§ 4.3 p.m.
§ House again in Committee.
§ LORD TEDDERI 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 GREENHILLI 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 HOMEI 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 SIMONI 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 HOMEAgain, 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 KINCARDINEI 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 HOMEI 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.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 4.29 p.m.
§ 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.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("and the heads of both Colleges").—(The Earl of Home.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
427
§
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 HOMEI 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 REITHI am grateful to the noble Earl.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
428
§
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 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 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 TEDDERI 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 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.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to
§ THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRESThe 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.
§
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 BALCARRESThe 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 HOMEIt 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 GREENHILLMy 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.
§ 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 HOMEThis 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 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.
432§ 4.44 p.m.
§
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 HOMEOn 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 REITHSurely they are necessary for academic purposes.
THE EARL OF HOMEThat 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 REITHI 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 HOMEI 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 REITHI thank the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
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.
§
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 HOMEThis 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 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 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 GREENHILLI 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.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
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.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, leave out ("sections") and insert ("provisions").—(The Earl of Home.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
438§ Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.