COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 22 July 1882 vol 272 cc1340-479

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Mundella.)

DR. CAMERON,

in rising to move as an Amendment— That the abolition of free primary education is quite as undesirable as the endowment of secondary education is desirable, and that no Bill dealing- with Educational Endowments in Scotland can be deemed satisfactory which, while fettering- the discretion of Commissioners appointed under it as to' doles, representation, areas, and other points, leaves them power to appropriate to other uses the revenues of a class of free schools affording good elementary education to thousands of working-class children, said, he was sorry that the Amendment which he had felt it right to place on the Paper had ruffled the usual placidity of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker). That Amendment was directed to the enforcement of the rights of primary education. The hon. Member did not appear to sympathize with him in regard to primary education; but probably, by the time he had been another score of years in that House, he would so far have completed his primary education in Parliamentary tactics as to know that an hon. Member who had an objection to a Bill introduced by the Government, or anybody else, on an important question of principle, had a perfect right to put down an Amendment on going into Committee. By this Bill it was proposed to carry out certain reforms in connection with the educational endowments of Scotland, with which he was in thorough sympathy, and of which he heartily approved; but it appeared to him that the Bill was intended altogether to stamp out free primary education in Scotland. He took particular care, before putting down his Amendment, to ascertain that he really was not mistaken as to the intention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella); and having satisfied himself that the right hon. Gentleman was directly at variance with him on that point, then, and then only, he took this opportunity of bringing his views before the House. The Bill professedly went on the recommendations of the Colebrooke Commission, and proposed to appoint an Executive Commission to deal with the educational endowments of Scotland. But it departed from the recommendations of the Commission in numerous particulars. As originally introduced, it departed from them in most essential and important particulars; and now, after all the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice of his intention to introduce, it still departed from the recommendations of the Commission on which it was said to be based. It withheld from the Executive Committee powers which the Colebrooke Commission recommended should be given to it, and gave to the Executive Committee powers which the Colebrooke Commission did not propose to intrust to it. With a great deal that was good, it embodied a very considerable amount of what was bad and retrograde. The concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman had practically eliminated some of this; but they had by no means eliminated all that was bad — so much so that, in his opinion, if the Bill passed as it now stood, it would at a single stroke do such an amount of harm in one direction as would almost, if not completely, counteract the good that might be expected to result from it, at least so far as the class of the community was concerned in whose interest it was to be passed. The Colebrooke Commission reported that a large number of bursaries, amounting to £4,000 or £5,000 per annum, were worse than wasted, an yet these bursaries did not come within the scope of the present Commission, but were specially reserved. He was aware it was proposed to issue an Executive Commission to deal with Scottish Universities, but he submitted that to the Commission under this Bill the duty of dealing with educational endowments properly belonged. Again, the Colebrooke Commission recommended that the provisions for maintenance and clothing, when insignificant as compared with the educational endowments, should be dealt with by the executive body proposed. These were safeguarded under the present Bill. The Colebrooke Commission was dead against the retention of apprentice fees; but by the Bill they were safeguarded from the proposed Commission. But he was more concerned with the proposal to give to the Executive Commission powers that the Colebrooke Commission did not recommend should be given. The Colebrooke Commission was most careful to protect the rights of popular representation. It had recognized the importance, and, indeed, the necessity, of a certain proportion of local representation, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had given way so much on this all-important point justified the attitude he (Dr. Cameron) and others had taken in demanding and insisting on a discussion of the Bill. Popular representation was the only safeguard to the people of Scotland against a despotic bureaucracy, which had always shown itself careless of the opinion of the country whose educational matters it governed. He did not blame the Government for tying the hands of the Commissioners, so as to compel them to work on certain lines. At best it was the Commission that would Shape our ends, Bough hew them as we may. The Bill carried out, so far, the recommendations of the Colebrooke Commission that it proposed to appoint this Executive Committee, but it exempted from their discretion funds which that Commission thought might properly be appropriated to the purpose of secondary education, and it safeguarded funds which the Commission thought were being misapplied and wasted. Among the funds which the Colebrooke Commission thought might be better employed for promoting secondary education were funds for clothing, maintenance, and apprentice fees, and funds devoted to free primary education, and all except the last-named were safeguarded. The expectation on which the Colebrooke Commission based its Report, that the application of the Act of 1872 would reduce the cost of education, had been entirely falsified. Everyone, they were told, was now entitled to free elementary education, and to devote endowments to that purpose was only to save the rates. He could not admit that though endowments might save the rates, it constituted any argument for appropriating them to any purpose for which they were never intended. If that were so, it would hold good with refer- ence to charitable endowments, and the common good of burghs which went in aid of the rates. It was not a question hero of education, but of ability to pay fees. People must now send their children to school, and there was, therefore, much greater poverty among a certain class of persons whose children now attended the schools than there was formerly, and the need for assistance was greater than ever. They were told that fees could now be paid by the parish; but such a system was demoralizing in the highest degree, involving, as it had done, expense in litigation, degradation to parents in being brought into contact with the authorities for not sending their children to school, and a slur on them and the children when the fees were paid by the parish. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that, and had proposed a remedy, which would be an excellent one were there the smallest chance of its ever being practically adopted. The endowments for free education should be applied to meeting cases where parents were unable to pay; but those endowments the right hon. Gentleman proposed to sweep away for the benefit of middle-class education. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No, no!] The Commission reported that these primary endowments were a boon when instituted, and he submitted that they were much more a boon now. He contended simply for the status quo. He asked them to let things alone unless they could make out a case for changing them. He was a true Conservative in this matter, with a perfect desire to make any reforms so far as they were consistent with the maintenance of this important principle, but with the desire not to upset everything, but to maintain those vested rights for those who possessed them for many years. As an example, take the case of the Wallace Academy in Dumfriesshire. The founder left a sum of money as an educational endowment, to be employed in providing elementary and secondary education for the inhabitants of the district; and he made an express provision in his will that there should be no fees exacted, and that if a teacher should accept a fee he should ipso facto lose his post. Under the late Commission all that was upset. They did away with free education, and with the schools as free schools, and erected a boarding establishment, to which the inhabitants of certain districts were entitled to admission on the payment of £5 per annum. The effect of that reform was that farm labourers receiving 14s. a-week, whose children formerly received a good education free at this place, were now obliged to pay fees ranging up to 10d. a-week. There existed a system of free schools in Scot-laud, established under an Act of Parliament passed in 1836, for the purpose of giving effect to what was considered to be the desires of the founder of a most important educational endowment. He referred to Heriot's Free Schools, which were by far the most important centre of free education in Scotland. The Heriot endowment having outgrown its purpose, the Governing Body, nearly half-a-century ago, came to that House and asked for powers to apply the surplus funds in what they supposed to be in accordance with the wishes of the founder. They proposed to establish free schools, to give a good education free to the burgesses of Edinburgh. That system had been carried on for upwards of 40 years, a term which constituted prescription in Scotland, and he thought it was a very violent proceeding now to come to that House and say they would not respect that settlement, because, forsooth, it was not in accordance with the expressed instructions of the founder. It was not argued that the fees in connection with Heriot Free Schools were wasted or misapplied. On the contrary, some 5,000 children received free education there at an expense of £9,000 per annum. The education was conducted more economically than in the board schools, without any cost to the rates or to the State, and it was given to a class of persons who were entitled to the utmost consideration, the parent of the children so educated earning, on an average, 17s. 4d. a-week. The Colebrooke Commission reported that these schools enjoyed the reputation of being the best elementary schools in Edinburgh, and that statement was corroborated by the Assistant Commissioners. As a matter of fact, the average attendance at these schools was very much higher than any other schools in the country. So much was this the case that the Commissioners were obliged to explain that there was such a competition amongst parents to get their children into them that the Governors were able to insist on regular attendance as a condition of admittance. It was absurd to give a Hospital education costing £50 or £60 a-year to the children of working men; but it was quite a different thing to provide them with the sound elementary education provided in the case of these free schools. The Governing Body of Heriot's Hospital might, as was alleged, be corrupt—that was rather a strong word—wasteful, and injudicious; but he did not wish to interfere with any reforms that might be necessary in the constitution of that Body. He did not ask that the right hon. Gentleman should exclude it from the operation of the Commission. All he asked was, that the funds devoted to the maintenance of free elementary schools should be applied to the purpose to which they had been consecrated by an Act of Parliament, ratified by 40 years' prescription. It was said that Heriot's Free Schools did not earn the Government grant because they did not adopt a time-table or a Conscience Clause. He had no objection to their being made to earn the Government grant or to their usefulness as free schools being extended. All he objected to was their being deprived of their funds for the benefit of another class of education altogether. The Vice President of the Council deliberately refused to these free schools that protection which he afforded to the bursaries, the doles, the apprentice fees, and the charity swaddling clothes, and had drafted this Bill so as to enable the Heriot Free Schools to be stamped out and their funds appropriated to other purposes. If it were necessary, in order to foster secondary education in Edinburgh, that this £9,000 hitherto applied to Heriot's Free Schools should be appropriated, he should be content to allow it; but it was not necessary. There was no town in the Kingdom so well provided with secondary education as Edinburgh. He knew there was room for something more. There might, for instance, be a real-schule, as proposed by the Colebrooke Commission. They had, however, educational endowments in Edinburgh to the amount of £60,000 a-year. Let them carry out their reforms for middle-class education with middle-class money, and leave the money which was devoted to the free education of the working classes to continue to be employed in that way. The Commissioners said it had been given in evidence that the people did not want this secondary education. He had no sympathy with those who did not want it; but he thought those who wanted it should not procure it by appropriating all the money applied to free elementary education. If they stamped out these free schools, there would not be one child benefited by the secondary education so procured for every 10 children now benefited by the primary education given in these schools. The simple reason of this was, that the children of the poor had no time for secondary education. It was only the promising children of the middle class that could benefit by it. The Vice President of the Council proposed to draw a distinction between the will of the founder and the Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had remarked that it was certainly a new doctrine for Gentlemen sitting on the Radical Benches to maintain that an Act of Parliament could not undo what an Act of Parliament had done. He (Dr. Cameron) would be the last man to stand up for an evil thing merely because it was sanctioned by an Act of Parliament; but he thought it seemed very like a Parliamentary hypocrisy for a Government which was doing so much to overturn founders' wills now even to profess such a profound regard for founders' wills in this particular instance, and to repeal an Act of Parliament merely because it did not go exactly in the line laid down by Heriot's testament. The Vice President of the Council might find himself in a rather awkward fix as the Bill was drawn. The Bill constantly referred to the schemes having regard to the founder's intentions, and the phrase "founder's intentions" was repeated half-a-dozen times. Why, was the right hon. Gentleman aware that half-a-dozen of the most important schools in Edinburgh devoted to secondary education were devoted to that purpose under Act of Parliament, and in direct contravention of the wills of the founders? He referred the right hon. Gentleman to a letter which had been published in the Edinburgh newspapers by the late Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), in corroboration of his statement. Gillespie's Hospital, under Act of Parliament, had been diverted from its original monastic purpose, and made a secondary school; the same had been the case with Watson's Hospital, with Daniel Stewart's Hospital, and a number of others. Thousands of pupils were at present receiving education at those schools; but if the Commission wished to improve these schools, and formulate any scheme regarding them, they might find themselves dragged into the Court of Session, and the Court of Session, having regard to the words of the will and the founder's intentions, might give a very different interpretation to the scheme than that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have made up his mind that these free schools should be put an end to as free schools. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Not at all.] At all events, the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind that they should be handed over to the Commission. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No doubt.] Wherever he had thought it necessary to restrain the action of the Commission, he had inserted restraining words in the Bill; but he had here refused to insert any restraining words in the Bill. That showed what his intentions were; and as he himself appointed the Commissioners, it would be his own fault if his intentions were not carried out. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have cast his eye on these endowments very much as Ahab cast his eyes on the vineyard of Naboth, saying—"Give me thy vineyard, that I may make it a garden of herbs;" and he completely lost his temper when Edinburgh replied—"God forbid that I should sell thee the birthright of my fathers." The right hon. Gentleman might effect a very complete reform by taking the money spent on Heriot's Hospital itself; but he ought to leave the Free Schools alone. He had not the smallest hesitation in saying that these funds were only taken in order to set free some other funds to be employed for the advantage of a class at the very opposite end of the scale. He did not imagine that the Commissioners would take £9,000 a-year from free schools in order to instruct upper-class children in sculpture and painting; but they would work in the same way as the baker in the story, who managed to get up a first-class dinner for a large family out of a very small shoulder of mutton. He gave the very small shoulder he had bought for himself to the person who had sent him one a little larger to be cooked, and by adopting this plan throughout was able to secure the largest to himself. That was the way the Executive Commission might be expected to set to work in Edinburgh. There was at present ample money for the promotion of secondary education, and he protested against the right hon. Gentleman seizing this money, which had been excellently employed, according to every authority, for the benefit of a most deserving class, and the class which had a prescriptive right in it, and applying that money to quite another purpose, and a purpose which could be perfectly well carried out without touching those schools at all. So pernicious did he believe the stamping out of those free schools to be, if carried into effect, that certainly so far as Edinburgh was concerned, it would do more harm than good; and, therefore, he had felt it his duty to take the stand against the principle, and give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of publicly stating what his intentions were, and, if he had misrepresented him, to give him an opportunity of safeguarding these institutions in the Bill. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the abolition of free primary education is quite as undesirable as the endowment of secondary education is desirable, and that no Bill dealing with Educational Endowments in Scotland can he deemed satisfactory which, while fettering the discretion of Commissioners appointed under it as to doles, representation, areas, and other points, leaves them power to appropriate to other uses the revenues of a class of free schools affording good elementary education to thousands of working class children,"—(Dr. Cameron,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. BUCHANAN

said, that, after the exhaustive speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), he did not think he need detain the House very long. But he could not allow this stage of the Bill to pass without stating how largely the Bill in its present form would affect his constituents, and pointing out the bearing it had on their interests, and without entering his protest against what he conceived to be its injurious effects upon them. He could not for a moment allow that taking objection on the present occasion, and perhaps raising what might otherwise be described as a second-reading discussion, was in any sense to be termed Obstruction. He had endeavoured not to show any unreasonable opposition to this Bill; and yet if he were not to oppose it as it stood at present, were he not to protest against it, he thought he should be failing in the first duty which he owed to the constituency that had sent him there, because there was no disguising the fact that this Bill affected the City of Edinburgh, more particularly the Heriot Foundation in that City, more than any other city or any other foundation. He had been favoured that morning with an extract from a newspaper by some anonymous friend, in which the Amendments suggested by the right hon. Gentleman were described as containing the "virus of Heriotism." He did not know what that was. The object of the Bill was supposed to make endowments useful. They were all in favour of making these endowments useful; but some of them were strongly opposed to the principle of taking funds away from primary education and devoting them to secondary and vice versâ. They were not at all opposed to a Bill for the promotion of secondary education, and if the right hon. Gentleman brought forward such a Bill, he, for one, would give it his thorough support; but if they were to endeavour to encourage secondary education in Scotland, they should do so openly, and if they wore to build up this educational ladder, which they were told was the great object of the Education Department, they should pay for it out of their own pockets, and not out of the pockets of other people. But there was a slight change in the contemplation of the framers of the Bill as to the principle involved. They now said the principle of the Bill was to have due regard to the spirit of the founder's intentions, and, more particularly, in certain cases, to the founder's directions. He confessed he was rather surprised to hear on that side of the House that very great regard was to be paid to the founder's will, and still more to the letter of the founder's will. It seemed to him that the only way in which they could beneficially re-organize endowments in Scotland, or anywhere else, was to look at them one by one—to look at their present condition, see whether their funds were beneficially employed, and, if not, alter them so that they should be beneficially employed — [Mr. MUNDELLA: Hear, hear!]—and make the founder's will and the founder's directions entirely subservient to that. The other points which directly affected the case to which he alluded were the proposals of the Bill with regard to diminishing the open character of the Governing Bodies under the 6th clause and the question of free primary education. The 6th clause distinctly pointed to the diminution of the open character of those Governing Bodies, and was a distinct attack upon the past administration of those Bodies, which had been mainly in the hands of Town Councils. The Town Councils, as had been already said, had been in the great majority of cases the Governing Bodies of such institutions in Scotland. They had discharged their duties, he thought he was entitled to say, with general satisfaction to the people of Scotland; and he could not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow when he said they had been wasteful and injudicious in their management, especially in the case of Heriot's Hospital. The original capital of that Institution was £23,000, and the income of the Trust now amounted to £26,000 a-year. Heriot had not left any land in Edinburgh, and this result has been attained by judicious investment and management. Therefore, he held, the members of the Town Council had a fair claim to remain in preponderating numbers on the Governing Bodies. With reference to the bearing on this Bill on the question of free education, more particularly the very important free primary schools under the Heriot Foundation, these schools, as the House had already been told, were established by Act of Parliament in 1836, and from that time forward had steadily increased in numbers, and at the present moment, as the right hon. Gentleman himself allowed, they were among the best elementary schools in Scotland. They had a larger average attendance than the board schools, and a larger average than the average for Scotland at the present moment. Well, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his willingness to save free elementary education which came under the founder's directions. He asked him whether he intended by his Amendment to Clause 13 to include those schools? [Mr. MUNDELLA: Certainly not.] That, he was sorry to say, confirmed what he I had hesitated to say last Saturday— namely, that he was very much afraid, from the words in which the right hon. Gentleman concluded his Amendment, that his Amendment was illusory and a sham. He should now like to ask another question. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform, him of any endowment in Scotland which would come within the terms of that Amendment? If he intended that Amendment to he interpreted in a way which would ex-exclude Heriot's Free Schools, it would exclude almost every endowment for free education in Scotland, because the endowments of under £100 a-year were taken out of the operation of the Bill by Clause 32, while the larger endowments — the most important of all being Heriot's Hospital—the right hon. Gentleman had just told the House, were not meant to be included in his Amendment. They, therefore, had got to a very direct issue. They had got a distinct statement as to what was the purpose of that Amendment, and he was bound to state that he was exceedingly sorry that it should have been so. Last Saturday the right hon. Gentleman had stated, amongst other things, that Clause 13 was the basis for the maintenance of free education. The right hon. Gentleman's object was, he said, sufficiently to guard free education, and now, by his interpretation of his Amendment, he expressly excluded the only free education in Scotland that was worth preserving.

MR. MUNDELLA

Sir, I rise, not so much to answer the two speeches of my hon. Friends, as to make an appeal to the House. It seems to me, Sir, that, after the debate which took place last Saturday, this discussion, if not Obstruction in the minds and view of hon. Members who put these Notices on the Paper, is really obstructive of the real progress of this measure. The House has given us a Saturday to pass this Bill through Committee. The whole question which has been raised by the hon. Gentlemen was fully raised last Saturday and dealt with. No division was challenged on the principle of the Bill; and now to-day the whole question is raised afresh, when we have 13 pages of Amendments to go through, and when it is known that we are at the end of July, and any delay will imperil the existence of the Bill. If I answer very briefly the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, it is not from want of respect to the subject or to them. The hon. Member for Glasgow dealt with the desirability of continuing free primary education, and instanced a case to that effect.

DR. CAMERON

My sole object in choosing that case was to show the method of payment.

MR. MUNDELLA

Exactly; but the hon. Gentleman said that was the class of cases to which the endowments could he applied. The object of the hon. Gentleman is to apply the endowments of Scotland for the relief of the Poor Act. That is simply a relief of the taxpayer and the ratepayer, and depriving the public of the benefits and spirit of the founder's intention which it was intended to confer. The hon. Member for Glasgow says if the Bill passes as it now stands, it will do as much harm as good: and he all through implied, and indeed stated, that the Government had an animus against free schools and against the Heriot Trust. The Government has no such animus. If animus exits at all on the question, it exists solely in the mind and imagination of the hon. Member. This Bill has not been drawn with the view of dealing with the Heriot Trust in particular. There are more endowments than the Heriot Trust in Scotland. Yet we have heard nothing but Heriot for the last Session. We have heard a little too much about the Heriot Trust. Hon. Members seem to forget there are hills beyond the Pent-lands, and land beyond the Forth, and that the endowments of Scotland are not limited to this single endowment. The whole fight with respect to the Scotch Education Endowment Bill is whether you shall maintain free education for 5,000 children in Edinburgh. Is it worth while deliberately wasting the time of the House upon this question? What has the Heriot Trust to do? It educates 5,000 children at a; cost of about £10,000. Now, what are the average fees of the school board? They amount to 10s. per annum. So, for a cost of £2,500, the Heriot Trustees might send these same 5,000 children to the board schools of Edinburgh, and use the other £7,500 as a ladder to raise these children to the higher schools, and put them on the way of a better education than Heriot could afford to give. The hon. Member (Mr. Buchanan) has said no town in Scotland is so well off for middle-class education as Edinburgh. Yes, for the middle classes; but what education is there for the poorer classes in Edinburgh? That is the real effect of this endowment. We spend in Scotland about £1,000,000 a-year upon public elementary schools, and there are about £200,000 a-year for endowments. The whole object of a very few of the Scotch Members is to apply these endowments to save the rates and taxes, whereas this £200,000 might be so applied as to raise the whole character of the education of Scotland, giving to every poor but clever boy or girl a chance of rising to something bettor than they could otherwise attain, and enable them to be useful to themselves, to their parents, and to the State. The hon. Member has rather taunted me with having too much regard for the founder and the founder's will, and in doing so has used very strong language. He said it was something like Parliamentary hypocrisy to do this. I have always spoken of the spirit of the founder's intention, not the letter of the will. Instructions given 200 years ago are no longer applicable to the state of the country. Why was the Bill introduced which established Heriot's Schools 40 years ago but to adapt the uses of the endowment to the altered circumstances of the time? But if the circumstances of the time 40 years ago required alteration, a good many things have happened since then. We have passed the Education (Scotland) Act of 1872, and you find that Scotland, instead of occupying the foremost place in the education of Europe, as once she did, is now in a backward place with regard to secondary education. You have no means by which you can raise the character of Scotch education except by these endowments. I say, with respect to this measure, there is no measure by which the rights of the poorer classes are more completely safeguarded than this. This measure, if passed, will, four or five years hence, be considered by the working classes of Scotland as one of the greatest boons ever conferred upon their class. They will see the real advantage that will spring from it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) said if I will bring in a measure for secondary education, he would be willing to entertain it, and that the Scotch people would pay for it out of their own pockets. I do not see any proof of wanting to pay for it out of their own pockets when they want to appropriate the endowments of Scotland to save the pockets of the ratepayers. The object of the benefactors was in all cases to benefit the child in some way in which the child could not otherwise be benefited, in consequence of the limited means of its parents, or its peculiar circumstances in life. Now, how can you best carry out the spirit of the founder's intention but by giving the child something more than the rates provide? The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) spoke of the degradation of the working men having to receive relief from the Poor Law Board. Then why not introduce into the Scotch Education Act some provision such as is in the English Act, that school boards may remit fees, and thus get rid of the whole machinery of pauperism in Scotland? What is the answer of the hon. Member? That you would exempt Roman Catholics. I should like to know how many Roman Catholics there are in Scotland—[An hon. MEMBER: 200,000.]—who would be affected by this measure?

DR. CAMERON

I said the school boards would not have the power; and that there is a strong opposition from the Roman Catholics.

MR. MUNDELLA

If the school boards will not have the power of which the hon. Gentleman thoroughly approves, he must educate the school boards, and convince them of the necessity of it. If he wants to establish general free education—a question which I think is a very fair one to discuss—the very last thing to do is to touch endowments. By touching endowments you weaken your case. Free education, to be free, ought to be universal; it should not be partial. It should not be the educating free of 5,000 children alongside of 15,000 who have to pay, many of whom were less able to pay for their education than those receiving it for nothing. The best proof is, that the hon. Gentleman himself brought in a Bill for establishing free education in Scotland. What basis did he rest it upon? He said that education should no longer be maintained by rates and fees, but by rates only. The hon. Gentleman has only to convince the ratepayers on that point to gain his end. But to appropriate these endowments to save the pockets of the ratepayers would be an injustice to the class to whom they were left, an injustice to the country, and would simply be a relieving of the ratepayers and taxpayers from the duties which devolve upon them. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Alexander) said the other night that I flattered the Scotch Members on the previous Saturday by appealing to their characteristic common sense. At the risk of again being open to that charge, I must appeal to the Scotch Members— Are we going to waste the time of the House to-day when we have so much real Business to perform, on what, after all, is only an academic discussion, or whether they will allow us to go to the real Business of the day, and deal with these questions on the different clauses of the Bill? I do hope the hon. Gentle-man will withdraw his Motion, and allow us at once to go into Committee on the Bill.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Glasgow would not accept the advice of the right hon. Gentleman. There was nothing which more clearly showed the necessity of having a decision on this measure than the fallacious utterances to which they had listened. The assumptions which the right hon. Gentleman had dragged into this question were entirely unfounded. No man in the House took a greater interest in secondary or higher education than he (Mr. M'Laren) did; but what they failed to see in this Bill was a real bonâ fide intention to provide for secondary education. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman, possessed a more than usual knowledge upon this question, having devoted a long life to the consideration of educational matters, and there was no abler or more sincere friend of the cause they had at heart than the right hon. Gentleman. Then how did it happen that the Minister of Education—a Member of the strongest Government the country could ever expect to have—did not bring in a wide and comprehensive and statesmanlike measure for providing secondary education for Scotland? What did the right hon. Gentleman do? He brought in a Bill, to which he attached the greatest importance, which, so far as they could learn, was simply intended to appropriate certain endowments from the poor and apply them to a sort of half-and-half system of secondary education of which the House absolutely knew nothing. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had really surrendered his judgment and common sense to a clique of crotchet-mongers in Downing Street, whose names they did not know, and who only came forward behind the back of the right hon. Gentleman to try and get a Bill passed which he maintained was most distasteful to popular feeling in Scotland, and for what?—to save them the trouble of applying their minds to the question on a broad basis. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought, should really lend Scotch Members some assistance in preventing the Government, under this Bill, taking away the property of the poor. Such a measure, if applied to England, would never be sanctioned, because the English Representatives would have such pressure put upon them that the Government would have to withdraw it. For his own part, although he did not represent a Scotch constituency, he was a Scotchman, and he would be ready to support a measure for Scotland taking the same lines as the Elementary Education Act, enabling the Education Department to establish secondary education in all parts of the United Kingdom. He would be quite ready to tax the people for that purpose, having regard to the great benefits that would be conferred upon the country. But a proposal like that was very different from the present one, which contained clauses which were directed against institutions that already possessed the confidence of the Scotch people. The fact that a large number of Scotch Members supported this Bill, so far from justifying it, ought to make English Members regard it with suspicion. He was strongly inclined to believe that the support given to the Bill was really done in the hope that out of the general plunder they would be able to got a few pickings, so that their own constituencies might be able to establish secondary schools. In a matter of this kind the Scotch people ought to be left to manage their own affairs; but it was perfectly clear that under the Bill the management of their own affairs was to be taken from the Scotch people, through the action, too, of Scotch Representatives. The endowments at present were administered by Boards and Governors, who were in every sense of the word elected by the people. Although the right hon. Gentleman had sneered at Heriot's Trust being dragged into the discussion, it was managed in a most admirable way by the Town Council of Edinburgh. What was proposed was to take away the management of these funds from a body of gentlemen who were doing the work well, and give it to those of whom they knew nothing. To do so would be most unfair. The endowments of Scotland were found in every part of the country, and, if they could be managed well now, why should they put them in the hands of others? The right hon. Gentleman hoped the debate would not be continued. He hoped it would continue, not in any obstructive way, but so that the English and Scotch Members would really know what this Bill was about. When they did go into Committee he had a strong hope that pressure would be put upon the Government to make further concessions, and thus render the Bill what it really might be—a useful measure.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he could not help expressing surprise at the course this Bill had taken. He was in favour of preserving the funds for the education of the poor, and last Saturday he understood that the right hon. Gentleman conceded all that was desired in this respect, and he was sanguine that the Bill might become law. But, to his astonishment, the right hon. Gentleman to-day made a speech in which he did not say one word in favour of the preservation of these funds for primary education, but, instead, gave the strongest reasons why the money should be applied to secondary education; and, therefore, certain trusts, such as the Heriot Trust, were to be excluded. That being so, it seemed to him the situation was entirely changed.

MR. MUNDELLA

I did not say the Heriot Trust was excluded. I was asked if I would exclude that, and I stated it would be wrong to do so; but I believe, with free primary education, the Heriot Schools would be vastly improved.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had misunderstood the question, and he was glad to hear the remarks now made. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the number of children which might be educated by the Heriot Trust for the £10,000 which they now spent. The same could be said of the trust with which he was connected—the Pilch Trust in the Kirkcaldy Burghs, where they educated 600 children, for he believed if, instead of keeping up separate schools, they paid for the education of the children, they could educate 2,400. If he was to understand that the object of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was to takeaway those funds which were not directly applied in Edinburgh by the will of the founder, but by an Act of Parliament, he must vote with his hon. Friends the Member for Edinburgh and the Member for Glasgow in an attempt to preserve those funds.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he had no desire to intervene in the debate at any length, being wishful to see the House go into Committee on the Bill; but he rose merely for the purpose of making a correction. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) made a statement in regard to an Institution in Scotland, regarding which he happened to possess information. He had the honour of a seat on the Endowed Institutions Commission, and amongst the applications with which the Commissioners had to deal was one from Wallace Hall Academy, in Dumfriesshire. The hon. Member for Glasgow stated, regarding that academy, that the Commissioners had abolished free education, that they had made their Provisional Order so that a boarding establishment was erected, and that the institution was now imposing a fee of 8d. per week for the education of the child of the working man. He had to state that the Commissioners did not abolish free education. What they put a stop to was indiscriminate free education, and one of the reasons why they did so was that it was proved that the indiscriminate free education given previously was very little valued, as was shown by the fact that the average attendance of scholars, as compared with the number on the roll, had been for the four and a-half years before the subject came before the Commission, as low as 62.6 per cent. But while indiscriminate free education was put an end to, there was still to be free education for one-third of the scholars, such as were considered by the Governing Body to be suitable objects for that benefit. Regarding the fees, there had been no such fee as 8d. charged. That was the maximum fee which could be charged for the higher subjects; but the Governing Body had charged 6d. only, not 9d.; and the people of the parish belonging to the working class who had children at the school were not asked to pay any fee whatever for the higher subjects. Instead of erecting a boarding establishment, the Commissioners allowed boarders to the extent of a certain number to be accommodated in a boarding-house that had been built at the cost of a former teacher. Then, again, as to average attendance, the school was never better attended than at that moment; the average attendance, compared with the number on the roll, instead of being 62.6, was 84.9 per cent. At present, out of 44 children of the parish, studying the higher subjects, there were 30 belonging to the working classes. The Governing Body, while not imposing fees upon the children who were scholars before the Order was passed, had given an opportunity to parents voluntarily to pay fees, and the consequence was that for the present year there was paid voluntarily by pupils, who might have education free if they chose to ask it, £5 14s., while the fees paid compulsorily by others amounted to £12 12s. 6d., and the fees paid by children not belonging to the parish amounted to £63 15s. 9d. These fees were for the higher subjects only. This school was certainly not an illustration of any evil effects from the doing away with indiscriminate free education, and continuing free education under conditions that were favourable to stimulating the interest of the parents in their children's progress.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had made an appeal to Scotch Members not to delay the Bill getting into Committee. He should be very sorry to obstruct the Business of the House in any way; but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the debate last Saturday was compressed into two and a-half hours, and of that time the right hon. Gentleman occupied half-an-hour, so that Members were compelled to be very brief in their remarks. For his own part, he had stated at the time that he would reserve what he had to say on the Bill till the next stage, and he thought it rather hard that when they had reached that stage they should be requested to forego the only opportunity they had of discussing the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India stated the other night that a Saturday Sitting was the greatest infliction that could be imposed upon the House, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if it was a boon conferred upon Scotch Members to give them a Saturday Sitting. It was all very well for English Members to give Scotch Members a Saturday Sitting, from which they carefully absented themselves; and it was rather amusing, now that they were relegated to a Saturday, to find themselves asked to forego the only opportunity and the duty they had of stating fully their opinion of the important matters involved in this Bill. Members who had had Motions on the Paper had been taunted about not bringing them on last Saturday. This was rather unfair, seeing that they had refrained from doing so out of deference to the convenience of the House. There was not time last Saturday for discussion; and, besides, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council made very important concessions which satisfied hon. Members around him and himself; but these he had very materially altered by the statement he had made to-day. The right hon. Gentleman had shown himself today determined, as far as he could, to get quit of all the free primary schools in Scotland, and his argument was simply this—"Free education is good, but where it exists it ought to be abolished because it is not general." That was an argument which he thought the House would not accept. The right hon. Gentleman said that the discussion had turned almost exclusively on Heriot's Hospital; but who was to blame for that? It was not the Members who had advocated the cause of Heriot's Hospital, but the individual promoters of such a Bill as this, who had based almost their entire case for the Bill on the charge of corruption and maladministration in connection with the present management of Heriot's Hospital. That had made it a Heriot's Hospital question, and nothing else. Now, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) defended the administration of Heriot's Hospital. That Hospital had been administered in a manner that was an example to the whole country. He would not say, of course, there were not single instances in which children had got the benefits of that Trust who ought not to have enjoyed them; but he ventured to say there had been fewer cases of maladministration than in any other trust in the country, and certainly than in any such trust in England. Now, in defending the primary schools of the Heriot's Hospital, he did so not only on account of the advantages those schools conferred upon Edinburgh and the country, but also because these free schools were a testimony to the value of free education, and served to keep alive that principle in the country at this moment. That question had begun to take hold of the public mind, and was gradually making way; and it would be absurd in those who advocated the adoption of it by the nation to allow these chief examples of free education to be lost at the very time when they ought to be pressing the extending of the principle to the whole country. That, he thought, was a very sufficient ground for resisting any measure which seemed to threaten the existence of the Heriot Free Schools. With regard to the principle of representation in the Governing Bodies of the schools, he thought the Government had dealt in a very remarkable way with that principle. Two years ago they introduced a Bill into the House of Lords on the subject, in which they gave to a Commission power to alter to any extent the constitution of the Governing Body and to abolish the existing Governing Bodies. While doing that, they did not take the slightest precaution to see that in the new Governing Body there should be a single atom of the representative element. The Bill, which went into the House of Lords with power to abolish the Governing Bodies, came out with power to remove them. He supposed the House of Lords thought the word "abolish" too strong. Then, in 1881, another Bill was introduced, which did not give either the power to abolish or to remove the Governing Bodies, but gave power to alter the constitution so as to provide for adequate representation on the Governing Bodies of the representative element. This year the Bill was introduced extending the representative element. It proposed to give to boards in which a majority or more were representative members a majority at least, and to give in other boards in which less than a majority were representative such a number as the Commission might think proper; but for those in which there was no representative element it made no provision whatever. But last week the right hon. Gentleman made a concession for which he thanked him. He said, where a majority consisted of those representative members such as members of Town Councils, not less than two-thirds should be in the Governing Bodies; that where less than a-half were representative members, then a-half should be the new Governing Body; and that where the present Governing Body was not representative, one-third should be allowed. Now, these were important concessions; but they did not go far enough, and the principle he advocated in his Motion was this— that the proportion in any Governing Body which now existed should in no case be diminished. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, he observed, stated to a deputation that his reason for formerly refusing to introduce the representative element was that these public trusts did not administer funds received from the rates. That might be so; but even if it was, he questioned the soundness of the inference that there should be no representative element. Admitting that these funds were on a different footing from funds derived from the rates, why do away with the representative element, unless it could be shown that it worked badly, or that the principle was a wrong one? Now, public opinion in Scotland certainly showed that it had neither worked badly nor was wrong in principle. He found that of the founders of trusts in Scotland four-fifths had provided for the representative element in their trusts, and that out of 199 trusts in Scotland 107 had actually provided that two-thirds and upwards should be members of Town Council, and that only 92 had given less than two-thirds. In those two-thirds the annual funds to be administered amounted to £74,194, and in the 92 where less than two-thirds of the representative element existed, the funds to be administered were only £38,490. But he did not defend the retention of the condition of this representative element simply on the ground that the founders wished it to be so. He defended it on the ground which led these founders to adopt that principle themselves, and that was that representative men were most likely to be able men for such work, likely to be men of declared fidelity, being constantly under the public eye, and amenable to public opinion. That principle ought to hold still, for it was as sound now as ever it was. He did not wish to detain the House; but with respect to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that because these trusts were not constituted in regard to funds received from the public rates, but out of private endowments, therefore the representative ele- ment was not required—he maintained that while these endowments were rightly to be regarded as private property so long as they were administered by Governing Bodies created by private trusts, they ceased to be so the moment they wore dealt with by such legislation as proposed in this Bill. By such legislation they were dealt with and made public property, and brought into the same position as all other public property. Now, he was glad to find the Government recognized the value of this principle to a certain extent, because it could only be on that ground that they had agreed to introduce a certain representative element where at present there was none. But they limited the application of the principle, and he supposed they did so in deference to the founders' intentions. But, if so, why should the Government not defer to the founders' intentions by retaining the principle to the full extent to which it now existed? That he could not understand. The administration of the Heriot Hospital Trust was an incontestable proof that the Governing Bodies so composed were the very best for the purpose. He regretted very much indeed that the Government, in its dealing with this principle in the Bill, had shown such a grudging spirit in reference to the representative element. He did not see why it should be so. We had a Liberal Government, and he believed the Vice President of the Council was possessed of true Liberal principles. Why, therefore, did the right hon. Gentleman set himself against the principle of popular representation? His action had raised a great deal of bad feeling in Scotland and mistrust of this Liberal Government. ["No, no!"] He spoke from what he knew himself, and if hon. Gentlemen had a different experience they could state it; but, undoubtedly, so far as his knowledge went, he found that the action of the Government and the apparent hostility that they showed to the representative principle had had a very bad effect in the country. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, who had given some concession, would go further, and consent that where there were two-thirds representative members they should not be diminished.

MR. BRYCE

said, he would support the appeal that the House might now be allowed to go into Committee. He did so on the ground that the points raised could be more profitably discussed in Committee on the 13th and 15thclauses.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, that, having been a Member of the Endowed Schools' Committee of 1873, which reviewed the working of the Endowed Schools' Commission for England, and having in his mind a strong recollection of certain defects in the Act of 1889, he could not refrain from putting down an Amendment drawing attention to the want in this measure of a recognition of the representative principle in the Governing Bodies. In examining witnesses before that Committee nothing came out more clearly than the gross injustice and the immense mischief which came from the unsuccessful working of many of the schemes through the want of preponderating power in the representative body. His right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council was very proud of the change of position made, but he knew nothing that could more influence Ministers than opposition such as that which had been sot up to this Bill. The attempts that had been made in the Upper House to frame educational schemes for Scotland had been of a most inadequate character, and he admitted that his right hon. Friend had dealt with the question far in advance of the proposal originally made; but it was notoriously true that the Education Department, like other Departments, needed the influence of popular opinion, and, at times, an opposition to their own proposals, in order that their schemes might be worthy of the acceptance of the country. The opposition of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Edinburgh, and other towns had been characterized as Obstruction; but he might be permitted to say that there was occasionally such a thing as an attempt at smuggling in legislation, and nothing was truer in these matters than the old adage that sometimes there was a great deal more haste than speed. If he wanted any confirmation of that, he should have ample in the testimony of the Endowed Schools Commissioners of 1873, for they stated that the country was not prepared for the measure, which was literally hurried through Parliament without scarcely any examination, and nothing came out more clearly than the justice of the charge that the Endowed Schools Bill of 1869 was a skeleton Bill. The Commis- sioners of 1873, in their Report, stated that their own experience had convinced them that the country was badly prepared for its reception. In the desire to legislate there was a danger of Ministers hurrying on Bills for which the country was not prepared. He was bound to say that a discussion of two and a-half hours on a question of this character on a Saturday could hardly allow hon. Members a legitimate opportunity of opposing an Act which they thought, would end in comparative failure. He hoped that he had satisfied Scotch Members that he had not improperly intruded himself in this discussion. He sincerely trusted that the measure in Scotland would, as regards popular representation, be far in advance of the measure passed for England. Nothing was truer than that the Scotch people were so educated and so interested in education that the government of these schools was not in safe hands unless it was entirely trusted to them.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought that whatever hon. Members might do in voting, many would be of his opinion that the more explanations they got from the Government in regard to this Bill, the more unsatisfactory did it appear. The discussion to-day was entirely due to the evasive policy which the Vice President of the Council had pursued throughout in regard to this Bill. The Bill was introduced three years ago, and he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had opposed it, and was quite willing to bear the responsibility of having done so. In justification of the policy he had pursued, he might point to the improvements which had been made in the Bill. They had had various concessions in regard to popular representations, and also in other respects. If the right hon. Gentleman was disappointed at the present discussion, the speeches delivered must have made it clear to him that it was due to the character of the explanations that he himself made last week, and the misleading inferences which were drawn from the declarations which he then made. If the going into Committee were postponed to-day, it would be a very great advantage; because it was only now that the people of Scotland would begin to really understand what the object of the Government was in this Bill; and he was very confident that that object would not command the approval of the people of Scotland. He would not yield to the right hon. Gentleman or any Member in his desire for good secondary education in Scotland; but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman showed very clearly that he did not understand the social relations in Scotland, or the kind of education which was there given in what he called the primary or elementary schools. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had been educated at a parish school, and these parish schools really gave as good a secondary education as was given in many of the secondary schools in England. The sons and daughters of landed proprietors, and of farmers, and of paupers were educated there, and there was not that hard separation of classes which existed in England. Although the right hon. Gentleman referred to the free education of Heriot's Schools, there existed in those parish schools in the Eastern districts of Scotland a system of free education, which, from his own observation, he was able to say had done a great deal of good. The right hon. Gentleman did not understand the feeling of the people of Scotland against the receipt of parochial relief, even in cases of necessity, else he would not have made the speech that he did today. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take up two positions. He had said that the Bill was not opposed to free education. Quite so; and yet the right hon. Gentleman had objected to admit a clause which would preserve free education at Edinburgh, where, according to the Reports of the Government Commissioners, free education was thoroughly efficient. But, after considering the matter and the statement made on behalf of the Government, he had come to the conclusion that the Government had in view a certain object which they were afraid to declare in the Bill, and that they were going to have a Commission to accomplish that object. He hoped his hon. Friend would take a division upon this particular principle, not whether they were to have free education throughout Scotland, but whether the free education of deserving poor which now existed should be maintained or not. The right hon. Gentleman had impliedly declared himself against that policy, and he thought the people of Scotland should know that it was so. Another important principle in the Bill was that of representation. Were these endowments to be remitted in future to close Corporations or to public representative bodies? He must confess that he was unable to understand the position of a Liberal Government and a Radical Representative in pursuing the policy they had done in this respect. If the Government were in favour of a system of education which was generally favoured to the people of Scotland, would they not intrust that education to the Representatives of the people? It was incumbent on the Government to give some general indication who were to be the non-representative members of these bodies. They ought also to know something more what the intention of the Government was in respect to the secondary education which was to be promoted under this Bill. It had been already alluded to, and he thought there was very great reason to suspect that the intention was to promote the crotchets of some people in respect to secondary education, who had special views of their own, and whose views were not in accordance with those of the people of Scotland. For himself, he thought the Bill did not go far enough, and that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had very much hit the nail on the head when he said that the measure seemed to be somewhat premature. The people of Scotland, during the last three or four years, had had their attention more and more directed to this question, and, in his opinion, they were prepared to go very much further in dealing with those trusts than the Bill seemed to do. In fact, the Bill seemed to be drawn in a particular way so as to include certain particular trusts which the draftsman had specially in his eye. The attempt to apply the clauses of this Bill would, in his (Mr. J. W. Barclay's) opinion, be provocative of a great deal of litigation, and very great difficulty would be experienced in determining whether any particular trust came within the scope of the Bill or did not. He should have thought that in dealing with this question a Liberal Government would have taken a comprehensive view of the various educational and charitable trusts, and would have framed a general scheme which would have provided a good secondary education throughout Scotland. Secondary education was already, to a very large extent, provided in the parish schools, and he must confess he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that the education of Scotland had gone back in recent years.

MR. MUNDELLA

I did not say so. I said, that whereas Scotland was formerly at the head of Europe, other countries had made such advances, that Scotland was no longer at the head.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he believed that some other countries of Europe had gone in for free education, and he did not think that the appeal to other countries would favour very much the view the right hon. Gentleman took in respect to this Bill. He maintained that the education of Scotland during the last 10 years since the passing of the Education Act had made very great advances indeed, and the statistics of the Education Department supported that view. He thought that if a general scheme for the whole of Scotland were considered, there would be ample funds for providing the secondary education which it was desirable to have. He was entirely in favour of a very good elementary education, and for providing the means for deserving students reaching the highest education which could be provided in Scotland. A very large amount of means already existed. At the Aberdeen University, in the third or fourth year of the curriculum, about three-fourths of the whole students were provided with bursaries, and the people of Scotland were not in the starving position with regard to secondary education which the right hon. Gentleman supposed. There was a sufficiency of means without interfering with those funds devoted at the present time to the free education of the deserving poor. He hoped a division would be taken on two questions of principle: the first was, whether it was the opinion of the House that the free education of the deserving poor in Scotland should be extinguished; and, in the next place, whether these endowments were to be administered in the future by close Corporations or by popular representation.

Question put.

The House divided: — Ayes 89; Noes 19: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 292.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Interpretation of terms).

MR. A. GRANT

said, that, in his unavoidable absence, his hon. Friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) had asked him to take charge of the Amendment which stood in his name. The object of the Amendment was to provide that the property and funds, heritable and moveable, of the Society for Propagating Christian Know-lodge should be included within the scope of the Bill. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) was willing to include this society in the operation of the Bill, and that the directors of the society had said they had no objection whatever to come under the influence of the Commissioners. The Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge had long been a subject of contention amongst the people of Scotland. It was a very old institution, incorporated many years ago, and at the time of its incorporation it included within its beneficiaries most of the people of Scotland. Owing, however, to ecclesiastical changes of late years, the benefits of the endowments of the society had been very much limited; they were limited to members of the Established Church, and these, in the districts in which the society's efforts were devoted, formed a small proportion of the population. Upon looking at the Amendment, it seemed to him there was a little difficulty about the wording of it, but that the Amendment might easily be altered. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was to insert, after the word "mean," in page 1, line 26, "and include the property and funds, heritable and moveable, of the Society for Propagating Christian and;" but he (Mr. A. Grant) would suggest that the Amendment should take the form of an addition to the clause after the word "purposes," and should run—"and shall include the property and funds, heritable and moveable, of the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge."

THE CHAIRMAN

said, an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) came before this Amendment.

MR. WEBSTER

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after the word "purposes," in line 30— Except as hereinafter specified; and it shall include the property of the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge, so far as applicable or applied for educational purposes within (he meaning of this Act. The Amendment was very much to the same purpose as that now moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Leith. (Mr. A. Grant); but it included the point which he presumed his hon. Friend found his own Amendment was deficient in. He thought, however, that the Amendment which he had to propose would more properly come in on the Report stage of the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member move his first Amendment— namely, to leave out "dedicated to charitable uses and," in line 27?

MR. WEBSTER

said, he would propose this Amendment with the view of bringing the funds and property of the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge within the meaning of the Bill, so far as they were applicable to educational purposes.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, leave out "dedicated to charitable uses and."—(Mr. Webster.)

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

MR. ORR-EWING

IS the first Amendment withdrawn?

THE CHAIRMAN

It comes later.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it was necessary to retain the words "dedicated to charitable uses and," because they indicated the source from whence educational endowments came. He admitted it was of the utmost importance that the funds of the Society for the Propagating of Christian Knowledge, so far as they were applicable to educational purposes, should come within the scope of the Bill, and he was glad to find that the directors of the society were willing and anxious they should come within the scope of the Bill. But the Committee had to consider whether the words as they now stood would really include the funds of this society. He had been very anxious they should be included, and he was sure his hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate had done his best to bring them within the scope of the 1st clause in such a way as should not offend a proper sentiment on the part of the society against their being named in an invidious way in the clause. There was, after all, some doubt as to whether the society would be included in the Bill. In the first place, it would be a scandal if, after passing this measure, they were to have litigation by which possibly bad feeling would be created amongst the religious persons in the society, and the funds of the society wasted. What the Government proposed to do was this. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) had an Amendment upon the Paper which was very fairly applicable to this clause, but which should come in another place. He (Mr. Mundella) would suggest that in the miscellaneous clauses at the end of the Bill some such words as these should be inserted— The funds and property of the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge, so far as applicable or applied to educational purposes, shall be deemed to be an educational endowment within the meaning of this Act. That would meet the point in question. The only object in naming the society was that there should be no litigation hereafter. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. WEBSTER

said, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council for so frankly and readily conceding the point with regard to the express inclusion of the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge. With regard to the proposal to omit the words "dedicated to charitable uses and," let him just ask the attention of the Committee for a moment. If the Committee would look carefully at the clause they would find that the words "dedicated to charitable uses" governed and regulated the whole endowments which were to be brought within the scope of the Bill. It would be an essential condition, precedent to any endowment coming within the scope of the Bill, that it should be dedicated to charitable uses, and that, it seemed to him, would practically tend to defeat some of the objects of the Bill. It could not be properly said that all or many educational endowments were dedicated to charitable uses, and, therefore, it appeared to him that the retention of these words would entirely limit the application of the Bill. It must be the earnest wish of everyone connected with the endowments of Scotland that there should be no obstacle whatever introduced which would interfere with the usefulness of the Bill, but that the Bill should be made as practical as possible. The retention of the words "dedicated to charitable uses" would impair the usefulness of the Bill, It could not be said that such words appeared in any previous Acts of Parliament of a similar character. In the Act of 1878 no such words occurred, and in the English Act of 1869, upon the lines of which the present Bill was framed, no such words occurred. The words "dedicated to charitable uses" had no meaning in the law of Scotland, and, therefore, it appeared to him they ought not to appear in the Bill. If the words which he proposed to omit were omitted, the clause would then have an ordinary common-sense reading, thus— Educational endowment shall mean any property, heritable or moveable, which has been applied or is applicable in whole or in part, whether by the declared intention of the founder or the consent of the Governing Body, or by custom or otherwise, to educational purposes. His own conviction was that if the objectionable words were retained they would very likely occasion serious misconstruction in the Courts of Law.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it appeared to him that the words "dedicated to charitable uses" were requisite to define the quality which belonged to any charitable foundation or educational endowment to be dealt with by this Act. He took it the words were intended to mean that an endowment should possess the quality of having been given either by present, gift, or by testamentary bequest to charitable uses. If the words were omitted, the result would be that a very large number of things, which could not in any reasonable sense be educational endowments, would be brought in. For instance, if a particular society might vote £5 a-year to some educational purpose, there might be serious risk, without these precautionary words, of all the funds being held out to be an educational endowment. He thought, therefore, it was important to define what was the main quality, indeed the essential quality, of educational endowments.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he rose to support the Amendment, and he was sorry he was unable to follow the explanation the Lord Advocate had given of an educational endowment. In the clause "educational endowment" was defined to mean any property applicable in whole or in part, whether by the declared intention of the founder or the consent of the Governing Body, or by custom or otherwise, to educational pur- poses. Now, that seemed to him to cover very clearly and distinctly the very property with which the Bill proposed to deal. He did not see at all how the giving of £5 by any body for the purpose of education would come within the purposes of the Bill, except as to the £5 which bad been given. As he was very favourable to the extension of the Bill as far as possible, he was disposed to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Webster). It was exceedingly desirable that the language of the Bill should be as clear and as explicit as possible. If they failed in this respect, they would have a large amount of litigation, and instead of promoting the cause of education in Scotland, they would only promote the interests of the lawyers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would accept the Amendment to omit these qualifying words.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

proposed to insert, after "purposes," in line 30— But the words educational endowment shall not apply to a school maintained, or funds paid, out of an endowment which may, in the discretion of the governing body, he applied to other than educational purposes, but shall not include the funds, whether capital or revenue, of any incorporation or society contributed or paid by the members of such incorporation or society by way of entry moneys or other fixed or stated payments, nor to burgess fines paid to any such incorporation or corporate society. The object of the Amendment was a simple one. There were certain associations—corporate bodies or incorporations—which had funds derived from entry-moneys, fines, subscriptions, and other sources, and these associations occasionally devoted some portion of their funds to educational matters. He believed the intention of the right hon. Gentleman was not to interfere with funds of that nature. At the same time, there was some doubt expressed by members of such societies in some of the large towns, and also in some rural districts, and therefore he had put this Amendment on the Paper in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would clear up the doubt which existed. He hoped the Government would either accept the Amendment, or, in some way, make it apparent that there was no intention to deal with funds such as he had described.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 30, after "purposes," insert "but the words educational endowment shall not apply to a school maintained, or funds paid, out of an endowment which may, in the discretion of the governing body, be applied to other than educational purposes, but shall not include the funds, whether capital or revenue, of any incorporation, or society contributed or paid by the members of such incorporation or society by way of entry moneys, or other fixed or stated payments, nor to burgess fines paid to any such incorporation or corporate society."— (Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, the Government were quite prepared to accept the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

asked whether, if this Amendment were adopted, there could be any difficulty arising out of the inclusion by name of the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge? There were many societies in Scotland which received money by way of fines and the like, and which were, at the same time, charitable in the way of education.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that if the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge had not been expressly named, a difficulty would have arisen, because this Amendment would very likely have sent it outside the scope of the Bill. That was one of the considerations which led them to do what they were somewhat unwilling to do—include the society by name. In accepting the Amendment, he would suggest the addition of the words "except as hereinafter provided."

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, he quite understood the difficulty which existed in reference to the point the Lord Advocate had alluded to. He would consent to the insertion of the proposed words.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add "except as hereinafter provided."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, that very large accumulated funds connected with these societies, which were devoted by the members to educational purposes, would very properly come under the Bill. He did not see any reason why they should be exempted, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should be somewhat cautious in accepting this Amendment.

Question, "That the words 'except as hereinafter provided,' be added to the said proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, he desired to put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council [Mr. Mundella) whether it would not be advisable to introduce into this Amendment the words "unless with the consent of the managers or the Governing Body of such, society?"

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to add, at end, "unless with the consent of the managers or the Governing Body of such society."—(Mr. C. S. Parker.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, if his hon. Friend (Mr. C. S. Parker) would withdraw the proposal he had just submitted, he (Mr. Mundella) would bring up on the Report words providing that any Governing Body having funds at its disposal for educational purposes should be able to come under the clause.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, in that case, he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ORR-EWING

wished to point out that the funds the Committee were now dealing with were the funds belonging to the existing members of the different societies and institutions referred to, and not bequests left to any Governing Body. The money was contributed by the members of the particular society coining within the scope of the Amendment, and in many cases the funds were very large. The case was different, therefore, from that of dealing with bequests.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it was proposed to provide for making exceptions in such cases as had just been pointed out, unless where the particular societies or institutions themselves desired that their managers should come within the provisions of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendment made in page 2, line 3, at end, by inserting the words" 'Burgh' shall mean Royal or Parliamentary Burgh."

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 3 (Commencement of Act) agreed to.

Commissioners.

Clause 4 (Appointment of Commissioners).

MR. MUNDELLA moved to leave out in page 2, lines 82, 33, and 34, in order to insert the words— The Commissioners shall be paid, on scales to he approved by the Treasury, the personal and travelling expenses incurred by them on the business of the Commission. The Assistant Commissioners, officers, and clerks shall be paid, on scales to he approved by the Treasury, the personal and travelling expenses incurred by them when employed on the business of the Commission out of Edinburgh. This, he said, was simply a Treasury clause, and was merely verbal.

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

MR. HENDERSON

wished to ask when the names of the Commissioners would be given?

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he would name the Commissioners in the usual way at a future stage of the Bill.

MR. LEAMY

said, he believed that the aggregate sum of the endowments proposed to be dealt with by the Bill was very large. He understood that the funds of the societies that would come within the provision of the Bill amounted to something like £200,000. He had found this statement in The Times newspaper, and although he could not say whether the statement was accurate, there could be no doubt that the total amount was very considerable. Under these circumstances, he thought that the expenses of the Commissioners' secretary and officers might well be borne out of the funds of the societies themselves instead of out of moneys to be voted by Parliament. He did not intend to press this suggestion in the form of an Amendment; but, at the same time, he thought it right to call attention to the matter.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it was very refreshing to hear an Irish Member defending the Treasury in this way when everything connected with education was paid out of the Exchequer. He did not think it would be desirable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he had understood from a statement that had been made on a previous occasion that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take up the whole question of the mode of paying these expenses; and it appeared to him that to put a clause of this kind in the Bill was merely to put another obstacle in the way of settling the question in a way which he was sure many of his hon. Friends wished to see carried out as well as himself. There were a great many persons who desired to see these endowment made self-supporting, and he felt that the object was one which ought, if possible, to be carried out.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he hoped the Committee would not diverge in questions affecting the general management of Educational Charities on this clause. When the proper time arrived the whole question would be dealt with.

MR. BUCHANAN

asked if it was contemplated that the payment of salaries should apply to the Commissioners?

MR. MUNDELLA

replied, that the proposal did not apply to the Commissioners, only to the Assistant Commissioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. WARTON

said, it would be desirable, after the Amendment just made, to assert an Amendment, at the end of page 2. There were the words, "such travelling and other expenses," and as it would be as well to preserve the sense of the clause as amended, he would move that the words "personal and" be inserted before the word "travelling," in the last line of the page.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 39, after the word "such," insert "personal and."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that the word "such" made the words "travelling and other expenses" referential. He did not, how-over, object to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, after "travelling," leave out "and other."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Powers of Commissioners).

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he desired to amend the clause by inserting, in page 3, line 4, after the word "power," the words, "after such examination or pub-lie inquiry, as they think proper." This would make the clause read thus— Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained the Commissioners shall have power, after such examination or public inquiry as they think proper, to prepare drafts of schemes for the future government and management of educational endowments, and so forth. These words would have the effect of making it necessary and compulsory for the Commissioners to institute some sort of inquiry, while, at the same time, it would be a matter for their discretion how far the inquiry should go. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would accept the words suggested by this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 4, after "power," insert "after such examination or public inquiry, as they think proper."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, if his hon. Friend (Mr. Buchanan) would turn to the Amendments to Clause 20, he would find that he (Mr. Mundella) had put down an Amendment which was intended to provide for a public examination or inquiry.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, as Clause 20 was drafted, it was only provided that the Commissioners "may" make an examination or inquiry. By an Amendment, he proposed to insert in Clause 20 the word "shall" for "may," and if the right hon. Gentleman would accept that, along with his own Amendment, it would render the examination or inquiry compulsory.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he thought it would be found that the object of the Amendment would be met by that which he intended to propose to Clause 20.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, that what the hon. Member (Mr. Buchanan) desired to secure was that the inquiry should be compulsory.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it would be better to leave the matter until Clause 20.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. WERSTER

said, he should like to know, in order to save the time of the Committee, whether the Government were prepared to accept his Amendment, which was to insert, in page 3, line 7, after the word "endowments," the words, "including the removal of any religious tests or qualifications applicable to teachers." The insertion of those words would make the clause read thus— Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, the Commissioners shall have power to prepare drafts of schemes for the future government and management of educational endowments, including the removal of any religious tests or qualifications applicable to teachers. He should like to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on the point.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he was somewhat surprised at the proposal, especially when he considered the question of the teaching of Catholic children, and the provision necessary to be made for their teachers. Surely the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Webster) would not say he would remove the religious tests in a case like that?

MR. WEBSTER

said, he should be prepared to add the words "the religious tests or qualifications imposed on teachers by the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge." He had provided for the case pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) by an Amendment he had put on the Paper to Clause 8, and which would save any such difficulty as the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of with regard to the Roman Catholic endowments, or to any endowment given to any Church or religious denomination. But there was a special evil existing in the case of the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge, and he should be quite content to confine his Amendment to the case of that society.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, surely the hon. Member (Mr. Webster) could not ask the Committee to insert words which aimed only at removing tests in the case of one particular society, and thus excluding the Roman Catholics, the Free Church, and the other Churches that existed in Scotland. They could not say that in one single instance there should be no religious test, and that these tests should remain untouched in other cases, He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Webster) would not trouble the Committee to divide on this Amendment.

MR. WEBSTER

said, he was afraid he must press his original Amendment on the Committee. He did not think that the case of the Roman Catholics, or of any other Church, would at all alter the aspect of the question in regard to the particular instance to which he desired the Amendment to apply. In point of fact, he thought that by confining the Amendment to the case of the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge he should be able to make out the strongest possible case for the acceptance of his proposal by the Committee. It must be remembered that in regard to the special case of this society there was a decision, or decree, given by the Court of Session in 1846, which set forth— That the said society is, by its constitution, indissolubly connected with the Established Church of Scotland. That it is not lawful for the said society to appoint as teachers, catechists, or missionaries, or for the execution of any of the purposes of the society, any persons who do not belong to the Established Church of Scotland. He would say, at the outset, he did not in the least desire to press his Amendment on the Committee from any denominational point of view, and he frankly confessed that the application of the Bill did not extend to the religious or missionary purposes of the society. It applied simply to the teachers employed by the society. He would remind the Committee that the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge possessed the largest funds of any similar institution in Scotland. From the third Report of the Royal Commission on Endowed Schools and Hospitals in Scotland, of which Commission Sir Edward Cole-brooke was Chairman, in 1875, it appeared that— The largest fund in Scotland applicable to educational purposes generally—that is, without restriction to any particular institution or locality—is that of the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge. Their total property may he valued at about £200,000, accumulated since their incorporation in 1709. Their annual income is about £6,000. Except a few hundred pounds a-years appropriated by the donors to particular schools or churches, the whole of this revenue and capital is at the disposal of the society under the terms of their Letters Patent. Tinder the first Letters from Queen Anne" [in 1709] "the funds are applicable' towards the further promoting of Christian knowledge and the increase of piety and virtue within Scotland, especially in Highlands, islands, and remote corners thereof, where error and ignorance do mostly abound by reason of the largeness of parishes and scarcity of schools.' To this end power is given to erect and maintain schools to teach and read, especially the Holy Scriptures and other good and pious books; as, also, to teach writing, arithmetic, and such degree of knowledge, and to use such means for instructing the people in the Christian Reformed religion as may be competent. In 1738, by second Letters Patent, the society was empowered to cause such of the children as they should think fit to be instructed and bred up to husbandry, housewifery, or in trades and manufactures, or such like manual occupations as the society shall think proper. So that it would be seen that under the first Letters Patent, in 1709, the object of the society was school teaching in the Highlands, islands, and remote districts of Scotland; while, under the subsequent Letters Patent, obtained in 1738, the society was empowered to give industrial training, both being mainly, and almost exclusively, for the benefit of the Highlands, islands, and remote corners of Scotland, the industrial teaching in the case of the girls having been restricted to sewing. At the date of the Report from which he had just quoted, between £4,000 and £5,000 a-year was devoted to the education of children, and between £700 and £800 a-year to the religious teaching of adults. They had seen what had been adjudged by the decree of the Court of Session in 1846 respecting the teachers employed by the society, who were to belong to the Established Church of Scotland. He asked the Committee to consider what must necessarily be the effect and operation of that decision. He did not wish it to be supposed that he found any fault with the judgment itself; but its practical effect had been most disastrous. Shortly after 1843, it would be remembered, the whole of the population of the Highlands and islands of the Western part of Scotland, to which this particular endowment applied quitted the Established Church and had remained outside that Church ever since. During all this period they had, rightly or wrongly—but this was not a matter he desired to argue at that moment—refused to benefit at the hands of the teachers employed by the society. The effect had been that the funds of the society devoted to education had dwindled to a very low ebb; for, although the Commission of 1875 had reported that between £4,000 and £5,000 a-year was spent on the education of children since 1872, many of the schools had ceased altogether, until at the present moment, as he found by the last Report of the society, there were in 1882 only 28 male teachers in the Highlands, and 16 female teachers, and but six teachers employed by the society in the Western Islands. He would put one further instance. This society had an endowment that was specially applicable to the Island of St. Kilda, and the endowment, of which no part had been paid for the people since 1846, had accumulated since that period and must now be very large. The result would be that if such a state of things was allowed to continue owing to the operation of the religious test in the case of this society, there would be a useless waste of the funds that were intended for the employment of teachers in the Highlands and islands of Scotland and the remote corners thereof. It should be remembered that it was not in the power of the society to appoint teachers except such as belonged to the Established Church; and he considered that it was absolutely necessary in the case of this society that an express provision should be made under which the Commission should have power to remove the existing tests.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 7, after "endowments," insert "including the removal of any religious tests or qualifications applicable to teachers."— (Mr. Webster.)

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

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, he hoped the Government would accept these words, as he believed it was the general feeling among the Scotch Members that they should be inserted. It would be a very simple thing to put in the words without coupling them with the name of any one society, but rather keeping thorn as at first moved by the hon. Member.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he concurred in the views expressed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Webster; but the question was how were they to deal with the matter in a general clause? It would not do to have a general clause burdened with an individual exception; and, therefore, he thought it would not do to name any particular society in that clause. The matter would, perhaps, come more naturally in the clause in which this society was specially included, and he would suggest that they should postpone the discussion on this question until they came to that clause.

MR. JERNINGHAM

said, the Amendment as originally proposed by the hon. Member would be applicable to a great many persons in Scotland who would suffer from the introduction of such words; and he (Mr. Jerningham), as representing the Roman Catholics in this country, must enter a strong protest against the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had justly said they should legislate for all, and not for one particular class.

MR. ORR EWING

said, the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) wished to take advantage by this Bill to do damage to the Established Church. It was true that a great many Highlanders left the Church in 1843; but as time went on there were a good many who, to all appearance, were very anxious to return. This Bill provided that if the funds of a society were not properly managed the Commissioners would take good care that such changes were made as to insure that they should be managed properly. The grievance brought forward by the hon. Member (Mr. Webster) was not one of such a nature as to justify the acceptance of the Amendment he had proposed. It would be very invidious to mention only one society in the whole of Scotland, and would certainly be regarded as very injurious to the Roman Catholics; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would not yield to the request that the Amendment should be inserted.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) was somewhat uncharitable in imputing that the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) had been actuated by sectarian motives. The fact was that the only desire by which the hon. Member for Aberdeen was actuated was that the funds set apart for educational purposes in the Highlands should should be made available for those purposes. The feeling on this subject had been very strong ever since the decision of the Court of Session that none but teachers of the Established Church should teach in the schools referred to; and it was clearly wrong to allow a state of things that had the effect of neutralizing the benefits which might be obtained from the existing endowments. The object of the Amendment might, however, be met by inserting a clause at the end of the Bill.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, they ought to be very careful in not making it appear that trusts which were of a perfectly legitimate character were sectarian trusts. He quite sympathized with the objection of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) that there should no disqualification by reason of religious tests, but would ask him to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that he (Mr. Mundella) would bring up certain words on the Report with the view of meeting the case. He was unable to accept the words of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, but would himself bring up words that would give the Commissioners power to deal generally at their discretion with what would be deemed right in respect to this matter.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was of opinion that some provision ought to be made in the Bill to enable the Commissioners to remove religious tests. It was not so very long since the Scottish Universities were closed to those who would not submit to the religious tests then imposed; but since that time they had been able to get rid of all of them from the Universities, and there was a strong feeling in favour of their being removed in other quarters.

MR. WEBSTER

said, after the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRYCE

said, the Amendment he had placed on the Paper was that the words "uniting two or more existing governing bodies or" be inserted after the word "and," in line 9 of this clause. This Amendment had been put down wholly with a view of meeting a verbal difficulty in the construction of the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, after "and," insert "uniting two or more existing bodies or."—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, there was no objection to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, in page 3, line 12, to leave out from "where" to "public body," in line 15. This Amendment raised a very important principle—namely, whether these educational endowments should be administered by close corporations, or by representative bodies. He did not desire to enter into any long argument; but he would like the Government to declare what the object was which they had in view, and who were the special parties they wished should be nominated. He would not say that the administration of Town Councils was perfect; but it was better than the administration of close corporations. Heriot's Trust had been much discussed in connection with this Bill, and he thought the way in which those funds had been nursed by the Town Council was the strongest proof of the wise, and honest, and straightforward administration of these bodies that could be given. He could not see the object of the Government in giving the administration of these trusts to irresponsible bodies. His proposal was that the funds, being public funds, should be administered by Governors who were responsible to the public. He recognized the necessity of giving the new Commission very large and extensive powers; but they ought only to give such powers as wore necessary. The powers conferred on the Commission ought to be restricted. The people of Scotland had been entrusted with the management of the primary education; and he was at a loss to know why a Liberal Government should propose a close corporation in this particular case, which would not be responsible to the public, over which Parliament would have no control, and which could do as it liked with the funds.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out from "where" to "public body," in line 15, both inclusive.—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he thought he had made a very large concession last Saturday, and it was not necessary to discuss the whole question of Governing Bodies over again. These trusts, it must be remembered, were not derived from taxation, and he could not admit the electoral principle absolutely to the exclusion of any other. What had been done in this Bill had never been done in any other measure; and there never had been a more liberal provision for the representation of the people in a measure dealing with endowments than this Bill contained. Who were the Governing Body of Heriot's Trust? Three-fourths of the Town Council; and who were the other fourth?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

Ministers of the Established Church.

MR. MUNDELLA

Quite so; but surely if they got Town Councils, and school boards, and ministers, they might go to people outside to help the administration of the funds, especially in regard to technical and scientific instruction; men who were well acquainted with applied science, and who could give the best advice, both to the board and to the Town Council, as to the method of providing technical education. There was no provision necessary for allowing these persons to be appointed in their respective localities. Nothing had worked better in the English endowed school system than the fact that there were a certain number of gentlemen — some from the great Universities, some eminent in science—who took great pains to assist with their advice and experience the Governing Bodies in matters of this kind. Mr. Mark Firth had recently given a magnificent endowment to Sheffield; how was the Governing Body constituted? At its own request it contained a certain portion of the Town Council, a certain number of the school board, some gentlemen from the London University, Professor Roscoe, of Manchester, the President of Trinity College, Oxford, and a number of other gentlemen possessing special knowledge and ability to aid the elected members in forming the best scheme. The present Amendment was hardly a reward for the concession he made last Saturday.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had misrepresented the proposal he had placed before the Committee. He did not propose that three-fourths of the Governing Body should consist of members of the Town Council and school boards; but that the members should be elected by school boards or Town Councils, and he had drawn the Amendment precisely with the view of attaining the object the right hon. Gentleman indicated—namely, to enable school boards and Town Councils to bring in such gentlemen from outside as were specially qualified to aid the administration of these endowments. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain the method by which those gentlemen were to be introduced into the Governing Bodies? He thought the Committee were entitled to some explanation as to what the Government hoped to do, and how they hoped to accomplish their object. There should be added to the present Governing Bodies a certain number of men specially qualified in respect to education, to give advice and guidance to the Governing Bodies; and, at the same time, they should be indirectly under the influence of public opinion, so that the public might be satisfied that they were gentlemen who knew, and who understood and would pay attention to the education of the people. He was quite prepared to have the clause limited so as to provide that a certain proportion of members which the school boards and Town Councils elected should be outside those bodies. Having made that explanation, he thought the Government must have some special object in view in desiring to cast discredit on popular Representative Bodies; and it was quite true the Committee were not dealing with public rates, but they were dealing with public funds, and it was only because they were public funds that they were entitled to deal with them by a public measure.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he did not wish to repeat what he had already said as to the constitution of Governing Bodies; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had spoken rather with regard to the new sub-section which he would introduce than with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member. The contention of the hon. Member was that these Governing Bodies should consist mainly of representatives of public bodies. With regard to the other portion of the dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Barclay), as to men outside their own Body, he would give an instance as to the way in which such men had been elected. The Town Council of Edinburgh had the power, in regard to the Curatorial Board of the Edinburgh University, of electing four out of the seven members of the Board; and they had almost always elected at least one member who was not connected with the Town Council.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman had selected an unfortunate instance in support of his view. The Town Council of Edinburgh had the patronage of the University of Edinburgh up to a recent period, and the results of that patronage with regard to higher education proved the truth of the enlightened opinion of educationists throughout the world—that popular representation in matters of culture and art was not only unnecessary, but might be injurious. What was to be said as to the results of such a system could not be better said than in an article which appeared in The Edinburgh Review, in 1834, written by one of the most profound thinkers of this country. The article was written immediately after the revelations made on the subject of the management of the Edinburgh University. The writer said— It is melancholy that such a system should he tolerated in our country. The Edinburgh Town Council were, from their education and rank in society, wholly destitute of that information and intelligence which such patrons ought to possess; they were a collection of individuals, numerous, transitory, obscure. …. wholly incapable of an active exercise of their trust. …. The history of the University shows that the highest merit, and the public opinion of that merit, most emphatically pronounced, have never in a single instance prevailed, when a perverse influence has been adequately brought to boar on the electors. …. The most transcendent claims were of no avail against the merits of a municipal relationship. A large proportion of the electors were necessarily in dependent relations, and some hardly above the condition of paupers. They were thus wholly incapacitated from resisting the various sinister influences which assailed their integrity; and even direct bribery, which is known sometimes to have been tried, was probably not always unsuccessful. …. Indeed, it is only in a country far behind in all that regards the theory and practice of education that the notion of entrusting a body like a municipal magistracy with such a trust would not be treated with derision. …. and their continuance as patrons would seal the downfall of the University of Edinburgh. That fate had fortunately been averted by wise legislation; and he hoped the example in that case might be a warning to the Committee as to entrusting powers relating to education of the higher sort to public representation, when representation was not necessary for dealing with such questions.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, that up to the time referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) the Town Council of Edinburgh had been a close Corporation.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, that was perfectly true; but the writer (Sir William Hamilton), in the collected edition of his works, published in 1853, after the reform of the Town Council, repeated his regret that they still were unable satisfactorily to act as patrons of the University.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, that even as a close Corporation it had well managed the affairs of the Edinburgh University; and from the time when the Corporation had been reformed, the date at which the management had been taken out of the hands of the Town Council, the University had attained to its highest eminence, for it had certainly reached nothing higher since. The Amendment now before the Committee raised one of the most important principles in the Bill; and he thought the Committee would not object to devote some little time to the consideration of it. The principle was that of the representative element in the Governing Bodies. He would not occupy the time of the Committee repeating the arguments he had already used on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair; but would simply say that in dealing with Trusts in such a way as to imply that they were public funds, they ought to make full provision that the funds should be administered in the same way as other public property. The whole of the opposition to the representative element in the Governing Bodies was based on the state of matters as it existed in England, and because Englishmen seemed always to think that it was necessary to thrust every Scotch institution into an English mould. In the English Act provision had been made for the representative element in Governing Bodies such as was now asked for in the Scotch Bill; but then, in England, the endowments had almost all been close bodies, and in them even a limited introduction of the representative element was a decided improvement; whereas in Scotland, as he had already shown, 107 out of 199 Trusts had, under the founders' directions, had at least two-thirds of the Governing Bodies members of the Town Council; and, therefore, it was anything but a reform in them to make no more provision for the representative element than was proposed in this Bill. He again wished to ask why it was that the right hon. Gentleman, the Government, and those who educated the Government in this matter, whoever they might be, showed such a want of confidence in the representative element as to desire to reduce it where it had existed? The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the necessity of having scientific persons and educationists on the Trusts. He, too, thought that desirable, but not altogether necessary. Those Trusts, and the Edinburgh Trusts in particular, had hitherto admirably managed their endowments without any special knowledge of that kind, because they had, like sensible men, always taken advice on such matters from men having the necessary qualifications; and, acting on that advice, their management had hitherto been productive of the greatest good. He would not repeat what he had already said at a former stage of the Bill regarding the excellent management of the Heriot's Trust, beyond expressing the regret that so many Members had allowed themselves to be poisoned by statements that were almost calumnious in their character. He would like to remind the House that under the Bill the Commissions would have power to reduce the number of the Governing Bodies. The Colebrooke Commission had recommended that in no case should the Governing Body exceed 15; and if any such number as that were to be the limit of new Governing Bodies, they would only be required to select a number of the members of Town Councils; and if these bodies did not consist of persons having the qualifications which the right hon. Gentleman desiderated, still there were some men among them who possessed such qualifications, and, doubtless, they would be selected as the members of the new Governing Bodies. But, besides, it was extremely likely that the Town Councils would be permitted to elect men not members of the Town Council; and if that were so, they would be enabled to choose persons to represent them if there were none among their own number who had the qualifications upon which the right hon. Gentleman laid so much stress. Further, he would remind the Committee that the Governing Bodies would have very limited powers under the new schemes. It would be left to them to determine the proportion of any part of the funds. Their function would be simply to administer the schemes within the strict lines laid down by the Commissioners. To do that the chief qualifications wanted were not high attainments in educational or other sciences, but common sense, diligence, honesty of purpose, and, above all, a sense of responsibility to the public. That was the most important qualification of all; and where they had that to a large extent in a public Trust, that Trust could never go far wrong, as the weight of public opinion would be immediately brought to bear upon it. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Duke of Richmond, in introducing the Bill of 1879, distinctly stated that there had been no maladministration proved in the case of any Scotch endowment. It was admitted that they had all been well administered up till that time, and in that respect presented a striking contrast to the English endowments, in the case of which gross abuses had been shown to have extensively existed; yet it was proposed to apply to endowments in which there had been no abuses measures which had only been warranted in the case of England by the corrupt condition of things which had been utterly unknown in Scotland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make the concession to public opinion which was asked for by the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) had made an attack on the Town Council of Edinburgh with regard to their administration of patron-age in Edinburgh University; but he had taken his instances from an anonymous article published in the year 1834, when the Town Council was the closest of all close bodies, and consisted of only 32 members. It seemed to him (Mr. Buchanan) that the argument would rather tell against the close Governing Bodies that might be established under this Bill. His contention with regard to the Board of Curators was this. Previous to the University Act the patronage of the University was vested wholly in the Town Council. By that Act it was taken away from them to such an extent that they were left in a majority of four to three on the Board; and yet, in the exercise of their power to elect members outside of their own body, they had almost invariably elected at least one who was outside their own body, thereby renouncing their actual majority on the Board.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that they were dealing now with an Amendment directed solely to the preservation of the vested interests of that institution of which some hon. Members seemed so proud—Heriot's Hospital. It was intended, by this proposed Amendment, to tie up the hands of the Commissioners so that they should have no freedom of action at all. The clause, as it stood, did not prevent there being three-fourths in cases where the Commissioners were satisfied that that would be right\; but the Amendment was intended to insist that there should be two-thirds in every case whether there was any electoral principle at all just now or not. That he thought was going further than was absolutely necessary, or than was expedient; and he was in favour of leaving the matter pretty much as it stood at present. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had accused other hon. Gentlemen of making calumnious statements about that somewhat rotten institution—Heriot's Hospital.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

I said certain persons—not hon. Members.

MR. ANDERSON

said, of course, those certain persons who were not willing to give Heriot's Hospital all the concessions it had been so clamorous in asking for. He did not believe in Heriot's Hospital quite so much as the hon. Gentleman did, and did not believe it had been quite so well managed as the hon. Gentleman appeared to think. Was it a calumnious statement to say that in the year 1878 that institution spent £818 16s. 1d. in deputations to London? It was a charitable endowment, and that was the way in which the charity money was spent. There had been deputations up for ever so long this year, and, no doubt, next year's account would show an even larger expenditure upon them. Then they were also told that the schools educated 5,000 children, at four times the cost that ought to be incurred for the purpose, and that was another instance which led them to disbelieve in the admirable management of Heriot's Trust. They would like to see the institution placed under the surveillance of the Commissioners, in order that the Governing Body might, if necessary, be placed upon a better footing, and that abuses might be checked.

MR. A. GRANT

said, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was rather hard upon Heriot's Trust when he accused them of the maladministration of their funds, because of their deputations to London. The spending of the money seemed to him to rest really at the door of those who had been attempting to rob the citizens of Edinburgh of the funds which were left to them. [Mr. ANDERSON: Absurd.] How-over, he quite acknowledged that the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman were a great improvement on the former proposals, and even on those which were in the printed Bill; and if the right hon. Gentleman would only go a little further he might frame proposals which would meet with general acceptance. The weak point of the Bill seemed to him to be the want of sufficient protection for the interests of poor children, and he thought they might assume that where a founder had left the control of his endowment to representative trustees, they were the best guardians of the rights of the beneficiaries to whom the money was left. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would so alter his proposal as to provide that two-thirds or one-third, as the case might be, of the new Governing Bodies should be appointed by the former Governing Bodies under the original rusts, that was an arrangement which might be accepted. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman secured two-thirds of representative members; but he proceeded afterwards, in the latter part of the clause, to give power to the Commissioners to water down that two-thirds or one-third by the introduction at their dissolution of whatever school board members they might choose to appoint. But it must be remembered that the interests of the school board members might be very different from those of the beneficiaries under the trusts; and if the Commissioners chose to use their power, of introducing any number they liked of school board members, they might take away from the beneficiaries a very large sum which they would otherwise enjoy. In an Amendment which he (Mr. A. Grant) intended to move a little further down, he proposed to make it clear that these Town Councils or other public bodies might be allowed to select members of the new Governing Bodies outside themselves, and he thought that would be useful. Perhaps the clause provided for that at present, but it did not seem to him to be quite clear. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to that proposal.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he could not deviate from the concession he had already made. He had gone as far as he thought it right to go in fettering the action of the Commissioners, and he could not consent to go any further. So far as Heriot's Hospital was concerned, it must be remembered that this Bill was not for Heriot's Hospital alone, but for the general government of all these trusts. There had never been any Endowed School Bill which had fettered the action of the Commissioners in the appointment of the Governing Body—they had been governed entirely by their own good sense and discretion, and he believed that when the words "adequate provision" were put in, no Commissioners would think of omitting from the Governing Body a number of the representatives of Heriot's less than those who would now be omitted by this Bill. He believed the same thing would happen whether the words were put in or not, and it was not just or fair to lay down a rule that in all cases two-thirds of the Governing Body should derive their qualification from election. In some small trusts there were only five members—trusts, for instance, of £50 or £100. How could two-thirds of five derive their qualification from election?

DR. CAMERON

said, the indignation into which several hon. Members had lashed themselves about Heriot's Trust was perfect nonsense, so far as this Amendment was concerned, for whether it was carried or not the position of Heriot's Trust would remain precisely the same. The only question was, how far should they go? What had been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), against Governing Bodies being popularly elected, really applied to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to some of the most important Trusts in Scotland, quite as much as the proposal of his hon. Friend. The question was not as to election, for the principle of election was generally admitted—it was simply how far should they go? As to the impossibility of dividing five members into thirds, that could be easily remedied by converting the odd number into an even one.

MR. HENDERSON

said, this was a matter in which it was only reasonable that there should be difference of opinion. He thought the proposals of the Government were generally acceptable, and he hoped the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would not proceed to a division. He thought the concession made as to Governing Bodies on which there was no popular representation at all was a very valuable one, and that they ought to meet the Government on that point. He differed from what had been said by one hon. Member (Mr. A. Grant), with respect to school board members, for he thought that school board members had special qualifications for membership) of Governing Bodies; but he was dissatisfied with the way in which the existing school boards were elected, and he hoped the Government would turn their attention to this subject, and abolish the cumulative vote, which prevented school boards from being fairly representative of the wishes of a majority of the people. In almost every parish in Scotland those school boards, as now elected, represented some small sectarian interests; and he believed the school board elections had done more to foment sectarian feeling throughout Scotland than anything else.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he would support the appeal for the withdrawal of the Amendment, because the proposal of the Government was for a minimum—not less than two-thirds—so that, in certain cases, a much larger proportion might be given. It was impossible, of course, in a clause which referred to endowments generally, to legislate for particular cases; and, therefore, the decision was left to the Commissioners to give what proportion they pleased, so long as it was not less than two-thirds.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he thought they were almost bound as a matter of courtesy to accept the concession given; but he was afraid the concession was rendered valueless by the last part of the sub-section. They must look at the possibilities of the case. Suppose the Governing Body consisted of 24 members. Under the Government clause, 16 of them would have to be popularly elected; but there was no limit to the number who wore to come from the school board, so that there might be nine members of a school board, and only seven popularly elected.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 95; Noes 12: Majority 83.—(Div. List. No. 293.)

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, that, without taking up the time of the Committee, he wished to move his Amendment, the effect of which was to secure that in Governing Bodies, if there were more than two-thirds of the members with representative qualifications, then that proportion should remain. The right hon. Gentleman had said that under a new scheme the Commissioners would respect the existing proportion of members; but it was bettor, he thought, that the Amendment should be inserted, to insure that this should be done.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 18, after "that," leave out to "consist," inline 19, inclusive, and insert "the governing body shall consist in a not less proportion than in the present governing body."— (Mr. Dick-Peddic.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he hoped that after the remarks he had made the Com- mittee would not be called upon to discuss this further, and the last division showed that opinion was decidedly against it. He had gone as far as he possibly could, and he could not really accept the Amendment.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he would withdraw the Amendment, seeing that he had no hope of carrying it. It was sufficient that he had made his protest.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendment made, in page 3, line 18, by leaving out "a majority," and inserting "two-thirds."

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the clause as it now stood left it open to the Commissioners to entirely dispense with the services of Town Councils and other public bodies; but it was important to the administration of these trusts that they should be continued under such management. He did not wish to make any reflection upon the school boards of Scotland; but their financial administration had not been particularly successful. The administration of the funds of the trust was of the greatest importance; and now that it was provided that there should be not more than two-thirds as the proportion of representation, then he thought that provision should be made that the two-thirds should be members of the Town Council, leaving the remaining third to be the school board or others interested in education. With this object he proposed to leave out the words "persons elected by," so that the clause would read, "two-thirds shall consist of the Town Council."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, leave out, "persons elected by."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.')

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

said, he gathered that the intention of the Government was different from what he intended by his Amendment, for the words "persons elected by the Town Council" would not necessarily imply that they would be members of the Council. Believing it was desirable to put this beyond doubt, he suggested the addition of the words, in line 20,"from its own members."

Amendment proposed, in line 20, after "elected," insert "from its own members."—(Mr. Preston Bruce.)

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

MR. WARTON

rose to Order. The Committee had already agreed that "persons elected by" should stand part of the clause; and, therefore, they had got beyond the point where it was proposed to insert the words.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, pending the ruling on the point of Order, he would explain that the intention of the clause was not to restrict the selection of persons by the Town Council to members of their own body. It would be an advantage, he thought, to leave them free to choose their own members if they thought fit, or, on the other hand, they might take some or all from outside, if they cared to do so. The matter was left entirely open, and that was preferable to limiting the power as the Amendment suggested.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, it was an important point whether the Commission should have the power to compel the Town Council to elect from their own body, or whether the Town Council should have power to elect from their own number.

THE LOED ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, there would be no compulsion on the Town Council or other body to elect from their own number or from outside.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, it was not necessary for him to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, the object of which was to provide for the point just decided—that persons elected by the Town Council or other body need not necessarily be members of such body.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, the Amendment he had to move was the omission of the sub-section after "aforesaid." This raised the question whether members of a school board who were to form part of the new Governing Body were to be included in the two-thirds or not. He was by no means hostile to members of a school board being on the Governing Bodies of institutions for mixed or higher education; but he did object to their being put on as part of the concession they were supposed to have got towards the maintenance of representation on these now bodies. He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman, on introducing the Bill, said he hoped to make a satisfactory proposal with regard to the constitution of these new bodies; but it seemed to him that the second half of the sub-section really took away a great part of the value given by the first part, because, in introducing members of the school board as part of the representative element, the Government were combining together two principles which had been separately contended for. Some Members of the Committee had urged Amendments with the view of establishing a new Governing Body on the old lines; others, and especially the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), had contended for the principle of popular representation pure and simple; and these last were willing, he knew, that members of school boards should be included in the two-thirds majority. When he moved to strike out the reference to school board representation in these new bodies, it must be distinctly understood that he was very far from having an objection per se to school board members forming part of the new Governing Bodies; but everyone who knew anything of elections in the large towns know that school board elections were exceedingly unsatisfactory. Instead of individuals being elected because of their educational knowledge and the probability of their being able to discharge the duties attending the office in a satisfactory manner, they were often elected on sectarian grounds. Therefore, it seemed to him that by introduction of a large school board element on these new Governing Bodies a very dangerous sectarian element might be imported, an element which had not hitherto appeared on such Governing Bodies.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, after "aforesaid," leave out to end of sub-section.—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he hoped this Amendment would not be pressed. It was a plain direction to the Commissioners that they should, in a large number of trusts, put some members of school boards on the Governing Bodies. Whatever might be the method of school board elections, and however objectionable that method might be, there could be no doubt that the school boards of of Scotland did their work exceedingly well. They might be elected in a sectarian manner, on Independent, or Presbyterian, or on Free Church principles; but then he was afraid that a good many Members of the House of Commons were elected in the same way. But, however the candidates were elected, the school boards had done their work well; they were bodies especially charged with the duty of education, and to keep them off those Governing Bodies would be really to cast a slur on school boards. If two-thirds were made up of members of Town Councils, what room would be left for school board representation on the Governing Body?

DR. CAMERON

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division, for, of course, there was not the slightest chance of its being carried. And there was not much principle involved either, for the one body was popularly elected quite as much as the other.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, it was not correct to say that school boards were popularly elected, the fact was they wore not. So much were they affected by sectarian feeling that constituents would not take the trouble to vote — witness the last election in Edinburgh, where only 12,000 voted out of 24,000; If the men elected to the school board had a knowledge of education it would be something; but they had not, and he thought the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson) had stated the objections when he concluded by saying they were not fit members of a Governing Body, and he looked forward to the time when school boards would be got rid of. He trusted his hon. Friend would stand to his Amendment.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he had not the slightest intention of casting a slur upon school boards, and he thought he had carefully guarded himself against that. He should have thought that in the third that was left there was room for members of the school board, whom the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think would be unduly shut out. But considering the evident sense of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, he was not quite certain whether the words "public bodies" would or would not include "parochial boards." It was a fact that in Scotland at the present time "parochial boards" did pay a considerable sum, perhaps 15 per cent. towards education; and it did not seem unreasonable that they might be thought fit by the Commissioners, under special circumstances, to be appointed. If the words "public bodies" were allowed to include "parochial boards," then he would be satisfied; but, if not, then he hoped his Amendment would be accepted.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 23, after "boards" insert "and parochial board or parochial boards."—(Mr. Cochran- Patrick.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he could not accept the Amendment. Parochial Boards were ex-officio administrators of the Poor Law, and he had the very strongest objections to associating the machinery for dealing with pauperism with educational matters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MUNDELLA moved, in page 3, line 33, after "extent" to insert "not less than one-half."

MR. WARTON

asked, would the words exactly read? It seemed to him that the word "being" was necessary to the context—"being not less than one-half."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the hon. and learned Member was so successful in maintaining his points of phraseology that he scarcely liked to differ from him. Certainly, it did seem to him that the word should be added, and he would move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 33, after "extent," insert "being not less than one-half."—(Mr. Mundella.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA moved to insert a new sub-section to the clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, at end, insert as a new sub-section —"(3.) Where the governing body of any educational endowment as at present constituted includes no persons deriving their qualification as members thereof, either directly or indirectly, from their election to be members of the town council of any burgh or of any other public body, provision shall be made in any scheme under this Act relating to such endowment that the governing body thereof as altered by such scheme shall consist to such extent, not less than one third, as the Commissioners shall determine, of persons elected by such town council or school board or other public body as the Commissioners, having regard to the locality or localities interested in such endowment, shall determine."—(Mr. Mundella.)

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

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he was not favourable to the Amendment, and it appeared to him it would tie up the hands of the Commission. In most cases——

MR. WARTON

rose to Order. He moved that the word "being" be inserted in the proposed Amendment after the word "extent."

Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by inserting the word "being" between the words "extent" and"not."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question, "That the word 'being' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

resumed. In most cases it might be desirable there should be some representative element on the Governing Body of an endowment; but this Amendment would make it obligatory on the Commissioners to introduce the representative element to the extent of not less than one-third, where there might have been nothing of a representative element before. Now, there were many endowments which were, to a considerable extent, of a private nature, and where the Trustees or Governing Body had always been persons in an official position, who were so nominated by the founder, or so provided for in the founder's will, but not members of town councils, or school boards, or other public bodies in the way defined by the previous section. To make it in all cases imperative that so large a proportion of the new Governing Body as one-third should consist of such persons might in some cases be inconvenient. He could give an instance of a case that came before the late Commis- sioners, where the obligation to appoint members with these qualifications would have been exceedingly inconvenient. It was a Roman Catholic endowment, and it would have been out of the question to appoint Town Councillors or members of a school board to act with the other members of the Governing Body. He thought, in most cases, there would be no objection to have members of the school board; but what he objected to in the Amendment was the largo proportion of these which was prescribed. He should not be sorry if the Amendment were withdrawn, and the matter left entirely to the Commissioners; but if it was to be pressed, it was not, he thought, an unreasonable request to substitute the word "more" for "less," so that it should read, "not more than one-third, as the Commissioners may determine," &c.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed new sub-section, in line 7, leave out "less," and insert"more."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'less' stand part of the proposed new sub-section."

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way clear to withdraw this Subsection 3. He was aware that this was denominated one of those concessions that would be acceptable to the people of Scotland; but he did not think, if the matter were fully debated, and the views of Scotch Members considered rather than pressure from outside, there would have been so many of these concessions made. It was deeply to be regretted that when a Bill of this kind was brought forward, and when a Commission was to be appointed in whom considerable powers were to be vested, that the House should take on itself the power of the Commissioners, who would make inquiry, would go into the thing, and do what in their opinion they considered right. He hoped the sub-section would be withdrawn.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, there was a good deal of sense and sound argument in what had been advanced. When he put in this sub-section, certainly he and his advisers had not considered the importance of guarding the cases of such trusts as those to which the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) referred; but since he had looked into these trusts he had found that there were cases in which it would be very inconvenient to introduce the elective principle. For instance, such a case as a Roman Catholic Trust, where the sole object was the education of youth for the priesthood, it would be impossible to put members of these public bodies on the Governing Body of such a Trust, they being of other religious persuasions. He thought, therefore, he must accept the Amendment or make a special provision for such cases, and it would be best, perhaps, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow. Proper direction had been given to the Commissioners by pointing to the fact that it was intended the principle should be carried out, that not loss than one-third of elective representation should be put on the Governing Body; but they must have a certain power to deal with Roman Catholic Trusts, and other Trusts of a religious character.

MR. HENDERSON

said, he was quite aware that, as far as Members of the House were concerned, there was a strong feeling in favour of the Bill and against concession; but he did not know that many hon. Gentlemen had taken the opportunity of explaining the Bill and this provision to their constituents, and getting the opinion of their constituents upon the measure. He was sure the apathy of Scotch Members arose from the fact that the Bill had not been discussed in Scotland, except in two or three constituencies. As far as he was personally concerned, he had taken a very strong interest in this measure, and he had thought it to be his duty last October to call a meeting of his constituents, and to explain to them the provisions of the Bill and the course he intended to take with regard to it. Fully 3,000 of the electors attended the meeting, and he was happy to say that they expressed approval of the view he took and the Amendments he intended to propose. He rather thought that if all the Scotch Members had taken a similar course, the Committee would have found a much stronger feeling on the part of the people of Scotland against this provision than had appeared during the course of the discussion. In answer to the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot), he had stated that the feeling of Scotland was against this Amendment; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not minimize what had been called the concession on that ground. It had been stated that it would be necessary to deal with Roman Catholic endowments; but, as the right hon. Gentleman well knew, in Scotland there were Roman Catholics represented on the school boards, and there was nothing to hinder those representatives being elected to the Governing Bodies of endowments in which their communion was concerned. He (Mr. Henderson) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way on the clause he had submitted to the Committee; and he must say that the intention which the right hon. Gentleman had announced last Saturday had weighed with him in the course he had taken in regard to the clause.

MR. BRYCE

said, he hoped the Vice President of the Council would reconsider his decision as to adopting the Amendment. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find it an awkward acceptance to have made. He saw considerable difficulties in the way of persevering with the Amendment. How, for instance, would they find their Commissioners? In some cases they would it desirable to have a half or two-thirds elected; but what they were doing in the Amendment was to lay down a hard-and-fast line that there never should be more than one-third elected. He would suggest that, unexpected difficulties having presented themselves, the point should be relegated to the stage of Report, and that before that time the matter should be carefully considered.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

said, the sub-section, modified by the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. A. Campbell), would not make the clause satisfactory. There were many places where it might be exceedingly desirable to make the new Governing Body largely constituted of elected representatives; and to introduce this restriction, or to prevent more than one-third of such members being placed upon the Governing Body, would be a wrong thing to do. In the former division, when he voted against the proposal to have in all cases two-thirds, he did it, not with any feeling of dislike to Governing Bodies constituted in this way, but because of a feeling that, in laying down a hard-and-fast line to apply in every case, difficulties would be sure to arise, and the best Governing Bodies could not be formed in each case in reference to the characteristics of each, particular endowment.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he was extremely anxious to meet the wishes of the Committee, and, at the same time, to keep faith with them. That in the Governing Bodies of all public trusts there should be not less than one-third elected members was laid down in the concession he had made last Saturday; but he thought it must be obvious to every reasonable member of the Committee that there might be some exceptional cases, and that they must give some sort of margin. He would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. A. Campbell) to withdraw his Amendment, and allow his (Mr. Mundella's) Amendment to be introduced just as it stood; and, on Report, he would endeavour to bring up a Proviso at the end of the clause which would meet the case of Roman Catholics and other exceptional cases.

MR. WEBSTER

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that a Proviso intended to meet this case stood already in his (Mr. Webster's) name in connection with a subsequent clause-namely, Clause 48.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he should be content to leave the matter in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; and he would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, it was unfortunate to introduce sectarian questions in a matter of this kind. In the cases in which this Roman Catholic question arose, he did not think they were Trusts at all, because, when they had a great number of Trusts connected with religion, how were they going to apply the same principle? There might be considerable difference between the Established Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and between the Established Church and the Free Church, and the same principle would apply throughout. Were they going to carry the same principle into the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge, which was a sectarian Trust connected with the Established Church, or how did they propose to deal with it? But, as he had said, in dealing with educational endowments, he did not see why sectarian differences should be at all raised. The question applied not only to Roman Catholic endowments, but to a great many others.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he wished to move, in page 3, at end, to add the following sub-section:— Where the governing body of any educational endowment as at present constituted consists in part of persons deriving their qualification as members thereof from their holding certain public offices, provision shall be made in any scheme under this Act relating to such endowment that the governing body thereof as altered by such scheme shall consist to such extent as the Commissioners shall determine of persons holding the said public offices, but so that the proportion of such members of the governing body of such educational endowment shall not be greater than in the governing body as at present constituted. Having provided for the elected members, who were now upon Governing Bodies, he thought there should be similar regard paid to the claims of those who were not elected, but who were members of existing Governing Bodies, in virtue of holding certain public offices. He trusted that this proposal was not too late, and that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept it.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he trusted the Committee would not accept the Amendment. They must trust to the Commission to act fairly. He hoped that his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment would set a good example in this matter, and would act in a spirit of reliance upon the Commissioners, because, for his own part, he had no fear at all but that they would deal justly with the interests committed to their charge. He hoped the Committee would not endeavour to lay down in any clause of this Bill a provision of this nature. If they did so, the only effect would be to hamper the working of the Commission.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, he wished to move the following sub-section:— (4.) Members of governing bodies so chosen by town councils or other public bodies shall hold their appointments for five years, and may then be re-elected. There was nothing in this clause to determine the period during which members of Governing Bodies should hold office. If the matter were left to the Commissioners, they might so arrange things as to render the persons elected permanent members of the Board; but he thought the period of three years, which was the term for which Town Councils and school boards were elected, and which would in many cases operate on the constitution of Governing Bodies, was too short for the proper management of trusts. He had a great hope that Section 7 of this Bill would be largely operative in regard to secular and higher education. Some members of deputations who had waited on him in London had pointed out to him that there was a fooling in Scotland that the period of three years was too short for even primary education. The elections would be too frequent, and he thought, therefore, that the suggestion he now made that the period should be for five years, with eligibility for re-election, was worth considering.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, at end, add the following subsection:—"(4.) Members of governing bodies so chosen by town councils or other public bodies shall hold their appointments for five years, and may then be re-elected."—[Mr. Williamson.]

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. HENDERSON

said, he sympathized with the hon. Member in putting down this Amendment, because it was evidently sought to prevent persons having a life tenure in their office, and also against their being removed too soon. No doubt there should be some sufficient time fixed, so as to secure that the members of the board would be able to make themselves familiar with the duties they would have to perform. He had had a pretty large experience of Town Councils and school boards, and he knew something of the manner in which those bodies were constituted. The members of a new Governing Body would have to be elected in the same way as the school boards—that was to say, that although the machinery of popular representation was not resorted to, the Town Councils or the school boards would have to select the persons to represent them. Well, his experience of the manner in which these boards were constituted was, that if a term of service was fixed, an impression was created that the persons elected were only to serve for that term. If they were to provide that a member should be appointed for three years or five years, the impression was at once created that when he had served for three years or five years, he had filled the office for all the time it was intended he should serve, and that he should then give place to someone else. Thus he was afraid they would not secure the continuity of service that was desirable. He did not say that it was the intention of the hon. Member to create the impression that these persons should only be appointed for a certain period, but that that would be the effect of the Amendment on a Town Council or a school board. In the case of a Free Library with which he was connected in Dundee for many years, the Town Council had elected one-half of the board of management from themselves, and one-half from the residenters outside their own body. This was done annually by every new Town Council; and it had been found that in this way continuity was practically secured. Those who were familiar with the duties were retained, and the result was much more satisfactory than if a certain period of years was fixed; unless there was any particular object to a member of the body they were all continued in their office as a matter of course. He wished to point out to the Committee another disadvantage in adopting this Motion. A Town Council would, in the first instance, appoint one of its members whose period of office might expire in one year, so they might have members of the board who were not representative; and what a great many of the Scotch Members had been fighting for was to secure the popular element on the Governing Boards. They wished men to be sensitive to public opinion outside; and that could not be secured unless the elections took place frequently—and, as he had said before, they would certainly encounter great opposition if they proposed to secure a man for some four years as a member of the Governing Body after he had ceased to be a member of the body that had appointed him to the board. He thought it of great importance that the election should be an annual one; and, as he had already pointed out, as far as his experience went, the effect of that would be to secure continuity of service, which would be destroyed if the Amendment were adopted. He would move an Amendment to that of his hon. Friend to secure that the election should take place annually.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "shall," and insert the words "be elected annually."—(Mr. Henderson.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

thought it would be much better to leave the bodies to fix their own period—it would be much better not to lay down any hard-and-fast line in the Bill. No doubt, there should be some continuity, and persons should not be turned out of office when they had got warmed to their work, so to speak; but he thought that question might be left to the good sense of the Town Councils and school boards. He hoped the Amendment would not be passed.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, it was not stated in the clause how long members were to be in office. It was merely stated that they were to be elected by Town Councils and school boards; and he thought it should be clearly expressed in the Bill that the election should be from year to year.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, he did not think it was necessary to make any such provision. It would be better to leave it to the Commissioners to deal with individual cases as they thought proper, and not to tie their hands in such matters of detail.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he begged to move, in page 3, the insertion of the following Sub-section:— Persons elected by a presbytery, kirk session, or other ecclesiastical body recognised by law, shall be deemed to be elected by a public body for the purpose of determining the proportion of the governing body to be elected in future, but shall not in any future reconstruction of the governing body rank as elected members. This was an Amendment which looked at first sight somewhat formidable, but, as a matter of fact, it was only explanatory in order to ascertain what, according to the proper construction of the Act, was a proper body. If he could obtain a sufficient explanation on this matter, so that there would not in future be unnecessary litigation about it, he would not press his Amendment. The difficulty arose in this way. A particular case was suggested to him by his constituents—namely, that in an important Trust in Kirkcaldy, the Governors of which consisted of 15 members, seven elected by the Town Council, three by the Kirk Session, two by the Presbytery, and two only being nominated members, it became a question whether either the members elected by the Kirk Session or by the Presbytery were members who derived the qualification from election by public bodies. There was no doubt that both these bodies were elected. When these Trusts were instituted, more than 40 years ago, there was no doubt that Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions were, to a certain extent, elected bodies, because the Church was then the general Church of Scotland. He wanted simply to know whether, for the purposes of this section, a Kirk Session and a Presbytery were either of them public bodies? It seemed to him that in regard to the past they should be public bodies; but in future, now that the Disruption had taken place, and there had been various changes in the ecclesiastical condition of Scotland, he thought that they should not be considered public bodies.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, at end, add the following Sub-section:—"Persons elected by a presbytery, kirk session, or other ecclesiastical body recognised by law, shall be deemed to be elected by a public body for the purpose of determining the proportion of the governing body to be elected in future, but shall not in any future reconstruction of the governing body rank as elected members."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he could not accept the Amendment. The bodies to which the hon. Baronet referred were not public bodies in the sense of Clause 6 in the Bill, because his hon. Friend would see the description there of the persons was that they should derive their qualification from their election to be members of any Town Council of any burgh, any school board, or any public body, and these public bodies, according to the conception of Clause 6, were bodies constituted of elected members—he thought consisting entirely of elected members, though it was not so expressed. But that was not the case with any of the ecclesiastical bodies to which the hon. Baronet referred. The minister was an ex officio member of these bodies—the very fact of a person being minister of a church made him a member of the Presbytery, and the meaning of Section 6 could not cover such an individual. There was this further objection—there was an objection to the proposal first to admit these bodies for the purpose of ascertaining the proportion in future, and then to annihilate them as public bodies. The fair way to deal with them, if they were to be created bodies for the purpose of making the proportion, was to keep them up as public bodies in the future. That would enable them to keep up their representatives on the Board.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he was not quite clear in his own mind whether these Presbyteries were not in reality public bodies—he was not sure that all persons belonging to them were not elected. ["No, no!"] Well, it was said the ministers were not elected; but surely they were elected to their churches, and that election should be taken into consideration if they became ex officio members of a certain body.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that a great many ministers, as the hon. Member must be aware, were appointed by patents.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, if there was any probability of these bodies being understood to be included as public bodies—and he gathered that the hon. Baronet did not wish them to be included as public bodies—something should be introduced to show that they were not so included.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that until he had seen the Amendment on the Paper it had never occurred to him that they would be included, and he did not think they were. In the case of existing Church ministers, they were certainly not elected as members of the Presbyteries. It was true they were elected to the churches, and having become Church ministers, they became members of the Presbyteries; but there could not be a more circuitous method of arriving at the fact that these gentlemen were elected members of the Presbytery.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, his constituents thought it as well that he should bring this matter forward; but if the Lord Advocate would undertake to consider the matter before Report, and settle whether Kirk Sessions and Presbyteries were public bodies or not, he should be perfectly content to withdraw his Amendment. All he wished to do was to make the matter clear. His view was that before the Disruption they were public bodies.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, he hoped the Government would not trouble themselves to consider this matter any further, and that the Amendment would not be accepted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 (Scope of Commission).

MR. BRYCE

said, he begged to propose an Amendment to provide that the Commissioners should, in re-organizing endowments, have special regard to technical as well as secondary or higher education.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, after "higher," insert "or technical."—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he did not object to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

DR. CAMERON (for Mr. RAMSAY) moved an Amendment, with the object of securing a class of teachers who would be capable of giving the pupils in schools in country districts instruction in the higher branches of education.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, after "higher education," insert "in public schools, or otherwise."—(Dr. Cameron.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

There can be no objection to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, leave out "Scotland," and insert "those localities to which the endowments severally belong."— (Mr. Mundella.)

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

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

asked for some definition of these words.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he had been repeatedly asked by hon. Members to declare that the object of the measure was not to take endowments away from the places to which they were localized. To say "in Scotland," was very broad, and to meet the wishes of hon. Members, he proposed this Amendment.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he thought the word "localities" too narrow. He did not desire that endowments should be localized to the exact town or village to which they were attached. He should very much prefer that the word "districts" should be used, that word being rather wider than "localities." In the case of Heriot'a Hospital, for instance, it would be unfortunate if the benefits of that institution were strictly confined to Edinburgh. He should be glad to have the Lord Advocate's definition of the word "locality."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

thought "district" much more indefinite than "localities." Many endowments were left to particular places; some to parishes, some to a county or counties; and if it was sought to define any other territorial area, it would create difficulty. Therefore, he thought the word "localities" preferable.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

wished to know whether the word "locality" would give the Commissioners power to allocate the benefits of an endowment—for instance, over the county of Edinburgh, or even, perhaps, East Lothian, in addition?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

thought the hon. Member probably failed to distinguish between the localizing of the endowments and the limitation of the persons who were to benefit from them. He took it that the Commissioners, in distinguishing to which locality the endowment belonged, would have regard primarily to the deed of the founder.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had given in an Amendment, which had been omitted owing to his bad writing, proposing to add "or the immediate neighbourhood." That Amendment had been suggested by his constituents, and was one of a practical character.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he understood that pupils came to Edinburgh and Glasgow for education by rail from 20 miles round, and the object of his Amendment was to prevent institutions being removed from the districts to which they belonged; but the Commissioners would be empowered by a later Amendment to admit pupils from outside so long as they came to the place to be educated.

MR. BUCHANAN

wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to exclude or include pupils from 20 miles round Edinburgh and Glasgow?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

There is no proposal to alter the locality.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, apart from the question of Edinburgh or Glasgow, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, in speaking on Clause 5, said it might be desirable for the Commissioners in country districts to establish secondary schools. These schools would be established out of the funds of some existing institution. Thus the question of delocalization would arise.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, that would depend on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce).

MR. M'LAREN

said, what he wished to know was whether the benefits of an institution, such as Heriot's Hospital, could be allocated to another district— Leith, for instance, which was actually part of the same locality?

MR. BRYCE

said, he would suggest the obvious meaning of the words. The words were "provision shall be made for education in the locality;" that was that an institution should be established in a locality, but there was nothing in this Bill as to that.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman, in suggesting this Amendment, had not considered those institutions which were founded for the benefit of all persons, no matter from what part of the country they came, and he thought it possible that certain difficulties might arise in connection with the construction placed on this clause.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, such a case would not be affected by this Amendment, which was simply for the purpose of giving instructions to the Commission to have express regard to making provision for education in localities, and not take away the endowments from the localities.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he would remind the Committee that the Lord Advocate had said that in nine cases out of ten the will of the founder described the locality.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that there were streets in Kirkcaldy which were outside the limits of Philp's Trust, in Kirkcaldy. He thought it should be made clear whether those streets now excluded would be brought in by this clause.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, the hon. Member might be glad to hear that the institution to which he referred had discretionary powers ass to admitting children from other places.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he should be glad of a reply from the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he did not understand the hon. Member's question; but in the case of the Edinburgh endowments they must be restricted to Edinburgh, but the beneficiaries need not be confined to Edinburgh.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that although the institution was to remain in Edinburgh, the benefits of it might be distributed all over the country.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he could hardly conceive that children coming to school in Edinburgh would come from all parts of Scotland. They must be resident in that locality.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

proposed to substitute "districts" for "localities." The wording of the clause seemed to him to point to the erection of schools by means of endowments, which were confined to particular parishes. He did not wish endowments to be confined to particular parishes, but that a certain amount of latitude should be given to the Commissioners.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot move the insertion of the word he proposes until we have left out the word "Scotland."

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he did not wish to take up time; but he would like to know whether the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) was really acquainted with the case of Heriot's Hospital? The great point of the controversy in regard to that institution was as to what persons should be allowed to participate in its benefits.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, his hon. Friend had always got George Heriot on his mind. He knew the provisions of that endowment admitted burgesses, and yet excluded some people who had lived in Edinburgh; but he thought beneficiaries might live just outside the burgh and come into Edinburgh to get education. He did not think it was possible to use a clearer word than "locality."

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "those localities," and insert"district."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'those localities' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, he thought it would be better to use both definitions.

MR. A. GRANT

said, he strongly advised the Government to adhere to "locality." The Government had stated that one of the leading principles they proposed to follow was that endowments should not be localized, and to accept the Amendment would be contradicting the principle.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was surprised at the Government objecting to the word "district," for that term was the favourite word used throughout the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, which said "a proclaimed district," "a stranger in the district," &c.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

rose to Order, and asked whether the remarks of the hon. Member had anything to do with the Question before the House?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is only illustrating the word "district."

MR. CALLAN

said, it might appear presumptuous for a mere Irish Member to interfere in a Scotch debate; but Scotch Members had often interrupted the discussion of Irish questions, and often by inarticulate sounds.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved that after "localities," the words "or the immediate neighbourhood" should be inserted. It was, he said, true, as the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) had observed, that Parliament had made provision in certain cases for extending the benefits of the endowments beyond the original limits; but that only applied to the case of there not being sufficient applications from those limits to exhaust the funds. In Kirkcaldy that was not the case.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, after "localities," insert the words "or the immediate neighbourhood."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had to propose a very important Amendment to the clause, which was to add, after the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), the words "of children of the classes intended by the founder to be benefited." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment. On a former occasion when this matter had been touched upon, he (Sir George Campbell) had said he was not quite sure whether the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory, because he observed, that although the right hon. Gentleman had confined the benefit of the clause to the particular localities to which the endowments belonged, he had said nothing about the classes of children to be benefited. Therefore, at that time when he (Sir George Campbell) made this remark, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) turned round and said he had already proposed to do what was required in his Amendment. When, however, he (Sir George Campbell) looked at the Amendment put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not find that it dealt with the point to which the present Amendment was directed. He had, however, no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, the object of which was to provide that the education given should be confined to the particular classes of children intended by the founders to be benefited, and that the higher education should not be given to the children of the rich, for whom it was certainly never meant by the founders. He moved that these words be added to the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, after Mr. Mundella's Amendment, add "of children of the classes intended by the founder to be benefited."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) could scarcely have considered the full meaning of the words of his Amendment. They would be directly levelled against the higher education of the upper classes; and it would be seen from the evidence in many instances given by founders themselves, that they intended to benefit persons of their own class—the class of tradesmen and merchants. The adoption of such an Amendment as this would distinctly limit the application of the clause by making it operate against the education of the upper classes, and he appealed to the Committee whether it was desirable that such a limitation should be introduced? He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Amendment.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had shown that the adoption of the Amendment would restrict the operation of the endowments; but, on the other hand, it could be shown that it might extend the endowments, and it was in view of such an Amendment that he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had ventured to put the question he had asked some time ago, as to a case in which those to be benefited were children of the name of Alexander, but where the will of the founder was entirely set aside, and children who would not necessarily bear that name, continued to be beneficiaries under an endowment that was never intended for their benefit at all.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. M'LAREN

begged to move that the Chairman report Progress. He trusted that in doing this the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would not think that he (Mr. M'Laren) had any intention to obstruct the progress of this measure; but he would point out that there were a number of Orders on the Paper with reference to which the English Members desired to make some headway. As far as he (Mr. M'Laren) was personally concerned, he should be glad to attend again next Saturday, or on any other day the Government might fix, for the purpose of finishing the Committee stage of this Bill, and he was quite sure that other hon. Members would be willing to do the same; but, at the same time, he thought it only right that some opportunity should be afforded of getting on with the other Business upon the Paper.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. M'Laren.)

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on the Motion to report Progress. The Scotch Members had been making some sacrifice in order to pass a very useful and important measure which they considered to be greatly needed for Scotland, and he was glad to say that the Motion to report Progress at that hour —20 minutes to 7 o'clock—had not been made by a Scotch Representative. With regard to the labour entailed by coming down to that House, and sitting through the whole of Saturday, he was sure that no one had more reason to complain than he had; but, at the same time, he was most anxious to get through the work, and he felt assured that if the Committee would only persevere they would be able to do it. With regard to what had been said as to English measures, which were wanted to be brought on, he would remind the Committee that it had been most distinctly stated on the part of Her Majesty's Government, as he understood, that after this measure had been got through, no other Business of a contentious character should be brought on that evening. ["No, no!"] He begged pardon; he should have said that no contentious Business should be brought on after the two Scotch Bills and the Electric Lighting Bill. Those were the Bills which the Prime Minister had stated would be taken, and he hoped they would be able to see the end of those three Bills, and that then the House would at once adjourn.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) would not press his Motion for reporting Progress. Such a Motion certainly came with a very ill grace after the length of time the House had been kept on Tuesday night dividing on the dates for fixing the Orders then upon the Paper. Saturday had, as already stated, been set apart for the purpose of getting through Committee on this Bill, and for making progress, if possible, with two other measures, and it was not creditable, after what had already taken place, to bring forward a Motion for Progress at such a period in the evening.

MR. M'COAN

said, he was present when the Prime Minister had made the statement that had just been referred to; but he wished to point out that it was by no means in harmony with the Notice Paper. He found upon the Paper, as the fourth Order of the Day, the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill, and he had come down to the House at great inconvenience for the purpose of supporting that measure. Lower down upon the Paper, as the eighth Order, he saw the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, which was for second reading. This was a measure which he had also come to support, and, as the Scotch Members had already had upwards of six hours' discussion in Committee on the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill, he thought it only right that an opportunity should be afforded for taking the other Business.

CAPTAIN HERON-MAXWELL

said, he thought it hardly fair that the Scotch Members, who had devoted themselves to the work of bringing on this measure for the last two or three years—a measure of the utmost importance to Scotland— should find an Irish Member getting up and supporting a Motion for reporting Progress on this particular Bill, when they had at length got it in a fair way for final settlement, especially when it was remembered that the Scotch Members had spent so many weeks and months in listening to debates on nothing but Irish measures. He hoped the Committee would proceed with the Bill, and that they would be able to carry it through its present stage that evening.

MR. M'LAREN

said, after the charge that had been brought against him, he should certainly not withdraw his Motion. The effect of reporting Progress on the Bill now would only be to give more time for its discussion on another occasion, instead of having it run through during what remained of the evening, in a hasty and imperfect manner. It appeared to him to be the wish of the House that a division should be taken on his Motion.

MR. LEAMY

said, although the Bill before the Committee was a Scotch Bill, it was one of a character that any man who was interested in the subject of education might take an interest in; and he thought that the charge just made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) was one that ought not to have been brought. The Amendment which had been under discussion was one that deserved the attention of the Committee, and he hoped the Motion to report Progress would not be persevered in. There were several other Orders of the Day on the Paper, as to some of which he must say it would be of great advantage to the Irish Members if they could be got through; but if the present Motion were successful it would only come to this, that they would have to come to the House next Saturday to complete the work they had begun. Having got the present Saturday Sitting, he thought they ought to try and do as much Business as they possibly could. He certainly did not think it would facilitate the passage of this Bill if it were to be thrown over to another Saturday.

MR. REDMOND

said, he did not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite who accused Irish Members of supporting this Motion for reporting Progress could be very anxious to bring to a close the discussion of a useful and important Scotch measure; but he desired to point out why it was that he and some other Irish Members intended to vote in favour of Progress being reported. They had no wish to bring to a premature close the discussion of the Bill before the Committee; but it was almost an impossibility that this measure, about which there seemed to be great differences of opinion, could be carried through in the course of that evening, as the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) seemed to think. He would venture, also, to point out, with reference to what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the intention of the Government to proceed with no other Business except the Scotch Bills on the Paper, that this was not so much a question for the Government as for the House. He would also point out that when, the other evening, the House had to decide what Bills were to be taken at the present Sitting, the Government had found themselves in a minority, inasmuch as the House determined, against the wish of the Government, that one important Irish Bill should be taken at this Sitting. He might further say, on behalf of a number of Irish Members, that they were very anxious that some portion of the evening should be devoted to the consideration of the Irish measures upon the Paper; and, while they had no desire to cut short an important discussion on a Scotch Bill, they thought they ought to have some intimation from the Government as to the hour at which they would be prepared to report Progress on the measure under consideration, so that the House might be enabled to enter on the discussion of the important Irish Bill which the House had already decided should be dealt with on this occasion, and about which strong views were entertained by an overwhelming majority of the Irish Members.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, if the Government were willing to report Progress on this Bill within a reasonable time he should not support the Motion; but he would point out that they were only on the 3rd page of the Amendments to the Bill, and that there were still 10 pages to go through. They had already sat nearly seven hours over the Bill, and he should like to know how much longer it was proposed to remain in Committee? He had, so far, endeavoured to discharge his duty by giving his close attention to the Bill; but the question was how much longer was the discussion of these Amendments to go on?

MR. BIGGAR

said, he could not concur in the Motion for reporting Progress. He had had some experience as to the way in which time had been wasted in that House, and he could say that, in his opinion, there was no more effectual way of wasting time than in pushing Bills through Committee for a certain time, and then suspending the consideration of those Bills. The most judicious plan the Government could adopt would be when they had once got a Bill in Committee, to stick to it until they had got it through. If this system were practised a little more persistently the practical result would be that at least twice as much Business would be done in that House. He could corroborate the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council with regard to what had been said by the Prime Minister as to the Bills intended to be pushed through at that Sitting. He (Mr. Biggar) was strongly in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland; but he would suggest to the promoters of that measure that they should put themselves in the hands of the Government, and ask them to put the Bill into a Continuance Bill to be passed this Session. If the Government would only do this the law would continue as it now was in Ireland; but if the Irish Members set themselves to opposing the Government with the hope of getting the Sunday Closing Bill passed that evening, they would probably not only lose the opportunity of including the four or five towns they wished to introduce, but also do no good with regard to the general Act for the whole of Ireland.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, in the absence of the usual Leader of the House, that what was proposed by the Government was to introduce the existing Bill in a Continuance Bill, which it was proposed to pass this Session. He would, therefore, ask the Irish Members whether they would not be weakening their cause by pressing for ward the Bill on the Paper for that evening? Supposing they should succeed in stopping the Scotch Bills, what would happen? There was not the smallest chance of their getting through the Irish Bill, and the result would be that they would simply have played the part of the "dog in the manger" by not allowing the Scotch Business to be got through, and in not succeeding in getting through their own. He appealed, therefore, to the Irish Members as to whether it would not be better to allow the Scotch Members, who did not often have such an opportunity, to get on with their Business, and devote as much time as might be necessary to complete the present stage of the Bill in Committee?

MR. BLAKE

said, he was exceedingly desirous that they should offer no undue Obstruction to the Business then under consideration; but, supposing no further opposition was offered to the present Bill, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would undertake to afford a reasonable opportunity of proceeding with the Irish Business? The Irish Liquor Bill was an exceedingly important measure, and involved the question of the morality and happiness of five large towns in Ireland. The Irish Members had been struggling to bring that measure on during the evening, and the great majority of the Irish Representatives were in favour of it. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to promise a further opportunity of passing the Bill this year. What had been promised with regard to the Continuance Bill was no answer, because they had had that promise before. He would, therefore, impress on his Friends the advisability of allowing the Scotch Business to go on for a reasonable time, in the event of their getting an assurance that the Irish Bill should be taken at an hour when it could be effectually dealt with. In that case, he felt that his Friends would give an assurance that they would not keep the House for any length of time by making long speeches.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he might at once say that he had not the power to give any such pledge as the hon. Member (Mr. Blake) had asked for. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War (Mr. Childers) had pledged himself on behalf of the Government that when the Business of the Government was completed they would move the adjournment of the House; and he would remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blake) that the Government were bound by the pledge thus given in the face of the House. He, therefore, appealed to the Irish Members not further to waste the time of the Committee by obstructing the Business, and thus frustrating their own object and that of the Government at the same time.

MR. DALY

said, he would join in the appeal just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. That day had been set apart for the discussion of the important Bill then before the Committee, and it really was essential that it should be got through. It was, therefore, trifling with the Business of the House to go on with this miserable interruption. A number of hon. Members, having a strong interest in the Bill under consideration, had come down to the House for the purpose of getting it through its present stage. He, therefore, appealed to the common sense of the Committee to go on with the Business before it.

MR. MELDON

said, he objected to any attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to sow dissent between the Irish and Scotch Members. On two or three occasions the right hon. Gentleman had made this attempt. There were a great many Irish Members who were anxious to take a discussion on the important Bill relating to Sunday Closing. The Vice President of the Council had said that the Government had given a pledge that no Business should be taken but Scotch Business. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No.] That was the first statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), and he had afterwards corrected it. But that statement was dependent on the control of the Government over the House; and that they had not control over it was shown the other night when the Motion for taking the second reading of the Irish Liquor Bill on Saturday was carried against the opposition of the Government. There was, therefore, important Irish Business on the Paper, which ought to be carried through. This being so, what was the state of things at the present moment? There were upon the Paper no less than 13 pages of Amendments to the Scotch Endowments Bill, and of these only two and a-half pages had been got through in the course of seven hours, while some of those which would cause the greatest amount of discussion had not been touched. It was a physical impossibility that the Bill could be got through Committee that night. ["No, no!"] He repeated, that it was a physical impossibility to get through the rest of the Bill at that Sitting. If Progress were reported, it could be proceeded with at any hour at the next Sitting, and finished; consequently, it would be no hardship to the Scotch Members to postpone the measure. There were other Bills on the Paper. There was the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill, which was a most important measure, and one it was very desirable they should reach. It was only a matter of formal Government Business, and only required to be reached to be disposed of. He hoped the Scotch Members would accede to the appeal of the Irish Members, and allow Progress to be reported, so that the remaining Business might be proceed with.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was under a serious misapprehension with regard to the attitude of the Irish Members. So far from wishing to obstruct the Scotch Bill, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was prepared to sit there till 12 o'clock to have it passed through Committee; and it would be unreasonable on the part of the Irish Members, who had seen the Scotch Members devoting the whole of their time to attendance in Parliament during the present Session for the purpose of passing Irish measures, to decline to enable them to get one single Bill passed as the fruit of their labours. It was true that one of the Irish Bills was a Coercion Bill; but that was not the fault of the Scotch Members, who had done what they could to push forward the Arrears Bill. He was glad that the Scotch Members had had a day to themselves. It was perfectly delightful to see how they revelled, hour after hour, in the renewed pleasure; and they had certainly been discussing their Bill in a very reasonable and sensible way, and had made good progress. He saw no reason why they should not go on and finish the Bill that night; nor did he see why, as there were a number of other Bills on the Paper, they should not also be disposed of with regard to the pledge of the Government to adjourn after disposing of three Bills, he thought there was nothing more likely to bring that House and the Government conduct of Business into discredit than the action they had taken after giving that pledge. They first of all promised to adjourn after three of their measures had been taken, and then proceeded to put several other Government Orders on the Paper. Nothing more ridiculous could be conceived. The Union Officers' Superannuation Bill was a Government Bill, the Re-serve Forces Acts Consolidation Bill was also a Government measure, so were the Militia Acts Consolidation Bill and the Isle of Man (Officers) Bill, and, notwithstanding the Government pledge, the House was invited to go through all these measures. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), who had so far conducted the Business of the House that day with considerable dexterity and tact, in the absence of the usual Leaders, to come to a compromise on this matter. The Irish Members were interested in several of these measures, and they would give the Government considerable assistance if the right hon. Gentleman would use his best endeavours to keep a House for them on the Bills they desired to pass. The principal of these was the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had professed himself to be in favour of temperance. He would invite the right hon. Gentleman to reciprocate the good offices of the Irish Members in regard to the Scotch Endowments Bill by endeavouring to secure a House for the passage of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had observed there was a strong opinion in favour of the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill; but, so far as he had any personal experience, there seemed to him to be a strong opinion in quite the other direction.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 81: Majority 69. —(Div. List, No. 294.)

MR. BRYCE

said, he had to propose an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman by adding the words— Or in such manner as to secure to the inhabitants of those localities the benefit of such endowments. But he ought first to say that before this Amendment—and he had two Amendments on this line of the clause—that which stood second on the Paper should really come first in order—namely, to leave out from "Scotland" to the end of the clause. This, he understood, was accepted by the Government, and he would now move it.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, leave out from "Scotland" to end of Clause.—(Mr. Bryce.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

MR. BRYCE

said, he had now to move the Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. It was intended to prevent mischief being done by a too great restriction of the benefit of an endowment or by compelling the Commissioners necessarily to continue a very small endowment in the locality where it now happened to be. Where there were several small endowments in contiguous parishes, and where each of these taken alone were not of substantial value in higher or secondary education, they might be of substantial value if grouped. It was proposed by his Amendment that instead of confining these to the localities where they now were, they should be grouped; but so that the inhabitants of each locality should have benefits equivalent to those they now enjoyed. If in one locality there was an endowment giving free admission to a school or a scholarship, or any other benefit, and the same thing in another adjacent locality, those benefits would still be secured to the localities.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, as an Amendment to Mr. Mundella's proposed Amendment— At end, insert, "or in such manner as to secure to the inhabitants of those localities the benefit of such endowments."—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he proposed to add words about which it was not necessary to make a speech, for the Committee would agree it was a very necessary addition to the clause. After the alteration already adopted, it might require some slight change in the wording; but the purpose of the Amendment was evident.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 2, after "universities," add "and if the Commissioners think fit, for the establishing or the aiding of industrial museums and libraries."—(Mr. Anderson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he would accept this Amendment; but would suggest that the words should read thus—"and if the Commissioners think fit; they may provide," and so on.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add, after the word "fit" and before the word "for," the words "they may provide."—(Mr. Mundella.)

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

MR. HENDERSON

asked, was it not necessary to safeguard this in some way, so that the Commissioners should know exactly what was meant?

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he thought the meaning was well understood, and that it would be quite unnecessary to do this.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. BRYCE

said, the words of the Proviso he was about to move would explain themselves. It was intended to prevent the wording of the clause from unduly restricting the discretion of the Commissioners, and from compelling them to restrict the benefits to persons who happened to reside on the spot.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 2, at end, add "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be taken to compel the Commissioners to restrict any bursary, exhibition, scholarship, or other educational benefit attached to or tenable at any educational institution to the children of persons resident in the locality where that institution exists."—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Endowments subject to Commission.

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

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, the Amendment he had to propose appeared rather formidable, and it would alter the scope of the Bill considerably. It was, in effect, that instead of applying only to endowments originally given 40 years ago or longer, it should extend to all educational endowments except those made subsequent to the passing of the Scotch Education Act of 1872. It was not the object of the Bill to interfere with the spirit of founders' intentions, or to make anything like a revolution in the educational arrangements in Scotland; it was expressly stated that regard was to be paid to founders' intentions. But the whole occasion for the Bill was that educational arrangements had been seriously affected by the Education Act of 1872, and therefore, to be logical, the scope of the Bill should be extended to that time. He believed this change would be in accordance with the general feeling in Scotland, and he felt satisfied that it would be generally, if not unanimously, adopted by the Committee. To adhere to the clause as it stood, would involve a failure to reach a large number of endowments which ought to be revised, and with regard to which the assistance of the Commissioners would be very useful. With respect to Glasgow, as an instance, he might say the Bill, as it stood, would roach endowments to the amount of £102,000 of capital, whereas it would fail to touch endowments to the extent of no less than £454,000. But he rested his argument for the Amendment on no application to any particular district, but on the general principle that the Education Act of 1872 had affected the whole educational arrangements of Scotland, and it was desirable that the Bill should extend up to that date.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 6, leave out from "less" to "Act," in line 7, both inclusive, and insert "subsequently to the passing of 'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872.'"—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)

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

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) has an Amendment to the same line, to insert the word "has." This, if he desires to move it, would come first.

MR. A. GRANT

said, this Amendment only had reference to a subsequent Amendment similar to that moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow University.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, the Amendment just moved by his hon. Friend showed the mistake the Govern- ment had made in making the Bill apply to endowments given 40 years ago, instead of 50 years as was proposed in their last two Bills. The Committee would recollect that in 1880, when this Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, Earl Spencer distinctly stated it would be limited to endowments given 50 years ago, and 50 was left in the Bill of last year. Why, then, had this change been made? He believed it was no secret that the change was made in order to bring within the scope of the Bill one particular institution—Fettes' College, Edinburgh. Now, he would not say whether this institution ought or ought not to be brought within the Bill; but he would say that the Bill, if wrong in principle, should not be made to fit any particular institution. As an illustration of this, he might point to an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Forfar that 40 should be changed to 30. But the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) proposed to bring it down to 10 years, the date of the passing of the Education Act, and of the two he preferred the latter, for there was more principle in it. But he thought 10 years was really bringing it down too near to our own time. It might be said, what difference was there in making it 40 years instead of 50? But the difference was considerable The Bill would apply to deeds of gift as well as legacies; therefore, if a man aged 25 made a deed of gift, after 40 years he would be only 65 years of age, and consequently might see his own intentions defeated in his lifetime. It was all very well to speak lightly of the "pious founder;" but it must be remembered that if it had not been for him the House would not be discussing this question of educational endowments at all. He would also remind the Committee that in the English Act of 1869, 50 years was the limit, and he could not understand on what principle this distinction was made between England and Scotland. He had an Amendment later to make the term 50, but he spoke now in order to save time.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, this, no doubt, was one of the most important Amendments on the whole Bill. He would explain to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the difference in the change of 50 years to 40 years. Last year, when the Bill passed the House of Lords, it was represented that the term of 50 years had no meaning in Scotland —that 40 years was the period of prescription in Scotland, and to go beyond that was unreasonable. In deference, therefore, to the general wish of Scotch Members, the Government reduced the term to the period of prescription and made it 40 years. There was no part of the Bill and no clause of the Bill in respect to which he had had such universal representations agreeing that the operation of the Bill should be extended and brought down to the passing of the Education Act of 1872. Now, he would not have ventured to move such an Amendment himself—it would have looked like a strong measure of innovation; but he was thankful that such an Amendment had come from a Member for a Scotch University, and he believed that Scotch Members were universally in favour of this change, and it certainly was a point upon which the opinions of Scotch Members ought to prevail. But, having charge of the Bill, he had thought it his duty to adhere in the Bill to 40 years, and only to make the change if it should appear to be the general wish of Scotch Members to bring it down to the passing of the Education Act of 1872. The passing of that Act was really an epoch, so to speak, in the educational history of Scotland, and provided a clear line of demarcation from which all these changes ought to date, for then it was that the State provided for compulsory education out of grants and rates for the whole of the people of Scotland. Now, all that had been said against the proposal was, that it was treating the pious founder rather irreverently. He did not say that; but, at all events, it was treating endowments with much more freedom than they had hitherto been dealt with, but it would be of the greatest interest to Scotland if the Bill were brought down to 1872, and if it were not so extended many endowments would have to wait many years—20 or 30 years—before they came within the operation of the Bill—endowments which had become obsolete and dormant, although they were of comparatively recent date. It was, as he had said at the outset, a proposal upon which the opinion of Scotch Members ought to prevail.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment in the same sense as this, and there were other such Notices; and that was evidence of a strong feeling among Members, and in Scotland, in favour of the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had defended the period in the Bill on the ground that it represented the period of prescription. Such, indeed, was the old period of prescription; but, he should understand, that it had been reduced to 20 years, so that if the period of prescription was to be the ground upon which the Bill should proceed, the time would be 20 years, and not 40; so the argument in favour of 40 years was disposed of. Fifty years was an arbitrary term with no meaning, and the same might now be said of 40; but there was a clear and definite meaning about taking the date of the passing of the Education Act. A great many of the pious founders, if they had known of such an Act, would not have left their bequests in the terms they had. If they had known that primary education would be universally arranged for by the Education Act, they would not have felt the necessity of leaving their bequests for primary education. That was a well-defined reason for bringing the Bill up to the date 1872.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, as to 50 years having no meaning, it had considerable meaning. This Act would apply to deeds of gift during the lifetime of the founder, as well as to legacies after his death; therefore, if a man of 25 years of age made a deed of gift, 40 years afterwards he would be 65, and, therefore, might see his intentions actually defeated during his lifetime. The object of 50 years was to make the chance of that less likely to occur.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it was not generally at the age of 25 that a man made such a deed of gift; but it was usually at the close of a long and useful life.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, before the Amendment was accepted, let the Committee consider the injurious effect it would have against gifts in the future. If they found that in 10 or 12 years the object for which they gave their money was changed during their lifetime, depend upon it there would be no more pious founders. It would be a perfect stop to benevolent people making gifts during their lifetime. There was no example in any Bill of the House having so dealt with, funds of this nature. He did hope that careful consideration would be given before accepting the Amendment, and he was never more surprised than when he found such an Amendment coming from the Conservative side of the House.

MR. BOLTON

said, that as one of those who had an Amendment on the Paper to a similar effect, he would add the expression of his hope to that of the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow, that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the Motion. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Alexander), and the alarm he felt with respect to deeds of gift executed 40 years ago by a man of 25 years of age, he thought there need be no such alarm, for the donor would feel some degree of satisfaction to find that the arrangements he made under one set of circumstances were adapted to the same object under a different set of circumstances. It could hardly be supposed that a person would set aside a sum of money for primary education or elementary education which could have no other effect than of relieving the ratepayers, and would wish now to recall it. He thought the matter had been so well placed before the Committee by previous speakers, that he would only say there was a general feeling among the Scotch Members that the date should not be 40 years ago, but brought down to 1872.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, he was entirely in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend. He knew no man more likely to be a pious founder in the future than his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), and he would be sorry to see anything done which would prevent such a consummation; but, even at the risk of losing his hon. Friend from the list of pious founders, he hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, he had satisfied himself that no period would be so satisfactory to take as the period ending with the year 1872, because Scotch Education down to 1872 had had one character, and since then it had had an entirely different character. He, therefore, entirely agreed with the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

MR. A. GRANT

said, he had an Amendment of his own on the Paper exactly to the same effect, and, therefore, he entirely agreed with this Amendment. The passing of the Education Act formed a perfectly intelligible and satisfactory limit at which the line should be drawn. He had been surprised to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire say that to fix the later date would have the effect of diminishing the flow of private beneficence in the way of Educational Endowments. If that was the case, it was a very curious commentary on what had been asserted —namely, that public sentiment was in favour of the arbitrary powers given to the Commissioners under the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was inclined to accept the Amendment; but he wholly disclaimed the reasons given by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Bolton), that it would enable them to take away the funds devoted by pious founders to the purposes of primary education. He understood that that was not so.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. WEBSTER moved, in page 4, line 10, after the word "universities," to insert these words— Or belonging to or administered by or in the gift of any college or theological institution belonging to or connected with any Church or religious denomination, or to any endowment made or given to a Church or religious denomination under its control and administration, and in connection therewith, unless herein expressly included. He believed that Amendment would meet with a frank and hearty assent. It was intended to secure the endowments made in favour of particular religious denominations. It had become quite evident in the course of the debate that there was a necessity for the Amendment, and it was quite plain that nobody wished to take out of the administration of religious Bodies, whether Episcopalian, Established Church, or anything else, such endowments as the Amendment included. The Roman Catholic Church, the Free Church, the Episcopalian Church, and other religious Bodies had endowments for their own purposes, and no one wished that such endowments, given to a particular religious Body for the purpose of training in Ecclesiastical Science, should be brought under the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 10, after "universities," insert "or belonging to or administered by or in the gift of any college or theological institution belonging to or connected with any Church or religious denomination, or to any endowment made or given to a Church or religious denomination under its control and administration, and in connection therewith, unless herein expressly included."—(Mr. Webster.)

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

MR. A. ELLIOT

was afraid that unless this proposal was very carefully watched, they might be excluding a great many funds which really required to be looked after quite as much as those which came unmistaken ably within the purview of the Bill. They had already had a discussion to-day about the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and he agreed with the view expressed, that the Commissioners should have power to deal with that. If the words now proposed were not added, that could be done; but when it was deliberately proposed, in the most sweeping manner, to exclude from the Commissioners all funds connected with religious societies in Scotland, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take extreme care lest he should be doing a great deal more than almost all Liberals in Scotland would be at all inclined for.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, they were in entire agreement with regard to the substance of the Amendment, and the Government would accept it in spirit; but he would suggest that the hon. Member might dispense with the words "or connected with," in the third line, and the words "and in connection therewith," in the fifth line. It was difficult to say what might be in connection with an ecclesiastical body, and they ought to pay particular attention to the wording of such an Amendment. He would suggest that the matter be left over till Report.

MR. WEBSTER

said, he would assent to the alteration suggested by the Lord Advocate.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, that while it was very desirable to exclude colleges, theological institutions, and such like seminaries, it was not logical to exclude denominational endowments for general education, for inspected schools, &c. It was not logical or reasonable that they should be excluded.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he perceived the difficulty, and, while accepting the Amendment in substance, he thought it required very careful consideration, and he would take care that such consideration should be given to it before the Report.

MR. DALRYMPLE

could not understand why the Government should hastily accept the Amendment, and considered that it was most inconsistent that the Lord Advocate should accept the Amendment, and that the Vice President of the Council should at the next moment say that he perceived difficulties in the way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, they were practically protecting endowments, however held, if they were administered by a University or a religious Corporation. It might often happen that a trust was administered by an ecclesiastical Corporation, and yet it might be a thoroughly educational trust which needed reform. He had in view two such charities—one a Scotch charity— the Snell Trust, held in connection with Baliol College. If that trust had not been reformed in another way, it would have been protected by this clause, because it belonged to the University of Glasgow, and it would be protected because it was a trust originally intended to stimulate the development of Episcopalian ministers in Scotland. The other trust he had in view was the Hugh Trust in connection with the College of Brasenose at Oxford. That ought to be reformed; but the original Governors were three clergymen, and it was in connection with an ecclesiastical body. He hoped that in this matter the Government would be very careful, and not rush headlong, as they seemed very much inclined to do.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

We only accept the substance of the Amendment.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

Well, I hope you will be very careful.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, he objected to the acceptance of the substance of the Amendment, and he regretted extremely that it was intended to bring it up again. He never remembered a Bill where there was less excuse for referring matters to the stage of Report, because there had been abundant opportunity for consideration.

MR. MUNDELLA

Not of the Amendments.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, he thought that such an Amendment as the one he referred to might have received ample consideration without waiting for the Report. As he understood it, those who were interested in the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge were not opposed to its being included within the scope of this Bill; and he had never heard that there was any objection to that. No body which made good use of its funds had any cause to fear being put under the Bill, and he objected entirely to this most vague proposal. So far from desiring exclusion, he thought that possibly within the vague terms of the Amendment there might be included institutions which required a good deal of looking after by the Commissioners, and ought to be placed under the Bill. When he was told that the substance of the Amendment was to be accepted, he wished to know what that meant? They would not be allowed to say much about it on the Report stage, and this was the time to take notice of the matter, and to ascertain what it was that the Government were accepting. He thought the clause should be left as it stood, for he excessively disliked the wording of the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 (Date of oldest part of endowment to be date of endowment, unless conveniently separable).

On the Motion of Mr. J. A. CAMPBELL, the following Amendments were agreed to: —In page 4, line 15, leave out from "given" to "Act," in line 16, inclusive, and insert "before the passing of 'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872;'" and in same page, line 17, leave out "within forty years," and insert "subsequently to the passing of said Act."

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 (Apportionment of mixed endowments).

On the Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 27, leave out "part," and insert "proportion;" and in same page, same line, after "income," insert "for the time being."

MR. THOMASSON moved, in page 4, line 29, after the word "uses," to insert— Unless in the opinion of the Commissioners,—

1. "(a.) There are no persons who are entitled to benefit out of such part of the endowment; or
2. "(b.) The purposes of such part of the endowment hare failed altogether; or
3. "(c.) Such purposes have become insignificant in comparison with the magnitude of such part of the endowment; or
4. "(d.) Such purposes have become prejudicial to the public welfare."

The hon. Member said the object of the Amendment was to enable the Commissioners, in the case of a fixed endowment, to apply the charitable portion of such endowment to educational purposes, when the purposes of such charitable portion had failed and become obsolete.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 30, to leave out "part," and insert "proportion;" and in same line, after "income," to insert "for the time being."

MR. WEBSTER moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 34, after"determine,"insert— And which years may be those immediately prior to one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two. The hon. Member said the Amendment which he had to propose was to enlarge the powers of the Commissioners, and to enable them to deal with the particular case of the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge, and to define the proportion of the funds and income of that society which were to be devoted to religious and charitable uses, and those which were to be devoted to educational purposes. They did not desire in the least to interfere with the religious purposes of the society; they confined their wish merely to its educational purposes. The year 1872 marked an entire change in primary education in Scotland. In the Western Highlands of Scotland between £4,000 and £5,000 of the society's income was then devoted to educational purposes. Since 1872, for the reasons explained—namely, from the schools be- coming useless, the schools had dwindled away; and he found from the Report of the Society itself that the proportion devoted to education was only £1,630. It would be seen from this that the Commissioners required the power which his Amendment would give them.

Amendment proposed In page 4, line 34, after "determine," insert "and which years may be those immediately prior to one thousand eight hundred and seventy two."—(Mr. Webster.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the Commissioners already had the power proposed to be given by the Amendment.

MR. WEBSTER

said, that if that was so, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 41, leave out "part," and insert "proportion."

MR. WEBSTER moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 2, to leave out the words "or such decree." He said he did so in order to take out of the way the decree of the Court of Session of 1846, with the view of letting in the Commissioners. The words did not apply in the Bill of 1880, and had been since inserted, by whose authority he did not know. The words were of no use.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 2, to leave out the words "or such decree."—(Mr. Webster.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he could not assent to the Amendment, as there might be a serious risk of questions being raised.

MR. WEBSTER

said, there could be no serious risk. These words did not occur in the Bill of 1880.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. THOMASSON, the following Amendment made: —In page 5, line 5, after "uses," insert "and so authorised to be applied by the Commissioners."

Other Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 (Application to education of non-educational endowments).

On the Motion of Mr. WEBSTER, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 29, after "become," insert "obsolete or useless, or are otherwise sufficiently provided for, or are."

On the Motion of Mr. WILLIAMSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 30, after"endowment,"insert— Or if it has been found impossible, either from the inadequacy of the endowment, or the impracticable character of the founders' intentions, to carry those intentions into effect.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 30, after "endowment," to insert "or are, in the opinion of such governing body, not substantially beneficial to the class of persons for whom such endowment was originally intended."—{Mr. Bryce.)

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

MR. A. GRANT

said, this was raising a very wide question.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

On the Motion of Mr. WILLIAMSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 5, line 37, after "of," insert "poor;" and, in same line, after "children," leave out "educated at any school."

MR. BUCHANAN moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 38, at end, to add— Provided, That nothing shall be construed to prevent a scheme relating to any such endowment from providing, if the governing body so desire, for the continued application of such endowment to the same purposes. This Proviso was inserted in the English Act of 1869, and he supposed the Government would wish it inserted in this Bill. In fact, he should like to know why it was not?

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he did not know if his hon. Friend (Mr. Buchanan) was aware of it, but the Amendment, if accepted, would practically withdraw the Governing Body from the purview of the Commissioners. He could not accept the Amendment.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, that in the English Act this Proviso was inserted.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he had heard all along that that was not a good Act, and he had heard that Act condemned from below the Gangway. This Act was a very much better Act, and he should be sorry to see the Amendment introduced into it.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Requisites of Schemes.

Clause 13 (Vested interests).

On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, at end, to add— And shall provide that no funds now applied, in terms of the founders' directions, to free primary education, shall he diverted to any other purpose.

MR. BRYCE moved, in page 6, line —, as an Amendment to Mr. Mundella's proposed Amendment, at end, to add— Than the education of the industrial classes whether primary or secondary, or higher or technical. The Amendment was to provide that these funds should not be diverted from the class which now enjoyed them, and for whom they were intended, and that under no pretence should the poorer classes be deprived of the benefits of these endowments.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

DR. CAMERON

said, he strongly objected to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had made a proposition, and, as the Bill then stood, it was not of particular importance. Since then, however, an important modification had been made in the Bill. The date of the endowments included within its operation had been brought from 40 years ago down to 10 years ago, which was a most important change, and made this concession of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), which, as the Bill originally stood, was of very slight importance, a matter of very great importance. He did not make the slightest opposition to the extension of the time; but he did so entirely upon the grounds mentioned by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell)—namely, that they accepted that extension of time, entirely on the faith of the Proviso that had been offered by the right hon. Gentleman. Having made that agreement, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to it, and would not, now that he had got a very large increase in the endowments to be dealt with, and brought within the compulsory operation of the Commissioners, nullify the Proviso that he himself had suggested, when it had become so important.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that in any case this was an important Amendment, and he made sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would refuse to accept it. If this Amendment applied to the whole of the endowments he should be quite content; but its effect was to divide the endowments into two parts. Those devoted to primary education in the terms of the founder's will were to be devoted to that purpose; but the whole of the surplus beyond that amount might be devoted, and probably would be devoted, to higher education.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he thought the Amendment a very valuable one indeed, and that it would materially improve the Bill, especially since the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce) had substituted for the word "poor" the words "industrial classes." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would accept the proposal.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, that, in his opinion, the Amendment was a very important one, and he hoped the Committee would accept it.

MR. MUNDELLA

felt bound to say that the words he had introduced would meet the hon. Member's object, if it were clearly understood what primary education was. It had been brought to his notice that some of these endowments, which were called endowments for primary education, provided education which was not primary. It was, however, difficult to define what primary education was. There were endowments, for instance, for teaching children merely reading and sewing; but that was not what was now regarded as primary education. It might be the primary education of 200 years ago; but they had got a little beyond that nowadays. Other endowments wore for teaching poor children reading, writing, and arithmetic. They had got beyond that also. [Mr. A. GRANT: No.] His hon. Friend said "No." Well, he was astonished that any Scotch Member should talk about keeping primary education down to the level of what were vulgarly called "the three R's." Primary education might also be regarded as the education of the public schools, and for which the Government grant was given. They were certainly not going to limit primary education, as it was to be defined in this Bill, to the ideas which prevailed 200 years ago, and he did not think hon. Members below the Gangway would support such a limitation. At present the Scotch schools, such as Heriot's Hospital, taught everything which was included in the Scotch Code; and it was his intention, on Report, to introduce a clause into the Bill providing that primary education should mean the education given under the regulations of the Scotch Education Department in force for the time being. The effect of this Proviso would be not only to make the education of real use, but to allow schools to obtain the grant. It would thus make endowments go a great deal further than at present, as it would enable the schools to obtain some 17s. or 18s. for each child educated under the endowment.

DR. CAMERON

wished to point out that what he and his hon. Friends objected to had no relation to the elementary education of 200 years ago. That was not at all the point, and he was not aware that any such question remained to be dealt with under this Bill. All he wished the right hon. Gentleman to do was to adhere to his promise with respect to the protection of endowments for free education given between 40 years ago and 1872. That was the important thing. The educational endowments given during that time were not given on the basis of the ideas that prevailed 200 years ago. If the Government wore going to pay any attention to the will of the founders—and he thought that in dealing with this question they must bear in mind what were the founders' intentions—they must do so in the cases of these endowments. If any founder within the last 30 or 40 years left a sum of money for free primary education, he knew perfectly well what he was about. Of course, legislation passed since that time had rendered education which did not reach a certain standard insufficient to qualify a child for employment. But what he wished to impress upon the Government was that the founders who had given these endowments, having seen the hardships that were imposed on poor families when they had to pay the school fees, had wished to give them the wherewithal to do so. The effect of recent legislation had not been to lesson school fees; on the contrary, the fees were higher now than before the Education Act was passed.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he adhered to what he had said. He did not know what it was that the hon. Member objected to?

DR. CAMERON

said, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman intended to insert an Amendment defining education for the purposes of this Bill as something quite different from primary education. He (Dr. Cameron) did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should take away with one hand what he gave with the other. There were a large numb or of endowments to be dealt with which it was not intended to interfere with three years ago; and it was important that both the letter and the spirit of the promise the right hon. Gentleman had given should be most strictly adhered to in view of the fact that no opposition had been raised to the right hon. Gentleman getting these additional endowments into his net, on the faith of his pledge being carried out. Under those circumstances, he (Dr. Cameron) should hardly consider that the right hon. Gentleman had treated the Committee with fairness or candour if he introduced such a clause as he had spoken of.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment to which the hon. Member refers is not before us. It will come up in due course; but no Amendment defining primary education has yet been brought forward.

DR. CAMERON

said, he understood that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was before them, and he was speaking on that Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had intimated that he would oppose that Amendment; but that did not close the question. He (Dr. Cameron) did not, however, wish to trespass on the time of the Committee, and he really did not think he had done so, as he had abstained from alluding to anything which appeared to be matter of detail. He wished simply that they should have no misunderstanding on this point, and that it would be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) was pledged to certain words which were of the greatest importance.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he was quite unaware of what was the ground for the address to which the Committee had just listened. The hon. Member seemed to charge him with breach of faith.

DR. CAMERON

I do not say breach of faith.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that what had happened was this. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) proposed certain words, which were, no doubt, very good words; but he (Mr. Mundella) said he could not accept them, although he would, on some subsequent stage of the Bill, propose words which would prevent "primary education" from being, according to the standard at present in force, a farce, and would make it real primary education. He had felt sure that the hon. Member (Dr. Cameron) himself would have given him his very best support in this matter.

MR. BOLTON

hoped that the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Bryce) would consent to some change being made in it. Primary education remained to be defined, and he should be glad if the hon. Member could see his way to make the Amendment run thus, "than the education of the industrial classes," leaving out the words "whether primary or secondary, or higher or technical." He simply threw this out as a suggestion which, if adopted, would, he thought, improve the Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

said, he thought the discussion that had taken place respecting the meaning of the words "primary education" was the best indication the Committee could desire of the unwisdom of using in the Bill such an expression as "primary education" at all. That expression was not known to the people of Scotland. What had made Scotland great was the conviction that no education was too good for a man, and that a man's education should never be stopped. The Amendment he had moved provided that money furnished by endowments should not be diverted from the purpose for which it was intended. The substance of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Mundella's) undertaking was to add to Clause 13 words that would prevent the endowments now enjoyed by a particular class being taken away from that class. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] Yes; that was the substance of his undertaking. Hon. Members might say "No"; but he (Mr. Bryce) could say "Yes," because that was what was understood by the Committee. He (Mr. Bryce) was quite willing to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Bolton) to leave out the words "whether primary or secondary, or higher or technical," and to rely on the words "industrial classes" to effect his purpose.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would suggest that the hon. Member ought to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and then to move it in the new form which he proposes.

MR. BRYCE

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRYCE

then moved, in page 6, as an Amendment to Mr. Mundella's Amendment, at end, to add, "than the education of the industrial classes."

Amendment proposed, In page 6, as an Amendment to Mr. Mundella's Amendment, at end, to add "than the education of the industrial classes."— (Mr. Bryce.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the Amendment would clearly have the same effect as the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had already refused to accept. The pledge which had been given was distinctly that the money which was intended to be devoted to free primary education should be used for that purpose. With reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he (Sir George Campbell) must say he had viewed with considerable suspicion the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), who, on Saturday last, on the second reading of the Bill, avowed himself altogether opposed to the concession the right hon. Gentleman then made. He (Sir George Campbell) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not spring upon the Committee a definition of primary education. He believed that in the Code of the Education Department primary education was pretty well understood, and it certainly did not include Greek and Latin. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not spring a definition upon them, but would give due Notice of his intentions before the stage of Report.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that he adhered to the distinct promise he had made, and he thought the words he had brought forward sufficiently expressed his intention. He must keep faith with the Committee, and he should not alter another word of his Amendment, unless it was clearly the wish of the Committee that he should do so.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, that if the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) went to a division he (Mr. Parker) should go into the Lobby with him; but it was possible that all parties might agree to another form of Amendment—namely, to omit the word "primary" in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. No funds now applied to free higher education ought to be devoted to any other purpose; and if his (Mr. Parker's) suggestion were adopted, the great objection to the word "primary," which was altogether new to Scotchmen in connection with this subject, would be avoided. In Scotland people did not know what "primary education" meant, and they would not be likely to find out without the adoption of some Amendment defining it. To his mind, it would be a useless thing to put in a word which would necessitate a definition. He thought the Committee might accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, omitting the word "primary."

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the Amendment to which the hon. Member referred had already been added to the Bill.

MR. A. GRANT

thought that the same result would be arrived at if the word "primary" were omitted, and the Amendment were made to run, "than the free education of the poor," or "than the free education of the industrial classes."

Question put, and negatived.

MR. A. GRANT

asked if he would be in Order in proposing an Amendment in these words, "than the free education of the industrial classes."

THE CHAIRMAN

The Committee has just negatived an Amendment respecting the education of the industrial classes."

MR. A. GRANT

said, his proposal was an altogether new one, as the Amendment would include the word "free."

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that, under those circumstances, he thought the hon. Member would be in Order in moving the Amendment.

MR. A. GRANT

then moved, at the end of the Amendment of the Vice President of the Council, to add "than the free education of the industrial classes."

Amendment proposed, In page 6, as an Amendment to Mr. Mundella's Amendment, at end, to add "than the free education of the industrial classes."—[Mr. A. Grant.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I rise to Order, Sir. I beg to ask whether this is not substantially the same Amendment as that which has just been negatived?

MR. A. GRANT

I beg to explain, Sir. There is a substantial difference. The Amendment relates to free education, whether primary or secondary; but it provides that the children of the industrial classes shall not have to pay for their education. I think it is substantially different from the last Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council will see his way to accept it.

DR. CAMERON

As I understand it, the Amendment is practically the same as the last Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is a substantial difference between the two Amendments, because, in this case, there is the word "free."

Question put, and negatived.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

proposed, in page 6, as an Amendment to Mr. Mundella's Amendment, to add— Unless such funds are, in the opinion of the Commissioners, manifestly in excess of the requirements for the purpose of free primary education of the localities to which they he-long. There might be cases in which funds devoted by the founders to primary education were entirely in excess of the requirements of the localities to which they belonged; and he thought there ought to be a Proviso enabling the Commissioners in those cases to make some other use of such funds. The Amendment would not apply to endowments devoted to the purpose of primary education, except in cases where that purpose had been already sufficiently carried out.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, as an Amendment to Mr. Mundella's Amendment, to add "unless such funds are, in the opinion of the Commissioners, manifestly in excess of the requirements for the purpose of free primary education of the localities to which they"belong."—(Mr. Preston Bruce.)

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

DR. CAMERON

said, he would have liked the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Preston Bruce) to have given some indication of the case to which he intended it to apply. It seemed to him (Dr. Cameron) that the words, as they stood, would give an opportunity to the Commissioners, who might imagine that free primary education was altogether unnecessary, to divert the whole of the funds to some purpose other than that for which they were intended. He should like to know more clearly what object his hon. Friend (Mr. Preston Bruce) had in view, as he had not given any example, or any clear indication of what his Amendment was meant to do.

SIR. GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he could quite imagine a case where the funds of an endowment were so largo that they would provide for the free education of all the children of the locality, and he should object to a proposal of this kind in such a case. But the Amendment went further than that. There were many people who thought that endowments for free primary education were unnecessary, because the Education Act provided that, where parents were unable to pay, free primary education should be provided for them. An hon. Member last night quoted poetry in his speech on the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, using the words— Turn and twist this Act as you will. He (Sir George Campbell) thought that "turn and twist this" Educational Endowments Act "as you will," it was always tainted with the Report of the Commissioners, because they had distinctly proposed to take away money devoted to primary education, and to apply it to higher education, considering that free primary education was provided for in the Education Act. Although it was put before the Committee in a very insidious form, this also seemed to be the object of this Amendment. The proposal was totally inconsistent with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had proposed, and he certainly could not support it in its present form.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

said, he could not see how, in face of the words just added to the Bill on the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, any Commissioners could hold that endowments could not properly be applied to free primary education. He thought that, reading his Amendment in connection with the words which would immediately precede it, it was obvious it could only be made use of in very extreme cases He totally disclaimed the idea of having in view an thing like that which was suggested by the hon. Member who had just spoken (Sir George Campbell). His object was simply this. There might be endowments in small country parishes where a very small number of children needed free primary education. The payment of the school fees of this small number of children in such cases would be a great advantage; but if there were a larger fund available than was necessary for that purpose, he thought the surplus might be applied by the Commissioners to some other educational purpose.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, he was afraid the Endowed Schools Commission was a great bugbear to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); but if that hon. Member would only do the Commissioners the honour and the justice of reading their Report, instead of drawing for a Report upon his own inner consciousness, he would find they had not recommended anything like what he imagined. What the Commission did recommend was that something more than elementary education should be provided, and they said that funds could at once be obtained by limiting the number of those who obtained gratuitous education. There had been four important cases—namely, the Edinburgh Merchants' Company, the Trustees of Heriot's Hospital, Hutcheson's Hospital, and the Bathgate Academy, in which applications were made by school trustees to the Home Secretary for power to charge fees, on the ground of the growing feeling throughout Scotland against gratuitous instruction.

DR. CAMERON

said, the only one of the cases referred to by the last speaker (Mr. C. S. Parker) that was in any way a trust connected with free primary education was that of Heriot's Hospital; and they all know that the result of their application for the power to charge fees, on the ground of growing popular feeling against free education, was that the Trustees were all turned out at the next election. With reference to the Amendment before the Committee, it seemed that the hon. Member who had moved it could cite no example; and he (Dr. Cameron) thought the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would do well to adhere to his own words.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he did not see any objection to the Amendment. The Commissioners would only be able to avail themselves of it when such funds were manifestly in excess of the requirements of free primary education, and there was no reason why in such a case the benefits of the funds should not be extended.

MR. BUCHANAN

could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the view he took of the proposal. He did not think the Amendment would have a very wide bearing; but it seemed to him that, whatever bearing it had, the effect of it would be that any concession which was contained in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would only be put in force at the discretion of the Commissioners, and they were, therefore, now ending exactly where they began.

MR. ANDERSON

thought the Amendment a necessary one. It would enable the Commissioners to do the very thing which it was the whole meaning of the Bill they should do, and he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to oppose it.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the Amendment would, in his opinion, practically nullify the concession the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had made. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was bound to carry out the arrangement that had been come to, and to adhere to the words of his Amendment.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

supported the Amendment. The proposed words would qualify the words of the Bill, and if it did that in the slightest degree, he thought they were bound to accept it.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not think the hon. Member who had drawn the Amendment (Mr. Preston Bruce) had quite contemplated the construction that might be put on it. The Committee had already carried the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, and had agreed that the funds should not be diverted to any other purpose than that intended by the founder. The hon. Member now proposed to add— Unless such funds are, in the opinion of the Commissioners, manifestly in excess of the requirements," &c. What the hon. Member probably meant was, not "unless," but "except to the extent to which" such funds were in excess of the requirements. It was quite possible to put such a construction on the Amendment that, if there were more funds than were wanted, they might all be diverted to another purpose. He would suggest that the hon. Member, in order to carry out his own meaning, should substitute "except to the extent to which" for "unless."

SIR DONALD CURRIE

approved of the Amendment as altered.

MR. A. GRANT

said, it certainly appeared to him that if the Amendment were accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, the concession he (Mr. Mundella) had made in respect of free primary education would be left entirely at the discretion of the Commissioners; and he scarcely thought the right hon. Gentleman was justified in agreeing to any such change.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

said, he was indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who was such a master of language, for the suggestion he had made for improving the wording of the Amendment. He would, in accordance with that suggestion, propose to amend his Amendment by substituting "except to the extent to which" for "unless."

Amendment proposed, In page 6, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "unless," in order to insert the "words" except to the extent to which."—(Mr. Preston Bruce.)

Question, "That the word 'unless' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Words substituted accordingly.

DR. CAMERON

said, it would be easy to amend the Amendment still further by leaving out the words "in the opinion of the Commissioners." The result would be to make it a matter of fact, and he should have no objection to this.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to leave out "in the opinion of the Commissioners."—(Dr. Cameron.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

thought there was no objection to accept the alteration.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Original Amendment (Mr. Mundella), as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 (Interests acquired after passing of Act) agreed to.

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

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendment made, in page 6, line 2], by leaving out "due."

On the Motion of Mr. J. A. CAMPBELL, Amendment made, in page 6, line 21, after "Commissioners," by inserting "with respect alike to the constitution of the governing body and to educational provisions."

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, he had on the Paper an Amendment for the insertion in the clause, after the word "intentions," in line 22, of the words— And to the fact that national education in Scotland, prior to one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, was not elementary or primary only. He had intended to have directed the attention of the Committee to what was understood by "education" in Scotland in this Amendment; but that purpose had been completely served already, and he did not intend to put the Amendment. He would only make one remark, and that was that there were two Reports in regard to the state of education in Scotland before 1872 which ought to be consulted by everyone who desired to acquire a proper notion of what that education then was. The first was the Report of the Royal Commission of 1690, and the second was the Return presented by the first Royal Commission on the Universities of Scotland in 1827. The latter document showed that at that time there were in the parochial and elementary schools of Scotland 8,553 pupils learning Latin; 2,042 learning Greek; and 2,903 learning the higher branches of mathematics. This, he thought, would compare well with the results attained by the larger population of the present day, while it proved that the education provided in the Scotch schools of that time could not be considered the same as the elementary education of the present day, because primary education now consisted of the mere rudiments of education, as compared with what it was before the passing of the Education Act of 1872.

MR. HENDERSON

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) had referred to the Royal Commission of 1690. The hon. Member was, perhaps, also aware that in 1696 an Act was passed which contained the following provisions——

THE CHAIRMAN

rose to Order. There was no Question before the Committee.

MR. A. GRANT

said, he had an Amendment to the clause, by which he proposed, in page 6, line 25, to omit the words "have due regard to," after the word "shall," in order to insert the words "provide to a corresponding extent for." The object of this Amendment was to provide compensation to a corresponding extent for those whose interests were interfered with by the operation of the Bill, which proposed to abolish or modify the privileges or educational advantages to which a particular class of persons was entitled. His pro- posal amounted to this—that instead of merely providing that the Commissioners should have due regard to the educational interests of such class, whose privileges were to be abolished or modified, they should provide to a corresponding extent for what was taken away.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 25, after "shall," leave out "have due regard to," and insert "provide to a corresponding extent for."—[Mr. A. Grant.]

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he thought it would be impossible to give such an instruction to the Commissioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MUNDELLA,

in moving, in page 6, line 26, to leave out the word "due," said, although he had put the Amendment on the Paper, he should have no objection to the word "due" remaining if hon. Members desired it.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 26, leave out"due."—(Mr. Mundella.)

Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendment made, in page 6, line 28, by leaving out the word "poor."

MR. MUNDELLA moved, after the word "children," in line 29, the insertion of the words "whose parents are not sufficiently able to maintain them."

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

MR. BRYCE

said, there might be two opinions about the insertion of these words. Originally the word was "poor." "Poor" was a relative and a general term. It applied to persons who did not necessarily belong to the most indigent class; but the Amendment would confine the operation of the clause to the case of children whose parents could not find them bread and milk, and who had to accept parochial relief, and he could not think that the object in view would be met by making the proposed alteration. The real object ought to be to provide for relative poverty—to persons whose liabilities were heavy in comparison with their means of meeting them. The words "belonging to the poorer classes" would meet the object; but "whose parents are not sufficiently able to maintain them," as in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), was a proposal that went a little too far.

MR. A. GRANT

agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) that the words he had suggested would be a wiser definition of what was wanted.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, perhaps the words of his Amendment were rather vague, and the words "belonging to the poorer classes" would better meet the object in view. He would, therefore, accept those words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 29, after "children," insert "belonging to the poorer classes."—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

MR. BRYCE

said, he wished to propose, as a further Amendment, the omission, after the word "area," in line 29, of the words "for their maintenance, clothing, or advancement in life, "in order to insert the words" otherwise for their benefit. "There was no difference as to the advisability of keeping the funds for the proper classes; but if the words he had suggested should be left out were allowed to remain in the Bill, it might be difficult to avoid continuing the endowment in that precise form. They all knew that in many cases clothing was not the best form in which relief could be given. His Amendment would give a wider discretion to the Commissioners as to the form in which the funds should be applied for the benefit of the children.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 29, after "area," leave out "for their maintenance, clothing, or advancement in life," and insert "otherwise for their benefit."—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

MR. ANDERSON

thought the alteration a good one, as it might be of great value occasionally to leave the Commis- sioners more freedom. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he hoped it would not be accepted. He thought the object would be better answered by in-sorting the Amendment to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) to the latter part of the clause, to add the words "shall continue to be applied for the benefit of such children."

MR. BRYCE

said, if his Amendment were accepted, he proposed to add the words "in such manner as the Commissioners shall think most generally useful."

MR. MUNDELLA

thought that such a thing as clothing constituted a very doubtful way of helping the children, and was especially objectionable when it took the shape of uniform. He should be glad, therefore, to substitute more general words, leaving it to the Commissioners to secure for the children such help as they might think would really be of advantage to the children. He would bring up words to meet the object on the Report.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, a large number of his constituents had not any decent clothes, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be very careful as to how this matter was dealt with. There were in the part of the country he represented a good many children who did not go to school because they were not properly clothed.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, by making the terms more general it would leave it open to the Commissioners to find a better way of assisting the children, but would not prevent their having clothes. The words must be altered to adapt them to alterations already made. What was wanted was words to say "and such benefits shall continue to be applied for the advantage of such children," or the use of these children on such endowments.

MR. BRYCE

then moved that the Amendment should read thus— Such endowment or such educational benefit, or otherwise, shall continue to be applied for the benefit of such children.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, there was, first, an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman not relating to this point, the omission of words in lines 30 and 31.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he begged to move that Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, after "life," leave out to "to," inclusive, in line 31.—(Mr. Mundella.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In line 29, to insert "such endowment or such educational benefit, or otherwise, shall continue to be applied for the benefit of such children."—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

On the Motion of Mr. BRYCE, Amendment made, in page 6, line 32, after "education or," by leaving out to end of Clause, and inserting "otherwise for their benefit."

Amendment proposed, in page 6, at end, to add, "shall continue to be applied for the benefit of such children."— (Mr. Mundella.)

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

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "continue," the words "so far as requisite."—(Mr. Anderson.)

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

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, he had Notices of two Amendments to the clause which did not appear to come in under the now wording. His object was to insure greater clearness.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the object of the Amendment, in so far as it related to children of the poorer classes, was secured.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it appeared to him that the Government were somewhat watering down the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at end of Clause, after "children," add "in such manner as the Commissioners shall think most generally useful."—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he could not accept this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Words aided.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 (Benefits to be extended to girls).

MR. BRYCE

said, he had an Amendment to move to this clause, with the object of extending the endowments to girls. The same clause appeared in the English Act of 1869; but, as shown by the Report of the Endowed Schools Committee, it was found inadequate—not strong enough for its purpose—it did not give sufficient distinct authority to the Commissioners with which to overcome such local opposition as they sometimes met with. He ventured to move his Amendment, then, with the object of slightly strengthening and somewhat improving the operation of the clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 34, after "as," leave out to "for," in line 35, and insert "can" be equitably arranged, and as the circumstances of each particular locality require."—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he quite recognized the object of the Amendment, and was as desirous as the hon. Member to make provision for girls; but he thought if the next Amendment, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), was accepted, to leave out the word "girls," and substitute the words "both sexes," then all would be done that need be done in pointing the direction in which the Commissioners should go. But this Amendment he did not think was necessary.

DR. CAMERON

said, he did not think it would alter the scope of the clause to leave out "girls," and insert "both sexes," and he rather thought that "girls" was a more distinct and definite term. As the hon. Member had said, the clause in the English Act having been found insufficient constituted a very good reason for departing from that precedent, and giving it some wider scope. Though he did not see that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would make any material alteration, yet, as it might be taken as giving a more specific direction to the Commissioners, he should support it.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had no objection to the Amendment; but was it intended, by introducing the words "both sexes," to place them on an equal footing, and that the benefits intended for girls should be extended to boys?

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, he did not see that the words would add anything to the clause, and nothing could be wider than the fair and equitable arrangement under the clause. It would be better-to retain the words. With regard to the words "both sexes," instead of "girls," he did not understand the meaning of it; it seemed to imply that endowments might be intended for the benefit of no sex at all. It seemed to him that the clause was better as it stood.

MR. BRYCE

said, whether the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow were accepted or not, his Amendment was necessary. He submitted that the experience of the English Act showed it was necessary to strengthen the hands of the Commissioners.

MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK

said, he agreed very much with what had been said by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), and entirely approved of the provisions of the Bill being extended for the benefit of girls. Though the words of the proposed Amendment did not teem to add very much to the instructions laid down in the Bill, still, as there was no objection on the point of phraseology, the Amendment might be accepted, as tending to avoid the difficulties which the Commissioners encountered in administering the English Act.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he had made inquiries, and he found that what had been said by the hon. Member in moving the Amendment was borne out by experience. He had no objection to the words—in fact, he had no objection to accept both Amendments. It would point the instructions more strongly to secure the benefit of girls.

Question put, and negatived.

Words inserted accordingly.

MR. ANDERSON

said, his Amendment would give the Commissioners greater power, and enable them to make the advantages more reciprocal.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 35, to leave out "girls," and insert "both sexes."—(Mr. Anderson.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 18 (Inspection and audit) agreed to.

Clause 19 (Provision for future alteration of schemes).

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendment made, in page 7, line 10, after "alteration," by leaving out to "expedient," inclusive, and inserting "of the scheme from time to time."

MR. BUCHANAN

said, the Amendment he had to move was one of several he had to this and subsequent clauses, with the view of eliminating the control of the Scotch Education Department over these bodies; but if it was objected to he would not press it.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 11, leave out from "with" to "Department," in line 12.—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he really thought there ought not to be any animus to, or distrust of, the Scotch Education Department. It was composed almost exclusively of Scotchmen; and, he might add, the majority in the English Department were of the same nationality. If anybody could complain of the Education Department it should not be Scotchmen, but Englishmen.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the object with which he had given Notice of an Amendment was to provide for the due arrangement of the scheme, after the Commission had ceased to exist, that it should not naturally fall to the Court of Session. He would give it to the much maligned Education Department, in which he had great faith.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. GRANT

said, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 14, at end, to add "and the governing body constituted under any orders passed in terms of 'The Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act, 1869,' or 'The Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act, 1878,' with consent of the Scotch Education Department, may apply to the court for the alteration of any such order from time to time as such governing body may deem necessary."—(Mr. A. Grant.)

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he had no objection to the admission of these words.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Procedure.

Clause 20 (Preliminary inquiry).

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendment made, in page 7, line 17, after such," y inserting public."

MR. BUCHANAN

rose to move an Amendment to the same line, to substitute "shall" or may."

THE CHAIRMAN

I am sorry to say the Amendment comes in the wrong order; we have passed the word "may," and got as far as the word "public."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it was an error due to the arrangement of the Amendments; but he would consider whether they should turn "may" into "shall" on the Report stage.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 (Governing body may lodge draft scheme).

MR. A. GRANT

said, he thought it would be an advantage to extend the time from two months to three.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 21, after "within," leave out "two," and insert"three."—(Mr. A. Grant.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press this. They had extended the time all through the Bill, and it would be very undesirable to keep the Commissioners waiting idly month after month. Two months was an ample time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he proposed to extend the time for allowing the Governing Body to prepare a draft scheme from four months from the passing of the Act to six months, as it was in the English Act.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 24, leave out "four," and insert "six." —(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, his hon-Friend was under a mistake. It was not four months from the passing of the Act, but from the time of the Act coming into force, and it would not come into force until November next. The Amendment would keep the Commissioners idle for nearly five months of next year.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, that in the Bill of last year six months was allowed.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that was from the passing of the Act.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, that in the English Act, in cases of large endowments, six months was allowed; and it was an important and serious matter to prepare a scheme for the re-adjustment of a large endowment, and ample time should be given to a Governing Body to thoroughly master such a scheme.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

said, he thought there was a good deal of force in the argument in favour of six months.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it would take to March next before the first scheme could come under the notice of the Commissioners, and he did not want to keep them idle longer than could be avoided. This Bill had been expected for years, and there was no ground or occasion for such a delay.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, then, why in the English Act was it made six months from the passing of the Act that the Commissioners were to act?

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he could not answer that.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he proposed that the Commissioners, before preparing a scheme of their own, should consider a draft scheme submitted by the Governing Body. It was so in the English Act, and it was the clear intention there that the views of the Governing Body should be fully considered. If it was necessary in the English Act, surely it was applicable to Scotland also. He presumed there would be the same answer, that it was desirable to save time, and that the Commissioners should not be called upon to examine a scheme before preparing one for themselves; but to that answer he had to say there was something even more important than saving time, and that was to have the work thoroughly well done.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 24, after "shall," insert "before they themselves prepare any draft of a scheme."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that the clause was most carefully guarded. The Governing Body might lodge a draft scheme after inquiry and giving notice of their intentions; and the Commissioners, after such notice, and within four months, would take the draft scheme of the Governing Body into consideration in preparing their own scheme, and if they adopted the scheme of the Governing Body it became their own scheme. If the Governing Body submitted one scheme and the Commissioners adopted another, that, of course, was not the scheme of the Governing Body; but the Commissioners might adopt the whole or part, or so much of the scheme of the Governing Body as they thought necessary, and from that moment the Commissioners became responsible.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he was perfectly aware of all that—it was quite plain on the face of it—but the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware of the objection which he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had taken. There was no more reason in Scotland than in England why the Commissioners should be allowed to prepare their scheme before they had considered the scheme of the Governing Body.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that they would do nothing of the sort—no Commissioners would do such a thing. If the Governing Body gave notice of a scheme, the Commissioners would never dream of preparing a scheme of their own until they had seen it.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he did not know what they would be likely to do— he only knew what the Act of Parliament told them to do. However, this was one of those matters which would not allow of discussion at this late hour (10 o'clock), and it just showed the inconvenience and disadvantage of forcing through at this time of night, without adequate discussion, such a Bill as this. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen around him to say whether the last two or three Amendments had boon properly discussed? He maintained that they had not nearly received adequate treatment. He did not intend to take any further step in the matter, seeing that he was obliged to refrain from speaking in support of the Amendment.

MR. WARTON

wished to make a friendly suggestion, which he thought might please hon. Gentlemen. Why not change the word "in" to the word "before," for that was really what was meant?

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, he thought that that would, perhaps, be an improvement, and would satisfy his hon. Friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MUNDELLA,

in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, moved the omission of the word "in," in order to substitute the word "before."

Question, "That the word 'in' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Clause as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 (Printing and publication of draft schemes) agreed to.

Clause 23 (Governing body may lodge objections).

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendment made, in page 7, line 36, after "scheme," by inserting "and any amendments proposed thereon."

MR. BUCHANAN moved to insert, after the word "thereon" in the Amendment just accepted, the words— And shall receive any alternative scheme submitted to them by the governing body of any educational endowment to which the scheme of the Commissioners relates. He apprehended that there would be no objection to provide for the reception of any alternative scheme.

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, this proposal was for a second alternative scheme to be submitted to the Commissioners, and that the Commissioners should take that scheme into consideration before preparing their own. He did not think it was necessary to provide in this way for a second alternative scheme.

MR. BUCHANAN

expressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 36, after "writing," insert "by any public body or persons interested."'—(Mr. Preston Bruce.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

had no objection to the Amendment proposed; but it could not be taken now. He would agree to the insertion of the words on Report if they were then moved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. MOUNELLA, Amendments made, in page 7, line 37, by leaving out "month," and inserting "two months;" in page 7, line 38, after "scheme," by inserting "and the amendments proposed thereon;" and in page 7, line 39, after "local," by inserting "public."

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 (As to framing of schemes).

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendments made, in page 8, line 2, by leaving out "month," and inserting "two months;" and in page 8, line 6, after "scheme," by inserting "and any amendments proposed thereon."

MR. BUCHANAN moved to insert, at the end, in line 9, the words— Provided, That where a scheme has been prepared and submitted in pursuance of this Act to the Commissioners before the Commissioners have prepared the draft of a scheme, the Commissioners shall, if requested by the governing body that submitted it, submit such scheme with their own to the Scotch Education Department.

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that the addition of this Proviso was unnecessary, as the course proposed by it was invariably taken.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

wished to know why the Proviso should not be added, unless there was some reason to be urged against it?

MR. MUNDELLA

If it would give any assurance to the hon. Member I do not object; but really there is no necessity for these words.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 (Approval of Scotch Educational Department to schemes).

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendment made, in page 8, line 14, by leaving out "one month," and inserting "two months."

On the Motion of Mr. PRESTON BRUCE, Amendment made, in page 8, line 16, after "writing," by inserting "by any public body or persons interested."

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendment made, in page 8, line 18, by leaving out "month," and inserting "two months."

MR. WEBSTER moved the omission, from line 29, of all the words from "unless" to "Parliament," in order to insert the words "they are about to lay the same before Parliament." He said the Amendment which he now proposed was copied exactly from the corresponding clause in the Scotch Act of 1878; and a similar provision was contained in the English Act of 1869. It was of more consequence that the schemes prepared under this Bill should be properly considered, and that the public should have a fair opportunity of considering them than it was in the case of the Act of 1878.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 29, leave out from "unless," to "Parliament," both inclusive, and insert" they are about to lay the same before Parliament."—(Mr. Webster.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the Amendment proposed was really unnecessary, and it would cause great inconvenience. When schemes were thoroughly approved by everybody in the locality—when they had gone through a long process of notices and advertisements and delays, and everybody was perfectly satisfied— when there was not found one single person petitioning against them—it did seem an unnecessary delay to lay them before Parliament, especially as they must lay there for 40 days from the meeting of Parliament, and nothing could be done except when Parliament was Sitting. It would be exceedingly inconvenient for every scheme to be laid before Parliament. No persons were so anxious as the Governing Body of the locality itself to let the Department get to work as soon as possible. Supposing the two months expired just when Parliament rose, nothing could be done until the following Session; and then the scheme, which everybody had been waiting for for six or eight months, would have to lay for another two months upon the Table of the House. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not insist upon this Amendment.

MR. WEBSTER

confessed that he felt so strongly on this point that he must press the Amendment. It was all very well to say that the Governing Body were satisfied and wanted the matter settled as soon as possible; but there were the interests of the public at large to be considered. The delay would only be slight, and it was certainly worth while to incur it.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he would support his hon. Friend on general grounds; but he wished to point out one practical difficulty, which was that while sometimes it was not possible to get an opportunity to discuss a scheme in this House it could be done in the other, as in the case of the English University Statutes, and the influence of the other House in such matters was not always for good.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Amendments made, in page 8, lines 29 and 30, by leaving out "one month," and inserting "two months;" and in page 8, line 38, by leaving out "municipal."

On the Motion of Mr. PRESTON BRUCE, Amendment made, in page 8, line 38, after "scheme," by inserting "or by the school board,"

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, 'Amendment made, in page 8, line 39, by leaving out "municipal."

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 (Proceedings where scheme is remitted) agreed to.

Clause 27 (Quorum of Commissioners) agreed to.

Clause 28 (Quorum of governing body) agreed to.

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

Clause 30 (Deliverance of Court of Session final. Disposal of questions of expenses) agreed to.

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

MR. PRESTON BRUCE moved to omit from page 10, line 22, the words "forty days," in order to insert the words "three months." The English Act provided for schemes lying before Parliament for two months; but the University Statutes laid before Parliament for 12 weeks, and he thought the fullest time ought to be allowed, even though the chance that Parliament would object to the schemes might not be very great.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 22, leave out "forty days," and insert "three months."—(Mr. Preston Bruce.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he was sure that when he pointed out the inconvenience that would inevitably result from this Amendment, the hon. Gentleman would not press it. If a scheme was laid before Parliament in the latter part of a Session, and Parliament did not sit three months afterwards, then, under this Amendment, such scheme would have to go over to the next Session of Parliament. That was why the time was fixed at 40 days. There was something reasonable in 40 days, but not in three months. It always happened that a discussion upon a scheme could be brought on either in one House or in the other, and even now there was a scheme— a very large English scheme—before the House, and he had arranged to put it down on Monday next, in order that the hon. Member for West Surrey might offer his objections against it. There was really not that difficulty which was apprehended in getting a scheme discussed. He really could not accept the proposal that the time should be fixed at three months, because it would be so tremendously inconvenient, and the result would be that for nine months in the year a scheme would be of no use.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept some Amendment in the direction proposed, because, at the present moment, the laying of a scheme on the Table for 40 days was a mere sham. In the first place, it was quite impossible to raise and carry a Motion on a scheme within the time, and he remembered some Orders last year which were never allowed to come on. There was also another reason why the Parliamentary control was not a reality. It often happened that many days out of the 40 elapsed before the schemes were printed and circulated, and yet the 40 days ran from the day on which the scheme was laid on the Table of the House.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he had never had a scheme yet since he had been Vice President that was objected to that had not been properly discussed. The real reason was that the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule did not apply.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

thought that 40 days would be enough. At the same time, he was of opinion that it would be rather a fraud on hon. Members if "dummies" were laid on the Table, and that they should insist on these schemes being printed and circulated.

MR. MUNDELLA

begged to tell the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) that "dummies" were not laid on the Table. A scheme must be printed and circulated before it was objected to.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, that, in his opinion, 40 days would not be sufficient. Only last year a case occurred in which a scheme was laid on the Table at the beginning of the year, and some time afterwards a representation was made to him respecting it.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he wished to move the insertion of the following Proviso:— Provided always, That if, within such forty days, notice has been duly given of a Motion in one or other of the said Houses for an Address as above-mentioned, which Motion has not been considered by the said House, it shall not be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to declare her approbation of such scheme, or any part thereof, until such Motion has been disposed of by the said House.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Amendment seemed to be consequential.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that as it appeared to be the feeling that 40 days was not long enough, he would extend the time to two months, and would bring up an Amendment on Report for that purpose. He was bound to say, however, that the first persons to complain of this concession would be the Governing Bodies of the schools and local authorities, because there was ample publicity as it was. Before any scheme of the hind was laid on the Table it was published and circulated.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) was giving away to a small knot of Members below the Ministerial Gangway, although the general sense of the Committee was against accepting the Amendment.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, his reason for accepting the proposal was that the words "two months" were in the English Act.

MR. BUCHANAN

wished to point out to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) that the small knot of Members below the Gangway to whom he referred had been present during the whole of the discussion.

Clause agreed to.

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

On the Motion of Mr. E. PRESTON BRUCE, the following Amendment made: —In page 10, line 38, leave out "one hundred," and insert "fifty."

MR. BOLTON moved to leave out the clause. He said, that if the clause were retained in the Bill, it would exclude the Commissioners from dealing with endowments belonging to State-aided schools or public schools, under the Education (Scot-land)Acts of 1872 and 1878,of less annual value than £100. He did not see what advantage would be derived from excluding the Commissioners from exercising their powers in the cases of such endow- ments. It might probably be necessary not to burden small endowments of this kind with all the procedure provided in the case of large endowments; but it was certainly desirable that such endowments should come under the purview of the Commissioners.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, to leave out Clause 32.—[Mr. Bolton.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 32 stand part of the Bill."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the clause was taken from the English Act, in which the minimum was fixed at £100. Endowments below £100 a-year were all dealt with by the Education Department on the same principle as other larger endowments; but it was not desirable to leave small endowments to go through the same processes, and incur the same expense. This was done in order to facilitate the arrangement of small schemes. Moreover, they could not encumber the Commission with a large number of petty endowments of this kind, and it was really hardly worth while to discuss the proposal.

MR. BOLTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated the real point. The initiative in preparing schemes was left with the Governing Body itself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 (Inquiry by assistant commissioner).

On the Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, the following Amendment made:—In page 11, line 16, after "local," insert "public."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 43 (Returns, &c. by governing body).

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 13, line 5, to leave out from "every," to "require," in line 7. He did not, however, think it necessary to detain the Committee on this point, and he would not move his Amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL moved, in page 4, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:— Nothing in this Act shall authorise the making of any scheme interfering with any Endowment, or part of an Endowment, which has been regulated by a Provisional Order made and confirmed pursuant to the provisions of 'The Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act, 1869,' or 'The Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act, 1878,' unless the Governing Body of such Endowment assent to the scheme, or unless the Governing Body have, in the opinion of the Commissioners, failed to give effect to the provisions of such Provisional Order. He said the object of the clause was to exempt from the application of the Bill endowments which had been regulated by the late Commission. A provision of this nature appeared in the Bill of last year, and he thought it was a fault in the present measure that no such provision was contained in it. The Bill was a sequel to the Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act of 1878; and when that Act was introduced, a promise was given that another measure should be brought in, after a sufficient lapse of time, to deal with endowments which had not been brought under the regulation of the Commissioners then appointed. There was something like a promise that the endowments that were regulated by the Endowed Institutions Commission should not be disturbed afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Endowed Institutions Bill into the House spoke of Trustees having a last chance to reform their Trusts. The consequence was that a number of Trusts submitted themselves to the Commission, and had their schemes regulated; and it seemed a hardship that those who had done so should be exposed to the trouble and expense of having to go before another Commission. Petitions had been presented to the House by some public bodies whose endowments were regulated by the late Commission. He might mention specially, in case some hon. Member on the other side said there was no sympathy with his proposal on the part of Municipal Bodies, that a Petition had been presented in favour of it by the Town Council of Aberdeen, and also by the Governing Body of an important College in that town. He did not wish to detain the Committee, and, therefore, without saying anything further, would content himself with proposing this clause, which he hoped the Government would accept.

New Clause (Scheme not to interfere with any regulated endowment,)—(Mr. J. A.Campbell,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. WEBSTER

said, he rose, before the right hon. Gentleman expressed any opinion, to offer a most cordial support to the proposal. In some of the cases to which the hon. Member who had moved the clause (Mr. J. A. Campbell) referred, the Governing Bodies had already put the schemes into operation in accordance with the new Order. He knew that in one case to which the hon. Member alluded—namely, that of the College in Aberdeen—the expenses attending the obtaining of a Provisional Order amounted to a large sum. It really seemed to him (Mr. Webster) that, at some time or other, there should be an end to all these controversies and inquiries; and he, therefore, hoped the clause would be agreed to.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

hoped that the Government would accept the clause. It would be very hard if those Trustees who had had their schemes revised under the Endowed Institutions Acts were vexed with fresh inquiries and revisions, under the operation of the Commission to be appointed under the Bill.

MR. BUCHANAN

hoped the Government would consider the subject carefully. Some of the institutions which had taken Provisional Orders under the Act of 1878 were anxious to come under the provisions of the Bill.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that, in his opinion, there really was no occasion for this Proviso. The hon. Member (Mr. J. A. Campbell) knew there was no danger of any Commission disturbing a good scheme. If a scheme were found to be inefficient, and it did not work in a proper way, it would be dealt with under the Bill; but there was no occasion why the excellent schemes which hon. Members who had spoken on the subject doubtless had in their minds should be disturbed. He believed the impression was that the Commission would be rather too conservative than too reforming in its tendencies, and he did not think there need be the least apprehension on the subject. The Proviso was that any scheme which had been recently dealt with could not be touched at all; and the result of its adoption would be that, if it were desirable to revise schemes on the ground that they had been made by Governing Bodies without reference to other Bodies in the locality, it would not be possible to do so. He hoped the Committee would show that they had some confidence in the Commission, and would leave it to the good sense of the Gentlemen who acted on that Commission to carry out the provisions of the measure in a proper way.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 18; Noes 40: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 295.)

MR. BOLTON moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following Clause:—

(Provision for default of governing body.) If the governing body of any educational endowment fail to give effect to the provisions of any scheme approved under this Act, or of any Provisional Order made and confirmed under 'The Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act, 1869,' or 'The Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act, 1878,' it shall be lawful for the Scotch Education Department, upon the application of the Town Council of any burgh directly affected by such scheme or Provisional Order, or of any ratepayers (not less than twenty) of any burgh, or parish, or place directly affected thereby, or of any person or persons having a vested interest in the endowment or any part of it, and, after such inquiry as they shall think proper, to send a requisition to such governing body, requiring them to give effect to the provisions of the scheme, or Provisional Order, and the governing body-shall comply with the said requisition without undue delay, and, if they fail, may be summarily compelled to do so by the Court of Session, on a petition and complaint at the instance of the Lord Advocate.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, there could be no objection to the proposal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Preamble.

Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out after the word "whereas," to "whereas," in line 13, inclusive.—(Mr. Mundella.)

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

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, that, as one of the Commissioners, he wished to say a word as to the proposed omission of all mention of their Report. They had devoted three years to hearing evidence and preparing recommendations in detail, and had taken much trouble to examine into each case, as well as to lay down sound general principles of reform. Nevertheless, if, owing to opposition from certain quarters, it would afford any facility for the passing of this Bill that their labours should be in no way recognized in the Bill, they were perfectly content to have it so. The new Commission would probably pay more attention to their recommendations than had been paid by those Members to gratify whom the omission was proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had two Amendments to the Preamble on the Paper; but he would only move one of them. He proposed to add, at the end of line 15, the words "consistent with such intentions."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, at end of line, add "consistent with such intentions."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the Amendment was really unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the Committee had now come to the end of the Amendments after a Sitting of 11 hours' duration, and he should not like the discussion to close without thanking the Scotch Members for the patience and self-denial which had been evinced by them throughout the whole of the proceedings in Committee. He also wished to thank those hon. Members who had come down in order to keep a House, and to assist in getting the Bill through Committee. Some of these had assisted the Committee very greatly, and their advice and experience had been most useful in the framing of the clauses. He bogged to express his gratitude to all the hon. Members who had so courageously supported the Government.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]