COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 8 August 1882)

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, he should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could give the House some information about the nature of the Bill, and the necessity for it. He (Mr. Talbot) understood that the measure had not been explained to the House; and when he looked at the back of it, he saw that it was only ordered to be printed on the 5th August—that was to say, on Saturday last—and only 1268 read a second time last night. He did not know what charities it proposed to deal with; but it seemed to him to be a Bill for transferring certain charities from the present trustees to the Secretary of State, and allowing the Charity Commissioners to make schemes for these charities on the application of the Secretary of State instead of the trustees. That might, or might not, be right; but it certainly did seem to him a matter which should be explained to the House. It seemed to be a measure of centralization, such as the House should not be called on to agree to at such a period of the Session as that, when there was not time to see whether the scope of the Bill was as large as would seem to be implied. If the Committee would look at the 2nd clause, they would find that the expression "Prison Charity" was remarkably wide. He did not, as he had said, know what the number of the charities was, nor did he know for what reason the Bill was introduced; but, in order to give the House 1269 an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it, he would move the adjournment of the debate. He did not move it in a hostile spirit, as he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to show him that there was nothing sinister in the Bill; but he took that course as a protest against the measure having been brought forward at that late period of the Session. They ought to be told why it had not been dealt with at an earlier period of the Session, and why it was now being carried hurriedly through another stage without description or explanation.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, he could assure the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Talbot) that the Government had no sinister motive in bringing forward that Bill. The Bill was one which had been long desired. It had been recommended by the Public Accounts Committee for several years, and it would supply a necessity which had long been felt. The truth was, that the Prison Commissioners came in as successors to trustees of prison charities, which properly belonged to the local authorities. There had been no regular or recognized way of dealing with a number of, generally speaking, very small bequests left in connection with the prisons, and considerable difficulty in dealing with the accounts had been experienced through the charities not having been brought under a regular form of administration. This had been a real difficulty, and it had been pointed out over and over again by the Commissioners themselves. The matter was not on a satisfactory footing, and it was deemed desirable that a scheme should be prepared for dealing with these bequests. He hoped the hon. Member would consider this a satisfactory explanation of the objects with which the Bill had been prepared. No doubt, it was inconvenient for the Bill to be brought in at that period of the Session: but it must be borne in mind that the measure was not of a controversial character, nor of any great magnitude. It was only a simple piece of legislative reform.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
said, that he wished, as a Member of the Public 1270 Accounts Committee, to support what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He (Sir Henry Holland) himself must plead guilty to having urged very strongly upon the Government the desirability of bringing in the Bill this Session. The question had been for years before them, and it was really very important, although the sums dealt with were very small.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, he hoped that, under the circumstances, seeing that the House was satisfied, and had passed the Bill through Committee without Amendment, that hon. Members would now allow it to be read a third time.