LORD WROTTESLEYinquired, Whether the Government propose to introduce any Measure for the Purpose of carrying into effect the Recommendations of the Education Commissioners in reference to 180 Charitable Endowments? The Question related to a subject of considerable importance and interest. It would not be difficult, to show that both the education of the poor and their general welfare might be advanced by an improved administration of our charitable endowments. Having acted for several years on a Commission of Inquiry into these charities, and having been a Member of various Committees to which were referred Bills for the establishment of a permanent Charitable Commission, he had read with great interest that part of the Report of the Education Commissioners which described the present condition of those endowments, and suggested measures of reform. The evils and abuses there described were not new to him. As far back as 1835, when he was examined before a Committee of the House of Commons on the subject, he had suggested remedies for some of them, and, in common doubtless with many of their Lordships, he had hoped that the Bill of 1853 would have provided a remedy, if not for all, at least for a considerable part of them. It would be remembered, however, that during the progress of the Bill through a Committee of their Lordships' House some of the powers proposed to be conferred on the Commissioners were considerably curtailed, owing, perhaps, to some mistrust of a new and untried Board. But, although he had been disappointed in that hope, still much good had been done by the labours of the able Gentlemen who conducted the inquiry. Under the present system, a sum amounting to about a million and a half a year, was distributed among the poor from charitable endowments, and he thought it no exaggeration to say that a large portion of this sum was wasted, and worse than wasted, for it was applied in ways that were positively mischievous. A portion of the money was applied in paying the stipends of grammar schoolmasters who had very few pupils, and who wished to have none. Another portion was employed, or rather squandered, in the encouragement of profligacy and vice. The evils of the system were so great, and the advantages that would follow a reform so manifest, that one was sometimes inclined to wish that Parliament should at once pass a general measure to put an end at once and for ever to all the absurdities annexed to bequests by founders, who thought they could foresee the wants of the community throughout all time. There were several 181 classes of foundation to which it was desirable the attention of the Legislature should be called. The first was that numerous class in which some portion of the income of the charities was directed to objects which were generally admitted to be good—such as schools or hospitals—but in which the larger portion was applied to objects of a more questionable character which overshadowed those that were beneficial. The next class was that in which the object of the charity was a good one at the time of the foundation, but had, owing to the altered state of local circumstances or to the changed state of society generally, become one which it was difficult or impossible to carry out, or which, at all events, was at variance with enlightened views of public policy. There was another class which was one in which the foundation itself was good—where no fault was to be found with the trust—but where the administration was bad. Much information on this subject was contained in the Report of the Education Commissioners, a document of which it was impossible to speak too highly. He did not mean to say that he concurred in all the recommendations of the Report, but, as a great and impartial account of the state of popular education at the time it was written, and as a document distinguished for liberal and enlightened views, it was impossible to over-estimate that Report. His opinion was that authority should be committed to some competent Board, such as the Charity Commissioners, or the Committee of Privy Council, who would direct and enforce a proper administration of the funds, or one more in harmony with public policy. It was wholly unnecessary for him to occupy their Lordships' time with cases illustrative of these abuses, for they were abundantly set forth in the Report of the Commissioners; but still he might be allowed to cite a few. There were educational charities in which the income was principally directed to be applied in the board and lodging of children. Such a direction involved the expense of erecting buildings and the heavy item of solicitors' costs. Thus he found that a sum of £1,600 was devoted to educating fifty boys at an expense of £32 a head, though the same class of education was given for 30s, a head in the National School near at hand. There were the cases in which no provision was made for removing ignorant, incapable or immoral masters. He need not dwell upon the necessity of a law which would 182 get rid of such persons. To show the mischief attendant on indiscriminate charities, he might mention those charities which were called "bread charities," when an allowance of bread was given each Sunday to whoever of a particular class went to church; the clergyman used to say that he could tell by looking at the seats whose turn it was to get bread; but as the donation of bread was limited to only four Sundays in the month, when a month occurred in which there was a fifth Sunday the church was comparatively empty, for no bread was given that day. Then there were the provisions in the regulations framed by the donor of the charity, which scarcely corresponded with the spirit of the present day—that the master of an hospital, for instance, was to be in holy orders, and to wear the same dress and to take his food at the same table with the alms people. To prove the mischief attendant on the indiscriminate distribution of a large sum of money in small shares, he would only adduce the instance of the Manchester Charity, which dispensed every year £2,600, and so carelessly that one woman received three sums under three different names. Then, again, there was a London parish in which every year £200 was given away in shillings and one-and-six-penees, and the days on which the distribution was made the gin palaces in the neighbourhood hired additional waiters to sell the gin which was called for by the recipients of the money. In one case, where 40s. was annually doled out in sixpences, he suggested that more ought to be given, and received the reply that the churchwardens would be torn to pieces if the distribution became more liberal. The most objectionable class of charity, however, was that in which it was given for the pool generally, and no words were added to fetter the discretion of the trusts. The sums thus, he might say, wickedly misemployed, might surely be made applicable to better purposes, and this might be done without interfering with the bonâ fide intentions of the founders. Would it not be well to transfer to a competent Board, such as the Charity Commissioners or the Committee of the Privy Council, the general administration of these charities? He approved the suggestion of the Commission on Education, that the Board of Charity Commissioners should he incorporated with the Privy Council. But the mode of passing schemes which was recommended would not succeed; for if the Privy Council 183 had to go to Parliament in every case, they would be defeated by local clamour and prejudice. The true course was to adopt the provisions of the Bill introduced in 1853 before it was altered by the Committee of this House. By that Bill the scheme, after being finally settled, and after full notice to the parties concerned, was to be laid on the table of the two Houses, and, if unopposed, within three months became ipso facto the law. If Parliament were unwilling to intrust to a Board like the Privy Council the power of preparing and originating schemes as provided for in that Bill, the mischief he had described would continue; and, in that case, he thought that the public would have a just right to complain of the Legislature for having reformed the University statutes, in which the rich were interested, and neglected to reform these endowments, in which the poor were chiefly concerned. He would now ask, whether the Government proposed to introduce any Measure for the purpose of carrying into effect the Recommendations of the Education Commissioners in reference to Charitable Endowments?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he agreed with a great part of the observations which had just been addressed to their Lordships, supported as they were by the practical experience of his noble Friend. He agreed also in the conclusion come to by the Education Commissioners that these endowments might be made more available than they now were for the furtherance of popular education, and that in many cases they might be diverted from useless or even injurious objects, and employed for educational purposes. He also entirely agreed with the noble Lord as to the beneficial effect which would have resulted from the passing of the Bill which was introduced in 1853. The result of the existing system had hitherto been, that when the Charity Commissioners took in hand some of the most obvious and easy improvements, they found that they had not the power to carry them out; they were then compelled to have recourse to the Court of Chancery, where in nine cases out of ten the fund was dissipated before a scheme could be framed. An Act, however, had passed at the close of last Session increasing the powers of the Commissioners, and transferring to them powers which before that time bail been exercised by the Court of Chancery. A question had since arisen as to the construction of 184 that Act; it was held to be doubtful whether charities as to which the Court of Chancery had already given orders came within the scope of the Bill, and thus several urgent cases had not yet been dealt with. There had not yet been sufficient time to test the working of this measure, but it appeared to be progressing satisfactorily. With regard to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Education Commissioners, the most important was that the functions of the Charity Commissioners should be transferred to the Educational Committee of the Privy Council; that this body should prepare schemes; that there should be an appeal from the local bodies to another Committee of the Privy Council; and that afterwards such schemes should be submitted to Parliament. With regard to administrative details, there was much to be said for and against the plan proposed; but he doubted very much whether Parliament would agree to the main principle of that plan, which would transfer to the Committee of Privy Council powers which would render them a quasi -judicial body—powers which hitherto had been exercised only by the Court of Chancery. He might also observe that the Charity Commissioners had now the advantage of the presence of the Vice President of the Council, who formed a sort of link between them and Parliament, and he doubted whether Parliament would approve of the transfer of the functions of a quasi-judicial Board loan executive and administrative department of the State like the Privy Council. Other suggestions which had been made, such as an easy method of registering endowments, were of much importance, and were under the consideration of the Government; but he did not think it advisable that the powers in question should be transferred entirely from the Charity Commissioners to the Department over which he had the honour to preside.