UNIVERSITY SENATE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1874, 25 February 1880, Page 3

UNIVERSITY SENATE.

The Senate met at ten o’clock yesterday morning. Present—H. J. Tanored (Chancellor), Hon. John Miller, Hon. W. Gisborne, Professor Shand, Professor Brown, Professor Sale, Revs. O. Fraser, J. Patterson, D. Bruce, W. Johnston, W. J. Habens, Dr. Hector, Rev. J. O. Andrew.

The Rev. Mr Habens moved as follows — “ That the list of successful candidates for matriculation and Junior Scholarships in this and future years when published and inserted in the “ Calendar,” be made to include such a statement with regard to the schools at which they have been educated, as is commonly set forth in the lists published by the Board of Civil Service Examiners.” Seconded by Professor Brown. The Rev. Mr Bruce asked how it was that the resolution of last year had not been acted upon. Professor Sale said, in reply to Mr Bruce, the only information the committee had to go upon was what could be obtained from tbe Registrar, and perhaps he had been somewhat negligent in not seeking to find out the information. He did not think that the whole history of boys should be given who often attained what was a comparatively small distinction. Professor Brown said ho, as chairman of the committee, had asked for such returns, but they had not been furnished. The Registrar stated that the students were asked for the information by advertisement. Last year there had not been sufficient time allowed to make up results, but so far as he had obtained the information the committee were furnished with it. The Rev. O. Fraser moved as an amendment—“ That the words ‘ for the three preceding years ’ be added to the resolution of last year.” He thought that would meet all the requirements of the case. The Rev. Mr Patterson thought there was no necessity for carrying the resolution or amendment after tbe conversation that had taken place on the subject. The Rev. Mr Habens asked leave to withdraw his resolution, now that attention had been drawn to the subject. The leave asked for was given. Mr Fraser also withdrew his amendment, and gave notice of a fresh rssolution on the subject. , , Professor Brown moved —“ That an undergraduate who gains a senior scholarship at the end of his second University year bo allowed to enter for a senior scholarship at the end of hia third year, provided that he hold only one scholarship at a time.” The motion was seconded by the Rev. O. Fraser, and after considerable discussion it was carried. Professor Pale moved—“ That the results of the recent 8.A., M.A., and honors examinations, so far as they are already decided by the reports of the Now Zealand examiners, be made known to tbe candidates.” Professor Shand seconded the motion, which was carried. Rev. Mr Habens moved —“ That the regulation (page 60) relating to the medical scholarship bo amended as follows : —ln section I. for ‘ three ’ read ' four’; in section HI. omit all the words after ‘ standing ’; at the end of section IV. add, *in any British or Colonial University. The certificate of the Registrar of such University testifying to the scholar’s regular attendance shall deemed satisfactory proof within tbe meaning of this regulation.’ ” The mover explained that his resolution proposed amendments in the regulations specifying value, tenure, and conditions ©f medical scholarships. A lengthy discussion took place on the amendments proposed, a difficulty arising in the fact that no medical degree could be granted by this University, end that the Melbourne degree was not recognised by the Medical Council of England.

The proposition aa to section 1., to increase the tenure of the scholarships from three to four years, was negatived. The omission proposed in section 111 was agreed to. With reference to section IY., the resolution was ultimately passed with addition of certain words, making it road thus : —“ The medical scholarships shall be held on condition that the holder gives satisfactory proof to the Chancellor that he is taking the necessary steps towards the obtaining of his medical degree in any British or Colonial University whose degree can be registered as entitling to practice.” At this stage, the Chancellor laid on the table a letter from Professor Black, of Dunedin, in reference to the medical examination.

The consideration of the letter was deferred.

The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of the reports of committees. First on the order paper was the report of the D.O.L. committee, which was road as follows :

1. That the degree of D.O.L. does not come within the scope of the charter of the University. 2. That, as it appears doubtful whether titular or honorary degrees come within the scope of the University charter, it is not desirable that the Senate shall confer such degrees ad cundcm. D. Bkuce, Chairman. In accordance with a resolution of the Senate, the proceedings of the committee were also reported : Present—The Chancellor, Dr. Stuart, Mr Gisborne, Professor Brown, and Rev. D. Bruce, in the chair.

1. It was moved, and agreed to unanimously —“That the degree of D.C.L. does not come within the scope of the charter of this University.” 2. It was moved —" That as it appears doubtful whether titular or honorary degrees come within the scope of the University charter, it is not desirable that the Senate should confer such degrees ad eundem,” On this the following amendment was moved —“ That if a University, recognised by the New Zealand University, gives an honorary degree of the same kind which can be given after examination by this University, it is desirable that the Senate should give, if it thinks it proper to do so, an ad cundcm degree to the possessor of such honorary degree.” The vote taken on the amendment was— Ayes : Dr. Stuart, Mr Gisborne. Noes: The Chancellor, Professor Brown. The casting vote of the chairman was given for the noea.

D. Bf.uce, Chairman.

A discussion of considerable length took place for and against the proposition contained in the report, some of the members contending that it was undesirable the Senate should confer titular or honorary degrees ad eundem ; in which behalf it was submitted that persons could, if the principle of granting such degrees were established, demand as a right that which they obtained by favor elsewhere. On the other hand, the supporters of Mr Gisborne’s amendment, as it appears in the report of the committee’s proceedings, contended that it was highly desirable the Senate should confer upon itself the power to grant ad eundem degrees, by which means they might associate with the University distinguished men who came to colony. Dr Hector suggested that the Senate should obtain the power ta grant honorary degrees direct; that, he thought, would be the most straight forward method. A division was taken on the question, resulting in the original motion being negatived by 11 to 3. The amendment was then put and a division taken, with the following result : —Ayes, 7; noes, 9. The amendment was thus lost by a majority of two.

The Rev. Dr. Roseby then moved—“ That it is not desirable the Senate should confer titular or honorary degrees ad eundem.” The motion was negatived on the voices. Dr. Hector then gave notice of motion—- “ That the Senate take the necessary steps to acquire the power of granting honorary degrees.” At this stage the Senate adjourned for lunch.

On resuming. The Chancellor put the question—“ That the degree of D.O.L. does not come within the charter of the University,” in accordance with the first clause of the committee’s report. The motion was adopted. The committee on examinations made the following recommendations to the Senate : 1. That for the entrance examinations, examiners be appointed in New Zealand as at present; and that examinations be held at various centres.

2. That for Degrees Senior Scholarships and honors examinations be held at Dunedin, Christchurch, Nelson, Wellington, and Auckland.

3. That for Degrees Senior Scholarships and honors, examiners be found in Now Zealand, and that two examiners be appointed in each subject. 4. That the Senate appoint the examiners, and that these shall constitute a Board which shall issue the examination papers, and finally determine the value of the results.

5. That the examiners be appointed in the first instance for two years. 6. That the remuneration be £5 for each paper set, and 5s for each candidate’s answer to each paper over twenty, and that an allowance be made for actual travelling expenses, with £1 a day during attendance at the Examining Board, and 10s a day for other days during which the examiner may require to bo absent from home.

7. That the Chancellor he ex officio chairman of the Examining Board, and determine the place where the Board shall first meet. 8. That the Examining Board make all necessary arrangements for the conduct of the examinations. 9. That for all examinations there be two supervisors in each place. In the first clause an amendment was made omitting the words “various places,” and substituting the words “at places to be appointed by the chancellor.” To clause 3 an addition was proposed to the effect, “ but the same person may be appointed in more.thanone subject.” Professor Sale said he had been opposed to this clause from the first, as confining the choice to New Zealand practically meant that the teachers would have to bo the examiners, and this he regarded as a mischievous principle. The Rev. Charles Eraser gave the reasons which induced the committee to make the recommendations, as for instance, the difficulties met with in having to go outside our own boundary, such as presented themselves in the miscarriage of papers, whilst they considered the appointment of two examiners would meet all the objections likely to arise. Professor Sale suggested that their funds might be utilised for importing examiners. Considerable discussion ensued, each member of the Senate speaking to the question. The amendment was carried, but subsequently the whole clause was thrown out on a division by 8 to 6. The remaining clauses between 3 and 9 of the report were formally rejected, they being dependant on clause 3, which bad just been struck out.

Clause 9 (the last) of the report was affirmed, namely, that for all examinations there be two supervisors in each place. The Chancellor, at this stage, stated that he had just received intelligence of the successful candidate for the Bowen Prize, and announced John Inness of Christchurch, as the successful candidate. The Senate next entered on the consideration of the question raised in a letter from Mr J. H. Shaw. That gentleman being L.L.D. ad eundem of this University, wishes to take theL.L.B. degree, but pointed out that in certain subjects it would be difficult for a man to prepare for examination with any chance of success, not knowing anything of the examiner or his course of t'aining, and asked the Senate to consider whether the difficulty could not be surmounted by supplying text books. After discussion, It was resolved that Mr Shaw be informed that the Senate declines to prescribe any text books for examinations in the degree of Doctor of Laws. The Senate then went into committee for the further consideration of the Chancellor’s report, and on resuming an ad interim report was presented, and the following resolutions were passed : “ That the Rev. Samuel Poole be admitted to the ad eundem degree of M.A.” “ That the question of the Civil Service Examination Board of the entrance examination be referred to the committee appointed to revise the entrance examination scheme.” “ That Dr Hector’s name be added to the entrance examination committee, and that the committee be requested specially to report on the letter of Professor Black.” The Senate then adjourned till ten o’clock this morning.