniary interest in the union. But petitions against the union had been signed by 7,317 persons, as against less than 100 who signed in its favour. The other night, the noble Lord at the head of the Government spoke some what slightingly of the feelings expressed by the people of Aberdeen. The noble Earl was not the only person who had adopted that tone. It had been taken up by those who called themselves University reformers in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St, Andrews. But he did not believe that the people of Aberdeen deserved those taunts; for, twenty-five years ago, when the Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh were cold and still, Aberdeen took up the cause of University reform. It was rather hard now to turn upon them, and sweep away one of their Colleges and its endowment. The feeling of a people ought not to be entirely overlooked, unless it could be demonstrated beyond dispute that the course proposed was of great practical advantage. He would like to have heard the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) defend Oxford against a proposition to amalgamate two of the great Colleges of that University, and sure he was that he might have thence borrowed abundant arguments for the sister University of Aberdeen. There was this argument, that the proposed consolidation was in direct contravention of the will of the founder and the charter of the College. He was not one of those who advocated a strict adherence to the letter of the wills of founders; he thought they would show more respect to those great men if they endeavoured to carry out their clear intentions, and in that spirit he supported the Bill for the reform of the University of Oxford. He was quite at a loss to know on what principles of justice, expediency, or public policy it was proposed to sweep away one of these Colleges. According to the doctrine so often laid down by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, when a great change was made it was not enough that the promoters of it should show that it was beneficial, but that it was so beneficial as to counterbalance all the injuries which it might inflict on cer- 1671 tain interests. The advocates, therefore, of this union were bound to show that it was likely to confer such great advantages on Scotland and the empire at large as to compensate the people of Aberdeen for the great violence which it would do to their feelings and opinions. But the feeling against the union of these Colleges was not confined to Aberdeen nor to the people of the north of Scotland. There was a great difference of opinion among the most eminent public men who took an interest in this question. In the division in the other House, Mr. Gladstone, Sir Francis Baring, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Stirling, and others, voted against the provision. It might be possible that the persons who took this view of the question might be in the right, and should that turn out to be the case, the damage done by the Bill passing in its present condition would be irreparable. But no harm could be done by the Government simply leaving it to the Commissioners to inquire whether it was advisable that this union should take place. They would lay their Reports on the subject before the Government, and it would then be for them to decide what course they would pursue; and Parliament, after having their Reports before them, would have infinitely less trouble in deciding on the case. The worst that could happen by this course was postponement, which would allow public opinion time to consolidate itself upon the question. It was said that the Commissioners had power to maintain separate Professors in the Faculties of Arts if they should be so minded. That might be so, but he should be unwilling to leave the matter entirely in their hands. The effect of the Bill as it stood would be to do away with a great number of those small foundations or bursaries which were of so much use to the lower class of students, and would render it more difficult for such men to obtain a good education. He was sorry to have addressed their Lordships at such length, but he had no motive of hostility to the Bill; he simply desired to see those parts removed which would render it objectionable to the people of Scotland.
§ Amendment moved, in line 14, to leave out ("and College.")
§ EARL STANHOPEsaid, that as he was to be one of the Commissioners named in the Bill, he should not vote upon this question; but he did not think that he was precluded from expressing his present opinions, premising that he would hold him- 1672 self disengaged as to any course which he might take hereafter when he had heard the matter further argued. He doubted very much, however, in any case whether he could have supported, to its full extent, the Amendment of the noble Earl, which he took to go to the complete separation of the Colleges. But he had always understood that the great feeling of the people of the north of Scotland was not against a union of the Colleges. There was a complete unanimity as to the union of the Colleges, and of the faculties of Law, Medicine, and Theology, but it was wished to keep up the two faculties of Arts separate. But this Amendment went to keep the two Colleges quite separate. To this extent he certainly could not go. It was said that the Commissioners would have full powers to consider this question, and no doubt that was the case; but he was not so sure that in deciding it they would be able to take into their consideration the popular feeling on the subject in the same manner that Parliament could. There was no doubt as to the unanimity of public feeling on this question. Noble Lords well acquainted with that part of the kingdom had borne testimony to it. A noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) said he had never known the feeling so unanimous—and he would suggest therefore, without agreeing to the present Amendment, that words should be inserted in the 18th clause to keep the two faculties of Arts separate. He should be very sorry to see the Bill pass with any provision in it which would mar the popularity, of the measure, and the adoption of his suggestion would prevent such a result.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had only voted against the noble Earl at the head of the Government twice or three times in his life, but he should be obliged to do so on the present occasion if the noble Earl did not amend this clause in the direction proposed. There was an agitation raised for an interested, but it was a genuine deep-rooted feeling in the heart of the great mass of the population. It was thought by the middle classes, who sent their children to these Universities, that if this Bill passed in its present shape, they would never again get so good an education at Aberdeen as before. In military language, the "squads" of students would be made too large for the Professors to manage. If the two Colleges were left separate, a feeling of emulation would be excited between them which should send 1673 out most University prizemen. If the question were left to the Commissioners, the moment the Bill passed they would be overwhelmed with applications from each of the two Colleges, and a source of discord would be created which would materially affect the success of their labours. With great respect to the Commissioners, he would rather have a clause in the Act than depend on their opinion afterwards; and if such a clause were introduced, the measure which had been for many years before the public would be carried to a successful issue. He did not think that he was asking too much when he said "For Heaven's sake leave well alone. Nobody says these two Professors have done any mischief. They can't do any mischief. Let them alone for a short time, and if in five or six years hence we and the people of Scotland find we are wrong, you can bring in a Bill of one clause in another Session of Parliament and put the thing right." He assured his noble Friend that the opinion of the whole of the north of Scotland was against the union; and although he was himself the last person in the world to bow to popular opinion, he had always felt that it was the bounden duty of every man in Parliament, and more particularly in the House of Lords, to give due weight and credit to public opinion, when it had been ascertained in the manner in which it had been ascertained upon this occasion.
EARL POWISthought the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) had exaggerated the effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Airlie.) The Bill gave the Commissioners power to establish another faculty of Arts, and that would involve a very trifling expense. The noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) spoke of the degrees which would be taken in the superior faculties of Law, Medicine, and Divinity. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie) did not raise the question of having separate classes for those studies. All parties were agreed that the superior faculties should be merged in one united University. It was much to be regretted that the jealousy of the two Colleges and of the inhabitants of Aberdeen had caused them to miss opportunities which had several times occurred of settling the matter upon advantageous terms. But if it were supposed the Commissioners would exercise their discretion and establish another faculty of Arts with four or five Professors, was it not reasonable to ask that the Professor 1674 should be upon a separate foundation, and should have a resident head among themselves? What would their Lordships think, in the case of an English University, if it were proposed that two Colleges at opposite ends of the town should be under one head, and consequently that one of them should be without a principal? Would it not be said that that proposal was sure to produce anarchy in both? All that would be necessary would be to give a small allowance to one Professor, and place him at the head of the College. In case of any dispute among the Professors, or of discord among the students, was it not desirable that there should be on the spot a resident head who would have authority to compose differences, and make each establishment complete in itself? In the affiliating institutions of the University of Durham, and in the private halls authorized to be established at Oxford, each was under a responsible head, and under individual control; and surely it was unreasonable not to adopt the same plan in this case. It was not a question whether they should continue the two Universities—it was not a question whether they should continue separate classes in the superior faculties; it was whether, having decided practically that there should be a faculty of Arts in King's College, the Professors and pupils of that College should have an independent head. Surely their Lordships must confess that such an arrangement was for the advantage of the colleges and the benefit of education.
§ EARL STANHOPErepeated that he thought there ought to be a union of the colleges, but he doubted whether, as regarded the faculty of Arts, that ought to be left to the Commissioners under the Bill.
EARL POWISsaid, the 15th section gave the Commissioners full control over the revenues of the colleges, and powers to re-establish or re-organize the Professors as they pleased.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsuggested that they should leave the Colleges as they now stood, and give the Commissioners power, if they came to that conclusion, to recommend their union. The adverse feeling of the parties now petitioning would be very different when the union was grounded upon the report of a Commission, and after inquiry had been made. It would show that their Lordships did not decide against the general opinion which from all quarters had reached them.
§ The EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought that hardly one of their Lordships seemed disposed to support the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie); for both his noble Friend who had just sat down and the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Stanhope), while they complained of the enactments of the Bill, repudiated altogether the idea of preventing the union of the colleges, and confined themselves simply to the point that there should be two faculties of Arts. Therefore, so far as the Amendment was concerned, the opinion of their Lordships was altogether unanimous. His noble Friend on the cross benches wished to provide for the exception of this single case, and to provide that there should be a continuance of the faculty of Arts. His answer to that proposal was this—if they declared that there should be a second faculty of Arts, they decided beforehand in opposition to the opinion of the Commissioners of Inquiry who had examined into the subject, and reported upon it in favour of complete union. He had always great respect for the opinion of the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Richmond), and it was very true that the occasions were very few when they had voted on different sides. But on the present occasion he apprehended the logical course to pursue was to follow up in their integrity, if they acted at all upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, and to leave the Commissioners under the Bill to make such amendments and modifications as they thought fit. His noble Friend said that if they passed the Bill they did not deal fairly by the parties petitioning, because they declared a foregone opinion on the part of Parliament, and allowed the Commissioners to modify it. But supposing they took the opposite course, and only gave the Commissioners power of restoring that recommendation. His noble Friend on the cross benches had not said a word as to the qualifications of the Commissioners, and with all deference to the opinion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), he preferred the opinion of Commissioners who were perfectly conversant with the question, to the opinion of those who were but imperfectly acquainted with it. The noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Stanhope) doubted whether the Commissioners under the Bill could consider the question of public opinion upon the subject. All he could say to that was, that the words were couched in the strongest possible terms. The Commissioners were authorized, in 1676 their discretion, if they thought it either necessary or expedient so to do, to make provision for the maintenance of two separate faculties of Arts. The Bill gave the fullest powers to the Commissioners to exercise the utmost latitude, and provided all that good reason and good sense could demand. If public opinion were very strong, the Commissioners had the fullest power to meet it and make provision accordingly. He thought the Bill, as it stood, preferable to any of the Amendments suggested, and that the Amendment went further than even the opponents of the Bill desired.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
§ Resolved in the affirmative.
§ Clause 2 agreed to, with an Amendment.
§ Clause 3.
§ LORD BELHAVEN moved the omission of the clause, which provides that the Principals of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, are not to be deemed Professors of Theology.
The DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, there was no doubt that the clause was a mistake, as it asserted that which was contrary to the fact, and he should have no objection to omit it.
§ Clause disagreed to.
§ Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to, with Amendments.
§ Clause 12, relating to the powers of University Courts.
§ EARL GRANVILLEadverted to the proposed transfer of the patronage of the University of Edinburgh from the Town Council to the University Court. The noble Earl said that, though he did not intend to move an Amendment on this matter, it certainly did seem very hard that this patronage should be taken away from the Town Council when they had possessed it so long, and when it was not pretended that they had exercised it unsatisfactorily. He hoped, too, that the noble Duke who had charge of the Bill (the Duke of Montrose) would consent to insert words in the Bill to make these Courts open to the public.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, this matter had been very much discussed in the other House. There were there, of course, many persons who were anxious to leave the patronage in the hands of the Town Council, and others who urged very strongly the necessity of transferring it to 1677 some other body. The compromise which had been agreed on was, he believed, accepted by all parties as a fair settlement of the question, and he could not, therefore, consent to any proposition to disturb it. With regard to the noble Earl's second proposition, to make the University courts open courts, he really could not see any advantage in such a provision, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would not attempt to press it.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTONsaid, that though it was rather a strong measure to take away the patronage so long exercised by the Town Council of Edinburgh, he could not say but that it might turn out of great practical advantage. The Town Council had founded the University, and a charter was given to it by the King soon after. When a charter was forfeited, it was usual to show malfaisance of some sort or other; but none had been shown in this case. No doubt there might have been considerable inconvenience in the patronage being exercised by the Town Council—indeed, it was said that their appointments had generally been made with a view to sectarian considerations; but however strange it might be originally to repose patronage in such hands, certainly no malfaisance, sufficient absolutely to justify the transfer, had been proved. The Commission of 1826, of which he had been a member, did not propose to make any change in this respect. No doubt considerable alteration had taken place in the Town Council of Edinburgh since that time. The Municipal Reform Act had changed it from a self-elected to a popularly elected body. No doubt self-election was a bad principle; but the corporation of Edinburgh in those days was a very different kind of body from the present corporation. As a compromise had been arranged, and as he knew a great portion of the community in Edinburgh were exceedingly glad of the transfer, he did not think that it was for their Lordships to interfere with it. In respect to the four Curators who were to sit in the Court, he would suggest that it should be so arranged that certain members of the Town Council—such as the Lord Provost and the two senior members should be ex officio Curators.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that a large portion of the community also disapproved of the alteration. The noble Earl then moved to insert the following clause:—
The Meetings of the Sonatas Academicus, 1678 the General Council, and the University Court of each University, and of the Court of Curators in the University of Edinburgh, shall be open to the public.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, in reference to a remark made by the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Haddington) in reference to ex officio members of the Court, said that he had lately presented a petition from Glasgow praying that the Lord Provost might be nominated an ex officio member of the Court of that University.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to, with Amendments.
§ Clause 15, giving power to the Commissioners to inquire into the expediency of founding a National University, and to make arrangements for its establishment.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONthought this scheme of founding a national University for Scotland was an exceedingly vain one. It was scarcely constitutional to give a Commission of this sort the power of suppressing ancient corporations—the only links almost which connected Scotland of bygone times with Scotland of the present. One of the greatest evils under which Scotland suffered was that she was so little connected with the historical past. It was not at all clear that the scheme would lead to benefit the cause of education in Scotland. Such a college as St. Andrews, without the power of conferring degrees, would in a very short time run the risk of becoming something very like a private school. Again, some of the Colleges might be taken into the University and some left out, so that there would be part of the old system working alongside of the new one. He did not suppose that it would ever be carried into effect, but it seemed a pity to unsettle the whole educational arrangements of the kingdom by proposing a scheme which would probably never come to anything.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, he was very much inclined to agree with the right rev. Prelate. It was very improbable that the scheme would ever take effect, for the different Universities were not very likely to agree to it. But as the provision had been introduced in the other House, where there seemed a disposition to expect beneficial results, it would be better, on the whole, for their Lordships to allow it to remain in the Bill.
LORD BELHAVENthought the best 1679 course would be to leave out all this part of the duties of the Commission, and, if any such inquiry were necessary, to introduce a separate Bill for the purpose.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHdid not anticipate any great results from the provision, which, he remarked, had been introduced at a late stage of the progress of the Bill in the other House.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, agreed to.
§ Clause 21.
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following Proviso:—
6. For providing full compensation for the present holders of Professorships or other officers, for the loss of emoluments consequent on the abolition or conjunction of such Professorships or other offices in the present Universities and Colleges of Aberdeen."
§ Agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 21 to 25 agreed to. Clause 26 disagreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.