HC Deb 22 May 1884 vol 288 cc1077-95
MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that when he moved the reduction of Vote 11 he should do so with the view of bringing before the Committee the policy of the Charity Commissioners with regard to the work that Parliament had intrusted them with. Dissatisfaction with the action of the Charity Commissioners was, he ventured to say, increasing both in depth and extent throughout the country; and it was difficult to bring that action under the notice of the House except in a manner such as this, seeing that the Commissioners had no Representative in Parliament save the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella). The policy of the Commissioners was one of profound distrust of the people, so far as the management part of the schemes was concerned. It might be described as a policy by which the property and endowments of the poorer classes, and of the public generally, were taken away by schemes formed mainly, and oftentimes wholly, in the interests of the richer classes. Up to the present time, or up to quite recently, the schemes of the Charity Commissioners were accepted — especiallyin the poorer districts, where public opinion was powerless—as a matter of course. In nearly all cases, however, there had been a great sense of wrong, and a great sense of injustice on the part of those who had been the victims, if he might so term it, of the action of the Charity Commissioners. Now, there were three branches connected with the work of the Charity Commissioners—first, their action in regard to the working of the Charity Trusts Acts. That he would not speak of, because, as hon. Members were aware, that part of their work had been recently referred to a Select Committee appointed by the House to go into the whole working of the matter. Another branch of the operations of the Commission was the working of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, of which he had already spoken, and of which, he ventured to say, further examination would show grave neglect on the part of the Commissioners. That, also, had been referred to the Select Committee now sitting, consequently he need not detain the Committee on that subject. Before, however, passing away from the question of the Charitable Trusts, he must refer to one matter which came immediately under his notice; and his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council was, to his mind, rather too much a champion of the action of the Charity Commissioners in this affair. He would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for a moment to this case, and it was the only one he would speak of with regard to the Charitable Trusts part of the work of the Commissioners. There was a Charity in Birmingham called Lynch's Trust. The Charity Commissioners had recently appointed a new body of Trustees, 17 in number, and they had allowed four of those to be elected by the Town Council. It was considered a great affair, having so large a body as that directly representative. But what had the Commissioners done? They had imposed a property qualification of £60 ratal, which meant about a £75 rental, so that the representative Trustees elected by the members of the Town Council must live in houses worth £70 or £75 a-year. Now, when he remembered that the Birmingham Town Council was, perhaps, one of the most democratic in the country, and that a considerable number of the most highly respected members of it belonged to the working classes; when they knew that the ratepayers had shown great confidence in these men, and had intrusted them with the expenditure of enormous sums of money, it seemed absolutely an insult to the borough to say—"You may elect four men, but you must pass over every one of those connected with the working classes, because they are not rated at £60." The Vice President of the Coun- cil, he knew, was very anxious to do away with property qualification in regard to municipal elections. He need not say that the Birmingham Town Council refused to have anything to do with such a scheme, and declined to insult anyone of their number by attempting to elect anyone under such conditions; and the consequence was that they had no representatives at all on the management, and did not wish any on the terms laid down by the Commissioners. What he wanted to point out was that if in Birmingham, where they thought they could take care of themselves pretty well, the Charity Commissioners imposed these conditions in respect of the Charitable Trust, what would they not do in a small district where no public opinion obtained? The Commissioners, in that high and mighty tone which they assumed towards all those with whom they had occasion to communicate, wrote a letter in which they said that if the Town Council of Birmingham had objected they should have objected in time. As a matter of fact, the Birmingham Town Council knew nothing about the matter; but the Commissioners said they put the usual notices on the Town Hall door by advertisement. But, on the other hand, it was said—"Why did you not communicate with the Governing Body in the town in such a matter?" and the Commissioners, in reply, said— It is the opinion of the Board that they were not under any obligation to give direct notice in this matter to the Corporation of Birmingham, or to any body other than the Trustees of the Charity. Probably they were not under an obligation; but, surely, they might have given notice even if they were not exactly under legal obligation to do so, seeing that the Town Council was affected by the Act—in as much as they would have to elect four Trustees. Then they said—and this he would call the attention of the Committee to, as showing how far behind the age and how out of touch with everything modern these gentlemen seemed to be— It seems to me the intention of the Legislature to sever rather than to strengthen the: connection between these Corporations and the Charities administered within the respective boroughs which they represent. He would like to ask the Vice President of the Council whether it was the in- tention of Parliament to lessen more and more and make less and less the connection between the Corporations and these public Trusts? On what did the Commissioners base their contention? They referred to legislation of the time of William IV.—they evidently referred to the old Close Corporations. It might, possibly, be to the advantage of the community that the Corporations should have no power of this kind; but they took this Act of William IV. as a proof that it was the intention of the Legislature of the present day to sever the connection of such a Corporation as Birmingham with the work affecting the community over which the Corporation were elected to govern. In speaking of these Charities, he admitted as much as anyone the need of reform in the Charities and Endowments of the country; but the question was as to the principle on which the reforms were to be carried on. He contended that it was not a reform, and that it would not be submitted to long as a reform, that the property of the poorer classes and the lower middle classes should be taken away from them altogether, or placed in such a form that these people could not take advantage of it—that was to say, that it should be given to a different class of people altogether, and, very often, to people of a different locality. That was the principle which had been adopted, but which, he was sure, would not be long submitted to. He quite admitted that the Charities and Endowments must be administered in accordance with modern ideas; but those ideas must contemplate, in some form or other, the benefit and advantage of the people to whom the Endowments belonged. They should not be given in the form of relief to the rich. Then, again, they had this settled principle on the part of the Charity Commissioners, they had a positive hatred to free schools. Wherever they could find one they never rested until they could destroy it. That, he thought, was against the feeling which had been growing for some time, and which was very generally experienced in the country, that schools should be free. What was being done now in Rochdale? Why, there was a free school there well conducted and well reported on by the Inspector. He was not going into the question as to whether or not it needed reform; but the Charity Commissioners had sent in, or were about to send in, a scheme by which they would either abolish the school altogether or certainly abolish it as a free school. What reasons did they give? He would tell the Committee—and he wanted hon. Members to listen to this letter, addressed to the Rochdale Trustees, dated only in March last; the right hon. Gentleman, who so ably presided over the Committee of Council on Education, he also desired to listen, that he might say to what extent he and his Colleagues agreed with the doctrine. They cannot admit that it is a proper use of the funds of an educational endowment to employ them, as they understood they were employed to a large extent, in paying the elementary education fees of children of poor parents. Even in the case of the poorest, who might be unable to pay the fee, the law has now made other provision, chargeable upon the rates. Now, what did that passage mean? It meant that those children who had had their school fees paid—

MR. CROPPER

May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if this is in Order, seeing that the whole subject is under the consideration of a Select Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

If the matter is under the consideration of a Select Committee appointed for the purpose, it seems to me to be very irregular to enter into a discussion of it at this moment.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he should be only too happy if his hon. Friend and the Chairman were correct, and the Endowed Schools part of the work of the Charity Commissioners were under the consideration of the Committee. If his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council would get up and say that the whole action of the Commissioners with regard to Endowed Schools should be brought also within the scope of the inquiry of the Select Committee that would put another complexion on the matter altogether. The reason why he must bring these cases forward was to show the necessity of that which the Charity Commissioners shrank from, and which the Government themselves were not eager to do— namely, to place the whole Department of the Endowed Schools Act within the scope of the inquiry of the Select Committee which had been recently appointed. That being so, he thought that not only was he in Order in referring to the action of the Commissioners with regard to School Endowments, but that it was absolutely necessary for him to do it, in order to show why, in the interests of religious equality and liberty as well as in the interests of the poor, that action should come within the scope of the inquiry of the Select Committee. What he wanted to ask was, whether it was the policy of the Vice President of the Council that persons who possessed property in these Endowments—who had the right to have the school fees of their children paid—should be unable to avail themselves of any such right without becoming what they considered to be paupers, and getting the Boards of Guardians to pay the fees for them? Could they imagine anything more insulting to the poor of a parish where there was an Educational Endowment giving free education? The people did not wish to become paupers, and yet, to their minds, there was pauperism attached to the making of an application to the Board of Guardians. They were told their property was to be taken away from them, and they could apply to the Guardians of the Poor to have their fees paid. If all the education in the country were free, then no difficulty would arise; but, by taking away these Endowments, they made the poor pay 2d., 3d., 4d., or 6d. a-week for the education of their children—and hard work, indeed, it was for many of them to do it—or they made them go to the Guardians of the Poor and practically become paupers by asking to have the fees paid for them. Well, he had put a Question down on the Paper that night to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council as to the scheme at Tonbridge. He was aware there was a difference of opinion about that; and, seeing that the scheme was an accomplished fact, he should not have alluded to it were it not that schemes of a similar description were being carried out in various parts of the country, and that it was necessary to show what had been done in order to arouse public opinion in opposition to what was contemplated. This Grammar School in Tonbridge had been for something like 200 years, some said, wholly free, and some said partly free. At any rate, it had been open to all classes in the town of Ton- bridge to obtain its benefits. In 1875 the Charity Commissioners published a draft scheme. There was a high school established with a fee of something like £18 a-year; but, in order to secure some equivalent, some benefit to the commercial and poorer classes, the Charity Commissioners proposed to give a second school, or establish a school within the reach of the less wealthy classes. The Skinners' Company, in order to bring that about more completely, offered £20,000 to the Charity Commissioners.

MR. MUNDELIA

No; £10,000.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, his right hon. Friend said only £10,000; but he said £20,000. £10,000 was to come out of the Charity. He regretted such technical quibbles as this—if he might call them so—very much. He would tell the Committee what that correction meant. There was £10,000 taken from the existing Charity. He supposed he was right there; and there was £10,000 given from the funds of the Skinners' Company, which made£20,000. That was proposed to be given to the Charity Commissioners on the faith that a second class school would be founded in Tonbridge. That was the understanding; but because the scheme then before the public in 1875 said "Ton-bridge, in the town or in the neighbourhood of the town," in 1880 they brought in an amended scheme, in which they curiously altered the words to "in or near the parish or the town." That was complained of by the Skinners' Company, and every effort was made to get it altered; but the reply was this—and he was quoting from the letters of the Charity Commissioners— We put in 'in or near the parish of Ton-bridge,' in order that you, the Skinners' Company, who will be Governors of the school, will have a larger latitude of choice for a site for the school. That was their letter—not a word said in it about moving the school. That went on until 1882, two years after the scheme was for the first time proposed, and then the inhabitants of Tonbridge learnt that the school was to be removed to Tonbridge Wells, five miles off. Hon. Gentlemen might say that was within the radius of Tonbridge. It was true, but it practically shut out the town of Tonbridge, so far as the lower middle classes could avail themselves of the advantages of the school. Then, it might be said that Tonbridge Wells was a more populous place than Tonbridge; but Tonbridge had a population of 10,000, and the school was only a school to accommodate not less than 200 boys, so that there were children of the class to be benefited sufficient in Tonbridge to fill twice the amount of accommodation the school afforded. His contention was that it was not fair, having made a perfectly well-understood arrangement with the Skinners' Company that the school should be established "in or near the town of Ton-bridge," to remove it five miles away. He really did not see how it could be justified in any way. The result was this—that the people of Tonbridge were ousted from their school altogether, because there were very few who could pay £18 a-year to the Grammar School, and very few of the poor classes who could afford to send their children five miles to take advantage of the lower school. He was aware the Education Department thought great things were being done in the interest of education by the making of these arrangements. They vaunted what was being done in connection with the great foundation in Birmingham; but he (Mr. Jesse Collings) ventured to say, as a Governor of that foundation, which had £30,000 a-year at its disposal, that they were doing comparatively little to advance education in the borough, over and above what would be done there if the school were not in existence. He was prepared to prove that statement. The institution had an income of £30,000 a-year; but fees of a very high character were charged — namely, £9 a-year and the cost of books, which was very considerable, in the case of the High School, and £3 a-year and books in the Grammar School. One-third of the whole number of places were free by examination—that was the salve the Commissioners placed over their consciences for having taken away an old free school from all classes of the community. They said they gave a third of the places free by Scholarships to be won by examinations; but what was the result? Everyone knew that children whose parents could afford to send them to private schools had an immense advantage over the children of the poor in the matter of obtaining Scholarships. What did they find? Why, that only some 60 children from the elementary schools were able to derive any benefit from, this enormous property of £30,000 a-year. That was the fullest extent to which the lower, middle, and working classes could avail themselves of a foundation which belonged to the whole community. All the rest was appropriated by the wealthier classes of the borough. But the Charity Commissioners said— It is such a demoralizing thing to give free education to the poor. It was supposed to be demoralizing to give children free education for which they now paid 3s. a-week; but it was not demoralizing to give 300 children of Birmingham an education costing £35 a-year for £9 a-year. That did not seem demoralizing at all. It was not demoralizing to give in the Grammar Schools an education worth £12 a-year to the middle classes for £3 a-year—to give this great reduction to a class which could well afford to pay for its education. It was only demoralizing when they came to the very poor, who could not afford to pay 3d. or 4d. a-week for the education of their children, to relieve them of that payment; but it might be said that the establishment at present accommodated as many children as there were of the poor classes who could avail themselves of this middle and upper education. But, as a matter of fact—and here he would like the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to give him his attention— at a time when they were spending all this money on the wealthier classes, every half-year's examination they were turning away large numbers of poor class children who had shown by their examination that they had brains and capacity sufficient to enable them to take advantage of the better education if they could afford to pay the fees. They were turning away large numbers every year simply because they could not pay the fees. He held that the school belonged to the whole of the people of the borough, and that it was not fail-that it should be monopolized by certain classes, or rather that barriers should be put up by the schemes of the Charity Commissioners by which the poorer classes were kept out of the privileges of the endowment. He would not say to what extent the Commissioners interfered with the manage- ment of the school. They had on the Board of Management two or three Members of Parliament, two or three ex-Mayors, and some of the leading people of the borough; and yet they could not do the slightest thing without coming to London to consult five or six gentlemen, who, perhaps, had not been in Birmingham in their lives, and knew nothing whatever about it, and who yet put themselves in authority over the Local Authorities who knew all about the locality. Some weeks ago the local managers of the schools had to go to London with the plans of a small gymnasium in order to obtain the consent of the Commissioners. A considerable amount of unnecessary expense was occasioned by that arrangement. To his mind the time had come when this kind of scheme, or power to impose such a condition, should be taken away from any body of men. What did they want? Why, they should insist that the management of these Charities should be given into the hands of Local Authorities. He should be surprised to hear any objection to that principle coming from the Front Benches of a Liberal Government, because there was no security anywhere for the people whom he had been describing, and especially the poorer classes, except in some scheme administered by persons directly representing the community which was to be benefited. It was only in this way that abuses could be remedied, and that public opinion could be brought to bear upon the management of the institutions. He would just refer to one or two further cases, because the schemes were being carried out at the present moment. There was the case of Stroud, which, he believed, was opposed on both sides of the House, the question being by no means a Party one. Then there was the case of Horsham, and the case of Cam in Gloucestershire. In all these cases the rights of the poor were ignored, in some of them taken away altogether. He would just give one instance more, and then he had done, because all these schemes were very much alike as to the principle on which they were framed. Take the case of Seaming in Norfolk. For 200 years there had been a free school there. It had been carried on, so far as he knew, in a very satisfactory manner, and had produced presumably good results. Even ii that had not been the case, the question would only have been one of reforming the institution; but the Charity Commissioners, against the wish of everyone connected with the locality, went down a short time ago and insisted on imposing fees upon the children of the district. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was aware that, from time to time, up to the present, there had been something very like a riot going on in this locality in consequence of that transaction. The poor people did not understand, and could not be got to understand, why they, having this school in their possession, and having enjoyed its benefits, they and those who had gone before them for something like 200 years should be deprived of it by a certain number of officials in London, who say—"Henceforth you shall pay a certain amount of fees which are taken in a neighbouring parish," The Charity Commissioners had done all they could to force these poor people to accept their scheme. Labouring men had sent their children for a time, and had refused to pay the fees, and a policeman had had to be stationed at the school in order to turn these children away from the institution which the people firmly believed to be their own. Up to the present time, the children so turned away were taught in a building constructed for the purpose, by the daughter of a working man, gratuitously, rather than they should go in to pay the school fees, and thereby give up the right which they believed they possessed, and submit to be robbed of their property. What was going on in that parish was simply what was taking place in many other parts of the country. Bad feeling had been produced, class had been set against class. In November, the Vicar of the parish to which he particularly referred had been, carried in effigy throughout the village, and burnt on a neighbouring common. All this trouble and ill-feeling had been caused simply by the action of the Charity Commissioners. He would quote a letter he had received from a gentleman he knew residing in the neighbourhood—a gentleman whom he was quite sure would not knowingly say anything he believed to be unjust or untrue. Referring to this action of the Charity Commissioners in regard to the Seaming school, his correspondent said— If such, things can be done in a poor and obscure village in Norfolk, we still entertain the hope that in some form or other the facts will be brought under the notice of the House of Commons very early next Session. Departmental government is growing into an intolerable and cruel despotism. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) was inclined to think there was a great deal of truth in that. Instead of believing more and more in what people should believe in— namely, the efficacy of local government, there seemed to be a tendency in the Department in London to gather everything into their own hands; and, whatever their intention might be, the result was that things were done more inefficiently, less cheaply, and altogether in a more unsatisfactory way than they ought to be. With regard to any reform, if reform was thought necessary in the Office of the Charity Commissioners, he would strongly urge as the guiding principle that the whole management of every scheme should be placed in the hands of representatives of the Local Authorities. But then they had not yet got Local Authorities in the counties. They were promised them, and he hoped it would not be long before they got them. At any rate, they had been waiting for something like 200 years for reform of these Endowments, and it would not be a very great hardship if they had to wait another 12 months in order to have the thing done thoroughly while they were about it. He was quite sure that if any scheme was adopted which did not involve the principle of local management there would be no real settlement of the matter, but a continual agitation until the management of the property of the people and the affairs of the people were placed in the hands of the representatives of the people. As to the Charity Commissioners, he had no wish to bring any personal accusation against them; all he would say was, that they were an institution obsolete and out of joint with the requirements of the present time, and that the result of their action, whatever might be their intention, had been to inflict great hardships on the people of a large number of parishes and towns in England; and he trusted that this action was so stirring up the people that it would not be allowed to continue much longer. Of course, if the Government thought that this action was everything that they could desire, well and good. There would be nothing left but to continue agitation, until, perhaps, they might get the Government to see that there was something in the complaints of the people. At present, the poor people in rural districts had no hope and no power to help themselves. The Charity Commissioners could do pretty much as they liked. There was another view of the question, and it was one very easy to put. The Charity Commissioners, perhaps sincerely—for he did not ask what their opinions were in this matter —had lent themselves to the propping up and to the increasing of the ecclesiastical part of the Governmental Charities in rural districts. He thought it would be found, if this matter could be properly sifted by the Select Committee, that the Nonconformists of some rural parishes in the country were suffering great religious and social hardships from the action of those who administered those Trusts. He would not detain the Committee much longer. He regretted to have had to detain it so long; but he knew of no other way in which to bring before the House of Commons the hardships which he was sure hon. Members on both sides of the House sympathized with; and not the less because they had been exercised, very thoughtlessly perhaps, but in a degree that was very shocking, upon many of the poor classes of the people of the country, and especially on that class which had no one to speak for them, and were not represented here. When these classes were represented, the Committee might depend upon it that the Charity Commissioners would not last a Session, so deep and so wide was the dissatisfaction felt at their action. Hon. Members heard a great deal about setting class against class; and he ventured to say that there were no men or body of men who had ever stirred up animosity between the different social classes in the villages and towns of England as had the Charity Commissioners. Why should labourers go and burn in effigy the Vicar of their parish? Why, simply because the Charity Commissioners had planned a scheme which had stirred up resentment, ill-feeling, and heartburning. He did ask the Vice President of the Council not to shut his mind to these statements. Let the right hon. Gentleman not think there was nothing in it. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman would think, which was rather true, that the Department over which he (Mr. Mundella) presided sympathized with the principle which the Charity Commissioners had adopted. If the Department did sympathize with the Commissioners—and he was afraid they had some evidence that they did—then they too would have to change their policy; because, at any rate, the House of Commons had the Department under them if they had not the Charity Commissioners; and they were not going to be satisfied with any answer which left matters in the condition in which they now found them.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he thought it hardly fair to the subject, or to himself, that the hon. Member, without having placed any Notice on the Paper, and without any intimation whatever, should have launched this question on the Committee, and called upon him to answer facts with reference to Charities, some of which were already before a Committee of the House.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I beg pardon; my Notice has been on the Paper for three weeks.

MR. MUNDELLA

But that Notice referred to the Vote in the Estimate, and not to a Vote on Account, which wag altogether a different thing. This was the second time the hon. Member had brought the question before the House during the Session. On the first occasion he reminded the hon. Member that a Committee was sitting to consider Charitable Trusts and Allotments, and that he would have an opportunity of bringing these cases before that Committee; but the hon. Member commenced his speech that evening with some allegations of maladministration of a Trust in Birmingham, which he (Mr. Mundella) could assure the Committee he had never heard of before in that House, or had anything to do with in his official capacity. The hon. Member said he had no other remedy; but he would point out that he had a remedy ready to his hand, in as much as there was the Committee he had referred to now sitting; and he understood that representatives from Birmingham were going before it, who would probably deal with this very question. Surely it was hardly fair, under the circumstances, when they were considering a Vote on Account, to waste the time of the Committee on questions of this kind. He was utterly unprepared, as the hon. Member must be aware, to go into them, for he had had no chance of communicating with the Charity Commissioners. Then the hon. Member said there was something wrong about the Rochdale Scheme. If there were, he (Mr. Mundella) had never heard of it. These schemes came before the Committee of Council, who acted in a judicial capacity; and if there was a scheme in preparation, and the people of Rochdale petitioned against it, the Petition would, of course, be considered; and, besides, Rochdale had a Member, who would be expected to look after the matter. The hon. Member then said there was something wrong going on with respect to the Stroud Scheme. With regard to that scheme, he had applied to the Commissioners, who said they were in process of dealing with the Stroud School; but that, at present, they had nothing ready which could be submitted. He said it was premature and irregular to discuss points in connection with the action of the Charity Commissioners and the Education Department with respect to a scheme, the clauses of which were not even framed. Again, the hon. Member said that the Tonbridge Scheme ought to be brought before the House to show the policy of the Charity Commissioners. He would point out to the Committee the position of that scheme. It was passed by the Duke of Richmond and the former Vice President of the Council in 1879; and when the present Government accepted Office in 1880, his (Mr. Mundella's) sole business in connection with it was to lay it on the Table of the House. the scheme was challenged, discussed, and amended in that House; and now, after it had been in operation for four years, his hon. Friend came down upon the action of the Charity Commissioners, and described the scheme as one by which the poor were being robbed of their free school. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: That is what it amounts to.] Now, he had in his hand the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners with respect to the Tonbridge School, which was to the effect that the tradesmen were not, on the whole, satisfied with the school; that there were a large number of day boarders attending it, which gave a great stimulus to trade in the place; that many people were attracted by the cheapness of the education for day boarders during the three years necessary to gain the whole privileges of the foundation. The tradesmen, it appeared, could not send their sons to the school for two reasons—first, because the education was so classical; and, secondly, because they feared class prejudices amongst the boys, and, consequently, there was only the son of one tradesman in the school.

MR. JESSE COLLTNGS

My objection was that the school should be removed to another locality for the benefit of another class.

MR. MUNDELLA

The Report stated that there was only one tradesman's son in the school. There was a class prejudice against tradesmen's sons. Surely it could not be said that, the modern school, which the Charity Commissioners recommended with reduced foes, would have the effect of depriving any class of the advantages of education. He simply pointed to these facts in order to show that there were two sides to the question, both of which ought to be heard. In his opinion, the Charity Commissioners had exercised a wise discretion by transferring the school to a town of 10,000 inhabitants, with the full knowledge, as it would be easy to show, of the Skinners' Company. He did not object to an attack by the hon. Member on the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, provided it was made in a fair way. But if the hon. Member wished to challenge the principle of the Endowed Schools Act, let him do so by all means; let him move for a Select Committee to inquire into the working of that Act. But he maintained that the Committee now sitting to consider Charitable Trusts and Allotments should first be allowed to make their Report, and then he should be prepared to meet the hon. Member's challenge. For his own part, he had no sort of objection to inquiry, nor had he any interest in screening the Charity Commissioners; but he said it was unfair to make two attacks upon them within a few weeks upon a question which was already under consideration by a Committee upstairs, and whose Report might be shortly expected. His hon. Friend had not confined himself to the questions specified. He objected to the whole system of the administration of the Tonbridge School; but he was sure the Committee would not expect him to go further than he had gone. However, he would conclude by repeating that he could prove to the Committee, from documentary evidence, that, so far as the Skinners' Company was concerned, they knew, when the question was fully before them, that the school was to be placed at a point within 10 miles of its original position.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, he should not go into the details of the schemes which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had brought before the Committee, nor should he attack the principle of the Endowed Schools Act. He wished to call attention to a point on which he thought both the Charity Commissioners and the Education Department had not carried out the spirit of the Endowed Schools Act, nor dealt justly with the claims of the poor. He referred to small endowments for elementary education which were originally made for free education. He called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Reports of his own Department from 1873 to 1882; and he asked what had happened in those 10 years in respect of the Church of England National Schools? He found that there was a steady diversion of the old endowments to the subsidizing of Elementary Schools. The endowments to National Schools had gone up from £63,000 to £123,000, or nearly doubled, in the time mentioned. Now, if that money had been applied to the relief of the poor by helping them in their school fees it would have been applied more in accordance with the spirit of the Charity. The whole policy of the Department had been rigorously to exact increasing fees; and he would show briefly that while the Elementary Schools had made £63,000 a-year more by Endowments, they had screwed up the fees to the highest point, and reduced the contributions of wealthy subscribers by what was actually taken away from the poor. The fees had gone up to £807,000 a year; whereas, if they had been charged on the same principle as they were 10 years ago, they would have stood at £680,000. According to that, the proportion of subscription ought to have been £620,000 instead of £580,000; so that £180,000 a-year more was taken from the poor than was the case 10 years ago, and £40,000 a-year less was paid in subscriptions. He did not object to the principle that these Endowments should often be applied to secondary education; but if they were applied to elementary education they ought to go to the poor, and not be applied to the subsidizing of inefficient Church Schools to save the pockets of the ratepayers.

MR. COLMAN

said, that cases had come within his own knowledge in which two years and even longer had elapsed before they could get any reply to very simple questions addressed to the Education Department. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to understand that there was a strong feeling in the country with reference to the extreme dilatoriness of the Department.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had been much amused at the air of injured innocence which was assumed by the Vice President of the Council in replying to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). Inquiry had been made on several occasions at Question time with regard to the schools referred to by the hon. Member, so that the right hon. Gentleman knew something of them quite recently. The right hon. Gentleman complained that he had had no Notice; but he said afterwards that he had documentary evidence to prove that the hon. Member was entirely in the wrong. So that, as a matter of fact, he seemed to be arguing in a manner rather contradictory of himself. Then the right hon. Gentleman complained of the hon. Member bringing forward the case of the Tonbridge School, because the school was in a bad state some years ago; but that did not appear to him to be any argument in favour of the present state of the school. Again, the right hon. Gentleman contended that it was unreasonable to bring forward questions of this sort more than once; but he (Mr. Biggar) differed entirely from that view, because his own experience was that nothing was ever done with regard to any subject by the Government until their attention had been called to it over and over again. The usual course was for a Minister at first to refuse to consider the question at all; the Member who raised it would then promise to bring forward a Motion, and when the Question had been put once or twice more the Minister generally agreed to do what was asked of him at first. He judged, therefore, from his Parliamentary experience, that if the hon. Member for Ipswich persevered he would succeed in attaining the object he had in view.