HC Deb 11 February 1864 vol 173 cc483-92
MR. FERRAND

moved for Returns of the names of the Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Secretaries, Inspectors, Accountants, First Clerks, Second Clerks, and all other officials, who have been appointed under the Charitable Estates and Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855; also, the dates of their appointments, and the amount of salary and travelling expenses each has received annually, and the profession, trade, or calling in which each was engaged when appointed: And of the total expense of the Board to the Public Exchequer and Charitable Trusts. The hon. Member said, that his present Motion would enable him to test the sincerity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to prove whether he was sincere in the statement that he had just made, that the Government were extremely anxious to put a stop to all unnecessary expenditure in the civil service departments of the country. He believed he would be able to show that, so far as the Board of Charity Commissioners were concerned, there was within that body a large amount of reckless and useless expenditure of public money. That Board had been now in existence for ten years. It was a secret tribunal, from which the public were kept apart; they were ignorant of all its proceedings; and he believed, that at this moment there were few persons either in this House or out of it who were aware of the names of the gentlemen and officers employed under that Commission. There had been for a length of time the gravest complaints against the Board in all parts of the country. It was charged with negligence, with idleness, with ignorance, and with a total want of attention to the duties which were required at its hands in connection with the various charities throughout the country. He himself could bring many circumstances to light, connected with his own part of the kingdom, which would support the statement he had made; but it was not his intention at this time to allude to the manner of the working of the Commission. He would do that on another occasion. What he asked for now was a Return for the purpose of enabling him, as soon as he conveniently could, to appeal to that House to grant him a Select Committee to inquire into the construction, expense, and working of the Charity Board. He put his Motion on the notice paper under the conviction, that Her Majesty's Government would not for one instant oppose it; there was nothing unfair in it. But he had been told by the Government that they must refuse it, and that it was invidious and inquisitorial to ask for the profession, trade, or calling of each of the members of the Board, and the time of their appointment. If it were, indeed, inquisitorial, then he said that this was an inquisitorial Board. It had the power of inquiring into the different charities throughout the country in a manner most unconstitutional, and which had been protested against, not only in that House, but in the other House by some of the highest of the legal profession in this country. But why should the Government object to this Return? It was their duty, before they allowed one of those appointments to be made, to inquire into the antecedents of every person who held an appointment; and if there were Members sitting on this Charity Board who were afraid of their antecedents being investigated, then in his opinion it was the duty of that House to take care that this Return should be made, so that the House and the country might know why the Government were so anxious not to grant it. He would give the House a brief sketch of the history of the Board. It was founded in 1853. There were four Commissioners, one Secretary, and two Inspectors appointed under the Act of Parliament. The Commissioners were to be barristers of not less than twelve years' standing. The two Inspectors (Parliament was so informed when the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill) were to be legal gentlemen of high attainments. There was to be one Secretary, to be a legal gentleman of high standing. The Act of Parliament fixed the salaries to be paid to these seven officers. There was to be paid to the First Commissioner £1,500 a year, to the remaining three £1,200 a year each, and to the Secretary £600 a year (he wished particular attention to this point), to the two Inspectors £800 a year each, making, in the whole, £7,300. Now, after this Board was formed of officers whose salaries he had quoted, the Act of Parliament went on to give to the Commissioners the power, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Commissioners of the Treasury, to appoint as many other officials as they thought proper. Ho desired to call particular attention to these powers, given by the Act of Parliament to these four Commissioners. At the time the Board was formed, the Commissioners communicated with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells (Sir William Hayter), who was then Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasury; and he wished to find out, by the Return, what was the number of officers appointed by those Commissioners, and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells at the time the Board was constituted. But he had another reason for moving for this Return. It happened, in the year 1854, that the hon. Gentleman who then represented Liskeard in this House (Mr. Crowder) became one of the Judges, and resigned his seat. An hon. Gentleman who sits on the benches opposite immediately went down to contest that borough; at that time he was Mr. Trelawny. He was a Cornish man of ancient lineage, highly respected in that county, and (what was rarely to be found on the opposite side of the House) true to his political principles. He was received with the greatest delight by the Whigs and Radicals of Liskeard. In fact, his reception was so hearty, his support so large, and the promises made to him were so numerous, that he felt thoroughly convinced that he was perfectly secure of his election. While he was under this delightful impression there suddenly appeared in the borough a gentleman, who at that time was Private Secretary to the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) at the head of the Government. This gentleman appeared in the borough to oppose Mr. Trelawny. He certainly thought it an extraordinary thing, that a gentleman professing his own political opinions should come in such a disingenuous manner; but Mr. Trelawny was not at all alarmed; he knew the number of his supporters, and felt perfectly secure whenever the polling took place. But to his astonishment a member of his committee, who had considerable influence with a certain party of Radical voters in the borough, left him immediately before the polling, and carried over the voters to the side of Mr. Ralph Grey, the noble Lord's Private Secretary, who was returned, while Mr. Trelawny lost his election. He mentioned this circumstance for the purpose of bringing under the notice of the House something exceedingly suspicious, connected with an Act of Parliament obtained by the Government in the following Session. Early in the Session of 1855 the Lord Chancellor brought in a Bill to extend the powers of the Charitable Trusts Act of 1853. In asking for an extension of those powers he alluded to the circumstance of the fourth Commissioner, who should have held the appointment until the year 1857, having died, leaving a vacancy at the Board. He said that the Government had tried to find some gentleman of high legal attainments to take the place; but all who were applied to refused to do so on account of the shortness of the period before the appointment would cease—namely, in 1857. Therefore, the Government had thought it their duty to bring in a Bill to make the appointment of the fourth Commissioner permanent, and to extend the powers of the Commissioners. But in bringing in the Bill the Lord Chancellor never mentioned a circumstance which he (Mr. Ferrand) would bring to the notice of the House. The measure was not brought in before the House of Commons until a very few days before Parliament was prorogued. It was read a first time, and when the Attorney General moved the second reading he protested against any discussion upon it as it was of the greatest importance that the House should go immediately into Committee of Supply. When the discussion on the Bill took place, the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) protested against the unconstitutional character of the provisions. The Attorney General, however, declared the measure to be most pressing, as the term of appointment of the fourth Commissioner would expire at the end of the Session. There was not one word of truth in that statement, as the appointment would not have expired till 1857, and the Attorney General must have known the fact. But there was a clause in the Bill giving the Commissioners, with the consent of the Lords of the Treasury, power to appoint three more Inspectors; but the House did not hear a word about such a power until within a few days of the prorogation. The House, however, upon the statement made by the Attorney General, passed the Bill. The Commissioners immediately appointed as one of the Inspectors the agent who had deserted Mr. Trelawny just before the polling. That appointment had caused an immense sensation in the west of England, where it was felt that this individual had acted a dishonourable part towards Mr. Trelawny. He was, however, paid for his services to the Private Secretary of the noble Lord at the cost of the taxpayers of this country. The election of Mr. Ralph Grey had cost the country not less than £22,400. He would prove this if the House would grant him the Committee. The third Inspectorship was not filled up, he believed, until the present year, Mr. Ralph Grey being made a Commissioner of Customs, at a salary of £1,200 a year by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The Commission was known as the snug nest of Whigs; and a pretty numerous neat it was, providing for not less than forty-four persons, including a housekeeper, and wife, and two maid servants—thirty-nine of whom were in receipt of salaries. In 1853, when the first Bill was introduced, the Government said they did not think the expense would be more than £5,000 or £6,000; but in 1855, after the Commissioners and the right hon. Member for Wells had been at work filling up the appointments, it amounted to £12,390, and in 1864 to £18,243. And this amount was rapidly increasing. This was the sum voted out of the public Exchequer. Not one word, however, was said of the monies the Commissioners received from the private charities, which, he believed, were enormous. As to the minor charities the Board of Charity Commissioners was literally swallowing them up with expenses. The late Mr. Apsley Pellatt stated in that House that in the first two years the expenditure of the Charity Commissioners was not less than £78,000. There was, however, no means of knowing what the expenditure actually was apart from that voted out of the Exchequer. No Return could be obtained on this subject. He believed the Chief Commissioner, whom he saw sitting opposite (Mr. Lowe), to be quite innocent of all these charges brought against the Board; and, in fact, he believed that right hon. Gentleman had mentioned to a Friend of his (Mr. Ferrand's) that his agitation on the question was right, and that a stop must be put to what was going on. The salary of the secretary was fixed by Act of Parliament at £600. He should like to know by whose authority the secretary's salary had since been raised from £600 to £800. Was it under an Act of Parliament? [Mr. LOWE: Yes.] Unless that were done under the authority of an Act repealing the former Act, it was a robbery of the public. There were forty-one persons connected with this Board who were entirely unknown to the public. He could find no account whatever of travelling expenses, except a paltry sum of £500 included in the £18,234, and he had been informed that the expenses of the Inspectors in travelling over the country were extremely large. He was also informed that private charities were taxed without any control, except that of the Board. He might be told that this Return was an inquisitorial one; but the Board itself was inquisitorial; it had the power of summoning witnesses and examining them on oath, and if anybody refused to give evidence he was guilty of contempt of the Court of Chancery, and if he gave false evidence he was guilty of a misdemeanour. When the Inspectors had such tremendous powers in their hands the least that ought to be required is, that they should be what the Lord Chancellor promised—" legal gentlemen of high attainments." He had inserted in his notice the words "profession, trade, or calling" for the purpose of proving to the House and the country that at least one Inspector of the Board ought not to have received that appointment from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and that he would never have done so had he not betrayed Mr. Trelawny and gone over and secured the return of the Private Secretary of the Prime Minister. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Returns.

COLONEL DICKSON

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there be laid before this House Returns— Of the names of the Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Secretaries, Inspectors, Accountants, First Clerks, Second Clerks, and all other officials, who have been appointed under the Charitable Estates and Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855; also the dates of their appointments, and the amount of salary and travelling expenses each has received annually, and the profession, trade, or calling in which he was engaged when appointed; And of the total annual expense of the Board to the Public Exchequer and Charitable Trusts.

MR. LOWE

The right hon. Gentleman has based his Motion on the assumption that it is the intention of the Government to oppose the production of the papers. He has stated that again and again, and I can only meet the hon. Gentleman's statement by a contradiction. The Government are quite willing to give the papers, subject to two objections, both of them remediable, and both of which he has been asked to remedy. The first objection is not an unnatural one, I think. The hon. Gentleman asks not merely for a Return of the present establishment of the Charity Commissioners, but of all the appointments of all the persons in the office since its foundation. It seemed a reasonable objection at first to say, that the hon. Gentleman called for persons who are not on the establishment, but who were on it eleven years ago. But the hon. Gentleman has entirely removed that objection, for, having gone into the history of the Charity Commission from its beginning, and having made so many charges against those who belonged to the Commission, he has done away with our objection, and we shall be very happy, as far as we can, to furnish the names of all the persons who have held office, from the First Commissioner down to the housekeeper, from the year 1853 to the present time. But if we are not able to give very accurately some of the travelling expenses and small incidental charges incurred ten year's ago, I hope he will not blame us. The Charity Commissioners are appointed to exercise quasi judicial functions under circumstances of the utmost delicacy, and to discharge the duties of courts of justice without means which courts of justice possess. It has to decide all sorts of questions without a bar, and without the power of calling witnesses in the same way as other courts. Therefore it is a difficult matter to deal with a court the proceedings of which being from their nature not public, it is impossible that the charges against them can be met in the same manner as if the proceedings were public. It is no concern of mine to defend the Parliament of 1853 which created this Commission, nor, at a distance of nine years' time, the Parliament of 1855, which passed a Bill for the appointment of three new Inspectors. If the hon. Member had given notice that it was his intention to bring charges against any Member who had been in this House, no doubt that Member would have found some one to defend him; but it is quite out of the question that we should be called upon to go into the Liskeard election of 1854, or to defend the conduct of the Attorney General of 1855. These things are not germane to the point at issue. Then, the hon. Gentleman says that in 1860 the salary of the secretary was raised from £600, at which it had been fixed by the Act of Parliament, to £800; and he wants some explanation of that. It was done with the consent of the Treasury and of this House. I was the person to carry through the Bill—a Bill which extends, to the great benefit of the public, the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. The increased salary was voted by this House, and, being sanctioned by Act of Parliament, has since been paid; and if the House votes that the Secretary should have £200 a year more than before, there was no reason to repeal the clause by which he was entitled only to £600. As to the expense of the Commission, it is not my business to defend it. The House of Commons votes the money every year in the second number of the Civil Service Estimates, and in it all the information which the hon. Gentleman wants will be found. He has said, and has repeated over and over again, that this Commission extracted in two years £78,000 from the charities of the country. The House will not be surprised to hear, because it must be in the general knowledge of Members, that the Commission has no funds except what are voted by this House; that it has no power to extract any funds from the charities, and has never done so. The thing is a mere chimera, and there is not the slightest foundation for it, though the hon. Gentleman has pledged himself to prove his statements before a Select Committee. I am quite willing to give in this Return all the information he requires which is germane to the charges in his speech. He has made charges against the Commissioners and Inspectors, but there is no objection to give him every information about them. The Commissioners are Mr. Erie (brother of the Lord Chief Justice), Mr. Hill, and Mr. Campbell, all counsel of great eminence; and the Inspectors are five gentlemen, three of whom are barristers, one a solicitor, and the other a gentleman who has not been brought up, as far as I am aware, to any profession. There is not the slightest objection to give every information about these gentlemen which may throw light upon the charges which he brings against them; but when the hon. Member asks me to call upon the clerks, doorkeepers, and other persons of this description for a return of their professions, trades, and callings before they became connected with the Commission, I think he asks for that which it is not worthy of the dignity of this House to enforce. Many of these men may have come from humble extraction and filled humble callings, and why should these things be paraded before the country about them? As for my antecedents, they are perfectly well known, and I may say the same of my brother Commissioners. All fair official information we do not object to give to the hon. Member, but it is not part of my duty to know whether a man before being appointed was a costermonger, or whether his wife kept a greengrocer's shop. This is the only objection I have to the hon. Gentleman's Return; but I say nothing of the objection which I may entertain to the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in the course of which he has thought fit to make violent charges without notice to any of the parties to whom he has adverted. I object to the words in the Motion relating to the profession, trade, or calling of the persons appointed; and I hope the House will see that I am not endeavouring to deprive the hon. Gentleman of any of the real information which he so lusts for.

MR. MALINS

said, he was glad the Government did not intend to refuse the substance of the Return. As his name had been mentioned, he would say that though he could see no ground why the Government should refuse these returns, he desired to be understood as not concurring in the reasons urged by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand); he could not concur in what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the constitution of the Board. The First Commissioner was Mr. Peter Erie, Q.C., a brother of the Chief Justice, a lawyer of great eminence, and than whom a more respectable man could not be found. The second was Mr. James Campbell, also a Q.C., against whom not a word could be said. The third, Mr. Hill, was never, he believed, called within the bar, but he was a junior counsel of well-known learning and ability, the author of an excellent treatise of frequent reference in the law courts, Hill on Trustees. The names of the Inspectors he did not all remember. One, however, he believed was Mr. Hare, a barrister of great eminence, whose reports were daily cited in the courts, and with regard to whom it was a matter of surprise that he undertook this office. Mr. Skirrow, again, was a member of a family of well-known legal eminence, and a man of excellent character—against whom not a word could be said. He (Mr. Malins) had nevertheless made objections in 1855 to the constitution of the Commission, which he still felt to a certain extent were not removed. He meant particularly the jurisdiction of the Board, which was to all intents and purposes a court of justice and of secret tribunal, from which there was no appeal, whilst it was unprovided with a bar, the accessories which were necessary for the due administration of justice. He recommended the hon. Gentleman to accede to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), and to omit the words objected to with regard to the subordinate officials.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, he was glad that the Government had permitted this Return to be made. He wished to observe that the £18,243 taken in the Estimates last year was exclusive of the House, which must be subject to a yearly rent and to repairs. He entirely concurred with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins); and it was not from any doubt us to the character and attainments of the Commissioners and Inspectors that he acquiesced in the Motion, but because he thought too much light could not be thrown upon the transactions of public Boards. These Boards had large and extensive powers; practically there was no appeal from them; and there was need of men to act upon them, combining powers of mind, tact, and conciliation in a degree which was rarely found.

MR. FERRAND

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had so far given him the information he required, that he would withdraw that portion of the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman objected to, relating to the costermongers, their wives, and children, and leave them in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

Motion amended, and agreed to.

Returns ordered, Of the names of the Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Secretaries, Inspectors, Accountants, First Clerks, Second Clerks, and all other officials, who have been appointed under the Charitable Estates and Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855; also the dates of their appointments, and the amount of salary and travelling expenses each has received annually.

House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.

Back to