Commons Sitting of 10 May 1878

NOTICE OF MOTION AND QUESTIONS.

  THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE CROWN—THE INDIAN CONTINGENT.
  SIR HENRY JAMESgave Notice that on Monday next he should ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What was the number of the Forces at present employed for the safety of the United Kingdom, and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, exclusive of the Forces acting in India; and, whether, with the addition of the Native Troops proposed to be removed to Malta, the number so employed would exceed the number authorized by Parliament—namely, 135,453?
  MR. A. MILLSgave Notice that he should move the following, as an Amendment to Mr. Fawcett's Motion, condemning the summoning of Indian Troops to Malta by the Government, without their intention having been first communicated to Parliament:—
  "That this House cordially approves the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government in employing Native Indian Troops on Imperial service, not only as involving the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, but as affording a substantial recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the loyalty and efficiency of the Indian Army."
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKgave Notice that on Monday next he should ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the removal of Troops from India to Malta, Whether it was the fact

  1689
  that the officers commanding the Indian regiments, being entitled to Indian rates of pay wherever they served, would be receiving at Malta about £1,700 a-year each, or rather more than four-and-a-half times as much as would be received by the British lieutenant-colonels serving side by side with them; whether the number of Indian officers of those regiments, which was only seven for each regiment, had been increased, as on previous occasions, to from 14 to 16 each; and, whether of these, even the junior officers would not receive on Indian rates of pay as high an amount in pay and allowances as lieutenant-colonels commanding British regiments in the same garrison?

  RAILWAYS—THE LATE SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID.—QUESTION.
  MR. ISAACasked the President of Board of Trade, If he has made any inquiry regarding the death of Sir Francis Goldsmid, Bart., M.P. for Reading; and, if he is prepared to obtain from Parliament powers to compel railway companies to so construct the footboards of passenger carriages or platforms as to prevent a recurrence of such serious accidents?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, before I answer my hon. Friend's Question, I must express the very deep regret with which I, in common with, I am sure, all the Members of this House, heard of the very distressing circumstances which deprived us of one of our most experienced Colleagues in Parliament, who was much esteemed and respected, as I know from personal experience, by all who had the pleasure of being brought into contact with him. As soon as we heard of this lamentable accident, we instructed Colonel Yolland to hold an inquiry respecting it. I have not yet received the Report; but I need hardly assure my hon. Friend that I shall carefully consider it, with the view of determining whether any action ought to be taken in the matter. I shall be happy to show him the Report as soon as I receive it. Since I have been in the House a letter has been placed in my hands from Lady Goldsmid, the touching concluding words of which I think the House would wish to hear. She expresses her
  "most painful anxiety that Thursday's tragedy may, if possible, be averted in future, and thus that his death may prove of some service to his fellow creatures."

RAILWAY TIME TABLES.—QUESTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. S. HARDYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can give the House any further information on the subject of the earlier publication of changes in their time-tables by the various Railway Companies.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the Board of Trade have no power to oblige Railway Companies to publish the alterations in their time-tables at any particular period; but we thought it well, as was stated last year by my noble Friend who preceded me in the Office I now hold, to call the attention of the Railway Companies' Association to the matter. I am now glad to inform him that the Railway Companies' Association have stated to us that the several Companies will endeavour to publish any alterations they may make in their train arrangements at each station one week before the expiration of each month, and also to advertise them as early as possible. Some delay has occurred in effecting this improvement, owing to the difficulties which necessarily arise in settling the complicated arrangements of the timetables of the United Kingdom; but my hon. Friend will now have the satisfaction of knowing that the interest he has taken in the matter promises to secure a considerable convenience for the public.

  THE HERRING FISHERY COMMISSION REPORT—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF LORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps to carry out the recommendation of the recent Herring Fishery Commission with regard to trawl net fishing in narrow waters on the west coast of Scotland?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, the Herring Fishery Commission Report and Appendix were only delivered at the Home Office on the 12th of April, just before the Recess, and it will be necessary that the Report should be well considered before fresh legislation is resolved upon. I can assure the noble Lord that the matter shall not escape attention.

  THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE CROWN—THE INDIAN CONTINGENT. —QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What was the proportion to each thousand of the fighting men ordered to embark from India, of the non-combatants attached under the heads of transport, supply, or hospital services, or as camp followers, including dhooly bearers, bheesties, syces, and servants?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, the proportion of non-combatants to combatants is, as nearly as possible, 380 per 1,000 men. We have no precise details; but the non-combatants include the whole hospital establishment, ambulance, and sick carriage on the line of march and in the field, and also the whole of the regimental transport for the cavalry. None of the rank and file returned as combatants are withdrawn for any non-combatant duties.

TURKEY—CIRCASSIANS IN SYRIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that great numbers of Circassians have been landed by the Turkish Government on the coast of Syria, causing much alarm among the inhabitants; and if any Reports on the subject have been received from the British Consuls in that country?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, we have heard that a large number of Circassians have been landed on the coast of Syria, and several Reports on the subject have been received from the Consular officers.

  UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he intends to introduce the proposed Bill for the appointment of an Under Secretary of State for Scotland during the present Session?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes, Sir; I hope to be able to ask leave of the House to introduce a Bill on the subject on Monday next; and, also, another Bill making provision for the office of Lord Clerk Register of Scotland, which rather depends upon the other matter.

ARMY—FIRST CLASS ARMY RESERVE.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If the men of the First Class Army Reserve are to receive, while serving with their present regiments, the daily rate of good conduct pay to which they were entitled previously to being transferred from the Army into the Reserve?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Yes, Sir; they will receive the same rate of pay.

ARMY AND NAVY SERVICES—EXCESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the estimated monthly charge at the present time for Army and Navy Services in excess of the provision in the Army and Navy Estimates, taking into account the cost of calling up the Reserves, of the additional ships in commission, of the war at the Cape, &c., but exclusive of the cost of the troops on their way from India to Malta, for which an Estimate is to be presented; and, when Supplementary Estimates for this excess will be laid before the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am afraid that I cannot, at the present moment, give any information that would be sufficiently precise to be of use to the House in the form which the hon. Gentleman asks for it. There are various heads of Expenditure which have to be considered. With regard to some of them, information must be got from the Dockyards, and other sources, which will take time to collect. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question in a few days, and I will endeavour to obtain the information in the meantime.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE KAFFIR OUT BREAK.—QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any fresh information has reached Her Majesty's Government relative to the proceedings in South Africa?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, we have to-day received the following telegram from Sir Bartle Frere, dated the 16th of April:—

  1693
  "General Thesiger's operations for clearing Amatolas were quite successful, but detached robber bands will continue for some time extremely troublesome, and give full work to every one. Gongabelle taken prisoner. Sir Theophilus Shepstone's account of Transvaal rather improved. Boers' meeting to receive memorials regarding annexation of Transvaal lasted three days; passed over quietly. Appointed Kruger and Joubert to return to England."

ARMY—PAY OF RESERVE SOLDIERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, since the short service enlistment of soldiers commenced in 1870, whereby a man was engaged to serve six years with his regiment and six years afterwards in the Reserve Forces, the sum of £9 2s. 6d. per annum (6d. a day) has not been granted on discharge from Service with the Colours (4d. a day Reserve Force pay, plus 2d. a day deferred pay); whether at the time of calling out the Reserves last month many men so discharged from the Army to the Reserves had not obtained two good-conduct stripes for which on such discharge they had received the sum of £1, and for which they were now also drawing 1s. 2d. a week pay over and above their pay of 7s. a week as embodied Reserve soldiers, and whether 1s. 9d. a week is not the whole average necessary present outgoings from such pay now that a free ration of bread and meat is granted; and whether the Secretary of State is prepared to grant Returns showing the exact present pecuniary position of the soldier, both while with the Colours and afterwards with the Reserves, when the State makes an allowance of 3s. 6d. a week to his wife and 1s. 2d. a week to each of his children?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, although the hon. Gentleman had given him private Notice of this Question as early as possible, he had not been able in the short space of time since he received the Notice to verify the statements the hon. Gentleman had made. He had no doubt, however, that the facts had been accurately stated by his hon. Friend, and for all practical purposes the statement might be assumed to be correct. He should be happy to give the Returns if moved for.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. W. H. JAMES, in rising to call attention to the Parochial Charities of the City of London, and to move—
  "That it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should, at the earliest possible date, introduce some legislative measure carrying into effect the recommendations of the Twenty-fourth Report of the Charity Commissioners with respect to the Parochial Charities of the City of London."
  said, that the Motion in no way affected the various Companies of London, and that in making this Motion he had no desire to embarrass the Government. It must be admitted that great abuses existed throughout the country in the administration of parochial charities, but nowhere were those abuses so rampant as in the City of London. In the consideration of this question, it was necessary to recollect that the City of London was becoming year by year less a place of residence. The altering and widening of the streets, and the other improvements that had taken place, had driven the poor classes out, and every fresh alteration in that direction tended to further contract the area of habitation. The Census of 1871 showed a great diminution in the inhabitants of London from that of 1861, and between these periods the rateable value of the different parishes had greatly increased. As Parliament had determined upon the union of particular districts for Poor Law purposes, so now there should be a union of the parishes for charitable purposes. He asked the House to consider the subject in three distinct points of view—first, with regard to the precise nature of those charities and objects to which they were intended to be devoted; secondly, their nature and extent; and thirdly, how they could be brought into consonance with public opinion without prejudice to the rights of the trustees. He appealed to the Home Secretary that what

  1695
  was done should be done at once. He wished to avoid in the discussion anything which admitted of debateable ground or controversy with regard to the privileges of the trustees. He appealed to the Home Secretary not to deal with this question in a fragmentary way, but in one entire and comprehensive scheme that would give general satisfaction, and give effect to the rights of the trustees, and receive the approval of the public. It was difficult to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to the original objects of these charities. The Reports of the Charity Commissioners between 1820 and 1830, though voluminous, contained very scanty materials, and the statements as to the objects of the charities were purely conjectural. There could be no doubt that a great many of the trust deeds were destroyed by the Fire of London; but, although it might be impossible to ascertain the precise objects for which many of the charities were founded, yet it was obvious that in now coming to a decision as to the mode in which they should be administered, they should be guided by the consideration of what was just and expedient. The number of these City charities was 112, the total amount of their income being about £101,000 per annum. While the average population in each parish was 428 in the year 1861, it was only 264 in 1871. The average area of each parish was about 3½ acres. The number of residents and of inhabited houses in them had been greatly reduced, and some of them were almost exclusively occupied by banking and discounting firms and warehousemen, who certainly could not be supposed to need charity. At the time of the passing of the Union of Benefices Act, about 18 years ago, it was thought that when the parishes were grouped together, some useful purpose would be found for their endowments. Nothing, however, of that kind had been done, the depopulation of the parishes having gone on with extreme rapidity. The funds of those parochial charities were now frittered away in the re-decoration and ornamentation of churches, in providing testimonials for churchwardens, in feasting and convivial entertainments, and similar purposes. Very large sums were also handed over to the rates, thereby going not merely to benefit the poor, but also to relieve the rich from
  1696
  their legitimate burdens. Other sums, again, went to defray legal expenses—an object to which they were not properly applicable. Many of the churches in the City were no longer of any practical use; for, according to the Bishop of London, in many instances it was preaching to dead walls instead of living souls, and that many of the churches had neither beauty, usefulness, or architecture, to recommend them. They would hardly find a creature in the City churches if they visited them on a Sunday morning. It was told of a clergyman, who went to one of them to conduct public worship, that he looked out of the vestry and asked the clerk if anyone was there? The clerk replied—"One old woman;" upon which the clergyman said—"Very well; give her a shilling and tell her to go home." It might be said of London, as it was said by an illustrious statesman years ago, that the merchants and traders of London now made their counting-houses their churches and their ledgers their Bibles, their desks their altars, and their money their god. He had been at a meeting of the Charity Organization Society at the Mansion House, where the speakers all denounced the sin of indiscriminate charity of giving 6d. or 1s. to a beggar, without full investigation; but here, while thousands of pounds were annually wasted, to hold that language in the heart of the City of London was to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. He did not complain of the entertainments given for occasional social gathering, except on account of the large sums of money squandered on them. He thought that the whole subject should be dealt with by the Government. It might be asked why the Charity Commissioners did not move in the matter; and the fact was, that from time to time they had made attempts, but had been defeated on some trivial points of law. As far back as the year 1866, in their 13th Report, they had reported that the charities showed a disproportion between the sums at their disposal and the objects of their foundation, and the result of subsequent inquiry had been to exhibit that circumstance in still stronger relief. The endowments of many of the charities consisted largely of property in London and the suburbs, which had enormously increased in value; while, in many cases,

  1697
  the number of the proper recipients of the funds had considerably diminished. Last year the Commissioners, in the 24th Report, had reported that in the altered circumstances of the City of London many of the parishes had no poor, properly so-called, and in those cases the clergy and churchwardens administered the revenues. One of these parishes had charities to the amount of £800 a-year, and the population numbered 46, of whom only four or five were residents, and none were paupers. A Court of Equity might establish a new scheme for each parish, as the circumstances of the various parishes differed; and what he wished to see was the re-appropriation of the funds to some parish with ample poor, where no difficulty would be found for a proper distribution of these revenues. It was impossible to read a more convincing Report, and he trusted that the Home Secretary would be able to give some promise that the proposals of the Commissioners would soon be carried out. He wished to add that much of the property in question was of a miscellaneous character, and might very well be brought into one capital account; and, perhaps, it might be advantageous to convert the lands of the Corporation into private property. But he hoped that questions of the rights of property would not be introduced into the debate. As he had said, the money ought not to be diverted to the diminution of the rates, or it would find its way into the pockets of the rich instead of the poor. Nor should it go to tithes; and, certainly, it ought not to be given to doles, for the purpose merely of encouraging people to go to church. The Charity Commissioners should be empowered to enforce the audit of the accounts of these charities. Reform of abuses in the direction he had indicated was obstructed by private interests, and how far those interests stood in the way of public good was a question which the Home Secretary and his Colleagues would have to consider. He believed it would be incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman next year to introduce a Bill dealing with the powers possessed by the Endowed Schools and Charity Commissions, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared then with a comprehensive scheme dealing with this question. He should press the Motion
  1698
  to a division, unless he had a most clear and distinct promise from the Government that they would actually do something in the way of reforming these charities, instead of putting off and temporizing with the subject. If he pressed the Motion to a division, he should do so as a protest against what he described as a system of greed, fraud, and peculation, by which the poor and necessitous of the Metropolis were deprived of a patrimony to which, in law and equity, they were fully entitled. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should, at the earliest possible date, introduce some legislative measure carrying into effect the recommendations of the Twenty-fourth Report of the Charity Commissioners with respect to the Parochial Charities of the City of London,"—(Mr. James,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) did not accuse him of temporizing with, or putting off, the question. This, certainly, had not been his habit hitherto, and he did not mean that the present occasion should be taken as a precedent. On the contrary, he was much obliged to the hon. Member for having brought the subject before the House, and for the very temperate and fair spirit in which he had laid the facts of his case before the House. When a similar Motion had, a year or two ago, been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he had undertaken to look into the question, with the view of seeing whether anything could be, or ought to be, done with respect to it; and he had lost no time in placing himself in communication with the various parochial authorities in order to ascertain their views. He had interviews with a number of persons connected, not only with the City, but with the parochial charities themselves, and he had spoken his mind to them very freely on the subject. In all such matters, he might add, it seemed to him

  1699
  to be wise, if possible, to carry with one, in any reforms which it might be proposed to make, those who were interested in the management of the property which those reforms would affect. It was not well, he thought, to come down upon them with a high hand, and to tell them that they were to be treated in a particular way. A better course to adopt was to try and induce them to join in bringing about a more satisfactory administration of the funds with which they were connected. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the case of St. Olave Jewry; and he was happy to say that he had received from the churchwarden, the vicar, and others of that parish, a Memorial praying that a Royal Commission might be issued, in order to ascertain to what useful purpose its funds could be applied. He wished other parishes would act in the same manner; but, at all events, one had taken a step in the right direction. The matter, however, did not rest there, for he held in his hand a Memorial, very numerously and influentially signed, not by the inhabitants of any particular parish, but by persons generally interested in the City of London, in which they said that—
  "The parochial charities of the City yield a very large and rapidly increasing income, which amounts, according to Returns made by the Charity Commissioners in the last Session of Parliament, to upwards of £100,000 per annum; that in many cases the charitable income of particular parishes is out of all proportion to the purposes for which these funds were originally bequeathed or acquired; for, while the income derived from these charitable estates has steadily increased, the population of the parishes has as steadily decreased, and in some is on the point of vanishing away; that the proper administration of these estates is often difficult, while the incomes derived from them are not rarely applied to purposes which it would be hard to reconcile with the intentions of those who bequeathed them, harder still to defend on grounds of public policy, even if there be no longer instances of their perversion to uses to which no charitable bequests nor trust properties can ever be properly applied. Your memorialists therefore pray that a Royal Commission may be appointed to investigate the origin of these charities, which is often involved in obscurity, to inquire into their present and make proposals for their future application. Inasmuch, however, as some of these charities were left for ecclesiastical purposes exclusively, others no less exclusively for eleemosynary purposes—bequests for education and for apprenticing and the like being included under the latter head—while some are of a mixed character, applicable in proportions not always easily ascertainable to
  1700
  both purposes, your memorialists are of opinion that it would be fair to all the interests concerned that it should be an instruction to the Commissioners to separate the strictly ecclesiastical from the strictly eleemosynary charities, and to divide upon equitable terms those which are of a mixed character, with a view to the formation of two separate funds—an ecclesiastical and eleemosynary fund—such funds to be applied as follows:—1. After all the churches which it shall be found expedient to retain in the City of London shall have been sufficiently provided with a fabric fund, and fund for the maintenance of Divine Worship therein, the surplus funds derived from the ecclesiastical charities shall be applied to similar purposes in the poorer parishes of the Metropolis, a preference being given to those contiguous to the City. 2. In like manner, when all charities of an eleemosynary kind within the City of which the Commission shall recommend and Parliament sanction the retention shall have been amply provided for, the surplus funds derived from the eleemosynary charities shall be applied for the furtherance of education and for the maintenance of hospitals and kindred institutions."
  Now, that Memorial contained, in his opinion, a very frank confession, and the hon. Member for Hackney would, he was sure, agree with him in thinking that no time had been lost in securing a number of influential names to such a document, the first on the list being that of the right hon. Gentleman—one of the Members for the City—(Mr. Hubbard). As matters at present stood, the Charity Commissioners were quite correct in saying that they had no right to interfere with those funds except in those cases in which they were applied to by the trustees of the charities themselves; and it was not very likely that they would be able to get the trustees generally to apply. It would be difficult for the Commissioners to deal with these charities as a whole; they would have to deal with each individual charity, and that was a process attended also with considerable difficulty. He concurred, he might add, with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James), in thinking that money which had been left for the poor, for purposes either ecclesiastical or eleemosynary, ought not to be applied in aid of the poor rate; nor was he, as a rule, favourable to its application to what were called charitable doles. In all the circumstances, the Government were of opinion that there ought to be an inquiry into the charities in question; but he could not just yet pledge himself to define the precise character of that inquiry. Generally speaking, the Government thought it ought to be an inquiry

  1701
  by a Commission of some kind or other; the composition of that Commission, however, was a matter he must reserve for future consideration. The expense of the inquiry ought also, it seemed to them, to be borne, not by the State, but by the charity funds concerned. Shortly stated, those were the views of the Government, and he hoped they would satisfy the hon. Member for Gateshead. He could promise that there would be no unnecessary delay in appointing the Commission; but his impression was that an Act of Parliament would be required for the purpose of its appointment. If that were so, he should not wait until next Session to introduce a measure with that object, so that the matter might be taken in hand as speedily as possible. While agreeing that these funds had been misapplied in this sense—that they had been applied for purposes not originally intended, he did not want to charge the persons who had control of them with either fraud, greed, orpeculation. Those were words which ought not to be used. The only real charge to which the persons concerned had left themselves open was that they had not applied to the Charity Commissioners, the latter being unable to deal with the bequests except upon such investigation. In conclusion, he hoped the hon. Member for Gateshead would be satisfied with the assurance given on behalf of the Government, and would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
  MR. FAWCETTthought that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had given his promises in the most satisfactory manner possible. After the assurance which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) would agree that there was no use in pressing the Motion to a division. With respect to the Memorial which had been read by the Home Secretary, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not beforehand fetter the discretion of the Commission of Inquiry by such an instruction as that Memorial recommended, and that the only instruction would be that the inquiry should be as thorough and efficient as possible, and that the Commission should further endeavour to ascertain how the funds could be best made to conduce to the welfare and happiness of the people of London.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDexpressed his satisfaction with the course which the Government had taken. He did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Commission was to be limited to the charities of London? but he earnestly hoped that it would be extended to the whole country, because he had frequently come into contact with cases where charities might be much better applied if there was legal power to do so. One difficulty, however, in the way of the Commission, to which reference had not been made by the Home Secretary, was that, notwithstanding the admitted inutility of the existing administration of some of the charities, and notwithstanding the desire of the Governing Bodies to expand these charities, the Commissioners were expected to be bound to carry out the objects of the original endowments, if there were the means of doing so. Some of the charities were left 200 or 300 years ago; but circumstances since then had very considerably altered, and some of the charities were devoted to the education of children; whereas now they had school boards, which gave quite as good, if not better, education than was provided under the charities. The present system of education was so much altered of late, that something more was wanted besides an honest administration of obsolete foundations. He trusted that the Home Secretary would not stop short of dealing with that question. There was another question. The only power which could at present deal with the matter was that given to the Endowed Schools Commission, or that branch of the Charity Commission which took the place of the Endowed Schools Commission. With reference to the question of taking, with the consent of certain persons, local doles, and applying them to the purposes of secondary education, zealous as he was for the reformation of charities, he did not think it expedient to take doles and apply them in a way which presented to the eyes of the poor the aspect of saving the pockets of the rich. He hoped the Home Secretary would take these things into account in the constitution of the Commission, and that he would not limit the scope of the inquiry to the City of London only, or, that if he did so, it would be as a first step to a larger measure. There were a number of

  1703
  small charities which only tended to pauperize the poor; but which if properly directed, might be made conducive to prudence. He suggested that, if possible, these charities should be made to assist the funds of sound friendly societies.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he had lived long in the City of London, and a nice green pasture it had been for him. The citizens of London were honest and straightforward men, and he did not like to hear any Member of Parliament speaking of them as men whose money was their god, and whose books were their Bibles. If money were their god, and if they did not look very well after it, the men from the "West would come down and take it from them. There were great difficulties in the administration of these charities. In one parish a sum of money was left to apprentice a boy to a saddler—and it so happened that there was not a single saddler in the parish—and in another there was an endowment for the burning of heretics. He denied the assertion, made by many persons out-of-doors, that a large portion of the funds went in feasting, and he assured hon. Members that in the parishes of the City of London, as a rule, no feasting went on. He believed that the results of the inquiry would be to show that the funds were being applied to good and worthy purposes, perhaps more suited to past times. The authorities of the City of London would, however, he was sure, gladly join in any change which might be suggested which would have the effect of bringing about a better state of things.
  MR. PELLthanked his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the straightforward manner in which he had dealt with the question. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not allow the inquiry he had promised to be extended beyond the City of London. There would be enough in the City to occupy the attention of the Commission, and any Report which they might make would apply, in a large measure, to similar cases in the country. He expressed a hope that the application of these charities would not be extended outside the walls of the City. There were two distinct populations in the City—one, a day population, which was wealthy; the other, a night population,
  1704
  which consisted to a great extent of paupers. He could not help thinking that the existence of the funds in question attracted people of that class to the City in the hope of obtaining a share of them; and, so far from those charities, as at present administered, being in any way of service, they were positively mischievous. Where endowed charities existed in the country, there was to be found a corresponding amount of pauperism, while the most independent and thrifty class of people were to be found in districts where very few endowed charities existed.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he had come down to the House prepared to support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James); but, after what he had heard, he had only to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the satisfactory assurance he had given. The House, he thought, ought to be grateful also to his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead for having brought the subject forward. With respect to legislation, he hoped the Home Secretary would keep in view the admirable Bill introduced by Mr. Andrew Johnston, in 1870, which seemed to lay down lines that would form a very good guide at the present time. One great difficulty would be this. The funds originally left for Christian charity should, if possible, be applied to such objects; they were applied to objects as far as possible removed from the real meaning of the word charity; and the means ought to be found, if possible, of applying those funds for the benefit of the poor persons for whose benefit they were intended. They should follow the poor who had left the City and were scattered in other parts of the Metropolis. It would be necessary to guard against a repetition of the vicious system of relieving the poor rates, or the education rates, or tithes. Some works of real Christian charity should be found to which to devote the money. He hoped the Commission would carefully consider to what sort of objects these charitable funds ought to be applied.
  MR. W. H. JAMESthanked the Home Secretary for the proposal which he had made, which was extremely liberal, and intimated his readiness to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES ACTS, 1862 AND 1867.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. GREGORY, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Committee upon the Joint Stock Companies Acts of 1862 and 1867, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, further provision is required for securing the bonâ fide character of undertakings registered under and for enforcing the returns required by the Joint Stock Companies Acts,"
  said, the inquiries which had been made before Select Committees upstairs, and the Reports of those Committees, showed the need there existed for legislation on the subject. Considerable evidence was given before the Committee as to the very great sufferings caused by the abuses committed under the provisions of the Joint Stock Companies Acts. Many millions sterling of paid-up capital had disappeared, no one knew where. Since 1862, 12,879 Companies had been started, with a nominal capital of £1,590,000,000. A large portion of that had been paid up and lost. No doubt, a great deal was spent in liquidations; but there remained a large sum unaccounted for. The Registrar appointed under the Joint Stock Companies Acts had given evidence before the Committee, and a reference to it would show the abuses to which the Acts were open, and the lamentable consequences resulting from them. He (Mr. Gregory) would only trouble the House with two cases as instances of them. One Company had been registered with a nominal capital of £100,000,000, of which only seven shares of £20 each appeared to have been taken, and it did not appear that even that sum had been paid up; and another to which the seven persons, whose names were registered as forming the Company, had subscribed only 1s. each. Then, again, there was great laxity even in enforcing the existing law. Of 12,800 Companies, formed during a period of seven years, 5,500 had failed to make the Returns required by Act of Parliament, although those Returns were very limited in their character, as there was no obligation, or any power or authority to require those Returns. The Companies at present enjoyed practical immunity in failing to make Returns. His own view was, not only that the present Returns should be enforced, but that much
  1706
  fuller Returns should be required, particularly in reference to the amount of money borrowed by Companies which had obtained registration. The chief remedy suggested for these abuses was that, at the time of registration, stronger guarantees of bona fides should be required than were now demanded; and among these guarantees was that some fixed amount of capital should be paid up before registration was granted. This course was recommended by Mr. Harding, Mr. Turquand, and Mr. Price, three of the most experienced accountants in London; and he (Mr. Gregory) thought that, if adopted, it would prevent much of the ruin that had arisen from the formation of bubble Companies. Parliament authorized these undertakings—and, therefore, the public had a right to look to Parliament for some protection. It had been said that the public ought to look after itself. If they let the public alone altogether, that would be all very well; but, when the Companies received the authority of Parliament to appear before that public, to prefer limited liability to exercise powers of sueing and being sued, and to urge the facilities for carrying on their business provided by the Acts, there ought to be some care taken in the interests of the public. It had been said that there was a sensible diminution in the amount of speculation, but he did not think that was so, because the Registrar said that last year there were formed 1,200 Companies, with a capital of £70,000,000; and, although there might be a slight diminution, he believed, that as soon as the depression ceased and trade revived, there would be a repetition of what had gone on before. This was the time to consider the matter, and to provide against the temptations that would be furnished by returning prosperity. A paper had been put into his hand relating to 44 Companies which had been formed in the town of Oldham alone, and it exhibited a most melancholy state of things; for there was not one of them that had not borrowed cent per cent from the authorized capital, and some of them had borrowed double that sum. The returns of the Companies were nil, their profit and loss account showed little but their indebtedness, their mills were stopping, and the unfortunate shareholders would have to subscribe the full amount of their shares in order to pay off the debts

  1707
  incurred. The remedies he proposed were suggested by the Select Committee—that the bonâ fide character of an undertaking should, to some extent, be guaranteed by the subscription of a certain proportion of the capital before the Company was launched, and the Act requiring periodical Returns should be strictly enforced. He firmly believed that, without checking or prejudicing undertakings of a bonâ fide character, it would have a great effect in preventing those that were not; and it would also operate against what was a gross and flagrant abuse—namely, what were known as directors' qualifications, under which gentlemen lent their names to these Companies in consideration of an allotment of shares on which they did not pay one shilling. He might be told that any remedies he had to propose should have been embodied in a Bill; but he felt that this was not a matter to be undertaken by a private Member, but was one which should be taken in hand by the Government. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice—
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, further provision is required for securing the bonâ fide character of undertakings registered under and for enforcing the returns required by the Joint Stock Companies Acts of 1862 and 1867,"—(Mr. Gregory,)
  instead thereof—
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, the point raised was, no doubt, one of great interest, for it must be within the knowledge of every Member of the House that very great abuses had resulted from the enlarged powers of forming Companies which had been originated by the legislation of the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe). The principle of that legislation was that persons might, by complying with certain legal formalities, form themselves into a Corporation, without being obliged to obtain a Charter or an Act of Parliament; and the consequence of the formation of a
  1708
  Corporation was that its funds and not its individual members were liable for its debts. No doubt this privilege, which was a great advance on the former state of things, had been abused, and considerable disaster had been occasioned to individuals; but the Limited Liability Acts were not the first under which speculators had found dupes, and what the House had to consider was whether, looking broadly at the matter, the effect of the Companies Act of 1862, which was a consolidation of the Act of 1856, with one or two later Acts, had, or had not, been beneficial? In his opinion, the result, on the whole, had been eminently beneficial. The question, whether the abuses which might happen were such as to make Parliament again interfere to prevent them by legislation, was one of great difficulty. It was, he thought, a sound principle, that a man should not be responsible for more than he agreed to subscribe. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) spoke of the liability conferred by these Acts being practically unlimited, but that was a popular and not an accurate way of stating that people sometimes contracted to pay more than they expected to be called upon to pay. If, however, a man took a £100 share, on which at first he was only asked to pay £5, he had no right to complain if he was afterwards asked to pay the remaining £95, and he had to thank the Legislature that he was not responsible to the extent of the whole of his fortune. Had he been so responsible—as he would have been under the former law—he would have appreciated the difference between unlimited and limited liability. If people would speculate they must take the consequences, and nothing which Parliament could accomplish would ever do more than create a false security by making such people trust to the law instead of their own common sense. The borrowing powers of Parliamentary Companies were limited to one-third of their share capital and the debentures of the good railways were first-class securities; but, notwithstanding this provision, there were railway debentures which were worthless. The value of an investment was determined by its intrinsic merits, not by the legislation of Parliament. Indeed, Parliamentary limitations had in many cases—as in that of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company

  1709
  —operated prejudicially, as they had prevented the Companies from borrowing the money necessary to complete the works required to enable them to earn dividends, and had driven them into debt, on what were termed Lloyd's Bonds, far exceeding what they would have required to borrow on more legitimate security. There was great difference of opinion in the Committee as to whether any practical good could be done by the interference of the Legislature. The minority were of opinion that to attempt to give Parliamentary guarantees would only create the same evils in a different way; and though the majority thought that something should be done, they had not favoured the House with any practical suggestions. Though, upon the whole, the operations of the Acts of 1862 and 1867 were satisfactory, yet there were points in those Acts which required amendment; and he hoped that the noble Lord now at the head of the Board of Trade, and the Attorney General, would take the trouble to read through the Report of the Select Committee and consider whether something should not be done. He had no hesitation in saying that the 38th section of the Act, which had been so fruitful of litigation, had done quite as much harm to innocent individuals as it ever did good, by protecting against imprudence. This section was one instance of a well-meaning, but unfortunate, attempt, to prevent people from the consequences of their own folly. The truth was, if the law were properly administered, it was strong enough to cope with rascality, when proved; and the more they multiplied forms and the more they induced persons to believe that they could find safety behind those forms without the exercise of their own caution and good sense, the more they opened the door to rascals, and the more they enabled scoundrels to carry on their nefarious business. The more simple the law could be made in that respect the better. It might not be without advantage to look at what was done in other countries. The difference between our law in regard to Joint Stock Enterprises, and that which prevailed in foreign countries, consisted chiefly in this—we had full liberty to establish a Company with any amount of capital and for any conceivable purpose; while, on the Continent, they did not allow the creation of
  1710
  large Public Companies without the authorization of the Government. But on the Continent and in several of the States in America there was an intermediate system between Chartered Public Companies and private partnerships unknown to us. Some of the witnesses before the Committee recommended, as one means of remedying some of the scandals or absurdities of the existing system, the adoption of a class of partnerships in which the liability of members was limited, not, as here, to the sum they might agree to contribute, but by the sum in hard cash which they actually invested in the enterprise. In France, such a partnership was called en commandite, the manager or gérant, being liable to his last farthing, and the other members of the firm only to the extent of their actual contributions. This secured to creditors the certainty that they gave credit to something actually existing and tangible, and to creditors and partners alike the guarantee that the managing partner would use all due care on account of his personal responsibility; while, at the same time, it assisted enterprise by providing capital free from the perils of unlimited liability. He believed such a system, if introduced into this country, would be very considerably availed of. Up to this time the proposal had not found general favour—though many able men had spent much time in recommending it. He hoped the Attorney General would turn his attention to this subject.
  MR. D. DAVIESthought, that if Parliament passed as many measures as there were Members in the House, it would never cure the evil until the people who invested in trading Companies lost every halfpenny they possessed. This arose, not from the wickedness of Parliament, but from the wickedness of those who had the management of such concerns. There was no wonder that people who invested in them lost their money. He did not refer to banks or Railway Companies; but in iron mines, collieries, and manufactories of all descriptions, nothing was easier than to get up a Limited Liability Company. People were anxious to get 10 per cent for their money, and they put it into a limited liability company. The concern got on very well for a year or two, but the directors were not always the best principled

  1711
  men; they did not look to the proper working of the business, but to jobbing in the shares. No dividend was paid after the first year or two; the concern came to grief; the shares fell from £100, perhaps, to £3; the directors then bought them up, and the result was that people who had invested their all lost everything they had and died of a broken heart. No Act of Parliament, he feared, could prevent this.
  VISCOUNT SANDONbelieved the House would agree with him in thinking that, considering the very short time he had been connected with his present Office, it would be unsuitable for him to enter into a general discussion of this important subject. The question was, undoubtedly, an important one, and affected very many of the inhabitants of these islands. He might, however, congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), not only on the interesting speech which he had made, but on the important speeches which had been made on the other side. He hoped his hon. Friend would not think that the Board of Trade had entirely neglected the subject to which he had called attention. Since the Report of the Committee had been made, that Board had endeavoured to enforce proper Returns from all existing Companies which had been created under the Acts of Parliament, and had also endeavoured to obtain from the Court of Chancery Returns of the various Companies which had been ordered to be wound up; and he thought that those Returns would lead to useful action in legislation. He was glad that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) had put in a protest against over-meddling on the part of the Government or Parliament; but he very much appreciated, also, the spirit in which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies) had treated the matter, and it would be well that people should take his remarks to heart. His own feeling was that we should be exceedingly jealous about over-interference. He saw with horror the danger of too much interference, and with still greater horror, as time went on, the number of ignorant people, and of people less ignorant, who thought, owing to Government interference, that the State was taking the whole responsibility on its own shoulders of seeing that commercial
  1712
  undertakings were sound, and that they need not trouble themselves about the matter. For his own part, it would be his duty, and also his pleasure, to read the evidence of the important Committee which sat last year, and to consider carefully their Report; and he would not fail to turn over in his mind the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry with regard to what was going on in France. Of course, he could give no pledge whatever as to what the Government would do in regard to future legislation; but he would consider the whole subject carefully, and he trusted his hon. Friend who had brought forward the subject would be content with what had passed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  DR. KENEALYsaid, that he had to move the following Resolution:—
  "That it is a high Breach of the Privileges of this House to obstruct the freedom and independence of Members of Parliament in putting questions to Ministers, upon their responsibility as representatives of the people, and in the discharge of their public duty, such questions being framed in decorous language, and having for their object to elicit information on matters of public interest."
  He need hardly say that he did not mean to move this Resolution in a spirit of hostility to anyone. But he thought it right, being himself a sufferer by the practice of which he complained, to elicit some opinion from the House on a matter which, in the words of his intended Resolution, affected "the freedom and independence of Members of Parliament." In the course of last Session, he put a Question to the Home Secretary, with reference to a woman named Mina Jury, who was one of the most important witnesses in the trial of the Tichborne case. A statement reached him that she was a convict in 1847, and all knew that she was convicted for robbery in 1875. He asked the Home Secretary, whether the person convicted in 1875 was the same as was convicted in 1847? and the right hon. Gentleman assured the House that she was not. That occurred in August, and in the September following there was a trial,

  1713
  and a Superintendent in Scotland Yard, who had been appointed to find out the antecedents of Mina Jury—
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock till Monday next.