§ *LORD PLAYFAIRasked for permission to introduce a Bill for the purpose of re-constituting the London University. The late Government appointed a Royal Commission in 1892. That Commission sat for two years, and reported early in 1894. They were asked to consider whether the London University might be converted into a teaching University, or whether it was necessary to form a new University for London. The Royal Commission, participating in the decision of a previous Royal Commission on the same subject, thought the London University, both from its reputation and experience of examining and graduating, would be better than establishing a new University in London, and accordingly they issued a scheme which was very favourably received by all the interests concerned. It was adopted by the Senate and Convocation of the University of London, and resolutions in its favour were passed by almost all the colleges 778 and bodies having an interest in the carrying out of the scheme. But the Royal Commission pointed out that it would be exceedingly difficult to carry out a scheme, even so favourably received by all the interests, by a charter, and they recommend that it should be carried out by legislative authority—that was, by a Statutory Commission, and the object of this Bill was to carry out the views of the Royal Commission and to appoint a Statutory Commission to carry out the measures. Of course, in an elaborate scheme such as this, and which it would be his duty to explain on the Second Reading, there were adjustments which might have to be made, and the Bill gave power to the Statutory Commissioners to make that adjustment. At present the Bill did not give the names of the Statutory Commissioners, but before the House was asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill, the Government would, of course, be prepared to name the Statutory Commissioners. The plan of giving such powers to Statutory Commissioners was a very old one. It had been applied to the Oxford and Cambridge and the Scotch Universities repeatedly when there were fundamental changes in the methods of the Universities. There was only one other point he need mention, and that was, there was no intention to interfere by the Bill with the Imperial character of the University. At present the University examined students external to London, and this Imperial character would be preserved by a clause in the Bill. He moved that the Bill be read a First Time.
§ VISCOUNT CROSSsaid, he did not rise to stop the proceedings on the Bill, or to say a word against it, for he had not seen it. But on a point of Order he thought the noble Lord was not quite right. It had not been the practice of the House for a noble Lord to make any speech in introducing a Bill unless notice had been put on the Paper.
§ *LORD PLAYFAIRsaid he gave notice on Monday.
§ VISCOUNT CROSSremarked that notice did not appear on the Paper. Some time ago, when he introduced a Bill, he was called to order on exactly the same ground.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONdid not altogether agree with the noble Viscount. He did not know of any regulation against the making of a few preliminary observations in introducing a Bill.
§ VISCOUNT CROSSWhat I said was that, when I first had the honour of a seat in this House, I made a statement in introducing a simple Bill, and I was called to Order by the noble Lords, who sit beside the noble Marquess.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI have been longer in the House than the noble Marquess, and I remember that Lord Stanhope moved for a Committee to consider generally the proceedings of the House. There was a Report, in which it was distinctly recommended that the practice of introducing subjects without notice, which had grown up, should be abandoned. The reason given was that many persons who wished to take part in such questions had no opportunity of doing so without notice. This Report was approved by the House in Resolutions. Therefore, if my memory is right, the noble Lord is technically out of Order, not having given notice of what he intended to do.
§ *LORD PLAYFAIRBut I did give specific notice on Monday.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is not on the Paper. What curious reason can have moved the noble Lord to give notice, but to forbid this being placed on the Paper I do not know. This is an intrigue which I cannot fathom.
§ *LORD PLAYFAIRI gave distinct notice on Monday. The reason that I have given some explanation of the provisions of the Bill is that Convocation of London University meets in two or three days, and they would like to know what is in the Bill. As it only consists of three clauses, and merely provides the formation of a Statutory Committee, I thought I might make the statement.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYBut why did the noble Lord prevent the clerk from putting the notice on the Paper?
§ *LORD PLAYFAIRThe Clerk said that it was not usual to put it on the Paper; and I said, "If it is not usual do not put it down. But I gave the formal notice."