MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. (Hansard, 12 March 1888)

§ MR. S. WILLIAMSON (Kilmarnock)
said, it might seem ungrateful to criticize any scheme in regard to the Educational Endowments of Scotland under this Act, seeing what good work the Commissioners had done. This acknowledgment would be endorsed by every Scotchman; but, at the same time, there were circumstances in regard to this particular case that seemed to call for protest. He had to point out several objectional features in the scheme, and first he had to refer to the objection urged by the School Board of St. Andrews, a popularly elected body. The scheme was divided into two parts—the governing part, and the financial part. The objection of the School Board was that the proposed Governing Body would not be sufficiently popular. It would be remembered that the founder of the school (Dr. Bell) left a large sum of money to carry out certain views he held in regard to education, and the school or college thereby established absorbed the parish school and the burgh or grammar school, taking over the buildings and other educational arrangements. In doing this Dr. Bell, who was not a Presbyterian, but Prebendary of St. Peter's, Westminster, naturally had to submit to the use and went of Scotland in regard to education at that time, which placed the control of it in the hands of the Established Church. But times had changed, and such control had been taken out of the hands of the Established Church. One of the objections of the people of St. Andrew's was that the scheme did, in some measure, perpetuate the power of the Established Church in regard to the appointment of Governors. Section 3 provided that a Governor should be elected by the Presbytery of St. Andrew's to the exclusion of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian; and the contention of the people was that it would be far more reasonable to allow a life Governor to be appointed by the ministers of religion in the city, not giving the power to one denomination merely. They also objected to the appointment of a Governor by the Sheriff of Fife. They not unreasonably wished that the Governing Body should be established on a wider and more popular basis. A graver ob- 1026 jection, perhaps, was that made to the financial position of the scheme. Madras College had swallowed up the parish school and the burgh school; and the ratepayers not unnaturally claimed that they should be relieved, to a certain extent, by the College endowments from the expense of building and of purchasing a site to meet the requirements of Scotch Educational Law. A very considerable sum of money was to be handed over to the Governors from the Bell residue fund. It might be said that the scheme would not make any enormous demand upon the rates; but St. Andrew's was a small and not a rich town, with only 6,000 inhabitants, who had been put to great expense recently by bringing water into the city, and. were, in fact, heavily taxed. It was, he thought, only reasonable that, out of the large educational endowments, they should receive some consideration; and he thought the House would see the justice of this. He also objected to Clause 39, in regard to scholarships. It was proposed to apply £90 a-year in bursaries, and this was to be distributed by the School Board in conjunction with the Governing Body. But the School Board came more in contact with the people, and it would be far better to hand this over entirely to the School Board, instead of to a joint committee of the School Board and the Madras College. He also had to object to Clause 42, which gave the option of giving the bursaries to scholars either for the University or Madras College; but the desire of the Founder, Dr. Bell, was that it should be given to those going to the University only, and not to those going to Madras College. He thought these were valid grounds for criticizing the scheme; and, while he considered the Education Commissioners had deserved well of the country, he urged those considerations in the interest of primary education in St. Andrew's, and hoped the House would view them with favour.

§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELL (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)
said, he was sorry his hon. Friend (Mr. S. William- 1027 son) had thought it necessary to trouble the House with any opposition to this scheme. The Endowment Commissioners found that this Madras Colledge was, to a considerable extent, doing the work that ought to have been done by the board schools of the town, and they, after full consideration, and hearing all that could be said, both by those who were interested and those who understood the circumstances, came to the conclusion that it was their duty to constitute Madras College a higher class school for more advanced tuition; and they had done so, availing themselves of the endowments of the College, and adding thereto a further contribution from another fund, left by the same founder—the Bell Residue Fund. He might mention that the endowment, although at one time of a good amount, was now considerably diminished owing to the circumstance that the investments were chiefly in landed property. The income of the College, at present, was £560 a-year, and by the contribution from the Bell Residue Fund the amount would be raised to £700, for the endowment of this higher class school. His hon. Friend objected to the constitution of the Governing Body; but he (Mr. Campbell) thought it could not be considered as not sufficiently popular. The Governors were to be 10 in number, and of these two would be elected by the Town Council of St. Andrew's, two by the School Board, two by the Senate of the University of St. Andrew's, one by the Lord Lieutenant of the County, one by the Sheriff of Fife, and two by the existing Bell Trustees. When vacancies occurred by the death of these life Governors, one would be elected by the Presbytery of St. Andrew's, and one by the rural School Board. He thought the House would consider that, after all, that was a rather popular body of trustees. His hon. Friend complained of power being conferred on the Established Church. Well, the Commissioners required to have regard to the constitution of existing trusts when forming new Governing Bodies, and it was because of the interest the Established Church had in Madras College as it was, they had introduced this very small element of one member out of 10 to be appointed by the Presbytery of St. Andrew's. His hon. Friend complained of the scheme of the Commissioners imposing a fresh burden on the 1028 school board of the town; but that was because the Commissioners found that the Bell Trustees had been relieving the school board of part of its duty. But in instituting the new scheme they had set apart £90, to be paid for the fees of children attending public schools in St. Andrew's. Twenty poor children would receive free scholarships in Madras College; and £100 a-year would be given in bursaries and scholarships, varying from £10 to £20, to children whose parents required assistance towards giving then a higher education. Altogether, he believed the scheme was by no means unwelcome to the people of St. Andrew's generally. The Commissioners were not aware that there were any objections to be brought against the scheme, and he believed that such were not brought forward during the time allowed for receipt of objections. On the whole, he hoped the House would not think of disturbing a scheme to which there had been no objection until his hon. Friend placed his Notice on the Paper.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)
said, he must point out to the House the extreme inconvenience of the way in which this scheme had been dealt with. The scheme was passed by the Commissioners so far back as December, 1886, and the Scotch Education Department waited a considerable time to see if any objection was made to it. A small objection was urged on behalf of the University of St. Andrew's, which was stated in such a form as to indicate that they did not wish to press it, but only to have it considered. He presumed that that was what his hon. Friend (Mr. Williamson) had alluded to—the question of the bursaries being given partly to the University and partly to the College. But the objection was ultimately withdrawn. The Education Department waited an entire year, and only in December last approved of the scheme. Up to that time no such objections as those made that night by the hon. Member were suggested; they had been made now for the first time, and without notice given to the Education Department, that they might have the opportunity of considering whether the scheme should be referred back to the Commissioners for reconsideration. The House was now asked to deal with a matter in reference to which the proper course 1029 of representation for getting revision had not been taken. This fact bore very strongly on the question whether it was right and just that the House should be asked to review the decision of the Commissioners, when the ordinary and proper course of proceeding, by getting the scheme reviewed by the Education Department, had never been put into operation at all. His hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) had fully explained the ground upon which the Commissioners proceeded in dealing with this endowment; and in disposing of this or any other educational scheme, it could not be expected that the Commissioners would please everybody by their decision. It appeared to him that, in this instance, the Commissioners had acted with a very wise disoretion, and he could not think that their decision had excited much public feeling, when during a whole year not the slightest objection was taken.

§ MR. S. WILLIAMSON
said, he would remind the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that there were three schemes connected with Madras College, and that it was impossible to take action against one until the bearing of the whole of the schemes was ascertained. He would appeal to him to postpone the matter for another year.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
No, no!