HC Deb 29 July 1878 vol 242 cc612-27

(The Lord Advocate.)

[BILL 157.] COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he trusted hon. Members would allow them to go into Committee on this Bill. It was intended to give all the trustees of these institutions a chance of reforming themselves; and, if the Bill were postponed to another year, the opinions of the Government would remain the same. The Government proposed that the trustees should have power conferred upon them for a limited time to promote schemes of reform. These schemes would be referred to a Commission, and the names of the Commissioners would be given to the House before the Bill passed. It was quite evident that those who took the extreme view that there should be some summary measure, would gain their object earlier by supporting the Bill. The schemes proposed by the trustees would be referred to the Government for approval. This would be the last chance which the trustees would have of reforming themselves. The Government undertook, by the Bill, not to vary the schemes in any vital point. Under those circumstances, the trustees would have a free course of action. They must, however, bear in mind that their schemes must be bonâ fide, and such as would meet with the approval of the Commission and the Government. After the schemes had been proposed and approved, there would follow an Executive Bill to carry them out; and, if this were not sent in and approved of, then the Government would do for the trustees what they would or could not do for themselves. He trusted the House would agree to the Bill, which, if it did not go so far as some hon. Members wished, was still a long step in the direction recommended by the Commission which had already reported upon the question; and, if the Bill was not passed this Session, it would be brought in again next year.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

wished to understand clearly that the Bill should not pass without the names of the Commissioners being given, and when they should have an opportunity of discussing the Bill. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: On the third reading.] He hoped they would not be asked to pass the Bill through an important stage at a period of the evening when it was impossible to discuss it fully. After the inquiries instituted by the Commission of which he had been Chairman, it was very disheartening that they should have to begin with this legislation. The trustees of many of the institutions to be dealt with were guided by very narrow instincts—narrower, in fact than the trusts. For instance, Heriot's Hospital had always been spoken of as if it belonged to Edinburgh; but the fact was, it was a double endowment, first for the benefit of Edinburgh, secondly for the benefit of the whole world, through the University—as would be seen from an examination of the codicils to George Heriot's will. Hitherto the endowments had been administered wholly in the interest of Edinburgh. He did not think that that was the way in which this matter should be carried out. But if it were to go on, it must be upon condition that there should be a strong assurance to the people of Scotland that the Government was in earnest, and that the time for the duration of this measure was only a year, and that after that year the Government would be prepared to act in the spirit of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. He could see no reason why they should not act in that manner at once, and why the Bill should not be upon the same principle as that upon which legislation for England had proceeded. There was no reason that he could see for any difference between the two countries in that matter. He did not, however, wish to oppose the Motion for going into in to Committee on the Bill; but it must be on the clear understanding that, before another stage was reached, the Government would give the names of the Commissioners proposed to be appointed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

was very much disposed to support the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, provided they could be carried out fully and fairly, and that nothing was done which should have the effect of leading the trustees of the Endowed Schools and Hospitals into a trap. He did not take so gloomy a view of the position of trustees as was taken by the hon. Baronet. In the burgh he represented there was an important educational trust; and while there was in it, like others of the kind, great room for reform, those who represented that trust were themselves sincerely anxious to reform it, and only sought facilities to enable them to do this. As the Bill originally stood, where the trustees agreed to a scheme of reform, the Commissioners, whose names had not yet been given, and afterwards, the Government, might alter it. It was said by the Government that such schemes were not to be altered in any material degree. But he was apprehensive that there was not sufficient safeguard to satisfy trustees that something would not be imposed upon them for which they had not bargained. If it were clearly understood that nothing should be done against the will of the trustees, and that the Government should only retain the power of rejecting a proposal, he could see no objection to the measure. Not only did he think that it was necessary that the Amendment of the Lord Advocate should be adopted; but he was of opinion that it should be made perfectly clear, so that the trustees should not find their schemes altered in any material degree. It was, further, of the utmost importance that the names of the Commissioners should be made known to Parliament as soon as possible, for the whole working of the Bill would rest with the Commissioners to be appointed. His chief apprehension was that those gentlemen who might be appointed might be inclined to carry out the principle which had already been carried too far in England—namely, the diversion of endowments intended for the poor to the benefit of those who were not poor. He was very anxious that a change of that kind should not take place. In his own burgh a foundation had been established at a not very recent period, which was made as exclusively and absolutety for poor people as possible. He should be sorry to see that and similar foundations diverted by Commissioners from their original objects.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

did not think that much of real reform was to be expected from the Bill. It was all very well to propose that reforms should be carried out in the abstract on liberal principles; but that might mean anything or nothing. In his opinion, the reforms should all proceed upon this principle— that the benefits be conferred, not as a matter of favour, but as a reward of merit; that was the principle which should run through all these foundations. Times had very much changed, and it was now found, from experience, that whore foundations were applied as a matter of favour the privileges conferred did more harm than good. This Bill was most important, and ought to be discussed at a time when it could be reported in Scotland. He did not think that a proper discussion of it could take place at that hour in the morning. Speaking from experience of the last Act of a similar character, he should not be disappointed if this Bill was dropped. Under the last Act only two schemes were proposed, and one only was passed. That was some indication as to what might be expected to be done under the present Bill. In his opinion, trustees would not be likely to agree to schemes of real reform. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would find some other evening for the discussion, when the Scotch Members would have an opportunity of taking part in it. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

MR. LEITH

seconded the Motion. He said that there was a promise that Scotch Business should receive more attention, and yet this Bill was now brought forward at a time when it was impossible for it to have full discussion; and while, at the same time, it was admitted that the Bill was one of very great consequence and would affect a very large amount of property in Scotland. In the constituency which he had the honour to represent, there was a large amount of property depending upon this Bill; and he did protest, in the cause of his constituency, against so important a measure being brought on at past 12 o'clock at night. He would also call attention to the way in which Ministers had dealt with Irish Business in contradistinction to Scotch Business. The reason for that difference of treatment was that Scotch Members were not banded together for the purpose of obstructing the measures which the Government might bring forward; but were always ready to assist the Government in the progress of beneficial legislation for England, Scotland, or Ireland. Therefore, he thought it was not right that the Government should treat Scotch Business in the way they did, and give the preference to Irish measures over those relating to Scotland. With reference to what had been stated by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the Commissioners, he thought that the names of the Gentlemen proposed to be appointed should be given to the House before it went into Committee. It was of great importance that those names should be known, and he thought that a distinct pledge should be given by the Government that the names should be made known at an early stage of the Bill. He was in favour of the Bill, and on behalf of his constituents would offer every facility in his power for its passing. But there were certain conditions which in fairness they had a right to ask, and one was that they should be given the names of the Commissioners, at least, before they arrived at the stage when the Bill was reported. It was most important to recollect that everything must depend upon the character and conduct of the Commissioners.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned," —(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

observed, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had censured the conduct of the Government in showing undue partiality to Irish measures, and in bringing forward an important Scotch measure at that hour. He must remind the hon. Gentleman that, at that period of the Session, unless the Bill was got through that night, it was impossible for it to pass. That fact was clearly understood in Scotland. As to the general charge of neglect of Scotch Business, he begged the hon. Gentleman to remember how much time had recently been spent upon matters relating exclusively to Scotland. If he took the trouble to count up the nights spent on the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill, and other measures, he would find that as much time had been spent in Scottish matters as on those relating to Ireland. In regard to the measure now before the House, did hon. Members wish it to pass or not? If they did, he hoped that at that hour they would not refuse any longer to go into Committee.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, it was, no doubt, very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Scotch Members ought to go into this matter without further discussion; but it was not at all agreeable to those for whom he spoke to follow that advice. The Home Secretary did not explain how he differed from the Report of the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman simply said, dogmatically, that the Government did not agree with it, and had consequently brought in the present Bill; and he threatened that if it were not accepted, a precisely similar measure would be brought in again next year. Why were Scotch Members to be treated in this manner? Why was Scotland to be so served? Was the wisdom of the Home Secretary so great and so concentrated as to overcome that of the whole of the Royal Commissioners who had reported on the subject? But he hoped that the Lord Advocate might be able to supply the omission. In what state would they be if the Bill were passed? If, with the large experience of the working of endowments in England, it was found desirable for the Royal Commissioners to have full power to promulgate schemes, why should not the Scotch Commissioners also have the power? There was no reason to suppose the Scotch Commissioners would not do their duty as well as the English ones. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had said that if the Bill were changed to that extent its chance of passing would be over; but he could not regard that as an excuse. The only point upon which he was satisfied was the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government would, in the future, bring in a more firm and sweeping Bill than the present. For his part, he could not see any reason why two measures of reform were necessary. There was no reason why everything should not be done by the present Bill; and he was entirely dissatisfied with the feebleness and weakness of the present measure, which he thought would do no good to Scotland. He should certainly vote for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. M'LAREN

wished to protest against the assumption that the people of Scotland were of the same opinion as the Royal Commission, and that they desired their recommendations should be adopted. From that view he entirely dissented. He believed that if this were to be made a test question, an enormous majority of the people of Scotland would be in favour of giving the trustees three years to decide as to the schemes they would propose, and have the matter settled by a local body rather than handed over to a Government Commission with no local knowledge. In Scotland, the opinions generally were that the Government plan was the best. All those who took the other side in this controversy could require was that the Government should be pledged to bring in an additional Bill at a subsequent period.

COLONEL MURE

hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. It was the desire of the people of Scotland that the trustees should have an opportunity of proposing reforms. Many of the trustees who now desired reform were trammelled by local influences and prejudices. If the Bill passed in its present form, it would have the effect, in every locality, of giving the trustees an opportunity of reforming themselves; and, at the same time, hold over them the probability of being dealt with if they neglected to reform. He would himself be exceedingly sorry if the period allowed for reform were shortened. He quite agreed with what had been said that the names of the Commissioners should be announced before Report.

MR. RAMSAY

said, that the general object of the Bill was to secure the better administration of the Endowed Schools and Hospitals in Scotland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was not very accurate in the figures he had given, for there was no institution in Glasgow that possessed £48,000 a-year. He did not remember that there was any other institution in Scotland, which enjoyed so large an income as Heriot's Hospital. [Mr. M'LAREN reminded the hon. Member of Hutchinson's Hospital.] He thought it was a mistake to say that that institution had £48,000 a-year, it was not yet one-half of that amount. He thought the Bill was of very little consequence in an educational point of view, as the Commissioners who were to be appointed had not the slightest power to do anything. They might report to the Secretary of State, but that was all. And yet it was proposed to pay several of those Commissioners. What were they to be paid for? They could do nothing but report to the Secretary of State. He objected altogether to such a proposal, and should move in Committee that it be rejected. He should do that not simply on the ground of economy, although that in itself was a very important element, but also on the ground of efficiency. The work could be done without any payment, and it certainly would be a great blunder if the provision for payment of the Commissioners were retained in the Bill. He hoped, when they came to discuss the details of the measure, the right hon. Gentleman would give careful consideration to the arguments he should adduce against his proposal.

MR. GRANT DUFF

said, he knew in his part of the country the opinion about the Bill was that it was one which might do some little good; but that the clauses giving the Secretary of State power to interfere were not nearly strong enough. Therefore, he should give effect to what he believed to be the opinion of his constituents by voting for the Motion for adjournment, unless the right hon. Gentleman would distinctly tell them that upon Report the Government would name the Commissioners they proposed to appoint.

MR. YEAMAN

hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would withdraw his Motion for adjournment. No doubt, improvements could be made in the Bill; but they must remember that the end of the Session was fast approaching, and if the measure did not come on that night, they would not have an opportunity of discussing it again this year. He had not such little confidence in the Commission it was proposed to appoint; and he considered that the Bill might be passed in a very short time, if those Gentlemen who were not pleased with it would at once proceed with their Amendments.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

asked the hon. Member for Forfarshire to withdraw his Amendment. The Scotch Members had had very frequently to complain of the neglect of Scotch Business in past Sessions, and especially of Scotch Business being held over until the early hours of a morning. But this Session the Government had certainly behaved better towards Scotland, and it was, undoubtedly, the case that a longer time had been spent on the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill than on any other measure save the Cattle Bill. It was better to have the measure now before them at such an hour than not to have it at all, and he hoped it would pass this Session.

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

said, he had seen many Bills, quite as important as the one before the House, taken at such an hour in the morning. He was quite satisfied, and he thought the House ought to be, with the discussion they had had on the Bill, and he hoped they would at once go into Committee. Of course, the measure was not all they could desire. A strong Government could not always produce as strong a Bill as might be wished for; but he thought the one before them, as far as it went, was a good Bill, and he objected to its being postponed until another Session. They should take it now for what it was worth, remembering that half a loaf was better than no bread. He had every confidence that the trustees of endowments in Scotland, when they knew the feeling and temper of the House and of the Scotch Members upon the subject, would voluntarily produce such schemes of reform in the management of their institutions as would meet with the approval of all parties.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he should be happy to withdraw his Motion for adjournment, especially as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was satisfied to proceed with the Bill at such an hour.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Application of Act) agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation of terms).

On the Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Amendment made, in page 2, line 3, after "charitable," by inserting "or for the establishment and maintenance of a public library;" also, in page 2, line 6, after "charitable," by inserting " or for the establishment and maintenance of a public library."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Governing body may resolve to apply for a Provisional Order).

MR. YEAMAN

moved, in line 20, after "thereof," to insert "or for the transference of such institution and the endowments thereof."

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALROUR

said, in his county there was a number of small endowments, and he should be glad to know if the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee would be to combine these several endowments in one?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, it would be competent to do so under the Bill as it stood.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Governing body may present petition to Secretary of State) agreed to.

Clause 6 (Commissioners may inquire and report to Secretary of State) agreed to.

Clause 7 (Power of Secretary of State to issue Provisional Order).

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

, in moving, in page 3, line 8, to leave out from "or" to "requisite," inline 10, said, his Amendment was placed upon the Paper immediately after the second reading of the Bill, and the object of it was to make it a purely permissive measure; and yet, at the same time, effective as a permissive Bill. He would leave it to the trustees to say if any alteration should be made; and he was glad to see that, since his Amendment had been down, the Lord Advocate had proposed to make an alteration very nearly to the same effect. He thought the trustees should have power to make alterations which were not inconsistent with the general principles of the Bill, and the simplest and most straightforward thing was to allow them to bring forward schemes for the reform of these institutions.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he should, if necessary, second the proposition of the hon. Member opposite. The Amendment was not inconsistent with that of the Lord Advocate's, but entirely consistent with it. He therefore hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that by the Amendment it was proposed to strike out certain words, the want of which would compel the Secretary of State to accept the prayer of the Petition presented to him.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

understood that that had been already conceded by the Secretary of State, when he provided that the proposals of the Government should be substantially the same as the recommendations of the trustees.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he expressed no opinion upon the wording of the clause. He left that entirely to his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME

did not understand what the word "substantially" might mean. It certainly was rather a doubtful phrase.

MR. RAMSAY

considered that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir William Cuninghame) had got conceded to him all he could expect. To go any further in the direction desired by the hon. Member would be to still further weaken a measure which, as it was presented, was weak enough. He therefore hoped the Lord Advocate would not give way any further.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

would like the word "substantially" to be interpreted.

DR. CAMERON

thought the Amendment of the Lord Advocate would exactly carry out what was necessary.

Amendment negatived.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

moved, in page 3, line 9, to insert, after the word "modifications," the words "not being inconsistent with the general principles thereof."

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

thought the Amendment a very unwise one. He thought the Commissioners should have full power to make alterations for the benefit of the public, and they ought to be able to decide what changes were required in the interest of the country.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

thought the fact of the Secretary of State having to determine what changes were consistent would be likely to lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction. Was the Home Secretary to be absolute in his decisions, or subject to the revision of the Courts of Law?

MR. M'LAREN

regretted the reference to Courts of Law. If the Home Secretary thought the proposals of trustees reasonable, he would allow them to go before Parliament, and if he did not, he would stop them. There was no reason for Courts of Law coming within the four corners of the Bill at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Provisional Order to be laid before Parliament) agreed to.

Clause 9 (Several governing bodies may concur in applying for Provisional Order) agreed to.

Clause 10 (Governing body may apply for transference of endowments to other governing bodies or school boards).

MR. YEAMAN

moved, in page 4, line 1, after the first "of," to insert "the institution and."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Commissioners to be appointed).

MR. M'LAREN

moved, in page 4, at end, to add the words— And no Commissioner shall receive any payment except for such travelling expenses as he may incur in the service of the Commission.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he would accept the Amendment.

MR. RAMSAY

thought the object in view would be better met by the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

MR. M'LAREN

expressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member, which was to the same effect, but differently expressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RAMSAY

then moved, in page 4, line 20, to add, at the end of the Clause— Provided, That such Commissioners shall receive no remuneration except for such reason-able travelling or other expenses as may be incurred in the discharge of their duties under this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 (Commissioners to report).

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

remarked that it would be well for the Commissioners to make a Report every three months.

MR. RAMSAY

thought it would be a little too much to expect the Commissioners to make a Report so frequently.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Saving powers of governing bodies under special Acts, &c).

MR. M'LAREN

moved, in page 5, line 9, after "Parliament," to insert "or Provisional Order."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause .14 (Commencement and duration of Act).

MR. RAMSAY

moved, in page 5, line 16, the substitution of the words "seventy-nine " for the word " eighty," as the time allowed for trustees to send in schemes for the reform of their endowed schools and hospitals. He believed the Government had accepted one year for the period in question.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 16, to leave out the word "eighty," in order to insert the words '' seventy-nine."—(Mr. Ramsay.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'eighty' stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

could not accept the Amendment, as it was perfectly obvious the Commissioners would not be able to report in time.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

thought the time fixed by the Bill was perfectly reasonable, and hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, that the Re-port of the Royal Commission was issued in February, 1875, and trustees had had long notice to prepare for reform. From year to year they had been in expectation that the Bill would pass, and they ought, therefore, to have their plans ready. In his opinion, it would be desirable to shorten the time. If the schemes were required to be prepared in reasonable time, those trustees who stood aloof, declining all reform, could be the sooner dealt with, if necessary, by a further measure.

MR. M'LAREN

thought it unlikely that large bodies of trustees would agree in any general plan for their several endowments, and therefore considered it desirable that a longer rather than shorter time should be given within which to send in schemes.

MR. RAMSAY

hoped the Government would accede to the Amendment; for although he agreed that there should be a period of grace, he thought it was unduly extended by the Bill.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

remarked that he had already said that he could not alter the period fixed by the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 42; Noes 24: Majority 18.— (Div. List, No. 244.)

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

thought the Government should give way, seeing that the majority of the Scotch Members had been in favour of the Amendment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the Government could not do this, seeing that the majority was nearly two to one.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

But not of Scotch Members.

Clause agreed to.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

moved a new clause, empowering the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill to report to the Education Department, from time to time, their views with regard to the promotion of higher education in Scotland.

New Clause (Commissioners to submit conditions, &c.,)—(The Lord Advocate,) —brought up, and read the first and. second time.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

observed that there had been a good deal of difficulty with regard to the power of the Commissioners. It would not be satisfactory to them to be asked to give advice without having some control; and he, therefore, objected to this clause being introduced into the Bill. The Commissioners ought, if they were to have any control over education in Scotland, to be a representative body, reflecting the wishes and views of the people of Scotland; and, if so constituted, would have more title to represent the Scottish people than the Education Department in London, which was to overrule them. He hoped the Government would not press the clause.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought it impossible to conceive that the views of such a body of gentlemen as the Commissioners would not be of use to the Education Department.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

characterized the clause as a petty one, which was not likely to be of much value. The power of expressing opinion without the responsibilities of giving practical effect to their expressions was totally antagonistic to sound administration.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

regarded the future action of the Commissioners with considerable suspicion. Their views would most likely be of a Conservative character, and they would seek to keep education in the old grooves. He was strongly of opinion that the Education Department in London would be more likely to exercise a sound discretion than the Commissioners.

MR. M'LAREN

considered that the influence of the Education Department in London upon the Commissioners would most probably be deleterious. It would be better for the Government to omit the clause, and leave the control to the Scotch Department to be formed, the announcement of the creation of which had been hailed with pleasure by the Scotch Members.

MR. RAMSAY

wished to state that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy did not, in his opinion, represent the views of the majority of the people of Scotland.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

agreed that the clause would be very useful; but if the Commission was constituted according to the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), which would mean that they would not know much about carrying on educational work, it would be a dangerous trust to give them.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

protested against the control of education being taken away from Members of the House and vested in a body sitting at Edinburgh. If the Commissioners consisted of Professors in the Universities, their opinions would, at least, be known; but if they were nominated by the Government this even might not be the case, and they would know no more about the views of the people of Scotland than Members of that House. That being so, he should take a division against the clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 12: Majority 39. — (Div. List, No. 245.)

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.