CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 2 August 1882)

HC Deb 02 August 1882 vol 273 cc506-47 506

§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
Sir, in moving that this Bill be now considered, I will take advantage of the opportunity to state to the House the names of the Commissioners as approved by Her Majesty. I find that there is a Notice on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. C. M'Laren) that it is undesirable to proceed further with the Bill until the names of the Commissioners have been given to the House. As I received late last night Her Majesty's Assent to the Commission, there is no object in withholding the names, and I have much pleasure in now stating them to the House. The Members of the Commission are seven—namely, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Earl of Elgin, Lord Shand, Mr. John Ramsay, M.P., Mr. J. A. Campbell, M.P., the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and the Lord Provost of Glasgow. The House will see that the Commission is composed very differently from the last one in one or two important respects. I heard no complaints about the Commissioners nominated in 1880, except that there were no Representatives of the municipalities on the Commission; that the mercantile element was not sufficiently represented, while the legal element and. the University element were too largely represented. It will now be seen that the Lords Provost of the two principal cities in Scotland are both on the Commission, and that, so far as the mercantile element is concerned, there are no less than four Members of the Commission who have been largely engaged in mercantile pursuits in Scotland. We have the advantage, too, of a Member of the Scotch Bench, Lord Shand, who, like the other six Members of the Commission, has, all his life, taken a considerable interest in popular education in Edinburgh, and I think that City can hardly complain of its share in the Commission, seeing that the Lord Provost, 507 who has always been foremost not only in promoting education, but in promoting the objects which the Edinburgh Town Council have in view, is on the Commission, and that Lord Shand, who is closely identified with popular educational institutions in Edinburgh, is also a Member. I may say, for the whole of the Members of the Commission, that they are appointed because, in the opinion of my noble Friend the Lord President (Earl Spencer), they are all Gentlemen who take a real interest in education. I had the advantage last night of meeting Lord Moncreiff, the Chairman of the former Commission, who stated to me that on that Commission, although there were men of varied politics and varied creeds, politics never interfered in any way with the work of the Commission, and that they knew nothing, as Members of the Commission, about politics and creeds, because every one of them was an educationist, and anxious to do good educational work. I believe it will be so now. Lord Moncreiff further wished me to say, with respect to the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh as Chairman, that there was no man more fair, or less disposed to introduce politics or creeds with reference to educational questions, than the noble Lord, and that he believed it would be difficult to find anyone who would more ably fulfil the duties that would devolve upon him than that Nobleman, who was his right-hand man on the former Commission. We have considered whether it would be possible to institute a Judge or other judicial authority as Chairman; but it was found, in the first place, it would be unjust to the noble Lord; and, in the next place, it would be wholly impracticable, because this Commission will have work for many years to come, the duties will be very arduous, they will be performed gratuitously, and will require to be performed by Gentlemen who can give a large share of their time, much more than any Judge could give to the work. I hope I have been able to shorten the day's proceedings by this statement, and I move that the Bill be now considered.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—(Mr. Mundella.)

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, that, so far as any testimony of his could have weight, he had great pleasure in concurring with 508 what had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) regarding the services of Lord Balfour of Burleigh upon the Endowed Institutions Commission of 1878. He (Mr. Bamsay) had the honour of acting with his Lordship on that Commission, and every word that had been uttered by the right hon. Gentleman as regarded the opinion expressed by Lord Moncreiff, who was President of the Commission, was quite warranted by the facts of the case. The noble Lord had the opportunity, on several occasions, of acting as Chairman in the absence of Lord Moncreiff, and he never saw anyone better fitted for that position by freedom from political or sectarian bias.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) about the Commissioners would give very great satisfaction. He was of opinion, however, that it was very much to be desired that the Chairman of such a Commission should be a person of legal training. An Executive Commission rested very much upon the Chairman, and when they had a man accustomed to taking evidence, they soon got at the true facts of a case. In regard to Lord Shand and the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, he wished to say that he recognized, as much as anyone, the great services that had been performed by Lord Shand in connection with the Watt Institute, as well as by the Lord Provost in connection with educational matters in Edinburgh.

DR. CAMERON
asked whether the Lords Provost of Edinburgh and Glasgow were to be appointed ex-officio or personally?

§ MR. MUNDELLA
They are appointed personally. Both Gentlemen have been greatly identified with education, and it was considered that they should be appointed personally and not ex-officio, so that they will not have to change at the expiry of their period of office as Lord Provost.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Bill, as amended, considered.

§ Clause 1 (Interpretation of terms).

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 19, after "not," insert "except with the consent of the governing body;" 509 line 20, after "or," insert "corporate;" line 22, leave out "to;" line 23, leave out "corporate; "page 2, line 39, leave out "travelling;" and line 39, after "and," insert "travelling."

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 5 (Powers of Commissioners).

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 7, leave out "limiting," and insert "uniting" before "two."

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 6 (Provisions where governing body wholly or partly consists of members of town council, &c).

§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELL
moved to leave out Sub-section 3, which provides that where the Governing Body includes no persons deriving their qualification from being members of town councils or other public bodies, provision should be made that not less than one-third should consist of members of town councils or other public bodies. He said that the clause, as it stood, might in some cases prove very useful; but in others it would be inconvenient and objectionable, especially in the case of trusts which could scarcely be called public trusts, although coming within the scope of the Bill. He had in his mind a Roman Catholic trust which came under the late Commission; and he stated that there were many other trusts of an educational character connected with particular Churches, one which he had in view being a Free Church Educational Trust. Such as these, he thought, would properly come under the purview of the Commissioners; but it did not by any means follow that the Governing Bodies should be interfered with in the manner proposed—that one-third of the Governing Bodies should always consist of the popular representative element. In Clause 8 there was a provision that Governing Bodies of endowments which the Bill did not include within its range should have an opportunity of voluntarily submitting their trusts to be dealt with under the Bill. That was a very useful provision; but he was afraid its usefulness would be very much interfered with by the sub-section which was now under consideration. In fact, the prospect of having the Governing Body always altered in this particular way, 510 and to such an extent, might effectually prevent many educational endowments being brought voluntarily before the Commission. This section should be limited to such trusts as were of a public character, or, at all events, some provision should be introduced leaving the hands of the Commissioners a little more free than they were as the Bill at present stood. In that case, he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) would be satisfied; but, in the meantime, he would move the rejection of the sub-section. In doing so, however, he wished it to be understood that he would not oppose the due introduction of what might be called the "open element" into every public trust; but, with the two preceding sub-sections before them, he could not but believe that the Commissioners would feel called upon to introduce that open element in every trust in which it would be suitable; but what he objected to was that the Commissioners should be positively compelled to introduce it in cases which could not have been in the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 39, to leave out sub-section 3 of Clause 6.—(Mr. J. A. Cambpell.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. RAMSAY
hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would see fit to accede to the' omission of the sub-section. The trusts which his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. A. Campbell) was desirous to exclude were originally of a denominational character. A Roman Catholic clergyman, in whom was vested funds left by a member of the Roman Catholic Church for the education of young men for the Ministry of that Church, came to the Endowed Institution Commissioners for the purpose of obtaining more extensive powers; and he (Mr. Ramsay) could not conceive it possible that they could have come before any body of Gentlemen for the purpose of having such a trust framed, and the Governing Body altered in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section. The Free Church endowment to which his hon. Friend had referred was in the same position. It was a fund left by a member of the Free Church for the purpose of educating young men for the Ministry. It would 511 become, if this sub-section were agreed to, and should become part of the Bill, the obvious duty of the Commissioners to introduce some persons who might or might not be of the denomination for the behoof of which the funds were left. The sub-section had been inserted without due consideration of all the circumstances which might affect the public weal; and he could not, therefore, doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would at once consent to its omission.

§ MR. WEBSTER
said, he must also urge the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) to accept some modification of the sub-section. There were some few endowments, of more or less importance, which would come within the scope of the present Bill as having an educational character, but where, from the nature of the trusts of the parties, by whom they were administered, and of the bequests themselves, it would be preposterous to insist that they should in all cases come under such a provision as that contained in the sub-section. Without at all differing from the right hon. Gentleman as to the importance of a representative element in every endowment where such a thing could be fairly and usefully applied, yet he could not forget that there were not a few small educational and denominational endowments in Scotland where such a provision would be obviously out of place.

DR. CAMERON
said, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not accede to the Amendment of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. A. Campbell), and for this reason—it proposed to exempt certain endowments from the operation of this Commission. In any case, the proper place to deal with it would be in Clause 8. If the right hon. Gentleman, after having purposed to make this provision for popular representation, was to cut it out, there would be very little left of the concessions which he made so much of on the second reading of the Bill. As regarded funds left to Kirk Sessions, it was to be borne in mind that a large number were left to them as trustees for the poor, and were really public funds, as to which it seemed to him (Dr. Cameron) it would be absurd to make an exception.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE
said, he also agreed with the opinion held by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) 512 that the Amendment ought not to be accepted. He would remind the Vice President of the Council that his Amendment on this clause, by which the representative element was secured in all the trusts where it existed hitherto, was the only one of the important Amendments which he brought down to the House on Saturday, July 15, and on the strength of which hon. Members who were opposing certain provisions in the Bill modified or withdrew their opposition. The other Amendments which he had announced had been almost wholly neutralized by Amendments to them, which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had accepted in Committee on the Bill. He wished to point out that there was a marked difference between the insertion of the words "not less" and "not more" in regard to the number of representative Commissioners. Under the former all might be representative men; but under the latter none of them might be. This was the only one of the important Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) brought down to the House on Saturday, and for the sake of which he induced hon. Members to modify or withdraw their opposition, and allow the Bill to pass through Committee. They attached great importance to this addition to the clause. It was one of the things he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) contended for more than any other in the Bill; and if the right hon. Gentleman departed from that sub-section, those who, on the second reading, withdrew the opposition they were entitled and called upon by duty to make would have great reason to complain of his conduct. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would allow the sub-section to stand in the Bill.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, that, in his opinion, the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Dick-Peddie) need not have assumed so violent a tone on that occasion. He (Mr. Mundella) could assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen that he was as anxious to make the Bill a workable measure as they were themselves, and he was not disposed to consent to the omission of the sub-section. What was made compulsory was, that in all public trusts there should be an element of popular representation in their Governing Bodies; but he could see no reason, neither did he think the hon. Member would wish, 513 to exclude some private trusts from coming under the operation of the Bill. That was very desirable. The House would not believe that any Roman Catholic Body would go to the Commission if one-third of the popular representative body were to be introduced into the trust. Such a change would create a difficulty, and, therefore, he must ask his hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell) not to press this Amendment, but to allow the sub-section to stand for the guidance and direction of the Commissioners. At the same time, he thought some words ought to be introduced to meet the special class of cases pointed out by hon. Members on both sides, and he should, after conferring with his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, endeavour to introduce such words, for he was quite sure it was not the desire of the House to see Roman Catholics or any other denominational Body outside the purview of the Bill.

§ MR. C. S. PARKER
said, he was about to express the hope, when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) rose, that the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, his attention having been called to many trusts where there would be difficulty if the hands of the Commissioners were tied by that sub-section too firmly. He should support the Amendment, not on the ground that it was undesirable in the majority of these trusts to introduce the popular element—for the Commission of which he was a Member recommended that in all large trusts there should be some representative element—but because there were exceptional trusts where the action of the Commission ought to be left free. The effect of the sub-section as it stood would be to prevent such trusts coming before the Commissioners at all. He was willing and even anxious that, in some form or other, the Government should direct the Commissioners to introduce the popular element in all trusts, except where there was good reason to the contrary. But where there was such reason, he would suggest this course— instead of dealing exceptionally with religious trusts, whether Roman Catholic or Free Church, or of any other Church, let them place some confidence in the Commissioners, whose names had been so favourably received by the House. The tendency throughout in this Bill, 514 in order to conciliate opposition, had, he thought, been too much in the direction of tying the hands of the Commissioners. Let there be words reserving to the Commissioners power, in exceptional cases, to pass over this rule, and re-constitute, without necessarily introducing a representative element that might be wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the case.

§ MR. ANDERSON
thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had come to a very wise conclusion in the matter. He (Mr. Anderson) was very much in favour of having a representative element in every trust which partook at all of a public character; but he thought it would be unfortunate, by an arrangement of this kind, to compel the Commissioners in every case to introduce, whether suitable or not, this element. He therefore thought the conclusion the right hon. Gentleman had come to, to find words that would reconcile those two things and not tie up the hands of the Commissioners too tightly, was a very wise one.

§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELL
said, that, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella), he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, that he had framed a provision that he thought would effectually meet the whole case. He proposed to insert at the end of the clause the following words:— Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where its application would in the judgment of the Commissioners frustrate the intentions of the founder.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE
said, he should be perfectly satisfied with the insertion of the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 7, at end of Clause, add— "Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where its application would in the judgment of the Commissioners frustrate the intentions of the founder."—(Mr. Mundella.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

DR. CAMERON
said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would have done better if he had adhered to his original intention, because private trusts would then have been pro- 515 vided for in a more logical and a more satisfactory way. The House was perfectly agreed as to what was wanted to be done. If the right hon. Gentleman added the words which he now submitted to the end of the sub-section, it would leave the Commissioners power to deal with all such trusts, whether public and obviously coming under the operation of the Bill, or whether private trusts, excepted by Clause 8, which they wished, and which could only be induced voluntarily, to come in. [Mr. MUNDELLA: That is not the case.] That was the obvious meaning of the section as he read it. He did not see what other meaning it had, than that certain endowments should not come within the scope of the Bill, unless the Governing Bodies, or the persons in charge of the endowment, chose to apply to be brought under it. In that case he thought it would be quite proper that the Commissioners should be empowered to dispense with requirements in certain special cases, which they could not be allowed to dispense with in the case of trusts that must necessarily come under the operation of the Bill.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, his impression was that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) went too far, and he suggested that the following words would be preferable:— Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in cases of trusts that can only voluntarily come before the Commissioners. This would meet all the cases he had in view, and would be quite wide enough in its operation.

§ DR. WEBSTER
trusted the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not accept the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson).

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, he did not think his proposal would have the effect of increasing the number of endowments which the Commissioners would have to deal with.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) might be satisfied. As he (Mr. Ramsay) understood the sub-section, it provided that all trusts or schemes coming before the Commissioners would be regulated by the provision, in whatever form they might come, whether private or public. He thought the Amendment would be satisfactory in its operation, and that they might leave it to the discretion of 516 the Commissioners to judge whether the provisions of the sub-section would frustrate the intentions of the founder.

§ MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE
said, what was desired was that some provision should be inserted with regard to the intentions of the founder as to religious instruction.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
wished to point out that his Amendment provided that it must be in the judgment of the Commission that the application of the clause would or would not frustrate the intention of the founder. He thought they might fairly leave the matter to them to apply it only in cases where the endowment was left for religious objects.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Words inserted accordingly.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 7 (Scope of Commission).

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 12, leave out "endowment," and before "severally" insert "endowments."

§ Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 16, leave out "herein," and after "nothing" insert "in this Act."—(Mr. Mundella.)

DR. CAMERON
said, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who was unable to be present, had asked him to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) and the House to the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name, which proposed to substitute the word "section" for the word "Act." Among the concessions granted by the right hon. Gentleman was one localizing the benefits of endowments; and the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy was, he (Dr. Cameron) thought, more in accord with the spirit of the concession.

§ Amendment proposed, as an Amendment to Mr. Mundella's proposed Amendment, to leave out "Act," and insert "section."—(Dr. Cameron.)

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, he had examined the point very carefully, and had come to the conclusion that the hon. Member's Amendment would defeat what was a very reasonable provision. When they were discussing the clause in 517 Committee they decided that the institutions must remain in the localities; but illustrations were given of cases where children came to the schools from districts surrounding Edinburgh and Glasgow for several miles. In the latter case, there were many children who came into the schools from various parts of Lanarkshire. It was said that if they limited the institutions to the localities, they must be careful to insert some words, so that the children who now come to those schools should not be excluded from the benefits of them. The object was that the children who had attended these schools should still receive the advantages of them, wherever they might come from.

§ MR. BRYCE
said, that he moved in Committee the insertion of the word "herein" in the Proviso, making its operation applicable to the clause; but he was satisfied with the Amendment, as it was in accordance with the spirit of his proposal.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
strongly protested against the qualifying words of the Amendment.

§ Amendment (Dr. Cameron) negatived.

§ Amendment (Mr. Mundella) agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 8 (Act not to apply to certain endowments).

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 26, leave out "1871," and insert "1872."

§ DR. WEBSTER
said, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate whether Sub-section I was properly expressed? It was proposed by the section to exempt from the Commission any educational endowment originally given by present gift made, or by will of a testator who died subsequently to the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872; but it did not seem to be quite clear that the condition of having been made after the passing of the Act applied to an endowment made in the form of a present or gift. He would suggest that the sub-section should be altered, so as to make it clear.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)
, in reply, said, any doubt about this matter probably arose from a 518 defect in punctuation; but, in order to make it perfectly clear, he was willing to introduce after the words "present gift made," the words "subsequently to the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872." He would accordingly move that these words should be inserted.

§ On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments accordingly made:—In page 4, line 24, after "made," insert "subsequently to the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872;" and in line 25, leave out from "education" to end of sub-section, and insert "said Act."

§ Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 29, after "Universities," insert "or (3.) To any endowment applicable or applied solely for the purposes of theological instruction or belonging to any theological institution."—(Mr. Mundella.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. WARTON
said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) to a possible narrow construction which might be placed upon this exemption by Courts of Law which would defeat his intention. Many religious institutions also provided other learning; and he, therefore, would suggest that the exemption should apply to endowments solely or principally applicable to theological instruction.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)
said, he had no objection to the word "mainly" being inserted in the Amendment, and he would, accordingly, move an Amendment to that effect.

§ On the Motion of The LORD, ADVOCATE, Amendment(Mr. Mundella) amended by inserting, after the word "solely," the words "or mainly."

§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 12 (Endowments for apprenticeship fees, maintenance, and clothing to be deemed educational).

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 31, after "children," insert— And the funds and property of the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge, so far as applicable or applied to educational purposes.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

519

§ Clause 13 (Vested interests).

MR. DICK-PEDDIE,
in moving an Amendment in page 6, line 40, to leave out the word "primary," said, he thought there was some truth and some error in what his hon Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had said in Committee upon this point, to the effect that the word "primary" was not known in Scotland. It had, therefore, occurred to him to substitute the word "elementary," which was certainly well known in that country, for "primary," and he had placed an Amendment on the Paper to that effect; but, if possible, he would have preferred to do without that, for on examining almost all the schemes that were before the Commission he discovered that that word was not to be found in the directions of the founders, and that the funds were left to forward no particular kind of education, but generally for maintenance and education. As it was quite evident that maintenance and education included elementary education as well as education of other kinds, therefore he thought that to put in a Bill of this kind the phrase "free elementary education" was almost useless, and he now thought of proposing to omit the word "primary," and leave the phrase simply "free education."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 40, leave out the word "primary," and insert the word "elementary."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'primary' stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, he could not assent to the omission of the word "primary" without the substitution of some other word, It was exceedingly desirable that any education which might be given by public schools under these endowments should be such as to receive the grant of the Government. He had no objection to accept the word "elementary," and should, if that were accepted, alter the Amendment of which he had given Notice at the end of the clause in order to define what elementary education should be.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, he very much regretted that either the word "primary" or "elementary" should be requisite, as the word "education" had a definite meaning, not only in the colloquial use of the term, but in legal 520 phraseology, in Scotland. Education under the Act of 1872 meant not only instruction in the "three R's," but it had a definite meaning as including the higher branches of education where they could be supplied, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had given a satisfactory definition. He (Mr. Ramsay) had no objection to the definition given of the term "primary education;" but he regretted extremely that it had been thought necessary to introduce such a definition at all, because the definition simply said that primary education should mean elementary education as understood in Scotland. There was no such expression as "elementary education" in the Education Act, except in the clause, where it was enjoined as the duty of the parent that he should provide elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic for his child. He felt that that distinct provision in the Education Act was an evidence that such a term as this, introduced for the first time into the law of Scotland, must necessarily have a degrading influence. He felt that it should be resisted by Scottish Representatives; and if the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) adhered to his resolution to omit the word "primary," he would certainly support him, and move a Motion at a subsequent period to omit the definition given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) of the term or expression "primary" education.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)
said, that hon. Members appeared to have overlooked the history of the clause. The word was originally inserted to deal with a particular class of cases, particularly with regard to the fear that the result of the Bill would be to lead to funds now dedicated to primary education being dedicated to secondary education. If either the word "primary" or "elementary" were not included, it would seem to imply that, in certain cases, there would be power to divert funds to other purposes which were dedicated to primary education. The question was entirely between primary or elementary and secondary education, the object being in every case to preserve educational funds for educational purposes.

§ MR. C. S. PARKER
thought that, on the whole, the Government were right in proposing to insert the word "ele- 521 mentary." He regretted, for his own part, that the clause had been introduced as a concession; but he wished to point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) that, as the clause now stood, if they were to leave out the word "primary," the effect would be to put more restriction on the Commissioners than if it were left in. He (Mr. C. S. Parker) went generally on the principle of leaving as much discretion to the Commissioners as possible.

DR. CAMERON
said, he was of opinion that either the word "primary" or "elementary" should be retained.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he was in favour of the word "primary" being retained. It was a much better word than "elementary."

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, the reason for inserting the word "primary" was, because primary education was understood all over the world to mean a very early stage of education. He thought they could not do better than take the word "elementary," and define it as signifying in accordance with the Scotch Code.

§ MR. BRYCE
said, there was a good reason which might have some little weight with the Committee in preferring the word "elementary." That word, in its natural sense, did not confine the instruction to particular subjects, butrather implied that the instruction on these subjects should not necessarily be carried on to the highest point of detail, but should contain the elements and rudiments of the knowledge of these particular subjects.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, consequential Amendment made in page 7, line 1, by inserting the word "elementary" instead of "primary."

MR. DICK-PEDDIE
moved to omit the words— Except to the extent to which such funds are manifestly in excess of the requirements for the purpose of free primary education of the localities to which they belong. He should not be so unreasonable as to say that funds which were more than requisite for the needs of a locality should continue to be applied to that locality; and he therefore objected to the retention of the words which he proposed to omit, not so much on account 522 of any meaning inherent to them, but because he regarded them with apprehension as opening up room for applying the principles of those persons—and they were numerous—who maintained that the Education Act of 1872 had sufficiently provided for free elementary education, and that, therefore, funds left for that purpose should no longer be applied to it. It was clear that the words he proposed to omit would enable persons holding that view to say that no provision was now requisite for endowments for the purpose of free elementary education, as this purpose had been sufficiently met by the Act of 1872. It was well known that the Vice President of the Council himself held that the Education Act of 1872 sufficiently provided for free elementary education, and that he had again and again expressed himself to that effect. His feeling that these words might be used to warrant the withdrawal of all endowments from the provision of free elementary education had been increased with the announcement made by the Vice President of the Council to-day that Lord Balfour of Burleigh was to be the Chairman of the Royal Commission to be appointed to carry out the provisions of this Bill, because he found that in 1880 that noble Lord had, in supporting, in the House of Lords, the second reading of the Educational Endowments Bill introduced that year, spoken with marked approval of a resolution adopted at a meeting in Glasgow— That it was expedient that funds bequeathed to elementary education before the passing of the Education Act, 1872, should cease to be expended for the purpose for which that Act made due provision. That he held to be an indication that Lord Balfour of Burleigh considered that free elementary education had been sufficiently provided for by the Act of 1872, and that all endowments for such education should no longer be applied for that purpose. He saw no motive for inserting the words to which he objected, unless they were to be regarded as a direction to the Commissioners to act on the principle embodied in the resolution which had met with Lord Balfour of Burleigh's approval. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman, having conceded the principle in the first part of the clause that funds set apart for free elementary education should not be 523 diverted from that purpose, would not take back the concession by retaining the words he now proposed to omit.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 41, to leave out all the words after the word "purpose" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'except to the extent which such funds are manifestly in excess of the requirements for the purpose of free' stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not consent to the Amendment, because it would tie up the hands of the Commissioners in a most unfortunate manner. It would prevent a great many funds from being directed to the most useful purposes; and funds which were at present improperly tied up would simply continue to be so tied up, and the Commissioners would have no power to redress grievances of that kind.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he cordially supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), on the ground that the words proposed to be left out destroyed the effect of the concession contained in the preceding lines inserted by the consent of the Government. He desired that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council should name the funds to which the words in question would apply. He would also suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should make it an instruction to the Commissioners to inspect cases in which funds were applied, in the spirit of the founder's disposition, for elementary free education, and well applied at this moment, and that it should be made clear that these funds would not be diverted from those purposes, but continue to be so applied. He gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman had said on a previous occasion, that he was not aware of any case which would be covered by the Proviso.

§ MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE
said, that the words proposed to be struck out were introduced on his Motion, and were not proposed with the intention imputed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Dick-Peddie). They were not intended to take away the effect of the preceding words intro- 524 duced by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. He (Mr. Bruce) might not think those words particularly advantageous in themselves; but, accepting the principle that funds left by the founder's directions for free primary education should be specially safeguarded, he thought it reasonable to add a Proviso dealing with those cases, which, he must contend, might certainly exist, where those funds were really in excess of what the requirements of the locality were. It would be very unreasonable that, in such cases, they should continue to make use of the funds for that sole purpose when there was no longer the necessity.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, he felt assured, that in moving the omission of those words, his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had not in view the prevention of funds which were in excess of the requirements of a district from being applied to instruction in the higher branches of education. He (Mr. Ramsay) could not conceive it to be possible that any Scotchman could have such an object in view. It appeared to him that it would follow, as a necessity, that the funds for elementary education, when in excess, would be applied to higher education wherever the wants of the locality were supplied. He hoped they would not be put to the trouble of dividing over the Amendment, for he did not think there was much force in the words.

DR. CAMERON
said, he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) should cavil much about the Amendment. The original proposal made by the hon. Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Bruce) was that such funds should not be applied to higher education unless, in the opinion of the Commissioners, they were manifestly in excess of what was required for elementary education; but it was agreed to leave out the words "in the opinion of the Commissioners," and they had now a question of fact which the Commissioners would not decide, but, if necessary, the Court of Session.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, that he had been asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) to name funds that were in excess of requirements of the district; but he was in a difficulty, because he was not acquainted with all the circumstances of endow- 525 ments in Scotland. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had correctly stated the circumstances. There were some cases which had been brought under his (Mr. Mundella's) notice in which there was such an excess. He hoped the Amendment would not be insisted on, as he could not accept it.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 2, at end of Clause, add as a new paragraph— Elementary education shall mean such education as may be given in the State-aided schools of Scotland pursuant to the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, and in terms of the Minutes of the Scotch Education Department in force for the time being, with respect to the administration of the Parliamentary grant for public education.

DR. CAMERON
said, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had an Amendment on the Paper, to add to the new paragraph the words "but shall not include ancient languages." He supposed, however, there was nothing in the Code restricting grants to schools where these were taught.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
No.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 15 (Interests of particular classes to be kept in view).

§ MR. WARTON
, who had a series of Amendments on the Paper, moved that the Commissioners in framing schemes should deal with educational and other endowments of the trust.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 21, after the word "educational," to insert the words "and other."—(Mr. Warton.)

§ Question proposed, "That those Words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)
said, he should prefer to keep the clause as it was, because all they could cover by the words "and other" would really be benefits incidental to education, and as such would be covered by the word "educational."

§ MR. WARTON
said, that he should not proceed with the rest of his Amendments.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

526

MR. DICK-PEDDIE
moved to omit the words "so far as requisite" from the Proviso at the end of the clause. He would remind the Committee that this clause, as it originally stood, directed the Commissioners to have due regard in any scheme which abolished or modified educational endowments to which any class of children were entitled, whether as belonging to a particular class in life or a particular locality, to make "adequate provision" for continuing to such children the benefits of such endowments. Great objections had been made to this clause, and it had been pointed out that the word "adequate" did not sufficiently provide for the interests of the children concerned; that it left very wide room to the Commissioners, especially when the view which many persons held with regard to the sufficiency which the provisions of the Act of 1872 had made for elementary education was taken into consideration. On the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman stated, "We propose to make important changes," and instead of providing that "adequate provision" should be made for the class of children in question, that it should provide that the funds "shall continue to be applied for the benefit of such children;" and that, he added, strictly confines the endowments to the class for which they were intended. This was entirely satisfactory, and wholly removed the objection which had been made by himself and others to the clause. But what took place in Committee last Saturday? The right hon. Gentleman accepted eagerly an Amendment which practically took away the whole value of the concession he made, as it provided that the funds, instead of being strictly confined to the class for which they were intended, should continue to be applied for their benefit "so far as requisite." In order to show this, he had put down the provisions of the Bill as it originally stood, as it was announced by the right hon. Gentleman it would be amended, and as it had actually been amended.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 32, to leave out the words "so far as requisite."—(Mr. Dich-Peddie.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

527

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, that the words referred to by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) were introduced and accepted by the Committee on his (Mr. Anderson's) suggestion, and the hon. Members now opposing it did not think it worth their while to object to the Amendment so far as to divide the Committee against it. [Mr. DICK-PEDDIE: I was not present.] But some of the hon. Member's Party were present, and they did not divide the Committee against it. It appeared to him perfectly absurd to confine the Commissioners in the way they would be if these words were omitted, and to devote certain endowments to objects which were not necessary. This was an Amendment in the same direction as one moved on Clause 13, and the House assented to the provision of limitation, "except to the extent to which such funds are manifestly in excess," &c. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not accept it.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, he must repudiate the imputation, which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) too frequently made, that he (Mr. Mundella) had broken faith with the House. He had done nothing with respect to the measure, and had no object in doing it, except to make it as effective as possible for the benefit of the people of Scotland, and he was quite willing that his reputation in this House should stand or fall by the results of the working of the Bill in Scotland. He believed there never was a measure connected with endowments which so honestly preserved the interests of classes, or dealt so liberally all round as the measure now under discussion. The English Endowment Act was not so hedged round with respect to the preservation of the interests of classes. The hon. Member admitted that he was not present when this matter was dealt with in Committee, and therefore he was somewhat out of court. The clause was previously much more limited than it was now. The words "poorer classes" gave a wider area than the original words "poor children." As the clause stood it was really a good clause, and gave directions to the Commissioners which he thought they could not deviate from. They must leave something to the judgment of the Commission. Seven Gentlemen would be appointed, and 528 were they not to be trusted to fairly administer those endowments? He certainly could not accept the Amendment, because he believed the clause, as it stood, was a thoroughly good one.

§ MR. WILLIAMSON
said, he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman intended to adhere to the clause as it stood, as he thought it was an excellent one.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), who, he was quite sure, had not meant anything personal. He also reminded the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) that he had accepted an Amendment by the hon. Member for Glasgow to the same effect.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
, in opposing the Amendment, said, there were a number of old endowments which had very improper privileges, such as some connected with the Universities, which were only to be given to persons of the name of M'Donald. At the present moment there was no more special reason for giving them to persons with a particular name than to persons with large noses. He thought the Commission should have power to deal with those endowments, as such conditions were not now requisite, and that the words in question should remain part of the clause.

§ MR. C. S. PARKER
said, he would appeal to the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) and Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) whether they were not exaggerating the effect of these words? It was quite true that, in some slight degree, they modified the concessions made by the Government; but, if his hon. Friends would look at the effect of these words, they would see that they were exaggerating their case. For if, as they proposed, the words were withdrawn, the clause would then read that such endowments should be continued whether requisite or not. He thought with the right hon. Gentleman they should have some confidence in the Commission; and, under these circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he had watched the Bill with considerable interest, and he could say, he thought, that he had never known a Bill conducted more fairly and honourably, or with more patience and attention, than this had been conducted by the right hon. Gen- 529 tleman; therefore, he considered the right hon. Gentleman did not deserve the charge brought against him by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) of having broken faith with the Committee.

§ MR. BRYCE
said, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) seemed to think that the impression which had been made on the Government, and the offers which had been made to the Government, came from him and the three or four Members who had acted with him. Several hon. Members of the House thought the Government went too far in the concessions they made, and they regarded it as an inadequate and unsatisfactory measure, because it did not go far enough in the direction of reform. So far from thinking that the Government had dealt unfairly with the Member for Kilmarnock, they who thought there should be a more decided reform were the persons entitled to complain.

DR. CAMERON
said, it struck him that, having swallowed similar words in connection with a former clause, it was not worth while getting into an acrimonious discussion, and he would, therefore, appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Dick-Peddie) to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE
, in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, denied that he intended to be personal to the right hon. Gentleman, and would retract any words used that would appear to impute to him unfairness.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 17 (Tenure of office of teachers, &c).

§ MR. MUNDELLA
moved the addition, at the end of the clause, of the following words as a new paragraph:—"A scheme may provide for the removal of any religious tests or qualifications applicable to teachers." The right hon. Gentleman stated that the proposal was one that he had promised the Committee to introduce upon Report, and that was his reason for moving it.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 42, at end of Clause, add, as a new paragraph—"A scheme may provide for the removal of any religious tests or qualifications applicable to teachers."—(Mr. Mundella.)

530

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 19 (Provision for future alteration of scheme).

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendments made:—In page 8, line 10, leave out "as they think expedient;" and in line 16, leave out "1869."

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 20 (Preliminary inquiry).

§ MR. BUCHANAN
asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) whether he would endeavour to meet the Amendment he (Mr. Buchanan) had proposed in Committee, to the effect of altering the word "may" into "shall" in the provision relating to the holding of a preliminary inquiry?

§ MR. MUNDELLA
, in reply, said, the meaning of the Bill was, that if any inquiry was made, it should be a public inquiry. He did not think it was desirable that an inquiry should be made whether it was necessary or not.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 23 (Governing body may lodge objections).

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendment made:—In page 8, line 41, after "writing," insert "by any public body or persons interested."

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 25 (Approval of Scotch Education Department to schemes).

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, he had an Amendment to suggest for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) with regard to the clause. What he objected to was, to have schemes sanctioned by the Scotch Education Department, and that the Queen in Council should have power to render these legal without their coming before Parliament. He thought it was a very objectionable thing that any measure should operate in regard to anything affecting Her Majesty's subjects without coming formally before Parliament in all cases, and he therefore would move the omission from the clause, after the word "Commissioners," inline 35, of the remainder of the clause consisting of the last two paragraphs. 531 His reason for that was to prevent the possibility of any scheme agreed to by the Commissioners becoming law without being submitted to Parliament for the consideration of those who might take an interest in the subject.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 35, to leave out from the word "Commissioners," to the end of Clause 25.—(Mr. Ramsay.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'and if they remit the scheme with a declaration, the provisions contained in the immediately succeeding section shall apply' stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, that before the words were introduced in Committee they were very carefully considered. His hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) was not present in Committee when these words were discussed; but he (Mr. Mundella) could state that the matter was fully explained in Committee as to the reason why the Amendment could not be accepted. As, however, his hon. Friend had not been present, he would explain it again. If it were made requisite that every scheme that was approved by the Governing Bodies and by the Education Department must come before Parliament, though it was a scheme that everybody was anxious for, the result would be the greatest possible inconvenience and unnecessary delay. For instance, the Commission might approve a scheme, the two months' notice might be given to the locality for objection by any person interested, and though there might be no objection whatever, if the proposal of the hon. Member were agreed to, instead of the scheme becoming law, it would have to come before Parliament. If that was at the close of the Session the delay would be still more inconvenient, because it would then have to be laid on the Table of the House at the commencement of the next Session in February, where it would have to remain two months. Consequently, a delay of eight or nine months was very likely to occur. He would also remind the hon. Member that in his absence, in Committee, the Bill was applied to endowments of £50 a-year; and, in these cases, the inconvenience of delay would be still greater. Further than that, he thought his hon. Friend would see that there was no danger of any scheme slipping through, because so long as 532 there was one person interested in the town, or city, or neighbourhood who objected to a proposed scheme, it must come before Parliament before it could be finally approved.

§ DR. WEBSTER
said, he had had an Amendment before the Committee to the same effect as this, and requiring all schemes to be laid before Parliament; but he had failed to receive any support. No general countenance had been given to the proposal; but he adhered to the opinion that it was desirable, for the sake of publicity, and giving a fair chance to all parties, not only those locally and directly interested, but the public generally and all who had the right to appeal to Parliament through their Representatives, that the right of objecting in Parliament to any scheme should not be confined to a locality, but be given to any person in the whole country, who should be allowed an opportunity of being heard before the scheme was finally adopted.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
supported the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Webster), and said he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) in this Bill should have deviated from the practice that obtained in the Endowed Schools Commission under the Act of 1878, because, under that Act, all schemes were ordered to be laid before Parliament, and, as far as he (Mr. Buchanan) knew, no inconvenience had arisen. The right hon. Gentleman's objection was, that schemes might have to lie on the Table of the House for six months or more; but, though it was certainly undesirable to have any unnecessary delay, he (Mr. Buchanan) did not think they need grudge the slight further expenditure of time that would be required in order to secure a most desirable object—that there should be perfect publicity in regard to those schemes, and that all, small or large, should come before the House in order that they might see the action of the Commissioners. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICK
said, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) would withdraw his Amendment after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella).

§ Mr. ANDERSON
thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. 533 Mundella) was a decided improvement on the former practice. Not that he objected to having the schemes laid before Parliament in the case of large endowments where there was any objection; but here there was a complete provision for that—that if any single person objected he could have the scheme laid before Parliament. Not only that, but he would also remind the House that the Bill had been applied to very small endowments, as low as £50 a-year, and it would be a very clumsy thing indeed to apply to schemes of that description the burdensome and cumbersome system of compelling each scheme to lie on the Table of the House two months. He thought the proposal as it stood was quite effective for the purpose.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, in accordance with the feeling of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment; but what he had objected to, and what he still objected to, was that the Bill provided that schemes which were not sanctioned by Parliament at all—that never came under the consideration of Parliament— should become law; and he thought it unconstitutional that anything in this country should become law, affecting any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, which had not had the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, and the sanction of those who might take an interest in them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had said that any person in the locality might secure that the scheme should be brought before Parliament; but he thought the whole country was affected by the principles upon which these schemes might be framed. He should have preferred very much had the right hon. Gentleman seen his way to accede to the Amendment; but, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman could not do that, rather than put the House to the trouble of a division only to be defeated, he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendments made:— In page 10, line 4, leave out "month;" in same line, after "said," insert "two months;" and in line 9, leave out "municipal."

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

534

§ Clause 29 (Special case to Court of Session on questions of law).

§ Mr. RAMSAY
said, he had a proposal to make, which was to leave out the whole clause, which provided for an appeal to the Court of Session on questions of law. He did not make the proposal through any want of respect for the decisions of the Court, as no man could have more respect for them than he had; but he thought the power should not be conferred upon them of dealing with questions arising as to these endowment schemes. He did not consider it was desirable, as was done by the clause, to indicate to the Governing Body that it was the desire of Parliament they should raise questions before the Court of Session that might be detrimental to the public interest. The fact was, that he believed the Judges did not desire any such power conferred upon them, and any person who was aggrieved by the action of the Commissioners—by any excess of the powers conferred upon them by the Act—had an opportunity of going to the Court of Session for redress. He therefore thought the clause should be struck out of the Bill.

§ Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 29.—(Mr Ramsay.)

§ Question proposed, "That Clause 29 stand part of the Bill."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)
said, the Government could not consent to the proposal. His hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) would observe that the grounds of appeal to the Court of Session, as the Bill now stood, were exceedingly limited. The limited grounds were, if a person felt aggrieved by the scheme on the ground of the scheme being one which was not within the scope of, or made in conformity with, this Act. He (the Lord Advocate) took it that, even though there were not a provision of this kind, if the Commissioners exceeded their power's, there would probably be, under Common Law, a power of appeal. But the object of the clause was rather to limit and define the cases in which they could go to the Court; and it appeared to them that it was much better to have this in the limited and sharply-defined form in which it here appeared. For instance, in the case of the remission of a man's salary by the Commissioners, it would, be very undesirable that he should have to appeal to Parliament 535 rather than to the Court of Session. The 2nd sub-section gave a like power to persons who were aggrieved with the scheme, on the ground that it did not save or make due compensation for their vested interests. That, again, was a matter where the patrimonial rights of persons were concerned. He thought both of those sub-sections were necessary to safeguard the public.

§ DR. WEBSTER
said, he would admit that the Bill had now been made so reasonable in regard to appeal, and the grounds of appeal so fairly narrowed, that he could not further complain of it. He thought it quite right that a Court of Law should step in and correct any excess of power by the Commissioners.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, he still thought the provision was supererogatory; but, seeing that he had received no support for his proposal, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 31 (Scheme to be approved by Order in Council. When to be laid before Parliament).

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendments made:—In page 11, line 35, leave out "forty days;" same line, after "lain," insert "two months;" line 36, leave out "forty days;" same line, after "such," insert "two months."

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 32 (Provision as to schemes for endowments under £100 annual value).

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendments made:—In page 12, line 10, after "apply," insert "if;" in lines 10 and 11, leave out "but it shall be lawful for;" and in line 12, after "be," leave out "to."

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 46 (Provision for default of governing body).

§ On the Motion of Mr. R. PRESTON BRUCE, the following Amendment made: —In page 15, line 3, after "of," insert "the school board or of."

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

536

§ On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Clauses 45 and 46 transposed.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, they had now gone through all the Amendments on the Bill, and he hoped hon. Members would consider he was not asking too much if he moved that the Bill be read a third time. It was quite true that they had had some sharp controversies; but he hoped they would all forget them, and that they would soon all be perfectly satisfied with the working of the Bill. He must thank hon. Members for the diligence which they had devoted to the work, and the ability and success with which they had carried it through. He wished to express his own conviction that, on the passing of the Act, there would not be one child less in Scotland receiving free education than before its passing; but that many thousands more would receive much higher and better education than they could have hoped to receive before the passing of it. The Bill, he believed, would prove a blessing to Scotland, as it would raise the whole tone of public education and quicken the public schools of Scotland, by offering some inducement for every child to reach a higher level. He sincerely trusted that the House would allow the third reading, and that the effect of the Bill would be such as to make it almost memorable in the educational history of the country.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Mundella.)

§ MR. BROADHURST
said, that, while he would not oppose the Motion just made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), he trusted he might be allowed to express the hope that, in the future composition of Commissions on educational endowments, all Governments—whether this or any other—would not fail to recognize the right of the working men to some direct representation on them. These Commissions were practically decided upon before they came under the notice of the House, and there was, therefore, great difficulty in moving the appointment of working men upon them; but he thought the Government would have been wise to consult the Scotch Members and ask them to nominate one or two working men. He would ask the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aber- 537 deen, and Dundee whether they could not have nominated men from their respective constituencies, any of whom would have been highly fitted for the work of this Commission? He was not making any complaint against the right hon. Gentleman, but pressing upon the Government that, in all these matters, for the future, the working men must be taken into consideration in a manner which they had not been hitherto. The departure would be a new one; but working men were now taking a different part in public matters from what they once did; and he hoped, in the higher walks of public duty, their claims to representation would be recognized in future. The one fundamental difficulty in regard to that point, however, was that these Commissions were entirely voluntary. There was no payment made to the Commissioners; and it was naturally supposed that, therefore, working men could not take part in the work of a Commission. But what he wished was that the working men should at least have the refusal of appointments, and he believed that their organizations would be able to find means by which working men could discharge the duties of Commissioners. In saying that he did not wish to reflect in the slightest degree upon the highly satisfactory composition of the present Commission, so far as its members had been selected from the Members of the House.

DR. CAMERON
said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion for the third reading; indeed, he should not have risen at all, but he felt bound to do so, in consequence of some remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) as to the effect of the Bill on free education. When it was proposed to allow school boards in Scotland to adopt free education, the right hon. Gentleman objected, on the ground that that would increase the rates; but when they had that experiment in free education conducted successfully, without any demand upon the rates, and they asked that it should be safeguarded from the operation of the Bill, in the same way as a number of matters had been safeguarded and restricted, the right hon. Gentleman refused to allow this; and now he told the House that he did not believe, when this Bill passed, that there would be one child the less receiving free education, 538 while the general character of education in Scotland would be greatly improved. As to the character of the education, he (Dr. Cameron) believed and trusted that would be the case. He had always expressed himself as eager as any hon. Member could be that endowments at present wasted or misapplied should be applied to the purpose of higher and technical education. What he had thought it his duty to protest against, and what he had protested against still, was, that funds which had been well and economically applied for the purpose of promoting free primary education of the poor should not have been safeguarded. Having pressed that, and been refused, he (Dr. Cameron) could not attach much weight to the hope of the right hon. Gentleman, after the right hon. Gentleman had done all he could to stamp out this one successful plantation of free education in the United Kingdom, when he now said that he hoped that free education would flourish in Scotland as vigorously as ever. The next few years would show whether that hope would be realized; but, if it was not, all he (Dr. Cameron) could say was, that while doing an excellent piece of work in the cause of higher education in Scotland—in so far as he proposed to appropriate to that purpose wasted and misapplied endowments—if the effect of Bill proved, as he feared it would, to stamp out this successful attempt at free education in Edinburgh; if that was so, the name of the right hon. Gentleman would be associated with a piece of reactionary legislation — ["No, no!"]—which would reflect very little credit upon its promoters in these days, when one country after another throughout the civilized world was adopting a system of free education.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) in the spirit of the suggestion he had thrown out; indeed, he (Mr. Anderson) could name plenty of men in his own constituency who would be able to serve upon, and who would be an honour to, the Commission, on account of their capability of doing useful work upon it. The hon. Member, however, had seen that the real difficulty lay in the way of payment, for it would be unfair to expect a working man to devote his time gratuitously to the work of such a Commission; in fact, 539 it would be impossible for him to act so inconsistently with his duty to his family as to work for nothing. Still, the suggestion of the hon. Member might put it in the power of the working men to provide means, and he thought that suggestion well worthy of consideration in the future. He did not like to have to disagree with his hon. Colleague, or to say much in opposition to his views; but he (Mr. Anderson) was himself as strong an advocate for free education as the hon. Gentleman could be. But the free education he looked for was a free education that should be general, and that should not require to have a declaration of poverty and pauperism attached to the getting of it. Notwithstanding that the hon. Gentleman had referred to free education in Edinburgh, he (Mr. Anderson) did not believe, if free education in Edinburgh was being well done now, those responsible for it had anything whatever to fear from the Commission that had been appointed. He believed wherever good work was being done no Governing Body would have anything to dread; but he thought it would have been a scandal if they had exempted from the scope of the Bill two of the largest institutions in Scotland— Heriot's and Hutcheson's Hospitals— because they happened to be working under Acts of Parliament of their own. It was, he thought, of great importance, not only to the people of Edinburgh and Glasgow, but to Scotland generally, that these two great institutions should be placed within the purview of a Commission of this kind. Other institutions would have had a good right to complain if these two institutions had been exempted from it. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the skill and patience with which he had engineered this Bill through Parliament, and upon the character of the Commission appointed to do the work. He looked forward with great hope to much good being done on that Commission. He was aware that objection had been taken to the appointment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh as Chairman of the Commission. He did not share in that objection at all. When a man was appointed to a public office, he did not think they should ask what were his politics or what was his Church. If it were a political appointment that was being given him, he would then ask about his 540 politics; and if it were an ecclesiastical appointment, he would ask about his Church; but when it was an educational appointment, he asked what his educational qualifications were. He had reason to believe that Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as an educationist, was an extremely liberal one. He had been told his Lordship was a supporter of the one thing in the Bill which, above all else he (Mr. Anderson) approved of—bringing down the date to 1872. That Amendment, which had been passed in Committee by that House, might be strongly opposed and, perhaps, gravely altered in "another place," and it was of importance and great consequence to Scotland that they should have such a man as Lord Balfour there to defend the Amendment, and prevent its being reversed. He (Mr. Anderson) should regard the reversal of that Amendment as a very great misfortune, and one which he sincerely hoped would not take place. Personally, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his conduct of the Bill, believing that his feeling was shared generally by the people of Scotland.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, that he regretted the position which he had the honour to hold as Chairman of Committees prevented him from taking an active part in the discussion on this Bill. He trusted, therefore, that the House would permit him to say a few words in regard to it before it went to "another place." The chief opposition to the Bill in Committee was based upon the supposition that it would interefere with the free education now existing in Scotland. He, however, thought the Bill, as it had emerged from Committee, must have removed very much of the danger which was apprehended on that score. He believed, indeed, that the friends of free education would have reason to congratulate themselves that the institutions which it was proposed to leave out were left in the Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had spoken as if the effect of the Bill would be to crush the free schools in Edinburgh. If that had been the purpose of the Bill, he (Mr. Lyon Playfair) certainly would have asked someone to take his place in the Chair, in order to allow him to protect the interests of free education in its best sense. He believed the schools in Edinburgh were doing excellent work. He had visited, he thought, nearly all of 541 them, and seen the work they performed. He thought it was quite possible to preserve these schools in a free state, largely in the interests of the poor, and yet to grade some of these schools and link them together, so that the poor could attain what was the essence of Scotch education, and which had enabled the Scotchman to prosper in all parts of the world—namely, to go from the gutter upwards to any sphere of life he desired. It would be possible, he believed, to have schools so that some of them might give higher and more technical education, useful to the poorer classes, while the free schools were not interfered with. As it was, the intellectual mind of any country was never too great—only about 7 per cent of the population seemed fitted to go through such higher schools as he hoped to see established and rise to better positions—but where there were these intellectual minds, it was of the greatest importance that they should be enabled to make their way from the lowest to the highest position. Scotland would have been nothing in the past, if that had not been the real essence of its educational system. The Governors of Heriot's Hospital had shown their desire to promote technical education in connection with the Watt Institution, and with the bursaries in connection with the Universities; and he was sure that after the first heat of controversy had subsided, it would be recognized that the purpose of the Bill, in providing a graded education, would serve in the highest degree the interests of the poor in Edinburgh. He believed the same remarks would apply to the Glasgow endowments as well.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, he desired to correct a statement which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had made twice over—namely, that the Governors of Heriot's Hospital had asked to be excepted from the operation of this Bill. He (Mr. Buchanan) was aware, he thought, of all the steps that had been taken with regard to Heriot's Hospital, and he could say that that question had never been raised. What they had contended for was, that if free primary education was to be protected under the Bill, the protection should extend to the most efficient free schools in Scotland, which the Heriot Schools admittedly were. He had intended to move an Amendment on the Preamble, to raise 542 the question of free education established by Acts of Parliament, and regretted that he was unable to do so. He was astonished to find that the right hon. Gentleman, who declined to take the responsibility of altering founders' wills made 100 years ago, should now be attacking the dispositions made by Acts of Parliament in recent years. It was more than likely that an Act of Parliament framed in recent years would better conform the intention of the founder to the wants of the time than a strict observance of the letter of the original endowment. He very much agreed with what the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had said, and he endorsed his opinion, that there were men to be found in the ranks of the working classes who were quite capable of discharging the duties of Commissioners under this Bill. Perhaps with regard to this matter—and it was really very much a working man's question— they would have made better Commissioners than any other. He was quite sure that in connection with it the name of his Predecessor (Mr. M'Laren), who had done so much for education in Scotland, and who possessed so fully the confidence of the country, would be held in lasting honour in the House. He should not oppose the third reading of the Bill; but he desired to record his protest against the refusal of the Government, in dealing with the matter, to recognize and preserve the popular government of Heriot's Hospital, which had been so admirably directed towards the promotion of education among the poor. Many of his constituents thought the Bill would very possibly affect injuriously their educational interest. It contemplated a diversion of funds from one sort of education to another, and, therefore, from one class to another; but though that had been denied by the right hon. Gentleman, they had not got specific provisions to the effect they desired, but only verbal assurances from the right hon. Gentleman; and he could not allow that opportunity to pass without again presenting his views as to the operation of the Bill as it at present stood.

§ MR. HENDERSON
said, he wished to bring before the House a matter which was of very great interest to the burgh he represented, with the view of obtaining an expression of opinion from 543 the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate as to how it would be affected by the Bill. An Act of Parliament was passed very recently—indeed, it received the Royal Assent only a few weeks ago—for the re-organization of Dundee High School, and a very large endowment of about £20,000 was given on the passing of that Act for the purposes of higher education by one of their citizens. In consequence, however, of smaller endowments which that school enjoyed, of a much earlier date, by Section 9 of the Bill now before the House, the Act which passed only a few weeks ago would come under the scope and purview of the Commission which would be appointed under the Act. Naturally there was a very great deal of anxiety in the new Governing Body recently constituted, that that which had been so recently done should not be so speedily upset; and he hoped those promoting this Bill on the Front Bench would give some assurance that in any future proceedings they would have the support of the Education Department. He thought that the constitution of the Commission would have been greatly improved if a representative of the working class had been placed on it; and he also thought that the constitution of the Commission would have been further improved if there were more representatives of the class who had furnished the endowments. There were several noble Lords upon it, and though he did not object to that, he believed it was a fact that there was not a single noble Lord who had given any gifts for education in Scotland. These endowments came almost exclusively, if not altogether, from the middle class in Scotland; and he thought they ought to have had a stronger representation of the class who had furnished the endowments on the Commission. He could not allow the question of the constitution of the Commission to pass without remarking on the nomination of Lord Balfour of Burleigh as Chairman. He was not going to say—and, indeed, he could not say— anything against the noble Lord as an educationist; but he would say that, in the present state of public opinion in Scotland, it was a most unwise and impolitic thing on the part of the Government to appoint as Chairman of that 544 Commission a noble Lord who was, politically and ecclesiastically, out of sympathy with the vast majority of the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland looked upon the Bill and anticipated the proceedings of the Commission with a great deal of interest and anxiety; and while he thought it was only to have been expected that Lord Balfour of Burleigh should be one of the Commissioners, he must say there would have been much greater confidence if the Government had appointed as Chairman a gentleman who, at least, was in sympathy, politically and ecclesiastically, with the majority of the people.

§ MR. C. S. PARKER
said, he believed the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson) was right in saying that, legally and technically, it would be within the power of the Commissioners to propose a scheme for the alteration of the recent Act of Parliament; but setting aside the consideration that Parliament itself would probably interfere to prevent that, he thought they might safely rely on the Commissioners who had been appointed, and on the Education Department, and individually on his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella), to prevent any such reversal of recent legislation, especially when so large an endowment had been handsomely bestowed by Mr. Harris, of Dundee, on the faith of that Act of Parliament. He should like to say a word on the question of free education, upon which the debates on this Bill had very much revolved. He supposed the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) agreed with what he (Mr. C. S. Parker) believed was the general opinion of Scotland on this point—that at all events, so far as free education was given, it should not be of such a character as to tend to pauperize the recipients, and make them feel as if they were in a different position from their more independent neighbours. The hon. Member for Glasgow apparently looked to a development which seemed to him (Mr. C. S. Parker) still far off in the future—namely, general gratuitous education, as in the United States. In the meantime, the recommendation of the Commission on which he served was this—not by any means to put a stop to free education, but to put some check on what had been called indiscriminate free education. The mis- 545 chief was done by making gratuitous education not general, but indiscriminate. It ought to be discriminate in one or other of two ways. Either it should be applied for the benefit of parents who really were unable to provide education for their children, or it should be applied for the encouragement of children to industry, and for retaining at school the small percentage of children who had exceptionally good abilities, and whom it was the interest of the State to bring on to higher standards. He believed the interests of free education would be practically safe in the hands of the Commissioners. It ought to be known that the one Member of the former Inquiry Commission who had been placed on this Executive Commission—the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay)—had always been the most vigilant to protect the interests of the poorer classes. Indeed, some of his Colleagues thought he went, perhaps, too far in his wish still to apply old endowments to the relief of the education rate, in those localities where the ratepayers had long been accustomed to get education free. He wished further to say that, however much difference of opinion there might have been on this and other contested issues, they could not but recognize with gratitude the zeal and energy and conciliatory conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, and the perseverance with which he had striven on now for three years to bring the Bill to a favourable issue. To him chiefly it was due that the measure had not again fallen through. If they had not had the short time given to them that they had that day, he thought the Members from Scotland generally would have felt that they had just cause for complaint. It was now ten years since the Commission was appointed to inquire into these matters; it was seven years since it reported, and it was three years since the Bill had occupied a prominent place in the Speech from the Throne; and they should have felt considerable resentment if they had been sent back once more to Scotland to explain to their constituents that from pressure of other Business the Bill had made no further progress. Whereas now a word of thanks was due also to the Government that, in the great difficulties they had had that Session, they had 546 seen the propriety, and the necessity, he might almost say, of giving the Scottish Members that short period on Wednesday, in addition to the Saturday previously, for Committee; and certainly Scottish Members had not made an unreasonable use of the time, when, within three hours, they had accomplished two stages of a Bill, which, however much they might differ in opinion, he believed would be looked upon throughout Scotland as a very important contribution to the welfare of the whole people of the country.

§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELL
said, he had great pleasure in joining with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) in having carried the Bill successfully through the House. At the same time, he desired, most emphatically, to protest against a remark of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson) in reference to Lord Balfour of Burleigh—namely, that he was out of sympathy with the people of Scotland both ecclesiastically and politically. He (Mr. J. A. Campbell) had the honour of knowing that Nobleman, and had the privilege of serving with him on the late Commission; and he wished to say that his hon. Friend was quite incorrect in saying that Lord Balfour was out of sympathy ecclesiastically with the people of Scotland. He believed in that respect he was emphatically in sympathy with the people of Scotland. As to his political relations, he could assure his hon. Friend, having sat with his Lordship on the late Commission, that politics had nothing whatever to do with the work of an Educational Commission. The late Commission was presided over by Lord Moncreiff, who was a decided politician, and they had as a Member of the Commission Lord Balfour, who was also a decided politician; and he could appeal to his Colleagues that, on that Commission, they heard and thought nothing of politics either of Church or State. With regard to Lord Balfour, it would, in his opinion, have been an extraordinary omission if he, being nominated on the Commission, had not been appointed Chairman, for he had experience which no other Member had, and an extensive knowledge of educational subjects, and a thorough and hearty interest in the object of the Bill.

547

MR. DICK-PEDDIE
, as one of those Members who had taken an active part in opposing certain provisions in this Bill, desired to say, before the Bill left the House, that he trusted that it would be carried out, not as it might be under its own provisions, but in the spirit of the speeches which had just been made by the Vice President of the Council and the Chairman of Committees. If it were so carried out, he had no doubt it would work well. He only regretted that the Bill itself did not embody the spirit of these speeches. Had it done so, he, for one, would have had no objection to make to it. He trusted the Commissioners would work it in the way which the Vice President and the Chairman of Committees had indicated as that in which they wished it to work, and that it would be found that the fears which it had excited would be disappointed. He wished to state what had chiefly influenced him in the part he had taken with reference to this Bill. He was a citizen of Edinburgh, and having for many years been engaged in a profession which brought him into close contact with the working classes of that city, he knew the great value which they attached to Heriot's Schools, and the benefits they had derived from them; and he looked with great jealousy on anything that seemed fitted in the slightest way to trench on the working of these schools for the public benefit. He hoped they would be dealt with in the way in which the Chairman of Committees had suggested, and in that case he, for one, would have no fault to find with the action of the Commissioners. If he had once or twice during the discussion on the Bill spoken with some warmth of the President of the Council, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not do so from any personal feeling, but only in consequence of his zeal in the interests of free elementary education.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Bill read the third time, and passed.