Lords Sitting of 20 July 1882

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Duke of Grafton, after the death of his brother.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Medical Act (1858) Amendment* (201).
Committee—Vagrancy, now Casual Poor (161–200).
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 4)*. Third Reading—Baths and Wash-houses Acts Amendment* (180), and passed.

EGYPT—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I have given him pri-
  1052
  vate Notice, with reference to the statements made by the President of the Council in the French Chamber. I wish to ask the noble Earl, Whether he can give the House any indication of the policy which Her Majesty's Government propose to pursue with regard to an armed occupation of any portion of Egypt? The two statements of M. de Freycinet to which I refer are, if correctly reported—first, that the French Government had resolved upon armed intervention in Egypt; and, secondly, that the French and English Governments had come to an agreement, which they wore about to submit to the Conference, for the guardianship of the Suez Canal. As regards the latter, we were assured in this House, by Her Majesty's Government, that they looked upon the Suez Canal as a matter outside the Conference. I shall, therefore, be glad to hear what the noble Earl has to say now upon the point.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have to state that on Monday next my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) will ask for a Vote of Credit in the House of Commons, and on the same day, with your Lordships permission, I will make a statement to your Lordships on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the affairs of Egypt,

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)— PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLEET AT ALEXANDRIA.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAMsaid, he also wished to ask the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether he has received despatches with reference to the bombardment of Alexandria from Sir Beauchamp Seymour; and, whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Standard" newspaper, which states that the noble Earl has expressed his sense of the services rendered by the "Condor," under Lord Charles Beresford, and that he will receive some special mark of recognition for those services? I wish to ask if the noble Lord can give us any information on the subject?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, the Admiralty have received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour to-day a despatch giving a preliminary report of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Fleet at

  1053
  Alexandria on the 11th. That despatch will be published in The Gazette in the customary manner. It does not enter into the services rendered by the Condor, and only mentions by name one officer, Captain Hunt-Grubbe, who was the senior officer in command of the ships engaged with the Northern forts. There is not the slightest foundation for the paragraph which my noble and gallant Friend has read from The Standard newspaper of this morning as to the recognition of the services of the gunboat Condor, under the command of Lord Charles Beresford, for this simple reason, that no despatches have yet been received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour as to the particular services of Commander Lord Charles Beresford, or of the other officers who, equally with him, were engaged in the attack on the forts at Alexandria.

  VAGRANCY (now CASUAL POOR) BILL.
  (The Earl Stanhope.)

  (No. 161.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he regretted very much that he did not ask their Lordships to reject the Bill on the Motion for second reading. As far as he could make out the Bill, it seemed to him to be suitable for dealing only with cases in the Metropolis and some large towns, and wholly unsuitable to the Unions in the rural parts, where it would have the effect of largely increasing the cost of Poor Law administration. He wished to know in how many Unions throughout England there now existed in the workhouses sufficient appliances to enable the Guardians to keep casual paupers within the casual ward for a period of five days, as was proposed to be done under the Bill? He believed that few of the workhouses at present possessed the requisite appliances for that purpose, and he thought, so far as that class of paupers was concerned, the country Unions would be obliged to lay out large sums of money for the purpose of building casual wards. They had heard a great deal of late years of the increasing burdens imposed on the shoulders of the taxpayers and the ratepayers of the country, and he thought it would be a serious matter to further increase these burdens by calling on the
  1054
  Unions to increase the accommodation for casual paupers. The effect the Bill would be to drive casual paupers from those Unions where there were appliances for enabling the Guardians to detain them five days, to Unions where there wore no such appliances. The Guardians in the last-named Unions would not consider themselves able to maintain the casuals five days; therefore, the provisions of the Bill would not apply. Beyond that, it was undesirable, in his opinion, that casual paupers should be mixed in the ward with the other inmates of the workhouse.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that the Bill, at first sight, might appear a somewhat harsh and cruel measure, but it was really founded on benevolent motives. It had for its object to enable the Guardians if they pleased—it did not compel them—to retain casual paupers five days instead of three days when they came to the workhouse twice in the same month. He was willing, however, if it were the wish of the Committee, to consent to the alteration of the maximum period for a pauper to be detained to four days instead of five, if the latter period was thought to be too long. All Poor Law reformers had asked for some such measure as this; the Government approved the general principle of the Bill; and he believed its adoption would not really entail any burden on the ratepayers for additional accommodation The real effect of the Bill would be that tramps walking through the country would not proceed so rapidly through the country, as the Guardians would have the power to detain them for a longer time. It was also expected that it would render the vagrant's life less pleasant, and lead to a decrease of expense, inasmuch as its deterrent effect would keep the tramps from going to the workhouses, and treating them as mere common lodging-houses. The result, he hoped, would be a decrease in the number of vagrants, and that less accommodation would consequently be required than was the case at present.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYalso objected to the Bill, because he feared its operation would create expense to the ratepayers. He would be glad to hear the opinion of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject, as he had some knowledge of county matters.
  House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 200.)

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD UNIVERSITY STATUTES).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold Her assent from the proposed Statute for the University of Oxford, framed by the University of Oxford Commissioners, concerning the nomination of examiners, and now on the Table of this House,"
  said, it was in their Lordships' recollection that four or five years ago an Act was passed by that House having for its object the appointment of Commissioners in order to make certain reforms in the Universities and Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. In that Act Parliament confined itself exclusively to questions of endowment, to the nature of, and the adaptation of the income of the University to the wants which had recently arisen, and of the income of the various Colleges to the wants of the University. There was neither discussion nor proposal on the part of the Government in favour of affecting in any way the constitution, or the powers of the University itself. The Commissioners, however, acting, as he supposed they were legally entitled to do, on certain words that were in the Statute, had passed a Statute differing from all the other Statutes which they had passed in this, that it directly affected the powers of the University itself. They had passed a Statute for the purpose of taking the appointment of examiners out of the hands of the University itself, and placing it in the hands of a Board designated by the Statute of the Commissioners. That might seem a slight matter to appeal to Parliament upon; but, in reality, it was a matter of the very largest importance for the University and the interests of the University, because the examinations were the tests that were applied throughout all its teaching. It was towards the examination that everything which took place in the University tended; all the efforts of the teachers, all the efforts of the students, had the
  1056
  examination as their end and aim; and the persons who had the moulding of the examination had the moulding of the studies of the University as well. Those who could control the examination could control the character and direction of the studies, and teaching of the University. The University was, therefore, naturally very jealous of the power and independence which it had for a very long time past enjoyed with respect to the management of the teaching within its walls. That teaching never had been interfered with. That right which was inherent in the University it had enjoyed ever since it first existed. It was not affected by the alteration made in its Statutes in 1854, nor was it attempted to be affected by the Statute of 1877. And it must be distinctly understood that it was not necessarily on behalf of the present system of appointment that the University was now appealing. It might be a fair question for consideration whether the present mode of appointing the examiners was the best or was not. What he contended for was that the body, which was the right judge of that, was the University itself, and that it was not expedient that Parliament should interpose its authority to place the University in that matter under the control of a body external to and independent of the University itself. Now, the mode of appointment was this. The Vice Chancellor appointed one examiner, a proctor appointed another, and another proctor appointed a third. To that mode of appointment objection was taken. It was said that the proctors were too young for the work, and that they had a tendency to make the appointments without sufficient reflection. That might or might not be proved; and if any change were consequently to be made, it should be carried out by those who knew the general feeling existing in the University. There was, however, a certain advantage in young men having the appointment, because it kept the studies of the University in sympathy with all the newest discovery and literature on those subjects. But the certain advantage there had been in placing the choice of examiners in the hands of a changing body was that the studies of the University had been kept in accordance with the common sense of the University. If they placed the whole direction of the examinations and the teaching in the

  1057
  hands of a fixed Board, of course the effect was that they gave an additional weight and power to cliques and schools of thought, and made it possible for a state of things to arise in which the teaching of the University should run on particular subjects in grooves, in accordance with the prepossessions of particular men. A system like the present, which changed the appointing power with the changing officers of the University, kept the selection of the examiners in accord with the general feeling and common sense of the University. It was very like a principle which they found in many of their institutions. He took, for example, Select Committees of their Lordships' House and of the other House of Parliament. It was often urged that the powers exercised by those Committees ought to be exercised by experts, who would, no doubt, know more of the particular subjects referred to them than the Committees. Those Committees consisted merely of average Members of both Houses, who were usually ignorant of the technical matters submitted to their judgment. Yet Parliament deliberately and pertinaciously adhered to that mode of decision, because, by doing so, it kept out of the hands of cliques and schools engineering and other technical subjects, which might otherwise fall under their absolute control. The same principle had actuated the University with regard to its examinations. But what he wished most anxiously to impress upon their Lordships was that the University pleaded for its independence. They did not wish for any particular mode of appointing examiners. The University was willing to consider whether this was the best mode or not; but the question had never been raised for the consideration of Convocation by the Hebdomadal Council since it came into existence. There was no ground for saying that the University would not make such reforms as were desirable. The opposition to this Statute proceeded from men of all schools of thought and from men of great eminence. He would not balance the eminence of the one set of men against the eminence of the other, for there were many eminent men on both sides of the question; but a very competent authority, Mr. Robinson, of the Hebdomadal Council, had stated that the University itself should deal with the
  1058
  question. With regard to the changes the Commissioners had introduced, he objected to the power of appointing examiners being taken out of the hands of the University altogether. They proposed that the appointment of examiners should rest in the hands of a Board of which one-half would be named by the Board of Faculties, which consisted chiefly of Professors appointed in a variety of ways, but independent of the University itself. He would state what changes the Commissioners proposed to make. Taking the School of Liter œ Humaniores, it was clear that this new system would create an entire change in that School, and would probably impair or entirely destroy the character of the training in ancient language and literature, and substitute for it a group of special studies brought together in one examination, which in the end might prove unworkable. This might be seen from the constitution of the Faculty of Arts, which comprised two Professors of Greek and Latin, one each of a variety of other subjects, including Ancient History, Arabic, Celtic, Chinese, Comparative Philology, Fine Arts, Logic, Political Economy, and Sanscrit, English History, Poetry, two of Modern History, three of Moral Philosophy, and other sciences. Was that a proper Body, out of which to appoint a Board to choose examiners in Latin and Greek, which had always been the staple teaching of the Universities? He did not wish to enter into the question of the mode of the application of the Statute; but it showed the kind of danger to which the University studies would be exposed, if the management of them was taken out of the hands of the University and they were allowed to be dealt with by an external body of Professors who were entirely independent of the University, for there was no reason why these Professors should act in sympathy with the views of the University in any subject whatsoever. Where it was sought to take away the powers of an ancient and great Corporation, it was necessary at least to show that those powers had been abused, or that there was in that Corporation a preponderance of discontent at the way in which its powers had been exercised, or that some great public advantage would result from the alteration. He believed that the proposed Statute

  1059
  would paralyze the power of the University over its own Body as regarded its studies, and that such an eventuality was contrary to the intentions of those who introduced the Act of 1877, and, therefore, ho asked their Lordships to assent to the Petition of the University and to accede to the present Motion.
  Moved,That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold Her assent from the proposed Statute for the University of Oxford, framed by the University of Oxford Commissioners, concerning the nomination of examiners, and now on the Table of this House.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,in opposing the Motion, said, he wished to point out that the Statute had not been suggested by the Commissioners, but by the Hebdomadal Council, the Body from which the legislation of the University proceeded.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Hebdomadal Council has petitioned against the Statute.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that at a meeting on the 14th of December, 1880, the Hebdomadal Council resolved, by a majority of 10 to 8, to take into consideration the Statutes sent up to them by the Commissioners. Although it was quite true that the Hebdomadal Council had since passed a resolution that any Statute which was brought forward should contain a power to make alterations therein without the necessity of applying to Parliament, they had not receded from their original position. The Statute was opposed on two grounds—first, that the Commissioners were going beyond their powers; and, secondly, that the Statute would tend to the deterioration of the University. He presumed that the House would hesitate very much before they rejected the Statute of the Commissioners, confirmed as it had been by the Privy Council, as exceeding the Powers of the Commissioners, and therefore he need only consider whether it was an undue interference with the University itself. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) was under a misapprehension in saying that, up to the present time, the Commissioners had not dealt with any of the administrative acts or rights of the University, for, on reference to the Statute, it would be
  1060
  found that the Commissioners did inter-fore with acts of administration which it had been competent for the University to perform. For instance, the Commissioners created the Boards of Faculties, and intrusted to them certain duties which the University might have intrusted to them if it thought fit. Was it not natural to suppose that when certain Professors were placed on the Boards of Faculties those Professors should be allowed to exercise some influence on the University examinations? The present system of examination was not now objected to for the first time; objection had been made to it for the last 30 years. The noble Marquess said that Convocation had never rejected any measure for dealing with this subject, since the Hebdomadal Council had been in existence. It was notorious that any measures presented to Convocation with the view of effecting a change would be certain to be defeated in Convocation; and it was because the Hebdomadal Council knew that it would be useless, that no measure had been proposed. Had there been any chance with Convocation, the Hebdomadal Council would not have gone to the Commissioners. It was alleged by the noble Marquess that no complaint was made against the present system. That mode of argument was always used against interfering with any system. The noble Marquess had also called attention to the fact that there had been no complaints from the University itself against the present system; but he (the Earl of Camper-down) was not prepared to allow that there had been no complaints. Did not the noble Marquess consider that the Petitions presented from a large number of the Heads of Houses and from a large majority of the Professors were complaints against the present state of things? Those eminent persons would not petition against the present system unless they considered that in many respects it had broken down. He would ask their Lordships why the University should not have the best system of examination that could be devised? If so, what smaller change could have been proposed than that proposed by the Commissioners? The examiners were now appointed in rotation by the Vice Chancellor and the Senior and Junior Proctors. With all due re-

  1061
  spect for those persons, it should be remembered that they were not chosen for the special purpose of appointing examiners. He did not think that the Proctors were the most likely persons to know who would make the most capable examiners in the different Schools. It seemed to him that the various Professors would be much more likely than the Proctors to know who were the most capable men. Of course, if their Lordships chose to reject the Statute, they had it in their power to do so; but, if they did, they would be virtually perpetuating a system which had been at various times condemned by every public body that had had the subject under consideration. Another consequence of rejecting the Statute would be, that vast power would be placed in the hands of the noble Marquess, who was not only Chancellor of the University, but a member of the Universities Committee of the Privy Council and the Leader of the Conservative Party in that House. In the first instance, this change was proposed by the Commissioners, who thought it desirable that a Statute should be brought forward. The University objected, and brought the matter before the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. The question was argued by able counsel before four members of the Committee, of whom the noble Marquess was one. It was natural to suppose that there was a division of opinion in the Committee, and that the noble Marquess was in a minority of 3 to 1. Now he came down to this House to try whether he could, by a Party vote, overthrow the opinion of the Commissioners, of the Hebdomadal Council, and the decision of the majority of the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. He (the Earl of Camperdown) hoped their Lordships, before throwing out this Statute, would inquire thoroughly into the merits of the case, and satisfy themselves that the Bodies he had referred to were all in the wrong.
  VISCOUNT CEANBROOKsaid, he very much regretted that the noble Earl who had opposed this Motion (the Earl of Camperdown) had endeavoured to give it a Party character. The question raised was by no means a Party one, and he would call the attention of their Lordships to the fact that the Petitioners
  1062
  on both sides embraced Members of both Parties, while some of the strongest opposition out-of-doors to the Statute had been experienced from extreme Members of the Liberal Party. He would, therefore, ask the House to consider this matter dispassionately, entirely apart from Party feeling, and on the merits, not of the particular Statute, but of the great question they had to decide, which was, whether the University of Oxford was to be degraded from its ancient position of acting as a self-acting and independent Body, and to be placed in a different position from Cambridge or any other University? He admitted that the Hebdomadal Council wished for certain alterations; but they wished the University to have the power, which Convocation had at present, of altering the mode of electing and nominating the examiners. He did not see why the University of Oxford should be deprived of a power which was possessed by every other University in the Kingdom of appointing their own examiners in such manner as they thought proper. If this Statute were passed, the University would be left the power of introducing new examinations not covered by the Statute, to which they could appoint examiners as they thought fit. The power of changing any one of these examinations, and of instituting and of introducing new Schools was left to the University; and, in those cases, the Statute did not hinder them from appointing examiners. They could abolish the present Schools, although they were hindered from appointing examiners. The University of Oxford had from time immemorial had this right; and it seemed to him that it was a right which was inherent in the University to have the direction of the Statutes itself, and to have the means of appointing such persons to investigate the Statutes and in such a way as it thought proper.
  THE MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that the opposition to the Statute did not seem to rest so much upon the merits of the question as on the fact that it was an invasion of the existing rights of the University, and he thought that the defence of the present system had been put forward in an extremely half-hearted manner. He trusted, however, it would be understood that those who were in favour of the Statute supported it, not

  1063
  because there was any allegation that the Body now responsible for the nomination of these examiners had in any way abused the trust committed to them. No such charge was made. All that they contended for was this—that it was necessary, in the interests of the University itself and of the public, that the machinery for the selection of these examiners should he the best possible machinery, and the existing machinery was not the best possible machinery. There never was a moment when it was more necessary than at present that the examiners should be selected. He thought that the Body responsible for the selection ought to fulfil three conditions. It should, in the first place, be a Body commanding the confidence of the University and the public. It should be guided by some continuous and consistent policy, and, as far as possible, it should hold the balance fairly between the different sections of opinion in the University. The contention of those who were in favour of the Statute was that the existing Body did not fulfil those conditions. For the last 30 years the present system of nomination had been complained of. The Commissioners who had inquired into this question had come to the conclusion that the present system of its choice of the examiners was not an efficient one, and, at all events, infinitely inferior to the mode embodied in its new Statute. It had been frequently complained of by the University itself, and he found that it had been actually admitted by high University authorities that some alteration had become necessary; and he would point out that the proposition was not exactly, as stated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), by a fixed Board, for the Vice Chancellor and two Proctors, who at present appointed the examiners, would have a preponderating influence on the Board proposed as the appointing Body. They would form half of the Board in number, and the Vice Chancellor would have a casting vote. He was bound to say that he concurred with the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) up to this point—that he should have been very glad if this necessary reform had been carried out spontaneously by the constituted authorities of the University, and not by an external Body, because
  1064
  it had always been the policy of Parliament to interfere as little as might be with what might be called the domestic concerns of the University, avoiding as far as possible what the noble Marquess had termed an invasion of the province of the University. An additional reason for abstention from such action was to be found in the fact that the University bad never, as a rule, shown itself unwilling to introduce salutary and useful reforms when the necessity for these reforms could be demonstrated. But, on the present occasion, their Lordships had absolutely no guarantee that any such change as was believed to be necessary would be carried out by the University of its own accord. The noble Marquess said the present system was capable of improvement; but that did not give any security whatever to those who believed that the present system stood in urgent need of alteration. It seemed to him, after having listened carefully to the noble Marquess, that this was a most desirable alteration, and that it would be a matter for regret if their Lordships should think fit to rescind the Statute. It proceeded in the first instance from the University. It had been thoroughly considered before the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. An amendment of the existing state of things had been recognized as desirable for a great many years past; and he thought it would be deplorable if their Lordships were to throw out a useful piece of machinery merely upon the ground that it did not happen to have been carried out in a way which some of their Lordships might prefer.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he should not have troubled their Lordships with any observations, but for the fact that he had served on the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, by which the questions before their Lordships had been considered. He did not claim to be an authority on the subject; but he claimed to have approached it with complete impartiality, and to have founded his opinion solely on the arguments adduced before the Committee. He quite agreed that the matter was not one which could be looked at from the point of view of Party. In fact, it was not at all fitted for treatment as a Party question, being concerned only with the subject of academical administration, he

  1065
  might almost say of academical detail. Their Lordships, no doubt, had a right to disallow the Statute; and, if it were obviously unjust or oppressive, it would certainly be their duty to interpose; but there were strong reasons of expediency against the adoption of such a course of proceeding. It was not, however, their business to revise every detail of the work of the Commissioners, nor to reverse decisions arrived at by those functionaries, after long and careful consultations in situ with the persons chiefly interested. It was argued that the Commissioners had in this instance overridden the opinions of the majority of the Colleges of the University. But if the independence of the University was to be so far respected that no reform which did not find favour with the Governing Body was to be pressed upon that institution, what, he asked, was the use of giving the Commission the power of overruling the local authority? And if those powers were not to be exercised, it would surely be necessary to show that they had been exercised wrongly, and not merely in a way disagreeable to those affected by them. The Commissioners, he maintained, were entitled to be considered right, when they were not obviously in the wrong. The Statute had been adopted by them after full consideration, and if they had acted within their legal right, he did not see why their judgment should be disturbed. There was no reason to suppose that they would act otherwise than on a clear consideration of the real merits of the case. Whatever might be the numerical preponderance against them, he was quite sure that there would be a great intellectual preponderance in their favour. If for no other reason, their opinion was entitled to respect, inasmuch as they were appointed by Parliament; and, if they had acted within their legal rights and without prejudice or private feeling, there was no reason for adopting the Motion. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had spoken of the possibility of reform on the part of the University itself. If, however, the present proposals were rejected, surely but little hope could be entertained that those who were now opposing the suggested reform would at some future time institute some reform of their own. Their Lordships, there-
  1066
  fore, would have to consider whether they would withhold their assent from the proposed Statute, which undoubtedly had the approval of a large majority of the University, and thereby delay the settlement of the question for a considerable time, perhaps for many years.
  THE EARL OF PEDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, as a Member of the Commission, he only wished to say that nothing that he had heard in the course of the debate had altered the convictions that he entertained on the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he felt bound to express the gratification he felt at the moderate and temperate manner in which the subject had been discussed by their Lordships. He was himself one of the University Commissioners, though not, indeed, when this Statute was passed; but during the time he was a member of that Body, the expediency of some change in the mode of appointing examiners was a good deal discussed, and he was enabled to gain a considerable knowledge of the views generally entertained upon the subject. In the whole of the discussion their Lordships had listened to he was able to discover but one single argument in support of the Motion of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) which, to his mind, was of the smallest force, and that was that a number of eminent men at Oxford, belonging to different schools of thought, had objected to the proposal of the Commissioners, on the ground, apparently, that it was desirable to keep the power in the hands of the University. But while he had a great respect for many of those names, they were, in his opinion, counterbalanced by names of at least equal authority on the other side, and when he applied his own judgment to the question, he failed to discover any valid reason for objecting to the new Statute. He had heard one thing in the discussion with great satisfaction—namely, the statement of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) that the matter was one which ought not to be regarded from any Party point of view. He rejoiced to hear that sentiment—nothing could be more just—and he hoped all their Lordships would remember that they were asked to keep their minds per-

  1067
  fectly open on the subject, free from all political bias. Their own Leaders had invited them to do so, and nothing could be more creditable or wise than that advice, which, he was sure, would be followed. He wished, therefore, to call the attention of their Lordships to the first University Commission, which sat in 1852, in April, which recommended, in principle, what was now proposed to be done. That Commission stated that they considered there was a want of stability and consistency in the examinations, and they thought the appointment of the examiners should be placed in other hands, and that the Proctors should no longer have any authority in the matter. Their proposal, therefore, went further than the one now before their Lordships. Among the Commissioners who made that recommendation was the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who took a great interest in all matters connected with the University. He (the Lord Chancellor) held in his hand a letter from him, addressed to his noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown), expressing his regret at being compelled to be absent on that occasion. The letter proceeded—
  "You are quite at liberty to remind the House that I was a member of the University Commission in 1832, which recommended the same change in the examination system, and I have always regretted that no steps have been taken to carry into effect those recommendations during the 30 years which have since elapsed."
  In the winter of 1853 the Board of Heads of Houses and Proctors considered the subject. They recommended that the examiners should be nominated by a Board consisting of the Vice Chancellor, the Proctors, and two other persons to be nominated—almost precisely the scheme proposed at the present time. Considering the 16th clause of the Act of 1877, which was passed at the instance of the noble Marquess himself, it was astonishing that he should entertain any doubt that this subject was within the powers of the Commissioners. The Hebdomadal Council, of their own accord, requested the Commissioners to do the very thing which they had done; and they had never receded from the position so taken up, except that they desired that the University should be able to alter any provision of the Sta-
  1068
  tute, if any change made by the Commissioners should be found inexpedient; but a general power for the University, without the concurrence of the Queen in Council, to repeal Statutes made by the Commissioners, would be in the teeth of the Act of Parliament. The noble Marquess spoke as if, under the present system, there was a variable Body well adapted to reflect the various phases of opinion, and that it was proposed to have a fixed Body unsusceptible of those influences; and he thought it was a mistake that certain members of the Board were to be nominated by Professors on the Boards of Faculties unconnected with the study of Latin and Greek. But the College Tutors had equal influence with the Professors in the Boards of Faculties; and it was not to be imagined that because a man understood Arabic or Hebrew, he was ignorant of Latin and Creole, or incapable of choosing proper examiners; and the examiners to be appointed were not for the classical schools only, but also for the schools of Mathematical and Natural Science. But what had been done by the Act of 1877? He found by the Act of 1877—
  "That it was expedient that provision should be made for enabling and requiring colleges to contribute more largely to the funds for university purposes and for the better instruction of students in arts, and science, and learning, where the same were not adequately taught in the university."
  The Act was passed with a view to the advancement of Arts and Science and other branches of learning, and the Commissioners were to make provision for it by altering or repealing the Ordinances of the University, and by substituting any Statutes for the same end. That being so, it was absolutely astonishing to see the noble Marquess taking the course which he had done. Were they going to say that the Body newly endowed at the expense of the Colleges—the Professorial Body—should have no power or voice in the teaching of the University, but that the whole power should be given to the Colleges only; and that, too, not merely as regarded classics, but as regarded all other schools of learning? The University had already provided for the appointment of examiners in Theology by a Board, which included all the Professors in the Theological Faculty. Surely the Professors in

  1069
  the other Faculties ought not to be refused that voice in the selection of examiners which the Professors in Theology, in their Faculty, already possessed. He hoped their Lordships would exercise the independence they had been invited to do, and not accede to the Motion of the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in reply, said, he thought that the present debate must have convinced their Lordships that the question as to the best mode of selecting examiners, one of great complexity and difficulty, was not before the House. It involved the question whether the University should be and should remain the judge of its own education, although no malfeasance had been shown against it. No one had shown that there was any agitation in the University for this change by the Governing Body, and there was nothing to show that the Governing Body would not, if asked, take the matter into consideration, and make such changes as upon argument and discussion appeared necessary. But whatever changes were made ought to be such as the University itself could repeal or modify. What the Hebdomadal Council and Convocation prayed was that, in this matter, the ancient independence of the University should not be taken away. The Statute took out of the hands of the University the power of making modifications and alterations when occasion arose. It took away from the University that independence which was the greatest stimulus to action, and was one step towards that universal centralization—one of the dangers against which they had constantly struggled. He trusted that their Lordships would not imagine that the question to be decided was as to the particular mode of appointing examiners. He did not think that the present system was perfect, nor that the proposal of the Commissioners was perfect. Those questions he would not go into. All he desired was that their Lordships should by their votes affirm that those were questions of which the University should be the judge, and that not having been convicted of any miscarriage of its own powers and privileges, it should not have them taken away.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 57; Not-Contents 70: Majority 13.

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Richmond, D.

  Boston, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Colchester, L.

  Denman, L.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Digby, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Forbes, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclcuch and Queen-sberry.)

  Lamington, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massc-reene.)

  Lathom, E. [Teller.]

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Bar-vington.)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Romney, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

  Sandwich, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Trevor, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Ventry, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Windsor, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Melville, V.

  Templetown, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Grafton, D.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Saint Albans, D.

  London, L. Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  Aberdare, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Belper, L.

  Bath, M.

  Blachford, L.

  Lansdowne, M. [Teller.]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Northampton, M.

  Brabourne, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Braye, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E, Breadalbane.)

  Chichester, E.

  Derby, E.

  Carlingford, L.

  Durham, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Granville, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Minto, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Morley, E.

  Fitzgerald, L,

  Northbrook, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Sydney, E

  Hothfield, L.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Canterbury, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Eversley, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Methuen, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Month.)

  1071

  Monson, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Mount Temple, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Sudeley, L,

  Suffield, L.

  Reay, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Rosebery, L. (E Rosebery.)

  Vernon, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Wavency, L.

  Save and Sele, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Scfton, L. (E. Scfton.)

  Resolved in the negative.

THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will cause to be laid on the Table, Copy of the report of a committee which has lately inquired into the Channel Tunnel scheme; also copies of any other papers which may exist on the same subject,"
  said, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) had promised, some time ago, that Papers on the subject should be laid upon the Table. The general tenor of the Report of the Committee on the subject, which had been made some time since, was to the effect that if the Tunnel were constructed, a considerable fortress would have to bo built at the English end, at an enormous cost, and it would necessitate the stationing at the Tunnel mouth of several thousand troops, which would add considerably to the military expenditure of the year. It was known that those opinions had been expressed by the Committee, and also that the Commander-in-Chief had expressed a strong opinion against the construction of the Tunnel, and that Sir Garnet Wolseley and Sir Lintorn Simmons, who had been Inspector of Fortifications—in fact, all the high military authorities—had expressed strong opinions of the same character. He was quite sure that his noble Friend would agree with him that, in a matter of this enormous importance, it was desirable that if the Tunnel were to be proceeded with, it should only be after the fullest information had been laid before the public. He therefore ventured to claim the fulfilment of the promise which the noble Earl had made at an earlier period of the Session, that these Papers should be laid on the Table.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to tier Majesty praying that Her Majesty will cause to be laid on the Table, Copy of the report of a committee which has lately inquired into the Channel Tunnel scheme; also copies of any other papers which may exist on the same subject."—(The Viscount Bury.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had never promised that the Papers should be laid on the Table at any particular time. What he had said, and what he now repeated, was that the Papers when they had been fully considered by the Government would be laid before Parliament, At the present moment the Papers were being prepared, in order that they should be considered by the War Office and the Government; and after that was done those which were not of a strictly confidential character, and which it would not be injurious to the Public Service to publish, should be laid upon the Table of the House. It would be inconvenient for the Papers to be laid on the Table in a fragmentary form; but, at the same time, there was no desire on the part of the Government to conceal anything which could possibly be made known to the public on the subject, which was, as the noble Viscount had stated correctly, one of the greatest importance.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o' clock.