HC Deb 10 April 1888 vol 324 cc915-31
MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St, Rollox)

, in rising to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from the scheme for the management of the endowment known as the Bell Residue Fund, now lying upon the Table of the House; said, the Rev. Dr. Bell left a considerable sum of money for the purpose of promoting the educational system of Scotland. The benefits of his system of instruction were not intended to be confined to any particular locality, but were for the people of Scotland; and in the foundation it was stated that the towns to be benefited were Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Aberdeen, Leith, and St. Andrew's. The trustees founded a Professorship of Education in the University of Edinburgh, with an endowment of £6,000, and they also founded a Chair of Education in the University of St. Andrew's, with an endowment of £4,000. After making these and other provisions under various schemes which have been made up by the Educational Endowments Commissioners, there still remained a considerable sum, which was known as the Bell Residue Fund, and under the scheme now before the House it was proposed to give to the Chair in Edinburgh University a further endowment of £4,500, and to the Chair in St. Andrew's University a further endowment of £3,000. The opposition to this scheme arose on the part of Glasgow and of Glasgow University. They objected to it only in so far as regarded the application of the residue to the Chair in St. Andrew's; they did not object to the scheme in so far as it gave an additional endowment to the Chair of Education in Edinburgh, because they felt that the Chair in Edinburgh was a most useful one, and that it was promoting the benefit of education in Scotland; but it was pointed out that the Chair in St. Andrew's University was practically a Chair without students. St. Andrew's University was in no way suited for the purposes of a Chair of Education in Scotland. There were no Training Colleges in St. Andrew's, and a Departmental Committee of the Scotch Educational Department had reported against the formation of a Training College there, with the Professor of Education at the head of the College, because there were no students who would practically benefit by such a College in such a place. If they further endowed the Chair at St. Andrew's they would be giving simply a larger sum to the occupants of that Chair, who was holding a sinecure position. He had no doubt the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), who was Member for St. Andrew's University, would be able to tell them how many students were attending the Chair, and how many of these were connected with the teaching profession. He maintained that a Chair of Education at the University of Glasgow was of the utmost importance for Scotland. There was no reason why the money should not be allocated to Glasgow University. There was nothing in the nature of the endowment making it locally applicable to St. Andrew's. It was of a wide-spread character, and might be employed in any University for the general benefit of education in Scotland; and he maintained that the money could be more usefully employed by having a Chair of Education at Glasgow. With regard to Glasgow as a field for such a Chair, there were in that city two Training Colleges, which contained a very large number of the students trained in Scotland. In the year 1886 there were no fewer than 94 students attending these Training Colleges who were attending the University of Glasgow as students. In addition to that, during the past few years there had been from 25 to 40 assistant masters of the Glasgow School Board attending the University of Glasgow, and there had been from six to 10 assistant masters of the Govan School Board also attending the Glasgow University, besides assistant masters from Maryhill, Renfrew, and other districts; so that if they had a Chair of Education at Glasgow, they had a large attendance ready to take advantage of it. The Institute of Education in Scotland had reported in favour of the necessity of such a Chair in Edinburgh. The Chair also made provision for the attendance of the mistresses of the schools at the lectures, and there were a large number of these connected with the Glasgow School Board. It was not in the interests of Glasgow University by itself that he made this claim. The Glasgow University Authorities would not reap a penny of advantage from such an endowment, which he advocated solely in the interests of the public, and the whole of the money would go to the occupant of that Chair. Nor would the endowment of that Chair be of exclusive benefit to Glasgow or the West of Scotland, because the students who were trained in the Glasgow Training Colleges were trained, not for Glasgow alone, but for the whole length and breadth of Scotland. It was possible to give even more widespread importance to the Chair from the circumstance that the lectures did not necessarily require to be given during the day, but might be given in the evening and on Saturdays. The Edinburgh University Chair of Education had been fully recognized and accepted by the Department in connection with the training of teachers, and it entered as an element into the course for the schoolmaster's diploma instituted by the University, so that the students attending the Training Colleges in Glasgow were placed at a disadvantage as compared with the students attending the Training Colleges at Edinburgh, because they had not the benefit of this class in the University and had not the benefit of obtaining this diploma. It so happened that the number of students attending Glasgow University was very much greater than those who were attending Edinburgh University. No one who looked at the matter from a purely national point of view—from the point of view of what was the best method of disposing of this sum to the greatest possible advantage—could come to any other conclusion than that it would be of far greater importance to give this money for the purpose of founding a Chair in Glasgow University than for the purpose of supplementing a Chair which practically was a nonentity, so far as its usefulness in education was concerned, in St. Andrew's. When the scheme was approved by the Commissioners, the Glasgow University Authorities lodged objections with the Scottish Educational Department, setting forth the views which he had now communicated to the House. The Glasgow University got a note simply acknowledging receipt of their objections; but nothing more had been heard from the Department in reply to these objections until the scheme appeared in the newspapers as having been approved by the Department. He had put a Question to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate yesterday as to whether the scheme had been laid before the Scottish Education Department at a duly constituted meeting, and had been duly considered by them along with the objections by the University of Glasgow. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's answer was that the Department only had before them important matters; but any small matters, such as these schemes, it was not necessary to lay before a meeting of the Department, but they were considered by the Vice President. He would point out to the House that, by the Education Endowments Act, it was laid down that a scheme, after having passed the Commissioners, must be approved of by the Scottish Education Department, which was to hear all parties interested, and that their judgment would practically be a judgment of a Court after having fully considered all the objections that had been stated. In this particular instance he ventured to say not a single member of the Scottish Education Department, barring one at any rate, ever saw the scheme or the objections, or duly considered them. According to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, these schemes were not considered by a meeting of the Scottish Education Department, but were handed over to the Vice President. He (Mr. Caldwell) said that was not in compliance with the spirit of the Act. When a scheme of this importance to the educational interests of Scotland was brought before the Education Department, and when authorities like those of Glasgow University appeared as objectors to the scheme, they were entitled to have their interests heard and determined by the Scotch Education Department, sitting in their judicial capacity and in formal meeting. This was precisely what the people of Scotland complained of—that the matters relating to Scotland were left to be treated alone by a permanent Secretary, and that the interests of Scotland were in no way heard by those who ought to give them the benefit of their due deliberations. When the matter came before the House of Commons, it was almost useless to object, because here, again, the Government had made up their minds that the scheme was to pass, and when they had once approved of it, on however insufficient information, it was defended by the Government in the House, and when the Division Bell was rung the right hon. and learned Lard Advocate had the Government Whips at his back, who would bring in hon. Members—who knew nothing of the subject—from the different rooms, who would vote down the Scotch Business, notwithstanding that in many instances there were three-fourths of the people of Scotland on both sides of politics represented. This was why the people of Scotland sympathized so much with the claims of the people of Ireland, because they felt that important matters were often dealt with by one or two officials, and did not get the attention they deserved. He maintained that when they looked to the nature of the endowment, to the fact that it was given by the Rev. Dr. Bell for the purpose of promoting education in Scotland, it was not fulfilling the object of the founder to give the money to St. Andrew's. They did not object to the application of the money so far as Edinburgh University was concerned, but as regarded the balance of the residue, they maintained that to give it to St. Andrew's University was to give it to a purpose that would produce no possible public benefit to the people of Scotland or to education, and that if the money were to be applied for the benefit of a Chair in Glasgow it would be a means of stimulating education in Scotland, and finding a University training to probably the largest number of students that could be brought together in any University. He, therefore, moved that the scheme be not approved of.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the Scheme for the Management of the Endowment known as the Bell Residue Fund, now lying upon the Table of the House."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

said, he would leave the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to deal with the latter part of the hon. Member's speech. He would not enter on the mode of administration of the Scottish Education Department; but in regard to the Motion itself, he was in this delicate position that, having the honour to represent the University of Glasgow, he must on this occasion appear to go against his own constituents. He felt that his hon. Friend opposite had not given quite a full ac- count of the circumstances under which the Commissioners, of whom he had the honour to be one, had constructed this scheme. It was not quite a correct statement of the facts to speak of the great bequests of Dr. Bell as not confined to any particular locality, but intended for the use of Scotland as a whole. Dr. Bell left one very large bequest, which he specifically allocated. It was a bequest of £120,000 in Stocks, and it was divided into twelfths. Of these twelfths no fewer than six, or one-half of the whole, he allocated in one way or another to St. Andrew's. One-twelfth each was given to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Leith, and to the Royal Naval School in London. Of the half given to St. Andrew's 5–12ths were given to the Madras College, which he directed his trustees to found, and the remaining twelfth to the Town Council of St. Andrew's, towards the moral and religious improvement of the City, and for useful and permanent works there. It was not correct, therefore, to say that there was no local allocation in the bequest of Dr. Ball. On the contrary, there was a very strong expression of Dr. Bell's particular interest in the City of St. Andrew's. Now, he agreed with all that his hon. Friend had said as to the importance of having a Chair of Education at Glasgow, and as to the great usefulness of such a Chair to the whole of Scotland. But the question was not whether a Chair of Education was to be founded at Glasgow, but whether that Chair was to be founded with Dr. Bell's money. The great bequest of £120,000 was given by Dr. Bell specifically; but the residue of his estate he left his Trustees to deal with, giving them full discretionary powers. When the Educational Endowments Commissioners came to deal with this residue they found that in 1876–12 years ago—Dr. Bell's Trustees had founded two Chairs of Education—one in Edinburgh and the other in St. Andrew's. They found, however, that these Chairs were quite inadequately endowed. Dr. Bell's Trustees had expected that their endowment of the Chairs would have been supplemented by a grant from Her Majesty's Treasury, but in this respect they had been disappointed. The Commissioners further found that the Madras College also was inadequately endowed, and had ceased, in great measure, to have the character which Dr. Bell intended it to have—namely, that of a secondary school. They considered, therefore, they were doing the best thing under the circumstances, in the interests of education, and at the same time having regard to the founder's intentions, by giving one-half of the residue, or a little more than half, towards the better endowment of the Madras College, so as to make it really a secondary school, and by giving additional endowments to the two Education Chairs which had been founded by Dr. Bell's Trustees. The selection of Edinburgh and St. Andrew's was not a matter the Commissioners were responsible for. The hon. Member had reflected on the usefulness of the Chair at St. Andrew's. No doubt, St. Andrew's was a small place compared with Edinburgh or Glasgow But it must be remembered that the Chair was very inadequately endowed. What could they expect from a Professorship with only £180 a year of endowment? With a better endowment there was also the prospect of better circumstances for St. Andrew's. There was a connection with Dundee now by the Tay Bridge which did not formerly exist; and if the Universities Bill went forward, and the provisions of that Bill were carried out, there was the prospect of the affiliation of the University College of Dundee with the University of St. Andrew's, so that there would be a much larger constituency to draw upon for a Chair of this kind. The Commissioners dealing with this residue fund did what they considered to be their duty under the circumstances, fulfilling the wishes of the founder in completing what was left incomplete by his Trustees, improving the endowment for the Madras College, and completing the endowment of the two Educational Chairs.

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

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) was somewhat under a mistake in the view he took about the duty of the Education Department to hear all the parties interested. He did not think the Act of Parliament could be interpreted to mean that all the parties who might come forward and make a claim on the funds could be held to have an interest. Otherwise, he thought the Scottish Education Department might have a great deal more work to do than was reasonable to expect from them. As regarded the facts of this case, there could be no doubt that his hon. Friend was quite right in saying that it might be a very useful thing for the City of Glasgow to have a Chair of Education; but what astonished one in this case was to find that no step had even been taken on the part of that great and wealthy City to supply that want. The first and only step that had been taken in that direction had been to propose that the old endowed Chair in St. Andrew's should not get its fair share of the residue of the Bell Estate, but that it should be handed over to the Glasgow University, for the purpose of starting them in the enterprize. He could not think that was a reasonable or proper proposition at all on the part of the Glasgow University. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell) said he was in a delicate position in this matter, because he represented Glasgow University. He was afraid that he (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) personally was in a still more delicate position, because he represented the two Universities which got the benefit of this fund for the purposes of the Chair of Education. As regarded Edinburgh, he understood no objection was taken. The object of the hon. Member was to bring to an end the Professorship of Education in St. Andrew's. It was impossible—if the intention of the founder was to be carried out—to set the Professorship at St. Andrew's on a different footing from that of the Chair at Edinburgh.


said, the Chair was only founded in 1876; so that the University would not be in a worse position than it was before then.


said, the same remark applied to Edinburgh. He was speaking entirely of the comparison between Edinburgh and St. Andrew's.


said, that his argument was that he did not object to Edinburgh getting the endowment, because that University was doing useful work for Scotland; whereas in the case of St. Andrew's there were practically no students at all.


said, it was quite obvious that the more they brought forward the argument that the St. Andrew's Chair had not very many students, the clearer they made it that without a reasonable endowment the Chair could not be carried on. He demurred altogether to the idea that the sole duty of a Professor was to teach a very large number of students. He ventured to think that, upon a very great number of occasions, a Professor's duties were infinitely bettor fulfilled to a small than to a large number of students, and particularly with regard to such a Chair as Education. It was extremely valuable to have a Chair of that nature, not merely for the purpose of developing education in the way of teaching the actual students in the class, but also of developing a system of education by a man devoted to that particular work. They knew perfectly well that the class which Professor Meikeljohn taught in St. Andrew's was far larger than that which many German Professors of as great eminence as any in this country had to teach for far smaller fees. Moreover, the development of St. Andrew's as a University was a thing which they had not only reason to hope for, but to expect within a very short time. That development was likely to be brought about soon through the practical amalgamation with the pushing and vigorous College of Dundee, which was one of the great centres of population, industry, and wealth in Scotland. St. Andrew's was a University for which everyone who was a real Scotsman had a sincere regard, and he was quite sure that if his hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell) had not had in view the interests of a University nearer home, he would have been the last man to do anything that would cause the slightest injury to St. Andrew's. As regarded Glasgow, he would like to have seen in the case of a vast community, teeming with wealth and abounding with energy, that the citizens themselves had taken some step to equip their University in the first instance before they made a grab at the Bell Fund, which undoubtedly would leave the Chair in St. Andrew's, which had been established for many years, in a state of starvation as regarded endowment. Not only so, but Glasgow would not get a sum at all adequate for the establishment of a Chair. Perhaps his hon. Friend would say that they would have a very large class of students, and therefore would not require a very great endowment fund. In that case they would not require an endowment at all.


said, he did not propose to establish any Chair without an endowment, and he was certain the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last person to sanction a Chair without a substantial endowment.


said, his argument was that there would be no need for an endowment if there were this large class of students paying fees. His hon. Friend knew perfectly well that there were a great number of Chairs in Scotland at the present moment, of which the remuneration obtained by the Professors from fees was so large that they not only did not require an endowment, but unquestionably the Professors drew too large an income from the position they held. If there had been a clamant call in Glasgow for a Chair of Education, and the matter had been pressed forward as it should have been, no one could question that a full endowment would have already been provided for the Chair. He feared it was the fact that they had been rather sluggish in thinking about the establishment of this Chair, and that it was only when they had the prospect of getting something to set it agoing that they found out the great need they had for it. He trusted that in course of time Glasgow would have a Chair of Education; but if a start were to be given he hoped that Aberdeen, with its necessities, would come in for some share of attention. He begged that the House would not yield for one moment to the proposal of Glasgow that it should take away practically from the University of St. Andrew's that which would make it a reasonable and well-endowed Chair, especially in view of the fact that in the immediate future there would be a great development of teaching in connection with the University of St. Andrew's, which would be brought into connection with that great centre of population, Dundee. He must meet the Motion of his hon. Friend with a direct negative.

MR. C. S. PARKER (Perth)

said, he regretted that the discussion should have taken place in the presence of so few Scottish Members—probably not more than a dozen. He was afraid that would frequently be the case in appeals against the decision of the Endowment Commissioners on questions in which the general public did not take any great interest. That was the fact, and he was afraid this question would have to be settled by the votes of the English Members, with very small help from the Scottish Members. The scheme they were considering had to do not only with the Chairs of Education, but also with Madras College, St. Andrew's. It ought to be remembered how much the founder of the Bell Fund had at heart the interest of that College, and the scheme of education which he intended to be conducted; and that he intended that institution ought to be not merely of the nature of a primary school, but a higher College. In a letter to a friend, Dr. Bell said he hoped the College would draw families to St. Andrew's for the higher education of their children. If this Resolution were adopted, that portion of the founder's intention would be overthrown, and the money given to the larger City of Glasgow at the expense of the smaller. He regretted that on both sides hard language had been used. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell), who brought forward the Motion spoke too slightingly of St. Andrew's as a place of education. The hon. Member misrepresented the nature of the Report of the Departmental Committee, over which he had the honour to preside. It was true the Committee did not see their way to recommend that the University of St. Andrew's should become a Training College, which was the ambition they had. While the Committee opposed that, they at the same time brought before the Department the fact that in St. Andrew's there was a great deal being done, of course on a somewhat small scale, for education. It was mentioned in the Report that there were as many as 86 graduates belonging to St. Andrew's engaged in the teaching profession. The class for the education of teachers had risen to as large a number as 22, which, compared with some of the German Universities, was a very respectable number to pass through a Professor's hands to become teachers, and was sufficient justification for keeping a Pro- fessor of Education. Beyond that, there were hopes of extension through the more direct connection with Dundee by the opening of the Tay Bridge, from which town students were likely to seek their training in St. Andrew's. Besides, the Professor of Education was perfectly willing to make himself useful to the large class of female teachers and students whom they were hoping to actract, especially during the part of the year when the University was closed. He felt bound to bear witness that there was adequate employment there for a Professor of Education. He thought St. Andrew's had a very good claim upon the Fund, both for Madras College and the Chair of Education. The hon. Member said he had no objection to the endowment of the Chair at Edinburgh. It seemed to him they would do a mischievous and injurious thing if they were to throw out the scheme, and reject the judgment of the Endowment Commissioners, merely because Glasgow also stood in need of a Chair of Education. He thought the hon. Member opposite had been too severe on Glasgow claiming a share in this Fund. It seemed to him natural they should do so. He regretted, however, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate spoke in so severe a tone of the University of Glasgow coming forward to take a share in this Fund. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said Glasgow ought to find the money from their own funds, and when they considered the great wealth of Glasgow there was much to be said for that; but it should be remembered that Glasgow had shown no slowness to come forward in that way. He was bound to say they had set an example to all Scotland by the liberal spirit in which Glasgow School Board had been conducted. Their High School was a model of what could be done by a School Board in connection with higher education. Their ordinary schools were rising very much in education, and the whole administration in Glasgow was admirable. Whether the Glasgow School Board had a strong conviction on the subject of adding to the Training Colleges and the University teaching, he was not informed on the point, but no doubt they were supporting the University in this matter. He was willing to admit for argument to-night that a Professor of Education would have a larger field at Glasgow, and would render more service than it was possible for such a Professor to render at St. Andrew's; but he did not think on that account they ought to reject the decision of the Endowment Commissioners and the Education Department to follow the load given by Dr. Bell's own Trustees, and to apply this small portion of the money to the Chair of Education in St. Andrew's. It was therefore his intention to support the Commissioners, and to vote against the Motion.

Mr. MUNDELLA, (Sheffield, Brightside)

said, that this was purely a Scotch quarrel, but knowing something of the case he had some justification for taking part in the debate. He was very reluctant to interfere in what was entirely a Scotch question, but he would plead as an excuse the fact that he had been a Member of a former Council of Education for Scotland. No Royal Commission had done more good work than the Scotch Education Commission, and it seemed ungracious to criticize anything that had been done by them; but he confessed that in this case they had made a mistake. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had spoken of rich and wealthy Glasgow wanting to despoil the little City of St Andrew's. As a matter of fact, an additional £8,000 was going to the Madras College in St. Andrew's, which would make something like £70,000 which would go to St. Andrew's. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the niggardliness of Glasgow he would remind him that the University of Edinburgh had done nothing for the Chair of Education. It had never spent a penny upon it. He agreed that St Andrew's had a prior claim, and the Commissioners had now granted an increased sum to St Andrew's, so that the interests of St Andrew's were not being neglected by the Commissioners. Dr. Bell's legacy was for a wide purpose, for the benefit of education in Scotland. What, then, could have been more serviceable to Dr. Bell's countrymen than to put a Chair of Education where it could be availed of by the largest number of those who were to be engaged in teaching. He could not speak too highly of Professor Moiklejohn's attainments, but what he objected to in this scheme was that they kept his light under a bushel at St Andrew's, where he would have comparatively nothing to do, instead of having him in a more richly endowed Chair in Glasgow.


said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Commissioners had no power to remove that Chair to Glasgow. It was an endowed Chair in the University of St Andrew's.


said, they could have endowed a Chair in Glasgow with this fund, and although it would have been poorly endowed the Chair would have received considerable fees from the students attending the University. It was not to Glasgow that the money would have gone, but to the benefit of teachers all over Scotland. He did not know any City in the United Kingdom where there was so much educational life as there was in Glasgow. Nowhere would such a Chair have been so well placed as in Glasgow, and hardly anywhere could it have been placed to so little advantage as in St Andrew's. If the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) should go to a Division, he should—reluctant as he was to vote against any proposal by the Scotch Commissioners—vote with him, although he was afraid they would have little chance of doing more than making a protest.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

said, it was a most refreshing sight to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) opposing the scheme, as it was usual for officials, present or former, of the Education Department to be found on the other side. He (Dr. Cameron) had no hankering after Chairs of Education, because he believed the work of training teachers could be better done in the Normal Schools, where they got both instruction and practice. There was one practical point connected with the subject before the House. The Lord Advocate had a University Bill for them, which, of course, with the new Rules he was certain to carry; and that Bill would appoint a Commission to deal with University matters. Now, this Resolution would upset that scheme, for it would give the Educational Endowments Commissioners power in money matters connected with the Universities which would be better entrusted to the University Commissioners. The matter might, therefore, be fairly settled by allowing the Education Commissioners to say that a certain amount of the Bell residue should be devoted to the purposes of subsidising Chairs of Education in the Universities, and then that the allocation of the money among the Universities should be left to the Commission which the Lord Advocate was about to institute. If his Colleague would accept that suggestion, he would support the Motion; but otherwise he must decline to do so.

MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

said, the hon. Member was slightly anticipating when he assumed the existence of the new University Commission. For his part, he (Mr. Wallace) looked forward to that Commission with a certain amount of suspicion. But with regard to this Motion, he thought it was clear that if the people of Glasgow came to see the necessity of having a Chair of Education in Glasgow, they would, with their usual liberality, equip one for themselves; and, therefore, by refusing to give this assistance to St. Andrew's, a double mischief would be perpetrated, because they would omit an opportunity of strengthening the University of St. Andrew's, which had no wealthy friends in its midst; and they would take away the stimulus from Glasgow to equip a Chair for herself if they gave her this endowment. Moreover, from the close local connection of Dr. Bell with St. Andrew's, that place was the natural destination of the Bell Residue Fund; and they who desired, as he did, to keep endowments intended for the poor to the poor, and not give them to the comparatively rich, had that consideration on their side in supporting St. Andrew's in this matter. As to what had been said of the larger field for educational usefulness presented by Glasgow, there was no doubt some force in that; but he thought there was a great deal of truth in the contention of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that, to some extent, the very smallness of a University was a strength to it, for this reason, that the Professors were more in the position of private tutors to their students than in the large Universities, where the classes were often utterly unwieldy. From his own knowledge of men who had passed through the Universities, he had no hesitation in saying that, compared with the numbers, the University of St. Andrew's and its teach- ing would bear a favourable comparison in respect to the position its students had occupied in the public life of Scotland with any of the other three Universities. He did not stand up for respecting the wishes of the pious founder absolutely and always; but he thought a certain reasonable latitude of time should be allowed before interfering with them, otherwise the benevolent intentions of such persons would be checked, and the public would be the losers. If ever the wishes of the pious founder should be respected, it was in the case of bequests loft for the benefit of the poor. St. Andrew's was a poor University among the Universities of Scotland, and he had no doubt, if Dr. Bell were capable of expressing a desire, he would wish that St. Andrew's should obtain any assistance it could from the moneys left in his name. Altogether, it seemed to him that the Commissioners in this matter had done a wise thing. He felt perfectly confident that great good would be done to the University of St. Andrew's and to the cause of education throughout Scotland as represented in that University, and that no harm would be done in the meantime to the University of Glasgow.

MR. S. WILLIAMSON (Kilmarnock, &c.)

said, he hoped the House would reject the Motion. If he had any objection to the scheme, it was that enough had not been given to St. Andrew's. If the whole of the money had been given, that would have been carrying out the founder's bequest; and he was perfectly ashamed of the hon. Member representing the rich commercial city of Glasgow for his monstrous proposal to divide £7,090 between Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St. Andrew's Universities. Why had they not included Aberdeen? It was a pure piece of covetousness, and he did not believe the bloated merchant aristocrats of Glasgow would support his hon. Friend in this proposal.

Question put, and negatived.