It is easy for a master to say, that no children are sent to be taught. If he is not watched, and has another school to occupy him, he will take care that no applications are made. The inhabitants, says one of the witnesses, do not know the privilege they have to send scholars; to which Dr Ireland replies, that is their own fault;' and, as a proof of its having been repeatedly announced' to them, he says, that it was once done by his own advice; meaning, we presume, once during the twenty years of his incumbency. We should not have dwelt so long on this case, but that it is one of a great number, similarly situated, in different parts of the country. And we shall presently see, that the attention of visitors being excited to them can produce the proper effect, and obtain scholars, even where, by an absurd narrowness of construction, the education is confined to grammar alone.

(6.) This brings us naturally to the Pocklington case. The witnesses examined upon it were only the parties whose conduct was the principal object of attention, the visitors, and a solicitor who produced part of the deeds of endowment, but could give no information as to the abuse of the charity. The main point intended to be established by this case is, that a charity may be abused although specially visited; and, as in the last instance, without any blame being attached to the visitors, who reside at a distance, have various other duties to perform, and may never hear of abuses within the knowledge of all the neighbourhood. First, some doubt is expressed by the Master of St John's, as to the visitatorial powers of his college. But the words of the Foundation (Evid. p. 158.) seem to appoint them visitors with sufficient precision; at any rate, they give the power of removal. The Master says (p. 144.), that by the endowment, the Master or Fellows might go to the school and examine the Master;' and that, on removal, the Gild of Pocklington school should look out for another. But the words are, l'olo et ordino ac firmiter statuo;' that as often as any of the College happen to be near Pocklington, (where they have estates), they shall go and examine the school;' and it is further said, that if they find no scholars, * or none fit for the scholarship at St John's, founded by the same deed, they must impute it to their own negligence; for the founder adds, that he not only gives the College the power of removal, but ordains the choice of the schoolmaster by the gild, to be in all cases made cum maturo predicti magistri

6

The words in the evidence (p. 158.) are, Si scholares ibidem ad suum collegium eligendos aut nullos idoneos reperierint; the werd nullos' being evidently omitted before aut.

collegii et sociorum consilio.'* Nothing can therefore be more clear, than that the complete power of preventing all abuse of the school was vested in the College. Yet the Master and Fellows had only incidentally heard of the school not being properly managed,' and had never inquired to satisfy themselves, until October 1817, after two Reports had been made by the Education Committee, referring to Abuses in endowed schools, and after a good deal of discussion upon the subject had taken place, both in Parliament and out of doors. This, indeed, is the first visitation that appears to have taken place since the foundation in 1525, although the College has ever since enjoyed considerable estates from the founder, for the support of the five scholarships.

The visitors, when thus roused to inquiry, found, that by the master's admission, the clear rents received by himself and the asher were between 800l. and 900l. a year, beside houses for both, and two closes for the master; that he had been in Chancery to set aside some leases, from which a rise of rent might be expected; and that the reports of the neighbourhood made the income considerably higher. The school-room was in a dilapidated state, and had been used as a lumber room and carpenter's shop. There was only one scholar, whom the master taught in another room. There had been sixteen altogether since 1809, when the master first resided. For eleven years before that, there had been none, and for twenty years only three or four. The master had been, for the last ten months, obliged to be a great deal absent from home, much against his inclination,' owing to pecuniary em- 1 barrassments; and the usher, of whom he has the appointment, was deaf. All this is admitted by the master, and stated in the evidence of the visitors. (Evid. p. 148. to 155.) The usual excuse is given, † that no children were ever refused; but it is admitted, that Pocklington has 2000 inhabitants, and that the privilege of sending to the school is not confined to that parish, and that the scholars there educated have the sole title to the five scholarships at St John's; and the inhabitants state, that the town and neighbourhood would send a large number to the school, were it properly conducted,' (p. 150.) The result, in

* The witness admits afterwards (p. 145), that the appointment of the Master is in the College.

+ The master and usher have, it seems, the sole disposal of the revenues, and are a corporation for that purpose. We cannot, therefore, understand why they do not lay claim to them as property,-and urge the same arguments that have been offered in the cases of Mere and Spital.

deed, demonstratively shows this. The visitors made certain regulations, which were communicated in a very kind letter by the head of the College to the schoolmaster, in January 1818, without any disapprobation of his past conduct; and having gone to see the school in May, he found eight boys attending it (p.151.); a fact which we recommend to the attention of Dr Ireland, and the others who have assumed that the parish of Croydon, four times as large, has no use for a free grammar school. Who indeed can doubt that both Pocklington and Croydon schools would long ago have been restored to a flourishing state, had the masters been carefully watched?--or that the visitors would have watched them, had their attention been directed to the subject by the inquiries of Commissioners? But the Ministers and the other enemies of inquiry contend, that no investigation should take place where a visitor is appointed; and such cases as Croydon and Pocklington, are those which they would persuade us require no examination whatever!

(7.) The St Bees' case will not detain us long; for there has in reality been nothing said upon it that merits attention. The witnesses examined, were a respectable solicitor, who had for six months been engaged in sifting the case (and who was only called to give the Committee a clue to the inquiry), Mr Wilson formerly the schoolmaster, and Dr Satterthwaite one of the Governors. It is clearly proved, that Lord Lonsdale, being himself a Governor, enjoys, under the will of his predecessor, the residue of a lease for 867 years, of all the coal within the manor belonging to the charity, at a rent of 37. 10s.; that this lease was granted in 1742 to Sir James Lowther, then himself one of the Governors and trustees; that the lessees have for many years worked, and still do work, coals in the immediate neighbourhood of the coal so leased, particularly by one pit scarce a quarter of a mile from that coal, they not having the surface, and consequently not being able to sink a pit directly into it. From this pit, coal is raised to the value of several thousands a year; but it is said not to be proved that any of this comes from the school property. Perhaps no one will require evidence to show, that a person having obtained, or a person who retains such a lease, in such circumstances, makes use of his right under it; and surely it would be difficult to persuade any one, by either evidence or argument, that the lessee works all round this coal from a pit sunk as near it as he could possibly get it, and yet leaves it untouched. That the lease is perfectly void, no lawyer can doubt: But it is said to have been taken as a favour to the school, whose manerial rights were doubted;-a strange way of LI

VOL. XXXI. NO. 62.

favouring a proprietor, and not quite so decent as that of another obliging character in story, also a great settler of disputed titles, who, when he swallowed the oyster, did not admit that it belonged to either of the claimants. Again, it is pretended that the coal was worth nothing to any body but the Lowther family, who had all the coals in the neighbourhood, and the command of the passage to the harbour. But is that any reason for their getting, or rather taking it, for nothing? And was the charity to be prevented, for eight or nine centuries, from deriving the benefit of any changes that might take place in the neighbouring property during that great lapse of time? It is urged that Lord Lonsdale did not grant himself the lease. True; but he holds it though a trustee; and it is not urged that he has ever obtained the opinion of any one lawyer, that the lease is worth more than the parchment on which it is written. Mereover, his co-trustees have taken no steps to have it set aside, though, for some years, they have known the matter. Three of them hold livings under him; and one of them has expressed his dissatisfaction, but dreads the Court of Chancery with such an adversary. Yet these being Governors, their appointment prevents this case also from being examined by the Commissioners!

But though nothing has been said upon the merits of this question, abundance of extraneous matter has been gathered together, for the purpose of invective against the Committee; and Mr Brougham has especially been charged with promoting this inquiry into St Bees' school for election purposes. In answer to this, it has been stated, without any contradiction, that the first intimation which he received of the case, was from a ministerial member of the Committee; and it is clear from the evidence, that inquiries had been going on for many months before, at the instance of private persons, with a view of proceeding in the Court of Chancery. Mr Brougham, too, has himself told us, that he would not allow those who applied to him during the Westmoreland contest, to see the St Bees' evidence, lest it might be used for election purposes; upon which another charge is brought against him, of exercising an undne control over the archives of Parliament; as if it were impossible for a member of a Committee to have notes of its proceedings in his own pessession; and as if the Chairman of every Committee did not exercise a certain control over the printing and arranging of the

*We ought not to use this phrase, after the indignation expressed by Dr Ireland against Mr Brougham for saying, that certain lands are worth nothing, by being badly let on long leases." That this means comparatively nothing, who could doubt?

Vindica

evidence during prorogations. The author of the tion' has added another circumstance, to show how entirely groundless the charge is, of partiality respecting Lord Lonsdale. It seems the evidence (pp. 121-124) contains a case, apparently still stronger, of a similar abuse; namely, of very considerable estates devised in 1700 to support a free school at Lowther, being sold and exchanged by the present Earl, and no school having for many years been in existence. The evidence of this is an office copy of the will, and the testimony of Dr Satterthwaite, rector of Lowther. Had Mr Brougham been inclined to use this for party purposes, it might have served his ends; but it is fairly stated by the author of the 'Vindication,' that he must have refrained from doing so, in the belief that some very complete explanation could be given of so extraordi nary a transaction.

That the evidence was er parte in the St Bees' case, strange as it may appear, has also been hardily asserted. The examination of Dr Satterthwaite, a Governor, Lord Lonsdale's chaplain, and the rector of his own parish upon his presentation, might have rebutted this charge. But it is fit to add, what the Journals of the House of Commons show, that on the day of entering upon the case, Mr Brougham moved to add to the Committee, Sir J. Graham, a gentleman long employed as Lord Lonsdale's attorney, and still living in habits of close political and personal intimacy with his Lordship. He was added accordingly, and attended the whole examination of the evidence; of his diligence in sifting and explaining which, the minutes bear in

ternal marks.

This seems sufficient to show, that the evidence upon which this case rests is not ex parte. But how happens it that the enemies of the Inquiry have wholly overlooked the documents contained in the Fourth Report, p. 340? We there find a statement by four resident Governors, (including three of the clergymen who hold livings from Lord Lonsdale), that the lease was exactly such as Mr Wilson describes it. Those who wonder at the Committee proceeding without the production of the lease itself (as if no steps had been taken to compel it), would do well to observe the authority by which its contents are thus substantiated. But the author of the Letter to Sir W. S. complains that the documents referred to by Mr Wilson were not sent for; although Mr Brougham received a Letter from Mr Bradley, the present schoolmaster, enclosing one from Lord L., dated May 2d, signifying his willingness to deliver them up. (p. 40.) From the accuracy of this charge, the reader may form an esti mate of the fairness used generally by the opponents of the Inquiry.