HC Deb 09 May 1892 vol 4 cc449-83
*(11.33.) MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

In rising to propose the Motion which stands in my name, I wish to explain the spirit in which I bring it forward. The last thing I desire to do is to cast any reflection on the distinguished men who have given their services and devoted so much trouble to the work of this Commission. It would be impossible for the House to undertake the task of tinkering the Ordinances. It can only consider general principles in connection with them, and it is in that spirit that this Motion is brought forward. Now, the Commissioners have issued certain Ordinances, and have left aside other Ordinances which deal with the Universities and their machinery, and I submit that until we have them all before us we cannot come to a judgment with regard to the whole scheme. The points of substance on which I rely are points which were raised in the discussion on the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889. There were certain points then raised upon which the Scotch Members were practically unanimous. One of them was that there should be a very large extension of the teaching power of the Universities. I do not mean necessarily in extramural teaching, but in real organisation of the professoriate to enable professors to cover more topics, and with a view to increasing the number of professors. The Scotch Universities stand in a peculiar position. They have relatively large funds; but they pay, or did pay, under the old system some very high salaries, and we felt that in the future we ought to use the funds more widely and economically in reorganising the teaching staff not only in relation to extra-mural teaching, but in reorganising and multiplying Chairs. There was another point we were all agreed upon. We desired to see the examination system of the Universities improved. We all remember the Debate on the recent occasion in reference to a teaching University for London, and there were two points of view. The one sought to provide a purely teaching body, the other an examining body, the teaching machinery to be altogether subordinate. But in regard to the Scotch Universities, teaching is a very important part of the question. We want to see teaching reorganised and improved, and the addition of a stronger examining body not entirely independent, but standing in a sort of reciprocal connection. Then we desire to see a chest established into which all fees of students should go, and that the contents should be used in apportioning the salaries of professors and lecturers in a way which does not obtain under the present system, where fees are received by individual professors. These are the three main points upon which I think we were all agreed, and we expected to see that carried out in the Ordinances of the Commission. But when we come to these Ordinances we find ourselves in a great difficulty. It may be that the Commissioners intend to appoint a University chest. I have heard that this is so, but the Ordinance for the purpose is not before us, and we have no opportunity of saying what the position will be in regard to lectureships, or if profess- sorial arrangements are adequate to the situation of the Universities with which we have to deal. The point is of pressing and serious importance. In common with a good many Members of the House, I have had the advantage of the education given by a Scotch University; and one used to find that, when a student in the Arts Faculty, one was shut out from the chance of attending lectures of a professor on a particular point, say, of logic, because one was obliged to go through a specified course of attendance on lectures adapted to all students. Now, suppose some of us have gone—as many have—to a German University, there we find the opportunity given of attending the lectures not of one, but of three or four, of the most distinguished men of the day, dealing with different parts of the subject, and the student can get the particular kind of instruction he wants. What is true of the Scotch Universities in the Faculty of Arts is still more true in regard to the Faculty of Medicine. In the Faculty of Medicine at Edinburgh University in 1889–90 there were 2,003 medical students, and there were twelve professors. Now, at Leipzig there were 35 such professors to 944 students, and at Strasbourg 28 professors to 353 students. We do not see why similar advantages should not be open to the students at Scotch Universities, knowing as we do that in the German Universities the funds are less adequate and the machinery at the disposition of the University less easy to handle. Now, Ordinance 17 deals with the subject of assistant lecturers. I have said it is impossible for us to criticise the Ordinance properly unless we have the Financial Ordinance before us, and my first point in asking that the Ordinances should go back is that we should have a second and revised edition prepared along with the Financial Ordinance, so that we may see how the Universities of the future will stand as a whole. The second objection is that this Ordinance 17 is not in itself adequate. It does not propose to reorganise the professorial chairs, it does not multiply lecturers or professors; what it primarily seeks to do is to put the class of assistant lecturers on a new footing. These assistants are an admirable body of young men, and they are paid extremely small salaries, and they will be, if this Ordinance is passed, nominated by the professors and the University Court. It is obvious that under this provision there will be no real extension of the teaching power. Then we come to lecturers, and the view the Commissioners take seems to be that the lecturers and assistants at the will of the University Court shall have interchangeable functions. They do not propose to put lecturers on the footing of professors—they are only to hold office for a limited time and in a subordinate position. They are not to have control of the laboratories or demonstration rooms; these lecturers are to hold an altogether subordinate position. Under the proposed Ordinance the Court has power to appoint lecturers on subjects not taught in the University in the Faculty of Arts with which I am now dealing, and so far so good; but when you come to the other subjects which the professors do teach, for instance, Logic, you do not find any general power in the University Court to appoint lecturers. The scheme only recognises that the Court shall have power where it is necessary, "from the number of students, or any other cause." Then the Ordinance in regard to Arts fails entirely to carry out what we all agreed should be done. I do not want to weary the House with details in which it will be apparent things will be no better than they now are. In regard to women, they are according to the Ordinances, placed on a footing in regard to extra-mural and extra-professorial teaching different to men. In regard to some of the detailed matters in the Faculty of Arts, there are points which seem to me to partake of the nature of oversights. In the House of Lords this afternoon, I believe, one of these oversights has been corrected, the slip in the Ordinance with regard to Mathematics having been put right. Well, there is another slip in connection with the Ordinance extending extra-mural teaching to women, and which, I think, the Government might assist us in requesting the Commissioners to put right. The proposition of the Commissioners is to put women on the same footing, as regards facilities for instruction, as men, and it is part of these facilities that in all subjects for graduation they shall have the full advantage of extra-mural teaching. But when we come to the case in which all the professors are not in agreement, or where all the professors except one agree, the effect of the Ordinance as it stands, for instance, in reference to the Faculty of Arts—in Sub-section 2 of Section 3—is that no woman who finds a professor willing to instruct her in qualifying for Arts will be allowed to receive this extra-mural teaching in his subject. Revision of the Sub-sections 2, 3, and 4 are necessary to reconcile them with the proposition that women shall have the same facilities as men for extra-mural teaching. I am not going through the Ordinances in detail, but one matter of importance I must refer to, and upon which we were agreed. We were very anxious to raise the level of Scotch Universities. They are too much in the condition of secondary schools, and secondary schools of a very elementary order. I remember well, when I attended the Greek class some years ago, some of the students were hardly able to conjugate a Greek verb. Now, it is not desirable that Scotch Universities should be hampered by the necessity for elementary teaching. We thought it well that there should be instituted an entrance examination. This to some extent has been done in the Arts Faculty so far as candidates for degrees are concerned. I believe there are outside bodies—for example, the General Councils of Edinburgh and Glasgow—who are unanimous on this topic, and are of opinion that unless some step of this kind is taken it will be impossible to bring up the level of the Scotch Universities to what it ought to be. It is not extra-mural teaching I am insisting upon, though that is a good thing. What is wanted is a reorganisation of professorships and the extension of lectureships on a substantial footing. In the second place we want, as I have said, the Financial Ordinance before us as well as the other Ordinances. Thirdly, we want the Ordinance in regard to women students corrected, that they shall be put on the same footing as regards extra-mural teaching as male students. We also want a preliminary examination or something equivalent instituted for the purpose of raising the level of the Universities. For these purposes what we ask is not that the House should endeavour to amend the Ordinances in detail, for we recognise the difficulty of doing anything of the kind, and we could not attempt to do it so well as the distinguished men who have given their attention to the subject; but we feel it is desirable that the Ordinances should go back to the Commissioners not in any hostile spirit, but in order that they may let us have them as a whole. No doubt they thought it well to deal with the more urgent subjects first, but we feel strongly that the system of issuing the Ordinances piecemeal puts the House at a disadvantage. We ask that the Ordinances may be re-issued in a collective revised form, so that we may be enabled to pass judgment upon them as a whole, amended, as we hope, in the points I have ventured to indicate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her assent from the Ordinances numbered 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, made by the Commissioners under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889."—(Mr. Haldane.)

*(11.50.) DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

I have a Motion to reject Ordinances 14, 15, and 16, but I prefer to follow my hon. and learned Friend on broader and more general grounds in the proposal to appeal against the Commissioners back to themselves—back to the deliberate judgment they at first arrived at when the Ordinances were laid before the professors. More particularly I wish to draw attention to the teaching of Materia Medica, which I consider of considerable importance. The course prescribed for pharmacy under the Ordinance is insufficient. The original proposition was that the student should attend fifty meetings of practical pharmacy, and the examinations were appointed after the student had devoted some study to pathology and physiology, and had attended some course of medicine. But after the Ordinance had been before the professors, a distinct change was introduced and I do not know on what grounds. Pharmacy has been reduced to 25 courses, which I say is wholly insufficient for proper study. Then the examinations in Materia Medica and therapeutics are transferred from the end of the fourth winter session to the end of the third winter session, and before the student knows anything of pathology. It is impossible to expect a student to have any intelligent or coherent apprehension of the action of drugs on diseases when he has no notion of the diseases these drugs are supposed to affect. As well expect to find professors in astronomical science without knowledge of mathematics, or a student to pass an examination in surgery without knowledge of anatomy. It is hopeless to expect any efficiency in the examining under such conditions; it is against the experience of those who know anything of the subject. The professors of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen have petitioned in favour of the status quo that examinations shall be held at the end of the fourth year, and in the same sense there has been a petition from all the provincial lecturers on Materia Medica, as well as from all except one in London. I can say from my own experience as a lecturer that it is hopeless to expect a student to know therapeutics intelligently before he has attended a course of pathology and medicine. I shall be curious to hear what the objections are to restoring Materia Medica to its old position. I do not want to express any want of confidence in the Commissioners, who, I believe, left the consideration of the subject to the two medical members of the Commission. They are gentlemen of the highest ability and professional standing. Sir Arthur Mitchell is an acknowledged expert in lunacy matters, and as such I with great pleasure admit he stands at the top of the profession. Dr. P. H. Watson is equally eminent as a surgeon. Should I require a limb removed with celerity and safety there is no man I would rather trust myself to than Dr. Watson. But neither of these gentlemen carry authority in reference to the teaching of Materia Medica which should outbalance the opinion of all the professors of the Scotch Universities, and the almost unanimous opinion of lecturers in favour of the old plan. I may be told I am making too much of Materia Medica, but I say it is quite impossible to make too much of it. The treatment of diseases by drugs is the culminating point, the apex in the medical student's career. All the study culminates in the making of prescriptions. It is all very well for a man to say he has no faith in drugs. I do not say that, and no man of experience will deny the benefit of a judicious use of remedial drugs. The public demand drugs, and medical men fulfil their expectations. It is not always sufficient to cut off a man's leg or his liquor, drugs must be used to cope with diseases, and so I say the study of the medical student culminates in his written prescription for his patient; and this is a question of the highest importance not only to the student but to the general community, or that portion medical men have under their charge. I do not ask for anything revolutionary; I only ask for the replacement of the old status quo. I second the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend, with whose remarks I generally though not absolutely agree, to refer these Ordinances back to the Commissioners for reconsideration. To adopt this Ordinance (15) will be to take a retrograde step—it will injure medical teaching and practice; and I strongly urge upon hon. Members that the House will incur a serious responsibility if it backs up the Commissioners against the united opinion of those experts best qualified to form an opinion on the subject.

*(12.1.) MR. JEBB (Cambridge University)

I should scarcely have presumed to intervene in this discussion were it not for the circumstance that during several years, and until a recent date, I had the honour of holding a professorship in the University of Glasgow, and so have had the opportunity of forming a judgment upon some at least of the matters now under discussion. I shall not attempt to cover the whole field presented by these Ordinances. I will deal with only a few definite points, and with these as concisely as possible. Some of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane), whose speech I listened to with great interest, I will notice; but on the other hand I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire into the medical department of the subject. Nor shall I confine myself to the points noticed in the speeches of those two hon. Members, because we know that the grounds upon which these Ordinances are exposed to criticism within and without the House extend over a still larger area. At the outset I would pray for that indulgence which the generous usage of the House extends to one who addresses it for the first time, and I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to dismiss from their minds any prepossession they may be disposed to entertain towards one who as a former professor in a Scotch University might be supposed to hold a brief for academic privilege. Like hon. Gentlemen opposite, I approach the subject with no thought or aim but that of discovering what is for the true interests of the Scotch Universities, and though I am not so sanguine as to hope that I shall convince hon. Members opposite, I am sure they will bear with me while I try to state clearly some of the reasons which weigh with me in supporting the Ordinances and declining to assent to the Motion now before the House. Now, there can be no doubt that one of the broadest grounds on which exception has been taken to the Ordinances as a whole is the ground which was indicated, if I am not mistaken, in the vigorous speech of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) on Thursday afternoon, namely, that the Ordinances as a whole do not recognise the principle of extramural teaching. Before touching on the question of the lecturers and assistants to which the hon. Member for Haddington has referred, I think it is indispensable to indicate the particular reasons which have weighed with thoughtful men like the Commissioners against admitting the principle of extra-mural teaching into their proposals for legislation. It will be within the memory of many that the principle of extra-mural teaching, or rather the question of extending that principle from the Faculty of Medicine to the Faculty of Arts, was one of the questions before the Commission of 1878. They dealt with some of the arguments for and against the principle of extra-mural teaching in their Report, Section 9. The first argument in favour of the proposal was an argument from analogy. No one questions that the principle of extra-mural teaching has worked well in the Faculty of Medicine; and so it is argued by friends of the principle, "Why should it not work well in the Faculty of Arts?" Then the second argument is that competition would be a good thing for the professors themselves, and would afford an incentive to exertion where such might be needed. Then, thirdly, it has been pointed out with great force that if a particular professor happens to be inefficient it is hard that the student should have no alternative teaching. Now, with reference to the first and second arguments, counterarguments were brought before the Commission of 1878. As to the alleged analogy between Medicine and Arts, it was pointed out the analogy was not a real one. The study of medicine is a professional study. The medical student, when he goes in for his examination, has his information tested, and it is of little moment where the information was acquired provided he has it. Beyond the examination is the ordeal of medical practice. The medical student has lost his time if his study, besides enabling him to pass his examination, does not suffice to render him an efficient practitioner. But the Faculty of Arts is in a different position—its aim is a liberal education, and there is no such test as there is for the Medical Faculty. It is true the examination in Arts can, to a certain point, test the knowledge of the student, and to a certain point enable the examiners to judge of the degree of his mental cultivation; but still it is of extreme importance that there should be a guarantee that the quality of the teaching is such as not only to enable a student to pass an examination, but to educate him. We must inquire, then, what would be the real effect of such competition as extra-mural teaching in Arts would introduce? What would be the effect on the extra-mural teacher on the one hand and the intramural professor on the other? Those who know Scotch and English Universities will agree with me—I am sure my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), will do so—that it is of the greatest importance to the efficiency of a University that its teaching should not be cramped and fettered by habitual regard to examinations. That has hitherto been one of the best features of the Scotch Universities. The professors have taught a certain proportion of work required for examinations, but they have taught a great deal more besides; and, moreover, the standard of their teaching, both in regard to the ordinary degree and with a view to honours, has been higher than the standard required in the respective examinations. Now, suppose extra-mural teaching was instituted, what will be the quality of the teaching given as a general rule by the extra-mural teacher? Let me at once meet a possible objection. I am not assuming that among the extra-mural teachers there will not be a considerable number of men whose aims in teaching are as high as those of any professor, and whose capacity is adequate to such aims; but I wish to point out that by force of circumstances, by stress of competition with other extramural teachers and with professors, they will be practically compelled in almost all cases to teach with a view to examinations. What will be the effect of that on the professors? The professor who finds his class dwindling under stress of such competition will inevitably be tempted to meet his extramural rivals by lowering his standard. I hope and believe that in most cases this temptation will be resisted; but the fact that the proposal will expose professors to that temptation is in itself an argument against the proposal. It was on the consideration of these arguments that the Commission of 1878 came to the conclusion that it was not, on the whole, expedient to introduce extra-mural teaching into the Faculty of Arts. But they did allow full weight to one argument in its favour, namely, that if a professor is inefficient the student should have an alternative resource. Ordinance 17 destroys that argument, because by Section 9 the University Court is enabled to appoint a lecturer in a subject already taught— When, from the number of students, or any other cause, it appears to be necessary that provision should be made for increasing the teaching power in any of the said subjects (subjects which are already taught) within the University. Therefore, if the professor of a particular subject happens to be inefficient, it will be in the power of the University Court to appoint a lecturer in his subject. But there is a still larger question to be considered. What would be the probable effect on the general character of the Scotch Universities? If the lectures of the extra-mural teachers are to count for graduation, there can be no reason to restrict the privilege to such extra-mural teachers who reside in the University towns or their immediate neighbourhood. It was observed on Thursday by the hon. Member for Caithness that many a schoolmaster in Scotland is capable of teaching for a University degree. I entirely agree with him, and I am sure he would not confine that statement to schoolmasters living at St. Andrew's, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. But if extramural teachers living anywhere were to teach for a University degree, then students need no longer resort to the University for teaching, and the University would tend, so far, to become a mere centre for purposes of examination. The Universities of Scotland have hitherto been teaching as well as examining bodies, and I am sure that the great majority of their friends desire that they should preserve that character. I sympathise with the reasonable wish which is at the basis of the demand for extra-mural teaching, though I do not believe that extra-mural teaching is the best way to carry out that wish. There is nothing, I think, more desirable, more urgently needed, than that the Scotch Universities should open an academic career to such of their own graduates as have proved pre-eminent capacity for such a career; and one of the grounds upon which I most cordially welcome the Ordinances—though I do not say they are perfect—is that they take a long and most important step in that most desirable, I might say necessary, direction. Now, I invite the House to consider briefly what will be the effect of Ordinance 17 in so far as it relates to lecturers and assistants. A lecturer can be appointed by the University Court either in subjects not already taught within the University or in subjects which are already taught. Objections have been made to these regulations on several grounds, and I will mention the chief of these, so far as I am aware of them. First, it is urged that there will be no competition between the lecturer and the professor, and that, therefore, the competitive principle on which the friends of extra-muralism insist is not recognised. Now, that is not the case. When the subject of the lectureship is one not already taught in the University, the lecturer will have the field to himself; but when it is a subject already taught, then the lecturer will compete with the professor in one of two ways. If the lecturer takes a special branch of the subject, which has not been usually or fully covered by the professor, such special branch will be an alternative which the candidate for a degree may take, instead of the branch or branches taught by the professor. Here, then, there will be indirect competition, since the student may choose between the part taught by the lecturer and that taught by the professor. If, on the other hand, the lecturer traverses the same ground as the professor, then there is, of course, direct competition. It is true that, under Section 10, the University Court may determine that the teaching of a lecturer shall not count for graduation; but the case thus contemplated is an exceptional one—namely, when the subject is too narrow to be fairly allowed as an option in graduation. The whole spirit of the Ordinances shows clearly that, as a rule, the lectures of the lecturer are intended to count for graduation just as much as those given by the professor. The second objection raised is that the lecturers will have no independence—that the lecturers will be dependent on the Senatus—that is, the professors. The 12th section of Ordinance 17 provides— They (the lecturers) shall be bound to conform to all regulations with respect to their teaching arrangements which may be made from time to time by the Senatus, after consultation with the Board of Studies or the Faculty concerned, and any questions between them and the professors shall be determined by the Senatus, with appeal to the University Court. This regulation merely expresses the fact that the lecturers are to hold a definite place as members of an organised academic body. Each individual professor is similarly subject, in respect of teaching arrangements, to his Board of Studies, and so ultimately to the Senatus. (Ordinance 11, Sect. 18.) Without such an arrangement the work of a large University staff could not be carried on; and I venture to think that the so-called "independence" would in practice be another name for academic anarchy. Again, it has been argued that the lecturers will be reduced to the status of assistants to the professors; but that is really an inversion of the fact. Under Section 13 an assistant can be made also a lecturer; but in such a case it will be the status of the person who is an assistant which will be raised, not the office of the lecturer that will be lowered. It is further objected that, when a lecturer is also an assistant, his tenure of his lectureship will be insecure, because, if the professor does not recommend his assistantship to be continued at the end of the year, it will be difficult for him to retain his lectureship. But in Ordinance 17, Section 11, it is provided that the University Court shall be the "sole and final judges" of any question of culpa in a lecturer. The Court would not dismiss a lecturer merely because he had proved unsuited to an assistantship. A man might be unsatisfactory as an assistant, and yet be a very good lecturer. Further, the University Court will have entire financial control, and could compensate a lecturer whom it held to have been unjustly deprived of his assistantship. A most important feature of these proposals is the improved status given to the assistants; they are made officers of the University, and the University Court can grade them in regard to emoluments. It is true that the University Court appoint assistants on the recommendation of the professors; but it is necessary that the professor should be satisfied as to the competence of the assistant, and should be able to work harmoniously with him. Then as to the new Boards of Studies. It is objected that these are intended to give to the Senatus a stricter control over the students and non-professorial teachers. It is enough to observe that the object of these Boards of Studies is to insure a higher organisation of studies. The lecturers are represented upon them, and they give a better position to the lecturers by associating them on a footing of equality with the professors. It is the reverse of the fact to say that these Boards are in the interest of the professors as distinguished from the lecturers. Exception has been taken to the complex restrictions imposed for degrees in Arts; but I ask the House to remember that these restrictions are necessary, because of the numerous options as to subjects which the new Ordinances offer to students. They are necessary in order that the student may not pick out easy subjects, or parts of subjects, and form for himself too easy a road to a degree. The restrictions are to insure that the various courses shall be fairly equivalent in point of difficulty, and that each course shall have a certain unity. Lastly, it is objected that too much power is given to the Senatus or professorial body, and too little to the University Court; but that is contrary to the fact. The University Court is the supreme administrative body, and it is representative in the most comprehensive sense. In Edinburgh and Glasgow it consists of 14 members, and represents the General Council, that is the whole body of graduates; it represents the students, through their Lord Rector and his assessor, usually appointed after consultation with the students; it represents the Municipal Authority in the person of the Provost or Lord Provost and a member elected by the Town Council; and it represents the Senatus or teaching body. This Court, thus thoroughly representative, has absolute control of the finances. The Senatus is given the functions of teaching and discipline; but on any point within the competence of the Senatus there is an appeal to the University Court. The Ordinances simply follow this general demarcation of provinces, as laid down in the Act of 1889. Viewed as a whole, these Ordinances represent an attempt to promote the natural growth and expansion of the Scotch Universities from within. They represent an attempt to bring about a higher, larger, and more effective organisation; one in which a place shall be found for some, at least, of the ablest and most qualified teachers who can be found among the graduates of the Universities; an organisation, too, in which a place shall be given to every branch of study which ought to be included in an academic system. In contrast with such an organisation, the extra-mural system would surround the Universities with an indefinitely large fringe of teachers not related to any system, but each following the impulse of individual enterprise, each selecting his subject at will, less with a view to the interest of the academic commonwealth than to the prospect of successful competition. Speaking from personal knowledge of at least one Scotch University, I do not hesitate to say that these Ordinances as a whole are a large and important measure of reform. I respectfully thank the House for the indulgence shown to me; and, in conclusion, I earnestly appeal to hon. Members opposite to consider whether the good contained in these Ordinances does not far outweigh such defects as they may find there. I ask them to reflect whether the object which they and I have in view—the welfare of the Scotch Universities—will not be better promoted by now accepting these large benefits, than by a course of action which, if successful, might possibly defer the prospect of all academic reform in Scotland to an uncertain future.

*SIR H. ROSCOE (Manchester, S.)

I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down upon the admirable and lucid speech to which I am sure everyone in the House must have listened with the greatest pleasure. Also I have to thank the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from this side of the House for the kind way in which they have alluded to the efforts which the Commissioners made to bring about a really lasting and useful reform in Scotch Universities. As to the special point, to which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) drew attention, I must say I think the House of Commons is not the proper body to discuss the intricate and difficult questions in relation to materia medica, whether it should have a course of 50 or 25 lectures, or whether the examination should be taken at the end of the third or of the fourth year of study. But I may assure my hon. Friend that the subject has received the most deliberate attention of the Commissioners, and that it was not without consultation that the change was made in this matter after the draft was passed. The Commissioners received both oral and written communications, and it was on the balance of evidence, after careful consideration, that the Commissioners decided to place materia medica in the position it now occupies in the Ordinance. But the particular points raised will, doubtless, be discussed—they ought to be—before the Privy Council, and parties will have the opportunity of bringing the subject forward, and of being heard by counsel—the right and proper course to take. With regard to the Medical Ordinance generally, I should like to say that the object of the Commissioners has been to lighten the burden which has hitherto pressed heavily upon medical students. We all know the complaints made, that the students are overburdened with lectures and work, and our object has been to put forward a curriculum by which a sound medical education can be given without overburdening the students with too heavy a mass of lectures and medical work. Passing from this to a subject mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane), who complained, and justly complained, that the Ordinances are not complete, I may say that no one can regret more than the Commissioners that this is so. But it was impossible for the Commissioners to report fully and wholly until the financial position was made clear to them, and it was but a few days since that this was made clear. Until the sum of £30,000 was voted, the total amount the Commissioners had in hand for any improvements which they might make was £14,000. With this sum they had to make the alterations, and the number of new professorships my hon. Friend referred to could not be created. For this and no other reason it was necessary either to wait until the whole matter was finished, or to issue the Ordinances one by one. I think we took the right course in issuing the Ordinances as we did. The hon. Member (Mr. Haldane) has urged the case of the German Universities. Now, we all know what the German Universities are. We know that they are supported entirely by the State, and that the whole system is one which in Scotland it is absolutely impossible at the present moment to endeavour to imitate. The number of professors in German Universities is, as my hon. Friend has stated, very large, and it is obvious that it was perfectly impossible for the Commission to attempt to apply the German system to Scotland. The question of extramural teaching has been so ably handled by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Jebb) that I think I need say nothing on that point. In regard to the teaching of women, the hon. Member (Mr. Haldane) complains that women are not placed on exactly the same footing with men. I must say that is not the case. We have given them certain retrospective priviledges which are not allowed to men, and we have endeavoured to do all we can to place them on exactly the same footing as men in the future. We have had no objection raised by women themselves, and we believe that from what we learn they are perfectly satisfied with the Ordinances as they stand. I trust the House will support the Commissioners. Let me add that the Commissioners have endeavoured to make an arrangement by which the professors shall not be directly dependent on the fees of their own classes. There will be a fee fund, into which the fees of the different Faculties will be thrown, and a minimum fixed salary will be apportioned out of the revenues of the University for each professor. A maximum salary will also be recognised, but this will depend upon the total fee fund. In all these matters I believe we have the support of public opinion, and meet a real desire, that while upholding the dignity of the professorship—a matter we consider of great importance—we should take care that the emoluments should not depend on the fees of the class, but be a fixed sum, determined by the welfare and success of the University as a whole.

(12.50.) MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

With admiration I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University in regard to conception, argument, and style, and I should, have hesitated to rise in opposition to his line of argument but that I recognise in the hon. Gentleman himself a living refutation of his own argument. Is he not a brilliant example of the triumph of that extramural teaching identified with the two great English Universities? Are not the colleges in relation to the University of Cambridge a collection of separate houses for extra-mural teaching? Do not the colleges compete in those examinations which the hon. Member deprecates as the ruin of the highest culture? In my opinion, the Commissioners have erred in rejecting extra-mural teaching, and in that they have not carried out the spirit of the Statute, which mentions extra-mural teaching as, I think, to encourage it. I think in closing the door against extra-mural teaching the Commissioners are introducing the principle of protection into our scholastic institutions in Scotland. All the Scottish Universities are not equally provided with professors and teachers. They may, and some have, a larger number of teachers suitable to the different options given in Arts. The consequence will be that students desirous of degrees will flock to the better equipped Universities, still further im- poverishing the poor and weakening the weak. It is important to have a choice of teachers, and I do not allow that the extra-mural teachers would be susceptible to those temptations the hon. Member has indicated. It is also foreign to the traditional character of the youth of Scotland that, ambitious of distinction, they should resort to the mere "grinder" or "crammer." I do not fear honourable competition in these matters; I refuse to believe that the competition will be degrading. Much may be said in favour of training your future supply of professors. To get the best men you must have the means of wide selection. It is unwise and foreign to our idea of a University to shut the teacher up in cloistered seclusion in the University, and I may suggest the importance of the diffusion of learning among the community. I know there are a great many people who owe a deal to the old curriculum. I think most of us think that the old curriculum has had a good effect on, and has done a great deal of good for, many of the present holders of it, and I think many may be under the impression that some of these newfangled options perhaps promise more than they are able to perform. If I may quote the words of a distinguished holder I would say that they are more prominent in prospectus than they are likely to be in dividend. That preliminary examination is an actual discouragement, it is a positive discouragement to the degree that has been proposed for literature and language. This is certainly a most excellent option, but aspirants are compelled to go through the highest preliminary examination in five or six subjects as contrasted with the fact that some other degrees require only two subjects. And then the position in which these Ordinances leave the Greek language is a matter which fills me with melancholy. I am not one of those who insist upon compulsory Greek for all people and for all purposes. There are certain persons whom Nature has made incapable of appreciating Greek, whether compulsory or voluntary, and to insist upon forcing it upon such unfortunates is a cruelty and is unworthy of the end of the nineteenth century. But there are other people whose highest possible usefulness in this world is bound up with a thorough knowledge and possession of the Greek language, and of all that is implied in the possession of that key to an immense repository of knowledge. I say people who insist upon compulsory Greek for all are not more foolish than those who refuse to have compulsory Greek for anybody. I hope there never will come a time in the history of this country when there shall not be under the œgis of our educational legislation a class of scholars suited to Greek, and to whom Greek is suited in order to keep alive—and here I am sure I shall carry with me the consent of every intellectual and thoroughly educated person in this Assembly, which of course means the whole Assembly which I am allowed to address—this great language. I hope there never will be such an evil day when one of the most important chapters in the history of man and in the history of human thought shall be a sealed book to any of the intelligent persons in such a country as this, but that they will, either through first hand or through the secondary evidence of friends whom they can approach—though they cannot obtain it as clearly and directly from this source as can be done from the original fountains of thought and beauty—obtain a knowledge of what the Greek community were enabled to bestow upon mankind for their everlasting instruction and delight.

(1.5.) MR. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

I think the main ground of complaint in the Debate to - night has been directed against the failure of the Commissioners to introduce extramural teaching. I would like, first of all, before touching upon that point, to acknowledge the assistance which the Commissioners have received from the eloquent remarks of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, on the subject of Greek. I think we all agree with what he said. We should have been glad to do more for Greek if we could, and I am glad he has answered by anticipation the objections of some hon. Friends of mine who consider that we have already done too much for Greek. With regard to extra-mural teaching, I think I may test the weight of the arguments against it by the remarks which my Friend who has just sat down made with regard to the English Universities. He said with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University that he himself, his career and his speech, furnished the best argument that could be made in favour of extra-mural teaching. That is an argument which, I think, can hardly have been seriously advanced—certainly it could not be seriously advanced by anyone who was acquainted with the working of the English Universities. It is absurd to compare the college system of Oxford and Cambridge with the extra-mural teaching which is demanded now for the Scotch Universities. In the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge the students are in statu pupillari. They are under the care of the University, and they form members of a large and important corporation. We have no objection to see that system introduced into the Scotch Universities. We should welcome the establishment of more colleges in the University. There have not been in previous time more colleges than one in the Scotch Universities, and we have the amplest powers—and we shall be glad to see them exercised—of affiliating several colleges; but that has nothing in common with the licensing of individual men of whose qualifications very little may be known, and recognising their lectures for graduation. The point we start from is this: The Scotch Universities are teaching Universities. They have been teaching Universities, and, in our opinion, they ought to remain teaching Universities. We do not desire that they should be, or that they should approximate to be, mere examining bodies. If I am not mistaken, my hon. Friend who has just sat down, in the Debates when this Bill was passing through the House of Commons, boldly took up the view that Universities ought to be examining bodies. He took the view that we had no right to inquire where the knowledge was obtained so long as the knowledge was there. We respectfully and unanimously join issue with those who attack our Ordinances on this ground. We think that the Universities ought to be primarily teaching bodies. Let me examine for a moment or two the observations against the Commissioners in this respect which were made by the hon. Member for East Lothian. He advocated, so far as I understood him, the system of the German Universities. He said, in the course of his remarks, that in the German Universities you find a large number of professors; that while in Scotland you might have twelve professors, in Germany you might have three times that number, and consequently that there were larger numbers of students. I have two observations to make upon that argument of the hon. Member for East Lothian. In the first place the Commissioners have no funds to establish professorships to that extent. If we had the funds, of course we should be very glad to do so. But I can go a great deal further than that. I would almost have said—if I had not thought it impossible in his case—that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian had framed his objections and drafted, mentally, his speech before he had read the Ordinances which he intended to attack, because he says that the Universities ought to have the power of selecting teachers for eminence in their particular subjects, and give the students the opportunity of attending those lectures. Why, that is exactly what we say, and that is one of the main features, and it is one of the new features, of the Ordinances we have introduced. We have taken advantage of the power given by the Act to invite the University Court to appoint several lecturers whose position will be such that their lectures will qualify for graduation. What we do not do, and what we decline to do, is to recognise his calling as a teacher for graduation, which may be said at first sight is now the case in medicine, and that it works tolerably well. Why does it work tolerably well in medicine? The reason is this, that the medical lecturers are invariably certified, chosen, selected, and appointed by various medical corporations outside the University, such as the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons. So that in that way, indirectly, the process of selection which we have explained is already done in medicine. But in Arts it cannot be done. That is where we join issue with those who attack us. It is to that point, the point of extra-mural teaching, that I confine my observations. I do not think it would be reasonable that the House should listen to other details of the Ordinances. These are the principles we stand by. We think the Universities should be teaching Universities, and while we feel bound, to appoint as many more teachers as possible, we maintain that that must be done by selection and not by the recognition of the first course.

*(1.15.) SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I recognise that it is extremely late, and I think I have given the very strongest earnest on former occasions that I am very unwilling to keep the House after twelve o'clock, for I think I may say that I am perhaps as responsible as any other Member of the House for the twelve o'clock rule. I am, therefore, going to give my reasons for supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Haddington most briefly and in the shortest time possible. There has been one point which has been left out of sight during the whole of this Debate; there was no allusion to it, as far as I remember, in that speech which most gratified the House at large—the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University. And I hope my hon. Friend opposite will allow me at once here, and for the old friendship I have had with him since we sat side by side in examination, in which the only honour I or any other of his competitors had any chance of winning was that of having entered into the same lists, to express the pleasure I feel as a personal friend, as one of his constituents, and as a Parliamentary Colleague, in such an exhibition of cultured talents as he has given to the House which he honours and which I hope he will frequently address. But in his speech, and in all the speeches which have followed and preceded him, no mention was made of the important fact that both of the great bodies of graduates of the two great Scottish Universities, the General Council of the Glasgow University and the General Council of the Edinburgh University, have taken very grave exception to these Ordinances. Thus the representative educated opinion of these Universities outside what may be called the official circle is opposed to these Ordinances as they at present stand. That is a body of opinion to which we ought to give great weight, for I will venture to say that if it had not been for the General Councils of Edinburgh and Glasgow we should never have had this University Act and this University Commission. They were called for by these two bodies on account of their dissatisfaction with the then existing system, and they now complain that that system has not been changed. They complain, in terms of great respect towards the Commission, two members of which have addressed us to-night, in the first place that the main object for which this Act was brought before the House of Commons three years ago was in their opinion laid down in the words that provision was to be made for increasing the teaching power of the University, whether by extra-mural teaching or otherwise. They say, and I think they say rightly, that absolutely nothing whatever has been done in these Ordinances for extra-mural teaching. In the case of medicine the number of courses which may be pursued in extra-mural teaching has been doubled, and the number of courses in order to get the medical degree has been doubled likewise. The extramural teachers of Glasgow and Edinburgh in medicine lie under this very grave disadvantage, that whereas twelve out of the sixteen courses may be pursued under extra-mural teachers if the student is being educated at Leeds, at Newcastle, at Manchester, or at Durham; on the other hand, only eight can be pursued under extra-mural teachers if the teacher resides in Edinburgh or Glasgow. Extra-mural teaching has not been increased in science and in arts—it does not exist at all. My hon. Friend behind me says it was not their business to give facilities for studying under eminent men of whose qualifications very little might have been known. There is only one way of determining whether a teacher is distinguished or not, and that is to give him fair play; and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) that the real teaching in our English Universities is extra-mural teaching. The highest honours are got not by attendance at lectures, but by private studies directed by able men who can give special and careful attention to the pupil. My hon. Friend opposite says that in his opinion the personal supervision of the teacher was of all importance, and that he does not want a mere examining University. But what is the use of talking of personal supervision of professors who teach these enormous classes; who draw these fees of £2,000 and £3,000 a year, representing some 600 or 700, or 300 or 400 pupils? What is the use of talking of personal supervision in a case like that? You refuse the personal supervision of the teacher who relies on his own merits outside, and what is given instead? This Ordinance, No. 17, appoints assistants and lecturers; but, in the first place, the appointment of assistants appears to the General Councils of these Universities to be far too much in the hands of professors. It is entirely in the hands of the professors, and the power of the lecturers, whose appointment is in the hands of the Court, in conducting the education, will be largely determined by the professors. They will be responsible to the Senatus, with only an appeal to the University Court; and no one who knows the practical working of any educational body will believe that this appeal will be of any serious avail except in case of very gross scandal and spiteful conduct on the part of the superiors; but it will be of no real avail, as against the steady daily supervision of the nearer body. And when we find on the top of that that the apparatus for instruction and the material belonging to any particular Chair shall be under the exclusive control of the professors, what will be the lecturers except the mere puppets, of the collective body of professors in the Senatus? The four objections which the Council take are these: First of all, that the educational policy is made over to the Senatus, who practically are the professors; secondly the failure to provide an effective remedy for the evils of the large classes, by which the assistants and others do the work, while the professors get the fees; thirdly, the failure to provide new Chairs; and, fourthly, the refusal to extend to the Faculty of Arts and to other Faculties extra-mural teaching. Those are the objections taken by the great bodies of graduates of Edinburgh and Glasgow, and I do not think they have been answered in this Debate. But my hon. Friend behind me has taken an objection of his own, which I think is a thoroughly House of Commons objection, and that is that he ought not to have had the administrative and teaching Ordinances without the financial conditions. Putting extra-mural teaching aside, and the other great reason for this delay, that the monstrous scandal of these overgrown classes is not dealt with, I should like to know whether these lecturers are to be practically the rivals of the professors, co-equal with the professors, getting the share of fees which represents the number of students who come to their class, that being one system; or whether the other system is to be rigorously adopted, namely, where all the fees are to be put into the public Chest, and where salaries are then to be paid to the professors without respect of persons? It is because that subject is not embodied in these Ordinances, though we can find other great objections, many of which I have not mentioned, but which have been mentioned by hon. Friends who sit behind me—such objections as that the junior classes are still kept up, to the great disappointment of the advocates of secondary education in Scotland, and, as we think, to the great disadvantage of the Universities, and that the compulsory preliminary examination is not extended to all students—it is because of these objections to the Ordinances as they exist, united with the cardinal objection to their being separated from that which is the basis of the Bill, the financial scheme, that I think we should do very well to vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment.

(1.25.) MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)

I do not desire to keep the House very long, but I wish to say one or two words with regard to the speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bridgeton. In the first place, I wish to say something with regard to these junior classes to which he referred. The junior classes do not consist of boys. In reality they consist of men. The age, I think, is much higher than the age in the other classes. They are not boys who ought to be at school. They are, nearly all of them, more than twenty years of age—young men whose education has been backward; men, some of whom would be better away from the University, but men to whom it has been the honour of the Scotch Universities that the opportunity of learning has been, no doubt, offered them. I do not want to go into other points, except this: that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton put forward the action of the University Councils of Edinburgh and Glasgow as his main reason for his action in the matter. I should like to say a few words as to what the history of the action of the University Council of Glasgow has been. That Council consists of the whole body of over 5,000 Parliamentary electors of the University. It has had this question before it, not only recently, but for the last ten years, and repeatedly, again and again, and it has decided against the principle of extra-mural teaching. In the present year—on the 16th of March last—a Motion in favour of extra mural teaching was carried by a majority of 21 to 11, out of a total constituency of a good deal over 5,000. It was that Motion which came up again for approval at a second meeting, and the whole of that meeting apparently consisted of less than forty persons. I venture to think that that does not show any feeling that you can speak of in the University at large. The only previous occasion on which such a Motion has been passed was in the previous October. That Motion, as it stands, sounds a strong one. As it stands it is this— The University Court shall have power to recognise for purposes of graduation in arts duly qualified teachers who are not professors in the University. That sounds as though it went some way; but it is to be taken with this explanation. Immediately after that Motion came on, there came on the election of assessor to the University Court. Two sets of men were standing against each other—one set consisting of the gentlemen who had proposed the Motion I have just read; the other set consisting of gentlemen who were opposed to the Motion. A supporter of the Motion boasted of having passed a week before in the University Council a Motion which he described thus— Providing for distinguished graduates having the opportunity of teaching in the University under the appointment and supervision of the Court. He limited the scope of his Motion by describing it in those words, and it was quite true that in his speech in proposing that Motion in the Council he did limit it in the extreme, and only carried it by the fact that he so limited it as to take away all its meaning as a defence of extra-mural teaching, and to make it merely the expression of a desire for additional power in the University—a desire in which everyone is agreed. The opponent of this gentleman pointed out that he did not understand this Resolution in its limited sense, or it would never have been opposed at all, but would have been passed unanimously, and certainly would not have been opposed by any anxious for the expansion of the Universities and the increase of the teaching staff. The Mover replied that while the terms of the Motion had been quoted the terms of the speech explaining the Motion had not been quoted, and gave a reference to the speech in which he had supported it, and in that speech he says that he had laid down— That the proposed teaching was to be under the sanction and control in every respect of the University Court, and that the students receiving such teaching should be matriculated students of the University subject to academic discipline in all respects. The issue before the meeting was clear—extension or no extension of University teaching. The recognition given was to be entirely at the discretion of the Court who would consider how much extra teaching was required, and every point connected with the man who asked it. He desired that the Court should be supreme in giving recognition, and supreme also over the man after he had got the recognition. Such a scheme is not at all what has been advocated as extra-mural teaching. That is the extreme of what has been accepted by the University Court, and that is something totally different to the views which have been put forward by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh to-night and by the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down. These are all the views for which the right hon. Gentleman can claim the support of the University Council; and it seems to me that these views, not as put in the Resolution but as embodied in the speech that explained the Resolution, that moved the Resolution, and to which afterwards, when challenged as to the meaning of the Resolution, the mover appealed, as a necessary, accompaniment and explanation of it—these views are embodied sufficiently in the Ordinance dealing with lecturers and assistants to give no cause whatever for such a strong step as to throw back on the Commissioners these Ordinances. It seems to me, in the first place, that we should be throwing very great discredit on the Commissioners if we did that; and, in the second place, that we should be doing very great harm to the Universities by delaying a reasonable settlement.

(1.30.) MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I do not propose to trouble the House with the subject which has just been before it. The question of extramural teaching and other matters that have been referred to are all questions which principally concern the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow; but there are one or two questions, not of great magnitude, but of considerable importance, which affect the University of Aberdeen. One of these I am happy to say has already been disposed of by the action which has been taken in another place—I refer to the mistake which occurred in the Ordinance regarding arts, with respect to the subject of mathematics. And there remains one and only one matter in which the University of Aberdeen is greatly concerned, and upon which the University Council have raised strong objection, and that is the two lines in Section 12, Subsection 2, of Ordinance 11, which provide that Greek shall be compulsory for candidates for honours in mental philosophy. Now, Sir, there is one part of these Ordinances which I cordially approve of, and that is the introduction of options. The old and narrow groove in which we were all compelled to travel in times past has been very widely opened up, and, undoubtedly, I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge, in so far as he gave general approval to that portion of the Ordinance. Now, Sir, the effect of that Ordinance is that henceforth a person will be able to take his degree in Arts—his pass degree—and he will be able also to take his honour degree in seven out of eight groups, and for some incomprehensible reason this privilege, which is conferred upon the pass man in all subjects and upon all the other honours, is denied to those who seek for honours in mental philosophy. What would be the result of that prohibition if it should be maintained? We shall suppose that a man goes in for the honours examination in mental philosophy. We shall suppose he is a first prize man in logic, and is first prize man in moral philosophy; that he is an extremely distinguished student, and would be fully entitled to first-class honours; but, under this unhappy provision, he will not get his degree, and he will not get honours, unless, contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance, he has denied himself the choice and the option of omitting Greek in the early part of his career. Suppose he fails in his Greek examination. You would then have this extraordinary result: that the man who will have taken every prize in Scotland will be debarred from honours in the subject because he has not passed through Greek. Surely anything more inconceivably absurd was never suggested to the mind of man! The next matter is this. The Greek option operates at the entrance examination. It is not necessary, in order to pass the entrance examination, that you should take up Greek. What will be the effect of that regulation? The young man who from the first intends to become a clergyman will undoubtedly adopt Greek as one of the subjects. I doubt very much whether anyone else will adopt Greek at the first stage. The labour which is required for passing in Greek absorbs valuable time which is essentially required for more useful and remunerative subjects. In a few years no one will take up Greek for a pass examination who does not intend to be a clergyman. The subject of mental philosophy is one which is not taken up until three or four years after a man's College life has begun. It is not an elementary subject. It is one that naturally follows after a man has attained a certain degree of maturity. Consequently, many boys will discover, when they have arrived at that stage when they desire to take up mental philosophy, that they will be debarred from honours in that subject because they did not, when they were at school, take up Greek. This is a most unsatisfactory and most deplorable restriction. I am told that the reason why no one is to get honours in philosophy unless he knows Greek is because Plato and Aristotle wrote on the subject of philosophy, and that they wrote in the Greek language. If it were absolutely essential to the modern student, to a man of business, to know either Aristotle or Plato, it would not be necessary that he should know Greek for the purpose. Professor Jowett has translated the whole of the Dialogues of Plato, and I think there are very few graduates in Scotland or England who, if they were to apply their united skill in the translation of these works, could accomplish it so well as Professor Jowett has done. But because there were two gentlemen who wrote in Greek and treated of the subject of philosophy, therefore Greek must be made absolute! You must go on further than that. Take Art and Language. Descartes and Leibnitz wrote in French, and certainly, if it is necessary to read Plato and Aristotle in Greek, it should be none the less necessary for the student to read Descartes and Leibnitz in French before they can take honours. But you cannot stop there. You must also make German compulsory, because Hegel wrote in German. You cannot stop even there. You must also say that if the student is going in for a degree in mental philosophy he must know Sanscrit, because if he does not know Sanscrit, how is he to understand Hindoo metaphysics? I want to know why this extraordinary condition is to be imposed upon the English student of mental philosophy? I should like to know why the students of history are going to escape? You may get your honours in history without knowing anything of Greek, and yet there was a man whose name was Thucydides who wrote in Greek, and I shall be told that no one appreciates Thucydides who does not know Greek. There is no conceivable propriety, but there is the greatest impropriety, in connecting two such subjects as Greek and philosophy. Philosophy deals with ideas; Greek deals with words, and it seldom happens that a man displays equal aptitude in the practice of arts and also in the region of thought. Nothing could be more violently opposed. It would be quite as reasonable to say that no man should get honours in mathematics unless he added to that a knowledge of Greek, of Sanscrit, or any other language. And it is so particularly absurd for this reason: that the quantity of Greek acquired is absolutely useless for philosophical purposes—a mere knowledge of Greek is not sufficient to elucidate the mysteries of Plato. The amount of Greek which is provided by a pass degree is of no value whatever even for Plato or Aristotle. Well, then, I want to know why the Commissioners, the champions of Greek, who have been defeated all along the line, who have not been allowed to interfere with the mathematicians, who have left the man of natural science in peace, who have even allowed the Eastern languages and the English language to escape—I want to know why they should come down and impose this unhappy embargo upon mental philosophy? The University Council of Aberdeen have stated their views, which I have endeavoured to translate to the House. I shall now move, in order to give effect to that contention, that after the word "eleven," these words be inserted, So far as it makes Greek compulsory for honours in mental philosophy. I think this question of the future of our Universities, might very well be left to ourselves, and that hon. Members on the other side should not overrule the wishes of the Scotch Members on this subject by their larger numbers.

Amendment proposed, After the word "eleven," to insert the words "so far as it makes Greek compulsory for Honours in Mental Philosophy."—(Mr Hunter.)

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

Question put.

(1.45.) The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 107.—(Div. List, No. 114.)

Main Question again proposed.

(1.54.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I should like to know whether the Government intend to say anything in reference to the matter? I think the ought to say something—either through the First Lord of the Treasury or [...] Solicitor General for Scotland. If they do not, we shall take some [...] opportunity of bringing the [...] forward again.


We are quite prepared, either I myself or the hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland, to deal at length with the various points raised; but, as a matter of fact, I think the House will feel that the subject has been thoroughly threshed out, and little or nothing requires to be added from this or from any other Bench. For this reason, and in mercy to the Members who have now sat for three hours discussing this matter, I hope hon. Gentlemen will be content if I venture to rest my case upon the admirable and eloquent speech which my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Jebb) addressed to the House at an earlier hour of the evening.

Main Question put.

(2.1.) The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 99.—(Div. List, No. 115.)


Mr. Speaker, on the Question of moving the Adjournment of the House—


Order, order! We are bound to go through the Orders of the Day according to the Standing Orders.

Back to