HC Deb 11 April 1889 vol 335 cc327-44
*MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Bordesley, Birmingham)

Sir, I beg to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent to the Scheme for the Management of Cradock Wells Charity in Cardiff, now lying upon the 'Fable of the House. In pursuance of my custom or policy, which I shall not cease to follow so long as I have a seat in this House, I take this action uninfluenced one way or other by the locality which any scheme may affect. Before I gave notice of this opposition I had no communication, direct or indirect, with any opponent of the scheme. I oppose the scheme on principle and on its merits. I Lave always opposed similar schemes, no matter what locality or what endowment they might affect, because I object to the policy of the Charity Commissioners, a policy which has been described in this House as a robbery of the poor. I have adopted that description because I believe it correctly describes the course which the Charity Commissioners have adopted during the past twenty years, by which the rights and privileges of the poor have been taken away. I am quite sure that were similar demands to be made in regard to the possessions of other classes of the community, those demands would fail; and it is because the class affected are the most helpless in the community that the system of spoliation has been carried on so successfully for years past. A Session or two ago I brought forward a case which is typical of a large number of cases of schemes of the Charity Commissioners, including the present one. That was the parish of Sutton, which has had £32,000 taken away from the possession of the poor in order that the middle classes and the well-to-do classes might enjoy higher education at half cost. To me it seems a proceeding that cannot be defended either on the ground of justice or morality. But, bad as the cases have been which have been brought before the House on previous occasions, I hold that the present scheme dealing with the Cradock Wells Charity is more flagrant than almost any I have examined. I will in the fewest possible words explain to the House the nature of the Charity, and then proceed to show what the scheme of the Charity Commissioners is. Alderman Cradock held certain properties composed of lands and houses for the education and "bringing up"—a very expressive phrase of "so many poor boys and girls as shall be named yearly, and from time to time by the trustees, the trustees being certain members of the Corporation of the borough, and meaning that as many poor children should be dealt with in this manner as the funds would permit. These poor children were to be instructed to read, write, and cypher, and I would ask the House to notice here that the excuse which the Charity Commissioners as a rule give for taking away these endowments is that the Grammar Schools of old were intended for all classes of the community, and not for the poor. But in this case they had not that excuse, for there is no question of any Grammar School at all. It is a question of paying the school fees of certain poor children, and giving these children other advantages. They were to be clothed in a distinctive dress, no doubt, and there would be objections to that dress; but I am not here to oppose any reform of any kind, and if it is necessary to alter the trust well and good. We have foundations in our time, nevertheless, where those who enjoy the benefits of the foundations are dressed in rather a grotesque fashion. From 1792 the Charity was neglected; the rents were partially misapplied, and in some cases were not collected at all. In 1819 a Petition was presented to the Master of the Rolls praying for the matter to be seen into, and the mal-adminstration of the Charity to be corrected, and that the Master of the Rolls issue a scheme for the encouragement of the Charity. ["Divide!"] The hon. Member behind me would, perhaps, do well if he would bear in mind that we are dealing with the privileges of the poorest class in one of our large towns, and if it is of no importance to him, I can assure him that it is of very great importance to some hundreds and some thousands in the borough of Cardiff, whose lives was not too sweet, and who have not got too much of this world's goods to warrant what they have got being taken away from them. The Master of the Rolls listened to the Petition and issued a scheme in 1821. It was not for education only. It is stated that there should be a sum not exceeding a moiety for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic to poor boys and girls; and here I would remark that, different from most schemes and most bequests, the word "poor" goes through the will and extends through the order of the Master of the Rolls. It is always "poor girls" and "poor boys." There is no sum set aside for building schools; it is for simply paying foes to the National and other schools which existed at that time. A part of the remainder was to be spent on clothing and the purchase of books and other necessary articles. And then there was another portion, such portion as was thought fit to be applied to the second step in life—either to apprenticeship, purchase of clothing, or otherwise, for such of the said poor children as may be selected." That means simply that the poor boys and girls of Cardiff, as far as funds will admit, were to be assisted in getting on in life by education, clothing, and apprenticeship, and other means generally for their benefit. I have here the original bequest, and in 1821 there was what I call a solemn re-dedication of that property for certain well-defined purposes. And I think that should be regarded by this House as a sacred trust, because it was entrusted to the local authority to carry out—a body in whose hands we have always thought the privileges and benefits of the people were secure. But now, what is pro-.posed to be done? I have shown shortly what it was left for. What is going to be done with this property under the scheme of the Charity Commissioners? First of all there is a sum of £800, or one half of the net income, to be applied to the general purposes of the college at Cardiff. It is quite true that that is subject to certain conditions given in the Schedule, those conditions being that there should be a number of scholarships of £20 each, to be paid by the college, and that lecture fees, &c., should be free. These scholarships are to be won by children of not more than 18 years of age in one year, not more than 19 in the next, and not more than 20 in another year, and they are confined to children who, while under the age of 13 years, have been not less than two years in some public elementary school. Now, that is the compensation which the poor children of Cardiff are to get for being deprived of this property, which gives them free education and other advantages. I will now point out to hon. Members how visionary this is. I, as Governor of one of our largest Foundations in the country, know very well by whom and by what class those scholarships are carried off. They are rarely carried off by the poorest children — such children as Cradock Wells and the Master of the Rolls would consider as poor. I am glad to find that the public elementary schools of this country are being used more and more by the middle classes; and it stands to reason that the poorest class will have no chance of winning a scholarship by competition and examination against those who have the advantages such as the middle class and lower middle class possess. Well, that is not all. There is another provision, a further endowment, to be provided for. After having taken this £800 a year, one-half of the net income, the remainder of the income is to be set aside and to accumulate until there can be a new school founded in Cardiff for the purpose of higher education. That is under the 28th Clause; so that you see the poor children of Cardiff have the whole endowment, without any exception, taken away from them in order partly to endow the College of South Wales, for the general purposes of the College, subject to these scholarships, and the remainder of the net income is to be accumulated until a high school can be established in the town. Under the 27th Clause it says that only a high-class school shall be established. There is a sum of £200 to be spent in scholarships in schools already existing. Now, Sir, I have nothing to say as to the merits of these scholarships. All I know is that if they are to be provided they should be provided from some other source, and not carved out of the inheritance of the poor. The fact is that these scholarships are simply put into the scheme as a gloss to give an air of decency to what is a scheme of spoliation. By the 29th Clause of the Act of 1869, under which the scheme is framed, the Charity Commissioners have power to continue the endowment in its present form, modifying it as they choose as regards administration; but by the 30th Clause, under which the Charity Commissioners have confiscated hundreds of thousand of pounds of the property of the poorer classes, it is provided that apprenticeship fees and moneys for advancement in life shall come under the bead of education, and that in any scheme relating to such endowments due regard shall be had to the educational interests of the persons of the same class of life or resident in the particular area as those who, at the commencement of the Act, are benefited thereby. I maintain that this clause has been violated by the scheme. The clause was intended to secure the benefit of the endowment to the poorer classes, to whom the original bequest was made, but under the scheme there is scarcely a single child who will be benefited of the class that the Master of the Rolls would designate as a poor child of Cardiff. Hon. Members who cry "Divide" are impatient. They are in the habit of bringing forward Resolutions asking the House to consider the condition of the poorer classes in large towns, and I want those who are always so willing to support Academic Resolutions in favour of the poorer classes—I want to ask them when it comes to a practical application of their own views, to say whether they are ready to Vote away £1,600 per annum, which is money that was left for the benefit of the poor children of the borough of Cardiff. I want to see what difference there is between profes- sion and practice. Here is a case in. which the poverty of a large town might, at any rate, be somewhat alleviated. In one of their Reports the Charity Commissioners say their sole object is to promote the interests of the founders of charities, and they refer to the purely remedial and protective character of the jurisdiction of the State. That paragraph seems a fine piece of irony when read in, connection with this scheme. That the governors of the College themselves are aware that the money is to be paid for the general support of the College is shown in the printed statement of their case, in which they state that one of the reasons why the money was voted was that there is an honourable understanding between the Town Council and the authorities of the College. But I maintain that no trustee has a right to vote away the money belonging to the poorer classes. And as a proof that they look to this money for the maintenance of higher education, they say that if these obligations are not fulfilled a diminution of efficiency or an increase of fees must be experienced, because with such a small endowment it is impossible to provide higher education at a rate of payment that will bring it within the reach of the poorer classes. Now, I believe that the honour of Cardiff is involved, and I believe that it will be a blot upon its great educational institution if it is supported by funds taken from such a source. I need not say I am in favour of higher education of every kind, and have been alt my life; but I object to its being supported out of the inheritance of the poor. I have here a letter from a gentleman at Cardiff, in which he says— I am sorry that this, the taking the funds of the poor, has been more easy of accomplishment because those who on ordinary occasions are the mouthpieces of the poor have been tempted to remain quiescent or in fact to support a Scheme for the benefit of the class in which they move, and they, therefore, allow their better nature to be lured into perpetrating as monstrous a robbery as was ever perpetrated by the most notorious highwayman. In 1887 the mayor presided over two-town's meetings, when resolutions were carried against the scheme. There have been petitions within the last few days signed by 10,000 adults against it, and there is a general feeling existing in the town in opposition to it. I can. not help thinking that if the Welsh Members had not had their views rather obscured by the establishment of the College they would see that there is something unfair in the scheme. If it becomes operative the poorer classes will have to go through the ordeal of having their fees remitted practically as paupers, or they will be summoned for their fees, or they will have to make great sacrifices to raise the money, while at the same time they will see in Cardiff a great educational institution maintained partly by funds belonging to them, and which, if they had the enjoyment of them, would have saved them from their difficulties. I trust that the Government will be neutral with regard to the scheme, which is that of the Charity Commissioners—a body which is subject to no jurisdiction but that of a Vote of this House. Last year the Government allowed the Dauntsey scheme to be defeated, and the result is that the benefit under the new scheme will be largely increased. I hope to-night that the example will be followed or the scheme withdrawn. My right hon. Friend, (Mr. Mundella) has more than once taken me to task for the part I have taken in dealing with these endowments. I remember once he described me as an old Tory. I am no stickler for terms, and if Radicalism consists of advocating academic resolutions in favour of the poor, and voting against practical relief for the poor, I shall not stick for terms. I shall vote for measures not men. I shall continue to oppose every one of these nefarious schemes, the victims of which are the helpless and the poverty-stricken. During the last 150 years the poor have been deprived of their lands, and we have gone a long way towards depriving them of their endowments. By passing the scheme before the House we shall be depriving the poor of Cardiff of what is really their property, as much as the property of any other class is theirs.

*SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

I have found that the hon. Member who has just sat down has always consistently opposed those schemes. He has dressed up the present scheme in such a garb that if its parents met it in the street they would fail to recognize it. This discussion is a most important one, and I may go so far as to say that if the House is to reject this scheme, it would be far better and far more practical for it to consider the advisability of repealing these Acts altogether, because, if ever there was a scheme which came exactly within the scope and intention of the Acts, the present scheme does so. The Acts to which I refer are founded on the Report of the School Inquiry Commission, in which they say the main object of the founders of endowed schools is, in the judgment of the Commission, not so much to benefit particular classes or localities as education. There was a Committee which sat on the question of charitable trusts, and reported that the evidence before them tended to show that such dissatisfaction as then existed towards the action of the Charity Commissioners was in respect of their declining to give funds for the promotion of primary schools. A Committee of this House was appointed in consequence of that very report, and specially dealt with that question of "robbing the poor," and that Committee reported that the object of the Charity Commissioners was the provision of educational advantages to the poor of a character not accessible to them under the ordinary law; that scholarships and exhibitions were founded; and, in the opinion of the Committee, the main design of the-founder was thus reasonably attained. That Report is only two years old. The policy of the scheme is that which was approved by this Select Committee. Let me give the origin of the endowment. It began in the year 1714, and was of the annual value of £20. In 1801, when the first census was taken, Cardiff had a population of 1,800. Now it has a population of between 120,000 and 130,000. The annual value of the endowment now is £1,600. The scheme deals with only £1,000 per annum. The rest of the money is to be allowed to accumulate for the foundation of an intermediate or secondary school. Of the £1,000 a sum of £200 is to be devoted to scholarships of from £3 to £10 for the education of poor children who have been not less than two years in an elementary school where the fees have not been over 6d. a week. The other £800 a year is that paid to the University College at Cardiff, and is to be ap- plied to fifteen exhibitions of £20, with an exemption from payment of lecture fees, which meant another £10 a year; thus a sum of £450 a year is to go to the endowment of the College for the direct benefit of the poor children of Cardiff who have been not less than two years in an elementary school. Therefore, it will be seen that the huge edifice which had been raised about the robbery of the poor of Cardiff is not founded upon facts. There will be a balance of £3;0, and this will be devoted towards the maintenance of the University College at Cardiff, which will give education which cannot be obtained at less than £30 a year in the London University College, and, therefore, this sum for maintenance is to be defended. I venture to assert that it is utterly impossible, when the scheme is looked at, to say that it robs the poor. This House should either at once repeal these Acts and say they are destructive of the cause of education and an injury to the poor, or unanimously support such a scheme as this. The opposition which has been evoked by the scheme the most tortuous and curious I ever knew. I agree it is a mistake to force on any locality a scheme which is not looked upon with favour by the persons residing there. This scheme was published in the autumn of 1887 and sanctioned by myself on the 16th of December, 1888. When the scheme was first published the Ratepayers' Association sent up a series of resolutions to the Charity Commissioners as to how the charity should be dealt with. They suggested that apprenticeships, exhibitions, and scholarships should be established by this endowment, tenable at the South Wales College. And that is the very proposal embodied in this scheme. If it was good for the ratepayers in 1887, why is it not good for them in 1889? The scheme is founded on the lines provided by the Act, and I deny that it is a scheme of robbery. On the contrary, it is one of enormous benefit to the future education of the poor of Cardiff. I sanctioned it on my own responsibility and I asked hon. Members to consider it on its merits. In my judgment a better scheme under the Act has never been framed, and if the House reject it, not only will they deal a deadly blow to the Acts of Parliament under which it is framed, but to the future welfare of the poorest of the poor among the working men of Cardiff.

*MR. J. M. MACLEAN (Oldham)

I deplore the circumstances under which this matter has to be discussed. These schemes of the Charity Commissioners are placed on the Table at a late hour of the night, and instead of being discussed in different stages, like other business of the House, we have to settle once and for all whether the scheme is to be approved, and that before Members have really had the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with its merits. I am willing to bear witness to the patience shown by the Vice-President of the Council in listening to objections against the scheme, and I know that he refrained from giving his consent to it last autumn until he saw whether there was opposition to it from the town of Cardiff. I think, however, the right hon. Gentleman has underrated the strength of the local feeling now developed against this measure. There have been petitions presented, one of them bearing the signatures of nearly 10,000 adult persons; there has been a Resolution from the Board of Guardians, and a Petition from the managers of all the voluntary schools and the Roman Catholic and Church of England schools. The Catholic priests and the Church of England clergymen have denounced the measure as antagonistic to the interests of the poorer classes of the community, and in other ways there has been a great demonstration of opposition to the measure in the borough of Cardiff. It should be borne in mind by hon. Members that this is a bequest left for the benefit of the pourer people of Cardiff. I can understand that the Members representing Wales as a whole wish to see the scheme carried out, because their constituents will participate in the benefit of the endowment. It has been said that a bargain was made at the time the University College of South Wales was founded that so much of this money should be given for the use of the college. But who had authority to make a bargain of that kind? If it was done by the Members of the Town. Council, who were the trustees for the Cradock Wells Charity, then the con- tract they made is an immoral one, and ought not to be sanctioned by Parliament. These are the main points which I wish to urge in support of the Motion brought forward by the hon. M ember for the Bordesley Division. It is perfectly clear that the Vice-President seems to have misunderstood the matter. He spoke of this college as though it were for the purposes of Cardiff alone. But it is a national college for all Wales, and we are going to admit all the population of Wales to the benefit of charity which was left for the poor of Cardiff. That is an appropriation which ought not to be sanctioned by this House. One of the most shameful pages in our history has been the spoliation of the poor by the upper classes. I think after what has been said by the Vice-President of the Council, that the Government wish to put no constraint upon the votes of Members—that hon. Members may fairly consider this question on its merits, and, not through any generous feeling, but from a sense of justice, declare that the endowment which was left for the benefit of the poor of Cardiff, and for their benefit alone, should not be taken away from them and appropriated to other purposes.

SIR E. J. REED (Cardiff)

I should be very, very sorry, Sir, if this House were to infer from the speech we have just listened to that there is any widespread opposition in Cardiff to this scheme. The constituted authorities, the Corporation of Cardiff, the School Board, and the governors of the charity themselves are all in favour of the scheme, and the circumstances under which it has been opposed and petitioned against have been of a very remarkable character. I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend who has just spoken is very intimately and closely associated with the most active spirit of the opposition, who happens to be the editor of the local paper, and who, after participating in committing the honour of the town to the proposals embodied in the scheme, has, for some purpose best known to himself, conducted a strong opposition against it, and when this sort of thing is done, when there are a great many statements made about the poor being robbed, and petitions are being presented at the corners of streets, and every means resorted to for securing signatures, I think the House will be able to appreciate the difference between agitation of this sort and the deliberate opinions pronounced by deliberative bodies in the town in favour of the scheme. I should be slow to express any objection to the general line of action taken by the hon. Member for Bordesley. I think he has done a great public service in watching every one of these schemes, and taking all the pains he can to prevent any diversion of money left to the poor. But I am at an entire loss to understand how the hon. Gentleman's mind has worked in connection with this case. What is the actual situation? A couple of centuries ago a gentleman left a small amount for the purpose of securing to certain poor children instruction in writing, reading, and ciphering. I challenge hon. Gentlemen to say that there is anything in the will stating that the bequest is for any other purpose. I am afraid that the case has been a little prejudiced by the extreme feeling shown in a certain quarter of the House, and I must say I have listened with regret to some of the expressions used. I hope the question will not be prejudiced by them. Every poor child in Cardiff, as in every other great town, is now provided with instruction in reading, writing, and ciphering. Not free, certainly, but free in a sense, and, if poor, they are freely admitted to the instruction. As the representative of Cardiff, I should be very sorry to stand here in favour of a scheme which deprived the poor of the town of any right. The Vice President of the Council has been good enough to suggest that he does not care for my own status, but I do hope that this case will not be used for the purpose of overthrowing a course of action which has been taken by successive Administrations, and the justice of which I firmly believe in myself.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, West)

I am quite sure the House will thoroughly appreciate the admirable spirit in which the hon. Gentleman who last spoke has couched his remarks, and will pay the attention due to him not only on his own account, but also as representing the borough chiefly concerned in this matter. For my part I am prepared to take, without exception, his statement as to the state of local feeling. But apart from the question of local feeling, we have in considering the merits of this scheme to decide whether the House approves the principle of the Act of 1869 literally carried out in those educational schemes. If the Act of 1869 is to govern all these schemes, why did the Vice President oppose two schemes during the course of his Administration on precisely the same grounds on which we ask for the rejection of this scheme—namely, that they appropriated funds which were intended for the benefit of the poor fox the benefit of the higher classes? When the Act of 1869 was passed, it did not seem to enter into the minds of the promoters that by the course they were taking they would be doing an injustice to a large class of the population. Since then attention has been called to the matter, which has been the subject of agitation throughout the country, and I will undertake to say now that if the principle of these Acts were submitted to the country, you would find a total change in public opinion on the subject. My first answer to the right hon. Gentleman is this: I do object to the principle of the Act of 1869, and I object to every scheme which, in accordance with that principle, takes any fund whatsoever from the poor, fox whom alone it was intended by the founder of the charity, and applies the money to the education of the upper and middle, and lower middle classes. ["Divide!"] I assure my hon. Friends below the Gangway they will only delay the proceedings by their interruptions. Now I come to the special circumstances of this case. Supposing we were agreed as to the principle, is the principle I have laid down violated in this particular scheme? The Vice President says it is not. Let me ask the House to consider the figures. Here is a fund of £1,600; £200 goes for scholarships, in connection with the higher elementary schools, £300 goes for 15 scholarships tenable at the college, and £150 goes for the fees of those scholarships. That makes a total of £650; and what becomes of the other £950? In any case the poor are robbed of that; and as for the £650, which nominally is devoted to them, the benefits of that sum are really enjoyed by the children of small shopkeepers and others, who are really above the poor, though attending the elementary schools. A short time ago I had a conversation with a Charity Commissioner on this subject, and I challenged him to point to any scheme recommended to the House by the Charity Commissioners and successive Vice Presidents in which funds have been appropriated to scholarships which were intended to be held by the poor, and to show that in after years it was the poor who benefited by them. He was unable to do so, and I defy anyone to do so now. It is the old fable of the Stork and the Fox. It is no use putting aside scholarships for the poor if you know that hereafter the poor will not be able to earn them. As a matter of fact, these scholarships always fall into the hands of the better educated and richer classes. Turning to the local circumstances in this case, let me say I can understand the interest hon. Members for Wales take in the scheme. They would have us believe they support the scheme upon its merits; but their support of it is due to the bargain the people of Cardiff made some years ago in order to obtain the location of the South Wales College in Cardiff. For that location they undertook to make over this Charity for the benefit of the College. [An HON. MEMBER: With the consent of the Government.] Yes; but it is the Government which have made the scheme necessary. The Welsh Members support the scheme because of their great and legitimate interest in the New College of South Wales, but I ask the House not to let this College, which is going to be of the greatest possible advantage to Wales, begin with a wrong step. Do not let it be erected on what, after all, is the inheritance of the poor, and what does not belong to the people the majority of whom will be the beneficaries of the College. I cannot help thinking that the people of Cardiff have sold their inheritance for a mess of pottage. If the interest of Cardiff is to be considered in the matter, if the College is not to be obtained on any other terms, I do not say it would not be worth the while of the people of Cardiff to sacrifice this income, which belongs to the poor, but I maintain the people who gave up this income had no right to give it up. I ask the House to put aside the peculiar local interest which has been represented by the cheering we have had to-night, and to answer the general question. I ask this Parliament whether it is going, by adopting this scheme, to follow the example which, I am sorry to say, has been set by many Parliaments before—once more to give up an endowment which belongs to the poor, and hand it over to people of a better class of life. Would you deal in this way with this endowment if it belonged to any of the professions? Suppose it bad been left to the medical profession, would anyone have consented to hand it over to the legal profession? If you would not hand an endowment from one profession to another, why hand an endowment from one class to another, and hand it from a class which, by necessity, is least represented? The continual surrender of these endowments for the purposes of higher education has been bitterly felt by the poorer people throughout the country. I believe it is most unpopular, and I hope that even now, in spite of the strength of the support this scheme has from both Front Benches, the House will determine to reject it.

MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS

rose in his place and claimed to move "That the question be now put"; but Mr. Deputy Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.

*MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside Div.)

I know the whole history of this scheme, as I was one of the arbitrators selected by the South Wales people to decide on the locality of the South Wales College. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) is evidently most imperfectly informed; he is in the same position as the Mover of the Resolution; they are both exceedingly ill-informed as to the scheme and the attendant circumstances. They talk about robbing the poor of Cardiff. My right hon. Friend says Cardiff has sold its inheritance for a message of potage, and speaks as though the establishment of the University College depended on this scheme, whereas it has been in full working for five years or more. I hope the House will take this matter into its serious consideration. I trust they will not decide the question upon any Party issues, but in the interest of the poor in the interest of the children of the poor, and in no other interest. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Vice-President did not put the question a little higher than he did, because he knows very well that if this scheme is rejected, we might as well send the Charity Commissioners about their business. [" Hear, hear."] You approve of that, then you ought to dismiss the Vice President of the Council, because this is not the scheme of the Charity Commissioners but of the Government. It is shabby to put the responsibility for the scheme on the Charity Commissioners instead of upon Her Majesty's Government. When I sat on that Bench, I always took the responsibility for these schemes, and they ought to be prepared to take the responsibility for this scheme. I should be sorry if anything my right hon. Friend said injured this scheme, which is calculated to be most beneficial to the people of Cardiff. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham said he objects to every scheme which applies the property of the poor to the uses of the upper and middle classes, and then he went on to say this did so. First of all, he said that £200 is to go to scholarships for higher education. What is the higher education pro- posed? It is taking children from the lower elementary schools in Cardiff over 10 years of age to the higher elementary schools. Clause 27 provides for the setting apart yearly of a sum of not more than £200 out of the income to be applied to scholarships to be tenable for such period as the governors think fit at a school in Cardiff known as the Higher Elementary School or any other like public elementary school in Cardiff. Now, my right hon. Friend says that we know very well that the poor will not get these scholarships. Sir, I think he is entirely mistaken, for the brains of the children of the poor are just as good as the brains of the children of the shopkeepers, to which class he seems to fear the benefits of the Charity will go. My right hoe. Friend near me, who presided over the Select Committee which inquired into this subject, says the Committee found there were hundreds of poor children who were capable of taking such scholarships as sthese.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

I was a member of that Committee, and I must say that the finding of the Committee was directly in the teeth of that assertion.

*MR. MUNDELLA

I have my information on the authority of the Chairman of the Committee, and the report records the names and addresses of the children. Personally I know that we have higher elementary schools in the town of Sheffield, and I am well aware of the class of children who have won the scholarships in those schools. So also is the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, as he recently distributed the prizes there. The winners of these scholarships have been poor children, some of them among the poorest of the poor. If to raise the children of the poor to a higher scale of intelligence, if to provide the educational ladder for such of them as are endowed with natural gifts is to be called robbing the poor, I say it is an abuse of language. I call it raising of the poor. And now let me say a word as to the grant of money to be made to the Cardiff College. That college is not doing merely University work, but it has established an excellent system of night classes, together with the teasching of mechanics, engineering, mining, and subjects applicable to the industries in the immediate neighbourhood; it is for the benefit of the whole people of Cardiff, therefore, that the money should be given to the support of the college. It is true that £600 of the income of the charity is still unappropriated, because, as yet, the fund is not sufficiently large to establish an upper class school; but I am quite sure that when the scheme comes out the Charity Commissioners will do in this case what they have done in others—they will appropriate scholarships in the upper class school to children from the elementary schools of the town. I do trust that the House will approve this scheme. Remember that in 1870 the school of the Charity had fallen into desuetude, the land belonging to the Charity produced nothing, but it has since been looked after, and turned to good account, and the Charity now has an income of £1,500 a year. What is proposed by the scheme is for the best interest of the poor of Cardiff. The school fees of all the poorest children in the town are remitted now. But how much longer are fees going to be paid at all? Fees have been abolished in Scotland, and is it to be supposed that England and Wales are going to be without free education much longer? Looking at the matter from a common sense point of view and apart from any attempt to make cheap popularity out of it, I am quite sure that the House will not reject this scheme.

MR. ARTHUR J. WILLIAMS (G., Glamorgan, S.)

rose in his place and claimed to move "That the question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 171 (Div. List No. 74).

The House adjourned at 2 o'clock.