HC Deb 27 September 1831 vol 7 cc701-5

On the Motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill,

Mr. Hume

said, he wished to know what difference there was between the new Commission to be appointed under this Bill, and that which had previously existed, as there had been a considerable outlay of public money connected with the subject, and he thought material savings could be made.

The Attorney General

assured his hon. friend, the Bill was in the same form as the former one, and the Commissioners were to have the same powers; but it was intended to reduce the number of paid Commissioners from ten to eight, and the salaries were also to be reduced from 1,000l. to 800l. per annum, and they were to be employed for a longer term during each year; the nature of the inquiry made it necessary to collect a great mass of evidence, to be borne out by the necessary documents, previous to a report being made.

Mr. Goulburn

said, in the former Bill a clause had been introduced, preventing Members of either House of Parliament from being paid Commissioners. This clause had now been omitted, but he trusted there was no objection to have it inserted in the present Bill. Under the previous Bills there were ten paid, and ten unpaid Commissioners; now he presumed there were to be twelve unpaid, and eight paid, who were to have salaries of 800l. per annum each.

The Attorney General

said, he had no possible objection to introduce the clause recommended by the right hon. Gentleman; it must have been left out by inadvertence. It was proposed the Commissioners should bear the proportions, both as to number and payment, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested.

Mr. John Weyland

said, he wished to suggest an amendment in the present Bill, in consequence of certain schools having been endowed for a specific purpose, such, for instance, as teaching grammar, which implied that the candidates for admission should have some previous knowledge of reading and writing. The scope of his Amendment, therefore, was, to enable the Commissioners, in cases of such a description, to ascertain whether the funds of the charity could not be distributed with greater advantage to those for whose benefit they were intended, than according to the precise rules laid down by the founder of the charity. He had understood that the gross amount of the funds intended for the purposes of education, amounted to upwards of 1,000,000l., and he was quite sure the persons who had bequeathed this money, desired that the greatest possible good should be done with it; and could they have seen the alterations that time had made on society, they would desire the State should make such alterations in their bequests as would best fulfil the objects they had in view, in improving the condition of those for whose benefit these funds were intended. Many schools were now without scholars, from the absurd rules laid down by the founders, which, according to the existing law, it was necessary to enforce.

The House went into Committee, when several verbal amendments were made.

On arriving at the clause relating to the salaries of the Commissioners,

Mr. Hume

said, the public should be relieved from the expense of the Commissioners; the charge should be defrayed by a per centage out of the funds of the charities, which had greatly profited in general by the labours of these gentlemen.

The Attorney General

remarked, in answer to his hon. friend, that some charities might recover property immediately, and others might not receive it for a series of years. The former class, therefore, would have to pay the whole of the charges, while the latter would be exempt—he did not see how his hon. friend could make the burthen apply equally.

Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey

said, he was fully persuaded that neither the trustees of charities, nor the persons who were to profit by them, could have any objection to pay the Commissioners for recovering their money, and he was also sure there could be no difficulty in placing charities which were now worse than useless upon a sound footing, so as to promote the general interests of the poorer classes. The hon. member for Hindon had estimated the probable income of charities at 1,000,000l.; he (Mr. Harvey) had no doubt it was nearly double that amount. Some years since the rental and income of charities then inquired into by the Commissioners, amounted to 700,000l. annually. He was fully satisfied the country did not know the extent of the property which had been bequeathed for charitable purposes, and had been devoted to other objects. There were at present about 400 suits instituted by the Attorney General against the trustees of charities, for the non-performance of their duties, and there was 1,000,000l. sterling locked up in Chancery. One of the Companies in the city of London had recently been compelled to pay into that Court upwards of 100,000l., which they had received on behalf of a charity, but which had not been applied in the manner directed by the will of the donor. Now, when such sums of money were recovered, it was not too much to require those who received such benefits to contribute a certain percentage for the payment of those through whose instrumentality the money had been recovered. Several other of the City Companies had also large funds intended for charitable purposes, which had been misapplied. In one instance he (Mr. Harvey) had compelled one of them to lay out 20,000l. in the erection of alms-houses, from monies bequeathed for that purpose. He, however, proposed to call the attention of the House to the whole subject at a convenient opportunity.

Mr. John Weyland

said, the amendment he wished to see introduced into the Bill would have a prospective operation only; he had no desire that the charities should pay the expense of the Commission.

Mr. Benett

said, he feared the reduction in the number of the Commissioners would protract the inquiry very materially; they had hitherto discharged their duties in a most exemplary manner; he would, therefore, recommend their number to be increased, by which means the duration of their labours would be shortened, and probably the expenses be ultimately less

Mr. Goulburn

said, he had very strong objections to give the Commissioners power to decide whether the funds of a charity ought not to be appropriated to other purposes than those designed by the founder. He, therefore, should recommend the hon. member for Hindon to postpone his amendment, as it was likely to give rise to a lengthened discussion.

Mr. John Weyland

observed, if the right hon. Gentleman objected to his proposition he would withdraw it.

Mr. Hume

said, he hoped the Commissioners would ultimately have authority to inquire into the charities connected with the Universities; he had reasons to believe the funds intended for education had been misapplied. He would take this opportunity to suggest to his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) the propriety of introducing a clause into this Bill, similar to that recently annexed to the Bill for Public Works in Ireland, declaring the Commissioners employed under it were not to be entitled to allowance for superannuation.

The Attorney General

said, he had no objection to agree to his hon. friend's suggestion.

Several verbal amendments were made, and the Bill ordered to be reported.