SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 July 1873)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,
in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to put an end to those fraudulent cases in which, under the name of charitable associations, certain persons succeeded in obtaining money from the public, which they misapplied, and spent for their own purposes. The Charity Organization Society, of the labours of which he could not speak too highly, had clearly shown to what an extent the fraudulent system to which he referred was carried. That Society had a local committee in almost every district in London, and had done everything in its power to bring offenders to justice. As to the associations against which its efforts were directed, their committees consisted, for the most part, of mere dummies, the names upon them representing persons who had no existence. In a vast number of instances there was only one man, having a small room, who issued reports and collected money, which he spent after his own fashion. The present law was not sufficient to deal with this matter—as in the instance of the Bible and Clothing Society, which had been prosecuted by the Charity Organization Society. It was shown that very considerable sums of money had been received by that society; but as it was proved that a certain number of Bibles and a certain quantity of clothing—merely nominal—had been purchased, it was relieved from the charge of obtaining money under false pretences, and the charge was dismissed; and he feared the result would be the same in most cases, the law being imperfect. He had a list of 16 of these societies whose receipts averaged, he found, £13,410 a-year, and he believed he was within the mark when he stated that between £300,000 and £400,000 per annum was 1848 raised in that way throughout the country. It was desirable, then, he thought, that the law should, as far as possible, be brought to bear on abuses of that kind, for the perpetration of which the penny post, the telegraph, and other modern improvements afforded increased facilities. To meet the evil he proposed that every charitable society should keep proper books of account, containing particulars of all money or goods received by them, the names of the donors, and the manner in which all moneys received have been applied, a register of all officers, agents, and others; and should in every prospectus or report, declare where these registers might be inspected. He further provided for the inspection of these books by any person interested, or his agent; and that it should publish yearly a balance-sheet to these provisions; and to that every honest society would not, he felt sure, have any objection to submit. Their Lordships would observe that he did not propose the enactment of any new law, but for an application of existing laws—such as the Larcenies Act, the Charitable Trust Act, and the Companies Act—to cases of abuse which were not adequately dealt with by the existing law. It might be contended that it would be better to have the societies registered; but he did not think the registration of Friendly Societies had produced any great effect in the prevention of frauds; in fact some of the greatest frauds had been practised under cover of the Friendly Societies Act; while as to the argument that there was no good reason why the Legislature should try to protect people against the consequences of their own folly, he would merely observe that a woman had only the other day been sent to prison with hard labour merely for procuring money by fortune-telling, while the law also stepped in to protect shareholders against fraud. If their Lordships gave a second reading to the Bill he did not propose to press the measure any further this Session, but he desired to have it circulated throughout the country, with a view to effective legislation, if possible, next year.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he had no doubt of the excellence 1849 of the noble Earl's object in bringing forward that measure; but he thought the mode in which he sought to accomplish that object was open to great objection. There were a large number of people who chose to intrust their money for charitable purposes without taking the least precaution to ascertain the character of the persons to whom they intrusted it, or the reality of the object for which the money was asked; and by this Bill it was proposed to protect those people by placing every person, whether innocent or guilty, under a series of restrictions and regulations which would be intolerable. The noble Earl had referred to a considerable number of societies in London; but he would ask him to consider what the effect of the Bill would be upon many of the small charities in country districts? Take the case of a parochial clothing fund, in which the wife of the parson associated with a few other ladies in the parish to benefit the poor. Those ladies would be required by the Bill to keep or cause to be kept a book or books containing particulars of all moneys or goods received by them; particulars of the manner in which all moneys received by them had been paid or applied; to keep a register of all officers, agents, collectors, and all other persons, whether paid or unpaid, who might be in any wise employed by or assist in the management of such charitable association. They were further required to allow donors to inspect the register and all other books or documents for at least two hours during every day in which the office of the association was open for business, and also to send them every year a report and balance-sheet, giving full, true, and particular accounts of all receipts and disbursements. Any person contravening these provisions was to be liable to a penalty of 40s. for every offence. It was very hard to impose those severe restrictions on persons who were pursuing a laudable object in various parts of the country. If the noble Earl could not devise any other remedy except by harassing and worrying those innocent people, it would be better to let fools remain unprotected. Clause 4 declared that any person who, among other things, destroyed, altered, mutilated, or falsified any book or paper belonging to any charitable association, should be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard 1850 labour for any period not exceeding six months. So that if a clerk within the office of a charitable association tore up a paper he might be sent to prison for six months. Again, a like penalty was imposed on those who published or concurred in publishing any written statement or account which turned out to be false. The impression left upon his mind by a perusal of the Bill was that it had not passed through the hands of a Parliamentary draftsman; the penalties proposed were out of all proportion to the offences dealt with; and any clear case of fraud such as was here provided against would be much better dealt with by the ordinary law.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
agreed that the Bill, however excellent in intention, was entirely impracticable, and it was a serious question whether their Lordships should give it a second reading. The effect of passing it would simply be that no man or woman of sense would have anything whatever to do with any charitable institution. Let their Lordships only conceive of excellent charitable ladies in town or country, not accustomed, perhaps, to business, if they "omitted, or concurred in omitting, any material particular in any book of account or other document," being liable, without the option even of a fine, to be kept to hard labour for any term not exceeding six months, and if the offence were repeated, to be sentenced to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, that after what had fallen from the Lord Chancellor, he would not press their Lordships to read the Bill the second time. But it was no encouragement to any person wishing to remedy a flagrant and admitted abuse to find himself at the outset met, not with the support which he might have expected, but with language such as might make him shrink from his attempt.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
assured the noble Earl that he did not attribute to him, but to the draftsman of his Bill, the provisions which he had criticized. The noble Earl would admit that those who were responsible for the administration of the law, and for advising either House of Parliament as to the effect of Bills to amend the law, ought to be most careful before they committed themselves to provisions of 1851 the nature of those to which he had referred, and that if they were of opinion that more harm than good would be done by them, it was the duty of one occupying his position to point out that such, in his opinion, would be the effect of the measure.