HC Deb 21 February 1887 vol 311 cc271-9
MR. A. L. BROWN (Hawick, &c.)

Sir, I am sorry to ask the indulgence of the House at this late hour; but as the scheme of the Commissioners with reference to this Institution will become law if it is not challenged, I feel that there is no alternative for me but to make the Motion standing in my name. My first objection is that elementary education will be entirely removed from this school by the scheme of the Commissioners, so that the poor of the parish of Dollar will be virtually excluded from the school that was left to them. My second objection is, that the people of Dollar have no direct representation. Our complaint was formerly that the representation was not sufficiently direct, and we complain now that we have no direct representation at all. The will of the founder, John MacNab, shows that the money was left entirely for the benefit of the poor of the parish of Dollar. But the Dollar Institution has not been such a success as it might have been, because the representation has not been sufficiently direct, and, as I have said, by the scheme of the Commissioners it is still less so. Under the old system there was a good elementary school and a good secondary school. Under the present scheme only four of the managers are to be resident in the parish of Dollar, and the other seven are to be non-resident. The scheme turns the school entirely into a secondary school, whereas the money was left entirely for the education of the poor children of the parish. From, this school all children below the Fifth Standard are to be excluded, and I say that anyone who is familiar with the condition of the working classes will know that very few children of the working classes can enter the school under such conditions. This is the point to which I wish particularly to call the attention of the House. The Commissioners propose that school fees should be paid not exceeding 12s. a-year, in order to qualify this arrangement. There are 157 children of working men attending the school, and if 12s. is paid for each of them the expenditure under the head of fees will amount to £94 a-year. Now, the income of the Charity amounts to £3,000, and of that the working men of the parish will get only the small sum I have named. I trust the House will hesitate before they approve this scheme. If the scheme were carried it will oblige the School Board to put up a new school, and for this the working men will be rated over and above what they now have to pay. At present there are in this school 546 children on the roll, with an average attendance of 490, which, if the elementary school is removed, will be very largely reduced. It is, in my opinion, a great pity that the children of the middle class were ever admitted to this school at all. They were admitted at first as a privilege, and now, like cuckoos, they are driving the poorer children out of the nest. These, Sir, are the reasons why we object to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, under which the working men of the parish will have no direct representation on the Board, and for those reasons I ask the House not to give its assent to the scheme.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

Sir, I shall make very few observations in seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. In this school I believe there are under 600 pupils. The school has accommodation for 1,600; but it is proposed to carry over the primary education from that school, and to compel the erection in the parish of a board school. I may mention that there was a parish school in the place; but this, on the ground that ample accommodation existed in the parish, was, on the recommendation of the Scotch Education Board, discontinued. My hon. Friend has stated the objections which exist to the scheme of the Educational Endowments Commission in the present case, in which I entirely agree. I have no doubt we shall receive the same answer to our objections as it is usual to give when these schemes are called in question. We are always told that it is the effort of the Commissioners to open up a road from the board school to the University for the children of the poorest classes of the population. When the Educational Endowments Bill was before the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) and other Scotch Members, including myself, did our utmost to safeguard the interests of free primary education in the same way as the provisions of other charitable foundations were safeguarded, and our fear has always been that what was originally intended by the founders for primary education might be diverted to secondary education. That, Sir, is what has taken place in the present instance. The Educational Endowments Commissioners have diverted all but about £98 per annum to secondary education out of an income of £3,000. No doubt we shall be told that provision would be made for the further education of the poor by bursaries and such means; but the poor themselves do not appreciate that form of looking after their interests. We know that while the children of the rich are able to go forward to the Universities and avail themselves of such educational advantages the children of the poor who are obliged to go early to labour will not be able to avail themselves of secondary educational endowments; and it is, therefore, the more important that they shall have the full benefit of all the endowments for primary education that have been left to them. I shall not at this late hour say more in support of the Motion of my hon. Friend, which I cordially second.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her consent from Section 22 of Scheme 88 of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Commission, under 'The Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882.'"—(Mr. A. L. Brown.)

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

I shall not detain the House more than a few moments in defending this scheme of the Commissioners, which has already been defended by my Predecessors, and which, but for political events which have taken place, would long ere this have become law. The first portion of the attack of the hon. Member for Hawick was upon that part of the scheme which relates to the Governing Body; but, Sir, I do think that, as a matter of fact, the section which he desires to leave out has not much to do with the Governing Body. But the real objection has been stated by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and it turns on the contention that the funds have been diverted from the class who were intended to be benefited by them. Now, I do not think that the facts have been accurately stated. In the first place, Sir, the poor will not be damaged by the scheme of the Commissioners. They get their education free now, and if the scheme of the Commissioners be passed they will continue to get their education free hereafter; so that nothing has really been taken from them. It is true that when the scheme is passed there will be a small charge of a little more than 2½d. in the pound cast upon the rates in order to make up that portion of the funds diverted to secondary education. In looking at these questions the points to be considered are—first, whether the Endowment Commissioners are acting in accordance with their duty in framing their scheme; and, secondly, whether the educational benefits of the classes intended have been preserved? Well, Sir, upon the first point I cannot conceive that any doubt should exist. When the Charity Commissioners were instituted it was for the express purpose of preventing money which now goes to save rates from being used for other purposes than was intended. The Dollar Scheme throws on tie ratepayers of the district some of that charge which the ratepayers of every other district have to pay; under the scheme the ratepayers will simply have to bear part of the expense of public education, which is borne by the ratepayers elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that the poor have a very small enjoyment of secondary education; but one merit of this scheme is to put the free education of his children within the reach of every poor man—the very greatest boon, in my opinion, that can be conferred upon the working classes. For these reasons I support the scheme of the Commissioners, which, I believe, carries out the object we have all in view, of giving free education to poor children throughout the country.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR&c.) (Clackmannan,

Sir, as I have the honour of representing the constituency in which Dollar Institution is situated, I think it only right that I should say a few words on this subject. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs has said, that there have been differences of opinion in regard to this scheme in the locality; and it is further true that, while I regret that such differences of opinion should exist, I am myself unable to support the view so well stated by my hon. Friend. On the merits of this question I am sure that the House would not desire me to speak at any length tonight, having regard to the lateness of the hour; but I may say that if the real effect of the scheme had been to deprive the poor of anything—if it had, in the slightest degree, interfered with the gratuitous education of the poor, the scheme would have found no more strenuous opponent than myself. If there is one thing more than another which I would always protest against, it is the transfer to the rich or well-to-do classes of anything that is bequeathed for the benefit of the poor. In times past an arrangement was made under which all the poor of Dollar have received gratuitous education. Well, Sir, the education so given has been of enormous benefit to the locality; and, first, by gratuitous primary education, and, secondly, by gratuitous secondary education, many have been able to raise themselves from the humblest grades to positions of influence and honour in various departments of the public service and in other walks of life. But we know that educational endowments require to be reconsidered from time to time, and this one has certainly been most carefully considered by the Commissioners. I would point out that it is not one of the functions of this House to amend a scheme; we can amend a Bill, but here the question is substantially one of acceptance or rejection; and my opinion, in the present instance, is that the latter alternative would involve a grave misfortune to this institution and all who are interested in it. What has been done is this—inasmuch as it was thought by the Commissioners, after full inquiry, that there was not accommodation in the existing building for both the secondary and primary scholars, they propose to provide for the gratuitous primary education of the children of the poor in a board school to be built, and to reserve the present building for those receiving secondary education. But the poor children of the parish will have the opportunity in the future, as in the past, and, I hope, more than in the past, of rising from humble to superior grades, by means of gratuitous education. I hope, also, that under this scheme the institution will be so adapted to the requirements and ideas of modern times that it will continue to hold the high place which it has hitherto done, and does now, amongst the educational establishments of the country. I may add that the scheme was most carefully considered and passed by the Scotch Committee of Council on Education. For these reasons I feel unable to support the Motion of my hon. Friend.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

I shall be very brief in the few words I desire to say on this question before we go to a Division. I desire to point out that in dealing with this scheme of the Educational Endowments Commissioners we have raised the question which we have so often debated in this House—namely, the diversion of funds from the use of the poorer to that of the richer classes—from the purposes of primary education to the purposes of secondary education. That point cannot, in my opinion, be put too strongly before the House, and it is upon that we shall divide tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Hawick (Mr. A. L. Brown) has shown that of this endowment, amounting to upwards of £3,000 a-year, practically little more than £100 a-year is given for purposes to which the endowment was originally intended to apply. That was the statement of my hon. Friend in making this Motion, and it has not been contravened in any way. The Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), after saying that the poor of Dollar are in no way damaged by this scheme, went on to state that the only difference to the poor is that, instead of having, as heretofore, their whole education free—the school buildings, management, and masterships free—they will have to build a new school entirely for elementary education. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) has also stated the same thing, putting very clearly the difference between sums given to primary and secondary education. The scheme of the Commissioners is just a repetition of what we have so long contended against, although not in so aggravated a form. Although the opposition which has been raised to these schemes in the House of Commons has always been made at a late hour, and in consequence has received but a brief consideration at the hands of hon. Members, still I am glad to see that it has had some effect. And I hope my hon. Friend's work in connection with the Dollar Institution will bear some fruit in future, even if he is not now successful as regards the present scheme.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I wish to add a few words in support of the Motion of my hon. Friend. At the present time there are in the school 310 scholars entirely free, the average cost being 52s. per head; under the new scheme there will be 159 scholars, at the cost of 12s. per head, representing an amount of £94 about. At present you have £100 a-year for clothing the scholars; under the scheme of the Commissioners the maximum for this purpose will be £50; and a building which cost many thousands of pounds is to be given away. In short, the entire amount left by the founder for the primary education of the poor and needy is to be taken away, and applied to the purpose of secondary education for the richer classes. I, for one, shall protest against this scheme for the confiscation of money intended for the elementary education of the poor children of Dollar.

MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friends near me; but it seems to me that a mistaken view has been taken by them of the real interests and rights of the poor in this matter. There is no doubt that this Charity was intended for the benefit of the poor in Dollar; and I shall contend that every farthing of it should be appropriated to that purpose, and should not be diverted to the secondary education of the rich. I have listened with regret to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), because I agree with him that the poor have a well-founded claim to free elementary education; and I remember a speech made by him in this House some years ago upon, that subject which had a considerable influence on my mind. But the free elementary education of the poor is not in question or in danger. I understand it is secured to the poor of Dollar under this scheme, and I have no doubt that at no very distant date the same boon will be extended to every parish in Scotland and in England also. There is no fear of free elementary education. But the difficulty is to secure the higher education of the poor. It is extremely difficult to get funds for that purpose; and I think we ought, therefore, to welcome these funds whenever we can get hold of them, and any scheme which makes a provision for the purpose of higher education. I do not pretend to be familiar with the scheme; but I understand that it is intended to secure the secondary education of the poor, and accordingly I cannot give my vote in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I cannot look with favour upon this scheme when, out of the sum of £3,000 a-year, the total amount given for the higher education of poor boys is only £100. That seems to me very inadequate. I shall vote against this scheme, as I have voted against every scheme that has come before this House from the Educational Endowment Commissioners of Scotland, because this scheme, like the rest, is framed on the principle of taking as much as possible from the poor boys and appropriating it for the benefit of those boys whose higher education their parents are well able to pay.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 135: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 18.)

House adjourned at half after One o'clock.