HC Deb 24 July 1882 vol 272 cc1661-9
MR. GRANTHAM

rose to move a Resolution, the object of which was to prevent the scheme being so altered as to injure Dulwich College in future, and his object could only be attained by sending the scheme back to be revised, and the effect of that he knew would be to destroy the scheme. Personally, he regretted very much the necessity of this step being taken after all that the House had done; but those interested in the College felt that justice had not been done by the scheme, although it was admittedly a great improvement upon previous schemes. There were many difficulties to be overcome; but he did not think they had been overcome as they might have been. He did not think that £4,000 a-year was sufficient for the maintenance of an educational department like that of Dulwich College, bearing in mind that the income of the College was £20,000 a-year. If the building had been smaller, and the education inferior to what it was, £4,000 might have been a sufficient sum; but they must take it as it was. The Governors were much to blame in having spent such a large sum on the buildings; still, there they were, and they would have to be maintained, and the great difficulty would be how to maintain them, and carry on the school out of £4,000 a-year. Without desiring to claim for the College a larger sum than was necessary, in their view, the present Governors were of opinion that a provision of at least £5,000 a-year ought to be made. Most of those, indeed, who had gone carefully into the matter thought that £6,000 would not be excessive. He knew he should be met with the answer that they could not give another £1,000 a-year without depriving some other portions of the scheme of money proposed to be given to them, that was to say, it would be taken from St. Botolph's, or St. Luke's, or St. Saviour's. So far as that was concerned, he could not object to it, because he considered that the sums given to those three parishes were in excess of what they were entitled to receive. The whole question depended upon whether these parishes were entitled to the large sums given to them under the scheme; and upon that question he could not do better than state the opinion of the Endowed School Commissioners on this question, because everything depended on whether these parishes had or had not a right to a large sum taken from the fund, or to be treated in a similar fashion to the parish of Camberwell. The Commissioners said, in a letter dated the 13th February, 1874— The Vestry of St. Luke's base their claims on the assumption that the four parishes have equal beneficial interest in Alleyne's foundation, and that this interest is for each parish one-fourth of the whole.….This argument is not supported by the true interpretation of the instruments of foundation, or by the facts of the case.….There is, therefore, in our opinion, no ground for an apportionment of Alleyne's endowment into equal fourth parts, one for each of the four parishes. And in this opinion they are confirmed by the circumstance that, although this endowment has been many times the subject of hot debate before the Archbishop of Canterbury as visitor, before the Court of Chancery, before the Charity Commissioners, and before Parliament, no one of these authorities has ever recognized such view. On the contrary, their decisions and action have been entirely inconsistent with it. On the fullest investigation that he had been enabled to give the matter, he could not help thinking that the northern parishes had already been treated in far too liberal a manner, and this had occurred simply because they had powerful friends among the Governors, who had claimed for them these large amounts; but when they looked to the relative positions of the parishes—to the fact that the population of Camberwell was increasing, whilst that of the northern parishes was decreasing—they would see still more the injustice of the scheme, and that they were simply giving to those who had, and taking away from those who had not. In 1851 the parish of Camberwell had a population of 54,000, and now it had increased to 173,000—nearly four times as much as it was 30 years ago, whereas in all the other parishes the exact converse of this had taken place. In St. Saviour's, in 1851, the population was 35,731, but it had gradually diminished, until it now stood at 15,677. In 1851 the population of St. Botolph's was 12,499, but it was now only 6,107; whilst the population of St. Lute's had remained as near as possible stationary, the population being, in 1881, 54,995, and in 1851, 54,055. That being so, he thought the House would see at once that it was real folly to be increasing the educational endowments of parishes which were already provided with sufficient educational facilities—as was especially the case in St. Saviour's—and where the population had decreased so rapidly, and was very likely to decrease still more; because anyone who knew anything of that part of London knew that it was occupied with warehouses, or premises that would not permit of any increase in the population, certainly of that kind of population that required school accommodation—namely, children. He now passed on to the last objection he had to the scheme, and that was the increase in the fees of the boys who had entered the College since December, 1880, which were fixed at not less than £20, and not more than £30. To show the injustice of the scheme it would only be necessary for him to refer to what had been done in 1857. By an Act of Parliament of that year the fees were fixed at from £8 to 10 a-year, according to age. These fees had gone up gradually to £15 and £18, and now it was proposed to increase them to £20 and £30. He asked why that was proposed? It was because the £4,000 a-year was not sufficient for Dulwich College. It was admitted that that sum was insufficient, and to remedy that difficulty they increased the fees of the boys, instead of taking away from, or not giving so much to, the northern parishes. They were increasing the foes of the boys to increase their gross income. That was not dealing fairly with the parents of the children educated at the College, because it was very well known that the great increase in the income of Dulwich College was derived entirely from the people who had built large and valuable houses on the estate, paying large ground rents for those houses, and having located themselves there for the purpose of looking after the education of their children—in consequence of the exceptional educational advantages that had been held forth to them as lessees on the estate. Now, if these people were to have that educa- tion made more expensive by an increase in the fees, it was, to a certain extent, a fraud upon them, because they believed in settling there that they were going to got their children educated for a very moderate sum. He did not mean to say that the education would not be obtained for a moderate sum under the scheme; but the fees were considerably increased, and they now reached a figure which was not anticipated when the houses were erected. Under these circumstances, and in order that the scheme might be reconsidered, he would suggest that it should be disallowed. The matter had been a long time before them, and had been thoroughly threshed out; and if his Motion for disallowing the scheme were carried, a fresh proposal might be made to Parliament another year that would meet with the approbation of all the parties interested.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to disallow the Dulwich Scheme, now lying upon the Table of the House, because, firstly, by Section 5,— That the first Co-optative College Governors shall be so many of the non-elective governors in office at the date of this scheme as are willing to accept the office: Also, That the said first Co-optative College Governors shall be appointed to office for the term of their respective lives, and their appointment shall take effect from the date of this scheme: Secondly, by Section 40,— That, Seventhly, They shall pay to the college governors for the purposes of Dulwich College (only) the annual sum of £4,000, to be carried by them to the credit of the Dulwich College Account and to be treated as income: Twelfthly, They shall carry to separate accounts the annual sum of £500 for the educational benefit of the parish of Saint Botolph Without Bishopsgate, and the annual sum of £500 for the educational benefit of St. Luke, Middlesex: And, Thirdly, by Section 42,— To set apart for the purpose of a middle school or middle schools for the parishes of Saint Boltoph Without Bishopsgate and Saint Luke, Middlesex, a capital sum of £50,000: By Sections 36 and 79,— That all boys who have entered the college since December 1880 may be called upon by the governors for fees not less than £20, nor more than £30, a-year for any boy,"—(Mr. Grantham.)

MR. BRYCE

said, he was obliged to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and, in doing so, he would state shortly his reasons for thinking that it should not be allowed to pass. The hon. Member was san- guine if he thought that by rejecting this scheme they would get a better one next year, which would be generally approved of and assented to. This subject was most difficult and troublesome; it was now 10 years since the Endowed Schools Commissioners had taken up and tried to deal with Dulwich College. At least two schemes had been tried and had become abortive. There was no case in England, except that of Christ's Hospital, which presented so much difficulty and so many conflicting sentiments and interests. If the present scheme were rejected also, he saw no chance of anything being done—it might be years before another was obtained, and for years to come London would lose the benefits of this scheme. There was a general disposition—except on the part of those Gentlemen whom the hon. Member for East Surrey represented—to acquiesce in the present scheme as a compromise. The Governors did not say—and he himself did not think—it was a perfect scheme. The Governors had suggested some changes, though not the changes which the hon. Member desired; but, perceiving that they could not prevail against the opinion of the Charity Commissioners, they felt bound, as practical men, to give way and accept the present scheme rather than throw the whole matter back into uncertainty. The Vestry of St. Luke's originally objected to the scheme; but, finding that they could not have their own way, they agreed to petition in its favour. Even the Representatives on the Dulwich Board of Governors did not object to the scheme. The hon. Member's objection was that too much was given to the northern parishes, and not enough to Dulwich itself. The hon. Member had not told them all that Camberwell got. It got a very large share under the scheme of the benefits of the foundation. It got not only the splendid buildings and large grounds, and the £4,000per annum, but also a capital sum of £12,000 for the so-called Middle Class School, and an annual sum of £1,000 a-year for the maintenance of that school, besides the prospect—before long, it was hoped—of a large Girls' School and the School of Art. These were very substantial advantages, especially when it was remembered that Camberwell was not one of the parishes that the benefactor ap- peared by his will to have sought to benefit. He (Mr. Bryce) would call the attention of the House to what the original intention of the founder was. The College was founded by the will of Edward Alleyne, an actor, for the benefit of three parishes—St. Saviour's, St. Luke's, and St. Botolph's—Mr. Alleyne having been born in the last-named, and having a theatre in each of the former. No provision was made for Camberwell, which originally had no right to share in the endowment, and which only came in under an Act of Parliament. Was it right, therefore, for Camberwell now to come forward and to say that it should have a larger share of the endowment, and to grudge what was given to the northern parishes? With regard to fees, the present amount was 21 guineas, and all the difference that was made in the scheme was to enable them to grow up from £20 to £30, if it was thought desirable; but this was left to the discretion of the Governors. He did not imagine that they had any present intention of going up, at any rate, anywhere near that maximum. It must be remembered that the scheme provided no less than £2,000 for scholarships and exhibitions, which would be a very great help and benefit to the poorer residents who had children of promise likely to profit by the advanced education given in the College; whilst most of the parents whose sons now went to Dulwich were people in good position, to whom the education at fees of from £20 to £30 was really a cheap education. On the whole, without saying that the scheme might not have been improved, he thought the best thing was that it should now be passed, and the great foundation be enabled to fill more adequately the important functions it was charged with for the education of the people of London.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

, as one not representing the parish of Camberwell in any way, but as one who happened to live in the neighbourhood, considered it a monstrous thing that the fees should be raised so enormously—and having been raised such a short time ago—for the simple purpose of enabling Dulwich College to provide money for building, and other outside purposes. The Commissioners were attempting to make the institution do a great work on a very small sum. Last year the expenditure was £5,844, and now it was proposed to limit the amount to £4,000. It seemed hard to cut down the income of the College for the purpose of benefiting other places.

MR. ALDERMAN W. M'ARTHUR

said, he thought the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) had brought forward strong and sufficient arguments why the new scheme should not be carried out. In his opinion, the Vestry of Camberwell, which represented some 30,000 ratepayers, had good reason to complain, especially as it had asked for permission to be heard against the scheme, and had been refused. It was quite clear to his mind that the scheme would be very injurious both to the Upper and Lower Schools. Reference had been made to the population of Camber-well. That amounted to 185,000, and if the scheme wore carried out, the Lower School, which was intended for those classes which certainly could not afford to pay the high rate of fees, would be very seriously injured. He thought one of the speakers this evening had said that the average amount of the fees was £20. He did not believe that was correct; it was, unless he was mistaken, from £15 to £18; but, however that might be, it was a monstrous thing that power should be given—for there could be no doubt it would be exercised—to increase the fees to £30. The hon. Member had referred to the Endowed School Commissioners and their official letter. Well, it was not at all fair that a population such as that of the three northern parishes should be placed on the same footing as a population so largo as that of Camberwell. He believed the population of Camberwell more than doubled that of these three parishes; therefore, he thought it was not at all fair that the scheme should be so applied as to divide the sum amongst the four parishes. He should say that the present scheme would be very injurious to the people of Camberwell, and that it ought not to be carried out.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had so well stated the case against the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey (.Mr. Grantham), that very few words were required from him. This much he would say—that it would be a real calamity to education in the districts concerned if the scheme were allowed to drop. The hon. Member for East Surrey had practically moved the rejection of the scheme. Now, it had taken 10 years to arrive at it, as, owing to the great conflict of opinion between the four parishes, much difficulty was experienced in coming to an agreement on vital points. The Endowed School Commissioners had now brought about the nearest agreement yet attained. The scheme had been prepared with the greatest care; and Canon Robertson had pronounced it to be, as far as he could judge, the most equitable scheme that could be passed. The hon. Member for East Surrey contended that Camberwell did not get its share under the scheme; but they had been told the true history of the endowment—that the funds were left to the three northern parishes. It should be remembered that under the original Act, the School having been taken to Camberwell, the four parishes wore given an equal interest. Whilst St. Giles's, Camberwell, had 310 scholars in the Upper School alone, St. Saviour's had only five, St. Botolph's two, and St. Luke's 276; so that out of nearly 600 scholars, two out of the three northern parishes had only seven between them. Surely the Commissioners were right in making some allowance to the northern parishes, for although the populations wore not so large as that of Camberwell, which was a growing population, as the hon. Member had pointed out, many persons were going there and paying large ground rents and building fine houses, in the hope of educating their children cheaply—it must be remembered that these northern parishes had large populations, and that amongst them they ought to be enabled to provide middle class schools. So it was necessary that the provision which had been made should be made. It was a scheme approximating as nearly as possible to equality; and if they waited until all conflicting views were reconciled, and each parish got what it considered to be its share, they would probably never have a scheme at all. He would ask the hon. Member for East Surrey to remember what a magnificent institution they had at Dulwich; and it was but fair that, even if it cost £2 or £3 a-year more to the richer people, the poorer classes should participate in the endowment and in the £2,000 which was set apart for exhibitions and scholar- ships. He hoped the House, therefore, would sanction the scheme.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 50: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 298.)