§ ٭(12.5.) SIR R. FOWLER (London)I regret to have to trouble the House at this late hour, but this is a matter most important to my constituents, and this is the only opportunity we have of calling the attention of the House to this scheme. In the first place, I wish to say for myself and those I represent in the matter that we do not object to the 1112 scheme as a whole. These is much that is of value in it, but there are serious objections which it is my duty to bring before the House in regard to some of the details of the scheme. One hundred and three parishes are affected by the scheme, and, while it is impossible for me at this late hour to go into all the points involved, I cannot refrain from complaining that Her Majesty's Ministers have declined to receive a deputation of the bodies who have objections on matters of detail to urge on the attention of the Government. On the 8th of December last, I asked the Vice President of the Council a question on the subject, in reply to which he reminded me that I should have an opportunity of moving an Address in the House; that a scheme would be published and a hearing given to the objectors. My right hon. Friend could not have been aware of a letter addressed to the Clerk of the Corporation of London by the Secretary of the Council, in reply to a letter from the Corporation requesting to be heard, with which their Lordships expressed their intention to publish the scheme without delay to allow Parliament time to consider it during the present Session, and further that their Lordships did not propose to receive any deputations on the subject. I cannot complain in one sense that Lord Cranbrook and my right hon. Friend, hard working Ministers of the Crown as they are, should be unable to go into these details. Obviously when there are some fifty bodies having special objections to urge on matters of detail in the scheme, it could hardly be expected that the Minister for Education should go into all these, but if the Vice President and my noble Friend (Lord Cranbrook) were too greatly employed, at least some other and less occupied Members of the Government, like the Lord Privy Seal or the Lords of the Treasury, or a permanent official of the Crown, could have been deputed to examine the questions raised by the various parishes interested. It will be remembered, that in Debates in the House, when the office of Lord Privy Seal has been called in question, it has been argued for the retention of the office that it was desirable there should be some Member of the Government free from official cares, in order that he might take in hand some special 1113 subject. At all events, I do not think it was consistent with the known courtesy of the noble Lord and my right hon. Friend that the Department declined absolutely to receive any deputations. May I remind the House that many of the questions are raised with regard to properties bequeathed to the parishes by benevolent persons who lived in them in former generations? Legacies have been left not, perhaps, in accordance with the views of the present day, but at all events, this property was designed for the benefit of the persons among whom those making the bequests lived, and their representatives now are surely entitled to be heard, and their representations considered by the Government. I know that the Corporation and many of the parishes have made representations asking for favourable considerations at the hands of the Government. It must not be overlooked that the Corporation and the City parishes, generally speaking, do not object to the scheme as a whole, but only to the absence of provisions in respect of objects specially defined by the Act under which the scheme is framed. I will take two or three instances of particular parishes which should have been considered, having regard to the charitable work already being done, and in connection with which no provision has been made for the continuance of such work. There is, for example, the parish of St. Michael, Cornhill. For years past the parish trustees, with the full approval of the Charity Commissioners, have annually distributed a sum of £350 between the London Hospitals—St. Mary's Hospital, King's College Hospital, the London Orphan Asylum, the London Ophthalmic Hospital, the Royal Free Hospital, and one or two other similar institutions. I appeal to hon. Members whether these are not objects well deserving of support. Yet, although the Charity Commissioners have been reminded of this hospital work, and have been asked to afford facilities for the continuance of it, no provision is made in the scheme for the purpose, notwithstanding the all-important fact that the Commission were directed by the Act passed under the auspices of the hon. Gentleman I am glad to see opposite (Mr. Bryce) to have special regard to the wants of the poor in con- 1114 nection with the formation of convalescent homes, provident institutions, and the like. Of the parish of St. Sepulchre I will not say much, because my hon. Friend who is to second the Motion will deal with that particular case; I would only say that that is a parish having a large number of poor who have been wont to receive relief from these funds, and it certainly seems to be only fair that they should continue to do so during existing lives, and that they ought not to be deprived of what has been a source of income for many years. Of course as they drop off, I do not ask that successors should be appointed, and year by year the means in the hands of the Commissioners will become larger. There is another Petition presented from St. Mary-at-Hill, where no allowance is made for the benefit of the parishioners. I will not go into ecclesiastical questions, several of which arise. In the parish of St. Anne's, Blackfriars, in the same way, there are many deserving objects on whose behalf the funds of the parish could still be usefully employed, including a fund for the relief of poor widows. In St. Benet's there is a sum of £150 usefully employed, and in St Mildred's, Poultry, there is a fund to be alienated by the scheme which might be very usefully employed for the relief of necessitous persons, and prevent such from applying for parochial relief. In Allhallows' again, and in other parishes, funds have been provided by the benevolent in former generations, and I do not like to see such funds taken away from those by whom former generations wished them to be appropriated. These are illustrations of the way in which the scheme works. I will not multiply instances, for it is late, and I know many Members desire to speak. All I wish to say is that we desire a full and impartial inquiry, which we consider we have not had, at the hands of the Education Department or the Charity Commissioners. The Commissioners have adopted the scheme on the Table of the House, and they have told complainants they may appeal to the House of Commons. I appeal to the House of Commons accordingly. I ask the House not to sanction the scheme, but let the Education Department go carefully and fully into it. Those whom I represent on this present occasion are ready to be bound 1115 by the objections they have raised; they will not raise any new objections; and on those grounds I earnestly appeal to the House not to sanction the scheme which lies on the Table.
§
Motion made and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the scheme of the Charity Commission now before the House for the management of the Charities comprised in Statements VI. (1) to (15), VII. and VIII. under the above Act."—(Sir Robert Fowler.)
§ (12.21.) MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)In seconding the Motion, I wish to say that people in the City feel that they have not been properly treated, because they have not been allowed to place their views before the Charity Commission. The Act provides in the 25th Section that objections and suggestions shall be received during two months. It is perfectly true that it says "in writing," but it does not mean in writing to be consigned to the waste-paper basket. We have positive knowledge that suggestions which have been made have not been properly considered by the authorities. In one parish in which I am interested an objection was sent signed by more than 1,000 persons, and asking permission for a deputation to attend before the Charity Commissioners, but the objection was never considered, and the objectors were never allowed to appear in any form. We maintain that the Commissioners have exceeded their powers. The parish of St. Sepulchre the Commissioners have arbitrarily divided into two parts, and they have allocated a great deal too much to that part of it which lies outside the City, but in the County of London. This is not a change which can be justified by the Act. There are in the parish 5,000 or 6,000 poor inhabitants, and these are deprived of their share in the funds for the assistance of education and local charitable institutions. If this scheme becomes law now without being sent back to the Charity Commissioners, the parish will be deprived of all remedy, but I hope the House will agree to send back the scheme so that these matters of complaint may be thoroughly investigated.
§ (12.25.) MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)For the convenience of the House, I may say that I shall move 1116 the Resolution of which I have given notice in the form of an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and I and those who act with me intend to vote against the Motion of the hon. Baronet. It may perhaps be for the convenience of hon. Members if I as briefly as possible explain what the Commissioners propose to do by this scheme. They have in accordance with the Act of 1883 divided the charities of certain parishes into two portions—a general portion and an ecclesiastical portion, allocating to the former £56,000 a year, and to the latter £35,000. They have laid aside a capital sum of £300,000, £150,000 of which they propose should be devoted to the preservation of open, spaces in the Metropolis; £80,000 they intend to devote to two institutions in Bishopsgate and Cripplegate, and £51,000 to City polytechnics; £24,500 will be devoted to other polytechnics, with which the scheme properly deals. The scheme assigns for the maintenance of certain polytechnics and other institutions £22,500 a year, to which may be added another £5,000 a year which it is proposed the new governing Body shall bestow on similar institutions to be determined by it. A sum of about £6,000 is allowed for compensation for vested interests. A margin will be left of about £10,000 a year to be disposed of by the governing Body. Although the scheme is open to criticism, it undoubtedly provides for the useful application of a fund which is at present not usefully, and is in many respects badly, applied. Some references have been made in a statement that has been handed round to the small sum that is to be given to the poor in City parishes. Well, poor were to be found in those parishes when these funds were left, but the City has excluded them, and as the rest of the Metropolis has to pay for them, we say that these funds ought to follow them. Although some improvement might be made in the scheme, on the whole, as far as the General Funds go, I and my friends approve of it. It takes the funds from, the City where they are useless and uses them for the Metropolis as the Act directs. But when we come to the disposal of the ecclesiastical funds I have a very different story to tell. There is, as I have indicated, about 1117 £35,000 a year to deal with. It is dealt with as the Act directs. The Act directs the Commissioners to apply the property which is scheduled as ecclesiastical property to the maintenance of the fabric and the services of the church, if any, in any parish possessed of ecclesiastical property applicable to such purposes, and then it goes on to state that the rest of the funds not so applied shall be paid to the Commissioners for use in the Metropolis generally. There are in the 106 parishes of the Metropolis 55 churches, with stipends attaching to them amounting to between £31,000 and £37,000 a year. Sir Henry Peek has taken a census of their congregations on a particular Sunday, and he gives the total attendance as 4,837 persons, almost half of whom were officials, so that 2,784 represented the general congregation. These churches serve a series of parishes whose population amounted in 1881 to only 29,000, and has no doubt fallen since then, seeing that the population of the City has been steadily decreasing. In 1861 the population of the City was 113,000, in 1871 it had fallen to 75,000, and in 1881 to 50,000. As this diminution of the City population has been going on, since the Act was passed, the state of things provided for under the Act has become still more serious. I will now tell the House very briefly how the Charity Commissioners propose to deal with the funds. In the first place, for the repair and restoration of a certain number of the churches, they set aside a sum of £45,000 capital to be paid off in ten equal yearly instalments. In the next place, there are to be certain other payments to specified persons amounting to £4,500 a year; and lastly, they propose to make a perpetual addition to the endowments of £1,573 a year, and to allot £16,200 for the maintenance of the churches and services. What I submit to the House is that under the circumstances these are extreme sums to allow for the carrying out of the purposes of the Act. In fact, there will be less than £10,000 a year—I am told and believe there will be little over £5,000—utilisable for the general ecclesiastical purposes of the whole of the Metropolis out of this sum, although we all of us receive day by day urgent, necessary, and proper claims for many of these purposes outside the City. Let me show why I can justly object to the action of 1118 the Commissioners. Let me give one or two instances of the way in which the scheme will work. The income of the rector of St. Mary Abchurch is variously estimated at £584 and £206 a year. The population of that parish has diminished from 497 in 1861 to 236 in 1881, and at the time Sir Henry Peek took his census, the congregation consisted of 28 persons. Yet it is proposed to add £180 a year to the stipend of the Incumbent, and to expend £1,310 upon the restoration of the church. The stipend of St. Michael, Wood Street, is at present £305 a year. The population of the parish has decreased from 375 in 1861 to 172 in 1881, and the congregation at the time of Sir Henry Peek's census amounted to ten persons. Yet an addition of £100 a year is to be made to the salary of the Incumbent. If you take the number of persons these churches supply, and if you consider that £16,000 is, in addition to what I have referred to, to be spent on the maintenance of the services in these churches, you will see that a sum is being spent which is far beyond the necessities of the case. Even if the terms of the Act of 1883 do require this extreme misappropriation of these ecclesiastical funds, or even if the Commissioners can make out a good case for what they have done—and I think they cannot—all I can suggest is that it would be far better and wiser of the House to suspend that portion of the scheme until some Act dealing with the subject can be passed through the House. If the House agrees to this Motion, it will agree to some such Act, which will set the Commissioners free to deal with this matter, if they are not free at present. The maintenance of these 55 churches in the City of London is an anomaly and a mistake. No doubt some are of great architectural interest, and some are, in fact, required by the spiritual needs of the City, even with its reduced population, but having regard to the facts I have pointed out, I should be glad to see some Act of Parliament passed to enable the Commiissioners to deal with the whole of the case. It has been urged on me by some well-fitted to argue the matter, that if I were to succeed—as I hope I may—in getting the House to assent to the Motion which I shall humbly make, to ask Her Majesty to refuse her consent to this ecclesiastical portion of the scheme, 1119 I should thereby destroy the whole of the scheme of the Commissioners ["Hear, hear!"] Somebody says "Hear, hear," but that is not so. The Act distinctly provides for Her Majesty's assent being withheld from certain portions of the scheme, and the remainder being nevertheless adopted. The scheme is made in what I may call water-tight compartments, so that it is extremely easy to indicate in the House what portions of it are covered by specific objections. The part I object to is covered by specific clauses, and it is possible to hang up certain portions of the scheme to be dealt with in this Act or an amended Act. It has been urged on me that there is another clause in the scheme which I now refer to—Clause 5 —which provides expenses under this Act, and which divides them into two portions, one portion of £24,000 to be charged with the ordinary general funds and the other portion of £16,000 to be charged on the City Church Fund. That division can in no sense hang up or hinder the whole scheme, because I find, under the Act I hold in my hand, that the expenses are so arranged that they may be defrayed in the first instance out of money to be provided by Parliament which shall be ultimately repaid. If we reject this part of the scheme which applies to the ecclesiastical portion of the charity, then Parliament has only, in the meantime, to meet the expenses which will ultimately be repaid by the Commissioners when the scheme is finally carried out. I have endeavoured to condense the rather complicated statistical matters I have dealt with as much as possible, considering the time of night. I will not delay the House by one single extra word, but will sit down, moving as an Amendment that the following words be added:—"So far as the said scheme relates to the City Church Fund." The effect of that Amendment will be that those who vote for it will object to the particular portion of the scheme that effects the ecclesiastical funds. I hope the House will carry that and will assent to the other portions of the scheme, of which I heartily approve.
§ Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question to add the words "so far as the said Scheme relates to the City Church Fund."—(Mr James Stuart.)
1120§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ (12.50.) MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)I will not, at this hour, take up the time of the House by dwelling on the case of the City churches, which has has been so ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch, but I cannot refrain from bearing my testimony to the accuracy of his statement. It is true that the funds spent out of the Parochial Charities are, to a great extent, wasted. Some of the churches, it must be borne in mind, have congregations of under 20 persons, consisting very largely of officials. The total population of the inner parishes of the city is only about 30,000, and out of this sum of £35,000, which constitutes the ecclesiastical income of this fund, it will, under the scheme as it stands, now be possible to apply only about £5,000 to general ecclesiastical purposes throughout the Metropolis. It does seem a great pity that with the need that exists for the building of new churches and the establishment of new parsons throughout the whole of the Metropolitan area, we should only be able to spend £5,000 out of the large revenue of £35,000 for the general purposes of the Metropolis. This view is confirmed by the Commissioners themselves. In the Blue Book which has been presented may be seen the answers given to the representations of the County Council, the Commissioners implying that they would have exercised a wider discretion in favour of the general spiritual needs of the Metropolis if they had not felt themselves barred by the Act. But the Act is not equally binding on the House. The House itself may very well, in the fuller light which eight years have produced, review the Act it passed eight years ago. But what I am more concerned in at the present moment is to make a few observations on what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and the hon. Member who seconded the Motion. What is the fact as to these Charities? The present scheme may not be perfect, but it certainly is an enormous improvement on the old state of things—as, indeed, is admitted by the hon. Baronet himself—and I would like to put to the House a question. The contention that he raises now on behalf of his colleagues, the 1121 trustees of 50 churches, is simply the objection made when the Bill was before the House. It was before the House three years. The Bill was brought in in 1881 and was fought in that year and also in 1882 and 1883. Besides that, it was fought hard in two Select Committees. Very much the same arguments that are used by the hon. Baronet now were used by hon. Members who sat up until the small hours of the morning then. The 14th section of the Act says that the property that constitutes the Church Fund of all these parishes—that is, all but five populous ones—shall be applied in three ways: first, to such of the purposes now existing as are beneficial; secondly, to other purposes which are beneficial. At the present moment the funds are not available to those who used to reside in these parishes, because they have been practically denuded of their poorer population.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDNot all of them.
§ MR. BRYCEI do not speak of the five outer parishes; but the parish of St. Sepulchre Within, under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, has only a population of 2,000 As it is, the purposes to which the funds are applied are mainly in the nature of doles and small gifts of money. The Commissioners have continued pensions during the lifetime of their recipients, and beyond this the funds go to a large extent in salaries to officials; for instance, to vestry clerks and other officers, while a considerable amount is expended on dinners, luncheons, and the supply of refreshments consumed by officials on various occasions.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDThat is not the case now.
§ MR. BRYCEYes, I assert it is the case now, and that it is the case in the parish of St. Sepulchre itself; and I may tell the House, as the case of the parish of St. Sepulchre has been brought up, that the vestry clerk there is in the habit of receiving £500 and the sexton £40 a year. It is, in point of fact, the vestry clerk and other officers who are really receiving the main benefit of these charitable funds, and it is they who are now complaining of being deprived of the enjoyment of their privileges. The case which they endeavour to make out is that the expense of administering parish affairs has been legitimate, and 1122 that those affairs cannot continue to be properly administered unless the funds are appropriated as hitherto. The simple answer to that, however, is, how do other parishes that have not charity funds at their disposal contrive to pay their officials? But the fact is, that a large portion of the work now discharged by the parish officials will henceforward be taken away, and this will do away with the necessity for continuing those payments, though why the parishes themselves should not bear the expense of discharging their own business I am unable to conceive. To apply charity funds in the manner already pointed out is not charity; it is simply a method of relieving the rich from burdens which they ought properly to bear, out of the funds which are taken for that purpose from the poor. As those funds were intended for the poor, I trust that this House will do the best it can to see that they are administered. Would it be believed that, as things are at present, the poor have no share whatever in these funds; and I think if hon. Members will take the trouble to refer to the Report of the Commissioners, as the result of the inquiry they have instituted, it will be found that evidence to this effect was given before those gentlemen. The officials have sought to show that the application of those charity funds to the poor is not beneficial to that class, and they desire that they may continue to use the money as they have hitherto done. We, on the other hand, desire to see it applied to better purposes. We wish to create in this Metropolis institutions such as polytechnics and free libraries, which will be for the real benefit of the poor of this City, by conferring upon them the means of improving their education. We regard this system of doles as extremely demoralising, and look forward to the enormous benefit that may be conferred on the Metropolis by the establishment of such institutions as I have just referred to. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion has referred to the intentions of the donors. I would put it to the House, are we not entitled to believe that if those donors were now living, they would be opposed to the application of their money for the benefit of the owners and occupiers of the large City warehouses and other business establishments, who have, in modern times, rendered the City parishes 1123 during the night times and on Sundays almost a desert? Would they not rather have followed the poorer population, who have been obliged to migrate to other parts of the Metropolis, and have endeavoured, by means of those charitable funds, to have made their lives and their homes more happy and comfortable? I hope that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London will not press his Motion. I think it will be felt that even to delay the operation of the scheme to which I have referred for the benefit of the poor of London would be a serious disappointment to the population of our city. I trust, therefore, the House will see fit to support the scheme of the Commissioners.
§ (1.8.) MR. W.H. FISHER (Fulham)I must express my hearty agreement with the tenour of the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I think that the scheme of the Commissioners is, upon the whole, a wise one in the interests of the inhabitants of London, and I trust the House will be of opinion that the hon. Members for the City of London and Uxbridge have signally failed to make out any case whatever. I think it was at least incumbent upon those hon. Gentlemen to have shown that some better application of the funds could be made than that proposed by the Charity Commissioners. After this long period of gestation the Commissioners, no doubt, ought to have brought forward something worth having in the interests of the Metropolis, and I think they have given us something that is worth having. I claim to say a few words on behalf of the South-West London Polytechnic Institution, in which I am specially interested, as I think that without this scheme that Institute would have been impossible. I therefore ask hon. Members to vote for the only practicable scheme that has been put before the House. It is, of course, impossible to trace what were the original intentions of the donors of those charitable funds; but I certainly think that those donors would not have given their bequests to Vestry clerks and sextons if they had known how the City of London would have spread to Fulham and Chelsea. It is evident, however, to my mind that they desired to benefit the people of London, and I do not see how the money bequeathed by them could be applied to such purpose except by some such 1124 scheme as this. Certain I am that no case whatever has been made out for any better application of those funds.
§ ٭(1.10.) THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,) Kent, DartfordSir, I am going to be as merciful as possible to hon. Members, more especially as at an early period of last Session an interesting Debate took place on this subject. If one thing more than another was noticeable in that Debate, it was the universal chorus of approbation from all quarters in favour of the scheme, and the unanimous feeling that it should have a fair trial. My hon. Friend, at the commencement of his remarks, made an assertion which would seem to imply that the Lord President and myself were careless with regard to the people affected under this scheme, and that we had not granted them a proper hearing. I am obliged to assert, in contradiction to that statement, that every care was taken, not only by the Commissioners during the promulgation of the scheme, but by the Education Department, to hear all the parties interested. Every step that has been taken with regard to other schemes has been taken with regard to this scheme, which was advertised in the usual way. It was notified as having been submitted to the Committee of Council, and notice was given that one month from the date thereof the Committee of Council would, in pursuance of a certain section of the Act, receive all suggestions made in writing. It has been stated that the scheme was only advertised in two newspapers. That is very far from the fact. For two consecutive weeks this scheme was advertised in the Times, Daily Chronicle, Daily News, Daily Telegraph, Standard, Citizen, and City Press, and another paper called the Metropolitan. Then with regard to objections to the scheme, the Commissioners examined all objections that were forwarded in writing. It is true that the Lord President and myself refused to receive a deputation. I regret that. I say so advisedly. But I think the House will admit that we had some reason on our side, when I say that we had to look to the possibility of having to receive deputations from 106 parishes. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that we decided not to receive the deputation. Still, personally, I regret that we did 1125 not receive it, though hon. Members will admit that we were justified in shrinking from the prospect of such an enormous number of deputations. With regard to the scheme itself, I ask the House whether my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution have adduced sufficient reason for upsetting the scheme, after several years of laborious work at it? It is true that my hon. Friend has brought forward cases of grievances; but his objections are directed against the whole purport of the Act. No doubt, if the scheme is worth anything, it is one for diverting those charities, and spreading the blessings which flow from them. I am afraid that a great deal of the opposition to this scheme is the opposition of Vestry clerks. My hon. Friend has referred to what is called parochial administration, which really means, I take it, the emoluments paid to certain Vestry clerks. On that point the Act is specific and plain. Therefore it is of no use that my hon. Friend, or those for whom he speaks, should cavil at that part of the scheme. Section 41 of the Act provide that no emoluments or remuneration, of any kind shall be applied to the payment of poor rate, or other rate, or any public charge whatsoever, or payment to any official, except for services performed under the scheme. In regard to that portion of the scheme the Commissioners had no alternative whatever; they were obliged to observe the terms of the Act, which is perfectly precise in its language. My hon. Friend has referred to the City of London, and there again the scheme might possibly have been more generous in regard to certain charities. But the scheme does a great deal for the City of London. In Section 38 a vast number of vested interests are provided for. In Section 39 pensions are provided for, which at present equal a sum of £6,000. In Section 40 almshouses and pensions are considered to the extent of £700 per annum, and in Section 41 pensions and temporary grants are provided for to the amount of £500 per annum. Section 42 furnishes the machinery for carrying out the above proposals. In Schedule 58 there is provision for a library in the City, to the amount of £40,000, and there is provision for the City Polytechnic, which has an income of £5,550 per annum. It cannot, 1126 therefore, be fairly urged that the City is neglected. I now pass to the objections raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch. I would say, ab initio, that when the hon. Member proposes that this scheme should be amended, or a portion of it excluded, I believe, according to the strict letter, such a thing would be possible; but to carry an Amendment of the kind proposed would involve the complete annihilation of the scheme. [MR. J. STUART: How?] The hon. Member says "How?" Because, financially, the scheme is so evenly balanced that I am assured, if the Amendment were carried, it would be absolutely fatal to the scheme. The hon. Member has also alluded to the application of the ecclesiastical funds. It may be objected to the scheme that the whole of the property ought not to be dealt with at once; but I am assured by the Commissioners that the ecclesiastical endowments are so mixed up with the general endowments, at least to the extent of £50,000 per annum, that it was utterly impossible to dissociate the various items. No doubt the hon. Member has made some point with reference to the sum supposed to be spent on the City churches. If the hon. Member will look at Section 14 of the Act he will find laid down in precise terms what is to be the action of the Commissioners with regard to the City churches, and I think it is impossible for them to frame this portion of their scheme on any other basis. And what the hon. Member practically urges to-night, after enormous labour has been expended on this scheme, is that we should have a new Act, and then, after we have got a new Act, that we should have a new scheme to meet the wishes of the hon. Member I venture to think that if you took a course of that kind at the eleventh hour it would afford you small satisfaction. The inhabitants of the Metropolis are eager that this scheme should at once become law. Whatever are the merits or demerits of the scheme, hon. Members will recognise that the educational portion of it, at all events, has met with such an extraordinary response from private munificence and other sources that it would be a very severe blow to the Metropolis to throw over the scheme, which is practically the proposal of a gift of £500,000 for education.
§ (1.19.) MR. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey)I only rise for one moment in order to correct a mistake into which the right hon. Gentleman has fallen. He has said that the Vestry clerk of St. Sepulchre is in receipt of an income of £500 per annum. I believe the amount he receives is actually £290. I will only add that I share the regret which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that he did not receive a deputation on this subject; because I am sure that it would have been better for him to have heard the objections they would have been able to bring forward, and to have carefully considered them face to face with those by whom they were urged.
§ (1.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 110.—(Div. List, No. 17.)
§ Main Question put, and negatived.