§ SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)asked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther), whether, in the month of June, 1887, an official inquiry was held by Mr. Inspector Goode into the proposed re-organization of the Colwich Charities; whether at such inquiry it was agreed by all parties that the number of persons to form the Committee for the future distribution of the charities should be seven, namely, the Vicars of Colwich and Great Haywood and the Earl of Lichfield, and four others to be elected by the ratepayers; whether it is the fact that, when the scheme came down from the Charity Commissioners, it was found that it provided for two ex-officio and three co-optative members, whilst the parishioners were only to be allowed to elect four members, thus giving the majority to non-elected 406 members; whether the parishioners of Colwich rejected this altered arrangement; whether, notwithstanding repeated applications, the scheme as originally agreed to has been delayed 18 months; what is the reason of this delay; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to have the matter proceeded with at once, and completed in accordance to the expressed wishes of the ratepayers of the parish of Colwich?
MR. J.W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As to the second question, a proposal was made in the sense indicated, as to the composition of the body of Trustees, and no objection was taken by those then present. The answer to the third question is in the affirmative. The number of co-optative Trustees has been fixed at three, with a view to the more efficient administration of the charity over the several outlying areas into which the ancient parish of Colwich has been divided. As to the fourth question, an objection to this portion of the Commissioners' scheme has been received from a section of the parishioners, and has been duly considered. As to the fifth and sixth questions, the delay which has arisen is due to local causes and to the difficulty of defining the areas to be benefited. As to the seventh question, the scheme will shortly be established, in which several of the recommendations made to the Commissioners will be embodied. I desire to point out to the honourable Baronet in reference to his second, fourth, and seventh questions, that the Commissioners are responsible for the scheme, and that no agreement of any two or more sections of the parishioners can preclude the Commissioners from exercising their discretion as to the details of the scheme for the benefit of all parties interested.