HC Deb 26 July 1888 vol 329 cc600-17
MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

said, he rose to move the Motion standing in his name, and though the matter dealt with in that Motion was a very important one, he did not at this hour of the night wish to detain the House at any length by discussing it. He had put down Notice of opposition to four different schemes of the Endowed School Commissioners, and in order to save the time of the House, and to make his case as strong a one as could be presented to the House, he proposed to deal with the four schemes together. He was quite aware that in Scotland, in very many instances, the principle had been adopted by the Endowed Commissioners, with the consent of the Scottish Education Department, of departing from the original intentions of the pious founders in regard to these educational endowments. He could understand how the Endowed School Commissioners, in certain cases, had overlooked the wishes of these pious founders, and had diverted money which it had been originally intended to give in one direction into another direction. The powers given to the Commissioners by an Act of Parliament, under which they proceeded, were very large—much larger than those exercised by the original Trustees for these Charities. He did not wish to stigmatize by any condemnatory observations the dealings of the Commissioners with the various endowments, because he was quite sure that these gentlemen were animated by the best desires. They were presided over as Chairman by a Nobleman who was possessed of very considerable ability, and who had been actuated unquestionably by a sense of fairness in the action he had taken and instigated. But he (Mr. Mark Stewart) desired to draw the attention of the House to what ruled all the proceedings of the Commission. In the 15th section of the Endowed Schools Act, in relation to the framing of these schemes under the measure, the Commissioners were enjoined to respect alike the constitution of the Governing Bodies of the Charities and the educational provisions, having regard to the express intention of the pious founder. This was an important matter; but there was another point equally important which followed, and that was, that wherever there was any privilege or educational advantage which a particular class of persons were entitled to, whether as inhabitants of a particular area or as belonging to a particular class of life or otherwise, the Commissioners in drawing up any now scheme should have regard to the wishes of the pious founder in regard to such matters. It was because, he maintained, that this principle had not actuated the Commissioners in the cases to which his Motion referred, that he was now bringing the subject before the attention of the House. Again, the sections of the Act provided for the education of persons belonging to the poorer classes, and he further maintained that the endowments to which he was referring were proposed to be diverted by the Commissioners into a very different channel from that originally intended. The Commissioners seemed to go out of their way to remove educational facilities from the path of the children of parents largely dependent upon the Charity in order to provide higher education for people not so circumstanced, and who were very well able to pay for the education of their children. The people who were to benefit under the proposed scheme belonged to the more affluent part of the community, and in this way he maintained the spirit of the pious founder was contravened. The Preamble of the Act under which the Commissioners operated, said that it was desirable to use the Educational Endowments of Scotland for the purpose of carrying out more fully the intentions of the founders, and in view of that he was more than ever surprised at the attitude which the Commissioners had taken up in the cases to which he would call attention. There were four specific schemes to which he desired very briefly to call the attention of hon. Members. The first was that in the parish of Balmaclellan, in the county of Kirkcudbright, called the Murdoch Endowment. This endowment amounted to about £80 a-year, and that had been used since 1786, for 100 years, for the purpose of giving free education to that particular parish, and he might point out that they had a very good teacher in that parish, a graduate of the University of London, who was entitled to all respect. To take away an endowment of this kind at this time of day, after its having been enjoyed for 100 years, and giving it not only to the parish in question, but to surrounding parishes, was looked upon as a great hardship. The pious founder gave power to purchase land in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, the proceeds from which were to be given yearly to the schoolmaster. What were the objections to the scheme of the Commissioners? Why, they were as follows:—The scheme deprived the parish in question of the exclusive right to the bequest, and divided it for four different parishes, and provided for a higher education than the parish of Balmaclellan had hitherto been receiving. If they took away the money from the School Board, which had been utilizing it in paying a higher class teacher, the result would be that the Commissioners would pay a lower salary and get a lower class teacher, so that the higher class teacher would not thrive, but would most assuredly fail. The parish of Balmaclellan was altogether against the scheme of the Commissioners; the people were with one heart and voice unanimous that this money should not be taken away from them, but that they should still have it distributed in their interest, as it had been for so long a period. And now he came to the Davies' Bequest, situated in the parish of Kells, at New Galloway. The money in this case was left for the particular purpose of founding a school, and the Commissioners had dealt very hardly with the endowment in this particular case. The amount of the endowment was only small—some £28 a-year, but there was some other money which belonged to the school which would, he was afraid, share the same fate as the larger amount. What did the parishioners say in this case? Why, they said that they were strongly opposed to spreading this £28 a-year over the whole of the four parishes. They declared that the original diatribution was one which was far more satisfactory and likely to be attended with more successful results. They held that the parish of Kells derived much more advantage under the old scheme than it would be likely to derive under the new, and that the new Governing Body would be a very expensive one. The parish already had a school board, and that board, with its machinery, was able to provide for the educational wants of the parish. The people trusted the school board, who knew their wants and wishes; and that was another very strong reason why they objected to the proposed scheme. Only £5 out of the £28 would be given back for the purposes of free education out of that parish, and, considering that this parish was one of enormous area, going very far back, and that it was in one of the wildest parts of Galloway, £5 seemed a ridiculously small sum to be given towards assisting expenditure necessary to enable the people of the district to obtain the advantages of elementary education. It was quite true that the parish got more money than that out of the £28—possibly they got more than £28 altogether. Then, again, the parishioners declared that £10 was to be given by the scheme in order to obtain increased efficiency; but that it really would not help to do that at all, and the people would rather devote the money to scholarships or small bursaries—or one part of it, the other part going to maintain educational facilities for children in the lower Standards. He would now pass from this to the third scheme—namely, Johnston's Bequest, in the parish of Dalry. That was a small sum of only £5, and had been devoted to the payment of a good teacher and giving free education to a certain number of poor children. That was a very laudable and right way, in his opinion, of spending the money, and be was certain that it was the intention of the pious founder that it should go in that way. The parish had as large a population as that of Balmaclellan, to which he had already referred. And now, looking at the lateness of the hour, he would pass from that to the fourth bequest—namely, the M'Adam Bequest, in the parish of Carsphairn, in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright. This parish was situated far amongst the hills, and was probably one of the largest parishes in Scotland. It had an area of 54,000 acres, and a population of only 484 inhabitants. It was 20 miles, he might say, from the nearest town, and 18 miles from the nearest railway station. That was an endowment of some £30, which had been hitherto given to an itinerant teacher, who went from school to school, or rather from cottage to cottage, and presented last year some 14 pupils. Some of it was given to a teacher in the village of Carsphairn, which could not be called a town, and the educational results in that village had been most remarkable. It was as to these four small endowments that he brought forward his Motion. He asked the House to fairly consider the circumstances of these cases, and to decide that it was not necessary that the scheme of the Endowment Commissioners should become law. He begged to move the Resolution he had upon the Paper.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

said, he rose for the purpose of seconding the proposal of his hon. Friend. He was glad the hon. Member had brought forward this Motion, because it was a very right thing to look sharply after the proceedings of the Endowed School Commissioners, and to give the House an opportunity of considering their action in these cases when they came before the House. Many cases of this kind had been brought before the notice of hon. Members recently, and, no doubt, they were all much the same. In each case, as a rule, the money was left by the pious founder for one purpose, and the Commissioners held that it would be better to spend it for another purpose; and the House was asked to decide between the two parties. It was said that these bequests had been left for the purpose of relieving the rates, and even if that were so he did not know that it was a great crime to relieve the rates in small and very poor districts. In some of these places, as the Crofter Inquiry had shown, the rates were as high as 5s. and 6s. in the pound, and he did not know, if that were the case, why they should not have money loft for the purpose of relieving such rates, considering the poor of the neighbourhood. By endowments, such as those in question, very poor people who were verging on pauperism were relieved. No doubt, the poor people in these parishes might be able to find money to pay their rates; but it was a great drain upon their resources to find in addition money for the payment of their children's school fees every week. They were told that things had changed since these bequests had been made, and, no doubt, that was the case, but the money still belonged to the people of the poor districts. It was said that relief of this kind pauperized the people, and, if that were so, he would ask, how about the relief given the other way? People were not considered to be pauperized when they obtained relief from the School Board, for in many cases the only way in which the school fees could be met was by the parents going to the Parochial Board and obtaining relief from the payment, and those who knew anything about the proud feelings of independent Scotch-men would be aware how galling it was to these people to go and get relief under these conditions. He should like to put it for a moment whether it was not possible that they were educating too much in an upward direction, and whether it would not be better for many of the people concerned to give their children a good practical middle-class education which would fit them to work at their own specific employment, and which education they would and useful in future life? What was the use of giving some of these poor people facilities for high-class education. He did not suppose there was a more useless person in the world than a young fellow from a poor rank of society who had been educated in a public school, and who had then gone to a University and taken an ordinary degree. Such a man knew as much about science as he knew about the interior of the moon, and if he desired, at any future time, to obtain a position in the world, he had to be ground down for it by dint of great exertion afterwards. Well, it was for the House to consider whether it was really advantageous for the poor people, for whom these endowments were originally intended, to be driven up into a position such as he described, and whether it was not better to spend this money in giving them a good practical education? They knew what went on in India. There were a large number of highly educated young men there who found it impossible to get any work at all. They were now groaning and grumbling, because they were without the employment which they had expected. There were no openings for them. Well, it was proposed that we should have the same thing in Scotland. There would be enormous pressure of highly educated people at home, educated in a certain abstract direction, for whom there was no work, and who, consequently, would become burdens upon the State in future life. All he had to say was, they ought to trust to the School Boards a little more than they did—and they should hand over a large part of this money which it was now proposed to spend in abstract bursaries to the School Boards to improve the general education in the small parishes. He thought they might fairly leave to the School Boards the administration of the funds which had been left by pious founders in past days. Even should those intentions of the pious founders be a little out of gear with the opinions of the present day, nevertheless, they might trust the School Boards to spend the money in a way which would be best calculated to benefit the districts concerned. He would say no more, but would simply second the Motion of his hon. Friend.

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 endowments in the parishes of Balmaclellan, Dalry, Kells, and Carsphairn, in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, known as the Murdoch Endowment, the Johnston Bequest, the Davies Bequest, and the M'Adam Bequest, approved by the Scottish Education Department, now lying upon the Table of the House."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

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

said, his hon. Friends had inveighed against the action of the Commissioners, bringing against them the serious charge of taking away the advantages of the poor; but it would have been more to the point had they given the House information as to the scheme to which they objected, so that the House might have had the means of exercising its judgment thereon. This scheme, approved by the Scotch Education Department, was a method whereby, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the endowments would be utilized to greater advantage for the poor—for the very class from whom these four endowments were said to be taken away. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) complained of the Commissioners putting these four endowments together; but the grouping was an advantage, allowing of better administration than they could receive when separate. The endowments were small in amount, and attached to parishes that were contiguous, the populous parts of which were close together. The Assistant Commissioner, who examined and reported upon these endowments for the Commissioners, used this expression—"From the village of Dalry he could hear the church-bells of Kells and Balmaclellan."[An hon. MEMBER: Then he had very good ears.] It was said the Commissioners were taking away the advantages of the poor; but if his hon. Friend had given some information as to the scheme, it would have been seen that the bursaries proposed to be founded were reserved to those for whom the endowments were intended and who were in need of such assistance. The free school at Balmaclellan, in the opinion of the Commissioners, did very little more than save the rates. His hon. Friend asked—"Why not save the rates?" For this reason—that the rates were paid by persons comparatively well-to-do, and to save the rates was to take away the benefit that should accrue to the poor from these endowments. The rates should be used as Parliament intended they should be used, and for the purposes for which they were levied, and the poor should have the benefit of the endowments in addition to the statutory provision made for them from the rates. In Balmaclellan there was a free school with an attendance of 72 children; but it did not show a very good record, not so good as other schools in these parishes, nor in the case of any of these endowments was the intention to encourage better education carried out; they were all used merely in relief of the rates. In Balmaclellan the school rate was 3d. in the pound; in Dalry it was the same; in Kells it was 4d.; and in Carsphairn, 6d. The Commissioners found that these endowments were not being used to the best advantage, and they proposed that the sum of £45 out of the united endowments should be distributed according to the necessities of the parishes in free scholarships, or the payment of school fees entirely for poor and deserving children, and that bursaries should be established for higher or technical education, and these, again, should only be given to children whose parents or guardians required aid in giving them education. Then there was a provision to make grants for improving the schools in these parishes, towards promoting higher education, but not in relief of any expenditure which the School Boards might reasonably be expected to incur out of the School Funds. There was a great tendency in parishes to use endowments simply in relief of the School Fund. Then with the remainder of the free income of the endowments, school bursaries were to be given for children whose parents or guardians were in circumstances to require aid in giving them higher education. The bursaries were open to all the four parishes, and the grants to the School Boards were divided according to their several circumstances and requirements; but the advantage of grouping the endowments together for the estabablishment of small bursaries would be to encourage emulation among the children, and to produce a general effect on the education of the district that could not be obtained by leaving the endowments to be frittered away in relief of the rates. He hoped the House would not be carried away by what had been said by his hon. Friends about the Commissioners taking away the advantages of the poor. To do anything of that kind would be both contrary to the purpose of the Act of 1882, and certainly contrary to the intentions of the Commissioners. Indeed, there had been complaints that the Commissioners, in some instances, had too strongly insisted upon confining bursaries to the poor, in framing schemes for the application of endowments.

MR. H. F. H. ELLIOT (Ayrshire, N.)

said, he had no intention to speak in reference to the circumstances of these particular endowments. He sympathized with much that had been said in support of the Motion; but, at the same time, he thought his hon. Friend would do well not to press the Motion to a Division. He could quite understand the view of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson) that there was some use in bringing forward these questions for discussion, and, so to speak, "pegging away." But there was also a danger of dulling the interest and hardening opposition by too much persistency. On the whole, it would be well to withdraw the Motion, for the question raised was rather one of principle with regard to the operation of the Act of 1882, and that probably could be better argued and discussed on the Vote in Supply, or in some other way. Two observations he might be allowed to make in reference to the scheme. He did not think that enough had been said as to the extreme inconvenience of appropriating very small sums and bursaries, as was constantly done in these schemes. He did not believe in small bursaries. He did not believe that any bursary under £10 was of any use; but he had noticed that frequently small bursaries from £3 upwards were established. He did not believe that any boy could receive secondary education of any value for any such sum. All that happened was that the boy remained at school after he had passed the Fifth Standard. From this he did not derive much good, as there was no special inducement for the master to carry him on in his studies even if he always had sufficient training to do so. Another point was this. The House was a Court of Appeal for people who were dissatisfied with these schemes. The functions of the House were of a semi-judicial character; but how did the House qualify itself to give an impartial decision? The Commissioners took evidence, upon which they framed their proposal; but it was quite possible the House was asked to give a decision without seeing a line of such evidence, for even if it was printed, it was not circulated with a view to such a decision. Of all questions ever brought before the notice of the House, such questions as these ought to be considered apart from Party associations. But when a Division was called—as he hoped it would not be in this instance—the Government Tellers were nominated to tell in favour of the scheme of the Commissioners, and thereupon, as hon. Members knew perfectly well, Members came in from the Lobbies, the Library, the Tea Room, and elsewhere, to vote as the Government Whips directed them. Was such a course of procedure right in view of the semi-judicial character of the decision? He thought not, and hoped the House would adopt some method of improving its procedure.

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

said, as he understood his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Mark Stewart) did not intend to accept the advice just tendered him, not to go to a Division, he would venture to say a few words. The hon. Member who had just resumed his seat (Mr. H. F. H. Elliot) objected to the Government Tellers being employed in these Divisions; but he (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) would remind his hon. Friend that the Division was called not merely upon the action of the Commissioners appointed under the Act, but also upon the sanction given by the Scotch Education Department to the scheme of the Commissioners, and therefore the Government were bound to use their Tellers, and ask the assistance of their supporters in maintaining the decision of a Government Department. Then, with reference to the other objection of the same hon. Member with regard to the small value of the bursaries—he quite agreed that bursaries for higher education, or to carry a boy through a College career, ought not to be of such small amounts; but these were not intended for higher education in that sense, but to induce children to remain under tuition after they reached the Fifth Standard, so as to receive a little better education as the result of proficiency shown in school. One thing struck him as remarkable in the course of the discussion. The other night everything said against School Boards was received with a cheer, especially from English Members, who, he thought, were inclined to judge of Scotch School Boards from their opinion of English Boards. But now, the complaint was quite different to that, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson) had an objection of his own—that School Boards were not trusted enough. The hon. Member complained also of a proposal to put an end to a state of things which saved the rates, and he said—"Why should not the rates be saved." Well, he (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) understood all along that the great object and policy of these endowments were to aid education for the poor, not to save the rates spread all over the parish, but to give some additional advantage beyond that provided by law to poor children in the parish in the way of education. But his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Mark Stewart) said the effect of the scheme of the Commissioners would save the rates, and nothing else; but his hon. Friend could not have recently read the scheme of the Commissioners, or he would remember that the scheme was distinctly based on the arrangement that if the School Board did apply the endowments merely to saving the rates, then they were to be taken away from their control. It was provided that the new Governing Body should, from time to time, satisfy themselves that the fund was being efficiently applied to higher education, and not to the relief of any expenditure the School Board might reasonably be expected to incur out of the school fund, and if it appeared to the Governors that any part of the endowment was not being applied in the manner intended, then they were to cease making the annual payments to the School Board contemplated under the scheme. Therefore, so far as saving the rates was concerned, his hon. Friend was entirely out of court in his argument.

MR. MARK STEWART

rose, and begged to explain that he said the money to be given to the School Board could be better utilized for purposes of education by the board, knowing as they did the wants of the parish better than the Commissioners could.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

continued: This came very strangely in reference to a scheme in the administration of which four members of the School Boards, one from each parish, would form the majority on the new Governing Body. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. H. F. H. Elliot) urged a very good reason against carrying the Motion to a Division. He said the real objection was an objection to the principle of the Act passed by the Legislature and not to this particular scheme in itself. That was clearly brought out, and one of the strongest objectors had spoken of that Act as— The most revolutionary Act ever passed by a British Parliament, and preparing the way for a repetition of some of the worst features of the French Revolution. Objection had been raised to the amalgamation of these funds. The Act of Parliament expressly provided for the decision of the Commissioners on the point, and could any hon. Member deny that if there was ever a case for amalgamation it was in this case, where there were four very small endowments indeed, and in which, as amalgamated, the endowments were made of much greater benefit? He called attention to what was done not many years after the foundation of the Murdoch Bequest, the largest of the four. The founder himself was clearly of opinion, from the terms of the bequest, that if it was to be tied down to a hard and fast line, it might be applied much too narrowly, and so it was not so tied down; and upon the death of the founder, in 1780, his friend and executor introduced certain changes, and, in doing so, said he did it with an anxious desire to carry out the founder's views, which he shared, and, knowing him well, was satisfied that, had he lived a few years longer, he would have established it on a still wider basis. The Commissioners had endeavoured to carry out their scheme in that spirit, and that he thought they had fairly done. They had applied the fund to meet the case of necessitous children only, who were worthy of such assistance, and he thought the House would agree that the Commissioners had done their duty under the Act.

MR. MARK STEWART

said, that so far he knew, there had been no charge brought against any of the Governing Bodies managing the different Trusts and Bequests for the period of 100 years, as to the manner in which they had carried out the intentions of the founders. They had done a vast deal of good in the districts for whose benefit these bequests had been intended.

MR. C. S. PARKER (Perth)

said, that without detaining the House unduly, he wished simply to say—[Cries of "Divide!"] Well, he had sat there two or three evenings during the last fortnight, listening to similar discussions, without having uttered as yet one word in protest against these undeserved attacks upon the Endowments Commissioners. What he wanted to say was this—that their opponents were only a small minority of Members from Scotland. Where were the majority? Why, they had confidence in the Commissioners, and in the Education Department, and had gone home, leaving those few who objected to the well-considered schemes of the Commissioners to advocate alternative proposals. But what he complained of was, that of these opponents some had not taken the pains even to read the schemes, while others objected to them only because they gave effect too faithfully to the intentions of Parliament recorded in the Act in favour of higher education. A more Philistine speech against higher education he had seldom heard than that of his hon. Friend who had seconded the Resolution. At the same time, it did not appear that the hon. Member had ever looked at the scheme, because he had talked about Indian Baboos and University bursaries, neither of which were in question; but had said nothing about the actual proposal of the Commissioners, to divide the endowments between free elementary education for the poor, school bursaries for those who required help, and strengthening the staff of village schools. Then again, as everybody knew, the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), and the hon. Member who spoke last, had been hot opponents of the Act, and therefore condemned every scheme. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. H. F. H. Elliot) when he said that what those hon. Members really meant was not opposition to this or that scheme, but to the principle of en- trusting the formation of schemes to the Commissioners and to the Education Department. The hon. Member himself had a proposal before the House for giving an appeal to a Committee of the House, and when that proposal was brought forward it would be worthy of consideration. But, in the meantime, he thought it was too bad that the Commissioners, who were merely carrying out the wishes of the House in making the Governing Bodies of these endowments more representative, and in promoting higher education, should be attacked, as hon. Members attacked them time after time, in a spirit of persistent opposition, and often without even reading the schemes they proposed. An appeal had been made to hon. Members not to give a Party vote. But this was in no sense a Party question. It was a case in which the Education Department was responsible for having confirmed the action of the Commissioners, and the Government therefore were defending that decision against the attacks of miscellaneous Members from both sides of the House.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT (Roxburgh)

said, he was afraid he must appear before the House as one of those "miscellaneous Members" of whom the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. C. S. Parker) had spoken. But, in reply to the hon. Member, he would just like to say this—that on the Motion he (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) had made the other day somewhat akin to the proposal now before the House, he had had the support in the Division Lobby of that hon. Member himself. The hon. Member was, at any rate, in good company in so doing, because, if hon. Members from Scotland who had gone into the Lobby with him (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) and the hon. Member (Mr. C. S. Parker) were "miscellaneous," they were also numerous. Whilst 20 Members representing Scottish constituencies had gone in the Lobby to support his Motion, only six Scotch Members had gone in the Lobby against him, of whom three were Members of the Government. He was not going into the scheme before the House that night; but he wished to point out this—that hon. Members were not voting against the Act of Parliament, but simply wished to carry out the objects of that Act, the Act declaring that in some way the House of Commons was to be a sort of appeal from the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish Office. Well, but was the House of Commons a Court of Appeal from either of those constituted Bodies? He maintained that it was not, and that it was true that a majority of Scottish Members—those Members who were best acquainted with the circumstances of these cases—in the Division were in favour of the Motion and against the views of the Scottish Education Department, yet people came in from the Smoking Room and Library and other places outside the House on the ringing of the Division Bell and outvoted the Scottish Members. He protested against the opinions of the people of Scotland being over-ridden in that way; and as to the attitude of the hon. Member near him (Mr. C. S. Parker), he was at a loss how to understand his views and his actions as compared with those he exhibited the other night. He should like to see the hon. Member guided by some sort of principle which, at any rate, would give a semblance of consistency to his action.

MR. C. S. PARKER

asked leave to make a personal explanation. He was much indebted to the hon. Member for challenging him as to the vote he had given the other night. No doubt, he had been that night a "miscellaneous Member." He had given his vote against the Commissioners; but he was glad of this opportunity to explain that he went into the "Aye" Lobby by mistake. It was by mere mistake that his vote was given in favour of the Motion.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

said, he did not wish to detain the House; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had made such a serious mistake as to the views of those who opposed these schemes generally, and that mistake had been so exaggerated by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker), who quite misunderstood their position, that he felt bound to say a word or two. He (Mr. Hunter) was as much in favour of secondary education as anyone else, and he entirely approved of the policy of the Act; but his objection to what took place was this—and he invited the Lord Advocate's attention to it—that in these cases money had been left for the education of poor children. He and his Friends did not in the least object to that money being applied to the higher education, or second- ary education, of these children; but what they did object to was, that these funds which were left for the benefit of the poor were used for the purpose of cheapening the education of middle-class children. He did not say that every scheme in its whole extent was liable to that objection, and it was only in so far as a scheme was open to that objection that they opposed it. It was on that ground, and on that ground only, that they took action, and if they sometimes differed from the schemes of the Commissioners, it was only right that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should understand their position.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Lichfield)

said that the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) had appealed to English Members, and he (Sir John Swinburne) hoped that English Members would listen to his appeal and support the Motion before the House. He did not care what the particular object of the scheme of the Commissioners was; but he held that all those schemes would be much better arranged and managed if the trustees or managers were elected by the rateyayers of the particular districts.

MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

MR. SPEAKER

withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.

MR. CONWAY (Leitrim, N.)

said, that, considering the House was composed of so many Scottish School Managers, he was surprised that hon. Members were so ignorant of the Scottish Code which went to the good working of the Scottish schools. He was surprised that hon. Members had not in their minds that the First Table concerned elementary education, and the Second Table and the Fourth Schedule covered the whole basis of the secondary education, and he appealed to the Vice President of the Education Department to bear out what he said. There were under Schedule IV. 10 subjects covering science; and they were also in Scotland enabled to take up French, German, and Latin subjects. This scheme which was set before them would enable the school managers, if they had the opportunity, to take advantage of the funds placed at their disposal by the Government, and of covering the 178. 6d. limit. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side ought to know what that meant. They ought to know that under that 17s. 6d. limit, they were prohibited from receiving the grant unless they had resources outside the Government grant of above 17s. 6d. Therefore, it behoved the Government in this matter to contribute to those schools which were not under School Boards. [Cries of "Divide!"] He told hon. Members opposite that he was advocating their own case, as they would see if they would only listen. It behoved the Government, under this scheme, by means of the money placed at the disposal of the schools not under the School Board, to obtain funds sufficient in themselves to enable the school managers to obtain grants under Schedules II. and IV. which would cover secondary education.

Question put,

The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 85: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 239.)

Back to