§ 5.50 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Hawke.)
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, before this Bill has its Third Reading, I should like to say a word or two about it. I think the House is to be congratulated that it has two noble Lords who have taken such pains to look into the Bill. Lord Hawke, on the one side, has advocated the Bill, and he has dealt with the difficulties in it with great clarity. Obviously, he has 168 given up much of his time to the consideration of it. And, equally, on this side of the House, Lord Shepherd has taken a great deal of time and trouble to assist. He has actually gone to see the place concerned, and has taken various other steps. I think this is very much to the good. I think it is wholly admirable that in connection with a small Bill like this, dealing with a Charity, there should be two noble Lords prepared to devote their time and attention in that way.
Looking at the conclusion to which we have come, I confess that I am not altogether happy about it. As I see it, the position is this. The income of the Charity is being divided (the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will correct me if I am wrong: I am attempting, to deal with this matter in an approximate way) so that about three-fifths of it goes to ecclesiastical purposes and two-fifths of it goes to the five inmates of the almshouses. They were in early days, of course, entitled to their lodging, I think to their allowance, and to the sum of one shilling a week, which was provided for their "sustenance, relief and maintenance." How far the sum of one shilling a week would go in the year 1611 I do not know, but I am old enough to remember a time when an agricultural labourer used to get, in addition to his cottage, only 11s. a week. Out of that, often enough, he used to keep his wife and bring up a family. Now that was in my lifetime. So I take it that one shilling a week for an individual in 1611 may have been a sum on which it was possible to live. But since I have no knowledge of monetary changes, I could not say. I think, however, that it is a fallacy to treat the Charity, as it has been treated, rather as though there were no discretion on the part of those who administer it to give further sums. I believe that I should be right in saying that if there were further income available it could have been distributed to the old people—that is to say, that sums could have been given to them in addition to the one shilling a week. I rather wish that that had been done. What strikes one at first blush, looking at this arrangement, is that the Charity Commissioners did not adhere to their original proposal that the division should be on a fifty-fifty basis. That was the 169 original proposal. From that they departed. One does not quite know why. Frankly, I rather wish that they had not done so.
I think one can leave this subject in this way. I have already paid a tribute to two noble Lords who have been concerned with the Bill. This matter has been considered carefully by most competent people, who have no desire whatever save to do that which is right and proper. This is the conclusion to which they have come. With my very inadequate knowledge of the matter I should certainly be most reluctant to say that they are wrong. All I will say is that by the care we have taken, by the efforts which these noble Lords have made in dealing with this Bill, we have set an example. We have made it plain that even the smallest Bill dealing with the humblest subject will be subjected to close scrutiny in your Lordships' House in order to see that justice is being done.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, I should like to say just two or three words before we finally dispose of this Bill. I thank the noble and learned Earl for his kind words. I am sorry that we part with the Bill still not seeing directly eye to eye. As I regard it—and I think that historically I am correct—it is a Charity to support an incumbent, plus free houses for five almspeople, whereas some noble Lords think that the almspeople should have had support out of the Charity. However, there is the difference. The noble Lords who have raised this matter consider that a fifty-fifty division would be more correct. As I say, this Charity has existed for over three centuries, and during that time the Church has had by far the larger share. That is the division which persists to-day. I may say that the Charity, on whose behalf I have been briefed are quite satisfied with the arrangement. Their ideas have been met in full, whereas the Church, out of the division, will be able to pay only half the remuneration of its incumbent. Therefore, I maintain that, from the Charity's point of view, the division is not an unfair one.
§ On Question. Bill read 3ª.
§ Bill passed.