§ MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)said, he would promise the House that at that late hour (1 a.m.) he would not detain hon. Members at any great length with the next Motion. He might briefly say that many of the arguments used against schemes of the Commissioners within the last few days applied to this case, and it would be unnecessary to repeat them. The locality to which the Trust related was not in his county, but in the neighbouring county to that he had the honour to represent, but the endowment related to a parish in which he lived, and he was well aware of the circumstances. The great objection to this scheme was, that it took away from the poor of the parish the benefit of £900 or £1,000 a-year which they had enjoyed for 180 years. It was now proposed to take away the major part, or a very considerable portion of the endowment, subdividing it into bursaries, mainly for higher education. Although the poor would receive a certain amount of benefit under the scheme, they would not got the whole amount they were entitled to. His second objection was that the scheme entirely altered the Governing Body. The will of the founder laid great stress upon religious education 618 and the administration of the fund by ministers of religion of the parish. The scheme altered that in a great measure. No doubt, they had a representative on the new Governing Body; but they would not have that control the founder intended they should have. Further, the people complained that their full right to the fund was not secured, and under the scheme it might be applied outside the parish. Much might be said, though he would not now trouble the House with it, on the legal aspect of the question. It was argued, and with some force, that inasmuch as the grant was vested in the ministers of Kirk Sessions, that it did not come within the provisions of the Act of 1882, and the Commissioners had no right to touch it or interfere with it. The poor parishioners felt it a very great hardship that this Bequest should be submitted to the very rigorous procedure of the Act. He would not, however, go at length into the case, but merely stated the outline of the objections that induced him to give Notice of his Motion.
§ MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT (Roxburgh)seconded the 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 parish of Caerlaverock, county of Dumfries, known as the Hutton Trust, approved by the Scottish Education Department, now lying upon the Table of the House.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)said, as his hon. and learned Friend, in bringing forward his objection, had told the House that it was the opinion among the inhabitants of the parish that the scheme of the Commissioners was contrary to law, it might be sufficient for him to say—and the House would agree with him—that this was not the time or place to dispose of that point. If the action of the Commissioners was contrary to law, then a Court of Law could set it aside, and the House had nothing to do with that point. He might briefly give the history of the Trust—[Cries of "No, no!"]—he would promise to be brief. The original capital placed £900 at the disposal of the trustees, but they, apparently not finding fitting objects upon which to dispose of the income, had 619 allowed it to accumulate, and the income was now £1,070 per annum. This was expended in doles for the poor, with the usual result of extensive doles in a small parish—that the poor became so demoralized that at the present moment the expenditure for the poor from the rates was higher than anywhere else in Scotland, and equalled £1 per head of the population. He observed that his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot), in spite of his strictures upon Members who took part in Divisions without hearing the discussion, had left the House before he learned what the scheme proposed by the Commissioners really was. It was proposed that a third should be applied to the relief of the poor, and that the rest should be devoted to education, the payment of a school teacher, the payment of fees of poor and deserving children, and in bursaries. He did not think the House would deny it was an improvement on the state of things existing and a better application of the endowment.
§ Question put, and negatived.