HL Deb 12 February 1953 vol 180 cc398-413

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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

Forward to