HC Deb 19 April 1888 vol 324 cc1826-32
DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

in moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on this subject, said, that his object in bringing forward the Resolution was to obtain the verdict of the House of Commons against changes in the Scotch Code, which militated against the success of two important branches of education, and placed the taxpayers of Scotland in an unjust and inequitable position in comparison with those of England. He would very briefly explain the effect of the changes to which he alluded. A grant of 4s. was made under the Code both in England and Scotland in respect of instruction in cookery. It was now proposed that in Scotland the number of pupils in a cookery class should not exceed 12, instead of 24, the former number allowed, and that if it did exceed 12 the grant could not be earned. The result of the change would be that in a number of schools in Scotland the teaching of cookery would be discontinued. There had been no demand for the change on the part of the school boards. He believed that two or three ladies who were members of Scotch school boards had come to London, and had an interview with the Scotch Department on the subject; but the lady member of the Glasgow School Board who spoke on that occasion did so as an individual, as the Glasgow School Board had never come to a resolution authorizing the alteration in the Code. He was informed that the alteration would not be in the interest of cookery. He held in his hand a letter from one of the most successful, if not the most successful, teacher of cookery in Scotland, Mrs. Black, and he would read an extract from it. Mrs. Black wrote— The number of 12 is too small a class for any qualified teacher to superintend. It is waste of time. Masters cannot afford the room for so small a number, except where there is one expressly built, and in few country schools is that the case. Mrs. Black went on to say that many country school boards took up the teaching of cookery, on account of the encouragement held out to them to do so by the old system, and that in the now condition of things they would have to give up the teaching of cookery altogether. That was his case in regard to cookery—namely, that the change in the Code would choke off the teaching of cookery as a subject in a number of Scotch rural schools, whilst in the larger towns it would simply increase the cost of the teaching, and would put the schools to more expense in earning the grant than schools were put to in England. The result would be to discourage the teaching of cookery in Scotland, so that whilst Scotland would be obliged to pay its full contribution towards the cost of such instruction, it would not receive the same benefit from it as England did. The point respecting the drawing grant lay, like the other, in a nutshell. In England, at the present moment, school managers were allowed to earn 17s. 6d. per scholar on average attendance. The grants paid for drawing were not included in that 17s. 6d., but were paid by the Science and Art Department. In Scotland, up to the present time, the same system had been pursued. It was now proposed to alter the system so as to include the grant for drawing in the 17s. 6d. The obvious effect of that change upon every school board earning the maximum grant must be to do away with all incentive to teaching drawing, and, therefore, to discourage the teaching of drawing. If the alteration were adhered to, the Scotch people would be taxed for providing grants for drawing in English schools, without receiving any reciprocal advantage themselves. Drawing lay at the very foundation of mechanical education, and, therefore, the change in the Code, by discouraging drawing in schools, would strike a heavy blow at technical education.

MR. SPEAKER

It may be for the convenience of the House that the hon. Gentleman's two propositions should be put together, but if any hon. Gentleman objects to their being taken together, they will be put separately.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her assent from so much of the Code (1888) of the Scotch Education Department as imposes on the earning of grants for cookery a new restriction not imposed in the English Code: And further praying Her Majesty to withhold Her assent from so much of the said Code, as contrary to the usage in England, includes grants for drawing in reckoning the total of 17s. 6d. per scholar in average attendance, to which the amount which may be earned by school managers is limited."—(Dr. Cameron.)

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

said, he did not complain for a moment of the hon. Member bringing these two subjects before the House, as they were both matters which were interesting to Scotland. He thought it would be more convenient that, if the hon. Member went to a Division, the two propositions should be taken separately, as some hon. Members who might favour one might be opposed to the other. The hon. Member stated that the new arrangements of which he complained would militate against the advantages of education in Scotland. He (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) was sure, however, the hon. Gentleman would agree with him that that was not the intention of the Department in making them. It was entirely a question of judgment on the part of the Department as to which was the better course to pursue. No doubt a number of people might be found who thought that the Department had exercised a wrong discretion in making the changes; but he was not afraid of referring the matter to the common sense of the House. It was pretty clear that a class of 24 young women, each of whom had to cook with her own hands, could not be conducted by a single teacher. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had brought forward the opinion of a lady who, no doubt, had had much experience in the matter, but the change with regard to cookery classes had been made on the representations of a deputation which represented the chief schools of cookery in Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Edinburgh School Board, and the Northern Union of England. The whole object of the deputation which waited upon Lord Lothian was to obtain the best results from the instruction given, by providing that the classes should consist of a suitable number, so that proper supervision should be given. The Code, as altered, provided that while the full grant of 4s. was to be given for a class taught for 40 hours, during 20 of which the student cooked with her own hand, the grant of 2s. was to be given for a course of a limited number of hours, in which the student cooked with her own hands. He thought that was the best arrangement that could be made, and that it should not be upset. He did not himself think that it would really reduce the amount of the grants, but, whether it did or not, the first thing to be considered was the efficiency of the work done, and if, as was the case, a large number of experienced people, who had no interest in the matter except that of seeing that the teaching was given in the best and most practical way, supported the alteration in the Code, it could hardly be contended that the Secretary for Scotland was wrong in making it. It would be a strong thing for the House to upset a decision of the kind, which had been come to solely in the interest of the teaching arrangements of the schools. As to the hon. Member's second proposition, it was not so easy a matter to deal with as the hon. Gentleman supposed, because the 17s. 6d. limit was laid down by law. It was a matter of law and not of Code, and could only be dealt with by the Treasury. He would, however, consider whether a communication should not be made to the Treasury on the subject, with the view of ascertaining if they could meet the hon. Member's views.

MR. SINCLAIR (Falkirk, &c.)

said, he had taken considerable trouble to get information on the subject of cookery instruction from those who were capable of giving it; and, as a result of his inquiries, he had come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron)—namely, that it was perfectly possible to give good and efficient instruction in practical cookery in classes containing as many as 24 students. In England, classes of 24 were allowed. Since his hon. Friend's Notice of Motion was placed on the Paper, he (Mr. Sinclair) had received a telegram from the Secretary of the Govan School Board, which was probably the largest in Scotland with the exception of that of Glasgow, informing him that the Board had posted a letter to the Department, asking that the article respecting cookery should be restored to the terms of that in last year's Code. The telegram also stated that it was understood that the Glasgow School Board was taking a similar course. He thought that the change had been made a little prematurely. There was no question that classes of 12 might be more effective than classes of 24, but that was not the only point that had to be considered. The change in the Code would prevent the spread of instruction in cookery in places where it was now given, and would prevent the establishment of cookery classes in places where they did not at present exist. He trusted, therefore, that the Lord Advocate would consent to the passing of the first part of the Resolution; but he thought his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) might be content with the promise which the Lord Advocate had given on the subject of drawing instruction.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

said, he had no doubt that if the cookery classes were reduced to 12 students, the work would be better done than if the students numbered as many as 24. He wished, however, to know whether it was a fact that the new restriction did not apply to the English Code. If so, why should Scotland be placed at a disadvantage on this point as compared with England?

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

It is a fact that the change is not made in the English Code.

MR. MUNDELLA

What is the number allowed in England?

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD said ,

it was 24. It must be remembered, however, that the change was really a reform.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he was very glad to hear of a reform in education in Scotland. Scotland was always in advance of England in matters of education, and always obtained larger grants than England. He wished that England could be brought to the same position as Scotland in regard both to education and to grants. He doubted, however, whether it would be wise to introduce this change into Scotland before adopting it in England. As to the second part of the Resolution, when the Lord Advocate said it was a question of law and not of Code, all he (Mr. Mundella) could say was that, when he entered the Education Department in 1880, it was not then regarded as a matter of law. The grant had been paid since 1876, and it was continued to be paid until the time he left the Department.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE) (Kent, Dartford)

It is paid outside the 17s. 6d. limit.

MR. MUNDELLA

Well, it was always paid within the 17s. 6d. limit.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

Till last year.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he doubted whether there was a single Member on the other side of the House who did not feel that the change which was now being made would inflict hardship upon the Scotch schools, as it would compel many of them to abandon the teaching of drawing. Drawing lay at the root of all technical education, and he sincerely trusted that the Government would see their way to withdraw the proposed change. It was said to be a matter of law; but, if that were so, it would not be necessary to apply to the Treasury, and he thought that, after all, it was a mere matter of the Treasury rather than of the law.

MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.)

said, that in his opinion the restrictions proposed in the new Code would be very injurious to country districts. With regard to the question of the size of classes, he had heard only that evening that the classes in experimental chemistry in Edinburgh University were as a rule composed of from 30 to 40 persons.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

said, he thought that, as the proposed change was at variance with the English Code, the House should be very careful in sanctioning it. No doubt small classes might be of advantage in large cities, but he know that in the country districts of Scotland the practice was to obtain teachers from Glasgow, and if the number of students in each class was restricted to 12 the result would be that in such districts it would be impossible to teach cookery at all. The Scotch Education Department had acted solely upon the information of parties representative of two cities, but who were not representative of the school boards of either Glasgow or Edinburgh, and it was now stated that the school boards of Glasgow and Govan were against the change. That being so, it would surely be unfair to press the alteration this year. Inasmuch as the proposal had not been considered by the people of Scotland, and had not been properly considered by the Government, he thought it would be a gracious act on the part of the Lord Advocate to postpone the application of the change until next year.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, he might prevent the necessity of further debate by saying that the Government had no objection to reconsider the proposal in the Code and postpone any alteration for another year. The Code might be amended by the issue of a new Minute laid on the Table. The course taken had been adopted under the impression that it was desired by those most interested, but it appeared, from what had been said by Scotch Representatives, that that was not the case, and therefore the Government would reconsider the question.

DR. CAMERON

said, after this satisfactory statement, he would not press his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.