ENDOWED SCHOOLS AND THE POOR.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S letter on this subject, which we _1.11 published on Saturday last, arrived too late to be dealt with at length last week, and our answer to Mr. Jesse Collings's letter referred rather to the special. facts of the case out of which the controversy has arisen, than to the question of the general policy of the Charity Commissioners in dealing with Endowed Schools.
Mr. Chamberlain's letter renews his attack on the Charity Commission, not only for its policy, but for its constitution. He regrets that we should not "have been foremost in con- demning the arbitrary action of a Commission totally without representative authority or popular sympathy." What he means by the Charity Commission being without representa- tive authority or popular sympathy, we fail to see. The Charity Commission is, in one way, just as much or as little a representative authority as any other department of the Government—as, for instance, the Board of Trade, which for matters of policy means either the Permanent Under- Secretary or the President himself. Do we understand Mr. Chamberlain to mean that he would wish to see the Govern- ment Departments elected in the same manner as the House of Commons ? and if he does not mean that, what does he mean ? The Charity Commissioners are appointed by the Government of the day. They lately received a great acces- sion of strength at the hands of the Government of which Mr. Chamberlain was so distinguished a member, in the two addi- tional Commissioners appointed under the City Parochial Charities Act—Sir Francis Sandford, a man of tried ability and proved popular sympathy in the Education Department, and Mr. Anstie, an able Nonconformist Queen's Counsel. It is true that the latest accession, Mr. Alderson, represents the family interest which Lord Salisbury takes in his brother-in- law, rather than any proved ability for the special work ;—for we do not dispute Mr. Alderson's merits in another field. But Mr. Jesse Collings himself, in his letter to us, acknowledges the merits of the new Chief Commissioner, while the two Commissioners especially deputed to do the work under the Endowed Schools Acts—Sir George Young and Mr. Richmond —are both appointees of Liberal Governments, and the latter was Secretary to the Endowed Schools Commission, abolished by the Tories in 1874. If, therefore, any body of permanent officials can be said to be representative, the Charity Commis- sioners may fairly be said to be more representative than any other, and their number is sufficiently large to ensure a fair representation of all parties.
But, in point of fact, Mr. Chamberlain's letter shows that he has not really given the attention to the subject which is essential in order to be able to pronounce a trustworthy opinion on the Charity Commissioners or their work. He complains that none of the endowments have been given to the poor ; but out of, in round numbers, 350 schemes framed by the Commissioners, at least 150 have been for Elementary Schools, and the endowments have gone mainly in remission of fees. As we said before, we think that the endowments so applied have been wasted. But still it does not lie in Mr. Chamberlain's month to attack the Commission which has so acted. But Mr. Chamberlain says " there are in addition an almost infinite variety of objects, such as Technical Schools for Trade and Agriculture, the provision of open spaces and of allotment gardens, dispensaries, &c., which might fitly be kept in view in the preparation of new schemes." This sentence clearly shows that Mr. Chamberlain has never really studied either the composition or the powers of the Commission in dealing with educational endowments. He is apparently un- aware that it would be absolutely illegal for the Charity Com- mission to devote a single sixpence of money left for educational purposes to " the provision of open spaces, allotment gardens, dispensaries, &c.," whatever may be included in the last formula. The Charity Commission really consists of three distinct bodies, acting under three distinct sets of Acts of Parliament. As Charity Commissioners proper, their powers are of the smallest. They are little better than a registry- office. They sit in 'Whitehall to register such schemes as the Trustees of Charities may ask them to make. In the case of charities over £50 a year they have no initiative and hardly any control. Their consent is necessary to sales and purchases of land and stock, and to leases of more than twenty-one years. They also have power to appoint new Trustees and to vest the Trust- property in the new Trustees by order, so as to save the legal ex- penses attaching to conveyancing. But practically they are quite impotent to reform or make schemes of their own mere motion, and are merely intelligent puppets of the Trustees. The three Charity Commissioners proper are, therefore, a most harmless and ineffective body ; and a Select Committee of last year, pre- sided over by Mr. Chamberlain's colleague, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, recommended considerable additions to their powers, additions which will no doubt be made when the Liberals return to office. But in 1874 there was added unto this Court of Registration —or, rather, merged in it—the Endowed Schools Commission, created under the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 by Mr. Gladstone. The Endowed Schools Commission was created for the single and express purpose of framing schemes for Grammar Schools— that is, for Endowed.Schools other than Elementary. Schools in receipt of a Parliamentary grant, and all schools with an endow-
ment of less than £100,and mainly devoted to elementary educa- tion, were expressly and purposely exempted from their jurisdic- tion. The avowed purpose of the Endowed Schools Act brought in by Mr. Forster was to do for secondary education what Parlia- ment was already doing on an extensive scale, and did more.
extensively still after the Education Act of 1870, for ele- mentary education. When, therefore, the Charity Commis- sioners in dealing, as at West Lavington, with a Grammar School, " appear to think that their main function is the provision of secondary education," they appear to think exactly what they ought to think ; and in making the best provision they can for secondary education, they are properly performing their main function. The chief reform which was needed in 1869 was to throw open to the nation at large educational endowments which had been annexed by the Church of Eng- land; and to replace self-elective and narrow-minded Trustees
by representative and elective governing bodies, and to modernise the education. Unfortunately, the Act of 180 did not go far enough. It gave far too great a share of educational endowments to the exclusive possession which they were drawn is wrong. From Bradford to St. Paul's The need of a large and thorough measure of reform seems School, from Sherborne to Birmingham, a fresh impetus had everywhere to be taken for granted, and Lord Randolph been given to the cause of education by the action of the Com- Churchill is only one of several Conservative candidates who missioners throughout the country, and schools which formerly have gone out of their way to urge and emphasize its necessity. dawdled along with ten or fifty scholars tied in the closest The ordinary ratepayer, may be, has no other idea on the bonds of Church of England and classical training, are now subject beyond a vague expectation that the ever increasing doing energetic work with hundreds of children receiving a rates will be diminished, and that the assignment of the pro- sound modern education. It is true that the Commissioners petty of the City Corporation for the benefit of the whole have done little for technical education, agricultural or manu- Metropolis will considerably assist this object. He may, facturing. But then, is it not also true that technical education perhaps, insufficiently appreciate all the advantages of a really had not been heard of ten years ago And that even now, except- responsible administration, and the economy which will result ing the few advanced educationalists who have read to good pur- from a consolidation of local authorities, nor may he under- pose the Report of the Royal Commission on Technical Educa- stand how any change of system can put an end to corrupt tion, those who even know what is meant by the term are few, and wasteful expenditure ; but at least he does not believe, as he and those who have grasped the full meaning and necessity of sometimes is said to do, that the end of Municipal government it are fewer still. But the Charity Commissioners have tried is attained if only the streets are properly paved, well lighted, their 'prentice hand at it already, and no doubt whenever they and kept in tolerable cleanliness. The problem is how to find Trustees ready to devote the money now wasted in pauper- accomplish these and very much greater ends with the least ising the poor with doles, to technical education for the poor, possible waste and friction, with an absence of corruption and they will be only too ready to do so. Mr. Chamberlain cannot jobbery, and with a sagacity and foresight for which beadledom devote his influence to a better purpose than helping the has never yet distinguished itself. At the present moment Charity Commissioners to frame schemes for technical education. these objects are frustrated by the freemasonry of those who are But then, he must convert also the Trustees throughout the concerned in the maintenance of abuses, and who derive plunder country, without whose consent the Commissioners cannot in and profit from the prevailing confusion and obscurantism. many cases move at all, and in any case only with the delays and Of such freemasonry we had an example the other day at Homer- compromises of a contested lawsuit. Mr. Chamberlain was in the ton ; and any one acquainted with Civic affairs could point to House of Commons when Mr. Bryce, with Mr. Mundella's help, abundant other instances of scandal. In the confusion the City carried his London Parochial Charities Bill, thereby, for the Corporation stands forth as a gigantic organisation pledged purpose of London, enlarging the Charity Commission and its to oppose any thorough or genuine reform ; and the evil which educational powers on the lines of the Endowed Schools Act. it has done in this respect is almost incalculable. This body, Mr. Chamberlain's own colleague, Lord Carlingford, carried practically irresponsible, has striven for years to maintain its an Irish Endowed Schools Bill, framed almost verbatim on the privileges, its wealth, and its isolation, no matter at what cost model of the English one, through the House of Lords only this to the rest of London. It has become the very centre and last summer, and it was read a first time in the House of citadel of Obstruction, around which the elements of corrup- Commons, and no word ways heard from Mr. Chamberlain against tion which exist elsewhere find a congenial shelter and the measure. What, then, is the cause of this sudden zeal defence. We are aware that a deputation from the Common against the Charity Commission and its doings ? It is clear Council with its scheme of reform has waited on Sir Richard that the zeal is zeal without knowledge, both as to the West Cross within the last few weeks. But we also remember that Sir Lavington School and the duties and powers of the Charity George Grey's efforts in 1855 were met and frustrated by like Commission. It is not too much to ask, therefore, now offers of assistance on the part of the Corporation for the that he is made aware of the tree state of the case, that he work of Reform. The then Home Secretary's estimate of the will bless where he has cursed, and help where he attempted value of that assistance has been well described in the Cobden to hinder. Club Essay of Mr. Firth, to whom too great praise cannot be given
Previous page
