§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Appointment of additional Charity Commissioners).
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he wished to move an Amendment. The power to ascertain whether the charities were for ordinary or for ecclesiastical purposes was vested in the Charity Commissioners, who had this power for three years. If they had any bias, it would be seen that they possessed very great powers in regard to determining the character of the Act.. If the Commissioners were adherents of the Church of England, what security was there as to their decision upon a charity of a doubtful character? The time had gone when an appeal ought to be made to the fairness of any body of men; and, seeing that this Bill required every Commissioner to be a member of the Church of England, he should propose to introduce a provision that they should not be adherents of the Church of England. The number of Commissioners was to be increased from six to eight; and if this Amendment was agreed to there would be some security that the character of 870 the charities should not be determined by men of one religious community. Why should the question of religious denomination be introduced into this matter at all? He had raised this question scores of times, for his object was to was to destroy the one-sided character of these public Bodies, and to insist that, if we could not rely upon the individuals, there should be protection against religious injustice being done. The great mass of the people desired to have this security, and it would be a great advantage if the Committee would accept his proposal. If that was done the matter would not rest here; but some further steps would be taken with regard to such Bodies as the Endowed Schools Commission, and a crowd of others, and a new and better state of things would be commenced.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 31, after the word "two," to insert the words "not being adherents of the Church of England." — (Mr. worth.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BRYCEsympathized very much with the view of the hon. Member; and he hoped that, on the next vacancy, the Government would see their way to gratifying the Nonconformists by appointing one of their members. But he could not say that he thought this a happy Amendment, because it would very much hamper Her Majesty's choice. He did not think there was any likelihood of any question arising under this Bill, which would make it necessary to bring again to the front those denominational questions which would seem to make this Proviso requisite.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he could recall cases in which it was proposed to exclude the masses from dealing with matters in which public property was concerned; and he had uniformly voted against such proposals. His object was that all classes of Her Majesty's subjects should be provided for. The hon. Member (Mr. Bryce) expressed a hope that the Nonconformists would be considered by those with whom the matter rested, but the same hope had been entertained for generations; and it was because nothing had been done that it was necessary to take such action as this, in order to prevent one-sided arrange- 871 ments. He stood upon the high ground of fairness and justice.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he scarcely thought the hon. Member was serious, for his proposal would introduce into the statute a disqualification of a very peculiar character; and it would be the first time that any such words had been put into any statute.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was a very curious thing that Ministers always seemed to think it was a sufficient answer to say that it was the first time such a thing had been proposed. They must understand that we were an aggressive nation. In matters of religion he had no sort of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. There were already six Commissioners; but how many of these were Dissenters? [An hon. MEMBER: Not one.] Not one. How many members of the Church of England? Six. It would, no doubt, be said that they happened to be the best men; but unless a protest was made now, and this Amendment was distinctly inserted in the Bill, it was certain that the two new Commissioners would be Church of England men, just as the present six were.
Question put.
The Committee divided:— Ayes 26; Noes 57: Majority 31. — (Div. List, No. 240.)
§ MR. HEALYproposed at the same place to insert "of whom one shall be a Roman Catholic." He did so, he said, on the ground that most of these charities had come from Roman Catholic foundations. The pious donors in most of the cases were Roman Catholics; and when there was so much bigotry displayed, he thought one Roman Catholic Commissioner should be insisted upon. He hoped to see in the Lobby in support of that view those Gentlemen who had objected to all the Commissioners being members of the Church of England.
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 31, after the word "two," to insert the words "of whom one shall be a Roman Catholic."—(Mr. Healy.)Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had walked out of the House on the last Division, as he did not like to be a particeps criminis 872 in the sham vote of the Nonconformist English Radical humbugs.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he would withdraw "humbugs," and substitute for it "sham Liberals." he hoped the Conservative Party in the House would support this Amendment; and he should be anxious to see whether the Amendment would have the support of the enlightened and chivalrous Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), who always supported Liberalism in profession, but the very opposite by his votes.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would not persist in his Amendment, particularly as a Great many poor Catholics would be benefited by the Bill. The best service the hon. Member could render his co-religionists in the City would be to support the measure.
MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, there was no difference between this proposal and that which had been made previously. There was already a Charity Commission in existence, the whole of the Members of which were confined to one religious body; and the object of his Amendment had been to enable Her Majesty to make selections front the whole range of Her Majesty's subjects—that was to say, she should be free to accept other than members of the Church of England. There was no partiality or injustice implied in his Amendment; and he should not like to at all narrow the choice of selection in any way. He should, therefore, feel himself bound to go against the proposal of the hon. Member, which was by no means as liberal as that which he had himself proposed.
§ MR. WILLISsaid, he should support the Amendment. [Laughter.] Hon. Members around him might laugh; but he was serious in what he was saying. He should endeavour, as far as in him lay, to break down the exclusive character of the appointments that were made upon this Commission and upon other Bodies. No Dissenter ever found his way to any responsible position, members of the Church of England being always appointed; and as he could not get the wider proposition of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) accepted, he would support the narrower one, and would show his genuineness 873 in the Lobby by voting with the hon. Member for Monaghan.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there were a large number of Catholics in the Metropolis who were interested in these charities; and he should like to know why, if that were so, they should net have a Representative on the Commission? he had voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), whose proposal he should have very much preferred to this one. It seemed to him that, logically, they could not avoid voting for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). It was regarded as a preposterous thing, even amongst Gentlemen who took extreme views as to religion, that out of eight Commissioners there should not be one Catholic. He should like to see a Catholic on the Commission; but he had no doubt that unless this Amendment were passed such a thing would never happen. Just as he had voted for the hon. Member for Bradford because he had exceedingly little, he might almost say no confidence in the application of religious principles by Her Majesty's Government, so he should vote for this Amendment.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)wished to point out one thing that might increase the confidence of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) in Her Majesty's Government upon these matters. He would remind the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government had only recently placed a Roman Catholic on the Bench.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, with regard to the observation which had just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, he was sorry to be obliged to say that some of the very worst appointments the Government had ever made had been appointments of Catholics. If the hon. and learned Member had anything to do with the patronage of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland, particularly with regard to the Bench, he (Mr. O'Connor) should be very much obliged to him if, on all occasions in the future, he would select Protestants for those appointments and not Catholics. He must say he had been very much astonished to hear the First Commissioner of Works say that a Motion of the kind proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for 874 Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) similar to that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) was unprecedented in its character. Was it not a fact that there were several offices confined to members of the State Church? The Office of Representative of Her Majesty in Ireland was still expressly excluded from being bestowed upon a nobleman who might happen to be of the same religion as the majority of the Irish people. He could not understand the objection of the hon. Member for Bradford to this Amendment, taking it side by side with the objection of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). He (Mr. O'Conner) maintained that the claim of Roman Catholics to have a Representative on the Commission was stronger than that of any other body, and that for two reasons. First, because a great deal of the money which came from these charities was Catholic money; and, secondly, because a great many of the poor, for whose benefit the charities were intended, were Catholic poor. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets admitted that a certain section of persons for whom this Bill was intended would be Catholics. He (Mr. O'Connor) ventured to say that nearly half the poor of London who would have a right to make a claim under this Bill were of the Catholic religion; and, therefore, they had a right to have a Member upon the Commission. His hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) did not, he was sure, view this Amendment in the same light in which the hon. Member for Bradford viewed his. They meant to stick to this Amendment, and to carry it if they could; and if they succeeded in their object they intended to force the Government to grant further reforms.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to point out to a limited number of Members the consequence of the vote they might give upon this question. The question was as to whether there should be a Catholic on the Commission or not; and he would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Stalybridge (Mr. Summers), and other Members from Lancashire districts who professed Radical principles—[Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Do not go into that.] The hon. Member for Galway asked him not to go into this matter; but the hon. Member had been a Radical himself at one time. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR.: And so were 875 you.] It was true he had been a Radical, and he hoped the hon. Member was as sorry for his old profession as he was. He regretted ever having given support to the Liberal Party. He would call upon hon. Members opposite, who represented constituencies largely composed of Catholics, to vote for this Amendment. He would ask those hon. Gentlemen to remember, and he would ask the Catholics of Lancashire to remember, that the Solicitor General gave as the Government objection to the Amendment that the Government had already appointed a Catholic Judge on the Bench. Mr. Justice Mathew and Mr. Justice Day had won their promotion in spite of their religion, and net because of it. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to hear that cheer from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that those gentlemen had won their promotion despite their religion; and now, forsooth, the hon. and learned Gentleman threw this fact in the face of Catholic Members when they were asked to put a Catholic on the Charity Commission. He would ask who put the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General on the Front Opposition Bench opposite—what votes had placed him on the Treasury Bench but the Irish Catholic votes of Durham? Therefore, what presumption it was for him to come and throw in their teeth that a Catholic had been placed upon the Bench. He trusted that the Irish electors and the Catholic electors, not alone of Lancashire but of Durham, would remember this at the next election. He trusted that the vote the Government gave to-night upon this question would be remembered against Liberal Members who seemed to be anti-Irish and anti-Catholic.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 14; Noes 61: Majority 47. — (Div. List, No. 241.)
Clause agreed to.
§ MR. CALLANI want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether you are not in error in dealing in this way with a Bill which is seriously contested? ["Order, order!"] I am in Order in asking whe- 876 ther it is right to put these clauses en bloc?
THE CHAIRMANThe course is perfectly in Order, as there are no Amendments to these clauses. Each clause is named separately and slowly, so as to give any hon. Member who chose an opportunity of proposing an Amendment. The Question is, that Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 be added to the Bill.
Clauses agreed to.
Clause 14 (Provisions to be inserted in schemes relating to parishes in Second Schedule to this Act).
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment in page 6, line 28, leave out all after "thereto" to end of line 38, and insert—
With the consent of the trustees to declare by a scheme under this Act that it is desirable to apply for the advancement of education the whole or any part of such property, and thereupon the same shall be deemed to be an educational endowment, and may be dealt with by the same scheme accordingly.The effect of the Amendment would be this. In the City, besides the ecclesiastical endowments, which had a certain amount of utility, and which could be applied within the parishes for which they were established, there was also a large amount of surplus or useless ecclesiastical funds — money left, for instance, for the preaching of a sermon annually on the defeat of the Spanish Armada, on the discovery of the Guy Fawkes conspiracy, and for the purchase of fagots for burning heretics, all of which had become obsolete; and there were others which, though they were not obsolete, applied to areas which had so shrunk as to render it impossible to apply the money. Everyone knew that the City was full of small parishes, which had endowments which had become entirely obsolete. In the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 this clause he was now proposing had been in principle adopted. It was provided in that Act that if any fund became obsolete for the purpose for which it was originally granted, or if the parish had become so large that the money could not be usefully applied to it, power was taken, with the consent of the trustees, to apply the funds to education. His proposal was that where charities of this kind existed in the City, and there were surplus funds which could not possibly be applied within the 877 parishes, the principle adopted in the Endowed Schools Act should operate, and the money should be devoted to unsectarian education. The answer might be given to him that the contrary principle of applying ecclesiastical endowments over the area of greater London which were intended for the City had been adopted in the case of the City churches. In that case, however, the endowments were a portion of the general ecclesiastical establishment of the Church of England as by law established. They were part of then general ecclesiastical property of the Church, just like the property of the Deans and Chapters. But these charities were not part of the ecclesiastical property of the Church of England, and in many cases it was quite accidental that there were Church bequests.Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 28, to leave out all the words after the word "thereto," to end of line 38, in order to insert the words "with the consent of the trustees to declare by a scheme under this Act that it is desirable to apply for the advancement of education the whole or any part of such property, and thereupon the same shall be deemed to be an educational endowment, and may be dealt with by the same scheme accordingly."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that these funds, which were left for the purpose of burning heretics and things of that kind, were to be inherited by the Church of England; but what right had the Church of England to them? Surely such funds ought to be devoted to the purposes of education, so that the people might be instructed how wrong it was to burn heretics or anybody else. There was no reason in the world why the Church of England, which already owned vast millions of property which belonged to the nation, should be endowed with further powers and emoluments. He would infinitely rather vote these funds to the Catholic Church, or the Quakers, or any single section in the world than to the Church of England; because the Church of England was the one sect that held, and insisted on retaining, property which belonged to the whole nation. It was all very well to bring on Bills of this importance in the small hours of the morning, when the 878 reporters were not present, or, at any rate, were not reporting the proceedings of the House; but they ought, he thought, to seriously consider whether they should allow, either now or at any other time, such abominable proposals as were contained in this Bill to become law? He had no doubt that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had put these proposals in the Bill in the hope that he would acquire votes by so doing; but, at any rate, the hon. Member, by this course, had not succeeded in acquiring his (Mr. Labouchere's) vote. He thought the whole subject should be discussed more seriously than it had been up to the present. He protested against the Church of England holding the money bags which belonged to the nation; and so long as he had the honour of a seat in the House, whenever he heard of an attempt, direct or indirect, to give the Church of England one single farthing more than it had a right to possess, he should do his best to oppose the proposal. And when he heard any proposal in that House to deprive the Church of England of that which it at present possessed, he should always do his best to support it.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, there was a clause in the Bill which directed the Commissioners to ascertain what was ecclesiastical and what was not. It was not proposed to give to the Church of England anything which it did not now possess.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was afraid the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had not had much experience of the claims made by the Church of England.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 30: Majority 17. — (Div. List, No. 242.)
§ MR. FIRTHproposed, in page 6, line 30, to leave out all after "applied to," to "generally to," in line 34, inclusive. The Committee having decided that these funds should not be brought under the same provisions as those which were contemplated in the Endowed Schools Act, he supposed the funds were now to be applied for the purpose of the Church of England. His Amendment provided that there should not be constituted new vested interests which might require to be compensated. If the time should come when the Church was disendowed it 879 would be necessary to compensate the interests it was by this Bill proposed to create.
Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, to leave out all the words after the words "applied to" to the words "generally to," in line 34, inclusive.—(Mr. Firth.)
Question proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment, in favour of which he voted in the Select Committee. He was obliged, however, to stand by the Bill as it now appeared; and he was bound to say it seemed to him to represent all that could be carried.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would decide in favour of this Amendment. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Amendment had anything to do with the Disestablishment of the Church of England. The Amendment would simply prevent the building of new churches, and the establishment of poverty-stricken ministers, in districts where they were not required. In point of fact, this was a question of the exercise of common sense in the application of the funds.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought they might very fairly and wisely leave it to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to say how the money should be spent.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 32: Majority 6. — (Div. List, No. 243.)
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 19 (Commissioners need not specify in scheme the precise objects to which general charity property shall be applied).
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this clause provided that Commissioners should not specify in the scheme they drew up the precise objects to which the charity should be applied. It seemed to him such a provision as that was one of the most mischievous which could possibly be inserted in a Bill of this description. They knew perfectly well that most of these charities, because "ill 880 gotten, go ill." If this clause were passed unamended it might reasonably be concluded that the door would be opened to fraud and misapplication of charity funds. He, therefore, proposed to omit the word "not," in line 42, so that the clause should provide that the Commissioners should be bound to specify in every scheme the precise objects to which the charities were to be applied.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member had better negative the whole clause, for the omission of the word "not" would really negative the clause.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the clause read as follows:—"Shall not be bound to specify." His hon. Friend merely proposed to omit the word "not."
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, his object was to insist upon the Commissioners doing what the clause now said they should not do.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would put the Question as the hon. Gentleman wished.
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 42, to leave out the word "not."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the omission of the word "not" would make the clause nonsense.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether it would not be competent, in case the Amendment were carried, to propose consequential Amendments upon it when they came to a later part of the clause?
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) would, on further consideration, see that the clause was not open to the objection he raised. The form of the clause was common to Bills of this kind, and the object was to prevent the Commissioners being obliged to specify everything with great exactness. The clause was not intended to admit of laxity.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that if it were feared they would, by omitting the word "not," be laying down for the Commissioners too hard-and-fast a line, it would be better to omit the clause altogether. The clause, as it stood, would 881 allow the Commissioners to play ducks and drakes with the funds at their disposal. Although all the Commissioners might be members of the Church of England they ought not to have such power.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 46 (Schemes to contain no preference for any religious denomination).
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the Amendment he had now to propose was one which be believed would be accepted by his hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce). It was to leave out, in page 16, line 2, "to the members," and insert, "by the deed of foundation to the spiritual purposes."
Amendment proposed,
In page 16, line 2, to leave out the words "to the members," and insert the words "by the deed of foundation to the spiritual purposes."—(Mr. Illingworth.)Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Bryce) to consider whether this was not a departure from the arrangement arrived at. He had understood that the Bill was to be carried through the House in the same form in which, after serious discussion, it came from the Select Committee. This Amendment would effect a substantial change, because it proposed to divert the charities which were, by their foundation, expressly devoted to the temporal relief of members of the Church of England, or, indeed, of any other denomination. He could not understand why the appropriation of charities should not be respected as much in temporal as in spiritual matters.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. J. G. Talbot) would not divide upon this Amendment. The Amendment proposed really expressed the intention of' the Select Committee. The hon. Member would remember that he (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) had a clause on the Paper to prevent the attaching of any denominational character to any of 882 the schemes. It was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) and others that it was quite possible there might be a Quaker or Jewish foundation; and if his clause were carried it might compel the Commissioners to take those foundations and throw them into the hotch-potch, and thereupon the clause as it stood was drafted on the spur of the minute; but the Amendment was needed to make the intention of the Committee clear.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Preamble to the Bill."
§ MR. O'SHEAsaid, he had no wish to oppose the passing of the Bill; but he desired to give some Member of the Government an opportunity to state that no further legislation would be attempted after this Bill, and for that purpose he would move that Progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O' Shea.)
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member for Clare had usually supported the Government, and yet the Government did not think it necessary to give him a civil answer to a civil question. On the previous night, at about half-past 1 o'clock, the Irish Members had made a proposal to the Government as to the necessity fer reporting Progress on the Estimates, in order that some understanding might be come to upon some other matters. They got an understanding from the Government that they would not proceed with any important Bill at that hour; and if it was too late then to proceed, how much stronger reason was there against proceeding now? The Irish Members had assisted in a considerable amount of legislation on the part of English Members; and he thought it was only right that English Members should show the same consideration to them. Any attempt to pro- 883 teed further with legislation to-night would only lead to a prolonged wrangle.
§ MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the adoption of the Motion to report Progress would lead to the consideration at once of the next Motion.
§ MR. HEALYprotested against this method of treating the House, and said he thought a Division should be taken. He did not wish to put the Committee to inconvenience; but was it worth while to keep up this humbug under the New Rules
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, there was no Member of the Government present, and he thought it would be only respectful to the Committee that some Member of the Government should be present. Hon. Members having assisted the Government, they were entitled to have a definite answer from the Government, or else they should refuse to allow Business to go on.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was no advocate of this Bill; but he wished to point out that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had conducted it through the House with great courtesy. All the Amendments had been got through; the Bill had been before the House for a long time, and he thought it would be better to dispose of it to-night.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) would not persist in his Motion. The only question was, whether the Preamble of the Bill should be agreed to? Several hours had been spent on the Bill; and as soon as the Bill was through the Government would state what course they would take.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, if this sort of conduct on the part of the Government was to be allowed, the procedure of the House would no longer be creditable.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who had now used improper and disorderly language, was the very Gentleman who shortly before had declined to make any statement as to the Business of the House, because it would be contrary to the Now Rules.
THE CHAIRMANNo words reached me which I considered out of Order. The Question is, that I now report Progress.
Motion, by leave withdrawn.
884 Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.