Commons Sitting of 5 August 1861

MINTUES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Selkirk-shire, Lord Henry Scott.
INSPECTION OF FACTORIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is intended to appoint an Inspector of Factories in place of Mr. Horner; and whether it is intended to appoint any additional Sub-Inspectors of Factories?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that his right hon. Predecessor had not deemed it necessary to appoint an Inspector in place of Mr. Horner; but four additional Sub-Inspectors had been appointed.

PARISH CHILDREN AS APPRENTICES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, he would now beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he is aware of any applications having been made by Master Manufacturers of the Northern and Midland districts to Board of Guardians of London to send parish poor children as apprentices into such districts?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied that the President of the Poor-law Board, who was not now in his place, would answer this question to-morrow.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDcalled the attention of the House to a return made to the House (No. 317, of this Session) by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of the very large sums paid by them to solicitors, surveyors, and other officers, and to the manner in which the affairs of the Ecclesiastical Commission were carried on. It appeared from the general Reports that the receipts of the Commissioners for the four years ending October 31, 1858, amounted to within a fraction of £800,000; the sum charged for the augmentation of deaconries and livings amounted to £340,000; and there was an expenditure in round numbers of £132,000, being £31,000 for office expenses and £101,000 paid to solicitors, surveyors and architects. He referred to the purchase and sale of Stapleton House, as a residence for the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, which was an instance of the
  1882
  way in which the affairs of the Commission were conducted. It appeared that £12,000 had been laid out on this property for repairs, making the whole cost of the estate £24,000. The Commissioners reported that they ''were satisfied that the estate was worth the money that was paid for it." But in 1859 when the Commissioners were authorized to sell this palace it realized only £12,000, and the Commissioners then said, "that it appeared to them that the said sum of £12,000 was a fair and reasonable price for the said house with the lands and premises attached." For the year ending October 31, 1860, the collection and distribution of £96,500, the amount expended on the augmentation of poor livings, had cost the Commissioners £47,000. They had charged 5 per cent commission on most of their rental receipts, but in some cases only 2 1/2 per cent, and 5s. per acre was charged for draining land. He (Alderman Copeland) was connected with a charity where thousands of pounds were collected at a very trifling expense. Why could not the Commissioners send circulars, and collect their revenues? It also appeared that after expending £14,000 on the official establishment for able accountants they had gone to additional expense for an actuary. And yet, after all, it appeared from Mr. Arbuthnot's letter that a complete check did not yet exist for verifying the accounts. There was in the returns various sums amounting to £5,280 allowed by the Commissioners for interest. What did that mean? The accounts showed a balance of £260,000 in their hands. Did they trade with this money? He hoped the Government would sanction an inquiry into the subject, and he moved the appointment of a Select Committee for that purpose.
  SIR GEORGE GREYunderstood the hon. Gentleman rather to give notice of a Motion to that effect for next Session than to make such a Motion now. The question, he thought, could hardly be satisfactorily discussed in the present state of the House. If it was to be investigated at all, it would be best inquired into by a Committee. Without pledging himself to agree to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, if made next Session, he thought there were grounds which made an inquiry desirable. He was only sorry the subject had been gone into in the absence of the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes) and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), who, expecting it would be brought on sooner,

  1883
  had several times attended to make observations in regard to it; but they had now both left town. Considering the hon. Gentleman's Motion to be merely formal, he should postpone any remarks he had to make on it until it was brought forward next Session.
  MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDsaid he would do so.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.