HL Deb 29 August 1893 vol 16 cc1310-6
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH

called attention to the circumstances under which the Ladies' Hall, at Bangor, in connection with the University College of North Wales, had been closed by the action of the College authorities; and asked the Lord President of the Council what steps could be taken to remedy the injury which had been done to the Lady Principal, to the directors and shareholders of the Ladies' Hall, and to the cause of women's education in Wales? He asked for the indulgence usually accorded to one who addressed the House for the first time, while he called attention to a subject which not only involved injustice to individuals and to several persons who had devoted time, labour, and money to the higher education of women in Wales, but also vitally affected higher education itself, especially for women, in the Principality. It was necessary to begin by distinguishing the three Bodies concerned. There were Directors who were the Governing Body of the Ladies' Hall at Bangor; the Senate, consisting of the Principal, Professors, and permanent Lecturers of the College, who were charged with matters of discipline and education; and the Council, who were the supreme Governing Body of the University College at Bangor. As the result of an inquiry by a Departmental Committee into higher education in Wales. University College was established in 1884, and to the establishment of that College all classes of the community contributed their aid with remarkable unanimity. By the end of the year more than £37,000 had been subscribed; and with this sum and a grant of £4,000 a year from the Treasury the College was opened. In 1886 several ladies and gentlemen interested in the higher education of women in Wales joined together to provide, under a resident Lady Principal, board and residence for female students wishing to study at Bangor College. They formed themselves into a company and leased a property from Lord Penrhyn, and they spent more than £4,000 in furnishing the women's hall. The College authorities declined to take any share in the financial responsibility for this undertaking or in framing regulations; but they recognised the women's hall. The College authorities, he was informed, declined to take any responsibility of any kind either in regard to financial liabilities or the regulations for the women's hall; but they had recognised the hall by recording that— A hall had been established for women students at Bangor under the superintendence of Miss Frances Hughes. Relying upon this and upon the bona fides and common sense of the College authorities, the Directors opened the women's hall in 1888. The hall prospered under the superintendence of Miss Hughes, and it numbered 28 students. The Directors were about to spend £2,000 in providing increased accommodation, when the difficulty arose which led to the action for libel at the recent Chester Assizes, in which Miss Hughes recovered £350 damages and costs, and completely vindicated herself from the charge of maligning a lady student, which had led the Council to revoke the licence to the women's hall. The main facts were recited in the Charge of Mr. Justice Charles to the jury. He said the Court absolutely and entirely cleared the character of Miss Hughes from the charges which had been formulated by the Senate, and that she was justified in not appearing before it, a letter having been written to her which Mr. Justice Charles said looked very much like a writ. The learned Judge further said that the inquiry which had been held by the Senate had been conducted without the slightest regard to the ordinary form of judicial proceedings. Justice had been done to her character, and he now asked that the same justice should be done to others. The Directors, much as they felt the grievous injury which had been done to the cause to which they had contributed so much time and money, were willing to let bygones be bygones; but they asked that Miss Hughes should be reinstated in the position from which she had been wrongfully thrust by the Council on a charge which had been declared by a Court of Justice to be unfounded. In another place the Vice President of the Council had stated that this was a matter of internal discipline, and therefore could not be inquired into; but in a State-endowed College it was difficult to understand how any public inquiry could be held that did not relate to the internal management and life of the College. The right hon. Gentleman who gave this answer was making for himself quite a reputation by the zeal he displayed in examining and inquiring into the minutest detail of the smallest elementary school-room; and why his zeal should cool down when he was asked to deal with the larger subject of a State College was a matter difficult to explain. Owing to the action of the College authorities six members of the Council had withdrawn, among them being the Duke of Westminster and the Lord Lieutenant of Anglesea, who was a leading Nonconformist in Wales. The injustice which had driven them away from the College for which they had done so much would, if not remedied, injure the future of that Institution, and would destroy the co-operation which had resulted so beneficially in the past. He therefore desired to ask the Lord President whether any inquiry would be held into this matter which he had ventured to bring before the House?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I am afraid I can only repeat the answer given by the Vice President, in which I entirely agree, that the question relates to an internal disciplinary matter in which the Government have no jurisdiction. I will not go into the question in regard to Miss Hughes. There has been an unfortunate quarrel, but the College authorities are invested with certain powers, and they have thought fit to exercise those powers. It was for them to judge whether it is desirable that this hall in which the ladies resided should or should not be connected with the College; but it is not a matter in which the Government are called upon to order an inquiry. With regard to the remarks from the Judicial Bench which have been referred to, without in the least impugning the learned Judge's Charge, I would point out that it was not the action of the College authorities but of a newspaper that was before him for trial, and I decline altogether to be bound by opinions expressed by the Judge in such circumstances upon a matter which was not before him for trial. I can only say that we deeply regret that this trouble should have arisen with regard to an admirable institution, and I sincerely hope that means will be found to adjust matters in difference for the future usefulness of the College. And I would remark that it is not absolutely necessary that Miss Hughes should remain the head of the Ladies' College, and that very likely if some other lady could be induced to undertake the duty a licence would be granted. But I repeat this is not a matter in which the Government can be called upon to interfere, or, indeed, to express any opinion.

THE BISHOP OF BANGOR

begged to express his disagreement with the view of the Lord President that this was a purely disciplinary matter. He did not contend for a moment that the Senate had not full power over the discipline of the College; but this was a much wider question. Around the Colleges at Bangor, Cardiff, and Aberystwith were grouped various halls for male and female students connected with the Church and with the various denominations and sects, and it would be a great hardship, if under such circumstances as these, their licences were to be withdrawn. There was no charge whatever brought against the Directors of this hall, nor against the students; but simply because there was a disagreement between Miss Hughes and the Senate of the College, the Senate acted on their own judgment, and practically claimed the right of dismissing the head and withdrawing the licence from any institution connected with the College. Difficulties had arisen in this matter out of which he could not see any way except by the Government granting an inquiry into the whole subject. By that means the College would be enabled to work for the common good. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would reconsider the matter before it was too late.

LORD PENRHYN

, as one of the Governors of Bangor who had withdrawn his name from the Council in consequence of what had taken place, said there could be no question that a very grievous wrong had been done in this case, and he pressed the Government to reconsider their determination and grant an inquiry. He could not agree with the Lord President that this was a matter in which those connected with the libel action were alone concerned, and not the College, for the libel action would never have been heard of had it not been for the course taken by the authorities in calling upon Miss Hughes to apologise for what she had not done, and then arbitrarily ordering the hall to be closed, so that Miss Hughes had lost her position. It was no light matter to alienate so many friends of education in North Wales, and he respectfully urged upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity for an inquiry.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this subject, because I do not entirely agree with the noble Earl who occupies the position I formerly held. I quite admit that, as President of the Council, he has no jurisdiction in the matter whatever; but as a Member of the Government which grants the large sum of £4,000 yearly to the College he has a very distinct interest in seeing that that money is properly administered. That seems to mo to impose a duty upon the Government where a matter of this kind is brought to their knowledge—not a purely disciplinary matter within the College itself, but one outside; the authorities having put an end to this institution upon grounds which cannot be supported. That was done upon evidence which, as Mr. Justice Charles said, was not at all ordinary judicial evidence. It seems to me that in a case of this sort the Government might very well give the matter careful consideration whether, before making their grant to this College, they should inquire what its position is in relation to this subordinate hall. It seems to me to be a most unfortunate position for these Colleges that there should be nobody to check anything they do; that they should be allowed to enter the University entirely as independent Members; and that the Ministry itself should not have the power of checking any excesses upon their part. I think the Government, therefore, should carefully inquire into this matter and the position of the College before they supply it with further funds.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

My Lords, I think the noble Earl is inviting the Government to undertake a somewhat dangerous task. The discipline of the College in these respects—namely, the granting and refusing licences to particular halls—has been committed by the law to the Governing Body of the College; and if in every case in which it may be considered that the Governing Body of a College have come to a wrong decision in exercising the powers committed to them, the Government which is not made the superior Judge over their proceedings, and to whom an appeal might have been given from their decisions, were to interpose and say—"Before making the grant which has been determined upon by Parliament as proper to be given to this College, we must inquire how the Senate have exercised the powers which the law has committed to them without appeal," it would be a very dangerous precedent, and one which the noble Earl might be the first to regret in relation to other matters. What I would suggest is that if wrong has been done bad blood would be more likely to be put an end to if after what has passed an appeal was made to the Senate to reconsider the position it has taken up. I quite admit that what has taken place furnishes very substantial grounds to the Senate for listening to such an appeal, and I hope they will be manly enough and generous enough to reconsider the matter on fresh evidence.

[The subject then dropped.]