HC Deb 15 August 1882 vol 273 cc1859-75

Lords Amendment considered according to Order.

Lords Amendment, in page 3, line 5, after "endowments," insert "including the power of investing the funds thereof."


in calling attention to the Amendment, which provided that the scheme to be prepared by the Commissioners might include the power of investing the funds of educational endowments, asked whether the Amendment was intended to widen or to limit the power of the trustees in regard to investments? As far as he could observe, no such power was given in any English Endowed Schools Act, and he regarded the Amendment as unnecessary.


said, it was possible the Amendment might be unnecessary; but it was considered by a very able lawyer to be necessary. Its object really was to widen the power of the trustees. It was represented that the clause, as it stood, was doubtful as affecting many trusts in Scotland, and that it would be necessary to give these powers in order that the trusts might be turned to better account. With respect to this provision not being in the English Endowed Schools Act, that was quite true, because these funds were vested in the Charity Commissioners, and the Endowed School Commissioners had to appeal to the Charity Commissioners before they could obtain authority to invest the funds of a trust. There was no corresponding authority in Scotland, and it was, therefore, desirable that the Commissioners should have power to invest such funds.


said, the apprehension he and others had regarding the Amendment was that it not only gave power to extend the authority of Governing Bodies in investing money, but it also restricted the powers the Governing Bodies now had. The Governing Bodies in Scotland generally had invested their funds to the best advantage; but what they felt was that the Commissioners might decide that the Governing Bodies should cease to invest money in land. Had that been so originally, many trusts, instead of being now large, would have remained comparatively small. Heriot's Trust, for instance, was originally £23,000; and if it had not been invested in land, instead of being now £26,000 annually, it would have been a very moderate amount.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 3, line 7, leave out "and," and insert "or," agreed to.

Page 3, line 33, leave out "one-half," and insert "the existing proportion on the governing body of persons deriving their qualifications as aforesaid," the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Mundella.)


rose to object to the Amendment. He said, when this clause was introduced it contained distinct directions to the Commissioners as to the constitution of the new Governing Body. The original clause contained only two provisions as to representation. The first related to Governing Bodies, where representatives of popularly elected Bodies either constituted wholly the Go- verning Body, or were in the majority; and it was proposed, in cases of this kind, that the Governing Bodies should consist only of a majority who were popularly elected. The second provision was, that in cases where, at present, the popularly elected representatives were in the minority, the Commissioners, in constructing the new Governing Bodies, should only give such a proportion of popularly elected representatives as they might determine. On the part of a great many Scottish Members, who desired that this Bill should rather extend the principle of popular representation than restrict it, this clause gave great dissatisfaction, and the consequence was that before the second reading there were no less than eight Notices of objection to it. Between the introduction and the second reading, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council reconsidered the whole matter, and, on the Motion for the second reading, he announced, in a very full House of Scottish Members, that he was prepared to accede to their wishes to such an extent as he thought would amply satisfy them, and he then proceeded to explain the nature and extent of the concessions which, he said the Department were prepared to make. So generally satisfactory was the statement which he made as to the nature of the concessions, that none of the hostile Motions were pressed against the second reading of the Bill; and the attitude of the Scottish Members generally was very considerably modified. One of the concessions made was, that in cases where the existing Governing Body consisted wholly of popularly elected members, or where they were in a majority, it would be provided in the Bill that, in the future, on the new Governing Bodies they should be represented to the extent of two-thirds. But under the 2nd sub-section of the clause, the right hon. Gentleman provided that where, in existing Governing Bodies, there were less than a half of the Governors popularly elected, in the new Governing Bodies they would be raised into a majority. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No; not a majority.] They would not be less than half of the Governing Body. It was to that concession that they attached the very greatest importance, and now it had been taken away from them in the other House. The consequence of that would be seen when he stated that in 85 endowments the popularly elected representatives of the Town Councils constituted the whole Governing Bodies, and in 23 cases they constituted three-fourths of the Governing Bodies, so that in 108 cases out of a total of 190 nearly £60,000 annually were administered by Boards, composed either wholly or to the extent of three-fourths of popular representatives. Those Members who wished to extend or maintain popular representation on the Governing Bodies gave way in response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and consented to his proposal that in the new Governing Bodies in respect of these trusts only two-thirds of the members should be popularly elected. The effect of the Lords Amendment on the class of endowments whose Governing Bodies at present consisted of one-half, or less than one-half, of popular representatives would be that they would remain as they were originally in the Bill when it was introduced. In 21 endowments there was one-half of the members of the Governing Bodies popularly elected; but in 60 there was less than one-half so elected; and there were, he thought, 10 cases in which the Provost of the burgh was the sole popular representative on the Governing Body. The effect of the Lords Amendment would be to leave them precisely as they were; so that while on the one hand, in order to conciliate the right hon. Gentleman and facilitate the passing of the Bill, they had sacrificed in 108 cases popular representation, they had got nothing on the other hand if the Lords Amendment were accepted in favour of the principle of extending popular representation. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for that. The noble Lord who was in charge of the Bill in the other House (Lord Carling ford) said that, in accepting the Amendment of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon on the spur of the moment, he went somewhat beyond the intention of the Scottish Education Department, and the promises which were made in this House. Lord Rosebery stated that if it had not been for the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's absence, it would have been the duty of the Government to move the reintroduction of the original words on Report; but, as the noble Duke was not present, and as his Amendment had been accepted by the Government on the pre- vious day, it would be breaking faith with him if any Motion of that sort were made in their Lordships' House; but the consideration of the Amendment of the noble Duke must be left to be dealt with by the House of Commons, on the clear understanding that the Government had done nothing intentionally to frustrate the intentions expressed by the Government in the House of Commons. That was the situation of the matter. He (Mr. Henderson) completely absolved the right hon. Gentleman or anyone in this House of any intention to depart from the pledge made, and on which the Bill was allowed to go through all its stages with much greater ease than if the concession had not been made. At the same time, those who felt strongly on this point should not now be called upon to make the sacrifice simply because there was neglect somewhere in the Lords in insisting on what was done here. While he quite understood and appreciated the reason why Lord Rosebery did not move on Report to restore the original words, he thought the reason which the Government gave—the absence of the noble Duke—applied with ten-fold more force to the Vice President of the Council, who, on the second reading of the Bill, in the presence of nearly the whole of the Scottish Representatives in this House, gave them the assurance that this concession would be made, and that the whole force and authority of the Government would be devoted to carry it through. He thought, therefore, they had a right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would really, in justice to those who had left, stand to the concession he had made, and which so greatly facilitated the passage of the Bill through the House, and that he would accept the clear invitation which Lord Rosebery gave in "another place," and restore the original words. He moved that the House disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.


said, the hon. Member could not move, but could meet the Motion to agree with the Amendment with a negative.


said, he rose to support the hon. Member who had just spoken in his appeal to the Vice President of the Council. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for what had taken place in the House of Lords. He believed what took place there was entirely without the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge; but he thought they had a right to blame him if, after knowing what had taken place there, he did not restore the Bill as it was. He thought Lord Rosebery took a correct view of the position of matters in the speech he made, and it was a very great disappointment and surprise to him (Mr. Dick-Peddie) when it was moved by the right hon. Gentleman that the Lords Amendments should be accepted. He would remind the House that while the right hon. Gentleman made the concession on the second reading, he resisted both in Committee and on Report the attempts that were made to induce him to depart from the arrangement he had formerly made. Having stood by what he said then, why should he now depart from it? If the mistake were not irretrievable, why should he propose that that mistake should stand? It was on the ground of the concession that they withdrew a great part of their opposition to the Bill. He observed that the only reason given in the House of Lords for the change was that they should trust the Commission. But they should trust in local government. Was there to be no trust in that? He had as much confidence in the Governing Bodies as in any Royal Commission. He had no doubt they would do their best; but he had no less confidence in Governing Bodies composed of men representing local communities, and he should deprecate anything which would show on the part of the House, and especially of a Liberal Government, any distrust of local government of any kind. The Amendment was proposed in the House of Lords by a Tory Duke, and it was at once acceded to, which was not, he thought, very creditable to the Government. If the House of Lords had carried it by a majority, he should not say anything about it; but there was no vote upon it, and after what had been said by Lord Rosebery and Lord Carlingford, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand by what he had intended.


said, as he never approved of tying up the hands of the Commissioners in the way in which they were tied up by the clause as it left this House, he was very thankful to the Lords for having altered it; and when hon. Members spoke of this being a pledge on which they withdrew a great part of their opposition, it would be in the recollection of the House how far they did withdraw their opposition. It appeared to him that the course they took was to accept the concessions, and then to do their best to destroy the Bill.


said, he was one of those who had a Motion on the Paper against the second reading bearing on this particular point, and when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement on the second reading, he (M. Henderson) expressly stated that he was so satisfied with the concession on the point referred to, that he would not press his Motion.


accepted the explanation for the hon. Member himself; but he was alluding to the Party generally known as the Heriot Ring, who opposed the Bill in the most obstructive manner.[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He said the course they took was to accept the concessions, and then to do their best to destroy the Bill. Therefore, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman owed them a great deal on that point. But when they said they made such a sacrifice, he could not see it. They seemed to forget that the words "not less" were still in the Bill. It did not follow that the Commissioners could not make the number of elected members a great deal more than it was before. It was in the power of the Commissioners to do so, but it was not in their power to make them any less than the existing number. That, he thought, was abundant security. More than that would, he thought, spoil the Bill, and he hoped the House, having got the Bill improved by the Lords, would not from any foolish sentiment give way and reject his Amendment. But there was another reason he had to give. If the clause stood as it now was it would do absolute damage to some endowed institutions, and he should be obliged to move at the end of the section— Provided this sub-section shall not apply, where its application would, in the judgment of the Commissioners, be inconsistent with the intentions of the founder, or the purposes of the endowment. Supposing the House rejected the Lords Amendment, it would put the clause in a mischievous condition, and would require these words added to the subsection, in order to prevent injustice being done. He would agree with the Lords Amendment.


said, he must repudiate the statement that the Scotch Members were pushing their views beyond the most moderate bounds. They did not divide in Committee on the points in dispute; and by the course they had taken of discussing the principles to which they took objection, with the Speaker in the Chair instead of wrangling over details in Committee, he maintained that they had effected a saving in the total time occupied in the discussion of the measure. There was no doubt that the Bill, as altered by the Lords, had a very different effect from what it would have had under the concessions made by the Vice President of the Council. In regard to the provisions with respect to the proportion of elected members, the right hon. Gentleman had again and again, in the course of the discussion, dwelt upon the words "not less," and had pointed out that these provisions were a distinct step in the matter of popular representation. In Governing Bodies in which there were no elected representatives, as the Bill left this House, the new Body would require to have in it a third of that element; but in the Bill as it now stood it required no elected representatives whatever. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No, no!] Well, it was to be to such extent as the Commissioners should determine. The right hon. Gentleman had made a distinct bargain with the House. He had laid down certain concessions which he was willing to make. He had made these of his own accord without encountering any opposition, and he dwelt on these concessions at every recurrent stage of the Bill, when the matter was before the House. They were told that the Amendment had been made through inadvertence in the other House, and they had that not on mere hearsay, but from noble Lords representing the Government; and how, in the face of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and in the face of the admissions of Lord Rosebery and Lord Carlingford, the right hon. Gentleman could now consistently turn his back on his own promises, he could not conceive. He did not think it was worth while to divide; but, in any case, he wished to make a protest against that which appeared to him to be a lapse in consistency on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.


I very much regret that at the last stage of a Bill like this—a Bill which has come down from the Lords later than any Bill of this sort ever came down before—a Bill which is the largest and most liberal measure of this kind that ever was put upon the Statute Book — this opposition should have arisen. The Bill contains provisions which I feared the Lords would eliminate, and which I am thankful to say they have not eliminated; and on one of the strongest and most liberal measures ever passed, we are here engaged in what seems to be a squabble on a feeble and trivial Amendment. I say so, because this Bill has been passed with the consent of five-sixths or nine-tenths of the Scottish Members. Hon. Members have every right to oppose the Amendment; but I do not attach great importance to the change that has been made in the House of Lords. It is rather an improvement, I am bound to say. If it were not so, I should at this moment have moved that we disagree with the Lords Amendments. Will the House allow me just to state what has taken place, and then I will appeal to hon. Members whether I can do otherwise than move to agree with the Lords Amendments? I proposed that where the majority of the Governing Bodies derived their qualification from election, that majority should be two-thirds; that where the elected members were less than one-half, they should in future be not less than one-half; and that where there were none, there should be one-third; and in that state the Bill went up to the House of Lords. When I heard of the change made last Thursday night, I confess I felt that it was my duty at once, when this Bill came down, to move to disagree with the Lords Amendment. But when I got the printed Bill, I found that all of the words "one-half" and "one-third" had been taken out, and other words had been inserted, which left the substance and the spirit of the provision still in the Bill. I appeal to the House whether it is not so; and, being so, we feel it our duty to consider seriously whether, on the last day or two of the Session, we should run the risk of sending this Bill back to the Lords with the prospect of its coming back again too late to be dealt with, and whether on a mere verbal Amendment we should run the risk of imperiling the most important Bill, I say, of this Session. What are the facts? The Lords have inserted this—"That the Governing Body shall consist of not less than the existing proportion." The Commissioners cannot reduce the number of popularly elected members in a Governing Body; but they may increase it to any extent they please. Now, is it fair with a Commission for which every Scotch Member, I think, has thanked the Government, and which is fairly entitled to the confidence of Scotch Members—is it fair to assume that the Commission will not act in concurrence with the feelings and sentiments of their fellow-countrymen, and import a sufficient proportion of the representative element into these Governing Bodies? It is said there is nothing in favour of extending the principle of popular election. The very reverse is the case. In any case it will not be less than it is now. In the next clause, in regard to where there are no elected members on the Governing Body, a direct instruction is given to the Commissioners that there shall be some on the Governing Body. The clause says— Where the governing body of any educational endowment, as at present constituted, includes no persons deriving their qualification as members, either directly or indirectly, from their election to be members of the town council or any branch of any other public body, provision shall be made in any scheme under this Act relating to such endowment that the governing body, as altered by such scheme, shall consist to such extent as the Commissioners shall determine of persons elected. I appeal to any man whether there can be any doubt that the meaning of these words is—that every close body in Scotland must be opened up, and members of town council or school board introduced into it, unless they come under the operation of the latter portions of the clause? After all, this is a question of substance and spirit, and not merely words. My hon. Friends have acquitted me of any breach of faith in the matter. Knowing that this Bill was a sort of red flag in the eyes of some of the Scotch Members, I asked the Lord Privy Seal to divide upon it rather than accept any change; but the Lord Privy Seal said, in the first place, that he believed it was an improvement; and, in the second place, he said he knew they were going to be beaten, because the noble Lords who had spoken, both before and after him, were against him on the point. I say there is comparatively nothing in the change. I should have been thankful if my own words had been allowed to stand, because hon. Members would have been satisfied; but if I had introduced these words at first, they would have been accepted with avidity. I will tell you why. I hold in my hand the Bill with the Amendments introduced by my old Friend Mr. Duncan M'Laren. Here is his view. Speaking as the representative of Heriot's Trust, and on Behalf of Heriot's Trust, he says that— Where the governing body, or the majority of the governing body, of any educational endowment derive their qualification from election, it shall consist of the same proportion as now; that, in the second place, where there are more than one-half, or less than one-half, the scheme, as altered, shall consist of the same proportion. Now, in the present Bill, we say "not a less proportion." And Mr. M'Laren's third point is—that where there is no popular representation it shall be adequately provided for. We have done better than that. We say Clause 6, as amended by the Lords, is a more liberal provision for the Governing Bodies and a more absolute direction to the Commissioners than the clause as amended by Mr. M'Laren. It is a little hard that we should be charged with want of courage and with not keeping faith, because, on the last day but two of the Session, I do not move to disagree with these comparatively trifling Amendments. I do ask my hon. Friends to have some little faith in the Commission; and I say again that no man can look at this measure without being astonished that it should have passed the Lords at all. Such a Bill could not be passed in 1880, and it has passed in 1882. Its operation has been brought down to 1872; it has opened up the Governing Bodies; it has swept away all religious tests from teachers; it has given a number of advantages such as I only wish I could live to see passed in an English measure; and I do hope that, instead of this discussion degenerating into a squabble about a few words, we shall have some regard to the important educational measure which is before us.


said, that in the speech they had just listened to, the right hon. Gentleman had wandered somewhat wide of the Amendment which was before them. He did not wish to follow him into the general discussion in which he had indulged; but he would just deal with one small point which he had raised towards the end—namely, the comparison of the Bill as it now stood with the draft Bill drawn up by Mr. Duncan M'Laren. The right hon. Gentleman said Clause 6, as it stood, was a better clause than that drawn up by Mr. Duncan M'Laren; but let him remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had not accepted the 1st sub-section of Mr. Duncan M'Laren's clause, and that subsection was the most important and the widest in its scope. As this clause returned from the House of Lords, the protection of the representative element was limited to those Governing Bodies in which that element amounted to exactly one-half, and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson) had pointed out that there were only 51 such institutions in Scotland out of 189. The difference between the clause as it was sent up to the Lords, and as it returned to this House with the Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), was that, instead of making it compulsory on the Commissioners to have at least one-half of the new Governing Body elected from the Town Council and other public bodies—instead of that applying to 80, it now only applied to about 20; so that there was a very substantial difference. Everyone would regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen fit to follow the distinct statements of Lord Carlingford and Lord Rosebery. After those statements, he appealed, to the House whether it would not be well for the reputation of the Government for maintaining what he might really call good faith, that they should disagree with the Lords on this particular Amendment, so as to restore the clause to the state in which it was originally presented to them by the right hon. Gentleman, and in which it was sent up to the other House?


I hope I may be allowed to explain, with reference to the statements made by the noble Lords, that these speeches were made at my request to exonerate me from any charge of departing from the statement I had made.


said, it seemed to him perfectly clear that these were substantial Amendments, and made a very substantial change in the Bill. He did not wish to discuss the question on the merits; but he must express his surprise that in a matter of faith the Government had not felt themselves bound by the most emphatic declarations of their organs in the House of Lords to stand to their guns. Lord Rosebery represented the Government in the House of Lords, and nothing could be stronger than the words he had used. He understood the result of the present action of the Vice President of the Council was that he threw over the Representative of the Government in the House of Lords, and denied and repudiated his statement. What was of supreme importance in this matter was, that there should not be the slightest doubt on or reflection cast upon the faith of the Government in dealing with this Bill. Lord Rosebery might be wrong; but he (Sir George Campbell) did most emphatically say that in the course the Government were now taking they were repudiating the words of Lord Rosebery. But it seemed to him that Lord Rosebery was right, and that the Government should have stood to their guns. He admitted that though this was a substantial and important Amendment, it was not one of supreme importance. At the same time, he could not help thinking that if they had been Amendments in which the Government were supremely interested, they would not have been so much afraid of the House of Lords. They had bearded the House of Lords before now.


asked whether his hon. Friend wished to have a second Government crisis in connection with the conduct of the House of Lords on a matter which he admitted was not of very great importance, and on which he and his Friends did not represent anything like a majority of the Scotch Members? Many hon. Members wished to see this Bill become an Act this Session, and it should not be jeopardized by differences as to minor Amendments. The question was, whether they could trust the Commissioners in regard to the creation of the popular representation on the Boards? The Commission which had been appointed had given entire satisfaction in Scotland. It consisted of men of great weight in educational matters. He was as sorry as hon. Members that the Lords had altered the Bill in the form in which it was sent up to them; but these Amendments did not substantially alter the measure, because the Commissioners were not tied down. The words were "not less than before," and he believed the Commissioners would construe them in no narrow spirit. He appealed to hon. Members whether it was worth while to waste time over the point and jeopardize the existence of the Bill?


said, he hoped they would be able to settle this matter without going to a division. There were two points on which he should like the English Members to understand the position. The first was, that language had been used by some hon. Members as if the pledges given by the Government had been given to the whole of the Scottish Members, instead of to a minority of them. He thought it should be distinctly understood that these promises had been given to a minority—he thought he might say a small minority—of Scottish Members, who had for the last three years done much to keep this Bill back from discussion, by attempting to make bargains beforehand with the Education Department. It was in order to disarm the opposition of this minority that the Government, without sacrificing anything substantial, had been willing to depart a little from their own views of what was best. The opposition, however, from certain quarters was continued, and the adjournment of the House was moved by the son of Mr. Duncan M'Laren, who was the chief representative of the Heriot Hospital Trust. That attempt to throw out the Bill was not supported by one single Scottish Member. But, secondly, he wished to remind the House how small the point was between themselves and the Lords. It only amounted to this—that, having a Commission in whom great confidence was generally placed, there was a difference of opinion as to restrictions to be placed upon that Commission. It was not that the Lords proposed to put any further restriction on the Commission, but that they proposed to remove something of the restriction which the House of Commons had put upon the Commission. And how small was the difference! He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) made a mistake upon one point. He thought the hon. Member was wrong in saying that the 2nd sub-section related only to cases where the representative members were precisely one-half of the Governing Body. The hon. Member would find, if he looked at the Bill, that it applied to all cases where they did not exceed one-half. He appealed to the House whether what the Lords had done was not very equitable? On this point they said that where one-half, or less than one-half, of the Governing Body were elected by popular representation the Commissioners should have no power to go below that proportion. There was nothing to prevent their going beyond it. They might propose to make the whole Governing Body representative; but this sub-section would restrain them from diminishing by a single member the proportion between the elected part of the Governing Body and the rest of the Governing Body. He thought the House might gracefully yield the point to the Lords without a division.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 9: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 336.)

Lords Amendment, in page 4, lines 3 and 4, leave out "being not less than one third."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Mundella.)


said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, as it was evident the House was prepared to support the Government. The question was not whether the Amendment was important or not. The most important question was whether the Government would carry out their promise on the second reading of the Bill. He had been surprised to hear from two right hon. Gentlemen arguments to the effect that the pledge was of no great consequence, because it was not to a majority, but to a minority, and because the Amendments were of no great consequence. He thought a pledge was a pledge, whether it be given to a majority or minority. He was surprised to hear the Chairman of Committees talking of the great waste of time on this Bill. The second reading of the Bill only occupied two and a-half hours, the Committee stage 10 hours, and the Report about three hours. If no more time had been wasted on important Bills than that, there would not have been much to complain of. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had spoken of the "Heriot Ring." That remark might apply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh. [Mr. BUCHANAN: No, no!] It might also apply to himself as a citizen of Edinburgh, for the remark could certainly not have been applied to the other hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who said several things rather disrespectful of Heriot's Hospital, nor to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson). It came ill, he thought, from a Gentleman who had been engaged in correspondence with the Edinburgh papers, where he had been charged with being a bitter opponent of Heriot's Hospital. That charge had been denied; but it was well known that he had been as bitterly hostile to that endowment as any Gentleman could possibly be.[Cries of "Question!"] He did not intend to enter into the question of the importance of the Amendments. He thought it vain to say nothing was taken from the Bill in respect to popular representation on the Governing Bodies. He did not propose to divide the House, but he could not refrain from recording his protest against the manner in which some important matters had been met.


said, the hon. Member had charged him with hostility to Heriot's Hospital. He had no hostility to Heriot's Hospital; but he had great hostility to everything like jobbery and abuse, and so far as these existed in Heriot's Hospital he was opposed to them, and wished to see it improved.


said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow in being opposed to jobbery and abuses, wherever they might be found. He begged to disclaim what the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had said about his representing the "Heriot Ring." As for the "Heriot Ring," it only existed in the columns of The Scotsman.


said, if this Bill was essentially different from the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman introduced in 1880, they were indebted for its improvement and character, and for its being one of the most liberal educational measures that had passed the House, not so much to the right hon. Gentleman himself as to a small minority of Scottish Members who had steadfastly, since 1880, stood up for the principles to a large extent embodied in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.