[BILL 23.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 May 1883)

§ MR. BRYCE
, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that this was the third time the Bill had been before the House. In 1881 it received the sanction of the Government and of both sides of the House, but was talked out. In 1882 it had boon read a second time and considered by a largo Select Committee, which sat for six weeks; but when it returned to the House it was blocked and lost for the Session. He had brought it in this year in the form recommended by the Select Committee of last year, which was presided over by the First Commissioner of Works. It proposed to apply to purposes presently beneficial to the inhabitants of all London charitable funds now wasted in the ancient City. This ancient City of London consisted of only one square mile, the population of which had been gradually diminishing, the area formerly occupied by residences being now filled by warehouses and offices. At the present time the population numbered less than 50,000, whereas in 1851 it was 150,000. In proportion, however, as the population had diminished, the parochial charities bad steadily increased in value to such an extent that they now represented a total annual value of about £130,000, a sum which, by judicious management, might very soon be increased to a gross aggregate of £200,000 a-year. These charities were attached to particular parishes. There were 108 civil parishes in the City, and many of them had no population at all, except the two or three people who lived as caretakers in some huge piles of 1696 offices, the church officials, and the alms-people. The objects upon which the secular funds were spent might be divided into three classes. Some of these objects were obsolete—as, for instance, sermons on the defeat of the Spanish Armada, money to redeem captives from Barbary, or to buy faggots for burning heretics. Not less than £ 10,000 a-year was wasted in doles to the poor, which only had the effect of keeping up a pauperized class and deterring people from earning a livelihood by honest industry. Then large sums were spent in banquets, for the purpose, it was said, of promoting good fellowship. The money was, in fact, doing little or no good, and, to some extent, positive harm. Some idea of the effect of the present administration of the charities might be obtained from the fact that the ratio of persons receiving outdoor relief in the whole population of the Metropolis was one in 37, whereas the ratio in the ancient City of London was one in 16. The amount spent in outdoor relief in the whole Metropolis was at the rate of 1s. 2¼d. per head, while in the ancient City of London it was 4s. 4¼d.—nearly four times as much. He was bringing no charge against the trustees of these charities; the present abuses were the result simply of the law, perpetuating a state of things which London had entirely outgrown. The present Bill proposed, first, to appoint a Commission with full power to inquire into the condition of the charities, and to separate the ecclesiastical from the secular funds. The question had arisen whether there should be a special Commission, or whether the inquiry should be conducted by the Charity Commissioners. The Select Committee had expressed the opinion that it would be better, for the sake of economy and speed, that the inquiry should be conducted by the Charity Commissioners, and the Bill adopted that view. Secondly, it was proposed that the surplus ecclesiastical funds should be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; while the funds classified as secular should, after making due provision for vested interests, and for such present objects of the charities as might be beneficially continued, be applied to purposes of education, the establishment of Libraries, Museums, Art Collections, open spaces and recreation grounds, provident institutions, and convalescent 1697 hospitals. A general power would also be given to the Commissioners to propose the application of part of the money to any other useful purposes not specified in the Bill which they might see cause to recommend. It was also proposed that this application of the money should extend over the whole Metropolitan Police District —that was, for the benefit of 4,000,000 people. He believed there would be no opposition to the general scope of the measure. It was admitted that something must be done, and that the reform ought to proceed on the lines he had indicated; but he understood that some of the churchwardens who were ex officio trustees of charities thought the Bill went too far, and that the management of the charities ought to remain in their hands. It was, however, very undesirable that there should be a great multiplicity of governing bodies, because this involved needless expenditure and a complexity which prevented applications to large purposes. There was another point of view from which the Bill was criticized—that of those who held that the ecclesiastical part of these funds ought to be taken away from the Church of England and thrown into the general secular funds. Personally, he agreed with this view, because he conceived the Church of England would be benefited by disendowment; but, considering the opposition which such a proposal would excite, and the desirability of no longer delaying a reform so much needed, he had thought it wise to propose no alteration of the law in this respect. He should be glad to let the Bill go to the same Select Committee which considered it last year. He now earnestly begged the House to allow this great reform to be carried through, and thus to remove the obstacles which now dammed up and rendered useless, or worse than useless, what ought to be a fertilizing stream of wealth. He appealed to the friends of the churchwardens to raise their minds above those personal or local feelings which made them wish to retain the control of these endowments. And, finally, he entreated the whole House not to let this Session pass without giving the benefit of these enormous funds to the poorer classes of London, who so sorely needed those means of enlightenment and enjoyment which might thus be brought within 1698 their reach. He also appealed to his Nonconformist Friends not to allow their abstract principles—principles which, however important, could find no present application here—to interfere with so important a measure of practical reform. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he understood that the hon. Gentleman had proposed that the churchwardens and other persons interested in the Charities should have the opportunity of appearing by counsel before the Committee, which, would consequently be able to act judicially in the matter. This being the case, he would not pursue the course he adopted in opposing the Bill two years ago, before that pledge was given.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
, as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was referred last year, expressed a hope that the House would assent to the second reading. He did not think the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) correctly understood what fell from his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). What he understood his hon. Friend to say was that counsel would be heard on the clauses, but not on the general principle of the Bill. He hoped the same tactics would not be pursued this year as were pursued last year—that the Committee would not be treated with something like contempt; by threats that if its decisions were not favourable to the views of the Trustees of these Charities, the further progress of the measure would not be blocked. It was an important measure, and ought to be passed without delay. Under the present system there was an enormous waste of money, and Charities to the extent of £140,000 a-year, which might be easily made £200,000 a-year, were now worse than wasted. The object of this Bill was to divert these charitable endowments for the benefit of the whole of London, and the sooner that object was attained the better it would be.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
said, he could not help remarking that under this Bill half of this money would go to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Church purposes. That would lead to the crea- 1699 tion of new Church interests, which he much deprecated. He thought that it would be better to wait for the creation of the New London Municipality before dealing with the question. The Charities had waited so long that they might well wait a little longer for the settlement of the whole question. He was so strongly in favour of local self-government that he would rather the Bill was postponed than legislate on the lines at present proposed.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
held that, whatever was done with the money in question, it should not be applied to secular purposes. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) never rose in the House but to attack the Church of England.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
demurred to that statement. He was as true a friend, and a much safer one, of the Church of England than the hon. Alderman.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, he was glad to hear the hon. Member's disclaimer. He understood that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee, before whom counsel were to appear on behalf of the City parishes, and he should not, therefore, oppose the second reading.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
expressed a hope that in the destination of these surplus Church funds the principle of the Endowed Schools Act would not be overlooked. In his opinion, the Bill would have been better had it not proposed to continue the application of these funds to ecclesiastical purposes. He protested against ecclesiastical endowments in the City of London being merely extended to the whole of the Metropolitan area.

§ SIR EDWARD WATKIN
asked, whether the Government, who were about to bring in a Bill for the reform of the Corporation, were prepared to leave the question in the hands of private Members? The question was so large that it ought not to be thus left without at least some more clear idea of the course which the Government proposed to take. The capitalized value of the Charities to be interfered with was £6,000,000 sterling. Not a word had been said as to the actual views of the Government itself. He presumed they had some opinion or other on the subject.