§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ MR. SPEAKERasked if there was any Amendment?
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHwished to make an appeal to the Government whether it was right or proper to ask the House to enter upon a Bill introduced by a private Member and of a contentious character 1096 at that hour of the morning (4 A.M.)? No doubt the Government were entitled to make a claim upon their supporters to sit for long hours in order to make progress with important Public Business; but it was hardly right that they should keep the House together in order to enter upon the consideration of a private Member's Bill at 4 o'clock in the morning. He was surprised at the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) showing so little consideration for the House. The Bill had already been before the House on two or three previous occasions; but it had never been brought on for practical discussion except between the hours of 2 and 4 o'clock; and these had been discussions of the most fragmentary character. They knew quite well that any discussion which took place after midnight was unknown out-of-doors. This was a Bill for the Charities in the City of London, and it proposed to give power to the Charity Commissioners under which the Ecclesiastical Surplus Fund would pass into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now, if the charities of London were to be reformed, it was worth the while of the House to ask if this was a competent body to entrust with the administration of these funds?
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Member that at this moment there is no Question before the House. Unless the hon. Member has an Amendment to propose on the Consideration of the Bill, I must ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to fix a day for the third reading.
§ MR. HEALYwished to ask, as a point of Order, whether the present ruling of Mr. Speaker was under the Now Rules?
§ MR. SPEAKERYes; it is under the New Rules; and I ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to be good enough to state when he proposes to take the third reading?
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, he proposed to take the third reading now.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Bryce.)
§ MR. HEALYwished to point out that the Order of the Day was for the Consideration of the Parochial Charities Bill, as amended. How could hon. Members consider the Bill upon a Motion that it be read a third time?
§ MR. SPEAKERWhen the Order of the Day for considering the Bill as amended was read, the House, under the Standing Order, is authorized to consider the same without Question put.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that when the Reproductive Loan Fund Act (Ireland) Bill, which had now passed the third reading, came on for consideration, the Question that it should be considered was distinctly put by Mr. Speaker, and there was a debate upon it. There was no Amendment to be proposed in that case, and yet Mr. Speaker distinctly put the Question.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member should have raised the Question at the time. It is quite obvious that the House cannot consider now any irregularity that it is alleged took place on a former day.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he should be under the necessity, before he sat down, of showing that there was a strong feeling in some parts of the House against the course now taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) in moving the third reading of the Bill at that hour of the morning. Hon. Members did not feel called upon to sacrifice their health by sitting up after 4 o'clock in the morning for the purpose of assisting in passing measures introduced by private individuals; and he thought he might fairly appeal to the Government to say that an important measure of this kind ought not to be passed without due consideration. It was a most important matter, when they were contemplating the reform of the City Charities, that they should be satisfied the Commissioners, to whose hands the work was to be entrusted, were entitled to the confidence of the country. He had no desire to say a single word, individually, against the Charity Commissioners; but, with regard to the composition of that Body, it was certainly not such as to give confidence to the great mass of the people of the country. He believed, for instance, that every Commissioner was a Churchman; and, whether it might be fortunate or unfortunate, the majority of the people of the country were not adherents of the National Church. [Cries of "No!"] He did not suppose, for a moment, that that assertion would be seriously contested. At any rate, notwithstanding the challenge which came 1098 from the other side of the House, he ventured to say that the great mass of Her Majesty's loyal subjects were not members of the Church of England. Nevertheless, they had civil rights, and were deeply interested in the proper management of these charities, especially if they were to be transferred from the present management into the hands of the Commissioners appointed by the Bill. It might be said that he ought to have raised this question on the Committee stage. He had so raised it; and if it had not been for the Front Bench on that occasion, he believed the course which he then took would have been confirmed by the majority of the House. He was quite sure that it was in consequence of the support which his hon. Friend received from right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that he was able to carry his proposal. However, the course taken by the Government on that occasion was a mere perfunctory act, and he hoped it would not be repeated. This was not the first time the question had been raised. When the Endowed Schools Commissioners were appointed in 1869, a sanguine hope was entertained on the part of the Nonconformists that the Commissioners appointed under it would not belong to one Church alone. That hope had not been realized. Unfortunately, all of the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners belonged to the Established Church, and they were appointed to administer an Act, the very Preamble of which declared that the object of the Act was to open the Endowed Charities to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects without distinction of creed. Nevertheless, every Member appointed on the Commission was a member of the Church of England. It might be asked, was it not narrow-minded on the part of an hon. Member like himself to take this course? He would answer that question by putting another. Was it not unjust on the part of the adherents of the Church of England to refuse some representation to the great mass of Her Majesty's subjects who were not members of the Church of England? Why ought these principles of jealousy and exclusiveness to be constantly exercised in regard to these appointments? He saw no possibility of effecting a change unless some such course as this were taken; and he could assure the House that it was with great 1099 reluctance he was induced now to force the question upon the consideration of the Government. In 1873, the work of the Endowed Schools Commission was reviewed by a Committee, of which he had the honour to be a Member; and he had moved the insertion of a paragraph in the Report of that Committee in the following words:—
The Committee is also inclined to believe that public confidence would be increased if in future the appointment of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners were not all made from one religious denomination.No one would doubt but that was a reasonable proposal in the condition in which the matter stood; and on that occasion seven out of nine Liberal Members upon the Committee voted for the proposal—namely, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. E. Leatham), the hon. Alderman the Member for the City of London who sat on that side of the House (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), the right hon. Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrew's (Sir Lyon Playfair), Mr. A. Johnston, and the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. R. N, Phillips). Sir Ughtred KayShuttleworth was also a Member of the Committee, and stated that he agreed with the principle of the proposition; but he had technical objections to it, and, therefore, he voted against it. The only other Liberal Member who voted against it was the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon who sat on that side of the House (Sir Thomas Acland). That took place some years ago, and they had waited ever since for the introduction of some change by the Government. But, instead of things growing better, they had grown worse. What did the late Government do when they came into Office? They destroyed the Endowed Schools Commission on the ground that it was too liberal; and at this moment the country was in the position of having a Commission to which was to be entrusted the re-casting of these charities, and the creation of the new Governing Bodies in which all classes of Her Majesty's subjects were interested, not only in the City of London, but in the whole of the Metropolis; and yet they were asked to press forward a Bill in the hands of a private Member, and to commit this great reform to an unreformed Commission. His hon. Friend 1100 the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had displayed great zeal in this cause; but he (Mr. Illingworth) thought that delay would be better even in regard to the wishes of his hon. Friend himself in the matter, and it would certainly give more satisfaction to the people of the Metropolis. The Commission was to be endowed with almost despotic powers, and it was practically to be irresponsible to the House. When did they ever in that House hear of anything that was done by the Charity Commissioners? Whatever the Commissioners might do, well or ill, in connection with the trusts reposed in them was not made public; and he sincerely hoped that the House would not consent to confer these extraordinary powers on this Commission, sinless they were satisfied that the Commission was appointed in such a manner as to justify public confidence in its fairness and impartiality. His hon. Friend said he took powers, in the 3rd clause, for the appointment of new Commissioners. That power might be taken, and there might be a change in the Commissioners, or there might not. Other alterations, in cases of death and vacancies arising, had been made, but without being attended with satisfactory results; and the hon. Member must not take it for granted that there was bound to be some value in his suggestion. There might be no change made. The Commission might remain in its present form, as the word "may" was used in the clause. The majority of the people of England had not confidence in the composition of the Commission, and did not believe that the Commissioners acted as they ought to do in all cases. What would really be the position of things as proposed by his hon. Friend? Why, according to his hon. Friend's proposal, the Charity Commissioners would have power to determine, almost unchallenged, the character of any charity, and to determine whether it should be used for temporal or ecclesiastical purposes. No jury made up in this way would have the confidence of the public, and he confessed he distrusted the Commissioners. The evidence given before the Endowed Schools Committee proved the manifest bias of many of the Members of the Endowed Schools Commission, and he did not think the Members of the Charity Commission were any more entitled to confi- 1101 dence than the Members of the other Commission. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members were impatient; but it was not his fault if he was obliged to go on at that untimely hour. His hon. Friend insisted on bringing the Bill on, and he (Mr. Illingworth) did not mean to fail in his duty in the matter. He should be obliged to ask the forbearance of the House whilst he dealt with another part of the subject. The surplus ecclesiastical funds, as his hon. Friend knew, were to be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission. Now, what was the Ecclesiastical Commission? He wondered, if he put this question to individual Members of the House, how many of them would be able to tell him what the Commission consisted of. The House would, perhaps, excuse him if he gave some idea of the composition of this Body. There were upon it the two Archbishops, 29 Bishops, five Cabinet Ministers—and he would pause here for one moment to say that it would be unreasonable to suppose that Cabinet Ministers could attend to the work of the Commission. Their duties of Government were overwhelming, and it was impossible that they could be relied upon—even supposing that they did not belong to the Church of England—to look after the interests of the people, and see that they were not sacrificed. In addition to the Commissioners he had mentioned, there were three Judges, three Deans, and 12 eminent laymen on the Commission.
§ MR. CALLANI beg, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to the hon. Member's tedious repetition at 4 o'clock in the morning.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTH, continuing, said, that these 12 laymen, or many of them, had arduous duties to perform in other directions; and nothing was more notorious than that the Bishops were always to be relied upon whenever there was a possibility of securing any conceivable advantage for the Established Church. Then, he would point out that of these 12 laymen on the Commission every one belonged to the Church of England. [Mr. WARTON: Quite right.] He (Mr. Illingworth) had no doubt they would see manifested on the other side of the House the same sense of justice which actuated the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), 1102 until the day arrived when Parliament would undertake the task that it had successfully accomplished in Ireland. When that day arrived no further room for complaint would be left to him, and others who thought as he did; but until it came, and as long as the Church remained a National Institution, though he might not be an adherent of it, he should not relinquish his right as an Englishman, representing a large constituency, to review the working of that institution in every department, and to make suggestions for its improvement where he thought them to be necessary. Every one of the laity on this list was a Churchman, and 8 out of the 12 were Conservatives. [Mr. WARTON: Quite right.] No doubt that was quite right, as far as it went; but he should like to see it go further—ho should like to see the Liberals have nothing whatever to do with the Commission, for he did not see how they could get out of the matter without their fingers being soiled. He thought the reasons he had presented to the House were good reasons for hesitating to pass the Bill at this time of the morning, after the very short discussion which had taken place on it, and looking to the consequences which might flow from it. The City of London was to be deprived of its ancient charities. He should be sorry to see that change take place if the money was handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commission, because his belief was that there were huge funds now at the disposal of that Body which were not being utilized as they ought to be for the public advantage. He should like to go into the working of the Commission to prove its unfitness for its work—to show that it did not deserve the confidence of Parliament, and to satisfy his hon. Friend, if that were possible, that in Iris anxiety to reform the charities of London he was probably only handing the money over from one set of men who had been jobbing it to another set who would do the same. He would only say he should view the progress of the measure in that House, and in the other House, with great misgivings, and that he regretted his hon. Friend had not waited patiently for an opportunity to pass his Bill at a time when it could have been discussed and rendered more satisfactory to all concerned. He begged to move the adjournment of the-debate.
§ MR. DILLWYNdid not think the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) could be properly considered at this hour of the morning; therefore, he would second the Motion of his hon. Friend.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Illingworth.)
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that upon this Motion it was not possible for him, according to the Rules of the House, to enter into the merits of the question raised by the hon. Member. The only question they could discuss was the adjournment of the debate; and he would, therefore, merely point out that this was a measure which should be sent up to the House of Lords without delay, so that there might be an opportunity for parties to be heard upon it on Petition. This was a quasi private matter on which parties could be heard. He would point out, further, that this was no new subject, but had been brought before the House in successive Sessions, and had been thoroughly discussed in all its bearings by two Committees well selected for the work—in fact, he did not think he had ever known two Committees so well formed, or who had more thoroughly and fully discussed the matters left to them. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would allow the discussion to continue. If they did, he should, later on, have something to say in reply to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion. Though the hon. Member had failed to carry his Amendment to the effect that two Members of the Commission should be Gentlemen who were not adherents of the Church of England, he had succeeded in depriving the Catholics not only of London, but also, probably, of the place he represented, of advantages they might have possessed. It was to be hoped the hon. Member's constituents would remember this. At any rate, the Irish Representatives could not be expected to support the proposal of the hon. Member after the course he had taken.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the hon. Member for Bradford had commenced at the wrong time to take objection to this Bill. If he had pro- 1104 fited by experience or the example of other Members of the House he would have put a blocking Notice against the Bill, and they would not have been now discussing the present stage. Whether the Bill was a good one he (Mr. Biggar) did not know, and did not care; but he did think that if the hon. Member was unsuccessful in his opposition and the Bill passed into law he would have no one to blame but himself.
Question put, and negatived.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed