HUTCHESONS' HOSPITAL AND HUTCHESONS' EDUCATIONAL TRUST BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 April 1904 vol 133 cc798-810

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My Lords, under ordinary circumstances I should move the Second Reading of this Bill in a couple of sentences, but as my noble friend Lord Camperdown intends to ask your Lordships to adopt the somewhat drastic treatment of refusing the Bill a hearing before a Committee of your Lordships' House, I must briefly state what the history and objects of Hutchesons' Hospital and Hutchesons' Educational Trust are, and also the proposals contained in this Bill. The Hutchesons' Hospital and Hutchesons' Educational Trust is the result of the endowment of certain worthy citizens of Glasgow of two centuries ago. I think there were five or six original endowers. There were the brothers George and Thomas Hutcheson in 1640, there were James Blair and David Baxter in 1714 and 1776, and there was William Scott in 1818. All these citizens of Glasgow had the same object—namely, to benefit Glasgow men of their own class. It was not a charity for the benefit of Glasgow as a whole, but for the benefit of the burgesses of Glasgow; and the intention of the founders of the charity was to help their brother burgesses when in need, first by giving them pecuniary assistance, and secondly by giving education to their sons. The proportion in which these funds were to be distributed was, roughly, three-fifths for personal maintenance and two-fifths for the purpose of education. When the scheme first came into operation its method was this—the personal assistance was given to needy burgesses of Glasgow by putting them into a hospital—that is to say—they were lodged and maintained in a sort of glorified workhouse. The education was given by boarding out the boys in different parts of Glasgow. But this system was very soon changed. As early as 165- a school for the boys was established, and by 1780 the hospital system had fallen through, and, instead, pensions were given to the needy burgesses. So things went on, and in 1816 the present boys' school was built, and in 1876 a girls' school was also erected by means of which girls, for the first time, had the benefit of educational assistance under the charity. Then, in the year 1872, the Hutchesons' Hospital Act was passed which allocated the funds of the trust in the proportion of about half to pensions and half to education. In 1882 came the Scottish Educational Endowment Act, and, as a consequence of that, the Scottish Educational Endowment Commission, of which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh was President, in 1885 prepared a scheme for the administration of this trust, by which the charge of education was taken out of the hands of the old body which had complete control—namely, the patrons —and given to a new body called the governors. It was decided that two-fifths of the funds coming from the Hutcheson, Blair, and Baxter endowments should go to education, and three-fifths to pensions.

Let me now say a word as to the two bodies who manage the funds. First, there are the patrons. They consist of the whole of the Corporation of Glasgow, some seventy-seven persons. Added to them are twenty-two outsiders, made up of the seven ministers of the Established Churches in the old city parishes of Glasgow, and certain persons appointed by outside bodies, of whom the most important are the Merchants House and the Trades House in Glasgow, making altogether a body of ninety-nine. It is due to this body of patrons that the funds have been so admirably managed that from an endowment, originally of a few thousand pounds, the annual income has grown to £19,000 a year. I may say that the patrons still have complete control of the pension part of the scheme, and also complete management of the general fund. The patrons are unanimously in favour of this Bill. I come now to the governors, who, under the scheme of 1885, were given the charge and the management of the educational part of this Trust. They, too, are a very representative body. They consist of twenty-one persons, eleven being nominated by the Corporation of the City of Glasgow, one by the University of the City of Glasgow, two by the city ministers of Glasgow, one by the Merchants House in Glasgow, one by the Trades House in Glasgow, three by the School Board of Glasgow, and two taken from ministers of other denominations than that of the Established Church, who have churches within the district affected. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a thoroughly representative body. Of the twenty-one gentlemen who form the body of governors, fourteen are in favour of the Bill as it stands. There are six against it, and there is one, a very distinguished member of the Glasgow School Board—Sir John Cuthbertson—who is neutral. You are, therefore, in this position. The patrons are unanimously in favour of this Bill, and the governors are in favour of it in a majority of more than two to one.

The first object of the Bill is to enable the governors to put an end to the schools that are now carried on under the Trust—the boys' school and the girls' school. That may seem, at first blush, rather a strong order, but I will show that it is not so. Since 1885 the whole circumstances of education in Glasgow have totally changed. You have had compulsory free education introduced, you have had greatly increased grants for education, and there is also this other point, that the situation in which the present boys' school under this Trust is placed in Glasgow is one that has had a bad effect on the success of the school. Whereas in the year 1885 there were on the boys' side 1,825 fee-paying scholars, there are now only 164; and whereas in 1885 there were on the girls' side 562 fee-paying scholars, there are now only 216; and it is calculated that the average course of education of each of the scholars in these schools amounts to no less than £13 a year, as against £2 18s. 3½d. a head for the scholars in the elementary schools of the School Board of Glasgow, and £9 11s. 4d. for the scholars in the higher grade schools in Glasgow. From that it is very evident that the education given to the children in these schools is exceedingly expensive, and that the money that is now devoted to these schools could be much more usefully and profitably expended in some other direction for the purposes of education. That idea is borne out by the action of the School Board for Glasgow itself, for last year that Board accepted the propositions now made in the Bill, and consented to take over the schools of the Hutchesons' Hospital. Now they have resiled from that position, and say they will not take over the schools; but the reason they give for that is, that already in the public schools of Glasgow there is ample accommodation for all the scholars likely to be brought forward, and that they have already under their jurisdiction sufficient room for ail the scholars to be set free supposing these schools were closed. In that respect the action of the School Board itself is an argument in favour of the proposition of the governors.

As I have said, roughly speaking the proportion given to pensions and education in the past has been three-fifths to two-fifths. The proposal now made by the governors is, taking the annual income at the present moment at £19,000, to stereotype the sum of £7,000 for education, and they propose that the rest shall be given for pension purposes under the original Trust. But there is nothing final about the £7,000. If a Committee of your Lordships' House thought that a larger proportion should be given, or that the proportion should be smaller, it would be perfectly open to the Committee to make any such alteration, and the promoters of the Bill would be perfectly willing to accept it. In consequence of the opposition of the School Board, a number of the clauses now in the Bill will have to be struck out, because there is no longer any reason for an arrangement between the two bodies as to the disposition of these schools. The Bill goes on to lay down the various objects to which this £7,000 a year is to be applied: but again I say there is nothing final in these proposals. They are proposals that a Committee of your Lordships' House could well investigate and upon which the Committee could well express an opinion. When my noble friend the Acting Chairman of Committees brought this Bill before the House the other day my noble friend Lord Camperdown took exception to it on two grounds—in the first place, because it was too soon after the 1885 settlement. I admit that it is soon after that settlement, but the change in the educational position of Glasgow since 1885 has been very goat, and what was suitable in that year, and what was the best course then, need not necessarily be, suitable or the best course to-day. Therefore I think that argument is not a sound one, and that it is a perfectly fair thing that a further revision of the situation should take place. The other point made by my noble friend was that it was inexpedient to deal with this question now because there was a Scottish Education Bill about to be introduced. That Bill has now been brought forward, and I have no doubt His Majesty's Government before the end of the session will have passed it, but I say that that very fact is an additional argument in favour of a new and final settlement of the position of this Trust.

The Scottish Education Bill in no way deals with educational endowments. The Secretary for Scotland, in introducing the Bill, especially disclaimed any intention of dealing with endowments in any way whatever. Undoubtedly the Bill will bring about a new state of affairs. The Glasgow School Board, under the Bill, is retained with a larger area. In the case of a fund like this, which must necessarily be a fluctuating fund, it seems to me that in the interests of education itself it is desirable that a fixed sum should be applied year by year for the purpose of education in Glasgow. It must be remembered that you are departing, to some extent, from the intention of the endowers of this fund by applying any part of it to the education of children in Glasgow generally. The money will be applied for the benefit of the whole of the young people of Glasgow, and of a very much enlarged Glasgow. I argue, then, that it is not too soon to deal with this matter, and, indeed, that the introduction of the Scottish Education Bill is a good reason for a revision and a final settlement of this question, and for fixing a definite sum which shall, year by year, be applied for educational purposes to the best possible effect. I think it is desirable that the methods in which that money is to be applied should be fixed in some way and should be left to be managed and altered from time to time, as may be necessary, by the authorities controlling this particular Trust and the education authority of Glasgow itself. I ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time and send it to a Committee. There will be several questions that will come before the Committee. The first question the Committee will have to decide will be, Is it desirable that the schools of the Hutchesons' Trust should be abolished and be merged in the general school system of Glasgow? The second question will be, Is it desirable that the sum to be applied annually from this Trust for education in Glasgow should be a fixed sum? The Bill proposes £7,000, and the Committee will have to decide whether it shall be that sum, or whether the amount shall be higher or lower. Finally, the Committee will have to decide whether the methods by which it is proposed to apply the funds are good ones, and, if not, in what way they can be amended. These are all subjects with which a Committee of your Lordships' House are well able to deal, and I trust you will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a."—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My noble friend Lord Tweedmouth has gone in some detail into the merits of the Bill, as perhaps was necessary in view of the fact that I have given notice to move its rejection. I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I do not follow him into those details, but lay before your Lordships in a very few words the reasons for the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. It is only necessary for me to go back as far as the year 1885. In that year the Commissioners, of whom I think Lord Balfour of Burleigh was Chairman, made a scheme for Hutchesons' Hospital under the Act of 1882; and, to put it shortly, the result was this: they decided that for the future two-thirds of the income of the hospital was to be applied to education and the remainder to pensions. A body of twenty-one governors was appointed to administer this Trust, and the majority of those governors—namely, I think, fourteen out of the twenty-one—are now approaching this House to secure an alteration of the Trust and the terms of the scheme which they were only appointed to administer. In reality the governors, as such, have nothing more to do with the constitution of the Trust under which they work than any other members of the community. My first objection to the Bill is this, that it is an attempt by a private Bill to alter a public Act of Parliament. I am not going to argue that question now, but it is one which is open to a great deal of argument. The next objection to the Bill is that it proposes to sell the schools of the Trust. Since the Bill was introduced it has been entirely altered. The Bill as presented to this House set out that they had made an agreement with the School Board for Glasgow to take over the schools. For reasons with which it is not necessary to trouble your Lordships, the, School Board for Glasgow have changed their mind, and, so far from assenting to this Bill, they are opposing it.

I own that when I first looked into the matter it appeared to me that if the governors wished to alter the Trust they ought to have adopted a course which was laid down in the Act of Parliament and have appealed to the Court of Session. The Court of Session is in Scotland; the majority and the minority of the governors are resident in the neighbourhood; and the matter might have been inquired into by the Court of Session. But, on looking into the matter further, I must say it does appear that this is not an amendment or an alteration of the scheme, which could be dealt with in that way, but an absolutely new scheme, and therefore I do not think that the argument that they ought not to have applied to Parliament would fairly apply. But, at all events. I think your Lordships will be of opinion that if this Bill is to go to a Committee, the opinion of those governors who are opposed to it ought to be placed before the Committee quite as strongly and on the same terms as those of the governors who are in favour of it. As a matter of fact, so doubtful is the procedure which is proposed by this Bill that the governors have no right whatever to apply the funds of the Trust to the promotion of this Bill. I have looked at the Bill to see how it was proposed to provide for the costs. The Bill is promoted by fourteen of the governors, and they have inserted a clause empowering them to pay their own expenses out of the funds of the Trust, which they were really appointed only to administer, and which they have no special right, any more than anybody else, to propose to alter. If it is right that their views should be placed before the Committee and that their expenses should be paid, I hope the House will be of opinion that the views of those who are opposed to the Bill should also be placed before the Committee and that their expenses should be paid in a similar manner.

I know that your Lordships are always unwilling to give instructions to a Committee, but I think this is a matter which is really of very considerable importance, and in which an exception should be made. If the views of the minority are not placed before the Committee, I do not see how the Committee will be able to judge as to the merits of the opposition. In the Scottish Education Bill, which is now before Parliament, there is a clause dealing with the transfer of schools, under which this transfer might be carried out, provided that the School Board agreed to accept the schools. I do not, however, wish to go into that now. What I would suggest to the House is that the attention of the Committee should be called to this point. I am not aware that the minority of governors have up to the present time petitioned against the Bill. I only know one of them, Professor Ramsey, and I do not know whether he and the other governors in the minority have or have not petitioned against the Bill, but I think it is very likely they will not be willing to incur personally the cost of opposing the Bill. The result will be that the Committee will not be placed in possession of their views. I suggest that if the costs of the majority of the governors are to be paid out of the funds of the Trust it is only fair that the costs of the minority should be so paid. I do not know what the opinion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh may be with regard to a suggestion of that kind, but if he were in favour of its being in some way brought before the Committee then I think that in all the circumstances I should not be inclined to press my opposition to the Bill to the extent of refusing it a Second Reading. I formally move my Amendment until I hear what opinion may be expressed on this point.

Amendment moved— To leave out the word 'now,' and add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day six months.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE EARL OF KINTORE

My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient that I should state in a word or two the view of His Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill. I hope I am justified in thinking, from the remarks that have just fallen from my noble friend, that it is not his intention to persist in his Amendment for the summary rejection of the Bill by refusing it a Second Reading. The Bill, no doubt, does offer several points for criticism, and it is not one to which it is possible to pledge the Government's support. At the same time, the Government do not wish to go so far as to support its rejection on Second Reading. They think that the better and more convenient course is not to oppose the Second Reading, but, reserving full freedom of action at later stages, to agree to the Second Reading, and send the Bill upstairs to a Committee.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

My Lords, I think it is probable that, holding the position which I do at the present time, the House will not unnaturally expect a few words of guidance on this matter from me. Perhaps I ought just to say a word as to the position in which I, personally, am placed, as both the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and the noble Earl who moved its rejection, have stated that it is in fact a Bill for the alteration of a decision which was come to by a Commission some fifteen or twenty years ago, over which I had the honour to preside. It was, I may mention, the first Chairmanship which I had the pleasure of occupying, and it was given to mo by the noble Earl opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, under circumstances which he will, no doubt, very well recollect. When this Bill was presented last year at the Scottish Office in the form of an Order under the Private Bill (Scotland) Procedure Act, I agreed with my noble friend Lord Morley, the Chairman of Committees of your Lordships' House, that, owing to the circumstances in which I was placed, and the manner in which I had been identified with the previous decision, it would be Letter that it should not go forward under that Act, but should come to Parliament TO be decided here, and that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees should exercise his discretion over the formal stages in regard to it. It is rather by an irony of circumstances, that the very-state of things, which I desired to avoid, has now come about, and I find myself, by the action which I then took, in the very position which I did not want to be in.

The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill has so fairly and satisfactorily stated the circumstances that I do not think I need say a word about the narrative or the reasons for which this Bill comes before us. As has been stated, the object of the Bill is to effect certain very important changes in the destination of Hutchesons' Fund. It is to end the schools, to alter the division of the funds between the charitable and the educational sides of the Trust, and to alter the allocation of the funds, whatever they may be, which are hereafter to be devoted to educational purposes. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill seemed to suggest that this ought to have been effected by an appeal to the Court for Session in Scotland.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I said I at first thought that, but that on further consideration, owing to the revolutionary nature of the Bill, I could not urge that argument.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

That was exactly the point I was going to make. These changes are so revolutionary that I do not think the Court, under the powers given to it by the statute, would have consented to undertake such a revision. The noble Lord also said it was wrong that the schools should be sold, and seemed to animadvert upon the changes which have been made in the Bill. I do not think there is much in that point, because the School Board was the first to change its position. The School Board was, I think, perfectly justified in changing its position if it liked, because it is a different Board from the one which was in office when this proposal was first brought forward. With regard to the point which my noble friend. Lord Camper down, made as to the expenses of the minority, I think that is a perfectly fair subject for consideration by the Committee, and I have no doubt that it will be considered by them. I have made inquiry to-day, and I find that the minority of the trustees have presented a petition and will, therefore, be able to put their views before the Committee. I do not think this is the proper time to discuss the merits of this proposal, and I do not propose, therefore, to go into the advantages or disadvantages of it. If I have an opinion, I am bound to say that, at any rate as regards some of the changes, I think they go too far, and I think they are too revolutionary; but I cannot take up the position, after a lapse of nearly twenty years since the present arrangement was made, and after the changes which have been brought about in secondary and higher education in Scotland, that there is no case for some change. Personally, I should deprecate very much the changing of the proportion to be devoted to pensions and to education. But, although my opinion is in that direction, I am not prepared, as Chairman of Committees, to suggest to Parliament that that is a matter so contrary to the procedure and practice of Parliament that it should not be discussed if the majority of the trustees wish to have discussion upon it. If I have any great regret, it is that a considerable portion of the funds of this charitable institution should be spent in a contest of this kind, and to that extent I regret the action of the majority of the patrons.

I am able to say that if your Lordships consent to give the Bill a Second Reading there is no fear whatever that the points at issue will not be fully discussed upstairs. Seven petitions have been presented against the Bill, and, in all the circumstances, I think we may rely upon it that the matter will be fully discussed before the tribunal to whom I hope your Lordships will send it. Perhaps I ought to say that I have received a paper to-day from the promoters of the Bill to the effect that it is intended to oppose the locus standi of some of the bodies who have petitioned against the Bill. I am satisfied that most, if not all, of these bodies are interested in effect in this matter, and I am bound to say that if it should turn out that, according to the Rules of Parliament, narrowly construed, material interests such as these are shut out from a hearing upstairs, my attitude towards the Bill would be very greatly changed. Undoubtedly, great changes are proposed, and it is only right that they should be fully discussed in the light of all the information and in the presence of, and by, those who will be most affected by the ultimate decision come to. On the whole, I think it would be wise not to interfere in this case with the ordinary practice of this House, but to send this Rill to a tribunal upstairs, where, in the light of full information, what I believe will be a just and a fair decision will be come to. On the whole, therefore, I support the Second Reading.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

Would the noble Lord state his opinion with regard to help being given to the minority to bring their case forward?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think the usual practice is, that the matter should be brought before the Committee. If the Committee thought that a minority had acted frivolously or without due cause, they would probably not order their expenses to be paid; but, if they think, as I think it is probable that in this ease they will, that substantial interests are affected, and that these highly-respectable and influential gentlemen have not acted frivolously, I should personally express the hope that consideration would be given to the point raised by Lord Camper down. That is a matter which can safely be left to the good sense of the Committee.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I am sure those who are supporting this Bill will agree with what has just been said by Lord Balfour, and I hope that, in the circumstances, my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment for the rejection of the Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

In view of the statement that has been made that the minority will have an opportunity of stating their views, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.