Lords Sitting of 7 June 1888

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Berwick, after the death of his uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Liability of Trustees (111); Universities (Scotland) (re-comm.) (128–133).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Metropolitan Police* (134); Pier and Harbour* (135); Public Health (Scotland) (Denny and Dunipace Water)* (136); Water* (137).
Second Reading—Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough, &c.)* (104); Metropolis (White-chapel and Limehouse)* (105).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin Markets)* (85).
Withdrawn—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (West Loch Tarbert)* (126).

WIMBLEDON—THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD ORANMORE and BROWNEsaid, that on a former day he had given Notice of his intention to ask several Questions to-morrow with reference to the severance of the National Rifle Association from Wimbledon. He should not, however, act upon the Notice, as the matter to which the Questions referred was, he understood, still under consideration. He wished to guard himself against any misapprehension by stating that he had not the smallest sympathy with the remarks that had lately appeared in an illustrated paper with reference to the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief. On the contrary, he considered these remarks most unjust and ungenerous.

ZANZIBAR—ITALTAN DEMANDS OF TERRITORY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I wish to ask whether the noble Marquess at the head of the Government can give the House any information with regard to the unfortunate difficulty that has arisen between the Italian Consul and the Sultan of Zanzibar?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the information which we possess is exclusively telegraphic. The incident has come upon us somewhat suddenly, and I do not think that we know very much more than appears in the newspapers. The Italian Consul states

1315
that he has suffered an affront at the hands of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and requires, as reparation for that affront, the cession of certain territory called Kismayu, on the mainland. He further states that this territory was promised to the Italian Government by the Sultan. Both these allegations, I understand, are denied by the Sultan himself, and that is where the matter stands at the present moment. I see that the Italian Consul has lowered his flag.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS—INQUIRY INTO THE STANDING ORDERS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT OOMMITTEE.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY), in moving that the Notice of Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Standing Orders of the House, which stood in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, should have precedence over the other Business upon the Paper, pointed out that the first Order of the Day related to the University (Scotland) Bill, which was a Government measure. Therefore, his Motion amounted to no more than a proposal to substitute one Government Order for another. Thus private Members, who, by the way, were not as sensitive as many private Members were "elsewhere," could not oppose with justice the proposal which he submitted to the House.
  Moved, "That the first and third paragraphs of standing Order No. XX be suspended, and that the Lord Privy Seal's Motion have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notice which stand before it,"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he was opposed to the Motion on technical grounds.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he hoped the Motion of the noble Marquess would not meet wth serious opposition.
  Motion agreed to.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I rise to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine and report upon those Standing Orders of this House which relate to the conduct of Public Business."
  It is somewhat ominous that at the commencement of a discussion upon the Standing Orders of this House we should find it necessary to suspend one of the best known Rules of our Procedure. I
  1316
  can promise the House, however, that I shall not detain it any great length. It will be the more easy for me to abbreviate my speech, because the House has already had the opportunity on three occasions during the present Session of discussing its Rules of Procedure and its constitution. The first occasion arose on the Motion of the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Rosebery) for the appointment of a Committee to revise the constitution of this House, when it was thought by your Lordships that to appoint a Committee to consider so large and important a subject was a step which could not be taken with perfect safety. Another noble Lord (Stratheden and Campbell) on a subsequent occasion proposed a Motion for a Commission to inquire into the subject of the Standing Orders of this House. The view of the noble Lord, I understand, was that it was desirable that we should examine that subject with the assistance of some Members of the other House and of other gentlemen whom he thought qualified to join in the work of inquiry. That view also failed to commend itself to your Lordships. The third occasion was when my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Dunraven), with characteristic independence and courage, brought forward a Bill embodying the various changes which he considered it was desirable to carry out in the constitution of this House. That Bill was fully debated before your Lordships on the Motion for second reading and was withdrawn. These discussions, if they did nothing else, revealed a considerable difference of opinion between those who had turned their attention to the subject of the constitution of the House. The noble Earl the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, at the conclusion of his speech, used the following expression:—
  "He trusted that their Lordships would without further delay undertake the duty of repairing, renovating, and reconstructing their House."
  Now, I believe that in the opinion of this House it is necessary and desirable to proceed without delay to repair and renovate this House, but I am not equally sure that we are prepared at this moment to undertake its complete reconstruction. Between the very divergent opinions upon this subject—the opinions

  1317
  of those who are in favour of abolishing the House of Lords as at present constituted, and, on the other hand, the opinions of those who think that there are no changes that can be carried out with propriety—I think that there are certain middle views upon which useful legislation can be founded and useful action taken. It is possible that it may be necessary to reconstruct this House at some future time; but in order to reconstruct you must first pull down, and before doing so I believe that it is the opinion of your Lordships that we ought to exhaust all measures of reform, repair, and renovation on and within the lines of the present constitution of the House. In reforming the House of Lords with a view to increase its efficiency I believe that we shall have to proceed on the lines indicated by the noble Earl opposite, who was once Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In a speech during the debate on the Bill of my noble Friend behind me the noble Earl said that the reform of the House should be undertaken in a tentative, guarded, prudent, and careful manner. I believe the noble Earl on that occasion spoke the opinions of the majority of your Lordships. I believe that the ancient method of the inclined plane is the method best suited to the Assembly with which we have to deal. It is a method which we ought to prefer to the more violent methods of modern science. In accordance with this spirit the Prime Minister, in the debate on the Bill of my noble Friend, announced to the House the policy which the Government were prepared to pursue with reference to this question, and he said that he would be willing to introduce a measure to facilitate the entrance of Life Peers into your Lordships' House. He also stated that he would be prepared to bring in a measure to give power to this House—a power which we do not at present possess—to expel from our midst any of our Members who may have been convicted of offences rendering them in the opinion of all right-thinking men unworthy to sit in a House representing a branch of the Legislature. Those two matters will have to be dealt with by a measure which the Prime Minister will introduce before long. But there are besides many points connected with the procedure of this House which it will be
  1318
  necessary to deal with if we wish to treat the whole of this subject in a thorough and comprehensive manner. The Prime Minister intimated in his speech—and I believe we all agree with him—that the procedure of this House is open to considerable objection and requires renovation. It is with this view that I have given Notice of a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the subject of the Standing Orders of the House. I do not pretend for one minute that by a recasting of the Standing Orders you can remove all the objections that are entertained to the composition of the House and its constitution; but the speeches that have been made and the writings that have appeared during the last few months have convinced us that there are many matters which are not suitable for legislation, but which can and ought to be dealt with under the Standing Orders. Let me point to one difficulty that meets us upon the very threshold of the subject. I have found the utmost difficulty in ascertaining exactly the position of some of our Rules and regulations. They have grown up, some of them under prescriptive right, some of them by immemorial custom, and some of them exist on our Journals simply in the form of Resolutions. Others, again, occupy places in the book containing the Standing Orders. It would be much simpler and much more useful if the majority of the Resolutions which are passed by this House with reference to its proceedings could find a place among the Standing Orders. This is now far from being the practice in our House, although it is the practice in the other House. Let me refer, by way of example, to the question of the hour at which this House meets. Some few years ago a noble Lord moved that the House should meet for Public Business at half-past 4 o'clock instead of at half-past 5, and a Resolution was passed to that effect; but I cannot find that there is any Standing Order upon the subject. This shows how difficult it is to classify the Rules that regulate our Procedure, and to find the sanction under which those Rules have been established. Now, I propose to enumerate the chief complaints and criticisms which have been brought against the Procedure of this House, and to show that they constitute a justification for the appointment of a Committee such as that for which I now move.

  1319
  The first and most important subject which can be dealt with under the Standing Orders is the quorum of this House. The late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on both occasions of his bringing this subject before the House, dwelt at some length upon the utter inadequacy of the quorum of three, which, he believed, was held to be the quorum of our House. I cannot ascertain under what authority the quorum is fixed, but it does stand at as low a figure as three. The noble Earl gave us some amusing anecdotes illustrating the impropriety of a quorum being fixed at so low a figure. I do not propose to enumerate them, but I should like to tell the House what I believe to be the greatest inconvenience of so small a quorum and the strongest reason which exists for an alteration in our Rules in this respect. The greatest objection I conceive to be this—that it is quite possible that the House of Commons may have spent several weeks in the discussion and elaboration of a measure which it sends up to this House in a late period of the Session, and which it is in the power of this House to reject by the votes of an unduly small number of Members of this House. I can find within recent years two instances of such a proceeding. In the year 1878, on the 5th of August, the Tenant Right (Ireland) Bill was brought up to this House, having been passed by the House of Commons. A Motion was made to read the Bill on that day three months, and a Division took place, consisting of 25 Non-Contents and eight Contents. In so small a Division as this the measure was rejected. A still worse case occurred last year on the 12th of August. The Agricultural Labourers' Holdings (Scotland) Bill, which had passed the House of Commons, was brought up to this House. On the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill there were nine Contents and nine Non-Contents. The Committee was, therefore, negatived, and the Bill was lost. I only give these two cases because they show a state of things against which it is our duty to guard. I will give some instances of smaller Divisions in this House. In August, 1867, in a Division there voted on the one side one and on the other side nine—total, 10. In the same month of the same year in a Division there voted on one side seven, on the other 11
  1320
  —total, 18. In 1868 in a Division on one side there voted 13, on the other side six—total, 19. In 1871 there voted in a Division on one side seven, on the other eight—total, 15. In 1879 in a Division on one side there were three, on the other 13—total, 16. In 1885 in a Division on one side here voted seven, and on the other six—total, 13. I do not want to found any very strong argument on these figures, but I do think they show that when we have a quorum such as that under which we perform our legislative duties it is possible that measures may be rejected by a very inadequate number of votes. I commend that subject to the attention of the Committee if your Lordships should grant it. Then, with regard to the question of the attendance of your Lordships in this House, I approach a very difficult and, perhaps, a very delicate matter. My noble Friend behind me, in the debate a few weeks ago, suggested that a minimum of attendance by your Lordships at the debates in this House should constitute the right to vote. Whether your Lordships would agree to that I do not know, but of this I am sure, that it is within the power of the House, though perhaps some of your Lordships may not be aware of it, to enforce the attendance of its Members not only at Committees, but also at any other time during the progress of legislative Business in this House. Whether or not measures should be adopted to enforce a better attendance I know not, but undoubtedly the subject is one which should receive the attention of the Committee. Then my noble Friend the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs called the attention of the House to the functions of the Lord Speaker, or rather to his want of functions. My noble Friend who introduced a Bill on the subject of Procedure in this House also told us that the want of authority by our Speaker paralyzed the energies of the Members of this House and prevented a large number of able Members from taking part in our debates. I have never been able to understand why the Chairman of the House of Lords should not exercise the rights and enjoy the authority exercised and enjoyed by any chairman of any meeting throughout the whole country. It is a fact that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack does possess the authority and the right

  1321
  to call Peers to Order, although I have heard that doubted. [Cries of "No, no!"] I find on page 17 of the Standing Orders the following Rule:—
  "If any Lord has occasion to speak with another Lord while the House is sitting they are to retire to the Prince's Chamber and not converse in the space behind the Woolsack, or else the Lord Speaker is to call them to Order, and, if necessary, to stop the business in agitation."
  Thus the Lord Speaker has authority to call us to Order, and, therefore, he has authority to regulate our proceedings, at all events, in some respects. If that is the case, why should he not be allowed to select those who are to address the House in their turn? My noble Friend opposite, I think, more than once called attention to the inconvenient and almost unseemly character of these contests which occasionally take place between noble Lords in their natural desire and ambition to address your Lordships. Two noble Lords gave us an excellent illustration of this difficulty during the last debate upon our Procedure, and I cannot help hoping that if we do revise our Standing Orders in this respect, our Speaker will, in future, have the right to call upon any noble Lord to address the House, instead of its being left to one of the Leaders of either side to make the Motion that one of two speakers should be heard. Then there was the subject, and it was one of great importance, of resignation by life Peers of their office and status of Peers. My noble Friend opposite alluded to this question in his able and eloquent speech on a former occasion. He said that in 1678 a Resolution was passed by the House affirming that no Peer could divest himself of his Peerage, or that, in other words, it was impossible that any Peer should resign his seat and his post in this House; and my noble Friend argued that, inasmuch as it was in the power of the House to pass this Resolution, by the same reasoning it must be within the power of the House to pass a Resolution affirming the right which they had previously denied. I am bound to say that I cannot quite coincide with the view of my noble Friend. But let me say that in the Standing Orders there is a Resolution that no Peer can take his seat until he has attained the age of 21, and if the reasoning of my noble Friend is correct, it would be equally impossible for us to
  1322
  assert that a Peer should not take his seat until he was 25 years of age, which is an Amendment I have heard suggested by many who take an interest in this question. I have mentioned these matters because I think that when we come to examine into the Standing Orders we shall find that we must be very careful in the Resolutions which we place upon the Paper, and we must take into view the analogy which will be drawn from any Resolutions which we may so insert. My noble Friend opposite suggested in the course of his speech that Joint Committees of both Houses should sit to consider the state of Business in each House, for the purpose of relieving the congestion of our House, and the inactivity of the other by a consideration of the Bills to be brought forward in both. That was a very important suggestion; but in looking over the Standing Orders of this House I could not help being struck with the fact that the regulations to guide and control our proceedings when we are sitting in conference or on Joint Committees with the other House are such as to discourage to a very high degree any such negotiations between the two Houses. No language of mine can, I think, sufficiently well describe the inconvenience of the Standing Orders affecting our proceedings in conjunction with the other House of Parliament. The House will bear with me if I read what is the present condition of our Rules on the subject of conferences with the other House—
  "The place of meeting with the Lower House upon conference is usually the Painted Chamber, where they are commonly before we come and expecting our leisure. We are to come in thither in a whole body, and not some Lords scattering before the rest, which both takes from the gravity of the Lords and besides may hinder the Lords from taking their proper places. We are to sit there and to be covered, and they are at no Committee or conference even either to be covered or to sit down in our presence, unless it be some infirm person, and that by connivance in a corner out of sight, to sit but not to be covered."
  That, undoubtedly, does seem absurd and a mere laughing matter; but I cannot help thinking that if we are to encourage, as I hope we always shall encourage, joint action on the part of both Houses of Parliament, it is impossible to keep on our Standing Orders such a Rule as that which I have just read, and I trust that the Committee which will revise our Standing Orders will once for

  1323
  all obliterate it from our Rules. Then there are many other small matters which affect the dignity and convenience of our debates. There is, for instance, the question which was also mentioned by my noble Friend as to the difficulty which arises from our not being allowed to name each other in debate. That is a small matter, but it affects the convenience of the House. There is likewise the question of the hours of sitting, which I have previously mentioned, and also that of whether there should be an adjournment at a certain hour for dinner as some have suggested. There is another question of some importance—namely, that of the reporting in this House and the arrangements which may have to be made to facilitate the obtaining of better reports of our proceedings. I have the honour to be Chairman of a Committee of both Houses on this subject, which has not yet concluded its deliberations, and therefore I cannot now refer to the matter in any detail; but, if it is thought necessary that an official report should be made of the proceedings in Parliament, it would probably be found requisite that the reporters should be allowed to come within the sacred precincts in which we sit, and in that case the Standing Orders would have to be altered. Then, if the Prime Minister introduces and succeeds in passing his Bill to enable us to expel any Member of this House who is thought unworthy to sit in it, an alteration of the Standing Orders will be necessary in regard to that subject. I have, my Lords, now enumerated the chief points with which the Committee that we desire to appoint would deal. As I have said before, the policy of the Government is to repair and renovate within the lines of the present constitution of the House, and I believe that in the Bill which my noble Friend will present, and in the action of the Committee which I trust your Lordships will appoint, remedies will be found for many of the criticisms which are passed upon this House. I will say also for this Motion that it does not compete with and is not antagonistic to any more ambitious schemes which we have heard suggested in various quarters, and which I do not believe the action of this Committee will in any sense prejudice. It is designed to meet many reasonable objections, to remedy obvious defects, and to disarm
  1324
  some legitimate criticism. That being the scope and object of the Committee which I beg to move, I think I am entitled to express the hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House in dealing with this question will co-operate with the Government in the honest attempt which they are making so to improve the Procedure of this Assembly as to maintain the traditions and to enhance the influence and authority of the House of Lords.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine and report upon those Standing Orders of the House which relate to the conduct of public business."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, although I do not rise to offer the slightest objection to the appointment of the Committee which has been proposed by the Lord Privy Seal, I am not perfectly sure that I should not have preferred that he should not have given his reasons for his Motion, but should have simply moved it. The first ground which he adduced for the appointment of the Committee I confess I did not think was a very strong one. He wishes to change some obsolete and ridiculous Standing Order in regard to maintaining a formal superiority for Members of this House over Members of the other House when they meet in conference. With respect to the question of a quorum, the noble Earl certainly made as much as he possibly could of that point; but, notwithstanding the instances which he quoted of Divisions taken in this House when very small numbers were present, I am not aware that any great practical inconvenience has arisen from that cause; while, on the other hand, if a quorum consisting of a considerable number of Peers were adopted, enormous practical inconvenience might result, more especially for any Liberal Government which might be in Office. With regard to his suggestion as to the authority of the Lord Chancellor in this House, I am entirely opposed to it in principle. The noble Earl referred to the powers of the Speaker of the House of Commons; but it should be remembered that the Speaker is elected by the House of Commons, and is considered to be a perfectly neutral person and perfectly impartial. On the other hand, the Lord Chancellor is a political officer, and is generally, if not always, a Mem-

  1325
  ber of the Government; and that gives him a political character. Although I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, like his immediate predecessors, would wish to be perfectly impartial, yet it is impossible that on any vexed question of a Party nature suddenly arising, the decision which he gave might not be supposed at least to have been influenced by political or Party feeling. Then, again, I have great doubts whether we should extend the age of admission to this House from 21 to 25 years. I do not think that would be an advantage. I think that every encouragement should be given to young Peers to come into the House at 21, in order that they may be allowed as early as possible to become acquainted with Public Business. With regard to the practice of Members of the House referring to each other by their titles, the same objection applies as in "another place," that it might possibly add a little to the direct acerbity of debate. The Committee might do some service by removing Standing Orders that are obsolete, and by classifying the remainder, but I hope that in other respects it will do more good than the speech of the noble Earl has foreshadowed.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I think that the Motion might have met with a somewhat less ungracious reception from the noble Earl opposite. It is not to be expected that those who are in favour of this Committee should all hold exactly the same views as to the matters which will come before it for consideration. The noble Earl naturally differs from my noble Friend as to some of the points that will come before the Committee; but, while we should be glad to avoid that melancholy result as much as possible, I cannot admit that that is an argument against appointing the Committee. Undoubtedly, there are some matters in the Standing Orders of this House which will require very little alteration, but there are others which ought to be put upon a more reasonable footing than they are at present. Some of these points are of considerable importance. Two of them are of great importance—namely, the question of the quorum and the question of securing the attendance
  1326
  of noble Lords during the debates. There are, I think, other matters for consideration, as to the apportionment of time, especially in view of the circumstance, which appears now to have become permanent, that we have to wait very often a considerable period while the House of Commons is not doing its work, until that House sends up measures, and we have to approach a vast mass of accumulated Business at an advanced period of the Session. It might, therefore, be considered whether some possible alterations of detail in our modes of proceeding would not make it more easy to meet that difficulty. All that I intend to urge is that I do not think we should necessarily abstain from appointing this Committee, either because we may be unable to find solutions in which all will agree, or because the alterations to be made are not of first-rate and revolutionary importance. We do not undertake, as I have had the honour of saying to your Lordships before, to make any startling or dramatic changes in the character or constitution of this House. We wish, as the noble Earl has said, that any reform we attempt should be made tentatively, believing that the work will be done better if it is done slowly and by small steps, if we are careful never to depart from the original lines which the traditions of this House have brought down to us, and if we are careful also to avoid conforming to a mere passing and accidental impulse, remembering that the process of improvement ought to be constantly going on, and ought not to be the subject of sudden, large, and sensational steps. I hope that will be the spirit that will always animate your Lordships' House, from whatever side the Government may be constituted; and I have very little doubt that if we address ourselves in that spirit to the task before us we shall materially and sensibly add to the influence of this House, and to the value of the services which it is capable of rendering to the country.
  Motion agreed to.

LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES BILL.
(The Lord Herschell.)
LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES BILL.

  (NO. 24.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Trustee may insure buildings).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, it appeared to him that some Amendments were necessary in the drafting of the clause. He expressed a doubt whether the Statute of Limitations should apply to cases of gross negligence on the part of trustees, and whether in that respect the clause had not gone too far.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he should be willing to accept any necessary alterations in the drafting of the clause, but he must dissent from the view taken by the Lord Chancellor in reference to the application of the Statute of Limitations to the cases of negligent trustees, who had not been guilty of fraud. He would, however, carefully consider any Amendment which the Lord Chancellor might place upon the Paper with regard to the point.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Statute of limitation may be pleaded by trustees) agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Extent of Act's application).
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he might mention that the Rule Committee of Judges had power to settle the list of investments for funds in Court, and that it might be desirable to await the determination of the list upon which the Judges were then engaged, and which might render the greater part of the clause unnecessary. With regard to the Sub-section (f), he thought it would be better to include all the inscribed stocks of Colonial Governments, so as to avoid applications to the Courts, which were most expensive to the parties and liable to do injury to any securities which might not be approved.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he viewed the matter from the point of view of a layman and not from the legal point of view. He stated, with all respect, that in this matter of dealing with trust property lay as well as legal opinion should be considered. He thought that the Judges had been somewhat extreme—he might almost say superstitious—in the restraints they had imposed on investment. Although it was true that that caution on the part of the Courts might here and there be of ad-
  1328
  vantage in the interests of safety, yet at the same time he thought that some trusts were exposed to loss. He should, therefore, be disposed to say that where there was reasonable ground for considering the investment to be safe, they ought to think, not only of the few persons affected by the investment if it should fail, but of the persons who would be injured if they were excluded from the benefit of it. He protested against the doctrine that they ought to be guided by the opinion of the Judges exclusively in this matter. He was in favour of very considerable latitude in the investment of trust funds, because he believed that very great benefit would accrue, especially in these times, when persons could not afford to sacrifice the margin of advantageous investment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to refer to the difficulties surrounding the action of trustees and to generally approve the view just stated by the noble Marquess. He expressed the hope that nothing would be done to discourage investment in Colonial Stock.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he was disposed to share the lay view of the noble Marquess. He was most unwilling to leave this matter to a general order of the Courts. It was a matter in which both Houses of Parliament were just as able to judge as the Judges; and, therefore, he should prefer the determination of the question by Parliament. Sub-section (f) arose in this way. It was in the present form in the Scotch Investment Act of 1884. The Scotch trustees had been empowered to invest in Colonial Stocks; and, therefore, it was thought desirable that the English trustees should possess the same power. Then the question had to be considered whether power could be given to invest in inscribed stock of every British Colony without any control. This applied not only to existing inscribed stock, but to those stocks which might hereafter be inscribed. After full consideration of the question, the Committee of the House came to the conclusion that they could not recommend unlimited power to invest in every inscribed stock of every British Colony. Then there was the further question whether it was possible to lay down any guiding line which should enable a distinction to be drawn between those stocks which would be safe and those which would not. The Com-

  1329
  mittee could not see their way to suggest any method of discriminating in the matter.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Tuesday the 19 th instant.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Marquess of Lothian.)
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 47.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Definitions).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYmoved to insert the following definition of "affiliation":—
  "Affiliation' for the purposes of this Act shall mean such a connection between an existing University and College as shall be entered into by their mutual consent, under conditions approved by the Commissioners, or, after the determination of their powers, by the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council."
  He thought if the noble Marquess accepted his Amendment it would greatly simplify the Bill, and get rid of the words "added to" and "addition," which were particularly bare and meagre.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, he was quite willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl. He was afraid, however, that the word "affiliation" had two or three meanings and was not quite understood. He preferred the word "addition." The object he had in view in leaving out the words "affiliation and incorporation," and any other form of union, and inserting the words "added to," was to give the widest possible meaning to the term employed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he hoped the noble Earl would retain the word "affiliation," because it was a term which they all knew quite well, and one which was used in connection with the Universities. The word "addition," on the other hand, meant anything in the world. He was glad the noble Marquess was willing to accept the Amendment of his noble Friend.
  LORD WATSONthought the Amendment made the meaning of the word "affiliation" perfectly clear.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he must confess that he did not see any objection to the Bill as it originally stood.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was quite willing to accept the word "affiliation."
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that if the word "affiliation" was to be substituted throughout for the words "added to," he should withdraw his proposal to substitute "associated with" instead of "added to."
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of LOTHIAN, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, at end of Clause 3, add—
  "'College,' where by the context it does not apply to a college presently forming part of any university, means any institution which may be added as a college to such university by the Commissioners, or after the expiry of their powers by the university court under this Act.
  "'Governing body' means a body constituted on a permanent footing, and charged, by Act of Parliament, Royal Charter, deed of endowment and trust, or otherwise, with the management and administration of any fund devoted to higher education.
  "'Students Representative Council' means a students' representative council in any university, constituted in such manner as shall be fixed by the Commissioners under this Act."
  Amendment moved,
  After the word "institution" omit the words "which may be added as a College to such University by the Commissioners, or after the expiry of their powers by the University Court under this Act," in order to insert the following—"established on a permanent footing for the purpose of teaching the higher branches of education, and which shall be sufficiently endowed, in the opinion of the Commissioners, and after the expiry of their powers by the University Committee.—(The Lord Watson.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that so far as he understood the Amendment he was prepared to accept it, but he should not like to do so off-hand. Therefore he would state what he proposed to do on Report.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would appeal to the noble Marquess to allow the Amendment to be inserted now, and, if necessary, it could be dealt with on Report.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANassented to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Commencement of Act).
  Clause 5 (University Courts).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he should like to refer to this clause.

  1331
  Sub-section (c) provided "the head of each College presently existing in or which may hereafter be affiliated to or incorporated with the University" might hereafter be added to the University Court. He could not see that it was necessary that the head of the College should be part of the University Court. Objection had been taken that these courts were too bulky, and he thought it would be a good commencement to omit these words and leave it entirely to the Commissioners under Sub-section 1 to add such number of the Governing Body of any College affiliated to the university as they might see fit. He moved the omission of Sub-section (c).
  Amendment moved to omit Sub-section (c).—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, he quite agreed that this was a matter of very considerable importance, because the University Court would be a very unwieldly and cumbrous body, and it was obvious that if a great number of small Colleges took advantage of the provisions of the Bill, and if it was imperative that the head of each College should be a member of the Court, too many members would be added to the Courts in proportion to the University representatives. Although there was a difficulty in laying down any imperative rule, it would be wise to impose some reasonable limitation on the numbers who were to represent affiliated Colleges. Therefore it appeared to him to be necessary to make some alteration in the direction suggested by the noble Earl. It might be left to the Commissioners to fix the amount of representation, having regard to the proportion of the teachers and the number of their students as compared with the number of University students and teachers. He did not say the proportion should be precisely the same, because some Universities contained a very large number of students; but, at the same time, considering the nature of these bodies, he thought the representation should bear some proportion to the total number of the teachers and the students whom they brought in as affiliated to the University, and that should not only apply to their representation on the Court, but to the purposes for which they sat.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that it was a very great pity that, in order to
  1332
  conciliate the various claims to sit in the Courts, these bodies had been swollen to a very unwieldly size. He confessed that, where they were giving such very large powers to the Commissioners, he thought it would have been a simpler solution of the matter to leave the composition of the University Court to the Commission. But as a different course had been taken it appeared to him that Sub-section 1 more than covered what was put forward by Sub-section (c). In many cases the head of a College would not be engaged in teaching. He had in his mind one great College where the head would be in that position, and he would be forced to be a member of the University Court, probably against his will. He would also remind the Committee that the Bill gave a certain fixed proportion to the great University on the University Court, and that the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow might double their classes without having any power to increase their representatives; while, on the other hand, each small College might have two representatives, and have at least one. So that the result might be that the affiliated Colleges would altogether swamp a University in the University Court. He would, therefore, suggest to the noble Marquess the following Amendment, which, however, he would not move—
  "That the Commissioners should arrange for the due representation on the University Courts of affiliated colleges, having regard to the relative number of the colleges, of the teaching staffs, of students proceeding to graduation, and of the nature of the connection proposed to be established in each case."
  They must remember that affiliation, according to the definition that was to be inserted, and the various forms of union contemplated in the Bill, covered a very great variety of possible relations between the Colleges and the University. They might have a union for purely graduating purposes, and an affiliation of a character approaching incorporation. But under this clause there was no discrimination with regard to the representation, and he thought that the Universities had a fair claim to have their ase reconsidered by the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was quite willing to admit that grave matters for consideration had been raised, and suggested the postponement of the Amendment to the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was willing to postpone his Amendment to the Report stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANremarked that the object of the Government in framing the constitution of the Courts was that they thought it was desirable, as far as possible, to make the numbers statutory. That number might be infringed by Sub-section 2. He still thought that it was desirable that the Court should be constituted by the Bill as far as possible, but was willing to consider the omission of the sub-section under consideration.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked for the reason why it was proposed to give the Crown the right to appoint two assessors? He could see no reason for it. He begged to move the sub-section giving that power.
  Amendment moved, In page 2, line 32, to leave out sub-section (h).—(The Earl of Rosebery).
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANexplained that the Government thought it desirable that the Crown should have the right to nominate as members of the Court men of eminence in science, art, or business. It was obvious that such men would be of the greatest possible advantage to a University Court, and there appeared to be no other easy manner of obtaining the advantage of their assistance than that proposed in the clause.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he thought it was undesirable to introduce into the Court any members nominated by the Crown. The Court was to manage the business of the University, and it would be of no use to have members on it who did not regularly attend. If the eminent men referred to by the noble Marquess resided in the place where the University was, they would most likely be nominated by the Senatus, for they would in all probability be connected with the University. If they resided elsewhere, he did not think they would be of much use. As to redressing the balance of parties, he thought it would be a very great mistake for the Crown to nominate any members for that purpose. He moved the omission of the sub-section.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. He should have thought that the noble Earl would have presumed that the Crown would only nominate members who could attend the meetings of the Court. He was not thinking of political parties in this matter, or in connection with the Bill; and he, therefore, did not think that the Crown nominees would have anything to do with Party politics.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that considering the enormous power they were placing by statute in the hands of the Court, it was of importance that it should be a body of great weight, including a variety of representatives, and appointed by a number of authorities. Those who administered the Imperial affairs of the country would generally appoint fit persons to take part in the proceedings of the University Court, and he did not view with any alarm the fact of the Crown appointing two assessors.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was not at all re-assured by the explanations. He looked upon these Crown assessors as amiable superfluities, and he failed to find out any reason, good, bad, or indifferent, for their existence. It was admitted that the smaller the body, consistently with due regard to representation, to conduct business, the more efficiently was the business likely to be done. This Court was an inconveniently large body. It almost approached the size of an overgrown modern Cabinet—than which body there could be nothing more ridiculous for the transaction of business. He wished to ask the further question. Where were these superfluous representatives of science and art to be found? Look at Edinburgh. He wanted to know where the representatives of science and art were to be found outside the University? Were they to be found in Glasgow? There was one perhaps in Aberdeen, the ex-principal, but he did not think it likely that the Crown would appoint him. Perhaps there were at St. Andrew's some persons who were prepared to undertake the duty of Crown assessors. If these eminent gentlemen were only to swoop down on great occasions, they would disturb and not redress any balance of parties.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he could not disguise from himself that the presence of two eminent and distinguished persons selected by the Govern-

  1335
  ment for the time might be of essential use to the University. The Scotch Universities owed a great deal of their financial resources to the Government, and they might in the future wish to obtain additional resources, and these two representatives of the Government on the Court might be useful intermediates between the Government and the University. The balance of advantage was on the side of the proposals in the Bill.
  LORD WATSONsaid, the noble Lord who had just spoken seemed to forget entirely the scheme of this Bill. Great part of the work of a University Court was of an ordinary business character—the administration of property and Revenue, and questions of teaching and discipline—and whenever the Court performed an important Act requiring an ordinance, they necessarily came into contact with the Universities Committee, without whose sanction that act would have no effect. He believed that the men chosen as members of the University Court would be of sufficient mark and ability to give good advice on all questions that would come before them. There would be plenty of them to do the work, and they would not want assistance.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had not put any Amendments on the Paper, and did not wish to move any which might be adverse to the opinion of his noble Friend; but he wished to point out that his noble Friend had put most inconvenient restriction upon the power of the Rector in the appointment of his assessors. The Rectors in the Scottish Universities were generally political persons. It was one of the traditional privileges of the Scottish students, and one which they very highly prized, that they elected the Rectors of the Universities, and they made it to a large extent notoriously a political matter. There was a Conservative Committee, a Liberal Committee, and possibly a Home Rule Committee, too, in connection with each University. Politics, fortunately, did not always guide the students in their choice. They sometimes chose eminent men in politics and in literature, and very often they chose men of general eminence in the country, but almost invariably they chose men who could not practically take part in the work of the University. Therefore, the Rector came to be represented by
  1336
  his assessors. His noble Friend put the Rector under this extraordinary Parliamentary statutory direction—"The Rector may, before he appoints an assessor, confer with his students." By the insertion of these words they put the Rector in a most invidious position. By law, the Rector had the right, once he was elected by the students, to appoint his assessor, and he almost invariably appointed a good man. But if they compelled him to consult the students, he would he placed in an exceedingly inconvenient and invidious position. The students were eminently capable of deciding upon a man of eminence as Rector, but he did not think they were so well able to choose a good man of business for the working purposes of the University. He would, therefore, suggest that the words he had quoted should be struck out, so that the Rectors should be left free, as they were now, to choose their assessors.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was not prepared to accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he must press his Amendment to a Division.
  On Question, "That the sub-section proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not Contents 18: Majority 20.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Powers of the University Court).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 5, line 10, leave out "but without the power of alienating, except on application to and under the sanction of the Court of Session."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in moving that the sub-section giving the University Court generally all the powers necessary for the management and administration of the revenue and property of the University should be amended by leaving out the words—
  "But without the power of alienating, except on application to and under the sanction of the Court of Session,"
  said, the omission of these words would rather give larger powers to the University Court in respect to its property. He thought the University Courts, powerfully constituted as they were,

  1337
  more especially with the addition of Crown assessors, would be amply sufficient for the regulation of the property of the Universities. It would only be fair in a case where no jobbery could be suspected that they should have the largest powers conferred upon them.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKbegged to point out that under this clause the University Council had power to review, on representation made by any of its members, or by any member of the Senatus Academicus, any decision which the Senatus Academicus might come to in the exercise of its powers under Section 7. He thought it should be made distinctly clear what Her Majesty's Government meant, and whether the University Court or the Senatus Academicus was to be the absolute authority in matters of discipline and teaching, whether the resolutions of the Senatus were to be subject to alteration and repeal on the part of the University Court.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that the word "review" meant what the noble Lord had suggested it meant.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved the omission of Sub-sections 8 and 9—first, because they were in the wrong part of the Bill; and secondly, because he considered the Bill would be better without them. When he said they were in the wrong part of the Bill his reason was that if they looked at the Bill they would see that the first six sub-sections dealt with certain administrative acts, and that Sub-sections 8 and 9 contemplated the giving of certain powers to enact regulations, and, in fact, power to introduce all sorts of changes. If they were to be introduced they should have been introduced in Clause 20, which dealt with ordinances.
  Amendment moved to omit Sub-sections 8 and 9,—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that he would consider the Amendment on Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYmoved the substitution of the following for Subsection 10:—
  "To appoint committees of their own number, consisting of not less than five members,
  1338
  with powers either to transact directly such business as may be entrusted to them by the University or else to report thereon to the University Court."
  His reason for moving this Amendment was similar to the reasons he had given for moving a previous Amendment—namely, to enable the University Court to deal more readily and in a more business-like way with their own affairs. He understood the noble Marquess had no objection to the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKproposed, in page 7, line 17, after Sub-section 10, to insert as a now Sub-section the following:—
  "To appoint representatives, being members of the University Court, to act as representatives of the University on the governing body of any college or colleges which may hereafter be associated with the Universities."
  He urged that it was desirable in the interests of harmony and good understanding between the Universities and the Colleges affiliated to them that there should be some representation of the Governing Body of the University on the Governing Body of the College. He thought the University Court should be represented on the Governing Body of a College in order to maintain harmony and good understanding between them, not with reference to the management of property and funds, but only with reference to discipline and teaching.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, line 17, after Sub-section 10, insert—"11. To appoint representatives, being members of the University Court, to act as representatives of the University on the governing body of any College or Colleges which may be hereafter associated with the Universities."—(The Lord Napier and Ettrick.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, he thought it was necessary to keep in mind that the Colleges and the University were to be affiliated of consent and under conditions approved by the Commissioners. He did not doubt that, in some cases at all events, it would be exceedingly distasteful to Colleges managing their own affairs to admit representatives to administer their funds or their patronage. He thought that the University Court ought to have a review of the teaching and discipline of every College associated with it; but beyond that the admission

  1339
  of representatives of the Court to the Governing Body of a College should be a matter of arrangement.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that he had a subsequent Amendment which particularly specified that the representatives of the University Court should have no power in the management or regulation of the funds or property of the College other than the contribution of the College to the University funds.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he did not see the force of the objection raised by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Watson). Taking the definition of affiliation as it had been given, he pointed out that the conditions must be approved by both parties and by the University Commission. In these circumstances, he thought it could not be wrong to make those arrangements by that Court instead of adopting the method provided by the Bill, which was a one-sided arrangement. He thought the noble Marquess, in framing the Bill, had almost precluded by this marked omission the putting of a representative of the Commission on the Governing Body of the College. It ought, therefore, to be made clear in the Bill that a representative was considered by both parties desirable.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANthought that any representative of the University Court on the Governing Body of a College should be a purely optional matter, and he, therefore, could not consent to the Amendment. He remarked that Members of the House had had no opportunity of considering this proposal, as there had been no Notice given of the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he would suggest that an Amendment should be proposed on the Report stage to carry out his suggestion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANthought he could see his way to accept the principle contained in this suggestion, and offered to consider the Amendment with that view, before the Report stage.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7, 8, and 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Appointment of Commissioners and secretary).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYremarked, that he did not propose to say a word in regard to the Commission; but it was not to be taken that those on his side of the House approved of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that if the noble Lord did not express an opinion, he must be taken as approving of the Commission.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Power of the Commissioners).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYmoved the insertion of the following sub-section in the part of the clause empowering the Commissioners to make ordinances:—
  "(C.) Where it shall seem requisite to frame regulations under which the patronage of existing bursaries vested in private individuals shall be exercised."
  He said his object was to leave some discretion to the Commissioners to leave alone those private bursaries which had worked well, and to deal only with those which should be proved to have given rise to jobbery.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, to insert the following sub-section:—(c) "Where it shall seem requisite to frame regulations under which the patronage of existing bursaries vested in private individuals shall be exercised."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that he had no objection to offer to the noble Lord's Amendment.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he desired to congratulate the noble Marquess on having withdrawn from the Bill, as it stood originally, what was really a confiscatory clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the Secretary for Scotland if he thought it necessary that the 13th sub-section of this clause should be retained as it was?—
  "To lay down regulations for the constitution and functions of a Students' Representative Council in each University."
  It was proposed in another clause that the Rector might consult this Council with regard to his assessor; but the Rector had already that power, and, as a matter of practice, did consult the students now. He thought it was very

  1341
  doubtful as to whether Parliament should by Act of Parliament compel the Commissioners to lay down regulations for the constitution and functions of a Students' Representative Council, and to allot to them certain powers, because it must be remembered that when they said in an Act of Parliament that a thing "may" be done, it was an indication that it ought to be done. They knew nothing about these Students' Councils, and he did not think it was wise to mention them in this Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that while he admitted that the principle of the sub-section was a new one, he thought it was very desirable, in the interests of the students themselves, that the Commissioners should have this optional power. He saw no reason why the Representative Councils should not be made as efficient as possible, and a responsibility given to their students themselves by their formal recognition. His desire was that the students should be consulted as to the Assessor by the Rector rather than by the Chairman of his Election Committee.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he could not congratulate the noble Marquess upon having made out a strong case. With the single exception of consulting with the Rector with regard to his Assessor, the Bill did not propose to confer any functions on the Students' Representative Council. As this one function could be performed now without the Bill, he did not see any necessity for the creation of the Council.
  LORD WATSONsaid, he thought it might be proper to lay down certain regulations; but he thought it was going a little too far to say that the Commissioners were to find out what were to be the functions of a Students' Representative Council in each University.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he did not concur with the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) with regard to the Students' Representative Council. He contended that the sub-section was an actual Instruction to the Commissioners. There was no doubt that students in the Scottish Universities were an active and rather aggressive body at the present moment. He thought they would take an active part in the management of the Universities, and he therefore thought it would be a
  1342
  wise thing to recognize them as a factor in University affairs, and to give them a recognized constitution and status. That might be done in a dangerous or revolutionary sense; but he thought the constitution of the Commission of which they had heard the names was a very ample provision against any danger of that kind. The matter might be safely entrusted to them.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he hoped their Lordships would now be satisfied with the discussion that had taken place on the matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNintimated that on Report he should move the omission of the sub-section.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Marquess of LOTHIAN, the following Clause was inserted after Clause 14:—
  (Extension of Universities.)
  "The Commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, the university court, may, if they think fit, make ordinances to extend any of the universities, by adding new colleges to them, under regulations to be laid down by the Commissioners, subject to the following conditions:—

  (1.) The university court, and the college which it is proposed shall form part of the university, shall be consenting parties.

  (2.) The approval of the universities committee shall be signified.

  (3.) The college shall have been, under its existing constitution, placed on a permanent footing, and shall be sufficiently endowed, in the opinion of the Commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, of the universities committee.

  (4.) The university and any college or colleges which may be added to it shall severally contribute for the general purposes of the university as increased by such addition such annual sum as the commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, the university court, may determine, having regard to the special circumstances of the case.

  (5.) Where such college is established on a permanent footing under Act of Parliament, Royal charter, deed of appointment, or other trust, and under its constitution the college funds are managed by persons other than the members of the teaching department, such funds, other than those contributed to the university, shall continue to be managed as heretofore, subject to the control and review of the university court.

  (6.) The university court, or any college under which this Act shall have been made part of the university, may respect-

  1343
  tively resolve that such college shall cease to form part of such university; and, upon such resolution being passed by the university court, or notified to the university court by such college, the university court shall rescind the ordinance by which such college was made to form part of such university. Provided always, that all questions of payment or repayment of any sums of money which may be alleged to be due or repayable by either the university to the college or by the college to the university, on such ordinance being rescinded, shall be disposed of by an order of the universities committee, after such inquiry as shall to the said committee seem necessary, and whose decision thereon shall be final."

  Amendment moved, to omit Sub-section 3 of New Clause.—(The Lord Watson.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was willing to assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he thought the same course should be followed with respect to Sub-sections 4 and 5, and he would move their omission.
  Amendment moved, to omit sub-sections 4 and 5.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was prepared to agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he understood that when a College was to be united with a University, the union was to be effected with the consent of the Universities Court; but from Sub-section 6 of Clause 15, it would appear that the separation of the College from the University might be effected by a resolution of the University Court without the consent of the Universities Committee. He had been told that the consent of the Universities Committee was implied in another part of the Bill, which he failed to discover.
  LORD WATSONexplained that, as the clause stood, if one of the parties desired to withdraw from the arrangement that had been made, it was imperative on the University Court to rescind the ordinance. Under these circumstances, he thought that under the plain construction of the clause there would be no reference made to the Universities Committee. Whether that was desirable or not was another question.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that in any case there must be a safeguard against compulsory separation.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANassured the noble Earl that that danger would be guarded against. Clause 19 provided that the ordinances should be laid before Parliament.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 20, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 21 (Transfer of property by Commissioner of Works and vesting thereof).
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he had an Amendment, the object of which was to exclude the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens from the operation of the Bill. This was a subject of great interest in the Scottish Metropolis. It was difficult to see why it was proposed that this Garden should be handed over to the Edinburgh University, and, so far as he had been able to gather, the University did not want it. Neither the Town Council nor the public approved of the change. As regarded the Town Council, they had indicated their strong wish that the existing arrangement should continue; and they had good grounds for expressing that opinion, including this, that they had spent as much as £19,000 in order to acquire the control of the Arboretum attached to the Garden. The only difficulty in accepting the Amendment was, he supposed, that if it were accepted it might be thought that the sum of money proposed to be awarded to the University of Edinburgh ought to be reduced by the amount now spent in keeping up the Gardens. He should be sorry if such a course was insisted on, because it was obvious that the University of Edinburgh might not spend as much on the Garden as was now spent. They might feel that there were other matters which had a prior claim on their consideration.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 14, lines 24 to 28, leave out ("but subject as to the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens and all buildings therein as to the provisions hereinafter contained for the redemption of a sum of one hundred and fifty pounds per annum now payable to the Professor of Public Law in the University of Edinburgh").—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that this was a matter entirely in the

  1345
  hands of the Treasury, and that it was out of his power to agree to the Amendment. A similar provision had existed in previous University Bills.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment; but he hoped the question would be raised with greater success in the House of Commons.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Report on finance to be made annually).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved, as an Amendment, that the Report "be presented to and considered by the General Council of the University," as well as laid before Parliament.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked, if there was any necessity that the Report should be laid before Parliament?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANstated that he was unable to accept the Amendment, and that he thought it was advisable that the Financial Report should be laid before Parliament.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday the 19 th instant; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 133.)

MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE— LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF FIFEasked, Whether it was the intention of the Government to create a Minister for Agriculture according to the promise held out by them? He did not think he needed to offer any apology for introducing this matter, because he did not think the conduct of the Government had been altogether satisfactory with regard to it. If the Bill was ready it should be produced, and he wished to know whether there was any chance of its being introduced in time to be adequately discussed, and to be passed this Session?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that a Question on this subject had been already answered in the other House, and he could only repeat the statements that had been made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the other House. The Government had always intended to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons, and the noble Earl could gather for himself what were the chances of such a Bill making any progress in the other House at the present time. Of course, it would be possible to introduce the Bill in that House, but the great practical objection to that was that it was eminently a financial Bill. The Bill was quite ready, and the Government hoped before long to be able to pass it through the other House. In the meantime he would consider the matter, and if there was no possibility of introducing it in the other House they must attempt to bring it forward in the House of Lords and to pass it this year.

THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—PETER- SHAM PARK—SITE FOR VICARAGE.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MEATHasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether any application had been made to the First Commissioner of Works for the grant of a piece of land in Petersham Park as a site for a Vicarage; and, if so, what reply had been sent to such application?
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, that the Petition with regard to this piece of land was presented to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who found that it was a matter that should be dealt with by the First Commissioner of Works. An inquiry had been made by the First Commissioner, who ascertained that the piece of land was part of Petersham Park; and, after looking carefully into the matter, his opinion was that, at present at all events, the Petition was one that should not be granted.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.