CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.

HC Deb 16 August 1911 vol 29 cc2050-63

Mr. MOUNT

I beg to move, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent from such part as affects Newbury of the scheme in the matter of Christ's Hospital with the foundations of John and Frances West and of Frances West in London, Reading, Newbury, and Twickenham, and elsewhere (No. 249)."

I must apologise to the House for raising at this hour of the night a question which though it involves a principle is mainly one of local interest, but I will endeavour to state as briefly as may be the objections of my Constituents to this scheme, which deals with the administration of a gift which was largely, if not mainly, intended for the children of the poor of Newbury. We think that the Board of Education are sacrificing the interests of these children for the interests of that great corporation—Christ's Hospital. I will summarise the history of the endowment in a few words. In 1730 John West, a prominent inhabitant of Newbury, gave certain property in London in trust to the governors of Christ's Hospital to maintain and educate in their Hospital or elsewhere, along with other children, a certain number of poor boys and girls, two-thirds of whom were to come from Newbury, and it was further provided in the trust that if the Governors refused or failed to carry out its provisions, wholly or in part, the trust should go elsewhere. I draw attention to these two parts of the scheme because they support the contention of the local authority that the trust was not entirely intended for the benefit of Christ's Hospital.

Further, from time to time, schemes have been made by the Board of Education under the Endowed Schools Act dealing with this trust. The cost of the maintenance of children has been increased to £25, £32, and now to £50, but there has been of late a very great increase in the income arising from this property owing to the fact that it consisted almost entirely of property in London. In 1905 the income from it was £4,380, now it has more than doubled. In addition to that there has been a large fund accumulated of £26,000, which is now standing to the credit of the fund, and this has rendered the scheme necessary. Provision is made in it for the education at Christ's Hospital of thirty-six children from Newbury, or some place within ten miles of the town, at the rate of £70 a year. They are to be nominated by the local authority at the age of between nine and twelve. For one-third preference is to be given to the kin of the benefactor, one-third to children who have spent two years in the elementary schools, and the other third are to be natives of Newbury or parishes contiguous thereto. A small sum is also set apart for travelling expenses, and the balance of the share of Newbury after the payment of £70 a head for the Newbury children goes to a residue fund, out of which are to be provided expenses for these West foundationers or apprenticeships for preparing them for a profession or trade when they leave school. There is, however, a proviso which very largely minimises the advantages which Newbury is likely to gain. It says that the minimum payment to Christ's Hospital is to be based upon a certain fixed number of places—thirty-six so far as Newbury is concerned. The result of that is that whether these places are full or not, whether you have these thirty-six children from Newbury going to Christ's Hospital or not, Christ's Hospital will get the payment for these thirty-six places. With regard to the accumulated fund, half of it is to be paid to the general fund of Christ's Hospital and the rest goes towards the residue. So far as the residue is concerned Newbury is, I am afraid, likely to come off rather badly, because there are two other towns, Reading and Twickenham, which have better advantages for their children than Newbury can have, and which participate equally.

These are roughly the points of the new scheme. While we object to it as a whole there are parts of it which we gladly welcome as being an improvement upon the old scheme. But the people of the district for whom I speak contend that this scheme is not sufficiently favourable to Newbury children, for whom this trust was originally and largely intended. We contend that the object of the benefactor, John West, many years ago, was primarily to benefit the children of Newbury. His object was that the children there should have proper and suitable education at a time when the facilities for education were very few and far between. Though we felt that Christ's Hospital had some claim to a good deal of consideration, the interest of Christ's Hospital in the fund is, if I may say so, only contingent. The contention of the Board of Education and of Christ's Hospital, who are opposing us in this scheme, is no doubt that this fund was primarily intended for the benefit of the Hospital. If that is so I should like to ask the House why it is that the words "or elsewhere" were put in the trust deed, or why it was that provision was made for the transfer of the trust if Christ's Hospital did not properly conform to the trust set out in the deed. I would further venture to say that it cannot any- how be denied that the children of Newbury ought to receive full consideration at the hands of the Board of Education.

I cannot think that the Board have properly carried out the duties which have been placed upon them under the Endowed Schools Act, which states that it shall be the duty of the Commissioners—and the Board of Education now represents the Commissioners—in every scheme which modifies any of the privileges or educational advantages to which a particular class are entitled to have due regard to the educational interests of such class of persons. I do not think that anyone, whatever they may feel about the whole of this question, would say that due consideration has been given to the children of Newbury. Let me point out that they are the children of poor parents. Under the scheme itself preference is to be given to children whose fathers are dead or incapacitated from earning a livelihood. They are children from the elementary schools taken to Christ's Hospital between the ages of nine and twelve. I ask anyone whether the interests of these children are properly considered when they are sent at that early ago to a school which has about 1,000 boys and girls. It seems to me a very strange heresy indeed, and a strange method for the Board of Education to adopt in this scheme. It is one which if introduced by any independent body would have been instantly rejected by the Board. In asking the House to refuse assent to the scheme I do not wish that Newbury should have the whole of this endowment, but I do say that if you are to consider the interests of the children you ought to give a considerable portion of that endowment to the locality in order that the money may be spent on technical and secondary schools, which would be of greater advantage to the children than would be the education provided at Christ's Hospital

This scheme was necessitated by the enormous accretion to the increase of the endowment, which has increased from £4,300 to £9,300, yet all that Newbury gets is an addition of ten places, an increase from twenty-six to thirty-six. I would be the very last to suggest that the education given should not be the most suitable and effective possible, but when you are going to spend £70 a head on young children from elementary schools I think that it is a wasteful and extravagant scheme. When we know what an excellent education can be given in the County Council schools, or by schools like the Masonic School at Bushey, for £50 a head it would be far better to provide an education at a more moderate cost for a larger number of those children. The increase in the cost is not in the interests of the children of Newbury but in the interest of Christ's Hospital itself. The standard of educacation in Christ's Hospital has gone up, but the children of Newbury should not be penalised in order that the standard of Christ's Hospital should be maintained at the very high position at which it undoubtedly is at the present time.

The proviso that Christ's Hospital is to receive payment for a fixed number of places, whether filled or not, is surely a very strange one. The Board of Education must know the difficulty which county councils often have in getting masters and mistresses to take in free scholars who are so rightly sent to the secondary schools, because they are very apt to say that free scholars are not of so high a standard as the rest of the scholars and therefore lower the standard of the school. The same thing may be said with Christ's Hospital, because when they have children taken from a limited class in a restricted area they will have greater difficulty in maintaining the standard. It is a very strange thing that in one of the draft schemes dealing with this endowment in 1908 this proviso did not appear. It was put into a later draft, and I have no doubt owing to pressure put upon the Board by Christ's Hospital. I ask the House to withhold its assent from this scheme because by doing so they will be protecting the best interests of the children of Newbury.

Mr. GARDNER

I beg to second the Motion.

It appears to me that the question resolves itself into one as to what is equitable as between the people of Newbury and Christ's Hospital. If this Bill is passed it certainly will be passed in the teeth of the strong opposition of the Newbury people. Several schemes have dealt with this charity since its original foundation. In the original gift it was provided that the charity was to be applied to the poor of Newbury. Although there has been so many of those schemes, I am unable to discover that any one of them diminishes the rights of those for whom the donor provided. By the scheme of 1890 there was a particular Clause which provided that no alteration with regard to the locality or those who benefited by it was to be made. The charge of £70 a place, whether filled or not, seems to be a very extravagant provision for the kind of scholar whom the donor intended to benefit in a country town like Newbury. The people of Newbury justly quarrel with that agreement. Beyond that they quarrel with the provision that half the accumulated fund is to go to the Corporation of Christ's Hospital.

There is nothing in the original gift of the donor, so far as I can see, that gives Christ's Hospital any other interest in. that fund other than as trustees for a particular purpose, and not to inure to their own benefit. It is quite true that on a previous occasion an accumulated surplus was divided, but that division gave no real precedent for what is now suggested. It happened long ago, and it seemed that it was handed over because Christ's Hospital had been educating lads from Newbury at £10 a year each. It is quite clear that they lost a great deal of money by it, and they were remunerated out of the surplus fund. Since then the cost at Christ's Hospital has gone up, first to £32 and then to £50 a year, and the Hospital has taken the money whether the places were filled or not. That being so, they were amply paid for the benefit they conferred formerly. Yet the Hospital take half the surplus, and there is no reason why they should do so, unless they can show that they have lost considerably on the education of the children for a long time past. The Corporation of Christ's Hospital are the trustees of the fund, and it is an extraordinary thing that the trustees should join in a scheme out of which they are to get some benefit for themselves. In my judgment the trust money belongs to this charity alone. If this scheme is passed it will work injustice to Newbury, which is one of the principal parties to the whole business.

Mr. GRETTON

(who was indistinctly heard): I have been asked to address the House in support of the scheme as the only governor of Christ's Hospital who happens to be present here to-night. The House will recognise the great difficulty there is in getting a scheme of this kind agreed to by all the parties. The objecting party in this case is Newbury and the district immediately around, and we are interested as the great foundation of Christ's Hospital to which this charity is attached. The towns of Beading and Twickenham, which are interested in the scheme in the same manner as Newbury, have given their consent. The Board of Education, after prolonged examination and negotiation, have also agreed to the scheme. I am very much surprised by some of the arguments used by my hon. Friends, but I do not quarrel with the history that has been given of the foundation of this charity, except that it is quite clear that the founder of the charity was a governor of the Hospital, and that he intended that the charity should be attached to the Hospital except so far as the surplus funds. Any of the surplus funds remaining over for the applications was not to be applied for the benefit of any of the towns. The original gift provides that the surplus, if any, goes in the first place to the Clothiers Company for the purpose of providing apprenticeships, etc., and any further surplus not used by them goes to three parishes in London for the same purposes; it is quite clear that Newbury can base no claim to the surplus upon the original intention of Mr. West. Reference has been made to the word "elsewhere," but that appears to me to be a mere quibble. "Elsewhere" clearly applies to exhibitions in universities or apprenticing or educating the children when they leave Christ's Hospital in order to make further progress to equip them for life. It is quite true that the whole of this difficulty as to the application of funds has arisen from the increase of rent in certain London property which supplies the revenue. There has been an accumulation of £26,000, which is now to be disposed of, and with which the scheme proposes to deal. My hon. Friends have laid great stress on the increase in the cost of education. All education in this country has increased in cost, as is very well known to the House. The cost of education of children in Christ's Hospital is now £70, and has been so for a considerable number of years past.

Under the scheme which now exists only £50 may be expended. Therefore every scholar who has been educated for a considerable number of years past has been educated at a loss to Christ's Hospital, and Christ's Hospital may reasonably claim some consideration and some payment out of the accumulated funds in order to recoup them for the loss which they have sustained in earlier years. The almoners of Christ's Hospital are not claiming anything for themselves. They are merely endeavouring to the best of their ability, with the assistance of the Board of Education, to administer the trust of which they are trustees. I put it to the House whether the education of children in a great institution like Christ's Hospital is not an immense boon and benefit to the neighbourhood to which the scholarships are attached? The education at Christ's Hospital is admitted to be one which gives the children who have the advantage of it an excellent start in life and a certain diploma which is of great value to them when they go out into the world. Objection has been raised to the admittance age. Christ's Hospital is divided into two establishments. There is a preparatory school at Hertford, where the children who pass the lower examination are educated until they can pass the higher examination and join the larger portion of the school at Horsham. Under the scheme New-bury gets ten additional places, and as Newbury has had some considerable difficulty in filling the twenty-six places already allotted, the thirty-six places will be ample for the requirements of the district. In order to extend the charity over a wider area the scheme provides that a certain district around Newbury shall be taken in, and that the children in that district shall be eligible for nomination to attend the school.

The scheme provides that children from this locality may come to the school, where they will be clothed and educated free of all expense to their parents; it provides for their further education at universities and so forth. Great objection has been raised because Christ's Hospital claims the whole of the money. It is quite clear that under every past scheme the trust has been treated as part of the foundation of Christ's Hospital. The whole arrangements of the school have been conducted on the assumption that these places had to be provided. Recently, when the school was transferred from London to Horsham, it was held, under the best possible legal advice, that subject to the conditions of the trust the money was part of the foundation of Christ's Hospital. It really seems to me, as one of the governors of Christ's Hospital, and also as an ordinary business man, a little unfair at this time of day to come to the House and suggest that a part of the fund should be extracted and applied quite contrary to the wishes of the founders and to the provisions of the previous trust. This is not a hurried scheme. The original scheme was brought forward in 1905, and various amendments have followed. Now all concerned practically, the Government, the Board of Education, the towns of Reading and Twickenham, and the Governors of Christ's Hospital, have arrived at a settlement. The House will be well advised not to accept the Motion of my hon. Friend, but to allow the scheme to go forward.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman)

I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Motion on behalf of Newbury, for I would point out to him that if it were carried Newbury would be much worse off than actually it will be under the scheme as it has been drafted. Under the scheme as it has been drafted Newbury has no less than thirty-six places in Christ's Hospital, giving them something like £2,520 per annum. If the Motion were carried that would revert to £1,300, and Newbury would be actually £1,200 a year worse off. Even if the allowance were made on the £70 basis they would be £700 worse off. Moreover, it would be deprived of exhibitions to the value of £800 which now appear for the first time. I should like to emphasise the point that has been made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He has an intimate connection with the governing body of Christ's Hospital. This is by no means a new or a hurried scheme. Negotiations have been going on ever since 1905. The scheme was then published for two months. Many objections were heard. The scheme was revised in 1908, and again, after further objections, in 1910. It was finally settled in June of this year. Every one of the parties concerned has been heard, and now, the final scheme having been settled, Newbury's is the solitary objection. The position of Newbury is in no way exceptional. It is in exactly the same position that Reading was. Reading's objections have all been withdrawn. Newbury's objections are the only ones that remain. In very long and very complicated trust transactions of this kind I think that an agreement, if it has been accepted by practically all the parties concerned, shows at all events that the scheme is not an unjust one. I will point out in a few moments that Newbury has no ground for complaint.

The hon. Gentleman took the point that the money of this trust might be used at Christ's Hospital "or elsewhere." He has there, I think, been making, quite unintentionally, an unfair use of the words "or elsewhere." The Clause reads, "admit into Christ's Hospital and maintain and educate therein 'or elsewhere' … together with the other children… belonging to the said Hospital." There are only two possible interpretations of that, the one given by the hon. Member for Rutland and the one that to me seems perfectly fair which refers to the fact of their education in Christ's Hospital in the City of London, or some other place, with the remainder of the children. That does not mean they are to be scattered outside Christ's Hospital altogether.

The main objection the hon. Member takes is not that Newbury only gets thirty-six places, but that Newbury does not get hard cash. There is no provision for that, and never has been. No one of the trustee governors of this charity has ever been allowed to give hard cash for the assistance of secondary schools or otherwise.

Mr. MOUNT

That was not my complaint. My objection was there was no guarantee that the children would be taken: that was my objection.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

If that is the objection of the hon. Member I do not think it is a good one or that he is on good ground, because Christ's Hospital gives thirty-six places for Newbury, and the difficulty is that Newbury children do not come forward. The next point was, I think, that about the accumulated fund. Great care is taken as to the way that is dealt with. Christ's Hospital governors were entitled to the whole of £26,000, and I think they have behaved generously in agreeing to a scheme which will allow half of the £26,000 not to go into the general funds of the Hospital, to which it might well go, but to go for exhibitions which will benefit the children of Newbury along with the other children dealt with under the scheme. Under Clause 1 of the principal scheme of 1890 the endowments of Christ's Hospital, including West's gifts, are dealt with, and I think it was under Clause 92 that the West fund was to be administered, as nearly as possible as formerly, until a further scheme was made under the Endowed Schools Act. Under the scheme of 1897 it was provided under Clause 3 there should always be on the foundation of Christ's Hospital twenty-six children selected by the Council. The effect is, any income not applicable for the Newbury foundationers is brought under the operation of the principal scheme. The almoners of Christ's Hospital were entitled to the whole, amounting to £26,000, and a good arrangement seems to me to have been made by the governors, which provides that half of that sum should go to the endowment of exhibitions and so forth. I cannot hope to make a complicated question of this kind clear in the course of a few minutes, but I believe the local grants are perfectly secure, and I am advised that there is not the least doubt about the right of Christ's Hospital to the whole of the amount, and I think they acted liberally and generously in agreeing to a scheme which is fair to all parties. I think the hon. Member, having made his protest, should now be satisfied.

Sir WILLIAM ANSON

I would like to say a word in support of my hon. Friends. I think it is quite clear that Newbury, Reading, and Twickenham were to have the opportunity of sending the best of their boys to get the advantages of the education at Christ's Hospital, and that Christ's Hospital was to get the best Reading, Newbury, and Twickenham could give. That was what one would be glad to see take place. But Newbury is given thirty - six places and the boys are to be chosen, by examination, between the ages of nine to eleven to fill those places. The boys are to be chosen from an ordinary elementary school. It seems the result will be that you will, either by admitting boys with inferior education lower the standard of Christ's Hospital or put undue strain upon the children to qualify, or the grant will be nugatory and the places will not be filled up. I take it that Newbury wishes that some of the money should be spent in preparing some of the children. Newbury would be better off with fewer places and with some money spent in elementary or higher education which might enable the children to be so prepared as to fill such places as remained, so as to get the advantage of the education at Christ's Hospital. You have merely to put your money where it is wanted to improve the supply of children. This seems to me a defect of the school. It multiplies scholarships without taking care that the children who come forward for the scholarships are sufficiently prepared to occupy the places open to them. The places are not filled, the money goes elsewhere, and the objects of the benefactor are not satisfied. The money is not put in the right place. It is not used to improve the supply of children. In that way neither the other places nor Christ's Hospital get the benefit which the founders of this charity intended. It does seem to me that the accumulation has been arrived at because places which should have been filled have not been filled. Surely the schools are entitled to share equally. Instead of Newbury getting one-third of a half of £26,000, Newbury is entitled to share equally with Reading, Twickenham, and Christ's Hospital. If the money is to be divided, it should be divided amongst all. That seems to me to be a fair division of the money. This scheme is not a logical one from an educational point of view, because the money is not spent to the advantage of education. It is because I do not think the division of this accumulated sum is fair that I am prepared to support my hon. Friends if they think it necessary to go to a Division.

Major HENDERSON

I cannot understand how it can be contended that Mr. West, a governor of Christ's Hospital, had the interests of that Hospital chiefly at heart when we know that throughout the western part of Berkshire his kith and kin had been his first thought. I think I may safely say that four people out of every ten in this particular part of Berkshire claim kinship to Mr. West, and to use this money for Christ's Hospital would not be using it in the interests of the West family. The kin of Mr. West has not progressed in the way Mr. West did, and that fact will be clearly brought home when I state that in this parish of 200 inhabitants three out of five old age pensioners claim kinship to Mr. West and get extra gratuities in consequence. Mr. West's intention was to benefit those who came after him. The local education authority of Berkshire does not favour the scheme, and they think the Board of Education is acting in a high-handed manner in doing this over the heads of the local education authority. If that was the sole reason it would be quite good enough to induce me to support the Motion of my hon. Friend.

Mr. PETO

It is only necessary for me in supporting my hon. Friend to simply deal with one main question. It has been said that this is not only a question of local interest, but it contains a great principle. I would like hon. Members to consider this question before they finally decide. If the income derived from this charity, instead of having doubled in the course of the last few years, it had decreased by 50 per cent., does any hon. Member suppose that we should have had the Board of Education coming forward with a brand new scheme to benefit the kith and kin of John and Frances West or the poor children of Newbury? It is only because the whole income has doubled in a very few years that we are to have a brand new scheme, and those of us in the Newbury district are told we are being treated generously because we are offered 30 per cent. more of educational advantage in, return for 100 per cent. more income to Christ's Hospital. I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) said John West was a governor of Christ's Hospital. He argued from that he had quite as much interest in benefiting Christ's Hospital as in benefiting his own kin coming after him.

Perhaps I am a little overstating the hon. Member's argument, but, as I read this, Christ's Hospital is merely the vehicle for carrying out this charity. The intention of the benefactor was to educate poor children, particularly those of his own kin, in the towns of Newbury, Twickenham, and Reading. That being so, I believe a scheme that provided a more appropriate education would be infinitely better than one which threw into the general fund of Christ's Hospital all the surplus from this great accretion of capital that has taken place. Why was Christ's Hospital named? The hon. Member for Rutland says because, among other reasons, John West was a governor of the Hospital; but I also say it is perfectly obvious he wanted to give the best education to the children who were to come after him, and he naturally named Christ's Hospital, which provided the best education of which he knew at that time. If the Board of Education wished to truly carry out the object of this benefaction, they would be infinitely better advised to provide some more suitable education for the people for whom the benefit was intended. I have great pleasure in supporting this Motion, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.

Question put, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent from such part as affects Newbury of the scheme in the matter of Christ's Hospital with the foundations of John and Frances West and of Frances West in London, Reading, Newbury, and Twickenham, and elsewhere (No. 249)."

And, it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-one minutes after Twelve a.m., Thursday, 17th August.