HC Deb 16 April 1888 vol 324 cc1445-52
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire),

in rising to oppose the scheme of the Endowments Commissioners for dealing with the Nairnside School in the parishes of Daviot and Dunlichity, said, he represented the opposition of ministers of religion in those parishes, and a considerable number of farmers, crofters, cottars, and labourers resident in the united parishes of Daviot and Dunlichity. The scheme proposed to take away the bulk of an endowment from a comparatively poor parish, and transfer it to a comparatively wealthy landward parish—Inverness. The bequest was made by Miss Clark within the last 30 years, a lady with whom he had a certain acquaintance, and knew to be possessed of intellectual capacity, well qualified to state distinctly her intentions with regard to the endowment. She clearly intended it for the benefit of the parish of Daviot. The matter seemed to have dwelt a good deal on the mind of this lady during her last illness, for, although she executed a testament in 1854, she, in July, 1859, added a codicil clearly indicating her intention with regard to the bequest, and died within a month afterwards. The bequest was to the effect that her trustees should devote £2,000 to the purpose of endowing two new schools in the parish of Daviot, exclusively for the use of the parish, and exclusive of the parish school. But the trustees appeared to have been more interested in the parish of Inverness than of Daviot, and although they could not, of course, go quite outside the terms of the bequest and erect a school in the parish of Inverness, they gave the benefit of the endowment to the Nairnside School, situated at the very end of the parish of Daviot, which is a long, straggling parish, some 23 miles in length and four in breadth, in close communication with neighbouring parishes, though the endowment was meant exclusively for the parish of Daviot. The Nairnside School had been successful, it was true; but it had been endowed contrary to the terms of the bequest. When the Endowments Commissioners came to deal with this endowment, it might have been expected that they would undo the wrong which had been done to the parish of Daviot; but not only had they condoned the action of the trustees, but they had endeavoured to perpetuate it, for they provided that the Governing Body of the Bequest should be for the future three members of the School Board of Daviot, one from Inverness, and one from the neighbouring parish of Croy. He objected that these last two parishes had no status whatever on a Governing Body in regard to a bequest intended exclusively for the benefit of the parish of Daviot. But the full significance of the proceeding came out in Clause 21 of the scheme, whereby it was provided that the Governors might, at any time within 12 months, on the demand of the Inverness School Board, make over, without compensation, the Nairnside school and site to the latter body. Could anything be more extraordinary than that regulation? Here was a lady bequeathing within the last 30 years the sum in question for the benefit of the parish of Daviot, and yet within this short period, because the Clark trustees had already deprived Daviot of much of the benefit of the bequest, provision was now made by which the greater part of the benefit would for ever be diverted to the benefit of Inverness parish. There were minor points of objection to the scheme; but those were the main grounds upon which he founded his opposition and made his Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the scheme for the Management of the Endowments in the united parishes of Daviot and Dunlichity and county of Inverness, known as Clark Bequest, and the Nairnside School, approved by the Scotch Education Department (by Act) now lying upon the Table of the House."—(Mr. Fraser- Mackintosh.)

MR. FINLAY (Inverness, &c.)

said, he must ask the House not to accept the Motion. He believed it would be found, on inquiry, that the scheme could not be correctly described as a taking away from the parish of Daviot the benefit conferred by a bequest, and transferring it to an adjoining parish. His hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) said he represented a large number of residents in the parish of Daviot; but the attention of the House should be called to the fact that this scheme was settled by the Education Endowments Commissioners, after hearing everything that was to be said by those who represented all the interests in the locality; that the scheme received the approval of the Scotch Education Department; and that no objection whatever was made to it until after that approval had been given. Further, the School Board of Daviot and Dunlichity, who it was to be presumed knew something of the local feeling, were supporters of the scheme. [Mr. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: Not the present Board.] The parish of Daviot was a long, straggling area, and could not be isolated from the neighbouring parishes of Croy and Inverness; children of each parish attended schools in the adjoining parish. In fact, the 21st clause was designed to meet the exigencies of the case. The scheme provided that the endowment might be employed to the encouragement of secondary education by devoting a sum not exceeding £50 annually to the parishes of Daviot and Dunlichity; secondly, a sum of £10 towards the fees for the education of children of poor and deserving parents; and, thirdly, provided bursaries for competition among the pupils at Nairnside and the State-aided schools of Daviot and Dunlichity. The hon. Member was, therefore, under some misapprehension when he said the parishioners of Daviot and Dunlichity would be deprived of the benefit of the endowment. Under the circumstances, he hoped the House would not reject a scheme embodying the matured views of the Commissioners, after careful consideration of all the facts and the requirements of the locality.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

said, as one of the Commissioners, he could not add much to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken. In reference to the position of the Nairnside School, although it was situated at the end of a long and straggling parish, and was of use to the children of neighbouring parishes, yet the erection of the school at that place seemed to be forced upon the trustees by the terms of the settlement and the fact of there being already two schools in the middle of the parish, so that the only available site was at the eastern or western end. At both ends schools had now been established, Nairnside being one. That school supplied the wants of that part of the parish, and it also served for portions of the neighbouring parishes. The Commissioners found the school in good order, and of the greatest use, and did not feel warranted in interfering with it. He believed that the scheme, as now completed, would thoroughly meet the intentions of the lady who made the bequest, and serve the purposes of education in the district.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

said, he would point out that the money was not left for the benefit of any parish, but for one parish solely. The scheme proposed that the Governing Body should be composed of three members of the School Board of that parish, and two from the adjoining parishes of Croy and Inverness. But what had these last-mentioned parishes to do with a bequest left solely for the poor of the united parishes of Daviot and Dunlichity? The Governing Body should be appointed solely from the latter parishes. Secondly, it was proposed to hand over this school in Daviot to the landward parish of Inverness. Could anything be more monstrous than handing over the control of a school in one parish to a School Board in the next parish? Such a proposition was never made in any endowment scheme before. If the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would look into the matter, he would find it was absolutely impossible to carry it out. If a transfer were made to the landward parish of Inverness, the school would still remain in another parish, and rates could not be levied in one parish to support a school situated in another parish altogether. It was absolutely impossible, under the Education Act, for a School Board to assess the ratepayers of a parish to carry on a school outside their own jurisdiction. By these education schemes an endowment might be altered, hut not the Common Law of the land.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

said, he must again enter his protest against the extremely impractical and absurd way in which these educational schemes were dealt with by hon. Members. ["Oh, oh!"] These schemes were prepared by the Commissioners after a patient inquiry, and they endeavoured to make the best arrangement they could for improving the advantages of an endowment to the locality. They were then laid before the Education Department, and hon. Members, who in the House denounced the scheme in such indignant terms, took no objection whatever. The matter was allowed to stand over for the usual period by the Department to see if any objection would be taken, and, none being forthcoming, the Department approved the scheme, and then not until the Bill appeared on the Table of the House was any objection urged. Everybody knew perfectly well that there was no Member of the House, except a few who happened to have studied the scheme, who could give a capable or sensible verdict on the subject. It was an unreasonable way to deal with the matter. As to the remarks of the hon. Member who had just spoken, the Scotch Department, in giving their approval, had not thought it necessary to consult the legal opinion of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

said, he must protest against the tone of the speech in which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had complained of the way in which the House of Commons dealt with these schemes as unpractical and absurd.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, he did not object to that at all; he objected to the unpractical way in which individual Members of the House brought these schemes into discussion, knowing perfectly well that it was impossible for the House to consider them.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he equally protested against the remarks being applied to individual Members. The schemes were laid on the Table of the House in accordance with the Act of Parliament, in order that Members might take cognizance of them, and any Member had not only a statutory right but a duty to overhaul any scheme, and to state his objections, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in no way justified in taking the tone he had. He might have added a few words of explanation, instead of indulging in this recrimination; but he had not said a word to indicate that he had as much acquaintance with the details of the scheme as those Members whom he had chosen to reprehend for ignorance and folly. No objection had been taken, he said, while the scheme was before the Education Department. But what was the position of a poor parish like Daviot in relation to the Scotch Education Department? Most of the inhabitants were very poor. No doubt, they had an opportunity of being heard when the Commissioners were at Inverness, and, no doubt, they were heard; but, substantially, when the scheme went before the Education Department their opportunity of making their views known was gone, or practically so. He had had opportunities of watching the progress of these schemes. In regard to endowments in large urban communities, where there was a possibility of meeting and acting together, the people could do something to make their views known to the Education Department. But in scattered or poor districts, schemes diverting endowments from their original purposes, contrary to the wishes of the community, had been passed through the Department and the House without comment, simply because the people could not possibly get up an organized protest. A community like that of Daviot had no chance of making their views heard by the Department, and the only opportunity they had was in making their wishes known to the house through their Representative. The main contention against the scheme was that the proposed division was entirely contrary to the wishes and needs of the people for whom the endowment was intended. In regard to what the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) said, it should be known that since the scheme was approved there had been a School Board election at Daviot, and the new Beard were unanimous against the scheme. Certainly, if his hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) went to a Division, he should support him; and he hoped there would be a Division, if only to protest against the tone of the Lord Advocate towards Members who were discharging a statutory duty, and doing nothing that could fairly be described as unpractical or absurd.

MR. PROVAND (Glasgow, Blackfriars, &c.)

said, he also earnestly protested against the remarks of the Lord Advocate, and thought the objection taken by his hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell) perfectly reasonable. Why did not the Lord Advocate reply to the question of illegality that had been raised? If, as the Lord Advocate said, the House was incapable of dealing with matters of the kind, why were they submitted to the House at all, and why did not the Government make other arrangements, or provide some other tribunal? He could not see that Scotch Members were incapable of dealing with such things, and it was their duty to do deal with them. He admitted he did not know much about this particular scheme, and he had no doubt many hon. Members from Scotland were equally unfamiliar with it. It might be that only Members from the locality and the hon. and learned Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell), who made educational subjects his special study, had full information on the subject; but that did not give the Lord Advocate the right to lecture hon. Members, and talk roundabout and outside the question, without attempting to elucidate it, and show that the arrangement was a fair one. No doubt, the Commissioners thought it was; but the House had to be satisfied of this, and, instead of making a series of remarks indicating so much impatience, it would have been more fitting if the Lord Advocate had given some explanation to show the scheme was a proper settlement of this endorsement.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

said, he was not inclined to be a supporter of the Lord Advocate; but, at the same time, he objected to being asked to vote against a scheme because of an answer the Lord Advocate had given. Surely they could discuss the matter apart from the answer of the Lord Advocate. In reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), it was right to explain that opposition to a scheme of this kind really did not cost money. The scheme was first sent down to the locality, and all parties interested had an opportunity of sending in their names to the Commission, and a second opportunity was afforded by objections being sent when the scheme was before the Education Department; and, lastly, came this power of objection in the House. If the intention of the testatrix had been respected, there would have been no occasion for the Commission to interfere; they only dealt with endowments which had deviated from, or outgrown, the object for which they were intended. So far as he understood the scheme, it had been prepared with unusual care, and there was no objection to the scheme on its merits; the objection only came from one parish. But if there was never to be any alteration, the purpose for which the Commission was appointed would be entirely lost. There ought to be no Commission at all if they had no power to alter an endowment to bring it into compliance with modern requirements of population. He must support the scheme on its merits.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 93: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 70.)