HC Deb 21 June 1901 vol 95 cc1082-113

1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £713,881 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland, including a Grant in-Aid."

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

When this Vote was before the House about six weeks ago we were discussing the question of training colleges. I believe that the motion for a reduction which was then made by my hon. friend the Member for North-West Lanark has lapsed. If that is so, I propose to renew the motion of my hon. friend, not, of course, with any intention of taking a division, but with a view to confining the discussion for a short time to the subject then raised. My hon. friend brought forward a question with regard to training colleges which is one of great importance. Since he did so, there has occurred an event which I think will be memorable in the history of Scottish education. I mean the gift, by a munificent benefactor, of an enormous sum of money for the benefit of Scottish universities. I should like to be permitted to join in the tribute which has been paid on different occasions to the public spirit and generosity which has been displayed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie. It is not irrelevant to do so here, because I believe Mr. Carnegie's gift has a most important bearing upon the question we are discussing. I would pay this tribute not only to Mr. Carnegie's generosity, but also to the care and thought which he has devoted to the question, because he has shown other qualities almost as admirable and uncommon as his generosity itself. He has shown a singular wish to obtain and to profit by all the counsel that could be given him as to the best way to apply the fund; he has shown a resolution to omit no precaution that could possibly be taken to render that fund effective for good and to prevent it being in any way misapplied; above all he has shown a wise foresight and sense of the possibility of change of circumstances in the future which have caused him to vest in his trustees very wide powers of varying the application of this gift to meet new conditions, so long as the main purpose of the gift is observed. That, I think, is a somewhat rare event in the case of these large gifts, and it is likely not only to contribute very largely to the value of the fund, but also to furnish an admirable example to other benefactors who may follow.

This gift has made a very important difference to the proposal brought forward on the last occasion by my hon. friend. It has made the case for that proposal stronger than it was before. I must admit that in his reply on that occasion, the Lord Advocate was sympathetic, but I think he was far from being specific. He hardly gave us a definite indication of the policy that the Scottish Education Department was supposed to follow on the view which he took of my hon. friend's suggestion. I may tell the Lord Advocate what I think my hon. friend desired. I think he desired that no more money should be spent at present in further equipping or developing the training colleges. I think he desired, and certainly it is what I myself should desire, that any further grants given by the Government for this purpose should be spent on developing the university work and not on the training colleges themselves. When I say "training colleges," I mean the Presbyterian training colleges, because the case of the Presbyterian training colleges, maintained by the United Free Church and the Established Church of Scotland, is quite different from the case of the great training colleges maintained by the Roman Catholics and the Episcopalians. The Roman Catholics and the Episcopalians continue to desire that the teachers whom they employ should be prepared in their training colleges. They wish these institutions to be strictly and wholly denominational. In 1898 they had, I believe, only eight of their students in attendance at University courses. That is not at all the case with regard to the Presbyterian colleges. I do not think that any of us would desire to interfere with the Roman Catholics or the Episcopalians in the conduct of their system. At any rate that would raise a larger question, into which I do not now wish to enter. My desire is to keep controversial issues out of a question which I think may be considered from a purely educational point of view. The Presbyterian colleges are not denominational institutions in the sense in which the Roman Catholic and the Episcopalian colleges are. I believe that a certain number of students at the Established Church colleges belong to the United Free Church, and, similarly, that a certain number of students at the United Free Church colleges belong to the Established Church. I do not think that either of these churches regards its training colleges now—whatever may have been thought formerly—as agents for the propagation of its particular creed or for in any way strengthening its position in the country. In Scotland we are very far from having the same kind of denominational spirit in these matters as that which largely prevails in England. There is no desire on the part of the Scottish churches to make these training colleges denominational institutions. I believe that both churches are at present perfectly willing to consider any scheme which the Government may propose for dealing with them. I understand, also, that both churches are unwilling to spend more money on their training colleges; in fact, I believe they have intimated as much to the Government. If that is so; surely the way is quite open for the Government to adopt a plan for training teachers at the universities' rather than at these colleges. The two churches have not yet delivered any official opinion upon the subject, but I believe I am expressing their views correctly. It is fortunate that at this moment there reigns in Scotland a state of good feeling and harmony between the two great Presbyterian churches, which encourages the hope that no controversial matters between them will emerge in any proposal that may be made with regard to the training of teachers. I put it to the Government that it would be a very great pity to spend any more public money upon these training colleges when we have before us a more excellent way of spending it, namely, in developing the university training. At present a certain amount of money is spent on King's students, and it would be better to spend more money on King's students than in maintaining the training colleges. Here comes in the importance of Mr. Carnegie's gift, because a part of the expense incurred by the Government in regard to King's students, and which is incurred in any education of intending teachers at the universities, is the expense connected with fees. Mr. Carnegie's gift is intended to relieve the students of these fees. That is a large contribution, and, as I understand it, greatly diminishes the expense to which the Government would otherwise be put. Why should the Government spend £28 a year upon the instruction, altogether apart from the maintenance, of a student in a training college, when a better instruction can be obtained at one of the universities for a smaller expenditure; while now, owing to Mr. Carnegie's gift, that expenditure will be saved altogether? If I am right in that view, Mr. Carnegie's gift furnishes a strong reinforcement of the arguments presented by my hon. friend.

What we should like is that those who are preparing for the educational profession in Scotland should go to the universities just in the same way as medical, theological, and engineering students now go, and will, I hope, when we have improved our scientific instruction, go in much larger numbers. We desire them to go not as seminarists, not as persons who are to receive from the first special instruction for a special profession, but as art students who are to take their instruction as much as possible along with other students, and who are not to embark upon a specific and special course until their general education has been concluded, that education having been carried on in company with students intended for other professions. The only difficulty which I understood the Lord Advocate to make was that there is not so much hold over King's students at the universities as over persons who are being prepared at the training colleges I cannot see why that should be so unless it arises from the fact that students in training colleges become professional from the first, that they are isolated from other men, are subjected to a purely professional atmosphere, and in that way are, so to speak, run into the teaching mould at an earlier age than is the case with those who remain in the freer and larger life of the universities. If that is so, I think it is a disadvantage. But I am not sure that there is really any stronger hold over training college students when they emerge from the colleges, because if they choose to devote their abilities and knowledge to following other professions, they are quite free to do so. I therefore fail to appreciate the Lord Advocate's argument that you have a better security for a supply of teachers through the training colleges than from a system of King's students.

I will sum up what I believe to be the three benefits to be expected from the proposal of my hon. friend. The first is that it will make the teaching profession more attractive, because whatever tends to improve the status of the teaching profession and to make it one profession all through, from the universities down to the elementary schools, renders it more attractive to aspiring and ambitious men. If you have a larger proportion of your intending teachers passing through a university course you have a larger proportion of men who are fit to rise from an elementary to a secondary school, and the prospect of rising to a secondary school tends to induce abler men to enter the profession than would do so if their horizon was bounded by the prospect of an elementary school. I do not think anything does more to improve a profession as a whole, and to elevate the tone and spirit in even the humblest portions of its work, than the prospect of rising to the highest posts it can offer. In the second place, this proposal would be a good thing for the universities themselves. It would keep up one of the characteristics which has been the pride of our Scottish universities, that they have been in an eminent degree popular institutions accessible to the whole of the people in a way which the English universities have not been. They have always had a large proportion of students who have come from what may be called the humbler classes. I remember that when I was a student at the University of Glasgow there were students who worked as blacksmiths and stone-masons during the summer, and attended the classes in the winter. In many cases they carried off the highest prizes in the classes, and received nothing but respect and deference from their fellow students. That, characteristic of Scottish universities is a thing we are most anxious to preserve and develop, and we may hope that Mr. Carnegie's gift will help in that direction. Nothing will contribute more to that end than having as large a proportion as possible of teachers trained in the universities. English Members may be interested to know that in 1898, out of 3,867 male teachers in Scottish elementary schools, there were no less than 781 who had graduated at Scottish universities. That is a very fine showing for Scotland as compared with England, but we should be glad to see the proportion even larger yet. Those who remember Scotland in past times will recollect that many of the teachers in the old parish schools had been university graduates, and one reason why so many promising students came up from the old parish schools was that the schoolmaster was able to give an instruction in Latin, Greek, and mathematics to the most likely boys, which fitted them to enter the universities and to profit by university education. That state of tings seemed for a time to be endangered in the system which came in about fifty years ago under English educational methods, but I am happy to say that the proportion of graduates is now largely rising, and we desire to see it still further enlarged.

Another point to which, perhaps, I ought to refer is that Mr. Carnegie's gift must have a very important effect upon Scottish elementary and secondary education. If students are to come in larger numbers to the universities because their fees are paid, it is all the more important that both elementary and secondary instruction in Scotland should be improved. There must be better and wider instruction given if the full benefit of freeing the universities from fees is to be obtained. If follows from that that it will be necessary to improve the quality of our elementary and secondary education, and I suggest that that can best be done by improving the quality of Scottish teaching. Therefore the third benefit which I think we ought to expect from sending, teachers to the Universities, instead of to the training colleges, is that their tone and teaching capacity will be improved. It will be a great benefit to them for their minds to be liberalised and enlarged by the teaching that they, will, receive in the universities It has been one of the greatest benefits for the clergy, of Scotland and of England that they have been, unlike the Roman Catholic clergy on the continent of Europe, educated, not in seminaries, but in company with other young men of their own age who were being prepared for other professions. The same thing; would apply to the teaching world. Training college work has a kind of seminary character about it. Young men are separated from others who are to follow different professions; they do not breathe such a stimulating atmosphere as in the universities. All the benefits which a university education gives will be given to the teaching profession if the plan of my hon. friend is carried out. I believe that whatever enlarges and stimulates the minds of the teachers will be a great benefit to Scottish education, and will enable elementary, secondary, and university education to advance to an even higher level than that on which we are proud it at present stands. For these reasons I venture to hope that we shall have a sympathetic reply from the Government. I beg to move, pro forma, to reduce the Vote by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item Q (Grants for Training-Colleges) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Bryce.)

MR. RENSHAW (Renfrewshire, W.)

said he was sure every Member who was interested in education—and he thought that included every Scottish Member in the House—felt that they were indebted to the hon. Member for North-West Lanark for having raised this question of the training colleges. The sentiments also of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen were very much those entertained by many hon. Members in approaching this question from the educational point of view. He wished to direct the attention of the Committee to a more practical side of the question, and that was the continuing difficulty of obtaining a sufficient number of teachers under the existing system. It seemed to him that the existing system was threatening to break down, and in view of the great and munificent gift of Mr. Carnegie and of the passing of the Bill last Wednesday, which would undoubtedly increase the attendance at the elementary schools, he thought it absolutely essential that those responsible for maintaining the teaching staffs in the Scottish schools should have their attention directed to the insufficiency of the provision for the training of teachers. The training colleges had only accommodation for 1,370, and the total number of certificated teachers was 10,845. Now, in his opinion, that number was obviously insufficient for the requirements of the Scottish educational authorities. In support of his argument he referred to the advertisement pages of the Scotsman and Glasgow Herald. In these journals school boards were advertising for every class of teachers, whereas scarcely ever was there an advertisement by a teacher wanting a situation. That indicated that the demand for teachers was outrunning the supply. The teaching profession was a highly honourable one, and had always appealed to the sentiments and sympathy of the Scottish people. And now it was attractive even financially, as was shown in the last Report of the Committee of Council on Education. The average remuneration earned by certificated teachers for the last year was £142, whereas in 1870 it was only £101. Fifty per cent. of the total number of certificated teachers had got incomes of over £150. Why was it, therefore, that they had such a comparatively small number of men coming forward to enter the ranks of the teaching profession? He imagined that there must be a period in the life of very many young men when they asked themselves whether they would become teachers or clerks, and why was it that the number who applied to go into offices as clerks was apparently almost innumerable, while the number who went into the teaching profession was so limited? He could not see that the life of a clerk was pleasanter than that of a teacher; and certainly the position and the prospects of a teacher were, in his opinion, infinitely better than those of an ordinary clerk. The teacher had longer holidays and a bigger salary, and by an Act passed in the last Parliament, provision was made in respect to superannuation. Notwithstanding all these advantages they had the fact that there was an unlimited number of applications by young men, from twenty to twenty-five years of age, for clerkships where the remuneration was not more than £60 to £80 per year, while if a; school board wanted a certificated teacher they had to pay at least £120 per year, and even then the choice was so limited that they were compelled to accept whatever they could get. There; could be only one reason why a larger number of young men did not seek to enter the teaching profession, and that was the restrictions and difficulties to their becoming teachers. There was; too great a congestion in the training colleges. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark was capable of being carried out, they might increase the facilities given for young men and young women going through a course of university training, and having their minds broadened and freed from the narrow influences of ordinary schools, and so becoming capable of giving to the scholars in Scotland better and wider training than under the opportunities afforded at the present time. For his part he hoped that the discussion of this question would focus attention in Scotland on the matter; and unless; the Lord Advocate could give some assurance to the Committee as to the prospects in future in the direction of improvement, they should have either a Departmental Inquiry or a Select Committee on the question of the supply of teachers.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

said that the appearance of tranquility which the House of Commons presented when it went into Committee on the Scottish Estimates was phenomenal, but he would be a very superficial observer who was misled as to the importance of the business that was being transacted. They were really the Great Council of the Scottish nation. They were there to discuss thoroughly practical topics about which they all knew something, and in which all Scottish Members were interested, and which they were able to discuss without introducing party feeling. There were no supplementary questions, no motions for adjournment, not even any party political differences. His hon. friend opposite had made a speech just as progressive, satisfactory, and reforming in tone as that of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark. On the last occasion on which this question came before the Committee the Lord Advocate had spoken in a sympathetic, if also in a somewhat cautious spirit; and his right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen had examined the whole matter with a fulness of knowledge which showed that complete and thorough grasp of educational subjects which his long studies and academic position entitled him to do. What was the practical point—for they were a practical people in Scotland, and tried to come to the practical point at once? They had got a suspicion—not at all a hostile suspicion—that the Government had in contemplation to do something to deal with an evil which was admitted on all hands, namely, the difficulty in getting a supply of Scottish teachers in the schools. To cope with that evil it was necessary to make some further provision for the training of teachers. That might be done in two ways, one bad, and the other good. They had a fear lest, with the breakdown of the existing arrangements, that it would enter into the minds of those who had the control of these matters that, instead of making use of the universities, they would try to take over the training colleges from the churches and put them under the control of the Education Department. They did not know whether such a policy had been definitely come to, or was even contemplated, but they had the feeling, from fragments and traces in recent speeches, that that was possible. Now, he thought there was a general agreement on both sides of the House that that was not the most auspicious way of entering upon the task of getting a better supply of Scottish teachers. The training colleges were very peculiar bodies. There were four Presbyterian colleges, one Roman Catholic, and one Episcopalian—all managed by the churches. The Presbyterian colleges were managed in a spirit which was wonderfully free from sectarianism. They were really great pieces of machinery which, only by a sort of accident, were managed by the churches, although the Government found the money. They were national institutions, and must be treated on that footing. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire that there was difficulty in getting young people to enter the teaching profession. They did not care to go into the training colleges because they were not of the status of certain other educational institutions in Scotland. There was nothing more striking, he thought he might say, than the decay of individuality in the teaching profession. What they were suffering from was a certain dead level. It was a high level; it had improved very much in the last few years, but there was less of that rugged individuality of character, that sort of Carlylean characteristic in the Scottish schoolmaster which existed twenty-five years ago. They had come to a time when there was some hope of something like a chance being obtained of getting back to the old position.

About the great gift of Mr. Carnegie he would not say more than that it would enable an enormous stride to be taken in Scottish education. Through the splendid munificence of Mr. Carnegie it was now possible to do something not only in the direction of assisting students to go to the universities, but in the direction of developing the universities themselves and making them more attractive and comprehensive. There were two alternative plans. One was to take over the training colleges and manage them from Dover House. Dover House was a most efficient institution, but he could not help feeling that if they did that they would not get rid of that tendency to a dead level which he deprecated. He would rather see the development of the policy of training the teachers in the universities themselves. That would be no new departure. The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire had spoken of the number of teachers in the training colleges as being between 1,200 and 1,300; but there were besides that 380 of what were called King's students at the universities, whose training for the teaching profession was supervised by local committees—some at Aberdeen University and the others at St. Andrews University. Experience had proved that that system was an enormous success, and the number of King's students was rapidly increasing. The system, which was much appreciated, gave every indication of showing the way in which the training of students for the teaching profession in Scotland might be greatly popularised. He would not talk of the Roman Catholic or the Episcopalian colleges, for they were sectarian institutions; but surely it would be better, instead of doing anything in the direction of State control of the Presbyterian colleges, rather to look to the universities as the training ground for teachers. He would like to say that, although the right hon. Gentleman opposite had on the last occasion on which this question was debated alleged that this was not a very practicable scheme, inasmuch as it provided no substitute for the training colleges in supervising the young teachers while being educated at the universities, experience had shown that that work of supervision was being efficiently carried out by local committees in Aberdeen and St. Andrews; and there was no reason why it should not be done in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Surely it was for the school boards themselves to take part in the supervision of the students while undergoing a course of university training. Glasgow, indeed, had already told the Government, through the lips of the school board, that it was quite ready to take in hand an experiment such as that which had succeeded so well in Aberdeen and St. Andrews. They had got in the Carnegie Trust a means of developing that side of university life—the means of cheapening the entrance to the universities for these students. But he thought that, even without resorting to the Carnegie Trust, the university training was cheaper than that of the training colleges. The cost of the training college was £28 per year and of the university £16 per year. Speaking for himself, he first of all advocated this change in the interest of getting more individuality in the teacher, and secondly because it was good for the teaching profession, good for the university, and for what they all aimed at—the reform which should bring the university, the secondary school, and the elementary school all into line and relation with one another. They were on the verge of a new departure, and if the Lord Advocate could give them an assurance on this matter he would confer-an obligation on the whole people of Scotland.

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

said he was in general sympathy with what had been said. He knew that the difficulty of getting teachers had been very much felt. He also agreed that it was very desirable to encourage the attendance at the universities of young men and young women who were preparing for the teaching profession. That was already being done to an increasing extent. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen admit the efficient way in which the training colleges had done their work. These colleges were under denominational management; but their teaching was not denominational in the sense of being peculiar to any Church, and the general work that they had done had been acknowledged to be excellent. He did not think it could be said that the training colleges had scared young people from proceeding towards the teaching profession. There had been no objection on their part to the training colleges. While the colleges had not been the only avenues to the teaching profession, the fact still remained that they had been the main avenue, and the only complaint against them of late years had been their insufficiency to train the number of teachers that was required for the staffing of the schools. He hailed the suggestion that more should be done through the universities, and he was glad to know that the experiment that had been made in regard to King's students had been satisfactory in Aberdeen and St. Andrews. They must remember, however, that that system was in the experimental stage as yet. He hoped the experiment would continue to be successful, and that by-and-by they would find a large accession of teachers through that channel, and that the authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow, when they saw that the system had succeeded elsewhere, would adopt it. At the same time, he must express the hope that the Scotch Education Department would not be encouraged by this discussion to withdraw or lessen their assistance to the training colleges until they were quite sure that a good substitute had been found. The training colleges had done their work well and were worthy of all the assistance they received. They were originally founded by the churches, which had raised the money for the buildings, and now the churches were taking an interest in their management, not in any sectarian, but in a broad educational spirit. He should think that the churches would not put any obstacle in the way of any new system so long as they were assured that that new system would produce equally good results with the old.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)

said that before the Lord Advocate replied he wished to say a few words. For many years before this question had been brought before the House the necessity had been felt for increased facilities for training teachers. Scotch education had undoubtedly suffered from the want of a sufficient supply of accommodation in the training colleges. He was not going into the comparative merits of the university system and the training college system. There were a great many arguments in favour of both but, as the right hon. Gentleman had just pointed out, he did not think they had yet had sufficient experience of the working of the university system to lead them to determine now any change on a very large scale. What he was particularly anxious about was that they ought to have an increase in the means of training teachers in the training colleges. It had been said that then had been a difficulty in getting young people to enter the profession. He die not think there was any difficulty of that kind, because they found from the Report of the Scotch Education Department that the great source of supply of teachers came from the pupil teachers, and at the examination for admission to the training colleges hundreds of pupil teachers who had passed the examination were not admitted to the training colleges because there was not room for them. The Glasgow newspapers had many letters from parents complaining that their children who had qualified by passing the examinations to enter the training colleges, could not do so simply because there was no room. The last report showed that out of 972 who had qualified, only 342 were able to be taken into the training colleges. Only thirty-six King's students and thirty-eight graduates had been appointed teachers, so that the number of teachers to be obtained from those sources was not very large.

As regarded pupil teachers who had been qualified by exam., but had not been admitted to the training college, there was a gross injustice. They had been encouraged to enter into a contract of service. They fulfilled that contract so far as they were committed to it by qualifying to pass the exam., but they had not been given the advantage of trained teachers as regarded emoluments, simply because the Education Department had not accommodation to enable them to fulfil their own part of the obligation. That was grossly unfair. It was not astonishing that so few joined the teaching profession, because it was found that after a person had qualified in every way he was not admitted to a training college, and did not receive his certificate as a trained teacher at all. Persons in the towns were able to pass the exam, owing to the special facilities they had, but pupil teachers in the country districts, who had not similar advantages, were naturally left out in the cold. Obviously the teachers were the mainspring of education. As had been pointed out, the characteristic of education in Scotland in other days was the individuality of the teacher. It was the teacher, and not the parents, of a boy that induced him to prepare for and to go to a university, and he ventured to say that there could be no real education without thoroughly trained teachers.

In the inspector's report the great difference between teachers trained in the training colleges and teachers without that training was noted, and the inspect- tors deplored the increase in the number of untrained teachers. In the Report it was stated that of the new teachers 207 were males and 765 females; or three and a half times as many females as males, and that the total number of teachers was roughly 4,000 males and 6,000 females. The female teachers were increasing year by year. Why? The school boards found such difficulty in getting male teachers, and the salaries were so high, that they were driven in self-defence to employ as many female teachers as possible. Under the present system managers had no choice, and practically had to take every man coming out of the training colleges. There was no subject of more pressing importance than the training of teachers, and it was an extraordinary thing to find men qualified as pupil-teachers who could not attend the training colleges because there was no room. He admitted that there was a little improvement recently as regarded the number of teachers trained, but it should also be remembered that the school attendance was increasing. Last year 14,000 pupils were added to the school registers and 8,000 to the average attendance, and that swallowed up the increase in the number of trained teachers. He hoped therefore that the training of teachers either at the universities or at the training colleges would be attended to. The reason why the training colleges were not enlarged was because they were private property, although they were practically State institutions. They were not increased because of the difficulty of breaking away from the old traditions of denominational institutions. But that difficulty must be overcome, and it must be recognised that the training colleges were no longer of a denominational character, but really State institutions. They should be worked to the very best advantage, and more accommodation should be provided for, and a little more money spent in, the training of teachers.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said that as an English Member, and a Member of the largest school board south of the Tweed, he wished to state that he had studied the Report with envy and admiration. First of all, as to the age to which children remained at school, it was very remarkable indeed that, although the statutory limit in Scotland was ten years, yet according to the Report 42¼ per cent. of the children in the elementary schools in Scotland were over that age, whereas in England, where the statutory limit was twelve years, only 30 per cent. of the children were beyond the age of ten. Therefore, it was quite clear that the Scottish people were a much longer way ahead of their statutory obligation than the English people. He also observed that in Scotland 3 per cent. of the children at school were over fourteen years, whereas in English schools not 1 per cent. was over the age. Then as regarded the higher grade schools, no smaller a proportion than 35 per cent. of the children were over fifteen years of age.


I must remind the hon. Member that the debate is now confined to the question of the training colleges.


said he understood the Committee were discussing the Scotch Education Office.


A reduction has been moved in respect of the training colleges, and the discussion must now be confined to that particular reduction.


I had better now reply to the further remarks that have been made on this subject which has been reintroduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. Of course, he need make no apology for further discussing this subject, because I have made it perfectly clear that, so far as the Department is concerned, we are fully alive to its importance. Indeed, I think the right hon. Gentleman quite admitted that the reply I made to the speech of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark was sympathetic, although he said it was somewhat wanting in specialisation. I should be the first to admit that it was wanting in specialisation, and for the reason that I have already explained, namely, that although I found that the hon. Member for North-west Lanark was entirely in sympathy with the views that we held, what I was left rather in doubt about was what he proposed, and exactly what in a practical way he wanted. The right hon. Gentleman to-night spoke of the "proposals" of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark, and he afterwards, in the latter portion of his speech, actually spoke of his "plans." I only wish I could discover what the plans of the hon. Member were, and I do not think his observations could be exactly characterised as proposals. I entirely agree that we should as far as possible foster the connection between the training of teachers and the universities, and, so far as we possibly can, take advantage of university education in the training of teachers. That is, of course, entirely our view, and I need scarcely tell the Committee that we have tried to do a great deal in that direction. I am only recapitulating, but at the same time let me remind the Committee that, so far as the training colleges are concerned, we encourage them to send students to the universities by paying, as part of the expenses of the training colleges, the fees which the students pay in attending university classes. Over and above that, we have introduced this system of King's students, of which I think every hon. Member who has addressed the Committee thinks well; and beyond that we have given special grants to allow the training of teachers in special subjects under another branch of the Code.

Now, the question is, What further? I cannot help thinking that if we could imagine an intelligent foreigner listening to this debate he would have gone away with the impression that a man could only be a teacher in a Scottish school if he had in some way or another passed through a training college or had been a King's student, or had been at one of these particular classes. That, as hon. Members know, is not the case. There is nothing to stop a man with the highest university degree in the kingdom from becoming a teacher. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen might become a teacher if he went for six months, or whatever it is, to a public elementary school. But why does he not become a teacher? Why, because he has other and better things to do. It is regarded as curious that we do not have a greater number of persons entering the teaching profession. I am afraid the reason is that for the highly educated there are other things which offer more attractive fields than the teaching profession. Let us compare the career of a teacher with the possible career and opportunities of a clerk. The clerk begins as an office boy, and then becomes a clerk. He earns his own subsistence at a very early age, and accordingly, I think, there will always be a redundancy in that particular class, because, although the position may not have the attraction or the certain prospect of getting as good a salary as a teacher, yet it is an easier career on its inception and may eventually lead to higher things than the teaching profession.

Now, I pass from that to the question, What next? The hon. Member for West Renfrew told us that we must not be deceived by the seeming tranquillity of a discussion of this sort—that other things may be hidden under it I confess I could not listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman without wondering whether there was not something underneath it. I am not, of course, suggesting anything on his part; but what I want to know is, Does he go the length of saying; that we had better give up the training, colleges? because that is a question which neither he nor the hon. Member for North-west Lanark at all faced.

It is all very well to say—and we all agree—that we should foster connection with the universities as much as we can, but are we to give up the training colleges? The training colleges, as the Committee knows, are conducted by the churches. The right hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear that he did not mean for a moment to propose any change in either the Episcopalian college or the Roman Catholic college. The Roman Catholic training college, as he knows very well, is very much the strongest of the whole set, and it is so for one very good reason, that it is the only residential college in the set, and therefore it has a great hold, and, for the matter of that, spends a great deal more money on the students than is spent on the students in the other training colleges. But as regards the other training colleges, would he give them up or not? The right hon. Gentle- man said something vague as to there being a sort of feeling that no more money should be spent, but does he think that the abandonment of these training colleges is in accordance with Scottish opinion? It is all very well to say that these colleges, although they belong to the churches, have not been conducted in a proselytising spirit, but there is no great incentive to proselytism when everyone believes the same way as you do, and inasmuch as the great majority of the Scottish people is Presbyterian; and although there are differences as regards church government, which I should be very sorry to enter upon, between the two great churches, yet, fortunately for the people of Scotland, these differences have never practically affected the elementary education of the children in religious subjects, and it has been common ground between all the Scottish churches that the children shall be denominationally taught. The hon. Member shakes his head, but it is my opinion, and the opinion of many other people. It is not a training, for instance, that would please my noble friend the Member for Greenwich. It is denominational in the sense of being Presbyterian as against anything else; consequently there has been no necessity to proselytise, and, of course, like every other educational institution of the sort, there is nothing in the shape of a test. We are absolutely free in that way. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, would he have the courage to stand up in Scotland and expect the Scottish people to agree with him, and say that the time has come, so far as the training of teachers is concerned, to cut the connection with the churches altogether, and have no church control of any sort? Personally I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would—I do not mean he would not have the personal courage, but I mean he would not have the courage of that opinion in Scotland. Surely that is, I will not say an answer to the hon. Member for North-west Lanark, for my criticism is that he did not put forward a proposition that admitted of an answer, but it is an answer, to a great extent, as to what we are going to do.

I have a little fault also to find with the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. He has addressed himself to this subject for several years, and he says that the practical difficulty in making the training colleges larger is that they do not belong to us. That brings me to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington. He seems to have conceived a fear that we are going to take over the training colleges, and to make them Government institutions. Whether that would please the hon. Member for Mid Lanark or not I am not quite sure, but it would at once get over the difficulty he sees in the way of making the training colleges larger. I can, however, assure the hon. and learned Member that such an idea, so far as I know, has never entered the head of His Majesty's Government up to the present, and that consequently there is no practical proposition or idea to take over the training colleges, nor have the churches given any intimation that they propose to give them up. Of course we are entirely in sympathy with the view of the right hon. Gentleman that we should get as many university men as possible, but does he think that it would ever be possible to really practically supply the whole teaching profession in that way? Personally I think not. May I ask him to consider the difficulties? In the first place there must be for the training of teachers a systematic training in very elementary subjects; in other words the universities should provide classes which they have not at present, and which really do not belong to university education. Of course we should all like every one to be a graduate of the very highest class, but we cannot have that; and, as a matter of fact, for the humbler ranks of the teaching profession it would, unless the circumstances are altered very much be quite impossible that they should come up to the standard of the higher classes in the universities, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would be one of the very first to deplore anything which would have the immediate result of tending to lower the present university standard. It is not a theoretical but a practical difficulty, and there are many in the humbler grades of the teaching profession for whom, in present circumstances, it would be Utopian to expect that they would ever come up to the university standard. One word as to what has been said about the King's studentships not prospering in Edinburgh and Glasgow as at Aberdeen and St. Andrews. So far as the Department is concerned there is no reason, but the local authorities have not taken them up in the same way at Edinburgh and Glasgow as they have at Aberdeen and St. Andrews.


asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to allow the establishment of King's students side by side with the training college at Edinburgh and Glasgow.


I understand there is nothing against it, and I believe that the authorities at Glasgow are conferring upon that subject at the present time, but these matters must be dealt with largely upon the initiative of the local committees. Now, one other word. I hope I have given the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen sufficient assurance that, so far as strengthening the ties of the university is concerned, I am entirely with him, but I think, in discussing this subject, we must discuss it purely from the point of view of whether we are prepared to abandon the training colleges or not. We are not prepared to do so at the present moment, and I very much doubt whether any hon. Member would get up and say that he was. I do not know whether I shall be strictly in order, but perhaps, Mr. Lowther, you will allow me to reciprocate the well-chosen words used by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the magnificent gift of Mr. Carnegie. It is a matter for congratulation that Mr. Carnegie has taken studious care to eliminate from his proposals and their discussion all party politics, and I am glad to think that among his most trusted advisers were not only two gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, but the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman rather indicated that the gift of Mr. Carnegie would make the matter all the easier for the Government, because, whereas we have paid the fees of the students of the training colleges at the universities in the past, now these fees may be got from the Carnegie fund. We do not entirely know what the whole plan is, but I understand that fees are only to be paid for those students who are not in a position to pay for themselves. I assure the Committee that the Education Department are fully alive to the importance of doing everything they can to strengthen the connection between the training colleges and the universities, and that they are not in the position to give up the present system.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.


said that by whatever touchstone the matter was tested the Report upon Scotch Education showed a considerable advance on the north of the Tweed on anything that had been prayed for on the south. He ventured to point out to the Committee that although the statutory obligation in Scotland to keep a child at school was ten years of age, yet the percentage of children beyond that age still attending the schools was 42¼ whereas in England, where the statutory obligation was twelve years of age, only 35 per cent. of the children attending the schools were over ten. With regard to the question of higher grade schools, as set out in the Report, he found in the higher-grade schools in Scotland 35 per cent. of the pupils were over fifteen years of age. In England a child was not permitted to remain at school over fifteen years of age, and he could only look with admiration upon a system which permitted 35 per cent. of children to remain at school over that age, when in England they were compelled literally to turn them into the street. He noticed that 4 per cent. of the children in the Scotch higher grade schools were over seventeen years of age. What would happen in England if children were kept at school until such an age he would not venture to suggest, but even yet the Scotch Education Department were not satisfied. The average daily attendance of those enrolled in the schools was 84 per cent. in Scotland; in England it barely reached 82 per cent. In the matter of regular attendance England to-day was where Scotland was ten years ago, and that was the state of affairs which represented England's position in all educational matters. With regard to evening schools in Scotland, the number of pupils enrolled was 11½ per cent. of the number enrolled in the day schools. England and Wales could not show 9 per cent. The most striking fact, however, was the scope of work which was permitted in Scotch evening schools, which was far more extensive than that permitted in the English. The new evening school code for free instruction from school board rates for pupils of any age permitted subjects which took the pupil up to the most advanced stage of technical and artistic training. Some of the subjects mentioned in that Code as elementary were, the study of any language—ancient or modern—approved by the Department; commercial correspondence; business procedure; the study of any language with a direct view to its use in business; algebra; mensuration; dynamics; the application of mathematics and science to specific industries; machinery construction; building construction; naval architecture; various electrical industries; mining, agricultural, and horticultural, or any other industries, the scientific principles underlying which demanded attention. Those were a few of the elementary subjects, but he had never heard the Lord Advocate come to the House and gibe at the differential calculus, as he had heard the Vice-President of the English Board of Education. He would like to see a Scotch Cockerton come forward and challenge some of these subjects. He thought if anyone ventured to come forward on such an errand he would have a very bad time at the hands of Scotch Members. All these things were legitimate in Scotland, and why should they not be so south of the Tweed? If all the partially-qualified assistant teachers and pupil-teachers were excluded from this Return, and only the certificated adult teachers allowed to remain, the percentage of certificated adult teachers for the Scotch schools was 63 per cent. In England the corresponding percentage was only 42, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen might, therefore, take comfort from the fact that there was a much larger percentage of adult teachers in Scotland than was permitted to England. The Scotch schools had a certificated teacher for every 69 children enrolled, but in England it was one for every 90. The amount of money which was spent in the maintenance of education given in the ordinary schools was 2s. 2d. per head more than in England and Wales. The maintenance charge for the county of Inverness-shire was 61s. 2d., while in the county of Cambridge it was 44s. 2d. In Argyll-shire it was 71s. 11¼d., whilst in Cornwall it was 42s. 4d. He could only say that he hoped Scotch education would go on and prosper. There was not an English or Welsh town of any importance which had not at the head of the municipal body or at the head of some firm interested in the great undertakings of the city a Scotchman who had been induced to become a not unwilling exile from his native heath for a large salary, and if the Scotch Education Department went on as they were going on at the present time, and English education was to be left in the position it was at present, he would not be surprised to see these unhappy exiles increase to a very large extent.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for a Grant to the Board of Trustees for manufactures in Scotland in aid of the maintenance of the National Gallery, School of Art, and Museum of Antiquities, Scotland, &c."


said that he desired to ask one question with regard to this Vote. He did not think that Scotland was getting anything like the amount that it should get for the maintenance of the art galleries of Scotland, and last year he found that the whole of the money granted was not spent. He noticed that there was a balance of £303 11s. 1d. What he wished to know was whether any of the money was being spent in buying pictures, or what was being done with it, and whether the trustees had any scheme for spending this little money, or whether it was being accumulated in the same way as the moneys which were given to England and Ireland for this purpose.


said that he did not think that the hon. Member who had just sat down could have looked at the Estimates. The National Gallery in Edinburgh had been handicapped throughout its career by being tied up in the Board of Manufactures with a bundle of other institutions. It was much to be wished that the National Gallery should be allowed to stand on its own legs, but in the meantime it was only proper that Scotland should realise the gallery was in such a financial position that it had no money to spend on pictures, and though it was given a grant which might be expended in pictures, it had all to be spent in repairs. He regretted the temporary grant had not been continued, and he commended to the Government the advisability of increasing the grant, so that the National Gallery in Edinburgh might be a place of some interest and less a subject of laughter to their neighbours than at present.


I am not able to give the exact details of the expenditure of this money. With regard to a further subvention to Scotland for purposes of art, we should all like to get as much money from the Treasury for this purpose as we can, but it is not always possible to get all we could wish.


Will you ask?


We have often asked, but we do not always get what we ask for.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

asked whether the money not expended was allowed to accumulate, or whether it was paid back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the year.


It is allowed to accumulate.


suggested that, as there were convenient buildings in Glas- gow and Edinburgh, an addition should, be made to the grant in order to enable those cities to get loan collections down from London, much in the same way as the Corporation of London obtained them for the Guildhall. It was a great pity when they had such excellent buildings in Scotland that they should not be used. It only meant the cost of removal and that was a very good reason for increasing a Vote of this kind. Of course, it meant money, but the complaint with, regard to this Vote was that it was too little; and as the only way of obtaining, an increase of the Vote was to move to reduce it still less, and also having regard, to the fact that this was the only opportunity which offered for at least a year, and that it would be a thousand pities to allow the Vote to pass without emphasising it a little, he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Caldwell.)


said the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction had failed to appreciate the extent to which, both Glasgow and Edinburgh had taken advantage of the South Kensington circulating collection. When in Glasgow last year he met the travelling superintendent of South Kensington, who was there in charge of the finest collection of water-colour drawings he had ever seen. At Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Dundee this loan system, had been carried on to great advantage The art treasures of London were, so far as he could see, freely placed at the disposal of the provincial towns.


expressed the opinion that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had taken the proper course in moving the reduction of the Vote. Scotland in this matter had a grievance, in which Ireland shared; the treatment meted out to the national galleries of Scotland was only equalled, by that meted out to Ireland. The House was always ready to provide money for the National Gallery of London, or forgiving the people of London all sorts of opportunities of enjoying and studying valuable works of art; but in Scotland, as in Ireland, the people were differently treated. It was absolutely impossible to get a niggardly Treasury to pay proper attention to the wishes of the people either of Scotland or Ireland, and especially was it impossible to induce them to grant sufficient money to provide a proper collection of pictures. The principle seemed to be that English Members were to be entitled to all they asked for, and Scotland and Ireland were to have nothing.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

said the hon. Member who had just sat down had dealt with two separate questions. He did not think Scotland wanted any assistance in regard to loan collections, and he thought that Glasgow was quite equal to arranging any loan questions she desired, but that was a totally different thing to increasing the grant. He was entirely in favour of an additional grant to the National Gallery.


said at this moment there was an excellent and valuable collection of pictures in the Art Gallery at Dundee sent from South Kensington, and if other cities had not a similar collection it was because they had not applied for them. There was not only a very competent inspector in charge, who had selected an admirable collection, but that gentleman gave excellent lecturettes, explaining to those who went to see his pictures their historical and other connections. So far as loan collections were concerned, they had nothing either to complain of or desire.


So far as this Vote is concerned, it does not pretend to be a Vote for the purchase of pictures. There have been Votes in the past for that purpose, both for Scotland and for Ireland. The view of the Treasury is that the Votes for the actual purchase of pictures should be made equal to the contributions from the locality. Through the munificence of Mr. William M'Ewan and the late Mr. J. R. Findlay, who gave a sum of £5,000 each, the Trea-

sury gave an equal sum for the purchase of pictures, and a similar course, I believe, is followed in the case of Ireland. This being a grant-in-aid, it does not come under the rule of the Treasury with regard to unexpired balances.

*MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

said he was glad to find the Lord Advocate in sympathy with the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in so far that he did not think this was an adequate sum, and he assumed all Scotch Members would be glad to support the right hon. Gentleman in asking for an increased amount. The amount granted for this purpose was really only £1,400, the other £2,000 being allocated under the treaty of Union. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division in order to support the application of the Lord Advocate for a larger grant from the Treasury.


said that in the present grant hon. Members were introducing a new subject in asking for money to purchase pictures, but whether such a grant should be given was a matter well worthy of consideration, and the Lord Advocate would be well advised in considering whether pressure could not be brought to bear upon the Treasury with regard to it. There was another point to which he wished to draw attention. He had asked some years ago, as to whether it was necessary to harass every visitor to the galleries by charging a penny for taking care of his umbrella, and the answer he received was that it was necessary to get all the money they could. That was a very regrettable state of affairs. He hoped the Lord Advocate would take the matter up and press for a grant for the National Gallery from the Treasury. The poverty of the institution was a discredit, he would not say to Scotland, but to the Empire, of which Scotland formed a part.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 94 Noes, 128. (Division List No. 268.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Ambrose, Robert Boland, John
Allan, William (Gateshead) Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Brigg, John
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud Black, Alexander William Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)
Burt, Thomas Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Malley, William
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hayden, John Patrick O'Mara, James
Causton, Richard Knight Helme, Norval Watson O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cogan, Denis J. Jordan, Jeremiah Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kennedy, Patrick James Perks, Robert William
Crean, Eugene Leng, Sir John Power, Patrick Joseph
Crombie, John William Levy, Maurice Reddy, M.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lundon, W. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cullinan, J. MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Redmond, Wm. (Clare)
Dalziel, James Henry Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries)
Davies, Altred (Carmarthen) M'Dermott, Patrick Rigg, Richard
Delany, William M'Govern, T. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire.
Dillon, John Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Donelan, Captain A. Nannetti, Joseph P. Sullivan, Donal
Doogan, P. C. Newnes, Sir George Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Duffy, William J. Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Dunn, Sir William Norman, Henry Weir, James Galloway
Emmott, Alfred Norton, Capt. Cecil William White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Penwick, Charles O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Ffrench, Peter O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Field, William O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Flynn, James Christopher O'Dowd, John Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Charles Douglas.
Gilhooly, James O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Hammond, John O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Acland Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Green, Walford D (Wednesbury Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)
Allsopp, Hon. George Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x Mount, William Arthur
Arkwright, John Stanhope Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nde'y Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Arrol, Sir William Harris, Frederick Leverton Nicol, Donald Ninian
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Hay, Hon. Claude George Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Austin, Sir John Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Parkes, Ebenezer
Bain, Colonel James Robert Higginbottom, S. W. Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlingt'n.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside Pierpoint, Robert
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Hornby, Sir William Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin Hoult, Joseph Plummer, Walter R.
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol Hudson, George Bickersteth Pretyman, Ernest George
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Purvis, Robert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Johnston, William (Belfast) Randles, John S.
Bigwood, James Kemp, George Reid, James (Greenock)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Keswick, William Renwick, George
Bull, William James Kimber, Henry Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Bullard, Sir Harry Knowles, Lees Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Law, Andrew Bonar Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Cautley, Henry Strother Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Lawson, John Grant Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. Leamy, Edmund Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Seton-Karr, Henry
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cranborne, Viscount Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lowe, Francis William Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Spear, John Ward
Dickinson, Robt. Edmond Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Dickson, Chas. Scott Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbu'gh W Valentia, Viscount
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst Manners, Lord Cecil Warde, Col. C. E.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts-
Fisher, William Hayes Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh Wills, Sir Frederick
Wilson, John (Glasgow) Wylie, Alexander TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George Sir William Walrond and.
Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm Younger, William Mr. Anstruther.

Question put, and agreed to.

Forward to