V. TEACHERS. (Hansard, 13 June 1872)

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
moved in page 20, line 6, to omit the words "and every such appointment shall be during the pleasure of the School Board." He contended that under the Bill as it stood the tenure of the schoolmaster would be very precarious, and it was highly desirable to place him, as regarded his position, in a more stable and satisfactory position. The example of the parochial boards told in the same direction. He thought the Committee presided over by his hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd) had acted wisely in recommending that Inspectors of poor should be independent of the local boards, and he trusted the House would adopt his Amendment, and protect the teachers in a similar manner.

§ MR. ELLICE
said, he did not think that the Lord Advocate properly appreciated the necessity and expediency of securing schoolmasters, once appointed to their situations, against dismissal on light grounds; and he should therefore like the right hon. and learned Lord to make clearer his views upon the subject. How had the House and the Government dealt with analogous matters of even less importance? Take the case of the Inspectors of poor referred to by his hon. Friend: they were appointed by the parochial boards, but when once installed into office they could not be dismissed except by permission of the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh. The same rule ought to apply to the schoolmaster. By what machinery it should be done, it was not for him to say—that lay rather with those in charge of the Bill. He fully shared in the distrust felt by his hon. Friend (Sir Edward Colebrooke) of the working of the local boards with respect to these 1701 appointments. In all probability, candidates would come forward and underbid each other. Other influences would also be at work, and he really believed, if no check was put upon the capricious dismissal of schoolmasters, it would result in injustice to the schoolmasters themselves, and injury to the progress of education. The popular election of schoolmaster was part of the Bill, and the experiment, however doubtful, must now be tried; but he hoped the Lord Advocate would take the question of the power of dismissal into consideration, and place that power in the hands of some body removed from local influences, and who might be relied upon to give independent and impartial judgments on all cases brought before them.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he quite approved of the principle laid down by the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Ellice), that they should judge this matter by analogous cases; but he thought the analogous cases were strongly against the arguments which had been adduced. Take the case of banking establishments: there was not a clerk in those establishments who was not dismissible by the manager; but when good men were got there was always a desire to keep them. The same rule applied to railways, municipal officials, and partnerships. Take Heriot's Hospital—there the teachers were all appointed at the pleasure of the governors, and not one of them had ever been dismissed. By analogy, there could be no doubt that the people, having a direct interest in the schools, would take care to appoint good teachers, and having once obtained them, they would endeavour to retain their services. His experience showed that it more frequently happened that schoolmasters turned away scholars and parents, than that the latter dispensed with the schoolmasters. He approved of the clause as it stood.

§ MR. ORR EWING
reminded the hon. Member for Edinburgh that the classes of persons to whom he had referred were not under a board of management elected by £4 constituencies, but were under boards of directors elected by shareholders, who generally selected men of position. They should remember, also, that it required considerable attainments to be a schoolmaster, and that that was a Bill for establishing a national system of education. If a clerk failed in one 1702 bank he could go to another, and if he failed in all he could go into a mercantile house—clerks could fill a variety of offices, but a schoolmaster had only one department; and if he should lose his position from the caprice of a school board, he would be ruined for life, for he was not likely to be employed by another board. Why should the Scotch people abandon the good system they had hitherto maintained? To give to local boards the power of electing a schoolmaster for a year, or to turn him off whenever they thought proper—not for any fault of his own, but because he belonged to the United Presbyterians or to the Free Church, or, what was more likely, because he belonged to the Established Church, the injury to the schoolmaster would be also an injury to the education of the country. He therefore supported the Amendment.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, it appeared to be forgotten that an odd vote at an election of managers might make all the difference in the treatment of the schoolmaster, and whether a man should be turned out or not. What was required was a check against arbitrary and capricious power. He believed there was no axiom more true than that which said that all power was sure to be abused; and to that he would add, that the more insignificant the body that exercised the power, and the less it was subject to public opinion and to freedom of discussion, the more likely would it be to abuse such power as it possessed. He would suggest to the Lord Advocate to retain this proposal that the appointment of schoolmasters should be at the pleasure of the local boards, but to insert a provision making the approval of the Education Board necessary to the dismissal of a schoolmaster by any school board. Such power was at present vested in the central department in reference to the discharge of Poor Law officers in England, and in practice the system had been found to work well and fairly to all parties. The existing schoolmasters were equally worth regarding. Taking them all round, a more efficient set of men could not be found, and their present tenure was almost freehold. A schoolmaster's whole energies were wanted for the instruction of the children under his care, and his mind should not be turned to think how to secure his election under a new board, or how to 1703 prevent his dismissal if he too severely chastised a boy in his school. Moreover, in many of the country districts in Scotland the whole power under this Bill would pass into the hands of the laird or the great landed proprietor. He therefore considered the Amendment touched one of the most important points in the whole Bill, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would see his way to accepting it.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that part of the Bill had received the most careful and anxious consideration from the Government. It was impossible to doubt that there would be advantages in giving a schoolmaster a life-tenure of his office; but it was just as impossible to doubt that there were corresponding disadvantages—and in Scotland he thought the disadvantages would largely preponderate. Indeed, there were many cases in which the rule of life-tenure had acted prejudicially in parishes in Scotland. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), who brought forward this Amendment, did not seem to approve of life-tenure any more than he (the Lord Advocate) did, but had only suggested that dismissal should not be at the pleasure of the local board. After the best consideration which the Government had been able to give to the matter, they had not been able to see any satisfactory means between the two extremes of holding office during pleasure and conferring a freehold. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, indeed, had suggested that there should be some check against the arbitrary or capricious exercise of power on the part of school boards, and that expedient had occurred to him (the Lord Advocate), but his right hon. Friend the Vice President (Mr. W. E. Forster) had convinced him that a Government Department could not satisfactorily interfere between a school board and its teachers. They must hold the school board responsible for the due conduct of their schools, for the appointment of 1704 proper teachers, and for not retaining teachers in whom they had no confidence, and they could not, consistently with the interests of the public service, interfere to compel a school board to retain teachers in whom they had ceased to have confidence. He did not think it likely that these boards would act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. His apprehensions were rather in a contrary direction. It was the custom of boards not to act harshly towards individuals, or to mar their prospects in this world. Experience showed that they rather shrank from performing their duty in cases where it was clear they ought to dismiss an unprofitable servant, and that the public service was apt to suffer from an unfit person being retained rather than that a fit person should be improperly dismissed. On the whole, he thought the interests of education would best be promoted by the boards being left without interference from without. They could hardly be held responsible if the teachers were to be independent of them, while to give the masters a right to appeal would hardly tend to the smooth working of the system. The other eases which had been referred to be thought were hardly analogous. He could not see any means of complying with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and must equally oppose the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire.

§ MR. ELLICE
said, he trusted that the Lord Advocate would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock. All that he wanted was that, upon the master's dismissal by the board, he should have the power of appeal to the Education Department—and if the Education Department were not going to undertake any such duties, he wished to know what the board was for?

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
said, that his views and those of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock were identical, and therefore he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of the proposition of his right hon. Friend.

§ MR. C. DALRYMPLE
said, it was curious to observe how the English Bill was quoted as a precedent in some cases, and was pronounced to be wholly inappropriate in others. The Lord Advocate said that there was no such modification introduced in the English Act 1705 as that now before the Committee; but it should be recollected that in England there was not a universal system of school boards as was proposed for Scotland, and also that some discrimination was used as to the places which were fit to elect school boards; while in Scotland school boards were to be universal, and in many cases they would be elected where suitable materials were wanting. He thought of all evils, one only excepted, this supreme power of the local boards over the schoolmasters was likely to be the greatest, and he (Mr. C. Dalrymple) could not help feeling the want of a Board of Education in Scotland, because the power of appeal might then be given to a central Board sitting in Edinburgh. He felt that some security should be given that these local boards should not act in an arbitrary manner, because, if they did so, the independence of the schoolmaster would be sacrificed.

§ MR. CARNEGIE
said, he could not agree with the hon. Member, for he thought that if any appeal was granted at all, it should be to the Privy Council, and not to a Board sitting in Edinburgh. The Committee, however, had not only to consider the interests of the schoolmaster, but also of the children who were taught. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) had very justly remarked that peculiar qualifications were necessary for a schoolmaster, of which aptness for teaching was one. If, however, the power of dismissal was taken away from the local board, a man might be appointed a schoolmaster who, although very clever, might have no aptitude for teaching. The result would be that the board and the schoolmaster would always be fighting against each other. If there was to be any injustice done, he would sooner that it was done to the schoolmaster than to the children.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he wished to point out that by previous Acts the office of schoolmaster, except in parochial schools, was to be held at pleasure; and he thought it an omission in the present Bill that a clause was not introduced providing that a recalcitrant schoolmaster should be removed at the will of the school board. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the clause.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, that as far as he knew, all experience was in favour of some check against the use of arbitrary power; he was, therefore, anxious to secure fair treatment for the schoolmasters by the local boards. All that had been said about the English boards did not hit the point, and he should look with terror on a proposal to give school boards in rural districts in England this power, for it would simply amount to handing the schoolmaster over to the squire and the parson. With a view, then, to gain the desired end, he would move to insert at the end of the clause the following words— Provided no schoolmaster can be dismissed except with the sanction of the Scotch Education Department.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought, in the interests of education, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was perfectly right in the course he had taken on this occasion. The question was whether it was advantageous to education that there should be an appeal in these cases from the local boards to any other body; and from the experience he had gained both from the working of the English Education Act and from a study of education, he could not but decide that it was not, advantageous—because, in the first place, they made the local boards responsible, which they could not be if they had not the power to elect and dismiss their own officers; and, in the second place, because it was most important that the master should feel that his position depended upon his merits as shown by results. The result of the passing of the Amendment would be that in every single case where the schoolmaster incurred danger of dismissal he would appeal to the central Board; and they could not make themselves a judge in the matter without incurring great expense, because an inquiry would have to be made, and without interfering in such a manner as no local body would endure. If the Amendment was passed for the protection of the schoolmaster, a power would have to be given to the central Board for the protection of the children, and they would have to be empowered to insist on the dismissal of a schoolmaster where they thought it necessary. In fact, such an arrangement would entirely do away with the responsibility of the local 1707 board, which was the main principle of the Bill. It seemed absurd that they could not place the same confidence in the Scotch people with reference to education as they had reposed in the people of England.

§ MR. GORDON
said, that the whole tenor of this Bill was not to leave a single shred of the old Scotch system in existence, but to put the educational system of Scotland on the same platform as the English system. By the Act of 1870 they placed in the hands of school boards the appointment of schoolmasters, and they continued the principle applicable to denominational schools—namely, that the schoolmasters would hold their office at the discretion of the managers. But what was the experience of the working of that Act of 1870? Was not the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), a month or two ago, opposed by the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, on the ground that they had not yet had experience of the working of that Act? He ventured to say that there had been no opportunity of trying it, for a month ago only about 200 or 300 school boards had been constituted—so that there had not been time to speak as to the experience of the working of the school boards. But in Scotland they had long had the working of the system of fixity of tenure, which he admitted was perhaps carried too far, inasmuch as there was a difficulty in removing the incompetent or inefficient schoolmaster. It was not, however, necessary that that difficulty should be continued. On the contrary, he had himself given Notice of a new clause repealing the Parochial Schoolmasters' Act of 1861, and giving the Board of Education ample power to get rid of an incompetent or inefficient teacher. There were attached to the schools of Scotland a large number of intelligent teachers who had studied at the Scotch Universities, and they had a very efficient class of teachers coming forward and offering themselves for schools. In 1872, when the question of an Education Bill was under consideration, he (Mr. Gordon) was in communication with the teachers, and from one and all of them he had this representation made—that if they were left to the mercy of local boards, there would not be that ample supply of good teachers which had been the cause and reason of 1708 the excellence of the Scotch schools, because just as the schoolmaster was, so would be the schools. He submitted, therefore, that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock was a right proposition. But the Vice President of the Committee of Council said they were putting too much upon the Scotch Department of Privy Council. But they did not want to have the powers vested in the Privy Council of regulating such matters as this. They were quite willing to leave in the hands of the Privy Council the administration of money voted by Parliament, but they wanted a Scotch Board to regulate these things, because it was felt that the Privy Council would be unwilling to undertake such duties as this. That was just one of the great difficulties they had in accepting an English Board of Management as regarded the schools; and the right hon. Gentleman himself, in 1869, when arguing for the appointment of a Board in Scotland, said it would be extremely inconvenient to administer two systems in the same office. He thought they would find it so, and that the Scotch schools would be brought down to the level of the simple elementary education which prevailed in England, so that they would get a very much inferior education to what they now had.

§ MR. FORDYCE
said, he thanked the Lord Advocate for having refused to accept these Amendments. He (Mr. Fordyce) had had a little experience in the management of schools in Aberdeenshire, where the present system had reached its highest perfection, and if they wanted an Education Bill there at all, it was only to assist them in getting rid of inefficient parish schoolmasters. It had been found that men who became parish schoolmasters, after a certain time became inefficient, and it was impossible to get rid of them. There could not be a greater curse to the community than that state of things.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) argued that the English Act was no analogy in this case, because under that Bill there were only school boards in populous places, where they would work well, and not in the less educated country parishes; but the right hon. Gentleman did not confine 1709 his Amendment to the rural districts, but would punish those large populous places, and lower their status, by depriving them of their control over the teachers for the sake of a few country boards which, he thought, would not be sufficiently educated to elect proper teachers. That was a mere suppositious case, too, for they had no reason to believe that there would be any such difficulty about local boards; indeed, he believed the best men in the parish would be elected, He did not share in that sympathy for the teachers which so many hon. Members professed, for it did not appear to him to be needed. He thought the demand for schoolmasters would be so extended by the Bill that the schoolmasters would have command of the field.

§ LORD HENRY SCOTT
thought the Committee had already made a great mistake in not having a Scotch Education Department, which would manage this business in Scotland. It would be most unwise to commit the arbitrary power of dismissal to an elected body like the school board, and he did not think the board was a body which would obtain the confidence of the teachers themselves. If the Amendment were pressed to a division, he should vote on it.

§ MR. ELLICE
suggested an alternative Amendment, providing that the dismissal of a schoolmaster should be reported to the Education Department, and confirmed by them after being reported upon by the Inspectors.

§ MR. M'LAREN
moved, to add to the end of the clause the words— Provided, That it shall not be lawful for any teacher of a public school, appointed after the passing of this Act, to accept of any other office or perform any other duties for which he shall receive a salary or other emoluments, unless the consent of the School Board shall have been previously given by a minute duly entered in their minute-book, and agreed to at a meeting of the Board specially called for that purpose, of which due notice has been given; and all School Boards shall have regard to this restriction in fixing the salaries to be paid to all teachers of public schools who may be appointed after the passing of this Act.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he should have no objection to the Amendment, provided the latter part of it was omitted.

§ DR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, they had been told over and over again while discussing this Bill that they ought to follow the English Bill. Now, he failed to discover any such enactment as this in the English Act, and he wished to know why the teachers of Scotland were to be put in a worse position than those of England.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, this was not a theoretic proposition, and the absolute necessity for some such clause had been shown by long practical experience in Scotland. He knew cases where schoolmasters had also been poor-rate collectors, inspectors, agents, &c. His object by proposing this clause was to make the teacher dependent upon his profession and love that profession.

§ MR. ORR-EWING
asked what was the use of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh? The local boards would be the best judges of what was best in this matter.

§ MR. M'LAGAN
thought the Amendment was quite superfluous, because the whole power in the matter lay in the hands of the board.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, the clause did not forbid the schoolmasters altogether from taking employment, but it would place in the hands of the school boards the supreme control in the matter, so that they would grant permission to the master to accept other employment only in exceptional circumstances—for instance, they probably would not object to masters teaching heritors' children or other duties which did not interfere with their regular work.

§ MR. C. DALRYMPLE
remarked that the hon. Member for Edinburgh said his object was to make teachers love their profession, and his plan was to prevent them eking out the scanty income which the school boards would allow them. He should oppose the Amendment.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
admitted that masters ought not to accept other appointments without the consent of the board, but thought the Amendment scarcely necessary. He suggested the omission from it of the words "or perform any other duties."

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he would accept the alterations proposed by the Lord Advocate.

§ MR. M'LAGAN
moved to add at end of clause— Provided always, That the amounts of annual Parliamentary grants received in respect of any school in any parish or burgh shall be paid in full to the teachers of such school in such proportions as the school boards may determine. He moved the Amendment to give hon. Members from Scotland an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the question. It had been decided that the masters should not get the fees earned by them, and that there should not be either maximum or minimum salaries fixed, and therefore he thought there was a great force of justice in giving the masters the Parliamentary grants.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that the question raised in it had been already amply discussed and substantially decided.

§ MR. ORR EWING
disputed the statement that there had been any decision, nor had the question been fully discussed. At present, grants went direct to teachers, and he did not see why the boards should be made the medium of giving these grants. It might be an economical mode of administration, but he did not think it would be an advantageous one. He should support the Amendment.

§ MR. MACFIE
supported the Amendment, which he thought would be a stimulus to the energies of the teachers.

§ MR. GORDON
moved, at end of clause, to insert— Provided that for three years after the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for the Scotch Education Department to grant certificates of competency without examination to teachers holding office in existing schools, who are upwards of 35 years of age, according to such conditions as may from time to time be fixed by the Department.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
opposed this Amendment, on the ground that this was a matter for the Code.

§ MR. GORDON
moved, in page 20, line 38, to leave out from the beginning to "candidate," inline 42, and insert— Within six months after the passing of this Act there shall be constituted a Board for granting special certificates of competency to teach the higher branches in public schools; this Board shall consist of seven members, of whom one shall be nominated by the University Court of each of the four Scottish Universities, one by the Educational Institute of Scotland, and the remaining two by the Scotch Education Department; the members of the Board shall hold office for three years, and shall be eligible for re-election; and this Board shall have power, subject to the approval of the said Department, to draw up regulations for the examination of candidates, to establish two or more grades of certificate, and to conduct such examinations at such times and places as may be approved of by the said Department; and it any candidate shall produce evidence that he has passed satisfactorily in any subject or subjects a public University examination. The University which he represented felt strongly on this matter, for this Bill was not like the English Act—a measure simply relating to elementary education. The standard of qualification was becoming lower every year, and had been adjusted to meet the bare requirements of the Code. He thought that the standard which had hitherto been maintained in Scotland should be continued, and that it should not be left to local boards to fix the standard of education in the higher branches. He submitted that his scheme would answer the purpose he proposed.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
thought the Amendment only applicable to higher-class public schools.

§ MR. GORDON
said, he meant to apply only to those which professed to teach the higher subjects.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, the Amendment would then apply to all public schools in which any other than elementary instruction was given. In that view it was wholly inconsistent with the clauses which had already been passed by the Committee. By those clauses a complete Code has been provided. It had not been found necessary to have such a board in England, and why should there be one in Scotland? 1713 It was impossible for the Government to assent to the Amendment.

§ DR. LYON PLAYFAIR
supported the Amendment as practically a retention of the existing system, teachers being now examined by University examiners, and the Treasury meeting the cost of this. There was a comparatively low general standard, though higher than that of the Privy Council, but if the electors wished higher subjects to be taught the candidate was examined therein. Local boards would not be trusted by the Bill to examine elementary teachers, and à fortiori, they ought not to be entrusted with the examination of teachers of the highest secondary instruction.

§ MR. M'LAGAN
moved, in line 15, page 21, after "inspectors," to insert— Acting for the district in which the school is situated, and concurred in, after a separate inspection, by another of Her Majesty's inspectors appointed by the Board of Education, on the application of the schoolmaster, provided he shall make such application within fourteen days after intimation to him of the certificate of approval by the inspector of the district.

§ MR. GORDON
moved an Amendment defining 15 years as the minimum of service entitling to a pension, and two-thirds of the salary and emoluments as the maximum of pension.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
pointed out that, in common with all extraordinary charges, the retiring allowances of teachers must be paid exclusively out of the local rates, and it was therefore a matter in which the ratepayers of Scotland were particularly interested. He quite agreed that it was for the public advantage that teachers should be allowed to resign; but the best persons to decide on its advisability in particular cases were the elected representatives of the ratepayers. He objected to the Amendment as making it compulsory upon the boards in every instance to pay a fixed retiring 1714 allowance, whereas the option should be left to the ratepayers.

§ MR. C. DALRYMPLE
supported the Amendment.

§ MR. M'LAGAN
moved an Amendment allowing a teacher appointed at least 25 years before the passing of the Act to retire on two-thirds of his salary.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he could not assent to giving such a right to teachers. In many, and perhaps most cases, it would be a wise and kindly act for school boards to allow aged teachers to retire on a moderate allowance; but the clause as it stood allowed them to do so. He objected to making it a statutory obligation upon the ratepayers to provide one.

§ DR. LYON PLAYFAIR
proposed an Amendment providing that a University degree with practice in teaching should be essential as a qualification for the office of principal teacher in such schools, or that the examinations to be passed shall be such as may be determined by the Scotch Education Department.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that with every disposition to favourably consider any Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend, he could not accede to the present proposal. The belief that the school boards had no power in determining the qualification of teachers in the lower class schools, whilst the power was given to them in respect of the higher schools, was not correct. The Scotch Education Department would fix the standard up to which, at least, the teachers must come in order to entitle them to receive the Government grant; but the boards could themselves fix a higher standard in the elementary schools if they desired. The higher class schools did not participate in the Government grant at all, and they might be safely left their present management. The examiners to be provided for the teachers of these schools by the school boards must be professors in a Scotch University, or teachers of distinction in a higher class public school. It was not thought advisable that the Privy 1715 Council should interfere with schools which did not participate in the Parliamentary grant.

§ DR. LYON PLAYFAIR
thought what the Lord Advocate said was scarcely correct, and that little favourable consideration was given to the Amendments which were proposed. By Clause 54, the Scotch Education Department was to fix the standard for the elementary schools, yet the standard for the higher schools—the Etons and Harrows of Scotland—was to be left to the school boards. ["No, no!"] That was his reading of the Bill, and was the reading of everyone else whom he had consulted. He should like to know whether this Scotch Education Department, which they had inserted in the Bill, was a reality or a myth? If it was a reality, surely it would do something to keep up the character of the education of Scotland, and would grant this small boon. At all events, unless they found that this Scotch Department was something more than the Government thought it was, in his opinion it would be better to strike it out of the Bill altogether.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had looked at this Amendment with every disposition to adopt it if possible, but could not do so, because it introduced a new principle. Hitherto the Education Department had confined itself to fixing the standard for elementary schools, but if this Amendment were adopted, it would mean that they should be responsible for the standard of higher education. He was not now, however, prepared to go to that extent, though be did not say a time might not come when they might consider it advisable to do so not only in Scotland, but in England as well.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
said, that all the Amendment asked was, that the Legislature should take the same precautions as regarded the higher and middle class education of Scotland that it proposed in the Bill to do for the lower class.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he was afraid the effect of the Amendment would be to do that which would prove detrimental to the interests of higher education; for it would introduce the new principle of the Department interfering with those schools, to which they did not contribute.

§ MR. C. S. PARKER
said, it seemed to him that the time had come when they must demand some explanation from Her Majesty's Government. It did not seem that the language of the Vice President of the Council was consistent with that of the Lord Advocate's, for in introducing the Bill, the Lord Advocate spoke of it as having the great merit of dealing with the higher education, of Scotland, and that recommended the measure very favourably in Scotland; but they now heard the Vice President of the Council declare that his Department was so steeped in the lower education, that he declined to take any responsibility as to the higher education. If that was to be so, it was a question whether they had not better leave the high class schools out of the Bill altogether, rather than deal with them in this unsatisfactory manner.

§ MR. DALGLISH
trusted the Committee would leave this question entirely in the hands of the school boards. So far as he was acquainted with education in Glasgow, it appeared to him that probably within a very short time the dead languages might be obliged to give way to the living, and German and French become more important than Latin and Greek.

§ MR. GRAHAM
moved, in page 22, line 17, after "provision," to insert— But any person who at the time of the passing of this Act, being a master in a higher class school, as specified in Schedule (C), is a member of council of any of the Universities of Scotland shall be deemed to be the holder of a certificate of competency for the office of teacher in any of the said higher class schools.

§ MR. GORDON
moved to omit subsection 4.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that the sub-section was a most useful one, as it provided that in certain cases the school boards might encourage higher education by relieving the teachers from the necessity of descending to the drudgery of teaching the lowest elements of knowledge, and otherwise to provide sufficient school accommodation for elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic. He had to remind the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. C. S. 1717 Parker), in answer to his appeal, that both in moving for leave to introduce the Bill, and in moving its second reading, he had expressed his regret that he could not give any pecuniary aid to higher class schools.

§ ME. M'LAREN
moved the omission of sub-section 5, which provides with respect to higher class public or burgh schools that the fees to be paid shall be fixed from time to time, but at intervals of not less than three years, by the principal and the ordinary teachers, with the approval of the school board, and if they do not agree that their difference shall be referred to a person or persons to be named by the Lord Advocate, whose decision shall be final for three years. He said these schools were intended for the lower middle class, who ought not to be left at the mercy of the teachers in the matter of fees, particularly as part of the cost of the education was defrayed by endowment. Moreover, he could not see why the Lord Advocate should have power to interfere in the school arrangements, when the Government did not intend to give any money to the higher public schools.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, there was a suspicion that town councils had been disposed to fix the fees too low; and, as a matter of fact, the fees were remarkably low. It was, therefore, not unreasonable that teachers should have a voice in the matter, because their interests were identified with those of the public. With respect to the interference of the Lord Advocate in school arrangements, all he would do was to appoint a referee in the event of the teachers and the boards not being able to come to an arrangement about the amount of fees, and, for himself, he should be glad if the matter could be referred to any other authority.

§ MR. M'LAREN
replied that it had been said local boards would do everything that was right and proper, and 1718 that there could be no better tribunal; but, when a practical test was applied, it was said they could not be trusted, and that the teachers must have an equal voice with them.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
proposed to add words which would give power to the Loan Commissioners to advance money to improve public school houses.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that this question rather concerned the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the Education Department. He would not object to the insertion of the words, but it was possible they might have to reconsider them on the Report.