Lords Sitting of 29 January 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Loftus (M. of Ely)—Took the Oath.

FOUNDLING HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
NATIONAL TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
Read2a, and referred to the Examiners.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (ADVERTISEMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, in the year 1897 the University of St. Andrews, consisting of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and St. Mary's College, was united to University College, Dundee. The form of the union was decided only after eight years of most acrimonious discussion. No one at that time seems to have anticipated that the constitution which was evolved would result in any harmony—and, indeed, the intervening years between 1897 and now have been a time of almost continuous discord. There is not much profit in trying to apportion the blame, but I may say that
92
in this scholarly setting there have not been lacking persons who were masters of the art of obstruction. Whether the blame lies with defects in the constitution or in personalities I do not say, but the result of the continuous discord is perfectly clear: teachers and administrators have been distracted, preparation of any constructive plans for the future has been seriously hampered, and damage is being done to the reputation of a University which, up till now, has always had a most excellent story to tell.
There have been many attempts to promote agreement. The last was made in 1949 by Mr. Woodburn, who was then Secretary of State. He appointed Lord Cooper, of whose status and impartiality your Lordships are well aware, and two eminent assessors, to inquire into the organisation of university education in Dundee and its relationship with St. Andrews University. The recommendations which Lord Cooper made were not acceptable to the disputing parties, and it was clear after he had reported that a negotiated settlement would be impossible. Therefore the late Government appointed a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, with the following terms of reference:
"To inquire into the organisation of university education in Dundee and its relationship with St. Andrews University and to recommend what changes, if any, should be made in the constitution, functions and powers of the University of St. Andrews, of University College, Dundee, or of any other body or institution concerned."
Apart from its distinguished Chairman, the Royal Commission consisted of other distinguished persons, one of whom was the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. They heard much evidence, and last April, well within the year, they submitted a unanimous Report.
I think it is true to say that the Royal Commission's Report has had a very good reception. It has been accepted by the University Court, the University Senatus, the Council of University College, Dundee, and the United College in St. Andrews. It is, of course, only fair to say that there are objectors, the chief among whom are the Governors of University College, Dundee. I expect that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, will be having something to say about the objections later on. But the Report has been well received, and I

93
should like at this point to express to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, the Government's thanks and their appreciation of the speed and thoroughness with which the Commission went through a very, baffling subject and came to make recommendations which we believe to be sound. The Government believe that the Royal Commission devised appropriate remedies, and the Bill which is before your Lordships implements those findings which require legislation.
Before suggesting constitutional reforms for the University as a whole, the Royal Commission had to decide whether they would support the claim which was strongly urged by the Dundee Corporation and by the Governors of the University College of Dundee for a separate university for Dundee. When Lord Cooper made his inquiry a few years ago he came to this conclusion on that subject: that to separate the University of St. Andrews and University College, Dundee, would be a:
"counsel of despair, well calculated to prejudice the wider interests of higher education in Scotland."
Lord Tedder and his Royal Commission. while they appreciated the motives of civic pride and local patriotism which prompted the sponsors of the proposal for a separate university in Dundee, nevertheless are not convinced by their arguments, and they too reject the solution of a separate university. The Government agree. To have two universities only fifteen miles apart, with three other well-known Scottish universities not very far distant, would react unfavourably both on St. Andrews and on Dundee. We feel that this move would not be justifiable, either now or in the foreseeable future. If separation is rejected, then the best hope for the future clearly lies in unity, and the Royal Commission have recommended, first, that the imperium in imperio—my tongue will not get round the new pronounciation so your Lordships must be content with the old—which has prevailed in the relationship between University College, Dundee, and the University Court in St. Andrews, should be ended. They recommend, secondly, constitutional reforms which, while recognising local needs and aspirations will ensure that the problems of government, administration and teaching will be overseen and integrated for the benefit of the whole university.
94
The structure which the Bill proposes is as follows. The supreme authority in the University will, as now, be the University Court, but the membership will be different. The office of Principal of the University has, until now, been held by the Principal of the United College, St. Andrews. The Bill proposes that the Principal shall be a person independent of any college affiliation or office, a person appointed by the Crown. That is considerably different from the present situation. At present, the chairman of the University Court is the Lord Rector. The Bill proposes that, while the Rector shall remain a member of the Court, he shall no longer be chairman, but that the chairmanship shall be filled by the Principal. Under the Court, there will be two new college councils, one in Dundee and one in St. Andrews, and the heads of the new college in Dundee and of the United College in St. Andrews will be the chairmen of the two new councils. And it is proposed that those two councils shall be able to transact a wide range of business in university affairs. Lastly, not more than six temporary commissioners will be appointed. They will make ordinances to carry the Bill into effect, and to implement the findings of the Royal Commission which do not involve legislation.
I think I must make a few more detailed observations on the structure which is proposed in the Bill. The University will, in future, consist of three colleges, and the proposal is that they shall be unincorporated societies of teachers and students. Two of them will comprise the existing colleges in St. Andrews. The third will be the new college in Dundee. That new college will absorb the present University College, Dundee, and the Dundee School of Economics. The new constitution for the University will be as follows. There will be a single supreme authority for the University, such that it can be trusted to deal fairly with university education in St. Andrews and Dundee. There will also be the subordinate structure of the councils, which I have described to your Lordships and which will avoid, it is hoped, excessive centralisation and will enable the University, in organising its activities, to use to the full the old collegiate traditions and secure the co-operation of the local communities in Dundee and

95
St. Andrews. The Bill adheres very closely to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. No doubt the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, will be giving us, at a later stage, some further reasons which led them to make certain recommendations about the University structure, but I will just remind your Lordships once more of the essential features which have aroused particular comment. First of all, the supreme authority will be the University Court which will have the Principal and not the Rector as its head, an appointment made by the Crown. The Rector will be a member of the Court, but no longer its chairman. There will be two new college councils for the United Colleges in St. Andrews and the new college to be created in Dundee. Not more than six temporary commissioners will be appointed to carry the Bill into effect and to fulfil the recommendations of the Royal Commission which do not need legislation.
Naturally, there has been some concern about the proposal to remove the Rector from the chairmanship of the Court. The Rector has presided over the Court at St. Andrews University continuously since 1858, and St. Andrews have chosen their Rectors well. 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. The students are naturally apprehensive. They do not like this break with tradition. They feel that the new Principal might possibly be a dictator and they feel that their champion, if he is not in the chair of the Court, might be less well armed than he has been to protect the students' interests. I am not so sure about the last point. If I were still a student, I think I would rather have as my representative a Rector who was not chairman of the Court than one who was.
However that may be, we are responsible for the welfare of the whole University and its future, and the Government feel that this proposal to put the Principal into the chair, so that lie can be continuously there to oversee the administration of the University and its teaching is one in which we must support the Royal Commission. If the new constitution is to succeed, it must be continuously and sympathetically applied; and however
96
able a Lord Rector may be, however outstanding his qualities—and the House know the outstanding qualities of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who holds that position to-day—the appointment is held only for three years, and it is usually held by a man with many outside interests, who finds it difficult, with so many calls upon his time, to make the Rector ship a full-time job. The Royal Commission said:
"Is it impossible to over-estimate the importance of the Chairmanship of the Court, both during the period of reconstruction of the University and later, and if the position is given to a non-resident officer who is elected triennially, stable government and continuity of policy may be gravely endangered."
We are very reluctant to break with tradition. It is always it sad day when amateur status is shelved. Nevertheless, because of the unique features of this situation between St. Andrews and Dundee the Government feel that the solution which makes the Principal Chairman of the Court is the only sensible one.
After all that has gone before, he would be a brave man who held out the hope to your Lordships that this is a perfect solution. Nor can I think that immediately the civic and academic fur will cease to fly. But we hope for the best. In this Bill the Government have two aims—to end the damaging and dangerous feud which is endangering the reputation of a great University, and to secure a University united in purpose that will concentrate its energies on developing the high standards of education which the student at a Scottish university has the right to enjoy
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
2.55 p.m.
LORD TEDDER: My Lords, I am sure that my colleagues on the Royal Commission would wish me to express on their behalf, as well as on my own, our thanks for the appreciative terms in which the noble Earl, Lord Home, has referred to our Report. From the very outset of our work we were impressed by the urgency of our task and the need for remedial action as soon as possible. We were faced with a situation which had been festering for over fifty years, a sad story of great traditions and healthy loyalties being twisted and distorted by dissension and distrust, of administrative deadlocks which threatened financial

97
chaos, and of anomalies and uncertainties in academic policy which threatened the reputation of the University itself—a situation that was daily getting worse. Our first target, therefore, was to complete our task in less than twelve months. That at least we have succeeded in doing. That degree of success was largely due to the fact that my colleagues brought with them a remarkably wide range of experience of the administrative, academic and human problems of university education in Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. Moreover, they brought with them the wisdom that comes from wide experience. Credit is also due to the representatives of all Parties—and there were many of them—who gave us the benefit of their views, fully and, above all, with great frankness, which to us was absolutely invaluable.
Early in our work we came to the conclusion that, though university organisation and academic policy are naturally completely interdependent, in this case the root of the trouble lay in organisation; and therefore we must tackle that first—and with it, of course, the proposal for a separate University for Dundee. We examined this proposal with great care and, I can honestly say, great sympathy. It was evident to us that there was at least some justification for the complaints that the University had at times favoured, and unduly favoured, the St. Andrews colleges. Our view, however, was that even though that might have been true in the past, it would not in itself justify separation in future. We noted that, apart from one or two lecturers in Dundee who supported independence simply, and quite frankly, out of a feeling of frustration, academic support for separation of Dundee from St. Andrews was practically non-existent, both in St. Andrews and in Dundee. On the other hand, detailed examination of the possible student population led us to the definite conclusion that an independent University in Dundee was quite impracticable, quite apart from being unjustifiable on national grounds, to which the noble Earl, Lord Home, has already referred. Moreover, this alleged unfair treatment of Dundee's interests and potentialities in recent years has undoubtedly been due in no small part to the basically unsound organisation which has existed—an organisation which has made it quite impossible to arrive at an
98
academic policy which is agreed as between St. Andrews and Dundee.
We therefore addressed ourselves to the problem of organisation. I will not burden your Lordships with any attempt to describe the almost inexplicable tangle of responsibilities—one is almost tempted to say, irresponsibilities—as between the University Court and the University College, Dundee: It would be difficult to devise a more unworkable set-up and one more certain to lead to friction, muddle and uncertainty. I will mention only two points. The first, which is probably the key point, is that both the Court of the University and University College, Dundee, have inherent powers; and the College is not subordinate to the Court. The second point is of some interest. The actual management of University College, Dundee, is in the hands of a Council, qualification for membership of which is an annual subscription of£5 or upwards. Higher subscriptions confer the right to plural voting—in other words, more money, more votes. When our Commission were sitting, there were forty-eight Governors exercising sixty-nine votes—and I am fairly sure that there are more now. It is that body which is the protagonist for an independent University for Dundee. Lord Cooper's comment on this remarkable arrangement was apt. His comment was:
"Its complete unsuitability for the administration of any modern academic institution requires no comment. Its most objectionable feature is the opportunity it offers for the purchase of votes (and possibly control) at a price of£5 a vote."
We agreed with that verdict. Since we had rejected separation of Dundee and St. Andrews, the alternative must be unity, and a real unity, which up till now had never existed.
Here I should like to say a word or two about some of the considerations which underlie our proposals. Unity, though a platitude, is a living condition. The mechanism of unity is important, but it is only the framework, the skeleton, and the problem which faced us could not be solved merely by drawing up a neat diagram of a tidy, logical organisation. The whole situation was tense with strong and deep emotions, and logic alone could not resolve such a situation. We did try in our proposals

99
for reorganisation, and in our suggestions regarding academic policy, to pay due regard to the psychological factors which have played such a large part in the whole unhappy business. Some of our proposals involve drastic changes. In our view, they are necessary if St. Andrews University is to attain that real unity, without which, frankly, I think it will die. The main points are, as the noble Earl has said, that the Principal must be the head of the University as a whole; and not a part-time head of a St. Andrews College. The University Court must, on the one hand, have clear authority over the whole University; and, on the other, must decentralise to the College Councils at both places. Those proposals mean breaking some traditions, but, in our view, to meet the special problems facing the University, some traditions must give way.
The noble Earl has referred to the position of the Rector. We discussed this at length with the students' representatives. We had great sympathy with their views, and fully recognised St. Andrews' good record in regard to its choices for that post in the past. Our recommendation is no reflection whatever on that record; nor is it in any way due to doubts as to the St. Andrews students' judgment in the future. The new post of Principal provided for in these proposals is, frankly, a unique one to meet a unique situation. At best, the next few years will be years of considerable difficulty, calling not only for special qualities of leadership and judgment but also for authority and continuity. I feel strongly that this is a matter which vitally affects the success of working out a solution for St. Andrews. This is not in any way, as I have said, a reflection on the choice of the students: it is merely that the Principal's job here is going to be so important that, to my mind, there should be nothing which will cloud his authority over the Court as a whole. To suggest, as has been suggested, that the students' interests will suffer if the Rector is not in the chair—and here I agree with the noble Earl: I should much prefer my representative not to be in the chair, knowing how much the chair is handicapped—is a quite unwarrantable reflection
100
on what is, after all, a Crown appointment.
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 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. All we had proposed was the dissolution of the College Corporation, which has not existed, except in form, for many years. I would urge that this question be re-examined with a view to modifying this clause. While our proposals for the Colleges at St. Andrews have aimed at fitting the traditions of those ancient Colleges into an organisation suitable for modern administrative conditions, in Dundee our proposal to unify all the University activities there under a single new College aims at creating thereby a unity which will serve as a real focus for the aspirations, potentialities and loyalties of Dundee. In this connection, I hope that I am not out of order in referring to a suggestion made in the Report regarding the possibility of the new college in Dundee being given a title indicative of Royal favour. I am sure that such a step would give the new college a flying start and would be a tremendous stimulus, not only to Dundee, but to the University as a whole.
When I began my remarks I referred to the situation as festering. Well, it was and it is, and it calls, in our view, for surgical action. The knife hurts—it is bound to hurt—and though, as I have tried to explain, the Commission did its best to minimise the pain, I am glad to hear the noble Earl say that on the whole the Report has had a good reception. The Commission realised that, unfortunately but inevitably, the Final Report must contain fairly severe criticism of the administration of the University in recent years and, consequently, must also involve implied criticism of the Principal, the late Sir James Irvine—a great man who has done great work for the University. Further, it was obvious that many of our recommendations were quite contrary to the policy which he had been following. I met Sir James only a short time before

101
his death. We were both waiting in the Palace to present Loyal Addresses on behalf of our respective universities. He greeted me by expressing his thanks to me and my colleagues on the Commission for what he termed a very fair Report. He said: "Mind you, there are many things in it with which I do not agree at all, but it is the answer, and I am telling all my people at St. Andrews that we must accept it without further argument and make it work." To me that was a most encouraging experience and, to my mind, a very gallant gesture by a gallant old fighter and great gentleman.
I would venture to disagree with the noble Earl's final remarks. I think that the man who claimed that this solution was ideal would not be a brave man; I think he would be a fool. But I do believe that if all those concerned in St. Andrews and Dundee will bring to the working of a new organisation on the lines provided for in this Bill, and of the complementary academic policy which is outlined in the Report, the same helpful spirit that they showed in their talks with the Commission and the same spirit which inspired Sir James Irvine in his final gesture, then I believe that St. Andrews and Dundee can combine to give St. Andrews University a unity and a strength which will assure for it a place amongst the universities, not only of Scotland but of the whole Commonwealth, worthy of its long history and its great traditions. I am as yet sadly ignorant of the rules and customs of your Lordships' House. It may be that I have unwittingly transgressed some of them. If I have, I crave your Lordships' indulgence.
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, we are asked this afternoon to write another chapter in the history of the great University of St. Andrews. I hope that nothing that has been said this afternoon will give the impression that St. Andrews is not a great University; that it has not a great past: that it is not to-day playing a great part in the education of Scotland, and that it has not in front of it a great future. I hope your Lordships will not think, either, that the University is in any way moribund. It is, indeed, very much alive, and one of its troubles has been that it has been kicking a great deal too much. The period under review has been one,
102
not of inactivity but of growth greater than ever before in its history.
It is difficult and undesirable to allocate blame for the deplorable position which has arisen. The constitution, the personalities, and so on, must all take their part. But I think that Parliament must also share the blame, and Lord Cooper, whose Report has been referred to, writes:
"Unfortunately the Act of 1889 left matters in several respects in such an indeterminate state as to invite fresh dissension."
He goes on to record the difficulties which have arisen from the Act. His Report, which was asked for by the University, though not accepted, was followed by the Report of the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken. I do not know if that Report was the first Report that the noble and gallant Lord has written, but your Lordships will be surprised to hear that the speech he has just made was the first speech he has made in your Lordships' House. You would wish, I am sure, to offer him congratulations on a wise and admirable maiden speech, and to express the hope that it is the forerunner of a great many in the near future.
His Report is a wise and extremely able document. How in that short time he and his colleagues came to understand the problems of the two banks of the Tay is in itself a difficult question, and the solutions he offered, while some of them have caused criticism, were, I think, very remarkable indeed. As he has said, this is not an ideal Bill. That, I think, is inevitable, because he was dealing with a specific situation and he had to devise a machine which would overcome the existing difficulties. Nevertheless, I think that the Bill that is based on his Report is the best Bill which could be produced in the circumstances, and my noble friend was right to introduce it, and right to introduce it now. Moreover, it is essential that the Bill should pass, and that it should pass without undue delay. One of its purposes has been clearly to impose peace where before there have been, for sixty years or so, what Lord Cooper called very politely "dis-peace." The Report has been accepted by the University, and the Bill, therefore, in so far as it implements the Report, has also been accepted by the University. There is, however, one point on which I think the Bill will not bring peace, for the reason that it does

103
not follow the recommendations of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, and that is in Clause 5. Lord Tedder in his speech made a special point of his desire that the colleges should be subject to the overriding control of the Court. I do not think that Clause 5 does this.
THE EARL OF HOME: Do you mean the councils?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I should have said that the Court should be the supreme authority of the University; I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I do not think that that clause makes it clear. But as this is a very dangerous and difficult subject, and one which in the past has caused considerable trouble, I hope the noble Earl will consider the possibility of amending the Bill in order to make the point perfectly clear. That point I make on behalf of the Court of the University—and that, I may say, is the only point I make on behalf of the Court of the University.
A point which causes me personally a little concern is the measure of Government control which this Bill implies. The policy of the Government, and indeed of successive Governments, through the University Grants Committee, has been to ride the University on a very light rein. Under the Bill, however, there are to be three assessors, six commissioners and twelve persons appointed by the commissioners to serve on the Council. Well, I am afraid that a considerable measure of Government control is, in the circumstances, necessary; but I hope your Lordships, and my noble friend in particular, will agree in thinking that, even if necessary, it is undesirable, and that the sooner this measure of control can be relaxed the better.
I notice that in Clause 3 (1) (k) reference is made to the appointment of the assessors for five years:
"…and during such further period (if any) thereafter as Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct…"
In other words, those assessors have to be reappointed after five years. On the other hand in Clause 11 (1) it is provided that the powers of the Commissioners:
"…shall continue in force until such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint to be the day when they shall cease to be exerciseable."
104
It would be much better, I feel, if both could be appointed with a terminal date which could, of course, should it be still desirable, be renewed, rather than that the somewhat indefinite position of the one should be left as it is. No one likes Government control, least of all your Lordships; and I hope that by the time the five years has passed, or perhaps in even a shorter time, St. Andrews will be able to prove that it can look after its own affairs without this outside help.
I am a little uneasy about the subject of the Principal who is to be placed over the existing officers—a sort of superman. The work of the University is already being carried out: there is no difficulty about that. But over the existing officers a new officer is to be placed who has very little specified work and who may, in order to find work for himself, cause a certain amount of difficulty and trouble for others. The position is a difficult one and I mention this only with the object of urging my noble friend to take the utmost care in choosing the right man. The choosing of the right man in this case is vital to the success of the whole scheme.
The only specific duty which I can see he has is to take the chair of the Court in the place of the Lord Rector. The Rector is elected by the students for three years to preside over the Court, and the students thereby have a position of great responsibility and, indeed, of importance. Some of your Lordships may think that such a system is an anomaly and a survival. I do not know whether the noble Lord is a fisherman, but if he chose I am sure he could produce some far more anomalous survivals from the River Cam. I do not think, however, that this really is an anomaly or a survival, because Scottish Universities are very different from the English Universities. The Scottish Universities are not quite the same in this way: in the Scottish Universities the students play a far larger part than they do in England. The historian of St. Andrews has said that doctors, masters and scholars, all are parties in the craft of scholarship and members of a single society. That is something very different from the position with which we are familiar in the older or the more modern English universities.
The privilege—and it is a statutory privilege—that the students have of electing their Rector to take the chair is

105
one which, I need hardly say, is much valued and which in the past has been very well used. Many famous members of your Lordships' House have been Rectors, and I venture to think that they, and indeed any other Scotsman, would look upon election to that post as a most signal honour. In St. Andrews the students have never elected an unworthy Rector unless—and here I must confess my vested interest to your Lordships—they did so last November when they did me the honour of making me their Lord Rector. I am, at any rate, comforted to think that I was elected in November and that the proposal of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, to abolish me was written last April. The students feel, and I think rightly, that this Bill is largely a Bill made by compromise and sacrifice, by balancing one sacrifice against another. They feel that they are the body who suffer most and that theirs is the chief sacrifice, and at the same time that they are the people who have done little or nothing to deserve any sacrifice.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooper, in his Report, writes:
"A significant fact which deeply impressed us was that the symptoms of strain or disharmony were virtually non-existent at the student level, only partially visible at the lecturer level, pronounced at the professorial level, and acute at the level of the governing bodies."
At any rate, as the noble and gallant Lord will bear out, the students, whatever he may feel about this position, have done nothing to deserve or to merit the sacrifice which has been imposed on them. The sacrifice has naturally been resented, and since I have been sitting in your Lordships' Chamber I have received a letter on the same lines from the Glasgow University General Council who are
"apprehensive that this Bill may one day be founded upon as a model for legislation affecting our own University."
I must say that one phrase which fell from my noble friend Lord Home, that "at present" this was the only University to which this was being done, gives the Glasgow University fears a stronger basis of foundation than I had hitherto suspected to be the case.
THE EARL OF HOME: Perhaps the noble Earl will not mind my interrupting at this point. I do not want there to be any confusion in the minds of any other
106
university. What I want to convey is that this Bill applies to St. Andrews University, and St. Andrews only. What may happen in the future neither I nor anybody else can tell.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: They have heard about the "thin ends of wedges" in St. Andrews, and I feel that there may be something in those fears. My noble friend regretted his past youth and the fact that he had now developed a sense of responsibility. I lost my youth a little before he did, and I admit that I am only a runner-up behind him in sense of responsibility. But after all, the proposal that the Rector should remain in the Chair is not entirely a frivolous one. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Cooper, and anyone who knows Lord Cooper knows that his opinion is a responsible one and deserving of the closest attention. He spoke of "amateur status" and that, I think, is a most important point. He regretted that the amateur status of the chairman was to disappear. We, who are accustomed to taking chairs, all know the advantage of the layman over the specialised or technical body of people. Some of us may think that the secluded people who live in the academic world need, perhaps more than most, a layman who has outside experience to help them to conduct their affairs. The Rector, at any rate, is impartial.
I know perfectly well that the new Principal will be also impartial, and today impartiality between one side of the Tay and the other is of fundamental importance to the whole situation. But will it not be difficult for the Principal always to give the appearance of impartiality? Would it not be much easier for the Rector, the outsider, the layman, to give the impression which in both cases will be the reality? The two noble Lords who have spoken have referred to the position of the Rector, both out of and in the Chair. There is something to be said for their point of view, I agree; but at the same time, as I said before, whilst a layman in the Chair may be of great value a layman sitting on a technical committee is of very little value. I cannot help feeling that Rectors may feel that their position as a lay member, as opposed to chairman, of a scholastic and technical committee, is of very little

107
value, either to the Court or to the students themselves. In saying this, I hope I need hardly add that there is nothing personal in my desire that the Rector should retain the seat. While I have not yet attained the position of responsibility of my noble friend, I have at any rate attained the age which many of us have reached, the age when one of our main desires is to get out of chairs rather than into them. Here, a bit of history is being destroyed and I much regret it.
Again, in the point that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, made about the colleges, another bit of history is being destroyed. I was particularly glad to hear what the noble Lord said, because it implies a divergence between his opinion and his intention and the words which are written into the Bill. The University has accepted the Bill in so far as it implements the noble Lord's Report. On this question of the dissolution of the colleges, I think it is clear, from what my noble friend Lord Tedder says, that the Bill has gore further than was intended. I hope, therefore, that this point and the other points which I have made will be considered by my noble friend. Nevertheless, he must not feel, because of these points I have made, that I do not wholeheartedly accept the Bill and wish it well. I have already taken too much of your Lordships' time, but may I conclude by expressing the hope that, whatever Parliament decides, that decision will be loyally accepted by everyone concerned, on both sides of the Tay? As the noble Lord has suggested, we could have divided the University into two. The Government have decided, and rightly decided, that the University shall not be divided, but shall be united. When this Bill becomes an Act, I hope that everyone concerned will do his utmost to unite the University, to forget the past and to think of making the University a great University in the future.
3.38 p.m.
LORD REITH: My Lords, if any of your Lordships do not know St. Andrews, or know it only as the site and scene of the Royal and Ancient, let me suggest an early righting of that neglect. I think we should know what are talking about this afternoon, in its setting. For
108
St. Andrews, on its rocky, sea-girt eminence, in its ruins of cathedral and castle, its Town Kirk and its chapels, its colleges and schools, its gallant thoroughfares, its ancient, stately homes, provides, I should say, as much architectural dignity and beauty, as much romantic or poignant historical consequence per square yard, as any town or tower or-hamlet in this country. For 543 years, St. Andrews has been a university town, and the University is as lustrous and illustrious in 1953 as ever in all the half millennium which has passed. The future may depend on what Parliament does now. Let us, at least, realise what we are dealing with; approach the arcana of responsibility, constitution and government with respect, even, perhaps, with a measure of awe.
I cannot forbear to say that to me, anyhow, it is a pleasure to make these submissions to tile noble Earl, Lord Home—a pleasure enhanced by its being done in the presence of the distinguished Lord Rector, the noble Earl who has just spoken. First, the dissolution of the old foundations is, I suggest, nor just unnecessary but positively wrong—the ancient College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and the College of St. Mary to become "unincorporated societies" and their foundations "dissolved." Why?' Their buildings and finance were vested in the University Court in 1889, and the Report says that practically no powers were then left to them. What, then, is anybody afraid of? Being shorn of coat, must they also be of shirt?
Constitutionally, there have been two causes of trouble. One was that, when University College, Dundee, was incorporated into the University, it was allowed to preserve its two governing bodies—its Council and its Governors. Not much more need be said about that than what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, has said. The other was, that the Principal of one of the St. Andrews Colleges was, by statute, also Principal of the University. Do those two defects necessitate or justify such a fierce disruption as is now ordained? There were psychological troubles as well; a sense of grievance was bred and fostered and passed across the Tay from north to south. It was probably justified. It had to be understood end met—but not in this way. And anyhow this way has not met it the sense of grievance persists.

109
Because there were reasons why University College, Dundee, should in its present form be "dissolved" in order that it might rise better, so, the specious argument runs, in the interests of uniformity the two colleges in St. Andrews must also be "dissolved," despite their age and honour. Even if their status as "incorporated societies" did not amount to much, tradition does; and occasionally a fiction is worth preserving. And if parity were desirable, could not the Dundee College join the St. Andrews ones in the happy and dignified fiction of incorporation? Why ever not? No possible harm could be done.
The second point is that having converted the colleges into "unincorporated societies" forsooth, the Bill proposes that college councils be established; and they are to be "incorporated." We are told that that is necessary because of the duties to be entrusted to them. And here we come on the issue which more than any other is causing grave apprehension and concern. For the councils are, by statute, to be given powers which will almost inevitably bring them into conflict with the central governing body, the University Court, which controls finance. Here I entirely support everything which has been said by the noble Earl, the Lord Rector.
The constitution which is to be imposed on the University (I say this with respect but one might as well be frank, for time is passing) seems to me cumbrous and silly. The relation of Court to councils is so ill-defined as almost to enjoin and prescribe dissension. Such tension as there has been in the past between Dundee and St. Andrews was never entirely homogeneous—the noble Earl will agree with this, I think. The two St. Andrews colleges were not always agreed; nor were University College, Dundee, and the Advanced Medical School. In other words, the differences of opinion on each side of the Tay had a certain unifying effect across the Tay. Now there may well emerge in the two councils, two solid blocks of opinion, one north, the other south, of the Tay; and their representatives carry their prejudices and their predilections from council to Court. To be justified, this elaborate plan should at least be likely to create harmony. The opinion is growing that it is more likely to create dissension of
110
a kind and on a scale more serious than anything yet known. I urge that the Court beyond a peradventure must be supreme—I support the noble Earl thoroughly in that—and that if there are to be these councils their responsibilities and powers be clearly as delegated to them by the University Court.
Third, is the treatment of St. Mary's College. This ancient college is small; but college and faculty are honoured far and wide beyond these shores: it is an international asset as definitely as is any other college or faculty. Now, look what is to happen to it. In addition to being "dissolved." its affairs are to be administered by a council on which it will have only two places out of twenty. The same council will look after the affairs of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard. The name of that council is to be "the Council of the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard." St Mary's College is treated as if it never had been, was not, never would be. And why? Why ever that? In particular, may I address that question to the noble Earl?
Fourth, is the treatment of the Principal of St. Mary's College. The present Principal is a theologian of international repute, a former Moderator of the Church of Scotland; but, whoever he may be, he is automatically a member of the University Court; he takes precedence next to the Principal of the University, and in the absence of the Principal he takes the chair at meetings of the Senatus Academicus. What is to happen to him? Bumped off; dropped from the Court; no precedence at all. Why? If this man has had it for so long without causing appreciable discomfort or distress to other people, why not let him stay where he is? Does some body or somebody resent it? Does Dundee? Does the United College? There may not be much hard, logical sense in the arrangement. Perhaps it is an anomaly. I agree with the noble Earl, is the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, minded to rid the University of Cambridge of all its anomalies? Some anomalies are dear and gracious. Please, may the Principal of St. Mary's College stay where he is?
Fifth, would the noble Earl be so kind as to have some words put into the Bill in recognition of the particular, and

111
indeed unique, relationship between St. Mary's College and the Church of Scotland? It is particular and it is unique, and this would do no harm to anybody. It would give great satisfaction to the Principal and the professors and students of St. Mary's College, and to the Church of Scotland. Here again, my Lords, what harm would be done?
Sixth, the Lord Rector is no longer to be chairman of the University Court. As the Lord Rector has said, the students of the University are greatly exercised about this change, and a statement has been issued on their behalf by the Students' Representative Council. They resent the demotion of their representative. They fear that with the Principal as chairman instead of the Lord Rector there is far greater likelihood of troubled waters on the River Tay. Your Lordships have had it all from the noble Earl. I should have thought Mat the present Lord Rector should be retained as chairman of the Court, whatever risks might be involved thereafter. They are unlikely to get in the University of St. Andrews, or any other, in any circumstances and at any time, a better chairman than the noble Earl. If I did not feel that I would not say it, because I do not think it right to be polite merely for the sake of being polite. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Home, will wish to give careful and sympathetic thought to opinions strongly and widely and impressively held. We must leave it to him.
Finally, my Lords, listen to this extract from a letter which I received yesterday. I will tell both noble Earls from whom it comes, but because I have not the writer's permission to do so I will not announce his name in your Lordships' House. This is what he writes:
"Away back in May the Court gave its blessing to the Commission's Report and asked that legislation be passed on it. There were reasons for that decision; it shows that at least we were eager to work for peace; but those who took it are now in a delicate position.
"Many of us are forced now to recognise that, after upsetting the whole constitution of our beloved University, this Bill gives us a new on that almost certainly will not work, and which opens the door to worse dissension than anything which it attempts to cure."
The writer continues:
"I believe that, if University opinion in St. Andrews were free now to express itself on
112
the Bill (without reference to earlier resolutions) it would show itself very critical indeed, to say no more.
"I know I am speaking for many others when I say that we see danger ahead, as me did not do some months ago, and the Government should know it."
My Lords, I pass on that extract from that letter, and both noble Earls may have the writer's name. If the Second Reading of this Bill is agreed to today, would the noble Earl be so good as to engage to take earnestly ad avisandum the points here submitted to him, and to allow some of us to meet him before the Committee stage? However fair and far the lights of this venerable seat of piety and learning have shone in its first half millennium, in its second they should shine fairer and farther still.
3.54 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is peace and unity, yet as I see from the Press that there are still people who look for a separate University ultimately in Dundee, in spite of the very cogent arguments that have been used against that course, I will venture for one minute to give your Lordships a piece of fact which has a bearing. The end of the 16th Century and the first quarter of the 17th Century were a comparatively peaceful period in Scotland, and were distinguished by a great thirst for learning in the population. At the end of the 16th Century, a university was founded in a place called Fraser burgh, some forty-five miles north of Aberdeen. It happened that at that time the University of Aberdeen was at a very low ebb, and the recently published Aberdeen Letters, which are such a wonderful mine of historical information, show that in Aberdeen the position of Principal of Fraser burgh University was considered preferable to that of Principal of Aberdeen University. Yet, notwithstanding all those facts, notwithstanding the fact that forty-five miles separation in those days was fully equal to the distance between Aberdeen and Edinburgh to-day, the new University did not last more than one generation at least so far as anyone can discover. In that case, what possible hope is there that two Universities can exist within fifteen miles of one another to-day? The experience of the past shows that one of two things must happen: that the great and ancient University of St. Andrews, which is an ornament to Scotland, must be extinguished, or—and

113
I think that this would be more probable—the newly created University in Dundee must languish and die.
This being so, and the lesson of the past being so clear, I do not think that any Government could properly devote public money to such a solution. It is therefore all the more important that this Bill should pass, and that it should pass in such a form as will best promote peace and unity. Coming to the Bill with this fact in mind, I will, with your Lordships' permission, go through one or two points which have struck me as being worthy of the attention of the Government. The first point arises in connection with Clause 3 (1). Your Lordships will observe that the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard and St. Mary's College has to provide three assessors for the University Court. Now I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Reith, to this extent, at any rate: I think it would be a good thing if one of those three should have to be a member of St. Mary's College. I found this on observations made to me by an old graduate of St. Andrews. He told me that he had observed that in educational affairs those institutions in which clerics were well represented in the seat of authority were more fortunate in the way they were managed than the others. I think that this point may be worth considering, though I admit that it is a small one.
The second point I should like to take up is that relating to the College Councils, as set out in Clause 5 of the Bill. I can best do it by reading to your Lordships what that clause says. It begins:
"It shall be the duty of the College Councils, subject to…such limitations as may be imposed by the University Court on the expenditure to be incurred…"
to do certain things. That is the duty of the College Councils. What the Report actually says is that there must necessarily be power in the University Court
"to give directions to the Councils on any matters within their jurisdictions—"
I take it that that refers to the jurisdictions of the Councils. The Report goes on:
"but this power should normally be expressed as a limitation of total expenditure under stated heads."
I think it is fair to say that in that particular the text of the Bill is against the Report. I humbly suggest that it should
114
be brought into conformity with the recommendations of the Report which I, for one, prefer. I will not refer to what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, said about the dissolution of existing Colleges, with which, so far as I am competent to speak, I entirely agree. But it occurred to me, when I read the Bill, as it occurred to the Lord Rector, that in Clause 11 it will be a very good thing for the Commissioners, who have a definite and important task like this to carry out, if a certain time limit is set. Personally I believe that such a limit should be one year.
I now come to another very important point, to which I shall devote a little longer time. It is this. Clause 15 (2) says that:
"the expressions 'reader' and 'lecturer' mean persons who hold whole-time appointments in the university as such."
I have searched through the Report and can find no support for that definition. I have not consulted my noble friends who were members of the Commission: I thought I should make my point without any consultation at all. I do not believe for a moment that it was in the minds of the Commission that only whole-time lecturers should be represented, but the result will be that part-time lecturers will be excluded from representation on the University Court and also debarred as part-time lecturers from being elected by the Senatus Academicus as assessors. So they will be cut out altogether. The same applies mutatis mutandis to the College Councils.
I understand that something like one-quarter of the lecturers at the University are part-time lecturers. I do not see how it is possible to run successfully either a legal or a medical school of any kind unless one has the support of part-time lecturers. It is a definite advantage to the University, because it is of inestimable value to the students to receive instruction in the law school from lawyers engaged in practice and in the medical school from doctors engaged in practice. Many noble Lords have been operated upon by famous surgeons, who are professors or lecturers at universities and who have also engaged in private practice. Surely the best man to operate is the best man to teach how to operate and to have a say in the matter. I believe that this proposal is a mistake, and I hope that it will be rectified. I should like to draw

115
the noble Earl's attention especially to this point, as it particularly affects Dundee. If it affects one part of the University more than another, I think he should be scrupulously careful to see that no discontent of any kind is left lurking in that provision of the Bill.
There is another very important matter about which your Lordships have heard a great deal this afternoon. I have received a memorandum, prepared by the Students' Representative Council of the University of St. Andrews, on the subject of the chairmanship and the Rector. Like most of your Lordships I receive a great number of appeals of this kind, and I am bound to say that this one is the best drawn memoranda that I have ever received. I read it with a good deal of attention and replied that I thought it was a very difficult thing to go against the Report of the Commission. But I have been thinking over the subject ever since, and on this matter I would go against the Report of the Commission—for the following reasons. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said about his position as chairman. I think that position is preferable. Scottish universities are quite different from English universities in the relations of the students and the university. If I am not wrong, they are far more like the students of Paris University of the twelfth century than they are like the undergraduates of Oxford and Cambridge to-day. The students of St. Andrews have a wonderful record. They have been scrupulously careful in their elections of Rectors and they have been very fortunate in the Rectors who have served them. I think that in this matter they have shown themselves to be, as indeed they are, the first and principal university of Scotland. I consider that if the Government wish to alter this procedure, it ought not to be done without great reflection. I believe that it would be unfortunate to make this breach in the university of St. Andrews, whose students have always shown themselves so wise in their exercise of this power.
The only other thing that I will say to your Lordships is that I have studied with care, in the closing section of the Report, the studies laid down at the University. I notice with a good deal of horror the extraordinarily high place
116
given in all these courses to the study of English. I really must regret that. It is since English began to be studied in our universities that we have failed to face our enemies and begun to face up to them, not to fight them but merely to fight back at them. When we are urged by those behind to do our best, we do net do our best, or give our best—we only give of our best, and sometimes very little of it. I hate a language which is a language of excuses, and I would terminate what I have to say with the regret that English should be given such a large share in the subjects studied at our universities to-day.
4.8 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I venture to make a few comments on this Bill, not because I have any knowledge which will enable me to criticise the Report, but because I am a near neighbour of Dundee and St. Andrews and have many friends in both colleges and in both towns. Before I speak I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, on his first address to the House, and to say how very much we hope to hear him many times again. I have had the pleasure of reading his Report and it is remarkable how easy it is to read and understand. It is wonderfully clear and a remarkable Report.
I should like it to be clear at the start that I am in favour of the Bill, as it is intended to carry out the recommendations of the Report and because I am of the opinion that it is in the best interests not only of the University but also of the city of Dundee, and is in the best interests also of the neighbouring counties of Angus, Fife and Perth shire. I emphasise the city of Dundee because I have many friends there and I sympathise with their point of view very much, though I entirely agree with the Bill. I have also been asked to make a point about Clause 5 of the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the Bill provides for carrying out the Report, but there seems to be some doubt as to whether Clause 5 carries out the recommendation. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Home, in his reply will assure us that he is going to see that Clause 5 does carry out the recommendation. The point has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and I will not say more about it.

117
Those of your Lordships who see the Scottish papers may have been surprised to read that the Council of University College, Dundee, at a meeting on Monday, disapproved of the University of St. Andrews Bill by twelve votes to four. It was the Council of Dundee who disapproved, which is a most surprising thing, because it was only in 1947—which is not such a long time ago—that the Council of Dundee asked their Principal, General Wimberley, to prepare a report on the situation. I should like to make this clear before I quote General Wimberley: at that time the Council agreed with him, but to-day they do not. As his report of 1947 was made public, I think one is justified in mentioning it, and I have no reason for thinking that he has altered his opinion. That report was strongly in favour of one University and no separation, and it was accepted by the Governors and the Council. It was strange to read in the newspapers yesterday that the Council now disapprove of the Royal Commission, for which they asked.
The noble Lord, Lord Tedder, has made it clear why that is, but I think I might refer to it again. It is that under the old Trust Deed of University College power was give to people who paid£5 a year to become a governor, and so have a vote, and those who pay£50 get more than one vote. Lord Tedder has made it clear that the Commission thought that that was not a good provision in these days, and now it is to be done away with. I would ask the powers in Dundee who are for a separate University to think again, and I would urge the Government to do all within their power to meet them. It seems to me that Dundee are putting themselves in an untenable position. It was largely they who made it impossible to discuss Lord Cooper's Report. They asked for a Royal Commission, and on the Report coming out, and the Bill coming before Parliament, they make a bald statement to say that they disapprove of the Report. They make no attempt to send up suggestions or amendments. I do not think it is a very helpful attitude for them to take. If they had only heard the appeals made to them in your Lordships' House to-day, I am sure they would be very moved and would consider trying to make this Bill a success, and would not only say, broadly, that
118
they disapproved of the Report. A leading article in the Courier says:
"With the financial backing assured Dundee movement will go on till the goal (independence for Dundee) is achieved."
As I say, that is an untenable position.
What is the reason for this attitude? As has already been admitted in your Lordships' House, there is a lot to be said for the attitude of Dundee, owing to past neglect. The colleges and buildings of Dundee for years were not kept up as they should have been. Vast sums of money which were collected in America were spent on St. Andrews. I do not suggest that they were not properly spent, because they were collected by Sir James Irvine for that purpose. But all this money was poured out on St. Andrews, and Dundee was left out. But that is all past. Then there is the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Home, and the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, about the Principal of St. Mary's College being the Principal of the Court of the University. Dundee used to feel that they were just a small part of St. Andrews University; that St. Andrews University was the governing body; that Dundee was in some ways regarded as less important and was not worth spending money on. But now, as has been made clear to them, that is past, and the Principal is an independent Principal over two equally important colleges.
Can they be right in thinking that independence is the right goal? I wonder what their point of view is. I do not think they have got the point of view of the students they want to educate there. The students say definitely, on this question of independence, "No." The Students' Representative Council say that the proposal that a separate university be set up meets with no response. The graduates of the University who have left, and who have some experience of the world as well as experience of the University, also say, "No"; the professors and lecturers say, "No"; the Cooper Report says, "No"; and the Royal Commission say, "No". So one is justified in suggesting to Dundee, with this unanimous opinion against them, that they should think again and try and make this measure a success. One is bound to wonder what is the object of Dundee. I believe they are thinking more of the greatness of their city. It is a brilliant city, with a wonderful future, with great and growing industries. They

119
see Aberdeen with a university, and other cities of their own size with a university, and I think they feel that Dundee must have a university, too. Unanimous opinion is against them that that is not wise, both from a national and from an educational point of view.
I suggest that if Dundee will accept this measure they will have a unique opportunity, They can have St. Andrews University buildings in Dundee, colleges in Dundee, residents in Dundee. If Dundee will support the Bill, they can make Dundee the most important part of the University. It is in their own hands. And they have the added advantage (which I think is a very real one) of a connection with St Andrews, with all the historic past of St. Andrews, which is of immense value to Dundee. The students realise the importance of a St. Andrews degree, and one wishes that the Corporation of Dundee and the people who want separation would think of the value to Dundee. One should not forget, either, that the connection with the Royal and Ancient Golf Club is of considerable value. When you go to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club you meet many of the members of the Universities, and I think that to have a connection with St. Andrews and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club is a very valuable connection for the University too.
What I am trying to get at is how we can persuade Dundee to come in. There is one point I would ask your Lordships to look at on page 4 of the Bill, the constitution of the college council. I am told that one of the main difficulties of Dundee is that Dundee has not enough say in the management of the college in Dundee. If your Lordships look at Clause 4, you will see that it provides for only one lay member, who is to be the Lord Provost or his assessor. The rest are professors, and so on. Dundee's point is that they want more lay advice and control of the University College in Dundee. If your Lordships will lock at Clause 4 (3) (h), you will see that it says:
"six other persons, not being teachers in the University, appointed in such manner as may be prescribed by ordinance; made by the Commissioners…"
The commissioners can appoint six other persons. I do not know whether the
120
noble Earl, Lord Home, thinks that there is some reason in and justification for. Dundee's point of view about lay representation, but in the hope of getting their co-operation I would urge hint to look into that point very carefully and see whether Dundee lay members could have more representation on the college council.
I should hesitate to say anything about the Rector ship, but may I make one comment upon what I have heard in your Lordships' House this afternoon? I rather understood the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, and the noble Earl, Lord Home, to say that the next three years were the dangerous period when we needed to have very wise government, and that perhaps after the next three years the danger period will be over. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, made the point—it may affect Dundee, which I am trying to help—that the lay Rector was a very unbiased person. Knowing the trouble there was in Dundee in the past when the Principal was in the chair at the University Court, I believe that to have a layman in the chair is less likely to lead to trouble than if a Principal is there. Anyhow, if the danger period is three years, it seems to me that we could not have anybody better in the Chair than the present Rector. In him we have a very wise and able man. Perhaps in the circumstances more thought can be given to that point.
4.26 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the Royal Commission which produced the Report on the University of St. Andrews was appointed by the Labour Government, perhaps it is fitting that someone from these Benches should utter a few words in the discussion which has taken place to-day. Before I venture to do that, may I, on behalf of my noble friends, convey to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, our congratulations on the speech that he has made, and our welcome to one who we hope will be an active Member of your Lordships' House? He has been a very gallant warrior in another field, and it is quite evident now that he can do great work in other directions.

121
I want first to say a word about the Report of the Royal Commission, because, in the words of the Report:
"The organisation of university education in Dundee has given rise to intermittent controversy for over sixty years, but the present situation is one of exceptional difficulty."
Noble Lords may wonder why I, an Englishman pure and simple, should dare to take part in a discussion concerning the universities in Scotland. But strange though it may be, and a non-university man as I am, I happen to know very well indeed the district in which these troubles have been taking place. To begin with, I received my early political education and experience from that noble city on the banks of the Tay, Dundee. Those in that city to-day who remember me make some sort of claim to have been the making of me, and take responsibility for what I am. It might, therefore, be assumed, because of that, that my loyalties in a matter of this kind tend towards Dundee, rather than towards St. Andrews. But loyalties are peculiar things, and I have a kind of loyalty to St. Andrews, for it was on the Old Course at St. Andrews that I took my first lessons in golf, and it was to St. Andrews that I frequently went when I wanted to enjoy myself in the quietude of its streets and the breezes of its sea front.
There is this further point: that perhaps I am the only member of your Lordships' House present to-day who attended the celebrations of the 500th anniversary of the University of St. Andrews forty-three years ago, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Reith. I shall never forget those days. Indeed, I have in my possession a volume given away by the University in connection with its celebrations, and still perused for the memories I value. I propose to hand it quite shortly to the Library of the House of Lords, because I understand that there is nothing on its shelves concerning St. Andrews University. I have, therefore, some kind of contacts with Tayside, and some feeling of high regard for its people, and for that reason I hope that Scotsmen in this House will forgive a mere Englishman for intervening in this debate.
Lord Cooper, who has been mentioned on several occasions to-day, made a strenuous attempt to secure by negotiation a settlement between the University
122
of St. Andrews and University College in Dundee. He did his utmost to achieve success, but success would not come. It was because of that that the Labour Government of the time took the step of appointing a Royal Commission, over which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, presided. We understand that the Bill now before the House covers practically the whole of the Commission's Report—a unanimous Report—and we therefore feel that we can offer no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, because it would seem to make, as we believe, a line of progress to greater things. I know that there are differences of opinion. For example, there is the fear that the ancient College of St. Mary is to be dissolved. There is the change in the status of the Lord Rector of the University; and there is the increase in the number of assessors from the Senate, which should not be proceeded with. We feel, however, that these are points which ought to be raised in another way, and it seems to me that the Committee stage of this Bill will afford the occasion. I would add my appeal to the appeals made to the noble Earl, Lord Home, that if he is requested to receive the interested parties in connection with disputes arising out of this Bill he should do so, because if a settlement can be secured by so doing he will make the Bill more acceptable both to Dundee and to St. Andrews.
My final word is, perhaps, addressed more to my old friends in the city of Dundee. It might be that many there think of St. Andrews as rather a small place in comparison with their own large city. But I suggest that there is nothing to be lost in associating with a small town if the history of that small town is worth adding to one's own possessions. The city of Dundee is not being invited to join some brand new university; indeed, I believe I am right in saying that before the Universities of Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Glasgow, took shape, the University of St. Andrews flourished. We believe that it would be a good thing for the industrial centre of Dundee to join, in its academic work, with the fine old city of St. Andrews. Tayside in our opinion would gain enormously in the process.
4.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I hope that the personalities concerned in the building up of a fresh start towards a united University will respond to the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Every Scotsman is naturally interested and will want to do everything he can to promote harmony in St. Andrews University, which is one of our most precious inheritances. Therefore I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, not only (as I have done before) for his Report from the Royal Commission but for his speech to-day. I am sure we all hope, as has been said, that we shall hear more from the noble Lord, From his own point of view, he would, of course, have done better if he had chosen a subject with a less discordant background, but we are interested in the subject, and no one could have dealt with it more sympathetically or with greater understanding than did the noble Lord. If toes have to be trodden on, he trod on them delicately. I hope that the persons who are to make afuture—I hope a great future—for this University will be influenced by the obvious understanding which the noble Lord, as Chairman of the Commission, has brought to their problems.
The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, as it was right for him to do, concentrated largely on the question of the substitution of the Principal of the University for the Lord Rector in the Chair. I have dealt with that point earlier. I am sure that everybody regrets that change, but on this subject the Government found the arguments of the Royal Commission convincing and compelling. There is one thing which I might be allowed to emphasise again, and that is, that there is no question of a "thin end of the wedge" here so far as any other university is concerned. This Bill deals only with St. Andrews University and only with a particular problem. If anyone can find in this Bill words implying a thin end of the wedge, they will be taken out. I repeat: the Bill deals with one University and one problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Tedder, the noble Lord, Lord Reith, the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and, indeed, others of your Lordships, have raised one or two points, and it might be beneficial if I
124
were to give my preliminary reactions to some of them. Lord Tedder raised a doubt as to whether Clause 5 interprets the wish of the Royal Commission aright, in that their wish was that the University Court should be supreme in all things, and, in particular, over the councils' activities. That doubt was echoed by other noble Lords. The clause was an honest attempt to translate into precise legal terms the recommendation of the Royal Commission about the relationship of the University Court to the college councils. I realise that we must define more precisely and carefully the relationship between the councils and the Court and I will look at this matter again before the Committee stage to see whether any powers which the councils have should be delegated powers from the University Court. I hope that that will go some way to reassure noble Lords.
Lord Tedder also said that he was horrified to find, at the bottom of page 5, against Clause 6, the words
"Dissolution of existing colleges, and transfer of property, et cetera."
Well, my Lords, I recognise the force of the criticisms that have been made here, and there is no intention in this Bill of breaking the tradition of these colleges. If noble Lords will allow me, I will consider again before the Committee stage whether we can amend this clause so that the ancient foundations are not dissolved, but that they only lose their corporate status. The Commission recommended that their governing bodies should be dissolved and should lose all property rights, and the Bill should remain unaltered in these respects; but I do not feel they should lose their Common Law foundation, and I hope that we can put that matter right on Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Reith, raised several questions about the position in the Bill of St. Mary's College. If we are able to leave the Common Law foundations to the Colleges, that will be some gain to St. Mary's as to the other colleges in St. Andrews. I can also undertake to consider before the Committee stage whether the name of St. Mary's should not be included with the names of the other college of St. Salvator and St. Leonard in the name of the council. The noble Lord asked me whether we could not put some words into the Bill which would, in effect, say that "Nothing

125
in this Bill shall disturb the relationship between St. Mary's College and the Church of Scotland." I think I shall find some difficulty there, although I will look at the point, because this Bill does not touch the relationship between St. Mary's College and the Church of Scotland, which has grown up over many years. There is no formal relationship and it will be extremely difficult to find words to put into the Bill not to disturb something when nobody quite knows what it is. However, I will have a look at that matter. I should be reluctant to put into the Bill any words which say that the existing relationship must not be disturbed, if that might compel us to define the relationship, and might thus be very awkward either for the Church of Scotland or for St. Mary's College at some future date. However, I will look at that point.
Again, I shall have to look at the question of whether the Principal of St. Mary's College should be automatically a member of the Court. I may fairly say that the Royal Commission took the greatest trouble to balance the membership of the Court and the councils, and I should be reluctant to disturb that relationship without extremely good cause. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has asked me whether in Clause 4 the six other persons, the manner of whose appointment is to be decided by the commissioners, might include more lay representation from Dundee. Again, I will look into that matter before the Committee stage.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, made the point that part-time readers and lecturers were excluded from being members of the college councils or the Court. That is not intended, and we shall move an Amendment so that they will be able to be members of the councils or Court. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, raised a question on Clauses 3 and 11 about the term of office of the commissioners. As my first reaction to his proposal, I am inclined to think that there is something in it: that there should be a limit on their term of office which would have to be renewed, as in the case of the assessors. Again, I should like to have another look at the matter. We are reluctant to depart in any substantial degree from a Report of a Royal Commission which is recognised to be impartial and authoritative
126
but, short of that, as I hope my reply to this useful debate has shown, we are anxious to improve the Bill and to make it as acceptable as possible to both the new college in Dundee and the colleges of St. Andrews, to make it the basis for a really prospering University in future.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE BILL [H.L.]
4.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, this is purely a consolidating Bill. I therefore propose to do no more than move formally that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

LAW REFORM (PERSONAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (REMOVAL OF SURFACE SOIL) BILL
4.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage a new paragraph (c) was added to subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill. The Amendment provided that the quantity of top soil removed in any period of three months must not amount to more than five cubic yards. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked whether the removal of the limited

127
amount of soil referred in the Amendment would have to be from the same piece of land, and asked for the point to be looked into before the next stage of the Bill. This has been done and the answer is to be found in the requirement in Clause 1 (1) (b) of the Bill, that for an offence to be committed the removal must constitute development. Where there are substantial removals of soil from several sites, each removal will constitute development. Whether operations on a number of adjacent sites, from each of which less than five cubic yards of soil is extracted, could be considered as constituting development in the aggregate must depend on the particular facts. When the Amendment was first put down by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the possibility of defining an area for the purposes of the Bill was carefully considered, but the difficulties of doing so in the Statute, and the fact that any
128
definition would overlap with Clause 1 (1) (b), led to the conclusion that, on the whole, it would be better not to attempt to define an area.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The House is very glad to hear what the noble Lord has had to say, but as a matter of record, to put the position in order, perhaps I should mention that I think the noble Lord's observations should have been made on the Motion that the Report be received.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I apologise.

GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY (CREMATORIUM) BILL [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before five o'clock.