Lords Sitting of 16 May 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (APPEALS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to provide that no appeal shall lie from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords except with the leave of that Court or the House of Lords, to make further provision as respects appeals from County Courts, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BLACKBURN) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHIPLEY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) COMMISSION.
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE had given Notice that he would thaw attention to the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Commission of 1928; and move, That His Majesty's Government do make an immediate declaration as to their intentions with regard to the continuance of the powers of this Commission beyond the end of the present year. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion that stands in my name on the Paper and to draw your Lordships' attention to the Educa-

425
tional Endowments (Scotland) commission of 1928. As your Lordships will remember, this House appointed the Commission to go into and, if necessary, reorganise the very large number of endowment funds which are scattered throughout the whole length and breadth of Scotland. The Commission was appointed in 1928 with a life of three years, and in 1931 was reappointed for a further like period. So that, unless further legislation is passed, the Commission comes to an end automatically at the end of the present year.
When the members of the Commission began their work all reasonable men, I think, agreed that there was a necessity for some Commission to consider and, if necessary, to reorganise many of the endowments in Scotland. Many of these endowments had been in existence for a long time, and, owing to a change of circumstances, and to legislation which from time to time has been passed, were undoubtedly, and are undoubtedly, in need of reorganisation and of bringing up to date. Everybody, I think, recognised the eaormous task which faced this Commission. Not only does it involve a very large amount of time and of hard work on the part of the Commissioners, but it is a task which demands great tact when dealing with subjects scattered all over the country, in each case of so many various details, and the whole being so close to the hearts of the people of Scotland. In the atmosphere which I have attempted shortly to describe the Commissioners began their work. Unfortunately it became apparent before very long that there was considerable opposition in various parts of Scotland to the policy, to the method of working, and to the schemes which were produced by the Commission. It is impossible for me in the short time at my disposal to go into the details of any of these schemes, for that is really more a matter, I think, for a law court than for the floor of your Lordships' House; and I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to touch very shortly on four different endowment funds. These four are chosen because each one of them brings out a very different point, and so does something to illustrate the variety of the cases which come before the Commissioners in the course of their work.
I turn first to an endowment fund applicable to the areas in and around
426
Troon in Ayrshire, which has become unfortunately unduly famous throughout Scotland under the name of the Marr bequest. This trust was a very large one, running to some hundreds of thousands of pounds. It came into operation after the death of Mr. Marr in 1919. Your Lordships will observe that under the terms of the Act if this trust had not come into operation until eighteen months, or possibly two years, later it would have been entirely outside the scope of this Commission, and they would have been unable to deal with it at all. Considering the facts that this trust was of such modern date and that the trustees appointed by Mr. Marr had only quite lately begun their scheme, and had to some extent developed on the lines which they understood Mr. Marr required, one might have thought that it would have been found possible by the Commission for them only to make some alterations perhaps in the details of the scheme, and to do this with the agreement of the local people. Unfortunately this did not prove to be the case. The strongest opposition among people of the locality has been aroused, and still exists to-day. At that I leave this bequest for the moment, though I shall refer to it shortly again.
One of the difficulties which I think the Commission have had to face has been the very vexed question of whether or not the wishes of the original testator were being, or were to be, complied with; and in the course of their work the Commission came across one endowment which I now refer to in the County of Sutherland, which was different, I think, from any others with which they have had to do. This endowment is known by the name of the Rogart Educational Association. This is different from all the other trusts dealt with, I think, owing to the fact that in this case the donor of the majority of the fund was still alive when the Commissioners instituted the inquiry. Your Lordships should know that Rogart in the County of Sutherland is a rather isolated, very thinly populated and purely rural area. In this area Mr. J.C. Mackay had for many years expended large sums of money in the most honest and undoubtedly well-meaning attempt to do something to improve the educational possibilities of the children in this area with which

427
he was connected. For twenty-eight years Mr. Mackay watched over this association and, as I understand it, organised and managed the spending of the money.
When the Commissioners held their first hearing and produced their draft scheme for the County of Sutherland, Mr. Mackay, I understand, appeared before the Commissioners and objected to the scheme. During the course of his appearance before the Commission Mr. Mackay took strong exception to the scheme as put forward by the Commission, and—I take this from the Press of the day—he is quoted as having objected strongly when the Commissioners were conducting their inquiry in Edinburgh. During the course of that inquiry Mr. Mackay said that for the last twenty-eight years he had controlled the work of the Rogart Educational Association, and had provided the entire funds for the grants given by the association until about eleven years ago, when the funds were supplemented by a legacy from his uncle, Donald Mackay.
Mr. Mackay said he did not see by what right the Commission could arrange to give the control of that money to another body and tell him, the living donor, how the money should be disposed of. Mr. Mackay later on also said:
"Altogether my family have given about£30,000 to the parish of Rogart, and this is the gratitude we get."
I have no opportunity in your Lordships' House to go into all the details of this or any other trust, but I do place this question before your Lordships as to whether it was entirely reasonable on the part of the Commission to come in in this way and to overturn the desires and intentions of a man, still alive, who appeared before the Commission, who had for so many years given generously of his means, and who had taken an infinity of trouble to help the education of the children in this lonely district.
At another time during his evidence before the Commission Mr. Mackay, I understand, remarked that he had intended to make a further bequest for the children of this area, but that, seeing that the Commission were entitled to come in and upset all his desires, he would have to reconsider that decision. Unfortunately, since those days Mr. J. C. Mackay has died. His will was published a little while ago, and
428
it was found that in the terms of that will there was included no endowment according to the lines on which he had indicated that he had intended to leave it. Am I unreasonable if I suggest that the people of Rogart are hardly likely to be pleased with the decisions of this Commission, when they have seen an old man, who for many years has been generous and has taken endless trouble on their behalf, have his wishes flouted, his desires disregarded? After all those years of work the people naturally say that they have been deprived of an endowment which they had every right, from what Mr. Mackay had said, to expect. Now that endowment is lost to them and their children for ever. I do not know that one can blame the people of the locality, but they lay much blame at the door of the Commission. They even go so far as to say Mr. Mackay has been driven into his grave by all the disturbance and the unpleasantness he has undergone at the hands of the Commission.
I turn for a moment to a trust named the Mann Bequest. Under this bequest there is a bursary of £30 a year for Edinburgh University for any boy or girl from Nairn Academy. Some time ago the University people, I understand, approached the Commissioners to reorganise the bursaries. The Commission did so. Among other bursaries this one applying to the people of Nairn was considerably altered in its terms. Nothing was heard of this at all in Nairn. A year or more after the new regulations had come into force, when the rector of Nairn Academy applied for a child to go from Nairn to Edinburgh University, he was informed the whole of the system had been altered. He then complained that nobody in Nairn had heard anything of this alteration, that nobody knew that the Commissioners had dealt with this bursary. He requested to be informed how this had been done and how it had arisen that no warning had been given to the people in Nairn.
It appears since then that the Commissioners advertised the fact that these bursaries were being altered in four daily newspapers on the same day, and inserted one advertisement or statement of some kind in the Edinburgh Gazette. The rector of Nairn Academy has since been in correspondence with the Government Department concerned, the Scottish

429
Office. I understand from this correspondence that it has been put forward that it would have been very difficult to circularise everybody concerned with all these bursaries of Edinburgh University, and it has been represented that had they done so it would have involved a matter of perhaps nearly one hundred letters to circularise everybody who might have had some concern with the matters in hand. Commissioners dealing with so delicate a question of endowments would, one might have thought, have considered it their first duty to take particular care, if any alterations were to be made in any bursaries or trusts of any kind, that all the people concerned were informed before the change finally became law.
Is it to be assumed that it is difficult, even impossible, for the Commission to circularise one hundred people? The Commission are so modern, so up-to-date, in policy, that I do not know whether we are to believe that the organisation of their office is so behind hand that it cannot, without a great deal of trouble, produce one hundred circular letters to be sent out. The modern copying machine overcomes this difficulty, and every office almost in the country can send out circulars of one hundred letters without thinking anything of it. The net result of this change is that the people in Nairn consider that they have been given no reasonable chance to make their representations and to put their objections before the Commissioners. They say that they had no idea that this matter of the Edinburgh University bursaries was being taken up at all; and how were they to watch the newspapers every day to see whether some bursary of theirs was being affected when they had no reason in the world to suppose anything of the kind was being done? Here, again, it is hardly surprising if the people feel that they have not been very fairly treated, and are inclined even to think that this small matter has been overlooked in the view that their objection, even if it had been made, would have betel so small that very little attention would have been paid to it.
I turn now to a trust called the Donald Manson Bequest. This is a large fund of money left by a certain Donald Manson who, some years ago, migrated to New Zealand, there lived and died, and there
430
left his money, with the result that the whole of the capital of this trust is now located in New Zealand under the care of the Public Trustee and the income from the trust is paid over to this country by the Public Trustee each year. The Public Trustee in New Zealand pays this money over year by year and requires only as a receipt a certificate from some responsible person—I think the Chairman of the County Council—which is sent to the High Commissioner for New Zealand in London, saying the money has been spent and spent in accordance with the desires of the people in the locality which Mr. Manson's bequest was intended to benefit. When the Commissioners appeared in Elgin for their first hearing the representatives of Morayshire and Ayrshire, who are largely concerned in the income from this bequest, appeared before the Commissioners. So far as I remember, the suggestion was made by the local people that here was a trust which was located entirely in New Zealand and that, therefore, it was possibly outside the scope of the Commission to deal with a trust which was not located within the borders of this country. So far as if remember the Commissioners swept that aside, publicly or privately or both, and decided that in future they were fully entitled to deal with this bequest.
The Commissioners produced their draft scheme to which the local people in those areas benefiting from the Donald Manson bequest objected. There followed a considerable argument between the local people, of whom some said the Commissioners must have communicated with the Public Trustee in New Zealand, whereas others said: "We are not quite certain of that and we are not quite clear that they have the power to deal with this bequest." As a result of this one local committee in Nairnshire and several individual residents in the parish concerned in Morayshire, wrote to the Public Trustee in New Zealand telling him what had happened and sending him a copy of the draft scheme. To the great surprise of the local people it later on became apparent that the Public Trustee in New Zealand knew nothing of the scheme, had not seen anything of it until the local people sent it to him, and was in fact entirely ignorant that this matter was being actively taken up. As a result of this

431
letter from the local people the Public Trustee wrote to the Commission, and as a result of that the Commissioners, rather late in the day, as it seems to us in the locality, sent an invitation to the Public Trustee to send a representative to their next hearing, which was to be in Elgin on May 3. Time was so short that this invitation had to be sent by cablegram. For some time nothing happened until, I understand, a cablegram was received from the Public Trustee in reply saying he did not intend to be represented at this hearing. There, so far as I know, the matter stands at present. Can you blame the local people if they are frankly terrified that the end of all this will be that the Commissioners will produce some scheme of which the Public Trustee in New Zealand does not approve and that the Public Trustee will then withhold the income from the trust?
There has been recently a most unfortunate case of a bequest amounting to a sum of £25,000 which, owing to a decision in the Courts of Law in the United States, has been lost to Scotland and has gone to some descendant of the Proctor family resident in the United States. The Commissioners have taken the view, I know, that the decision of the United States Court was in no way influenced by the existence or behaviour of the Commission. On the other hand, some people have taken the opposite view. Only a short time ago in the Press there appeared a long letter over the signature of the secretary to the Commission explaining, as I imagine everybody understood and as certainly I understood, the view of the Commission on this matter. I think everybody who read this letter took up the attitude: "Now, if the other people have anything to say, there must be an answer to this letter." They had not very long to wait. About three days afterwards in the same paper appeared a long letter from Sir Andrew Grierson, the Town Clerk of Edinburgh. I am in no way concerned in this Proctor bequest but, having read these letters and having discussed them with various people, I find that the result of this correspondence has been a considerable hardening of the view that Sir Andrew Grierson's argument was better and stronger than the argument of the secretary to the Commission, and that perhaps, after all, there was some
432
thing in the argument that the Proctor bequest had been lost to Edinburgh through the action or the existence of this Commission. At that I leave it. It seems to be an argument which can go on and on to the end of time.
But in view of that fact is it indeed surprising that the local people in Moray and Nairn are really frightened they may lose the income from this bequest, which means in all, I think, between £1,500 and £2,000 a year, and which has been of such enormous help in the parishes affected in the better education of their children? One would have thought that the Commissioners might from the start have taken every possible care in a matter like this to keep in close touch with the Public Trustee in New Zealand, and to inform him week by week how affairs were progressing. If it be said that the Public Trustee in New Zealand is a very long way away and that correspondence takes a long time, one might have thought that the Commissioners could have made an arrangement with the Public Trustee to nominate his representative in London to deal with this matter. I should imagine that would be the High Commissioner for New Zealand, who, after all, is close at hand and could be informed of every step as it is taken. So far as my information goes this does not seem to have been done, with the result that the local people feel that if great care is not taken in the future these funds may be lost to the parishes which they have in the past so greatly benefited.
I turn now from the quotation of individual cases to opinions which I have been able, during the course of some weeks of effort, to collect from men whose opinions I think are valued and whose names stand high in Scotland to-day. I refer, again, for a moment, to the matter of the Marr bequest. In one of the actions in the Courts which arose as a result of the matter of this bequest, Lord Sands gave a judgment, and I quote his judgment from the Scots Law Times Reports for 1934, in the case of Marr's Trust versus The Assessor for Ayrshire in the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. Lord Sands in giving judgment said:
"'Is it not a wonderful thing, said Mr. Pickwick, 'that we seemed destined to enter no man's house without involving him in some degree of trouble. Does it not, I ask, bespeak the indiscretion or, worse than that, the blackness of heart of my followers that beneath whatever roof they locate they

433
disturb the peace of mind and the happiness of some confiding female?' With a few changes of expression to suit the different circumstances, this seems to suggest a lamentation which might be appropriate in the mouth of the Chairman of the Educational Endowments Commission. Far be it from me to impute any reproach to them, but it seems to be their unhappy fate that, Wherever they locate themselves, they disturb the peace of mind and happiness of the community. The case before us is an echo of one such disturbance."
The learned Judge then turned to the details of the case, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, but further on he says:
"The endowments are so ample that (it may be with certain modifications in detail and the provision of boarding house) the Marr College might have been made the greatest school in the land, eclipsing Watson's, Heriot's, Stewart's, and the Glasgow schools with which I am not familiar. The proposals of the Commission negative any such idea. They may be wise, but they are so drastic as to be absolutely negative of any prospect of the continuation in the future of those munificent educational benefactions to which Scotland owes so much."
The late Lord Sands was known, I think, throughout Scotland, and also probably to many of your Lordships here, as a man of great ability. Be was not just well-known in the Courts of Law, but known as a great authority in matters of the Church of Scotland, and as one who certainly was not ignorant in matters of education. I think I am right in stating that he was Chairman of the University Committee of the Carnegie Trust, a Committee which under his chairmanship I have always understood was run in a manner which evoked the admiration of all who knew its work.
I turn now to the opinion of Sir Robert Halt, Principal of the University of Glasgow. Sir Robert Rait writes:
"The Educational Endowments Commissioners seem to me to have made two grave errors which cannot fail to be prejudicial to education in Scotland. Their violent interference with the intentions of testators, even in dealing with benefactions which general public opinion regards as continuing to serve a useful purpose, has alarmed those who are contemplating the creation of further endowments. Their treatment of bursary foundations, both in schools and in the Universities, is an attack upon an institution which has been of incalculable benefit to Scotland. A reversal of the policy of the Commissioners seems to me to be essential for the vital interests of Scottish education."
I am quoting from a letter written to me by Sir Robert Rait with the full know-
434
ledge that I was going to raise this debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon and with the knowledge that I should, if I thought fit, quote from the letter during the course of my remarks. I will not refer to the opinion of Sir George Adam Smith, the Principal of Aberdeen University, because I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, as Chancellor of the University, will deal fully in the course of the debate with the matters connected with it, but I think I may say that I have been given very definitely to understand that Sir George Adam Smith, like Sir Robert Rait, is strongly opposed to this Commission, particularly with regard to the bursaries and scholarships which are connected with the University of Aberdeen.
I turn now for a moment to a letter that I have received from a man who, in the Highlands, is known to be one of very reasonable mind, one who is well looked up to in the area where he is known, and whose opinion I asked with regard to this matter. He writes:
"We have no very flagrant cases against the Endowment Commissioners in Ross and Cromarty, so I can spare you any additional grouses except the general one that this class of Commission is a grave danger."
Further on he says:
"I have not heard of any one here who is not definitely opposed to the principle—if it may be graced with this name."
That is a quotation from a letter from the Chairman of the Ross-shire County Council, Sir Robert Brooke. He is a man whose intelligence is undoubted and whose fair-mindedness is well known. He writes that there is no definite objection to the Commission, but that he has not met a single soul who is in agreement with the principles of this Commission.
I turn now to the fifth Report of these Commissioners, issued to the public only a few days ago. This Report is a fairly lengthy document which appears to be a sort of defence of the Commissioners against the criticisms which have been levelled against them from so many parts of Scotland. In its pages a good deal is made of other Commissions appointed for the same purpose in the past and particularly of that Commission appointed in 1882, which carried through its work on the same sort of lines as this Commission to-day is working, under the Chairmanship of the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh.

435
It is quite true that that Commission's work produced objections from various quarters. No reasonable man would assume that this very difficult question could be tackled in every corner of Scotland, as it must be, without objections being raised from some parts. But, nevertheless, the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh was able to carry his Commission's work to a successful conclusion, and, as the present Commissioners quite rightly point out, the results of that Commission's work did not in any way dry up the flow of endowments which has continually strengthened since that day.
Many of your Lordships will have known the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh. All of you will know that in his day he stood very high indeed in the eyes of the people of Scotland, not only because of his ability and his hard work and his devotion to public duty, but also because of his whole character and kindly nature. I think it is no exaggeration to say that in his day the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh stood as almost the personification in Scotland of the well-known saying that in this world it does not matter so much what you do, what matters is the way in which you do it. The late Lord Balfour of Burleigh was able, with his unrivalled tact, with his extreme ability, to get agreement among various parties and among various types of men, and to carry through his work without any undue amount of objection. His Commission worked some years ago and it is difficult to trace how much objection was raised years ago as compared with the objections of the present day, but so far as I am able to judge the Commission under the chairmanship of the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh caused nothing like the feeling that now exists in Scotland against the Commission of 1928. I have met men who are old enough to remember very clearly the period when the Commission was in action and the period of time shortly after it ceased work. They say there is no doubt in their minds that no undue ill-feeling was caused by the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Commission, and that the feeling that existed as the result of that Commission was as nothing compared with the feeling aroused by the Commission presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, at the present day.
I turn now for one moment to page 38 of the Commissioners' Report in order to
436
quote from a letter which the Commissioners say the late Mr. Andrew Carnegie wrote to his trustees in 1903. I need not quote all the advice which this admirable man gave to his trustees. I will read only three lines:
"Try many things freely, but discard just as freely. As it is the masses you are to benefit, it follows you have to keep in touch with them and must carry them with you."
The accusation against this Commission is that they have so largely failed to carry out this advice which Mr. Carnegie apparently gave his trustees. The Commission, instead of treating the people in a kindly manner and making every endeavour to give them all possible opportunity to come to agreement, have given the impression, intentionally or unintentionally, that they are over-riding the people, and that their attitude is dictatorial. In the case of their hearings they adopt a position which is not considered pleasing by those who appear before them.
I understand that in various instances during hearings before these Commissioners representatives of local endowments have felt very strongly indeed the manner in which they have been treated by individual Commissioners. They have given their views of the trusts with which they are connected and then have found themselves submitted to cross-examination on every point which they mentioned. This procedure savoured more to them of the atmosphere of a criminal court than of discussion between a Parliamentary Commission, such as this is, and perfectly honest men who, for many years, have done public work in regard to local endowments. The result is that local people have gone away sore with the feeling that they had had treatment which was less than fair, that they had been deliberately cross-examined and that attempts had been made to trip them up by the individual members of this Commission.
I turn for one moment to the wording of my Motion on the Paper. It reads:
"To move that His Majesty's Government do make an immediate declaration as to their intentions with regard to the continuance of the powers of this Commission beyond the end of the present year."
I have purposely worded my Motion in this way. I have no wish in any way to embarrass His Majesty's Government when they are carrying out the arduous

437
duties which fall upon them in these difficult times. But I have to say that there are in Scotland to-day many of the schemes initiated by this Commission, some of them newly-born, some getting close to maturity, to which local objections are being raised. The local people say: "Why should we not be informed of what is the intention of the Government with regard to the future of the Commission?" They add: "We have no funds, except these funds which were left in our care for the purpose of education, to spend on litigation, and we think that it would be monstrous that we should spend this money on litigation which, as has been proved in the past, must almost inevitably be useless because the powers of the Commission are above the powers of the courts of law". They say: "If we know that this Commission is not to be continued beyond the end of the current year, then we are given the opportunity, by all the delaying action which is available to us under the terms of the Act, to hold this matter over until the life of the Commission ends, and so prevent this guillotine knife of which we are afraid from falling upon our necks".
I understand that the Commissioners themselves take the view that if their work is not to be continued beyond the end of the current year they might just as well be told so, because why should they continue their very arduous work if all this is in the end to come to nothing? I do not press that point, because the noble Earl, the Chairman of the Commission, who I understand will speak before the end of this debate, will speak with much more authority upon that question than I can do. I fear that I have taken up over-much of your Lordships' time with this matter, but it is so complicated and so widely spread, from north to south and from east to west of Scotland, that I have thought it necessary, at the expense of taking up too much of your Lordships' time, to skate quickly over the various points which have arisen and to endeavour to make a situation admittedly complicated a little clear in your Lordships' minds. During the course of my remarks I have tried to speak moderately in this matter. If I have succeeded, then have I in inverse ratio failed to represent the feelings in Scotland as I understand them, which
438
are so strong against this unfortunate Commission. I beg to move.
Moved, That His Majesty's Government do make an immediate declaration As to their intentions with regard to the continuance of the powers of the Educational Endowment (Scotland) Commission of 1928 beyond the end of the present year.—(The Earl of Leven, and Melville.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I am certain, after very careful inquiry and investigation, that there is a good deal of uneasiness and disquiet in Scotland in regard to the work of the Educational Endowment Commission. I agree with every word uttered by the noble Earl who has just spoken, and I hope His Majesty's Government will consider very carefully how they can avoid the damage that, is undoubtedly being done by some of the work of this Commission. Scottish Endowments made by rich philanthropists and others have in the past been to Scotland a source of pride and congratulation. Now I have heard of case after case where rich people have said: "I intended to endow this or that charity, but owing to the actions of this Commission it is no use. The endowment which I leave for certain purposes will be diverted by this Commission to some other cause in which I have no interest whatsoever." In other words, the fountain of charity is drying up, and drying up entirely owing to the suspicions being engendered in the minds of possible endowers by the actions of this Commission.
This feeling exists not only in the minds of rich philanthropists, but is very widely felt throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. Pick up any big well-known newspaper devoted to Scottish interests, and your Lordships will observe this feeling. The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald, the two most important newspapers in Scotland, have both had more than one leading article totally opposed to the work of this Commission. And it is not only dissatisfaction in the Press; the Edinburgh education committee have urged the Corporation of Edinburgh to renew their objections to the Commissioners' schemes. The special objection of the education committee is that the Endowments Commission are diverting funds left for educational purposes, especially bursaries, to purposes of

439
secondary importance, and in some cases of doubtful educational value.
I am not going to weary your Lordships at any great length or to generalise much further in this direction, but I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to a matter that concerns my own County. The Sutherland technical school was started by my mother, who raised an endowment fund of :20,000 for it. Without going into details at too great a length, the effect of the proposed scheme of the Commission so far as that technical school is concerned is simply to wipe out all power vested in the trustees to hold the funds, and the transfer to the County Council of these funds, without any check on the Council whatsoever. The arrangement whereby the funds were held in trust by independent trustees was very carefully considered and resolved upon in consequence of the provision that if the County Council did not carry on the boarding side of the school, then the funds could be dealt with by the trustees and the original intention fulfilled. That is only to give your Lordships one instance. There are many other instances, as the noble Earl, Lord Leven and Melville, has so clearly explained to your Lordships, and much more glaring instances than this one, of diverting funds from the objects for which they were given to new and totally unauthorised schemes, that is to say, unauthorised by the persons who made the endowment.
The Educational Endowments Commissioners are creating wide discontent throughout Scotland with their proposals, and it is fully time that some Parliamentary check was placed upon their power to do harm. I understand that at the end of each year their powers lapse unless restored by Parliament. No doubt some of the work they do is necessary and useful, and I claim that His Majesty's Government should see that their work is limited to that which is necessary and useful and not extended to that which is harmful and dangerous to Scottish endowments as a whole. Rich men cannot he expected to endow a County Council. They must be given a sense of security in the perpetuation of their names, or the great beneficiaries of the past will be wholly lost to Scotland. I hope that His Majesty's Government will not lose sight of that fact when they come to consider
440
the renewal of the very wide powers given to this Commission.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl who has initiated the discussion of this question in your Lordships' House. He has already dealt very fully, broadly and efficiently with the case. I would like to say that we fully realise the difficulties which the Commissioners have had in carrying out their duties, and we must also realise how almost impossible it must have been for them to do what was set for them without treading on some people's corns. But there are three or four points—and I should like to bring them before your Lordships to-day—which are of importance from the local point of view.
I noticed that the noble Earl who initiated the discussion of this question suggested that this was not the place to which to bring details, but I beg to differ from him, for this reason. People in my area have already placed their representations before the Commission, and, to put it vulgarly, they have received very little jam to their bread. When I speak of my area, I refer more particularly to the five burghs in that area, Arbroath, Montrose, Forfar, Kirrie and Brechin. The reason I refer to them is that those burghs have administered about three-quarters of the trust schemes in their area, and therefore it affects them a great deal, almost more than anyone else. If the Commission are to have a new lease of life at the end of this year, we hope very much that there will be some heed paid to their plea. They, and I with them—and I have done my best to go into the question as carefully as is in my power, for I have the honour to be on the Angus education committee, and have taken steps to find out—are entirely unconvinced that the working of these trusts is in any way to be bettered by proposals under the Angus Educational Trust Scheme of 1933–34. In fact we maintain, and maintain strongly, that they constitute a grave departure from the spirit of the intentions of the founders, and that therefore they are hound to cause, and do cause, a good deal of what might be termed injustice to the peoples of those burghs for whose benefit the trusts were originally created.
That brings me to my first point. The first point they object to is the question

441
of representation on the governing body. They maintain that the governing body is too large, and that the representation should be more towards the interests involved. There are three bases on which a reasonable claim can be made for representation. The first is that of the contributions to the funds of the pool. These burghs contribute three-fourths of the whole fund. If you take the basis of population these burghs are about 50 per cent. of the whole population of the county burghs, and if you take the third basis, that of qualification, I do not think it is unreasonable to claim that the people most qualified to carry out these schemes are the people with local knowledge and large experience of this work. These burghs have administered three-fourths of these schemes for two generations. They have done it efficiently and justly, and it is admitted that they have done so to the general benefit of the communities involved for whom these trusts were originally started. They hold larger interests than any other bodies and they are extremely conversant with local needs. They therefore feel bound, in the interests of the people they represent, to protest.
The second point on which they disagree, and disagree very strongly, is that they wish that the local committees should have powers and full administration of the area funds, so that to them will fall the awards of grants to bursars and the withdrawal of the same. Section 29 of the scheme institutes six local committees. These committees are to act in an advisory capacity only. Their argument here is that if you are to have committees acting only in this capacity then it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to attract the right type of member to sit on these committees. The Angus education authority had instances, and give them, of what has happened and will happen again in the future. At the last election of district councillors in that area no nominees were forthcoming in three constituencies and in only one out of fifty-three was there any contest at all. Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree with me that that is not sound.
Then I come to the question of bursaries. No part of the scheme has given more deep concern and misgiving than this part. It is admitted that the
442
Commissioners have added bursaries for training colleges and school of economics, and commercial bursaries, but it is deplored, and roost heartily, that the omission still continues of bursaries for secondary and senior schools. This is a point on which they lay great stress. They are convinced that these secondary school bursaries should take precedence, and if that is not possible that they should rank equally with those I have mentioned and should take precedence of those under Sections 37 to 46, mentioned by the noble Duke, which were entirely social. The reason for this is that in none of the trusts so far as is known does the original deed make provision for education other than for juveniles and adolescents. The Education Endowment Act of 1928, Section 3, lays down most particularly that special regard shall be paid to the spirit of the intention of the founders. How is that possible? How can they stick to the original intention of the founders when secondary school bursaries are to be left entirely out of the scheme? Our people consider that they are almost a first charge on the whole scheme.
There is a view held that secondary school bursaries are unnecessary to-day in view of what is done for adolescents by the Education Act. We believe this to be a fallacy and it is in direct opposition to our experience and information. The education authority is always being limited by the means test which often rules out the most necessitous cases. Take, for instance, children of the manse and of the school houses who are debarred. Their maintenance is often a serious problem. As your Lordships know, the scholars of secondary schools are from fifteen to eighteen years of age, and their maintenance is often a great problem to their families, the calls upon their purses being extremely heavy. Yet these are the people that the trusts were originally formed to help. Assistance at this stage we feel is probably more important than at any other time and although the education authority may do a great deal they cannot do enough. It is these small bursaries of £2, £3 and £4, applied to the right cases by people who know the right cases, that bring the supply of the right kind of students to all the higher courses. That is what these trusts were originally for. Now it is proposed under this scheme that these

443
moneys should be diverted to other sources and we submit that in our humble opinion it is robbery—that you might just as well go and rob the grave.
That brings me to my last point and that is the destination, use and control of the funds. As has been already stated, Section 3 of the Act lays down that special regard shall be had to the spirit of the intention of the founders. The founders of these trusts left these moneys for certain purposes in specified areas, the areas probably being those within which they were born, had their homes, made money and were successful, and they wished as a token of generosity to leave these trusts that the people in those areas might benefit in the same way as they had. We submit that unless the destination adheres to the locality of origin it is not a reorganisation of our funds but a subversion. In conclusion, and I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time, but this matter is one of grave urgency for the people up North, if these Commissioners are to continue, I trust pressure will be brought to bear upon them to pay strong heed to the pleas which I have placed before your Lordships.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, like the noble Earl who initiated this discussion I am sure that we all very clearly appreciate the difficulty and delicacy of the task which the Commission are called upon to perform, but I think we ought also to acknowledge the devotion with which they have applied themselves to the very complicated questions upon which they are asked to advise. The sort of work which they are asked to do inevitably exposes them to very considerable controversy, opposition and criticism, and obviously from what we have heard this afternoon, they have had their full share. But I am sure that they give to their critics credit for the same anxiety for fair play and fair treatment as animates the Commissioners themselves.
Now the points which I wish to submit to your Lordships are not raised in any spirit of captious criticism. They are directed against certain specific proposals in schemes or recommendations which the Commission have recently prepared, and which it is hoped that they on fuller consideration, or His Majesty's Government on fuller consideration, will be prepared in all the circumstances to abandon or to
444
modify. The particular points to which I venture to ask your Lordships' attention concern the University of Aberdeen, and it is in the capacity of Chancellor of that University that I bring them forward. The gravamen of our charge is that it is now proposed that the funds of certain bursaries or scholarships which were the gifts of pious donors of the past, and which have either through the specific direction of the founders or by prescription, or by the direction of competent Courts in the interval, been enjoyed by the students of Aberdeen University, should be taken away from this purpose and handed over to other public authorities, chiefly the County Council, and diverted to other purposes than those for which they were bequeathed. In fairness to the Commission I should like to say to other educational purposes; but so remote are the uses to which it will now be possible to put those funds from the uses for which they were originally given that it would be in the nature of an abuse of language to put them in the same category.
I must admit at once that certain of the Commissioners' proposals which have aroused the strongest resentment in my University have been dropped, and for that we are grateful to the Commission. But there still remain a considerable number of proposals to which not only the University but, as has been pointed out in the course of this debate, public opinion up and down the whole area is very strongly opposed. I am going to add only one example to those which were given by the noble Earl who initiated the discussion, that is, what is known as the Milne Bequest. Nearly a hundred years ago an old official of the East India Company, Colonel Milne, left a large sum of money—it was a very large sum for those days—which on the recent average has been allowing the University of Aberdeen to dispose of something like £1,000 a year in bursaries and in supplementary bursaries to poor and deserving students. The scheme under which that power is given was one which was established by the Court of Session not so very many years ago, and, in spite of that, the Commission now propose to sweep away the whole of these arrangements, to throw the capital of this benefaction into a central pool along with certain other definite University bursaries, and then

445
to hand the whole of the assets over to the. County Council.
The County Council under the same scheme will then be allowed—not obliged, but allowed—to award three bursaries of £40 a year each, to be held at any of the Universities in Scotland—not exclusively the University which serves our County, but any University in Scotland. Here is the result. At present the University of Aberdeen is able to help poor and deserving students by distributing something in the neighbourhood of £1,000 a year. If the Commissioners' scheme goes through, all that will be stopped, and, instead of it, in the first place the County Council will have liberty to award no bursaries at all. In the second place, if it does award bursaries they need not necessarily, any of them, go to the University of Aberdeen. The consequence is that our students will be in the position, at the worst, of getting nothing, and, at the best, of not being able to get more than £360 a year, instead of over £1,000.
Your Lordships may ask what happens to the rest of the money. Some of it is going to be made available under the scheme for what we must all acknowledge to be most excellent purposes—the training of young people in the rural and domestic arts and crafts, the providing of apprentices with nooks and tools, the provision of playing fields and free meals for school children. Now, we are not cavilling at these, although they are not directly in accord with the intentions of the original testator; but the diversion of poor old Colonel Milne's benefaction does not stop there. His money is under the same scheme available at the wish of the County Council for school picnics, for visits to zoos and for the attendance of children at concerts.
This would be almost ludicrous if it were not so serious, and it is very serious for various reasons. First of all, if I may say so, because our University of Aberdeen does provide for quite the poorest student community in the Kingdom. There is still many a Highland home from which, thanks to heroic sacrifices of parents, a clever lad is sent up to Aberdeen University to lay the foundation of an honourable and probably a distinguished career. And it does seem to us to be a thousand pities if that fine tradition is now to be done away with.
446
In the second place, I submit to your Lordships that the University authorities are able, with the special knowledge which they possess—knowledge which the County Council does not necessarily possess—to choose the students who are most likely to benefit by these privileges and to choke off undesirable applications. In the third place, a point of detail but not altogether trivial, the University can administer these benefactions very much more cheaply than any other authority. According to the latest statistics, the educational authorities of Scotland pay about :3 15s, per cent. in the cost of administering the endowments under their charge. According to the same statistics Aberdeen University does the same work for its benefactions at a, cost of :1 17s. 7d. per cent.—almost exactly half of what the County Councils do.
In the last place—a point which has already been taken by previous speakers—what is going to happen to those charitable people in the future who otherwise would have given as their forefathers have given in the past? Are they going to leave bequests for University education when there is a possibility of the money being diverted, even before their death, to the provision of cricket pitches or sending small children to, concerts? I hope I am not unnecessarily exaggerating the grievances, which are very keenly felt by my University. Certainly I think it would be difficult to exaggerate the unrest and resentment entertained in almost all educational circles whether inside or outside the University. There are other features of the schemes which I need not waste your Lordships' time by enlarging upon. I would conclude as I began by begging that further consideration may yet be given to the strong local feelings which your Lordships I am sure have been convinced by this afternoon's discussion, have been aroused up and down the country against certain features of the published schemes. In particular I would emphasise, as far as the University of Aberdeen is concerned, that funds which are now actually being administered by them in the way of bursaries or supplementary bursaries should be left inviolate for this purpose, and if for any reason it is considered desirable to change the management of these funds, it shall be transferred not to any other authority but to the University,

447
which is by far the most competent body to administer them.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am quite prepared to agree with the noble Lords who have already spoken that there is no doubt whatever that the measure of opposition which is being experienced to the schemes of the Commission throughout Scotland or in many parts of Scotland is very strong. I am going to suggest to your Lordships that if there had not been a very large measure of opposition it would have been an irresistible conclusion that the Commission were not doing their job. I was very much interested in the reference which my noble friend Lord Leven made to the Commission of 1882 presided over by my father. If I may say so, I was very much touched by the tribute which my noble friend paid to the character and qualities of the Chairman of that Commission, and, very great as undoubtedly his abilities were, he was only at the comparatively early age of thirty-two when he was appointed Chairman of the Commission. I am not in any way derogating from the tribute which my noble friend paid him, but I am going to suggest to your Lordships that there was a circumstance attendant on the conditions of 1882 which, I think, it is unfortunate has not been reproduced td-day, and it is this.
The evidence given before the 1882 Commission was published verbatim, and I think it is extremely unfortunate that publication is not taking place of the evidence which is being given to-day, because then, I think, it would have been very much easier for both sides of this question to be heard. What happens now when this Endowments Commission have to look into any particular endowment? The first step, I understand, is that a letter is written to the governors or to the trustees to ask them what in their opinion is the change which is required in the conditions of their benefactions, and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the almost invariable reply is that no change at all is necessary. It is only to be expected that the people who are administering these trusts may not be alive to all the changes which are taking place, and to the very large additions that there are, especially to education, out of the public funds and in other ways. It is undeniable that in many cases very large
448
changes are necessary. You get circumstances, such as endowments intended for the poor which are diverted to public competition, and it is evident that very keen opposition may be aroused by suggestions to make changes under conditions of that sort.
Under the present conditions the whole local sentiment—I am not aware that local patriotism is any weaker in Scotland than it is anywhere else—is aroused and armed in favour of local sentiment and local arrangements as they are. The local Press naturally supports the local people, and in the absence of publication of the evidence we get an accusation by my noble friend Lord Leven that the Commissioners are tactless. Sometimes, if the governors of a local trust say that no change is required, searching questions have to be asked, and it is rather difficult to ask these questions without sometimes appearing to be tactless. Again, you get intense opposition aroused by the combination of benefactions under a county education authority. I do not propose to argue in detail about that, because my noble friend Lord Elgin is much better qualified than I am to do so. It must be evident that economies can be secured, and at the same time you get that feeling of opposition by people who do not want to give up the patronage which they have and to hand over the work they have been doing which, quite rightly, they regard as good work.
My noble friend Lord Leven quoted the late Lord Sands. In his quotation from Lord Sands he suggested that this Commission wherever it went disturbed the peace of mind. I submit, my Lords, that if it had not done that it would not have been doing its job. Let me say this. I have the greatest respect for the memory of Lord Sands. But in dealing with these matters the point before the Court was the question whether the scheme was ultra vires or not, a legal matter entirely, and if any Judge did pronounce on the merits of a scheme, that opinion could only be formed on an ex parte statement of the facts, because nothing was before that Judge except the legal question of whether or not the scheme was ultra vires.
I do not intend to refer in detail to specific questions, except one. My noble friend Lord Leven referred to the Marr Bequest, which dated from 1919, and suggested the Commission might well

449
have left that alone because, if the testator had died a couple of years later, it would have been outside their programme. What occurs to me is that the date of 1920 was specifically given to the operations of this Commission so as to bring that bequest within their purview. I think that is at least as likely as the hypothesis suggested by my noble friend. With regard to the Commission of 1882, that has been held up to us as a model by my noble friend. I have in my hand the Report of that Commission, and it is very evident that it was very far from having been a peaceful affair or free from criticism.
In one case I notice, the case of Greenock, the Court were of opinion that the Commissioners had erred in including in the scheme a certain endowment—a fate that has not overtaken this Commission. In another case—the report is made to the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council—they turned the scheme down altogether. In another case the scheme for Philps of Kirkcaldy, after discussion in the House of Commons, was withdrawn. That is a fate which has not happened to this Commission. So that in all three cases this Commission has fared better than the Commission of 1882. I venture to suggest that a great deal of this opposition, if both sides of the question were known, would rapidly die down. I am going to suggest to your Lordships when the next Educational Endowment Commission sits in about the year 1982, the operations of this Commission will be looked back to and referred to as having been carried out with an admirable skill by that tactful Chairman the noble Earl, Lord Elgin.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I desire to support my noble friend Lord Leven and Melville in the Motion which appears on the Notice Paper to-day in his name. I would go so far as to say that the Commission, in my opinion, ought to be brought to an end this year, as it appears to be doing far more injury than good throughout Scotland, as I shall endeavour to prove. It can be said with every confidence that the proposals of the Educational Endowments Commission have met with universal disapproval and opposition throughout the country, and there have been many protests against the Commis-
450
sion's treatment of University bursaries. The opposition to the Commissioners is in no small measure due to the fact that they have been endeavouring in many cases to interfere with all kinds of educational bequests, and have gone so far as to intervene in the spending of income of a trust when there is quite sufficient money there to carry out the wishes of the testator.
The Commissioners in many cases have been attempting to divert the funds of various trusts to purposes quite alien to those of the wishes of the benefactors. One can easily understand that in the case of some very old trusts the time may have arrived when it is very difficult, if not practically impossible, to give effect to the trusts' intentions, but these cases can nearly always be circumvented by appealing to the Court of Session to execise its mobil officium. There have been numerous instances where the Court have been appealed to by trustees, and in such eases the Court have altered the provisions of the trust, but they have always endeavoured so far as possible to comply with and carry out the original plan or idea.
In no part of Scotland have the Commissioners more flagrantly flouted public opinion than in the north and north-east, and there has been an increasing wave of dissatisfaction with their decisions in nearly every part of the country. Their practical confiscation of the bursaries of many Universities strikes a serious blow at these seats of learning. As an example, I understand that the County of Banff bursary governors had under their control the Redhyth, Stuart, and Smith bursaries, from which an annual sum of :400 was available, and as many as sixteen bursaries of :25 each were held at Aberdeen University, of which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston. These bursaries were allocated by open and public competition. For generations numerous poor boys and girls from the fishing villages and valleys, through these bursaries, have been able to obtain the benefits of a University education, which has opened up to them far wider fields of usefulness and opportunities to get on. Poverty was not the only badge of qualification for a Redhyth bursary, for the candidate had to face the severe test of a bursary competition in order to prove his merit and capabili

451
ties. The giving of non-competitive bursaries by local authorities has led to a lower standard of education in many Universities, and incidentally it has increased the rates, which is contrary to the views of all who desire national recovery.
The psychological effect of gaining a bursary is quite different from that of receiving an allowance from the rates. If the Commissioners are permitted to continue their existence they may succeed in increasing the rates, but at the same time they will do so at the sacrifice of a great Scottish tradition, and they will render it practically impossible for many deserving and necessitous students to enjoy what has, for many years, been considered the birthright of a Scotsman. The Act which brought the Commissioners into existence enjoined them to consider the intention of the founder in the interests of the locality, and his wishes as regards the administration of the trust. In many cases there has not been the slightest necessity or reason for the Commissioners to intervene or interfere, as most of these bursaries have been administered with the greatest care and sympathy and with a strict observance of the wishes of the founders and regard to the best interests of the locality.
It must be obvious that if there is any infringement of such a principle it will go a long way to influence those who are considering the giving of an endowment or bequeathing of funds to their native place, to hesitate in doing so when they realise that their intentions may be entirely thwarted and their money diverted to purposes with which they are not in sympathy and have no interest. Many testators, in view of the prevailing conditions, are now altering their original intentions and are being advised, quite rightly, by their legal advisers to do so, for they point out the futility of leaving money for bursaries or other educational purposes when the donors' intentions may be swept aside by the arbitrary decision of the Commissioners. The Educational Endowments Commissioners were armed with extraordinary powers to overhaul educational endowments, and they have not hesitated to exercise these powers in a manner which has aroused resentment throughout the land. They apparently have set about their work with certain preconceived ideas as to what constitutes education.
452
Such views they are perfectly entitled to hold as individuals, but they are not entitled to press them upon an unwilling community or bolster them up with money that was left for altogether different purposes. In view of what I have said I hope that the Government will take such steps as may be necessary to discontinue the Commissioners at the termination of their present period of authority, which I believe will be in the autumn, for there is machinery which can carry on the work which they are supposed to do far more effectively and without such a storm of protest and opposition as the Commissioners have created.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate because I have nothing like the same intimate knowledge of the detailed criticisms made as is possessed by many of the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. I have, however, had some experience of administering educational endowments. One thing that has been brought home to me by that experience is the necessity to reconsider from time to time the terms of the endowment especially in the matter of education. While to-night we have heard speech after speech showing objections to the particular schemes put forward by the Commissioners, I do not think there has been serious opposition to the principle of the Commission, and I earnestly hope that the Government will not yield to arguments which seem to me to be very dangerous.
Although it may be that the Commissioners in certain cases have acted with a little precipitancy, the principle has been affirmed and reaffirmed again and again in Scottish history that endowments sometimes want revision and reconsideration especially in the field of education. That principle should not be lost sight of, and I would earnestly plead that although you may find objections, and I dare say strong objections in this case, to proposals of the Commission, there are also grave evils in allowing endowments to remain too long without revision. I would urge the Government to consider that aspect of the question very carefully. Although criticisms made in individual cases may be very proper, we should not lose sight of the main purpose which underlies the appointment of the Commission.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I cannot help expressing great regret at the speech which we have just heard—unrepentant, in not the slightest degree sorry that people have been put to inconvenience, disappointment and expense. I suggest that no Commission is doing its duty in accordance with modern procedure—that is serving the public—which arouses such a storm as this Commission has aroused. Then we hear it defended without a word of regret being expressed. I think that in Scotland there will be very great disappointment, and after that speech there will be a still more urgent demand for the speedy extinction of the present Commission. The Commission was appointed to enquire into and rearrange endowments, including educational endowments, which may be out of date. It was not set up to raise a whole lot of disappointment. Notwithstanding what was said by my noble friend behind me regarding the 1882 Commission, that Commission has not gone down to history in the way that this Commission will go down.
I have had a good deal of experience in England of what is done when endowments are revised. I think people sometimes forget that Scottish education is on a very high level, and until recently it had not been thought wise to impose what I may call English methods on education in Scotland. That was not necessary, and it is not necessary, although attempts have been made recently to Anglicise Scottish education. This Commission has hardly left a single endowment alone. It has interfered with those who are carrying out trusts with perfect satisfaction to those concerned. Parochial trusts should take into account parochial needs. It is for that that they are appointed. We do not want a Fifeshire endowment to go to Aberdeenshire, and I am certain that Aberdeenshire would not let an endowment go to Fifeshire. Although this Commission has not quite done that it has varied the grants that come out of funds which the Commissioners know nothing about and which the trustees do know about. If trustees had been found to fall short of their duties, then I think the Commission would be quite right in taking the trust away from them, but until it is found that trustees have misbehaved or have betrayed the trust placed upon them,
454
surely the Commission should show a little more regard not only for the trustees but also for the people on whose behalf they administer the trust.
It is rather a serious matter, I think, to vitiate a founder's intention. In quite a number of trusts the funds would be administered, if the Commission's recommendations are carried out, in a very different way from the founder's intention. It is true, of course, that an old foundation will in time become somewhat out of date and may require re-allocation to a certain extent, but we have heard of that being done in such recent cases as 1919 foundations. One can hardly say that a trust founded in 1919 is out of date in 1934. If so, nothing is safe. I would remind your Lordships again of that very large sum lost to Edinburgh simply because of the proceeding of this Commission. I feel that if the Government desire to continue a Commission it should not be this Commission, but one more in accord with the feelings of the people and of the trustees and of the beneficiaries. Therefore, if a Commission is to be continued I hope it will have a very different personnel or be given very different instructions, and that those instructions will be carried out in accord with the original trusts of the various foundations.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I would like to refer to one or two matters that are within my knowledge. One matter has been raised by the noble Earl who knows my countryside so well and also the various burghs which are represented in another place. I remember well the passing of this Act in 1928. At that time fears were expressed that a good many people would be upset by the workings of the Commission. It was promised at that time that every consideration and every regard would be paid to the feelings of the trustees of the various funds with which the Commission would have to deal. One complaint I would like to make is that, although this Commission came into existence as the result of an Act of Parliament, its Report cannot be found in the Vote Office. It seems to me rather strange that a Report which comes before the Lord Commissioner of Education in Scotland should not he in the hands of your Lordships when you are debating this question.

455
I think there is a great deal to be said on both sides. This Commission has now been working for a good many years. It has a most difficult task to deal with, and undoubtedly there have been cases—otherwise the Bill would never have been passed in 1928—which do want examination and adjustment. But if I may venture to suggest it to your Lordships, there are cases where endowments have existed, some of them large endowments—and I know specially endowments of an educational character in Arbroath—which have been most efficiently administered. There is no administration that I have ever come across in either trustee or local matters which has approached the efficiency and cheapness of the administration in that particular Royal Burgh. There was a case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which occurred in 1882, when his illustrious father was the Chairman of the Commission. I well remember it being reported that an attempt was made then to alter the conditions of the Philps Trust in Kirkcaldy. As your Lordships know, that scheme was dropped, and it went on happily under its own trustees. This Commission has now been working for four or five years, and has had a look round the endowments of Scotland. I think perhaps it has got to the end of its usefulness, and possibly after redding up some of the older forms of endowment which have been made we might return to the normal. But I am open to hear information and argument upon that particular aspect of the problem.
There is a point upon which I do not agree with much that has been said in, favour of the Commission, and that is as to the raising of the endowments from the secondary school endowments up to the Universities. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, who pointed out that the very kind of person whom you want to continue in education, especially in our country of Scotland, is the boy of fifteen or sixteen years to eighteen years old. If you do not educate him, then he undoubtedly goes into industry; and it is very natural that he should go into industry. We in Scotland are a very hard people; we are very poor, and we—in certain families at least—cannot afford to allow our boys to continue with education unless we have this assistance. The assistance is small, but I believe the return given for this extra education is
456
wonderful. That is shown by our past experience of education—by the fact that we in Scotland, under our old school boards and so on, have produced such wonderful pioneers who have gone all over the world. I suggest that the idea of lifting that type of endowment into University endowment is not altogether well founded. Even so, much more has been done from the point of view of the Education Acts, and allowances which have been made in our education system in Scotland. Still, the actual fact is that if you do not help these young people to stay at school, the tendency of the parents is to take them away, and for that reason I think there is good deal to he said for continuing that type of endowment.
I think there is a certain amount to be said for the Commissioners. They have undoubtedly been set the task of enquiring into the question whether really good value is obtained within the terms of the bequests. Perhaps if another system were adopted whereby we could get a more amicable feeling in relation to the actions of the Commission amongst what one might call public opinion in the various trusts which exist in Scotland, we should not hear so many complaints as we do; but undoubtedly there is a very strong public opinion in Scotland that the Commissioners are treading too hard on the toes of a good many of these trusts. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Elgin is going to tell us, but I am sure that he, who has a wonderful flair for judging public opinion, will indeed realise the state of opinion in Scotland, and I feel inclined to leave it in his very able hands to say when the Commission can usefully lay down their work.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I have some real diffidence in taking any part in this debate this afternoon, even in spite of the very kind words with which the noble Lord who has just sat down completed his speech. Listening to the debate and the expressions of opinion which have come from your Lordships, I have felt that my position could be compared perhaps rather with that of the accused at the bar, or, listening to some of your Lordships, almost with that of the prisoner in the dock. But in spite of my diffidence in taking part in the debate, I feel that I might be accused of

457
being lacking in loyalty both to my colleagues and to your Lordships' House if I remained completely silent.
I am not in the least minimising what the noble Earl who instituted the discussion said with regard to the feeling in different parts of Scotland, but without disregarding that in any way I do feel that in order to get a proper perspective and a proper understanding of the position we must go a little deeper into past history. I shall try to be as brief as possible in dealing with this, and I am enabled to be briefer than I might otherwise have been because within the past few days there has been published and laid on the Table of your Lordships' House the fifth Annual Report of the Commission, and I think I should be right to assume that those of your Lordships who have been sufficiently interested in the subject to raise their voices in support of or against the actions of the Commission have at any rate made themselves aware of what appears in the Report which was published last week.
The first point which I feel must be, fully understood is what is the purpose of an endowment. It is rather difficult to lay down a general term which will describe all the intentions which may be at the back of the minds of different donors of endowments, but generally speaking I think we may take it that those pious donors who set aside of their money for the benefit of education intended that the recipients of the benefaction should get something supplemental to or in advance of what could normally be obtained by right. That is a definition which has been accepted by various bodies in the examination of this problem, and it has been accepted by various Commissions which have had the duty of looking into the possibilities and the requirements of education. I think I may take it that your Lordships will accept that as a general description of what an endowment should be. Further, it has been generally acknowledged—and several of your Lordships have already referred to this point this evening—that where there are endowments to help in education it is necessary to have a periodical review of these endowments in order to ensure that they are not only serving a useful purpose but doing benefaction to those whom it was intended to benefit.
458
From time to time the Government of this country have for that reason appointed Commissions to review the situation. I shall refer only to two of them. They have both been referred to this evening. The first was the Commission of 1882, presided over by the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the other the present Commission, over which I have the honour to preside. When the Commission of 1882 was appointed the great need of the day was secondary education; in other words, the provision of advanced education for the general public, and by public I mean the boys and girls of Scotland. That was put in the forefront of the charge to the Endowments Commission of 1882—that in making their review of the situation, and in making provision as they thought necessary, they should have special regard to making an adequate portion of the endowments available for boys and girls of promise to obtain this advanced education. I have mentioned this point because what they did was to look through various endowments which existed in that day and in many cases—case after case—they diverted an endowment from what it had originally been intended by the testator to be into a bursary for school or secondary education. It is from the date of the schemes of the 1882 Commission that a very large proportion of the bursaries which now exist date; but circumstances have completely changed since the date of the appointment of the 1882 Commission.
In 1889 elementary education was freed, and in 1908, under the Education Act of that year, secondary education committees were formed and district bursary schemes were inaugurated. In 1918 powers were transferred from these secondary education committees to educational authorities, and under Section 6 of that Act every authority was required (and I emphasise that word "required") to prepare and submit a scheme for the adequate provision (and I emphasise again that word "adequate") throughout its area of all forms of primary, intermediate and secondary education. That was an obligation on the education authority. By a further clause of that Act it was made lawful, that is permissive, to make grants in aid of children of promise who might be debarred from profiting by this education by reason of the expense involved.

459
That then was the situation as made by the Act of 1918, a completely different situation from that which confronted the Educational Endowments Commission of 1882. In 1927, in view of the difficulties and anomalies which had arisen, a Departmental Committee was appointed under the Chairmanship of Lord Mackenzie, to look into the whole question and advise the Department. On the Report of that Committee, and homologating the recommendations of the Report, the Government of that day, 1928, brought in the Act under which the present Commission was appointed. This Commission was appointed with very wide powers—powers to review the whole situation in view of the changes which had taken place; powers of amalgamating endowments, and powers of altering their purposes. The widest possible powers were given. These Commissioners were appointed, as I have said, under an Act of Parliament, and I submit that it is futile to argue that Parliament did not expect those powers to be used. You have before you not only the precedent of 1882, a Commission which was set up with the widest powers and used those powers, but you have following upon that a Departmental Committee enquiring into the whole situation and making recommendations, you have the Government accepting those recommendations and bringing in an Act of Parliament based on those recommendations, and appointing with their eyes open a Commission with wide powers to deal with the whole situation.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh has already referred to the criticism which was levelled at the Commission of 1882. It provoked a great deal of hostile criticism, but, as has already been acknowledged by more than one of your Lordships in this House this afternoon, the verdict of history has been one of satisfaction with the work of that Commission, and I am sanguine enough, in spite of what the Marquess of Aberdeen has said, to believe that history will repeat itself. Our task has been to review a great many more endowments than fell beneath the review of the 1882 Commission, and to ensure that those endowments are used to the fullest possible advantage, consequent upon the changes which have taken place under legislation since 1889. In our task, which has been an immense task, one very great
460
factor has come forward emphatically before us over and over again, and that is that a large proportion of these endowments were dedicated by the wish of the testator to "the benefit of the poor," to "the assistance of those who required aid in order to get education," to "destitute children," and other phrases of a like equivalent; and I must remind your Lordships that in spite of the very wide powers given to the Commission under the Act we have a very express and emphatic injunction in Section 3 (2) of our Act to ensure that where endowments have been left for the poor they are so retained.
This point is one which has created a great deal of difficulty. It has caused a considerable amount of cross-questioning and heart-searching. It is very difficult to lay down a hard and fast line of poverty. We have had brought before us, over and over again, by trustees of various endowments, the argument that it is impossible to consider a hard and fast line which is to he taken by the education authority of the county council of so many pounds income as the only criterion of poverty. That is so. It is very difficult to arrive at a hard and fast line of criterion of poverty. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that we should be failing in our duty if, through carelessness in not asking questions, in not probing deep into what actions the various trustees have taken, into the means test which they considered qualified the beneficiaries for the benefaction, whether they were really in need or not—we should have been failing in our duty if, through carelessness, through neglect, or insufficient evidence we had disregarded not only the spirit of the intention of the donor but also the letter of the instructions of our Act.
I mention this fact as explaining the reason for certain rather meticulous cross-questioning which was referred to, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Leven and Melville, and by some other noble Lords. It is a very difficult situation; and if you find, on asking trustees whether they have, in view of the altered circumstances, deliberately and collectively set their minds to consider whether or not that makes any alteration in their adjudication of their trust, that you are met by the blank statement that it has never been considered—my Lords, I think you will agree that, in spite of the

461
difficulty of the situation, in spite of the disagreeableness of the situation, it was our duty to probe these things, even if it caused a certain amount of discontent. I am fully alive, as a trustee myself of charitable funds, to the good work done by those trustees,to the time given up by them, and I should not like it to go from this House, or as from me, that I do not appreciate the good work which those trustees have done. But it is a fact that over and over again when we have asked: "Have you or have you not considered this?" we have been told: "No, it has never been before us."
In order to focus this point I think I must draw your Lordships' attention to Schedule 9 attached to our fifth Report. In that schedule you will find the amounts available under the schemes dealt with in this Report for various forms of benefactions. You will find these divided under the different headings according to the purposes for which they have been given, and you will find under these subdivisions a figure in brackets, which refers to the proportion of that amount which, by the wish of the testator, was to be given to aid the poor. The summary of those figures is that in these twenty-seven schemes we have, for the poor £28,546, and, open, £4,952. Is it right that, in view of the spirit of the intention of the donors thus expressed, and the specific injunctions of our Act, we should tolerate diversion of funds given for the poor to open merit bursaries? That is one of the crucial points which I think is before, not only us, but the whole of Scotland to-day.
We have been attacked for what is called a wholesale smashing of the bursary system, a system on which has been built up a great tradition of education in Scotland. That is completely untrue. We have to admit and provide for changed conditions, the changed conditions which I have already explained to your Lordships; and we have also to admit that in consequence of the powers given under the Acts to which I have referred the public authorities—the education authorities and the county councils—have devoted a large part of their funds to the provision of these bursaries. This is referred to on page 60 of our Report, but in order to bring it forcibly before your Lordships I may give the summary. Before 1908 there was no provision under this heading. It was not admissible. In
462
the year ending May 15, 1910, £43,906 were dedicated by education authorities for this purpose. In 1919 this had risers to £48,838. In 1920 it had risen again to £57,863. In 1930 it had bounded up. to £142,720; and in 1933, owing to the stringent conditions, it had been reduced slightly, but was still at the large provision of £125,179. Can we say, in view of these facts, that there is still the same need for the provision for bursaries from educational endowments?
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Is the noble Earl referring to secondary school bursaries?
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: Yes. A criticism has further been made that we have disregarded local opinion and individuality and tradition, that we have substituted new governing bodies composed largely of publicly elected representatives for bodies of individuals personally interested. I have already given, and I would repeat, a tribute to those governing bodies in the past who have given so liberally of their time and of their attention to the governing of these endowments; but we cannot overlook that in many cases the administration of an endowment, for instance, which may be simply a holding endowment, simply to hold the money and pass it on to somebody else, is a wasteful administration; and for that reason among others we have thought it wise to combine a number of endowments and to put them either in charge of the publicly elected body, or of a body specially composed of representatives and others interested, for administration.
I have said that I felt some diffidence in entering upon this debate at all. My diffidence in doing so was that, as you are aware, I have the honour of being Chairman of this Commission. Under the Act appointing that Commission an elaborate procedure is laid down in order to ensure that no act of ours is made secure until everyone interested has had an opportunity of making objection and of being heard. It therefore seemed to me that it was doubtful how far I could enter into an answer of any detailed questions which your Lordships might wish to put this afternoon. I must ask your Lordships to accept that fact. These schemes must, broadly, be divided into two headings. Those that have passed through every

463
stage have been submitted to the Department and have received the approval of the Department, and gone beyond that stage and have received the Royal assent. Those schemes must be answered for by the responsible officer of the Department. As regards questions on draft schemes, schemes which are still sub judice, there is this difficulty, they are sub judice. There are powers open for objectors to come to the Commission to lay their objections before the Commission, and it would be improper for me as an individual, even as Chairman of the Commission, to enter into a discussion with your Lordships across the floor of this House when there is a provision laid down under the Act of Parliament for the adjustment of these difficulties.
But I think that on certain points which have been raised by your Lordships this afternoon I can clear the air. The noble Earl, Lord Leven, in opening the discussion, referred to the Marr endowment and to the fact that this was a very recent endowment. He suggested that, while everything was going very nicely and smoothly, the Commission had suddenly pounced upon the endowment and stirred up the mud. That is not exactly the position. The Commission were invited to look into this endowment by the Town Council of Troon. I think that materially alters the question. Having been invited, it was their duty to look into it. But I wish only to say this further about the Marr endowment. The matter is still sub judice and, within the last few days, it has become known through the public Press that certain further representations on completely different lines have been made. For that reason I think it would be improper for me at this stage to say anything further about the Marr endowment.
As regards the Mann endowment, to which Lord Leven also referred, every stage which was laid down for us was duly carried out. This was an endowment specifically under the jurisdiction of Edinburgh University. We were invited by Edinburgh University to look into the question of their endowments, and to frame a scheme for their better administration. We did so. It was advertised by the Commission; it was advertised twice by the Department. We had representations from other bodies as regards this scheme, and I can only wonder, knowing what I do of the Counties of
464
Moray and Nairn, that they did not get on to it as quickly as some other parts of Scotland; but I assure your Lordships that the Commission took every step that was possible to make known not only the invitation by Edinburgh but the fact that a scheme had been made.
The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, dealt with the question of the want of representation of the local bodies, particuarly the burghs, and he referred to the fact that in our scheme for the County of Angus local committees had been inserted but that they had no real powers. Is that really a full statement of the facts? I have not the scheme with me, but my remembrance of the clause of that scheme is that these local committees were not only advisory but could perform any duties that the governing body cared to delegate.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: May be delegated, not will. It is permissive.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: Yes, it is permissive for the governing body.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: It does not say they will.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: That is for your own local governing body; it is not for my Commission.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: But they formed the governing body; they made the form of it.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: The noble Lord, Lord Meston, Chancellor of Aberdeen University, admitted, and I should like to thank him for the admission, that the Endowments Commission had a difficult task. He admitted, I think, that we had done what we could to solve that difficulty by the way, at any rate, of hard work, but he went on to say that as the result of some of that hard work an injustice had been done to the University of Aberdeen. He referred to the taking away of certain bursaries from Aberdeen University which had come to Aberdeen University under the benefaction of the Milne Bequest, but the curious part of the statement from the Chancellor of Aberdeen University was that he omitted entirely to make any reference to the original benefaction. If I may deal with this point, I think it will explain

465
to your Lordships that the action of the Commission in this respect has not been so detrimental or of so filching a nature as was indicated.
The founder of this endowment intended the money to be used to supplement the salaries of parochial schoolmasters, the recipients of the supplements being bound to give further education to a certain number of poor children. Under a scheme of the 1882 Commission the purpose was altered to school bursaries. When the Act of 1905 was passed advantage was taken of the power conferred by Section 30, and it was agreed that in future post-school bursaries should be awarded. In 1924 the scheme was amended by the Court of Session—this is where Lord Meston came in. It was amended again by the Court of Session, and the governors were authorised to award bursaries at Robert Cordon technical school, the North of Scotland Agricultural College or other central institution, or at the University of Aberdeen, or at a training centre. The governors were given complete discretion as to the allocation of the bursaries as between the different institutions, but it may be agreed that the greater part of the money has gone in University bursaries. It is claimed that the average for the last few years—and I think this is what Lord Meston claimed—was about £600.
But that does net end the story. In 1928 the governors of the trust, under the powers conferred by Section 30 of the 1908 Act, resolved that the University bursaries might be held at any Scottish University. It is, therefore, untrue to say that the Commissioners' scheme will result in depriving Aberdeen University of bursaries. The actual fact is that power is given under the scheme to award three University bursaries, which, as the result of representations that have been made to the Commissioners, has been increased to four, and if these powers are exercised the sum expended on university bursaries may amount to as much as :800 a year.
I now pass from that, to the very violent attack made upon the Commission by Lord Fairfax. I will only say this, that I am afraid Lord Fairfax's attack was made without a full knowledge of the facts, even without a full knowledge of what has passed within the last few days. It is a reflection rather of the kind of
466
attack to which the Commissioners have been subjected—that is, without knowing the full facts, persons have come and made statements. I hesitate almost to repeat the noble Lord's language, but I think he used the word "filch" and various other words of that kind. He stated that the Commission had filched from Aberdeen University bursaries to which they had a right, and he referred specifically to the case of the Redhyth and Smith bursaries. These bursaries were originally included in the scheme prepared for the County of Banff, but on representations being made to the Commission the Commissioners considered the whole question and decided to withdraw these bursaries from the operation of the scheme. This notification was sent to Aberdeen University, to the County Council, and to all authorities interested on April 3. All the bodies referred to—the County Council, the Court, and the other bodies interested—acknowledged the letter.
On April 13 Aberdeen University expressed its gratification at the Commissioners' decision, but in spite of that on April 21 an attack was made on the Commissioners in the General Council of Aberdeen University, and the spearhead of that attack was the filching of the Smith and Redhyth bursaries from the University of Aberdeen. The mover of the resolution was a member of the General Council, a member of the governing body, and a member of the County Council, and that attack has been repeated to-day.
I repeat that when this Commission was appointed in 1928 Parliament deliberately gave it wide powers. I have endeavoured to show that these powers were in accordance with precedent and that they were necessary, and I submit further that they were expected to be used. A certain amount of criticism has been made about the personnel of this Commission as compared with the personnel of the 1882 Commission. I should like, as strongly as I can, to second and homologate in every term the tribute paid by Lord Leven to the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is not for me to compare with him and with his great abilities the abilities and qualifications of the individual selected by the Government of the clay in 1928 to preside over the Commission of but I do say this, that I yield to none of your Lord

467
ships in my interest in, and my determination to work for, the best interests of Scotland.
I wish to make clear first of all that this Commission was selected and appointed on the recommendation of a Conservative Government, and further I wish to go through in detail the personnel of this Commission. First of my colleagues on the list is Lady Hope. Lady Hope has made a name for herself justly as one who has a keen interest in the welfare of the young, particularly of girls and young women. She has served on a number of committees, and has thrown her whole heart into work of this nature. Further she comes with the tradition, which your Lordships will admit is no mean tradition, of being the daughter of the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
Second on my list is Mr. Bertram Talbot, convenor of the County of Roxburgh. He has devoted the whole of his life to public work, especially in the field of education, as chairman of various committees of education and particularly recognised as chairman of the Joint Committee of Education Committees which existed before the new Local Government Act. He has also devoted a large part of his time to adult education work and the furtherance of that subject. The next member, Sheriff Fenton, is a prominent member of the Bar and Sheriff of one of the largest counties in Scotland. Sir Arthur Rose is chairman of the Board of Control and one of the Special Commissioners recently appointed to look into the needs of the distressed areas. He has proved himself in every walk of life as one whom Scotland recognises is to be trusted.
Mr.Joseph Duncan is secretary of the Scottish Farm Servants' Union and one of the most striking figures in Scotland at the present moment; one who has devoted his whole attention to working on behalf, particularly, of the rural community and one whose opinion is never given haphazard but with full and fair judgment. Dr. Smith, as you will recognise, comes with a long history of work for education. He has been associated with education, particularly in the area where, as your Lordships have mentioned, there has been a considerable amount of criticism of our work, Aberdeenshire. Dr. Macgillivray comes to the Commission not only with the prestige of one who has devoted his
468
whole life to teaching, but with the naive character of the West Highlands and does not always agree with his colleagues on the Commission. Then you have, finally, Mr. Joseph Westwood, who was for several years a Member of Parliament, and has shown himself in local government, as a member of the education authority of Fife, as a member of the County Council of Fife, and as a member of the Town Council of Kirkcaldy, fully conversant with the needs of the various localities which he represents. I say without any hesitation that not one of your Lordships in this House has such an intimate knowledge of educational legislation as Mr. Joseph Westwood.
I have given you the detailed personnel of the Commission for this purpose, that I think you will admit that all of these people were selected and appointed because of their fitness for the job. Further, I feel quite certain that not one of those individuals and not one of your Lordships would have accepted office on a Commission such as has been suggested by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, which was intended simply to tidy up a few dead endowments. That was not the intention and it would not have been accepted by any of those individuals. Those individuals accepted the job. They knew there was work to do. They knew it would probably be difficult. They knew it would certainly be irksome. But because they felt confident that the result might be useful they accepted the invitation and they tackled the job.
We knew we should have to face criticism and we welcomed constructive criticism. On more than one occasion I have taken the opportunity of saying: "We welcome your co-operation and criticism". I repeat it here to-day. We have shown, as I have already indicated to your Lordships in one or two schemes to which I have specially referred, that we were prepared to meet sympathetically the representations made to us from localities, and to adjust difficulties. But the adjustment of difficulties does not supply spicy headlines for newspapers. For that reason I think possibly there has been an inclination for it to become more publicly known that there have been difficulties than that those difficulties have been overcome.

469
Reference has already been made to the opinion of Lord Sands. I have a great reverence for Lord Sands. Very few Scotsmen can, at the present day, look back on a life so devoted to public service. Therefore his opinion is well worthy of careful consideration and even of reverence. But in the particular instance which was quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Leven, Lord Sands, I think, went out of his way to criticise. He went out of his way also to make a further accusation which has been made against the Commission elsewhere—it has been referred to by some of your Lordships this afternoon—namely, that our action will dry up benefactions. I do not believe, in view of what happened after the 1882 Commission and in view of my knowledge of actual facts, that that will be the case.
It is easy to as some of your Lordships have done, that it will be the case. It is easy to say that certain legal advisers have advised their clients in view of our action not to make available for education funds under their wills. I know that in two eases that was done. I know that in those two cases it was done under a complete misrepresentation of what was intended by the scheme of the Commission. I know further that when the provisions of that scheme were explained to those two particular individuals, the matter was put right. Further, my Lords, and you may think this rather striking in view of some statements that have been made to-day, a certain individual who intended to leave his money for the benefit of education came to me only a few months ago and asked for my advice as to how it should be done. I am not entitled to give you further information because it would be a breach of confidence, but I treasure that fact and it is a concrete case which should answer a certain number of allegations.
May I now say something in reference to one scheme which has not been referred to to-day, in regard to which the Commissioners were more fiercely attacked than in any other case, that is the scheme for the orphanage of Aberlour? In that scheme we provided for what we intended to be a strengthening of the constitution of the orphanage. As I have said, I think this scheme was attacked more violently than any other scheme promoted by the Endowments
470
Commission, in spite of the fact that it passed through all the various stages where opportunity was given to make representations. It had arrived at the stage where the Commission had given their final word and passed it on to the Department. Then the storm arose. I took then a course which was not strictly in accordance with the procedure of the Act, and I personally invited the objectors to meet a sub-committee of the Commission. The result was that complete agreement was reached.
When that scheme was submitted to the representative church council at the beginning of May by Sir William Johnston, he, and the member of the representative church council who seconded its adoption, put it forward as not only a scheme which they could accept, but as one which they could welcome. May I quote to your Lordships one or two passages from a report of their speeches? The report of Sir William Johnston's speech says:
"He mentioned these facts because he had heard it said by people who had not followed the course of events very carefully that the Church was going to lose its influence in the orphanage and that the Commission would look after it. This, he explained, was a complete misrepresentation…. After explanations given by representatives of the representative church council the Commissioners at once agreed to modify the clause, and the objectionable provision was withdrawn."
Dealing with another clause, he said:
"As drafted, it did confer somewhat alarming looking powers on the Department, who could call upon the governors to give effect to any proposal suggested by an inspector and approved by the Department. The subsection had been deleted, but, of course, the right of inspection remained."
Then from the speech of the Dean of Moray I wish to make two quotations:
"He did not see why they should blame the Endowments Commissioners for not putting something in their scheme which was not to be found in the original scheme."
And finally:
"He had been told that if Canon Jupp"—
he was the originator of the orphanage—
"knew the details of this scheme he would turn in his grave. Frankly, he did not think so in the least. True, Canon Jupp was a pioneer who was 25 years ahead of his time in all matters of social reform. He would have recognised fully the spirit of the age in which he lived and would have looked at the present scheme with a wise vision. …. Frankly, he fully believed that Canon Jupp would have welcomed the scheme."

471
My last quotation will be this, again from Sir William Johnston, and the paper from which I quote puts in a little parenthesis, "Sir William further stated impressively":
"The time seems now to have come to cease criticism and cordially to welcome the scheme, so that we may work together for the good of the orphanage."
I am afraid, my Lords, I have detained you at some length, but I have thought it right to put before you in general outline the lines on which the Commission have felt it necessary to work. I have given you some indication of the way in which the Commission arrived at those lines. I have tried to meet, so far as I justifiably can, some of the objections which your Lordships have made. I have referred to the fact that many of these cases are still sub judice, and that the Commissioners will hear and will carefully consider the representations which will be made to them. I have shown that the Commissioners have sympathetically considered a number of these. I conclude by appealing to your Lordships in the same words as were used by Sir William Johnston in recommending the acceptance of the Aberlour scheme; I appeal to your Lordships, not for the sake of the Commission but for the sake of Scotland, to cease criticism based on misrepresentation, and to co-operate with the Commission in its very difficult work for the good, for the welfare, and for the benefit of Scotland.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, we have had a long and very useful discussion to-day, and those of us whose interests or connections lie within the sphere of Scotland have cause to congratulate ourselves that we have, for one afternoon of the year, absorbed most of your Lordships' time in this House, to the total exclusion of the interests of the rest of Great Britain. My first task must be to compliment the noble Earl, Lord Leven and Melville, who introduced this Motion, on the extremely able and clear way in which he stated his case. For my own part I wish to thank him for the consideration he has shown me and the consultations which I had with him previous to this debate, in which he was able to indicate to me the line which he proposed to adopt and on which he wanted a reply. The main and really the only task which lies before
472
me is to answer the Question on the Paper.
The noble Lord moves:
"That His Majesty's Government do make an immediate declaration as to their intentions with regard to the continuance of the powers of this Commission beyond the end of the present year."
So far as that goes I can only at the moment say this, that the question is receiving the earnest consideration of the Government, and when the Government knew that this debate was going to take place in this House they were extremely glad to think that they would have this opportunity of getting some data for their decision. I have been empowered to say on behalf of the Government that they hope to give that decision before the Summer Recess, and in view of the fact that we are now within a few days of Whitsuntide and that there are practically only the two Parliamentary months of June and July before us, I think it is not an unreasonable period to ask your Lordships to wait before that decision is given.
The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, has spoken to your Lordships of the work of the Commission from first-hand knowledge and experience. I would like first of all to compliment him on the courage which induced and enabled him to come here this afternoon and make a defence of his own Commission in your Lordships' House. That is a privilege which your Lordships' House enjoys which is not enjoyed elsewhere, and I should like to say to him on behalf of the Government—and indeed I am sure on behalf of all the members of your Lordships' House—that we appreciate his coming here this afternoon and speaking as he has done. We realise the extremely difficult task which lies before him and his fellow Commissioners, and we appreciate the zeal and devotion with which those Commissioners have approached their task. They are all busy men—or in the case of the lady an equally busy person—and that they should give up their time and face the criticism and the (I believe only temporary) unpopularity which they are meeting is a great tribute to their affection for and their belief in their own country.
I think there is some misconception about the division of responsibility in this case. The attack in this debate has all been against the Commission, which

473
has been so nobly defended by their Chairman, but as far as Parliamentary procedure goes I must remind your Lordships that the attack should really be upon the Department for which I am speaking here this afternoon. The Commission is but the child of Parliament. As has already been pointed out, the Commission was set up as the result of an Act of Parliament, and on the recommendation of a Committee (to which reference has already been made) presided over by Lord Mackenzie, and it has therefore to be borne in mind that where schemes have not yet reached the Department an attack on the Commission itself is really futile, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, has pointed out, those schemes are for the present sub judice. Where and when the schemes have reached the Department, criticism of those schemes should be addressed to it, and not to the Commissioners.
There is thus this clear division of responsibility, which I want to emphasise, between the Commission and the Department. The former does the exploring work and bakes responsibility for that. The latter, that is to say, the Department, takes the final decision, subject to review in Parliament, if demanded, and approval by His Majesty in Council. In fact, the Department is a sort of court of appeal against the proposals of the Commission in those cases. At this late hour I will not, as I had intended to do, detail all the stages which have to be gone through before a scheme reaches Parliament or is set up. Details of that are given with great clarity in the fifth Report of the Commissioners which was issued last week. I think that in itself shows that every precaution has been taken by Parliament to see that every opportunity which can possibly be taken is taken to advertise and to give people the opportunity of objecting to these schemes. when and if they wish to do so. Nor will I at this late hour enter into any details of individual schemes. As I have already said, where and if they have not reached the Department it would be improper for me to do so, and in the other case there is no point in doing so.
I would conclude by reminding your Lordships of the real value of this discussion, the first real discussion which has taken place in Parliament on this subject, and also by again reminding
474
you, should further discussion take place, that in fairness to the Commission it must be remembered, as I said just now, that the real target for attack must be the Scottish Education Department. With the assurance which I gave to your Lordships that a decision would be taken at the earliest possible moment, as to the future of the Commission, I will sit down, at the same time expressing a hope that the noble Earl who moved this Motion will be satisfied with the answer he has received, and will see his way not to press his Motion.
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: My Lords, as the hour is getting very late I have no desire to detain you longer than I must, but I think, with your Lordships' permission, I must reply to one or two of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, the Chairman of the Commission. I will reply first to the two matters of bequests Which I raised in my opening remarks. With regard to the Marr Trust, the noble Earl says that the Troon people originally invited the Commission to come and help them reorganise their trust, and he seemed to think that it made all the difference. I am not clear that it makes any difference, excepting that, so far as I have read and heard, it makes this difference, that the people of Troon to-day must bitterly regret that invitation.
I turn again to the Mann Bequest. The noble Earl says that his Commission made every effort to ensure that the people should know who were affected by the alterations. It is true, as I said in my opening remarks, that the Commission made every effort which was necessary, and as I understand laid down by law, but many of the people in other localities think that the Commission might sometimes go a little beyond the minimum amount required, in order to see that people get every chance of knowing when a, case affecting them is coming on and every opportunity of making representations. May I say again how much I appreciate, as does every other member of your Lordships' House, the public spirit which has induced the members of this Commission to give up so much of their time in order to fulfil the work of this Commission? Nobody appreciates that more than I do, nor do I fail to under

475
stand the great difficulty and delicacy of the task which they undertook.
The noble Earl's remarks were somewhat lengthy, and although I had numerous notes on them I cannot now refer to them in detail; but may I be permitted to refer to several of them together? The accusation against this Commission in so many parts of Scotland is that they never see anyone else's point of view. The noble Earl said that there has been talk that this Commission has had something to do with the smashing up of bursaries throughout the country, and he says that this is completely untrue. I understand that at least in the opinion of the noble Earl it is completely untrue, but surely other people may hold their own opinions. With regard to the remarks of the noble Earl on the observations of Lord Fairfax, the noble Earl suggested that Lord Fairfax had spoken with no knowledge of his subject and had made a strong attack on the Commission. I suppose that Lord Fairfax, like other people, is entitled to have his own opinion, and because it differs from the opinion of the Commission it does not follow that Lord Fairfax knows nothing of the subject.
In exactly the same way there have been complaints against the Commission as to the manner in which their hearings have been carried on. The noble Earl says that it is very difficult to do these things. Nobody agrees with him more than I do. Perhaps I am alone among members of your Lordships' House in having been present at one of these hearings, and I can only say that I found the atmosphere at that hearing more upsetting than I thought necessary, or I for one moment expected. The noble Earl has paid a tribute this evening to the work done by the men who have looked after these local endowments for so many years without compensation or reward. I welcome his statement, because I think that if the noble Earl and his Commission had made some such statement more often, and more clearly to the local people, there would possibly have been a little less opposition than there has been in the past.
Everything depends upon how you look at a thing, and it seems to me that the Commission have made their vital mistake in an inability to see the other person's point of view. The local people
476
also perhaps have not been quite able to see other people's points of view. They have taken the view: "Here is a Commission armed with the widest powers, they can have, above the Courts of Law, which we very much regret in many ways, and they come here and listen to our objections, but do not give us the impression that they are really paying any attention. We do not think they see our point of view at all." These people then go away with the impression that the Commission are riding rough-shod over them, ignoring their local wishes and customs, and disregarding the wishes of the original testator. It has been most unfortunate, and it is for that reason that I laid so much stress in my earlier remarks on the difference between this Commission and the Commission of 1882.
I do not desire to keep your Lordships longer, but I would like to turn to the remarks of Lord Strathcona for the Government. He pointed out, as I think has been pointed out on a previous occasion in another place, that the real target for attack is the Government. I cannot agree on that point. I think the real target is the Commission who produced the scheme, and it is not very sound argument to reply that the Government have a chance of altering schemes before they become law. During the course of the operations of this Commission, I admit, the officials in the Government Department concerned have had my sympathy, because I believe in more than one case they have had what I regard as an almost impossible task in producing a good scheme. The way to produce a good scheme is by producing a good one and then by advice making it better. The unfortunate officials in the Government Department concerned have been faced with the difficulty of having had put before them by the Commission a scheme which is far from good and of being expected to make that a good scheme. When that happens, unless the people who do the work are super-men, the tendency will be to produce not a good scheme, or a more or less good scheme, but a bad scheme, or a more or less bad scheme.
That is the complaint that is heard in Scotland to-day. There is no doubt about it. The Government are not getting a fair chance, because the schemes

477
which are so apt to come before them are in the first place not sound, and therefore are schemes which it is almost impossible to turn into really good schemes. With regard to the declaration made in answer to my Motion, it certainly comes to me and, I think, to many of my noble friends as a very bitter disappointment. We had hoped that His Majesty's Government would have found it possible to declare their intentions with regard to this Commission at a very early date, if not this evening. The noble Lord now tells me that no declaration perhaps will be made before the end of this Session.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I said before the Summer Recess.
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: Before the Summer Recess. I have to remind your Lordships that that gives no opportunity to me or to other noble Lords or to anyone in another place to raise this matter again before about October, when Parliament meets again, and some of us consider that that will be very late. I am convinced that there is a very urgent demand in Scotland to-day for a declaration with regard to the future of this Commission. I can only say how disappointed I am that the declaration is not to be made earlier than that. I trust very much that the noble Lord may find it possible to put rather earlier anyhow than the end of this Session the date on which he will be able to make a declaration on this subject. If the noble Lord would give me some assurance that the Government would make an effort to put this date forward as early as they possibly can I should be pleased to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, all I can do for the noble Earl is to assure him that I will pass on his representations to the Ministers concerned, and see, if it possibly can be done, whether a statement can be made earlier than before the Summer Recess. I should also like to point out that if that statement involves the prolongation of the Commission that entails the production of a Bill in Parliament, which will give an opportunity for discussion, and, if it does not, I take it that the noble Earl will derive a certain measure of satisfaction.
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: In view of what the noble Earl has now said I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FORTY-HOUR WORKING WEEK.
LORD STRABOLGIrose to ask His Majesty's Government what is their present attitude towards the proposal now before the International Labour Office for a forty-hour working week in industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should not have proceeded at this late hour with the Motion that stands on the Paper except for its very great importance, also because this is the last opportunity that presents itself before the meeting of the International Labour Office Conference in Geneva early in June—I believe on June 4. That the matter is important I think will be generally accepted. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who I believe is answering for the Government, is aware, my Motion was on the Paper a good many days ago, and the White Paper issued last night, although it only partially answers the questions that I intended to put, will nevertheless have a tremendous effect in all industrial countries, and on all those who have been working for some amelioration of the condition of the mass of the workers and for the mitigation of unemployment caused in part by the great increase in the efficiency of machinery.
The White Paper, if it is adhered to, and if certain ambiguities are not cleared up in a favourable way, ranges His Majesty's Government on the side of one other Government of a principal industrial nation in opposing the proposal for a forty-hour week in certain industries, first put forward in December, 1931, by the Unemployment Committee of the International Labour Office. That other Government with which His Majesty's Government is ranged is the Government of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Japan. The White Paper is a remarkable document. We enjoy in this country the advantage of an admirable Civil Service, but it is never so efficient as when it is set the task of finding reasons why nothing can be done, and in this case it has succeeded admirably. The facts, however, as I hope to show, are against

479
them. Anyone reading this White Paper would think that this was some revolutionary proposal brought forward by cranks and visionaries, and that it would ruin industry in this country.
Before I remind your Lordships of the actual facts, may I put two specific questions to the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General? In the White Paper it is declared that it had not been possible to consult all the interests concerned with a view to reaching a sound judgment on the main issue set forth in the Questionnaire. Your Lordships will be aware that a Questionnaire has been sent out, following the three or four years of intensive study of this problem by the staff of the International Labour Office and the Governments concerned, principally under the stimulus of the efforts of the Italian Government, who, with the French and the Poles, and now the Germans, have been pressing for this great measure of human reform. It is said that the interests most directly concerned have been consulted. May I ask whether the trade unions were consulted? It may be that, as it is stated in the next paragraph that the inquiries and consultations referred to have not been concluded, they have not yet all been consulted. I imagine that the trade unions have been consulted, but I think we ought to be reassured on that point.
The second question I want to ask—and it is the most important of all—is as follows. In paragraph 4 (and this is the main conclusion, which is described as His Majesty's Government's opinion) these words occur:
"His Majesty's Government does not take the view that weekly hours of work are immutably fixed at their present levels."
That, at any rate, is something. It goes on:
"A continuous review of the problem industry by industry will, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, reveal the scope for useful action as and where this exists and it is contended that the question of the limitation of hours can only be dealt with, either nationally or internationally, industry by industry in the light of the special characteristics of each industry."
Now, what does that mean? And, secondly, may I ask the noble Lord what is going to be done? Does that mean that we are really going to tackle the question through the International Labour Office at Geneva, industry by industry?
480
Are you, for example, going to start with the textile and rayon industry, where a great deal of progress has been made, and are you going to do it immediately, or is His Majesty's Government going to continue to block all efforts to reach international agreement to reduce the hours of labour? On the 8th May the International Congress of Textile Workers met at Lucerne. There was general agreement as to the desirability of reducing hours of labour by international agreement, but Mr. Naesmith, the representative of Lancashire, drew attention to two points. He said this could only be done internationally. My noble friends agree entirely with that, and our friends in another place who represent the great unions agree also that it can best be done internationally. Secondly—this is very important—Mr. Naesmith hinted at the necessity of some form of sanctions for nations who, having signed a Convention, would not keep it, or did not keep it, or would not come into line when the other nations were in agreement. The sanction he suggested was a prohibition of imports from countries where labour was sweated, abnormal hours of labour were worked, and abnormally low wages paid.
Now if His Majesty's Government from the beginning—not only the present Government but their predecessors—had proceeded along those lines, we should not be entering singly into a trade war with Japan without allies, without the support of the organisations in the other countries in which the standards of living of the work people are threatened. I consider that this action of His Majesty's Government in challenging the Japanese to a trade war at the present time without any co-operation with America, or with Germany or with Italy or France, all of whom are directly menaced by unfair labour conditions in Japan and the dumping of Japanese goods, and in entering into this trade war single handed, is the height of folly. It may have results that no man can foretell.
Yet we had this machinery ready to be used. We could have pursued a steady policy of raising the standards of all labour, including Asiatic labour, and if we were frustrated by the Governments of the Asiatic countries, then we could have called upon the Western countries and upon America to have joined with us

481
in prohibiting the import of goods made under these inhuman conditions. That would be statesmanship, that would show vision. I regret to say His Majesty's Government have shown neither statesmanship nor vision in this matter. I am not going to attempt to apologise for the action of the last Government, the Labour Government, which I had the privilege of supporting in most things in another place. They did not ratify the fortyeight-hour Washington Convention, and I make a, present to the Paymaster-General of that fact. But I believe it would have been done. It is no secret I am now giving to your Lordships when I say it was a cause of great criticism In the Parliamentary Labour Party that that had not been done. I believe it would have been done if we had remained longer in office. The reason it was not done was that we were led by the gentlemen who lead His Majesty's Government to-day. They blocked and frustrated this great reform, and industrial Britain has not led the way, as it should have done, in using the great machinery for raising international wage standards and conditions through the International labour Office, as should have been expected from so progressive a nation.
The actual proposals at Geneva on June 4 which will be debated and which, I suppose, unless there is a rapid change of opinion in the Cabinet, will be blocked and frustrated by Es Majesty's Government, are not for an all round forty-hour week at all. The proposal is that where there is factory work there should be an average working week of forty hours calculated over an average of four weeks. Where there is continual process work it is to be forty-two hours, and in transport undertakings forty-eight hours. I believe I am correct in that statement, though I have only had access to what has appeared in the Press. And, most important of all, the wages of the workers where the reduced hours are agreed to are not to be reduced. That is, of course, of the utmost importance, and, as the White Paper is fair enough to say, the Trades Union Congress of this country has laid that down very clearly indeed. In these days of under-consumption, where the purchasing power of the people requires to be raised rather than lowered, it is absolutely essential that this great reform should be accompanied by stringent
482
regulations to prevent wages being reduced.
I said that this was no revolutionary proposal of a number of idealists and cranks and visionaries. In 1926, Mr. Ford, in the United States of America, in his great motor car factories, reduced the hours of labour to forty per week, and that same working week was introduced, or is being introduced, into all his European factories as well. Just after the War the great confectionery firm of Rowntree reduced their working week to a five-day week of forty-four hours. At Billingham to-day, in certain departments of the Imperial Chemical Industry, a forty-hour week is being worked, and in all these cases the wages have not been reduced. Manders of Wolverhampton, the great firm of paint and colour manufacturers, have adopted the forty-hour week. All these are highly successful firms. I could mention others. To-day in the United States 270 firms employing over a million workpeople are working the five-day week without reduction of wages.
What are the objections? I cull from the White Paper the objections put forward by engineering employers and other employers of labour who have resisted demands from their unions. It is said foreign countries will come into a Convention with us but will not keep their bond. I do not think that is a just argument to use, but if they do break their word there must be some system of sanctions. The great safeguard against foreign nations doing that is the trade unions in the foreign countries who want their working hours reduced. Even the Indian trade unions are demanding the forty-hour week as part of their programme. It is said that this will raise prices. Incidentally, there is a great deal of exaggeration about that because with greater efficiency it does not necessarily follow that prices will be raised to a very great extent.
To-day The Times newspaper devotes its first leading article to this question of the forty-hour week and I am sorry to say supports His Majesty's Government's attitude. They use a very misleading series of sentences when they say that the reduction from forty-eight hours to forty hours will add 20 per cent. or one-fifth to the wage costs. Reading that one might be led to suppose that that meant there would be a 20 per cent. in-

483
crease of price. That is not so. What happens is this. When we have calculated the overheads and the on costs whereas the wage rates may represent a 20 per cent. increase—that is of course keeping the same rate of wages for the shorter working hours—actually the total cost increase is only 6 per cent. That is a calculation of the engineering unions and is to be found in the very interesting report of the proceedings of the engineering and allied employers in their National Federation and of the engineering trade unions. Time will not permit me to analyse this interesting calculation. It is of course traversed by the employers, nevertheless it is traversed only in detail, not in principle. It is a fact that taking into consideration all the other costs that enter into the price of the article that leaves the factory the reduction from forty-eight to forty hours does not represent a 20 per cent. increase but only represents a little over 6 per cent.
But in any case the problem is not only one of selling as cheaply as possible, no matter at what cost in unemployment and human misery and degradation. His Majesty's Government at the World Economic Conference said that the object of this country was to raise prices which were too low, to raise, at any rate, the price of wholesale goods, and if by international agreement prices all round can be raised to a moderate extent it would be of great benefit to the whole industrial world. I agree that the most serious objection is that the gap may be widened between industrial and agricultural prices, and if I were devil's advocate I would fasten on that particular argument. But agricultural prices represent a separate and gigantic problem that is not going to be settled by reducing the price of manufactured goods or by artificially raising the cost and the price of agricultural products or by destroying God's bounty of the fields.
It is a much larger problem than that. We hear complaints to-day in rather picturesque language of man being the slave of the machine. I do not want to exaggerate, but I would remind your Lordships that long hours were bearable when a man was working on his own initiative, when he set his own pace, when one day, feeling fit and vigorous, he could work at a fast pace, and
484
another, feeling off colour and not so fit, he could slow down; but now it is the machine that sets the pace. The belt goes on unrelentingly and the man has to adjust himself to every phase of the time machine that is driving him on. It is perhaps necessary to adopt these mass production methods but they are very detrimental in their effect on human mentality. That is one main argument with those who urge the necessity of reducing hours of labour—the monotony and the strain and the stress of modern industrial methods. This is a huge subject. I believe it will be admitted to be one of the greatest importance. I apologise for keeping your Lordships on it to-night at this late hour, but it concerns the welfare and happiness of millions of people in our own and other countries. I hope that the White Paper is not His Majesty's Government's last word and that the International Labour Office is going to be supported instead of, as in the past, thwarted and hampered. I beg to move for Papers.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, in rising to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government I am sure your Lordships will permit me first of all to say that those interested in the immediate adoption of a forty-hour week have been very fortunate in the advocate they have secured in your Lordships' House in the person of the noble Lord opposite. Nobody could have put the case more forcibly or with greater cogency. I am only sorry that the Ministry of Labour is not directly represented in your Lordships' House, for thus it falls to my lot to speak for a Department other than my own. The subject raised by the noble Lord is really, if he will forgive my saying so, not quite so simple as he would make it appear. In fact it is really both complex and difficult. It is, however, one to which His Majesty's Ministers have given, and are continuing to give, much thought. The noble Lord has referred to the fact that his Motion had been upon the Order Paper for some two or three weeks. With that courtesy we have already come to associate with the noble Lord, although he has been so short a time a member of your Lordships' House, he gave your Lordships ample notice of his intention to raise this matter, but in the interim,

485
as he pointed out, the Government's White Paper, Command No. 4584, has been issued which goes far to meet the interrogation the noble Lord has addressed to the Government.
The position is that next month when the International Labour Conference meets at Geneva consideration will be given to two draft International Conventions which are designed to reduce hours of work to forty a week throughout a wide range of industry and commerce, the principal exceptions being those of mining, maritime, and agricultural workers. They are, of course, excluded from the field of consideration. The general attitude of His Majesty's Government to the Geneva proposals is, as the noble Lord has pointed out, set out fully in the letter and accompanying statement which were sent to the International Labour Office on the 14th of March this year and which have been published in the White Paper to which the noble Lord referred. The White Paper is, I think, explicit and self-explanatory. It is widely discussed in today's Press. The noble Lord has referred to the very able leading article in The Times of to-day and I, too, will revert to that, if I may, in a moment, but it is, I agree, appropriate that some further observations on the subject from the Government's point of view should now be made with reference to the Question put by the noble Lord.
Up till recent times the question of reducing hours of work has been approached primarily from the point of view of ensuring that the health and wellbeing of the worker were not impaired by excessive hours of toil. Latterly, however, owing to the wide incidence of unemployment, the movement for reducing hours of work has had for its main incentive the sharing of work so as to reduce the number of workers wholly unemployed. Recent discussions at Geneva have, in general, been conducted on the latter basis, and the proposals now made must be considered in flat light. There is, of course—and I am sure the noble Lord would himself concede the point—no sanctity in the number of forty in regard to the weekly hours of work, and it is not a figure scientifically related either to current methods of organisation or to the social and industrial habits of the people. The number of forty is in the nature of a
486
slogan designed to promote the movement towards shortening hours of work with a view to relieving the unemployment position. A slogan of this kind, even if its underlying significance were acceptable, does need careful consideration before there is any question of adopting it as the pivotal point of an administrative code of wide industrial application. No two industries are alike, and no two countries have the same social and industrial history.
Hours of work and wage rates differ widely from industry to industry and from country to country, and with every sympathy for the idea of improving the position of the workers, whether by reducing hours of work or otherwise, it does seem to His Majesty's Government that at the present time a general limitation of hours of work to forty a week is not going to be accepted internationally as meeting the varying circumstances of wage-earners in the multifarious occupations which they follow in the world of industry and commerce. For instance, there is a great difference of conditions as between the operative engaged on manufacture indoors in a factory and an operative in the building trade subject to the state of the weather and the duration of light; but a general Convention containing limitations of hours to forty would be in the nature of a steam-roller designed to obliterate the natural divergencies of conditions in the various occupations and in the circumstances of the various industries.
It is not unreasonable to argue that the increasing efficiency of machinery should lighten the burden of labour falling upon the workers; nor does it seem equitable that some workers should have to work overtime while others are idle. Accepting these conditions as valid, it is for all interests concerned to embrace any opportunity of shortening hours of work provided that this can be done without serious detriment to the prosperity of industry and the development of trade. There have, in fact, been recent examples of firms which have found it possible to reduce hours in departments of their undertakings. The noble Lord referred to one or two specific cases. It is indeed the case that experiments of this kind have been made in certain undertakings. Those experiments have differed from

487
one another in their underlying basis and the experience so far gained shows that the principle of the Government's reply to Geneva as set out in the White Paper is sound. By that I mean that the fact that each experiment has differed shows that it is impracticable to draw up a satisfactory Convention which endeavours to apply the same system to every undertaking and to every country.
The noble Lord referred to Imperial Chemical Industries. As he has done that, I think I cannot do better than quote from a letter issued by Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, with regard to the four eight-hour shift experiment which they have instituted at their works at Billingham. The letter reads:
"I should explain that the introduction of the scheme was rendered possible solely because it became necessary to put certain departments, which had been working a 47-week on daywork, on continuous shift-work. This change in the method of working naturally yielded an increase in weekly earnings over the daywork wages formerly paid.
"Instead, however, of adopting the usual three eight-hour continuous shift system, a four eight-hour shift system was introduced by taking on an extra man as relief; consequently, instead of working on the average 56 hours over the the three weeks' shift cycle, the average hours worked per week are 39.375. The wages that would have been distributed amongst three men under the three eight-hour shift system are distrbuted amongst four men.
"The experiment cannot of course be compared with the conversion of any existing 47-hour week into a 40-hour week on daywork, and therefore does not represent the adoption of the 40-hour week in the sense in which that phrase is generally accepted. Further, it would not have been practicable had the men concerned been already working on the usual three eight-hour continuous shift system, owing to the reduction in individual weekly earnings that would have resulted."
I have read that extract from that letter because the noble Lord instanced this actual case. He will have noticed that the writer said: "therefore [it] does not represent the adoption of the forty-hour week in the sense in which that phrase is generally accepted."
Other experiments, as the noble Lord has pointed out, have been based on a five-day week, on speeding up the work, on periodical closing down and on various other bases. I can only say that the Government will continue to watch the results of these experiments with the greatest interest, but it is unable to find
488
in them justification for supporting an attempt to compel a reduction of hours to forty per week or to establish internationally a rigid system applicable to the whole of industry and commerce. The noble Lord referred to other cases. He will not expect me to deal with them, but he mentioned the firm of Rowntree. Only the day before yesterday I was myself in York in the immediate vicinity of the Rowntree works. I do not think the noble Lord himself claimed that as an instance of a forty-hour week.
LORD STRABOLGI: Forty-two.
LORD ROCHESTER: I think probably the facts would show that it is forty-four, but I am not going to split that difference with the noble Lord. I want to make the point that it is only an instance and cannot be claimed as supporting his contention of a full forty-hour week.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry. I did quote that wrongly. It is a five-day week of forty-four hours.
LORD ROCHESTER: That was my information. I am obliged to the noble Lord, but I was not trying to make a debating point of that. I was only trying to show that we cannot argue from the specific to the general. The Government have at no time taken up the attitude that hours of work should remain immutably at their present level. They have at all times welcomed any movement for shortening hours which did not suggest disadvantages of a major character. The proposals framed at Geneva, however, appear to the Government to be such as would be unlikely to fit the picture of industry as we know it in present circumstances. Rough and ready attempts at uniformity in plan may well bring disaster in industry where the elements of diversity and complexity are increasingly apparent. In fact, the instrument of a general forty-hour Convention is, in the view of the Goverment, too crude and unscientific in character to admit of its general acceptance and its effective application throughout the countries of the world.
To turn to another aspect of the problem, that of international trade and competition in world markets, Great Britain has a very special interest in international trade and the element of costs of production, including labour costs, is one to which we must pay great

489
attention in so far as we hope to sell our products in world markets. In the matter of labour costs, hours of work and wage rates must obviously be considered together. Shorter hours, related as they are to wage rates, naturally affect labour costs and they may also raise overhead charges by way of increased expenditure on supervision, social expenses and the like. Moreover, shorter hours may mean expensive machinery lying idle through more hours of the day unless double or multiple shift systems are employed. In the world markets of to-day this country has to meet intensive competition from countries which work longer hours and pay lower wages than are the general rule here. Many of those countries show little or no disposition to approach our standards and this is a grave difficulty in the way of our making a general forward movement.
It is true that one of the aims of the International Labour Organisation is to raise low standards of working conditions wherever these are to be found, and with this aim His Majesty's Government are in full accord. But it is obviously difficult for the Government to agree to tie this country down to reduce hours of work arbitrarily to forty, while a number of important competing countries have already intimated their unwillingness to agree to international regulations of this kind. I submit that the noble Lord is not entitled—he will forgive my saying so—to hold up this country as the black sheep among the nations in this respect, because I think that is what he really did. I took down his words. He instanced cases of Italians and French and Poles. He stated that we were associated with Japan in his opinion amongst, the black sheep.
Of course it is very clear that the Japanese are not prepared to concede this contention of the International Labour Organisation. They said in their reply:
"… the prescription by legislation of compulsory reduction of hours of work which could be effective in alleviating unemployment would be difficult from the economic and technical points of view under the existing conditions in Japan. Further, in such a case it would also be difficult in practice to ensure the maintenance of wages by legislation. Consequently, the Government is not in a position to agree, for the time being, to an international regulation on this subject."
That is Japan. The noble Lord said that we were hanging behind France, Italy
490
and Poland. I think that he will concede as a premiss that it is no use having a Convention unless it is going to be put into force. It, is very easy for countries to say that they are prepared to be parties to a Convention and then to attach to that statement conditions which make it for all practical purposes more or less valueless. We in this country are accustomed to state quite frankly our decision when we have come to it and to accept responsibility for it.
I agree that the Italians, the French and the Poles, as the noble Lord said—and I am only confirming his contention—were agreeable to the admission of the forty-hour question in the Questionnaire, but the noble Lord, if he will forgive my saying so, handled the truth rather carelessly, because he did not inform your Lordships of the conditions which they attached to their answers to that question, and I feel that it is so important that I want to read to your Lordships of the conditions attached by all three of those Governments to which the noble Lord referred. I have here the replies of all the Governments. I think he first of all instanced the Italians. Tt is stated with regard to Italy:
"The Italian Government proposes that the group should include the States of chief industrial importance, including the extra-European States."
That includes Japan. Therefore Italy says, for one: "We will adhere to a Convention if Japan adheres to it"; but Japan have already made it abundantly clear that they are not prepared to adhere to it. I ask the noble Lord therefore whether he is entitled to hold us up as black sheep in comparison with a country who say that if the impossible can be done, they will fall into line?
Then he instanced the case of the French. Now what is the French condition?
"The French Government considers that the Convention should provide a procedure for ensuring its simultaneous ratification and putting into force by the Governments of States which are in economic competition with one another."
Clearly that includes Japan and Germany. Japan again! The same point can be made there as I made in the case of Italy. The other case which the noble Lord instanced was that of Poland. Now what is the Polish reply?

491
>"The Polish Government names ten States for this purpose…."
that is, should ratify the Convention—and amongst them Germany, the Netherlands and Japan. In the case of Germany, as they have left the International Labour Office the noble Lord will realise that they cannot have their adhesion, and in the case of Japan he is already aware of their answer. What is the answer of the Netherlands? The Netherlands say:
"that this matter cannot he considered as being yet ripe for international regulation."
I do suggest to the noble Lord that in view of those conditions attached to their adhesion, the relationship betwen his statement and the truth is so distant as to be scarcely recognisable, and I feel that he will not press that element of his argument in the circumstances.
The protagonists of the forty-hour week in the British trade union movement postulate that no reduction of wages should accompany a reduction in hours, but, considered internationally, no feasible plan for carrying this into effect has yet been devised. The noble Lord asks, and as I understood him it was one of his specific queries, whether the workers had been called into consultation.
LORD STRABOLGI: The trade unions.
LORD ROCHESTER: Quite so—whether the trade unions had been called into consultation. I can only answer that by saying that to my own knowledge the General Council of the Trades Union Congress have been consulted, both orally and in writing, by the Minister of Labour on the forty-hour week question. I have not the data with me at the moment, but speaking from memory I am almost sure that I am correct in saying that in fact only last week—certainly quite recently—a deputation was received by the Minister of Labour and had the opportunity of laying their views before him. The Geneva proposals include a recommendation concerning the maintenance of the standard of living of the workers, in the event of a reduction in the hours of work, but such a recommendation, as distinct from a Convention, can have no binding validity, and I should be surprised if it satisfied British trade unionists as giving them the safeguards for which they have asked.
The industrial policy of the United States of America, to which the noble
492
Lord has referred, is frequently quoted as showing what can be done in the way of reducing hours of work and increasing the leisure of the workers without reducing their standard of living. It is, I suggest, too early yet to form a clear view as to the results of this policy, but the position of the United States is different from our own in many important respects. Within the borders of its immense territory the United States has natural resources and economic potentialities which make an approach to national self-sufficiency less difficult than is the case in this country, where we are more dependent upon international trade. We hope that the social experiments of the United States will succeed, but it is relevant to point out that, even in that country, the industrial codes which have laid down hours of work in the various industries have not proceeded on the proposed Geneva model of a universal limitation to forty hours, but have fixed a variety of hours for the different industries in accordance with their varying circumstances and requirements. Incidentally, I would mention that the United States of America are not members of the International Labour Organisation, although I am glad to learn that the United States Minister of Labour is likely to attend the forthcoming International Labour Conference as an observer.
Without wishing to touch more than briefly upon the matter, I might mention the recent statements of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, to which the noble Lord has referred, with regard to the competition of the Japanese manufacturers with the Lancashire cotton manufacturers in supplying cotton goods to various parts of the world, and more particularly to our own Colonies. I am sure that in considering this matter my right honourable friend has had in mind the desirability of obviating any worsening of the conditions of work of Lancashire operatives for the purpose of maintaining our hold on markets in which we have to meet Japanese competition based, as it is, on hours of labour which are longer and rates of wages whicih are lower than in the Lancashire cotton mills. To reduce hours of work in the Lancashire cotton mills from the present agreed number of forty-eight to the forty proposed by Geneva would certainly further load the dice against Lancashire, particularly as I

493
understand that the Operative Weavers' Association are strongly opposed to the two-shift system and have never, to my knowledge, been parties to an application for permission to work two shifts.
In this connection I gather from the Press—a matter to which the noble Lord also referred—that the International Congress of Textile Workers, meeting in Lucerne last week, had the question of Japanese competition before them. The noble Lord has given us an extract of what was said by Mr. Naesmith, the secretary of the Lancashire Weavers. I would like to mention that he is reported to have pointed out that one of the difficulties of the situation was that Japanese weaving machines were worked 120 hours a week as against the normal 48 hours in Lancashire. The proposed Convention does not deal in any way with this most important difference in working conditions. To ignore this is to ignore one of the most important questions affecting the maintenance of the employment and Standard of life of the Lancashire operatives.
I am sure the noble Lord will concede that if our machines are to be operated for 40 hours a week only, against 120 hours a week worked by Japanese machines on the shift system, then a fortiori we should require for the same production three times the number of machines, with their attendant overhead charges, and additional electrical energy and other power, that the Japanese require, making competition in neutral markets increasingly difficult, if not impossible. I also gather from the Press that Mr. Naesmith indicated the possibility of the forty-hour week proposal being approached, not from the standpoint of reaching a general international convention, but by way of considering the application of reduced hours of work to separate industries where agreement to that end could be reached.
Whatever may have been said at Lucerne, however, I am brought back at this point to the letter to which I have already referred as having been sent to Geneva on behalf of His Majesty's Government, on March 14 of this year, and of which the final paragraph reads as follows:
"In conclusion, … His Majesty's Government does not take the view that weekly hours of work are immutably fixed
494
at their present level. A continuous review of the problem, industry by industry, will, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, reveal the scope for useful action as and where this exists, and it is contended that the question of the limitation of hours can only be dealt with, either nationally or internationally, industry by industry, in the light of the special characteristics of each industry."
I suggest that this conclusion represents a realistic approach to the hours problem, and I commend it to the consideration of this House.
The noble Lord referred just now to the leading article in The Times of to-day, and I said that I would refer to it. I want to complete the paragraph that he quoted from because I do not think he did complete justice to the point they make in that article. It reads:
"To pay for forty hours' work the amount now paid for forty-eight hours' work will increase the wages costs of production by one-fifth unless the output of the shorter working period is proportionately greater than that of the longer period."
I think the noble Lord will allow me to say he did not emphasise the point that they were speaking of the wages costs. I should like, if I might, to commend this leading article to noble Lords in all parts of the House. I would also like, greatly daring, to read the final paragraph of the same article, which says:
"The more the forty-hour week proposal is examined the more specious it is seen to be as a remedy for unemployment, and it involves hazards which no Government of this country dare take. Less spectacular but more sure is the suggestion which the Government have made to the I.L.O. Progress to a shorter working week should he made, not by a daring and dangerous leap, but gradually, industry by industry, as the way opens."
In this world of infinite variety and complexity it is scarcely to be expected that easy solutions of major difficulties will present themselves, and on the hours question I feel it is wise to realise this, and to approach it in a scientific spirit by examining the facts, industry by industry, so that wherever progress may be found possible it may be secured on a sound and constructive basis. That progress may be secured on such a basis is not only the wish of His Majesty's Government but is, I am confident, equally the desire of the noble Lord who moved this Motion, and of his friends and mine associated with him. I hope that with this explanation my noble friend will

495
see his way to withdraw his Motion for Papers, for the very good reason that since his Motion was put on the Paper this White Paper has been presented to Parliament, and there are no additional Papers.
There is only one further matter, and that is the reference to the Washington Hours Convention. May I just emphasise that that rather strengthens the position taken up by His Majesty's Government? The Washington Convention was drawn up in 1919, and was based upon a working week of forty-eight hours. Its history, I suggest, bears out the truth of what I have said about the impracticability of applying a single rigid standard to all industries and all countries. The Labour Party when in Office in 1924, and again in 1930, made efforts to prepare legislation upon which a ratification of the Convention by this country could be based. I submit that it was the inflexibility of some of the provisions of the Convention, and doubts as to the precise meaning of other parts, which raised difficulties which it proved impossible to overcome. In consquence neither of the Bills reached a Second Reading in another place, and therefore never reached your Lordships' House at all.
That the experience here was not unique is shown by the fact that the great majority of countries of industrial importance have not found it possible to ratify the Washington Convention. I therefore take the view, that so far from the Washington Convention providing an argument for the adoption of a Convention on the forty-hour week, it provides a lesson as to the impossibility of framing satisfactory Conventions on hours of labour of wide application. As I have already said, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Motion for Papers. If there were any that could be laid I should be only too glad on behalf of the Minister of Labour to lay them, but I think he will appreciate that the matter
496
has been brought right up to date by the White Paper issued yesterday, and if I have not answered all his questions I think he will admit that I have at least attempted to meet all the points he has raised.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord has answered the points which I put forward in a most satisfactory way. I thank him for the very full answer which he has given, and the frank way in which he has laid the Government's case. He has not convinced me, and I have not convinced him, but nevertheless I will accede to his request and withdraw my Motion for Papers. My complaint is not that this country is a black sheep, but that it is not leading the flock.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RAMSGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.