CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 26 August 1881)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the principal Amendment which had been made in the Bill in the other House was in authorizing an addition of two Members to the Universities' Committee of the Privy Council, to whom certain duties had been intrusted. The object of the Amendment introduced into the Bill by the Commons was, as he understood it, to strengthen that Body, in order that the fresh duties which had been cast upon them should be discharged satisfactorily, and it seemed to him to be a very desirable thing to do. There was no conflict as to the principles of the Bill, and all that it did was to give some further additional powers to that Committee which 903 were found necessary, so that when the present Commission expired, which it would in December, and there were Statutes to revise and new Regulations to make, the Committee of the Privy Council should have power to do that. The Bill, by this Amendment, empowered the Government to appoint these two additional Members of the Committee. There was, as was well known, a vacancy besides, which the Government would fill up. He was sorry to find that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), who took great interest in the Bill, was opposed to the Amendment. He (the Earl of Kimberley) had some communication with his Colleagues and with the noble Marquess on the subject of the Amendment, and had endeavoured to suggest that such names might be inserted in the Commission as might possibly remove his objections. He regretted to find, however, that the names suggested, under these circumstances, could not be accepted by the noble Marquess, and that his objection to the Amendment, as not providing sufficient security, was not removed. All he (the Earl of Kimberley) could say was to express a hope that the noble Marquess would not find it necessary to persist in his opposition, and that their Lordships would agree to the Amendments as made by the Commons. He begged to move that the Commons Amendments be agreed to.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, in making the Motion I am about to do, I have to express a hope that the House will not agree to the Amendment referred to by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), and I would say one or two words to show that it is a much more important matter than your Lordships may deem it to be. This Universities' Committee was, in the first place, appointed by Statute in 1877, and its composition was considered very carefully in both Houses of Parliament, because the powers which were to be intrusted to it were to be very considerable. It was to consist of three independent Members—that is, the two Chancellors of the Universities, and 904 the Archbishop of Canterbury; and, in addition, one Member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, two Cabinet Ministers, and one other person to be nominated by the Crown. These appointments gave a very large influence, no doubt, to the Minister of the day, but not a preponderating influence, and we had a security for a tolerably independent and impartial Committee. The powers given to this Committee under the Act of 1877 were those of assenting to Statutes made by the Colleges and Universities under certain circumstances, also of sending back to the Commission appointed under the Act of the same year any Statutes which the Universities' Committee thought to be open to objection, and which the Committee considered ought to be amended. These were very considerable powers, and, accordingly, great care was taken in the nomination of the Committee. This year the Government thought it desirable to enlarge very much these powers of the Universities' Committee. By the Bill they propose to give to them not only power of sending back Statutes to the Commission to be altered, but the power themselves absolutely to alter the Statutes, and alter them not only in respect of the particular matter petitioned against, but in respect of any emoluments dealt with in those Statutes. I apprehend that the Ordinances made by the Universities and Colleges are generally included in one Statute, and that power is thus given to the Committee to legislate in all controversial points which may arise between the Colleges and Universities; and that is an enormous power to give. The Government proposed it, and I felt, under the circumstances, that I was not justified in opposing it. In fact, when the Bill was introduced I thought it, on the whole, a wise proceeding. The Government, however, gave no Notice whatever at that time that it was their intention to alter the composition of the Committee, and your Lordships will see that it is on the composition of the Committee that the whole substance of my objection turns. The Bill left this House without any alteration in that respect, when suddenly an Amendment was started by an independent Member of the House of Commons, which proposed to give the Government power to appoint two additional Members of the 905 Committee. If the Government had been forced to accept that Amendment rather than lose the Bill there might have been something to say for their conduct in the matter; but during the last week the Government have been masters of the House of Commons, and it would have been quite competent for them to have adhered—and they might have adhered—to their Bill as it originally stood, and to refuse so sweeping a change in the constitution of this Committee. But that was not the view of the Government, and on Tuesday last they assented to the addition of two new Members to the Committee, thus bringing it up to nine, so that the majority will consist of two Cabinet Ministers and three Members selected by the Prime Minister, without including the Member of the Judicial Committee. The result of this proceeding is that this is a little Parliament—a Legislative Body—which has power to decide for an indefinitely long time matters for so many years in controversy between the Colleges and Universities; and is so constituted that, if the Prime Minister pleases, he can secure a mechanical majority in favour of any resolution to which he may come as to any contested point that may be brought before the Committee. The noble Earl opposite has alluded to some communication which has passed between him and myself as to the constitution of this Committee; but the time is passed when any such arrangement as might depend on that discussion could take place. Here, on the Tuesday in the last week of the Session, only four days from the Prorogation, this clause is introduced, entirely altering the constitution of this important body, and it comes up to this House—where it was never heard of before—only 22 hours before the actual Prorogation takes place, and when we cannot have time decently and properly to discuss a change in the Bill of such great magnitude. The practice of making these changes in Bills when the Houses of Parliament are empty, and when it is impossible to examine into those changes, is in itself objectionable, and cannot be too strongly condemned on every suitable occasion. But that objection applies more particularly to a Bill of this kind, which comprehends questions of a highly tech- 906 nical character, and requires, in order to its proper consideration, the attention of Members, not only of Parliament, but of the Universities, who have practical and daily acquaintance with the matters to be determined. It is, of course, needless for me to say that this change is made at a time when not only have the two Houses of Parliament dispersed, but the Universities themselves; and even if they had not, I may venture to doubt whether 72 hours before the Prorogation would be sufficient time to enable them to judge of a proposition of this kind. When Parliament proposes to take the private property of any man, there has to be an elaborate code of rules followed, so that no man shall be deprived of his property without being able to protest against it, and to have the question discussed; but, in this case, it is proposed practically to confiscate the independence of the English Universities at only 72 hours' notice. Indeed, their independence will be liable to be confiscated 24 hours after notice, it being 12 o'clock today now we are protesting, and the Prorogation to take place to-morrow. Under those circumstances, I should have failed in doing justice to the Universities if I haven not objected to this Amendment. Some objection has been taken that the result of not agreeing to the Amendment will be inconvenient to the Universities, as tending to defer the legislation to another year; but the Universities Committee may go on performing their old functions under their old Act. Where there are new Statutes they can be referred back to the Commission, which will perform its present functions in regard to these matters. The Commission, as was mentioned, will undoubtedly expire on the 31st of December, and if they have not had the opportunity of completing the revision by that time there will be some further delay, but it need not be much, for Parliament will meet again early in February; and, as this is not a pressing Irish matter, there will be no cause for the employment of any of the time-honoured forms of Obstruction. It will be open to the Government then to deal with the matter in the way they think fit. They can either bring in a Bill in February for the Commission to continue another year, or raise the present question again, for it will be open to the hon. Members who have sent this 907 Amendment up to us to re-introduce it at a time when it can be fully considered. I cannot think that any length of time will be occupied by the House of Commons in dealing with this matter; and, therefore, if it is introduced sufficiently early in your Lordships' House in another Session, there will be full time for both Houses of Parliament to consider it properly, and for protest and discussion, if necessary, by those whose interests are so deeply affected by the Amendment.

CONTENTS.
Buckingham and Chandos, D.	St. Albans, L. Bp.
	St. David's, L. Bp.
Manchester, D.
Norfolk, D.	Alington, L.
Northumberland, D.	Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)
Abergavenny, M. [Teller.]	Braybrooke, L.
	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Hertford, M.
Salisbury, M.	Chelmsford, L.
	Colville of Culross, L.
Amherst, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Beauchamp, E.
Carnarvon, E.	Denman, L.
De La Warr, E.	Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Devon, E.
Lucan, E.	Dunsany, L.
Milltown, E.	Ellenborough, L.
Redesdale, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Cranbrook, V.
Hardinge, V.	Tollemache, L.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]	Windsor, L.
Melville, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Kimberley, E.	Lyttelton, L.
Morley, E.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
	Sudeley, L.
Carrington, L.	Waveney, L.
Clermont, L.	Wolverton, L.
Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)	Wrottesley, L.