Lords Sitting of 12 February 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Roborough—Took the Oath.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES (PRE VENTION OF MISUSE) BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as your Lordships will have noticed, this is a short Bill, but at the same time I feel sure you will agree that it is an important one. It has two main objects which I think the Bill explains quite plainly. The first is to deal with other substances than penicillin. I would say straight away that nobody quarrels with the existing Penicillin Act, 1947, but other substances have come forward, not necessarily in that category, which this Bill seeks to empower the Minister concerned to regulate in such a way that their use shall not be detrimental to the public. This applies particularly in the case of isoniazid, which is cheap to produce—it does not at the moment come within the scope of the 1947 Act—and could, if used for self-medicating purposes or without proper advice, do a great deal of harm to the person concerned, and might easily be used in a way in which none of us would wish it to be used.
The other main purpose of the Bill is to allow the Minister and his colleagues interested in the same matters to permit the use of certain of these drugs, particularly, at the moment, penicillin, in the feeding of pigs and table poultry. The Bill allows Regulations to be made to permit the drugs to be used for those purposes. I think your Lordships will agree that science and the medical profession are now moving at such a speed that what to-day seems adequate, may to-morrow be entirely antiquated. There is no doubt that when pigs have this tiny quantity of penicillin introduced into
392
their diet, it fattens them more quickly and thus produces more pork and bacon for the nation. We have heard a great deal about being conservative with a capital "C" and a small "c," and I think we should be conservative with three "c's" if we were to veto this suggestion. With those few remarks, I would commend this Bill to your Lord ships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
2.38 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like at the outset to express my entire agreement with the statement of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading, that this is a valuable Bill which will do great good. There are just two points which I should like to raise. The first is that, if penicillin is to be fed to pigs, it must be supplied by a veterinary surgeon; otherwise people may buy it not for the pigs but for themselves. My second point is this. Would it be possible for the Royal Veterinary College to be consulted about any regulations to be made under the Bill when it becomes an Act? They have a great deal of knowledge which I feel should be at the disposal of the Minister. I have nothing further to say, other than to welcome what I agree is a most valuable Bill.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, I welcome this Bill, and I should also like to raise the question which he raised. The supervision of the giving of the penicillin is to be under the advice of the Agricultural Research Council and the Medical Research Council, two well-qualified bodies. Is it necessary, or desirable to add to those two bodies the veterinary surgeons? They will be the people who do the actual work, and it may be that they should be included. On the other hand, it may be that they could be consulted, without actually forming part of the organisation. I am not in favour of creating over-large organisations, and perhaps it would be sufficient if they were consulted. I should be glad if the noble Earl could give us information on that point.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should like to put two questions to the noble Earl in charge of this Bill. If a person who happens to be allergic to

393
penicillin eats pork from a pig that has been fed and fattened on a penicillin diet, is there any possibility that that may produce penicillin poisoning in that person? Is there enough penicillin digested by the pig to affect people in that way? Similarly, there is the reverse case. If a person goes on eating pork from pigs so fed, may he become in a condition where, if it is thought right to apply penicillin to him for the cure of some disease, he will by then have taken so much penicillin through this food that the penicillin given will have no effect when it is most needed? If the noble Earlin charge of the Bill could answer those two questions. I should be obliged.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wish to say one or two words about the Bill as a document, and then I want to utter a slight protest about the absence of something from the Bill. I promise not to be too long, because I know that there is an important Committee stage on another Bill to be taken immediately this Bill has received its Second Reading. In Clause 1 of this Bill we are told that the Penicillin Act, 1947, was concerned with
"penicillin and other anti-microbial organic substances produced by living organisms and substances having chemical properties identical with or similar to anti-microbial organic substances so produced. …"
In this Bill those words—which I do not understand, and, I think, few Members of your Lordships' House understand—are going to be supplanted by the following:
"The substances to which this Act applies are penicillin and such other therapeutic substances as may be described by regulations …"
I think it places the House as a whole in considerable difficulty in discussing a Bill when it is drafted in terms and with the use of words which few of us can understand. I could wish that the drafts men had been a little more careful in the use of their terms, so that Members of your Lordships' House who are not medical men could not only understand what the Bill is about but could exercise a vote with knowledge, if a vote had to be taken.
Under Clause 2 of this Bill we are told that
"Subsection (1) of section one of the Penicillin Act, 1947 … shall not apply to the sale or supply of a substance or preparation
394
specified in regulations under this section if it is sold or supplied in such circumstances and in accordance with such conditions as may be so specified."'
If the first quotation I made seemed as difficult as Chinese, I think the second almost as difficult as Russian. I understand neither language. Therefore, I do not know this Bill as I ought to, especially as the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading has been so sparing of remarks in his description of the Bill's proposals.
Now with regard to the other point. The Bill is of great importance and it is, I think, the usual custom, when such a Bill is introduced into either House, where the terms are complicated, for a memorandum to be attached to the Bill explaining in everyday language what the Bill is about and what the clauses provide. Such a memorandum is entirely absent from this Bill, and to that extent your Lordships' House is in some difficulty. I have raised this question before. Indeed, when the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill of 1951 came before your Lordships' House I put a question to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who was in charge of the Bill. I asked whether the memorandum which had been attached to the Bill when it was before another place could be attached also to the Bill when it came to your Lordships' House, so that we might know at a glance what the Schedule to the Bill meant. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, carried through the undertaking which he then gave, and asked the Ministry concerned to look into the matter, but we received no reply in your Lordships' House until the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill came up for 1952, when we were then informed that there were grave reasons why these documents could not be attached to Bills in that way. The one that stuck in my mind longest was that the present procedure had been in operation for 150 years, and that that alone was sufficient to make a change undesirable. I therefore utter a brief and very quiet protest against Bills of this character being presented to us without an explanation being attached to the Bill to enable us the more easily to understand Ministers and other speakers who, perforce, are bound to address your Lordships in more technical terms. I hope I may carry your Lordships with me in that protest, so that those concerned in the matter may give it due consideration.
2.48 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, in rising to say a few words about this Bill, I should like to say straight away that, speaking for myself and, I believe, for most of your Lordships, we welcome the principles of this Bill. There are certain points which have already been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Llewellin to which I was going to call attention. I will not labour them, but I trust that the noble Earl will be able to give us those assurances on the two specific points raised: that the effect of the inoculation by penicillin of pigs will neither be deleterious to those who are allergic to penicillin nor affect the effectiveness of the drug when it is properly administered. I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said. Though in some ways this Bill is very much simpler to understand than a good many other Bills which have been brought to your Lordships' House, at the same time I agree that there is a good deal of feeling that it would be most desirable, with a Bill of this nature, if there were an explanatory memorandum to get over the difficulties such as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has indicated to the House. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clear up these points, and I hope that he will give us, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, an assurance that in future some form of memorandum will be attached to Bills which are not easy to understand, so far as the verbiage is concerned, but the intention of which is excellent.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I may take first the question which has vexed the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd— the question of the lack of a memorandum to this Bill. If I had received earlier notice of that point I might have been able to give a better answer. I understand that it was considered at the time when the Bill was drafted by the Parliamentary draftsman—upon whom, after all, whichever noble Lords sit on this side of the House have to depend—that the Bill was clear enough in its substance. But I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this matter and see whether anything can be done about it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Earl that the responsibility for the non-appearance of a memorandum rests upon the drafts-
396
man only? It is rather important that we should know, otherwise we cannot make proper representations about it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I apologise to the noble Lord. No: of course it does not.
LORD HAWKE: The Bill to my mind is perfectly clear on the face of it, but unless we had some privy knowledge I certainly could not conceive the purpose for which the Bill was required. That, as I see it, is the point of an explanatory memorandum.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I repeat that it does not of course depend upon the Parliamentary draftsman. I am not blaming him at all. My advice is that the Minister concerned was of the opinion that the Bill was clear enough. But certainly the matter will be looked into. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I cannot of course, give any assurance that Bills with which I have nothing to do will have a memorandum. But I will certainly put his point to Her Majesty's Government.
Now, my Lords, I think we have more or less played about, if I may say so, with this Bill. With regard to the question of penicillin in the diet of pigs—a question which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Amulree, Lord Haden-Guest and Lord Llewellin, I may say that this matter has been very carefully gone into, and the Agricultural Research Council and the Medical Research Council are satisfied and have advised the Minister and his advisers that penicillin fed to pigs in this form can do no harm whatsoever. The quantity is so small that it cannot in any way affect the consumers of that pig meat. If noble Lords are worried about it, perhaps I may explain that the penicillin will be fed in one of two ways: either in a compound food where the makers will have to put on the compound a statement of what has been included in it; or in a special mixture—so diluted that it is impossible to extract the penicillin for use in other ways—which the farmer will then be able to mix in his own feeding-stuffs. I am quite satisfied with that assurance that there cannot be anything harmful in this admixture in the feeding-stuffs for either poultry or pigs
LORD SILKIN: Will the penicillin be applied to the national mixtures that are

397
sold—pig food No 1, No. 2 And so on? Will the penicillin be in that mixture so that the consumer will get it ready mixed?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I can answer that quite easily. It will be in two forms. There is the ordinary pig food that one gets—No. 1 and so on—which might, if the manufacturer liked, be made up to include the compound that contains the penicillin. This would have to be under careful regulation. Alternatively, the compound could be produced in 1 cwt. sacks or something of that kind, but it would be diluted in such a way that it would not be possible to extract the penicillin. The farmer could mix this with his own home-grown feeding-stuffs.
With regard to the question of consultation with the Royal Veterinary College, I understand that the veterinary surgeons will be called in on all agricultural matters of importance. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for taking, as he thought, too short a time in explaining this Bill; but I did not wish to weary your Lordships with my humble phrases, and I thought that, with the time we have had the Bill before the House, the few words I said were sufficient to explain the meaning, importance and substance of the Bill. The noble Lord was a little worried about the meaning of these rather technical medical words. I took the precaution last night of looking up in a book of reference the meaning of "antibiotics" I am informed that it is a slang word, so to speak, to cover the various expressions in the previous Act. For the noble Lord's satisfaction I will tell him what the definition was:
"ANTIBIOTIC: A substance produced by living organisms which diffuses into its surroundings and is toxic thereto in individuals belonging to their species."
I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Constitution of the University and Colleges.
1.—(1)The University shall comprise three colleges, being unincorporated societies of teachers and students, namely, the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, St. Mary's College and a College to be known by such name as the Secretary of State may determine and in this Act referred to as "the College in Dundee."
LORD REITH LORD REITH moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "being unincorporated societies of teachers and students." The noble Lord said: Is there any objection to my moving this Amendment later? It is consequential on what I have put down for Clause 6.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think we shall have to take that particular Amendment now, because we have to discuss the clause.
LORD REITH: I would much prefer to explain the point when we come to Clause 6, but I will formally move this Amendment now.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("being unincorporated societies of teachers and students,").—(Lord Reith.)
LORD O'HAGAN: This procedure is rather a curious one. It seems that we are to be asked to give an opinion with out knowing the reason for the Amendment. The noble Lord moves the Amendment without any explanation; the matter is to depend on an explanation which the noble Lord will give later on.
LORD REITH: Very well. I should have been prepared to let this Amendment be turned down, and go to Clause 6 and see what happened thereafter with Clause 1, but I will explain to your Lord ships why I have put down this Amendment. The Colleges are ancient foundations, more than 400 years old.

399
This clause, not, I think, of its own but more deriving from Clause 6, seeks to make them what here appears as "unincorporated societies of teachers and students." Whatever does that mean? Apparently, by the Amendment which the noble Earl is to move, Clause 6 leaves the two Colleges as "Common Law foundations." Will the noble Earl at some time explain what a Common Law foundation is? Because, so far as I can make out, it means nothing at all. In Clause 6 he is removing from them their incorporation. I cannot see why. If you remove the instrument of incorporation from an incorporated body, what is left of it?
Clause 6, as it stands, does away with the incorporation and dissolves the governing body, but yet it leaves in, according to the Amendment to Clause 6, a reference to them as "Common Law foundations". If, in fact, "Common Law foundation" means nothing; if, in fact, as I proposed to suggest later when Clause 6 came along, it is not only unnecessary but positively wrong to take away from these ancient colleges the tradition, the honour and the prestige of incorporation, and if, in fact, incorporation does no harm, why not drop Clause 6 altogether? If there be any suggestion that the 1889 Universities (Scotland) Act does not make clear that the property, liabilities and responsibilities are, in fact, vested in the Court, by all means let us have an Amendment, such as I have put down, which, beyond a peradventure, puts things right. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, said there was a doubt whether, in fact, the 1889 Act did take away from those two ancient foundations what the Act was meant to take away. Let us have it made clear. But, in making it clear, do we need to take away what those two ancient bodies so much value, their in corporation and their governing body? Because of the objection to that, I move that these Colleges be not referred to as "unincorporated societies of teachers and students"—whatever does that mean any how?—but that they shall be left in this clause as colleges and then we will deal with the major issue in Clause 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("being unincorporated societies of teachers and students,").—(Lord Reith.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): In response to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, on the Second Reading debate, when they feared, as others of your Lordships feared, that the Colleges might be dissolved, I shall on behalf of the Government move at a later stage that Clause 6 be so amended that under it their Common Law foundation will remain. That, I think, will give them status and identity, and will make it perfectly clear that their college status will not be dissolved. The noble Lord, Lord Reith, is now asking that the Colleges should remain incorporated societies. He says: "What is the point of disincorporating?"—if I may use that horrible word. The purpose of incorporation, as I understand it, is that a body which is incorporated can conduct legal transactions in the course of discharging administrative functions. That is exactly what the Royal Commission did not want the Colleges to do. They wanted the administrative functions to be concentrated entirely in the hands of the Court or of the College Councils, and deliberately we are making the Councils, instead of the Colleges, the incorporated societies. I hope that that explanation is clear. By the reorganisation the administration of the University, so far as the ownership of property, the conduct of administration or the conduct of legal transactions are concerned, will now be concentrated in the Court and in the Councils, which will be incorporated bodies. The Royal Commission felt that the Colleges should no longer be incorporated, otherwise they might impinge on the functions of the Councils. In the Councils the Colleges are, of course, strongly represented. It seems to me that this is really the essence of the Royal Commission's administrative proposals. After that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will not feel that he need press this Amendment.
LORD REITH: May I assure the noble Earl that I entirely agree with, and do not for a moment dispute, his objective, that the Colleges are to have the responsibilities passed to the Court or to the new

401
Councils. What I ventured to say was that the 1889 Act had already done that, and if somebody says that the 1889 Act has not—very well, let us make it clear. I am not at all disputing the noble Earl's conclusion. Everything he says I agree with, except just this: Why take this incorporation from them when it cannot do any harm; and if, by any possible chance, it could do any harm, let us prevent that by putting in such an Amendment as I have put down to make the 1889 Act clear. That is my plea. Secondly, would the noble Earl tell us what a "Common Law foundation" is?
THE EARL OF HOME: I will reply to that question on Clause 6 when it properly comes up, if the noble Lord does not mind. His other question, I think, was this: Why cannot we leave the 1889 Act alone in this respect? Does it not make clear that the Colleges shall have no further ownership of property and can conduct no legal transactions? The answer is that neither Lord Cooper, who is the head of the legal fraternity in Scotland, nor the Royal-Commission thought that the 1889 Act was sufficient, and the terms of Clause 1 of this Bill, which makes the Colleges unincorporated societies, and Clause 6, to which we shall come, are necessary in the view of the Government, of Lord Cooper and of the Royal Commission to make the position clear.
LORD REITH: We are getting no where. I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in sub section (2) to leave out from "St. Leonard" down to and including "consist" (where that word occurs the second time), and to insert:
"shall consist of the head of the College and of those teachers who provide instruction and matriculated students who engage in studies in the University wholly or mainly in that College; St. Mary's College shall consist of the Principal of the College and of those teachers who provide instruction and matriculated students who engage in studies in the University wholly or mainly in that College; and the College in Dundee shall consist of the head of the College and".
The noble Earl said: This Amendment will make the head of each College a member of that College, whether or not he is a teacher in the College. The Amendment is necessary because there
402
was an oversight, I think, in the drafting of the Bill. It is clearly necessary that the new heads must also be members of the Colleges over which they preside. Under the clause as at present drafted, the head of a College would be a member of it only if he taught in it. The administrative duties attaching to the office may, however, necessitate a whole-time appointment. The Royal Commission recognised this, and I think this Amendment is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("St. Leonard" to ("of") in line 8 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Principal of the University]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 stand part of the Bill?
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: On the Question whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill, I should like to make a few short observations. Clause 2 provides that the Principal of the University shall be appointed by Her Majesty—it becomes a Crown appointment. I observe that on the Second Reading of this Bill my noble friend Lord Crawford expressed concern over the measure of Government control which this Bill implies—for example, Clause 3 subsection (1) (k), provides that there shall be three assessors on the University Court appointed by Her Majesty in Council. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, calling attention to that and other matters in the Bill, invited the noble Earl, Lord Home, to agree that
"even if necessary, it is undesirable, and that the sooner this measure of control can be relaxed the better."
Lord Crawford went on to express his uneasiness about the subject of the Principal, who under the Bill was to be placed over the existing officers, as a sort of superman. I share his uneasiness in the drift towards Government control of universities in this island, of which Clause 2 may be an example. The universities, both in England and in Scotland, are self-governing bodies, and they would all claim alike—Oxford and Cambridge as much as the Scottish universities—that there should be no Government interference which might threaten the independence of the university. That is peculiar

403
to universities in this Island. I believe that in Germany, at any rate in the old days, the control of the Government over the universities was much greater than it has ever been in this Island. Here we recognise the autonomy of a university. Generally speaking, the Principal or Head of a university is not appointed by the Crown.
Take, for example, the University of Edinburgh. There the Head of the University is the Vice-Chancellor, nominated by the Chancellor. Neither the one nor the other is appointed by the Crown. The Chancellor of Edinburgh is elected by the General Council for life, and is President of the General Council. The Rector, who is elected by the matriculated students in the University for a term of three years, is, in the case of Edinburgh, the President of the University Court, which has power to review all decisions of the Senate, which regulates teaching and discipline in the University. In the admirably drawn memorandum which the Committee have received on behalf of the Students' Representative Council in St. Andrews it is urged that it is contrary to all principle that the man who is the President of the Senatus, which is subject to the University Court, should also be President of the University Court. That is one of the points they make. In Edinburgh, at any rate, just as in Oxford and in Cambridge, the Government have nothing to do with these appointments. Whether the Rector of St. Andrews, who is elected by the matriculated students, should continue to be President of the University Court may be a question; but I question whether the person who presides over the Court, whoever he may be, should be appointed by the Crown.
Scottish universities have gone further in preserving democratic autonomy for themselves than Oxford or Cambridge. But the principle is the same. I think, if one digs into the history, that the plan by which Scottish students elect their Rector to be President of the University Court is derived from the ancient tradition of continental universities, where the university was a sort of guild of teachers and students which governed itself. I do not at all overlook that in Oxford and Cambridge, with which I am much more familiar, there are certain 404
appointments in the colleges which fall to be made by the Crown. The Master of Trinity, Cambridge, is appointed by the Crown; the Dean of Christ Church, at Oxford, is appointed by the Crown, and in many universities there are Regius Professors who are appointed by the Crown, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. I remember a story told at Oxford in my day, that when there was a vacancy in the Regius Professorship of History the then Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, was minded to recommend a very distinguished historian, by name Mr. York Powell. He, or his secretary, wrote the appropriate letter from Downing Street to York Powell but got no answer. There was an awkward delay, and I think that the Prime Minister was reproached in some quarters for his indolence in failing to fill the vacancy. A second inquiry was made, and then it appeared that Mr. York Powell had given instructions to his scout that if any letters arrived with the envelope marked "O.H.M.S.," they were to be burned, and that was why he did not receive the communication.
I realise that there are offices—I think in the case of Aberdeen and Glasgow—which are filled by the Crown. But it is quite a different thing to provide by a new Statute that the supreme head of the government of the University shall be appointed by the Crown, and I am frankly a little concerned lest this should indicate a drift which will end in the claim by a Government to control the conduct of a university. If I may be forgiven for saying so, that anxiety is a little increased by an observation of the noble Earl, Lord Home, who said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol.180, Col. 95):
"Whatever the future may hold, St. Andrews is the only University affected by this Bill and its Rector, therefore, is the only Rector who will lose the status which he has had."
That, of course, is quite true. But Scottish students in other Scottish universities—for example in Glasgow—are naturally a little uneasy as to what the future may hold with regard to their present right of electing their Rector.
I do not make these observations for any other purpose than to call attention to the principle which has hitherto undoubtedly prevailed as to the relation between the British Government and British universities. It is, indeed, a very

405
striking thing that, although the greater part of the spendable income of the University of Oxford—not the colleges, but the University—is derived from the taxpayer, no Government has suggested that this is a case where those who pay the piper should call the tune. The Minister of Education, in the late Government, the late Mr. Tomlinson, for whom I had a great respect, always observed that rule. It is a case in which a Government may wisely contribute sustenance to a national university from public funds without, however, seeking to control the management or curriculum of the university. And it is essential that we should maintain that principle. My reason for making these observations is that, Clause 2, which not only substitutes the Principal for the Rector but says that the Principal shall be appointed by the Crown, should not be regarded as what is called the thin end of the wedge, and be token an increasing claim by the Government of the country to control the administration of an English or a Scottish university.
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: To my knowledge the noble, and learned Viscount's contacts with St. Andrews have lain in somewhat different fields. I am glad that he has drawn attention to this point. There are two general propositions which the noble and learned Viscount has made which I am sure your Lordships will heartily endorse: that there should be no Government interference which might threaten the independence of any of our universities, and that the fact that the taxpayer provides so much of the cash should never be made an excuse for political control. I feel that I need not assure your Lordships that this Government, at any rate, have no ambition to interfere in university matters.
LORD GREENHILL: Nor had the former Government.
THE EARL OF HOME: Nor the former Government, as the noble Lord has reminded me—indeed, I think I might add, "nor any Government." But this practice of the Crown appointing the principal of a university is not new in our Scottish universities. The appointments of Principal of Glasgow University and Principal of Aberdeen University are
406
Crown appointments, and have been for a long time. In addition, there are some thirty-eight chairs in the Scottish universities which are also Crown appointments. So far as St. Andrews is concerned, of course the noble and learned Viscount will realise that the Principal of St. Andrews University is, and always has been, appointed by the Crown—though the Crown appointed him as Principal of the United College, because the two offices were the same: the Principal of the United College was at the same time the Principal of the University. So this is not a new practice in Scotland. If there were to be a change, and if there were any foundation for the noble and learned Viscount's fears, I think it would have to be of a much wider application than merely to St. Andrews University. I thank the noble and learned Viscount for drawing attention to this point. I think if it were felt to be necessary to deal with it at any time it should be in a wider context.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
University Court
3.—(1) In subsection (1) of section five of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, for paragraph (i) (which specifies the constitution of the University Court of the University of St. Andrews) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(i) In the University of St. Andrews:
(a) the Principal of the University;
(2) The Principal of the University, and, in his absence, the head of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard or the head of the College in Dundee, whichever has been longer in office as such, and, in his absence, the other head, shall preside at meetings of the University Court, and, in the absence of the Principal and the heads of both Colleges, a chairman for the time being shall be elected by the meeting.
The person presiding at any meeting of the University Court shall have a deliberative vote and also a casting vote in the case of equality.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of the said section five the periods for which the persons nominated or elected as assessors to the University Court at its first reconstitution in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section shall hold office shall be such as may be prescribed by the Commissioners appointed under this Act, and different periods may be prescribed for different persons.
3.26 p.m.
LORD REITH LORD REITH moved, in subsection (1), in the proposed new paragraph (i), after sub-paragraph (d) to insert:
"(e) the Principal of St. Mary's College;".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The Principal of St. Mary's College has for a very long time been automatically, ex officio. a member of the University Court. To-day is the 416th anniversary of the founding of St. Mary's College—it was founded on February 12,416 years ago. It would be a gracious and highly appreciated act on the part of the noble Earl if he would allow the Principal of St. Mary's to stay where he is to-day ex officio. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 2, line 27, at end, insert—
("(e) the Principal of St. Mary's College;").—(Lord Reith.)
THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Lord will think me very ungracious, I am afraid. I really should like to give a birthday present to St. Mary's College—particularly as it would cost me nothing. But the Royal Commission made a very definite recommendation on this point. They had to be careful to balance the membership of the Court, not only between St. Andrews' claims and the claims of Dundee, but also between the professorial claims and the laymen's claims. They felt that, St. Mary's—although, of course, we all recognise the long part which it has played in the history of the University—being a very small part of the University of St. Andrews, and having, I think, a teaching staff of only eight compared with a teaching staff of over 100 at the United College, it would not contribute to a good balance either between St. Andrews and Dundee or between the Senatus and the other elements if one out of eight teachers was automatically to be a member of the University Court. I am afraid, therefore, that though I should like to help St. Mary's, and I hope that it will, perhaps, be possible to do something for it later in this Committee, I cannot on this occasion fall in with the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD REITH: I am quite unconvinced, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (2), after the first word "The" to insert "Rector, whom failing, the". The noble Earl said: I should like to assure the noble Earl, Lord Home, that this Amendment is not intended in any way as a wrecking Amendment, but represents the considered view of a certain body anxious to help. The Amendment seeks to retain for the Rector the position which he now has. The opinion that this should be so has, I believe, the complete and unanimous support of the students both in St. Andrews and in Dundee, and it was endorsed by the Grand Council of the graduates at their last half-yearly meeting. Nothing is further from our minds than to do anything to prevent the finest possible man from being appointed as Principal of the University. But, in the procedure of the Bill, the Principal is made to take over the duties of chairman ship of the University Court. Is this the only possible solution, and is it a wise course? In the first place, it cuts right across tradition, a tradition based on the decision of Parliament itself in 1858 and which has been in operation in all four Scottish Universities since then—namely, that the Rector shall be elected and shall preside over the University Court.
I do not wish to hold that tradition demands that there should never be any change, but I think it demands that no change should be made without careful and full consideration, particularly as it was admitted in your Lordships' House by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, on Second Reading, that the students of St. Andrews' University have never abused their privilege of election. That word "election" brings me to my next point, which has already been care fully dealt with by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. Is this position to be held by election or by appointment? In other words, are we to have democracy or dictatorship? Is it wise, or is it even fair, to adopt the latter course. The students are proud of their privilege and their responsibility and I claim that no one will challenge that they had wisdom and appropriateness in the election of the present Rector, Lord Crawford.
What, then, are the duties comprehended in this paragraph which the Principal will take over from the Rector?—the chairmanship of University Court. I

409
think all noble Lords appreciate that a chairman must be broad-minded as well as firm, sympathetic and understanding, able to see other men's points of view and, above all, patient. It does not automatically follow that an outstanding scholar or technician, who one would think would be in the minds of Her Majesty's Government in making this appointment, has the necessary qualities which are demanded for an able and responsible chairman. I feel that the Principal, who will be charged with the responsibility of forming policy for the University and carrying it through, would find it much easier to perform his task if he were not in the position of chairman of the University Court. He would feel able to present to the Court with full emphasis what, he wished to say and not tone it with the qualities of chairmanship, which might mean that he would have to be rather less emphatic to find the agreement of the full Court.
Why, then, are we asked at this moment to enter on this new departure? When, as a result of the students' choice, we have as Lord Rector one who has been recognised by all—by the University Court, by the students and by all concerned—as having all the necessary qualifications in a marked degree; one who is himself a scholar and a lover of the arts, broad-minded and accessible, already trained in the art of chairmanship in several important spheres of action; one who is a lover of the University and who has been honoured by her as a Doctor of Laws, and, finally, one who has a home within a few miles of St. Andrews and therefore is readily accessible and willing to shoulder the burden of the Chair, why are we asked to throw away all these assets at this critical moment in the University's life? Why not rather take advantage of them and at least for the next three critical years leave the Rector to preside over the University Court? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3,line 7, after the first ("The") insert ("Rector, whom failing, the")—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
LORD REITH: May I support the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, who has just spoken? I intended to put down a similar Amendment, but he got in a quarter of an hour before me. I agree with everything he has said with reference to the
410
present Lord Rector in particular, and with what he has said about the desirability of the Rector being Chairman, as in the past, in general. I think it is a serious and rather shocking proposal that the change should be, made.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I rise to support the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment. I do so with a certain amount of diffidence, not only because he has made some embarrassing references to myself but also because this Bill might well be called the University of St, Andrews (Suppression of Lord Crawford) Bill. As the Rector concerned, I am very much part of the Bill. I am glad that the noble Earl made it clear that this was not in any way a wrecking Amendment. I made it clear myself on Second Reading that I thought the Bill not only was essential, but was one that should be passed with the greatest possible speed.
Students of St. Andrews on both sides of the Tay will be grateful to the noble Earl for having made so persuasive a case for the retention of their representative in the chair of the Court. I strongly support the contention which he has made. As noble Lords are aware, the Rector is elected every three years by the matriculated students of the University, and presides over the meetings of the University Court. In these days, perhaps, such a system may seem almost too democratic, but, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon has pointed out, it is not an anomalous position; it is one which is inherent in the difference between the constitutions of the early Scottish and the early English universities. I would also urge that before breaking a tradition Parliament should think very carefully, unless that tradition is shown to be outworn and undesirable. But this is a tradition which has not grown up by chance nor been lightly laid down. It is a tradition imposed on the University by Parliament, and Parliament should think twice before revising a decision which they took in their wisdom, without much better reasons being provided than we have heard so far.
If the system had worked badly, then we should all agree that it should go; but no one has suggested that it has worked in any way but exceptionally

411
well. If the system had been abused, if the will of Parliament had been abused by the students, then again your Lordships would agree that the alteration should be made; but no one, either in the Report or in the debates, has suggested that the students of St. Andrews have abused their privilege, their right and their duty of electing a Rector to take the chair of the Court—unless, as I said the other day, they did so last November. The students feel that in the past they have chosen figures of outstanding qualities, men capable of doing their duty to the Court of the University. They very much regret that their University should be singled out to suffer in this way. It seems to me that this provision is, partly, in a negative sense, the result of fear: fear that the students might do in the future what they have never done in the past—namely, elect a man who was in capable or unsuitable for the high office. I do not think that is either a happy or a good basis on which to make legislation.
On the positive side, the main positive reason given, I think, is the desire of my noble and gallant friend Lord Tedder to maintain continuity, particularly during the first few years of the University in transition. We should all agree with that. But does the retention of the Rector in the Chair prevent continuity? I do not think so. Either the Rector is a remote and immensely distinguished figure, who does not turn up at the meetings of the Court, in which case the Principal will take the Chair in his absence, thus ensuring continuity; or a Rector is appointed who is able regularly to attend the meetings of the Court, in which case, once again, there will be the continuity which we all desire. There have been in the past, we all know, unhappy differences of personalities and opinions in the University, and the result has been the Bill, which is based largely on a system of balanced sacrifices. But the one element in the University in which there has been no difference of opinion, which has been completely united, is the student body; and the greatest of all the sacrifices entailed by the Bill is thus to be made at the expense of the students, who are in no way concerned.
412
Similarly, there have been difficulties, which are now being resolved, in the constitution of the University. But the Rector's position in the past has had nothing whatever to do with these difficulties. I do not see how his position in the future is in any way relevant to the machinery which your Lordships are to-day setting up. On the contrary, I think that in the past the Rector has been of great service in the Chair, both to the student body and to the University as a whole. The system by which a lay man is in the Chair over a technical body, scientific or academic, is so familiar to us that it has become almost part of our constitutional machinery. It has, of course, the advantages of which your Lordships are well aware. The lay man has not the technical knowledge of the body over which he presides, but, as my noble friend Lord Elgin has said, he has, if he is a good chairman, the out-side knowledge, breadth and width of experience, which enable him to assess the technicalities, to assess the difficulties, and, indeed, to reconcile them. The fact that he is outside and removed from the day-to-day machinery of the University academic organisation is, in itself, I think, a source of strength; and it implies and makes quite clear the impartiality of his chairmanship, an impartiality which to day is of the greatest importance.
I feel that if the Rector is removed from the Chair his value to the University will be largely reduced. The layman in the Chair, as I say, is of value; but the layman on a technical academic committee is of little value at all. One wonders whether, in ordinary circumstances, a Rector would feel that he could give any service, sitting among men who knew their subject in a way in which he could not pretend to know it. I feel that the loss of the Rectorship from the Chair is not merely a breach of tradition, a breach of dignity and the loss of something which the students value, but a loss of something which the University will miss, and for which—leaving aside, of course, all personal matters—the University in the future will be the poorer. I much regret the proposal contained in the Bill, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Home will give the matter his further consideration.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): With the leave of your Lordships I desire to make a statement on the Sudan. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, that the House do now resume.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

THE SUDAN
3.46 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should like now to make a statement on our negotiations with the Egyptian Government concerning the Sudan, in continuation of the statement which I made on January 20 last. I am glad to be able to report that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Cairo has concluded an Agreement between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Egyptian Government concerning the introduction of self-government for the Sudanese, to be followed by self-determination.
I will not now go into the long history of our discussions with Egypt on this question, except to recall that in October, 1951, the then Government of Egypt announced that it had unilaterally abrogated the Condominium Agreement of 1899. That Government, and successive Egyptian Governments, insisted upon recognition by us of the Egyptian claim to the unity of Egypt and the Sudan, and also of the claim that the King of Egypt was also King of the Sudan. They insisted upon this as a pre-condition of any discussions regarding the future of the Sudan. We declined to accept this unilateral abrogation and consistently refused to agree to any change in the status of the Sudan without consultation with the Sudanese.
Last autumn, however, General Neguib's Government took the decisive step of recognising that the Sudanese should have self-determination and that sovereignty should be reserved for the Sudanese until that time. I should like the House to realise the significance of this step. It completely changed the situation. Whereas hitherto we had been unable to find any basis for negotiations, from that moment there was good reason
414
to hope that we could reach agreement. The present Agreement expressly recognises the right of the Sudanese people to self-determination and the effective exercise thereof at the appropriate time and with the necessary safeguards. It also provides that, in order to enable them to exercise self-determination in a free and neutral atmosphere, there shall be a transitional period not exceeding three years which shall provide full self-government for the Sudanese and which shall begin after the Parliament has been elected. As a consequence of this, early elections will be held for the Sudanese Parliament. It is the intention that preparations for these shall be put in hand at once. All this, of course, is in full accord with the policy which successive Governments in this country have pursued in respect of the Sudan and with the statement which I made to this House on November 15, 1951. The Agreement further provides that during the transitional period the sovereignty of the Sudan shall be kept in reserve for the Sudanese until self-determination is achieved. These notable developments have been warmly welcomed by the Sudanese themselves.
Our recent discussions with the Egyptian Government, have dealt with the practical arrangements to give effect to these intentions. The Egyptian Government have accepted, subject to certain amendments, a draft Statute for the introduction of self-government in the Sudan. This Statute had been produced by the present Sudan Government as a result of the work of a Constitutional Commission, consisting of thirteen Sudanese under a British Chairman. It had been subsequently accepted by the Sudanese Legislative Assembly. It contained an article giving the Governor-General a special responsibility in respect of the Southern Provinces of the Sudan. This article has now been amended, by agreement, to confer upon the Governor-General a special responsibility to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all the inhabitants of the different Provinces of the Sudan. This wording, of course, includes the Southern Provinces. Moreover, the Constitution to which the Egyptian Government have agreed provides for about a quarter of the seats in each of the Houses of the new Parliament to go to Southern representatives and for not less than two Southern Ministers in the new Cabinet.

415
The Governor-General will be the supreme constitutional authority in the Sudan. In regard to external affairs, he will be directly responsible to the two Governments. In the exercise of his responsibility to ensure fair and equitable treatment for the public service he will have sole discretion, and in the exercise of certain other discretionary powers he will act with the prior approval of a Commission to be called the Governor-General's Commission. It will consist of a Pakistani member, who shall act as Chairman; two Sudanese, proposed by the British and Egyptian Governments in agreement, and subsequently approved by the Sudanese Parliament which shall be entitled to nominate alternative candidates in case of disapproval; also one British and one Egyptian member. The Governor-General's special responsibility to ensure equitable treatment for all the different Provinces of the Sudan will be exercised with the approval of his Commission.
It has also been agreed that an Electoral Commission shall supervise the preparation and conduct of the elections, which, as I have said, it is intended will be held very soon. This Commission will consist of seven members—namely, three Sudanese, appointed by the Governor-General with the approval of his Commission; one British, one Egyptian, one United States; and one Indian who shall be Chairman. As the House is aware, it has been the policy of successive British Governments that the public services in the Sudan should be gradually Sudanised. It has therefore been agreed to establish a Sudanisation Committee, consisting of one British and one Egyptian, nominated by their respective Governments and appointed by the Governor-General, together with three Sudanese members selected by the Governor-General from a list of five submitted to him by the Prime Minister of the Sudan.
The duty of this Committee will be to complete the Sudanisation of the Administration, the Police, the Sudan Defence Force and any other Government posts which might affect the free choice of the Sudanese at the time of self-determination. It will report to the Sudanese Cabinet. If the Governor-General does not agree with its decisions, or with the views of the Sudanese Cabinet, he may, with the approval of his Commission,
416
withhold his assent; and in the event of disagreement between the Governor-General and the Commission, the matter is to be referred to the British and Egyptian Governments. The Sudanisation Committee is to complete its duties within a period not exceeding three years. At the same time, the detailed preparations for the process of self-determination, including safeguards for ensuring the impartiality of the election and any other arrangements designed to secure a free and neutral atmosphere, are to be subject to international supervision. This supervision will extend to the process of Sudanisation, and we and the Egyptian Government have agreed to accept the recommendations of an international body established for this purpose.
The transitional period of self-government is to be brought to an end when the Sudanese Parliament pass a resolution expressing their desire that arrangements for self-determination shall be put in motion. When the British and Egyptian Governments have been formally notified of this resolution, the Sudanese Government will draw up a draft Law for the election of a Constituent Assembly.
I cannot let this occasion pass with out expressing the admiration which Her Majesty's Government feel, and in which I am sure the House will agree with me, for the Sudan Civil Service. Over the past fifty years, the members of the Sudan Civil Service have built for themselves a reputation for devotion to duty which has few equals in the world. We think of them particularly at this time. Whether or not the transfer of power in the Sudan proceeds in an orderly and smooth manner depends, to a very large extent, on their courage and patience. I feel sure that we can count upon them to see this transfer completed in conformity with their traditions. Her Majesty's Government will certainly not forget what they have done and will keep their interests in mind.
I do not think the House will wish me at this stage to go into any further detail regarding the complex arrangements which have necessarily had to be worked out in our discussions with the Egyptian Government. The text of the actual Agreement is now available in the Printed Paper Office. I also propose to

417
lay before the House as soon as possible a While Paper covering these discussions and containing the texts of the relevant documents. Meanwhile I have thought it right to put before the House the main provisions of the Agreement which has been reached. I must emphasise, however, that this is no ordinary instance of a dependent territory proceeding towards self-government. There are many complications arising from the peculiar status of the Sudan as a condominium. I hope the House will agree with Her Majesty's Government that both the practical arrangements, and the recognition of the right of the Sudanese to order their own future development, constitute a reasonable settlement of this question which has for so long be devilled our relations with Egypt and contributed so much uncertainty to the future of the Sudan itself. I hope indeed that the outcome of these negotiations may prove to be a happy augury for the future well-being of the Sudanese.
I hope, too, that it may have its beneficial influence on Anglo-Egyptian relations. For our part, we shall give full consideration to any views which the Sudanese Parliament, when it is elected, may express upon this Agreement. I repeat that it has been, and remains, the resolve of Her Majesty's Government that the Sudanese shall freely decide their own future. It is in that spirit that successive Governments have worked for many years and it is in that spirit that we shall operate this Agreement. I am sure that the good wishes of the whole House will go out to the people of the Sudan as they set forth on this further stage in the development of their national life.
3.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, my noble friends on this side of the House desire to associate themselves heartily with the words of praise which were uttered by the noble Marquess for the Sudan Administration and the great work which it has done. That refers not only to the British but to the Sudanese and Egyptian members of the
418
Administration. Secondly, we should like to express our great joy that an Anglo-Egyptian quarrel of at least thirty years' standing has come to an end. We cannot debate the Agreement; it is made and it must stand. But the quarrel is at an end, and that is a great achievement. Thirdly, we should like to say that in this country the people of the Sudan have warm friends, and we wish them well in their next step towards the achievement of their ambitions.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he will have regard to the fact that there are Members of your Lordships' House, including some who are not present here to-day, men who have rendered eminent service in the Middle East, who may not take such a favourable view of this Agreement as do noble Lords on the two Front Benches. I think that that should be placed on record.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount on the Opposition Front Bench for what he has said about this Agreement. With regard to what has fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, I take note of what he has said.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, can the noble Marquess tell us how soon this White Paper will be available? The account which he has given us is elaborate, but we shall need to examine the White Paper in some detail. I hope that it will reveal to us the author of this appalling word, "Sudanisation."
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords the White Paper which contains nothing but the actual terms of the Agreement is, I believe, now available. Another White Paper, giving more history and reproducing further documents, will be available, I hope, quite shortly. I cannot yet give the exact date, because the Paper will naturally take some little time to prepare. I should like to take this opportunity of disclaiming any personal responsibility for the word "Sudanisation."

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [H.L.]
4.3 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD TEDDER: I have a deep respect for tradition, and even more for the eloquence which tradition has inspired this afternoon. I can assure the noble Earl that the Commission did consider this question with great care, and in all the seventy-odd pages of the Commission's Report in only one place does the phrase "We have considered very carefully" appear—and that was on this specific item. As I have said on a previous occasion, this recommendation of ours was in no sense a reflection on what the students had done in the past, nor was there, as has been suggested, a fear of what they might do in the future. Our recommendation was based purely on the problem that faces St. Andrews now—and the difficulties of that problem noble Lords will perhaps now appreciate more than they did some time ago. What the Commissioners recommended is that there should be a Principal over the whole University, who should be independent and who should be the head man. I was interested in the suggestion that we were thereby creating a dictator and a dictatorship. Well, if there was one thing that struck us in all our investigation into the problems of St. Andrews and Dundee, it was that one of the roots of the trouble was that there had been a dictatorship. We do not feel that if the right man is appointed there should now be any risk of dictatorship.
I suggest that the Rector is in a stronger position on the Court if he is not in the Chair. The Chairman is in some ways tied down when he wants to put a particular case against the rest. The important thing is to get the right man as Principal, and I ask noble Lords to consider whether we are likely to get the right man if, in the Court, which is the main governing body through which the whole policy is to be directed and where his leadership is vital—and leadership is wanted, not dictatorship—he is not going to be in the Chair. To my mind it is absurd to expect him to be able to direct things at all if he is not in the Chair. I do not see any risk of the students losing by the Rector not being Chairman. On the other hand, I respect the prestige and the record of the Rector and I should have thought that it was
420
possible in some way to give him the status which is due to his prestige and record in the past. Would it not be possible to make him Vice-Chancellor? I agree that he should have a position of authority and prestige, but I do not think he should be Chairman.
LORD GREENHILL: I should like to support what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has said. As I listened just now to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, making his important statement, I felt how easy it would be, by transposing certain words, to apply some words which he used to the situation with which the Royal Commission was faced. It was an extremely difficult problem that we had to tackle with regard to the position of the Rector. After listening to the Amendment moved so ably by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, I should be almost in favour of supporting an Amendment to the effect that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, be appointed Rector permanently, for then we should know we had a good man. But in the appointment of a Rector you have to think of the more remote future as well as the immediate present, and for that reason we took certain precautions to see that the position from the point of view of the University was properly assured.
I was impressed, too, by the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, because I think it is true to say that unless eternal vigilance is displayed, there is a risk of losing our freedoms. But it does not follow that because the appointment is a Government appointment or certain conditions are laid down in an Act, or moneys provided by the taxpayers, we should go to the other extreme and say, "Do away with political appointments and Government moneys." There is, I think, a reasonable compromise. In respect of the position of the Rector, we went into that matter very carefully. If we were abolishing the position of Rector, there might be some justification in the attitude; but we are not abolishing that position. We are simply saying it is inappropriate, in the special circumstances applying to St. Andrews, that the Rector should be the Chairman, because, as it is said at the bottom of page 37, in paragraph 78 of the Report:
"The Rector's position as chairman ex officio of the present Court is a survival from

421
a time when the duties of his office were as responsible as its title indicates, but these duties have long been vested in the Principal, while it is left to the Rector to act as a kind of students' assessor on the Court if he so desires."
We are not interfering with the functions of the Rector as the students' assessor, and we are not interfering with the practice whereby the Principal acted as Chairman. All we are saying is that in view of the particular importance of the chairmanship of the University it should be in the hands of the Principal and not in the hands of the part-time Rector.
I do not know that the argument in favour of a layman as Chairman carries quite as much weight as has been suggested this afternoon. The Court is not composed wholly of academic men; the Court is composed of a number of lay men, too, and the presumption is that the combination of the two kinds of out-look makes the perfect kind of Court to deal with the vast number of problems confronting the University. On the whole, while I am sorry for the students, because their representations to us were really impressive—the St. Andrews' representatives of the Students' Representative Council were, I thought, particularly good—and while we are sorry to disturb the present position, we adopted what I think, in the special circumstances, was the wise course of recommending that the Principal, and not the Rector, should be the Chairman.
THE EARL OF HOME: I should like to thank those of your Lordships who have moved and spoken to these Amendments for the sincerity and moderation with which the arguments have been put forward. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said that this Bill might be described as a "Suppression of Lord Crawford Bill." Unless he has suffered a very serious decline lately, it would take more than a Parliamentary Bill to keep him under. But this recommendation that the Principal should sit in the Chair of the Court derives from the special circumstances and the past history of St. Andrews University. Past history has shown that there have been some serious separatist tendencies which, on the whole, have been harmful to the University. There have been personal antagonisms which have made relationships extremely difficult, and, therefore, a difficult situation has to be faced by
422
the Chairman from the very outset. In addition the Royal Commission have proposed that the long-term policy for the University shall include much constitutional reorganisation and produce a fairly complex new constitutional set-up. Therefore, I think it must be clear to all of us that the strongest and yet the most tactful guidance, day-to-day supervision and contact with all the activities of the University—and contact, too, with the personalities in the Senatus—is very necessary for the Chairman, whoever he may be.
Therefore, with that background, we have to think entirely of the well-being of the University. That must be the test. Who, if the University is to be best served, is the proper person for Chairman—keeping personalities out of it—the Rector or the Principal? As I said on Second Reading, all of us dislike a break with tradition—I dislike it as much as anybody does—but there is no getting away from these arguments. The Rector is appointed every three years. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is a most acceptable Rector; he would be acceptable in any capacity. But his term of office will end and, although the students of St. Andrews University have chosen well, the Royal Commission, I think, were prudent and right in making certain that there should be continuity.
The Rector might be either a busy man who would not be able to give much time in the Chair, in which case he would miss much that was vital to the life of the University, or an active participator in the affairs of the University. If he were that, then I am not sure that I should not agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, that that might put the Principal in a very awkward and perhaps even in an unfair position. I have tried genuinely to find a flaw in the Royal Commission's proposal, but the argument which is decisive with me seems to be this: that the holder of the office of chairmanship of the Court must enjoy complete and continuing familiarity with, and control of, all the University affairs. I must not mislead the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, or any other noble Lords who are interested in this Amendment. There will, of course, be opportunities of debating this matter in another place and all the arguments will be gone over again, but I must here, in fairness, make it clear

423
that, for the reasons set out in the Royal Commission's Report and developed this afternoon by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, the Government are of the opinion that the Royal Commission's recommendation should be given effect to. I welcome Lord Tedder's suggestion that the status of the Rector in other ways might appropriately be considered in the proper quarter—the idea of emphasising his status. As I say, there will be opportunities in another place to pursue this argument, and, therefore, I hope, with the explanation I have given, the noble Earl will not think it necessary to press the Amendment at this stage.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I have been listening to the noble Earl, Lord Home, and admittedly this is a most difficult question. I confess that, although I take a great interest in university matters, my mind has changed as I have heard the different speeches. There is, however, one thing upon which everybody seems to be agreed—that is, that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is an admirable choice as Rector. I recall the suggestion of the noble Earl who moved this Amendment, that at any rate for the period for which he would be Rector—three years—this matter should rest as it is. I suppose it would be possible to draft an Amendment to the clause which would provide that the provision in subsection (2) should come into operation after three years. Several noble Lords who have taken part in the debate have laid emphasis on the special circumstances which are thought to justify the recommendation of Lord Tedder's Commission—the clash of personalities and all that. Well, three years will, I hope, see the removal from the scene of anything of the kind. If at the end of three years this unhappy condition of things, which has been described by the noble Lords, Lord Tedder and Lord Greenhill, and which I quite accept, is mended—very well. Why then do we want to impose, by Statute, this permanent disqualification of the Rector from the occupation of his traditional position? I do not quite see why, and there are considerations of a general kind which, at any rate, indicate that the proposed change is open to doubt.
I quite accept that the Principal should be the head man, as Lord Tedder said:
424
that he should give a lead to the University. If he is the kind of man we have in mind, he will form and urge a view as to what shall be done, and he may urge it with a certain amount of positiveness. It is the habit of academic people to be slightly emphatic on these things—possibly that explains the difficulty which St. Andrews has been through, What is needed, in those circumstances, is a man of calm and balanced mind; a man who cannot be accused of being a partisan but who is going to see that the argument is fairly considered, and who is not above trying to persuade an extremist that he ought to listen to the other point of view. That, I think, would be better performed by a Rector of the calibre of Lord Crawford than by this unidentified nominee of the Government.
There is another consideration which is not irrelevant. The Principal of the University will be the Chairman of the Senatus Academicus and, being the head man, he will take the lead in urging that learned body to a particular decision in the academic field. The decision at which the Senatus arrives is subject to review, and it is the University Court which acts as a reviewing authority. I cannot think that it is a very satisfactory system of organisation to say that the man who is the Chairman of the Senatus, in the conditions I have suggested should also be the Chairman of the court of review. Such a situation arose long ago in your Lordships' House. In the old days, Lord Eldon, when he was Lord Chancellor, used to sit here on the Woolsack to hear appeals—from whom? From himself, I think that two lay Lords were brought in to make a quorum and Lord Eldon proceeded to give the decision. A great injury is done to Lord Eldon's reputation if you suggest that he always supported the view which he had pronounced in the Court of Chancery; but he very often did, and I do not think everybody regarded that as a very satisfactory arrangement. On principle, I think that one should not have as the chairman of a court of review and appeal the same person who has been presiding over the tribunal from which the appeal comes.
Those considerations will no doubt be duly weighed. I myself am not the least hot about the matter. I only want

425
us to help to do what is right, and if the suggestion that this change should not take place, at any rate for three years, finds favour here or in another place, so that we secure that the present admirable Rector should exercise his undoubted qualities and talents for St. Andrews, then I think we shall have done something worth while. St. Andrews is a great University, with a tremendous tradition. It has had associated with it many fine and distinguished names. There was Andrew Lang, with his poem about the red gown, and, amongst others, a man whose memory I revere, Professor ďArcy Thompson, and many another. We do not want to pull the thing to pieces, or make unnecessary changes, if there is some modification which would at least ease the blow. Therefore, in spite of what has been said so persuasively to-day by the Minister, I venture to submit that this is a possible change. I shall support my noble friend Lord Elgin in his Amendment, with the idea that a change of that sort might be considered on Report.
THE EARL OF HOME: Again, I must not mislead any members of the Committee who are interested in this Amendment. Certain suggestions have been made which I will report to the Secretary of State. There will be an opportunity to debate all these points in another place. Further than that I do not want to raise any hopes at all. The Government feel that the proposal of the Royal Commission is the right one. Subject to that, I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I cannot say that I am in the least convinced by the speeches of the two members of the Royal Commission, but I did not wish to insinuate in my remarks that I doubted their careful consideration of the matter. The point I wanted to make was that I felt there was reason for the Government to give the matter further consideration. I still feel that, and I feel it more strongly than ever after the contribution which has been made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. Here is an opportunity which the Government might carefully consider. Let us consider the matter again on Report. Why should we leave it to be reconsidered in another place? Surely, we have the
426
opportunity of considering the matter carefully. If the noble Earl who is responsible for the Bill will agree that we might consider it again on Report from the point of view put to him by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, I will not press the Amendment which is at the moment before the Committee.
THE EARL of HOME: I must leave the Committee in no doubt whatever that I cannot see my way to alter this decision. But it is, I hope, one of the virtues of this Government that we keep an open mind. I do not mind having another look at all the arguments which have been raised, but I cannot mislead noble Lords into thinking that merely leaving the matter to the Report stage may bring about another result. However, I ant quite willing to have another look at it.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "University" (where that word first occurs) down to the first "shall." The noble Earl said: This Amendment will empower the University Court to appoint its own Chairman when the Principal, who will normally occupy the Chair, is absent. The clause at present provides that in the absence of the Principal the head of the United College or of the new College in Dundee, whichever has been longer in office, shall preside. The University Court much prefer to elect their own Chairman if the Principal is absent, and this Amendment gives effect to that desire, which I think is reasonable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out from ("University") to ("shall") in line 10.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("and the heads of both Colleges").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (3), to omit all words from "five" down to the first word "shall" and to insert:
"with respect to the period of office of assessors, the assessors of the General Council in office at the passing of this Act shall, on the coming into force of this section, be deemed to have been elected hereunder as assessors by the General Council and as such shall be members of the University Court as reconstituted in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section and shall continue in office until the next biennial election by the General Council of assessors; and the periods for which the assessors elected at such election, and the assessors first elected by the Senatus Academicus after the passing of this Act"
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is proposed in order to overcome a difficulty relating to the appointment by the General Council of its four assessors on the University Court. It so happens that the dates of their elections are such that, unless we put this Amendment in the Bill, there might be no assessors from the General Council on the Court at the time when the new constitution is started. The Amendment accordingly provides that the General Council's existing assessors on this Court shall remain in office until the next election is held. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("five") to ("shall") in line 20 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Heads of Colleges, and constitution of College Councils]:
THE EARL OF HOME: I move this Amendment in response to a request by the noble Lord, Lord Reith. During the Second Reading debate he asked that the name of St. Mary's College should appear in the title of the new College Council for the parts of the University in St. Andrews. This Amendment ensures that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, after ("St. Leonard") insert ("and St. Mary's College")—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD REITH: I am grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, after ("St. Leonard") insert ("and St. Mary's College").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) Seven members of a College Council shall be a quorum."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to repair an omission in the Bill by prescribing a quorum for each College Council. The Council of the College in Dundee will comprise twenty-one members and the Council of the Colleges in St. Andrews between sixteen and twenty-two members. The quorum proposed is seven, the same number as is prescribed for the University Court by the 1889 Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Functions of College Councils.
5.—(1) It shall be the duty of the College Councils, subject to any ordinances made by the Commissioners appointed under this Act and subject to such limitation as may be imposed by the University Court on the expenditure to be incurred for the purpose—

(a) to maintain and manage the buildings and grounds belonging to the University in St. Andrews and in Dundee respectively, to allocate the use of such buildings among the departments of the University for which the University Court require accommodation to be provided, and to maintain, manage and administer any residences provided in St. Andrews and in Dundee respectively for teachers who provide instruction and students who are engaged in studies in the University;

(c) to provide facilities for further education within the University for members of the adult population who are not members of the University, and to make recommendations to the University Court with respect to the appointment or assignment of teaching staff for the provision of such education;

4.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from the beginning of the subsection down to the first word "subject," and to insert:
"The University Court shall delegate to the College Councils."
The noble Earl said: On the Second Reading, Clause 5 was recognised by your Lordships as being a crucial clause. In the framing of it it has been a little difficult accurately to interpret the desires of the Royal Commission. The Government are anxious that this clause should be so drafted as to achieve the two main objectives which I think the Royal Commission put in the forefront of their recommendations about administration. The first of these is that the University Court should be supreme in all things; that the Court should be the ultimate authority in all things concerning the University. That, I think, was the effect of the Royal Commission's first main recommendation. The second was that, stemming from the University Court, there should be real and substantial delegation to the Councils. Therefore, this and the following; Amendments effect a re-drafting of Clause 5 and provide that the University Court shall delegate those matters which are set out in the subsection in the clause. If the matter were left at that, however, items which were delegated would be items over which the Court would have no control at all, and could not resume control, even if the University interests were being harmed. Therefore, although I move these Amendments, I propose at a later stage, to accept words proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, in his Amendment whereby this delegation will be made subject to any direction from time to time given by the University Court. I think that in that way we shall interpret most accurately (perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, will confirm or deny this) the intention of the Royal Commission, that the University Court should be supreme in all things but that there should, at the same time, be substantial and effective delegation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("subject") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD TEDDER: I confirm what the noble Earl has said. In my opinion, this Amendment entirely carries out the intentions of the Royal Commission. This was one of the crucial points in the whole problem of establishing a proper line of authority, and at the same time ensuring proper delegation and decentralisation. These Amendments, as I
430
read them, should, so far as is humanly possible, do that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES moved, in subsection (1), after "subject to" to insert:
"(a) any directions from time to time given by the University Court,
(b)"
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment. The purpose of this and the following Amendments in the group, which I have put down on behalf of the University Court, is the same as the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment—that is, to make the recommendation of Lord Tedder's Commission abundantly clear in the Bill. It was not entirely plain that the noble Earl's Amendments did so. I beg to move my Amendment, which I think puts the position right.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)
THE EARL OF HOME: I certainly accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 44, leave out ("subject to") and insert ("(c)").—(The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, after ("purpose") insert ("the performance of the following functions, that is to say—").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: The next Amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord Home, as well as in my name, and I will leave him to negotiate the hurdle. It is not a difficult one.
THE EARL OF HOME: It is a curious but happy partnership. This Amendment will enable the College Councils to provide facilities for adult education out-side, as well as within, the University.

431
The University Court have asked that their powers should be extended in this way. The deletion of these words will remove any doubt about the legality of extra-mural lectures. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("within the University").—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD GREENHILL: My only comment is that it is of the essence of adult education that a great deal should be done extra-morally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("and (e)") and insert—
("(2) It shall be the duty of the College Councils").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This is a drafting Amendment, which is required because the office of reader takes precedence over that of lecturer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("lecturers, readers") and insert ("readers, lecturers").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES had given notice of his intention to move to add to the clause:
"(3) Any decision of a College Council shall be subject to review by the University Court at the instance of any member of the Senatus Academicus or of a College Council."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is unnecessary as the point is covered by a previous Amendment which has been passed. May I express to the noble Earl, Lord Home, my deep appreciation for the consideration and care he has given to this matter? I do not wish to move this Amendment.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to
Clause 6:
Dissolution of existing colleges, and transfer of property, etc.
6.—(1) The common law foundations known as the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and St. Mary's College and their governing bodies shall be dissolved, and the property and liabilities (including any property and liabilities vested or arising under any trust) of the dissolved foundations shall vest in the University Court.
4.44 p.m.
LORD REITH LORD REITH moved to leave out sub section (1) and to insert:
"(1) All property and liabilities of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and of St. Mary's College (including any property and liabilities vested or arising under any trust) shall vest in the University Court as provided in section twenty-two of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889."
The noble Lord said: We came on this matter when talking about Clause 1, but I had better mention the salient points again. On Second Reading the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, Column 100):
"In our proposals regarding the ancient Colleges at St. Andrews we tried, so far as possible, to avoid any real break with tradition; and, frankly, I was taken aback, and indeed almost horrified, when I reached page 5 of the draft Bill and at the bottom, in the margin, saw the words, 'Dissolution of existing colleges.' If there is one thing that the Commission were anxious should not happen, it was that."
Well, here still are the words, "Dissolution of existing Colleges." I have been through this matter with the noble Earl, Lord Home, and he knows exactly what I and other members of the Senatus Academicus feel.
I had two proposals: the first that Clause 6 be omitted in toto or, as an alternative, the new subsection which I am moving. Another alternative was to leave out the last line on page 5 of the Bill—"and their governing bodies shall be dissolved." I see no reason whatever for this clause and nothing that the noble Earl said before with respect to Clause 1—and, of course, Clause 1 was the consequence of Clause 6, and not the other way around—has convinced me. Will the noble Earl consider the matter again? Will he be gracious enough to agree to consider it between now and Report stage? If, in fact, there is anything wrong, if there is any fear that the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and St. Mary's College have any residual property rights normally going with an incorporated body, then put something into the Bill such as I have drafted, to make it clear beyond peradventure that the 1889 Act means what it purports to mean and there can be no getting round it. Make it abundantly clear, if there is such a fear. But if there is no fear, then would the noble Earl tell us what he is preserving and how he is meeting the noble and

433
gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, by leaving the Common Law foundation, as he is apparently doing? And what is meant by that expression? I submit that there is nothing in "Common Law foundation." A Common Law foundation is an encrustation, that is all. Certain things have happened. Common Law recognises them. Would the noble Earl not be so kind and gracious as to think about this matter again before Report stage? These are the alternatives: to leave out the clause altogether, accept my Amendment, or omit the words, "and their governing bodies shall be dissolved." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 45, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) All property and liabilities of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and of St. Mary's College (including any property and liabilities vested or arising under any trust) shall vest in the University Court as provided in section twenty-two of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889.").—(Lord Reith.)
THE EARL OF HOME: On Second Reading the matter which I thought horrified the noble Lord, Lord Tedder—namely, the possibility that the Colleges might be dissolved—also horrified the noble Lord, Lord Reith and myself, so I set to work to see what I could do to meet the case and to make absolutely certain that the College foundations were not dissolved and that they had a separate and recognisable identity in law. The noble Lord asked me what is a Common Law foundation. I cannot give my own answer, but I can give the lawyer's answer, and the noble Lord can "chew that over" at his leisure between now and Report stage. A Common Law foundation is a body which by custom and long tradition has achieved a separate existence in the eyes of the law. So there is evidently something substantial and worth having, something which in fact gives status and identity to the Colleges. That is why I altered this clause deliberately to leave them their Common Law foundation. I understand that this is in contrast to a statutory body, such as a limited company, whose status depends on Statute Law.
We have provided that the Colleges should be unincorporated. The Royal Commission set much store by that. The noble Lord asks why we do not incorporate them, and I am afraid I must
434
repeat the answer which I gave in regard to Clause I, that Lord Cooper and the Royal Commission doubted whether at the moment as incorporated societies they had any legal rights, but thought that if they still had such powers it was very undesirable that these should remain or that they should be allowed to acquire them in the future. All the administrative work should be done by the Court and the Councils. Therefore we came to the conclusion that the Royal Commission were right and put in the Bill a provision disincorporating all the Colleges. The noble Lord asks why we do not leave them their powers as governing bodies. The noble Lord says, in effect, that the governing bodies do nothing, and are of no real use.
LORD REITH: Surely they are necessary for academic purposes.
THE EARL OF HOME: That is a qualification which is rather important. The noble Lord asks in effect: why do away with the governing bodies? The view of the Royal Commission was that the only governing bodies there should be in the University should be the Court and the Councils. Again the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, will tell me if I am wrong. There would be nothing, therefore, in administration for a governing body of a College to do. Lord Reith then says: "Well, in the academic sphere they have functions." Certainly there is nothing in this Bill to stop any College from having a committee, council, or whatever they like to call it, to deal with their own College's functions—in fact, the faculty of divinity of St. Mary's College will remain as it is now, dealing with its own academic functions. The noble Lord pleads with me to look at this matter again. I will look at the point of the governing bodies once again before the Report stage, but I think he is trying to preserve governing bodies which will have no function at all; and, so far as the Colleges have a function, it is open to them to deal with their affairs as in the past.
LORD REITH: I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has given me some measure of comfort. I understand him to say quite categorically that there will be no interference with the so-called governing bodies in the exercise of their academic responsibilities and functions

435
generally. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his undertaking to look at the matter again. There is a further point which I should like to mention now. Is the noble Earl also able to say that there is nothing whatever in this Bill that could in any way interfere with the relations of St. Mary's College with the Church of Scotland?
THE EARL OF HOME: I will certainly say that there is nothing in this Bill that I have been able to detect, or that any one else has been able to detect, which will in any way impair, or have any effect upon, the relationship between St. Mary's College and the Church of Scotland.
LORD REITH: I thank the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (1), after "St. Mary's College" to insert:
"shall cease to be bodies corporate."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment really arises out of the information I have just given to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 46, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("dissolved foundations") and insert ("Colleges").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Duration of powers of Commissioners and proceedings thereof]:
THE EARL OF HOME: This Amendment is put down in response to a request from my noble friend Lord Crawford, made on an earlier stage of the Bill. At present, Clause 11 provides that the statutory Commissioners shall continue in power until a day appointed by Order in Council. The effect of this Amendment is to provide, instead, that their powers shall automatically cease to be
436
exerciseable after three years, but may be extended by Order for a further period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out from ("force") to end of line 40 and insert ("for three years and during such further period (if any) thereafter as Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and repeals]:
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Earl said: The omission of subsection (2) of this clause will enable part-time as well as whole-time readers and lecturers to elect and to be elected to the University Court and College Councils. My noble friend Lord Saltoun, who unhappily cannot be here to-day, made this point on Second Reading, and I undertook to look into it. This Amendment is the result. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 24, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in sub section (5), at the beginning of the subsection to insert:
"Section one in so far as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the persons qualified to be elected, or to elect persons, to offices, under sections three and four of this Act, section two and"
The noble Earl said: The effect of this and the next two Amendments is to bring into force on the passing of the Act three further provisions of the Bill. I do not think that I need bother your Lordships with technical details, but they are to allow the University Courts and the College Councils to be constituted, to enable the Principal to be appointed, and matters of that kind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, at beginning insert the said words.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD GREENHILL: I do not think we should conclude these proceedings without expressing our admiration for the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Home,

437
has dealt with this most intricate and difficult Bill. I am sure we shall all agree that he has shown a remarkable grasp of detail in handling this Bill, and I should like to offer him my congratulations on the way he has dealt with the whole matter.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, 1ine 1, after ("Act") insert ("and this section (except subsection (6) thereof)").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, leave out ("sections") and insert ("provisions").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
  FOUNDLING HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]

    NATIONAL TRUST BILL [H.L.]
    Committed.
    House adjourned during pleasure.
    House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.30 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Consolidated Fund,
Law Reform (Personal Injuries) (Amendment).
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before six o'clock