Commons Sitting of 24 July 1889

NOTICE OF MOTION.
  SCOTLAND AND GOOD FRIDAY.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give notice that unless the Government very seriously re-consider their position in regard to violently imposing on Scotland the English Episcopal and Papistical institution of Good Friday, in utter disregard of the spirit and intent of the Act of Union, I will on an early day move—I will not say the repeal of the Union—but for such a re-arrangement of the relations between England and Scotland as shall make such an outrage impossible in the future.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. No. 334.)
  Order for further consideration of Bill, as amended, read.
  DR. CLARK: I have an Amendment to move in Clause 118, with the view of making it quite clear that no claim for compensation shall be raised under that clause, and that only existing officers who are entitled under their engagement to compensation shall get it. I wish to remove all doubt on that matter, and I accordingly propose the insertion after the word "officer," of the words "who is otherwise entitled to compensation." If the Lord Advocate objects to the words of the Amendment, perhaps he will accept the words he has used himself in Clause 117—
  1182
  namely, such compensation "as he would be entitled to under his former engagement." I cannot say that upon these matters I am altogether prepared to accept the dictum of the Lord Advocate. My experience of previous Lord Advocates would scarcely justify me in doing so. I remember a case in which the Lord Advocate took a different view from that of the Scotch Members generally; but the Court of Quarter Session supported our view. All I want is to make assurance doubly sure that compensation will not be given to those whom it is not intended to compensate.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 30, after the word "officer," to insert the words "who is otherwise entitled to compensation."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I hope the Government will accept this very reasonable Amendment, which makes the same provision in regard to compensation as that contained in the English Act, and which has already been inserted by the Government in a previous clause.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I should like to make it clear what the object of the clause is. By Clause 117 we have dealt with the case of the abolition of any existing office, and provided that the holder of it shall be entitled to similar compensation under this Act to that to which he would have been entitled under his former engagement. But there is another class of cases dealt with under Clause 118. The change which the Bill effects is, undoubtedly, a large one, and no doubt there will be a certain amount of re-adjustment of work

  1183
  under it, attended probably with a certain economy. I think it is, therefore, fair that the County Council shall have the right to determine whether compensation to a larger or smaller extent shall be given to persons who are de facto disturbed in their offices by modifications or changes in those offices. There is not, I believe, the smallest danger of exaggerated claims to compensation being conceded under the clause. The people who are made the arbiters are the authors of the changes— namely, the County Council.
  DR. CLARK: With no right of appeal.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Does the hon. Gentleman think there would be any advantage in giving a right of appeal to the Treasury? The conditions laid down under which the County Council will be entitled to give compensation are exceedingly stringent; and, under all the circumstances, I think it is right that the County Council should have the power which this clause gives them.
  MR. CALDWELL): The previous clause provides that in the case of an abolition of office no compensation shall be given unless the holder of the office is entitled, under his original engagement, to compensation. This clause, however, does not deal with offices which are abolished, but simply with offices which are disturbed. The curious part of the matter is that having provided that a man whose office is totally abolished shall not be entitled to compensation, we are now asked to provide that a man who has only sustained a partial loss of office shall be compensated.
  The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 85.—(Div. List, No. 252.)
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have now to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new clause (County Council to have power to take land) and an Amendment to Clause 16. The Amendment to Clause 16, which refers to roads and bridges, is purely formal. The new clause which I have placed on the Paper has reference to the provision of allotments of land for the labouring classes, and is founded on the English Act. It is obviously a subject which has a certain amount of detail connected with it, and if the
  1184
  House is prepared to accept the proposal very much as it stands, I am prepared to proceed with it; but Amendments have been placed on the Paper, and I am afraid that at this period it would be impossible to discuss in detail all the various points which may be raised. Therefore, unless hon. Members are willing substantially to accede to the clause, it will be hopeless to proceed with the matter at the present stage.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of an Amendment to Clause 16 and in respect of a new Clause (County Council to have power to take land.")—(The Lord Advocate.)
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I am very glad the Government are willing to extend to Scotland some provision in the nature of allotments, because I think it would do a great deal to improve the position of the poorer peasantry of that country. But I am sorry to say that the experience in England since the passing of the Allotments Act of 1887 is not very encouraging. The Act in England has not been a benefit, for it has failed to work, and has caused grievous disappointment among the poorer classes in the agricultural districts. There have only been two instances in which the Local Authorities have asked the Local Government Board to put the compulsory powers of the Act in motion. Sanitary Authorities all over England have seen that the clauses of the Act are so cumbrous and work so expensively that it is impossible to purchase land compulsorily at such a price as to make it worth while for the agricultural labourer to take the land and till it. The compulsory clauses have failed, and the other method— that of purchasing the land by agreement—has not been any more successful. It may surprise the House to learn that throughout the length and breadth of England there have been only five cases in which loans of money for the purchase of land by agreement have occurred. The result of these five cases is that £8,100 have been advanced with the magnificent result of purchasing some 89 acres of land. That is at the rate of over £90 an acre, and it is impossible to buy land at that rate and let the agricultural labourer have it at a price likely to give him a fair profit. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention an instance which occurred at Croydon.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think the hon. Member is entitled, upon this Motion, to go into details, as he is now doing, in regard to the working of the Allotments Act in England.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I bow to the ruling of the Chair, and I will limit myself to warning the Scottish Members that the working of these clauses will not be satisfactory. I have shown that in other cases these clauses have not worked well. The argument that they would be likely to induce landowners to offer land for the purpose of allotment is not a justifiable one. If there is a disposition on the part of landlords to offer their land, it is not so much due to the Act as to the fact that the demand for allotments on the part of the labouring poor is steadily growing, and landowners with charitable instincts are endeavouring all over the country to meet that demand. I do not want the same condition of things to exist in Scotland as exists in England. The Scottish peasantry are probably the finest peasantry in the United Kingdom, and I should be glad to see their independence maintained, and that they should be able, if possible, to live in greater independence and comfort. But I do not want to see introduced into Scotland a system of rural and political terrorism such as exists in some parts of England.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the House was not discussing the clause, but only whether the Bill shall be re-committed. The time for the discussion of clauses is in Committee.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I had hoped that the Allotment Clauses would have been drawn in stronger terms, and that there would have been some means provided by which the compulsory purchase of land could be effected, and that there would have been more stringent powers given to the County Councils. If the clauses be made to read compulsorily instead of permissively it would have a better and more far reaching effect. I am anxious that the peasantry should have an opportunity of owning and tilling land, not as a favour conferred by the landlord, but as a right. I would warn the Scottish Members that if the clause is not amended it will not meet the legitimate wishes of the Scottish peasantry.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that
  1186
  the question now before the House at this moment is not as my hon. Friend seems to think the second reading of this clause, but the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose of considering the clause. I gather from the remarks of the Lord Advocate that the Government are in some doubt whether it is desirable to proceed with the clause. The clause as it stands is certainly not satisfactory to the great number of Scotch Members, and it will be necessary if they decide to proceed with it to extend it, especially in the direction of giving facilities for acquiring ground for houses for fishermen, crofters, and others. My belief is that the mere question of allotments, as known in England, does not excite much interest in Scotland, and that the principal point of interest in Scotland in connection with this question is the power to get a larger portion of ground for other purposes. Scotch Members are willing to accep-the clause as a step in the right direct tion, but a strenuous effort will be made by them to extend it. If the Government do not see their way to grant this extension it is for them to say whether they think it desirable to go on with the clause, or whether they will prefer to proceed by a Bill in another Session, so as to deal with the whole question in a larger and wider way. I think we may see, from what has been said by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that some of our English Colleagues will have something to say on the matter from the point of view of English experience.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. W. H. SMITH,): From the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division (Sir W. Foster) it is quite obvious that Gentlemen opposite desire something of a wider scope than the clause which has been placed upon the Paper to meet their views. The Government, therefore, have to consider what their course ought to be under the circumstances. It is impossible at this period of the Session and in the interests of the Bill itself, which we consider of great importance, to enter into a discussion of the whole relations of the population of Scotland to the land of Scotland, because those are the questions which hon. Gentlemen by their Amendments

  1187
  and the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division wish to raise. The Government have endeavoured to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen as far as they could. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (MR. Campbell-Bannerman) admits that the clause has some value. If questions of a large character are raised on the clause it will be impossible to dispose of it in the time at the disposal of the Government for the Bill. We are anxious that the power of granting allotments should be extended to Scotland, and that many special considerations with respect to Scotland should be taken into account with a due regard to the interests of the inhabitants, and also with a due regard to the rights of property. Although it is unfashionable now to speak of the rights of property, yet I think that every subject of the Queen has rights of property to which due regard ought to be paid. In these circumstances, there is but one course open to Her Majesty's Government, and that is to remove the bone of contention. I will therefore ask leave to withdraw the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill as far as relates to the clause dealing with allotments. It is with very great regret that I take this course. The Government will consider the matter during the Recess, and endeavour to submit a measure which will meet, as far as possible, the views of hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman move the Motion in an amended form?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I ask for leave, in the first place, to withdraw the Motion which has been put from the Chair.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: As there is some difference of opinion on this subject, I should like to say a word or two before we go to a Division. There was a good deal in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury which, in its essence, was very satisfactory. If we go now into these clauses, it will be an opportunity for hon. Gentlemen to put forward their views on the relations between the people of Scotland and the land of Scotland. It will be an opportunity for that, but I do not think it will be an opportunity for anything else, because it is certain that we shall be able in the course of this Debate to get the clauses the Government have
  1188
  put on the Paper, and to get nothing else. What, on the other hand, do we gain by adopting the course recommended by the Government? Why, we put on the Government an obligation, which I am sure they will be the first to recognise, to bring forward next Session a Bill suited to the needs and requirements of Scotland, and in saying that I beg to state that I do not for a moment contend that the Government are bound to any particular measure as coming under that category. But what I conceive the Government are bound to do is to lay on the Table a Bill which they consider specially suited for Scotland according to their views of the case. Now, I consider that an extremely valuable promise, if I may use so strong a word, because this is not a mere general promise of Scotch legislation, such as we have had for a good many years past. Promises of Scotch legislation on a similar subject meant nothing so long as we had the Universities Bill and the Local Government Bill hanging over us. But now the field is clear, and it is for us this Session, as far as we can, to see what measures we want in Scotland, and I venture to say there is hardly any measure in which the Scotch would take a greater interest, and which would be of greater service to them, than a measure relating to land. We have already placed before the House our views on the subject. Scotch Members, much more familiar with Scotland than myself, have done it at considerable length, and with great success, interesting the House very much. The Government know what is wanted by Scotch Members in these particulars, and I earnestly trust that the result of the short discussion we have had to-day will be, that we may have a Bill from the Government such as we all desire to see. Under these circumstances, I, for one, shall vote with the right hon. Gentleman, when he proposes to withdraw this Motion.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: One thing is very clear, that the Government are only too glad to get rid of the clause. They rashly gave a promise to put in these clauses, and they are willing to give in at the first breath of opposition which comes from an English Member. I have sat with my hon. Friend on the Small Holdings Com-

  1189
  mittee, and have paid attention to the working of the allotments Bill in England, and I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the measure has been a total failure. There has, I think, been overwhelming evidence before the Allotments Committee, that in some cases directly, but generally speaking indirectly, it has been of great use. It has prevented collisions between landlords and Local Authorities on the subject of the increase of allotments. I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but I cannot help thinking that his feelings are influenced by the circumstance that the measure comes from what we consider a tainted source. I must dissent from him in so entirely depreciating that Bill. For my part, I also regret what bas been said by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, especially what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow. I accepted the view of the hon. Member for Stirling, that we should rather have this Allotment Bill than no Bill at all. I admit that it is not a complete Bill, and that it does not do all that we could desire it to do, but I think that half a loaf is better than no bread, and as to the consolation that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury gave us—and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow accepted so readily —that we were to have, next Session, a Bill dealing with the question, I am glad to hear it; but, at the same time, I think that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We know what is likely to happen in regard to Scotch Bills. When we ask for a measure, say next year, we shall be told that we have had a Scotch Session. And we have had a Scotch Session, having been allowed to go into Scotch business at the end of July when all other business has been cleared away. The Member for Stirling alluded to the great questions to be raised in the Bill. For my part, I do not know that great questions are to be raised. My Amendments are all that are on the Paper, I think, or nearly so; and these Amendments, with one exception, come under the description of the Lord Advocate as forming an adaptation of the English Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is that the Motion be withdrawn.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I only desire do say that I should be willing to with-
  1190
  draw the Amendments that differ from the English Bill in order that we may pass a clause corresponding to the English clause. Though we have not in Scotland allotments under the name of allotments we have in many villages what is called "acred land."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Then I would only express my willingness to withdraw the Amendments standing in my name which are not taken from the English Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. RITCHIE,): I do not propose to go into the question of the English Bill, but I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down as to the effect which the English Act has had. It has been eminently valuable at all points. My chief purpose in rising, however, was to say that there should be no misunderstanding as to what the pledge of my right hon. Friend was. The Government recognise, looking at the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling, and at the indications which followed from Scotch Members, that it is perfectly clear that there is something more in the minds of Scotch Members in connection with this matter than the provisions which refer to England. Looked at from a Scotch point of view, it is simply an allotment measure. That being so, it is evident there is no chance of giving satisfaction to Scotch Members by trying to push forward and to pass the clause which has been put on the Paper. The Government feel, therefore, that it would be very much better for them to consider the whole subject in connection particularly with Scotland, and to endeavour to frame some measure on lines which would be satisfactory to Scotch opinion generally. We shall, of course, keep our promise, and if we can see our way to introduce such a measure next Session we shall be extremely glad to do so. We recognize, and recognize fully, that it will be in the interest not only of Scotland but of ourselves if we can bring forward a measure which will be fairly satisfactory to Scotch Members. We hope we may be able to introduce that measure, and carry it next Session; but I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow will not seek to carry the pledge further than that. The

  1191
  Government cannot, of course, at this stage pledge themselves as to what measures will be introduced next Session; but they will consider the whole question and see what can be done.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The right hon. Gentleman's speech is as clear and precise as a Minute, and no one can wish to go outside it.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: As representing a Scottish county constituency, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on the Motion to withdraw the clause. I desire to express in a single word my entire agreement with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling, that the circumstances of Scotland and of Scottish counties in regard to fishermen's dwellings and other subjects connected with the land are——
  MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry again to have to interrupt an hon. Member. But I must point out that the Motion is not to withdraw the clause, but to withdraw the Motion for going into Committee in respect of the clause.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: On that question I must say that I agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Member for Stirling, and do not concur in the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy. I hope that, considering the promise the Government have given to bestow fair consideration on this question, and considering that all responsibility will be on the Government, we shall take no exception to the course they propose.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: As there is an Amendment down in my name—the first on the list—I rise to say that I should be happy to withdraw it if it is in the way of the passing of the clause. I say frankly that I was prepared to move a considerable number of Amendments, but rather than imperil the passing of this clause I would refrain. Last year when the Local Government Bill was before the House the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board told us that we should this year have a District Councils Bill. Unfortunately, however, a Minister proposes and the Government as a whole disposes of all these questions. Though I do not wish to challenge the intentions of the individual Ministers who have promised us an Allotments Act next
  1192
  Session, I very much question whether next Session we shall not find ourselves in the same position with regard to that Act that we find ourselves in with regard-to the District Councils Act. I hope the Government will carry out this clause.
  DR. CLARK: I must say I regret the course taken by the two Front Benches. It was two years ago that the Allotments Bill was brought in, and at that time I moved an Amendment to the effect that the Measure should apply to Scotland. That Amendment was accepted originally, but afterwards, struck out at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, on the understanding that we were to get a Bill for Scotland. Well, we have not had that Scotch Bill yet, and I have no doubt the Government will be able to find plenty of excuses for not bringing in a Bill next Session. I am prepared to take the matter step by step. I do not expect much from the present Government; I expect more from the Government that will succeed them; but I am prepared to accept whatever the Government can give us. Next year if they can bring in a Bill to give us allotments and small holdings I shall be surprised; but I shall be glad to be surprised.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the Motion to withdraw the clause is objected to, I shall have to put the question in a different form, otherwise, if the Government were to gain their point on a Division the House would be in exactly the same position it is in now. Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? [Cries of "No."]
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "and in respect of a new Clause (County Council to have power to take land.)—(MR. Solicitor-General for Scotland.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes. 152.—(Div. List, No. 253.)
  Main Question, as amended, proposed.
  MR. CALDWELL: I have an Amendment down to re-commit the Bill also in respect of Clause 19, for the purpose of amending the clause in such a way as to place Scotland in the same position, pecuniarily, as England is in with regard

  1193
  to licenses—that is to say, that the amount of licenses shall be given for the current year to Scotland as is the case in England. We are only getting £265,500 in respect of these grants, and if we were placed in the same position as England we should get £57,000 more. If the Government do not see their way to accept my proposal, I would leave it to them to equalise the payment to Scotland in some other way.
  MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that this is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. Member is not in order in moving the Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELL: I am aware of that, Sir; but I desire to draw the attention of the Government to the matter, and——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!— there is no Question before the House.
  MR. LYELL: There is a proposal on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wick (MR. Macdonald Cameron)—namely, as an Amendment to the Lord Advocate's Motion, at end to add "and also in respect of a new Clause (Payment of travelling expenses to County Councillors within those counties to which 'The Crofter (Scotland) Act, 1886,' applies.") I desire to move the first part of this Amendment down to "Councillors." This matter has been left open to this final stage owing to some misunderstanding with the Lord Advocate. I think it was understood that he was to consider the matter before the Report stage. The cost of my proposal would not be much—probably, not more than £500 per annum—and yet it would conduce greatly to the efficiency of the County Council.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "and also in respect of a new Clause (Payment of travelling expenses to County Councillors.")—(MR. Lyell.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there added."
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to move, as an Amendment the addition which stands in my name on the Paper, whereby the Bill will be further committed in respect to a new clause, providing for the payment of travelling expenses of County Councillors within those counties to which the
  1194
  Crofters' Act applies. I know from what the Lord Advocate has stated that the Government are not inclined to agree to this proposal; but, as I have pointed out on a previous occasion, there are special conditions in the Highlands of Scotland which make it almost absolutely necessary that something of the kind should be introduced into this Bill. We know that there are men in different parts of the Highlands who, when elected as Councillors, would have to travel very long distances to and from the Council meetings, and it is only fair that in their case the Government should accept some proposition of this kind.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at the end thereof to add the words—
  "Within those counties to which the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1886, applies)."—(MR. Macdonald Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The proposals of the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken illustrate the difficulty and complexity of the matter with which we have to deal. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (MR. Lyell) proposes one thing and the hon. Member for Wick (MR. Macdonald Cameron) proposes another; and the latter hon. Gentleman told the House that he knew from me the Government would not assent to his Amendment. What I said when the Bill was in Committee was that I thought it might be possible to make some provision in certain cases by which the travelling expenses of those who will be called on to go very long distances might be met. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wick has referred to a private conversation which passed between us on this subject. What I said to him was that I had an idea that the matter was one requiring consideration, and that I must consult my Colleagues on the subject; but the hon. Gentleman had better put down an Amendment on the Paper. However, the subject being, as I have said, a very complex one, the view which I expressed with regard to it in Committee did not meet with general acceptance, hon. Members finding themselves unable to distinguish between the needs

  1195
  of different counties in regard to this matter. Although I should have been very glad if some method could have been devised for meeting the difficulty, yet, under all the circumstances, I feel it my duty to oppose the Amendment which has been proposed.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I very much prefer the Amendment in the form in which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has moved it. I admit that, with regard to those who will have to travel the long distances that have been spoken of, the matter is one of importance, and I should be glad if the Lord Advocate could see his way to make special arrangements by which such cases could be met. If this is not done, some of those who will be called on to attend meetings of the County Councils will have to travel very long distances indeed, the expense of which will be exceedingly heavy.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND (Sutherlandshire): I had hoped that, after what the Lord Advocate had said to my hon. Friend, he would have approached this question in a very different spirit from that which he has just displayed. The grounds on which we urge this proposal in regard to the Highland counties, are the sparsity of the population, and the long distances which in many instances the Councillors would have to travel. The Lord Advocate has expressed a hope that some method of meeting the difficulty might be devised; it appears to me that the difficulty would soon be disposed of if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would only apply his mind to it. All that is needed is, that the Government should do something in the matter.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: It is evident that the Government do not see their way to assent to this proposal at all, and, therefore, it seems unnecessary that we should prolong the controversy whether the provision ought to be confined to certain counties, or to extend to the whole country. I would, therefore, suggest to my Friends on this side of the House that we should emphasise our demand by now going to a Division on the general question, whether the expenses should be paid or not.
  DR. MACDONALD: I hope the Government will find some way out of the difficulty. It
  1196
  has already been shown, by myself and others, that in certain cases it will require five days for County Councillors from Stornoway and Lews to attend the Council meetings, and it was admitted last night that the crofters would necessarily appoint representatives of their own class. I would put it to the House, how would it be possible for men in their position to bear the expense and loss of time that would thus be imposed on them? The circumstances are entirely exceptional, and the Government ought to deal with them as such.
  MR. HUNTEE: I think that those who imagined the Government would give way on this point only displayed the remarkable innocence of their character. I trust, however, that the crofters will now take note of the manner in which they are being treated by the Government, and that when attempts are being made to bribe them from the cause of Home Rule they will see who are their true friends.
  The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 165.—(Div. List, No. 254.)
  Question put, "That the words 'and also in respect of a new Clause (Payment of travelling expenses to County Councillors)' be added to the Main Question, as amended."
  The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 147.—(Div. List, No. 255.)
  Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
  DR. CLARK: I now beg to move to add, at the end of the Question, the words "and also in respect of a new clause (County Council to maintain piers and harbours)." I hope the Lord Advocate will agree to this, as it is a matter of special importance to the northern counties. The present system is so expensive that it often costs as much to get the powers as it is proposed to spend on small harbours which are necessary. Take the case of Thurso, in my own constituency. A small harbour is required, and the Bill was passed through the House this year, the proceedings having cost something like £600. Now, under the 15th clause, the Secretary for Scotland has powers to grant Provisional Orders, and I think it is much to be desired that by some such means the people of Scotland should have a reasonably cheap method of getting powers to construct public works.
  Amendment proposed at the end of the Question to add the words, "and also in respect of a new Clause (County Council to maintain piers and harbours.)"—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CALDWELL: According to this Bill you have empowered the County Council to advance money for the purposes of emigration and colonization. Now you are asked to give it power to have regard to the erection of piers and harbours, for the purpose of developing the resources of the country. Surely there can be no objection to such a proposal. Frequently, when the Government are asked to make grants of money for piers and harbour works, they ask— "What is the locality going to do?" Now, we desire that the Local Authority shall have power to grant local aid; and, if that is conceded, there will be less necessity to apply for an Imperial grant. Surely, it is hard to ask a locality to do something in the way of advancing public works in its district, and yet refuse to confer on it the only way of doing it. It must be remembered that the people in these districts are individually too poor to do it.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member for Caithness has stated without exaggeration the importance of this subject to certain districts in Scotland. The expense that is now incurred in obtaining Provisional Orders will, I hope, be in part avoided by the measure with regard to private Bill legislation, which it is the desire of the Government to pass next Session. I trust the hon. Member will be satisfied with having that desire put on record, the more so as it would be impossible to accomplish the object the hon. Member has in view without a much more elaborate definition of rights and conditions than can be inserted in the clause contemplated.
  MR. DUFF: I sympathize to a great extent with the object of the hon. Member for Caithness, but I also think there is great force in the remarks which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate as to the manner in which this Motion is framed. In addition to that, complicated questions of rating may arise. If the County Council proceeded to rate the whole county for the benefit of a
  1198
  work in a particular district, localities which did not benefit directly by the undertaking would naturally object to that general rate. It would indeed be necessary in the case of a new harbour to create a special harbour supply district. Although the object of this proposed clause is a good one, I think it is a matter which the Government will have to deal with separately. What is required is power to create pier and harbour districts for purposes of rating, and under the circumstances I hope the hon. Member will rest satisfied with having brought the matter before the House and not press the Amendment, for I do not see that anything practical is to be gained by doing that.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill re-committed, in respect of an Amendment to Clause 16.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment proposed, Clause 16, page 8, line 31, after the word "Committee" to insert the words—
  "And so much of Section 24 and 58 as provides that proprietors only shall vote in regard to the construction of new roads and bridges, and be liable for the cost thereof, shall be repealed in regard to roads and bridges to be made, built, or rebuilt after the appointed day; and the cost of such construction shall be provided for in the same manner as the cost of maintenance of existing roads and bridges; (d) The assessment for road debt under 'The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878,' or under any Local Act of Parliament shall, until the debt is wholly repaid, be payable by owners only, subject to the provisions of the said Acts: Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall derogate from the provisions of Section 40 of 'The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878,' in regard to the liability for road debts in detached parts of counties, and if any question shall arise as to the application of the last mentioned provisions, it may be disposed of summarily by the Sheriff of the County within which the lands and heritages are locally situated, and his decision shall be final."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In proposing this Amendment I think it is only due to the House I should explain it is necessary to avoid giving to owners a right to determine upon the construction of new roads and bridges, which would be inconsistent with the general scheme of the Bill and to prevent the

  1199
  creation of an exceptional privilege with regard to that class of expenditure.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported as amended, and considered as amended (Queen's consent signified).
  Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the House will admit that this Bill has been most fully and carefully considered on both sides of the House. There has been a large amount of time given to it, but not, I think, an unreasonable amount, having regard to the great importance of its subject; and, therefore, trust that I shall not be thought to be asking for anything that is unfair, looking at the period of the Session and the very important business to be disposed of, if I request the House to allow the Bill now to be read a third time. I do not think that the House either would desire to effect, or could effect, any considerable alteration of the Bill on the Third Beading stage. On the contrary, there has been every indication on both sides of the House that, although there may be considerable difference of opinion as to its provisions, some thinking that it does not go quite far enough and some desiring to make it a larger measure, still, taking it as it is, there is a universal desire it should pass; and under those circumstances I hope I am not asking too much in moving that the Bill be now read a third time.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I hope the House will agree to the Motion without difficulty. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to arrange for having the Bill printed immediately as it stands, in order that our constituents in Scotland may know what are its provisions. Before passing from the subject I wish to congratulate the Lord Advocate personally on the success which has attended his labours; and I do not hesitate to say that the passing of the measure in the form in which it now stands is largely due to the great care, courtesy, and ability which the Lord Advocate has displayed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am very willing that the Bill should now be read a third time as we have done our best to amend it, and could not hope to amend it further now. I only wish to say a word as to a question to which I attach great importance, both practical
  1200
  and sentimental, and which has not been discussed—namely, as to the imposition of English holidays upon Scotland under Clause 90. I am not a Scotch Nationalist—I do not want to legislate for Scotland as a separate nation; but that country is an ancient kingdom, and at least a large Province of the Empire; we have our own law and institutions, and I think it could never be intended that our institutions should be Anglicized in a forcible manner by surprise. New Year's Day is by far the most important holiday in Scotland; and it is notorious that Good Friday is a day entirely unknown in shops or places of business in the country. There is a good deal of feeling on this subject, for this provision shows a disposition to wipe out Scotland as a separate part of this kingdom. I therefore hope that the question will be re-considered, and that what has been done by inadvertence in this House will be set right when the Bill goes to the other House.
  DR. CLARK: I will not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. I think it has been fairly well amended, and that the Government have conceded a good deal to the opinions of Scotch Members on the Opposition Benches. At the same time, I regard the financial arrangements of the measure as unfair and unjust to Scotland, which the Treasury appear to consider a country to be exploited, and not to be given a farthing if they can help it. This year Scotland was to be robbed of £57,000 which rightly belongs to her. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should remember that Scotland pays more than her fair share of taxation, and as we are to lose £57,000 this year I hope the right hon. Gentleman will afford some aid to more or less philanthropic schemes which are being promoted in the poorer districts.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 307.)
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to the Bill [17th July] on consideration as amended.
And which Amendment was, in page 9, line 12, after the word "Esquire," to insert the words "Sir William Thomson."—(MR. J. P. B. Robertson.)
Question again proposed, "That the words 'Sir William Thomson' be there inserted."
Debate resumed.
MR. HUNTER: There are several reasons why the name of Sir William Thomson should not be inserted in this Commission. In the first place, the excessive representation of Glasgow and Edinburgh of which we have complained is aggravated and intensified. I hold that each of the Universities of Scotland is entitled to equal representation on the Commission irrespective of the number of students. Undoubtedly Aberdeen will fare badly when the Commission comes to deal with financial arrangements, as there is scarcely one representative of Aberdeen upon it. I do not say that men who come from Glasgow and Edinburgh will be consciously guilty of unfairness towards Aberdeen in the distribution of the grant of £12,000 a year, but I think it requires no special knowledge of human nature to understand that Glasgow men will see more clearly and feel more strongly the wants of Glasgow; that Edinburgh men will see more clearly and feel more strongly the wants of Edinburgh, and that they will not see so clearly or feel so strongly the wants of Aberdeen. That is one ground for objecting to the addition of this gentleman to the Commission. There is, too, another objection. The original desire was to abstain from putting on the Commission any University Professors. I think the Government were wise in that respect. It is quite true that, so far as expert knowledge is concerned, the professors are most capable, but then, unfortunately, their pecuniary interests are involved. Human nature is human nature, and although any professor appointed on this Commission would, so far as any personal interests were concerned, try to be perfectly fair, still he would hardly be in a pleasant position when dealing with unreasonable demands by his fellow professors. I remember an old story of a Professor of Chemistry, who was sent to London by a certain Senatus Academicus to make certain demands. When he returned it was noticed that he was very chary of giving information. The Professor of Humanity asked what he had done for him. The answer was nothing. The Professor of Greek's question received a
1202
similar answer, and when at last it was inquired what had been gained by the visit to London the reply was that he had only got another £100 a year for the Professor of Chemistry. There were strong reasons why there should be no professors on the Commission. I know that Sir William Thomson is an extremely spirited and original thinker, and we have not too many of such men. I should, therefore, be extremely sorry to divide against his name, because it might be construed as a slight to him. As Scotchmen we are proud of his eminence and distinction. Under these circumstances I will not move now the adjournment of the consideration of this Bill, but will agree to Sir William Thomson's name being added.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. HUNTER: I now beg to move that the further consideration of this Bill be postponed, and my object is to put myself in order and to call the attention of the Government to the position in which we stand. Last Wednesday we divided against two or three names, but when we came to the name of Sir Francis Sandford, which is peculiarly obnoxious to the great majority of the people of Scotland, we were debarred from considering his merits or demerits by the step which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury thought fit to take on that occasion. He left us the only alternative of moving the Adjournment of the Debate and thus put us at a great disadvantage, because we could not go into the general question, and there are some hon. Members on this side of the House who, on principle, vote against Motions for the Adjournment of the Debate. On that occasion 30 Scotch Members voted for the adjournment and only 20 against, and this Division may be taken as showing the hostile Scotch opinion on the name of Sir F. Sandford. Do the Government intend to retain this and other names on the Commission in the face of a hostile Scotch opinion? The name of Mr. Frederick Fuller was particularly objectionable to Scotch Members. The addition of that is simply adding insult to injustice, and if the Government insist on retaining it, the Scotch Members must use such weapons as are placed in their hands for bringing the matter before the people of

1203
Scotland. I appeal to the Government now to consent to the omission of Sir F. Sandford's name.
Motion made, "That the further proceedings of consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hunter.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am rather surprised at the tone in which the hon. Gentleman has made his proposal. I must remind the House of various stages at which the Government have shown a great readiness to consider not only the reasons, but the prepossessions of the House. Criticisms and comments were not unfairly made of the composition of the Commission as it then stood, and the Government considered how they could give effect to the wishes expressed. Communications passed between the two sides of the House, with the result that four names were struck off the Commission. That in itself was a most distasteful operation, involving personal disappointment and personal explanation; and, moreover, gentlemen would be unwilling to serve on the Commission if their names were always to be subject to hostile criticism. Then came the question, how were those four places to be filled up? The Government put themselves frankly in communication with the Opposition with regard to four names to be substituted for those struck out, and two of the four were nominated at the suggestion of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am not aware of any instance in recent times in which a Government has gone further in the way of modifying the composition of a Commission. If criticisms are passed on the four names, all I can say is that the Government have entertained a doubt as to whether it was well to put on the Commission professors and extra-mural teachers, thinking it better to appoint persons not so directly concerned in the questions coming before the Commission. But the opinion of the other side of the House was that it was necessary to have representatives of extra-mural teaching, and that consequently the professors should also be represented. The Government have placed two professors on the Commission, one of whom excites the critical displeasure of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I offer no comment on the gentlemen who represent extra-mural teaching, but merely state that I
1204
believe they will be worthy Members of the Commission. But the hon. Member for Aberdeen, not acting apparently in direct conference with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burgh, has lodged a most vehement objection to the omission of Aberdeen, and has proposed a name to give effect to the representation of Aberdeen. That name has not met with general acceptance in all quarters of the House, and certainly has not on the Government side of the House. The Government, while thinking that the representation of Aberdeen is inadequate, were willing to concede the point, and in the negotiations about the four names they made an offer that there should be special representation of Aberdeen among the four. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought that it was not necessary. In the Debate last Wednesday the Government were asked whether they could supply a representative for Aberdeen, and the need of the representation was urged on purely academical grounds, hon. Gentlemen opposite especially desiring some one who was acquainted with the more modern teaching in Aberdeen. After consideration the Government found a name open to no objection whatever.
MR. HUNTER: Question.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is a certain amount of irregularity in the whole discussion. The reasons for the adjournment may be entered into, but it is not in order to discuss the representation of Aberdeen, which has been, and which will be again, the subject of Debate.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I will then confine myself to declaring that the Government has not exhibited the smallest indisposition to consult opinion in all parts of the House. I am, however, anxious to say one word about Sir F. Sandford. Except on some narrow and personal ground, I cannot understand why such vehement objection is taken to Sir F. Sandford's name. He is one of the oldest and most honoured public servants in the country, and one of the most distinguished of living Scotchmen. He served a long time in the Public Service when Scotch education was administered with English education, and when the severance took place he entered the Scotch Office, and his administration has been universally applauded as giving the Scotch Office a fresh and fair start.

1205
I speak of Sir F. Sandford in the presence of an ex-Secretary for Scotland; and I say that there is no man who more completely combines a knowledge of Scotch affairs and opinions than Sir F. Sandford.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is, Sir, after your ruling, extremely difficult to discuss this question without touching upon names.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The irregularity was in discussing names on a Motion for Adjournment.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate has misunderstood the gist of the hon. Member for Aberdeen's remarks. When he complains that the Government are not regarding Scotch opinion he is not referring to the negotiations which have taken place, but to the Division upon the name of Sir F. Sandford. With regard to the selection of those names, the right hon. Gentleman is quite accurate in what he said, within certain limits, but I should like to state my side of the case.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The matter which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to discuss is quite irregular. The Question before the House is that the further consideration of this Bill be postponed.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I trust I may appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion.
MR. HUNTER: I ask leave to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, to insert the words "Dr. Blackie, Dr. Watson."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The reason I suggested the names of Dr. Blackie and Dr. Watson was that they represented, as fairly as anyone who could be thought of, the reforming party in the University Councils, the one of Glasgow and the other of Edinburgh. For myself, I should have very much preferred a much smaller executive Commission of perfectly neutral men, but I wish to absolve the Lord Advocate from any responsibility with regard to the composition of the Commission. We are all aware the Bill has been drifting about in the currents
1206
of Parliamentary accident for a great many years, and the Commission as now proposed is the growth of years. Since I and my Friends failed to secure a smaller and stronger Commission, the next best thing was to have both sides on educational questions fairly represented. I think there can be no objection fairly taken to the constitution of the proposed addition to the Commission if only the Member who is to represent Aberdeen interests is satisfactory to those who have those interests so much at heart. Unfortunately there is a difference of opinion between the Lord Advocate and his Colleagues on the one hand, and my hon. Friends behind me, who know more about Aberdeen, on the other, as to the suitableness of the particular names the Government have suggested.
MR. HUNTER: I have only one word to add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend, and that is that there was a complete understanding on these Benches when the Government agreed to add four additional names to the Commission that the intention was to add four names which would be satisfactory to this side of the House. The difficulty which has arisen is entirely due to the fact that the Government have insisted upon putting on two more names in place of those they struck off.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "Samuel Henry Butcher." —(The Lord Advocate.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I regard the introduction of the name of Professor Butcher as a very serious matter indeed, and all the more on account of the very great respect I have for Professor Butcher as a man, and, what goes with me very far, as a scholar. There is no Cambridge man but must be proud of Professor Butcher, alike as a man and as a scholar, but his views on the subject of extra-mural teaching are such that his presence on the Commission cannot be regarded with anything but feelings akin to uneasiness. This Bill would never have been introduced if it had not been for the object of throwing open the Universities of Scotland to a proper system of extra-mural teaching. I think the Government ill-

1207
advised in putting on the Commission a gentleman who is absolutely committed by the most openly-expressed opinions to refusing that boon for which Scotland has asked, and for the sake of which the Bill was given. In an address to the Edinburgh branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland, given in November last, Professor Butcher argued against extra-mural teaching in medicine; but he drew a distinction between medicine and arts, and went on to say:—
"Competitive extra-academical teaching in arts meant undoubtedly, in Scotland, competitive teaching down to the pass standard of the M.A. degree. It meant a rivalry of crammers, a lower level of teaching, a lower conception of the teacher's office. In arts more than in medicine would the evil be felt, partly owing to the difference above noted between professional and non-professional subjects of study; partly, also, because extra-mural teaching in medicine merely supplemented a professional practice. The eminent doctors who lectured in the extra-mural schools were raised above sordid care, and could afford to have a mind and soul above examination results; whereas in arts extra-mural teaching would itself be the profession, the bread-winning pursuit. The teachers would be dependent on the success of the moment; by the necessities of their position they would teach with an eye to immediate results, and impart the minimum of knowledge required."
But this is not all. Professor Butcher, not knowing that he himself was going to be a Commissioner, looked forward to this Commission for the express purpose of extinguishing the very idea of extra-mural teaching. He said:—
"A Commission, it was hoped, would soon be sitting, and they should then have the opportunity of remodelling the framework and their educational curriculum by enlarging the range of their teaching, and allowing freer play to special bents and aptitudes. The reform must work from within. What was needed was not outside teachers, who, as a duplicate and quadruplicate professoriate, should in each branch repeat the same facts, travel over the same well-worn ground, and impart the routine acquirements of an ordinary degree. They should aim at making each University into an intellectual organism, not at forming accidental accumulations from without."
I do not think you could have put into more forcible and eloquent language the non possumus on the subject of extramural teaching. I think it most unfortunate that because two gentlemen have been added to the Commission to represent extra-mural teaching it should have been thought necessary to counterbalance them with two gentlemen, one of whom is a declared opponent of what the Bill is intended to effect. I think I have shown to the House that I have
1208
very grave reason for objecting to this name.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. Balfour,): While no one can object to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about Professor Butcher on personal grounds, I think the House has some reason to complain of the line of argument adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, it is inconsistent with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) near him, who has recognized not only the right of the Government to do what they have done, but also the fairness of the course they have adopted. The Government have never been in favour of putting upon the Commission avowed partizans, but have always thought it better to leave these questions to men who are not committed to one view or another. But from the other side of the House we were urged to adopt another system—namely, that of having on the Commission advocates committed to one view or the other. In deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite we reluctantly accepted that course, and consented to put on the Commission two gentlemen who are committed to the theory of extra-mural teaching, but we say that if the House is going to adopt the system of advocates we must have advocates on both sides, and surely that is consistent with the elementary principles of justice. Nobody has made any secret of the fact that Mr. Blackie and Dr. Watson are committed to extra-mural teaching. One is the head of an extra-mural college, and the other, I believe, is engaged in extra-mural teaching. Under the circumstances, I feel that the arguments the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to the House, so far from being any conclusive reason why Professor Butcher's name should not be added to the Commission, have amply justified the course taken by the Government. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that we have taken a course not only fair in itself, but one which in common justice to all interests involved we could not have avoided taking.
MR. C. S. PARKER: I hope that in a spirit of fairness hon. Members on this side of the House will not think it desirable to divide against a name so eminent as that of Pro-

1209
fessor Butcher. I agree with, my hon. Friends who have spoken, that the Commission as originally proposed would have been of a very one-sided character, that it represented rather the predominance of opinion in the House than the predominance of political or academical opinion in Scotland. But I must admit that the Government have met us very fairly on that point, and that they have well discharged what was a most difficult task—that of obtaining the withdrawal of four of the gentlemen who had accepted seats on the Commission, that is to say who were originally proposed. It was in order to meet the views of Liberal Members that the Government have consented to abandon the principle of putting on the Commission only gentlemen who were uncommitted, and are taking strong advocates on the one side, and balancing them with persons known to be committed on the other side. I do not know that the original method of framing the Commission was not the best, but as we on this side urged on the Government to accept candidates strongly committed for the extra-mural interest, it is only fair if they bring us eminent men on the other side that they should be admitted. Now, we shall have this state of things on the Commission. We shall have the arguments of those who are committed, and a considerable body of gentlemen uncommitted, to judge of those arguments. I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir G. Trevelyan). I think he took rather a one-sided view of the object of the Bill. He held that its main, almost its sole, object was to introduce largely this extramural teaching. No doubt that is one of the objects, and there is a considerable amount of feeling in Scotland in favour of that; but only look at the clause which gives to the Commissioners their powers. Every one can see that to favour extra-mural teaching is far from being the sole or even the principal object of the Bill. With regard to Professor Butcher, only two points have been made by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division, that to introduce outside teaching is the whole Bill, that Professor Butcher is committed to the principle of extra-mural teaching. With the former point I have dealt, and to the latter my answer is that it was at the request
1210
of hon. Members on our side of the House that the Government departed from their original intention to appoint gentlemen who were uncommitted. I hope the House will see the fairness of allowing the name of Professor Butcher to stand.
Question put, and agreed to.
Another name, "Patrick Heron Watson, Esq.," agreed to.
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "And Frederick Fuller, Esq."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HUNTER: I regret very much that the Government have placed the name of Professor Fuller on the Paper in such a position that it has to be discussed before my own Amendment, which proposes to add Professor Bain to the Commission. Of course, the Government have a perfect right to bring on their Amendment before that of a private Member; but if, in consequence of that action of the Government, I am obliged to say disagreeable things of Professor Fuller, the Government have only themselves to blame. If they had allowed the name of Professor Bain to be discussed we should have avoided making any odious or invidious comparisons; but as the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit, in the exercise of his undoubted right, to put us in that position, upon his head must be the consequences and not on mine. Now, my objection to Professor Fuller is not so much that the Government have selected him as that they have deliberately gone out of their way to avoid taking a man incomparably better. They have taken a man who is agree able to the Tories, which Mr. Bain is not. That raises a great question of principle, which is of much concern to Scotland—namely, whether a man, on account of his eminence I might almost say, but, certainly, in spite of his eminence, should be ostracized and boycotted merely because he is a Home Ruler and a Liberal. Mr. Fuller has not even the advantage of being a Scotchman. He is an Englishman educated in England, and naturally more or less fond of English ways of education. He has served in Scotland as a Professor of Mathematics, first in King's College, of Old Aberdeen

1211
and afterwards in the University. Now, I am not going to say one word against Professor Fuller. I had the pleasure, such as it was, of sitting in his class; but this I think I may say, without the possibility of challenge or dispute—that Professor Fuller, although a perfectly respectable professor, was not a distinguished or an ideal professor. He was not a man of any remarkable, extraordinary, or exceptional originality or power. Scotch professors have full six months' leisure in the year, and such men ought to do something to enlarge the bounds of human knowledge, or at least add something to the literature of the subject which they teach. That can hardly be said of Mr. Fuller. When Mr. Fuller's term of office expired he left Aberdeen, and he has not been there since. If it had been desired to select a man from the whole list of professors who has the fewest claims and no preeminent claim for this office, Mr. Fuller ought to have been selected. Of course, as I have said, he possesses in the eyes of people influencing the Government— I do not say the Government themselves, but a little miserable clique of Aberdeen professors—the inestimable advantage of being a Unionist, and that to their minds outweighs all the other circumstances connected with the Universities. I take it that I should not be in order if I alluded to Professor Bain, and therefore the strength of my objection, which lies in a comparison between the two men, cannot be shown on this occasion. The strength of the objection rests upon comparison. Mr. Fuller, though possibly well qualified, has not the distinguished position of Dr. Bain. I have no right to complain of the Rules of the House, or that the Government should take advantage of their position; but if I do not say anything further it is rather because I do not wish to say anything disagreeable in reference to a worthy gentleman whom the Government have preferred to Dr. Bain.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In one or two uncontroversial sentences I will at once state to the House the qualifications of Mr. Fuller to be a member of the Commission. For 25 years he was Professor of Mathematics in the University of Aberdeen, from which he has for some years retired, and he is in possession of University experience, and that which is a valuable possession for a Commissioner—leisure, which eminently
1212
qualifies him for the position to which we have nominated him. His professorship covered the period from 1860 to 1878, and during that time he largely participated in the arrangement of the system of examination that prevails at Aberdeen, and to him belongs the great credit of sending from Aberdeen to Cambridge that brilliant band of young mathematicians who achieved such remarkable success at the English University. He was Secretary to the Senatus, and is intimately acquainted with the business of the University of Aberdeen, and has a combination of qualifications not often to be met with; his experience well qualifies him for the position, while he is separated from all the prejudices of the surroundings of a professorship.
Question put, "That those words be added."
The House divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 122.—(Div. List, No. 256.)
Dr. FARQUHARSON: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Dr. Hunter), and I may say at the outset that no apology is needed for pressing the appointment of one whom we all feel would be an ideal Commissioner. I think when we first heard that a Commission was to be instituted the name that came first to our minds and was readiest on our lips was that of Dr. Bain, familiar to all with any knowledge of Aberdeen University, and known, I may say, throughout the inhabited globe. Associated with University reform for many years, to him has fallen the unique honour of being twice elected by the students of Aberdeen to fill the responsible and honourable office of Lord Rector of the University. His knowledge and experience are such as alone would be sufficient to give that confidence in the Commission which, as at present constituted, I may say it somewhat lacks. It was understood in the first instance that there was one objection, and that a very serious one, to his nomination, that Dr. Bain was unwilling to serve on the Commission, but I think the Government, the House, and the country generally, owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, for he, I understand, prevailed upon Dr. Bain to overcome his scruples, and induced him

1213
to give up some portion of his well-earned repose to the performance of this responsible duty. I am quite prepared to admit that the Government have met us half-way in regard to the representation of Aberdeen on this Commission, but why, I ask, will they not go the whole way? I must say that I look forward with very considerable interest to the production by the Government of any objection to this distinguished University man. I will go so far as to challenge them to produce any objection that will in any way remove those feelings of suspicion that are called up by the mysterious attitude they have taken upon this subject. I believe an objection may be taken that the health of Dr. Bain is not strong enough for him to undertake the duty. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate is a constant reader of the Aberdeen Free Press, but if he is he must have seen a letter lately communicated to that journal by Dr. Bain, in which he stated that he is quite willing to serve on this Commission if his services are required, to meet the wants and wishes of the Northern University, and that his health is strong enough to enable him to carry out the duty. Has he been too great a reformer? The period during which he was Lord Rector was a period marked by the greatest prosperity of the University, and when his reforming interests in the prominent position gave him great influence for good or harm. Considering that this is a reforming Commission, this is a very great advantage and not an objection. I will say nothing on the question of religion. There has been some idea that Dr. Bain's views are not orthodox, but I have not heard that any religious test is required from the Commissioners, and if any objection is taken on that score I would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether all the other Commissioners are perfectly sound upon the 39 Articles. It is a very invidious thing to have to consider the personal claims of gentlemen who are nominated for this Commission one by one, and to give reasons for and against, but the position is forced upon us. We want this gentleman appointed, and we have had no reason against his appointment. His consent has been formally obtained, and I think it is our duty to press upon the Government the urgent necessity of showing why it is that this name is not accepted by them, I heard my hon.
1214
Friend the Member for North Aberdeen suggest the possibility that it was on the ground of his extreme—not too extreme —political views that Dr. Bain was objected to. It is possible that there is an apprehension that Dr. Bain's appearance on the Commission might disturb the sweet serenity of the Tory and Unionist gentlemen who form the large proportion of that body. But let the Government say, let them give us a reason for it. Yet we have had none. I will sit down, and in Shakesperian phrase, "I pause for a reply."
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, after the foregoing Amendment to insert the words "Alexander Bain, Esquire."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am extremely happy to say that I find it unnecessary to say one word that would be distasteful to any friend of Dr. Bain. Of his eminence and distinction there can be no doubt, but that is really not the question now. We have equipped the Commission to the number which is regarded on all sides as complete and abundant, and there is no occasion for prosecuting further any invidious personal comparisons, to pronounce eulogies or indicate disqualifications. All that is closed. We have endeavoured to meet the views of hon. Members opposite. We have stated fairly that the name of Dr. Bain did not command that general assent to induce us to believe that his appointment would conduce to the smooth working of the scheme, and having so said, I have said all that I have to say in regard to Dr. Bain. Hon. Members opposite have thought fit to hint a great number of things, and have said incomparably more against Dr. Bain than I have thought it necessary to say. The Commission is now complete, and I hope I may be excused if I do not enter further into the discussion.
MR. ESSLEMONT: It is futile for the Government to think that the people of Scotland, that Members who represent the North of Scotland, and know anything of Aberdeen University, will accept of this "go by" the Lord Advocate has offered us. I have had the honour of personal acquaintance with Professor Bain for some 40 years, and it is of no use for the Lord Advocate to declare that his action

1215
needs no defence in this case. It has repeatedly come to our ears that there were objections to this very eminent man which are most unworthy of the Government to entertain. We have been told by Members of the House that this gentleman is not in health, so as to be able to undertake the duty of a Commissioner, that he has lately been suffering from a stroke of paralysis. There is no foundation for these reports. Dr. Bain is in perfect health and in full possession of his intellectual powers. He has had a life-long connection with the University of Aberdeen, in which from a very humble position he has raised himself to the most eminent position among the professors of Scotland. He is well known throughout Scotland as the man whose knowledge and intellectual attainments mark him out as an almost indispensable member of this Commission. He is the simplest-minded, fairest-minded, most agreeable man I have ever met, and I have met many agreeable men in my time; but he is one that will not swerve one jota from what he believes to be the fair path of duty. My hon. Colleague (Dr. Farquharson) made a slight allusion to his religious opinions. Now, I have watched this eminent man for many years, but I never heard him say one word in disapproval of anyone's religious belief, it is the last thing he would think of doing. I feel that in regard to the representation of our Northern University the Government have treated us very shabbily. We have been most anxious that the names on this Commission should not be discussed at all. We proposed that we should have the number reduced, and that we should begin de novo in regard to our Motion. But, still, with the knowledge that Professor Bain has the confidence of the people of Scotland, that he is in political harmony with the general opinion in Scotland, and that he is an able and a sincere reformer in University matters, his presence on the Commission has been denied to us. The people of Scotland have very strong reason to complain that the Government, instead of complying with their wishes, have stepped out of their way and asked us to give our confidence to a gentleman of whom I have not a word to say but of commendation, in order that they might deprive us of that representation that we, on the part of Aberdeen, most desire.
SIR LYON PLAYFATR: I intend to vote for the name of Mr. Bain. I cannot conceive a Scotch University Commission being constituted without the presence of a man who has done so much for the advancement of the mental and moral sciences as this distinguished Scotch professor. Scotland has always been famous for the teaching of mental science, and Professor Bain has advanced these sciences with which his name has been so long connected by new modes of investigation which have been accepted not only in Scotland, but very largely accepted in England also, He has been examiner in mental science at the University of London, and has exercised much influence on the study of mental science throughout the country. He has been a professor of many years in connection with Aberdeen University, and twice he has been elected Lord Rector of that University, which shows the high appreciation in which he is held there. In appointing a University Commission, not only should the name of Dr. Bain be there almost as a matter of course, but all the Representatives of Aberdeen have expressed themselves most anxious that Aberdeen University should be represented by this distinguished professor. I intend to record my vote in favour of this name.
MR. W. P. SINCLAIR (Falkirk, &c.): I think the name of Dr. Bain has been supported by some arguments that had better been left unused. Whatever the political opinions of the gentleman may be, they ought not to have any weight in this matter, and are no disqualification. If he be—as has been said—a Gladstonian, I certainly do not agree with him in that, but I do not think that this unfortunate fact will prevent him from exercising a fair, impartial, and independent judgment upon questions this Commission are appointed to determine. The arguments addressed to the House in support of the candidature of Dr. Bain have been grounded upon his representation of Aberdeen University, but it is not from that point of view that I support the name. Aberdeen University has always been closely connected with the teaching element throughout Scotland, in elementary, secondary, and higher schools, and I know that teachers are most anxious that their views should find representa-

1217
tion on this Commission in the person of Dr. Bain.
MR. WALLACE: I cannot understand the nature of the Lord Advocate's objection to Professor Bain becoming a member of this Commission. He said that the Commission was fully equipped; in short, that it was too large already. I want to know whose fault is that? I certainly gave the Government the opportunity of lightening the Commission by the excision of three names, for which excision I would have given satisfactory reasons. I did not get an opportunity of doing so. I was closured; so that they were wilfully blind to good reasons for lessening the number of the Commission, of the excessive number of which they now complain. How long ago is it since the Commission was fully equipped? I suppose it was not fully equipped before the name of Mr. Fuller was proposed. But, therefore, if the size of the Commission is the only objection to the inclusion of Mr. Bain, it is an objection which was entirely within their own power. The Lord Advocate did not deny his worthiness to be placed on this Commission, and it seems to me that the reason of the Commission being already sufficiently large is more ingenious than ingenuous, though I do not say very much for its ingenuity either. I think the Lord Advocate said that there were reasons which made his name not generally acceptable. I do not know that there are many names on the Commission that are generally acceptable, and I think that it is a most unfortunate thing that the name of Professor Bain should have been omitted. The name of Professor Bain is accepted in Scotland as of the very highest standing, on the grounds on which a philosophical reputation ought to be sustained. Many of us do not agree with him in his philosophical exclusions, but we recognise the ability and devotion which he has shown in giving himself to the high task he has set before himself in educational matters. There is not a name on that Commission which is more or equally deserving of respect in these matters than the name which the Government now so obstinately and so unaccountably exclude. I can only infer, in conclusion, that the reasons which actuate the Government are reasons of which they are so pro-
1218
foundly ashamed that they cannot state them.
MR. HUNTER: On the last Division 28 Scotch Members went into the Lobby with me, and 12 on the other side. I do not know what the policy of the Government is, but it seems to me that they are determined to flout in every possible case the opinion of Scotch Members. He has distinctly stated that he shall give no reasons. He dared not stand up in this House to give utterance to the shabby bigotry and disgraceful enmity to the nomination of Mr. Bain. I do not know whether he has had any part in this business; I do not know who has been the channel of communication between certain obscure individuals and the Government. But I defy him to stand up in the House and state one reason in support of the policy which has been forced upon the Government from the Benches behind them. I will tell the House the real reason why Professor Bain is hated. Professor Bain has interested himself in subjects of philosophy; his name will rank among the highest in this country, along with Lock, Dugald Stuart, Adam Smith, and the two Mills; his name will be imperishable in the records of British philosophy. He is doubly dear to Aberdeen. He is an Aberdeen man, and in his own life he is an admirable illustration of some of our Aberdeen institutions. We have practically got free University education in Aberdeen. Professor Bain began his career as a weaver in Aberdeen, but he was enabled, at the age of 18, to enter Marshall College. From that time his career has been remarkable and rapid. When he was in London he served in a very important official position, and from his knowledge of business he is extremely well qualified to take part in this Commission. In the year 1860 he was appointed Professor of Logic to the University of Aberdeen. I remember as a boy the insinuations directed against Professor Bain, and I remember when I sat in his class it was with very considerable prejudice, and I expected to see, if not horns and hoofs, something like a monster in human form. Prom his very first appointment he was the object, on the part of a small number of individuals, of the most envenomed and bitter hostility, but everybody who gat in his class learnt what manner of man he

1219
was. Of all the worshippers in the temple of truth there never was a purer nor more sincere than Professor Bain He was not only an original thinker himself, but he possessed the faculty of quickening the minds of his pupils. He was not an idle professor, content to receive his salary. He has been a voluminous author, and has written works of great importance. It is a test of what the world thinks of him that his books circulate at home and abroad, and to such an extent as to put him in possession of an extremely handsome revenue. He retired from office in 1880, and in 1881 he was elected Lord Rector, a position which is jealously guarded by the students, and is given only to men eminent in literature or science. He is the only instance within the recollection of any living being of a professor being elected to that distinguished office. The students, who are generous, and who can appreciate truth, elected him by a large majority; but on that occasion the professors behaved so indecently as to canvass against their own colleague. It would require an Alexander Pope and a new edition of the Dunciad to enable the House to understand the nature and kind of opposition which led the professors to take that step. But it was vain. Professor Bain was not only elected, but re-elected. From whom does this opposition come? It is a little bit of rivalry on the part of obscure mediocrities, who rule persons more eminent than themselves. But I believe these gentlemen would actually have forgiven Professor Bain for his eminence if only he had been a snob. Professor Bain is, and has been all his life, an active politician. I do not think he has taken part in public meetings, but he is well known in private life as a man of very decided Liberal views. This miserable clique, this wretched gang, are opposed to him because he combines liberality of thought with a great degree of eminence. The House does not know, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Universities does not know, the kind of people with whom he is dealing. I can tell him this, from an experience of more than a quarter of a century—that any man, however eminently qualified for his post he may be, will be boycotted and ostracised unless he belongs to the Tories who have got control of the Universities, and it is a very little section from
1220
whom the opposition comes. I feel bound to go to a Division on this question for the honour of Aberdeen, for the honour of the University, and for the honour of human nature; because a more disgraceful and scandalous opposition never was offered to a distinguished man; nothing shabbier, or meaner, or more contemptible was ever done in this House, and that is the reason why the Lord Advocate has not given any reasons for his objection. I am sure, if the Lord Advocate knew the unfortunate part he has been made to play, he would be the last man to act as he has done. And I believe the hon. Member for the Universities would tear his tongue out sooner than be a party to such miserable and contemptible action.
MR. ELLIOT: I will not imitate my hon. Friend by using violent language in this matter. He told the House that the test of a man was what the world thought of him; but it would appear to me that it is not what the world, but what my hon. Friend on my right thinks of him. Sir F. Sandford is a man of mark and sound knowledge; but Sir F. Sandford was loudly denounced by my hon. Friend, because he happened not to agree with him. Now, Professor Bain is undoubtedly a distinguished man, and many of us are thoroughly acquainted with his name. My hon. Friend praised him to the skies, and says, therefore, he ought to be on the Commission. As to Professor Bain's political opinions, I do not believe that one Scotchman in 10 knows what they are. That is a matter brought in for the purposes of Debate, and for Party purposes. It is not true that Scotch opinion is in favour of or against Professor Bain, because Scotch opinion has not been brought to bear upon the subject. His politics were to me, up to the present moment, absolutely unknown. It is now said that he is a strong Liberal, or a strong Gladstonian, which is a very different thing. I am in the position of 99,000 out of every 100,000 Scotchmen, of being absolutely ignorant of his politics. I have no doubt, in respect of his personal distinction, he is thoroughly fit to be a member of this Commission. That is not the question. We have now arrived, at almost the last stage of this Bill in this House, and the Commission has been constituted after much discussion and conference between Members of the

1221
House, and the Commission now represents the general sentiments of this House. If at the last moment a new name is to be introduced, and we are to be put in the position of proving the unfitness of any new name suggested, I say it is evident to any honest, clear-thinking man, that they are brought forward for Party purposes, and have nothing to do with the benefit of the University.
The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 179.—(Div. List, No. 257.)
DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to propose the addition of the name of Dr. Bruce, the elected representative for Scotland on the General Medical Council. In the first place, he is a medical man, and we are a doctor short on the Commission, inasmuch as the Government have excised the names of two doctors. As the Scotch Universities are essentially Medical Schools, I think it is important that the medical element should be well represented on the Commission. Dr. Bruce is a man of the highest eminence, and has been elected by the whole medical profession in Scotland to represent them on the Medical Council. He would go to the Commission freed from any University trammels, and would represent the rank and file of the practitioners.
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "William Bruce, A.M., M.D., elected representative for Scotland on General Medical Council."— (Dr. Farquharson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I need only say I have not a word to utter in disparagement of Dr. Bruce, who is, I believe, very eminent in his profession; but I am sure the House will be of opinion that it is impossible now to add any other names to the Commission. I hope the hon. Member will rest satisfied with the assurance that Dr. Bruce's name is one which readily occurred to those in charge of the Measure.
MR. HUNTER: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said the other day that the Government were not indisposed to make the number 16 or 17. Of course, if they adopt the same principle here as they did in the case of the other names they would add not only this name, but another also.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot see my way to support this Amendment. One member was put on the Commission in order to satisfy the claims of Aberdeen. I voted in the last Division for Professor Bain as a protest against the way in which he has been treated; but having disposed of the controversy that circled round the name of Professor Bain, I really cannot see my way to support the addition of any further name.
DR. CLARK: I really think we should require to add still another name if Dr. Bruce were affixed, as he is the very reverse of a reformer. I think we can leave the interests of the profession in the hands of Dr. Watson.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 42, after the word "University," insert the words "and the college or colleges."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The series of Amendments which are standing in my name and in the name of some other hon. Gentleman have, I think, cleared up this matter, and I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: The Amendment which stands in my name has, no doubt, to a great degree been met by the Amendment which has just been passed, and which enables the Commission to aboblish any professorship. It may, perhaps, be that the words in the Bill enable the Commission to fix the number and character of the faculties and enable them to abolish any faculties; but I think it would be better to make it quite clear by my Amendment, which is to insert the words, "abolish existing faculties in any Universities, and." Within the last few days the Government, having staring them in the face the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and having heard the arguments in favour of the abolition of the Theological Faculty of Aberdeen and St. Andrews, have appointed a new Professor of Divinity in the University of

1223
Aberdeen. I think it is indecent at this season of the year, when there is no teaching going on and no occasion to hurry, that the vacancy should have been filled up. If the Government are going to fill up these Professorships and stop the House from deciding whether they shall be abolished or not, I think it is desirable that we should in so many words give the Commission power to abolish faculties. I should like the Commissioners to have power to abolish the Faculty of Medicine in any University where there is no real teaching of medicine, and, still more, to abolish the Faculty of Divinity in Universities where it is not required. I do not in any degree desire to raise the question of establishment or disestablishment. I have said I am quite willing to acknowledge that as long as the Church of Scotland exists it has a fair claim. It is notorious that four divinity classes are far more than are needed by the Established Church. Besides, many of the divinity students are frauds. There is a great demand for schoolmasters in Scotland at present, and there is a great desire that schoolmasters should be fully educated. Many of the young men studying for schoolmasters enter themselves as divinity students simply in order to keep the bursaries, and without the slightest intention of following the profession of divinity. I am delighted they should in that manner be able to qualify themselves fully and thoroughly for their profession; but it is an abuse, and altogether contrary to the real meaning and intention of a divinity school, that such a school should be kept up and fully equipped in order to enable these gentlemen to hold their bursaries.
Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 6, after the word "to," to insert the words "abolish existing faculties in any university, and."—(Sir G. Campbell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I should have thought the original words of the clause were amply sufficient for all purposes, if it had not been for the manner in which this subject was discussed by the Government in Committee. The Bill, as it stands, gives the Commissioners power to alter the number of the existing faculties, and to create new faculties. Considering the very large powers given to
1224
the Commissioners in other respects, I submit that it would be expedient that they should have an entirely free hand with regard to the faculties as well. It may be extremely improbable that in the case of a single University the Commissioners should decide that one of the old faculties should cease to exist; but there are two things to consider. In the first place, the Commissioners are empowered to create new faculties; and, in the second place, the existing Faculties of Law, Medicine, and Divinity are very old university arrangements: they come down from other ages and from other countries. Considering the very large powers given to the Commissioners, I do not think it ought to be absolutely assumed beforehand that the Commissioners may not desire to make some change in the old historical existing nomenclature and classification of the faculties. A more practical consideration, however, is that these Universities differ in size. There are four Universities in Scotland, two are much smaller than the others, and ought it not to be left an open question whether the complete equipment of the existing faculties is to remain in each of the four Universities? Is it not possible—I do not think it is probable —that one or other or both of the smaller Universities may desire to specialize themselves to a certain extent, and that one of the faculties may cease to exist there? According to the interpretation put on the Bill by the Government in Committee it would be impossible for the Commissioners to initiate or to sanction such an arrangement, and I rose simply for the sake of endeavouring to elicit an expression of opinion from the Lord Advocate. Perhaps I was too hasty in putting my own interpretation on what was said by him in Committee; but I put it to him whether it would not be desirable, according to the spirit of the clause as it stands, to give an absolutely free hand to the Commissioners in dealing with the faculties.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,): The Government cannot accept this Amendment for reasons which were fully stated when the Bill was in Committee. The Commissioners have, no doubt, very full and ample powers in regard to faculties; but I should not be dealing

1225
frankly with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy if I did not say that, in my opinion, the power to abolish faculties is very different from the power to abolish Professorships. I do not think that the Bill as it now stands confers on the Commissioners power to abolish faculties. The hon. Member has very plainly avowed that his main object is to procure the abolition of the Faculty of Theology in St. Andrew's University. There is a special reason why we should not give the Commissioners instructions to that effect now. It is possible that as the result of their report on the subject of tests, the Theological Faculties may hereafter be made available for a larger number of divinity students than is the ease at present. There has never, I believe, been a time when there were not all the three Faculties of Arts, of Theology, and of Medicine in the Scottish Universities.
The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 196.—(Div. List, No. 258.)
MR. HUNTER: I now beg to move to insert, after "faculties," in line 6,
"And to abolish the theological faculties in the Universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, and employ the endowments of the theological professors to endow new professorships in the faculty of arts."
This Amendment rests upon different grounds to the one we have just disposed of. The Amendment of my hon. Friend was permissive. This is compulsory, and the object is to deal with a great abuse in the wasteful expenditure of money belonging to the Scotch Universities. I do not believe that even many Scotch Members are aware of the extraordinary extravagance which characterizes the Divinity Faculties of Scotland. In each of the Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities there are, on an average, about 107 divinity students, and in Aberdeen the average is 31, and in St. Andrew's 33—I am taking the average of the last five years. My contention is that for the wants of divinity students the two Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow are amply sufficient; because if you were to distribute the divinity students in Aberdeen and St. Andrew's between Edinburgh and Glasgow you would still have comparatively small classes. What is the proportion between the entire number of divinity students and the number of art students? Taking the average of the last three years, the entire number
1226
of divinity students in the Scottish Universities is 278, while that of the art students is 2,826.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It appears to me that this Amendment was covered by the last Amendment, which gave power to abolish faculties. This Amendment gives power to abolish the Faculty of Theology in particular Universities.
MR. HUNTER: I asked the Chairman of Committees, and he thought the Amendment was not carried by the last. On the point of order, let me say that the Amendment of my hon. Friend did not refer to the Theological Faculties at all.
MR. SPEAKER: Theological Faculties are included in faculties.
MR. HUNTER: Then I beg to give Notice that I will move that the Bill be re-committed in order that I may discuss this point.
MR. WALLACE: I beg to move to insert after "students." in line 17—
"Provided that no fees in existing classes above three guineas shall be increased, and that no fees in new classes or classes in which the fees are now three guineas or under shall be fixed above three guineas."
The object of this Amendment is to meet what I fear will be a very great danger in the practical working of this measure—namely, the danger that is already beginning to appear of making higher education in Scotland too exclusively the privilege of the wealthier classes. Hitherto it has been one of the great distinctions of higher education in Scotland that it has been accessible almost to the very poorest. In the local schools University preparation could be obtained so cheaply as to be accessible to all, and in the Universities themselves to a large extent the same arrangement prevails. I do not say that in the Universities education is as accessible as it should be. In some of the professional classes the arrangements point to the expectation that certain professions are to be shut against the poor man. This is more particularly the case in the profession of law, the classes being so arranged that the education is accessible only to those who have a considerable capital to start with in life. The same state of things prevails to a considerable extent in the profession of medicine. This is a most unwholesome state of things. In the machinery of this Bill I am afraid

1227
there is a threatened aggravation of this evil, because under Clause 14 the Commissioners are to have power to regulate the amount and the manner of the payment of the fees and other payments made by the students. Comparing the recommendation of the last Royal Commission upon the Scotch Universities with the statement made by the Lord Advocate in the course of this debate, I think there cannot be the slightest doubt that one of the purposes of this Bill is to invite the Commissioners to very considerably raise the fees, if not in all the classes in some of them. The probability of an increase of fees is strengthened by the pecuniary arrangements or want of them in the Bill for carrying into practical execution the reforms it invites the Commissioners to imitate. The consequence of these pecuniary arrangements is that the Commissioners will be driven to new expedients for the purpose of raising money, and I am afraid they will attempt to throw the burden of supporting the Universities more upon the students who largely attend them. The Lord Advocate has told us that there are certain classes which will be perfectly prepared to pay considerably higher fees. I have no doubt he was alluding to the classes of law and medicine, but I object to making any of the learned professions exclusively the professions of those who are well to do. The only security against this is to insert some provision by which the Commissioners shall be prevented from making regulations which would tend to develop the evil which I say already exists. I, therefore, propose the Amendment of which I have given notice, feeling sure that unless something in the character of my proposition is adopted, this Bill, instead of being a blessing to the studentship of Scotland, will be something in the nature of a calamity.
Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 17, after the word "students," to insert the words—
"Provided that no fees in existing classes above three guineas shall be increased, and that no fees in new classes, or classes in which the fees are now three guineas or under, shall be fixed above three guineas."—(Mr. Wallace.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: Everybody will agree that it is most desirable that no deserving student
1228
should be debarred from University education merely on account of poverty, but I had thought it was the pride and boast of the Scotch Universities that they did extend their education most freely to poor students, not only from the fact that the education is cheap, to begin with, but also that there are an immense number of bursaries and foundations to aid poor scholars. But really this proposal is one which is intended to express distrust, not only of the Commissioners, but of the University Courts, which are to succeed the Commissioners in their functions. Now, surely if there is anything as to which the House may fairly trust the Commissioners and the University Courts, it is a matter so entirely and completely one of University regulation as the fees. And yet the hon. Member proposes to fix for all time the fees which are to be exacted. That is a proposal the Government cannot assent to.
MR. LYELL: While sympathizing with the object my hon. Friend has in view, I do not think we should tie the hands of the Commissioners in the matter of fees. In a great many courses of practical instruction such as those of chemistry, physics, and engineering, in which materials are used for demonstrations it is necessary that greater expense should be incurred than would be covered by a three guinea fee. It is therefore very important the Commissioners should not have their hands tied.
MR. HUNTER: I think this is a case where it would be very well to tie the hands of the Commissioners, because the only use they can make of their hands if they are untied is to do mischief. We know there is nothing upon which the heads of the professors are so set as an increase of fees, and therefore of their own emoluments. I think that a Session in which we have been instrumental in giving a large sum for the reduction of fees in elementary schools in Scotland is a very unhappy time to select to give the Commissioners power to increase the fees in the Universities. I hope the tendency of events will be entirely in a contrary direction, and certain as I am, judging from the character of the Commission and the kind of influence which will be brought to bear on it, that the tendency will be to raise fees, and certain as I am that there is no justification for such increase and no advantage being derived from it, but on the.contrary great dis-

1229
advantage, I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
The House divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 199.—(Div. List, No. 259).
It being after half-past Five of the clock, Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
Further Proceeding to be resumed upon Monday next.

STEAM TRAWLING (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 335).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
MR. MURPHY: I am afraid there are proposals in this Bill that have been made without sufficient inquiry and notice. I have no wish to stop the progress of the Bill altogether, but I think more inquiry is necessary as to its effect on steam trawling in Ireland, and in order to give opportunity for that I now beg to move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair to make his Report to the House."
DR. TANNER: I think, before this Motion is put, I may prevail upon my hon. Friend to consent to some little progress being made with the clauses. Of course, during my recent entertainment by Her Majesty's Government in Clonmel Gaol, I have not had opportunity of making myself acquainted with matters before the House as I could wish, but I understand that many Members of the parts to which I have the honour to belong have taken interest in this measure as concerning the fishing industry of our country, and I think we might make some progress with the clauses, at any rate, until any material point of difficulty arises. I confess I speak with some reserve in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who has given some attention to this Bill.
Question put, and negatived.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time on Monday next.

POOR LAW BILL. (No. 338.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. TUITE: I only wish to ask is there any objection to add a clause applying the provisions of the first clause to Ireland?
MR. RITCHIE: None whatever. I have been in correspondence with the Irish Office on the subject.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time and committed for To-morrow.

PARTNERSHIP BILL. (No. 336.)
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
MR. BRUNNER: I desire to point out that Subsection (c) of Section 50 has a very different meaning now to that it had three years ago. It provides that a man, or woman either for that matter, may be excluded from a partnership on account of crime. Now, as the House knows, we have had soma new definitions of crime. I am fully satisfied that it has not been on the mind of any hon. Member to promote a Bill in which there shall be a provision by which one partner may exclude another from the business in which they are engaged because of attendance at a meeting. I do not for a moment wish to introduce any matter of controversy now, but I am absolutely convinced that no promoter of this Bill contemplated such a thing; and I appeal to hon. and learned Gentlemen, if they amend the law, to do so in accordance with common sense.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I think it is not possible to omit altogether Subsection (c) of Clause 50. It will be observed that the sub-section refers to conviction of any person of a crime, regard being had to the prejudicial effect that conviction may have on the business in which the partners are engaged. I do not suppose the hon. Member wishes to exclude that altogether, and I would suggest that words might be introduced in another place whereby conviction might be defined to meet such cases as those the hon. Member has in mind. It would not do to cut out the sub-section altogether, for the hon. Member must admit there are certain classes of crime on account of which it is only right a partner should have the means of dissolving a partnership.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: Unfortunately, we have to deal with cases of conviction for crime under peculiar circumstances. We have in view the possibility of the exclusion of a Member of this House from the School Board of London, as a consequence of a conviction under the Coercion Act. Certainly, it is a matter which we cannot leave to "another place" I would suggest that the Bill be re-committed, in order that the Amendment may be made here, and I hope the Third Reading will not be proceeded with.
MR. GEDGE: In the Education Act the words are not "convicted," but "punished with imprisonment" for crime. This clause goes further and seems to require modification.
MR. SEALE-HAYNE: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I wish to say they will accept the suggestion made.
Debate adjourned until To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS BILL. (No. 159.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

COMPANIES' CLAUSES CONSOLIDA- TION ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 237.)
Order for Second Reading, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. A. ACLAND (Yorkshire, W.R, Rotherham): This Bill does not legislate, it only corrects an unfortunate error of three words that crept into the Bill of last year, and the Bill has the Lord Chancellor's recommendation.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time and re-committed for To-morrow.

TOWN COUNCILLORS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 177.)
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading. [April 16.]
MR. ESSLEMONT: I understand that the Second Reading of this Bill is not met with Notice of Opposition. If this stage is allowed, I am quite willing that the Committee
1232
stage should be deferred for any reasonable period.
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House I can give no undertaking.
Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir William Hart Dyke, Bill to facilitate the provision of Technical Instruction, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hart Dyke, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 350.]

COUNTY COURT PLAINTS.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an Address be presented for Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, &c, entered in each Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1888, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20; those above £20 and not exceeding £50; and those by agreement over £50; and, of the sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the Judges of such Courts in the year 1888 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 211, of Session 1888)."—(Sir George Russell.)
DR. TANNER: I must object to this Motion being taken.
MR. SPEAKER: On this point I have given my ruling before. This appears on the Paper as an unopposed Return, and is merely in continuation of a previous Parliamentary Paper. I think the objection raised by the hon. Member may be almost described as frivolous.
DR. TANNER: I make the objection to which I am entitled, and I may explain that I do so in consequence of our being treated so badly in reference to the Returns we moved for last year.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I shall not allow the objection; it is frivolous, and a mere obstruction of the business of the House.
Question put, and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.